This article summarizes Microsoft’s decades-long effort to evolve Windows from a single, one-size-fits-all desktop operating system for everyone into a robust family of server and desktop operating systems.
From Windows 1.0 to Windows .NET Server
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSAlert.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
If this article is written in ten years, we’d see something like, 2004 Windows with all it’s security problems which is standard in government and military has been one of the mayor reasons to why guys like Usama Bin Laden managed to crush the infrastructure of communication in the US. Please note that Linux based servers still are running….
” 1990: Windows 3.0
Microsoft’s first mainstream computing platform offered 32-bit performance, advanced graphics, and full support of the more powerful Intel 386 processor. ”
Hmmm… I could’ve sworn that it was mostly 16-bit. In fact, MS only delivered a fully 32-bit consumer OS last year, almost fifteen years after Intel had introduced the 32-bit i386 processor. Later in the piece, they refer to Win95 as a “32-bit operating system”. LOL.
” Windows for Workgroups also offered the performance benefits of Microsoft’s new 32-bit file system. ”
Really? All this time I thought it only supported FAT12 and FAT16. Did it support NTFS?
” Windows Me offered … reliability improvements. ”
I reinstalled Win98 because WinMe was so buggy.
” With Windows XP, consumers and home users now have performance, stability, and security that business users benefited from in Windows 2000. ”
All the tests I’ve seen show that Win2K is faster than WinXP. For games, Win98 blows XP out of the water (although this may have changed by now). I would also say that Win2K is more reliable and is most likely more secure. It is definitely less bloated (although not by too much) and it doesn’t look like it was designed by a Tellytubby.
This is an amazingly poor piece.
As Yama said, Windows 3.0 was ontop of DOS and windows itself was only 16bit. There was a 32bit enabler that, for example, was run before doom and such (I forget the exact name but it was something like dos4gw32).
As a desktop XP is the most stable “desktop” branded OS, but Windows 2000 is the most stable OS and it’s a pretty good desktop too. WinME was a pile.
Windows XP gets into relatively unresponsive lags for tens of seconds during normal use. I’m sure this isn’t my strange set up because I’ve seen this on so many installs now. Windows 2000 doesn’t have such behaviour.
This is pretty damn funny.
IIRC NT is based on technology from DEC. Anyone know when work on that
actually started?
My recollection is that MS hired a whole design team.
That article is just brochureware, but it does show how long it has
taken to get anywhere. It would be hard to argue that the development
of the Unix-like OSes has been any faster.
Likewise AmigaOS has been
under development also since around 1983 and there is still plenty to
do (admittedly 7 years were wasted here). Again, parts wre based on an
older OS (Tripos).
It seems that writing an OS is not something to embark on lightly,
unless you have 25 years to spare.
“[…]Microsoft Windows NT technology: superior operating system performance[…]”
Hehe! =) Yea right, superior to what? A military super tank with an 1.5 Bhp, 2-stroke engine?
Well that article sure was alot of crap. I feel just as good after reading that as when I reboot my Windows =)
“robust family of server and desktop operating systems”
Haha !!! That was a good one !!!
I Actually Clicked! I Actually Clicked! You linked me to a MS pr web site and why? I’m sure there are much more balanced views on the history of Windows at Bill Gates house!
Seriously, don’t do that again.
…robust family of server and desktop operating systems.
I wouldn’t really call the family of server OS robust, you know.
Windows 1.0 also allowed users to switch between several programs—without requiring them to quit and restart individual applications.
I remember from somewhere else that Windows 1.0 was single tasking, and the only mutlitasking thing about it is that MS-DOS Executive could run with the program together.
Microsoft’s first mainstream computing platform offered 32-bit performance, advanced graphics, and full support of the more powerful Intel 386 processor.
LOL, Windows 3.1 was 16-bit code mostly.
The operating system broke new ground in security, operating system power, performance, desktop scalability, and reliability with a range of key new features.
You could say they are telling the truth. Never has the server/ UNIX market have saw something so insecure, underpowered, low performance, inconfiguratable desktop and irreliablity before.
These included a pre-emptive multitasking scheduler for Windows-based applications, integrated networking, domain server security, OS/2 and POSIX subsystems…
Windows NT had compatiblity issues with OS/2, I read. Plus, it only implemented 60% of POSIX.
The new operating system began with version 3.1 in order to maintain consistency with Windows 3.1, which at the time was a well-established operating system for both home and business users.
Though OS/2 was widely more used than that NT version.
The 32-bit operating system also offered enhanced multimedia capabilities, more powerful features for mobile computing, and integrated networking. In order to keep memory requirements to a minimum, it did not include support for such features as system-level security or Unicode, which came later.
Actually, Windows 95 was a mishmash of 16-bit code and 32-bit code. And if it was 100% 32-bit, it could add Unicode support without feeling quilty. I reckon keeping IE out would be better for Microsoft than keeping Unicode out
In October 1998, Microsoft announced that Windows NT would no longer carry the initials “NT,” and that the next major version of the operating system would be called Windows 2000.
Which caused a lot of confusion, and a lot of home users bought it thinking it is the next Windows 98.
Windows 98 enabled users to find PC- or Internet-based information easily…
..by getting ourselves in an antitrust lawsuit with a sourgrape called Netscape.
Windows 98 SE delivered an improved online experience with Internet Explorer 5 browser software and Microsoft Windows NetMeeting(R) version 3.0 conferencing software….
… which is used against us by the corrupt opposing states as we were illegally killing Real.
Windows Me offered consumers numerous music, video, and home networking enhancements and reliability improvements.
Reliability? It was as stable as a rodeo bull.
Windows 2000 Professional was designed to replace Windows 95, Windows 98…
Which it failed at.
…uniting them around the Windows NT and Windows 2000 code base.
Wow, they have two codebase.
Microsoft Windows server operating systems have a shorter history than Windows desktop operating systems, but they share the same legacy…
… of security problems.
Windows NT Advanced Server 3.1 was designed to act as a dedicated server in a client/server environment, offering power, scalability, enhanced fault tolerance, and standards-based interoperability.
Power? Nah. Scalability? LOL. Fault tolerance? You have got to be kidding. Standards-based interoperabilty? Well, maybe, but later on, it is axed out.
The next release of Windows NT Server was built on the stability of version 3.1, but with greatly enhanced processing speed and improved connectivity to other systems, particularly in Novell NetWare and UNIX environments.
And this ultimately cause it to control the market.
Quote:
The Windows 1.0 product box showed the new tiled windows and graphical user interface in the operating system
End Quote
Yeah, they showed the Quick and Dirty OS hack and tiled windows, that is “Microsoft innovating”. They don’t explain in that article why they could only register the Windows “trademark” ten years after they announced the product (1983-1993).
Note there isn’t a single reference to IBM in relation to MS Windows NT technology, how nice of them “innovating” alone all the way…
” With Windows XP, consumers and home users now have performance, stability, and security that business users benefited from in Windows 2000. ”
All the tests I’ve seen show that Win2K is faster than WinXP. For games, Win98 blows XP out of the water (although this may have changed by now). I would also say that Win2K is more reliable and is most likely more secure. It is definitely less bloated (although not by too much) and it doesn’t look like it was designed by a Tellytubby.
If you read that sentence again, you would realize it is not saying that WinXP is more faster, secure, stable than WIn2k, just saying that WinXP got it’s speed, security and stablity from Win2k. As for speed, I notice the boot time improving between releases. You would also find things become so much faster if you off all kinds of animation, and switch almost everything back to Classic. As for more bloated, I notice that XP is more bloated than 2k because it has a lot of new stuff built it. As for secure, both of which are equally as secure, and that’s not a compliment. Frankly, with that much money, they could do better. But I don’t expect their code is that maintainable.
As for the UI, except for the background (which I changed to “Windows XP” while the colour scheme I changed to Silver. I actually like the UI, except the fact that the start button is green (who on earth thought of that colour?), but I really like the new layout of the start button. Of course, I didn’t like the new look for Control panel and switch back to Classic.
As a desktop XP is the most stable “desktop” branded OS, but Windows 2000 is the most stable OS and it’s a pretty good desktop too. WinME was a pile.
Those who say Windows Me is good, except for Microsoft employees, are not sane to live within the society.
I have Windows 2000 on a Pentium III 800mhz with 256mb and Windows XP on a Pentium III 1.1ghz with the same amount of RAM. I have never seen Win2k gave out a blue screen of death, but the WinXP on the laptop did, but it was the hardware fault, and SuSE 8.0 (I have installed it, but never ran it much. I used FTP install) couldn’t run (a day later, it cannot be booted at all). Windows 2k’s Explorer (the shell) crashes much more than WinXP.
Windows XP gets into relatively unresponsive lags for tens of seconds during normal use. I’m sure this isn’t my strange set up because I’ve seen this on so many installs now. Windows 2000 doesn’t have such behaviour.
Yeah, i notice that. But after a few web AutoUpdates, it dissapeared. The funny thing is that it is not because it lacks the RAM or CPU power to complete a task, I think it was a programming error.
And my favourite:
If this article is written in ten years, we’d see something like, 2004 Windows with all it’s security problems which is standard in government and military has been one of the mayor reasons to why guys like Usama Bin Laden managed to crush the infrastructure of communication in the US. Please note that Linux based servers still are running….
I think it was more of the US Inteligence not being able to stop it before the Sept 11 attack began, than Osama bin Laden’s men broke through a security wall. The hijackers used commonly known information the airline gave the public, they learnt how to fly at public airline school. Also, things like knife and blades aren’t blocked weapons from planes at that time. I thing it was a intelligence problem more than a security problem.
Besides, if a Linux admin is lazy, never use the latest patch, use some unstable kernel like 2.4.x and not 2.2.x, you could bet that running Windows NT and Linux wouldn’t differ much. It would be like a open door.
Robust? ROFL!
I must admit.. i started by reading the comments.. when i slowly approached the end one question kept creeping in my head.. who did they hire now to write this PR crap.. WinMag? WinXX-something.com.. ZDNET? MSNBC?.. but WTF?!? they wrote it themselves?.. talk about major delusions..
Gee, if only I’d known all those wonderful factoids instead of relying on my experience with Windows…….
it’s windows-bashing time, I see. After reading all the crap above, can someone remind me why they’re the market leader again?
umm … XP on any of the four machines at my place crashes after reading or writing data to/from any CD-ROM/CD-RW drive. It reads/writes up to 50mb, then reboots (as if I’d pressed the reboot button on my case) if I was reading, or blue screens if I’m writing (the system was found to be in “an invalid state”).
I use WinME/98SE and find them both as stable as each other.
Oh bugger, apparently I’m not sane!
You should see XP trying to encode a video with Adobe Premiere. I just cross my fingers, pray to Buddha, Jesus, Allah, and Satan and wait until it resets.
it’s windows-bashing time, I see.
After reading all the crap above, can someone remind me why they’re the market leader again?
That’s because win32 system is the most productive environment available for both home and corporation use and because (only after win2k and its certified drivers for almost every piece of hardware, from RAID controlers to digital tablets) a very stable operating system which has all kinds of comercial applications you could imagine or need for *your* daily work. Mac is getting close on applications (I don’t know about stability) and Linux is getting behind at fast pace.
It’s windows-bashing time, I see.
After reading all the crap above, can someone remind me why they’re the market leader again?
You know, it might have something to do with their court-convicted illegal business practices. I’m not sure though, I haven’t checked the paper today. Which small helpless company with a genuinely innovated product have they swallowed up this week?
Seriously, getting back to the article here, I can’t imagine how such a blatant PR piece (and poorly researched, at that!) made its way onto OSAlert.
XP on any of the four machines at my place crashes after reading or writing data to/from any CD-ROM/CD-RW drive. It reads/writes up to 50mb, then reboots
This is a hardware problem not an operating system one.
I love it when people say linux is behind windows in applications because it dosn’t have Photoshop or Microsoft Office or Internet Explorer. Well we have Kword, OpenOffice, Abiword, Opera, Mozilla, Galleon and The Gimp.
Windows “certified” drivers are a joke and an extortion scheme.
“…and Linux is getting behind at fast pace.”
What exactly do you mean by that? No really, please tell me because you must have forgotten to finish. You know, the part with some facts to back up that outlandish statement.
“This is a hardware problem not an operating system one.”
No. It could be a hardware or a software problem but history points to software (Windows).
It would be also nice to read a similar story, dedicated to the evolution of M$ licenses. Surely from more unbiased source
“it’s windows-bashing time, I see. After reading all the crap above, can someone remind me why they’re the market leader again?
We all know that the best product doesn’t always win. Windows was good enough software backed by very good marketing, and business decisions (both legal and illegal) in their favor. That is the legacy that Windows2000/XP is based on. Now that they are here, they work pretty well. Windows before 95 was a joke compared to Macintosh’s OS. After 95 the tables turned into Microsoft’s favor in terms of technology. Getting to Windows95 was a road paved by great marketing and good business decisions. This is something that Apple started having issues with as far back as the mid-80’s.
” 1990: Windows 3.0
Microsoft’s first mainstream computing platform offered 32-bit performance, advanced graphics, and full support of the more powerful Intel 386 processor. ”
Hmmm… I could’ve sworn that it was mostly 16-bit. In fact, MS only delivered a fully 32-bit consumer OS last year, almost fifteen years after Intel had introduced the 32-bit i386 processor. Later in the piece, they refer to Win95 as a “32-bit operating system”. LOL.
IIRC you couldn’t run 32 bit apps in Windows until win 3.11 and then you had to have some kind of additional application/library that allowed you to run them.
Ok, even the stanchest Microsoft supporter will agree with me that this “article” is 100% marketing PR bullplop. What I want to know is WHY it is here. Yes, Eugenia, I am talking to you.
“That’s because win32 system is the most productive environment available for both home and corporation use…”
You are out of your fucking mind. Handling files with a unix command line blows the shit out of anything that can be done with windows in both speed and ease.
Is it even possible to brows the file system in and .iso file without writing it to a disk on winblows?
because you couldnt come up with a crappy OS like Win ME.
its a marketing spiel
“Windows 2000 Professional was designed to replace Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT Workstation 4.0 on all business desktops and laptops”
I read this differently
I read it as saying that they knew the Unified windows version that was coming ( WinXP ) would be a bloater in terms of size and memory requirements…..
So they designed Win2k as a cut-down version of it.
This fits the facts – Win2K has considerable compatibility with Win9x software, games, peripherals etc
More to the point it will run on a Pentium 133 with 64mb RAM ( will run on 32mb but you wouldnt want to )
All Pcs designed for Win95 can be upgraded to 64Mb – I suggest that this means… You can upgrade your Win95/NT4 Pcs both to Win 2000 for compatibility with forthcoming XP software…..
IE – as a route to an early eradication of the 9x codebase
and Linux is getting behind at fast pace (…) the part with some facts to back up that outlandish statement
The facts are: applications on Linux don’t have enough quality for productivity on a corporate environment – starting on the applications’s (average) user interface; the penetration of Linux is 4-5 % of market share; you don’t have drivers to web cams, digital cams, scanners, TV card, etc; no quality default truetype fonts (you have to install the c:/winnt:/fonts but an average user will not know how to setup the XFree 4 font server – thought Mandrake can/could automate it if your win32 is a FAT partition); the applications stability is doubtfull in many cases; the internet experience is not so rich as it could be(no decent Macromedia Flash and more); and so on.
I use Linux/BSD and like it but you can’t be as productive in the same time period as in win32 applications (or I can’t as the average user can’t just because comfort on using applications is not a Linux concern nor a priority).
No. It could be a hardware or a software problem but history points to software (Windows).
It *could* be. We all can’t be sure about it. Why did that fellow related it to winXP ?
If after reading 50 mb the system crash seems more like a hardware buffer question or a low system RAM, or a ATA mainboard/cable, or whatever, but not a software problem; read/write from CDROM-CDR/W is a pretty basic procedure for any OS with a good RAM management.
If you are found of facts to back it up calling the “history” argument is not sufficient to back it up
Windows “certified” drivers are a joke and an extortion scheme
and a nice way to had *stability* to the Operating system. About extortion I don’t know nobody extortioned me till today.
Windows before 95 was a joke compared to Macintosh’s OS. that’s right, it was, but it is not anymore.
Maybe Linux, being a joke today if compared to Windows, will be in windows position in 2009.
He said:
“…and Linux is getting behind at fast pace.”
You did nothing to prove that. You muttered somthing about not being productive in Linux. Well I feel sorry for you.
I challenge you to prove Windows “certified” drivers do anything about stability. They are an extortion system because you (a hardware developer) have to cow tow to Microsoft inorder not to get a “Not certified by MS may kill your computer” warning when a user installs your driver. Most if not all hardware developers I have ever heard about laugh at Windows driver “certification”.
Yep, I know they’re number 1 – too bad. This business is not what it’s supposed to be about, technology. Superior technology does not mean acceptance and apparently this will never be the case.
It’s pretty simple really. If you have lots of money to market your stuff, you have a fairly good chance to succeed. I can’t explain it any other way…
I have used pretty much all the versions of Windows starting at Windows 3.x. While I enjoyed the benefits of learning about computing and the various OS types, I have found that I prefer Linux. It’s a choice that many others are making; there has to be choice in the market place.
I’m not going to knock Windows – it does what it does. My thinking goes back to the “keep making the software, it’ll keep breaking and I’ll keep working” school.
Out…
Playing “devil’s advocate” i guess… but
that article bears an uncanny resemblance to cow manure
windows 1.0
can anybody say “dosshell revisited”?
windows 3-3.11 erm how can even ms employees not slpit their sides laughing at these abominations?
windows 95… i actually liked this one… yes it had a lot of 16 bit core but it has a legitimate claim to be their first 32 bit desktop os… cuz it had a lor of 32 bit components too… and it ran 32 bit code without a pathetic layer like win32s or whatever the crap was called
win98 … bugs, bugs, and more bugs!
win98 some bugfixes, some new bugs
winME … win98 revisited?
winnt 3.whatever…. i cant comment ive never used any of ’em
winnt4 havent used workstation but server was a nice lil os… wouldnt want ta use it on the net without whatever the newest service pack is and any newer patches… but was pretty fun to just tinker with
win2000… i kinda liked it too but it seemed like “nt with a facelift” to me… only thing i really got out of it was support for newer versions of directx
winxp… its not bad either
could be a lot better though
i guess basically the only ones i was really impressed with were win95 and NT4
looking forward to seeing what longhorn has in store though
reliability… that word just doesnt belong in the same sentence as “windows desktop os”… the server versions werent quite as bad but after using openbsd for a while i just have to chuckle a bit at windows server os’es
Boy, did it blow. Hard.
About 10 years ago, I came across it in a favorite used computer junk store, bought it for $3. Then and now, old technology has interested me. Think I got an old version of Paradox that day as well.
Windows 1.0 was released in 1985. This is after the Mac. No wonder no one used it. I think the GUI DOS shell that came with later (5, 6?) versions of DOS was based on Windows 1. They looked identical. I was honestly surprised how much worse Windows 1 was compared to Mac OS 0.52, or whatever the Mac 128K shipped with.
3 years back, I was going through my stuff, cleaning up. Found my copy of Windows 1.0. Put it up on eBay. I got an amazing $80 for it. Not sure why, but it made the bloke pretty damn happy.
If anyone is interested in a copy, and I’m sure there are plenty of you, shoot me an email. I had zipped it up before I sent it out. No guaruntees- I probably lost it in the switch from PC to Mac, but I may still have it.
If you think that WinXP is not a superior OS to Linux, then you are just fooling yourself. The main complaints about Windows has been it’s stability and its security. Well, Windows 2K removed the stability problems. Besides, many of the previous stability issues had to do with maintaining backward compatibility. I guess they could have just done like GNOME and break compatability for the hell of it, but with millions of users, it is not that easy. Don’t give me any of this crap that Linux is so stable and so great, yet my Linux partition crashes or locks up much more often than any of my installed OSs (WinXP, Mandrake 8.1, BeOS 5.03).
-G
There’s no such thing as absolutes. Especially when it comes to how “superior” an OS is.
For you, XP does what you want it to better than Linux. So use XP. For me, XP sucks. Linux does what I want it to a lot better than any version of Windows does.
Win XP is definately stable for a version of Windows. It still crashes for me more than Linux or Mac OS X does. Perhaps it’s just the GUI crashing, but from what I’ve heard, the GUI in NT/XP is in the kernel, so it’s likely it brings the kernel down with it. However, in OS X or Linux, I can just telnet/ssh in, and restart the GUI process. Can’t do that in XP.
Either way, XP sucks for me. Linux sucks for you. Big deal.
Heh. The marketing piece stated that Windows 3.1 was a fully pre-emptive multitasking OS. What a load of donkey doodoo. Hell, not even Win 95, 98, 98 SE, or ME weren’t pre-emptive. You can’t format a floppy without it locking up most of the resources of the computer. Can we say co-operative? It wouldn’t be as bad if Windows was co-operative with the user as well.
Ok, this *is* a big ad from M$ and not information/history, but it’s also nostalgia for a lot of us.
I actually started developing on Windows 1.0 in ’86 with a C compiler (v3) that had a runtime lib not compatible with the sdk, assembly language (yes sir!) here and there and best of all : by then M$ was giving the sdk, ddk, etc. for free … no MSDN fees !
Other funny from this time (that I realised only later) : while the Windows architecture was something very elaborated for the 80ties PC, it looks like only the Win core devt team had a good idea of the way to use it. Most of the samples in the SDK 1.0 were really badly written!
Oh, and remember Windows 2.1 version 386 ? The “wow” the first time we saw a dos based machine running two standard dos apps in “virtual machines” sharing the screen in 2 windows ?
Nostalgia …
Ok, back to the M$ bashing : yes, VMM and VxD had their load of 32 bits assembly, but that’s hardly a reason to talk about 32 bits OS for Win 3.1.
I tried 3.11 and found it less reliable than 3.1
I tried 95 and found it less reliable than 3.1
I tried NT … and was really happy with it!
flames redirected to \.device
ull :-))
Cheers
in german:
“Mein Betriebsystem ist l"anger als Deins!”
please don’t ask me to translate, cause I don’t know if it there’s a proper translation *g*
florian lutz
okay i’ll give it a try:
“my os is longer (hint hint) than yours!”
“Ok, even the stanchest Microsoft supporter will agree with me that this “article” is 100% marketing PR bullplop.”
Yes, I agree with you.
“Handling files with a unix command line blows the shit out of anything that can be done with windows in both speed and ease.”
Ok, I’ll give you faster and more powerful, but easier? Hrmph!
“Is it even possible to brows the file system in and .iso file without writing it to a disk on winblows?”
Yes. (Check out WinRAR 3.0)
“I read it as saying that they knew the Unified windows version that was coming ( WinXP ) would be a bloater in terms of size and memory requirements…..
So they designed Win2k as a cut-down version of it.”
I don’t think so. I think it was more of a question of not having WinXP ready in time. In fact, if you turn off all of the crap that WinXP comes with and set it to look more like Win2k, it’s really not all that much slower, if at all. It’s more of a memory hog, but I didn’t notice a speed difference.
“and Linux is getting behind at fast pace (…) the part with some facts to back up that outlandish statement”
It’s only behind in the sense that when it tries to clone MS apps, it usually gets rid of the security issues, but lacks a little (or sometimes a lot) in functionality. Take the Office suites for example … how many on the Linux platform have speech recognition built in, or the level of customization to the UI or object linking/embedding that MS Office has. Yes, many Linux users would say those are useless features that just adds bloat, but some other people actually use that stuff – it’s all a matter of perspective.
Of course, I will also readily admit that apps like Galleon certainly are worthy (better?) apps compared to their MS counterparts.
“Superior technology does not mean acceptance and apparently this will never be the case.”
Yes, you’re right, but this isn’t always a bad thing. Take the Xbox for example … probably the most superior game console out there technically speaking, but when I look at the games for it, I’d rather stick with the PS2, even with all of its ‘jaggies’, because the games are more fun, IMHO. Same thing when I see people bashing ‘Winblows’ on here .. when I look at the applications between it and Linux, ‘Winblows’ wins hands down.
And yes, Linux is a more secure OS than is Windows.
“I challenge you to prove Windows “certified” drivers do anything about stability.”
Well, speaking of Windows drivers in gneral, I bought an Audiophile 2496 soundcard (for music production) last night, installed the card, turned on the PC (Win2k), put in the CD when it asked me to, and it just worked. It always works like that, at least for me anyway. However, when I went to the manufacturer’s websites to see if there was a driver for Linux (as I also run it on the same computer), nope .. sorry, out of luck. Maybe Linux will just recognize it without drivers … I guess we’ll see
And speaking of that, after I installed the card, I checked out several apps such as Reason, Fruity Loops, Acid, FM7, Pro52, Absynth, GigaStudio, etc.
Since OBVIOUSLY everyone knows that the almighty Linux is superior to ‘Winblows’, I can’t wait to see what kind of the same apps Linux has to offer!!
That is all the Windows timetable really speaks to. How to take reasonably good technology and turn it into the world’s most profitable corporation.
Microsoft is quite right when they say BeOS and Linux did not / do not cater to ISV’s. The development and deployment environments on these platforms do not support commercial software very well.
If Linux is to be more successful, it must do two things.
First, INNOVATE. It must stop copying Microsoft and other companies and instead deliver new and compelling features to end-users. I would shut down the entire Ximian operation as it is a giant Microsoft clone shop. Same thing with dotGNU. Stop copying and start innovating. This is the greatest strength of Linux and it is being squandered. United Linux is stupid because it is not solving any real problem. “Better Linux” would be more appropriate.
Second, FOCUS. Pick one application area and really make Linux shine in that area. Perhaps one could say servers is where Linux is doing well. On the client side, say “We are going to make Linux into the premier platform for digital photography, software development, P2P, etc.” Just pick something and get everyone thinking/planning/designing/working on it.
Anyhow, the original article is just more revisionist history from the world’s top dog. If you win, you get to write the book. That’s the way it goes.
#m
I never said that Linux sucks. Try reading my post again. All I said is that it has a long way to go before it is anywhere near Windows2K, let alone WindowsXP. When you can do consistent drag and drop or cut and paste on Linux, that will be a start.
-G
And read my post again. Never said you did. You say that Linux has a long way to go, but for me it doesn’t. Windows has a long way to go to be as usable to me. I have perfectly consistent copy and paste- except for in xchat within XDarwin (for some reason). As far as a regular Joe Sixpack desktop user, Linux has a long way to go. But not everyone has the same needs.
The release to manufacturing of Microsoft Windows NT(R) on July 27, 1993, marked an important milestone for Microsoft. It completed a project Microsoft began in the late 1980s to build an advanced new operating system from scratch.
A project MS began?? Gee, did they forget that little company in NY called IBM? Does OS/2 ring a bell?
Maybe they invented Al Gore, too.
WinME had stability improvements? Compared to what – a Corvair?
Win 3.0 was 32 bit?? Unless you added Win32s after installation, there wasn’t a shred of 32-bit code in it, and even then it was all thunked to 16 bit to reach DOS.
I like Win2k and use it a lot, so this kind of crap really tics me off. They do have some good stuff…finally. Why all the deliberate misinformation that EVERYONE knows is crap?
Can’t MS tell the truth about ANYTHING?
Thanks, Eugenia, for the comic relief.
Windows is the market leader today because it was based on DOS. Compatibility with the old stuff is the key-not cool technology.
“It’s only behind in the sense that when it tries to clone MS apps, it usually gets rid of the security issues, but lacks a little (or sometimes a lot) in functionality. Take the Office suites for example …”
You don’t understand the statement you are attaching yourself to. Its says: “and Linux is GETTING behind at fast pace”. Can you possibly support this with fact? The actual statement?
As for office, Openoffice is free and so is the mount command. Office costs ($400) a lot and winrar is $30 (more?). That certainly counts for something, maybe giving up a few bloated features that only a few are slightly attached to. And don’t argue TCO. I think that its safe to say Linux’s TCO is atmost as expensive as windows.
“Well, speaking of Windows drivers in gneral, I bought an Audiophile 2496 soundcard (for music production) last night, installed the card, turned on the PC (Win2k), put in the CD when it asked me to, and it just worked. It always works like that, at least for me anyway. However, when I went to the manufacturer’s websites to see if there was a driver for Linux (as I also run it on the same computer), nope .. sorry, out of luck. Maybe Linux will just recognize it without drivers … I guess we’ll see
”
You know whatever your talking about has NOTHING to do with the statement you attached youself to. Perhaps you should not have responded?
Windows is the market leader today because it was based on DOS. Compatibility with the old stuff is the key-not cool technology.
I agree to a certain extent, keeping familiarity in the interface and past releases of the OS makes it more attractive to consumers. Its simple human psychology ie; people don’t like to change and even then small changes work best.
Take for instance the large selection of Distros that linux comes in, A typical home user has a hard time figuring out just which one to use let alone how to use each and every different distro. (Big Turnoff)
This is an area where Microsoft has succeeded in they have kept the choices to a minimum so that it creates less confusion and the skills that people aquire are tranferable onto say ‘the next version of windows’.
I’ve use linux and I like it because of it’s versatility and power but when it comes down to intuitiveness/ease of use and compatibility Microsoft has it beat hands down, Those who do not think so are lying to themselves or are so in love with *nix that they can’t see out of their ass.
Keep in mind that this is only one area that Microsoft has it over linux. (Think about why linux is trying to emulate Windows)
Don’t give me any of this crap that Linux is so stable and so great, yet my Linux partition crashes or locks up much more often than any of my installed OSs (WinXP, Mandrake 8.1, BeOS 5.03).
What happens when a WinNT admin complains that windows crashes often to another NT admin? He gets told “you obviously are doing something wrong, or there is a hardware problem, because NT shouldnt crash that often. Maybe you should learn to manage your box better.” Its true, in general, NT has become pretty stable.
But the same applies for linux. If you know how to configure the box properly, it should be damn stable. I’ve run 38days without crashing on this box, and what made it crash after that time was a hardware fault (stupid burner is broken). And yes that was with a 2.4 kernel. I have yet to see this box crash by software’s fault (power company should get smacked for the lousy service though). I’ve seen windows be semi-stable, but i have yet to see a desktop windows box hit more than 20days uptime.
I love it when people say linux is behind windows in applications because it dosn’t have Photoshop or Microsoft Office or Internet Explorer. Well we have Kword, OpenOffice, Abiword, Opera, Mozilla, Galleon and The Gimp.
It’s amazing how people try to compare OpenOffice.org or, LOL, KOffice with MS Office, and The GIMP with Photoshop. The open source altenatives often lacks in features when compared with the closed source one. Oh, and BTW, Mozilla and Opera runs on Windows just find, and in fact the latter runs better on Windows (less bugs).
Besides, these are common apps. There are plenty of specialized apps. My father’s engineering firm for example has a engineering app (don’t ask me what it does, I have no idea what civil engineering is all about) not available to Linux. There are plenty of apps that target different niches that aren’t available for Linux, nor is there any altenatives. For example, for AutoCAD, the closest Linux open source altenative (OpenCAD) lacks a lot of patented features.
No. It could be a hardware or a software problem but history points to software (Windows).
Most of the crashes points at Windows 9x. The only similarity between Windows 9x and Windows XP is the trademark. When Windows XP was release, there was a lot of hardware problems which are also apparent in Windows 2000. Why, you ask? Most device drivers are made for Windows NT. Saying that statement is as absurd as “Mac OS has terrible memory management” or “Linux cannot be used on a lot of hard disk” – both of which were true but not currently true.
We all know that the best product doesn’t always win. Windows was good enough software backed by very good marketing, and business decisions (both legal and illegal) in their favor.
In getting their monopoly, everything Microsoft did was legal. After getting the monopoly, the same acts become illegal under a double standard law many support.
That is the legacy that Windows2000/XP is based on. Now that they are here, they work pretty well. Windows before 95 was a joke compared to Macintosh’s OS. After 95 the tables turned into Microsoft’s favor in terms of technology.
Windows 95 was a joke compared to OS/2. But Macintosh was a joke compared to Windows 95, at that time at least. For one, it has a much more inferior memory management model than to a already bad memory management. If in reality people would choose an OS based on it’s merits, they would choose OS/2, and Windows comes in second followed by Macintosh.
Getting to Windows95 was a road paved by great marketing and good business decisions. This is something that Apple started having issues with as far back as the mid-80’s.
The problem with Apple is that they can’t stay competitive in terms of pricing with their competitors for long. For example, when the iMac G4 came out, for that amount of money, you would get something inferior to that Mac from Dell. But now, the tables have been turned, why? Apple doesn’t lower their prices fast enough.
Ok, even the stanchest Microsoft supporter will agree with me that this “article” is 100% marketing PR bullplop. What I want to know is WHY it is here. Yes, Eugenia, I am talking to you.
Oh come on. I have seen much more articles that are pure marketing PR here than this, how come you never oppose to that?
You are out of your fucking mind. Handling files with a unix command line blows the shit out of anything that can be done with windows in both speed and ease.
Of course, home users don’t want to learn commands for a CLI enviroment. They want GUIs. That’s the reason why back then, GUI OS outnumbered CLI OS.
I read it as saying that they knew the Unified windows version that was coming ( WinXP ) would be a bloater in terms of size and memory requirements…..
So they designed Win2k as a cut-down version of it.
I’m making a note of this: No software should ever need more memory and CPU power to handle more features (Which is being kinda unrealistic).
All Pcs designed for Win95 can be upgraded to 64Mb – I suggest that this means… You can upgrade your Win95/NT4 Pcs both to Win 2000 for compatibility with forthcoming XP software…..
IE – as a route to an early eradication of the 9x codebase
I dunno. I once remember my brother installing NT 4 on a 120mhz with 32mb of RAM and it was slow….
Besides, any advice for those having 286s?
I challenge you to prove Windows “certified” drivers do anything about stability. They are an extortion system because you (a hardware developer) have to cow tow to Microsoft inorder not to get a “Not certified by MS may kill your computer” warning when a user installs your driver. Most if not all hardware developers I have ever heard about laugh at Windows driver “certification”.
Drivers with the “Design for Windows XP” logo goes through test to make sure it doesn’t conflict with other drivers. Cheap hardware normally come with cheap drivers back then. And I notice most of the help columns on newspapers are to deal with bad drivers. You haven’t prove that this is just to extort.
I have used pretty much all the versions of Windows starting at Windows 3.x. While I enjoyed the benefits of learning about computing and the various OS types, I have found that I prefer Linux. It’s a choice that many others are making; there has to be choice in the market place.
Same with me. I can’t imagine a world without Linux and a world without KDE 3.
win2000… i kinda liked it too but it seemed like “nt with a facelift” to me… only thing i really got out of it was support for newer versions of directx
Actually, I found Win2k a lot cleaner then NT4. They cleaned up a lot, and of course introduce so many new features people think it is more bloated than NT4. But on the realitic side, for a lot of server stuff, NT5 is better than NT4. Windows XP btw is NT5.1
…yet my Linux partition crashes or locks up much more often than any of my installed OSs (WinXP, Mandrake 8.1, BeOS 5.03).
The reason to that problems is in bold. 8.1 & 8.0 was so buggy, I almost went back to 7.2. But then, first I couldn’t find the 7.2 CD, then my computer processor burnt and I couldn’t afford back then to install it. Then when I could, I was having an important exam. After that, I installed 8.1 because I couldn’t find 8.0 or 7.2’s CD, and later I wiped it out for 8.2, which is the refined version of 8.1.
Win XP is definately stable for a version of Windows. It still crashes for me more than Linux or Mac OS X does. Perhaps it’s just the GUI crashing, but from what I’ve heard, the GUI in NT/XP is in the kernel, so it’s likely it brings the kernel down with it. However, in OS X or Linux, I can just telnet/ssh in, and restart the GUI process. Can’t do that in XP.
If the GUI crashed, it is a blue screen for you. If the screen suddenly looses it’s desktop and taskbar, that’s an Explorer crash (Explorer is the shell, think KDE for Windows). I have never seen Windows XP crashed before, but I have seen XF86 crashed 3 times in my life, two of which it was XFont’s fault, and one of which was KDE 2.0 fault.
Windows is the market leader today because it was based on DOS. Compatibility with the old stuff is the key-not cool technology.
If you have cool technology, you can succeed. First, try making an IDE as good as VS.NET. Then target a niche and get as many major ISV and OEM targeting that niche to make deals with your. And lastly, advertise… a lot.
As for office, Openoffice is free and so is the mount command. Office costs ($400) a lot and winrar is $30 (more?). That certainly counts for something, maybe giving up a few bloated features that only a few are slightly attached to. And don’t argue TCO. I think that its safe to say Linux’s TCO is atmost as expensive as windows.
Price comparison between applications aren’t fair unless both of the applications have more or less the same features. As Darius said, what may sound like bloat to you sounds like something important and/or cool to someone else.
I agree to a certain extent, keeping familiarity in the interface and past releases of the OS makes it more attractive to consumers. Its simple human psychology ie; people don’t like to change and even then small changes work best.
Those who are comfortable with Windows depends on the apps it provides. But there are many who aren’t comfortable with Windows because… well, it isn’t the most easiest thing to use. By making something *better*, user interface wise, than Windows, you could attract those who aren’t comfortable with Windows because most often they don’t depend on a Windows-only app, or a app that don’t have an altenative on another OS.
This is an area where Microsoft has succeeded in they have kept the choices to a minimum so that it creates less confusion and the skills that people aquire are tranferable onto say ‘the next version of windows’.
Which explains why with Windows 95 they completely threw away a crappy UI they used in Windows 3.x. Which also explains why with Windows XP, a lot of things are different than previous versions (though unlike Windows 95, Windows XP allows the users to switch back to Classic).
Keep in mind that this is only one area that Microsoft has it over linux. (Think about why linux is trying to emulate Windows)
Which is why the first Linux distribution to clone Windows, Corel, to fail and start kow towing Microsoft for cash they would otherwise not need if they haven’t invested in Linux.
But the same applies for linux. If you know how to configure the box properly, it should be damn stable. I’ve run 38days without crashing on this box, and what made it crash after that time was a hardware fault (stupid burner is broken). And yes that was with a 2.4 kernel. I have yet to see this box crash by software’s fault (power company should get smacked for the lousy service though). I’ve seen windows be semi-stable, but i have yet to see a desktop windows box hit more than 20days uptime.
I have been running this laptop for more than 30 days. Though most of the time it is in standby mode, but the OS is still on, and it counts :-). I’m rebooting today to clear up the memory (something easier to do with rebooting than to manual clean it up on Linux too).
“It’s amazing how people try to compare OpenOffice.org or, LOL, KOffice with MS Office, and The GIMP with Photoshop.”
OpenOffice.org = $0
MS Office = $400
The GIMP = $0
Photoshop = $500
I’d say the price difference more than makes up for the few lost features. But my main point was that people just ignore the comparable programs and assume that there are NO application on Linux because they have not actually used it.
I don’t miss MS Office. I don’t miss clippy. I even find OpenOffice.org easier to use while it does the same things.
The same thing with Photoshop. I don’t miss putting up $500 dollers for a piece of software that The Gimp replaces 90% of the time.
“Most of the crashes points at Windows 9x.”
I said history. You would agree that win 9x is history right?
“Oh come on. I have seen much more articles that are pure marketing PR here than this, how come you never oppose to that?”
I just started posting about two days ago so I can’t speak to previous articles. This article in on Microsoft.com written by MS! Surly you would agree that an article written by Sun on Sun.com that pats themselves on the back for creating everything is bullplop but why not this? Are you trying to lower the bar for truth and good reporting? I don’t see your issue with my statement. I seem to remember a saying involving good men doing nothing.
“You haven’t prove that this is just to extort.”
You have to prove that it is not an extortion scheme. What other purpose does it serve and I want facts not conjecture. What I have heard is that certifies drivers purports to offer stability. At least, please don’t quote my challenge while completely ignoring it.
I am comparing total functionality and value. That is completely fair. To say that you can’t compare products on price in unrealistic. Its is the most compaired statistic of any in the real world even when value should be and that is what I’m doing.
And please, no math tricks with multiplying by zero to prove I’m a communist of some sort. O is mearly a place holder to make our number system work, its value is logical not numerical.
One can argue day and night about GIMP vs. Photoshop, OpenOffice vs. MicrosoftOffice, etc. If one takes a step back, though, and asks himself “Which platform should I use to do what I want in the least amount of time and expense?”, you can start measuring what actually matters.
For Linux and Windows, the cost of the hardware is nominally the same. The Windows OS does cost more as an OS compared to Linux.
Given the vast armada of easily installed and easy to use applications for Windows, the majority of people are going to find Windows allows them to do what they want within reasonable time and expense.
With Linux, there are precious few desktop applications. There’s not even a standard GUI programming API for Linux. That’s the harsh reality. Linux is not ready for mass-market applications. It’s not ready for standard look and feel for your applications. Even for Linux desktops, there are wars between KDE and GNOME (or should I call it GNW for GNU Not Windows?). NO ISV wants to build 40 variants of their application for ONE OS.
Linux does have an edge in two important areas, server applications and trusted computing. What will happen in the server space remains to be seen when Microsoft ships their new XML-everything server OS. And in the trusted computing space, the US government’s deal with Microsoft may make Microsoft OS the national standard.
May we continue to live in interesting times.
#m
“NO ISV wants to build 40 variants of their application for ONE OS.”
Any linux computer can run any program in either Qt or GTK and both are free. They are also not mutually exclusive. 40 variants is as ridiculious and wrong. You are ignorant. Having mutilple ways of doing things is Linux’s greatest strength. Qt and GTK, KDE and Gnome have pushed each other farther than they would have gone alone.
“With Linux, there are precious few desktop applications.”
There a lots of Desktop applications. I know, I run them every day. I can do everything I do in Windows in Linux.
I wish I knew. I mean, I expected some level of idiotic MS-bashing from the title of the news item, but this is ridiculous. Very few of the arguments given against Windows are even relevant to the article. Most people can’t seem to read at the third grade level, including rajan r.
I don’t understand why people are comparing Linux to Windows. This is not a history of operating systems; it is a history of Windows operating systems. The Microsoft article is going to be viewing everything from Microsoft’s perspective. Nonetheless, that simple fact does not necessarily make everything in the article “marketing bullplop.”
I’d say about 95% of what the article stated was factually correct. Some of it was misleading, yes, but you have to expect that. Imagine a history of Linux written by Linus, a history of the Macintosh written by Apple, or a (brief) history of BeOS written by Be. They will all tend to overlook or ignore the trouble spots they encountered while remembering the good things they did. It’s human nature.
Had this article been published on a respectible news site labeled as an unbiased history of Windows, I might have taken issue with a few points. All things considered, the article was quite an interesting read, and it did get a lot of people talking about Windows operating system history.
Thanks for posting it, Eugenia!
There’s no such thing as absolutes.
That is an absolute statement.
Hey… I’m just using what is given. Some people are making stupid statements that I take issue with.
Honestly though, when a news television station is doing a bit on its owner it will mention what seems to be a conflict of interest. This is what should have happened here. Eugenia should have mentioned that it was from Microsoft and who knows, maybe I would have clicked. But I would not feel like it was a planted PR piece.
“Imagine a history of Linux written by Linus…”
I just tend to trust Linus or Steve more than Bill. Take this article for instance: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25956.html
And no I am not making a single more post this story.
Honestly though, when a news television station is doing a bit on its owner it will mention what seems to be a conflict of interest. This is what should have happened here. Eugenia should have mentioned that it was from Microsoft and who knows, maybe I would have clicked. But I would not feel like it was a planted PR piece.
Anyone who clicked knew that it was a history of Microsoft Windows operating systems written by Microsoft. In the future I suggest that you try clicking.
I just tend to trust Linus or Steve more than Bill.
I don’t trust any of them, but neither do I subscribe to blind fear. Most arguments against Microsoft are much ado about nothing, although at times there are some valid points to be made. IMO if I received a dollar every time some Linux fanatic went on a baseless tirade, I’d make Bill Gates look like a pauper.
all you people who relate microsoft to bin laden and other stuff, please wake u and try to see windows for what it really is. a great OS.
hopefully more of hte APIs will be discolsed soon.
I hope someone’s secretly working on resurrecting BeOS. Windows vs Linux is the ultimate depressant.
Here’s a hint – all you have to do is mouse-over the link, and look at the URL that appears near the bottom of your browser – you would see that the piece resides on microsoft.com (and in that case, was most likely written with a shovel…) ;P
It’s amazing how many people think that the GIMP is good enough for most Photoshop users, &c.
Sure, the GIMP is free and PS costs a boatload. But for a huge number of PS users, those features which the GIMP lacks is what they’re paying for. It’s what they need. CMYK for starters. Until the GIMP has those, it’s mostly worthless for this group of people.
For you and I, the GIMP does all I need. But you’re probably not the kind of person that would actually shell out money for PhotoShop, anyway.
Along the same lines, this is true for a lot of applications. I don’t need all the rubbish that MS Office provides, LaTeX, Emacs21, siag, and perl (with the Spreadsheet module) is my office suite, and it does all that I need quite well.
I’m lucky that there is no application for which the free analog isn’t good enough. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, that’s not the case. No matter how much of a price difference there may be between an application like PS and one like the GIMP, it doesn’t “make up” for the lack of key functionality.
Even though I do like Microsoft for a lot of things (but I am no zealot) I absolutely cringe with embarrassment when anyone talks about any Microsoft OS older than Windows 2000. I will be the first to admit that DOS, Win 3.x and Win 9x were rubbish compared to what was technologically possible to achieve at the time (but this is largely because they were forced to maintain all that backward-compatibility, not because they were inferior programmers – OS/2 was much better quality but lost to Windows simply because it did not have as good backward-compatibility and for users this was more important than quality, or at least Microsoft convinced them of this). NT 3.x/4.0 was an unsatisfactory half-baked product in various ways as far as I am concerned. The Cairo project that had begun on about 1991 (with Dave Cutler) was Microsoft’s true vision for what their OS should be and it took them 10 years to get to that point with Windows 2000. Every other OS release during that time period was simply a stop-gap measure to hold the fort until Cairo could be completed and should not be taken seriously by anyone, even though Microsoft still pretends to take those old products seriously. Seriously, even Bill Gates probably puked at the OSes his company was producing until W2K got out the door. It is only during the last 2-3 years that anything good could really be said about their stuff and this newness of quality after a long history of mediocre (at best) OSes is a factor that is going to work against them and benefit their competitors until the new platform becomes satisfactorily proven.
I must say, I was expecting a LOT nastier flame battle than what I am seeing going on here. The quality of this thread is really quite high considering the controversy of the subject – kindof makes me proud to be here. Eugenia, are you blocking all the nasty trolls from those Slashdot refugees?
Robust? Yes.
Press release with some adoption details…
http://www.stratus.com/news/2002/20020624.htm
Stratus ftServer/Windows uptime meter…
http://www.stratus.com/uptime/ftserver.htm
“Stratus is the only server maker to disclose actual recorded “availability” levels for its products based on reported service incidents from the installed base.”
This is not a flame, it just bothers me when people claim that Windows 2000 is not a reliable OS. Cut it out.
Second, FOCUS. Pick one application area and really make Linux shine in that area. Perhaps one could say servers is where Linux is doing well. On the client side, say “We are going to make Linux into the premier platform for digital photography, software development, P2P, etc.” Just pick something and get everyone thinking/planning/designing/working on it.
I’m suing for theft of propaganda.
Once upon a time, I was a lone voice with that opinion, now it seems we have two.
I’d say the price difference more than makes up for the few lost features. But my main point was that people just ignore the comparable programs and assume that there are NO application on Linux because they have not actually used it.
Well, you failed to point out that there are so many corporate features lacking in OpenOffice.org (some of which StarOffice did put in place), and the same goes to GIMP. I have used both, I personally prefer Photoshop though I prefer Linux. Sure, you can say, for the price, the amount of features is good. But you failed to understand, for businesses depending on Office and Photoshop, if the features they rely on (like CMYK support) is not there, the price difference isn’t worth it cause they won’t be productive anymore. If all the features you use in Office and Photoshop are there in OpenOffice.org and GIMP, be my guest and use it.
I don’t miss MS Office. I don’t miss clippy. I even find OpenOffice.org easier to use while it does the same things.
Clippy is by default turned off in Office XP. But I find that little purple box down in OOo there equally as annoying. Besides, once hypenation and export Office filters are available for KOffice, I’m throwing away OpenOffice.org which is to me a slow, badly written piece of crap which happens to have a lot of features in it.
The same thing with Photoshop. I don’t miss putting up $500 dollers for a piece of software that The Gimp replaces 90% of the time.
If you were running a print house, I bet you wouldn’t say that. For one, there isn’t any CMYK supportin GIMP. There is an script/component that could be use, but I heard it is so slow, and remember time is money. Then, for the stable release, does it have things like reediting text? Picture browser? Good GIF filters? What about the “Style” dialog, where one can put things like drop shadow (outside and inside), glow (outside and inside), bevel and embross (outside or inside) and so on? And Photoshop’s UI is so much more well designed than The GIMP (for your information though, I was using GIMP five months before I had Photoshop 5.5).
I said history. You would agree that win 9x is history right?
But you were implying that Windows XP is a continuation of that history, which is not close to true.
I just started posting about two days ago so I can’t speak to previous articles. This article in on Microsoft.com written by MS! Surly you would agree that an article written by Sun on Sun.com that pats themselves on the back for creating everything is bullplop but why not this? Are you trying to lower the bar for truth and good reporting? I don’t see your issue with my statement. I seem to remember a saying involving good men doing nothing.
So, you are new here. The first thing to remember is that this is not a journalist society. There is all kinds of articles posted here from the least factual and the most flamebaitish to the most factual and less provactive. So live with that. (Besides, there are articles from Sun themselves glorify Solaris over Linux).
You have to prove that it is not an extortion scheme. What other purpose does it serve and I want facts not conjecture. What I have heard is that certifies drivers purports to offer stability. At least, please don’t quote my challenge while completely ignoring it.
Well, you had make a claim you can’t prove. The burden of prove is on you, not me. Also, you haven’t prove that drivers designed for Windows XP with the Windows XP logo aren’t stable on Windows XP – all the hardware I have use that have the logo (like my Logitech mouse, or my new HP printer) works perfectly on Windows, something I can’t say for years before.
Any linux computer can run any program in either Qt or GTK and both are free. They are also not mutually exclusive. 40 variants is as ridiculious and wrong. You are ignorant. Having mutilple ways of doing things is Linux’s greatest strength. Qt and GTK, KDE and Gnome have pushed each other farther than they would have gone alone.
I think what he meant was the different binary packages needed for different distributors. While Qt and GTK+ and KDE and GNOME pushed each other futher and further because of competition, there is absolutely no harm in creating more standards like a standard theming format, a standard component architecture and so on. And also, ISVs don’t want their products to work well on GNOME but loathed by KDE users, and vice versa.
There a lots of Desktop applications. I know, I run them every day. I can do everything I do in Windows in Linux.
Same with me, but not same for the rest of the Windows users.
Most people can’t seem to read at the third grade level, including rajan r.
Thanks for insulting me, have a nice day.
I just tend to trust Linus or Steve more than Bill. Take this article for instance:
I trust Linus cause he isn’t a business man, but Steave is as bad as Bill. Sure, he is better at PR: painting a rosy picture of his greatness.
hopefully more of hte APIs will be discolsed soon.
Hopefully not. Right now with the amount of APIs given out, a lot of developers still manage to create annoying apps, what more with even more of it out. And then I wonder what would happen is suddenly, when I install Mozilla or Netscappe, it automatically replaces DCOM and MSHTML with XPCOM and Gecko, rendering a lot of apps useless.
I hope someone’s secretly working on resurrecting BeOS. Windows vs Linux is the ultimate depressant.
Me too. I can’t wait for OBOS. By time it comes, I would be fit enough to make my own KOffice for it.
Here’s a hint – all you have to do is mouse-over the link, and look at the URL that appears near the bottom of your browser – you would see that the piece resides on microsoft.com (and in that case, was most likely written with a shovel…) ;P
Seeing that he is a Linux user, who knows, he might be using one of those uber geek browsers with no support for mice (just a cheapshot, don’t take it seriously).
OS/2 was much better quality but lost to Windows simply because it did not have as good backward-compatibility
OS/2 ran Windows (Win16) apps better than Windows 3.x. The problem with OS/2 is that is wasn’t properly marketed.
This is not a flame, it just bothers me when people claim that Windows 2000 is not a reliable OS. Cut it out.
The reason why i laughed at the “robust” thingy is that
1) Accroading to NetCraft, NT has less uptime compared to Linux or BSD.
2) Until Trustworthy Computing is fully implemented, Windows NT wouldn’t be a wise choice for anything secure.
“OS/2 ran Windows (Win16) apps better than Windows 3.x. The problem with OS/2 is that is wasn’t properly marketed.”
I don’t remember this being the case. I was sure that OS/2 had compatibility problems of some kind that gave Microsoft an advantage, or I would have been using it myself at some point if it was fully both Win16 and Win32 compatible and ran all of the same software as Win95. Wasn’t OS/2 a full 32-bit OS like Windows NT 3.x, and thus had limits on how well it was able to run 16-bit apps, just like NT, but unlike Win95 which is a mishmash of 16/32 that could run 16-bit (and DOS) apps better and thus clobbered OS/2 on the desktop? Obviously, OS/2 and NT were the same 32-bit code base at the beginning, right? It’s been so long that I can’t remember all the specifics very well now, so I guess I could be wrong…
So, you are new here. The first thing to remember is that this is not a journalist society. There is all kinds of articles posted here from the least factual and the most flamebaitish to the most factual and less provactive. So live with that. (Besides, there are articles from Sun themselves glorify Solaris over Linux).
I fail to see an important difference. In this respect, journalism == politics == OS wars.
Thanks for insulting me, have a nice day.
Truth cannot be an insult. You – and others – were so eager to bash the article that you frequently misinterpreted it. Some of your “corrections” were also quite funny.
“Microsoft’s first mainstream computing platform offered 32-bit performance, advanced graphics, and full support of the more powerful Intel 386 processor.”
Hmmm… I could’ve sworn that it was mostly 16-bit. In fact, MS only delivered a fully 32-bit consumer OS last year, almost fifteen years after Intel had introduced the 32-bit i386 processor. Later in the piece, they refer to Win95 as a “32-bit operating system”. LOL.
They said Windows 3.1 offered 32-bit performance, which it did, but they did not claim the OS itself was fully 32-bit.
“Windows for Workgroups also offered the performance benefits of Microsoft’s new 32-bit file system.”
Really? All this time I thought it only supported FAT12 and FAT16. Did it support NTFS?”
No, it supported VFAT, a 32-bit virtual file system used to access both local disks and network shares.
“Windows Me offered … reliability improvements.”
I reinstalled Win98 because WinMe was so buggy.
The “reliability improvements” they are referring to here are: System Restore, driver signing, system file checking, the automatic registry checker, etc. I found these to be quite useful.
“With Windows XP, consumers and home users now have performance, stability, and security that business users benefited from in Windows 2000.”
All the tests I’ve seen show that Win2K is faster than WinXP. For games, Win98 blows XP out of the water (although this may have changed by now). I would also say that Win2K is more reliable and is most likely more secure. It is definitely less bloated (although not by too much) and it doesn’t look like it was designed by a Tellytubby.
They’re not contrasting Windows XP with 2000, they are contrasting Windows 9x/Me with XP.
The game performance problems was due to poorly written drivers and (rarely) games, not the operating system itself. Most of speed problems lay in the drivers, while the compatibility problems lay in the games. These problems were corrected quite a while ago.
“The operating system broke new ground in security, operating system power, performance, desktop scalability, and reliability with a range of key new features.”
You could say they are telling the truth. Never has the server/ UNIX market have saw something so insecure, underpowered, low performance, inconfiguratable desktop and irreliablity before.
Um, no. They are comparing Windows NT to previous versions of Windows. This is a history of Windows operating systems.
The “desktop scalability” to which they referred has nothing to do with rearranging icons and downloading themes. They’re talking about features for corporate networks, not WalMart display shelves.
“The new operating system began with version 3.1 in order to maintain consistency with Windows 3.1, which at the time was a well-established operating system for both home and business users.”
Though OS/2 was widely more used than that NT version.
This is a history of Windows operating systems.
“The 32-bit operating system also offered enhanced multimedia capabilities, more powerful features for mobile computing, and integrated networking. In order to keep memory requirements to a minimum, it did not include support for such features as system-level security or Unicode, which came later.”
Actually, Windows 95 was a mishmash of 16-bit code and 32-bit code…
Actually, Windows 95 was a 32-bit operating system with the ability to run 16-bit legacy applications. The applications that were developed for Windows 95 used a 32-bit API called Win32, which had a 32-bit underlying implementation.
If you attempt to run a 16-bit Windows application, Windows 9x/Me uses a set of DLLs to translate the Win16 calls to the appropriate Win32 calls. This process is called thunking.
Look it up:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/wi…
And if it was 100% 32-bit, it could add Unicode support without feeling quilty. I reckon keeping IE out would be better for Microsoft than keeping Unicode out
Um, no. Windows 95 was introduced back when people expected it to run on 486’s with 8 MB of RAM. System level security and Unicode support require additional memory for the system. More memory for the system means less for applications. Less memory for applications means a heck of a lot of disk swapping.
“Windows 2000 Professional was designed to replace Windows 95, Windows 98…”
Which it failed at.
The full quote is: “Windows 2000 Professional was the upgrade to Windows NT Workstation 4.0, but it was more than just that. Windows 2000 Professional was designed to replace Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT Workstation 4.0 on all business desktops and laptops.” Keyword: business. Which it did quite well at.
“…uniting them around the Windows NT and Windows 2000 code base.”
Wow, they have two codebase.
No, they have one code base supporting two (now three) operating systems.
The next release of Windows NT Server was built on the stability of version 3.1, but with greatly enhanced processing speed and improved connectivity to other systems, particularly in Novell NetWare and UNIX environments.
And this ultimately cause it to control the market.
So you are upset both when they don’t provide compatibility (OS/2, POSIX) and when they do (Novell, UNIX)? I think it would be safe to say that rajan r is upset that Microsoft exists.
In this entire comment, i use the word unix to referre to UNIX, GNU/Linux, FreeBSD etc.
” ‘Handling files with a unix command line blows the shit out of anything that can be done with windows in both speed and ease.’
Ok, I’ll give you faster and more powerful, but easier? Hrmph!”
When it comes to ease, it depends on what your doing. Entering one line on unix could result in a lot of work being done, which would take a whole lot of pionting, clicking, cuting/copying/pasting all around Explorer to accomplish on windows. Ease is also relative. If you know how to use a unix command line, then you could do a lot of things easier with it.
” ‘Is it even possible to brows the file system in and .iso file without writing it to a disk on winblows?’
Yes. (Check out WinRAR 3.0)”
Unix can do a lot of things easier than windows. Not just file manipulation. An .iso can be mounted and read in two lines on unix.
“Of course, home users don’t want to learn commands for a CLI enviroment. They want GUIs. That’s the reason why back then, GUI OS outnumbered CLI OS.”
Completely irrelevant to this disscussion. We are talking about general ease of use, not ease of use for one part of the market. But, yes. If you consider the averege user, they don’t want to use the command line. There are pleanty of Explorer type file browsers for unix that make handling files just as easy as windows. So unix has two areas covered. Windows has one. Its easier to screw with files on unix than windows. The only excepting is if you’ve had years of experience with windows and non with unix, which isn’t a fair comparision. A large portion of the population does fit into this catagory, however. But with programs like konquerer, the learning curve is minimal. It’s just has hard to learn windows for the first time. So the only real advantage windows has is the mononpoly. (which they are using illegaly, just so you M$ fanatics don’t forget)
“Actually, Windows 95 was a 32-bit operating system with the ability to run 16-bit legacy applications. The applications that were developed for Windows 95 used a 32-bit API called Win32, which had a 32-bit underlying implementation.”
I don’t think so. If Windows 95 is a true 32-bit OS, then why does it have to boot into 16-bit DOS on startup? Win9x is really just a layer that runs on top of good old DOS and allows DOS to run the Win32 API, that’s all. It is not a real operating system at all, despite the fact that it has a 32-bit underlying Win32 implementation. DOS must be installed on the machine in order for Win95 to even run.
I don’t remember this being the case. I was sure that OS/2 had compatibility problems of some kind that gave Microsoft an advantage, or I would have been using it myself at some point if it was fully both Win16 and Win32 compatible and ran all of the same software as Win95. Wasn’t OS/2 a full 32-bit OS like Windows NT 3.x, and thus had limits on how well it was able to run 16-bit apps, just like NT, but unlike Win95 which is a mishmash of 16/32 that could run 16-bit (and DOS) apps better and thus clobbered OS/2 on the desktop? Obviously, OS/2 and NT were the same 32-bit code base at the beginning, right? It’s been so long that I can’t remember all the specifics very well now, so I guess I could be wrong…
OS/2 actually ran Win16 applications better. Because of the marriage between Microsoft and IBM at that time, IBM knew the specifications of Win16, and also have source code and documentations of Win16. But then when the marriage broke up, IBM was forced to pay royalties to Microsoft for using Microsoft code, and IBM refused, and decided to use it’s knowlegde of Windows 3.x and make OS/2 Windows or something of that sort. It ran Windows applications faster than Windows 3.x itself, but it became a big turn off because of the fact that Windows was needed. Plus, for each copy of OS/2, to run Windows app, you need a copy of Windows 3.x, thus increasing Windows market share.
The big reason why OS/2 had died out is because it was badly marketed. IBM didn’t play nice with the OEMs by overcharging for the OEM version. The OEMs couldn’t use OS/2 to remain competitive with IBM and therefore opt for Windows. This is pretty much the way Mac decline in market share.
But this is what I have read, I may be wrong. I may not be even born back then
Truth cannot be an insult. You – and others – were so eager to bash the article that you frequently misinterpreted it. Some of your “corrections” were also quite funny.
Some of them were sacartic. But the article has so many mistakes.
They said Windows 3.1 offered 32-bit performance, which it did, but they did not claim the OS itself was fully 32-bit.
Windows 3.1 didn’t offer 32-bit performance. It ran on newer 386s and 486s because of the backward compatiblity of the processor with 286s anyway.
Um, no. They are comparing Windows NT to previous versions of Windows. This is a history of Windows operating systems… The “desktop scalability” to which they referred has nothing to do with rearranging icons and downloading themes. They’re talking about features for corporate networks, not WalMart display shelves.
Notice, I was sacarstic. I should have known, sacarsm doesn’t go well with text.
Actually, Windows 95 was a 32-bit operating system with the ability to run 16-bit legacy applications. The applications that were developed for Windows 95 used a 32-bit API called Win32, which had a 32-bit underlying implementation.
But it is undeniable that the system it is based on, DOS, is 16-bit. It provides 32-bit for applications via Win32, but it can’t change the fact that Windows 95 was a mishmash of 16-bit and 32-bit code, and was the sole reason why it was so unstable.
Um, no. Windows 95 was introduced back when people expected it to run on 486’s with 8 MB of RAM. System level security and Unicode support require additional memory for the system. More memory for the system means less for applications. Less memory for applications means a heck of a lot of disk swapping.
I was sacarstic again. Notice I how I pointed out that they bundled IE with Windows 95 but not Unicode support.
So you are upset both when they don’t provide compatibility (OS/2, POSIX) and when they do (Novell, UNIX)? I think it would be safe to say that rajan r is upset that Microsoft exists.
Nah, if you read the entire post, you would see I was very much in a sacarstic mood. I’m okay with Microsoft existing, I don’t mind using Windows, and in fact is using it now. I prefer Linux due to personal preferences and have nothing to do with any hate against Microsoft.
When it comes to ease, it depends on what your doing. Entering one line on unix could result in a lot of work being done, which would take a whole lot of pionting, clicking, cuting/copying/pasting all around Explorer to accomplish on windows. Ease is also relative. If you know how to use a unix command line, then you could do a lot of things easier with it.
Ease is define as how fast you get used to it and able to use it. In this case, UNIX command line may be usable, but easy to use. For example, when I made a temporary move from KDE to Windows XP, I could use with no trouble (except that I normally double click on the title bar expecting it to shade).
So unix has two areas covered. Windows has one. Its easier to screw with files on unix than windows.
The last I have checked, BASH was available on Windows. Also, you notice that Windows target audience is very different from UNIX.
The only excepting is if you’ve had years of experience with windows and non with unix, which isn’t a fair comparision.
Actually, I have use KDE more than any desktop out there.
But with programs like konquerer, the learning curve is minimal.
The learning curve isn’t minimal, because of the arrangement of the file system itself. For example, how would Queen Elizabeth know what /usr is? Or how would George Bush know what the heck /opt for? Or how would Yasser Arafat know how to tame /dev? This is actually the distributor’s fault for not making stuff easier, cause Corel, and a few other distros prove it is possible to hide the UNIX file system and placing a simpler one.
But while on the topic, I find DOS file hiearchy no different in terms of ease of use, but Windows XP had done a lot in terms of simplifiying it. I’m a hardcore Linux user, and I find the UNIX file hiearchy logical to me mainly because I took a long time in learning it.