Wikipedia has a bit more info including a few links about the kernel. It also reminded me that there were other "odd" 64 bit XP versions
Fortunately, we get to ignore the Itanium junk.
Back to your kernel issues, I find it odd you see differences between Server 2008 and Vista. Those should be lined up code wise when the latest service packs are applied (or so I thought). And Server 2008 R2 is supposed to line up with Windows 7.
That's what I thought, too. FWIW, I've not actually tested any of the Server versions, or Vista. Since we don't support them (yet), we don't have any licenses. The crashing behaviour is being reported by another group who released a product (depending on our API) and insists it has to be supported on all these other systems. The crash analysis was done by another member of my group, on a borrowed system. Oh, and to make things worse, which service pack is installed is yet another column on my test matrix... it's not sufficient to support a configuration having only the most recent service pack.
Any odd differences in Windows 7 32 bit vs 64 bit that you are seeing in the testing?
None that I've heard of. Mind you, we don't actually
test on a Windows 7 32-bit system... we currently just test the 32-bit binaries on a Windows 7 64-bit machine.
We have some holes in our configuration test coverage, so my question is really more "is there a minimal set of plugs I can use such that all the holes are filled." I know the maximal set of plugs, but I'm trying to avoid using two full racks just for testing a DLL.
You could verify the actual kernel file is identical (C:\Windows\System32\ntoskrnl.exe) between Windows 7 64 bit and Windows Server 2008 R2. May not reveal subtle changes in how they run when in server or client mode, but would at least identify if they are the same binary.
That's a good idea. I can try that. I can probably also check what libs get linked into our API, and see where they differ, as well. I think we do actually have one machine with 2008 R2 on it.
Previous Topic
Index
