* Re: setup.exe --quiet-mode [not found] ` <5E25AF06EFB9EA4A87C19BC98F5C8753016D87EE@core-email.int.ascribe.com> @ 2008-09-11 16:08 ` Matthew Woehlke 2008-09-11 16:39 ` Dave Korn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Matthew Woehlke @ 2008-09-11 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-talk 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: setup.exe --quiet-mode 2008-09-11 16:08 ` setup.exe --quiet-mode Matthew Woehlke @ 2008-09-11 16:39 ` Dave Korn 2008-09-11 16:51 ` Matthew Woehlke 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Dave Korn @ 2008-09-11 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Look out for the The Vulgar and Unprofessional Y22k Bug Cygwin-Talk List' 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.... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: setup.exe --quiet-mode 2008-09-11 16:39 ` Dave Korn @ 2008-09-11 16:51 ` Matthew Woehlke 2008-09-11 17:00 ` Dave Korn 2008-09-11 20:18 ` the importance of the timer rollover bug in Win9x Warren Young 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Matthew Woehlke @ 2008-09-11 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-talk 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: setup.exe --quiet-mode 2008-09-11 16:51 ` Matthew Woehlke @ 2008-09-11 17:00 ` Dave Korn 2008-09-11 20:18 ` the importance of the timer rollover bug in Win9x Warren Young 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Dave Korn @ 2008-09-11 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'The No! Not this one! The previous one! and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List' 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.... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: the importance of the timer rollover bug in Win9x 2008-09-11 16:51 ` Matthew Woehlke 2008-09-11 17:00 ` Dave Korn @ 2008-09-11 20:18 ` Warren Young 2008-09-11 23:25 ` Dave Korn 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Warren Young @ 2008-09-11 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: the importance of the timer rollover bug in Win9x 2008-09-11 20:18 ` the importance of the timer rollover bug in Win9x Warren Young @ 2008-09-11 23:25 ` Dave Korn 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Dave Korn @ 2008-09-11 23:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'well, zero is less isn't it?' 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.... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-09-11 23:25 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <loom.20080904T183156-413@post.gmane.org> [not found] ` <48C0316C.F9E434A9@dessent.net> [not found] ` <00fc01c90f39$f4006970$9601a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> [not found] ` <loom.20080910T172329-77@post.gmane.org> [not found] ` <007101c9136b$a62b3e10$9601a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> [not found] ` <loom.20080910T174541-80@post.gmane.org> [not found] ` <007c01c91372$1c48c3a0$9601a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> [not found] ` <5E25AF06EFB9EA4A87C19BC98F5C8753016D87EE@core-email.int.ascribe.com> 2008-09-11 16:08 ` setup.exe --quiet-mode Matthew Woehlke 2008-09-11 16:39 ` Dave Korn 2008-09-11 16:51 ` Matthew Woehlke 2008-09-11 17:00 ` Dave Korn 2008-09-11 20:18 ` the importance of the timer rollover bug in Win9x Warren Young 2008-09-11 23:25 ` Dave Korn
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).