Talk:AARD code

Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft Windows: Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Articles for creation Start‑class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted on 22 September 2007 by reviewer Hirohisat (talk · contribs).

Screenshot needed

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]

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

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

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

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