Team-BHP - View Single Post

Thad E Ginathom · 19th January 2008, 17:48

I don't really know about this from the ground up business.

That's just not Microsoft's way of doing things! Adding some new 'features' hacked and hooked into a tangle of code --- that's MS, and haven't they more or less admitted it? Didn't someone some MS bod recently say that even they have trouble understanding their own code?

98 (I think) was suppose to be all-new, because it didn't load dos and run on top of it --- but loading dos was part of the bootup process, you saw the C:\ > prompt.

NT was supposed to be a different branch of development, and then 2K was supposed to be based on that, leaving the horrible 95 and 98 rubbish (98SE wasn't horrible rubbish, just rubbish; it was an improvement) behind.

Now, having reached stability in 2K and XP, I'm hearing that Vista is new 'from the ground up'!

Frankly, if that is true, we have already seen that it takes MS years to achieve a stability and reliabilty, so I'd be even more put off it. I'll take a look around 2015!

By which time I'll have probably settled into using one of the Unix/Linux family OSs. Unix was stable nearly twenty years ago. Unix was designed to be stable and to provide easily used and compatible tools. It was designed to be understood by its users.

Oh dear, I'm ranting off topic.

It's only laziness and a couple of PC apps that keeps me with XP. No more upgrades on the MS path, though.

19th January 2008, 17:48	#201 (permalink)
Thad E Ginathom Senior - BHPian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Chennai Posts: 1,173	I don't really know about this from the ground up business. That's just not Microsoft's way of doing things! Adding some new 'features' hacked and hooked into a tangle of code --- that's MS, and haven't they more or less admitted it? Didn't someone some MS bod recently say that even they have trouble understanding their own code? 98 (I think) was suppose to be all-new, because it didn't load dos and run on top of it --- but loading dos was part of the bootup process, you saw the C:\ > prompt. NT was supposed to be a different branch of development, and then 2K was supposed to be based on that, leaving the horrible 95 and 98 rubbish (98SE wasn't horrible rubbish, just rubbish; it was an improvement) behind. Now, having reached stability in 2K and XP, I'm hearing that Vista is new 'from the ground up'! Frankly, if that is true, we have already seen that it takes MS years to achieve a stability and reliabilty, so I'd be even more put off it. I'll take a look around 2015! By which time I'll have probably settled into using one of the Unix/Linux family OSs. Unix was stable nearly twenty years ago. Unix was designed to be stable and to provide easily used and compatible tools. It was designed to be understood by its users. Oh dear, I'm ranting off topic. It's only laziness and a couple of PC apps that keeps me with XP. No more upgrades on the MS path, though. Last edited by Thad E Ginathom : 19th January 2008 at 17:49. Reason: I meant '98SE' not 'SP1' --- corrected.