Slashdot Mirror
Dave Barry Does Windows
retrosteve writes: "Well, it's finally happened. Someone (Dave Barry) in the popular press has finally, explicitly and with a sense of humour, pointed out that Microsoft Windows doesn't get any more reliable or usable, no matter how many versions you buy."
I believe DB wrote one like this about 4 years ago as well.
At least M$ is consistent
This is.. my first post.. and i mean it.
Dave Berry also pointed out in a newspaper clipping that there was no one left living in North Dakota, well i usually see at least 2 or 3 people every day wandering about on this side of the border (not including myself), so take his arguements with a grain or salt...
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan
I've been using Win98 since 1998, and it's just as stable as any OS I've come across. It doesn't crash every four hours or anything like that, in fact, I keep my Win98 machine running for weeks on end...with negligable memory leakage.
Windows runs all the software I care to run, and the games I wish to play, so frankly, as a consumer level computer user (with a self-built system (so as to dispel any notion that I'm totally ignorant)) who has given Linux a try, Windows is just fine by me because it does what I want to do.
I can't help but wonder how many people choose other OSes just because they're not Windows...
Leveling up builds character.
... that someone explain to end users that by it's nature, Windows is unstable.
I'm not saying it's a bad product, but for those of us who support users, we know a machine DOES crash once in a while.
When a user tells me a machine crashed, and it's only happened once, they've been using the machine for a year, I explain that is a better then average track record, and they want it fixed.
oy.
Barry was quick to point out that manly computer users such as himself didn't want a computer they could use, and so the Macintosh has a pitiful market share, even to this day ; )
Microsoft's home version of windows has made a gigantic leap in stability. Compare windowsME to windowsXP. It is a huge huge improvement going to the winNT based XP from the 9x (dos?) based windowsME. No longer are users forced to deal with an application crash causing a reboot or uptimes of less than a few days.
The Slashdot Effect: A new for
Funny how the MSCE in his story has to call tech support and it takes 2 days. Dammit, anyone can call tech support. Do they need a degree too? And why should they get paid for that?
lighten up, cock boy.
its called comedy. i use XP all the damn time at work. yah, its stable as shit. so was 2000. doesnt mean i cant laugh at this article. he's not just making fun of microsoft. he's making fun of the fact that he doesnt know jack about computers.
Joseph?
See "humor". See also "sarcasm".
They're always asking me about virii, breakdowns and all of the other things I don't deal with in my Linux-enabled life.
The appropriate technical response, I believe,
"Say what?"
Leastways, that's what the folks from Microsoft would say.
Since when does it require to post only factual and non-editoral, non-opinionated press to be "taken seriously"?
*looks at the foot by the artical* It's in the humor catagory, no one takes it too seriously.
If you liked this, you'll probably like Dave Barry in Cyberspace (1996, Crown Publishers Inc, ISBN 0-517-59575-3). Despite the impression that he deliberately gives in this column, he does in fact understand what's going on, and the book comes across as one geek's very humorous spin on computers, the internet, and the industry.
...is sending Dave Barry a copy of linux!
Do you like Japanese imports?
If Slashdot ever wants to be taken seriously
What do you mean? I'm pretty certain that Slashdot doesn't really give a care if we are taken seriously. It's not like we are running for some sort of political office. This is just a place where people read articles and talk about them, it is not meant to be some sort of official news database or anything like that.
people thought that buying more and more copies of Windows would increase quality, that's a given really. Pure simple common sense.
unfortunately, despite my usual line of linux advocacy, i must say one thing: as purely consumer and end-user operating system, windows suffices. in fact, since dave "doesn't mess with the insides of his computer", he is truly a consumer, and therefore more likely to do something wrong especially if he is not used to it. if he decides to upgrade to linux, then in THAT case, i doubt he will find anyone as ready to help him as his friendly tech support guy....so in his case...i suggest he stays with what he has.
QED
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
I keep buying Windows versions, hoping I'll get lucky.
Ya, sounds like most Windows users I know.
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
The large monty python foot next to the article means it's humor.
"I've had uptimes for weeks before rebooting for the obligatory auto-update security patches."
...and that's a GOOD thing?
The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
And its unfair to talk about the fact that the previous 40 versions of Windows did not seem to get any more stable unless we have also reviewed version 41? You know, the version which needed a patch before it was released. Well... only if you wanted to use the internet, and who wants to do that?
Give me a break!
The point is, it's funny. The point of posting this article is NOT for Slashdot to be taken seriously. Note the topic: "It's funny. Laugh." This topic wouldn't exist is Slashdot wanted to be taken seriously all the time.
The second point is that the lack of reliability of Windows is actually getting some mainstream national media attention, instead of just the usual articles in tech publications. This doesn't happen too often.
Lighten up, get over it, and move on.
Darryl
http://www.darrylballantyne.com
----------
Darryl Ballantyne
http://www.darrylballantyne.com
Things that you've never seen before. Things that you would have told yourself, "There's no way anyone would release something with a hole that obvious."
There's a whole world of possibilities out there. As long as we allow Micros~1 to be free to innovate, they will continue to find them!
Free software is evil. If you don't pay money for something no matter how bad it is thent he terrorists win!
Microsoft (and friends) have taken a long time but they have basically trained the average computer user to expect and accept computer crashes - instead of going back to the store and demanding a refund for a defective product!
This can be both good and bad. Maybe less people will rely on non-fault-tolerant systems for ultra-important issues like emergency/military/banking?
Or maybe people will get desensitized to the crashing. Programmer's don't need to fully test their products anymore since people accept the crashes. People just go along thinking that it is the normal way, wreaking havoc in the world with a simple blue screen on a computer that had no business being in a critical system.
read The Risks Digest for scary stories.
--jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
Win2k and XP are actually quite stable.
I think pretty soon. Windows and linux will be on equal footing for stability and security... we can't ride the "more stable" horse (ha ha, get it?) forever.
So linux is free, which is great, but what else?
VOID MAIN()
{
HILLARIOUS()
FOR X = 1 TO INFINITY STEP WHATEVER
IF "COMPUTER STOPS WORKING" THEN CALL m$()
m$()
REBOOT
NEXT X
}
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
of millions of MS zealots, flooding this thread.
:-)
Slashdot changed a lot since I first started reading it two years ago
The way Dave Barry keeps on talking about how the computer "blames him" reminds me of the way Alan Cooper said that error messages are often worded to make "The User" feel responsible when something goes wrong.
Personally, I just think of error messages as "status indicators" -- much like a "paper jam" light on a copy machine. Apparently lots of other people don't feel this way.
My Blog: http://nic.dreamhost.com/
Of course the article mentions no specific problems that he had with Windows or anything useful and relevant, just that it "freezes".
Just more random MS-bashing from Slashdot.
by the mighty "OS X" weapon...
Yeah, but you have to give MS one thing:
It's consistant.
Every version takes up more space and costs more money!
------
Today's Top Deals
Better, but always "not quite there yet". So is Windows not getting better ? no, it is getting better, only it's always at a level of "betterness" that's 10 years behind what Un*x users have come to expect. M$ has fought so hard over the years to brainwash people into thinking that computers naturally and unavoidably hang regularly that people actually believe it ! (remember that famous quote supposedly from a M$ support guy saying to a customer that "memory is like gasoline, you use it up then your computer has to fill up the tank again by restarting" ?)
To M$' credit though, they did design Windows to be run by computer idiots, so I'm not surprised that the OS has a lot of tradeoffs that make it unstable so it's easier to use, but then OS/2 was also designed to be run by anybody and it was a lot better than Windows. So I'd tend to think that Microsoft engineers either (1) suck, (2) are instructed to adopt shitty designs because Microsoft prefers to win battles on the marketing front than on the technical front, or (3) both
Dude - it's a humourous piece - not scientific fact, and yes - he's not bought XP yet - that's the point of the article - windows has never changed over the last umpteen releases in terms of reliability - but somehow he still feels ready to beleive the statements about it being more relible this time around and that it will somehow be different than the last 10 times they said this, and the last 10 times he felt this one was gonna be different.
I mean you said it yourself "uptimes of weeks" - this is not something to be proud of - and neither is having to restart the entire machine to apply a patch.
The point is, most people have come to accept that their computer will crash on a regaular basis (as opposed to say, their VCR or Washing machine) and this is becuase of Windows - there's no denying it's history. Yes NT is more stable than Win9x but most folks' experience is of Win9x and it's ancestors.
This guy sounds like the average user? Why would I want to read his rants when I hear it EVERY day at work as a sysadmin?
Most career newsies I have ever met were Mac people, who loved stability, well-engineered applications that got the job done, and abhorred a command line. Mac has been the standard for newsrooms for a long time, so it's no surprise if the media has been slow to notice how little Windows sometimes delivers.
/. from people who say they are journalists, so maybe there's hope.
I find it ironic that many people who make thier living as professional communicators appear oblivious to things that shape the state of communication technology overall. But then I've seen a number of posts on
No, no, no.
Look at the kinds of comments this article attracts. The point is not humor, the point is "Dave Berry is educating the public in a funny way so that they understand that Windows is unstable and its pointless to upgrade".
It's a very lame excuse to get lamers and MS Apologists to flame eachother to death, and in the process generate quite a few pageviews.
I think the biggest problem people have with crashes and lock-ups is all the stuff they install on their PCs. All the support files that get installed can cause quit a mess. Regardless of what OS you use, you'll run into software conflicts of one nature or another by installing too much stuff or installing software that was poorly written.
Those of us that -do- computers for a living know how to get around these conflicts more so than those who -use- computers for a living.
That was pretty funny though.
I live life on the edge
retrosteve writes: "Well, it's finally happened. Someone (Dave Barry) in the popular press has finally, explicitly and with a sense of humour, pointed out that Microsoft Windows doesn't get any more reliable or usable, no matter how many versions you buy."
if the same was said about linux, it would be taken as a threat, rather than a joke....
*Puts on asbestos suit*
i used to be a follower of windows (forgive me Linus, forgive me)....until my machine crashed seven times in one night (thank you very much PGP Freeware). so i switched over to SuSE Linux 7.1... I'm never going back.
*hunkers down, awaits flames*
Let me buy you a sense of humor. No, it's all right, I believe in charity. It's only the standard model, but it's better than nothing which is what you have.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
lol i like the way you think
I was in that boat for a while... Get your friend a copy of PC-Geos. It kicks Windows' butt, and does so without needing a 386. Back when the community college I used to go to had only 286es, it was the only way to get any real work done.
:-). And, of course, current versions of Windows FAR outdo Geos in every way. Although I still find myself using or wanting to use GeoWrite instead of the comparatively unfriendly Microsoft Word (GeoWrite is a frame-based word processor -- very impressive).
Unfortunately, Geoworks (the company that makes it) doesn't kick Microsoft's butt
There's a demo version, named something like NewDeal Office.
-Billy
this is a large blunt object (XP)
this you your computer
this is XP on your computer
*procceds to smash a Sony Viao with large blunt object*
its not the idea of stable or unstable. the idea is unstable when, why, how, and who can take advantage of you when MicroSoft's new toy gets broken. you run off to tech support and some hacker has your e-mail, Word documents, and every other peice of useful informantion you have ever used the SAVE function on. Remeber, for every pach and update microsoft sends you a notice about you may have a critical error on your box. what a comforting thought.
Careful what you say around me.. I will assume you mean it.
I say this not because Dave Barry is a humorist. It is possible for humorists, comedians or whatever, to really get people pissed off motivated, or at least make people think: think Lenny Bruce; think "A Modest Proposal". But Dave Barry and Dilbert are not that kind of humor. They are both the kind of humor that makes its reader laugh at himself, giggle at the funny things people do, the funny stuff we get ourselves into, without thinking for a moment that any real change is necessary. I've always felt that Dilbert is an oppressive force, because by making people think that incompetent management is normal and funny, it keeps people from bothering to actually demand competent management. Same thing with this column: by commiserating about Windows, by poking fun at the flaws that it has on every level, from technological to social, it serves only to further entrench people in a Windows monopoly. I'm sure this column is making the rounds at Microsoft, and I'm sure it is universally loved. I bet Bill Gates tapes it to his monitor, or invites Dave Barry to his next keynote. The message here is "Windows is crap, but there are 200,000,000 people in America who will NEVER SWITCH TO ANOTHER OS, NO MATTER WHAT. Ha ha ha."
This is not to say that humor necessarily trivializes an issue: maybe it's a distinction between "parody" -- which, we'll say, gently pokes fun without suggesting alternatives, thereby reinforcing norms -- and "satire" -- which, let's say, savagely disillusions people and has at least a shot at changing their minds.
95, the first release, was atrocious. Gradually enough patches and services packs fixed it up. Then came Win95SR2. This code was good stuff. Never had alot problems with it. Then came 98 -- it sucked. 98SE was rock solid (unfortunately, $100 upgrade for no more features, just reliability increase). Then WinME -- ick. How did this get out of QA, one wonders.
NT4 and Win2K have been great to me. Just use WHQL'd drivers for everything and your problems vanish (well, at least for my usage patterns). NT4 reliability was cyclical in service pack releases, but at 6a, it was rock solid for a desktop OS.
NT4 and Win2K and for the most part Windows 98SE, were OSs that I could sit in front of and get work done and not worry about the machine dying of some ill conceived crash from Windows. A feeling I had only known before as a Solaris workstation user. I'm not sure what some of the people here used nt4/win2k on that gave them such a bad experience or bad uptime for a workstation, but your habits must not fall to the areas as mine, as I don't hit them.
What about Linux you ask, since this is slashdot. Well, my experience with linux as a server has been that the kernel and daemon apps like samba and the appleshare IP stuff are rock solid, handling heavy loads and delivering long uptimes. But the "modern window managers" like KDE and GNome suck bad, like the bad versions of Windows I mentioned above. I never know when the window manager is going to die, leaving me with the only choice of CTRL-ALT-BKSPC to get out (and sometimes that even doesn't work, I have to ssh into the machine and kill X the hard way). I may reinstall X on a machine in the near future, but I am staying well away from the new glitzy window managers. They are all up on features, down on performance and reliability.
TurboD
Would you think its fair for someone who has only looked at a release of Linux 4 years ago to say Linux stinks compared to Windows2000?
No its not fair. And if this idiot, Dave whoever, can't figure out how to install WinXP he sure has heck won't even get close to figuring out Linux!
Huh? You mean like the Red Cross getting a bunch of M$ junk to deal with the results of 9/11 in the field? While Dave laughs at the 18 words a day he might lose, I can only imagine what the Red Cross has been dealing with since. Ignorance is always bad.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What's missing from this discussion? Drivers and dodgy software. Windows, unfortunately suffers from some of the worst drivers on earth, written quickly and in a sloppy fashion, because the code is not public and written without super peer review like in the linux comunity.
Windows 95, 98 et al, have little or no tolerance for faulty drivers or hardware. You hardware goes down, the OS will go with it.
There's no point saying "I run win98 and it never crashes". It really depends on how much stuff you install and the quality of it.
You are probably "the glass is half empty" kind of guy huh?
I have long held the opinion that computers just suck. I am now a firm believer that the only good computer is an outdated one that is so frustrating to use that it spends most of its time powered off in the corner.
*sigh* - well see - there's this little thing called 'having a sense of humor' which I think totally passed you by or got knocked out of you when someone brained you with a Unix manual.
I don't know... HP put XP on my new laptop and I get to watch it reboot at least once a day... and when I let it install the last update it put itself in a state where it couldn't even shutdown properly... I'm not impressed... if I could only find the time to compile Xfree86 v4.1, the theory says I'll be able to run X on Linux with this new hardware and not have to worry about Windows eXtra Pathetic...
here is what I've seen happening whenever a negative microsoft related article gets posted on slashdot (xbox,windows,.net,etc).
first few hours most comments that spike up to 4 or 5 generally make a few good humored comments, ranging from neutral to chiming in with similiar microsoft dismay stories.
then a few hours later, lets say about 5 or 6 hours since the original post, those posts get sent back to 2 or 3 land, and a new crop of 5's crops up. The strange thing about this new bunch is that they are _all PRO microsoft_!
it is a strange phenomena to say the least. the posts themselves, at least some of them could be genuine, but the way they are moderated is _very_ suspicious.
anyway, my prediction holds that the same will happen today, watch for it.
Is is just me, or is - and I am not making this up - Dave Barry just not funny any more?
Are you guys hard up or what? /. post something informative, and not so freaking lame.
This has got to be the stupidist waste of data space I have seen in a whiile. Dave Barry is NOT funny, and obviously is a complete moron when it comes to computers.....sheesh!!!!
Get w/it
"Look where we worship" -- Jim Morrison
Personally, if I were to sacrifice my life for my country, I would want to see my fellow countrymen continue to be able to enjoy their Legos and video games.
..... ..... and you're taking more time to read posts and write this?
Arrite, sorry for feeding the troll.
--pi
The changes we need to make in software are far greater than just having "the most reliable Windows experience ever".
I just found my new .sig:
"I bring this all up because now Microsoft has a new version out, Windows XP, which according to everybody is the ``most reliable Windows ever.'' To me, this is like saying that asparagus is ``the most articulate vegetable ever.''
Anti-MS could be one way to describe them, but i think pro-linux would be more accurate because they dont give as much time to other OS/s like BSD, Solaris, AIX, and other smaller ones.
One could blame the users of Windows: they aren't technically apt enough to keep the computer from crashing. But that just isn't the case. Windows is being written for, and marketed to, the non-computer literate. These are the people that should have no problem running a windows machine! They don't install cutting edge hardware. They probably don't even open the case. They aren't installing iffy programs, writing code, etc. They are just trying to surf the web, read some email, write a report, and play some games. They could even do all of this with Microsoft products - and it would still crash, through no fault of the user.
Do be do do ba wa do Whereas black people drive this way...
Uh uh yeah uh uh uh uh yeah! It's funny because it's true! We're so lame!
(facts are irrelevent - and XP isn't stable for me)
There's a set of ATM/Bank Machines on Numancia around the Sants train station in Barcelona with some sort of "fatal exception error" message on the screen for all of last week.
:-)
Who in the world would use NT as the OS for an ATM? And do you think they've kept up to date with their security patches?
I like the bold. Clever. I would still not say that NT 3/4 were stable.... maybe they were relatively stable compared to their home-use counterparts (3.1, 95) but driver incompatibilities and crashes were still rampant.
He realized it was humor (key word: comical). His point was it's not exactly worthy of Slashdot.
Seriously, would they have posted it as "humorous" if the guy was comparing versions of Red Hat 1, 2, 3, and 4 and saying how it's not any easier to use and that he's hesistant about using Linux because it's so hard to use?
The point was he is using out of date information to blanket over an entire OS, even stuff he hasn't used, in a slightly comical fashion. It's HARDLY worthy of our time, Slashdot should link to bbspot articles for humor.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's got a low=end pentium or pentium 2 with a whole lot of crap shareware and software toys installed - that's probably what's killing his system stability. I've got no love for Win98, but it isn't as bad as Barry says.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Windows 3.1/95/98/ME were all horribly unstable - there just isn't any denying that. But the *nix crowd is starting to look incredibly silly sitting over in the corner snickering about the reliability of Windows today.
I hate to break it to you guys, but as far as stability is concerned - Windows 2000/XP are VERY stable operating systems. NT was pretty good, but 2000 and XP will seriously give any desktop OS out there a run for its money.
I'm not claiming 2000 or XP are the most secure OSes out there - far from it. And I still don't think a server should be running a GUI. But zealotry aside, Windows XP is a very good desktop OS.
[Note: For what it's worth I use 2000, XP, and Mandrake for the desktop and Debian or one of the BSDs for servers.]
So once MS catches up in the stability dept (all the while, doing the whiz-bang stuf people want), how will linux be marketed? This isn't a troll, a serious question - in my own opinion it will boil down to price, as linux will likely have no technical advantages by mid-2003.
YOU will be the first one up aganinst the wall.
Ok, first my macintosh-user-super-ego must rear it's ugly head: "I've been saying this for years." Now on to the real text of my post. I shall first list the OS's I've used: 1)Win 3.1 2)Win 95 3)Win 98 (se as well) 4)Win 2k 5)WinNT 4 6)Mac OS 7.5 - X 7)RedHat Linux 8)MkLinux The reason I did that is so people won't tell me I don't know OS's. Now, in my opinion windows stopped getting useful arround 3.1 and only picked up again with 2k. 98 did a good job with games but it was just as unstable as every other version. 2k has improved considerably in stability, but even then, it's still not impresive. In all honesty, Dave Barry isn't telling the Mac and/or *NIX people anything they don't know. Maybe some of you windows people should switch up. Once again I rear my super-ego: "If you really want to be impressed, give OS X a try."
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
what a fucking troll - what will linux have to offer? how about freedom from the upgrade yolk that microsoft has you on. how about peace of mind that the time you invest into it, won't be thrown into the garbage in two years when ms dumps what you were working on for the next cools sounding technology.
give me a fucking break. if you want to live in a microsoft only world then just admit it, otherwise grow up and use some real technologies that can be used outside of ms's little pee see sandbox.
oh by the way, I understand quite well that this comment is bound to rise to 5 and stay there, no matter how many times it gets modded down. sometimes I think there are more ms shills on slashdot than actual linux supporters anymore.
What bone head of a moderator rated this a troll??????? He's absolutely correct!!!
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
2 years ago I picked up my phone. No dial tone. Huh. Did I forget to pay my bill? No. Checked the wiring and the phone. 15 minutes later still no dial tone. My cell phone worked though, so I called the operator and asked her about my phone.
The problem was that Spice Girls tickets just went on sale. The phone call load to the nearby Ticket Master outlet flooded the system. No one in my area had a dial tone for half an hour. No one could call 911 on a land line!
Problems happen even with properly engineered systems. When an improperly designed system is put into place, all hell will break loose.
I'm not just talking Microsoft here, there is a real problem with companies/programmers seeing their system work once, and then assuming it is good enough to ship.
--jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
I've used '95 and '98 quite a lot over the past six years or so and found them reasonably stable. I did C++ and Oracle development on Solaris and HP-UX using the Hummingbird Xceed X server, and would only switch the Windows box off at weekends. I have also run a mix of Netscape and IE browsers, installed jdk and dozens of Oracle tools including Designer 2000, played rather too many Quake death-matches, and generally flogged Windows about as hard as any other developer in a similar environment.
It bombed rather more often than any UNIX I have used (that is to say, a system crash was not so unusual an occurrence as to occasion earnest headscratching and bug reports) but it was not one of these reboot-before-lunchtime jobs, and I didn't start each week in the expectation of an enforced reboot before Friday.
I've also used NT and found it even more reliable. But I tired of Windows because it's an old fashioned, blinkered and wasteful system.
Microsoft, it seemed to me, had wasted over a decade pursuing a wasteful paradigm for desktop computers--the single user computer. If I wanted to do something that in a UNIX system would require me to run one single application with root privilege (or some lesser, more specialised UNIX privilege, such as the mysql database administrator), I could be sure that in NT I had to log the entire system out of my own user and log it into Administrator or another account with the appropriate privileges.
Then, as often as not, I would be required to reboot the entire system. That is not only wasteful in computer time, it turned out to be very wasteful of my time, because I had to sit by through the incredibly slow NT boot sequence. If the machine in question was a server, this meant a server outage, which to my mind seems quite barking mad.
Then there was the problem that I had to be physically sitting at the computer in order to perform many tasks. The contrast with the UNIX environments I was used to using was very marked.
I encountered these problems during a period when I was actively investigating the possibility of giving Windows development a go, and it was the frustration caused by these problems, as well as the frustration of dealing with Microsoft's rather lacklustre development tools, that finally turned me against Windows. I simply burned out as a Windows user.
Doesn't that have to be funny?
Funny:
Dilbert, Robot Monster, South Park, Jon Katz falling out of a window.
Not Funny:
Teen comedies, Jim Carrey, Recycled/Out-Of-Date 'Windows is unreliable' jokes, Dave Berry.
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
apparently you havent used XP on a computer other then your own. XP is not nearly as good or stable as 2000 is. of course linux is better for stability.
Don't worry, there are not links to Goatse
Here are many more interesting Microsoft bashing articles for your enjoyment:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
And here is an article that asks if Microsoft-bashing good for you.
Oh bullshit. I haven't had gome die ever since stopped using xsceensaver. No even my kid leaning on the keyboard launching a billion copies of natulis can't bring it down. And he does this quite often.
From the MS website:
"Q. What does XP stand for?
A. "eXPerience". Microsoft likes to say that previous versions of Windows bundled applications, but that Windows XP bundles experiences."
Sure, you could have your OS running seamlessly and quietly in the background but it would be less rewarding for the user. Windows XP encourages a user to engage and interact with their computer in new and compelling ways. Fully multi-media enhanced, it pushes the user to develop ever richer relationships with their PC, employing the full range of human communications, from vocal language to kinetic expression.
instead of going back to the store and demanding a refund for a defective product!
Has anyone out there tried this with windows? I wonder what the store's reaction would be...?
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
Hmmmm,
does anyone know where I can get a copy? Just for eval, of course
I don't like big words..., does that make me anti-semantic?
i agree that dave berry isn't funny, but personally, i think dave barry is hilarious..
this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
Not many people can say they know the entire system, every program, every lib, dll or driver.
.net. I like being in control of my OS, and Linux isn't ready to take over the Desktop yet. Maybe in 10 years Games and Applications will run on any OS, but until then, M$ will keep the market.
Windows and Linux(or BSD) for the whole distribution take hundreds of megabytes. Yes, Even thou linux the kernel can boot up under a meg and give you a shell its rather useless other than a rescue disk.
Windows XP is a great workstation os. There is just so much going on you need 3rd party utilities to see whats happening. Tasks running in the background, files loading and unloading, registry updates/calls, files trying to update themselves, etc.. And then there is all the tweaks you have to put on for common sense options, tcp/ip QOS at 80% wasting 20% of your bandwidth, Explorer and Internet Explorer sharing the same memory if 1 crashes they both crash, Turning off Last access attribute in ntfs for performance, etc... Play around with sys-internals utilities you can see programs looking for missing fonts, updates to the registry, all kinds of system functions.
Linux on the other hand is rather up front with what it needs. You see what libs a program needs with ldd. lsof shows all files open and what program is using them. Good for a server, more secure when you know whats running. Bad points are the software releases, even thou most of the software is free, it can either not compile, not like the version of libraries you have, or need libraries you cant find. You don't have these problems on the windows os.
Even thou things are getting more complex, things are getting better. Good linux distributions that install and detect most hardware, X configuration, less configuration and more operation. Windows XP has a nice GUI, very intelligent user interface, more stable, great workstation os.
Only thing that scares me, is if M$ goes totally
I dont see the OS as perfected yet, but its come along way since DOS.
-
The gem cannot be polished without friction, nor man perfected without trials. - Chinese Proverb
what a fucking troll
Wow, how did a contentless, Linus-fellating post like this get +1, Insightful?
Once again, the moderators prove to be Linux-fellating fanboys.
Metamod will get you...
Or at whatever age he became incapable of original creative thought.
Or, possibly, he's just too busy with the big movie project, so he's phoning in his columns.
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
You know the old joke don't you?
Q: What does MCSE stand for?
A: Must Call Someone Experienced
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Mr. "Barry" may wish to disassociate himself from his brother Chuck, but we all know better.
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
I've never had to recompile a Linux kernel to change its refresh rates. That's a userspace problem. In Windows, the GUI runs in kernel space, so it probably does do something along the lines of recompiling its kernel, just in the background. It is a microkernel, so it probably unloads that module, changes one of its values, then reloads it. Recompiling, without recompiling. But I am no expert on how Windows works to know if that's how it's done.
In the ease of use department, the Mac wins, hands down. Ease of use does not mean "Works like Windows" it means that the program is easy to use and to figure out.
Have you used MacOS X? It's great. It's easy to use and if you know what you're doing, you can do great things with it. It's stable (Not "Real UNIX" stable, but it's never crashed on me). It's got a BSDish kernel that you don't need to recompile, as well as an excellent GUI called Aqua.
Its only problem is that it is a little slow on my little G3. G4s work so much better for it.
Oh, MacOS X's core is open source.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
Most people don't even realize it's the defective OS. Most people fall into 3 catagories;
1) Think it's the hardware
2) Think it's the programs
3) Know it's the OS, but think all OS's do this because the problem is so complex.
I've heard media reports of predictions of new computer technology of the future that will give us stable computers--they have no idea the *nix has been stable from day 1!!
nohup rm -rf ~/. >& zen &
Any longtime Mac person would see an immediate and dramatic improvement in stability upon switching to Windows. The Macintosh bore a legacy even stronger than Windows for a long time. Having cast it aside, there is hope, but there is also hope for the foe, as Microsoft has cast aside its legacy. Still, in these times of new beginnings, I can't help but hope that there is room for another newcomer, fair Linux, to cast a pall over all the rest.
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
Thats more the equivelent of a Denial of Service attack NOT a system malfunction.
If you have a system which can handle 5000 phone calls, and those around you place 10000 phone calls YOU will not be able to make one because it's over capacity.
Happens in real life too. Rivers can take x litres/second through. When you send down 10x water, the river will flood as only x is going through.
If a highway can send through Y cars at 100Km/h, and you start trying to send through 5Y cars, problems will occur (like a traffic JAM)
Rod Taylor
Someone (Dave Barry) in the popular press has finally, explicitly and with a sense of humour, pointed out that Microsoft Windows doesn't get any more reliable or usable, no matter how many versions you buy." It's good to see dear old dave writing about geeky things about bashing micro$. Hey Dave, why don't you write on how you feel about copyright issues. Especially becos' I religiously collected your articles (starting fr. '98) convert it to text, tar it & distribute it. Of course I retain your name. Since you are a micro$8$! bashing geek, i hope your response will be favourable to all geeks.
Don't confuse the issue. There's a big difference between failing because of an overload and just never working.
The New York Times ran dozzens of articles about what a pain it was for victims to get help. Collection became a full time effort as they wandered from agency to agency and filled out horrendous and mind numbing forms with exactly the same information! They did this instead of finding loved ones, shelter, clothes or food.
While agencies not sharing information is nothing new, you have to wonder how much more could have been done if those agencies were using reasonable software. Nothing M$ talks to anything else M$. I know, because we use the junk at my Fortune 500 company. What proportion of innacurate, duplicate, non shared data came from inadequate tools, and what share from the nature of the organizations themselves? It's had to tell about there from here, but where I work it's hard to share information you want to share with other departments in the same building, much has to be entered multiple times and is often corrupted, and data sometimes just goes away on it's own. No, our tech support folks are not incompetent. No, the people I work with are not incompetent. We simply have second rate tools. Pity those same tools have been used in an emergency situation.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Since when have we been able to post stories that were flamebait themselves?
I dunno about gnome ( i use kde), but i brought down my whole system twice. I was switchingthemes and the whole thing just froze. Not even ctrl alt backspace helped
comon, how does this deserve 1?
Why don't you crawl back in your hole and beat off to your framed picture of Bill Gates and leave the people who run a real OS alone?
How the fuck did this get a mod of funny? What the...
"Look where we worship" -- Jim Morrison
Have no fear, I live MacAddict.com alone!
Seriously though, it's trolls like you who give Linux a bad name. Your OS is the only real OS and all that bullshit.
Get a clue.
In all fairness, this is all you have to do to have XP work perfectly.
1: Ensure ALL hardware is recognised and supported by XP drivers.
2: Install OEM!!! Blank fresh system. DO NOT UPGRADE!!!
3: Do not install ANY software or hardware unless it has the "Designed for XP" logo on it.
I have done this, and it works like a dream.
These exchanges are specifically designed to communicate back to other COs when a crush of calls happen. Those COs back off and return busy to everyone in the CO trying to get that number for a period of time to prevent the end-point CO from going down. ie, they don't even attempt to complete the call.
Ever wonder why all the radio station contest lines are all in the same exchange in your area?!
I suspect the spice girl ticket number was not on a choke exchange like it was supposed to be.
Here's a tip. Next time you need to get a call through to a choke exchange number, get a friend from out-of-the-area to try it. If Philadelphia is having tickets go on sale for some big act at 9am, chances are there won't be people from Nebraska calling in. Their CO won't be "choked."
No. The point is, it's not. It's tired. Recycled. Been done. Yawn.
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
A fresh install of Win98 is fairly stable, but with the wrong software installed, the system becomes much less stable. Unfortunately, Windows doesn't make any real attempt to stop this from happening (user programs easily modify the system setup). That spyware software (stuff from kazaa and bonzai buddy) really wrecks the system beyond repair.
Oh well....karma loss will always be gained later on down the road...
"Look where we worship" -- Jim Morrison
Oh come on. The pop press savages MS W with great regularity. Take it from a commoner form the trailer park.
Tell that to anyone who needed to call 911 during that time!
In my opinion a Denial of Service of 911 emergency services IS a system malfunction. The 911 system has fault tolerance everwhere. But if the phone company cannot provide a dial tone, you're out of luck.
--jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
Insightful?
What's insightful about someone who doesn't get humor?
Don't throw your computer out the window, throw the Windows out of your computer!
Yes, somebody screwed up big time. The problem though is that I am in the same exchange as Ticket Master. Everyone in this exchange could not call ANYONE or even 911 because there was no dial tone.
--jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
Ooh! Someone suggested that someone could be easy-to-use and yet not-entirely-like Windows! Jihad! JIHAD!!!!!!
Have you used MacOS X? It's great. It's easy to use and if you know what you're doing, you can do great things with it. It's stable (Not "Real UNIX" stable, but it's never crashed on me). It's got a BSDish kernel that you don't need to recompile, as well as an excellent GUI called Aqua.
I managed to get the kernel to panic while trying to connect to an AppleShare printer. Like you said, it's not "Real UNIX" stable.
Maybe if they didn't throw every #@%! thing they can think of into the kernel, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.
Its only problem is that it is a little slow on my little G3. G4s work so much better for it.
It is pretty sweet on a G4. I rather wish they'd gone for merely improving the desktop in a light-yet-pretty way, but I guess Apple just had to put together a look-and-feel that shows off their new display tech. Looks nice, but it's a little bloated for my taste.
Oh, MacOS X's core is open source.
Hard to beat, iddintit? Maybe we could convince MS to release some code under a non-viral license. Funny, isn't it, that MS, of all companies, the same company that harps on the GPL for being "viral" would release the most viral open-source license I've ever seen.
A little odd for a company that also benefits from BSD code.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Now now, don't step on the toes of all of the self-important prigs who think they're changing the world because they spell it "Micro$oft."
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
are you trying to win a stupidity contest, or are you a retard?
make install
kill <some program>
<some program>
No reboot, no hassle, and uptimes measured in months or years.
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
No, it is that bad.
/. crowd, AC's not included, but he is a normal user. But I believe he is a Mac loverrr, ah enthusiast.
Windows of all versions [yes XP and 2000] have problems. One could say it's the closed source-we can't fix it-we have to wait till they do- aspect. One could also say there is certain things MS can't predict. Windows is used by so many types of users doing so many types of things [usually all at once after '95].
For me my current XP woes is that it likes to kill my VNC clients, USB devices die on their own, and it still doesn't always shut down.
But we were talking about Dave Barry. He does know things about computers. If you'd remember [or scroll up] you'd know he wrote a book called Dave Barry In Cyberspace.
Now, he may not be as skilled as the
He's on point I believe. Nothing in that article hasn't happened to other Windows users.
At least he doesn't think that the 'Illegal Operation' error is somehow connected to the police. [my grandma STILL thinks the website she's viewing is illegal. I've tried to explain it. "Yahoo? How can it be illegal to check stocks on Yahoo?"]
--
Get your Unix fortune now!
So, did you get your Spice Girl tickets? ;)
"Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
It isn't confusing the issue. If you can't dial 911 then people can die. Overload of phone calls, overload of www.cnn.com, overload of a buffer, what is the difference? In a non-critical system no one cares. In a critical system they are all problems.
Criminals could synchronize their attacks near ticket masters with the timing of spice girls ticket sales. Guaranteed 30 extra minutes!
--jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
So this Dilbertism is just promotng the bonding of people with their fellow (wo)man who experiences crash after crash of their computer as well.
<vent>Microsoft is really doing society a favor by making flawed products - they promote shared experiences so that more people can relate to one another!</vent>
Microturd says, "Best Windows Ever!"
Win2k is just as buggy and quirqy as anything else M$. I've been using it on a nice new Dell at work for a month. The machine is a reasonable 850MHz PIII. Nothing cutting edge there, you would think it would work. Supprise, it's got loads of new bugs on top of bizzar dummy features that impede function. Take Office XP. Word's default auto correction features would try the patience of a saint. M$ was nice enough to leave them all turned on by default and make Word the default editor for Outlook. It took me a day to learn how to turn it all off. MSIE has the world strangely devided between intranet, internet and local files. When you view one type the others dissapear from your history view. Pressing the back button accros this devide can crash your computer. This combined with the default OLE behavior, and my company's insistance that we use the propriatory .DOC communications protocal, makes for dreary research eXPeriences. I don't even want to talk about how well word docs sometimes open in the browser and sometimes don't. Let's just say that the rule set is not easy to see. Oh yeah, it still crashes when you try to use it. Oh yeah, those new features borke a slew of old work.
MS XP: eXPenditure, eXcuses, eXasPiration. Nothing new but what you call it.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Lol!
I didn't even know they went on sale before it was too late! Darn!
--jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
Dude, this isn't a server platform. It's a home computer used extensively for gaming and web browsing. Rebooting in XP takes all of 30 seconds, oh big fucking deal.
:)
Grow up, go use your "real OS" and leave the people who use real programs a break.
"If Slashdot ever wants to be taken seriously"
This guy posts alot, I have seen this troll before!
I wouldn't be surprised to learn he gave his editor anal warts. That's probably why he hasn't been fired yet for terminal unfunny-ness.
>>"it's never crashed on me"
I have crashed OS X. Once. sooo....
I AM KING!!! BOW DOWN BEFORE ME AND MY SUPERIOR COMPUTER CRASHING SKILLS!!!
I must be some sort of AMAZING POWER USER to have crashed it!!!
It's as if your looking in a mirror Genghis Troll.
Man, you suck.
Your comment sounds like, "Unsafe sex never hurt me, 'cept for that on chick who gave me herpes. But hey, you only get that once!"
TurboD
I think the great thing about this article is that it is timeless. Ten years from now, the author could just change the names of the current windows versions in it and the article would make the same point, just as poignantly as it does today.
And just so you know, I'm typing this just after rebooting win2k AGAIN ... and yes I do have linux on my machine.
Of course, it really had nothing to do with MS - just a problematic motherboard that got cranky. But it was enough to frustrate me to no end for a couple weeks.
-
I personally thought it was pretty funny, especially the part about not telling where the error took place, possibly in New Zealand. And it really hasn't been done in the mainstream press, as the article header makes a point of precising.
Reminder: find a new sig
It's as if your looking in a mirror Genghis Troll.
Microsoft Windows doesn't get any more reliable or usable, no matter how many versions you buy.
After reading the article, I would suggest Microsoft improve its product line by introducing a new Office assistant named "Wartie". He could have such quips as "So, I see you haven't picked me lately! Might I suggest a toenail cutter or a scissors?"
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
This applies to 95%+ of internet users. So although this article states the obvious to us, it brings to light something most people only know in the back of their mind.
yeah that guy obviously hastn tried XP, ive been runnning it for god knows how long, having got various versions of that and whistler (me havinga microsoft subscription), and neve rhad once a crash, although i have enver tried it on a low powered machine, this machine (fairly adequately powered) runs it without hitch, and ive just installed it on a P2 400, which seems to be running better than when i went through the 2000 phase
all in all this guy needs to stop licking the 'click here to download virus' button on astalavista.com phreak
IMP^or^SNiTL.e "Ignore it and it will go away, just like cancer"
I usually don't read the paper too much as we can get everything it in faster in digital form, but I did manage to catch his article. I was a little bit suprised he bashed Windows as bad as he did. Hes always joking but he went pretty hard on Microsoft. Interesting.
I would be happy to have this moded down to disneyland please. I know I can (maybe?) escape from there. Well if I can get past the seven dwarfs and perhaps that one gaston dude. I am only 3 Days into my C class. I was only trying to be funny.
I always wondered about the origin of that foot...
This will only serve to reinforce the end-users' complacency with crappy software.
Here's an "imagined" scenario:
Joe Jackass: Damnit, my computer just froze.
Jill Jackass: Ha, just like Dave says, just reboot it. Shucks, that Microsoft, them's full of beans!
Joe Jackass: Heck, don't that beat all. Git me another beer, woman. (reboots)
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
...by commiserating about Windows, by poking fun at the flaws that it has on every level, from technological to social, it serves only to further entrench people in a Windows monopoly.
For the love of God, don't you remember how to laugh?
He's not trivializing an issue at all. His issue is that he's a computer illiterate and he's using absurdism to show how. This is how he writes.
If you're hoping he'll let himself be co-opted into a political agenda, it's not going to happen and I'm glad for it. He makes his living on comedy about the human condition. Like it or not, the human condition with regards to the average person in the 20th century vis-a-vis computers is pretty much as he described it. Making himself part of someone else's cause would cheapen the humour, and if you don't believe me, think about what would happen if Barry chose the complete opposite point of view than the one you're hoping he'd take. People everywhere would be clamoring to get back to what he was good at, namely observational (rather than motivational) humour.
Taking up our cause would be a major betrayal against art, and a huge victory for propaganda.
-------------------------------------------------
charlton heston is more of a man than yo
"Quality Control" is way too abstract for any modern CS program. Their students throw a fit if they have to take any class less immediately applicable than "Web programming in Java(TM)."
Honestly, I can barely tell the DeVry graduates from the 4 year accredited BS grads anymore.
WOW! *Weeks* of uptime - AWESOME!
;)
I guess it's all relative? If one gets used to rebooting every few days and a new "patch" can stretch that out to a month or so, I guess this could be perceived as "reliable"?
NT? Yeah, right. Even core dumps hang. If it comes from micro$lop it's crap.
Wait 'til they embed outlook, excel, powerpoint, paint, and hotmail access into exploder - then uptime of ten minutes will seem phenomenal!
I'm not an expert of Windows either and I have been programming on Windows for 7 years. Which brings me to the other great thing about Windows..you don't have to be an expert to program it. Visual Basic is the killer app.
I have wished for years that Mac and Unix would come together and create a programming environment that makes programming either as simple as VB.
Java is the closest thing I have seen. And it kinda sucks. Don't get me wrong. Its cool how OO it is. But when you have to go back to old ODBC type database connections rather than something new like ADO that's going backwards not forwards. ODBC is being abandoned by its original owner, Microsoft. Microsoft is now on to OLEDB (ADO in VB) which is about a 100% better. And opening a file in Java is just stupid. Hasn't anyone seen the File System Object. Oh yeah, that's Microsoft too.
Why can't anyone but Microsoft figure out how to handle 98% of programmer tasks easily?
Admittedly it's more stable than the 9x series, but it still crashes every couple days. The big difference is that it just automatically reboots instead of displaying a blue screen. Initially I was running it on a K6-400 with 128mb of ram and the rebooting was so bad I couldn't get anything done -- it was literally rebooting itself every 5-10 minutes.
Then I got myself a Athlon 1700+, motherboard, and 256mb for xmas and upgraded the machine. It runs better now. It's only rebooted itself 3 times in the last week.
By the way, Mandrake 8.1 ran great with the K6 and still is running great the Athlon on the same machine.
I know one other person using it and he's very impressed with the stability. He said he usually gets a week of uptime and he's very impressed. Of course, he's a been a big Windows fan as long as I've known him and getting several days of uptime is a big deal to him.
A question: I seem to remember reading somewhere that there is an option in XP to have it randomly blue-screen like previous versions instead of the default random reboot behaviour. I'm serious. Is it true? If so someone please tell me how to get my old familiar bluescreens back. TIA.
numb
I always thought it meant:
Minesweeper
Consultant and
Solitare
Expert
--Xan
"Congratulations, Boots. Your robot has become self-aware. You're a daddy now." -- Dr. Rho Bowman
Doesn't that have to be funny?
Funny:
Dilbert, Robot Monster, South Park, Jon Katz falling out of a window.
Not Funny:
Teen comedies, Jim Carrey, Recycled/Out-Of-Date 'Windows is unreliable' jokes, Dave Berry.
Crack-Smokers: Mod this down again and I will post it again at +1. I'm too close to the karma-cap anyway.
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
Yes, I'd tend to agree with that. I believe that they're required to give 4 9's (Canada anyway) reliability on 911 and other emergency services (barring acts of god I believe). Meaning they would have used up atleast that years down time.
Rod Taylor
NT server is notorious for only about 2 weeks of continuous uptime under heavy usage. As much as I bitch about windows products, I have to admit; my windows 2000 boxes do rival the uptime of my linux boxes typically only needing a reboot when I change hardware.
-ted
Yeah right. Like none of you have had the same experience after installing Linux on a Laptop.
Obviously, Dave Barry had a laptop because he needed a FRT-2038 expostulating refrembulator.
When are people gonna learn that Laptops are Evil?
Evil, evil, evil!!!!
We did cover some specific languages: Scheme, Prolog, and C++. This was to demonstrate the difference between functional, logic, and procedural languages.
The book we used was Concepts of Programming Languages, 5th edition by Robert Sebesta, if anyone is intersted.
I swear, most of the people who I have encountered in my CS classes don't seem to truly understand the amount of work it takes. They heard that programmers are in hot demand and can make a lot of money, so they decided to make a career change. I'm not the best there is, but some of these people should really reconsider. OTOH, I have seen some works of genius from some folks that make me feel like reconsidering.
Then the phone company should block all non-emergency calls when there are more than 4990 calls in progress. Or if the system was a bit smarter, it could detect when a lot of people were calling the same number (Ticketmaster in this case), and block some of the calls to this number. At the very least, you shouldn't get a dead line when the system is busy.
mod parent up FUNNY, yet sad. Imagine the world of computers without M$
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
...Windows 2k is just as stable as Linux. My box stays up and running for months at a time without the slightest error or problem. Windows' problem is exactly what makes it better than Linux- Morons use it. Put the average Winows-Using-American-Moron (the same people who watch "Survivor" and voted for Bush) in front of a Linux box, and if they don't figure out how to crash it, they'll ask you where AOL is, and if you could get AOL on *NIX (just to make them happy) that would surely crash it. But all these morons do often use really cool software that Linux can't lay a finger on- what are you seriously gonna use to edit video on Linux? And don't tell me that the GIMP can even hold a candle to Photoshop. Not to mention the many games, productivity software, etc... "But wait," you say "most of this software also exists on the Mac!" but (at least pre-OS X) Macs were even less stable for the average user than Windows, and required even more tweaking to become stable. /.ers also like to say that Microsoft intentionally puts security holes and bugs to keep people buying their new OS's, but that's a severe misinterpretation of what's really happening. It seems apparent to me that Microsoft is so constantly trying to add new features and support new things -to innovate and support the innovations that normal people really want- that many times they get ahead of themselves. The fact that people are willing to pay money for new features drives Microsoft and Windows developers to innovate. What's driving Linux developers to make tons of software that doesn't appeal to Linux developers?
Linux is stable because it doesn't have so much software, doesn't support as much hardware, and because the people who use Linux are generally computer people who enjoy tweaking their systems and using them for very certain activities.
Don't get me wrong- I think Linux is great for Linux users, and great at doing many things, but for the vast majority of people, and a great many tasks, Windows is the best solution.
No, really- I don't work for Microsoft. I'm just tired of hearing the usual /. bullshit.
I just want to ask all the people in here whining about an article putting windows down one question: Why? I'm sure everyone in here has heard the same old arguments about the superiority over this OS over that OS till they're about ready to hire 3rd world country guerrilla fighters. So, why do we continue this. I'll admit, some linux users (which I am) fire right back when M$ makes some comment about linux. But frankly I don't care. The fact is this: I WAS a windows user, but I found an OS that I is better for me. And I can guarantee you that happened with a lot of people in here too. So what can you gain by coming in here and promoting your OS? I'll tell you, not jack. I wouldn't have stopped using windows if I didn't have a good reason, and neither would the rest of free OS users. Why would we go from something that we like that is free, to something we don't like that costs a buttload? WE WON'T SO GET A LIFE AND GO ARGUE WITH SOMEONE WHO CARES!
mod parent up :D
Ah yes, another article to allow all of the linux users to pat themselves on the back and think they are special. Look, a humorist thinks windows ME is unstable, that means all windows are crap and linux roxors. Yah, right. Windows 2k/xp are probably the most stable desktop OSes out there (saying this with no experience with OS X). Linux is all nice and stable, until you actually install software on it and the stability goes straight to hell. See that is the draw back to using stuff written by hobbyists instead of companies with a financial concern for their software. For all of you who judge windows based on the 9x family I think you will be rather disappointed that Win 2k and Win XP quite effectively stomp Linux into the ground in the desktop world.
That and if Dave Barry needs a Microsoft tech to install windows then he will never use Linux. you may now go cry yourself to sleep little linux zealots.
Right click on My Computer. Select Properties. Click the "Advanced" tab. Click the Startup and Recovery Settings button. Uncheck the Automatically restart on system failure checkbox. Tada!
We run both FreeBSD servers and Win2k Servers for hosting platforms, granted FreeBSD is still by far the most stable, however I must admit that Win2k is rock solid when compared with NT4, I would usually reboot NT4 at least once a week just to get it back on its feet again. Now I can usually just leave my Win2k servers and maybe reboot once a month or once every 2 months.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
At least Microsoft isn't like some of the other older software companies in that they don't make you "purchase" those bug fixes to their software....
Oh wait... They've stopped supporting Windows 95? No more patches? I have to buy Windows 98 to get updates? Bah, coincidence.....
...Microsoft stopped support for Windows 98, and I have to upgrade to Windows 2000 to continue to get patches and bug fixes? I can't use Windows 98 anymore? Interesting....
[In impressive news anchor voice...] "Microsoft has announced today that it will no longer be supporting the past or current versions of its popular operating system "Windows", however it will provide full technical support, installation support, help desk support, manual support, crutch support, athletic-support, pay-for-support for all future versions of Windows."
"Oh, Microsoft also announced today that it has a perfect operating system, and that it no longer plans to assimilate the universe into its operating system by developing more operating systems, because it has, as I said before, created a perfect operating system. Patches will cost extra, however, but will probably not be developed, because as we already stated twice before, it is perfect."
And they said zombies weren't real!
That's a good idea, but you seem to be repeating history here....windows was invented partly because people needed a "stupid" DOS. If we were to try and create a stupid Linux, we would run into the same problems that Windoze has, we would need to include a lot of features that would take tons of code to implement...which brings us to errors in the code and then people (like myself) complain about these bugs all the time...so what we need isn't a "stupid" operating system, we just need to educate the users better.
Only one linux distro out of zillions i tried played nice with my OPL3-SA2 sound chip (redhat), no matter how many gurus pointed at it. The most intuitive distro (mandrake) is not regarded as the best, and the installer won't finish on my system. ever. The debian installer still is hairy enough to make most 1st timers cringe. SuSE has a similar problem. I have yet to see an office suite that doesn't suck. StarOffice is close, but has a long way to go.
"but wait" i hear you say, "there are too many different types of hardware to support to get linux to work with everything perfectly..."
well, same is true with windows. so what point exactly is trying to be made with this article? no software is perfect, duh.
the biggest problem with windows are the number of people that don't patch their systems, that are still running the 9x code base as opposed to the NT code base, and those that are running a ton of crappy registry thrashing shareware.
windows 2000 is great, i have had insanely long runtimes, and am very happy with it. XP moreso, although i have had problems with office XP running on it.
zealotry is not an effective weapon. you are not going to win any converts to *nix by loudly claiming how much windows sucks. really. trust me here. the key is to make your side look so much better, people flock to it.
or shock horror, DUAL BOOT. jesus. every OS has a potential use or niche. get over this weird belief that there can only be one OS. if windows went away and all you had was linux, what would your arguments for using linux be? you are left with a non-centralized, fairly slow moving, non standard army. wow. I think i will stick with FreeBSD as my *nix. they don't yell as much, and they rock harder.
Sure when something goes wrong, blame the kiwi's. That's what we're there for. :)
Someone (Dave Barry) in the popular press has finally, explicitly and with a sense of humour, pointed out that Microsoft Windows doesn't get any more reliable or usable, no matter how many versions you buy.
This is unfounded Microsoft bashing at its worst. Anyone who has used Windows over the years knows that each version has improved reliability and usability over its predecessor. Most people fail to realize that their computer problems are due to faulty hardware and/or buggy device drivers, not the OS.
No matter how you architect an OS, at some point you have to rely upon a device driver (coded by someone else) to do the underlying work. That "someone else" part is the biggest problem, because you never know the quality of the code that comprises the driver.
The only way to assure the quality of a mystery box is to test the hell out of it. Microsoft has a "WHQL" certification program that is supposed to test driver binaries for correctness and completeness, but the label is meaningless in practice. Microsoft grants WHQL certifications to crappy drivers all the time in an effort to please device manufacturers.
Device manufacturers make money off hardware, not software. Drivers are always an afterthought, and their quality is always subject to the shipping schedule of the hardware. Drivers are often stamped WHQL and shipped along with the finished hardware even when the manufacturer and Microsoft know full well that the drivers aren't yet finished.
Computer reliability won't improve until device manufacturers realize drivers and devices are equally important. And that will only happen when consumers behave as if they are equally important. So stop whining about buggy drivers and actually do something about it. If substandard drivers prevent a device from working as advertised then take the manufacturer to court. False advertising is a crime, so why should device manufacturers get away with it? Usually there are thousands or millions of other consumers who would eagerly join a class-action lawsuit, if someone would just start one.
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
Good or bad, I don't know, but I think Dave Barry's street-cred(tm) is less than or equal to that of Danny Bonaduce.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Linux, on the other hand, now that's funny.
Mod me down you humorless sons of bitches!
XP came preinstalled on my laptop and it crashed about 10 times in 3 days.
It was that lovely little blue screen that flashes the error then the computer turns off. If you blink or go and get coffee you come back to see your laptop restarting and one time just staying off.
Oh and of course it tells you there was an error when it reboots and asks if we want to send a report which I always cuss alot in.
That report and the netscape error report I send are always the most colorful.
"But its not XPs fault, oh No! its the video driver. No way could it be XPs fault." the customer service rep tells me. Of course I also put Linux on same laptop and it really wanted me to get the right driver but atleast it did TURN ITSELF OFF!!!!!
errr
Ferna of the Fern people.
You know I have a dream, I dream that one day you people will see how pointless your arguments here are. Yes, every, and I mean EVERY OS has its ups, and its downs. That includes windows, linux, and FreeBSD (you see, atleast I'm not ashamed to admit it). People use the OS they use because its right for them. And you use the OS you use because its right for you. Now I might not like your OS, and you might not like mine, but that doesn't mean we should sit here and debate on which is better, because that is absurd. There is no OS that is better than any other in and of itself. There is only an OS that is better for me, and one that is better for you. We should all just accept this and quit the bullshit in here. I mean, I have come to the realization that, no matter what I say in here, it isnt gonna make all the windows users immediately go start installing linux, nor vice versa. What everyone should do is document their own OS, and stop worrying about someone elses. That way when joe blow comes along, and has never used a pc before, he can make a decision about what OS he should try first from viable discussions about the OS from the people that know it best, the ones that actually use it. All everyone is doing, is wasting there time that they could be using to fix the problems with their own OS, instead of flaming everyone else's.
Since when is a bunch of rabid spice girls fans NOT rabid?
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
I meant: Since when is a bunch of rabid spice girls fans NOT a natural catastrophe?
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
sean.soapbox(.t.)
Let's face it. The degree only gets you the first job anyway. From that point on it's your track record that makes the difference. The best hacks I know have degrees in Math, EE, Music, Art, Theatre or don't have a degree as well.
sean.soapbox(.f.)
To answer your question the CIS/MIS degrees are more buisness specific the CS is more pure coding and theory. The question is when you graduate what do you want to do?
Sean.OutaHere()
Look, I don't know what the deal is with Linux geeks talking about how windows is unstable and will always be. If you read the artical, he never mentiones an NT based systems, which are much, much more stable then 9x based system, and which XP is. Windows XP will be much more stable then windows ME.
I've had windows 2k crash (and by crash I mean 'weridness that requires a reboot') maybe 20 times. On my laptop Iv'e had to reboot only once.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
As the French say, au contraire (literally: "Your software sucks!"). I have here in my hands a copy of an Associated Press article sent in by alert reader Bill, whose name can be rearranged to spell "BLIL", although that is not my main point. "Bill", by the way, only has the letters "ill" in common with "Monica Lewinsky", so there is no other reason to mention Monica Lewinsky in this column.
According to a quote which I am not making up, from Redmond Mayor William (formally "Mayor William" and informally "arsehole"), Microsoft bugs ranks as a major crisis just behind Stability, Quality and Older hardware (insert your "Linux" joke here), as evidenced by the following conversation between Redmond government employees:
FIRST REDMOND EMPLOYEE: "Install that crap yourself"
SECOND REDMOND EMPLOYEE: "Fuckin loser"
FIRST REDMOND EMPLOYEE: "Did you get your computer working yet?"
Fortunately I have a suggestion for Mayor arsehole, and that is: remove George Steinbrenner's nic.
No, seriously, my suggestion does not involve George Steinbrenner's nic, although it might involve using AOL CDs to slice Tobacco Institute scientists. My suggestion is more along the lines of a coup de grace, from the French coup, meaning "debugging", and de grace, meaning "kernel code". The procedure (you may want to write this down):
1.Force AOL to stop mailing CDs
2.Use cat-5 cable
But instead the Redmond city council (motto: "We'll help struggling companies like Microsoft when you pry the installation manual out of our cold, dead fingers") thinks that they (the Microsoft bugs) will keep improving with age soon, sending this message to the public, and to the world: "astroturfing sucks".
Speaking of which, "The Redmond Microsoft Bugs Outbreak" would be a great name for a rock band.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Actually, I think the convention these days is to deny ACs credit for their first posts in favor of the first logged in first post. Checking closely, it appears that I posted logged in, and that you did not. Therefore I win.
I also declare myself master of the universe times infinity, and I call the front seat.
Dear AC,
I am a linux supporter. I run linux on my web server, it's great for that. (I had to rewrite some of my network services though, because they were full of security holes and I was sick of patching.) I hope that some day I can run a free OS on my desktop computer too, but in order for that to happen, I need apps, and in order for that to happen, linux needs a stronger desktop user base.
Linux is not a technologically advanced OS. This is another common misconception on slashdot. It is a clone of Unix, a very old (and rather good) idea. There have been loads of new ideas and technologies since them, and I wish that hackers would implement these in new operating systems. (Do we *really* need to be running our network services as root just so that they can bind to a low-numbered port?) But the operating systems world (much like the rest of computer science) is very fad-oriented, and a good idea is worth nothing unless there is good marketing.
Linux has pretty good marketing. Windows has great marketing. But linux marketing is based on stuff that's starting to be less and less true. linux kicked the ass off of Windows 95 in terms of stability and security. (I remember rebooting to linux when the rest of my dorm was getting WinNuked all day.) But, Windows has practically caught up. 2000 is very stable; it crashes about as often as X does for me (and I do a lot more daring things with 2000, like play Quake and watch DVDs and burn CDs and do video capture). As linux has become more and more complex, certain major distributions are just as insecure as (or even more insecure than, perhaps) Windows. My question was, when joe consumer doesn't care about stability because his computer doesn't crash, and doesn't get hacked (Win XP has a personal firewall now, no?), why would he want to use linux?
The post wasn't intended as a troll, merely to stir the waters. Complacency is a terrible thing.
(PS: 12 moderations done to my post! Jeesh!)
> Microturd says, "Best Windows Ever!"
Name calling like this is a really good way to take credibility away from your post. Actually, I really like linux (and use it on both of my computers at work), and that's why I am concerned about its future. Otherwise I would not bother to post here.
I don't use Office, so I can't comment on how stable it is. All I can comment on is my own experience with 2000, which has been very good. (Others have given similar reports...)
People who bash Windows seem to think that Bill Gates built it. Here's a newsflash: Windows is built by a bunch of engineers, just like Linux, MacOS, Solaris, BeOS, and all the rest. In fact, many of the software developers who built these OS's worked on more than one of them -- Microsoft hires a lot of ex-Apple, ex-Sun people, and for that matter, quite a few Linux hackers. Every company does.
As a software engineer who takes pride in my work, it makes me sick every time I see so-called tech-enthusiasts bashing someone's software product just because of who published it. Linux, Windows, MacOS -- I use all three, and they all have their problems. It's not a conspiracy to make your life hell, it's the nature of software.
Do you think Linux or the MacOS are perfectly secure? Their flaws are just less-publicized, that's all. If anything, Windows is more secure just because more people are trying to break it.
The same principal applies to its overall quality. Windows is a better OS because it's so widely used. I've never had WindowsXP, Windows 2000, or Linux crash. I *have* had problems with third-party software on all three; usually, the less popular the software, the more bugs it has. My Mac crashes every time I use it. Sometimes being popular isn't a bad thing.
Thanks for the D. =)
For some reason, people will really get fired up about stuff like this.
(But fired up people some times go out and do good things when they're not modding me down... so...)
I still use Win98SE. It doesn't usually crash, but I do usually reboot it every couple of days to make sure I clean any memory leaks. But other than that, it's pretty decent. I'll switch to Linux as soon as there is enough of a market to justify developing programs for it.
But XP? Never.
A friend of mine just bought a new laptop which, of course, came with XP installed. I had heard that XP was as much as 40% slower than 98 on the same hardware. I have a Pentium II-550 (bought it 1.5 years ago) and he has some new fangled 1.0GHz+ machine. The details are unimportant. The fact is, we did some speed tests and my machine ran several tests faster using the same software. And his hardware is at least twice as fast as mine!
Another friend of mine purchased a new desktop system, I believe it was HP. Came pre-installed with XP (his coice). The hardware came and we tried to get some of his favorite games working. They would not, or executed too slowly. He later tried to get the thing to dual boot between Win98SE and WinXP. He couldn't make it happen. A few days later he emailed me and told me he had returned the machine to HP and he would be receiving a "custom-built" system from HP... With Win2K, I believe.
There is nothing in WinXP that is worth your time and money. It is slower than previous versions of Windows. The look-and-feel has changed (again). It looks like a kiddie cartoon, not a serious OS. I don't believe it to be any more reliable than the uncounted times in the past that MS has said their new OS was "the most reliable yet." They've said that with every release of Windows since 3.1.
I'll be helping my laptop friend install either Win98SE or Win2K on his laptop sometime in the next week.
The only cool thing about WinXP is the Ray of Light music they play in the commercials. Unfortunately, they have ruined that song for me since I can't listen to the song without thinking of XP.
.....All this talk about Windows vs. Linux gets a bit tiresome to read after the gazillionth time. And then to pull out an article (Dave Barry's weekly humor column, of all things) and say "Gasp! Dave Barry uses WINDOWS!?" The guy's a humorist, not a rocket scientist or computer engineer. Whaddya expect? Of course he uses Windows. Why should he spend countless hours tweaking a Linux system and searching the net for updated modules when he's got deadlines to meet?
They're tools, that's it. Comparing Windows to Linux is like comparing a Honda Civic to a custom-built roadster. Both have their places on the road. Some people just want a car to run errands around town. Others like to spend endless hours in the garage, tinkering around with carburetors and ignition systems.
I've been a Windows user from the early DOS days (now I use Win98), and I started using Slackware earlier this summer. I like both, though I do tend to favor Linux because I prefer working in console mode with vi, tin, and pine.
But it doesn't really matter. What matters is what you *DO* with it. So you installed Linux and figured out how to recompile your kernel. So what? What do you do with your system beyond that? For me, it's pretty much the same things I do on my Win98 system -- email, web browsing, writing. Both systems are stable enough, IMHO, to handle those relatively low-end tasks. Everything is backed up to my shell account, anyway, which I've used forever.
-- anthony
I built a computer for a little old lady 50 miles outside of town. I thought XP would be perfect because it's SOOO reliable and all she really does is email and word. Got it all setup and it worked great, didn't need any drivers either.
2 days later her machine is locking up because she installed some old application that shows you the PHASE OF THE MOON in the taskbar.... who the hell cares about the moon? (btw she has a huge poster next to her computer that shows the stage of the moon for every day, for the next 100 years... go figure) But anyway I managed to get her to uninstall it, and I even found a new version of the software that works for XP (as the website claims) So she installs this and then her machine locks up even more. I get her to disable it in with msconfig (because the uninstaller wouldn't work) and fucking Windows XP constantly reminds you that your startup mode is not in "normal mode" THANKS! She really wanted this Lunabar program (and she was getting very dissappointed with windows xp) so I had to go to her house and Install Windows 98 for her.
WinXP sucks ass. So much shit doesn't work right.
On a side note I installed OFFICE XP on another ladies machine, I thought it would be just like Office 2000. Well-- She likes to go back and forth between Clarisworks and Office-- and OfficeXP wasn't reading the Clarisworks files correctly... SO she uninstalled OFficeXP and installed her own version of Office 2k-- and it's the GAY version where you have to CALL MS and get a serial number before you can install it..
OH and I just got an email from that first lady-- she was trying to copy stuff from her zip disks back to her computer and it makes her computer lock up completely when she tries this. I think her zip disk has errors on it but WHY THE FUCK does it have to lock up the machine!!??
One last thing-- I prepared myself by buring cd's with all the drivers that I would need-- because downloading drivers with a 56k modem sucks ass. But of course-- I CANT READ THEM IN WINDOWS. I burned these CD's in LINUX using Xcdroast. Standard mode ISO9660... I can read them just fine. what the HELL is wrong with windows??
Geeks generally reserve the word "crash" for a program/OS kernel doing something naughty in memory and brining execution of instructions to a grinding halt (and thus requiring a restart/reboot).
Most end users in my experience, when they use the word crash, refer to problems that cannot be fixed with a reboot, problems like their hard drive going south, the network connection being down, or most often, Windows getting corrupted in some way that prevents them from doing their valuable work no matter how many times they reboot. There is such tremendous fear of their computer being permanently screwed up that anything that can be fixed with a simple reboot simply viewed as a minor annoyance.
End users do complain about defective products, but they generally do it an a more passive and general way: they say "I hate computers" and try to do as little with their computers as possible. And they stop buying neat computer gadgets. And then the tech sector as a whole starts losing money and multi-billion dollar tech companies start laying off programmers. And you ultimately end up with the really big mess we have today.
They're tools, that's it. Comparing Windows to Linux is like comparing a Honda Civic to a custom-built roadster. Both have their places on the road. Some people just want a car to run errands around town. Others like to spend endless hours in the garage, tinkering around with carburetors and ignition systems.
I've been a Windows user from the early DOS days (now I use Win98), and I started using Slackware earlier this summer. I like both, though I do tend to favor Linux because I prefer working in console mode with vi, tin, and pine.
But it doesn't really matter. What matters is what you *DO* with it. So you installed Linux and figured out how to recompile your kernel. So what? What do you do with your system beyond that? For me, it's pretty much the same things I do on my Win98 system -- email, web browsing, writing. Both systems are stable enough, IMHO, to handle those relatively low-end tasks. Everything is backed up to my shell account, anyway, which I've used forever.
-- anthony
You're looking at this, or part of it, the wrong way.
Does microsoft have to develop drivers for your sound card, or does the company have to develop drivers for microsoft? And if it is the company developing them, why don't they release linux drivers. Putting everything on the distros is unfair, as a clean install of win98 or 2k will still use that companies drivers, rather than ones MS developed in house.
=================
Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
I used to live in Huntsville and it is a great city. Don't discount it because it is located in Alabama as it is a city with two distinct faces. One is the intellectual, high per-capita PHD super tech and the other is good ol' boy. Believe it or not it makes for a decent mix.
However as a young guy you might not find it is the place for you. The city is not geared for younger people who are not of the "southern" lifestyle.
The living is cheap. There is a good abundance of decent food. Nice scenery and shopping abound. In short it would a great place to head in your early 30s with a starting family. Earlier than that? Try to risk NYC or SF. Then again SF is the deadest market I have ever seen so don't bother unless you are exceptional. If you must stay in the south head over to Atlanta or maybe even somewhere in NC. I don't know enough about the midwest to make a recommendation but I hear some parts of Coloraro are up and coming.
--- I do not moderate.
so your a linux supporter eh? but you don't think it's so hot, so that would not really make you a linux supporter then would it? interesting how you try so hard to pretend to be one then.
> Linux is not a technologically advanced OS.
what? you offer almost no explanation for this, other than that it would be nice not to have to be root to bind to low ports. the reality is that your just spreading FUD by saying that linux is just a copy of 30 year old unix.
that is BULLSHIT and you know it, unix itself has come very far indeed, linux as well since thirty years ago, the ideas remain the same but the features and scope are vastly different.
> My question was, when joe consumer doesn't care about stability because his computer doesn't crash, and doesn't get hacked (Win XP has a personal firewall now, no?), why would he want to use linux?
first, that has yet to happen, XP and 2000 are still rife with security flaws. the stability is better, but the same problems that are inherent to windows (registry,root installs for software, messy multi-user setup) are still pervasive in 2k & XP. second, let's not forget the price - linux is free. that is a big reason. yeah, end users might not notice it because of bundling, but corperations do, and they are starting to catch on. end users will follow the corps.
in the end though, talking about an immaterial 'joe user' who doesn't exist is counter productive. let's talk about reality, a real and growing number of users choose linux because of trust and freedom. the code garuntees that they are in control of their computer, that they will stay in control of it, and that the time they invest will not be turned agaist them in a vicious upgrade cycle. security and stability and performance are just icing on the cake when you look at it like that.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
. . .or they blame their techie friend [you] that tried to help them and the thing crashed a month later. . .
."can you fix it".
."you'll probably have to format and re-install"
."[think] you must not know what your doing and you broke it".
friend: "it was working fine two months ago before you touched it". .
you: "there are no logs, I can't figure out what the 'blue screen' is trying to tell me". .
friend: "Well all my friends computers don't crash like this and THEY run Windows".
No computer ignorant person that I've ever helped ever blames windows. They either blame hardware or me and get pissed of when I tell them to format and re-install as if it is complete blastphemy like telling them to overhaul their engine because their car battery died. "It can't be a Windows problem because Bill Gates is a visionary and a genius like they said on 20/20. He said that my computer is faster and more reliable with Windows 98 -- you're not a genuis like Bill Gates so you must now know what you're doing."
I don't help ANYONE who runs windows EVER anymore PERIOD. No matter how much they beg. Not even my parents. I'm sick of getting blamed by ignortant people.
C'mon, I'm in the mood to here some serious ranting. Please tell about idiot stories where your non-tachnical friends blamed you for their future Windows problems after you helped them. . .
The main source of crashes and problems with Windows 2000 kernel based products are programmers doing device drivers who can't code their way out of a linked list, or those who base their products on inherently flawed programming languages such as Visual Basic.
the thing about XP is that I just don't give a flying crap anymore.
that's right, I don't care if XP is stable, not stable, secure, fast, slow whatever. the fact is, I'm done with microsoft os's. I'm typing this from slackware 7.0. I'm not even sure of that, haven't upgraded in a while. Why? becuase I'm just so damn happy with the setup I have - nice and stable, fast and I still run all the new and interesting software I want. most important though, is that it does what I need it too, none of that bullshit fawning over os's that microsoft always pushes on us.
people get so wound up over these things, always scrambling to prove how great the next new microsoft what ever is. I haven't even bothered to look. I am so confident that the time and energy I put into learning _my_ os is (and has been) rewareded tenfold with the control I have over it now and in the future, that I have no need for all of this marketing and arguing.
if people want to expolore interesting operating systems they should check out hurd or plan9 or inferno or even osX. but braggin about a os being stable is pretty fucking far from impressive these days. too little too late - I'll take my year and a half old shitty slackware install any day.
the thing about XP is that I just don't give a flying crap anymore.
that's right, I don't care if XP is stable, not stable, secure, fast, slow whatever. the fact is, I'm done with microsoft os's. I'm typing this from slackware 7.0. I'm not even sure of that, haven't upgraded in a while. Why? becuase I'm just so damn happy with the setup I have - nice and stable, fast and I still run all the new and interesting software I want. most important though, is that it does what I need it too, none of that bullshit fawning over os's that microsoft always pushes on us.
people get so wound up over these things, always scrambling to prove how great the next new microsoft what ever is. I haven't even bothered to look. I am so confident that the time and energy I put into learning _my_ os is (and has been) rewareded tenfold with the control I have over it now and in the future, that I have no need for all of this marketing and arguing.
if people want to expolore interesting operating systems they should check out hurd or plan9 or inferno or even osX. but braggin about a os being stable is pretty fucking far from impressive these days. too little too late - I'll take my year and a half old shitty slackware install any day.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Frankly I've had 95, 98, NT, Linux, Solaris, SCO, and Tru64 all crash at some point for differnet reasons. Some are stupid and are my fault like an improperly lined kernel . . . others are plain uncceptable.
.it could be a buggy driver. . .but you'll never know and you don't have the ability to ever find out. All UNIXes that I've used let you at least figure out what happened easily and fix it.
The thing that pisses me off more then anything alse about Windows is that fact that YOU CANT TELL WHY IT CRASHED and you can't fix it!
It could be a slightly incompatible library. .
To fix windows it's either trial and error or a format and re-install. No other option.
Frankly I really don't care if XP is about as stable as Linux. They'll both crash at some point for somthing stupid. What I really care about is that I can fix the reason why it crashed.
> I dont see the OS as perfected yet, but its come along way since DOS.
I disagree. I used to be a DOS/PC lover way, way back in the '80s when DOS was still around. Then Bill decided to do the GUI thing with Windows. I did move to Win95 when it came out, because of the ability to multitask (even if it wasn't all that great) but ever since then Bill's OSes have gone downhill, as far as I'm concerned.
Know why? Cuz I love the command line. I'm sorry, but GUI operating system interfaces are just hideously klunky kludges for secretaries to be able to write useless memos about coffee consumption while never using more than one finger. Yeah, I'm one of those old school guys that realizes that its much easier to just cd to a directory and delete something rather than open up some bloated GUI exploration tool and click myself silly finding where something is, then moving it to some damned bin somewhere.
That's why I switched over to Unix (FreeBSD). I haven't bought a new version of Windows since 1995 -- saved lots of money. When Regis Philbin noted that Bill had completely deprecated the CLI with XP, I realized that I can never go back; the FreeBSD that I use now is a better DOS than Windows is.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Didn't Linux 2.4 bring new stability problems compared to 2.2.x? (VM and also otherwise many 2.4.x versions are more broken than many of newer 2.2.x).
It's not that I don't like Linux, but actually some degree of instability hits almost every OS when its internals get major upgrade (and it is not tested for year or so in real use before release.)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well at the red cross they do use computers for sure, but it also runs well for some time with just radio and pen&paper, surely this means quite more work for the operator and after the system comes back online once again work since all events have to be entered afterward into the db for statisic (and juristic) purposes, but no lives depend directly on the computer cooridnating system (as long the operator has it's wits together)
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
The odds of anyone managing to read this(without plugging around my post history or googling long in the distant future) are pretty miniscule, but heh.
Cars have existed for what, ninety years now? Guess what, they still crash.
--Dan
Funny: Some teen comedies, some Jim Carrey flicks, some recycled out-of-date "Windows is unreliable" jokes.
Not funny: Someone who passes judgment on an author whose name he can't even spell correctly, and uses boldfaced type to tell the moderators that he's untouchable.
Barry is simply writing to his audience, the vast majority of whom find computer usage to be a frustrating and intimidating experience. I only found the article to be a bit amusing, but I can easily see how someone with a life^H^H^H^H^H^Hless computer savvy than me would find it to be the height of comedy. For example, regular people don't know why ^H^H^H is supposed to be funny, and certainly haven't seen it so often as to make it the pedestrian cliche that it is on Slashdot.
I'd also point out that he was commenting on the unreliablity of Windows 98, and the problems he was facing in upgrading. Windows 98 *is* unreliable, and upgrading can be perilous, so it's unfair to call the jokes outdated (especially when the majority of American computer owners are still in 98-land).
In conclusion, I would ask that you please introduce me to the person who died and made you The Arbiter of What Is and What Is Not Humor. Maybe we can freeze his brain or get a DNA sample. He was certainly doing a much better job than you are.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I just took a trip through Stockholm. At the central railway station the monitors intended to display departure times of trains to the airport were displaying the Windows desktop instead. At the airport I could not read the departure time of my flight from the monitors because there was a Windows error dialogue box in the middle of the screen. I kid you not. A few weeks before a bank clerk in Helsinki was demonstrating how I can use the internet banking system. Her machine crashed and had to be rebooted three times before she could get my account page up. Meanwhile I often phone to Barclays bank in England to check my account only to find "Sorry Sir, the computes are down". Yes they run NT. A teacher friend of mine has been trying to get a fresh install of Windows 98 on new machine to work for more than a week without destroying itself.
Windows just advertises it's crappyness everywhere all the time. If these people running fairly critical systems can't get it to work, what chance have I ?. Why do they still try to use it ?
NT 3.51 SP3 was the result of the NT effort under Dave Cutler, before they let the kode kiddies from the Win95 group put code in. That was a dull, but solid system.
Windows 2000 SP 2 represents all the fixes to date to the NT code base, but doesn't yet contain the control-freak stuff from Windows XP. It's what you want to run if you have work to do and have to use Microsoft.
So actually, for about six months or so every five years, Microsoft ships something that works.
There's practically no OS out there that'll stand up to a seriously incompetent user. I mean, if you botch software/hardware installs, don't know how to troubleshoot resource conflicts, can't diagnose bad hardware, and leave every conceivable app running in the background, chances are your OS is going to get hosed sooner or later. It's like that Onion point-counterpoint story. A good user is going to be hindered by a bad system, but a bad user is going to fuck up whatever system they get. I guess the question is--is Dave Barry a good user or a bad one?
First of all, I think this article just feeds the fire for a lot of unnecessary bashing. A theme arising from many of the post is that NOBODY CARES WHAT OS'S OTHERS ARE USING!
Secondly, each OS has their positives and negatives. It is anti-productive to have people have to learn a new thing if their job is to write articles (per se). Does a news paper reporter overcome writers block if they are running Linux? How about XP? It just doesn't matter to him.
Lastly, a key thing in the stability of an OS is not necessarily the OS itself..but how it is configured. A XP box could be secured down and likewise a linux box could have a user open up all the unnecessary vulnerabilities. The reverse is also possible.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
Even though, as a hard core UNIX person who would rather never touch Windows and who has not run any Microsoft product at home (And rarely at work) I can dick around in the Windows settings whenever people around me break it, I have finally hit upon the correct combination of scorn and faux-cluelessness that generally keeps Windows users from asking me questions twice. Generally it goes something like "Ahh SHIT! I have to REBOOT? AGAIN?"
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Think about it. No one wrote software to handle the tasks needed to reunite victims of 9/11. I don't care what OS got plopped down on the doorsteps of relief agencies. Kludged software is kludged software, and it will never work right.
Your problem in the Fortune 500 company is a similar problem I have seen in many small companies. The problem is also not the chosen OS. The problem is the software being used. I have seen an entire company's Mac-networked File Maker pro database get trashed because someone with an older version on their personal laptop opened the company database. I've also seen it trashed when someone got the bright idea to remove fields from forms that they don't use. This was obviously not a MacOS problem, it was a problem with the software chosen to run the company.
I managed to get the end of this fine post before I relised that the author is female (Cathy).
/. isn't always right.
Please be aware the the mail voice you hear in your head while you read posts on
MS is only hype.
Nominally 99.999% reliability. Not just uptime.
It does NOT mean the same as probably 100%.
It includes planning and response for the 1-in-a-million things that do happen.
It includes stuff that insures that no error can go undetected, like dual cpu's and comparators, like parity traces on internal lines. It is expensive.
"... if I could only find the time to compile Xfree86 v4.1..." Oh, please!!! If you want to run Linux on your laptop, why is XP still sitting on the HDD? I'm sure you could find a few spare hours to do the necessary config. Switch off your TV, get off your ass and configure YOUR laptop the way YOU want it to be. The precious few minutes you wasted posting to
"If it comes from micro$lop it's crap" How very insightful. Did you write this post on your Win98 box? "Even core dumps hang" You complete fucking retard.
you don't have to be an expert to program it.
...Visual Basic is the killer app.
...Unix would come together and create a programming environment that makes programming either as simple as VB.
Did you know, the whole point of BASIC was to provide a language that non CS students could use?
Yeah, BASIC was a killer on my Spectrum too.
Have you not looked at Kylix? Its Delphi for Linux. I'm sure you've run into Delphi before? Visual Pascal ring any bells?
This is where barry got wrong. This **OU (very nontechnical term)** was the key to get support working for him 8-)
But of course he could not publish it. Publishing is would like be having the "nrbugs" setting in XP to 0.
isnt MSCE training about learning this word?
The major problem I have with this statement by Da_Monk is that it was never the *nix crowd who started the "One OS to rule them all" line of thought. Nor for that matter was it the Mac crowd, the CPM crowd, or the Multics crowd, or whatever. It was the Microsoft crowd - believe you me, it's the case.
They're both pretty bad at a lot of things. At work I use NT4 SP6a, and can run Delphi, IIS, Apache, Interbase, Word, IE, Netscape, VNC, TextPad etc all concurrently for a couple of weeks without any crashes. I usually reboot once a fortnight just to make sure it stays stable. I usually have twenty or so windows open on 12 virtual desktops most of the time. This is probably the most stable computer I've ever used.
.NET development, and any useful programmes which just aren't available in Linux. I haven't found anything anywhere near as nice as Illustrator on Linux yet, and when I use Midi then it makes my computer very unstable in Linux, and after about an hour the whole thing locks up. And my guitar amp has a Midi editing programme which only works in Windows or MacOS. .NET is almost ready for Linux from go-mono.com, so that'll be one less reason to boot Win2k soon.
At home I use SuSE Linux 7.2 and Win2k. I like linux because I don't have to pay for any extra programmes. I use KDE 2.2 for desktop, Mozilla for web browsing, StarOffice 6 beta for word processing and spreadsheets, Evolution for email, and play with other things like the Gimp, Octave, gcc, apache, perl. Once every few days I get an email which kills Evolution. StarOffice crashes sometimes, but that's to be expected in a beta. Sometimes KDE just disappears for no reason. Cut and paste is unreliable (sometimes something gets stuck in the buffer). Mozilla works very nicely - seems to crash less than IE now it's at version 9.7, although some pages still don't quite work. KDE 2.2 is also very nice now, and its font and printer handling is ever improving.
I use Win2k for Illustrator, Midi software,
In the airing cupboard I have another Linux box running SuSE 6.4 as a dial-up server. It's been running for a 15 months with only one reboot due to a power cut. But it doesn't really do much.
I have used other systems (Solaris, HP-UX, MPE/iX, CP/M), but I don't use them regularly any more.
I find that Linux, as a desktop OS, is about at the level of Windows 95 for stability, somewhere between Win3.11 and 2k for usability, and somewhere off the scale for power and flexibility. As a server OS it seems rock solid.
In other words, Windows computers run just fine so long as you don't dare to run any non-Microsoft software on them.
How convenient for Microsoft.
Some of my personal Windows experiences last year:
In Stockholm central railway station the passenger information monitors display a Windows desktop instead of train departure times.
During the same trip, at Stockholm airport the flight departure screens are unreadable because there is a big Windows error dialog box accross the middle.
In Helsinki a bank clerk has to reboot her Windows machine 3 times before it stays up long enough to demonstrate my new internet banking facilities.
I often phone Barclays bank in England to check my accounts there. Many time to be told "Sorry Sir the computers are down now." Yes, they run NT.
A teacher friend cannot get a clean install of Windows 98 to stay on her new machine for more than a week without destroying itself. So far three Windows gurus have looked into this without success
In the new year when I can't access my web bank, the first question the bank asks me is "Did you check for viruses on your computer ?"
Not to mention all the NIMDA and other crap mindlessly trying to get into my webserver.
These examples tend to convince me that no one knows how to get Microsoft's operating systems to function reliably. These are fairly critical systems I'm talking about here, not kiddies games machines. Even after years of experience and no doubt large expenditure of cash on software and developers/admins they still can't do it.
My question is why are they still trying ?
This applies to Linux and MacOs also. Really, for the avarage user, how much that affects their work (games not included) has happened the last ten years?
Well most PCs have at least a video card, a network card and a hard drive. All of these have drivers (the hard drive is probably the most stable). If a driver does naughty things, the computer can crash. This may take some time. There are O/S things you can do to make this more apparent (e.g. instantly paging out freed memory) but they may reduce performance.
/. decends into the pit of MS bashing. even the poor guy who posted that he has a reliable win98 machine was marked up as flame bait.
At the end of the day, a computer is just a tool, and as long as it works who cares. Personnally I have found windows to be quite good for my purposes.
Linux will do much better as soon as its users start devoting as much energy to its development as they do to trying to convinve the world that its better.
Windows 3.1415926 -- that reminds me of a certain typesetting system whose version numbers are said to converge to \pi. If Microsoft had followed that author's policy of rewarding people who find bugs with their windows versions, they might even have improved Windows before going out of business in warly 1988.
Hence the 2 days on hold to Micro$haft "support" line.
Using the word "engineer" in the title of MCSE is like describing what they put in cheap hamburgers as prime steak. In fact, I'd be surprised if it didn't contravene most civilised countries advertising regulations.
[1] Yes, I meant that.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1. Photoshop
2. Power management
3. Full hardware autodetection
I'll stay will my 98SE till WINE will solve all their problems.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yea, Windows is unreliable.. although Win2K, I will admit, *is* pretty reliable.
XP reliable? Ahem.. well, it's less reliable than any OS which *doesn't* deliberately crash itself after 90 days (WPA). I won't even get into the stories about spyware, the mysterious unauthorized Bandwidth usage, or the Helpassistant account (because I don't know if they're true or not). Reliable means it reliably does WHAT THE USER WANTS IT TO DO, not anything else.
The point is, though, that this is what users *want*. Gasps of shock? Users want an unreliable, slow operating system with lots of extra baggage. It lets them feel like they're using a really impressive computer, lets them blame the computer for not being able to get work done, etc. You can see this in modern UIs, where the UI has stopped trying to be friendly to the user and instead concentrated on adding fluff to make the user feel "wow, I'm using a computer!".
wrong software is any software, right? I ran a couple of putty windows on a fresh win98 install, this caused the sound card driver to crash the system...
/Mikael Jacobson
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
I didn't know Slashdot was supposed to be a Linux fucking forum. Why don't we keep this stuff interesting. I'm pretty tired of hearing how much some people think *nix is better than Windows. Everyone has their own preference so lets get over it and see some interesting articles posted. Enough said.
1) Do not upgrade from Windows95. Do a fresh install.
2) Install a minimum amount of software. Each new package that you install undermines the stability with extra DLLs and registry hacks.
3) Do not use exotic, state-of-the-art hardware. Use slightly older hardware with more mature drivers.
If you follow these simple rules you to can run Windows98 for months at a time. I have a small fileserver at my job which has been rebooted twice in as many years.
If you can afford it, get another computer or install a hard drive tray. Make one your works system and the other a "sandbox". Use the sandbox to evaluate new software and incorporate it into your work box once you completely understand it. Most of Win98's problems seem to happen to people that install all kinds of different software that they never use. The problem is that many vendors give you a computer that is pre-fucked (much useless software already installed). Your best bet is to reformat these disks and reinstall.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
I despise Windows as much as anyone else but the Linux situation is not as rosy as you let one. I've had bad luck with older versions of DRI for the Matrox G200/400 cards. Descent II would often corrupt the screen very badly. I could ssh into the box and kill Descent and even restart or kill X but that would get my screen box. I suppose you could point out that since I could ssh in that it didn't crash....but I still had to reboot to put the video card back into a sane state. The video card most certainly did crash even if the rest of the machine didn't. I've had other driver problems now and again even lock me out of the console. Driver code is loaded directly into the kernel. It has more privledges than God.
Now I understand that systems like the HURD are supposed to protect even against bad driver code but even that is no bulwark against freaked out hardware. There are more and less robust systems. I will agree that Linux is generally more robust than Windows but it isn't perfect. NOTHING is.
Anyhow, she needed a new computer, but didn't want to spend much money. So, she goes down to Fry's, and they sell her a $300 machine with "Fast Windows" preinstalled. You guessed it...it's some sort of weird Taiwanese Linux distribution!
Someone figured out they could hit a price point by eliminating the most expensive item in a PC today: Microsoft software.
their shit isn't all that funny either
update comments set karma=-1, reason='offtopic' where sid=26315
I happened to be standing next to an ATM during a brief power outage in Cambridge (UK) a while ago, and as the machines in the wall of the bank rebooted, they all displayed the OS2 logo :-)
:-)
Mind you, I also happened to see them reboot the machine(s) that run the display boards in the railway station there - not that CPU intensive you'd think - so I was surprised it takes a P3 866 with 640MB RAM per screen! Oh yeah, they're running NT4. Might as well be consistent I suppose, our railway network is after all, one of the most unreliable running jokes of all time
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
...for years I kept thinking that the problem was that people didn't _understand_ that Microsoft puts out low quality software--and that many of its defects are self-serving.
The mystery was, "why does the public keep buying it?"
The answer is, because Microsoft is a monopoly. When I talk to IT people, there's no secret. They don't like Windows, they don't think it's high quality, they don't think it's reliable, and they don't think it's secure. And they drag their feet on upgrading for as long as they can.
But they know that Microsoft is a monopoly and has the power and that in the long run their lives will be more miserable and their companies more poorly served if they try to resist than if they go along.
Don't think that Microsoft can be successfully attacked by pointing out the truth about their products.
Apart from a few ideologues who believe that there's no such thing as a seller's market, and a somewhat larger number of people (MCSE's and the like) for whom Microsoft is the whole world), the truth about Microsoft is fairly well understood and it's irrelevant.
Intelligent criticism of Microsoft's products is irrelevant.
It's all a question of national policy now. If those in power continue to feel that what's good for Microsoft is good for the USA, alternatives will continue to be the Cords, the Tuckers, and the Nash Ramblers of the IT world--interesting machines with devoted hobbyist followings that are simply and safely ignored by the mainstream with real business to run.
How many of the people responding to statusbar actually read his whole post? He's NOT claiming MS quality is OK or as good as the phone company:
.99999 reliable telephone system that 1/3 of families can't afford, or a .999 reliable (in two tries at dialing) phone in every house?
Problems happen even with properly engineered systems. When an improperly designed system is put into place, all hell will break loose.
I'm not just talking Microsoft here, there is a real problem with companies/programmers seeing their system work once, and then assuming it is good enough to ship.
We've all seen examples of that. (And to be fair, MS does put it's products through quite a lot of testing -- the trouble is, they've made it possible to have far more configurations than it's possible to test, give the users few tools to figure out where things are going wrong, market the software as NOT requiring knowledgeable users or administrators, and create code that is beyond any one person's comprehension.)
But the phone company does maintain pretty good service, and no system can handle a 1000% overload well. But as someone else pointed out, they do have exchanges that handle a single-point overload without blocking other calls; the problem is that Ticket Master bought the wrong kind of service. I agree that phone availability in many parts of the US is less than what I'd really want for life-critical emergency services, however would you rather have a
MS operating systems have always been a point of annoyance for me. My current woe comes from XP's insistence that my 20 gig hard drive is full, even though 13 gigs are free. XP, the richest company in the world's flagship product, STILL won't shutdown correctly. This is some of the same behavior I've been subjected to since Win95.
Of course, this is all anecdotal. My list of complaints against XP can surely be countered by someone else's positive anecdotes. "XP brought me internal peace; Bill Gates made me one with the universe."
i am running numerous windows 2k servers around and the only time i had to reboot them is when the power went out for a long period (when we switched power substation), hardware failure, and patches. otherwise, it did 100% well.
most of the problems with regard to the desktop can be attributed to the user, hardware, and 3rd party software.
if you really put all the good stuff in a computer with proper integration and validation, it will run fine whether it is windows, linux, etc. the same thing holds true if your system sucks.
if a user is very smart enough to install programs that have certain software/hardware requirements, runs all applications at once (although this can be done in windows nt/2k/xp), drags files and folder to whatever place they see, changes this and that settings, the possibility of crashing is high
most of the crashes (from my experience) come from 3rd party application and not windows itself. some sensitive programs like adobe premiere, photoshop (if you really load a very big image), some plugins in the browser, mixup each other settings and file versions causing your computer to crash.
the bluescreen of death you will see most of the time can be repeated and the cause is from file corruption, hardware, and the software you are running.
well i should say that i've been running winxp since december and i didn't have any crashes yet.
last but not the least (though not directly connected with the topic), the latest version of windows use the latest advancement in cpu, graphics, memory, sound, etc. so it may be that the linux cannot handle all the new stuff is that it is not needed by the people using it.
so i will say that most problems are caused by other factors and not windows itself. i am willing to build you a windows system that will have a 99.9999% availability.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
:g/programmers/s//management/g
an AC (why?) flames,
> so your a linux supporter eh? but you don't think
> it's so hot, so that would not really make you a
> linux supporter then would it? interesting how you
> try so hard to pretend to be one then.
Yes, I am. I support the cause, and I run linux on both of my computers at work. BUT, I don't think there is room for complacency, and I don't think it is the best thing since sliced bread. That makes me a linux supporter, rather than a linux zealot. Is that wrong?
>> Linux is not a technologically advanced OS.
> what? you offer almost no explanation for this,
> other than that it would be nice not to have to
> be root to bind to low ports. the reality is that
> your just spreading FUD by saying that linux is
> just a copy of 30 year old unix.
OK. I am not a systems guru, so I don't know all the ways in which linux could be more modern. But I have taken enough classes to know that it could be improved:
- a microkernel architecture would increase portability, security, reduce the trusted code base, and facilitate code development
- capability-based security WOULD MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
- not writing the standard internet services in C would also make a huge difference! (I don't know if you consider these "part of the OS")
Anyway, it really is true that it is based on a 30 year-old design. Make of that what you will. (I did in my post say that it is a tried-and-true design, which I believe.)
> first, that has yet to happen, XP and 2000 are
> still rife with security flaws.
Now who is spreading FUD? =) I feel much safer about a default install of Win2k than I do about a Redhat install... Security issues exist in spades on both sides, and it is hard to say which one is really more "rife"...
> in the end though, talking about an immaterial
> 'joe user' who doesn't exist is counter
> productive.
OK, then Joe User is my dad. He is a smart guy, he can learn how use something if he cares enough, but he doesn't think that Win2K is that bad, and would never consider investing weeks to figure out linux. That is the kind of person I'm talking about. How do you convince him to use it?
> let's talk about reality, a real and
> growing number of users choose linux because of
> trust and freedom. the code garuntees that they
> are in control of their computer, that they will
> stay in control of it, and that the time they
> invest will not be turned agaist them in a
> vicious upgrade cycle. security and stability and
> performance are just icing on the cake when you
> look at it like that.
Well, like I said, it is free, and that's great. That is why I hope it succeeds. What I'm saying is that success is seeming more unlikely as the typical windows user is becoming less and less frustrated with how their windows box works. And I am hoping that linux zealots do not get too complacent!
(By the way, you mean to say "you're" many of the times you say "your".)
The nielsen program is *far* from being the only piece of software that is Windows-only.
Here, I'll give you a list of software I've used recently that I'm pretty sure does not run on linux:
Quake 3 1.31 (linux point releases always lag by several days or weeks)
Several other games
GB gamejack link software
Steinberg Nuendo
Steinberg WaveLab
Photoshop 6 (GIMP is ok for web graphics, but it does NOT have good support for print, which I need. Also, slices in ImageReady rock. GIMP should get this.)
Illustrator 9 (the linux alternatives are crap.)
VirtualDub
PowerDVD
Fontographer
...
Some of those, I bet, could be made to work in linux with a day of fooling around. But I don't have time to do that if linux is not going to offer me anything substantial in return. (And joe user, who cares much less about having source for his software, and doesn't know how to figure out how to run things in linux, is going to be even less likely to use linux.)
(NOW... for a unix that will soon support most/all of these: OSX. That will be interesting.)
Name calling like this is a really good way to take credibility away from your post. ...
I don't use Office, so I can't comment on how stable it is. All I can comment on is my own experience with 2000, which has been very good. (Others have given similar reports...)
Well, you are right the name calling was dumb. Allow me to explain.
Lies make me angry, and there's plenty of them aroun here. There are so many microturds around these days pumping up stuff that I know is terrible. They post all day about how wonderful this and that M$ junk is, try to make flames where they can, and are outrageous in general. If M$'s history of Astroturfing is a guide, most of these folks are paid to post their dishonesty. It makes me angry to hear people say that NT, w2k and what not are "solid", stable, or anything like that. I know that they are not and I know that the instability extends further than Office. In fact the instablilty applies to just about everything non M$ and a few M$ things. Applying the razor, we see that the root of the problem is what they all have in common, M$. Your experience is atypical or your standards of "very good" are low.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
The problem isn't that everything is helpless, the phone systems are simply messed up as well. Frankly I find their excuse incredibly lame. A bunch of people calling "Ticket Master" shouldn't flood any phone system, and it wouldn't if they had provided enough equipment.
I'm just sick with local telephone people, and the stupid regulations on the lines.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Case in point: OS/2. Far more stable that the Windows versions it compete against and with a much better UI, victory seemed assured for OS/2. Just as we started seeing news articles about OS/2 taking market share away from Windows, Microsoft came out with Windows 95, which was just enough more stable and had just enough of an improved UI that it wasn't worth installing OS/2 for most users. Especially since all the device drivers were being written for Windows first and OS/2 last (if at all.)
One of the biggest "selling points" of Linux is that it is so stable. It's no coincidence that Microsoft is playing up the stability and security of XP. They'll try to shore that up with some proprietary vendor lock-ins (.net anyone?) and it wouldn't surprise me if they start pursuing patent cases against individual open source developers as well.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Dave, wise up and get an Apple. New iLamps look George Jetsony but with OSX they will be far more relaible then any Wintel machine.
Has it occurred to anyone that it took someone with the initials "J.C." to get his windows up and running? Apparently JC often performs miracles.
You forgot that you're speaking to a /. crowd. The response to your (rational) suggestion that CS students take quality control classes will only be slapped down with a "D00d, I skipped coledge and still have all de ski11z I need"
That 20% QOS stuff is crap. Only apps that are coded for QOS will reserve 20%.
If your just doing file transfers, web browsing, you will always get 100% of the bandwidth not 80%!!!
I hate to break it to you, but those crashes aren't mythical. I have a win98 box at home that has NEVER ran more than 48 hours without crashing. It has installed:
Netscape 6, Star Office 6, Winzip, McAfee Virus Scan, Opera 5, CD recording software, and a handful of games.
I dual boot to Suse or Debian (depending upon my mood) on the same box without ever crashing.
This is not an exception. My roommates in college crashed their machines left and right. The public computing labs on campus all had a handful of unusable computers. My parent's machine crashes often. My siblings' machines crash at least once a week. I haven't met anyone in person that has a crash-free (or even crash-light) Windows PC.
If your machine is stable, I'm sincerely happy for you. But don't generalize your experience mean all Windows machines work great.
This is the dumbest article Ive ever read. The guy sits there and talks about his wart, but neglects to mention all the new 'toys' added to windows xp to make it 'more friendly', and you know what, they work :)
Ive been using windows since version 3.1, I just recently installed windows xp and have only needed to reboot once, I havent crashed, and it covered every peice of hardware on my computer (ME seemed to like to delete my network card)
linuxhelpnetwork.homelinux.net
Version X = "We didn't get it right the last X-1 times."
There are gonna be a lot of Windows versions.
Hmmm.... So basicly, you tried a bunch of different machines running XP and couldn't get anything working... Lets examine the common elements here. You and XP. Well, Seeing how many,many,many other people are running XP around the world without any problems, My guess would be that your a moron.
Similar results, though...
-Ben
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Interesting... in this argument, Windows is playing catch-up! Hasn't it always been the Penguin catching up?
Roll the clock forward 5 years, and you'll find that Microsoft is more like AOL/Time Warner than a software company.
"Use MSN! 40,000 Free Hours! *for 30 days"...
-Ben
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I'm glad to hear someone else say that they are not particularly impressed with the Gnome and KDE managers. It's exactly like the older version of windows as mentioned above. The KDE mail program? I just don't get it. The Netscape mail is far better. While I do use Win2K, it's while running Mandrake 8.0 and VMware.
"I bought Windows 2.0, Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1415926, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows RSVP, The Best of Windows, Windows Strikes Back, Windows Does Dallas, and Windows Let's All Buy Bill Gates a House the Size of Vermont."
Maybe he implied he tried it (Windows 2000), but he didn't mention it like he did with the other "real" versions. *shrug*
As for me, I used to have a few problems with Windows 98, but nothing to make me a closed minded Linux user. I installed Windows 2000 and never looked back at another Win* again (nor have I looked ahead (see: Windows XP)). And yes, I do have a Linux box, and I've been running Linux for years. I love both operating systems, and must always have both available and running in order to "survive."
proton != antielectron
I bought Windows 2.0, Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1415926, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows RSVP, The Best of Windows, Windows Strikes Back, Windows Does Dallas, and Windows Let's All Buy Bill Gates a House the Size of Vermont.
There's the problem. Windows 2000 and XP are far more stable than any of those. I find Windows 2000 to be more stable than gnome/linux. I haven't used XP enough to compare.
Of course I'm writing this on Gnome/Linux because it's gotten to the point where I only have to reboot every few days.
POTS != "Proper" old telephone service.
But when KDE or GNOME locked up on you, did you try Ctrl+Alt+ (F1 through F6)? That should bring you to a text console. From there you should be able to log in and kill -9 without the frustration of rebooting your machine.
I don't believe Linux is viable for the home users that don't care to learn more than absolutely necessary about the workings of their operating system (which I believe is the vast majority of PC users). It is getting closer, but the gap is still huge.
is that we will see Dave Barry introduce a Microsoft OS release or product within the next two years.
You see, that's the problem EXACTLY. I shouldn't HAVE to watch what I install. (trojans and such aside) An operating system should be able to recover from errors due to poorly written software without having to reboot, or god forbid, reinstall because one or more DLLs got corrupted and the system's no longer usable.
Broken registries and DLL corruption are the primary cause of the operating system going tits-up. You don't see this in *nixes because of permissions on critical system files. Not to mention there are very few files that can get borked that will actually put the system in a non-usable state.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Since he didn't bother to check out Windows stability with someone professional, he gets what he deserves. Lord knows I'm no Microsoft fan (Linux and MacOSX, in that order for me), but 95/98/ME were never meant for stability, they were meant for compatibility. He could have moved to NT or 2000 and gotten a much much stable platform, at the cost of being incompatible with his favorite cycle-sucking screensavers, etc.
I'm confused. Why would I buy the most expensive software for my network? Why would I submit to a restrictive license that borders on theft of content? Why do business with a company that keeps secret/personal data on thier customers? Why would I chose software that simply cannot handle large networks with any promise of stability? Server software? Microsoft? Suuuure... leave those security issues to me 'cause it's not M$s responsibility. I could go on and on.
Let's be real, WinNT Pack5 and Win2000 Pack2 are acceptable platforms. But when considered with all the rest, it's a piss poor record as a company. In fact, they're famous for it. All that just for a decent small office network? Thanks M$, but I'd rather have the million dollars my company has wasted on you liars this past year back!
Why would I go near a company like M$? They are famous for being the biggest bastards in the history of the corporate world. They are the Monsanto of software. Let's be real.
It's not M$ bashing, it's simply a customer reaction to being treated like dirt and made to pay for it all those years. Microsoft... I'll never, ever, buy one of your products again and will recommend to everyone who will listen to use ANYTHING else! Am I wrong?
It looks like you used microsoft spell checker too...
I don't see systems exceeding their engineered capacity as a failure of engineering. It would certainly be possible to build a switch which can handle the spice girls tickets plus the normal traffic, or a highway which can handle 5Y cars. However these would cost money. What would be a failure of engineering if the system didn't handle the extra load gracefully. If picking up the phone caused the switch to crash and loose all the calls.
I find it interesting that USA Today printed an anti-M$ letter in today's edition. Granted, the user evidently hasn't got much of a clue about how viruses work, but the disgruntled chord is still there.
i managed to get my fathers brand new compaq machine with XP on it to hard reboot itself just by clicking "Switch Users" 15 minutes after starting to use it... not to mention that 2000 crashes CONSTANTLY. Windows stability is simply a myth, anyone who says otherwise is either blinding themselves or doesn't have a lot of experience using it.
got drum'n'bass?
http://mp3.com/vitriolix
Dave made his point pretty easy to understand.
Here's my reason guys chose Windows over Mac.
Here it is...
Guy: Hey Geek, I'm looking to get a computer, but I want to make sure I can upgrade it and get all the good toys with it. What kind of computer should I get?
Geek: Hey Guy. Upgradablility and toys? I can get you a great price (Geek bragging rights) from (insert favorite PC manufacturer here).
The PC had all the good toys and games. Even if it was harder to use (see Dave Barry's point), a guy will still buy the one that's upgradable and has the best toys.
Remember, Geeks recommened upgradable PCs with the cool toys, because they remembered how fscking annoying it was that you couldn't run game X on the Mac, and you couldn't upgrade the video card, or run this specific program, yada yada yada yada...
Bonus: Figuring out thier PC gave a man bragging rights back in the day...
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
YES!
That is the least funny roast of Windows I've ever read. I recognize his attempts at humor; they're all just terrible. What's next on your laundry list, Dave? Websites with popup ads? Hang it up, Barry. You're comedy is worse than that featured in the pathetically unfunny comic strip "Cathy."
I'm never going back to Win98se. Never. I'm using Win2k right now and its much faster than 98se and it never crashes. As for XP, don't bash it until you've used it. I tried it, and was very impressed, though I had a few minor complaints and am sticking with 2k. Both 2k and XP beat 95/98/98se/ME in reliability, speed, features, etc. XP may look like a kiddie OS after installing, but if you're a serious power user, you will get it running exactly like you want.
In conclusion, I would ask that you please introduce me to the person who died and made you The Arbiter of What Is and What Is Not Humor
My post was itself a joke. You may not find it funny, as numerous moderators didn't. What can I tell ya? YMMV and all that. Toodle-loo.
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
I find it interesting that every time there's any mention of Microsoft or any version of Windows on Slashdot, about twenty posters jump on and start shouting to the treetops about how insanely stable and all-powerful Windows 2000 has been for them as an OS. Even if it hasn't been mentioned at all or isn't under discussion.
For what it's worth, we tested Windows 2000 and found it to be so-so: not much more stable than NT 4 and certainly a hog if Active Directory was being used. Most of our clients found no compelling reason to upgrade and the few who have purchased any Win2K licenses are using them to run NT4 boxes. Microsoft's attempt to force everyone into an upgrade cycle that suits them(Microsoft) better has at least one of our clients actively pursuing a conversion away from Microsoft not only on the servers but potentially on the desktop as well. The surprising boost last year in our Microsoft sales came from some our clients stocking up on license packs for expiring OS's.
First off, I am not an expert on anything. I have been using Windows since 3.1. I have used 95, 98, and now I use XP. I also run Redhat 7.2 and Freesco as my home router. Having crashed my Windows computers many, many times, I have learned a few things, the main one being don't install crap software. My Windows 98 SE box stays up for weeks at the time, which of course doesn't compare to my Linux machines. That is because I have the Windows machine just like I want it, and I LEAVE IT ALONE! I think that the main problem with Windows is people buy piece-of-shit hardware and expect it to run flawlessly. I have found that 7 out of 10 times (your milage may vary) that friends ask me to "fix" their machines, it is not windows that causes the crash, it is crap hardware: cheap memory, error riddled hard drives, crappy mobos, etc. I'm no disciple of Redmond, but for 90% of the population, Windows is the only alternative. This is simply because linux has a mystique to it that scares "computer illiterate" types away, and Windows is SO simple to use (not configure). Most people are scared out of their minds by a command prompt, and even though Linux is now "pretty" (X), there are some things that cannot be done from a graphical environment. I know this list is getting shorter, but come on. Anyway, I know this is a little long, but I think that Windows and Linux are both great OSes, but they both have their strong points, and their weaknesses. Just don't hate one because you use the other.
I heard somewhere that MCSE was an abbreviation for Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert.
There are a few others here as well.
Definitions of MCSE
Hmm... How's that thing go about a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent? ;)
So, you revert to your fourth-grade (maybe) years to insult me because you don't know what a core dump is? I guess I know when I've been "licked".
:o
There are some analogies between Windows and OS/2. OS/2 was more expensive. It touted security. The reason Windows won at my workplace was not because it was cheaper, but because of compatibility. Yeah, we had some DOS based apps that OS/2 ignored (at least until it was too late). Were they good? Easy to use? Nope, didn't matter. But everyone needed them to get their job done.
Windows didn't ignore compatibility (well mostly), and won. We're really talking TCO of the entire software base, including training, etc, rather than cost of the OS.
So if it is about "cost and freedom vs compatibility", don't underestimate the cost inherent in that compatibility card. MS is playing it in Office apps, and everywhere they can.
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
These exchanges are specifically designed to communicate back to other COs when a crush of calls happen. Those COs back off and return busy to everyone in the CO trying to get that number for a period of time to prevent the end-point CO from going down. ie, they don't even attempt to complete the call.
No exchange should devote it's last resource to a non emergency call. Sort of like the filesystem reserve for root in Unix. They should be designed so that you can allways get a dialtone, and if you dial 911, you get through, even if a non 911 call must be dropped to do it. If the call turns out to not be to 911, then give the circuits busy message and drop the call.
Okay! I'll concede that I'm using a highly obsolete Computer Platform.
My A2000 is a 1987 design, and my machine is over ten years old.
Current OS is AmigaOS3.5 which I've used for two years.
BUT..... when my machine crashes, it re-starts without complaint 99.5% of the time!
Some times it locks-up, so I resort to the three-finger-salute or I switch it off! No problems upon re-start.
Actually, there is NO shut-down procedure! As long as no drive access is occurring one simply switches off!
And..........I like the fact that it is so rare that no 'script kiddies' bother to spread any "Hi! I'm writing to you to ask your help" nonsense that would cause me grief!
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
Mac OS X, which is about the only modern desktop OS I can think of that uses a microkernel, has been badly slated for its performance by a number of people, and I would be surprised if their decision to opt for the Mach kernel was not at least partly to blame.
That may be true. I actually think it's all of the fancy GUI stuff that makes it seem slow, but I don't have any way to back that up. I do believe that performance of the kernel itself (except for a few very important parts) is not all that critical these days. Computers are damn fast, and time spent in the parts of the kernel I'm talking about (ie, file systems) is not particularly significant.
What would you want to write the standard internet services in if not in C? As a system-level programming language it has retained its commanding place for good reasons, especially its excellent performance. Please explain what you believe would be better?
Well, I think any modern language would be better. Java (natively compiled) would be ok if the programmer needs the language to be C-like, but personally I think SML (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6343&cid=9296 97) or O'Caml would be a much better choice. These languages are safe (NO more buffer overflows or memory leaks, not even "null pointer exceptions"), powerful, AND fast.
You can read a long post about this here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=24271&cid=2629 013. (being a student of languages I admittedly get fired up about this stuff, but I do think my points are more than just dogma!)
The short version is: My ftp daemon is 3000 lines of SML (including MD5 crypt implementation). I wrote it in one weekend and it has no buffer overflows. WU_FTPD is 24,000 lines (not including PAM MD5 implementation), took a long time (?) to write, and has had buffer overflows (and other bugs not possible in my program) in the past, and probably still does.
I will bet that my ftp server is about as fast as wu_ftpd, and could be just as fast with some tuning (the post above has links to C vs SML benchmarks). But most importantly: speed is a total non-issue in network apps, because the real bottleneck is the network itself. I can easily saturate my 100 megabit connection with my ftp server and the CPU load won't go above a few percent.
agree that the basic Win2K setup is probably roughly as safe as a RedHat install.
I think all point-oh redhat versions that I can think of shipped with remote root holes, right? Even the first version of win2k doesn't ship with default remote holes (though it is easy to get IIS by accident). I guess XP does, though. (I am not claiming that Windows *or* linux are typically secure!)
Historically, Microsoft has had a hell of a lot more by the way of "issues" than anyone else.
They have had more widespread fallout from issues because of unsophisticated users and because more people use it, but I don't think they have had more issues. I read bugtraq, and holes in linux apps are just as common as Windows (in my estimation).
Linux will win, not because of having finer ideals, nor because it espouses open standards and public liberty, but because its' cheap.
Lots of people pointed this out (microsoft's new licensing schemes), which I wasn't really thinking about in my new post. Maybe that will be enough to sell linux. But Microsoft is pretty good in the marketplace; what makes us think they won't be able to compete with a free product? (Remember, it doesn't cost them anything to duplicate their OS, either.)
Of all the stupid-ass misspellings of Microsoft, I actually found this one pretty funny. =)
Linux has had its share of stupid ass holes itself. If you think our code is so great, take a look at the PAM MD5_crypt code, really read it, and think again...
anyone in the miami area up for this? if he in fact was willing, would probably require file conversion, some hand-holding, along with install. but he might get a column or two out of it, worldwide audience.
You're wrong about this. I won't try to convince you about subjective things, like it being "easier to use" (but really, 3000 lines to 24,000 lines should speak something...), but I want to clear up your misunderstandings:
1. Since algorithmic changes can make such a difference, if you read the page closely you'll see that some of the benchmarks are "same way" benchmarks, some of them are "same thing" benchmarks. "same way" ones specify an algorithm and make you implement it that way. The fibonacci one is like that, not because the author doesn't know that you can use an accumulator or memoization, but because he wants to test the speed of that style of recursion. There is NOTHING about SML that makes you unable to easily write an efficient (algorithmically and instruction-level) fibonacci function.
Here, I really want to prove this to you, so I ran mlton (a fast ML compiler for linux) on the following code for factorial (the same accumulator technique applies to fib, and it's the way you'd want to write the function):
(* fact (n,a) with n >= 0 gives a * (n!) *)
fun fact (0,acc) = acc
| fact (n,acc) = fact (n - 1, n * acc)
Here is the (important part of) the assembly code you get out:
fact_0:
movl (32*1)(%ebp),%esi
testl %esi,%esi
jz L_84
L_23:
movl %esi,%edi
decl %edi
movl (28*1)(%ebp),%edx
imull %esi,%edx
movl %edi,(32*1)(%ebp)
movl %edx,(28*1)(%ebp)
jmp fact_0
Just for kicks, here's gcc -O3's version of
int fact(int n) {
int acc = 1;
while (n > 0) {
acc *= n;
n --;
}
return acc;
}
fact: .L3
.L4:
.L4
pushl %ebp
movl %esp,%ebp
movl 8(%ebp),%edx
movl $1,%eax
testl %edx,%edx
jle
imull %edx,%eax
decl %edx
testl %edx,%edx
jg
GCC did a really nice job with this one, the main differences being the block layout and register allocation. I don't even know if using the stack instead of registers is a big deal on the x86, since I seem to recall that it will make pseudo-registers out of stack slots. Either way, these are both back-end issues that could be fixed (the mlton native backend is only a few months old); they don't have anything to do with fundamental properties of the language.
SML is coming in at something like half the speed of C at best on almost all of them, and in most cases far far worse than that.
All right, I think this is a real exaggeration, so I really have to call your bluff on this one. I went and compared all of the tests. SML, is in these benchmarks, on average, 1.91x slower than than C. O'caml is 1.44 times slower. At best, SML is 5.88 times faster than C, at worst, 5.22 times slower (it does badly in the highly array-intensive code like matrix multiplication because of bounds checking). O'Caml is at best 4.5 times faster than C, at worst, only 2.65 times slower. (I wish I had also tabulated g++; but my guess is that it falls around where SML is.)
So, even if you hate SML, I hope you will reconsider your notion that it is inefficient!
Of course, I still maintain that actual program speed is meaningless for network servers (how many CPU seconds has your ftp server used?). Having 0 buffer overflows is extremely meaningful, though, and *that* would get linux a reputation as a secure OS.
I should clarify; didn't really mean features, but library functionality. Try writing an SML GUI for X.
Well, there are GTK bindings and stuff, but I'll agree that library support is not good for interactive apps. For writing network servers, library support is just fine, and it is easy to interface to C libraries.
Blitz! *runs to car*