Slashdot Mirror
The Very Worst Uses of Windows
bigplrbear writes "I found an interesting article revealing the many places that Microsoft products reside, and what they're used for, ranging from elevators to ticket scanners."
From the article: "Thanks to VMWare Windows is spreading throughout the datacenter. And, of course, there is only one operating system to use if you are dependent on Microsoft apps like Outlook, Word, and Excel. While I have joined the chorus of security folks who rail against the Microsoft Monoculture I still cannot believe some of the uses for Windows. Some of them are just downright silly, some you may claim are criminally negligent." Note: I'm making no claim of criminal negligence!
I'm all for having a "lol" at stupidly overcomplicated systems being used for the most mundane of tasks, but this article is a little sketchy on some of the details.
For example, one line states "Why not program some stripped down embedded system for that task?" when it doesn't even indicate what version of Windows the system he's talking about uses - there IS an embedded version of Windows available for such tasks, you know.
The article is still a good read, though, but I'd take what it's saying with a pinch of salt and don't just immediately start bashing Microsoft, after all it's not their fault if a sysadmin makes a stupid design choice or 10.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Medical equipment: I confirm. My cousin is an engineer for General Electric, Medical section. As far as I know he services cardiac echography equipment. From what he told me, they all run Windows. Of course, this isn't life threatening, but I do know he's hardware guy and it wouldn't be the first time he calls me for a software problem in his job.
While not in this case, a BSOD may mean real "D" these days in a hospital.... Sad, but true...
While I agree this is questionable, I don't think they are connected to the internets (at least I hope not). So, the whole virus/worm fear is probably irrational.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Another problem with overbloated systems running simple tasks is the huge draw of electricity. How much power could we save (and, therefore, money) by using bloated systems less for simple things?
An obvious observation, but I thought I'd make it.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
Management OTOH are complete fucking idiots, they'll always go with the inferior solution from the hardworking salesman. One day we'll have managers who'll think, "this salesman is working harder than the others because he knows his product isn't as good"
In my experience management tends to go for the product that has the best clicky-pends and coffee mugs and complimentary dinners. That being said, the same management is in a sealed off part of the building with high security locks and a separate parking area with a security guard and barbed wire fencing. I wonder what they know that they don't want us to know.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
During the birth of my first daughter, the fetal heart monitor was connected to a Windows box. Trust me, the last thing you want to see in the middle of a long, difficult and painful birth is a BSOD...especially when the doctor is desperately searching for a heartbeat.
I have no reservations about it. Given the constant stream of complaints that Bill Gates himself had about the quality and stability of Windows, I'd say it is pretty safe to assume that Microsoft is WELL aware of problems with Windows. And for Microsoft to actively push their OS as a platform upon which important, significant and even critical systems and services are run without disclosing the KNOWN risks of using Windows under such circumstances is criminal negligence or even worse.
Once again, resorting to the old "car analogy", if an auto manufacturer were caught pushing their dressed-up SUVs as actual ATVs, I think it's safe to say that various consumer protection agencies and possibly the department of justice might get involved.
How does Microsoft get away with this? Simple -- they are the only game in town and as such is typically viewed as "the best we have." To complain that the best is not good enough would be considered by most to be a wasted effort.
"Critical Mass"
Microsoft achieved it and now most tech people know only Microsoft Windows and will deploy only Microsoft Windows for any given task.
It's good that some people like the NYSE has found Windows lacking and that better alternatives exist for their specialized tasks.
I don't think anyone will argue that Windows on the desktop is acceptable for a lot of people, especially those people who don't have people like me to help them use other systems. If they are on their own, trying to use Linux or even MacOS might leave them out in the cold or under rather EXPENSIVE support costs. (A lone user can barely throw a stone without hitting someone who can deftly advise them to reboot and reinstall.)
But to put Windows in SPECIALIZED applications and devices makes no sense. "Compatibility" isn't an issue there. "Usability" isn't an issue there. "Stability" and "reliability" are often the most important considerations with cost as a third or fourth. (I don't have a second most important consideration, but I'm pretty sure the fifth is "profit!!")
And in my experience managers tend to go with the solution that the largest percentage of the population and staff use. Granted the trend towards Microsoft software is on the downside but they are still king of the hill. For now.
You can't expect people to just up and leave software that they're familiar with. I reference college students where I work. We have two rooms, similarly laid out. One room has HP DC7600s, the other Intel iMacs. People chose the room with the HPs showing the typical Windows screensaver over the Macs (which dual boot!) - why? Because it's friggin familiar. And you can't change that by saying the software is crap, because there isn't a usable alternative that appeals to the masses.
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
What you can't get for mac is Access...
What can an app written in VBScript+Access do that an app written in Python+SQLite can't?
You can't expect people to just up and leave software that they're familiar with.
While that sounds good it doesn't wash. It depends what you are setting up to do. If you want a permissive, bug ridden system where most of your company's bandwidth is used for P2P and every three months your clients call you to tell you their computer has slowed to a crawl, go ahead and use Windows.
If you are running a class where you are developing software that runs on Windows, then use Windows. Fine. If you want to run a Windows Only App, and it won't run in Wine or there is no Mac equivalent, then no probs, you win, go for Microsoft.
But if you want a system where the idea is to minimize the cost of installing and maintaining terminals, maximize the portability of people's computer setups, and give people enough freedom to play without crippling everyone else's system, then go for a thin client model using Linux or BSD. For most people there is no 'familiarity' problem in clicking on an icon, doing stuff and then going 'File -> Save' then 'File - Quit' or finding a the little X in the top right corner.
And who ever said you had to use a mac?
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
>Management OTOH are complete fucking idiots
Management is always somebody else, isn't it?
You never get promoted and that's somebody else's failure.
yes, but you make decisions based on available information, provided by that monitor.
MP3 Search Engine
Because the CEO pushed to be a microsoft partner and is too stupid to understand what his engineers are telling him.
It happens a LOT.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What can an app written in VBScript+Access do that an app written in Python+SQLite can't?
Execute without a complete rewrite?
Better known as 318230.
Windows 3.11 wasn't a truly multitasking operating system, so that, if an application was doing something in between Windows messages, it genuinely owned the whole machine. If you are doing a near real time system, you probably don't want to lose a time slot in the middle of a roller coaster ride so that some other daemon could fire off and do something else. So yeah, Windows 3.11 might actually work rather well, so long as the application wasn't trying to allocate too many resource handles.
Actually, I wonder why MS wouldn't release a non-preemptive Windows, just for this purpose. It would be a lot more reliable for some applications.
This is my sig.
Being a manager is hard enough without gitch religious trolls twitching their flaming tech tongues in a business vacuum.
There are bad managers / administrative departments out there. Lots of them. They are as good as the facts and information they receive, sure, but they are also as good as their intelligence and integrity. Someone once asked me "why are our admins so freakin' stupid and incompetent?" to which I answered "because if they weren't they wouldn't be working here for wages but at successful company X with its expanding markets and sweet result driven bonuses."
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
It's a DIEBOLD ATM with a _headphone jack_
The headphone jack is an assistive device. It's sometimes called a "talking ATM". The idea is that a blind person can be prompted through the screens. (Notice the braille dots near the jack.)
But yeah, the domain not available thing is funny.
With Windows, if something goes wrong, you can contact the hardware manufacturer (If it's hardware/driver-related) or Microsoft if it's software related. And if they won't help, you can sue them. You can't say the same about *nix, where the prevailing attitude seems to be "It don't work, you're on your own to find a fix"
Read a EULA lately, there is a line voiding Microsoft of any responsibility. *nix, plenty of paid for support out there, Novell (SuSe), Canonical (Ubuntu), Red Hat (think this one is obvious) and those are just distributions. A lot of the bigger more important packages have commercial backing and support. I should mod you flame bait, but never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
So why not just reboot the peripheral's driver and keep going? Heck, if the driver's going to crash /anyway/, and you have the choice between killing the driver and killing the entire OS, it seems like a pretty sound decision to kill just the driver. Even if in some cases this isn't useful, crashing the entire machine is never useful.
"While that sounds good it doesn't wash. It depends what you are setting up to do. If you want a permissive, bug ridden system where most of your company's bandwidth is used for P2P and every three months your clients call you to tell you their computer has slowed to a crawl, go ahead and use Windows."
The last person to use our lab equipment for P2P had his associated UNIX account probshelled for 6 months. 6 months of no e-mail, no internet, no lab access.
And for the record, our DeepFreeze'd machines along with hard-disk images results in one machine out of 50 going bad in about a 6 month period.
I don't know where you work, but those symptoms sound more indicative of user (or administrative) stupidity.
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
Sue them for what? Microsoft makes no guarantees. Read your license agreement.
Agreed. Windows should have no place running medical equipment. There should be embedded, thoroughly tested solutions that use some sort of real-time kernel, and it should be the law. How the hell could they think of using Windows on a piece of equipment that needs to be running to save people's lives? It's asinine and scary as hell! The timings on many of these medical devices need to be guaranteed. Running a full OS on these devices is overkill, and it opens the device up to any problems of said OS... and we all know the laundry list of problems Windows has. Let's get some VxWorks or Linux RT up in here!
If the only thing the computer needs to do is show an arrow, I'm really not sure why Windows is necessary,
Why is a computer necessary? A plastic sign would do just as well.
The writer of this article is making an assumption and then wandering around to find ANY justification. His specific example Number 5 [Train control] - he basically 'thinks' that a train is controlled by Window based on a converesation with someone and then looks for a justification for his opinion. No-where in the PDF he links does it say the train control system runs on Windows. It does say that the external plug-in management software is based on Windows [on a laptop I presume] but so what ? - that's common for many out-of-band management tools. I'm no windows fan at all [I think in the embedded sphere it's not advisable] but this article smacks of sensationalist and badly-researched reporting.
Until you have to lay someone off, you can eat a dick. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Good management will make decisions that don't negatively affect the productivity and profitability of their department while keeping their staff happy AND employed.
I happen to think my team members' livelihoods are more important than my opportunity to appear ingenious. If that makes me look like a fucking idiot to you, fine - I DON'T ANSWER TO YOUR SUBORDINATE ASS. The people I DO answer to fully understand why I made the decisions I made, and they approve.
I can't afford to move my team over to Linux without having either alternate placement for my existing windows based team, or adequate funding and time to make them productive on the new systems - so it ain't happening.
Only a truly shitty manager would think it was worth it to release a team of productive, honest employees to implement a system that is only "better" in a debatable sense.
It's worse for use as a desktop OS than some of the other examples in that list. Building controls, manufacturing controls and SCADA networks are, for instance, examples where Windows is actually passable. Why? A very controlled environment and lack of Internet connectivity. The main source of memory leaks and degradation over time is third-party sources, whether applications or drivers. Windows still has a significant number of inherent security flaws, but in these applications the systems should not be connected to the general Internet. This makes it a lot more difficult for an attacker to access the system.
The control over installed third-party systems and lack of external systems connectivity means that Windows tends to be a lot more stable in these environments than on an average desktop PC. The greatly reduces the potential for the jokes about "viruses" and "Trojans" on these systems the author joked about. It's not necessarily the best tool, as a custom Unix or Linux OS can provide much better general uptime and the ability to potentially fix any issues yourself, but it can be an adequate tool.
Regardless of what else I may do, I am certainly not a Windows expert.
I am taking no extraordinary measures in the day to day operation of my gaming PC.
I run as a limited user.
I patch Windows monthly.
I don't run software that claims to put "HAWT NUDE CHIXXXORZ" "RIGHT ON YOUR DESKTOP!".
It's simple, really.
Many organizations buy into the luster of colorful brochures, happy sales reps, and the idea of the universality of Windows. They just assume there's a guarantee too.
Besides, Linux is a fad, and you know it's made by hackers, and hackers are evil, and it's a variant of UNIX, but it might be illegal too so you'll get in trouble with SCO or Novell or HP or somebody for using it, and besides no two Unixen are the same, etc. etc. etc.
It's simple, really.
So simple that nobody does it, for reasons unknown to anyone.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
With Linux there is no accountability.
I don't know if you're a troll or an idiot, but the end result is the same. This is utter and complete bullshit.
My company wouldn't have several dozen fully-paid-up RHEL server licenses if we weren't damn sure who was accountable. We'd slap CentOS or something similar up and save a few bucks.
And if Linux isn't good enough for you, you go with something solid and reliable like Solaris or maybe AIX or possibly (depending on the application) a stripped-down high-reliablility embedded OS. You don't go with some rinky-dink toy like Windows. That's bordering on negligence right there. You can't sue Lego if you rebuild your car's chassis using their plastic bricks, and then get in a auto accident and discover you have no crumple zone. It's not Lego's fault you tried to do something insanely stupid. Using Windows for any sort of critical app where people's lives may be at risk is nearly as stupid and negligent as driving around with nothing but small plastic bricks between you and the SUV in the next lane.
(This story so obviously needed a car analogy.) :)
Agree that it is silly to deploy full OSes for anything like these examples from the article provide.
One thing to note is how many companies are STILL using Win9X based Windows for simple deployments, as most of the examples of the BSOD is the Win9X version. OS/2 is still used at a lot of terminal based installation from banks to cash registers, and not only sadly outdated but overkill and underkill at the same time when you consider the hardware it is running on that has been updated.
One thing the article misses is that there are 'small' and stable versions of Windows that would make a better replacement for most of these usage example. (One of the examples is talking about Windows Embedded but the author doesn't realize such a thing exists, as they are referencing the system as 'Windows' when it is a newer Windows Embedded system.
The funny thing is that Microsoft themselves would not support or endorse the usage of Windows (especially Win9X) in the examples given in the article. This is where ignorance of the developers/implementors is the problem, not Windows or Microsoft.
When you can get Windows Embedded or Windows CE for a tiny fraction of the cost, and use any development from 'regular' Windows on these OSes/Devices there is no reason to be deploying a full OS install on devices or device type applications.
I know everyone would like to yell Linux or (insert your favorite OS here) is the best OS to use in these circumstances, but there are times when Windows is the right choice, and does work better, just not a full installation that is poorly done.
As for NT memory leaks and the guy having to go out to reboot the system. That is a bit of hyperbole that is obvious if you know anything about NT or used it even during that timeframe.
1) Windows NT always has had a scheduler
2) NT also has always had a very good set of scripting abilities from a .cmd or DOS .bat file to even VB Basic applications that ran on it when it shipped and took a few seconds to write it to do whatever you needed. (Hence MS adding VB scripting to Windows later on, as this was all too common already for VB to be used more as a scripting tool than as an application development environment.)
So if this guy was going to a physical location to reboot a box, he is either really stupid, insane or lying. Pick one...
At the very least you could put a restart application in the Task Scheduler and have NT freaking reboot itself. Let alone that the chances are the person was using Win16 applications on NT (especially at this timeframe as Win32 development was not easy or widespread at the time.)
So if the application was Win16, just freaking reseting the subsystem would be a reboot for the application and this is without rebooting the entire OS because of the Win16 leak that was contained.
So ya, this part is made up, bad memories, or someone that was really young and stupid not knowing any better, and you can't blame that off to Microsoft, even if it makes them try to feel better about their work...
While that sounds good it doesn't wash. It depends what you are setting up to do. If you want a permissive, bug ridden system where most of your company's bandwidth is used for P2P and every three months your clients call you to tell you their computer has slowed to a crawl, go ahead and use Windows.
Bullshit. Every single "problem" you listed there is indicative of incompetent administration, not the system. Where I work, we have upwards of 5,000 Windows XP desktops, 250 Windows 2003 servers, and a few Redhat Enterprise servers. We don't have any of the problems you listed. Re-imaging PCs is extremely rare because we don't let the users do anything TOO stupid, and the Cisco Catalyst switches prevent any traffic getting out except through our properly configured firewalls. If you're having the problems you list with a Windows network you run, you'd better quit and let a REAL admin take over.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Because, while it might offend your sense of only using the _perfect_ match for the job, the Real World is still driven by money. A cheaper mis-match that works, beats an expensive solution that uses the minimal computer and OS imaginable, just to make a point.
Machines are cheap, people are very expensive. So if you need another half a gigabyte to run Windows there, but you can use existing skills and libraries to make that app, you might actually save millions in the process.
Yeah, you could program most stuff on DOS. And put up with incompatible and glitchy graphics libraries just to have that arrow cursor and some minimal widgets for your app. You could write your own interrupt-based thread simulation, 'cause DOS didn't come with any support for that. And write your own spinlock semaphores at that, and wonder why your app deadlocks. You could still do your own pointer arithmetic to put up with 16 bit addressing in a world of gigabyte-sized data sets, and do your own shitty XMS/EMS block copying just to address more than 640 KB. You could even reimplement most of the network protocols and half the other libraries, because nobody else ported those libraries to DOS. Etc.
Yeah, you could do that, just to willy-wave about your app not needing a full-featured OS at all.
Unfortunately, all that costs money and time. Money and time for your programmers to learn those old, quirky, half-arsed libraries instead of using something they already know and their IDE already supports better. Money and time to debug all the bugs you've introduced in the process. Etc.
And if you think that your reinventing the wheel will be more robust than Windows in the process, well, I can tell you that you might be in for a surprise. Most of the people who rant about how MS should be shot at dawn for having bugs, write far far far worse and less secure code, and some can't or shouldn't write code at all. Which isn't supposed to mean that MS writes good code, but, well, mostly think George Carlin's "Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even dumber." It applies to programmers too, and doubly so to those who get hired just because they're the cheapest retrained burger flippers and someone thinks that's a cost cutting measure. About two thirds don't even know the language they're supposed to program in, according to one study.
At any rate, if any company did that kind of waste of money just for some fucked-up jihad against MS, I hope the shareholders nail the management to a cross. Because that's certainly a breach of the fiduciary responsibility to make money for the shareholders. Companies are there to make money, not to fight OCPD-nerd crusades.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The point is that the system can be stripped to only what is required. You can not strip windows in the same way. Less stuff running is less things to compromise, less hardware requirements, less things to maintain, etc etc. Bet it's mainly the cheap crappy companies that use windows as the basis of their hardware/software solution, and also bet in the long run the nightmare mess they create costs to maintain makes it expensive. False economy.
But that's not Microsoft's/Windows' fault.
It's the games developers' fault.
OK, maybe early versions of Windows didn't encourage strict setting of access permissions - and that has allowed bad games developers to get away with it for too long. Versions of Windows for the past 8 years or so are much better at this, but Microsoft are really between a rock and a hard place with it. With Vista, they've started essentially FORCING people not to run with admin rights all the time (with UAC etc), because the gentle encouragement since W2k hasn't worked, but lots of people moan about that. So, what are they to do?
AFAIAA, all the Windows applications made by Microsoft will run with the appropriate level of user permissions. The problem is with everyone else's applications.
The only reason Linux is 'more secure' than Windows is because all the dumb Windows users are using Windows. If they all moved over to Linux, there'd be millions of Linux boxes logged in as root all the time, with thousands of viruses being written for Linux, Linux based botnets etc etc.
A lot of the reasons people state for why 'Linux rules' are primarily BECAUSE it's not widely used. If you want Linux to keep its good rep, don't encourage average home users to use it!
Indeed, but I've found few of these applications that didn't have better written counterparts.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...