Also unless you are speaking about Windows 3.x, your statement about prempemptive multitasking and memory protection is wrong.
I develop software for Windows since the 3.0 version.
It mattered just as much as it matters now, and it will always continue to matter. People didn't know that it mattered because people didn't know anything better. After all, for the vast majority of people crappy DOS-based Windows from Microsoft was the only thing they could afford to use (in every sense of the word, not just financial sense).
> Also unless you are speaking about Windows 3.x, your statement about prempemptive multitasking and memory protection is wrong.
No. 16-bit software was cooperatively scheduled, and there was a lot of 16-bit software in the Windows 95 era. Even significant components of the first version of Windows 95 were 16-bit. Hell, lots of drivers were real-mode drivers!
Software used virtual memory, but there was zero, nada, nil memory protection. In fact it was pretty standard for programs to stomp over each other's memory as a "feature".
> I develop software for Windows since the 3.0 version.
Who cares.
Whoa. This breaks the HN guidelines. Please edit personal nastiness out of your comments here.
Your comment would be so much better without that last bit.
As for who cares, the customers that value my detailed knowledge of how the Windows stack works, since I don't mix technology with OS religion.