Microsoft capable of making good OS

[Lead Head]

I have always wondered if MS is capable of making a good OS. You can't blame Bill Gates, I know i said bill gates sucks earlier but that is before i found out that he only owns 30% of Microsoft.

[Siplus]

Short:
No.

Long
Yes. MS _IS_ capable of makeing a good OS, it just wouldn't help their business of perpetual upgrading. In fact, making a good OS would be hazardous for microsoft.

See, in order to make an OS that rivales Linux/BSD/Solaris and Mac OS X in terms of stability, security, and reliability, MS would have to remove legacy code.

If you don't know what this means, then here: Microsoft **ONLY** exists today because of the legacy code. If it was not for the IBM/Microsoft agreement, and QDOS purchase by Billy G then there would be no foul operating system in the industry today.

The legacy code all the way back to "Quick and Dirty Operating System" is the sole reason windows is still around because it is the set that began the Windows API (which, if you don't already know, is what makes windows programs work on windows, and only windows (discarding wine project)).

This legacy code, while being the only thing that gave MS a logistic advantage, is also a horrible peice of crap. It is the reason behind much of the insecurity of windows.

If they get rid of the legacy code, they secure their OS; but at the cost of their 'bread and butter' that has kept them alive.

I can see them implementing a (true) compatibility layer in some later version of a secure windows that would allow them to secure the OS, but using the said layer would leave gaping holes whenever someone ran a program, thus defeating the purpose unless someone doesn't run any programs at all (what's teh point?)

[Annorax]

Short:
No.

Long
Hell no.

Fixed.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Short:
No.

Some people think Windows XP is a good OS, to be honset I think Windows has it's good and bad points but I wouldn't say Windows is good or bad, just the company who makes it is bad.

Long
Yes. MS _IS_ capable of makeing a good OS,

Windows isn't that bad if you configure it correctly.

 it just wouldn't help their business of perpetual upgrading. In fact, making a good OS would be hazardous for microsoft.

Some people say they could have trouble shifting Longhorn because Windows XP was good, my work place and college still use Windows 2000 and I can't see them moving to Longhorn any time soon.

See, in order to make an OS that rivales Linux/BSD/Solaris and Mac OS X in terms of stability, security, and reliability,

Windows XP doesn't crash or become infected with anything if you know what you're doing.

MS would have to remove legacy code.

Why?
People would just bitch because it'd break backwards compatability.

If you don't know what this means, then here: Microsoft **ONLY** exists today because of the legacy code. If it was not for the IBM/Microsoft agreement, and QDOS purchase by Billy G then there would be no foul operating system in the industry today.

You never know it might be worse we could all be using Macs.

The legacy code all the way back to "Quick and Dirty Operating System" is the sole reason windows is still around because it is the set that began the Windows API (which, if you don't already know, is what makes windows programs work on windows, and only windows (discarding wine project)).

I get your point but Windows is no longer DOS based it's now NT based.

This legacy code, while being the only thing that gave MS a logistic advantage, is also a horrible peice of crap. It is the reason behind much of the insecurity of windows.

The insecurities in Windows have fuck all to do with legacy code. They are due to the braindead default Windows XP configuration which is only in place to keep backwards compatability with old applications

If they get rid of the legacy code, they secure their OS; but at the cost of their 'bread and butter' that has kept them alive.

Who knows, Windows XP may have already done that.

I can see them implementing a (true) compatibility layer in some later version of a secure windows that would allow them to secure the OS, but using the said layer would leave gaping holes whenever someone ran a program, thus defeating the purpose unless someone doesn't run any programs at all (what's teh point?)

Bullshit, compatability layer would be and ideal way of solving thier problem, WINE is a compatability layer but how does it introduce "gaping holes" in a UNIX operating system?

[Lead Head]

I think i big help in improving their OSes would be to remove all the bloat code. I mean i could fit win98 into a 500 MB HD and still have about 400 MB of free space and WinXP needs roughly 1.2-1.8 GB of HD space. Isn't longhorn supposed to be like 3 GB or somethink like that. Apple, in the 80s by shrunk all the code to GUI OS and fit it on like a 256KB rom chip. If microsoft wanted to they could shrink the code so you don't need a special version of windows like WinCE to fit in small integrated devices. CE is just like XP
 
 
 
 
XP=Experience many reboots and errors
Anyone know Microsoft's real slogan, i do it is "What's in your wallet"

[Aloone_Jonez]

I think i big help in improving their OSes would be to remove all the bloat code. I mean i could fit win98 into a 500 MB HD and still have about 400 MB of free space and WinXP needs roughly 1.2-1.8 GB of HD space. Isn't longhorn supposed to be like 3 GB or somethink like that. Apple, in the 80s by shrunk all the code to GUI OS and fit it on like a 256KB rom chip. If microsoft wanted to they could shrink the code so you don't need a special version of windows like WinCE to fit in small integrated devices. CE is just like XP

All operating systems get bigger over time including Linux and Mac OS, the old 2.4 Linux kernel would fit on a floppy disc but 2.6 won't. The thing about Windows is you need to run a GUI while with other OSs a GUI is optional and in this respect it is bloated but otherwise it's no more bloated than Linux is running KDE.
 
 

XP=Experience many reboots and errors

I'm feeling quite left out because I use Windows and I haven't experianced any forced reboots or errors that couldn't be fixed.

Anyone know Microsoft's real slogan, i do it is "What's in your wallet"

Yes you've got that one right at least.

[Siplus]

Aloone_Jonez: You seem to be one of the luckiest computer users I have ever seen/known if you are not experiencing problems with windows xp.

(Don't try to say 'I know what I am doing', because you are not the only one who ran/runs a windows system and 'knows what they are doing'. It is just such a bug-ridden system and I am _always_ running into immense difficulty keeping it up and running smoothly for any time greater than a few weeks.)

If you have such good luck, and i do mean luck, with windows, then at least don't act as if it is a normality to have a great time in a windows environment, and making it out to be bliss. It is far from for most people who use windows.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Aloone_Jonez: You seem to be one of the luckiest computer users I have ever seen/known if you are not experiencing problems with windows xp.

There are 100s of computers at work and at college with Windows 2000 and I've never seen any of them BSOD or reboot for no reason and my friend's laptop runs Windows XP and he's never had a problem.

(Don't try to say 'I know what I am doing', because you are not the only one who ran/runs a windows system and 'knows what they are doing'. It is just such a bug-ridden system and I am _always_ running into immense difficulty keeping it up and running smoothly for any time greater than a few weeks.)

My friend doesn't have a clue about computers and he doesn't have a problem with his laptop, the admin at college and work aren't very good either and yet there are very few Windows related problems.

If you have such good luck, and i do mean luck, with windows, then at least don't act as if it is a normality to have a great time in a windows environment, and making it out to be bliss. It is far from for most people who use windows.

How can you assume your experiance is the same as others?
Most of the problems people experiance are more to do with drivers than bugs in Windows. Set up Windows with the right drivers and security settings and it'll run and run and run.

[skyman8081]

I'm in  the same boat as Aloone, I run XP fine, no errors or BSOD's.  just a few buggy apps that don't behave as expected, and crash. (mostly, anything that I write )

[piratePenguin]

Interesting.

Aloone and Skyman, have either of you ever seen a recent version of Windows (let's say, since the (new) NT kernel) go into that mode? When the start menu refuses to pop up, and when you drag the windows about they mess up the screen (it doesn't remove the old (before it was moved) window from the screen)? And when you click on something, it doesn't appear to load, or maybe it does five minutes later?

I'm shit at describing it, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about
I know that mode all to well. A simple flick of a switch fixes it. Actually no, a simple flick of a switch doesn't fix it, but this does.


EDIT: I dunno why I keep saying "that mode". In my experience, I should be saying Windows mode.

[Aloone_Jonez]

If you're talking about disc thrashing and a very slow or unresponsive system it normally happens when you run out of memory so the system resorts to using swap. This can happen with any operating system when the physical memory is too small to support the programs runnning.

I've experianced this at work with Windows 2000 and at home with Redhat Linux and at college with Knoppix.

When I was using OpenOffice (yes I admit I shouldn't have but I needed to open files created on one of our UNIX machines), the machine I was using only had 128MB of RAM and I had sereral large pictures open as well. I switched from one application to another and nothing happend so I just left the computer for 5 miniutes to calm down then I clicked the start menu and it appeared in a few miniutes then clicked shut down and it very slowly closed all the programs asking me to save each file, interestingly OpenOffice was the only program that crashed.

When I started with Linux I used Redhat 9.0 I have 256MB of RAM and this sort of thing used to happen quite often when I opened very large picture files.

At college I booted up Knoppix including KDE on an old machine with only 64MB of RAM, it was too bad at running small programs like Xpaint but OpenOffice would slow it to a crawl.

I conclude that this is a memory problem more than and OS problem (well often accuse Windows of poor memory management) but my PC has 256MB of RAM - 32MB for the on board graphics and it runs quite well and the performance is acceptable even with a fer programs running. How ever when I boot up with Vector Linux it's very fast but that's only using Xfce so it's not fair to compare.

[piratePenguin]

If you're talking about disc thrashing and a very slow or unresponsive system it normally happens when you run out of memory so the system resorts to using swap. This can happen with any operating system when the physical memory is too small to support the programs runnning.

I use an Athlon XP 2400+ with 256mb ram. Maybe you're right, maybe that isn't enough RAM for Windows. Well it is for even MANDRAKE and SuSE, and of course Slackware. Running KDE, KDE, and GNOME respectivly.

I've experianced this at work with Windows 2000 and at home with Redhat Linux and at college with Knoppix.

You're using the wroooooooooooong distro

yes I admit I shouldn't have but I needed to open files created on one of our UNIX machines

Why shouldn't you have been using OpenOffice?
I run the beta on this computer, in GNOME, in Slackware, with XMMS and usually Mozilla open at the same time, and it runs like a dream.

the machine I was using only had 128MB of RAM

Shouldn't be a problem... Oh wait, this is in Windows
OK so it could've happened on Fedora too. Or SuSE, or Mandriva. But it WOULDN'T have happened on Slackware with XFCE.
Choice is... Glorious.

and I had sereral large pictures open as well. I switched from one application to another and nothing happend so I just left the computer for 5 miniutes to calm down then I clicked the start menu and it appeared in a few miniutes then clicked shut down and it very slowly closed all the programs asking me to save each file

I've never had such an experience on any GNU/Linux distro, including Mandrake and SuSE. I've had plenty on Windows XP however, and a few on Windows 2000.

interestingly OpenOffice was the only program that crashed.

Wouldn't that have probably been the fault of the OS?

When I started with Linux I used Redhat 9.0 I have 256MB of RAM and this sort of thing used to happen quite often when I opened very large picture files.

Redhat eh? But since, you've discovered Vector Linux, and I see you liked it. So don't use the bloaded Redhat (which, it appears, you may not have enough ram for), just use Vector Linux (which you would definetly have more than enough ram for).

At college I booted up Knoppix including KDE on an old machine with only 64MB of RAM, it was too bad at running small programs like Xpaint but OpenOffice would slow it to a crawl.

Read the bold parts in the quote, you'll understand.

I conclude that this is a memory problem more than and OS problem

I conclude that Windows needs ALOT of ram. Redhat, Fedora and definetly some other GNU/Linux distros are in the same boat.

Slackware and Vector Linux are on a different boat, along with some more GNU/Linux distros, probably some of the BSDs, BeOS, and (feckit) GNU/Hurd. Not Windows, no way.

How ever when I boot up with Vector Linux it's very fast but that's only using Xfce so it's not fair to compare.

What's wrong with using XFCE? XFCE is pretty damn good IMO. What are you missing from GNOME/KDE/Windows?

[Aloone_Jonez]

I use an Athlon XP 2400+ with 256mb ram. Maybe you're right, maybe that isn't enough RAM for Windows. Well it is for even MANDRAKE and SuSE, and of course Slackware. Running KDE, KDE, and GNOME respectivly.

You're using the wroooooooooooong distro

I know my point was this can happen with Linux (or any OS) when you don't have enough memory.

Why shouldn't you have been using OpenOffice?

Because I shouldn't have used OpenOffice at work because it isn't on our approved list of software so I was breaking the rules.

I run the beta on this computer, in GNOME, in Slackware, with XMMS and usually Mozilla open at the same time, and it runs like a dream.
Shouldn't be a problem... Oh wait, this is in Windows
OK so it could've happened on Fedora too. Or SuSE, or Mandriva. But it WOULDN'T have happened on Slackware with XFCE.
Choice is... Glorious.

Yes choice is a great thing.

I've never had such an experience on any GNU/Linux distro, including Mandrake and SuSE.

Try running them on <64MB of RAM with KDE and you'll see what I mean.

I've had plenty on Windows XP however, and a few on Windows 2000.
Wouldn't that have probably been the fault of the OS?

No, it'd be your fault for running a very large OS with big programs on a system with too little RAM. The thing that really pisses me off about Microsoft is they are never honest with the mimumum hardware requirements for their software. They say Windows XP requires at least 64MB of RAM minimum and they recommend 128MB. I would say 128MB is the bare minimum and would recommend 256MB or more. I'm not too sure about OpenOffice, I'm tempted to accuse them of the same thing, on 128MB of RAM it can be a bit slow yet they specify a mimimum of 64MB, but sometimes it's ok on 128MB I still need to do more testing.

Redhat eh? But since, you've discovered Vector Linux, and I see you liked it. So don't use the bloaded Redhat (which, it appears, you may not have enough ram for), just use Vector Linux (which you would definetly have more than enough ram for).

Don't go too over the top defending Linux, I wasn't slagging it off, you asked me about my experiance with systems being slow and unresponsive under Windows. I was just pointing out the same can happen under Linux if you don't have enough memory.

Read the bold parts in the quote, you'll understand.

The mimimum RAM requirement for OpenOffice is 64MB of RAM, I think of of the reasons it was even more slow was because it was being run from a CD. However the hard disc was thrasing around, indicating a lack of RAM as I've said before I'm not too sure about OpenOffice and it's hardware requirements. My point was agian that lack of RAM = slow system this is the same regardless of OS choice.

I conclude that Windows needs ALOT of ram. Redhat, Fedora and definetly some other GNU/Linux distros are in the same boat.

If you spent long enough recompiling and removing things they could be as fast but why bother when you can just use a lighter distro.

Slackware and Vector Linux are on a different boat, along with some more GNU/Linux distros, probably some of the BSDs, BeOS, and (feckit) GNU/Hurd. Not Windows, no way.

The good thing with open source software is it's super flexible so you can scale it to the size of the hardware to run it on.

What's wrong with using XFCE? XFCE is pretty damn good IMO. What are you missing from GNOME/KDE/Windows?

Did I say there's anything wrong with Xfce? No I didn't.

My point was comparing Windows or even Mac OS to Xfce is unfair because you can't compare big bulky desktops to a very light weight desktop or window manager.

[piratePenguin]

I know my point was this can happen with Linux (or any OS) when you don't have enough memory.

I dunno what Windows must've been at with my 256mb ram in that case. It used to go into that mode all to often, sometimes with no other applications running.

Because I shouldn't have used OpenOffice at work because it isn't on our approved list of software so I was breaking the rules.

#!?

[noob]

my laptop. 350mhz k6-2 cpu. 64 meg ram and a 4 gig hdd. win2k, ok ish but not for long. xp - bootscreen fills most oif the ram. woot a bootscreen for? y cover the kernel messages. knoppix std, wowage its fast. same as my server which has a 2.2 gig cpu and 386 meg of ram. my pc. xp pro sp2. WOW so fast, after install. install a few basic apps, incd and some dvd ram software. install steam for hl2 and it really slows down. steam doesnt run at bootup. pc again with media center. used to be so fast. i installed winamp, quicktime and downloaded some vids(free ones) and loadede my mp3's and its slowed down again. mandrake on my pc. fast after install, fast after install;ing ll packages i could. fast after major updates. never slowed down. all my probs have been with windows machines.