MS is not my friend, I'm just trying to figure out where Truth is located. Peter L. Peres wrote: > I don't think M$ is 'hated', its OS's just does not solve > many people's problems" Nothing is perfect. Definitely there are a lot of " people's problems" they can't solve: cold weather for example. > (the more technical their problems the less they solve > them). You meant, I suspect, "hardware" not "technical" problems. "Technical" word can be applied to software as well. Speaking of hardware Win is not positioned as RTOS. In fact there is a pretty serious sector on software market where real-time things doesn't matter. > I first ported a honest BSD style forking server to Windows > and I found out that there is no fork() call and that the > equivalent involves a lot of mucking with threads and other > abominations. Judging by the number of parameters each > library call requires I'd say they're paid by complexity > or something like that. Your problems may not be common problems Windows is intended to solve. Did you scan all types of commercial projects to compare Win with other systems? > So I just think there are 'some' problems with applying > W* to hardware control and reasonably reliable software. Nothing revealed. Windows is not intended to control hardware. Software reliability problems are different to hardware control problems. Mike. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.