[Sabertooth]

And it is inherently obvious that OS's with greater numbers of users will exercise a greater number of lines of code; thus, revealing a wider variety of bugs. If you either don't know or deny this simple fact, I would advise you to read Watts Humphrey's "A Discipline for Software Engineering" (Addison-Wesley), for starters.

I'll take your word on Hymphrey. But is that the only reason that Windows OS requires so much code?

It's my understanding that another, not insignificant reason is because Windows is a Mac-like GUI laminated over DOS. It takes a lot more code to get a GUI that way than Mac does using it's propietary chip architecture.

(We can skip over the whole Xerox thing here. I'll stipulate that Apple mimicked Xerox, popularized the GUI, and that Windows mimicked Mac when they saw it was a commercial success.)

[Bush2000]

I'll take your word on Hymphrey. But is that the only reason that Windows OS requires so much code?

What basis do you have to state that Windows contains more code than Mac OS?

It's my understanding that another, not insignificant reason is because Windows is a Mac-like GUI laminated over DOS. It takes a lot more code to get a GUI that way than Mac does using it's propietary chip architecture.

I have 2 points to make here. First, Windows XP is completely 32-bit from stem to stern without a single bit of DOS code. Second, if the Mac OS uses a proprietary chip (for QuickDraw or whatever other GUI components it uses), that would reduce the code footprint required in dynamic RAM; however, the fact that code resides in a proprietary chip doesn't mean that it doesn't exist; it is part of the operating system and has to be included as part of what you would call its "bloat".

(We can skip over the whole Xerox thing here. I'll stipulate that Apple mimicked Xerox, popularized the GUI, and that Windows mimicked Mac when they saw it was a commercial success.)

Thank you. It always amuses me when Mac proponents insist that they didn't steal ideas from Xerox when it is clear that they did. I credit them for knowing a good thing when they saw it. And I also credit the Windows engineers for the same reason. Some things are pretty damned obvious: It's much easier to convey a message with graphical images than text.