Coffeehouse Thread

20 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

BSODs and linux users

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    AIM48

    I was reading this thread on /.


    http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185082&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=15276489#15276522

    Now I am a pretty heavy WIN user.  Yet I havn't seen a BSOD in a long time (I even forgot what they look like). So whats the story?
    I have no reason to doubt all of those anectdotes (some of them sound quite convincing) so my qustion is this, Why is it that I a heavy WinXP user almost never sees a bsod (and I seem to gather that most other heavy users of windows don't get them (we had a guy at work who prided himself in that he was able to get XP to BSOD) - while others who don't use it as much get them all the time, Is it that we sub consiously know what to avoid doing so that we don't crash and burn????

  • User profile image
    BenZilla

    I think alot of that is just "zomg windows teh sux i'll bend the numbers a bit" like you said, when was the last time you got a BSOD that was not down to a hardware/driver failure?Heck, I bet I could write some crappy (I need to watch my language) driver for linux and bring down the system. That's not the fault of Linux, that's my crappy (I need to watch my language) driver. Likewise with faulty hardware.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    BenZilla wrote:
    I think alot of that is just "zomg windows teh sux i'll bend the numbers a bit" like you said, when was the last time you got a BSOD that was not down to a hardware/driver failure?Heck, I bet I could write some crappy (I need to watch my language) driver for linux and bring down the system. That's not the fault of Linux, that's my crappy (I need to watch my language) driver. Likewise with faulty hardware.


    Agreed. And I still say USB ADSL modems available in the UK at extortionate prices are the main culprit.

  • User profile image
    Xaero_​Vincent

    The NT based Windows are far more stable than the 9x ones. On Windows 98 I got a blue-screens for any problem with drivers and disc reading errors. On Windows XP I only seen a few blue-screens and they were only associated with fatal errors.

    The BSOD's the Linux zealots keeping harping about doesnt and hasnt applied for at least 6 years since Windows ME (which was the very worst Windows operating system in history).


    Regards,
    Vincent

  • User profile image
    Cryo

    Interestingly enough, I've experienced one BSOD during the last months, and that was somehow caused by a GTK-program. Big Smile

  • User profile image
    Mog0

    I agree that it's very difficult to crash XP. I'm a heavy XP user, I use my laptop probably 4 hours+/day and I use it for everything from games  (Doom3, Call of Duty 2, etc.) to programming in Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition. I even have the betas of IE7, Expression Graphical Designer, Expression Interactive Designer, WinFX and was running Visual Studio 2005 betas.

    After buying my laptop last July I did not have a single OS Crash / BSOD until February this year (when I bought a Netgear SC101 NAS). The drivers for the Netgear Storage Centre actually ended up crashing my laptop 3-4 times / week on average and I have now resorted to installing the drivers when I need it and then uninstalling them straight after. I have still never had a crash when those drivers aren't installed.

    I've also never had a virus / spyware / trojan / any other malware (as far as I'm aware) and I've been using Windows on the Internet since 1996 (with windows 95).

    Maybe I'm just really lucky or it could be that the slashdotters are doing something Windows doesn't like but I do wonder how much is made up. I get the impression some of them once used Win95 and assume nothing has changed since. Smiley

    Mog

  • User profile image
    Manip

    People that claim Windows BSODs a lot are either:

    A. Not Windows Users (and haven't been since Windows ME) or
    B. Trolls.
    Windows 95 was a good OS in 1996 but after Windows 98 came out it was left in the dirt. Windows 98 crashes far less than Windows 95 but far more than Windows NT4. Windows 98 SE is the greatest 9x based OS Microsoft ever produced due to its stability and hardware support (USB support woohoo!).

    Windows NT 4 is a very stable Operating System but it didn't really have the hardware or application support that its 9x counterparts had. Not to mention NT 4's overall user unfriendliness.

    Windows 2K was as or more stable than NT 4 but on top of that also supported all the hardware that Windows 98 SE had supported (or more). Windows 2K also had the look and feel of the 9x series operating systems.

    Windows XP didn't really improve on the 2K formula too much... It was just made even more user friendly, even more compatible and even more secure (XP Firewall). The reason why Windows XP was successful where Windows 2000 was not, is down to two factors: Timing and Marketing.

    A lot of people still believe that Windows XP is better at running games than Windows 2000, that is how good the marketing campaign was.

    Note: I didn't "forget" Windows ME, but frankly the less we speak about that Titanic the better.

  • User profile image
    Xaero_​Vincent

    Mog0 wrote:
    I agree that it's very difficult to crash XP. I'm a heavy XP user, I use my laptop probably 4 hours+/day and I use it for everything from games  (Doom3, Call of Duty 2, etc.) to programming in Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition. I even have the betas of IE7, Expression Graphical Designer, Expression Interactive Designer, WinFX and was running Visual Studio 2005 betas.

    After buying my laptop last July I did not have a single OS Crash / BSOD until February this year (when I bought a Netgear SC101 NAS). The drivers for the Netgear Storage Centre actually ended up crashing my laptop 3-4 times / week on average and I have now resorted to installing the drivers when I need it and then uninstalling them straight after. I have still never had a crash when those drivers aren't installed.

    I've also never had a virus / spyware / trojan / any other malware (as far as I'm aware) and I've been using Windows on the Internet since 1996 (with windows 95).

    Maybe I'm just really lucky or it could be that the slashdotters are doing something Windows doesn't like but I do wonder how much is made up. I get the impression some of them once used Win95 and assume nothing has changed since.

    Mog


    Well the virus/spyware/trojain threats are still very real however I suspect it will become far less significant in Windows Vista. All the new security features will probably rival Linux/Unix in that aspect.

    That means the Linux/Unix community will have to find something else to brag about or improve the overall code base and make it user friendly to Grandma.

    I dont need user friendly as I'm now using Arch Linux but Linux/BSD wont get far on the desktop until it can become as productive as a Windows client and foster simular vendor support.


    Regards,
    Vincent

  • User profile image
    Manip

    I have given it some thought and realised that UAP won't work... It will be easy to bypass to get full admin on any Vista machine.

    The new compiler used to create Vista will however make people's computers more secure, as will the new stricter default policies.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Manip wrote:
    
    Windows XP didn't really improve on the 2K formula too much... It was just made even more user friendly, even more compatible and even more secure (XP Firewall). The reason why Windows XP was successful where Windows 2000 was not, is down to two factors: Timing and Marketing.



    I'd disagree. The biggest obstacle 2000 faced over other versions of Windows was introducing Active Directory. Whilst it was (and is) by far and away a better technology than NT4 domains it brought with it a seemingly steeper learning curve and the usual fear of first version technology. By the time XP was out corporate users were rather more comfortable with what was slowly becoming a proven benefit and NT4 support was rapidly becoming a big issue.

    That, coupled with the fact that XP had a Home version, is why XP may seem to have been more successful.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Manip wrote:
    

    I have given it some thought and realised that UAP won't work... It will be easy to bypass to get full admin on any Vista machine.



    Right....well probably not worth it then eh...can't imagine why they bothered...

    *sigh*

  • User profile image
    Manip

    AndyC wrote:
     I'd disagree. The biggest obstacle 2000 faced over other versions of Windows was introducing Active Directory.


    I didn't really consider that. My above post was reflecting more on the consumer's taste in Operating Systems during the period.

    AndyC wrote:
    That, coupled with the fact that XP had a Home version, is why XP may seem to have been more successful.


    Windows XP Home was more of a price thing than a reason why people adopted the new OS. Most people would have been just as happy with XP Pro if Home had not existed -- but might have been slower to adopt if that £30 had been there.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Manip wrote:
    

    I didn't really consider that. My above post was reflecting more on the consumer's taste in Operating Systems during the period.


    Windows 2000 was never intended to be a consumer version. Well, it was, but the 2000 "Home" edition is essentially what finally shipped as XP Home.

    And yes, cost is natuarlly a part of it. This is Windows after all. Smiley

  • User profile image
    DoomBringer

    Heck, my last BSOD was because my RAM was getting a bit dodgy.  Still need to replace that...

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    I was reading through some old Penny Arcades from waaaaay back and found this gem:

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/1999/03/05

    I really, really hope we aren't still having these kinds of differences 20 years from now.  It's just an OS Smiley

  • User profile image
    Cider

    To be honest, people are probably seeing BSODs now more often than they did a few years ago, mainly because Windows has, in the past 2-3 years, gained a lot of marketshare in the kiosk, ATM, electronic billboard and such markets.

    However, that does then come back to the original main point - that's really down to bad drivers and hardware failures

  • User profile image
    DoomBringer

    ScanIAm wrote:
    I was reading through some old Penny Arcades from waaaaay back and found this gem:

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/1999/03/05

    I really, really hope we aren't still having these kinds of differences 20 years from now.  It's just an OS

    They also had one where the *nix nerds called up MSFT to demand Linux on Xbox... they were thwarted because they phoned into their mortal enemy... a girl.
    Also, they made fun of people who use the $ to replace the S in Microsoft.  I can't find that one for the life of me.  It was perfect.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20020722l.gif

    Yes, I have it in my top level favorites folder Smiley

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.