Windows System Software -- Consulting, Training, Development -- Unique Expertise, Guaranteed Results

Home NTDEV

Before Posting...

Please check out the Community Guidelines in the Announcements and Administration Category.

More Info on Driver Writing and Debugging


The free OSR Learning Library has more than 50 articles on a wide variety of topics about writing and debugging device drivers and Minifilters. From introductory level to advanced. All the articles have been recently reviewed and updated, and are written using the clear and definitive style you've come to expect from OSR over the years.


Check out The OSR Learning Library at: https://www.osr.com/osr-learning-library/


how softICE gui works?

Amin_MohammadiAmin_Mohammadi Member Posts: 7
softICE had interesting technology,ut manually freeze system and drawing a window over whatever currently displayed on screen.
how softICE internally manage it's window??
can we drawing window using device driver??

Comments

  • MBondMBond Member - All Emails Posts: 846
    The short answer is no ? drivers do not create or manage windows.



    The long answer starts with, yes, as code running in KM a driver _can_ do _anything_ including many things that are not supported and will certainly crash the system.



    In the case of softice, IIRC as stop the world debugger, it did not create a ?window? in the sense of a Windows GDI window, but rather pounded directly on the video hardware behind the back of whatever video driver was running. This obviously dangerous technique was deemed appropriate for a debugger designed to run on the system being debugged. The advent of simple virtualization has obsoleted the motivation for such a technology IMHO



    Sent from Mail for Windows 10



    From: [email protected]
    Sent: January 7, 2017 12:23 PM
    To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    Subject: [ntdev] how softICE gui works?



    softICE had interesting technology,ut manually freeze system and drawing a window over whatever currently displayed on screen.
    how softICE internally manage it's window??
    can we drawing window using device driver??

    ---
    NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

    Visit the list online at:

    MONTHLY seminars on crash dump analysis, WDF, Windows internals and software drivers!
    Details at

    To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
  • Tim_RobertsTim_Roberts Member - All Emails Posts: 14,832
    On Jan 7, 2017, at 8:11 PM, Marion Bond > wrote:

    In the case of softice, IIRC as stop the world debugger, it did not create a ‘window’ in the sense of a Windows GDI window, but rather pounded directly on the video hardware behind the back of whatever video driver was running.

    You recall correctly. SoftICE only worked in one-screen mode on certain graphics cards -- cards where they had their own internal drivers. They would essentially snapshot the frame buffer, then do their own drawing, by pounding directly into the kernel mapping of the frame buffer.

    Later, they could do any board that supported DirectDraw, again by grabbing a pointer to the primary surface and drawing directly.

    I was writing display drivers at the time, where this technique was not particularly useful. We kept a monochrome graphics card around for years, just so we could run SoftICE on the mono monitor.

    Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

    Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    Software Wizard Emeritus

  • Jamey_KirbyJamey_Kirby Member - All Emails Posts: 461
    I miss SoftIce. I cut my teeth with SoftIce on DOS, and used it all the way
    through XP. I cried when it was discontinued. An Asian vendor tried to
    create a replacement, but it was junk. In my setups, I always added a
    secondary monochrome video adapter to my system, and directed SoftIce to
    use the monochrome display as the debug terminal. Because the old VGA and
    Mono adapters mapped memory to b8000, and b0000 respectively (color or
    mono), it was easy for SoftIce to simply change modes, and write directly
    to the video memory. This made it extremely responsive and fast.

    On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 3:19 AM Tim Roberts wrote:

    > On Jan 7, 2017, at 8:11 PM, Marion Bond wrote:
    >
    >
    > In the case of softice, IIRC as stop the world debugger, it did not create
    > a ‘window’ in the sense of a Windows GDI window, but rather pounded
    > directly on the video hardware behind the back of whatever video driver was
    > running.
    >
    >
    > You recall correctly. SoftICE only worked in one-screen mode on certain
    > graphics cards -- cards where they had their own internal drivers. They
    > would essentially snapshot the frame buffer, then do their own drawing, by
    > pounding directly into the kernel mapping of the frame buffer.
    >
    > Later, they could do any board that supported DirectDraw, again by
    > grabbing a pointer to the primary surface and drawing directly.
    >
    > I was writing display drivers at the time, where this technique was not
    > particularly useful. We kept a monochrome graphics card around for years,
    > just so we could run SoftICE on the mono monitor.
    > —
    > Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
    >
    >
    > ---
    > NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
    >
    > Visit the list online at: <
    > http://www.osronline.com/showlists.cfm?list=ntdev&gt;
    >
    > MONTHLY seminars on crash dump analysis, WDF, Windows internals and
    > software drivers!
    > Details at
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at <
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer&gt;
    >
  • Tim_RobertsTim_Roberts Member - All Emails Posts: 14,832
    Jamey Kirby wrote:
    > I miss SoftIce. I cut my teeth with SoftIce on DOS, and used it all
    > the way through XP. I cried when it was discontinued. An Asian vendor
    > tried to create a replacement, but it was junk. In my setups, I always
    > added a secondary monochrome video adapter to my system, and directed
    > SoftIce to use the monochrome display as the debug terminal. Because
    > the old VGA and Mono adapters mapped memory to b8000, and b0000
    > respectively (color or mono), it was easy for SoftIce to simply change
    > modes, and write directly to the video memory. This made it extremely
    > responsive and fast.

    The biggest advantage of SoftICE was discoverability. As you typed a
    letter, it showed you the commands that started with that letter. This
    often resulted in "hey, what does THAT do?" moments that led to revelations.

    WinDBG commands, on the other hand, look like RS232 line noise. I am
    absolutely boggled by some of the pseudo-random character streams that
    come up in our discussions here. It's even worse than Perl, and that's
    saying something. Now, I clearly understand that it is weighed down by
    the terrible burden of a 30-year legacy, but I also miss the SoftICE UI
    concept.

    --
    Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

    Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    Software Wizard Emeritus

  • Sven_KreamerSven_Kreamer Member Posts: 34
    I miss the speed of softice. It takes windbg ages to single step. With softice I could tap the step key a half dozen times and it would be there before my finger was up. Windbg will throw some the of the keystrokes in the garbage and take ages to do a single step even on fast connection hardware like 1394 and ethernet. Our company charged clients 3x more if they required windbg in those days because the productivity difference was so terrible.
  • Jan_BottorffJan_Bottorff Member - All Emails Posts: 472
    That’s different than my experience of windbg. If I connect the debugger and target machine over 800 Mbs 1394, with an LSI card that knows how to RDMA above 4GB, if you press and hold the single step key it single steps at keyboard repeat speed, which is 20-30 steps/sec. If you’re not seeing this performance, then perhaps your 1394 connection is not working optimally. Unfortunately, the LSI 1394 chipset is fading away, although last I checked cards still were available in the retail sales pipeline. I don’t believe any of the other 1394 chips implemented the optional high memory limit register, like the LSI chip did.

    Jan


    On 1/9/17, 4:31 PM, "[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

    I miss the speed of softice. It takes windbg ages to single step. With softice I could tap the step key a half dozen times and it would be there before my finger was up. Windbg will throw some the of the keystrokes in the garbage and take ages to do a single step even on fast connection hardware like 1394 and ethernet. Our company charged clients 3x more if they required windbg in those days because the productivity difference was so terrible.
  • Scott_Noone_(OSR)Scott_Noone_(OSR) Administrator Posts: 3,678
    We tracked down the "right" 1394b cards and sell them in the store:

    https://store.osr.com/product/1394-card-for-debugging-pcie/

    These cards rock (my experience matches Jan's).

    -scott
    OSR
    @OSRDrivers

    "Jan Bottorff" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...

    That’s different than my experience of windbg. If I connect the debugger and
    target machine over 800 Mbs 1394, with an LSI card that knows how to RDMA
    above 4GB, if you press and hold the single step key it single steps at
    keyboard repeat speed, which is 20-30 steps/sec. If you’re not seeing this
    performance, then perhaps your 1394 connection is not working optimally.
    Unfortunately, the LSI 1394 chipset is fading away, although last I checked
    cards still were available in the retail sales pipeline. I don’t believe any
    of the other 1394 chips implemented the optional high memory limit register,
    like the LSI chip did.

    Jan


    On 1/9/17, 4:31 PM, "[email protected] on behalf of
    [email protected]" wrote:

    I miss the speed of softice. It takes windbg ages to single step. With
    softice I could tap the step key a half dozen times and it would be there
    before my finger was up. Windbg will throw some the of the keystrokes in the
    garbage and take ages to do a single step even on fast connection hardware
    like 1394 and ethernet. Our company charged clients 3x more if they required
    windbg in those days because the productivity difference was so terrible.

    -scott
    OSR

  • Mark_RoddyMark_Roddy Member - All Emails Posts: 4,753
    I miss softice like I miss win98.

    Mark Roddy

    On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Scott Noone wrote:

    > We tracked down the "right" 1394b cards and sell them in the store:
    >
    > https://store.osr.com/product/1394-card-for-debugging-pcie/
    >
    > These cards rock (my experience matches Jan's).
    >
    > -scott
    > OSR
    > @OSRDrivers
    >
    > "Jan Bottorff" wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev...
    >
    >
    > That’s different than my experience of windbg. If I connect the debugger
    > and target machine over 800 Mbs 1394, with an LSI card that knows how to
    > RDMA above 4GB, if you press and hold the single step key it single steps
    > at keyboard repeat speed, which is 20-30 steps/sec. If you’re not seeing
    > this performance, then perhaps your 1394 connection is not working
    > optimally. Unfortunately, the LSI 1394 chipset is fading away, although
    > last I checked cards still were available in the retail sales pipeline. I
    > don’t believe any of the other 1394 chips implemented the optional high
    > memory limit register, like the LSI chip did.
    >
    > Jan
    >
    >
    > On 1/9/17, 4:31 PM, "[email protected] on behalf of
    > [email protected]" [email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > I miss the speed of softice. It takes windbg ages to single step. With
    > softice I could tap the step key a half dozen times and it would be there
    > before my finger was up. Windbg will throw some the of the keystrokes in
    > the garbage and take ages to do a single step even on fast connection
    > hardware like 1394 and ethernet. Our company charged clients 3x more if
    > they required windbg in those days because the productivity difference was
    > so terrible.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
    >
    > Visit the list online at: lists.cfm?list=ntdev>
    >
    > MONTHLY seminars on crash dump analysis, WDF, Windows internals and
    > software drivers!
    > Details at
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at <
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer&gt;
    >
  • MBondMBond Member - All Emails Posts: 846
    I couldn?t agree more about poor interface design



    IMHO power shell is worse ? at least most windbg commands are short ? but nothing is worse than the fixation with ribbon based ui



    Sent from Mail for Windows 10



    From: Tim Roberts
    Sent: January 9, 2017 2:24 PM
    To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
    Subject: Re: [ntdev] how softICE gui works?



    Jamey Kirby wrote:
    > I miss SoftIce. I cut my teeth with SoftIce on DOS, and used it all
    > the way through XP. I cried when it was discontinued. An Asian vendor
    > tried to create a replacement, but it was junk. In my setups, I always
    > added a secondary monochrome video adapter to my system, and directed
    > SoftIce to use the monochrome display as the debug terminal. Because
    > the old VGA and Mono adapters mapped memory to b8000, and b0000
    > respectively (color or mono), it was easy for SoftIce to simply change
    > modes, and write directly to the video memory. This made it extremely
    > responsive and fast.

    The biggest advantage of SoftICE was discoverability. As you typed a
    letter, it showed you the commands that started with that letter. This
    often resulted in "hey, what does THAT do?" moments that led to revelations.

    WinDBG commands, on the other hand, look like RS232 line noise. I am
    absolutely boggled by some of the pseudo-random character streams that
    come up in our discussions here. It's even worse than Perl, and that's
    saying something. Now, I clearly understand that it is weighed down by
    the terrible burden of a 30-year legacy, but I also miss the SoftICE UI
    concept.

    --
    Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.


    ---
    NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

    Visit the list online at:

    MONTHLY seminars on crash dump analysis, WDF, Windows internals and software drivers!
    Details at

    To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
  • Tim_RobertsTim_Roberts Member - All Emails Posts: 14,832
    On Jan 10, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Mark Roddy <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > I miss softice like I miss win98.

    I don't know what that means. You do or you don't? Win 98SE was, in my opinion, the pinnacle of the 16-bit Windows systems. It was solid and reliable.

    Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

    Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    Software Wizard Emeritus

  • Tim_RobertsTim_Roberts Member - All Emails Posts: 14,832
    On Jan 10, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Marion Bond > wrote:

    I couldn’t agree more about poor interface design



    IMHO power shell is worse – at least most windbg commands are short – but nothing is worse than the fixation with ribbon based ui

    PowerShell doesn't imply a UI, but I have to step up to say a good word about PowerShell. It, at least, has the great benefit of discoverability. Because they have used rational and predictable rules to form their commands and stuck to it, you can make a pretty good guess as to PowerShell commands even if you don't know them. That takes discipline, but it pays back in the long term. CDC used the exact same philosophy in their NOS/VE mainframe system.

    Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

    Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    Software Wizard Emeritus

  • Mark_RoddyMark_Roddy Member - All Emails Posts: 4,753
    Yes win98 was pretty good, but would you really like to be using it today?
    Do you actually "miss it"? It would completely suck for a huge number of
    reasons. Lots of things that are now pretty horrible were once "the
    pinnacle".

    SoftIce solved a problem that existed for a rather brief period of time,
    its approach to system debugging is now useless.

    Mark Roddy

    On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Tim Roberts wrote:

    > On Jan 10, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Mark Roddy wrote:
    > >
    > > I miss softice like I miss win98.
    >
    > I don't know what that means. You do or you don't? Win 98SE was, in my
    > opinion, the pinnacle of the 16-bit Windows systems. It was solid and
    > reliable.
    > —
    > Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
    >
    >
    > ---
    > NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
    >
    > Visit the list online at: showlists.cfm?list=ntdev>
    >
    > MONTHLY seminars on crash dump analysis, WDF, Windows internals and
    > software drivers!
    > Details at
    >
    > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at <
    > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer&gt;
    >
  • Peter_Viscarola_(OSR)Peter_Viscarola_(OSR) Administrator Posts: 9,160
    <quote>
    I miss softice like I miss win98.
    </quote>

    Agree.

    I miss SoftICE and Win98 both about as much as I miss my last stomach virus.

    SoftICE was always a hack from hell. It was horrifically invasive, full of hooks and digging into random OS data structures at random offsets. I get that people liked it because it was fast and allowed single system debugging. I never warmed to it, personally. Compared to WinDbg, even back then, SoftICE always felt old and out-of-date to me.

    As I remember them, the good old days mostly weren't so good.

    Peter
    OSR
    @OSRDrivers

    Peter Viscarola
    OSR
    @OSRDrivers

  • Don_BurnDon_Burn Member - All Emails Posts: 1,769
    +1

    The thing I most hated about SoftIce was if you were developing a highly
    threaded environment, you were going to find things worked differently
    without SoftIce. I don't just mean debugger versus no debugger, but really
    differently, the hacks in SoftIce as part of its hooks really changed what
    was concurrent.


    Don Burn
    Windows Driver Consulting
    Website: http://www.windrvr.com




    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email protected]
    [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
    Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 2:34 PM
    To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List <[email protected]>
    Subject: RE:[ntdev] how softICE gui works?

    <quote>
    I miss softice like I miss win98.
    </quote>

    Agree.

    I miss SoftICE and Win98 both about as much as I miss my last stomach virus.

    SoftICE was always a hack from hell. It was horrifically invasive, full of
    hooks and digging into random OS data structures at random offsets. I get
    that people liked it because it was fast and allowed single system
    debugging. I never warmed to it, personally. Compared to WinDbg, even back
    then, SoftICE always felt old and out-of-date to me.

    As I remember them, the good old days mostly weren't so good.

    Peter
    OSR
    @OSRDrivers


    ---
    NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

    Visit the list online at:
    <http://www.osronline.com/showlists.cfm?list=ntdev&gt;

    MONTHLY seminars on crash dump analysis, WDF, Windows internals and software
    drivers!
    Details at <http://www.osr.com/seminars&gt;

    To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
    <http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer&gt;
  • anton_bassovanton_bassov Member MODERATED Posts: 5,281
    > .... you were going to find things worked differently without SoftIce.

    Ironically, this is EXACTLY the reasoning behind Linus famous "real programmers don't need debuggers" stance. Sorry, but no matter how you look it, you just cannot observe a system without actually changing its state ( unless we are speaking about running it under the emulator,of course)

    > ... the hacks in SoftIce as part of its hooks really changed what was concurrent.


    Having said the above, I have to admit that SoftIce was, indeed, highly unreliable when it came to debugging memory-mapped IO. I spent almost a MONTH once debugging a non-existent problem that SoftIce made me believe was persistent.



    What it was really great for was disassembly - I have learned so much about the Windows internals this way.....



    Anton Bassov
  • twhistlertwhistler Member Posts: 1
    edited February 12

    SoftICE was a brilliant piece of engineering, and the sole, shining beacon of hope for those sad souls cast adrift into the gaping, black, bottomless abyss that was 90's Win3.x/9x driver development. As a 90's windows display driver developer (GDI, DirectDraw, Direct3D) (just one of the many hats I wore at the 3D startups) for several different companies in the burgeoning PC 3D graphics revolution, I used SoftICE practically all day every day. SoftICE was my welcome companion when mucking my way through the alternately infuriating and excruciating swamp of incomplete, out-of-date, incorrect, or just plain outright missing MS DDK documentation (often all of these applied simultaneously!).

    On most days I didn't have the luxury of just camping out in the Redmond, WA office of the singular human in the universe who actually KNEW the Win9x display driver "architecture" (there were several such trips!). SoftICE guided me through the maze of twisty little passages of, for example, debugging Alt-TABbing back and forth between full-screen DOSbox VGA and VESA games (Duke Nukem 3D! was really 'fun') and the GDI desktop. The SoftICE interface running on the monochrome monitor was the only way debugging this was even feasible.

    And now, almost 30 years later, when hit with the itch to revisit "retro" s/w and h/w systems, when I'm going back to investigate running DOS apps on modern hardware (its own 'adventure' wrought with peril at every step), SoftICE has stepped up yet again, this time the DOS version, which I had never used before. While investigating the debug tools available for this ancient world, SoftICE again stands alone, dwarfing the functionality and usability and interface of debuggers like TurboC/Pascal and Watcom (from what I've seen so far). Yeah, sure, you can run in a VM like QEMU/KVM or an emulator like 86Box or DosBox-x, but the experience is just not the same, it's not "real" when you're not running on the actual silicon. And even in those environments, (also including Bochs), the debug experience in 2024 is clunky, full of rough edges, and doesn't give the smooth experience of SoftICE.

    I do not doubt the reports here from others recounting tales of woe with SoftICE's approach to intrusively hooking kernel structures, but in my 6 years tenure with it I never ran into any issues of that sort. SoftICE was a breath of fresh air in a treacherous trek through Mordor's poisonous fumes, and with it we successfully shipped product after product. Thank God for SoftICE!

  • RourkeRourke Member Posts: 76

    SoftICE was a brilliant piece of engineering, and the sole, shining beacon of hope for those sad souls
    cast adrift into the gaping, black, bottomless abyss that was 90's Win3.x/9x driver development

    Totally agree. SoftICE was beyond state of the art and its elegant single machine mode could seamlessly debug 16-bit real mode DOS apps, 16-bit protected mode windows apps, and 32-bit flat protected mode windows drivers all at the same time. It was unreal to be able to seamlessly single step through a windows app calling a VxD. This was impossible with things like code view that were child's toys in comparison. I never bothered with monochrome cards, instead running compatible graphics cards on huge displays with many line mode. I had SoftICE permanently installed on my primary machine into the 2000's. The efficiency SoftICE added in shipping code out the door was far greater than just about anyone could ever appreciate.

    There is nothing like it now. The VS debugger is broken for driver work for years, no one seems to care, and windbg and its archaic interface is junk. Today it is like a roman who remembers the glory days, but now lives in a dark age.

  • MBond2MBond2 Member Posts: 707

    This is another strong personal opinion not universally shared

  • Tim_RobertsTim_Roberts Member - All Emails Posts: 14,832

    Which opinion? There is no arguing that SoftICE was a superior product to both wdeb386 and windbg. It was far easier to configure, the user interface was beautiful and (importantly) discoverable -- the autocompletion of commands meant you could explore the menus and the command options without having to have a manual, and the product worked the same on the 16-bit systems and the 32-bit systems.

    Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    Software Wizard Emeritus

  • Peter_Viscarola_(OSR)Peter_Viscarola_(OSR) Administrator Posts: 9,160
    edited February 23

    There is no arguing that SoftICE was a superior product to both wdeb386 and windbg.

    Really? Well, I’m here to argue. It’s what I do best :-)

    Ignoring the fact that we’re all necroposting (a plague that’ll be fixed on the new site, hallelujah)… I personally never found SoftIce to be anything but a collection of highly version-specific reverse engineered hacks and hooks (though some of them rather clever). Chasing updates to match a given system version was super annoying. Far from “beautiful”, I found the UI to be to be obscure and out of date even for the time.

    I always had a license, always hated every aspect of it, and was deeply thankful for WinDbg even from its earliest versions. I just could never “take” to SoftIce, and was even more annoyed by Numega’s greedy licensing practices for the last few versions.

    Having said that, there were people who loved it, and could make it sing. I’ll never forget Russinovich expertly piloting SoftIce though some obscure Windows disassembly, and popping out of his office every five minutes or so to share his latest discovery.

    Peter Viscarola
    OSR
    @OSRDrivers

  • Mark_RoddyMark_Roddy Member - All Emails Posts: 4,753

    In the spirit of bot necroposts, I asked copilot to chime in:

    When comparing Sofice and WinDbg, it's essential to understand their purposes and strengths:

    1. Sofice:
      • I apologize, but I couldn't find specific information about a tool named "Sofice." It's possible that the name is misspelled or refers to a less common or specialized tool.
      • If you have additional context or details about Sofice, please provide them, and I'll try to offer a more accurate comparison.

    That pretty much sums it up. On the other hand I live across the street from one of the mansions built with Numega money,

  • Peter_Viscarola_(OSR)Peter_Viscarola_(OSR) Administrator Posts: 9,160

    Expanding on Mr. @Mark_Roddy's most excellent bot necro-posting concept, but correcting for the spello, I got:

    And, for the record, that $700 price tag was from 2006... which is the equivalent of over $1K today.

    Super good insight there from CoPilot, huh? No? Yeah...

    Peter Viscarola
    OSR
    @OSRDrivers

  • Tim_RobertsTim_Roberts Member - All Emails Posts: 14,832

    Well, the heyday of SoftICE was surely the mid-1990s, at a time where Microsoft charged nearly $1,000 for the DDK. Microsoft paid a great deal of attention to WinDbg at the turn of the century, and it became the tool of choice.

    Tim Roberts, [email protected]
    Software Wizard Emeritus

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Upcoming OSR Seminars
OSR has suspended in-person seminars due to the Covid-19 outbreak. But, don't miss your training! Attend via the internet instead!
Kernel Debugging 13-17 May 2024 Live, Online
Developing Minifilters 1-5 Apr 2024 Live, Online
Internals & Software Drivers 11-15 Mar 2024 Live, Online
Writing WDF Drivers 20-24 May 2024 Live, Online