Windows 8.1 Extended Kernel?

[mina7601]

And also, rule 1.a.

This is not a warez site! Links/Requests to warez and/or illegal material (e.g., cracks, serials, etc.) will not be tolerated. Discussion of circumventing WGA/activation/timebombs/license restrictions, use of keygens, or any other illegal activity, including, but not limited to, requests for help where pirated software is being used or being discussed, will also not be tolerated. Offenders may be banned on first violation.

Edited March 3, 2023 by mina7601

[Tripredacus]

Any OS modification can be talked about but only if the instructions to create such modification are the primary method of doing this modification. Distribution of OS files or complete OS ISOs is not permitted, nor the promise of making them available to either the public or in private.

[UCyborg]

This fits in any "extended kernel" thread, but since I happened to notice it was brought up here and due to all "extended kernel" talk...

Projects like ReactOS and WINE have to follow some rules, like relying only on published documentation and only clean-room reverse-engineering may be done. Has any "extended kernel" followed such rules? The whole concept of "extended kernel" seems to be in direct violation of MS's EULA. An excerpt from Vista/7 EULA:

Quote

 SCOPE OF LICENSE.  The software is licensed, not sold.  This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software.  Microsoft reserves all other rights.  Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement.  In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways.  For more information, see http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights. You may not

• work around any technical limitations in the software;
• reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
• use components of the software to run applications not running on the software;
• make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;
• publish the software for others to copy;
• rent, lease or lend the software; or
• use the software for commercial software hosting services.

Revised in 8.x:

Quote

Are there things I’m not allowed to do with the software? Yes. Because the software is licensed, not sold, Microsoft reserves all rights (such as rights under intellectual property laws) not expressly granted in this agreement. In particular, this license does not give you any right to, and you may not: use or virtualize features of the software separately; publish, copy (other than the permitted backup copy), rent, lease, or lend the software; transfer the software (except as permitted by this agreement); attempt to circumvent technical protection measures in the software, reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the software, except if the laws where you live permit this even when our agreement does not. In that case, you may do only what your law allows. When using Internet-based features or Microsoft Family Safety, you may not use those features in any way that could interfere with anyone else’s use of them, or to try to gain access to any service, data, account, or network, in an unauthorized manner.

10 version from 2015:

Quote

Restrictions. The manufacturer or installer and Microsoft reserve all rights (such as rights under intellectual property laws) not expressly granted in this agreement. For example, this license does not give you any right to, and you may not:
(i)    use or virtualize features of the software separately;
(ii)    publish, copy (other than the permitted backup copy), rent, lease, or lend the software;
(iii)    transfer the software (except as permitted by this agreement);
(iv)    work around any technical restrictions or limitations in the software;
(v)    use the software as server software, for commercial hosting, make the software available for simultaneous use by multiple users over a network, install the software on a server and allow users to access it remotely, or install the software on a device for use only by remote users;
(vi)    reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the software, or attempt to do so, except and only to the extent that the foregoing restriction is permitted by applicable law or by licensing terms governing the use of open-source components that may be included with the software; and
(vii)    when using Internet-based features you may not use those features in any way that could interfere with anyone else’s use of them, or to try to gain access to or use any service, data, account, or network, in an unauthorized manner.

And for some reason, "extended kernels" may be discussed, but activation bypasses may not be? Sorry, doesn't compute here.

Edited March 4, 2023 by UCyborg

[mina7601]

22 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

And for some reason, "extended kernels" may be discussed, but activation bypasses may not be? Sorry, doesn't compute here.

Agreed. I completely find it weird also.

[win32]

1 hour ago, UCyborg said:

(iv)    work around any technical restrictions or limitations in the software;

So the AeroGlass for Win8+ would violate the EULA, as the restriction or limitation in this case would be the inability to display Vista/7-style glass. Also there was undoubtedly some disassembly and reverse engineering of internal DWM functions to make it work. And I think this goes for Stardock's assortment of desktop enhancement products as well, but they may have the resources to perform clean-room RE. This also goes for products that may have also violated EULA in this way, such as VMware (which reimplements some kernel mode functions for systems lacking them) and Chromium (which uses undocumented classes of some Native API functions).

But these EULA terms are often superseded by exemptions in copyright law. In Canada, we have section 30.6 in the Copyright Act where:

Quote

Computer Programs

Permitted acts

30.6 It is not an infringement of copyright in a computer program for a person who owns a copy of the computer program that is authorized by the owner of the copyright, or has a licence to use a copy of the computer program, to

(a) reproduce the copy by adapting, modifying or converting it, or translating it into another computer language, if the person proves that the reproduced copy

(i) is essential for the compatibility of the computer program with a particular computer,

(ii) is solely for the person’s own use, and

(iii) was destroyed immediately after the person ceased to be the owner of the copy of the computer program or to have a licence to use it; or

(b) reproduce for backup purposes the copy or a reproduced copy referred to in paragraph (a) if the person proves that the reproduction for backup purposes was destroyed immediately after the person ceased to be the owner of the copy of the computer program or to have a licence to use it.

(i) would cover the additions to the Vista kernel that make newer drivers run, such as NVIDIA 398.11. Perhaps adding support for newer user mode software also plays a role in "compatibility". Adding support for NVIDIA 398.11 made Windows Vista compatible with a system with a GTX 1080 Ti, then the extended kernel also made new browsers and games compatible; thus, it is now fully compatible with the particular computer, whereas it was not when it could not run the software and device drivers.

(ii) would be technically satisfied if the process of installing the extended kernel constituted the adaption or modification of the software, to create the reproduction (Vista with extended kernel installed). I believe this is also valid.

I expect most of the world to have similar exemptions, including the EU where MSFN is based.

An activation bypass would not usually be essential for compatibility, unless the activation procedure itself made it incompatible. This is not the case with any form of Microsoft Windows.

Edited March 4, 2023 by win32

[UCyborg]

I figured that part would be open for interpretation and exemptions.

Funniest thing IMHO, a bunch of Windows releases were considered crap when new, but then suddenly became great with passage of time.

In that light, it also seems unfair to consider early adapters brainwashed sheep (eg. this thread gives such vibes - https://msfn.org/board/topic/182631-why-do-so-many-people-say-staying-on-older-versions-of-windows-is-stupid/). I'm sure if the world still stands by 2040 and computing in current form will still be relevant by then, Windows 10 extended kernel will be all the rage. Even today, it's pretty much like XP of current era and 8.1 seems like Win2000.

Edited March 4, 2023 by UCyborg

[Cocodile]

On the other hand, if someone exports the UI and aero from Vista, I don't mind to try the kernel from 8.1.

[AstroSkipper]

On 3/26/2022 at 3:11 AM, Jody Thornton said:

Well I'm on Windows 8 (yup the original release), and all new applications still work with it.  So I can't see a need yet for an 8xtended Kernel 

Totally agreed!  So far about the Windows 8.1 Extended Kernel! No need for such an Extended Kernel!

I personally would never use any Extended Kernels. If an OS does not work anymore due to its age, or the implemented functions are no longer sufficient, the user will have to change the operating system by necessity. Although I am not a fan of Microsoft and what they did in the past, I would only trust such changes to the system to programmers with a great deal of experience and in-depth knowledge of the source code, i.e. programmers as they work for Microsoft, the actual manufacturer of Windows OSs.

And now a word about this thread! This thread has gone completely off the rails and is pretty much the most unworthy I have ever seen. It's totally uninformative, and most of the posts are just off-topic. I don't understand what this is all about.  

Edited March 5, 2023 by AstroSkipper

[Dave-H]

Off-topic posts removed.
This thread will be immediately terminated if it degenerates into an off-topic personal bickering fest again.

[Jody Thornton]

5 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

I personally would never use any Extended Kernels. If a OS does not work anymore due to its age, or the implemented functions are no longer sufficient, the user will have to change the operating system by necessity. Although I am not a fan of Microsoft and what they did in the past, I would only trust such changes to the system to programmers with a great deal of experience and in-depth knowledge of the source code, i.e. programmers as they work for Microsoft, the actual manufacturer of Windows OSs.

As time progresses, I find myself more in agreement with this.  Up until recently, I was quite eager about the supposedly upcoming Unofficial SP3 for Vista, which will largely incorporate Server 2008 Updates and KernelEx for Vista.  It's cool to think that current Chromium and Gecko browsers might just run on Vista.

But as experience has shown me, installing Server 2008 updates on Vista (seemingly past March 2018), I found the stability of Vista somewhat degraded.  Certain applications would hang, like uTorrent, and become unstable.  Even with the extra year of updates from most 2017 to early to 2018, the fade in and out of the login screen to the desktop lacked smoothness.  As to which update caused it, who knows?

Even on Windows 8, where I've been installing Server 2012 updates since 2016, somewhere along the line, I found switching between visual styles ceased applying the background image properly.  I can sill work around it, but the functionality was compromised by one of these updates somewhere along the line.

Compound those issues with whatever issues an extended kernel might introduce, and things become worrisome.  A user may not notice the impact of such issues until much later.  I'd rather do without such instabilities.

Once I can no longer freely install Server 2012 updates past this October, I will no longer seek methods to extend the longevity of Windows 8.  By then, all current browsers will lack support for the OS.  Besides, I have a machine all set to go with Windows 10 LTSC 2019 next January if need be.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Jody Thornton

[AstroSkipper]

8 minutes ago, Jody Thornton said:

As time progresses, I find myself more in agreement with this.  Up until recently, I was quite eager about the supposedly upcoming Unofficial SP3 for Vista, which will largely incorporate Server 2008 Updates and KernelEx for Vista.  It's cool to think that current Chromium and Gecko browsers might just run on Vista.

But as experience has shown me, installing Server 2008 updates on Vista (seemingly past March 2018), I found the stability of Vista somewhat degraded.  Certain applications would hang, like uTorrent, and become unstable.  Even with the extra year of updates from most 2017 to early to 2018, the fade in and out of the login screen to the desktop lacked smoothness.  As to which update caused it, who knows?

Even on Windows 8, where I've been installing Server 2012 updates since 2016, somewhere along the line, I found switching between visual styles ceased applying the background image properly.  I can sill work around it, but the functionality was compromised by one of these updates somewhere along the line.

Compound those issues with whatever issues an extended kernel might introduce, and things become worrisome.  A user may not notice the impact of such issues until much later.  I'd rather do without such instabilities.

Once I can no longer freely install Server 2012 updates past this October, I will no longer seek methods to extend the longevity of Windows 8.  By then, all current browsers will lack support for the OS.  Besides, I have a machine all set to go with Windows 10 LTSC 2019 next January if need be.

Yep, that's what I meant. Long time ago, when I was on Windows ME, I used in the end the Extended Kernel "KernelEx". Although it worked in a lot of cases, it was always fiddly. And, it never worked out of the box. At a certain point, I gave up. No more Extended Kernels. If an OS can't be used anymore, or additional kernel functions are needed, one has to change to another OS. 

[UCyborg]

Agreed, things can get out-of-hand easily as it is with official files, which guys at MS have much easier time modifying than someone poking around in disassembler. I've seen some unexplainable oddities throughout various Windows versions with updates, no updates, keeping it clean by only ever installing only programs deemed essential that I'd never uninstall, keeping it a bit less clean and everything in between.

Whether it was due to bizarre hard-to-repro bugs that maybe could have been avoided by just deep freezing Windows partition or maybe hardware glitching while being otherwise undetectable I'll never know, but I do know I don't want to add more risk factors by applying such modifications. I only ever tried some such mods as Sunday curiosity safely within the constraints of a virtual machine, never on a production system.

Yeah, fiddly. Plus, in a rapidly changing software world, such development seems like a waste of time, but it's not my time and if that's what they want to do...

[legacyfan]

post moved to vista extended kernal thread (posted in wrong topic)

Edited March 6, 2023 by legacyfan

[UCyborg]

That said, perhaps this thread should be left alone until something develops? Or at least the title should have been reworded to indicate extended kernel for Windows 8.1 is not actually a thing yet? Just my two cents.

[AstroSkipper]

6 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

That said, perhaps this thread should be left alone until something develops? Or at least the title should have been reworded to indicate extended kernel for Windows 8.1 is not actually a thing yet? Just my two cents.

You are absolutely right! There is presumably nothing more to say here. Maybe, in future times, but then a new thread can be opened.