I would think if it works on NT4, Win2k and XP should be ok.  I believe
the main difference between Win9x and NT as far as programming is
concerned is how the hardware is accessed.  Win9x allowed user space
programs to directly access the hardware.  The NT code base does not
allow this.

Chris


On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 13:25, John Waters wrote:
> I wrote a C program and compiled as win32 application, it worked fine on
> win98. I tried it on NT 4, it worked too. Will it be able to work on Win2000
> and XP as well? Sorry, I'm still using Win98 and NT 4, thus have no way to
> test my program on Win2000 and XP.
>
> >XP is actually NT 6
> >Win2000 was NT 5
> >
> >XP has the new UI, which is mostly the cause for the sluggishness.  I
> >think XP has the option to revert back to the standard or classic UI.
> >
> >On the same machine, NT4 is the most responsive as far as the user
> >experience goes, followed by Win2000, with XP way behind.
> >
> >In my experience, NT4 with the right patches, and decent software is
> >rock solid.  2000 is just as solid with more user features.  In my
> >opinion, XP is the worst OS since Win95.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
> [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads