Linux-Advocacy Digest #159, Volume #26 Sun, 16 Apr 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Marty)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Marty)
Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!! ("Dirk Gently")
Re: Athlon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Marty)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Marty)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Marty)
New Linux User Question ("Tobias Adrianse")
Re: How does WINE work? (Ulrich Weigand)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: 16 Apr 2000 14:16:33 -0500
In article <8dc9gs$l8d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8db2u5$p96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >I cant understand is when two people both doing their work to the
>best of
>> >their abilities, but one making $4/h and the other one $150/h.
>>
>> When you want to have something done right, how do you get the
>> best person if you aren't going to pay him any more? If you
>> need some dental work done, do you really want a $4/hr guy
>> to do it when the best of his ability isn't all that good?
>
>That wanst the point I was trying to make. Lets assume
>that both men do their job perfectly well, however one is
>rewaded 30 times more than the other one for doing his job well.
Where does this happen? Certainly not in any competitive
area. Why does the underpaid employee stay where he is,
and if it is his choice why are you bothered by it?
>I believe this is fundamnetally unfailr. I think that everyone who
>does their job well should have access to the same standrad of living.
That only works for jobs that have simple definitions of 'well'.
If you do something new or different the value has to be
determined by the people affected by it.
>You are not forced to work for any particular employer (unless
>he is the only one in town as it often happens), however you
>are forced to work for someone (as being self-employed isnt
>really an option for most). So basically you are free to choose your
>master. How great.
The world is still a fairly big place and most of us aren't
restricted to living in any single town. Packing is annoying
and having grandmothers nearby for free babysitting is nice,
but sometimes you have to go where the work is. It isn't an
issue of having a master - it is an exchange of value made
by choice of both employer and employee.
>> >There''re communities where when you need a new house you dont go to
>the bank
>> >and ask for a loan that you and ten generations after you will be
>paying on,
>> >but instead ask your neighbours to come and help you build one. And
>there
>> >many examples like this. Communism already exists even if on a small
>scale.
>>
>> And oddly, some of these communities have the highest suicide rates
>> anywhere.
>
>On the countrary people living in such commnities dont lock
>their doors and are not afraid to work alone at night.
That does not mean they are happy. If you don't have anything
worth taking you probably don't need to worry about thieves.
>> Quite unlike capitalism when people
>> >who do *want* to work cant find any.
>>
>> Where is that?
>
>Its called unmeployment. Which is quite natural for capitalism,
>since liberal theorists consider that having millions of
>families living in the shelters after loosing their homes to
>bankers is good for the economy since it provided bosses with a pool
>of desperate people willing to do almost anything to make a living.
Unfortunately in an unplanned and unmanaged economy, things go
in cycles. However there is no evidence that government
attempts at planning and managing have ever done better or
even as well over the long term.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:21:41 GMT
Tim Mayer wrote:
>
> > You'd have to have pretty frequent app crashes to convince me that the
> > interface nuisance was worth the stability gain. My software doesn't
> > crash that often, and even so, I'd rather reload the three web browser
> > windows I lost than spend time switching between apps during the
> > majority of the time when the software *isn't* crashing.
>
> There is no interface nuisance. Microsoft provides several very convenient
> methods of switching apps.
This is actually an area that I think OS/2 shines (and the MS way pisses me
off, unless there's more to it than just the bar at the bottom). In OS/2
you've got the minimized window viewer, the task list, and Alt-TAB and Alt-Esc
switching. The task list organizes the list such that multiple instances of
the same program are grouped together and indented in the list, so you don't
have to scroll through this huge list hunting and pecking for something.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:26:56 GMT
C Lund wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The answer to that question is quite simple. Because you can use the same app
> > to do 3 completely different things at the same time, without relying on the
> > programmer to have the forethought of creating their own "MDI" or their own
> > tasking strategy.
>
> Apparently, this just isn't a problem on the mac.
Have you written any such apps to know that?
> But it seems to be a major one on Windows. Go figure.
The coding complexity increases on all platforms when designing a
multi-document interface, as opposed to just letting the system fire up
another instance of the same program (requiring 0 lines of code).
------------------------------
From: "Dirk Gently" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:29:43 GMT
With open sorce, you CAN hide a consperacy. It just means you have too have
a lot more people in on it, and is therefore less likely to suceed.
--
Jeff Lacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> abraxas wrote:
>
> >
> > But not entirely unheard of in the industry. If you have access to any
> > portion of source code for any widely used software, have some fun by
> > looking for interesting commentary.
> >
> > Anyone can grab a couple hunks off mozilla.org and have some fun with
> > that.
> >
> > -----yttrx
>
> TRUE, but once again... With OPEN SOURCE this kind of stuff doesn't last
> 3 years and then is discovered. It's seen in something like 3 days then
> they guy is chewed out and the code is changed.
>
> With OPEN SOURCE you can't HIDE a CONSPIRACY such as this one.
>
> Therefore people are MUCH safer with LINUX as their OS or a BSD for that
> matter
> than they would be with a Microsoft product....
>
> It's an excellent case in point.
>
> And I'll guarantee there will be MORE WHITE WASHING of the facts come
Monday,
> but people will still ask the SAME QUESTIONS I've put to you...
>
> How's a BIG OLD GROWN up COMPANY LIKE MICROSOFT managing to let this
> stuff get into the publics machines and newspapers....
>
> This is some serious crap.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hadrware
Subject: Re: Athlon
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:24:42 GMT
I have no direct experience with the Athalon chip, but I went to
Google.com, did a search on "linux athlon" and came up with a lot of
Info. Here is a sample.
http://www.cpureview.com/rev_k7-linux1_a.html
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/news/1103/1/
http://aboutlinux.com/art_k7opt1_a.html
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/3q99/athlon/athlon-7.html
http://www.computing.net/unix/wwwboard/forum/756.html
http://www.cpureview.com/rev_k7ghzlinux_a.html
http://apollo.ppm.u-psud.fr/athlon.html
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ralph H.Stoos Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To all you Linux fans,
>
> I have heard rumors and propaganda regarding the Athlon processor and
> Linux.
>
> Recent info says that you might need a special kernel for Linux to run
> properly on this CPU.
>
> Does anyone know conclusively is this is true? I want to buy Athlon
> just to keep Intel from running the whole show and of course run Linux
> on it to keep Microsloth from owning the show and theatre both.
>
> Let me know if you would be so kind.
>
> Please respond to the group but add this address too:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Thanking you prematurely,
>
> Ralph
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:34:10 GMT
George Graves wrote:
>
> Don't worry, I won't. I have learned that the only thing that Apple
> could ever do to please Wintrolls who post on CSMA is to roll over,
> belly-up and die. With Apple gone, they wouldn't have that little
> nagging voice in their head that keeps saying "did I choose the wrong
> platform?" Because with no Apple, there would be only ONE platform and
> the Wintrolls could sleep secure in their beds with no nasty Apple
> confusing them with that pesky Macintosh.
A common misconception. PC owners are becoming increasingly aware that there
are alternatives to MS based products, thus there are far for than "one"
platform available.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:37:34 GMT
Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> (as usual, the last word is for Warp. Yay!)
KJ] I just said I put you guys in my killfilter.
KJ] Why are you replying to me?
Yet another example of your inconsistency. :-)
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:40:17 GMT
"George Graves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Don't worry, I won't. I have learned that the only thing that Apple
> could ever do to please Wintrolls who post on CSMA is to roll over,
> belly-up and die.
No.. I'm waiting to actually see what becomes of OS-X. Apple did right by
admitting that the current MacOS foundation is patheticially outdated, and
that they incapable of making something decent out of it. And so, I applaud
them for doing the right decision and simply flushing it down the toilet,
and retreat back to a Unix foundation from which to build anew.
Unfortunately, I suspect that Apple will be the major obsticle in allowing
OS-X/BSD to be what it is capable of being.
> With Apple gone, they wouldn't have that little
> nagging voice in their head that keeps saying "did I choose the wrong
> platform?"
To that extent, you are right. For many years, I had that nagging little
voice. Then I finally listened to it, and
switched from Apple to SGI and Dell.
> Because with no Apple, there would be only ONE platform and
> the Wintrolls could sleep secure in their beds with no nasty Apple
> confusing them with that pesky Macintosh.
Ah, so Apple is the reason that Linux, AIX, Solaris, HPUnix, and others all
exist?
How um.. niave.
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:40:19 GMT
"Tim Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:cPmK4.42707$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "James L. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > in article wukK4.42391$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Tim Mayer at
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 4/16/00 10:54 AM:
> >
> > > How does the Mac handle printing one document while you edit another?
> >
> > Just fine! The document to be printed is placed in a print queue and
while
> > this queue is being serviced you are free to do whatever else you wish,
> > including editing other documents or running other applications.
> >
>
> Does it send the document to the queue in the background? (i.e. what if
it's
> a big document and takes a long time to be queued)
With most adobe products, you can do nothing while it is being rendered and
sent to the queue.. This is a direct result of their
"superior" memory management, and lack of multiple instances and poor
multi-threading.
Many Mac users do not realize that this is a decrease in productivity.. and
can not even *concieve* of the idea of being able to continue work instead
of just "waiting".
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:40:18 GMT
"Michael Sims" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:38f9ebb1.3031436@news-server...
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 06:45:17 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> At least in part. I think the other big advantages of multiple
instances
> >> over multiple docs per instance are stability related.
> >
> >That's true, but I can't say any apps I use regularly crash enough for
> >it to matter.
>
> Besides that, even with multiple instances of IE in Windows,
> if one IE window crashes, it takes all the other instances of IE down
> with it. (At least on my system, with IE 4.01/Win95 OSR2).
Okay, we should be more specific here.. there is a difference between
multiple instances, and multiple processes.
You are most likely running multiple instances ( e.g. seperate windows ) but
of the same process.
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:40:19 GMT
"James L. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> in article wukK4.42391$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Tim Mayer at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 4/16/00 10:54 AM:
>
> > How does the Mac handle printing one document while you edit another?
>
> Just fine! The document to be printed is placed in a print queue and while
> this queue is being serviced you are free to do whatever else you wish,
> including editing other documents or running other applications.
How about while it is rendering it to the printer, and before it is in the
print queue? For example.. exporting to PDF a 512meg Pagemaker document, and
while that is chugging away, work on another pagemaker document....
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:40:20 GMT
"Tim Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:cbaK4.42141$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Well, those uber-windows are just poor implementation IMO. The Mac
> > doesn't have uber-windows.
>
> IMO, having multiple main windows associated with a single application is
> confusing. The uber-window at least tied all the windows associated with
the
> application together.
Perhaps to some it is confusing. But to a power user, it can be a major
blessing. For example, I usually like to set up all the
control palletes for an application on a secondary monitor. They are all
grouped together, yet out of the way of the main
document.
I like being able to rearrange the toolbars and other associated windows as
*I* see fit. I don't want some programmer to force me to use what he thinks
is best!
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:40:21 GMT
As with many features.. a simple minded user can not even comrehend why a
feature may be even remotely useful, until he learns from experience. For
example, I once thought the 'scroll mouse' to be silly.. now I know it's an
invaluable tool.
These are just a few reasons why multiple instances make sense
1) seperate processes so that even if the application is not well
multithreaded, you can still do work on more than two documents without
major hinderance. For example, take a very large PS document, perform some
filter on it that would take, say 15 minutes to complete. WIth a
multi-instance supporting OS.. you simply open another instance to continue
work on other PS documents.
2) Most applications do not support different global-file settings. If you
need two different settings at once, the easiest method is with using two
instances of the application. For example, you can open one browser with
security set to maximum.. and another browser with normal security.
Or, say you wish to work in two different unit sets. I have to deal with
both english ( e.g. inches, lbs etc ) and metric. It is very useful for me
to launch two instances of my CAD/CAM, one with the full globals set to each
one.
3) Greater file security. If the inevitable happens, and an application
freezes/crashes on you.. wouldn't it be great that it doesn't wipe out all
the other documents you have been working on?
Of course, if you are non-multitasking user.. and are content to work on
only one document at a time.. then you probably are not capable of
understanding why you may wish to work on more than one document at a time,
even if one document may bog down a particular CPU.
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:40:26 GMT
"Michael J. Stango" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:look-ya02408000R1604001007380001@news...
> In article
>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton) wrote:
>
> > >You still have to actually *touch* your PC to power it up? This is year
> > >2000? <g> Hell, in another few weeks I'll be turning lights and things
on
> > >and off by voice commands to my Mac (right now I have to hit buttons on
a
> > >remote for that stuff).
> >
> > Heh, you can do that _today_ with os/2. In fact, you've been able to
> > do that for about two years now with os2.
>
> Are you talking about the computer accepting voice commands? Try since
1994
> on the Mac. I don't know when the first scriptable X10 software was
written
> for the Mac so appliances and lights could be controlled by voice, but it
> was certainly more than two years ago.
>
> When I say, "in another few weeks," I mean, "when the stuff I've ordered
> arrives and I find the time to add it into my home automation system and
> write the voice command Applescripts." I don't mean, "I'm anxiously
> awaiting completion of the software so I can do it."
appliances and lights?
I've seen voice command support setting up entire home theatres, changing
delay times etc. Say you are in your bedroom.. all you need to do is tell
the computer what CD you wish, what track etc.. even thou it's all set up in
your family room..
The other neat application I've seen is in the kitchen. You simply tell it
what you wish to make.. and it'll pull up a step-by-step instructions.. you
can even search the internet for new recipe's.. This is a major bonus as
working with a keyboard while cooking is very awkward!
The X10 is interesting, but it's still mostly an add-on novelty. We'll see
further integration of home and computer over the next couple of years.
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:40:27 GMT
"Michael Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Just a quetion about Windows multitasking Explorer...... If there are
several
> instances of it then why do ALL of them shut down when I end task
> (control-alt-delete) ONE of them?????
Because you are not opening them as a seperate process. Explorer can run
either as a single process, or as multiple process.
The default for all but Win2K is for them to be a single process, with
multiple instances ( e.g. seperate tasks, but one
process ). This is the default as this requires the least amount of
resources.
If you wish to have a seperate process for each Explorer window.. simply
select under Folder Options, View, "Launch Folder Windows under seperate
process". For Internet Explorer, its usually under Internet Options.
Windows gives you a choice...
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:43:33 GMT
Jack Troughton wrote:
>
> Yeah, but it's still way more robust than the registries are, and
> since each app is quite capable of having it's own, you minimize the
> risk of a badly written app toasting the system's ini files, instead
> of just itself.
Yes and no. It is very good that we can use the same system API calls to
access our own private INI files. However, the structure of those INI files
is quite simplistic. The Windows registry is hierarchical and can go "n"
levels deep. The OS/2 INI format just has 2 levels of hierarchy: application
and key. You can only assign values to app/key pairs and you can't go any
deeper than that. Personally, I've never needed more than that, but it is
less flexible in this way than the Windows registry.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Tobias Adrianse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Tobias Adrianse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: New Linux User Question
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:44:26 -0700
I am interested in making the transition to Linux as my OS. I currently run
Win98. If this is a bad newsgroup for this post please direct me to one
that is better.
What are the basic advantages for running Linux. ( I am looking into red
hat)
What are the basic disadvantages for runnig Linux?
Will my programs run the same even if they are meant to be run under a
windows 98 OS?
Will I still be able to use Internet Explorer and programs that I currently
have.
I apoligize ahead of time for my ignorance, I know absolutley NOTHING about
Linux.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ulrich Weigand)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: How does WINE work?
Date: 16 Apr 2000 21:44:07 +0200
Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>In alt.destroy.microsoft Ulrich Weigand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: There is no 'Windows system call' as such. The only documented interface
>: for application programs is the Win32 API, which is implemented only by
>: the dynamic libraries KERNEL32.DLL, USER32.DLL, GDI32.DLL etc. You cannot
>: link statically to those libraries.
>So, these .DLLs are the API .DLLs for Windows presently. A lot of software
>make calls to a bunch of different .DLLs that are not in the API itself.
>Don't these .DLLs have to make kernel calls? If so, they will have to be
>in a spot where the apps can find them, whether on Windows or Linux.
Those libraries also call KERNEL32.DLL (on Win9x) or NTDLL.DLL (on WinNT)
to perform 'kernel calls'. It is obviously impossible to run the original
KERNEL32.DLL / NTDLL.DLL under Wine, and USER32 / GDI32 are somewhat
difficult, but most other DLLs, whether part of Windows itself or not,
can (and many do) run under Wine.
>A fun question is where the Windows kernel is. With Linux, the kernel is
>in either the root directory (vmlinuz) and LILO loads it or in some
>bootable DOS spot on a Loadlin box. In my case, it's in /dos/c/loadlin/
>and Loadlin boots up the file named "kernel". With Windows, what file is
>the kernel? With DOS, it was io.sys in the root directory.
That's hard to say in just a few words. To summarize the organization
of Win95 (which I'm most familar with; Win98 is basically the same,
while WinNT and Win2000 are completely different):
- At the bottom there's a version of DOS. This is contained in the
file IO.SYS (and COMMAND.COM) in the root directory.
- On top of DOS, a 32-bit 'DOS-extender', the Virtual Machine Manager
(VMM) is running. This allows to run several virtual DOS sessions
at the same time. Furthermore, it enhances the facilities provided
within each of the VMs considerably, e.g. it supports multiple
threads runing in each VM, and it allows 32-bit device drivers (VxDs)
to be installed, which partially -or completely- replace the device
handling by the original DOS kernel itself. (In fact, typically
hardly any of the original DOS code is used after the VMM / VxDs
initalization is over.)
The VMM and a whole bunch of standard VxDs are packaged together
in a compressed archive file called VMM32.VXD. In a sense, this is
the real 'core' of Win95. In addition, there can be some other .VXD
files involved.
- Within one of the DOS sessions provided by the VMM, the kernel of
Windows is started. This is in fact initially a DOS program,
contained in the file KRNL386.EXE. Just like under Windows 3.1,
this program uses the DOS-extender facilities provided by VMM
to switch to 16-bit protected mode and sets up the 16-bit Windows
kernel data structures. It then uses a special 'device driver'
called VWin32.VXD (contained physically inside VMM32.VXD) to load
and initialize the 32-bit part of the Win95 kernel, called KERNEL32.DLL.
Subsequently, the three components VWin32.VXD (ring-0), KERNEL32.DLL
(ring-3 32-bit) and KRNL386.EXE (ring-3 16-bit) work extremely
closely together and cooperate to implement both the 32-bit and 16-bit
Windows 'kernel' API routines.
- The remaining Windows API is implemented by 32-bit or 16-bit DLLs,
which typically work together in pairs (e.g. USER32.DLL + USER.EXE,
GDI32.DLL + GDI.EXE etc.), and rely mostly on the 'kernel' to
provide low-level support. (Some also access various VxDs; this
is rather atypical, however.)
- Once the user-mode Windows kernel is up and running, the initial
application EXPLORER.EXE is started. This app provides the user
interface, i.e. task bar and desktop icons etc. (and is implemented
using the standard Windows DLLs).
--
Ulrich Weigand,
IMMD 1, Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg,
Martensstr. 3, D-91058 Erlangen, Phone: +49 9131 85-27688
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
