On 2006-08-28, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> quoted:
>| Microsoft's Vista developers can't catch a break these days. After years
>| of warnings from security researchers that old code in Windows was
>| creating security risks, the software giant decided to rewrite key parts
>| of the operating system.
They actually *are* in a good position in one respect. The jump from
32-bit to 64-bit computers *may* allow them to improve the security of
Windows remarkably.
One of the interesting things that doesn't appear to be widely
discussed is the part that the jump from 16- to 32-bit played in the
adoption of Windows 95. Windows 3.1 was fundamentally a 16-bit
environment, running on top of DOS. It could run some 32-bit functions,
but it was constantly "thunking" down to 16-bit to work with the
underlying system. There was the "Win32s" (Windows 32-bit subset) that
some applications took advantage of, but it wasn't terribly widespread.
Microsoft obsessed about ensuring backward compatibility for Windows
95, to the point of doing horrible things behind the scenes. See here:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
...in the section "Two Forces At Microsoft". It's worth following the
links to the technical details. (*Shudder*.)
But even with all that, a whole lot of Windows 3.1 stuff just wouldn't
fully work on Win95. But the world was getting antsy for 32-bit
processing (Linux had had that since, oh, 1991 - the Macs had *always*
been at least 24-bit, and had fully 32-bit versions by 1990) and enough
people were willing to make the jump. They already had machines that
could run 32-bit, it was just a software jump, and Linux wasn't in a
good position at that point to grab desktop share while IBM made several
mistakes with OS/2. (A huge one being charging for SDKs instead of
handing them out like free candy, another being too-good support for
running Windows programs. Together this killed the development of native
OS/2 apps.)
Microsoft is apparently banking on a similar transition for the 64-bit
jump. There will be plenty of people with 64-bit-capable chips (the
Athlon64s and Core Duos of the world) and MS is apparently hoping to
sell them 64-bit Vista. And they will be making incompatible changes to
the OS for that jump.
http://www.apcstart.com/site/dwarne/2006/08/1139/microsoft-cuts-another-
feature-full-hd-playback-in-32bit-vista
This has been retracted, sort of. But let's look at exactly what they
say:
"It is up to the ISVs providing playback solutions to determine whether
the intended playback environment, including environments with a 32-bit
CPU, meets the performance requirements to allow high definition
playback while supporting the guidelines set forth by the content
owners..."
This doesn't say that HD *will* play on 32-bit machines. It just says
that ISVs (i.e. Independent Software Vendors, third parties) are
technically capable of providing HD software if they want. But according
to the quote at the top, they don't want to.
The only ones you'll get for Vista will be 64-bit versions that are
digitally signed by MS. And they'll refuse to load if anything unsigned
is loaded. QED, it's not *Microsoft* enforcing the limitations, it's MS
*plus* the hardware providers *in collusion with* the media companies.
There, don't you feel better now? :-/
No unsigned code in a 64-bit kernel. You'll need Microsoft's permission
to load anything into the kernel, or perhaps they'll disable some
functions if you do, who knows. But if they're doing things like that
they'll also work on a sane security model. Of course, it'll be more
secure against both hackers *and* legitimate users, but MS has been
transitioning to a more TV-oriented model for a while now.
What do I mean by that? Viewers aren't the customers of the TV
producers. *Advertisers* are. The programming is just there to get
people to watch the ads. MS seems to be moving towards being the
gatekeepers of the applications - if you want your app to reach the
Windows market, you have to pay MS...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The computing industry is given 12 months to deploy a technology
that does not exist and whose sole purpose is to protect profits.
The car industry was allowed decades to deploy safety features such
as seat belts and air bags that were designed to save lives."
- Zeinfeld, on the SSSCA, a proposed law that would mandate all
computers to prevent any file copying whatsoever unless explicitly
approved by the entertainment conglomerates
|
|
