No, it's not *exactly* like FireWire. Actually it's not the same at all.
I liked your post, but I seriously hope you don't think I or everyone else here is that stupid.
The point I was making is that a 'host computer' was NOT necessary for USB.
Yes the USB protocol and the Firewire protocol are vastly different as you point out, but I was NOT arguing that they were the same.
With either one, they BOTH have to have a 'controller' for the device to 'host' the connection. Networking and connectivity technology 101, pure and simple. Firewire uses a more advanced peer model than USB, we all know this.
But what the previous poster was implying was that USB required a âhost computerâ(TM) with COMPUTER being the keyword. USB does NOT have to be hosted or controlled by a COMPUTER. The USB controller/host can be in a consumer device and a 'host COMPUTER' is NOT required.
Again, thanks for refreshing everyone on the Firewire specs, but please don't misread something into my post that was NOT implied.
Lack of progression? You mean like #1 in SPEC FP 2000 [spec.org], #4 in SPEC INT 2000 [spec.org] and #2 in TPC-C [tpc.org]? IBM has been doing a great job with PowerPCs, but they've been concentrating on server versions.
This is not what I meant. In the server areas they have done a lot with the chip, but adding desktop level features and making it afforadable for the desktop is where they have failed.
The chip should have been easier and more capapble of being the leading desktop processor, but their server focus and lack of interest in a desktop market with the PPC is where they have failed.
They should never of let their disputes with Microsoft cause the drop of WinNT for the PowerPC, and they also should have given Apple more to work with in regard to this Chip architecture for the desktop market.
"Every desktop computer sold today runs on a unix derived OS".
NT, the core of Win2k, and WinXP (the largest segment of the current computer market) are very much NOT derived from UNIX. The underlying architecture is vastly different from the UNIX model.
Pick up "Inside WindowsNT" for a read if you don't realize that NT abandoned *nix concepts and was written with no homage to the *nix designs.
That's okay. PC-land is way more than six months behind Apple in practically every other respect.
Find me a dual-processor computer with built-in FireWire 800 and 802.11g.
Find me an all-in-one computer with an articulated 17" digital LCD.
Find me a 17" laptop with built-in Gigabit ethernet
Mac people don't seem to get the concept that in the PC world, you can actually build your own PC design if a vendor does not offer the features you want.
There are many Mainboards that have built in Dual-Processor Support with Gigabit Ethernet and even Firewire 800.
Additionally, dropping in a Gigabit Ethernet and Firewire 800 Card into existing PCs is not rocket science. And this is technology that has been available in the 'PC' world for a long time.
Mac users also act like they were the first ones to get dual processor machines. Do you realize that I even have Pentium 133 dual processor boards in the closet? Dual processor boards in the PC world have been common for a LONG, LONG time. WindowsNT Dual Processor boxes were pretty common back in 1993/1994. Geesh.
As for the 17" Laptop Screen...
Um... can you say large black masking lines between the pixels? Other vendors could punch out 17" LCDs for their laptops just as easily by making the space between the pixels larger.
This is why even the 16â displays have not been successful in the laptop world, besides the fact that the 17â Mac laptops are as huge as a horse, which is not something you want when buying a computer to carry around.
For example, go look at the Large Mac LCD Screens, and then notice the big black lines that are visibility between the pixels. Ugly uh?
Then go look at a 1600x1200 15" display on a laptop like from Toshiba. The black lines between the pixels are invisible and the screen resolution is near film/paper quality.
Making a large LCD Monitor is easy; having a dense pixel large LCD Monitor is another story and something that is STILL not available on any Mac laptop.
As for 802.11g, again, just drop a card in the PC - Done. Have a Laptop, drop in a PCMCIA card, 802.11g - Done.
PC users are NOT tied to just what their hardware 'GOD' puts in the box.
I really get tired of zealots that don't take time to actually think or look outside their cave to see what the rest of the world is doing.
Mac's can't hit the processing power of most modern PC's, but you're stuck using Windows or BSD/Linux/etc, which means a lack of professional music and graphics applications
I only disagree on the availability of graphics and professional music applications on the PC.
I know of a couple of applications that are only available for the Mac platform in these areas, and yet I know of at least 20 mainstream applications in this area that are NOT available for the Mac.
The Mac having better music and graphical design applications is a myth that is carried over from the late 80s, early 90s.
Several of our techs and users in our animation and graphics department would love to debate this Mac myth.
(And I'm not knocking the Mac at all, but there is nothing technologically or based on application availability in the Mac platform that gives it an advantage. â" At least not in the last 10 years.)
The PPC 970 treats PPC32 code much in the same way that an Athlon 64 or Opteron handles x86-32 code: it's basically seamless, like you were running the code on a pure 32-bit machine.
OS X is supposed to need a few small tweaks to use PPC 970s, but I hear that they're mainly to tell the 970 "hey, this is 32-bit code!" rather than anything dramatic. I wouldn't be surprised if, as AppleInsider said, they just need a small update to 10.2 to make this work.
One thing to remember about PowerPC chips, by the way: PPC64 has always been part and parcel of the PowerPC architecture, it's just that it has taken a long time to get to the point where it's realistic to use it. PPC64 is also just a superset of PPC32 and has more to do with the size of data than any radical new features.
One thing that often gets missed in the Intel world is the architectural beauty of the PPC design. IBM and Apple, did create an outstanding base CPU architecture.
The sad part is that with IBM's lack of progression of the chip, the PPC has not maintained the competitive advances it SHOULD have been implemented years ago that it is capable of doing.
The DEC Alpha Chip was another amazing design of CPU architecture that has been lost due to Compaqâ(TM)s killing of its advancement.
The Intel CPUs are fast, with branch prediction, hyper-threading, and other advances to make them good chips, but somewhere along the way Intel was more willing to repackage and re-label rather than innovate the core of the CPU. Even the Itanium Processors are a sad evolution from Intel.
AMD has done a better job with the Intel designs than Intel itself has - hence the 64bit Hammer designs.
And I don't believe that Intel is incapable of doing better, I think they buy into their own marketing and are reluctant to push new technologies into their CPUs when they can sell what they already have.
As an OS junkie, it was a sad day when WindowsNT for the PowerPC was discontinued; it was also a sad time when Compaq stopped Windows2000 development for the Alpha chip. (And this was especially shocking, considering that when the DEC Alpha premiered at Comdex in 1992, it was WindowsNT that DEC used to demonstrate the power of the processor.)
iTunes never locks up. Seriously. It has never locked up, ever. The nature of the operating system makes it impossible for iTunes to lock up. The only way OS X software can lock up is if it gets executed as part of the kernel, as a kext. Apart from the iPod driver, iTunes has no kernel software
Ok, it is NOT impossible.
The ARCHITECTURE of the OS in theory would prevent iTunes from locking up the OS, but the OS in and of itself does not prevent an application like iTunes from crashing or locking itself up.
Secondly, due to the ARCHITECTURE of the MacOSX and its 'kernel', even Applications can bring the system down that have no direct access to the kernel level.
The kernel level in MacOSX(Darwin) is not nearly as protected as most people believe. There is no separation of the OS and the kernel as in an OS as WindowsNT/2k/XP. That is one of the differences between an object based client/server microkernel as in NT and the monolithic kernel in MacOSX and even the microkernel in Linux.
For example, the WIN32 kernel is a separate kernel than the NT kernel, as WIN32 is just an OS Client Subsystem that sits on the NT kernel. This is technology that does not exist in any *nix variant (or other consumer level OS) and therefore in these *nix variants there is no abstraction between the true OS kernel and the Client OS kernel. Even if you hate Microsoft, you have to admire the team that created the NT architecture and its object based client/server microkernel variant.
You need to read a bit more on the theory of the architecture and its actual implementation â" the Apple sound bites always sound good, but you also have to realize that even with multiple layers of hardware and kernel abstraction, there is never an absolute in being completely crash proof.
Also realize that your comments are the same ones said almost 10 years ago by both OS/2 and WindowsNT users. It is just new to the Mac with OSX to have a modern OS that has crash protection mechanisms. Unfortunately, it was only PC (and *nix) users that have enjoyed these for years.
PS, I have seen iTunes crash as well, it is not âimpossibleâ(TM).
(I am a âProudâ(TM) user of Windows2003 Server, WindowsXP, Linux, FreeBSD, Mac System 8.1, and Mac OSX â" prejudice of OSes is nothing but ignorance in action.)
USB devices require a host computer and OS. Intel and Microsoft seem to like USB because of this fact
How do you get that Microsoft likes USB better than Firewire, sitting here with a Firewire Windows based PC, and reviewing that Firewire has been available in Windows for as long as it has been available on the Mac... In fact I owned a Firewire PCI card before USB was even supported natively in Windows. (ie Win98)
Also if you review the legacy free and PC design specifications, Microsoft promotes Firewire as a prominate standard in these architectures. (Again owning a legacy free PC with firewire running WinXP.)
So again, where do you get that Microsoft likes USB better?
And I won't even start the debate of the issue of needing a 'host' computer for USB, because this again is not true. USB is in several consumer level products that have no 'host' computer, just a host controller - EXACTLY like firewire does.
Don't get me wrong however, I think Firewire is a better technology than USB and would prefer a Firewire device over a USB device hands down.
However, with the licensing for Firewire (that goes to Apple), USB is cheap, that is why you have seen it more in the past.
IE started as just another application. Bundling it into the MSHTML components and ActiveX controls (which is rather more than a HTML renderer) didn't happen until much later. Paint is a wrapper for metafiles, not bitmaps. So nyah.
Ok, MSPaint is a bitmap editor, it does not handle metafile (WMF or EMF metafiles) so nyah yourself.
Secondly, the original code that MS licensed to create IE was intended to be used as an engine for HTML. This is in the documents that are available regarding their meetings with Netscape when they wanted to originally license the Netscape technology instead of Mosaic. Go look it up, it is court record now.
As for them making it an ActiveX (OLE) based engine as apposed to the OLDER mechanisms for components in the GUI, has nothing to do with the intent of what they were doing.
This also shows that you have little knowledge of ActiveX and why they choose to use this mechanism for implementing the engine as opposed to just creating a new API subset for IE.
Considering you can't discern a metafile from a bitmap shows that this debate is probably not worth continuing.
It's not - win2k got the proper (well, decent) graphical support from the win9x support, making it a viable alternative for games and other graphical applications
I get what you are saying, but what you DON'T realize is that the 'interface' you are referring to was already in WinNT4.0. (The basic Chicago Interface)
Additionally, this interface was developed for NT originally, even though it was released in Win95 first. That is why the developers at Microsoft were running (and there are documented settings) to make Explorer (the modern version) run on WindowsNT 3.51 even.
It was ported from the NT group to the Win9x group, not the other way around. The NT team was used to develop the interface for Win95. They had the experience in WIN32 development.
The other aspects that you refer to I assume is DirectX for games. Again, this was not a project that was married to the Win9x platform. DirectX was even available on NT 4.0.
But because the Graphics drivers didn't get a lower ring level access in WindowsNT4.0, they never continued to update the DirectX project for NT4.0, as it would not have been fast enough.
DirectX is a SEPARATE development project than Win9x. Different people, etc etc. It was not a 'part of Win98' in the sense it was a 'part of the OS'. Just like Media Player is not a 'part of the OS'.
If you are talking OpenGL, OpenGL was available on NT years before OpenGL drivers were ever made for Win98.
As for the bugs, and you imply that WinXP carried over the Win2k bugs, you are mistaken. Anything that was fixed in Win2k,and even stuff that wasn't, was fixed in WinXP.
Our tech team participates in the beta security update group for Microsoft, and we constantly see updates for Win2k that DO NOT APPLY TO WINXP.
Why? Because more of the OS than you realize, even the networking stack, was re-written in WindowsXP. If you want to believe that WindowsXP is just Windows2k with a pretty graphics, I feel sorry for you and anyone you advise.
I dont consider this proof or anything. Win2k for Alpha had FX32 built into the OS, unlike NT4. Win2k for Alpha can run x86 code just fine because of this. It speeds up once it's been optimized, but even unoptimized code runs.
FX32 was a PRODUCT supplied by DEC, NOT Microsoft, and NO IT WAS NOT BUILT INTO THE OS.
Additionally Win2k was never released for the Alpha Chip because Compaq dropped support when they acquired DEC, and FX32 was only available on WinNT 4.0.
Where did you get this? This is the dumbest thing I have read today yet. Pick another hyperbole out of the sky and try it. Geesh.
WinNT, Win2k, and WinXP have no DOS or Win9x code in it, none, PERIOD. Get over it, ok...
If you still don't believe this, go pick up a book, like "Inside Windows NT" - it might help you understand how silly your post is.
The more stupid the idea, the harder people try to hold on to it.
the difference between bill and linus in this case is that bill FORCES it on you, linus does not.
Not that there is an HTML browser in every windows manager for XWindows or anything. Oh wait, there pretty much is. Um...
And the difference between them and MS is? Oh wait, I know, MS is actually an HTML rendering engine for developers, not just an inaccessible browser that is built into the XWindow desktop managers.
IE was a HTML rendering technology; the IE browser was just the pretty face in the early days. It was designed so developers could have their application display an HTML page just like they can tell Windows to draw a Button or show a Picture or put text on the screen.
It was an extension that was added to Windows just like when the ability to display a picture by just calling a few APIs was added to Windows.
Microsoft wanted Windows to be able to offer HTML display support natively, the browser was not something they set out to conquer the world with. At the time, they were more focused on MSN and its 'Explorer' based online browsing service.
People complain about IE being shoved down their throats, but I don't see them complain about the BITMAP rendering engine in Windows being shoved down their throat because MSPAINT is included in windows.
If you don't like IE, delete the Icons for it. You can even delete the HTML rendering engine, but it will break any application (such as ones made by my company) that use the HTML rendering engine to display help and HTML content for our users.
Additionally, I also don't see people complaining about the Browsers being shoved down their throats that are included in almost every Windows Manger for Linux. I also don't see people complaining that IBM shoved a browser down people's throats with OS/2. (If anyone is old enough to remember, it was the first mainstream PC OS that shipped with a built in browser - Windows was not. And in OS/2, it was just a browser, not something developers could access or use in their applications.)
Give up the 'We hate Microsoft Goat', especially over something like IE and the few megs that is added to the core of windows that gives developers a mechanism for displaying HTML natively in Windows. This is no different than the BITMAP rendering core in Windows or any other piece of Windows that makes Windows what it is and the GUI of Windows what it is.
Why does everything from MS have to be bad and everything from Linus have to be good. Please stop this crap. This has become a religious war that is really stupid when you step back and look at it.
In fact it has gotten so bad here, that there are even flame wars and religions popping up on which Linux distribution is better or whether OSX, Solaris, AIX, or FreeBSD is better.
What happened to evaluating products for what they are instead of just hating everyone else?
Please don't reply with the 'MS Bully, Monopoly' stuff, Sun, IBM and Apple have all done very 'questionable' stuff with licensing and anti-competitive practices. -And yes I can provide examples.
OS-X can do this too. Nice to see all these lame pee cee os's finally come up with support.
Unless I missed a really big memo, Mac OSX and OSX server can only do Port Filtering via the Firewall. (Which is something that is also built into products like WindowsXP and basic Linux installations.)
I see nowhere that MacOSX or any Apple provided product for OSX offers Application Layer Filtering.
Even MS has offered ISA for Windows Servers with Application Layer 7 filtering for several years. They also have had QOS which is application controlled application filtering in Windows 2000 and XP.
If it is in OSX or provided by Apple in an add-on product, please let me know about it.
In one hand, >I can prioritize what I want how I want. And it was good. In the other hand, my ISP may downgrade my Quake performance or my school may block telnetting to my home box completely (no matter which port I put the demon on). And this was bad.
The idea is good but I'm worried it will be heavily abused and that worries me. In the other hand, it may mean a neat security tool...
Fret not, if the network providers wanted to do this, there are already packages to do layer 7 filtering that they could have already purchased and put on the network.
This is just one of the first free implementations for Linux.
There are several products they could already be using if your provider or school wanted to lock down the networks that bad.
Shoot even MS ISA has been doing this for several years, as well as many other solutions in the *nix markets already.
And a lot of providers and networks use products like ISA for caching already, they just don't turn on the layer 7 filtering features.
So basically don't worry about it, it isn't adding any more level of control they what has already been available if they wanted to use it...
No, Win2k was a drastic leap up from WinNT. It was a functional redesign, and just as similar to Win9x as it was to WinNT
This true with regard to being a drastic leap up, but the part about it being redesigned to be more similar to Win9x is completely false. I can't believe that people are still pushing this myth to scare people away from Win2k or WinXP.
The NT Kernel that is underneath the WIN32 subsystem has NO CODE THAT IS SHARED WITH ANY Win9x version of Windows. In addition, the WIN32 subsystem that is used in NT4.0/Win2k/WinXP has NO CODE THAT IS SHARED FROM Windows9x.
I get so tired of morons incorrectly thinking that Win2k somehow merged Win9x code into NT. Or because WinXP added features like system restore and Movie maker that it somehow included code from WinME. This is just not the case whatsoever. They are completely different OSes and code bases. The NT line from 3.1 to XP shares NO CODE from the Win9x line in regard to teh core OS or the core of WIN32.
For example, Win9x software had a lot of assembly optimizations for the Intel platform. This code in NO WAY could be used on the NT platform, as all code on NT and the WIN32 subsystem produced has to be in a portable language (C). A design rule of NT from DAY 1.
If you somehow are stupid enough to still not believe this, then look back at the Win2k development cycle, until Compaq acquired DEC and the Alpha chip, Win2k was also in beta testing for the Alpha chip. Now if Win2k had Win9x assembly code in it, how do you think it would run on the Alpha chip? It couldn't becuase it doesn't. Until the Win9x platform development was dissolved, even the development teams were COMPLETELY different. There was the NT OS group and the Win9x OS group of people.
People are just nuts with stuff and are so willing to believe whatever negative crap they can find.
As for the driver model, the 'shared' WDM between Win9x and Win2k and WinXP simply required the drivers for Win9x to be based on the NT drier specifications and no longer support VXD and other DOS/Win9x driver mechanisms. It does not mean that the NT drivers use ANYTHING from the Win9x systems.
I'm not saying that the whole OS is the same, certainly not the GUI and tiddly things of that sort. Sure, the programming procedures are finally beginning to resemble those of quality products, but all that aside, Win2k's kernel and WinXP's perform quite similarly when running benchmarks on the same hardware platform (and sometimes slower on the WinXP side).
Actually benchmarks show that even on low end hardware WindowsXP is faster because of the changes in the memory management of the WIN32 and other underlying changes in the OS.
I was in the Win2k Beta program for 3 years and in the XP beta program as well. We were introduced to the OS technological differences.
I'm truly sorry that these differences are not touted more to geek communities and instead Microsoft tends to sell the fluff on top of Windows XP, even in their own marketing. But there are articles that demonstrate a plethora of differences in Win2k and WinXP anyway.
If you can't find the articles that explain this, then I feel sorry for your research abilities, but spreading inaccurate information because you were 'not able to find many differences' just doesn't fly.
In regard to the original post, Windows2003 Server has proven itself as a giant leap ahead of Win2k in not only architecture, but the services it offers.
In fact, Windows2003 Server is pulling significantly better performance as a desktop OS than even WindowsXP Professional DUE TO THE VAST CHANGES in its architectural changes. It even boots faster than WindowsXP Professional even with all the additional Server services. Making it the fastest desktop OS from Microsoft as well.
Here is a referring link so you don't have to look for it yourself. http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3655
Also since you were unable to find information from the Microsof
Why can you quit Word or Excel from the menu bar, but not IE?... The document centric model is neither new nor superior. Remember the ill-fated Apple / IBM project called OpenDoc?
Word and Excel work the same way as IE. Each document opens in its OWN window, and closing just the document, does not Exit the application. So the other documents are still left open as well.
This is how Windows software development has been migrating for years.
Word and Excel still have options to turn on and off MDI for old time users, but it is not the modern model.
As for UI design, I wasn't implying that you knew nothing, but developing applications for a GUI and actually designing the aspects of a GUI and UI Model are two different things, and this is where our backgrounds fork.
I have not only been an application developer but worked on the front roads of UI design and theory for many years. My background in this field stems from working with the XWindows project over 10 years ago to working with side ventures of new UI models to actually participating with Microsoft in UI design.
I have also taught UI design and theory for several years. I am not just a developer that has worked on these OSes, but I and my tech team have literally ripped apart the UI models of most GUIs and their CUI for study, how to get the best usage out of them, and for providing input on improving them.
There is also a big difference between OpenDoc and the document centric UI model. OpenDoc was a communication mechanism for transferring information between applications; it was NOT in any way related to a document centric UI model.
OpenDoc was a competing technology to OLE(ActiveX) technologies and did fail because of the power struggle of the companies trying to bring it to fruition. It also had serious overhead problems when compared to OLE.
OLE and ActiveX are still very much a part of Windows, which is why it is so easy to drag a chunk of text from a Word Document to your desktop and create a scrap, or drag a chart from Excel into CorelDraw, or drag a picture or URL from IE into Word or almost any other application. These are all OLE/ActiveX technology uses.
However even though OLE/ActiveX play a part in the Document Centric UI model, they are not what the Document Centric Model is about, they are just pieces that are used to help the concepts of Document/Application interoperability.
PS - Microsoft Word was the first application in history to support the concept of picking up text and dragging and dropping it to another location. This is something that you probably use on your Mac everyday and is also something that is a part of almost every word processor today. Hence, once again Microsoft does innovate; they just don't always get the credit for it.
Talking about UI inconsistency, I can't imagine anyone worse than MS. For instance, every multi-document apps (Mac or Windows) should have a Window menu that list the currently open windows, right? But no, the rule doesn't Apply to IE for some reason. Worst still, IE doesn't even have the Exit command. So how do you quit IE if you have a few dozens of browser windows? The only way I can see is close all the windows one by one, and even then it might still be running the the background.
There are a lot of things you just don't know of UI design and the reasons behind them. I don't have the time to explain them here.
However, moving FROM a Multi-Doc Window interface to Separate windows for each document instance is the way MS and most UI designers of today are moving because it is a better way to design applications. It offers not only ease of use for novices, but power for experienced users. The MDI application is a thing and concept of the past.
As for your statement about closing IE and 'all its Windows' - Just right click on it on the taskbar and hit 'Close Group'. It will close all the document IE Windows.
This is a part of moving from ONE application controlling ALL OF ITS DOCUMENTS and DOCUMENT WINDOWS to the DOCUMENTS themselves being the focus and NOT the application. If you have a picture open, you have a picture open, you should not have to know or worry about what 'application' it is being displayed or edited in. It should just be a picture either being displayed or edited, not about the application.
This is a part of the 'new' theories of UI design, a real document centric model, instead of an application centric model, which by what you say is all you are accustomed to having.
As I said before, the document should be abstracted from whatever application it is being viewed or edited in. Just like in the real world, a piece of paper you have typed on does NOT get filed in your Typewriter case, nor do you have to take your typewriter with the document still stuck in it over to the copier to make copies of it.
The real world does not work like the application model. In the real world, documents are INDEPENDANT of the tools you use to create and modify them, and this is also how it should be on computers as well. This is how Windows has operated and been moving application developers since 1995.
The changing of the Menu at the top of the Apple screen based upon application focus is something that confuses new users more than you realize. Additionally, with the screen real estate available on modern computers, there is no need to save the 25-30 pixels for each DOCUMENT to have its own menu for THAT DOCUMENT. I completely disagree with the 'universal' menu bar, it breaks many portions of the Document Centric UI Model.
This is really an in-depth theory and I wish I could help you more with it. I just don't have the time, but if I ever do a book or video I will look up your post and send you a free copy, I promise.
Keep up the spirit and take care of yourself, The Net Avenger
I respect your personal prefernce, but you must be one of the very few in the world who actually prefer XP for its GUI!
As I have mentioned before I have worked with OS design, not only the architecture but the UI as well. I have studied and taught user productivity in relation to many GUI models.
The biggest misconception of the Windows model is people not knowing how to apply real world working techniques. They get stuck in the old DOS/Win3.1 model and don't realize that there is an entire different way to work in Windows now.
Just for example, in teaching I apply a method of analogizing word processing to the old way of using a typewriter. In the real world you don't keep all of your documents you type inside your typewriter case, you actually file them. The same model when applied to a GUI, if the GUI supports it, the same should be true. When you are looking for a document you don't open your word processor to find it, you should instead find where you filed the document and open it from there.
On Windows you can extend this analogy further because of the mechanisms built into the basic GUI of explorer. The sad part is that many of these concepts are something that both the Mac and Windows originally shared, but now the Mac has lost its way with regard to extending this conceptual model. The extensibility of ActiveX(OLE) technology and drag and drop are something that is far more mature in Windows than MacOSX.
In Windows the Open/Save dialog boxes are superfluous and something that is truly not needed 99.9% of the time if the user applies this model. There is a lot to this theory and its implementation, so I will save you the class time, besides I get paid to teach these theories, so the Slashdot crowd doesn't get a free class here either.
The Mac used to be really good at this model, and with OSX is getting back to being good at it, but it just isn't as fully consistent as in Windows. Explaining to users why they can't 'always' use the keyboard to navigation any application and why the DELETE key works sometimes, sometimes doesn't, and sometimes acts like the Backspace key is another example of the loss of consistency in the MacOS.
The Multi-Window approach that the Mac uses was originally a design to save precious screen space by putting the menu bar at the top of the screen, but for usability, this model has proven to be less cohesive with users. Having the Menu bar actually inside and tied to the application it is working for is a lot easier for novice users. It is also a model that was consistent with the original single application (non-multitasking model) that the Mac was based on. Windows users, even novices, are much more prone to have several applications running and using them concurrently to switch back and forth for information or performing other tasks.
I also agree with you that the MacOSX is far prettier than WindowsXP, but with a simple patch to allow third party skins, I can use any theme and make my WindowsXP machine look just like MacOSX. And this is using the native built in skinning of WindowsXP, not an add-on like WindowBlinds. I do like the animations of OSX though, and will anxiously await what Longhorn brings when the beta starts.
Secondly, you really have to get yourself a Mac to experience the power and elegance of Mac OS X.
Actually I already do... At home, and several in the test labs at work. I use and have worked with OSX quite a bit. I also have owned a Mac since the late 1980s. I even have a 'legally licensed' Mac Emulator for System 8.1 that I run on my WindowsXP laptop.
My personal preference is still to go back to WindowsXP, but this is a personal choice based on the UI design and model of WindowsXP's interface more than anything.
Mac OSX is a great product, but it still has a bit of growing up to do to catch up with some of the features that I take for granted in WindowsXP.
It's absurd to suggest that Mac OS X is monolithic and the Linux Kernel is not, because the opposite is true. I agree that Mac OS X is not 100% microkernel-based for performance reasons, but why do you think Apple should use Mach at all if they throw away all the microkernel elements?
Actually, this is quite true. Do a few net searches and you will find details on this (I don't have time tonight to pull the links for you). But yes, the MacOSX kernel is monolithic and no the Linux kernel is not.
The interface to the MACH kernel that the Mac OSX uses is based on BSD, which is monolithic. This is just the facts; I'm not trying to sell you a bridge. I truly urge you to do some reading on this.
Thanks for the hearted debate. I enjoy OSX, I just don't believe in it as much as you do. But I also don't want you to change your feelings for OSX.
You need to keep up your support of OSX, but don't blind yourself to what it is and what it isn't, and then be a strong proponent that pushes Apple to make it even better by recognizing what it lacks and where its strengths are.
Does someone really need to point out to you that winxp code is functionally very similar, if not mostly identical, to win2k code, except for several added trinkets? Thus, win2k3 isn't that much different than win2k.
Just like the NT core that has existed since 1992 is pretty much the same in WindowsNT3.1, 4.0, Win2k, and WinXP.
You are kidding with this, right?
There are SIGNIFICANT differences in how WindowsXP and Windows2000 operate, both architecturally and in the WIN32 subsystem.
(Check the new driver abilities in the DDK section on Microsoft's site for just small difference on architecture changes.)
As for the WIN32 system and changes, there are more differences than I have time to even begin to mention, from UI changes and UI model changes to even GDI+ plus changes and cleartype. Be a big person and go to Microsoft and look this stuff up for yourself.
I do agree that WindowsXP is not as much as an upgrade as Win2k was to NT4, but it is definitely far more evolved than Win2k. Windows development doesn't stop just because a version is released. What doesn't get in the released version is already being added to the new version. Also new technologies and fixes are automatically rolled into the next OS.
As for the differences in Win2k Server and Windows 2003 server, again, there are so many things that you apparently do not realize.
One example: The IIS implementation was completely rewritten. It now operates at a lower ring and has a tremendous advantage for security and performance over Win2k.
I could sit and list differences on both of these issues for hours, but it would be easier if you would just educate yourself by going to www.microsoft.com and doing a quick search. You will find the answers and differences there.
So, no, you don't need to point out that WinXP code is 'similar or mostly identical' to Win2k code. ----It simply isn't.
You are confused about device drivers with the OS. A modern microkernel OS like Mac OS X and Win 2k should just provide a plug-in architecture capable of supporting any number of devices - without coding device-specific logic in the OS.
Um, actually you seem to be a bit confused here. First off the Mac OSX is not a true microkernel as generally defined. It is a monolithic Mach kernel, hence the inability to layer multiple OS processes on the kernel without locking the other OS layers. WindowsNT/2k/XP is a variation of a microkernel design that makes use of the client/server model. NT is roughly divided into two parts, NT executive, the kernel portion of the operating system based on a layered design, and a set of "protected subsystem" servers that run in user mode. This is quite different than the MacOSX kernel architecture. This plays out in not only the ability to abstract the OS subsystems but also in how drivers are implemented into the system.
NT does not have 'device-specific' logic in the OS; however, the WIN32 OS Subsystem does provide for some driver level compatibility for legacy or poorly written drivers. The WIN32 kernel is NOT the NT kernel - God I hope you understand this. The NT driver model is truly separated from the OS. That is why there is a HAL layer and why NT can be ported to other hardware platforms, just like any *nix.
Mac OS X provides low-level support for industry standards like USB, FireWire, BlueTooth and so on. It's totally upto the device makers to write the device-specific stuff and do most of the testing. It's my experiences that plug-n-play works much better on Mac than on PCs. My Cannon digital camera just works on Mac OS X without any installation, but the same camera requires lengthy installation on Win XP.
First off, MacOSX ONLY provides basic Firewire, Bluetooth, and USB support for the Apple hardware chipsets. In the PC world there tons of different chipsets even for these basic technologies.
Secondly, To debate plug and play is just silly. They BOTH use the same plug and play specification mechanisms. Now whether your camera driver was included as a native driver in MacOSX would be the only difference.
In WindowsXP (Just like in OSX), if the driver is not a native driver, simply putting the manufacturer's CD in the drive will allow WindowsXP to load and install the driver automatically. If your driver was not native to the MacOSX (as another post pointed out) then you would have to also put the CD in the drive or hope that the manufacturer has a driver available for OSX.
Maybe Windows is not so well designed in this respect, which might explain the 50 mln lines of bloated code base. You people give too much credit to MS in this case, and too little to third parties. MS is a monoply and a known bully.
Actually, the NT architecture model of driver support is a bit more advanced that MacOSX or even Linux. That is why drivers are abstracted from the kernel. (In other words, you don't have to compile your kernel drivers for better performance as you would in the *nix world.)
Bloat code? Hm... You seem to be a bit of a trolling type with this statement. If you hate Microsoft, then just say so and move on to your cave and back into your own version of Plato's allegory.
Even with the 'bloated' code you mention, Windows 2003 Server is still considerably faster (even on comparative hardware) than MacOSX server.
In fact Windows 2003 Server right now is pretty much on the top of the stack when it comes to performance in Intel/AMD based processors.
Would I like to see Linux or another OS be able to knock them off the top, yes, but for now the architectural differences are giving Microsoft the edge to tune NT to keep ahead of what everyone else is capable of doing.
They may give a little help to their big partners like HP or Dell, but smaller companies like nVidia and ATI have to pay MS and work really hard to get things certified by the Beast, and onl
Well, I'd say that there are more people willing to fix security issues than exploit them. Of course, those wanting to exploit the code are probably more likely to be looking over it for holes. But once a hole is found and exploited, then the white-hat hacker machine can come into play and fix it. Since users have got a direct interest in keeping the code secure, security holes tend to be fixed quickly, which doesn't always happen in the commercial world because of market pressures, beurocracy, etc.
I don't think the track record of Microsoft products really helps the case that closed source is more secure...
In an altruistic world you would be right, but if there is a reason that a system MUST be secured, then there is also a reason someone would want to find an exploit and gain access to it. All the Open Source world has to do is piss off enough Microsoft Zealots and projects like Linux will look like swiss cheese within a matter of months.
As for the track record of Microsoft, lets see.... Checking an 'independent' security alert web site, MS had 7 for their products and Linux had 12 last year. Also checking the independent security alerts provided by various Linux vendors, they list almost 10 to 1 security problems compared to WindowsXP. Again, I don't see the superiority of Open Source.
For some reason the Open Source world doesn't realize why WindowsXP has built in error reporting, it provides a direct report to Microsoft of the software failure and the access violation (no not private information as conspiracy nuts think). This gives MS the opportunity to not only address security problems, but to fix bugs on a daily basis.
The open source world needs to realize how many 'compatibility' fixes for errant applications that Microsoft releases for WindowsXP(which isn't even their responsibility), in addition to its own bug and security fixes. And this is still on a schedule that is faster than any other major vendor, hence the Automatic WindowsUpdate, and this is in comparison to even major players including, IBM, RedHat, Sun, etc.
Oh, and one more thing: this system is on 24/7, for weeks (and sometimes months) at a time.
The laptop up until early last year ran 24/7 as well (It sat at a desktop). It now is hibernated in between use using WindowsXP, and according to the log hasn't been rebooted in over five months. But that is pretty common in the XP world anymore.
(PS. Just for the record, I sit on the fence with the MS love/hate thing - it truly is a waste of resources.)
In my observation, most reinstalls are the result of user-panic response
Exactly, and the reinstall/format plan is the only way novice techs can get a system fixed or back to the original level of performance.
A skilled tech can find the problems, even piece by piece on older OSes and remove the problems without having to reinstall anything.
In the mid 90s my company's tech center dealt directly with independent consumer level support and repairs that repaired and support several thousands of systems. - Formatting/reinstalling was what the hardware vendors would recommend to users or tell them the standard line, "you probably have a virus."
In all that time it was a policy that our techs NEVER reinstalled or reformatted anyone's system, and they always were able to find the problem and fix the system without having to format or reinstall.
They were well trained and it was our policy to not ever do the format or reinstall, but to actually just find the problems and fix them. If a tech ever violated this policy, I would have fired them.
I'm glad to see that there are other users that do know how to maintain their systems (even at the techie level).
I still stick with my original argument, telling users to reinstall their OS every year is just asking for trouble. If there is a problem or performance issues, that they cannot find or fix, they should opt to take the system to a tech center that knows that they are doing and just fix the conflict and the problem. Period.
And with newer OSes like WindowsXP, this is also becoming an irrelevant concept due to its nature of self preservation mechanisms. Anymore the easiest repair for a 'truly' garbled system is just to upgrade them to XP, it is a quick fix that is making the Windows tech business all but obsolete.
Man, Slashdot readers sure show their ignorance when it comes to maintaing Windows systems.
This is at least the 20th post that I've seen which states "all you need to do is clean out your 'startup items' and remove excess software you don't use".
Ok, so: who can list all of the places an application/service can start from within Windows? (hint: it's more than programs\startup, win.ini, and the 3 or 4 registry keys you may have heard about - and I bet most people don't even realize this much). Ok, so you've nailed all of that. Now, it's time to remove the excess applications - what's that? All uninstallers don't behave nicely? You're finding DLLs from applications you removed that are still in \system32? How can it be??? I asked Windows to uninstall it!!!!
Yes, it's not as bad as Windows 95 these days. However, the registry just keeps getting worse. Extra and conflicing libraries are still a huge hassle on Windows-based systems. And unless you're intending on auditing, line for line, every registry entry you have (mine's a few megs of binary data, have fun), and checking every single file you have, making sure it's the appropriate version (did I mention you can't check source for most applications, so you really never know what DLL should be there?)....
Um, certified Windows professional here that has been in the NT beta program since its beginning. Putting me in the 'slashdot ignorance group' is not going to work, especially when you know very little about what you are talking about. (PS your spelling sucks as well):)
You have very limited knowledge if you think that an 'uninstalled' DLL that still exists in the system32 folder is going to affect your system. Other than taking up the 32kb of space, it will have NO affect on ANYTHING under Windows.
In 'modern' Windows there are three basic areas of startup locations. The Startup Folder (including the All Users Startup Folder), The HKEY_CURRENT_USER Run area, and the HKEY_Local_Machine Run area.
However there are a few extra places that you probably don't even know about that legacy applications can place startup applications, like a win.ini file (although the win.ini files tend to be unique to the software application in Win2k and especially WindowsXP - hence the Windows folder in your user profile that maintains this).
There is also the load and run areas of the registry under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE WindowsNT - Current Version, etc. (This one tricks most self appointed Windows Know it Alls.)
But for the MOST part ONLY the three main areas I mentioned above are used unless someone has written an app that is a worm and hides itself in the other Run areas. Software that has been written in the last eight years does not use these other areas anymore.
And again, with the conflicting DLL problems and where the DLLs should or shouldn't be are NO LONGER a problem whatsoever under Windows2k, and especially WindowsXP.
You see these 'modern Windows' OSes can put conflicting DLLs with the applications and not even let the application know that they really are not still sitting in the System or System32 folder.
It is a part of the protection mechanism in WindowsXP. And with WindowsXP, different DLL versions are isolated and can even run concurrently supporting the application that needs whichever version of the DLL it needs. This is all maintained by the WindowsXP OS. A quite nice and impressive feature of the OS that ensures stability and keeps crappy programmers from compromising other applications.
Geesh...
If you were a 'real' expert when it comes to maintaing Windows, you would not only have known this, but would only know how to clean out a system (even Win3.1 or 95) without formatting and starting over.
You know, I am also tired of the ignorance on maintaining Windows from Slashdot readers as well. Your name has just been added to the list.:)
Slashdot Mirror
without a host computer
No, it's not *exactly* like FireWire. Actually it's not the same at all.
I liked your post, but I seriously hope you don't think I or everyone else here is that stupid.
The point I was making is that a 'host computer' was NOT necessary for USB.
Yes the USB protocol and the Firewire protocol are vastly different as you point out, but I was NOT arguing that they were the same.
With either one, they BOTH have to have a 'controller' for the device to 'host' the connection. Networking and connectivity technology 101, pure and simple. Firewire uses a more advanced peer model than USB, we all know this.
But what the previous poster was implying was that USB required a âhost computerâ(TM) with COMPUTER being the keyword. USB does NOT have to be hosted or controlled by a COMPUTER. The USB controller/host can be in a consumer device and a 'host COMPUTER' is NOT required.
Again, thanks for refreshing everyone on the Firewire specs, but please don't misread something into my post that was NOT implied.
Lack of progression? You mean like #1 in SPEC FP 2000 [spec.org], #4 in SPEC INT 2000 [spec.org] and #2 in TPC-C [tpc.org]? IBM has been doing a great job with PowerPCs, but they've been concentrating on server versions.
This is not what I meant. In the server areas they have done a lot with the chip, but adding desktop level features and making it afforadable for the desktop is where they have failed.
The chip should have been easier and more capapble of being the leading desktop processor, but their server focus and lack of interest in a desktop market with the PPC is where they have failed.
They should never of let their disputes with Microsoft cause the drop of WinNT for the PowerPC, and they also should have given Apple more to work with in regard to this Chip architecture for the desktop market.
"Every desktop computer sold today runs on a unix derived OS".
NT, the core of Win2k, and WinXP (the largest segment of the current computer market) are very much NOT derived from UNIX. The underlying architecture is vastly different from the UNIX model.
Pick up "Inside WindowsNT" for a read if you don't realize that NT abandoned *nix concepts and was written with no homage to the *nix designs.
That's okay. PC-land is way more than six months behind Apple in practically every other respect.
Find me a dual-processor computer with built-in FireWire 800 and 802.11g.
Find me an all-in-one computer with an articulated 17" digital LCD.
Find me a 17" laptop with built-in Gigabit ethernet
Mac people don't seem to get the concept that in the PC world, you can actually build your own PC design if a vendor does not offer the features you want.
There are many Mainboards that have built in Dual-Processor Support with Gigabit Ethernet and even Firewire 800.
Additionally, dropping in a Gigabit Ethernet and Firewire 800 Card into existing PCs is not rocket science. And this is technology that has been available in the 'PC' world for a long time.
Mac users also act like they were the first ones to get dual processor machines. Do you realize that I even have Pentium 133 dual processor boards in the closet? Dual processor boards in the PC world have been common for a LONG, LONG time. WindowsNT Dual Processor boxes were pretty common back in 1993/1994. Geesh.
As for the 17" Laptop Screen...
Um... can you say large black masking lines between the pixels? Other vendors could punch out 17" LCDs for their laptops just as easily by making the space between the pixels larger.
This is why even the 16â displays have not been successful in the laptop world, besides the fact that the 17â Mac laptops are as huge as a horse, which is not something you want when buying a computer to carry around.
For example, go look at the Large Mac LCD Screens, and then notice the big black lines that are visibility between the pixels. Ugly uh?
Then go look at a 1600x1200 15" display on a laptop like from Toshiba. The black lines between the pixels are invisible and the screen resolution is near film/paper quality.
Making a large LCD Monitor is easy; having a dense pixel large LCD Monitor is another story and something that is STILL not available on any Mac laptop.
As for 802.11g, again, just drop a card in the PC - Done. Have a Laptop, drop in a PCMCIA card, 802.11g - Done.
PC users are NOT tied to just what their hardware 'GOD' puts in the box.
I really get tired of zealots that don't take time to actually think or look outside their cave to see what the rest of the world is doing.
Mac's can't hit the processing power of most modern PC's, but you're stuck using Windows or BSD/Linux/etc, which means a lack of professional music and graphics applications
I only disagree on the availability of graphics and professional music applications on the PC.
I know of a couple of applications that are only available for the Mac platform in these areas, and yet I know of at least 20 mainstream applications in this area that are NOT available for the Mac.
The Mac having better music and graphical design applications is a myth that is carried over from the late 80s, early 90s.
Several of our techs and users in our animation and graphics department would love to debate this Mac myth.
(And I'm not knocking the Mac at all, but there is nothing technologically or based on application availability in the Mac platform that gives it an advantage. â" At least not in the last 10 years.)
The PPC 970 treats PPC32 code much in the same way that an Athlon 64 or Opteron handles x86-32 code: it's basically seamless, like you were running the code on a pure 32-bit machine.
OS X is supposed to need a few small tweaks to use PPC 970s, but I hear that they're mainly to tell the 970 "hey, this is 32-bit code!" rather than anything dramatic. I wouldn't be surprised if, as AppleInsider said, they just need a small update to 10.2 to make this work.
One thing to remember about PowerPC chips, by the way: PPC64 has always been part and parcel of the PowerPC architecture, it's just that it has taken a long time to get to the point where it's realistic to use it. PPC64 is also just a superset of PPC32 and has more to do with the size of data than any radical new features.
One thing that often gets missed in the Intel world is the architectural beauty of the PPC design. IBM and Apple, did create an outstanding base CPU architecture.
The sad part is that with IBM's lack of progression of the chip, the PPC has not maintained the competitive advances it SHOULD have been implemented years ago that it is capable of doing.
The DEC Alpha Chip was another amazing design of CPU architecture that has been lost due to Compaqâ(TM)s killing of its advancement.
The Intel CPUs are fast, with branch prediction, hyper-threading, and other advances to make them good chips, but somewhere along the way Intel was more willing to repackage and re-label rather than innovate the core of the CPU. Even the Itanium Processors are a sad evolution from Intel.
AMD has done a better job with the Intel designs than Intel itself has - hence the 64bit Hammer designs.
And I don't believe that Intel is incapable of doing better, I think they buy into their own marketing and are reluctant to push new technologies into their CPUs when they can sell what they already have.
As an OS junkie, it was a sad day when WindowsNT for the PowerPC was discontinued; it was also a sad time when Compaq stopped Windows2000 development for the Alpha chip. (And this was especially shocking, considering that when the DEC Alpha premiered at Comdex in 1992, it was WindowsNT that DEC used to demonstrate the power of the processor.)
iTunes never locks up. Seriously. It has never locked up, ever. The nature of the operating system makes it impossible for iTunes to lock up. The only way OS X software can lock up is if it gets executed as part of the kernel, as a kext. Apart from the iPod driver, iTunes has no kernel software
Ok, it is NOT impossible.
The ARCHITECTURE of the OS in theory would prevent iTunes from locking up the OS, but the OS in and of itself does not prevent an application like iTunes from crashing or locking itself up.
Secondly, due to the ARCHITECTURE of the MacOSX and its 'kernel', even Applications can bring the system down that have no direct access to the kernel level.
The kernel level in MacOSX(Darwin) is not nearly as protected as most people believe. There is no separation of the OS and the kernel as in an OS as WindowsNT/2k/XP. That is one of the differences between an object based client/server microkernel as in NT and the monolithic kernel in MacOSX and even the microkernel in Linux.
For example, the WIN32 kernel is a separate kernel than the NT kernel, as WIN32 is just an OS Client Subsystem that sits on the NT kernel. This is technology that does not exist in any *nix variant (or other consumer level OS) and therefore in these *nix variants there is no abstraction between the true OS kernel and the Client OS kernel. Even if you hate Microsoft, you have to admire the team that created the NT architecture and its object based client/server microkernel variant.
You need to read a bit more on the theory of the architecture and its actual implementation â" the Apple sound bites always sound good, but you also have to realize that even with multiple layers of hardware and kernel abstraction, there is never an absolute in being completely crash proof.
Also realize that your comments are the same ones said almost 10 years ago by both OS/2 and WindowsNT users. It is just new to the Mac with OSX to have a modern OS that has crash protection mechanisms. Unfortunately, it was only PC (and *nix) users that have enjoyed these for years.
PS, I have seen iTunes crash as well, it is not âimpossibleâ(TM).
(I am a âProudâ(TM) user of Windows2003 Server, WindowsXP, Linux, FreeBSD, Mac System 8.1, and Mac OSX â" prejudice of OSes is nothing but ignorance in action.)
USB devices require a host computer and OS. Intel and Microsoft seem to like USB because of this fact
How do you get that Microsoft likes USB better than Firewire, sitting here with a Firewire Windows based PC, and reviewing that Firewire has been available in Windows for as long as it has been available on the Mac... In fact I owned a Firewire PCI card before USB was even supported natively in Windows. (ie Win98)
Also if you review the legacy free and PC design specifications, Microsoft promotes Firewire as a prominate standard in these architectures. (Again owning a legacy free PC with firewire running WinXP.)
So again, where do you get that Microsoft likes USB better?
And I won't even start the debate of the issue of needing a 'host' computer for USB, because this again is not true. USB is in several consumer level products that have no 'host' computer, just a host controller - EXACTLY like firewire does.
Don't get me wrong however, I think Firewire is a better technology than USB and would prefer a Firewire device over a USB device hands down.
However, with the licensing for Firewire (that goes to Apple), USB is cheap, that is why you have seen it more in the past.
IE started as just another application. Bundling it into the MSHTML components and ActiveX controls (which is rather more than a HTML renderer) didn't happen until much later.
Paint is a wrapper for metafiles, not bitmaps. So nyah.
Ok, MSPaint is a bitmap editor, it does not handle metafile (WMF or EMF metafiles) so nyah yourself.
Secondly, the original code that MS licensed to create IE was intended to be used as an engine for HTML. This is in the documents that are available regarding their meetings with Netscape when they wanted to originally license the Netscape technology instead of Mosaic. Go look it up, it is court record now.
As for them making it an ActiveX (OLE) based engine as apposed to the OLDER mechanisms for components in the GUI, has nothing to do with the intent of what they were doing.
This also shows that you have little knowledge of ActiveX and why they choose to use this mechanism for implementing the engine as opposed to just creating a new API subset for IE.
Considering you can't discern a metafile from a bitmap shows that this debate is probably not worth continuing.
It's not - win2k got the proper (well, decent) graphical support from the win9x support, making it a viable alternative for games and other graphical applications
,and even stuff that wasn't, was fixed in WinXP.
I get what you are saying, but what you DON'T realize is that the 'interface' you are referring to was already in WinNT4.0. (The basic Chicago Interface)
Additionally, this interface was developed for NT originally, even though it was released in Win95 first. That is why the developers at Microsoft were running (and there are documented settings) to make Explorer (the modern version) run on WindowsNT 3.51 even.
It was ported from the NT group to the Win9x group, not the other way around. The NT team was used to develop the interface for Win95. They had the experience in WIN32 development.
The other aspects that you refer to I assume is DirectX for games. Again, this was not a project that was married to the Win9x platform. DirectX was even available on NT 4.0.
But because the Graphics drivers didn't get a lower ring level access in WindowsNT4.0, they never continued to update the DirectX project for NT4.0, as it would not have been fast enough.
DirectX is a SEPARATE development project than Win9x. Different people, etc etc. It was not a 'part of Win98' in the sense it was a 'part of the OS'. Just like Media Player is not a 'part of the OS'.
If you are talking OpenGL, OpenGL was available on NT years before OpenGL drivers were ever made for Win98.
As for the bugs, and you imply that WinXP carried over the Win2k bugs, you are mistaken. Anything that was fixed in Win2k
Our tech team participates in the beta security update group for Microsoft, and we constantly see updates for Win2k that DO NOT APPLY TO WINXP.
Why? Because more of the OS than you realize, even the networking stack, was re-written in WindowsXP. If you want to believe that WindowsXP is just Windows2k with a pretty graphics, I feel sorry for you and anyone you advise.
Period.
The Net Avenger
I dont consider this proof or anything.
Win2k for Alpha had FX32 built into the OS, unlike NT4. Win2k for Alpha can run x86 code just fine because of this. It speeds up once it's been optimized, but even unoptimized code runs.
FX32 was a PRODUCT supplied by DEC, NOT Microsoft, and NO IT WAS NOT BUILT INTO THE OS.
Additionally Win2k was never released for the Alpha Chip because Compaq dropped support when they acquired DEC, and FX32 was only available on WinNT 4.0.
Where did you get this? This is the dumbest thing I have read today yet. Pick another hyperbole out of the sky and try it. Geesh.
WinNT, Win2k, and WinXP have no DOS or Win9x code in it, none, PERIOD. Get over it, ok...
If you still don't believe this, go pick up a book, like "Inside Windows NT" - it might help you understand how silly your post is.
The more stupid the idea, the harder people try to hold on to it.
The Net Avenger
the difference between bill and linus in this case is that bill FORCES it on you, linus does not.
Not that there is an HTML browser in every windows manager for XWindows or anything. Oh wait, there pretty much is. Um...
And the difference between them and MS is? Oh wait, I know, MS is actually an HTML rendering engine for developers, not just an inaccessible browser that is built into the XWindow desktop managers.
IE was a HTML rendering technology; the IE browser was just the pretty face in the early days. It was designed so developers could have their application display an HTML page just like they can tell Windows to draw a Button or show a Picture or put text on the screen.
It was an extension that was added to Windows just like when the ability to display a picture by just calling a few APIs was added to Windows.
Microsoft wanted Windows to be able to offer HTML display support natively, the browser was not something they set out to conquer the world with. At the time, they were more focused on MSN and its 'Explorer' based online browsing service.
People complain about IE being shoved down their throats, but I don't see them complain about the BITMAP rendering engine in Windows being shoved down their throat because MSPAINT is included in windows.
If you don't like IE, delete the Icons for it. You can even delete the HTML rendering engine, but it will break any application (such as ones made by my company) that use the HTML rendering engine to display help and HTML content for our users.
Additionally, I also don't see people complaining about the Browsers being shoved down their throats that are included in almost every Windows Manger for Linux. I also don't see people complaining that IBM shoved a browser down people's throats with OS/2. (If anyone is old enough to remember, it was the first mainstream PC OS that shipped with a built in browser - Windows was not. And in OS/2, it was just a browser, not something developers could access or use in their applications.)
Give up the 'We hate Microsoft Goat', especially over something like IE and the few megs that is added to the core of windows that gives developers a mechanism for displaying HTML natively in Windows. This is no different than the BITMAP rendering core in Windows or any other piece of Windows that makes Windows what it is and the GUI of Windows what it is.
Why does everything from MS have to be bad and everything from Linus have to be good. Please stop this crap. This has become a religious war that is really stupid when you step back and look at it.
In fact it has gotten so bad here, that there are even flame wars and religions popping up on which Linux distribution is better or whether OSX, Solaris, AIX, or FreeBSD is better.
What happened to evaluating products for what they are instead of just hating everyone else?
Please don't reply with the 'MS Bully, Monopoly' stuff, Sun, IBM and Apple have all done very 'questionable' stuff with licensing and anti-competitive practices. -And yes I can provide examples.
OS-X can do this too. Nice to see all these lame pee cee os's finally come up with support.
Unless I missed a really big memo, Mac OSX and OSX server can only do Port Filtering via the Firewall. (Which is something that is also built into products like WindowsXP and basic Linux installations.)
I see nowhere that MacOSX or any Apple provided product for OSX offers Application Layer Filtering.
Even MS has offered ISA for Windows Servers with Application Layer 7 filtering for several years. They also have had QOS which is application controlled application filtering in Windows 2000 and XP.
If it is in OSX or provided by Apple in an add-on product, please let me know about it.
In one hand, >I can prioritize what I want how I want. And it was good.
In the other hand, my ISP may downgrade my Quake performance or my school may block telnetting to my home box completely (no matter which port I put the demon on). And this was bad.
The idea is good but I'm worried it will be heavily abused and that worries me. In the other hand, it may mean a neat security tool...
Fret not, if the network providers wanted to do this, there are already packages to do layer 7 filtering that they could have already purchased and put on the network.
This is just one of the first free implementations for Linux.
There are several products they could already be using if your provider or school wanted to lock down the networks that bad.
Shoot even MS ISA has been doing this for several years, as well as many other solutions in the *nix markets already.
And a lot of providers and networks use products like ISA for caching already, they just don't turn on the layer 7 filtering features.
So basically don't worry about it, it isn't adding any more level of control they what has already been available if they wanted to use it...
No, Win2k was a drastic leap up from WinNT. It was a functional redesign, and just as similar to Win9x as it was to WinNT
This true with regard to being a drastic leap up, but the part about it being redesigned to be more similar to Win9x is completely false. I can't believe that people are still pushing this myth to scare people away from Win2k or WinXP.
The NT Kernel that is underneath the WIN32 subsystem has NO CODE THAT IS SHARED WITH ANY Win9x version of Windows. In addition, the WIN32 subsystem that is used in NT4.0/Win2k/WinXP has NO CODE THAT IS SHARED FROM Windows9x.
I get so tired of morons incorrectly thinking that Win2k somehow merged Win9x code into NT. Or because WinXP added features like system restore and Movie maker that it somehow included code from WinME. This is just not the case whatsoever. They are completely different OSes and code bases. The NT line from 3.1 to XP shares NO CODE from the Win9x line in regard to teh core OS or the core of WIN32.
For example, Win9x software had a lot of assembly optimizations for the Intel platform. This code in NO WAY could be used on the NT platform, as all code on NT and the WIN32 subsystem produced has to be in a portable language (C). A design rule of NT from DAY 1.
If you somehow are stupid enough to still not believe this, then look back at the Win2k development cycle, until Compaq acquired DEC and the Alpha chip, Win2k was also in beta testing for the Alpha chip. Now if Win2k had Win9x assembly code in it, how do you think it would run on the Alpha chip? It couldn't becuase it doesn't. Until the Win9x platform development was dissolved, even the development teams were COMPLETELY different. There was the NT OS group and the Win9x OS group of people.
People are just nuts with stuff and are so willing to believe whatever negative crap they can find.
As for the driver model, the 'shared' WDM between Win9x and Win2k and WinXP simply required the drivers for Win9x to be based on the NT drier specifications and no longer support VXD and other DOS/Win9x driver mechanisms. It does not mean that the NT drivers use ANYTHING from the Win9x systems.
I'm not saying that the whole OS is the same, certainly not the GUI and tiddly things of that sort. Sure, the programming procedures are finally beginning to resemble those of quality products, but all that aside, Win2k's kernel and WinXP's perform quite similarly when running benchmarks on the same hardware platform (and sometimes slower on the WinXP side).
Actually benchmarks show that even on low end hardware WindowsXP is faster because of the changes in the memory management of the WIN32 and other underlying changes in the OS.
I was in the Win2k Beta program for 3 years and in the XP beta program as well. We were introduced to the OS technological differences.
I'm truly sorry that these differences are not touted more to geek communities and instead Microsoft tends to sell the fluff on top of Windows XP, even in their own marketing. But there are articles that demonstrate a plethora of differences in Win2k and WinXP anyway.
If you can't find the articles that explain this, then I feel sorry for your research abilities, but spreading inaccurate information because you were 'not able to find many differences' just doesn't fly.
In regard to the original post, Windows2003 Server has proven itself as a giant leap ahead of Win2k in not only architecture, but the services it offers.
In fact, Windows2003 Server is pulling significantly better performance as a desktop OS than even WindowsXP Professional DUE TO THE VAST CHANGES in its architectural changes. It even boots faster than WindowsXP Professional even with all the additional Server services. Making it the fastest desktop OS from Microsoft as well.
Here is a referring link so you don't have to look for it yourself. http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3655
Also since you were unable to find information from the Microsof
Why can you quit Word or Excel from the menu bar, but not IE?... The document centric model is neither new nor superior. Remember the ill-fated Apple / IBM project called OpenDoc?
Word and Excel work the same way as IE. Each document opens in its OWN window, and closing just the document, does not Exit the application. So the other documents are still left open as well.
This is how Windows software development has been migrating for years.
Word and Excel still have options to turn on and off MDI for old time users, but it is not the modern model.
As for UI design, I wasn't implying that you knew nothing, but developing applications for a GUI and actually designing the aspects of a GUI and UI Model are two different things, and this is where our backgrounds fork.
I have not only been an application developer but worked on the front roads of UI design and theory for many years. My background in this field stems from working with the XWindows project over 10 years ago to working with side ventures of new UI models to actually participating with Microsoft in UI design.
I have also taught UI design and theory for several years. I am not just a developer that has worked on these OSes, but I and my tech team have literally ripped apart the UI models of most GUIs and their CUI for study, how to get the best usage out of them, and for providing input on improving them.
There is also a big difference between OpenDoc and the document centric UI model. OpenDoc was a communication mechanism for transferring information between applications; it was NOT in any way related to a document centric UI model.
OpenDoc was a competing technology to OLE(ActiveX) technologies and did fail because of the power struggle of the companies trying to bring it to fruition. It also had serious overhead problems when compared to OLE.
OLE and ActiveX are still very much a part of Windows, which is why it is so easy to drag a chunk of text from a Word Document to your desktop and create a scrap, or drag a chart from Excel into CorelDraw, or drag a picture or URL from IE into Word or almost any other application. These are all OLE/ActiveX technology uses.
However even though OLE/ActiveX play a part in the Document Centric UI model, they are not what the Document Centric Model is about, they are just pieces that are used to help the concepts of Document/Application interoperability.
PS - Microsoft Word was the first application in history to support the concept of picking up text and dragging and dropping it to another location. This is something that you probably use on your Mac everyday and is also something that is a part of almost every word processor today. Hence, once again Microsoft does innovate; they just don't always get the credit for it.
The Net Avenger
Talking about UI inconsistency, I can't imagine anyone worse than MS. For instance, every multi-document apps (Mac or Windows) should have a Window menu that list the currently open windows, right? But no, the rule doesn't Apply to IE for some reason. Worst still, IE doesn't even have the Exit command. So how do you quit IE if you have a few dozens of browser windows? The only way I can see is close all the windows one by one, and even then it might still be running the the background.
There are a lot of things you just don't know of UI design and the reasons behind them. I don't have the time to explain them here.
However, moving FROM a Multi-Doc Window interface to Separate windows for each document instance is the way MS and most UI designers of today are moving because it is a better way to design applications. It offers not only ease of use for novices, but power for experienced users. The MDI application is a thing and concept of the past.
As for your statement about closing IE and 'all its Windows' - Just right click on it on the taskbar and hit 'Close Group'. It will close all the document IE Windows.
This is a part of moving from ONE application controlling ALL OF ITS DOCUMENTS and DOCUMENT WINDOWS to the DOCUMENTS themselves being the focus and NOT the application. If you have a picture open, you have a picture open, you should not have to know or worry about what 'application' it is being displayed or edited in. It should just be a picture either being displayed or edited, not about the application.
This is a part of the 'new' theories of UI design, a real document centric model, instead of an application centric model, which by what you say is all you are accustomed to having.
As I said before, the document should be abstracted from whatever application it is being viewed or edited in. Just like in the real world, a piece of paper you have typed on does NOT get filed in your Typewriter case, nor do you have to take your typewriter with the document still stuck in it over to the copier to make copies of it.
The real world does not work like the application model. In the real world, documents are INDEPENDANT of the tools you use to create and modify them, and this is also how it should be on computers as well. This is how Windows has operated and been moving application developers since 1995.
The changing of the Menu at the top of the Apple screen based upon application focus is something that confuses new users more than you realize. Additionally, with the screen real estate available on modern computers, there is no need to save the 25-30 pixels for each DOCUMENT to have its own menu for THAT DOCUMENT. I completely disagree with the 'universal' menu bar, it breaks many portions of the Document Centric UI Model.
This is really an in-depth theory and I wish I could help you more with it. I just don't have the time, but if I ever do a book or video I will look up your post and send you a free copy, I promise.
Keep up the spirit and take care of yourself,
The Net Avenger
I respect your personal prefernce, but you must be one of the very few in the world who actually prefer XP for its GUI!
As I have mentioned before I have worked with OS design, not only the architecture but the UI as well. I have studied and taught user productivity in relation to many GUI models.
The biggest misconception of the Windows model is people not knowing how to apply real world working techniques. They get stuck in the old DOS/Win3.1 model and don't realize that there is an entire different way to work in Windows now.
Just for example, in teaching I apply a method of analogizing word processing to the old way of using a typewriter. In the real world you don't keep all of your documents you type inside your typewriter case, you actually file them. The same model when applied to a GUI, if the GUI supports it, the same should be true. When you are looking for a document you don't open your word processor to find it, you should instead find where you filed the document and open it from there.
On Windows you can extend this analogy further because of the mechanisms built into the basic GUI of explorer. The sad part is that many of these concepts are something that both the Mac and Windows originally shared, but now the Mac has lost its way with regard to extending this conceptual model. The extensibility of ActiveX(OLE) technology and drag and drop are something that is far more mature in Windows than MacOSX.
In Windows the Open/Save dialog boxes are superfluous and something that is truly not needed 99.9% of the time if the user applies this model. There is a lot to this theory and its implementation, so I will save you the class time, besides I get paid to teach these theories, so the Slashdot crowd doesn't get a free class here either.
The Mac used to be really good at this model, and with OSX is getting back to being good at it, but it just isn't as fully consistent as in Windows. Explaining to users why they can't 'always' use the keyboard to navigation any application and why the DELETE key works sometimes, sometimes doesn't, and sometimes acts like the Backspace key is another example of the loss of consistency in the MacOS.
The Multi-Window approach that the Mac uses was originally a design to save precious screen space by putting the menu bar at the top of the screen, but for usability, this model has proven to be less cohesive with users. Having the Menu bar actually inside and tied to the application it is working for is a lot easier for novice users. It is also a model that was consistent with the original single application (non-multitasking model) that the Mac was based on. Windows users, even novices, are much more prone to have several applications running and using them concurrently to switch back and forth for information or performing other tasks.
I also agree with you that the MacOSX is far prettier than WindowsXP, but with a simple patch to allow third party skins, I can use any theme and make my WindowsXP machine look just like MacOSX. And this is using the native built in skinning of WindowsXP, not an add-on like WindowBlinds. I do like the animations of OSX though, and will anxiously await what Longhorn brings when the beta starts.
Again, thanks,
TheNetAvenger
Secondly, you really have to get yourself a Mac to experience the power and elegance of Mac OS X.
Actually I already do... At home, and several in the test labs at work. I use and have worked with OSX quite a bit. I also have owned a Mac since the late 1980s. I even have a 'legally licensed' Mac Emulator for System 8.1 that I run on my WindowsXP laptop.
My personal preference is still to go back to WindowsXP, but this is a personal choice based on the UI design and model of WindowsXP's interface more than anything.
Mac OSX is a great product, but it still has a bit of growing up to do to catch up with some of the features that I take for granted in WindowsXP.
It's absurd to suggest that Mac OS X is monolithic and the Linux Kernel is not, because the opposite is true. I agree that Mac OS X is not 100% microkernel-based for performance reasons, but why do you think Apple should use Mach at all if they throw away all the microkernel elements?
Actually, this is quite true. Do a few net searches and you will find details on this (I don't have time tonight to pull the links for you). But yes, the MacOSX kernel is monolithic and no the Linux kernel is not.
The interface to the MACH kernel that the Mac OSX uses is based on BSD, which is monolithic. This is just the facts; I'm not trying to sell you a bridge. I truly urge you to do some reading on this.
Thanks for the hearted debate. I enjoy OSX, I just don't believe in it as much as you do. But I also don't want you to change your feelings for OSX.
You need to keep up your support of OSX, but don't blind yourself to what it is and what it isn't, and then be a strong proponent that pushes Apple to make it even better by recognizing what it lacks and where its strengths are.
Take Care,
TheNetAvenger
Does someone really need to point out to you that winxp code is functionally very similar, if not mostly identical, to win2k code, except for several added trinkets? Thus, win2k3 isn't that much different than win2k.
Just like the NT core that has existed since 1992 is pretty much the same in WindowsNT3.1, 4.0, Win2k, and WinXP.
You are kidding with this, right?
There are SIGNIFICANT differences in how WindowsXP and Windows2000 operate, both architecturally and in the WIN32 subsystem.
(Check the new driver abilities in the DDK section on Microsoft's site for just small difference on architecture changes.)
As for the WIN32 system and changes, there are more differences than I have time to even begin to mention, from UI changes and UI model changes to even GDI+ plus changes and cleartype. Be a big person and go to Microsoft and look this stuff up for yourself.
I do agree that WindowsXP is not as much as an upgrade as Win2k was to NT4, but it is definitely far more evolved than Win2k. Windows development doesn't stop just because a version is released. What doesn't get in the released version is already being added to the new version. Also new technologies and fixes are automatically rolled into the next OS.
As for the differences in Win2k Server and Windows 2003 server, again, there are so many things that you apparently do not realize.
One example: The IIS implementation was completely rewritten. It now operates at a lower ring and has a tremendous advantage for security and performance over Win2k.
I could sit and list differences on both of these issues for hours, but it would be easier if you would just educate yourself by going to www.microsoft.com and doing a quick search. You will find the answers and differences there.
So, no, you don't need to point out that WinXP code is 'similar or mostly identical' to Win2k code. ----It simply isn't.
TheNetAvenger
You are confused about device drivers with the OS. A modern microkernel OS like Mac OS X and Win 2k should just provide a plug-in architecture capable of supporting any number of devices - without coding device-specific logic in the OS.
Um, actually you seem to be a bit confused here. First off the Mac OSX is not a true microkernel as generally defined. It is a monolithic Mach kernel, hence the inability to layer multiple OS processes on the kernel without locking the other OS layers. WindowsNT/2k/XP is a variation of a microkernel design that makes use of the client/server model. NT is roughly divided into two parts, NT executive, the kernel portion of the operating system based on a layered design, and a set of "protected subsystem" servers that run in user mode. This is quite different than the MacOSX kernel architecture. This plays out in not only the ability to abstract the OS subsystems but also in how drivers are implemented into the system.
NT does not have 'device-specific' logic in the OS; however, the WIN32 OS Subsystem does provide for some driver level compatibility for legacy or poorly written drivers. The WIN32 kernel is NOT the NT kernel - God I hope you understand this. The NT driver model is truly separated from the OS. That is why there is a HAL layer and why NT can be ported to other hardware platforms, just like any *nix.
Mac OS X provides low-level support for industry standards like USB, FireWire, BlueTooth and so on. It's totally upto the device makers to write the device-specific stuff and do most of the testing. It's my experiences that plug-n-play works much better on Mac than on PCs. My Cannon digital camera just works on Mac OS X without any installation, but the same camera requires lengthy installation on Win XP.
First off, MacOSX ONLY provides basic Firewire, Bluetooth, and USB support for the Apple hardware chipsets. In the PC world there tons of different chipsets even for these basic technologies.
Secondly, To debate plug and play is just silly. They BOTH use the same plug and play specification mechanisms. Now whether your camera driver was included as a native driver in MacOSX would be the only difference.
In WindowsXP (Just like in OSX), if the driver is not a native driver, simply putting the manufacturer's CD in the drive will allow WindowsXP to load and install the driver automatically. If your driver was not native to the MacOSX (as another post pointed out) then you would have to also put the CD in the drive or hope that the manufacturer has a driver available for OSX.
Maybe Windows is not so well designed in this respect, which might explain the 50 mln lines of bloated code base. You people give too much credit to MS in this case, and too little to third parties. MS is a monoply and a known bully.
Actually, the NT architecture model of driver support is a bit more advanced that MacOSX or even Linux. That is why drivers are abstracted from the kernel. (In other words, you don't have to compile your kernel drivers for better performance as you would in the *nix world.)
Bloat code? Hm... You seem to be a bit of a trolling type with this statement. If you hate Microsoft, then just say so and move on to your cave and back into your own version of Plato's allegory.
Even with the 'bloated' code you mention, Windows 2003 Server is still considerably faster (even on comparative hardware) than MacOSX server.
In fact Windows 2003 Server right now is pretty much on the top of the stack when it comes to performance in Intel/AMD based processors.
Would I like to see Linux or another OS be able to knock them off the top, yes, but for now the architectural differences are giving Microsoft the edge to tune NT to keep ahead of what everyone else is capable of doing.
They may give a little help to their big partners like HP or Dell, but smaller companies like nVidia and ATI have to pay MS and work really hard to get things certified by the Beast, and onl
Well, I'd say that there are more people willing to fix security issues than exploit them. Of course, those wanting to exploit the code are probably more likely to be looking over it for holes. But once a hole is found and exploited, then the white-hat hacker machine can come into play and fix it. Since users have got a direct interest in keeping the code secure, security holes tend to be fixed quickly, which doesn't always happen in the commercial world because of market pressures, beurocracy, etc.
I don't think the track record of Microsoft products really helps the case that closed source is more secure...
In an altruistic world you would be right, but if there is a reason that a system MUST be secured, then there is also a reason someone would want to find an exploit and gain access to it. All the Open Source world has to do is piss off enough Microsoft Zealots and projects like Linux will look like swiss cheese within a matter of months.
As for the track record of Microsoft, lets see.... Checking an 'independent' security alert web site, MS had 7 for their products and Linux had 12 last year. Also checking the independent security alerts provided by various Linux vendors, they list almost 10 to 1 security problems compared to WindowsXP. Again, I don't see the superiority of Open Source.
For some reason the Open Source world doesn't realize why WindowsXP has built in error reporting, it provides a direct report to Microsoft of the software failure and the access violation (no not private information as conspiracy nuts think). This gives MS the opportunity to not only address security problems, but to fix bugs on a daily basis.
The open source world needs to realize how many 'compatibility' fixes for errant applications that Microsoft releases for WindowsXP(which isn't even their responsibility), in addition to its own bug and security fixes. And this is still on a schedule that is faster than any other major vendor, hence the Automatic WindowsUpdate, and this is in comparison to even major players including, IBM, RedHat, Sun, etc.
Oh, and one more thing: this system is on 24/7, for weeks (and sometimes months) at a time.
The laptop up until early last year ran 24/7 as well (It sat at a desktop). It now is hibernated in between use using WindowsXP, and according to the log hasn't been rebooted in over five months. But that is pretty common in the XP world anymore.
(PS. Just for the record, I sit on the fence with the MS love/hate thing - it truly is a waste of resources.)
TheNetAvenger
In my observation, most reinstalls are the result of user-panic response
Exactly, and the reinstall/format plan is the only way novice techs can get a system fixed or back to the original level of performance.
A skilled tech can find the problems, even piece by piece on older OSes and remove the problems without having to reinstall anything.
In the mid 90s my company's tech center dealt directly with independent consumer level support and repairs that repaired and support several thousands of systems. - Formatting/reinstalling was what the hardware vendors would recommend to users or tell them the standard line, "you probably have a virus."
In all that time it was a policy that our techs NEVER reinstalled or reformatted anyone's system, and they always were able to find the problem and fix the system without having to format or reinstall.
They were well trained and it was our policy to not ever do the format or reinstall, but to actually just find the problems and fix them. If a tech ever violated this policy, I would have fired them.
I'm glad to see that there are other users that do know how to maintain their systems (even at the techie level).
I still stick with my original argument, telling users to reinstall their OS every year is just asking for trouble. If there is a problem or performance issues, that they cannot find or fix, they should opt to take the system to a tech center that knows that they are doing and just fix the conflict and the problem. Period.
And with newer OSes like WindowsXP, this is also becoming an irrelevant concept due to its nature of self preservation mechanisms. Anymore the easiest repair for a 'truly' garbled system is just to upgrade them to XP, it is a quick fix that is making the Windows tech business all but obsolete.
Take Care,
The Net Avenger
Man, Slashdot readers sure show their ignorance when it comes to maintaing Windows systems.
:)
:)
This is at least the 20th post that I've seen which states "all you need to do is clean out your 'startup items' and remove excess software you don't use".
Ok, so: who can list all of the places an application/service can start from within Windows? (hint: it's more than programs\startup, win.ini, and the 3 or 4 registry keys you may have heard about - and I bet most people don't even realize this much). Ok, so you've nailed all of that. Now, it's time to remove the excess applications - what's that? All uninstallers don't behave nicely? You're finding DLLs from applications you removed that are still in \system32? How can it be??? I asked Windows to uninstall it!!!!
Yes, it's not as bad as Windows 95 these days. However, the registry just keeps getting worse. Extra and conflicing libraries are still a huge hassle on Windows-based systems. And unless you're intending on auditing, line for line, every registry entry you have (mine's a few megs of binary data, have fun), and checking every single file you have, making sure it's the appropriate version (did I mention you can't check source for most applications, so you really never know what DLL should be there?)....
Um, certified Windows professional here that has been in the NT beta program since its beginning. Putting me in the 'slashdot ignorance group' is not going to work, especially when you know very little about what you are talking about. (PS your spelling sucks as well)
You have very limited knowledge if you think that an 'uninstalled' DLL that still exists in the system32 folder is going to affect your system. Other than taking up the 32kb of space, it will have NO affect on ANYTHING under Windows.
In 'modern' Windows there are three basic areas of startup locations. The Startup Folder (including the All Users Startup Folder), The HKEY_CURRENT_USER Run area, and the HKEY_Local_Machine Run area.
However there are a few extra places that you probably don't even know about that legacy applications can place startup applications, like a win.ini file (although the win.ini files tend to be unique to the software application in Win2k and especially WindowsXP - hence the Windows folder in your user profile that maintains this).
There is also the load and run areas of the registry under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE WindowsNT - Current Version, etc. (This one tricks most self appointed Windows Know it Alls.)
But for the MOST part ONLY the three main areas I mentioned above are used unless someone has written an app that is a worm and hides itself in the other Run areas. Software that has been written in the last eight years does not use these other areas anymore.
And again, with the conflicting DLL problems and where the DLLs should or shouldn't be are NO LONGER a problem whatsoever under Windows2k, and especially WindowsXP.
You see these 'modern Windows' OSes can put conflicting DLLs with the applications and not even let the application know that they really are not still sitting in the System or System32 folder.
It is a part of the protection mechanism in WindowsXP. And with WindowsXP, different DLL versions are isolated and can even run concurrently supporting the application that needs whichever version of the DLL it needs. This is all maintained by the WindowsXP OS. A quite nice and impressive feature of the OS that ensures stability and keeps crappy programmers from compromising other applications.
Geesh...
If you were a 'real' expert when it comes to maintaing Windows, you would not only have known this, but would only know how to clean out a system (even Win3.1 or 95) without formatting and starting over.
You know, I am also tired of the ignorance on maintaining Windows from Slashdot readers as well. Your name has just been added to the list.