[avidphantasm]

I have no information here, but I wouldn’t be surprised if in 2003 Windows had an order of magnitude more code in it than a Linux distribution. Don’t forget, back then, Windows NT had support for these runtimes: Win32, Win16, DOS, and POSIX. Also, Windows had drivers for a lot more hardware than Linux did. Add in all the management stuff (Active Directory came about around this time), and I think it almost had to have substantially more code than Linux.

[Athas]

Why would those runtimes be particularly large? I'd expect the Win32 runtime to be large, but the others should be tiny by late 90s standards. Also, I remember that Windows didn't embed that many drivers itself, but that it had a stable ABI that hardware vendors could target (I remember driver CDs). Further, while the Linux kernel is certainly smaller than all of Windows, my point of comparison was compiling an entire desktop Linux system, which also included a full set of compilers, a desktop environment like KDE, office suites, multiple browsers, etc. Someone working on Windows 2000 shouldn't have to compile all that stuff.

My main question is also not so much why compilation of Windows should be time consuming, but why it should be difficult.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> Also, Windows had drivers for a lot more hardware than Linux did.

Did it? It had more third party drivers, but did NT itself build in that many?

[anthk]

NT had a HAL and that's it, with VERY few drivers on its own.