Windows Vista Why Windows sucks

  • Thread starter Thread starter White Spirit
  • Start date Start date
Re: Why Windows sucks

Perhaps if someone from MICROSFT tells you the truth THEN you will start
believing ???
lol
Article:

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/04/11/microsoft-exec-uac-designed-to-annoy-users

The User Account Control in Windows Vista improves security by reducing
application privileges from administrative to standard levels, but UAC has
been widely criticized for the nagging alerts it generates. According to one
Microsoft executive, the annoyance factor was actually part of the plan.

In a Thursday presentation at RSA 2008 in San Francisco, David Cross, a
product unit manager at Microsoft who was part of the team that developed
UAC, admitted that Microsoft's strategy with UAC was to irritate users and
ISVs in order to get them to change their behavior. "The reason we put UAC
into the platform was to annoy users. I'm serious," said Cross.

Microsoft not only wanted to get users to stop running as administrators,
which exacerbates the effects of attacks, but also wanted to convince ISVs
to stop building applications that require administrative privileges to
install and run, Cross explained. "We needed to change the ecosystem, and we
needed a heavy hammer to do it," Cross said.


"Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message
news:1e83e9l122uhe$.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:00:42 +0300, ricky valentine wrote:
>
>> WTF? I have Vista even before it was called vista! The betas, the RC, the
>> RTM the SP1.. I have installed vista so many times I can do it blindfold!
>> Do I use it for work? HELL NO! its crap!!!
>
> All supporting my claim.
>
>> I cant do work on it, but I use it to provide support and create support
>> content.
>
> Whatever that means.
>
>> You dont seem to know what a user is like now a-days.
>
> I am well aware of what users are like now-a-days.
>
>> With updates that happen daily, and without a centralized update manager
>> like the one linux has, you actually keep updating stuff even if you are
>> a
>> simple user.
>
> I wasn't aware that clicking a button was such a hardship.
>
>> Programs prompt you all the time for updates, and then you have UAC in
>> your
>> face all the time again.
>> Yesterday alone Divx, Adobe flash player, and several other programs got
>> updated.
>
> Odd, updates don't seem to come very often for me, and I have the same
> apps. Maybe it's because you only boot into Vista once a month, therefore
> you assume it updates every day because every time you use it, it updates.
>
>> UAC is CRAP! Yes I turn the damn thing off!
>
> An expert indeed. If you were actually an expert, you would understand
> that turning UAC off cripples compatibility in Vista. It's not just
> security that gets turned off, it's all the account virtualization and
> compatibility as well.
>
> It's no surprise you have a lot of trouble, turning off UAC creates 10x
> more problems. A "real" expert would advocate turning on silent UAC if it
> bothers you that much.
>
> As and example, without UAC you don't get Registry or Profile
> virtualization, which means apps that write to areas that now have higher
> ACL's will fail instead of being virtualized.
>
>> The tweakuac was mentioned because it gives one extra mode not available
>> with vista alone... the mode is UAC on but silent..
>
> You can turn on silent UAC without the use of third party utilities.
> Again, an "expert" would know that. it's called gpedit.msc, look it up
> some day.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

I can prove I was, can you?

"Frank" <fab@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:%23k3P1HAnIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> ricky valentine wrote:
>
>> WTF? I have Vista even before it was called vista! The betas, the RC, the
>> RTM the SP1.. I have installed vista so many times I can do it blindfold!
>> Do I use it for work? HELL NO! its crap!!!
>
> You lying sack of sh*t! You were not in any of the Official Longhorn/Vista
> beta...you fukkin liar!
>
> You're a delusional attention starved mental idiot!
> Frank
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>it's called gpedit.msc, look it up some day.

Is that one of those yucky "command line interface" thingies that
Wintrolls like to imply is never needed with Windoze?
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
<erik@despam-funkenbusch.com>
wrote
on Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:00:28 -0400
<m9jvzhyb4u3d.dlg@funkenbusch.com>:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:19:41 +0100, White Spirit wrote:
>
>> There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is just
>> one of them:
>>
>> Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program. It
>> has the following prototype:
>> int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR
>> lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow);
>>
>> hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. If there was an existing
>> instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about
>> it because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same address
>> space. Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to ensure that
>> the two instances didn't conflict. Most programmers simply limited the
>> application to one instance.
>
> So are you seriously suggesting that Unix doesn't have it's own legacy
> cruft?

Unix has a *lot* of legacy cruft. The most obvious
one: /etc/passwd. Ideally it should be taken out and
shot; the replacement might be dictated by PAM, somewhere
in /etc/pam.d. (For its part /lib/security/pam_unix.so
has the string /etc/passwd in it. There are also some
intriguing other strings therein. Can't this be specified
as a parameter somewhere?)

>
> ACL's have been "it" for a long time, and because of the vast majority of
> Linux users and apps that don't know how to deal with them, people still
> use UGO.

The specification of access control lists is at best a
black art, and I've seen several variants. The first one
I encountered was a PPON (person, something, organization,
network), which was in use in DomainOS prior to about
version 9, where UGO was introduced, presumably for
compatibility reasons, as DomainOS was required to coexist
on the *same system* with BSD and SysV.

The resulting hybrid got rather mucky, and had some
interesting innovations; in particular, one could define
a symlink that referred to an environment variable within
the user's process space.

>
> Or how about tar, a system designed for legacy tape drives that has been
> hacked to make it filesystem friendly over the years?

And what would we replace it with? BACKUP in particular
on legacy DOS systems was an interesting mess.

>
> Why not search your kernel config file for the word "legacy"
> while you're at it, there's plenty of hits.

I see four hits in /usr/src/linux/.legacy:

CONFIG_PM_LEGACY=y
CONFIG_MEGARAID_LEGACY=m
# CONFIG_PATA_LEGACY is not set
# CONFIG_LEGACY_PTYS is not set

>
>> Microsoft fixed this with Windows 95
>
> Actually, it fixed it with Windows NT.

Actually, it fixed it well prior to that. Win32s
(PW1118.EXE) in particular was available in the Win3.11
timeframe.

The copy available at
ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/softlib/MSLFILES/PW1118.EXE
is dated 1996-02-19, shortly before Win32s's decommissioning;
I can draw no conclusions therefrom.

References to WWW, however,
exist to NCSA Mosaic in October 1994:
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/bio-www/1994-October/000082.html
Windows for Workgroups was released in 1993-08-11,
presumably with Win32s following shortly afterwards.
As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x explains:

Limited compatibility with the (then-new) 32-bit
Windows API used by Windows NT was provided by another
add-on package, Win32s.

which suggests that WfWG contained Win32s as part of its
initial release.

>
>> - at which time it was over twenty-five years behind Unix in this
>> regard(*)! Windows NT was also over twenty-five years behind Unix by
>> being multiuser for the first time and finally allowing multiple
>> permissions for the file system. Of course, the filesystem still became
>> severely fragmented after a short amount of normal use - something that
>> still happens with Windows XP, over thirty years behind Unix
>> filesystems.
>
> Oh, I get it, you're one of those people that really has no clue as to the
> history of Unix. You think Unix sprung fully featured from the head of
> Zeus in 1973, ignoring the fact that it too evolved over time.
>
> Here's a hint:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_File_System

Another hint: Woolongong. Unix didn't have sockets until
1985 or thereabouts. Windows *actually might beat Unix*
in terms of IPC!

To be sure, one has to ask as to what a process was in the
Windows 1.0.1 context...but it's clear DLLs were available
even way back then, and of course they can communicate
with each other -- by calling each others' routines.
Note that the TCP/IP specs -- RFC791 and 793 -- are dated
September 1981. The Wikipedia entry for Unix mentions BSD
introducing TCP/IP network code to the Unix kernel in the
1980s, but doesn't mention an exact year. For its part
Windows 1.0 was released 1985-11-20, followed quickly by
Win2 on 1987-12-09. So it appears BSD4 wins after all,
as it came out in Nov 1980.

For its part Winsock came out in June 1992. I'd have
to look regarding IPX, which was very popular during
the DOOM era but never quite caught on.

4.2BSD would have been the latest released version when
Win1.0 came out (4.2 came out in Aug 1983, 4.3 came out
in June 1986). Of course the 8088 could not handle BSD
Unix, since it lacked quite a lot of functionality such
as an MMU.

Yet another hint:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Unix_history-simple.svg

And that is the *simplified* variant!

>
> It really wasn't until the mid-80's when the filesystems we think of as
> "unix" filesystems were created. And, given that Windows NT was released
> in 1993, that makes your exagerated timeframe more like "less than 10
> years".

The actual file systems are many, varied, and fragmented
(in the logical sense, not necessarily in the data
sense). The Berkeley Fast File System (known to Linux
as UFS) was created around the 4.0BSD timeframe; this
is the predecessor, to some extent, of all modern Linux
filesystems today, along with the Minix file system written
in the 1980s by Andrew Tanenbaum. Linux used the Minix
system in 1991 because it was the only one available that
suited his needs, apparently.

VFS was added to the kernel in 1992, with ext2 following
closely after, in April. VFS allows multiple file system
types, a significant innovation for Linux (though not a
new idea by any means). ext3, which included journaling,
did not show up as an *idea* until 1999 in a posting by
Stephen Tweedle. I'd have to look regarding reiser and
jfs but they probably showed up about the same time.

Most likely, the famed "Linux defragmenting filesystem"
simply doesn't exist, and Linux filesystems, while
better designed (IMO), are prefragmented to begin with,
in an effort to both limit head movement and performance
degradation. Inodes and bitmaps are scattered in clusters
throughout the volume.

A bit like putting one folding chair per room, as opposed
to storing them all in the garage.

>
> None of that excuses NTFS for fragmenting,

And this is a bad thing precisely why? There are several
problems here, some more serious than others.

[1] Fragmentation of the data blocks and scattering them
all over the cylinder. This is not a significant problem,
though it can cause management headaches. [*]

[2] Fragmentation of the data blocks and scattering them
across different cylinders. This slows things down as the
unit has to do a head seek. Caching helps when possible.
Note that the paging file is a file in this respect,
and can also fragment, screwing things up if not managed
carefully enough. (Linux has a similar problem if one
decides to append to an inactive swapfile -- a procedure
that is extremely rare.)

[3] Growth of the MFS. This is arguably the real problem
with NTFS, and AIUI can bog things down awfully if not
somehow corrected. The more space the MFS takes, the less
is available for other uses. I have no idea whether one
would have to reformat the volume or if tools exist to
shrink it down to size. Diskeeper Lite was eventually
borrowed/bought/nabbed by Microsoft; it's not great but
does the job, to some extent.

[4] Access. Basically, the fragmentation "problem" is
a means to an end: quicker access to various blocks in
a given file. The real problem is not fragmentation;
the real problem is the slowing of file access as the
system evolves, files are created, moved, extended,
possibly truncated, and deleted.

> although there is some research
> which suggests that multi-user server filesystems benefit from filesystem
> fragmentation because disk access is typically fragemented by multiple
> users accessing file simultaneously anyways, but that's a different
> argument.

ITYM "the file system" instead of "file". One easy way to
fragment a file system, of course, is to create a lot of
little files randomly in a single directory. That's where
/tmp and /var/tmp come into play.

(Not that Windows does that much better, but presumably
that's why the MFS in NTFS was created in the first
place, to offload the smaller file fragmentation problem
into a containment area. Linux can borrow some Solaris
technology, allowing /tmp to sit in a pseudo-filesystem,
entirely resident in virtual memory [+].)

>
>> * Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86
>> architecture was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only
>> truly available with 32-bit x86. The i368 was first released in 1985,
>> so it's certainly fair to say that Windows 95 was ten years behind the
>> techonology.
>
> Again, NT was released in 1993, and was in development
> since 87. Further, remember that Microsoft developed
> most of OS/2 up until the 1.3 version. The fact of
> the matter is, Windows 3.x (and 95) were more successful
> than than OS/2 primarily because of legacy support
> that you pan.

They were also more technologically advanced, if I'm
not mistaken.

>
>> At least it didn't take MS that long to release 64-bit
>> versions of Windows. It's a shame that they're buggy,
>> slow, have poor driver support and come at an exorbitant price.
>
> 64 bit versions have no price different from their 32 bit
> versions. What are you talking about? And I use 64 bit
> vista every day, it's not buggy, and it's faster
> (marginally, anyways) than the 32 bit version.

How much RAM is on one's computer? That's the kicker.

word in RAM: a few tens of nanoseconds
word on disc: a few *milliseconds*.

That's a 100,000x difference. (To be fair, RAM is loaded
a page at a time, reducing the factor to about 100x --
it's still pretty bad.)

Starve a system for RAM and one will have problems, whether
one's using Windows, Linux, OSX, FreeBSD, AmigaOS, HURD,
or even DOS with an extender.

[*] of course there's the related problem of the controller
cards lying to the main CPU and the disks lying to the
controller cards, because of that stupid (in retrospect)
CHRN specification that restricted C -- cylinder -- to 10
bits or 1,024 positions. Even today, my laptop reports
that I have a disk with 255 heads and 63 sectors/track,
the Travelstar 80GN IC25N040ATMR04-0. 255 heads wouldn't
quite fit -- though 4 would, if I want to upgrade to
the 80 GB unit, which I eventually do.

Since most disks are also variable-geometry (stands to
reason since the head flies over the outer part of the
disc faster; it can retrieve more data per second),
good luck keeping all files in the same cylinder, even
with complete information available.

[+] of course if one runs out of RAM, /tmp starts to
shuffle into the swap partitions/files, presumably.
I'd frankly have to look.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
way too frightening to novice users.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

In article <ftndvv$7bm$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
> * Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86
> architecture was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only
> truly available with 32-bit x86. The i368 was first released in 1985,

You are very confused here. The 286 offered multitasking. This was
utilized at the consumer level in OS/2, and at the pro level in Unix and
Xenix.

The only difficulty in doing Unix on the 286 was that the memory
management model was segment based, not page based. So, for example,
when ISC was doing the port for AT&T from 3B2 to 286, the thing that was
the most work for us was writing a new VM system that was a cross
between a paging system and a swapping system. For the port from 3B2 to
386, we could just bring the 3B2 paging system over, and it mapped
pretty closely to what the 386 offered.

--
--Tim Smith
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Vista has become more like linux than any other version before it.

The only sad thing is that they took the worst linux features instead of the
best.


"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:shcvv3d0nsdesse8kchj3d2u5thkf6vjm0@4ax.com...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>>it's called gpedit.msc, look it up some day.
>
> Is that one of those yucky "command line interface" thingies that
> Wintrolls like to imply is never needed with Windoze?
>
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Ron Roberts wrote:

> I can prove I was, can you?

---------------------------------------
I dare you to post your signed beta agreement you fukkin lying POS!
Well...we're all waiting...oh and include your beta id # ok sh*thead?
Frank
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:58:06 +0100, White Spirit wrote:

> Hadron wrote:

>> Really? I blame the platform and its users.
>

Which makes sense because users and the platforms are responsible for the
software which someone else writes....

idiot.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:40:43 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:


> A lot of people like Weatherbug too, that doesn't mean Weatherbug is a good
> app.


Yikes!!

> MusicMatch is a poorly written piece of crap, it barely ran on my XP
> machines, much less Vista. That's why Yahoo effectively scrapped the app
> when they bought MusicMatch.

Musicmatch is one of the most bloated pieces of software I have ever seen.
It truly sucks and will suck cycles out of a system faster than Monica
Lewinsky can suck a golf ball through 12 feet of garden hose.

Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

> Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.

you are excluding vista itself right? Because bloat king is vista


"Moshe Goldfarb" <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1pes3fn88vadd$.1w4dbjq8wz4uc.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:40:43 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>
>> A lot of people like Weatherbug too, that doesn't mean Weatherbug is a
>> good
>> app.
>
>
> Yikes!!
>
>> MusicMatch is a poorly written piece of crap, it barely ran on my XP
>> machines, much less Vista. That's why Yahoo effectively scrapped the app
>> when they bought MusicMatch.
>
> Musicmatch is one of the most bloated pieces of software I have ever seen.
> It truly sucks and will suck cycles out of a system faster than Monica
> Lewinsky can suck a golf ball through 12 feet of garden hose.
>
> Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.
>
> --
> Moshe Goldfarb
> Collector of soaps from around the globe.
> Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
> http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:50:48 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

> You are very confused here. The 286 offered multitasking. This was
> utilized at the consumer level in OS/2, and at the pro level in Unix and
> Xenix.

That's true, and there were people doing multitasking on 8086's (GEOS comes
to mind), though this naturally had problems because of the lack of MMU or
higher level priveleges.

> The only difficulty in doing Unix on the 286 was that the memory
> management model was segment based, not page based. So, for example,
> when ISC was doing the port for AT&T from 3B2 to 286, the thing that was
> the most work for us was writing a new VM system that was a cross
> between a paging system and a swapping system. For the port from 3B2 to
> 386, we could just bring the 3B2 paging system over, and it mapped
> pretty closely to what the 386 offered.

For unix, yes. For OS/2 there were a number of other factors, for instance
you couldn't very easily put th processor back into protected mode once you
moed it 8086 mode. v86 mode in the 386 solved that problem. But that was
largely for DOS compatibility anyways.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:59:40 +0300, vishhiita prime wrote:

>> Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.
>
> you are excluding vista itself right? Because bloat king is vista

Bloat is a relative term.

Is a 3 ton pickup truck "bloated" compared to a sub-compact? No, it does
more.

Vista is bigger than XP, does that make it bloated? No. It too does more.

Certainly there are somethings in Vista that are bloated, as in, they could
be achieved with fewer resources, but on average a lot of Vista's appetite
is not bloat, but rather it doing the right thing... using resources that
are doing nothing to improve performance.

Computers now ship with 2GB of memory standard, for a cost of about $50.
That price is likely to go down even further very quickly. in less than 2
years time 4GB of memory will be $50. Why shouldn't the OS make use of
that memory if it's free?
 
What you really mean

What you really mean


"vishhiita prime" <vee@shhhita.ch> wrote in message
news:47ffc32d$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>> Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.
>
> you are excluding vista itself right? Because bloat king is vista
>

Now what you really mean is that you get a nice crown at Burger King.

Ask for extra cheese and supersize those fries.


>
> "Moshe Goldfarb" <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1pes3fn88vadd$.1w4dbjq8wz4uc.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:40:43 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> A lot of people like Weatherbug too, that doesn't mean Weatherbug is a
>>> good
>>> app.
>>
>>
>> Yikes!!
>>
>>> MusicMatch is a poorly written piece of crap, it barely ran on my XP
>>> machines, much less Vista. That's why Yahoo effectively scrapped the
>>> app
>>> when they bought MusicMatch.
>>
>> Musicmatch is one of the most bloated pieces of software I have ever
>> seen.
>> It truly sucks and will suck cycles out of a system faster than Monica
>> Lewinsky can suck a golf ball through 12 feet of garden hose.
>>
>> Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.
>>
>> --
>> Moshe Goldfarb
>> Collector of soaps from around the globe.
>> Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
>> http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
>
>
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:08:59 +0100, Cork Soaker <ISawYourMotherLast@Night.invalid> wrote:

>"groovy" <bill.Gerry@greenpond.co.uk.ch> wrote in message
>news:47ff5017@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>: We all know that vista sucks.
>: You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.
>: Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.
>: I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.
>: But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
>: professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.
>:
>: Not to worry, vista will be history soon and forgotten.

>The ONE thing I like about Vista, and it really is irrelevant because I
>won't use it, is the ability to use Flash drive to "cache" certain file from
>the hard drive.
>I see Intel's "TurboMemory" is designed for this (unless control of the
>"caching" is hardware based? I didn't really read much about it).

Yeah, nothing like using something that has 1/3 the read performance and
1/20000th the write performance of a hard drive. Let's the user feel really
really important pluging in something and thinking it might actually make the
slightest positive difference.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:24:01 -0700, Frank <fab@notspam.com> wrote:

>Ron Roberts wrote:
>
>> I can prove I was, can you?
>
>---------------------------------------
>I dare you to post your signed beta agreement you fukkin lying POS!
>Well...we're all waiting...oh and include your beta id # ok sh*thead?
>Frank


Ever consider anger management Frankie?
 
Re: Why Windows sucks


"Be Yond" <terraform@mars.mar> wrote in message
news:47ff917a$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
: you can do that with xp too
:
: see here http://www.eboostr.com/
:

Hardly native is it? I wouldn't PAY for something like that!!
 
RE: Why Windows sucks

Poor driver support? Well, who's fault is that? The hardware driver
developers.
--
-Sam


"White Spirit" wrote:

> There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is just
> one of them:
>
> Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program. It
> has the following prototype:
> int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR
> lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow);
>
> hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. If there was an existing
> instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about
> it because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same address
> space. Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to ensure that
> the two instances didn't conflict. Most programmers simply limited the
> application to one instance.
>
> Microsoft fixed this with Windows 95 - at which time it was over
> twenty-five years behind Unix in this regard(*)! Windows NT was also
> over twenty-five years behind Unix by being multiuser for the first time
> and finally allowing multiple permissions for the file system. Of
> course, the filesystem still became severely fragmented after a short
> amount of normal use - something that still happens with Windows XP,
> over thirty years behind Unix filesystems.
>
> * Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86
> architecture was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only
> truly available with 32-bit x86. The i368 was first released in 1985,
> so it's certainly fair to say that Windows 95 was ten years behind the
> techonology. At least it didn't take MS that long to release 64-bit
> versions of Windows. It's a shame that they're buggy, slow, have poor
> driver support and come at an exorbitant price.
>
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:11:45 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:50:48 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> You are very confused here. The 286 offered multitasking. This was
>> utilized at the consumer level in OS/2, and at the pro level in Unix and
>> Xenix.
>
> That's true, and there were people doing multitasking on 8086's (GEOS comes
> to mind), though this naturally had problems because of the lack of MMU or
> higher level priveleges.

GEOS was great!!
It was fast and light and included a lot of stuff all in the package.

I always wished they had kept with the desktop business.





--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

I like the light blue selection color. What have you got against light blue?
Is it bad? Is it..."evil?" Anyway, Vista is more than just a pretty face.
If you're dedicated and smart enough to be able to get it to work right.
--
-Sam


"Frank" wrote:

> Well, capin' crunch...all you need is a box of Crayons...LOL!
> Frank
Frank! That quote makes me LOL! XD
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:24:17 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:59:40 +0300, vishhiita prime wrote:
>
>>> Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.
>>
>> you are excluding vista itself right? Because bloat king is vista
>
> Bloat is a relative term.
>
> Is a 3 ton pickup truck "bloated" compared to a sub-compact? No, it does
> more.
>
> Vista is bigger than XP, does that make it bloated? No. It too does more.
>
> Certainly there are somethings in Vista that are bloated, as in, they could
> be achieved with fewer resources, but on average a lot of Vista's appetite
> is not bloat, but rather it doing the right thing... using resources that
> are doing nothing to improve performance.
>
> Computers now ship with 2GB of memory standard, for a cost of about $50.
> That price is likely to go down even further very quickly. in less than 2
> years time 4GB of memory will be $50. Why shouldn't the OS make use of
> that memory if it's free?

I'm not a fan of Vista and for my DAW work it's not really even an option
yet due to latency problems and dodgey drivers for my high end cards but I
would NOT call Vista bloated on decent hardware.

I've worked with it a few times, on other people's machines as well as on
one of my laptops and with my albeit limited experience it seemed just as
fast as XP on similar hardware.

All machines were at least P4 class with lot's of memory.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Back
Top