Windows XP and the Microsoft agenda - can it get worse?

[Korpo]

Such is life when you have innovation and new technology.
Why should MS support DOS games? If you want to play DOS games, use it on a DOS computer. No need to use all of that overhead for 99.9% of people who don't play DOS games anymore.

In fact, all the overhead is still there, though the games won´t work anymore. Win 2000 featured 4 kernels, though "feature" is the wrong word... It´s a bloated DOS, but it isn´t talking DOS anymore. I find it funny. It´s too strange to take it serious.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Korpo
In fact, all the overhead is still there, though the games won´t work anymore. Win 2000 featured 4 kernels, though "feature" is the wrong word... It´s a bloated DOS, but it isn´t talking DOS anymore. I find it funny. It´s too strange to take it serious.

Erm...if you think Windows 2000 is a "bloated DOS", then I don't even know why I'm posting in this thread.

The overhead for DOS is not still there. Maybe you're thinking of Windows 98? I'm talking 2000/XP.

[Kyle]

I will give you this: I respect you a lot more than other people on these boards because you don't cave into the childish temptation to spell MS as M$.

HA! Indeed...

[Korpo]

DOS is still part of the system, as are other Windows versions, which are themselves based on DOS. As I mentioned: 4 kernels in Win 2000. No one would build such a system except to port stone age code into a system (as they did).

MS does have admirable programmers. It´s a admirable they even got Win 2000 to run .. They simply invest all this genius in such senseless tasks as coordinating 4 kernels.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Korpo
DOS is still part of the system, as are other Windows versions, which are themselves based on DOS. As I mentioned: 4 kernels in Win 2000. No one would build such a system except to port stone age code into a system (as they did).

The reason DOS still exists as an option via the DOS Prompts is because so many Unix zealots bashed Windows for not having a very good command prompt. So they use DOS as the command prompt, and add features to it with each version.

If MS did not have DOS in it at all, you guys would still be whining about the lack of it. Then when it's in there, it's time to bash MS for having 'legacy' code in it.

MS does have admirable programmers. It´s a admirable they even got Win 2000 to run .. They simply invest all this genius in such senseless tasks as coordinating 4 kernels.

Not only does Windows 2000 run, but it runs better than Linux (as a whole).
XWindows crashes far more often than Windows 2000 does. And, when it comes down to it, having the GUI crash is just as bad as the whole OS crashing for the vast majority of users.

In fact, my Windows XP has been up for four weeks now on my P3 600 system. Previous reboots were for driver updates: It has never crashed. And it's under near constant use by three people, doing things like Gaming, Word/Excel stuff, to Programming.

[Korpo]

Well, I go to bed, but leave you some thoughts to ponder or disregard:

I think nothing is wrong with MS making money or a lot of it. It is fine with me, it would be much finer with me even if it would be mine.

I´m saying they´re doing this by unfair business practices, by intentionally adopting incompatible solutions, even within their own office suite. And they´re using FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) as a standard business practice. They´re excluding competitors from business because they have a monopoly, which is illegal and was already confirmed by 2 courts.

Though normally cut-throat competition should produce top quality, the lack of adequate anti-trust enforcement has produced a monopoly, which doesn´t need to care about quality. MS is first offering the dangling carrot, perhaps even for free, or preinstalled, overtaking a market, turning it into a monopoly and then you got to pay double, in terms of money AND quality.

MS IE is a good example. They put it for free on the market, they incorporated it into Win98, made it even possibly hazardous to deinstall it. Now they got 90 % market share, and now they begin purging the remaining 10 % out: They disable access for other browsers to their own sites, they keep distributing their proprietary solutions more and more over this browser, add here a link, there another button on a MS product, disrespect W3C standards at will...
I am waiting for code in MS IIS web server, that will honor MS IE
requests first, and special MS IE warnings, that a site is hosted by Apache, and therefore "hazardous and cancerously infected with the GPL".

So an OS monopoly leads to a browser monopoly.. what next? Will .Net aim towards a server monopoly? It is unlikely the Bush administration would interfere with that, at least IMHO.

I repeat the hazards I see in such a monoculture:
Viruses like NimDa or Code Red spread easily, because they exploit leaks in software. What will happen when such software is used almost exklusively?
And if you value your laziness high and therefore like Windows easy installations (one click here, don´t think about it), will you install, or even download , all those nice little patches for all of your Windows programs, to be secure, or will you more likely be participant on the next attack on the White House?
Still, I cannot think of a reason why I should scrap useful software regularly because a Win version is no more backwards compatible.
Licenses and services from MS already start impairing Freedom of Speech, and with Passport MS gets a grip on your data.


I guess I wouldn´t have such a big problem with MS, if they wouldn´t be the monopolist, or if their work would be more quality-oriented. But as is, I´m deeply opposed.

Ciao!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Korpo
I´m saying they´re doing this by unfair business practices, by intentionally adopting incompatible solutions, even within their own office suite. And they´re using FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) as a standard business practice. They´re excluding competitors from business because they have a monopoly, which is illegal and was already confirmed by 2 courts.

I agree that MS' business practices need a major overhaul.

And if you value your laziness high and therefore like Windows easy installations (one click here, don´t think about it), will you install, or even download , all those nice little patches for all of your Windows programs, to be secure, or will you more likely be participant on the next attack on the White House?[/QUOTE]
In modern versions of Windows, it downloads and installs those updates in the background so you're always up to date.

Still, I cannot think of a reason why I should scrap useful software regularly because a Win version is no more backwards compatible.

You don't have to scrap them, use an older computer. Surely you keep those, since you keep the old software?

I guess I wouldn´t have such a big problem with MS, if they wouldn´t be the monopolist, or if their work would be more quality-oriented. But as is, I´m deeply opposed.

As far as most consumers are concerned, Windows 2000 and XP are far higher "quality" than any version of Unix is right now. Look how polished they appear compared to the dinosaur that is Unix.

[Korpo]

X-Windows more crashing than Win2000 ? HA!

A Linux-/Unix-System is based on the fact you know your hardware, and install it correctly. If you accomplished that, it will run stable, and it will run much more efficiently as any Windows system could have done!

As for your Windows system running: You were mostly lucky. Windows' stability strongly depends on your hardware configuration. You were lucky and had one Windows readily accepted. Friend of mine had 4 blue system error pop-ups on startup alone, though using standard components.

Though we´re both making no point with our single-point examples.

An US insurance company made a point about what is more reliable and stable, Windows or Linux: They calculated their costs on insuring Win and Linux machines, and based on their statistics fixed prices. Windows insurances are 15% more expensive since then. They had a broad database for their calculations, they knew the risks well. That doesn´t speak for MS Windows.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Korpo
X-Windows more crashing than Win2000 ? HA!

Swear to God. Happened on both of my computers I have Linux (Mandrake 8) and 2000/XP as dualboots.

A Linux-/Unix-System is based on the fact you know your hardware, and install it correctly. If you accomplished that, it will run stable, and it will run much more efficiently as any Windows system could have done!

Depends on what you're doing.
A properly configured Windows 2000 runs games way more efficiently than any Linux ever could. You should read some of the research papers published on the Windows 2000 kernel, you'd be quite surprised on some of the features they've added to improve multimedia performance.

As for your Windows system running: You were mostly lucky. Windows' stability strongly depends on your hardware configuration. You were lucky and had one Windows readily accepted. Friend of mine had 4 blue system error pop-ups on startup alone, though using standard components.

Yes, you see, I know what I'm doing.
I buy hardware I know is good quality and stable, and then I properly configure Windows to use it. I've only had one BSOD in Windows XP, and that was back on Beta 1 when I tried to force-feed it a bad driver for my video card. And I leave my computer running 24/7 and use it constantly.

An US insurance company made a point about what is more reliable and stable, Windows or Linux: They calculated their costs on insuring Win and Linux machines, and based on their statistics fixed prices. Windows insurances are 15% more expensive since then. They had a broad database for their calculations, they knew the risks well. That doesn´t speak for MS Windows.

What they didn't count was usability, software base, and prettyness (yes, that's a major component for people).

[TCO]

I had a mac for several years. It crashed as often as an old-style windows machine. NT was better...

[Wiglaf]

how many years old was that mac, by any chance?

[blackice]

kinda makes me wonder why every great (all in fact) graphics house/printer in the world uses MAC... oh ya Asher has never mentioned that fact...

[blackice]

winxp=mac 1998

[TCO]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
how many years old was that mac, by any chance?

The Mac was a top of the line 1995 model. The windows comps were medium level 1995 PCs.


BTW, I'm not bull****ting you about the Mac freezes. The really funny thing was most of the time the only way to reboot it was to unplug the computer...

[Urban Ranger]

I see that Glonk is doing his usual M$ apologist bit again using his usual tactics again.

Let's look at some of the silliness:

The reason DOS still exists as an option via the DOS Prompts is because so many Unix zealots bashed Windows for not having a very good command prompt. So they use DOS as the command prompt, and add features to it with each version.

Ah. Why would Unix users give a hoot to Windoze is completely beyond me. Why would anybody want to channel protected mode services to real mode services is not only beyond me, but smacks of totally idiocy. They could have constructed a DOS virtual machine and channel real mode services to protected mode services.

Windows 2000 run, but it runs better than Linux (as a whole).

You learn something new everyday

Linux is good for servers and compsci students. Sucks ass for anyone else. Admit it.

Pronouncement = fact? Complete novices have just as much trouble with Windoze, and it's just as easy to teach them KDE/Gnome and OpenOffice.

How is Windows, as a workstation, insecure?

Which version of Windoze is secure as a workstation? None from the 9x kernel. NT's password algorithms has huge flaws, and I am not sure whether that has been fixed. On an NT workstation I can gain administrator previleges easily, then I can gain the password for every account on the entire network. That's not secure.

Not to mention the fact that there are things such as Back Orifice.