Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #176123 > unrolled thread

Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10

Contents

  Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-25 03:57 -0700
    Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me Newyana2 <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-04-25 08:27 -0400
    Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> - 2024-04-25 14:46 +0100
      Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-28 07:26 -0700
        Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-04-28 13:58 -0500
          App Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2024-04-29 05:17 +0200
            Re: App Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2024-04-29 13:36 +0300
              Re: App Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-04-29 12:50 +0200
            Re: App nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-04-29 13:45 +0200
              Re: App Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-04-29 13:47 +0200
            Re: App Newyana2 <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-04-29 08:59 -0400
              Re: App "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-29 06:33 -0700
                Re: App Newyana2 <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-04-29 13:38 -0400
                  Re: App Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2024-04-30 10:47 +1000
                    Re: App Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-04-29 22:21 -0400
                      Re: App Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2024-04-30 14:18 +1000
                        Re: App Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2024-04-30 14:31 +1000
                        Re: App Newyana2 <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-04-30 08:45 -0400
                    Re: App Newyana2 <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-04-29 22:48 -0400
                      Re: App Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-04-30 09:32 +0200
                        Re: App Newyana2 <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-04-30 09:28 -0400
                    Re: App Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-04-30 09:27 +0200
                      Re: App Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-04-30 11:06 +0200
                Re: App Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2024-05-04 07:01 +0200
                  Re: App Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-05-04 02:11 -0400
                    Re: App John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> - 2024-05-04 10:28 +0100
                      Re: App Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-05-04 10:43 -0400
                      Re: App Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-05-04 14:51 +0000
                    Re: App Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2024-05-04 18:56 +0200
                      Re: App Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-05-04 19:25 -0400
                        Re: App Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2024-05-05 14:02 -0500
                      Re: App Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2024-05-05 13:59 +1000
                        Re: App Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2024-05-06 05:56 +0200
                          Re: App Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-05-06 07:37 +0200
                          Re: App Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2024-05-06 07:15 -0700
                      Re: App lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> - 2024-05-04 23:40 -0600
                        Re: App Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2024-05-05 18:15 +1000
                          Re: App lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> - 2024-05-05 23:18 -0600
                            Re: App nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-05-06 13:52 +0200
                              Re: App Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-05-06 14:47 -0400
                                Re: App Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2024-05-07 10:09 +1000
                                  Re: App Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2024-05-14 15:31 -0500
                                    Re: App lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> - 2024-05-14 22:40 -0600
                                Re: App lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> - 2024-05-06 19:18 -0600
                                  Re: App Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-05-06 22:14 -0400
                                Re: App nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-05-07 10:41 +0200
                      Re: App Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-05-05 11:28 +0200
                        Re: App Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2024-05-06 06:02 +0200
                  Re: App 0rby <graham@custompc.plus.com> - 2024-05-04 18:34 +0100
                  Re: App 0rby <graham@custompc.plus.com> - 2024-05-04 18:46 +0100
              Re: App Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2024-04-30 10:48 +1000
              Re: App Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2024-05-05 23:40 +0300
            Re: App Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-04-29 17:05 -0400
              Re: App Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-04-30 09:35 +0200
          Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-29 05:53 -0700
    Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-04-25 14:30 +0000
      Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2024-04-25 08:51 -0700
        Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-04-25 13:32 -0500
          Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-28 07:34 -0700
            Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-04-28 13:53 -0500
              Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-29 06:15 -0700
              Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-04-29 12:00 -0500
      Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-04-25 17:47 +0000
        Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-28 07:42 -0700
      Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-04-26 02:09 -0400
        Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-28 07:49 -0700
          Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-04-28 13:59 -0400
    Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> - 2024-04-25 16:56 +0100
      Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-28 07:50 -0700
        Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-04-28 14:14 -0500
          Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-29 06:23 -0700
        Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-01 16:23 -0400
    Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-04-25 12:44 -0500
      Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-28 07:56 -0700
    Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-04-26 02:13 -0400
      Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-28 07:58 -0700
    Re: Windows 10 is randomly removing programs without telling me Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2024-04-29 15:12 +0100

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#176229 — Re: App

On 4/30/2024 3:32 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Newyana2 wrote:
> 
>>    That's what Windows is supposed to do, dating back to Win9x.
>> It's been broken with every rendition. Yet the settings are still
>> there -- thousands of keys in the Registry meant to spec the size
>> and orientation of each individual window. It's like building a
>> skyscraper and neglecting to put stairs... for 30 years... How do
>> they do that? Maybe it's an interesting story.
> 
> Thanks. That explains what I wondered about for a long time. Up till XP
> the windows had individual settings. Suddenly with version 7 that was
> gone.
> 

   XP had them, but they often didn't take. If you look at
HKCU\SOFTWARE\Classes\Local Settings\Software\Microsoft\
Windows\Shell\Bags
   in Win10 you'll see that the settings are still there. But still,
Windows seems to be not saving them properly and thus forgets
them. On Win7 I found that I could fix it by properly configuring
Bags\AllFolders\Shell and deleting the rest of the Bags subkeys.
I'm still not sure whether that works on Win10. It seems that a
sample Shell key once again lacks the necessary settings.

   It's complicated because this is all undocumented and MS
switch it up frivolously with every release. But there is a system.
Explorer is supposed to record the specs when a window closes.
If you look in those keys you may see values with names drawn
from Shell API parameters for displaying windows. WFlags specs
min/max/normal size. FFlags, ShowCmd, Vid (which specs display
options, not as 1-5 but as GUIDs!), etc.

    Windows size and position are specced like so:
"WinPos" is followed by screen dimensions and API-style specs.
For example, I have WinPos1920x1080x96(1).top, with corresponding
bottom, left and right. All of these have to be redone if screen
resolution is changed. But Win10 Explorer is not propagating those
specs to Bags keys, so it doesn't know how a window should appear.
And of course, Win10 adds a few new values, willy nilly, which may
or may not actually be relevant... And a new wrinkle has been added
since Win7: The broken folder settings are now saved to a further
subkey -- Bags\[number]\Shell\{5C4F28B5-F869-4E84-8E60-F11DB97C5CC7}

   That GUID signifies a generic folder type. Ther Softies just
can't seem to resist throwing in GUIDs to make things look
more official. Now there are folder types. 20-30 of them. (Generic,
communications, library....)

    Sometimes I think half the time of MS developers must be spent
in the lunch room, competing to have the best secret decode ring
from some video game box.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176223 — Re: App

Peter Moylan wrote:

> case of a folder whose files are all of the same kind, e.g. all source
> files, I usually choose to display only the names (no icons shown) in a
> simple multi-column list, so that the folder window is very small. That
> matters to me. During program development, in particular, I'll have a
> number of folder windows open and a number of other windows (e.g.
> command shells) open. I want to be able to get at those easily. Windows
> seems to have been designed for people who only run one program at a time.

I've always chosen a minimal display of the folders. Now with Linux I
have pretty much the same view as I had with Windows up to 10 (first
version). I have a small icon and the file name for each file in a
flowing display. In Linux (Mint) there is a one click access to the
detailed view where also the size, the time and the file time are
displayed. This choice is remembered though I'd prefer if it weren't.

-- 
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176226 — Re: App

Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> detailed view where also the size, the time and the file time are

Second item should be "type".

-- 
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176265 — Re: App

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 06:33:38 -0700, "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Newyana2 wrote:

>>    On Windows it's always been "programs". Only some
>> programmers say "application". (It could be worse. For
>> awhile people were talking about their programming
>> projects as "solutions".)
>
>Yes, that wouldn't have been a good thing.

I have seen advertisements for "solutions", but they never tell you
what problem they are claiming to be able to solve.

Yes, they're all programs, but some are applications, like word
processors, spreadsheets, databases etc.

But I have a program called "Glary Utilities", which is not an
application. It just helps the computer to run better. Likewise, the
operating system is a program, but not an application. 


-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176269 — Re: App

On 5/4/2024 1:01 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 06:33:38 -0700, "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Newyana2 wrote:
> 
>>>    On Windows it's always been "programs". Only some
>>> programmers say "application". (It could be worse. For
>>> awhile people were talking about their programming
>>> projects as "solutions".)
>>
>> Yes, that wouldn't have been a good thing.
> 
> I have seen advertisements for "solutions", but they never tell you
> what problem they are claiming to be able to solve.
> 
> Yes, they're all programs, but some are applications, like word
> processors, spreadsheets, databases etc.
> 
> But I have a program called "Glary Utilities", which is not an
> application. It just helps the computer to run better. Likewise, the
> operating system is a program, but not an application. 

The operating system is not a program. It is an executive.

It loads applications in Ring3.

There is a scheduler giving "execution time slices" to the application.

In Ring 0, lives a kernel and hardware drivers. Applications are
not allowed to access hardware directly, and go through kernel calls.

There is a task scheduler, that allows items to be loaded/executed at
fixed time points. That's similar to CRON in Linux or Unix.

And to further complicate matters, even though the OS is an executive,
it is virtualized via an inverted hypervisor. The diagram of how
an executive works, no longer looks the same as it did in Windows XP.
Windows 10 would be the root partition. The Linux partition would
really exist, if you had installed WSL plus the Linux distro of your
choice. If you had VirtualBox, it would have a position in this diagram
too (not shown of course). VirtualBox is not nested, that I can detect.
Nested has never worked on my computers here. I tried.

   https://web.archive.org/web/20111205072921/https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc768520%28v=bts.10%29.aspx

Task Manager was not modified in any way, to make details about this
apparent to the machine operator. This is why I use a *Power Meter*
on the AC line cord, to detect foreign activity (even if it is windows
doing it, and does not show in the list). In Task Manager for example,
try and find "Memory Compressor". Now, use Process Explorer, you will
find Memory Compressor is listed as a process.

[What Task Manager should have been - percent CPU with two digits after decimal, nice!!! ]

   https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/process-explorer

One of the observations you can make, is via the "ruggedness" of Task Manager.
The modern Task Manager can freeze. In an emergency, it is the patron
saint of "Useless". Can't do a thing with it. You will notice the Task
Manager in Windows XP was not like that. Via statically provided resources,
it always seemed to have resources, and when the OS had gone to hell in
a hand basket, you could still "attempt to do stuff" in Task Manager.
That's all changed. In WinXP you could alt-tab, even when the OS was in
serious trouble. W10/W11 just die instantly, when even a tiny bit of
smothering is applied :-) One of my favorite examples, was using
ImageMagick one day, and OpenMP happened to be enabled (use multiple
cores to open an image for display on the screen). OS froze... instantly.
As instantly as you can envisage "instantly" means. One frame time. Dead.
Oh, the electrons are flying around in there, but "nobody is home".
It's not a crash. It's a deadlock, a form of software deadly embrace.

When an OS has no observational capability, we can only dream as
sheep dream, about what is the matter. Gone are the days of having
dual CRT tubes with critical information recorded on the screen.
In uni, when one of the students did a DOS attack on the mainframe,
he stood by the window and watched the "free disk" counter decrement
over a matter of 30 seconds or so, killing the mainframe. On a timeshare
system, jobs are rotated in and out via that particular disk. Our student
had used a primitive fork bomb, and the system operator (a "stable genius")
had forgotten to enable a policy to prevent that :-) It was kinda a
splash of cold water for the gentleman, to discover he had competition.
The operator used to play chess on one of those CRTs.

   https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/still-image/LLNL%20Computer%20Museum/102675044.03.01.lg.jpg

The power meter on my computer, is the last vestige of observability.
I may not know what is going on, but I know "something, is inside the machine".

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176274 — Re: App

In message <v14jj8$12jqr$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> 
writes
<big snip>
>The operating system is not a program. It is an executive.

That brings back memories. The computer I used back in the 1970s, an ICL 
1900, actually called the core part of its OS "Executive" with a capital 
E.
-- 
John Hall
            "Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
             from coughing."
                               Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176277 — Re: App

On 5/4/2024 5:28 AM, John Hall wrote:
> In message <v14jj8$12jqr$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
> <big snip>
>> The operating system is not a program. It is an executive.
> 
> That brings back memories. The computer I used back in the 1970s, 
> an ICL 1900, actually called the core part of its OS "Executive" with a capital E.

There are some differences.

Mainframes were "ball jugglers". They could support 500 users at once,
by keeping 490 sessions "asleep". A limited number of users would be
in "near orbit" and have access to CPU cycles. Perhaps one drive, or
even, an entire Storage Director, took care of paging of jobs.

This was managed with disk drives (and occasionally, if you were lucky,
with a drum storage device).

The difference on a personal computer, is there is no juggling of processes
in the same way. The processes are stored in memory, and are "ready to run".
The scheduler gives them slices. Some of the things in Task Manager, use
zero cycles, they use nothing at all. They are "mostly silent". Only a few
of the SVCHOSTs are busy little beavers. Some things related to security,
might always have a busy stance.

Modern Windows has taken to "suspending" some items, but it's unclear whether
that ever pans out (actually helps a user). Some of the same states as were
always there, are still present. The "zombie" state for example. A "zombie"
is a process that did not get harvested properly, and might disappear on a reboot.

And while early Windows had pagefile.sys for paging out of virtual memory,
that's hardly ever used on machines potentially using SSD drives for storage.
We really are reliant now, on gobs of main memory, embarrassing excess,
for how the machine works. That's how my browser a few minutes ago, could
be using 7GB of memory, while a web site recorded every line I read on a
web page. They measured my "interest" in each article, my dwell time,
whether I saw the adverts or not. They even interfere with my scroll
bar, until I get annoyed and close the session.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176279 — Re: App

John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <v14jj8$12jqr$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> 
> writes
> <big snip>
> >The operating system is not a program. It is an executive.
> 
> That brings back memories. The computer I used back in the 1970s, an ICL 
> 1900, actually called the core part of its OS "Executive" with a capital 
> E.

  Yep, in the early 70s, I was using/supporting HP's 'mini' computers,
running RTE, Real Time Executive.

  Later, the business side of HP had MPE, Multi Programming Excecutive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176284 — Re: App

On Sat, 4 May 2024 02:11:51 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>On 5/4/2024 1:01 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> Yes, they're all programs, but some are applications, like word
>> processors, spreadsheets, databases etc.
>> 
>> But I have a program called "Glary Utilities", which is not an
>> application. It just helps the computer to run better. Likewise, the
>> operating system is a program, but not an application. 
>
>The operating system is not a program. It is an executive.

In MyEnglish the definition of a program is "a set of instructions to
operate a computer". Is this "Executive" not that?

My first computer had an OS in ROM, with built-in BASIC, with which
you could write other programs and save them and their data on tape,
but all were programs. With a couple of add-ons you could have a DOS
(CP/M), and save stuff on floppy disks, but that by-passed the BASIC
in ROM, so you had to get programming languages that ran under CP/M,
but whether they loaded from ROM, tape or disks, all there sets of
instructions tomake the computer do different things. 


-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176292 — Re: App

On 5/4/2024 12:56 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2024 02:11:51 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/4/2024 1:01 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> Yes, they're all programs, but some are applications, like word
>>> processors, spreadsheets, databases etc.
>>>
>>> But I have a program called "Glary Utilities", which is not an
>>> application. It just helps the computer to run better. Likewise, the
>>> operating system is a program, but not an application. 
>>
>> The operating system is not a program. It is an executive.
> 
> In MyEnglish the definition of a program is "a set of instructions to
> operate a computer". Is this "Executive" not that?
> 
> My first computer had an OS in ROM, with built-in BASIC, with which
> you could write other programs and save them and their data on tape,
> but all were programs. With a couple of add-ons you could have a DOS
> (CP/M), and save stuff on floppy disks, but that by-passed the BASIC
> in ROM, so you had to get programming languages that ran under CP/M,
> but whether they loaded from ROM, tape or disks, all there sets of
> instructions tomake the computer do different things. 

If you boot a memtest floppy, that is a single program that
runs 100% of the time. Nobody tells it to do anything.
It is the boss. All machine resources are available.

If it wanted to erase your hard drive, nothing would stop it.

The frame buffer for the graphics are at a fixed address. It
takes fixed font pixmaps of characters and writes them to the
frame buffer. That makes the character display.

The memory is linear mapped. The virtual address equals the physical address.
It could be using "Giant Pages", a 1GB mapping, as you might notice the
program has a fixation with 1GB and 2GB chunks as it runs. Loading the
mapper, is an executive-type function.

You can see then, that it is running the restaurant all by itself.
It's taking the orders (from the keyboard), it's running into the
back of the restaurant to the kitchen, it is putting steaks and
veggies on the table and cooking the steak, it's doing all the jobs.
That means, when the guy wrote the program, he had to "think of
all the details", not just "some of the details". Well, that's what
happens when you have No Executive.

*******

When a program runs in an OS, a lot of details have been worked out.
The program "just sits down and eats". It worries not about the
grill, about the dish washer person, about the staff to carry the
orders to the tables and so on. The memory mapper is set defensively
by the executive, to prevent "shenanigans" (self-modifying code is
not allowed, and has not been allowed for a lot of years). This
means the code segment is read only, and after the loader has
loaded it (written to it), the mapping the program sees for its
code is read-only.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176308 — Re: App

[snip]


> If you boot a memtest floppy, that is a single program that
> runs 100% of the time. Nobody tells it to do anything.
> It is the boss. All machine resources are available.
> 
> If it wanted to erase your hard drive, nothing would stop it.

There would be something if you had a real write-protect switch (not one 
of those lying ones that software can just ignore).

[snip]


-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"If there is a supreme being, he's crazy." -- Marlene Dietrich
(1901-1992), quoted in Rave magazine, November 1986

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176302 — Re: App

On 05/05/24 02:56, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2024 02:11:51 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/4/2024 1:01 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> Yes, they're all programs, but some are applications, like word
>>> processors, spreadsheets, databases etc.
>>>
>>> But I have a program called "Glary Utilities", which is not an
>>> application. It just helps the computer to run better. Likewise,
>>> the operating system is a program, but not an application.
>>
>> The operating system is not a program. It is an executive.
>
> In MyEnglish the definition of a program is "a set of instructions to
> operate a computer". Is this "Executive" not that?

It's all software, of course, but a person writing operating systems
code has to be aware of hardware features that the average applications
programmer never comes into contact with. For certain functions, e.g.
thread switching, it might be necessary to descend into assembly language.

There's another distinction that occurs to me. An application program
has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It does it job and then
terminates. The operating system never terminates until the whole
computer is shut down.

The distinction is becoming fuzzier now that some operating systems are
built in layers. The bottom-level operating system is probably small and
does only some basic things. (Typically thread switching and memory
management.) Then another operating system is built on top of that. And
maybe even another on top of that.

-- 
Peter Moylan                         http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176320 — Re: App

On Sun, 5 May 2024 13:59:57 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 05/05/24 02:56, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 May 2024 02:11:51 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/4/2024 1:01 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> Yes, they're all programs, but some are applications, like word
>>>> processors, spreadsheets, databases etc.
>>>>
>>>> But I have a program called "Glary Utilities", which is not an
>>>> application. It just helps the computer to run better. Likewise,
>>>> the operating system is a program, but not an application.
>>>
>>> The operating system is not a program. It is an executive.
>>
>> In MyEnglish the definition of a program is "a set of instructions to
>> operate a computer". Is this "Executive" not that?
>
>It's all software, of course, but a person writing operating systems
>code has to be aware of hardware features that the average applications
>programmer never comes into contact with. For certain functions, e.g.
>thread switching, it might be necessary to descend into assembly language.
>
>There's another distinction that occurs to me. An application program
>has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It does it job and then
>terminates. The operating system never terminates until the whole
>computer is shut down.
>
>The distinction is becoming fuzzier now that some operating systems are
>built in layers. The bottom-level operating system is probably small and
>does only some basic things. (Typically thread switching and memory
>management.) Then another operating system is built on top of that. And
>maybe even another on top of that.

Yes, that supports the distinction I am trying to make: an operating
system, whether it is built on top of another one or not, and an app
are both programs, but not all programs are apps. And yes, both are
software as well.

US English is somewhat at a disadvantage here, be cause they use
"program" in a wider sense, so they often have to add "software" to
it, to distinguish a "software program" from other kinds of what the
rest of us would call "programmes", like TV programmes, sports events
programmes etc. 



-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176323 — Re: App

Steve Hayes wrote:

> US English is somewhat at a disadvantage here, be cause they use
> "program" in a wider sense, so they often have to add "software" to
> it, to distinguish a "software program" from other kinds of what the
> rest of us would call "programmes", like TV programmes, sports events
> programmes etc.

Danish has the exact same 'problem' - which isn't really a problem since
context usually makes the meaning clear.


-- 
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176336 — Re: App

On Mon, 06 May 2024 05:56:10 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>US English is somewhat at a disadvantage here, be cause they use
>"program" in a wider sense, so they often have to add "software" to
>it, to distinguish a "software program" from other kinds of what the
>rest of us would call "programmes", like TV programmes, sports events
>programmes etc. 



That used to be true, but not so much anymore. It was in 1962, when I
was out of work, and I answered an ad for "Programmer Trainee --
College Graduate, Any Major" for a higher salary than I had ever had.
I didn't know what a programmer was, but I thought it referred to TV
or Radio programming.

I didn't get the job, but I soon started a computer programming course
and got a programming job soon afterward.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176303 — Re: App

On 2024-05-04 10:56, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2024 02:11:51 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/4/2024 1:01 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> Yes, they're all programs, but some are applications, like word
>>> processors, spreadsheets, databases etc.
>>>
>>> But I have a program called "Glary Utilities", which is not an
>>> application. It just helps the computer to run better. Likewise, the
>>> operating system is a program, but not an application.
>>
>> The operating system is not a program. It is an executive.
> 
> In MyEnglish the definition of a program is "a set of instructions to
> operate a computer". Is this "Executive" not that?

I agree with you on that one, Steve.

> My first computer had an OS in ROM, with built-in BASIC, with which
> you could write other programs and save them and their data on tape,
> but all were programs.

The first computer I worked on, though it was not called a computer, but 
rather an 'Electronic Accounting Machine'. I 'wrote' programs on it by 
plugging wires into a board that made contact with relays.

It was definitely a computer, though, stepping through programs, doing 
math, branching on tested conditions, and reading and writing to and 
from I/O devices.

I worked on that for about two years, at which time I started working on 
a different set of machines, and found out that a program could actually 
be stored in a memory.

> With a couple of add-ons you could have a DOS
> (CP/M), and save stuff on floppy disks, but that by-passed the BASIC
> in ROM, so you had to get programming languages that ran under CP/M,
> but whether they loaded from ROM, tape or disks, all there sets of
> instructions tomake the computer do different things.



-- 
A computer won't stop you being an idiot,
but it'll make you a faster, better idiot

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176305 — Re: App

On 05/05/24 15:40, lar3ryca wrote:
>
> The first computer I worked on, though it was not called a computer,
> but rather an 'Electronic Accounting Machine'. I 'wrote' programs on
> it by plugging wires into a board that made contact with relays.
>
> It was definitely a computer, though, stepping through programs,
> doing math, branching on tested conditions, and reading and writing
> to and from I/O devices.
>
> I worked on that for about two years, at which time I started
> working on a different set of machines, and found out that a program
> could actually be stored in a memory.

We take memory for granted now, but it took a while to get it right.
Looking back, the ideas of having main memory on a rotating drum or in
columns of mercury sound incredible crude.

To make computer memory practical, the electronics people had to learn
how to put transistors on semiconductor chips. You can also build
flip-flops with vacuum tubes, but vacuum tubes already become awkward
once you have a few hundred of them.

In my student days, and for some time afterwards, I used the plugboard
approach, but that was with analogue computers. Those were very good at
solving differential equations, but they died out through not being
sufficiently scalable.

-- 
Peter Moylan                         http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176322 — Re: App

On 2024-05-05 02:15, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 05/05/24 15:40, lar3ryca wrote:
>>
>> The first computer I worked on, though it was not called a computer,
>> but rather an 'Electronic Accounting Machine'. I 'wrote' programs on
>> it by plugging wires into a board that made contact with relays.
>>
>> It was definitely a computer, though, stepping through programs,
>> doing math, branching on tested conditions, and reading and writing
>> to and from I/O devices.
>>
>> I worked on that for about two years, at which time I started
>> working on a different set of machines, and found out that a program
>> could actually be stored in a memory.
> 
> We take memory for granted now, but it took a while to get it right.
> Looking back, the ideas of having main memory on a rotating drum or in
> columns of mercury sound incredible crude.

How about memory on acoustic delay lines?
When I worked for CDC, I sometimes got called to Allstate (the insurance 
folks), to repair the terminals.

The memory on those consisted of modules containing spirals of what 
might best be described as 'piano wire'. Bits were input by giving the 
wire a quick twist (twist, then reset back to idle). That generated 
something like a shock wave that travelled around the spiral to a 
transducer on the other end, I can't remember if it twisted one 
direction for a '1' and the other direction for a '0', or if it only 
used one direction of twist, relying on framing pulses and time between 
bit to differentiate between them.

Nor do I remember the amount of data it could hold, probably in the 
order of a few hundred bytes.

Of course, once the data got to the end and was read, it had to be 
re-sent again, unless that particular packet had to be changed, at which 
time it was not re-sent, and a new packet was sent in its place.

> To make computer memory practical, the electronics people had to learn
> how to put transistors on semiconductor chips. You can also build
> flip-flops with vacuum tubes, but vacuum tubes already become awkward
> once you have a few hundred of them.
> 
> In my student days, and for some time afterwards, I used the plugboard
> approach, but that was with analogue computers. Those were very good at
> solving differential equations, but they died out through not being
> sufficiently scalable.

The plugboards I spoke of were for programming a digital computer, When 
a plugboard was mounted, pressing "Start" sent a 48V pulse out of the 
'start hub', and into a 'program step' hub (almost always 'program step 
1'. This would pick up a relay, which would cause voltage to be applied 
to hubs called 'operation, 'in word 1', 'inword 2', and 'out word'.

That would, in turn, call on the electronics (SMS cards) to perform the 
operation.

As for analog computers, my step-brother and I bought one, but it was 
pretty simple, consisting og circuits to do math, input via dials 
(potentiometers), and output on a voltmeter.


When a step was active,

-- 
Whose idea was it to put an "S" in the word "lisp"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176333 — Re: App

lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:

> On 2024-05-05 02:15, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 05/05/24 15:40, lar3ryca wrote:
> >>
> >> The first computer I worked on, though it was not called a computer,
> >> but rather an 'Electronic Accounting Machine'. I 'wrote' programs on
> >> it by plugging wires into a board that made contact with relays.
> >>
> >> It was definitely a computer, though, stepping through programs,
> >> doing math, branching on tested conditions, and reading and writing
> >> to and from I/O devices.
> >>
> >> I worked on that for about two years, at which time I started
> >> working on a different set of machines, and found out that a program
> >> could actually be stored in a memory.
> > 
> > We take memory for granted now, but it took a while to get it right.
> > Looking back, the ideas of having main memory on a rotating drum or in
> > columns of mercury sound incredible crude.
> 
> How about memory on acoustic delay lines?
> When I worked for CDC, I sometimes got called to Allstate (the insurance
> folks), to repair the terminals.
> 
> The memory on those consisted of modules containing spirals of what 
> might best be described as 'piano wire'. Bits were input by giving the
> wire a quick twist (twist, then reset back to idle). That generated 
> something like a shock wave that travelled around the spiral to a 
> transducer on the other end, I can't remember if it twisted one 
> direction for a '1' and the other direction for a '0', or if it only 
> used one direction of twist, relying on framing pulses and time between
> bit to differentiate between them.

That's a bit primitive.
One of the first bulk computer memories,
used by Alan Turing himself, was a mercury delay line.
Bits were stored as sound pulses in a column of mercury.

Just as with a hard drive the computer had to wait
for the right part of the bit string to pass by.
I would have to look up how long its bit string could be,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#176354 — Re: App

On 5/6/2024 7:52 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
> 
>> On 2024-05-05 02:15, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 05/05/24 15:40, lar3ryca wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The first computer I worked on, though it was not called a computer,
>>>> but rather an 'Electronic Accounting Machine'. I 'wrote' programs on
>>>> it by plugging wires into a board that made contact with relays.
>>>>
>>>> It was definitely a computer, though, stepping through programs,
>>>> doing math, branching on tested conditions, and reading and writing
>>>> to and from I/O devices.
>>>>
>>>> I worked on that for about two years, at which time I started
>>>> working on a different set of machines, and found out that a program
>>>> could actually be stored in a memory.
>>>
>>> We take memory for granted now, but it took a while to get it right.
>>> Looking back, the ideas of having main memory on a rotating drum or in
>>> columns of mercury sound incredible crude.
>>
>> How about memory on acoustic delay lines?
>> When I worked for CDC, I sometimes got called to Allstate (the insurance
>> folks), to repair the terminals.
>>
>> The memory on those consisted of modules containing spirals of what 
>> might best be described as 'piano wire'. Bits were input by giving the
>> wire a quick twist (twist, then reset back to idle). That generated 
>> something like a shock wave that travelled around the spiral to a 
>> transducer on the other end, I can't remember if it twisted one 
>> direction for a '1' and the other direction for a '0', or if it only 
>> used one direction of twist, relying on framing pulses and time between
>> bit to differentiate between them.
> 
> That's a bit primitive.
> One of the first bulk computer memories,
> used by Alan Turing himself, was a mercury delay line.
> Bits were stored as sound pulses in a column of mercury.
> 
> Just as with a hard drive the computer had to wait
> for the right part of the bit string to pass by.
> I would have to look up how long its bit string could be,
> 
> Jan
> 

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095708310

   "quartz crystals were used as transducers and the ultrasonic pulses were
    passed along a tube of mercury about 5 feet (1.5 meters) in length.
    The delay was approximately 1 millisecond but it enabled nearly 1000 pulses
    to be stored. Later acoustic memory used magnetostrictive transducers and
    nickel-iron wire, with the electrical signals converted into stress waves."

A thousand bits, isn't a lot.

Some of the first SRAM (suitable for home computer projects)
were 256x4 bits and 1024x1 bit static RAM running at 5 volts.
"Beautiful stuff". Compared to the dreadful DRAM of the day.
And just one of those chips, stores the same stuff as a delay
line, and also offers "random" access, so is a lot faster.

My breadboarded home computer used (4) 256x4 chips. As a 256x16 array (16 bit CPU).

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10

csiph-web