The story on m$ (1 Viewer)

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,859
#1
I give you a thorough look behind the scenes and I can only say m$' practices are mind boggling and it's deeply disturbing they control the market as they do.

I think any technologically aware person who has used Windows for at least a year will recognize at least one of the issues and think "yes it now makes perfect sense that my work got fscked".

Read and weep...

http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#2
:D

you turning into a Linux extremist now ?! ;)

i'll read the artcle, i usually defend some cases of "Microsoft saying that they are smart busniess people and ignoring that they suck. but i just formatted my Hard Disk for the 4th time and Windows is really getting on my nerves. this time, i left about 5 GB of unpartitioned disk space just incase i really get fed up. (in other words, i'm seriously planning on exploring Linux, though i dont know much about it). all i know is the Unix-Solaris systems that i use in the University labs, but i hear it's very similar.

maybe you can confince me alex that i really should Try linux...i'll rad the article now, because from the sounds of it, i might not need much convincing!
 
OP
OP
Martin

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,859
#3
According to this guy, Windows XP still contains 16bit executables from Windows 3... :rolleyes:

Convinced yet? ;):D

A little preview..

"Try this for a laugh: start the performance monitor in NT 4.0 SP3 and have it keep track of the CPU load. Now open the Control Panel. Don't do anything, just open it and leave it there... and enjoy your constant CPU load of 100% on your production server or work station. :howler::wallbang: (To be honest, this doesn't always happen. This 'issue' of CPU cycles being used up somewhere is caused by a combination of factors that MS has never been able to explain.) There are also many other ways to waste CPU cycles and other resources on a Windows system. For example, check your system's performance before and after you install Internet Explorer 5.x or later. You don't have to run it, you don't have to make it your default browser... just install it. And watch your performance plummet."

No, seriously, I know you're just too lazy to do it :p
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#4
++ [ originally posted by Alex ] ++
According to this guy, Windows XP still contains 16bit executables from Windows 3... :rolleyes:

Convinced yet? ;):D

A little preview..

"Try this for a laugh: start the performance monitor in NT 4.0 SP3 and have it keep track of the CPU load. Now open the Control Panel. Don't do anything, just open it and leave it there... and enjoy your constant CPU load of 100% on your production server or work station. :howler::wallbang: (To be honest, this doesn't always happen. This 'issue' of CPU cycles being used up somewhere is caused by a combination of factors that MS has never been able to explain.) There are also many other ways to waste CPU cycles and other resources on a Windows system. For example, check your system's performance before and after you install Internet Explorer 5.x or later. You don't have to run it, you don't have to make it your default browser... just install it. And watch your performance plummet."

No, seriously, I know you're just too lazy to do it :p
interesting...
but seriously, i won't uninstall or installl anything!!
i just formatted the sucker and i have everything the way i want it. (yeah, i admit, windows is too delicate ).

.......
but what i mean about trying to convince me, is not trying to convince me that WinXP sucks (i already know that). i want you to try to convince me that Linux is any better and worth installing.
 

Anders

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2002
3,134
#5
You guys actually read all that crap? Damn... boooooring! :sleepy:

I really don't have any problems with Windows or any of Microsoft's products. It works fine for me, only geeks and no-lifers spend their time bítching about it. No offence... :D
 

rusko

New Member
Jun 21, 2003
1
#6
just a few paragraphs into the article, i found quite a few incorrect statements.

+ 'NT' stands for N10, which was the codename for an intel cpu windows nt was supposed to run on. in fact, windows nt code had to be ported to x86 (and alpha) when intel delayed n10 too much.

+ 'new technology' was something microsoft marketing chaps came up with and it is indeed correct. windows nt is the only microkernel implementation that is both stable and performant. the good folks over at gnu have been trying to get horde done for over 10 years or so, with no end in sight.

+ microsoft was supposed to use OS/2 apis, the split between imp and ms occurred when the designers of nt proposed to build a windows compatibility subsystem (called win32) on top of the nt microkernel instead of an os/2 subsystem.

+ old apis that the author claims are still in nt are in fact 32-bit versions of 16-bit apis used in prior versions of windows. nothing wrong with that - compatibility is good. if the author knew anything about windows programming, he would know that although quite cryptic, windows apis are very very useful. the only thing retained from the old apis was the interface, not the code - that would have been impossible.

+ if you want to talk about kludges, look at posix. enough said.

+ microsoft had no reason to implement posix compatibility. do you see linus trying to implement win32 api compatibility? in fact, the posix subsystem in nt is only there because of the microkernel architecture and excellent design behind all of the kernel work done on nt. if someone wanted full posix compatibility, the tools to implement it are all there. linux, by the way, is not posix compliant (not that i mind).

i stopped reading at that point, because its not worth my time. please note that this is coming from a (former) professional software engineer who developed both win and *nix stuff. im not excusing the faults that windows does have, i just hate it when people misrepresent things they dont have a first clue about thereby undermining the validity of the argument that does have merit.

paul
 
OP
OP
Martin

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,859
#7
Paul, I didn't know you read these forums. :)

Fellaz, meet our host. :)

++ [ originally posted by Karlberg ] ++
You guys actually read all that crap? Damn... boooooring! :sleepy:

I really don't have any problems with Windows or any of Microsoft's products. It works fine for me, only geeks and no-lifers spend their time bítching about it. No offence... :D
No offence, but judging by your brilliant statement there, you really have no clue what's going on :p

++ [ originally posted by Majed ] ++
but what i mean about trying to convince me, is not trying to convince me that WinXP sucks (i already know that). i want you to try to convince me that Linux is any better and worth installing.
That's the problem, Windows IS easy, it's designed to be. Linux or Unix isn't as easy, it takes time and effort. Sure you benefit more in the long run but you have to be willing to make that effort in the first place. It's also not as accomplished IMO, in the range of software available.

But if you know your way arourd Sun Solaris, Linux shouldn't carry a lot of new stuff. ;)
 

Anders

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2002
3,134
#8
++ [ originally posted by Alex ] ++

No offence, but judging by your brilliant statement there, you really have no clue what's going on :p
Where's that f**k you smilie when you need it :D

Isn't this another one of those articles bítching about all the small errors that Windows have?
 

Anders

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2002
3,134
#10
Oh... well, nevermind then. :D

I don't care actually, just bored on a saturday evening with nothing to do except to talk about stuff I don't know crap about. :D
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#13
++ [ originally posted by Alex ] ++
Paul, I didn't know you read these forums. :)

Fellaz, meet our host. :)



No offence, but judging by your brilliant statement there, you really have no clue what's going on :p



That's the problem, Windows IS easy, it's designed to be. Linux or Unix isn't as easy, it takes time and effort. Sure you benefit more in the long run but you have to be willing to make that effort in the first place. It's also not as accomplished IMO, in the range of software available.

But if you know your way arourd Sun Solaris, Linux shouldn't carry a lot of new stuff. ;)
i never mentioned anything about windows being easy (though i know it is) nor did i say that Solaris is difficult!

i dont understand where you got that from my posts....

i just wanted you to tell me why you think i should convert to Linux.....so far, you havn't answered. :)
 
OP
OP
Martin

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,859
#14
I didn't say you said it, I was pointing it out. Windows IS easy. Of course it depends on what you compare it with but compared to Linux or Unix it certainly is. On the other hand, Linux/Unix is NOT easy to the average user, there are no icons to click on (well there are some but for many tasks you have to look under the hood). So that's my point. And that's why I can't say Linux is better, it's just different. I would migrate a while ago if I could find all the software I use in Windows and if I knew how to make my Linux as easy and efficient for daily use as Windows is.

So I say try it and see if you like it. :)
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#15
thanks :)


now genius ;) , do you know of any good tutorials for getting Started with Linux (something like: "Linux for Windows dummies" ;) )??
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)