Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here. - Linux

This is a discussion on Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here. - Linux ; When professional programmers get PAID for their labours, they put out KUALITY KODE. The same cannot be said for the part-time, unpaid, hippy amateur Linux coders. RL http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...hitepaper.aspx When developing Windows Vista, Microsoft set out to provide higher levels of ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

  1. Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    When professional programmers get PAID for their labours, they put out
    KUALITY KODE. The same cannot be said for the part-time, unpaid,
    hippy amateur Linux coders.

    RL

    http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...hitepaper.aspx

    When developing Windows Vista, Microsoft set out to provide higher
    levels of productivity, mobility, and security, with lower costs.
    After more than six months of broad availability and usage, it's
    evident that these investments are improving the Windows computing
    experience. For example, in the first six months of use, Windows Vista
    had fewer security issues than Windows XP (Windows Vista had only 12
    issues, and Windows XP had 36). According to the Windows Vista 6-Month
    Vulnerability Report by Jeffery R. Jones, Windows Vista had fewer
    security issues than all the popular operating systems he studied.

    Microsoft's efforts to provide the best Windows experience ever in
    Windows Vista did not end with its launch. This white paper describes
    the ways Microsoft strives to continuously improve Windows Vista. It
    then introduces Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1) and describes how
    the service pack will fit into the ongoing improvement process.


  2. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    Quoting raylopez99 on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:53:45 -0700:

    > When professional programmers get PAID for their labours, they put out
    > KUALITY KODE. The same cannot be said for the part-time, unpaid, hippy
    > amateur Linux coders.


    If that is true, then explain this.

    1. Windows 3.0 was a graphical shell built around a 16-bit kernel which
    was unable to address more than 640Kb of RAM without external programs to
    support that addressing. Windows Vista is a graphical shell built around
    a 32- bit or 64-bit kernel which *is* unable to address more than 640Kb
    of RAM without external programs to support that addressing. Linux
    version 2.6 (the kernel, NOT any particular distro) addresses up to a gig
    or more of RAM natively.How is Windows better.

    2. Most, if not all of the windows networking stack was and to this day
    still is an after-thought (see windows 3.11 for workgroups for
    explanation) which only partly works, based on the networking systems
    built in to the linux/unix kernel at the time. How, then, is Windows
    better.

  3. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.


    "Mark Trimble" wrote in message
    newsan.2007.10.22.22.41.33@127.0.0.1...
    > Quoting raylopez99 on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:53:45 -0700:
    >
    >> When professional programmers get PAID for their labours, they put out
    >> KUALITY KODE. The same cannot be said for the part-time, unpaid, hippy
    >> amateur Linux coders.

    >
    > If that is true, then explain this.
    >
    > 1. Windows 3.0 was a graphical shell built around a 16-bit kernel which
    > was unable to address more than 640Kb of RAM without external programs to
    > support that addressing.


    True. This was to maintain compatibility with older DOS applications that
    relied on this behavior.


    > Windows Vista is a graphical shell built around
    > a 32- bit or 64-bit kernel which *is* unable to address more than 640Kb
    > of RAM without external programs to support that addressing.


    This is complete and utter bull****.


    > Linux
    > version 2.6 (the kernel, NOT any particular distro) addresses up to a gig
    > or more of RAM natively.How is Windows better.


    When it comes to address memory there is no significant difference between
    XP/Vista or linux. Your claim of XP/Vista not being able to address more
    than 640k is complete bull****.


    > 2. Most, if not all of the windows networking stack was and to this day
    > still is an after-thought (see windows 3.11 for workgroups for
    > explanation) which only partly works, based on the networking systems
    > built in to the linux/unix kernel at the time. How, then, is Windows
    > better.


    More bull****. The networking model in in the NT family of products (NT,
    Win2k, XP, Vista, etc) is not based at all on the Windows for Workgroups
    model.

    Once again you prove to be inadequately informed.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  4. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    Micoshaft Asstroturfer Simon Templar wrote on behalf of Micoshaft
    Corporation:

    >
    > "Mark Trimble" wrote in message
    > newsan.2007.10.22.22.41.33@127.0.0.1...
    >> Quoting raylopez99 on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:53:45 -0700:
    >>
    >>> When professional programmers get PAID for their labours, they put out
    >>> KUALITY KODE. The same cannot be said for the part-time, unpaid, hippy
    >>> amateur Linux coders.

    >>
    >> If that is true, then explain this.
    >>
    >> 1. Windows 3.0 was a graphical shell built around a 16-bit kernel which
    >> was unable to address more than 640Kb of RAM without external programs to
    >> support that addressing.

    >
    > True. This was to maintain compatibility with older DOS applications that
    > relied on this behavior.
    >
    >
    >> Windows Vista is a graphical shell built around
    >> a 32- bit or 64-bit kernel which *is* unable to address more than 640Kb
    >> of RAM without external programs to support that addressing.

    >
    > This is complete and utter bull****.
    >
    >
    >> Linux
    >> version 2.6 (the kernel, NOT any particular distro) addresses up to a gig
    >> or more of RAM natively.How is Windows better.

    >
    > When it comes to address memory there is no significant difference between
    > XP/Vista or linux. Your claim of XP/Vista not being able to address more
    > than 640k is complete bull****.



    You are a complete fool expounding utter bullcrap.
    The difference you are being asked to explain is difference between native
    support and support through slower helper programs. Expee, Pista don't do
    native addressing, so it must rely on slower helper programs and is
    therefore slow; unlike Linux which accesses RAM directly.

    I'm not expert on this particular question, but it still doesn't excuse you
    from printing appauling escapism.


  5. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 7

    wrote
    on Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:20:35 GMT
    :
    > Micoshaft Asstroturfer Simon Templar wrote on behalf of Micoshaft
    > Corporation:
    >
    >>
    >> "Mark Trimble" wrote in message
    >> newsan.2007.10.22.22.41.33@127.0.0.1...
    >>> Quoting raylopez99 on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:53:45 -0700:
    >>>
    >>>> When professional programmers get PAID for their labours, they put out
    >>>> KUALITY KODE. The same cannot be said for the part-time, unpaid, hippy
    >>>> amateur Linux coders.
    >>>
    >>> If that is true, then explain this.
    >>>
    >>> 1. Windows 3.0 was a graphical shell built around a 16-bit kernel which
    >>> was unable to address more than 640Kb of RAM without external programs to
    >>> support that addressing.

    >>
    >> True. This was to maintain compatibility with older DOS applications that
    >> relied on this behavior.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Windows Vista is a graphical shell built around
    >>> a 32- bit or 64-bit kernel which *is* unable to address more than 640Kb
    >>> of RAM without external programs to support that addressing.

    >>
    >> This is complete and utter bull****.


    I'm inclined to agree, if only because the Winvista shell
    is presumably a user-level application program that uses
    the Windows APIs and runs in Windows' "innovative" flat
    address space -- a space that existed for Unix and other
    systems quite some time ago (probably even as early as
    the late 1970's, when Vaxes first came out!).

    It's only the Win3.1 and Win9x era tools that had to worry
    about FAR PTR crap. (Thank goodness.)

    >>
    >>
    >>> Linux
    >>> version 2.6 (the kernel, NOT any particular distro) addresses up to a gig
    >>> or more of RAM natively.How is Windows better.

    >>
    >> When it comes to address memory there is no significant difference between
    >> XP/Vista or linux. Your claim of XP/Vista not being able to address more
    >> than 640k is complete bull****.

    >
    >
    > You are a complete fool expounding utter bullcrap.
    > The difference you are being asked to explain is difference between native
    > support and support through slower helper programs. Expee, Pista don't do
    > native addressing, so it must rely on slower helper programs and is
    > therefore slow; unlike Linux which accesses RAM directly.


    Pedant Point: Neither Linux nor Vista access RAM directly.
    Both go through the processor's MMU (first appearing
    sometime in the 286 era -- which predated Linux and
    Win3.1). Linux has the slight advantage of intelligent
    page management; Win 3.1 had to use the E800: hack.
    I would hope Win95 knew how to intelligently manage page
    tables, but I for one have my doubts. I know nothing
    about NT's handling of such issues but the entire PC
    architecture and its "conventional" memory hack is a
    necessary stupidity based on upward compatibility, and
    should ideally have been shot on sight but was probably
    a godsend when it first appeared.

    A quick Google coughed up

    http://www.ercb.com/feature/feature.0029.html

    which suggests a rather complicated but reasonably
    conventional internal structure, consisting of a paged
    pool and two nonpaged pools (general use and emergency
    zippy backup).

    The official crap was also coughed up:

    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms810616.aspx

    suggesting a 2G/2G address space and a 10-10-12 split
    within an address -- which is a slight inconsistency as
    there probably should be a 1-9-10-12 split instead (the
    first bit indicating which of the 2 GB realms to use).
    The docs refer to a "btree" structure (not quite correct;
    it's more of a fixed-height fixed-N-way tree system). Most
    of this appears dictated by the x86's peculiarities, what
    little I know about such.

    Apart from a specialized "bad" page marker, this looks
    reasonably conventional. Presumably Vista has not made
    too many changes in this area, though I'm wondering how
    64 GB is handled.

    >
    > I'm not expert on this particular question, but it still doesn't
    > excuse you from printing appauling escapism.
    >


    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  6. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    On 2007-10-22 17:53:45 -0400, raylopez99 said:

    > When professional programmers get PAID for their labours, they put out
    > KUALITY KODE. The same cannot be said for the part-time, unpaid,
    > hippy amateur Linux coders.




    LOL! Vista= "Look at my tumor, isn't it CUTE????

    Vista=SUCKS ****.



  7. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:53:45 -0700, raylopez99 wrote:

    > When professional programmers get PAID for their labours, they put out
    > KUALITY KODE. The same cannot be said for the part-time, unpaid, hippy
    > amateur Linux coders.
    >
    > RL
    >
    > http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...windows-vista-

    service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.aspx
    >
    > When developing Windows Vista, Microsoft set out to provide higher
    > levels of productivity, mobility, and security, with lower costs. After
    > more than six months of broad availability and usage, it's evident that
    > these investments are improving the Windows computing experience. For
    > example, in the first six months of use, Windows Vista had fewer
    > security issues than Windows XP (Windows Vista had only 12 issues, and
    > Windows XP had 36). According to the Windows Vista 6-Month Vulnerability
    > Report by Jeffery R. Jones, Windows Vista had fewer security issues than
    > all the popular operating systems he studied.
    >
    > Microsoft's efforts to provide the best Windows experience ever in
    > Windows Vista did not end with its launch. This white paper describes
    > the ways Microsoft strives to continuously improve Windows Vista. It
    > then introduces Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1) and describes how the
    > service pack will fit into the ongoing improvement process.


    This has to be satire. There are a lot of words that can be used to
    describe Vista, but quality isn't one of the,.

  8. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Larry's prostate

    wrote
    on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:23:47 -0400
    <471d4d19$0$32506$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:
    > On 2007-10-22 17:53:45 -0400, raylopez99 said:
    >
    >> When professional programmers get PAID for their labours, they put out
    >> KUALITY KODE. The same cannot be said for the part-time, unpaid,
    >> hippy amateur Linux coders.

    >
    >
    >
    > LOL! Vista= "Look at my tumor, isn't it CUTE????
    >
    > Vista=SUCKS ****.
    >


    Vista is also the default offered solution for most new
    desktop-based machinery.

    The good news: Dell's in trouble (not sure how serious),
    and is casting about for new markets. Linux server sales
    are up compared, presumably, to Windows server sales.

    http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=1386

    The bad news (AFAIK): Microsoft wins in most perception
    contests, at the desktop level. After all, they're the
    devil we know.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
    elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  9. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    Quoting Simon Templar on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:36:28 -0400:

    > "Mark Trimble" wrote in message
    > newsan.2007.10.22.22.41.33@127.0.0.1...
    >> Quoting raylopez99 on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:53:45 -0700:
    >>
    >>> When professional programmers get PAID for their labours, they put out
    >>> KUALITY KODE. The same cannot be said for the part-time, unpaid,
    >>> hippy amateur Linux coders.

    >>
    >> If that is true, then explain this.
    >>
    >> 1. Windows 3.0 was a graphical shell built around a 16-bit kernel which
    >> was unable to address more than 640Kb of RAM without external programs
    >> to support that addressing.

    >
    > True. This was to maintain compatibility with older DOS applications
    > that relied on this behavior.
    >
    >
    >> Windows Vista is a graphical shell built around a 32- bit or 64-bit
    >> kernel which *is* unable to address more than 640Kb of RAM without
    >> external programs to support that addressing.

    >
    > This is complete and utter bull****.
    >
    >
    >> Linux
    >> version 2.6 (the kernel, NOT any particular distro) addresses up to a
    >> gig or more of RAM natively.How is Windows better.

    >
    > When it comes to address memory there is no significant difference
    > between XP/Vista or linux. Your claim of XP/Vista not being able to
    > address more than 640k is complete bull****.
    >
    >
    >> 2. Most, if not all of the windows networking stack was and to this day
    >> still is an after-thought (see windows 3.11 for workgroups for
    >> explanation) which only partly works, based on the networking systems
    >> built in to the linux/unix kernel at the time. How, then, is Windows
    >> better.

    >
    > More bull****. The networking model in in the NT family of products (NT,
    > Win2k, XP, Vista, etc) is not based at all on the Windows for Workgroups
    > model.
    >
    > Once again you prove to be inadequately informed.
    >
    >


    Then why, pray tell, does Vista still have a pair of files known as
    command.com and io.exe in the root level of the boot partition?

    Why, pray tell, does vista not interoperate natively?

  10. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    Mark Trimble pisze:

    >
    > Then why, pray tell, does Vista still have a pair of files known as
    > command.com and io.exe in the root level of the boot partition?
    >
    > Why, pray tell, does vista not interoperate natively?


    Strange, my Vista boot without those files :P Seems that you have
    special version :P

    --
    | Andrea | http://czerwona-linia.blogspot.com/ |
    ------------------------------------------------
    There is no such thing as overkill, there is
    only "where's the ammunition" question.

  11. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:41:34 GMT, Mark Trimble wrote:

    > 1. Windows 3.0 was a graphical shell built around a 16-bit kernel which
    > was unable to address more than 640Kb of RAM without external programs to
    > support that addressing.


    Actually, that was a DOS limitation and since Windows 3.0 "enhanced
    mode" appeared much of the required functionality was built in to the
    Windows graphical shell. As Windows progressed through the Windows
    95-98-ME line, more and more of this functionality was incorporated.


    > Windows Vista is a graphical shell built around a 32- bit or 64-bit
    > kernel which *is* unable to address more than 640Kb of RAM without
    > external programs to support that addressing.


    This is completely and utterly false. The Vista kernel is based on the
    NT one, which certainly can address more than 640 KB of memory.


    > 2. Most, if not all of the windows networking stack was and to this
    > day still is an after-thought (see windows 3.11 for workgroups for
    > explanation) ...


    This is completely false for versions of Windows based on the NT kernel
    (NT, XP, Vista), and at least arguably false for the Windows 95-ME line.

    Please don't advocate Linux by making up lies about the competition.


    --
    -| Bob Hauck
    -| "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
    -| http://www.haucks.org/

  12. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.


    "Mark Trimble" wrote in message
    newsan.2007.10.23.03.08.52@127.0.0.1...
    > Quoting Simon Templar on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:36:28 -0400:
    >
    >> "Mark Trimble" wrote in message
    >> newsan.2007.10.22.22.41.33@127.0.0.1...
    >>> Quoting raylopez99 on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:53:45 -0700:
    >>>
    >>>> When professional programmers get PAID for their labours, they put out
    >>>> KUALITY KODE. The same cannot be said for the part-time, unpaid,
    >>>> hippy amateur Linux coders.
    >>>
    >>> If that is true, then explain this.
    >>>
    >>> 1. Windows 3.0 was a graphical shell built around a 16-bit kernel which
    >>> was unable to address more than 640Kb of RAM without external programs
    >>> to support that addressing.

    >>
    >> True. This was to maintain compatibility with older DOS applications
    >> that relied on this behavior.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Windows Vista is a graphical shell built around a 32- bit or 64-bit
    >>> kernel which *is* unable to address more than 640Kb of RAM without
    >>> external programs to support that addressing.

    >>
    >> This is complete and utter bull****.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Linux
    >>> version 2.6 (the kernel, NOT any particular distro) addresses up to a
    >>> gig or more of RAM natively.How is Windows better.

    >>
    >> When it comes to address memory there is no significant difference
    >> between XP/Vista or linux. Your claim of XP/Vista not being able to
    >> address more than 640k is complete bull****.
    >>
    >>
    >>> 2. Most, if not all of the windows networking stack was and to this day
    >>> still is an after-thought (see windows 3.11 for workgroups for
    >>> explanation) which only partly works, based on the networking systems
    >>> built in to the linux/unix kernel at the time. How, then, is Windows
    >>> better.

    >>
    >> More bull****. The networking model in in the NT family of products (NT,
    >> Win2k, XP, Vista, etc) is not based at all on the Windows for Workgroups
    >> model.
    >>
    >> Once again you prove to be inadequately informed.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Then why, pray tell, does Vista still have a pair of files known as
    > command.com and io.exe in the root level of the boot partition?


    I don't know and don't really care. Command.com is the old 16-bit command
    shell. It was kept around for a while for old apps (Lotus 123, Wordperfect,
    etc) that needed it. Surely you're not stupid enough to think that the
    ancient 16-bit command.com is used to manage memory for Vista?

    If your claim is that Vista or XP is somehow based on some ancient 640k
    memory limit then let's see some proof. You are totally clueless so let's
    see some technical article (not a blog entry from someone equally clueless)
    that explains this in detail. Until then you are simply spewing bull****.


    > Why, pray tell, does vista not interoperate natively?


    Enough with your stupid "pray tell" - And what in the world does not
    interoperate natively mean?





    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  13. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    Quoting Andrea on Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:14:37 +0200:

    > Mark Trimble pisze:
    >
    >
    >> Then why, pray tell, does Vista still have a pair of files known as
    >> command.com and io.exe in the root level of the boot partition?
    >>
    >> Why, pray tell, does vista not interoperate natively?

    >
    > Strange, my Vista boot without those files :P Seems that you have
    > special version :P
    >


    Not my version - I post from Mandriva 2007.0. I found those files on a
    demo model at a big-box computer store near my home town.

  14. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    Quoting Simon Templar on Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:46:08 -0400:

    > "Mark Trimble" wrote in message
    > newsan.2007.10.23.03.08.52@127.0.0.1...
    >> Quoting Simon Templar on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:36:28 -0400:
    >>
    >>> "Mark Trimble" wrote in message
    >>> newsan.2007.10.22.22.41.33@127.0.0.1...
    >>>> Quoting raylopez99 on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:53:45 -0700:
    >>>>
    >>>>> When professional programmers get PAID for their labours, they put
    >>>>> out KUALITY KODE. The same cannot be said for the part-time,
    >>>>> unpaid, hippy amateur Linux coders.
    >>>>
    >>>> If that is true, then explain this.
    >>>>
    >>>> 1. Windows 3.0 was a graphical shell built around a 16-bit kernel
    >>>> which was unable to address more than 640Kb of RAM without external
    >>>> programs to support that addressing.
    >>>
    >>> True. This was to maintain compatibility with older DOS applications
    >>> that relied on this behavior.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Windows Vista is a graphical shell built around a 32- bit or 64-bit
    >>>> kernel which *is* unable to address more than 640Kb of RAM without
    >>>> external programs to support that addressing.
    >>>
    >>> This is complete and utter bull****.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Linux
    >>>> version 2.6 (the kernel, NOT any particular distro) addresses up to a
    >>>> gig or more of RAM natively.How is Windows better.
    >>>
    >>> When it comes to address memory there is no significant difference
    >>> between XP/Vista or linux. Your claim of XP/Vista not being able to
    >>> address more than 640k is complete bull****.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> 2. Most, if not all of the windows networking stack was and to this
    >>>> day still is an after-thought (see windows 3.11 for workgroups for
    >>>> explanation) which only partly works, based on the networking systems
    >>>> built in to the linux/unix kernel at the time. How, then, is Windows
    >>>> better.
    >>>
    >>> More bull****. The networking model in in the NT family of products
    >>> (NT, Win2k, XP, Vista, etc) is not based at all on the Windows for
    >>> Workgroups model.
    >>>
    >>> Once again you prove to be inadequately informed.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Then why, pray tell, does Vista still have a pair of files known as
    >> command.com and io.exe in the root level of the boot partition?

    >
    > I don't know and don't really care. Command.com is the old 16-bit
    > command shell. It was kept around for a while for old apps (Lotus 123,
    > Wordperfect, etc) that needed it. Surely you're not stupid enough to
    > think that the ancient 16-bit command.com is used to manage memory for
    > Vista?
    >
    > If your claim is that Vista or XP is somehow based on some ancient 640k
    > memory limit then let's see some proof. You are totally clueless so
    > let's see some technical article (not a blog entry from someone equally
    > clueless) that explains this in detail. Until then you are simply
    > spewing bull****.
    >
    >
    >> Why, pray tell, does vista not interoperate natively?

    >
    > Enough with your stupid "pray tell" - And what in the world does not
    > interoperate natively mean?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >


    Getting a little defensive are we?

    I've been studying the design and construction of Windows as it affects
    my activities as a computer hobbyist for about the last 15 years, and
    trouble-shooting computers on both an amateur and a professional basis
    for nearly 20.

  15. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    On Oct 22, 4:36 pm, "Simon Templar" wrote:
    > "Mark Trimble" wrote in message
    >
    > newsan.2007.10.22.22.41.33@127.0.0.1...
    >
    > > Quoting raylopez99 on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:53:45 -0700:

    >
    > >> When professional programmers get PAID for their labours, they put out
    > >> KUALITY KODE. The same cannot be said for the part-time, unpaid, hippy
    > >> amateur Linux coders.

    >
    > > If that is true, then explain this.

    >
    > > 1. Windows 3.0 was a graphical shell built around a 16-bit kernel which
    > > was unable to address more than 640Kb of RAM without external programs to
    > > support that addressing.

    >
    > True. This was to maintain compatibility with older DOS applications that
    > relied on this behavior.
    >
    > > Windows Vista is a graphical shell built around
    > > a 32- bit or 64-bit kernel which *is* unable to address more than 640Kb
    > > of RAM without external programs to support that addressing.

    >
    > This is complete and utter bull****.
    >
    > > Linux
    > > version 2.6 (the kernel, NOT any particular distro) addresses up to a gig
    > > or more of RAM natively.How is Windows better.

    >
    > When it comes to address memory there is no significant difference between
    > XP/Vista or linux. Your claim of XP/Vista not being able to address more
    > than 640k is complete bull****.
    >
    > > 2. Most, if not all of the windows networking stack was and to this day
    > > still is an after-thought (see windows 3.11 for workgroups for
    > > explanation) which only partly works, based on the networking systems
    > > built in to the linux/unix kernel at the time. How, then, is Windows
    > > better.

    >
    > More bull****. The networking model in in the NT family of products (NT,
    > Win2k, XP, Vista, etc) is not based at all on the Windows for Workgroups
    > model.
    >
    > Once again you prove to be inadequately informed.
    >
    > --


    Thanks Simon Templar--I was going to reply until I saw your post--I
    agree 100%.

    RL


  16. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    On Oct 22, 6:13 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
    wrote:

    Thanks Ghost.

    Seems you are either confused or don't know how to articulate your
    thoughts.

    >From both Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_management_unit


    and this definition of virtual memory below, you can see the
    following:

    1) all x86 hardware uses MMUs to create, access and manage virtual
    memory pages. Whether you run Linux or Windows on the x86 hardware
    makes no difference--they all uses MMUs to break up accessing memory
    into chunks. The only issue in virtual memory is this: will the
    pages swapped be from upper RAM (faster), or, will they be from the
    hard drive (much slower)?

    2) all non-x86 hardware worth mentioning also use MMUs (this was news
    to me). See Wikipedia above.

    RL


    virtual memory
    Simulating more memory than actually exists, allowing the computer to
    run larger programs or more programs concurrently. It breaks up the
    program into small segments, called "pages," and brings as many pages
    from disk into memory that fit into a reserved area for that program.
    When additional pages are required, it makes room for them by swapping
    them to disk. It keeps track of pages that have been modified so that
    they can be retrieved when needed again.

    If instructions in a very large program point back and forth to
    opposite ends of the program, excessive disk accesses (thrashing) can
    slow down execution if the entire program is not in memory.

    Hardware Is Required
    Virtual memory can be implemented in software only, but efficient
    operation requires specialized hardware circuits. Most CPUs today
    have memory management units (MMUs) that provide full support for
    virtual memory.

    Virtual memory claims are sometimes made for specific applications
    that bring additional parts of the program in as needed; however, true
    virtual memory is a hardware and operating


  17. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    After takin' a swig o' grog, raylopez99 belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Oct 22, 4:36 pm, "Simon Templar" wrote:
    >> "Mark Trimble" wrote in message
    >>
    >> newsan.2007.10.22.22.41.33@127.0.0.1...
    >>
    >> > Quoting raylopez99 on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:53:45 -0700:

    >>
    >> >> When professional programmers get PAID for their labours, they put out
    >> >> KUALITY KODE. The same cannot be said for the part-time, unpaid, hippy
    >> >> amateur Linux coders.

    >
    > Thanks Simon Templar--I was going to reply until I saw your post--I
    > agree 100%.


    *plonk*

    --
    Tux rox!

  18. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, raylopez99

    wrote
    on Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:01:49 -0700
    <1193396509.299858.235050@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.c om>:
    > On Oct 22, 6:13 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
    > wrote:
    >
    > Thanks Ghost.
    >
    > Seems you are either confused or don't know how to articulate your
    > thoughts.
    >
    >>From both Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_management_unit

    >
    > and this definition of virtual memory below, you can see the
    > following:
    >
    > 1) all x86 hardware uses MMUs to create, access and manage virtual
    > memory pages.


    Pedant Point: the 8086 had no MMU. Not sure if the 80186
    did either, but the 80186 took off like an overladen
    albatross with a millstone around its neck, and plunked
    itself into the metaphorical ocean.

    As for creation of VM, that's an interesting philosophical
    point, but both the 80x86 series and the 680x0 series use
    a multilevel page table scheme.

    > Whether you run Linux or Windows on the x86 hardware
    > makes no difference--they all uses MMUs to break up accessing memory
    > into chunks.


    Actually, you're oversimplifying it. The MMU allows for
    translation of a virtual address into a physical address;
    the chunks, of course, are page addresses -- 4k or 16k,
    depending on CPU. Intel's paragraph management scheme
    complicates things slightly and I don't remember the
    details on TSSs, LDTs and GDTs, but I'm old enough
    to remember segmented address management in the PDP
    11 family; the MMU therein required that segments be
    physically contiguous, and each process had at most about
    8 thereof (of which one had to be stack). MMUs in the VAX
    and later on in Intel and Motorola processors (I believe
    the 68020 had an MMU; the 68030 and 68040 certainly did)
    allowed for a process to be scattered all over physical
    RAM while still having contiguous virtual address spaces --
    or non-contiguous virtual address spaces, as needs be.

    > The only issue in virtual memory is this: will the
    > pages swapped be from upper RAM (faster), or, will they be from the
    > hard drive (much slower)?


    There are other issues in the 80x86 series, most of
    them thankfully dead. The old EMS specification, IIRC,
    did some interesting tricks to allow access to E800:0000
    (this was configurable but E800:0000 was the default)
    from an arbitrary page somewhere in EMS. This presumably
    was leveraged in the Win9x era, and finally eliminated
    when NT became widely accepted in WinXP. I won't go into
    conventional memory but Win9x had issues therewith --
    most of them invisible.

    I still don't know the details on the "A20 hack" but AFAIK
    most modern x86 desktops depend on it.

    >
    > 2) all non-x86 hardware worth mentioning also use MMUs
    > (this was news to me). See Wikipedia above.


    http://www.homebrewcpu.com/

    has no MMU. Of course it doesn't have Linux either. :-)

    >
    > RL
    >
    >
    > virtual memory
    > Simulating more memory than actually exists, allowing the computer to
    > run larger programs or more programs concurrently. It breaks up the
    > program into small segments, called "pages," and brings as many pages
    > from disk into memory that fit into a reserved area for that program.
    > When additional pages are required, it makes room for them by swapping
    > them to disk. It keeps track of pages that have been modified so that
    > they can be retrieved when needed again.
    >
    > If instructions in a very large program point back and forth to
    > opposite ends of the program, excessive disk accesses (thrashing) can
    > slow down execution if the entire program is not in memory.


    More complicated than that, actually. Every element in a
    classical linked list is a potential page fault. A walk
    through a linked list, no matter where the elements are
    in virtual memory, will result in page faulting if the
    amount of information (virtual memory used thereby) is
    greater than the amount of RAM.

    Depending on the application, one can work with certain
    clustering notions to attempt to limit page faulting.

    >
    > Hardware Is Required
    > Virtual memory can be implemented in software only, but efficient
    > operation requires specialized hardware circuits. Most CPUs today
    > have memory management units (MMUs) that provide full support for
    > virtual memory.


    There are additional aspects to VM that are important.
    All of these can be implemented in software, though not
    nearly as reliably or as efficiently.

    - Read/write vs. read/only vs. execute
    Access control occasionally requires that certain memory
    be marked read-only or execute-only. Execute-only is
    good for code segments; readonly for data segments that
    the application has no need of or no business modifying.
    - Demand zero
    The application may want memory that is already cleared.
    A lot of systems have this option.
    - Resource tracking and region sharing
    This is mostly an issue with keeping track of what, as it
    is typically cast as an interrelationship between tasks,
    threads, or processes, and the virtual memory used thereby.
    If two processes share the same physical page, and one of
    the processes dies, the other process should not lose the
    page, for example. Page sharing is (or should be) extremely
    common for code segments, as they are non-writable and
    usually used by multiple processes. In Linux sharing of
    this sort is typically handled through shmem or mmap.
    And of course, two processes can have the same virtual
    address, but different physical addresses.
    - Exception handling
    If a processor attempts to read a virtual address
    that's not in RAM, it will instigate a page fault
    exception (I'd have to look up the details).
    The kernel will then try to find space for that
    page, throwing out already-existing pages to do so if
    necessary. Writing or executing a virtual address may
    also throw a page fault, if access permissions forbid
    it; the kernel then has to do something intelligent
    -- in Linux's case, sending a signal[*] which kills the
    process; killing the process then notifies the parent
    in a certain special way (SIGSEGV=11 gets translated
    into wait3()/$? = 128+11 = 139), which the shell can
    then translate into a somewhat meaningful diagnostic.
    Arcane, yes, but workable.

    >
    > Virtual memory claims are sometimes made for specific applications
    > that bring additional parts of the program in as needed; however, true
    > virtual memory is a hardware and operating
    >


    Well, virtual memory is just that: memory that is virtual.
    The hardware makes the process more efficient, and may
    allow for additional capabilities such as what I've
    described above without a lot of work on the application
    writer's part.

    I'm old enough to have implemented a JSR instruction in
    an 1802, thank you very much. That's a software solution
    (and a very slow one!) to what in most modern processors is
    done in hardware or perhaps microcode -- even the 6502 had
    a JSR instruction, but for some reason the 1802 did not.

    (No, the 1802 didn't have an MMU, either.)

    One could almost as easily implement a VMR and VMW in
    the 1802, if one is willing to dedicate a register.
    The software could then get arbitrarily creative in
    fulfilling the request.
    [*] signals were pioneered in Unix and are hard to describe
    except that processes can catch them, block them,
    and generally handle them. Signals are sent for
    many common conditions, among them invalid memory
    address, user interrupt, floating point exception,
    and modem hangup.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. An OS which actually, unlike certain other offerings, works.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  19. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    < snip >

    > I still don't know the details on the "A20 hack" but AFAIK
    > most modern x86 desktops depend on it.
    >


    The "A20 hack" was quite simply a disabling of the A20 address line
    the original 8086 had 20 address lines, A0 - A19 and could address 1 MByte
    with it.
    Now comes some weird stuff (for people not used to those old times): YOu
    could set a Segment Reg to FFFF and then address the *first* 64Kbytes of
    memory (less 16 Bytes) with that. The first 16 BYtes still lay in the FFFF
    Segment, but the next 64K - 16Bytes actually wrapped to 0000.0000

    Software existed which depended on that hack. For example, the original
    GWBASIC coming from MS for MSDOS would *not* run if that address wrap would
    not occur

    Entroducing the 80286. It could address 16MBytes of Memory, having Address
    lines A0 - A23
    Here the Adress FFFF:0010 actually wrapped into the *second* MByte of
    memory.
    YOu could access 1MByte + 64 KBytes (-16Bytes) in Real Mode on that
    processor. Normally no harm is done, you just have 64KBytes mem more
    acessible than usually. But then some of the weird MS software no longer
    ran.
    For this reason alone the hardware makers decided to *disable* the A20 line
    when in Real Mode. It was disabled using a line from the Keyboard
    processor. Which was fine and dandy, there was just a small problem: That
    processor was *slow* and it took eons to switch the A20 line.

    Later chip-sets had a dedicated line for A20 dis/enable to make access to
    memory above 1MByte faster

    < snip >
    --
    Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!


  20. Re: Windows Vista = quality. Read all about it here.

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Köhlmann

    wrote
    on Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:35:04 +0200
    :
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    > < snip >
    >
    >> I still don't know the details on the "A20 hack" but AFAIK
    >> most modern x86 desktops depend on it.
    >>

    >
    > The "A20 hack" was quite simply a disabling of the A20 address line
    > the original 8086 had 20 address lines, A0 - A19 and could address 1 MByte
    > with it.
    > Now comes some weird stuff (for people not used to those old times): YOu
    > could set a Segment Reg to FFFF and then address the *first* 64Kbytes of
    > memory (less 16 Bytes) with that. The first 16 BYtes still lay in the FFFF
    > Segment, but the next 64K - 16Bytes actually wrapped to 0000.0000
    >
    > Software existed which depended on that hack. For example, the original
    > GWBASIC coming from MS for MSDOS would *not* run if that address wrap would
    > not occur
    >
    > Entroducing the 80286. It could address 16MBytes of Memory, having Address
    > lines A0 - A23
    > Here the Adress FFFF:0010 actually wrapped into the *second* MByte of
    > memory.
    > YOu could access 1MByte + 64 KBytes (-16Bytes) in Real Mode on that
    > processor. Normally no harm is done, you just have 64KBytes mem more
    > acessible than usually. But then some of the weird MS software no longer
    > ran.
    > For this reason alone the hardware makers decided to *disable* the A20 line
    > when in Real Mode. It was disabled using a line from the Keyboard
    > processor. Which was fine and dandy, there was just a small problem: That
    > processor was *slow* and it took eons to switch the A20 line.
    >
    > Later chip-sets had a dedicated line for A20 dis/enable to make access to
    > memory above 1MByte faster
    >
    > < snip >


    Nicely explained. Hack upon bodge upon kludge, apparently.
    I hadn't thought that anyone would actually be silly enough
    to use the paragraph wraparound (since 0001:0000 = 0000:0010
    in the 8086 days). Ye gods.

    Ah, Amiga. The world could have been so different.... ;-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Conventional memory has to be one of the most UNconventional
    architectures I've seen in a computer system.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast