Searching \ for '[OT] What OS do you use for development ?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: techref.massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=what+you+use+development
Search entire site for: 'What OS do you use for development ?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] What OS do you use for development ?'
2011\10\17@101149 by Mark Hanchey

flavicon
face
I once used windows xp for development but had windows 7 on my desktops. It seemed to be a good OS overall so I then put windows 7 on my development computers as well. Lately though I have been annoyed by several things that I didn't encounter with xp. IDE applications that have access violations and close, programs that once worked but now don't due to things like inability to access the parallel port and just general bugs and errors here and there.  Some applications will not run at all and just close because they were written for windows 98 and unfortunately the creators are no longer around or don't have new versions. I tried compatibility options but still some don't work.

I can work around most of these, but I was wondering what others are doing. Are you staying with an older OS for compatibility or are you toughing it out slowly changing to a newer OS ? I am at the point of considering going back to xp for my development pc but I hate the idea of going to an OS I know will not be supported in the future. Curious what others are doing here .

Thanks
Mark

2011\10\17@111945 by RussellMc

face picon face
> .. I can work around most of these, but I was wondering what others are
> doing. ...

Hat: None noticed -

This seems like an extremely good question and worth asking. If
discussion remains even vaguely in the area asked about all should be
very well. Experience tells however that one possible path of such
questions leads to my|your  OS/language/environment/mother is better
than yours/wears army boots/is prone to xxx/is ... .

If a religious OS was arises big Bob will wake up and trash the thread
and we will all be the poorer for it. Please proceed accordingly.


2011\10\17@112747 by John Ferrell

face
flavicon
face
On 10/17/2011 10:11 AM, Mark Hanchey wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Bear in mind that I am retired and most of my work is for my own purposes.

If you want to continue to use all of your tools you must have both W7 & XP (Pro).

I am discovering that in some of my tools used on XP have reduced function sets even with new versions for W7.
W7 does not permit the flexibility that XP allowed. Usually the reason given is security issues.
 For some of my old software it is more economical to keep a couple of XP's than to even try to find a W7 replacement.

Whatever XP hardware you like may be getting scarce, so I recommend you hoard what you find essential!
My treasured Logitec FX Trackball does not have a W7 Driver available. Most W7 MB's have little PCI hardware support.

Maybe VMWARE will provide some relief, I have not got to that yet.
KVM switches and Remote Console support are getting more available to deal with multiple machines.

-- John Ferrell W8CCW

2011\10\17@120740 by Joe Wronski

flavicon
face
On 10/17/2011 11:27 AM, John Ferrell wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I've run into issues since upgrading to a 4 core AMD desktop PC.    I also  "upgraded"[1] from XP to W7 Home Premium.    I just learned that to use MPLAB on W7 with old projects, I need to "run this program as administrator", else I get permission problems.

Joe W.

[1] I read Russel's warning, but I still need to question Micro$oft's philosophy in operating systems.  The major problem I have is with the file explorer, which wants to default to "Libraries" which I never use, and otherwise seems to suck when expanding trees.  Also, some older hardware doesn't have drivers, but I suppose I should blame the hardware vendors for that.  I've been looking into VMWare and VirtualBox as a bandaid, but am also considering spending $100-ish for an upgrade to a higher edition (Pro, Enterprise, or Ultimate), which is needed to run M$oft's XP Mode. <www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/download.aspx>
As far as permissions problems, a solution might be to learn more about Windows security settings, but I wish it were more straightforward

2011\10\17@132234 by Peter Johansson

picon face
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Mark Hanchey <spam_OUTmarkTakeThisOuTspampixeltrickery.com> wrote:

> I can work around most of these, but I was wondering what others are
> doing. Are you staying with an older OS for compatibility or are you
> toughing it out slowly changing to a newer OS ? I am at the point of
> considering going back to xp for my development pc but I hate the idea
> of going to an OS I know will not be supported in the future. Curious
> what others are doing here .

I went from my first 8-bit PC directly to Unix, and happily avoided
all the stupidity of Windows.  I have used many different flavors of
Unix over the years, but for past five years I have been using OS/X
exclusively for desktop use.  When I need to run a Windows app, I run
it in a VM.  As far as I am concerned, the *only* way to run Windows
is safely locked away inside of a VM.

I use nLite to build a stripped down Windows XP installer with all of
the updates installed.  I then use this to build a base Windows
install.  This image is then cloned, and used to build various VMs
tailored to specific projects.  This "virgin" image is also archived
so that I can easily get back to a known working state after Windows
chokes itself, which it inevitably does.  Fortunately, when using a
Windows Install for specific purposes like this, Windows chokes itself
far less frequently.

A nice side effect is that it then becomes trivial to move an entire
project and it's associated development environment from one physical
machine to another.

-p

2011\10\17@144045 by Dwayne Reid

flavicon
face
At 11:22 AM 10/17/2011, Peter Johansson wrote:

>I use nLite to build a stripped down Windows XP installer with all of
>the updates installed.  I then use this to build a base Windows
>install.  This image is then cloned, and used to build various VMs
>tailored to specific projects.  This "virgin" image is also archived
>so that I can easily get back to a known working state after Windows
>chokes itself, which it inevitably does.  Fortunately, when using a
>Windows Install for specific purposes like this, Windows chokes itself
>far less frequently.

Hi there, Peter.

Would you consider selling copies of your image on CD or DVD, whichever is most appropriate?  We all can do exactly what you've done, except that you've already done it.

You would want to ensure that the Windows Key was either blank or bogus, though.  That should stop any talk of piracy or whatever other related concerns that might arise.

I've been considering doing exactly what you describe but have just not got around to it.  Getting a copy of your image would save several hours - or more.

Many thanks!

dwayne

-- Dwayne Reid   <.....dwaynerKILLspamspam@spam@planet.eon.net>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd    Edmonton, AB, CANADA
(780) 489-3199 voice          (780) 487-6397 fax
http://www.trinity-electronics.com
Custom Electronics Design and Manufacturing

2011\10\17@145352 by Peter Loron

flavicon
face
What Peter said. I find no end of grief when working with Windows, so I avoid it where possible. I alternate between Ubuntu and OSX for my primary machines. When I need Windows, I fire up a VM.

VMWare is very nice. VirtualBox is also very good and is free.

-Pete

On Oct 17, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Peter Johansson wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2011\10\17@171214 by Mark Hanchey

flavicon
face
On 10/17/2011 2:53 PM, Peter Loron wrote:
> What Peter said. I find no end of grief when working with Windows, so I avoid it where possible. I alternate between Ubuntu and OSX for my primary machines. When I need Windows, I fire up a VM.
>
> VMWare is very nice. VirtualBox is also very good and is free.
>
> -Pete
>

I have looked at and tried going to linux for development but the problem I keep having is a lot of my software is windows based . I use tools like National Instruments Electronics workbench and couldn't get it to work reliably under linux using a vm in the past. I had issues with screen drawing. I also need to do it on a laptop and the one I have only has 2GB of ram so running a VM is difficult.  I guess the linux route with
a vm might be the way to go but I can't do it right now with my laptop and that is one of my favorite development computers.  Maybe when I get more money I can get a better one and move to linux.

How is mplabx working in linux ? I tried it on a desktop and could never get it to see the pickit 3.
  A list of programs that people are using under linux for development might help too .

Thanks
Mark

2011\10\17@174519 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Mark Hanchey wrote:

> I once used windows xp for development but had windows 7 on my
> desktops. It seemed to be a good OS overall so I then put windows 7
> on my development computers as well. Lately though I have been
> annoyed by several things that I didn't encounter with xp. IDE
> applications that have access violations and close, programs that
> once worked but now don't due to things like inability to access the
> parallel port and just general bugs and errors here and there.  Some
> applications will not run at all and just close because they were
> written for windows 98 and unfortunately the creators are no longer
> around or don't have new versions. I tried compatibility options but
> still some don't work.

As others said, you can use a VM for WinXP (both VMWare and VirtualBox
are free and run well on Win7) or Win7 XP mode.
You can also get yourself a cheap old computer where you install WinXP
and run it headless, controlled with e.g. VNC. (Or, if you have a spare
monitor to go with it, use Synergy to use your keyboard and mouse to
control it. Or use MaxiVista and get an optionally extended desktop for
your main system.)

Another option may be to disable Win7 UAC. This may make a few things a
bit simpler -- but you lose a helpful bit of security. It is not so
difficult to create a shortcut that runs an application with elevated
privileges, for the apps that need it.

Gerhar

2011\10\17@180528 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Mark Hanchey wrote:
>
>  
>> I once used windows xp for development but had windows 7 on my
>> desktops. It seemed to be a good OS overall so I then put windows 7
>> on my development computers as well. Lately though I have been
>> annoyed by several things that I didn't encounter with xp. IDE
>> applications that have access violations and close, programs that
>> once worked but now don't due to things like inability to access the
>> parallel port and just general bugs and errors here and there.  Some
>> applications will not run at all and just close because they were
>> written for windows 98 and unfortunately the creators are no longer
>> around or don't have new versions. I tried compatibility options but
>> still some don't work.
>>    
>
> As others said, you can use a VM for WinXP (both VMWare and VirtualBox
> are free and run well on Win7) or Win7 XP mode.
>  
I just use XP
I have 2nd laptop with Ubuntu.
Most of my tools either have no equally good Linux version or not at all on Linux.
My main 1.8GHz 1600 x 1200 screen XP laptop hasn't been re-installed in 10 years+
I have 2 x PCs that are nearly 4 years old. Never a problem or crash.

My experience is that XP problems are bad configuration, bad drivers or faulty HW. There is no reliability issue with the OS.

I've also been using UNIX since 1986 and Linux since 1999. We have Apache and MySQL on our win2K server in attic. We only go up to press the power switch when Electricity outage is going to exceed UPS time.
#
It depends on the kind of development you do if Linux or XP is appropriate. For 3 years I had Linux on 4 PCs as I was doing a lot of stuff related to VOIP, Firewalls, Routers etc and Linux driver development. I had to have two  kernel  versions back then.
I can't see any point to OS X though unless to develop for iOS and OSX. Overpriced narrow choice of HW and even less of the tools I use run on OS X..

I've maintained Vista and Win7 on other peoples machines.

2011\10\17@184739 by Peter Johansson

picon face
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Dwayne Reid <.....dwaynerKILLspamspam.....planet.eon.net> wrote:

> Would you consider selling copies of your image on CD or DVD,
> whichever is most appropriate?  We all can do exactly what you've
> done, except that you've already done it.

I'd really rather not.  Building an install CD really isn't that
difficult or time consuming.  The process does take a little while,
but you can easily let it crunch in the background while you are doing
other things.

The only thing that can be a PITA is downloading all of the updates,
but there is a script you can download from:

http://xdot.tk/updates.html

which will download them all for you.

With nLite, it is just a matter of dragging them into the merge updates window.

-p.

2011\10\17@193539 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Mark Hanchey <EraseMEmarkspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTpixeltrickery.com> wrote:
> I can work around most of these, but I was wondering what others are
> doing. Are you staying with an older OS for compatibility or are you
> toughing it out slowly changing to a newer OS ? I am at the point of
> considering going back to xp for my development pc but I hate the idea
> of going to an OS I know will not be supported in the future. Curious
> what others are doing here .

Mark,
I use Windows 7 on all of my machines now.
I use MPLAB extensively. I don't rely on much legacy software.
I use the Embed Inc environment for PIC development and it works fine.
I also use cygwin and create Makefiles to build my large PIC projects,
which allows me to utilize multiple cores (4 in laptop, 2 on desktop)

My USB projects for work use Embed Inc's USB driver which works fine
on all 32 bit Windows environments but not 64 bit - for that I use
libusb.

And with how cheap computer hardware is, I don't find a good reason to
skimp on hardware. I put solid state drives in both of my machines and
the productivity increase is well worth the cost.

-- Martin K

2011\10\17@205611 by Peter Loron

flavicon
face
++ for SSD and lots of RAM.

-Pete

On Oct 17, 2011, at 4:34 PM, M.L. wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2011\10\17@220456 by V G

picon face
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Mark Hanchey <@spam@markKILLspamspampixeltrickery.com>wrote:

> I once used windows xp for development but had windows 7 on my desktops.
> It seemed to be a good OS overall so I then put windows 7 on my
> development computers as well. Lately though I have been annoyed by
> several things that I didn't encounter with xp. IDE applications that
> have access violations and close, programs that once worked but now
> don't due to things like inability to access the parallel port and just
> general bugs and errors here and there.  Some applications will not run
> at all and just close because they were written for windows 98 and
> unfortunately the creators are no longer around or don't have new
> versions. I tried compatibility options but still some don't work.
>
> I can work around most of these, but I was wondering what others are
> doing. Are you staying with an older OS for compatibility or are you
> toughing it out slowly changing to a newer OS ? I am at the point of
> considering going back to xp for my development pc but I hate the idea
> of going to an OS I know will not be supported in the future. Curious
> what others are doing here .
>

I had the same issues. Microsoft makes such crap.

Linux never failed me. Pick your favourite distro and rock on. But if you
/have/ to use winbloze, I guess XP is the way to go since most programs are
known to work on it

2011\10\18@074335 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:04 PM, V G <KILLspamx.solarwind.xKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
> Linux never failed me. Pick your favourite distro and rock on. But if you
> /have/ to use winbloze, I guess XP is the way to go since most programs are
> known to work on it.

I used Linux extensively through college. I could probably still use
it now, but it's just easier to get things running on Windows. I still
use Linux on my email server.

It may be fun to rip on Windows, but I'd guess you've never had to use
Windows 95. It's orders of magnitude better now than it was then.

-- Martin K

2011\10\18@083427 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
M.L. wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:04 PM, V G <RemoveMEx.solarwind.xTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
>  
>> Linux never failed me. Pick your favourite distro and rock on. But if you
>> /have/ to use winbloze, I guess XP is the way to go since most programs are
>> known to work on it.
>>    
>
> I used Linux extensively through college. I could probably still use
> it now, but it's just easier to get things running on Windows. I still
> use Linux on my email server.
>
> It may be fun to rip on Windows, but I'd guess you've never had to use
> Windows 95. It's orders of magnitude better now than it was then.
>
>   Win95 was just DOS based Win3.11 with a new GUI. Win3.11 had 32bit networking, graphics, disk, virtual memory options. It ran 16bit code natively thus was a pig on Pentium Pro (which had no simple mechanism to switch from 32bit to 16bit).

The Earlier NT 3.1, 3.5 and 3.51 were real 32 bits and ran 16bit windows via WOW api mapping to 32 bit and the same NTVDM used for DOS on a virtual machine.
They should never ever have released Win95 other than as a console. NT4.0 in 1996 was far superior. It wasn't until XP that they managed to recover from the poor decision to let Win95 be used for general purpose windows rather than just consoles. But they were more worried about OS/2 Warp than doing the right thing.

I had Explorer as a preview shell on NT3.51. Since unlike NT4.0 the GDI was not in kernel, Explorer couldn't crash NT3.51  They made poor decisions regarding  NT 4.0  simply  to  port Direct X for games a bit faster and improve video by about 10%. Stupidity since almost none of the games worked on NT 4.0 (the ones that did often used OpenGL anyway, not Direct X). Since 1994 it seems MS OS development has been dominated by GUI considerations.  But in the last few years the same is true of OS X and Ubuntu.

Most of the security issues are due to C and using C style string or other buffers in C++. These exist in Linux and OS X too. They would not exist if using a "decent" C++ string library and possibly "proper" libraries in Objective J, Turbo Pascal, Modula-2 or Ada. Inherently, properly applied the NT security model was one UNIX and Linux could only dream of with their 3 sets of flags for r, w, x.  By win 2000 of course MS didn't seem to understand the security model and too many applications were written in total ignorance of the security model (for win9x) so would only work easily as "Administrator".  COM. DCOM and ActiveX of course very broken concepts totally contrary to NT Security model compared to Named Pipes. When you copy stuff from one PC to another there is of course no assurance the resources needed by COM, DCOM, ActiveX exist. Allowing such in Web pages and supporting Browser was of course total idiocy. ActiveX and similar only at all make sense as an alternative to importing a DLL API and then distributing the entire "thing" as a monolithic install .exe or msi or cab package such that the activeX parts are always there and correct version.  There are and always were ways to avoid DLL Hell and the similar issues with COM, DCOM  and ActiveX.

C style strings and buffers should not be used except in the most limited circumstance where you 100% can be sure the buffer/sting is always correct.

2011\10\18@205247 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Wow Michael,

Thanks for the history :-) I totally agree with you on the C blaming
comments, however, it is not only strings where we have problems, and it is
not only buffer overrun which is a security concern. I agree with the part
as well that we definitely need a better approach on development in term of
security, however, all runtime checks have some footprints which are less
and less problems for nowadays computing power and availability of memory
and storage -- but back in days Dennis Ritchie designed C all these things
were crucial and needed the most simple solutions.

Btw, Win 95 was a big step forward indeed as fas as I remember as it had a
full 32 bit support with most OS elements compiled to 32 bit running on the
true preemptive scheduler. It was much more stable than Win 3.11 Workgroup.
And 16 bit DOS and Windows apps were running on virtual boxes so if they
crashed the OS was still stable, which sounds normal nowadays but by that
time it was pretty new. NT and OS/2 was better, yes, but that did not run on
average desktops. Plus Win 95 was the first Windows copying Mac OS GUI
principals -- except Microsoft put the Start button on the bottom as opposed
to the top.

Anyway, nowadays I use Mac and Linux as host OS pretty much everywhere and
try to use virtual hardware and Win XP or 7 when needed and possible -- but
not everything runs on virtual machines correctly. For example games, and by
games I also mean my RC model airplane simulator. So now I am also looking
for a dual boot capabilities, most probably on the Mac/Bootcamp -- but that
does not do anything with the OP as MPLAB works pretty ok on VirtualBox.

Tamas



On 18 October 2011 13:33, Michael Watterson <spamBeGonemikespamBeGonespamradioway.org> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>

2011\10\19@051853 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 19/10/2011 01:52, Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> Btw, Win 95 was a big step forward indeed as fas as I remember as it had a
> full 32 bit support with most OS elements compiled to 32 bit running on the
> true preemptive scheduler. It was much more stable than Win 3.11 Workgroup.
> And 16 bit DOS and Windows apps were running on virtual boxes so if they
> crashed the OS was still stable, which sounds normal nowadays but by that
> time it was pretty new. NT and OS/2 was better, yes, but that did not run on
> average desktops. Plus Win 95 was the first Windows copying Mac OS GUI
> principals -- except Microsoft put the Start button on the bottom as opposed
> to the top.

Win.311 could run true 32bit  NT3.5 programs perfectly via Win32s
Win95. Win98 ran Dos and 16bit natively. Only NT ran 16 bit and Dos in a VM..

Win95 was maybe more stable out of the box. But it wasn't  32bit OS anymore than WFWG3.11 with all the 32bit upgrades. They deliberately added some 32bit APIs not on NT3.5 and thus not in Win32s and used them in the largely still 16bit Office 95 so Office 95 wouldn't run on Win32s  on Win 3.11 / WFWG 3.11 This meant that Office 95 would not run on NT3.5, so they released an upgrade free to most NT3.5 users, NT3.51

The ONLY significant difference between a fully configured 1993+ WFWG3.11  was Explorer and even on Win95 originally no USB and no TCP/IP as standard (it was the SAME 32bit TCP/IP as the addon for WFWG and the 32 bit paging/disk access/driver/"virtual memory" almost identical to the 32bit option for WFWG.

There was a HUGE difference between original Win 3.1 and Win95. But honestly the original Win95 was less stable than final version of WFWG3.11 (1993 version with all 32bit extensions) and no more "32bit".

At the time my main job was design and install of Windows networks with NT servers and either WFWG or NT workstations. It was a relief to us when NT4.0 came out. But so many businesses getting "conned" into NetBeui "peer to peer" Win95 systems at the time. It was rubbish for Buisness, a games console. Sadly the MS info machine was poor and many resellers didn't actually know that NT had already existed for nearly 3 years! Or why it was better to switch of file & printer sharing and have only one dedicated machine as "server". The mess people made of their accounts, documents etc switching to Win95 peer to peer instead of Novell server. We supplied some Unix (Xenix, SCO,  BSD etc) back then but mostly NT3.x Servers till NT4.0 server arrived. Till about 1998 some people still specifying NT3.51 server as it was more stable and faster than NT4.0. Yes the Linux kernel was out since 1993, but 1994 to 1997 you would not have seen a Linux server.   NT3.51 ran on 386-20 with 12M RAM quite well. NT4.0 server ran on P90 with 20M of RAM quite well for 50 users.

2011\10\19@053420 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 19/10/2011 01:52, Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> Plus Win 95 was the first Windows copying Mac OS GUI
> principals -- except Microsoft put the Start button on the bottom as opposed
> to the top.

No, the start button can be where you want it.
Word and Excel originally done for Mac
I've used Mac OS 8 and OS9 as well as the not really Mac OS at all OS 10 aka OS X
Both copy the Xerox Star (which I played with)
The Windows 3.0 was the first to be Mac like (in terms of early Mac) and Win3.1 first usable Windows.
WFWG3.11 with win32s, VFW etc was decent. But the time all the "extras" to make WFWG3.11 "fully functional" were out the NT3.1 was released (NT 2.0 was essentially the little known 1989 version of MS OS/2 including LAN manager built in after IBM and MS parted company, so you could say the joint MS/IBM version of OS/2 (which was fairly rubbish and used MS Lanmanager to add networking) is sort of NT 1.x But of course NT3.1 (there are in reality no earlier release versions) was actually a separate project to MS OS/2)

I have somewhere copies of all windows from 2.0 to Server 2003 and DOS from 2.11 to DOS 6.22

What they needed was the better desktop of Explorer but building in File manager. NT for quite a while had Filemanager as well as Explorer, with also oddly the option to have Program Manager as Shell instead of Explorer.

Explorer is still rubbish for lots of files and certain file operations.. I have the "cmd window here" context on Explorer to open console and run xcopy

My archos 605 has a  win3.x "file manager" style application as on the small screen an "explorer" style interface is awkward.

People need to stop copying the latest Mac eye candy and focus on making what they have work better. You listening Ubuntu

2011\10\19@054904 by slippyr4

picon face
On 19 October 2011 10:18, Michael Watterson <RemoveMEmikespamTakeThisOuTradioway.org> wrote:

>
> The ONLY significant difference between a fully configured 1993+
> WFWG3.11  was Explorer and even on Win95 originally no USB and no TCP/IP
> as standard (it was the SAME 32bit TCP/IP as the addon for WFWG and the
> 32 bit paging/disk access/driver/"virtual memory" almost identical to
> the 32bit option for WFWG.
>
>
Rubbish. There were quite a lot of differences between windows 3.11 and
windows 95.  The most obvious and important one was that Windows 95 had
preemptive multitasking, 3.11 did not. Plug and play was new to 95.

Windows NT is where the modern win32 api came from. But the marketplace was
not ready for it in 1995. The single biggest constraint microsoft are always
bound by is to retain as much backwards compatibility with previous software
and hardware as possible. In 1995 the world was not ready for Windows NT.

What makes an operating system "good"? Is it "technical excellence", or is
it that it meets the needs of customers and sells well?

I think the latter, and, so did the marketplace - Windows 95 remains one of
the best selling operating systems microsoft has ever created

2011\10\19@064740 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 19/10/2011 10:49, slippyr4 wrote:
> Rubbish. There were quite a lot of differences between windows 3.11 and
> windows 95.  The most obvious and important one was that Windows 95 had
> preemptive multitasking, 3.11 did not. Plug and play was new to 95.

Win 95a multitasking was no difference. Only NT had true pre-emptive multitasking. Win95 (all three main versions) ran on DOS and ran DOS and 16 bit applications natively. It was technically impossible for Win95 or win98 to do true pre-emptive multitasking.

Plug and play was largely marketing till a decent amount of stuff was on USB on Win98. Win95 originally didn't have USB. Even today "Plug and play" is an aspiration and not entirely real. Any device that exists AFTER the OS is released needs installed essentially the same way as in 1991.  PCMCIA subsystem for win3.x and WFWG 3.11 was "plug  and play" if the PCMCIA device was in the database. This was no different to Win95a. Or indeed to USB today.


You are confusing the differences of Win 3.1 and Win2000 rather than final version of WFWG3.11 and first version of Win95. The Explorer shell and Direct X (to allow easy ports of DOS games, back then "real" windows graphics used GDI, VFW or OpenGL)  where in reality the only major differences. NT4.0  had OpenGL and Win95 didn't have openGL.  In 1995 only ported DOS games and some MS demos used Direct X. "Real" windows graphics programming then didn't use it.

2011\10\19@090955 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Win 95 had a compatibility mode MS DOS, not a real one, however, you could
boot up to DOS only mode which was a true, real mode DOS, but then the Win
95 was not running. I remember, that was a huge advantage on old DOS and
even Win 3.1 apps that is the app crashed it did not bring down the OS
(well, much less frequently than on 3.1)


>From the TechNet: "As illustrated here, Win32-based and Win16-based
applications run in the System VM. Win32-based applications each run in a
separate address space, while Win16-based applications run together in a
shared address space. *Each MS-DOS – based application runs in its own VM..*"
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc751120.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95#Dependence_on_MS-DOS

Anyway, I still believe Win 95 was a pretty good thing in its time (even
though I was a big fan of OS/2 Warp).

Tamas



On 19 October 2011 11:46, Michael Watterson <mikeEraseMEspam.....radioway.org> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>

2011\10\19@091204 by RussellMc

face picon face
Just some guy, you know, said:

> Hat: None noticed -

> ...  Experience tells however that one possible path of such
> questions leads to my|your  OS/language/environment/mother is better
> than yours/wears army boots/is prone to xxx/is ... .

> If a religious OS war arises big Bob will wake up and trash the thread
> and we will all be the poorer for it. Please proceed accordingly.


We seem to be inching towards the feared state by a process of biased
semi random walk.

Keep up the good stuff, but please try to stay off what is likely to
prove inflammatory. A number of comments so far could easily have lead
to flame escalation if people had decided to respond as people
sometimes do to such stuff.



        Russell

2011\10\19@093340 by slippyr4

picon face
On 19 October 2011 11:46, Michael Watterson <EraseMEmikespamradioway.org> wrote:

>
> Win 95a multitasking was no difference. Only NT had true pre-emptive
> multitasking. Win95 (all three main versions) ran on DOS and ran DOS and
> 16 bit applications natively. It was technically impossible for Win95 or
> win98 to do true pre-emptive multitasking.
>
>
I'm sorry but that is just plain wrong. The Windows 95 kernel ran in
protected mode; 16 bit applications ran in virtual mode. Multitasking was
pre-emptive for 32 bit processes - only 16 bit applications in virtual mode
could not be pre-emted by the scheduler. Windows 3.11 implemented
cooperative multitasking, and was a whole world different from windows 95.

This whole concept that Windows 95 was just a GUI over DOS 7 is just
ill-informed myth

2011\10\19@094244 by slippyr4

picon face
On 19 October 2011 11:46, Michael Watterson <RemoveMEmikeEraseMEspamEraseMEradioway.org> wrote:

> You are confusing the differences of Win 3.1 and Win2000 rather than
> final version of WFWG3.11 and first version of Win95. The Explorer shell
> and Direct X (to allow easy ports of DOS games, back then "real" windows
> graphics used GDI, VFW or OpenGL)  where in reality the only major
> differences. NT4.0  had OpenGL and Win95 didn't have openGL.  In 1995
> only ported DOS games and some MS demos used Direct X. "Real" windows
> graphics programming then didn't use it.
>
>
>
I'm absolutely not confusing those differences: you are.

DirectX in no way allowed "easy porting" of DOS games. It *did* allow much
easier game development by providing a consistent API for low level access
to hardware, it took away from the developer the complexity of having to
know the intricacies of different video cards, sound cards, joystick ports
and what have you.

DirectX was *necessary* for games to be able to get decent performance when
running on windows.

I vividly remember having to "reboot into dos mode" in windows 95 to get DOS
games to run - you could not run them in a virtual dos box because direct
hardware access was prevented in virtual dos mode. That "reboot into dos
mode" was there *specifically* becuase the architecture of windows 95,
running in protected mode, was absolutely not just a GUI shell on DOS.

But it is suprising that, when windows 95 was released, not a lot of
software used directx? not really - it was a brand new API. Again, that's
why the reboot into dos mode was left in, in the short term

2011\10\19@120630 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
slippyr4 wrote:
>
> But it is suprising that, when windows 95 was released, not a lot of
> software used directx? not really - it was a brand new API. Again, that's
> why the reboot into dos mode was left in, in the short term.
>   Read up on why the Pentium Pro was really fast running 16 bit windows software on true 32 bit NT and why it was deadly slow running 16 bit windows software on Windows 95. The material from technet you quote is extremely misleading.  
Also did you read all the SDK for Direct X in 1995?

Of course Win95 wasn't *just* a shell. But it was just an incremental change on Win3x  You had to exit out of WFWG / Win 3.1 too to run many DOS games as they used various extended modes 286 and 386 so could not run on win 3.x / win 9x as those had no true VM.

Win95 (three quite different versions), Win98 and ME were all POINTLESS and massive millstone on MS neck and on Business.  Smart  companies running Win 3.x  waited  hardly a year and upgraded to NT4.0  Workstation instead of  Win95 as by 1996 they needed new HW anyway, which was more than good enough.

It would be different if  we were arguing Win95 vs OS/2 Warp and MS only had Win95. But they had NT since 1993 and by 1995 HW to run NT was economical (it wasn't in 1993) and very economical in 1996.

Between 1996 and 2003 I maybe installed or managed installs of about 900+  Networked, managed and locked down (users only users not Admins) NT4.0 workstations.
Don't believe hype by MS marketing dept. Win95, 98 and ME was rubbish game console fodder compared to MS's  *OWN*  NT3.5, NT3.51, NT4.0  and Win2000 (NT 5.0) during the parallel time scale. Win95 delivered nothing extra for non-game players over a properly configured WFWG3.11, with MS's own 32bit TCP/IP statck,  VFW, Win32s, and 32bit Disk manager.




2011\10\19@134422 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamKILLspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspamspammit.edu] On
Behalf
> Of Michael Watterson
> Sent: 19 October 2011 17:07
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] What OS do you use for development ?
>
>
> Win95 (three quite different versions), Win98 and ME were all
POINTLESS
> and massive millstone on MS neck and on Business.  Smart  companies
> running Win 3.x  waited  hardly a year and upgraded to NT4.0
> Workstation instead of  Win95 as by 1996 they needed new HW anyway,
> which was more than good enough.


So smart companies waited until the next release of the OS aimed at
serious business use rather than using something designed primarily for
home use?  I think 'smart' is high accolade for companies that simply
applied a modicum of common sense.

Anyway, I have used XP almost exclusively for the past 8-9 years and
Windows 2000 prior to that.  No significant compatibility problems with
development hardware and software in that time.

My company is moving everyone to 64 bit Windows 7, so VMWARE will no
doubt play a big role in my future :(

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2011\10\19@144823 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Michael Rigby-Jones
<EraseMEMichael.Rigby-JonesspamspamspamBeGoneoclaro.com> wrote:
> My company is moving everyone to 64 bit Windows 7, so VMWARE will no
> doubt play a big role in my future :(
>
> Mike


Win7 Pro. has an option for installing the free Windows Virtual PC
that also comes with a free image of Windows XP installed. It works
quite well for when you need it.

-- Martin K

2011\10\19@174919 by slippyr4

picon face
On 19 October 2011 17:06, Michael Watterson <RemoveMEmikeKILLspamspamradioway.org> wrote:

> slippyr4 wrote:
> >
> > But it is suprising that, when windows 95 was released, not a lot of
> > software used directx? not really - it was a brand new API. Again, that's
> > why the reboot into dos mode was left in, in the short term.
> >
> Read up on why the Pentium Pro was really fast running 16 bit windows
> software on true 32 bit NT and why it was deadly slow running 16 bit
> windows software on Windows 95. The material from technet you quote is
> extremely misleading.
>
>
This argument has nothing to do with pentium pro. You can't win an argument
you're losing by changing the subject, you just end up looking like an
idiot.


My point in this argument is that a sizable proportion of what you have
written about windows 95 is plain and simply wrong. I don't know what your
motives are for writing such junk, but it's junk nonetheless.


"Win95 was just DOS based Win3.11 with a new GUI"

Wrong.


"The ONLY significant difference between a fully configured 1993+
WFWG3.11  was Explorer"

Wrong


"Win 95a multitasking was no difference. Only NT had true pre-emptive
multitasking. Win95 (all three main versions) ran on DOS and ran DOS and
16 bit applications natively. It was technically impossible for Win95 or
win98 to do true pre-emptive multitasking."

Wrong.





> Win95 (three quite different versions), Win98 and ME were all POINTLESS
> and massive millstone on MS neck and on Business.  Smart  companies
> running Win 3.x  waited  hardly a year and upgraded to NT4.0
> Workstation instead of  Win95 as by 1996 they needed new HW anyway,
> which was more than good enough.
>
>
Windows 95, 98, and ME were absolutely not pointless. They served as
successful operating systems for MILLIONS and MILLIONS of PC's for YEARS and
YEARS. And, perhaps more importantly for uncle bill, they made $BILLIONS for
microsoft. Those there are some pretty big points to me.




> It would be different if  we were arguing Win95 vs OS/2 Warp and MS only
> had Win95. But they had NT since 1993 and by 1995 HW to run NT was
> economical (it wasn't in 1993) and very economical in 1996.
>

The sole substance of my argument is that windows 95 was a significant
evolution from windows 3.11. I don't dispute that in a lot of ways NT was
technically superior. Nor do microsoft - when the market was ready the NT
platform took over and leads us to where we are today. That's a happy thing..




> Don't believe hype by MS marketing dept.


They speak more sense than you.


> Win95, 98 and ME was rubbish
> game console fodder compared to MS's  *OWN*  NT3.5, NT3.51, NT4.0  and
> Win2000 (NT 5.0) during the parallel time scale. Win95 delivered nothing
> extra for non-game players over a properly configured WFWG3.11
>

except for the above mentioned preemptive multitasking, directx, long
filename support, plug and play

2011\10\20@060342 by RussellMc

face picon face
Hat: Some sort of admin hat.

The majority of the current discussion on this thread has nothing at
all to do with the subject line.
At the very least please start a new thread with a polite, intelligent
and properly descriptive subject line.
eg

              [OT] Arguments about how much I know about old operating
systems that are nowadays used by a vanishingly small proportion of
people so it's interesting but largely academic, and you don't AND
your mother wears army boots

may be descriptive but fails on a few other points

OR - give it away, take it outside, find a place where slowly getting
progressively ruder until fire follows smoke is deemed a good idea.

OR think about the (possible) value of working cooperatively on
determining how the  perspectives of a number (>=2) of technically
competent and experienced people relating to a factual and
deterministic historical technical subject can be reconciled amicably.
Amicably!

OR some time soon the Kraken may waked and there thenceforth shall be
no thread. A shame.




         Russell

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2011 , 2012 only
- Today
- New search...