Faulty hardware found on shuttle

Derek Lyons wrote:

Marvin wrote:


Microsoft has a great sales department, second only to their legal staff.
But quality control is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down on the
priority list.


*Right*. That's why millions of people around the world use it on a
daily basis. It's far from perfect, but it does work, people hold it
to an unrealistic standard and them complain when it fails to meet
that standard.

Oh, horsehit! Expecting it to run with negligible maintainence and no
progressive degeneration is not an unrealistic standard. This only true
if your standards have degraded due to constant exposure. Run multiple
different systems on a regular basis and the ****-poor quality and
reliability of all versions of Windows is perfectly obvious.

Brett

Brett Buck wrote in
. com:
Run multiple different systems on a regular basis and the ****-poor
quality and reliability of all versions of Windows is perfectly
obvious.

Brett

Amen!

Windows is a very fancy system, its got more bells & whistles than anyone
can discover in a lifetime.

But what users actually need (despite contrary propaganda from microsoft),
is a *stable* and *predictable* and *secure* system.

There have been other operating systems that delivered this, but they didnt
have nearly the public-relations and legal-wrangling skills of microsoft,
thus they got gobbled up or trampled out of business.

Microsoft is an incredible business success. It is not a software or
systems success.

On or about 29 Mar 2004 00:23:41 +0200, Marvin made
the sensational claim that:
But what users actually need (despite contrary propaganda from microsoft),
is a *stable* and *predictable* and *secure* system.

So why aren't you running one?
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

"Marvin" wrote ...
Windows is a very fancy system, its got more bells & whistles than anyone
can discover in a lifetime.

But what users actually need (despite contrary propaganda from microsoft),
is a *stable* and *predictable* and *secure* system.

That may be what users /need/ but what they /want/ is a stable, predictable and
secure system with those *particular* bells and whistles that take their fancy.
Not to mention that they want any applications they are interested in to be
released for their OS.

"Paul Blay" wrote in message
...
That may be what users /need/ but what they /want/ is a stable,
predictable and
secure system with those *particular* bells and whistles that take their
fancy.

Along with a low learning curve, and for which they can get loads of help
from friends who know about it.

In article ,
"Scott Hedrick" writes:

"Paul Blay" wrote in message
...
That may be what users /need/ but what they /want/ is a stable,
predictable and
secure system with those *particular* bells and whistles that take their
fancy.

Along with a low learning curve, and for which they can get loads of help
from friends who know about it.

Or think they know. Or storefront "Experts" who can berely handle a
point/click/drool interface, and fear actually having to know what
they might be doing.
Hmm. It must have been about 5 years ago. I was browsing in one of
those storefronts, looking for some Potentially Useful Stuff, when a
call came in. It was one of their clients, and they had a Mail Server
in their office that needed a client added. It seems that this was an
impossible task for the Current Employess at this place, they they
tried to sell the customer 2 brand new (and expenseive) Windows NT
servers, running Exchange adn Outhouse. Filled with curiosity about
what could possibly be so arcane, I approached the Droid that had
taken the call, and enquired about the system in question. I was told
that it was running Red Hat Linux, and using some strange proprietary
Red-Hat only mail system. This piqued my interest, so I enquired
after what this peculiar Mail System could be. "sendmail", was the
reply. It happened that I was passing the poor guy's location. I
stopped in, asked for the boss, told him that I'd heard that he had a
small problem, and showed him how to set things up himself. All in
about 10 minutes time.

I'll admit that systems with Windows Servers can be made to run
acceptably well, but that it's much more likely to occur when they're
being run by *NIX Sysadmins. (It's all in knowing the fundamentals)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

I'll admit that systems with Windows Servers can be made to run
acceptably well, but that it's much more likely to occur when they're
being run by *NIX Sysadmins. (It's all in knowing the fundamentals)

Right. Which is why a friend of mine has run a large Windows network
without a whit of *nix experience, and without 99% of the problems
people lay at the feet of a Microsoft based system.

But then he's actually troubled himself to learn (sans a Microsoft
certificate) how the system works and how to tune it. *That* is why
large numbers of Windows installations have such problems. MCSE's who
never trouble themselves to learn beyond their training, and *nix
administrators who can't be bothered.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

In article , says...
But what users actually need (despite contrary propaganda from microsoft),
is a *stable* and *predictable* and *secure* system.

That's not sufficient. There are any number of stable, predictable and
secure systems that are unusable by all but a handful of specially
trained experts (VMS, Linux, VxWare, Multics, OS/390...).


There have been other operating systems that delivered this, but they didnt
have nearly the public-relations and legal-wrangling skills of microsoft,
thus they got gobbled up or trampled out of business.

While acquisitors are a curse to the software industry, you
misunderstand why Microsoft became dominate. Part of it was marketing --
they do this quite well. Part of this the code-bloat that annoys so many
people. There were any number of word-processors that let someone create
a newsletter, or a book, or a Wanted-Dead or Alive poster, but MS Word
was the first (and still only) word processor that let you do all of
these. In the corporate world, there is a real benefit to having all
your documents readable by everyone in the company. Microsoft
understands and exploits this.


Microsoft is an incredible business success.

These days, one also has to admit that their monopoly position gives
them incredible leverage.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

Kevin Willoughby wrote:
a newsletter, or a book, or a Wanted-Dead or Alive poster, but MS Word
was the first (and still only) word processor that let you do all of
these.

Wow, what brainwashing. Ever heard of Wordperfect ? Ever heard of Quark, Page
Maker et al ?

Word is loaded with too many features for what it is used for by 99% of the people.

But what users actually need (despite contrary propaganda from microsoft),
is a *stable* and *predictable* and *secure* system.
That's not sufficient.

Agreed. However:

There are any number of stable, predictable and secure systems that
are unusable by all but a handful of specially trained experts
(VMS, Linux, VxWare, Multics, OS/390...).

I wouldn't think they're only useable by specially trained experts.
They didn't see their market as a consumer OS (the owners of VMS didn't
think it had any market at all, judging by appaerances), and thus
didn't make them as easy to use as could have been done. Remember, WNT
conceptually is VMS V1 underneath.

No, it's the applications that made Windows the success it is. Standard
evolution in action: a small advantage in fitness will, in finite time,
lead to extinction of all competitors. Only changes to the fitness land-
scape can change that.

Jan