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!
I know it must be frustrating to never have an OS that works without an issue, but I think that the user could be at fault here. If you are going to use Windows (we’ll use 2000 for example because it is what I use, and without a problem), then the user must LIVE by the HCL. If, in Linux, you don’t follow their compatable hardware, then you are up a creek without a driver, so to speak. The same falls true with Windows. If you carefully research your hardware/software compatability and test it before you go to put it in stone, then you aren’t going to have a problem at all. I have had Windows 2000 running my computers since beta, and only in one instance has my computer had a blue screen of death (involved an OLD CD-RW drive). The operating system is amazing that it can stay alive even when programs fail (usually because of poorly written code, whether it be an EXE or java). If I had more memory, this machine wouldn’t even slow down. I have used it on a variety of machines and never had a problem unless some ‘kooky’ hardware was involved. I have seen people never be able to get Windows 2000 to work (my wife is one of them), and it is only because the HCL was not followed. Yes, Linux will always be a faster server because it is written just for what you need it to do and nothing more, but I know I could install and run a 2000 network faster than almost all could get a Linux system up and running.
I disagree. Contrary to your assumption, following the HCL will not ensure continued stability. In the distant past, I’ve installed Windows 98 on hardware in the HCL and installed only Microsoft software, including Office. Then I let it sit there running only the screen saver for two weeks. Touched the mouse to stop the screensaver, and POOF! The entire system was locked up! Explain that. I’ve used stock Windows-certified computers from Dell and IBM running Win98 and WinME and have experienced severe errors just running IE 5.5 or IE 6.0 without Java, JavaScript or anything other than straight HTML. Explain that. The standard procedure for maintaining servers as directed by Microsoft itself is to regularly reboot to ensure reliability. Explain that. Microsoft, in its own documentation, says that NT is not intended for high-performance, high-reliabilty networked applications. Explain that. You know as well as everyone else that Win2K was released with 60,000 known bugs. Explain the desire to release buggy software rather insist on quality. I don’t think it can be done with terms outside of money and marketing. Granted, Win2K has about 35 million lines of code, but Linux has about 30 million LOC with far fewer known bugs and a lot more developers and testers. Oh, and I’ve got Linux servers here at home that do NOT conform to Linux’s version of its HCL, yet they’ve been running flawlessly for the past six months (partially made possible by a $45,000 UPS!)
Granted, 2000 and XP are much, much better than 95, 98, ME, or older versions of NT, and my new XP systems only receive the occasional “unexpected error” message. But, come on!! You said, “the user could be at fault here.” Oh, there’s a sign of a terrific operating system! You prove my point exactly! “I’m sorry, sir, but the reason your Saturn swerved off the road and crashed into the tree was that you used an incompatible cellular phone adapter. Plus, the manual clearly states on page 247 that the simultaneous use of the windshield wipers and the rear window defroster is prohibited in inclement weather due to the resulting power fluctuations affecting the factory-installed power-steering mechanism. Even so, you disregarded the notice that was sent to you requiring the “optional” upgrade of the power-steering system to our new version 2.1b. You, the user, are therefore at fault!” I do not accept “user error” as an acceptable cause for a computer to have operating system problems.
And I have to appreciate your comment that Linux “is written just for what you need it to do and nothing more.” I recently moved my original images to an Linux image server. My equipment is set up so that I can remove the Compact Flash card from my Canon PowerShot G2 digital camera, insert it into my Canon S830D photo printer, and print directly from the card. I can also retrieve the images directly from the image server and transfer them to the CF card. Imagine my frustration when I discovered that the WinXP Image and Fax Viewer application decided ON ITS OWN without my permission or knowledge to CHANGE several of my original images, making them incompatible with both the printer and the digital camera?! Arrogance only possible from Microsoft… - RDL
Regardless of the fact that you have used systems that have come stock with Windows, it doesn’t mean that those computers will work with it. You can’t JUST go by the HCL, that’s like going by JUST consumer reports for buying a car. Its only a guide, and lets face it, Dell, Compaq, HP… they are all horrible designers. They can’t produce a stable computer if their lives depended on it. I will comment more when I have the time. Ferg, out.
And yet you continue to prove my point. If anyone buys anything on the HCL it should work flawlessly with Windows. Period. Being on the HCL means that the product has passed compliance testing as defined by Microsoft. As for Dell, Compaq, and HP being horrible designers… perhaps. But, again, I disagree with your assertion that they can’t “produce a stable computer if their lives depended on it.” Their lives DO depend on it, and in head-to-head comparisons running Windows and other operating systems such as Solaris 8.0 and Linux kernels 6.0 and higher, the Microsoft operating systems have had more problems. Yes, I know all about drivers, testing, compatibility, et al; I’ve been doing this for 20 years — no spring chicken. Yes, I use Microsoft products and have for years. But that doesn’t mean I can’t be open minded and objective enough to take a good look at other operating systems and admit that what they have been doing is much, much better.
Pick any computer listed on all the respective HCLs of Windows, Linus, and Solaris. Install only a shrink-wrapped version of the OS. Update only the drivers. Don’t “tweak” for performance, stability, reliability, software updates, anything; just leave as freshly installed. You have to admit that without tweaking, the Microsoft system will not be as stable in the long run. It is possible to get an MS OS reasonably stable, but my point is that no real operating system should require such customization to work properly. Windows Update should not be necessary. Service Packs are a joke.
In the mid 1980s, Microsoft had the best operating system, hands down. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Apple had the best OS. In the late 1990s and the last couple of years, Unix and Linux have been king. Microsoft has a chance with its XP line of operating systems and the move in the positive direction that MS has taken, but it still has a lot of quality assurance problems to resolve before it reigns supreme again.
Oh, and I can randomly walk onto just about any new car lot and buy any model car from any major manufacturer and be assured of reliability and performance — without consulting a guide. - RDL, out.
You raise some good points there. I’d have to agree with you that out of the box, Windows lacks in completeness. Perhaps though, computers were not meant for the “average Joe” to use them efficiently. It’s the same as cars (and I can identify with you being able to walk on a lot without consulting a guide - I can do the same - but that doesn’t mean you are going to get a GOOD car, it just means that you can identify the facts relating to each car. It comes from dealing with them for long enough to know what to do - experience is key) they aren’t going to always work as good as they “should” right off the lot. Its not that the HCL automatically makes a computer able to use Windows flawlessly. You and I both know that electronics is not a science (though man’s pride might say otherwise), and electronics run computer software. Not to be silly, but there really are “gremlins.” There are anomolies that happen that cannot be identified no matter how long and hard you search for them. I have worked on thousands of Windows machines from Dell, Compaq, HP, and IBM. They all have one thing in common, no attention to detail. They put together something on a list (HCL maybe?) and say “OK, it works, lets go with this.’ With that kind of design effort, of course there are going to be problems. The only reason my computer designs (I have been doing them for over 10 years for both companies and private parties) have survived without having problems is the fact that I have put so much time into designing them. Now, regardless of the fact, Windows itself can’t possibly be good enough for a user who is going to use it to its fullest unless someone “tweaks” it to its fullest. You can’t expect to race a car without putting a new exhaust/intake system among other things. Windows was never designed to run some of these HUGE programs (ie Photoshop, MS Office and any assortment of Java/web-based apps to name a few) in mass numbers. For you to say that MS was in error not taking this into consideration, maybe. Running these programs in this environment is like “racing” a stock car. It’s not going to work very well.
The bottom line is, this seemed like a good topic to comment on, and you have raised some interesting points. I hope you will excuse my stubbornness, but it is only because you took the side of Linux, I had to take the other side. Linux is the savior of the software world, but without decent programmers (anyone seen Anti-Trust) it will never get anywhere. The only reason I have not gone completely Linux is because of the horrible public support out there along with the atrocious software abilities (if I wanted to use a command line OS, I’d go back to DOS, thanks). In any case, Windows and Linux both have strong points. Both of them were designed for a different group of people though, and if people want to race stock cars, let them blow their engines, but I don’t see too many people going faster than 25mph in an F1 racer either.
Forgot to comment on your ‘weird’ situation with the web/email thing… must be gremlins =)
Both parties back away, the swords held tightly in their clenched fists still ringing from the recent blows of intelligent discussion… Yes, my experience (like yours) of putting systems together nationwide since 1991 has also taught me that gremlins abound everywhere, regardless of operating system.
My last comment on this (unless you counter, and then I’ll have another last comment!) is that the “average Joe” expects a stock car to function well and doesn’t necessarily expect to race it — we’re talking email, word processing, the occasional downloading of pørn, a game of Age of Empires or two, balancing a checkbook, a bit of flight simulation, etc. Personally, I expect my Microsoft Windows operating system to be able to properly handle anything that Microsoft Internet Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Age of Empires, Microsoft Money, or Microsoft Flight Simulator can throw at it, even if all running at the same time.
OK, another last final comment: Linux isn’t just command-line any more. - RDL
Yeah, but it’s still got a few things that you have to run (or it is easier to run) from the command line… how boring!
It wasn’t me who couldn’t get the software to run, it was my hardware that wouldn’t run it. Don’t let him get you to thinking I’m a moron.
Oh, you mean you don’t have to run attrib, ipconfig, ping, finger, netstat, netview, or tracert from the command line in Windows? And without setting up shortcuts, how are msconfig, winipcfg, and winmsd accessible? Start->Run counts as the command prompt, too. *grin* - RDL
guess I should go install linux then eh? =)