NO

Author Topic: Library to header correlation...  (Read 9126 times)

Offline Pelle

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1974
    • http://www.smorgasbordet.com
Library to header correlation...
« Reply #15 on: January 27, 2005, 06:19:43 pm »
Quote from: "ldblake"
Lets hope the 64bit system isn't just an add-on... it's been a long time since anything truly new came from MS and they're about due.  They've got lots of experience with the concept and the market now... cleaning up the mess and getting their act togeter is just about the only thing they haven't done.

I have been around long enough to remember the move from 16-bit to 32-bit Windows. Now that was useful - getting rid of the segmented memory architecture (having to lock a memory block to access it, then unlocking it so that Windows could move it around until the next time...), getting protected memory (so a crashing application didn't bring down the entire system), getting cool stuff like memory mapped files, and so on.

For compatibility reasons (easier to re-compile), a lot of "baggage" was kept around. This is why we still have stuff like LocalAlloc, GlobalAlloc, for example. Existing code will always be a factor - the costs of rewriting working applications, just because the operating system changes, is too high.

I havn't actually looked at 64-bit Windows, but I suspect there will be some new stuff, but mostly the things we already know and love/hate (take you pick).

Pelle
/Pelle

Anonymous

  • Guest
Library to header correlation...
« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2005, 08:27:12 pm »
Quote from: "Pelle"
I have been around long enough to remember the move from 16-bit to 32-bit Windows. Now that was useful - getting rid of the segmented memory architecture (having to lock a memory block to access it, then unlocking it so that Windows could move it around until the next time...), getting protected memory (so a crashing application didn't bring down the entire system), getting cool stuff like memory mapped files, and so on.


I was lucky, went straight from DOS to Win32.  But I still liked running win 3.1 the best.  It was fast, small and very easy to setup.  Win95 was a big improvement for programmers but a lot of security and stability issues surfaced.  What most people don't realize is that right up to NT4 windows still ran on 16 bit drivers and the hybrid nature of the system caused a lot of the problems.  Most of the win98 and ME users I worked with were resetting their computers 4 and 5 times a day.  WinNT cleared all that up by going to a fully 32 bit architecture and 2000 made it user friendly again.  Still, I hanker for the simplicity of the good ole DOS days when a programmer knew exactly what was available all the time.

Quote

For compatibility reasons (easier to re-compile), a lot of "baggage" was kept around. This is why we still have stuff like LocalAlloc, GlobalAlloc, for example. Existing code will always be a factor - the costs of rewriting working applications, just because the operating system changes, is too high.


Yep.  A LOT of baggage.  What they should have done instead of keeping all the 16bit dlls was to create a fully 32 bit system with a win 3.1 emulator for older programs.  Would have saved us all a lot of trouble.

Quote

I havn't actually looked at 64-bit Windows, but I suspect there will be some new stuff, but mostly the things we already know and love/hate (take you pick).
Pelle


Apparently the AMD64 is the favored CPU for the win64 (longhorn) platform and they are trying to keep 100% 32 bit compatibility as part of the distribution.  I've seen it on screen but haven't had the chance to climb inside yet... It is FAST, I'll give it that.  But, frankly, I'd rather dual boot or have to launch an emulator than see more hybrid code.

In any case, I rather suspect the 32 bit stuff will be around for a few years to come...  I still have customers running XTs with DOS 6 and win 3.1... oddly enough, they're the ones I almost never hear from....

Offline Pelle

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1974
    • http://www.smorgasbordet.com
Library to header correlation...
« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2005, 10:26:14 pm »
Quote from: "ldblake"
I was lucky, went straight from DOS to Win32.  But I still liked running win 3.1 the best.  It was fast, small and very easy to setup.  Win95 was a big improvement for programmers but a lot of security and stability issues surfaced.  What most people don't realize is that right up to NT4 windows still ran on 16 bit drivers and the hybrid nature of the system caused a lot of the problems.  Most of the win98 and ME users I worked with were resetting their computers 4 and 5 times a day.  WinNT cleared all that up by going to a fully 32 bit architecture and 2000 made it user friendly again.  Still, I hanker for the simplicity of the good ole DOS days when a programmer knew exactly what was available all the time.

Looking back, I really don't miss DOS, Windows 3.0 (yuck!), Windows 3.1 (better) and Windows NT 3.X.

Windows 95, Windows NT 4, at least had a user interface that made sense. Sure, you had to reboot Win95 5 times a day, but it was much better than 50 times a day - with Win 3.X. It affected normal users too, not just programmers. Too much trouble, too much support. Been there, done that, don't want to see it again...

Quote from: "ldblake"

Yep.  A LOT of baggage.  What they should have done instead of keeping all the 16bit dlls was to create a fully 32 bit system with a win 3.1 emulator for older programs.  Would have saved us all a lot of trouble.

Maybe. The fact that you could start your 32-bit journey with a simple re-compile of your 16-bit code (provided that you followed the guidlines) really simplified things. You could immediately get access to a more stable program, more memory and so on. Then you could gradually add more stuff - important if you try to maintain a large project...

Quote from: "ldblake"

Apparently the AMD64 is the favored CPU for the win64 (longhorn) platform and they are trying to keep 100% 32 bit compatibility as part of the distribution.

Well, it's the favored CPU right now. Didn't they have a Itanium version before? That didn't work out...

Quote from: "ldblake"

In any case, I rather suspect the 32 bit stuff will be around for a few years to come...  

I'm pretty sure it will be around for a long time. Less good reasons to upgrade this time. Win32 is a pretty stable platform, after all. Many people will probably run it as long as they can - "why fix it, if it ain't broken"?

Pelle
/Pelle

Anonymous

  • Guest
Library to header correlation...
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2005, 12:10:45 am »
Quote from: "Pelle"
Looking back, I really don't miss DOS, Windows 3.0 (yuck!), Windows 3.1 (better) and Windows NT 3.X.


Ok, I admit it, I'm a freak  :?  I still fire up an old Exidy Sorcerer from time to time and play with the 8 bit z-80 basic... cassette drives and all.  Even still own a p1 that runs win95 for "retro" testing.  

Seriously though...  I didn't mind win 3.1 and DOS 6.  I found it very easy to get along with.  Thing is not to tinker it to death.  Get it set up and leave it do it's thing.  Mind you the lack of built in uninstall was a real nuisance.

Quote

Windows 95, Windows NT 4, at least had a user interface that made sense. Sure, you had to reboot Win95 5 times a day, but it was much better than 50 times a day - with Win 3.X. It affected normal users too, not just programmers. Too much trouble, too much support. Been there, done that, don't want to see it again...


Awwww... you're no fun   :lol:

Quote

Maybe. The fact that you could start your 32-bit journey with a simple re-compile of your 16-bit code (provided that you followed the guidlines) really simplified things. You could immediately get access to a more stable program, more memory and so on. Then you could gradually add more stuff - important if you try to maintain a large project...


Yeah there was that.  I never did write for Win3.1, though.  I had something of a gap in my programming career as I got sidetracked for about 6 or 7 years in hardware.  Building custom high end systems (some of the first home theater PCs in fact... computer and data projector in a coffee table kinda stuff) was a bit of a money maker so I went that way for a while.  Just after the millenium I started drifting back into coding and made the big Delphi mistake.  My partner and I just recently closed down and retired... so it's back to hobby coding.  (Thanks mostly to your version of C and the excellent support you give, by the way)

Quote

Well, it's the favored CPU right now. Didn't they have a Itanium version before? That didn't work out...


Well, the skuttlebut I'm hearing over on this side of the pond is that the whole Itanium thing is something of a bust anyway.  P4s are running circles around them...  I rather think they'll end up being server chips and not much else.  AMD seems set to take the 64 bit market by storm.  Even better since they finally learned how to make a decent heat interface...  

I used to build AMD-XP systems (use one personally) and got really tired of the heat alarms going off all the time.  the problem was that mouting a heat sink on those little buttons was like balancing a barrel on a brick.  The mechanics of it were totally unstable and those silly foam rubber pads did nothing to help.  I finally solved the problem by using (are you ready for this) little bits of tire patch rubber on the corners of the chips to keep the thing steady.  But I didn't figure that out before we lost a ton of money on repeated service calls... everytime someone moved their computers around we ended up replacing the pads on their heatsinks.

Quote

I'm pretty sure it will be around for a long time. Less good reasons to upgrade this time. Win32 is a pretty stable platform, after all. Many people will probably run it as long as they can - "why fix it, if it ain't broken"?


This is true.  Win32 has evolved very nicely.  WinXP pretty much clobbered the instability problems and the faster cpus don't show up it's laziness the way older chips would.  Win2000 is still my platform of choice, it's fast, stable and more than a little fun to program for.  I've been using the same installation of win2k for almost 5 years now.  

I think I'll probably be at this for a while  :wink: