BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Database Screenshots Gallery Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 7d, 3h, 8m | CPU: 14% | MEM: 5669MB of 12287MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:00 pm 
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. :(


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:38 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:06 am

Posts
258
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!?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:08 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:37 pm

Posts
186

Location
Lincolnshire UK

Favourite OS
Neptune
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.

_________________
lol, internet


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:14 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:55 pm

Posts
549

Location
UK

Favourite OS
Windows NT 4.0
If this is true, I will be with XP for a long time...

_________________
My Website -
Ecclesia Semper Reformanda Est


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:35 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:05 am

Posts
146

Location
New York
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...


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:49 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm

Posts
1022

Location
The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"

Favourite OS
Rhapsody, BeOS
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...

_________________
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:04 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
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.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:23 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:53 pm

Posts
342

Location
Saint-Henri, Montréal, Québec

Favourite OS
Chicago (hometown pride)
M$ is just giving those Linux fanboys another reason to boast...
/goes LinuxMint


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:45 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm

Posts
1022

Location
The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"

Favourite OS
Rhapsody, BeOS
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.

_________________
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart


Top  Profile  WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2020

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS