Talk:AARD code

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Screenshot needed[edit]

There's got to be one available somewhere. Thalter (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one at one of the ELs; I doubt it would fall under fair use. [1] JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe We could provide a link to that for now? Surely that will do for the time being. Robert Wm "Ruedii" (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further thought, If someone has a copy of Windows 3.10 beta, they could make a screenshot image using virtualization software. The person only needs a copy of a pre-AARD test pass beta version of FreeDOS There is some information about AARD test on the FreeDOS homepage however I don't have the time to find it. Robert Wm "Ruedii" (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I first found about this because I had an old copy of Win31 and DR DOS 6. I'll stick it on Virtual PC and try to replicate it. Interesting OR from me- apparently VPC allows DR DOS 6 to pass the AARD code test. A screen shot won't be possible, but I'll try photographing the monitor on my 386. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dumb; EMM386 wasn't loaded on VPC. I've got captures from VPC coming. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the images are there, but... are you sure they are caused by AARD? Look at the screenprint linked above. And secondly, Portable Network Graphics is better suited for screenshots. Ian (87.205.209.49 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Indeed, follow the link to "Examining the Windows AARD Detection Code", and follow the link to Figure 1 to find the correct Windows Setup screenshot where the errors were actually caused by AARD. Listing for deletion. Don't forget that the final version of 3.1 disable this check by default. - Yuhong (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explained at deletion debates. I'm putting them back; please don't remove unless the outcome is delete. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image deletion discussion is a separate issue entirely to whether these images should be in the article. If they are not AARD errors they should not be included regardless of the dletion decision. I personally doubt they are but I admit I am striuggling to remember that far back now - from memory AARD gave a nondescript numeric error message - it was never misleading blaming an innocent component in the manner of those images. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The DDJ screen shot doesn't come up for me. But I found it here: http://web.archive.org/web/20080109220225rn_1/www.ddj.com/windows/184409070. --Elvey (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This link does not work for me. I think THIS link has never worked, since archive.org never changes contents. --87.165.167.183 (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew's article including a screenshot can still be found at DDJ: http://www.ddj.com/windows/184409070 --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Alas, the quality is very bad. I cannot read the error message, nor find some picture material at Google. --87.165.167.183 (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the quality is quite low. In the case of Windows SETUP.EXE, it reads:
Non fatal error detected: error #4D53
(Please contact Windows 3.1 beta support.)
* Press ENTER to continue
ENTER=Continue
In the case of Windows WIN.COM it reads like this instead:
Non-Fatal error detected: error #2726
Please contact Windows 3.1 beta support
Press ENTER to exit or C to continue
It has been in MN.COM, SETUP.EXE and WIN.COM, as well as in HIMEM.SYS, SMARTDRV.EXE, and MSD.EXE, with different numbers displayed after the hash-mark. While other messages have been translated into something meaningful, these are the only error message hardcoded as such, including the error number itself.
BTW. The article's text can be found here: http://drdobbs.com/windows/184409070?pgno=4 --Matthiaspaul (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help you. I have a complete Windows 3.11 installation on an old computer at home. If you can give me information at which offset the JMP command is (so I can re-enable the AARD code), I can produce you a screenshot. --87.165.167.183 (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Name[edit]

This article is extremely weak. But one of the inexcusable errors was attempting to attribute 'AARD' to Aaron Reynolds. This was a flagrant trick: the two articles referenced did not say anything about the origin. What is known is that Andrew Schulman found the string 'AARD' in the code and began referring to it as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.201.25.174 (talk • contribs)

Actually, it was Geoff Chappell, who stumbled upon this code first and discussed it with Andrew Schulman and others. "AARD" are for sure Aaron Reynolds' personal initials, as he used them in various pieces of code, including before and after the discovery of the "AARD code" - if you want a more recent example, just look at some of the disk driver data structures in Windows 98 and then read some of the corresponding Microsoft patents. Also, after the Caldera vs. Microsoft law suit there is not the slightest doubt, that it was in fact Mr. Reynolds, who wrote this code.88.77.214.179 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Reynolds[edit]

The source for this is some random web site called "Why Microsoft is an evil company" and we're just supposed to take its word? WillOakland (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous other sources as well, like this one: [2], and this one [3] Mahjongg (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you weren't there and didn't follow the story as presented by Andrew Schulman and Mark Russinovich you obviously don't know. But you don't have to get uppity about it. You don't seem particularly technically adept either.
Mark Russinovich has nothing to do with the AARD code or its discovery. The so called "AARD code" was originally discovered by the Australian Geoff Chappell in April 1992 and later described in various books, including "Undocumented DOS" and "Unauthorized Windows 95" by Andrew Schulman, as well as in Geoff's book "DOS Internals". See for example:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Jv52_EiyUlYJ:members.ozemail.com.au/~geoffch/editorial/aard/research.htm+AARD+Geoff+Chappell&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=en&source=www.google.com
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0Tj90lHnvacJ:members.ozemail.com.au/~geoffch%40ozemail.com.au/editorial/aard/firstpublic.htm+AARD+Geoff+Chappell&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=en&source=www.google.com
Matthias 88.77.214.179 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There could be perfectly legitimate reasons for not wanting to run a Beta on another version of DOS: it would complicate the Beta test results enormously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.211.6 (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Utter rubbish. The project was based on a typical memo from Bill Gates: 'isn't there something we can do about this?' The code was deliberately obfuscated so Andrew and Mark had to inspect it in memory at runtime to see what was going on. If you're an engineer you know this can be done: the first version, after getting control, rewrites itself according to the algorithms built in and then again transfers control to its own address. This was possible on early PCs because they did not use protected memory or anything like that. And this code ran whilst Windows 3.1 was booting - meaning it hadn't yet coupled in other things such as extended or expanded memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.201.25.174 (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major copyedit[edit]

I've made some fairly substantial copy edits to this article since it appeared to be a jumbled up mess. Events were out of chronological order, and several points were only covered as part of the Caldera/Microsoft lawsuit when they actually happened much earlier. Hopefully things are a little clearer now. CrispMuncher (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Reference Archives[edit]

QuickPascal[edit]

I read somewhere in the EN wiki (don't remember where) that Microsoft also used AARD code in QuickPascal. So it is not Win 3.1 Beta exclusive mechanism. It should be added here, too. --87.165.167.183 (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS#Use_of_undocumented_APIs ? --87.165.167.111 (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AARD code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on AARD code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked and fixed the mess created by this bot. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why so much money?[edit]

If this was only ever active in a beta and not in the final release, then why did Microsoft have to pay so much money? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The short and non-technically-legal answer is because it was a major Fear, uncertainty, and doubt maneuver... AnonMoos (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AARD_code&oldid=1197135718"