Re: I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP.

From: Mike (abc_at_def.ghi)
Date: 06/13/04 

Date: 13 Jun 2004 17:47:04 -0500

Jim Backus wrote:

>Congratulations on a thoughtful piece on the benefits, not
>superiotity, of Windows.
>
>As I've added comparisons to OS/2, this is now cross-posted to
>c.o.o.a.
>
>>From what I hear, the XP version of Windows is at last delivering the
>robustness that users should expect of an operating system. Based on
>my own experience of a variety of operating systems, OS/2 is the most
>robust, followed by Mac OS (version 5 was probably the one I used),
>Windows NT, Windows 98 with Windows 95 and Windows 3.1 as the worst -
>I have no experience of Win2000 or XP.
>

Having no experience with Windows 2000 or XP pretty much rules you out
for commenting on Windows. These are by far the most robust and stable
versions. Also, claiming MacOS 5(!) as being robust and stable leads
me to question your sanity.

>
>Starting with OS/2 - two points that support its robustness. First:
>OS/2 appears to repair its initialisation files at restart. Even when
>badly broken, the operating system will generally return to a workable
>state after a number of restarts. Windows does not do this - if
>anything it is likely to become more broken.
>
Not true. Your ignorance of Windows 2000 and XP is showing. Both
maintain snapshots of the system before each major change, so it's easy
to "rollback" to previous configurations.

>
>Mac OS - this was the first graphical OS I used. Although I disliked
>the way that the intenals were hidden and inaccessible, my experience
>of 3 years constant use was that the operating system was very stable
>- crashes were rare and I don't recall any occasion when the system
>had to be reinstalled. Many 'power users' recommend that Windows
>should be re-installed annually.
>
Not true. Your ignorance of Windows 2000 and XP is showing again.
Re-installing Windows 98 was common. It's not needed for 2000 or XP.

>
>I used Windows NT4 at work for a couple of years and found it to be
>relatively reliable and robust - about half that of OS/2 in
>qualitative tests. Crashes did occur and occasionally it would run out
>of resources and need a restart. The non-Microsoft email client had a
>noticeable memory leak and was usually the cause of the operating
>system running out of resources. The 'repair' technique used by the IS
>department was to re-install.
>
Sounds like you needed a different email client and some IS guys who
knew what they were doing.

>
>My most recent employer provided Windows 98se. It generally allowed me
>to get my work done but crashes and essential restarts were common.
>

I used to do development on 98se, before we moved to 2000. I can tell
you that 98se *can* be stable, and I never re-installed it in 4 years of
use (except when I got new machines). However, 95/98/98se were not
designed with stability in mind (obviously!), they were designed for
backwards compatibility with DOS/Win3.1 apps and games.

>
>Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 were so bad it constantly amazes me that
>these appalling operating systems enabled Microsoft to become so
>successful. The only explanation is that heavy advertising and keeping
>the computer press on-side helped Microsoft to dupe a gullible
>marketplace.
>
Nonsense. At the time, they were outstanding, and were the only game
in town. OS/2 - as good as it was - was never in the running. you
can thank IBM for that.

>
>This comparison of operating systems does not address availability of
>applications - without the necessary applications it becomes
>irrelevant how good the OS is. Conversely users may have to tolerate
>unmaintainable and unreliable operating systems that support their
>essential applications.
>
True, and this probably explains why some companies are still using OS/2
- the apps have not been/will not ever be ported to Windows (or Linux or
whatever).

>
>Regarding the quoted text:
>Where does one learn 'basic Windows internals'? The Windows registry
>is so arkane that it might as well be written in Mayan. The on-line
>help in Windows is aimed squarely at the least knowledgeable user. For
>example the advice to 'ask your system administrator' is no use to
>someone trying to set up a network at home. It is also common to find
>that Windows help assumes knowledge of the purpose and effect of a
>setting so only explains the mechanics of entering a value - there is
>no expert knowledge to back up the basics. Most computer books
>regurgitate the on-line help - based on the OS/2 editions I had a high
>opinion of Sams 'Unleashed' series but found Windows 95 Unleashed to
>be almost useless.
>
Again, you're basing your opinion of Windows of Windows 95(!), an almost
10 year old product!

The registry is no more "arkane" than OS/2's config.sys file, or the ini
files. If you're smart and resourceful, you can figure out either.

>
>What are the 'right tools' and how much is one supposed to spend on
>them? Some are listed but what about the 'few other 3rd party tools'?
>
What are the 'sound protocols' for loading and removing software?

>Presumably Windows own 'Add/Remove programmes' does not qualify?
>
>

Again, Windows 2000 and XP's Add/Remove programs is all you need.
Everything that was changed during install will be reversed during
un-install. The "System Clean" utilities were only needed on
95/98/98se.

I'm not trying to incite a riot here, but I can't just sit here and let
you spout this nonsense. What would *your* reaction be to someone
claiming all sorts of defects in OS/2 (or Linux), but basing his
reasoning on OS/2 2.1 (or Red Hat 5).

Mike

Relevant Pages

  • Eeye Still has critical vulnerability asscociated with NT
    ... includes current Windows 2000 and XP products as well as older NT products. ... later versions of 9x operating systems according to Brian Livingston's ... I may end up having to purchase Microsoft Virtual ... Machine to be able to run older operating systems in order to support my ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Driver Model 2 Proposal - Linux Kernel Performance v Usability
    ... You may believe that Windows is inherently unstable. ... >This is pure invention from the usual school of 'Windows v Linux, ... >>is taught because Microsoft doesn't want you to know what ... you need to learn about Operating Systems. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Power supplies in parallel for more current/same voltage?
    ... Windows will not crash NT based operating systems. ... camera, USB port, and Windows 2000. ...
    (sci.electronics.misc)
  • Re: Seeing VERSIONINFO under Vista?
    ... All operating systems since 1988 have been based on Windows NT. ... Maybe I'll try again with a new Linux distro... ... People told me "You know compiler technology. ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • RE: protect MS Windows 95/98/Me
    ... tech savvy individuals, bypassing those policies ... Microsoft products) does not exist on Windows 9x ... > There is no security features in win9x OS. ... > operating systems. ...
    (Security-Basics)