POLL : The worse Microsoft OS ever made....
- Thread starter Drastik
- Start date
Byteman
Malware Destroyer
tested uptimes for win9x vs. NT kernel based machines are drastic! the NT based machines also don't handle memory the same way, programs running in win9x share memory so when an app throws an error it usually screws everything else up. NT based machines allocate memory seperately as much a possible so when an app locks up the effects on the rest of the system are not as damaging as with 9x.
Drastik
New Member
ack said:
Amen to that.
Check out my topic here :
http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?t=14241
PROOF! lol
FIN_Sphinxi
New Member
Every Windows is terrible
But a good chunk of that is not because Microsoft programmers are incompetent (if you think so, sit down and have a chat with someone on their compiler team and if yer smart enough to realize it, you'll be humbled). There are three main reasons why Microsoft operating systems "suck"
- Backwards compatability. For the most part, we can use any given program made for an older OS on a newer OS. While this is being gradually phased out (started a bit with 2000, more so with XP/2003 and definitively so with Windows 6.x), having to support older application calls results in a good chunk of problems. Why?
Just think of all the stupidities of programming with PDBs back in Dos/W9x days -- those still need to be supported because people still use those applications from time to time. Or even approaches to something to "normal" as IPC/Multitasking. Current revisions of Windows need to support older methods and while the beauty of DLLs has gone a long way to support this, it also forces the OS to suffer through a lot of baggage
The obvious solution is.... get rid of backwards compatability! Sure. But thats one of the big reasons "we all hate Macs". When Macs come out with a new something -- its not exactly what we'd consider backwards compatible. v6.x of Windows should make good progress in this direction but the fact of the matter is, people dont want to lose backwards compatability but they also dont want the bugginess that came with the programs written back in the day.
- People want pretty. The obvious case of this is Unix: consider the robustness of Unix and how its so not user friendly. If Windows was just like that, how many people do you think would be using personal computers? Not many. What kind of people would be using computers? Hardcore geeks. Think about that for a second. If it was just hardcore geeks using the OS, even if the OS was unstable .... we'd be able to fix it ourselves. I dont know about you but I dont fancy doing my own driver development or tweaking
The simple matter is that Windows cannot be made into a hardcore OS simply because people dont want it that way.
- Bad code. Just like any code, MS programmers arent perfect and they make mistakes - not to mention compiler stupidities (cough)pentium4 instruction set(cough). Sure its a much bigger issue when the OS is buggy but (a) considering the size of the OS and (b) complexity of the OS and (c) how much back baggage they have to support and on top of that (d) they have to forgo a lot of functionality in order so that normal users dont get overwhelmed.
jancz3rt
<b>VIP Member</b>
rjkengr said:
Whaaaat! Do you mean to suggest that it is "greater than" XP? I don't think so. Windows 2000 is a network centred OS while the XP operating system is made for the normal user (XP Home) and the advanced user (XP Professional). The XP operating system is primarily entertainment centred and newer than the 2000 boasting greater compatibilty and potential..
http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/windows.htm
In my opinion, based on personal experience, Windows ME was good. I had very few problems as opposed to Windows 98SE that I had prior to that. However, I am aware that it was a nightmare for many.
JAN
Last edited: