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."
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?
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
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 linux is free, which is great, but what else?
Hmmm. Let me think. It's also open-sourced. Yes, I know, very few people actually go through the source. But it's there. There are no really hidden APIs (besides those in obfuscated code). Any knowledgable programmer can use it and change it for his own advantage. And regardless, isn't the fact that it's free - completely, no strings attached, free - a good enough reason?
And besides, I don't want a really stable Windows if I have to worry about what it's sending when it calls home.
I like my privacy, thank you very much.
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.
Many banks are using Windows NT for their CAT machines. They do have strict procedures on what get install (minimal), and how every updates get installed remotely (via their own UNIX network controllers).
NT configured correctly can be reliable considering how little work the CAT machine actually need.
Siemens, NCR/AT&T do produce topnots CAT/ATM machines with IBM/AT core for banks to be customized with their own OSes, often to be Windows NT. The IBM/AT core allow them to sell these boxes cheaply and still satisfy the conformity needed for almost all CAT/ATM machines that banks want. Specially made cryptocards can be added/removed/upgrade very quickly and do not require a complete redesign/code rewrite for the machines.
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!)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It is clear to me that you've never used a Mac. We've seen the UNIX and Windows arguments so for completeness sake, here's the Mac argument. Mac in this comment refers to Mac OS X 10.1.2.
From first hand experience, a well-administrered Win2k network is a god-send, especially for most "lusers".
From first hand experience, a Mac is a god-send, especially for most "lusers" straight out of the box with no configuration required.
Second, I have no idea why you would think you need to get into DOS to repair an error
I'm yet to experience an error which required at absolute worst a reboot to fix. For the record, I have no real problems with reboots so I use it as a magical fix-all a fair bit, there was likely a way to avoid the reboot but I didn't look for it. Also, this would have happened less than 10 times in what is almost a year of OS X usage now.
Finally, Win2k/XP is such an amazing jump forward in stability compared to 95/98 that its laughable you would deny this. The NT based OS's are the only reedeming feature of the entire histroy of MS OSen.
The BSD underpinnings of OS X are simply delightful. They not only provide exceptional stability and all the other UNIX advantages that NT tries to bring to Windows, but also a really nice, powerful command line to use if you want it either for remote administration or just because that's how you like to work. Most importantly though, the command line isn't required - everything a normal user is going to want to do can be done with the GUI.
True, I have had my share of killed tasks - but then again if you've ever tried to run Netscape on FreeBSD you know the feeling. Bad programs crash. All I ask of the OS is that it doesn't puke when a mal-behaved program dies.
This is a very good point - bad programs do crash, however the OS shouldn't just stay afloat, but continue to work seamlessly. Ever crashed Nero (or probably any other CD burning software)? You suddenly can't burn CDs anymore until you reboot. No such problems on OS X. Ever installed software on Windows - reboot! Much less frequent on OS X though a lot of software has the annoying habit of using a reboot instead of simply running the appropriate startup scripts. Since these scripts are easy to find you can do this manually if you want.
I think in a general sense you miss what typical users, business users, and power users want from a deskop operating. All they really want is to never have to reboot their machine when they don't want to. Win2k made admirable strides in that direction. My first impressions of XP are that the trend continues, though not with the dramatic leaps that a 95->Win2k upgrade would see.
If that's what they want they should undoubtably be using UNIX. Mac OS X is a good UNIX for this but not the best due to the range of programs that claim they require a reboot but don't really need it. Still, you reboot OS X far less than even Windows XP. I would suggest that users want more than this however.
As for security holes - properly setup machines are key.
Bzzt. Bad software design alert! There is no reason that a shipping OS should have security risks turned on. A lot of Linux distros get this wrong and Windows definitely does. Mac OS X seems to get it right however. The root account is disabled encouraging people to use sudo (as is common on BSD systems), software update is set to run weekly, services are all turned off by default and most importantly, the latest copy of the OS is installed on new computers. Things fall behind a bit in the distribution channel but generally when the OS is installed onto new Apple computers, it is the latest version. Windows may run windows update automatically, but newer versions of the OS should be injected straight into the supply chain instead of continuing to create outdated products.
I never attach any desktop to the Internet directly. That includes my Red Hat boxes as well as my Windows machines. Its simply not smart. A nice router/firewall is key to security in any environment - from 1 to 10,000 PCs.
Good for you. Many people don't want to waste time and money to get this kind of thing set up and working. Providing a secure OS is the first step to having a secure system and you should never rely on your firewall/router to protect you (multiple levels of security provide the best security, "give the bastards nothing" mentality).
Second, with a well thoughout and comprehensive security policy you will never feel the pinch of these brazen security holes. WinXP has had one major security bug (UPnP) discovered so far - the vast majority of WinXP users were patched before an exploit has even been developed.
I would tend to suggest that most WinXP boxes are still unpatched and, I haven't checked this, but I wouldn't be surprised if MS is still shipping copies of XP without the security patch. Also, the comprehensive security policy should be enabled by default, you shouldn't have to set it up yourself. Mac OS X to my knowledge has had no remote root exploits and only a couple of other security issues. OS X very clearly has had fewer security issues than any other OS currently available and being almost a year old now, it's not like it's that big a new comer that noone has been looking into it.
The last 6-months have lead to a serious uptick in MS's comittment to security. I expect it to only get better.
Better does not instill much confidence. Apple has a brilliant record for security in the past (okay, so OS 9 lacking a command line was a big advantage to that, but still) so MS has a long way to go to catch up. No points for improvement from me, only points for achieving.
All and all, I can say that Win2k is a great desktop OS. I really think that most of your problems lie in poor administration, poor implementation, and incorrect configuration. And those problems can bring down ANY operating system faster than any silly bug or virus.
Ahh, but if the OS comes poorly configured to start with than it's the OS's fault, not the users. There is absolutely no reason why Windows couldn't be configured properly when it is first installed.
Now a little bit of info on my computing experience: on my desk is a Windows XP box and a Mac OS X laptop. In the corner is a Linux server, firewall and router, at work is a Windows 98 box and a big beefy Solaris server. I've had 3 years plus experience with Windows, Mac and Linux so I'm well positioned to compare all three.
In summary, I prefer the Mac for most things because it just works, I don't have to tweak it all the time. I like Linux because it sits in the corner and does it's job tirelessly and without having to be checked up on - plus it's remote administration abilities are second to none. I don't have any reason to like Windows because it provides me no benefits over OSX and Linux and because it needs so much tweaking to get it into a usable state. However it is the pick of the OSs for games. So there is no answer for which OS is better, but rather which OS is better for a particular task and a particular user.