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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #70198 > unrolled thread

"Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software"

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2019-12-02 13:59 -0600
    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-02 12:33 -0800
      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-02 21:17 +0000
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-12-02 23:08 +0100
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-02 15:39 -0800
          Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-10 13:55 -0800
            Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-11 12:48 -0800
    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Pankaj Jangid <p4j@j4d.net> - 2019-12-03 09:21 +0530
      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2019-12-03 02:03 -0300
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-12-03 09:40 +0000
          Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-03 11:40 +0100
            NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-12-03 11:33 +0000
              Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-03 16:24 +0100
                Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-12-03 17:13 +0100
              Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> - 2019-12-04 14:32 +0100
                Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-04 16:53 +0000
                  Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-12-04 18:34 +0000
                    Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-05 12:51 +0000
              Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-12-08 04:21 +0000
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-03 17:05 -0800
    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-12-06 22:12 -0800
    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-07 07:28 +0100
    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" rep_movsd <rep.movsd@gmail.com> - 2019-12-09 07:57 -0800
      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 11:03 -0600
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-12-09 17:08 +0000
          Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 11:39 -0600
            Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-12-09 18:26 +0000
              Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 15:50 -0600
                Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-12-10 15:09 +1300
                  Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 20:30 -0600
                    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-10 09:06 +0100
                      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-10 03:58 -0600
                        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-10 11:18 +0100
                          Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-10 05:37 -0600
                            Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-10 15:49 +0100
                              Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-10 11:43 -0600
                                Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-12-10 10:19 -0800
                                  Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-10 12:50 -0600
            Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-10 13:12 +0000
              Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-12-10 13:54 +0000
                Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-10 17:22 +0200
                  Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-10 15:35 +0000
                  Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2019-12-10 15:17 -0300
              Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-10 11:32 -0600
              Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-10 21:09 +0000
                Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-11 09:49 +0000
                  Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-12-11 03:13 -0800
                    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-11 11:20 +0000
                      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2019-12-11 12:57 +0100
                      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-12-15 23:27 -0500
                        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-16 10:02 +0000
                    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-11 14:17 -0800
                  Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-12-11 12:11 +0000
                    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-11 12:42 +0000
                    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-11 16:01 +0100
                      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-11 16:15 +0000
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-09 22:16 +0000
          Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 16:25 -0600
            Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2019-12-09 16:35 -0600
              Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 17:19 -0600
              Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-10 11:09 +0100
                Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-10 13:17 +0000
                  Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-10 15:55 +0100
                    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-10 15:26 +0000
      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-09 22:16 +0000
      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2019-12-09 16:33 -0600

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

#70325

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:

> "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software"
>    https://www.infoq.com/news/2019/11/microsoft-exploring-rust-safety/
>
> I doubt it.

Repeating a similar comment made in another posting, I propose
a rule of thumb for postings like this one:  unless a posting is
likely to generate a substantial fraction of responses that are
simultaneously of interest in both comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++,
it should be multi-posted rather than cross-posted (specifically
for c.l.c and c.l.c++).

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

#70327

>> "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software"
>>     https://www.infoq.com/news/2019/11/microsoft-exploring-rust-safety/
>> I doubt it.

> Repeating a similar comment made in another posting, I propose
> a rule of thumb for postings like this one:  unless a posting is
> likely to generate a substantial fraction of responses that are
> simultaneously of interest in both comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++,
> it should be multi-posted rather than cross-posted (specifically
> for c.l.c and c.l.c++).

The article is related to C as well as C++-programmers.
Multiposting is therefore stupid here.

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

#70356

On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 1:29:31 AM UTC+5:30, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software"
>     https://www.infoq.com/news/2019/11/microsoft-exploring-rust-safety/
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> Lynn

MS did it before - remember the Singularity OS, Sing# and Spec# ?

MS keeps trying many things, but there is still Windows 3.1 code in Windows 10 and it wont ever go away.
Closer to home even the VC6 MSVCRT.DLL is still around in Windows AFAIK

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

#70357

rep_movsd wrote:

----snip----

> MS did it before - remember the Singularity OS, Sing# and Spec# ?
>
> MS keeps trying many things, but there is still Windows 3.1 code in
> Windows 10

I very much doubt that. Windows 3.1 is a M$ kludge. Windows 10 is
descended from Windows NT, which was written by DEC.

----snip----

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

#70358

Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> writes:
>rep_movsd wrote:

>> MS did it before - remember the Singularity OS, Sing# and Spec# ?
>>
>> MS keeps trying many things, but there is still Windows 3.1 code in
>> Windows 10
>
>I very much doubt that. Windows 3.1 is a M$ kludge. Windows 10 is
>descended from Windows NT, which was written by DEC.

Windows NT was written by Microsoft, led by former DEC engineer
(Dave Cutler).   While there are some structural similarities between
VMS and NT sourcebases (I've worked with both), NT was certainly
_not_ written by DEC.

NT3.51 and NT4.0 (Win2k) both contained portions of Windows 3.1 in the
so-called 'Windows on Windows' subsystem.

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

#70359

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Ned Latham writes:
> > rep_movsd wrote:
> > >
> > > MS did it before - remember the Singularity OS, Sing# and Spec# ?
> > >
> > > MS keeps trying many things, but there is still Windows 3.1 code in
> > > Windows 10
> >
> > I very much doubt that. Windows 3.1 is a M$ kludge. Windows 10 is
> > descended from Windows NT, which was written by DEC.
>
> Windows NT was written by Microsoft, led by former DEC engineer
> (Dave Cutler).

It was written by a team hired from DEC led by Dave Cutler. Some members
of the M$ OS 2 team joined them. Note that DEC had control and use of NT
until well after delivery. Though it was written *for* M$, it took coding
far beyond the quality and capabilities that are the usual M$ fare.

To call it a M$ product is contractually correct, but wrong in every
other sense, AFAIC.

>                  While there are some structural similarities between
> VMS and NT sourcebases (I've worked with both), NT was certainly
> _not_ written by DEC.

True. Mea culpa for the overstatement.

> NT3.51 and NT4.0 (Win2k) both contained portions of Windows 3.1 in the
> so-called 'Windows on Windows' subsystem.

IOW, a partial emulator?

The best incarnation of NT was on the "screamer", the DEC Alpha.

IMO.

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

#70360

Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:

>
>> NT3.51 and NT4.0 (Win2k) both contained portions of Windows 3.1 in the
>> so-called 'Windows on Windows' subsystem.
>
>IOW, a partial emulator?

WoW used the intel vm86 mode to execute pure win3.1 code.

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

#70361

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Ned Latham writes:
> > Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > >
> > > NT3.51 and NT4.0 (Win2k) both contained portions of Windows 3.1 in the
> > > so-called 'Windows on Windows' subsystem.
> >
> > IOW, a partial emulator?
>
> WoW used the intel vm86 mode to execute pure win3.1 code.

Amazing. I cannot fathom why anyone would want backwards compatibility
with such a dud. Both Apple and RISC OS were streets ahead.

Although, come to think of it, a 1980s employer of mine had a large
database operation upgrade done, and the data entry machines specified
in the contract were Win 3.1 thin clients.

Euw!

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

#70368

On 10/12/2019 10:50, Ned Latham wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Ned Latham writes:
>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> NT3.51 and NT4.0 (Win2k) both contained portions of Windows 3.1 in the
>>>> so-called 'Windows on Windows' subsystem.
>>>
>>> IOW, a partial emulator?
>>
>> WoW used the intel vm86 mode to execute pure win3.1 code.
> 
> Amazing. I cannot fathom why anyone would want backwards compatibility
> with such a dud. 

Games.

-- 
Ian.

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

#70369

Ian Collins wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > > Ned Latham writes:
> > > > Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > NT3.51 and NT4.0 (Win2k) both contained portions of Windows 3.1 in the
> > > > > so-called 'Windows on Windows' subsystem.
> > > >
> > > > IOW, a partial emulator?
> > >
> > > WoW used the intel vm86 mode to execute pure win3.1 code.
> >
> > Amazing. I cannot fathom why anyone would want backwards compatibility
> > with such a dud.
>
> Games.

That's pathetic. (No wonder they called it WoW.)

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

#70370

On 10/12/2019 03:30, Ned Latham wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Ned Latham writes:
>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NT3.51 and NT4.0 (Win2k) both contained portions of Windows 3.1 in the
>>>>>> so-called 'Windows on Windows' subsystem.
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW, a partial emulator?
>>>>
>>>> WoW used the intel vm86 mode to execute pure win3.1 code.
>>>
>>> Amazing. I cannot fathom why anyone would want backwards compatibility
>>> with such a dud.
>>
>> Games.
> 
> That's pathetic. (No wonder they called it WoW.)
> 

That is either blatant snobbery, or you are seriously out of touch with
the technological world.

Games are not the only use for old software and emulation, but they are
a very substantial part of it.

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

#70371

David Brown wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Ian Collins wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham writes:
> > > > > > Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > NT3.51 and NT4.0 (Win2k) both contained portions of Windows
> > > > > > > 3.1 in the so-called 'Windows on Windows' subsystem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IOW, a partial emulator?
> > > > >
> > > > > WoW used the intel vm86 mode to execute pure win3.1 code.
> > > >
> > > > Amazing. I cannot fathom why anyone would want backwards compatibility
> > > > with such a dud.
> > >
> > > Games.
> > 
> > That's pathetic. (No wonder they called it WoW.)
>
> That is either blatant snobbery, or you are seriously out of touch with
> the technological world.

Or maybe I'm just aware of how much better modern games are than the games
of those days were.

> Games are not the only use for old software and emulation, but they are
> a very substantial part of it.

Your reply implied that in this case they are the whole of it. As a reason
for going to the bother of installing a win3.1 emulator, that's pathetic.

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

#70373

On 10/12/2019 10:58, Ned Latham wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Ian Collins wrote:
>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> Ned Latham writes:
>>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NT3.51 and NT4.0 (Win2k) both contained portions of Windows
>>>>>>>> 3.1 in the so-called 'Windows on Windows' subsystem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IOW, a partial emulator?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WoW used the intel vm86 mode to execute pure win3.1 code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amazing. I cannot fathom why anyone would want backwards compatibility
>>>>> with such a dud.
>>>>
>>>> Games.
>>>
>>> That's pathetic. (No wonder they called it WoW.)
>>
>> That is either blatant snobbery, or you are seriously out of touch with
>> the technological world.
> 
> Or maybe I'm just aware of how much better modern games are than the games
> of those days were.
> 

There are different opinions on that - people vary significantly on the
kind of game they like.  You don't get many new players of old games,
but old players can often keep their old games for quite a while - long
after they have changed to newer versions of other software.  And WoW
comes from the early NT days - the main consumer OS was 16-bit Windows
(with gradually increasing 32-bit proportions) until Windows XP in 2001.

>> Games are not the only use for old software and emulation, but they are
>> a very substantial part of it.
> 
> Your reply implied that in this case they are the whole of it. As a reason
> for going to the bother of installing a win3.1 emulator, that's pathetic.
> 

That comment implies you have mixed up posters in this thread.

But yes, I expect that playing old games is a fairly common reason (but
certainly not the only reason) for installing a Win 3.1 emulator on a
newer system.  That does not mean it is something many people will do in
absolute terms.

And no, it is not pathetic.  You don't get to judge people's preferences
as "pathetic" just because they have a favourite game that was written
long ago.  That is definitely snobbery.

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

#70376

David Brown wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > David Brown wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Ian Collins wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > > > Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > > > > > > Ned Latham writes:
> > > > > > > > Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > NT3.51 and NT4.0 (Win2k) both contained portions of Windows
> > > > > > > > > 3.1 in the so-called 'Windows on Windows' subsystem.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > IOW, a partial emulator?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WoW used the intel vm86 mode to execute pure win3.1 code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Amazing. I cannot fathom why anyone would want backwards compatibility
> > > > > > with such a dud.
> > > > >
> > > > > Games.
> > > >
> > > > That's pathetic. (No wonder they called it WoW.)
> > >
> > > That is either blatant snobbery, or you are seriously out of touch with
> > > the technological world.
> >
> > Or maybe I'm just aware of how much better modern games are than the games
> > of those days were.
>
> There are different opinions on that - people vary significantly on the
> kind of game they like. You don't get many new players of old games,
> but old players can often keep their old games for quite a while - long
> after they have changed to newer versions of other software.  And WoW
> comes from the early NT days - the main consumer OS was 16-bit Windows
> (with gradually increasing 32-bit proportions) until Windows XP in 2001.

I thought about reasons for bothering to create a win3.1 emulator; it
occurs to me that there would have been aq lot of corporate migration
from 3.1 to NT.

> > > Games are not the only use for old software and emulation, but they are
> > > a very substantial part of it.
> >
> > Your reply implied that in this case they are the whole of it. As a reason
> > for going to the bother of installing a win3.1 emulator, that's pathetic.
>
> That comment implies you have mixed up posters in this thread.

You're right. It was Ian Collins.

> But yes, I expect that playing old games is a fairly common reason (but
> certainly not the only reason) for installing a Win 3.1 emulator on a
> newer system.  That does not mean it is something many people will do in
> absolute terms.
>
> And no, it is not pathetic.  You don't get to judge people's preferences
> as "pathetic" just because they have a favourite game that was written
> long ago.  That is definitely snobbery.

Don't put words in my mouth. Especially when *my* words are still here, in
this post, giving the lie to your crap.

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

#70382

On 10/12/2019 12:37, Ned Latham wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>>> Ian Collins wrote:
>>>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ned Latham writes:
>>>>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NT3.51 and NT4.0 (Win2k) both contained portions of Windows
>>>>>>>>>> 3.1 in the so-called 'Windows on Windows' subsystem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IOW, a partial emulator?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WoW used the intel vm86 mode to execute pure win3.1 code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amazing. I cannot fathom why anyone would want backwards compatibility
>>>>>>> with such a dud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Games.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's pathetic. (No wonder they called it WoW.)
>>>>
>>>> That is either blatant snobbery, or you are seriously out of touch with
>>>> the technological world.
>>>
>>> Or maybe I'm just aware of how much better modern games are than the games
>>> of those days were.
>>
>> There are different opinions on that - people vary significantly on the
>> kind of game they like. You don't get many new players of old games,
>> but old players can often keep their old games for quite a while - long
>> after they have changed to newer versions of other software.  And WoW
>> comes from the early NT days - the main consumer OS was 16-bit Windows
>> (with gradually increasing 32-bit proportions) until Windows XP in 2001.
> 
> I thought about reasons for bothering to create a win3.1 emulator; it
> occurs to me that there would have been aq lot of corporate migration
> from 3.1 to NT.

Sure, that was critical at the time - lots of software was written for
16-bit Windows, and people needed to run it on 32-bit NT.  And it became
steadily less relevant over time.  You are unlikely to find many people
wanting to run 16-bit Windows software /now/ in a corporate setting.  If
you look at tools aimed at running old software, there is a strong focus
on games - because that is a big use-case.

> 
>>>> Games are not the only use for old software and emulation, but they are
>>>> a very substantial part of it.
>>>
>>> Your reply implied that in this case they are the whole of it. As a reason
>>> for going to the bother of installing a win3.1 emulator, that's pathetic.
>>
>> That comment implies you have mixed up posters in this thread.
> 
> You're right. It was Ian Collins.
> 
>> But yes, I expect that playing old games is a fairly common reason (but
>> certainly not the only reason) for installing a Win 3.1 emulator on a
>> newer system.  That does not mean it is something many people will do in
>> absolute terms.
>>
>> And no, it is not pathetic.  You don't get to judge people's preferences
>> as "pathetic" just because they have a favourite game that was written
>> long ago.  That is definitely snobbery.
> 
> Don't put words in my mouth. Especially when *my* words are still here, in
> this post, giving the lie to your crap.
> 

You have twice said that it is "pathetic" that people would use Win 3.1
support software to run games.  How is that to be interpreted other than
as saying it is "pathetic" that people would want to run old games?

You can answer that if you like, but I think this thread branch is going
nowhere and is clearly off-topic.

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

#70388

David Brown wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > David Brown wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:

----snip----

> > > > Your reply implied that in this case they are the whole of it. As a reason
> > > > for going to the bother of installing a win3.1 emulator, that's pathetic.
> > >
> > > That comment implies you have mixed up posters in this thread.
> > 
> > You're right. It was Ian Collins.
> > 
> > > But yes, I expect that playing old games is a fairly common reason (but
> > > certainly not the only reason) for installing a Win 3.1 emulator on a
> > > newer system.  That does not mean it is something many people will do in
> > > absolute terms.
> > >
> > > And no, it is not pathetic.  You don't get to judge people's preferences
> > > as "pathetic" just because they have a favourite game that was written
> > > long ago.  That is definitely snobbery.
> > 
> > Don't put words in my mouth. Especially when *my* words are still here, in
> > this post, giving the lie to your crap.
>
> You have twice said that it is "pathetic" that people would use Win 3.1
> support software to run games.  How is that to be interpreted other than
> as saying it is "pathetic" that people would want to run old games?

I said, and I quote, "[the] reply indicated that in this case [games] are
the whole of it. AS A REASON FOR GOING TO THE BOTHER OF INSTALLING A
WIN3.1 EMULATOR, that's pathetic".

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

#70390

Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> writes:
> David Brown wrote:
[...]
>> You have twice said that it is "pathetic" that people would use Win 3.1
>> support software to run games.  How is that to be interpreted other than
>> as saying it is "pathetic" that people would want to run old games?
>
> I said, and I quote, "[the] reply indicated that in this case [games] are
> the whole of it. AS A REASON FOR GOING TO THE BOTHER OF INSTALLING A
> WIN3.1 EMULATOR, that's pathetic".

And this has what exactly to do with C++, the topic of this newsgroup?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

#70391

Keith Thompson wrote:
> Ned Latham writes:
> > David Brown wrote:
> [...]
> > > You have twice said that it is "pathetic" that people would use Win 3.1
> > > support software to run games.  How is that to be interpreted other than
> > > as saying it is "pathetic" that people would want to run old games?
> >
> > I said, and I quote, "[the] reply indicated that in this case [games] are
> > the whole of it. AS A REASON FOR GOING TO THE BOTHER OF INSTALLING A
> > WIN3.1 EMULATOR, that's pathetic".
>
> And this has what exactly to do with C++, the topic of this newsgroup?

Shit happens.

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

#70379

On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 11:39:13 -0600
Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Ned Latham writes:
>> > rep_movsd wrote:
>> > >
>> > > MS did it before - remember the Singularity OS, Sing# and Spec# ?
>> > >
>> > > MS keeps trying many things, but there is still Windows 3.1 code in
>> > > Windows 10
>> >
>> > I very much doubt that. Windows 3.1 is a M$ kludge. Windows 10 is
>> > descended from Windows NT, which was written by DEC.
>>
>> Windows NT was written by Microsoft, led by former DEC engineer
>> (Dave Cutler).
>
>It was written by a team hired from DEC led by Dave Cutler. Some members
>of the M$ OS 2 team joined them. Note that DEC had control and use of NT
>until well after delivery. Though it was written *for* M$, it took coding
>far beyond the quality and capabilities that are the usual M$ fare.

Are you talking about NT here or some reliable and fast OS that MS never
released? Win NT was a blue screening, slow joke of an OS and frankly I'd have
expected better from people who worked on VMS.

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

#70381

On 10/12/2019 13:12, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2019 11:39:13 -0600
> Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Ned Latham writes:
>>>> rep_movsd wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> MS did it before - remember the Singularity OS, Sing# and Spec# ?
>>>>>
>>>>> MS keeps trying many things, but there is still Windows 3.1 code in
>>>>> Windows 10
>>>>
>>>> I very much doubt that. Windows 3.1 is a M$ kludge. Windows 10 is
>>>> descended from Windows NT, which was written by DEC.
>>>
>>> Windows NT was written by Microsoft, led by former DEC engineer
>>> (Dave Cutler).
>>
>> It was written by a team hired from DEC led by Dave Cutler. Some members
>> of the M$ OS 2 team joined them. Note that DEC had control and use of NT
>> until well after delivery. Though it was written *for* M$, it took coding
>> far beyond the quality and capabilities that are the usual M$ fare.
> 
> Are you talking about NT here or some reliable and fast OS that MS never
> released? Win NT was a blue screening, slow joke of an OS and frankly I'd have
> expected better from people who worked on VMS.
> 


IIRC didn't the original NT (3.5?) boot up with a blue screen anyway?

But the 'blue-screen' was just how MS chose to report detected system 
errors. I'm sure other OSes could also crash, but just didn't do so with 
a blue display. (Android might just become unresponsive, or the display 
goes crazy. Or just goes completely dead.)

MS Windows was also a little unusual as it ran on consumer hardware that 
could be assembled from assorted third party components: motherboard, 
graphics, controllers, which came with their own third party drivers. It 
didn't have as much control as, say, Apple.

As to its speed, yes these days Windows is a monstrous bloated mess of 
an OS. I use it but just try and ignore most of it as much as I can. 
(Eg. right-click on some file icon, and you can count to 10 - or 
sometimes even longer - before it shows a menu. WTH is it up to?)

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

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

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web