• 0

What Language Is Windows Written In?


Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Ya, there's many different "layers" of the OS. C# is usually used as an upper layer language today (although MS could make it do more in OS's after Longhorn). That's the whole benefit of .Net. It doesn't need to get as messy as C++ so you can code more a lot faster and easier. C# just happens to be the super language that can tell the framework it wants to talk to memory/hardware in specific parts of code, so it's the best of both worlds (Java and VB.NET can't do this).

"C# just happens to be the super language that can tell the framework it wants to talk to memory/hardware in specific parts of code, so it's the best of both worlds (Java and VB.NET can't do this)."

What do you mean by that?

  • 0
And what the hell are you being so loud about anyway. Avalon is still a pipe dream in some architect's head in Redmond and is not planned for release until what? 2005.? Maybe 2006 given prior track record. How the hell are you so sure it is going to be all written in CLR languages?
Avalon a pipe dream? Take a freakin' closer look into current Longhorn leaks, first tracks are visible! Or do you have an explanation why the namespace is called Microsoft.Avalon.*?!?!
OH I JUST CANNOT RESIST: according to your post the "****ing core" will "mainly just consist out of kernel, drivers and the freakin' CLR".

Wow that sounds like a pretty freaking large core to me. You are only talking about all the software responsible for hardware devices like drives, keyboards, mice, printers, display adapter, sound cards etc... drivers>), all the memory management, CPU process scheduling and process threading kernel>), and then the main API framework CLR>) of the OS too. If you boil down the definition of an OS that could be a whole OS all by itself, and then some.

The Windows embedded core takes like goddamn 20megs only, that includes all core services needed for an OS. All the rest of your goddamn 500megs that Windows uses as harddrive space can be rewritten in any way you want since it's not critical code in kernel coding sense! And even in these 20megs is lotsa ballast to be thrown away!

Now bite me!

--edit: add. info

Edited by Tom Servo
  • 0
Avalon a pipe dream? Take a freakin' closer look into current Longhorn leaks, first tracks are visible! Or do you have an explanation why the namespace is called Microsoft.Avalon.*?!?!
OH I JUST CANNOT RESIST: according to your post the "****ing core" will "mainly just consist out of kernel, drivers and the freakin' CLR".

Wow that sounds like a pretty freaking large core to me. You are only talking about all the software responsible for hardware devices like drives, keyboards, mice, printers, display adapter, sound cards etc... (drivers), all the memory management, CPU process scheduling and process threading (kernel), and then the main API framework (CLR) of the OS too. If you boil down the definition of an OS that could be a whole OS all by itself, and then some.

The Windows embedded core takes like goddamn 20megs only, that includes all core services needed for an OS. All the rest of your goddamn 500megs that Windows uses as harddrive space can be rewritten in any way you want since it's not critical code in kernel coding sense! And even in these 20megs is lotsa ballast to be thrown away!

Now bite me!

--edit: add. info

You really need to grow up kid. Throwing random insults and bite-me's and goddamits just shows your age and immaturity. Or do you go around insulting anyone that challenges your knowledge, and threatens to know more than you do? (not saying I do, so don't jump just yet :p )

Back to the topic:

Yeah oh so impressive the new longhorn builds. Feels more like just XP with a couple of different widgets, even more confusion on the filesystem, and a new theme. I have seem better tools for Object Desktop floating around. Besides, how do you know any of it is written in C# or another managed code language. Just you wait til longhorn is out or in late beta before singing its praises. Companies have a tendency to switch gears during a project.

As for what you call that OS Core:

Hey, did you ever take CS in school? If so do you remember that class on Operating systems? That embedded core you keep talking about is what makes the OS an OS. You can have an OS without Active Directory, you can have an OS without a virtual machine for high level languages, you can have an OS without a GUI, you can have an OS without Internet Explorer, and you can certainly have an OS without a god damn media player.

But you cannot have an OS without hardware drivers (including the filesystem), you cannot have an OS without memory and CPU process management, and you cannot have an OS without a basic API. You cannot measure the importance of a component in terms of its size. It is the size of the task it accomplishes that matters. A gui with all its tedious code for handling look and feel, user events, error messages and all graphical widgets embedded in DLL resources, is obviously more likely to take up 500mb of space than an elegantly coded kernel and API.

My point is, the basic foundation of Windows, and most other OSes will remain C based (or objective C or C++) because C is the only language that currently exists that is (a) widely know by the programming community, (b) low-level enough where you can actually directly address hardware. (C# still needs the framework to address hardware, so it is doing it inderectly - most likely via a translation layer written in C)

PS: One good thing about them rewriting all the other goo in C# though is that they may finally get rid of all those pesky buffer overflow bugs once and for all.

  • 0
My point is, the basic foundation of Windows, and most other OSes will remain C based (or objective C or C++) because C is the only language that currently exists that is (a) widely know by the programming community, (b) low-level enough where you can actually directly address hardware. (C# still needs the framework to address hardware, so it is doing it inderectly - most likely via a translation layer written in C)

Objective C is a runtime language, to the best of my knowledge you couldn't write a kernel in it, though it sure would be nice.

PS: One good thing about them rewriting all the other goo in C# though is that they may finally get rid of all those pesky buffer overflow bugs once and for all.

We should be so lucky. I wonder what the slashdot kiddies would bash if windows stopped crashing for such stupid reasons?

  • 0
You really need to grow up kid. Throwing random insults and bite-me's and goddamits just shows your age and immaturity. Or do you go around insulting anyone that challenges your knowledge, and threatens to know more than you do? (not saying I do, so don't jump just yet  )
No, I just do so because you seem unable to read.
Besides, how do you know any of it is written in C# or another managed code language. Just you wait til longhorn is out or in late beta before singing its praises. Companies have a tendency to switch gears during a project.

You know, others just install it, I also spent some time in BROWSING THE DAMN DIRECTORIES. And guess what I found... Ah wait, there's no Avalon code in Longhorn yet, huh? I've been hallucinating, those Microsoft.Avalon.*.dll files were all not there, huh? Tsk. :hmmm:

But you cannot have an OS without hardware drivers (including the filesystem), you cannot have an OS without memory and CPU process management, and you cannot have an OS without a basic API. You cannot measure the importance of a component in terms of its size. It is the size of the task it accomplishes that matters. A gui with all its tedious code for handling look and feel, user events, error messages and all graphical widgets embedded in DLL resources, is obviously more likely to take up 500mb of space than an elegantly coded kernel and API.

Guess what smartie, everything in bold is what I named "OS core" since all the freakin' time. Or what do you think I mean by "kernel + drivers +CLR"? But no, rather telling me I'd be an idiot, while you're one yourself. :hmmm:

If you want to look smart, good job, you don't.

  • 0

Hustin we have a problem. . . (thats you administrator. . . )! Imaturity needs to be replaced with some sence.

I tracked this topic in hopes of finding out more about how windows is written, not to find out what your personal views of each others physiology is. Thanks for the insite though. Lets keep the thoughtfull conversation up, and keep the imaturity down. Thanks.

  • 0

The Windows kernel (including drivers), are written in C and assembly. It is not written in any CLR language or any language that requires a runtime. Some higher level aspects of the OS, (such as wizards for example) are written in C# I would imagine, and we will continue too see more C# code used for user interaction I imagine with Longhorn as it progresses. But, the kernel or the "core" as it has been called will always be written in C or C++ and assembly. There are some OS's written entirely in assembly. There is a great FAQ about writing an operating system here, http://www.mega-tokyo.com/os/os-faq.html.

  • 0
Hustin we have a problem. . . (thats you administrator. . . )! Imaturity needs to be replaced with some sence.

I tracked this topic in hopes of finding out more about how windows is written, not to find out what your personal views of each others physiology is. Thanks for the insite though. Lets keep the thoughtfull conversation up, and keep the imaturity down. Thanks.

well Tom Servo and PeterHammer actually know somewhat more than most of the retards in this thread

  • 0

As far as I know, most of Windows is written in C++. I don't think they use VB, and I know they haven't used any of the .NET languages up to this point. In fact, many MS employees program in C/C++ in emacs, sometimes running linux. They don't typically use Visual Studio or any of the Visual (C++, Basic, etc.) interfaces or languages to code in. I personally find it amusing they don't use Visual Studio, but then again, not all of them can, cuz what are they going to write Visual Studio in? Not a previous version of Visual Studio!

So there's some more info for ya.

Paul.

  • 0

it's written in c++ as far as i know. i do know for a fact that it is not written in c#, or any other .NET language, as .NET was only a vision at the time xp was written, and still is somewhat. win95, and some of win98 (i think) were written in vb 5/6. however, no "important" parts of the os were written in vb, as it is too slow.

  • 0
I personally find it amusing they don't use Visual Studio, but then again, not all of them can, cuz what are they going to write Visual Studio in? Not a previous version of Visual Studio!

Why shouldn't you be able to code a new version of Visual Studio with the old version?

According to your theory the gcc developers shouldnt be able to compile their own compiler with their own compiler. But guess what, they do.

  • 0

Initially, you've gotta start with machine-level instructions to build on, but the goal of nearly any compiler project is to build a self-compiling compiler (a compiler that can build itself). If you've installed Gentoo from source, it compiles gcc3 using gcc2 (and then again with gcc3 for maximum speed ;) ). They most definitely built VS.Net with an older edition of VS. They were probably using early Alphas to build it later on in development too. If you build a feature into a program that's recursively built, you'll want to use that feature ASAP for yourself too :)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!