Why does XP differ so much from previous versions of the same OS?

[xproforme]

XP is the frist operating where I've actually tried to understand how the operating system interacts with other devices on the system to maintain system stability. XP seems to rely heavily upon dependencies being present at very specific locations. If the OS encounters a missing file, a requested action can not be executed, and an error message usually displays right? Why then, would Microsoft not make this consistent through all of it's OS environment? I've encountered complete system shutdowns and reboots at times and I've discovered that the problem itself was simply caused by XP being unable to handle it's own execution process to the point of displaying or reporting the error that ocured. I have been sending "error reports" to Microsoft and have found several downloadable solutions to some of the past problems that I have encountered. I think that this feature can be very useful in helping to solve some problems, yet it seems that Microsoft still has a long way to go before system instability can really be addressed. Does anyone have any thoughts about this topic? There are a lot of creative computer people on this site and I thought that some spirited debate might just lead to something big and thought provoking. Has anyone here actually tried the remote assistance feature of XP? I've thought of trying the feature with a trusted friend of mine, but have serious concerns about the whole idea.

 

[linney]

Whatever the faults with XP, you have to give Microsoft some credit. Compared with previous 9x systems, stability has improved considerably.

It is fair to assume this will continue to be the case as newer operating systems are developed and released.

Rather than sending Error Reports to that unknown person at Microsoft you may find using the Online Assistance a better option or at least a speedier alternative.

 

[Pagat]

pc magazine writer john c. dvorak in his column [

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1210067,00.asp

] ''Magic Number: 30 Billion'' reports per year are produced by windows crashing. my comment: there are absolutely no way that M$ read and solve each individual report. read and enjoy.

 

[xproforme]

You both indicate that Microsoft seems unable or unwilling to respond effectively to customer problems. Which begs the question why would any Windows user consider actually paying for technical support from Microsoft? Over the last decade I personly have attempted to use Microsofts "knowledge base" support site, but usually find only general information about my specific computer related problems. I also agree that Microsoft is only partially responsible for rhe problems of system stability. Much of the responsibility falls on after market software producers that seem to rush into distribution before their products are sufficiently tested under the OS. A fair part of this respondsibility also falls under hardware manufacturers not fully understanding the OS; perhaps due to Microsoft too closely guarding it's all important source code. Other OS makers like Apple have a small but dedicated group of users that keep Apple in business. Unix based OS makers have potential but it seems that they too have never really captured much the the home computing markets. I recently bought a 1100 mgz PC that had an OS called, "Lindows" on it, but elected to reinstall Windows 98, because, I found Lindows just not far enough along in overall development. Lindows, seems to have great potential but the OS still lacks compatibility with other OS alternatives. However, I found out the hard way the even Windows 98 was becoming obselete as it did not fully support my new desire to edit and create digital video productions. I have Windows ME on a laptop, but found that expansions possibilities were very limited indeed. Hence the purchase of a new PC with an upgrade to XP Pro. I like the overall features of XP, but find that much of my old hardware was simply not compatible with XP. It's sad when one tries to install unsigned device drivers in a feeble attempt to make old things work on something new, but I thought, "what the heck" I can always do a system restore and get the OS under control again. You know, I discovered that even restore has limitation in reference to critical updates from Microsoft. Some restore points are disabled, and I receive messages from the restore utility that states that "Restore was unable to restore my computer" due to a critical update that was installed already. I also had a heck of a time with a Lexmark Z25 inkjet printer install recently that lead me on a wild gosse chase all over the web. I found and installed a signed XP print driver from Lemark, but found that the included software was the source of the problems. Finally, I found the solution to the problem was illiminated by selecting, "Win Print" as the default print processor over the Lexmark version. Back to my original comments where I wondered why, Microsoft, had not completely made error handling consistent with it's OS, and additionally on it's dependencies for certain conditions to be met or if not force itself to "restart the system." I shutter to think that this could potential cause significant problems to users of the OS. Thanks for the feedback, Leroy, in West Texas.

 

[mike11973]

i run xp home on my notebook xp pro on my desktop....and used 2000 pro for a cpl of yrs....xp is basicly 2000 pro w/ more resourse using bells and whistles as far as the graphics shading ect are concerned (which can be turned off to trim some of the fat off of it)....for windows its really a pretty reliable os....2000 is nt 5.0 xp is nt 5.1 and longhorn will be nt 5.2