2324 posts • joined 27 Apr 2009
Re: Going from 32 to 64 bit was so simple nobody really noticed it happened
> apparently in 64-bit mode (which they call "long" mode) you can have 16-bit protected mode processes
16-bit protected mode is 80286 native mode. The 80286 was brain dead so nobody cares.
> Because, in theory, a "well behaved" 16-bit application SHOULD be possible to run in 64-bit mode...
It may be that "in theory" a particular design could run 16bit V86 and 64bit together, but the AMD design does not. Programs run by executing instructions. Instructions have particular bit layouts. These have a number of bits assigned to the op-code. You cannot have more different op-codes than the number of bits allow. AMD-64 long mode requires additional op-codes so they reused some numbers that overlapped stuff that was 20 years out of date.
Virtual86 and Real86 are for running 8086 programs, that design is from 1978 - 40 years ago.
> Then why the push for ARM on servers?
For the savings on power and cooling. Servers with dozens or hundreds of cores can switch off all the unused ones. It is about the money.
> you probably have an inroad into the gaming sector as well.
No. Gamers want all the processing power running flat out all the time and don't care about the cost. It seems they also want expensive and elaborate cooling systems for street cred.
Re: Wedded to Intel
> MS was a multi-platform company right from the start.
As was the whole personal computer and microcomputer industry from the mid 70s.
> As was MS DOS:
MS-DOS was Intel 8086/8088* only. It could be used on many different architectures (as long as they used 8088 or 8086) because each OEM had to write their own MS-BIOS to deal with the actual I/O hardware. This mechanism was copied from DRI's CP/M. It wasn't "provided" for score of architectures, the OEMs had to do it.
> So different platforms have always been part of the MS programmer expectation, part of the culture.
That was true a couple of developer generations ago. MS Basic on 6502 and 6800 was 40 years or more ago. The last MS-DOS that ran on non-IBM-PC-Clones was 4.x. Sure, if you're a developer now retired or moved to management then you may have dim memories of a time before.
> So different platforms have always been part of the MS programmer expectation, part of the culture.
Not for the current generation of developer and users it isn't. They were confused by RT and failed to buy it in droves, and returned it when they did buy it. Windows is Windows, if it doesn't run program x, then it is a failure.
* There was MSX-DOS for MSX machines that ran on Z80 but it was a CP/M clone, not a version of MS-DOS. There was also MS-DOS 4.0 and 4.1 (not to be confused with the later 4.01) that was 80286 based but this was soon dumped.
Re: "is on course to become the world's default desktop OS over the next 2-3 y"
> are also more likely to invest in the Store app.
Software, especially Store apps, are _not_ an 'investment', they are a cost.
> What it really needs is the support of developers to actually support the target architecture to get native execution performance rather than just lazily expect that the emulation layer will take care of it for you
From the late 70s through the 80s and 90s I (and my clients) ran DRI multiuser operating systems from MP/M, Concurrent-DOS-386, DR-Multiuser-DOS to Systems Manager. These could run MS-DOS programs and actual Windows 3.11 (in fact could run several simultaneously). The major problems was that DOS developers would use 'keyhit()' to know when a key had been hit and this sat in a tight loop waiting for a keystroke and used up all the CPU cycles it could grab - not good for a multi-tasking and multi-user system. They probably still do that.
Re: "alleviated things somewhat."
> Emulation may be useful, but if and when always running everything under emulation, you start to ask why not use the native environment....
Windows 3.x on OS/2 was a real and full actual Windows 3.1. It also ran Microsoft's Win32s.DLL. What Microsoft did next was add a completely spurious memory access that was a greater address than 2 Gbytes. This did nothing useful except exceed OS/2's virtual memory limit and stop the latest versions being used. Then MS could break applications by requiring the latest version.
> The fact it could run a full (or seamless, akin to how XP mode works in 7) Windows 3.1 session
That was why it died. Developers could have developed for Windows 3.x or for OS/2 Presentation Manager, but when IBM added Win3.x to OS/2 then developers could target that and get their applications running on both Windows and OS/2. Then there was no point in having OS/2.
When Windows 10 adds an X server to its Linux compatibility then, maybe, developers will target Linux to get it running on Windows and the system that they use.
> One of the reasons Windows Phone 8 required little resources and was snappier is ...
You are confused. Windows Phone 7 "required little resources". It ran using WinCE which was like the MS-DOS of phones: single task, no background tasks except a sort of TSR-like process and tombstoning. It was promoted as 'requiring little resources' because it couldn't handle more than one core, there was no point in giving it more. Windows 8 was "snappier", or appeared so, because it required a dual core and dedicated one core to the UI. This impacted on background tasks but most apps still did tombstoning anyway.
> If you want to run on Intel or ARM on Windows or Linux, then Java is the obvious answer.
You seem to be hammered with down votes. Java is obviously _not_ the answer, or not the only answer, because I have a RaspberryPi alongside my other Linux machines and it has all the software that I need without it being written in Java.
I write in Python and that is all good wherever I want to run it.
> Windows 8 x86/x64 != Windows 8 RT != Windows Mobile 8 (or whatever it was called)
You missed Windows 8 IOT (later there was Windows 10 IOT) which was completely different yet again.
Re: Going from 32 to 64 bit was so simple nobody really noticed it happened
> Linux can be a PITA with lots of stuff still needing 32bit libraries.
In what way ? If you need 32bit libraries they are still there with most distros. Install a 32bit app from the repository and the appropriate libraries will automatically be installed.
> I wish MS well in getting everything moved to 64bit (I probably need to go and sit down in a darkened room). The hardware has been 64bit for at least 5 years now so it really should be time to pension off 32bit binaries.
And you complained about losing 20 year old 16bit stuff !!!
Actually, Microsoft is reviving 32 bit with its ARM/x86 hybrid that will only run 32bit x86. Users are going to be pissed when it won't run the software they use on their desktops.
Re: "so why removal of WOW16 and NTVDM? Dosbox works."
> Once again: AMD removed the Virtual86 mode from CPU in 64 bit mode.
While the _Intel_ 64 bit design also removed Virtual86 mode _and_ x86 32bit mode.
Re: "However it is really difficult for them to change"
> Windows users do expect compatibility at the binary level.
Most Windows users do not know that there are computers that are not x86. 'Binary incompatibility' is not a concept they are aware of. When Windows RT was available they expected to be able to run their existing applications on it. When Windows 10 IOT was announced for running on Raspberry Pi they thought they would be able to use a $35 computer to run a full desktop and Halo 5.
> The only problem came when AMD dropped the Virtual86 mode in 64 bit mode so Windows 64 bit could no longer run 16 bit applications outside a full virtual machine.
> It was an AMD decision, nor Microsoft nor Intel took it.
Intel and Microsoft were perfectly free to continue developing Itanium for their 64bit systems. Of course those didn't do Virtual86 either, and neither did it do x86 32bit (except by emulation).
> Going from 32 to 64 bit was so simple nobody really noticed it happened, but the availability of far more RAM.
That was directly the result of an _AMD_ decision !!! Microsoft and Intel had to change course from their 'Itanic' decision to follow AMD.
The instructions added to make x86 into AMD64 overlapped with some of the old 16bit instructions. This was a technical issue because the instruction set has a finite number of different operation codes. Thus the chip can _either_ do V86 _or_ AMD64.
The 8086 (and later) couldn't do 8080 or 8085 either*. That was an Intel decision. Old stuff gets dropped, get over it.
* actually the NEC V20 and V30 chips could do both 8086 and 8080.
Re: Wedded to Intel
> Alpha was most successful, partly because DEC and Microsoft made the effort to keep the platform up to date, and partly because it included x86 emulation.
... and partly because DEC settled with Microsoft over Dave Cutler reusing design work he had done at DEC when implementing NT.
"""Rather than suing, Digital cut a deal with Microsoft. In the summer of 1995, Digital announced Affinity for OpenVMS, a program that required Microsoft to help train Digital NT technicians, help promote NT and Open-VMS as two pieces of a three-tiered client/server networking solution, and promise to maintain NT support for the Alpha processor. Microsoft also paid Digital between 65 million and 100 million dollars."""
Re: I have a Fujitsu Celsius R650 workstation
> BTW, normal Win 10 Pro runs fine (well, as fine as it can be said for this POS OS) on my HP z840 with two 8 core/16 threads XEON E5's and 128GB RAM.
The real question is: will it continue to "run fine" after an update to some future version of "normal Win 10 Pro" ?
The Workstation edition will support up to 4 CPUs and lots of cores, but it will cost much more than a 'normal' edition.
It seems most likely that the changes in licensing are related primarily to sales of new machines and will be restrictive on OEMs. Computers with up to 4 core (probably on 1 CPU) can have 'normal' Win 10 Home or Pro installed, but if it has more than 4 cores, or more than 1 CPU, then it _must_ be sold with Workstation edition. This will increase revenue to Microsoft, which is always the aim of _any_ changes.
A clean install of a retail version may also limit the cores in use to 4 unless the Workstation edition is paid for.
Whether this can be applied to existing machines is a separate issue. It seems unlikely that an update would cripple a computer by only running on 4 of the cores, or stop altogether, until an additional licence is purchased, but it may nag you saying that your machine would be better by sending more money to MS. Also, if (or when) you have to start paying a monthly subscription then this may be based on the number of cores that the computer has, regardless of whether it is Pro or Workstation.
Re: A thought.
> a limit of 4 does seem reasonable (especially given they don't want this used on a server). Looks like server edition supports up to 64 sockets.
This is a pricing issue more than a technical one. The cost of a server licence can depend on the number of cores (not CPUs). The base price is for 16 cores. If you want to run more cores than you need to pay more. (you also needs CALs per client).
"""**Datacenter and Standard edition pricing is for 16 core licenses."""
For desktop and workstation, Microsoft will also, it seems, be charging based on the number of cores and/or CPUs basis. The 4 core (not CPU) will be the base price desktop OS, while systems with more cores (or more than 1 CPU) will have to pay more for the workstation licence.
"""One customer said he was told there could be a price increase of roughly $70 per operating system for use on systems with processors with four or fewer cores. For machines with Xeon processors with more than four cores, there could be a price increase of roughly $230 per operating system, I was told. """
"""Windows 10 Pro for Workstations is designed for high-end hardware with Fast I/O with persistent memory, fast file sharing, Resilient file system (ReFS) and up to four physical CPUs and 6 TB of memory. """
Re: Consumer refers to who's paying
> Consumer versions of Windows 10 are "free" and paid for by providing telemetry data.
You are confused. If you buy a computer from an OEM or retail and it has Windows installed then part of the price that you pay goes to Microsoft for the Windows licence. It may be bundled so that you don't see this component of the cost, but it is not free in any sense.
Certainly, if you had already paid for Windows 7 or 8.1, then Microsoft had, for a limited time, allow an upgrade to 10, but that was not free, it was just part of the price that you paid for the earlier version.
There have been versions of Windows that were free (of cost) such as 'Windows with Bing', and 'Windows 10S' may be free of cost (to the OEM) but these require the user paying Microsoft if they are to overcome the limitations, or if they want any useful software which they must buy from the store.
Re: Iron balloons
> An iron balloon with a vacuum inside would float very well indeed
Not at all. It would be crushed in a second. Take one 10 gallon metal gas can, or even a completely empty paint tin, boil some water in it for the steam to displace the air and seal the lid. When the steam condenses the tin implodes. The tin has a several magnitudes more strength to volume ratio than a steel balloon with sufficient lift.
If you fill it with hydrogen to eliminate the pressure problem then the hydrogen will simply leak through the iron and also make it brittle.
Re: Moon? Mars? Moon! Mars!
> Trump will not doubt claim "people are saying it is the greatest speech ever delivered by any president", because the voices in his head will tell him so.
His cabinet will tell him so, their jobs depend on it.
Re: We don't need no education
> It makes you far less prone to being vulnerable to every flim-flam man that comes along.
That is why Trump and the Republicans want to eliminate this, they are the flim-flam men.
Re: StatCounter = irrelevant, amateurish
> It does not. It counts page views. http://gs.statcounter.com/faq#page-views-uniques
Yes, the statistics are based on page views, but the mechanism does identify individual machines and individual visitors.
> Also, how many of those user-agent strings have been fudged?
That is not how Statcounter works.
> Like IBM? Probably explains the 24 straight quarters of declining sales. That and trying to ignore Microsoft and promote Linux!
Typical RICHTO/TheVogon/AC flawed post. The last 12 quarters have shown _increasing_ sales.
Re: What about next year
> I under a year Windows 7 will have joined XP as unsupported.
That doesn't mean that it stops working.
Re: MS is not the one to worry here
> For business, you can also buy a PC without an OS license.
Anyone can buy a computer without an OS licence. The problem is that OEMs and retailers are contracted, by MS or via OEMs, to not sell a PC without an OS (except where a buyer already has site licences).
It is necessary to find electronics and computer parts businesses that will supply and assemble bare machines.
Re: StatCounter = irrelevant, amateurish
> 1. doesn't count unique users - let alone installations -, but page views
> 2. their statistics are not representative.
Re: 50% of men and women are below average.
You are confusing 'median' and 'average'.
Example: 9 men have an IQ of 99, one has an IQ of 109. The average is 100. 90% are below average.
Re: "No in place updates for you!"
> MS can move from FAT to NTFS without formatting
There is a conversion process which rewrites the drive to NTFS without needing to reformat. This is a one-way process, it cannot be reverted and it cannot be done on a partition that is in use. A 'format' will write the sectors and interblock gaps onto a bare disk, the conversion will move stuff around on the existing sectors to get the new layout.
> I have no idea whether it's possible to go from NTFS to ReFS without a format.
There seems to be no conversion process to get ReFS, it needs a reformat.
> It is only USA which has the grand idiocy of everyone driving in any lane at any speed they please and overtaking on both sides.
No. That statement is not true at all.
It is not "only USA". Other countries, such as the that I live in, does not ban passing in any lane where they are marked. This does not lead to any particular problems.
Most countries, especially the USA, certainly do not allow 'driving at any speed they please'.
Re: Maybe I don't understand how this works
> Remember: Renewable energy is a massively expensive solution that doesn't work to a problem that doesn't exist.
That is obviously coal and oil industry dogma and propaganda.
In this country most of our electricity comes from renewable hydro and geothermal power. It works fine and isn't as expensive as the small number of gas plants that we have. There are also some wind farms - built because they produce electricity much cheaper and the hydro can take over if the wind drops.
Re: That’s just one example
> Every tariff only punishes the local population not the intended target.
It will be the same with 'the wall'. The Orange Buffoon as suggested putting a tariff of stuff from Mexico as he thinks that this will 'make Mexico pay for the wall'. The only result is that prices in the US will go up as it is the importer that pays the tariff and they pass it on the the [US] consumer.
Meanwhile Solar Farms will bypass this tariff and will build their farms in Mexico and then export the electricity to the US.
> Linux is already running on the Windows kernel via Ubuntu on Windows 10.
No. Wrong. 'Linux' is the kernel. That is _not_ running on Windows 10. What is running on W10 is GNU software: bash and many utilities; plus other FOSS software, but _not_ 'Linux'.
Re: binary pipelines
> I could write a cmdlet called `stat` for Windows very easily that would do exactly the same. For ANY given example of a script I can create a program that will do that.
Maybe, but for Linux there is usually no need to because programs have been there for years or decades.
> Using a program like stat does not illustrate text mangling.
No, it illustrates that text mangling is [often] not required.
> I'm comparing text mangling vs. objects not whether a sequence of pipelines can be replaced by a program.
Maybe, but you are ignoring objects vs. existing program where piping and mangling is not required.
Re: Poor old MS
> Microsoft are still developing Windows 10 mobile.
We know that you only live to evangelise Microsoft but do try and keep up:
> Command Line has historically been a notable differentiator between GNU/Linux and Windows.
Mainly because Microsoft spent decades denigrating 'command line' and deliberately crippling their own. For example 20 years ago in Windows 95 they included a command line editor, doskey, but it wasn't available by default and wasn't documented. The initial development version of Windows 98 did not even include a DOS box or a command line (that had to be fixed).
> if they somehow pull off this IBM AIX Lawsuit is that they could end up with enough money on the side to go after every UNIX out there today.
You seem to know nothing about the various cases around 'The SCO Group'.
That horse has already bolted a long time ago. The courts have found that TSG has no standing on Unix or AIX. The case against IBM is completely different and based on a specific contract for joint development.
Re: Stupid or Corrupt
> LibreOffice started as the Sun office suite in the eighties
And, before Sun bought it, it was StarOffice from Star Division. Star Division had developed a GUI framework called StarView, for MS-DOS, Windows, OS/2, Mac and others, that it was trying to sell. StarView, and the demo version (which I had obtained), included example programs among which were a word processor and a spreadsheet. Star decided that it was going to make more money from selling software, such as StarOffice which had been developed from the examples, than it was from StarView.
Sun bought Star Division because it was cheaper to buy this and distribute StarOffice to all its employees than it was to buy licences for MS Office.
Re: 'Most research is sponsored by proprietary software companies, and as such might be biased'
> "It was also produced by a microsoft sponsored company."
> It was produced by HP. Hardly "a Microsoft sponsored company"
While HP is not 'sponsored' by Microsoft beyond the usual 'loyalty discounts' and 'sponsored advertising' which are used to lock in the OEMs, the report produced by HP on Munich was entirely paid for by Microsoft.
It thus said what Microsoft wanted it to say. In order to allege that the costs were higher than Munich claimed HP added such costs as replacement computers when Munich actually recycled existing computers.
Re: A Bavarian Rhapsody
@ RICHTO / TheVogon / AC
> However much of that bill was footed by IBM to try and screw Microsoft.
No. That is just your anti-IBM, anti-Linux, Microsoft-loving dogma that fuels your conspiracy theory on how much it cost.
IBM has spent many millions on developing Linux, but that has been for its mainframes and POWER systems and none went to Munich.
> And that doesn't include the costs ..
Those figures also don't show the _savings_ that were made: the saving in licence costs and the saving in hardware costs.
Re: "in-house" "custom" of course it's difficult to support
> Similarly with the office suite, Softmaker maybe?
Neither WPS nor Softmaker were options at the time. Those two also _only_ work with Microsoft formats. The decision was made to use an open standard, and Microsoft was not, and still isn't.
Re: Update cycle...
> How often does anyone think this "in-house custom version" has been updated?
Limux is based on Ubuntu. It is relatively easy to make a custom version that continues to take updates from the base version. In fact _most_ distros do this. They choose a major distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Ubuntu, .. and then add their own customisations. Custom software and configurations is held in the local repository while updates are taken from the upstream host.
> I think its just a knee jerk reaction cos you kind of indirectly called open source bad.
It is the Richto/TheVogan dogma that Munich cost an extra 100m to go to Linux because a HP report paid for by Microsoft gave some completely spurious figures, such as the costs of computers that Munich did not buy, while not balancing these with the costs that would have applied had they stayed with Microsoft, where they would have had to buy new computers. Also he adds in the total cost that IBM spent on developing Linux even though that was for their mainframes and nothing to do with Munich.
In spite of posting as AC, his posts are easily recognisable.
Re: Surely unidirectional wireless is an incredibly inefficient approach to transmitting energy?
> This is so inefficient (laws of Physics and all that...)
It is easy to raise the efficiency: just buy more lots more devices and scatter them about the room, as shown in the illustration. Of course this raises the company's revenue enormously too: a win-win for all (except the consumer).
Re: Is this Movie
> (Most likely, the source used a different version of Word than the person I forwarded it to - but still!)
The main cause of differences is that there are different fonts. Even within implementations of a particular font there may be tiny differences that accumulate to push a word, for example, onto the next line which then completely changes the layout.
If you want a document to look the same on different devices then use PDF.
Re: Seriously, the god stuff?
> evolution was nonsense ... . I was the one making that statement.
That you cannot make sense of evolution tells me more about you than it does of evolution.
Re: Alien UFO's are Real - True / False...
> religion was the most effective method of keeping humans organized, and socialized.
Added to which: those who weren't with you were against you. Anyone who didn't worship and pray to the 'dear leader' was banished, or worse. This still happens in many parts of the world: North Korea, 'Islamic State', parts of southern USA ;-), ...
While the religious today mostly regard the term 'god' or 'gods' to refer to supernatural beings, there is no reason to think that is what people a few thousand years ago thought. In recent times some religions had 'gods' that they could see in the street: Herohito, Rastas, Phil the Greek, Kim Jong x, Trump, Jesus, ... There is no reason to think that this is not how it was in the past: Exodus 25:8 has Jehovah require that temples be built 'so that I may dwell amongst you'. He wanted palaces in each town so he didn't have to be put up in some shack when he went visiting.
'Gods' are either entirely fictional, as some most likely are or were, or are or were just tribal leaders: Pharaohs, Emperors, Kings, Warlords (ie The Lord as in 'House of Lords').
Exclude or slaughter those who don't worship and pretty soon they all seem to conform. Do the same to local communities who have a different religion/leader (eg the Midianites, Canaanites, Cathars, Huguenots) and you soon have a majority religion.
Re: Seriously, the god stuff?
> Would Raymond Damadian do for a start?
He is not a biologist. He is a "physician, medical practitioner", that is not a biologist.
> I also mentioned Francis Collins
Accordig to Wikipedia, he "advocates the perspective that belief in Christianity can be reconciled with acceptance of evolution and science". So he certainly does not think that evolution is nonsense.
That is 2 failures.
> And I'm pretty sure I did not say that any of them claimed evolution was nonsense
>>> who'll tell you that creationism fits the evidence far better than this evolution nonsense.
Your message had it that they would tell me it is nonsense.
> and then they undo it all to take the roads back to exactly as they were before
Did they do that? No, I think they left it pretty much alone except they did remove the barriers and the pits. Certainly they took away the chicane and the racing curbs. Maybe they put the traffic islands back at some point later. After all they may have wanted another race the next year.
> they do all that re-aligning and surfacing and changing the road markings etc etc, all in a day or so
I am not sure why you think it had to be done in a day*. They had months to prepare the course a section at a time, just like they do for normal road maintenance. The could remove traffic islands, realign curbs, resurface, design and build the required barriers (which also realign the road) and pits. Of course they needed to repaint the road markings - they were still being used as roads before the race day. The day before they only needed to install the pre-built barriers.
* Perhaps it is because of your belief in late bronze age myths.