Dave Barry Does Windows

retrosteve writes: "Well, it's finally happened. Someone (Dave Barry) in the popular press has finally, explicitly and with a sense of humour, pointed out that Microsoft Windows doesn't get any more reliable or usable, no matter how many versions you buy."

not always 100% correct.

Dave Berry also pointed out in a newspaper clipping that there was no one left living in North Dakota, well i usually see at least 2 or 3 people every day wandering about on this side of the border (not including myself), so take his arguements with a grain or salt...

What am I missing?

I've been using Win98 since 1998, and it's just as stable as any OS I've come across. It doesn't crash every four hours or anything like that, in fact, I keep my Win98 machine running for weeks on end...with negligable memory leakage.

Windows runs all the software I care to run, and the games I wish to play, so frankly, as a consumer level computer user (with a self-built system (so as to dispel any notion that I'm totally ignorant)) who has given Linux a try, Windows is just fine by me because it does what I want to do.

I can't help but wonder how many people choose other OSes just because they're not Windows...

Re:What am I missing?

The Age of Aquarius dawns once every 26,000 years; it has to do with the precession of the equinoxes.
Can we assume your knowledge of Windows is as poor as your knowledge of astronomy/astrology?

Re:What am I missing?

Run Win98, SAS, Excel and Word for four hours. Crash, with lost work. Repeat.
Switch to Linux, R, Latex and emacs. No crashes and no lost work in two years. AND I get better results with less effort.

It's happend to me, too.

Perhaps I should have added that I don't allow virii to execute on my system :)

I've used '95 and '98 quite a lot over the past six years or so and found them reasonably stable. I did C++ and Oracle development on Solaris and HP-UX using the Hummingbird Xceed X server, and would only switch the Windows box off at weekends. I have also run a mix of Netscape and IE browsers, installed jdk and dozens of Oracle tools including Designer 2000, played rather too many Quake death-matches, and generally flogged Windows about as hard as any other developer in a similar environment.

It bombed rather more often than any UNIX I have used (that is to say, a system crash was not so unusual an occurrence as to occasion earnest headscratching and bug reports) but it was not one of these reboot-before-lunchtime jobs, and I didn't start each week in the expectation of an enforced reboot before Friday.

I've also used NT and found it even more reliable. But I tired of Windows because it's an old fashioned, blinkered and wasteful system.

Microsoft, it seemed to me, had wasted over a decade pursuing a wasteful paradigm for desktop computers--the single user computer. If I wanted to do something that in a UNIX system would require me to run one single application with root privilege (or some lesser, more specialised UNIX privilege, such as the mysql database administrator), I could be sure that in NT I had to log the entire system out of my own user and log it into Administrator or another account with the appropriate privileges.

Then, as often as not, I would be required to reboot the entire system. That is not only wasteful in computer time, it turned out to be very wasteful of my time, because I had to sit by through the incredibly slow NT boot sequence. If the machine in question was a server, this meant a server outage, which to my mind seems quite barking mad.

Then there was the problem that I had to be physically sitting at the computer in order to perform many tasks. The contrast with the UNIX environments I was used to using was very marked.

I encountered these problems during a period when I was actively investigating the possibility of giving Windows development a go, and it was the frustration caused by these problems, as well as the frustration of dealing with Microsoft's rather lacklustre development tools, that finally turned me against Windows. I simply burned out as a Windows user.

Of course!

Dave Barry also pointed out in his book, Dave Barry in Cyberspace (IIRC), that there was always a parallel universe called "Macintosh" created with the bizarre idea a human could actually use it.

Barry was quick to point out that manly computer users such as himself didn't want a computer they could use, and so the Macintosh has a pitiful market share, even to this day ; )

Re:Of course!

OS X on the other hand, simply rocks.

It's more Reggae than rock at the moment, but I'm sure that will change as CPUs get faster...

MSCE

Funny how the MSCE in his story has to call tech support and it takes 2 days. Dammit, anyone can call tech support. Do they need a degree too? And why should they get paid for that?

Re:MSCE

To make new money. Every year sees new cars too, and the 'new model' never is perfect, just different, more trendy, and "New". "New" is a magic word you know.

General motors invented the idea of the anual model change as a method of boosting demmand. (Other car manufactures followed suit.) The reason was that they feared the market would become saturated, because cars didn't rust fast enough. Software dosn't rust at all, but it is possible to abuse copyright law to obtain the same effect...

Re:MSCE

My manager at one of my previous employers was an MSCE. Its apparently a very, very rare and highly prized certification, especially in management ranks. Its up there with the CCIE.

This manager of mine mysteriously got let go from his position. I can't imagine why. According to HR, he had the required BS Degree.. But he recently took a position as a PC Technician just because he wanted something "Less challanging".

Sign me up for the MSCE next - I wanna be a systems manager, too. They make money, even if they dont know the fundimentals of system security.

[begin bitch]
Systems Administrator (21yo, 4YR exp, Clue, MCP, SCNA, SCSA) = $39,500 + Shitty bene's.

Systems Manager (54yo, 5YR exp, No clue, no certs, no previous management exp.) = $60,000 + the same shitty bene's.
[end bitch]

Re:MSCE

And why should they get paid for that?

Because! They know what questions to ask and how.


MCSE: So it's the registry huh?

Tech: Yeah, it's fucked.

MCSE: [to Dave] We need to go get XP.

Dave: Why?

MCSE: [to Tech] What did you say the problem was?

Tech: You don't have XP

MCSE: Ok.

MCSE: [to Dave] Ummm, yeah. XP supports your old hardware better. And it never crashes.

Tech: Hey! Don't say never. We never say never at Microsoft. The term is 'more stable'.

MCSE: [to Dave] XP is a more stable OS.

Dave: So it won't crash?

MCSE: [to Tech] What do I tell him?

Dave Barry in Cyberspace

If you liked this, you'll probably like Dave Barry in Cyberspace (1996, Crown Publishers Inc, ISBN 0-517-59575-3). Despite the impression that he deliberately gives in this column, he does in fact understand what's going on, and the book comes across as one geek's very humorous spin on computers, the internet, and the industry.

But they continue to innovate!

One of the things you have to admit about Micros~1 is that they don't just sit on their hands and let the world pass them by. NO!!! They continue to find new and interesting bugs.

Things that you've never seen before. Things that you would have told yourself, "There's no way anyone would release something with a hole that obvious."

There's a whole world of possibilities out there. As long as we allow Micros~1 to be free to innovate, they will continue to find them!

Free software is evil. If you don't pay money for something no matter how bad it is thent he terrorists win!

Computer crashes are expected

Microsoft (and friends) have taken a long time but they have basically trained the average computer user to expect and accept computer crashes - instead of going back to the store and demanding a refund for a defective product!

This can be both good and bad. Maybe less people will rely on non-fault-tolerant systems for ultra-important issues like emergency/military/banking?

Or maybe people will get desensitized to the crashing. Programmer's don't need to fully test their products anymore since people accept the crashes. People just go along thinking that it is the normal way, wreaking havoc in the world with a simple blue screen on a computer that had no business being in a critical system.

read The Risks Digest [ncl.ac.uk] for scary stories.

--jeff

Re:emergency? dial 911 fast

2 years ago I picked up my phone. No dial tone. Huh. Did I forget to pay my bill? No. Checked the wiring and the phone. 15 minutes later still no dial tone. My cell phone worked though, so I called the operator and asked her about my phone.

The problem was that Spice Girls tickets just went on sale. The phone call load to the nearby Ticket Master outlet flooded the system. No one in my area had a dial tone for half an hour. No one could call 911 on a land line!

Problems happen even with properly engineered systems. When an improperly designed system is put into place, all hell will break loose.

I'm not just talking Microsoft here, there is a real problem with companies/programmers seeing their system work once, and then assuming it is good enough to ship.

--jeff

Re:emergency? dial 911 fast

The problem was that Spice Girls tickets just went on sale. The phone call load to the nearby Ticket Master outlet flooded the system. No one in my area had a dial tone for half an hour. No one could call 911 on a land line!

Don't confuse the issue. There's a big difference between failing because of an overload and just never working.

The New York Times ran dozzens of articles about what a pain it was for victims to get help. Collection became a full time effort as they wandered from agency to agency and filled out horrendous and mind numbing forms with exactly the same information! They did this instead of finding loved ones, shelter, clothes or food.

While agencies not sharing information is nothing new, you have to wonder how much more could have been done if those agencies were using reasonable software. Nothing M$ talks to anything else M$. I know, because we use the junk at my Fortune 500 company. What proportion of innacurate, duplicate, non shared data came from inadequate tools, and what share from the nature of the organizations themselves? It's had to tell about there from here, but where I work it's hard to share information you want to share with other departments in the same building, much has to be entered multiple times and is often corrupted, and data sometimes just goes away on it's own. No, our tech support folks are not incompetent. No, the people I work with are not incompetent. We simply have second rate tools. Pity those same tools have been used in an emergency situation.

Re:emergency? dial 911 fast

Businesses who expect crushes of calls occasionally, like radio stations and ticket companies, are SUPPOSED to get a number within a "choke exchange."

These exchanges are specifically designed to communicate back to other COs when a crush of calls happen. Those COs back off and return busy to everyone in the CO trying to get that number for a period of time to prevent the end-point CO from going down. ie, they don't even attempt to complete the call.

Ever wonder why all the radio station contest lines are all in the same exchange in your area?!

I suspect the spice girl ticket number was not on a choke exchange like it was supposed to be.

Here's a tip. Next time you need to get a call through to a choke exchange number, get a friend from out-of-the-area to try it. If Philadelphia is having tickets go on sale for some big act at 9am, chances are there won't be people from Nebraska calling in. Their CO won't be "choked."

Re:Computer crashes are expected

True Story.

As I am writing this I am into my 5th hour of installing windows 2000. Let me explain.

Install windows 2K.
Did not detect anything in the machine including the 3com. WTF??
I got it to recognize the 3com card by doing an add/remove hardware
Reboot.
COnfigure internet go to the Nvidia web site to get drivers, install drivers.
reboot.
Stick in the CDrom from the motherboard manufacturer (VIA) so I can install sound drivers.
Reboot.
Who hoo a working system with no apps and tons of security holes.
Now do a windows update.
Install sp2 (sorry nothing else can be downladed at the same time). Download and install maybe 100 megs or something (took forever).
Reboot.
Do a windows update. Download critical updates (sorry nothing else can be downladed at the same time).
Reboot.
Download the IE 5.5 patch (sorry nothing else can be downladed at the same time).
Reboot.
Windows update again to download the rest of the security patches.
Reboot.

Whoo hoo a machine with no apps and lots of services running, no security policies no nothing.
Scour about a dozen web sites to try and figure out which services are safe to shutdown. Dig around the registry to make more then a dozen changes.
Reboot just for good measure.

Whoo hoo a modern secure OS. It only took the entire freaking day and required intimate knowledge of the registry and the inner workings of windows. Not for the faint of heart nor for your average joe.

Now I get the pleasure of re-installing all my apps I figure it will take the rest of month because I can't simply copy them from my old machine.

Compare this to what I did at work friday.

Install debian potato (the only cd I have around). Took maybe 20 minutes.
vi /etc/apt/sources.list
apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
apt-get upgrade (missed a few).
apt-get install a couple of packages.

Whoo hoo a secure and up to date operating system with applications!. All that and it took only a couple of hours. Most of that was downloading, my actualy effort was more like 15 minutes of answering questions then going to fill my coffee cup while waiting for the download the finish.

BTW NO REBOOTS DURING THE ENTIRE PROCESS!

So. To put in perpective. for a knowledgable user It's a shitload easier to install and secure debian then it is windows 2000 AND you'll have a better uptime because every single service pack, mdac upgrade, ie upgrade etc will not require a reboot.

Re:Speaking of Banking

Many banks are using Windows NT for their CAT machines. They do have strict procedures on what get install (minimal), and how every updates get installed remotely (via their own UNIX network controllers).

NT configured correctly can be reliable considering how little work the CAT machine actually need.

Siemens, NCR/AT&T do produce topnots CAT/ATM machines with IBM/AT core for banks to be customized with their own OSes, often to be Windows NT. The IBM/AT core allow them to sell these boxes cheaply and still satisfy the conformity needed for almost all CAT/ATM machines that banks want. Specially made cryptocards can be added/removed/upgrade very quickly and do not require a complete redesign/code rewrite for the machines.

Win2k, XP

Win2k and XP are actually quite stable.

I think pretty soon. Windows and linux will be on equal footing for stability and security... we can't ride the "more stable" horse (ha ha, get it?) forever.

So linux is free, which is great, but what else?

Re:Win2k, XP

So linux is free, which is great, but what else?

Hmmm. Let me think. It's also open-sourced. Yes, I know, very few people actually go through the source. But it's there. There are no really hidden APIs (besides those in obfuscated code). Any knowledgable programmer can use it and change it for his own advantage. And regardless, isn't the fact that it's free - completely, no strings attached, free - a good enough reason?

And besides, I don't want a really stable Windows if I have to worry about what it's sending when it calls home.

I like my privacy, thank you very much.

What I really meant to say

Dear AC,

I am a linux supporter. I run linux on my web server, it's great for that. (I had to rewrite some of my network services though, because they were full of security holes and I was sick of patching.) I hope that some day I can run a free OS on my desktop computer too, but in order for that to happen, I need apps, and in order for that to happen, linux needs a stronger desktop user base.

Linux is not a technologically advanced OS. This is another common misconception on slashdot. It is a clone of Unix, a very old (and rather good) idea. There have been loads of new ideas and technologies since them, and I wish that hackers would implement these in new operating systems. (Do we *really* need to be running our network services as root just so that they can bind to a low-numbered port?) But the operating systems world (much like the rest of computer science) is very fad-oriented, and a good idea is worth nothing unless there is good marketing.

Linux has pretty good marketing. Windows has great marketing. But linux marketing is based on stuff that's starting to be less and less true. linux kicked the ass off of Windows 95 in terms of stability and security. (I remember rebooting to linux when the rest of my dorm was getting WinNuked all day.) But, Windows has practically caught up. 2000 is very stable; it crashes about as often as X does for me (and I do a lot more daring things with 2000, like play Quake and watch DVDs and burn CDs and do video capture). As linux has become more and more complex, certain major distributions are just as insecure as (or even more insecure than, perhaps) Windows. My question was, when joe consumer doesn't care about stability because his computer doesn't crash, and doesn't get hacked (Win XP has a personal firewall now, no?), why would he want to use linux?

The post wasn't intended as a troll, merely to stir the waters. Complacency is a terrible thing.

(PS: 12 moderations done to my post! Jeesh!)

Re:Win2k, XP

I agree with you about the reliability -- they've made great strides. For a long time it seemed that they just didn't care, but as soon as linux appeared on the distant edge of the radar screen they started to get serious.

In this sense, linux has already done the vast majority of PC users a great service.

They still don't seem to be taking security seriously, though, and I think it's going to hurt them. The problem isn't buffer overflows, or individual programming mistakes -- the problem is that they pick business models and marketing strategies even if those models and strategies entail inherently unsecurable designs.

All of the virus problems flow out of MS's desire to link products -- that's why word processor documents can contain VB programs, and why email clients used to open up office docs automatically.

As other people have pointed out, MS has plenty of smart engineers working for them -- there had to have been people there complaining about this. But they didn't have the clout to carry the day. It must be frustrating as hell to be a security wonk at MS.

I predict that .NET is going to be the biggest security quagmire in the industry's history, and as MS has said repeatedly, they're "betting the company on .NET".

The whole .NET idea is to allow developers to build programs VB style, except that the components can live anywhere on the Internet. By "VB" style, we're talking about low end programmers who don't cost as much as the other guys -- are these guys going to be able to think about threats in a sophisticated way?

The security seems to be tacked on to this model as an afterthought, and it doesn't inspire much confidence in me. Passport's already had problems, and that service was designed by MS itself, and it's at the very center of their business model.

Who believes that the low end visual developers who populate so many corporate offices are going to do a better job than the elite MS employees who built Passport? .NET is a train wreck waiting to happen.

The Inmates.

The way Dave Barry keeps on talking about how the computer "blames him" reminds me of the way Alan Cooper said that error messages are often worded to make "The User" feel responsible when something goes wrong.

Personally, I just think of error messages as "status indicators" -- much like a "paper jam" light on a copy machine. Apparently lots of other people don't feel this way.

No no, he got it wrong

That Windows isn't getting any more usable as versions go up is not entirely true : remember Windows 2.0 ? the only person I know who still uses it is a friend of mine who doesn't have a lot of money and wants to keep his 286. And 2.0 is about the only thing that'll run on his 286 with the amount of memory he has. Well, guess what ? 2.0 is a huge TURD. And truthfully, 3.0 was better, 3.11 better still, 95 a lot better, NT was a lot better than the whole lot just mentioned, and I haven't tried any later version but each time there is one out, I'm told it's better.

Better, but always "not quite there yet". So is Windows not getting better ? no, it is getting better, only it's always at a level of "betterness" that's 10 years behind what Un*x users have come to expect. M$ has fought so hard over the years to brainwash people into thinking that computers naturally and unavoidably hang regularly that people actually believe it ! (remember that famous quote supposedly from a M$ support guy saying to a customer that "memory is like gasoline, you use it up then your computer has to fill up the tank again by restarting" ?)

To M$' credit though, they did design Windows to be run by computer idiots, so I'm not surprised that the OS has a lot of tradeoffs that make it unstable so it's easier to use, but then OS/2 was also designed to be run by anybody and it was a lot better than Windows. So I'd tend to think that Microsoft engineers either (1) suck, (2) are instructed to adopt shitty designs because Microsoft prefers to win battles on the marketing front than on the technical front, or (3) both

Re:No no, he got it wrong

each time there is one out, I'm told it's better.

And they don't lie, them MS marketers. Dem good honest folk.

Dilbertism

Unfortunately, this isn't "Someone in the popular press pointing out that Microsoft Windows doesn't get any more reliable or usable." Any more than Dilbert comics are "Someone in the popular press pointing out that upper management has seriously flawed priorities and is usually much stupider than the drones".

I say this not because Dave Barry is a humorist. It is possible for humorists, comedians or whatever, to really get people pissed off motivated, or at least make people think: think Lenny Bruce; think "A Modest Proposal". But Dave Barry and Dilbert are not that kind of humor. They are both the kind of humor that makes its reader laugh at himself, giggle at the funny things people do, the funny stuff we get ourselves into, without thinking for a moment that any real change is necessary. I've always felt that Dilbert is an oppressive force, because by making people think that incompetent management is normal and funny, it keeps people from bothering to actually demand competent management. Same thing with this column: by commiserating about Windows, by poking fun at the flaws that it has on every level, from technological to social, it serves only to further entrench people in a Windows monopoly. I'm sure this column is making the rounds at Microsoft, and I'm sure it is universally loved. I bet Bill Gates tapes it to his monitor, or invites Dave Barry to his next keynote. The message here is "Windows is crap, but there are 200,000,000 people in America who will NEVER SWITCH TO ANOTHER OS, NO MATTER WHAT. Ha ha ha."

This is not to say that humor necessarily trivializes an issue: maybe it's a distinction between "parody" -- which, we'll say, gently pokes fun without suggesting alternatives, thereby reinforcing norms -- and "satire" -- which, let's say, savagely disillusions people and has at least a shot at changing their minds.

Funny, but untrue.

Windows 3.1/95/98/ME were all horribly unstable - there just isn't any denying that. But the *nix crowd is starting to look incredibly silly sitting over in the corner snickering about the reliability of Windows today.

I hate to break it to you guys, but as far as stability is concerned - Windows 2000/XP are VERY stable operating systems. NT was pretty good, but 2000 and XP will seriously give any desktop OS out there a run for its money.

I'm not claiming 2000 or XP are the most secure OSes out there - far from it. And I still don't think a server should be running a GUI. But zealotry aside, Windows XP is a very good desktop OS.

[Note: For what it's worth I use 2000, XP, and Mandrake for the desktop and Debian or one of the BSDs for servers.]

Re:Funny, but untrue.

I agree with you entirely, but look at it from this perspective: we're trying to meet each other in the middle.

Since you use Mandrake, you're aware that it's a good desktop OS. All those people who say "Linux is a great server OS, let it be" just don't get it. It's on it's way to becoming a great desktop OS, the same way Windows is on it's way to becoming a great server OS. Windows has gotten security features and stability over the years, while Unix has gotten things like KDE and graphical installers.

Neither is perfect right now, but in the end, what's going to be the difference? It'll be cost and freedom vs. compatibility. The fact is, we've never really seen a battle like this before in the industry. We've seen cost vs. compatibility before, and cost won, but not against this kind of overwhelming force. The question is whether or not freedom will tip the scales at all. I, for one, hope it does.

Who really knows windows? Or linux?

Not many people can say they know the entire system, every program, every lib, dll or driver.

Windows and Linux(or BSD) for the whole distribution take hundreds of megabytes. Yes, Even thou linux the kernel can boot up under a meg and give you a shell its rather useless other than a rescue disk.

Windows XP is a great workstation os. There is just so much going on you need 3rd party utilities to see whats happening. Tasks running in the background, files loading and unloading, registry updates/calls, files trying to update themselves, etc.. And then there is all the tweaks you have to put on for common sense options, tcp/ip QOS at 80% wasting 20% of your bandwidth, Explorer and Internet Explorer sharing the same memory if 1 crashes they both crash, Turning off Last access attribute in ntfs for performance, etc... Play around with sys-internals utilities you can see programs looking for missing fonts, updates to the registry, all kinds of system functions.

Linux on the other hand is rather up front with what it needs. You see what libs a program needs with ldd. lsof shows all files open and what program is using them. Good for a server, more secure when you know whats running. Bad points are the software releases, even thou most of the software is free, it can either not compile, not like the version of libraries you have, or need libraries you cant find. You don't have these problems on the windows os.

Even thou things are getting more complex, things are getting better. Good linux distributions that install and detect most hardware, X configuration, less configuration and more operation. Windows XP has a nice GUI, very intelligent user interface, more stable, great workstation os.

Only thing that scares me, is if M$ goes totally .net. I like being in control of my OS, and Linux isn't ready to take over the Desktop yet. Maybe in 10 years Games and Applications will run on any OS, but until then, M$ will keep the market.

I dont see the OS as perfected yet, but its come along way since DOS.

-
The gem cannot be polished without friction, nor man perfected without trials. - Chinese Proverb

Re:Joke != fact

It is clear to me that you haven't used an NT based machine in a networked environment.

From first hand experience, a well-administrered Win2k network is a god-send, especially for most "lusers".

First off, if you are allowing your "lusers" permission to modify NTFS permissions you need your head examined. Permissions management is an administrators job, not the job of end-users who havent two clues to rub together.

Second, I have no idea why you would think you need to get into DOS to repair an error. I have never (out of perhaps 1,000 Win2k installations) had an instance where I had to manually copy or replace DLL's. Chances are your problems were caused by stupidly copying and moving around DLL's to begin with. Let File Protection do its job and all will be dandy. When and if something breaks use the Repair Console to get into safe mode. From there anything can be fixed.

Third, you should do a better job restricting your users. They generally should not run above User level, and definately not about Power User level. If they have no clue, try Restricted User. It will save you much heartache (people installing junk, spyware, etc).

Finally, Win2k/XP is such an amazing jump forward in stability compared to 95/98 that its laughable you would deny this. The NT based OS's are the only reedeming feature of the entire histroy of MS OSen.

True, I have had my share of killed tasks - but then again if you've ever tried to run Netscape on FreeBSD you know the feeling. Bad programs crash. All I ask of the OS is that it doesn't puke when a mal-behaved program dies.

I think in a general sense you miss what typical users, business users, and power users want from a deskop operating. All they really want is to never have to reboot their machine when they don't want to. Win2k made admirable strides in that direction. My first impressions of XP are that the trend continues, though not with the dramatic leaps that a 95->Win2k upgrade would see.

As for security holes - properly setup machines are key. I never attach any desktop to the Internet directly. That includes my Red Hat boxes as well as my Windows machines. Its simply not smart. A nice router/firewall is key to security in any environment - from 1 to 10,000 PCs. Second, with a well thoughout and comprehensive security policy you will never feel the pinch of these brazen security holes. WinXP has had one major security bug (UPnP) discovered so far - the vast majority of WinXP users were patched before an exploit has even been developed. The last 6-months have lead to a serious uptick in MS's comittment to security. I expect it to only get better.

All and all, I can say that Win2k is a great desktop OS. I really think that most of your problems lie in poor administration, poor implementation, and incorrect configuration. And those problems can bring down ANY operating system faster than any silly bug or virus.

Re:Joke != fact

It is clear to me that you haven't used an NT based machine in a networked environment.

It is clear to me that you've never used a Mac. We've seen the UNIX and Windows arguments so for completeness sake, here's the Mac argument. Mac in this comment refers to Mac OS X 10.1.2.

From first hand experience, a well-administrered Win2k network is a god-send, especially for most "lusers".

From first hand experience, a Mac is a god-send, especially for most "lusers" straight out of the box with no configuration required.

Second, I have no idea why you would think you need to get into DOS to repair an error

I'm yet to experience an error which required at absolute worst a reboot to fix. For the record, I have no real problems with reboots so I use it as a magical fix-all a fair bit, there was likely a way to avoid the reboot but I didn't look for it. Also, this would have happened less than 10 times in what is almost a year of OS X usage now.

Finally, Win2k/XP is such an amazing jump forward in stability compared to 95/98 that its laughable you would deny this. The NT based OS's are the only reedeming feature of the entire histroy of MS OSen.

The BSD underpinnings of OS X are simply delightful. They not only provide exceptional stability and all the other UNIX advantages that NT tries to bring to Windows, but also a really nice, powerful command line to use if you want it either for remote administration or just because that's how you like to work. Most importantly though, the command line isn't required - everything a normal user is going to want to do can be done with the GUI.

True, I have had my share of killed tasks - but then again if you've ever tried to run Netscape on FreeBSD you know the feeling. Bad programs crash. All I ask of the OS is that it doesn't puke when a mal-behaved program dies.

This is a very good point - bad programs do crash, however the OS shouldn't just stay afloat, but continue to work seamlessly. Ever crashed Nero (or probably any other CD burning software)? You suddenly can't burn CDs anymore until you reboot. No such problems on OS X. Ever installed software on Windows - reboot! Much less frequent on OS X though a lot of software has the annoying habit of using a reboot instead of simply running the appropriate startup scripts. Since these scripts are easy to find you can do this manually if you want.

I think in a general sense you miss what typical users, business users, and power users want from a deskop operating. All they really want is to never have to reboot their machine when they don't want to. Win2k made admirable strides in that direction. My first impressions of XP are that the trend continues, though not with the dramatic leaps that a 95->Win2k upgrade would see.

If that's what they want they should undoubtably be using UNIX. Mac OS X is a good UNIX for this but not the best due to the range of programs that claim they require a reboot but don't really need it. Still, you reboot OS X far less than even Windows XP. I would suggest that users want more than this however.

As for security holes - properly setup machines are key.

Bzzt. Bad software design alert! There is no reason that a shipping OS should have security risks turned on. A lot of Linux distros get this wrong and Windows definitely does. Mac OS X seems to get it right however. The root account is disabled encouraging people to use sudo (as is common on BSD systems), software update is set to run weekly, services are all turned off by default and most importantly, the latest copy of the OS is installed on new computers. Things fall behind a bit in the distribution channel but generally when the OS is installed onto new Apple computers, it is the latest version. Windows may run windows update automatically, but newer versions of the OS should be injected straight into the supply chain instead of continuing to create outdated products.

I never attach any desktop to the Internet directly. That includes my Red Hat boxes as well as my Windows machines. Its simply not smart. A nice router/firewall is key to security in any environment - from 1 to 10,000 PCs.

Good for you. Many people don't want to waste time and money to get this kind of thing set up and working. Providing a secure OS is the first step to having a secure system and you should never rely on your firewall/router to protect you (multiple levels of security provide the best security, "give the bastards nothing" mentality).

Second, with a well thoughout and comprehensive security policy you will never feel the pinch of these brazen security holes. WinXP has had one major security bug (UPnP) discovered so far - the vast majority of WinXP users were patched before an exploit has even been developed.

I would tend to suggest that most WinXP boxes are still unpatched and, I haven't checked this, but I wouldn't be surprised if MS is still shipping copies of XP without the security patch. Also, the comprehensive security policy should be enabled by default, you shouldn't have to set it up yourself. Mac OS X to my knowledge has had no remote root exploits and only a couple of other security issues. OS X very clearly has had fewer security issues than any other OS currently available and being almost a year old now, it's not like it's that big a new comer that noone has been looking into it.

The last 6-months have lead to a serious uptick in MS's comittment to security. I expect it to only get better.

Better does not instill much confidence. Apple has a brilliant record for security in the past (okay, so OS 9 lacking a command line was a big advantage to that, but still) so MS has a long way to go to catch up. No points for improvement from me, only points for achieving.

All and all, I can say that Win2k is a great desktop OS. I really think that most of your problems lie in poor administration, poor implementation, and incorrect configuration. And those problems can bring down ANY operating system faster than any silly bug or virus.

Ahh, but if the OS comes poorly configured to start with than it's the OS's fault, not the users. There is absolutely no reason why Windows couldn't be configured properly when it is first installed.

Now a little bit of info on my computing experience: on my desk is a Windows XP box and a Mac OS X laptop. In the corner is a Linux server, firewall and router, at work is a Windows 98 box and a big beefy Solaris server. I've had 3 years plus experience with Windows, Mac and Linux so I'm well positioned to compare all three.

In summary, I prefer the Mac for most things because it just works, I don't have to tweak it all the time. I like Linux because it sits in the corner and does it's job tirelessly and without having to be checked up on - plus it's remote administration abilities are second to none. I don't have any reason to like Windows because it provides me no benefits over OSX and Linux and because it needs so much tweaking to get it into a usable state. However it is the pick of the OSs for games. So there is no answer for which OS is better, but rather which OS is better for a particular task and a particular user.

The good stuff

There have been two good versions of Windows: Windows NT 3.51 Service Pack 3, and Windows 2000 Service Pack 2.

NT 3.51 SP3 was the result of the NT effort under Dave Cutler, before they let the kode kiddies from the Win95 group put code in. That was a dull, but solid system.

Windows 2000 SP 2 represents all the fixes to date to the NT code base, but doesn't yet contain the control-freak stuff from Windows XP. It's what you want to run if you have work to do and have to use Microsoft.

So actually, for about six months or so every five years, Microsoft ships something that works.