user57

maybe it is time that someone look the published codes from microsoft for example the WRK so we could tell why i had left open my fault saying 4 times 512 = 4 k, but that isnt right - it is 8 times however only cixert fixed that one up if FAT32ex on xp can acseed that 2 TB limit and set a sector size, it might be possible if not its not hard to write a loop that actually parse 512 bytes 8 times on the other hand it would raise question to that classical saying "32 bit are limited to 4 gb" according to this logic 32 bit cant address a HDD bigger then 4 gb the overlappend structure just use two dwords (aka 32 bit * 2 = 64 bits) if i continue to talk like this i can only make speculations but lets say it would be able to pass the size of a dword it would not mean that it can pass the 512 sector as we know it can make 512 sectors with 4 gb (aka 2 tb data) but such things you can read out of the microsoft code/either disassembled/debugged or the published code - it is certainly some work - if someone actually know what the problem is it would be faster then just gambling around i actually wrote data to the disc on i/o level but that memory is far to old to get it back, it actually lack like the most part of it, i just remember a few I/O ports like 1f4 and the writes they are either dword (32 bit) word (16 bit) byte (8 bit) this is not a problem as you just give it a loop to write if you have lets say 1024 bits to write you use for the 32 bit writes (1024/32 = downrounded 33 times) 33 * 32 = 1000 then you still have to write 24 bytes , you can either do this with 8 bit writes or one 16 bit write and one 8 bit write 24 / 16 = 1 after that you have the last byte 8 / 8 = 1 the hardware actually transfer that code into a "next code" this next code dont really care if it was 33 + 1 + 1 writes, it rather finds the data that wants to be progressed to get this information out you need time it took 2 weeks just to compile chrome up another 2 weeks for getting the things around that that makes at least 4 weeks to dig into this - what time i dont have at the moment sorry maybe thats the right spot ? it definatly has low and high parts https://wiki.osdev.org/ATA_PIO_Mode#Registers quote: ";ATA PI0 33bit singletasking disk read function (up to 64K sectors, using 48bit mode)" quote2: "Note on the "magic bits" sent to port 0x1f6: Bit 6 (value = 0x40) is the LBA bit. This must be set for either LBA28 or LBA48 transfers." quote3: " An example: Send 0x40 for the "master" or 0x50 for the "slave" to port 0x1F6: outb(0x1F6, 0x40 | (slavebit << 4)) outb (0x1F2, sectorcount high byte) outb (0x1F3, LBA4) outb (0x1F4, LBA5) outb (0x1F5, LBA6) outb (0x1F2, sectorcount low byte) outb (0x1F3, LBA1) outb (0x1F4, LBA2) outb (0x1F5, LBA3) " it is written in assembly to me it seems to have 3 words (word = 16 bit) that address a 48 bit offset (aka LBA48 / 16+16+16=48 (it seems low, mid and high/LBAlo, LBAmid, and LBAhi) if it is like that it isnt hard either you probaly have to set the right settings and address the 48 bits, its different from the paging mechanism (for ram) what actually has 4k pages, 4 megabyte pages, maybe segments, 64 bit PTE/PDE entrys (that can be done on 32 bit, one example is that CMPXCHG8B command in 32 bit mode it can set 64 bit at once (atomic) ) another atmoic way to store 64 bit in 32 bit mode would would be to use the FPU unit the FPU unit can store 64 bits in an offset - to do so you could just put the two 32 bit values to an offset and storing those on the FPU , from the FPU you then store that value to the requied offset (aka where the PTE´s and PDE´s are at), in short talk you can use the FPU as integer if you do it rightm or even "just as memory storage for more then 32 bit" to make it via fpu unit FST / FSTP would be an example the opcodes (these are the ones who have a memory location, could be used) DD /2 (FST), or DD / 3 (FSTP) can write 64 bits to an offset: https://tizee.github.io/x86_ref_book_web/instruction/fst_fstp.html cmpxchg8b: https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/cmpxchg8b:cmpxchg8b but jumping around from one project to a other just kills not only 1 project it kills both of projects, you guys are on the point

there was DOS then there was win3.11 then there was win95 then there was win98 then there was win98 SE then there was a windows me hard to say but 98 SE was the best if i would rate them then a change was happening a change to a pure 32 bit OS windows nt 3.1 windows nt 4.0 windows nt 5.0 windows 2000 (aka 5.0) windows XP aka - 5.1 windows server 2003 - 5.2 then there was already the 64 bit versions, however they did not provide advantages over 32 bit for that time there already was 32 bit extensions that can hold more then 4 GB ram already ... https://winworldpc.com/product/windows-nt-3x/31 so it wasnt that hard to see the succesor to see from these it was windows xp 32 bit then there was a change however it contained many problems at the beginning (as many first operating system had) vista aka nt 6.0 was born but there was nothing it really provided over XP, so xp somehow survived https://youtu.be/29qnXTw0qr0?t=199 it was a XP vs Vista battle, what xp actually won https://youtu.be/29qnXTw0qr0?t=231 to fix that problem ms came up with a bug fixed vista or overworked nt6.0 now the name changes nt 6.1 - windows 7 windows 7 was a successor what is still very capble even today so now we might think that we need a new version the next version was not a successor but it was the so called windows 8.0 (aka nt6.2) what later on got a problem fixed version aka 8.1 (here i still say it would be NT 6.2 not 6.3 because when a few upgrades kicked in they didnt call it windows 5.3 either) 8.1 wasnt that bad, however it lacked to bring new things that microsoft used to add the spyware called win10 that was because a next operating system had to yet to come - if they choosen 8.1 instead of 10 they could not been a chance to add the spyware components ... so thats the real story then lets remember what microsoft said: there will no be next windows there will just be win10 why would there be a windows 11 ? its just a win10 with a few upgrades - maybe a new GUI

since i dont know this guy i would say you are doing this, you really should

"vista" , supermium was for XP i have to point out again its 15 times as much to go backwards to XP as to go back to from win7 to vista the most liked just the idea what supermium also works on the other operating systems

this is to much getting compared with a nt6.x engine i once told dibya that i dont have interests in creating a vista version, still he pushed it up so dibya came up to make a redfox to "vista" one but it was over 150 internal functions to be changed for xp, and like 10 changes from win7 to vista from what i remember dibya then made some code and the vista version was already working vista has a problem vs 7, 7 is just a upgraded vista so 7 is in advantage - sure you can make it backwards to vista the method dibya used was to change the code itself but, not the redirections in a project with 150-300 functions thats a lot a better method would be to overrule some redirection or different linking in the c-runtime or a different c-runtime, in llvm and maybe others what is easier then in vs2019 vs2019 has a hidden c-runtime.obj file - you can make some changes but hmm i dont know ... it almost sounds like a chinese student made a better version but no - you cant compare nt6.x with xp , in our comparison a compare would be 15 times as much to have a "vista vs xp" version, what the chinese guy dont have he might have a 7 version - that certainly can be changed to vista somehow, there are already codes that can can that the sandbox is also a such example it dont have a real use, the sandbox is rather a mitigation question and mitigations are OS based - also they not function based - the code is going fine without it (and no bugs) reality is that the sandbox in win10 have a lot more then vista and 7 actually have - so having some flags popping up that you have a sandbox wont do much either when the chinese want to challenge supermium he has to challenge it on nt5.1 (aka xp) not 7 vs xp 1 reason more i dont want to make a vista/7 version is exactly this discussion - once done they say they got a better solution - what is not true a other reason you dont make vista/7 stuff is that you lose focus for your normal common OS - dont get me wrong i have nothing against people who like vista or 7 but they have it simplier then we have if not the chinese guy has to come up with a XP version and proof us wrong i would not be unhappen to proofen wrong in this case what i also have to say when i added that redfox code (that also works for vista) i saw redfox works with vista - so the code gone there im glad that he has the code ... but then you get something like this "the chinese guy made a better vista version" - sounds weird to me

this might be a good moment to mention the "engine problem" again first the one-core-api is giving a nice support for some win6+ apis since we talk about phyton stopping the xp support we can point out the engine question again a engine often use functions of a certain OS, is written for that certain OS elder programming languages useally never had a such point neither if it was c, c++, assembly, basic, delphi because that are a programming language ... that dont need a certain "windows, linux, mac" function today that is changing the new c++ styles often get tranlated into a different code (which then use a OS function) -> and then you have it your nt 6+ is involved a such example would be the c-runtime - even tho you written a normal c++ code the c++ code still now involves that c-runtime and that c-runtime use nt 6+ functions for c++ mutex would be a such example https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/mutex however there is not only a nt 6+ interpration for this (aka srw locks) you also could use a thread based atom style to solve this problem there are some more, keyed_events, mutex windows functions as as createmutexa, creatthread styles, or criticalsection styles when i saw a new project i saw the following problem it uses DX11 it uses phyton it uses cmake it needs VS2019 (aka new c++ styles + the c-runtime) the project itself already where written with windows 10 functions often you dont have insight into the things these use (i often call them engines) lets say phyton break - then you cant compile it up because phyton decided to longer like xp if cmake use nt6 then you also cant compile up if visual studio wants a newer version you cant compile up if directx wants a newer version of directx you also cant compile up that makes it a lot to go through before you even can do anything the new trends doing exactly so even ffmpeg is going into that direction (for example ffmpegs cuda engine) in this discussion it seems to be bond to phyton a possible solution would be a code translation from phyton to c++ (normal styles ones) a good thing with c is that you can always have a c interpration in comparison to a other language without having a hard time with a lot of math like in assembly assembly for example can represent any language - its because all languages create a assembly code in the end c++ made a good compromise (but new c++ styles going into a direction to be something like a java script) im trying to point out that all of these try not to be just a programming language, they going into a different direction to like a script and engines so if phyton is not possible anymore, i would suggest a translation to c++

"Windows 10 was offered for free from its release on July 29, 2015, until July 29, 2016, for users of eligible previous versions of Windows. However, Microsoft continued to allow free upgrades for several years after that, officially ending the offer on September 20, 2023. Q: Is the upgrade really free? Do I need to purchase Windows 10 after 1 year? A: With Windows 10, we will offer a free upgrade to Windows 10 for qualified Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 devices that upgrade in the first year. "

looks simple to me, there was a reason win10 was free, and win11 also the article rather writes about security reasons the security how they define it is from a person the plan is probaly to get rid of the person who owns the computer so he can only do what they want the TPM chip was also a such direction, you getting "trusted" for microsoft being secure from you we know they had to be something wrong with it when it was offered for free after the establishment they might want money, but before only spreading is important

people like what people like, so i cant blame anyone for using vista for me the vista question was kinda different, i saw the sellings and xp somehow passed vista so i stayed on xp then windows 7 took over the place but windows 7 is just a problem fixed vista (thats why the versions nt 6.0 for vista, nt 6.1 for 7) 8 is also a vista but its real name should be nt 6.2 thats what win8 actually is the versions in between are rather like service packs to me but then microsoft made a big change with 10, as we all know it even was there for free so there had to be a big downside they dont want to tell us - today we know what it having the updates vista was ok, but vista had a bad start today its hard to say, but win7 8 and 10 have a lot of new "nt 6.x area" functions that vista dont have so vista might have a replacement to 7, but xp dont have a replacement

i readed me a bit into this by far not done yet first it´s impressiv much and a very big collection, good job the problem that you need sp1 to sp2 to sp3 or such things is solveable what these installer scripts use is that /.msu/.msi./.inf files for a installer script (some convert all files together like reg to inf ect.) the problem with that installer script however is that is is kinda slow, and it cant install in 1 step there is a thing before that installer script its the "install maker" ? such as InstallShield or Visual Studio Installer (those are very common to create a installer script) those are rather "build-together-ish" and make those scripts there 3 ways to collect that informations 1: from the raw/source file (for example InstallShield, Visual Studio Installer) 2: extracting the information from the .msi/msu or .inf files 3: debugging the installer and the next (non script) functions after the script installer (such as createfile, regopenkey ect.) one way for the files to do it in 1 step would be to use the MoveFileEx function with PendingFileRenameOperations the registry can be changed with the common registry functions then everything dont depent to go through the installer script i remember i once did that with a installer script in like 1998 and it speeded up the installer from like 10 min to 10 seconds a own installer then just dont need .net 1.0 .net 4.0, it simple can install what it wants those installer scripts have a next deeper set of functions those are the registry and file functions - kinda reminds me the discussions about engines and engines for a engine

1 way to solve this problem would be the firmware doing that on the harddrive you often do not have greater files then 4 GB each chuck but xp can handle file sizes greater then 4 GB / per file the overlappend structure is solving that 32 bit problem it use 32 bit dwords combined as "low" and "high" part https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/minwinbase/ns-minwinbase-overlapped a other thing is the rounding number if you fill 4 kb checks with a file of like 2 mb . something you can fill these 4 kb chucks with 512 kb checks (4 times) only the the very end of the file it can be that you only need 1-3 times the 512 chuck then the last chuck of the 4 kb chuck is just not used that actually dont fall into weight because its only a small piece what would be thinkable that it can exactly handle 2 TB instead of 4 GB is that a DWORD (32 bit) is involved, a idea would be the counter but figuring that out somebody can do ... there would be ways to get this out of a code microsoft published some of their codes - as ms did with their dosbox or their wrk a problem with a big project that dont have a project file is rather that it are many of files if there is no project file where you can scroll around and find the right code in this case it looks to me that the files have to be searched for their names then the structures and functions can be isolated depending how much they are splittered up but the ntoskrnl or windows is a big piece, to pull together all the functions, structs, defs and others parts of code is some work ... google has 300 000 pages for example but then you could actually not only look into the functions you also could compile the outdated ntoskrnl for example from server 2003 the code itself might actually be simple but my editor could actually not just open 300 k files, rather you need a program like visual studio, but vs wants a project file i dont think it just can open all the files at once (all tabs opened) then it probaly has to make a search function what search all the files via filecontrol (and guess what vs has a such thing)

its one thing to print a RGB buffer to a screen, that is what directx video is doing what i wanted to point out is first that CUDA is doing the de/encoding (so basicly everything 99.99 % happens in CUDA, not in directx) then second is some parameters are different in directx versions, the example code already needed d3d9ex not d3d9 without the ex so it also could be that some parameters are just not supported in dx9, hard to say exactly thats why you can give that "RGB" buffer to opengl instead to directx that strongly speaks for windows xp´s directx9, however cuda if you want to do that with a grafic card is doing the important thing the RGB buffer we also could draw with a GDI engine - and thats why i said directx might not be the right question another point is that cuda can be done software wise with mmx-avx (so called XMM registers), those are very fast and by far enough for the purpose either en or decoding rather cuda is a hardware interpretation of a software .... thats it if it has to be a card, why not someone invent a PCI-E card doing the en/decoding ? we do not neccesary need a grafic card to do so - maybe a new hardware invention ? that with the high level functions is different to ask if you have paint - paint isnt making the drawing - it use GDI and GDI use NTGDI and NTGDI use internal functions what in the end go into the grafic card driver using a next engine would be a script that controls paint - that you see quite often that "pre CUDA" is a DLL , it probaly has a pre code for the real control to the cuda part in the grafic card - while cuda is being coded in a CUDA SDK - what is also some "scriptish code" to control the CUDA engine (and is like totally bond to dx10/11 and windows10/11) , the phyton version also only control cuda so hard to say what to call this ? a half-script language to control cuda ? a engine code to control cuda ? a simplified programming to control cuda ? i dont know what i would name it, maybe the others have some corrections for me and im happy to hear them why we have to be so indirectly ? why cant we just use cuda rather directly ?

these timers are almost the same just with different names

well maybe there should be a inofficial SP4 (including all of these upgrades also the posready ones) for all languages in a older past there was a ugly solution someone collected all these upgrades. and then run them via createprocess() function , that took 4 hours or something a better way would be to set the files and registry entrys manually via registry and file functions that 4 hours method just runs each update.exe (for every kb upgrade) over and over - until it has the 190 upgrades or something

if the life-cycles are meant, it would be better when the firmware to choose these that raise a certain question tho, if it splits the sectors with into less and more used sectors , then not just a few die on and on, rather the disc would then later die at once