A Windows Rant 7

[Glenn9999]

This does have something to do with the topic, but I notice that it seems Windows presents itself as a continual obstacle to getting my work done. I've pondered back and it seems I'm always trying to troubleshoot a problem, or reloading my system, or doing some other thing other than productive work because Windows won't allow me to be able to do productive work, much of the time.

If this is the general case, then why does business, in general, tolerate it? Or anybody? This really has always been the case since Windows 3.1 days, so I can't say it's been a recent thing.

Things that crash all the time? Windows XP? Ding! Windows ME? Ding! Windows 98? Ding!

 

[imstillatwork]

Blah, it's all about hardware choices. My last PC was a dual cpu Pentium III. Lasted me over 6 years and was stable as any.

My new AMD 4800 is rock solid as well.

My brothers brand new mac mini crashed the day we opened the box, and all I did was open applications.

I have NEVER felt that windows hold me back or slows my work. Ever.

And I'm no MS fanboy, I like anything that WORKS. I've never had a linux installation JUST WORK. OSX is far to 'fancy' looking for me, gets in the way of itself I think.




Kevin

http://www.lot-o-nothin.com/cfml/

Phase 1: Read the CFML Reference
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!

 

[Welshbird]

Na... I have to disagree.

This is the third mac I have owned. I have no idea how it works. I know far more about all Windows machines I have been near, because I have had to in order to acheive whatever it ws I set out to do.

So, when I first got a Mac, and connected my new and shiny digital SLR I was expecting some message about finding the driver, and some other nonsense.. but my screen said something along the lines of "Oh - A Canon EOS 300D. A camera! Do you want me to download the photos? Oh, and shall I leave a copy on the camera, or delete them?"

Hurrah!

I don't know how it works. Because I have never had to know.

It just does...

Fee

The question should be [red]Is it worth trying to do?[/red] not [blue] Can it be done?[/blue]

 

[aarenot]

i still have a windows me machine, original os install, never reformatted, installed and uninstalled dozens of crapplications. ran a freeware chat server on it without reboot for 36 days called voodoo chat. now have a 2core pentium and the wife and kids use the me machine. i used it myself until mid year with no real problems. the only issue i have with my xp is this wireless keyboard after a few too many spills, and cig ashes, the shift key does not work. i guess i will get a new one when i feel i need to capitalize on my home pc, lol. the biggest issue i have with xp is all the chit that comes installed on the machine that you never ask for, games, etc., etc., trial software, isp software, all the garbage.
i am a avaya ip telephony geek though, not pc.

 

[Stevehewitt]

Star to pmonnett - great post.

I don't think in this day and age you can get away with putting any OS out that's constantly crashing. Linux, Mac, Windows - all pretty much rock solid.

Let's face it, regardless of the OS, if you put it on fully working and decent hardware with supported drivers and leave it alone it's not going to crash.

My personal belief is that Windows has two factors against it that give's it such a reputation:

1 - Windows 95, 98, ME and bits of NT4 were buggy as hell and just crap. Very unreliable systems.

2 - Windows is easy to use. Thus more technically minded people start playing (which is easier in a UI rather than a CLI) and after doing a workgroup network for their 4 employee company they think they are now competent network admins.

A large proportion of anti-MS pro's made the change during the 'dark era' of 95, 98 and ME. (And who can blame them) - however things have moved on a lot since then in terms of system reliability and stability and i'd be happy to recommend a WinNT server along side a Linux box based on reliability. (i'm not arguing about what's more reliable, just saying that I personally feel I can get a Win2k/Win2k3 box setup in a reliable state that would be suitable for business critical apps - as Linux does on a regular basis)

Windows NT 5 and upwards is very stable and very reliable. It's poor administrator, buggy and badly written applications/drivers and cheap, crap hardware that let's the OS down now.

That could be said for nearly all OS's.

Cheers,




Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[Opieo]

for aarenot:
To prevent a lot of the crap that comes with OSes these days, just do a very custom install, or if it is already on there, as soon as you can, be it after install or now,
Go to the add/remove programs, and click on the add/remove windows components button.
You can remove a bunch of the minor crap then =)

For a fresh install, being of a geeky mindset, windows does not know what I want best, I so, so I tell it so
=)

~
Give a man some fire, he will be warm for a day, Set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life.

 

[Kozusnik]

I prefer Linux over anything else. (Using it right now.)

I have installed XP in the past and had it crash within the hour. The last time I installed it, was a month ago and it still seems to be working. I'm not sure as it sits on another HDD in this pc and only gets used for yahoo videos.

I have two pcs at work.
1. Windows 2000. <-- Work ppl won't change.
2. Mandrake Linux 9.1. Yup it's old, but since it's install, I've never had a problem.

We run 4 interface servers (hl7 - healthcare), a webserver, and a few other boxes on Linux. I NEVER have to touch them. They've been running for years!!! At some point during every day, I hear our Windows admins rushing around to reboot something.

Sorry M$ fans, but the server room is no place for Windows. On the desktop...as long as you get your anti-virus installed before you are infected, I suppose you're happy. I just don't want to deal with all that crap.

As for the comment earlier about installing bad apps on Linux and having a crash. I have to say that it's less likely to occur on Linux than Windows.
1. Don't install as root. A normal user account can't hurt the OS.
2. Many apps for Linux are open source. This means that several developers view/fix the code. You may say M$ does the same. Yes, but from a GUI which only shows part of the code.

Can Ma and Pa run Linux? Yes they can. It's all what you get used to.

Mark

 

[Stevehewitt]

True - linux out of the box is more reliable as it's more secure.

Put it in the hand of a lot of "windows admins" that have as much experience on linux as they do on windows and watch the server crash and burn.

Biggest cause of network/server downtime? User error / Admin error. Not the OS, not the hardware, not the apps.

Windows has a rightful place in the server just as much as Linux - otherwise why are there so many Windows servers in there?! Windows is better at certian things such as directory services and out of the box integration, where as Linux is better at web serving and database hosting and firewalling. (IMHO!)

Best networks run on a mixture. I don't believe our network would be as functional or as integrated without Windows. However I don't think our point of sales system would be as reliable or dependable without Linux.

Regarding Ma and Pa running Linux? Yes they can. Probably be very happy with it too. The problem with Linux is the UI. When Ma and Pa change the resolution and it conks out to a CLI is when Ma and Pa start to panic. (True example BTW. Windows can crash within the hour - so can Linux!)

Cheers,




Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[Kozusnik]

Luckily the X crash seems fixed in the current versions. Mandriva 10.0+ has a little button on KDE to switch the resolution without logging off or requiring root access.

My dad just bought a new dell. Came with XP. He doesn't know how to burn a cd. It's been so long for me using Win, and he doesn't know his burning app, I can't help him on the phone. If he had K3B, it would be easier for me to help him.

He lives 2 minutes away, and it would take a max of 10 seconds to see what he uses, but that's my point. It's all what you're used to.

While I agree with Steve on Linux being better with web and databases, I wonder why he thinks Windows handles directory services better. Is it because you have mostly (or all) Windows clients? If that's the case, I somewhat agree. Although Samba seems easier to me. As far as integration, I think it depends on what you're integrating with. If your server room consists of mostly AS/400, VMS, AIX, HP-UP, Linux, etc...I think Linux integrates far better than Windows due to the design of each. Whereas, if you're server room is filled with Win xxxx, then of course Win will integrate better.

I have written apps for Win and Linux and found it easier to program on Linux when talking to every other machine. I've had to program too many workarounds when using VB. Maybe I'm not a very good VB programmer (I believe that to be true), but I'll take a PERL script over VB any day. Again, just my preference.

Later,
Mark

 

[pmonett]

the server room is no place for Windows

Absolutely right ! There is no excuse for a company to place critical data on a server that can break down simply because somebody clicked on the wrong attachment.
Does a bank admit a faulty component in its vault security simply because it "makes the user experience better" ? No it doesn't. I fail to see what justifies the continued presence of Windows in the server room. Well no, I understand perfectly what puts Windows in server rooms : manager incompetence. There is no measurable percentage of managers that know Linux, they've all been weaned on Windows from school, so they think its normal.
That is the only reason MS actually has a server market today. If a server was chosen for reliability and security, Windows would never have even got to the door : it'd be UNIX, DB2 or Solaris everywhere.

99% of all virus and zero-day stuff concerns Windows. If you know that a specific car brand stands a 99% of being stolen the day you leave it parked outside, are you going to buy it ? Don't think so. Yet manager the world over trust Windows to house their business-critical data, even though there are other, much more secure choices that do not cost more.
It's crazy.

Pascal.


I've got nothing to hide, and I'd very much like to keep that away from prying eyes.

 

[Stevehewitt]

We all know that Windows has a place in the server room. I wouldn't put mission critical data on a Linux server and then go surfing the web. I very much hope you wouldn't start reading your email and downloading attachments on any servers - regardless of OS. That sort of behaviour in my organisation would result in disapliniary action.

If a server was chosen for reliability and security, Windows would never have even got to the door : it'd be UNIX, DB2 or Solaris everywhere.

Quite right and completely true.
However, as with many *nix advocates you fail to realise what Windows is good at. Any network that runs just HP-UX is going to be one of the most unmanaged in existance and the users will hate every single second of using their machine.

Whilst you'd love to go on about how it's not reliable enough you know that argument doesn't hold water. Want a stable OS? I'd recommend Red Hat, Windows 2003 or a Mac Server. All three do a great job when configured and setup properly.

Windows can't do reliability and security? Sure, companies like Xerox, Barclay's and Hilton must have got it wrong.

Maybe in a techy only world wearing blinkers *nix is the only choice. In reality, things like cost, integration, support, applications, and end user experience are all things that companies have to take into account.
Do you think my mail users would be happy moving from a system such as Exchange 2003 to using sendmail or Groupwise? Prehaps I would replace our SharePoint environment with... I have no idea. Or maybe we could replace Office 2003 with OpenOffice. Sure it would work, but when you look at the integreation between product such as Windows, Exchange, Office, Messenger and SharePoint how can you say that there is no case for Windows being in the server room? Novell eDirectory or Microsoft Active Directory? Which do you think is easier to maintain. (And I have used both extensively)

The reliability and security argument just doesn't work anymore. Wake up and get your head out of the Windows ME era and look around.

Why does Windows go down a lot? Because it's p*ss easy to learn the basics and people then think they know how to be a network admin after installing a NetGear SOHO firewall with the GUI Wizard and conecting 4 PC's to it. Windows is easy to get the basic's of, Linux isn't. (Which is why desktop adoption isn't going to happen for a good few years)

If you need 100%, fail safe security and reliability then you won't find it. Banks use a mix, however the core data is often still stored and processed on a number of huge unix boxes - most of the other servers ranging from Directory Services through to MI and DNS are on Windows.

If your company is dedicated to high security and has no room on the network to listen to end users needs to make the business more productive then I have to assume you're working for the military - as even banks have a large number of Windows servers.

Security is a myth. With the wrong staff, wrong procedures and policies, wrong hardware and wrong applications ANY server can go down.
The first one in the list is the reason Windows has such a reputation.


Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[Kozusnik]

Actually I found just the opposite from the HP-UX comment. I have migrated people from Client Access "Green screen" to web based UI, from telnet VMS to WEB GUI, and AIX ssh to GUI. They are less productive and less happy with having to use the mouse. Sure there are some things a GUI helps with, but for data entry/data look-up, you can't beat a character cell UI.

As far as the comment about setting up a Linux box, then connecting to the internet...I don't believe that's what Pascal was describing. With a Win environment, a client can download a virus which then passes to the server farm through the hidden rpc bugs, et al. However, if you install Win, then av, then anti-xxxx ^10, plus all patches, you may be safe for a month or so. It seems that security in M$ has to be updated constantly whereas, in Linux, there are less updates.

I know everyone still has to patch, but I can't remember the last Linux security patch I applied where a reboot was necessary. Judging from all the XP security patches, that's a lot of reboots. I have *nix boxes that have been up for years, on the internet.

Mark

 

[imstillatwork]

that client access green screen to windows GUI is a no fly too though, that's the apps UI's issues that don't allow keyboard only use. not an OS issue.

Kevin

http://www.lot-o-nothin.com/cfml/

Phase 1: Read the CFML Reference
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!

 

[Stevehewitt]

Exactly. Different OS's excel at different things.

We use RH for our POS system and it does a fine job of allowing our client PC's of connecting using a thin client.

But that's not our network. We need control of the desktops, print servers, directory services, content management, backup servers, file servers, DNS and DHCP providers, mail servers.

Combination of OS's, properly managed can provide a superb end user experience and a reliable secure network that helps enable the business. That is was managers and corporations want - regardless of your personal preference, that also include a large percent of Windows machines too.



Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[mmorancbt]

I know some people who are constantly re-installing their systems and bemoaning Windows instability. I can't figure out what they are doing?

I've been running XP Pro for years, I process video, run SQL Server, Visual Studio, Project Server, Sharepoint and numerous other business apps and never have a problem.

This goes way back to the Windows '95 days.

Windows ME - I personally never ran it but did see all kinds of problems for people who did.

Matthew Moran (career blog and podcast below)
Career Advice with Attitude for the IT Pro

http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/pm/career

http://techcareerconsult.blogspot.com

 

[Stevehewitt]

...the server room is no place for Windows.

Sorry Kozusnik - the London Stock Exchange appears to think otherwise. Using Windows 2000 and 2003 for the last 6 years with 0% downtime.




Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[Kozusnik]

I'm sure that the London Stock Exchange has some serious redundancy. I would be willing to say that they too have to reboot their Win machines on occasion. 0% downtime for the whole farm...yes. On a per server basis, probably not.

Coming from healthcare, I cringe when I hear "Management bought x application which runs on Windows". 'Cause I'm stuck supporting the damn thing. [Waiting for the 'it's not windows, it's a bad app']. Maybe so, but most apps use Winwoes APIs for several functions. I just think that they're inferior to those of a more robust OS like OS/400, AIX, HP-UX, and Yes Linux. I feel that 95% of errors should have a rational explanation. I get that from OS/400...the main Win error seems to be Out of Memory.

Windows makes it easy for bad programmers to create marketable applications. I don't see a lot of bad rpg/cl code, but I have run across my share of bad Win apps.
(Don't get me wrong, some work fine. Maybe it's because I'm surrounded by Win apps and I always notice the problems.)

BTW...I have written several VB programs, then converted to perl on Linux. PERL won for me.

Later,
Mark

 

[Stevehewitt]

That I agree on. We're a software house (mainly .net web apps) that works on MS products. (So a web site or systems integration etc).
Because of the integration work I do, I work with multiple OS's (although primiarly WinNT) - so I see a whole range of systems daily.

In terms of relability I see little difference - as long as they are setup correctly.

However on a near daily basis one of our developers has a moan in the smokers area because he's having to re-do another companies/in-house fudge attempt - because it's so easy to do it on Windows. Because of it's ease of use it attracts a lot of bad dev and bad admins.

This doesn't mean Windows doesn't belong in the server room. It means a lot of the poor admins and dev's don't.



Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[Kozusnik]

I agree, but until it's made too complicated for the average id10t, this will continue.

If you don't read slashdot, here's another example of poor programming...Microsoft is going to court in Iowa due to the problems with the unremovable IE.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/12/02/0252239.shtml

Mark

 

[Kozusnik]

Just had another thought...

The LARGE majority of our calls are for Unlocking accounts and password resets. OS independent. I prefer a Linux client over anything, then in our case, Citrix (Win2k), finally at the bottom of the heap is Windows fat clients. When users have the ability to affect the OS, they will eventually screw it up.

With Linux (out of the box), the user functions are more limited. Which is probably why 'home' user adoption is a long way off. 2000 and XP are much better than the 95,98,ME days, but they still have a long way to go.

I still see Windows as a toy. I can play games, listen to music, watch videos, etc. I just don't see it functioning as well in the capacity of a "server". I've had to set up 2k as a server several times. It still feels flaky to me. The install isn't bad until the GUI starts. Plus I like to turn GUI off and I can't do that in Windows.

I would prefer to use Samba, CUPS, Apache, MySQL, Sendmail, etc. over the Windows equivalent. While file-sharing seems to work fine, print servers need rebooted constantly.

Windows in itself seems expensive to me. I'm cheap anyway. But then to add another 300-400 dollars to it of a decent anti-virus and firewall just to "safely" browse the web seems nuts.

Almost forgot about a backup plan. Does M$ ship with usable backup software? I really don't know. I remember the days of backing up to a floppy, but I'm sure that's changed. I also remember having trouble backing it up to cd because I kept forgetting to exclude the swap/pagefile. We use Tivoli at work, but it seems to cause problems with a few application servers. I use tar on my Linux boxes. I'm not sure how much Tivoli costs, but it's infinitely more expensive than tar.

Hope everyone's weekend is going well.
Mark

 

[Stevehewitt]

True - being easy to use it's Windows great advantage and it's major flaw.

Easy means people can use it on the desktop, and it's not hard to support.

However it also means a lot of poorly written applications and clueless 'admins'.

I won't get into TCO, that's one that depends on the particualar role rather than just 'as is.
And Windows does have a backup utility includes (sort of Veritas lite editon)
Maybe worth checking out the new firewall in Vista too. Firewall admin I know took a look - and his description was 'a checkpoint with a different UI', it's seriously impressive.

In terms of an Antivirus - Linux, Windows or Mac - i'd run a AV regardless.

Maybe you'll be pleased to know that Windows Server 2007 / "Longhorn" has an option to have no GUI for certian roles. (File, DHCP, DC and DNS I think)


Seems to me that the OS's are merging the best bits from each other. Linux is trying to become more user friendly (automatic updates, more stable GUI with more control etc) and Windows is improving Security and Enteprise functionality. (Vista takes a lot from the *nix security model)

Interesting to see where it comes to in 10 years time.



Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson