Dave Barry Does Windows 753
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. (Score:3, Funny)
What am I missing? (Score:3, Flamebait)
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? (Score:4, Funny)
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?
Did you notice how Barry described his comp skill? (Score:2)
Re:What am I missing? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What am I missing? (Score:5, Informative)
Switch to Linux, R, Latex and emacs. No crashes and no lost work in two years. AND I get better results with less effort.
Win98 is Stable (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Do not upgrade from Windows95. Do a fresh install.
2) Install a minimum amount of software. Each new package that you install undermines the stability with extra DLLs and registry hacks.
3) Do not use exotic, state-of-the-art hardware. Use slightly older hardware with more mature drivers.
If you follow these simple rules you to can run Windows98 for months at a time. I have a small fileserver at my job which has been rebooted twice in as many years.
If you can afford it, get another computer or install a hard drive tray. Make one your works system and the other a "sandbox". Use the sandbox to evaluate new software and incorporate it into your work box once you completely understand it. Most of Win98's problems seem to happen to people that install all kinds of different software that they never use. The problem is that many vendors give you a computer that is pre-fucked (much useless software already installed). Your best bet is to reformat these disks and reinstall.
Re:Here come the flames.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows simply should not let a program like PGP freeware get that close to the OS. The program should crash, leaving the OS untouched.
Windows XP? Are you kidding? (Score:3, Interesting)
I still use Win98SE. It doesn't usually crash, but I do usually reboot it every couple of days to make sure I clean any memory leaks. But other than that, it's pretty decent. I'll switch to Linux as soon as there is enough of a market to justify developing programs for it.
But XP? Never.
A friend of mine just bought a new laptop which, of course, came with XP installed. I had heard that XP was as much as 40% slower than 98 on the same hardware. I have a Pentium II-550 (bought it 1.5 years ago) and he has some new fangled 1.0GHz+ machine. The details are unimportant. The fact is, we did some speed tests and my machine ran several tests faster using the same software. And his hardware is at least twice as fast as mine!
Another friend of mine purchased a new desktop system, I believe it was HP. Came pre-installed with XP (his coice). The hardware came and we tried to get some of his favorite games working. They would not, or executed too slowly. He later tried to get the thing to dual boot between Win98SE and WinXP. He couldn't make it happen. A few days later he emailed me and told me he had returned the machine to HP and he would be receiving a "custom-built" system from HP... With Win2K, I believe.
There is nothing in WinXP that is worth your time and money. It is slower than previous versions of Windows. The look-and-feel has changed (again). It looks like a kiddie cartoon, not a serious OS. I don't believe it to be any more reliable than the uncounted times in the past that MS has said their new OS was "the most reliable yet." They've said that with every release of Windows since 3.1.
I'll be helping my laptop friend install either Win98SE or Win2K on his laptop sometime in the next week.
The only cool thing about WinXP is the Ray of Light music they play in the commercials. Unfortunately, they have ruined that song for me since I can't listen to the song without thinking of XP.
Re:What am I missing? (Score:2, Funny)
Smoking a big fat doobie, and listening to Jeff Beck...
Re:What am I missing? (Score:2)
for a real revolution in computing, you have to change the minds of people.
The Americans had wanted to stay British, but essentially got insulted and pushed out of the British empire.
In a similar vein, I used to like MS, but have gotten more bitter over time.
Of course it is comedy the Dave Barry continues to hope that Windows will turn out alright one of these days.
;-)
Re:What am I missing? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What am I missing? (Score:3, Funny)
:)
One cannot effectively create a totalinarian police state when your telescreens keep crashing. DUH!
It's happend to me, too. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's happend to me, too. (Score:3, Informative)
I have not claimed to use Solaris as a workstation os.
Check my homepage. My wife and kids think you are very funny.
I suppose Unix lets you use fucking mindcontrol, rather then a keyboard/mouse/monitor.
No, but it is a feature of UNIX systems that users are able to operate any given computer on a network remotely and quite seamlessly. I am writing this in the bedroom using a small, rather elderly thinkpad, but the web browser I am using is running on a system downstairs. I get better response than I did when I ran a browser such as Mozilla (or even Opera) on this tiny laptop. If the host machine ran Windows, I would not have the choice (though I guess I could muddle along with vnc for this particular purpose).
Re:What am I missing? (Score:2)
It's about time... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not saying it's a bad product, but for those of us who support users, we know a machine DOES crash once in a while.
When a user tells me a machine crashed, and it's only happened once, they've been using the machine for a year, I explain that is a better then average track record, and they want it fixed.
oy.
Re:It's about time... (Score:2)
Um, if a machine crashes once, that could be a sign of a significant hardware problem. At least that's the case with Unix/Linux. With Windows, support droids often fail to find failing hardware because they expect the software to be a piece of crap. Makes life hell for people who need reliable service.
So who's the most guilty? Probably the user for being willing to use a Windows machine.
Of course! (Score:5, Funny)
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! (Score:2, Insightful)
YMMV but for me it was a nightmare, for a start macadmin and OS9 would randomly crash the machine -- by this I mean boot the machine and wait long enough without touching it and it would die in hours (sometimes days).
And if you didn't free up the memory you malloc'ed uh-oh the system doesn't release it either, time for a reboot.
Having said this I have never really used a mac, only programmed on them (we used them at my uni before changing to linux) so this may not be applicable to the average user.
Re:Of course! (Score:2, Insightful)
OS X on the other hand, simply rocks. I've been running it on several machines since 10.0, and I've never (as in not once) crashed it. I'm a rude bastard, too. I'm not saying it's crashproof, but I haven't been able to do it.
Re:Of course! (Score:5, Funny)
It's more Reggae than rock at the moment, but I'm sure that will change as CPUs get faster...
Re:Of course! (Score:3, Insightful)
Like, say, Ferrarris share of the car market? Where people get the idea that one OS cures all that ails you is beyond me. I wouldn't buy a subcompact to win Le Mans, and I wouldn't buy a Ferrarri to make the trip to the corner store. Sheesh.
Just to bring that into perspective:
- Windows is nice for browsing the net, cause, well, duh, every website author thinks you're using Windows.
- Mac is nice to do serious (ie, industry level) graphics and audio. I'll tell you right now that the more services they keep adding to the back of Windows, with each new version, the more frusterating it is to tune it towards pure 'single task' applications.
Anyways, as for the 'use it' comment, people are always more comfortable using the interface style that has dominated the market. Seeing that windows is a laymans OS, and Mac is for people who'd rather spend money on their computer than time fixing/tuning it, it shouldn't be surprising that most people 'cant use it'.
I appreciate this was Barry's comment, but it irks me when people confuse ease of use with the most widely adopted interface. Many people couldn't drive an F1 car without training; does this make them bad cars? Of course not
Anyways, dunno if you're agreeing with Barry there, but I just had to vent in a controlled fasion there.
MSCE (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MSCE (Score:2, Funny)
Funny how in the story there are so many versions of Windows. Damnit, they make a new version and it still isn't better. Why do they call it new version? Why do people buy them?
Re:MSCE (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
"Why do people buy them?"
1) Because it's preloaded on their new PC
2) Because it has prettier colors and people are bored with the blue-grey of the older stuff
3) Because people still hope it might fix some bugs. People like gambling too you know.
4) Because it makes you fly. Just like Red Bull
Re:MSCE (Score:2)
Of course it's to make more money. That's why the last version is called "Windows Let's Buy Bill Gates a House the Size of Vermont."
Re:MSCE (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Informative)
Not that the guy in the article is one of those either.
Re:MSCE (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
If I may be so bold as to contribute, I think you could be doing better, as long as your count "real companies" only as your experience, in lieu of "freelance consultant" as your 4 years' experience.
I do Widnows NT and in-house application support for a large company, which categorizes me as a "Senior Application Systems Programmer." For me, it's 26 yo, 7 years exp (3 years as tech support/PC maintenance at University, 4 years at my current corporation), Clue, no certs = 49,000 + 100% Matching 401K, Pension, 4 weeks vacation, Full Medical and Dental for benefits.
After three years at minimum wage at the University, I applied for two full-time positions paying $16,500 and $18,000 US and was denied for both for having insufficient education and experience. The corporation (which required me to move out of state, but back home for me) offered me $35,000 to start, and I've gotten two good raises, one cost of living increase, and one promotion in four years. Without any college to speak of, or any certifications.
Just my experience. On the other hand, you may just have to prove yourself with a couple of years corporate experience before someone else will pay you "market value."
Re:MSCE (Score:3, Funny)
PHB A wants technology X (eg "we need an MQ server cluster - anyone know anything about MQ?")
I (as chief tech architect) say "well erm no, actually we dodn't have any actual experince in implementing that - but how hard can it be?"
PHB A
Me "OK"
2 *weeks* or more later IBM (or whoever) supply some guy with a label saying "MQ Expert" on him and he enters the room:-
MQ Guy: "Stand back, I'm certified."
He then, as Barry reports, proceeds to read the manual that came in the box, call tech. support and general arse about for 4 days - whilst charging us the Earth per day.
Eventually, I sidle over and start to chat to him about the various issues, and reading the help/book over hist shoulder get a handle on how it all fits together. I try giving him subtle hints that he's barking up the wrong tree, and he needs to try something or other to prove premise Y and so on but he doggedly tries to follow the instructions...
Eventually, MQ guy announces that he must go away to confer with more MQ guys back at base. "Fine" say I. I then install the product and make it work in 2 hours, and cancel MQ guy.
MQ was just one example - it *always* happens like this and the PHB's never learn - they still want to pay someone big bucks for nothing. Same thing happned with Lotus Notes (although the answer to that one is just "Don't"), Oracle this and that, and a myriad of more obscure technologies.
You have to marvel at anyone who claims to be able to "fix Windows" though....
Re:MSCE (Score:3, Funny)
For me the best was Blackboard (i work at an educational institute).
Someone ordered this prearranged package of a Dell w/ linux preinstalled and paid the extra points for someone to come out and install the hardware, then someone to install the blackboard software. It was a really big important project which required me to work over the holidays (this is at an edu, which is normally closed around xmas).
First the hardware installer. He comes out, opens the box, removes the equipment, plugs everything in, verifies it boots up, then leaves. it was around $1500 for 10 minutes of work.
Then i proceeded to fix up the install - as i recall it was a default 6.2 install with the words "DELL" added here and there - and to go through some stuff blackboard had sent me (make sure mysql, apache, some perl modules are installed on the system).
Next comes the blackboard installer. He sits down at the keyboard and says, "oh, it's a linux system, i'm not very good at that, why don't you do the typing". He hands me a sheet of instructions of what he's supposed to do - at the top is install apache, mysql, some perl modules (ah, that was *his* job) and then download the blackboard package and install that. Takes me about 15 minutes of typing/waiting then everything's done.
"Gee, that was easy" the guy says and leaves. He gets another $1500 for watching over me as i typed.
Re:MSCE (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
And all we need now to complete the picture (Score:2, Informative)
Re:And all we need now to complete the picture (Score:2)
Ok, I know this will be off topic (Karma is like underwear, change it daily). This is the very problem that keeps Linux off of the desktop of most people. The need to be a techy to just get it working is what stops it. Sure, it get's better every year, but at some point a group needs to get together and build a "stupid" linux. Something that Mom or the wife can use. Mandrake has made great strides in bringing a simpler system to users, but it is really not there yet. I watched a fairly capable computer person install it on a laptop that I loaned him last week. He spent an hour just trying to change the screen resolution after the install. Someone being able to render their machine unusable because of what we consider to be a great operating system should make us really look at what we need to do.
Spackler
PS: Mozilla 0.9.7, Kernel 2.4.17, and I have been bitching about usability of Linux for the desktop for 6.5 years (as confirmed in my 1995 usenet posts on google). In all that time, I still have not taken the time to learn program well enough to rewrite the kind of desktop I'm talking about.
But they continue to innovate! (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Re:But they continue to innovate! (Score:3, Funny)
Here's the best one I've seen: In a certain issue of PC Magazine back maybe 3-4 years ago (I just picked it up for a few minutes to read at Chapters) they had this little thing highlighting an error in MSIE where a reader had sent in a screenshot:
It was the following error: "Microsoft Internet Explorer was unable to load the page www.microsoft.com: the data was invalid."
Computer crashes are expected (Score:5, Insightful)
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
emergency? dial 911 fast (Score:2)
Huh? You mean like the Red Cross getting a bunch of M$ junk to deal with the results of 9/11 in the field? While Dave laughs at the 18 words a day he might lose, I can only imagine what the Red Cross has been dealing with since. Ignorance is always bad.
Re:emergency? dial 911 fast (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:3)
If you have a system which can handle 5000 phone calls, and those around you place 10000 phone calls YOU will not be able to make one because it's over capacity.
Happens in real life too. Rivers can take x litres/second through. When you send down 10x water, the river will flood as only x is going through.
If a highway can send through Y cars at 100Km/h, and you start trying to send through 5Y cars, problems will occur (like a traffic JAM)
Re:emergency? dial 911 fast (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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:emergency? dial 911 fast (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
We've all seen examples of that. (And to be fair, MS does put it's products through quite a lot of testing -- the trouble is, they've made it possible to have far more configurations than it's possible to test, give the users few tools to figure out where things are going wrong, market the software as NOT requiring knowledgeable users or administrators, and create code that is beyond any one person's comprehension.)
But the phone company does maintain pretty good service, and no system can handle a 1000% overload well. But as someone else pointed out, they do have exchanges that handle a single-point overload without blocking other calls; the problem is that Ticket Master bought the wrong kind of service. I agree that phone availability in many parts of the US is less than what I'd really want for life-critical emergency services, however would you rather have a
Re:Computer crashes are expected (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Computer crashes are expected (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't you see how ridiculous that statement is? A "well-patched system" is reliable?!?!
What if brand new Levis were sold with hundreds of gaping holes, and you had painstakingly apply a dozen patches before you could wear them without your nuts hanging out. I suppose you'd still buy them. Personally, I'd go naked before I'd put up with that bullshit. Fortunately I don't have to, because there are alternatives that don't suck!
Re:Computer crashes are expected (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
Speaking of Banking (Score:3, Informative)
Who in the world would use NT as the OS for an ATM? And do you think they've kept up to date with their security patches?
Re:Speaking of Banking (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Speaking of Banking (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Computer crashes are expected (Score:2)
Secondly, don't undervalue the complexity of writing for differing hardware settings. The fact that console games only have to run write on a few known variants of hardware is invaluable. One game may run on 3 consoles, but that's 3 hardware sets as opposed to the literally thousands of combinations of chipsets, firmware revs, peripheral hardware, and interfaces used in PC's. It simply is not possible to test every one. You hit the prominant ones, and hope that the rest work. The OS does perform abstraction, but the complexity of performing that abstraction can introduce problems. Badly designed hardware that doesn't play well with others can neccesitate work arounds that introduce instability and the potential for disaster into the system, even when the abstraction barriers are maintained. Never mind the fact that in recent memory, many of these abstraction barriers were quite permiable to allow developers to tweak performance and the like. Once you have people playing with hardware directly in application code, the opportunity for a gotcha hits the ceiling.
Last but not least, compare not only the price of a PC vs. Console game, but also the complexity. Games for the PC and console are similar in price, which leads to the conclusion that there's no more money for hardware testing PC games than there is for console games- and there we're back to the 4 hardwares vs. 4,000 problem. For the more expensive applications, we're talking about office suites, development suites, networking tools, servers- that sort of thing. The functions that these programs perform, even if they are computationally less intensive than hardcore graphics crunching, are much more complex. The complexity of games is rising, with the ability to add modules and perform in-game scripting to more and more games, but there's still a lot more potential issues to be dealt with in trying to construct other software.
Not that I am defending the fact that every 4th time I boot into windows, the system blue screens without any user intervention, or the fact that Visual C++ locks my machine if I attempt to tab switch between windows while programming OpenGL applications. There needs to be more work done on the QA end of the software world, rather than the out-the-door, patch-it-later school that dominates now. But I don't think the design philosophies between the console and PC world are that wholly different- the results are different because they are dealing with different sets of problems, with differing levels of difficulty.
Win2k, XP (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Offtopic)
Microsoft is compelled by their business plan to churn their user base ever year or two with new versions of their OS products. As we have seen with the introduction of Windows XP, each new version will introduce a new set of security and stability problems. Therefore it is very unlikely that Windows will ever match Linux stability or security.
So linux is free, which is great, but what else?
For me freedom is enough.
How will linux be marketed in 2003? (Score:3, Insightful)
So once MS catches up in the stability dept (all the while, doing the whiz-bang stuf people want), how will linux be marketed? This isn't a troll, a serious question - in my own opinion it will boil down to price, as linux will likely have no technical advantages by mid-2003.
Re:How will linux be marketed in 2003? (Score:2)
What's been stopping them for the last 10 years? I've been using the sundry versions of Windows since 2.0. Heck, I even used Windows for Warehouses (oh -- I mean, Windows for Workgroups), because with the 32-bit "bits", it was supposed to be better. Ok, it was better.
But arithmatically -- if you take the number of current bugs, add the new ones, and then start subtracting at the rate that Microsoft fixes them, do you really thing you end up with a number for n (insert your favorite Unix flavor here) for day-to-day productivity tasks?
I guess my real curiosity is where you came up with 2003. I know that those infinite number of monkeys will eventually get it right -- but you really do need the power of infinite time.
Re:Win2k, XP (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
how 'bout reliable api? standards based computing? (Score:3, Insightful)
give me a fucking break. if you want to live in a microsoft only world then just admit it, otherwise grow up and use some real technologies that can be used outside of ms's little pee see sandbox.
oh by the way, I understand quite well that this comment is bound to rise to 5 and stay there, no matter how many times it gets modded down. sometimes I think there are more ms shills on slashdot than actual linux supporters anymore.
What I really meant to say (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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
The whole
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?
Re:Win2k, XP (Score:2)
What do people see in Barry anyways? A pun here a stupid reference there and he's selling books and getting posted here when he writes something criticizing well-know problems with win98.
Re:Win2k, XP (Score:2)
> 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?
You seem to have it backwards. What you should have asked is, "When the for-pay stuff finally catches up with the for-free stuff, will that actually be a recommendation for choosing it?"
Re:Win2k, XP (Score:2)
Windows 95 possessed a clock rollover bug that locked the machine every 47 days.
It took 3 years to find this bug.
Why, you might ask ? Was it because Windows 95 machines never stayed booted for 47 days, or because no one payed much attention when it locked, b/c that was expected behavior ?
Win2k and XP are only stable until you start installing 3rd party software. Then the fun begins.
Re:Win2k, XP (Score:3, Insightful)
The Inmates. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:The Inmates. (Score:2, Funny)
My recent application had the following user error message: "Ooops, something went wrong. Don't worry, it's probably not your fault. Try it again."
Re:The Inmates. (Score:2)
Technically, that's perfectly true. Windows did not shut down correctly - the fact that this is because Windows crashed horribly and needed a cold boot to get back on its feet again is beside the point. Joe user will read that message and assume that the box is yelling at him.
No no, he got it wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Windows 2.0 on a 286? (Score:2)
Unfortunately, Geoworks (the company that makes it) doesn't kick Microsoft's butt
There's a demo version, named something like NewDeal Office.
-Billy
Re:No no, he got it wrong (Score:4, Funny)
And they don't lie, them MS marketers. Dem good honest folk.
Re:No no, he got it wrong (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, I always thought this was caused by the computer being on too long, overheating the electrons and causing them to expand to the point that they got stuck in one of the small bends on the circuity resulting in a crash...
Re:No no, he got it wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, the fact that it's unstable comes from it being easier to use?? Most of the computer phobia I encounter among my less tech-driven friends stems exactly from the mysterious and unexplained Blue Screen of Death that strikes without cause or warning, like some angry pagan deity...
Interesting he noticed Windows at all (Score:2, Informative)
I find it ironic that many people who make thier living as professional communicators appear oblivious to things that shape the state of communication technology overall. But then I've seen a number of posts on
Re:Interesting he noticed Windows at all (Score:2)
And besides, before they got Macs, lots of people in that business used to use things like XYWrite and Wang Word Processors, and after using the Mac they've got no desire to go back to the old days, or even halfway back
Dilbertism (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I think MS reliability is cyclical in the 9x line (Score:2, Interesting)
NT4 and Win2K have been great to me. Just use WHQL'd drivers for everything and your problems vanish (well, at least for my usage patterns). NT4 reliability was cyclical in service pack releases, but at 6a, it was rock solid for a desktop OS.
NT4 and Win2K and for the most part Windows 98SE, were OSs that I could sit in front of and get work done and not worry about the machine dying of some ill conceived crash from Windows. A feeling I had only known before as a Solaris workstation user. I'm not sure what some of the people here used nt4/win2k on that gave them such a bad experience or bad uptime for a workstation, but your habits must not fall to the areas as mine, as I don't hit them.
What about Linux you ask, since this is slashdot. Well, my experience with linux as a server has been that the kernel and daemon apps like samba and the appleshare IP stuff are rock solid, handling heavy loads and delivering long uptimes. But the "modern window managers" like KDE and GNome suck bad, like the bad versions of Windows I mentioned above. I never know when the window manager is going to die, leaving me with the only choice of CTRL-ALT-BKSPC to get out (and sometimes that even doesn't work, I have to ssh into the machine and kill X the hard way). I may reinstall X on a machine in the near future, but I am staying well away from the new glitzy window managers. They are all up on features, down on performance and reliability.
TurboD
Prediction (Score:2, Insightful)
first few hours most comments that spike up to 4 or 5 generally make a few good humored comments, ranging from neutral to chiming in with similiar microsoft dismay stories.
then a few hours later, lets say about 5 or 6 hours since the original post, those posts get sent back to 2 or 3 land, and a new crop of 5's crops up. The strange thing about this new bunch is that they are _all PRO microsoft_!
it is a strange phenomena to say the least. the posts themselves, at least some of them could be genuine, but the way they are moderated is _very_ suspicious.
anyway, my prediction holds that the same will happen today, watch for it.
Dave is just a user (Score:2, Insightful)
The changes we need to make in software are far greater than just having "the most reliable Windows experience ever".
New .sig (Score:2, Funny)
"I bring this all up because now Microsoft has a new version out, Windows XP, which according to everybody is the ``most reliable Windows ever.'' To me, this is like saying that asparagus is ``the most articulate vegetable ever.''
Funny, but untrue. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It's (very gradually) starting to happen (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyhow, she needed a new computer, but didn't want to spend much money. So, she goes down to Fry's, and they sell her a $300 machine with "Fast Windows" preinstalled. You guessed it...it's some sort of weird Taiwanese Linux distribution!
Someone figured out they could hit a price point by eliminating the most expensive item in a PC today: Microsoft software.
Re:Funny, but untrue. (Score:3, Interesting)
The home edition especially is a lame disabled version of win2K. The new web look of folders, control panels is pretty ugly and annoying. It's a good thing you can change it to classic. Overall, XP is a better OS than 95/98, but it is still not better than win2K. But I'm biased.
Re:Same goes for NT server VS windows 2000 server (Score:3, Informative)
The linux kernel almost never needs to be ugraded for security reasons and that's the only reason you need to reboot. The only time people upgrade their kernels under normal circumstances is when they upgrade their distro.
The windows service packs usually fix things in the user space but require a reboot anyway in linux this does not happen.
Windows does Dallas..., (Score:2, Funny)
does anyone know where I can get a copy? Just for eval, of course
Who really knows windows? Or linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
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:Who really knows windows? Or linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
One word: Debian.
One command: apt-get.
And that's without going into Ximian's rather nice Red Carpet tool, which runs on the Debian, Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE and Yellow Dog distributions.
No alternative... (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Think it's the hardware
2) Think it's the programs
3) Know it's the OS, but think all OS's do this because the problem is so complex.
I've heard media reports of predictions of new computer technology of the future that will give us stable computers--they have no idea the *nix has been stable from day 1!!
The good stuff (Score:4, Informative)
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.
The point is the foot! (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Sorry, but what's the point? (Score:2)
"I've had uptimes for weeks before rebooting for the obligatory auto-update security patches."
...and that's a GOOD thing?
So Let Me Get This Straight... (Score:2, Insightful)
And its unfair to talk about the fact that the previous 40 versions of Windows did not seem to get any more stable unless we have also reviewed version 41? You know, the version which needed a patch before it was released. Well... only if you wanted to use the internet, and who wants to do that?
Give me a break!
Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... (Score:2)
Bingo. Thank you. I christen thee Capt. Logic.
See, kids, this is why you should have gone to college before running off to some doomed-from-the-start startup. Perhaps if you'd all had, oh, say, a formal logic course, you'd all spot the logical fallacy right away.
Re:Sorry, but what's the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
The second point is that the lack of reliability of Windows is actually getting some mainstream national media attention, instead of just the usual articles in tech publications. This doesn't happen too often.
Lighten up, get over it, and move on.
Darryl
http://www.darrylballantyne.com
Re:Sorry, but what's the point? (Score:2)
I mean you said it yourself "uptimes of weeks" - this is not something to be proud of - and neither is having to restart the entire machine to apply a patch.
The point is, most people have come to accept that their computer will crash on a regaular basis (as opposed to say, their VCR or Washing machine) and this is becuase of Windows - there's no denying it's history. Yes NT is more stable than Win9x but most folks' experience is of Win9x and it's ancestors.
Re:Sorry, but what's the point? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:You go, Dave (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Joke != fact (Score:4, Insightful)
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.