Re: XP is great

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:48:17 +0200, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
<frithiof.jensen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:u7ct51p3s1saclighd8nsl3urf5vhrbn9c@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>> It's a plain keyboard; no special buttons. For Pete's sake, Microsoft
>> hasn't fixed the c-drive.lnk bug, after 8 years! They managed to
>> transport a bug from '98 to XP!
>
>You Wanted Windows, did you not, Knowing Full Well what it is!?
>
>What I am advocating is that you will have to live with it because *it will
>not change*.


Oh, it will probably get incrementally better as bugs are found and
fixed (until they release a new OS.) XP is far less likely to crash
than '98, which is an improvement.

But there are lessons to be learned here. There have been a number of
clean, fast, rock-solid, and non-quirky OSs written over the years.
What they had in common were a small number of authors using simple,
even primitive tools... assembly, Bliss, or plain C. The Microsoft
programming model - C++, OOP, DLLs, unlimited module size through
virtual memory, event-driven actions, all that - is a disaster as
regards reliability and usability. Programmers love this stuff as an
intellectual exercize/toy kit/resume padder, but it makes for bad
products. Whenever a programmer comes to me and says he can solve a
simple problem better by buying a bunch of new tools and using a new
CPU, all my alarms go off; he's interested in the process, not the
product.

John



.

Quantcast