 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows 98 / Setup / October 2005Windows Software is Simply Bad Software
It won't do you any good to keep deleting my posts. Everyone already knows that MS products are crap. The very fact that you censor posts only shows how afraid you are of the truth. MS software has a widespread reputation on the net for crashing, being filled with security holes, being bloatware, and generally just being bad software. The fact that win98 SE won't work on fast machines is only a minuscule example for the megabytes of posts that show that Win OS's are programmed poorly and do not stand up to consumers demands. Just google any MS software and you will find a myriad of complaints about how their os's etc crash systems, do not work as intended and are a sieve for hackers. It is common knowledge, so deleting my posts won't help. Have a nice day and I'd follow up with that appointment for therapy-you are seriously in need of a reality check. From: "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> References: <dimch1$as7$1@sadr.dfn.de> <dimm25$jkc$1@sadr.dfn.de> <eQVMdUL0FHA.3256@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl> <dipn10$e8n$1@sadr.dfn.de> <OFu14$S0FHA.4032@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl> <dirojk$rkd$2@sadr.dfn.de> <Oj24d9c0FHA.3780@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> <dis63k$14b$1@sadr.dfn.de> <dis6r1$1fu$1@sadr.dfn.de> Subject: Re: GA-7zx install problems Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:54:21 -0700 Lines: 107 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Message-ID: <OSueQye0FHA.460@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl> Newsgroups: alt.windows98,microsoft.public.win98.setup,comp.os.ms-windows.misc NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.106.181.221 Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu! news.ma xwell.syr.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!msrtrans!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl! TK2MSFTNGP15 .phx.gbl Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu alt.windows98:460441 microsoft.public.win98.setup:55177 comp.os.ms-windows.misc:51982 When someone complains that a specific version of Windows eventually runs into this or that problem with hardware that is released after the OS, particularly when that someone gloms onto such a minute detail (and one that was fixed, whatever the author thinks of the solution) and cites it as an example of Windows being a POS, I have to immediately dismiss them as being utterly illogical. Doesn't change my position. The problem here isn't Windows. It *may* be hardware (cf. my own example, which involved XP, an OS that runs just fine on lots faster hardware than I have.) But in this particular case, it's user error, nothing more, nothing less. Simply put, there's millions upon millions of fast machines running Win9x systems with no problem whatsoever. The number of people running 1 to 2 GHz machines at 133/266 or faster that have this problem is miniscule in comparison. No, what we have here are simply a bunch of idiots. Idiots with incredibly poor manners and absolutely ridiculous attitudes towards the rest of the world at large. Bunch of whiners, really.  SignatureGary S. Terhune MS MVP Shell/User "anyone" <anyone@whousedMSjunk.org> wrote in message news:dis6r1$1fu$1@sadr.dfn.de... > And from another source who also recognizes the fatal faults in > windows products: (repeated post, either did not propogate or was > rogue cancelled) > > Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte > From: "Stephen T Cripps" <StCri...@technologist.com> - Find messages > by this author Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:05:35 -0000 > Local: Sat, Jan 27 2001 3:05 am > Subject: Re: Win98 install on GA-7ZX problem > Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original > | Report Abuse > > There is another problem with Windows on newer, faster systems: > basically the computer is too fast for Windows. When using a fast bus > and a fast harddrive with a large cache (typically 2Mb), when Windows > closes it sends its final data, including finalising the registry, to > the HDD. The cache rapidly fills and gradually (in comparison) starts > writing to disk. Windows, happy that the data has all been sent to > disk, sends an ATX power-off request to the motherboard, which gladly > complies and pulls the plug. The net result is that anything still > left in the HDD cache is dumped. The typical symptom is as described: > an apparently normal shut-down, followed by a registry scan/repair on > start-up. > > Microsoft has a knowledge base article (Q273017) in which they > describe the problem as affecting 900MHz+. I have had 800s fail and I > think the key is more bus speed (always 133) and disk transfer speed > and cache size (ATA100 and 2Mb+). I can see the problem getting worse > with the advent of DDR and 200/266 bus speeds. Microsoft have issued > a hot-fix, whilst denying all responsibility. The fix replaces the > ifsmgr.vxd (IDE file system manager virtual device driver) with a new > one, to recognize a new registry setting. The setting provides a short > delay on shut-down, to give the HDD time to finish. I feel this is a > poor fix as there is still no actual confirmation that the HDD is > done, just an arbitrary delay 'that should be long enough'. > > If you need the hot-fix file, I need your platform type (only released > for Win Me or Win 98SE) and email address. I hope this helps. > > > "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in > > news:Oj24d9c0FHA.3780@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl: > > > >> Wow! That's two people in one pass that I'm plonking. First time in > >> several months. Congratulations! > >> > >> I've changed my opinion. In both yours and everyman's cases, the > >> obvious problem above all others is BCAK. > >> > >> ROFL!! Good luck with your BSD, etc. > > > > The truth hurts, I guess. Billy boy's products are living testimony > > that quality and market share do not go together. It is too bad the > > users have to use bad OS's because some greedy incompetent company > > cannot manage to make money and produce reliable products at the > > same time. > It won't do you any good to keep deleting my posts. Everyone already > knows that MS products are crap. The very fact that you censor posts > only shows how afraid you are of the truth. MS does not censor posts unless they are advertisements or spam or contain offensive language. If you cannot see prior posts, there is a reason for it like having a newsreader setting set that keeps it from being displayed, sufficient time has passed for the post to have dropped off, posts being purged by news services other than microsoft.com, etc. This is the only post you have made using winluser@msucks.org > The fact that win98 SE won't work on fast machines is only a minuscule > example for the megabytes of posts that show that Win OS's are > programmed poorly and do not stand up to consumers demands. Work on W98 started in 1995 when the fastest CPU was a P1 133 MHz and the largest hard drive was 2.1 GB. Anyone smart enough to design an operating system for hardware that has not yet been invented has a job waiting for them at Redmond. SignatureRegards Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98 Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour Knowledge Base Info: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo >The fact that win98 SE won't work on fast machines... where the hell did you got that info (I have not seen yet that won´t run on any x86 CPU!) ... SignatureRegards , SPAJKY ® mail addr. @ my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!" SPAJKY & Ron, You're addressing a troll who previously posted under "everyman" or "herman" or "anyone" and is whining because his POS Giga-Byte motherboard falls flat on its face when running at full speed and installing Windows. It's blaming Windows instead of the AIFOTM. I plonked those aliases, which I believe is what it's referring to when it mentions "deleting posts". SignatureGary S. Terhune MS MVP Shell/User > >The fact that win98 SE won't work on fast machines... > > where the hell did you got that info (I have not seen yet that won´t > run on any x86 CPU!) ... The basic problem is that Unix is the result of seeking academic perfection. Microsoft is about making money. As any former developer who also had to work with Windows will tell you, Windows means work around, and noticing the marketing department made choices in what bugs they spent the money on fixing. I can break anything MS writes for that reason, and learned to read through the source code for the actual coding of even the standard libraries included with the SDK. Given the objective is financial, I would point out that MS has met its objectives, and until someone or something creates enough competition to make those bug lists a major issue, the issue of how much to spend will always be there. As an opener on that topic, I read that Tiger has actual security and is based on a labor of academic perfection in which it is not also an open sieve to anybody who walks up to or directs a process to the computer. I go back to Windows 2.1 when I had an entire LIMS system crash due to an upgrade of DOS 3.3 to DOS 4, and MS did not have customer service, which resulted in having to have a local technician in a computer store who just felt bad for me, walk me through hardware by phone like someone directing a delivery by phone so I could use the 5-1/4 to reload DOS 3.3 before the EPA started assessing thousands in fines the next day for not having samples processed and analysis reported. The entire system used to lock up when the last pixel was in use even with DOS 3.3 underneath. > It won't do you any good to keep deleting my posts. Everyone already > knows that MS products are crap. The very fact that you censor posts [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > > > cannot manage to make money and produce reliable products at the > > > same time. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.