New Windows APIs
-
Pursuant to all the talk today about native code, I thought I'd mention that we have a spreadsheet that lists all the new Windows API functions that will be released with Windows Vista. This spreadsheet is in the same download[^] that contains the Help file (.CHM) of the Windows Vista Developer Story[^]. Tom Archer (blog) Program Manager MSDN Online (Windows Vista and Visual C++) MICROSOFT
Nice!!! :omg: 7125. I really need to make the time to get that beta installed. As much as I'm looking forward to Vista I might as well download it and give it a run...:cool:
Overheard in clients: Question: "So country music doesn't make you want to get down and boogie?" Response: "No, it makes me want to clean off the bottom of my shoe." I just have to say that's about one of the best statements regarding country music I've ever heard. :cool:
-
Pursuant to all the talk today about native code, I thought I'd mention that we have a spreadsheet that lists all the new Windows API functions that will be released with Windows Vista. This spreadsheet is in the same download[^] that contains the Help file (.CHM) of the Windows Vista Developer Story[^]. Tom Archer (blog) Program Manager MSDN Online (Windows Vista and Visual C++) MICROSOFT
Sweet!
-
Pursuant to all the talk today about native code, I thought I'd mention that we have a spreadsheet that lists all the new Windows API functions that will be released with Windows Vista. This spreadsheet is in the same download[^] that contains the Help file (.CHM) of the Windows Vista Developer Story[^]. Tom Archer (blog) Program Manager MSDN Online (Windows Vista and Visual C++) MICROSOFT
What's with this (insanely annoying) trend of packing up one or two files as EXE's? In the context of the new security-conscious Microsoft, how does this make any sense? The only thing it achieves is showing the EULA beforehand but are they really so paranoid now that they need to show a EULA before allowing you to *copy* a file to your hard disk?
0 bottles of beer on the wall, 0 bottles of beer, you take 1 down, pass it around, 4294967295 bottles of beer on the wall. Awasu 2.2 [^]: A free RSS/Atom feed reader with support for Code Project.
-
What's with this (insanely annoying) trend of packing up one or two files as EXE's? In the context of the new security-conscious Microsoft, how does this make any sense? The only thing it achieves is showing the EULA beforehand but are they really so paranoid now that they need to show a EULA before allowing you to *copy* a file to your hard disk?
0 bottles of beer on the wall, 0 bottles of beer, you take 1 down, pass it around, 4294967295 bottles of beer on the wall. Awasu 2.2 [^]: A free RSS/Atom feed reader with support for Code Project.
#1) The EXE is digitally signed by Microsoft for the specific purpose of enabling you to see that it's a safe file to run #2) What's the difference between a zip fie and an exe? Either one enables you to download a smaller file and the exe is something you can execute without having to have specific unzipping software. #3) It should have been an MSI because that would allow uninstall via the Conrol Panel. I personally made the mistake of creating an EXE. However, now people have direct links to that EXE so we're stuck with it. #4) For things like documentation, EULAs aren't nearly as important as they are for executables and code. However, it's better to have a general rule that everything we put in the download center have a EULA. Every large company (IBM, Sun, etc.) also requires this for all its downloads. Tom Archer (blog) Program Manager MSDN Online (Windows Vista and Visual C++) MICROSOFT
-
#1) The EXE is digitally signed by Microsoft for the specific purpose of enabling you to see that it's a safe file to run #2) What's the difference between a zip fie and an exe? Either one enables you to download a smaller file and the exe is something you can execute without having to have specific unzipping software. #3) It should have been an MSI because that would allow uninstall via the Conrol Panel. I personally made the mistake of creating an EXE. However, now people have direct links to that EXE so we're stuck with it. #4) For things like documentation, EULAs aren't nearly as important as they are for executables and code. However, it's better to have a general rule that everything we put in the download center have a EULA. Every large company (IBM, Sun, etc.) also requires this for all its downloads. Tom Archer (blog) Program Manager MSDN Online (Windows Vista and Visual C++) MICROSOFT
Tom Archer - MSFT wrote:
#1) The EXE is digitally signed by Microsoft for the specific purpose of enabling you to see that it's a safe file to run
I don't want to have to run an EXE just to look at a document. Even if it's signed since I have to faff around verifying the signature. And there's no indication that it's signed - all we've got is a link to an EXE. And your average Joe won't even know what "digitally signed" means, let alone how to verify it. Jeez, even I don't know how to verify it :|
Tom Archer - MSFT wrote:
#3) It should have been an MSI because that would allow uninstall via the Conrol Panel. I personally made the mistake of creating an EXE. However, now people have direct links to that EXE so we're stuck with it.
Good grief! I don't want even *more* crap in my Control Panel, just to look at a document. I downloaded a Channel 9 video recently that was the same thing - it's insanity to start filling up the Control Panel with entries for things like this.
Tom Archer - MSFT wrote:
#4) For things like documentation, EULAs aren't nearly as important as they are for executables and code.
So why do it? Wouldn't it better to make it available via a download page that provides the real link plus the EULA, etc., maybe one that I have to agree to to get the real download URL. The bottom line is that I don't want to run an EXE just to look at a CHM, and I definitely don't want a Control Panel entry for it! :rolleyes:
0 bottles of beer on the wall, 0 bottles of beer, you take 1 down, pass it around, 4294967295 bottles of beer on the wall. Awasu 2.2 [^]: A free RSS/Atom feed reader with support for Code Project.
-
Tom Archer - MSFT wrote:
#1) The EXE is digitally signed by Microsoft for the specific purpose of enabling you to see that it's a safe file to run
I don't want to have to run an EXE just to look at a document. Even if it's signed since I have to faff around verifying the signature. And there's no indication that it's signed - all we've got is a link to an EXE. And your average Joe won't even know what "digitally signed" means, let alone how to verify it. Jeez, even I don't know how to verify it :|
Tom Archer - MSFT wrote:
#3) It should have been an MSI because that would allow uninstall via the Conrol Panel. I personally made the mistake of creating an EXE. However, now people have direct links to that EXE so we're stuck with it.
Good grief! I don't want even *more* crap in my Control Panel, just to look at a document. I downloaded a Channel 9 video recently that was the same thing - it's insanity to start filling up the Control Panel with entries for things like this.
Tom Archer - MSFT wrote:
#4) For things like documentation, EULAs aren't nearly as important as they are for executables and code.
So why do it? Wouldn't it better to make it available via a download page that provides the real link plus the EULA, etc., maybe one that I have to agree to to get the real download URL. The bottom line is that I don't want to run an EXE just to look at a CHM, and I definitely don't want a Control Panel entry for it! :rolleyes:
0 bottles of beer on the wall, 0 bottles of beer, you take 1 down, pass it around, 4294967295 bottles of beer on the wall. Awasu 2.2 [^]: A free RSS/Atom feed reader with support for Code Project.
Remember that you're speaking as an individual. As a large company, we have to look after millions of customers and many of them - especially large corporations - demand that we create a digitally signed file as the delivery mechanism for our files. Personally, I think it's a pretty low price to pay. Isn't the bigger issue that you're getting the information you need - not that you have to click a couple of dialogs to do it? Tom Archer (blog) Program Manager MSDN Online (Windows Vista and Visual C++) MICROSOFT
-
Remember that you're speaking as an individual. As a large company, we have to look after millions of customers and many of them - especially large corporations - demand that we create a digitally signed file as the delivery mechanism for our files. Personally, I think it's a pretty low price to pay. Isn't the bigger issue that you're getting the information you need - not that you have to click a couple of dialogs to do it? Tom Archer (blog) Program Manager MSDN Online (Windows Vista and Visual C++) MICROSOFT
Tom Archer - MSFT wrote:
As a large company, we have to look after millions of customers and many of them - especially large corporations - demand that we create a digitally signed file as the delivery mechanism for our files.
So why not just sign the CHM?
Tom Archer - MSFT wrote:
I think it's a pretty low price to pay.
It's not having to click on the dialog that concerns me. Security is about risk-mitigation, reducing the attack surface. I don't care if it was downloaded from secure.microsoft.com, has been digitally signed and blessed by the Pope; having to run an EXE simply to be able to look at a CHM is just plain un-necessary. [edit] Revisiting my point about Joe Average, how can we be expected to be able to educate non-technical users about the dangers of running EXE's if Microsoft themselves are distributing documents as EXE's? It just makes the job that much harder. You can just imagine a tech support guy trying to explain to his users the dangers of launching email attachments: "Don't do it! Running EXE's is really dangerous and will totally hose your machine. Here's Microsoft's recommended best practices document but, um, it's an EXE so you're going to have to launch it." :rolleyes: [/edit]
0 bottles of beer on the wall, 0 bottles of beer, you take 1 down, pass it around, 4294967295 bottles of beer on the wall. Awasu 2.2 [^]: A free RSS/Atom feed reader with support for Code Project.
-
What's with this (insanely annoying) trend of packing up one or two files as EXE's? In the context of the new security-conscious Microsoft, how does this make any sense? The only thing it achieves is showing the EULA beforehand but are they really so paranoid now that they need to show a EULA before allowing you to *copy* a file to your hard disk?
0 bottles of beer on the wall, 0 bottles of beer, you take 1 down, pass it around, 4294967295 bottles of beer on the wall. Awasu 2.2 [^]: A free RSS/Atom feed reader with support for Code Project.
Almost every single (MSDN related) .exe from Microsoft is a compressed zip file. If you use winzip you can simply right-click and extract the contents to a folder of the .exe files name. I'm totally X| about .exe files from Microsoft but so long as they keep the trend of them being self-executing zip files that are extractable it's a small thing to me.
Overheard in clients: Question: "So country music doesn't make you want to get down and boogie?" Response: "No, it makes me want to clean off the bottom of my shoe." I just have to say that's about one of the best statements regarding country music I've ever heard. :cool:
-
#1) The EXE is digitally signed by Microsoft for the specific purpose of enabling you to see that it's a safe file to run #2) What's the difference between a zip fie and an exe? Either one enables you to download a smaller file and the exe is something you can execute without having to have specific unzipping software. #3) It should have been an MSI because that would allow uninstall via the Conrol Panel. I personally made the mistake of creating an EXE. However, now people have direct links to that EXE so we're stuck with it. #4) For things like documentation, EULAs aren't nearly as important as they are for executables and code. However, it's better to have a general rule that everything we put in the download center have a EULA. Every large company (IBM, Sun, etc.) also requires this for all its downloads. Tom Archer (blog) Program Manager MSDN Online (Windows Vista and Visual C++) MICROSOFT
You might want to point out it's a self-extracting zip and anyone with WinZip can right-click it and extract to a directory of the .exe files name. I've yet to run into an MSDN download that could not be handled in that way (unless it has an .MSI inside of it and if I ever run across something to unpack .msi's by hand I'm there). - Rex
Overheard in clients: Question: "So country music doesn't make you want to get down and boogie?" Response: "No, it makes me want to clean off the bottom of my shoe." I just have to say that's about one of the best statements regarding country music I've ever heard. :cool:
-
#1) The EXE is digitally signed by Microsoft for the specific purpose of enabling you to see that it's a safe file to run #2) What's the difference between a zip fie and an exe? Either one enables you to download a smaller file and the exe is something you can execute without having to have specific unzipping software. #3) It should have been an MSI because that would allow uninstall via the Conrol Panel. I personally made the mistake of creating an EXE. However, now people have direct links to that EXE so we're stuck with it. #4) For things like documentation, EULAs aren't nearly as important as they are for executables and code. However, it's better to have a general rule that everything we put in the download center have a EULA. Every large company (IBM, Sun, etc.) also requires this for all its downloads. Tom Archer (blog) Program Manager MSDN Online (Windows Vista and Visual C++) MICROSOFT
#1) - I click on the link, and select "Open from this location" - EXE asks me for a location to save the data - I browse to d:\download\dev\ and decide that it should go into a sub directory 'vistainfo' - I open explorer and browse to d:\download\dev SUCKS: there is no way to create the folder inside the dialog, and there is no way to transfer my current location to the explorer window - I create the folder - I am anal about having few windows open, so I close explorer (BAD IDEA) - I have no way to refresh the "Select target folder", so I - close the browsae dialog, open it again, browse to my target location AGAIN - Extract the data (whew!) - copy the target path - open explorer - paste the target path Now I know that there is a shorter way (browse to dev, append the 'vistainfo' directly), but that's how it works for me. #2) While unzippers share the same "after your data is extracted, locate it yourself" misfeat, they are OK with temporary files (click, "Run", click "use eval version", double click file you want to see) #3) PLEASE NO. It is information for developers, who should be able find their files without a start menu link, delete them if they don't need them, and have big enough disks if they forget about having them. My start menu is already cluttered enough as is, and the Windows Uninstall Dialog is yet another usability nightmare. social disclaimer: Thanks for the announcement, interesting information - you give us the feeling of being nurtured directly by the queen bee ;) I'm just doing my good citizen duty of giving feedback. Reason (1) is good enough to send exes, the packaging needs work, though.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Almost every single (MSDN related) .exe from Microsoft is a compressed zip file. If you use winzip you can simply right-click and extract the contents to a folder of the .exe files name. I'm totally X| about .exe files from Microsoft but so long as they keep the trend of them being self-executing zip files that are extractable it's a small thing to me.
Overheard in clients: Question: "So country music doesn't make you want to get down and boogie?" Response: "No, it makes me want to clean off the bottom of my shoe." I just have to say that's about one of the best statements regarding country music I've ever heard. :cool:
code-frog wrote:
but so long as they keep the trend of them being self-executing zip files that are extractable it's a small thing to me.
I agree. Kinda of a shame that a thread about 7,000 new APIs to help us do our jobs as devs has been hijacked over an issue that the legal dept madates we do. I would think the focus would be on the coolness of the APIs and not having to click thorugh a few dialogs to get the information on them. :sigh: Oh well. Tom Archer (blog) Program Manager MSDN Online (Windows Vista and Visual C++) MICROSOFT
-
code-frog wrote:
but so long as they keep the trend of them being self-executing zip files that are extractable it's a small thing to me.
I agree. Kinda of a shame that a thread about 7,000 new APIs to help us do our jobs as devs has been hijacked over an issue that the legal dept madates we do. I would think the focus would be on the coolness of the APIs and not having to click thorugh a few dialogs to get the information on them. :sigh: Oh well. Tom Archer (blog) Program Manager MSDN Online (Windows Vista and Visual C++) MICROSOFT
You know in your position you are going to catch the extreme of two reactions criticism or butt kissing. Some people will want to shine Tom Archer until the cows come home and some people (those who have known you for a while) will consider you their personal path into Microsoft. I personally think it's cool as hell that we have a CP member at Microsoft and in a position to really help keep us informed. It's not something I take for granted. You were at CP first and while you are at Microsoft now they won't be able to take the CP out of you.:cool: This place just affects people like that. Also remember (and I know you know all of this, gosh you've been doing this longer than I've been able to drive a car) you are mostly going to hear complaints. Like just about everything you never hear when you do something right but you always hear when you tick someone off. It's human nature. I'm just glad you drop us the information you do when you have the time to do it and that's not an effort to shine Tom Archer it's just a thank you for taking the time. I know many here appreciate it. Now I just need my new house to get finished so I can be reunited with my lab and I can load Vista and check this stuff out. I think it all is pretty cool. But after spending a year working on Linux and 6 months on a mac, Windows is *VERY* exciting by comparison. hehehehehehehehehe 7000 new API's is a bit mind blowing to me. I'm stoked to see Vista but I'm even more stoked to see the Vista that's been refined in about 1 or 2 years. Good stuff. I wish I could get back to Win32 but I kind of think the web is the future so I'm putting my money there. Man! I'm rambling now. I'm hitting the rack... Have a good night Tom and thanks for the information.:rose: - Rex
Overheard in clients: Question: "So country music doesn't make you want to get down and boogie?" Response: "No, it makes me want to clean off the bottom of my shoe." I just have to say that's about one of the best statements regarding country music I've ever heard. :cool:
-
Pursuant to all the talk today about native code, I thought I'd mention that we have a spreadsheet that lists all the new Windows API functions that will be released with Windows Vista. This spreadsheet is in the same download[^] that contains the Help file (.CHM) of the Windows Vista Developer Story[^]. Tom Archer (blog) Program Manager MSDN Online (Windows Vista and Visual C++) MICROSOFT
Thank you very much for sharing this information. :rose: But now i am very confused. In all the discussions here at CP and many other resourses, it is said that Win32 is now in legacy mode and any new API being added in Vista will be managed. But in the list you've provided, there are tons of new "C" style functions being added into the WIN32 dlls. Now, why people are saying that Win32 is in legacy mode ? Imtiaz
-
Pursuant to all the talk today about native code, I thought I'd mention that we have a spreadsheet that lists all the new Windows API functions that will be released with Windows Vista. This spreadsheet is in the same download[^] that contains the Help file (.CHM) of the Windows Vista Developer Story[^]. Tom Archer (blog) Program Manager MSDN Online (Windows Vista and Visual C++) MICROSOFT
Tom Archer - MSFT wrote:
Pursuant to all the talk today about native code, I thought I'd mention that we have a spreadsheet that lists all the new Windows API functions that will be released with Windows Vista. This spreadsheet is in the same download[^] that contains the Help file (.CHM) of the Windows Vista Developer Story[^].
yeah sure it's about the native code discussion... you're just trying to make me guilty about trying to add the OpenGL back in after the announcement that Windows was trying to drop it except through 3rd party ICD. ;) ;) Sorry to add more work on you folks. :) kinda ;) I gave you a 5, thanks for the info. :) _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) -- modified at 4:08 Sunday 26th March, 2006
-
Thank you very much for sharing this information. :rose: But now i am very confused. In all the discussions here at CP and many other resourses, it is said that Win32 is now in legacy mode and any new API being added in Vista will be managed. But in the list you've provided, there are tons of new "C" style functions being added into the WIN32 dlls. Now, why people are saying that Win32 is in legacy mode ? Imtiaz
You now call them through the
IWin32APIinterface ;)
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Tom Archer - MSFT wrote:
As a large company, we have to look after millions of customers and many of them - especially large corporations - demand that we create a digitally signed file as the delivery mechanism for our files.
So why not just sign the CHM?
Tom Archer - MSFT wrote:
I think it's a pretty low price to pay.
It's not having to click on the dialog that concerns me. Security is about risk-mitigation, reducing the attack surface. I don't care if it was downloaded from secure.microsoft.com, has been digitally signed and blessed by the Pope; having to run an EXE simply to be able to look at a CHM is just plain un-necessary. [edit] Revisiting my point about Joe Average, how can we be expected to be able to educate non-technical users about the dangers of running EXE's if Microsoft themselves are distributing documents as EXE's? It just makes the job that much harder. You can just imagine a tech support guy trying to explain to his users the dangers of launching email attachments: "Don't do it! Running EXE's is really dangerous and will totally hose your machine. Here's Microsoft's recommended best practices document but, um, it's an EXE so you're going to have to launch it." :rolleyes: [/edit]
0 bottles of beer on the wall, 0 bottles of beer, you take 1 down, pass it around, 4294967295 bottles of beer on the wall. Awasu 2.2 [^]: A free RSS/Atom feed reader with support for Code Project.
Tom is right at least in a way. For security through file types you need to trust the code that runs them. By design, a CHM file can contain anything and has an attack surface the size of a 747. Technically, a signed EXE is safer. However, I agree with you that these issues are to complex for most users.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Pursuant to all the talk today about native code, I thought I'd mention that we have a spreadsheet that lists all the new Windows API functions that will be released with Windows Vista. This spreadsheet is in the same download[^] that contains the Help file (.CHM) of the Windows Vista Developer Story[^]. Tom Archer (blog) Program Manager MSDN Online (Windows Vista and Visual C++) MICROSOFT
-
Tom is right at least in a way. For security through file types you need to trust the code that runs them. By design, a CHM file can contain anything and has an attack surface the size of a 747. Technically, a signed EXE is safer. However, I agree with you that these issues are to complex for most users.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighistpeterchen wrote:
a CHM file can contain anything and has an attack surface the size of a 747
Yes, but in this instance, it's not a valid argument. You're going to look at the CHM anyway and whatever threat it may pose is going to be there anyway. My point was that distributing a CHM as an EXE introduced an extra, *un-necessary* step where something could go wrong.
0 bottles of beer on the wall, 0 bottles of beer, you take 1 down, pass it around, 4294967295 bottles of beer on the wall. Awasu 2.2 [^]: A free RSS/Atom feed reader with support for Code Project.
-
peterchen wrote:
a CHM file can contain anything and has an attack surface the size of a 747
Yes, but in this instance, it's not a valid argument. You're going to look at the CHM anyway and whatever threat it may pose is going to be there anyway. My point was that distributing a CHM as an EXE introduced an extra, *un-necessary* step where something could go wrong.
0 bottles of beer on the wall, 0 bottles of beer, you take 1 down, pass it around, 4294967295 bottles of beer on the wall. Awasu 2.2 [^]: A free RSS/Atom feed reader with support for Code Project.
As I understand it, the EXE can be signed, the CHM can't, and MS considers signing the superior technology.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Thank you very much for sharing this information. :rose: But now i am very confused. In all the discussions here at CP and many other resourses, it is said that Win32 is now in legacy mode and any new API being added in Vista will be managed. But in the list you've provided, there are tons of new "C" style functions being added into the WIN32 dlls. Now, why people are saying that Win32 is in legacy mode ? Imtiaz
Imtiaz Murtaza wrote:
Now, why people are saying that Win32 is in legacy mode ?
Probably marketing IMO. They day MS starts writing core OS compenents in managed code to slow the OS down even more (let's face it, Windows isn't the fastest OS out there) is the day more and more people start realizing it's too slow for practical use. Jeremy Falcon
