Re: setup.exe --quiet-mode

Re: setup.exe --quiet-mode

[Matthew Woehlke]

Phil Betts wrote:
> [...] this is
> Windowsland where rebooting is a way of life; even Windows'
> programmers never expected uptime to exceed 2^32 milliseconds.

(That's approximately 49 days for those too lazy to whip out a 
calculator. Which is pretty sad ;-).)

I'd actually be quite shocked if I don't have some Windows boxes around 
that have exceeded that (at least since NT5). I think I've kept my home 
computer up longer (back when it ran W2K), and likely some lab machines 
around work (which, granted, never have software or updates installed, 
so no reason to reboot).

Of course, my Linux gateway at home says:
$ uptime
  11:06:30 up 99 days, 13:35,  2 users,  load average: 0.08, 0.02, 0.05

-- 
Matthew
If you believe you received this e-mail in error, you are probably sadly 
mistaken, but if not, aren't you lucky? -- Unknown

RE: setup.exe --quiet-mode

[Dave Korn]

Matthew Woehlke wrote on 11 September 2008 17:08:

> Phil Betts wrote:
>> [...] this is
>> Windowsland where rebooting is a way of life; even Windows'
>> programmers never expected uptime to exceed 2^32 milliseconds.
> 
> (That's approximately 49 days for those too lazy to whip out a
> calculator. Which is pretty sad ;-).)

  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641
  "Computer Hangs After 49.7 Days"

> I'd actually be quite shocked if I don't have some Windows boxes around
> that have exceeded that (at least since NT5). I think I've kept my home
> computer up longer (back when it ran W2K), and likely some lab machines
> around work (which, granted, never have software or updates installed,
> so no reason to reboot).

  It was only ever true for Win95 and early versions of Win98.  All NT-series
OSs count time in units of 100ns using a 64-bit long long.  Which won't run
out any time soon....

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: setup.exe --quiet-mode

[Matthew Woehlke]

Dave Korn wrote:
> Matthew Woehlke wrote on 11 September 2008 17:08:
> 
>> Phil Betts wrote:
>>> [...] this is
>>> Windowsland where rebooting is a way of life; even Windows'
>>> programmers never expected uptime to exceed 2^32 milliseconds.
>> (That's approximately 49 days for those too lazy to whip out a
>> calculator. Which is pretty sad ;-).)
> 
>   http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641
>   "Computer Hangs After 49.7 Days"

Oy, hadn't run across that before :-).

>> I'd actually be quite shocked if I don't have some Windows boxes around
>> that have exceeded that (at least since NT5). I think I've kept my home
>> computer up longer (back when it ran W2K), and likely some lab machines
>> around work (which, granted, never have software or updates installed,
>> so no reason to reboot).
> 
>   It was only ever true for Win95 and early versions of Win98.  All NT-series
> OSs count time in units of 100ns using a 64-bit long long.  Which won't run
> out any time soon....

Aww, you don't think a Windows box will manage an uptime of 29,227,102 
years? ;-)

-- 
Matthew
If you believe you received this e-mail in error, you are probably sadly 
mistaken, but if not, aren't you lucky? -- Unknown

RE: setup.exe --quiet-mode

[Dave Korn]

Matthew Woehlke wrote on 11 September 2008 17:51:

> Dave Korn wrote:

>>   It was only ever true for Win95 and early versions of Win98.  All
>> NT-series OSs count time in units of 100ns using a 64-bit long long. 
>> Which won't run out any time soon....
> 
> Aww, you don't think a Windows box will manage an uptime of 29,227,102
> years? ;-)

  Well, I don't think it'll manage it any time *soon* ... but when it does
happen, <see previous From: line, after allowing for 22-vs-29 typo>.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: the importance of the timer rollover bug in Win9x

[Warren Young]

Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>   http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641
> 
> Oy, hadn't run across that before :-).

The fact that the problem wasn't fixed until 2000 or so made this more 
than just an embarrassment for Microsoft.  It was an inflection point.

What you had was a bug that was absolutely deterministic, which affected 
hundreds of millions of machines over many years.  Multiply it out and 
you come to something like 100 billion times the bug could have 
happened.  Sounds like a programmer's dream, right?  A bug you can count 
on to happen that reliably with such a huge installed base....yet it 
took ~5 years to diagnose and fix.

For such a bug to last so long, you're looking for probability of 
discovery down around 1 in 10 million.  It takes a lot of explaining to 
get from 1e11 to 1e-7.  I tried.  The "good reasons" got me down to 
about 1e2.  Maybe you can get down to 1e0.  You're still left with so 
many zeroes as to constitute objective evidence that Win9x boxes 
experience...erm, unscheduled restarts...*a lot*.

To this point, you had all kinds of anecdotal evidence of Win9x's 
instability.  The arguments raged on, as those based only on anecdotal 
evidence will.  This incident provided objective proof of the sort you 
don't see ignored outside of politics and religion.

RE: the importance of the timer rollover bug in Win9x

[Dave Korn]

Warren Young wrote on 11 September 2008 21:17:

> What you had was a bug that was absolutely deterministic, which affected
> hundreds of millions of machines over many years.  Multiply it out and
> you come to something like 100 billion times the bug could have
> happened.  Sounds like a programmer's dream, right?  A bug you can count
> on to happen that reliably with such a huge installed base....yet it
> took ~5 years to diagnose and fix.
> 
> For such a bug to last so long, you're looking for probability of
> discovery down around 1 in 10 million.  

  You make it sound as if win95 actually /did/ have a one in ten million
chance of staying up for fortynine days!  I can assure you, it was a lot less
than that ...  :)

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....