Isn't the purpose of.NET to be the next JVM? We are comparing apples (Mac OS X) to Windows 2000 kernel. But,.NET is introducing a complete virtual machine for everything. You run a Visual Basic App, or a C++ App, or C#, you are running against the same new common library. This library forces late binding.
Because codes is VM based code, this foregoes current microprocessor based code, and nearly prevents most optimizations. Of course, there are ways around it, but, then again there are those in OS X.
But, thinking about it... I would rather have a UNIX based OS than a NT based OS.
What would it take for OS X to implement the new VM / common library functions and support all the true.NET applications.
Maybe Microsoft is getting out of the OS market... Heck... Sell one WinXP and Office to Windows users, and have to make excuses... OR sell Office to EVERYONE and make a butload more because it's the more profitable line.... Hmm... Makes ya wonder...
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the purpose of .NET to be the next JVM? We are comparing apples (Mac OS X) to Windows 2000 kernel. But, .NET is introducing a complete virtual machine for everything. You run a Visual Basic App, or a C++ App, or C#, you are running against the same new common library. This library forces late binding.
.NET applications.
Because codes is VM based code, this foregoes current microprocessor based code, and nearly prevents most optimizations. Of course, there are ways around it, but, then again there are those in OS X.
But, thinking about it... I would rather have a UNIX based OS than a NT based OS.
What would it take for OS X to implement the new VM / common library functions and support all the true
Maybe Microsoft is getting out of the OS market... Heck... Sell one WinXP and Office to Windows users, and have to make excuses... OR sell Office to EVERYONE and make a butload more because it's the more profitable line.... Hmm... Makes ya wonder...
$$$$$