Digital BW, The Print

Pics4U:

> On 21 Dec 2001, at 0:17, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > Damn I hate MS.  There wasn't one version
> > of DOS that didn't have bugs in it...and if they can't even get a simple
> > high school project like that right, how on earth would I expect them to
> > get Windows right?
>
> High School project? When was the last time you tried writing an
> OS?

About five years ago.  I didn't try, BTW, I did.  I've designed and written
at least four real-time, multi-tasking OSs for embedded systems, any of them
FAR more complicated than DOS...  I've been a computer engineer for 25
years.

> If it
> were truly that simple, you should be able to write a better one
> yourself,
> right?

Yes, DOS IS that simple, and my OSs were far more stable...but they weren't
for the PC.  There were also quite a few better OSs than MS, but MS
basically, through questionable business tactics, forced everyone else out
of the business.  So, no matter how much better anyone else's OS was, it
mattered not.

> Statements like that only show the true lack of
> understanding for the
> problem by the writer.

Well, statements like that show the true lack of understanding OSs, as well
as whom you are talking with.  It's also very presumptuous.

> BTW: If you HAD to mess with the Windows Registry to install something,
> that is the fault of the specific manufacturer and their driver
> programers.
> NOT Windows or MS. There should absolutely be NO reason for you to
> mess with the registery to effect an install.

The registry is a BAD idea in the first place, and is a problem waiting to
happen.  Windows programs entangle themselves way too much...and when you
complicate things like that (unnecessarily IMO) it can make for unnecessary
problems.

> Your complaints are like throwing the baby out with the bath water.  You
> need to put the blame for this specific instance where it belongs
> and it's
> certainly not with MS any more than it's the fault of Intel.

My complaints are legitimate.  Obviously, you haven't written any code that
interfaces to Windows (or device drivers for Windows), or you would know
that it isn't that straight forward or clear, and MS violates their own
interfacing rules, and many times the problems ARE MS problems.  There are
CONSTANT bugs in MS products.

It appears to be getting better though, NT and W2k (which have their origins
from Digital Equipment Corporation by way of Dave Cutler, the architect of
VMS) are much much better...but Win3.1/95/98/DOS were NOT stable OSs at all,
and should have been much higher quality products.  It amazes me that people
would accept crashes every 15 minutes...if your car or TV (or scanner)
behaved as badly as MS OSs did, you would not tolerate it...imagine having
to pull over to the side of the road every 15 minutes to re-start your car.

> I still cast my vote for talking about photography and leaving platform
> bashing to the computer nerd groups.

No doubt.

Austin