|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I have just torn my hair out. My browsers, both IE and FF stopped being able to look at https: sites. Valid ones. and I have spent 90 minutes doing all the various things that never actually worked to restore the situation. With no decent clues form M$oft, naturally.
Megaman wasted 90 minutes helping me.
At the end of the 90 minutes "whatever it was" that was wrong is now "cured". I have no idea what is going on
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I guess that is why it is used so infrequently.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
What microsoft lacks in quality it makes up for in marketing. Bill Gates is not a genius because of his computer knowledge, he is a genius because of his business knowledge.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm... at last a subject I can talk about with some authority!
Part of the reason that Windows is so hopeless is that it is backwards compatible with everything that has ever been written before. Windows XP is backwards compatible with Windows 2000, Windows 95/98/Me, Windows 3.1 and even DOS. This policy means that Microsoft can't change things very easily in case it makes existing programs break, so the design flaws of earlier systems also propagate through to their latest products. It is insane to give a web browser (Internet Explorer) the power to bring down the whole system, but they gave it that so they could prove to the US DOJ that it was an integral part of the operating system, and now they are reaping the consequences (spyware, malware, viruses).
Apple got round this problem by producing an entirely new operating system (Mac OS X) that has a modern design and security model, and pushing all the software vendors to update their software to be compatible. Microsoft almost did this by creating a modern operating system to replace Windows 95/98/Me (Windows NT, the forerunner to Windows 2000 and Windows XP), but then ruined it all by giving users and programs privileges they should never have been given for the sake of backwards compatibility with programs from the mid-nineties that should have been retired years ago.
Okay, now I've proved I'm a geek, I might as well recommend that you all use GNU/Linux instead, as it is much better engineered, and it's free.
If you're still reading, you deserve a medal. 
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
A bit of pragmatic reality........
If there were no glitches in software or operating systems then there would be on reason to evolve into higher levels of technical infrastructure.
Computers are a relativly new appliance and will always have pros and cons as to what is best and not. It is the debate which sparks innovative thinking which in turn spurs technical advances.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are right that bugs drive development, to a certain extent - Microsoft has always promised that the next version of its product will be more stable - but it surprises me that so many people think that bugs are an integral part of the computing experience. They aren't - it is perfectly possible to write almost flawless software. (The Linux kernel running on this computer has *never* crashed since I bought it in 2001. Honestly.) Microsoft simply likes people to think that bugs are ubiquitous, so it can bring out a new version that is more stable and prettier, without genuinely innovating.
I am quite interested to see what will happen to the computer industry over the next couple of years. The desktop has not really changed since Windows 95, and Microsoft Office 2000 is just as good as the latest version. Because of Microsoft's monopoly, there is little competition and the market is stagnating. It might just be possible for a truly innovative company like Google to jump in and take over the office or desktop market.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
This computer has never crashed either and I am running MSXP. 90% of the time when we get a call to "fix my computer" it is due to neglect. We make a fairly nice living because people are too dense to get it thru their thick heads that good anti-virus and anti-spyware and once you have them......... USE THEM!!!!!!!!....... can realy do alot to eliminate problems. But who am I to complain... they pay our bills::-)
As for the next few years.... the rumbles we hear is that changes of the most base nature are soon to rock the computing world.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad to hear that Windows runs nicely for you. I haven't used it on a regular basis, but I have used Windows 2000 and I have had it lock up on me a number of times (admittedly probably due to poor drivers rather than the OS itself). I find the amount of time it takes to keep the OS and the virus scanner and the spyware remover up-to-date these days is totally absurd. It's something you just don't need to worry about in the Linux world.
> As for the next few years.... the rumbles we hear is that changes of the most base nature are soon to rock the computing world.
I'm intrigued now... what are you referring to? Can you give me a clue? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just to clarify, I meant I haven't used Windows XP on a regular basis. I have used Win2k a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Win2K can take the big flush as far as I am concerned......
I think it is crap too..... LOL
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Sitting back and smiling smugly as he reads the sad laments of those who DON'T use a Mac*:-D 
"I promise not to try not to fuck with your mind/ I promise not to mind if you go your way and i go mine/promise not to lie if i'm looking you right in your eye/promise not to try not to let you down."
--Eve6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I like Macs..... with extra pickles and onions........ hold the special sauce.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that people who complain about Windows all the time yet use it all the same are like people who don't like the Labour Party but end up voting for it all the same, because "the other parties are all hopeless". Which is completely useless, because it'll never change Labour's, or Microsoft's, policies one bit.
My advice, if you are fed up with Windows and/or Microsoft:
- if you are a bog-standard desktop user, or need specific commercial software, get a Mac - the low end Macs are very cheap these days, and they have a very nice operating system now:
http://www.apple.com/
- if you are an intermediate user, or have something against Macs, you could try a version of Linux like Ubuntu, which I hear good things about, and is also free:
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/
In fact, these days you don't even need to install Linux to use it. You can download a "live CD" that you just boot the computer off, and only install to the hard disk if you enjoy it.
- if you are a power user, and are willing to find out exactly how an operating system works, use Debian (which is what I use):
http://www.debian.org/
- if you are a masochist, get something running Risc OS
http://www.iyonix.com/
(That's not a serious suggestion, though Risc OS was a revolutionary OS in its day, and it's British too!)
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"... Windows XP is backwards compatible with Windows 2000, Windows 95/98/Me, Windows 3.1 and even DOS."
Actually you have erred in having made this assumption in two areas; but, then again you are not alone in having done so.
1) Firstly, yes, all versions of Windows ... that is to say Windows'98 and earlier were (are) as you have stated FULLY backwards compatible with all earlier releases of Windows. Windows'ME signalled the ending of that era, with it, in of itself, a hybrid of the then Windows'98 and the forthcoming Windows'2000.
The release of Windows'2000 (1999) represented Microsoft's first entirely "new" re-write of the OS since it's introduction as the MS-DOS Shell under MS-DOS 4.x (1984 or thereabouts), and later its' first abortive release as what we now consider "Windows" with release 2.0 in late 1988. This reworking of the base code achieved two purposes: the first being to fully disable all MS-DOS functionality outside of the Windows GUI (designed to support their "Marketing Myth" that Windows was no longer dependent upon MS-DOS); and secondly, to address "Commercial" concerns regarding integration of forthcoming technological advances and Security. Regarding the former (the myth), this is balderdash as anyone who has ever installed either Windows'2000 or its' "child" Windows'XP on an entirely "new" BLANK hard-drive, where no attempt is being made to migrate pre-exisiting user settings and applications well knows. In fact Microsoft makes no bones about it, blythly informing us that "the MS-DOS portion of Setup has now been completed and Windows needs to restart your system inorder to finish seting up the computer to run Windows." Those who may have elected to "Upgrade" an earlier version of Windows to either Windows'2000 or Windows'XP (by inserting the CD-ROM into the drive and running setup from the Windows Desktop within that prior version) of course never get such amessge; but, then again in having done so they risk retaining legacy code which may or may not inhibit future performance of the Windows OS as you outline in your further comments. In terms of the latter, Microsoft has managed to achieve a reasonable degree of success, especially with regard to forthcoming technologies. Sadly Security is still a problem; but as you have pointed out so admirably as long as the OS is dependent upon full integration of their "Trident" rendering engine (Internet Explorer) Security will always take second place to Microsoft's desire (and those of their Strategic Partner's) to have unfettered access to our computers.
2) Windows'XP is not, nor should it ever be viewed as a replacement for Windows'2000. It is simply Windows'2000's "child"; just as Windows'98 was Windows'95's, as was to a limited degree Windows'ME. When first introduced Windows'2000 was never, ever, intended as a Home-user OS environment; it being a replacement for their highly successful "Commercial" Windows'NT 4.x which was (and probably remains their most stable platform ever written) and designed to meet growing needs by Commerical interests for forthcoming advances Microsoft knew Windows'NT could never handle appropriately. Unfortunately, "success" fosters and fuels its' own demand, with Home-users flocking in droves to Windows'2000, which represented in their minds-eye the cutting-edge, not-with-standing it being a platform they were in no way, shape, or form, capable of understanding, nor willing to ever attempt to adequately learn.
Microsoft was faced with a dilema ... "What to do?" They had no desire to have Home-users over-burdoning their Technical Support infrastructure with issues regarding failed understanding of Window'2000; this coupled with Microsoft's internal knowledge that Windows'2000 was intended solely as "bridging" technology (and explains why only limited editins of the Server version were ever made available) to their planned web-integration of the Windows OS and the very desireable End-user "pay-per-use" delivery model.
Enter Windows'XP, a considerably "dumbed-dwon" version of Windows'2000, incorporating wall-to-wall eye-candy and simple one-click functionality of those features Microsoft's Marketing Research Consultants informed them were the most wanted features, notably "always-on" 24/7 Internet accessibility and Media Authoring and Playback integration; couple this with a few "new" toys thrown into the mix, and Microsoft's complete disabling of any End-user capability to tinker with the growing presence of "Push" technology in the unlying code, and Windows'XP was born. Luckily for informed End-users, "Commerical" interests said "nuts to that" and have managed however belatedly to force Microsft into the release the full-blown Windows'2000 code; but, only available to those End-users willing to shell out US$5,000 for Windows'2003 Server, Enterprise Edition.
Windows'2003 is what should have been released way back when in 1999 (but as I mentioned apparently Microsoft (who thinks in terms of 10-year life-cyles in their planned OS software) didn't want it released. Instead they made "limited" editions of the Server environment designed to meet the most pressing needs of their Commericial Users available and hoped for the best. When it became apparent they would have to rework the code into some sort of workable Home-user environment, they attempted to position the energing Windows'XP as an acceptable alternative to missing elements of the Windows'2000 Server environment. This of course failed miserably, resulting in Microsoft finally releasing the entire Windows'2000 Server platform.
Typically Microsoft, when pushed against the wall, attempted to penalize those same Commercial Users by not making Windows Update work (at all) with installations of Windows'2003, (this being rectified around November 2004 - a year and a half after its' release), and it was only recently that they made available the first Service Pack to the OS (incorporating much needed Security fixes) that had been available to Users of either Windows'XP or Windows'2000 through Windows Update.
Incidently, all those lovely little extras that work only under Windows'XP, function grandly under Windows'2003, this of course being possible because, Windows'2003 re-enables the functionality after it had been disabled in those "add-in" features Setup routines under Windows'XP and suitably designed as such by Microsoft to force Windows'2000 Users to upgrade. Too, for those who appreciate Windows'XP's flowing (and seamless) new GUI, it is posible for users of Windows'2003 to elect to either the traditional Windows'2000 GUI or that of Windows,XP.
Warren C. E. Austin
Toronto, Canada
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither Bill Gates, nor the other two parties to what became known as the "Triumvirate" at Mricosoft actually authored the base code to what the World collectively has come to know as Microsoft "MS-DOS"; but you are certainly correct in heralding Bill's Marketing genius, if not his code-writing abilities.
Bill and his partners, seeing an opportunity emerging with new technology then being developed at Intel (the 8088 architectue, fore-runner to the 80x86 architecure that drives the majority of the Home-user's desktop computers) while still undergarduates at College, arranged venture capital funding for them to purchase the assets of a litle known Seattle company (the name of which escapes me, but a search using these parameters [+"MS-DOS" AND +"code" AND +"birth" OR +"develop"] should locate), which of course included the code to what would later emerge as the IBM Disk Operating System, and later after the "Triumvirate's" split with IBM, and a judicious re-naming of the company they had bought, be marketed as Microsoft MS-DOS. Resulting from IBM's envolvement in the early stages, IBM retained exclusive rights to continue to develop and market their own version.
The original Seattle entity had been developing an entirely "new" OS patterned somewhat upon UNIX, the then mainstream IBM (and others, excepting Digital Equipment Corp.) Server OS, with the view of making it compatible with Digital's CP/M, CP/A and VAX OS environments. What developed was an extremely tight, low-resource, OS code environment that appeared to be suitably destined for the Desktop Computer platform being proposed by Intel.
Working hand-in-hand with both IBM (the first licensee of Intel's forthcoming architecture) and Intel, the Tribumvirate fine-tuned the code, developing add-ons when called upon, and abandoning routines not seen as being practical in a "micro" (later termed Desktop) Computer. To those familiar with DOS (regardless of whose version it is (being Microsoft's, IBM's, Digital's, or others), this explains why most UNIX commands are recognized and similarly executed under DOS, as are a whole cast of Digtital CP/M and CP/A functions, and continues to explain why so much of the base code of DOS is still primarily undocuments, or if ever documented, lost in subsequent editions of the published documentation. For users wanting to learn DOS it is to be recommended that they get their hands on both version 1.0 and version 2.0 Manuals from both IBM and Microsoft editions, and to have at hand the MS-DOS version 6.22 Technical Reference, which remarkablly is one of the best DOS-primers ever written.
Unfortunately one grievous, and glaring error of omission occured, it having been decided by Gates himself that 640 Kb RAM would be more than adequate, and that no-one was ever gonna need more than 1 Mb RAM; as a concequence End-users have been saddled with the much heralded "384 KB Extended RAM" limitation ever since (and the birth of an entire industry dedicated to Extended Memmory Managers), with it being not until recently and the emergence of Intel's Itanium IA64 architure, that this deficiency in the code could be corrected once and for all time.
Warren C. E. Austin
Toronto, Canada
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Warren,
I won't try and contradict you as you evidently have a good knowledge of the way Windows works - I'll just make a couple of points:
i. I didn't say that Windows XP was necessarily based on older Windows code (though I am sure that, while the kernel is different, there is still a lot of overlap). I simply said that it is backwards compatible in the sense that you can still run Windows 3.1 and DOS programs (most of them, anyway) under Windows XP. And it is certainly true that Microsoft make pains to maintain this compatibility, to the extent that they give users by default permissions they should never have been given so that their old applications will continue to work.
ii.
> Windows'XP is not, nor should it ever be viewed as a replacement for Windows'2000
I was under the impression that Windows XP Professional (Windows NT 5.1) was a replacement for Windows 2000 Professional (Windows NT 5.0). Certainly Microsoft would like us to think it is. I wasn't referring to the server environment - I know that is different.
iii. In what way was Windows ME a hybrid of Windows 95/98 and 2000? It seemed to me just like Windows 98 with a prettier user interface, a few minor extra utilities, and driver updates. I found it the worst operating system that Microsoft ever produced, whereas Windows 2000 Professional was actually pretty stable.
iv. What was the problem with Windows 2000 Server? I have used it and I was not aware of "missing elements [in its] environment". In what way were these remedied by Windows Server 2003? (I haven't used Server 2003, so I ask out of curiosity.)
Thanks for your reply.
Best wishes,
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David,
(i) unfortuately, I failed in my earlier comments to make absolutely clear that neither Windows'2000 and by extension Windows'XP are BACKWARDS Compatible with earlier Windows releases, IF AND ONLY IF, either OS is installed as a completely NEW INSTALL on either a re-formatted, or entirely "new" previously unused hard-drive, either situation prevailing where no attempt is going to be made to salvage any earlier user settings, or pre-existing applications.
Should an End-user wish to preserve those pre-exising settings and applications, this can be accomplished through one of two ways.
The first being to simply boot the computer to the presnt version of Windows DESKTOP and insert the CD-ROM into the drive and allow the Windows'2000 or Windows'XP Installer to auto-load and walk the User through the process. In many cases this is the method adopted by most Users who previously had purchased a computer, and have decided to "upgrade" their OS to a later release. This method requires that a compatibility check be made of their system, and of their installed applications and settings, which the Windows'2000 or Windows'XP Installer runs automatically, informing the User of any potenial conflicts before beginning the upgrade. This method is also the one that will likely pose the greatest "threat" to future system stability, WITH FULL BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY to all prior releases of Windows (and their attendant "third-party" software applications) being maintained during the install of the newer version.
The second method for maintaining BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY of either Windows'2000 or Windows'XP is to perform an "in place" upgrade of the OS, which is achieved by placing the Windows'2000 or Windows'XP CD-ROM into the CD-ROM drive, and if the prior Windows OS is loaded, the User answering "NO" to upgrade, and their shutting that prior release down, and re-booting the computer into "real or "pure" MS-DOS mode, which if that prior release is any version of Windows'0S or earlier is simply a matter of selecting "MS-DOS Command Prompt from the Boot Menu as it appears during system start, or if not, by dressing the [F8] key on the keyboard when the message "Starting Windows" first appears upon system start, and again selecting "MS-DOS Command Prompt from the resulting Boot Menu. Windows'ME, like Windows'2000 and Windows'XP CANNOT EVER be run in "real" or pure" MS-DOS (and why I stated it's a hybrid of Windows'98 and Windows'2000) requiring that the User boot the computer at system start using either a Windows'95, '98 or MS-DOS Boot-disk, with CD-ROM device drivers load through both the config.sys and autoexec.bat files which need to be located on the floppy disk. Either way (whether direct boot to the hard-disk or through use of a boot-floppy), once the system has been started in "real" or pure MS-DOS mode, the User must navigate to the CD-ROM drive by typing the drive letter (typically the letter "D" if only one hard-drive in the system is present) followed by a full-colon (, and their then pressing the [enter] key as follows:
D:
Followed by the following series of commands at the resulting changed prompt:
cd i386
winnt
Windows'2000 or Windows'XP will then perform a series of MS-DOS functions guranteeded to ensure the integrity of the computer's hard-drive and related infrastructure, and then verify whether the User really, really, does want to performa a system upgrade of the Windows OS, and after receiving verification, will begin copying files and commence updasting the Windows enviroment on the computer to the new version. Unfortuately, this method is not absolutely guaranteed to migrate all user settings (whereas the first method does), but most applications should continue to function much as before. This latter method perfoms no system compatibility check regarding the application it migrates, and a s a consequence you might likely find yourself scrambling to find drivers, and other resources after the upgrade to make it all work; therefore, whilst this method is the fasted possible upgrade, it is only recommended for those who definitely know what they are doing.
A WORD OF CAUTION:
If it the intention to preserve settings and pre-existing applications, UNDER NO CERCUMSTANCES should the User place the Windows'2000 or Windows'XP CD-ROM into the computer and at system start BOOT DIRECTLY to the CD-ROM! Any upgrade perfomed directly from booting the system using the Windows CD-ROM will result in the entire Windows folder, and it's sub-folders, being removed, and all pre-existing settings and capability to use attendant applications will be lost just as if the hard-drive had re-formatted or and entirely new hard-drive had been used. The saving grace here, should the User want to install either Windows'2000 or Windows'XP and are not concerned with preserving a prior release is that any End-user "personal" documents and files are not tampered with, and will remain much as there were under the new version.
(ii) Windows'XP Professional (Windows NT 5.1) is a replacement for Windows 2000 Professional (Windows NT 5.0) ONLY IN a Marketing Consultant's dreams. In truth, because of hard-coded stops placed within the base code, Windows'XP Professional (Windows NT 5.1) actually has less functionality that its' parent Windows'2000 Professional (Windows NT 5.0), which became necessary because of emerging "Push" technology and the desire by Microsoft and it's Strategic Partners to have unrestricted, access to our computers, and forstall any attempt by the User to stop, or disrupt, "Push" content.
A prurient example here, of the type of unfettered intrusion being effected, might be apropos.
Background: When it became apparent to Microsoft that Users were using their installed firewalls to inhibit access to our systems, they resurrected a little known, and almost unheard of MS-DOS utility entitled "Trivial File Transfer Protocol" (not seen since version 2.0 of the MS-DOS platform, and long abandoned, and VERY UNDOCUMENTED), through Service Pack 1a of Windows'XP (and perpetuated in SP2) and through one of the Updates released after SP4 to Windows'2000 was first made available. It has not been possible to identify which one "update" under Windows'200 is the offender thus far, but this is being attempted to in future enable Windows'2000 users to be able to avoid this problem.
Case in point: TFTP by it's very nature is simply that - a file transfer protocol: but, unlike TCP/IP, Telenet, FTP and any number of others, it was designed strictly to transfer files necessary to boot dumb-Servers, and as such, makes certain assumptions for it's effective use. The first and foremost of those assuptions being that the receiving folder specified in the TFTP transfer DOES EXIST; for example, a transfer specifying that all files specified by the TFTP routine should be copied to "%WINDIR%\\System32". If that folder does in fact exist (which that particular folder most certainly would exist on any Windows System known to man, then the file-transfer begins with no user intervention required, nor asked for. Period. What makes this especially insidious is that TPTP uses a very seldom used, and therefore largely ignored by most filewalls, transfer sub-protocol known as UDP; further, by being driven by the "Trident rendering engine" sub-system of the Windows OS, it requires no permissions by the User to be affected. If the folder does not exist, not transfer occurs because TFTP is not capable of intuative logic, nor is it possible to employ "boolean logic in its' routines to create "ID", "AND" or "OR" scenarios. It's strictly a one shot deal; but clever targeting of known defaults within the Windows platform is enough to wreak havoc should the files being transferred be malware or virii, which is most often the care. TFTP may be similarly used to retrive information from known defaults, by transferring known file types and names; to if you wanted to look at Users "Cookies", simply instructing TFTP to send file "index.dat" from the Users "Cookies" folder, provided that that folder does actually exist as the defaulted location, will see that file transferred with no knowledge of the User, nor his permission. This can blocked under Windows'2000 Professional and Windows'2003; but, not at all under Windows'XP Profession, nor any of the Home or Media Editions. The only defense a XP-user has is to have a firewall that will block UDP protocol use; which until a month or so ago was not easily, nor readily, implemented under Norton's Internet Security. Zone Alarum I have no experience with so cannot comment. Panda added this functionality within the past two months.
(iii) Windows'ME, as mentioned earlier in this *post*, cannot ever be booted directly into "real" or pure MS-DOS mode. Selecting MS-DOS command prompt from the startup Boot Menu takes the user into a specially prepared environment where only appropriately written versions of MS-DOS utilities and commands can be executed. This explains why the Dos files rendered under ME will not work with any earlier version of the OS. Like Windows'2000 and Windows'XP these utilities and commands have been purposefully cocded to forestall their use outside of the Windows environment, or the specially created environment that purports to be MS-DOS under ME when outside of Windows. This was effected pruposefully to prepare End-users about the forthcoming Windows envrionment where MS-DOS would ideally no-longer exist, nor be supported.
(iv) All of the Windows'2000 Server releases were, in effect a very limited sub-set of the Windows'2000 Server environment. Regardless of their "label", each was designed to achieve a specific purpose on behalf of the Commercial User, without burdoning them with the full environment; for example "Advanced Server" was intended to address Commercial needs regarding Microsoft's implemetation of "Active Directory Services", which was an entirely "new" concept to most Server Users, and not likely to be easily sourced. Novell's Netware ("Active Directory Services") biggest competator, continues to be the most widely used sub-platform for delivery these needs. When it became apparent about the deficiencies within Windows'XP reagrding the capabilities of the User to turn things "off" and have them really turned "off" and stay "off", Commercial interests balked at using XP at all, for anything, and forced the issue with Microsoft, which necessitated their delvering Windows'2003 Server, Enterpise Edition. They simply re-anmed the original Windows'2000 Enterprise Server "Windows'2003" rather than admit they should have released it in the first place. They had no intention of ever having done so, wanting instead to migrate Commercial (and in fact all) Users to the then planned (and forthcoming late 2006 or early 2007) On-line delivered "pay-per-use" delivery model of the next version of the OS.
Warren C. E. Austin
Toronto, Canada
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting.
Though I wouldn't have said that many of the DOS commands are based on Unix ones... Unix(-like) OSes tend to have rather different comands (ls, mv, cat, etc.) that don't work in Unix, and Unix has a pretty different philosophy (everything is a file, it is multi-user, files have proper permissions) that DOS did away with, taking a giant leap backwards IMO. To all of you who think that because base Unix looks vaguely similar to DOS it must have similar capabilities, it is *substantially* more powerful.
Incidentally, the famous quote usually attributed to Gates ("640K of RAM should be enough for anyone") was not made by him... no-one seems to know where it came from.
I don't know much about memory architecture, but I am not aware that extended memory has been a problem for a number of years now (certainly not in Linux). And the Itanium may be a very nice architecture from a technical point of view, but it is not doing very well, as it is not backwards compatible with the x86 architecture. Instead, Intel's latest desktop chips are based on the same 64-bit architecture used by AMD, which is x86 compatible.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warren,
I'll have to take your word for a lot of that as I'm not really in a position to argue, seeing that I don't use Windows any more!
I am aware that both Windows XP and Windows 2000 have had very public and very serious security problems in the past, and that viruses and malicious users have taken advantage of these to take over entire networks of computers. However, I wouldn't agree that Windows XP is crippled because it is not possible prevent TFTP from being used maliciously... If this is the case, it is a serious security problem, but it is more of a bug than a deliberate policy.
>When it became apparent to Microsoft that Users were using their installed firewalls to inhibit access to our systems
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that Microsoft deliberately enabled TFTP so that they could get illicit access to users' computer systems? That sounds so unethical that I can't believe even Microsoft would do that.
Finally, I agree that by hiding DOS Windows ME is slightly closer in design to Windows 2000, but I don't think that makes it a hybrid - the vast majority of the codebase was based on Windows 95.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Absolutly SQUAT....... We use what we use and that is that.......
You, they, them or the other users can bitch and moan about whatever problems occur in their day to day usage of whatever hardware and or software that respectivly use and the bitching will go on as long as there are users that fail to understand that these are only tools in an imperfect world.
There will ALWAYS be problems with every OS because there are ALWAYS people bright enough to create the problems.
So what does all this mean????????
It means that this is as it has always been... with every innovation since the invention of the wheel.....
There are those that will use it and then there are those that will choose to walk... as well as those stupid enough to stick their foot under the wheel to chalenge its path of movement.....
Life and time marches on.... the universe is once again in balance.......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm... yes, perhaps there are better things we could be doing with our time. But it is useful to educate users about the shortcomings of Microsoft's products and that there are in fact alternatives; this will actually help to advance technology in the long run.
It is well-known that
(a) Microsoft's products are insecure
(b) Microsoft have a near-monopoly, and hence do not innovate nearly as much as one trying to gain market-share, like, say, Apple
If we can let people know that
(a) Microsoft's products are considered rubbish, by the standards of the industry,
(b) but there actually *is* an alternative
then it might persuade them to switch to one of the alternatives. And if more people use an alternative, then there will be more competition. And more competition means more innovation, which is good for everyone. Honestly, it does.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll grant you that the 640 Kb quote may not have originated directly with Bill, although I'd not hear that it hadn't; just like much of the folklore that surrounds the man. I recall in the early 80's talk that he coded in the nude much to the despair of the secretaries and apparetnly would go weeks on end without bathing until someone finally had the nerve to tell him he needed a bath. Silly, really; but the stuff legends are fashioned from.
That doesn't negate the problem of the 384 Kb barrier, which by the very nature of the 80x86 architecture cannot be "fixed", and presumably that it exists at all would have definitely involved Bill and his associates in the very early stages of the architectures design by Intel; and might quite possibly explain Intel's recent intractibility regarding "flaws" recently discovered in their Itanium code which will negate it's ever being usable by any of the current offerings by Microsoft. Intel has stated they have no intention of fixing the porblems, and seem committed to revamping the entire architecture to fix amongst other issues the problems associated with current style memmory management. Yes, memmory does no longer seem to be an issue with recent versions of Windows; but, that has solely been more a function of the OS's Pagefile (which uses a portion of the Users hard-drive to cache frequently called upon information rather than go through the arduous process of placing it into RAM) and cannot be attributed to any correction made to the underlying architecture which still requires information to be transferred to and from RAM (regardless of it's type - cache, or direct) in 16Kb pieces, with the maximum transferrable at any given moment 64K as dictated by the 384 Kb barrier. For many years it was widely touted that the maximum memory under DOS was topped out at 32 Mb; but, I think that it likely, like Windows, had there been a practicle application at the time, that supposed barrier could have been gotten around. An example of this would be the creation and maintenance of a RAMDrive under MS-DOS (or Windows'2000 or 'XP for that matter) which using the relevant MS-DOS (or current Windows) Utilities for these purposes still will only allow a maximum size of 32 Mb for any RAMDrive, this not-with-standing existing third-party Utilities that create RAMDrives far in excess of that, with it apparently being possible in one instance that I know of, to create a RAMDrive of 1 GB should that be so desire.
Intel adopted AMD's 80x86 architecture as a simple expediency when faced with the radical change anticipated with true 64-bit computing under the Itanium architecture; which frankly much of the known manufacturing World is not prepared to embrace, let alone tool up for, at the present time. Intel was rapidly losing market-share to their competator. It would also require of Microsoft (or some other vendor, or group of vendors) to develop an entirely "new" OS dependent neither on Windows as it presently stands, nor on MS-DOS, because let's face regardless of how many times Microsoft informs the World that MS-DOS is dead, it does truly still drive each and every version of Windows despite their entreaties otherwise. Of those currently available only UNIX and it's Linux varients are positioned to take advantage of it.
Warren C. E. Austin
Toronto, Canada
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Many of those that use Microsoft's products are all to well aware of the shortcomings involved.... After all, they are the ones doing most of the whining about it.
Then there are the ones that choose to go another route.... does that choice make them right? Nope, nor does it make them wrong..... It just means that they have chosen a different path.
Will Microsoft's shortcomings spark innovation..... There is indeed that possibility but considering the very nature of the concept of computers as a whole..... progression and innovation are as palpable and constant as the turning of the earth.
A few years ago I attended a conference of peers within my profession to discuss the nature of internet communications and the direction of the conceptual progression of the computing industry as a whole.
In general, the consensus was that the technology will evolve (mark the choice of word here) until man is no longer able to out think its own product. Once that nexus is reached then invaribly we as a species would have met our match as an intelectually unique entity.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Warren,
Because you go into so much detail I am not really able to argue specifics, but I don't think they are especially important.
Whether it is true or not it is true that the x86 architecture has an unusual form of memory management, modern x86 chips are perfectly capable of addressing up to 4GB of memory, and the new 64 bit chips based on that architecture can address many, many times more than that. I know for a fact that it is perfectly possible to create RAM drives of several GB in size. You are the first person I have heard complaining about memory with modern chips -- even if the design is less than optimal, they still work very nicely these days, and memory speed is not a bottleneck.
I am also aware that it is inefficient for the world to continue to use x86-derived chips instead of switching over to a properly designed 64 bit chip like the Itanium. However, the fact is that people want backwards compatibility and the AMD 64 bit chips are perfectly good at what they do. The main advantage of 64-bit chips over 32-bit chips is that they can address more memory, and this they do absolutely fine.
Microsoft can, and do, port Windows to other CPUs when needed - Windows NT originally came out on the Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC architectures as well as x86 IIRC. And they have an Itanium edition of Windows XP and the 2003 Servers, and there is now an AMD64 version. Microsoft Windows isn't confined to the x86 architecture by any means. It's just the cheapest and most readily available at the moment.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are right. Change will come sooner or later...
Given that I missed out on most of the exciting inventions of the 80s and early 90s (home computers, the internet, the web), I am pretty impatient to see what the next generation in computing will bring, and to be part of it...
I am especially anxious that it shouldn't be Microsoft-dominated 1984-type technologies ('Palladium') that would allow Microsoft to restrict what I should do with my own computer...
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David
I wasn't aware I had been complaining about any apparent, or otherwise, deficiencies in just how Windows, or MS-DOS for that matter, handles memory; especially as I, too, continue to use Windows, currently running both Windows'2000 Professional Desktops and Windows'2003 Server, although it's not likely I'll ever upgrade further because of the Pay-per-use Online Delivery Model Microsoft is adopting for their next release of Windows. The problem over memory is there; solutions, be they the use of swap-files (now called pagefiles) or otherwise, have been found to deal most effectively with them, and as I point out, would have likely been found for pure MS-DOS environments too had the need ever arisen.
Further, whilst I'd not heard of any third-party Utility capable of creating RAMDrives in excess of the 1 Gb that I was personally aware of, that it is possible doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is tht Microsoft has chosen not to release an enhanced version of their own RAMDrive Utility which would be capable of at least matching that of third-party alternatives.
Warren C. E Austin
Toronto, Canada
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not trying to get into an argument here - I am just a bit baffled as to what we are talking about!
Virtually all operating system use swap space so that they can run programs that take up more memory than the computer has RAM. When RAM runs out the OS copies lesser-used pages to disk to free up space for the new programs.
This is done by all modern operating systems, including Windows, Linux and the various forms of Unix, and on all common architectures - x86, ARM, PowerPC, MIPS, SPARC, etc. It is the commonly accepted way of dealing with "out of memory" issues, and it is not specific to Microsoft.
In my experience, too, RAM drives are becoming redundant as with the increases in memory, modern OSes do the opposite and cache portions of the hard disk in memory, so that it can be accessed much faster - at the speed of a RAM drive, too.
I haven't used DOS for such a long time I can't really comment about that - but no-one (apart from some embedded developers, some legacy systems, and some true enthusiasts) uses pure DOS these days, anyway.
So what exactly are we talking about here?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
of hot lead into ones eye......
It does little to remedy any of the current technological issues we all have to deal with on a day to day level.
All it does is drone on and on in an endless pissing match of useless technojargon.
Get a grip and do something constructive.... If you done like the current situation with available operating systems..... well, thats why there are universities and venture capitalists.
Do it, build it and sell it......
Otherwise just keep on keeping on like the rest of us....::-)
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we have all ended up inadvertently trolling each other. I am sure that my attempts to have the last word on everything are annoying everyone else on this board. So I'll shut up now.
Best wishes to all of you,
David
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: M$ Windows is over complicated & under engineered. Disc 
