Originally posted by coolcaddy+Jul 14 2004, 11:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (coolcaddy @ Jul 14 2004, 11:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-actionjack@Jul 13 2004, 05:46 PM
I imagine any OS that you have worked with at sometime was.... how did you clarify it, "it's the most abysmal piece of crap with the most inexcusably bad architecture and has contributed to endless headaches in my career as an IT guy."
No problems with any of the 2000 architecture here. Nor mixed with Novell.
Maybe it is when you mix it with the notoriously one side Unix/Linux.
Mind you, not starting anything just adding to it
'Atta boy, actionjack!

Thanks for playing. I'm tired of arguing politics in the Asylum, so arguing about the religion of operating systems is a welcome breather. B)
You're right, I've had growing pains with any OS I've worked with. The difference is that the reliability of Windows coupled with its horrible architecture extends those growing pains into fully adult pains. :blink:
Now, a lot of the stuff I do in Windows involves working directly with the API, and that's where a lot (but not all) of my Windows-related headaches originate. The Windows API is essentially a leftover from the original desktop API that one used for creating Windows applications before it was an OS. You might recall that Windows started out as a desktop manager, not an OS.
Since Windows wasn't intended from the outset to be an OS, its evolution from desktop to OS has produced some extremely klugy and nutty engineering that is the basis of today's problems with security and reliability.
The API exposes clearly how precarious the whole thing is. For example, you have one set of core OS API's for supporting outdated interapplication operability weirdness like DDE, then another that works completely differently for supporting the next generation OLE stuff, then another again that works completely differently for supporting the newer ActiveX, and so-forth. It's all jumbled together into a freaking mess that makes it extremely difficulty to maintain, hence more reliability problems with the OS and applications that run on it.
I think the biggest mistake Microsoft made was the decision to glue the desktop to the underlying OS, which happened as of Windows 95. This was a serious architectural mistake that they seem to be trying to undo with Longhorn.
Unfortunately, by the time Longhorn becomes available, and as free alternatives like Linux and free software like OpenOffice continue to emerge slowly but surely, and by the time folks understand that Longhorn
really is a ground-up redo of Windows (which Microsoft has inaccurately claimed many times before), I think they will have a difficult time holding on to their formidable leadership position.
Heck, they're having a hard time as it is. The adoption of Windows XP is still running at a very slow pace, and that OS has been available for a couple of years now.
Anyway, I began migrating from a Windows/MFC development platform to a Linux/Java platform a few years ago, and I've never looked back. Some of the stuff I do still requires development and other utilization of Windows, but the profound improvement in the quality of my work and my sanity that resulted from moving to Linux/Java means that I'm unlikely to ever go back. :type: [/b][/quote]
I think that fewer people are switching to XP from earlier OS's because there were quite a few bugs and security issues with early editions of XP and they want to make sure that all those problems have been resovled. Right now XP is reasonably well off, far better than it was anyway...so you should see upgrading go up...soon.....