Kernel Comparison: Linux (2.6.28) versus Windows (Vista SP1)

As someone who has seen the NT kernel but is still bound by NDA, I can tell you that this is <i>wildly</i> inaccurate from NT's perspective.

<p><pre><code> Category Microsoft Windows N Y Unix-like - Genetic UNIX N N Unix-like - Trademark / Branded UNIX N N Unix-like - Functional UNIX Y N </code></pre> this comparison is disturbing.

Sweet!<p>Recommend making that "Start" link way bigger; took a while to find while just skimming.

I am going to make one more request for a single page version. Or for instapaper to pull down the whole thing in a more intelligent manner.

I was hoping to see a better comparison between their performances. I don't see any use for comparing the two based on their 'openness' as we all know windows is closed source and linux is not so that comparison doesn't give us (at least me) any useful information.<p>Are the colors supposed to be indicative of something? is red bad and green good?<p>Also, for the multiprocessor limits in windows, I highly doubt they are kernel limits. They are imposed by the different flavors of the high-level OS.<p>The most useful bit in that comparison was about the scheduler

I cannot understand why the high C proportion is considered "good"; while it is (still) unusual to write kernels in languages other than C and there is a good reason for it, it does not necessarily mean that a kernel not in C is inferior to a kernel in C. How about BeOS and Haiku, for example?

This might be good if I didn't have to keep clicking next like a top 10 list.

I wasn't aware that Windows 64 bit only allowed for 4 cores. I wonder if this is only Vista or if it applies to Windows 7

It would be interesting to see this exported as a PDF. Apparently, you can export individual pages, but not as a whole.

Thanks for the comments. The wiki is open to registrations - feel free to improve/fix/update things as you wish. Johnathon