Enough already! (was: Re: MS Laugh-In)

From: Ernest <ernestls_at_home.com>
Date: Wed Oct 18 22:55:10 2000

I have mixed feelings about MS Windows/NT but first of all, I should say
that I've earned a quite a nice chunk of change supporting MS products both
because they used brute force to make their product the office standard
(plenty of IS jobs,) and because their products are so faulty to begin with.
Should I be thanking them, or cursing them? It's an enigma to me.

With that in mind, I've wondered for some time if Windows (like Linux)
crashes so often because of a lack of user understanding, and poorly
designed third party software, or because Windows simply a badly coded piece
of OS.

I know that my personal computer, at home, running Win95, and now Win2000
never crashes, even when I do something stupid that I expect will cause
problems. I don't believe that this is because of good luck, or because
Windows is great. I believe that it's because, through my years of
supporting it, and working with it, I've intuitively learned it's
limitations. At my office, the machines that I purchase and setup myself are
stable. This is because I research what software plays well with Windows and
avoid that which doesn't, and because I choose hardware that I've learned to
trust -like Asus, and 3com. I'm immediately suspicious when someone calls me
to report a crash. Why is the machine that I built for you crashing, when
all of the others aren't? Usually, the reasons become apparent, and in most
cases, reasonable to me. The user is a beginner or a moron. They loaded some
stupid screensaver or badly designed piece of freeware. Or the computer
itself is just to old to run the newer software that's been loaded. In my
experience, these are the most common reasons for crashes. Occasionally,
there's a broken video card or bad memory chips, or a power fluctuation but
maybe 1 in 15 times is it what I believe to be a problem with Windows or
it's design. When someone's computer crashes, they love to blame Windows but
how often is the problem really with Windows? Possibly always but there are
a lot of variables to consider when you place the blame.

My Linux box crashes more often than my Windows box, and I'm the first to
admit that it's because I don't know what the hell I'm doing, when I use it.
Does that mean that Linux is designed badly? If Linux is so great, why is
there an almost daily alert in my inbox from bugzilla, reporting some
security risk or other newly found flaw? As a frustrated new Linux user,
that doesn't build my trust in it but I still like using it. I wonder if
Linux proponents, like the early Apple users, have simply decided that their
OS is better than Windows, whether it's a truly better OS or not, simply
because they don't like Microsoft. I don't like Microsoft but that doesn't
mean that Linux is great. Linux is what it is, and that has nothing to do
with Microsoft.

I've been living high on the hog (weird phrase, eh?) by suckling up to the
virtual teat that Microsoft's software problems have created, and it's a
mighty BIG teat for sure but doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that any
other mass produced OS would have just as bad a reputation if it were as
common as MS Windows? Can you imagine how pleasantly Linux would be embraced
if it became the new standard in homes across America? Can you hear the
howls of agony in the distance? I want to like Linux, and I do like it but
it's got it's flaws, just like Windows. Right now, I would recommend Windows
2000 Pro to someone looking for a new OS but that doesn't mean that it's
great. I would recommend it because it's adequate for the average user, and
in the hands of someone who knows how to use it (like me) it becomes
(aaaaalmost) a thing of beauty. I hope that Linux develops into the
incredible OS that it can be (please, GOD, let it be so) but until then,
I'll be patient with MS Windows to.

Ernest

PS I haven't had a chance to read all of the postings in this thread yet, so
hopefully, I didn't repeat what anyone else wrote.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org
[mailto:owner-classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of ajp166
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 7:07 PM
To: classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Enough already! (was: Re: MS Laugh-In)


From: Kevin Stewart <stewart_kevin_at_hotmail.com>


>Ok, can we stop this? 1) It's irrelevant 2) OS-bashing does NOTHING
>positive. 3) It's Microsoft, not M$ or microsh*t 4) It's Windows, not
>winblows, windoze, etc.


Actually it's MICROS~1 ;)

>Windows has its useful places in the world, as do Linux, VMS, *BSD,
MacOS


No it's taken the world some place it shouldn't go. While the idea and
over all
plan is good it's execution is there the comments arise.

I manage 40 clients running w95osr2.1, minimum of one crash a week.
Uptime
is measured by TBI, that's time between Installs due to it's propensity
for eating
itself. For w95osr2 that's about 10 months. W98se has the record for
not even
running on a engineering machine that ran Autocad for years without
grief. A
raft (nearly 50mb) of patches later from MS and a list of vendors later
it's nearly
stable.

>and others. What works for you works for you. I'm currently using an NT
4
>box (my main workstation) that sits alongside 20+ Mac, *BSD and Linux
boxen


I do too, much better once they got to SP4!!! However add IIS or worse
office97
and it's not nearly as solid. Dont forget SP1 and SP2 for Office97. I
use it
but while IE/OE are installed I try not to use them as they have
demonstated
weakness and are a huge security hole. Without MS apps it's acceptable.

>and goes through a Linux firewall to my cablemodem. Linux has crashed on
me
>< 5 times, mostly when I'm screwing around with code and make a stupid
>mistake. NT has crashed < 5 times as well. This box (A celeron
433/96/8gig)


No news there. The difference is in linux you can see where and why, w9x
its all too difficult to diagnose. Then again any system where you can
write/modify the kernal code is susceptable to crashes. Linux doesn't
suffer
from putting the Video driver in the most unprotected place where errant
apps can munge it and kill you (winNT4).

The upside is a ODBC for NT that really works is only $4000 after
spending
a bomb for all the other stuff to make a "real server" using it. Or
running
an app and needing support and having the vendor expire before the
warrentee.
Linux and FreeBSD have a few warts but open code is at least fixable.

Ever deal with NT domains? Their fun. Try and get a server to
participate
in a domain. Ever try to create a PDC when one pukes and there is no
BDC ( a legacy issue) but now you have to have one? It's simple,
reinstall EVERYthing as you can only get that choice at install time.
Dont forget to install IIS, do it later and it much not participate in
the
SAM, split domain secuity that results is loads of fun when you
needed a server yesterday. IIS can be fun, server can do file services
but wants a password for a simple web page because it split the
domain internally somehow and the web pages done have "permissions".

Ever try and track the service packs and hotfixes for NT4? I have the
complete
set of some 13 CDroms for 3.51, all patches and fixes. I gave up trying
for NT4, If I have to bridge the Intranet to the Internet you can bet a
proxy
server/firwall and content filter will be there.

Then there is the little problem of IntenetExplorer, the virus back door
that does. Any server apps you write have to be written for it as those
aimed at all other browsers are different. Add to that OutlookExpress
another virus barn door that can't figure out how to produce nicely
wrapped text at 80 characters or any other line length that may be
reasonable.

Why use it... have you ever tried to move from servers running NT3.51
to linux with a W95 client base? A real test of sanity and recreating a
small raft of code. Worse yet is doing it the NTway and finding all the
3.51 code is useless under NT4. then you have the problem of W95
network logins if there is no "domain". No secuity on the 'net either.

Now do you understand the frustration? Tis better it's vented as humor
as the alternate is serious fault finding.

Allison
Received on Wed Oct 18 2000 - 22:55:10 BST