Dropping XP is a show-stopping deficiency that should be addressed
before the GA release of the Win8 build tools if Microsoft is serious
about having third party developers use these tools for driver
development.
Sorry, Mark, but this sounds like too much “drama” to me.
You will just need several versions of the WDK installed in parallel.
As long as this is possible, dropping support for platform in WDK[Y]
is a nuisance (read:PITA), but ‘no show will be stopped’ because of it.
Obviously the Microsoft WDK team must focus on the future of Windows
development, not on ancient still-in-production-used legacy versions.
> idenfitied your problem with software acquisition and software quality:
you acquisition process" they said "But that would require that Congress
How funny. And some people still believe that military is the driving force under the technical progress.
I’ve heard a guy who was seriously telling that LiIon batteries were invented by the military. He even does not know that they are practically not used in military at all - military and aerospace prefer NiCd.
> insurmountable inertia to overcome to change anything. (Look at the Ada
Is Ada still alive? isn’t it replaced with C++ with STL and Boost?
Someday it had to be happen. Only in upcoming release of our product we have finally dropped w2k. It was really a “brake” for our progress. So, today we have 4 major environments to building defferent versions of products (from NT up to 7). Today VMs offer a huge help of such tasks. You need ESX (or Hyper-V) server, some VMs for different OS environments, good source management software like Perforce and voila! Building and support (and sh! autotesting) different versions will never be a problem for you. As soon as MS declared timelife of theirs OSes we have to someday stop adding new features to product and switch to another version. We are talking about drivers, aren’t? So, one of the most goal of our work is to offer the best speed and utilizing OS services… Change your mind, Mark. We have to go further. In good conscience, what really new can we add to w2k version of our product? May be it is the time to switch your current version to state “support only”? Will you never wanted to throw this whole horrible code that avoids errors of w2k and switch to use new API?
Have you ever maintained a large project in multiple environments
like you are proposing? I have help clients get rid of these. Most of
these folks saw a huge problem with quality when they tried to maintain
two environments. The result was either crappy software or multiple
month delays in releases to get things stable and the same in both
environments.
It was one thing when Microsoft dropped Win2K support, since by that
point it could be argued that was a small part of the overall Windows
base. It still made things painful for a lot of us whose clients wanted
Win2K versions of the drivers, but since the changes in the environment
were small this was not terrible.
This is not the case with XP, it is still a major force on the
business desktops and I doubt it will be that much smaller by the time
Win8 comes out due to the slow economy. This is going to be a
significant problem for firms wanting to release drivers that work from
XP to Win8.
> On 9/16/2011 5:25 PM, Mark Roddy wrote: > > Dropping XP is a show-stopping deficiency that should be addressed > > before the GA release of the Win8 build tools if Microsoft is serious > > about having third party developers use these tools for driver > > development. > > Sorry, Mark, but this sounds like too much “drama” to me. > > You will just need several versions of the WDK installed in parallel. > > As long as this is possible, dropping support for platform in WDK[Y] > is a nuisance (read:PITA), but ‘no show will be stopped’ because of it. > > > Obviously the Microsoft WDK team must focus on the future of Windows > development, not on ancient still-in-production-used legacy versions.
This is not just the next release of the WDK but a completely new build
environment. That means we are likely going to need to maintain separate
copies of our source and projects or otherwise end up in a mess.
That is the point. As it stands now, rather than orphan xp builds I
will orphan win8 builds: they will be the exception and will not
happen for our production environment until we have a real world
demand for a win8 based component.
I’ll set up a win8 build system to play around with and that is all
for now. Too bad really, sticking a rather dim business decision in
the way of widespread adoption of what is likely a major upgrade to
the build tools.
Mark Roddy
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:38 AM, wrote: > This is not just the next release of the WDK but a completely new build > environment. That means we are likely going to need to maintain separate > copies of our source and projects or otherwise end up in a mess. > > Regards, > > Daniel Terhell > Resplendence Software Projects Sp > xxxxx@resplendence.com > http://www.resplendence.com > > > > “Hagen Patzke” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev… >> You will just need several versions of the WDK installed in parallel. >> > > > > — > NTDEV is sponsored by OSR > > For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit: > http://www.osr.com/seminars > > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer >
Help me here: Why are people so keen to build for specific OS versions?
I *know* that we tell less experienced devs “build a single common executable in the build environment of the oldest system you support.”. I teach this. And for some folks this is the best guidance.
But Mr. Roddy and Mr. Burn are highly experienced devs. They need not follow the rules we give for beginners.
What pushes you gentlemen to want to build you XP driver in the XP build environment? I assume you’re building a single executable for all platforms, no? If not, why not. If so, why not build in,say, the Win8 build environment or if that’s too scary maybe Vista?
If it’s executable format (NT Target Version or whatever it is) you can fix that easily.
If you were really keen on ensuring you got the right definitions in the header files, you could even define the appropriate version constants, no???
I’m nit saying you don’t have a point … I just would lime to know the technical details of what’s driving your requirement.
I have multiple clients who build a pre Vista and post Vista driver,
they only changes are in conditionals. For right now they plan to build
in the Win7 environment for their targets and ignore the improved tools
of Win8. This isn’t terrible, but in the past they would have made the
effort to move to the newer environment at least for a “tool check”. I
had one client who wrote a script to fix the small changed from Vista to
Win7 so they could keep building a Win2k driver, but run the latest
tools for checking by using the Win7 WDK. So these clients have at
least lost the ability to easily perform the “tool check” with the
latest tools.
What makes things worse, is that at least one client knows they
could get rid of some really messy code in their product by utilizing
capabilities of Win8. If this had been a build environment they told me
they would have had dev’s working on a Win8 version shortly, with the
conditionals being extended so they created a pre Vista, a Vista/Win7,
and Win8 version, but with the change in the development environment
they have delayed the Win8 version as being too big a step.
All of these are complex large build environments. I suspect for
the simple driver a lot of us will learn how to ensure the conversion
tool works correctly with our sources (modifying the sources if needed)
and just live with creating a project file when we want to work with
Win8.
> Hmmmmm… > > Help me here: Why are people so keen to build for specific OS versions? > > I know that we tell less experienced devs “build a single common executable in the build environment of the oldest system you support.”. I teach this. And for some folks this is the best guidance. > > But Mr. Roddy and Mr. Burn are highly experienced devs. They need not follow the rules we give for beginners. > > What pushes you gentlemen to want to build you XP driver in the XP build environment? I assume you’re building a single executable for all platforms, no? If not, why not. If so, why not build in,say, the Win8 build environment or if that’s too scary maybe Vista? > > If it’s executable format (NT Target Version or whatever it is) you can fix that easily. > > If you were really keen on ensuring you got the right definitions in the header files, you could even define the appropriate version constants, no??? > > I’m nit saying you don’t have a point … I just would lime to know the technical details of what’s driving your requirement. > > Peter > OSR
Sorry, I always forget that most people on this Windows-only list do not routinely have to build for multiple hardware platforms, multiple
OS, and multiple OS versions for each of these platforms.
The prospect of having multiple toolchain, build files, and source code
layout versions must be horrifying, even “showstopping”, for you.
Help me here: Why are people so keen to build for specific OS versions?
+1
Maybe for marketing reasons? Maybe it looks better to have a special
driver package for WinX/WinY/WinZ/WinA/WinB/WinC each.
Our BulkUSB-derived WDM driver - built in WDK6001 (XP free) - runs on
Win98SE/ME/2K/XP/Vista/7. With the next major overhaul I might remove
W98SE support (WDMSTUB.SYS served very well, thanks Walter Oney!).
So far the driver has proven to be rock-solid (our device can not
suspend, I’ve been told we have been lucky in that respect).
If Win8 still runs WDM, there is little reason to even recompile it.
I suspect for the
simple driver a lot of us will learn how to ensure the conversion tool
works correctly with our sources (modifying the sources if needed) and
just live with creating a project file when we want to work with Win8.
For the simple driver you might even consider trying a different
technology, e.g. UMDF/KMDF (if your hardware is supported by it).
As WDF was announced to be kept downward compatible, you will always get
a better WDF version but can even keep your driver binary.
LiIon was, as best I recall, created to solve a problem in energy density
that DoD faced. I wasn’t “invented by the military” but I had a friend
who was working on what we would now call a “ruggedized laptop” and
battery power was their biggest problem, and I remember him telling us
about a new technology that was being developed–LiIon. But the thing to
remember about these organizations is that they are incredibly
conservative. It takes decades before the specifications are allowed to
change, and even longer before new technology is adopted (there are some
rare exceptions to this, but they are anomalous). So the idea that DoD
research funding produced LiIon and DoD still uses NiCd is not
inconsistent, or even surprising.
Ada is still alive, but it is a tiny niche market. It is used in a small
number of aerospace companies. C++ dominates.
joe
> idenfitied your problem with software acquisition and software quality:
> you acquisition process" they said "But that would require that Congress
How funny. And some people still believe that military is the driving
force under the technical progress.
I’ve heard a guy who was seriously telling that LiIon batteries were
invented by the military. He even does not know that they are practically
not used in military at all - military and aerospace prefer NiCd.
>> insurmountable inertia to overcome to change anything. (Look at the
>> Ada
Is Ada still alive? isn’t it replaced with C++ with STL and Boost?
>> idenfitied your problem with software acquisition and software qualit
> you acquisition process" they said "But that would require that Congress
How funny. And some people still believe that military is the driving force under the technical progress.
You’ve got a peculiar understanding of technical progress, Max. Do you really think you are
“the driving force under the technical progress”, in your words, whenever you buy a “new” product that, despite offering a couple of new features, is basically still the same 20-year old product??? I would say that you are just a milking cow for a corporation that offers this product, i.e. someone who has more money than reason (I don’t mean you personally, of course)…
The lowest common version is xp. I would be happy to stop right there but
here at Virtual Computer we have some components that require vista+ so I
have a vista 32 bit build, and we made an arbitrary decision to limit 64bit
support to win7+ so I have a win7x64 bit build too.
Note however that for almost everyone responding in this thread the base
version is xp: not supported by the win8 tools.
On Monday, September 19, 2011, wrote: > Hmmmmm… > > Help me here: Why are people so keen to build for specific OS versions? > > I know that we tell less experienced devs “build a single common executable in the build environment of the oldest system you support.”. I teach this. And for some folks this is the best guidance. > > But Mr. Roddy and Mr. Burn are highly experienced devs. They need not follow the rules we give for beginners. > > What pushes you gentlemen to want to build you XP driver in the XP build environment? I assume you’re building a single executable for all platforms, no? If not, why not. If so, why not build in,say, the Win8 build environment or if that’s too scary maybe Vista? > > If it’s executable format (NT Target Version or whatever it is) you can fix that easily. > > If you were really keen on ensuring you got the right definitions in the header files, you could even define the appropriate version constants, no??? > > I’m nit saying you don’t have a point … I just would lime to know the technical details of what’s driving your requirement. > > Peter > OSR > > > — > NTDEV is sponsored by OSR > > For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit: > http://www.osr.com/seminars > > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer >
Not exactly. It’s only OUR code that is frozen. They can add new printers, etc as old ones are obsoleted. We’re just not allowed to change our code without going through recertification. That can cost upwards of $1 Million!
From: Hagen Patzke To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List” Subject: Re:[ntdev] Win8 WDK: no XP support is a showstopping barrier to adoption. Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:13:35 +0200
On 9/19/2011 3:25 AM, Gregory G Dyess wrote: > Unfortunately we have “certified” systems running on W2K that our > customers are not allowed to upgrade at all.
But then these will also not be allowed upgrade to new hardware and / or to a new driver without re-certification either.
I have a client I still keep in touch with, whose certified system is
NT 4 Embedded. The cost of upgrading and getting the recertification
means they are still cranking out hardware that most of us would
consider beyond obsolete. This is a medical device.
“Gregory G Dyess” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev:
> Not exactly. It’s only OUR code that is frozen. They can add new printers, etc as old ones are obsoleted. We’re just not allowed to change our code without going through recertification. That can cost upwards of $1 Million! > > Greg > > — xxxxx@hotmail.com wrote: > > From: Hagen Patzke > To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List” > Subject: Re:[ntdev] Win8 WDK: no XP support is a showstopping barrier to adoption. > Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:13:35 +0200 > > On 9/19/2011 3:25 AM, Gregory G Dyess wrote: > > Unfortunately we have “certified” systems running on W2K that our > > customers are not allowed to upgrade at all. > > But then these will also not be allowed upgrade to new hardware and / or > to a new driver without re-certification either. > > No problem then. > > — > NTDEV is sponsored by OSR > > For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit: > http://www.osr.com/seminars > > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
It is showstopping in the sense that I work for a very small company that
cannot afford the expense involved in conversion and complexity, not because
it is too difficult if there is no defined value in spending my time
converting it won’t happen.
On Monday, September 19, 2011, Hagen Patzke wrote: > Sorry, I always forget that most people on this Windows-only list do > not routinely have to build for multiple hardware platforms, multiple > OS, and multiple OS versions for each of these platforms. > > > The prospect of having multiple toolchain, build files, and source code > layout versions must be horrifying, even “showstopping”, for you. > > — > NTDEV is sponsored by OSR > > For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit: > http://www.osr.com/seminars > > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer >
Help me here: Why are people so keen to build for specific OS versions?
In the network driver space there are sometimes two completely different ways to do things on NT5 and NT6 and no ‘intersection’ to leverage as common ground. I maintain a couple such drivers that have bifurcated at the NT5 / NT6 DDI boundary.
The NT5 drivers build in the XP/2K3 environments. The NT6 drivers build in the Vista environments.
The lowest common version rule in this case got ‘reset’ at the NT6 boundary.
I know companies that have not moved from Office 2003 because the
retraining cost is far too high.
I still run Office 2003, not because I cannot be retrained (or so I
believe), but because I see no need. Office 2003 does everything I need
it to do, and it uses less resources and doesn’t crash as often as the
newer versions.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
