Monkeysoft…
There are days when I just don’t like Microsoft. There are days when I hate Microsoft. And then there are days like today when words completely fail me. What the $#^%$@#$ is wrong with Microsoft?!!
OK, the words don’t exactly fail me, I just hesitate to use them in public.
My computers crash hard multiple times a day, whether I’m checking my mail or browsing websites, and only those computers running Microsoft Windows 95, 98, 2000, or ME. I am seriously looking at getting an iMac. Admittedly, I haven’t tried Windows XP yet, but I am understandably hesitant to install it on any of my computers. I mean, it’s not like there’s ever been a Microsoft operating system that’s actually worked well to give me any feelings of comfort, with the possible exception of Microsoft DOS v5.1. I say almost every time my computer crashes that a real operating system should be able to handle any exceptions given to it and deal with them appropriately. Microsoft somehow successfully shifts blame over to hardware manufacturer’s proprietary drivers, non-Microsoft software glitches, and countless other scapegoats, but if the video card driver is poorly written, shouldn’t the operating system catch the exception properly? Why are these excuses considered valid? Worse yet, why are they considered acceptable? System administrators are so used to the failures of Microsoft operating systems that they schedule in downtime and reboot sessions. Even US Navy ships have shut down due to system failures, with remarks from the technical director hoping that “NT may become more reliable with time.”
Hello?! Doesn’t anyone else have a problem with this?
Part of the problem is that because “everyone” is using Microsoft, it becomes a simple issue of Monkey See, Monkey Do. Company executives compound the problem by believing Microsoft’s incredibly well-crafted marketing fluff. If your CIO sees Microsoft documentation that the latest Microsoft web servers are 300% faster than Linux servers, then they believe it and you don’t get your Linux server, despite the fact that the comparison was really apples to oranges. I read a “study” that showed that amazing 300% increase in performance, but had to sift through the data to discover that, while Microsoft utilized its latest operating system, used its latest IIS web server software, and ran tests using efficient pre-compiled applications, they compared their “phenomenal” results to an identical hardware configuration running a Linux kernel two versions old, and used less-efficient Perl for their tests, which must recompile the software each and every time it is used.
Not quite a fair and impartial comparison, is it?! That’s like challenging your best friend to a game of tennis, and handing him a racquet seemingly identical to yours without mentioning the fact that yours is strung with the latest high-tech catgut, and his is strung with rubberbands.
Game, set, match!
guess I should go install linux then eh? =)