f



windows h& linux history

Hi
    In 1990 , the IA32 ICE is really expensive, i don't think Linus
Torvald will got one, and no bochs at that time. So what tools he was
using to development linux?
    For microsoft, of course they can buy many IA32 emulator, and they
are using those emulators to develop windows, right?

thanks
from Peter (cmk128@hotmail.com)

0
cmk128417 (501)
7/12/2006 9:10:12 AM
comp.os.linux.misc 33599 articles. 1 followers. amosa69 (78) is leader. Post Follow

54 Replies
661 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 34

cmk128@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi
>     In 1990 , the IA32 ICE is really expensive, i don't think Linus
> Torvald will got one, and no bochs at that time. So what tools he was
> using to development linux?
>     For microsoft, of course they can buy many IA32 emulator, and they
> are using those emulators to develop windows, right?
>
> thanks
> from Peter (cmk128@hotmail.com)

The earlier versions of Linux were based on an existing OS (Minix).  I
doubt that he used any emulators like we use today.  It would have been
a lot of hard work and frustration I imagine...

0
7/12/2006 10:25:11 AM
<cmk128@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152695411.089524.225070@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
>     In 1990 , the IA32 ICE is really expensive, i don't think Linus
> Torvald will got one, and no bochs at that time. So what tools he was
> using to development linux?
>     For microsoft, of course they can buy many IA32 emulator, and they
> are using those emulators to develop windows, right?
>

IIRC, Minux and ACK (Amsterdam Compiler Kit) for Linux v001.  Linux v002 was
ported to the "new" GCC compiler.


Rod Pemberton


0
do_not_have1 (222)
7/12/2006 10:51:36 AM
In comp.os.linux.misc cmk128@hotmail.com:
> Hi
>    In 1990 , the IA32 ICE is really expensive, i don't think Linus
> Torvald will got one, and no bochs at that time. So what tools he was
> using to development linux?
>    For microsoft, of course they can buy many IA32 emulator, and they
> are using those emulators to develop windows, right?

Iirc he chiseled it directly into his hd. ;-)

Honestly, there's a nice book "Just for fun" or so he wrote which
outlines things in detailed.

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 437: crop circles in the corn shell
0
USENET22 (5551)
7/12/2006 11:20:22 AM
Hi,

cmk128@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi
>     In 1990 , the IA32 ICE is really expensive, i don't think Linus
> Torvald will got one, and no bochs at that time. So what tools he was
> using to development linux?
>     For microsoft, of course they can buy many IA32 emulator, and they
> are using those emulators to develop windows, right?
> 
> thanks
> from Peter (cmk128@hotmail.com)
> 

Linux started out as a terminal emulator because apparently the Minix 
one sucked. Eventually it grew parts of an OS, like a disk driver and 
file system driver, so he decided to make an OS. As a poster has pointed 
out, there is a great book called "Just For Fun: The Story of an 
Accidental Revolutionary" by Torvalds. The 70 pages in that book 
detailing the early days of Linux are worth it. :) The rest of the book 
isn't worth reading as far as Linux's development goes.

Linus bought a brand new 386 system at that time on hire-purchase which 
was, if I recall, a 386 DX33 with 4MB RAM and a disk with perhaps no 
more than 150MB capacity. It was very expensive.

Linus advises that the way to develop an OS is to write the system calls 
and focus on them. They are the heart of a kernel.

I don't know how MS developed Windows, but the early versions ran on top 
of DOS and we can infer they did it the hard way by rebooting and 
rebooting... ;) The original Windows versions were very primitive and as 
far as GUIs go was probably simple and not much of a hassle to develop. 
NT on the other hand was a complete re-write.
0
askme1 (6)
7/12/2006 2:41:14 PM
cmk128@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi
>    In 1990 , the IA32 ICE is really expensive, i don't think Linus
> Torvald will got one, and no bochs at that time. So what tools he was
> using to development linux?
>    For microsoft, of course they can buy many IA32 emulator, and they
> are using those emulators to develop windows, right?

I'm not sure about developing windows in general. However, finding tough 
problems like deadlocks on multiprocessor machines when the interrupts are 
disabled is best done with a hardware debugger.

Btw, there're cheap cards available that display some port's value. If you 
write to that port, you see the number. It can be helpful too. But on the PC 
there're so many existing ways to get some information out of the box...

Alex

0
alexfru (357)
7/12/2006 2:50:39 PM
John Doe wrote:
....
> I don't know how MS developed Windows, but the early versions ran on
> top of DOS and we can infer they did it the hard way by rebooting and
> rebooting... ;)

I can't remember now if Windows 3.xx was able to quit back to DOS. It 
probably was, which meant no reboots unless the system is hung or you need a 
change in config.sys or something like that.

> The original Windows versions were very primitive and
> as far as GUIs go was probably simple and not much of a hassle to
> develop. NT on the other hand was a complete re-write.

True, NT is very different from other non-NT versions of Windows.

Alex

0
alexfru (357)
7/12/2006 3:06:25 PM
Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
> ...
>> I don't know how MS developed Windows, but the early versions ran on
>> top of DOS and we can infer they did it the hard way by rebooting and
>> rebooting... ;)
> 
> I can't remember now if Windows 3.xx was able to quit back to DOS. It 
> probably was, which meant no reboots unless the system is hung or you 
> need a change in config.sys or something like that.

All versions of Windows up to and including 3.* were only shells that 
ran on DOS in real mode, nothing fancy. The OS was DOS all along. With 
Windows 95, they made it "32 bit" by running parts of it in DPMI, but 
still basically in MSDOS, so you could still "quit back to DOS". I think 
this changed in Windows 98, where they finally implemented a 32 bit 
operating system (although I carefully left out the "real" there...). 
Windows NT on the other hand was a more serious effort all along and not 
just a fancy shell. Windows 2000 and XP I beleive are basically NT. ME 
was the child of 98 and, accordingly, complete rubbish.


Bjarni
-- 

                        INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE
0
bjarni (115)
7/12/2006 3:40:36 PM
Bjarni Juliusson =E5=AF=AB=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A

> Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
> > John Doe wrote:
> > ...
> >> I don't know how MS developed Windows, but the early versions ran on
> >> top of DOS and we can infer they did it the hard way by rebooting and
> >> rebooting... ;)
> >
> > I can't remember now if Windows 3.xx was able to quit back to DOS. It
> > probably was, which meant no reboots unless the system is hung or you
> > need a change in config.sys or something like that.
>
> All versions of Windows up to and including 3.* were only shells that
> ran on DOS in real mode, nothing fancy. The OS was DOS all along. With
> Windows 95, they made it "32 bit" by running parts of it in DPMI, but
> still basically in MSDOS, so you could still "quit back to DOS". I think
> this changed in Windows 98, where they finally implemented a 32 bit
> operating system (although I carefully left out the "real" there...).
> Windows NT on the other hand was a more serious effort all along and not
> just a fancy shell. Windows 2000 and XP I beleive are basically NT. ME
> was the child of 98 and, accordingly, complete rubbish.
>
>
> Bjarni
> --
>
>                         INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE

Without a good software simluator or hardware emulator, i can't imagine
how hard to write an os. If Linus hadn't use them, he is a super
guniuess.=20
thanks
from Peter

0
cmk128417 (501)
7/12/2006 6:21:29 PM
in 615538 20060712 192129 cmk128@hotmail.com wrote:
>Bjarni Juliusson =E5=AF=AB=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>
>> Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
>> > John Doe wrote:
>> > ...
>> >> I don't know how MS developed Windows, but the early versions ran on
>> >> top of DOS and we can infer they did it the hard way by rebooting and
>> >> rebooting... ;)
>> >
>> > I can't remember now if Windows 3.xx was able to quit back to DOS. It
>> > probably was, which meant no reboots unless the system is hung or you
>> > need a change in config.sys or something like that.
>>
>> All versions of Windows up to and including 3.* were only shells that
>> ran on DOS in real mode, nothing fancy. The OS was DOS all along. With
>> Windows 95, they made it "32 bit" by running parts of it in DPMI, but
>> still basically in MSDOS, so you could still "quit back to DOS". I think
>> this changed in Windows 98, where they finally implemented a 32 bit
>> operating system (although I carefully left out the "real" there...).
>> Windows NT on the other hand was a more serious effort all along and not
>> just a fancy shell. Windows 2000 and XP I beleive are basically NT. ME
>> was the child of 98 and, accordingly, complete rubbish.

NT was the MS version of OS/2
0
bob.martin (140)
7/12/2006 7:28:38 PM
Bob Martin wrote:

> NT was the MS version of OS/2

Old time OS/2 bigots, like myself, will take a great deal of offense at that
statement!  NT has about as much in common with OS/2 as it has with CP/M.
<grumble>

-- 
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com

0
7/12/2006 7:40:04 PM
In comp.os.linux.misc cmk128@hotmail.com:

> Bjarni Juliusson ???
>> Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
>> > John Doe wrote:

[ developing an OS? ]

> Without a good software simluator or hardware emulator, i can't
> imagine how hard to write an os. If Linus hadn't use them, he
> is a super guniuess. 

You seem to have summed it up nicely.

Even if reading is some time ago, can't remember him reporting
about such tools in his book "Just for fun", perhaps he left them
out for the glory of it? But it seems he had no such things.

Personally was most fascinated about his way of working during a
Finish winter,  he just rolled from his PC to his bed and vice
versa while developing the first Linux kernel. ;-)

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 287: Telecommunications is downshifting.
0
USENET22 (5551)
7/12/2006 8:05:58 PM
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:28:38 +0000, Bob Martin wrote:

> NT was the MS version of OS/2

BZZZZZZT!  NT was the MS version of DEC's VMS.  Indeed the chief architect
of VMS, Dave Cuttler, was hired by MS to develop NT.

0
daveuhring (1186)
7/12/2006 8:09:40 PM
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 20:28, Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com>
wrote in comp.os.linux.misc:

> NT was the MS version of OS/2

Actually, OS/2 was the MS version of OS/2 until IBM discovered that
Billy-bob wouldn't play ball and wanted to take control of it himself
-- 
Robert HULL

Archival or publication of this article on any part of thisishull.net
is without consent and is in direct breach of the Data Protection Act
0
Robert4309 (596)
7/12/2006 10:36:10 PM
Robert Hull <Robert@please.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes:

>On Wednesday 12 July 2006 20:28, Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com>
>wrote in comp.os.linux.misc:

>> NT was the MS version of OS/2

>Actually, OS/2 was the MS version of OS/2 until IBM discovered that
>Billy-bob wouldn't play ball and wanted to take control of it himself

Well, no. Billy released Windows which finally took off with 3.0 That was
then in competition with OS/2, and he decided he would rather go with it
than OS/2. That caused a split. IBM did a really great job of developing
OS/2 into a powerful gui based operating system, with features still not
seen elsewhere. They did a terrible job of selling it however, and it
finally died.

>-- 
>Robert HULL

>Archival or publication of this article on any part of thisishull.net
>is without consent and is in direct breach of the Data Protection Act
0
unruh-spam (2990)
7/12/2006 11:08:40 PM
On 2006-07-12, cmk128@hotmail.com <cmk128@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Without a good software simluator or hardware emulator, i
> can't imagine how hard to write an os. If Linus hadn't use
> them, he is a super guniuess.

He's definitely a smart guy, but writing an OS w/o an emulator
isn't _that_ much harder than writing one with an emulator.

You've got to pay attention to what you're doing and build it
up one feature at a time.  Having a UART where you can print
messages is pretty nice and having few output port pins and an
oscilloscope can be handy.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Yow! It's a hole
                                  at               all the way to downtown
                               visi.com            Burbank!
0
grante (5416)
7/13/2006 1:23:58 AM
cmk128@hotmail.com wrote:
....
> Without a good software simluator or hardware emulator, i can't
> imagine how hard to write an os. If Linus hadn't use them, he is a
> super guniuess.

Come on. You may need something like that only occasionally.

Alex

0
alexfru (357)
7/13/2006 1:30:34 AM
Bjarni Juliusson wrote:
> Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
>> John Doe wrote:
>> ...
>>> I don't know how MS developed Windows, but the early versions ran on
>>> top of DOS and we can infer they did it the hard way by rebooting
>>> and rebooting... ;)
>>
>> I can't remember now if Windows 3.xx was able to quit back to DOS. It
>> probably was, which meant no reboots unless the system is hung or you
>> need a change in config.sys or something like that.
>
> All versions of Windows up to and including 3.* were only shells that
> ran on DOS in real mode, nothing fancy.

Windows 3.1(1) worked or could work in protected mode. As I recall that was 
termed as extended mode or something like that.

> The OS was DOS all along.

Well, with graphics and cooperative multitasking.

> With
> Windows 95, they made it "32 bit" by running parts of it in DPMI,

I don't think DPMI plaid there any special role.

> but
> still basically in MSDOS, so you could still "quit back to DOS".

You couldn't (no such a feature) unless you exploited certain protection 
problems.

> I
> think this changed in Windows 98, where they finally implemented a 32
> bit operating system (although I carefully left out the "real"
> there...).

Nope. 95, 98 and ME weren't that different, they all had lots of 16-bit 
code.

> Windows NT on the other hand was a more serious effort all
> along and not just a fancy shell. Windows 2000 and XP I beleive are
> basically NT. ME was the child of 98 and, accordingly, complete
> rubbish.

Well, the official support for the 9x family is over as of yesterday 
(http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/support/), so no worries about that. But 
I would worry about the XP to Vista transition as there seems to be quite a 
lot of changes.

Alex

0
alexfru (357)
7/13/2006 1:44:41 AM
Robert Hull <Robert@please.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
news:4hlbqqF54dqU1@individual.net: 

> On Wednesday 12 July 2006 20:28, Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com>
> wrote in comp.os.linux.misc:
> 
>> NT was the MS version of OS/2
> 
> Actually, OS/2 was the MS version of OS/2 until IBM discovered that
> Billy-bob wouldn't play ball and wanted to take control of it himself

You're confusing the "leaving" of MS from IBM with something else
arround that time. OS/2 (2.1 I *think*) was called OS/2 for windows -
horrible name and completely oxymoronic, but that was the last time that
MS and IBM co-operated on an OS for an IBM computer. At that time clones
were starting to become more and more common, and MS made the
intelligent market choice. 

-- 
(setq (chuck nil)  car(chuck) )
0
chuck47 (177)
7/13/2006 1:54:55 AM
<cmk128@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152728489.556910.234840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

Peter,

Did you add something after "Bjarni Juliusson"?  It comes through as
non-English characters here.  I think it is also preventing my newsreader
from properly quoting my reply to you.

Bjarni Juliusson 寫�"�s
Bjarni Juliusson    (what is this?)->  寫�"�s

The original source says you posted:

Bjarni Juliusson =E5=AF=AB=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A

What are those?

> Without a good software [simulator] or hardware emulator, [I] can't
imagine
> how hard [it is] to write an os. If Linus [didn't] use them, he is a super
> [genius].

If you can display information from your OS on the screen, you have a
debugger...  ;-)    It's painful, but true.

It takes more rebooting and more trial and error.  All software and hardware
emulators have limitations and failures of their own.  At some point, the
code must be tested on actual hardware.


Rod Pemberton


0
do_not_have1 (222)
7/13/2006 2:09:56 AM
"Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfru@chat.ru> wrote in message
news:Zf2dnXJjv4q0NCjZnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Bjarni Juliusson wrote:
> > Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
> >> John Doe wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> I don't know how MS developed Windows, but the early versions ran on
> >>> top of DOS and we can infer they did it the hard way by rebooting
> >>> and rebooting... ;)
> >>
> >> I can't remember now if Windows 3.xx was able to quit back to DOS. It
> >> probably was, which meant no reboots unless the system is hung or you
> >> need a change in config.sys or something like that.
> >
> > All versions of Windows up to and including 3.* were only shells that
> > ran on DOS in real mode, nothing fancy.
>
> Windows 3.1(1) worked or could work in protected mode. As I recall that
was
> termed as extended mode or something like that.
>
> > The OS was DOS all along.
>
> Well, with graphics and cooperative multitasking.
>
> > With
> > Windows 95, they made it "32 bit" by running parts of it in DPMI,
>
> I don't think DPMI plaid there any special role.
>
> > but
> > still basically in MSDOS, so you could still "quit back to DOS".
>
> You couldn't (no such a feature) unless you exploited certain protection
> problems.
>
> > I
> > think this changed in Windows 98, where they finally implemented a 32
> > bit operating system (although I carefully left out the "real"
> > there...).
>
> Nope. 95, 98 and ME weren't that different, they all had lots of 16-bit
> code.
>
> > Windows NT on the other hand was a more serious effort all
> > along and not just a fancy shell. Windows 2000 and XP I beleive are
> > basically NT. ME was the child of 98 and, accordingly, complete
> > rubbish.
>
> Well, the official support for the 9x family is over as of yesterday
> (http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/support/), so no worries about that.
But
> I would worry about the XP to Vista transition as there seems to be quite
a
> lot of changes.
>

Darn.  IMO, Win98SE (with some ME patches) was the 2nd best OS, they ever
produced.  It ranks right after MS-DOS.  XP ranks as the most paternalistic,
least user friendly, least expert friendly, most pain in the ass, least
amount of owner control, most rights for people who don't _own_ the PC, OS
they ever produced.

"Microsoft is retiring support for these products because they are outdated
and can expose customers to security risks. We recommend that customers who
are still running Windows 98 or Windows Me upgrade to a newer, more secure
Microsoft operating system, such as Windows XP, as soon as possible."

What?!?!  And they don't consider DRM to be an extreme security threat to
the PC owner?  Ignorance is bliss...

I guess that means I need to buy new hardware also, since my current
hardware is to slow to run XP...unless someone created a stripped down XP
accelerated hack...or a hack job hybrid version of the cheap version they
sold in the orient and a standard US home edition.  Of course, then it would
be unlicensed version... and you wouldn't get to experience the pleasant
process of incessantly updating XP.

Why do they (M$) think of my wallet as their bank account?  Why do they
think that they, instead of the customer, get to choose when to obsolete an
OS they sold?  If someone paid for an OS, and the author declares it
obsolete, shouldn't the author provide to the customer, at their expense
(i.e., free to the customer), an upgrade to the next OS?  The customer
already paid for an OS.  How many times do they think they can charge him or
her for an OS?  Some corporations get it.  Linux users get it.  When will
enough people get it, to force M$ to change?

Does anyone realize that releasing all of FAT12/16/32/32X patents to the
public will definately do good for the world (but reduce money received by
M$), but that many of the ideas being implemented via billions of dollars
through the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, although noble, are
questionable at best?  The ideology behind a few of their ideas is even in
direct conflict with the strategies that generated Gates', Allen's, Balmer's
and M$'s fortune...


Rod Pemberton


0
do_not_have1 (222)
7/13/2006 2:56:41 AM
Rod Pemberton wrote:
> <cmk128@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1152728489.556910.234840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Peter,
>
> Did you add something after "Bjarni Juliusson"?  It comes through as
> non-English characters here.  I think it is also preventing my
> newsreader from properly quoting my reply to you.
>
> Bjarni Juliusson 寫�"�s
> Bjarni Juliusson    (what is this?)->  寫�"�s
>
> The original source says you posted:
>
> Bjarni Juliusson =E5=AF=AB=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>
> What are those?

Those are encoded Chinese glyphs.

Look at the header of his message:
--------8<--------
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
....
--------8<--------

.... encoded in UTF-8.

Something's wrong with your Outlook Express. Btw, you might need install the 
Asian fonts and whatever else is needed to see those right. Unbelievable, 
those still aren't installed by default, in the era of the internet...

Alex

0
alexfru (357)
7/13/2006 3:02:51 AM
Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfru@chat.ru> wrote in message
....
>> Well, the official support for the 9x family is over as of yesterday
>> (http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/support/), so no worries about
>> that. But I would worry about the XP to Vista transition as there
>> seems to be quite a lot of changes.
>>
>
> Darn.  IMO, Win98SE (with some ME patches) was the 2nd best OS, they
> ever produced.  It ranks right after MS-DOS.  XP ranks as the most
> paternalistic, least user friendly, least expert friendly, most pain
> in the ass, least amount of owner control, most rights for people who
> don't _own_ the PC, OS they ever produced.
>
> "Microsoft is retiring support for these products because they are
> outdated and can expose customers to security risks. We recommend
> that customers who are still running Windows 98 or Windows Me upgrade
> to a newer, more secure Microsoft operating system, such as Windows
> XP, as soon as possible."
>
> What?!?!  And they don't consider DRM to be an extreme security
> threat to the PC owner?  Ignorance is bliss...

I'm not sure it's gonna bite one right away.

> I guess that means I need to buy new hardware also, since my current
> hardware is to slow to run XP...

Well, the today's vista (beta version) needs half a gig of RAM, is very 
picky to the video and still needs performance improvements. So, you may 
relax and postpone the PC upgrade till it dies or you actually decide to get 
something newer, whichever comes first. Oh, btw, there were changes in 
windows 2000/XP that prohibited them from working on older PCs. If I'm not 
mistaken, that was the ACPI. Nonetheless, it's not just the problem of the 
memory size and CPU speed. I faced this problem on an old notebook and had 
to install win98 back on it for neither win2000 nor winXP would install and 
work properly.

> unless someone created a stripped
> down XP accelerated hack...or a hack job hybrid version of the cheap
> version they sold in the orient and a standard US home edition.  Of
> course, then it would be unlicensed version... and you wouldn't get
> to experience the pleasant process of incessantly updating XP.
>
> Why do they (M$) think of my wallet as their bank account?

They don't. Well, may be not directly. It's business, nothing personal. 
They're making their living too. There can't be one product, it can't be 
perfect (neither by design nor by implementation or intention). So, it's 
gonna be something new every few years replacing the predecessor and one way 
or another you'll be forced to buy or consider to buy the new one. It's not 
just software. It's almost all tangible products that can't be perfect and 
last forever, nor the manufacturers would like them to be such in the first 
place. You need to buy a new microwave, TV (soon there will be no regular TV 
radio broadcasting, btw), car, etc etc periodically. Same with software. It 
sucks but it's how it is.

> Why do
> they think that they, instead of the customer, get to choose when to
> obsolete an OS they sold?

Well, why can't they?

>  If someone paid for an OS, and the author
> declares it obsolete, shouldn't the author provide to the customer,
> at their expense (i.e., free to the customer), an upgrade to the next
> OS?  The customer already paid for an OS.  How many times do they
> think they can charge him or her for an OS?  Some corporations get
> it.  Linux users get it.  When will enough people get it, to force M$
> to change?

In the USSR, all consumer electronics was sold along with the schematics. 
There used to be a lot of workshops where it could be repaired. All 
components had been standard and had been manufactured for years thus 
allowing the repair. Yes, a lot of the electronics used to break, but 
usually there was a way to fix it because there were needed components. Many 
would fix it themselves for the education, profession and schematics made 
that possible. Now all the electronics even if it remains essentially the 
same in terms of functionality is manufactured using a number of proprietary 
components made specifically for the devices at that moment. The 
manufacturer then decides that they no longer want to use that component for 
some reason or they decide to stop making these devices and start making new 
ones that don't need that component anymore. The result is the same. When 
the thing breaks, you need that component. If it's a very old thing, you 
trash it and buy the new one. This is no different from discontinuing the 
software support. Mind you, you could always download windows updates for 
free (well at the cost of the internet connection).

> Does anyone realize that releasing all of FAT12/16/32/32X patents to
> the public will definately do good for the world (but reduce money
> received by M$),

Would you release something that made you extra money? Really, what if you 
were on the opposite site, would you?
Well, personally I don't like very much the patenting, especially if it's 
misused, if something that should be patented/patentable gets patented.
Still, if you had it and could enjoy continuing to have it, would you give 
it away?

> but that many of the ideas being implemented via
> billions of dollars through the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation,
> although noble, are questionable at best?  The ideology behind a few
> of their ideas is even in direct conflict with the strategies that
> generated Gates', Allen's, Balmer's and M$'s fortune...

You mean earn a lot one way or another and then share, do good deeds?

Alex
P.S. I'm not sure but it may be fact that your windows is 9x you have some 
problems with message encodings. But don't take my word for it. I don't know 
all the gory details of the software we're using. 

0
alexfru (357)
7/13/2006 3:37:59 AM
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 16:41, John Doe stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/

> I don't know how MS developed Windows, but the early versions ran on
> top of DOS and we can infer they did it the hard way by rebooting and
> rebooting... ;)

Windows 95 was written in Windows 3.11, Windows 98 in Windows 95 and
Windows ME in Windows 98.  They did the same thing for the NT versions,
albeit that the first version of it was developed using Windows 3.11 as
well, except for the kernel.

> The original Windows versions were very primitive and as far as GUIs
> go was probably simple and not much of a hassle to develop. NT on the
> other hand was a complete re-write.

Not so much as Microsoft would like one to believe...  Windows NT was
just the existing Win32 API on top of the NT kernel, which was written
by Dave Cutler, who also wrote the VMS kernel for DEC.  Cutler wrote
the NT kernel while he was still employed with DEC and was caught
red-handed inserting actual VMS kernel code into NT.  

Microsoft settled the matter out of court by consenting to develop a
version of NT for the DEC Alpha CPU. ;-)

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
0
stryder (1500)
7/13/2006 4:01:10 AM
On Thursday 13 July 2006 03:54, chuckcar stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/

> Robert Hull <Robert@please.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> news:4hlbqqF54dqU1@individual.net:
> 
>> On Wednesday 12 July 2006 20:28, Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com>
>> wrote in comp.os.linux.misc:
>> 
>>> NT was the MS version of OS/2
>> 
>> Actually, OS/2 was the MS version of OS/2 until IBM discovered that
>> Billy-bob wouldn't play ball and wanted to take control of it himself
> 
> You're confusing the "leaving" of MS from IBM with something else
> arround that time. OS/2 (2.1 I *think*) was called OS/2 for windows -
> horrible name and completely oxymoronic, but that was the last time
> that MS and IBM co-operated on an OS for an IBM computer. At that time
> clones were starting to become more and more common, and MS made the
> intelligent market choice.

As far as I remember, OS/2 for Windows was just a version of OS/2 that
was able to work with an existing Windows 3.x rather than with the
Win-OS/2 emulator, and to my recollection Microsoft did not cooperate
on that.

Microsoft was supposed to develop the 3.x generation of OS/2, which was
going to be dubbed OS/2 NT.  However, Bill Gates decided he didn't need
IBM nor OS/2 and turned that project into Windows NT, with the help
from DEC's Dave Cutler, who wrote the DEC VMS kernel and loosely (but
sometimes literally) copied that code into the NT kernel.

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
0
stryder (1500)
7/13/2006 4:06:23 AM
Rod Pemberton =E5=AF=AB=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A

> <cmk128@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1152728489.556910.234840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Peter,
>
> Did you add something after "Bjarni Juliusson"?  It comes through as
> non-English characters here.  I think it is also preventing my newsreader
> from properly quoting my reply to you.
>
> Bjarni Juliusson =C3=A5=C2=AF=C2=AB=C3=A9=C2=81"=C3=AF=C2=BCs
> Bjarni Juliusson    (what is this?)->  =C3=A5=C2=AF=C2=AB=C3=A9=C2=81"=C3=
=AF=C2=BCs
>
> The original source says you posted:
>
> Bjarni Juliusson =3DE5=3DAF=3DAB=3DE9=3D81=3D93=3DEF=3DBC=3D9A
>
> What are those?
>
> > Without a good software [simulator] or hardware emulator, [I] can't
> imagine
> > how hard [it is] to write an os. If Linus [didn't] use them, he is a su=
per
> > [genius].
>
> If you can display information from your OS on the screen, you have a
> debugger...  ;-)    It's painful, but true.
>
> It takes more rebooting and more trial and error.  All software and hardw=
are
> emulators have limitations and failures of their own.  At some point, the
> code must be tested on actual hardware.
>
>
> Rod Pemberton

Hi Rod Pemberton
    I haven't add some non-english character and i was using google to
post to the newgroup, may be it has some problems.
thanks
from Peter

0
cmk128417 (501)
7/13/2006 5:46:46 AM
> Windows 3.1(1) worked or could work in protected mode. As I recall that was
> termed as extended mode or something like that.

Windows 3.0 (1990) and 3.1 (1992) had the same (nearly) VMM as Win98/Me, and
was able of running several DOS VMs. The Windows apps themselves were running
in 16bit protected mode.

VMM was written in around 87/88 for a product called Windows/386.

> > The OS was DOS all along.

I would more say "DOS was used as a component" within Windows 3.x OS. For
instance, in Windows 3.11 we had a 32bit disk driver instead of int 13h and
32bit FAT support instead of int 21h. The SMB network stack was also all 32bit,
except the NIC driver itself.

> > Windows 95, they made it "32 bit" by running parts of it in DPMI,
>
> I don't think DPMI plaid there any special role.

DPMI was always supported by VMM, I think from Windows 3.0 at least.

> > think this changed in Windows 98, where they finally implemented a 32
> > bit operating system (although I carefully left out the "real"
> > there...).
>
> Nope. 95, 98 and ME weren't that different, they all had lots of 16-bit
> code.

No. ME and 98 differ in tiny details.

The main difference between 98 and 95 is the NTKERN.VXD wrapper, which emulated
a subset of Win2000 driver APIs (the subset was called Windows Driver Model -
WDM) over the good old VMM. This allowed to run binary-portable drivers across
98 and 2000, built with 2000 DDK.

The whole USB and 1394 stacks in Win98 were written this way. I was able
running OHCI1394 and 1394BUS binaries _from w2k beta_ under Win98.

But, except NTKERN and WDM, Win98 is the same as Win95 OSR 2.

Win95 OSR 2 is the 1997-vintage OS which introduced FAT32.

> > Windows NT on the other hand was a more serious effort all
> > along and not just a fancy shell.

Internally, it is absolutely another. A real well-designed OS, without looking
back to the atrocious DOS legacy. Under NT, Win32 is a wrapper layer around the
"native NT calls".

>Windows 2000 and XP I beleive are basically NT

Yes. NT 5.0 and NT 5.1, look at version stamps on system files.

> Well, the official support for the 9x family is over as of yesterday
> (http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/support/), so no worries about that. But
> I would worry about the XP to Vista transition as there seems to be quite a

From what I know on Vista now - it is a major step from XP, around the same
size as NT4 -> w2k. So, Vista is NT 6.0.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
maxim19 (65)
7/13/2006 8:11:52 AM
"Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfru@chat.ru> wrote in message
news:VIidnbhOpIC-XSjZnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > <cmk128@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1152728489.556910.234840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > Did you add something after "Bjarni Juliusson"?  It comes through as
> > non-English characters here.  I think it is also preventing my
> > newsreader from properly quoting my reply to you.
> >
> > Bjarni Juliusson 寫�"�s
> > Bjarni Juliusson    (what is this?)->  寫�"�s
> >
> > The original source says you posted:
> >
> > Bjarni Juliusson =E5=AF=AB=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
> >
> > What are those?
>
> Those are encoded Chinese glyphs.
>

I saw that.  I just didn't want to offend anyone by saying they were another
similar language and getting the language wrong...

BTW, he says he didn't add them.

> Something's wrong with your Outlook Express. Btw, you might need install
the
> Asian fonts and whatever else is needed to see those right. Unbelievable,
> those still aren't installed by default, in the era of the internet...

I've got UTF-8, and the rest of the OE fonts list seems correct.  I've also
got the MS 23MB Arial Unicode .ttf font installed...


Rod Pemberton


0
do_not_have1 (222)
7/13/2006 8:37:41 AM
<cmk128@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152769606.893011.101260@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Rod Pemberton ??:

> <cmk128@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    I haven't add some non-english character and i was using google to
post to the newgroup, may be it has some problems.


It appears the reply string is incorrect or modified.  It should say "Rod
Pemberton wrote:" or "Rod Pemberton wrote in message:"  Or, something
similar...


Rod Pemberton


0
do_not_have1 (222)
7/13/2006 8:38:14 AM
> Darn.  IMO, Win98SE (with some ME patches) was the 2nd best OS, they ever
> produced.  It ranks right after MS-DOS.

Neither Win98 nor MS-DOS can be called "stable", due to _architectural_
problems of their. Well, DOS was written for an ancient CPU which could not
support the real stable OS, but as about Win98 - its whole design is a mess of
patches on top of this ancient MS-DOS.

NT OSes are stable.

>XP ranks as the most paternalistic,
> least user friendly

Same as other Windows.

>, least expert friendly

It is just subdeveloped compared to XP.

>, most pain in the ass

No pain at all. For instance, XP's installation is trivial.

> "Microsoft is retiring support for these products because they are outdated
> and can expose customers to security risks.

Correct, they are tired of spending resources to support this ancient code
base, of testing their software on these OSes (and not only on NT OSes).

BTW - w2k is down too, due to lawsuit with Sun about Java. No more w2k on MSDN
Subscriber Downloads, for instance. So, the only MS OSes currently supported
are XP and 2003.

> I guess that means I need to buy new hardware also, since my current
> hardware is to slow to run XP...

Pentium-III 800MHz with 256MB of RAM is fine (my wife's laptop).

Anyway MS was _never_ ever bothering themselves about compatibility with
obsolete hardware, this is a known fact.

>unless someone created a stripped down XP
> accelerated hack...

You can disable the "unnecessary" services. Note that some 3rd party software
packages depend on them, so, be careful in this.

> Why do they (M$) think of my wallet as their bank account?

They do not think on anybody personally, they only think about the "average
user", and the "average user" do not use the obsolete hardware more then 5
years old.

>Why do they
> think that they, instead of the customer, get to choose when to obsolete an
> OS they sold?

They are the rights holder. Imagine a car company. Many people here in Russia
were annoyed by discontinuation of Mitsubishi Carisma (one of the best
cheap-and-quality cars) and replacing it with ugly Lancer. So what? It's
Mitsubishi's right to discontinue their product. So is with MS.

>If someone paid for an OS, and the author declares it
> obsolete, shouldn't the author provide to the customer, at their expense
> (i.e., free to the customer), an upgrade to the next OS?

Ask the same on cars. The car's manufacturer will not allow you to surrender
the 5years old car back to them for a discount on a new car. Some dealerships
allow this, but not the manufacturers.

> her for an OS?  Some corporations get it.  Linux users get it.  When will
> enough people get it, to force M$ to change?

Never. They are successful without it, and Linux is not dangerous for them due
to lots of issues (having lots of different distros is one).

> M$), but that many of the ideas being implemented via billions of dollars
> through the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, although noble, are
> questionable at best?

What ideas namely?

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
maxim19 (65)
7/13/2006 8:42:54 AM
Rod Pemberton wrote:

> 
> "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfru@chat.ru> wrote in message
> news:VIidnbhOpIC-XSjZnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> > <cmk128@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1152728489.556910.234840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Peter,
>> >
>> > Did you add something after "Bjarni Juliusson"?  It comes through as
>> > non-English characters here.  I think it is also preventing my
>> > newsreader from properly quoting my reply to you.
>> >
>> > Bjarni Juliusson 寫�"�s
>> > Bjarni Juliusson    (what is this?)->  寫�"�s
>> >
>> > The original source says you posted:
>> >
>> > Bjarni Juliusson =E5=AF=AB=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>> >
>> > What are those?
>>
>> Those are encoded Chinese glyphs.
>>
> 
> I saw that.  I just didn't want to offend anyone by saying they were
> another similar language and getting the language wrong...
> 
> BTW, he says he didn't add them.
> 
>> Something's wrong with your Outlook Express. Btw, you might need install
> the
>> Asian fonts and whatever else is needed to see those right. Unbelievable,
>> those still aren't installed by default, in the era of the internet...
> 
> I've got UTF-8, and the rest of the OE fonts list seems correct.  I've
> also got the MS 23MB Arial Unicode .ttf font installed...
> 

Won't help you. Believe it or not, the chinese and japanese chars are not
included in the MS UTF8 fonts
I found out when doing a QT-app which displayed those just fine on linux.
The very same app ran well on windows, but did not show any chinese or
japanese characters. Russian worked, though
When inspecting the font, those slots in the MS-UTF8 where empty
-- 
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - 
they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
7/13/2006 9:02:10 AM
> windows 2000/XP that prohibited them from working on older PCs. If I'm not
> mistaken, that was the ACPI. Nonetheless, it's not just the problem of the
> memory size and CPU speed. I faced this problem on an old notebook and had
> to install win98 back on it for neither win2000 nor winXP would install and
> work properly.

Pre-Centrino Pentium-III laptop is fine with XP SP2.

> In the USSR, all consumer electronics was sold along with the schematics.
> There used to be a lot of workshops where it could be repaired.

You could do this yourself with the soldering iron too. Also the books were
available, on TVs for instance. They included the explanation of the schematic
design and the diagnostic steps.

There were also people who runned this business as private persons, though it
was prohibited in the USSR (also prohibited in any democracy without
registration at tax office and paying taxes, and the guys surely paid no
taxes).

>All
> components had been standard and had been manufactured for years thus
> allowing the repair.

Yes, and this was a major drawback of USSR's electronics. When Panasonic used 2
custom PCBs with several custom-made chips in their TVs since 70ies, USSR used
6-7 PCBs with lots of tiny standard transistors as long as in late 80ies - even
though the SECAM signal path chipset was already stolen from Philips these days
:-)

Also the Soviet electronic components were known low quality, looks like the
factories (except the military ones) had no QA at all.

For instance, the well-known small orange plastic KT315 transistor (stolen from
some Japanese design), probably the most well-known Soviet electronic
component - had the body able to accumulate wet! Frying the transistors in
kitchen and then covering them with some paint improved their characteristics a
lot!

Also the KU221 thyristor used in horizontal hold generator in most TVs of
80ies. 90% of these parts were mis-manufactured. A known figure, thus the
"glorious" quality of these TVs - broke once per half-year or such.

>Yes, a lot of the electronics used to break, but
> usually there was a way to fix it because there were needed components.

....on the black market (usually stolen from the factory or lab by its employees
:-) ).

>Many
> would fix it themselves for the education, profession and schematics made
> that possible.

Yes, great education. USSR even had lots of periodic magazines for electronic
fans with some schematic for some electronics (even Hi-Fi audio amplifiers)
built off the standard highly-available components.

Self-made amplifiers were rather common in the USSR, especially at some
facilities (schools etc), but for home use too.

>Now all the electronics even if it remains essentially the
> same in terms of functionality is manufactured using a number of proprietary
> components made specifically for the devices at that moment. The
> manufacturer then decides that they no longer want to use that component for
> some reason or they decide to stop making these devices and start making
>new
> ones that don't need that component anymore. The result is the same. When
> the thing breaks, you need that component. If it's a very old thing, you
> trash it and buy the new one.

Correct. Looks like using highly-custom components to build devices provides
more quality and reliability then using some very-much-standard as USSR did.
The design becomes simpler with highly-custom components.

Modern devices like washing machines effectively are built from small number
main components. For instance, the washing machine like Electrolux has a) motor
b) electronic unit c) all of the rest, each of these items costing 1/3 of the
machine cost. So, any serious repair will require around 1/3 the machine cost -
you replace the whole unit.

Also - in 2000ies, the decline in consumer equipment quality is noticeable,
compared to 70-80-90ies. Modern equipment works for warranty period, then
breaks very, very often - with post-warranty repair cost being up to 1/2 the
new device cost.

> > Does anyone realize that releasing all of FAT12/16/32/32X patents to
> > the public will definately do good for the world (but reduce money
> > received by M$),
>
> Would you release something that made you extra money? Really, what if you

IIRC the photo camera makers were allowed to use FAT for free.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
maxim19 (65)
7/13/2006 9:06:59 AM
chuckcar wrote:

> Robert Hull <Robert@please.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
> news:4hlbqqF54dqU1@individual.net:
> 
>> On Wednesday 12 July 2006 20:28, Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com>
>> wrote in comp.os.linux.misc:
>> 
>>> NT was the MS version of OS/2
>> 
>> Actually, OS/2 was the MS version of OS/2 until IBM discovered that
>> Billy-bob wouldn't play ball and wanted to take control of it himself
> 
> You're confusing the "leaving" of MS from IBM with something else
> arround that time. OS/2 (2.1 I *think*) was called OS/2 for windows -

No. That was OS/2 version3, which existed in a version with windows and one
which would use an already existing Win3.11

> horrible name and completely oxymoronic, but that was the last time that
> MS and IBM co-operated on an OS for an IBM computer. At that time clones
> were starting to become more and more common, and MS made the
> intelligent market choice.
> 

Also wrong. OS/2 Vers. 2.0 was already done by IBM, MS dropped the ball with
OS/2 1.3 (which looked exactly like Win3.x). OS/2 1.3 existed in a version
for IBM-machines and a general version for clones

If it was an "intelligent market choice" is debateable, as MS purposely
started hard-selling Win3.x when originally it was thought of as a stop-gap
measure to get developers working on OS/2 apps (Win3.x apps and OS/2 1.x
apps were internally not that different, and the GUI was nearly the same
with small differences)
MS left IBM in the cold deliberately. It is just a shame that IBM did not
market OS/2 more agressivly, as OS/2 Warp was/is better than anything MS
has supplied to this day. And this includes that POS WinXP and the
ever-delayed Shorthorn MCD
-- 
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
        Form follows malfunction.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
7/13/2006 9:12:51 AM
AAF> I can't remember now if Windows 3.xx was able to quit back to DOS.

I can.  It was.  This is why the API function is still, even today, 
called ExitWindows().
0
7/13/2006 12:00:37 PM
BJ> All versions of Windows up to and including 3.* were only
BJ> shells that ran on DOS in real mode, nothing fancy.

AAF> Windows 3.1(1) worked or could work in protected mode.
AAF> As I recall that was termed as extended mode or something
AAF> like that.

It was termed "Standard Mode" and "386 Enhanced Mode" (depending from 
the type of protected mode).

BJ> With Windows 95, they made it "32 bit" by running parts of
BJ>  it in DPMI,

AAF> I don't think DPMI plaid there any special role.

Ahem!

<URL:http://homepages.tesco.net./~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/dos-windows-boot-process.html>

DPMI is fundamental to DOS-Windows.
0
7/13/2006 12:00:37 PM
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
> [...]
> From what I know on Vista now - it is a major step from XP, around the same
> size as NT4 -> w2k. So, Vista is NT 6.0.

i'm running vista x86 & x64 on my main machine. compared to 2000 or xp 
not that much changed.

i noticed only the following improvements:
- better applications included (ie7 is nice, ...)
- lots of small improvements in the gui
- aero glass (the new look)
- cool new graphics driver model ("It looks like the graphics driver
   crashed. Windows Vista restarted it. Do you want to report this
   problem?")
- reporting all over the place




it's nice but not a really big step from a users perspective. but i hope 
that this time there will be 64bit drivers for almost everything.



and there are many problems left in recent build. but it's already a lot 
better than beta2.

regards,
simon

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
0
de1 (5)
7/13/2006 4:21:25 PM
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
....
> Also - in 2000ies, the decline in consumer equipment quality is
> noticeable, compared to 70-80-90ies. Modern equipment works for
> warranty period, then breaks very, very often - with post-warranty
> repair cost being up to 1/2 the new device cost.

Which is due to only two things:
- component quality
- built-in clock

>>> Does anyone realize that releasing all of FAT12/16/32/32X patents to
>>> the public will definately do good for the world (but reduce money
>>> received by M$),
>>
>> Would you release something that made you extra money? Really, what
>> if you
>
> IIRC the photo camera makers were allowed to use FAT for free.

Without the long names, though. AFAIR, the patents cover only the long 
names.

Alex

0
alexfru (357)
7/13/2006 4:49:40 PM
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
>> I can't remember now if Windows 3.xx was able to quit back to DOS.
> 
> I can.  It was.  This is why the API function is still, even today,
> called ExitWindows().

What does it do these days?

Alex

0
alexfru (357)
7/13/2006 4:51:42 PM
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
>> All versions of Windows up to and including 3.* were only
>> shells that ran on DOS in real mode, nothing fancy.
>
>> Windows 3.1(1) worked or could work in protected mode.
>> As I recall that was termed as extended mode or something
>> like that.
>
> It was termed "Standard Mode" and "386 Enhanced Mode" (depending from
> the type of protected mode).
>
>> With Windows 95, they made it "32 bit" by running parts of
>>  it in DPMI,
>
>> I don't think DPMI plaid there any special role.
>
> Ahem!
>
> <URL:http://homepages.tesco.net./~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/dos-windows-boot-process.html>
>
> DPMI is fundamental to DOS-Windows.

Does windows use it for anything other than dos boxes after it has booted?

Alex

0
alexfru (357)
7/13/2006 4:56:24 PM
"Simon Felix" <de@iru.ch> wrote news:1152807154_8407@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
>> [...]
>> From what I know on Vista now - it is a major step from XP, around the 
>> same
>> size as NT4 -> w2k. So, Vista is NT 6.0.
>
> i'm running vista x86 & x64 on my main machine. compared to 2000 or xp not 
> that much changed.
>
> i noticed only the following improvements:
> - better applications included (ie7 is nice, ...)
- you can also have ie7 for winXP (i tried it for some hours and then 
returned to my other favorite browser)

> - lots of small improvements in the gui
> - aero glass (the new look)
- there are extra tools for winXP to have similar looks too (microsoft used 
skinning techniques from stardock, who did a good job on XP)

> - cool new graphics driver model ("It looks like the graphics driver
>   crashed. Windows Vista restarted it. Do you want to report this
>   problem?")
- i had this once on XP too. After trying some settings on my notebook, I 
got this message. My graphics card is a ATI Mobility Radeon. So this is 
nothing new but perhaps it appears more often since the kernel is not that 
stable.

> - reporting all over the place
>
>
>
>
> it's nice but not a really big step from a users perspective. but i hope 
> that this time there will be 64bit drivers for almost everything.
>

So, what really changed? They have a new look and feel, because they had to 
(apple was first). And they did something for security but in a way most 
users don't like it. You have to click many times 'OK' when you want to 
install something or to change some settings. There's also a real 
administratoraccount and I think that a lot of people will use it. It's the 
same with XP. Most users have an administrator account because they don't 
want to change the login for installing software.

Simon

>
>
> and there are many problems left in recent build. but it's already a lot 
> better than beta2.
>
> regards,
> simon
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet 
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ 
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption 
> =---- 


0
7/13/2006 6:14:30 PM
> It was termed "Standard Mode" and "386 Enhanced Mode" (depending from
> the type of protected mode).

Standard mode - Windows runs over the tiny DPMI host of DOSX.EXE, the full
outswap occurs if switching between Windows itself and the DOS tasks.

386 Enhanced mode - the real VMM 32bit kernel (with DPMI host in it) underlies
Windows, DOS apps are VMs and can be run in a window with preemptive
multitasking.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
maxim19 (65)
7/13/2006 8:12:13 PM
> > DPMI is fundamental to DOS-Windows.
>
> Does windows use it for anything other than dos boxes after it has booted?

Surely, for all memory allocations. The GlobalAlloc call in krnl386.exe is the
DPMI interrupt "down" - to VMM's V86MMGR component or to DOSX.EXE. So are
AllocCSToDSAlias and all other selector management.

Also - CreateFile and friends are wrappers around good old int 21h :-) even in
Win32 in Win9x, not to say on 16bit Windows

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
maxim19 (65)
7/13/2006 8:14:55 PM
> > I can.  It was.  This is why the API function is still, even today,
> > called ExitWindows().
> 
> What does it do these days?

Logoff I think.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
maxim19 (65)
7/13/2006 8:15:26 PM
Any chance of getting this out of COLM? rehashing the
history of Windows is really not appropriate here.

Stan

-- 
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com 
0
stan38 (496)
7/13/2006 8:19:58 PM
Simon Schr�der wrote:
> Most users have an
> administrator account because they don't want to change the login for
> installing software.

Which is in part the consequence of frequent software failing to install 
under non-admin account.

Alex

0
alexfru (357)
7/14/2006 1:38:57 AM
Simon Schr�der wrote:
> "Simon Felix" <de@iru.ch> wrote news:1152807154_8407@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>> [...]
>> i'm running vista x86 & x64 on my main machine. compared to 2000 or xp not 
>> that much changed.
>>
>> i noticed only the following improvements:
>> - better applications included (ie7 is nice, ...)
> - you can also have ie7 for winXP (i tried it for some hours and then 
> returned to my other favorite browser)

compared to ie6, ie7 is a real improvement. and i'm comfortable working 
with ie7.

(on vista you get ie7+, on xp only ie7)



> 
>> - lots of small improvements in the gui
>> - aero glass (the new look)
> - there are extra tools for winXP to have similar looks too (microsoft used 
> skinning techniques from stardock, who did a good job on XP)

"similar looks"? i would be very surprised to see something like aero 
glass on xp.



>> - cool new graphics driver model ("It looks like the graphics driver
>>   crashed. Windows Vista restarted it. Do you want to report this
>>   problem?")
> - i had this once on XP too. After trying some settings on my notebook, I 
> got this message. My graphics card is a ATI Mobility Radeon. So this is 
> nothing new but perhaps it appears more often since the kernel is not that 
> stable.

1. a crashing graphics driver is a crashing graphics driver. not an
    unstable kernel. and nvidia's drivers are not extremly stable on
    vista.

2. ati have support for "rebooting" the graphics chip. but that's
    something the driver has to do. vista does that automatically without
    any assistance by the graphics driver.



> 
>> - reporting all over the place
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> it's nice but not a really big step from a users perspective. but i hope 
>> that this time there will be 64bit drivers for almost everything.
>>
> 
> So, what really changed? They have a new look and feel, because they had to 
> (apple was first). And they did something for security but in a way most 
> users don't like it. You have to click many times 'OK' when you want to 
> install something or to change some settings.

well... i guess that's the only way to bring security to the average 
user. all the infrastructure is already there since nt4, but most xp 
users just don't get it and work with the administrator account and 
install stuff they shouldn't.


 > There's also a real administratoraccount and I think that a lot of
 > people will use it. It's the same with XP. Most users have an 
administrator
 > account because they don't want to change the login for
 > installing software.

no - in vista you cannot use the adminstrator account anymore. there is 
no such thing. you can work with a user which is in the local 
"administrators" group (something like the "power users" in 2000/xp), 
but even in that group you don't have all permissions. uac controls 
everything and asks you over and over again if you want to change 
something :)

but you can disable uac if you really want to. but it's hidden really 
well. and i think that's a good choice.

regards,
simon

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
0
de1 (5)
7/14/2006 2:23:47 AM
Simon Felix wrote:
....
> but you can disable uac if you really want to. but it's hidden really
> well. and i think that's a good choice.

For a developer such as I am, disabling is the best. I'm constantly 
installing and deinstalling kernel drivers. And that's what I did just 
yesterday, I disabled it on my test machines. But for an average user, it 
must be enabled.

Alex

0
alexfru (357)
7/14/2006 3:09:25 AM
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:38:57 +1000, Alexei A. Frounze <alexfru@chat.ru>  
wrote:

> Simon SchrЖder wrote:
>> Most users have an
>> administrator account because they don't want to change the login for
>> installing software.
>
> Which is in part the consequence of frequent software failing to install  
> under non-admin account.

Agreed. Some developers are as bad as Joe Schmoe users when it comes to  
understanding how their computers work.


Ciaran
0
ciaran1 (1)
7/14/2006 4:56:50 AM
> Which is in part the consequence of frequent software failing to install
> under non-admin account.

I think that nearly no software will be able to _install_ under non-admin
account, but it should be able to _run_ under non-admin account.

For instance, to register the COM object, you must be at least a Power User.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
maxim19 (65)
7/14/2006 9:18:13 AM
CK> A Unicode font designer is free to create glyphs for any subset
CK> of the character set that he feels will be of interest to his
CK> customers. It would be impractical to demand that a single font
CK> represent every last Unicode character [...]

But Code2000 and Code2001 are getting there.

<URL:http://home.att.net/~jameskass/code2000_page.htm>
0
Jonathan
7/14/2006 11:56:10 AM
Unruh wrote:

> [...]
> IBM did a really great job of developing OS/2 into a powerful gui based
> operating system, with features still not seen elsewhere. They did a
> terrible job of selling it however, and it finally died.

It's not actually dead yet (although I guess one could argue that it's
coughing up a lot of blood).  OS/2 Server is still supported by IBM (last
time I checked, anyway), and you would probably be surprised at the number
of ATMs that are running it to this day!

As far as a desktop OS goes, however, "it's really not just merely dead,
it's truly most sincerely dead."  OTOH, I imagine there are still a few old
die-hards, like myself, who could re-install it if only for old times sake. 
Unfortunately, I'm not sure I still have the latest set of patches, which
as I recall, took some 30+ diskettes.  <sigh>

-- 
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com

0
7/14/2006 12:45:35 PM
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:56:10 +1000, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard  
<J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> wrote:

> CK> A Unicode font designer is free to create glyphs for any subset
> CK> of the character set that he feels will be of interest to his
> CK> customers. It would be impractical to demand that a single font
> CK> represent every last Unicode character [...]
>
> But Code2000 and Code2001 are getting there.


That's interesting stuff. It's a little rough but then there's a lot! of  
work involved. I'll certainly keep an eye on that project - thanks for  
pointing it out.


Cheers,
Ciaran
0
Ciaran
7/14/2006 11:55:51 PM
SS> So, what really changed?

<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista>

SS> And they did something for security but in a way most users
SS> don't like it. You have to click many times 'OK' when you
SS> want to install something or to change some settings. There's
SS> also a real administratoraccount and I think that a lot of people
SS> will use it. It's the same with XP. Most users have an
SS> administrator account because they don't want to change
SS> the login for installing software.

The stated goal of User Account Control is that people *do not* 
habitually run everything under the aegis of a local administrator account.

    "We've increased the protection so that by default people
     don't run as administrator. In the past, you ran as
     administrator, which means that any code that got to your
     system had full privileges to the box. And we're preventing
     that in Windows Vista."
       -- <URL:http://www.itjungle.com/two/two082405-story01.html>
0
7/15/2006 11:58:53 AM
AAF> I can't remember now if Windows 3.xx was able to quit back
AAF> to DOS.

JdeBP> I can. It was. This is why the API function is still, even
JdeBP> today, called ExitWindows().

AAF> What does it do these days?

Two things: either a broadcast to all top-level windows or a directed 
message to a WINLOGON window.

<URL:http://homepages.tesco.net./~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/windows-nt-6-shutdown-process.html>
0
7/15/2006 11:58:53 AM
"Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> wrote 
in message news:c1.01.31gK7D$5AJ@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost...
> SS> So, what really changed?
>
> <URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista>
>
> SS> And they did something for security but in a way most users
> SS> don't like it. You have to click many times 'OK' when you
> SS> want to install something or to change some settings.

That's better than the install simply failing, or having to log out and back 
in as admin and then log out and back in... isn't it?  Complaints about 
extra clicks on "OK" to install things in Vista are I think somewhat 
hysterical and not well thought out.  If you don't like it, do a runas or 
right-click to install as administrator while logged in as a non-admin.  In 
fact, you can do that today with XP, 2000 and 2003.



0
7/15/2006 7:57:50 PM
Reply: