General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2184110

    Why do IT people really bash Windows?

    Locked

    by Anonymous ·

    I wrote about this in another thread in response to a comparison of windows question.

    Anyway, it’s a hot topic in my opinion so let me recap. Comment away. 🙂

    Why does everyone “bash” Windows? I could sit here and bash linux, windows, mac os and anything else, but that is just pointless and pedantic.

    The point is every operating system has it uses. You just need to choose what best suits your needs.

    Anyone who claims to hate Microsoft Windows, Linux, Mac OS or any other operating system is not a true techie or network guru. You don’t ever bash the OS, in fact if the OS crashes then it’s your fault not the OS; Why didn’t you make sure that it was using the right drivers, or the hardware is compatible or blah this and blah that, and so the list goes. Any OS crashes for a reason, not because it just feels like it. Compatability is there for a very good reason, why support something that is old when you need to keep moving forwards. Example, all leaded petrol car owners here in Australia can no longer purchase leaded petrol, they are forced now to use unleaded and an additive. Why? Because those cars are so old and they are few and far between now because unleaded cars are cheap enough to buy second hand as your first car. Get my point there?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3188808

      Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      by the admiral ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I think the reason that so many techies bash Microsoft products in general because of so many of the ways that they can be hacked into.

      I mean, sure there are the same vulnerabilities in other operating systems, but I have only seen the one where the description added to a GIF becomes a PC’s weakest link. Obsurd if you think about how silly that vulnerability is.

      I think people were hit with so many patches that they told Microsoft to can it, and when they slowed down, they complainted even more. So it is all about perception.

      • #3195802

        Then there are those that are only happy complaining

        by ole88 ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        We have all had these users! Those users that will always find something to complain about. You stated “I think people were hit with so many patches that they told Microsoft to can it, and when they slowed down, they complainted even more.”

        When you think about it, there are users who will find something to complain about when their machine is running at peak performance levels. For some of them, it probably boils down to the fact that Bill Gates dropped out and became a millionaire and they are just jealous.

        I see windows as a good general use platform, but when it comes to photo editing, MAC tends to be the better (and chosen) platform. All I have to say to the complainers is, if you don’t like what you have – get something different. If you don’t like that, you can still find typewriters for sale out there. 😀

        • #3193938

          software vendors to blame

          by kyuso ·

          In reply to Then there are those that are only happy complaining

          The problem is, there is no OS that fits everyone’s simple needs, and those OS which CAN be made to fit the simple needs don’t, so people complain.

          For example, Windows OS had a tendency to be less than well designed and not conforming to standards. They crashed because the OS design allowed sloppy drivers or applications to bring down the whole OS or not interoperate. It is not the user’s fault that they had to wait and patch the bugs and update the drivers (what if the updated drivers were not ready yet for a few months, which usually happens?)
          The GUI was not well-conceived to be consistent and natural, needing repeated changes in the interface.

          Linux has a one of the stablest design for an OS (as with any unix variants). Almost no application or driver can bring down the OS, the OS is very scalable (embedded to supercomputing), and the security can’t be matched. The problem? Not much in the commercial game or education area running natively.

          MacOS has all the desktop goodies that Windows lack (naturally consistent and cohesive GUI, etc.), and also includes all the goodies of unix. The problem? More expensive, can’t run many commercial games that run in Windows.

          In the end, each OS has a potential to be up to par to the simple needs of stability and usability of an automobile, but is not there yet.

          How often does a brand new car need parts replacement as soon as you get one? When was the last time installing a new oil filter broke a car? Can you find any usual parts like windshield wipers that exist for only certain brands of cars (a vendor usually carries wipers for all contemporary brands of cars)?
          How often do interface to cars change between models drastically that you need to re-learn how to drive?

          All the OS will be up to par if:

          They can run all the popular software, does not need manual software driver update just to make it function okay, and is well designed based on a consistent and secure fundamental structure that doesn’t change often.

          In the end, I want a Linux-like stability and security and scalability, with MacOS-like consistent GUI, and with Windows-like availability of applications, especially in the areas of games, education, and references.

          I use Linux because it’s stable and robust and has all the tools I need for work. I have Windows for kids’ games and education. I have a Mac for my wife because my wife can’t stand Windows or Linux way.

          But we sometimes dual-boot or use one other’s computer precisely because none of the OS has everything: My kids use the internet, email, word processing, and multimedia from Linux for security and ease, and we all use Windows to play Red Alert 2 Yuri’s Revenge (don’t exist in Linux or Mac, and it’s such a cheap way of doing family entertainment because it costs about $50 nowadays to buy 4 user license for multiplayer!)

          It’s the fault of software (including OS and application) manufacturers. Application vendors should port their software to all popular OS, and OS vendors should make their OS more secure and stable and better conforming to standards so that application and driver writers don’t write sloppy codes.

          I’d rather see in the future at least three major OS (Linux, MacOS, Windows) competing at the same level, just like in the car industry, and parts (application/driver/hardware) vendors provide for all brands, but with enough differentiation that different people choose different OS or model.

          I guess in the much further future, OS may become public utility, just like water, electricity, or highway.

        • #3193842

          Not quite right dude

          by tselca ·

          In reply to software vendors to blame

          Linux and every OS has so many holes it lloks like swiss cheese. Linux robust and great security it is obvious you do not work in the security field. secondly there is no one version of linux that runs everything without updating this kernel version or another. You got to be kidding me to say that unix or mac is better then this or that. They all have flaws becuase humans write the code for all of them.

        • #3186490

          Lot of talk but no substance

          by waterbj ·

          In reply to Not quite right dude

          I think the subject is very interesting and I’ve heard a few well thought out conversations elsewhere. However, I’ve seen only opinion without any material backup in this blog. I particularly irked at the user who bashed LINUX as a securty swiss cheese. As an IT project manager I have seen lot’s of conjecture and requirements from ‘security experts’ without material information. Their concerns may be quite true but are poorly communicated. Therefore, I was not supprised yet further frustrated to see yet another ‘security expert’ raise the red flag without backing it up. These people have to be very careful to support there concerns with material information that can be weighed with risk and ROI. Otherwise, you have the old type IT person who speeks in tongue and is closed mouth about the knowledege but quick to raise a red flag. It really gives professional IT/business people a poor basis for business investment.

        • #3186214

          Substance? You gotta be joking

          by humbletech99 ·

          In reply to Lot of talk but no substance

          Have you ever heard of a buffer overflow? Well, surprise surprise, they exist in Linux as well as Windows, Unix and just about any other piece of software more than a few lines long. Substance?

          Anyway, I’m a Linux and Windows sysadmin. I agree that every system has it’s own strengths and weaknesses, what people need is more brains and less criticism. The people who write that stuff are far superior to anyone here in skill, IQ and all the rest. If you can do better, go ahead, otherwise stop acting like a crab trying to pull others down.

          I personally believe that Microsoft does as well as they can, as well as anyone can. More users means more attacks discovered. Firefox security bugs in the last 6 months after version 1 shows this (I use that too). How many did you hear of when it was Firebird? They’re both still good. There’s just always room for improvement. Keep working on it fellas!

        • #3185717

          A more global picture…

          by twylyght ·

          In reply to Substance? You gotta be joking

          This is my take as I hear this kind of thing all the time. Part of Windows’ strength is also its weakness. It was designed to be the OS that would allow anyone to use virutally any software on virtually any hardware. Of course we know where that has gone. Proprietary vendors and manufacturers have combated MSs dominance of the market by trying to create their own niches, and they have succeeded to varying degrees.

          The two things that keep MS on top are marketing (which contributes to ubiquity and familiarity) and flexibility (in terms of software selection). Apple tried to corner the marketing strategy by being everywhere in the school systems, but has had to take a back seat and continue as mainstays in graphical arts and media production. Only recently has its marketing picked back up again.

          This brings me to a key point in the whole discussion. I has been touched on that the more a system is used, the more it is targeted. Windows is obviously going to be the target as it is undoubtedly the big dog in the arena. It will be what hackers know and strive to beat. As Apple, Linux, Solaris, etc become more popular the attention will be diverted as such. To this day, one’s best security is being unknown.

          This brings me to the second major crux in this discussion. With MS being the one handling the burden of testing ALL hardware for ALL levels of its applications, it is presented with the horrendous task of researching, testing, and developing for 90% of the world’s products. Sun and Apple generally know exactly what is in their systems since their software and hardware generally go hand in hand. When messing with Linux and compiling kernels for different devices, we tend to run into many of the same issues.

          Hence, I tend to think that while MSs drive to be the dominant monster in the market is what is bringing in their money, it is also driving their problems with system stability and the comparably inordinate number of complaints among users and IT professionals.

        • #3118466

          Too right

          by deckmonkey ·

          In reply to Substance? You gotta be joking

          Quit the whining about “My OS is better than yours” because it is hugely juvenile and proves nothing other than the plaintiffs own childishness.

          Yes, windows has vulnerabilities, as does every other OS, but windows does a huge amount of stuff compared to other OS’s so it is to be expected that there will be more imperfections. I’m not excusing them, after all as a developer myself I try my best not to write code which has bugs and we try to test them out of existence, but you never, ever get them all.

          The only justified whinge can come from someone who has never written software with any bugs in and which is totally secure. And I’m pretty sure there are about as many of them as there are flying pigs in this world.

        • #3189686

          Substance? You gotta be joking

          by humbletech99 ·

          In reply to Lot of talk but no substance

          Have you ever heard of a buffer overflow? Well, surprise surprise, they exist in Linux as well as Windows, Unix and just about any other piece of software more than a few lines long. Substance?

          Anyway, I’m a Linux and Windows sysadmin. I agree that every system has it’s own strengths and weaknesses, what people need is more brains and less criticism. The people who write that stuff are far superior to anyone here in skill, IQ and all the rest. If you can do better, go ahead, otherwise stop acting like a crab trying to pull others down.

          I personally believe that Microsoft does as well as they can, as well as anyone can. More users means more attacks discovered. Firefox security bugs in the last 6 months after version 1 shows this (I use that too). How many did you hear of when it was Firebird? They’re both still good. There’s just always room for improvement. Keep working on it fellas!

        • #3194554

          I love Microsoft

          by ron ·

          In reply to Lot of talk but no substance

          I just think of it as Job Security. If we all used Linix, the required support would not justify a full time person. I could do all of my work in about an hour per day, and do it all from home!

        • #3181871

          Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          by jmschattke9 ·

          In reply to Lot of talk but no substance

          The points I have made are obvious to anyone who’s read the source code.

        • #3181808
          Avatar photo

          Now be fair

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Lot of talk but no substance

          Just how many of todays IT people would even know the Source Code if it bit them on the ASS? Most have come through the IT Schools and are taught how to keep a system running where as Old Farts like Me and most likely you as well had to know how to program and read code the kids today don’t have the luxury of this so if you where to push MS Windows Source code under their noses they most likely would think that it was nothing more than a document that stuffed up when sent to the printer and as a result you got a bunch of rubbish on the pages. They most likely would telly you to shred then and go and reprint them and if it came out that way again they would come and fix the system so it printed right. 🙂

          Col ]:)

        • #3193777

          new cars and parts?

          by i.t.services ·

          In reply to software vendors to blame

          when was the last time that you bought a new car? Can you say recall? why do you think the warranties are there? My house is 100 years old and cost about 165k my car is 2 years old and cost about 40k, which do you think will last longer in terms of money spent? Your OS cost how much? or was included with your machine, again for about how much?
          Tech = change! or do any of your OS’s still support a 14.4 modem? how about a 9.6?
          Kind of hard to write for foward compatability on those new graphic cards eveyone will want in four years, and the new drivers that go with them. If you can guess what those needs (tech) will be ahead of time, have I got a job opening for you!…

        • #3193760

          RIGHT ON!

          by avid ·

          In reply to new cars and parts?

          excellent point

        • #3186360

          Right on.

          by blarman ·

          In reply to software vendors to blame

          As accurate and thoughtful a response as you will ever see which mimics my views perfectly.

        • #3193487

          …You must be kidding!

          by don-bans ·

          In reply to software vendors to blame

          Most system admins usually bash the OS for their lack of knowledge; period! I once worked in a midsize company which used Novell Netware (this was back in the days) for File and Print Services. Before my arrival, and during my few days at this company, when these Novell based Sys Admins were asked to install a Windows NT or Windows 2K system, they will look for the install disk, insert in the CDROM drive of the server, run winnt.exe or winnt32.exe and install service packs. Then they were done!!! No additional configuration… sometimes, they would not even get the latest drivers!
          The outcome usually was a sloppy Win based server! Not secure, not tuned, not optimized. I usually called these admins “Default Admins” and their installations “default installations”.

          There are a lot of Windows Systems out there in the world today like the one I describe above. If these systems crash, or are not secure, etc… CIOs please blame it on your admins. Send them to take an MCSE certification or Linux certification course… and actually try to make sure they apply most of the knowledge they get from the classes! Learning these technologies without applying them is no use to anybody!

          Anyway… my reply to you regarding the various OS is this:
          Today, unlike 5 years ago, you have a choice of choosing an OS. Linux, Windows, MacOS. Make that choice and stick to it. If it serves you good, be happy.
          It is almost stupid to go bashing the other OS. Most of us IT experts are not experts in everything… we could be security experts but at the same time not network or systems admin… etc.
          Cisco Systems’ network was once (or twice) broken into. Cisco runs a “dedicated” OS for their firewalls and network appliance. The last time I checked, it was not a Windows OS that runs in Cisco PIX firewalls and their IDS appliances. My conclusion is that a non-dedicated or multi-purpose machine running Windows, MacOS or Linux should not even be thought of as being secure! You will be dreaming thinking that these boxes are secure! Hackers are good at what they do… especially the good ones! The fact that they don’t break into your feeble Linux box does not mean that they are not able to! It probably does not contain anything which they need.

        • #3190752

          It’s not the software vendors.

          by maldain ·

          In reply to software vendors to blame

          The reason MS gets pounded on is they are the big dog on the block. Also, MS has made some really silly errors that have made it into the market stream. You can’t do that as a manufacturer of an item that people rely on very often because sooner or later people lose confidence in your product. That’s where MS is now the IT professionals are starting to lose confidence in MS’s operating systems. The IT professionals spend their days cleaning up messes left by MS’s errors. It’s really easy for an IT professional to take a look at their LINUX web server/mail server/database server and say gee I don’t have these problems with those systems. The fallacy there is if you put the ordinary user on a Linux system they’ll come up with similar problems. The difference is that with linux it doesn’t screw everybody else up too.

        • #3081095

          Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          by pkr9 ·

          In reply to software vendors to blame

          Remember how Microsoft treated OEM’s ? Do you think that f.inst a game company wil get the same terms with Microsoft if they agree to write MS-only games or agree to write multiplatform games ?

        • #3186272

          Microsft OS is the OS everyone Knows

          by cmartin ·

          In reply to Then there are those that are only happy complaining

          Microsft Bashing is so common place becuase they hold 80 – 90% of the market in desktop OS. Since more user are regulalry exposed to Microsft then the issue they have will tend to be with a Microsoft OS.

          However, I chalk up OS failures usully due to improper installation/Configuration and maintenace to the Desktops.

          A typical user has no idea on what to do if an error happens, so they jsut reboot and hope it will go away. Then things only get worse.

          It takes training of endusers on what to do if an issue arises. We tell our users to stop what they are doing and contact Tech support right away. We all so have a very extensive maintenace plan. We also follow procedures for installing new software and apps in a test environment that replicates the actually environment it will run in after. This may take more time up fromt to get things done but in the end you will save time on troubleshooting and repiring the desktops in your organization.

        • #3055437

          MY OS dont work anymore

          by neil higgins ·

          In reply to Microsft OS is the OS everyone Knows

          Tend to agree about Redmond bashing.Now before anyone accuses me of groveling,and yes I use Windows,I also think that incorrect installs,being too eager to see uncle Joe on the web-cam,and not installing the correct protective software (yes it’s true),can only lead to calamity.I remember the who-ha about activation in XP.Surelly they dont mean me?Well,er,yes they do.Your copy is filed,stamped,logged,and tagged on a server somewhere in the depths of server city.But think for one minute,it’s yours,noone can take it off you.Well,yes they can.It’s only the licence you’ve bought,not the code for Windows on your brand new,once clean cd-rom disc.Of course,being the largest OS exporter in the world also puts ‘them’ in the fireing line.Shut up,follow all instructions,install the correct updates,tell-em it’s really you,and stop whining.Have a nice day.

        • #3117536

          Kudos!

          by han810p9 ·

          In reply to Then there are those that are only happy complaining

          I’ve been saying it for years –
          Form follows function.
          Our AutoCAD users have to use Windows – no choice. So do it right. Carefully match hardware/software/drivers and all is well.
          Our graphics people use Macs. It is the best platform for what they do, and again, we are careful in what we install.
          Our servers? A mix – because the accounting system only runs on MS (it is specialized for the A/E/C industry, so don’t tell me to get them to change!)
          And the DMZ server? Unix. Best fit for the need.

          I harbor no bigotry toward any OS – and enjoy learning the intricacies of each. Challenge yourself to do the best with the tools you are provided, and you will be rewarded with more and better assignments.

        • #3132258

          Totally agree

          by max.bennett ·

          In reply to Then there are those that are only happy complaining

          I think you are right, some people complain because they have nothing better to do with their time. I equate them to Democrats (not all, but most) who look to find faults in everyone and everything rather than looking at something for what it is and saying, maybe we can make that better. Windows may not be perfect, but then again what is. My cell phone sometimes doesn’t get good reception. My satellite sometimes goes out when the weather is really bad. My CD player will skip is there is a smudge or scratch on the CD. What I’m getting at here is we have a tool, let’s all look at it as that and if you can make a constructive criticism or suggest some way to improve it fine. But if not, keep your negative thoughts to yourself.

      • #3195797

        Old tech vs. new tech

        by codfieri ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        A large (very large) part of the problem of modern Operating Systems can be tied to bad programming and security flaws. Granted that those two things have existed since PCs have been around but the old DOS days had a much better track record w/ flaws in the OS, bugs in the software, and open security holes versus today w/ bloated OpSystems and sometimes incredibly buggy programming and more open security holes than ever. True we are doing much more w/ them but I am convinced better programming as well as better software QA and no real “rush to market” deadline would result in much better views on the OS and software in general.

        • #3194004

          New features invite new exploits

          by greenpirogue ·

          In reply to Old tech vs. new tech

          Codfieri: Interesting point, but I would like to make an analogy. DOS was like a house with no windows and one door. All you had to do is deadbolt the door and you were safe. Windows is like a bigger house which has more rooms, more doors, windows and sliding glass doors out back. The trouble is that the architect (MS) has spent more time adding on than ensuring that the new additions (features) are secure.

          I prefer MacOS but I exclusively use Windows at work. There are problems with the OS, but I griped about Mac OS 9 not having true multi-threading. Its all about give and take, and some of us are concerned about security, more so now that there are so many other threats out there.

        • #3193929

          Shoot the messenger…

          by gbig@customerselects.com ·

          In reply to New features invite new exploits

          Is what people do when they blame MS for what hackers do to it.

          Techs shoot the messenger and bit the hand when they blame users for their problems. Techs would not be working were it not for the user.

          MS bashers are little more than men with small penises, or women with small breasts that believe anyone cares they are so ill-equipped.

        • #3193900

          nonsense

          by codfieri ·

          In reply to Shoot the messenger…

          Somehow I doubt physical endowments are the reason for all the MS bashing in the world. Much like die hard Ford fans would never drive a GM car and can do nothing but point out flaws the same goes for MS/Apple/Linux/Unix users. As for our jobs and such…if it weren’t tech work we were doing it would be something else so while I am happy w/ what I do I feel like I don’t owe MS or any other company anything for the job. Its a job…not a gift.

        • #3193849

          not exactly

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to nonsense

          I’m pretty happy with all the major personal computer OSes these days, except Windows. I like MacOS X. I like Linux. I like *BSD. I like where ReactOS is going.

          I’m not a fan of Windows the same way a Toyota driver isn’t a fan of GM: the fact that Toyota’s quality assurance operates on a 100% quality standard, and GM figures it can get away with a 70% quality standard, bodes ill for people being happy with GM quality, particularly if they’ve gotten used to Toyotas. By the same token, I’ve gotten used to Linux quality, and I find Windows to be a severe pain in the tuckus these days.

        • #3193795

          Criteria, Expertise, Emotions

          by gbig@customerselects.com ·

          In reply to not exactly

          I am not a “fan” of my car. I use it to go places. It demands fuel, and maintenance.

          Likewise, I use Windows and who knows what else running my cell phone, and stereo, and gps device as a tool. I like to use useful tools, that give me ways to get things done. Windows more than meets that.

          If I hit my finger with my hammer, i dont blame the hammer. Blaming Windows is like blaming the hammer, to do that it more reflective of the human and their shortcoming, or ignorance, than anything else.

        • #3193781

          on the other hand

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to not exactly

          If I hit a nail with my hammer, and rather than driving the nail the hammer’s head splinters and sends shards of metal through my hand, I certainly blame the hammer manufacturer.

        • #3186523

          C-Big

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to not exactly

          “Likewise, I use Windows and who knows what else running my cell phone, and stereo, and gps device as a tool. I like to use useful tools, that give me ways to get things done. Windows more than meets that.”

          Your cell phone is probably running some *nix variant as well as your gps device. I have no idea what kind of firmware OS stereos use, but I would assume that if they are proprietary, they are using *nix.

          Windows DOES NOT get things done. What it does do is break, become unstable, and crash. Hell, I had a great driver issue in Win2k that could NEVER be resolved. Windows doesn’t just work, ir requires constant tinkering and tweaking to make it run right.

          “If I hit my finger with my hammer, i dont blame the hammer. Blaming Windows is like blaming the hammer, to do that it more reflective of the human and their shortcoming, or ignorance, than anything else.”

          I blame Windows because Windows isn’t a reak hammer…it is a plastic childs toy hammer. It will never pound the nail in and it will only manage to break off into small pieces and choke small children.

          As for calling the wetware ignorant and unable, this is patently false in this forum. Perhaps your average user might have trouble, but those of us in these forums are quite apt with technology and are able to see OSs for what they are worth.

        • #3193773

          i have had it !!

          by avid ·

          In reply to Shoot the messenger…

          that’s it.. i am going to write a new OS AND grow a larger penis… both will be finished next week ! (ha ha)

        • #3117716

          What, you happy with M$ quality??

          by bloodyusername!! ·

          In reply to i have had it !!

          Take 2 weeks and make it better!!

        • #3186244

          You have some studies to back that up?

          by tommy higbee ·

          In reply to Shoot the messenger…

          If so, I want to know who did the studies linking physical endowment with OS preference ….

        • #3194611

          More Visible you are, More Hurt You get

          by yuvipanda ·

          In reply to You have some studies to back that up?

          I donno if you know this, But, just as the Front line of a Battle Force Suffers most damage, since it is exposed most, Windows is also Bashed Most about, Since It is the Most Common and MOST SUCCESSFUL. That’s why, Since, maybe it’s Pure Ego.

        • #3194581

          How do you explain Apache?

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to More Visible you are, More Hurt You get

          It is 60% of the market and VERY popular. Why isn’t it having the same problems as MS?

        • #3081050

          Logic

          by noyoki ·

          In reply to More Visible you are, More Hurt You get

          Is it logical to say: “The more people that have eyes on a program, the more flaws that will be found and fixed”? There was a study on Firefox, Opera, and IE. Opera was left vulnerable 16% of the year, Firefox (Windows version) was left vulnerable 7% of the year… IE was left vulnerable *98%* of the year.
          (If anyone has a link to that study, as it was posted here weeks ago, please let it be known? I have it at work, just not here.)

          It’s really your choice.

        • #3189079

          Why you should bash Windows

          by bite me_ax_moron ·

          In reply to Shoot the messenger…

          Lets get right to the heart of it. Since most of you don’t seem to know. Windows in flawed at the kernel. IBM and MS’s break up was largely to do with Bill Gates not accepting that hooking straight into the kernel was the wrong thing to do. There can never be security in windows, because it so fundamentaly flawed. But Gates & his hackers saw they could sell it even if it was unsafe. And back then who cared. But now, you can’t fix it. It’s insecure because it can’t be any other way. A total rewrite, including the lose of all current software would do it, but that as they say is when pigs fly. I’m suprised so many of you professing to be IT experts don’t know whats wrong with windows. Yes UNIX & its clones have problems. But, they don’t normally let programs manipulate the kernal like windows. There always one ring or more rings in between the kernel & the programs. Windows, doesn’t and never will in its current incarnation. So lets call it the way it is Windows is alot more flawed then you think, or most likely most fo you just don’t know. The Nix’s are not flawed that way. If any of you ever bother to find out how windows is put together, you’ll realize the bloat is patches to the holes in the entire OS. It’ll never be secure, so where does MS spend its money? On spin & advertising. Not security, most of you don’t deserve your jobs.

        • #3185884

          Opinions

          by brian.teeters ·

          In reply to Why you should bash Windows

          Opinions are like a$$holes, everyones got one and nobody likes to hear em.

          With that said, Yes windows might be flawed, yes linux is a better built OS, but if MS didn’t take the lead with personal computers where do you think we would be, no MS office no MS money to do your checkbook for you we would be in a bad way without Microsoft and even if Linux Or Mac OS was out in front there would be a line of Hackers, Crackers and Script Kiddies out there trying to bring down “the man” just as long as the current one.

          Before you bash Microsoft just think of the long days of trying to teach doris the receptionist how to mount her cd rom so she can listen to a CD, or trying to explain to the boss that he will have to write his own drivers for the new video card he just spent $500 on.

        • #3182378
          Avatar photo

          You must be a brave boy indeed Brian

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Opinions

          Telling the Boss that he has to write his own drivers for that Video Card I would have thought you as the resident IT guy would have been doing that! Anyway the Hardware makers wouldn’t only be providing drivers for one OS they would be providing Drivers for each competing OS and they would all be as good as each other not the current position of only supplying drivers for one OS and then having a Web Site with second rate drivers available for a different OS so really you wouldn’t be that indispensable anyway would you?

          But lets look at what was available before MS caused the opposition to disappear. Various forms of DOS that would run on any system and had more and better switches than anything that MS ever brought out, Lotus 123 was the standard along with Word Perfect and Paradox had most of the office covered and you didn’t need to mount a CD Drive so Doris could listen to music. Mostly you didn’t have a CD anyway as they where way to expensive and anyway the software came on up to 7 or 8 Floppies so what did you need a CD for? Oh I remember Windows 95 as that required 40 specially formated 3.5 inch floppies to install so at that point it became faster to install from CD rather than use the Floppy installation method that we had all been using previously. Lets see DR DOS 6 came on 4 Floppies Lotus 123 came on 4 Floppies Word Perfect came on 8 depending if you needed printer drivers as well. And we where all using 100 MEG HDD’s and the old 486 DX was fast! Even today you’ll have a faster loading DOS machine that is capable of doing all your office work if you wish to compare it to a Windows XP install which takes around 1 hour to install in that time you could have a DOS system not only loaded with an OS but every program that was required and tweaked for best performance and on the desktop working before you even get Windows XP Installed. If you want to see something very interesting put a DOS system and a Windows XP Pro system side by side and apply power at the same time! I’ll give you one guess which will be working first. 😀

          Now just how is it that you still maintain that MS has made our lives so much easier?

          Col ]:)

        • #3195389

          Nx’s

          by johns_revelation ·

          In reply to Why you should bash Windows

          Lets see Unix came out sometime in ’69 security was a huge issue then…Physical Security. Computer security wasn’t even a beginning thought. Maybe keeping your punch cards in the right place. So basically from it’s roots Unix was created WITHOUT security in mind. They tried to patch things up over the years but people seem to continue to get root kitted regularly. With all those text based files smattered all over the disk and an editor and a little help from SUID you can pretty much do whatever you want with the Nx’s.

          You got your rings mixed up sounds like the last ring architecture you looked at was either Windows 95 or NT 4. I remember when Windows 95 came out all the IBM OS2 or whatever crybabies said 95 was unstable and would crash all the time because of the RING issue you are speaking about. But the last thing I remember that was able to hook into the kernel (Ring O) like you are talking about was the video drivers in NT 4.

          So it sounds like you are a little misinformed about Ring issues in Windows 2K’s and XP

        • #3122072

          Nice

          by synapsetech ·

          In reply to Why you should bash Windows

          nicely done. That 4 sentances summerized how I have felt for 10 years without being able to put words to it. Thanks.

        • #3127594

          “…most of you don’t deserve your jobs.”

          by caxe ·

          In reply to Why you should bash Windows

          I just love sweeping statements!

        • #3122074

          Not unhappy with hackers

          by synapsetech ·

          In reply to Shoot the messenger…

          People always equate windows problems with security issues. I don’t have a problem with windows being susceptable to certain malicious code. Any OS will be in some form or another. I dislike the beta-testing on the public, the incompleteness of every aspect of their product that necessitates constant upgrades, and the bloated nature of the OS.

          I am a windows user, and while there are many ways to maintain your system so that some of these issues are resolved, i dislike the need to do this.

          Which is healthier, a 450 pound man, or a 185 pound track runner? Who will live longer? Move faster? Be sick more?

          Trim and spare = good performance.

          Period.

        • #3193838

          Point taken

          by tselca ·

          In reply to Old tech vs. new tech

          Dos was stable which version are you ferrign too dos 3.3 or maybe dos 4.01 no it must of been 6.0 no mayber 6.6 and lets not forget the network capability of dos wow no issues there. Most of MS stuff is easy to beat up becuase of their sheer size and power. But here is a funny fact everyone is trying to become MS with thier products aren’t they?

        • #3113856

          Valid complaints, yet we buy anyway

          by bjbrn ·

          In reply to Old tech vs. new tech

          Microsoft products are full of bugs (known and not fixed)and a magnet for malware. I actually get more annoyed with the protection schemes that make things like downloading patches or reinstalling office after it crashes from a MS bug SO HARD. I have to have the CD in the drive or a complex network install and the computer ON the network to upgrade.
          However, whenever I rant and rave (yes, often) I also remember we buy the stuff. MS didn’t hold a gun to my head. As long as fortune 500’s are “all MS shops” then there is a captive market and like any monopoly, there’s no need to have a good product. If we were really serious about better software, we’d stop buying MS, but few of us do.

        • #3122823

          I agree with you there

          by dbucyk ·

          In reply to Valid complaints, yet we buy anyway

          With Microsoft, they hold a huge majority of the popular software for running a computer. Yes, there is other OSs, but we still buy Microsoft.

          One thing to note. With all the lines of code, a vast array of different hardware, and a wide selection of software, there is bound to be conflicts. That’s what we have to live with unfortunately.

          Yes, the IBM PC and clone hardware is not as stable as MacIntosh, but since they are not as strong as Microsoft yet, but I can see them gaining ground, then we have to put up with crashes, blue screens of death and alike.

          It should be up to the novice, although sometimes it doesn’t happen that way, and the IT professionals to make things run smoothly from PC workstation problems to server problems.

          Be glad though there are people out there who try their best to make an operating system that works and all we can do is do our best to fix the problems as they arise.

        • #3122638

          previous post: good; yours: not so good

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I agree with you there

          I agree with the text of the previous post. If we don’t choose to use better technologies, we must to some extent blame ourselves for the problems of using technologies that are broken by design. I, for one, avoid software from Microsoft as much as I can. I work in a primarily Linux shop, and I don’t have anything running Windows on my network at home. Thanks to this, I don’t have to spend as much time screwing around with software failures as I would if everything was running Windows.

          You said “we have to put up with crashes, blue screens of death and alike.” In point of fact, we don’t. That’s the point: if you choose to use something more stable, you do NOT have to deal with that, and you can even save a lot of money while you’re at it.

        • #3122089

          A step farther

          by synapsetech ·

          In reply to previous post: good; yours: not so good

          Since I am completely anonymous, I can go a step further and say that, unlike music, while I use windows (soon to be in a dual boot configuration), I would NEVER stoop so low as to pay for it 😉

      • #3194016

        Angus, is your brain a single-cell organism?

        by hellums ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        Microsoft is hated not because of jealousy or ineptitude, or 1000s of installed apps (it’s unstable with just the OS, media players, Adobe reader, and MS Office installed, and you know it). Microsoft is hated because of:

        1. Antitrust, what’s that? Who, us? No!!! (note 0)
        2. Predatorial tactics
        3. Reliance on FUD marketing–nobody likes being manipulated and played
        4. Unstable architecture under the hood (note 1)
        5. Perpetual unreliability (note 2)
        6. Blue screen of death, and those cool app freezes that allow you to make spiffy designs and patterns of window frames as you drag your dead soldier all over the screen
        7. Default wide open security and then immediate denial of any “critical security flaw” and slow response when finally acknowledged (note 3)
        8. Incessant attempts to imbed privacy-robbing features in software and hardware, then reluctant acquiescence to its user base
        9. Incessant and needless baseline interface paradigm shifts (Search vs. Find… why? wgaf?)
        10. Repeated failure to follow their own consistency model–Ctrl-F is find function in virtually every text-centric application (ever try it on Outlook? what next, play with Alt-F, Ctrl-C, and Ctrl-V too?)
        11. Poor customer focus and service, with incessant, never-ending, weekly, monthly, and quarterly hotfixes, patches, and security releases (Service Pack? SERVICE?!?) (note 4)
        12. Long-term inability to give us close to Apple quality at the Microsoft price they know is all we can afford, despite the quadrazillion billion dollars they’ve raked in over the decades (the Mac mini might be a junior Robin Hood, but we’ll need more where that comes from)
        13. We’ll make it a baker’s dozen–because realistically we have very little choice (Linux too complex for average user, Mac too expensive for all but elite). Microsoft knows this and exploits it, gets plumply rich on it. Nobody likes having spinach or brussel sprouts jammed down their throat time and time again, especially when the server sups on caviar, lobster, and Dom Perignon.

        Note 0 – Hey, I was alive and kicking and reading the Compaq CEO’s quotes in the trades when they were being squeezed out in the early 90s, but they eventually rolled over and played stupid for the Justice Dept (who didn’t read the trades), before being slyly pardoned as expected by the Republican Party… saved by the bell

        Note 1 – why does multitasking in Unix/Linux allow me to perform floppy operations yet still stay productive? try writing to a floppy or connecting to the Internet and see how impossible it is to get anything else done at the same time… it’s still DOS under there in too many ways

        Note 2 – esp. IE, esp. with multiple windows up–God forbid they add the obvious Tab feature Firefox finally “discovered”

        Note 3 – and we usually find out that the flaw is in some useless chunk of crap architecture or software that allows God only knows who to let their PC talk to their refrigerator or toaster

        Note 4 – and how is the normal user expected to get the patches installed? by connecting to the Internet, of course… problem being that before the first patch is installed the system has been compromised by hundreds if not thousands of vulnerability probes, often successful (and how many hours does it take to download XP SP2 over a 56K modem?)

        • #3193957

          Spot On!!

          by middleagednewbie ·

          In reply to Angus, is your brain a single-cell organism?

          I can’t address why other OSs might get bunged, but this post *nails* why MS draws complaints; rapacity, design issues and a smug mindset. Users are flocking to MS alternatives because they like the way issues are handled better, for one thing.

          To draw a parallel from applications, Mozilla has been quick to acknowledge and patch problems with Firefox, while MS has ignored known problems and left IE users out to the wind. Who’s growing faster, and getting plugs from security experts like Dan Golding? Firefox.

          My conclusion? Competence may play a role in some gripes, but a great many are self-inflicted by the vendor.

        • #3193821

          I wouldn’t exactly say flocking…

          by pailr ·

          In reply to Spot On!!

          Most people shy away from Linux and the other OSes due to lack of quality software with high brand-name recognition that will run on it. While there may be a tendency to blame software makers for not more fully supporting the other OSes, to be realistic, you must look at the bottom line: fewer users of other OSes means less ROI for the product.

          My main gripes against MS are along the same lines as hellum. I don’t like their smug attitude, their refusal to admit, until cornered by some major IT disaster at some high-profile corporation, that there is a security issue, their insistence that you must use their POS Internet Explorer to get your OS updates/hotfixes/patches. But, my biggest complaint about them is their lack of trustworthiness. MS puts all kinds of information about you in a multitude of places within your computer, most of which is relative to your browsing habits, rather than putting it all in a single location. So, in a case where you clicked on a link that you thought was going to be one thing, got to the site only to find out it was another thing entirely, you now have to go to multiple locations across your PC in order to eradicate its remains. One location for browser caching should suffice, no matter the content of the page. Something offensive pops up on a page, you go to that location and eradicate it. And while we’re at it, I strenuously object to the integration of IE into the OS without the ability to extricate it and remove it from your system. That, in and of itself, should have been enough for them to be convicted of the anti-trust violation.

          On a side note… with the advent of Windows XP, there was a basic change in the OS that disallowed functionality of Norton Speed Disk in its prior strength. With the System Works 2000 Speed Disk, not only could you compact all of your free space into a contiguous block because to Speed Disk, there was no such thing as an ‘immovable file’, but, you could also specify that all free space should be “cleared”. Clearing the freespace meant that it would be ENTIRELY FREE of latent images. The aforementioned objectionable content would, thereafter, be =>undetectable<= on your hard drive. There may have come along some successor software that will "clear" you hard drive for you since XP's introduction, but, why should I be forced to buy new software to do the same thing as I had already purchased, with more capabilities, that ran just fine before XP?

        • #3193933

          Amen

          by ronaldm ·

          In reply to Angus, is your brain a single-cell organism?

          Couldn’t say it better. There is plenty of ignorance on both sides of the fence as has been so clearly demonstrated by yourself.

        • #3193894

          Ditto

          by sheeva ·

          In reply to Angus, is your brain a single-cell organism?

          Hellums’ post was quite succinct and outlined correctly many of the reasons MS is the “monster under the bed”. Through their business model they have coerced a majority of the North American computing community into believing in all those marketing slogans, i.e. “Where do you want to go?” as if they are the only ones capable of providing such grandiose dreams.

          Like others, I appreciate MS for their creativity and thank them for my continuing employment. Bashing is not what comes to my mind. However, MS is the biggest and brashest and puts itself in the “brag lane” every minute of every day. So although other vendors or PC products may well deserve some criticism, MS has truly and honestly earned it. So these posts and any industry published articles espousing “poor MS” – get a life. We’re global and MS has not been very good to everyone globally.

          As an aside, one thing to remember is that O/S as MS has promoted is a means to an end that’s different for HOME users than BUSINESS users. But we are stuck with the current mode of thinking that one flavor should fit all because MS (and previously IBM) told us so.

          O/S should be as ubiquitous as good ‘ole POTS (your telephone land line). In the early days even POTS had it’s detractors (users and businesses); it was a monopoly with predatory bushiness practice; and service stunk in many locations for many years. But now we all take POTS for granted and have begun to direct our “b**ch & complaints” onto the mobile phone service arena.

          So do I feel sorry for any of these guys? No and no way. So why should we all be concerned about MS bashing at all?

          To vendors, MS not withstanding, we need to make them understand our consumer mantra which is, “Give me what I want, when I want it, for little or no cost and make sure I never have to talk to you again unless I tell you that I want it different.”

        • #3193761

          re: monster under the bed

          by avid ·

          In reply to Ditto

          yes he is there. but i don’t think he will die anytime soon. the way i see it, there are 2 choices:
          1. feed the monster and keep him happy.
          2. sleep on the floor

          we can either keep buying MS and enjoy the fact that most software will be compatible if not stable or we can go with other OS’s and spend huge amounts of time dealing with compatibility issues.

        • #3122070

          Bill Gates MessUp

          by synapsetech ·

          In reply to Ditto

          To compliment your dislike of microsoft’s bragging, i have to share the funniest thing I have ever seen, bill gates releasing Media Center on National Television (conan obrien), and HE COULDN’T GET IT TO WORK!!! lol

        • #3123322

          yes . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Bill Gates MessUp

          This reminds me of the public demonstration of Windows 95, where we all got to see the BSOD for the first time. Some people at Microsoft musta been fired after that.

          Probably more fired now.

        • #3193893

          Because Windows is not an Operating System

          by mipsv ·

          In reply to Angus, is your brain a single-cell organism?

          Anybody who is a real IT or has anything approaching knowledge of computing platforms knows very well that Microsoft and Intel together couldnt make a real computer system if they stole the designs from companies who could (they used to be able to take the money though). Maybe MS hires “really smart people” but the really smart people are just for show and they don’t have a damn thing to do with what gets released to customers.
          And about “install the correct drivers”… good luck – more like try to install the drivers and hope Windows takes them. Its not the technology its the business majors who have no business being in technology companies who have ruined the IT field with Wintel garbage. There are plenty of ways to make Linux (or Solaros or AIX of all things) work just fine for the “ordinary user” – scripts, a few new drivers, oh and how about do it see your job leave for China, India or some other place where they don’t care about things like freedom, shopping malls, food, human rights, and they think women are disposable (India and especially China)? Oh these places shoot people like Gates and Barrett when they get in the way they don’t bother with justice departments and IRS audits. Windows sucks because these companies just don’t think they can fail. They need to look at GM and decide if they want to suffer the same fate… only it took GM a lot longer to get where they are though they had plenty of warnings and plenty of time to fix themselves.

        • #3193835

          I agree 100% the desktop is a necessary evil

          by tsecret ·

          In reply to Because Windows is not an Operating System

          Our readers should also be aware of the current state of the IBM i5 and the i5/OS. With it’s ability to run multiple operating systems and the real power of native 64-bit applications this is where IT Pro’s should be looking.
          I happen to prefer almost impossible to hack over almost impossible to secure.

        • #3193784

          IBM OS? Bring Back The Edsel

          by gbig@customerselects.com ·

          In reply to I agree 100% the desktop is a necessary evil

          IBM had a shot, remember PCDos and OS2?

          IBM is trying to dislodge MS by giving money to the OpenSource world, really, they want to control OpenSourcers, and many of them are dumb enough to play.

          Users dont care if they are sitting on a 64bit, or a 1bit machine. They care that they can write documents, and communicate. MS has and will continue to kick the guts out of anything that pretends to offer a client tools, and really, they are continuing to dominate the back room as well, so its all muchAdoAboutNothing

        • #3193780

          What are you talking about?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to IBM OS? Bring Back The Edsel

          IBM can’t “control OpenSourcers”. All it can do is sell hardware with software installed on it, and/or sell support. Linux is developed entirely separately from IBM. It’s not like IBM is running around trying to put Linus Torvalds on its payroll.

        • #3186447

          Look Closer

          by gbig@customerselects.com ·

          In reply to What are you talking about?

          IBM participates in the OpenSource effort by paying R&D bucks to its developers to make OpenSource code. The number is very large. Oh yes, they do in fact control their staffs, and oh yes, the OpenSource weenies pay big attention to such a big pocketed ally.

        • #3186406
          Avatar photo

          g big I know you are joking

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to What are you talking about?

          Because at the last IBM Forum that I attended a few weeks ago now they openly admitted to using Red Hat and they also claimed that they are working closely with Red hat to provide solutions for their products and any problems that their users may face which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for M$. With them it’s pay your money and hope for some form of result which generally only means you are far lighter off in the Hip Pocket and still don’t have a solution.

          I still can laugh at the insistence of a MS Tech who insisted that the error message that I was seeing on the monitor was telling me that I had no CPU fitted. I never knew that these “modern” M’Boards 98 era where so advanced that they could put a picture on a monitor without a CPU installed. With that in mind I’m constantly wondering today why I even need to fit a CPU to a system that I’m building. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3186365

          Money?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to What are you talking about?

          Perhaps you’re not aware of this, G Big, but money put into R&D for Linux is either A) donated without strings attached or B) put into in-house R&D within the walls of IBM’s facilities. In the former case, the Linux kernel developers say “Thanks!” and go on about their business. In the latter case, whenever IBM comes up with someone, they’re compelled by the GPL to submit it to the Linux kernel developers, who can accept or discard it as needed.

          You seem to have this odd impression that the Linux kernel is developed by some kind of central corporation that operates just like any other corporation in the software industry. The truth of the matter is that there are a few project managers and thousands of individuals that are simply submitting patches and feature upgrades for those project managers to sift through. It’s not a singular, cohesive arrangement the way you’d get with something like Adobe or Microsoft, where you can make a deal with whoever’s in charge to do whatever you want in exchange for money. The kernel developers don’t have anything to offer in exchange for any money, with the exception of a still-better kernel in the next release cycle. Since a better kernel is always what everyone wants anyway, there’s not really any downside to IBM donating cash.

        • #3186407
          Avatar photo

          Just exactly which

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to IBM OS? Bring Back The Edsel

          Back Room are you talking about?

          The one with the sewer opening?

          I’ve only ever seen Windblows Boxes in server rooms in very small business as until the event of NT M$ didn’t have a server platform and even then NT wasn’t all that great Y2K Server was slightly better but still didn’t capture the market share that the 2000 Pro did for the desktop and while 2003 ES is better than any of the previous offerings it is hardly all that scalable. It’s great for small servers {read that as Domain Controllers} or desktop boxes that have been misused and called Server, but really it isn’t much good for anything better than a Quad Processor M’Board setup and even then it is incapable of being able to handle all the RAM that is possible to be used on those M’Boards.

          So I take it that you meant the “Bathroom” when you say the back room and in that I will agree whole heartily provided that none of them have any power applied. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3186224

          IBM and Edsel?

          by tommy higbee ·

          In reply to IBM OS? Bring Back The Edsel

          IBM has reinvented itself over the past few years. Microsoft will probably eventually have to follow the same path when it finds itself no longer able to dictate the rest of the PC world.

          Regardless, i5/OS is a vary nice operating system, but not open enough to really take over. Open systems take over eventually. That’s why PC clones took over the CP/M and Apple machines, and THAT is why DOS became a near-monopoly.

          That’s also why Apple is only a fringe of PC computing now. However, the latest Apples have been far more open — being built on top of open source Unix — and that’s why they’re doing better.

          By that standard, Linux, being the most open of all, may turn out to be unstoppable. We’ll have to see.

          One thing is for sure, though. Microsoft does not now dominate the back room. They were moving very rapidly in that direction, but they got stopped short by one thing: Linux. That is, Linux tore the bottom out of the economic argument for replacing Unix, acts like Unix, and interoperates with just about everything. And even for those happy with their Unix systems, just the fact that Linux was growing so fast destroyed the pressure to port to Windows ASAP.

          As for me, I’m happy in a multiple OS world. I just want systems that work, and that work together.

        • #3194367

          Look closer

          by tsecret ·

          In reply to IBM and Edsel?

          You be suprised at the i5/OS today. You get all of the advantages of “Open” with enough under the covers protection it offers. This is why it still has not been hacked or had a virus. And with Linux running on the same system it’s a hard combination to beat, not to mention the independant studies on the 99.96 uptime record.
          You cal open a Unix shell and even comile open source code with the native c/c++ comilier.

        • #3193758

          give it time

          by avid ·

          In reply to I agree 100% the desktop is a necessary evil

          if it grows in popularity and gets more attention, someone will start finding ways to hack it. if MS was a less widely used OS and, say, Linux was in MS’s position, this post would be titled “What’s really behind Linux-bashing?”

        • #3189554

          Tell us your true feelings why don’t you?

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Because Windows is not an Operating System

          Someone run out of Sanka this morning?

          Anyway — MS isn’t great (see my other posts)..I’ve got plenty to bitch about them for.

          However to completely imply that the Windows has no value to ANYONE with a brain — its moronic at best.
          Plus that’s like you are taking a cheap shot at anyone who uses Windows.

          I use Windows at work because 95% of everything is Windows, though I’m trying hard to get more stuff Linux its an uphill battle in a blizzard though.

          At home I use Windows — I’m into the computer games thing — in a big way. Windows XP runs the games perfect with very little problems — in fact I haven’t had any major “game problems” in months now.

          At least that are related to windows – some of the software had issues but that was the publisher’s fault.

          There were all “in-game” issues.

          Anyway, that’s just my 2 cents. Take it or don’t…either way I don’t really care. lol.

        • #3118606

          look around u dude!!!

          by moonlightdriver2004 ·

          In reply to Because Windows is not an Operating System

          mipsv whn was da last time u were in India or China??????

          keep dreaming, we buy companies who here in US who have twisted minds like u and take em to china india !!

        • #3193850

          Note 2

          by sendbux ·

          In reply to Angus, is your brain a single-cell organism?

          Actually, NS has had tabbed browsing for several versions. Because it has been essentially Mozilla for quite a while, now.

          Granted, Firefox has them, too. As you apparently have noted, they are the greatest enhancement to internet use since the computer screen. IMHO.

        • #3193843

          Huh?

          by regloff8 ·

          In reply to Angus, is your brain a single-cell organism?

          Firefox didn’t invent the Tabbed-Browsing. Not 100% sure who did, but Opera had it in their browser 5 years ago – not really a new idea.

          And I hate to tell ya – My XP Pro machine at home has never Blue Screened – ever. I have Office Installed, Adobe Reader, WinAMP, WinZIP, WinRAR, WinACE, VisioPro, FireFox, WinVNC, Oh heck – even more, along with about 30 different games as well. I’ve had the same OS load running for about 2? years, I’m thinking that’s about right. I runs about 90% of the time. Still, never had one blue screen.

          I can write CD’s at 52X, while listening to MP3’s, and doing other stuff and it doesn’t hitch at all. I even play an Online RPG and can run three accounts at once on it – ok it’s a bit slow then, but that’s a lot of load on the memory there…

        • #3193833

          Tabbed browsing

          by sendbux ·

          In reply to Huh?

          If Opera had it five years ago, they are close to the first. O/W, it’s Netscape, which has had it for maybe three years.

        • #3193824

          Opera

          by regloff8 ·

          In reply to Tabbed browsing

          Here’s their press releases if one is so inclined to find out..

          http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/

          Lemme think – I first installed it… about the year 2000, so year, prolly 5 years? A guy showed it to me at a company I haven’t worked for since 2002, and it was a bit back then.

          They had tabbed browsing around 2001 or so – sometime, so mabye about 4 years.

          Still – Have to admit – I’ve always like Mozilla, so naturally I like Firefox better than Opera, but that’s all a personal choice 🙂

        • #3186508

          Tabbed browsing

          by crake ·

          In reply to Huh?

          BookLink Technologies pioneered tabbed browsing in its InternetWorks browser in 1994.

          As usual, Microsoft had an “epiphany” and implemented this technology in its IE shell called “NetCaptor” in 1997.

          It was followed by Opera 4 in 2000, although Opera has always had a full MDI interface (as opposed to TDI or SDI).

          Mozilla integrated tabbed browsing in 2001 (through the MultiZilla extension in April of 2001 and a built-in tabbed browsing mode added to Mozilla 0.9.5 in October of 2001) and Safari in 2003.

          As for your perfect computer that never crashes… bully for you.

        • #3051410

          Never said half of what you’re talking about

          by hellums ·

          In reply to Huh?

          I never said XP had blue screen of death problems. It’s a legacy term from an operating system you’re probably too young to have ever used. That’s why some of you think it’s wrong to “bash” Microsoft, because you don’t have the history with them that the rest of us do. We lived through DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 98, Windows NT, Windows ME… when you’ve lived through all of those and we have shared experience, we can talk. My point with Firefox isn’t that they invented tabs or that it’s a new idea, just that it’s a prominent feature in the first mainstream browser that’s posed any competition whatsoever for IE, and ONLY that will lead to IE making the same move. If you think Opera is mainstream, you need to stop playing RPGs and see what people in the real world are doing with computers.

        • #3193832

          ditto…

          by michael.techrepublic ·

          In reply to Angus, is your brain a single-cell organism?

          Right on hellums…

          Could not have said it better myself. It’s not just bashing Windows, it’s bashing Microsoft. Window’s is simply the most visible culprit of thier corporate ideology. The world is starting to wake up and realize that Microsoft wants control of not just your computer but they want control of your life. Gaming, Entertainment, appliances…Anyone remeber “The NET” with Sandra Bullock? Now Microsoft is apparntly in serious aquisition talks with a spyware company (Gain/Gator) and has removed detection/reporting of these from their Anti-Spyware product. Where are thier priorities?

        • #3186405
          Avatar photo

          You don’t mean

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to ditto…

          Here comes M$ newest Security Product “GATEKEEPER” do you? 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3193820

          What unstable?

          by ungle ·

          In reply to Angus, is your brain a single-cell organism?

          I understand your complaint about Microsoft marketing tactics, unfair trading, pricing structure etc., and agree with them…but unstable? Are you still using Win 95??

          I have YET to find/have demonstrated to me this aledged instability. I’ve done it all – worked on Unix where we rebooted weekly (admitedly it was mission critical stuff in a financial institute), wit MAC mail servers that had to be rebooted DAILY or die, Linux – definitely my choice, but I do question the memory management, and Windows, where in one company I found an NT server that had been up for 8 months and I only rebooted because I needed to patch it (yep, there it is again.)

          Keep in mind, though, patches on my linux machines is just as regular. Also, I’ve only ever had a linux machine hacked!

          Win 2000 became even more stable. 2k3 has yet to prove it’s stability to my mind, but is well on the way.

          You can accuse MS of a lot of things, but leave instability out. That is just what the original poster was talking about. Ignorance

        • #3186403
          Avatar photo

          Well if it is so stable

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to What unstable?

          Why is M$ changing the color of their SOD from Blue to Red?

          Sure it might not happen often but when it does you are in for a world of hurt as something critical has gone wrong and you will be very lucky to get it up and running again without constantly seeing the dreaded BSOD!

          Col ]:)

        • #3194183

          Why did they change to red?

          by stress junkie ·

          In reply to Well if it is so stable

          That color change seems like a mistake. If they had changed it to green then they could also have a message that says something like “This is a scheduled shutdown.” Ha ha ha.

        • #3194127

          Changed to red

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Why did they change to red?

          so they could say quite truthfully that the BSOD is a thing of the past and will no longer occur.
          Bet some image/branding consultant got a sizable whack for that idea.
          Same as the other trick with the name, Longhorn is no longer riddled with problems, cut down in promised functionality and late we are getting Vista early.

          Hoo****ingray.

        • #3193662

          Blue is still there

          by roaming ·

          In reply to Why did they change to red?

          From what I have read BSOD’s are for catastrophic errors and RSOD’s are for very catastrophic errors.

        • #3193629
          Avatar photo

          Can you please explain that one?

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Blue is still there

          Admittedly I come from a Mechanical Engineering background but a Catastrophic event implies to me at least the total destruction of the thing how do you have something considered as “Very Catastrophic” when the thing is already destroyed.?

          Like how much more can be destroyed when it is totally destroyed in the first place?

          Col ]:)

        • #3193599

          To HAL9000

          by roaming ·

          In reply to Blue is still there

          That’s what makes it a bit of a joke. Both require rebooting the machine anyway.

        • #3189179

          Very catastrophic … I like it.

          by stress junkie ·

          In reply to Blue is still there

          I detected the subtle hilarity right away. Good job.

        • #3189051

          What the hell…

          by ungle ·

          In reply to Well if it is so stable

          …so I see a blue screen. When my Linux machine (or the software running on it) screws up it’s memory and I have reboot it, just because I don’t see a cute blue (or red) screen with a memory dump doesn’t make it any less destructive!

          A reboot is a reboot. OS wars are pointless. They’ve all got their good and bad points. If your main complaint of Windows is the color scheme then talk to MS. They may change it for you. What color would you like?

        • #3194578

          killall -9

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to What the hell…

          thank you thank you…I’ll be here all week. Don’t forget to tip your waitress and try the veal.

        • #3194556

          no kidding

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to killall -9

          I think one of the biggest problems with discussions like this is that someone with no conception of how differently Linux works under the hood will try it out for three months and assume they know everything they need to, then go back to Windows and claim there’s no substantive difference. Not knowing that they can use commands like killall -9 and kill -kill to eliminate problematic processes, prompting them to restart the entire system (thus losing everything on which they’ve been working) just as they would with Windows, causes such fly-by-night Linux testers to develop the odd opinion that there’s no substantive difference between Linux and Windows stability.

        • #3194495

          Oh, yes I agree apotheon…

          by ungle ·

          In reply to killall -9

          …And the same to be said of fly-by-nighters who don’t know how to do similar tasks on Windows and who run home to mama crying when they can’t figure it out!

          Fortunately I don’t fit either catagory…

        • #3195756

          Don’t you?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to killall -9

          You say you don’t fit either category, and yet you’re the guy saying you have to restart Linux because of an application problem. Clearly, one of your statements doesn’t fit.

        • #3051392

          Take a Linux administration course :)

          by hellums ·

          In reply to What the hell…

          Sounds like you’re not very good at Linux or Unix administration. There are lots of training courses and books out there. 10:1 or 25:1 ratio of Windows to Unix/Linux crashes in my experience, which dates back to the late 80s. And when I have to patch a Unix app, I never had to reboot, unless it was related to networking or hardware.

        • #3051241

          Networking?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Take a Linux administration course :)

          You shouldn’t have to reboot for networking, either. Just restart networking.

          # /etc/init.d/network[ing] restart

          Voila.

        • #3081088

          8 months is good ??

          by pkr9 ·

          In reply to What unstable?

          I have firsthand knowledge of an IBM AS/400 which kept churning for 4 years. Yes – FOUR YEARS. In the meantime we changed most of the internals, including all disks with the exception of the one with the system on. And that was the reason for shutting it down – replacing the system disk.
          Natrurally it was never infected with viruses, worms, spyware et. al., even though it was on the net for the same period.
          On another box we changed it from 48 bits to 64 bits, reloaded all apps and DB’s without rewriting a single line of code. We did later, but for other reasons.
          I wouldn’t dare running an NT box for 8 months without patching – flirting with death.

        • #3193770

          Impressive

          by it.dude ·

          In reply to Angus, is your brain a single-cell organism?

          Impressive! ….most impressive!

          Haven’t read a quality dress-down of M.S. for a while.

          Thanks for the reminder of why it’s better to INVEST time in learning Linux, than to WASTE time attempting to figure out the “Black Box”, “super secret”, ” …. oh God, if hackers found out about this !!!” reason for my PDC and BDC to stop talking to each other.

          I’m not going to write the novel of what kind of admin job I had been doing previous to the above issue. I will simply say that I had MS Updates done (manually installed while I watched), firewalls up, anti-virus running and updated. The two Server 2000 boxes were communicating one day, and the next had stopped.

          The ultimate solution, I had to promote the BDC to PDC. Reinstall the old PDC so it fixed the problem and then set it up as BDC.

          Since I’ve moved to Linux, I have to take the covers off once in a while to dust!!!
          Admin is pretty borning unless I want to spend time tracking down the origin of an attempted Hack or brute force password attack.

          Sorry Angus, … there I go MS Bashing!

        • #3194250

          Love your post

          by jrice ·

          In reply to Angus, is your brain a single-cell organism?

          Your on the money. I support microsoft products and I use but I still dislike Microsoft as a company.

        • #3194227
          Avatar photo

          So in that case will you

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Love your post

          Be at the head of the Que when Visa sorry I meant Vista comes out as a production version and be one of the First Beta Testers that pays for the privilege of sorting out problems to M$?

          That is one of my biggest bugbears with any new M$ OS we are nothing but Beta Testers who have to pay for the privilege to getting their products to actually work part way like M$ claims they will.

          Col ]:)

        • #3193688

          All very good points.. except…

          by alacrity ·

          In reply to Angus, is your brain a single-cell organism?

          Why is it that I ran my entire company for 4 years on NT 4 server and Windows 98 workstations. Then upgraded the workstations to Windows 2000. Now I have Small Business Server 2003 and Windows XP pro, SP 2 and have been running the server since LAST august with only the reboots needed for patches and those apps that INSIST you reboot even though you don’t HAVE to. And my general workstations run for many weeks without problem. MS Office (Outlook, Word, Excel, Front Page, Publisher, power point – often all running at the same time), QuickBooks Pro, Hot sync software for Pocket PC enabled phone, Several web pages (hey.. I ain’t ALL work) Symantec antivirus and /or Firewall, AVG, Spybot and/or Ad Aware, etc, etc. This workstation I’m on now hasn’t been re-booted since the last Norton AV update forced me into it 3 weeks ago. My last install of NT 4 SERVER wasn’t rebooted for nearly 3 YEARS!

          I say it IS possible to produce a stable system using Microsoft products, I have 14 years of Proof! End users that I support (most have used my services for over 11 years) all START with a stable system and then muck it up so that I have to get it straight again, but that isn’t MICROSOFT’s fault! the USER messed it up. OR malware messes it up, but Microsoft products have treated me and the companies I support very well. From time to time I have to tell a user “No, That’s not a good idea” becasue of some security risk left open in MS products. Sometime it takes Microsoft a lumbering long damn time to close the hole. My time spent building $30,000,000 CRAY computers taught me that simply slapping a “fix” on one place just might break something you don’t know about in another place. I remember one system designer asking if he could “just move the edge connector 20 mils over” and got approval from his manager. that caused nearly THREE Million Bucks to be spent to correct the problem caused downstream from his department. Microsoft MUST be as sure as they can be that the “fix” they throw out to patch some hole does not create a new hole somewhere else.

          My last point (made somewhere up above, I think) is that it IS possible to have a stable solid system using Microsoft products. If you are NOT able to do this, perhaps it’s because your skills are not up to snuff. Actually I firmly believe that it’s NOT your tech skills that are too LOW, but too HIGH..

          Just my $.02
          Alacrity

        • #3193628
          Avatar photo

          What I think you are missing

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to All very good points.. except…

          Is that with a Nix server you don’t have to reboot when you apply patches or new Applications only Kernel Upgrades.

          Admittedly I do come from a Unix background and I’m not used to all the rebooting that Windows requires. Instead of considering several weeks up time as good I would be considering only several months up time because of a patch bad.

          But if you’ve never used a Nix you’ll never know what the unnecessary steps that you are going through and the extra money that you have to waste on security which shouldn’t be necessary and is affecting your bottom line.

          Col ]:)

        • #3189050

          Umm…

          by ungle ·

          In reply to What I think you are missing

          Yo, dude. Windows is (effectively) the same. The only reason reboots are necessary is
          a. You don’t know what you’re doing,
          b. Sloppy packaging or
          c. one of those MS patches that in the MS world is effetively a patch on the kernel.

          I do agree with the several weeks bit, though. I recently was involved in a move of the Asia head office of the financial house I was working for at the time, and discovered one of the trader’s PCs (extremely heavily used) had been up for 4 months.

        • #3194576

          B and C are very common

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Umm…

          Typically EVERY patch MS comes out with patches the Kernel or Executive in some manner. There are TONS of sloppy packages out there and hundreds of drivers that force a reboot on install (you can’t simply restart the service)

        • #3194497

          Agreed.

          by ungle ·

          In reply to B and C are very common

          Totally about the sloppy packaging. It REALLY gets up my nose. However, this discussion is about OS.

          I’ve run Linux for a long time now. I’m totally pissed of with how often I’ve got to patch software/kernel.

        • #3194475

          Patching/updating with linux is easy

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to B and C are very common

          just run cron job and restart the service if need be…Not much to it…

          How often do you REALLY need to patch/update your software, unless your are running bleeding edge?

        • #3195755

          Kernel patches?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to B and C are very common

          I have a hard time imagining that anyone’s dealing with kernel patches that often in Linux. Seriously, I don’t remember the last time I needed a kernel patch for any reason whatsoever.

        • #3182385

          Do it better….

          by alpha geek ·

          In reply to Angus, is your brain a single-cell organism?

          With all of the complaints about Microsoft, I would just like to offer up something for thought: Microsoft is a shinning example of Capitalism at its finest. The main principle of capitalism still holds true. If you can do it better, you can reap the benefits. All of those that complain about MS OS are perfectly free to do the same thing that MS did; build a better product.

        • #3182376
          Avatar photo

          God I feel sorry for you

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Do it better….

          MS didn’t build a better product in most cases they built a second rate product.

          However what they did build was a Perfect Example of a Marketing Department and your statement is correct MS is a good example of Capitalism selling second rate products to consumers for a premium price and then expecting those same consumers to pay for the required support.

          Man if that is your idea of success I really feel sorry for you as you are in for a world of hurt and if you go down this track you’ll find most people despising you and taking your name in vain. Is that what you want your reputation to mean?

          Col ]:)

        • #3182355

          circular logic

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Do it better….

          Gotta love that circular logic: Microsoft is better, therefore it’s more successful; Microsoft is more successful, therefore it’s better; Microsoft is better, therefore it’s more successful; et cetera.

          You go with that. I’ll be over here with a “die” statement to break out of the infinite loop and look at the situation with clearer eyes than that.

        • #3122087

          Hellums

          by synapsetech ·

          In reply to Angus, is your brain a single-cell organism?

          You have my profound admiration and respect for your well contrived and perfectly correct rant session.

      • #3193925

        People always bash the biggest

        by eric.p ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        People somehow feel superior when they bash things, and who doesn’t want to feel superior? The main reason they pick on Microsoft is because they’re the biggest. And the reason the Microsoft OS is most vulnerable is because it is by far the most used OS, so attackers focus on it. If all the effort that goes into hacking into Windows went into the other desktop OS’s I’m sure they would be pretty much as vulnerable.
        If I were you I would just chalk it up to human nature, the same as the jerks that bash you for what you wrote. IT just seems to have more than its share of such people.

      • #3193860

        It’s Suppression of Innovation for me

        by sendbux ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        Now that MS has pretty much captured the OS world (by actually creating one, rather than SAYING they had one in Win95 and Win98), think of this: both Mac and OS/2 had actual operating systems almost ten years before MS caught up and stopped using what many believe was essentially DOS, with its memory limitations. OS/2, for example, had a flat memory model which would address 144GB of memory, out of the shrinkwrap. And just about never crashed.

        Now, MS is not motivated to innovate (cynical: to say they innovate when innovation is what they prevent) because there is no competition.

        All I ask is competition. That’s how business thrives. Not by dominance of a market. Dominance is no more healthy for a company in control, than it is for the public.

      • #3193858

        It’s a matter of perception…

        by regloff8 ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        No – there are more people looking for ways to hack into Windows – so you end up with more “percieved” holes than the other operating systems…

        Although – I do digress to a point, not every OS is going to have the same number of holes.

        Like houses – while yours may be more secure than mine – it’s not going to matter if someone wants inside your house and not mine. If I have nothing to steal, there’s no reason to get into mine, regardless of how easy it is to break into.

        Also, along with that – is the size of the hole. I think I’d rahter have a thousand little pin holes in my house, over a half a wall open. I’m not trying to compare any OS to a certain style of “hole” I’m just saying it’s true…

        I mean, so you can cause a Windows machine to crash – whoopie wow, that’s fantastic. On the other hand, you can hack into a Unix system and download an entire credit-card database – again, for the zealots, you can switch that around too. i’m not a fan of one OS over the other really, even DOS has it’s uses.

        I’ve worked with quite a number of Operating Systems, and like them all for different reasons. Windows is far easier to use, even when loading the machine, Linux is plain cooler has a ton of flavors and can do just about anything you want it to, Solaris is as stable as I have ever seen. Macintosh has a lot of very cool features you won’t find anywhere else, at all – wonderful remote network management right in the OS. Netware is easy as pie to manage and has file Salvaging capability that far surpasses any other – out of the box, not to mention Groupwise does what most other Groupware packages only claim to do. FreeBSD is just as stable as Solaris and it’s a nice streamlined OS, that can handle about whatever you can throw at it. Try running some Chassis systems on anything but VXWorks – good luck. QNX has the coolest Desktop, I’ve ever seen.

        That’s all opinionated of course, just judging on what I’ve seen.

        The best thing to keep in mind is that none of them are secure – heck, there’s more theft going on now than before computers — by far… Since when was identity theft ever an issue before. Years ago, if you wanted to rob someone, you’d have to mug them, or walk into a business or a bank with a gun. Now, you can hack some database and walk away with tons, if you do it right.

        I love watching those TV commercials that claim “our system is just unstoppable” – hehehe, yeah right…

        “Even god can’t sink this ship” Hmmmm, where did I hear that before?

      • #3193797

        Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        by rmiller ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        Whenever people have their choices trumped, there is resentment. Microsoft through its market, legal, and political machinations has destroyed every other reasonable choice. Why would Microsoft concentrate on destroying competitors rather than just competing on merit? It is because Microsoft fears that if people can chose they will not chose Microsoft. If the government enforced the anti-trust laws that were created exactly to control predatory companies like Microsoft, there would be far more choices in the market place. Diversity in any system is an important measure of health and efficiency. Weak minded people find diversity threatening and difficult.

        Many people love a winner. They will always side with the overdog. For these people Microsoft was a pitifully obvious choice and Microsoft’s victory makes them feel like winners. Weak people always ally with a bully for strength.

        What can I say, Windows is ugly, uninspired, engineered for the lowest common denominator, bloated, inefficient, confused, and bug ridden. There should be a law that MS can add no new features until it debugs those it already has.

      • #3193776

        The REAL reason….

        by ponderworks ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        A little story from a 25+ year veteran….

        Once upon a time, OSs were beyond questioning. Companies that manufactured OSs were shocked, embarrassed, and highly responsive if ever any potential bug showed up. You could almost “bet your life” on the OS. I personally had an experience where a colleague and I found a security problem with an IBM operating system. We documented it and sent it to them expecting nothing. Within 30 days, we were contacted, the bug acknowledged, and shortly thereafter a new release contained a fix (and then some).

        So it is when you are not the “only game in town”. Personally, it is not Windows that fries me and a lot of other people. It is the way Microsoft uses their hegemony and business practices to make sure NO ONE and I mean NO ONE has a chance to compete fairly against them. I’m happy to use Windows when I am not forcibly made to use it because no other company dares to try to compete. The fact is, competition is good. Monopoly is generally (but not always) bad.

        That’s my 2 cents.

      • #3186521

        And the Non Techies do what?

        by greg talbott ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        So the system slows down, errors start to occur to a maddening point until the system becomes basically a large paperweight in the course of a year.
        Are we expected to blame ourselves? Are we supposed to blame the hardware?
        What once worked great doesn’t work at all and the software vendor applies “patches” on a monthly basis to “fix” these problems and they don’t work.
        I NEVER had a DOS system crash even when I attempted to sabotage it. It just plain flat out said I could not do an illegal operation and back to the default command prompt.
        See my point here?

      • #3185821

        Because I do not work on MS operating system

        by al.nelson ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        I was primary on an IBM iSeries. We do not have the problems and issues that MicroSoft Systems have. Our applications run and do not touch the operating system. I can not remember when the last time the system went down other than planed maintenance. The hardware and software preform excellant and are extremely reliable. None of the do I need this or that, it’s all build in.

      • #3185909

        Has anyone ever thought about this

        by renaissance2000 ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        Microsoft gets bashed so often because its the biggest kid on the block. The only people they should blame is themselves. When MS started people wanted a system that could do everything except Security. No one ever thought that that was essential, what MS did is produced a product that everyone wanted and marketed as such based on the demand. When the internet and different programming predators took off then and then only did security become an issue. MS is trying to keep up but so are the makers of other OSs. Think about it the consumers are the ones who requested it. Its like if you vote for a candidate and he/she ends up screwing everbody remember you voted for them.

        • #3182308

          Yes and MS is to blame

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Has anyone ever thought about this

          As they have been advertising, for several years, about how secure and how great the security in their latest versions of Windwos are. MS put the emphasis on security around 1997/98 and have been pushing it since. yet they continue to fail to deliver on their promises – and that is what is getting people pissed off.

          Tell them you are selling crap at bottom prices and no one complains – tell them you want near top dollar for quality and deliver and no one complains – ask for near top dollar for crap that does not meet the promises and everyone bitches.

          The best MS Windows every procuded MS DOS with Win 3.x with the 32 bit upgrade, followed by Win 98SE – both were stable and were sold as basic systems and can still do what 90% of the clients want.

        • #3182140
          Avatar photo

          Also MS actively discourages competition

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Yes and MS is to blame

          Today I loaded a version of Linux by Corel before MS brought into that company and at a AGM insisted that they drop their Open Source projects. Now I had heard stories about just how bad this version or Linux was so while I did have an ISO I never actually got around to burning off a copy.

          Then one day when I had nothing better to do I made a boot CD and today I’ve installed it on a 200 MMX with 64 MEG of RAM an unknown Video & Sound Cards and it worked perfectly. Total install time involved was 45 minutes and the only question I was asked was to provide a user name & Password. It installed even easier than Windows does.

          Now this is a Debian Base product and I can see exactly why MS was so scared of it hitting the streets, it is more user friendly than MS on the install, it has a cleaner user interface and generally leaves Windows for dead. It is a base model or flavor of Linux and to be sure is no heavyweight in the Nix stakes but for a desktop it leaves Windows for dead and if it was to ever have been released as a direct competition to Windows I’m sure that it would have made the Accountants eyes at MS smart quite a lot.

          This is the first flavor of Linux that I’ve ever seen that is a direct threat to Windows so I can now see why MS was so intent on destroying it and where willing to spend so much money in the process.

          Now I’m going to make install copies of Corel Paint 9 and Word Perfect 9 that have been ported for Linux and go about installing them just to have a play but the Open Office version that came with the Corel Linux is quite capable of reading any MS file that has been created I’ve opened word documents from the earliest version of word that was available to the latest from 2003 Office Pro all with out a single error creeping in and that goes for all the other applications that come with Open Office which is to be expected. I’m just wondering how the Corel Flagship products will run when ported to Linux it should prove interesting. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3182118

          corel linux..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Also MS actively discourages competition

          photopaint 9 for linux won’t run on a kernel newer than 2.4
          I would assume the same for corel office 9.

          the major issue the linux community had with corl linux was that it is actually an extremely bloated version of linux, the kernel and system software resource requirements are huge.

          corel uses the fonttastic 2000 font server, rather then the standard xfs.
          the “port” of thier products uses wine, it doesn’t run natively in linux.

          reguardless of that, I actually like and was impressed with corel’s photopaint for linux.
          it actually looks better in linux than in windows.
          ( I have compared )
          the colour dithering in linux gives corel’s products a much better look.

        • #3182117
          Avatar photo

          Well I’m not doubting that it is no Debian

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to corel linux..

          But for ease of use it leaves even Windows for dead. This was thrown at a 200 MMX with 64 MEG of Ram and a 1.2 GIG HDD and was so easy to install just alter the boot process in BIOS as the M’Board is that old and put the CD in the drive and walk away.

          This one is defiantly aimed at the desktop though and is very much a light weigh one but it is so easy to install and use that it makes Windows XP look hard. :^O

          I could load this on my mothers computer and not have a worry that she could use the inbuilt applications no matter just how really bad the OS actually is. For ease of install and User Friendliness it just leaves everything in the shade. As this is an old ISO copy I’m betting it is the old kernel as I haven’t even looked yet it’s just sort of sitting off to one side while I do other work and I play with it when the Windows Boxes don’t require my attention.

          Lousy set of Screen Savers and pretty much very little added in to the basic install in what I would be expecting for a proper Nix install but the Splash Screen on install & boot up look nice and would make it an easy choice for many non technical people out there. I know it’s more “Eye Candy” that is really necessary but it is a great entry level Nix with no network or other driver problems that I’ve yet noticed.

          About the only thing is that the monitor is way too small and the defaults set way to high to easily read but if that is the biggest problem things will be easy. 😀

          Of course the down side is that you are logging in as Root and user profiles are nonexistent but it configures the Networking protocols and everything without an ounce of problems unlike the much more powerful Big Brother Debian. Really if this had of been developed it would have been a Windows killer as it is even easier to use than Windows itself.

          Col ]:)

      • #3182055

        in reference to the admiral’s comment at the top of the thread

        by simplyshaman ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        admiral.. while it’s true that microsoft products are very hackable. think of it like this, is it that it’s hackable.. or is it that because microsoft does NOT share it’s source code like unix and the linux projects, that hackers want the challenge of hacking something that’s not easily hackable in the sense of given source code. you gotta think with the mind of a hacker in this industry. (why go for the easy hack when i can go for the challenge?)

      • #3132193

        Death to hackers

        by popsprice ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        We all live in fear of criminals. We put locks and alarms on our houses and cars. Some even buy guns for protection. The rich can afford high fences and armed guards. Now if we captured and punished hackers for the cost of their crimes to us we would not need to worry so much about the vulnerability of our computer OS.

      • #3130982

        Get over yourselves

        by dreis ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        OK, I do not normally replay to blogs. But I am tired of hearing about how terrible Windows is.

        I am facinated by it. Sure Apple my work better, but it is a propritory operating system for a propritory system. Meaning it only works on Apple Computers. Well hell, if that the kind of system you want, go back to NT!

        You take a Windows disc, put it on almost any computer, Dell, HP, Compac, etc, and you at least have a half way operating system, think on how many configurations there are.

        Can Apple do that? I don’t think so.

        In a way, Windows had made it so you DO have time to complain, instead of looking for drivers that will work.

        So think about what Windows is trying to accomplish, and have a little respect for the magnitude of what it does!

        OK, I’ve vented and I feel better.
        thank you for your time.

      • #3130823

        Everybody ready? The real reason so many techies bash Microsoft is:

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        M$ $uck$ big, juicy
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        Kiwis!

        The real reason is twofold, both related to popularity.

        First and obviously, there are more copies of Microsoft.

        Second and hopefully less obviously, since Windows is the de facto standard, computing environments of beginners are mostly OEM computers with Windows, and techies get a barrage of calls from people who don’t know how to tie their own shoes. Windows is used by many people who have no business using ANY computer. Other OSes are more specialized, thus used by fewer idiots who stumble across every idiosyncrasy in their ineptitude.

    • #3188798

      Experience drives a lot of the comments

      by stress junkie ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I looked at your TR profile. From what I can gather you have been working in the field about six years and you have only worked with M$ products. You have no background to support the kinds of statements that you are making regarding all operating systems. Statements like “You don’t ever bash the OS…” don’t make any sense.

      I would recommend that you spend a few hours every week reading the following web site:

      http://secunia.com/product/
      http://secunia.com/advisories/

      Most of the people who “bash” M$ products will readily admit that their favorite OS is not perfect. People are mostly angry about the lack of interest that M$ has consistently displayed over the years toward product quality. Most other OS products enjoy a higher dedication to quality from their creators than the M$ products experience. When other OS vendors find a problem they fix it once and it stays fixed. That is not true of M$ products.

      Look up products on the Secunia web site such as Sun Microsystems’ Solaris/Sun OS and IBM AIX. Compare those products to any M$ product. There is an obvious quality gap between M$ and almost everyone else. Look at the most recent problems with M$. Windows Color Management Module Buffer Overflow. Word Font Parsing Buffer Overflow. These are completely idiotic. Consider the fact that Windows REQUIRES the Remote Procedure Call service to be enabled, even on computers that aren’t connected to a network. This is idiotic. Consider that all interprocess communications in Windows goes into a global buffer readable by all processes. That is a privilege separation problem. It’s been a “feature” of Windows since version 1. You don’t see that kind of problem on ANY other multiuser, multitasking OS. There are a lot of fundamental design problems in Windows that don’t exist in any other operating system.

      And now you know the rest of the story.

      LSMFT

      • #3188735

        Profile schmofile…

        by Anonymous ·

        In reply to Experience drives a lot of the comments

        I don’t include everything in my profile. Yes officially I have been in IT since around 1999. Out side of that however I have been running around the IT scene for since 1989. Up until 1999 I considered what I was learning nothing more than a hobbie. Anyway, I have not soley worked with MS products, I also work currently with the Mac OS from 7.6 upwards and Linux.

        What I am also trying to say is that while MS product “features” always get the limelight there are other OS’ that also have problems as well. Yes they might be patched up quick, like Linux, because some of the other products, like Linux, are open source meaning anyone can make the fix provided it works without errors afterwards and release it. Yes MS are not releasing patches when they should, like the fact that until recently anyone using the Windows Firewall on dial-up was not actually protected at all. Yes MS are slow to remove any faults or security risks in their OS, yes until the release of Windows x64 there were hundreds of buffer overflow exploits that allowed many a virus writer to bring a system down.

        The thing I a trying to point out is that in the end, it’s not the OS maker but the user that causes the system to crash. I can give a customer a brand new PC and when I check up on it one month on after they bought it, they usually have problems, all associated with either software or hardware they installed after they bought the machine. Most users don’t stop and think before they install any software or hardware. They just go ahead and do it. That’s when the OS crashes, that’s when the system has problems. You can’t sit there and bash an OS if it doesn’t work the way you want. Dump it and run wit another OS instead. One better suited to what your needs are. Don’t complain about it.

        Yes you can say there are a lot of fundamental problems in Windows, but I bet there are fundamental problems in the Mac OS, Linux, Unix, Sun OS and the myriad of other OS’ out there. They just don’t get the limelight because as unfortunate as it is, more than half the world’s IT runs on Windows. If everyone ran open source I’m sure we wouldn’t have half the OS crashes, security risks and so on that we have now.

        🙂

        • #3190015

          Fair enough regarding your TR profile

          by stress junkie ·

          In reply to Profile schmofile…

          All right then. I reached the wrong conclusions about the scope of your experience when I read your profile.

          On another topic I was concerned that the tone of my post would be interpreted as being hostile. I wasn’t clever enough to put in a note like the one in your last post “end of rant…”. That was a good idea. I wish that I had thought of that when I wrote my post.

          Regarding the topic at hand I don’t know what more I can say. I summarized the case against M$ pretty well in my last post. Anyone is free to believe the assertions or not believe them. Those of us that are vigorously against M$ products believe that there is an essential difference between the way M$ products are designed and implemented versus products from other vendors. We believe that the attitude behind the design and implementation of M$ products is lacking in attention to security issues. Some of us are also upset that M$ requires product registration in order to get their recent products to work at all. Other issues include the problems around reinstalling and reregistering a recent M$ OS on the same machine and M$ products collecting computer usage information.

          As you said in your last post, no malice intended.

          LSMFT

        • #3189978
          Avatar photo

          Well in that case perhaps you would like to explain

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Profile schmofile…

          To me how this happened. I know I’m not great Windows Fanatic but I do believe that it should retain a semblance of some sort of stability.

          On a clean install of XP Pro SP2 just fully patched and all the software loaded under 48 hours ago I checked my e-mail then went out for a job, 6 hours latter I got a message that Outlook was not my default E-Mail client and did I wish to allow this. Now in the intervening time no one has touched the unit and for some reason Windows changed the parameters that it was prepared to work under.

          Now every bit of software on this workstation is work related not a single game of any sort not even the ones that come packaged with XP it’s just a plain but powerful workstation with no frills to make it nicer to look at. The thing is full y loaded with the most powerful CPU’s that the M’Board can support has as much RAM as the M’Board will support has every PCI slot filled with work related devices and the only thing that I can add more of are SCSI HDD’s. Currently I only have 16 internal ones installed.

          Now this unit isn’t directly connected to the Internet buy runs through a Linux Gateway which is quite well locked down and then in front of that is a Router which has the latest Updates installed so by all accounts it should be safe but it still changes a basic OS function.

          I’ll not go into the reason for the reload as it is still a painful unnecessary experience that I’m just now beginning to recover from.

          But really my biggest gripe with M$ is their business practices like here I use Volume License stuff from M$ and when I applied SP1 I had to change the Product Key and then when SP2 was installed the next time that I logged onto M$ Web Site to download something I was informed that I didn’t have a “Real” version of Windows even though I know that the place that I buy this stuff from is one of 3 AU M$ Volume License suppliers and it is perfectly legal.

          Now I’m lucky here as I only have 20 odd Windows Boxes that I have to change but some of my customers have a lot more and it takes a lot of time and money to change the product keys so that these units remain “Legal” according to M$. One client paid for 11 of us to work one Easter to just change all the Product Keys over on 2,500 workstations so they could push out SP1. We did manage to finish the job in under the 4 days but only just and I’ll leave you to guess who paid for the privilege to be able to install SP1 but I’ll give you a clue it wasn’t Microsoft!

          Part of the reason that I’m now using Linux Servers exclusively is the fact that the Licensing with the M$ Server products is a mess you pay through the nose for a product and then have to pay additional license fees for the excess units that are not supported by the already expensive product that you have just brought. Sure over here it is only $80.00 AU per additional License but that does add up when you are talking about 100 additional Licenses that is only $8,000.00 AU that is required.

          Then once a month we are in a mad rush to test the latest M$ patches before rolling them out knowing all the time that the longer we delay in testing and making sure that nothing gets broken by the latest “Fix” the more vulnerable the system is. So like previously when we could test one patch at a time as they became available we are now rushing through tests just to get the systems as secure as possible and then fixing the broken things after-wards. In this place we call it the MS Monthly Blues, or The Wrong Time of the Month.

          When I started working with computers they where Main Frames and most of the time I was sitting around watching the system working and not spending all my time constantly patching or testing patches and then running around fixing broken Apps or hardware. It then just didn’t happen. We also didn’t have any intrusions either and it honestly was not such a big problem we only had to worry about foreign governments trying to hack our system, now it appears that every Boy & his Dog are at it and we are now working so much harder to keep the systems secure and if there are Windows Servers involved on the wrong side of the DMZ it is only that much harder.

          I actually see Windows as an easy alternative that requires nothing more than a hungry monkey to be able to use but along with that ease of use come security nightmares which really have not been addressed by M$ “Trusted Computing” they are just hidden better.

          Someone used this in another discussion which I just loved {Throw a rock at a Window and it breaks! Throw a rock at a Penguin and it gets mad and attacks you!” or at least it went something like that. 😀

          I’ll add it too “Rant finished No malice intended!” 🙂

          Col ]:)

        • #3189700

          What he said

          by markand ·

          In reply to Well in that case perhaps you would like to explain

          I second HAL9000 comments. I don’t run nearly as big a shop as HAL9000 does, but I agree with 98% of what he says, and I’ll comp him the other 2%.

          Even in a prefect world of new hardware and clean installations, it take about 10% of my time to monitor and patch Microsoft Windows and Office products. This does not include the Microsoft Antispyware beta and a host of other product, like Symantec Antivirus, Ad-Aware and SpyBot.

          By contrast our hardware is very reliable. In a 70 PC, 9 server shop, I lose 1 or 2 machines a year because a hard disk fails. Those machines vary between 3 and 10 years old. That’s not a bad loss considering the age of the machines.

          So, conservatively, I spend 4 hours a week or 200+ hours a year on basic maintenance only. That is a lot of time, and time is money. I haven’t penciled out the cost of replacing those machines with newer gear, or some magic machine that doesn’t need to be patched as much. Unfortunately, I doubt I’d save enough money to justify replacing Windows boxes with machines that need to be patched less; any model I create would have to include the cost of other lost staff time.

          Another issue is that my employer is in a very vertical market – behavioral health. There is exactly ONE vendor with a software package that meets most of our needs and generates billing files in a very specific format. That package runs on Windows, so that is that (and anybody who suggests writing code for another platform will quickly discover the end of my patience).

          Mainframe and minicomputers had their very real problems, mostly cost. Fundamental reliability was not one of those problems. It just goes to show that you get what you pay for.

        • #3176053

          That is That

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to What he said

          “There is exactly ONE vendor with a software package that meets most of our needs and generates billing files in a very specific format. That package runs on Windows, so that is that …”

          I think Markand has backed into the reason for the bashing. Most MS bashers have never had the dubious pleasure (or taken the opportunity) to go up to the executive suite and replace the Admin to the CEO’s PC with a linux box over lunch, and then take the rest of the afternoon off. They would finally get to hear some real heartfelt (and colorful!!) linux bashing, and realize just how silly the MS basing generally sounds.

          I got seriously burned out on the MS bashing when I worked for a guy who programmed in C for a SCO Unix OS 3 system, using vi. His stock answer for any other OS, any other editor, any other anything was “Why would you want to do that?” which roughly translated into english was “I don’t want to change.” No one outside the IT department of most firms wants to migrate away from MS Windows (or MAC OS or whatever gets the job done).

          I have a couple of linux projects on the back burner here, but none of them will replace frontline MS Windows installs.

        • #3195966
          Avatar photo

          Or maybe it could be

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to That is That

          That the techs are sick and tied of caring the Can for M$ products as we are the ones who get the blame where some computer illiterate CEO, CIO or whoever messes things up and we have to fix them.

          Have you ever noticed that these people are the last to admit that they did anything wrong but expect us to have it fixed in 1 nanosecond as it only took them 3 minutes to totally hose out the OS?

          Tomorrow I’m going down to a business to program up an I-Pod so that the CEO can play tunes while he is overseas with his Acer Note Book holding all the music. Of course he has messed up the entire installation and there are over 3K of files that he wants transfered into the I Tunes Program all of which he has already moved in there and are not recognized.

          As I constantly work with this technology 😀 I really don’t have a clue as I’ve never actually touched any of it anywhere at all so that should be a day well spent but it has to be done tomorrow so he can have his play toys on his overseas trip the next day. 🙁

          They constantly leave it to the last minute and then expect miracle’s performed particularly on equipment that they don’t allow in the office environment but expect you to know inside out. 😉

          Col ]:)

        • #3195885

          iPod

          by treadmill ·

          In reply to Or maybe it could be

          Got a simple solution for that. Don’t support a product that’s not officially supported by the company and certainly not MP3 music!

          If I was in your shoes I’d refuse to fix his/her sodding laptop!

        • #3195848

          Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          by mike.morris ·

          In reply to Or maybe it could be

          Got a simple solution for that. Don’t support a product that’s not officially supported by the company and certainly not MP3 music!

          If I was in your shoes I’d refuse to fix his/her sodding laptop!

          Posted by: kevin@… Date: 07/21/05

          That’s a brilliant statement… “No CEO, I will not help you”… “Col, You’re FIRED”…

          Nice advise…

        • #3186387

          Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          by stuart_at_oz ·

          In reply to Or maybe it could be

          he he he! Our ‘previous’ CIO (ie head of IT – who couldn’t even change the resolution herself)got a talking to from the CEO (el-head honcho) for letting her SON install software and surf the internet on her laptop…

          After the third time we had to clean it of unauthorised software, spyware and viruses we complained to our IT security people, and they had a word in the CEO’s ear. We did a complete wipe and started again on it (something she would never have agreed to otherwise) and locked her userid down to a basic local user (something else she never would have agreed to!)

          HOpe it went well for you 🙂

        • #3194042

          This is the problem…

          by keyguy13 ·

          In reply to That is That

          I’m sorry, but that’s crazy. I believe your translator is broken. Because I’m quite sure he was asking “Why would you want to do that?”, not because he didn’t want to change, but because changing to windows from Unix would be stupid.

          And I think it’s the Admin to your CEo that is afraid of change more than your IT guy. That’s just dumb.

          If the Admin to your CEO got used to using Linux, he’d never go back to Windows.

          There are numerous reasons why linux is actually a better OS choice than windows. But my main reason is reliability.

          I have two Linux boxes set up here where I work. One is a red hat 9 box and the other is a Mandrake 10 box. They have both been up and running for 187 days with no signs of quitting.

          I have several windows 2003 servers that won’t even go 14 days without needing a reboot because of memory leaks and other inherant flaws in the OS.

          The idiot that said “you can’t blame the OS” is obviously a serious rookie.

          Spyware, Malware, Viruses, they all mess up Windows machines because Windows was written poorly and is a crappy OS. Period.

          I don’t get spyware on my linux boxes, nor do i get any trojans or other problems, because Linux is a relatively secure OS. Windows is not. And I seriously doubt it ever will be, because Bill Gates makes money off of software products that he sells to get rid of the stuff. Why would he just make his OS work properly when he can make more money leaving it the way it is? And since most people are either too stupid or too lazy to learn a different OS, Microsoft has dominated.

          Those of us that expect more from our OS can certainly blame Microsoft for it’s deliberate shortcomings and we won’t stop bashing M$ until they provide an OS that is up to our standards.

        • #3194015

          Sounds to me like an admin flaw

          by dvawter ·

          In reply to This is the problem…

          If the Admin got used to using linux he/she would be about ready to retire. Linux is not as easy to learn as microsoft, I am sorry plain fact. Yes it has flaws, yes it’s less stable, but you have been doing IT so long, you have forgotten how frustrating trying to learn a computer can be. Linux is not polished, it’s not intuitive, it seems to be to you, because you are used to it. Users are like sheep, they say “oooh the pretty colors” and it’s a done deal. Linux will need 2 things to replace windows on coperate desktops.

          1) More cosmetic polish as to appeal more to the non computer user.

          2) Support, Support, Support. Small companies that cannot afford IT staff are going to want to be able to call Red Hat to find out how to restart thier PC.

          Since most employees enter the workforce via small companies, they get trained on Windows first. To use an analogy, Stick shift is way better than Automatic. Anyone who drives a stick will tell you this. Better Gas Mileage, more control. How many drivers that drive automatic exclusivly are willing to learn stick?

          You are not going to get the support, or the cosmetic polish is not going to come without a corperation driving the development, and if that happens, it’s not open source anymore.

          If you can’t keep your 2003 box up more than 14 days, you have no business administrating one. I have a production install of small business server that runs for 2 and 3 months at a time, and only needs to be reboot due to updates.

          No one gets spyware on their linux boxes:

          A) Because people running linux are smart enough not to click “Yes” on any box that appears.

          B) Because Windows having over half a market share, so noone is writing spyware for linux.

        • #3193844

          In Response

          by dvawter ·

          In reply to This is the problem…

          “I can’t believe you think so little of your users, that you don’t believe they could ever use linux. Typical arrogant geek.”

          I am not arrogant, I am just aware of my strengths and weaknesses, I can’t Dance, I suck at Karaoke, and I don’t have a creative bone in my body. But I have been working in the IT industry for over 15 years now. I am good at what I do, and my users have wonderfull people skills, and are good at thier jobs. They know how to user thier PC’s to the extent to get thier job done. They do not know how to configure profiles, or modify text files to configure thier system, and I don’t expec them to know that.

          “a linux solution would be JUST as easy to use as windows.”

          No it’s not. Having learned both from scratch very early in the developement of both operating systems, I can state that with certainty. Linux REQUIRES a much better understanding of the over all Operating system than Windows does.

          “Plus it would be more configurable to the users tastes”

          If the user knows how to modify config files. Linux is clunky in it’s configuration at best, it does not have the polished look and feel, and the context menus have a long way to go.

          “looks better (and yes some of the x-windows packages look WAY better than XP)”

          One word ****OPINION****

          “and won’t frustrate the user by crashing all of the time.”

          My users spend more time being frustrated because they can’t figure out how to make the PC do what they want, rather than being frustrted by crashes. My XP desktops run very solid, and very stable. The majority of my help calls are of the How-to nature.

          “It won’t slow down, because it won’t have viruses and spyware.”

          A good firewall, and good virus software pretty much solves this problem maybe you should learn to configure one.

          “I can’t think of ANY reason to go with Windows vs. Linux on the desktop if it is the user’s first experience with a computer.”

          Hmm do the words Industry Standard mean anything to you? Or, do you prefer to set your users up for major frustration if they leave your company, your own form of golden handcuffs I guess.

          “You claim it’s easier to learn Windows than Linux, but that is because YOU’RE used to windows, probably because it was YOUR first OS.”

          Nice ASSUMPTION, but false, my First OS was Apple way back in 1981. Actually did some programming in Apple Basic, then a few years later moved to DOS. And on up the Chain from there.

          “The fact is, Linux is FAR superior as a desktop solution”

          Again with the Opinions.

          “and costs so much less that I can’t even believe we’re comparing. And don’t quote me the bullsh*t statistics that microsoft put out there about total cost of ownership. Because anyone in this industry knows that is total crap. And if Linux weren’t an open source development but instead was owned by a company, they would have sued microsoft for liable over it.”

          First cost of ownership is a factor, I am not going to quote any statistics, but I will simply say, it is impossible for a small organization to run a Linux network without either hireing an IT staff, or outsourcing thier IT needs, this is simply not true in a microsoft Environment.

          Second you can’t sue for liable for statistics, if you look closely I am sure you will find the fine print describing the condistions that the statistics were gathered, and will probably be forced to accept them as fact.

          “Wake up and smell yourselves. Linux kicks M$’s a$$ every time. No comparison.”

          Once again your Opinion.

          “And your transmission analogy doesn’t work in your favor.

          You are making a comparison of stick shift (supposedly Linux), to automatic (supposedly windows). You said stick shift is better. Like that is a fact. Not hardly. I own a stick shift and I would switch to an automatic in a heartbeat.”

          Then why haven’t you?

          “The difference in gas mileage is so minute as to not even be noticed”

          A full 3 miles to the gallon average is minute?
          The average annual mileage of a car in america is about 12000 miles. If your car gets 20 miles to the gallon, at roughly $2.00 a gallon for gas your annual expense is $1,200, a mere 3 miles to the gallon saves you about $150 a year. (annual gas cost at 23 miles to a galon is $1,043) Add to that the Manual transmision is ligher, more durable, and will likely outlast the engine, this cannot be said for an automatic.

          “and it’s a pain in the a$$ to be shifting all the time (especially when I’m trying to eat)”

          Eating while driving is a leading cause of distracted driving related accidents, I would recomend against eating and Driving.

          “But I wouldn’t switch if it didn’t work or failed a large percentage of the time. Hell no I wouldn’t. And that is what Windows is: an automatic transmission that doesn’t work properly most of the time.

          Where do you get Most of the time. Even with the “fabled” frequent crashes. I still couldn’t justify calling it most of the time. Lets say your XP box crashes twice a day (unrealistic, but for the sake of argument) and is down for 15 minutes each crash, it would stil only cost you a half hour from a full workday, subtracting out lunch, and 2 breaks, thats 20% downtime, unacceptable yes, but hardly most of the time. Take into consideration, that I don’t even experience one crash a week, You will find that you are actually in the 90% range for uptime, and that is certainly NOT most of the time.

          “When the automatic (windows) works like a real automatic (that is, doesn’t fail a large percentage of the time) then I would definitely switch. But as you can see the analogy doesn’t work.”

          See above and Switch.

          “And as for you having a windows 2003 server up for 3-6 months, show me your logs, cause that is crap. Having to reboot because of updates is still having to reboot.”

          I believe I said 2 and 3 months, but accuracy is obviously not important to you. Here ya go

          pay special attention to the 65 days on 10/22
          the 59 days on 12/21
          and the 42 days on 5/5

          obvioulsy not as good as Linux, but I would count System Availability: 99.3746% as acceptable. Also notice that current uptime is 21 days and counting.

          As a side note, notice the abnormal shutdowns, I still get an occasional forced reboot due to a power outage, or an application crash, I have left these in, because I an not trying to hide anything. Please note they occur less than once a month.

          10/22/2004 5:00:38 AM Shutdown Prior uptime:65d 18h:42m:7s
          10/22/2004 5:01:15 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:0m:37s
          10/23/2004 7:03:41 AM Shutdown Prior uptime:1d 2h:2m:26s
          10/23/2004 7:04:59 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:1m:18s
          12/21/2004 9:33:27 AM Shutdown Prior uptime:59d 3h:28m:28s
          12/21/2004 9:35:00 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:1m:33s
          12/23/2004 5:35:27 AM Abnormal Shutdown Prior uptime:1d 20h:0m:27s
          12/25/2004 6:43:07 PM Boot Prior downtime:2d 13h:7m:40s
          1/13/2005 11:49:33 AM Shutdown Prior uptime:18d 17h:6m:26s
          1/13/2005 11:50:59 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:1m:26s
          1/20/2005 11:45:00 AM Shutdown Prior uptime:6d 23h:54m:1s
          1/20/2005 11:46:22 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:1m:22s
          2/17/2005 11:27:42 AM Shutdown Prior uptime:27d 23h:41m:20s
          2/17/2005 11:28:57 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:1m:15s
          2/17/2005 11:28:57 AM Abnormal Shutdown
          2/17/2005 11:44:54 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:15m:57s
          2/22/2005 12:35:19 PM Shutdown Prior uptime:5d 0h:50m:25s
          2/22/2005 12:36:59 PM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:1m:40s
          2/24/2005 10:37:35 AM Shutdown Prior uptime:1d 22h:0m:36s
          2/24/2005 10:39:54 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:2m:19s
          2/24/2005 11:19:24 AM Shutdown Prior uptime:0d 0h:39m:30s
          2/24/2005 11:19:59 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:0m:35s
          3/17/2005 9:42:05 AM Shutdown Prior uptime:20d 22h:22m:6s
          3/17/2005 9:43:12 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:1m:7s
          3/21/2005 10:18:58 AM Shutdown Prior uptime:4d 0h:35m:46s
          3/21/2005 10:21:22 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:2m:24s
          3/21/2005 10:33:25 AM Shutdown Prior uptime:0d 0h:12m:3s
          3/21/2005 10:35:22 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:1m:57s
          3/24/2005 9:54:44 AM Shutdown Prior uptime:2d 23h:19m:22s
          3/24/2005 9:56:50 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:2m:6s
          5/5/2005 3:42:09 PM Shutdown Prior uptime:42d 4h:45m:19s
          5/5/2005 6:35:22 PM Boot Prior downtime:0d 2h:53m:13s
          5/20/2005 11:01:35 AM Shutdown Prior uptime:14d 16h:26m:13s
          5/20/2005 11:03:45 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:2m:10s
          6/9/2005 2:08:25 PM Shutdown Prior uptime:20d 3h:4m:40s
          6/9/2005 2:10:38 PM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:2m:13s
          6/16/2005 10:50:40 AM Shutdown Prior uptime:6d 20h:40m:2s
          6/16/2005 10:52:54 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:2m:14s
          6/30/2005 10:02:14 AM Shutdown Prior uptime:13d 23h:9m:20s
          6/30/2005 10:04:11 AM Boot Prior downtime:0d 0h:1m:57s

          Current System Uptime: 21 day(s), 3 hour(s), 50 minute(s), 55 second(s)

          ——————————————————————————–

          Since 4/27/2004:

          System Availability: 99.3746%
          Total Uptime: 447d 8h:3m:58s
          Total Downtime: 2d 19h:34m:1s
          Total Reboots: 34
          Mean Time Between Reboots: 13.24 days
          Total Bluescreens: 0
          Total Application Failures: 0

          C:\>

          “And I administer our servers just fine, and have the confidence of everyone I work with.”

          I am sure you do, and you have more than demostrated your knowledge and attention to detail here.

          “And they all like the linux servers and the linux desktops far more than windows. because they’ve been shown that it saves their departments money, is more reliable and less prone to attack. And they aren’t too stupid or scared to learn a better way to do things.”

          You are obvioulsy very convincing, maybe you should consider a career in sales.

          David

        • #3189039

          Weird, dude!

          by ungle ·

          In reply to This is the problem…

          Switching from Unix to Windows….that would very much depend on the job you are doing – right tools for the job. Using vi as an editor…THAT’S whats stupid!

          “”you can’t blame the OS” is obviously a serious rookie” Anyone who can’t keep a windows server up for more than 14 days probably should not accuse others of being rookies.

          In my experience, including one company with 15,000 Windows desktops, 5,000 Windows servers, 1400 Linux servers and I don’t know how many Sun boxes, 99.9% of all problems on all OS platforms are caused by the software installed on top of the OS, not the OS itself. On Windows, because it dominates the desktop, that means usually caused by the user.

          Beleive me, if Linux had the market share that Windows enjoys, you’d get all the spyware, trojans and other problems on them. Just think, if I was a spyware writer, would I write spyware for 5% of the global machines, most of which are run by computer enthusiasts, or would I write it for the 90% of global machines run by my mother in law who will click “OK” to anything? Not much of a choice!

          Linux as a desktop OS plain sux. As a web server…wouldn’t touch anything else!

        • #3194547

          Dear ungle,

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to This is the problem…

          I’m afraid you’re going to have to elaborate a little bit on your wild assertions.

          1. What’s so stupid about using vi?

          2. Why do you think that greater adoption of Linux systems would cause clicking OK to suddenly become more dangerous for Linux than it already is, when strict privilege separation on Linux systems prevents clicking OK from having the same system-wide implications it has on a Windows system?

          3. What possible reason could you have for thinking Linux on the desktop is so stupid, while the city government of Munich (for instance) has the opposite opinion?

          I notice you haven’t satisfactorily explained any of the above.

        • #3194507

          Why oh why…

          by ungle ·

          In reply to This is the problem…

          Vi is stupid because of one word: Emacs. And that would be the beginnning.

          Yes, I’ve been force to build websites with vi, and even now if I want to edit my personal site directly on the server I’m forced to use vi. But I wouldn’t use Notepad on Windows, why would I want to use Vi on Linux? I got into IT because I was excited about the advances in technology, not because I wanted to stop them!

          The comment “Why do you think that greater adoption of Linux systems would cause clicking OK to suddenly become more dangerous for Linux than it already is, when strict privilege separation on Linux systems prevents clicking OK from having the same system-wide implications it has on a Windows system” is naive at best: If people log onto Linux as root, they do indeed have the system wide acces exactly as it is under Windows. I’m all for controling user rights under Windows, but I was refering to my grandma getting a PC and installing Linux on it herself. She’d use root as her default UID. Take a look at Lindows. Install it, and unless you go to the trouble of searching out how to create a new UID you’ll have root privileges. Dude, you sound like you ran from Windows at the Win 98 stage. At that point I would agree 100%, which is why I set IT policy at my company to absolutely ban Win 95,98,ME on the network. Again, using Win 95,98,ME is…dare I say it? STUPID.

          Finally, one body’s adoption of a platform does not end the arguments on it’s operability…or this discussion thread would not exist. I’ve used Linux as a desktop OS, I’ve use Open Office (I even installed it on a Windows machine. I uninstalled it about a week later). I’m not saying this out of ignorance, Linux has a long way to go to compete with Windows on the desktop.

          I’ll say it again: The right tools for the job. Don’t discriminate just because you don’t like dorky looking billionaires with glasses!

        • #3195741

          This is hilarious.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to This is the problem…

          Talk about your useless religious war. You think vi is stupid because of Emacs? Holy crap.

          Okay. I prefer vi over Emacs. Yes, I’m in that camp. I’ll give you one of the standard holy war responses, since you’re clearly in the other camp:

          Why would I want Emacs? I already have an OS.

          Either vi or Emacs is a more productivity-enhancing application than MS Word could ever be, at least for anything where .doc or .rtf formats aren’t necessary. The interface allows the skilled operator to navigate through a document and edit it far more quickly than the point-and-click interface of every Windows app under the sun. Later initial development doesn’t necessarily mean better technology. For many uses, vi is far better than anything that runs on Windows (excpeting, of course, Windows ports of vi).

          Logging into Linux as root, by the way, doesn’t create the same security issues as logging into Windows as administrator. Just logging in doesn’t automatically make things start executing. Unlike in Windows, you have to actually choose to execute code in some way for it to execute, and you can’t execute some Word macro virus by double-clicking it when it’s disguised as an MP3 like you can in Windows. Aside from that, you don’t have to log in as root in Linux except to perform very specific administrative tasks, whereas in Windows you have to be logged in with administrator access to do common, everyday stuff, and worse yet you don’t have to be logged in as administrator in Windows for many types of malware to successfully escalate privileges so that it can execute with administrative privileges, regardless of what user account you’re using. Windows is more full of holes than Alpine Lace cheese.

          Lindows doesn’t exactly exist any longer. I have no idea whether Linspire (what Lindows became) defaults to having root-only account for the user, but if it does then it’s nearly as bad as Windows, and is exempt from much of some of what I’ve said about improved system security under Linux.

          The main Windows release I’ve used (and still have to use from time to time) is, by choice, Win2k Pro, SP2. This is for a number of reasons, including stability, security, and licensing. I’m forced by circumstance to use WinXP Pro from time to time, and I’m currently involved in a software development project that involves WS2k3 with MS SQL Server. I occasionally have to support clients running Windows 98 or NT 4.0 Workstation. I also have supported a current client of the consultancy that has a Win2k Server system. I also support a number of Windows XP Pro systems as clients on the consultancy’s own network. This is all in addition to what Linux systems I support and use, and the seventy-ish Linux servers in the Wikimedia datacenter. So, no, I’m not just talking about Windows 9x or ME.

          As for dorky looking billionaires with glasses, you might as well describe me as a dorky looking thousandaire with glasses, and would prefer to be a billionaire (though I tend to wear contacts). Prejudice on that score is not an issue.

        • #3195704

          OK, Truce…

          by ungle ·

          In reply to This is the problem…

          Summary:

          I like both operating systems, and believe they both have their place. I will continue to do so. I don’t believe they need be comapred because they are, IN MY OPINION, suited for a different market space (even though MS would like to topple Linux)

          I do not dislike Linux. I do not believe that it is suited, at this stage, to a desktop environment. I think Linux rules the roost in the Internet arena.

          I also believe that those who go after Windows are either using it in the wrong place, or are simply enjoying a witch hunt.

          Use the right tools for the job. Somtimes that means Windows.

        • #3195672

          re: vi / emacs

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to This is the problem…

          both suck!!
          both have antiquated ui and app logic.

          both seriously need to be rebuilt from the ground up.

          ( both are capable apps, but they were old when the dinosaurs went extinct )

        • #3195542

          re: truce

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to This is the problem…

          As you phrased it in that post, ungle, I don’t disagree with anything you said. I do end up spending a lot of time here looking like I’m just saying bad things about Windows, though, because I find myself debunking myths and blatant fibs related to how Windows is supposedly better than Linux, or how Linux strengths are somehow only related to things like relative unpopularity, both of which types of arguments are built on foundations of sand at best.

          Yes, both OS lines have their places, in terms of functionality. I don’t often see instances where Linux cannot do what Windows does, however, even if in some cases it doesn’t (yet) do it quite as efficiently, and the difference is generally slight enough that licensing issues usually prompt me to assign preference an order of magnitude greater for Linux than for Windows. Some people don’t care so much about licensing: I tend to view that perspective as limited and short-sighted, but there are those who disagree with me. Such is life.

          Ultimately, I’m of the opinion that Microsoft’s business model and software profit model are injurious to its customer base, to its industry, to the domestic economy, and to the state of affairs of my life in a number of ways. That makes up for a number of minor advantages Windows has over other OSes in generally very limited niches. As such, unless Windows is of critical importance, I avoid implementing it in my own IT operations. Customers, clients, and employers, however, get advice to the absolute best of my ability, and are informed of all consequences of potential decisions, and commonly enough my advice amounts to “Stick with Windows for now. To switch at this time would cost you more than it would save you.” More often than not, however, this is the case where the Windows systems are already in place: new systems, where my advice is asked, are usually accompanied by the suggestion that Linux would do the job better.

          Usually.

          I recommend the best tool for the job. Licensing is part of that. You do the math.

        • #3194039

          I Agree

          by dvawter ·

          In reply to That is That

          I think any IT person that does not recognize the value if windows (even with all of it’s flaws) is so burried in thier technology they have forgotten what it’s like to not understand a PC. Sure Linux is Great, and would be my first choice for most server applications. But if you spent 2 weeks at my job, and delt with the end users that I have, you would quikly realize that Windows is far supperior as a desktop product, simple because it is easier for non computer users to understand. I have people that can’t even recognize when their username is wrong, there is no way I am going to teach them to use a linux desktop.

          David

        • #3194031

          one word, look into it..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to I Agree

          Xandros

        • #3193927

          What resignation and arrogance…

          by keyguy13 ·

          In reply to I Agree

          I can’t believe you think so little of your users, that you don’t believe they could ever use linux. Typical arrogant geek. And if they are too ignorant (notice I said ignorant, not stupid) to know how to use windows then they don’t know computers at all, and a linux solution would be JUST as easy to use as windows. Plus it would be more configurable to the users tastes, looks better (and yes some of the x-windows packages look WAY better than XP) and won’t frustrate the user by crashing all of the time. It won’t slow down, because it won’t have viruses and spyware. I can’t think of ANY reason to go with Windows vs. Linux on the desktop if it is the user’s first experience with a computer.

          You claim it’s easier to learn Windows than Linux, but that is because YOU’RE used to windows, probably because it was YOUR first OS.

          The fact is, Linux is FAR superior as a desktop solution and costs so much less that I can’t even believe we’re comparing. And don’t quote me the bullsh*t statistics that microsoft put out there about total cost of ownership. Because anyone in this industry knows that is total crap. And if Linux weren’t an open source development but instead was owned by a company, they would have sued microsoft for liable over it.

          Wake up and smell yourselves. Linux kicks M$’s a$$ every time. No comparison.

          And your transmission analogy doesn’t work in your favor.

          You are making a comparison of stick shift (supposedly Linux), to automatic (supposedly windows). You said stick shift is better. Like that is a fact. Not hardly. I own a stick shift and I would switch to an automatic in a heartbeat.
          The difference in gas mileage is so minute as to not even be noticed and it’s a pain in the a$$ to be shifting all the time (especially when I’m trying to eat) But I wouldn’t switch if it didn’t work or failed a large percentage of the time. Hell no I wouldn’t. And that is what Windows is: an automatic transmission that doesn’t work properly most of the time.

          When the automatic (windows) works like a real automatic (that is, doesn’t fail a large percentage of the time) then I would definitely switch. But as you can see the analogy doesn’t work.

          And as for you having a windows 2003 server up for 3-6 months, show me your logs, cause that is crap. Having to reboot because of updates is still having to reboot. And I administer our servers just fine, and have the confidence of everyone I work with. And they all like the linux servers and the linux desktops far more than windows. because they’ve been shown that it saves their departments money, is more reliable and less prone to attack. And they aren’t too stupid or scared to learn a better way to do things.

        • #3193861

          Think of your mom!

          by myrdhrin ·

          In reply to I Agree

          I completely agree with that statement.

          more over… ever tried giving a PC to your mom? I did, with Linux onto it… all stable all nice! After 2 weeks I called her to see how she was enjoying the machine; to which she answered, I can’t get the thing to work! (not just before somebody says she might be stupid, she’s been playing with all the machines my Dad brought home).

          So I took the PC back and install XP with Office. Gave it back to her. Ok, I have to go there to clean it up and I usually get a quick call as “it’s not working” but at least SHE can use it because the OS is simple enough for a non-computer literate person.

          I understand I don’t have 900 PCs to support (I’d probably go crazy) but it does prove a point, no matter how stable, good, bulletproof a software (of in the case of this thread, an OS is) what matters to the USER is not how good it is but how quickly they can get to do what they want to do with it!

          Anyway… my 2cents

          Jean-Marc

        • #3195656

          myrdhrin ,

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to I Agree

          which distro did you use?
          some are ready for and designed for easy desktop use.

          my mom is a different case entirely, when I get stuck I call her, she spent years working in unix shops and knows unix so isn’t lost with an *x os.

        • #3079494

          Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          by pkr9 ·

          In reply to What he said

          “I haven’t penciled out the cost of replacing those machines with newer gear, or some magic machine that doesn’t need to be patched as much.”

          I did pencil out how much is cost to run a medium sized (100 pc’s 10 servers) Windows shop. I focussed on the desktops, and for one year we meticously registrated every single ‘incident’, what it was, what we did, how much tiome was used – both supporter time AND user time. My supporter spent 75% of her time fixing desktop related problems (95% MS OS or MS apps) and 10% fixing server issues.

          We decided to scrap all desktops execpt a few specialist machines, and replace them with thin clients and 2 Citrix servers. The payback was 6 months, and a much quieter environment both physically and mentally.

          Many apps will work under a Citrix environment, and it is really worth the initial work.

          Now we service 10 servers, we did a little consolidation in the server room, and 5 PC’s. Windows is ailing, but the desktop PC died years ago.

        • #3194052

          $$$$$$$

          by avid ·

          In reply to Well in that case perhaps you would like to explain

          i love the security flaws in M$ products. it is now and will always be a reliable income for me! 🙂 but seriously, we all know that bill is a hell of a business man. if his product work well and was easy to use for everyone, he would not be able to make so much money from forcing recertification on us every year with the excuse that so much has “changed” that our previous certs are no longer “sufficient” for the IT market. just a thought..

        • #3194047

          Sounds to me…

          by dvawter ·

          In reply to Well in that case perhaps you would like to explain

          Like you make a very good living off of Microsoft, I would be carefull bashing too much, if they make the software flawless you won’t need to Fix it anymore, and I think that will affect your bottom line 🙂

          David

        • #3194020
          Avatar photo

          I’m afraid not

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Sounds to me…

          I work on a commission basis and it doesn’t matter if I spend 1 hour or 600 hours per month at a clients I still get paid the same.

          But the point in issue isn’t my income but the way that I have to rush around when these business computers fall over.

          It’s the down time that is the killer as these places are “Mean & Lean” so they only have the bare minimum and when it fails it has to be fixed immediately as the down time is costing them money and lots of it.

          I would much rather be paid on a hourly basis and be able to do routine maintenance once a month rather than having to drop everything at a moments notice to save several 100 K for one company because one of their computers has failed.

          Lets face it I’m basically lazy and I do this because I love the work not for the money which I already have enough of anyway. If I wanted the money I would be back working for places like IBM as State Service Manager.

          Col ]:)

        • #3189032

          I’m puzzled…

          by ungle ·

          In reply to I’m afraid not

          …because you seem adamant about this horrible instability.

          Without wanting to be rude (honestly!), I can only assume you are doing something wrong.

          I would start looking at standardized builds and reduced user rights. Talk the companies you work for into it, it will reduce dramatically the overheads. Yes the users will scream initially, but what are their machines for? Work!

          Reduced user rights will also resolve the whole spyware issue for you. Remember, with only a few exceptions, the spyware the user downloads will run in the context of the current user. If that user has limited rights to the system, so does the spyware – it doesn’t matter if the users click “OK” it still can’t install itself.

        • #3194579

          Problems

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to I’m puzzled…

          1) Some apps require the user to have admin privs. This is a HUGE security issue

          2) Windows doesn’t have “user space.” User space is smudged together with kernel space and other user space. It just doesn’t make sense. It is far to easy to have and effect on EVERY PROFILE with a plain jane user.

          3) Malware typically doesn’t “install.” It over writes dlls or just executes (and not just in user space). Spyware is a HUGE issue and if this was the solution, we wouldn’t be having the problems we are having now.

        • #3194545

          one more thing

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I’m puzzled…

          In addition to what jmgarvin said, I only have this to add:

          I suppose you’ve never heard of things like ActiveX if you really think prohibiting administrator access to end users solves all those security problems.

        • #3194501

          Dearest children…

          by ungle ·

          In reply to I’m puzzled…

          jmgarvin, get OFF Win95,98,ME – which ever it is you are using – and get on to XP. That comment was born of ignorace. User profiles are separated and protected from another non-admin user from modifying them JUST as they are under Linux. A non-admin user CANNOT affect all other profiles on a machine as suggested. Besides, in an enterprise environment, the profiles are not held on the machine but on the profile server. If you have knowledge to the contrary I would LOVE to hear about it!

          apotheon, if you’d like to explain to me how ActiveX (COM to us developers) exposes greater danger, I’d be interested to hear. It’s just another shared library, a concept, although slightly different, used in Linux, Sun and MacOS as well. Did you hear about the latest zlib vunerabilities? They affected EVERY OS because they are installed as a shared library.

          I guess My initial reaction to this forum was correct: People fear what they don’t understand.

        • #3194468

          *sigh*

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to I’m puzzled…

          “jmgarvin, get OFF Win95,98,ME – which ever it is you are using – and get on to XP. That comment was born of ignorace. User profiles are separated and protected from another non-admin user from modifying them JUST as they are under Linux. A non-admin user CANNOT affect all other profiles on a machine as suggested. Besides, in an enterprise environment, the profiles are not held on the machine but on the profile server. If you have knowledge to the contrary I would LOVE to hear about it!”

          Ok here it goes. In Windows NT, 2k, and XP user profiles are seperate only marginally. The problem is this: User Space, Kernel Space, and Executive Space are not exclusive. Each can (and does) overlap the other. This means I can affect the entire computer, not just a specific user space. It also doesn’t help that IE is a huge security problem because it is built RIGHT INTO THE OS! I can take advantage of that and have an effect on all users equally (because IE is univeral).

          What you are thinking of is user accounts.While each account is “seperate,” the memory space that users fill over laps and can be taken advantage of. Sure, I can be authenticated via a domain, but locally user information is still stored, even if I don’t have local drive access.

          Take a look at the Windows Top 10 from Sans:
          http://www.sans.org/top20/

          “apotheon, if you’d like to explain to me how ActiveX (COM to us developers) exposes greater danger, I’d be interested to hear. It’s just another shared library, a concept, although slightly different, used in Linux, Sun and MacOS as well. Did you hear about the latest zlib vunerabilities? They affected EVERY OS because they are installed as a shared library.”

          ActiveX is a mess:
          http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA04-184A.html
          http://search.cert.org/query.html?rq=0&ht=0&qp=&qs=&qc=&pw=100%25&ws=1&la=&qm=0&st=1&nh=25&lk=1&rf=2&oq=&rq=0&si=1&col=xtracert&col=trandedu&col=vulnotes&col=techtips&col=research&col=certadv&col=incnotes&col=secimp&qt=activex&x=0&y=0
          http://search.sans.org/search?q=activex&ie=&site=SANS&output=xml_no_dtd&restrict=SANS&client=SANS&lr=&proxystylesheet=SANS&oe=&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&submit=Search

          “I guess My initial reaction to this forum was correct: People fear what they don’t understand.”

          People that are security oriented and not just techs understand a little more deeply what is going on in the OS. Apotheon is very well versed in both low (kernel) level security and higher level. I know security from a sys admin and net admin point of view. I also am studying how to BREAK security in various systems, and guess what…Windows keeps cropping up on my list because I can take advantage of the poor seperation of Kernel and User.

        • #3195770

          Yawn.

          by ungle ·

          In reply to I’m puzzled…

          Yes, dear, the kernel, executive, and – to a lesser degree – user spaces do overlap, as they must. And how exactly does this differ from Linux???

          Of course profiles are stored locally – as a COPY of the server stored profile (it’s called a “Roaming profile”. Thought you’d like to look it up). Still, try access a local profile of another user unless you have admin rights (or have been granted rights by and admin). Yes, care must be taken while designing applications to ensure security amongst users. Again, this is not unique to Windows (although, I’ll admit there are more cowboy developers designing Windows apps that Linux apps!)

          Yes IE is universal. Again, try changing any of it without the appropriate credentials. Curious: Do you give users on Linux boxes root access?? Thought not. Stop doing it on Windows!

          “ActiveX is a mess:” Nice links. Unfortunately they are all incidentally about ActiveX components. Guess what? buffer over/under runs are not the exclusive domain of activex. ZLIB, for example, is NOT activex and yet shows the same weakness.

          I would agree that the time for COM is now passed, but again, the vunerabilities are for individual components, not the concept. Linux and Sun have both had their fair share of buffer over/under run vunerabilities.

          Again, all OS have shared components. Don’t waste your biases to try to blame this on Windows

        • #3195726

          clues free with purchase of a kid’s meal

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I’m puzzled…

          “[i]Yes, dear, the kernel, executive, and – to a lesser degree – user spaces do overlap, as they must. And how exactly does this differ from Linux???[/i]”

          The statement that they “must” overlap is patently false. Unices maintain strict privilege separation. In fact, simply put, no user has access to anything that doesn’t either “belong” to that user or get explicitly assigned permissions that allow that user to access it. In other words, it takes willful implementation of poor security policy to blur those lines, and because of the separation of executive from user and kernel spaces users can execute applications to which they are assigned access without that execution allowing them to compromise files or activate other executables to which they have no assigned access.

          “[i]Of course profiles are stored locally – as a COPY of the server stored profile[/i]”

          I really don’t think jmgarvin was making a big deal about the profile itself, so much as just pointing out that the profile’s data is stored locally as well as remotely. His salient point was the fact that no matter what you do with the profile data, the user privileges are the real problem, and user privileges are not as well protected as they should be. They bleed over into each others’ user spaces, the executive space, and even the kernel space.

          “[i]Yes IE is universal. Again, try changing any of it without the appropriate credentials. Curious: Do you give users on Linux boxes root access?? Thought not. Stop doing it on Windows![/i]”

          That’s not really the point. Obviously, poor security policy will come back to bite you, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of Windows functionality is designed to short-circuit security privilege separation because much of Windows doesn’t work without direct access to executive or even kernel space. This sort of thing allows for very easy unauthorized privilege escalation on Windows systems (yes, even Windows XP, which shows signs of beginning to address user account permissions separation but not much, and doesn’t address privilege escalation vulnerabilities provided by the Explorer executable’s universality, COM/ActiveX controls, and so on). With a reverse engineer’s understanding of Windows system architecture, scripting tools to automate privilege escalation is a (relatively) trivial task. The same is not true of the various unices, where such shortcuts just really don’t exist.

          “[i]Nice links. Unfortunately they are all incidentally about ActiveX components. Guess what? buffer over/under runs are not the exclusive domain of activex.[/i]”

          The problem isn’t just that there are buffer overrun exploits for ActiveX and the like. The problem is that ActiveX has vulnerabilities like that [b]and allows remote code execution[/b], and furthermore is necessary for even the most trivial of tasks much of the time such that turning it off neuters the capabilities of the Windows system. Even worse than ActiveX, though, is the ubiquitous and irresponsible use of RPCs internally for interprocess communication [b]within the core Windows platform[/b]. This is the sort of thing that made the Slammer worm possible in the first place, and effectively “shut down the Internet” because of the presence of a couple of Microsoft systems in key points of failure.

        • #3195710

          Ungle I give up…you do not want to learn or admit you were wrong

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to I’m puzzled…

          I’ve explained the issues and you pop up straw men. I enjoy teaching, but you obviously do not want to learn.

          Apotheon said everything very well in the post above mine, so I won’t duplicate. However, I will say the problem is that you won’t admit to security flaws and that in it self is a security flaw. Please learn to be less bias when dealing with security so that we don’t have to deal with crippling malware…

        • #3195703

          Give me a break…

          by ungle ·

          In reply to I’m puzzled…

          The remote code execution was due to the buffer overrun. ActiveX is not NECESSARY for even the most jovian of task.

          Sloppy security will come back to bite you regardless of the OS.

          As jmgarvin says, I’m tired of dealing with those who do not want to learn.

          I enjoy both operating systems, will continue to do so, and fortunately won’t allow the OS bigotry of others deter me.

        • #3195534

          remote code execution

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I’m puzzled…

          Err, no. The remote code execution is not just because of a buffer overrun. I didn’t even read those links: I see reports of ActiveX exploits often enough that I don’t need to read a few more right now.

          See, without even reading the reports linked above, I can tell you that what the buffer overrun almost certainly allowed was [b]arbitrary[/b] remote code execution. ActiveX was [b]designed[/b] to facilitate remote code execution: that’s its purpose. The fact that “arbitrary” is included in this exploit is a result of an accident, rather than the design of COM/ActiveX, but the [b]actual remote code execution functionality[/b] is itself the intent of the ActiveX system. In fact, arbitrary remote code execution with ActiveX is even part of the design, but usually only when one specifically configures the system to allow it, rather than in general.

          The idea with many of these buffer overrun exploits is that a data stream is dumped into some ActiveX control, overloading a memory buffer, causing unintended consequences, and producing an opportunity to execute more code. Thus, a non-arbitrary ActiveX execution can be fed a tailored executable or set of execution instructions that take advantage of a buffer overrun vulnerability, which in turn ends up producing an arbitrary remote code execution behavior.

          The very fact that ActiveX allows remote code execution in the first place that bypasses user space privilege separation is the major problem of ActiveX. Privilege escalation should [b]never[/b] be an automated process, under any circumstances, but there is so little strict privilege separation in the Windows environment that unintended and automated privilege escalation states are common.

          Then, of course, there are those circumstances where privilege escalation are entirely unnecessary to have significant damaging effects on the system, such as with the (mis)use of RPCs that are so ubiquitous that Windows uses it in platform internal APIs. From a security standpoint, that’s insanity, absurd beyond kenning.

        • #3190726

          Misconception?

          by ungle ·

          In reply to I’m puzzled…

          You seem to be working under the msiconception that ActiveX components are always out of process components.

          See, COM, in and of itself, is simply a method the DLL loader uses to reference count in-memory instances of a particular object so that it may unload that component when the last instance is destroyed.

          RCP is used in interprocess communication. Most COM components are IN process objects, meaning there is in interprocess communication, no RPC involvement.

          It can, however, support out of process components, and RPC and marshalling does get involved. This was designed for the distributed COM model (DCOM or COM+ as it was renamed).

          Arbitrary code execution of a buffer overrun is pretty much the only way a user can take advantage of the weakness. Consider: Function A of my component – com or not – is expecting a string in the form of a Character array (primitive data type). The string is terminated with a null character. The length of the character array is coded into the application, and SHOULD be checked, but in these cases is not. The function accepts the char array and writes it to memory.

          Joe Smarty writes an application to exploit the overrun weakness. He passes in a string that is longer than expected. Beyond the expected length he writes his own binary data, and the data is written to a memory space previously used by the application itself.

          At some time in the future of the life of the application Joe Smarty’s illicit code will be executed.

          Buffer overruns are the result of sloppy programming and bad code auditing. They result in arbitrary code execution, regardless of the OS. Effectively, Buffer Overruns and “Arbitrary code execution” are synonymous.

          DCOM (COM+) was a good idea for it’s day, allowing distributed computing. It’s out of vogue now with web services replacing it’s functionality (in the Windows world) without the security risk.

          Take a close look at the security sites: Buffer overruns are endemic in operating systems because of the complexity of the systems. Even OpenBSD has corrected numerous issues – although (almost) always before they are exploited. They always lead to arbitrary code execution.

          Finally, there have been many buffer overrun issues found in Windows (and othe OS). However MOST do not involve COM. The applications installed on Windows use COM extensively. The OS does not. Office uses it extensively.

        • #3186072

          no misconception

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I’m puzzled…

          My two-word response to your preceding post:

          So what?

          You’ve gone to great pains to explain a lot of the specifics of how things work, programmatically, without in any way refuting anything I’ve said.

          ActiveX isn’t “just” COM: it’s COM within certain applications (in the general sense of the term, not the “computer program” sense of the term). By implementing COM under those circumstances, and through such vectors as (for instance) the OS-integrated Internet Explorer, a wide-open front door to the sensitive internals of the system has been created.

          Thus, security issues. I refer you back to what I’ve already said in earlier posts.

        • #3185989

          Ok, I’ll bite…I jump back into this mess

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to I’m puzzled…

          Here is the problem: You are looking at at VERY zoomed in view of Windows. You also aren’t seperating various concepts (user accounts and user space comes to mind).

          What you are talking about is only part of the story. You really need to read the SANS and Cert links I posted.

        • #3176090

          I disagree. Stress Junkie made good points.

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Profile schmofile…

          I’m sorry, and maybe I’m out of line here for a bit but from what I glean from your postings I really don’t think you have that much experience with what you are talking about. Now if you read that as offensive, that isn’t my intent with what I say — I’m just not gonna coddle you with blowing sunshine up your arse on such an issue.

          Windows is inherently flawed moreso than other OSes. Its memory management alone is laughable at best, though XP did greatly improve on it.

          I don’t update every little thing in my TR profile either, haven’t in a while actually. Most of my experience has been MS based as well — the last couple years I have deployed some Linux servers, in college for 2 years I was using Mac’s in a lab environment. I really am a PC person, I don’t like Apple for more reasons due to their company philosophy/management than their products though.

          I more a network and hardware junkie than I am a software guy.

          But as you know in this biz — if you do networking and configure/troubleshoot the hardware you have to know what the OS does.

          So in conclusion, I think to say that if the machine crashes/the os crashes that its the user’s fault and not the OS is absurd.

          True proper maintenance practices on our computers, security measures and policies help to keep things running in much more efficient and reliable fashion than if you ignore everything. However, I’ve had the OS crash on me many times over the years and I can vouch that the hardware is all very sound, the drivers up to date, the server properly configured, etc.

          Simply put there is no logical reason why I should get/have gotten BSODs. For a while there I even used MS Tech Support, I searched high and low on the knowledge base, talked to the software vendors. Applications are proper version for the OS I installed them on, sys req’s were well exceeded for the software, etc.

          Funny on the Mandrake f/p server I have had running — that thing never dies. Also the email server for a website I partcipate in (because there is a team of folks who work on the site — I’m no web designer) is Linux and that thing gets pounded. It needed a restart once because of a crash — granted that was a software config issue, it was easily solvable. But that was it.

          I think MS is slowly getting there, but they still aren’t “there” yet.

        • #3195965
          Avatar photo

          Tom MS will only get there when

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I disagree. Stress Junkie made good points.

          They dump Windows all together and go Unix with a Windows like GUI front end.

          Then they can have the look and feel of a Windows Workstation but the stability and security of a Unix installation, I think we’ll be seeing a setup like this on their next server range and it will be a massive improvement.

          Eventually when they move it to the desktop and relegate Windows to the Home it will be even better.

          Col ]:)

        • #3195861

          It’s not the user

          by rapt0r ·

          In reply to Profile schmofile…

          So my Windows server that does nothing but act as a file server, and bsod yesterday, its the users fault? Which user? No one is logged on at the console. The stop error had to do with a very common, but very vague page fault in memory. Yeah, that helps a lot. The server hardware isn’t white box, it’s a Dell (all of it from Dell) and I know they aren’t the best, but it is all run of the mill, get it anywhere gear. Nothing obscure. Let a drive fail and watch Windows die. My Linux box can have a drive failure and stay up. Same for my Solaris box. Face it, Windows has some fundamental flaws that can only be addressed with a ground up rewrite, but that isn’t going to happen.

          As for other OS problems, yes, others do have problems, they just don’t cause the headaches and grief that Windows does. My users on other OSes have apps crash, but the OS doesn’t. And security bug aren’t as easily exploited on these other OSes either. When Firefox had an issue a couple of months ago, it had to be installed on Windows, any other OS – no problem. As for IT running more than half on Windows, only the on the desktop, not anywhere else. In the enterprise Windows is nowhere near being the big dog in the server room. *nix outnumbers my Windows servers and I’m slowly moving desktops to another platform (Linux or Mac OSX) as well. Not complaining or griping, just doing something about the problem – getting rid of it.

        • #3193830

          Drive Fails…

          by regloff8 ·

          In reply to It’s not the user

          So – if which drive fails? If the OS drive fails? Our Win2003 server is running ahot-swap raid 5 – so if a drive fails, I don’t even power down, I just tell it I’m gonna replace a drive, pull out the old, pop in the new, and it will rebuild while it’s running.

          So no – that’s not Windows that’s a poor choice in Hardware.

          If you are running one drive and it fails – linux will stay up and running? So what does it do? Attempt to write to a failed drive?

          Again – none of my Windows Servers has even blue-screened. I really don’t understand the issues some people have with Windows.

          You know – if Mac was the most popular OS, you all would bash it – if Linux was the most popular and M$ was the underdog, you’d bash Linux.

          I remember all that from the Apple/Commodore days 🙂 Hasn’t changed a bit! lol

          And actually – the last time I had a drive failure on Solaris, it did stay up – true, but it unmounted the drive right away. Then is became a problem, as it didn’t have access to the /var folder and couldn’t write any of it’s logs.

          If it would have been /etc or /bin – I’d bet it wouldn’t stay up for too long 🙂

          But how can you associate a hardware failure with an OS? Hardware is hardware – I can run whatever OS on that hardware, except maybe Mac… I’m not a huge fan of OS’s that REQUIRE you to buy their hardware – I think I’d call that money-grubbing..

          Of course it works ok, there aren’t any driver issues, they built the hardware and then made the software to run it all. When an OS, like Linux or Windows allows more flexability to run on any hardware, yep – then you are going to have driver issues.

          And DONT EVEN tell me linux don’t have driver issues, I could link at least 50 forums in here, with plenty of posts with hardware/driver issues. But open source is just that way – doesn’t mean it’s bad at all.

          I do think it’s great that Mac is going to be able to run on some more hardware here real soon 🙂 Kudos to Steve Jobs for that.

          Why Solaris got rid of their i386 build is beyond me, I liked that one.

        • #3194289

          ponderings

          by rapt0r ·

          In reply to Drive Fails…

          I didn’t mention any hardware other than a disk drive. Surely you’ve done soft raid setups before. Windows tanks and my *nix boxes don’t if a drive fails. On hardware based raid, Windows had better stay up (any OS for that matter) since it doesn’t see the individual drives, just the raid array. Yes I know that raid companies make software for the OS to see/manage the individual drives in the array and the array itself. But as for the actual drives, Windows only sees the array as a one drive if its configured that way. BTW, because of my experiences with Windows not handling soft raid very well, I use only hardware raid. Ironically, soft raid is what’s covered on the cert exams.

          Next, your Windows boxes have never bsod? Well cheers to you. I have a hard time believing you, but props just the same.

          As for vendors tying the OS to their hardware, you might call it money grubbing, others call it quality control and assurance. You know the OS will work with the hardware. How many times has Windows died after installing service packs on Windows certified hardware? Compaq array controllers anyone?

          BTW, don’t think that just because Apple is moving to Intel in their consumer class gear (they didn’t mention anything about the XServe going to Intel), that we’ll be able to build white box Macs. Apple has already stated that people can only get Intel Macs from Apple. So money grubbing can still happen on commodity hardware.

          Also, I never said that Linux doesn’t have driver issues with hardware. But it usually invovles some small company with second class hardware. I’ve never had problems with nVidia, ATI, 3Com, Intel, Tyan, Gigabyte, Biostar, Broadcom, etc. As long as I’ve kept it to mainstream hardware vendors – no problems. I have had problems with Adaptec raid cards (2200S), but the problem has been resolved. As for hardware problems, I can list just as many where people have hardware issues when they had to replace a component in Windows, booted and get the nice system hang at mup.sys (otherwise known as the joining the muppet club). Booting into safe mode doesn’t work. So Windows isn’t any guarantee about hardware working either.

          Why did Solaris get rid of x86, well it was dog slow for one when compared to Solaris on SPARC. But it’s been revived and is much better than previous versions.

        • #3194234

          I’ve seen a windows caused drive failure…

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Drive Fails…

          with xp professional

          seems the xp bootloader doesn’t like the i810e chipset.
          (bios would not recognise the drive at all for 3 boots [ even then it took a win98 ebd to get access to it ] )

          that same drive, which crashed weekly under xp, stopped crashing when it had either 98 or linux on it. so yes, you can occasionally blame the os for hardware problems.

        • #3195839

          Time out..

          by peterjohnmurphy ·

          In reply to Profile schmofile…

          Ok, you have made some good points like the fact that it is the end user that causes a system to crash by installing software/hardware, but just think for a second, all of these products being installed are obviously supposed to be M$ compatible so installing a product designed for an M$ environment should not cause problems (unless end user ignorance results in incorrect configuration). Windows Operating Systems are far too easy to break! Saying that XP in my opinion is the easiest to fix operating system that our mate Bill has brought out..but wait.. didn’t that too fail on is grand unveiling??
          Microsoft have obviously got the majority of the market but only because they release products that have been developed in a rush to beat the competition to the line (even if you back to the 3.* OS, which of course is DOS with a GUI designed to beat Apple)… How many more service packs need to be released before they can correct all the mistakes on each OS!!

        • #3194071

          Black & White?

          by beranekj ·

          In reply to Profile schmofile…

          I’m happy for you that things seem so simple, so black & white. The MS OSen are inheritantly unstable, so blame the end-user for trying do actually use applications instead of just running notepad and calculator.

          I co-supervise running Windows 200x, but also NetWare, Linux and AIX. The Windows boxen are babied to the point of only a single app per server, which is exceptionally expensive, but seems the only way to keep those systems with an uptime that comes close to the multi-purpose functions of the other 3 platforms. Everything is certified compatible, patched and configured exactly as each vendor has requested, yet MS still crashes, often.

          MS is bashed because it has earned it, not because some poor end-user is just trying to do use what an OS is, in theory, supposed to be designed to do: an interactive environment for applications to run on various hardware.

        • #3193914

          A system crash is always the programmer’s fault

          by techcleaner ·

          In reply to Profile schmofile…

          I understand your point, but you really can’t blame the user for something that should never have happened in the first place. A system crash should only happen because of a physical cause, like dropping the unit in water, or shooting it with a howitzer (which, as an aside, the AS/400 could probably survive…).

          A buffer overflow is a very basic programmer error, and should never exist in any OS. Windows and other MS products have tons of these. Because these Windows OS programmers work for Microsoft, it is a Microsoft issue. Remember, an exploit exploits a _flaw_, a flaw which should never have been there in the first place.

          Same for a faulty third-party programs. The program may have serious bugs, but the OS should be able to keep itself from crashing because of errant code someone else has written.

          I think your argument has some validity in the case of programs like trojan horses that are written properly but are programmed to do bad things, like erase data. Even then, the OS should not crash. What it should do is faultlessly execute the instructions you told it to do (the code of the trojan) which is to destroy itself or other data. In this one case the blame is due to the user’s (or IT management’s) ignorance and lack of proper security measures.

        • #3185695

          Blame the user…

          by sr3h ·

          In reply to Profile schmofile…

          Angus,

          I appreciate you kicking off this discussion, but I gotta take issue with your statement that “it’s not the OS maker but the user that causes the system to crash”.

          You should at least put some of the blame on developers. If a user installs a program that’s compatible with their version of Windows, he/she shouldn’t be blamed if it creates a conflict. That is the fault of the programmers (for the software and Windows).

          For example, my father has BellSouth DSL service. He wasn’t able to connect. The BellSouth “Connection Wizard” pops up. He runs it. As a result:
          1. He’s still not able to connect.
          2. The program changes his hardware profile which sets his display to 4-bit color. He has to uninstall the display adapter and restart the computer to fix this.
          I have never seen anything this brain-dead on another OS. BellSouth’s programmers are idiots for writing this program, and the MS programmers are no better for allowing this crappy code to change the monitor display settings.

          This is one case of many. I provide “unofficial” tech support for my company (I am a technical writer by trade, but my first job was as an ISP support specialist). I can’t blame the user for doing everything the software reccommends. By your logic, users should be stuck with only the original configuration of their computer. This does not square with reality.
          Again, thanks for your time and willingness to start a controversial thread.

          sr3h@yahoo.com

      • #3196010

        You said it better

        by alarena ·

        In reply to Experience drives a lot of the comments

        Thanks for the education. I’m loving the answers, but the author must think he’s getting nuked. My guess was new or in a “fresh HDD baked” environment.

      • #3195847

        Vita non est aequa…

        by daniel.muzrall ·

        In reply to Experience drives a lot of the comments

        Face it, life isn’t fair, and nothing out there is perfect. I would say that MS catches more flack than just about any other OS/software maker out there because of brand recognition and “popularity.” Windows is pretty much ubiquitous with the the PC. How many different distributions are there for Linux? How many variants of UNIX are out there? How many users of Linux, UNIX, Mac OS, OS/2, or any other OS are there? Talk to any of those users and once they get past the fact that they aren’t using Windows, they’ll have their fair share of gripes about their own OS. Nothing is perfect. MS gets bashed because its market share makes it an easy and very large target.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got my own gripes about MS, starting with how it gained its market share. I remember back in the old days when I was running MS Word off a single floppy disk on Mac OS 6.0.7. I remember when the OS used to fit on 3 floppies (DOS 6.2). OS and software footprint bloat is one of my gripes. Security is one of my gripes. “Undocumented” features that can cause a whole host of problems is another. The MS focus on cranking out products to generate revenue is understandable…that’s business…but to do so at the the cost of security and system stability is very worrisome to me. I think if MS put in a little more time and effort up front, they could save much more time and money on the back end developing patches when they could be developing new products and features.

        But I digress…no OS is perfect, no OS has 100% uptime or a lack of its own quirks. It all comes down to market share and experience… Microsoft controls more market share than anyone else in the industry, therefore more people are exposed to its products, therefore there are more people poking it with a stick, and therefore finding more problems with it. That’s just how it goes.

        For the record, I’ve been working in IT since 1994 and have supported Mac OS 6.0 on, DOS 5.0 on, Windows 3.11 on, and have dabled in UNIX and Linux.

        • #3195822
          Avatar photo

          Actually what I do find interesting here

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Vita non est aequa…

          Is that MS themselves accept the flack that they cop and while not totally ignoring it as I’ve had a few phone calls about how I feel they are going as both a company and OS maker. They not only want constructive criticism but demand it.

          Then there are the M$ users out there who seem to think that any criticism of their preferred OS is an attack upon them personally, they are the ones caring the fight and getting worked up with any faults within Windows being pointed out.

          Perhaps M$ rings every one of their Partners and asks them how we feel they are doing as a company but from my experience when I have mentioned some things that I think need improving they seem to listen and I do get call backs asking for more information. I can see a lot of the suggestions that I made and no doubt countless others as well being implemented in XP and no Doubt Longhorn as well as 2003.

          I don’t need to jump up & down screaming at MS for their products which need improving but I can see that they are improving them admittedly at a some what slow rate but then again I can’t see how they could go any faster.

          The very last question that I’m always asked is “Do I think MS is trying to address their Problems?” and I always answer Yes as they are and with each new OS being released they do get it better but they are not making the Giant Leaps forward that they are capable of making but small incremental steps forward.

          So while they are trying they could try harder and at least I know that some of the input that I provide is acted upon even if I’m only one small voice in the wilderness. What I do find extremely interesting is at the Partners Meetings or Software briefings that MS run and I attend I always end up with one of the developers talking shop and improving OS’s over drinks long after the meeting has finished so at the very least the developers that I meet seem interested and I don’t just do it for the “Free Booze” as I really don’t drink all that much now days I do it for the interesting conversation and the way that we just talk shop and they listen and take notes of suggestions on improvements. As far as I’m concerned that could tape the conversations I wouldn’t be the slightest bit concerned.

          Col ]:)

        • #3193952

          Ok good point…

          by keyguy13 ·

          In reply to Actually what I do find interesting here

          While I agree that they continue to improve SOME aspects of their OS with each new version.In my opinion, they don’t address the fundamental issues that most techs bash windows over. They claim they are working on the security problems but all that seems to happen with each patch, is more security problems. They HAVE made it more stable, but considering the older versions reliability, it is still WAY inferior to Unix, Linux and other OSes when it comes to crashes.

          They need to stop reinventing the wheel with their office upgrades and their live meeting crap and focus ALL of their attention on making the OS at least close to as reliable and functional as the other OSes out there.

          We don’t bash microsoft just to hear our voices. We have legitimate concerns with M$ and windows. There are REAL problems with it. And just because your standards might be lower than ours, doesn’t mean we are going to stop striving for a better OS. I mean, if we HAVE to work with windows, we want it to work properly for the unbelievably inflated price we pay for it.

        • #3193874

          Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          by bkinsey1 ·

          In reply to Actually what I do find interesting here

          As the admin of a moderately-sized, predominantly Windows shop, I have no problem with people pointing out the problems that do exist (as you point out quite correctly, this is also MS’s apparent position). What makes me not even bother to read the vast majority of threads like this are the following things (not pointing fingers at you, btw, this just looked like a good post to make this point on):

          1) Some people really do just bash Windows, without any more basis than “I knew a guy with a Windows PC that crashed all the time, and my Linux PC never crashes”. As the original poster pointed out, that may or may not have anything to do with the OS; it may be the user, what he/she has installed, etc. . . . And I have seen *nix machines that crash more frequently than my Windows machines; that doesn’t make me think bad things about *nix; it makes me want to know the reasons.

          2) Basing any evaluation of Windows on old, no longer supported versions. A great, great many of the problems I STILL see “zealots” bashing haven’t been part of any shipping product from MS since the Win98 days. The currently shipping XP/Server 2003 combo is highly stable, at least in my network. If I had to use 98, it wouldn’t be stable, I wouldn’t be happy, and, if I were my boss, I’d probably fire me for using a crappy OS. (Which doesn’t address the question of whether it was crappy compared to the alternatives when it was released; it just admits that it’s really crappy now. . . )

          3) An alteration of the above point, which might not even be intentional – suppose I “know” from past experience, that 98, ME, or whatever, were terribly unstable, crashed at a whim, etc. This turned me off from Windows, so now I only see Windows boxes on rare occasions, when someone calls me because they have a problem. I assume this is the same old, same old from MS based on my old experience with 98, not based on wide experience with current Windows products. Like I said, that may not even be a conscious thought process with some people, but it’s there.

          4) People who simply parrot what somebody else has said, with no real idea of what they’re talking about. I realize you can’t always tell someone’s capability or experience from a post, but sometimes it’s pretty obvious, and it’s not always the Windows defenders. . . . 🙂

          That said, there are problems with even current Windows, as there are with any other OS you can name. Scale and scope of those problems is another thing, and you have to consider things like extent of use and class of user when evaluating “problems with an OS” that in many cases are “problems with how you run an OS” (and in that area, it’s hard to deny that *nix users are far and away more technically competent, on average, than Windows users; naturally they see fewer problems – and would see fewer on Windows, as well, compared to the average Windows user.)

          Finally, there are definite things not to like about MS’s business practices, licensing, pricing, etc. I won’t defend them in that area, but I’ll continue to use their products until the alternatives suit my end-users and my situation.

        • #3193823

          Well Said

          by dvawter ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          Microsoft has come a very long way since the days of Windows 98. They manufacture a very well rounded product today.

          I also could not agree with your more about the licensing, and business practices.

          That being said, I simply cannot find a better fit for corperate desktops than Windows XP. You have to look at the entire product, not just one aspect.

          David

        • #3186394
          Avatar photo

          Now I am really confused was that aimed at me?

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          Actually MS are still selling DOS I know as I buy several copies per year all for computer controlled machine tools which where designed so long ago that there is no alternative for them. Currently M$ AU sells around 50 copies a month of MS DOS and most of the desktops that I sell have XP loaded on them.

          Not because it is the best for the job but because it is the only one for the job when the software requirements are taken into account. I’m constantly being driven nuts with MS Licensing as I can never understand any of it and I only sell Volume License stuff with the occasional OEM bit thrown in for Good Will for one of the staff of companies that I do work for.

          To me 2003 is only useful as a Domain controller but for a real server I alway use a form of Nix as I just don’t have the license issues that come with Windows.

          The last big installation that I got roped into had an excess 100 Domain controllers and with the license fees for their main servers it was going to cost the License Fee for the OS and then $80.00 AU for each unit that exceeded the limit that was only 100 Domain controllers so that was another 8K AU on 16 Boxes. For some strange reason I used Linux on these Servers and ended up with much better hardware and only about 1% of the total cost of the Server Side spent on Licenses and OS’s.

          I was just trying to balance the scales a bit as I’m constantly being told that I’m bashing M$ at every opportunity which I’m not really but many people seem to think this so it must be true. :p

          But when it is all said and done I use the best tool for the job on any installation that I do now and today that just happens to be XP on the Desktop {although I’m getting more than a bit concerned with MS as their Life Cycle should soon be ending for XP primary support the 5 years is nearly up and currently we have no replacement available.}

          What really worries me is that I’ll once again find myself in the position of selling MS product knowing full well that within 12 – 18 months their will only be limited support for something that was only bought recently and has a life expediency of around 4 – 5 years depending on Tax arraignments.

          At least when XP came out we could still install Night Mare 8 Sexually “E”nadequate for a while till XP became more known and accepted so I could use it with full knowledge that it wouldn’t cause more problems than it cured. For some reason Y2K Pro was never accepted by my customers at least and even getting them onto XP was a fight in itself as their 98 units where doing everything that they wanted. While they where replacing the hardware they wanted to stay with their current OS and software so I’ve lost count of the number of XP Pro COA’s that I’ve sold knowing full well that they will never be actually used and they these companies will continue using 98 until this crop of hardware is no longer of any Tax benefit to them.

          I suppose that when the production version of Longhorn comes out I’ll be loading XP to a lot of machines with a Longhorn COA on their sides as well.

          So I’ll say it again “Is MS doing anything about the problems that they have YES!!!! are they doing enough NO!!!!!!!!

          Incidentally it made a pleasant change to be branded a MS Junkie for a change but I just somehow still feel insulted. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3185948

          Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          by bkinsey1 ·

          In reply to Now I am really confused was that aimed at me?

          No aiming involved. . . More of a wide-angle shotgun blast at whoever it fits – which is not you, as far as I can tell. As I said, this just looked like a good place to insert it. . . 🙂

        • #3195754

          Nail on the head

          by ungle ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          That was well put.

          I’ve been parroting this all the way through, but we simply must put biases aside and use the best tools for the job.

          Interestingly enough, most major corporations do regular cost/benefit analysis before upgrading OS on machines. For example, recently a company I was working with replaced 300 Sun boxes with Linux. The performance was better, the hardware considerably cheaper, and support equally good (Redhat).

          At the same time, some services running on Linux were migrated to Windows because…oh, no, here I go…it was cheaper TCO. Go figure! Of course, because of the industry we could not use “free” linux but were required to buy RedHat enterprise servers with support.

          However, mission critical financial data (it was a trading company) remained on Sun, so that “…We can sue someone if something goes wrong…” (I kid you not!)

          Although I dislike MS licensing, I have worse gripes: IBM. Take a look at licensing on an AS/400. $200,000 for an old DOS box??? (Kidding with that description, before someone attacks me for it!!)

        • #3185951

          Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          by bkinsey1 ·

          In reply to Nail on the head

          You’re right about IBM. 🙂 I’ve got an old, old, old 400 sitting under a table in my office right now. It was overpriced for its intended use when they bought it, and in its 8-10 year service life (before my tenure, so I’m not sure), it was never upgraded once, as far as I can tell. The reason? Cost. . .

          As with other platforms, OS400 has it’s place; it’s great for large volume transactional processing, highly stable, and secure (if only because relatively few people understand it). But for our application, I switched us to a Wintel platform with a distributed client-server app a couple of years ago, saved big bucks, and improved application capabilities substantially. It’s about what makes most sense for your particular use, and always will be. . . .

        • #3194002

          How can you compare?

          by keyguy13 ·

          In reply to Vita non est aequa…

          How can you sit there and say that M$ is only getting bashed because they have a higher market share, when you admitted that you have only dabbled in UNIX/Linux?

          You don’t really have a leg to stand on…

          When you actually spend some time with UNIX and Linux, then come back and argue your case. I highly doubt you will be defending M$ at that point…

        • #3193815

          Each Operating system for it’s purpose

          by dvawter ·

          In reply to How can you compare?

          I carry a Compaq Tru-64 certification, and have configured Linux firewalls, Mail Servers, and Web Servers.

          I have to say that For Desktop you can’t beat XP.

          I will have it known that I am not defending MS, I am stating that they have a good product. You are simply too blinded by your hatred to see the truth.

          *nix makes better servers, because Servers are used and monitered by computer experts, Experts get linux, and understand the innerworkings of an opperating system, they know the difference between a MUTEX and a SEMAPHORE. They know how to modify a Config file, or what change needs to be made to an init file. Your General Corperate User does not. Maybe you are lucky enough to administer a group of computer Savey people. Having worked for several corperations at this point in my career, including Discover Card, I have to stand by the descision of Windows for Desktop. The Average employee in corperate america does not want to know how a computer works, they just want to know how to do thier job on it.

          David

        • #3189606

          Huh?

          by daniel.muzrall ·

          In reply to How can you compare?

          First, I never said it was the only reason, it is just one of many. I merely assert that it is a big reason. Second, I’m not quite sure how my admittedly limited hands-on Linux experience factors into your arguement. The point I was trying to make is that if you get a group of users of *ANY* major/popular product, you’ll get a large amount of bashing. Reread the last paragraph: “…no OS is perfect, no OS has 100% uptime or a lack of its own quirks. It all comes down to market share and experience…”

      • #3195841

        When you know the competition….

        by mllwyd ·

        In reply to Experience drives a lot of the comments

        I can’t speak for why anyone who bashes Windows does so, but I came from a MacOS and Unix background into Windows. Windows is getting better (I first encountered it with Windows 95), but on the consumer side, MacOS is much more stable and reliable, and on the server side, Unix is far more powerful for the administrator. There are tools I took for granted on Unix that you still can’t do on Windows servers. The people I know who love Windows usually haven’t used anything else extensively.

      • #3195805

        It’s All Ball Bearings These Days

        by mswanberg ·

        In reply to Experience drives a lot of the comments

        Or actually, it’s all numbers.

        Here’s my take, in a little analogy. Let’s say you and I are OS authors and we support a group of 100 people. Each of them has a different hardware config. 99 of them run your OS and the 100th runs mine. How often is a problem going to appear in your OS as opposed to mine? You would think, if our skills are similar, that you would see issues 99 times as often as I do, simply because you have 99 times as much software and user input banging away at your OS.

        Now, let’s say there is a rival company (let’s pretend the 100 people and us are a company 102 strong) that wishes to ruin us by corrupting our computers. Are they going to write malicious code that attacks my OS, or one that attacks yours? If they have half a brain, they’ll attack the most machines at the same time; i.e. your OS.

        Now, onto the “fixed once and forever” idea. When one of your 99 users finds a problem in your OS, you have to fix it and make sure the fix doesn’t break the other 98 computers under your care. All I have to do is fix it on the 1 computer that is running my OS. Fixed once, and forever.

        Are you starting to see where this is going?

        When it comes to Linux and Windows, I have my own opinions. I do not disagree that Windows has its issues. But I also agree that Linux has its issues. I find Windows to be easier to use for the low-level user. Unfortunately, the default installation of Windows doesn’t lock stuff down for the average user like it should, but that’s another story.

        OTOH, I find that installing new software on Linux is such a nightmare that I just don’t do it. That tends to keep an OS stable when you never install anything new.

        Furthermore, I have found that Linux distros will ignore any hardware that it can’t readily recognize. Many of my boxes go without sound support under Linux. Windows, OTOH, will install a driver that may be unstable, but at least there is sound. You may disagree, but I would wager that if you took ANY PC, install Windows, and then disable all but the most basic of hardware (take away the sound, reduce to VGA, no USB, etc.) then you will have a very stable box (as long as there is no outside influence such as new drivers, virii, software, etc.). The point is, M$ goes for maximum compatibility whereas Linux seems to go for maximum stability. Each end user should choose what they want. I can see that a server needs to be stable, but an end-user box should have maximum compatibility, IMO.

        In the end, I am all for Linux becoming 50% of the industry. Competition is good and I think M$ has gotten too bloated to be effective anymore.

        In the end, I agree totally with the original poster: there ARE ways to make Windows stable and if the user doesn’t take advantage of them, then shame on them.

        -Mike

        • #3194037

          Nice!

          by rajkpb ·

          In reply to It’s All Ball Bearings These Days

          I totally agree with MIKE!

        • #3194009

          The market share argument again…

          by tommy higbee ·

          In reply to It’s All Ball Bearings These Days

          I’ve never been much impressed by the “market share” argument. Certainly, the comparative market share of a platform is a factor, but let’s not claim it’s the only factor. That would mean that a secure design doesn’t affect security, and that careful code scrutiny doesn’t affect security, and that proper testing from a QA department doesn’t affect security.

          It’s pretty well known that about two-thirds of web servers are running Apache, and about 22% are running Microsoft IIS. Yet some time back, people were being advised to migrate from IIS to Apache to improve security. By the market share argument, that doesn’t make sense.

          But there’s a better example of what’s wrong with the market share argument. Windows 95 and Windows XP had similar market shares in their day. Does anyone want to claim that Windows 95 was therefore just as secure as Windows XP? Or that it was just as stable?

          On a different topic you raised, I have never known anyone using Debian Linux or any of its derivatives, such as Xandros, Mepis, Libranet, or Ubuntu, who complained that installing software was “a nightmare.” So it’s hardly a given that installing software under Linux is hard.

        • #3193864

          Damn right!

          by keyguy13 ·

          In reply to The market share argument again…

          I totally agree. Well said…

        • #3193807

          Nothing is 100% secure

          by dvawter ·

          In reply to The market share argument again…

          How many times has the US treasury changed it’s currency to thwart conterfiters? I am sure they must be lacking in their QA since it continues to be a problem.

          It’s a not so well know fact that about two thirds of the Web Server Exploits are based on the apache web server, based on the market share argument that makes a lot of sense.

          People who are even aware of Debian are a little more on the advanced side of linux users. Advanced Linux users have little trouble installing applications on any distro. Just try to imagine (if you can) knowing absolutely nothing about a computer. what are the steps you have to take to install a program on Linux vs windows. Hmmm

          Windows -> Insert CD, Click next 6 times then click finish.

          Linux -> Insert CD, Mount CD, open package manager yada yada yada. Start program Deamon Yada Yada Yada edit .conf file.

          Or even better Make .program thats really fun for non linux people.

          David

        • #3193782

          Death Is 100% Secure…

          by gbig@customerselects.com ·

          In reply to Nothing is 100% secure

          But then, isnt the solution worse than the problem?

        • #3186308
          Avatar photo

          But are you sure?

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Death Is 100% Secure…

          Unless you can provide some evidence as to the above statement I’ll have to disregard it as nothing more than wishful thinking and Heresy! 😛

          Col ]:)

        • #3186511

          You need to look at Linux

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Nothing is 100% secure

          again, the GUI package manager in say Mandrake (Mandriva now) is way easier than that.

          Come to think of it based on recent experience you need to look at windows again as you forgot the compulsory reboot, the service pack (after having to find it because no auto start) and reboot then the uninstall and start again because the default options didn’t work, then a bit of cacking about in the gui as some of the registry entries from the first install weren’t uninstalled and the second try picks them up and promptly dies with a WTF.
          Latest MS SQL Server/ Latest Service Pack under XP two weeks ago !

        • #3186285

          If your going to run Gui why use Linux?

          by dvawter ·

          In reply to You need to look at Linux

          Linux Gui Sucks, it’s twice the resource hog that windows is, it’s not intuitive, and it’s ugly. Why would you use anything but command prompt in linux? You lose way too much performance, which was the whole reason I installed linux in the first place.

          As far as your issues loading service packs I don’t know how to answer that, because I have never in my 15 years of supporting windows desktops and servers run into anything like that. I have had updates cause problems, but never to that extent. 2 months ago I rolled out XP sp 2 to 40 desktops via an update server, with no trouble at all. I can only guess that you had some underlying problem before you started.

        • #3185688

          Yeah I did, quality defficiency

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to If your going to run Gui why use Linux?

          This is a brand new pc XP SP2 out of the box, quick windows update to get the latest patches.
          Then MS SQL CD and ms Service pack CD, so how could it go wrong ?
          Still doesn’t explain why I have to reboot after putting a new piece of software on an ms operating system does it.
          Linux GUIs that I’ve used are just different enough to make them awkward for us chaps with the bulk of our experience on windows.

          The point about the GUI was however, if you wanted an ms server solution without a GUI, how would you get it?
          The only reason I ran a GUI on a linux server is when I was learning it, (slef taught) was more intuitive than the command line. I soon weened myself off it though.

        • #3190722

          MS SQL? Are you sure?

          by ungle ·

          In reply to If your going to run Gui why use Linux?

          MS SQL DOES NOT require a reboot. Are you sure that’s what you were installing? You sure it wasn’t the latest spyware you downloaded from a porn site?

          Of course the service pack requires it. But then again after every RedHat kernel upgrade I’ve had to reboot.

          Guess the score is even. As it was to start.

        • #3186065

          What are you smoking?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to If your going to run Gui why use Linux?

          The Linux GUI isn’t twice the resource hog Windows is by any means. You’ve got to be high, or brain damaged, or simply misinformed by some Microsoft marketing hack, to have that impression. The X Window System is regarded by many in the unix/Linux world as being a pig, of course, but compared to Windows Explorer and associated hangers-on for the GUI environment in Windows, it’s downright svelte, at less than half the average resource consumption. On top of that, you run some kind of window manager, or even full-on Desktop Environment. Considering that of that all you’re using that’s really part of the GUI (the rest is application frameworks in a DE) is the window manager and any GUI toolkits, it’s interesting to note that the Windows full GUI implementation has a greater resource footprint all by itself than the full GUI environment plus all additional hanger-on application frameworks in the most bloated of X-based DEs, such as KDE and GNOME.

          The only way I can think of that you might have honestly arrived at a conclusion that the GUI system on Linux is more of a resource hog than Windows is if you did something like run top and count up RAM usage for everything related to the GUI and compared the total against the bare essential resource usage of the Windows Explorer executable all by itself, and even then you’d have to be looking at a system that reports higher than average numbers.

          Of course, that completely ignores the fact that Linux handles memory management differently from Windows, and top measures current RAM residency, not active RAM requirements. Linux has a tendency to fill RAM for quicker response on application processes, and replace unnecessary stuff when RAM is needed for something new, because it’s a more efficient way to run the system. In other words, when you look at RAM usage on a Windows system you’re looking at actively used RAM, and when you look at RAM usage on a Linux system you’re usually looking at actively used RAM plus a whole lot of stuff that’s just idling, waiting to be used, but listed as being associated with a given application just in case there’s some reason to use it for that purpose.

          As for performance, my 366MHz laptop running a full desktop environment (WindowMaker window manager, Gorm toolkit, and GNUstep framework, plus GNUstep suite of applications) outperforms a Windows XP system on an AMD Athlon XP 1600+ with four times as much RAM (and running DDR, compared to the laptop’s PC100). The Windows system, by the way, has exactly four things installed on it, and is kept clean as a whistle (mostly since I almost never use it), so there’s no way to blame its comparative performance on having a whole lot of additional cruft on it.

          As for ungle:

          Of course you have to reboot after a kernel upgrade. What do you expect? It’s the functional equivalent of upgrading from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, or from XP Home to XP Pro. What boggles my mind is the need to reboot Windows after applying a Windows Media Player patch or installing third-party image editing applications.

        • #3182426

          Oh I’m sure alright

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to If your going to run Gui why use Linux?

          Only the first time intallation though, probably the latest MDAC.

        • #3182328

          linux / windows gui +….

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to If your going to run Gui why use Linux?

          system 1:
          pII @233MHz
          128mb Ram
          linux, kde.

          system 2:
          pIII @600MHz
          768mb ram
          win98se

          on both systems:
          corel photopaint version 9
          starting with same image, performed image resampling to improve the dpi in a 3 step process.

          time taken was exactly the same.
          how can linux gui be a resource hog?
          1/5 available ram to the windows box
          basically 1/3 processing capacity ( clockspeed on lower class cpu )
          yet the p3 was not able to perform any better than a p2 running linux?

        • #3186199

          Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          by tommy higbee ·

          In reply to Nothing is 100% secure

          > It’s a not so well know fact that about two thirds of the Web Server Exploits are based on the apache web server, based on the market share argument that makes a lot of sense.

          I’m sure you can find someone claiming this, but that doesn’t make it a fact. The only claim I’ve ever seen that purported to prove that, even with all the obvious flaws in their methodology, still showed Windows web servers being compromised at about 2.5 times their market share. Oops.

          So I don’t think that’s a winning argument.

          As for installing software under Windows and Debian:

          Windows -> Search for the executable program, then execute it. Whatever happens next depends on how well the person doing the install program set it up.

          Debian (Libranet, Xandros, Mepis, Ubuntu, etc.) ->
          Use the package manager, Click Update, select software you want, click “Install”.

          It just isn’t that hard. It’s also, by the way, the same way you install patches, or upgrade your current software. And the packages are created by the same people that create the OS distribution you’re using, so there’s every reason to expect it to work right.

          Debian doesn’t represent all Linux, but they have software installation figured out. Expect other Linux distributions to follow.

          BTW, you can use Xandros or Linspire, both of which can be bought preinstalled on some PC’s, and never know the first thing about Debian.

        • #3185566

          actually..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          debian learned that trick from red hat, they were the first distro with package management.
          ( the infamous rpm )

          debian developed thier own package management tool set, which is why there are now 2 options a deb or an rpm

          distros that use debs are said to be debian based and those that use rpms are said to be red hat based.

          slak, lfs and a couple of others are the pure linux, where you build from sources. package management is a luxury.

          then there is the tool alien, that adds functionality to apt or rpm, it knows both package types and can install either, reguardless of the base distro usage.

        • #3189494

          WTF?

          by mswanberg ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          >> Debian (Libranet, Xandros, Mepis, Ubuntu, etc.) ->
          Use the package manager, Click Update, select software you want, click “Install”.

          You’re kidding, right?

          Sure, that works for the packages that are already part of the package manager. What about installations off the beaten track?

          My experience with it is:

          1. Type command line to update and then type command to install. Package not found.

          2. Scour internet for site that contains desired package (have to have the right FTP or HTTP site). Add site to .conf file. Repeat step 1.

          3. Scour internet for proper configuration of .conf file. Repeat steps 2 and 1.

          4. Scour internet for site that plays well with Debian installer. Repeat steps 2 and 1.

          5. Discover dependency #1. Repeat steps 1-4 for the dependency.

          6. Discover dependencies 2-5. Repeat steps 1-5 for each.

          7. Repeat step 1 for desired package. Get some cryptic response… is package installed? Or did it merely bless the dependencies?

          8. Do hard drive search for the executable (or service) that was installed. Try to run it. Then scour internet for insturctions on how to edit .conf file.

          Those are the EXACT steps I went through to try to install Sendmail on Ubuntu (Debian-based). I never got it working. Took me 3 evenings (my personal machines, not work-based) to go through all of it.

          Here is how I got an SMTP/POP server running on my XP box:

          1. Google search.

          2. Narrow google search using “free” as a search term.

          3. Download program.

          4. Run downloaded executable.

          5. Select new icon from Start menu.

          6. Configure settings.

          Elapsed time: 5 minutes. And at the end of the 5 minutes I had an SMTP server set up, complete with a POP server, and had 4 addresses configged.

          -Mike

        • #3189447

          running Debian here

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to WTF?

          1. search for package’s proper name (and I was using only default repositories)
          # [i]apt-cache search sendmail[/i]

          2. install using that package name (turns out it’s “sendmail”)
          # [i]apt-get install sendmail[/i]

          3. celebrate

          Elapsed time: 3 minutes (twenty second celebration included)

          I’m not a fan of Ubuntu, and Ubuntu in any case is a desktop-specific distro. You want a server, you should be using something else. Would you really want to run a mailserver on XP Home?

          I’m inclined to be skeptical of claims that Ubuntu’s default repositories don’t contain Sendmail binaries, though I’m not running it here so I can’t check.

          Of course, since Ubuntu already has an MTA installed (specifically, Postfix) by default, the pared-down Debian offshoot’s maintainers might not have decided to support Sendmail. By all accounts, Postfix is generally “better” than Sendmail, anyway. Maybe you should have checked to see if a Mail Transport Agent is already installed before you started screwing around with installing a new one. Installation time: 0 seconds.

          If you want to use Exim on a standard Debian system, like mine, installation time: 0 seconds. Exim is the default MTA of standard Debian systems.

          In fact, I’d be highly surprised to find that any full PC-install or desktop-worthy LiveCD distros do [b]not[/b] have a server-worthy MTA included in the default installation.

        • #3189416

          In response to Apotheon

          by mswanberg ·

          In reply to WTF?

          Well, that’s the trouble, isn’t it? THIS distro says it’s easy to use and learn (good for Linux n00bs like me who don’t have a lot of free time to learn stuff), but all it seems to have is an e-mail client and a web browser (Ubuntu, Linspire, Mepis, etc. seem to be like this). And THAT distro has it all, but you have to be a guru to use it.

          See, here’s my dilemma. I am pretty much a power user. I want servers and compilers and all the tools that our moms haven’t the foggiest what they do. I can surf and e-mail from my PocketPC, for chrissake.

          But the so-called easy-to-use Linux distros don’t have those things, do they? So, then you have to be even more of an expert to set them up, much less use them.

          Here’s another true story of my Linux use:

          Bought RedHat 8 (this was several years ago) and 3, count ’em 3, books on using RedHat 8. Same distro. Same version.

          Installed RedHat choosing to install everything. Went to the books on configuring the various servers, starting with Sendmail (which is why I went there instead of Postfix with Ubuntu, since I had SOME documentation and had used it some). Book says, “edit the yada-yada.conf file and find this line…” Well, I found the file, but the line wasn’t there. WTF? A CLEAN INSTALL!

          Later, the book says, “edit the blah-blah.conf file…” There IS NO SUCH FILE! WTWTWTF?!?!?!? Again, a CLEAN INSTALL!

          As for Ubuntu, I really don’t know much about the differences between Desktops and such, so to me it’s just a different distro. What’s the difference? But Ubuntu was the first distro I tried that a) got X running on install, and b) figured out that my old hardware (not putting Linux on any of my newer boxes) actually could run at better than 640×480. It actually brought up 1600×1200 right on install! Not bad for that ol’ 400 MHz Pentium.

          That server I installed is on XP Pro. I only have XP Home on my gaming box (which leads to another nit… Linux games… enough of the Tetris… show me Battlefield2 or Falcon 4.0 on a Linux box). But IIS doesn’t have a POP server, only an SMTP server. The freeware I found had both, so I kept IIS SMTP turned off. Realize, I am not doing this for an organization. Just for my small 6-box LAN.

          In any case, you seem like an expert. What is your advice for me learning Linux (and learning it well, as I am a power user with a n00btard understanding of Linux)? The beginning books seem too beginner and the advanced books are above my current understanding.

          I do wish to learn Linux through and through because I appreciate the open-source movement and I do believe that Linux is awesome (I just don’t feel that Windows is THAT bad). Hell, I just used dd to back up a Windows partition and MBR. Man, you just can’t do that with Windows out-of-the-box!

          So, any suggestion you have, I would appreciate. Once I am an expert at both, then can I have a truly informed opinion.

          Thank you,
          -Mike

        • #3193474

          learning Linux

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to WTF?

          MSwanberg: It sounds like you might actually have some interest in learning about how to use Linux. That being the case, I’ll give the best quick-and-dirty beginner’s advice I’ve got right off the top of my head.

          1. Find a LUG local to you. Join the mailing list. Attend meetings. [b]Be nice.[/b] Be willing to leave your Windows expectations at the door: when you say “But Windows lets me do it this way!” you’re short-circuiting the learning process for a system that does it differently. To find LUGs near you, check out http://www.linux.org/groups/ for listings by location.

          2. When you’ve gotten familiar with someone that uses Linux (whether it’s at a LUG meeting, at work, or elsewhere in your life) with whom you get along well, and this person is somewhat local to you, consider trying whatever distro they recommend and know about as your first major foray into Linuxy goodness. Sometimes, the Linux distro you actually need to get started is the one for which you can get the best help.

          3. Understand that people only make judgments and offer advice based on their own experience, and be willing to take any comments people make with a grain of salt, whether they’re discussing Windows, Linux, MacOS X, OS/400, or a Texas Instruments calculator. When someone says something is “better” than something else, find out what that person is evaluating, and compare it to what those who disagree are evaluating.

          4. Don’t get frustrated when you discover that learning a completely different way of doing things makes you not as much an expert with Linux as you are with Windows. You mention that you’re a “power user” (with Windows), which in many ways means exactly nothing with Linux. The same is true in reverse: someone that is a “power user” with Linux may be at a loss in a Windows environment. The methodology for viewing hidden files at the command line in Linux, for instance, is completely different from the methodology for viewing hidden files using Windows Explorer, and it only gets more divergent as the tasks become more complex and require more expertise. Neither system is really more difficult to understand than the other, they’re just each very different from the other, and thus liable to violate your expectations daily.

          ————————

          Your frustration with your experience with Ubuntu is understandable, but your assessment of it is unfair, really. Ubuntu is designed as a desktop system, not a server. Yes, under the hood it’s Linux, and therefore fully capable of performing any role for which Linux is suited, but it is by default a desktop distro, and as such the amount of effort it takes to vary from the default installation of that distribution to get a credible implementation of some other system role (such as a good mail server) grows somewhat.

          There are pretty much three approaches to easy implementation Linux distros that are relevant here: easy desktop, clean server, and do-everything box.

          The easy desktop systems are oriented toward those who want to stick something in the computer and, with a minimum of user interaction, produce an operating system environment that allows common desktop tasks like word processing, web browsing, and email communication. Anything beyond that sort of thing requires you to know more about what you’re doing. Ubuntu is an example of the easy desktop distro.

          The do-everything box installs everything under the sun, creating a system that has all the tools necessary to be a desktop workstation for power users, a developer’s system, a webserver, a mailserver, a fileserver, and a dishwasher. Well, maybe not a dishwasher, but you can bet the kitchen sink is far from where you’re sitting when you install one of these distros. This requires you to actually be a power user to get the most use out of your system for any given task (or collection of tasks), but if you’re willing to sit around and do the point-and-click exploration for a while you can probably muddle through any reasonably simple implementation needs (such as setting up the Linux equivalent of Microsoft SQL Server), just as you could with Windows without being any kind of real expert. The major GUI-oriented distros, such as SuSE Pro, fall into this category.

          Finally, there’s the clean server type distribution. Sometimes these allow a default GUI installation, or a default server installation, or a default everything installation, but their real strength is in a nothing installation. If you choose initially to install absolutely nothing extra while installing the base OS, you’ll get a minimal set of tools and find yourself booting into a shell interface with very little there. With either a broadband connection or a prodigious CD collection at hand, you can then proceed to install everything you need, but [b]only[/b] what you need, to do exactly what you want with this system. How easy and simple this is depends on which distro you choose and what software management options are available and typical for the distro, but ultimately when you’re using this sort of setup you know that any failures with the system’s implementation are your own fault. You generally have to screw up, whether through inattention or ignorance, to get undesirable effects with such a system. It’s pretty easy for a newbie to screw up through ignorance with such a system, though, because when you’re doing a lean and mean install like that you’re expected to know what you’re doing. This is my preferred approach to Linux installation, though I prefer slick, simple tools at my disposal to do things quickly and easily rather than having to (for instance) compile everything from source when installing it, or having to track my own dependencies one package at a time, so I use Debian, which offers apt, the most comprehensive and well-developed software management system available, measured for the things that matter to me at least. Obviously, Debian would then be the example of this type of system that I mention here.

          You’ve mentioned being frustrated by the fact that Ubuntu is billed as being easy for the newbie to understand but failing to serve your purposes as a mail server. You’ve got to understand that it’s billed as being easy for the newbie [b]because it’s oriented to simple end-user desktop use[/b]. As for the complaint that it’s not blatantly obvious that Ubuntu is really intended more for the desktop than the server, look at Windows: Windows XP Home (or even Pro) is a desktop system, and Windows Server 2003 is meant as a server. The average end-user hasn’t even [b]heard of[/b] WS2k3. If you want to find out about the various distros and what their target audiences are, you have to ask around. If you ask for a distro that’s “easy to learn”, and that’s the only criteria you offer, you’ll get handed a desktop system, but if you ask about a distro that’s relatively easy to set up as a mail server, you’ll have to be prepared to ask for more specifics, just as you would for any other specialized task, like GUI development, web server, or gaming platforms.

          You can surf the web and email from Ubuntu. I know this for a fact. Fire up something like Thunderbird, or whatever other default GUI mail user agent you’ve got, and you’re in business. You said you wanted to get Sendmail running, then complain about how a PocketPC system can be used to check email, though; you’re talking about two different things. That’s like comparing Outlook Express with Microsoft Exchange. All you need for checking and sending email is some client like Thunderbird, Evolution, or KMail. Ubuntu defaults to the GNOME dekstop, and I don’t recall what the default email client is in GNOME, but it should be easy enough to find it in the GNOME equivalent of the Start menu. All it takes is an Internet connection and the usual POP or IMAP configuration.

          Ubuntu comes with an email server worthy MTA (Postfix, according to a cursory Google search) installed by default, and if you can find a full-fledged desktop-worthy distro that doesn’t come with gcc (the standard C/C++ compiler on Linux systems) installed I’ll give you a dollar. Yes, the easy to use Linux distros [b]do[/b] comes with these things.

          ————————

          If you don’t like editing configuration files, I’m afraid I’m going to have to suggest you stay out of the Linux equivalent of the registry and go back to using GUI configuration tools. Your experiences with RH8 are outdated, mind you, and it’s true that Linux hasn’t always been as accessible to the new user as it is now, but you should be able to configure any major Linux distro’s defaults to suit your needs even more easily than you could tweak Windows configuration options, these days.

          ————————

          You refuse to use newer hardware for Linux, and yet you expect the first Linux distro(s) you try out (without researching for suitability) to work perfectly on badly obsolete hardware. To give you a rough comparison in Windows terms, you’re effectively expecting to have no problems installing XP Home, XP Pro, Media Center, or Server 2k3 on a Pentium 400MHz. You’re simply going to run into problems doing something like that.

          ————————

          Lack of games on Linux is definitely a legitimate reason to choose Windows, but it’s not a legitimate reason to complain about the failings of Linux. Linux doesn’t have as many professional games designed for it. Games such as Unreal Tournament and Neverwinter Nights will run on Linux, but others like Command and Conquer: Generals will not. It’s kinda hit and miss, and that’s the fault of the game designers. In fact, of the gaming industry’s major hits that run on Linux, probably half only run on Linux because a bunch of Linux enthusiasts persevered in the face of a great deal of resistance from game vendors. The other half run on Linux because the game vendors have embraced Linux as another platform for their games, and created something specifically for Linux gamers. As I said, it’s hit and miss, but don’t blame it on the OS. Just use the OS you need for a given game, if you really want to play the game, and hope like the rest of us that eventually the game vendors will start developing for all platforms equally.

          I’m not much of a gamer, so this really isn’t an issue for me. The two games I’ve ever liked (Command and Conquer: Generals, and City of Heroes) enough to actually buy both run on Windows only, and as a result I’ve ended up not playing them these days.

          ————————

          As far as books are concerned, I find that the more-advanced books are useful primarily as resources when you need to look something up and are just having no luck with manpages, Google, or a LUG mailing list. Don’t bother buying them to introduce yourself to Linux in an orderly fashion. The way to get into Linux as a Windows power user picking up a brand new OS is really just to find a way to get yourself mentored in, preferably by someone local. I ended up learning how to get Linux going basically without help, and it was an interesting challenge to get past my initial misconceptions learned through long experience with Windows, but once I got past the hump things really started coming easily, and making a lot more sense to me than Windows ever did. I won’t swear that the experience will be the same for you, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t be; I just recommend getting local help if at all possible to ease the process.

          If you want to hit me up for help as you go along, feel free. Use my profile contact to get in touch with me (which will get us started talking to each other with email) and, for quick responses when I’m online, let me know if you’ve got a preferred IM service (AIM, MSN Messenger, Y!M, ICQ: I use all four). I’ll offer what help I can from afar. I’d do the same with Windows, but you might get a little more grumbling from me over Windows-related issues if that’s what you needed. Heh. I have my preferred environment, I’m afraid.

          Best o’ luck.

        • #3194684

          Thanks! Great Post!

          by mswanberg ·

          In reply to WTF?

          EXCELLENT post, my man. I am printing it out to keep and refer to.

          I guess the thing that’s bitten me is the “easy to learn Linux” monniker that some of these newer distros throw out. Actually, they should say, “easy to USE Linux”. I was hoping to actually learn the OS. Heck, I know how to use Thunderbird and Firefox (have both of them on my Windows boxes… very much the same on both OSes). I want to get into the meat of it. After all, if I used Ubuntu for e-mail and web-surfing and then came to you and said, “Hey, I KNOW Linux!” you’d laugh your ass off. “No you don’t!” you would say. And I would cry. 🙂

          Kind of like if I wrote my “Hello, world” app in Java, I couldn’t exactly put Java on my resume, could I?

          I have no problem editing conf files, really. In fact, I think it’s a pretty cool way to do things. But my issue is that the sources I’ve seen never ever tell you WHY I’m doing something. They always just say, “put this line in this file”. There never seems to be a “if you wanted to do this, then you would change this. And this is what the various parms mean.” Maybe I do need a good reference book. But I do appreciate your idea of finding a mentor.

          Your post was an excellent foray into the nature of Linux. You yourself seem to be saying, “yeah, it’s tough. It makes little sense sometimes. But it’s worth it.”

          A few points of clarification. By “power user” I meant that I want my PCs to do more than just e-mail and web-surfing. I want them to record TV, convert video, play music, IM, allow me to write code for the stuff I can’t find good programs for, etc. etc. All in all, what I’m saying is that the simple desktop distro is probably not for me.

          Yes, I know the difference between an e-mail server and an e-mail client. My point was, if all I wanted was a web-surfing e-mail-reading machine, then I don’t need to sacrifice a box to the Linux gods. I can do those simple tasks on, say, my PocketPC. But I want more out my desktop machines.

          As an analogy, I feel as if I traded in my S2000 for another car that everyone promises me is way better. But I get in it, and it’s like a Toyota Echo, and I have to stuff my head under the hood for days at a time to try and coax the “betterness” out of it. And everything I try doesn’t work. But people keep telling me, “Man, aren’t you glad you dumped that 0-60 in 5.2 piece of garbage for this awesome ride?” And all I can think is, “man, wish I had my S back.”

          I guess it’s a little like “buyer’s remorse” on my part, even though most Linux distros are free. 🙂

          In the end, if it were easy to learn, then it wouldn’t be worth it, would it? I’ll keep plugging…

          -Mike

        • #3194534

          quite welcome

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to WTF?

          Something to keep in mind when trying to migrate your “power user” skills from Windows to Linux is this: You didn’t become a power user of Windows by sitting down at a Windows machine and exclaiming “This is easy!!!” You did so through years of working with Windows, learning its ins and outs, and picking up hints and tricks like how (to use an example from my own life) to turn off the desktop in the Win2k registry to increase general system responsiveness by probably 20% without loss of any functionality I actually used anyway (and, in fact, system security is increased marginally). This was not a trick I knew the moment I sat down, or for which I knew to Google off the top of my head. By the same token, there’s a lot to learn about the flexibility and power of Linux that you can’t get simply by putting an Ubuntu CD in the drive.

          Regarding your issues with configuration files not being adequately explained, and other issues with finding helpful information: manpages are youre new buddy. Learn to navigate and understand the format of manpages, and you’ll quickly learn to be self-instructing with Linux. The shell command “man [argument]”, where “argument” is something about which you want information, will prove invaluable if you become a regular Linux user. There’s a manpage for just about every command on your system, and if you can’t find a manpage there’s probably a help page (or, possibly, an info page, but the info system requires its own manpage to use and it pretty much tends to just duplicate the contents of manpages). So, try “man [argument]”, and if that doesn’t work, try “help [argument]”. The difference is that help is for shell-native commands, and man is for separate programs (and other stuff) accessed from the shell.

          Something many people don’t know about manpages, and that can be of keen interest to you with your desire to learn more about configuration files, is that there’s often a manpage for configuration files as well. For instance, using a Debian machine here, there’s an obscure X server configuration file, /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config, and there’s a manpage for it. I didn’t even know this configuration file existed until just now, I decided to hunt up a random configuration file and found it. I typed “man Xwrapper.config”, and it spat out a manpage that explains what it is and everything I need to know about it, in great detail. Surprisingly, it’s a very small configuration file with very limited scope, and is very easy to understand with the help of the manpage.

          Considering that manpages use less (or, on systems where less isn’t installed, they use more), you have the ability to search for key terms very easily in manpages too, if you want to skip all the explanation and go directly to a description of a given configuration option. Open the manpage and type “/[search string]”, where “search string” (minus brackets, as always) is whatever term it is for which you’re searching. Probably the most important thing to remember when using manpages is that, just like less (or more), hitting the q key allows you to exit the manpage.

          As I say, manpages are your new buddy. In short, Linux [b]is your reference book for Linux[/b]. The command “man” is actually short for “manual”, and the whole collection of manpages is basically the definitive Linux manual. When someone says you should RTFM, that’s the manual to which they refer in the Linux world.

          By the way, you mentioned some multimedia uses for Linux. If you’re interested in creating a highly-functional multimedia system as the centerpiece of your home entertainment system, I recommend looking into a Linux distribution called MythTV. It’s Tivo, but better, with a lot of ability to hook into everything else under the sun related to your home entertainment system. I know someone that’s actually running a 16-drive RAID rackmount system with MythTV in his closet (though I don’t think he actually has all 16 drive bays filled yet).

          Ultimately, Ubuntu doesn’t have to be a Ford escort. It can be turned into an S2000, with a bit of work. Being specifically designed as an end-user’s desktop system, though, it’s more difficult to turn that into (for instance) a credible mail server than it is to do the same with plain-vanilla Debian. In fact the only thing it’s not easier to do with something like Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, et cetera, than it is for a specialized large default install system is duplicate exactly the setup of that large default install. Since most people aren’t actually interested in duplicating every last detail of such a system, though, and would actually like to change some things, you’re probably better off with something that allows for a lean initial install and very flexible custom configuration, once you know how to make that work for you. I tend to view Ubuntu as a crutch to help wean immigrants from the Windows world off the Microsoft wheelchair. With Debian, on the other hand, I’ve tied on a pair of quality running shoes, and I’m sprinting. Sure, it took me some time and effort to get into shape to run like this, but I get around a lot faster now, a lot more flexibly, and without any more effort. In fact, lugging that crutch around can get pretty tiring.

          . . . and thanks for the kudos. I’m glad I could be of assistance. As I said, feel free to hit me up with questions off the discussion forum if you want to.

        • #3195555

          Manpages

          by mswanberg ·

          In reply to WTF?

          Yes, I am actually quite familiar with manpages, but you have, in a few words, doubled my usability with it.

          For instance, the “q” command… I was always holding Ctrl and mashing a bunch of keys in the ASDZXC area of the keyboard. Not using Linux stuff every day makes it tough to remember which key combo exits which app. Isn’t it like Ctrl-D to get out of the command-line mail app?

          Also, the / (slash) thing is awesome. I always used apropos to try and find stuff (Ctrl-Z to get out of that, isn’t it?) and I generally found it to be somewhat daunting to wade through the results that come at me.

          I am generally encouraged by people like you who seem to make Linux (and other stuff… never heard of that Win2K thing you mentioned) appear to be easy. And yes, I agree that time will equal knowledge.

          I hope you can appreciate my frustration in some of the obstacles I’ve come up against, though. Yes, I sat down and read books about the inner workings of Windows to get more knowledge. But I never can remember reading something in a book and then it not working in practice, which has happened to me on several occasion re: Linux.

          As for MythTV, I have it installed on one of my machines. Only after I got through the installation did I find out that it isn’t compatible with ATI All-in-Wonder cards. So, now, until I can take some time to mess with that box, it is my 24-hour-a-day weather report. 🙂

          Sad, yes, but true. Especially considering I can SMS “weather 35244” to 46645 (GOOGL) and get a weather report any time I want. But I like the MythTV weather interface… very slick and cool. I just need to get some time to really play with that machine to get it up and running well.

          I used to have that machine singing the TiVo-like song very well. I have a ReplayTV, but Replay doesn’t handle conflicts as well as TiVo, so I built this MicroATX machine (the now MythTV box) for about $300. I then wrote a batch script and a few VBScript programs to daily go out to XMLTV and retrieve a feed, and then it interfaces with the Replay and gets all the conflicts, and then schedules those conflicts to record through the All-in-Wonder. Pretty slick. But I don’t watch THAT much TV, so mostly the box just sat there. It would record 1 or 2 shows a week.

          Then I have a slick system set up on another box that downloads all the shows from the Replay and also takes them from the MicroATX and re-encodes them all in divx for my Archos to be able to play (it’s very particular about what it can play). In the morning, I plug in the Archos and I have all of the previous night’s TV good to go. Works great for slow days at the office (don’t tell my boss).

          I would love to someday be that effective on Linux machines. I know there are things that exist in Linux that don’t in the Windows world, so I just mainly want to know what my options are so that I can have what I want in the best fashion possible.

          -Mike

        • #3195480

          some answers

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to WTF?

          “[i]Yes, I am actually quite familiar with manpages, but you have, in a few words, doubled my usability with it.[/i]”

          Good! Glad to be of service.

          “[i]I was always holding Ctrl and mashing a bunch of keys in the ASDZXC area of the keyboard. Not using Linux stuff every day makes it tough to remember which key combo exits which app. Isn’t it like Ctrl-D to get out of the command-line mail app?[/i]”

          On Linux, Ctrl-Z suspends a program and Ctrl-C exits it. As for Ctrl-D exiting a command-line email application, I don’t know. I use mutt (a command-line email application), but its exit key is Q as well. There probably is some common CLI email application that uses Ctrl-[foo] to exit it, but off the top of my head I don’t know what it would be or if D is the key it uses.

          If you’re using something like apropros, apt-cache search, ls, or anything else that potentially gives you a LOT more stuff than you need, you can narrow down your results significantly with something like grep. For instance, if you’re looking for a package relating to both GTK+ and images in the Debian apt archives, you might use the command string “apt-cache search gtk |grep image”. The vertical bar character “|” is called a “pipe” (in case you’re not familiar with this), and is used to send (to “pipe”) a command through another command. The output of the first command is sent to the second command, and only the output of the second command is sent to STDOUT (the command line, generally: STDOUT is the env. variable for “standard output”). There are other tips and tricks out there for narrowing down output to relevant stuff, but I find grep at the shell and / within certain applications to be the most commonly useful. You should be able to use grep in conjunction with apropos to help you get usefully narrowed search results and, if you get enough stuff so that it scrolls off the top of the screen and don’t have the ability to scroll back, you can always pipe the command output through less to give you the ability to scroll using arrow keys or page up and down using Ctrl-D and Ctrl-U.

          “[i]never heard of that Win2K thing you mentioned[/i]”

          Yeah, not many have. It’s pretty rare, and is something I just found one day while working in the registry looking for something else that I needed to alter to fix a registry corruption. Not many people want the desktop turned off, anyway. Among other features that disappear when the desktop application is entirely disabled is the ability to place icons on the visible desktop for double-clicking to open the referenced applications. I prefer to use custom menus from the taskbar rather than desktop icons, though, so it was very much worthwhile to deactivate the desktop on my own system.

          “[i]I hope you can appreciate my frustration in some of the obstacles I’ve come up against, though.[/i]”

          Yes, I can understand and appreciate that. It’s a reaction to the steeper initial learning curve for the behind-the-scenes uses of unixy systems, essentially.

          As for your frustrations with books having what appears to be inaccurate information, to understand that you have to understand what’s going on when someone writes one of these books. First of all, the people who write the books are often people who have extensive experience using the systems in question but don’t necessarily know why those systems behaved the way they did. The underlying principles are what need to be taught to new arrivals, not the laundry-list set of brainless steps to take, not only because the laundry-list approach doesn’t teach you to sort out how to do new things without a book, but also because the laundry-list changes between versions or even sub-versions sometimes, while the principles remain constant. Red Hat books are particularly subject to this sort of issue, as Red Hat considers itself sorta above the Linux Standard Base, and likes to do things its own way, which is often different from its own way six months ago. This can lead to some confusion from time to time: it took me an hour or so to figure out that, for some odd reason, NIC configuration files in Fedora Core 3 are in a scripts directory separate from the remainder of the networking configuration files. After extensive use of Fedora/RH, the Fedora/RH way of doing things starts to make a certain kind of internally consistent sense, but it’s quite confusing at first. Also, of course, there’s the simple fact that you were probably reading second and third editions of books, where stuff gets updated to deal with newer versions but sometimes not everything is updated. The same thing occurs often enough with Windows-related books too, as long as they don’t come from Microsoft Press.

          “[i]As for MythTV, I have it installed on one of my machines. Only after I got through the installation did I find out that it isn’t compatible with ATI All-in-Wonder cards. So, now, until I can take some time to mess with that box, it is my 24-hour-a-day weather report.[/i]”

          Hah. Sorry to hear it.

          There are ways to get it running with All-in-Wonder cards, but I don’t really know what they are, so I’m afraid you’re kinda on your own there. A good LUG mailing list is worth its weight in gold for stuff like this.

          Don’t feel limited by location if all you need is email support, though. Join a LUG mailing list for a good LUG external to your area, if need be. I’m actually on a list for an Illinois area LUG, despite the fact I’ve never lived there and have never driven through the part of the state where that particular LUG is located. I’m also on three other LUG lists more local to me, but the Illinois list is a pretty good indication of the fact that value can be had from a LUG without being located anywhere near it.

          “[i]I then wrote a batch script and a few VBScript programs[/i]”

          Man, you really need to learn Perl. It’s one of the easiest-to-learn high-power languages out there, and it’s pretty much custom designed to do the sorts of things you’re doing with batch and VBS scripts. If you get familiar with it, I’m pretty sure you’ll fall in love with the succinctness of the language and the extremely powerful regex capability of it. In fact, Perl is sorta THE language to learn for any unix sysadmin. Perl’s initial purpose was text- and file-processing, and since everything in a unix system (including processor resources, binary executables, and even device drivers) is a “file” to the filesystem and can be treated as text, Perl is likely the most powerful system administration language you’ll ever come across when used on a unixy system such as Linux.

          Perl is available on Windows, too, and I’m of the opinion that it’s the best scripting language for the Windows platform in general (though not in some specific uses), but ActivePerl (Perl for Windows) pales in comparison with Perl’s power within a unix environment.

        • #3190718

          Don’t knock linux either…

          by ungle ·

          In reply to WTF?

          apotheon, you’ll be shocked, I agree with you!

          You can say a lot of things about any OS, but you can knock Linux for it’s ease of use. Of course, you’ll have to spend the same amount of time learning Linux as you did Windows (naturally), but look, a comparison:

          I was about to move from one country to another, I had all my boxes packed and left out one laptop for email while waiting for the plane. Guess what? HDD died. Run to the local shop and buy a HDD, but what about the OS?? All my CDs were packed! Run to the book store, buy a Linux book for $20, run home.

          Pop in the CD, click next, next, next , next, wait 15 minutes, done. Plug laptop into LAN and check mail.

          Granted, I’ve run into difficulties when trying to compile some esoteric library into , but it wasn’t too dificult to rectify.

        • #3186060

          not so surprising, ungle

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to WTF?

          Actually, I’m not so surprised by your agreement. You’re obviously knowledgeable, particularly in regards to Windows system programming. You’re probably more knowledgeable in that area than I am, in fact, and possibly by quite a bit. It’s hard to know that much without being able to see where I’m right about Linux usability issues in the above post.

          I think our major points of disagreement are where, from my perspective, you’re looking at the programmatic aspects of the Windows system from far too close to see where architectural issues that look good up close become less good when considered within the context of other architectural design decisions on the Windows platform. In other words, from where I’m sitting, you seem to know everything there is to know about any given tree, but you’re having a tough time seeing the forest.

          Of course, we’ve gotten to a point where we’re nitpicking on individual details of each others’ posts, so we may never reach a point of agreement on those major issues.

        • #3186519

          Ignores hardware it doesn’t

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to It’s All Ball Bearings These Days

          understand is a good thing as opposed to guessing what it is then intermittantly crapping out because it was wrong.
          The whole selling point of windows is you don’t have to be technical to use it. You do have to be very technical to even approach stability though.

        • #3121636

          No

          by dreis ·

          In reply to Ignores hardware it doesn’t

          I don’t believe you are right about having to technical. A lot of people that barely know how to turn on a computer, (some I know require assistance to do that) have been using Windows for years with only minor complaints. Most of those are caused by system problems, like running Excel, Word and Powerpoint at the same time as surfing the web on 96 Megs of RAM. That will work for a little while, but when they start opening chat boxes, it crashes, then they blame Windows.

        • #3121554

          er . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to No

          That’s a stability problem. Your system should not crash because you have a lot of applications open.

          My experience is that anyone using Windows that isn’t very technically astute, or doesn’t have someone like that on tap to babysit their computing environment, always ends up with security and stability issues that make my skin crawl.

      • #3186448

        Real operating systems are protected from applications

        by h2owe2 ·

        In reply to Experience drives a lot of the comments

        I also have a lot more than 6 years IT experience and now work for an organisation that is scrapping it’s Netware 5.1 infrastructure in favour of MS W2k & W2K+3 servers. One Netware server just celebrated 300 days up-time, the other 4 are each close to 200 days. The last restarts were due to power faults, not due to bugs in the O/S. I also have around a dozen W2K servers, none of which has lasted longer than 60 days up-time; they receive security patches every month. Our terminal server needs re-booted every night to stay reliable.
        Maybe it’s not Microsoft but us who should be criticised. Like kids at a fair, we are dazzled by Microsoft’s glitz and glamour. After the transaction is completed we find out that under the flashy packaging Windows software is like a high-end Swiss army knife, lots of chrome and features but not too many tools that you would use if you had a choice. Not a good metaphor is retrospect as my Swiss army knife is a lot more useful and reliable to me than any MS product.

      • #3186429

        Even if Windows never failed it would still be my least favourite

        by daavid.turnbull ·

        In reply to Experience drives a lot of the comments

        Windows success relies in the most part because managers etc. can relate to it. It looks pretty.

        I want an OS that runs the programs I want it to run, no more and no less. The philosophy behind Windows seems be that it wants to run your life – not the other way around.

        The learning curve for Unix (and like) OS’s is a little steeper but the philosophy that drives Unix means that you can chain the commands together to get them to do exactly what you want. With Windows programs this is not possible, you are at the mercy of the software author and what he thought you may wish to do with the program. The result is always a compromise.

        • #3186291

          Um just a small point.

          by dvawter ·

          In reply to Even if Windows never failed it would still be my least favourite

          You can chain commands at the windows command prompt. So long as the exe is written propperly. There are very few command line utilities from MS that cannot be chained (I can’t think of any right now). Third party utilities is a different story. You will find the same in linux. If the developer did not do his job, then the commmand will not chain properly. Pipes and > and < work very much the same as the windows command prompt as they do at the linux prompt. I think the problem you experience is the economy of scale. There are a lot of lower skilled developers writing code for win32, than their are for linux. The reasons should be obvious, but for the sake of clairity. 1) linux users are more technically savvy, it follows that 3rd party linux developers would be linux users. 2) Market Share. If you are an inexperienced programmer, trying to break into the market what are you going to write code for? hmmm lets see, I can write a win32 app, charge money for it, and it will run on 66% of the computers our there. Or I can write a linux app, be pressured to make it open source, and it will run on less than a 3rd of the computers. Don't get me wrong, Linux is a solid product, but it's my experience that most MS bashers do not have the experience to back up thier arguments. David

        • #3185850

          Chaining commands

          by tommy higbee ·

          In reply to Um just a small point.

          Yes, you can chain commands at Windows command prompt. I used to do it all the time before I got familiar with Unix/Linux. I will say, however, that it works MUCH better under Unix/Linux.

          1) DOS is really imitating Unix by using temporary files behind the scenes. For instance:
          dir *.doc | find “/2004 ”
          will actually send the output of the “dir *.doc” command to a temp file, then execute the ‘find “/2004 ” command on that temp file. For small temp files, the difference is negligible. For large temp files, you can wait a long time for the first command to finish executing before you see any output from the second command. The effect is magnified by multiple stage pipelines. Linux/Unix, on the other hand, starts all stages of the pipeline together, and each one starts sending output as it starts receiving input. No long delays before you see any output.

          2)Linux/Unix allows you to set an evironment variable to the result of a command. For example, getting the current date.
          curdate=`date`
          Try to do that in Windows. There is a way to extract the current date, but it’s not exactly easy

          3) Windows still uses DOS batch files. If you want to do anything complicated, you really need some sort of better scripting language. Like a Unix shell ported to Windows.

          4) DOS lets you redirect standard input and standard output. Unix shells also let you redirect standard error. This lets you separate error messages from the output of your program — a huge advantage. To do the same in Windows, you have to anticipate the error messages and try to remove them with a ‘ find /v “Expected Error” ‘

          Fortunately, it is possible to install a Unix shell on top of Windows. As long as you don’t mind the extra install, it might pay off.

        • #3189408

          Answers…

          by mswanberg ·

          In reply to Chaining commands

          1. Yes, the command shell does imitate Linux/Unix a lot. So what’s the problem?

          The thing is, Windows has become a GUI platform, period. VERY few programs are written to use STDOUT, STDIN, STDERR, etc. in the Windows environment anymore. But they do still exist. And programs can easily be written to pipe to and from these standard inputs/outputs. I do it all the time.

          2. The Command shell already has the environment variables %date% and %time%. What’s your point?

          Yeah, I guess you can’t put the result of some programs into environment variables on-the-fly, but who cares, because there’s…

          3. Windows Scripting… ever heard of it? I write down-n-dirty scripts that do all manner of things that you could never do with ANY BASH-type scripting (or DOS Batch scripts either, for that matter). Can you open Word, open a doc, and then spellcheck it? Create and populate a database? Automagically create and run jobs on a mainframe from the PC and then retrieve the output and process the data into a report? Interrogate a spreadsheet? Spawn a web server (yes, I’ve seen it… German dude wrote a web server in VBScript!)? Maintain string variables up to 2GB in length? Spin through files, manipulating, and changing them? Do-while, If-then, Repeat-until contructs? Collections? ActiveX access?

          VBScript and JScript are basically interpreted programming languages, and I write scripts all the time that can be piped to and from. I even pipe to and from FTP clients, Java applets, anything that I need to.

          4. The Command shell does indeed let you redirect STDERR. Trouble is, few program are written to take advantage of this separate output.

          A buddy put me onto CygWin, which is a Unix-like shell that runs in Windows. Didn’t take me long to see it didn’t offer me anything that I couldn’t already do in Windows.

          -Mike

        • #3189181

          Re: Answers

          by tommy higbee ·

          In reply to Answers…

          > 1. Yes, the command shell does imitate Linux/Unix a lot. So what’s the problem?

          Not a problem, just the point that a) yes, you can do that in Windows, but b) not really as well

          > 2. The Command shell already has the environment variables %date% and %time%. What’s your point?

          > Yeah, I guess you can’t put the result of some programs into environment variables on-the-fly, but who cares, because there’s…

          %date% and %time% are not the point, scriptability of program output is the point. Besides, those variables were only available starting with (I think) Windows NT.

          > 3. Windows Scripting… ever heard of it?

          Of course. Nearly mentioned it, but it was just a little too far off the topic of pipelines and redirection.

          > I write down-n-dirty scripts that do all manner of things that you could never do with ANY BASH-type scripting

          a) You’d be surprised at the sophisticated tools/applications that have been done with BASH or KSH scripting. (e.g. Metamail, Arch)
          b) But you’re really getting off the topic of the command line and talking about scripting languages
          c) And since Unix has plenty of scripting languages too, most of which have also been ported to Windows …. well, I just don’t see much point in comparing scripting languages.

          > 4. The Command shell does indeed let you redirect STDERR. Trouble is, few program are written to take advantage of this separate output.

          So it does. I seem to remember some problems with it, though… But since I don’t remember what they were, I’ll just concede your point.

          > A buddy put me onto CygWin, which is a Unix-like shell that runs in Windows. Didn’t take me long to see it didn’t offer me anything that I couldn’t already do in Windows.

          Depends on what you’re wanting to do. If all you want is better scripting support, and you’ve already climbed past the Windows Scripting Host learning curve, it may not be much use to you. But Cygwin is more than a bash shell. It’s a Unix compatibility layer. Cygwin will let you port just about any Unix application or program to Windows. I use it to run a Unix X server on Windows…

        • #3190716

          Correction…

          by ungle ·

          In reply to Answers…

          I understand your post. I think you’d be very surprised just what you can do from a Unix shell script, be careful there.

          As a quick point, VBScript, JScript are not interpreted languages. The scripting host compiles then prior to execution. That’s how you can get such goo dperformance out of a script.

        • #3186049

          indeed

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Correction…

          1. The Windows command line is like a poor neutered poodle next to the unix shell environment, in my experience. Just compare the availability of command switches to specialize your task for a given one-shot use between the two. In other words, I agree with your statement that someone who makes a snap judgment about the comparison of the Windows DOS prompt and the unix shell might be surprised by what a unix shell script can accomplish. I’ve yet to see a batch file that can accomplish what bash, for instance, is capable of.

          Shell scripting projects I’ve seen include stuff like a menu-based troubleshooting tool for Macs, a WiFi gateway system running on a LiveCD, a full software package management system, a firewall application, a Podcast/playlist/RSS comprehensive download and management system, a weblog engine, and a video CD authoring suite. Good luck doing that with batchfiles.

          2. Turning VBScript and JScript into compile-at-runtime languages was one of the smartest things Microsoft has ever done. It keeps the two languages from falling entirely by the wayside. There still isn’t the performance you might expect from Perl, Python, and Ruby, but it’s close enough so that people are willing to use VBScript and JScript within Windows.

        • #3185956

          Are you sure?

          by mswanberg ·

          In reply to Correction…

          I’m not so sure that VBScript and JScript are compiled prior to running.

          I frequently dynamically load various stuff into the code that can only be determined at runtime. For instance, I have a class that builds and executes FTP scripts. Other scripts will dynamically execute that code to get the class definitions which are then instantiated later in the running script.

          If VBScript and JScript scripts are pre-compiled prior to execution, then the typing must be EXTREMELY loose, right down to the names of classes, procedures, functions, etc. In fact, the compiler would have to frequently say, “well, this makes no sense, but I guess it will at runtime, so I’ll let it slide.”

          As well, commands such as Execute affect what takes place in the script. But yet, the contents of the Execute statement cannot be known at the onset of the script’s execution.

          For example:

          s=”function Add(a,b)” & vbcrlf
          s=s & “Add=a+b” & vbcrlf
          s=s & “End Function”
          execute s
          x=1
          y=2
          msgbox Add(x,y)

          How could the compiler know the contents of s in order to satisfy the results of Add(x,y)? What if s was read from a file, or input at runtime by the user? It’s the same thing, but I’ll wager the compiler can’t be clairvoyant enough to figure out what is actually be executed.

          I do know that the script executors scan the scripts for syntax error prior to execution, but that’s not the same as a full compile.

          -Mike

        • #3182351

          compile at runtime

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Correction…

          Whether VBScript and JScript compile at run time or are simply interpreted depends on where you’re running them. The system native scripting host was initially an interpreter for VBScript and became a compile-at-runtime compiler, as far as I’m aware. I could be mistaken about that, and I suspect you and/or ungle would know better. My direct scripting experience is all with languages that are platform-independent.

          There’s an approach to getting the sort of flexibility to which you refer that works for variable types in compiled languages, which even allows strong typing, and languages such as Objective C make extensive use of it: rather than strict or loose typing, it uses duck typing. The term comes from the idea that if it quacks like a duck, it’s of type “duck”. Basically, a variable remains untyped until it is used at runtime, then becomes strongly typed at that point. This allows for a far more dynamic language, which is greatly useful for object-oriented programming in general.

          I know for a fact that Perl is compiled at runtime rather than being interpreted, which helps to account for its performance (despite all the hype, it still tends to perform better in common benchmarks than Python), and Perl is not only capable of the sort of flexibility you describe, but much more besides. In fact, Perl may well be the most flexible non-Lisp language in common usage, including traditionally compiled, bytecode-compiled, compiled-at-runtime, and traditionally interpreted languages. If the perl program can do it for Perl, I’m sure it’s entirely possible for someone in Redmond to have made the Windows scripting host do it for VBScript and/or JScript.

        • #3182326

          apotheon..re batch files and bash..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Correction…

          I know someone who pushed batch files to the limits of thier capabilities.
          his autoexec.batt was 75 mb in size, and unless he started windows, he never left it.
          he could run every single application from the menus he built into it.
          ( graphic menu interface )
          so, on this I’ll have to say that batch files can be as powerfull as bash scripts.
          ( if you really put a lot of effort into playing with batch files )

          since batch files are more a dos thing than a windows thing this is not a pro windows post. 😉

        • #3182205

          not quite the same

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Correction…

          There’s a big difference between writing an application suite and just writing an interative conditional loop command line menuing system. All the latter requires is the ability to print to STDOUT, the ability to use a looping conditional, and the ability to execute other programs. That’s nowhere near the sort of algorithmic complexity of which the unix shell environment is capable and the richness of the shell native command list at your disposal in unix shells.

          Just compare the switches available, for instance.

    • #3189887

      Numbers Game

      by djameson ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      It is simply a numbers game. A standard network is 80-90% windows 4% hardware(routers etc) and ~6% linux. I spend just about as much time making sure my BSD machines are patched as I do updating my windows boxes. You just have to have the right TOOLS. it is the perception that there is more work involved becuase there are more systems involved but per machine, a system is a system.

    • #3189881

      Job Security

      by jbaker ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      You know, as much as people bash the M$ OSs, they could simply look on the bright side, and count it as job security. Think about it this way, if all of the OSs worked perfectly, and were perectly secured, what need would companies have for large IT staffs? They would be able to get away with one person to manage the networks, and some people to work on hardware issues.

      Thankfully, there are no perfect OSs. Even the beloved pinguin is not totally secure, and a properly installed, and configured M$ machine os a fairly stable thing (there will ALWAYS be hardware that does not like to play nicely with other hardware and software that is the same way).

      • #3189870
        Avatar photo

        Or another way of looking at it would be

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Job Security

        That the IT staff could be doing their real work instead of playing Nurse Maid or Wet Nurse to the Windows Boxes which are constantly in need of attention.

        The one good thing with most of my customers is that they turn off their workstations every day so they do not run into memory leeks and the like that do happen to Windows when left running 24/7.

        Col ]:)

        • #3193802

          I love it

          by dvawter ·

          In reply to Or another way of looking at it would be

          Memory leeks are not an OS flaw. Anyone who thinks so is a fool. I can write a C++ program for linux that would leak memory too. I run my XP desktop at work continously, and on average reboot once a week. My desktop at home will run for 2 or 3 weeks easy, before my game will crash and I reboot for GP’s

          David

        • #3186305
          Avatar photo

          Strange thing David

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I love it

          My Boxes run 24/7 and the longest that I’ve run a Windows box for is around 1 Month and then applied a Patch that required the REBOOT.

          But lets take a long hard look at things here ring now I shut down due to an electrical storm and have just been up and running a few days 2 machines exactly the same internals one with XP Pro and one with Debian.

          Debian Box uptime 7 Days 11 Hours 41 minutes. XP Box 6 hours 35 minutes can you see a slight difference there? I sure as Hell can. :p

          But on the up side I’m not being called a M$ Stooge or Clown so thank you very much. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3186299

          I have no argument

          by dvawter ·

          In reply to Strange thing David

          Linux is more stable, there is no question there, and anyone who tries to argue that is a fool.

          My contention is the vast majority of bashers that say Windows crashes all the time, and doesn’t wok most of the time, are just repeating someone else’s argument, and have no real life experience in it. I would not use XP as a web server, because to me it’s unaccepatable to have to reboot a web server once a week. But on a Desktop, that most people shut down as a matter of course when they go home, the weekly reboots are a non issue. My Laptop running 24/7 on XP has a 99.9898% uptime, so even if I am rebooting once a week or so it’s not costing me much productivity. The arguments that XP is not stable enough are simply unwarranted bashing.

          An It person should be able to rise above the public opinion, and realize the best fit for each situation. I am very fond of linux, but I also have to argue that Microsoft has a quality product.

          David

        • #3194374

          but, do you

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to I have no argument

          like being lied to by your os?
          as well as kept in the dark?
          windows ( all ms os versions including dos itself ) hide the system boot messages.

          then they lie to you and tell you that thier “wizard” will help you to solve the problem

          on top of the lies in advertising, where they say it is stable..secure.. to get you to buy it.

          sorry, but mushroom treatment is for mushrooms, not for people.

      • #3193804

        Linux and MS handle that differntly

        by dvawter ·

        In reply to Job Security

        Linux simply ignores hardware that does not play nice.

        Microsoft at least tries to use that USB device.

        • #3186510

          This is a good thing ?

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Linux and MS handle that differntly

          I don’t know what this device is so I’ll take a wild guess and see what happens ?
          Put your hand in the flickery orange thing.
          Oh so it is a fire then ?

    • #3189853

      well

      by jaqui ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      since I detest being lied to by both the os and the company that made it, and I detest having optons stolen from me by them I bash windows.
      and ms

      when ms gets a version that has all the same options as linux during install, that allows for console only use of system, that doesn’t require 48 hours to install software ( never mind configuration time )

      where you can site down with 3 cdroms and have everything you need for either a desktop worksttion or server then I’ll stop bashing the imbeciles.

      • #3176110

        48 Hours?

        by jbaker ·

        In reply to well

        If it is taking you 48 hours to install Winders, you are doing something wrong. I can have a system reinstalled and deployed in just under 1 hour, and if the machine is a new, clean install, it takes about 2.5 hours, and that includes all of our special software, drivers, etc.

        • #3176049

          Hours and hours

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to 48 Hours?

          At the place where I am contracting at present, it takes the best part of 4~5 hours, but I suspect that is largely due to the fact (a) our local ghostcast “server” is an older piii rehabbed desktop PC, and (b) it’s sending to a lot of workstations.

        • #3196107

          I’ve got that beat

          by djameson ·

          In reply to 48 Hours?

          BootP off Linux box pushes XP image specific to MAC to system can have it up in as little as 10 minutes. including the time to replace the HDD.

        • #3196071

          nope, but

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to 48 Hours?

          I’m refering to installing 15 to 20 apps on top of windows, and configuring them as well. each app on it’s own cd. each taking about 1 hour to install and one hour to customise.

          ( graphics apps are not quick installs, some are 3 cdroms for one app )

          if this is a workstation, then it’s a 48 hour install and config to get it running.
          ( I’ve seen some that are a month long for the end user to finalise the configuration )

        • #3195992

          Probably not the best way to keep your job…

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to nope, but

          In a situation like yours, why don’t you have a ghost server with an image of the OS and all Apps. Anything that takes 48 hours to, you should be looking at ways to cut that down.

          But that’s another topic. 🙂

        • #3195968
          Avatar photo

          That only works if you have consistent Hardware

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Probably not the best way to keep your job…

          Across the range and consistent software as well. A lot of the places that I do work for are one off installs where it just isn’t feasible or possible to clone Drives or push out installs from a Server mainly because they don’t run a server of any kind and spend all their IT budget on Hardware/Software and just expect it to work. Granted these are now all Small Business which I now only work in and while I did like some of the play toys that I had available to me when I worked in Big Business the sense of accomplishment that I now get far outweighs the constant moaning and complaining that I was subject to while working Big Business.

          Only on the small servers can I use any redundancy and that is only in places where they are willing to accept money being tied up in something that they don’t appear to be using to produce profits which is only a very small number of places that I do work for. But when one of these goes down it is back up and running within 3 minutes by just plugging in another Hot Swappable HDD and away you go. I come around latter and fix what went wrong latter.

          Col ]:)

        • #3195900

          to add to Col’s

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Probably not the best way to keep your job…

          when it’s an occasional job, for a few preffered clients, I’m not to worried about it.
          these clients are the one’s with the knowledge and skills to do it themselves, but wish to pay for me to do it so that they know it hasn’t been hosed.

          some of the machines are dual cpu workstations, some are dual cpu home systems, some are single cpu systems.
          an image of the os configured for each is a pain.
          then you get the user data loss also.
          ( I’m getting called really only when something went wrong and they are afraid they are going to lose thier data if they do it )

        • #3193870

          It’s Simple

          by djameson ·

          In reply to to add to Col’s

          This is really simple, you are right about having consistent hardware, but it doesn’t have to be the same machine, I use all Dell workstatoins and all of them are p3s and p4s with 512 Mb of memory or more. what I do is load the os which has been modified with all the drivers for all the machines, but then all the hardware is removed from the system config, by editing the image with the image browser and removing it from the registry. all the software is pre-installed word excel all our standard apps and some of our custom programmed stuff this gets 90-95 percent of the systems. then I log on as the local administrator of the machine using the hashed password that is standard to the image and run a script that will prompt for the machine name and ask what OU it needs to be put in in AD once then it re-boots the computer. I have software policies and MSI’s for all the rest of the software I install per OU so it installs after that. The user data is stored as roaming profiles so as soon as the user logs back on they’re back in business. The disadvantages of this is I have to keep a clean workstation to image and a complete system with all the softare to image and everytime we do a major system change it requires re-imaging fangling with and testing.

        • #3193859

          but for something where

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to It’s Simple

          you may only be doing once in a year, or less?

          if I was doing it more, I could see doing images, but for something that is a rare occurance it’s not worth the time and effort to me.

        • #3195864

          I’m still going to go with Angus on this one

          by jrod86 ·

          In reply to Probably not the best way to keep your job…

          If you deal with different hardware, that’s fine and I agree you don’t need a ghost server, but you could map a drive after Windows setup and either get a program to package and push the applications in a certain order with standard configurations, or just launch the install through the network. That should cut the install time down considerably.

          Sorry, 48 hours just seems like WAY to much time to spend setting something up (even with 20 apps, I do this regularly as well).

        • #3195796
          Avatar photo

          It really depends on the organization though

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I’m still going to go with Angus on this one

          quite a lot of the places that I do work for don’t use servers and only have rudimentary networks if at all. One place springs to mind where I’ve just put in a DSL router and all 4 stations are connected to this router for E-Mail & Internet but they refused to allow me to setup a network of any kind. Prior to that they where using Dial up and had 1 phone line for the 3 workstations that required Internet connectivity so short of using my own hardware and ghosting their drives I just live with what I’ve got to work with and get on with the job.

          Generally when I need to reload one of these workstations it takes me well over 48 Hours to complete the install but I’ll add a caveat to that for the first day or so I’m hunting all around the HDD saving their data before I even start to do a reinstall. While I do have storage in the Terabyte range I still can not store their entire drives contents on one of my drives and save time saving the data as then I would have to sort through the saved data and transfer across just the data that is necessary and not a lot of program & OS files that would only make a mess on a clean install.

          For most of us reloading workstations is more than just pushing out software and an OS we have to first save the Data and then we can start doing what is required and at the same time scan the drive for any problems generally they have various infections of Viri, Worms, Trojans and the like as well as a almost unlimited supply of Spy Ware. That is where most of my time is spent doing a reload and after the thing is reloaded I then have to transfer the data back to where it came from so it is useful to them.

          So while people like Jacqui and myself may say reload we actually mean something quite a bit different and far more involved. Most of us do not have the luxury of just being able to wipe a drive clean and reinstall and when the owner or worker asks where their data is we can’t just shrug our shoulders and say too bad. 🙂

          Col ]:)

        • #3185831

          I understand

          by jrod86 ·

          In reply to It really depends on the organization though

          I’ve been there myself, and spent a lot of time hunting for data on a crashed HD. I’m still going to advocate the use of a network drive or something to install from (as well as a solid backup plan). Even small business has to realize the effects or poor backup management on system uptime and take steps to mitigate that risk.

          I still say you can have a partition that contains the installs (if it’s a small company, they shouldn’t have too much to install) so that when you get past the OS, you can still grab the software from one place. I am assuming that they are past the dial-up stage you mentioned.

        • #3185563
          Avatar photo

          Well it depends on the place I suppose

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to It really depends on the organization though

          The place that I was at yesterday only has 4 workstations and 3 of those are NB’s the guy who owns the place is completely computer Illiterate and they had 1 phone line for 3 dial up connections and couldn’t understand why they needed anything different.

          I only spent 6 hours there yesterday working out the problems that he had created with an I-Pod. But as he has already left now on a long trip it’s working so who cares.

          The newest workstation that they have there is a Celeron HP unit and they only brought that because the salesman there parked a 40 ton excavator track on top of the old one which he called “Steam Powered!” The DSL came latter as he demanded it so that he could actually sell something.

          Then the owners Acer Aspire with an AMD CPU and 256 MEG or RAM is painfully slow I spent a very long time deleting duplicate songs from his play list only about 1 hour and I was constantly getting a System Not Responding message so I had to wait for it to catch up with me and I’m not all that fast on strange hardware.

          The point being that it in this place is just not an option while I would love to store an image on a HDD somewhere and be able to push it out across a network it ain’t going to happen here. But they are only a small business who sell very expensive hardware their average sale is in the 1.5 Million $ mark and up until 3 months ago they didn’t even have a permanent Internet connection available.

          Their previous salesman who I had to drag kicking and screaming into the 19 TH Century was a hard job but in comparison he was easy compared to this lot. 🙂

          Col ]:)

        • #3194024

          Not the best way to keep your job

          by rajkpb ·

          In reply to Probably not the best way to keep your job…

          This is the reason, A gentleman earlier said that if you can’t maintain windows and you are not aware how to go about it, then shame on you!

          Raj

        • #3193862

          BullSH*T

          by keyguy13 ·

          In reply to 48 Hours?

          The original poster said it takes 48 hours, because he’s probably using a modem and has to do all of the damn patches. That could EASILY take 48 hours. Even with broadband, I have trouble keeping a complete windows xp install with office and OS updates under 6 hours.

        • #3193799

          It’s not BS

          by dvawter ·

          In reply to BullSH*T

          If you have the SP2 CD for XP included with technet, or available from MS, you will only have 5 or 6 updates left to install, and the install (clean) including office can be completed in about 2 hours.

          David

        • #3186303
          Avatar photo

          Those are 5 or 6 Critical Updates

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to It’s not BS

          What about the Recommended and Hardware updates?

          I did this just over 1 week ago now and after SP 2 {from a CD} had gone on and the AV updated there was well over 80 Meg of M$ Windows Patches to apply and with broadband the computer took longer to apply them than they took to download.

          Look at what you are claiming before you open your mouth next time. :p

          Col ]:)

        • #3186281

          I know what I am claiming.

          by dvawter ·

          In reply to Those are 5 or 6 Critical Updates

          I deploy desktops with all of our proprietary software, and office 2003 sp1 in about 3 hours.

          now a note on recommended updates. Do you recompile your kernel everytime there is a new release? or do you wait till you use something that requires it? I do not load recommended updates when I complete an install. The driver CD that I have from the PC vendor is fine to get the PC running, I only load recommended and Hardware updates on an as needed basis.

          David

        • #3186275
          Avatar photo

          Well explain these please

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I know what I am claiming.

          They are off a LT that has recently be reloaded and SP1 & 2 where installed from CD as well as the .NET junk which IE needs for some web sites.

          Windows XP family Security Update for Microsoft .NET Framework, Version 1.1 Service Pack 1 (KB886903) Monday, 18 July 2005 Windows Update website
          Windows XP family Security Update for Microsoft .NET Framework, Version 1.0 SP3, English (KB886906) Monday, 18 July 2005 Windows Update website
          Windows XP family Security Update for Windows XP (KB901214) Monday, 18 July 2005 Windows Update website
          Windows XP family Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool – July 2005 (KB890830) Monday, 18 July 2005 Windows Update website
          Windows XP family Security Update for JView Profiler (KB903235) Monday, 18 July 2005 Windows Update website
          Windows XP family Update for Windows XP (KB896344) Monday, 18 July 2005 Windows Update website
          Windows XP family Update for Windows XP (KB898461) Monday, 18 July 2005 Windows Update website
          Windows XP family Security Update for Windows XP (KB893066) Monday, 18 July 2005 Windows Update website
          Windows XP family Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer for Windows XP Service Pack 2 (KB883939) Monday, 18 July 2005 Windows Update website
          Windows XP family Security Update for Windows XP (KB896428) Monday, 18 July 2005 Windows Update website

          Now from my count that is 10 patches/Updates and none are hardware related.

          And as can be seen it was done on the 18-7 -05 which is all of 4 days ago now in this time zone. 🙂

          Am I right? :^O

          Col ]:)

        • #3186193

          Xandros

          by bite me_ax_moron ·

          In reply to 48 Hours?

          I installed my Xandros desktop OCE 3.0 in 20 minutes and that was using the full options. I picked everything I wanted. Theres never been a windows install that fast & easy. But before you go bashing me for saying so, I run Windows XP on most of my machines. Up time is horrible. The best is 3 or 4 days with programs running 24/7. And then only because CachemanXP stops up the memory leaks. Without 3rd party software, windows under an intense use such as mine just doesn’t cut it. On the other hand the Xandros machine has only been rebooted for power failures…ever. At work its an all windows shop. And thats great cause it keeps me in a job. I can tell you in the last 6 months every server has been down 4 or 5 times. We now just image our machines and ghost them back when they quit. So barring hardware failures, just afew updates since the last image & the machine is back to work. On my own desktop I run Xandros, I never shut it off. Why don’t we use it everywhere? I’m the network support tech. I don’t have fancy wallpaper ( kind of like Windows) Even though I’ve been in this field since the late 80’s. So I don’t get the decisions. I had to fight to get the old stodgers to let me run Linux on my own box.
          I will eventually only have one Windows box (at home) so I can keep up with the problems at work. The rest are being converted one at a time as I have time to train everyone to use them and when the windows install is killed by whatecer comes down the net (yes I have more security them most of your servers). The box that never goes down? It serves the files for all the other machines so I can keep them clear of anything that will kill them.
          If your really serious about OS do what I did try a bunch. Oh yeah thats right only the Nix’s can give you that option.

          Merlin

        • #3081091

          Waste of time

          by pkr9 ·

          In reply to 48 Hours?

          Unless you have very special programs running you could install a new thin client in under 5 minutes. Enrolling a new user would set you back 10 minutes.

          Thin clients works well for most users, but I would never even dream of giving a DP or CAD user a thin client. Just as I would be very carefull about giving them a windows PC – they deserve better.

    • #3189743

      It’s just basic human nature

      by amcol ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      People bash Windows for the same reason they bash Linux or Mac OS. For the same reason they bash SUV’s, or abortion, or Clint Eastwood movies, or whatever. Because everyone’s entitled to their opinion, and because those opinions always run the gamut from one extreme to the other.

      I take umbrage at your statement “Anyone who claims to hate Microsoft Windows, Linux, Mac OS or any other operating system is not a true techie or network guru.” While you’re entitled to YOUR opinion, your statement is entirely dismissive. To me it’s the same as saying “Anyone who doesn’t worship as I do is not truly religious.” Hogwash, and it’s principally what’s wrong with the world today.

      There’s room in all things for all different points of view. Radical fundamentalism in any form is just another way of saying “I’m right, you’re wrong, and that’s just all there is to it.”. Check, please.

      • #3193847

        You’re cool Amcol…

        by keyguy13 ·

        In reply to It’s just basic human nature

        Seriously. I dig reading your posts. They always make such good sense 🙂

        • #3193768

          Wow Keyguy13 and I Agree

          by dvawter ·

          In reply to You’re cool Amcol…

          I have to say I totally agree with Amcol. I think fundementally, people bash because either they have had bad experiences with something, or they have a bias towards something.

          I don’t bash Linux, I like it as a whole, but I think it has specific uses, maybe what I choose to use it for, is different than what other choose.

          I don’t bash Microsoft, I have had very favorable experiences with Windows, and have made a very good living supporting Bill’s Products.

          I have my opinions about what is best for what situation. I think both are pretty damn cool pieces of software, I could never dream to make something so complex work, so I admire the creators of both. I guess I see the difference between Windows and Linux as the difference between a Minivan and a Pickup. You wouldn’t use the Pickup to take your 3 kids to soccer practice, and you wouldn’t use your Minivan to tow your boat. I think part of the fun of being in IT is deciding the best product for each use.

          David

        • #3189561

          Thank you

          by amcol ·

          In reply to You’re cool Amcol…

          Undeserved praise, but I do appreciate it.

        • #3189445

          Undeserved? Maybe . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Thank you

          I’m not terribly familiar with your posts in general, but the one that elicited so much praise here is certainly a very good one. Nice work.

    • #3189714

      Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      by brandon.aiken ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I bash it for a few reasons:

      1. I dislike MS’s anti-competitive business practices. Makes great sense for them, but harms me as a consumer.

      2. As an IT professional, I see Windows-based systems requiring inordinate amounts of management. A good Linux or Unix system acts like an appliance. Windows is needy and demanding of constant attention.

      • #3195888

        I agree but………….

        by tpernas ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        I’ll admit that Wintel solutions are needy, however it is that reason that helps keep me employed! I’m the type of nerd that wants to know all OS’s so that no matter what environment I work in, I can be an assett. My current environment is almost exclusive to Solaris. They are mistakenly introducing M$, and I will be there to help clean up!!!!!

    • #3189696

      Because it’s such an inviting target !

      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      If we don’t highlight faults in the OS, why would they bother fixing them ?

      Half my career has been spent on windows boxes, and given the general business environment I still recommend using them. That doesn’t mean for one moment, that I can’t point out it’s technical shortcomings even in the areas where it’s meant to be at it’s strongest.

      I don’t hate windows, it’s not important enough, don’t even hate MS or even good ol’ Bill.

      Someone telling ms is so sucessful in the market place therefore it must be technically sound and when it goes wrong it must have been my fault takes me for an idiot though, and I do hate that.

      I’d be the first to admit I’ve made one or two mistakes that have crashed a windows system, I’ve also crashed DOS, Linux, HP MPE/XL and VMS as well, not to mention various PLCs 8 bit processors and even my son’s playstation. Nowhere near as often though.

      To convince me you are correct and I’m some sort of naff amateur all you have to do is answer the following questions in a sensible fashion that adds value to to my use of windows as an OS

      Where (consistently !) exactly is the coding error when you get the message ‘Unknown OLE Error(5)’ or ‘Access Violation 000000000 at Address 0000000’

      Why do I have to reboot after patching the OS

      Why do I have to have a browser installed to have an OS, even when said browser is a horribly insecure and gets used even if I don’t use it.

      Why did my sound card on my brand new XP SP2 installation stop working after a round of windows update.

      Why is relying on error code returns in Windows APIs a really bad idea

      Why are profiles better than user privileges

      Why is MSN Messenger a default install in my OS

      I’ve got plenty more, if you successfully answer these.

      • #3176270

        hey, on that crash linux thingy..

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Because it’s such an inviting target !

        it took me 6 months of concentrated effort to crash a mandrake 6.1 system.*
        what did you do to crash yours?
        and after how much concentrated effort?

        * yes, I actually put the effort in to crash linux, to see how hard / easy it would be.
        this is going back to a 1998 version of linux to do this with even.

        • #3176046

          Crashing UNIX

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to hey, on that crash linux thingy..

          Back in the day we had a terrible problem with Pre-Caldera SCO UNIX OS3 on Pentium 3 machines. I think P3-800 or so was the current chip, and OS3 would kernel panic about 9 boot out of 10. But if you could hit that 10th boot and it didn’t panic, it would be up until the UPS failed.

          FWIW, I did get my old Caldera Linux to lock too, but silly me, I was trying to use KDE on a P75 at the time.

        • #3193845

          Oh well that doesn’t mean it locked…

          by keyguy13 ·

          In reply to Crashing UNIX

          It was probably still processing 🙂

        • #3186528

          Back in the day?

          by i.t.services ·

          In reply to Crashing UNIX

          I still have a P2@266 and a P3@566 still up and running. acctually I am posting this with the P3 running win XP. While the P2 running ME is still buggy it is just for my kid’s games, the P3 has only blue screened once, and my current P4 and P4HT running XP Pro have never given me the BSOD or even locked up.
          In ALL things, if you take care of your machines, they in turn will take care of you.

          And for all you ADMINISTRATORS…you don’t have to like the OS’s…(unless you are the one paying for them) but it is your JOB to fix them.
          Do you think machanics like every car they work on? or doctors like all of their patients? No they get paid because they either have the knowledge to fix them or know how to find it. So do we. If you get so frustrated you have to start bashing maybe it is time to look for a new line of work?….McDonalds is always hiring 🙂
          I like to think, YEAH I GET TO DO THIS!!!
          Better than digging ditches…by hand…in the winter. (one of my first jobs..many years ago 🙂 )

        • #3196056

          I sort of messed up a tar

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to hey, on that crash linux thingy..

          command and managed to disappear the root contents. It didn’t crash as in ctrl_alt_del but it took a more knowledgable person than I to realise where all the files had gone and get them back.
          The only time I’ve had a reboot to fix problem with linux was with Mandrake 9 installer, it put the wrong NIC diver on to give intermittent lockups. Fortunately I got in in between the machine dropping off the network and then completely locking up. A bit of searching about and installing intel’s driver as opposed to the one on the CD fixed it for good. Something to do with it messing up duplex mode apparently. Easy to fix, but I had to get lucky as there were no reported errors in any logging that I could find and cycling the power solved the problem. Total newbie with linux at the time so I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what I’d done wrong this time.
          Experience has taught me to believe that initially I’m always the prime suspect.
          LOL

        • #3195899

          with most

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to I sort of messed up a tar

          unix like os, it’s the person that installed is the culpret, but you also find the problems almost instantly.
          ( solving them may take longer…much much longer)

          🙂

      • #3195986

        I’m not saying windows is perfect

        by Anonymous ·

        In reply to Because it’s such an inviting target !

        I’m not saying that Windows is the most perfect operating system in the world. I am trying to say that you shouldn’t bash Windows when it doesn’t work your way after installing updates or hardware or whatever.

        The end user market with hardware and software is the short comming of the Windows operating system. Microsoft do their best, I’m sure, to make Windows compatable across the board as much as possible but in the end there is only so much they can do. If the PC crashes, don’t look to the OS, look to the additional software installed afterwards or the hardware within the machine.

        Just recently I setup ghost 9 server on an XP box to test it out. After restarting the XP machine kept rebooting 5 seconds into logging into the OS. Even in Safe Mode. Conclusion, ghost 9 made a bad registry change. Action, replace the registry. Result machine worked fine from then on. Installed ghost 9 on another XP machine, no problems at all. Only major difference between the two machines, one was intel based, the othr AMD based. Install on AMD system again, same issue. See what I am getting at.

        Granted I’d also like to know where that coding error is, and if you ever ask an MS representative, you’ll either get a blank look or the brush off. I have, twice. 🙂 I think only Bill knows.

        What’s the one thing the OS relys on that tells it how the system should function on startup? The registry. Not knowing the registry that well I am going to theorise that since the HKEY_CURRENT_USER is usually who ever is logged on, any changes to that wouldn’t require a restart since they could just be re-applied next log off/log on. Theoretically, you don’t need to restart the machine after installing anything, practically some extra installtion probably takes place during the loading of the files that bring up the OS.

        You can remove the browser. I don’t have IE on my machine because of said security issues. I use Firefox. That’s all thanks to the wonderfully helpfull way of accessing the Windows Update site, Automatic Updates. 🙂 I also use Netscape as a backup when sites have issues with Firefox.

        Who knows why your sound card stopped working. Most likely problem, sound driver doesn’t support that chipset version. Other likely issues, wrong driver, sound card finally died, there’s a resource conflict and so on.

        API issue thingy. You got me. I don’t claim to know everything about computers, and this is one of them. If I did know everything about them, I would be a genius. 🙂

        Profiles and priveleges. Can’t think right now… got a paper round here somewhere on that issue specifically. Haven’t read up on it yet coz I’ve got tonnes of other stuff to get through first.

        MSN messenger can be a real pain. Especially to remove. Did you know that even if you uninstall it it still remains? True. I tried it and guess what, up popped whatever version of Messenger comes standard with the OS at the time the master copy was compiled. You have to go so far as to not only remove the program but also the associated services.

        You know what, I think there’s not enough time in the world to learn computers, but yet there is so much to learn. If I don’t know anything about a particular subject I find someone who does.

        Anyway, this is slightly of topic here but enjoyable none the less. 🙂

        • #3193762

          An OS is supposted to…

          by wdewey ·

          In reply to I’m not saying windows is perfect

          An operating system is supposed to provide a seamless interface to the hardware so that the Programmer/User doesn’t have to know machine code do what ever it is they need to do. If the sound card doesn’t work after an OS patch, that is a problem with the OS. If it doesn’t run the way I want it to then it is worthless to me.

          There are only a few manufacturers that produces both the hardware and the OS for their system. The ones that come to mind at this time are Sun Microsystems and IBM. Since Microsoft doesn’t make computer hardware then everything is “The end user market with hardware” and therefor a “short comming” of Windows.

          I like that Windows is easy to use. I like that Linux/Unix has enormous capability out of the box. I like the ideas and theories about how Netware works (some of their implementations are clunky and expensive), but some of the statements you have made about what OS are and aren’t supposed to do I don’t like.

          Bill Dewey

        • #3186502

          Absolutely nothing wrong with my sound

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to I’m not saying windows is perfect

          card when I got the PC, Nothing wrong with it after I rolled back the windows critical update either !

          The reason you don’t rely on return codes from API calls is the the guys who wrote said APIs don’t always bother to set them, or for underlying ones outside your own code they don’t bother to test them when they are set.
          So you get the old error in line X or derivative when the real problem was about 30,000 instructions ago in another Dll usually, but the potentially meaningful description has been overwritten or flat out lost in subsequent code.

          That architecture alone is responsible for well over half the faults in ms style code, which is why no one who knows anything about software development uses it anymore.

          I don’t claim to be in expert in anything not even my forte which is software design. I can safely claim to be past the burbling wet behind the ears stuff that makes up the bulk of ms’s legacy OS code. Which being brutally honest would require them to rewrite the OS and most of their apps from the ground up to get rid of.

          It’s a regular in software engineering.
          Refactoring/Re-engineering increases risk and causes some extra work every iteration.

          Not doing it exponentially increases the cost of every change, until you get to the point where adding new core functionality is impractical/impossible and you start with the bolt ons. Bolt ons always have poor interfaces to existing code and make holes for security, compatibility and stability issues to fall through.

          Recognising anything here ?

    • #3176272

      Why MS is bashed

      by jmgarvin ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      1) Because they present their product as something it is not: The end all be all solution to all corporate IT problems AND all home IT problems…

      2) Because they don’t scale well in a server environment. How many Exchange servers do you need? Now how many qmail/sendmail/postfix servers do you need?

      3) Patching, patching, patching, and more patching. While I’m not saying *nix servers don’t need to be patched, I am saying that Windows servers have to be patched VERY often…and usually there are patches for patches.

      4) Security in the MS world is non-existant. Too many issues with security and too little to actually address the issues.

      5) The upgrade cycle is getting out of hand.

    • #3176224

      Windows is capitalism

      by netforce ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      For a different perspective:

      Windows is capitalism
      Linux is socialism (for the people/free)
      Apple/Mac…….theocracy?

      spyware = extortionism
      Virus = …..well, there virus

      Hey this is fun, add your own

      • #3176206
        Avatar photo

        But

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Windows is capitalism

        Windows is a Virus that you pay for knowing full well what it is likely to “Not work the way it is claimed!”

        If that is capitalism there is a Hell of a lot to be said for socialism. :p

        Col ]:)

        • #3195880

          Well,

          by lastchip ·

          In reply to But

          I’ve always considered myself a Capitalist, but perhaps I’m really a Socialist at heart!

      • #3176039

        IBM Mainframes

        by too old for it ·

        In reply to Windows is capitalism

        … are totalitarianism. (This is fun!)

      • #3194277

        like hell it is

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Windows is capitalism

        Windows is fascism. It doesn’t exist without government and business being wedded to each other.

        Linux is liberty. It’s separate from economics. It would fit perfectly well into free market capitalism, and in fact under a socialist system it would be nationalized and development would grind to a near-stop.

        • #3194226

          Apotheon for President!

          by wordworker ·

          In reply to like hell it is

          If nothing else you have strength of your convictions going for you. Apotheon for President!

          So are gas-powered SUVs fascism too, and electric cars represent liberty?

        • #3194210

          hell no

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Apotheon for President!

          They’re just products.

        • #3081090

          Yes actuallythey are

          by pkr9 ·

          In reply to Apotheon for President!

          “So are gas-powered SUVs fascism too, and electric cars represent liberty?”

          Gas powered SVU’s are dinosaurs, and the electric vehicle is the future. The electric vehicle is technology driven, the gas guggling SUV is market driven. A new electric vehicle is evolving around new technology, a new Ford pick-up is not. Just like a new Windows OS is sent to market when MS wants some more of your money, not because new technology is available.

          So yes – an electric vehicle presents freedom as electricity can be produced anywhere, and soon by pollution free hydrogen produced by free solar power, which are the most common thing on earth. The gas guzzler runs on OIL, and we know where that comes from and what kind of government is present in most oil-producing countries. By buying their sole export product, which the europeans and americans found and developed for them, we support their fascist systems.

        • #3081082

          okay . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Yes actuallythey are

          You may have a point there.

    • #3176169

      Because they do

      by bizzo ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I think people bash Windows just because they do.

      I’ve been working with MS OSs for years now, all the way from DOS 3 and have never had a problem. I grew up with Sun OS and then to AIX, wrote systems for OS/2, and have now been working with almost every flavour of Windows. I think each OS has its pros and cons. There are a lot of MS bashers out there because there are a lot of MS machines out there, and in general, people need something to moan about.

      I’ve never had a machine “blue screen”, and I’ve never had a problem with a properly installed, patched and managed machine, other than hardware failures.

      Most people seem to be complaining about the amount of time they spend on patching and security updates. Manage your patching properly and it will all fall into place quite nicely.

      In one of the posts, someone said it took them 48 hours to build and configure a Windows Server. What??? Did that include delivery of the CDs?

      • #3176129
        Avatar photo

        You have to be joking right?

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Because they do

        Granted now M$ aren’t quite so bad but at one stage fairly recently before they moved to the “Once a Month” Patches they used to release patches that didn’t mealy break computers but totally trashed the OS and a few weeks latter they would remove that patch and eventually replace it with one that didn’t do the same amount of damage.

        I still have a very vivid memory of installing a Java packet from M$ that hosed the OS to such an extent that the SCSI devices disappeared along with all the external Drives and network connection and that was on a XP Pro installation but admittedly prior to the “Trusted Computing!”

        Granted they are much better now but it still is not a massive improvement just enough to lull you into a false sense of security so that when the next bad one comes out you don’t just trash your test rig but the entire network. As you have pushed it out before having the proper test done just to make sure that nothing bad happens. That MS Java thing I installed while speaking to the head of MS Technical Department and it was not fixable in any form except wipe the drive and reload as it was on my main workstation it’s not something that I’ll forget in a hurry and I didn’t even think that it would be a dangerous thing to install after all MS had been using Java for years prior to that and it wasn’t anything new.

        Col ]:)

        • #3176105

          Java is not M$

          by jbaker ·

          In reply to You have to be joking right?

          You forget that M$ was ordered to remove Java from the OS, so if the patch was Java, it was probably from Sun, NOT M$.

        • #3195964
          Avatar photo

          No I didn’t

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Java is not M$

          This happened when M$ was illegally using Java and it was a MS patch or program that they where pushing out. It was KB 320 something.

          It didn’t happen yesterday but a few years ago and was a total mes to clean up. Just how Windows could claim that there where no drives present when it was running on one is still way beyond my level of understanding. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3195819

          Not…

          by mike.morris ·

          In reply to Java is not M$

          If it was prior to that order…

        • #3194296

          MSJVM

          by brandon.aiken ·

          In reply to Java is not M$

          You’ve never heard of the MS Java Virtual Machine? It was in every MS OS up until antitrust litigation forced it out in WinXP SP1a.

          The recent JView highly critical Windows flaw is a flaw in the old MSJVM. See MS05-037 or 903235.

      • #3176107

        BSOD

        by jbaker ·

        In reply to Because they do

        About 97% of the times I have seen a blue screen, it has either been a hardware driver acting up, hardware in the process of dying, or software that was poorly written (application, not OS). This includes working with Whistler (prior to release). The only time that I have seen the OS kill itself was Win 3.1, Win 2K SP6, and once or twice (out of hundreds of machines) XP SP2.

        Don’t get me wrong. M$ has LOTS of room for improvement, but the bashing is unwarranted. Is UNIX/Linux more stable? Probably, but it does not have anywahere near the hardware and software support that Windows does.

        • #3195963
          Avatar photo

          Do you remember those

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to BSOD

          Patches that M$ was pushing out a few years ago that trashed the OS when installed?

          Actually I do think that the bashing is warranted as when a M$ product mucks up on a CEO’s computer who do you think gets the blame M$ or the local IT guy who has no control over what is happening? It’s happened to me on tooooo many occasions now to even want to think about, it’s a real nightmare as these people think that once they have a working unit nothing more ever needs doing to it so it is almost impossible to prize the Note Books out of their hands to patch them install Service Packs or whatever as these people see it as unnecessary but still blame their Tech when it breaks.

          What is bad enough is that most of them use their NB’s to trawl Porn Sites and get them chokers with spy-ware don’t keep the AV products up to date and then it’s our fault when they break as they have been sold on M$ as being the answer to everything which it clearly isn’t but we do have to live with it. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3195849

          Yes it does

          by rapt0r ·

          In reply to BSOD

          Linux does have very broad hardware and software support from mainstream vendors (IBM, Sun, Novell, Dell, HP, CA, McAfee, ADIC, Veritas, Oracle, nVidia, ATI, AMD, Intel, Palm, etc.). And then there is all that excellent software over at Sourceforge. And lets not forget that Linux vendors also offer support. About the only people not doing something with Linux is Microsoft.

        • #3195814

          ummmm

          by mike.morris ·

          In reply to Yes it does

          Actually they are. Billy boy is scared of Linux and has an entire team devoted to Linux. As a matter of fact, according to some sources I know inside M$, they have several Linux servers in production… They have been, for quite some time now, comtemplating a M$ version of Linux…

        • #3193825

          And gee I wonder why they haven’t released it?

          by keyguy13 ·

          In reply to ummmm

          That is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Do you honestly think that microsoft would EVER release something that could destroy them?

          If they release it and it works well, they’ve lost their moneymaking OS. Windows would be gone forever.

          If they release it and it works like every other version of M$’s OSes, noone would use it, but people would pick apart the nice features of it and redistribute their own flavor of Linux, because after all, M$ would have to release the code and the distro for free.

          Once again, M$ loses their moneymaking OS permanently.

          I know he is sometimes obtusem, but I don’t think Bill is THAT stupid.

        • #3186278
          Avatar photo

          WHY IS IT SO????????????

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to And gee I wonder why they haven’t released it?

          If M$ was to chose to go the Linux route they need not go the GPL route. They could quite easily do a Red Hat and sell the product and support which they do for Windows and just think how much they would be making in support calls. :^O

          Not to mention all the new Certs that they could sell. From where I stand it would only be an increase in profits for M$ not a decrease.

          Remember that the original Idea for Linux was a more user friendly version of Unix which at some latter stage could be incorporated into the Buy it now Unix.

          As far as I know every company who makes a Linux product sells it in some form or other even if they do have a GPL. Look at Red Hat, SUSE, Mandrake or whatever they are calling themselves this week they all sell boxed sets.

          Then there is Turbo Linux try to download a copy of that and see how far you get. 😀

          M$ doesn’t even need to actually call it Linux they could use th Unix tag or make up one of their own like Winix. 😉

          If they did the latter however they would most likely have the Windows Side of the business taking themselves to Court to force a name change. :^O

          Get the idea? :p

          Col ]:)

        • #3195813

          huh?

          by mike.morris ·

          In reply to BSOD

          Win2k SP6? You creating your own service packs now?

        • #3186217

          Sorry..

          by jbaker ·

          In reply to huh?

          Mental Flatulence….NT4 SP6….and SP6a was released about a week later to fix the screw-up.

      • #3176022

        HUH?

        by husp1 ·

        In reply to Because they do

        Never had a “Blue screen”? Ever? Your gonna miss out on the best part of M$’s new nightmare I lovingly refer to as “Leghorn” the “Red screen of death”. As to Mr. 48 hrs I’d have to think that he’s typing in the entire OS by candle light.

      • #3195823

        Never had a BSOD?

        by mike.morris ·

        In reply to Because they do

        Waving the BS flag…..

        • #3186215

          Not what I said.

          by jbaker ·

          In reply to Never had a BSOD?

          I have been in this ball-game for about ten years, and have been playing with PCs since the dawn of time….

          I did not say that I have never had a BSOD. I said that I have RARELY had a BSOD that was caused by the OS. Usually it is a bad driver, a naughty piece of software, or failing hardware. Especially on NT and 2K, with drivers trying to grab hardware directly, and the HAL slapping its hand….sometimes the driver would pout and crash the entire machine…

      • #3195820

        Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        by arleenw ·

        In reply to Because they do

        You can’t possibly have worked with Windows 95, 98, ME and NT and not ever seen a blue screen. I custom install every machine. 98 gives a blue screen because the wind changes direction. Apps lock up all the time and using ctrl-alt-del is a crap shoot. Will it recover? Will it bring the os down?

        I agree though, you have to be diligent about your patching, run anti-everything and your Windows install should be ok.

        • #3186212

          not at all.

          by jbaker ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          The only OS that I have had the dubious pleasure of never having to troubleshoot is ME, and my only exposure to it was to replace it with XP Pro. Yes, I have worked with EVERY M$ OS since Windows 3.1.

          I ran 98 at home and NEVER got a BSOD on it. Not in the 4 years that machine existed (Win 98, PII 300, 256MB PC 100, SCSI CD-ROM, Server level Intel mobo, 3x 8GB HDD, SoundBlaster Live!, USR v.92 modem, 3Com 905 NIC)

      • #3193839

        HA HA HA HA

        by keyguy13 ·

        In reply to Because they do

        I’m sorry but if you have never had a blue screen of death, and never had a problem with a “properly installed, patched and managed machine” then this must be your first computer, and you must have just finished installing windows 10 minutes ago…

        Give it time…

        • #3186366

          Gee, thanks!

          by bizzo ·

          In reply to HA HA HA HA

          And thanks for the comments guys. No BS flag waving here I’m afraid.

          I guess I must just be lucky. I’ve installed thousands of machines in my 14 years working in this industry, and no, never has one blue screen. Although the only OSs I’ve missed out are 98 and ME.

          And yes, I did finish installing windows 10 minutes ago, but it wasn’t my first.

          Maybe I am the lucky one!

          /whistles

    • #3176144

      Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      by sepius ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      yeah I agree, however of all the OS’s I use, windows has the worst swap file management program ever along with the print spool program. I use windows and I use linux and BSD and OS7, at home. Value for money is where windows fails. I dont hate windows, I just feel that it is way over priced for what you get, compared to other OS’s for around AUS$130 it is easily beat.
      Now, I work in the fuel industry, your comparisin is off. Leaded fuel was discontinued becouse of 1. environment and 2. Market influence from vendors. If we keep LRP, then new car sales dwindle, move to the new fuel and people will buy new cars. The big money makers wanted to make even more money, thats what did it, not the consumer, not technology, ….M$ is the same, they tell us what we want, not let the market choose. XP is a good OS, M$ are rogues. It’s not the dog but the master. Think, Dad, Mum, and Junior have PC’s. 3 OS’s and office suite, around $5000 for the license’s, is that right?? for mediocre products. I dont think peolple BASH windows, its M$, I expect more from my AUS$300 and dont get any help at all, thats why they get bashed.

      • #3176116
        Avatar photo

        Just where do you get MS Products so cheap?

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        I’ve had a look at the wholesale price lists from the MS Agents admittedly only one of the major 3 but XP Pro comes in at $202.20 AU Wholesale and Office SBE costs me $316.00 AU again Wholesale both are OEM versions and the retail ones are more expensive. That is a Wholesale cost of $518.20 AU for just those two for one unit and a recommended retail of $627.00 AU if you can actually get it a potential profit of $108.80 AU which most cut into to make the price of the finished units cheaper and that is only suitable for a very small business or home user without any AV or anything else involved.

        It makes it very hard to sell against the Sub 1K units that are currently being advertised which although they don’t come with Office or even XP Pro only the Home version still makes it a hard fight to get across.

        Col ]:)

      • #3193871

        fee-based support

        by mikestilesky ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        I’d rather work many hours trying to fix a problem before having to pay M$ for the support that should be offered free…

    • #3176103

      Why bash M$?

      by jbaker ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Simply because they are the big dog. If you look around, that is the way our society works. A company busts its a** to get to the top of hte market (whether by completely legitimate means is not at issue here), and people feel obligated to bash that company. It is not just M$, it is any company that is the large and prominent in the marketplace.

      • #3193759

        Oracle, IBM, Cisco

        by wdewey ·

        In reply to Why bash M$?

        I haven’t ever hear about anyone bashing Oracle, IBM, or Cisco (except maybe about their prices).

        Bill Dewey

        • #3186211

          Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          by jbaker ·

          In reply to Oracle, IBM, Cisco

          None of those companies have the market saturation that M$ does. Cisco may have been the exception at one point in time, but if you are buying/using Cisco, you are not that average consumer, and Joe Blow Internet would have no clue as to installing, configuring, or managing any Cisco equipment.

        • #3193725

          Market Saturation

          by wdewey ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          If you are using market saturation as your indicator then there shouldn’t be any bashing except for Microsoft because there hasn’t ever been any company with that kind of market share (in desktop computers). Also, People bash Windows Servers and they are not the Joe Blow Internet types either.
          All I am saying is that there are industry leading companies that have solid reputations for quality, and then there are those that have reputations that don’t quite live up to their talk.

          Bill Dewey

    • #3176010

      I bash Windows with great disgust for several reasons

      by dc guy ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      1. I have a problem with the entire PC software development community. They don’t believe that we old mainframe jockeys have anything worthwhile to share. They ignore everything we learned the hard way and by golly they go right out and make the same mistakes we did 30 years ago–only now they affect thousands of users, maybe millions, instead of dozens or hundreds.

      Deadlocks? Application-layer programs with the power to crash the operating system? And my personal deal-breaker: PCs that actually allow strangers to upload instructions disguised as data, and then they blithely go ahead and execute them without any human intervention.

      We did away with those fundamental design flaws on the old Univac 1100 mainframe. Instructions reside in one part of memory. NOBODY can store anything there without the knowledge and approval of the person in charge–which on your PC would of course be YOU. Data resides in the other part. NOBODY can execute anything out of the data bank. Period, no exceptions. It simply can’t be done.

      Sure, PCs have a more complicated architecture and have to perform tasks some of us never dreamed of in 1975. But that is no excuse. Your first requirements when building software are integrity, reliabiilty, and security. Once you’ve designed your platform around that, THEN AND ONLY THEN do you start providing the end-user functionality requested.

      The PC community is driven by the lust for quick money and an astounding ability to not give a darn about their users, so they rush software to market quickly and cheaply by ignoring the basic principles of QA that we took for granted.

      2. Windows takes this to an extreme. People are still finding wormholes in Windows XP that are left over from Windows 98! Fatal defects that have gone unidentified and unrepaired for seven years! Yet they keep patching the same barely-functional OS and remarketing it as if nobody knows that “fixing” software almost always makes it worse.

      Windows junkies bash Apple because every major new release is really a new release, so there’s no promise of downward compatibility. This way every new release is developed with state-of-the-art project management practices. This means that when there finally are enough Macintoshes in the world for the hacker community to take an interest in the challenge, they will find it to be a daunting challenge indeed. No seven-year old sloppy-coding defects to exploit.

      3. I may be an IT person. But I used to enjoy working under the hood of my own car–now I drive a Mercedes because I have more important things to do. Similarly, I used to enjoy troubleshooting software–but now I expect my computer to behave like an appliance and only need professional attention a few times a year. I want to use my experience and skill to help my company use IT to improve its business. I don’t want to play shade-tree mechanic and spend my time just making software do what it was supposedly built to do in the first place.

      4. Windows was obviously written by programmers for programmers. Nothing about it is the least bit intuitive to people outside our profession, people who don’t think like we do.

      I only have to mention the fact that you hit the START button to turn your computer OFF, in order to illustrate my point. That defect has never been repaired, it’s like a rite of passage for every new PC owner. OK, you’re an official software mechanic now, you found the OFF switch. Welcome to the guild and don’t tell anybody.

      There are six billion people on this planet who don’t have the time, aptitude, or interest to be software mechanics. We will NEVER be able to sell this kind of programmer-friendly, user-hostile garbage to them! It’s time to poke our heads up out of our little sandbox and understand that the rest of the world is NOT AT ALL LIKE US. They need their computers to be appliances, not toys.

      • #3196096

        Start Button

        by djameson ·

        In reply to I bash Windows with great disgust for several reasons

        If you didn’t hide the off button on the start button how many people do you think would “Accidentally” shut off their computer? users are DUMB!

        • #3196080

          That’s exactly the kind of ATTITUDE I’m talking about.

          by dc guy ·

          In reply to Start Button

          People aren’t “dumb” just because they’re not as adept with computers as we are. But they’ll come up with some choice epithets for us if we don’t stop talking about them that way.

          PCs are daunting! I have a university degree, an IQ of 140, and I’ve been in IT since 1967. Yet PCs continue to exasperate me simply because I don’t find them INTERESTING and FUN enough to put in the time and effort required to coddle them and clean up after them and fix their messes. I’d much rather play with my dog, practice my music, or read a good book, than figure out why Windows screwed me up THIS time.

          And I’m one of you. Can you begin to imagine how normal people feel about PCs?

        • #3196074

          Frame of reference

          by djameson ·

          In reply to That’s exactly the kind of ATTITUDE I’m talking about.

          I have a high school diploma and a IQ of 180 (so were even) and I fail to see how a person who can’t use common sense or at least try… to figure it out wouldn’t be considered “dumb”, my children have a better grasp of using a computer then some of my coworkers and they are 4 and 6. PC’s aren’t daunting, you just need the patience and self control and a little motivation and everything falls into place. I have built 40-50 systems of virtually every common configuration, and have dealt with people from janitors to high level executives there are two types of users those that are dumb and know it and those that think they are smart but are really dumb.

        • #3196040

          sarcasm

          by bpierson@christianlifeass ·

          In reply to Frame of reference

          Just thought I’d join in the fun and state my IQ as well. Unfortunately I don’t know it :(. Come on guys, why don’t we just list our weiner sizes as well?

          And djameson, you are wrong. There are 10 types of people in this world: those that understand binary and those that don’t!

        • #3195898

          nope there are not..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to sarcasm

          10 types there are 11
          those thatt do,
          those that don’t,
          and those that don’t even understand enough to know they should be either catching something or missing it.

        • #3193816

          More sarcasm…

          by keyguy13 ·

          In reply to sarcasm

          “There are 10 types of people in this world: those that understand binary and those that don’t!”

          Gee I’ve never heard that one before…

          LOL

        • #3195789

          180 ‘eh?

          by mike.morris ·

          In reply to Frame of reference

          I would think that with an IQ of 180 you would know the definition of the word “dumb”. In essence, are you stating that your users cannot speak? Most of my users can speak just fine, but are inherently stupid when it comes to computers, and some more so.

      • #3195901

        Mainframers, I was one too.

        by knudson ·

        In reply to I bash Windows with great disgust for several reasons

        Mainframe protected memory, let’s see CICS came out in the late 60s (I was there), protected memory in the 80’s. The mainframes crashed, if you worked on them in the 70s and 80s. It wasn’t until the late 80s they got more solid.

        Let anyone upload code, none of these MainFrames were connected to anything but dumb terminals. Unplug your PC from the net, it’ll never get infected.

        Don’t get me wrong, I loved the 30 years on MFs and I love Windows. Only have some experience with Unix (Unix, Linux … they are all the same, but different, thats my complaint with them. They SHOULD and COULD have ruled the world if they hadn’t been so religious about my version versus your version ….)

        I still think Windows gets a bad rap because anyone that can speel(sic) PC thinks they can build, configure and operate a PC.

        I have a collection of machines here, servers, workstations and laptops. All running 24×7, several get abused adding and removing software.
        Crashes, haven’t seen one in ages. Ok the one server kept crashing a while (long while) back. Switched two of the mem cards, not a problem since. Oh that wasn’t a Windows problem, it was hardware (Ok some of these are cobbled together on the cheap and from spare junk).

        Put a GM engine in your Mustang, then go to Ford and complain because it doesn’t run right.

      • #3195854

        Ease of Use

        by roger99a ·

        In reply to I bash Windows with great disgust for several reasons

        I’m not understanding your arguments. The great strength of Windows is that it is so much easier to use than most other operating systems. Note: not easier to fix, just easier to use. Software installation is almost automatic, which in some cases is now a liability, but still, no tarball to unzip and no wondering where the heck it put all those files. And the large installed base of users means less training for an employer. And then there’s the huge selection of software, most of which will run on most versions of Windows.

        Now, I’m not a big fan of MS either. Personnally it’s just a gaming platform, much too insecure for even email and web. In this regard MS is failing. I often think that MS writes code with the belief that there are no evil people in the world.

        • #3094545

          Not true

          by pkr9 ·

          In reply to Ease of Use

          Contrary to common belief Windows is not easy or intuitive to use. I’ll just mention the classic hit the ‘start’ buttin of you want to stop.
          Windows is easy to use because we all learnt it, some learnt nothing else, and they are shocked tha things could be done in a different way, sometimes more logic, than concieved in Redmond.

          If you take 2 ‘blank’ users and place one in front of SuSe linux, and the other in front of Windows XW, the Suse user wil be productive before the XP user, both machines being set-up properly by a trained technician. Windows still after 25 years treat us all as idiots, with stupid “wizards” popping up out of nowhere when you least want it. It install things behind your back, and I have often seen modified settings set back to standard and unsafer settings – and I didn’t do it on my _personal computer_.

          The user interface changes with every new release, and what’s worse the administrative tasks changes dramatically too. The MS crowd never talk about the learningcurve or costs involved in learning these completely new techniques every 2 or 3 years, and the same crowd ALWAYS point of that it will bancrupt your company to train users in the slight differences in using f.inst StarOffice or Linux. Users shouldn’t be bothered about learning the OS anyway, it’s a job for administrators. Users should be trained in applications, as this is what their job is about.
          You know certainly how to uninstall a program in Windows. Run add/remove pgms, select and it disappears – almost or maybe. Ever tried measuring diskspace before installing Office and after uninstalling it, and wondering where the 100 MB or so missing diskspace went?. Tried unstalling in a MAC – dragging it to the trash or uninstalled folder?. And installing it by dragging from the uninstalled to system?
          Windows is a mess. It has a major design flaw it will never recover from, demnostrated by this weeks critical fix – that affects ALL windows. So much for the ‘completely new and better’ we are shown every 2 years. MS has all the money needed to do it better, they just don’t care. Why invest money in improving trash that sells as gold ?

      • #3193923

        Get a life

        by eric.p ·

        In reply to I bash Windows with great disgust for several reasons

        Anyone who has this much time to devote to writing this kind of answer to such an unimportant question really might need to get a life. 😉

      • #3193899

        Well said

        by techcleaner ·

        In reply to I bash Windows with great disgust for several reasons

        I’m in full agreement, and I’m a PC guy. Every computer on the market today is “not there yet.” Usability is a software issue, not a hardware one. Your point about hitting Start to stop, and another poster’s point about basic function keys, like ctrl-F, changing meaning between applications written by the same company, are non-intuitive, to say it kindly.

        I worked at a major company writing PC applications in a mainframe world (early nineties), and boy, those mainframers sure were over protective of their baby. Their view was “attach a PC to my machine, and anything can happen!” which was true. I found them extremely difficult to work with because of the resistance to change. I could recompile my programs as many times as I wanted when I wanted, and deploy them now, but a mainframe program, that was a different story. Schedule a recompile. Recompile. Fix errors, if any. Schedule again. Recompile again. Ask permission to migrate to test environment. Migrate to the test environment. Schedule recompile (because you can’t migrate a binary, only source and you have to recompile in each environment, to ensure it will work in each environment). Etc., until you finally are ready to move to production, which required an act of congress and two heyholders to unlock the secret vault.

        Not to bash mainframers, but to point out that we have flexibility and resources we never had before, thanks to the PC and internet revolutions, but that does not absolve MS, or any software or hardware developer, from doing the right things: Make the system impossible to crash, and make it extremely easy to use. And by easy to use, I mean by accountants and moms, not us propellerheads.

      • #3186277

        trying to be tactfull

        by dvawter ·

        In reply to I bash Windows with great disgust for several reasons

        I stopped reading your post at point number 2, Anyone that knows anything about Windows, as you pretend to, knows that XP came from Windows NT, not 98. the 2 are not related in the slightest. XP is the product of a complete rewrite started with NT3.51 which was released shortly before windows 95. Windows ME was the last of the MS OS’s based on the 9x archtechture, if you want to sound like you know what your talking about, get your facts straight.

        David

        • #3194637

          WRONG.

          by djameson ·

          In reply to trying to be tactfull

          Try that again. XP came from 98 not from 2k, You may have been TOLD otherwise, but I KNOW, look at the netapi.dll and doscalls.dll, these are the os2 components built into 98, sure they added some of the stability, networking and security features of NT, but when XP came out and drivers were scarce you could often use 98 drivers to make it work. the xp kernel also contains some Open source Linux Code, A Gentlemen I worked with for quite sometime, a linux guru was hired by MS on their secret “linux project”

      • #3186203

        Close…

        by garnerl ·

        In reply to I bash Windows with great disgust for several reasons

        “Windows junkies bash Apple because every major new release is really a new release, so there’s no promise of downward compatibility”

        True, but Windows will be bashed either way. Either “This crappy new version is just the same old one with some patches”, or “How dare they change something so my Win98 program doesn’t work and I have to buy an upgrade?? Conspiracy!”

        “4. Windows was obviously written by programmers for programmers. Nothing about it is the least bit intuitive to people outside our profession, people who don’t think like we do.”, and “We will NEVER be able to sell this kind of programmer-friendly, user-hostile garbage to them”

        There’s a very good reason that Windows blows Linux and even Mac out of the water, and it’s not simply marketing. Windows is easy. The “Start” button complaint is overblown and overused. I’ve never had to explain to someone how to shut down a recent version of Windows, and I think it’s much more intutive than typing “init 0” (or “init 6”, depending).

        I think that a better rant would point to how Windows’ focus on ease-of-use has compromised its security and reliability.

      • #3081089

        Amen, you said it….

        by pkr9 ·

        In reply to I bash Windows with great disgust for several reasons

        If you don’t learn from history or mistakes, or want to listen to tjose who knows history (maybe they were even present) or have made the mistakes, your are bound to make the same errors over and over again.

        Rgds
        from another guy who was there when the punched card was used, and hate MS for precisely the same reasons as you.

    • #3175974

      Let’s bash Ford / GM / Toyota / Kia …

      by wordworker ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?


      Gosh, after all these years they’ve been making cars and releasing “upgrades” and those upgrades still require constant maintenance and hand-holding. Mine won’t refuel itself, won’t put air in its tires, won’t change its own oil. And geez it was obviously engineered by engineers for engineers. You need tools and special skills just to keep the things running! Damn money-grubbing car companies churn out products that pollute the air and are fuel-inefficient to boot. I need my car to be an appliance I can just hop in and drive. I don’t need a toy that requires 10% of my time to keep it running. One day everyone will drive an open-source vehicle, and we’ll get all our oil changes and tune-ups and repairs for free. One day…

      • #3195863

        What about Sony?

        by jrod86 ·

        In reply to Let’s bash Ford / GM / Toyota / Kia …

        I don’t recall anyone bashing Sony for putting out crappy products. You pay a premium for those as well as MS products. OK, so they operate more like appliances, but they are a major manufacturer. Just thought I’d throw that in there, I know we could find more examples, but that was an easy one.

        • #3194063
          Avatar photo

          Actually I thought that Sony’s staff

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to What about Sony?

          Was doing a pretty good job of trashing Sony a little while ago.

          Not so much the appliance stuff but the company in general when they had a strike in Japan. 😀

          Col ]:)

      • #3185861

        You laugh

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Let’s bash Ford / GM / Toyota / Kia …

        but it will happen….. ;\

    • #3196014

      Reality check

      by alarena ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Get your point? Is your point that techs have to make sure everything fits, drivers and hardware wise? No brainer, patch control management. No problem!

      But if the Engine in the car has so many problems that the producer has to issue rubber bands, duct tape and yet More and More fixes year after year then maybe the OS is the problem. Let’s just say that Linux is Premium octane and Windows OS is still Very leaded. Get the point? I drive an Acura Sport, and it works better than an my restored ’56 Chevy.

      Here’s my other point Angus, and please take it as a lunchroom “back and forth”. I gave a careful look at your note and concluded either that you are not a very old tech, though Maybe a modern day network “guru”, or you may be in an “easy bake” environment. With layers of techs in front of you. My guess is someone has the time to actually keep the engine purring.

      Thank you for the lecture or opinion or whatever you’re talking about… but the same theme still continues with Windows. An OS that is full of holes because of whatever “business” game plan they follow causes Microsoft to rake in the money and control us while grabbing our wallets andproducing monstrosities instead of real operating systems. Ever check out the history of Linux, who wrote it, what it can do… I’m sure you know. I’m talking Microsoft, not Linux or any other OS’s. We need to go back to the scholars, not the merchants.

      • #3195980

        What the…?

        by Anonymous ·

        In reply to Reality check

        Hey, I grew up in the golden age of the home PC market. No fair. 😉

        I’m old, just not old enough to have grown up in the hey days of computing when uni students got play with main frames and the like. Wish I could have though.

        And you are talking to a guy who has an Amiga 500 and Mac Performa 580CD sitting on his workbench in perfect working order and still being used for the sake of it. Would’ve still had the Amstrad 6128 if the damned floppy drive didn’t pack it in completely. Couldn’t find a replacement for it.

        You know what, I love the old stuff better than the new. What is it with that and technicians? Why do we just keep reliving the old days? 😀

        • #3195962
          Avatar photo

          Probably because if we can see where things came from

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to What the…?

          We have a small semblance of a chance to have an idea of where they will go.

          Unlike a lot of people who ignore the past and just accept the future we can’t have the easy option as we have to be on top of the problems before they arise. 🙂

          Col ]:)

    • #3195897

      no enduring standards, no backkwards compatibility ….

      by peter_es_uk ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      There are many reasons to hate windows. Top of my list is the number of things that just stopped working when XP sp2 was installed ….

    • #3195893

      Interesting Argument

      by philip.grogan ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I have been involved with support and admin on Microsoft, Linux, Solaris, HP-ux, AIX, BSD etc etc.

      In my opinion, one of the reasons why people bash Microsoft, may be because the Charging mechanism used for the Microsoft suite of products could be considderred unfair. For example with the OS pricing, Linux is free and support can be as little as ?25 a year. There are literally thousands of good source pointes for help which are free. (The same applies for Microsoft, but generally these are set up by people who refuse to accept that you need to pay ?2000 a pop for a Microsoft course). Microsoft on the other hand is a minimum of ?70 for an upgrade and ?250 for the full product. Non transferrable these days, with tricks to break the system if you upgrade the hardware etc.

      From the software side, again many free processing and spreadsheet options for Linux etc, but Microsft charge upwards of ?250 a pop for their suites. Its not cheap and these days its a necessity.

      dont get me wrong, I understand the value in creating software and publishing and we all nead to earn a crust, but you would have thought by now that the R&D had been returned on Microsoft products and they could lower the prices.

      Because of this, I believe it is the main gripe for users, IT professionals. I would challenge that if the source was free like Linux with the option for a paid for version with additional features, it would become more popular.

      But, alas it is inevitable that we will continue to use the products and have a little moan every now and then. In this day and age, we really cant do without it.

      • #3195840

        All OS’s

        by verd1 ·

        In reply to Interesting Argument

        Well I have read through most of the post here and I have to say that I personally use and service all OS’s. I personally use all of them on my own network in my office. Each one has their special problems and headaches. How I see it is this, Windows is the one that most people use. Most Linux users are geeks. I do not have the time or my clients do not want to spend the money teaching people a how to use a new OS. Even though it may be better and Window$ cost more money. I am the network admin for 3 corperate networks in my area. I am running Windows Servers, and Red Hat and at one FreeBSD as a mail server. I USE them all and all have problems, SO what if one has more than another one. It is all keeping me in business and putting money and food in my pocket. So what is the fuss. It is kinda the same “HATE” that people have for the president. It does not make sense.
        Well that is my $.02 worth.
        Keep rocking Microsoft, OS10, Linux etc. I like them all and ALL show and have a purpose. Sorry, you will not change my mind.
        Doug MCSE

    • #3195889

      So the computers are blameless and it is all the techies fault?

      by peltyc ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Follow the link and find out more about what the physicists are saying on chaos theory governing the processor. Maybe we techies are trying to fight the natural laws of chaos in regulating and predicting systems as complex as weather?

      http://arxiv.org/abs/nlin.AO/0506030

    • #3195886

      Not ME!!

      by silvioandpauly ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      My Windows servers are just as reliable as our legacy mainframes! Our XP machines are MUCH MORE reliable than the NT 3.5/4.0 days.

      People just generally like to whine about stuff.

      • #3195881

        Agreed!

        by ken g. ·

        In reply to Not ME!!

        Look at the natural process of humanity here for a moment:

        If you’re the biggest kid on the block, sooner or later someone is going to want to knock you down.

        So is the legacy of Microsoft. Lets call a spade a spade here gentlemen, Linux, Mac, and the many other well written Os’s (and great competitors), STILL have their share of the spaghetti code. No code written is perfect — and it never will be. It would be absurd to assume otherwise.

        Okay, I’m off my soap box now… 🙂

      • #3195860

        Not a Basher –

        by coremantle ·

        In reply to Not ME!!

        Windows is allot more stable than it was, say ten years ago. Allot of my contempt for windows comes from the mid 90’s. The Windows machines always required more attention than the unix workstations. I started out in the eighties on main frames then unix. After ten years of operating an OS designed for commercial/industrial use. You insert systems that are PERSONAL COMPUTERS and expect them to work at the same level. Not going to happen.
        There is allot of bashing on microsoft because it the big boy on the block. Their business practices killed allot of software that was better than their own. You know what? their business goal was never to improve the computing community it was to make money. They are a company and that is what companies do. Comparing Open Source operating systems to microsoft. Is like comparing the Record industry to your church. Both have music, but what is thier intent?

    • #3195883

      Interesting analogy ….

      by a.c ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      but it doesn’t quite work.

      any petrol vehicle pre 1922 would have run on unleaded fuel anyway, and I don’t see a 286 running XP any time soon.

      Newer leaded only vehicles can have a head rework to run unleaded – which is a hardware upgrade.

      On the why people bash windows – maybe you should ask the people at GM and the famous reply to the Bill Gates comdex “if the computer industry made cars” comparison.

      Me, well I’m perfectly happy to have an OS that occasionally causes problems, otherwise I’d be out of a job – I’ll give credit where it’s due, MS now make fairly solid OSs and if we could line up every spammer, phisher, virus writer and scam artist around the world and shoot them, they would be even better

    • #3195879

      Sad Ignorant Newbie

      by bshane ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      How sad. Another ignorant newbie who grew up in the shadow of the theft of DR’s OS whining about how stupid the users are. Perhaps if the OS was not intentionally crippled in the first place there wouldn’t be so much of a fuss. To use the illustrated analogy of the used car – Windows is intentionally designed with built-in obsolescence for the sole prupose of making a profit and insuring a victim-market. This is not as clear now where each module is authored by an entire workgroup instead of a single guru and a staff of assistants, but it was clear from the beginning. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon one’s point of view, Windows is 90% profit-making bloatware and only %10 market-driven innovation and security. Witness the latest MS Acquisition of the spyware Gator. MS is to OS what Income Tax is to the Consumer. To quote “The Wiz,” “You can’t win, you can’t break even and you can’t get out of the game.” ’nuff said.

    • #3195869

      Whenever an OS crashes, it’s your fault?

      by parrish s. knight ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I can’t believe you said this. Try using Windows ME or System 7
      for about three or four weeks, then see whether you still believe
      this. Those OSes would crash if you looked at them cross-eyed.
      Hell, I used both of them extensively and even remember
      occasions where I might not have even touched the computer at
      all in half an hour or so, and the OS crashed. Granted, those are
      both older OSes, but if older OSes can be unstable, newer ones
      can, too.

      Not only that, but but but… You are attempting to claim that any
      OS crash is caused by human error, not by the OS. What you’re
      overlooking is that the OS is also created by humans, who quite
      commonly make mistakes in writing the OS (witness the patches
      and service packs that we have to keep up with and keep track
      of). If the human end users are capable of error, as they
      certainly are, then the human OS writers are also capable of
      error.

    • #3195866

      Oh MY

      by ddissent ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      You haven’t been around very long little boy … have you? I feel so bad now knowing that my ignorance of what drivers and (how did you say it … blah blah blah … is that TECHNICAL terminology you learned in college?)hardware to use is what caused the problem … Not that Microsoft seems hell bent on releasing OS versions that are far from clean (hence Service Pack 90 release 800)
      Great Googlie Moogly I’ve read some STUPID posts on this site but this has to be a hands down winner ….. I don’t know who to be more annoyed with right now … You … or Tech Republic for infecting the rest of us with you…………
      and NO ….. I DON’T get your point about the stupid petrol analogy ……… WOW!

    • #3195859

      hype backfire???

      by paul.vacquier ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I’d say it’s a combination of things with a major cause being WinXP being advertised as the best at x where x can be any thing you care to mention.
      What does not help MS is the wide variance of hardware/software combinations that it’s expected to run on (systems from stand alone to corp level networks, simple word processors to the latest shoot-em-up)
      plus its an easy target
      If the hardware was set at a certain level (say X-box level) then it’s an easier proposition to develope software for it in terms of stability, but users want the latest graphics card/gismo – just look at the numbers of PDA’s available to connect up by usb/wireless/cable connections for example and all expect it to work first time no problem – still, keeps me employed 🙂
      I can still remember the joys of CP/M (sysgen anyone? for 32K northstar with hard sectored 5.25″ floppys 🙂

      regards
      ppv

    • #3195856

      Two Types

      by multimedia 1 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      There are two types of people here… builders and bashers. I prefer to build.

    • #3195855

      Drivers are the Problem

      by mollenhourb9 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Your statement that a person is not a true techie (which, by the way is a compliment) because their OS crashed is funny. You state that it is “your fault for not loading the right drivers”. Therein lies the rub. With the Mac OS, I don’t have to mess around with drivers. It just runs.

    • #3195851

      Bunch of hypocrites

      by mill3502 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      You get what you get out of an operatings system. I don’t see hundreds of thousands of applicaitons available for Linux or other operating systems and if they had hundreds of thousands of applicaitons Linux would crash just as often as M$ because programmers are human and until you folks wise up to human error you never get over your prejudice shortcomings. Wiresless access is the worst thing that ever hit the PC market but I don’t see people jumping off the band wagon to fast for “something better” You live with human error and make the best with what you have.

      Get over it, you don’t like Microsoft because the person who owns it is the most successful person alive and your jealous.

      • #3195833

        AMEN!!

        by yahbblack ·

        In reply to Bunch of hypocrites

        AMEN!!

      • #3195828

        Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

        by philip.grogan ·

        In reply to Bunch of hypocrites

        No question that there are few people who would argue that Microsoft provides a good living for many people in the trade.

        Hey, I like the Wintel operating systems (all of them), they have provided me with the opertunity to become successful at something.

        My argument is that you would expect the natural cost shift to a lower price given the return on investment. Microsoft should reduce the cost of its previous versions to reflect the R&D recovery. They do have a right as a company to charge what they see fit, the only trouble is that over the years they have removed the competition or destroyed them as they had the funds. Again, this is not a criticism in business as it is a shrewd move.

        Microsoft would earn more if they dropped the price of the sofware bundles, thus getting more for less illegal copying etc and may even clean up on the support and training etc.

      • #3194033

        well

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Bunch of hypocrites

        http://www.freshmeat.net
        http://www.sourceforge.net
        http://savannah.gnu.org

        a few million applications for linux, irix, freebsd, openbsd, unix, bsd.

        far more than are available for windows.

      • #3193806

        Oh please shut up…

        by keyguy13 ·

        In reply to Bunch of hypocrites

        You obviously took the short bus to your job if you think there aren’t THOUSANDS of open-source applications out there. And no, Linux does NOT crash anywhere near as often as windows.

        Think before you post…

    • #3195838

      Because of experience

      by unixdude ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I started in networking doing Netware servers… most of them would go 200-300 days without needing rebooted if you let them. We switched to Windows and there were some servers that needed rebooted twice a week (still are). Now I do IBM AIX Unix, and again most of my servers could go 200-300 days without needing a reboot. IBM has had a lot of “buffer oveflow” security issues but they are fairly quick about patches. Microsoft has a habit of breaking other things with their fix patches.. IBM doesn’t. These facts speak for themselves.

      • #3195824

        Interesting Analagy

        by philip.grogan ·

        In reply to Because of experience

        Having had experience with IBM AIX the Kernel core is stable, however when the system has issues it is usally the app that breaks. Having the system up longer does not necessarily mean that your service available.

        I have installed Microsoft Small Business Servers which only require downtime when I want to patch for performance gains. They run for up to two 400 days.

        Obviously if they are external facing you will need to bounce them more regularly for security patching, but the same applies to Solaris and AIX.

        • #3186494

          Apps vs OSes

          by bmcombrw ·

          In reply to Interesting Analagy

          The point is, a bad app should only crash itself, not the OS. That is what IBM seems to have perfected, and that was one of the superior features of OS/2 vs Windows (and not just 3.1). The point is, a poorly written app shouldn’t be able to corrupt one of the core elements of the OS (that darn Registry) just by installing it, and then be unable to be completely uninstalled – with little hope of reliably being able to manually rip the bad stuff back out. An app shouldn’t be able to install pieces of itself into “common” areas such that they can overwrite similar pieces installed by other apps, which can result in previously working apps suddenly not working, lock up the system, and yes, even BSOD. Yes, it’s not just drivers that crash OSes. I’ve installed something that took my XP system down, went back to a safe System Restore Point, and discovered that something had been overwritten that the Restore Point had not saved. At this point, I’m almost positive it wasn’t the last thing I installed all by itself, but some weird interaction with a “bad” app already installed too long ago to make it practical to return to that old a Restore Point. And I refused to reinstall the OS, and all the apps, utilities, customizations, etc., as many of us had to do over and over with the earlier incarnations of Windows. Can you say “Poor OS Design”?

    • #3195834

      Where to Start?

      by goble ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Let’s start with the obvious. A seemingly infinite number of security holes. Or maybe the number of bone head flaws i.e. having to remove a font to install Office 97 on a Windows XP machine, leaving the messenger service wide open to exploit. The list is very long. I think Angus must be a Microsoft mole.

    • #3195829

      Windows-bashing is just “cocktail conversation”

      by mtsx1us ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      It’s the “de jur” complaint that’s easy to pile on, that’s all. I’ve worked on OS code from Commodore and Timex-Sinclair through VAX VMS to MAC OS X. The more popular an app or OS is, the more it gets hacked; it’s that simple. Hackers and script kiddies go for maximum “exposure”, and for some time now that has been through M’soft products. It’s changing, but how come the Adobe vulnerability didn’t get the attention, press, or snide remarks that any obscure buffer overflow from M’soft seems to get?

      Get over it guys; Linux is now firmly in many hackers’ sites, so expect it to start taking hits too. Life doean’t revolve around any OS, vendor, app or component. Life revolves around what the tool does for you.

    • #3195815

      Best wishes for a speedy recovery

      by phineas ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Angus is obviously a very sick man, i’m sure we all wish him a speedy recovery.

    • #3195811

      Why I Bash Windows … let me count the ways …

      by gothicscott ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      This is why:

      – XP for example, is code bloat run amuck. It is slow and full of fluff like butterflys and goofy feel good Fisher-Price animations and graphics. Who needs this crap? If one needs it, watch Nickelodian.

      – Quit pushing software down our throats that turns the consumer population into a gigantic beta test group. Oh, and while you’re at it, tighten your code. It will run better.

      – There’s an arrogance @ Microsoft from the top down. They have a take it or leave it attitude that permeates down to the user. Read their licensing agreements to see what I mean.

      – They’re greedy. I’m not a liberal capitalism basher,…far from it. However, why must I buy expensive copies of their software to run on more than one machine that I own? Isn’t this company rich enough? Apple allows one to install its OS on multiple machines owned by the same person without gouging the consumer for more $$$$

      – Microsoft screwed over people in its certified professional programs. The certs have become an industry joke that have limited shelf life requiring an IT professional to spend way too much time and money to get qualified on the latest overpriced, excessively complicated bloatware from Redmond that will be obsolete a few years time.

      – Microsft Certified Trainers got shafted 5 years ago. They’re now paying extortion fees to MS to retain their cert.

      Enough?

      _scott

    • #3195807

      Yes but…

      by pbiss ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Fine as far as it goes but some OS structures can be more prone to instability than others and it may well be that not all the packaged drivers are as compatible with the intended hardware or applications software as they should be.
      I have made the following practical observations.
      Win40, now dead, was nowhere near as stable as WinNT and it defintely had something against MS Office.
      WinNT benefits from increased RAM, which reduces the load on the virtual memory paging. Now crashes virtually never instead of every six weeks.

      One thing does irritate slightly.
      PC history has dictated that practically everything that BIOS knows or discovers about the system is thrown away and Windows has to start again from scratch. Is this really necessary?
      One of my machines runs a RAID stack of HDs.
      This had to be laboriously configured in BIOS and then again in Windows. The same applies, though less evident to the user, to HDs larger that 7.8 GByte (the famous visibility horizon).

    • #3195806

      Why do people bash users?

      by jforan ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Give me a break about it being “your fault”… how many BSOD’s, kernel panics, etc. have been caused by security patches, updated “compatible” drivers, and plain old OS bugs? Enough so that serveral MS service packs for NT (4, 4a, 5, and 6) and 2000 (3, 4) had to be revised an re-released. Read the MS Knowledge Base – there are reams of pages contradicting your post.

      Why keep supporting something old “when you need to keep moving forwards”… probably for one very important reason – the business needs to keep the current application as they are. Maybe it’s for financial reasons, maybe it’s for usability, maybe it’s because the app vendor is out of business and a mission-critical product isn’t going to ever be updated again. Forward isn’t ALWAYS good, sometimes its just motion for the sake of motion, and that leads to slamming into walls.

      I get your point… unfortunately it’s moot.

      Businesss trumps technology. They pay for IT to play with the toys, so they can tell IT when we can’t buy new toys.

      • #3195799

        One simple reason.

        by chewybass ·

        In reply to Why do people bash users?

        We in the USA have a thing called free speech. We may not like what others are saying and they may be ignorant, but even the lowest of the low have the right to voice there opinion.

    • #3195803

      Let me throw my hat into the ring…

      by hebbeson ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I think that one of the main problems with Windows is that it is so widely used, moreso than any other O/S, that finding issues with it is commonplace. The more people use something, the more things are going to be found wrong with it. It is the nature of the beast, so to speak. Since Windows has been adopted (or forced, as some would view it to be) as the standard, so many different ways of configuration exist. It is expected to find errors in it. The main problem is that the O/S is so wrought with stuff that needs to be fixed, that they almost cannot fix them all in a timely manner. So we find fixes ourselves, or interface with other systems to take care of those issues.
      I do not neccesarily think that it is simply ‘lack of experience or operator error’ as described in the original post, but rather a combination of both the vendor and the user. The vendor is responsible for giving us a product that truly works; not something that kind of works, and then prescribes bug fixes during the life of the product that really should have been addressed before releasing the O/S. Again, therein lies the issue….it is hard to address every possible scenario, since it is being used in so many different ways. On the user side, it could be (and probably is most of the time) a matter of finding the resources to fix the problems outside of Microsoft themselves. I know from experience that sometmes, I cannot find all of the resources to fix a problem that I have encountered. I consult other admins when that is the case and often times, a matter of experience or knowing which website to go to for additional help is the key.
      Since Windows is the main O/S that most people use, it is easy to overlook the other O/S options and their faults.
      I remember back to Linux in the beginning and the difficulty in finding programs to run on it. Since it was open source, many joined in and that problem has decreased significantly.
      I agree that maybe if Windows were open source, most of these problems would go away.
      Personally, I am experiencing that now with Powerpoint….how I wish it were open source, as the fixes I have read about are not working…

      Thank you for my space in this. No offense or malice was intended (seems to be the best way to voice an opinion without offending anyone….)

    • #3195801

      DISHONEST TECHIE’S AND OS MAKERS COULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OS-BASHING

      by eddie, gh ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Whenever a problem occurs, and blame or responsibility for correction must be assigned, the typical organisation man would want to shift this somewhere else if he can. And in my experience picking up my computing knowledge on the job, I think that dishonest or inexperienced Tech ‘Gurus’ go a long way to give a bad impression of a good product.

      I have seen a case when a scarzy server was replaced with a regular P4 PC without configuring system backups, intelli-mirror or other features – simply because the service provider who recommended the replacement did not know the difference, or was dishonest about it. Another provider who offered a second opinion sought to use the opportunity to push another brand of OS to the user.

      Users should get definite information on the capabilities of the OS they use – compatibility with other systems, hardware requirements, etc.

      But the OS makers have to share in the blame for OS bashing. Every OS maker knows its virtues and vices when compared to that of its competitors. Unfortunately, in selling their products, they sell the virtues, not the limitations.

      As more novices become experts in PC handling, the grain would be sifted from the chaff.

    • #3195800

      Could it be because the OS has been badly programmed????

      by simon ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Everyone hates Windows, because no matter what, however many years, however many programmers, Microsoft’s ineptitude never ceases to amaze.

      If Microsoft’s programmers are so wonderful, how come their programms are so bloated? Using notepad, one could build a web page in 1k, using Microsoft’s ‘Front Page’ the same web page would be 19k.

      Upon install why are there 1000’s of K to download in service packs, patches, critical updates.

      No programmer is perfect, we all make mistakes. However, no one, I repeat NO ONE, programms ‘bloatware’ more ineptly, insecurely and slowly with more bugs and bulsh*% than a Microsoft programmer. FACT

      • #3194046

        Sloppy code and not revisited after many years

        by joe90fluke ·

        In reply to Could it be because the OS has been badly programmed????

        The main problem at Microsoft is that they are probably so much under pressure that they do not revised and test their code enough before releasing it.
        For an example:
        How come in the dial up in Win2k you still cannot check the box “SAVE PASSWORD” and rely on it.
        This bug was there in Windows 3.1 and is still there in Win2k.
        Not enough. Microsoft did got the world used to the repeated crashes.
        You take a Linux system like GNU Linux Debian
        you will keep these machine up for years.
        The only stop will be an hardware failure.
        Reboot, Forget that word. If you use logical volumes you can repartition and resize those partitions without rebooting. The only time you need to reboot is when you decide to upgrade the kernel. Stable ? No, the word is not strong enough I would say granite ! Plus it is a real multitasking OS, Windows is not. Why ? Because in many cases some application will keep the ressources for themselves and not pass back the task token to the Windows OS.
        Other major weaknesses of Windows: Apps don’t track all the DLLs they copy in that common folder %System% \system32.
        The registry is a labirynth where spywares can hide their starting orders for these adverse softwares to run.
        Linux on the other side is a system that is purely file and library oriented. In Debian Gnu Linux for instance when you run an update the system checks all the libraries dependencies and re-align what need to be. The process is most of the time all done with no user intervention.
        A security hole in Debain GNU Linux is found an posted to their site: The update is available within 24 hours. We can not say the same about Microsoft can we ?

        So the ones that are asking themself why some IT people are bashing on Microsoft? Because we know
        a lot better.

    • #3195798

      Why – frustration

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Most people who bag MS Windows do so because they are frustrated at seeing MS constantly claiming that the latest version is the most secure ever and almost immediately have to release a patch to correct a security flaw that they new about in earlier versions but have not corrected in the basic kernel code. The constant patches take time and effort to keep up with and often cause problems with other apps, but not all the time.

      Then when you look at how much they charge for the latest product that is sold new with a known flaw. In the early days MS was very cheap and made for the lowest common denominator, it still is made the same way but the price is not so comparatively cheap now. Marketting is very sharklike and people don’t like the aggressive marketting for a product with basic flaws.

      That is the why of the bagging.

      Another aspect is that the majority of the baggers were not around in the early days and do not know how much of what we see as the IT industry today is due to MS releasing very cheap software – MS Dos was about A$100 whilst the Mac OS was a few thousand, ditto Word and Excel. Using MS software could cut over A$15,000 off the total cost of a system.

      • #3194072

        Yeah. And don’t forget…

        by pbiss ·

        In reply to Why – frustration

        The original development platform for Word Excel and Powerpoint was the Mac!!!
        I have the diskettes to prove it – in my museum.

    • #3195787

      Windows bashing

      by gordon ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Windows crashes because it is not a stable operating environment.
      1. The native code is filled with thousands of lines that, it is reported, even the MS gurus aren’t sure what it’s there for – but they have to leave it because windows won’t boot without it.

      2. Please don’t forget the meglomaniacal browser embedding, windows media embedding, etc designed to make you use MS products and nothing else.

      3. The Free BSD we use to run our web servers has been up and stable for 8 years – without crashing through upgrades, hardware changes etc.

      4. Mac OS is Unix with a cute GUI.

      5. Windows has always been unstable and I’ve been running some version of windows since 2.0 – which usually crashed the system on the first boot and never worked again.(don’t take my word for it,this one is part of history now).

      6. Go to Microsoft.com and search the knowledge base for the phrase “Microsoft has confirmed this to be a problem”.

      7. If the IT folks and Techies didn’t bash it, we’d never see an improvement.

      8. check out http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB05-201.html.

    • #3194062

      Maybe they are just too big or its lonely at the top!

      by alan ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I can’t resist joining in this great topic! So many good points made here; I have yet another perspective to offer.

      For one, I think many hate MS just because they are so big, so dominant and so rich. After all, we Americans just love the underdog and hate the big bully.

      Secondly, I believe that at a certain point a company just becomes too big to operate effectively. MS tries to be everything to everyone and it just isn’t really possible to do that effectively. They are a huge company with far too many programmers at varying levels of competence. As a programmer I am quite aware of the pitfalls of having too many cooks in the kitchen.

      Strangely enough I really do believe that Windows earned its spot as the top dog, I’ve been around long enough to remember many of the alternatives and how they were lacking… things like OS 2 for instance. Back many years ago it was all too clear to me that Windows NT4 was vastly superior to OS 2. Even Linux is problematic, talk about a steep learning curve! You guys complain about the time to install Windows but neglect to mention how hard it is to learn Linux and all its quirks.

      To conclude, I’m no great Windows lover but I do appreciate the user friendliness of the OS and the wealth of features that they offer.

    • #3194061

      perceptions

      by rosaticrew ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      As OS’s such as Microsoft, Unix and so on first came out, they were touted as the end all to end all and were reviled by the mainframe folks, the operating system is always the target for some one who cannot do it his way because of limitations, cost or security. So there will always be a sence of jealousy or frustration by those who want all the bells and whistles that are no longer there or were never meant to be.

    • #3194057

      Microsoft comes by criticism honestly

      by ken lillemo ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      If you already are the top dog, you do not need to rub it in everyone’s face. Microsoft has demonstrated a lack of tact that makes them seem more like a playground bully than a real leader. Microsoft sometimes responds to legitimate criticism with bluster and attack instead of an honest appraisal of their actions. Granted, they only do this sometimes, but it only takes once to undo a whole lot of good will achieved by many others at Microsoft.

      As to the legitimacy of the criticism, the untold thousands of ways that an OS can be screwed up will mean that everyone will be blindsided by some small detail at some time. It is like the Sword of Damocles, just waiting to drop. It is this seed of numerous minor flaws in their product, along with Microsoft’s failure to demonstrate an attitude of humble leadership, that grows into full fruition as Microsoft bashing.

      Microsoft has it in their power to act differently, indeed, they occasionally do, but most often, after months of doing exactly the opposite. Consequently, Microsoft gets credit for succumbing to the will of the marketplace instead of leading the market to a new convergence. So Microsoft makes themselves a target by their own character. They have it in their power to be something better.

    • #3194055

      Just one of those Windows quirks

      by xt john ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      How many times have you or I had to shrug and tell our users, ‘it’s just one of those Windows quirks’? Print spoolers crashing, BSOD, unexplained reboots. Upgrade 50 PC’s to Srvice Pack 2, and 5 out of 50 will not boot back up, no matter how careful you were, making sure the computer was clean, etc. I agree, the whole Microsoft Monopolisitc mentality is NOT good for the IT world, but until Linux or whoever goes mainstream, Longhorn will be the next thorn in our sides, as well as all the patches for Office, ad nauseum…. BTW, Angus, most of us ARE careful about drivers, DO check the Event Viewer after a crash, visit Microsofts site often, run all updates; and have come to the conclusion, it IS a buggy, unpredictable, adequate operating system, that could be better.

    • #3194054

      We bash Windows because

      by tundra gregg ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Despite our daily reviews of the logs and extensive monitoring tools it still goes down for no apparent reason. I agree that their is always a reason and many times it is a patch from Microsoft that takes it down not our abilities unless you count star gazing, black magic and witchcraft.

    • #3194053

      12 reasons you’re obviously on crack

      by hellums ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Microsoft is hated not because of jealousy or ineptitude, or 1000s of installed apps (it’s unstable with just the OS, media players, Adobe reader, and MS Office installed, and you know it). Microsoft is hated because of:

      1. Antitrust, what’s that? Who, us? No!!! (note 0)
      2. Predatorial tactics
      3. Reliance on FUD marketing–nobody likes being manipulated and played
      4. Unstable architecture under the hood (note 1)
      5. Perpetual unreliability (note 2)
      6. Blue screen of death, and those cool app freezes that allow you to make spiffy designs and patterns of window frames as you drag your dead soldier all over the screen
      7. Default wide open security and then immediate denial of any “critical security flaw” and slow response when finally acknowledged (note 3)
      8. Incessant attempts to imbed privacy-robbing features in software and hardware, then reluctant acquiescence to its user base
      9. Incessant and needless baseline interface paradigm shifts (Search vs. Find… why? wgaf?)
      10. Repeated failure to follow their own consistency model–Ctrl-F is find function in virtually every text-centric application (ever try it on Outlook? what next, play with Alt-F, Ctrl-C, and Ctrl-V too?)
      11. Poor customer focus and service, with incessant, never-ending, weekly, monthly, and quarterly hotfixes, patches, and security releases (Service Pack? SERVICE?!?) (note 4)
      12. Long-term inability to give us close to Apple quality at the Microsoft price they know is all we can afford, despite the quadrazillion billion dollars they’ve raked in over the decades (the Mac mini might be a junior Robin Hood, but we’ll need more where that comes from)
      13. We’ll make it a baker’s dozen–because realistically we have very little choice (Linux too complex for average user, Mac too expensive for all but elite). Microsoft knows this and exploits it, gets plumply rich on it. Nobody likes having spinach or brussel sprouts jammed down their throat time and time again, especially when the server sups on caviar, lobster, and Dom Perignon.

      Note 0 – Hey, I was alive and kicking and reading the Compaq CEO’s quotes in the trades when they were being squeezed out in the early 90s, but they eventually rolled over and played stupid for the Justice Dept (who didn’t read the trades), before being slyly pardoned as expected by the Republican Party… saved by the bell

      Note 1 – why does multitasking in Unix/Linux allow me to perform floppy operations yet still stay productive? try writing to a floppy or connecting to the Internet and see how impossible it is to get anything else done at the same time… it’s still DOS under there in too many ways

      Note 2 – esp. IE, esp. with multiple windows up–God forbid they add the obvious Tab feature Firefox finally “discovered”

      Note 3 – and we usually find out that the flaw is in some useless chunk of crap architecture or software that allows God only knows who to let their PC talk to their refrigerator or toaster

      Note 4 – and how is the normal user expected to get the patches installed? by connecting to the Internet, of course… problem being that before the first patch is installed the system has been compromised by hundreds if not thousands of vulnerability probes, often successful (and how many hours does it take to download XP SP2 over a 56K modem?)

    • #3194051

      I never bash windows (in public)…

      by ironrose ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      In my job, most of the customers are using Windows. Any version of windows is job security. I work for a large ISP and we give limited support for windows. Our job in tech support is to make sure that the customer can get on the internet and get their email. We don’t help them with any other windows problems, but we can advise them on possible solutions. Newbies to the internet are bombarded with spyware, browser hijackers, and blown winsocks. Windows has a nice, consistant GUI interface and so it is easy to guide people thru checking settings. If it wasn’t for spyware & other windows problems, then we would need very many people in tech support. I love Mac OS X, but the only customers calling in with Mac OS X help are just wanting to get setup, mostly the people switching from Windows to Mac OS X. I have had very few problems with my Mac, but I am always “fixing” Windows, by doing spyware & virus scans, etc.

    • #3194050

      I think I understand where you are coming from

      by bkiegel ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      And it’s wrong to frivolously (sp?) ‘bash’ an OS just because you use another one (i.e. ‘my team is better than your team’ pass the testosterone)… However, my argument against windows (and I am an MCSE/MCSA so I come from the ‘windows world’) is that you can do all that correctly and still have problems. You can make sure every device is on the HCL, you can make sure that each and every program is still 100% MS compliant, and you still have issues. That’s not to say that you wouldn’t have some issues with other operating systems, but I do tend to have far fewer of those issues with my Linux boxes, and I have tweaked them in ways that Linux was never designed for… My gripe with Windows is that they have grown complacent, and it’s probably because they are the ‘big fish.’

    • #3194049

      Security issues

      by gvnmtwrkr ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      The only real complaint I have with Windows (server versions) is the way it initially assigns permissions. If you have Group Policies in effect this is not an issue but on the start-up it (Windows) basically gives you all rights until they are taken away whereas with, lets say Novell, you get no rights until they are assigned. With Windows I can never be sure I have taken away rights a User does not need and even then some of the rights are overlapping. Then you do have a work-around by setting them individually where needed and if you have a lot of Users this will create a lot of work unless you can Group them.
      Otherwise I like Windows client and server versions.
      Now security patches: that is a whole other topic and I believe that has been discussed at some length already!

    • #3194044

      OS Overload

      by holv2279 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I believe Angus is correct. These OSs now in day are so robust and strong and can do so many things, and vertually run anything. The biggest problem is having so many things running together at times. But the worst is the users that abuse, or don’t know how to use a computer that cause the problems.

    • #3194041

      It IS Windows

      by jmschattke9 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Windows was made long after protected mode was implemented in hardware – but they STILL ave not got protected mode used properly.

      Windows NT was made long after hardware MMUs were in the chips one would want to run it on. Windows NT derivatives still do not use hardware MMUs.

      A simple test can be done to test the robustness of an operating system: write random data to random addresses, and see how many you can try to write before the thing crashes. Score a system where only the reandom write app crashes as perfect. The last figures I saw had Windows crashing at 25%; Unix was 75% IIRC.

      Bad design and bad engineering. That’s why Windows gets panned.

    • #3194040

      Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      by jrussell_fl ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      My head’s going to explode here. Basically because of Angus McLaren’s cluelessness. Reality check time – you state “I could sit here and bash linux, windows, mac os and anything else, but that is just pointless and pedantic.” (pedantic good word 🙂 )

      The real point is no one bashes mac os, linus, unix, aix, etc. At least no with the regularity that comes with windows bashing. I do agree that a large part of the bashing comes from either newbies who couldn’t tell a printer driver from a NASCAR driver or tha mac os cultists. But the fact of the matter is that Windows (you pick the version) in many many instances just doesn’t function as advertised.

      As far as crashing for a reason; I absolutely agree. You just shouldn’t have to spend days and days searching for the reason only to find out the Microsoft neglected to document that if you install A before B the OS doesn’t like that so much basically because the overworked, overburdened team of developers never got around to testing A before B because the sales team was running around shouting – “we have to launch! we have to launch!” Unfortunately this environment breeds the heck-that’s-what-patches-are-for mentality.

      To end my tirade I must say that while a lot of the “Win-doze” bashing has some merit it does get a little tiresome and people in IT need to welcome into their lives that MS Windows is here and a large part of their customer base uses it. So learn it. Talk to people to try to avoid some of the frustrations and quit whining.

      • #3193982

        I quit whinning when …

        by bcbachman ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        To put things in context I know my tech profile is worthless. I am a MCSE for NT4 so I know something about windows. I have maintained VMS Unix adn M$ systems. My most current complaint with M$ is when installing the Win2K SP4 rollup on a perfecly good machine caused a BSOD. The quality of patches, service paks is questionable at best. When I call M$ it is a known problem, but do you see any acknoledgement in M$ Also customer at M$ is problem? If my company treated our customers the way M$ treats the buying public it would not stay in busines!!

    • #3194038

      I Agree!

      by cabr ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I run a 40+ WINDOWS server farm; I haven’t had any crashes attributed to the OS. It’s either poorly written hardware drivers or 3rd party software that is ALWAYS the culprit. If you aren’t smarter than the computer, then you’re in the wrong field. After all, they’re only machines that do what you tell them to do…

    • #3194035

      I don’t entirely agree

      by taylor.carl ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Was Windows ME perfect? Why isn’t CPM still around? It is up to the software developer to create a robust system or other software that WILL NOT CRASH. A system that serves the user, not the other way around. When I was taught programming (30 years ago), it was unheard of to turn in any software until it was throughly tested under all imaginable conditions. Today, it is accepted practice to produce crap, full of bugs, just to beat the competition to the market, and then issue patches and service packs later. I think it is time to ditch Windows, Linux, Unix, MacOS, and all others, and ditch the present day outdated hardware architecture, and start over to design a real operating system, and hardware based upon the best of what we know about all operating systems and hardware, and how computer science should REALLY work. The systems of tomorrow should be backwards compatible will all previous platforms, as user-friendly as your own mother, and as secure and robust as can be imagined. Then made to be the world standard. Of course it can’t happen. On the one hand, the old and tired technologies are MOSTLY replaced by new, improved models. But, also, big business and under the counter wheeling and dealing sometimes work together to produce and foister onto the public inferior products. Example: The early macintosh, an obviously superior and innovative technology, at the time, overshadowed by an architecture based on older, and less innovative designs, simply because of money and marketing. The obviously superior Beta-Max being ousted by the inferior VHS technology because of under the counter wheeling and dealing. None of this based upon which is actually the superior technology, but upon which rich fat cat kisses which other rich fat cat’s butt, leaving the public to suffer the consequences.

      Just kidding, of course, but, on the other hand, computers should be, and eventually will be practically nonexistent in the form we know of them today. Keyboards and mice will practically disappear along with mechanical harddrives. Software will become firmware everywhere, and will be easier to use than a toaster, by anyone, without training. Really, the general public should NOT have to gain a PHD just to use a piece of hardware or software intended from the start to be a tool. We are forced to concentrate upon and bend to the whim of the overly complicated “hammer” when we should be concentrating upon “building the house” by using the hammer.

      • #3194022

        a little too “Future Shock,” no?

        by hellums ·

        In reply to I don’t entirely agree

        If one more person tries to tell me that my keyboard and mouse will be obsolete in the near future, I’ll shove a boot up that person’s rear, if I can get it around their daydreaming head. I’m sick of such tripe. Voice recognition software has improved from 90% reliability to probably 96-97%, but do you see the mainstream using it? No. Why? Because it’s hard to build a better mousetrap than the keyboard and mouse. Certain input and interface devices will not change considerably in our time. QWERTYUIOP.

        • #3193950

          Sorry I got you so upset

          by taylor.carl ·

          In reply to a little too “Future Shock,” no?

          I am sorry that I pushed a hot button with you, and got you so upset. I come by it honestly, though. I have degrees in Biology, Computer Science, and Electronics Engineering, and due to that I gravitated toward, and have done a far amount of work in Alternate Interface technologies for the physically impaired (particularly for the blind and quadriplegic). Therefore, it is a passion for me to see interface technologies progress rather than stand still, as you can surely understand. Personally, I use a keyboard and mouse, and would definitely prefer to continue to do so because I love it, and because I am not particulary physically impaired. I just wish my hands didn’t have to leave the keyboard to use my mouse. (Maybe I could make a rectal joystick shaped like a boot!)

          Getting back to the original topic of discussion, viewing your other posts, I was sure, and still am, that for the other statements I made on my rant, you would mostly tend to agree.

    • #3194030

      Short and to the point

      by leonard j rivera sr. ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      To say all OS problems is the fault of the user is crazy and on another note, to say all OS problems are the vendors fault is just as crazy.

      I’ve hosed Windows plenty of times by making simple mistakes during the course of my “learning years” which BTW I am still learning, something new everyday.

      I’ve also seen new patches hose the OS and have seen fixes to fixes consistantly published by M$ and other OSes.

      People will always bash what ever it is they see as inferior to what they prefer.

      An OS is a tool not matter which one you choose.

      Hey old timers…. remember the days of the Amiga Workbench? Best OS I ever remember using for it’s time. We were the biggest bashers of windows in those days. Look at it now (at best it exists in an emulator with vapor promises of return), and please don’t lie to me and say you’ve never seen the red blinking Guru Meditation error.

      As long as those tools remain troublesome (no matter what or who’s to blame) I know I’m getting paid to fix it.

      Be careful what you ask for, right behind that perfect, secure, easy to configure user friendly OS is your pink slip.

    • #3194029

      It’s the only game in town

      by lachandler2000 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I have been there for all the Microsoft OS releases. Some have been outright buggy here-and-there, but what else was there? I admit my experiences have taught me a lot of new swear words.
      Over the years Windows has become more and more stable, even for the non-tech. But, as to proper installs, even new drivers can be designed wrong. What I like about XP is that when a machine suddenly crashes the OS can report on what happened and if you like, can let Microsoft know about it.
      I think that today the biggest problems I see with Windows is that many hardware and software manufacturers don’t make their products to play nice. They tend to be proprietary to the point that it is near impossible to be productive using compeditive products on the same machine. Plug and play becomes plug and suffer. Though most times I don’t see the hardware being as faulted as the accompanying software. This is probably one of the central reasons XP reports incompatability issues before upgrading.
      I think Microsoft has a great developer raport and they do listen to our problems. How many software makers offer so much help and free stuff to make your computing experience smoother. Everything can’t be fixed by complaining, but recognizing a problem is the first step to a solution.
      Bash no more!

    • #3194026

      Is the OS so perfect you mustn’t bash it?

      by johnofstony ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Angus McLaren sounds like a Windows fundamentalist. If no-one criticises Windows, how will Microsoft know what Windows users are dissatisfied with? As an IT professional there are many things I dislike about Windows, not least is its tendency to crash rather often. I used to work for a security company supplying equipment to prisons which just had to be reliable. We used Motorola 68020 processors running the OS9 operating system and in over 10 years of continuous operation on 16 sites I never encountered a single crash due to the operating system, only to hardware failure. Another major irritant about Windows is the way Microsoft keeps changing the look and feel. Then there are the “security” features which make it impossible for anyone who hasn’t got administrator privileges to do anything beyond data entry. Then there are the frequent patches to attempt to stop hackers getting access to users’ PCs. Yes, Windows has provided a universal common platform for software developers and I’m not saying that Windows doesn’t have its good points, but if Microsoft would concentrate on making Windows reliable, compact and fast instead of adding more and more bells and whistles which require ever more powerful hardware to run merely so that today’s software runs almost as fast as that of 10 years ago, then I’d be more than happy to give Microsoft my wholehearted support.

    • #3194021

      Reason for Ctrl+Alt+Del

      by jkmasters ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      There is a reason why M$ has used those 3 keys to bring up the login, users of the earlier versions got used to the key combination.

      • #3186208

        I Three-Finger Salute you!

        by 0b1111 ·

        In reply to Reason for Ctrl+Alt+Del

        I can’t let you get away with that comment, even though I did smile quietly to myself when I saw it.
        But the following ‘jab’ from David Bradley is perhaps even more apt and amusing!

        Cheers.

        Quote:
        “This keyboard combination was designed by David Bradley, a designer of the original IBM PC. Bradley originally designed Control-Alt-Escape to trigger a soft reboot, but he found it was too easy to bump the left side of the keyboard and reboot the computer accidentally. He switched the key combination to Control-Alt-Delete, a combination impossible to press with just one hand (this is not true of later keyboards, such as the 102-key PC/AT keyboard). More advanced operating systems use its status as a “reserved” combination for various purposes, but often retain the ability to trigger a soft reboot in certain configurations or circumstances.”

        David Bradley is also known for his good-natured jab at Bill Gates, at that time the CEO of Microsoft, and also the creator of many of Microsoft’s programs:

        “I may have invented Control-Alt-Delete, but Bill Gates made it really famous.”

        “The design of Windows NT (and its derivatives Windows 2000 and Windows XP)is such that, unless security is already compromised in some other way, only the WinLogon process, a trusted system process, can receive notification of this keystroke combination (because it is the first to register the keyboard hook). This keystroke combination is thus a secure attention key. A user pressing Control-Alt-Delete can be sure that it is the operating system (specifically the WinLogon process), rather than a third party program, that is responding to the key combination, and that it is therefore safe to enter a password. It was chosen as the secure attention key in Windows (instead of, for example, the System Request key), because on the PC platform no program could reasonably expect to redefine this keystroke combination for its own purposes.”

        Quotes sourced in good faith from Wikipedia.

    • #3194018

      Is Windows XP an “operatiing” system?

      by rmuldavin ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Good coments from Angus, but I have some confusion over the term “operating system”, so this post.

      My HP pavilion ze4560us laptop no longer shuts down through the MS windows system, this I’ve been experiencing for three window computers since 1997, it occurs when other licensed vendors’ software of MS are allowed to use the MS systems.

      My rationale is that the computer when turned on from the power source must wake up from the CMOS where a battery or some other powerless way is made to store the manner in which the BIOS is set by the vendors.

      Thus if the MS shut down does shut down, MS owns the machine.

      Ofen I watch the MS Task Manager as the CPU is ranked, to see which of the .exe, cc, or system ranks, often there is a lower level.

      My i-mac offers the 0,1, 2, 3 ranking, that is consistent with my understanding of “ownership”, that follows the remote programming control (rpc) within a networking system.

      For my above laptop, the lower right corner dual monitor, the forefront one, send, the background one, recieve, the MS automatic download, it appears this dual monitoring system does not show activity, and, I recall, neither does th “status” window.

      Add that last week when flying from our local airport where all laptops are scanned with an instrument the size of almost 3 by 3 feet with a probe attached, my laptop, the attendant expalained, was identified as containing something, he showed, at its center bottom.

      Filling out a form, he said that this was not a normal result.

      Being on our local American Civil Liberties Board, I was interested, but not concerned in the sense that if my computer has an ID tag, much like the VIN (vehicle identification number) it might be a way of tracking potential owners of laptops.

      Subsequently upon returning from my destination to my hometown, the departure airport waived all computers by without checking.

      So, since I’ve learned as the above post cautioned that my own tendency to blame the operating system and vendors for operational problems, in fact to blame “others” for my own “ignorance” (an understandable human trait) I was asking myself questions, since at a motel at the destination Santa Fe, my wireless laptop was unable to connect to the Internet in the evening, but early in the morning, using the motels own desktop, got one post off.

      At the departure airport, busy with many laptop users both before and after securtiy (that waived throug laptop users) their systems worked well.

      So I’m still thining about this:

      (1) Does NSA (or other type “snoopers”) have a “backdoor”?;
      (2) If so, what type, that is, and ID system is one thing, but could they have a way of blocking access to the Internet if a laptop?;
      (3) And, did the fact that by having to shut down my laptop with the power button, even after going though the Windows shutdown that does not shutdown prevent a possible NSA type insertion through the center bottom of the laptop?

      None the less, the important issue is my trying to dicipline myself from being “paranoid” as I tend to do for most robot and machine failures.

      Best, rmuldavin

      • #3193999

        NSA is definitely listening

        by hellums ·

        In reply to Is Windows XP an “operatiing” system?

        To answer your questions in order:

        1. Yes, NSA has a backdoor into your laptop and PC
        2. We can’t tell you the type or how it’s done, because it’s obviously classified–even if we release it by court order all the good parts will be blacked out (just like we do random UFO document requests)
        3. Yes, the manual power button shutdown is one of our biggest backdoor entry mechanisms (of course, now we may have to come up with another one, since you’re on to us, at least–there may be others, and we can’t risk it)

        Many people may think that we at NSA don’t have the resources to monitor all communication from everyone and create backdoors that we can exploit in every mechanical, electronic, or digital communication device. This is not true. We can. We do. We will as long as we can. Why do we do this? Because underneath we’re really just an ancient and secret religious cult that is trying to prevent you the citizen from downloading porn or talking bad about elected officials, not to mention kids using foul language and hacking computer games. We have to stop this somehow, and we have to do it now. Thank God there are like-minded people at all the hardware device manufacturers that allow us to do this for little or no fee (we need all our funding for monitoring, naturally), and luckily nobody has ratted us out yet or confirmed suspicious like yours. Good luck, and may the Force be with us (not with you–you’re the evil one here, you porn hound, and you sicken us).

    • #3194017

      Windows ME ? avid Windows Fan

      by tewman2 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I grew up with a Texas Instruments TI-99, and following that an 8088 with MSDos-4.5. I?ve used Linux, All different versions of Windows, Novell for Networks, Macs, from the old apple IIe to Mac OSX .
      The worse operating system that I?ve seen was windows me, it had the most bugs, and compatibility issues, I read some place shortly after it?s release that Microsoft released it as an unfinished product, they did this to help promote sales of windows for people who didn?t need the network capabilities of windows 2000. I almost refuse to support windows me. I have customers that will be having problems with there AOL software, and once we get the AOL fixed, the computer no longer boots properly, all we had done is reinstall the AOL software, and reconfigure the modem inside of AOL, not windows, yet it still messed it up.
      Windows is by far my favorite OS, simply because it has the most vendors offering software for it, and it is the most widely used OS out there. Mac and Linux both have some great features, but they have the same problems as Windows, if they were as widely used, as Windows they would look like the worst OS out there, as more people would be trying to exploit the flaws in that operating system.
      For networking, it seems that Novell requires far less work to keep a network stable and secure, however, I?m not as proficient with Novell as I am with the upper Microsoft products, I have one of our other admins service it.
      It really comes down to a matter of personal preference, if you like doing a little more configuration to configure things to what you are using a pc for, go with Linux. If you want a PC for high-end graphics and video, go with a Mac. If you want a good everyday use pc that?s easy to use, and has lots of software options go with Windows.
      It?s ignorant to bash Windows, just because it?s flaws have been more exploited then the one you prefer. It?s just as ignorant to bash Linux when you are not familiar with the ends and outs of the OS.

    • #3194011

      Windows is just a sloppy OS…

      by tech ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Angus,

      I have worked over 30 years in the IT field, and have experience with many different operating systems. From the Honeywell/GE GECOS, through the Burroughs OS and DEC O/S 10, into the Mini-era (RSX-11M on the PDP-11/70 is still the most elegant computing platform ever created.) and on into PC’s. Out of all of them, Windows is the sloppiest written piece of code I have ever seen. I describe it to my clients like this: “Windows is made up of abhout 80 million lines of programing code, written by 20,000 different people, and none of them talk to each other.” I have seen Windows spontaneously blue-screen for no reason whatsoever, and then not have that particular problem for months at a time. Windows is just a bad piece of software with an 800 pound marketing gorilla behind it. Remember: Everytime we by a Microsoft Windows product, we pay for the privlege of being a beta-tester for Microsoft! All of their stuff is market-driven software…

    • #3194005

      Stability is #1.

      by mark.paris ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Windows has great familiarity because it’s been forced upon most folks. However, speaking from a perspective of using 12 different operating systems for many, many purposes over the last 20 years: the ONLY unstable operating system in the bunch is Windows. Of their collection, NT is the most stable, but I give it a 90%-95% rating. It’s not a ‘drivers’ issue, it’s an ‘intolerance of hardware failure’ issue. The heart of Windows requires a PC running at 100% reliability, with 100% response to the OS’s whims. It is the ONLY operating system that is so egotistical as to think that hardware failures, delays, or self-diagnostics should never happen, that all of their time should be devoted to running Windows. Hence, the root problem.

      For space reasons, I will only note 2 other OSes in comparison: DOS (non necessarily Microsoft’s version) and QNix. Both of these can load the entire OS (and drivers) into RAM, ROM or a different swap hard disk upon boot. This allows for redundance when running: if a call is made to, say, a “sleeping” or ‘suddenly dead’ hard disk and no response comes within, say, 0.500 second, the OS then can remake the call to the alternate location, like in RAM or EPROM, to complete the task. The result in a failure situation is a slight delay, along with a ‘hook’ to let someone know that something is wrong.

      In this situation, all versions of Windows simply crash. This makes Windows unsuitable for any kind of reliable computing, including Servers. In fact, I have Windows NT Server, Windows 2000 Server and (briefly) Windows 2003 Server running here: all 3 versions leak memory and require rebooting at some point because none of them can effectively manage their own resources. AND…no other server I’ve ever used does this – not VMS, not PDP-11 machines, not Linux, not QNix…..

      ‘Nuff said? If not, I can go on and on….

      • #3193997

        Hate to believe conspiracy theories, but . . .

        by paredown ·

        In reply to Stability is #1.

        Per previous post:
        “You just shouldn’t have to spend days and days searching for the reason only to find out the Microsoft neglected to document that if you install A before B the OS doesn’t like that so much basically because the overworked, overburdened team of developers never got around to testing A before B because the sales team was running around shouting – “we have to launch! we have to launch!” Unfortunately this environment breeds the heck-that’s-what-patches-are-for mentality.”
        Sadly confirmed several years ago during an after-dinner conversation with a very senior M$ person, who felt that the marketers dominated the release cycle to such a degree that a large number of v. gifted senior M$ players who wanted to write (in Steve Jobs’s words) “insanely great” code left to start their own ventures . . .
        ??And whose bright idea was it to integrate an exploitable browser into a server O/S, leave the default security settings so open (now partially “fixed”) AND allow a server side install to be finished using NO password–Really!!!
        The famous hack of M$’s own development system took place because someone had not put a password on the admin account…
        Say no more–they deserve criticism.

    • #3193995

      Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      by donpeach ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      There are a couple reasons I sometimes bash windows.First, it
      the number one system out there. You are almost forced to use
      it. Everyone like to bash the top dog.
      This is not to say I don’t bash the other OS’s. I do. But when you
      are the top dog, and have an endless amount of money to back
      up your product, you’d think you could make it nice and clean
      running.
      I’ve been using Novell’s SUSE 9,3 lately. It hasn’t crashed yet. It’s
      not perfect, but it’s fast and clean running. I also use OS X on a
      Mac. Seems super stable. No crashes for me so far.
      Windows has improved over the years, but i believe they have a
      ways to go to make it as stable as others on the market.

      • #3193934

        Couple of Reasons = 1 Reason

        by gbig@customerselects.com ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        So you count stability as two reasons?

        There are several millions lines of code in Windows, there are thousands of companies worlwide using it. It provides support in dozens of languages and cultures. It is so vast, that you have to have special training just to properly support it.

        All of this, and your prime criteria is how often in crashes. Which is often not the OS at all, but the hardware, the skill of the operator, the loading of third party crap that is not tested properly to run with it, the attachment of non suppported hardware, the lack of sufficient resources in memory or disk, the late application of patches, the probability that the infrastructure is not clean, on and on and on.

        The mac is not an enterprise machine, it is a toy. The Unix flavors are still user unfriendly, and are not mature on the client side. Windows is just as “stable” as any of the others. It is an emotional statement to say otherwise. Notice noone has published empirical data on this statement, it comes from the fantasy, and myth among techies who just need to bash something larger than themselves.

    • #3193986

      A Short History of Windows

      by norm cimon ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Windows 2000/XP Pro are very different beasts than the junk we started with. Gates and his minions realized – after they saw what was emerging from Apple via Xerox PARC – that MS-DOS was not the future of computing. (For their earliest thoughts, get hold of some of the quotes on memory needs, multi-tasking and whether color screens were needed for a real yuk).

      But by then, they had a base of users who would have to be brought along. What followed was almost 20 years of outdated code embedded in Windows right up to Win 98 (with a few shards still floating around in there even now).

      This was the equivalent of placing a semi on 26″ bicycle wheels: the system fell over all the time. I probably mis-spent 6 months of my life reviving systems that had died for the oddest of reasons. We were simply given a lot of very bad code to support for quite a long time.

      This ties in with many of the other comments as well. Users often had no idea what was going on and blamed themselves or their IT people. So that we’re all on the same page here, it was not unusual to have individual systems lockup just about every day, not because of poor support but because of untested drivers, memory trashing, shared address space that fell to contention and a thousand other ills to which the Windows flesh was heir.

    • #3193978

      Sweeping statements

      by david.marchesi ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Like all sweeping statements it just isnt true…
      Windows can have issues such as security flaws and exploits you cannot do anything about, you cant call someone who slates windows OS’s rubbish just because they dont like windows.

    • #3193969

      Users should know better?!

      by tlea ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Fist of all, I agree that installing hardware improperly can cause a systems to crash. That said, what do you do if the OS identifies the hardware improperly and causes itself to crash? My first install of Windows XP improperly identified my ATA 100 drive as a SCSI device without telling, yet still installed the OS. Needless to say the OS would not boot properly. (Actually I was pretty amazed that the install got to the point of booting at all.) The work around was to install Windows 2000 and upgrade to XP. This issue has been fixed, but it was not MY fault that the OS did this.

      I have also had Linux fail for various reasons associated with hardware. Like faulty PCMCIA card drivers. Once again I don’t this it is unreasonable to expect the provided software to function correctly with the provided hardware.

      Don’t even get me started on Mac OS. I will say that I have yet to use OS X (Which is a huge improvement) but their previous OS’s had plenty of problems. If they had more market share, you would see more vulnerabilities.

      That said, I like Windows (2000 or later). The OS is easy to use, and I have NEVER crashed it with just software (Once again 2000 or later). I also liked OS/2, too bad IBM had their heads up their butts on marketing that product. I also like Linux.

      From a security standpoint the ‘nix OS’s have had their fair share of issues over the years, but that experience has translated into a more secure OS and better practices. Windows has experienced some of the same growing pains, and had a lot of catching up to do.

      Now for my point, I half agree with you. The user, admin, operator, whoever can have a large impact on the security and stability of an OS. But, better design and default settings can help mitigate these issue. Like in Windows or ‘nix case, not having every service under the sun running for a default install. Some of my first distros of Linux has BIND and FTP installed and running by default! Nice. MS is VERY guilty of have bad default settings for its OS installs, but they have gotten better.

      The thing is, not everyone that uses a computer is an IT person. My mom, for example, used here computer for e-mail, web browsing, and digital photography. That’s it. She shouldn’t need to know how to configure a firewall or how to shut down services. Is it her fault that she didn’t spend years learning about computer security and maintenance? No, because she shouldn’t have to.

      That said, yes Windows gets a bad rap. Is it deserved? Yes, because MS is a profit driven orginization that has historically the bottom line before stability and security. (The many versions of Windows up through ME were hunks of crap in terms of stability.) On the other hand the amount of people that still bash the OS’s stability have obviously not used one of their latest incarnations.

      Personally, I use Linux for my home servers because I’m not willing to shell out the big dollars for a commercial OS, but I do use Windows XP and 2000 on my desktops. For my wife and kids it is the best solution.

      If you really want to see stable and secure OS’s check out the mid-range and main-frame crowd.

      Disclaimer: These are just my opinions. I have not researched any facts to support these opinions, they are based on personal experience. I can’t remember what day it is most of the time so what I say should taken with a grain of salt, as my opinion may be completely different tomorrow, whenever that is.

      • #3193936

        Windows: Based on stolen code. Really!

        by raymond danner ·

        In reply to Users should know better?!

        Windows v1.0 was an /unauthorized port/ of Macintosh OS to the x86. Things have gone downhill from there, frankly.

        1. Flaw #1 in Windows: Monolithic architecture.
        This means that any app can kill the whole OS (or vice-versa.)
        2. Flaw #2 is much worse. Microsoft has a long, sordid history of not caring to fix bugs. (They knew of a showstopper bug in one of their programming languages from version 1.0 on; fixing required a /single-byte/ patch, and they /publically/ stated that they had /no/ interest in /ever/ fixing it.)

        Just those two flaws causes Windows to be a huge kludge and (IMO) a massive set of security risks.

        • #3193915

          Um, please check your facts…

          by tlea ·

          In reply to Windows: Based on stolen code. Really!

          1. The first version of Windows ripped off the Mac GUI elements, not the actual code. Apple was suing MS for copying their look and feel, not for stolen code. Apple lost.

          2. Windows NT/2000/XP uses a microkernel architechture based on the principles used in Mach. Applications and services as well as drivers run in protected memory spaces preventing them from inadvertently thrashing each other. NT class OSes are considered microkernel architechture not monolithic.

          3. I am curious as to what this one byte patchable critial flaw is. Could you please tell me so that I can determine if I need to change this one byte myself?

    • #3193968

      Techies Are Not Professionals

      by gbig@customerselects.com ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Most IT Techs are:

      1. Young and immature
      2. Trained on the job, not formerly
      3. Often have hacker-like personalities, that is, they are arrogant, and often anti-social personalities.
      4. Tend to blame things they dont understand – and often characterize their users as acting the same way.
      5. Do not have a background in software engineering, which does not stop them from making remarks about the software they are charged to install and maintain.
      6. Are self-important, often try to create job security by not sharing their experiences and knowledge – these are the primary types to make silly remarks about the strengths and weaknesses of Windows. In other words, they are threatened by Micrisofts power and success.

      The truth is pretty raw, those who get defensive about these truths will reveal many of the attributes above. Personal attacks, or references to “you dont know what you are talking about” come from the mind of a mentality of inferiority.

      • #3193831

        Stereotyping

        by mchall ·

        In reply to Techies Are Not Professionals

        As I write this I’m sitting in the middle of a group of techs that I’ve worked with for a number of years and I the only traits you describe that apply in whole or in part are that they are not formally (not “formerly”) trained and that not all of them have software engineering backgrounds. Their lack of formal training is actually a benefit in some ways, not a detriment. They have come out of the business that they serve and are aquainted with its needs and challenges. In all ways they are professionals and deport themselves with maturity and concern for their business partners.

        The caricature that you paint is a relic of an era that is rapidly fading. Techs that exhibit those traits are quickly finding their jobs outsourced because management is no longer willing to deal with such behaviour when they can get better service at lower cost. Attributing these characteristics to “Most IT Techs” in today’s IT world is both presumptive and inaccurate.

        • #3193794

          The Proof Is In Their Pudding

          by gbig@customerselects.com ·

          In reply to Stereotyping

          All you need to do is look at the posting on this board from handles that include the term “tech” in them.

          Most IT techs do include the attributes described, one way to guage the accuracy is to see how users complain about IT. And even more telling, see how IT has declined in prestige in the corporate life.

          And of course even more telling, is to see how the leadership in IT is expected to come more from the business side, rather than the tech side. In other words, the techies have alienated their clients, and are being relagated to lower paying jobs, and outsourced unemployment.

          The reasons are plain, they have priced, and complained, and alienated their way out of existence.

        • #3185641

          Supports my point

          by mchall ·

          In reply to The Proof Is In Their Pudding

          “The reasons are plain, they have priced, and complained, and alienated their way out of existence.”

          Exactly my point. This view no longer represents “Most Techs” because those kind of individuals are no longer predominant in the industry. They have been supplanted by individuals who are more cost conscious and customer service oriented.

        • #3194312

          No tech in my handle.

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to The Proof Is In Their Pudding

          Well that’s one way of looking it, here’s another.

          Downturn in the IT market was a business failure.
          First someone forgot to figure out once you’d cabled everyone up there would be no one else to cable up.
          Second some halfwit marketed a pile of new technologies such as 3G when the best technicians around couldn’t physically engineer what was being sold. Internet at 4800 baud and ?1 per minute of your cell phone, yeah that’s a goer.

          Third you had a pile of dot.com boys running around selling businesses that just didn’t exist.

          All of this goes on business’s expand buy into IT in a big way, skills shortage. How is the shortage adressed because academia is always 4 – 6 years behind business, easy find a load of people who can see lightning and hear thunder , give them a shiny badge and certificate that says that are skilled. Not saying all of them, but a sizeable %age.
          All the chickens come home to roost, business downturn, no new market and a bunch of people failing expensively to get anything to work.

          Investment cut back, end of boom, too many ‘skilled’ workers, massive die back and everyone in IT skilled or not takes a massive hit.

          Happened before, happened then, will happen again, sure as eggs the so called captains of industry won’t be at fault, RHIP as it were.

          As a tech I’ve alienated more than a few bosses. not by crapping out , not by over-pricing either. Told ’em they were talking out of their arses is the way I did it, politely of course.

      • #3185858

        Seeing as you’ve prevented

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Techies Are Not Professionals

        me from being defensive as that indicates inferiority, I suppose I’ll have to be offensive

        What other training is there ?
        Are suggesting that a badge for memorising ms advertising blurb is a substitute for experience ?

        Object to other peoples generalisations all you want just after you cease with your own.

        Unlike some you decry, I have a smidgeon of familiarity with software engineeering, which is why I feel quite comfortable criticising some of the pathetic blunders in ms’s attempt at the discipline.
        My reasons for disliking certain aspects of the OS are perfectly sound, the fact you don’t consider them imporant to you doesn’t mean they aren’t to me or anyone else.

    • #3193961

      Don’t ever bash the OS???

      by kelly.nelson ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      What??? Can you please look in your add/remove programs and count how many “updates” there are in an XP install without SP2?? Now ask yourself WHY are there SO many patches?? I thought there wasn’t anything wrong with the OS?? What are the patches for if it’s just a “compatibility” issue? Patches admit fault, admit something wasn’t right to begin with – so it needed to be fixed. And your telling me that’s the techies fault?? Gimmee a break buddy. So I guess the shuttle Discovery’s crash was the astronauts fault. If they were better astronauts then the shuttle wouldn’t have been damaged at launch? You’re right any OS crashed for any reason and I’ll put my money on those who designed it. I mean come on, even the some of the update names say it all… hotFIX (Fix being the keyword)

    • #3193960

      Usability a Faustian pact

      by marcel lecker ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Everyone knows Stability/security are mutually opposed to Usability/Complexity. MS chose to listen to the customer. That makes them a good business. They opted to complicate things in order to make them more appealing to John Doe in accounting.

      John Doe doesn’t have the time or inclination to figure out how to use NetWare, or some Unix Variant, but can be serving up files and print-jobs in no time, because MS is easy to use.

      There is certainly something to be said for that …in an ideal world.

      The reality is this early choice created a difficult problem. Namely Crackers, viruses and worms etc. were able to exploit the inherent weaknesses that were a by-product of the complexity that allowed it to be more usable than anything at the time.

      Without re-engineering the OS from the ground up, it is difficult to take the code base and turn it from an orange into a mango. They’ve (MS) been trying to do it bit by bit and only making small scale improvements. Longhorn, might be a big step toward a more balanced state because it is apparently largly a re-write. We’ll have to see how that plays out. We’ve been promised things before….

      Another point is they are a business. A really big one. Open source advocates see this stifling (not fostering) growth and innovation, much like patents, NDAs, etc. do to science.

      The Open Source community works much more like a scientific/academic body. Unhindered exchange of information is a priority and growing the body of knowledge as whole rather than in commercially controlled silos is also a priority. Amateur astronomy is a classic example of public participation in the development of a body of knowledge.

      Why people bash Microsoft? Because they failed to adapt quickly enough to what other OS developers realised was happening (i.e. increasing need for stability and security). They also failed to adapt quickly enough to the changes in the software development ecosystem and while they are doing so they are insisting they are the better product. That leads to a credibility issue.

      Marcel

      • #3193827

        Hallo

        by mygetbiz ·

        In reply to Usability a Faustian pact

        Good luck on your election.

      • #3193810

        Forgot this for this post, disreguard last reply…

        by mygetbiz ·

        In reply to Usability a Faustian pact

        I have found open source great in that you can get source and tweak and I found it because it’s free.

        I couldn’t find one place for code only, not an application at Sourgefource, but I use Sands’ CodeXChange and found xport’s xforms for neat IE pluggins and CodeProject.com, Developerland.com and Borland, Sun and IBM source code pages.

        I’m using Opensource IDE SharpDevelope and love it, I just have to find out about adding C++ not c# support for some things.

        My gripe with OpenSource is, take using Eclipse, for support features/addins requires too many layers and I had to do things myself and had to scrap it becuase it took too long. Alot of the task where more low level and done so I could put an app together quickly.

        I do not seem to have the luxury of focusing on objects only, I spend alot of time configuring and making things I need work together before actually using it for what I downloaded it for.

        There doesn’t seem to be a set standard. Basically MS requires this format or it’s not MS compaitible, not just for UI.

        I like the power, it’s like being able to do inline assembly in c with out having to actually write the inline code so that power is what is great. OS offers alot of power. The skies the limit.

        I wish there were more standards in OpenSource, the only standard I seemed have found is in structured requirements for something to be open source. I think having standards make the learning curve shorter.

        There seems to be too much and you can realy get lost in deciding what to use and do.

        Having control allows for stability I think.

    • #3193958

      everyone?

      by jpaullanier ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      if
      everyone bashes Windows
      and
      anyone who hates Windows is not a true techie
      then
      no one is a true techie!

      regards, Paul

    • #3193949

      The problem is not always drivers, and/or hardware incompatibilities.

      by unixwolf.edu ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      After reading your post I could not help but laugh out load, especially when you wrote ?You don’t ever bash the OS, in fact if the OS crashes then it’s your fault not the OS?. It is true for some of the problems that happen on the Wintel platform the blame could be placed on the admin of that machine; but after everything is said and done the responsibility falls back onto the OS and its developers. I am sure you have never downloaded an update from the OS developer and had your system crash. Oh, and lets not even consider that after all the patching, driver, and virus definition updating is done, how the Windows platform is still one big security hole. While every OS has its share of problems in this area, and the market share does dictate the size of the problem, the Windows developers have allowed, yes I say ?allowed?, this OS to continue to be easy prey for those who want to gain access. If you use the internet you are bombarded by every form of attack, illegal and legal, and unless you use some THIRD-Party software to defend your Windows OS (virus protection is third-party and while we have all come to consider it a standard installation that we ignore and take for granted, it is still third-party), it would be just a matter of time before your patching, driver, and virus definition updating a new Windows OS installation; again.

      Please understand, I actually like the Windows OS, I have a job because of it, but I do my personal work on Mac and Linux.

    • #3193942

      Maybe it shouldn’t be so easy for users to break it then

      by amartin ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      It’s the users fault because MS designs a product so easily broken? The whole world of users need to be techno-nerds familiar with the intricate details of the OS so they fully understand every possible repercussion of their actions when installing a new piece of software or hardware? Windows is pretty impressive most of the time but it’s basic design concept of sharable components that can be altered by developers is a flawed concept. I’m an IT professional and I fully understand how to prevent real problems but millions of users have no clue what a driver is and I’m not sure they should have to. Why in the world do I have to use a memory recovery program to defrag memory after putting my machine through some very intensive programs? Why can’t a program running in Windows simply recover every last scrap of memory when a program terminates, no matter what the reason? Why, when I distribute a VB app package created with the VB6 package and install wizard, do I have to manually tweak the included components to ensure they don’t crash some percentage of workstations. For crying out loud. The same company wrote both the OS and the development system. Can’t they ensure absolute compatibility?

      No profit-oriented company is going to have a goal in sight of creating software that eventually is done and runs without problems. As long as that motivation for bucks is there, MS will constantly rush out, unfinished and buggy OS software with the latest bells and whistles that few will ever use.

      Art

      • #3193931

        Bugs and more bugs

        by joe90fluke ·

        In reply to Maybe it shouldn’t be so easy for users to break it then

        The problem with the Windows system is of a second order… Meaning really deep sh… nine.
        The problem I mean to underline here is:
        in the Microsoft product line the bugs are unstable.

        And the rest of the world will just smile and be happy because luckily the system accidently was able to boot … WOW ! 🙂

        You want a serious system and not a toys 2 Words
        Linux , Apple

    • #3193935

      You said it, brother!

      by awatson ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Thank you for that. I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to hear the Linux crew speak of the evils of Microsoft, when truly, it is superior in so many ways – and, suffers from much fewer driver issues and incompatibilities than Linux does – not that I’m bashing Linux. But you’re right – each OS has it’s purpose and place in the world.

    • #3193924

      Amen Brother! It really is a people problem

      by captg ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      ‘Round here troubleshooting takes place in order of this simple acronym, UDAS. User, Data, App, System.
      Most problems start betweent the keyboard & chair. Be it, an issue with perception or action, trouble calls are initiated when the computer doesn’t behave as expected. Human input is the single truly unpredictable factor in computing. The “machine” & the “program” can only do what they’re told to do. The perception of unreliable performance comes when the “mahcine” & the “program” respond to instructions they we’re given by some programer up to 20 years ago.
      The infamous blue screen of death is Windows responding according to design. Most of us don’t like it because we don’t know the logic that caused it to occur, and we likely never will because Windows is a proprietary OS whose source code is not available to the public. Therefore, because we don’t understand it, and we don’t want the fault lay with our lack of understanding, we blame the OS, and by proxy the people who designed and coded the OS, and the underlying hardware instruction sets.

      my $.02 worth

    • #3193917

      Wrong implicit assumption

      by gerrit scholten ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      So if I buy a new PC with preinstalled Windows + Office, and it crashes after I switched it on, it’s my fault?!

      Or if I buy e.q. a new printer, install the supplied drivers, and Windows crashes, then it’s my fault too?

      Angus, your posting makes the incorrect implicit assumption that the ‘right drivers’ do exist. No matter how professional you are, you can’t “make sure that it was using the right drivers” if the best available drivers do not exist (yet).

      I’m sorry to say, but your ‘reasoning’ needs as much debugging as the average Windows install …

      ’nuff said

    • #3193916

      Windows Crashing?

      by gherryt ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Many of the posts mention windows crashes and causes thereof. This surprises me, because since we moved to Win 2000 Pro and Win 2000 Svr, we’ve experiences minimal O/S crashes. I have met and worked with a number of self-proclaimed techies who managed to corrupt their own (and sometimes my) systems through implementing what they thought were brilliant tweaks, hacks, and custom drivers. Not the O/S system’s fault. People who claim that Windows should have stopped them from doing such things, also want a sign on the kitchen stove warning them not to put their hands on the hot burners.

      Face it; computer code, including operating systems, are vulnerable, especially ones that allow the flexibility and functionality of Windows. Put them on the net and when you own as large a piece of the O/S market as does Windows, you attract a lot of malicious attention and are victim of a lot of mistakes by well intentioned developers.

    • #3193906

      Once upon a time, Windows was just unstable

      by telecommuting developer/analyst ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I once attended a Tai Chi workshop in the late ’90’s and started talking with some other IT folks. I was exclusively working with a SUN workstation at the time, and these other folks were using NT4. They complained of either crashing or having reboot daily. They asked me when the last time I had to reboot. I thought hard, then realized it had been several months.

      Make no mistake, Windows has made great strides in reliability. I find that I have to reboot at least once a week on XP Home, and about every other week on XP Professional. By comparison, I think that I have reboot about once on month on MacOS.

      I think that those who are well experienced with other OS’s find at least some problem with Windows. I particularly dislike the way that Windows handles window focus — I might launch several applications at once, but want to continue working in one window. On a SUN, I can do that as windows appear underneath my current window. On Windows, well, you just get your patience tested until everything finishes opening.

      I find my XP Home consistenly system locks up when I start a separate user session, then try to go back to the first. I cannot blieve that this is because of drivers or hardware compatability. I can easily do that on my Mac or Linux system without a problem, with a compariable amount of RAM.

      There also is no doubt that Windows has the most viruses, worms, trojans and spyware. I realize that this might be because almost every fool writng code to compromise someone else’s system is aiming at the #1 player, but, hey, I just do not see these type of problems on our Mac.

    • #3193890

      I think you’ve been…

      by jck ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      sniffing too much floor sanitizer or something.

      I’ve loaded MS OSes several times on PCs…and…out of the box…the OS would fail.

      Their default drivers were to blame. And, this was in the day Microsoft wrote a lot of the basic “generic” device drivers (as well as Oak and some other small shops).

      So…if I’ve done a base install of their product according to their spec and it fails…how am I at fault?

      Most people pick on Microsoft because their software doesn’t do what it’s advertised…like provide secure and reliable performance.

      Plus, I love their new campaign…how you can do so much with their software…like digital music production. OH YEAH! They didn’t mention the hundreds of dollars extra in software and equipment you have to buy to do it! How convenient.

      BTW…in case you think I’m not experienced…13 years professional programming, 18 years building/maintaining/configuring PCs and their peripherals.

      • #3193848

        my thoughts on current ad campaign.

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to I think you’ve been…

        a world of software for windows

        a universe of software for *x operating systems

    • #3193851

      Are u new to IT? Or been out of IT for awhile?

      by gnunzo ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      There is a mistaken assumption in your post. Most criticism of any software is not due to the amount of time it crashes. This may have been true for early MS and Apple OS’s, but if this is the biggest problem you are having, I agree with you–it is largely your fault. XP offers the first relatively stable windows release ever. But as far as design goes, is largely just the first stable version of Windows 95.

      Most of the reasons I criticize any piece of software are due to the design of the software. For example, OSX lets me accomplish all admiin tasks while logged in as any user. It simply prompts me for the admin login and password. This saves tons of time for admins.

      My longest-running Windows complaint, for example, has to do with the idiot design of the windows copying fucntions. When you attempt to copy a file from one place to another, your OS should determine if there is sufficient room at the destination location before attempting to copy the file. This has been a big problem since Windows 3.1.1 (my first windows OS). Also, when copying multiple files at once, the copying utility should give you an overall esitmate of the copy time, not the time on each individual file being copied. And finally, the copying utility in windows should give more info abou the source directory and the destination directory. When copying a file from same-named folders, you have no idea which direction the ciopy is going.

      IMO, this is worthy of criticism and there is not much I can do about it other than write my own utility or buy someone else’s.

      See, no fault of my own.

    • #3193829

      All OSs have strong and weak points…

      by Anonymous ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I think any OS, no matter what one it is, has their strong and weak points. On my two machines, I have Linux, Windows 98SE and Windows XP Pro SP2. I think XP Pro is a BIG improvement over 98SE. But I also like some Linux stuff too. There are things I like nad don’t like about each OS. For my personal and work use, I use XP Pro or Linux, mostly. I use Win98SE just to check backward compatibility but wondering maybe soon I shouldn’t really bother after awhile.

      I know of people who STILL use DOS! And for what they need to do, it works well. I use what I do because it fits what I need to do.

      Maybe a lot of the complaints and ‘bashing’ as it were, are just computer users mis-matched with OSs. In other words, the OS doesn’t fully suit their needs. Or, hardware or other anomolies are hindering the proper functioning of the OS, or the OS had a bug which became apparent after an app installed a library that another app isn’t compatible with, or who-knows-what. Any number of things can go wrong in a computer.

      I agree it isn’t JUST the OS. However, any OS still can have it’s flaws which can contribute to problems. Sometimes the combination of these factors can be downright frustrating.

    • #3193828

      it all numbers

      by nick_gonzales ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I’m not sure what the exact number is but since 80 to 90% of OS’s in use are from Microsoft, 80-90% of the complaints are about Windows. Windows brought PC’s to the masses and since most people can’t even figure out the VCR, it’s easy to see why windows gets bashed so much, no matter how easy to use it would get the same respnse.

    • #3193822

      If the question needs to be asked…

      by richard vickery ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Fact is that Linux gives me all the tools that I would ever need to use it, where Microsoft’s flimsy product leaves holes in the hard drive and does everything for me so that I could revel in my stupidity. Microsoft wants me to be stupid so that I need to call on someone else. Linux forced me to learn the ropes, there are never any holes when deleting softwhere, no need to ever learn what a defrag is; much less what it is used for; in linux I am part of a community of users who have regular meetings to learn new stuff and hang out with other users; everything is a file, if I ever wanted to change anything, I need not memorize any stupid, complicated code. Linux is just a lovely product that I need not know that much in order to use or fix, and Windows just completely sucks.

      If we use a car for an example, if we want to go to some place, we point the car in the direction and it goes there. if we tell Linux to do something, we would ask it to do that, we would not need any complicated code. In respect of the sturdiness of Linux, I stated once that one could almost drop a bomb on the think and it would keep running. there are so many tools at the linux users hands that one has to purchase for Microsoft’s product that Linux is just plain better.

      If you don’t care about using a better product, don’t worry about it. Some of us do like the idea that there is a better product out there and despise Microsoft and its stupid creator for quashing the choice we used to have, shoving his stupid product down my throat by killing competition and my choice. Here I will rant, because I particularly feel like it and say that I have a respect for the man and his old politics that is not worthy of the position that he thinks he has, or that he would like to have, inm society. The man is a corporate criminal: I loathe his business ethics.

    • #3193817

      Personally, I’m still waiting for NT 1.0…

      by fmcgowan ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      You *do* remember, back ’92 and ’93 the upcoming Windows-NT was promised to be “robust”, “enterprise ready”, “reliable”, “scalable”, etc, etc., don’t you?

      I can’t even remember all of the virtues promised for this upcoming, paradigm shifting, world conquering, competition obliterating operating system. It was going to be *so* *good* you just couldn’t resist it.

      Remember??

      They didn’t deliver the goods in ’93 and – in *many* ways – they haven’t delivered the goods yet. They just keep *promising* the *same* goods, year after year, version after version.

      And many people keep buying those same promises. It sounds like you are one of them. I am not.

      • #3186524

        Buying those same promises

        by i.t.services ·

        In reply to Personally, I’m still waiting for NT 1.0…

        Then who do you write/develop software for? how are sales?

        • #3185822

          Like many others,

          by fmcgowan ·

          In reply to Buying those same promises

          I do development of internal applications, none for sale.

          I am employed by an organization that is *eager* to pay, yet again, for products that fail to fulfill those same tired old promises offered anew.

          Over the years, I have counselled for various non-Windows OS products as well as non-MS applications for use *on* Windows. Thus far the “MS uber alle” crowd have bewn winning those “debates” and the “approved” sw stack is becoming more MS-oriented.

          As a “counter cultural” developer, I am constantly on the lookout for ways to “get my way” by finding yet more uses of non-MS sw here, the more necessary the application, the better I like it.

          Like one of the first 10 termites in the world, I am surrounded my more opportunities than I can pursue. Like any termite, I turn resources already committed to a failed purpose to new purposes…

          munch, munch, munch…

    • #3193814

      roll of the os

      by solarcarnut ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I have worked on and around Operating Systems for most of my career and I have always sought to have the os immune from the application. Stability of the windows os, since it’s inception, has been at the whim of the application. The os should not allow an application to harm it. Windows has come a long way and now may finally be in the class of an Operating System, but unfortunately it still has the “reputation and karma” of it’s history. Besides with so many good choices available for free, why would you pay Uncle Bill for windows?

    • #3193805

      Angus

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      While I so see your point, the reason these old cars are KEPT around though is because they are often far more trustworthy and cheaper to repair if they do break down. If it made economic sense for people to buy new cars, they probably would, wouldn’t they?

      As for why I hate MS, I don’t HATE MS, my favorite notebook runs Win2K and I love it to bits, not just the Os but the whole build. THus you are right, a good build that’s properly maintained will work fine no matter what OS you choose.

      I think the reason people don’t like MS in a corporate environment is because of the AMOUNT of maintenance, patching and upgrading it requires when compared to other offerings on the market.

      The initial flame off on MS was over BG and monopolization fears, this then went onward to create ludicrous pricing and licencing schemes.

      All that grief and work for a more expensive system that really doesn’t do anything more than others do for half or no cost at all, purely due to marketing.

      There are better solutions, and when people find the reasons for their problems are due to an expensive OS not being properly secured to begin with, this is pretty annoying too. Especially when a FREE desktop may have not had that exploit that had taken 15 hours to resolve and patch.

      For myself, 2KPro is fine, for networks I manage remotely, Suse, Novell Desktop or other is preferred and MS has been nothing but more work than it’s worth.

    • #3193793

      Perception, Standards, Value, Support

      by raven2 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      This is from the perspective of a user/semi-techie, who has a 2 machine network with a DSL router. I know you folks with networks have a whole other set of needs and issues.

      My perception of M$ is they value bottom line over any other measure. As a user/semi-techie, I have had to deal with hardware failures (yes I know not OS related), driver tweaks, and applications that would not work. I want to accomplish specific tasks, not have “issues” come up. My belief is that the OS is the platform to launch applications that I want to use. I want that platform to be stable, secure, and conformable.

      I do not like to face a flurry of “fixes” that may fix a problem that does not really affect the way I use my computer, but may change settings or actually break something, necessitating an application reinstall or other time consuming foolishness. Deciphering a Windows error code is an annoying exercise in the light of a failed fix. I want the OS that I use to be under my control, I have set manual update procedures, because I do not like any application on my machine doing its “own thing”. There would be fewer problems with computer systems overall if the OS was less suseptable to unsupervised “improvements”.

      I recently built and installed XPHome SP2 on two machines and am pleasantly surpised that it works so well. I have seen folks try to upgrade from SP1 have a devil of a time trying to get the “new” SP2 to work.

      The forced upgrade dance where new applications seem to be deliberately designed to make the interchange of information difficult is another annoyance. Yes, you can make Word save documents in older formats. But how many times do you want to send a request to people you are doing business with to instruct them how to do this so you can read their documents? So you are forced to “upgrade” if your OS will not support the “upgraded” app then you need a “new” OS, and if your “new” OS has higher system requirements then you also need a new computer. We complain of hackers using “social engineering” to manipulate folks; I contend this “upgrade dance” is “social engineering” to manipulate more money out of the consumer’s pocket.

      The Bottom Line for me is:
      1) My perception is that the M$ OSs have been somewhat unstable, subject to changes from unknown sources.
      2) Standards seem to change with some regularity based more on economics rather than real needs.
      3) If you aspire to be the single source utility that makes the computing world work, you change your mandate from a “for profit” to a “public utility” business model. Monopoly come with a price.
      4) If it was not built correctly why are you selling it. I expect the wheels to stay on my car, I expect my OS to be usable without a lot of fixing.

    • #3186531

      I guess you never heard of the “Blue screen of death”

      by santulli ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I guess you never heard of the “MS Blue screen of death”. You?re reading your email and all at once you get the… ?MS Blue screen of death”. You didn?t cause it you didn?t change anything it just happened. Call up and ask MS and they?ll say ?Well that happens some times we don?t know why?.
      We bash Windows because it?s written poorly, and it?s written poorly because they know that people like you will blindly go our and buy every new release or upgrade they put out anyway. Only by criticizing can we force MS or any other OS to put more effort into their products and stop stealing and insulting us.
      George the good

      • #3189165

        Never a BSOD in XP (so far)

        by Anonymous ·

        In reply to I guess you never heard of the “Blue screen of death”

        In the time I’ve had XP installed (several months I’d say), I’ve never once had a BSOD. I don’t think there IS one for this version of Windows. 🙂 It’s surprisingly stable on my machine. I’ve had apps disappear or stop running, but I just would click the close button to close them, or end them in the task manager. And that isn’t too often that I’d even have to do that. Rarely, in fact.

        I guess I’m one of the luckier ones that have little problems with the XP Pro version. Now SE? That’s another story. 😀

    • #3186489

      It is the focus, not the OS

      by steve_it ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      If the majority of users moved to unix, the focus of nefarious types would change, and we would start to see any small chinks in unix armour being fully exploited by those who now are not even trying. The evil eye of the do-no-gooders is fully focused on MS. Do we want them to change…

    • #3186476

      OS is a Program

      by deesy58 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      The Operating System is a program. In beginning programming courses, prospective programmers are taught that their programs should be “robust” – that they should rarely “crash.” If an Operating System crashes, it pretty clearly is not robust, and probably represents bad programming. That seems to be ample enough reason to “bash” an OS. Who wants an unstable OS if a High Availability system is trying to be run? Instability sometimes carries a high price.

    • #3186467

      You are right

      by stooobeee ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      An OS that is never used never makes a mistake. That clearly defines the user as the person who changes the way it works. OS’s are optimally
      designed within the developers’ parameters. The user must learn what those parameters are. Since that is a learning process, he is bound to go outside the OS envelop. The more familiar he is with the OS, the fewer mistakes he makes. Sounds reasonable to me.

    • #3186458

      I agree with you

      by sheiba ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Their seems to be a tendancy to bash windows. I have debated with IT people over the years and found that most of them a incompetent, ill trained, gullible, narrow minded, lack initiative, impatient and lazy.
      Found that these characterists usually indicate a poor IT individual. I never have trouble with windows98, ME, XP, 2000 Pro, 2000Svr, 2003Svr because I find the time to study, get certified and do a University degree. I also operate my own consultancy business and I am involved in all levels of deployment, designing and administering Windows on a variety of platforms, from AD to standalone. Security and privacy issues are not difficult to employ if you know what you are doing.

    • #3186452

      Is a compromise evolution.

      by jazzy5 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I believe people bash Windows because is the biggest target out there. People talk or repeat what some idiot said without verifying the subject. Does Windows has flaw? You bet. Does Linux or Mac have some? Sure do.

      All OS is a evolution, a constant change to be better and to be all to all users. This we know is true (changes) and imposible (be all). As I recall after DOS, came Windows 3.1, a little better but not by much. Then came Windows 95, the salvation of all computer problems, (some people thought that, ha!). To many crashers, but a big improvement over Windows 3.1. Then came Windows 98, a much improve OS, more stable, easy to operate for the masses and another boost for the computer industry. Microsoft also created for the business enviroment a different OS, which was NT and later Windows 2000. A more secure and stable platform. Each Windows was a better and easier OS for the majority of people, which made it the best seller OS. The easier to use also made it that more vulnerable for hackers. As Windows XP became more secure the more difficult is getting to do things on your computer. People get upset when Windows ask to send info to Microsoft when a crash happens. They scream bloody murder with Microsoft hinted on a new security system for the next Windows Longhorn, which Microsoft had to cancel.

      What Apple has with Mac is a great system but with limited application supporting it. Of course it helps that they own the software and hardware. Which makes them a monopoly. Only from them you can buy the computer and the software. Remember when other company tried to build and sell Mac clone. They got sued. Nobody can compete with Mac. So they dictate the price, which is overboard for what you getting. And how many people can build they own Mac, and modify it like regular PC? Not many. It puts a dent in my freedom with computers.

      Linux is a secure computer. But difficult to install or operate. Yes, I know that now is much easier to do, but not for the regular people. Their are many variation of Linux as there are key on my keyboard. Which to choose? Will it be secure when it becomes the number 1 OS? I doubt it, because it will be the biggest target. And with so many variations and many people providing codes to build it, it does not make me reassured on it. Who is to say that the mafia made one and they are waiting to get many customers before they strike?

      What I can say now is that Microsoft made the computer industry was it is now. It made it easy and cheap to everyone to have a computer. Nobody conceive they were going to be so many dishonest, corrupted, stupid people now to cause all the headache we have now with spyware, virus, hacks and so on.

      BTW, I when thru all different Windows since DOS up to XP. Never had a crash except with Windows ME, and of course I build all of them with the right component (Apple has the right idea with controlling the hardware and software).

    • #3186451

      Business Practice

      by yanipen ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I had a lot of time reading all of the reply from our peers in this group. Sorry for this reply. When you posted this, its probably midnight to where I am.

      For a reason, I agree to your opinion. But as Hal (Col) has said, it has something to do with business practice. Often times MS presents their OS based on the deadline. It has to be on the market by this date. Oh, you know what I mean. Because of this reason alone, we have the troubles that we encounter day to day with this OS. In itself, the OS is not at fault. What is at fault is the way it was released.

      Windows is the most widely accepted OS in the world. Bill has made it a household name. since it was widely accepted, of course comes the issues. Heck, any OS that becomes a household name will recieve scrutiniy as much as windows as is now. The only differece is the way the company releases it and the efforts to make it a better product.

      I said my piece, I hope this helps.

    • #3186436

      I beg to differ

      by nealweidenhofer ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      First: A note on my qualificattions. I have been a systems programmer (that was the preferred title when I started — I have held a number of titles since, most often containing the word “engineer”) for nearly forty years. During that time I have specialized about 2/3 in compilers and related tools and about 1/3 in OS design and development.

      Yes, I bash Microsoft/Windows at every opportunity because of all the OS’s I have tried to use it crashes the most, the most inexplicably, and with the least hope of recovering what you were working on when it does. It is also the least user-friendly.

      It is always the OS’s (or possibly the hardware’s) fault when it crashes, that’s what “robustness” is all about. With protected memory and instructions (which were becoming popular even when I started) there is just no reason for an OS to crash no matter what the user or the user’s program does, other than an OS bug or hardware malfunction.

      Windows and MS/DOS before it are the claasic example of “get the OS out on time and worry about bugs later”.

      • #3194270

        I’ll stand in your corner sir……

        by dcstraindcstrain ·

        In reply to I beg to differ

        I think we have accepted a paradigm that says: “Software can not be made feature-rich, user-friendly, stable, and secure — all at the same time.” We are use to bugs, and crashes, and machines “stuffed” with far to many applications … that frequently conflict with each other. We just fix one and go on to the next.

        We seem use-to the idea that a “new” OS is always around the corner. I cringe at the mention of the word Longhorn, or whatever it is now (“Oh Please Billgatus…Noooo…I finally have my system working pretty good — Do I ‘have’ to join your next guinea-pig find-the-new-bugs movement?” Answer: Yes. Cuz you will sell users new machines and I’ll have to know how they work.)

        I see end users that really do try keeping their computers up to date but many of them just get overwhelmed: “All they want to do is -USE- the damn thing, not not become a computer specialist.”

        My own equipment works fine, but I spend a LOT of time keeping on top of it. Far too much time in my opinion. It use to be fun. Now it isn’t so much fun.

        I have to use windows because my users use windows. I find myself getting more and more ticked off at the endless problems. Developers, especially of operating systems, are focused on tomorrow — not today. It is insane. And I “think” and “hope” it does not have always have to be so. but I am losing my optimism.

        I also use Linux but am not a Linux techie and don’t intend to become one. My main bitch with so much Linux software is: “Don’t Linux developers know how to write instructions people can understand?” -or- “Do they think end users are telepathic?” Gimmie a break, ok…. I know the Linux community is a smart bunch, but what lousy writers many of you are. What good is your software if people can’t figure out how to use it or what to do if they have a problem.

        Software can be much better than it is if software developers took the time to make it so.

        And I must add before someone comes lookin’ for me with their shotgun: “There are some great applications out there that are well written and that have great documentation: You have my highest regards. I wish there were more of you.

        I have been in and out of the software business since 1995 and figure I have about seen it all. I have made software for the military so I know what the words “critical” and “must work all the time or someone will die” means.

        I “KNOW” software can be better… The question is of course, who is going to step up to the plate and make it so…

        DCStrain

        • #3194260

          indeed

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I’ll stand in your corner sir……

          I must regretfully agree: Linux software is often opaque to the complete newbie, because it tends to be poorly documented, at least with newbies in mind. There’s an art to finding useful information about Linux apps, and once you’ve got the hang of it there tends to be more helpful information for Linux systems than Windows systems, but the difficulty of getting the hang of it is problematic to say the least.

          I’d take that over the technical disaster of Windows systems any day of the week. It’s also worth noting that with a very little dedication the average newbie can be just as productive on a Linux system as on a Windows system: the problem that arises for Linux is when one wants to go beyond the simple functionality most people use on Windows.

          Of course, Linux has an advantage over Windows that is rarely considered in such comparisons: Its open source development model allows you to “fix” its problems as you find them. If you know software can be better, [b]you[/b] can “step up to the plate” and start solving problems.

        • #3194233

          I’m with apotheon…

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to I’ll stand in your corner sir……

          3/4 of linux documentation was written by programmers with no concept of end users. 😉

          it’s written “for systems engineers by systems engineers.”
          not by documentation specialists like the ms houses use.

          comes with the cost of being free I guess, getting someone to test the app, figure out how it works from your piss poor notes, then write good user docs for free isn’t an easy task.

        • #3194229

          laughable

          by wordworker ·

          In reply to I’m with apotheon…

          >>It’s also worth noting that with a very little dedication the average newbie can be just as productive on a Linux system as on a Windows system: the problem that arises for Linux is when one wants to go beyond the simple functionality most people use on Windows.<< Please. Average newbie can be productive on a Linux system? Kind sir, do us the privilege of showing a screen shot of your "newbie-friendly" Linux desktop, won't you? >>Its open source development model allows you to “fix” its problems as you find them. << Not bloody likely! Even if well documented, programmers and systems engineers are special types, or everybody would be programming and developing systems. These two posts illustrate the "IT Arrogance" associated with the Linux user / tweaker community. You want everyone (techies and newbies) to embrace your orthogonally-designed system, but you don't want to take time to document it properly (lest you be accused of being documentation specialists? since when is that a bad thing??). No, better to expect techies and end users to "figure out" the tricks of finding good stuff about Linux on the Web. Yeah with Champions like you two running amok, I am shocked Linux hasn't become the #1 choice for desktops of techies and newbies alike.

        • #3194220
          Avatar photo

          It really depends on the Nix Distro

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to laughable

          With something like the old Lycoris Desktop LX which looked very much like an XP desktop about the only real difference was that you Had to Log in to get it started. You couldn’t bypass that option and it only had 2 screens available. The whole thing came on 1 CD and that was OS and software from CD/DVD recording, Web Browsing, Open Office, Graphic Programs and a lot else.

          The reality is that most people couldn’t tell the difference when I had it loaded on my LT for demo purposes and once I had told them the password they could just use it without a problem.

          The Menu is almost the same as Windows and other than different names for Applications these people just didn’t have a single problem. This was with a light weight Linux that really wasn’t all that usable either. My current Debian Install on the LT is just as easy to use by Windows only people when I boot it into Gnome and other than asking why the programs have different names they don’t have a problem. Currently I’ve resorted to telling them that what they are using is a Beta Version Of Windows and Office and they can not tell the difference.

          But since Windows is so User Friendly perhaps you could answer the other thread where someone is asking where the Device Manager is in XP! 😀

          You can find it here

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11183-0.html?forumID=89&threadID=178357&start=0

          But since Windows is so User Friendly why is the question being asked in the first place? :p

          But on the up side it is still there most likely in VISA or was that Vista it most likely will not be there as it is unnecessary for the “Average User” right? 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3194211

          You’re kidding — right?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to laughable

          User-friendly Linux desktops:

          http://tinyurl.com/94dcm Lycoris
          http://tinyurl.com/84j4p Xandros
          http://tinyurl.com/8t6zv SuSE
          http://tinyurl.com/9nz9y Linspire
          http://tinyurl.com/bgjjr Fedora
          http://tinyurl.com/76bzz Debian

          By the way, none of those are my own desktop. See, unlike Windows, with Linux I’m not [b]forced[/b] to have a dumbed-down interface. Mine would be incomprehensible to the average newbie, especially if he’s coming to my computer from Windows. For me, though, it’s far more efficient and easy to use than any Windows-like desktop.

          Linux can be just as “user friendly” as Windows, if not more so, but it doesn’t have to be if you want power and flexibility at your fingertips instead.

          [b]————————–[/b]

          re: fixing problems as you find them
          I didn’t expect you to be so dense that you wouldn’t realize I was talking to the IT pros on this site when I said you could fix problems as you find them. I don’t mean that Aunt Millie is going to start fixing problems with the operating system environment, no matter what the OS happens to be.

        • #3189650

          Dense is as dense…

          by wordworker ·

          In reply to You’re kidding — right?

          I contend that majority of techies are not interested in learning programming to the extent that they can tinker with an OS. For people like yourself, who consider themselves smarter than everybody else in the room at all times, I’m sure it’s no bother to dive right in. You probably enjoy it.

        • #3189626

          lost in your own propaganda

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Dense is as dense…

          Who said anything about programming?

          I’m just talking about simple system troubleshooting. Because of the openness of the system, and the fact that nobody’s trying to obscure what’s going on under the hood, it’s a lot easier for a knowledgeable sysadmin to fix system issues without resorting to simply reinstalling everything from scratch. Even the most experienced sysadmins on Windows still have to do a full nuke-and-pave far more often than they should when troubleshooting. Things like registry and library corruptions are an easy fix in Linux, but are the death knell for a given installation of Windows more often than not.

          You don’t have to be a programmer to replace a library or compile a custom kernel in Linux, but you can’t do the latter at all and would have to violate the DMCA to do the former most of the time if you were to try, and wouldn’t even know where to start without an in-depth knowledge of Windows system architecture. I know because I’ve researched several such issues for clients in the past; in other words, from first-hand experience.

        • #3189576
          Avatar photo

          Good to see someone questioning

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Dense is as dense…

          apotheon technical expertise. :^O

          Yes a “Real Tech” would Puke & Nuke the HDD’s and just reload and not worry about any of the end users Data after all it isn’t important is it? So what if there is an order on it for a 20 Million $ something the end user should have actioned it before the machine broke right? 😉

          But for some strange reason there are some of us who actually like to repair things and not just roll out a clean install or provide a new box for every problem. Do you realize that we make far more money fixing things than by selling them new stuff? And when I say “FIX” I do mean fix not just trash and start from scratch. 🙂

          Dear woodworker what you are advocating is something that used to happen in the old days of Radio and those so called Techs where called Valve Jockeys as they would just keep changing Valves until it worked again and charge the customer for the privilege. These people didn’t really fix anything but eventually got it going again and quite a bit latter than was actually required for a proper repair as well. There was a very old saying when I was at Uni and that went something like this “A Mechanical Engineer can do for $10.00 what any fool can do for $100.00!” {I had to change the money amounts because the old figures wouldn’t have meant anything at all to most people here.} The same applies to IT as well! Get the idea. 😀

          We are in a Service Industry and we had Bloody Well better offer that service or we will all be out the door so that includes saving the End Users Data and repairing where possible and Puke & Nuking where it isn’t but no matter what always save the users data as the very first thing. After all it has far more value than the box of Plastic, Silicon and metal than anything else on the system. I can have a new computer in place within a few hours if need be but I can not recover one single byte of the users data if they no longer have a computer to work from. To the end user their Data is all important and they really don’t give a RATS about the machine that it is on. :p

          Col ]:)

        • #3189443

          Hah!

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Dense is as dense…

          Thanks, Col! I’ve gotta say, it was amusing to see my name taken in vain like that.

          “Puke and nuke” is a phrase I haven’t heard in a while. I’ve been using “nuke and pave” to describe common Windows troubleshooting practice, since it seems such an apt description of what is usually required. If after ten or twenty minutes it becomes clear you can’t fix it in an hour, you’ll have to nuke and pave: basic rule of thumb with Windows. With Linux, if you can’t fix it in an hour, you need a new skillset.

        • #3189651

          here:

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to laughable

      • #3195669

        To: nealweidenhofer@… (EYES ONLY)

        by dcstraindcstrain ·

        In reply to I beg to differ

        Crap, do ya suppose we actually “are” getting too old… I remember a time folks could have a conversation about a topic like this without bickering like a bunch of high school kids, but then, that was a long, long, time ago (before foolish bickering became as accepted as windows software.)

        But hey, I frequently get ticked off big time.

        So what I do before posting or emailing is to actually stop and read my message and ask myself if I am going to get my point accross in a way that limits negative reaction, if it does, I send it. Now, a “real” bickerer does the same thing, but they rewrite it before they send it.
        —————————————
        ~ special note to eyes only bickerers ~

        Go ahead. Make my day.
        —————————————

    • #3186433

      Clueless

      by donweb ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Obviously you know nothing about good products or good programming practices.

      The problems Microsoft has are outrageous BUT we have to live with them and work around them.

      Not only that, if you ever do any development work you find that the code already done by MS is horrible. Just try to do anything with say Sharepoint. It is obvious they put 1000 right out of college coders (not programmers) on it and told them “you do this, you do that …” What a mess. And common sense basic features are not there.

      It is unfortunate that crashes by MS products are usually NOT the operator’s fault but are a serious design flaw instead.

      MS needs to stop trying to add new gimmicks and solidify and document what they now have.

    • #3186420

      Are You Crazy

      by wlbowers ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Why do I bash Microsoft? Let me count the ways.

      First off I have been in computers since 1969. My first
      machine that I upgraded was a radio shack model 3.

      I have used every version of Microsoft OS since the
      60’s.

      There is no compatibility with Microsoft based products.
      That’s why you have to download updates for products
      that are new right off the shelf. In the 2 months it takes
      them to get across the ocean in that container you will
      find patch updates waiting for them.

      You think Microsoft cares. Anybody that will produce a
      product that has almost no chance of recovery from a
      system crash doesn’t care past the purchase price.

      Windows XP is the most frustrating OS to service they
      have ever made. They could have put line confirmation
      back in the safe mode boot if they wanted to.

      Oh sure they provide better recognition and installation
      of drivers, but that is only because if they didn’t no one
      would ever get the dang thing installed. One pissed off
      driver and that is it Bubba. That blue screen goes by at
      mach 3, right before the reboot.

      Our fault? Brand new load of Asus MB, WD HD
      Kingston memory, Nvidia Video. It took a trip to Asus
      and Nvidia’s website for major patches to clean things
      up. And I won’t even talk about ATI.

      You know why I work on Microsoft Windows boxes.
      Because it is a good living. If I had to depend on
      servicing Macintosh equipment I would die and turn to
      dust.

      My calls run 100 or more to 1 Microsoft to Mac.

      My wife keeps $75.00 in a cookie jar. Bail money for for
      when I meet a Microsoft programmer and “Hit any Key
      To Continue”

      Lee Bowers
      MST

    • #3186419

      It is just plain wrong, blaming the Techie for all OS crashes

      by kcb ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      It is just plain wrong, blaming the Techie for “… if the OS crashes then it’s your fault not the OS;”. People stating that truly have more to learn.

      The OS programmers also have left MANY bugs in the OS. They are many in Microsoft Windows. They cause crashes. Nothing users can do besides try to avoid them when known. Some aren’t published, there are long lists, they change between OS versions, and even change based on patch level.

      I have used many OS and will continue to do so. They all have good uses.

      But Microsoft Windows is known for being less reliable. It is even banned from being accepted among certain higher reliable uses per government agency standards. Marketing and sales agents will still claim what they will.

      There are many reasons/causes for OS crashes and malfunctions. But the OS programmers also are a cause. You can’t blame the intermediate user (setting up a system) and end user for everything.

      Techies do need to take the best possible tailored care with each OS.

    • #3186416

      Time to grow up !!!!

      by grs ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Its all about a broken product needing repair …
      IE ( service packs ) no pun intended If any other product was delivered the way Microsoft has delivered Windows , beside the fact that they stole it ….
      In a truly free market it would have sank with the titanic , fact is that there is such a thing as Dll hell and it doesn’t have anything to do with being configured correctly …..not to mention the glaring security holes you can drive a mack truck thru ..DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
      Apparently you enjoy installing windows ….
      And comparing os’s is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard , if you truly had any experiance in the computer world comments such as yours, prove how
      naive you truly are…. save it for the kiddes or send it to microslop ,Bill and Balmer eat it up.
      Yes I am a microsoft basher and I’m dam glad I am !! …You see monopolies suck because they destroy innovation and thats the primary reason I hate Microsoft ,it actually has nothing to do with there crappy sloppy programing , and while where at it Throw Intel into the mix …..
      Its called Marketing and Money buddy, time for you to get some real schooling and really try growing up.

      • #3186218

        No need for that

        by lost_one ·

        In reply to Time to grow up !!!!

        There is no need for you to make a direct attact on the post for stating his opinion. You could have give a counter point but you choose to flame instead. Not very professional.

        Maybe it is you who has some growing up to do.

    • #3186395

      Bashing windows

      by librarygeek ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      While you are correct that people must maintain the OS; the fact remains that Windows has been consistently buggy. They are forever releasing upgrades before they are truly ready — thus we have the insane number of patches.
      I would NEVER put up with such poor quality in another product. The OS problems are multiplied in a networked environment. Can you imagine if you had to do this much maintence on every light in your house?
      Bashing a system that requires constant patches is not a sign of a non techie, it’s the sign of a person who has had it with such time wasters.

    • #3186393

      Not a Tre Techie or Network Guru… HA!

      by harold.jensen ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Ok try this on. MCSE, CNA, CISSP, GSNA, and now working on CCIE. 15 years + hands on in all IT areas, and I am not a techie. Microsoft Software stinks. I waited until I recived my MCSE, before I said so. I wanted to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt. They only thing they do well is… Marketing! Novell did things, better, 10 years ago then MS can now.

    • #3186391

      Huh? The OS doesn’t crash???

      by dnsb ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Contrary to what you seem to believe, an OS is a program. Like any program more complex than a “Hello World” written in assembler, the OS can and does have bugs that can cause crashes. Some OS are more prone to bugs than others. This can be due to design choices (moving video drivers into kernel space), sloppy coding practices (mixing code and data, poor or no range checks), poor choices in tools for compiling the OS. Ever had the sheer joy of locating a bug in library code? And then trying to convince a support drone that setting the screen to 1152×864 with 8 bit colour and then doing a write to an offscreen pixel causes the OS to bluescreen is reproducible and that it was due to a bug in a C++ library?

      Some of your post seems a trifle contradictory. For instance, “compatibility is there for a very good reason” followed by “why support something old when you need to keep moving forwards”. Perhaps a bit of clarification as to whither you were meandering is in order for us to understand your point.

      As for choosing what OS suits my needs? For the most part, my OS choices have been constrained by such trivia as a mission critical package that runs on one OS. The only choice here is Hobson’s.

    • #3186386

      Anger that arcane knowledge is obsolete

      by lukasiwicz ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I think one reason IT folks bash Windows, and other OS’s that make use of graphical user interfaces, is that those OS’s make it possible for hoi polloi to do things on computers that used to require arcane knowledge, and so to some extent the IT folks have lost their little one up on you edge, and thus a little of their sense of being somewhat special, since by pointing and clicking Joe Blow from Kokomo can accomplish computer feats that used to require a slew of counterintuitive DOS command prompts. I sometimes think those DOS command prompts were to IT specialists what writing prescriptions in Latin used to be to MD’s.

      • #3185549

        Other way round

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Anger that arcane knowledge is obsolete

        I’m not angry at all.
        Joe Blow is because he thinks double clicking on Icons makes him an IT Wizard and some of us don’t accept that. The whole point of a UI Graphical or otherwise is to isolate the none technical from the arcane knowledge. Even the DOS commands that we struggled with were a massive improvement on what was really going on under the hood.
        Arcane knowledge is not obsolete, what do you think the tools used to isolate others from it are derived from ?

    • #3186328
      Avatar photo

      Right…

      by kevinkfred ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I agree that a large number of “bashers” do it from ignorance and inexperience. But I will continue to bash Microsoft’s operating systems for one main probelm – the extremely poor job of memory management. More crashes, blue screens, etc are a result of Microsoft’s OS failing to manage it’s resources. And THAT is why I maintain that backend app’s should live on an OS that knows how to manage resources properly (and I am not so sure that LINUX is mature enough to get that title). AT&T System V, VSE, AIX – these are stable, robust operating systems. Leave Windows on the desktop – use a commercial grade OS on the backend.

    • #3186307

      OS’s bashed when not user-friendly

      by leishirsute ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      For example, “Why didn’t you make sure that it was using the right drivers, or the hardware is compatible” demonstrates OS lack of user or admin friendliness. We should not have to keep track of compatbile h/w or drivers – the OS should, and the OS should provide the means to retrieve the correct versions. Get rid of the manual process. Here’s a novel thought. Why not automate admin tasks using computers?!!!!

    • #3186284
      Avatar photo

      Or as can be asked

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Why are so many defending the indefensible? :^O

      It leaks like a sieve falls over as soon as someone thinks about looking at it has no User security and allows different users to interact with each other and hose the entire OS and profiles rather than just their own profile when they do something silly. 😉

      It can not be run on decent Servers as it is just not scalable enough. 🙂

      It’s only on the desktop owing to Hostage Ware that M$ promotes so hard. :p

      Other than the fact that I make bucket loads of money out of each and every one of these shortcomings what is there nice to say about Windows? 😀

      Col ]:)

    • #3186255

      Funny how every bashes Windows but Uses it

      by lost_one ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      You guys are so silly. You bash Windows all day on the internet while using Windows. Does this make any since to you?? Windows is not as unstable as some of you would like to believe. If you hate windows so much stop buying it, stop using it and stop bashing it. It Unix/Linux was so great how come hardly no one is using it?

      Alot of the problems with windows does lie with the users having no clue about the operating system. Simple maintenance would fix most of the problems.

      Man I should just pin a target to my chest.

    • #3186245

      get real

      by systemsgod ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      The reason people bash Windows more than other OS’ is because of it’s sheer popularity. If you bash a Linux distro like Ubuntu, most people wont know what the $*%# you are talking about.

      It’s the same reason more viruses are written for Windows than other OS’…why would you write a virus for OS/2 (that would have virtually no impact on modern computing), when you could bring down millions of machines with a virus written for Windows? Definately more bang for the buck and then some.

      Just because you dont hear about security issues and vulnerabilities with other OS’ doesnt mean that they dont exist. When Mac’s get more popular, you will hear about more security problems, viruses, etc. and the complaints will come. When I subscribed to Red Hat’s update notification service, I was getting emails every week (or better) about some new fix or security patch. Truth is that if more people used Red Hat, you would hear more complaints. This goes for any OS really: the more people use it, the more complaints you will hear.

      I am anything but MS’ biggest fan, but, because it is the most popular OS in the world (and I am an IT professional), that means I either have to support it or get a new job. It’s just that simple. If something ever becomes more popular, I will be supporting that too. But, people fear change, and because other OS’ look different than Windows, I dont know if that day will ever come. Just changing from NT to 2000 freaked my users out because it “looked so different”. Imaging them going from XP to a KDE or Gnome desktop…

      • #3194324

        Why ?

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to get real

        Click on the pretty picture, fill in the boxes and the click on the buttony thing with OK on it.
        What’s so difficult about that ?

        Who said anything about not supporting it, I just spent the last two years supporting VMS, if it’s out there, you have the skills then get paid.

        Again with the popularity issue re security. Wrong windows is inherrently insecure, that’s one of the reasons for it’s success. Name a technology that drove the internet in a big way and yet is insecure by design. I’ll give you a clue the first word in the name is Microsoft…

    • #3186206

      Nothing to do with technical side

      by dryflies ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      My opinion is that windows bashers are opposed to big money/monopolies. Gates is rich and greedy so they hate him. and it is not necessarily IT’s fault when the OS crashes. many times its some twit installing untested software or cleaning out their file folders or surfing where they shouldn’t oughta be.
      Each OS has a purpose for which it is best suited. use them where they work best. Oh, and how I wish for just one second of bill gates income. 🙂

    • #3185845

      Just the Plain Truth Please

      by rkuhn040172 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I’m just happy that the all out MS bashing days are almost over.

      More and more IT people are thinking things through more logically nowadays.

      Is one OS better than another? Sure…in some areas but not all areas. No OS is perfect in all ways.

      There are certain people (that happen to post on TechRepublic alot and they know who they are) that will tell you Linux is superior.

      Well, that kind of closed mind thinking doesn’t serve anyone’s best interest.

      By the way, how many people live on good ole mothership Earth? What the heck makes you think for a second we’d ever or will ever reach agreement on this?

      Hell, we’re still taking taste test between Pepsi and Coke aren’t we?

      • #3194123

        I had a mouthful of pepsi

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Just the Plain Truth Please

        once tried to wash the awful taste away with a similar measure of coke.

        Didn’t work !

        Soft drink bashing now that’s where we want to go !

        • #3193698

          Pepsi all the way!

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to I had a mouthful of pepsi

          Boo Coke! 😀

          Actually they both have their ups and downs. I just like Pepsi a bit more than coke. 🙂

        • #3193615

          Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Pepsi all the way!

          Finally, someone with a sense of humor.

    • #3185838

      Hallelujah!

      by hubbardr ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I am reminded of the 1) text editor wars (“My text editor is better than yours…” see vi vs emacs, et al) 2) the Programming language wars (“My language can run through pointers faster than your language”) 3) the programming style wars (“structured is better than OO is better than DDL is better than…..”) and 4) now the OS wars

      All of these things are tools. I haven’t heard any carpenders lately going after each other because a hammer is better than a saw. They are tools.

      If you ‘love’ a particular OS, get another job. That OS doesn’t love you back. And if it changes, and you are too ‘in love’ with the old one to change, then you are screwed. (Insert your own comment about a crusty old DOS guy that never wanted to learn windows in the first place).

      Currently, there are some well defined places for the various OS’s that you would be pretty loopy to change. And even these depend on what is already installed in your environment.

      So Hallelujah! It’s wonderful to hear the voice of sanity everynow and then….

      BTW, I run Windows and Linux in my environments, depending on what I need to do…

      • #3194373

        what

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Hallelujah!

        can windows do that linux can’t?
        ( besides get infected with adware and spyware, there ain’t any for linux )

        • #3194363

          Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to what

          Sounds like Jaqui is one of those crusty old DOS types.

          Dude, get a clue. The time and money spent re-educating your end users to Linux is much higher than the cost of security issues and maintanence of Windows.

          The industry is maturing to the point we all see things for what they are.

          Security 101 is not putting all your eggs in one basket. If all you run is Linux, you are more vulnerable than I am…I run a mixed environment using a hammer for hammer tasks, a drill for drill tasks, etc.

        • #3194349

          Dude get a clue

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          To take a comment from you rown post.

          You sound like one of those old crusty linux types who thinks you need to be an IT Guru to use Linux.

          I have rolled out SUSE, XD2 and ND for several companies without any user issues or learning curves to deal with. You can’t tell me that ANY Windows OS is easier to use than the newer Linux flavours. In fact most new users tell me they are relieved to find out how similar to a ‘doze environment Linux is when they exoect it to be tough to learn. The user issues are reduced a great deal, fewer stupid hangs, hiccups, issues with spyware (when using FF as well) etc.

          As for cheaper, there isn’t a suite that MS has EVER designed that offeres more for less than LInux offers.

          I work in both Environments (grudgingly with some companies using Win desktops), in each and evry case, ‘doze boxes are more problematic fo rusers, cost a HEAP O Money more. Mind you, I always install Novell Networks so I am used to pretty much maintenance free NOS’s that don’t require a team of MCSE’s to keep it running in top form every day.

          You’re right MS has it’s place, but you also took time to displace Linux as a viable and affordable solution.

          You’ll find that hypocrites don’t fair to well on TR, you can’t make an absurd general assertion and then back it with personal bias.

        • #3194347

          ???

          by stress junkie ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          You wrote: “The time and money spent re-educating your end users to Linux is much higher than the cost of security issues and maintanence of Windows.”

          I don’t believe that you fully appreciate the cost of security issues. There are numerous kinds of damage that can happen to both the business with poor security and to its customers. One of the most heinous of these issues is when the customers having their identity stolen. I suspect that if you talked to someone who has suffered the consequences of this type of personal attack they would take a dim view of your attitude. The kind of thinking that you expressed is a large part of the reason that these kinds of problems exist. People in technical support who don’t believe that security issues are an overriding consideration when selecting a computer platform are a big part of the problem.

          You wrote:”The industry is maturing to the point we all see things for what they are.”

          Apparently not. If you could see things for what they are you wouldn’t be so open minded about what platform you consider acceptable for use in a business environment.

          You wrote:”If all you run is Linux, you are more vulnerable than I am…”

          Do you have any facts to back that up? I doubt it. Although I agree with your premise that you shouldn’t put all of your eggs in one basket I don’t agree with your interpretation of how that applies. You think that it means to run various platforms. I disagree. I would say that it should be interpreted as saying that you should isolate where information is stored and how it is accessed based on the business model. Having several operating systems is not good. It means that you have more systems to learn and you probably will not gain as much expertise in any of them than you would have gained in one system if you could concentrate on that one platform.

        • #3194231

          really?

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          I need windows based machines to develop applications for linux only?
          why?
          give me a good answer to that one please…

          if it ain’t an open source os, I don’t code for it.

          t.c.s. ( total cost security ) is more than the software to secure your system [ which comes free with linux ] it’s also the downtime because someone shut thier antivirus down to speed the system up, they downloaded and installed 45 trojan downloaders, one on each workstation in thier department…. downtime, loss of data, loss of customer satisfaction.

          gee your windows desktops just cost the company 20% of thier profits, in lost business from the infections.

          tcs is far lower with any *x os than with a m$ os.

        • #3194218
          Avatar photo

          And Remember

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to really?

          Computers don’t make mistakes! 😀

          Unless of course they are ruining MS products that it isn’t a mistake but a Undocumented Feature and that isn’t all that hard have you actually seen what Documentation comes with an OEM copy of Windows? Even that pathetic attempt I’m told by many new users is not written for the first time computer user but for what they consider as the Advanced User. 😉

          Col ]:)

        • #3194213

          There’s Your Group

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to And Remember

          See that, my reply weeded out the small group of TR members that are clearly biased OS fans.

          I cannot figure out why in your environments Windows is crashing so much…doesn’t happen all that often here.

          I cannot get our business ERP software to run in Linux.

          I cannot find or afford to hire a Linux admin in the Indianapolis market.

          I haven’t experienced the nightmarish security issues you say happen.

          Using properly configured products like routers, firewalls, spam filters, proxies, content filters, anti-virus, VPN’s, group policies, etc we have no problem keeping your doomsday scenarios from occurring.

          Now, being a “business” person and tech, we are constantly reassessing our options. But at this time, it is NOT financially possible to make the switch.

          I’m not trashing Linux, I do believe in it. But the decision is not made in a vaccuum and at this time the balance sheet is leaning towards staying with Windows.

        • #3194209

          How often?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to There’s Your Group

          How often do you have to restart Widnows?

          How often does it crash?

          You said “[i]I cannot figure out why in your environments Windows is crashing so much…doesn’t happen all that often here.[/i]” I’ve got to wonder why you think not crashing “all that often” is acceptable. Yeah, my Windows systems have hardly ever crashed, but I’m a trained (and Microsoft-certified) professional, and they [b]still crashed[/b] from time to time. That’s a problem. Having gotten used to the stability of Linux, it’s [b]unacceptable[/b]. Add to that the fact that I never need to even restart Linux unless I’ve upgraded the kernel, and suddenly Windows is starting to look like it’s all downtime in comparison.

          The fact that you can’t get [b]your[/b] ERP software to run on Linux means nothing in regards to how Linux compares to Windows. There’s ERP software that’ll run on Linux and not on Windows, too. What’s your point?

          I don’t know what to tell you about finding employees. That’s too bad. Try attending LUG meetings for a while, and I’m sure you’ll find some very qualified candidates. Of course, I’m not convinced you’d even bother to try very hard.

          You said “[i]I haven’t experienced the nightmarish security issues you say happen.[/i]” I can only assume you haven’t worked as a consultant. I have, and still do, and whenever a client gets a Linux system installed (by us, just as they typically get us to install Windows systems), disaster calls drop from whatever the previous rate (in some cases as often as monthly) for the replaced Windows systems to effectively nothing for the new Linux systems.

          There are good reasons for using Windows, at least in the short term, but you’re mostly mentioning what looks like a lot of bad, misinformed reasons, to me.

        • #3189688
          Avatar photo

          Nice to see that I’m back being

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to There’s Your Group

          Considered as a “Windows Hater!” 😀

          Actually it’s not so much Windows as MS that I really hate as they are hard to deal with and here I actually mean Volume License Stuff as the rules seem to change every person that you talk to. 🙁

          Actually what’s wrong with using a Mixed Environment? You just might find out that the Dreaded Linux/Unix/ BSD is really just so much better that Windows and doesn’t need to be constantly shut down when a patch is applied or a new program installed and so on and so on. 🙂

          But this is a no win position and thread as when I say something nice about MS people call me a Nix Hater and when I say something truthful about MS I’m a Nix Lover!:^O

          Col ]:)

        • #3189647

          ahh I see

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to There’s Your Group

          all the money being spent on security tools isn’t enough to pay for a linux admin, since it wouldn’t need to be spent on security tools with linux.

          the firwalls that come free with it are better than any but hardware firewalls.
          ( they equal those )

          if you only have linux, 75% of the security tools you need under windows are no longer needed.
          and the 25% you need come free with the os.
          hmm. really can’t afford the system admin…

          ohhh. by getting rid of people in the it department that won’t learn linux, you get all thier salaries also to work with.
          now you can afford 2 linux system admins.
          one to deal with the daysh|t crap, one to work nights and do the system maintenance. ( the REAL work )

        • #3189641

          isn’t it funny?

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to And Remember

          that rikk@.. can’t answer the question I asked?
          even though he’s posted to your comment so has seen it?

          after all answering what use a windows box is when only developing for *x must be beyond his capabilities.

          yet he claims that by not having a windows box I’m some sort of failure….

        • #3189562
          Avatar photo

          But Jacqui you are a failure

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to isn’t it funny?

          It means that you haven’t wangled any Window box out of an company that you worked for so for that reason you have failed. :^O

          Unless of course you have done the right thing and wiped the drives and installed Linux on them. That would not only make you successful but smart as well. :p

          Col ]:)

        • #3189527

          sshhhh…

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to isn’t it funny?

          the first thing I do whenever I get a new system is remove partitions and install linux, whichever distro is easiest to grab. ( I have 6 on cd.. multiple versions and I don’t care if I’m grabbing one with a 1.4 kernel )

        • #3193616

          Tired of Arguing

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to isn’t it funny?

          I’ll answer any and all of your questions, however, I grow tired of arguing with you.

          I am a business tech. I am employed to minimize disruption, maximum profits, improve processes, and service my customers.

          I, unlike you, don’t tell other people what is in their best interest. I, unlike you, am open to all and any solutions based on my customers expectations, goals, needs, etc.

          I, unlike you, am not egoistical. I, unlike you, don’t have several hours a day to waste responding to posts on TR.

          I will always help educate my customers but will ultimately go with their decision and make the most of it…whether that be Linux, Windows, or whatever.

          No decision is made in a vaccuum. And not all decions are perfect (including Linux). To insult those that choose Windows is unprofessional at the very least.

          To pretend that Linux doesn’t have its fair share of security issues is naive.

          As a matter of fact, I browsed through the Linux section on TR and you seem to like responding more to Windows issues (taking jabs) than helping those with Linux issues…I wish I had the time to count the number of responses to prove my point but I have better things to do.

          I will point out though, that several of you recommeded a MCSE to someone as opposed to a Linux cert, mentioned SATA isn’t supported yet, openly admitted to less support, software, drivers, etc, and overall are alot more honest in the Linux section that your repeated jabs in the Windows sections.

          Being closed minded is one of man’s greatest weaknesses. I have repeatedly mentioned I am open to any and all solutions.

          Linux may be technically superior. But I live in the Midwest of the USA and Linux isn’t anywhere near where it needs to be.

          Not to say it won’t be one day. I but live and work in the “real” world and Linux at this point in time just isn’t significant enough to gather anything other than mere curiousity.

          Counter that…you’ll tell me I’m wrong, because of course, you know my life’s experiences better than I do, don’t you?

        • #3194546

          You got documentation???

          by raven2 ·

          In reply to And Remember

          Who do you know? All I got was a Certificate of Authenticity. I figured they did not have any documentation. Kind of the ultimate Plug and Pray.

        • #3194470
          Avatar photo

          Well I did say OEM

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to You got documentation???

          But here we get a book all of about 12 pages long but it sure looks pretty. Green for the Home and Blue for the Pro editions. 🙂

          But I wouldn’t use the Plug & Pray as you already have everything plugged in and you know it works as you are seeing a picture on the screen it’s only when you actually start the install that the Praying begins in earnest. 😉

          Col ]:)

        • #3194168

          Wake up and look around

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          Every version of MS Office has changes to the menus and shortcuts that takes staff time to learn. I once had a client who tried staff with a new office system, they had a version of Open Office that operated just like their old MS Office for 95% of the common menus and shortcuts, the newest version of MS Office only matched to 75% of menus and shortcuts hte same.

          Another good point is that the Linux stuff comes with Wizards that you can easily turn off or bypass – most MS Wizards cannot be turned off. I once had to buy a new modem for one machine because every time Win2K Pro loaded it ‘Found new hardware’ and replaced the manufacturer’s Australian based drivers with default MS USA based drivers that stopped the modem from working. Only MS will give you an OS that stops genuine designed for MS software from actually working with their software. That company no longer goes through the trouble of getting their stuff MS approved just made a slight firmware change and you can use all their gear with USA based drivers just turn off ‘Wait for dialtone’ for Aust use.

          There is even a version of Linux that looks so much like MS that I have seen people think it was a new improved MS OS – can’t remember its name fro sure but think it was called Redmond Linux.

          You can build a Linux box with Open Office to replace your Win 98 or Win2K with Office or Office 2000 and your staff would only have to learn how to use the new productivity options like tabbed windows options etc. The staff retrain things has been dead for some years.

        • #3189645

          redmond

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Wake up and look around

          is a theme for the kde gui.

          looks just like winders 95

          the ddefault galaxy theme for kde now looks just like hexp

        • #3189568
          Avatar photo

          Actually Jacqui I think it was Lycoris

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to redmond

          That he was talking about it almost looks like a Default XP Screen in its Default Install and I think that it came from Redmond as well.

          Col ]:)

        • #3189266

          Wait, what?

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          “The time and money spent re-educating your end users to Linux is much higher than the cost of security issues and maintanence of Windows.”

          This I’d have to see a study (not paid for by MS) for.

          “If all you run is Linux, you are more vulnerable than I am”

          Can you explain this? I’m not sure I understand…

        • #3189082

          maybe

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Wait, what?

          he’ll answer you.
          he’s been ignoring my question about it.
          ( a few posts back in the thread )

        • #3194465

          Fire and forget trolls

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to maybe

          Seems to be a lot of them in this thread.

    • #3185550
      Avatar photo

      So my friend Angus

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I take it you have already got your name down with MS for a Beta copy of Vista Right? No doubt you’ll be standing beside your letter box crying until it arrives on August 3. :^O

      After all you’ll need this so you can have a play with the pre beta release so you just might have some idea of what the Beta release will actually look like. OH whoops my fault the Production Version will look like I forgot we are all MS Beta Testers. 😀

      Col ]:)

      • #3189567

        Aren’t you all Linux testers?

        by wordworker ·

        In reply to So my friend Angus

        I went out to the sites where the gazillions of open source “apps” are reputed to be. Now can someone please tell me which of the top dozen database engines are the most reliable? No I have to download and try them all myself? Sorry, don’t have time. Oh, they don’t all run on the same releases of *n*x? Too bad for me if I’m running the wrong one.

        Windows – better the devil you know than the open source devils you don’t.

        And can someone please point me to the Linux Desktop Store? I’d like to rush right out and get one of those nifty Linux desktops and start using it. Oh! You can’t buy one at a brick and mortar stoer? Gee that’ll make it hard to support the thing, won’t it?

        I can say I have actually used Linux – well Knoppix – to troubleshoot a problem with a Windows machine. (Booted to the knoppix CD, connected to Internet, ruled out problem with the connection.) But what you Linux enthusiasts are missing is the very thing you consider is the strength of the ‘platform’ is also its greatest weakness — lots of customization opportunities, unobscured view “under the hood,” those are good things. But what about consistency and availability? If you want Linux Desktops to catch on, you (as the Linux community as a whole) need to settle on a configuration that can be configured, sold, and used by the masses, not just high-tech folks.

        • #3189552
          Avatar photo

          Well for a start try Red Hat Enterprise Edition

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Aren’t you all Linux testers?

          I don’t think you’ll have a single problem buying that from a Bricks & Mortar Store or SUSE, or Mandrake, or Turbo Linux. These are all available in boxed sets with real documentation unlike what you get from M$. But as you already know Windows and Office you’ll not have a problem paying to be a Beta Tester when Visa or was that Vista becomes available as a production product will you?

          And they are not just the OS but a complete Suite of programs most likely more than what you’ll actually need. So you need a DBase but you’ll then not need the graphic applications or the games will you? So all you have to do is just chose not to load them. What you pay for in the Boxed Sets is a complete system with an OS and Applications unlike MS which you only get an OS and like one customer recently was told Notepad is your Word processor so it has everything you need. They where somewhat more than disappointed when they found out that they had to spend even more money to get a computer that they could actually use instead of just one with Windows on it.

          But no you want it free right? So you then download a ISO and then want to complain about the lack of support which you never paid for.

          Personally I would much rather be Beta Testing Linux than paying for a production version of Windows and Office and still being a Beta Tester on that. I’ve had 3 occasions that I’ve had to actually ring MS when I’ve run into a problem that I can not fix and on every occasion I spent hours to eventually be told by their senior Tech “I don’t know ring me when you have a fix will you?” Good thing that I’m a Certified Partner or I would have being paying for those support calls where I didn’t get any support and in each and every case not only solved the problem for myself after much wasted time but then had to take the time to ring MS with a work around. And no Puking and Nuking didn’t cure any of these problems as they where all on clean installs and all revolved around applying Service Packs.

          Anyway you’re not one to talk have you had a recent look at the number of DBase programs available for Windows? No I’m not just referring to the M$ ones but the whole range so how can you say without having the top of your head fall off from laughter

          “If you want Linux Desktops to catch on, you (as the Linux community as a whole) need to settle on a configuration that can be configured, sold, and used by the masses, not just high-tech folks.”

          This currently doesn’t exist in Windows after all if you wish to load windows 3.11 you honestly do not expect Office 2003 to work on it do you? How many home users are rushing out and buying 2003 Enterprise Edition? and how many would actually know how to set it up correctly?

          If you wish to compare apples to trucks don’t be surprised to be shot down in flames. If you want something for nothing than you will get exactly what you paid for SFA. Which is exactly what you deserve. :^O

          Col ]:)

        • #3189548

          Congrats Hal!

          by wordworker ·

          In reply to Well for a start try Red Hat Enterprise Edition

          Now that response was almost completely flame- and rant-free. Didn’t that feel good? Don’t you think you’d win a lot more folks over to “your side” if you spent less time ranting about Microsoft and more time explaining your beloved Linux in good, old-fashioned Canadian English?

        • #3189541
          Avatar photo

          Canadian?

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Congrats Hal!

          Lost me there mate I’m an Aussie so I don’t know where that came from.

          But for something constructive how about attempting to help this guy out he has a Sony MP3 player that he can not get to install on XP Pro with SP2 so it should be right up your alley.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6239-0.html?forumID=48&threadID=178324

          I don’t seem to be getting anywhere with him so maybe you’ll be able to communicate with him better. 🙂

          Col ]:)

        • #3193736

          Isn’t Canada right next to Austria ;-)

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Canadian?

          ok…bad joke…

          Still it is sad that many of the current graduates of the American educationally system don’t know the difference between Austria and Australia and they have no idea where any country is (including their own).

        • #3051789

          Shibboleth

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Isn’t Canada right next to Austria ;-)

          A word or pronunciation that distinguishes people of one group or class from those of another.

          A word or phrase identified with a particular group or cause; a catchword.
          A commonplace saying or idea.
          A custom or practice that betrays one as an outsider.

          In alt.folklore.urban, the interchanging of Austria and Australia is a shibboleth. You hear the newbies howl that someone is confused, and you hear the hats(long timers) suggest that they read the FAQ and lurk before posting. Cow-orker, and misplet are two other AFU examples.

          Do we have any Tech Republic shibboleths?

          James

        • #3051588

          TR shibboleths

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Isn’t Canada right next to Austria ;-)

          Yeah, we’ve got a few around here. I recommend you read the FAQ and lurk a while.

          Oh, sorry, no. I mean: One is the way people keep using “IT Professional” to mean “Windows User”. That one always makes me chuckle.

          Shibboleth is one of my favorite words, and has been for years. I don’t get much opportunity to trot it out, though.

        • #3193499

          misunderstood intent

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Congrats Hal!

          I think you’re misunderstanding what’s happening. Windows devotees have a tendency to see Windows and Linux as being “in competition”, but based on my experience Linux enthusiasts typically just want to see the Windows stranglehold broken, and take umbrage at the blatant fibbing of the Microsoft marketing department.

          Y’see, I don’t think Hal is trying to win you over to his “side”. Have you ever seen him post a major troll-post like this thing about IT people “bashing” Windows, implying ulterior motives? The entire discussion starts with someone wildly speculating about Windows haters, making Windows out to be the operating system used by superior intellects who understand that anyone complaining about the failings of Windows must be using it wrong. Yes, that’s right, anyone that points out flaws in Windows must be incompetent. Security vulnerabilities are the effect of wider-spread use, regular system crashes are somehow magically the fault of the user or the application developer, and everything that ever goes wrong with a Windows box is [i]someone else’s fault[/i].

          News flash: If your OS locks up or crashes, it’s the OS that’s a problem. If someone can exploit a single application to leverage system-wide permissions escalation, it’s the OS that’s a problem. If you have to restart the computer regularly, it’s the OS that’s a problem. Don’t even get me started on Service Pack 2 for Windows XP, EULAs and license payment schemes for anything after Windows 2000 SP2, or the Microsoft policy of making you pay to report a bug whether you get any help out of it or not.

          There are occasional Linux users who play the same game in reverse, making crap up as they go along in their attempts to aggrandize Linux and denigrate Windows. There are bad apples in every camp. They are fewer and farther between, however, for one simple reason: there are many, many more people familiar only with Windows and not Linux than there are familiar only with Linux and not Windows. Show me someone who is propagandizing rather than arguing the actual merits of a system, and I’ll show you someone not terribly familiar with one system or another. Show me someone discussing the [b]actual characteristics of the systems[/b], however, and you’re probably dealing with someone that has extensive familiarity with both, such as Hal, jmgarvin, or me.

          If any of the three of us ever “bash” Windows “unfairly”, it’s in jest. Catch us in a real debate like this, and you’ll see that everything you’ve read that looks like “bashing” is a response to some absurd misrepresentation of the facts with relevant, technical know-how. Hal has been dealing with both Windows and Linux systems since Jesus was an end-user, I carry multimple MS certifications and am the heterogenous networking specialist (integrating Linux and Windows solutions) for an IT consultancy, and jmgarvin [b]teaches[/b] about computers [b]professionally[/b], for cryin’ out loud. We’re not snot-nosed know-nothings being a bully to Microsoft in the playground. All three of us are IT professionals, knowledgeable experts, and quite unwilling to speculate outside our experience without a clear label on what we’re saying as speculation.

          Meanwhile, I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve provided (here at TR) counter-examples, architectural surveys of Windows, and links to vulnerability-tracking resources to debunk claims that the only security problem Windows has is popularity.

          In the end, people like Hal aren’t trying to win you over to a “side”. They’re just correcting misapprehensions and blatant Microsoft marketing department falsehoods, offering the benefit of their experience.

          . . . or do you really think Hal doesn’t know what he’s talking about? He clearly has issues as a writer, and should never be a journalist, but it’s hard to find an IT worker that obviously knows his sh*t better than Hal, about both Windows and Linux, as well as other OSes.

        • #3189301

          misunderstood? no

          by wordworker ·

          In reply to misunderstood intent

          They’re just correcting misapprehensions and blatant Microsoft marketing department falsehoods, offering the benefit of their experience.

          Many of the Windows sysadmins who post in these discussions have just as much experience running Windows systems as you and Hal. Yet, when they attempt to say “hey my Win systems are running just fine,” certain “Win-Lin” experts jump all over them and accuse them of being slaves to Bill G. and his mighty marketing machine. I think you have to admit most of the negative and derogatory comments come from the Linux or Win-Lin folks and are directed at the Win-only crowd.

          I think you and I agree that IT pros need to educate themselves as much about as many operating systems as possible in order to best serve their customers. As someone interested in learning more about Linux, I am more inclined to pay attention to and respect the opinions of a Linux expert who doesn’t feel compelled to use “M$” and other anti-Microsoft slang every time they post.

          And you’re wrong if you don’t think there are “sides” here. It’s not a competition, I agree, but there are two distinct camps, if you will – those who are closed-minded about open source, and those who are willing to integrate new tools, if it will help accomplish the mission.

          If Linux is going to make inroads into the corporate desktop market, people in positions of influence (IT managers, directors, CIOs) need to be convinced that bringing some Linux boxes into the data center is a good idea. In *my* experience, corporate IT decision makers aren’t rushing out to integrate Linux into their centers because they don’t fully understand the options and benefits of open source tools.

          I know many IT director-level types who would LOVE to replace their Wintel desktops with Linux boxes, if it means better security, better performance, and lower costs. But they aren’t convinced – as you and Hal and others are – that Linux desktops are viable alternatives to the tried-and-true (if expensive and insecure) Windows boxes.

          It seems to me you’re assuming the mantle of Ambassador of Open Source Solutions, and I applaud your efforts. But all too often, what you see as “correcting misapprehensions and blatant Microsoft marketing department falsehoods” comes across as if you’re telling IT pros with years of Win-only experience that they’re stupid and out in left field. In short, your precious Linux may be winning the technological battle, but the Linux community is losing the public relations war. To get through to the decision makers, the Linux crowd needs to spend less time bashing Wintel and more time communicating the benefits of open source tools. I’m just sayin’.

        • #3189284

          well . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to misunderstood? no

          Personally, I avoid using such terms as “M$”. They don’t strike me as being terribly appropriate. I call it Microsoft, or MS, and I call it Windows. I don’t tend to use the off-color terms that others sometimes do, in large part because I don’t want someone to fixate on what I say as being biased and overlook the content of my statements.

          That’s really what’s happening, here, much of the time. The moment someone says “Windoze” or “Micro$not”, people tend to dismiss what he or she has to say. While I think that sort of pet insult of the MS empire isn’t the best way to represent one’s opinions, and might be evidence of poor communication skills under some circumstances, I still try to look past such things to see what is actually being said, what is to be learned from the post, and so on. I don’t dismiss it out of hand.

          I don’t want to be the official Ambassador here. I don’t want to tell anyone they’re stupid, either. On the other hand, I’m inclined to offer my perspective where I think it’s of value. I’m actually not the most diplomatic person in the world when I don’t have to be: I’m quite brutally honest lot of the time, and that’s probably part of the reason people take what I say amiss at times when I correct misunderstandings of the relation of Windows to Linux and vice-versa. When I see ignorance, I call it ignorance, and figure it’s the subject’s fault if he assumes I’m using a neutral term with pejorative intent. Ignorance isn’t the same as stupidity, but peoplge get defensive when the term is used and react as though stupidity were the term used.

          One of the reasons I don’t do more to soften the blow is simple: my goal isn’t to market Linux. My goal is simply to state what’s true to the best of my ability. There will always be people who will believe inaccurate data, and I’m not in a position to significantly alter that. Frankly, I don’t much care to. I’m looking for someone with information to share when I come here, and looking for people interested in learning rather than picking fights. I’m not a Linux proselytizer, I’m a Linux enthusiast and professional. I don’t need others to adopt my OS of choice to feel my choice is validated.

          The statement that Linux in some way “needs” to better market itself assumes the Linux community is interested in market share. The Linux community as a whole doesn’t give a damn about market share: it’s made up of individuals who care about the number of developers involved in Linux development, the ease of access to Linux technology, and the functionality of their computers. Market share is about doing “better than” someone else on some statistical scale, and the open source community is only about doing well, regardless of what anyone else is doing.

        • #3189094
          Avatar photo

          Well I for one have never called anyone STUPID

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to misunderstood? no

          At least here at TR granted I do use that word about my son who sees my computer that he has stolen as nothing more than a glorified play station. 🙂

          But what I do constantly find interesting is that at every MS meeting that I attend and where I do talk to the Technical people rather than the marketing people I’m constantly told that I’m expecting way too much from Windows. Why is it then that the very people who are responsible for at the very least fixing the problems are saying this?

          As for Sys Admins who have only had experience with Windows I actually pity them and in no way consider them as Stupid it’s just that they don’t know any better as they lack the experience. It’s exactly like you have only driven small moped so that is what you expect a motor cycle to be like and you have no experience what a real motor cycle like a Ducati can do and how it behaves. These people are being force feed the Microsoft Marketing Lie which just doesn’t wash with me.

          Almost every Windows Only Sys Admin thinks that it is normal to have to reboot when a program is installed or a patch applied. It’s not that they are Stupid buy just that they do not know that there is a different way of doing things.

          AS for the server side of Microsoft it really is M$ as I’m constantly paying vast amounts of money for the Server Application OS or whatever you wish to call it and then extra for excess license fees. One company that I know very well uses 2003 SBE for their small network it is a Doctors Surgery with 18 workstations and 1 server with all the medical files on it. Now currently well previously until I told the owner how to fix the problem they could only have 10 concurrent connections to the File Server for the times when there where more Doctors there they just got used to having to wait to get access to the files. The solution was to buy additional Licenses for only $80.00 AU per box. Now that was only a few boxes and only a few Hundred $ on top of the already expensive OS that they had paid for. It is things like that that do really get to me particularly as I had to fix the mess that was made up by so called “Professionals” just to get a Script from a Doctor without waiting a very long time for the network to allow him access to the file server. It was something that I didn’t get paid for and I only did it to make my life easier as I no longer do any Government or Medical work. But this should never have arisen in the first place. But the people who sold the complete system and where Microsoft Certified where not interested in selling a working network just the hardware and the software out of the box with no additional work needed. They just didn’t care!

          Of course it only gets far worse in a Big environment where I do use 2003 ES quite a lot but only for Domain controllers the real backbone servers are always Linux/ BSD or something else as the license fees are just way less. And I’m not talking about downloaded ISO images but boxed sets from the makers here. They are just plain and simple easier to setup and far cheaper to buy initially as well as being cheaper to run in the long term.

          Col ]:)

        • #3189526

          standard linux..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Aren’t you all Linux testers?

          http://www.linuxbase.org/

          every linux distro meets the minimum standards listed here.

          why would linux want to limit the (g)ui* options and become like windows & macos? ( one size fits none )

          if it was to pick one (g)ui as the only option, then it would be going against what it has come to stand for::FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN EVERYTHING ABOUT THE SYSTEM

          unlike windows and macos where they say you can only have a gui, and it has to be this one.
          you have to use our tools or you will get lousy results. ( system lockups and crashes with windows, apps just won’t run unless designed for macos )

          *(g)ui as graphic interface is NOT required.

        • #3193738

          Uh MySQL and Fry’s for $1000 Alex

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Aren’t you all Linux testers?

          You have heardof mySQL for DB a engine.

          I can point you to Fry’s to buy a Linux desktop. http://shop3.outpost.com/product/4199563?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

          Sure there are tons of tools you can choose, but like Windows, there are the popular and stable tools that everyone uses.

      • #3193700

        Erm…

        by Anonymous ·

        In reply to So my friend Angus

        I’m not going to beta test Vista. I never said I loved Windows, I just said you shouldn’t bash the OS.

        Anyway, you opening paragraph is a bit harsh isn’t it? You assume to much. Maybe I’m just taking the whole tone of your post wrong but it does seem a little harsh to me.

        Ahh, who cares anyway. It’s only some 1’s and 0’s in the end. It’s not like you’re really being mean. 🙂

        • #3193630
          Avatar photo

          Actually I was trying to be Sarcastic

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Erm…

          Sorry if it didn’t come through that well. I sort of get sidetracked and lost it a bit.

          But I’ll be Beta Testing Vista and have a new product ordered to play with. Not because I really want to but because it is a job requirement. 🙁

          Col ]:)

    • #3194276

      troll

      by apotheon ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Why stir up so much worthless screaming?

      • #3193464

        Spies

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to troll

        I have long suspected TR will troll it’s self to stir up the nest.

        How many times have you seen someone start an argument just because they like to see people get going? I see it all the time. Used to do it to my little sister all the time. ;\

    • #3189490

      RE: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      by jyip ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I have to agree with Angus. When an OS crashes, it’s not by choice but by fault of the user/support tech. As for Windows, you can bash it all you want, but just remember, Microsoft did one extraordinary thing: they designed, developed and sold a product that is almost universal to all PCs. The OS provides support for the vast majority of all PC parts (the same can’t be said for Linux/Unix) and it does what it’s supposed to more often than not. Also remember that with every crash, bug glitch, there are thousands of successful executions of processes within the OS.

      • #3193733

        YIKES!

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to RE: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        Has it come to this? Defending an unstable OS with: but it has thousands of sucessful executions before it crashes!

        On and Linux has wonderful driver support, no thanks to many manufacturers. The driver community has really done a bang up job with wireless, nvidia/ati, and various “unsupported” hardware (ala Winmodems).

      • #3193719

        I must confess I do not agree,

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to RE: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        though some bias may have crept in as I’m a software engineer, who’s put his time in on admin and support as well.

        There again, because I’m a software engineer maybe I have some vague appreciation of how software should be designed and as an admin how I’d like it to be designed.

        Oh well back to work now, design decison to make, should I have an oval button that may work or pehaps a hexagonal one. It’s got to glow on mouseover as well, very imporant that and I’ve got to come up with an icon. It will indicate this backs up your critical data that you can not afford to lose it under any circumstances if you want to stay in business.
        Hmmm
        The MS standard appears to a rather boring OK in 12 pt sans serif bold, we can do better than that surely.
        Tahoma I think for starters.

    • #3193641

      reason for Bashing possibly

      by slsb ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I agree with many that posted concerning Microsoft’s security and stability. It could also be how long they have been around.

      I also think that they get bashed alot for being the “big dogs”. Not to get too political… it’s like whoever is President gets bashed alot for doing right or wrong actions.. doesn’t really matter who is in office. Pretty much the point is that the bigger you are, the more $H!t will get thrown at you.

      As a side note (and the best reason), it might just be if the company or executive staff (or its marketing or anything else about the place) can be made fun of on Saturday Night Live or MadTV. 🙂

    • #3193627

      OS Standards?

      by doublebeat ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I read some responses that mentioned standards between Operating Systems, and computers. I think that this would be a good place to start if people think total OS compatibility is in the future. There are some areas of technology where this is already in practice, such as the battle of the Web Browsers!

      The organization known as the W3C, or World Wide Web Consortium, is setting standards in HTML formatting and rendering. As usual, Microsoft is lagging behind in complying with these standards. They have a dilemma. Some sites are designed around IE, and don’t work well in Firefox or Opera since their design relies on certain faluts in IE’s page rendering or display.

      If an organization was set up to lay out the ground rules for compatibility, and the software AND hardware vendors were made to follow it, cross-platform compatibility would be possible. Vendors would have to spend time making sure their products met stability standards, along with even display or testing standards. This would not only improve the user’s experience, but make it possible for people to choose what OS to run. All the software and hardware would work on all the platforms.

      One can only dream . . .

      Of course, the best way to make all this better would be to make EVERYTHING open source. Human Knowledge belongs to the world!

      Again . . . One can only DREAM!

      • #3193470

        OS standards

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to OS Standards?

        Let’s see . . .

        POSIX standard (with which basically all unix-like OSes are compliant)

        LSB (Linux Standard Base)

        FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard)

        Meanwhile, you’ve got Windows of any stripe, which complies with

        . . .

        nothing.

        Windows XP Pro isn’t even fully compatible with Windows 2000 Pro.

        Microsoft aims for market dominance. One of the tactics it uses is intentional standards violation and intentional interoperability problems. This is one reason of many that a lot of people prefer Linux: they like a system that aims to be [b]more[/b] compatible with both its own variations and those of other OSes. While Microsoft keeps changing its implementation of SMB the SMB protocol and CIFS, in an attempt to discourage interoperability with other OSes, the open source crowd using Linux is constantly improving on Samba so that it can access new versions of Windows SMB/CIFS networks without losing the ability to interoperate with older Windows versions and any other system that might use SMB, such as other Linux systems, new and old.

        • #3189194

          OS Standards?

          by doublebeat ·

          In reply to OS standards

          Well, I guess we have come to the conclusion that open source is the way to go. I think that while linux runs great for me, it’s not going to gain a share of the desktop market unless it becomes more operable with Windows. This isn’t going to happen unless Microsoft uses file systems like ext2 or ReiserFS, or releases the code to read and write properly to NTFS. I guess that is what I meant by standards. Use a common filesystem, a library format that can be understood by multiple systems, and the like.

          We can be almost sure that this will never happen. As long as Microsoft continues to be like they are. I wouldn’t say that their product is inferior because of bad code. Linux is superior simply becase anyone can see how it works and design driver or device to mesh perfectly with it. If Microsoft would make a better effort to ensure drivers and programs that operate inside it don’t degrade performance.

          Microsoft is attempting to implement some form of standard. Signing drivers and stamping systems with their logo is their first step. Maybe they are becoming better . . .?

          I think Windows needs a whole makeover. If Microsoft can start from the ground, and can follow a few simple steps like I mentioned earlier, they’d have a better product and a happier user group.

    • #3193568

      Re: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      by laidlaws ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I don’t agree. Your argument assumes that every OS is fundamentally O.K., and all problems arise from how you use it.

      I wish that you were right about Windows. Somebody tried to tell me that Windows was O.K, but the applications written for it were unreliable. The opposite is the fact. There are plenty of very good applications let down by the Windows OS.

      When Microsoft get rid of the mindset that Windows is automatically good, and everybody should love it without looking; when they have a real assessment of the quality of their product and do something about it: that is when they will start getting customers coming back (me included.) I would love to be using Windows right now, instead of doing all I can to avoid it.

      Doug.

    • #3193440

      Three cheers for Apotheon (seriously)

      by wordworker ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I refer to the “learning linux” post above. You gave a thoughtful and useful answer to the question, “how does an experienced Wintel person get his/her toes wet in the linux pool?”

      I applaud you and encourage you to use your own advice when responding to Winzealots in future discussions – BE NICE. ;] You just might convert some of us old fogies over to the open source side of the tent. I for one now keep a Knoppix CD in my bag o’ tricks. I feel a little less like a tech-dinosaur already.

      These threads remind me of the days when I had to explain the DOS command line to old COBOL programmers who wondered where the card reader attached to the brand-new Wang PC the law firm bought.

      • #3189267

        heh heh

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Three cheers for Apotheon (seriously)

        Nice comparison.

        I try to be as nice as possible when people ask me for help. Generally, you’ll probably find that the Linux community as a whole is like that, particularly on most LUG mailing lists. Problems arise when someone comes in saying “Man, I don’t have these problems with Windows.” That’s not a request for help: it’s a statement about Linux vs. Windows. If your actual post, on the other hand, is “I’m used to Windows, which does this, and Linux isn’t responding to what I’m doing, which is this. What am I doing wrong?” you’ll get much more help.

        Yeah, I could probably make more of an effort to be nice, but I’m often too lazy to go that extra mile when the person supposedly asking for information hasn’t gone that extra mile first. I tend to figure, subconsciously at least, that if someone can’t be bothered to ask nicely, I’m not obligated to answer nicely. It’s not like I’m being paid for the help I provide at TR.

        When I deal with clients of the consultancy, on the other hand, I bend over backwards to be as helpful as possible, regardless of initial tone. They’re paying my bills.

        By the way, thanks for the kudos.

    • #3189286

      resistance is futile

      by paul ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Are you just winding us up ? heh heh !
      nice one. Yeah well anyway back on planet earth !
      It’s not usually crashes which cause techies to
      venomously explete at Bill Gates. Actually its mainly to do with inconsistencies between services, programs, and drivers, written by microsoft. The fact is that while Linux isn’t great for the desktop, it offers a simplicity and
      sturdiness of design that microsoft cannot replicate in its serverware. MS bashers are usually talking about the stuff like having to reboot every time you update the server etc. As far as compatibility is concerned – Unix is what the internet is based on hence http:// the forward
      slashes are indicative of a Unix protocol. Microsoft is certainly not the standard of compatibility on the web.

      • #3189216

        Not to mention

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to resistance is futile

        the HTML tag, although often bastardized to HTM by MS products.

        “The internet is a fad” is something that always makes me laugh when I look at the way MS people portray the internet now.

        Even look at how you are getting into this discussion board. TCP/IP is a unix protocol that was ADOPTED by MS to be able to play on the then entirely UNIX based internet.

        But they always want to refer to the OSI model which is just a illistration of the TCP/IP model, theroetically to make it “easier to understand”.

        Ask an MS rep how alternat browsers will veiw a website made in FrontPage using the wizards and see what your response will be. I know AOL is goofy as a browser, but do I really not want someone to be able to give me money for my products/services just because I don’t like their browser? AOL people traditionally are the ones with more money than brains anyways! EXACTLY the people I want as customers! Throw extra money at the issue so you don’t have to know/do ANYTHING.

    • #3189215

      in fact if the OS crashes then it’s your fault not the OS;

      by mrleo1957 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      What a stupid comment. Bug-ridden software is what causes crashes, not the operator.

      I’ve used every OS from CPM on up. Windows is the only OS I’ve used that you can have the lastest drivers, all fully-approved parts, and still get crashes for no apparent reason.

    • #3189197

      Disagree

      by techystuff ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Why defend a buggy OS, I agree users mostley bust the OS, the OS shouldn’t allow it to happen, or have I just talked myself out of a job 🙁

      Note: My old Acorn just needed rebooting as the OS was in ROM. Shame it wasn’t developed more, as it was the right way to go. The only reason I say this, is I sometimes get bored rebuilding Windoze all the time 🙁
      I think eventually everything will be server driven, no more busted OS’s only hardware to replace. The End

    • #3189045

      Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      by david.hirst ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I think the main reason that people bash MS is the plain and simple fact that Microsoft with all its financial power and resources still charge a considerable amount of money for their products and services which are in some respects less secure or reliable than those of cheaper or free open source projects.

      And then its down to the us and them groups who use MS or Linux or whatever other OS is out there.

      Personally even though I have had my ups and downs with MS software over the years I still find that they are reliable enough for me to do the tasks I wish to perform day in and day out and I always think, “things can only get better”

    • #3194741

      the “REAL” reason…

      by Anonymous ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Win32 OSs are inferior to *nix based OSs. Why?

      The *nix OS design is much older and less assailable. It was created and developed largely through the efforts of people seeking higher knowledge or design elegance. It is well thought out, tried and true.

      Market dominion and monetary enrichment are the driving forces at Microsoft. Win32 OS’s are released to maximize profit, not because they represent any level of excellence, ie. Windows ME. Also, any claim of superiority in product was completely discredited when the 2KSP4 source code was leaked.

      The fact that a much larger percentage of people use Win32 than *nix is just illogical and insulting to any real computer person. However, insult becomes injury very quickly when that same person has to perform the huge workload required to keep Win32 secure and reliable.

      I think the bashing starts, when you blow a gasket trying to reconcile the marketing hype and the Microsoft promises with reality.

    • #3194549

      Gotta love Microsoft

      by ron ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I just think of it as Job Security. If we all used Linix, the required support would not justify a full time person. I could do all of my work in about an hour per day, and do it all from home!

    • #3194426

      I’m a true tech and I don’t mind bashing Windows

      by quantumetrics ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Having been in IT longer than Bill, I remember what life was like before Windows, before MS-DOS … and I can say without hesitation that Bill/MS and Steve/Apple have done as much to hurt the growth of the industry as they did to help it. Neither of these men entered the industry with any sense of professionalism, and they tended to surround themselves with people who, like themselves, didn’t really deal with real-world problems or needs or issues. I don’t view either Microsoft or Apple as technology companies; I view MS as a marketing company and Apple as a toy company.

      Consider: is there any object in the business/industrial universe, apart from actual human beings, that fails as often and as unpredictably as a computer running a Microsoft operating system? We EXPECT those computers to crash, we expect them to crash often, and we expect them to crash unpredictably – and because of MS’s stranglehold on the market, we have been forced to accept this very low standard of mediocrity, and for so long now that we can’t imagine things any other way.

      To accept that this is how it is reflects pragmatism; to say that it could not have been any other way is nonsense. There were a multitude of different courses that the evolution of personal computing could have taken, and there certainly could have been far more professionalism and quality, and far less technological narcissism …

    • #3195681

      IT people don’t bash Windows

      by sudheer_tp ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Hi all,

      Looking into all of ur arguments, just I wanted to tell something.

      All u peoples are talking and enjoying ur job and etc., all becz of ur IT even me.

      I was PC support engg, then system admin, then network admin and now I am in database and application admin. I like all the OS. All the OS?s have its own identity and skills.

      Just go 20-25 years back may be more, when the common people were not using computers. That time UNIX, Mac OS others are thr in the OS market including MS-Dos.
      The computer was costing very high.

      Then comes the Windows 3.1 then u all know windows for workgroup, win95, 98 etc.

      Just think since a Microsoft window was so user friendly and any non-computer experts can use very easily, started becoming more and more popular. Then more people started using computer and at the same time hardware prices gone down. Now u can get the computer in some hundred $.

      Then all techs like u all started thinking and started developing more and more programs and applications. All becz it started only when more and more comman people started using computer. That is becz of Microsoft.

      At the same time if MS was not introduced its user-friendly interface OS in that period, then the techs like u and me all would be still 10 year back in technology.

      Just for the sake of blaming don?t blame Microsoft. Becz of that now IT is like this, if not it would have taken some more years to come to this level.

      • #3195657
        Avatar photo

        No it wasn’t because of Microsoft

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to IT people don’t bash Windows

        If anyone was actually responsible it was IBM who produced the first Open Architecture Computer platform for the PC. Of course they stitched up a deal with MS for software & an OS which every clone then copied. Even today we still refer to anything that is a PC as an IBM Clone. MS where only there as a side issue and it could have been any number of other players who got into bed with IBM. Of course it was Bill Gates who sold his product hard and cheap to IBM working on the idea of making a little money per unit and that would make him quite a lot of money over all with all the sales of IBM PC’s. But he didn’t offer the same deals to the White Box makers as IBM had and that was where he really racked in the money.Even at the time IBM accepted that the products that MS had where by no means the best but they cover a wide range so it saved the Powers the Be at IBM needing to negotiate with several of the top line software providers for something that MS could supply at a fraction of the price. This suited both Bill Gates and MS in general until they wanted to make a copy of a Unix Prototype and that was where the marriage soured between the two as IBM wanted to keep the PC on DOS and the real computers on Unix. Their original idea was to have the PC as a “Home” computer where it belonged and never be allowed into a business environment where a Real computer with a decent OS and an already established Security Network Existed. DOS was never intended to be secure and everything that has come since has retained this basic design premise.

        MS has not been responsible for driving the prices down at all but the number of units that are now available and the over production is what is responsible.

        Really it wasn’t all that long ago when we where paying 1 K per MEG of RAM and thinking just how cheap that was now for that amount of money we can not only buy 1 MEG of RAM but a complete computer with several GIG of RAM installed and Windows & Office installed. Of course the MS software accounts for roughly half the buying price of the computer. As prices of the hardware has come down the cost of the software has either remained roughly the same or gone up in price and when compared to the cost of the hardware it has dramatically increased in value.

        Col ]:)

        • #3195588

          Thought

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t because of Microsoft

          Don’t you think anything that is heavily automated (by machines say on an assemby line) will eventually come down in price?

          Then, you also have those that have mastered the distribution such as Dell.

          Software, on the other hand, won’t come down as fast but will come down.

          With the exception of intregrated IDE’s and such, outsourcing with cheaper labor, etc software has less wiggle room.

          It still takes highly paid professionals to write code (obviously not all software is written by professionals…side note). But now a $10 teenager can build a PC and in massive quanitites.

        • #3195474

          already happened

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Thought

          You say that software won’t come down in cost as fast, but will come down.

          It has already dropped as far as it can go. You can have some of the best software in the world for free, right now. This is the consequence of the open source development model. I, for one, love that.

        • #3190950
          Avatar photo

          But 10 -15 years ago these current $10.00 teenagers

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Thought

          Would have being paying to do the same thing as then it was “Cool” and they could build the same hardware in the same numbers but the price was still much higher.

          Do you remember when the first CDR became available we where paying $25.00 AU per disk and thinking just how cheap that was to have 700 MEG of storage space. Now the same thing only costs a few cents and these where never US made they where all made in Third World countries but at the time they could charge a premium as the supplies where not great enough. Just lick Flat Screen monitors a few years ago they where horrendously expensive but with the current over supply the price has had to come down so they still sell.

          Now the main reason that the cost of Hardware has dropped so significantly is the amount being made. So it is cheaper by virtue of volume.

          Software on the other hand isn’t cheaper it is about the same price but it still costs the same to actually write and they are selling millions of copies instead of a few hundred thousand that where being sold previously.

          As an example the old Space Invaders Chip that was used in the Arcade Games was several K each because they had to defray development costs against the expected number that would be sold. Then the PC market exploded and they no longer had to use a dedicated chip but could release the software as code and load it onto the then computers but even the very first Space Invaders modules as used by things like the Vic was only a few $ in comparison to what they used to be the same applies to the Z80 CPU, do you remember just how much one of those used to cost?

          Anyway even today there are numerous applications that are so cheap as not to be funny this is quite common with games for the home user. They can start off at extremely high prices and then drop to under $20.00 AU while they are still the current production unit. Now if this can happen with one piece of software like this which only has one unit per computer just like just about all Business Software why is it that the price of the software isn’t decreasing with the increase of sales of the product?

          Now realistically MS can not expect us to believe that they factor in the cost for development of their software and the development costs are so great as to make it necessary to keep the price stable like it constantly is being kept.

          Just how do they justify this? The costs involved in prototyping a CPU and then making the masks for it for production are very high but even still we are seeing the CPU prices constantly dropping as well as the RAM prices which use the same technology to produce and there are ongoing costs in making hardware where as software other than the occasional Patch and Service Pack can remain the same for long periods of time without change to what is sold over the counter. Also with Hardware you own it but with Software all you are actually doing is buying the right to use it and you don’t even actually own the CD/DVD that it comes on.

          Col ]:)

        • #3190911

          software development cost

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to But 10 -15 years ago these current $10.00 teenagers

          Software development cost is even further being called into question, now that people are starting to notice that things like Linux, Apache, the X Window System, and so on are available free of charge and have been available thusly for twenty years in some cases, and they’re still being developed. New such projects are starting all the time, and you can still get them free of charge.

          What’s the major malfunction at Microsoft? Why does a new release of Windows cost $350 when the equivalent in Linux can be downloaded and burned to CD for the cost of the electricity and the CD?

        • #3190683

          Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          by sudheer_tp ·

          In reply to software development cost

          I agree with all of ur arguments.

          Unix is very good OS no second thought about it. But do u think that Non-teche people are comfortable to use it. They will say oh no computer is not for me.

          Just back in end of 90?s when Linux was introduced how many people wr interested in using it. Since more and more people r started helping open source OS by giving more tips and developed friendly OS. Now becz it has improved a lot and with more and more friendly GUI common people r thinking about it. If not no non-teches and common people would have thought of using the same old Linux.

          Even what may be the hardware if more and more people r started using it then the cost of hardware will go down considerably becz of manufacturing cost.

          See for an example if u want to manufacture a car it may cost u in $10K. (This is an example I am giving, don?t ask me car). Think of the raw material cost and man-hour spend for it etc., Initially u have to make prototype model, once it is though u had to bring out the production model. For these entire process it will cost u about $10k. To bring out a working production model of car initially has to spend lot of money etc.,. Once first car is out using the same process you can manufacture more car for very less price like around $5K. This will happen only if more and more people started using ur car. If not ur overhead will be very high. Just think the price of first car and next 10 cars. It will be lot of difference. I cannot explain all the process to manufacture a car.

          Another simple example, think of ur TV, now u may have around 200- 300 channels, and on each channels u can watch same number of programs. Just thing only one program is telecasting in all the 300 channels, do u think the new TV?s with all high-fi technology is worth to use. No-way just u can have old TV with 5 to 10 Channels is good for ur purpuse. Same way once different peoples started giving different programs in different channels, then whatever the new development on technology will be useful.

          I am the first person to thanks IBM for introduing the PC for common man. But just thing that how can u expect common man to work on UNIX or Linux with out user friendly. Since Microsoft introduced very user friendly OS, which can be, used by any non-teches and even common man without any knowledge of computers.

          So even though IBM etc., people developed hardware for fewer prices, if people are not using it then it is nouse to the world.

        • #3186149
          Avatar photo

          But you can say exactly the same thing about DOS

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

          As well as Windows 3X they where hardly the most user friendly OS’s out there at the time where they?

          I have one customer who sells heavy earthmoving equipment and when I got him his first computer he was under the impression that all he had to do was sit in front of it and it would do everything for him, {way too much Hollywood there,} he didn’t even know how to turn it on let alone what the DOS prompt was for. I think it was one of the early Pentiums back then or maybe even a 486 but he worked his way through the various incarnations of Windows and eventually spat the dummy with XP Pro.

          I then loaded his new Notebook with Linux Lycoris Desktop LX and he’s never looked back. He finds it easy to use is more than happy with the user interface and is constantly blaming me for not giving him Linux previously and making him suffer through Windows. The number of times that he managed to loose data and other things was terrible he just wants to sit down at his LT and work. He’s not the slightest bit interested about how it works or why it works just that it works for him and he now has a Broadband Internet connection for the speed that he didn’t consider as necessary only a year ago now. After all he had a dial up modem why did he need anything faster?

          Currently he is now in the Philippines with a Wireless hub so he can move around his house and even into the back yard and work with his LT. From a guy who didn’t want to know the first thing about computers or why they would be of any use to him he now constantly carries a LT Digital camera and portable printer so he can spit out papers while he is on site for his job. When he gets home he just plugs in a 21 inch monitor a Keyboard & mouse, a USB Scanner and a printer one of the Canon ones with individual ink tanks that prints CD Faces which he was violently apposed to when he originally got this latest one last year but now claims that he can not live without..

          Now 5 – 8 years ago he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the office to send an E-Mail and today you can not prize the LT out of his hands no matter what. Both printers can take photos directly from the camera and print them if required and he doesn’t have an ounce of trouble coping images from the camera to the LT and then attaching them to an E-Mail, he couldn’t live without it. When he first got a computer he was scared of the thing and was constantly complaining about just how hard they where to work with and why did you have to talk differently to what real English was?

          The first time I told him to reboot the computer over the phone he asked did he need to disconnect the leads before he kicked it out the door. Now from that point to where he is now took a lot of effort and a willingness on his part to learn how to use the thing. He has moved from not wanting to touch the thing in any form to changing outgoing ISP when he is on International Trips without a second thought. Late last year or earlier this year he actually parked an excavator on one of his work computers because it was too slow for him to even consider using.

          Now if a person like this can learn anyone can. The only reason that he wanted to use a computer initially was to make it easier to get sales now he finds it impossible to do his job without one constantly tied to his hand. I even got an inverter to plug into the cigarette lighter in his car so he could charge up the batteries in the LT, Printer and camera while he’s driving and that is now part of his permanent equipment that he constantly carries with him whenever he goes away on trips.

          But as I constantly am telling him that when he originally started using Windows there was no easy product to use except maybe for the Apple and they where far too expensive in comparison to the stuff that he had then.

          Col

        • #3186132

          PC History 101

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to No it wasn’t because of Microsoft

          What we now call the personal computer was about for a few years before IBM and MS got involved. It was the dual involvement of IBM and MS at the right time in the right manner that allowed the PC to take off. Prior to that the thinking was that micro computers (their name then) and their software would only be used by higher learning institutions, research facilities and govt bodies. This meant that the high R&D costs were spread out over an estimated sales a between 5 to 25 thousand units; average unit with basic software set up was around A$20,000 or more.

          IBM decided to try and hit the general public with their verion, the PC, and got software from MS. Both were calculating their costs and sales on the basis of millions of sales, and thus had lower per capita cost structures. At that time all software was hardware specific and each company protected their designs and architecture. IBM made their design and architecture available to everyone on licence at US$1 per licence, thus anyone could now make computers like the IBM ones very cheaply. Soon IBM clones flooded the market and became the PC standard, as did the MS software designed for that architecture.

          MS also sold their software to the general public at about 5% of the cost of their opponents at that time. This allowed them to get the lion’s share of the new general public market that was all but created by the cheap IBM clones and MS software. Since then other market pressures have been driving the hardware development and costs.

          However, MS goes to greta lengths to maitain their current price structure and have done so since the introduction of Win 95, which was based on uncopyrighted code stolen from Apple.

          Unix predated DOS and MS and Linux is a rewritten evrsion of Unix – all this time people have seen Unix and Linux as more stable, however it is only recently that they have both started aiming at the ‘any fool can load and use’ end of the market.

          the tech knowledge needed to load and use Unix and Linux was exactly the same as that needed to load and use MS DOS and Win 3.x. The introduction of automatic wizards in Win 95 to allow non tech users to install and load hardware and software was what enabled MS to pull away from the others in the general use market. That gap has now closed with the latest distributions of the other O/Ss.

          However we still have the root cause of the bashing which is due to MS promises re better software that are not delivered, software with faults that should have been fixed at the kernel level in earlier versions as they have been knwon about for years. yet they still charge big dollars for software with known faults and claim they are fixed and better. And that lying pisses people off.

    • #3195640

      Agree, choice is the true way to make a statement

      by m411tech ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I agree that all OS software has it use and some are better than other in specific configurations. The problem that I think people have with Windows OS is that they have taken a large market portion with their in the PC box marketing and now novices are hard to convert. Goes back to the people not choosing to try something new or different.

    • #3195637

      ~chuckle

      by jaqui ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Being pro-Linux and anti-MicroSoft is fine, but there may be a better time and place to wear your “I’d rather die than deal with MS” t-shirt than at a support group for people with multiple sclerosis.

    • #3191001

      Nobody bashes the guy on the bottom

      by crossleyc ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Microsofts foothold in the OS market is what opens them up to scrutiny. For some reason the guy on top is the one that gets bashed.

      • #3190938
        Avatar photo

        Microsoft doesn’t have a strangle hold on the Desktop

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Nobody bashes the guy on the bottom

        They do have the bulk of office desktops but there are still numerous sections of the market where any Windows system will just not fit. Anything that involves vast amounts of number crunching to achieve the desired output will not in the foreseeable future be running Windows just as the same applies that the Data input side of the industry will retain Windows as the OS of choice.

        The people who think that MS owns the desktop have just fallen for the marketing hype that MS pushes so hard. Just as one example all the high end Graphic rendering places do not have Windows on their workstations only in the accounting sections where the operators are not highly trained.

        Similarly in a even small Blade Array with a few hundred CPU’s can you imagine just what the costs of Deploying Windows Server products would be? Even if it was scalable enough to actually perform the job!

        Just grab a copy of MS’s financial reports to the Stock Exchange and you’ll find that they are listing Linux as a growing threat to their income and they have to do this by Law. If you grab a copy of the last few years reports you’ll see a growing impact on the income of MS which I can not see being turned around in the short term as MS just doesn’t have a product to compete in this part of the industry.

        Col ]:)

      • #3190812

        That’s true but…

        by hagrinas ·

        In reply to Nobody bashes the guy on the bottom

        I remember when the IT industry fell into two camps: “Only IBM can save us,” or “IBM over my dead body.” IBM deserved both the credit and the blame for the way they were back then. They dominated the industry, but they were not the most open company to deal with.

        I remember going to a Microsoft convention when they were going to release Internet Explorer (ver 3 perhaps?) It was still an add-on. By that time, Microsoft was already difficult to deal with, and at a trade conference such as that one, I would have expected to be able to meet with developers and discuss issues. Instead, if I called any of the speakers to the carpet over why things didn’t really work the way they said, the standard answer was that I could call Microsoft and pay them if I wished to discuss my problems.

        By that time, any IBM conferences I went to were completely different. By then, I had unprecedented access to the developers who wrote the code being discussed. IBM had changed its long time strategy of having its top people as developers and then passing the code off to a maintenance group. They decided instead to make the developers responsible for maintenance. That way, the developers heard first hand from users who had problems, and had to learn how the software was being used in the real world. Far from being adversaries, the developers were people I knew I could count on if I ever had an issue.

        IBM may have lost its dominance, and I may not have used a mainframe for many years now, but at least they gained some integrity, while MS became the monster that IBM used to be.

    • #3190898

      Big Sales Make A Big Target

      by sean ross ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      True. Microsoft has it’s shortcomings.
      But if their products did not sell we would not be having this discussion. So my answer is economic success. Real or imagined. 🙂

      I have used most operating systems created since 1982. Most worked well for their given purpose at the time. And had no problem with most of them.

      P.s. The bashing I have generally heard is from either close mined folks. Or Li/U/nix sys admins. Sometimes, they are even one in the same.

      • #3190824

        That just isn’t the case

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to Big Sales Make A Big Target

        How do you explain market leaders like Apache not getting bashed?

        MS has issues with security and stability that have yet to be fixed. Most admins also find it to be lacking in the capacity of a server…so, MS gets bashed because they market as a pancia, but in reality it only fits in certain places.

      • #3190819
        Avatar photo

        Well in that case what category

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Big Sales Make A Big Target

        Do I fall into?

        I’m a consultant who works with everything and sell what a client requires to do a job. Now that could be MS Windows, some form of Nix, BSD or any other number of offerings depending on the job that is being done and what software is required as mission critical. 😉

        Now it would be silly to put Linux desktops into an accounting section of a company but by the same token it would be impossible if I tried to sell Windows to a CG company who’s main business was making special effects for movies. 🙂

        While I’m no great MS lover it isn’t because of the product but the business practices of the company they are constantly driving me nuts with the way that they do business. I can attend a Partners Meeting one week and then the next give a quote for a entire network and Volume License Software and then when I go to buy it like last time I was told that I had to buy 8 copies of XP Pro and Office Pro and then I could pay a License Fee for the Volume License for the 8 workstations in a small business.

        Now maybe it’s just me but paying twice for the same thing doesn’t make any business sense to most people who are buying the product.

        If you went out and bought a new car tomorrow with cash would you expect a bill of a similar amount to arrive several days latter for the same thing before you could pick it up? This is what happened in the last case where I put in a Volume License and then they added Software Assurance on top of the total costs. I really thought this was outrageous particularly as before I gave the quote I actually rang up the suppliers and got a firm price for the required software and 3 days latter when I went to buy it I was told it was going to be just about 100% more. Granted I really do not think that the person who was selling the stuff knew what it was that they where doing but I didn’t get a refund either like was promised. I really do not mind paying for one item and then additional licenses even if they are 90% of the OEM price but just under 200% of the OEM price is unacceptable. :^O

        But even then it wouldn’t be all that bad if only the things worked all right and I didn’t have numerous service calls to fix up the Software that had broken or defaulted back to a configuration which I had disabled for security and maintenance purposes. 🙁

        Col ]:)

        • #3186087

          why do you say this:

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Well in that case what category

          Now it would be silly to put Linux desktops into an accounting section of a company

          since accpac makes thier software for linux as well
          and gnucash is equal to quickbooks / simply accounting.

          there isn’t a lack of accounting software for linux to warrant saying it’s useless in an accounting department.

        • #3182373
          Avatar photo

          Actually Jacqui

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to why do you say this:

          I was thinking about the Self Important Accountants not the available programs. 😀

          You know that 25 Accounts don’t have a single brain cell between then don’t you?

          At one place where I worked if you where caught using a company car for illegal purposes it meant instant dismissal which was fair enough. But it got ridiculous one day when the police walked in arrested one guy for stealing old railway sleepers before they where destroyed and he was handed his Pink Slip as being taken away for questioning. Two hours latter the same Police showed up said we don’t want this guy he lent his company car to so and so we want to speak to the Head Accountant who had the car at the time in question. He was guilty as sin and it was him that arranged the change of cars for the weekend to one of the most junior staff in the place who felt obligated to do as he was being asked. It only took me half a day to have my tech reinstated but the Accountant was never fired and he kept the stolen sleepers and didn’t even pay for them or get charged. To this day I think you’ll find then used as a retaining wall at his house if he is still living there. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3182325

          okay..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Actually Jacqui

          that I understand and agree with..

          ~ducking and running for cover.. bookkeeper mom, accountant sister and brother in law….~

        • #3182137
          Avatar photo

          Actually Mate maybe it’s just me

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to okay..

          But when you let an accountant run a business they seem to destroy it with alarming regulatory.

          Three of the places that I used to work at had Accountants appointed to run the place when we where making a decent profit and being competitive in the market place and on every occasion they trashed the companies without a ounce of trouble. Two of the three no longer exist as they have been wound up by the banks who appointed the Accountants to run them and the third isn’t far behind. All of these companies in their time where considered as the Best in their field and where industry leaders. They where the yard stick by which other companies where measured and found wanting, now they are no longer there and their products where not bad but their management was abysmal which caused them to go broke. One of the places actually sold off a production model because they where getting more orders than they could actually produce talk about a short term profit for a long term loss. :^O

          Instead of spending a little bit of money to increase production capacity they sold off their most salable model and wondered why they couldn’t regain their market share. 😀

          Even now I’m constantly being told by my accountant how to run my business and if I followed their advice I would be broke within a year and unable to pay the staff within 6 months. One day just to peeve him off I’ll take all my paperwork to him in a shoe box and say here’s my accounts do my tax. :^O Now that should shut the mongrel up. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3182132

          I hear ya…

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Actually Mate maybe it’s just me

          accountants can run an accounting business…maybe.
          but not any other business, the decisions required do not make sence in accounting terms, so an accountant will always destroy a non accounting business.

        • #3182062

          The evil of accountants. plus

          by raven2 ·

          In reply to Actually Mate maybe it’s just me

          Yes, accountants are the bain of existance. However, it has been my experience that if marketers are running a company, they are selling things that do not exist. If engineers are running the company they make great products but no one ever hears about them; if an entrepreneur is running a company, it is trying to do 6 things that will never get completed. If you have a MBA, you get the latest fad management trend, with no leadership. With accountants you see the profits spike as they sell off the assets to “boost the bottom line” and “enhance shareholder profits”, then it craters. There is no replacement for good forward thinking management. Let me know when you find some.

        • #3181799
          Avatar photo

          Well actually at one of the places where I worked

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Actually Mate maybe it’s just me

          We had a “Failed Engineer” run the place and he did a great job, we had an excellent product that was second to none and it was being used to set the benchmark for costs and what the Industry could charge for a product not what it was worth. While our products did offer value for money a lot of the opposition stuff didn’t and there was even one place who where nothing but thieves who brought directly and sold door to door at such an inflated price it wasn’t funny.

          Eventually we had to take action against them because they where using a Brand name very similar to ours and using our good name to take down non informed customers who would be ringing us for service.

          What you need at any organization is a good mix where the designers design the product, the manufacturing Department makes the goods the Marketing department advertises the goods and the Accounting Department minimizes the taxable income of the company. The problems really start when the lines between these different sections of the organization start getting blurred.

          Today that is what has happened as the “Bottom Line” is all that is important and the time frames are from one AGM to the NEXT so they are only thinking in 12 month cycles for the share holders benefit in the short term and there is no long term program in place. When this happens that is always the beginning of the end for any company and while they may linger on for quite a while they are nothing but a spent force selling rubbish as they can no longer see the big picture and continue to produce the quality range of products that originally got them to the Market Leader position that they once where.

          One of the places where I worked had a record of 1,600 in 1 month generally we ran around selling 1,200 per month and this was in the days before PC’s so I’m guessing that you can imagine the money involved. 😉

          Now after an accountant was brought in to run the company they no longer exist. The first thing that was done was to reduce the Tech as they didn’t bring in sales. 😀

          And after the Techs had been fired the sales dropped dramatically so more staff had to be laid off to cut costs and the cycle continued to spiral down. Just because the Techs didn’t have their names on the sales dockets they mustn’t have been involved in sales but the majority of the sales generated where at the recommendations of the Techs who them passed the customers onto the sales staff with exactly what was required and the sale was already completed it only needed the paper work filled in.

          Col ]:)

    • #3190826

      Why not?

      by erekose mcne ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Microsoft is arrogant. They were convicted of wrongdoing in court but managed to get no penalty or punishment for their crimes. Curious. For those of you who remember DR DOS MS admitted that they had code in Windows 3.1 and 3.11 that would render any version of DOS other than IBM or MS useless and unstable. They blamed it on a “rebel programmer”. Sure. Their answer to DR and Novell was to “take us to court. By the time you get there it won’t matter to us anymore.” They got away with it in the past and continue to do so. This company needs to be broken up!!! They are a truly evil monopoly. They wrote an unstable desktop OS and based upon that design, created a Network OS. With the help of the millions of zombies who don’t know better and the spin doctors that can turn crap into $$$ most folks bought the product. It is not LDAP compliant and has more security holes big enough to drive a tractor trailer through than anything else out there. It was never designed right nor will they ever be able to fix it properly. Take a look at Vista. Steal a little from Linux this time why don’t you? Be prepared to trash all your software that doesn’t work with the new file system (which will probably be all). People are tired of making huge investments every time they enhance a product. Microsoft doesn’t innovate. They just steal others ideas, make IT headaches with their bloated unstable code and destroy anyone who can do something better,and destroy emails. Remember three times at least before it can be undeleted for next time Bill.

      • #3190818

        It was worse than that

        by hagrinas ·

        In reply to Why not?

        They also refused to let DR see any beta versions of Windows 3.1, even though they knew that Windows would not run under DR DOS at all at the time. DR managed to get their hands on it anyway and figured out that MS had undocumented hooks in the code, but MS wanted to make it clear that theirs was the “real” DOS, which was ironic given how much they stole from CP/M, which was a DR product.

    • #3190825

      Why, Why !!!

      by rjdrjd ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I suspect most bashing of Microsoft and Windows specifically is because the IT guys don’t have any better ideas that work commercially. And most older IT professionals invested in CPM instead of MSDOS. I’ve been developing software since 1965 and have used virtually all languages, most OSs, mainframes, etc; but by far, Windows is the best thing to happen to the non-IT person, family, office than ANY other IT invention or development (except maybe Intel).

    • #3190823

      Wrong

      by hagrinas ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      If an operating system crashes, or if any program crashes for that matter, it is NEVER the fault of the user. That’s just plain bad programming. Good programming means that you account for what a user might do wrong as well as what a user might do right.

      A good operating system should never crash under any circumstances. In the early days of Windows when it was typical for many users to experience crashes daily, the mean time between failures for more robust operating systems such as mainframes was once in 14 YEARS. Since then, mainframes have gotten much more reliable, and Windows is still poor.

      A few decades ago, I instituted a policy at work requiring all software that my staff wrote to have a standard error routine. It captured critical data, including the values of each variable, and where the program was when things blew up. It looked up the relevant developer in the database and emailed this information to him/her automatically. If the contact was not on file, it sent it to a general email address (mine) so somebody would fix things.

      I found that most of the time, when something blew up, the user would not bother to report it. I also found that if the problem came after the user did something wrong, the user was even less likely to call.

      There were times that I notified users that the problem that they encountered was fixed, and they replied that it was their fault because they did something wrong. I told them that if the program blew up, it was something the programmer did wrong; it should have given them an appropriate error message.

      If a user has an incorrect driver, the OS should give the user an error message, not blow up. If Microsoft could not figure out how to do that, then they deserve every bit of bashing they get.

      An exception to this is required maintenance. If Microsoft fixed something in the OS itself, and the user did not keep current on fixes to the OS itself, then it’s the fault of the computer’s administrator. That might be the end user, or it might be his MIS group. But that’s different from falling behind on third party software maintenance. It’s acceptable for applications to blow up (assuming the OS did not cause it) as long as the OS does not go down with them. That’s from the OS point of view of course. From the application’s point of view, there’s no excuse for buggy software.

      It used to be that support existed for the sole purpose of fixing bugs. If you bought or licensed software, it was understood that it was supposed to work as documented. If something went wrong, it was up to the vendor to fix things, not wait for the next release, and then fix it only if they feel like it. Software support was not there to tell users how to use the software. That’s what the manuals and training classes were for. With the advent of the PC, quality went out the window, support became something for people who could not be bothered to read instructions, and companies often won’t even take error reports from users.

      And that’s especially true of Microsoft. They release “beta” versions of things without giving the end user any way to contact the developers. The whole purpose of beta is supposed to be so that any bugs can be fixed. But if they tell you that “it’s not supported since it’s beta, so you can’t complain to us,” then that defeats the whole purpose of even testing.

      • #3190809
        Avatar photo

        I have to agree whole heartily

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Wrong

        Particularly on the last bit about Beta Software Offerings from MS. While I still do work with these but now only on the finial Beta Release as the prior ones are just too buggy with no recourse to report problems to allow them to be fixed.

        MS beta stuff today is nothing more than market research with no follow up and really is a marketing ploy in an attempt to generate interest in the product so people will want to rush out and buy it just like the days of the release of Windows 95 where they had ques of people waiting for the official release like it was some major sporting event. :^O

        Now days I find it a lot easier to only work with the MS provided Time Bombs which are the trial versions of the actual product at least I do get support if I have any problems with that and MS get feed back as well.

        Col ]:)

    • #3190813

      The Real Reason

      by sternman ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Most veteran IT persons dont like Microsoft because MS has rendered their skills useless. And here is what I mean.

      Since MS has been making headway into organizations, they have been REDUCING the cost of software across the board. Everything they get into brings down the price significantly, from OS’s to Office product tools. As well, at the same time, increased the functionality that those product are offering.

      When you lower the price of anything, you will start to win market share. When you win market share, more people want to learn what you are selling, learn how to use and support it. IT guys who got their start in non-ms areas, are faced with skills that are on the way out, for the most part, and they are too old or stubborn to upgrade them.

      Had Sun, brought down the price of software significantly when they had an edge, then everyone would be hating Sun today, except for those who knew it all along.

      The general feel of IT hating windows is because for the most part, today, they dont use anything else on the desktop. If IT guys where troubleshooting Solaris 10 on 95% of the worlds computers, then everyone would has Sun. But that is not the case.

      Sun, Novell, IBM, Fujitsu, Oracle, SAP and so on, decided that they wanted to keep the price of software high. They would spend millions of dollars trying to figure out how many companies where in the fortune 2000. Those millions of dollars, although uselessly spent, only added to the high cost of software.

      MS saw a market space that was void of any major player. The big guys COULD have played there, they just chose not to. They chose to keep the price of thier software high. Poor planning maybe, or bullheadedness. Either way, those major players took a back seat while MS cleaned up with the market segment that had the most amount of money to spend on this stuff, the Small and Medium business. The market segment that today still cannot afford SAP or Oracle software. That is not MS’s fault. That is the fault of those software companies.

      So any IT guy who hates microsoft is just pissed off that the skills they learned from the company that HAD the chance and didn’t dominate the market place.

      You cannot win at software if you leave out the most important market segment, and that is the one with the deepest pockets (accumulatively).

      Sell 2000 copies of your software for $20,000,000 or 40,000,000 copies of your software for $1000. It is the same thing.
      So, who is going to win?

      • #3190805

        Nonsense!

        by hagrinas ·

        In reply to The Real Reason

        Microsoft has done just the opposite. They always start off with software being cheap, and even give it away in the beginning. But then the price goes up once the competition is gone.

        I first had Windows 2.x and it was free. It was bundled with the machine. (Not that people actually used it, but it was there.) When Windows 3.0 came out, it was cheap. Even Windows 95 was in the $60 range.

        MS DOS was very cheap compared to the competition, and considering that the original PC was over $3000 (at a time when $19,000/year was a good salary) the OS was a minor part of the cost.

        MS gave away Windows and made it cheap until MS was dominant. Now I can get a decent PC for $300, but if I wanted to upgrade my machines at home to the latest version of Windows, I’d be set back $500.

        MS bundled Word almost for free. A competitive upgrade copy of the whole Office suite was well under $100. And the competition still is. But as the competition and MS continued to leapfrog each other in terms of features and usability, MS waited until their office product was dominant and raised the price through the roof. That was after signing contracts with vendors giving them the suite almost free if they bundled it, provided that they bundled it with ALL machines. Otherwise, the per-copy price was prohibitive. In other words, they gave it away until users got used to it and it became dominant.

        Whenever they saw something as a threat, they came up with a competing product for “free.” They saw Xtree as a threat since it was becoming a de facto user interface, so they made their file manager almost as good, so users would not buy from the competition. But it wasn’t really free since the price of Windows continued to rise. And realistically, file managers were never a historical OS feature anyway; they were utilities.

        When Netscape was cheap ($35 or less) and dominated the browser market, MS gave away a version of a browser for free. Until Netscape was almost out of the picture, that is. Then they released XP with a sky high price tag, that is more than the copy of the original Windows and all the add-on software combined. So it’s not really free at all.

        The one thing in the industry that did NOT keep pace with dropping prices was Microsoft.

        Even in the mainframe days, something such as OfficeVision was $20,000. PC users looked at PC email software (not suites, but email only) at $35/copy and marveled at how cheap it was. But if you did the math, you found out that you got a bit more than 500 copies for the price of the mainframe suite, and had to install it on every single PC, while OV supported thousands of users at that price, and handled documents. And these days, you are expected to get email as part of an Office suite that costs hundreds of dollars per user.

        Microsoft is more expensive across the board no matter how you look at it, once you factor everything in. Linux is cheaper. Mainframes are cheaper. It would not surprise me if Macs work out cheaper too.

        • #3186083

          This is exactly correct!

          by quantumetrics ·

          In reply to Nonsense!

          I was there at the time, and yes, this is exactly the strategy Microsoft employed in the early 80s to achieve its industry domination.

          I repeat that Microsoft is a marketing company, not a technology company. Its behavior in the marketplace makes this crystal clear.

      • #3182419

        Utter Rubbish

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to The Real Reason

        As a software developer my skills are not limited to any platform, hardware, operating system, language.
        I am a programmer. I take complex tasks, break them into simple steps. The only thing the environment I’m working in does is define the granularity of those steps and how efficiently they are made.
        I’ve programmed in many environments and the ones I haven’t I’ll put my house on that I could.

        Don’t buy into HR’s view of IT. The skills of support, design, adminstration etc transcend environments, they are merely the syntax of how those abilities are implemented, a difference of mere degree. Now that might be a problem, but windows is dumbed down overall which means competent non-ms people have more skills than it requires.

    • #3190804

      No wonder they give Linux away

      by lost_one ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Try pulling your heads out of your Linux a$$es for awhile.

      Why is Linux so great? It won’t even run over half the programs my business needs. No wonder they give it away.

      Might be ok for servers, but for desktops it sucks!!

      • #3190727

        What programs do you need to run?

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to No wonder they give Linux away

        What doesn’t run in Windows that you need? Can you use VMWare? Can you use Aclerex? http://www.aclerex.com/

        The desktop market is ruled by ignorance and FUD; not by fact.

        • #3190717

          blah blah blah Are you Vegan?

          by wordworker ·

          In reply to What programs do you need to run?

          Fact: Not one single person in any of these threads has testified that a single corporation ANYWHERE has made a Linux desktop a corporate standard. If any exist, let them speak up. It is not fud, it is not ignorance. It is the way the world is. Deal with it. If you want to promote a Linux revolution, you need to change your tactics. Currently, you sound like a vegeterian whining about the proliferation of McBurgers. I can hear it now, “You’re only eating meat because you don’t UNDERSTAND vegeterianism.”

          Have you tested SAP clients, or any other “desktop” application under those Win-emulators? Name one. Show us your results. Else, you are giving the Linux community a bad name.

          If the Linux desktop options are such viable options to replace Wintel desktops, name the companies that use them as end user workstations.

          Edit: I am not anti-Linux. I recommend or make decisions about desktop and server solutions and purchases to companies of varying sizes quite frequently. Neither I nor my clients have the time nor patience to wade through an alphabet soup of open-source desktop options looking for one that works – not while the Windows workstations work just fine. But if you can show proof and not just spew unsubstantiated claims, corporate IS decision makers will listen.

        • #3190699
          Avatar photo

          Well actually I’m a Vogan and I’m here to recite some poetry

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to blah blah blah Are you Vegan?

          But if you want just one company that uses a NIX on the desktop try Industrial Light & Magic. There isn’t a single Windows box on the face of this planet that is capable of doing the work that those desktops do. 😀

          Col ]:)

          time to go out and kill yourself. :p

          Now for the poetry. 🙂

        • #3186140

          Thank you, Hal, that’s 1.

          by wordworker ·

          In reply to Well actually I’m a Vogan and I’m here to recite some poetry

          They would probably take offense at being characterized as corporate, but you’re off to a good start.

        • #3186126
          Avatar photo

          Well as they where the first I thought that they

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Thank you, Hal, that’s 1.

          Should be shown some consideration. Even Star Trek used IL&M for their Next Generation, Deep Space 9 and part of Voyager.

          But if you really want to have a good look at companies/organizations who use some form of Nix predominately then most of the Big ISP’s, every heavy duty Graphic Rendering place, most of the printing shops the big ones who may have Windows on the desktop for the front counter staff but a version of Nix in the real work area. Any place with even part way medium Blade Arrays. Then there are the places with the big Blades and mainframes like Banks and Financial Institutions.

          Col ]:)

        • #3186086

          well another one

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Thank you, Hal, that’s 1.

          mainframe entertainment.
          they only use sgi, with custom written software.

          thier products:
          reboot,
          transformers,
          beasties,

          all 3d graphics animations and none of it done on an ms based machine.

        • #3182380
          Avatar photo

          Then there are the

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to well another one

          Japanese Animation Houses which now days do it all in CG.

          There are a whole rash of them out there and I’m seeing a lot more of their products on the shelves as well now.

          Col ]:)

        • #3182324

          and………

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to well another one

          LUCASFILM!!!!

          they wanted Maya, and they wanted it on LINUX for one movie.
          aias-wavefront ported maya to linux for lucasfilm for the one movie, it’s on the market now because of that.
          ( softimageXSI being the other well known professional 3d modelling animation tool on linux )

        • #3186044

          one each, corporate and government

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to blah blah blah Are you Vegan?

          How about Disney? They’ve deployed Linux desktops with WINE running Photoshop.

          How about Munich? The German city is migrating everything from Windows to Linux.

          While we’re at it, I’m interviewing on Monday with a company that needs a Windows/Linux administrator whose desktops are 80% or so Linux. Those who use Windows do so by choice, not out of need. A Terminal Services server provides access to Visio and PowerPoint for those occasions when such are needed by the Linux users.

        • #3062403

          SAP client

          by choppit ·

          In reply to blah blah blah Are you Vegan?

          I haven’t used it personally but I believe that a java based SAP client is available.

    • #3190746

      How do you define usefulness?

      by archaeop ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Let’s not confuse “has its uses” with “has strengths and weaknesses”. M$ made a fortune by getting credibility from IBM, then ensuring that programs stayed binary compatible for 25 years. That, combined with an “amazing” feature-list has been unstoppable. Compatibility and rampant featuritis has had a cost though: It’s hard to build a feature-rich environment compatible with DOS and the 8/16 bit 8088 that is also stable.
      Don’t forget that when M$ got it’s start (and Apple, for that matter) hobbyist computers were $5000 (current dollars) for 32KB of RAM, a 180K floppy disk and a audio cassette for data storage. Every line of software written in that environment was a kludge. No one really expected it to work well. Unix was exclusively in $25K+ computers where they could afford things like hard disks and memory management.
      When WinNT came out, it had the features business wanted and was guaranteed job security for IT folks. Back in the day, the strength of Win was that you could upgrade your computers and still run your old programs, and given that your computer would crash anyway the extra features were cool.
      In this age of Thin/Zero clients, and the complete commoditization of desktop computing, the Windows weakness of having to be compatible with *everything*, layers upon layers of slightly buggy features may outweigh its strengths. That may be why IT folks bash Windows: It’s weaknesses are no longer forgivable.

    • #3186125

      hy – because we hate lying thieves

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Before I get started, I use both MS Windows and Linux, and have just spoken at length about how important MS was to the industry in the early days. This is done on an Win XP Pro system.

      Why do I dislike MS and Windows? Because I am sick and tired of being lied to by a bunch of hypocrytical thieves.

      MS keep telling us that they have fixed all the problems in Windows in each new release, and soon there after we get patches for problems that have been known about in previous versions, many that are years old. Why are they there – because MS did not review and rewrite the kernel code to fix the known problem. It is this constant need to fix known problems that should have been fixed pre release that pisses many people off.

      Add into that the troubles with their anti-piracy processes and you get some awfully upset people. I have one system that since I loaded XP Pro onto it I have had to reactivate it 9 times, 8 times due to changes in the hardware (2 being new HDDs) and one rebuild. They go to a lot of effort to protect the software that they built on code stolen from Apple.

      Then add in little things like automatic wizards that can not be turned off. I have a modem that was made in Australia and the manufacturer went to the trouble to get the operating softwrae for it certified by MS for sue with Win 98 and Win 2K. I have used it in a Win 2k System and later in a Win XP Pro system; load the Aust based MS certified software and at every reboot the MS wizard informs me that the drivers are damaged at automaticallyb replaces them with generic MS US based drivers. The modem manufacturers came up with a firmware update in 2002 and no longer bother getting their software certified. The updated equipment, and the new ones, will now work with the US drivers if you tell the system to ‘not wait for dialtone’. Only MS would create as system where software certified by them would be automatically replaced as faulty regardless of what the user wants.

      You will fiond that many people who complain about MS will continue to use their software as some of it does have uses in the business realm. However they are pissed off about the crap that MS put out and the cost of a MS based system is excessive for the home realm when you can get Linux based systems that are as good or better (depending upon personal view) for a fraction of the cost.

    • #3186058

      Religious reasons

      by ccollins ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I only bash the bishop.

      • #3185926

        All kidding aside

        by hagrinas ·

        In reply to Religious reasons

        When people use that phrase, they are generally talking about a dedication, not a dislike. When a C++ programmer extols the virtues of C++ over Java, we often hear the appellation of religion. But with Windows, it’s Windows users who are doing the bashing most often.

    • #3185966

      Great View

      by rsmith77 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I want to compliment Angus McLaren for a very insightful and balanced look at the bigoted views of the different OS’s. I have to agree that his opinion is exactly right. I am tired of proponents of a particular OS bashing other OS’s as well, since each does have its pros and cons.

      This will be a strange statement for me to make, but it is positive, but I want to thank and condemn those who have spent their useless time writing virus’, spyware, malware and the like, since it is providing all the OS’s the opportunity to move forward in discovering and plugging these holes and making the OS’s much better. I do as well condemn those who choose this path, since it does little harm to the OS manufacturers, but more damage to those who choose the type of OS they do, you have no right to cause them pain, and I look forward to your demise as the laws continue to become more and more favorable to prosecute those who choose to be so destructive. Enjoy you jail time and fines, I hope it was worth it.

    • #3185962

      Amen, brother!

      by gpederson019 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Telling it like it ought to be…

    • #3182321

      Why? I’ll tell you why!

      by johnmcgrew ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I’ve been developing custom apps for over 20 years now. Back then, that usually meant DOS-based database front-ends running on Novell servers. Even by today’s standards, those apps were nearly bulletproof, who’s only mortal enemies were either hard drive crashes or power starvation. It was a rare day when something went strange.

      Under Windows, “strange” is a nearly every-day occurence. When clients started migrating to the Windows environment, I was put into the uncomfortable position of having to try to explain why their new, modern, up-to-date Windows computers were completely unstable when compared to their DOS predecessors. Ordinary folk couldn’t (and still can’t) understand why a printer driver that worked yesterday no longer works today. Why does their 3-gigahertz PC with half-a-gig of RAM and SATA hard drive take 4 times as long to boot up than their 12-MHz 286 did 15 years ago?

      The Internet has made the support situation even worse. Non-geeks can’t comprehend why it’s possible that their systems should get infected with viruses & spyware, even if they don’t do anything.

      And finally, they don’t understand why with the cost of hardware falling to near insignificance when compared to what they paid 15 or 20 years ago, that their IT costs are skyrocketing. And that IT cost isn’t to implement new technology or capability, but to fix Windows so that stuff that ran just fine yesterday will still run today.

      • #3182307

        They have not yet enployed any modern programmers

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to Why? I’ll tell you why!

        All the MS staff still use the wild and woollie methods that Billy learnt.

        When I did a programming course a few eyars back I was taught that you included routines to ensure that your program cleared all memeory that it used and returned them to the system for use by other programs, the text book we used (dated 1990) confirmed this. yet very few MS apps do this basic maintenance task as part of their exit.

        In the bad old days of the 1960’s and 1970’s this was not a problem as the system automatically did a hardware flush and cleared all memory locations before running the next program. However, today we have the system up and running between programs and do not do a hardware flush between programs. Some O/Ss actualyy have a built in routine that checks that RAM is freed and returned when the program closes, Windows does not.

        The combined result is that you can crash MS O/Ss by opening and closing any basic MS application several times, it will crash due to having insufficeint memeory available as the memory taken by the app is never returned until the system reboots. At college the NT 4 system crashed after opening and closing Word 10 times.

        In 1998 I found a memory management program called MemTurbo and found that setting this to automatically check and clear RAM when it got down to 25% meant that the Win 95 system rarely crashed after that – same effect with every MS O/S since.

        There are many ways that you can tweak a MS box to make it work much faster and better – I want to know why the default set up for all MS O/Ss are at the most vulnerable and resource hogs that they can make them.

    • #3182264

      Huh?

      by svincent ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      “You don’t ever bash the OS, in fact if the OS crashes then it’s your fault not the OS”. You know I do agree that alot of times an OS crash can be linked back to the user. However, it is not always the user’s falut. I’ve seen plenty of patches bring down many perfectly functioning machines in my day. I’m pretty sure anyone who’s installed SP2 on multiple machines would agree with me. Anyway I don’t hate any OS, I have my prefrences but the all have their flaws.

    • #3182171

      Why?? Don’t you LIKE MS dictating to you??

      by gentlemiant ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      My problem with Windows is that it is a blackbox. Redmond can dictate when you must upgrade, how long you can get support, etc.

      Source is not easily available, and possession is in most cases illegal.

      Not for me in the long term.

      • #3194934

        The MS position on source code

        by quantumetrics ·

        In reply to Why?? Don’t you LIKE MS dictating to you??

        Microsoft’s philosophical stance on ownership of rights to, and usage of, source code seems curiously inconsistent …

        • #3194823

          What about UNIX’s

          by jrod86 ·

          In reply to The MS position on source code

          UNIX isn’t open source, you have to purchase the right to use it like HP and Sun have done. Linux is opensource…Just wanted to throw that out there.

        • #3181914

          Sure Unix is free open source

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to What about UNIX’s

          FreeBDS and OpenBSD pop to mind…

        • #3196282

          well . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Sure Unix is free open source

          There’s probably more BSD ancestry behind Solaris and HP-UX these days than AT&T code, but BSD isn’t technically a UNIX. The only reason for that, though, is the fact that UNIX (all-caps) is a trademarked term, and companies like Sun and HP have to license the name to use it.

        • #3053304

          Agreed

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to well . . .

          However, Free/Open BSD seem to “feel” so much like real Unix that most people would be hard pressed to find a difference…

          Don’t tell Mr. Whipple! 😉

        • #3053284

          of course they do

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Agreed

          There’s more owed to the Berkeley Software Distribution than any other single source in modern unices. It has been theorized at great length that the only reasons *BSD doesn’t carry the UNIX name are related to lack of interest in spending money on the certification and licensing, and perhaps some lingering annoyance over AT&T’s suit over supposed improper use of its code in BSD unix back in the day.

          In other words, *BSD [b]is[/b] “real” Unix. It’s just not trademarked UNIX.

        • #3051585

          AH! I see your point

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Agreed

          Once again…a little slow…more coffee please!

        • #3182083

          Ownership MS vs everyone else

          by raven2 ·

          In reply to The MS position on source code

          What is mine is mine,what is yours is negociable.

    • #3181998

      Bashing Windows

      by sdbett ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Angus,

      I understand that sytems (And people that deal with them) crash. There is also the supplied hardware issue. As a builder of “Mosheens” I am constantly buggd with DVDDo this-do-that” DVD drives that don’t recognise common disks. The sups say “Have you the latest drivers? DOH! The drivers come with the hardware and so-on etc.

      What is not happening is some form of standard.

      I also understand that “Numbs” who own machines wouldn’t know where to start to (1) Protect (2)Service their software (3) etc. etc.

      There is very little dif between the various OS types. What people need to learn ——- Is about computers as theytend to do with their cars (Differance being is that numbs in cars kill people, numbs with systems kill their systems).

      Finally, why when I try to correct spelling and grammardoes this flaming site deduct letters from my words?(GRRRRRRRRR).

      • #3181818
        Avatar photo

        Well in a Galaxy Far Far Away A Long Time Ago

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Bashing Windows

        I used to work with systems that held peoples life in their grubby little Silicon circuits. At the time I was only designing Race Cars and generally speaking it would only be a driver and maybe a few spectators killed if it suffered a catastrophic failure. But today everything is controlled by computers just try going to your local hospital and gaining access to your medical records you’ll most likely find you are reading the stored information on a monitor and there is no paper copy or even if there is a paper copy it isn’t easily available.

        So unless these systems work perfectly and never allow a fault to occur in the data that they retrieve peoples lives are in the hands of the IT people who keep these things running and they do control peoples ability to live or die. Just think on that for a little while I will not even consider the latest medical advances of allowing unskilled surgeons to perform operations under the supervision of someone else half a world away again by Silicon controlled circuitry that pushes both Video & audio signals to each of the people involved.

        Now the question is have the Microprocessor controlled pieces of hardware really had enough time to mature into a stable platform to allow this to occur?

        While you might say yes when you are perfectly healthy sitting in your office would you say the same thing if your life was depending upon this technology on a Windows Driven product?

        I know I wouldn’t and I don’t even trust the Windows Embedded pieces of hardware available as I’ve seen the same test performed with similar machines and different results achieved one with Embedded Windows XP showed the a perfectly all right person and the Linux Embedded one showed someone about to die from an infected Gall Bladder about to rupture. Both of these tests where performed within 20 minutes of each other and as a result the Windows Embedded Ultra Sound Machines are no longer considered as reliable while the Linux ones are. And just to top it all of the people responsible for repairing these things have no idea at all about anything IT they just follow a set test procedure and if it passes these tests it’s working OK as the manual say so. In one instance I saw a machine repaired and pass every test and then the transducers didn’t work as the tech didn’t actually physically test these it was done by the test procedure which only sent a signal to them and didn’t rely on a reflected response to pass the transducers.

        Just an observation from when I worked Medical equipment. 😉

        And being Embedded XP that wasn’t so long ago. 😀

        Col ]:)

    • #3196213

      from a non tech

      by danlm ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      As a programmer, and not as a tech. I have to admit that I moan and groan about windows. But, I will freely admit. That I like windows. I also moan and groan about my car. I have FreeBSD installed on my file server, and used AIX on the job for various functions.
      I use windows for my desktop, and actualy do alot of coding directly to my freebsd box from here over the network. I like unix because for what I am using it for, nothing else is running. I like the idea that I can configure it so only what I want to run, is running. I don’t want to use windows for those tasks, just because I want all my resources on those machines dedicated to those tasks. I doubt seriously I could configure windows to do that.
      But, from a desk top environment with regard to all the tools i have used. Windows, hands down. I see it becomeing bloated, but that is due to my fault of wanting to install more and more on it to assist in my daily activities. outlook, toad, oracle reports, explorer, viso, and the list goes on and on. All of those products I just listed are bloated in themselves, and just pile onto an os that is designed to fit as many needs as possible. But, it does allow for me to use those tools. And I require those tools to get my job done. So, all things said and done. Windows does offer a very nice desk top environment for someone in my position. And I do like it.
      I just look at things this way. Decide what you like about a product, and use it. What you don’t like, don’t use(don’t install). And if need be, uninstall it.

      Dan

      • #3053232

        Hey unfair using logic

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to from a non tech

        not allowed to do that in a good political discussion. Much of what you say is true. I have similar type issues and responses. However, I am getting extremely pissed with MS due to the activation system crap and all the bloat within the OS itself.

        I am about to try Mandrake Linux with WINE and see how ell that will run all my MS based apps – current feed back is that it should be better – will have to suck it and see. Got everything ready to rebuild the system with a new harddrive, just haven’t been motivated to do it for the last 5 weeks.

        • #3053181
          Avatar photo

          Or could it be that you’ve

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Hey unfair using logic

          Been playing Wet Nurse to so many Windows Boxes you can’t be bothered dragging yourself to doing it yet as you haven’t had the time available?

          Col ]:)

        • #3051464

          try using

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Hey unfair using logic

          crosover office professional.
          it is a more advanced version of wine.

    • #3196209

      Thanks for the laughs

      by tmcclure ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I’ve been reading through some of the replys. Thanks for the laughs everyone. I personally think Ford makes a better truck. After all mine has a 175k on it and I expect to make it to 200k. Of course it just also may have to do with the fact that I get an oil change every 3000 miles. But thats my opinion.

      • #3053231

        Toyotas are better

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to Thanks for the laughs

        In the last 35 years I have had many cars including two Toyotas that have each run over 900,000 kms without any major issues beyond expected maintenance. Local accident recently answered the big Aussie question of “Which is safer a Ford Ute or a Holden ute?” Answer was clear in an accident where a new Holden ute went head first into a new Ford ute on the highway at a combined speed of near 200 km per hour – both were totaled and everyone went to the morgue. Clearly no advantage by either brand.

        • #3053174
          Avatar photo

          Now that is just plain unfair

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Toyotas are better

          You know that the air bags killed them in that collision don’t you?

          Give me a stock standard 65 VW Beetle any day of the week factory fresh and you’ll find that is one of the most reliable cars ever unless of course it came from my factory in which case it will drink more fuel than a 747 on takeoff, be as rough as guts to drive around in, set off the new vehicle car alarms at 100 feet and generally be fun to drive although at 8 Miles per Gallon it is a tad expensive to drive. 🙁

          But they are fun to drive. I had one guy with a 5 Lt Chevy thinking that the speedio in the VW was a Tacho and even when I stopped the car and allowed him to actually look and see the speedio cable running to the front left hand wheel he still didn’t believe it. He muttered something about “A Freak of Nature.” 😀

          But from a survivability point of view an early 70’s Mercedes is about the best on the road and one of the cheapest to keep on the road provided you electrify the bonnet emblem to electrocute children who try to steal them. :^O

          Col ]:)

        • #3051724

          Auto Fraud

          by raven2 ·

          In reply to Now that is just plain unfair

          I don’t know how your system works, but on this side US it is widely known that SUVs or uts as you call them are not repeat not built to passenger car safety standards. They are classed as trucks and therefor have lower safety engineering standards. We have a lot of fools who think bigger is better, not realizing that chances of being injured in the standard SUV is 2 to 3 times greater than the standard sedan. And your chances of killing someone else is 4 times greater. I see many of these reality challenged folks who have fancy SUVs that have never even been on a dirt road let alone a place where the “offroad” capability is needed. Marketing is amazing.

        • #3051666

          Different down under

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Auto Fraud

          In Australia a ute (utility) it based on the passenger vehicles and look like they have been cut off just behind the front seat and a molded tray attached. SUVs are 4WD passenger vehicles like large covered jeeps. We also have light truck utes which are based on the 1 tonne vehicle body with a cab and tray arrangement – similar to what you see in the USA movies where the teen gets his truck and his mates hop in the back.

          Utes are built to the same standard as the passenger vehicles as 85% of the vehicle is the same. SUVs are also built to a passenger standard as they are seen as passenger vehicles. The light trucks are different standards as they are commercial vehicels.

          The biggest problem we have here re vehicles is the car designers think you are supposed to goe to sleep at the wheel and design the general passenger sedans so that you are laying down in the driver’s seat and not sitting up. Add in their desire to make all cars street racers and have a low ground clearance and you end up with cars where the seat is below your knee when standing beside it. This results in a lot of people bying SUVs and vans (like the Tarago) as they are the only passenger comfortable vehicles where you don’t damage your back getting in or out, as the seat is at the same height as most peoples bums. Also they have enough head room that you can sit uproght in the driver’s seat without bashing your head against the roof, unlike most modern sedans – and no I am not tall, only 5 foot 9 inches.

        • #3051628

          Lets first shoot all the designers, then all the lawyers.

          by raven2 ·

          In reply to Different down under

          Yes, we have street racer issue here. Not only in the design from the factory, but a serious aftermarket push. Market capitalism at work, creating demand for idiotic things. The US has always had its car enthusiast fringe group, as evidenced by NASCAR, and the whole “hotrod” craze.

          But I really miss the point of spinning hub caps, they keep spinning while you stop at a light or stop sign, and 300 hp engines in vehicles that cannot legally go more than 70 mph, (110 kph). If you give someone a car that can go 150 mph (250 kph), at some point they will want to try it out. Usually when their wits are already slightly addled.

          I guess I have become an old fuddy duddy, but there seem to be more fools running around than ever before. (And then we elect some to high public office.)

          As the fellow said, “Cheer up things could be worse.” Worth a try, I guess.

          For a personal car I am pushing around a 1982 Mercedes 300TD with 274,000 miles (440,000 kilks) on the clock. I figure that is about as safe a vehicle as is out there.

        • #3051556
          Avatar photo

          Unfair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Lets first shoot all the designers, then all the lawyers.

          I used to work as a Designer once and they only do as they are told by the Accountants and Legal Who#es. 😉

          Actually we need to shoot the Accountants then the Solicitors and leave the designers to design. When I first escaped Uni I was asked to work for GM and I spent 3.5 days there. For the first 3 days we where given a blank sheet of paper and allowed to go wild in a new design and on the forth day we had an accountant explain to us why these couldn’t be built. I only lasted till lunch on the 4th day before walking out in disgust.

          I them spent a few years working for a small design house in Germany known to a few people as Porsche and worked on the Paris Dakar car the 959 but I did see a 911 that exceeded the 1996 emission levels for the US that was shipped over there and touted as the way of the future when all the major makers where claiming that these levels couldn’t be reached.

          This worked wonderfully until someone looked under the car and saw that it didn’t have a Catalytic Converter so it was rejected. If designers are allowed to design a lot of the unnecessary items wouldn’t be needed on the cars that are brought in by Government Regulation the Catalytic Converter is a prime example as when this was added to that Porsche the emission levels went up but some Bureaucrat said that they must be good so we are stuck with them. 🙁

          Personally my car of choice is a 1972 Mercedes 250 CE I don’t want the kids in the back seat any more as they are now old enough and have moved out of home but it has everything that the new cars have as standard equipment expect air bags and it’s a bloody side more solid and far safer to drive than any or the recycled pet food containers that are the current crop of new cars. It has EFI as standard true 4 wheel independent suspension, 4 wheel disk brakes, 4 speed auto and lots of other things that would make it a sports car if it wasn’t so overweight. I do like the side intrusion bars in the doors and rear panels I do like the fact that you can hit or be hit by something big like a truck and walk away with only minor injuries but I didn’t like the standard front seats as they where not high back ones so I fitted Recaros so if I’m again struck in the rear by a fully loaded 10 ton truck the driver and any other front seat passenger don’t suffer neck injuries. In a 1976 280 SE which this happened to the front seats are bent back-wards with the seat frames twisted the floor pan twisted to the firewall but all the doors open and close.

          To me that is how a car should be made so you can walk away after a collision. A good case of designers doing their thing without being adversely affected by the Accountants and Solicitors. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3050515

          I want a Perentie

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Lets first shoot all the designers, then all the lawyers.

          The safest vehicle that i have seen any specs on is not readily available as a standard street version – the Aust Army Perentie series Tactical Battlefield Vehicle. This is based on the long wheel base Landrover, can survive fairly high drops and most evrsions come with kevlar body panels – take that you road rage bugger, I am bullet proof.

          Seriously the thing is designed to allow the people inside to live through land mines, shells beside it and driving off low cliffs, can’t get much safer than that.

          what I find so interesting about this whole ‘street racer’ issue is that more and more people are moving to 4WD SUVs simply for the basic sitting position and ease of entrance and exit. This trend is gettting so big that people ain the low slung street racers are bitching about not being able to see over or around the SUVs and some people are talking about legislating to keep them out of the city. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. Don’t they realise that the next option would be the even bigger people movers, and that would make it worse for the low slung fools.

          Found another advantage of being in a SUV the otherday. I drive a Nissan X-Trail, one of the smaller SUVs so it is not as high up as most. A very low slung sedan pulled up beside me at the lights, so low that I would have had to reach down to knock on the roof of the car if I stuck my hand out the window; I looked down and could see a rather good looking young lady in a skimpy bikini reclining in the passenger seat smiling up at me, any higher and the roof would have obstructed the view, much lower and I doubt I would have seen her at all.

        • #3051566
          Avatar photo

          You’ll love this one then

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Auto Fraud

          When I was in Melbourne visiting some relatives they all owned “Turack Tractors” Range Rovers and this one person who drove me somewhere turned into their drive way stopped put it in 4 WD and drove up the concrete drive way. When I asked why it was in 4WD I was told that the owners manual said to place it in 4WD when ever it was taken “Off Road.” 🙂

          But Utes here are a little different to what the light trucks are in the states typically they are on a sedan floor pan but are only a half cab with a storage area in the back replacing the rear seats and boot. See the following for pictures

          http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring/news_reports/xrt_utes.htm

          Col ]:)

        • #3051133

          An apology then, to good designers.

          by raven2 ·

          In reply to You’ll love this one then

          Style vs substance, maybe this is a defining issue of our post-modern world. In my concept of a rational world, good engineering, good design, and common sense seem to go hand in hand.

          But I have a nagging fear that some place in the not too distant past we have taken a turn down a road that has taken us to an irrational world. Thinking about it, maybe the not so distant past. The movies “Dr Strangelove”, and “Clockwork Orange” as well as George Orwell’s book “1984” all seem to have too much “reality”. I must not be taking the correct meds, maybe I can find a good deal in some of my emails.

          We should spin this discussion off. Maybe we could develop a “Designs for Modern Living” consultancy business, and get to tell folks how to put the pieces together.

        • #3050735
          Avatar photo

          You mean like design a

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to An apology then, to good designers.

          Life program to run on their PC’s to tell them what and how to think today? :^O

          Anyone without one of these units built by us complete with all our software could then be arrested for failing to do the best possible for themselves as we decide. That of course would be the beginning of the Thought Police. I’d better stop it there or I might give someone some ideas and they could take me seriously and make us all live according to their wishes. 🙁

          Col ]:)

        • #3050514

          superglue

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to An apology then, to good designers.

          works well for me, they even have a version now that the doctors use for gluing your body bits back on – superglue for keeping your life together. If Hara Krishna does not work try a hairy Kashna if you can find him.

        • #3060342

          Not always James

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Auto Fraud

          Just the mini suv’s. The 3/4 tonne SUV’s are built like tanks, unfortunately getting the gas mileage of a tank too. The problem is, light trucks fall into full size car regulations (not the other way around). A ford truck (F-series) will kill anything it’s size or smaller, and that’s the truck below Ford’s full size SUV’s.

          The little wannabe SUV’s are built to car standards, but they don’t fit into a class I would consider an suv either, a car that looks like it can handle a gravel driveway and that’s about it.

          The one’s that kill me (and many others unfortunately) are the PT Cruisers by Chrysler, they squeaked in as a light truck/full size car, due to footprint and door sill height, yet they are just a poorly built, lightweight, communter car/death trap with no safety regulations, like many smaller minivans. People buy these ‘people movers’ to carry around the kids, you would think they had some strict engineering behind them but they also fit into a light truck/full size car segment, they just aren’t built like a truck and don’t have the weight of a full size car though. Then look at the Windstar and it’s a safety dream, though far less affordable than say a dodge minivan, so everyone buys the smaller, cheaper minivan and loads it with the soccer team thinking it’s safe.

          If you’re gonna buy something designed around a truck, buy one that is actually built to heavy half or 3/4 tonne standards.

          For the most part, you have a much better chance in a FULL size suv than any of todays (North American) cars or midsize SUV’s, but not when stacked up to a Volvo (new or old) or Mercedes or Bentley.

    • #3196313

      To Much / To Little

      by cfwags1 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      You can update BIOS, DRIVERS, Hardware, Software, or whatever else you like, but the simple fact that OS’s in general are trying to do to much. Half of programing going into Windows don’t even qualify as functions of an OS, but rather annoying memory/cpu eating monsters with bugs to boot. As much money is spent trying to do R&D of Windows, 10x that cost in both dollars and other resources goes into keeping it up, keep it running, and secure. If the OS didn’t copy and/or
      steal software developed by the little guys, then maybe they could get a piece of the money pie. So the real question is this a plus or minus for keeping the dollars and economy successful for the technology sector.

    • #3051793

      Who’s fault?

      by joeaaa22 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I was with you at the beginning of this rant. The first four sentences were all on the mark. But then you went off into Never Never Land. I quote “in fact if the OS crashes then it’s your fault not the OS” as the point when you completely lost the track and derailed the train. This statement is valid for just about every OS existence; from CP/M through DOS and *NIX and VM and MVS and a whole plethora of options. However, it does not hold water when referring to any version of MS-Windows above WfW 3.11. These OS options have in them bugs so large and so old that a strong breeze could crash them. No amount of SysAdmin or NetAdmin effort will curtail this flood of rebooting.

      Your analogy of the leaded and unleaded petrol is good but not accurate. Yes, we should all be moving into a brighter, greater future and the evolution of computing has been one that has followed this path, for the most part [see bigass rant at end of post]. But computers aren’t cars and the OS isn’t petrol. In your analogy the petrol for computers is the electricity that feeds them. The OS is more along the lines of the engine, transmission and steering. The driver is the app, but this is getting to deep. The bottom line is that you should not expect your engine or transmission or steering to just break down completely for no other reason that you turned on the turn-signal. If the manufacturer of the engine/transmission/steering told you to upgrade the spark plugs to make your car faster and safer you would do it. Then when you come to find that the new spark plugs destroy the whole breaking system and give you absolutely no indication of the problem you would not be pleased with the manufacturer who trashed your car because you followed their instructions and warnings to the letter. Face it, MS Windows >= Win95 are a black box of code that has so many sinkholes and traps and just some plan old ordinary “This $#!^ doesn’t work.”

      The real problem that any _true_ techie has with WinXX is the fact that not only does it suck, the company that so proudly presented WinNT as being weeks ahead of schedule after slipping said schedule for 3 years and has had Longhorn. no, wait; Windows Vista in the “It’ll be here real soon now” mode for how long now? A true techie is one who gets the job done. Give me a problem and an assortment of tools and I will fix said problem. It might not be the prettiest or the most efficient solution, but it will work. In order to do this kind of work a techie needs tools that he knows will work. They will do the job they were put in place to do (notice I did not say “intended” as we all have bootstrapped our way to a fix, Bailing wire and bubblegum and I’m a frelling McGuyver. But that wire has to be the same every time. Yes, maybe some nicks and bends but it’s still useful. The bubblegum can be Hubba Bubba Max Sour Double Berry or any of the plain gums. The gum has to stick. If you tell me that I have to chew the gum with only my left molars in order to fix something and, when I do as directed and place the left-only-chewed gum into place whatever the thing was supposed to do now doesn’t do it.

      More clearly: Windows are the hammer of the tool kit. You need it done and it’s stuck, call on the hammer to bust it loose, So you got your hammer and start a-bustin’ but the hammer head falls off. Or the handle cracks in two. Or the hammer head splits apart. You’ve done all the checking and maintaining of your hammer that can possibly be humanly done. And it still cracks up. It was made to crack. It’s been built for over a decade with this flaw in it. The new versions come out and are bigger and faster and prettier but they still split apart on your hands.

      A techie needs tools that will work. Tools that will work without thinking about how to keep said tool from splitting (as it was specifically build to do by the manufacture). He uses tools that work which never give him a second thought. They work. Period. When I, as a seasoned techie of some 23+ years in the field, make slightly disparaging remarks to my Mac OS X friends or those still cranking away in the world of the Big Iron on MVS, these are made in jest just as their snigletts at my Linux-ness are. But we respect the others tool. We know that it can do a lot of things our tools can’t do. We also know that there are a lot of things that our tool can do that theirs can’t. We even understand where we can overlap and make something more than the sum of it’s parts. None of this is true for any version of an MS operating system since DOS 3.3, though DOS 5 would do in a pinch.

      If you had a tool that was broken and unable to do it’s job (no OS should EVER, EVER be rebooted for any reason other than a kernel upgrade. Again, Period!) how would you feel about it? You’d be making dumping it as fast as possible for a tool that worked. And if you were forced to work with this tool you’d be flaming the hell out of it as a frustration release, wouldn’t you. You know it.

    • #3048534

      IT people bash windows because they know it’s crap.

      by larry brown ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Hi Angus McLaren:

      Here are some comments on your post.

      >Why does everyone “bash” Windows?
      It’s funny that you phrase it “everyone.” If “everyone” bashes it, it must be pretty bad in reality.

      >but that is just pointless
      On the contrary, bashing shoddy products is worthwhile. For example Consumer’s Reports magazine has been doing us all a service for 80 years by doing exactly this.

      >Anyone who claims to hate Microsoft Windows, >Linux, Mac OS or any other operating system is >not a true techie or network guru
      You don’t find many people bashing Linux or Mac. With those systems people tend to be outsiders, in which case they don’t have much to say, or believers, in which case they don’t bash.
      I disagree with you here. I’d say that true techies and network gurus are more given to heated discussions about such issues than are casual users. A true techie is someone that has strong feelings on tech matters, leading to strong opinions.

      >if the OS crashes then it’s your fault
      No OS should ever crash for any reason. If an OS crashes, it’s crap. You have bought into the delusion that all of the Microsoft crashes you have ever experienced have been your fault because you missed something. Rethink your poor self image, all those crashes were Microsoft’s fault, not yours.

      >Why didn’t you make sure that it was using the right drivers,
      You assume that the OS is bug free and has no bugs that will cause it to crash unless you do something to it. That doesn’t have to be true. An OS is just a computer program like any other, it can have bugs in it and crash all on its on just like any other program. What if the kernel code itself has bugs and so it crashes even without third party drivers? This has often been the case with Windows.

      >Any OS crashes for a reason
      It crashes because it has bugs.

      > Compatability is there for a very good reason, why support something that is old
      Why advertise that your OS supports something that is old when it will crash if you actually try to use it that way? Malicious greed?

      I’ll admit that Windows bashing is not as black and white as us haters would make it out to be, but there’s plenty of reasons to hate Microsoft and Windows.
      In my case I’m deeply venemous, but it mostly goes back to the DOS and Windows 3.1 days. I’ll admit that starting at Win95 and foward Microsoft’s OSes were waaaaaaaay better than those older days. Especially starting at Win2000 and continuing with WinXP, even someone as bitterly cynical as myself must admit, it just doesn’t crash anymore. Just explain to me how Microsoft was able to make the entire world wait 15 years until they started all over and got it right this time.

      IT people bash Windows because IT people have experience on other systems and know that good software is not only possible, it should be a given if you pay money for it. Non-IT people have never known anything other than the garbage that Microsoft shovels out. For them, all software has problems, and crashes are just a nuisance price that you have to pay in order to play. Be honest with yourself: have you ever had real experience on anything other than Microsoft DOS or Microsoft Windows? If not, you’re in the matrix. You don’t know what reality is because you’ve never seen anything other than your own Microsoft experience. In my case (yes, I’m an IT guy), I have experience on lots of different systems, including: Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) PDP-11, ***DEC VAX/VMS, ***Sperry-Univac, Cray OS, ***ten or more flavors of UNIX, Control Data Corporation (CDC) CYBER, ***Data General, Perkin-Elmer, Pyramid, IBM RT/PC, TRS-80 models III, IV, and 100, Radio Shack Color Computer, Commodore 64, Vic-20 and ***Amiga, Apple II (e, +, and c), Timex/Sinclair ZX-80, and, of course, all Microsoft operating systems since MS-DOS 3.1. Particularly nice systems I have marked above with asterisks. Does this convince you that I know something about using an operating system? Trust me when I say….Microsoft is crap.

      All of the systems that I mentioned are unique in their own way. Some are really weird, like UNIX and Univac. And yet, when you learn them, you get sucked into the mindset of the designers and you realize, this thing is wonderful. It’s beautiful. It’s a world of its own and it has depth, and power, and speed, it’s breathtaking! It’s art! You become a believer and you stand up to defend this truly wonderful technology. Others are plush and deluxe, like VMS, Data General, and Amiga. Using these is a true pleasure, like enjoying a Rolls-Royce. Microsoft isn’t like that. That’s why you see that vehemence from UNIX believers. UNIX is truly wonderful in so many ways, it inspires loyalty and allegience. No one ever said any of that stuff about Microsoft.

      Let me try to give you some examples:
      In 1982 when the IBM-PC was introduced with MS-DOS 1.0, we were already used to using software light years ahead of that. The VAX computer running the VMS operating system that I used in college is like the space shuttle. It’s an outstanding system studded with elaborate bells and whistles. It runs jobs while I’m asleep. A single computer handles dozens of students working on it simultaneously (that’s called multi-user, you don’t understand that because Microsoft still doesn’t do it). Not only that, but I myself, sitting at a terminal, can fire jobs off into the background so that while the computer is busy running them I can do something else (that’s called multi-tasking. You heard a lot about that from 1982 (DOS 1.0) until 2000 (Win 2000), but you didn’t understand it because you couldn’t do it really until then.) And the VAX does all that and it never crashes. It doesn’t crash because it’s quality software. No software should ever crash, especially the OS. Software that crashes is crap, pure and simple. An OS that crashes is pure crap. If VMS is like the space shuttle, MS-DOS 1.0 is like a stone wheel with no axel that’s flat on one side. It’s primitive beyond belief, and not only that, it constantly crashes because it’s riddled with bugs. MS-DOS 1.0 doesn’t even support a directory structure. Everything is stored in the root folder. This system set the computing world back easily ten or more years. Incidentally, VMS was written by Dave Cutler, whom Microsoft later hired to write Windows NT when they decided to start from square one and do a respectable job.

      In 1985 I was using a Commodore Amiga. This was a stupendous, dumbfounding system. It multi-tasked. It invented multi-media computing. It had stellar sound and music capabilities. It had a beautiful windowing GUI operating system. It could read to me in a synthesized voice any text. A year or two later I needed a laptop and bought a DOS machine. Even my wife, a casual user, was shocked at how primitive that DOS system was. No GUI, no multi-tasking, no graphics, no color, no sound, no music, no speech. Can you understand why someone like me who in 1985 is used to using something slightly more advanced than Windows 2000 would hate Microsoft when they gave me a system like that? And to add great insult to fatal injury, it didn’t even work! It crashed all the time. I’m used to a beautiful GUI system with all these artful, well planned and executed bells and whistles, and Microsoft gives me something that is hamstrung at almost every turn by the old 64K barrier.

      The 64K barrier was broken by Commodore with the Commodore 128 around 1981, and shattered by advanced systems based on the Motorola 68000 processor like the Commodore Amiga, Atari 512ST, and Apple Macintosh around 1985. And yet Microsoft software was limited by the 64K barrier in many ways up until Win2000 and WinXP. If you never realized that, it’s because you are not a power user. You’re ignorant and that’s why you don’t bash Windows. You may think “What 64K barrier? The IBM-PC was never limited by that, it supported 1MB of RAM right at its introduction.” That’s true, but did you realize that the MS-DOS text editor “EDIT” was limited to text files no larger than 64K? Perhaps you remember running “out of memory” on a Windows 3.1 system that had 4MB of RAM. Why? Because the three Windows 3.1 heaps were limited to 64K each, and that was easily filled. Windows 95 and Windows 98 continued to be limited by this ridiculous heap limitation. If you have ever written SQL queries in Microsoft Access, a supposedly modern database system, you can get “query too complex.” Why? Because the SQL query that you write is forced to compile into a 64K segment. If it’s larger than that, Microsoft Access can’t handle it. THAT MAKES ME ANGRY! Why am I limited in any way in 2003 by a ridiculous barrier that was shattered 18 years ago? Remember all of that utterly ridiculous noise about fitting drivers into the 64K “high memory area” (HMA) and using the “upper memory blocks” (UMBs) and “expanded memory” and “extended memory” and “HIMEM.SYS” and Memmanger? All of that was obscenely primitive, insane, and utter torture for those of us who had to work on it daily.

      Windows did not catch up in capability to that Amiga for many years something around Win98 it started to get there maybe. That’s a thirteen year gap! Those hobbyists, who are today’s IT guys, had an Amiga and they knew what a good OS looked like. Those are the guys who are bashing Windows. So they answer to the thread’s question “Why do IT guys bash windows,” is because they know Windows is lousy because they’ve seen much better, and long ago.

      Microsoft Windows systems before Windows 2000 suffered from severe thrashing of the hard disk. Do you know what that means? If not, do you begin to see how you are not qualified to enter a debate on operating systems? Disk thrashing is a problem that was added to college courses on operating systems around 1965. It happens when you page virtual memory to the hard disk and you don’t write your code carefully enough, the OS has too little intelligence to keep from constantly reading and writing to the disk, it never stops. When it does this you get severe performance degradation. Instead you have to write smarter code so that this doesn’t happen. Surprise, ****25 years later**** Microsoft introduces Windows 3.1, 95, and 98, all of which suffered from disk thrashing. Microsoft’s solution is what….write better software? No, simply upgrade your computer from a 66Mhz processor to something much faster, like 1Ghz. Problem solved: crap software runs acceptably.

      No OS should ever leak memory. Microsoft OSes are riddled with memory leaks.

      No OS should trigger a general protection fault (GPF). Yet Microsoft OSes get that all the time.

      No OS should ever crash. In Windows 3.1 crashing was an hourly occurance.

      Remember the MS-DOS function “continue, abort, retry?” That never worked. From DOS 1.0 to DOS 6.0, that never worked.

      This is not even touching on the malice of Microsoft. Among countless examples: early Microsoft OSes would get “unrecoverable application errors” (UAE). That meant the OS had crashed. Microsoft then released a new version and convinced the world to upgrade by saying that this severe problem had been completely eliminated. Yes, because Microsoft renamed the UAE to GPF, therefore it’s true we never again saw any UAEs. The problem continued just as before, only with Microsoft having bilked us of millions or billions of dollars, not counting the lost time and energy spent in upgrading and making it all sort of work again. That’s malice.

      Just now while writing this using the simple software application “Notepad” on Microsoft’s most advanced OS (Win XP), I suffered a glitch where the cursor got lost and notepad started garbling lines of text. They can’t even get Notepad right!

      For an IT guy, using any Microsoft OS before Win95 was like being used to driving a reliable japanese car like a CAMRY and suddenly the entire world is seduced with a car of the quality of a Studebaker.

      At the introduction of Microsoft Windows 95, Bill Gates made this remark to the audience from the stage:
      “We don’t want people to think that the introduction of Windows 95 is going to escalate the competition between Microsoft and Apple. In fact in some ways it’s driving us closer together. For instance, before Windows 95, only Apple thought that Windows 3.1 was a lousy operating system. Now, we agree with them: Windows 3.1 is a lousy operating system.” Bill had no problem admitting this to the world because it was no secret. Windows 3.1 was a bad joke and anyone who knew anything about computers or software knew that. Plus it’s in Bill’s best interest to educate you that what you are using is crap, just as long as he also convinces you that he’s got it all solved with this next version and if you just give him your money you will arrive at computing Utopia.

      Don’t think that Microsoft hatred is simply historical. Microsoft’s bully methods continue to present day. Here’s a quote from a news article I saw just a few days ago (July 2005): “It’s about intimidation pure and simple. Their [Microsoft’s] actions in trying to prevent Dr. Lee from joining Google is clearly an illegal restraint of trade,” said Nicole Wong, Google’s associate general counsel.” Intimidation, illegal activity, restraint of trade? I hate those things and the people that practice them, and you should too.

      Some IT guys are not Microsoft bashers. I had a conversation the other day with an IT colleague as he was excitedly telling me all the wonderful things that Microsoft Windows XP Media Center edition was going to do for him. When he went on to talking about how XP would control the satellite receiver and other advanced functions, I flat out told him “That will never work. There’s no chance that media center edition will do half of that stuff you just said.” He gave me this argument: “What you do you mean it won’t work? Microsoft wouldn’t be selling it and advertising those functions if it didn’t work.” I punched up the Microsoft knowledge base at http://www.microsoft.com and searched for “media center edition” and “fails.” It came with over 100 hits on various circumstances where media center edition did not work correctly.

      I hate Microsoft because the other day I bought a new Dell PC for a client and it came completely choked with shovelware that I had to take time to uninstall and disable. Even then I still got pop-ups from this shovelware enticing me to log on to the web and upgrade to licensed versions. These included ominus advertisements like “your computer is vulnerable.” Why is this all on there? Because Microsoft took over the world by, in part, inventing the model of shoveling software to consumers with a new PC, and shutting software vendors out of this game. In turn those software vendors sued for equal access, won lawsuits, and now Dell must honor requests from vendors to allow them to place their shovelware on the Dell desktop.

      I hate Microsoft because they kill software vendors simply to keep them from getting market share, even if Microsoft isn’t interested in that market. As related by former Microsoft power employee Marlin Eller in his book “Barbarians Led by Bill Gates,” Microsoft introduced pen windows with handwriting analysis capabilities simply to shut down another OS vendor, a company called “GO.” When the other OS died, Microsoft let pen windows die as well. It served its purpose. (Chapter 9, page 144). Read this and become a welcome member of Microsoft haters. This book is good, but even better is “Hard Drive” by James Wallace & Jim Erickson. Highly recommended.

      I hate Microsoft because they don’t care about quality software. The simply care about getting the money. They don’t even want to write quality software because then where would be the incentive to upgrade next time? They shovel in piles of features so that when a prospective buyer compares the feature list of, say, Microsoft Word with Wordperfect, Microsoft has a much larger feature list. They know but don’t care that lots of that feature list doesn’t work well, or at all. The mystery is how they have gotten away with this outrageous strategy for so long. By any reasonable standard Microsoft should have been laughed out of existance starting with DOS 1.0 and following every single thing forward until Window 95.

      I hate Microsoft because I was a professional Visual Basic 3.0 programmer and it was so difficult, or impossible, to get a good result when programming with that language that I looked like an idiot, and there was nothing I could do about it.

      I hate Microsoft because I spent many months writing a commercial application with Visual Basic 6.0 and then Microsoft discontinued that language to introduce VB.net, forcing me to spend many months to completely rewrite my application. This would force many people out of business. FORTRAN, COBOL, and C aren’t discontinued right? Those programs don’t have to be rewritten. But give Microsoft control and they assasinate you.

      I could go on and on and on. You see that I am quite bitter. You also see that I know what I am talking about. People don’t bash Microsoft, and its software, because they are ignorant. They don’t know that good software is possible. They’ve never used anything other than Microsoft. If the material I have covered in this article is new to you, I welcome you as you step out of the matrix and into reality. Just like in the movie, ignorance is much prettier. The truth in this case is very ugly.

      By they way, Notepad continued to glitch on me so badly while writing this post that I switched to Wordpad.

      • #3055395

        Uh, Lawrence?

        by warhog73 ·

        In reply to IT people bash windows because they know it’s crap.

        I think you’re a bit late to the gate, old bean. better luck next time, Lawrence.

        • #3057646

          Thanks for the reply warhog.

          by larry brown ·

          In reply to Uh, Lawrence?

          Yes….I see that I’m a little late, but oh well, I’ll recycle my diatribe and use it elsewhere.
          Thanks for the reply man, I didn’t think anyone was going to notice me at all!

          Talk to you later ol’ bean, ol’ boy, ol’ chump, ol’ pal.

          Lawrence

    • #3054229

      what were u thinking

      by sadko301 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      GO ASSFUCK A MONKEY YOU STUPID NIGGER
      GO ASSFUCK A MONKEY YOU STUPID NIGGER
      GO ASSFUCK A MONKEY YOU STUPID NIGGER
      GO ASSFUCK A MONKEY YOU STUPID NIGGER
      GO ASSFUCK A MONKEY YOU STUPID NIGGER
      GO ASSFUCK A MONKEY YOU STUPID NIGGER
      GO ASSFUCK A MONKEY YOU STUPID NIGGER
      GO ASSFUCK A MONKEY YOU STUPID NIGGER

      • #3054070

        wow

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to what were u thinking

        I’m glad to see you’re elevating the level of the conversation.

        • #3064043

          an observation

          by raven2 ·

          In reply to wow

          Seems like sadko needed to vent. That was only post: I do hope he can find some place else to exercise his intellect with others who will appreciate his wit and wisdom.

        • #3063992

          I wonder . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to an observation

          Is that a Windows fan or a Linux fan? Or something else entirely? It looks pretty unrecognizable to me, really.

    • #3063697

      Bill Gates is Technically Illiterate

      by jdadams842 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Bill Gates has no formal education in science or technology. No theoretical engineering, no physics, no computer, no software.

      The winner of a newly created product like OS software however, is the best business plan. Gates formula rated new features (high added value) above quality. Someone, by fortune, will have the better plan. For instance, quality second, did not suceed for American auto manufactures, but apparently is best for software. IBM invested $2 billion on OS but failed because they had top quality. Additionally, when Gates reaches out to other hard science areas, he fails miserably, eg robotics, hardware, real time etc. His ‘real time’ software is a joke for another discussion.

      btw I have 8 different computers at home and Windows OS sucks everytime.

      ‘Quality second’ is the best plan for a technically illiterate Bill Gates. It is also great job security for tech types because the science challenged Business educated love flushing lots of money down the drain on trash. The long term future of American business is sales and marketing only … dumbing down. Cannot fight it. That’s the trend. Eventually quality wins out in the end, just not in America building trash.

      • #3057641

        There’s quality, and features, but you forgot PRICE

        by larry brown ·

        In reply to Bill Gates is Technically Illiterate

        Hi jdadams842:

        I can agree with a lot of what you said, but the key factor overriding all merchandise, over and above and before everything else, is price.

        First off, you’re wrong to say that Bill Gates has no formal training. Don’t forget that he was a student of Harvard, of all places. You don’t get in there without having a lot on the ball. Also, you don’t spend two years there without getting a lot of great training.

        I agree with you that Bill won, in part, by a good business plan, formal or otherwise. I also agree with you that he values features over quality, you’re right on the mark with those statements. A good example is Word, which has a giant feature list, many of which don’t work well, or at all. However, DOS didn’t win market share by features, because DOS was feature poor right up to the end. DOS won market share largely on price, you got it seemingly free. You could have gotten something better, like CP/M or Xenix, or even DR-DOS, but you would have had to pay for it and history shows that the vast majority chose to live with the cheap and buggy over the expensive and capable.

        Quality second did certainly succeed for the American auto brands. How else did they become the huge industries that they are today? You could have bought a 1970 Rolls-Royce or Mercedes-Benz instead of an Impala, but you would have had to pay more for it.

        In the end we see that Bill Gates is smart, but we all know that already. He had the acumen to judge what was important to win, and he did it. Those of us who are “artists” hate his stuff because it’s distasteful, but you can’t argue against that he transformed the world, brought computing to the masses, and conquered the industry. Obviously he did a lot of things right, it’s just that “excellence” is not part of his equation. Unlike other phenomenons where excellence is part of the equation, like: The Beatles, Micheal Jackson, Elvis, the Amiga, Star Wars….

        • #3066057

          Say WHAT?

          by wordworker ·

          In reply to There’s quality, and features, but you forgot PRICE

          >>A good example is Word, which has a giant feature list, many of which don’t work well, or at all.<< You know, Lawrence, I found in your "rants" a few interesting nuggets (and more than a fair share of misspelled words). But when I read this sentence, I had to laugh out loud at your -- ignorance? arrogance? Say bye-bye to your credibility. Perhaps you should have been writing your rants in Word and used the spell-checking utility. That feature works, fer shur.

        • #3065974

          not so great

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Say WHAT?

          The Word spell-check isn’t so great at picking out the correct words, and its dictionary is absurdly limited. I don’t like it much. In point of fact, I find that basically all spell-checks are suboptimal at least, but Word’s is one of the less desirable.

          Even worse is Word’s grammar-checking. Worse yet is its help documentation. Still worse is its autocorrect, which is so contentious that I have to actually turn it off to get stuff formatted properly most of the time.

          Word has quite a few features I’d say don’t work well, and may have some that don’t work at all: I haven’t checked them all. Have you?

        • #3070040

          more than you!

          by wordworker ·

          In reply to not so great

          More than you Apo’. Shouldn’t you be pontificating about the upsides of open source somewhere?

        • #3069921

          How helpful you are.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to more than you!

          How do you know you’ve checked more than me?

        • #3069910

          How?

          by wordworker ·

          In reply to How helpful you are.

          Because it was for years my job to research and learn and teach the application.

          Edit since message max reached: Ah, but I do know what you know because you TELL THE WHOLE WORLD all the time how much you know.

        • #3069875

          So?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to How helpful you are.

          That doesn’t tell you anything about what I know, only what you know.

        • #3069869

          Who hooked up jumper cables to the neck bolts on this thread?

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to How helpful you are.

          No, this thread just couldn’t be allowed to die. Somebody had to strap it to the table and have Igor raise it up into the thunderstorm.

          “My grandfather’s work was doo-doo!”

        • #3070507

          Don’t knock it….George Lucas is also a lousy speller

          by larry brown ·

          In reply to Say WHAT?

          Hey Woodworker…thanks for replying. It’s great to pick up this old thread. I like living in the past, it’s one of my hobbies.

          There is a lot of complimentary stuff in your post, you are too kind. You quote “rants,” meaning that you don’t actually consider my posts to be rants, you mention that at least some portion of my posts are interesting, you imply that I had credibility at one time, and you allow that I may be arrogant, just like Bill Gates :-).

          I’ll admit that I’m a lousy speller, and that yes, I should have used Word and its spell-checker. But don’t completely knock my intelligence, I’m sure lots of other intelligent people are lousy spellers. George Lucas, for one, is very bad, according to “Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas” by Dale Pollock.

          Regarding the spell-checker working “fer shur,” I can’t agree with you on that. I remember back in the Word 95 days, that stupid spell checker would crash Word every time I tried it. And I never meant to try it, I would just sometimes accidentally click on the menu option, and then Word would crash and lose my work. Did that make me angry at Microsoft? You betcha.

          Regarding other features working in Word, in spite of your self-professed in-depth knowledge of Word, you are living in the Matrix. If you try to defend that all features in Word work and work well, it is you, my friend, who loses your credibility, not that you ever had any. For example, the Corel Draw import filter is lousy. It’s a Microsoft product and it can’t understand all of the Corel file, and it makes lots of mistakes. For me, it’s unuseable. The Word encapsulated postscript (EPS) import filter is also lousy, and largely unuseable for me. Word’s capaility to link to external files and have those linked objects appear in the Word document is fraught with problems, for me it’s unuseable.

          Working in Word 95 was murder! I had to constantly fight with Word to get documents formatted the way I wanted. Lest you say I was “ignorant,” take into consideration this: when I switched to Word 97, suddenly my documents started coming much easier. Did I suddenly get smarter? No, Microsoft put some effort into making Word 97 work better.

          The “autocorrect” feature of Word, in years past, was a problem. For example, if I wanted to write a document using “IT” (for information technology), Word would always correct that to “it” or “It.” Later they improved this feature to show you the little lightning bolt, and you could undo the correction and even tell it “don’t correct this anymore.” This is a trivial, yet annoying, example. Worse is when Word tries to autoformat my bulletted or numbered lists. This is still difficult to do and in years past it was murder.

          Do these things make my angry at Microsoft? Yes! Do they cause me to justifiably trash Microsoft software? Yes!

          Here’s an odd thing. I find that when I enter a discussion like this with someone like you, who doesn’t realize that good software is possible, and I point out specific examples like this in which Microsoft software is buggy, I get a curious reaction. I get “Oh yeah, I know that stuff doesn’t work, but so what? That’s out on the fringes of the app, it still largely works, and all software has bugs, so what’s the big deal?” Is that your reaction? Or have you never tried those features that I mentioned?

          Like I said in my original post, about Windows, most of my cynicism comes from earlier days. Word 95 was torture, but Word 97 was much better, I’ll admit that stuff is getting better.

          As for “ignorance,” just let me do a quick search on the Microsoft knowledge base…..
          Searching for “Wd2002 Stops” I get 30 hits including:
          WD2002: Word Stops Responding When You Use CheckSpelling or GetSpellingSuggestions Methods
          WD2002: Word Stops Responding When You Save Changes to a Mail Merge Document
          WD2002: Error Message, Word Stops Responding When You Quit Session
          WD2002: Word Stops Responding When You Click Refresh in Recipients Dialog Box
          WD2002: Word Stops Responding When You Press the PAGE UP Key
          WD2002: Word Stops Responding After You Close Document Created from Template
          WD2002: Word Stops Responding If You Use Spelling Checker on Swedish Text
          WD2002: Speech Recognition Stops Responding After You Delete a Word from the Speech Tools
          WD2002: Word Stops Responding When You Save a Document in Rich Text Format
          WD2002: Word Stops Responding After Undoing All Paste Actions
          WD2002: Word Stops Responding or You Receive Error Message When Opening WordPerfect Document

          Regarding the “fer shur” spell checker, “fer shur” it’s buggy, yeah.
          Search for “Word Spell” gets at 100 hits, including this gem:
          WD98: Punctuation May Cause Word to Constantly Check Same Word
          When you add punctuation to the end of a word that is not contained in either the main or custom dictionaries and then click Change All, the spelling checker will enter an infinite loop while spell checking the same word

          So you see, any “ignorance” is not on my part.
          Thanks for the chat and welcome as you come out of the Matrix.

        • #3070505

          Wow!

          by wordworker ·

          In reply to Don’t knock it….George Lucas is also a lousy speller

          Thanks for the response. I would have to say you’ve surpassed rant and moved up to bona fide diatribe on that one. You are sooooo smart!
          But it’s “word” worker, not woodworker.

        • #3070478

          woodworker

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Wow!

          I think that was a joke. Maybe you didn’t get it. I’d have expected you to get it, though, considering your only response seems to be slinging sarcasm.

        • #3070465

          No joke, I’m a lousy speller.

          by larry brown ·

          In reply to woodworker

          Hello *Word*worker, and also to my good friend and compatriot, apotheon.

          Well that may have been a good joke to call him woodworker, but I didn’t mean it intentionally. I just didn’t view his handle carefully.

          Thanks for calling me smart. I find that even when offered sarcastically, compliments like that feel good. You know, you’re not great at sarcasm. Too much of your goodness comes through. You are like Darth Vader trying to turn Luke to the Dark Side, I can feel the good in you.

          Anyway, wordworker, drop the sarcasm and give me your opinion. I gave you hard evidence, right from Microsoft, that some features of Word don’t work, including your spell checker. So do you now rescind your “SAY WHAT?” incredulity, or can you, in spite of hard evidence, still maintain that you think Word works just fine?

          Also, I’d be interested to know if you have noticed the various problems that I mentioned. And if so, do you just ignore them and they don’t make you angry? How can you justify that? If you bought a car and the radio worked sometimes and other times didn’t, and the car simply stopped dead when you turned on the headlights and you had to stop what you were doing and restart the car, you wouldn’t accept that, would you?

    • #3060417

      Lawrence

      by wordworker ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Lawrence, I have to admit I like your sense of humor. However, your argument about Word’s alleged bugginess is based on stories from W95 and W97 and a few hits in the KB on known problems with Word 2002. That’s not exactly exhaustive research, nor is it based on personal use of the product. FWIW, I never used Word 2002. My clients all use Word 2000 or made the jump straight to Word 2003, skipping the ’02 release. I use Word every single day of my working life, and I beat on it pretty hard. I can say (knock cyberwood) with certainty Word has never crashed on me. I refuse to get into the “hate MS” or “hate what Gates did” game with you and your fellow open source zealots because it is nonproductive and negative hate-speak, to my read anyway. My way of responding to your hate-speak is sling sarcasm. So if you and your buddy Apo’ are going to dish out the hate-speak, you’d best be prepared to suck up your share of sarcasm along the way. May the Farce be with you. lol

      • #3060364

        Only you . . .

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Lawrence

        . . . can make me feel this way.

        No, wait, that’s a song.

        I discuss, without euphemism (except for humorous effect) or reservation, the technical issues I see with a given piece of software. Only you, and similarly Microsoft-wedded minds, can see that as hate speech.

      • #3060269

        Wordworker, you can not be convinced.

        by larry brown ·

        In reply to Lawrence

        Dear Wordworker:

        You are a really nice guy. As a debater, however, you leave me puzzled. How can anyone persist in ignorance once shown the light? I can’t understand you.

        1: Bugs from old versions are useful in demonstrating trends and Microsoft’s strategies. Every version has been buggy. It’s easiest to point out bugs on old versions because those are the ones with which I have several years of experience. Since Microsoft introduces a new version every year or two, it doesn’t make sense to wipe the slate clean and say “Oh yeah…that’s an old version. I’m sure they have all that garbage cleaned up by now.” If that were true, Word 95 would have been glorious because think how many versions came before that. Microsoft has brainwashed you so thoroughly. No matter how buggy the last 10 years of software were, you believe them when they say that the “next version” is going to solve all the problems.

        2: Tell me, do you use the knowledge base regularly? I do, and I am horrified at what Microsoft themselves tell me are the problems in their products. I don’t need personal experience, they themselves tell me. By they way, 130 hits doesn’t count as “a few.”. Have you ever seen how Microsoft carries bugs forward from version to version to version? You’ll find a KB article about a “stops responding” bug in Word 2003, and at the top they’ll have links that say “to see a Word 2002 version of this article click here.” “To see a Word 2000 version of this article, click here.” To see a Word 97 version of this article, click here.” That’s hilarious, obscene, and criminal.

        3: Exhaustive research. Now it’s my turn to say “SAY WHAT?” Would it be possible, even in theory, to exhaustively research Word? Can you imagine how many people are testing it over at Microsoft and still letting scads of bugs out? Besides, I?ve already gone well past ?bona fide diatribe,? what more do you want?

        4: Personal use of the product. Ummm…..Wordworker, did you read my post? Or where were you? I posted lots of personal use examples of where I have struggled with Word. When you blatantly ignore information like this you show yourself as biased and insincere.

        5: If “all your clients” skipped the word 2002 release, then you must have a client list of, like, three people. If you had even ten, surely some of those would have used 2002. That doesn’t give you much credibility. How is it possible that an expert like you did not update to 2002 when it was available? Obviously, your outlook is limited, but of course I knew that.

        6: Word has *never* crashed on you? Then you never used Word under DOS, or Windows 3.1 did you? Otherwise it would have crashed on even a light user like yourself. But even so, Wordworker, even if it has never crashed on you, why can’t you see that if Microsoft themselves admit that Word crashes, that it “stops responding,” that it’s a piece of junk? No software should ever crash.

        7: “nonproductive and negative hate-speak:” As I said in an earlier post, bashing shoddy products is worthwhile. Slinging sarcasm, on the other hand, could not be construed as such.

        8: You don’t indicate that you have used the Corel import. That’s ok, of course no one person has used even half the features of Word. But are you going to tell me that you have never fought Word while building a list? Or that the autocorrect, before we had the lightning bolt, never used to kill you? FWIW, at what version of Word did you start your career?

        9: I don’t mind if someone slings sarcasm at me, just like I don’t mind that Microsoft stuffs tons of features into their products. I just ask that they be good at it. 🙂

        Finally, I am not an open source zealot. I have never used any open source and I don’t know anything about it. I am willing to believe that open source software is of good quality, but it’s not the only good software that has ever existed. There’s been lots of others. You see, Wordworker, what you are missing is experience on a variety of systems, some of which are good. That’s what we IT people have that you don’t. The only software you’ve ever used is Microsoft, so you can’t understand that there could be anything better. The fact that there are many of us constantly screaming at you that Microsoft is not perfect, it’s not what it should be, that better is possible and we have seen it, should make you accept this possibility. I don’t hate you, Wordworker, I like you and I want to educate you.

      • #3069797

        How are bring up valid bugs/points/issues hate speech?

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to Lawrence

        I don’t get it. You’ve seen Apo and I disagree on points in *nix, is that hate speech towards *nix?

        How can you say Word doesn’t crash? I did a quicky search of “word stops responding,” and you know what I got?
        http://search.microsoft.com/search/results.aspx?st=b&na=88&View=en-us&qu=word+stops+responding

        Yup, it happens! Oh my! Microsoft must publish their own hate speech!

        • #3069611

          his people need him

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to How are bring up valid bugs/points/issues hate speech?

          The Nation of Microsofties needs its leader. Next, he’ll be parting the Red Hat and saying “Let my OS go!”, or standing on a balcony getting assassinated by an eeeeeeevil member of the LLL (Lib-GNU Linux LAN, I guess) after he says “I have a dream!” while waving a Windows Vista CD around. We’ll have to start calling him Malcolm XP. Clearly, anyone that recognizes problems with Windows and other software from Microsoft is just an OSist.

          Next, he’ll be saying that reverse engineering software functionality is a “hate crime”.

        • #3069593

          That’s a hoot!

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to his people need him

          I’m thought the bit about parting the Red Hat would be tough to top, but then I got to “Malcolm XP”.

        • #3069545

          yeah . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to That’s a hoot!

          I was feeling inspired.

        • #3069567

          Classic!

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to his people need him

          This post will go down in the history of TR as “The Best Post Ever at Least Until I Decide to Award Another Post this Honor”

        • #3069542

          thank you, thank you

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Classic!

          I owe so much to you, the little people.

    • #3135624

      IT’s not the O/S; it’s the O/S developers …

      by mdpetrel ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      In the “olde days” problems w/ Command Processors were due to limitations of resources (mem constraints, etc.); so we used good pgm’ing technique and built error checking into the code. When the sfwe took on more tasks and became known as an O/S, and sfwe companies started charging more and more, it all merely became a “rush to market” scenario. And minimally good technique was dropped. So, it may not be the fault of the O/S; but it most certainly is NOT the fault of the end user(s) either… fault lies squarely on the shoulders of the developers and, especially, their mgmt. But, first and foremost, commercial O/S’es are at present very very buggy; and most assuredly deserve all the disdain heaped upon them.

    • #3120263

      The unending, tiresome debate continues…

      by jdhannah ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Why do UNIX/Linux people hate MS? That’s the real question, because there isn’t the same animosity – at least in my experience – among MS developers toward the open source movement. I am a MS guy, but I really applaud the open source movement because they have pushed MS into making better prioducts. IIS 6 is a good Web server. Win2003 is a good OS (feel free to disagree). These chages (consider NT4 for a moment), were largely driven by competition from Linux.

      Also, we must face the fact that hackers tend not to target Linux because it’s open source, it’s ‘free’ and therefore not evil like the empire-building Microsofties. There is a socio-political dynamic as a subtext to this debate. I’m not discounting the technical arguments, but which side you fall on seems to have another dimension beyond the technical merits of the OS you prefer (perhaps this is obvious to some). So, can we simply acknowledge that competition is a good tghing, that there is space for both OSs in the universe and that each may serve customers according to their specific needs? Really, the person who said ‘Bill Gates is technically illiterate’ is not a rational voice and too many seem emotionally tied up in this debate. This is ultimately a business decision and if you want to be truly effective as an IT professional, drop the hyperbole and think with your head, not with your heart.

      • #3120228

        No, wrong, no, no, wrong

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to The unending, tiresome debate continues…

        A) MS people hate Linux as well. They refuse to learn simple tasks and complain it is “too hard” and therefore must stink on ice. MS isn’t creating better products, just better marketing. While IIS 6 is lightyears ahead of IIS 5, it still sucks. It has too many bugs and too many issues. IIS 6 should have been IIS 4, but no, MS had to play the marketing game (and they are losing)

        B) Win2k3 is meh. While I can take it or leave it, at least MS doesn’t turn all the serivces on by default. They also tried (but failed) to lock down the OS. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, kernel and user space are mudged together. Plus the registry is a HUGE kludge that needs to go away (a major reason for insecurities)

        C) “Hackers” not targeting *nix is FUD. It is not true and it does not fit with reality. The reason MS has some many issues is because it is an EASY target, not because of some socio-political ideal. Tell me, can you EASILY get root on a *nix box? What about getting admin on a Windows box? It is FAR easier to get Admin on any given Windows box than to get root. Why go after the hard targets when there are easy ones?

        D) There is space for both OSs, but MS IS NOT SECURE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. Use it for internal AD structure or similar tasks, but that is what it is good at, not being out there and vulnerable to cheesy attacks like exploiting REMOTE PLUG AND PLAY (WTF is that?)

        E) Exactly. Why choose an open and easy to hack MS web server over a highly secure *nix webserver?

      • #3119079

        Thinking and remembering

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to The unending, tiresome debate continues…

        When Windows 2000 server came out and they wanted you to move off of your old NT4 server, do you remember what the commercials were?

        They WEREN’T “more stable and secure than linux”, but “More stable and secure than NT4”.

        Buy this new server OS, because it is better than the last crap we stiffed you for.

        People are STILL running NT4 servers. Why? Because they LIKE them? Or because the applications STOP WORKING if they move it to the newer OS’s.

        So to migrate up, they need to replace ALL of the existing software? Now why would that be a problem?

        I think the people that are extreme either way are nuts though, as stated in the old “so many zelots, so little time” discussion a little while back.

        Be careful, as you seem to be listening to too much marketing and FUD, as to the REASONS and frequency of the attacks.

        Look at SANS.

        Look at turn around time from exploit to patch.

        Look at the severity of the exploits.

        Look at the difficulty of the exploits.

        Anyone with an open mind HAS to give the security and scalability to *nux, just like they HAVE to give ease of use to Windows.

        Linux is catching up on the ease of use faster than MS is catching on the security adn scalability.

        • #3119074

          playing catch-up

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Thinking and remembering

          MacOS X is proof that it’s easier to pretty up unix than it is to secure Windows.

          I wouldn’t say that Windows is “easier” to use so much as that it’s more accessible to the rank newbie. Of course, most of that is based in the fact that you can buy a Windows system pre-installed, and just click on stuff to install everything (when it works properly).

          Once you actually get past the initial learning curve for any given task on unix/Linux, though, you’ll find that it’s much easier to actually accomplish things than with Windows. For instance, inserting an installation CD in the CDROM drive on a Windows system typically causes an installation dialog to start up automatically, and you click the “install software” (or whatever) button to make it go. You then spend four or five minutes clicking through things, wait another ten, and finally you’re done. With a Debian GNU/Linux system, meanwhile, if you want to install new software, you stare at it for a bit wondering where to get the software and how to get it installed. If you put a CD in the drive, nothing much seems to happen. However . . . when you ask your Linux guru buddy how to install OpenOffice.org on the system, he tells you, and suddenly you realize how unbelievably easy it is to install: you type “apt-get install openoffice.org” and hit enter at the shell prompt. You wait about two minutes. It’s installed.

          That’s it.

          Much easier on the Linux system, but not nearly as accessible to the clueless.

      • #3119073

        coexistence

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to The unending, tiresome debate continues…

        There’s one reason that MS Windows and Linux can’t coexist peacefully: Microsoft won’t let them. Microsoft can’t abide competition. Everything MS does is geared toward “market share”, which translates to “destroying the competition”. This means that to Microsoft, there’s no such thing as peaceful coexistence. MS must own the market entirely, or die trying.

        As long as that’s the case, there will never be room enough for both Windows and Linux in the OS market, except as bitter rivals.

      • #3132372

        Re: The unending, tiresome debate continues..

        by sauvecali ·

        In reply to The unending, tiresome debate continues…

        I agress that Windows Server 2003 and IIS 6 are respectable
        products in regards for security. I have to give Microsoft credit
        for doing a good job with those products. However, this much
        cannot be said for other departments, like ahem, IE team, whose
        response to CERT recomendations to use alternative browsers, is
        arrogance.

        The statement about hackers do not target Linux is really
        incorrect or mischaracterization. Hackers do indeed target
        Linux and other Unix OSes all the time presistantly. I cannot
        imagine Linux/Unix without the notion of a hacker trying to
        break in.

        The question is, what do you do about it? Linux/Unix has
        learned to live with exploits, and some of the best security
        solutions, like SSL/TLS w/ PKI (X.509 certificates), IPSec,
        Kerberos has developed from this experience in dealing with
        them. Microsoft by the was has strongely adopted these
        technologies. Other solutions and developments in security, e.g.
        SE Linux kernel or jailing (chrooting), nor not even
        conceptualized in any of Microsoft current or future products. It
        also seems that any program can through APIs can easily hack
        into the system as is the case with SonyBMB rootkit and constant
        malware/spyware problem, something difficult on Linux/Unix.

    • #3118496

      Maybe it’s just a response

      by rvanderblom ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Well Angus, maybe it’s just a response to the marketing machine of Microsoft, which seems to be able to put a lot of messages on the internet which in some cases are just plain FUD.

      One example is the “get the facts” campaign, which is targetted against Linux and uses TCO analysis to show that MS software has a superior TCO compared to Linux (which in some cases may be true, but in other cases is plain nonsense, as one companies TCO doesn’t necessarily need to be the TCO another companie will encounter). I know for sure that for my company the TCO of Linux and Open Source is much better than the TCO MS is promising (company is a start-up, with technically minded people that understand concepts etc. of Linux and most open source software) Though i fully understand that this only applies for my company and doesn’t necessarilly reflect the TCO of another startup.

      So i guess some of the MS bashing is a response to these marketing related messages coming out of MS.

      Some of the MS bashers are IMHO indeed just plain frustrations against the market leader, part of zealotism and should be dismissed as partly irrelevant and noise on the line.

      Then you’ve got the people who just bash MS because it’s fun to do and partly easy. MS has a good marketing department, but they’re not particularly good in responding to security threads (sometimes they just downgrade them as irrelevant).

      MS has in the past had a lot of crashed in their software (there is no denying that) but i’ve got the feeling that they’ve gotten better in that so we should give them credit for this.

      As long as MS will be agressively trying to blacken competition, they will be bashed upon.

      • #3118399

        Crashes but is getting better…..

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Maybe it’s just a response

        A few things to look at when we say our system is more stable today than it was five years ago.

        To run this more “stable” software, I NEED to have 10 times the computer I NEEDED to have five years ago.

        Would you agree that many of the crashes are from running out of resources?

        Have we not thrown a lot more resources at the problem?

        So which was the fix? The new software or the software on the new hardware? A little of both?

        Is MS better now or worse now, in working with other vendors to allow them to create applications that run in the Windows environment?

        How about “value”.

        When the software costs many times more than the hardware it is running on, how do you feel about the pricing? How about the upgrade path? Are you happy with that?

        Should your Office Suit really take over a GIG of disk space to install the complete package? What about format compatablitiy? There are more and more people out there that DON’T have MS Office loaded on their computers. I can’t exchange documents with them now and will miss out on an opportunity because MS intentionally makes it so other suits can’t open their files? That is a business advantage to who? (besides MS that is)

        Will Frontpage EVER create a web page for your business that anyone from anywhere using any browser they want, can come and give you money? AOL’s browser typically does not handle the non-standard code well, and these people have already shown they have more money than brains to use AOL in the first place. EXACTLY the kind of people I want for customers! “Fix it, here is a pile of cash!”

        Compatablitiy is needed to be able to do business with anyone that wishes to hire you. Do you really want to turn them away just because they didn’t buy a MS product that you have no profit stake in?

        Yes, I know you can spend a lot of time doing “Save as” and modify the layout. MANY of your daily users are NOT up to that, don’t remember to do it, or just won’t. (not their job, let IT do it)

        • #3118267

          Re:

          by rvanderblom ·

          In reply to Crashes but is getting better…..

          [i]To run this more “stable” software, I NEED to have 10 times the computer I NEEDED to have five years ago.[/i]

          The amount of extra hardware is as far as i’m concerned a mather of fact!! Not using it would actually be more shamefull. Could we use it better of course, but that would mean a paradigm shift which currently no company is capable of delivering.

          [i]Is MS better now or worse now, in working with other vendors to allow them to create applications that run in the Windows environment?[/i]

          This actually depends on whether your competing head on with MS software. If you compete, don’t expect to much help. If you enhance the windows experience they will help you, embrace you, hug you and then if it really is succesfull create their own solution (end of hugs etc. of course)

          Do they provide customers a fair choice that’s something else. But then again, they will ensure that will make sure that you’re locked in :).

          [i]How about “value”.[/i]

          As stated before, i hardly see any additional value in the MS offering, that’s why i’m perfectly happy with my Linux distro, Firefox, Evolution, OO that i’m currently using. But then again most people are so afraid to leave MS behind because of the steep learning curve they see!

          And then again, “value” is very subjective. I “highly value and appreciate” the music of “system of a down”, but i bet there are more people out there who hate it.

          It’s the same with TCO, for some companies it’s better to use MS than open source (“especially when you’re short term focussed”). Change scares a lot of people, give them time and they will come to appreciate new software (depending on the part of the world you’re living in of course)

          In the end only time will learn what is te best course of action, but the manner in which MS is responding tells me that they are afraid of this brave new world with thin clients, browser based apps and true open standards.

    • #3118166

      we bash Windows because….

      by gkrew ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I do not agree with you that anyone who bashes an OS is not a true techie or guru. Some of us never claimed to be techies or gurus anyway. Microsoft does not make a trouble free OS and the others all have their little issues. Windows is bashed because we have all experienced some pain in using the OS. It has nothing to do with drivers or hardware. We have to manage Windows environments but that does not mean we cannot talk about the problems we face on a day-to-day basis. For all the Windows bashing that happens Bill Gates is still a wealthy man. Bashing does not hurt him or Microsoft.

    • #3117788

      Yep… must be My Fault

      by woodhead1 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Let me see…
      The Company develops the Web Server edition of the operating system (2003) for the express purpose of being a web server
      But Outlook WEB access will not run on it. Yep must be my fault somehow.

      Registration page for an event crashes Internet Explorer because they (MS) only tested it on a version that had only been out for 2 months. Again, the fault of the rest of the world for NOT upgrading quickly enough.

      A company that cannot decide from version to version what to call the OS???
      NT Workstation
      W2K Pro
      XP Pro
      NT certs will expire…no they won’t…

      Yep..again my fault they cannot make a decision. Must be an incorrect drive on my system. So YOU tell me, what driver is that? Not on my Computer???

    • #3117603

      Wrong assumption. Not all OSs are as stable as the next. (nt)

      by shamusoneil06 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      no text

    • #3117549

      its not really about being a proper techie …

      by stargazerr ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Or an IT Guru is it???

      Its about how user friendly an OS is…before anyone says anything…YES…windows is the most user friendly OS out there…

      But user friendliness also counts minimum errors and glitches….which as most people would agree is not a strong point of Windows….of course, this includes all the virus attacks on them.

      I personally am no fan of microsoft either, but they are mostly paying a price of being the most popular OS out there….

      • #3117525

        Not why they are “paying”

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to its not really about being a proper techie …

        They are paying the price because it is more important to be first to market than to have a solid product.

        I have been playing with computers for a long time. I remember a time when if your computer crashed, you had a hardware problem. Today, even the most novice of users are very aquainted with the three finger salute.

        Why are there so many virus issues with Windows? Ok, you see how a virus can exploit something. Fix it or shut it off. Making a “variation” of the virus should not work because the WAY Windows is exploited should have been FIXED.

        Windows will only get secure and stable if there is competition and the customers DEMAND more out of their systems.

        No more just accepting that “It’s windows, reboot it”.

        • #3117485

          Exactly !!!

          by stargazerr ·

          In reply to Not why they are “paying”

          I can never tell one version of windows from another 😀 …. they just want to be the first…who cares about Quality ??

          Are the viruses just a way to get back at Bill Gates ;P ???

        • #3119516

          You all need to stop whining

          by semmyd ·

          In reply to Not why they are “paying”

          If it werent for MSoft’s contued churning out of new products most of us would be unemployed by now. A lot of us have been riding the certification wave and mostly MS Certs. Now think if they stopped bringing out new products……

          9x% of pcs world over run MS OS and that translates into employment being generated for us because MS products are buggy and are prone to a lot of problems. From a business point of view whats the point of having a stable OS like Linux which you will never get called in to support. I have a family to support. So all you stop wining and hating on MS coz they feed you and me. You have made careers out of their products so show some appreciation…..

          I am really sick and tired of wanabee gurus who are always tearing down MS. Yes their products can be s*** but they have come a long way. You have to give them that.

          Even you security people, they give you something to talk about….

        • #3119415

          Stop whining

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to You all need to stop whining

          and start drinking beer?

          Yes, let us stand up and rejoice in the fact that we have endorsed a product that is not concerned with quality.

          Let us intentionally program in random error messages to make the users call us even more!

          We should all donate money to a hackers college fund so we can get more virus writters out there so we can justify our jobs to our bosses.

          [/sarcasm]
          [b]
          Sorry, I don’t buy it. I have too much pride in myself and my work to ever fall in line with such thoughts. My job is to make sure that the user can do his. I do my job well.

        • #3119408

          maybe you . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to You all need to stop whining

          I have a job that doesn’t capitalize on the misery of others, thanks.

        • #3118810

          I haven’t made a career out of their products

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to You all need to stop whining

          Out of 18 years , I’ve done 6 in HP and 8 in VMS and bit in Unix and 2 under Linux. Windows had run through most of that time and yes I’m developing under windows now. I’m still using the same skills though. I have no time for this idea that windows development is fundamentally different for devloping under MPE, VMS, Unix or Linux, all of which I’ve done. People who say I should be grateful for the low quality badly implemented garbage that Redmond puts out are talking about themselves not me. I didn’t need Bill to get a job, I don’t need Bill to keep a job and I’ll never need Bill to keep finding a job.

          The only people I’ve seen riding the certification wave are the companies who provide the training, I have seen a lot of people continually being washed up by the tide though. I suppose convincing them that is somehow enjoyable was a good marketing ploy.

          I love the wannabe gurus , does that mean you can only be a guru when you know enough to agree that windows doesn’t not deserve tearing down ?

      • #3043913

        User Friendly?

        by tmcclure ·

        In reply to its not really about being a proper techie …

        I have to disagree with your assumption about user freindly. As an Net Admin, I am finding the Windows enviornment convoluted.

        I also have to admit I am a Novell and Linux Administrator. So it may be my lack of experience.

    • #3119185

      Yes, but you forgot something.

      by dbucyk ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      When you check out a PC and make sure all the drivers are on the HCL and are totally updated, you still have two other problems here.

      The first problem is power instability. Over time capacitors can leak and this leak can cause system freezeups, or there can me problems with the power supply.

      Either way, if the computer freezes up and gives you a message (particularly before windows 2000) you have to check to see there is no memory overlap or certain programs.

      Next, if you are using Windows 2000 or higher, there are possibilities for the same amount of problems.

      As more and more programs are added in 2000 and higher, Windows has incorporated a mechanism to prevent this from happening.

      However, there is still the notion of bad or faulty circuitry.

    • #3118735

      Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      by helloparminder ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      gosh… dats human mechanics 😉

    • #3118584

      human mechanics

      by helloparminder ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      they not really bash windows but windows pgmmrs. one OS pgmr may bash another pgmrs code n other may do the same. its human mechanics I said 😉

    • #3131560

      What about Windows Millenium Edition HA HA!!!!

      by broodryks ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      What about Windows Millenium Edition HA HA!!!!

    • #3132377

      Security and maybe Arrogance

      by sauvecali ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      There are many reasons I’m sure, but the one thing for me as a
      system administrator is SECURITY. Yes it is true that Windows,
      the biggest installed based is under the spotlight, but that
      nevertheless there just poor naive design and complete absence
      of security concepts in some areas. I’ll list them out and
      comment.

      (1) Applications Can Seize Control – Applications can apparently
      install drivers and rewrite kernel tables as is evident by the
      SonyBMG root-kit in the news lately. Linux this can be limited
      and controlled, e.g. setuid.

      (2) Cannot Jail Services – If a service gets compromised it can go
      to town on your system, RPC dependent services like DCOM, IIS
      services, etc. In UNIX, many mail systems and others services
      have the ability to be jailed (chroot). This is often done with
      Apache, to prevent damage from poorly written server
      applications. There is no such facility on Windows.

      (3) Services Cannot Adequately Be Restricted – Some services
      can be limited, but not every department follows the philosphy
      (SQL guys seem to get it). But even still, the service or its DLLs
      can be compromised, and once this happens intruder can go to
      town. With inclusion of SELinux from NSA into the Linux kernel
      (and similar efforts with BSD type OSes), one can restrict what
      the service has access to at the kernel level, something never
      even fathomed or planned for Windows OSes, not even Vista.

      (4) Lack of Integrated IDS – there are many advanced security
      applications for Linux. Some of these are available on Windows,
      but with WinXP SP2, Microsoft attempts to impede them by
      artificially retarding the socket libraries (shows lack of
      understanding and cooperation with security community).
      There’s solutions like TripWire and others that are free for Linux,
      and costly for Windows. Seems spyware and malware, and
      general applications, are sprinkely all kinds of DLLs and what
      not in %WINDIR%\System32 all the time. There’s no accounting
      for them, and sometimes to remove some of them means re-
      install the OS. On Linux/Solaris/FreeBSD, I don’t see
      applications going buck-wild in this fashion and through various
      package/port manager system, there an accounting of what is
      installed/where, and a removal/dependency process. Most
      Windows applications roll their own (sometimes destructive)
      undocumented installation process. This also makes the update
      process for non-Microsoft solutions expensive (updating
      Acrobat, third party apps, anti-virus, etc.).

      (5) Lack of Free Virtualization System – There’s UML and Xen
      solutions which are FREE. Virtualization solutions help with
      security as a single service can be placed on a single server.
      One host can host several OSes running these isolated services.
      When a hacker compromises a service, he/she/it cannot use that
      information to compromise other services on that system (as it
      only has that single service).

      (6) Administration Culture – Both the development community
      and information technology community have history of dealing
      with hacks. Though Unices don’t have viruses like Windows,
      they are often hacked by the same techniques that viruses use.
      From this, there’s an intuitive understanding to build facilities
      like jailing and restricting services, processes, etc. and securing
      communications, which seem common sense. As the source
      code is open, it is scrutized by many that don’t want to have
      insecure systems. Systems like OpenBSD even have an auditing
      process to scrutinize source that is checked in. In many
      Windows shops they seem to have the tootsie-roll approach to
      security, hard on the outside, soft on the inside.

      With solutions like Exchange integrated into Active Directory,
      insecure traffic like POP, IMAP, OWA, will reveal account
      passwords that will allow access to their domain accounts
      (locally or remotely). Security is more grave of a cocern because
      of this integration, but is often overlooked or not well
      understood by button clicking type of administrators (though
      this is gradually changing and the level of sophistication in
      Windows IT seems to be increasing)

      (4) The Browser that Browses You – Since IE4, MS added routines
      for webscripts to save files on your hard drive. They added
      access to a rich library of COM modules at the expense of
      security. I’ve personally got infected with NIMDA through such
      mechanisms. The culprit is ActiveScripting engine, which is
      used by IE, WSH, and IIS. This is often compromised and
      exploited, and even if secured, web scripts still have access to
      your system. When IE is configured to limited such access, there
      have been simple exploits in the past to bypass such
      restrictions. Many times, clever social engineering is used to
      bamboozle users to accept ActiveX controls that can
      compromise their system.

      IE iself is packaged up as a OLE module, which is embedded in a
      variety of other applications, most infamously Outlook Express
      and Outlook. Those programs use IE engine (with embeded
      scripting engine) to show mail. Before with the preview pane,
      Outlook auto-loaded scripts that were viruses w/o asking the
      user. How many viruses have we heard about with IE or Outlook,
      a.k.a. LookOut!

    • #3132342

      Yes, and for some good and bad reasons

      by dbucyk ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      When people bash any operating system (even a techie), it’s because some of it is frustration. A true technician won’t because that’s what keeps him busy; flaws in any network or operating system and having to keep it running smoothly.

      That’s why I got into the field a few years ago because of the constant challenge of keeping things up and running.

      So, the next time you work on a PC, Server, NOS, or OS, ask yourself this “What would technicians do for a living if everything worked smootly out of the box and there wasn’t anything to do to support the hardware?”

    • #3121825

      A quote from some MS tech

      by james schroer ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      We had an issue with a number of MS SQL DBs that were running in a cluster. We wanted to use Windows Resource Manager to contain these DBs from killing the other DBs. When we brought this up to a group of MS SQL techs they told us “you just need to add more hardware” Now I’ve heard this in rumors but now I actually heard it for my self. The biggest issue that MS has it that they like to fix an programing problem by writing around it and not acutally fixing it. This makes their programs large and bloted. MS wouldn’t of been the choice of many if the price of hardware didn’t drop like a rock like it did. I’m not boosting Unix, Linux, Mac, or Novell because they all have their issues. They all just fix them in a differnet way. The company I work at has two standards. One for MS Windows and one for Unix/Linux. The one for Windows is that a machine is considered dead and useless after 4 years. The Unix/Linux rule is that the hardware is good for 6 years. This doesn’t prove that any OS is more secure it just proves which OS is cleaner.

    • #3121736

      WOW

      by dreis ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Great reply!

    • #3113961

      The Start of the Thread is Utterly Dense

      by annonymous ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      The point is every car has its uses. You just need to choose what best suits your needs.

      You don’t ever bash the car. Did you fill your Edsel with gas? Did you check the air pressure on your Pinto?

      The point is every food has its uses. You just need to choose what best suits your needs.

      You don’t ever bash the food. Did you warm up your hot-dog water? Did you properly crumble that moldy piece of bread?

      Every product is not equal. Some are BETTER. Some are WORSE. It’s a pretty easy concept.

      I hope you’re not in a position of authority, because obviously you’d be wasting dollars insisting that shit performance was entirely the fault of the techies, and paying out more or less random amounts of maintenance dollars because you couldn’t understand that some systems require more work than others.

    • #3122626

      Windows Make Technical Support Obsolete

      by t165 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I think that the reason that techies bash Windows is because finally there is an OS that is virtually idiot-proof. As a result companies no longer need hordes of IT support people to support desktops, and Windows server maintenance can be performed on schedule with very little intervention on the part of IT. I’ve seen people who I don’t think have enough going on between their ears to figure out how to put air in their tires, successfully load Windows XP on their home computers.

      That said until they design and OS that it completely idiot-proof (around the year 3000) there will still be demand for technical support, it will just be a lower demand. Also for the first time low-level users are able to help each other out. On the positive side techies can now avoid the dreaded ‘how do I format a floppy’ question because Jane can call her friend June who though not a techie knows how to format a floppy.

      The other horror for IT people is that unlike every other OS you can really muck up Windows with very little knowledge. I had gifted customer decide that her system32 folder was taking up to much space on her hard drive (with files that since they weren’t ones she created had to be garbage and therefore were safe to delete) remove every file in the directory that Windows allowed her to remove. It would never dawn on these customers to delete any of 10G of mp3’s they have loaded on the boot partition. All of this she managed to do without administrative authority. I suspect that she would have taken the whole Windows directory if she had admin authority.

      Luckily there are still enough complex operating systems out there to keep the IT people of the world happily tooling away in our atmosphere controlled server rooms for the next half century or so. And now that we don’t have to support Windows we can concentrate on our true calling communing with our higher level server OS’s which no user will ever take the time to learn and which no company has the R&D budget necessary to make user friendly.

      • #3122527

        What is this, some kind of joke?

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Windows Make Technical Support Obsolete

        MacOS X is proof that it’s easier to make unix pretty than it is to make Windows secure and stable.

        I prefer free unices over Windows for a number of reasons, but one in particular is that everything you’ve said about the benefits of Windows is 100% wrong. The opposite is true: Windows increases the need for support personnel. It doesn’t reduce that need.

        I’m the netadmin for a company whose network is, at any given time, about 85% Linux systems, but the 15% of the network that is Windows systems accounts for about 60% of my daily administrative overhead. In other words, that makes for about 8.5 times as much maintenance time for each Windows system as for each Linux system.

        When I was consulting, replacing servers with Linux systems was a great way to A) make our clients more loyal by reducing the problems they had with the systems and B) reduce the amount of money we made from each client because they didn’t have to call us in nearly as often.

        The reason I, for one, “bash” Windows is simply this: it increases my workload by a factor of 8.5. If anything, it increases the need for support techs, rather than decreases it.

      • #3122096

        What!!!!

        by synapsetech ·

        In reply to Windows Make Technical Support Obsolete

        Are you on crack? Have you ever even tried to support ANY windows solution or network? It is a NIGHTMARE! The end user is microsofts beta test ground. There hasn’t been a truly solid release of windows since 3.11, although 2000 pro comes close.

        • #3123316

          precisely

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to What!!!!

          It’s nice to see people occasionally get it. Exactly correct . . . except that the early NTs weren’t all bad before service packs started getting applied.

    • #3123013

      The reason why

      by leorivas ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Ok, ok, you’re right, but only to a certain level. Ive been a win/*ix user for several years now and as my experience tells, windows crashes more often than linux, no matter the use you are giving it; it has terrible error messages, that are completely unuseful for a techie to diagnose the problem (remember ‘BSOD’ or that ‘memory can not be read’ messages?). That crashes mean that the OS is not resolving conflicts, as this is one of its primary tasks…orrr…the OS has been designed under the policy that any new software can update a driver or library, overwriting the native one (the good one, aint it?). That was the worst enemy since win9x, and MS has tried to fix this signing every library or asking the user for its acceptance.
      But it seems it is yet a design problem MS has to carry on his nightmares.. i dont see the way to fix this on a near future.
      On the other hand, *ix’s manage a standard library, that is never modified for a new software, so you can trust your OS is still sane even if you install/uninstall several packages.. several times, any new needed library goes on the program’s dir, so it doesnt mix with the OS’s ones. On Windows you?re never sure what OS files have been replaced on a software install, what registry keys are modified and so on, creating the feel of uncertainty about it’s stability (err.. and dont forget about patches or SP’s that caused more problems than fixes).
      Well, from my point of view, any OS can get the job done for whatever you want, but when is time to fix problems, find the cause of an error, get worm/virus infected or any other problem, many tech people prefer *ix’s over MS, but well, as the market is flooded with MS…well, ok, we’ll doit for the money.

    • #3122881

      My latest justifiable reason to bash MS

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I had the pleasure of wasting a few hours of my time today because I was silly enough to run the Windows XP Pros SP2 scandisk utility.

      It seems that this can and will trash your system, making it so that your system will no longer boot, even in safe mode.

      It will then hang on the germnuw.sys file and you get to either restore from a previous version or you get to try to edit your registry from a command line.

      I would like to thank the TR members that jumped all over my TQ&A today to help me get my system back up and going. Being more of a server/networking guy, this was a real thorn in my side today.

    • #3127624

      Good point . . .but

      by ds.bishop ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I agree that it is important to choose the right OS for the job, but stating that if the OS crashes its the fault of the admin is far from the truth.

      OS crashes occur because they are imperfect and created by imperfect people, and often released much more quickly than they really should be.

      Obviously one should keep up with patches and updates as much as possible, but it takes time to test patches before they are deployed, and I can’t tell you how many times I have installed a service pack on a server only to have a stable server become unstable after the upgrade.

      I think people tend to bash Windows because it is an OS that has traditionally shown to be much more lacking in security and stability in comparison with other OS’s. Microsoft has made huge improvements in thses areas over the past few years, but remain a target simply because they are the bigest target. But let’s face it. The Windoss os did not get the market share it has by being the best product on the market, but rather becuase of top notch marketing.

    • #3127571

      RE: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      by itjunkie ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      IT people that know nothing about Windows, bash Windows. Those of us who know how to set it up and make it work CORRECTLY don’t have any real issue with it.

      Anyone that says Windows sucks is in the wrong line of work.

      • #3127457

        egad

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to RE: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

        IT people that know nothing about alternatives to Windows wander around claiming everybody else is stupid for bashing Windows. Those who know how to set up a Windows system with maximum stability and security have learned at least some of that from observing what works right in other OSes out of the box, but not in Windows. They also tend to be frustrated by the sheer man-hours required in setting up a Windows system thusly, and in maintaining it in a stable and secure state.

        . . . and they also know better than to run it without an external firewall running a different OS.

        Anyone that thinks Windows is the bees’ knees and that people with a learned distaste for Windows needs his head examined.

        It is, in fact, because of my extensive knowledge of, and experience with, Windows that I find it so aggravating and dislike it so much. Windows made a Linux user out of me.

    • #3127087

      Cars and new OS

      by gnx ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      Let’s see old cars that run on leaded gas. Better built, easier to work on than the newer ones. New OS, my pockets picked, school, upgrading, more !@#$% passwords, more added crap than the average user will ever use. I’m sure I can add more. At least when I’m at a classic car show I can talk to a person. It seems new technology has begun to erode personal communication between people. Just my opinion.

    • #3083477

      Why I Bash Windows

      by benoddo53 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      True you can’t blame the O/S if you don’t set it up properly and it crashes. The reason I bash Windows has more to do with Microsoft itself rather than its flagship product.

      First, Microsoft has engineered Windows to be overly complex, integrating what are essentially applications such as a browser and a media player into the O/S. This has proven to be a bane to Microsoft as this has opened the door to hackers to gain control of systems owned by unsuspecting and often uninformed users.

      Speaking of uninformed users, dumbing down Windows in order to sell more copies of the O/S and thereby more hardware has help to spawn millions of users out there that have not a clue about what is going on inside their desktops or laptops. Thus they are prime targets for worms, viruses, trojan horses and spammers.

      Lastly, Microsoft has no business getting into the anti-spyware and anti-virus business. This can result in a conflict of interest. As the sole owner of the source code, Microsoft can engineer its own viruses and malware that can only be repaired by its own products. This can make Sony’s attempt at DRM protection seem like small potatoes.

      • #3082509

        Is this about Windows or IT?

        by bobhog ·

        In reply to Why I Bash Windows

        I’ve been in the IT world for 12 years, from a time when bashing Windows was the last bastion of die-hard UNIX heads who despised any opening for common users into what they saw as “their domain”.

        In hindsight, the first connotations of Windows were flawed but only because some notorious people pointed out the “human” flaws in the software, not necessarily the technical flaws. To this day, despite the greatest efforts of the largest wave of intellectual achievement and greatest advances in computer science, we cannot seem to rid ourselves of security vulnerabilities in our beloved computers.

        Why is this? Well, many in the IT industry would simply point the finger at Microsoft. “They produce a flawed product.” I say to you, the IT industry, “Prove that Windows is truly flawed.” The fact that any company can produce a imaginary product, a product with no physical mass, no physical boundaries, that can allow an semi-educated child living in an undeveloped country to compose a technically complex electronic mail message and send it to a friend 6000 miles away with only a few simply key strokes is nothing short of a miracle. An operating system, a complex entity comprised of billions of dollars in intellectual capital and billions of lines of code, that can allow more than half the world to conduct business day-to-day and that has advanced our human potential well beyond that we experienced during the industrial revolution is nothing short of a miracle.

        To say that Microsoft simply ignores the complaints of their millions and millions of users in pursuit of a haphazard, money-oriented goal is truly simplistic at its core. Any company that lacks the capacity to learn and grow is left in the dust. Why has Microsoft, with its “obviously flawed product” continued to lead their chosen industry? Simple. They do strive to create a product free of issues, a product simple for the everyday user, a product that will make businesses more profitable. This is no simple task and until some of the members of my illustrious industry can create an equally competitive product, then they should put their creative energies into working with what they have at hand.

        Why do so many in the IT industry choose to bash Windows? Is it the never-ending pursuit of perfection? I say it boils down to a lack of creativity. My industry if full of pushing elbows and scratching to get to the top of the heap. Everybody wants to be the expert or wants to one-up the expert standing next to them. Well, what better way to get noticed than to deride the very product for which you get paid to support? If you can’t get noticed on your own merits, then drag down others so you may shine a little more.

        Wake up. Windows is not alone in it’s security vulnerabilities. Macs, Linux, Unix, Palm, Visual Basic, C, machine code, Fortran, COBOL, hell, the computer that tells the high temperature light on your dashboard to come on. They are all at risk. Why, because of the ever-present “human” element. Everything we create will be vulnerable to exploitation by someone wanting the cookies we are paid to protect. No matter how much we want to believe the big bad Microsoft is the problem, we turn the white hot light off Linda, the office manager who tapes the yellow sticky note of the accounting system passwords onto her monitor. We forget about Ted, who doesn’t log out every night giving Dat, the night janitor and grad student from the local tech school free reign to backdoor the network. We ignore Carl who took the phone call from the guy pretending to be with tech support in Idaho who talks Carl into resetting his password. We overlook “Goku09836” who created that neat JavaScript game that your user, Pete, had to download, installing that backdoor. Let’s not forget George, the network administrator who doesn’t read his security posts from Microsoft and doesn’t patch his SQL server and doesn’t turn off unneeded services and doesn’t block unnecessary ports letting that worm cream the network during peak working time that Friday, forcing management to let everyone out early that day with deadlines looming, costing the company $1.6mil in lost revenues.

        The day an operating system can protect us from ourselves would be the day we experience another ice age. I would like to think the “IT industry” would wise-up first and companies would stop putting up with piss poor techs and admins.

        That’s what I think.

        • #3082484

          nonsense

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Is this about Windows or IT?

          “[i]Why has Microsoft, with its “obviously flawed product” continued to lead their chosen industry? Simple. They do strive to create a product free of issues, a product simple for the everyday user, a product that will make businesses more profitable.[/i]”
          They don’t lead it, they just dominate it in terms of market share. There’s a distinct difference. In addition, the reason they dominate is not an honest ongoing attempt to produce the best possible software: it’s an honest ongoing attempt to get people to pay them money. Software only has to be “good enough” in key areas to do that, if in addition efforts are made to restrict the availability of alternatives and engage in other shady business practices of the sort.

          “[i]what better way to get noticed than to deride the very product for which you get paid to support?[/i]”
          I don’t get paid to support it any longer. I made a concerted effort to get good enough with alternative technologies so that I can be paid to support something that doesn’t make me want to tear all my hair out on a daily basis. I’m now in the comfortable position of only being driven to distraction by the humans that use the technology, rather than by the humans [b]and[/b] the technology. Half the aggravation. Much better. Ultimately, it was expertise in Windows that drove me from it: the more I understood about how it worked, the less I liked what I learned. I’m finally reaching a point where I’m beginning to surpass my Windows knowledge with unix knowledge, and I still haven’t the same bad taste in my mouth related to unices that I have with Windows.

          “[i]Everything we create will be vulnerable to exploitation by someone wanting the cookies we are paid to protect. No matter how much we want to believe the big bad Microsoft is the problem, we turn the white hot light off Linda, the office manager who tapes the yellow sticky note of the accounting system passwords onto her monitor.[/i]”
          Speak for yourself. I don’t forget such things. In fact, now that I don’t do work that requires me to spend all my time fighting fires with the technology issues, I have a lot more time to devote to tracking down human-element security concerns. In any case, the fact that anything is vulnerable under the right circumstances and with a determined and clever enough enemy in no way invalidates the assertion that one should not invite the dumb and lazy criminals in with all the silver neatly prepackaged for easy transport.

          “[i]Let’s not forget George, the network administrator who doesn’t read his security posts from Microsoft and doesn’t patch his SQL server[/i]”
          Let’s also not forget Microsoft, who released patches that reversed the effects of earlier patches, thus opening up (again) an old vulnerability so that SQL Slammer could take down significant portions of the Internet a few years ago. Let’s furthermore not forget that Microsoft then [b]blamed their screw-up on network administrators not patching their systems properly[/b] for several weeks, probably getting a lot of people fired, before they finally admitted that they might have made a boo-boo in the equivalent of back-page retractions.

    • #3082474

      $$$CASH$$$

      by damian ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      From what I have seen over the years in both Unix and MS OS systems, is everything works fine up to the moment someone decides that there ‘is a need to update’ something. This is all very normal and understandable, but over the past years it is expected that all of these changes can be done by the click of a button and insufficient funding, resource and time is made available to perform the actions correctly.

      How many of you have watch a project completion in a rushed fashion, only to get out on the other side and realise there is no one to support the implementation after the contractors have left and no documentation to boot…

      I personally feel the same budget restrictions apply both in our homes, our OS and SW vendors and in our work places.
      We all want the best things, but how many corners do we have to cut to get them?

      Happy New Year to everyone on the post.

    • #3082473

      Absolutely amazing to me.

      by aaron a baker ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      It amazes me that so many people will go out and buy something new for their computer and then spend hrs reading all about it so that they get every aspect and nuance of the product so as not to have any problem.
      Then they get mad at Outlook Express, because it isn’t working the way it’s supposed to.
      I then ask “How is it supposed to act an you would not believe some of the answers I get.
      Then I go on to discover that they never really took the time and trouble to learn about the thing in the first place and have only a marginal knowledge of how it works. It was put in by the salesman so they let it be.
      Most of my clients don’t even know that there is a program called Window Explore that let’s you look inside your hard drive.
      When it comes to Messenger, they’re “Geniuses”, IE Explorer, passing knowledge but the thing is FULL of useless toolbars from just about everybody you can think of and yet they know how all these tool bars work.
      In short they studied. It therefore seems to me that is they applied this kind of dedication to the learning of Windows, regardless of the version, they would be amazed at what windows can do.
      As it is now, they barely know the windows system, but are completely knowledgeable about Winamp, or Kazaa or Google just to name a few.When I mention that they should try to study up on their Windows, they look at me like I just slapped them. Then they blame Windows.
      So you see, I have come to the conclusion that at least half of the problems would go away, if only people would get into the learning of windows the way they do the useless and pointless add-ons and toolbars.
      They don’t understand it, it can’t possibly be their fault, so they bash the heck out of Windows.
      I would highly recommend that the person dedicate themselves to learning as much as possible about the inner workings of their windows, I’m willing to bet that half their “Windows” problems would vanish.
      Regards
      Aaron :^O

    • #3082472

      $$$CASH$$$

      by damian ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      From what I have seen over the years in both Unix and MS OS systems, is everything works fine up to the moment someone decides that there ‘is a need to update’ something. This is all very normal and understandable, but over the past years it is expected that all of these changes can be done by the click of a button and insufficient funding, resource and time is made available to perform the actions correctly.

      How many of you have watch a project completion in a rushed fashion, only to get out on the other side and realise there is no one to support the implementation after the contractors have left and no documentation to boot…

      I personally feel the same budget restrictions apply both in our homes, our OS and SW vendors and in our work places.
      We all want the best things, but how many corners do we have to cut to get them?

      Happy New Year to everyone on the post.

    • #3081097

      Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      by pkr9 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I don’t know why most people bash MS, but I can tell you why I do. I’m no newbie in IT, I started with punched cards in 1967, and hav ebeen through it all – mainframes, Unix, S/36, S/38, AS/400, Netware, Mac, Linux – and Windows from ver. 1.2

      Windows is not a technically driven OS – if you want to call it an OS. Windows tries to do everything, and ends with accomplishing nothing. It is a mix of system services and applications, thrown togeter and intermingled in a way that even MS themselves can find head or tails in, as demonstarted my the rising number of security fixes that deconnect elements. When we install a new XP desktop in the office, we are greeted with “congratulations !!, You just bought the best OS for multimedia presentation”, or other to the same effect. In this case we DON’T want a multimedia PC, we want a fast piece of office equipment, but alas Mr. Gates has decided that we need the MM stuff. And please… forget about the uninstall argument, because you can’t.
      Windows is market driven, thats why a new version, always much better and maybe even working, than the previous one is issued every 18 months. And always with big delays and major parts of the promised features stripped off. They go through beta, alfa and RC before getting sold to the public, but the real version to be used by any responsible IT manager has always been SR1.
      I have been to many seminars, tradeshows and the like with IBM, Novell, Oracle and others, and NEVER seen a system crash during demonstration. In the MS world it happens frequently, and people take it as a normal thing, and even buy the stuff on their way out.
      Would you buy a car where on wheel fell off during the test drive ? Maybe because it coud have been the one-in-a-million failure. But if you previous car of the same brand spent more time in the workshop with all kind of weird problems, tha it was actually on the road, would you then buy the one where the wheel came off? Probably not – why then with Windows.
      Why is windows, as the only known product in the world, immunde to it long standing history of armbending, poor backward comability, lack of respect for customer investments, extremely bad security history, poor uptimes, heavy maintenance costs, curing bloated and buggy SW with extreme HW (now we all have a decent sized mainframe under our desks for writing a letter).
      I bash MS because their OS is bad, their business methods have been deemed illegal in many courts all over the world, their applications are generally bloated and filled with unneeded and even unwanted features which I can’t remove, their pricing reflect their market dominance, and they have shown that they are ready to buy out and kill any opposition that comes up with a better solution.
      Microsoft didn’t win because people selected MS. MS won due to some nasty agreements (armbending and legbreaking) with OEM’s, and as a consequence the general public – and alas also the IT world that should have known better -, got Windows stuffed down their throats. Some companies ‘upgraded’ form multitasking OS/2 to teh DOS shell W/95. A lot ‘upgraded’ form Novell til Windows NT network, and today most use AD – which is just about where Novell NDS was 10 years ago.

      Why I don’t use something else ? I do. Professionally I manage a Windows shop, but ALL critical things runs UNIX. We did a thorough investigation this fall, and found out that we could remove 90% of our dependence on MS without suffering businesswise, and in some fields get big improvements – if management had the guts. I thnk they will in a year or two.

      rgds
      Peter
      IT Manager

    • #3081096

      Reply To: Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      by pkr9 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      I don’t know why most people bash MS, but I can tell you why I do. I’m no newbie in IT, I started with punched cards in 1967, and hav ebeen through it all – mainframes, Unix, S/36, S/38, AS/400, Netware, Mac, Linux – and Windows from ver. 1.2

      Windows is not a technically driven OS – if you want to call it an OS. Windows tries to do everything, and ends with accomplishing nothing. It is a mix of system services and applications, thrown togeter and intermingled in a way that even MS themselves can find head or tails in, as demonstarted my the rising number of security fixes that deconnect elements. When we install a new XP desktop in the office, we are greeted with “congratulations !!, You just bought the best OS for multimedia presentation”, or other to the same effect. In this case we DON’T want a multimedia PC, we want a fast piece of office equipment, but alas Mr. Gates has decided that we need the MM stuff. And please… forget about the uninstall argument, because you can’t.
      Windows is market driven, thats why a new version, always much better and maybe even working, than the previous one is issued every 18 months. And always with big delays and major parts of the promised features stripped off. They go through beta, alfa and RC before getting sold to the public, but the real version to be used by any responsible IT manager has always been SR1.
      I have been to many seminars, tradeshows and the like with IBM, Novell, Oracle and others, and NEVER seen a system crash during demonstration. In the MS world it happens frequently, and people take it as a normal thing, and even buy the stuff on their way out.
      Would you buy a car where on wheel fell off during the test drive ? Maybe because it coud have been the one-in-a-million failure. But if you previous car of the same brand spent more time in the workshop with all kind of weird problems, tha it was actually on the road, would you then buy the one where the wheel came off? Probably not – why then with Windows.
      Why is windows, as the only known product in the world, immunde to it long standing history of armbending, poor backward comability, lack of respect for customer investments, extremely bad security history, poor uptimes, heavy maintenance costs, curing bloated and buggy SW with extreme HW (now we all have a decent sized mainframe under our desks for writing a letter).
      I bash MS because their OS is bad, their business methods have been deemed illegal in many courts all over the world, their applications are generally bloated and filled with unneeded and even unwanted features which I can’t remove, their pricing reflect their market dominance, and they have shown that they are ready to buy out and kill any opposition that comes up with a better solution.
      Microsoft didn’t win because people selected MS. MS won due to some nasty agreements (armbending and legbreaking) with OEM’s, and as a consequence the general public – and alas also the IT world that should have known better -, got Windows stuffed down their throats. Some companies ‘upgraded’ form multitasking OS/2 to teh DOS shell W/95. A lot ‘upgraded’ form Novell til Windows NT network, and today most use AD – which is just about where Novell NDS was 10 years ago.

      Why I don’t use something else ? I do. Professionally I manage a Windows shop, but ALL critical things runs UNIX. We did a thorough investigation this fall, and found out that we could remove 90% of our dependence on MS without suffering businesswise, and in some fields get big improvements – if management had the guts. I thnk they will in a year or two.

      rgds
      Peter
      IT Manager

    • #3081071

      An intelligent response – thank you

      by han810p9 ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      This is the point I try to make constantly – form follows function – all OS’s have their purpose. In our IT department (which I run) we have deployed a mix of Windows, Windows Server, Red Hat, and soon Mac. Each performs a specific function – the function the user specifies drives the form of the OS.

      As techs we are becoming more skilled, more marketable in a very competitive IT world – nothing to lose and everything to gain as far as I can see.

    • #3080973

      Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      by mwb ·

      In reply to Why do IT people really bash Windows?

      You right thay are not true techies or network gurus.

Viewing 180 reply threads