Favorite OS

[Madmonky1]

Windows is an insecure, instable, unorganized mess off useless features and bad coding. I am currently in XP, worst os next to ME, and I have received one blue screen when a dumb star treck game tried to do some sort of illigal operation, but what really bugs me is constantly having to restart from crashs, and restarting my programs in the middle of something when something like an 'access violation' occurs. I found the file system to be very unorganized, as with the favorites menu in IE, the start menu...

Currently linux is the only other os I've tried (SuSe & Mandrake are my favorites), and I think its great. I remember Bill Gates said something about window's cost making up for ease of install or some crap like that.

My install process linux from the start presented an easy to use graphical interface and plenty of great fs choices, windows showed some text based ui asking to use ntfs or fat (I'm still not sure which one I like better), I chose ntfs and waited about 5 minutes for it to install while reiserfs took 5 seconds. Then linux detected my network card, let me choose from what must be 1000s of programs to install on my system, let me choose my time zone and went one to the install (which took about 30 minutes all together), windows installs some base programs on to my new ntfs partition, reboots and does some more junk for 20 minutes. My new linux system has just about everything I'll really ever need already installed and a bit less than half of the 7gb partition is filled up, on windows I have tons of programs to install, taking hours to finally get everything. Right now my linux partition is filled up with about the same amount of space, windows has 20gbs partitioned to it and I'm runing out of space for everything.

So why do I use windows? same reason everybody does, all the developers of my games and programs have made them for windows because its what everyone uses, so then they can make more sales, and I too have been pulled into the same problem, developing my own programs for windows to increase users. (of course, I don't use the messy win32 library or directX)

Someday I will be able to afford a mac, and try mac os, but until then, this is why I hate (and don't hate) windows.

</rant>

~Madmonky1

[Therx]

Windows is an insecure, instable, unorganized mess off useless features and bad coding.

Why do I get a feeling of Deja-vu?

::)

[RuneOfFire]

Windows is very secure (in most situations), stable, and you have no clue what its code looks like. Prove to me that it has bad code. Prove to me that it's insecure and unstable (with GOOD drivers).

Windows is currently, overall, the best OS out there for the x86 architecture.

[Tim]

I am currently in XP, worst os next to ME, and I have received one blue screen when a dumb star treck game tried to do some sort of illigal operation

Can you reproduce this? If so, Microsoft Product Support would be interesting in hearing from you.

[Tux]

My favorite OS is QNX.

[Madmonky1]

Windows is very secure (in most situations), stable, and you have no clue what its code looks like. Prove to me that it has bad code.

Well, you are right somewhere, I don't have the source, but try this link I beleive tux gave you earlier: http://www.microsuck.com/content/whatsbad.shtml That article should explain pretty well why Microsoft is bad, and look at this part:

"The Bloatware Debate" is a technical discussion of how two separate people dissected one particular Microsoft program and found out, to their shock, that it was over 2,000% larger than it should have Been. It would appear from this discussion that the cumbersome size of Microsoft programs is due not only to the continually growing clutter of useless features but it is also due to careless programming (perhaps to an even larger degree).

Prove to me that it's insecure and unstable (with GOOD drivers).

Again, look at that article I gave a link too, it should explain that clearly. And does "msblast" ring a bell? arn't attacks like that proof enough to show you how insecure ms is. And don't you find it anoying when the only way to fix that is to download the patch from windows update which lets ms know just what you have on your comp, and by changing important file other programs rely on, just makes your system more unstable.

Windows is currently, overall, the best OS out there for the x86 architecture.

that is arguable. If you consider it the best for having the most quality programs and content provided for it from a simple home users point of view, then yes it is, but for the actuall os I think unix systems do have a lot of better features (but definatly aren't perfect either)

~Madmonky1

[Tux]

MM, they are ignorants. You have to show them everything. It's no use. You would have to deassemble and make it into C for them to understand.

[Madmonky1]

Just read that article and if you realize what ms is doing, then good, if you fail to make anything of the information placed in front of you then I'm with tux. whatever you make of it, I will say no more, and leave it at that.

Can you reproduce this? If so, Microsoft Product Support would be interesting in hearing from you.

I doubt it, I think I have that game lying around somewhere but that only happened once out of the 2 times I tried the game, plus that was I while ago and I don't think I could recreate the conditions that caused it. For all I know it wasn't the game at all that caused the error to happen.


~Madmonky1

[Tim]

"The Bloatware Debate" is a technical discussion of how two separate people dissected one particular Microsoft program and found out, to their shock, that it was over 2,000% larger than it should have Been. It would appear from this discussion that the cumbersome size of Microsoft programs is due not only to the continually growing clutter of useless features but it is also due to careless programming (perhaps to an even larger degree).

That's a 404. So far we've got, "some guys might have looked at the binaries to a Microsoft program and decided it was a bit big". I'd be surprised if someone writing for a site called "microsuck.com" was part of a Microsoft source licensing programme.

attacks like that proof enough to show you how insecure ms is.

That's a fair point. But the same could be said of any OS. Linux and the BSDs each generate more security fixes per year than Windows. No desktop/server OS has got a USDoD rating higher than Windows' C2 categorisation. This means that either the USDoD is naive about security, or that they consider all mainstream operating systems insecure. (BTW, networked computers are intrinsically insecure.)

[Curufir]

That's a fair point. But the same could be said of any OS. Linux and the BSDs each generate more security fixes per year than Windows. No desktop/server OS has got a USDoD rating higher than Windows' C2 categorisation. This means that either the USDoD is naive about security, or that they consider all mainstream operating systems insecure. (BTW, networked computers are intrinsically insecure.)

Didn't particularily want to participate in this thread, but I guess I will anyhow .

The Windows C2 classification is AFAIK for standalone NT 4.0 (Ie not networked & therefore not amazingly useful in today's market).

Novell also holds a C2 rating for Netware.

The big thing here is that evaluation for a C2 rating is very expensive.

As far as Linux goes a special version of Suse on IBM hardware has been evaluated to EAL2, and expects to get a higher security rating sometime this year. However they are paying for it to be evaluated.

The cost here is the big thing. Without a centralised agency in control of the OS, eg Microsoft, Linux/BSD/etc are reliant upon 3rd parties paying for evaluation, usually for their own distros.

For those confused by C2 and EAL2 ratings here's a quick precis. C2, B1 etc are (Were?) used by the US government, EAL1, EAL2 etc are used to describe evaluations done under the CC standard.

[air]

If I remember correctly, those security ratings don't actually require the OS to be tested. Fill out a bunch of paperwork and fork over a lot of cash and you get a rating, the more paperwork and the more cash and the higher the rating.

Prove to me that it's insecure and unstable (with GOOD drivers).

Bill Gates recently announced that third-party code is only 50% responsible for bugs/crashes.

(BTW, networked computers are intrinsically insecure.)

That's because 95% of the networked computers run windows, so 95% of all networked computers are insecure.

[Curufir]

If I remember correctly, those security ratings don't actually require the OS to be tested.

You remember wrong. C2 rating is only given out after testing by the NSA (AFAIK this has now changed and it's another department that does the testing). EAL is only given out after testing by a certified CC testing facility.

[nullify]

Prove to me that it's insecure and unstable (with GOOD drivers).

Bill Gates recently announced that third-party code is only 50% responsible for bugs/crashes.

Even if what Bill claims is true, that statistic is not proof that the OS is in general insecure or unstable. If 50% of crashes occur through 3rd party code, that does not imply that Windows is very unstable - it just proves that when there *is* a crash, half the time some 3rd-party code did it.

(BTW, networked computers are intrinsically insecure.)

That's because 95% of the networked computers run windows, so 95% of all networked computers are insecure.

Which means the other 5% of networked computers are secure? Nahh

[slacker]

Windows is an insecure, instable, unorganized mess off useless features and bad coding.
~Madmonky1

if it was that bad you wouldnt be using it. and the correct english is "unstable". and i believe those anti-microsoft people out there have forgotten what this company has done for the entire PC industry. Windows is the reason for the popularity of the internet today. and you can thank them for all those hi-tech jobs available today that were born from the internet boom.

[nullify]

Windows is the reason for the popularity of the internet today. and you can thank them for all those hi-tech jobs available today that were born from the internet boom.

IIRC, Bill Gates initially did not embrace the idea of the Internet, only later on he changed his mind. This could have meant he was somewhat pressured into it more than anything else.