Problem with XP scheduler?
in [Win32 Kernel]
|
From: tanix on 24 Dec 2009 02:18 In article <3c32e7f5-5e90-42d2-a42c-121935d9651d(a)s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, Leo Davidson <leonudeldavidson(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >On Dec 23, 11:28=A0pm, "Boba" <B...(a)somewhere.net> wrote: >> not a good example at all, Leo, if it is based on the '90 case of ford >> explorer (what a lucky coincidence!) and forestone: the problem was the >> flaw in vehicle's suspension design covered up ford and poorely blamed >> on tires maker (those same tire performed fine on other cars). > >So you're essentially saying the Ford Explorer was not a vehicle? >Riiiiiiight. > >You don't know that all the drivers on this system were WHQL tested. Yes I do. Because during the install, I did not get the warning message from any driver from what I recall. >WHQL testing does not, and probably cannot, guarantee the drivers will >work in every situation. (WHQL is a series of tests, not a >mathematical proof!) Drivers for other OS have issues as well. You're >running XP SP2 when SP3 has been out for ages. Cut it out. WHO says I am running SP2? Where does it say it? > You refuse to provide >any data or do any proper investigation into the problem. What is this guilt mainpulation stuff. I do not appreciate this kind of talk. > You >apparently just want us Who is US? I am talking to those, who MIGHT have an idea what is going on and not those those arrogant bastrads like yourself, who are attacking me with their guilt trips. Get lost, donkey. > to magic-up an answer for you over the >Internet with almost zero information, all of it anecdotal, and until >someone can magic-up said answer you're going to point your finger at >something you dislike and arbitrarily blame that. > >(And you could be right that it's Windows, but the fact is you have no >evidence and experience shows it's almost always a 3rd party driver >issue. We are saying that you can't assign blame without evidence when >there are several other possibilities. You refuse to acknowledge the >other possiblities because you'd rather blame the thing you hate. Even >if it is Windows, which I very much doubt, we're talking about a >version that's almost a decade old and isn't even patched to the >latest service pack level, yet you're using this problem to make >general statements about Windows today.) > >All of which is a very long-winded way of saying: I give up. Good luck >solving your problem yourself as I doubt anyone else will help you >(even if they try, like we did) when your mind is so closed and you've >apparently already decided what to blame based on prejudice rather >than evidence. -- Programmer's Goldmine collections: http://preciseinfo.org Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript, organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
From: tanix on 24 Dec 2009 02:19 In article <uWJmJZAhKHA.5380(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, Stefan Kuhr <kustt110(a)gmx.li> wrote: >Tanix, > >On 12/23/2009 2:27 PM, tanix wrote: >> <snip> >> Btw, a while back I glanced over one article where ms came up with >> new "model" for the driver. It was something to the extent that >> you don't have to worry bout writing all this nasty kernel mode >> code. You can pretty much stay on the user level and write it all >> on a much higher level. >> >> Did not have much time to look into it or what does it mean. >> >> But is it true and what is the scoop on that? >AFAIK, it is currently for USB drivers only. Oh, I see. So NDIS is still in I hope? :--} -- Programmer's Goldmine collections: http://preciseinfo.org Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript, organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
From: tanix on 24 Dec 2009 02:21 In article <eCZqbdAhKHA.2184(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, "Don Burn" <burn(a)stopspam.windrvr.com> wrote: >Actually it is for a number of driver types, typically that use a protocol >such as USB, 1394 or serial. It cannot work for all drivers, and has >limitations, but it certainly is a good start. It will definitely reduce >the problems that things like cheap USB toys which in the past have had >drivers that caused millions of crashes on Christmas as kids plugged in the >toys. Cool I like that description. Makes me happy. Cause I started worrying that I have to scrap my perfectly good NDIS driver, which would be a total disaster. I'd rather switch to Linux finally if that were the case. :--} -- Programmer's Goldmine collections: http://preciseinfo.org Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript, organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
From: tanix on 24 Dec 2009 02:31 In article <uL0OsZChKHA.2164(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, "Boba" <Boba(a)somewhere.net> wrote: >"Pavel A." <pavel_a(a)12fastmail34.fm> wrote in message >news:uT5IjS8gKHA.3792(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> ... >> "Rest of the system" includes 3rd party drivers (video is especially >> troublesome, but others as well), for which you can not blame MS. > >and Pavel, do not forget, please, that it is ms who charges >tons of money for those drivers to be tested properly. VERY good point. When I read the requirements to get my driver tested, it was something comparable to the cost of driver development. Well, not exactly. But screw that one. I just wrote a piece of code to disable their beep, beep, beep horror story dialog box. It is easier to pass the KGB interrogation than do have your driver certified. Even MAJOR manufacturers release their stuff with drivers that do beep, beep, beep: YOU ARE ABOUT TO INSTALL THE SOFTWARE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY OSAMA BIN LADEN AND COULD SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR LIVELIHOOD. DISGUSTING!!! >> Yes, they've architected OS that makes possible for 3rd party drivers to >> crash or hang the entire system, but this architecture was state of the >> art when it was created. > >are you telling me that mcl tests those drivers against outdated core? > >> The OP has been adviced to get the dump and help finding the >> exact reason of the problem, but he was not enough motivated to do this. I can not waste days on this thing. >> So the whole issue is moot. Another Windoze crash, yeah. Anyway, the latest result is this: The box just locked up again even after I removed all addons in firefox. Interestingly enough, it did behave MUCH more stablely and the crash occured for the 1st time in almost a week. But... The question is this: why this crash does not happen on a single core system for the same version of everything? >the op has found the problem: it is 3rd party user level software >that freezes pc. and my post was to point out to ya'll a shoddy >statement from a respecful source: "A software problem cannot cause >your machine to lock up so hard that even mouse and keyboard stop." - Correct. That is MY understanding of it at least. Especially the mouse, one of the highest priority devices in windows. >this is what i do not except. it is not about just another winblows, >it is about how the people who know what windows is better than i do >respond to the problem. >> Replace XP with win7. Same h/w, same user, same application - the problem >> is gone. > >"same application"? what do you mean? there is no 100% downward >compatibility. >the application must be rethought, restructured, recompiled, and installed >first. only after that it might run with no problem - and if it does - it >does >not mean that w7 is better than xp (all it means i'm getting better in it :) > >> Now, has MS & industry made some progress, or not? > >if you, Pavel, think "MS & industry" is the way to put it - i am really >sorry >for you. to me, there is ms, and there is industry. aint't gonna publish a >list of cases when the industry's steps forward 'accidently coincide' with >ms' losts in the court of law. -- Programmer's Goldmine collections: http://preciseinfo.org Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript, organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.
From: tanix on 24 Dec 2009 02:32
In article <#Y9FRiChKHA.5608(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, "Don Burn" <burn(a)stopspam.windrvr.com> wrote: > >"Boba" <Boba(a)somewhere.net> wrote in message >news:uL0OsZChKHA.2164(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> >> the op has found the problem: it is 3rd party user level software >> that freezes pc. and my post was to point out to ya'll a shoddy >> statement from a respecful source: "A software problem cannot cause >> your machine to lock up so hard that even mouse and keyboard stop." - >> this is what i do not except. it is not about just another winblows, >> it is about how the people who know what windows is better than i do >> respond to the problem. >> >No you are speculating what you describe is a symptom, not a cause. I >raised the point earlier Microsoft spends a lot of time researching problems >like this when they occur. Now you are stating the problem is Windows with >no data other than the system hangs on this computer when a certain >application is run, where is your data to show it is not a third party >driver or even a driver embedded in the application. Lets stick to facts, >of which there are very little about the specific problem. One more time: does anybody know if firefox 3.5.5 or 3.5.6 uses some kernel mode driver? -- Programmer's Goldmine collections: http://preciseinfo.org Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript, organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques. |