I know portability was an issue, however seeking portability instead of
security and stability has proven to be an unwise choice since all the
original pretenders for NT have died (Alpha, etc.). It is just like Intel's
choice to spend transistors on paging and not segmentation. They were
driven by the choice of allowing the segments to address all of memory in
Windows. The ability to inhibit code execution on the stack has existed
since the early protected mode chips, though it was segment oriented. If
the code segment does not point to the address space where the stack lies,
no code there can be executed if the OS sets up the CPU correctly. In user
mode, changing segment registers (CS, DS, & SS) would be a function of the
OS loader so no attack could just reload CS and start executing wherever
I know it is too late, but sooner or later Windows will die or become as
different as Windows 1.0 is to Vista. That is certain, but when is unknown.
Apple is definitely a profitable niche though. They have a lot of dedicated
followers and have shown they will drop a CPU and OS when it makes sense for
them. How many people using the Apple IIe ever thought that the base OS
would change to Unix? This Windows legacy support has many problems and
benefits. Have the right choices been made? The Microsoft stock price does
not completely support the idea that they get it all right every time.
"Maxim S. Shatskih" wrote in message
>> Microsoft could have required that all drivers run in ring 1 instead of
> ...at the cost of portability. Sorry.
>> than other stacks. We got Windows and until Steve Jobs takes over
> No chances I think. Apple computers and laptops are niche products.
> Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
> StorageCraft Corporation