Windows woes

[Rémy Mouëza]

> ...
>Now if I were to ask a linux/unix guru "does the operating system have any kind
>of universal configuration storage medium, that is both fast and optimizable?",
>the answer would be "the filesystem, duh."
>
>I think the registry's #1 problem is that it has put on the winNT kernel, the
>responsibility of maintaining two separate "filesystems", with completely
>different interfaces and use characteristics.  As a result, the two compete for
>the same resources (CPU, Cache, RAM and Disk Bandwidth) rather than cooperate.
>
>Another way to look at it is: what happens to the registry if you're using a
>program that doesn't talk to it?  Yep, it's still in RAM waiting to be used.  
>
>Why they didn't just come up with a universal configuraiton file tree ( /etc
>anyone? ), with filesystem drivers that feature superior or tree-specific
>caching, I'll never know.  In every possible way, it would have provided a more
>stable configuration, for about half as much engineering.
>
>- EricAnderton at yahoo

I think it's because Windows 95 and 98 were based on a DOS subsystem. Such
systems could not support real multi threading. Therefore to make an efficient
configuration file tree, a threaded FS would have been a better solution than a
good ol' DOS system call. As one of MS' policies is (or was ?) to be backward
compatible, and as win95 and winNT were developed at the same time, the registry
has been kept in winNT. Win2K was based on winNT and winXP is based on win2K (
to speak in very simple terms ). Hence the registry survival.
That concludes the murder (suicide ?) of Walter's windows installation.

- Rémy.