BetaArchive
https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/

Will Microsoft Put The Colonel in the Kernel?
https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2140
Page 2 of 2

Author:  bishop7 [ Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

I would then ditch Windows completely if they would go through with this. Its a pity that they would go so low to even consider this. :(

Author:  Deathwarder [ Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:38 am ]
Post subject: 

Well, take a look at the spring update for the xbox 360, there are adds in the marketplace, ads on the xbox live tab, ads in the media and games tabs. Dammit I pay $5 a month for xbox live and they still give me ads!?

Author:  Koptor [ Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:08 am ]
Post subject: 

I can actually see the relevance of this.

From the way I see it, this is to verify whether or not ads are actually being viewed/clicked through legitimately on websites, therefore aiding ad publishers to see whether views/clicks are genuine, therefore helping them calculate the ad revenue that should be paid to the webmaster. Good news for the ad agencies, bad news for everyone else.

Author:  compact-mac [ Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

If this is true, I will be with XP for a long time...

Author:  casablanca [ Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:35 am ]
Post subject: 

What the hell is Microsoft thinking? Are they trying to Googlefy Windows?
Their reputation isn't that good at the moment; they need to change this, not make people hate them more... So many things changed when Jim Allchin left...

Author:  Frozenport [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:49 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Frozenport wrote:
Windows 95 wasn't DOS based it was just made to be very DOS compatible with the emulator integrated. Windows 9x was at its core designed to run Portable Executables.

I call BS. Windows 95 didn't have a DOS emulator. I didn't need one, as it was built on top of DOS. Since DOS was already loaded, all was necessary was to load the DOS program to memory and execute it in a VM86 (a virtual 8086 task running in protected mode), just like it was since Windows/386. Windows 95's executable loader is nothing more than an updated version of Win32s.

You can infact specify how you want to emulate dos... It emulates the OS, not the programs (its not a full comptuer emulator) -=> If I can recal correctly the monitor code handels everything except the deadly int13...

Author:  ppc_digger [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:04 am ]
Post subject: 

Frozenport wrote:
Quote:
Frozenport wrote:
Windows 95 wasn't DOS based it was just made to be very DOS compatible with the emulator integrated. Windows 9x was at its core designed to run Portable Executables.

I call BS. Windows 95 didn't have a DOS emulator. I didn't need one, as it was built on top of DOS. Since DOS was already loaded, all was necessary was to load the DOS program to memory and execute it in a VM86 (a virtual 8086 task running in protected mode), just like it was since Windows/386. Windows 95's executable loader is nothing more than an updated version of Win32s.

You can infact specify how you want to emulate dos... It emulates the OS, not the programs (its not a full comptuer emulator) -=> If I can recal correctly the monitor code handels everything except the deadly int13...

It doesn't emulate the OS, and it doesn't emulate the CPU. The OS (DOS) is running underneath, and VM86 tasks can take advantage of that. If you believe Windows 95 emulates DOS, then you'll surely believe EMM386 contains a full DOS (and BIOS, for that matter) emulator as well, as it runs on top of DOS and allows DOS applications to run in VM86 tasks.

Author:  AnDrEwP182 [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:23 am ]
Post subject: 

M$ is just giving those Linux fanboys another reason to boast...
/goes LinuxMint

Author:  Frozenport [ Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:45 am ]
Post subject: 

ppc_digger wrote:
Frozenport wrote:
Quote:
Frozenport wrote:
Windows 95 wasn't DOS based it was just made to be very DOS compatible with the emulator integrated. Windows 9x was at its core designed to run Portable Executables.

I call BS. Windows 95 didn't have a DOS emulator. I didn't need one, as it was built on top of DOS. Since DOS was already loaded, all was necessary was to load the DOS program to memory and execute it in a VM86 (a virtual 8086 task running in protected mode), just like it was since Windows/386. Windows 95's executable loader is nothing more than an updated version of Win32s.

You can infact specify how you want to emulate dos... It emulates the OS, not the programs (its not a full comptuer emulator) -=> If I can recal correctly the monitor code handels everything except the deadly int13...

It doesn't emulate the OS, and it doesn't emulate the CPU. The OS (DOS) is running underneath, and VM86 tasks can take advantage of that. If you believe Windows 95 emulates DOS, then you'll surely believe EMM386 contains a full DOS (and BIOS, for that matter) emulator as well, as it runs on top of DOS and allows DOS applications to run in VM86 tasks.


Well I would asssume we are working in dementionless space?

Well the BIOS is shadowed...

Anywhichway, the programs that call dos operations like the forementioned hd write, go through the DOS emulator's processing and then are converted into instructions that Windows will understand... The ASM code is still executed on the CPU but the calls are emulated because, in some cases, the same calls numbers are reserved in Windows and DOS (yet in some cases have different funcitons), but the DOS calls go through an emulator that is able to convert them into native Windows 32 code...

While a majority of the code does infact execute without being changed, Windows handels the various calls and interupts. Thus, Windows by handeling the DOS calls and such is able to act as an emulator. It is not its native function because some of the calls that Windows has are named the same as DOS calls, but serve a different funtion.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/