I don't agree with that. Hardware problems are hardware problems. Chances are Linux got away with it cause Linux never bothered to use any advanced features of the hardware. For example, there are tonnes of IDE controllers and chipset drivers that come from various manufacturers for NT. Now, I'm not saying this is a software/driver problem, what I'm saying is that these drivers could for example do some special new fangled call to the hardware, that could cause the hardware to lock up, get into an unstable state etc. Windows tends to be more 'bleeding' edge because of the huge hardware manufacturer support, while Linux most of the time runs vanilla chipset drivers. That's just one example, but i think it's a valid one.
IE parses HTML, and predicts where missing tags should me. IE is stricter with XML and eventually XHTML. The option to type part of the address you don't remember? As in intellisense? That's been in IE for ages. Uh, I'm not suggesting IE be the only browser, I'm just talking about which is better technically.
Yeah whatever. As if that would happen. You prolly loved netscape do death even before the made a desperate 'open source' dive. The fact is IE does rendering proprly, supporting HTML and DHTML and CSS and XML and VML etc very well. Well wait until it does happen before you start claiming netscape is better cause you have the source. Remember when the 4.x source got release? Everyone goes "wow, netscape are such good coders", this is going to help us heaps. A month the code was dumped because of how CRAP it was and the new mozilla source tree was created, componentization based on what else but COM.
IE isn't tied into NT4. Anyway, it has nothing to do with the tying, it has to do with the fact that IE works and Netscape doesn't. Who the hell could serious use Linux as a desktop machine when it doesn't have a working webbrowser?
That's not a better way at all. Since each drop down box has it's own properties. You can't seriously suggest that the properties for each box should be persisted and unpersisted as it appears and dissapears? Just cause something isn't visible doesn't mean it's not important. Printing will require them to be there, and scripts will need to be able to access all the controls to do whatever they want. And the fact that it requres a window handle is irrelevant, almost everything visible in windows requires a window handle. What does take up some space is the fact it's an ActiveX control. It's no where near how much a java applet or class would take up tho.
There are shareware products that have better groupware features than those of Microsoft products, he said, drawing applause from the audience. </i> <br><br> Ok then, give some shareware developer out there an early christmas present and buy his software. If not, then basically...shutup. Or was he hoping to get some beanie points by bashing Microsoft? <br><br> BTW, has he not been looking into Windows 2000?
ewww, are you sure? maybe the UI or video card just locked up and you couldn't tell....can you reproduce the behaviour? Cause if you can, it's a bug that should be reported.
That COM one is interesting. I wonder what problems would be encountered if I were to hook the shell and notice when a DLL was being deleted, check to see if DLLUnregisterServer is exported and run it. I mean, it would make sense, since heaps of applications leave their COM signatures in the registry after the dll is deleted.
But when Microsoft talks of 65K bugs, they're bugs like, Windows 2000 wont properly detect XXX hardware, Windows won't run XXX software, so it does generally include a heck of a lot of software that runs on windows.
Also, Windows 2000 has some HUGE features that debian doesn't have, like Active Directory.
That's nothing;), machine at work has been up for 4 months, and it's not going down until i get an RTM and have to upgrade. It's still running a real old build at the moment:)
It is next to impossible for windows 2000 to crash without a BSOD. I am willing to bet that you have a hardware problem. Either some IRQ conflict or you're overclocking. That's what causes system freezeups.
1) That's what the windows 2000 beta is. However Microsoft don't get people to try to fix the bugs themselves, that's up to their thousands of debugging and source reading people.
2) Microsoft already has a kick ass debugger - not free though. And the debug symbols for Windows 2000 are readily downloadable my MSDN subscribers or Beta testers. Core dumps (or any crash in windows) again can be debugged. You have many options. One is if you have VC++ installed, it'll bring up a window asking you if you want to debug, then you can do step-step debugging. ALso Dr Watson can collect information like your "core" dump files and store them. BSOD are also documented on MSDN and MS Support, including information for how to connect to a machine during a 'bugcheck/bsod' and debug the BSOD.
Windows 2000's DDK (Driver Development Kit) comes with several 'build' enviroments for creating and testing drivers. Including the 64bit build enviroments for Win64.
3. NT is theorectically hardware independent, very little has to be rewritten because of the HAL. However the market wasn't very good for MIPS, ALPHA, SPARC or PPC and those ports kind of died.
If you were to add up the bugs in Linux that Microsoft would consider a bug (eg. would be in their count) I bet it would be the same, if not more.
These bugs aren't show stoppers, gee 65K ooh that is heaps, the damn thing won't even boot! Not.
These bugs are more like, on this system with X hardware when running along side with this hardware and when running X's software package called Y, windows 2000 will have a pixel out of place.
A majority of bugs in the 65K are very much like this. Bugs that cause potential problems with people not having HCL hardware. In fact I wouldn't even call most of them 'bugs' as such, since in the traditional sense they aren't - unless like Microsoft you want to make sure Windows 2000 works on the billions of hardware and software configurations out there.
And this statement "Is this what MS suggests putting on people's workstations and installing on production servers? What do you think?" is just so typical of what everyone's reaction around here would be. So blind, arrogant and ignorant, and very predictable. It's the type of knee jerk reaction which has made me so bitter with the Linux community over the past 3 years. In many ways the Linux community acts too much like creationists/fundamentalists, no matter what science comes up with there's a knee jerk "oh we're not all monkeys you devil worshipping bastards" reaction.
Windows 2000 is by far the most stable and featured operating system Microsoft has written to date. I have NEVER seen a BSOD on any of our production machines at work. I admit, on a 3 year old K6200 at home, I have seen around 6 BSOD during the beta testing phase, around the same amount of kernel panics I get on the machine as it seems, so i suspect my hardware is stuffed.
In the last few months of the beta, Microsoft was only paying attention BSOD (bug check) bug reports, even though other bug reports (like cosmetic or hardware compatabilty reports were still being sent in). This isn't incompetance, it's good management. There's a point in a product's life cycle when it has to ship or never gets shipped. I mean, how many bugs has Redhat 6.1 had since it's releast, heck how many security problems has it had since it's released? Microsoft at least plan these out, and while they're working on Windows 2000, they also have very good ideas of what the next service pack will do, and even what the next version of Windows 2000 will do. An example of one of these 'feature' bugs is load balancing COM+ services, this was a feature that never got finished in time, but has been moved into the service pack. It's by was by means essential, so it'll get updated later.
Microsoft has tried to do everything they can in Windows 2000, and it's no suprise that they'll be problems and things they don't get done, but that's software! Things that don't get done, get done later in a service pack (or option pack), and bug fixes are the same. Despite these 65K bugs, Windows 2000 is still stable and will work for most people.
Anyway look at it the other way round, 75% of people _won't_ have compatability problems according to this article. That's not bad for an OS upgrade as HUGE as Windows 2000.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't agree with that. Hardware problems are hardware problems. Chances are Linux got away with it cause Linux never bothered to use any advanced features of the hardware. For example, there are tonnes of IDE controllers and chipset drivers that come from various manufacturers for NT. Now, I'm not saying this is a software/driver problem, what I'm saying is that these drivers could for example do some special new fangled call to the hardware, that could cause the hardware to lock up, get into an unstable state etc. Windows tends to be more 'bleeding' edge because of the huge hardware manufacturer support, while Linux most of the time runs vanilla chipset drivers. That's just one example, but i think it's a valid one.
Well, if they were conjoined twins then the left one is always the evil one. ...according to the simpsons anyway
IE parses HTML, and predicts where missing tags should me. IE is stricter with XML and eventually XHTML. The option to type part of the address you don't remember? As in intellisense? That's been in IE for ages. Uh, I'm not suggesting IE be the only browser, I'm just talking about which is better technically.
Total myth, I can see the difference between 30 and 60 straight away...so much smoother, looks much more life like, and much easier on the eyes.
:P
That's a good point. You can definitely notice the difference between 30 and 60fps. 60fps rocks!
ROFLMAO What total FUD. Care to bet with me that Netscape on Linux is more stable than IE on NT?
I was thinking that too. When I hear "Netscape" or "Communicator" I just shudder now. Such bad bad bad experiences.
So naming the browser Netscape Communicator 6.0 is very bad IMHO.
Yeah whatever. As if that would happen. You prolly loved netscape do death even before the made a desperate 'open source' dive. The fact is IE does rendering proprly, supporting HTML and DHTML and CSS and XML and VML etc very well. Well wait until it does happen before you start claiming netscape is better cause you have the source. Remember when the 4.x source got release? Everyone goes "wow, netscape are such good coders", this is going to help us heaps. A month the code was dumped because of how CRAP it was and the new mozilla source tree was created, componentization based on what else but COM.
IE isn't tied into NT4. Anyway, it has nothing to do with the tying, it has to do with the fact that IE works and Netscape doesn't. Who the hell could serious use Linux as a desktop machine when it doesn't have a working webbrowser?
That's not a better way at all. Since each drop down box has it's own properties. You can't seriously suggest that the properties for each box should be persisted and unpersisted as it appears and dissapears? Just cause something isn't visible doesn't mean it's not important. Printing will require them to be there, and scripts will need to be able to access all the controls to do whatever they want. And the fact that it requres a window handle is irrelevant, almost everything visible in windows requires a window handle. What does take up some space is the fact it's an ActiveX control. It's no where near how much a java applet or class would take up tho.
thanks :)
:P
why was the 'smart' html/text hybrid removed? :|
I keep forgetting the default now is text not html
There are shareware products that have better groupware features than those of Microsoft products, he said, drawing applause from the audience.
</i>
<br><br>
Ok then, give some shareware developer out there an early christmas present and buy his software.
If not, then basically...shutup. Or was he hoping to get some beanie points by bashing Microsoft?
<br><br>
BTW, has he not been looking into Windows 2000?
ewww, are you sure? maybe the UI or video card just locked up and you couldn't tell....can you reproduce the behaviour? Cause if you can, it's a bug that should be reported.
That COM one is interesting. I wonder what problems would be encountered if I were to hook the shell and notice when a DLL was being deleted, check to see if DLLUnregisterServer is exported and run it.
I mean, it would make sense, since heaps of applications leave their COM signatures in the registry after the dll is deleted.
But when Microsoft talks of 65K bugs, they're bugs like, Windows 2000 wont properly detect XXX hardware, Windows won't run XXX software, so it does generally include a heck of a lot of software that runs on windows.
Also, Windows 2000 has some HUGE features that debian doesn't have, like Active Directory.
That's nothing ;), machine at work has been up for 4 months, and it's not going down until i get an RTM and have to upgrade. It's still running a real old build at the moment :)
Whoops, wasn't thinking myself. The if block is only evaulated if your || condition is true and Linux_community is "true".
You might have meant something like
if (Liunx_community & (creationism | fundamentalism))
That code of yours is broken.
if Linux_community is anything but NULL then your if block is evaluated.
Anyway, I was saying that the knee-jerk reactions everyone has is reminicent of creationists.
It is next to impossible for windows 2000 to crash without a BSOD. I am willing to bet that you have a hardware problem. Either some IRQ conflict or you're overclocking. That's what causes system freezeups.
Ooh looks like this font included is a bit rough on the bottom corner of the "R" Theres a bug
Yeah, funny you should say that cause bugs like that do get submitted to microsoft and processed.
I think many of the bugs are more like compatability issues to various hardware and software combinations that "could" arise.
Windows 2000 is inherently more stable because of it's underlying WNT/VMS architecture, so apps won't take down the OS as easily as they could on 9x.
1) That's what the windows 2000 beta is. However Microsoft don't get people to try to fix the bugs themselves, that's up to their thousands of debugging and source reading people.
2) Microsoft already has a kick ass debugger - not free though. And the debug symbols for Windows 2000 are readily downloadable my MSDN subscribers or Beta testers. Core dumps (or any crash in windows) again can be debugged. You have many options. One is if you have VC++ installed, it'll bring up a window asking you if you want to debug, then you can do step-step debugging. ALso Dr Watson can collect information like your "core" dump files and store them. BSOD are also documented on MSDN and MS Support, including information for how to connect to a machine during a 'bugcheck/bsod' and debug the BSOD.
Windows 2000's DDK (Driver Development Kit) comes with several 'build' enviroments for creating and testing drivers. Including the 64bit build enviroments for Win64.
3. NT is theorectically hardware independent, very little has to be rewritten because of the HAL. However the market wasn't very good for MIPS, ALPHA, SPARC or PPC and those ports kind of died.
If you were to add up the bugs in Linux that Microsoft would consider a bug (eg. would be in their count) I bet it would be the same, if not more.
These bugs aren't show stoppers, gee 65K ooh that is heaps, the damn thing won't even boot! Not.
These bugs are more like, on this system with X hardware when running along side with this hardware and when running X's software package called Y, windows 2000 will have a pixel out of place.
A majority of bugs in the 65K are very much like this. Bugs that cause potential problems with people not having HCL hardware. In fact I wouldn't even call most of them 'bugs' as such, since in the traditional sense they aren't - unless like Microsoft you want to make sure Windows 2000 works on the billions of hardware and software configurations out there.
And this statement "Is this what MS suggests putting on people's workstations and installing on production servers? What do you think?" is just so typical of what everyone's reaction around here would be. So blind, arrogant and ignorant, and very predictable. It's the type of knee jerk reaction which has made me so bitter with the Linux community over the past 3 years.
In many ways the Linux community acts too much like creationists/fundamentalists, no matter what science comes up with there's a knee jerk "oh we're not all monkeys you devil worshipping bastards" reaction.
Windows 2000 is by far the most stable and featured operating system Microsoft has written to date. I have NEVER seen a BSOD on any of our production machines at work.
I admit, on a 3 year old K6200 at home, I have seen around 6 BSOD during the beta testing phase, around the same amount of kernel panics I get on the machine as it seems, so i suspect my hardware is stuffed.
In the last few months of the beta, Microsoft was only paying attention BSOD (bug check) bug reports, even though other bug reports (like cosmetic or hardware compatabilty reports were still being sent in). This isn't incompetance, it's good management.
There's a point in a product's life cycle when it has to ship or never gets shipped. I mean, how many bugs has Redhat 6.1 had since it's releast, heck how many security problems has it had since it's released?
Microsoft at least plan these out, and while they're working on Windows 2000, they also have very good ideas of what the next service pack will do, and even what the next version of Windows 2000 will do. An example of one of these 'feature' bugs is load balancing COM+ services, this was a feature that never got finished in time, but has been moved into the service pack. It's by was by means essential, so it'll get updated later.
Microsoft has tried to do everything they can in Windows 2000, and it's no suprise that they'll be problems and things they don't get done, but that's software! Things that don't get done, get done later in a service pack (or option pack), and bug fixes are the same.
Despite these 65K bugs, Windows 2000 is still stable and will work for most people.
Anyway look at it the other way round, 75% of people _won't_ have compatability problems according to this article. That's not bad for an OS upgrade as HUGE as Windows 2000.