Windows Forum
I have a computer installed with XP Pro, and have Office 2000 installed.
However I am reluctant to make the effort to learn XP because I am quite happy with 98 SE running Office 97.
Can anyone give me some convincing arguments as to why I should make the effort to learn XP?
by fat chink
98 has no more support/patches/fixes
XP is more buggy than 98
98 is not affected by many of the newer virus/worms
XP has more security holes than swiss cheese
98 boots and runs faster since it doesn't have as many features as XP
XP boots and runs slower on older PCs, requires faster CPUs and more RAM and HDD space than 98
Generally, unless there is a specific need to upgrade, I usually tell most people 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.
by igor948
Let me start by saying that I don't buy into any Microsoft rhetoric right away...therefore..I test and test an OS on a test box before I'm willing to install it on MY OWN boxes.
98SE has minimal support and is at the end of its life cycle.
XP is being updated and patched regularly
XP can run the more secure (and efficient) NTFS file system
98 cannot.
XP has "Plug and Play" hardware detection that works most of the time with little or no user intervention.
98 has "Plug and Pray" that sometimes works.
XPdoesn't have to be rebooted everytime you make a change to the network settings.
98 has to be rebooted for every change, thus stealing precious years off of your life waiting for reboots.
Many new games and software are being written for a 32-bit OS and/or the NTFS file system.
98 is not a "true" 32-bit OS, and as mentioned, can't use the NTFS file system.
XP can be networked wired or wirelessly with minimal effort.
98 often becomes a project when you are using servers other than MS servers.
I set XP to the "Classic View" theme with the "Classic Start Menu" and remove all of the useless eye-candy that slows down the box.
Hope that helps!!
by apotheon
No amount of added convenience with XP is, to me, worth the legal restrictions of the updated EULA under which XP is sold.
NTFS has some data management features that are definitely an advantage in some uses, but it has some problems as well: The NTFS specification changes from one Windows version to the next, so transferring a data drive to a new computer with a new Windows OS can be problematic. NTFS requires more of the partition to be devoted to disk management (which, with today's huge drives, is admittedly not much of a problem). The increased "security" of NTFS is increasingly based on the fact that data is being locked into a given OS license ? if your computer takes a dump, you may not be able to recover your data from the NTFS data drive later (depending on which version of NTFS it is, and settings on your system), which can be solved by keeping non-system-specific backups though backups effectively negate some of that supposed security of NTFS.
While XP certainly handles plug and play far better than 98, it is a complete pain in the arse when dealing with hardware that isn't properly detected. It's easier to do the easy stuff, and more difficult to do the difficult stuff, with XP.
There are other options that cover the sorts of benefits you get with XP, without actually having to use XP, but they don't involve using Microsoft products. If that's not an option of which you can take advantage, you unfortunately have to deal with the quirks of the Windows platform.
By the way: As far as I'm concerned, Windows 2000 Professional was the best desktop OS that Microsoft has ever offered. XP is a step down.
by jardinier
Thank you for that suggestion. That should allow me to adjust gradually.
Incidentally I am surprised at the number of IT people I encounter who seem unaware that MS have extended support for 98, 98 SE and ME until June, 2006.
Here is part of the item (which I lifted off my own website):
Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition support was scheduled to end on January 16, 2004. The continual evaluation of the Support Lifecycle policy revealed, however, that customers in the smaller and the emerging markets needed additional time to upgrade their product. Therefore, Microsoft will continue to support Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me through June 30, 2006. Critical security updates will be provided on the Windows Update site through June 30, 2006.
by apotheon
I'm not so surprised that not many are aware of it. Many aren't accustomed to the idea of a company that announces an End Of Life for a product frivolously, and as such they might not notice the fact that Microsoft has backpedaled.
Aside from that, I've got to wonder what asinine line of thought led MS executives to decide they should continue support for ME (the worst debacle in Microsoft OS history) while cutting back support on Win2k (the best OS that Microsoft has ever produced and, it seems, perhaps the best it will ever produce).
by dafe2
I wonder if that's because the install base of the OS's are in the hands (generally) of home users?? A vocal bunch :-)
Anyway, in my opinion, the only (real) reason to move to WIN2K or XP is the desire for FILE security, provided by NTFS and/or EFS. If these aren't desired or needed Windows 98SE is an adequate platform for many PC users
Anyway, good move on going right to XP. I used WINT2K up until DEC, 02..........I found when I migrated to XP, Microsoft moved and/or renamed everything. Major pain in the A.........
Very happy now but.....
Had I known how much BS I'd have to deal with I would have stuck with 2K.
Change for the sake of change is not good. If you don't mind an off topic suggestion: Look into Office 2003..........it's a very smooth fit for XP.
by trockii
by house
I can do without a dos based OS. I had a lot of fun with it in the past, but I shake my head when I walk up to a 9x machine nowadays. It's still fun though, but troubleshooting the OS can be a pain.
If you want to learn XP, then I suggest running 2000 for a bit. The OS has a much more logical structure regarding the layout and location of the various administrative utitilties. I ran 2k for quite a while, without devoting too much time to XP when it was released. The thing that initially threw me off was the "tossed around" GUI that was apparently designed to promote the end user and confuse the hell out of IT Professionals. Rather than structured tabbed properties, you will have to put up with brief topic descriptions and links for some of the common functions that were so much more efficient in the 2k layout.
I do find though, that XP is generally faster than 2k.
My advice - go 2k for a while - then hit XP.
PS - don't worry about time. Longhorn's not due until the next ice-age.
by apotheon
I used Win2k Pro for a while. Then I used WinXP Pro for a while. Then I went back to Win2k.
In the end, I find that (aside from Linux, which trumps all Windows OSes) Win2k is the only Windows OS that has any hope of holding my attention. The others are all confused messes of problems.
The Win9x OSes, based on the Chicago architecture, are essentially orgies of marketing hoopla without much functional structure (and the WinME debacle was essentially the same thing taken to an absurd, unusable extreme). WinNT 4.0 had its strengths, of course, being more Win32-based, but it still suffered from pollution by the plague of problems that came with the Chicago OS architecture, as the boys in charge of making the Final Decisions in Redmond decided to throw "user-friendly" marketability in a pot with "useful" and stir.
Win2k backed off from the Chicago problem areas somewhat, restructured, incorporated more of the Win32 architecture strengths, and generally stabilized. In essence, everything that came before it was a beta test version leading up to the relatively successful production of Win2k (WinME notwithstanding, of course, as it was pretty much just the Wrong Idea Entirely).
WinXP, unfortunately, has tossed out a lot of the successes of Win2k, and reincorporated a lot of the design philosophy of the Chicago OS architecture with the Whistler (aka NT 5.1) architecture. Ironically, a lot of the superficial "feature additions" in Whistler over previous architectures were undone by SP2, which reset a lot of configurations and rewrote a lot of core code to Win2k (aka NT 5.0) standards. In other words, the much-vaunted security "enhancements" of Windows XP SP2 achieved greater security by going back to Windows 2000 standards, when things were done right. Being a back-port, however, it tends to suffer some minor problems in implementation. C'est la vie.
For those who are interested:
Win32 = NT 32-bit architecture
Chicago = Windows 95 32-bit architecture, built on DOS, and subsequently serving as the code-base for Windows 98 and Windows ME
Neptune = Initially, this was meant to be the "next" OS after the 9x series. It got scaled back, mangled, and mixed with Chicago, until the two were essentially indistinguishable. In the end, 98 and ME ended up with the same Chicago code base, with a few extensions piled on top. The Neptune enhancements weren't ever successfully incorporated to any notable degree outside of Windows 98 OSR2 "Second Edition".
Cairo = NT 4.0 architecture project, largely abandoned when Microsoft got right down to it: it took them long enough to get around to a proper implementation of some of the more important Win32 characteristics
Whistler = Also known as NT 5.1, the supposed successor to Windows 2000 (NT 5.0): it's the "merging" of Chicago and Win32 based architectures. This merging was, apparently, accomplished by smacking the two together repeatedly, and with great force, until the resultant gravel appeared to be reasonably homogenous.
Longhorn = The new Cairo: just as good an idea at first, just as rapidly being abandoned piecemeal and replaced, feature by feature, with ideas more suited to the marketing department than software engineering. Microsoft may still call it Longhorn, and consider it a successful deployment, when they're done, but that won't change the fact that it will bear zero notable resemblance to the original collection of great ideas to which the Longhorn name originally applied.
So: Armed with this knowledge, perhaps any of you that bothered to read this will realize some of the reasons I prefer Win2k over all other Windows versions.
by dafe2
Very accurate..........I allmost stopped reading after you mentioned Linux though (laugh)....
Windows 2000 is the most "Elegant" OS Microsoft ever produced, both technically and aesthetically. You make it a little difficult to argue, but, with some effort the jump to XP in some cases is worth it.
XP (or Whistler) is a much tighter OS and with the right hardware does run faster. The problem is, it requires a lot of effort to get rid of the front end (that is) setup by default.
I prefer my OS clean and lean...
I guess my caveat to someone considering running XP would be: If you're NOT prepared to spend endless hours getting rid of the default installation....then XP is not for you. Go with Windows 2000 if you need file security (EFS) or Windows 98 SE for gamers or whatever....
Personally I spent a *&^load of MY time tearing down XP and the finding out that common desktop, menu items and tools had been renamed and moved to essentially end up with......if I look real close - is essentially XP - that was, apparently, accomplished by smacking the two together repeatedly, and with great force, until the resultant gravel appeared to be reasonably homogenous.
Sorry for the cut & paste...couldn't resist it.
by dafe2
I still wonder if they backpedaled because those products are in the hands of a very vocal market: the home users.
They never backed off of their plans with NT4.0. Those of us with aging systems projects are now forced to deal with some critical path issues....
I still think "Bob" was worse than ME, but the guys that made this decision should be forced to revise there CV's using these products.
Hope your wrong about the next OS rev...........we still have to eat :-)
by apotheon
They've backed off on the Chicago-architecture OS EOLs (I'd bet money) because of the fact that the home-OS products got all the press. Microsoft isn't in the business of making good software. It's in the business of keeping customers chained to its products.
Home desktop end users are less capable of managing an upgrade, so the marketing department (and attached entities) at Microsoft influences policy to ensure that home desktop end users are coddled and "eased" into new OS adoption. Because businesses tend to have a more thorough perceived financial stake in resisting changing platforms (away from Microsoft products), they'll take more forced product upgrade abuse. As such, the IT industry gets "forced" by EOLs to upgrade with more of a protection-racket attitude than home desktop end users.
by dafe2
You do have a thing for Microsoft doncha? & I for Linux mmmm
Microsoft does make good products with the exeption of the two features and one OS we referred to earlier....The chains are testaments to loyalty.
Home desktops.....Kid Gloves....absolutely..mmm...thinner wallets too.
From a business point of view:
I'm not happy about EOL's either....HOWEVER....I do want them (Microsoft) to be in business ......at least till retirement:-) It's a good business decision.
Can you really expect ANY vendor or business for that matter to support a product of any sort forever?
by apotheon
There are, indeed, cases where XP is a better option than 2k, but they aren't the reasons most people think they are. There are some extremely limited niche uses for which WinXP Pro is more functional than Win2k Pro. It's more likely that an upgrade will be "forced" by dropped support for the older OS, "forced" by third-party products dropping support for the older OS, or mindless succumbing to marketing hype. The only functionality benefit to XP that I've run across so far is that the 64-bit ported versions will actually take some advantage of 64-bit processors (though not bloody much, since they're still 32-bit OSes that are simply communicating with the 64-bit processors through what amounts to a United Nations interpreter, with all the attendant waste of resources). The fact that there's a net performance gain with 64-bit processors, even on kludged support for them like in the compatible versions of XP, is something that Win2k can't replicate.
Of course, it's hardly worth the expense, considering how little additional performance you can eke out of the things. One can only hope things will get better on that score next year when the next 64-bit version of XP (hopefully a "true" 64-bit OS this time, though I'm not holding my breath) is released.
I have yet to recommend an upgrade to XP from 2k, under any circumstances. If the need arises, I won't hesitate to make the recommendation, though I will make all caveats abundantly clear.
As for preferring a lean, mean, and clean OS, it boggles my mind that you seem so opposed to use of Linux. The most bloated Linux installation I've ever seen had about half the fat of the most lean, stripped-down Windows NT 4.0 or Windows 2000 system possible. Even though it was still built on 16-bit DOS (without the subsequent broken 32-bit implementation), Windows 95's first release was a monument to bloat and cruft in comparison to a fully-featured Linux.
I don't begrudge anyone the decision to use Windows, in terms of comfort with the OS, but if you're looking for lean, mean, clean, stable, secure, functional, and featureful, Linux will put any Windows OS to shame. Windows is good for exactly one thing, in functional terms: running Windows-only software. More and more of that is becoming easily used within Windows emulation environments in Linux, of course.
by dafe2
You usually don't have a whole lot of choice in corporate environments - You know the ones - Theres the technical decision, the sound decision and then the political decison. The political decision just read PC Magazine or something so guess what?....Anyway you can't buy a box nowadays without XP (Pro in this case) so we've just produced an XP image based on team feedback and run with it....service packs & patches are just slipstreamed to a RIS server and updated.
As for a 64 BIT OS I've not been aquainted with more than marketing materials. Seems a little reckless at this stage though. Nice to see the 64 BIT CPU's..............Hopefully more than a kludged Operating System shows next year.
I can't imagine anyone wanting to buy the CPU and throwing a compatible OS at it. Kind of like buying a 911 and putting K-Mart rubber on the wheels.
My jibes at Linux are as you suspect - Without foundation. My only "experience" with Linux was a temporary employee I caught (Maliciously) reading an NTFS partition with a Linux boot disk.
So any information I've gathered with regards to Linux is from that point of view ONLY.
Any remarks (or isinuations) are for humour. I have a great deal of respect for those that have taken the time to learn & use any OS Professionally. I still use OS/2 and continue to maintain a large client base in that area as well.
My jibes at Linux AKA "the Penguin" are made in jest and with respect.
by apotheon
"I can't imagine anyone wanting to buy the CPU and throwing a compatible OS at it. Kind of like buying a 911 and putting K-Mart rubber on the wheels.": That's pretty much exactly how I see it. Many people do it, though, based on marketing. If K-Mart had a high-dollar national ad campaign for crappy K-Mart "high performance" tires running, there would be people buying K-Mart tires for their Porsches.
There are, after all, people that buy Goodyear "high performance" tires for expensive, high-performance cars.
"My only 'experience' with Linux was a temporary employee I caught (Maliciously) reading an NTFS partition with a Linux boot disk.": Heh. That should prove the usefulness of Linux-based OSes to you, at least for network audits. Ahem. Guerilla marketing, I tell ya.
"My jibes at Linux AKA "the Penguin" are made in jest and with respect.": Good to hear.
Obviously, I don't have much bad to say about people that have developed the skills of dealing with the Windows platform in all its troublesome glory. Managing such systems requires a lot of dedication and self-education to remain at the top of one's game. In fact, I spend a lot more time supporting Windows systems than Linux systems in my line of work (although, to be fair, much of the reason for that is that the Linux systems aren't crashing like the Windows systems). As a Windows support professional myself, I can't really cast stones at those others who do the same.
As my peer listing here at TR suggests, however, a real professional in the IT industry is someone who works to make his job obsolete by developing solutions to the problems his job addresses. That's not to say he puts himself out of business, of course: there'll always be a new set of problems, which will require someone like him to do a new job. The more stable, secure, and capable Linux platform is simply the answer to a lot of the problems the IT industry is attempting to solve with the latest version of Windows, in my estimation. I make more money from Windows, but that's something like a mechanic using faulty parts when fixing a car so that its owner will have to come back to the garage again.
A planned obsolescence profit model doesn't sit well with me.
by thechas
Hi Julian,
Here's my take on XP.
If you have the hardware to run XP, (at least 2X Microsoft's minimum) go with it.
For a new system, go with XP over W98, hands down.
First, even though W98 is still supported, that support is minimal at best. Patches will only be produced for issues that Microsoft determines to be critical!
Reading through the security bulletins from Microsoft, I have the impression that W98 has most of the security flaws being fixed in W2K and XP. But, by some secret formula, Microsoft determines that the flaw in the W98 is not "critical" enough to warrant the effort to fix it.
Some of the security fixes for W98 actually break W98 on some older systems.
Both IE6 and DirectX 9 are in part security fixes. Each will cause some systems with older video cards to become very unstable.
Despite the security risks, I am hesitant to upgrade W98 systems to either IE6 or DirectX 9.
Even for those on a dial-up connection, I now recommend installing a software firewall along with anti-virus software.
Second, with the exception of older hardware, XP is a LOT more stable than W98 ever has been.
My personal XP system has been running since 2002 without a re-load of Windows. I can't think of a W98 system that has run that long without developing crashes or slowdowns.
Finally, hardware is becoming an issue for W98. I have thumb drives and hard drives that will not work on a W98 system.
VIA recommends using an older revision of their chip-set drivers for W98 and Me.
Microsoft has stopped certifying drivers for W98. That means that manufactures either have to offer an old and out of date driver for W98, or offer an unsigned driver.
Bottom line:
New hardware, Windows 2000 or XP.
Old hardware not connecting to a network or the Internet, stick with the OS that came with the system.
Old hardware being used on-line or networked, replace / upgrade as needed and switch to Windows 2000 or XP.
Chas
by jardinier
I went to the MS website to search for critical updates for my XP Pro.
I was informed that 77 MB of updates were needed.
However Colin told me that this was merely the components of SP2 that were relevant to my particular computer.
So SP2 is likely to stuff up my computer, but I can't get critical updates without selecting the lot.
Now I could be wrong about this as I did not look at the list of patches that were nominated.
Naturally I cannot download 77 MB with a dial-up connection, and I have no intention of installing SP2 from one of the disks which come with computer magazines.
What options are left for me, then?
by dafe2
You can have the CD delivered to you here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/winxpsp2.mspx
For once, they aren't charging S&H :-)
by jardinier
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I already have two legitimate copies of SP2 on CD.
The point is that I don't want to install it all, because of reports I have heard that it will clash with some software.
A good friend of mine who owns a computer business will ONLY install SP2 on brand new machines which no other software loaded.
Here is an item about the potential problems with SP2:
XP SP 2 WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH 10 PER CENT OF COMPUTERS
[TechWeb News, September 1, 2004]
Upgrading to Service Pack 2 (SP2) will cause problems with about one out of every 10 PCs running Windows XP, according to research published this week by a Canadian asset-monitoring service provider.
Ottawa-based AssetMetrix probed over 44,000 Windows XP systems housed in nearly 350 companies to come up with its numbers, matching what it found on the PCs against various lists that Microsoft has posted of programs that have, or may have, compatibility issues with the massive SP2 update.
?On average, 10.3 percent of the Windows XP-based machines will have an issue of some degree with SP2,? said Steve O'Halloran, the managing director of AssetMetrix Research Labs. ?Or better put, they have the 'opportunity' for an issue to arise.? AssetMetrix used Microsoft-made lists -- including one that identifies applications that have an issue with the now-on-by-default Windows Firewall, and another that names applications known to experience a 'loss of functionality' when SP2 is installed -- to come up with its figures.
The 10 percent rate didn't come as a shock, said O'Halloran, but a new-found correlation between company size and XP usage did. ?Actually, I was assuming [the percentage] would be higher, but I didn't expect to spot a statistical difference between large and small companies.?
Business with fewer than 100 XP machines, for instance, can anticipate problems with 11.9 percent of their systems, said O'Halloran, while those with more than 100 XP PCs can figure on issues with just 6.2 percent of their desktops. Smaller companies will have a tougher time with SP2 for a variety of reasons, including a higher concentration of Windows XP PCs. According to AssetMetrix's data, the smaller the company -- as measured by the number of PCs it operates -- the more likely it's a 100 percent XP shop.
Other factors play to the increased chance that smaller businesses will be affected by SP2, said O'Halloran, including their use of older software -- which in some cases has issues with SP2 while newer versions do not -- and use of second- or third-tier programs, like Corel's WordPerfect, one of the titles on the 'loss of functionality' list.
A lack of standardisation also plays to a bigger-than-average impact of SP2 on small business. Several FTP programs are on the Windows Firewall list, for example, and where an enterprise would likely force all users to deploy just one of those, small businesses are much looser, and tend to have different programs on different machines. ?It's like the lottery,? said O'Halloran. ?The more programs you use the better chance you'll be a winner.?
While small companies will probably have it tougher than enterprises today, that will change as larger firms update systems to XP (and thus XP2) in 2005 in anticipation of Longhorn and to refresh aging hardware. ?Larger companies will have to resolve this tomorrow,? said O'Halloran, ?because they'll find it's a continual process to insure that this affected software is remedied [when XP SP2 is added to the mix].?
By his estimate, compatibility issues with SP2 will last a year to a year and a half, based on previous Windows migrations. And in his mind, as well as many analysts, SP2 is as much a new OS as a major security update. ?Users should understand software compatibility from that perspective, that [Sp2] is really a new operating system.?
?But don't let the one-in-ten PC with compatibility problems spook you,? he said. ?Even through you're seeing this quantified, don't use that as an excuse to skirt the issue. Deploy SP2 now. It's for the greater good of the organisation, even if some systems and applications won't work without work.?
by apotheon
I don't expect anyone to support products indefinitely without compensation. Microsoft, however, has changed the software market from a service industry (software development) into a product industry (software sales). This has had a number of negative effects on the industry, despite the fact that it has helped Microsoft reach a position of market dominance and, in the short run, has ensured that Microsoft isn't hurting for cash.
In a service-based software industry, issuing an EOL for something that a lot of customers still use and still want to use would be absurd. Revenue would come primarily from support contracts, and other software businesses would be prompted to continue to ensure that their products would be compatible with what people were still using. Software upgrades would be more driven by what the software users wanted as additional features and software design advances, rather than by what marketing directors would be able to leverage to maintain market dominance. (Note I said "more driven", not "solely driven".) Also, software patents would not be a revenue stream all by themselves the way they're getting to be now, stifling innovation.
Software development service requires local workers. Offshoring of software development only saves money when done in large numbers: you need a "bulk discount", effectively, over an extended period, to be able to save more money through offshoring of software development. That many people for that long a time only becomes commonly necessary when one company is providing all the development support for popular productized software. When software is treated as a service, it is more effective and useful for a given company that needs such services to keep a small number of programmers at work locally, or to hire local programmers on an as-needed basis, and since small teams are ideal for software development efficiency rather than large numbers of "assembly-line" programmers the total effectiveness of software development in the industry would increase. Add to this the fact that, without huge stables of supporting programmers under lock and key by a single company for a given product, many companies that currently don't need programmers on-staff because they can get by with the generic "good enough" software available in shrink-wrap would now need programmers on-staff to ensure they've got the software support they need, and the net aggregate of software developers employed would increase.
Productivity for the companies that hired programmers as service-based labor would increase, as well: more economic wealth would be generated, because corporate entities would not be able to make money by using "good enough" software. They'd have to pay more for software development, but they'd get more from it as well. The net difference would be faster positive (as opposed to marketing) software evolution and more programmers employed domestically.
Also, as I started this to explain, no software that was still in any demand would reach an End Of Life due to a centralized vendor deciding, of its own accord, to simply cease supporting it because they can make more money by forcing an upgrade. So: No, I don't expect a vendor to support a software product indefinitely. I would, however, expect a software service provider to sell the services that are in demand.
I guess I have "a thing" for Microsoft because Microsoft has done a great deal of damage to my potential livelihood, and for no reason other than creating an industry environment that is optimized for Microsoft's market dominance rather than for industry advancement.
by dafe2
Hehehe. You just can't help yourself...
Re Linux:
Curious though, The guy went to the trouble of creating this "fancy" Linux boot disk when so many other tools & utils would've been much less stressful.
Gave him points for creativity & persistance though.
Many would say my lack of attention to Linux is due to my constant attention to learning & re-learning Microsoft products.
Without question, I share your views with regards to those that excel in this or any other game. A great deal of effort & dedication goes into keeping skills sharp.
In the end, our goals appear the same. Your skills and dare I say "reluctant" appreciation of MS product are clear. No doubt you eat as well (and sleep as soundly) as I do at the end of the day.
by dafe2
I understand your concept......
The Model you describe is used by SAP, PeopleSoft, SQL and the like.........and as you say it is VERY effective.
I just wonder if, in this case, Microsoft had NOT commoditized it's products we'd have seen a SLOWER addoption of the technology we enjoy a good living from today.
By product, I reffer to MS Office and the like. I still maintain that in the case of the OS, it was a wise Business Decision. However painful, it is driving revenues.
I may have misread your post, or even missed your point, but I didn't see a line drawn between the OS and SOFTWARE PRODUCT. (Might just be too early for me)
As to Offshoring of software development, this activity trully bogles the mind. I'm sure in the short term, "canned" application software has had an effect, but IMO this is a symptom of a maturing industry (We're still only about 15 years old).
Don't get me wrong, I (too) know many unemployed programmers. Offshoring does nobody but bankers any good.
by apotheon
I was speaking of software in general, including productivity applications, networking services, the operating system, and so on. The problem I was trying to illustrate is that of treating what is essentially a service (software development) with manufacture of a product (software packages). If software development were treated as an industry service, rather than the compiled code that results being treated as a manufactured product, the industry would probably be a lot healthier, for the reasons I tried to convey in my earlier post on the subject.
Keep in mind, as you contemplate what I've said, that growth that is running out of control is as much a sickness of the industry as lack of growth is. Pride goeth before the fall, as they say: in a corporate culture, productized software's successes will be measured not by its effectiveness, usefulness, and implementation. It will instead be measured by market saturation and brand loyalty. When you make success about the label on the package instead of the quality of what you're buying, quality will suffer, and so too will those who produce quality work.
by dafe2
My only issue with your view is the OS being thrown in. I see it as infrastructure.
From an operational point of view (Your customers & mine) - I see Excel, Word, Powerpoint and others as nothing more than nebulous & "insignificant". Not CORE to business. Maybe that exacerbates the problem.
Ok, I better clarify that comment for those of you that just said WTF and have your fingers at poised over caps lock and the GFY keys:
What I mean by that is this: In an enterprise network, the infrastructure has become the focus....and...no one gives a rats behind what application software (TO A DEGREE) is being used. It's become a commodity. That's not to say nobody uses standard tools.
In a nutshell things have moved so fast and these things work so....
So yes, you have a point there.
PS
I just read your last post..........still laughing............But my systems are set to auto-reboot every 15 days & to E-mail any issues to a BlackBerry. Thankfully, it's a rare occasion my attention is drawn to fighting fires. Yes.....it is I who has been trained by the Servers....not the other way arround. At any rate, I don't like surprises or un-scheduled downtime....still happens on occasion and still too often for my liking.
Good one though........damn near makes me want to learn more about Penguins I laughed so hard.
Focus on the words Damn Near.......It wasn't THAT funny.
by dafe2
UNIX! - Alas, now that WOULD explain the sharp mind, penmanship and quick wit....you see Apotheon, Linux alone could not have done that.
harrrrummphh;-)
Tip;
When in Canada......Do NOT eat the yellow snow.
by apotheon
Indeed, I suspect that, at the end of the day, we're both in pretty much the same place.
obligatory advocacy:
Of course, when I go home, I don't have to restart my computer because of the standard Windows memory leaks. Ahem.
by apotheon
Assuming your laughter was about my comment in another branching of the discussion, wherein I semi-joked about rebooting issues, I'm glad it was amusing.
Note: Speaking of applications, all the best network monitoring, auditing, and defense software runs on Unix systems. Isn't that spashul?
Hmm. I find it so difficult to resist the obligatory advocacy. Ahem.
by apotheon
I understand your reluctance to install SP2, particularly if it's on a personal (in the proprietary sense, rather than the technology architecture sense) computer. On the other hand, I learned a long time ago that with Windows one must plan for the occasional, inevitable necessity of a reinstall. That's life.
This has prompted me to learn better habits in how I organize data on the hard drive (never letting Windows decide where my saved files go, for instance). This makes the process of keeping backups (or making them, if you are too lazy to do the smart thing and keep them current) much easier. Thus, when it comes time to reinstall, you won't lose any data. By the way, I never use the My Documents folder and similar default directories on Windows machines for anything non-temporary or non-disposable.
It's also a good idea to keep A) all software CDs, floppies, manuals, and so on for applications installed on a system with, or very near, that system, in an organized manner, B) a list with or near the computer (again organized) of all installed applications, configurations, and settings, and C) diligent backups (just had to reiterate the importance of that).
These are lessons I learned primarily from dealing with Windows. I know these things by rote because of professional training and formal education, of course, but I really LEARNED it by dealing with Windows' little instabilities and other surprises. They're still good practice, though, even when using other (more stable) OSes like the various Unices (Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS X). This stuff is all just very, very good practice.
You can start learning such lessons now. Start by backing everything up. Make sure you've got all of your software paraphernalia handy. When that's done, consider whether you want to reinstall everything from scratch, including SP2. If you can afford the downtime, you might as well learn what you can about SP2, and try installing it. If it wipes out your system or otherwise screws things up beyond repair, you'll at least be prepared to reinstall.
If everything goes smoothly, you'll be in business.
If this was a production-environment critical system, there's no way in hell I'd recommend installing SP2 without prototyping on an "identical" system or six. By the way, the following three links are a good place to start in learning about downloading and installing patches without using the IE-driven Windows Update and Automatic Update tools:
http://www.theeldergeek.com/slipstream_06.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.aspx?displaylang=en&categoryid=7
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/desktopdeployment/securitypatching/securitysus.mspx
by jardinier
for the advice and helpful information, especially the download sites that are independent of Windows Update.
I have recently acquired an external USB storage device, which has an 80 GB Seagate HDD.
All my files will be copied onto that, both for back-up and for transference between various computers.
And yes, I have had to do re-installs for various reasons. I keep copies of all my important files on floppies, and will be migrating to a CD burner in due course. Apart from the time I was wiped out with a virus, before I used AV software, I have never lost an important file.
About the worst loss -- which is not the end of the world -- has been my email personal filing cabinet.
As most of the work I do on the computer is on my websites, all this material is stored on the server in America anyhow. So if one computer wipes out, I can still access all the data from any other computer.
I would like to thank EVERYONE who has contributed to this discussion. I had no idea I would get such a helpful and diverse response.
by apotheon
by dafe2
I'd also consider imaging the disk if time & equipment permit........this gives you a quick "backout" strategy.
The strategy Apotheon outlines is very thorough though....even though Paragraph 4 sounds a little "mmmmm".....just a joke.....couldn't help it.
by apotheon
Linux is a Unix. I was speaking in the generic because the tools don't ONLY work on Linux: they also work on FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, SCO UNIX, any SysV, IRIX, AIX, HP-UX, and so on. Typically, they are more tailored for Linux than the others, but they also work on the others.
There aren't really any major functional differences between Linux and other Unices. I refer most often to Linux because A) it's open source (as are the BSDs), B) it enjoys faster development support than the others, and C) it has very strong community support. There's also that nifty penguin logo thing.
This discussion is closed to new replies.
Sort by Trending