x64 WindowsXP OR x64 Windows Vista

[Daemonforce]

Correct. It's also worth noting the sudden introduction to .NET back in 2002 didn't exactly help either. I know of several people to this day that struggle with a compatibility issue between a portable Win32 and a Win32 with .NET code. At least the 64-Bit Microsoft operating systems are .NET-based.

[cluberti]

You're right, I don't have a clue. I'm sure you work here, know all the in's and out's of the Win32 and Win64 APIs, and have gone through numerous x32 to x64 binary migrations. I've done none of these things, and of course know nothing about what I'm saying at all.

Edited April 9, 2006 by cluberti

[Daemonforce]

You're right, I don't have a clue. I'm sure you work here, know all the in's and out's of the Win32 and Win64 APIs, and have gone through numerous x32 to x64 binary migrations. I've done none of these things, and of course know nothing about what I'm saying at all.

*manufactures 64-Bit machine and 64-Bit Windows .NET OS*

*introduces a new technology that raises Win32 API standards*

*watches Windows .NET get lost faster than Schrodinger's cat*

Even if you do know what you're doing, it's granted that you'll eventually run into a problem. Eventually said problem will create a revolution in Win32 standards and turn current day material into absolute garbage without the new tools.

This is one of the several reasons I don't want to go back to Windows 2000 or anything before it.

[cluberti]

I will admit that .net can be a PITA, but it does work pretty well for portable code. Speed may not be good, but the code will be portable. It still makes sense to write most things in C though, if speed is any sort of requirement.