6 ms·

> Three of these VxDs comprise the very heart of Chicago: Virtual Machine Manager (VMM32.VXD), Configuration Manager (CONFIGMG), Installable Filesystem Manager

> Three of these VxDs comprise the very heart of Chicago: Virtual Machine Manager (VMM32.VXD), Configuration Manager (CONFIGMG), Installable Filesystem Manager (IFM). VMM32 is essentially the Chicago kernel. It handles memory management, event handling, interrupt handling, device driver loading and initialization, the creation of virtual machines, and the scheduling. CONFIGMG handles plug and play. IFM coordinates filesystem access, provides a disk buffer, and provides a 32 bit protected mode I/O access system. I'm so intrigued by how all of this must work. It really puts to death the notion that Windows 9x was 'DOS-based'. But to end the prejudice for good, I'm holding out hope that we will get an authorised release of the sources within our lifetime.

AshamedCaptain 3y ago
Why? 3.x in 386 enhanced mode was practically the same design (well, maybe no ConfigMG) and people there would have no problem saying it was "DOS based".
- BirAdam 3y ago
  Win9x didn't use MS-DOS for filesystem access, while all versions of Win3 except for 3.11 for Workgroups did use MS-DOS for filesystem access. As a result, when you booted up Win95, MS-DOS didn't matter at all except as the second stage boot loader.
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    As you yourself are saying, 3.11 did exactly the same. So one must find another criteria.
  - bonzini 3y ago
    It's more complicated than that, Windows 95 would also check for programs intercepting INT 21h, sandwich its filesystem access routines in between and possibly call the old interrupt handler even when running from 32-bit programs. It's more optimized and more polished but it's still Win386 at its heart, and it actually makes sense a lot. The book "Unauthorized Windows 95" talks in detail about how it works.
biogene 3y ago
You mean its based on a massively successful operating system that was used by millions?
- HeckFeck 3y ago
  Nothing wrong with DOS (and I mean that sincerely), just Windows 9x was much more than it.
  - biogene 3y ago
    No worries, I got the point you were trying to make, my comment was directed more at people who snipe at successful products - when the reality is a lot more nuanced/complicated. There is complete freedom to criticize, but then (I believe) there is also a responsibility to contextualize the criticism.
- edizms 3y ago
  You had to be around to understand the sentiment behind the "DOS based" issue. It's what many non PC users said about windows when discussing its instability and use of legacy code.
  - biogene 3y ago
    I didn't find DOS or Windows to be any less stable than other consumer operating systems. But regardless of which code-base is more/less stable, niche code-bases don't get stressed in the same way as a mainstream consumer OS.
retrac 3y ago
Windows 95 has a monolithic kernel, which supports much, but not all, of the 32-bit NT API. It provides NT-style processes and 32-bit memory management (sort of), NT-style APIs for long file names (sort of), etc. There's also a lot of hacks, and no real kernel/userspace separation, for the extensive 16-bit compatibility. While most of the kernel itself runs in 32-bit protected mode, much of the OS was still 16-bit. That code runs in a 16-bit VM86 virtual machine, which is shared with 16-bit user application code, in a common address space. Sort of how Windows 3.x worked in 386 mode. There were procedures to call between 16 and 32 bit code, both in the kernel and in user applications. That shared address space with all the 16-bit code, is the source of a lot of the infamous instability. That dependency on that 16-bit mode is why it got called "DOS-based", similar to how Win 3.x worked in 386 mode. Part of the OS was still running in 16-bit mode, even if that 16-bit mode was being virtualized by a 32-bit protected mode kernel.
dblohm7 3y ago
There are some pretty decent guides for VxD programming still floating around on the web that give a pretty good overview of how VMM32 worked.

AshamedCaptain 3y ago

Why? 3.x in 386 enhanced mode was practically the same design (well, maybe no ConfigMG) and people there would have no problem saying it was "DOS based".

BirAdam 3y ago
Win9x didn't use MS-DOS for filesystem access, while all versions of Win3 except for 3.11 for Workgroups did use MS-DOS for filesystem access. As a result, when you booted up Win95, MS-DOS didn't matter at all except as the second stage boot loader.
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  As you yourself are saying, 3.11 did exactly the same. So one must find another criteria.
- bonzini 3y ago
  It's more complicated than that, Windows 95 would also check for programs intercepting INT 21h, sandwich its filesystem access routines in between and possibly call the old interrupt handler even when running from 32-bit programs. It's more optimized and more polished but it's still Win386 at its heart, and it actually makes sense a lot. The book "Unauthorized Windows 95" talks in detail about how it works.

biogene 3y ago

You mean its based on a massively successful operating system that was used by millions?

HeckFeck 3y ago
Nothing wrong with DOS (and I mean that sincerely), just Windows 9x was much more than it.
- biogene 3y ago
  No worries, I got the point you were trying to make, my comment was directed more at people who snipe at successful products - when the reality is a lot more nuanced/complicated. There is complete freedom to criticize, but then (I believe) there is also a responsibility to contextualize the criticism.
edizms 3y ago
You had to be around to understand the sentiment behind the "DOS based" issue. It's what many non PC users said about windows when discussing its instability and use of legacy code.
- biogene 3y ago
  I didn't find DOS or Windows to be any less stable than other consumer operating systems. But regardless of which code-base is more/less stable, niche code-bases don't get stressed in the same way as a mainstream consumer OS.

retrac 3y ago

Windows 95 has a monolithic kernel, which supports much, but not all, of the 32-bit NT API. It provides NT-style processes and 32-bit memory management (sort of), NT-style APIs for long file names (sort of), etc. There's also a lot of hacks, and no real kernel/userspace separation, for the extensive 16-bit compatibility. While most of the kernel itself runs in 32-bit protected mode, much of the OS was still 16-bit. That code runs in a 16-bit VM86 virtual machine, which is shared with 16-bit user application code, in a common address space. Sort of how Windows 3.x worked in 386 mode. There were procedures to call between 16 and 32 bit code, both in the kernel and in user applications. That shared address space with all the 16-bit code, is the source of a lot of the infamous instability. That dependency on that 16-bit mode is why it got called "DOS-based", similar to how Win 3.x worked in 386 mode. Part of the OS was still running in 16-bit mode, even if that 16-bit mode was being virtualized by a 32-bit protected mode kernel.

dblohm7 3y ago

There are some pretty decent guides for VxD programming still floating around on the web that give a pretty good overview of how VMM32 worked.