• #### Windows Server 2003 can take you back in time

If you are running Windows Server 2003, you owe it to yourself to enable the Volume Shadow Copy service. What this service does is periodically (according to a schedule you set) capture a snapshot of the files you specify so they can be recovered later. The copies are lazy: If a file doesn't change between snapshots, a new copy isn't made. Up to 64 versions of a file can be recorded in the snapshot database. Bear this in mind when setting your snapshot schedule. If you take a snapshot twice a day, you're good for a month, but if you take a snapshot every minute, you get only an hour's worth of snapshots. You are trading off snapshot quality against quantity.

Although I can count on my hand the number of times the Volume Shadow Copy service has saved my bacon, each time I needed it, it saved me at least a day's work. Typically, it's because I wasn't paying attention and deleted the wrong file. Once it was because I make some changes to a file and ended up making a bigger mess of things and would have been better off just returning to the version I had the previous day.

I just click on "View previous versions of this folder" in the Tasks Pane, pick the snapshot from yesterday, and drag yesterday's version of the file to my desktop. Then I can take that file and compare it to the version I have now and reconcile the changes. In the case of a deleted file, I just click the "Restore" button and back to life it comes. (Be careful about using "Restore" for a file that still exists, however, because that will overwrite the current version with the snapshot version.)

One tricky bit about viewing snapshots is that it works only on network drives. If you want to restore a file from a local hard drive, you'll need to either connect to the drive from another computer or (what I do) create a loopback connection and restore it via the loopback.

Note that the Volume Shadow Copy service is not a replacement for backups. The shadow copies are kept on the drive itself, so if you lose the drive, you lose the shadow copies too.

Given the ability of the Volume Shadow Copy service to go back in time and recover previous versions of a file, you're probably not surprised that the code name for the feature was "Timewarp".

John, a colleague in security, points out that shadow copies provide a curious backdoor to the quota system. Although you have access to shadow copies of your file, they do not count against your quota. Counting them against your quota would be unfair since it is the system that created these files, not you. (Of course, this isn't a very useful way to circumvent quota, because the system will also delete shadow copies whenever it feels the urge.)

• #### What was the role of MS-DOS in Windows 95?

Welcome, Slashdot readers. Remember, this Web site is for entertainment purposes only.

Sean wants to know what the role of MS-DOS was in Windows 95. I may regret answering this question since it's clear Slashdot bait. (Even if Sean didn't intend it that way, that's what it's going to turn into.)

Here goes. Remember, what I write here may not be 100% true, but it is "true enough." (In other words, it gets the point across without getting bogged down in nitpicky details.)

MS-DOS served two purposes in Windows 95.

• It served as the boot loader.
• It acted as the 16-bit legacy device driver layer.

When Windows 95 started up, a customized version of MS-DOS was loaded, and it's that customized version that processed your CONFIG.SYS file, launched COMMAND.COM, which ran your AUTOEXEC.BAT and which eventually ran WIN.COM, which began the process of booting up the VMM, or the 32-bit virtual machine manager.

The customized version of MS-DOS was fully functional as far as the phrase "fully functional" can be applied to MS-DOS in the first place. It had to be, since it was all that was running when you ran Windows 95 in "single MS-DOS application mode."

The WIN.COM program started booting what most people think of as "Windows" proper. It used the copy of MS-DOS to load the virtual machine manager, read the SYSTEM.INI file, load the virtual device drivers, and then it turned off any running copy of EMM386 and switched into protected mode. It's protected mode that is what most people think of as "the real Windows."

Once in protected mode, the virtual device drivers did their magic. Among other things those drivers did was "suck the brains out of MS-DOS," transfer all that state to the 32-bit file system manager, and then shut off MS-DOS. All future file system operations would get routed to the 32-bit file system manager. If a program issued an int 21h, the 32-bit file system manager would be responsible for handling it.

And that's where the second role of MS-DOS comes into play. For you see, MS-DOS programs and device drivers loved to mess with the operating system itself. They would replace the int 21h service vector, they would patch the operating system, they would patch the low-level disk I/O services int 25h and int 26h. They would also do crazy things to the BIOS interrupts such as int 13h, the low-level disk I/O interrupt.

When a program issued an int 21h call to access MS-DOS, the call would go first to the 32-bit file system manager, who would do some preliminary munging and then, if it detected that somebody had hooked the int 21h vector, it would jump back into the 16-bit code to let the hook run. Replacing the int 21h service vector is logically analogous to subclassing a window. You get the old vector and set your new vector. When your replacement handler is called, you do some stuff, and then call the original vector to do "whatever would normally happen." After the original vector returned, you might do some more work before returning to the original caller.

One of the 16-bit drivers loaded by CONFIG.SYS was called IFSMGR.SYS. The job of this 16-bit driver was to hook MS-DOS first before the other drivers and programs got a chance! This driver was in cahoots with the 32-bit file system manager, for its job was to jump from 16-bit code back into 32-bit code to let the 32-bit file system manager continue its work.

In other words, MS-DOS was just an extremely elaborate decoy. Any 16-bit drivers and programs would patch or hook what they thought was the real MS-DOS, but which was in reality just a decoy. If the 32-bit file system manager detected that somebody bought the decoy, it told the decoy to quack.

Let's start with a system that didn't contain any "evil" drivers or programs that patched or hooked MS-DOS.

 Program calls int 21h 32-bit file system manager checks that nobody has patched or hooked MS-DOS performs the requested operation updates the state variables inside MS-DOS returns to caller Program gets result

This was paradise. The 32-bit file system manager was able to do all the work without having to deal with pesky drivers that did bizarro things. Note the extra step of updating the state variables inside MS-DOS. Even though we extracted the state variables from MS-DOS during the boot process, we keep those state variables in sync because drivers and programs frequently "knew" how those state variables worked and bypassed the operating system and accessed them directly. Therefore, the file system manager had to maintain the charade that MS-DOS was running the show (even though it wasn't) so that those drivers and programs saw what they wanted.

Note also that those state variables were per-VM. (I.e., each MS-DOS "box" you opened got its own copy of those state variables.) After all, each MS-DOS box had its idea of what the current directory was, what was in the file tables, that sort of thing. This was all an act, however, because the real list of open files was kept in by the 32-bit file system manager. It had to be, because disk caches had to be kept coherent, and file sharing need to be enforced globally. If one MS-DOS box opened a file for exclusive access, then an attempt by a program running in another MS-DOS box to open the file should fail with a sharing violation.

Okay, that was the easy case. The hard case is if you had a driver that hooked int 21h. I don't know what the driver does, let's say that it's a network driver that intercepts I/O to network drives and handles them in some special way. Let's suppose also that there's some TSR running in the MS-DOS box which has hooked int 21h so it can print a 1 to the screen when the int 21h is active and a 2 when the int 21h completes. Let's follow a call to a local device (not a network device, so the network driver doesn't do anything):

 Program calls int 21h 32-bit file system manager notices that somebody has patched or hooked MS-DOS jumps to the hook (which is the 16-bit TSR) 16-bit TSR (front end) prints a 1 to the screen calls previous handler (which is the 16-bit network driver) 16-bit network driver (front end) decides that this isn't a network I/O request calls previous handler (which is the 16-bit IFSMGR hook) 16-bit IFSMGR hook tells 32-bit file system manager   that it's time to make the donuts 32-bit file system manager regains control performs the requested operation updates the state variables inside MS-DOS returns to caller 16-bit network driver (back end) returns to caller 16-bit TSR (back end) prints a 2 to the screen returns to caller Program gets result

Notice that all the work is still being done by the 32-bit file system manager. It's just that the call gets routed through all the 16-bit stuff to maintain the charade that 16-bit MS-DOS is still running the show. The only 16-bit code that actually ran (in red) is the stuff that the TSR and network driver installed, plus a tiny bit of glue in the 16-bit IFSMGR hook. Notice that no 16-bit MS-DOS code ran. The 32-bit file manager took over for MS-DOS.

A similar sort of "take over but let the crazy stuff happen if somebody is doing crazy stuff" dance took place when the I/O subsystem took over control of your hard drive from 16-bit device drivers. If it recognized the drivers, it would "suck their brains out" and take over all the operations, in the same way that the 32-bit file system manager took over operations from 16-bit MS-DOS. On the other hand, if the driver wasn't one that the I/O subsystem recognized, it let the driver be the one in charge of the drive. If this happened, it was said that you were going through the "real-mode mapper" since "real mode" was name for the CPU mode when protected mode was not running; in other words, the mapper was letting the 16-bit drivers do the work.

Now, if you were unlucky enough to be using the real-mode mapper, you probably noticed that system performance to that drive was pretty awful. That's because you were using the old clunky single-threaded 16-bit drivers instead of the faster, multithread-enabled 32-bit drivers. (When a 16-bit driver was running, no other I/O could happen because 16-bit drivers were not designed for multi-threading.)

This awfulness of the real-mode mapper actually came in handy in a backwards way, because it was an early indication that your computer got infected with an MS-DOS virus. After all, MS-DOS viruses did what TSRs and drivers did: They hooked interrupt vectors and took over control of your hard drive. From the I/O subsystem's point of view, they looked just like a 16-bit hard disk device driver! When people complained, "Windows suddenly started running really slow," we asked them to look at the system performance page in the control panel and see if it says that "Some drives are using MS-DOS compatiblity." If so, then it meant that the real-mode mapper was in charge, and if you didn't change hardware, it probably means a virus.

Now, there are parts of MS-DOS that are unrelated to file I/O. For example, there are functions for allocating memory, parsing a string containing potential wildcards into FCB format, that sort of thing. Those functions were still handled by MS-DOS since they were just "helper library" type functions and there was no benefit to reimplementing them in 32-bit code aside from just being able to say that you did it. The old 16-bit code worked just fine, and if you let it do the work, you preserved compatibility with programs that patched MS-DOS in order to alter the behavior of those functions.

• #### Why aren't console windows themed on Windows XP?

Commenter Andrej Budja asks why cmd.exe is not themed in Windows XP. (This question was repeated by Serge Wautier, proving that nobody checks whether their suggestion has already been submitted before adding their own. It was also asked by a commenter who goes by the name "S", and then repeated again just a few hours later, which proves again that nobody reads the comments either.) Knowledge Base article 306509 explains that this behavior exists because the command prompt window (like all console windows) is run under the ClientServer Runtime System (CSRSS), and CSRSS cannot be themed.

But why can't CSRSS be themed?

CSRSS runs as a system service, so any code that runs as part of CSRSS creates potential for mass havoc. The slightest mis-step could crash CSRSS, and with it the entire system. The CSRSS team decided that they didn't want to take the risk of allowing the theme code to run in their process, so they disabled theming for console windows. (There's also an architectural reason why CSRSS cannot use the theming services: CSRSS runs as a subsystem, and the user interface theming services assume that they're running as part of a Win32 program.)

In Windows Vista, the window frame is drawn by the desktop window manager, which means that your console windows on Vista get the glassy frame just like other windows. But if you take a closer look, you will see that CSRSS itself doesn't use themed windows: Notice that the scroll bars retain the classic look.

The window manager giveth and the window manager taketh away, for at the same time console windows gained the glassy frame, they also lost drag and drop. You used to be able to drag a file out of Explorer and drop it onto a command prompt, but if you try that in Windows Vista, nothing happens. This is a consequence of tighter security around the delivery of messages from a process running at lower integrity to one running at a higher integrity level (see UIPI). Since CSRSS is a system process, it runs at very high security level and won't let any random program (like Explorer) send it messages, such as the ones used to mediate OLE drag and drop. You'll see the same thing if you log on as a restricted administrator and then kick off an elevated copy of Notepad. You won't be able to drag a file out of Explorer and drop it onto Notepad, for the same reason.

• #### A 90-byte "whereis" program

Sometimes people try too hard.

You can download a C# program to look for a file on your PATH, or you can use a 90-character batch file:

@for %%e in (%PATHEXT%) do @for %%i in (%1%%e) do @if NOT "%%~$PATH:i"=="" echo %%~$PATH:i

• #### Controlling which devices will wake the computer out of sleep

I haven't experienced this problem, but I know of people who have. They'll put their laptop into suspend or standby mode, and after a few seconds, the laptop will spontaneously wake itself up. Someone gave me this tip that might (might) help you figure out what is wrong.

Open a command prompt and run the command

powercfg -devicequery wake_from_any

This lists all the hardware devices that are capable of waking up the computer from standby. But the operating system typically ignores most of them. To see the ones that are not being ignored, run the command

powercfg -devicequery wake_armed

This second list is typically much shorter. On my computer, it listed just the keyboard, the mouse, and the modem. (The modem? I never use that thing!)

You can disable each of these devices one by one until you find the one that is waking up the computer.

powercfg -devicedisablewake "device name"

(How is this different from unchecking Allow this device to wake the computer from the device properties in Device Manager? Beats me.)

Once you find the one that is causing problems, you can re-enable the others.

powercfg -deviceenablewake "device name"

I would start by disabling wake-up for the keyboard and mouse. Maybe the optical mouse is detecting tiny vibrations in your room. Or the device might simply be "chatty", generating activity even though you aren't touching it.

This may not solve your problem, but at least's something you can try. I've never actually tried it myself, so who knows whether it works.

Exercise: Count how many disclaimers there are in this article, and predict how many people will ignore them.

• #### Reading the output of a command into a batch file variable

It's Day Two of Batch File Week. Don't worry, it'll be over in a few days.

There is no obvious way to read the output of a command into a batch file variable. In unix-style shells, this is done via backquoting.

x=somecommand


The Windows command processor does not have direct backquoting, but you can fake it by abusing the FOR command. Here's the evolution:

The /F flag to the FOR command says that it should open the file you pass in parentheses and set the loop variable to the contents of each line.

for /f %%i in (words.txt) do echo [%%i]


The loop variable in the FOR command takes one percent sign if you are executing it directly from the command prompt, but two percent signs if you are executing it from a batch file. I'm going to assume you're writing a batch file, so if you want to practice from the command line, remember to collapse the double percent signs to singles.

I'm cheating here because I know that words.txt contains one word per line. By default, the FOR command sets the loop variable to the first word of each line. If you want to capture the entire line, you need to change the delimiter.

for /f "delims=" %%i in (names.txt) do echo [%%i]


There are other options for capturing say the first and third word or whatever. See the FOR /? online help for details.

Now, parsing files is not what we want, but it's closer. You can put the file name in single quotes to say "Instead of opening this file and reading the contents, I want you to run this command and read the contents." For example, suppose you have a program called printappdir which outputs a directory, and you want a batch file that changes to that directory.

for /f "delims=" %%i in ('printappdir') do cd "%%i"


We ask the FOR command to run the printappdir program and execute the command cd "%%i" for each line of output. Since the program has only one line of output, the loop executes only once, and the result is that the directory is changed to the path that the printappdir program prints.

If you want to capture the output into a variable, just update the action:

for /f %%i in ('printappdir') do set RESULT=%%i
echo The directory is %RESULT%


If the command has multiple lines of output, then this will end up saving only the last line, since previous lines get overwritten by subsequent iterations.

But what if the line you want to save isn't the last line? Or what if you don't want the entire line?

If the command has multiple lines of output and you're interested only in a particular one, you can filter it in the FOR command itself...

for /f "tokens=1-2,14" %%i in ('ipconfig') do ^


The above command asked to execute the ipconfig command and extract the first, second, and fourteenth words into loop variable starting with %i. In other words, %i gets the first word, %j gets the second word, and %k gets the fourteenth word. (Exercise: What if you want to extract more than 26 words?)

The loop then checks each line to see if it begins with "IPv4 Address.", and if so, it saves the fourteenth word (the IP address itself) into the IPADDR variable.

How did I know that the IP address was the fourteenth word? I counted!

   IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1
---- -------- - - - - - - - - - - - -----------
1      2    3 4 5 6 7 8 9  11  13      14
10  12


That's also why my test includes the period after Address: The first dot comes right after the word Address without an intervening space, so it's considered part of the second "word".

Somebody thought having the eye-catching dots would look pretty, but didn't think about how it makes parsing a real pain in the butt. (Note also that the above script works only for US-English systems, since the phrase IPv4 Address will change based on your current language.)

Instead of doing the searching yourself, you can have another program do the filtering, which is important if the parsing you want is beyond the command prompt's abilities.

for /f "tokens=14" %%i in ('ipconfig ^| findstr /C:"IPv4 Address"') do ^


This alternate version makes the findstr program do the heavy lifting, and then saves the fourteenth word. (But this version will get fooled by the line Autoconfiguration IPv4 Address.)

Yes I know that you can do this in PowerShell

foreach ($i in Get-WmiObject Win32_NetworkAdapterConfiguration) { if ($i.IPaddress) { \$i.IPaddress[0] }
}


You're kind of missing the point of Batch File Week.

• #### What is the command line length limit?

It depends on whom you ask.

The maximum command line length for the CreateProcess function is 32767 characters. This limitation comes from the UNICODE_STRING structure.

CreateProcess is the core function for creating processes, so if you are talking directly to Win32, then that's the only limit you have to worry about. But if you are reaching CreateProcess by some other means, then the path you travel through may have other limits.

If you are using the CMD.EXE command processor, then you are also subject to the 8192 character command line length limit imposed by CMD.EXE.

If you are using the ShellExecute/Ex function, then you become subject to the INTERNET_MAX_URL_LENGTH (around 2048) command line length limit imposed by the ShellExecute/Ex functions. (If you are running on Windows 95, then the limit is only MAX_PATH.)

While I'm here, I may as well mention another limit: The maximum size of your environment is 32767 characters. The size of the environment includes the all the variable names plus all the values.

Okay, but what if you want to pass more than 32767 characters of information to a process? You'll have to find something other than the command line. We'll discuss some options tomorrow.

• #### If you are trying to understand an error, you may want to look up the error code to see what it means instead of just shrugging

A customer had a debug trace log and needed some help interpreting it. The trace log was generated by an operating system component, but the details aren't important to the story.

I've attached the log file. I think the following may be part of the problem.

[07/17/2005:18:31:19] Creating process D:\Foo\bar\blaz.exe
[07/17/2005:18:31:19] CreateProcess failed with error 2


Any ideas?

Thanks,
Bob Smith
Senior Test Engineer
Tailspin Toys

What struck me is that Bob is proud of the fact that he's a Senior Test Engineer, perhaps because it makes him think that we will take him more seriously because he has some awesome title.

But apparently a Senior Test Engineer doesn't know what error 2 is. There are some error codes that you end up committing to memory because you run into them over and over. Error 32 is ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION, error 3 is ERROR_PATH_NOT_FOUND, and in this case, error 2 is ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND.

And even if Bob didn't have error 2 memorized, he should have known to look it up.

Error 2 is ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND. Does the file D:\Foo\bar\blaz.exe exist?

No, it doesn't.

-Bob

Bob seems to have shut off his brain and decided to treat troubleshooting not as a collaborative effort but rather as a game of Twenty Questions in which the person with the problem volunteers as little information as possible in order to make things more challenging. I had to give Bob a nudge.

Can you think of a reason why the system would be looking at D:\Foo\bar\blaz.exe? Where did you expect it to be looking for blaz.exe?

This managed to wake Bob out of his stupor, and the investigation continued. (And no, I don't remember what the final resolution was. I didn't realize I would have to remember the fine details of this support incident three years later.)

• #### What's the difference between the COM and EXE extensions?

Commenter Koro asks why you can rename a COM file to EXE without any apparent ill effects. (James MAstros asked a similar question, though there are additional issues in James' question which I will take up at a later date.)

Initially, the only programs that existed were COM files. The format of a COM file is... um, none. There is no format. A COM file is just a memory image. This "format" was inherited from CP/M. To load a COM file, the program loader merely sucked the file into memory unchanged and then jumped to the first byte. No fixups, no checksum, nothing. Just load and go.

The COM file format had many problems, among which was that programs could not be bigger than about 64KB. To address these limitations, the EXE file format was introduced. The header of an EXE file begins with the magic letters "MZ" and continues with other information that the program loader uses to load the program into memory and prepare it for execution.

And there things lay, with COM files being "raw memory images" and EXE files being "structured", and the distinction was rigidly maintained. If you renamed an EXE file to COM, the operating system would try to execute the header as if it were machine code (which didn't get you very far), and conversely if you renamed a COM file to EXE, the program loader would reject it because the magic MZ header was missing.

So when did the program loader change to ignore the extension entirely and just use the presence or absence of an MZ header to determine what type of program it is? Compatibility, of course.

Over time, programs like FORMAT.COM, EDIT.COM, and even COMMAND.COM grew larger than about 64KB. Under the original rules, that meant that the extension had to be changed to EXE, but doing so introduced a compatibility problem. After all, since the files had been COM files up until then, programs or batch files that wanted to, say, spawn a command interpreter, would try to execute COMMAND.COM. If the command interpreter were renamed to COMMAND.EXE, these programs which hard-coded the program name would stop working since there was no COMMAND.COM any more.

Making the program loader more flexible meant that these "well-known programs" could retain their COM extension while no longer being constrained by the "It all must fit into 64KB" limitation of COM files.

But wait, what if a COM program just happened to begin with the letters MZ? Fortunately, that never happened, because the machine code for "MZ" disassembles as follows:

0100 4D            DEC     BP
0101 5A            POP     DX


The first instruction decrements a register whose initial value is undefined, and the second instruction underflows the stack. No sane program would begin with two undefined operations.

• #### No matter where you put an advanced setting, somebody will tell you that you are an idiot

There are advanced settings in Windows, settings which normal users not only shouldn't be messing with, but which they arguably shouldn't even know about, because that would give them just enough knowledge to be dangerous. And no matter where you put that advanced setting, somebody will tell you that you are an idiot.

Here they are on an approximate scale. If you dig through the comments on this blog, you can probably find every single position represented somewhere.

1. It's okay if the setting is hidden behind a registry key. I know how to set it myself.
2. I don't want to mess with the registry. Put the setting in a configuration file that I pass to the installer.
3. I don't want to write a configuration file. The program should have an Advanced button that calls up a dialog which lets the user change the advanced setting.
4. Every setting must be exposed in the user interface.
5. Every setting must be exposed in the user interface by default. Don't make me call up the extended context menu.
6. The first time the user does X, show users a dialog asking if they want to change the advanced setting.

If you implement level N, people will demand that you implement level N+1. It doesn't stop until you reach the last step, which is aggressively user-hostile. (And then there will also be people who complain that you went too far.)

From a technical standpoint, each of the above steps is about ten to a hundred times harder than the previous one. If you put it in a configuration file, you have to write code to load a parser and extract the value. If you want an Advanced button, now you have to write a dialog box (which is already a lot of work), consult with the usability and user assistance to come up with the correct wording for the setting, write help text, provide guidance to the translators, and now since it is exposed in the user interface, you need to write automated tests and add the setting to the test matrices. It's a huge amount of work to add a dialog box, work that could be spent on something that benefits a much larger set of customers in a more direct manner.

That's why most advanced settings hang out at level 1 or, in the case of configuring program installation, level 2. If you're so much of a geek that you want to change these advanced settings, it probably won't kill you to fire up a text editor and write a little configuration file.

Sidebar

Joel's count of "fifteen ways to shut down Windows" is a bit disingenuous, since he's counting six hardware affordances: "Four FN+key combinations... an on-off button... you can close the lid." Okay, fine, Joel, we'll play it your way. Your proposal to narrow it down to one "Bye" button, still leaves seven ways to shut down Windows.

And then people will ask how to log off.

Page 2 of 453 (4,527 items) 12345»