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(a)classiccmp.org [mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of ajp166 Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 7:07 PM To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org Subject: Re: Enough already! (was: Re: MS Laugh-In) From: Kevin Stewart <stewart_kevin(a)hotmail.com> Actually it's MICROS~1 ;) 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. 4 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. me 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 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