firstly, it's not a problem with windows, and second you don't need to reboot. just press all your alt, ctrl keys a couple of times...they get stuck in the wrong logic state.
Want to give me an example of some of these so called bugs in windows?
Windows is one of the best documented commercial OSs out there. I happily write windows software and have more documentation that I ever need. Ever heard of MSDN and MSJ?
When a worker falls from a catwalk with no railing, the employer that failed to have a railing is the one that gets the blame. Software should work the same way.
The only time I have ever managed to crash any *nix system during development was driver development. Otherwise, coredump, load the debugger.
That's dumb. OSs like Windows and Unix allow considerable extension. If you don't do it right it's your fault. If you buy a toaster then start adding bits and pieces to it and it blows up and burns your house down it's your fault. NT can hardly be blamed for application crashes. If the vendor can't write applications that don't crash - it's not NT's fault. NT will terminate the process and report the error - or if it's a kernel level driver - do a BSOD to protect other processes.
When you crased your unix system writing a driver - is it your fault or was it unix's fault for not detecting it?
What you were doing was saying windows wasn't modularized. Was it so extreme to take of the point of view that you thought windows was one source file. After all, how do you know it isn't? Do you work for microsoft? Microsoft as 'we all know' are crappy programmers no?
Encapsulation and modularization are your friends..
This is particularly true with operating systems, which have skyrocketed in size and developed thousands of byzantine byways. Windows 95 had eleven million lines of code; Windows 2000 is slated to have a mind-blowing twenty-nine million. ..too bad the people from Redmond don't make nice to these two potential buddies..
Lets take windows 2000. that 29 million lines of code isn't ALL the kernel. Windows 2000 is the MOST modular OS I know of. Everything you need is either in DLLs or even better - as COM objects. The source code to Windows 2000 isn't all in 1 files you know. In that 29 million lines of code - include IE5, IIS, DirectX, and all the programs and utilities that comes with W2K. they aren't being developed out of one source file, they are modular. Lets say that someone doesn't like the look of the quicklaunch bar on the starmenu and wants to add another one. He doesn't have to change shell32.dll or explorer.exe, he just makes a COM object with the coorect interfaces (IBandObject, IObjectWithSite etc) and adds it to the registry. Complain about Windows, but not about it's modularization. Just cause we use COM don't do lame things like executing utilities and capturing output.
Don't be an idiot. Show me some major bugs in NT that stops software development. There's a hell of a lot of good software for windows even tho it's so 'bug riddled'. Almost every problem I ave with windows is due to 3rd party software - and not windows. Windows could be blamed for not handling 3rd software on a tighter leesh, but not be blamed for the fault itself.
The reason bus speed isn't increasing as rapidly is cause you'd run into large problems with card that couldn't handle that speed and would most likely not work or crash.
Microsoft hasn't technically invented anything that's like saying technically nothing has been invented cause it's always based on an earlier invention. take you examples.
*MS-DOS was purchased from a company in Seattle*
Yes, MSDOS wasn't developed by ms, but once it was bought it was developed further. You don't need to have originally developed it to innovate new features. eg. someone buys out company who makes sundials. 50 years later, they make digital watches - the idea of time keeping was innovated by the sundials company (for this example, pretend sundials were the first time keeping device). even if the guy who bought out sundial didn't invent digital electronics, the digital watch is an innovation. Now, lets examine your other examples which demonstrate this concept further.
*Internet Explorer was a rip-off of Mosiac Yes, IE was based on Mosiac (licensed), but it's not mosaic, it's much better. AMD Athlon is based on x86, but it's got innovations of it's own.
*Image Composer was aquired when Microsoft bought Altamira and fired everybody So? Big deal, and atlmara innovated oo image editing? I guess adobe did, no wait, is it corel? nah, must be gimp.
*SQL was purchased as license of Sequel by Sybase Again, bit deal. SQL Server 7 has non of the original sequeal code.
*FrontPage was written by a company named FrontPage which Microsoft bought and fired everyone associated with the project Yet again, frontpage has changed significantly since it was aquired. It has shitloads of features, like the way you can just create tables by "drawing them" (word technology) and dynamic resizing to just name a 2.
*Flight Simulator was aquired when Microsoft bought BAO. Then, they fired the developer - and ran away with the product I think you're starting to get the idea again. But you don't "run away" with a product in the way you imply when you "aquire it" meaning, PAY FOR IT.
*Do I EVEN have to mention Hotmail? big deal? microsoft didn't buy hotmail for "technology" which it didn't have. microsoft bought it to quickly expand into the internet market and gain recognition.
Microsoft doesn't INNOVATE anything. They either steal, buy, or 'license' products to make them their own. And the products don't change??? PLEASE. Microsoft do a lot of their own research - most of which don't end up being full products themselves but being things which get integrated into microsoft's aquisitions. And many of these features are damned useful (like the natural table drawing i mention above). Microsoft is the world's largest natural language processing research centre in the world - but when it all finally comes out - you will say "well - microsoft copied it off XXXX"....maybe initially - but microsoft is a software developer and a research institute too you know - they don't just buy then sell. they buy, sell, improve, sell (laugh all you want - but it's true) etc etc.
Things don't have to be HUGE to be innovations - sometimes it's a group of small innovations which have the bigger effect. Remember, Linux isn't successful because of innovation under your definition. But there are little innovations here and there which make there way back into the major unixes even.
Ofcourse you've got to show the the extra 0.1% uptime (if it's even that) is worth the extra million or so dollars- or maybe is it better to just have a cluster of sql servers?
I mean, Linux installation really doesn't do nearly the same amount of stuff W2K does. As an example, Linux has a pretty limited hardware detection routine, whereas windows 2000 has thousands of infs it has to look at to install just the right driver for like 2000+ devices - then it has to detect them properly. Basically - W2K has support for much more hardware (and a variety of them too). This is probably the longest part of the installation provided you boot off the cd and don't do a DOS installation without smartdrv.
Then there are the extra things W2K setup does, it tracks it's progress - so lets say you accidentally powerdown the machine half way thru - or detecting some hardware causes a reboot - w2k setup will be able to recover from this (if it was a detection problem, it'll skip that device and log it). Linux installers don't do this. Ther are other examples like W2K scans for other OSs (ok, only microsoft ones), scans the registries etc etc etc. W2K does much more than just copy files and do some simple detection of Mouse, Video, NE2000 (and maybe *some* extra) devices.
It may take a long time, and generally - it's probably not much easier than some linux installers - but it is really easy and DOES detect hardware well - like win98. Ofcourse you could always find a hardware configuration that Linux can detect well, and win98/win2k can't, but i think that's prolly a minority of the cases. It's a simple result of windows having much better support from hardware manufacturers.
if by 'hosing' you mean stop the os or stuff it up terribly - NO. if you KILL BASH does that 'hose' linux? no.
1) Setup IE to start up in a new process - enable open folder in new process as well. That way no matter if you're browsing locally or on the internet - and something goes wrong the OS is not 'hosed' 2) Say you don't do (1), if Explorer crashes it will restart - if it doesn't for some god unknown reason (never happened here) just C-A-D and restart it. 3) See, no hosing.
They responded with much higher benchmarks - infact it bet oracle by a factor of 60X or something like that. Then oracle claimed microsoft cheated - and ran away. i'm trying to find the link now.
in the mean time...here's an interesting winntmag article
I would also like to know how the hell can they do this without sacrificing speed? It's unimaginable. Does it not sacrifice speed in the same way java isn't supposed to sacrifice much speed? Maybe they have heaps of read aheads and instruction predicting circuits or something:/
writes it's most important java tool (the compiler) in java. *please* - yes java is cool, but don't push it. surely they could put in that extra effort to write an ansi c or c++ compiler to save hundreds of hours of developer's times. i suppose real developers have already found a better compiler.
At first I thought it was some silly translate HTML that IE understands to one netscape understands (silly) - but it look promising - a proxy that allows HTML to be scaled down for handhelds. Imagine in the future, two web ports, 80 and 81, 81 for low bandwidth and handheld devices....and you only have to write the site once - the scaled down stuff is done automatically - kick ass...wish i thought of this.
Slashdot Mirror
Look who's talking.
....how's that windows' problem.
"infinite binary loop"
duh sure you know what you're tlaking about.
if the keyboard's locks on alt
i wouldn't say this if i hadn't experienced that. that's why i said press all your alt/ctrl keys.
firstly, it's not a problem with windows, and second you don't need to reboot.
just press all your alt, ctrl keys a couple of times...they get stuck in the wrong logic state.
Bah, I don't think so.
Want to give me an example of some of these so called bugs in windows?
Windows is one of the best documented commercial OSs out there. I happily write windows software and have more documentation that I ever need.
Ever heard of MSDN and MSJ?
When a worker falls from a catwalk with no railing, the employer that failed to have a railing is the one that gets the blame. Software should work the same way.
The only time I have ever managed to crash any *nix system during development was driver development. Otherwise, coredump, load the debugger.
That's dumb. OSs like Windows and Unix allow considerable extension. If you don't do it right it's your fault. If you buy a toaster then start adding bits and pieces to it and it blows up and burns your house down it's your fault.
NT can hardly be blamed for application crashes. If the vendor can't write applications that don't crash - it's not NT's fault. NT will terminate the process and report the error - or if it's a kernel level driver - do a BSOD to protect other processes.
When you crased your unix system writing a driver - is it your fault or was it unix's fault for not detecting it?
Tab even when the task bar has focus doesn't switch between programs. I suggest you get your ALT key fixed.
Well duh.
What you were doing was saying windows wasn't modularized. Was it so extreme to take of the point of view that you thought windows was one source file. After all, how do you know it isn't? Do you work for microsoft? Microsoft as 'we all know' are crappy programmers no?
You're ignorant.
Encapsulation and modularization are your friends..
This is particularly true with operating systems, which have skyrocketed in size and developed thousands of byzantine byways. Windows 95 had eleven million lines of code; Windows 2000 is slated to have a mind-blowing twenty-nine million.
..too bad the people from Redmond don't make nice to these two potential buddies..
Lets take windows 2000. that 29 million lines of code isn't ALL the kernel. Windows 2000 is the MOST modular OS I know of. Everything you need is either in DLLs or even better - as COM objects.
The source code to Windows 2000 isn't all in 1 files you know.
In that 29 million lines of code - include IE5, IIS, DirectX, and all the programs and utilities that comes with W2K.
they aren't being developed out of one source file, they are modular. Lets say that someone doesn't like the look of the quicklaunch bar on the starmenu and wants to add another one. He doesn't have to change shell32.dll or explorer.exe, he just makes a COM object with the coorect interfaces (IBandObject, IObjectWithSite etc) and adds it to the registry.
Complain about Windows, but not about it's modularization. Just cause we use COM don't do lame things like executing utilities and capturing output.
Don't be an idiot.
Show me some major bugs in NT that stops software development. There's a hell of a lot of good software for windows even tho it's so 'bug riddled'.
Almost every problem I ave with windows is due to 3rd party software - and not windows. Windows could be blamed for not handling 3rd software on a tighter leesh, but not be blamed for the fault itself.
The reason bus speed isn't increasing as rapidly is cause you'd run into large problems with card that couldn't handle that speed and would most likely not work or crash.
cancer or anything for that matter?
No.
They have dna from wooley mammoths cause some were frozen.
they're so damned odd.
none of your points prove it's not free. you're just saying it's not open source.
Microsoft hasn't technically invented anything
....maybe initially - but microsoft is a software developer and a research institute too you know - they don't just buy then sell. they buy, sell, improve, sell (laugh all you want - but it's true) etc etc.
that's like saying technically nothing has been invented cause it's always based on an earlier invention. take you examples.
*MS-DOS was purchased from a company in Seattle*
Yes, MSDOS wasn't developed by ms, but once it was bought it was developed further. You don't need to have originally developed it to innovate new features. eg. someone buys out company who makes sundials. 50 years later, they make digital watches - the idea of time keeping was innovated by the sundials company (for this example, pretend sundials were the first time keeping device). even if the guy who bought out sundial didn't invent digital electronics, the digital watch is an innovation.
Now, lets examine your other examples which demonstrate this concept further.
*Internet Explorer was a rip-off of Mosiac
Yes, IE was based on Mosiac (licensed), but it's not mosaic, it's much better. AMD Athlon is based on x86, but it's got innovations of it's own.
*Image Composer was aquired when Microsoft bought Altamira and fired everybody
So? Big deal, and atlmara innovated oo image editing? I guess adobe did, no wait, is it corel?
nah, must be gimp.
*SQL was purchased as license of Sequel by Sybase
Again, bit deal. SQL Server 7 has non of the original sequeal code.
*FrontPage was written by a company named FrontPage which Microsoft bought and fired everyone associated with the project
Yet again, frontpage has changed significantly since it was aquired. It has shitloads of features, like the way you can just create tables by "drawing them" (word technology) and dynamic resizing to just name a 2.
*Flight Simulator was aquired when Microsoft bought BAO. Then, they fired the developer - and ran away with the product
I think you're starting to get the idea again. But you don't "run away" with a product in the way you imply when you "aquire it" meaning, PAY FOR IT.
*Do I EVEN have to mention Hotmail?
big deal? microsoft didn't buy hotmail for "technology" which it didn't have. microsoft bought it to quickly expand into the internet market and gain recognition.
Microsoft doesn't INNOVATE anything. They either steal, buy, or 'license' products to make them their own.
And the products don't change??? PLEASE. Microsoft do a lot of their own research - most of which don't end up being full products themselves but being things which get integrated into microsoft's aquisitions. And many of these features are damned useful (like the natural table drawing i mention above). Microsoft is the world's largest natural language processing research centre in the world - but when it all finally comes out - you will say "well - microsoft copied it off XXXX"
Things don't have to be HUGE to be innovations - sometimes it's a group of small innovations which have the bigger effect.
Remember, Linux isn't successful because of innovation under your definition. But there are little innovations here and there which make there way back into the major unixes even.
Ofcourse you've got to show the the extra 0.1% uptime (if it's even that) is worth the extra million or so dollars- or maybe is it better to just have a cluster of sql servers?
Gee, you must feel so big and proud that you can code i am cool.
I mean, Linux installation really doesn't do nearly the same amount of stuff W2K does.
As an example, Linux has a pretty limited hardware detection routine, whereas windows 2000 has thousands of infs it has to look at to install just the right driver for like 2000+ devices - then it has to detect them properly. Basically - W2K has support for much more hardware (and a variety of them too).
This is probably the longest part of the installation provided you boot off the cd and don't do a DOS installation without smartdrv.
Then there are the extra things W2K setup does, it tracks it's progress - so lets say you accidentally powerdown the machine half way thru - or detecting some hardware causes a reboot - w2k setup will be able to recover from this (if it was a detection problem, it'll skip that device and log it). Linux installers don't do this.
Ther are other examples like W2K scans for other OSs (ok, only microsoft ones), scans the registries etc etc etc.
W2K does much more than just copy files and do some simple detection of Mouse, Video, NE2000 (and maybe *some* extra) devices.
It may take a long time, and generally - it's probably not much easier than some linux installers - but it is really easy and DOES detect hardware well - like win98. Ofcourse you could always find a hardware configuration that Linux can detect well, and win98/win2k can't, but i think that's prolly a minority of the cases. It's a simple result of windows having much better support from hardware manufacturers.
He's right. Netscape would be lucky if they made navigator as stable and standards compliant as IE.
if by 'hosing' you mean stop the os or stuff it up terribly - NO.
if you KILL BASH does that 'hose' linux? no.
1) Setup IE to start up in a new process - enable open folder in new process as well. That way no matter if you're browsing locally or on the internet - and something goes wrong the OS is not 'hosed'
2) Say you don't do (1), if Explorer crashes it will restart - if it doesn't for some god unknown reason (never happened here) just C-A-D and restart it.
3) See, no hosing.
so what if they did? the sun server is basically several machines too in one big box.
the microsoft solution was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper.
FUD.
e .htm
Microsoft had something similar on their website saying the opposite.
check here for some links
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/productinfo/compar
They responded with much higher benchmarks - infact it bet oracle by a factor of 60X or something like that. Then oracle claimed microsoft cheated - and ran away.
c leID=7246
i'm trying to find the link now.
in the mean time...here's an interesting winntmag article
http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?Arti
Who else do they have working on this?
:/
I would also like to know how the hell can they do this without sacrificing speed? It's unimaginable. Does it not sacrifice speed in the same way java isn't supposed to sacrifice much speed?
Maybe they have heaps of read aheads and instruction predicting circuits or something
writes it's most important java tool (the compiler) in java. *please* - yes java is cool, but don't push it. surely they could put in that extra effort to write an ansi c or c++ compiler to save hundreds of hours of developer's times.
i suppose real developers have already found a better compiler.
At first I thought it was some silly translate HTML that IE understands to one netscape understands (silly) - but it look promising - a proxy that allows HTML to be scaled down for handhelds. ....and you only have to write the site once - the scaled down stuff is done automatically - kick ass ...wish i thought of this.
Imagine in the future, two web ports, 80 and 81, 81 for low bandwidth and handheld devices
don't forget bash & root.
:)
:P.
can anyone think of anymore?
lucky for microsoft they didn't write unix or they'd be smacked out of existance