Geoff Chappell - Software Analyst
This website drew two opportunities from 2020. It took a while, but by mid-year I started to develop a new theme: what can reverse engineering tell us about Microsoft’s source code for Windows? However much I believe I broke new ground on that, I started to realise by the end of the year that the website’s design from 2007 did not quite support the new content. Push was coming to shove, so that a thorough reworking of the site’s scripts and stylesheets was long overdue. For both these highlighted points, there is much to do and the work will extend well into 2021:
If you value the existence of this sort of free and independent resource for Windows programming, please help me justify it:
Back in 2017…
Now that research and writing is again a part-time exercise (after some full-time self-indulgence in 2016), the output is of course greatly diminished, certainly in ambition and quantity, and very likely in quality too. It is on the one hand very unsatisfying to work at nights and weekends only on material that doesn’t need more than nights and weekends. You get such work done well enough if you can stick at it, which is not easy since you know that while you only aim so low then low is unsurprisingly what you’ll achieve. On the other hand, working even full-time for a month on something whose scale might easily justify a year of study is very frustrating because you see the mountain but have to give up at the foothills. Still, I try to have something to show now and then:
What was at first a half-hearted resumption of research and writing at nights and on weekends at the start of 2016 after a break of five years got into full swing by mid-year. But the realities of having to earn a living brought me again to the problem that this sort of work just isn’t sustainable as free publication. Again I found myself writing along such lines as: whatever is here on 1st March 2017 may be all there ever will be.
Research and writing for this website stopped at the end of 2010 while I took stock of what it’s good for, how it could be continued and whether I should want to continue it. For quite some time, especially after I instead took up full-time employment in 2011, it looked as if whatever was here at this website on 1st November 2010 would be pretty much all there ever will be. There were inevitably some corrections, because I am of course responsible for what I write. There was a little maintenance and tidying up, but there was every plan never again to do any significant updating, let alone to write anything truly new.
I had called time on this before, in September 2009, yet somehow kept the work sputtering along while looking for ways to fund it. The experience of trying to do that was deeply unsatisfying. What little work I managed to get done in that last year is of a greatly diminished ambition. I’d have been pleased enough with it five or more years before, but it’s a shadow of what I have since seen can be achieved when freed from the ever-present need to make this sort of work pay its own way.
The last set of links gets you to the 329 pages that were added or substantially revised in the not-quite-a-year before suspension in September 2009, as I rushed to have something to show for the years I had committed to this documentation project. If those pages do not themselves demonstrate the project’s worth as a public good, then neither will any amount of additional writing, and the experiment is better judged a failure. That’s a shame. There is so much more to find out and write up, so few who try, and hardly anyone who does it well enough that it might be sensible to imagine relying on it. How much innovation in interacting with Windows has been missed because nobody knew quite enough about Windows even to see the possibility? For all that’s written about crowds pooling their wisdom to produce commercial-quality work for the public benefit, you might think they’d have done better at the question of what’s in the world’s most-used software.
There are older pages, of course, many from as long ago as 2004 and some from as far back as 1997. But I did not start listing them by date until late 2008. Until someone asked, it just never occurred to me that anyone would want them listed by date.