It's coming from the same people that call "boot" the volume where the operating system resides and "system" the volume that is booted:

http://www.multibooters.co.uk/system.html

And that of course puts 32 bits executables in SysWoW64 and 64 bit executables in System32.

Not to mention the backslash.

It kind of makes sense if you give it some thought, though.

The system boots from the "system" partition, and then the system boots the operating system in the "boot" partition.

system32 holding 64-bit binaries in 64-bit Windows is 300% backwards compatibility to accomodate legacy hard-code, though.

Yes and no.

Compare:

>The system boots from the "system" partition, and then the system boots the operating system in the "boot" partition.

With: The operating system boots from the "boot" partition, and then it is loaded from the "system" partition.

Or:

The boot files are in the "boot" volume, the operating system files are on the "system" volume.

In any case, you shouldn't put a folder containing the BCD (Boot Configuration Data) in a \boot folder and the BOOTMGR on a volume that you call "system" or you don't call the "other" volume "boot".

About SysWow64/System32 sure it has been done for compatibility reasons but while System32 had to be kept, the name of the "new" folder could have been better chosen, like (say) Old32Sys, or Legacy32, or similar.

Of course both represent not a problem, the naming is not intuitive and allows for a quick laugh, that's all.

>The operating system boots from the "boot" partition

That's why the "Boot" tag moves to whichever partition is host to the running OS. The "system", as in the boot loader, is not the OS, is separate from the OS, and initializes before the OS.

>About SysWow64/System32 sure it has been done for compatibility reasons but while System32 had to be kept, the name of the "new" folder could have been better chosen, like (say) Old32Sys, or Legacy32, or similar.

The name stems from the Windows on Windows[1] subsystem, or WoW for short, which serves to execute 16-bit executables on 32-bit Windows NT. The most famous component of this subsystem is NTVDM[2].

Windows 32-bit on Windows 64-bit[3], or WoW64 for short, is the 32-bit practical equivalent to WoW for 64-bit Windows NT. Whereas WoW relied heavily on virtualization and emulation, WoW64 instead presents a 32-bit system library that 32-bit programs are silently redirected to.

As an aside, C:\Windows\System is still around for backwards compatibility even in 64-bit Windows. It houses 16-bit binaries.[4]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_on_Windows

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_DOS_machine#Windows_NT...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WoW64

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_folder#List_of_special...

On Bios, the BIOS executes code in the MBR (Master Boot Record) that chainloads the PBR (Partition Boot Record) of the active (or boot) flagged partition in the partition table.

The code in the PBR (Partition Boot Record) chainloads a file named BOOTMGR (which is a boot manager) that looks at what to boot in a file residing in the \boot folder called BCD (Boot Configuration Data).

Q:How do you call the partition (volume) where this stuff is?

A:System

I know how Windows Boot Manager (aka WBM, BOOTMGR) works. :P

EFI or BIOS loads WBM, which resides in the EFI system partition or active partition (also tagged "System") as applicable, which then reads the Boot Configuration Data (aka BCD) also located in that partition. Windows itself is located in a separate partition from WBM and BCD.[1]

WBM then boots a specified Windows installation from a given partition, which is tagged as "Boot". If desired, WBM can also chainload into another bootloader (eg: NTLDR, Windows 9x bootloader, GRUB, etc.) to boot something other than Windows NT6 and up.[2]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Boot_Manager

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booting_process_of_Windows_NT#...

It's a subsystem of Windows, so a Windows subsystem. It's for running Linux. Hence, Windows Subsystem for Linux.

Is it really a windows subsystem "for linux" or a windows subsystem "for running linux". There is a big difference. Very bad naming.

WSL originally didn't run Linux, it performed system call mapping

"Yes"

It does both syscalls in linux style "for linux" programs (WSL1) and it also happens to be "for running linux" (WSL2).

Microsoft has always been terrible at naming; it seems to be part of their DNA. The only time their products have good names is when they buy those products from someone else and keep the name (e.g., Powerpoint).

Clipchamp is a terrible name.

So... "office for windows" refers to the windows you have on your office?

If following the WSL naming convention, it would be something like 'Windows Software for Offices'

No, just like Windows Subsystem for Linux doesn't refer to the Linux I have on my Windows Subsystem (whatever that would mean).

I don't get the confusion, to be honest. Do you also feel that "Windows driver for HP Deskjet" is a way to run Windows on your HP Deskjet?

Yep, it definitely should be named LSD

It seems backward to me, too.

Try reading it as "DOS subsystem for [running] Linux".

I guess it should be parsed as "Windows/DOS: (Subsystem for Linux)" as opposed to "(Windows/DOS Subsystem) for Linux".

It's always been backwards, including its predecessor, Windows Services for UNIX.

When they released a product for UNIX servers they didn't even mention Windows. "Advanced File and Print Services for UNIX". If you wanted to run a WindowsNT Domain on a UNIX (SCO) server while ignoring SAMBA you forked out tons of cash (per seat) to license this software.

The marketing department

> What am I missing?

The "ownership" :)

("MyBrand (TM) Solution for Opportunity")

EEE

IIRC, the original "Windows Subsystem for UNIX" was named such to avoid trademark issues with the more sensical "UNIX Subsystem for Windows".

I did once see someone who claimed to have knowledge of Windows internals say that "Windows subsystem for X" was a general naming convention for Windows subsystems, e.g. the code that implemented the audio architecture might have been called "Windows subsystem for sound", or similar. And therefore "Windows subsystem for Linux" was the natural extension of this policy for the code that implemented the Linux compatibility architecture.

However, I've had a bit of a web search on a few occasions since then, and not been able to find any concrete evidence to support the existence of any other "Windows subsystem for X" subsystems. So that might have just been a random idiot making stuff up, as far as I can tell. Someone with better searchengine-fu might be able to find something more conclusive though?

Think it’s a trademark issue, order matters.

>and not been able to find any concrete evidence to support the existence of any other "Windows subsystem for X" subsystems.

They were originally known as Microsoft Subsystems[1][2] and encompassed Win32, POSIX, and OS/2.

This was followed by Windows Services for UNIX along with the demise of POSIX and OS/2 subsystems, which was subsequently succeeded by Windows Subsystem for Linux.

Yes, this means Win32 is to this day a subsystem of Windows NT.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_2000_architecture...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem

tangential, but I always wished that somebody with more time and knowledge than me would have created a slim bootable linux hypervisor that could then boot Windows, in which you could then run a linux that "knew about/shared memory with" the hypervisor. Think of the goal as being, I can reboot the linux or I can reboot the Windows (or other OSes) without rebooting everything.

I would have liked it better if VMware worked that way, or virtualbox now.

I'm inclined to believe something as simple as "the suits say you can't have Linux be the first thing," especially since no one can seem to come up with a better explanation.