RE: SPAM-LOW: RE: Referencing a RegKey Object from handle

Oliver,

I concur with your sentiments, but there are too many questions (or
arguments on the groups) asking how to hack the OS to make the hardware
work. After I sent the last response, I found some data I had been looking
for:

When I first started in the industry a long time ago, Data General
where I worked found:

Salary of an engineer < $20,000 / year
Hardware design costs 1 man year or $20,000
Driver costs 3-6 monts or $10,000 (remember the demands were less
back then)
Driver mainaince costs for the life of the product 6-12 months or
$20,000 (again things were simpler)

Price per board (for a common peripheral) $4000
Profit per board (for a common peripheral) $2000

or in other words you needed to sell 25 board to break even. At
that time the need to save build costs was extreme since it directly
impacted your profits.

Now:

Salary of an engineer $100,000 / year
Hardware design costs 6 months to a year or $100,000
Software costs 1 year or $100,000
Software maintaince costs for life of the product 100k per year for
3-5 years) $500,000

Price per board (for a common peripheral) $10
Profit per board (for a common peripheral) < $1

At this point saving on software maintaince becomes a very big
thing.


Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Remove StopSpam from the email to reply

“Oliver Schneider” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Don,
>
> this is fully understood. But it seems you separate soft- and hardware
> too
> strictly in this “selling phase”. IMO it is the case that only with a well
> written driver (let’s take graphics cards) you will get the most out of
> the
> hardware. Moreover when new software (e.g. games) is released you will try
> to optimize the performance of your graphics card (even for existing
> products - and optimization can only be done via software, may it be
> firmware or drivers). My point is, that the vendor wants his product to
> perform well. And the product is not just “the hardware” or “the
> software”,
> it’s a bundle. Especially after the initial release of such a product.
> They
> are selling products, not hardware and not software alone.
>
> But perhaps you have the better insight into this. So I’ll step back :wink:
>
> With best regards,
>
> Oliver
>
> –
> ---------------------------------------------------
> May the source be with you, stranger :wink:
>
> ICQ: #281645
> URL: http://assarbad.net
>

Different cost perspectives:

  • The original manufacturer
  • The end user (or IT department)

Much of this is driven by a persistent tendency of individuals and
companies to buy “the cheapest product”. If your only criteria is the
“up front” price, vendors will strive to push down the “up front” costs.
If you are concerned about other metrics (“total cost of ownership”
versus “acquisition cost”) then your concerns are different.

What Oliver is pointing out is the OEM cost perspective, while Don is
pointing out the end user/TCO perspective. As long as there are
customers looking for each of those things, there will be different
approaches to meeting the needs of those customers.

In Windows, for example, DataCenter machines are highly reliable and
highly stable. Vendors test and lock down those configurations because
they run in environments in which stability is essential.

From what I can understand here, Alberto has a different vision of what
an OS should provide than the features provided by Windows. If his
vision (and realization of that vision) meets the needs of the market,
then his OS will become the dominant force. However, it seems that
rather than stability and robustness in the face of arbitrary failures
(including hardware and device driver failures), the market right now
would rather have systems with the lowest up-front cost. We should not
be surprised that the lowest bidder doesn’t provide us with the highest
quality products. And don’t be surprised when that “lowest cost
product” has some hidden maintenance expenses built into it…

Regards,

Tony

Tony Mason
Consulting Partner
OSR Open Systems Resources, Inc.
http://www.osr.com

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:11 AM
To: ntdev redirect
Subject: Re:[ntdev] Re:Re: Re: Re:Referencing a RegKey Object from
handle

Oliver,

This is true, except that once hardware is “done” it is rarely
touched. Drivers and software have a maintaince cost that is a killer.
It
has been found by a number of firms, that well designed hardware costs
the
same as poorly designed hardware (yes if you add a ton of bells and
whistles
the cost can change, but in general). What does change is the cost of
the
software support for the hardware.

No matter what one does there is a build cost X for the basic
hardware. Now consider that a commodity PCI board is selling in some
case
for $10, and have a profit of less than a $1. Now a good hardware
designer
will cost you around $100K in my neck of the woods. Assuming a man-year
for
the design, you have to sell over 100K boards to cover the designer.
Interestingly enough the software guys are similar priced, so with a
complete package (not just a driver) this is easily a man-year so
another
100K+ boards. But, in many cases the software support costs can for
poor
software (or poor hardware forcing games in software), be close to or
higher
than the initial software cost! If that is the case you have to be
doing
over $1,000,000 in revunes on the boards just to break even!


Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Remove StopSpam from the email to reply

“Oliver Schneider” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Sorry to disalusion you, but there have been a number of
studies
>> that have shown that for most hardware the costs of the associated
>> software is 5 to 10 times higher than the hardware. The concept that
>> the hardware is more expensive went out with discrete packages.
> With only a minor difference. For any class of hardware (class
refers to
> a
> prototype, e.g. special chipset or so) you have to write the software
once
> and can copy it completely lossless. Yet the hardware needs to be
> produced -
> which is definitely more costive than just copying some bits and
bytes.
>
> Just my 2 cents,
>
> Oliver
>
> –
> ---------------------------------------------------
> May the source be with you, stranger :wink:
>
> ICQ: #281645
> URL: http://assarbad.net
>


Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@osr.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com

Yes, but it does take a long time. Of course, in some cases the amount of
information you can give Microsoft is limited because if a company has
discovered a way to provide something that works, they don’t want to tell
the world their secret especially when the OS company is also a
possible/probable competitor.

“Don Burn” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Have you or any of the other who complain about the undocumented calls or
> missing calls asked Microsoft to fix it? I don’t mean complain, but lay
> out in a rational manner why the is a need for a capability. The more
> specifics on the need and the more flexibility on the interface the
> better. This is best done when you know the person, but there are enough
> feedback emails that will listen also.
>
> I have asked over the years, and actually have had reasonably good
> results. No they will not retro fit the interface to every version of the
> system, but it you can truly articulate a need, many of the Microsoft
> folks are highly sympathetic and responsive.
>
>
> –
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
> Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Remove StopSpam from the email to reply
>
>
>
> “David J. Craig” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> I do wish though that Microsoft would provide the OS calls to achieve
>> what WE need and not what they want to give us. Sometimes you can get to
>> a developer at Microsoft and get something you really need, but it sure
>> would be nice if it was as easy as it is for Linux. All you have to do
>> there is convince Linus that it is needed and if he agrees, it will
>> appear or you will get the chance to write it and have it included.
>
>
>

Maybe DataCenter machines are the Windows’ equivalent of Apple’s computers.
It is much easier when you can specify the permitted hardware. Some
companies have specific computers that they buy to try and standardize. It
is in someway just like OSR’s quest for a good 1394 card for Windbg. Since
the drivers for that device are not replaceable, we need good hardware.
However, most manufacturers of those cards are using Via or another chip and
not the TI chip which seems to be the most reliable. I have had success
with Via, but I also have serial cables.

“Tony Mason” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
Different cost perspectives:

- The original manufacturer
- The end user (or IT department)

Much of this is driven by a persistent tendency of individuals and
companies to buy “the cheapest product”. If your only criteria is the
“up front” price, vendors will strive to push down the “up front” costs.
If you are concerned about other metrics (“total cost of ownership”
versus “acquisition cost”) then your concerns are different.

What Oliver is pointing out is the OEM cost perspective, while Don is
pointing out the end user/TCO perspective. As long as there are
customers looking for each of those things, there will be different
approaches to meeting the needs of those customers.

In Windows, for example, DataCenter machines are highly reliable and
highly stable. Vendors test and lock down those configurations because
they run in environments in which stability is essential.

From what I can understand here, Alberto has a different vision of what
an OS should provide than the features provided by Windows. If his
vision (and realization of that vision) meets the needs of the market,
then his OS will become the dominant force. However, it seems that
rather than stability and robustness in the face of arbitrary failures
(including hardware and device driver failures), the market right now
would rather have systems with the lowest up-front cost. We should not
be surprised that the lowest bidder doesn’t provide us with the highest
quality products. And don’t be surprised when that “lowest cost
product” has some hidden maintenance expenses built into it…

Regards,

Tony

Tony Mason
Consulting Partner
OSR Open Systems Resources, Inc.
http://www.osr.com

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:11 AM
To: ntdev redirect
Subject: Re:[ntdev] Re:Re: Re: Re:Referencing a RegKey Object from
handle

Oliver,

This is true, except that once hardware is “done” it is rarely
touched. Drivers and software have a maintaince cost that is a killer.
It
has been found by a number of firms, that well designed hardware costs
the
same as poorly designed hardware (yes if you add a ton of bells and
whistles
the cost can change, but in general). What does change is the cost of
the
software support for the hardware.

No matter what one does there is a build cost X for the basic
hardware. Now consider that a commodity PCI board is selling in some
case
for $10, and have a profit of less than a $1. Now a good hardware
designer
will cost you around $100K in my neck of the woods. Assuming a man-year
for
the design, you have to sell over 100K boards to cover the designer.
Interestingly enough the software guys are similar priced, so with a
complete package (not just a driver) this is easily a man-year so
another
100K+ boards. But, in many cases the software support costs can for
poor
software (or poor hardware forcing games in software), be close to or
higher
than the initial software cost! If that is the case you have to be
doing
over $1,000,000 in revunes on the boards just to break even!


Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Remove StopSpam from the email to reply

“Oliver Schneider” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Sorry to disalusion you, but there have been a number of
studies
>> that have shown that for most hardware the costs of the associated
>> software is 5 to 10 times higher than the hardware. The concept that
>> the hardware is more expensive went out with discrete packages.
> With only a minor difference. For any class of hardware (class
refers to
> a
> prototype, e.g. special chipset or so) you have to write the software
once
> and can copy it completely lossless. Yet the hardware needs to be
> produced -
> which is definitely more costive than just copying some bits and
bytes.
>
> Just my 2 cents,
>
> Oliver
>
> –
> ---------------------------------------------------
> May the source be with you, stranger :wink:
>
> ICQ: #281645
> URL: http://assarbad.net
>


Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@osr.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com

> Actually, the strcpy() thing is, in my opinion, strong evidence of

arrogance (perhaps accidental) on the part of Microsoft.

Microsoft has every right to obsolete SetPixel if they want. They
invented it. strcpy, on the other hand, does not belong to Microsoft,
and never has. It is part of the ISO C and C++ Standard run-time
libraries. Microsoft cannot arbitrarily deprecate strcpy. They can
scold us for using it, but the Whidbey plan to issue “deprecation”
warning errors when strcpy is used shows one heck of a lot of
chutzpah.

I was surprised to see this extended to char_traits<>::copy() and
char_traits<>::move() as well.

Chuck

Or, when things go bump in the night, they want the blame to go to Microsoft
instead of their sorry asses.


The personal opinion of
Gary G. Little

“David J. Craig” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Yes, but it does take a long time. Of course, in some cases the amount of
> information you can give Microsoft is limited because if a company has
> discovered a way to provide something that works, they don’t want to tell
> the world their secret especially when the OS company is also a
> possible/probable competitor.
>
> “Don Burn” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Have you or any of the other who complain about the undocumented calls or
>> missing calls asked Microsoft to fix it? I don’t mean complain, but lay
>> out in a rational manner why the is a need for a capability. The more
>> specifics on the need and the more flexibility on the interface the
>> better. This is best done when you know the person, but there are enough
>> feedback emails that will listen also.
>>
>> I have asked over the years, and actually have had reasonably good
>> results. No they will not retro fit the interface to every version of the
>> system, but it you can truly articulate a need, many of the Microsoft
>> folks are highly sympathetic and responsive.
>>
>>
>> –
>> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
>> Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
>> Remove StopSpam from the email to reply
>>
>>
>>
>> “David J. Craig” wrote in message
>> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>>> I do wish though that Microsoft would provide the OS calls to achieve
>>> what WE need and not what they want to give us. Sometimes you can get
>>> to a developer at Microsoft and get something you really need, but it
>>> sure would be nice if it was as easy as it is for Linux. All you have
>>> to do there is convince Linus that it is needed and if he agrees, it
>>> will appear or you will get the chance to write it and have it included.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

>(including hardware and device driver failures), the market right now

would rather have systems with the lowest up-front cost.

Surely I agree with this on desktops, but what about the server market?

Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

> the world their secret especially when the OS company is also a

possible/probable competitor.

Any other desktop OS companies? :slight_smile:

Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

> On Behalf Of Maxim S. Shatskih

> the world their secret especially when the OS company is also a
> possible/probable competitor.

Any other desktop OS companies? :slight_smile:

Microsoft is not only a desktop OS company, it also
a server OS company. Many other companies have technologies
that Microsoft is interested in. Frequently you
just can’t reasonably describe to Microsoft why do you need
this new DDI/kernel functionality without giving away too much
information.

Dmitriy Budko, VMware

>just can’t reasonably describe to Microsoft why do you need

this new DDI/kernel functionality without giving away too much
information.

Oh, I see. For you, MS is a competitor (Virtual PC).

Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com