Win3.1 code in Win8 base?
-
I was just thinking would there be any piece of code that is dragged along all the way from Windows 3.1 till Windows8 ? Or the latest OS code is completely rewritten from scratch to exploit the new hardware resources? A simple MessageBox Api's code really needs to be changed at the base? Of course the UI has changed considerably. And there would be some edits to port the code from 16 to 64bit. Except these would there be any ruins of Win3.1 really left over in W8? Possible to spot something like this on the Windows 8 base code:
/**********************
Author: Bill Gates
Function : GetDiskSectorData
Module : FATreader
Date Created: 1/5/1990
Last modified: 2/4/1991
*******************/:)
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
Vunic wrote:
Or the latest OS code is completely rewritten from scratch to exploit the new hardware resources?
If it were completely rewritten from scratch, the launch date would be a bit more into the future.
Vunic wrote:
Except these would there be any ruins of Win3.1 really left over in W8?
Yes and no. W8 is based on NT3.5, not Win3.1; it could have features of the old NT, but not from Win3.1. Still, not much changed; there's the familiar message-pump, and a textbox is still a textbox.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
They've probably only kept the stuff that was broken. (And have "fixed" the rest)
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
That so they can charge you to fix it.
So they can charge you for an upgrade that hides it. Behind another layer of bugs...:mad:
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
-
They've probably only kept the stuff that was broken. (And have "fixed" the rest)
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
So they can charge you for an upgrade that hides it. Behind another layer of bugs...:mad:
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
Exactly :laugh:
-
I was just thinking would there be any piece of code that is dragged along all the way from Windows 3.1 till Windows8 ? Or the latest OS code is completely rewritten from scratch to exploit the new hardware resources? A simple MessageBox Api's code really needs to be changed at the base? Of course the UI has changed considerably. And there would be some edits to port the code from 16 to 64bit. Except these would there be any ruins of Win3.1 really left over in W8? Possible to spot something like this on the Windows 8 base code:
/**********************
Author: Bill Gates
Function : GetDiskSectorData
Module : FATreader
Date Created: 1/5/1990
Last modified: 2/4/1991
*******************/:)
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
That depends on your definition of Windows codes base. If you consider all the code that goes on install DVD (including tools such as Notepad) it is likely to be the case, but if you just consider kernel/drivers/services I'd be surprised to see that (excluding utility functions/data structs and stuff).
-
I was just thinking would there be any piece of code that is dragged along all the way from Windows 3.1 till Windows8 ? Or the latest OS code is completely rewritten from scratch to exploit the new hardware resources? A simple MessageBox Api's code really needs to be changed at the base? Of course the UI has changed considerably. And there would be some edits to port the code from 16 to 64bit. Except these would there be any ruins of Win3.1 really left over in W8? Possible to spot something like this on the Windows 8 base code:
/**********************
Author: Bill Gates
Function : GetDiskSectorData
Module : FATreader
Date Created: 1/5/1990
Last modified: 2/4/1991
*******************/:)
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
Win 3.1 was not a true OS, it was just a UI layer on top of the underlying DOS and it employed co-operative multitasking model which required that apps willingly yielded CPU and other resources back to the OS once they were done with them. This OS later became what we knew as Win 95, Win 98, Win ME, etc. Windows 8 takes its codebase from Windows NT which was the first OS in the Windows Family to employ true pre-emptive multi-tasking. This OS progressed later into Windows 2000, Win XP, Win 7 and eventually to Win 8. Since Win 8 seems to have a lot of bugs, I'm sure some old code must be lingering around.
-
Exactly :laugh:
It made me laugh when I saw an article that said that the Fonts folder hadn't been updated since Win 3. Yeah. Because it wasn't broken.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Vunic wrote:
Or the latest OS code is completely rewritten from scratch to exploit the new hardware resources?
If it were completely rewritten from scratch, the launch date would be a bit more into the future.
Vunic wrote:
Except these would there be any ruins of Win3.1 really left over in W8?
Yes and no. W8 is based on NT3.5, not Win3.1; it could have features of the old NT, but not from Win3.1. Still, not much changed; there's the familiar message-pump, and a textbox is still a textbox.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
If it were completely rewritten from scratch, the launch date would be a bit more into the future.
A renovated posterity?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
It made me laugh when I saw an article that said that the Fonts folder hadn't been updated since Win 3. Yeah. Because it wasn't broken.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Win 3.1 was not a true OS, it was just a UI layer on top of the underlying DOS and it employed co-operative multitasking model which required that apps willingly yielded CPU and other resources back to the OS once they were done with them. This OS later became what we knew as Win 95, Win 98, Win ME, etc. Windows 8 takes its codebase from Windows NT which was the first OS in the Windows Family to employ true pre-emptive multi-tasking. This OS progressed later into Windows 2000, Win XP, Win 7 and eventually to Win 8. Since Win 8 seems to have a lot of bugs, I'm sure some old code must be lingering around.
Shameel wrote:
Win 3.1 was not a true OS
Contentious argument that. I can't make up my mind whether I agree or not. It depends how you define operating system.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
-
Win 3.1 was not a true OS, it was just a UI layer on top of the underlying DOS and it employed co-operative multitasking model which required that apps willingly yielded CPU and other resources back to the OS once they were done with them. This OS later became what we knew as Win 95, Win 98, Win ME, etc. Windows 8 takes its codebase from Windows NT which was the first OS in the Windows Family to employ true pre-emptive multi-tasking. This OS progressed later into Windows 2000, Win XP, Win 7 and eventually to Win 8. Since Win 8 seems to have a lot of bugs, I'm sure some old code must be lingering around.
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Fonts folder
WoW. To think they do not need to update a folder? :-\
Loading signature... . . . Please Wait . . .
They should, if only to add the Slashed Zero Arial for Monospaced Programming Fonts[^]
It was broke, so I fixed it.
-
They should, if only to add the Slashed Zero Arial for Monospaced Programming Fonts[^]
It was broke, so I fixed it.
They can't - Bobs Game Font is already there...
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
-
Shameel wrote:
Win 3.1 was not a true OS
Contentious argument that. I can't make up my mind whether I agree or not. It depends how you define operating system.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
Well, I'd argue that it was clearly nothing more than an operating environment - a mere GUI if you will. Otherwise, wouldn't you be asserting that Win3.1 boxes had 2 operating systems running? DOS and Windows? The machine would start without Win3.1, but not so if DOS was missing.
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin
-
You unconsciously forgot Vista.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
-
Shameel wrote:
Win 3.1 was not a true OS
Contentious argument that. I can't make up my mind whether I agree or not. It depends how you define operating system.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
I would disagree simply because, even DOS was called Disk Operation System. Anything that's capable of doing multiple things unlike a dedicated system like a calculator or a billing machine can be related to an OS. It's boot strapped, it manages memory , loads applications, communicates with devices (like printers) , networks with other PCs. Enough to qualify Win3.1 as a true OS!
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
-
Well, I'd argue that it was clearly nothing more than an operating environment - a mere GUI if you will. Otherwise, wouldn't you be asserting that Win3.1 boxes had 2 operating systems running? DOS and Windows? The machine would start without Win3.1, but not so if DOS was missing.
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin
Win3.1 can't be loaded without DOS? In other words, was DOS operating behind the scenes of Win3.1? Or simply DOS acts like a soft boot strap for Win3.1? if so, Win3.1 can still be called an OS.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
-
Rage wrote:
You unconsciously forgot Vista.
FTFY. I thought the discussion was about OS. :-)
-
Win3.1 can't be loaded without DOS? In other words, was DOS operating behind the scenes of Win3.1? Or simply DOS acts like a soft boot strap for Win3.1? if so, Win3.1 can still be called an OS.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
Vunic wrote:
Win3.1 can't be loaded without DOS?
Yes, exactly.
Vunic wrote:
In other words, was DOS operating behind the scenes of Win3.1?
Well, you either started it by typing win at the command prompt, or by adding it to your autoexec.bat - in either case, it was started by the command interpreter. Not sure about how it was on the inside though. You could still exit it back to DOS. You would have to ask somebody that knows, were all of the interrupt vectors replaced, or did windows simply leverage the interrupts supplied by the bios and the (DOS) system files started by the boot sector - command.com, io.sys & msdos.sys If the vectors were replaced, I'd agree that dos was used as a soft boot-strap into windows. Otherwise, I'd call it nothing much more than Digital Reasearch's ViewMax software. (It came with DR-DOS)
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin
