×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Is there a stable version of Windows?
2

Is there a stable version of Windows?

Is there a stable version of Windows?

(OP)
At work, I run Windows NT and to this point, I have had no problems.  My computer at home though runs Windows ME, I have had nothing but trouble. To this point, it has corrupted several programs that now need to be reinstalled and dies if I try to extrude a solid in Solidworks.  Lately it has been freaking out with Word docs.

I am about ready to go out and buy Windows XP, but I thought I would ask around to see if there was a better option.  This is a relatively new computer with a P3 933mHz and 128MB Ram.  I will probably upgrade RAM as well, but 128 should be more than enough to run Word or extrude a solid without dying.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Lose ME!!! I would move to XP or 2000 Pro. Increasing your RAM would be beneficial for SolidWorks.

DimensionalSolutions@Core.com
While I welcome e-mail messages, please post all thread activity in these forums for the benefit of all members.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I don't know about ME but XP is a memory pig. With 128 MB it would barely run Explorer or Word, constant file corruptions, crashes, and blue screens of death. Once I added more memory, nary a problem. For the price I'd suggest adding at least 500 MB to be good and safe with Solidworks.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I have Win/ME on the computer that I am writing this post on.  Windows ME is trash.  I have asked many computer experts here in Orlando about which operating system that they would recommend (Windows platform).  The concensus is Win 98 second edition.  The NT platform does not allow for some video conferencing features as the home edition.  Win/XP "Pro" is to be much more stable than the home XP version. I was also told that if the world takes a serious look at Linux that their OS has the potential to be the best for engineering work.  Unfortunately the developers are not working in our direction for this to happen.  Although it could since IBM has started to look at Linux in a serious light.

By the way I do have a copy of Win98SE ready to install on this laptop.  I have just been too lazy.  My desktop has Win98SE running on it.  Have not had any problems with it.

Just my opinion

Live Aloha

Frank M.
Tradewind Resources
http://twrusa.tripod.com

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I prefer Windows Nt, I also work on ME but I had to do some adjustments.

There are some bugs in Windows ME, but the culprit of the problems are these programs that are running in the back-ground.

Run msconfig from the command line and see the trash that is slowing your computer down. Especially when it is a brand computer like compaq. Every time you log on to the internet, you get tips and hints about updates and other weird stuff?

Does your computer runs out of resources with only a few open programs? Then it is time to clean up your start-up options.


The amount of icons on the right side of the taskbar is proportional to amount of problems.

Windows XP, my opinion with every update or bugfix you have to update your hardware (in other words by another computer)

My Pentium II 400 mhz with NT beats the heck out of my Pentium III 1000mHz running ME

Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Hello, I just bought a new computer just for using solidworks and CADRA. 1.6ghz P4, 512 RAM. (Nexlink)
I got XPpro OS because the salesman told me that XP might not do design work very well.

My old one with 400mhz, 192 RAM freezes with SW every time.

So far this goes like the wind..

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I did solid modelling with Acad 14 on a Pentium I with 32 MB ram, running NT. And you need 128MB to run word on XP? The problem with XP is that a lot of drivers are not available and when you install some programs it says that it can not run it, (you need to buy an update). Never the less I got Viso 5 running although the computer (xp) said it was impossible.

Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I have Windows ME at home and have absolutely no problems. However, for overall stability Windows 2000 is the only way to go. It is extremely stable and very fast. I have been running all of my business systems on it for over a year now and have never had a crash.

Dont bother with Windows XP, I was running it on a 1.5 P4, 512 RAM and a Geforce 3; it was slower than ME and almost every program I ran crashed. The activation issue really doesnt sit well with me either.

Regards
AJ

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

As an added tidbit about my earlier post!

Keep your eyes open for the release of "Lindows"

The operating system is built on the Linux kernel and is capable of running Windows programs.  Reports from beta users is that the OS is not a RAM Hog and system reliability very high.  I am looking forward to its release later this year, then maybe I wont have to reboot twice a day.

Live Aloha

Frank M.
Tradewind Resources
http://twrusa.tripod.com

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I also tried Windows ME when I was tried of 4 to 5 crashes a day in Windows 95.  Nothing worked correcly in ME and crashes were worse.  I now have XP Home version and it is great,  I still occasionally crash a program, but it does not bring down the system as it did in Windows 95.  Yes it is a memory hog, but memory is cheap to buy.
Jack Hardie

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I suggest you get Windows 2000 Pro, it's really NT 5.0, with a different name, I use it at home and have not had any problems. XP is a resource hog!!!!!

I would also go for at least 256 megs of ram.

Win2k, supports plug and play, USB and is very stable.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Well Linux rules ;-) Unfortunately, it's being neglecte by all except the BIG ones (like ANSYS). Thanks for the tip about Lindows. Gues it will be great when it comes

Abhijeet Oundhakar
Design Engineer
STUP Consultants Ltd.
Bombay, India

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

more garbage for you to digest.

I have Win2k and it runs great!
I won't bother with XP for some time.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I've been running Windows XP since Beta 2 on a 733mhz machine with 128mBytes of memory.  I've only had 2 BlueScreens and both were while the system was still in Beta.  I used to run Win2k, and find XP more stable, more compatible with devices (finding drivers for Win2k always seemed to be a pain).

As for Linux, I used to think that Unix was "the bee's knees" - but that was 20 years ago.  Linux is an OS that
fundamentally is based on 30 year old technology.  Unless
you have need to actually look at the source code (which
if I were building a BattleBot I'd need to), I just don't see what the big deal about it is.  It seems to keep trying to play catchup with Windows and device compatibility.  I've got better things to do with my time.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

i think win2k is the most economic way to go. It can be had much cheaper then XP and is just as stable.

As far as Linux is concerned: it certainly is stable and good - but at this moment still only for those who like a Unix-like environment (and have time to accept a rather steap learning curve).

For those people that actually use a computer to get some work done, Windows is still the best bet - althoug Linux with KDE or Gnome are catching up.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I use both Solidworks 2001 Plus and Autocad 2002.  I have one computer running Windows 2000 Pro and one running Windows XP, both run without a hitch.  There is a caveat however, Windows 2000 Pro can be picky about older hardware and simply does not support some hardware and software.  Windows XP is an excellent OS (probably the best OS current available), but (there is always a but...) you need an up-to-date computer to satisfy the demands of the Windows XP OS espically memory and graphics card.  My preference is Windows XP so I built my new computer with this OS in mind.
Finally, Windows ME may be the worst OS Microsoft has offered since Windows 1.0......... Windows 98 SE is far superior in the non-NT Kernal Windows OS's.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I use windows 2000 at work and XP pro at home and both work well.  I use 256mb RAM with my XP at home and have not had a problem yet.  ME is a complete waste of time as far as operating systems go though.  I would not waste my time even considering it.  If you use less than 256 megs of RAM with XP you will encounter problems, and generally 512 megs is recommended to give yourself a bit of a margin of safety.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

XP is worth it for ONE reason...RESTORE

it's a good thing.  on all other versions of windoze, if your program munches the os, you can be totally hosed. xp allows you to rollback the os to a previous state.

TTFN

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Hi,

I don't know how XP or the ME works....But general opinion says that it is full nothing but bugs, I believe going for Win2K is much more better, I am a software engineer developing softwares for the Plant designs and we 2 moved from NT to Win2K...and we are on it from past 1.5 to 2 years and no problems with that...

These are my Specifications I hope it helps you.

O.S : Windows 2000 Professional with ServicePack 2
Hardware Configuration : Pentium 3 with 1GHz along with 512 MB RAM and 20GB hard disk.

With Regards

Satish

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Note that you can upgrade your RAM memory very cheaply nowadays ( I just bought a 512 MB PC2700 chip for less than $100 US.  Of course, be careful... not all op sys can handle too much memory.  For Win98SE, 512 is the most you want in your system.  I'm not sure about ME.  Win2000 & XP can handle more.

On your "specific" question,  all reports I've heard point to Win2000 as the most stable and reliable.  However...  drivers, etc. might be tougher to use than others Windows versions.

Dan  
www.dtware.com

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

For starts, there's NO stable version of windoze, but Win 98 SE is the least of the evils for small systems. For anything bigger, you have to go to Win NT or Win 2000.

Also, it's funny how anyone can think that Linux has any catching up to do with Win. The system is great, fast and stable. The only thing is to get AFFORDABLE professional software on this great platform. The ball is in the developers' court, and they're not even looking at it.

Abhijeet Oundhakar
Design Engineer
Rashid Al Owais Engg. & Consulting
Sharjah, UAE

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Is there really a stable platform of Windows? It all depends. I have Win 98 SE but differently from what others say about it I had plenty of problems with it. Frequent crashes with the usual message "this program has performed an illegal operation and will close". My program is an original Windows copy but for some strange reason it starts giving problems just after I visit the Microsoft web site or after I register the program or after I install an Explorer or MSN upgrade and  after some time it starts to get progressively corrupted. I have 512MB memory on my Pentium III 500 Mhz computer but it frequently freezes after some web navigating due to memory running out. I have  antivirus programs and firewalls installed. I suspect that in some way Microsoft has something to do with all the Windows operational problems by means of a web based protection scheme that sometimes fails to recognize original copies (or that forces you to upgrade to the newer versions) and from there comes all the freeze-ups that beleaguer Windows (At least that might be my case). What I have done is to avoid the Microsoft Web Site like the plague and avoid to install any new software that Microsoft sometimes suggests (MSM Messenger and clock sofwtare).  At least in this way I avoid the total loss of my data and the computer keeps responsive for a longer period of time. Eventually it will die with a blue screem but at least lasts longer. After the blue screen of death only formatting the hard disk to low level will cure the problem and the process will start again. I have done this several times since I bought and registered Windows 98 SE.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Yor problem may be that you have too much memory. I was warned against running 98SE with more than 256 Mbytes.

This machine runs NT4 on 128M and is rock solid, at work I use a mixture of W2000 on 1 Gig which is great, and HPUX which I loathe mildly. Of the three I'd say the NT4 machine is the most stable, but it also runs the least challemging software. I suspect the HP workstation has hardware issues, leastways I can make it reboot by thumping the desk! It's had a couple of visits to the hospital already.



Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

An interesting question.  I have several comments:

  1. Win2k is the most stable - but drivers are an issue, particularly with respect to setting up less common hardware configurations like dual monitors on laptops, etc.

  2. XP - Pro or Home - is more stable than any version of Win9x.  They are both built on Win2k.

  3. Win ME has the worst of both worlds: the underlying code is Win98SE, and the front end/graphics/drivers are from XP.  It was a doomed product from the get-go.

  4. Windows - any flavor - has problems when a lot of programs have been installed and "properly" removed (I hate the term 'uninstalled.')  If you test a lot of software, you will eventually have to wipe the hard drive clean and start over.  You will have the least number of problems with a given PC by installing as few programs as possible on it.

  5. XP can be crashed - but it's a hell of a lot more stable than Win98SE.
If you plan on using your copy of Win98SE (or any Win9x, for that matter), then do yourself a big favor: set up a partition at the end of the hard drive to be used exclusively by the Windows swap file.  (We now do this routinely on all our machines - even those running 2000 Pro and XP Pro.)  When Win9x crashes, the OS can still try to write the swap file's contents to the hard drive, or write to the FAT, sub-directories, etc.  This causes cross-linked files, scrambled sub-directories, etc.  And the Win9x files can be corrupted, too.  Re-installing the OS 'over' the existing install doesn't necessarily fix the problem, either.  You have to install into a new folder, and reinstall all your programs.

All of our machines have at least two partitions.  And they rarely crash; it's a 50-50 mix between Win2k and XP Pro.

Oh, and on the "whining" about the cost of extra memory, faster hardware, etc.:  I'll be happy to sell you my Compaq "luggable" - it runs MS DOS 6.22 on a 7 inch monochrome CGA monitor, a 5.25 inch 360k floppy, a 44 Mb Miniscribe HD with 28 ms average access time.  I have already installed Norton Utilities 8, WordPerfect 4.2, Lotus 1-2-3 version 2.0a, and MS FORTRAN 2 so it's ready to go.  And it still works.  Really.



Please see FAQ731-376  by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I just heard a report on the radio about the PC that Walmart is selling for $200 with Lindows (what a stupid name) installed.  The report said that most programs tested would not run, and many locked the system up.  

Lindows clearly is not ready for prime time, but what is it trying to be anyway.  I was a PC "pioneer" (my first "laptop" was a Compaq Portable II much like Focht3 except the biggest hard disk you could put in it was 10 MB) and learned the misery of DOS, Unix, and Assembler.  If you are not a programmer why would you want to go through that today?  I use my computer do do stuff, not to write stuff for others to use.  I want MathCad, AutoCad, a word processor, a spreadsheet, a presentation package, Internet, and e-mail.  If I have to write a program to improve my personal productivity I use Visual Basic and it does good enough.  Why would anyone want to have to write a mini-program just to link a Linix program to the resources it needs?

Windows XP does a really fine job at all of the things I need and I know that EVERY new version or new application will have been tested on an XP platform (it may not be currently bug free, but I know the vendor made a run at it) which may not be true on a Linix platform and most likely is not true on a Win9X platform.  Anyone running ME, 95, or 98SE is just asking for more time dealing with crashes than productive work.

Complain about Gates all you want (I do too), but at the end of the day I have to know an awfully lot less about how a program talks to Windows XP than I did under DOS or Unix and I like it that way.  The misery I used to go through just to change printers sitll gives me nightmares.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
www.muleshoe-eng.com

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Windows 98 SE has run out of memory on both 256 MB and 512 MB memory motherboards. I don't know if any of you using Win 98 SE have noticed a funny behavior ( at least on my computer) of the blue disk scan when Windows does not close normally: The progressive yellow bar backs off the scan almost at the end of it, the amount becoming progressively larger every time that the message " this program has performed an illegal operation" appears and I am forced to reset the computer. Any ideas on what might be causing this behavior? I suspect progressive file corruption.
I haven't upgraded to Windows XP for two reasons mainly: 1) I still use some DOS programs for which I have some technical applications and 2) I do not agree with a serialized program policy that matches the program to your machine and I don't agree in having to buy a new license when i decide to upgrade my computer's motherboard and/or processor. Those are unfair and bullish practices from Microsoft. When I'll decide to upgrade I'll probably do so to Linux and then maybe I'll upgrade the Windows platform to run only those Windows programs that require it within the Linux OS (just to have minimum web contact with Microsoft).

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I have a THOSHIBA 3000-514 machine (1 GHz PIII, 512 MB Ram) with a Win 2000 Pro OS and a Solid Edge CAD-Program on it. It works perfect - CAD even on complicated 3d-parts like pistol-receivers etc. RAM (256 MB or higher) is most important on 3D-CAD.

I had some trouble with Win XP (always HD-activity in the background and long starting times on program execution) using the same Computer. I prefer Win 2000 Pro because I had no trouble during the last 15 month although the system is often pushed to its limit with interior ballistic calculation on Mathcad and 3d-solid-construction on Solid Edge.

Some parameters of the OS should be modified. Setting switches like "AlwaysUnloadDll" etc. and the parameter for 2nd-Level-Cache of the processor-type. I modified about 15 of such parameters. Go through the forums (like winhelpline etc.) to get the correct configuration. You can switch off some system services, too (to improve PC-performance). I don“t know which - but there are some professionels on this board to answer the question.

Good Luck

Andreas Nehme
mail@waffentechnik.com

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

"I haven't upgraded to Windows XP for two reasons mainly: 1) I still use some DOS programs for which I have some technical applications"

Most DOS apps will run under 2k and XP (possibly some that didn't run under 2k will run under XP; it seems that part has been improved, but don't quote me on that :) ). It's worth a try, anyway. Stay with 2k, if you don't like the activation "feature" out of principle. In real, it's not that much of a hassle.

The 9x platform plain sucks in terms of stability and productivity compared to the 2k/XP Pro versions. No way back for me. I do software development, do all kinds of odd stuff to my system, yet I can have it up without any problems for months at a time: no resource problems, no crashes, no nothing. This is unheard of in the 9x world.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

XP will not run programs that use 32-bit DOS extenders, whereas all former versions will. Keep win2000 if you have it. Nothing is perfect, but it's a matter of finding the best match of imperfections to your particular situation.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I have an Smart Spreadsheet engineering applications that I would like to be able to run under DOS environment. You see, the DOS Smart spreadsheet (excluding the continous improvements for today's spreadsheets) is much better than Excel has ever been ( no calculating errors) and its logical programming feature is outstanding. So, I wouldn't like either to rewrite the spreadsheets to an Excel environment because they are large and would take considerable part of my time. So, if Windows XP is able to run  Smart it would be sufficient for my purpose. Still I don't like the activation feature that it has (you see I'll be stuck with my computer for several years since I cannot migrate the operating system to a new one unless I buy another one, nice business for Microsoft Uh?)

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

ABAQUS runs very well on Linux.  It's one of my favorites because it never seems to crash.  Linux is also nice because of the clustering.  

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

At home, I run WinXP Pro on a machine with a PIII 800mhz with ~640mb pc133 RAM.  The only problem I have had is when I tell the machine to power down, it just reboots itself instead of shutting off.  Internet Explorer crashes occasionally, but it never affects the stability of the OS.  I've run DOS, 3.1, 95, 98, 98se, 2000 and XP Pro.  XP Pro seems the most stable of any system that I've run.

I just thought about it and I've been using computers in one form or another for 20 years (starting with a Commodore 64), and I'm only 24 years old.  

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

In relation to Windows XP apparent stability I believe that this is due to the change in the copy protection and validation process compared to the one used by Microsoft in Windows 98. I wonder what would happen to the stability in Windows XP if the user , say, decides to change motherboard and processor?. Would it run at all? Anyone out there with experience on this? Sometimes this is something the unsuspecting user is not aware of but copy protection schemes are very subtle in nature and usually operate in the background without the user knowing it and acting, for some unknown reason (maybe not detecting originals correctly or maybe forcibly wanting the user to upgrade to a new version $$$) forcing crashes, "Illegal operation" messages and blue screens of death. The indications abound on your computer when the behavior of your equipment shows signs as if "someone else is making changes to your settings and the way your computer operates" i.e. disabling components (that curiously revive when you perform a clean install of the OS), changing the way your desktop wallpaper looks, etc (specially right after seeing those messages and blue screens). Wouldn't this has to do with Microsoft's refusal to open the source code for Windows due to security reasons? Curious Uh?
And that is in addition to the wars that Microsoft and different software manufacturers (i.e. Netscape that are competition to MS products) wage on your computer trying to disable each other's applications.
And please don't tell me that my problems are due to virus attacks ( I have used several up-to-date antivirus programs and none of them detects anything abnormal ever). The only virus that I would suspect is one coming out from a software protection scheme, either software based or software manufacturer's web based at time of registering your product and that normally won't be detected by any antivirus program.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?


I won't address most of that post - not enough time in the day. But I can comment on the what would happen to the stability in Windows XP if the user , say, decides to change motherboard and processor? question.

Simply put, you have to reinstall the OS (Win2K, XP - both flavors.)  "Repair" won't work.  It apparently has to do with how the motherboard drivers are loaded.

This is a well-known issue; and does not appear to be related to ...the copy protection and validation process...



Please see FAQ731-376  by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

OK.   So you have to reinstall the OS ( Win2000 or XP ) upon change of motherboard.   Just to clarify 100%...   I assume that means you have to reinstall all other software from scratch???    ie..   A "clean" install is in order?

Dan    
www.dtware.com

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Yes - but you don't have to wipe the drive.  It's a real pain...had to do it three times now.



Please see FAQ731-376  by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

OK Focht3, if not a copy protection scheme that links your software to your hardware what is it? Please clarify or give your opinion on that. That's something always baffled me but I don't see any logical answer for this behavior except copy protection. Please enlighten me.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

As I understand things, all of the Win2k-based OS's (WIN2000, XP Home, XP Pro, XP Server, etc.) have a special boot file that loads motherboard-specific info during start-up.  If hardware-specific calls return the wrong information early in the boot process, the OS craps out.

Incidedentally, this is one of the key reasons that Apple has so few motherboard designs floating around; the OS is crafted to very specific hardware.  It results in much more reliable operation - and faster boots.



Please see FAQ731-376  by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Focht3:

That would be a correct approach for a propietary architecture environment in hardware but Windows flies on an open architecture one with many, many different hardware combination possibilities and as such with many upgrade possibilities as new technologies and better perfomance components develop. So, the approach in Windows XP would limit enormously the number of component upgrades that the owner may make on his computer. So, who would benefit from this? The computer makers and/or software manufacturers of course, since you'll be forced to buy a new one or buy a new Windows license instead. The times that you can upgrade as many times as you wished are over. This being said I still think the reason behind it is copy protection, a cheap and a very clever one may I add. Has anyone given any thought to the possibility for software manufacturers to have access to the processor's serial number? I know that according to Intel the processor activation process is through the setup program but could any software manufacturer have access to this serial number through "a back door" (unknown to the user) that is very common in the programming world?

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I use Win XP Pro at work. Came with new computer and Win 2000 wasn't available any more (also companies are no longer supporting their programs on Win 2000 machines). Old computer had Win 2000. Side-by-side I would say that Win 2000 ran a little better. The XP has some very quirky things to it, and some video driver-related problems that I just can't seem to figure out. But in both cases Solid Edge (main program computers are used for) locks up regularly. The computer doesn't lock up but often it seems to become unstable and requires a reboot to get working right again. Again, more noticeable in XP than in 2000. And only takes a couple days of straight running to get that way. So I generally shutdown and reboot overnight, and sometimes in the middle of the day too.

As an aside, I thought the reason there were so few motherboard (and other hardware) options for Apple computers was because of the licencing fees Apple charges.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

NevarMaor:

For what I see your XP machines are behaving very much the same as my Win 98 machine is ( keeping the distance, of course, in software improvements and applications run). I think that if software manufacturers were somewhat more transparent on their products it would be a lot easier for the user to find the cause of these problems. Or maybe they don't want you to find out?

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Which was first - the chicken or the egg?  Since all Apple motherboards are made by Apple, and the BIOS is crafted solely by Apple to Apple's specs, I prefer to think of it as Apple simply decided to limit the number of motherboard designs they would support because - well, they could.



Please see FAQ731-376  by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Don't forget, Apple actually did license their technology to 2nd sourcers about 10 years ago, but I think the fees were so stiff that 2nd sourcers were unable to effectively compete.

TTFN

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Yup - the same mistake that Sony made with the Beta format.  Short sighted, if you ask me -



Please see FAQ731-376  by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I think most people have forgotten or have got it too easy to remember why it's a good thing to have the MS monopoly on OS's.  

When I bought my first 286 in 1980's, there were easily 8 different operating systems and an equal number of equivalent office software suites.  The odds of getting:
> OS and software to be compatible
> your file and someone else to be compatible

was close to ZERO.

Not only that, since everyone was off on a different software, you could never find anyone with the same problem, either to fix it or to lament it.

Nowadays, everyone uses Office and Windoze, which means that everyone can help everyone else, because everyone has the same set of problems.  Files and jumpdrives can be swapped wily-nily.  Think how hard it was to get Zip drives to behave on different systems.

TTFN

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

The idea of having one single source for your OS seems great if only the OS manufacturer behaves transparently and very strightforward in their support of their environment  for developers of third party software. But the thing here has been a very predatory MS on everybody that dared to create a new application that in some way would complement Windows or any of the MS products (a typical I win-you loose situation for other developers). MS has in a way made the whole home computing business a real mess for us the users filling it with poorly finished products (of which Windows is one of the best examples, otherwise Linux wouldn't be needed or even would have been created) being more interested in bringing out still more poorly finished upgrades or editions for money's sake rather than customer satisfaction. My, could any company be so blind? Let's hope Google doesn't bite the MS hook for the sake of all the users like me that find it extremely useful. As long as MS keep having deaf ears to their customer feedback on their products then we'll see Linux and other would be OS blooming in the future. And in the middle of everything? We the customers that depend on a poorly finished OS product with no right whatsoever of complaining to anyone (It's only a license to use). I guess MS qualitywise should learn from Intel.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Just heard on the news that Microsoft isn't going to support any Win 98 products come January even though 20% of the computers still run 98 OS.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Has there been REALLY any time that Microsoft has ever given appropiate support to ANY version of Windows? Lack of support for Windows 98 from MS probably will go unnoticed except for third party dwindling available software applications that will make use of it.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

And which of you is willing to invest money to support a 6yr old product?  

The anti-MS champion Sun Microsystems was never shy about that with their own workstation products.  In fact, Sun went out of its way to ensure the lack of forward and backward compatibility on many of their products.

TTFN

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Microsoft has never in the life of Windows 98 given any decent software support (and neither for other software products as well). Basically all they have done is publish patches to mend all the loopholes and bad programming embedded in their products. Of course, they are really happy publishing "new Windows versions that will fix and improve security and reduce virus attacks", just to keep the money flowing (Milking the cow so to speak). But we the customers, that pay dearly for their products, are left pretty much on our own to solve all the problems that they didn't properly address at the time of making the "new" Windows version. The least we would expect from any manufacturer is decent support of their products just to keep the customer happy and reduce the stress of having to deal with a poorly finished product, no matter how old it may be (if it were well finished they probably wouldn't need to address problems on old software except bringing it up to date, i.e. remember MSDOS). But again, MSDOS was not a true Microsoft product, was somebody else's brainchild. May be that's why.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

That's hardly a meaningful comparison.  

MSDOS consisted of a core, that was less than 200kB, along with over 100 application programs that were completely separate from the operating system.  All told, there was barely 10MB of executable code, compared to nearly 1GB for current OS's.

And lest anyone think that MSDOS was problem free, don't forget that MSDOS went through SIX major revisions, and most users wouldn't even attempt to go back to anything before MSDOS3.3

MSDOS started out with ZERO support for EMM, ZERO support for hard disks, ZERO support for multitasking, ZERO support for TSR's, ZERO support for any sort of windowed user interface, ZERO support for networking, ZERO support for any peripherals whatsoever.

Apparently, you've all forgotten how difficult it was to get different applications to play nicely with DOS, EMM, and it various TSR's.  I distinctly remember having 4 or 5 different config.sys and autoexec.bat sets for different applications.  MSDOS5.0 was the first version that allowed you to reconfigure at bootup, so all the different config.sys versions were in one file.

TTFN

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I sometimes "pine" for the days of MS-DOS.  But not often.  I still have my 1984 Compaq luggable running MS DOS 6.2, so I have something to remind me what "the good old days" were really like.  NO THANKS.  Yes, WIN98 has a lot of flaws, but they can be dealt with and kept pretty stable if you know what you were doing.  (I call no BSODs in almost a year pretty damn stable.)  And WIN98 is six years old - time to chunk the old OS and get a new one.  Anyone still running Windows 98 on a 60 MHz Pentium with 16 Mb of RAM?  I doubt it.  So what's the big deal?  Since when in the last 30 years has any OS been supported for more than about 6 years, anyway?

Yes, there are lots of security holes in Windows (all flavors.)  But the same goes for OS X, Linux, Solaris, BeOS, etc., etc., etc.  It's just that those other flavors involve damn few machines, so very few are interested in exploiting them.  I assure you that OS X - and every other Apple OS - would have been successfully exploited had Apple owned 90% of the PC marketplace.

And don't get too wistful about DOS.  I ran one of the original IBM PCs with IBM PC-DOS 1.0 (Microsoft OS with IBM label and a few tweaks.)  IT REALLY SUCKED!  That's how I got it - my boss was used to TRS-80's from Radio Shack; he was disgusted with how rudimentary the damn things were (hardware and software) - for $5,000 apiece.  He's Cajun, and tends to swear a lot when he gets mad.  He was very mad that Monday morning....

Anybody still running a TRS-80 for business?  What OS?  When was it patched last?



Please see FAQ731-376  by VPL for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

If you REALLY want to get wistful, there's good ole CPM-80, running on a 4MHz Z-80 with dual 186K floppies and only 64K RAM.  

The only saving grace was that if you had a couple of good tools, you could patch the OS, at will, by yourself.  Plus, there were plenty of people trying to do exactly the same thing, so there was plenty of support, although not from Digital Research.

TTFN

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

IRstuff,
Got one of them plus 2 TI 99-4As' tape drive memory 16K ram mem 8 + 8 running on Ti basic with the Chicklet keyboard.  Never could do much except play games.
As I've mentioned before the IBM mainframe I started on had to be hand wired for each program and data input with punched cards. The input data sheets for the keypunch operators had to have all the blanks filled with O's leading and trailing.
You certainly didn't want to ask one the fellows in the blue suits anything about the machine. They would work on the innards but service stopped at the keyboard.  
I made that mistake.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I still use a Toshiba Libretto running Windows 95.

I wouldn't say that it NEVER crashes, but it is not too bad at all- certainly no worse, and probably better, than a Mac of the same vintage (7.5, I had several and they crashed once every two hours just like Win 3.11), and since Linux didn't have a graphical desktop then it wasn't even in contention.

I find Microsoft bashing rather silly. They are a big company operating very succesfully. We, the consumers, have aided and abetted their monopolistic position.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

The point, though, is that certain things require a monopoly.  Consider the aforementioned days of DOS, when there were at least 4 windowed user interfaces, ala, DR DOS, Windows 1.0, etc.  They were all different, and incompatible with each other.  You had ZERO assurance that anyone else in the universe would be able to read a file or document created on a particular machine.  Documents and data had to be transferred as ASCII text to be sure of any compatibility whatsoever.  

Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Acrobat are all lingua franca BECAUSE there is a standard, unliked though it might be.

This is not unlike the days when every railroad company had a different track gauge until railroad monopolies were able to standardize track gauges and make it possible to ship things transcontinental without changing railroad cars.

TTFN

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Geez, TRS-80 now that brings back memories ... high school Basic programming ... my god I'm getting old :)

I remember using a Vic20 with 3k free RAM

Have somewhat stabilized Win XP (I stress SOMEWHAT) - sems the "new" webclient service had a lot to do with problems we were expeiencing (as well as the Win XP tooltip bug that they have a fix for but you have to jump through hoops to get). Disabled the webclient. Still think Win 2000 pro was more stable. Have basically disabled all the "new " enhancements in Xp and it even looks like Win 2000 now. But I can now get through most (well, more than half) days without crashing.

FYI Computer is:
Dell 3.06Ghz P4
1Gb RAM
SCSI 30Gb HD
Fire GL (don't remember specifics) 64Mb Video
ummm, trackball (hate mice)

Also helped to set the swap file as fixed rather than windows-managed. Set as 2Gb (and even with 1Gb RAM I have entered the swap zone)

Of course at home (where I'm typing now) I have to be different - FreeBSD. Only thing it won't do is run Solid Edge that I use at work.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

I do agree with you that some things require a monopoly and in the case of computer OS systems I do agree with you also. But the thing here is that whomever the monopoly might be in something like OS systems, the least that we could expect as customers from this monopoly, is a well finished and well maintained product with appropiate customer service and support, whenever is needed to solve minor problems and adjustments that may occur (not the type that Microsoft has accustomed us to expect today). Were MS Windows all the minimum things that we customers expect it to be (stability, security, top notch customer support, openness, freedom of choice for add-ons without having an MS-third party software vendor war develop on your computer, etc) there wouldn't be any need for third party alternative OS systems. And above all, no matter how big and great a company like MS might be, I, as a customer, have the right to spell it out on the things that I as customer dislike on a product that, like Windows, makes the commercial world go around, without having to be called a basher just for saying what I don't like on any product that I paid for and as such I expect decent performance from. This being said, I have some questions: Is Windows all you guys dreamed of as an OS? Does Windows gives you trouble free operation all the time? Is your Windows platform stable and safe as an OS so you can entrust all your greatest secrets to your computer without somebody else knowing about it? Can you operate your computer free of interference from third parties while on line? Can you say with a 100% certaintity that you are 90% satisfied with the way Windows (in all its versions) behaves and handles its job? Does Microsoft gives free advice to solve all the problems that Windows have due to their lack of quality control? If all your answers to these questions are yes then you're have just said a white lie ( as a matter of fact, if you answer just two with a yes you are probably telling a lie also).

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

But, you (the royal one) also expect all this for a $1.98 .  

It hasn't been possible since the mid-80's to even come close to fully testing every possible combination of user/hardware/application/attack interaction.  

Your questions are somewhat rhetorical, since I don't believe that anyone can or has come up with fool-proof, bulletproof, and tamper-proof ANYTHING.  That's independent of monopoly issues.  

Most user seem to think, that there some non-infinite approach to testing software, there isn't and again, hasn't been since the mid-80's, when software had only thousands of lines of code.  Human programmers write and humans test.  They can't foresee all the possibilities, nor can we even begin test all the possibe ways software can be run or attacked.

A good example is the DES encryption standard.  Ignoring conspiracy question, the DES was thought to be extremely safe 20 yrs ago, because hardware was not fast enough, nor was there algorithm to break the factorization problem.  We now know better, and the DES was relatively simple from a complexity perspective.  

I've worked on the development of small 16-bit microprocessors, which were absurdly simple by today's standards, but we were never able to fully simulate, much less test, the product to identify all the possible defects.  Many defects were and are data dependent.  We had problem that took us nearly 3 yrs to get to solve, partly due to other priorities and partly due to complexity.

My point is that you shouldn't trust your prized possession to anyone, if you can avoid it.  Run your taxes and then put the data on a CD and lock in a firesafe.  Don't store your passwords on your computer, don't store anything worth anything on any computer with access to the internet.

TTFN

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

beercia opined: "the least that we could expect as customers from this monopoly, is a well finished and well maintained product with appropiate customer service and support, whenever is needed to solve minor problems and adjustments that may occur "

Not at all. The /most/ you can /expect/ from a monopoly is a product that is just good enough to prevent an alternative from springing up.

To be honest I disagree with you - Windows 2000 is rock solid in my experience. In the last year and a half I have had no viruses, no downtime (other than from a flaky memory chip) and no device driver problems. You sound like an open source zealot (which is fine) and if you are then I can tell you that Linux has a LONG way to go before it is ready for the general corporate desktop.

Maybe after IBM has had a couple of years experience with it there might be good distro around, and the main faults in OO may be fixed, but you should bear in mind that IBM are not doing this because they love Linux, they are doing it for business reasons.

Anyway, this debate seems to be wandering into /. territory, rather than engineering.




Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Yep  - if this keeps up, the thread may be dropped in a dustbin.  Time to call it quits...and close this thread.



Please see FAQ731-376 for great suggestions on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: Is there a stable version of Windows?

Actually one (well almost) last comment just to stir the pot.

I seem to notice that despite the many problems raised not many people actually blamed the software manufacturers that write code that is not "fully compatible" with windows (any version). A friend of mine recently pointed out that W2000 is stable because it supports a narrower range of products (both hardware and software) as someone said earlier.

How many hardware manufacturers write decent drivers for windows? I've noticed that HP is almost criminal in that it supplies new drivers for every printer/plotter it produces, but does not offer full windows support. ie. its driver for the HP500 series plotter does not actually support bi-directional control even though the plotter operating software insists that it does. Also some HP drivers will run a variety of HP printers but HP still install new drivers to "ensure full compatibility".

How about all of the developers that install new DLLs over old and cause issues for other programs that use the same DLL. Also applies to some removal software, yep, it removes the software alright but does not correct the registry. A good recipe for software crashes.

Despite this thread having its major discussion regarding windows we need to remember that windows is now also reasonably integrated into other programs, so all problems encountered that result in a crash may not be due to windows.


regards
sc

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources