28-Mar-2024 21:34 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 64 items in your selection (but only 14 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 64]
[Motd] MOTD 12/Feb/2001ANN.lu
Posted on 12-Feb-2001 19:38 GMT by Christian Kemp64 comments
View flat
View list
Things have been pretty slow behind the scenes at ANN. I still worked most of January 2001 and the past two weeks of February, so my free time was limited. My PC seems to be working okay now, but my dialup has been very unreliable and painfully slow (how many errors are normal in W2k's dialup status window? So far I have 143 for less than 200k transferred...). The DSL line is supposedly being installed "in a few weeks". Sounds oddly familiar. I finally found an Amiga sponsor again, so that my phone costs are almost covered. Thanks also to the individuals who offered donations - sorry I didn't get back to you - but I'm always reluctant to accept individual donations for a number of reasons I won't go into since space is limited. :) To wrap up this MOTD, I'm trying once more to find one or more reliable contributors to do a bit of moderation and article posting. Please apply via email.
MOTD 12/Feb/2001 : Comment 51 of 64ANN.lu
Posted by Hassan Sultan on 14-Feb-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 48 (Colin Wilson):
Colin,
Simply because I own an Amiga since more than 13 years and I like this system.
I'm still playing with my A4000, hoping that MorphOS runs on a real PPC motherboard instead of this AmigaDE which TO ME has nothing to do with the Amiga more than the name. I read ANN everyday since many years, and I do it for my own pleasure.
This long thread started after that I quietly told Mark Olsen that the problem CK had was not related to Win2k, there was no rant about the OS or whatever, and then Mr Olsen thought that with absolutely no knowledge about operating systems/kernels he could explain to a guy who work on this exact OS how much it is crap and buggy, all this with completely broken arguments.
That's it, no let's get back to AmigaOS.
MOTD 12/Feb/2001 : Comment 52 of 64ANN.lu
Posted by Colin Wilson on 15-Feb-2001 23:00 GMT
Seems like a fair reply, sorry I missed it earlier in the thread.
What would have been interesting was if I hadn`t deleted an email earlier today from a linux mailing list - where someone who specialises in datacentre standard software installations had warned several large customers from using Win2k, because in their own tests, data became irreparably corrupt usually within 3-4 months (but at first would look "wonderful").
Every company who laughed and insisted on moving to Win2k has gone bust within 6 months apparently, the last one being "high profile" and went last month.
The person who made the post is not an average "tech" - they wrote the OS and detection avoidance / evasion systems for our nuclear subs....
MOTD 12/Feb/2001 : Comment 53 of 64ANN.lu
Posted by Hassan Sultan on 15-Feb-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 52 (Colin Wilson):
Well, this guy has perhaps written all this stuff for submarines, but I REALLY doubt that Win2k has this behaviour, Win2k is a "mainstream" OS, and if it really had this problem(corrupting data, which is probably the worst thing an OS can do), the news would be on the front page of every computer related newspaper/magazine/website. Win2k is out since one year and millions of people use it(1 million sold + all the pirates), this kind of horrible behaviour would have been already noticed by many companies.
I would really like to know what were their tests, the results and the conditions, because this seems pretty doubtful to me.
Also, posting this stuff on a linux mailing list seems pretty original to me, you don't tell linux fans "don't install Win2k" because you know that they will not do it anyway. If these tests were really serious, he would have sent this information to windows mailing-lists or newspapers, not a linux mailing list where people are notoriously anti-MS.
MOTD 12/Feb/2001 : Comment 54 of 64ANN.lu
Posted by Mark Olsen on 15-Feb-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 51 (Hassan Sultan):
> This long thread started after that I quietly told Mark Olsen that
> the problem CK had was not related to Win2k, there was no rant about
It is, you just don't seem to be able to comprehend that.
> the OS or whatever, and then Mr Olsen thought that with absolutely no
> knowledge about operating systems/kernels he could explain to a guy who
> work on this exact OS how much it is crap and buggy, all this with
OK, let's say I have absolutely no knowledge of anything, as you suggest, I don't even know how to use a computer.
So, as an average Joe dumbass(like you), I can see the following things:
Graphics operations are in kernel space(Just look in the task manager when moving windows)
When moving a window/scrolling something/whatever, the kernel CPU usage hits 100%
I move a window, modem lights in Windows flash red, the status window indicated a lot of errors.
Average joe luser sees a connection between moving windows and broken downloads, so he doesn't use the computer while he downloads.
> completely broken arguments.
Sure thing.
Just a note: Keep things out of kernel space, and since you didn't get it last time, I will repeat why:
- You starve other things, not good.
- Broken code BSODs Windows
And another thing, about that VBScript thing...
How useful is that? Not the slightest, except for writing automated LookOut Depress viruses.
How can one run a server without a shell? Or use a workstation effectively?
I have two 486s here running without keyboard and monitor etc.
One thing is thinking of how Win2k would run on a 486@66MHz with 16MB RAM(the one I run OpenBSD on atm) is one thing, but how would I admin it without moving the computers around all the time?
The other one, a 486@100MHz with 44MB RAM running Linux(Again, imagine Win2k on this one) has been running since it was installed 147 days ago! The OpenBSD box has been running since it was installed too. That's 39 days ago.
MOTD 12/Feb/2001 : Comment 55 of 64ANN.lu
Posted by Hassan Sultan on 15-Feb-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 54 (Mark Olsen):
Sadly I can't reproduce that, when I do it (tried with a DOS console and an IE window) the CPU usage goes between 10 and 20% while it usually is around 10%.
And by the way, what you are telling me is that the millions of people using WinNT/Win2k have to choose between using their computer and breaking their download, this clearly is not the case. Look at comment 11 from CK, he did the same on another computer, no problem.
Again, putting some GUI operations in the kernel does NOT starve other threads since threads which are at time X in the kernel ARE preempted, they are stopped and replaced by other threads if the scheduler decide so even if they are inside the kernel.
Simply try to understand that.
Concerning the broken code, it's like any code in the kernel if it's broken you have a BSOD, putting more operations in the kernel raise a bit this risk simply because there's more code, but this is minimal since most of the GUI is still outside the kernel.
Concerning VBScript, it is so unuseful that you can automate remotely computers using it if you want to. You don't know how to use it, here's the difference.
By the way, tens of millions of people use Windows and Mac computers without ever having touched a shell, so it looks like you can use a computer without a shell.
Concerning the shell, it's clearly less powerful than Unix shells, but :
1) You can't win everywhere, Windows has a better GUI than Unix, but it has a less efficient shell.
2) With a mix of shell script and VBScript you can do 90% of what a Unix shell can do, VBScript has regular expressions, can call COM objects,... it's sufficient for most tasks.
Concerning the resources usage, don't forget that Win2k integrates a GUI, add KDE or Gnome to Linux or OpenBSD and see the result, it's the same as Win2k and it's GUI. Linux and PowerBSD have the advantage of running without GUI when it's needed, Win2k can't because it's designed for people who are not shell experts, that's why the shell is not very powerful and that's why you have a GUI which is integrated and which is much better than its Unix couterparts.
Unix servers can only be adminstered by Unix adminstrators, Windows servers can be adminstered by almost anybody with a bit of knowledge about computers.
MOTD 12/Feb/2001 : Comment 56 of 64ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 15-Feb-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 54 (Mark Olsen):
Where I work we have dozens of NT servers all inaccessible in the basement. But we don't need a shell to administer them, there is a wonderful thing called a Remote Console - NT can export its display across the network and we can interract with it without having to move from our desks! The only servers that need a shell are *IX servers. NT has a decent desktop so it doesn't have to rely on the shell.
MOTD 12/Feb/2001 : Comment 57 of 64ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 15-Feb-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 56 (Anonymous):
A shell is much more usefull and powerfull then a GUI.
It remembers me Windows users saying to me that multitasking was useless. It was back to windows 3.1 time.
Once they got Win95 they said it was a vital feature and that macOS was sucking so much because of no multitasking ability.
Your NT4 servers also have no quota management but you will say that there is no need of quota management.
MOTD 12/Feb/2001 : Comment 58 of 64ANN.lu
Posted by Colin Wilson on 15-Feb-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 53 (Hassan Sultan):
>I would really like to know what were their tests, the results and
>the conditions, because this seems pretty doubtful to me.
>Also, posting this stuff on a linux mailing list seems pretty original
>to me, you don't tell linux fans "don't install Win2k" because you
>know that they will not do it anyway. If these tests were really
>serious, he would have sent this information to windows mailing-lists
>or newspapers, not a linux mailing list where people are notoriously
>anti-MS.
I will mention it to them, and ask if they would be interested in elaborating, but I cannot guarantee them giving a response.
As far as sending it to a windows mailing list is concerned, they probably haven`t because they develop bespoke systems for paying clients, and releasing details about their research might hinder future contracts, or inadvertantly help identify the client.
MOTD 12/Feb/2001 : Comment 59 of 64ANN.lu
Posted by Simon Webber on 17-Feb-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 53 (Hassan Sultan):
I do not have an Amiga. I apologise if I am out of order posting to this list. I do support 13 NT4 servers, 90 Win95/98 PCs etc, etc on 6 different sites and have done for a number of years. I have to say that keeping those servers and workstations going has been the bane of my life. I have formed an association with a Linux professional to experiment with Linux and find out for myself what the fuss is all about. The early signs are very encouraging. I cannot believe the stability of this OS. I have also looked at Win2000 and while it is more stable than NT4 (not difficult), as the time of my investigation, the stability only lasted if you used a narrow range of hardware. This may have improved, but I have spoken to a number of colleagues in the industry who have also tried Win2000 with very poor results and have has to go back to NT4 Server. I realise that this is a small sample out of the millions of users, but it is my experience for what it is worth.
MOTD 12/Feb/2001 : Comment 60 of 64ANN.lu
Posted by Colin Wilson on 17-Feb-2001 23:00 GMT
Hassan :
Following on my message re: win2k data corruption, I can now provide further anecdotal (free) evidence, and the person who did the tests is willing to provide full documentation and reports for an industry standard fee.
They are able to give details of how damage occurs, and is willing to provide details in court if necessary of the software licence numbers involved, what happened, and the results they had on at least one of the companies involved, backed up by their accountant.
I have mailed you at the email address you gave earlier in these posts, feel free to contact me direct, and I can forward you their anecdotal response, and if required, put you in touch direct.
Access 2000 damages databases, and it can be proven (per the person I am in contact with)
MOTD 12/Feb/2001 : Comment 61 of 64ANN.lu
Posted by Hassan Sultan on 17-Feb-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 60 (Colin Wilson):
Just send it, but please note that Win2k and Access2000 are not related, having a problem with Acess2000 doesn't mean a problem with Win2k.
MOTD 12/Feb/2001 : Comment 62 of 64ANN.lu
Posted by Colin Wilson on 18-Feb-2001 23:00 GMT
RE: access / win2k
Noted, but I didn`t realise it was a problem with Access that was causing the problem - but from the post i`m sending you, it may be more fundamental - it`s to do with simple resizing of windows on the screen that causing the damage. I`m guessing that that is a core function of the OS (resizing windows), and not code written afresh for every new program that ever gets written...
Can I have an X-Box when they`re released for bringing it to your attention ;-)
Note to anyone else reading these posts - Hassans email to me WAS from within MS
MOTD 12/Feb/2001 : Comment 63 of 64ANN.lu
Posted by Hassan Sultan on 18-Feb-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 62 (Colin Wilson):
Well, who knows, if this is really a big problem, you could perhaps receive one, this kind of things already happened in the past :+)
MOTD 12/Feb/2001 : Comment 64 of 64ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Crawford on 18-Feb-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (Hassan Sultan):
Actually, thanks to the creation of "HSP" modems that rely on host CPU and driver is the OS to function, it is entirely possible to make Windows (any version) have problems transferring data across dial-up links.
And, as pointed out correctly above, any other activity on the host, such as graphics operations or intensive traffic on a USB port, can stall the processing of the modem data and cause errors.
My brother is unable to use his scanner or digital camera connection via USB while he is online.
Anonymous, there are 64 items in your selection (but only 14 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 64]
Back to Top