From: /m 

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 09:23:58 +0000, Adam
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge"> wrote:

>/m wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:21:34 +0000, Adam
>> <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge"> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Ings wrote:
>>>> I guess using the word "extends" was ambiguous.
How about "MS ships and
>>>> sells way more products than just Windows". 
>>> But all (with a minor exception of office on OSX)....on their
own product.
>>
>> Minor exception indeed.  MS Office on OS-X is crippled enough as to make
>> interoperability with MS Office on Windows a distant dream.
>>
>> I really think MS Office on OS-X is little more than a checkbox that is
>> used to propagate the false perception that Microsoft supports other
>> OS's.
>>
>>   /m
>Yup which is why I felt I had to mention it. WRT SQLServer
>though....that's just sad that it's not on *ix etc. Heck Sybase runs on
>*ix.....

There was a point where both Sybase and MS SQL Server had the same codebase
(I believe it stopped around Sybase v4.9).   Since then,
Microsoft has been "optimizing" MS SQL Server so that it ran
better on Windows than other DB engines.  So I expect a rather tight
"integration" between MS SQL Server and MS Windows Server, using
grey-area interfaces for performance.

 /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5