You start with this: DLLs are flawed as well. Gosh, the number of times I've had DLL errors. They're dynamic, unless they stick in memory (and usually do) and take up memory until I reboot. Too bad there's no convenient way to version number DLLs too, otherwise, AppA would realize that AppB already installed MSFOO.DLL and not overwrite it with an older version.
And then, go on to say this: I'm not a coder. I have not looked at MS code. But from a user end, it need some serious work to compete technically with a finely-crafted UNIX.
Which says it all. You know why AppA overwrites AppB's dll? Shoddy installation script authors, that's why. DLLs under Windows have versioning mechanisms up the wazoo (they're just not part of the filename). However, if you don't use them, you'll get problems.
For the record, MS has fixed this with Win2K and the MS Installer, which debuted in Office 2000. If your installer doesn't meet the criteria, you can't get your "made for Windows 2000" sticker.
As for this: In regards to the secret APIs, they're fairly well known too. I know I'd do it. What better way to corner the market? There's nothing illegal about that, AFAIAC.
I'll remind you of your statement: I'm not a coder. I have not looked at MS code.
Tell me one thing that MS coded up that someone from Corel/Wordperfect/Lotus couldn't - that runs under Windows - and I'll show you an incompetent Corel/Wordperfect/Lotus developer.
A software modem could be a huge win. First off, you are no longer pushing your data through a 16 byte fifo buffer, that is costing you over 300 interupts a second at 53k, and that boils down to a lot of cpu time.
Don't know where you get your figures from, but the FIFO saves you interrupts - it doesn't increase them. It means you get 1 interrupt per 16 bytes of data - not 1 interrupt per byte of data. You can always turn the FIFO off.
Second, the modem hardware is good for at least 60ms of your latency, acording to the guy behind an old popular macintosh network game Bolo, which was writen to studdy networking issues.
Quite possibly - but given the baud rate of the average modem, that 60ms is bog all.
So a software modem that knew ip could help a lot, and be much nicer than an old style hardware modem
Gimme a cable-modem any day.
The biggest problem on PC's is the old UART chips just don't cut it. They're badly designed - instead of having RTS/CTS flow control with highest priority, and letting the chip handle it all automagically (like the Phillips IM26C91 family of UART/DUARTS and quad-UARTS which are exceedingly good in my experience), you have to bring the CPU into the process so that you can manually flip the RTS/CTS lines. Which frankly, sucks and causes latency problems.
I said it yesterday and I will say it again today. Ask the windows refund people. They got the run around when it says plain and simple in the EULA to return the software and get a refund. They used the law to swindle out of paying back money when it clearly states you can get a refund. Now people found a way to "legaly" swindle them out of paying back a loan. I say tit for tat.
This is a completely different situation and you know it - the EULA plainly states that you go back to the OEM for your refund - so what did they do? They went to Microsoft. They didn't buy the machine + software from Microsoft though, did they?
That's like going to Dodge for a refund when the dealer puts options on your car that you didn't ask for and then tries to charge you for them.
This appendix provides details about the system files supplied with Microsoft Windows 98.
snip... Location of Key System Files
The following table lists the directories where various types of Windows 98 system files and supporting files are stored. snip... Dr. Watson troubleshooting utility
%WinDir%\Drwatson
1 "%WinDir%" refers to the directory that is specified during the installation process to contain the Windows 98 files
Call me ignorant, but I believe that I know what files are installed on my laptop, thankyouverymuch.
2)MS Paint cannot read or save JPG files.. Only bmp and gif (at least it can't on my Win98 SE laptop)
Oh really? Funny that - because it can on mine. File->Save As...
Mind you, you've already proven that you don't know what OS you've got on your laptop, because your Windows 98 apparently doesn't come with Dr Watson either.
3)The Windows FTP client will never be what the *nix FTP client is. I'm sorry, but any ftp client whos default mode is ASCII just sucks.
Mmmmm... typing "bin" is really all that hard, isn't it?
4)Not to be rude, but maybe you should get some more hands on experience and stop reading the Windows for dummies books.
Well, given that you seem to have all the hands on experience of a person born without them, I suggest you take your advice and use it yourself.
Ok "Simon". You've had your fun now. Go back in your closet and whip your pud to the framed picture of Bill. Having a Micro$oft apologist on Slashdot is like having a neo-Nazi attend a Holocaust surviors' meeting...
As ever, if anyone:
Criticizes Linux
Support Microsoft
... then they're obviously some kind of M$ apologist/do not worship at the One True Religious Church of Linux, and should be attacked.
I see. Given that you know nothing about me, I suggest you shut up and go away - and comparing me to a Nazi just reveals you for the zealot, bigot and troll that you are.
I believe the point is that it *shouldn't* crash so much in the first place. One shouldn't have to have something like "Dr. Watson" just to use their computer for a normal task. I prefer to have a doctor for things that are wrong with me, not my Operating System... I expect my OS to work in the first place.
Well, Windows doesn't just crash of its own accord - there's something causing it, and the original poster doesn't seem to be able to tell anyone why. Saying "that is just crashes" is about as lame as me saying "Linux sucks" - because I don't tell you anything about it as to *why*.
Dr Watson is a diagnostic tool that captures stack-traces, and a system snapshot that you can send to people (like, say, 3rd party software manufacturers) to let them trace through release builds of their code with a symbol map. It also gives you simple guesses at what might be wrong - including diagnosing possible programming errors that might cause it (there's a difference between a null pointer error and a buffer overrun, y'see).
It's a handy tool. Sure - it shouldn't crash so much in the first place. However, both you and I have no idea what was wrong with that machine. If you're going to come back now and say that "Windows is crap so it crashes anyway", then I'll let you try to install Linux on an old Compaq 486 machine I've got and try to get X running without it crashing or freezing every half an hour. From here. And that's all the info you'll get to be able to work out what the problem is. Oh - except I'll tell you that it's Linux crashing. That should be enough info.
Erm... not even *close* MS's attempt at a *nix-like FTP program is a joke, plain and simple. It doesn't have all of the commands that it should, and the ones it does have hardly ever work properly. I don't consider that a viable alternative to FTP on my Linux box...
Linux's FTP client would appear to not conform to the FTP standard - it has extra bits on it that MS doesn't support. Now, normally, the Linux community it dancing up and down and shouting and yelling because MS is doing this with "standards" - but not it's the Linux community that's doing it - and guess what? You just don't care do you? How's that for a double standard? eh?
You consider MSPaint an image manipulation program? You must not do anything more than flipping your pictures upside-down. Even *simple* image manipulation usually entails more than just flipping images a bit, or saving them to a different format.
Does it let you manipulate images? Yes
Does this mean it's an image manipulation program? Yes
Did the original poster ask for friggin' photoshop? No
No, more likely, you should be the one to do so... people who have little or no experience with anything but Windows often whinge about how much *nix OS's suck because they don't know the real power they can get from their computer. Perhaps if you were used to the efficiency, speed and power that you can get from *nix, you wouldn't be quite so blind, and would be able to see how badly Windows does things. The very reason that us *nix users complain about Windoze quite so often is because we're used to something better. Imagine driving a Pinto when you're used to driving a Corvette/Ferrari/some-nice/fancy-car...
fancy cars require a lot of tuning, a lot of loving, and a lot of work in terms of day-to-day maintenance that your average Pinto/Escort/Lynx doesn't require.
Not only that, but please shut the hell up - I didn't say at ANY POINT that *NIX OS's suck. Stop putting words in my mouth, Luser.
I'm quite well used to the efficiency, speed and power that I can get from *nix - and I'm also quite well used to the efficiency speed and power that I can get from Windows - so stick that in your cakehole, Mr. Salesman-who-pretends-to-be-a-techy.
I believe the point is that it *shouldn't* crash so much in the first place. One shouldn't have to have something like "Dr. Watson" just to use their computer for a normal task. I prefer to have a doctor for things that are wrong with me, not my Operating System... I expect my OS to work in the first place.
Well, Windows doesn't just crash of its own accord - there's something causing it, and the original poster doesn't seem to be able to tell anyone why. Saying "that is just crashes" is about as lame as me saying "Linux sucks" - because I don't tell you anything about it as to *why*.
Dr Watson is a diagnostic tool that captures stack-traces, and a system snapshot that you can send to people (like, say, 3rd party software manufacturers) to let them trace through release builds of their code with a symbol map. It also gives you simple guesses at what might be wrong - including diagnosing possible programming errors that might cause it (there's a difference between a null pointer error and a buffer overrun, y'see).
It's a handy tool. Sure - it shouldn't crash so much in the first place. However, both you and I have no idea what was wrong with that machine. If you're going to come back now and say that "Windows is crap so it crashes anyway", then I'll let you try to install Linux on an old Compaq 486 machine I've got and try to get X running without it crashing or freezing every half an hour. From here. And that's all the info you'll get to be able to work out what the problem is. Oh - except I'll tell you that it's Linux crashing. That should be enough info.
Erm... not even *close* MS's attempt at a *nix-like FTP program is a joke, plain and simple. It doesn't have all of the commands that it should, and the ones it does have hardly ever work properly. I don't consider that a viable alternative to FTP on my Linux box...
Linux's FTP client would appear to not conform to the FTP standard - it has extra bits on it that MS doesn't support. Now, normally, the Linux community it dancing up and down and shouting and yelling because MS is doing this with "standards" - but not it's the Linux community that's doing it - and guess what? You just don't care do you? How's that for a double standard? eh?
You consider MSPaint an image manipulation program? You must not do anything more than flipping your pictures upside-down. Even *simple* image manipulation usually entails more than just flipping images a bit, or saving them to a different format.
Does it let you manipulate images? Yes
Does this mean it's an image manipulation program? Yes
Did the original photoshop ask for friggin' photoshop? No
No, more likely, you should be the one to do so... people who have little or no experience with anything but Windows often whinge about how much *nix OS's suck because they don't know the real power they can get from their computer. Perhaps if you were used to the efficiency, speed and power that you can get from *nix, you wouldn't be quite so blind, and would be able to see how badly Windows does things. The very reason that us *nix users complain about Windoze quite so often is because we're used to something better. Imagine driving a Pinto when you're used to driving a Corvette/Ferrari/some-nice/fancy-car...
fancy cars require a lot of tuning, a lot of loving, and a lot of work in terms of day-to-day maintenance that your average Pinto/Escort/Lynx doesn't require.
Not only that, but please shut the hell up - I didn't say at ANY POINT that *NIX OS's suck. Stop putting words in my mouth, Luser.
I'm quite well used to the efficiency, speed and power that I can get from *nix - and I'm also quite well used to the efficiency speed and power that I can get from Windows - so stick that in your cakehole, Mr. Salesman-who-pretends-to-be-a-techy.
I don't think he had Dr. Watson. But that's hardly an answer - having a third party tell you why something sucks doesn't make it suck any less, does it?
Start Menu->Run->drwatson.exe
It comes with Windows98. It doesn't run unless you start it up yourself for perf reasons. But it'll tell you why things aren't working.
Some might say I qualify as both. B-) But at that time I was acting as a user, not a hacker. I shouldn't need tools to tell me why standard COTS software crashes the whole machine - because standard COTS software ought not to crash the whole machine.
Welll... why not say which software was crashing - obviously, there was something installed on there that was causing problems. What was it? Why is it that millions of people don't have these problems, and you're having them? Eh?
[IE as JPEG viewer] Err... it views them, doesn't it? What's the problem?
Sending a bloated program to do the work of a simple viewer program isn't a problem to you? (Think of it this way - I like editing with emacs, but I don't want it to take the place of simple, quick-starting more (or less) for file viewing!)
On most machines I've used, IE is a far quicker program to use to load up a JPEG file for viewing. Feel free to install another app to do it if you so wish. Write your own if you really want to. And then reassociate the filetype. Hey presto! No longer is it the viewer for JPEGS (until you need to see them on a web-page)
[Internet Explorer] Then it asks if I want it to be the default web browser, when I'm not even browsing the web with it. Annoying
It'll only ask you that once. Tell it not to. There's this little check box which says "Don't ask me again". Use it.
MSPaint - on Windows 98, it even saves out as JPEG and GIF, as well as BMP format.
Except that it horribly degrades the image quality. (Yes, JPEG quality was set to max, thank you.)
Hmmm... well, you said there was no "standard tool for simple-image manipulation". I would appear to have proved you wrong - because you would appear to have used it. As for it horribly degrading the image quality - how did it do that, pray-tell? I just did a couple of tests - the quality looked fine to me. Oh, and by the way, MSPAINT doesn't have a quality setting for its JPEG output, so how come you're claiming it does?
Hmmm... I could have done it in about 1 minute...
Well, bully for you then. Clearly your hackitude is very strong. I'm sure that your phallus is also enormous and that you get all the girlies.
In order: yes it is, yes it is, and yes I do. Your point?
Really? Then why do I get this when I use the Windows 98 ftp client to connect to my linux box?
ftp> chmod 644 test.php3 Invalid command.
I was pretty certain that the ftp client that I was using on Linux didn't work that way.
That's funny... there doesn't appear to be any kind of RFC out there which requires CHMOD to be implemented to give you a fully-fledged FTP client. In fact, a quick search of ALL the RFCs leaves only two which mention the word CHMOD - and none of those are anything at all to do with FTP. So it would look like the FTP STANDARD doesn't define a CHMOD command, or the functionality to do it. Well, lawks a lawdy.
AIX wouldn't appear to have the chmod command either.
I didn't count on the joys of Windows 98 on our end and Windows NT on the ISP's end. The rebooting of his PC when it crashed for reasons unknown and unknowable
Next time, run Dr. Watson while you're using the machine - it'll tell you why it crashed. Put it in the startup group. You're a computer engineer, not a fool, so start acting like the former and not the latter - learn the tool.
the weird FTP behavior
Hmmm... try doing Start Menu -> Run -> FTP. Hmmm... works just like it does on SunOS, Linux and FreeBSD as far as I could see...
the braindead binding of IE to view JPEG files
Err... it views them, doesn't it? What's the problem?
the lack of a good standard tool for simple image manipulation...ah, such fun.
MSPaint - on Windows 98, it even saves out as JPEG and GIF, as well as BMP format.
After an hours' effort, two men with with over four decades of combined programming experience and a decade of net experience could not publish a simple web page - a task I could have perfomed in five minutes on my Linux box and Unix-running ISP.
Hmmm... I could have done it in about 1 minute... looks like you should go back to school.
[A] CokeBear wrote: Microsoft should give everyone in the world $400... They'd still have lots left over.
[B] In response, an AC wrote: You're not one of those liberal hippies, who thinks the world owes you something are you?
[C]... and then you wrote: I guess your one of those extreme capitalists who would take a cane away from an old woman in a snowstorm and then proceede to beat her to death with it huh? If someone wants to give money away that's their right.
Hmmm... I can understand the chain of logic that gets from [A] to [B], but I don't understand how you get from [B] to [C]. Care to enlighten me?
How does someone saying that Microsoft should give away all their money, and someone saying Why should they? mean that the person saying "Why should they?" is a capitalist pig?
I suppose that came out wrong, its good to encurage new computer users, I like to see the whole computer explosion thing happening, it was really amasing to see how many people started using computers and the internet so suddenly. But I mean, standardising things to such a level seems kind of dumb to me. And all to make the newbies feel at home?
You're making one BIIIIG assumption: 0 100 |'''''''''|'''''''''|'''''''''|'''''''''| ^- The avg. newbie You ---^
This is a rough view of what most people look like compared to most techies in terms of computer knowledge (Don Knuth presumably is at 110 on this scale).
Here's the "do they give a flying fsck?"-ometer that registers how much they WANT to approach most techies on that scale: 0 100 |'''''''''|'''''''''|'''''''''|'''''''''| ^--- how much they want to find out
As you can see, they basically don't give a flying fsck. This is because they have better things to do with their lives - like writing their memoirs, researching their family history, surfing the net or doing their taxes.
Home computers, consumer OS's and consumer apps are written (remember this - it's one of the more important things you'll read today)for these people. Yep, that's right - your customers/users/whatever for consumer apps and consumer OS's are generally going to be people who don't care and don't need to learn the nitty gritty of their computer.
You know why?
Because that's why you get the big bucks - so that they don't have to.
Of course, if you're giving everything away for free, that might explain your attitude...
Computers aren't some elite thing that should be used to create some kind of pseudo class war -- they're a tool. They're popular because every-day people want to use them to get their stuff done.
In short - you don't sell hammers that require people to be concert pianists to use them - because that way, you won't sell any hammers.
Now compare this to the 49 day high of Win NT (40% improvement) achieved from a pool of seventy-two NT servers (1800% more machines) and BeOS is pretty much doing as well as NT. Especially when you consider the amount of NT trouble-shooting being done by both MS and the community in general - When was the last time you saw BeOS mentioned on Bug-traq? Nt does manage to improve on BeOS' average uptime though - twelve days... Must be why NT admins get uptight every fortnight...:)
Welllll... the uptime apps that run on NT/2000 tend to use the GetTickCount call, which wraps on its long-integer limit at 49 days...
... so the counter's buggy, that's it.
Sucky, sure, but this means that it doesn't reflect the real uptime of the machines AT ALL - these figures are bogus.
yet another example of how helpful linux and other free software users/developers/admins can be compared to their windows counterparts.
would a windows person think to pay for linux.com's domain? (or other linux related domains)
Call me a cynic, but its got a lot less to do with "community spirit" and "helping out your fellow man" than it has to do with "Linux user helps out megacorp that Linux Users hate to get Front Page News and More Coverage for Linux"
The idea that the Windows printing model is a "good one" is simply preposterous, because a significant aspect of it is the fact that these printers are not printers at all. They're winprinters. This is not a printer, any more than a "winmodem" is a modem. It's not. A winmodem is a glorified phone jack that connects to the OS.
Bzzzt! Sorry - thanks for playing.
Who mentioned WinPrinters? You did. I didn't.
I'm talking about the mechanism which means that to print, you can re-use your graphics code. You don't have to touch Postscript - your printer driver sits one level *up* from that under Windows.
It goes something like this:
Create Device Context (Printer in this case) Draw to Printer Device Context Finish.
That's it - no "how do I write something which generates the correct postscript to do X, Y and Z?" - the GDI subsystem and the printer drivers handle all of the nasty stuff so that the printer gets the data in a format which it can understand.
Winprinters... well, I wouldn't buy one, that's for sure. But given that some of them a while back cost $50, and were being bundled with NEC machines, I can't really knock them - if it were a choice of winprinter or no printer at all (and the printer was effectively "free" in this bundle), I'd take the winprinter. And I did do so.
However, if I'm in the market for buying a printer, I'd buy one that could be used on any machine, just for future-proofing. (Same reason I only buy external modems if I can help it - although that criterion is going now that ADSL is picking up).
Anyway, to sum up - don't go off half-cocked shouting and screaming about something when in fact you're not talking about the same thing at all. It makes you look stupid.
Not only that, but I noticed that for all your flame, you didn't have the guts to stand behind a real alias - you posted as an anonymous coward. Tsk tsk. Try getting the cahones to stand behind your beliefs - or don't post them.
Yeah, I think the Linux community must get in gear to demand drivers for there printers. The same method worked with the graphic card manufacurs.
I think a other approach is the best option. The postscript method can't handle the options the modern printers have to offer.
The problem isn't anything to do with drivers at all - it's to do with the fact that 99% of Linux apps print by spooling out Postscript code DIRECTLY to a file, and then forcing you to go through Ghostscript to print it out - which frankly, is ludicrous.
Windows has good printing technology which makes all this a none-issue. Rendering to the screen is IDENTICAL to rendering to the printer for 99% of all jobs. It makes it easy - which is surely the whole idea?
Of course, then you *would* need printer drivers. Catch-22 I guess.
but, please lay off of using FUD as an all-purpose word for mis-information. it's a specific case of malicious mis-information, and does not apply in this case.
It's used to mean disinformation. If you don't like that, then tough - it's the same thing that happened with the word hacker (I don't like that, but that's tough too).
First, Windows 2000 *is* the most secure OS that Microsoft has ever shipped. This is a true statement, because they haven't shipped it yet. (Seen it in stores, lately? Didn't think so...)
Oh yes they have shipped it - it shipped last Wednesday, IIRC. It's already available for download from the MSDN Subscriber site, and is currently being pressed onto CD.
Microsoft doesn't sell security through obscurity so much as security through impossiblity. A Windows box has almost no security against users that can execute code on the system. The functionality to remotely execute code (e.g. telnet) isn't there unless you add it. I can walk up to a Windows box and do whatever I want; still, by restricting functionality (and denying me physical access to the box) the sysadmin can make it impossible (or very difficult) for me to execute code on the system. However, once I can execute code on your Windows box, I can do just about whatever I please. Microsoft is so complacent about their security that they can't let you execute any code remotely yet, with IE and the like it's easy.
FUD! FUD FUD FUD!
You can very easily lock down a Windows system so that different users can do different things. In fact, access control can be given at incredibly high granularity to:
Local or remote files or directories on an NTFS file system
Mailslots
Named and anonymous pipes
Processes and threads
File-mapping objects
Access tokens
Window-management objects (window stations and desktops)
Registry keys
Local or remote Windows NT services
Local or remote printers
Windows NT network shares
Interprocess synchronization objects (semaphores, events, mutexes, and waitable timers)
Job objects
Each object defines specific and generic access rights. Hmmm... looks like Windows is a lot more secure than you claim.
Also, telnet server and Windows Terminal Server allow you to execute as much code as you care to remotely. WTS is also (in my experience) usually *faster* than an equivalent X-windows session over a 28.8k modem. You probably wouldn't want to run Photoshop on it - but Visual C++ 6.0 runs quite happily on it.
In future, try doing some research before happily spreading the FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
You start with this:
DLLs are flawed as well. Gosh, the number of times I've had DLL errors. They're dynamic, unless they stick in memory (and usually do) and take up memory until I reboot. Too bad there's no convenient way to version number DLLs too, otherwise, AppA would realize that AppB already installed MSFOO.DLL and not overwrite it with an older version.
And then, go on to say this:
I'm not a coder. I have not looked at MS code. But from a user end, it need some serious work to compete technically with a finely-crafted UNIX.
Which says it all. You know why AppA overwrites AppB's dll? Shoddy installation script authors, that's why. DLLs under Windows have versioning mechanisms up the wazoo (they're just not part of the filename). However, if you don't use them, you'll get problems.
For the record, MS has fixed this with Win2K and the MS Installer, which debuted in Office 2000. If your installer doesn't meet the criteria, you can't get your "made for Windows 2000" sticker.
As for this:
In regards to the secret APIs, they're fairly well known too. I know I'd do it. What better way to corner the market? There's nothing illegal about that, AFAIAC.
I'll remind you of your statement:
I'm not a coder. I have not looked at MS code.
Tell me one thing that MS coded up that someone from Corel/Wordperfect/Lotus couldn't - that runs under Windows - and I'll show you an incompetent Corel/Wordperfect/Lotus developer.
Simon
A software modem could be a huge win. First off, you are no longer pushing your data through a 16 byte fifo buffer, that is costing you over 300 interupts a second at 53k, and that boils down to a lot of cpu time.
Don't know where you get your figures from, but the FIFO saves you interrupts - it doesn't increase them. It means you get 1 interrupt per 16 bytes of data - not 1 interrupt per byte of data. You can always turn the FIFO off.
Second, the modem hardware is good for at least 60ms of your latency, acording to the guy behind an old popular macintosh network game Bolo, which was writen to studdy networking issues.
Quite possibly - but given the baud rate of the average modem, that 60ms is bog all.
So a software modem that knew ip could help a lot, and be much nicer than an old style hardware modem
Gimme a cable-modem any day.
The biggest problem on PC's is the old UART chips just don't cut it. They're badly designed - instead of having RTS/CTS flow control with highest priority, and letting the chip handle it all automagically (like the Phillips IM26C91 family of UART/DUARTS and quad-UARTS which are exceedingly good in my experience), you have to bring the CPU into the process so that you can manually flip the RTS/CTS lines. Which frankly, sucks and causes latency problems.
*sighs* Legacy hardware - don't you just love it?
Si
... and on Dilbert, and on Star Trek...
:)
He gets everywhere that man
Pity you Anonymous Cowards don't have the stones to stand behind your comments.
Oh yeah - probably because it'd get you in trouble with the police. Deary me.
People like you should get out of the gene pool before you piss in it and make it stink for the rest of us.
Simon
I said it yesterday and I will say it again today. Ask the windows refund people. They got the run around when it says plain and simple in the EULA to return the software and get a refund. They used the law to swindle out of paying back money when it clearly states you can get a refund. Now people found a way to "legaly" swindle them out of paying back a loan. I say tit for tat.
This is a completely different situation and you know it - the EULA plainly states that you go back to the OEM for your refund - so what did they do? They went to Microsoft. They didn't buy the machine + software from Microsoft though, did they?
That's like going to Dodge for a refund when the dealer puts options on your car that you didn't ask for and then tries to charge you for them.
Simon
And all of them are wrong.
1)Dr. Watson runs under Windows NT not Windows 98 and if you can read its output and figure out why an application crashed then more power to you.
Microsoft Technet article - contents of Windows 98 install
Call me ignorant, but I believe that I know what files are installed on my laptop, thankyouverymuch.
2)MS Paint cannot read or save JPG files.. Only bmp and gif (at least it can't on my Win98 SE laptop)
Oh really? Funny that - because it can on mine. File->Save As...
Mind you, you've already proven that you don't know what OS you've got on your laptop, because your Windows 98 apparently doesn't come with Dr Watson either.
3)The Windows FTP client will never be what the *nix FTP client is. I'm sorry, but any ftp client whos default mode is ASCII just sucks.
Mmmmm... typing "bin" is really all that hard, isn't it?
4)Not to be rude, but maybe you should get some more hands on experience and stop reading the Windows for dummies books.
Well, given that you seem to have all the hands on experience of a person born without them, I suggest you take your advice and use it yourself.
Simon
As ever, if anyone:
... then they're obviously some kind of M$ apologist/do not worship at the One True Religious Church of Linux, and should be attacked.
I see. Given that you know nothing about me, I suggest you shut up and go away - and comparing me to a Nazi just reveals you for the zealot, bigot and troll that you are.
Well, Windows doesn't just crash of its own accord - there's something causing it, and the original poster doesn't seem to be able to tell anyone why. Saying "that is just crashes" is about as lame as me saying "Linux sucks" - because I don't tell you anything about it as to *why*.
Dr Watson is a diagnostic tool that captures stack-traces, and a system snapshot that you can send to people (like, say, 3rd party software manufacturers) to let them trace through release builds of their code with a symbol map. It also gives you simple guesses at what might be wrong - including diagnosing possible programming errors that might cause it (there's a difference between a null pointer error and a buffer overrun, y'see).
It's a handy tool. Sure - it shouldn't crash so much in the first place. However, both you and I have no idea what was wrong with that machine. If you're going to come back now and say that "Windows is crap so it crashes anyway", then I'll let you try to install Linux on an old Compaq 486 machine I've got and try to get X running without it crashing or freezing every half an hour. From here. And that's all the info you'll get to be able to work out what the problem is. Oh - except I'll tell you that it's Linux crashing. That should be enough info.
Erm
Linux's FTP client would appear to not conform to the FTP standard - it has extra bits on it that MS doesn't support. Now, normally, the Linux community it dancing up and down and shouting and yelling because MS is doing this with "standards" - but not it's the Linux community that's doing it - and guess what? You just don't care do you? How's that for a double standard? eh?
You consider MSPaint an image manipulation program? You must not do anything more than flipping your pictures upside-down. Even *simple* image manipulation usually entails more than just flipping images a bit, or saving them to a different format.
Yes
Yes
No
No, more likely, you should be the one to do so
fancy cars require a lot of tuning, a lot of loving, and a lot of work in terms of day-to-day maintenance that your average Pinto/Escort/Lynx doesn't require.
Not only that, but please shut the hell up - I didn't say at ANY POINT that *NIX OS's suck. Stop putting words in my mouth, Luser.
I'm quite well used to the efficiency, speed and power that I can get from *nix - and I'm also quite well used to the efficiency speed and power that I can get from Windows - so stick that in your cakehole, Mr. Salesman-who-pretends-to-be-a-techy.
Well, Windows doesn't just crash of its own accord - there's something causing it, and the original poster doesn't seem to be able to tell anyone why. Saying "that is just crashes" is about as lame as me saying "Linux sucks" - because I don't tell you anything about it as to *why*.
Dr Watson is a diagnostic tool that captures stack-traces, and a system snapshot that you can send to people (like, say, 3rd party software manufacturers) to let them trace through release builds of their code with a symbol map. It also gives you simple guesses at what might be wrong - including diagnosing possible programming errors that might cause it (there's a difference between a null pointer error and a buffer overrun, y'see).
It's a handy tool. Sure - it shouldn't crash so much in the first place. However, both you and I have no idea what was wrong with that machine. If you're going to come back now and say that "Windows is crap so it crashes anyway", then I'll let you try to install Linux on an old Compaq 486 machine I've got and try to get X running without it crashing or freezing every half an hour. From here. And that's all the info you'll get to be able to work out what the problem is. Oh - except I'll tell you that it's Linux crashing. That should be enough info.
Erm
Linux's FTP client would appear to not conform to the FTP standard - it has extra bits on it that MS doesn't support. Now, normally, the Linux community it dancing up and down and shouting and yelling because MS is doing this with "standards" - but not it's the Linux community that's doing it - and guess what? You just don't care do you? How's that for a double standard? eh?
You consider MSPaint an image manipulation program? You must not do anything more than flipping your pictures upside-down. Even *simple* image manipulation usually entails more than just flipping images a bit, or saving them to a different format.
Yes
Yes
No
No, more likely, you should be the one to do so
fancy cars require a lot of tuning, a lot of loving, and a lot of work in terms of day-to-day maintenance that your average Pinto/Escort/Lynx doesn't require.
Not only that, but please shut the hell up - I didn't say at ANY POINT that *NIX OS's suck. Stop putting words in my mouth, Luser.
I'm quite well used to the efficiency, speed and power that I can get from *nix - and I'm also quite well used to the efficiency speed and power that I can get from Windows - so stick that in your cakehole, Mr. Salesman-who-pretends-to-be-a-techy.
Start Menu->Run->drwatson.exe
It comes with Windows98. It doesn't run unless you start it up yourself for perf reasons. But it'll tell you why things aren't working.
Some might say I qualify as both. B-) But at that time I was acting as a user, not a hacker. I shouldn't need tools to tell me why standard COTS software crashes the whole machine - because standard COTS software ought not to crash the whole machine.
Welll... why not say which software was crashing - obviously, there was something installed on there that was causing problems. What was it? Why is it that millions of people don't have these problems, and you're having them? Eh?
[IE as JPEG viewer]
Err... it views them, doesn't it? What's the problem?
On most machines I've used, IE is a far quicker program to use to load up a JPEG file for viewing. Feel free to install another app to do it if you so wish. Write your own if you really want to. And then reassociate the filetype. Hey presto! No longer is it the viewer for JPEGS (until you need to see them on a web-page)
[Internet Explorer]
Then it asks if I want it to be the default web browser, when I'm not even browsing the web with it. Annoying
It'll only ask you that once. Tell it not to. There's this little check box which says "Don't ask me again". Use it.
MSPaint - on Windows 98, it even saves out as JPEG and GIF, as well as BMP format.
Hmmm... well, you said there was no "standard tool for simple-image manipulation". I would appear to have proved you wrong - because you would appear to have used it. As for it horribly degrading the image quality - how did it do that, pray-tell? I just did a couple of tests - the quality looked fine to me. Oh, and by the way, MSPAINT doesn't have a quality setting for its JPEG output, so how come you're claiming it does?
Well, bully for you then. Clearly your hackitude is very strong. I'm sure that your phallus is also enormous and that you get all the girlies.
In order: yes it is, yes it is, and yes I do. Your point?
Simon
Really? Then why do I get this when I use the Windows 98 ftp client to connect to my linux box?
ftp> chmod 644 test.php3
Invalid command.
I was pretty certain that the ftp client that I was using on Linux didn't work that way.
That's funny... there doesn't appear to be any kind of RFC out there which requires CHMOD to be implemented to give you a fully-fledged FTP client. In fact, a quick search of ALL the RFCs leaves only two which mention the word CHMOD - and none of those are anything at all to do with FTP. So it would look like the FTP STANDARD doesn't define a CHMOD command, or the functionality to do it. Well, lawks a lawdy.
AIX wouldn't appear to have the chmod command either.
How very odd. Linux non-standard? Heaven forfend!
Simon
I didn't count on the joys of Windows 98 on our end and Windows NT on the ISP's end. The rebooting of his PC when it crashed for reasons unknown and unknowable
Next time, run Dr. Watson while you're using the machine - it'll tell you why it crashed. Put it in the startup group. You're a computer engineer, not a fool, so start acting like the former and not the latter - learn the tool.
the weird FTP behavior
Hmmm... try doing Start Menu -> Run -> FTP. Hmmm... works just like it does on SunOS, Linux and FreeBSD as far as I could see...
the braindead binding of IE to view JPEG files
Err... it views them, doesn't it? What's the problem?
the lack of a good standard tool for simple image manipulation...ah, such fun.
MSPaint - on Windows 98, it even saves out as JPEG and GIF, as well as BMP format.
After an hours' effort, two men with with over four decades of combined programming experience and a decade of net experience could not publish a simple web page - a task I could have perfomed in five minutes on my Linux box and Unix-running ISP.
Hmmm... I could have done it in about 1 minute... looks like you should go back to school.
Simon
[A] CokeBear wrote:
... and then you wrote:
Microsoft should give everyone in the world $400...
They'd still have lots left over.
[B] In response, an AC wrote:
You're not one of those liberal hippies, who thinks the world owes you something are you?
[C]
I guess your one of those extreme capitalists who would take a cane away from an old woman in a snowstorm and then proceede to beat her to death with it huh? If someone wants to give money away that's their right.
Hmmm... I can understand the chain of logic that gets from [A] to [B], but I don't understand how you get from [B] to [C]. Care to enlighten me?
How does someone saying that Microsoft should give away all their money, and someone saying Why should they? mean that the person saying "Why should they?" is a capitalist pig?
Oops... perhaps I just answered my own question.
Simon
I suppose that came out wrong, its good to encurage new computer users, I like to see the whole computer explosion thing happening, it was really amasing to see how many people started using computers and the internet so suddenly. But I mean, standardising things to such a level seems kind of dumb to me. And all to make the newbies feel at home?
You're making one BIIIIG assumption:
0 100
|'''''''''|'''''''''|'''''''''|'''''''''|
^- The avg. newbie You ---^
This is a rough view of what most people look like compared to most techies in terms of computer knowledge (Don Knuth presumably is at 110 on this scale).
Here's the "do they give a flying fsck?"-ometer that registers how much they WANT to approach most techies on that scale:
0 100
|'''''''''|'''''''''|'''''''''|'''''''''|
^--- how much they want to find out
As you can see, they basically don't give a flying fsck. This is because they have better things to do with their lives - like writing their memoirs, researching their family history, surfing the net or doing their taxes.
Home computers, consumer OS's and consumer apps are written (remember this - it's one of the more important things you'll read today) for these people. Yep, that's right - your customers/users/whatever for consumer apps and consumer OS's are generally going to be people who don't care and don't need to learn the nitty gritty of their computer.
You know why?
Because that's why you get the big bucks - so that they don't have to .
Of course, if you're giving everything away for free, that might explain your attitude...
Computers aren't some elite thing that should be used to create some kind of pseudo class war -- they're a tool. They're popular because every-day people want to use them to get their stuff done.
In short - you don't sell hammers that require people to be concert pianists to use them - because that way, you won't sell any hammers.
Simon
Simon
Now compare this to the 49 day high of Win NT (40% improvement) achieved from a pool of seventy-two NT servers (1800% more machines) and BeOS is pretty much doing as well as NT. Especially when you consider the amount of NT trouble-shooting being done by both MS and the community in general - When was the last time you saw BeOS mentioned on Bug-traq? Nt does manage to improve on BeOS' average uptime though - twelve days... Must be why NT admins get uptight every fortnight... :)
Welllll... the uptime apps that run on NT/2000 tend to use the GetTickCount call, which wraps on its long-integer limit at 49 days...
... so the counter's buggy, that's it.
Sucky, sure, but this means that it doesn't reflect the real uptime of the machines AT ALL - these figures are bogus.
Simon
yet another example of how helpful linux and other free software users/developers/admins can be compared to their windows counterparts.
would a windows person think to pay for linux.com's domain? (or other linux related domains)
Call me a cynic, but its got a lot less to do with "community spirit" and "helping out your fellow man" than it has to do with "Linux user helps out megacorp that Linux Users hate to get Front Page News and More Coverage for Linux"
Simon
The public == In stores == Read my post next time
I guess Linux was only available to the public from 1998 onwards (or so) then?
Simon
Hmmm... the HP LaserJet 5N and (I think) the HP Color Jet 1600C are both postscript based. I'm not entirely sure though.
Simon
The idea that the Windows printing model is a "good one" is simply preposterous, because a significant aspect of it is the fact that these printers are not printers at all. They're winprinters. This is not a printer, any more than a "winmodem" is a modem. It's not. A winmodem is a glorified phone jack that connects to the OS.
Bzzzt! Sorry - thanks for playing.
Who mentioned WinPrinters? You did. I didn't.
I'm talking about the mechanism which means that to print, you can re-use your graphics code. You don't have to touch Postscript - your printer driver sits one level *up* from that under Windows.
It goes something like this:
Create Device Context (Printer in this case)
Draw to Printer Device Context
Finish.
That's it - no "how do I write something which generates the correct postscript to do X, Y and Z?" - the GDI subsystem and the printer drivers handle all of the nasty stuff so that the printer gets the data in a format which it can understand.
Winprinters... well, I wouldn't buy one, that's for sure. But given that some of them a while back cost $50, and were being bundled with NEC machines, I can't really knock them - if it were a choice of winprinter or no printer at all (and the printer was effectively "free" in this bundle), I'd take the winprinter. And I did do so.
However, if I'm in the market for buying a printer, I'd buy one that could be used on any machine, just for future-proofing. (Same reason I only buy external modems if I can help it - although that criterion is going now that ADSL is picking up).
Anyway, to sum up - don't go off half-cocked shouting and screaming about something when in fact you're not talking about the same thing at all. It makes you look stupid.
Not only that, but I noticed that for all your flame, you didn't have the guts to stand behind a real alias - you posted as an anonymous coward. Tsk tsk. Try getting the cahones to stand behind your beliefs - or don't post them.
Simon
Yeah, I think the Linux community must get in gear to demand drivers for there printers.
The same method worked with the graphic card manufacurs.
I think a other approach is the best option. The postscript method can't handle the options the modern printers have to offer.
The problem isn't anything to do with drivers at all - it's to do with the fact that 99% of Linux apps print by spooling out Postscript code DIRECTLY to a file, and then forcing you to go through Ghostscript to print it out - which frankly, is ludicrous.
Windows has good printing technology which makes all this a none-issue. Rendering to the screen is IDENTICAL to rendering to the printer for 99% of all jobs. It makes it easy - which is surely the whole idea?
Of course, then you *would* need printer drivers. Catch-22 I guess.
Simon
but, please lay off of using FUD as an all-purpose word for mis-information. it's a specific case of malicious mis-information, and does not apply in this case.
It's used to mean disinformation. If you don't like that, then tough - it's the same thing that happened with the word hacker (I don't like that, but that's tough too).
Simon
It won't be available to the public until Feb.
Er, yes it is actually - to anyone who has an MSDN Universal subscription, or who is part of the Microsoft Select plan. And that's a LOT of people.
Simon
Slashdot covered it - were you sleeping?
Windows 2000 Goes Gold
First, Windows 2000 *is* the most secure OS that Microsoft has ever shipped. This is a true statement, because they haven't shipped it yet. (Seen it in stores, lately? Didn't think so...)
Oh yes they have shipped it - it shipped last Wednesday, IIRC. It's already available for download from the MSDN Subscriber site, and is currently being pressed onto CD.
I believe this was covered on Slashdot.
Simon
FUD! FUD FUD FUD!
You can very easily lock down a Windows system so that different users can do different things. In fact, access control can be given at incredibly high granularity to:
Mailslots
Named and anonymous pipes
Processes and threads
File-mapping objects
Access tokens
Window-management objects (window stations and desktops)
Registry keys
Local or remote Windows NT services
Local or remote printers
Windows NT network shares
Interprocess synchronization objects (semaphores, events, mutexes, and waitable timers)
Job objects
Each object defines specific and generic access rights. Hmmm... looks like Windows is a lot more secure than you claim.
Also, telnet server and Windows Terminal Server allow you to execute as much code as you care to remotely. WTS is also (in my experience) usually *faster* than an equivalent X-windows session over a 28.8k modem. You probably wouldn't want to run Photoshop on it - but Visual C++ 6.0 runs quite happily on it.
In future, try doing some research before happily spreading the FUD.
Simon