4 ms·
your post reminded me of two cool stories about "Windows on Windows" 1. Microsoft has reimplemented the NT kernel and services as a userspace LibraryOS called
by tsujamin 11y ago
your post reminded me of two cool stories about "Windows on Windows"
1. Microsoft has reimplemented the NT kernel and services as a userspace LibraryOS called Drawbridge (http://ssrg.nicta.com.au/Events/summer/16/baumann.pdf http://ssrg.nicta.com.au/Events/summer/16/baumann.pdf, slide 21)
2. Microsoft teecchniiccaally also already did this in SysWOW64
First story is much more interesting than the second one
- 21 11y agoAs the funny fact goes, in the System32 directory you have 64-bit binaries, and in the SysWOW64 directory you have 32-bit binaries.
- CWuestefeld 11y agoThe reason for the 64-bit stuff in the System32 directory makes sense - they need to ensure that the currently-used DLLs and stuff are in the directory that legacy software is looking at. On the other hand, the SysWOW64 thing could sure have been named better, to make the whole thing clear.
- ptx 11y ago> The reason for the 64-bit stuff in the System32 directory makes sense - they need to ensure that the currently-used DLLs and stuff are in the directory that legacy software is looking at. Why? There was no legacy 64-bit software. So any software needing to find the 64-bit system directory needed to (at the very least) be recompiled, but probably needed lots of other small changes as well. So why couldn't one of those simple required changes (to create 64-bit versions of legacy software) be to change the path from which it loads its DLLs?
- toyg 11y agoSee http://brandonlive.com/2008/12/22/why-does-windows-put-64-bit-binaries-in-system32/ http://brandonlive.com/2008/12/22/why-does-windows-put-64-bi...