Straight out of my first year C++ book, maybe M$ should read this

[Alphathree33]

Prinicples of Software Engineering

1. A software system should be reliable [ . . . ] Imagine that you spent several hours writing a paper . . . and when you are nearly finished, the word processor quits unexpectedly. You lose all your work. Undoubtedly, you would be very upset and rightfully so.

 

[brtspears2]

2. It's more profitable to make buggy software to force upgrades.
3. Great software needs to be re-written, bad software needs to be documented.

 

[Ns1]

i find win2k pretty damn reliable (well except with war3...)

 

[diskop]

Reliability is very hard to do when you have thousands of people coding and hundreds of millions of lines of code. Though they can certainly do a better job than they do now.

 

[Jzero]

Yes.
You know what else? My Operating Systems textbook pretty much said it's not a wise decision to keep all of your stuff in a large flat file that if one part of it gets corrupted your entire OS is screwed....

 

[Alphathree33]

Originally posted by: Jzero
Yes. You know what else? My Operating Systems textbook pretty much said it's not a wise decision to keep all of your stuff in a large flat file that if one part of it gets corrupted your entire OS is screwed....

*cough* windows registry *cough*

 

[brtspears2]

Originally posted by: Alphathree33

Originally posted by: Jzero
Yes. You know what else? My Operating Systems textbook pretty much said it's not a wise decision to keep all of your stuff in a large flat file that if one part of it gets corrupted your entire OS is screwed....

*cough* windows registry *cough*

Backups....backups.....

 

[Jzero]

*cough* windows registry *cough*

Exactly. It was amusing how they alluded to all the pitfalls and bad techniques that come about in something like the registry, but they never once specifically used the word registry.
Still, everyone in my class seemed to immediately make the connection between the two.

 

[dexvx]

I seriously do not get why people hate windows so much. The latest revisions of XP and 2000 are rock solid operating systems. Win2k server is also a rock solid server. Not to mention the ease of use, even an idiot network admin can get things set up. And speaking of idiots, there are people who do a LOT of weird stuff to their computers that normal people would not do.

Then we have all this praise for linux. My friend who works at Intel's network Q&A says that Linux servers (the only commercialized being RedHat) are more prone to crashing on new hardware and protocols [IPv6, IP-SEC, I-SCSI to name a few] than their Windows counterparts. Linux is certainly far from crash proof.

 

[gopunk]

what kind of an idiot writes a paper for several hours and doesn't save intermittently?

not to say that unreliable software is good or anything. just saying that you should also be upset at yourself for being such an idiot.

 

[rbhawcroft]

Originally posted by: brtspears2

Originally posted by: Alphathree33

Originally posted by: JzeroYes. You know what else? My Operating Systems textbook pretty much said it's not a wise decision to keep all of your stuff in a large flat file that if one part of it gets corrupted your entire OS is screwed....

*cough* windows registry *cough*

Backups....backups.....

why should i have to pay 500 usd for a 20 years in development product and manually have to do anything to protect my business data?

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: rbhawcroft

Originally posted by: brtspears2

Originally posted by: Alphathree33

Originally posted by: JzeroYes. You know what else? My Operating Systems textbook pretty much said it's not a wise decision to keep all of your stuff in a large flat file that if one part of it gets corrupted your entire OS is screwed....

*cough* windows registry *cough*

Backups....backups.....

why should i have to pay 500 usd for a 20 years in development product and manually have to do anything to protect my business data?

you don't.

 

[PowerMac4Ever]

Then we have all this praise for linux. My friend who works at Intel's network Q&A says that Linux servers (the only commercialized being RedHat) are more prone to crashing on new hardware and protocols [IPv6, IP-SEC, I-SCSI to name a few] than their Windows counterparts. Linux is certainly far from crash proof.

Oh, your friend said it so it must be right. We should all listen to your friend because his word is obviously the word of an all-knowing supernatural being. Let us all bow down to your friend and accept his divine knowledge!!!

 

[diskop]

Originally posted by: dexvx
I seriously do not get why people hate windows so much. The latest revisions of XP and 2000 are rock solid operating systems. Win2k server is also a rock solid server. Not to mention the ease of use, even an idiot network admin can get things set up. And speaking of idiots, there are people who do a LOT of weird stuff to their computers that normal people would not do.

Then we have all this praise for linux. My friend who works at Intel's network Q&A says that Linux servers (the only commercialized being RedHat) are more prone to crashing on new hardware and protocols [IPv6, IP-SEC, I-SCSI to name a few] than their Windows counterparts. Linux is certainly far from crash proof.

Thats right. Windows haters haters unite!

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: gopunk
what kind of an idiot writes a paper for several hours and doesn't save intermittently?

not to say that unreliable software is good or anything. just saying that you should also be upset at yourself for being such an idiot.

You know how ridiculous that notion is?

MS makes flaky software, so it's the user's fault for not saving every half hour!

Should users be practical? No shiz. Should you label them idiots because software XYZ sucks?

With that attitude, no wonder most consumers are happy w/ Winblows.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: dexvx
I seriously do not get why people hate windows so much. The latest revisions of XP and 2000 are rock solid operating systems. Win2k server is also a rock solid server. Not to mention the ease of use, even an idiot network admin can get things set up. And speaking of idiots, there are people who do a LOT of weird stuff to their computers that normal people would not do.

Then we have all this praise for linux. My friend who works at Intel's network Q&A says that Linux servers (the only commercialized being RedHat) are more prone to crashing on new hardware and protocols [IPv6, IP-SEC, I-SCSI to name a few] than their Windows counterparts. Linux is certainly far from crash proof.

So you are saying that W2K server is a rock solid server and that XP and 2000 are rock solid but that Linux is far from crash proof...

Hmmmm.... LMAO... you hav GOT to be joking...

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: gopunk
what kind of an idiot writes a paper for several hours and doesn't save intermittently?

not to say that unreliable software is good or anything. just saying that you should also be upset at yourself for being such an idiot.

You know how ridiculous that notion is?

MS makes flaky software, so it's the user's fault for not saving every half hour!

Should users be practical? No shiz. Should you label them idiots because software XYZ sucks?

With that attitude, no wonder most consumers are happy w/ Winblows.

what's even more ridiculous is how you put words in my mouth. and yes, i do label them idiots.

and yes, i'm happy with xp. i don't see why i shouldn't be... it was legally free, doesn't crash, runs everything i want it to... what more can i ask for?

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: gopunk
what kind of an idiot writes a paper for several hours and doesn't save intermittently?

not to say that unreliable software is good or anything. just saying that you should also be upset at yourself for being such an idiot.

You know how ridiculous that notion is?

MS makes flaky software, so it's the user's fault for not saving every half hour!

Should users be practical? No shiz. Should you label them idiots because software XYZ sucks?

With that attitude, no wonder most consumers are happy w/ Winblows.

what's even more ridiculous is how you put words in my mouth. and yes, i do label them idiots.

and yes, i'm happy with xp. i don't see why i shouldn't be... it was legally free, doesn't crash, runs everything i want it to... what more can i ask for?

No what's hilarious is you made an inane comment, I simply rephrased your comment (without putting words in your mouth) and you replied to reiterate the original comment.

The fact of the matter is you justify flaky software (that crashes and doesn't maintain file integrity) and call less-than-completely-careful computer users idiots.

My response is that is a childish position at best. Guess what, even MS has moved past that sore attitude. WXP itself is tacit acknowledgement that Win9x was not nearly stable enough to continue with. I'm not trying to start a flamefest but needless to say, I completely disagree with your original notion. Take it as you may.

 

[gopunk]

No what's hilarious is you made an inane comment, I simply rephrased your comment (without putting words in your mouth) and you replied to reiterate the original comment.

you did not "rephrase" my comment, you made your own little perception of my comment and decided it was similar enough. i did not place the blame on the user, i said that you're an idiot if you don't save a few times. that's NOT equal to saying that it is your fault. if somebody rear ends you while you aren't wearing your seat belt (and thus go flying through the windshield), it wasn't your fault, but you are an idiot for not wearing your seatbelt.

The fact of the matter is you justify flaky software (that crashes and doesn't maintain file integrity) and call less-than-completely-careful computer users idiots.

it's not exactly ocd type behavior to hit ctrl-s a few times, and nobody is justifying anything.

 

[dexvx]

Would you perfer a detailed printout of Intel's test results saying how a server version RedHat 7.2 failed to meet validation because it crashes every week or so during the stress test? (An awesomely smart exec's decision was to bump the system requirements to RH 7.3)

Perhaps I was being a little unclear. Windows (2K server, .NET) is more tolerable of new hardware/protocols than Linux. However, when put under normal use, they are both rock solid.

As for not saving, a Linux machine that crashes while in a text editor is equally as vunerable. Its not like if you dont save in Linux and the power goes out, all the data gets magically saved.