But still wrong. Win2k is NT 5, XP is 5.1. There isn't really anything from 9x in 2k.
Printable View
I agree, there should be inline assembler in the Visual studio compilers - unfortunately, the men in control of that don't agree for some reason.
When I say "based on", I don't mena "a small part of the kernel", but rather that the majority of the kernel is identical or slightly "improved" version of. The kernel architecture of Win2K is the same architecture as NT4, which is dramatically different from the Win9x kernels.
For the most part, drivers are NOT written in Assembler. The reason there is fewer 64-bit drivers is simply that most machines don't use 64-bit OS, and thus the demand for 64-bit drivers is small.
If you do memcopy to a large extent in your driver, you probably do something a bit wrong - but if you can't avoid it, then you can still write a memcopy function that is faster, just use MASM - which IS supported for 64-bit too.
As to 2K being "more similar to 9X" is probably based on the fact that the 9X look'n'feel was (sort of) moved to 2K, along with Direct3D, which wasn't supported by NT4.
--
Mats
I'm not certain about the time base... any chance of getting the service packs in there too?
You'll also see that the product name for 2000 is NT5 and XP is 5.1.