04-14-2004, 12:15 AM
I've been through a thousand forums with Microsoft bashing. I started back before 'Windows' existed and then some. I hate windows as much as the next person, anybody who's ever decoded most of the 'worm' adaware and spyware viruses knows that Microsoft's as guilty as the next person for helping generate that code (to get -- $$), but then someone fix it.
Between VB, Flash, Java and the rest - make a new desktop interface. Fix the problems. - I've tried, and gave up years ago. TOO much for just one dog ---
04-14-2004, 10:40 PM
What do you mean by fix it? Fix Windows, or create something exactly like it, just without the holes?
If you're meaning the latter, I'm pretty sure that's what Lindows is all about... and other Linux distros that have WINE.
If you're meaning the former, that would require having the source code and literally fixing Windows. Although I'm not sure how "VB, Flash, Java and the rest" come into play...
How did you try 'fixing' Windows?
04-15-2004, 12:30 AM
How did you try 'fixing' Windows?Yeah. How? You can't get your hands on the source to fix it (well, lol, some of it you *can* get). :D
Without the source, you can't 'fix' it.
I am not sure I understand all of your post... For what its worth, there are like a million desktop replacements available for various flavors of windows. everything from a minimal shell to a full blown 3d replacement. just google for it and take it easy...
Windows interface works well enough for me.
04-15-2004, 03:19 PM
Still don't understand why anyone would 'hate' windows , the world needed a monopoly of some description to set some standards (I dont mean quality standards) and bring the computer into the homes of the great unwashed , it happened to be Billy boy/MS , could have been anyone (not anyone of course but whoever) , and despite the monopolistic tendencies of MS I would prefer private enterprise creating such over government controlled agencies (cos if it was we would not be having this converation now)
Well done to them I say , XP is easy enough for most to use & still I look forward to a real *NIX desktop aternative , funnily enough the closest I have seen comes from SUN with the java desktop which I have just (literally) tried (also liked look/feel of Xandros though use RedHat/Fedora myself) , now SUN do all the same things that MS do yet seem to come out smelling of roses ... a rose by any other name innit ;)
04-15-2004, 05:27 PM
I do agree with you firepages.
But the fact remains that as a monopoly or whatever, Windows has bugs. And they're annoying bugs! Sure XP has cleaned up a lot of stuff, but there are still things that are wrong with it. (I'm speaking generally cuz I don't want to list everything that's wrong -- but I do find at least one annoying thing per day).
I don't know that it's bad programming, but at the very least, everyone makes mistakes. And the fact that Windows is buggy, and that it's in "the homes of the great unwashed" sends out the wrong message to some users. Not the wrong message about Windows, but the wrong message about computers in general -- that computers make mistakes, not humans...
If I had the source code, I know that I wouldn't sit there trying to fix every problem with Windows (because I wouldn't know where to start...). But the idea that I could would be cool...
I don't know where this thread is heading, but I think it's just about done unless other people want to continue here..
BTW, firepages -- does innit == isn't it?
04-15-2004, 06:32 PM
I have to agree. What I started with (the premodel to an x86 and what I am operating with today is a nice change. The problem with the monopoly is the overloaded control of software and hardware. As a 'for instance', the pentium level 6 chip and associated software is already in production. The next level 5 is already in the hands of advertisers working on a marketing strategy. As to the monopoly, taking us 1 step at a time, at our cost, is a little to $$ grubbing, but so is most of Corporate America. And, the world did not need a 'monopoly'. If you are meaning it needed someone to take charge - then I agree. But look at history with LeeIacoca (sp?), and Harley Davidson. When their industries were going down, the government stepped in, flooded them with money, and there are more car and motorcycle manufacturers today than you shake a stick at. Would the government have stepped forward and flooded software/hardware with money? We'll never know. But running Macintosh, IBM, Oracle and several others into the ground was [dare I say] Viacom-ish. That is (in an extreme example) similar to saying that America needs a dictatorship to control the flow of outrageous behavior, fighting and crime. No, just a good leader. And that point, you at least got across, so kudos.
As to hating windows. The bugs. Simple. Sure, it's impossible to develop software for 1 billion people and not come across every bug known to man. What bothers me is the repeat errors. The memory dumps in XP (I don't know if you've faced these yet), are the same memory dumps in windows 3.1. There has been no change in what -20+ years? I think that more importantly for me was the dumbing down of America the last 20 years has wrought. Where as my son will learn to interface with computers in a verbal/virtual controlled environment, much better than what I learned (the hard way), he will not ever get the basics. Why is there still so much "hacking", so many email viruses and so on? Look at Russian 'hacker' sites where they are trying to proclaim their indepence by hiding from the government and fighting corporations through computers. Where is the knowledge of IP routing sequences? Where did control over telnet and even --DOS-- go? Yes, windows can do it 'for' you, but that's great for those who want the easy route. I like the interface options, but back in the DOS only days, I could control my memory buffers without hours of breaking through the windows barrier that covers it up for those without knowledge - to protect them from, themselves - rather than teach. My personal dislike.
As to the source code. That goes back to the previous point. Did you know (I'm sure you do and am being lightly sarcastic) that Windows was not an operating system? It was a shell on top of Dos - literally. It is still not an operating system. It is merely now integrated with the DOS operating system. The source code, was nothing more than C, pascal and a few others integrated together. Dos is the same, but it contains protocol that interfaces with the machine code - eprom (chip programming, hard code) - to coordinate the activation of all the parts of the computer. Where windows falls short is in its ability to coordinate hardware without massive software/memory loads, without full functionality of the processor, and so on. Unlike Unix (I haven't used Lindows, sorry I don't know more about this), whose primary functions prevent it from putting those heavy loads on memory, doesn't waste time with massive driver input and actually communicates with the hardware and still - stands as the foremost operating system for Network computers. I'm sure as Windows' grows, it will learn to incorporate more and more of Unix, but like Microsoft's recent battle with Sun and the reborn Oracle software, there is still a tremendous need for third party software. So when I talk about rebuilding the op system, I mean from scratch. It is easy to de-engineer windows (which should never be done for pirating reasons**Mr. Bill), using the appropriate software. It's also just as easy to develop a shell, just like windows. One that accesses all of the hardware in a computer, but without the load. Don't build a shell on windows, you are not eliminating the problems.
My solution - before Windows 98 graduated into the next generation, I took DOS, ran Basic, decompiled a bazillion lines of code of Windows 3.1, found the Dynamic Link relationships and their orders, and began recording bits of code here and there. The most relevant pieces. Then, like the original shell programs for DOS that used a graphic interface, I began to recompile my own base codes using a DLL that referenced memory, maintained virtual references to hardware specific DLLs and prevented the need for them to be loaded into memory versus the hard drive. It was exhausting. If I knew then what I have learned up through today, I would have been able to do it. But it was a matter of not having the type of access to technology that we have now, and quite honestly, I suck as a programmer. Not my gift. So yeah, get rid of the holes, rewrite it, but there are more posts about people who hate windows and Microsoft then there are that like it. I was posting a response for those that are re-emphasizing problems and dislikes we all have without offering solutions or ideas. I would replace my Windows in a heartbeat if I thought the operability would improve, even if it meant a new windows.
Now that I've rambled:
For every one who says windows is fine, don't bother fixing it, you can't, and so on - Sad69 said it best:
"I don't know that it's bad programming, but at the very least, everyone makes mistakes. And the fact that Windows is buggy, and that it's in "the homes of the great unwashed" sends out the wrong message to some users. Not the wrong message about Windows, but the wrong message about computers in general -- that computers make mistakes, not humans..."
Every phone call to a bank or creditor that tells you [the customer], no sir, you must have not paid it, or I guess the computer messed it up, we can't help you - is the basis for my point. The bugs in windows ARE DANGEROUS. To all of us who have credit reports, businesses and anything else that depends on windows. But better than 'Google'ing it for a search (which I have been looking for a bit over 20 years and then some ;) ) , there are no replacements that coordinate the software load that windows does. At least not for the 'consumer' of America. So - who has an idea that would actually remedy this?
OR - am I wrong about there being a need?
04-15-2004, 07:52 PM
Did you know (I'm sure you do and am being lightly sarcastic) that Windows was not an operating system?
Windows was more than a "shell", it was more of an API extension and represented a change from the relatively rudimentary DOS API to a more complex and extensive API. Windows resembled a "shell" and because some other competive products that offered their own APIs marketed themselves as shells and that some of the shell products were enhanced to provide their own APIs blurred the line a lot but in my mind there's a difference.
It is still not an operating system. It is merely now integrated with the DOS operating system.
Not true in the least. There's no DOS running underneath XP or Server 2003 or any other descendant of the Windows NT OS line. Even the "DOS" you run on those OSes is just a DOS Emulation that MS purchased from a third party.
If you're talking about Windows 9x or ME then there's some truth in that but those are all obsolete and no longer offered.
Dos is the same, but it contains protocol that interfaces with the machine code - eprom (chip programming, hard code) - to coordinate the activation of all the parts of the computer. Where windows falls short is in its ability to coordinate hardware without massive software/memory loads, without full functionality of the processor, and so on. Unlike Unix (I haven't used Lindows, sorry I don't know more about this), whose primary functions prevent it from putting those heavy loads on memory, doesn't waste time with massive driver input and actually communicates with the hardware and still - stands as the foremost operating system for Network computers.
Your understanding of what an operating system is and how it functions appears to be severely limited based on what you said here which may also explain some of what you said above. It's very apparent you know nothing about the design principles and structure behind either Windows or Unix. (For the record Lindows is just another Linux variant and Linux itself is best described as a Unix clone). I could go into OS functionality and history with a lot more detail but time is limited and whole books have been written on OS design.
Now that the critisism of what you described is over with, there's a part of what I just said which I think is descriptive of what you are trying to encourage. The fact that someone (Linus Torvalds) created a successful clone of the Unix operating system holds out the hope that someone can also do the same for Windows. If I understand your correctly, what you'd like to see is an alternative to the MS Windows OS that can run the same programs as Windows.
There are some efforts to clone the Windows API for use and they're proceeding nicely but there's a big change in progress at MS which may change the whole equation and that change is called .NET. The big idea behind .NET is that it once again introduces a whole new API and new applications are now being written to take advantage of this new API. There is one big difference though, MS made the .NET API an open standard (they do not have exclusive control of the API) and has even funded it's being ported to the Unix platform so that applications written for .NET will function on a Unix machine just like they do on a Windows machine. MS may have put in place a road to what you're asking for whether by design or by accident.
04-16-2004, 08:14 AM
The fact that someone (Linus Torvalds) created a successful clone of the Unix operating system
... if we are getting technical ;) then linux is not an operating system either ;)
04-17-2004, 05:12 AM
Linux, like windows, is still often misrepresented as an ACTUAL operating system. It is an extension:
""Not true in the least. There's no DOS running underneath XP or Server 2003 or any other descendant of the Windows NT OS line. Even the "DOS" you run on those OSes is just a DOS Emulation that MS purchased from a third party.""
According to IBM, Microsoft, MIT College, ITT Tech Inst., their definition answer (as I learned during certification courses):
For some time, it has been widely acknowledged that DOS is insufficient for modern computer applications. Microsoft Windows helped alleviate some problems, but still, it sat on top of DOS and relied on DOS for many services. Even Windows 95 sat on top of DOS. Newer operating systems, such as Windows NT and OS/2 Warp, do not rely on DOS to the same extent, although they can execute DOS-based programs.
Even now, XP is only beginning to be the replacement, using command interpreter functions that are simply a replicant of DOS.
""Windows was more than a "shell", it was more of an API extension and represented a change from the relatively rudimentary DOS API to a more complex and extensive API. ""
????--API is not a good disctinctive term to try to show it as an overriding factor to DOS:
Literally, API means "Application Programming Interface." a set of routines, protocols, and tools for building software applications. A good API makes it easier to develop a program by providing all the building blocks. A programmer puts the blocks together. Most operating environments, such as MS-Windows, provide an API so that programmers can write applications consistent with the operating environment. Although APIs are designed for programmers, they are ultimately good for users because they guarantee that all programs using a common API will have similar interfaces.
I am aware the interface is different, the realm of DLLs associated are greater in Windows, but as I posted before, that just boons the RAM industry as DLL loading is out of hand.
""Windows resembled a "shell" and because some other competive products that offered their own APIs marketed themselves as shells and that some of the shell products were enhanced to provide their own APIs blurred the line a lot but in my mind there's a difference""
There is a thin line between operating environments and shells. Historically, shells are the interfaces to operating systems. They do not actually add any new capabilities; they simply provide a better user interface. So-called intelligent shells, however, actually extend an operating system's capabilities, so there is little difference between intelligent shells and operating environments. -------------------------------- and this is where you and I divide. You are discussing the operating environment, I am discussing the operating system. Almost you say potato I say potato, but in the end, the true knowledge of these minor distinctions is why there exists the type of problematic issues that Windows faces today. I am not bashing you or your knowledge, I am trying to show [using somewhat dummied down descriptions of an OS] where the trouble lies. .Net applications are --somewhat-- nice so far, and I am glad MS has gone there. But as Xerox invented the GUI interface in 1970, Macintosh took it over and then MS, we saw what happened. I originally posted a challenge to MS bashers to state:
1. I am aware of the dislikes, I am aware of why there are dislikes and how MS has proven themselves to be destructive in their lack of attention to detail and so on....
2. Provide a solution. Linux does not resolve Unix. Windows XP does not resolve DOS, and to date: "has more unsolveable errors associated with its operating environment than any version of Windows that was based on the original DOS [operating System]" -quoted from of the engineers at IBM associated with the implementation and development of XP (sorry I forgot the name).
If anyone is to bash Windows, especially before (as Roy Sinclair pointed out) they step further into the .NET region, than point out EXACTLY what you don't like, and provide what you think SHOULD be the solutions.
The End. :cool:
04-17-2004, 05:38 AM
BTW, firepages -- does innit == isn't it?
yes , sorry , innit == isn't it :thumbsup: , I forget that not everyone is going to quite decode my anglo-irish-australian slang.
further into the .NET region
ahh now dont get me going there ... windows belongs firmly on the desktop ;) , .NET integration & associated hype coerces business/people to think about using windows as a server ... something I don't personally think it can (without a ground-up rewrite) ever be particulary good at.
04-18-2004, 04:09 AM
Currently, Bendcable [the server I used] was one of the test servers for the High Speed Roadrunner. It does okay. Nothing special, but as far as cable goes, I have no complaints. As to functionality, well, it is a Windows NT server only. The problems to date are:
We cannot run PHP page scripts since it is not installed, and has gummed up the server four times with people trying to force install it (don't ask, I'm not sure how, they didn't explain). Perl is not functioning correctly, our snailmail software scripts will not respond, nor will the NTsendmail functions cooperate with Perl (the most updated). We do function well with ASP, however the
db interactivity is totally based on privelage settings. As of yet, a user cannot configure their own CHMods, permissions or anything else to that matter. This may be a lack of programmer knowledge, although they claim its limitations are in the software. Additionally, without enhanced protocols we [the users] are unwilling to pay extra for, their is zero security [almost].
I have never had an interface problem with Unix. I am unsure of Unix's interactivity with ASP or Database functionality, but I must agree, the windows 2003 server is too 'user friendly' and not network protocol intense enough. I think ISPs and networks should stay with a Unix platform and run their NT 'interface' over the top.-- Wonder what the "hackers" of lore think about a windows' server to play with :D