Windows XP is a very courteous operating system.

Russ · Jul 11, 2001

PCResources,

Your analogy of the car falls flat. You do not buy a car, and then force it in to a situation where it's ability to properly function is based in large part on interaction with thousands of other components produced outside of the control of the manufacturer of that car.

As for all the "problems" with Windows? I'm still looking for them. My Windows systems run fine, run stable, and do exactly the job for which the OS was designed.

Russ, NCNE

PCResources · Jul 11, 2001

<< Well, patrick, I'm sorry you take things so personally. I could argue here with you, but I choose not to. And oh, yeah since you are interested about the project I work on, you can find it here. It can't be compared to complexity of an OS, but it's no "hello world" either. And one last thing, about the car. Yeah, the car won't break down if you exactly follow manufacturers specs. But try replacing the engine, putting out-of-spec tires and etc, you get the point. Anyways, this is enough argument for me for one day. To whoever disagrees with me, I respect your opinion, but I think you are wrong. >>

I don't take them so personally, i am just here for the discussion... You are correct, your programming project isn't anywhere near as complex as an OS, so why did you make the remarks you did?

About the car, replacing the engine, that would be like replacing the CPU with an Alpha, i am not trying to do that, replacing the tires with out of spec tires, well that would be like trying to add an external modem to a PCI slot... your reasoning is silly...

The car parts used follows the specs, and the PC parts used follow the specs (PCI specs, X-86 specs and so on), the car will run, the computer won't, i would not pay for such a car, and i would not pay for an OS that will not run stuff that is within the specs, realize this, if the HW is flawed, then it won't run, if the OS is flawed, then it will crash...

Patrick

PCResources · Jul 11, 2001

Russ, the car statement stands... It does not make sense to you, but you do not make any sense to me... ;-)

As for your lack of problems with windows, i say, GREAT, i am happy for you!

But if a CPU manufacturer had the same problems, who would buy that CPU? Intel actually recalled the P60/66 becuase of a bug that 99% of all consumers would never have any problems with...

I just want an OS that works the way that it is supposed to all of the time...

Patrick

pioneer77 · Jul 11, 2001

<<

<< Microsoft charges us a hundreds of dollars for their software so they should invest the money to make it "perfect". >>

Really? XP is going to be what, $199? For that price we get a full featured OS which will support basically any hardware we would want to use as well as any program we would want to use. Its also rock solid stable and pretty to boot

Lets put that in perspective. Adobe charges $609 for Photoshop, a program that just lets you paint silly pictures. Or how about $399 for Flash 5, or $249 for Quickbooks Pro...

Now tell me, WHO screws its customers?

(edit: Oh wait! I completley forgot about Mac OSX! For $129, you get an OS that supports less than a tenth of the hardware, less than a tenth of the software, and HAS to be run on Apple computers! Yay!!!!!!) >>

LOL! This is so true. I can't believe people rip on MS... it's not their fault they write the best code out there no matter what panel of judges says otherwise.

All that crap about including IE in their OS.... poor, poor, nutscrape. IE is better and it's their damn OS. If Netscape has a problem with Windows having the features its developers want to include, then let Netscape write their own OS and include Navigator for free.

soapdish · Jul 11, 2001

Mlip,

You are right about Microsoft, and only about 1/3 of those are what we would call coders. Testers, salesman, managers, and of late, lawyers! make up the rest.

I had heard the sum of 50 million lines of code in office 2000, but I can only say that is a rumor.

Definitely not billions. There's an estimate of about 60-80 billion lines of code in existence within corporate america today (taken from a computerworld article), so I doubt that Microsoft takes a lion's share of it.

For an OS to run lean, its got to be fairly lightweight. That's Microsofts problem today, they are producing bloat code and dragging down enterprise computing.

Don't believe me? Look at the top article at this great site... Wow! Neat Site!

bevancoleman · Jul 11, 2001

If Visual Studio.Net B1 has problems loading (which is quite often) you get a message box which says

xxxxxx failed to load. Continue?
[OK] [Lame]

I though that was kinda funny the first couple of times I saw it, now after seeing it so regular............ grabs box, opens windows, whisling sound followed by loud crash

PCResources · Jul 11, 2001

<< LOL! This is so true. I can't believe people rip on MS... it's not their fault they write the best code out there no matter what panel of judges says otherwise. All that crap about including IE in their OS.... poor, poor, nutscrape. IE is better and it's their damn OS. If Netscape has a problem with Windows having the features its developers want to include, then let Netscape write their own OS and include Navigator for free. >>

Would you please explain to me why you think that the massive amount of code that makes up W2K is something good? What about the lack of problem solving? What about the workarounds?

I understand that this is just your opinion, but you must have some kind of base for your statement...

About IE and Netscape... I run Opera and Mozilla...

Patrick

AdamDuritz99 · Jul 11, 2001

<<Enlighten us, which os have you written? The point isn't wheter a program should work correct or not, is it? If i buy something i want it to work, if it does not work, i will need to get it fixed, costing me time and money, if it is a construction error, then the product is flawed...

A program which contains bugs is a beta version, you should not have to pay money for beta versions...>>

ok, i personally think ms can do sooooo much better since they are "microsoft", so i usually will complian about them. but, uuhh that statement up above. it really shows you don't understand programming. There is no way you can make an OS completely 100% bug free. my complaint is microsoft is a multi billion dollar company, and linux is only lacking a little behind microsoft.

pioneer77 · Jul 11, 2001

<<

<< LOL! This is so true. I can't believe people rip on MS... it's not their fault they write the best code out there no matter what panel of judges says otherwise. All that crap about including IE in their OS.... poor, poor, nutscrape. IE is better and it's their damn OS. If Netscape has a problem with Windows having the features its developers want to include, then let Netscape write their own OS and include Navigator for free. >>

Would you please explain to me why you think that the massive amount of code that makes up W2K is something good? What about the lack of problem solving? What about the workarounds?

I understand that this is just your opinion, but you must have some kind of base for your statement...

About IE and Netscape... I run Opera and Mozilla...

Patrick >>

You'll have to forgive me, I'm one of those people that think more features and extensibility is a good thing.

Most people refer to it as bloat. Sure, most MS programs can do things I will never even know they can do. I guess that can be refered to as bloat. I just happen to think that a lot of that stuff is pretty cool even if there is a good bit we could probably do without to save on code and such. *shrugs*

Russ · Jul 11, 2001

<< Russ, the car statement stands... It does not make sense to you >>

PCResources,

It doesn't make sense, period. Again, an automobile is not thrust in to a situation with a literally infinite variety of interoperability variables and expected to work perfectly.

It does not have to rely on other cars as part of it's ability to function.

Russ, NCNE

PCResources · Jul 11, 2001

<< it really shows you don't understand programming >>

Ok, i have been in the business for a long time, but please explain why you think that it is impossible to write perfect code... it has to do with testing and more testing, if you do not know that you do not understand that programming isn't just about writing a program, it is about testing and perfecting it too...

<< Most people refer to it as bloat. Sure, most MS programs can do things I will never even know they can do. I guess that can be refered to as bloat. I just happen to think that a lot of that stuff is pretty cool even if there is a good bit we could probably do without to save on code and such. *shrugs* >>

But what does that extra code do? How much of it is unnecessary code, which is only there because the programmers made a workaround instead of a rewrite?

I would rather have a stable OS than animated menues...

<< It doesn't make sense, period. Again, an automobile is not thrust in to a situation with a literally infinite variety of interoperability variables and expected to work perfectly. >>

And you don't make any sense, Period... j/k

Ok, but take the CPU instead then, or any other piece of HW, would you buy a piece of HW as buggy as a MS OS?

I would not..

Patrick

Argo · Jul 11, 2001

<< Ok, i have been in the business for a long time, but please explain why you think that it is impossible to write perfect code... it has to do with testing and more testing, if you do not know that you do not understand that programming isn't just about writing a program, it is about testing and perfecting it too... >>

It's impossible because there are billions different paths of execution. There aren't enough people on this plannet to test every single one of them.

pioneer77 · Jul 11, 2001

<<

<< Ok, i have been in the business for a long time, but please explain why you think that it is impossible to write perfect code... it has to do with testing and more testing, if you do not know that you do not understand that programming isn't just about writing a program, it is about testing and perfecting it too... >>

It's impossible because there are billions different paths of execution. There aren't enough people on this plannet to test every single one of them. >>

An interesting solution to this would be to write code that adapts to test different situations and basically does the testing for you. Read some article somewhere a while back that said this is where beta testing will be heading in the future. Course, that's if you buy into A.I. becoming powerful enough to do something like that in the near future.

monk3y · Jul 11, 2001

All i know is that my gf loves it and doesn't call me for any help anymore so i'm happy

Russ · Jul 11, 2001

<< Ok, i have been in the business for a long time, but please explain why you think that it is impossible to write perfect code... it has to do with testing and more testing >>

PCResources,

If Microsoft had the opportunity to test the OS on every possible combination of hardware and software, including every bad component, and buggy program with which Windows must deal then, and only then, could an argument be made that the blame for problems experienced should be laid squarely at their feet.

Of course, if that were the case, nobody would be able to afford to buy it.

<< Ok, but take the CPU instead then, or any other piece of HW, would you buy a piece of HW as buggy as a MS OS? >>

Again, what "buggy"? It works just fine for me, and I've built over a thousand Windows systems.

Russ, NCNE

PCResources · Jul 11, 2001

<< It's impossible because there are billions different paths of execution. There aren't enough people on this plannet to test every single one of them. >>

Geez, it has nothing to do with manpower, it has to do with computer power, a good simulation would find the errors, if they can add millions of lines of codes, they can correct the errors...

Are you saying that you do all of your testing manually?

Patrick

PCResources · Jul 11, 2001

<< If Microsoft had the opportunity to test the OS on every possible combination of hardware and software, including every bad component, and buggy program with which Windows must deal then, and only then, could an argument be made that the blame for problems experienced should be laid squarely at their feet. >>

again, a good simulation would do the trick.. it takes time, and MS don't want to spend time making a good OS, they want to use that time making money...

Again, i am happy that it works for you, i compare it to other systems, like Linux and FreeBSD, i guess that you have never seen the BSOD or any error message, but you are one of the very few...

Of course, this is just my experience, yours is different, so let's stick with what we know, i know that there are millions of lines of useless code in W2K, and millions of lines of code that corrects the code that is flawed... What do you know about this?

Patrick

Russ · Jul 11, 2001

<< What do you know about this? >>

I don't know squat about code, but I do know about end results, and there are very few people here who have built more Windows systems then I have. The reputation for "bugs" in the OS is inflated by several orders of magnitude.

BTW, I also have three Linux boxes. I like Linux as well, but it is not, and never will be, as suitable for the desktop environment as Windows.

Russ, NCNE

konichiwa · Jul 11, 2001

<< It works just fine for me, and I've built over a thousand Windows systems. >>

In all those systems you've never run into a BSOD or an "Illegal Program Operation"? Have you seen the immense list of exploits for IIS? Have you seen how many companies and websites have been hacked due to the lack of security in Microsoft server OS'es and programs?

Russ · Jul 11, 2001

<< In all those systems you've never run into a BSOD or an "Illegal Program Operation"? >>

Of course, there are occasional errors. But, guess what? There are also occasional errors in Linux, and it does not have to cater to anywhere NEAR the variety of crap that Windows does.

<< Have you seen the immense list of exploits for IIS? Have you seen how many companies and websites have been hacked due to the lack of security in Microsoft server OS'es and programs? >>

The list is just as long for an improperly configured Linux/Apache box. Of course, we weren't discussing servers, so did you have a point in there anywhere?

Russ, NCNE

n0b7e · Jul 11, 2001

Urinal Mint sounds like a pissed off MS employee....

anyway, damn funny thread.

edit: I was gonna say something to the MS loyalists, but looks like D###d was thinkin the same...

<< Are you just plain dumb or joking? We pay billions upon billions of dollars for Microsoft products. Being the consumer we expect that what we get is worth the money we gave them. Microsoft charges us hundreds of dollars for their software so they should invest the money to make it "perfect". Don't feel sorry for these programmers they make more money then you can imagine. (spelling fixed) >>

konichiwa · Jul 11, 2001

<< The list is just as long for an improperly configured Linux/Apache box. Of course, we weren't discussing servers, so did you have a point in there anywhere? >>

I'm not talking about an improperly configured Microsoft box! I'm talking about a Microsoft system set up CORRECTLY! And we were talking about XP, which is just as much a server OS as it is a consumer OS, which is why I did have a point.

Russ · Jul 11, 2001

<< And we were talking about XP, which is just as much a server OS as it is a consumer OS, which is why I did have a point. >>

Really? You mean this little old RC1 that I posted about can double as my web server? BTW, what OS are you posting from right now?

You Microsoft bashers like to make it sound as if Windows crashes every five minutes and has to be re-booted 15 times a day in order to work. It doesn't. It works just fine, and despite all your nebulous claims to the contrary, does exactly what it is supposed to do.

Russ, NCNE

SSP · Jul 11, 2001

So let me ask you this PCResources. Is Linux 100% COMPLETELY BUG FREE???

SSP · Jul 11, 2001

<< Ok, but take the CPU instead then, or any other piece of HW, would you buy a piece of HW as buggy as a MS OS?

I would not..

>>

Where's the logic in that??? You are comparing HARDWARE to SOFTWARE!

Now unless Linux is 100% bug free, then your argument is flawed.

Windows XP is a very courteous operating system.

Lifer

Banned

Banned

Junior Member

Senior member

Golden Member

Banned

Diamond Member

Junior Member

Lifer

Banned

Lifer

Junior Member

Lifer

Lifer

Banned

Banned

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Banned

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer