Connect with us

A question for the group

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by MikeMandaville, Sep 3, 2004.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. I've learnt it as

    Windows is for installing software.
    Operating systems are for running software.

    Take your poison.

    Andreas
     
  2. Ken Smith

    Ken Smith Guest

    You should be able to install software as an ordinary user so long as that
    software doesn't effect other users and its self doesn't need any access
    rights you don't have.

    All software should come with an uninstaller that removes it completely
    and doesn't remove anything it didn't install.

    If Joe User wants to install a bingo program so he can play bingo, it
    should be no problem. If he wants to install a hard-disk reformating tool
    then there should be a problem.

    Unless you are upgrading a software product, no installation should be
    allowed to change any existing file on your computer.

    Everytime a computer boots up, the operator should be given a chance to
    remove, or disable, the last program installed.
     
  3. Agreed. And does not make itself visible to other users (which would
    involve writing in file space that is not your own).

    Exactly. Or rather a problem running it, if he is not administrator.
    Windows XP and 2003 do this, at least as regards the registry (not the whole
    contents of the disk). You have to hit F8 to get to the boot menu.
     
  4. It is fashionable to insult Windows, but can you tell me what's wrong with
    it?

    Other than that it's popular and even nonspecialists can use it?

    People who bash Windows the way you're doing often have a knowledge of it
    that is 10 to 15 years out of date.
     
  5. Ken Smith

    Ken Smith Guest

    It is not secure and can't be made secure and still used by a
    nonspecialist.

    You have to reboot it from time to time to get it to start working again.
    (Including the XP machine I had for a while)

    Some versions have the million mouse problem where you get lots of mouse
    drivers.

    It is slow.

    If you don't have a network connection, XP will refuse to let you run it.

    Version to version it is not compatible even with its self. Have you ever
    seen the specs for drivers?

    When it crashes, it tends to take the hard disks logical structure with
    it. (seen on ME and NT)

    The screen saver is tightly bound to the OS so that if your screen saver
    on your server has a bug, it takes the whole server down.

    When it runs a DOS prompt, it doesn't correctly assign environment space
    so some batch files won't work.

    The registry constantly grows bigger with each passing day so the PC takes
    longer and longer to boot.

    There is no way to really back up a Windows PC since some files are kept
    open and unshared by the OS. The back up programs will restore your data
    files but some settings will not come back.

    The "browse master election" process often fails on some PCs on a largish
    network meaning that they mysteriously suddenly can't find the servers.

    You have to click "start" to stop.

    If you sneeze in the middle of a "drag and drop" operation, your file may
    be lost forever. There is no undo for the file move you just did but
    didn't want.

    Next time my PC at work screws up, I'll have another one for this list.
     
  6. Ken Smith

    Ken Smith Guest

    The word "effect" was intended to imply this. I see no reason another
    user could not be allowed to find it if they actively look for it and the
    installing user permits it.
    Yes I know, its a near miss in XP. If a DLL[1] gets overwritten somehow,
    the XP machine can become near useless. Somehow the DLL library
    controlling thingy gets it wrong sometimes and lets an install overwrite
    something that microsoft needs to be able to tell you that something went
    wrong.


    [1] I assume it was a DLL. Reinstalling and restoring all the files
    fixed the problem.
     
  7. It is fashionable to insult Windows, but can you tell me what's wrong with
    That's because of the C-based programming techniques taken over from UNIX.
    Yes, we reboot our Windows servers when patches come along that require it,
    which is more like once every six weeks.
    Compared to what?
    False. Unless of course the machine is configured as a domain client. That
    is a choice you make when setting up the machine.
    No, but different versions of anything are different...
    Is it the only operating system with this fault?
    I have not seen this. Who runs screen savers on a server? Why does the
    screen need "saving" anyhow?
    What version are you talking about? "Out of environment space" was a Win3.1
    problem.

    And so forth.
     
  8. Ah, you meant "affect," then.
    Right; anybody can give other people permission to read a set of files and
    even to write on them.
    In my opinion, Windows as we presently know it is basically UNIX
    redecorated. The characteristic flaws are similar. However, .NET Framework
    (the successor to Windows) is an object-oriented OS with radically different
    characteristics, probably the first major advance in operating systems since
    the 1980s.

    Are you familiar with how .NET addresses the various problems you've been
    cataloguing?

    Also -- Everybody says "Windows is bad." Nobody ever says, "My hardware is
    unreliable," even if it was made in a garage in the Third World and sprayed
    with salt air on the dock. No operating system runs well on defective
    hardware. But PC owners always believe everything is a software problem,
    and in particular, that it's the fault of the operating system.
     
  9. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    Or, just get Linux and be done with the whole circus.

    Cheers!
    Rich
     
  10. It is fashionable to insult Windows, but can you tell me what's wrong with it?
    For the general public to use a "mystery" operating system which they are not
    allowed to read is not in the best interest of the general public.

    Michael Mandaville
     
  11. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    I find this a real stretch. Windows as we presently know it is a Klooge
    borrowed from NT, which, since it wasn't written by Microsoft, actually
    works most of the time. But it certainly doesn't bear any resemblance
    to Unix, unless you're talking about its opacity, but in Unix, it _is_
    possible to look stuff up.
    That's because with Windows it usually is.

    And actually, very few computers from the "third world" are garage junk.

    Cheers!
    Rich
     
  12. A couple of things:

    1) That the security system relies on the desktop: Once through the desktop,
    the system is 0wned - like when userlevel app. hooking the WM_TIMER callback
    which just happens to run at system priority. Same with Users - the
    separation of users is really on the Desktop level; fine for keeping the
    kids off the smutt collection for a while, but ...

    2) It does not distinguish cleanly between OS and Applications; Many
    applications will - and are permitted to - dump private DLL's and other crud
    directly into the System Dircetories - often overwriting existing files in
    the process - the VSCRTxx.DLL (visual C++ runtime) seems to get replaced a
    lot ;-); And *everybody* and his dog fiddles with the same, global - no
    less, Registry.

    3) It does not have a built-in Install procedure and a corresponding
    Uninstall, instead relying on the application to provide this; well, if the
    application is crap and you want to uninstall guess what - the uninstall
    will be crap too!

    4) It does not distinguish between Microsoft Applications and Microsoft OS -
    every bit of code that subsumes itself into the "kernel" make the target
    that much bigger.


    The deficiencies in Windows comes from two sources:

    The demand for ease-of-use and the requirement that Windows must be the
    something-for-everyone computing platform. If Windows was made to be really
    secure, it is likely that one would loose the properties that make it
    popular, mainly that it is easy to use for everyone and it runs most stuff
    adequately.

    SO -

    If you want a secure games box, you should *really* buy a PS2!
     
  13. I read in sci.electronics.design that Frithiof Andreas Jensen <frithiof.
    [email protected]_spammer_die.ericsson.com> wrote (in <chp9o9$2l0$
    se.edt.ericsson.se>) about 'A question for the group', on Thu, 9 Sep
    2004:
    Obviously modelled on a real desk; one you make a big hole in the top
    you can get into all the drawers and cupboards. (;-)
     
  14. Rolavine

    Rolavine Guest

    Subject: Re: A question for the group
    It's too damn complicated and each new edition comes with tens of thousands of
    known unfixed bugs (you can go view the lists). Rather than fixing these bugs
    they go to work on the next version of Windows that will have a new set of
    bugs. Some of us silly people that actually have to get computers to do things
    (damn fools we be) feel that the operating system should be the most reliable
    program on a PC, and not the least!

    Rocky
     
  15. Ken Smith

    Ken Smith Guest

    Yes it is mostly written in C so by its very nature it is a hopeless pile
    of bugs but that isn't all. Trust Microsoft to base an entire product on
    a fatal flaw like IE and active X.
    You've been lucky XP machines I've seen and one I used required re-booting
    about once every couple of days to make them get their act straight again.

    True!
    Have you tried installing XP on a PC with no network. You have to call
    Microsoft to get a secret code when you install it and from time to time
    there after. The line is always busy.
    They are different in that they are newer versions but the gas pedal in my
    new car is still on the right. Microsoft has done things that are
    equivelent to swapping the gas and brake pedals from one version to the
    next and then swapping them back.
    It does it more than others.
    Lots of people run screen savers on their servers. Screen savers are
    considered cool and therefor must be installed on all machines.
    win95, 98, me, 2000 and XP all do this.
     
  16. keith

    keith Guest

    I'm no WinXpert, nor lover, but I believe the "environment" was a Win9x
    construct. It doesn't exist in NT based OSs (NT/2K/XP).
     
  17. Ken Smith

    Ken Smith Guest

    I'm no WinXpert, nor lover, but I believe the "environment" was a Win9x
    construct. It doesn't exist in NT based OSs (NT/2K/XP).[/QUOTE]

    No, the environment being talked about here is the DOS one in a DOS window
    running under windows.

    Lots of people have batch files that do things for them that don't work
    under the normal windows install because windows does not give DOS a
    correct environment space.

    I think you have the windows case backwards too. Under windows 9X there
    is no environment variables like the ones that can be set in XP. Altera's
    Quartus uses these to point to the license files.
     
  18. keith

    keith Guest

    No, the environment being talked about here is the DOS one in a DOS window
    running under windows.

    Lots of people have batch files that do things for them that don't work
    under the normal windows install because windows does not give DOS a
    correct environment space.

    I think you have the windows case backwards too. Under windows 9X there
    is no environment variables like the ones that can be set in XP. Altera's
    Quartus uses these to point to the license files.[/QUOTE]

    Why does Win9x constantly thow out "out of environment space", where WinNT
    derivitives don't? Win9x had its environment fixed at 64K, IIRC.
     
  19. I was not serious, really. I'm sorry I gave the false impression. You
    just reminded me of a saying I've laughed alot about.
    Windows has lots of pro's, especially aside from
    it IMHO has a stable and solid Win32-API, with changes mostly in new
    components, but not in base services. If you rely on the latest
    gimmicks, you know in front that you're lost, don't you?
    I've done software for windows since that, and I'm still doing. It was
    a major step from 16 to 32 bit, but also this transition concentrated
    on restricted APIs. NT was a major step from 95, but I still would
    prefer to have an NT professional as a further development of NT 3.51
    and an NT home following NT 4 as the gamer's OS, instead of an unified
    XP. The design decision that weakend the original concept of NT are
    not condign to a professional OS, IMHO.

    Nevertheless, I don't see a point in
    I really dislike the concept of installing software. I could agree, if
    you would have said "installing drivers", but applications in my old
    fart world thinking are something, that should work, when copied, and
    vanish in the dust, when deleted. I don't mind the OS to provide a
    notice board, so applications can publish their existance and
    facilities and are able to look for cooperating applications, but I'm
    not in peace with the complex logical interconnections of the
    registry.

    Andreas
     
  20. OK, so where did they put fork()?
    ..NET isn't an OS by itself. It is a run-time engine which can be (and
    has been) implemented on various different OSs, including Linux.
    I've had good luck picking up hardware deemed no longer capable of
    running a Windows desktop, loaded Linux on it and succeeded in running
    (quite successfully) a web server (Apache), a database (Oracle) and
    supporting enterprise wide web services. I can only conclude that the
    hardware was OK after all.

    By the way, practically all hardware is made in the 'third world' these
    days. They are getting pretty good at it.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-