Just a point

[Instar]

You know, its kind of annoying for me to listen to people complaining about their computers crashing, and how Windows sucks and computers shouldnt crash like they do. Well, I just have to use my knowledge of computers, well, ok, Im just venting.
The computer and operating system must keep track of the system's memory. The average computer has around 64 or 32 megabytes of memory. Thats not too much, right? Well, each meg has 1024 kilobytes. Then, on top of that, each kilobyte is 1024 bytes, and each byte is eight bits. Each bit is physically one capacitor in RAM. Lets do some math here (which some people don't know a thing about): 64*1024*1024*8=536870912. Whenever any one of those bits fail, it could crash the machine. I'd like to see a person take care of 536870912 things, without fail, all the frickin time.
And then people complain when they break their computers (and yet it is the computer's fault, or microsoft's fault). Case in point, a guy who owns his own computer business repairs, reformats, etc each one of his 6 computers once a year. He has to fix this other person's computer every two or three weeks. I wonder why. People idiotically download viruses, tweak settings they shouldnt touch, use unstable software, and other dumb things. Its the person's fault about 95% of the time, I think.
And whenever someone says that windows sucks, or maybe microsoft is terrible, I just have to remind them that windows is a very large program, with probably millions of lines of software, any one of which could cause problems. I would like to see some of these idiots write a million line program without one bug. And sometimes, its not windows' fault either, when you run conflicting buggy programs.

And Macs just suck, sorry.

[capnq]

OTOH, a better designed OS would be more fault-tolerant. You ever notice how almost every EULA in consumer software has a disclaimer about it not being suitable for "mission-critical" applications? The software used in such applications is nearly unbreakable, but it's also much more expensive, because it's been rigorously tested.

It's the old "fast, cheap, good: pick two" problem; too many software companies pick fast and cheap, and let the marketing department dictate the release schedule without any regard for any technical problems that the development team runs into.

[Instar]

You're right, a better OS is more fault tolerant. WinXP does not crash if a program thats running screws up big time. WinXP can even detect registry conflicts between two programs before installing software, which I think is incredible.
I still think that there must be someone out there who would be able of crashing XP though, I mean, stupidity is an infinite resource. Oh well

[Atilla the Pun]

Actually, each bit is about 5 or 7 transistors, I can't remember which. The circuit for one bit is called a J/K flip-flop.

And 256 megs RAM seems to make Windows 98SE mostly stable. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

AtP

[Richard]

I can answer this question. Windows is a fine home OS, the problem Microsoft got into with many IT folks is when they brought out NT (which is mostly stolen VMS and Unix stuff anyway) and "claimed" it was an enterprise level OS.

The problem is NT is a joke for running a server on. It isn't stable, it doesn't handle memory well, and I could go on and on.....

[Jmenschenfresser]

NT....errrrr.....NT.....errrrrr!!!!

Was running 4.0 and I cried in my sleep nightly because I was rebooting twice a day.

Now have 2000 profi, and it seems a bit better.

Emphasis on "seems."

[tesco samoa]

"If NT was the Solution.
You did not understand the problem"

[Instar]

Well, I have never used NT before, but the guy who owns his own computer business uses Win2k exclusively on his machines. I can tell you that Win2k is pretty dang good from personal use.

I swear I should go into business working on computers because I could fleece these poor ignorant people. (Hey, computers are easy man!)

[Atrocities]

Win2k is a damn fine program once you get it up and running for a while. Honestly it has been my misfortune to discover that Win2k desires a "break in" period before it will run smoothly.

98 and 98 SE were good programs in there own right if you didn't mind the BSOD every 12 hours of continous operation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Win2k has performed very well for me, and I have spent a lot of time getting it to work well with my AMD Atholon. (NOTE: I even used up both of my free MS help sessions to get it too work smoothly. Simple stuff that took about 4 hours apeace to fix.)

Right now, I am considering XP. I thought I would wait until I needed to build my next super system before venturing into XP territory.

[Instar]

man I have seen a beta for XP in action on a laptop... man it started in about, oh, maybe 1/5 of the time needed (maybe exaggeration, but man that was pretty FAST!)
I worked on a friends XP system once (he wanted an old DOS game to work and his scanner set up, stuff that was easy for me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) It was nice. Plus the guy had a cable modem! Grrr
biggest problem with XP will be that dang activation code (They want to protect their stuff, but still....) For the average joe its no big deal but for power Users who change systems often... big problem

[PvK]

Win2K is more stable that Win98, but also hogs more memory and CPU. WinXP is less stable and less tested than Win2K, but it might hog a bit less.

Personally, I'm still seeing best results from Win98SE. Lightning boot speed and pretty much only has crashed due to software errors, and then only rarely. I much prefer this speed and reduced hogging of resources, though it is nice in Win2K not to have to reboot when program blow up. That and the improved Notepad are the only things I like Win2K for.

I'm convinced though that people who think WinXP is faster than Win98 are being misled by comparing experiences of Win98 on old computers with bunches of applications installed versus WinXP on newer machines without as much installed.

So, my preference is Win98SE, Win95OSR2.0, Win95OSR2.5, Win2KPro, and for WinMe and WinXP I'd rather wipe the hard drive and reinstall an acceptable OS than use them.

PvK

[tesco samoa]

Atrocities.

I have a box running win xp at home.

It is stable.

With MS O/S's each one is an improvement over the Last one.

In 5 months of operation. XP has crashed once.

It can recover from alot of errors.

It is light years ahead of the old 9x series.

To date I think it is the best O/S that Microsoft has offered.

It is worth checking out.

[Instar]

PvK, actually, I have read some reviews of XP in PC Mag, and the boot up time is faster (on the same machine). XP is supposed to be self tuning for performance, and will over time (supposedly) get slightly faster. Whether it does or not, I dont know.