Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft explains the lack of Registry backups in Windows 10

ghacks.net

271–276 of 276 posts

Re: Microsoft explains the lack of Registry backups in Windows 10

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they're not. They're looking at control panels that were mostly written between 1992 and 2000, and asking why the decade since Win7's release hasn't been enough time to get them all on the same UI framework. " that deep" should be read in terms of the resources of a large company. It's a small fraction of the OS.

I know relatively very little about win32 but I know enough to say that "getting them on the same UI framework" sounds incredibly complicated to me, and I think would entail basically a complete redoing of the control panel, which is similar to what Microsoft actually did.

Redoing the control panel except:

1. You already know exactly what functions it needs up front, unlike the first time you coded it.

2. You have much more advanced libraries and development environments available.

3. You have more years for the redo than the original took.

I would not call that "incredibly complicated". I would call it "doing a significantly easier version of what you already did".

And "The Control Panel isn't that deep. It's not as though Microsoft needs to create a UI for every advanced Group Policy setting." is talking about scope, not complexity. So I'll say again that it's a small fraction of the OS.

(It doesn't matter how complicated it is in a vacuum, anyway. As long as the complication is on par with the rest of the OS, which it probably is, then we already know that Microsoft can handle it.)

> similar to what Microsoft actually did

What they actually did was redo parts of it in a giant mishmash of overlapping and conflicting UIs.

Even if they need to keep around parts of the old UI for third parties to hook into, there's no good reason that the new UI is so far from complete. (Except for the obvious reason of "it wasn't a priority, they don't care as an institution that it's a horrible mess")

Re: Microsoft explains the lack of Registry backups in Windows 10

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know relatively very little about win32 but I know enough to say that "getting them on the same UI framework" sounds incredibly complicated to me, and I think would entail basically a complete redoing of the control panel, which is similar to what Microsoft actually did.

Redoing the control panel except: 1. You already know exactly what functions it needs up front, unlike the first time you coded it. 2. You have much more advanced libraries and development environments available. 3. You have more years for the redo than the original took. I would not call that "incredibly complicated". I would call it "doing a significantly easier version of what you already did". And "The Control Pa…

Win32 is a disgusting nightmare, and I pity the devs who have to re-engineer its features. For backwards compatibility reasons, I am unsure if they would be able to use new Frameworks or tools. Apple still uses ANSI C (as do so many people) because anything newer is a backwards compatibility nightmare.

Re: Microsoft explains the lack of Registry backups in Windows 10

#273
post #5

50-100MB seems like a miniscule amount of space to warrant something like this. My WinSxS folder alone is almost 10GB. If they wanted to save space, even a modest improvement in managing updates would yield space saving results orders of magnitude greater than this.

Yes but isolated registry backups make as much sense as a full backup of a modern Linux Desktop's /etc folder. Probably not much. The config's content depends a lot on the things installed and vice-versa, even more so on Windows (unless they changed something fundamentally since 7). At least on Linux and in particular Ubuntu (Desktop) installations I aim for as little manual configuration changes as possible anyways,…

There's a key difference though. In Linux and other UNIX inspired OS's /etc is only accessible by root but the Windows registry holds config data for users too. Any userspace program in Windows could potentially bork any registry key that the user has access too.

Re: Microsoft explains the lack of Registry backups in Windows 10

#274
post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windows 95 wasn't multi-user and was from a time when the only software most people would install was some they bought from a company you trust. I hazard a guess that with NT4 and Windows 2000, the user hive was unlikely to be able to crash your system - sure something probably could, but it was at that point separate between what a user could do and what an admin could do. At that point, giving an installer root acc…

> Windows 95 wasn't multi-user Indeed, at that was a major mistake. Multi-user systems had existed for 20 years, Windows 95 was a huge step back. > I hazard a guess that with NT4 and Windows 2000, the user hive was unlikely to be able to crash your system ... you wish. > A bad user hive stored on a network drive, can stop a terminal server from booting? Maybe, I honestly have no idea - I've only seen it happening loc…

Indeed, at that was a major mistake. Multi-user systems had existed for 20 years, Windows 95 was a huge step back.

Single-user systems had existed for longer. They were dominant at the time especially on small systems - many variants of DOS, Windows 3.1, OS/2 up to version 3, Apple MacOS up to version 8, Amiga, Acorn, Atari, every console, every 8-bit micro, Symbolics Genera[1], BeOS pretended to be single-user. The days of a central computer with tons of connected terminals requiring multi-user auditing, separation, and billing - were fading. Individual computers were becoming cheaper, the internet hadn't risen. Looking back with hindsight of how things turned out, and saying "huge step back" when it was not a step back at the time, it was a step forward from Win 3.1 in many ways and a step sideways in that way, seems weird.

We still have not-multi-user systems now, for embedded devices and mobiles and similar. If it wasn't for network effects, it ought to be possible to make a single-user OS which was simpler and therefore faster and cheaper, and I bet it would be good enough for much of the computing done on the planet today - the amount of personal computers where multiple people need to logon, compared to the amount where you just want random people not to be able to poke at it without permission. Although totally not worth doing these days.

[1] http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/symbolics/software/genera_8/Ope... page 12, last paragraph.

> ... you wish.

You started this bit by saying "once you give third parties control of the stability of your system, you lose". That happens if you give root access to anyone, on any platform. That happens in Windows 95, but the registry had system/user separation since Windows 2000. So that's 5 years without, vs 20 years with.

Yes I wish it was without problems, and that it had some more standard offline edit ability, but I don't think "userland can crash the system" was a design plan for the registry, so I don't judge it as bad design because of that.

Re: Microsoft explains the lack of Registry backups in Windows 10

#275

The Registry is the biggest architectural mistake in Windows - it's a great pity they haven't had the courage to remove it entirely.

They can't remove it. It's insane the amount of code that would break without the registry.

Why not? I think they could deprecate the interface and replace the implementation with wherever the new thing is (config files?) transparently. Make Visual Studio emit warnings for a version or two, then errors (and LTS the last Visual Studio version that supports it until official EOL).

They're not going to do that because it's not important to them (and the registry is a bit of an icon at this point).

Re: Microsoft explains the lack of Registry backups in Windows 10

#276
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my case there is a glitch in the 1903 install where having external drives attached forces a fail as the installer can't determine which is the Windows drive or something (per an error/forum I read at the time). I had coped the ISO from a USB so removing the USB drive resolved the error. I think it's picky to prevent issues similar to 1809 install. That was a mess and I'm sure MSFT would rather have an error befor…

The data loss issue in 1809 was the result of Microsoft intentionally writing and deploying code with the specific purpose of deleting people's documents directories and everything contained within them. The way to avoid this was not to program Windows updates to delete people's documents. (For anyone who doesn't know the context: Windows has the ability to redirect the various documents, music, etc directories away…

Why am I not surprised
Post reply on HN