22-May-2018 00:14 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 20 items in your selection
[News] 63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000ANN.lu
Posted on 12-Feb-2000 12:03 GMT by Christian Kemp20 comments
View flat
View list
Perhaps unrelated to the Amiga, but interesting to read. Mike writes: This story on ZDNet let's us know just how many bugs remain in next Thursday's Windows 2000 release, and presents us with the poll question; "Do you plan to buy Windows 2000 -- an OS with 63,000 known 'defects'?"
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 1 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by Patrick White on 11-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
What only 63,000 bugs? Hah!
If only this was reported on NATIONAL PRESS.....
People are getting tired of a crappy OS... ie Windoze.
Time for that REVOLUTION Jim talked about.......
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 2 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by Amused on 11-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
Was anyone really expecting otherwise?
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 3 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by Henrik Mikael Kristensen on 11-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
How many lines of code does AmigaOS consist of? Just out of curiosity... :-)
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 4 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by MashMan (Matthew O'Neill) on 11-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
They left off a zero from that number ;)
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 5 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by XDelusion on 11-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
GASP!!!! ha ha :)
On the other hand let me point out something, Linux is hard as hell to crash, Amiga OS needs to catch up with that, just a point of note, oh and no reboots when new soft/ware is installed...
...hmmm
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 6 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by Tony Gore on 11-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
Don't know how many lines of code are in Amiga OS, but it seems that I recall reading that WinNT had something like 40 million lines of code...Can anyone confirm or deny this???
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 7 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by Michael Jantzen on 11-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
You guys may be suprised how many "bugs" Linux and Amiga DOS have been reported to have.
Michael Jantzen ^_^
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 8 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by Mark Olsen on 11-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Tony Gore):
AFAIR, NT has 32 m lines code, and Win2k has 39 m.
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 9 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 11-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Michael Jantzen):
Probably a lot, but how refined would either be if they had the resources and manpower that Windows has? A complete waste.
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 10 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by Plain English on 12-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
Aren't people getting tired of Microsoft bashing all the time?
When 40m lines of codes get written it can't all be perfect. Before you assume that it's crap could you try using it first? I've had it on my machine for the past month and it hasn't crashed on me yet, and unlike previous Microsoft attempts it doesn't require a redical new upgrade to move the mouse in circles or click on the Start button.
It's going to become my recommended server of choice for any new servers installed at work, not for stuff best done on Linux / Sco, but for things like Exchange and domain services.
Just stop crapping something you don't have anything better of.
What do other people think?
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 11 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by MAS on 12-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Plain English):
Microsoft bashing is "in", right now. However, I agree that if the amount
of time and money that has been expended on Win 2000 had been expended on
a better OS (one free of all the ugly legacy baggage that Mac OS and Windoze
have to drag about), the computing world could have a lot more than what it
will be getting with the release of Win 2000.
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 12 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 12-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Plain English):
The relevant question is, why on earth did they write ~40 *MILLION*
lines of code for an OS? This is insane.
Maybe you will find it the best (or least bad) thing to use for the
immediate future, but in the long run, this madness has to be stopped!
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 13 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by ZimZum on 12-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (Johan Rönnblom):
In answer to why the hyooog amount of code in the OS, (and probably
the huge amount of bugs), M$ programmers are required to output a
certain number of lines of code in a set time. If i remember
correctly.. this is 500 per day. I think it explains a lot doesnt it
:)
If this keeps up, that revolution Jim talked about aint going to be so
hard after all....
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 14 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by Plain English on 12-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (Johan Rönnblom):
Computers get more powerful, people demand better software that can do more. A new piece of software that can do more and uses more code and more processing power.
A typical argument Amiga people use is 'The more bloated the software is, the slower the hardware runs'. I think it's a good tradeoff with hardware going down in price time and people demanding more from their software.
Example: Web Browsers
Amiga browsers are not bad, and they can be quick. But there aren't as many plugin's and full compatibility with things like Java and Flash Macromedia. Two things seen as being very important in a browser.
Microsoft, Linux, Mac browsers have these features that people require, they can make the user feel more comfortable and interactive with what they're doing online.
If you want a crap browser for the PC that can display text about ten characters a second quicker there are more than a fair share of them. You'll be ten seconds before you see what decent software can do before you give in.
40 Million lines of code, I can't wait to see what extra utilities and browser features are available.
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 15 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 12-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Plain English):
What does the innane amount of bulk code have to do with Java and Flash compatibility (which exists in a primitive state currently)? A plugin is a plugin. It doesn't require *any* set amount of code to make it work. If the browser is coded properly, any plugin will click right in. The problem is availability. Nobody wants to support the Amiga no matter how many lines are in the OS source code. (Although I'd bet AmigaOS comes closer to 40 million lines of comments than Windoze code does.)
The sheer bulk of code is more of a marketing ploy than a real necessity, and yes, it drags the whole system down. There's no way around it. Any idea what processors as powerful as the latest Intel processors have been responsible for before modern PCs came along? I'll guarantee you that they were able to do a whole lot more than just manage an OS with just one or two high-end apps running at the same time. That's about all Windoze can handle.
Something else to think about: I think a big part of the reason corporations don't want to support the Amiga (and probably Linux as well, to some extent) is that it's very difficult to hide anything from even the moderately experienced Amiga/Linux user. For example, it's nearly impossible to make DVD streams "uncapturable". It really wouldn't take much to copy DVDs on an Amiga. With 90% of the current userbase being programmers, it's difficult to justify bringing DVD to a platform that would make copying easily and readily available.
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 16 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by XDelusion on 13-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Plain English):
Your right it does not seem to crash, but on the other hand, if you do not register with Microsoft in 50 days, they will now remove there software from your computer, and if it is still based off of NT, then there is still better Hardware support for Linux at this time, and Linux never crashes, and runs a bit more like AMiga, than WIndows ever will, thus I choose Linux, and still see Windows, as something I could live without. There is not the depth of user control.
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 17 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by Plain English on 13-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Anonymous):
You don't like Micro$oft do you. Is it because of the trend of hate? You didn't make any reasonable points in your last statement.
I didn't say that java and flash (which are better developed on Windows and Linux, no getting round that) have anything to do with the 40m source, I mean't this as an example of how features are actually a good thing and necessary for today's computer. Workbench looks like shit anyway, and I don't have time to customise it for my users.
Having a more interactive UI puts more comfort with the user. Do you think this is right, or do you think it's wrong. You skipped this point last time, I would like to hear your views on this.
Your point about the OS eating the processor. A quick example of my network...
450 users using machines called WinTerms, little boxes with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse attached. Takes about 2 minutes to attach one of these boxes spread across 12 sites in the UK to the main network, no hard drive, no fans spinning, no nasty disk drive or CD ROM drive, load up time - 5 to 10 seconds from switch on.
They plug into one of six 'Windows NT Terminal Server' servers running a piece of software named 'Citrix Metaframe'. Each machine is an HP server with two PII or PIII processors and 512mb ram concurrently serving between 50 and 75 users each. All the software is ran on the server, like an Intranet I suppose, that includes bloated software like Microsoft Word, Excel, Access, IExplorer (yes with the plugins), telnet clients to the unix databases and other 3rd party software.
Tell me once again, if I can have six servers serving concurrently about 300+ people running ALL software on the servers themselves, NIGHT and DAY, how can this be possible with Microsoft when you say that only a couple of high-end applications can be ran before the system shuts down?
(Although I'd bet AmigaOS comes closer to 40 million lines of comments than Windoze code does.) I agree.
That last comment about no support for Amiga/Linux. Shut up.
Linux is getting tremendous support now from IBM, Oracle, Sun, RedHat, Suse, Amiga gets shit (I like the Amiga, don't get me wrong).
Before people say that I've sold my soul and all that type of crap let me remind you why I come to ANN, I like to keep up on news to do with the Amiga and Amiga's progress.
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 18 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by Plain English on 13-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (XDelusion):
My OS of choice at home is Linux.
Is it true about that removal of software if you do not register? I'll have to look into that although I doubt it.
Win 2000 is based on NT but can use drivers from Windows 95, 98, NT, and 2000 itself. W2K has its good points and bad points, I haven't fully made up my mind yet.
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 19 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by Mark Olsen on 13-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (XDelusion):
> and Linux never crashes, and runs a bit more like AMiga,
You know that's not true.
Have you ever runned any X fullscreen program ? WINE, Quake, any game ?
If just one thing goes wrong, you're dead. Unless you go next room and kill the X server, you don't have a chance.
Ok, that was an extreme example.
But i have had a few kernel-panics as well.
So it's not bad at all(A lot better than Windows), but it sure as hell isn't perfect either.
And for the Amiga-like.
No. It is not anything like Amiga. No screens, no proper shell, not a microkernel, stuff.
But again, BASH is more than Windows' "command prompt" will ever be.
63,000 "defects" in Windows 2000 : Comment 20 of 20ANN.lu
Posted by Plain English on 13-Feb-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (Mark Olsen):
I agree.
X Windows has a lot of development to go.
Can people please stop comparing Amiga to Linux in similarity, there's simply no competition.
Anonymous, there are 20 items in your selection
Back to Top