>> actually this has started since the earliest Windows NT >> and was applied to Windows 95 and so on... > >apparently, win9x uses rings the wrong way & very different from NT. >obvious diba? one crashes more often than the other and for the insane >reasons.
win9x does not use rings the wrong way. if you do some windows internals reading, you'll appreciate the internal architecture of windows systems. stability (or instability) in the case of win9x comes from the fact of its ability (usually inability) to handle/contain erratic applications from messing up the system. but this has changed quite a lot in NT. this has also a lot to do with backwards compatibility with MSDOS. >> >> >in a segment having a higher privilege >> >level (priv 0 usually) >> >> actually ulit, not usually, always ring 0. >> >> >than the application segments (usually priv 3). so >> >> not usually ulit, always ring 3. > >oh, parehong-pareho sa linux! saka how did u know? we dont have the >source code for windows (so i was speculating the whole time --> sorry >dek). you don't need the source code for everything. you just have to be resourceful enough to find what you need. and let's just say, it's part of my job to know. =) >> >sa win9x, walang ganyang >> >privilege-based protection kaya kahit ang paintbrush kayang mag-crash ng >> >system. >> >> i doubt paintbrush can do that, but buggy applications >> (sadly,) can sometimes crash a windows system. there >> are tons of possible reasons, but i think NT-based >> operating systems nowadays are less-likely to be that >> easy to crash. > >(speculating): the gdi routines apparently are in the same ring as the >kernel in win9x. so gdi-intensive apps like paintbrush, windows media >player & games can crash systems that easily. whereas gdi should have >been implemented as a user-space subsystem similar to X. else, it defeats >using rings. kernels should run despite a crashed gui or higher >level subsystem. i think that's why XP was patterned after NT/2K and not >after win9x because of the ring/priv protection problem which negated >itself. (the gdi routines apparently are in the same ring as the kernel in win9x) who told you that? the gdi routines are ring-3 routines, the kernel is always in ring-0. if the kernel you're talking about is KERNEL32.DLL, you're seriously misinformed and most probably fooled by the naming convention used by microsoft here. _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
