Re: what if microsoft disobeyed the breakup?

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Sat Jun 17 2000 - 09:08:42 MDT

phil osborn wrote:
> >From: "Ian Field" <>
> >Subject: Re: what if microsoft disobeyed the breakup?
> >Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 07:36:54 -0700
> >
> >Phil Osborn spewed:
> >
> >| Funny, most of the professional developers I have known over the years
> >| consider MS/DOS - Windows to be an unbelievable kludge.
> >
> >First of all, Windows on MS/DOS *was* a kludge, but that hasn't existed
> >since 3.1. All of MS' 32-bit operating systems are *actually* operating
> >systems, the DOS infrastructure is *minimal*. In NT and 2000 DOS is
> >non-existent.
> >
> Phil spews in reply ) ) ) )
> Sorry, I work professionally all day on a Win98 system. A good day is when
> I only have to reboot 3 to 5 times. I had a LOT more control with 3.1, in
> fact.

I use Win 98, 95, and NT systems, and have little problems with them as
operating systems. MY NT 4.0 systems run for weeks if I want them too.
The problems I have with windows is not the OS, but the applications.
Many applications do a very very poor job of memory management,
resulting in memory leakage, and the filling of your RAM and swap file
with garbage to the point that the application crashes, or it causes the
OS to crash. Applications I've had the most difficulty with are: Word
Perfect, Netscape, and Ventura. I now avoid WP like the plague, though I
have to use Ventura for my work, and it has gotten better with version 8
sp 2 than anything previous.

I have found that most crashes on Win systems are not due to the OS, but
because inexpensive hardware is used. I use intel chips and standard
intel motherboards, matrox video cards (S3 Virge is satanspawn), etc.
You do get what you pay for.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:27 MDT