an interesting article about Microsoft
-
Yes there are lots of things that irritate me about MS. For example, some of their software hasn't been very good, e.g, The Win9x series of OS's, the somewhat clumsy developer tools that ship with SQL Server, the price of their office suites etc etc. That said, the article is still DRIVEL. [['NT' stands for 'New Technology', presumably because Windows NT is one of the few products in the history of Microsoft that they didn't buy.]] ummm yeah except NT standing for "New Technology" is a myth [[And of course much of the coding on NT was done by Microsoft engineers, so in the end the quality of NT's final code wasn't even in the same league as VMS.]] In other words Dave Cutler suddenly ceased to be in control of the quality of code that went into HIS kernel?? :laugh: [[Excel, originally developed on the Apple platform, doesn't really do anything that Lotus-123 couldn't do in the eighties]] :laugh: is this guy serious?? [[All you need to offer network-based applications and services today is a Unix server, a bunch of applications and some graphic terminals]] Sun's been there, done that, had to sell the T-shirt to try to make ends meet I don't need to go on. No software is perfect, but I'm perfectly happy with my rock solid Win2k and XP machines at the moment :-) Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
-
I'll admit I didn't read the whole document (I got about 30 pages in and then skipped to the conclusion, which was a load of linux-fanboy and Bill-Is-Satan web sites), but it sure was a load of whining! Plus I'm pretty sure there were omissions where his technical criticism overlooked important implementation details (one that I can think of - how the support for DOS and 16-bit Windows actually works in NT based systems - through an abstraction layer on top of the underlying operating system (Windows on Win32), not a kludge of 16 bit code directly into it.) Sorry, but that was not worth reading. If I want Microsoft bashing, I'll go to slashdot. Fair criticism is one thing - vituperation is quite another. To counter balance this, I'll have to post this article about the development of NT into 2003: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winserver2k3_gold1.asp[^] -- Ian Darling "The moral of the story is that with a contrived example, you can prove anything." - Joel Spolsky
Agree with you... :rolleyes: "Courage choose who will follow, Fate choose who will lead" - Lord Gunner, Septerra Core "Press any key to continue, where's the ANY key ?" - Homer Simpsons
-
Definitely worth-reading: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~congy/temp/0readings/HateMicrosoft.pdf And if you know any other articles like this or completely different (praising MS), let me know. "Gods die, when their believers are gone." --from Sandman by Neil Gaiman
While at the start, the article reasoning seems mostly right, there are some misinformation that simply scream "I'm a lie!". Here are some of them: "The upcoming .Net strategy involves simple client systems that will be used to access server-based or network-based applications and services. This is in fact an implementation of the ASP (Application Service Providing) concept. ASP moves applications from the workstation to a central server. This does away with the need to install, maintain and run application software locally on workstations." - No comments. This guy never opened VS.NET. "If you look in the executables in the Windows directory, you find internal labels like "ProductName: Microsoft Windows (TM) operating system, ProductVersion: 3.10". There's even DOS 5.0 code with a 1981-1991 copyright date. What a great new product." - What does he expect? A rewrite from the scratch for each new version? When was the last time "cat" code rewritten from scratch on Linux or any other OS? "In short, all 16-bit applications share one 16-bit subsystem (just as with OS/2). There's no internal memory protection, so one 16-bit application may crash all the others and the the entire 16-bit subsystem as well." - There's this checkbox "Run in separate memory space", can anyone tell me what it does? "This may create persistent locks from the crashed 16 -bit code on 32-bit resources, and eventually bring Windows to a halt." - This is simply untrue. "Windows XP for example comes loaded with more applications and features than ever before." and "XP is a minor update of Windows 2000 that coincides with the discontinuation of the 9x/ME line, as part of Microsoft's repositioning of their Windows product lines." He even contradicts himself. "Windows doesn't share static code - if you run 10 instances of Word, the bulk of the code will be loaded into memory 10 times." - Can he define what's a "working set", then? "The main problem with DLL support is that the OS keeps track of DLLs by name only. There is no adequate signature system to keep track of different DLL versions." - Just like that OS does, erm, mmm, does anyone remember which OS does it? "Then there's Windows' lack of an adequate repair or maintenance mode." - He should try to recover a UNIX system. Just for fun, a trivial one: change the default shell for the root user for a non-existing executable, or deny access to it and then try to recover your system from this. It is possible, but you
-
Yes there are lots of things that irritate me about MS. For example, some of their software hasn't been very good, e.g, The Win9x series of OS's, the somewhat clumsy developer tools that ship with SQL Server, the price of their office suites etc etc. That said, the article is still DRIVEL. [['NT' stands for 'New Technology', presumably because Windows NT is one of the few products in the history of Microsoft that they didn't buy.]] ummm yeah except NT standing for "New Technology" is a myth [[And of course much of the coding on NT was done by Microsoft engineers, so in the end the quality of NT's final code wasn't even in the same league as VMS.]] In other words Dave Cutler suddenly ceased to be in control of the quality of code that went into HIS kernel?? :laugh: [[Excel, originally developed on the Apple platform, doesn't really do anything that Lotus-123 couldn't do in the eighties]] :laugh: is this guy serious?? [[All you need to offer network-based applications and services today is a Unix server, a bunch of applications and some graphic terminals]] Sun's been there, done that, had to sell the T-shirt to try to make ends meet I don't need to go on. No software is perfect, but I'm perfectly happy with my rock solid Win2k and XP machines at the moment :-) Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
Senkwe Chanda wrote: I don't need to go on. No software is perfect, but I'm perfectly happy with my rock solid Win2k and XP machines at the moment Fair enough. And thanks for all the comments. I don't want to complain about MS not knowing anything, to complain only because it's trendy. And that's why I started this discussion. "Gods die, when their believers are gone." --from Sandman by Neil Gaiman
-
True. But I am trying not to behave like this. That's why I use both Windows and Linux. That's why I read various (not only anti-MS!) articles. That's why I discuss with people. "Gods die, when their believers are gone." --from Sandman by Neil Gaiman
-
True. But I am trying not to behave like this. That's why I use both Windows and Linux. That's why I read various (not only anti-MS!) articles. That's why I discuss with people. "Gods die, when their believers are gone." --from Sandman by Neil Gaiman
-
Yes there are lots of things that irritate me about MS. For example, some of their software hasn't been very good, e.g, The Win9x series of OS's, the somewhat clumsy developer tools that ship with SQL Server, the price of their office suites etc etc. That said, the article is still DRIVEL. [['NT' stands for 'New Technology', presumably because Windows NT is one of the few products in the history of Microsoft that they didn't buy.]] ummm yeah except NT standing for "New Technology" is a myth [[And of course much of the coding on NT was done by Microsoft engineers, so in the end the quality of NT's final code wasn't even in the same league as VMS.]] In other words Dave Cutler suddenly ceased to be in control of the quality of code that went into HIS kernel?? :laugh: [[Excel, originally developed on the Apple platform, doesn't really do anything that Lotus-123 couldn't do in the eighties]] :laugh: is this guy serious?? [[All you need to offer network-based applications and services today is a Unix server, a bunch of applications and some graphic terminals]] Sun's been there, done that, had to sell the T-shirt to try to make ends meet I don't need to go on. No software is perfect, but I'm perfectly happy with my rock solid Win2k and XP machines at the moment :-) Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
Senkwe Chanda wrote: rock solid Heh.
-
Yes. But, out of curiosity, for my lack of experience in Linux (really), is M$ really an inferior product? I never really looked into the matter before.
I, for one, would switch to Linux, if I could. Here goes a few reasons why: 1. it's free, 2. it's Open Source, 3. it's more stable (though it does not mean that you cannot crush a computer running on Linux), 4. it's more secure, 5. it's more powerful (although it's possible that I think so, only because I'm not Windows administrator and I don't know how to do many things), 6. it ask users whether they want to do something. On the other hand, I admit that Windows is more user-friendly and easier to use for people who aren't computer geeks and computers are so popular today because of MS. Linux is still far too complicated for majority of computer users. However, my company uses MS software, so I cannot use Linux as much as I could. "Gods die, when their believers are gone." --from Sandman by Neil Gaiman
-
Definitely worth-reading: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~congy/temp/0readings/HateMicrosoft.pdf And if you know any other articles like this or completely different (praising MS), let me know. "Gods die, when their believers are gone." --from Sandman by Neil Gaiman
:zzz:
-
Senkwe Chanda wrote: rock solid Heh.
hehe, I know it sounds wierd but of my 3 PC's the only one that gives me trouble is my Win2K3 box. The other machines only get a reboot when patches are installed (which sucks but hey). I only turned them off by choice for the week I was out of the country. Maybe I've just been very lucky. Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
-
I, for one, would switch to Linux, if I could. Here goes a few reasons why: 1. it's free, 2. it's Open Source, 3. it's more stable (though it does not mean that you cannot crush a computer running on Linux), 4. it's more secure, 5. it's more powerful (although it's possible that I think so, only because I'm not Windows administrator and I don't know how to do many things), 6. it ask users whether they want to do something. On the other hand, I admit that Windows is more user-friendly and easier to use for people who aren't computer geeks and computers are so popular today because of MS. Linux is still far too complicated for majority of computer users. However, my company uses MS software, so I cannot use Linux as much as I could. "Gods die, when their believers are gone." --from Sandman by Neil Gaiman
Is it really more "stable", "secured" and "powerful"? I've heard these arguments many times. But.. Secured, as in less reported hacks, or you mean, it's simply hard to crack the operating system? It's more powerful? Do you mean Linux has a superior kernel that manages its memory/resources more efficiently? How can you tell? It's more stable... a friend told me his Linux/Mandrake was kept alive without a reboot for 9 months now. But then, it depends on what's installed in it. I guess one really have to spend more time to tell to gain first hand experience in this.
-
Is it really more "stable", "secured" and "powerful"? I've heard these arguments many times. But.. Secured, as in less reported hacks, or you mean, it's simply hard to crack the operating system? It's more powerful? Do you mean Linux has a superior kernel that manages its memory/resources more efficiently? How can you tell? It's more stable... a friend told me his Linux/Mandrake was kept alive without a reboot for 9 months now. But then, it depends on what's installed in it. I guess one really have to spend more time to tell to gain first hand experience in this.
CillyMe wrote: I guess one really have to spend more time to tell to gain first hand experience in this I did spent a lot of time using Linux, while writing my MS thesis - I run a WWW server using this OS. A few other project I created also used Linux. And I use it at home on everyday basis. However, I do NOT claim that I know everything about it. CillyMe wrote: Is it really more "stable", "secured" and "powerful"? 1. "stable" - check the uptime statistics for most requested sites: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/requested.html 2. "secured" - I agree that it is possible that we hear about MS security holes all the time and rarely about Linux ones, because there are more people that are looking for them in MS products, 3. "powerful" - I didn't make myself clear - I cannot tell which memory management or scheduler is better (I wish I was good enough :)); what I meant was the fact that for example it is easier to configure every aspect of an application or control the way it will install in Linux then Windows. "Gods die, when their believers are gone." --from Sandman by Neil Gaiman
-
I'll admit I didn't read the whole document (I got about 30 pages in and then skipped to the conclusion, which was a load of linux-fanboy and Bill-Is-Satan web sites), but it sure was a load of whining! Plus I'm pretty sure there were omissions where his technical criticism overlooked important implementation details (one that I can think of - how the support for DOS and 16-bit Windows actually works in NT based systems - through an abstraction layer on top of the underlying operating system (Windows on Win32), not a kludge of 16 bit code directly into it.) Sorry, but that was not worth reading. If I want Microsoft bashing, I'll go to slashdot. Fair criticism is one thing - vituperation is quite another. To counter balance this, I'll have to post this article about the development of NT into 2003: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winserver2k3_gold1.asp[^] -- Ian Darling "The moral of the story is that with a contrived example, you can prove anything." - Joel Spolsky
Ian Darling wrote: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winserver2k3_gold1.asp[^] Very interesting; thanks for the counterpoint :rose:.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
hehe, I know it sounds wierd but of my 3 PC's the only one that gives me trouble is my Win2K3 box. The other machines only get a reboot when patches are installed (which sucks but hey). I only turned them off by choice for the week I was out of the country. Maybe I've just been very lucky. Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
Well, I have to say that without knowing much about the underpinnings of the OS, MS must have really put in some work under the covers, since all of my XP machines are much more stable than my 2000 ones. I have gotten BSOD on all of my machines, but on one of my XP machines it's only happened once, no big deal. I have been pretty pleased with the overall stability of XP so far, but I wouldn't say the same about 2000. Things are getting better all the time. One thing that I would do if I were Microsoft is release a decent free firewall for Windows 2000. I would bet that a lot of customer complaints on that OS actually stem from lurkware mucking up the works. Most people don't know about ZoneAlarm, and it's got a few problems anyway (at least in the free version). I don't think that Microsoft has to worry about getting people to transition to XP now; close to all new desktop licenses are for XP now. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
Yes there are lots of things that irritate me about MS. For example, some of their software hasn't been very good, e.g, The Win9x series of OS's, the somewhat clumsy developer tools that ship with SQL Server, the price of their office suites etc etc. That said, the article is still DRIVEL. [['NT' stands for 'New Technology', presumably because Windows NT is one of the few products in the history of Microsoft that they didn't buy.]] ummm yeah except NT standing for "New Technology" is a myth [[And of course much of the coding on NT was done by Microsoft engineers, so in the end the quality of NT's final code wasn't even in the same league as VMS.]] In other words Dave Cutler suddenly ceased to be in control of the quality of code that went into HIS kernel?? :laugh: [[Excel, originally developed on the Apple platform, doesn't really do anything that Lotus-123 couldn't do in the eighties]] :laugh: is this guy serious?? [[All you need to offer network-based applications and services today is a Unix server, a bunch of applications and some graphic terminals]] Sun's been there, done that, had to sell the T-shirt to try to make ends meet I don't need to go on. No software is perfect, but I'm perfectly happy with my rock solid Win2k and XP machines at the moment :-) Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
Senkwe Chanda wrote: ummm yeah except NT standing for "New Technology" is a myth Nope, it's true. I was around when NT came out and know for a fact that it stands for New Technology. Regards, Alvaro
He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
-
I'll admit I didn't read the whole document (I got about 30 pages in and then skipped to the conclusion, which was a load of linux-fanboy and Bill-Is-Satan web sites), but it sure was a load of whining! Plus I'm pretty sure there were omissions where his technical criticism overlooked important implementation details (one that I can think of - how the support for DOS and 16-bit Windows actually works in NT based systems - through an abstraction layer on top of the underlying operating system (Windows on Win32), not a kludge of 16 bit code directly into it.) Sorry, but that was not worth reading. If I want Microsoft bashing, I'll go to slashdot. Fair criticism is one thing - vituperation is quite another. To counter balance this, I'll have to post this article about the development of NT into 2003: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winserver2k3_gold1.asp[^] -- Ian Darling "The moral of the story is that with a contrived example, you can prove anything." - Joel Spolsky
I will read it at home. Thanks! But, talking about how great MS is, take a look at Print preview in IE. :). ... Just printed it - the same result. And for some reasons I cannot save it. "Gods die, when their believers are gone." --from Sandman by Neil Gaiman
-
I will read it at home. Thanks! But, talking about how great MS is, take a look at Print preview in IE. :). ... Just printed it - the same result. And for some reasons I cannot save it. "Gods die, when their believers are gone." --from Sandman by Neil Gaiman
chopeen wrote: But, talking about how great MS is, take a look at Print preview in IE. You mean, that while it took them a while to actually do one (which I agree is fair criticism, and was a nuisance for several IE versions), it actually works really well? :-D -- Ian Darling "The moral of the story is that with a contrived example, you can prove anything." - Joel Spolsky
-
CillyMe wrote: I guess one really have to spend more time to tell to gain first hand experience in this I did spent a lot of time using Linux, while writing my MS thesis - I run a WWW server using this OS. A few other project I created also used Linux. And I use it at home on everyday basis. However, I do NOT claim that I know everything about it. CillyMe wrote: Is it really more "stable", "secured" and "powerful"? 1. "stable" - check the uptime statistics for most requested sites: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/requested.html 2. "secured" - I agree that it is possible that we hear about MS security holes all the time and rarely about Linux ones, because there are more people that are looking for them in MS products, 3. "powerful" - I didn't make myself clear - I cannot tell which memory management or scheduler is better (I wish I was good enough :)); what I meant was the fact that for example it is easier to configure every aspect of an application or control the way it will install in Linux then Windows. "Gods die, when their believers are gone." --from Sandman by Neil Gaiman
chopeen wrote: _http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/requested.html_ Good stuff. "www.daiko-lab.co.jp" (1657 1700 1701 FreeBSD) makes so impressive figures it seems, or is that an error of some sort? 1700 is like 4 years. M$ does pretty well too, averages 200 days. So, one bad day a year. I also read some TPC figures somewhere. Doesnt seems M$ SQL Server is doing much worse than Oracle or DB2... Take a look at http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc\_perf\_results.asp. As for security: http://www.securityfocus.com/bid - everything is vulnerable (How do you secure anything online btw? I'm a security newbie) Anyhow, it seems M$' bad reputation is just the result of all the hype in putting down M$. I recently met some moron who commented on Visual Studio.NET: "Visual Studio and the IDE's are for the weak, I personally uses VIM" *** man, whatda hack ***
-
Yes. But, out of curiosity, for my lack of experience in Linux (really), is M$ really an inferior product? I never really looked into the matter before.
BY NO MEANS IS Microsoft WinXP/2000 inferior to Linux. I am the most fluent with Windows. This year at my school they are offering Linux Cert. I'm in the class here are my observations: 1. It takes a while to get use to installing a program, if your lucky and have all the dependences working (ugh). 2. The window managers are crap, I can't stand Gnome, and sometimes KDE just pisses me off. 3. Changing process's CPU prioity requres ps aux get number and renice if its running or nice if your starting it 4. No default keyboard short cuts whats so ever 5. People complain way too much about the graphical boot (Fedora) even though they can veiw the messages later with dmesg. 6. LACK OF SECURITY- everyone has access to root if you are at the machine no matter what your account name is, you can have access to the root account, you can change the root password WITHOUT having permissions. 7. The "Windows Update" clone doesn't work without user intervention to set it up, I.e. registering and then selecting what you want it to update etc. 8. I don't like KDevelop much. What do I like? 1. Its developments ie Hotplugible pci, (planned) ram and cpus. 2. Compiling the kernel- i like that you can disable bluetooth and firewire since I won't touch it for a while. 3. Good command line stuff -Steven Hicks
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
Actual Linux Penguins were harmed in the creation of this message.
More tutorials: Ltpb.8m.com: Tutorials |404Browser.com (Download Link)
-
I, for one, would switch to Linux, if I could. Here goes a few reasons why: 1. it's free, 2. it's Open Source, 3. it's more stable (though it does not mean that you cannot crush a computer running on Linux), 4. it's more secure, 5. it's more powerful (although it's possible that I think so, only because I'm not Windows administrator and I don't know how to do many things), 6. it ask users whether they want to do something. On the other hand, I admit that Windows is more user-friendly and easier to use for people who aren't computer geeks and computers are so popular today because of MS. Linux is still far too complicated for majority of computer users. However, my company uses MS software, so I cannot use Linux as much as I could. "Gods die, when their believers are gone." --from Sandman by Neil Gaiman
chopeen wrote: it's more stable I've manage to completely crash my kernel through rebooting. And it has locked up on me MANY times (just running updatedb in the back ground process, running XMMS (if you run that without a sound card set up properly it will cause gnome to be very mad at you), and a few other comands at the same time. I found that linux asks too much and doesn't do much return compared to XP. -Steven Hicks
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
Actual Linux Penguins were harmed in the creation of this message.
More tutorials: Ltpb.8m.com: Tutorials |404Browser.com (Download Link)