My Vintage Dream PC

[Patrick Scheible]

Patrick Scheible wrote:

So what? It's still an app. Doesn't anybody realize that keeping
this distinction is important in design?

Lots of people realize the distinction is important. Unfortunately,
none of them were making design decisions for late versions of
Windows.

Peaked roofs are an important design feature for buildings. Buildings
with flat roofs always leak sooner. But I'm not going to look at a
flat-roofed building and say it has a peaked roof.

I can safely state that it's the _source_ of most of the bugs. Think
about the mindset of the developers. It is more important to keep
the monitor running. If the app kills the exec code, you have
security risks up the ying-yang. If the app is separated from
the exec code via UUOs, it cannot destroy the core image of the
exec.

Then you can keep the app bugs separated from the monitor bugs.
The app may die but the integrity of the rest of the system
(think file structure and networks) stays steady.

Windows NT and later does try to keep application crashes from
bringing down the whole OS. There is a barrier between user code and
the monitor. It's just that the GUI is on the monitor side of the
barrier.

-- Patrick

 

[The Real Andy]

Bill Leary wrote:
Patrick Scheible wrote:

Hi:

My vintage dream PC contains the most advanced motherboard [in terms
of ability to handle the highest processor speed of it's type as well
as maximum RAM capability] that contains the most amount of 16-bit ISA
slots but does not contain any PCI or other non ISA also. It does not
even have any EISA or SCSI.

Here are the other specs of my vintage dream PC

1. OSes: Windows 3.0 [not 3.0a, just 3.0] and the most advanced
version of DOS fully compatible with the other softwares/hardwares in
my vintage dream PC.
[snip]

Windows 3.0?? More like my vintage nightmare PC.
Dammit! Windows is not, I repeat, NOT an OS.
For the version under discussion, yes, this is/was pretty much true.

Today, and for some time, it actually was/is an OS.
Not really. What do you think the terms NT and Vista exist?

Because "Windows" by itself is too vague to trademark. (And also to
designate specific releases.)

Monitor releases which is not the app.

The monitor and the interface are the same for late versions of
Windows. They are released together, sold together, and used together.

I don't care if it's inseparable; that was a battle that Cutler
lost. Allowing the app to have hard wired roots in the monitor is,
probably, The source of all its bugs.

Oh, Windows has so *many* bugs, I'd hate to ascribe all of them to
just *one* of its design flaws...

I would be interested in hearing from you an OS that is free from
bugs.

 

[Peter Flass]

Patrick Scheible wrote:

Bill Leary wrote:
Patrick Scheible wrote:

Hi:

My vintage dream PC contains the most advanced motherboard [in terms
of ability to handle the highest processor speed of it's type as well
as maximum RAM capability] that contains the most amount of 16-bit ISA
slots but does not contain any PCI or other non ISA also. It does not
even have any EISA or SCSI.

Here are the other specs of my vintage dream PC

1. OSes: Windows 3.0 [not 3.0a, just 3.0] and the most advanced
version of DOS fully compatible with the other softwares/hardwares in
my vintage dream PC.
[snip]

Windows 3.0?? More like my vintage nightmare PC.
Dammit! Windows is not, I repeat, NOT an OS.
For the version under discussion, yes, this is/was pretty much true.

Today, and for some time, it actually was/is an OS.
Not really. What do you think the terms NT and Vista exist?
Because "Windows" by itself is too vague to trademark. (And also to
designate specific releases.)
Monitor releases which is not the app.

The monitor and the interface are the same for late versions of
Windows. They are released together, sold together, and used together.

Note that I'm not saying a thing about whether that's good or not. Or
even if it's good or not.

Windows is the app.
In Windows 3.x, 95, 98, and ME, yes. In Windows NT, XP, and Vista,
the windows interface is inseparable from any other part of the OS.
I don't care if it's inseparable; that was a battle that Cutler
lost. Allowing the app to have hard wired roots in the monitor is,
probably, The source of all its bugs.

Oh, Windows has so *many* bugs, I'd hate to ascribe all of them to
just *one* of its design flaws...

I would be interested in hearing from you an OS that is free from
bugs.

This is s specious argument. Since no OS is perfect, therefore all are
equally buggy. Obviously some are more buggy than others which were
designed for reliability, not for flash.

 

[FatBytestard]

Note that we don't know which sandbox is theirs. This is getting
crossposted to sci.electronics.design, alt.folklore.computers,
alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt.

Cranium is a stalker. I've been here for years. He has not.

He has just recently hunted the groups I frequent up, and posting
childish rants. Look back and see he has not been here long at all.
He belongs in the kook group.

 

[Patrick Scheible]

I would be interested in hearing from you an OS that is free from
bugs.

Of course there isn't any sufficiently complex software that is free
from bugs. No person is free from sin, either, but that doesn't mean
Charles Manson and Mother Theresa are moral equivalents.

-- Patrick

 

[jmfbahciv]

Note that we don't know which sandbox is theirs. This is getting
crossposted to sci.electronics.design, alt.folklore.computers,
alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt.

Doesn't matter. This is about computers and this kind of bullshit
was never tolerated.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Lots of people realize the distinction is important. Unfortunately,
none of them were making design decisions for late versions of
Windows.

Thus, it is good to talk through to any who may not have been trained
by real OS people.

Peaked roofs are an important design feature for buildings. Buildings
with flat roofs always leak sooner. But I'm not going to look at a
flat-roofed building and say it has a peaked roof.

If the building has only seen flat rooves and only worked with
people who are determined to build flat rooves, then they will
never know that there is a more secure method of building
a roof.

Windows NT and later does try to keep application crashes from
bringing down the whole OS. There is a barrier between user code and
the monitor. It's just that the GUI is on the monitor side of the
barrier.

Which is a huge security hole and a major design flaw. Even Cutler
knew this wasn't a Good Thing....but he lost that battle.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

It doesn't matter Dave. Archie will never play in any sandbox because
cats keep covering him with the sand.

It appears that you are the one who cannot learn.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Of course there isn't any sufficiently complex software that is free
from bugs. No person is free from sin, either, but that doesn't mean
Charles Manson and Mother Theresa are moral equivalents.

And then there are the bugs which are another man's features.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

A couple posts ago, you were having bathroom humor conversations with
the retarded, stalking bastard, so you are part of the problem the idiot
has.

You cannot read either.

Make up your mind. Do you have a brain or are you just like the rest?

Oh, honey. You don't really want to start one with me.

/BAH

 

[Richard Cranium]

Cranium is a stalker. I've been here for years. He has not.

He has just recently hunted the groups I frequent up, and posting
childish rants. Look back and see he has not been here long at all.
He belongs in the kook group.

Well, well Archie, that paranoia is really taking over isn't it?
A quick check shows the initial emergence of a few of your older nyms
in Usenet as follows:

Spurious Response - June, 2007
Archimedes' Lever - August, 2007
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt - November, 2007

A sampling of your postings back then cannot be distinguished from
your current drivel with the use of the term "retard" and a generally
abrasive, distasteful persona. You've been an asshole for a while,
haven't you, Archie? And let's not ignore your frequent nymshifting.

Michael A. Terrell compiled the following admittedly incomplete list
of Archie's nyms:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AnimalMagic <[email protected]>
Archimedes' Lever <[email protected]>
Bart! <B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Nig**!.org>
Bungalow Bill <[email protected]>
Capt. Cave Man <[email protected]>
ChairmanOfTheBored <[email protected]>
Corbomite Carrie <[email protected]>
DarkMatter <[email protected]>
Do I really need to say? <[email protected]>
Dorothy with the Red Shoes on <[email protected]>

Dr. Heywood R. Floyd <[email protected]>
FatBytestard <[email protected]>
FunkyPunk FieldEffectTrollsistor <[email protected]>
FunkyPunk FieldEffectTrollsistor <[email protected]>
GoldIntermetallicEmbrittlement<[email protected]>
HiggsField <[email protected]>
Hattori Hanzo <[email protected]>
Herbert John \Jackie\" Gleason" <[email protected]>
HiggsField <[email protected]>
IAmTheSlime<[email protected]>

ItsASecretDummy <[email protected]>
LargeMarge <[email protected]>
MadManMoon <[email protected]>
MakeNoAttemptToAdjustYourSet <[email protected]>
[email protected]<[email protected]>
Mr.Eko <[email protected]>
Mr. Haney <[email protected]>
Mycelium <[email protected]>
Neanderthal <[email protected]>
Phat Bytestard <[email protected]>

RoyLFuchs <[email protected]>
SkyPilot <[email protected]>
SoothSayer <[email protected]>
Spurious Response <[email protected]>
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt <[email protected]>
Sum Ting Wong
<[email protected]>
SuspendedInGaffa <[email protected]>
The Great Attractor
<[email protected]>
TheKraken <[email protected]>
"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>

UltimatePatriot <[email protected]>
UpGrade <[email protected]>
ValleyGirl <[email protected]>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Whenever you take a public flogging in one identity, you shift to
another - hence so many nyms. However, your style always gives you
away. You cannot hide Archie - your lowlife approach is
uncontrollable and always shines through. Oh, in case you were
wondering, Richard Cranium first appeared on Usenet in June, 2003.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

Oh, honey. You don't really want to start one with me.

/BAH

This from the twit that took 15 years to decide that accessing the
Internet via anything other than a text based interface was a "security
threat".

Didn't you NOT use a GUI for years because of your fears?

"Start one with you"? Get off your high horse, ya ditzy ****. I have
seen your pathetic crap for years here and in the physics group.

You are the big OS expert... that isn't one.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

Well, well Archie, that paranoia is really taking over isn't it?
A quick check shows the initial emergence of a few of your older nyms
in Usenet as follows:

Spurious Response - June, 2007
Archimedes' Lever - August, 2007
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt - November, 2007

Except that in the past, I did not archive, you retarded twit.

You'll likely have to do some research to find out what that one means
too.

So none of your baby bullshit, stalking retard crap will be valid, not
that any of it ever was.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

If he doesn't have a brain, how can he make up his mind? This is a
deep philosophical dilemma. Think about it.

John

Not nearly as hard since he is a she.

I know that you might have a problem with the humor in that one.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

Whenever you take a public flogging in one identity, you shift to
another - hence so many nyms.

No. I use many at any given time and choose whichever I want whenever
I want.

There is no hiding, and there is no attempt at hiding, you retarded
****.

However, your style always gives you
away. You cannot hide Archie - your lowlife approach is
uncontrollable and always shines through. Oh, in case you were
wondering, Richard Cranium first appeared on Usenet in June, 2003.

I have been here since 96', dumbfucktard Cranium.

 

[jmfbahciv]

This from the twit that took 15 years to decide that accessing the
Internet via anything other than a text based interface was a "security
threat".

Didn't you NOT use a GUI for years because of your fears?

"Start one with you"? Get off your high horse, ya ditzy ****. I have
seen your pathetic crap for years here and in the physics group.

You are the big OS expert... that isn't one.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

It wasn't originally designed that way. Cutler was adamant to make it
a "small kernel" OS with all the dangerous stuff in protected space.
The first version of NT was like that. His enemies inside Microsoft
then moved in and broke it.

http://www.amazon.com/Show-Stopper-Breakneck-Generation-Microsoft/dp/0029356717

It had nothing to do with "enemies". It had to do with a mindset and
not having a proper development infrastructure in place before mass
shipments.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Bill Leary wrote:
Patrick Scheible wrote:

Hi:

My vintage dream PC contains the most advanced motherboard [in terms
of ability to handle the highest processor speed of it's type as well
as maximum RAM capability] that contains the most amount of 16-bit ISA
slots but does not contain any PCI or other non ISA also. It does not
even have any EISA or SCSI.

Here are the other specs of my vintage dream PC

1. OSes: Windows 3.0 [not 3.0a, just 3.0] and the most advanced
version of DOS fully compatible with the other softwares/hardwares in
my vintage dream PC.
[snip]

Windows 3.0?? More like my vintage nightmare PC.
Dammit! Windows is not, I repeat, NOT an OS.
For the version under discussion, yes, this is/was pretty much true.

Today, and for some time, it actually was/is an OS.
Not really. What do you think the terms NT and Vista exist?
Because "Windows" by itself is too vague to trademark. (And also to
designate specific releases.)

Monitor releases which is not the app.

Note that I'm not saying a thing about whether that's good or not. Or
even if it's good or not.

Windows is the app.
In Windows 3.x, 95, 98, and ME, yes. In Windows NT, XP, and Vista,
the windows interface is inseparable from any other part of the OS.

I don't care if it's inseparable; that was a battle that Cutler
lost. Allowing the app to have hard wired roots in the monitor is,
probably, The source of all its bugs.

Putting the interface in the kernel is one of its design flaws.

That's because their developers didn't know how to do app code.
They were so used to having their way with putting app code
into the exec, that they thought they had to do the same with
VMS. that's one of the hard and fast rules that DEC didn't
tend to do....allow any old user mode code have direct read/write
access to exec code. That's why the bit gods invented UUOs and
CALLIs.


/BAH

OK VMS man, just what the heck are UUOs and CALLIs?

A sane method to ask the exec (or kernel) for services and/or
data.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Patrick Scheible wrote:

Bill Leary wrote:
Patrick Scheible wrote:

Hi:

My vintage dream PC contains the most advanced motherboard [in terms
of ability to handle the highest processor speed of it's type as well
as maximum RAM capability] that contains the most amount of 16-bit ISA
slots but does not contain any PCI or other non ISA also. It does not
even have any EISA or SCSI.

Here are the other specs of my vintage dream PC

1. OSes: Windows 3.0 [not 3.0a, just 3.0] and the most advanced
version of DOS fully compatible with the other softwares/hardwares in
my vintage dream PC.
[snip]

Windows 3.0?? More like my vintage nightmare PC.
Dammit! Windows is not, I repeat, NOT an OS.
For the version under discussion, yes, this is/was pretty much true.

Today, and for some time, it actually was/is an OS.
Not really. What do you think the terms NT and Vista exist?
Because "Windows" by itself is too vague to trademark. (And also to
designate specific releases.)
Monitor releases which is not the app.

The monitor and the interface are the same for late versions of
Windows. They are released together, sold together, and used together.

Note that I'm not saying a thing about whether that's good or not. Or
even if it's good or not.

Windows is the app.
In Windows 3.x, 95, 98, and ME, yes. In Windows NT, XP, and Vista,
the windows interface is inseparable from any other part of the OS.
I don't care if it's inseparable; that was a battle that Cutler
lost. Allowing the app to have hard wired roots in the monitor is,
probably, The source of all its bugs.

Oh, Windows has so *many* bugs, I'd hate to ascribe all of them to
just *one* of its design flaws...

Putting the interface in the kernel is one of its design flaws.
That's because their developers didn't know how to do app code.
They were so used to having their way with putting app code
into the exec, that they thought they had to do the same with
VMS. that's one of the hard and fast rules that DEC didn't
tend to do....allow any old user mode code have direct read/write
access to exec code. That's why the bit gods invented UUOs and
CALLIs.

The PC world did not learn from the mini and mainframe world very
much. Sacrifices that were arguably necessary to make usable systems
on affordable PCs in the late 70s-early 80s continued to be made in
the 90s and even today, when PCs are easily powerful enough for
separation between user code and monitor code.

The sacrifices weren't necessary even in the earliest days of PCs. The
problem was that Microsoft and Intel were ignorant of the state of
computing, out of the mainstream, and they did a lot of stupid stuff.

MS's tradeoffs were based on distribution of software. All
implementation and design decisions will be very different.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Another newbie. I have been reading since 1983, clear back when there
barely was USENET.

I was writing and distributing code so you kids could play with
transporting bits over wires .

/BAH