Windows XP or Vista ???
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,424
Likes: 0
From: Motor City
Originally Posted by RollingRock
I'm a techie in the SW business. I don't run crap. Glad your shelf bought store machines are working for you. They are detuned like a PSD. I build my own. Two laptops for work. One StinkPad and a tricked out Toshiba Tecra M5
Oh wait, "dude you gotta dell"
Wait till I tell the guys about your "stable" comment....that will get a good laugh in the Developers meeting this morning. There are two alpha techies here that co-authored/wrote W2K...they know a thing or two about MS OS.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to go fix my drink holder on my E-Machine.
Oh wait, "dude you gotta dell"
Wait till I tell the guys about your "stable" comment....that will get a good laugh in the Developers meeting this morning. There are two alpha techies here that co-authored/wrote W2K...they know a thing or two about MS OS.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to go fix my drink holder on my E-Machine.
As for the two other techies... gimme a break. Win2k had about 1400 developers working on it. But I'm sure those two wrote the vast majority of the 29,000,000 or so lines of code...
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,813
Likes: 0
From: Aurora Texas
Originally Posted by dzervit
I have no Dell. Stop making assumptions or mis-reading. I'm glad your a techie in the biz. I'm in the biz. If you can't make any OS run stable on a decent hardware platform it might be time to leave the biz.
As for the two other techies... gimme a break. Win2k had about 1400 developers working on it. But I'm sure those two wrote the vast majority of the 29,000,000 or so lines of code...
As for the two other techies... gimme a break. Win2k had about 1400 developers working on it. But I'm sure those two wrote the vast majority of the 29,000,000 or so lines of code...
If you honestly think that better hardware is what makes an os more stable then you sir should seek employment somewhere. The world needs ditch diggers too.
This thread is so derailed...save your retort I am not checking this thread again.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1
From: Your moms house
Originally Posted by RollingRock
Your comprehension skills are lacking.
If you honestly think that better hardware is what makes an os more stable then you sir should seek employment somewhere. The world needs ditch diggers too.
This thread is so derailed...save your retort I am not checking this thread again.
If you honestly think that better hardware is what makes an os more stable then you sir should seek employment somewhere. The world needs ditch diggers too.
This thread is so derailed...save your retort I am not checking this thread again.
I will have agree with dzervit on the hardware. If you're running chitty hardware with ANY OS, you're gonna have bugs.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,424
Likes: 0
From: Motor City
Yeah, I was looking forward to his reasons on why well engineered hardware (and well written drivers that accompany them) do not lead to greater stability of an OS.
Anywho, I'll save my fingers now and go start on my ditch...
Anywho, I'll save my fingers now and go start on my ditch...
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1
From: Your moms house
Originally Posted by dzervit
Yeah, I was looking forward to his reasons on why well engineered hardware (and well written drivers that accompany them) do not lead to greater stability of an OS.
Anywho, I'll save my fingers now and go start on my ditch...
Anywho, I'll save my fingers now and go start on my ditch...
Freak
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,813
Likes: 0
From: Aurora Texas
Well ok maybe just one more.
Honestly guys...have you been living under a rock waiting on Vista? It didn't just magically appear one day.
There are reasons why MS missed GA 5 times due to bugs. They called them "features" but they are "bugs".
With that ever changing code from the most resource hungry OS ever written, all the Hardware vendors are forced to hot patch, fix, update drivers for the CODE not the hardware. Agreed that hardware varies in quality but the net is, if you don't use the SDK provided by MS you won't get the drivers right to work with the OS.
Ok, now I am done. Got that ditch done yet?
Honestly guys...have you been living under a rock waiting on Vista? It didn't just magically appear one day.
There are reasons why MS missed GA 5 times due to bugs. They called them "features" but they are "bugs".
With that ever changing code from the most resource hungry OS ever written, all the Hardware vendors are forced to hot patch, fix, update drivers for the CODE not the hardware. Agreed that hardware varies in quality but the net is, if you don't use the SDK provided by MS you won't get the drivers right to work with the OS.
Ok, now I am done. Got that ditch done yet?
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1
From: Your moms house
Originally Posted by RollingRock
Well ok maybe just one more.
Honestly guys...have you been living under a rock waiting on Vista? It didn't just magically appear one day.
There are reasons why MS missed GA 5 times due to bugs. They called them "features" but they are "bugs".
With that ever changing code from the most resource hungry OS ever written, all the Hardware vendors are forced to hot patch, fix, update drivers for the CODE not the hardware. Agreed that hardware varies in quality but the net is, if you don't use the SDK provided by MS you won't get the drivers right to work with the OS.
Ok, now I am done. Got that ditch done yet?
Honestly guys...have you been living under a rock waiting on Vista? It didn't just magically appear one day.
There are reasons why MS missed GA 5 times due to bugs. They called them "features" but they are "bugs".
With that ever changing code from the most resource hungry OS ever written, all the Hardware vendors are forced to hot patch, fix, update drivers for the CODE not the hardware. Agreed that hardware varies in quality but the net is, if you don't use the SDK provided by MS you won't get the drivers right to work with the OS.
Ok, now I am done. Got that ditch done yet?
It takes time.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,424
Likes: 0
From: Motor City
Originally Posted by RollingRock
all the Hardware vendors are forced to hot patch, fix, update drivers for the CODE not the hardware.
Man, this ditch is getting deep.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,813
Likes: 0
From: Aurora Texas
Originally Posted by dzervit
WHAT?!!!! That's outragous!!! Vendors actually having to work when a new OS comes out!!! I know I didn't update nuttin' when I switched from NT4 to 2000. I still use the same video drivers even though I'm on XP. Heck, I even use the same drivers from OS9 on my new iMac w/ OS X.
Man, this ditch is getting deep.
Man, this ditch is getting deep.
I hope you realize you are showing your ignorance.
W2K was written in NT, they share the same KERNEL. God it hurts being right all the time.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,424
Likes: 0
From: Motor City
Originally Posted by RollingRock
I hope you realize you are showing your ignorance.
W2K was written in NT, they share the same KERNEL. God it hurts being right all the time.
W2K was written in NT, they share the same KERNEL. God it hurts being right all the time.
Give it up dude. When Win2k was released vendors did the same mad-dash scramble to release better drivers, blah blah blah. It happens every major OS revision.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,813
Likes: 0
From: Aurora Texas
Originally Posted by dzervit
OMG... W2K is actually NT?
Give it up dude. When Win2k was released vendors did the same mad-dash scramble to release better drivers, blah blah blah. It happens every major OS revision.
Give it up dude. When Win2k was released vendors did the same mad-dash scramble to release better drivers, blah blah blah. It happens every major OS revision.
"Windows NT (New Technology) is a family of operating systems produced by Microsoft, the first version of which was released in July 1993. It was originally designed to be a powerful high-level-language-based, processor-independent, multiprocessing, multiuser operating system with features comparable to Unix. It was intended to complement consumer versions of Windows that were based on MS-DOS. NT was the first fully 32-bit version of Windows, whereas its consumer-oriented counterparts, Windows 3.x and Windows 9x, were 16-bit/32-bit hybrids. Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008 (beta), and Windows Home Server are the latest versions of Windows, and are based upon the original Windows NT system, although they are not branded as Windows NT releases."
"A main design goal of NT was hardware and software portability. Versions of NT were available for a variety of processor architectures, namely Intel IA-32, MIPS, Alpha, PowerPC, SPARC, Intel i860, and Intel i960. Broad software compatibility was achieved with support for several API "personalities", including the primary Win32 API and limited support for POSIX and OS/2 APIs. For secure multiuser server solutions, NT supported per-object (file, function, and role) access control lists allowing a rich set of security permissions to be applied to systems and services. NT supported Windows network protocols, inheriting the previous OS/2 LAN Manager networking, as well as Unix's TCP/IP networking (for which Microsoft would implement a TCP/IP stack derived from the BSD Unix stack).
Windows NT 3.1 was the first version of Windows to utilize 32-bit "flat" virtual memory addressing on 32-bit processors. Its companion product, Windows 3.1, used segmented addressing and switches from 16-bit to 32-bit addressing in pages.
Windows NT 3.1 featured a core kernel providing a system API, running in supervisor mode, and a set of user-space environments with their own APIs which included the new Win32 environment, an OS/2 1.3 text-mode environment and a POSIX environment. The full pre-emptive multitasking kernel could interrupt running tasks to schedule other tasks, without relying on user programs to voluntarily give up control of the CPU, as in Windows 3.1.
Notably, in Windows NT 3.x, several I/O driver subsystems, such as video and printing, were user-mode subsystems. In Windows NT 4, the video, server and printer spooler subsystems were integrated into the kernel. Windows NT's first GUI was strongly influenced by (and programmatically compatible with) that from Windows 3.1; Windows NT 4's interface was redesigned to match that of the brand new Windows 95, moving from the Program Manager to the Start Menu/Taskbar design.
NTFS, a journaled, secure file system, was created for NT. NT also allows for other installable file systems, and with versions 3.1 and 3.51, NT could also be installed on DOS's FAT or OS/2's HPFS file systems. Later versions could be installed on a FAT partition gaining speed at the expense of security, but this option is no longer present in Windows Vista."
Windows NT 3.1 was the first version of Windows to utilize 32-bit "flat" virtual memory addressing on 32-bit processors. Its companion product, Windows 3.1, used segmented addressing and switches from 16-bit to 32-bit addressing in pages.
Windows NT 3.1 featured a core kernel providing a system API, running in supervisor mode, and a set of user-space environments with their own APIs which included the new Win32 environment, an OS/2 1.3 text-mode environment and a POSIX environment. The full pre-emptive multitasking kernel could interrupt running tasks to schedule other tasks, without relying on user programs to voluntarily give up control of the CPU, as in Windows 3.1.
Notably, in Windows NT 3.x, several I/O driver subsystems, such as video and printing, were user-mode subsystems. In Windows NT 4, the video, server and printer spooler subsystems were integrated into the kernel. Windows NT's first GUI was strongly influenced by (and programmatically compatible with) that from Windows 3.1; Windows NT 4's interface was redesigned to match that of the brand new Windows 95, moving from the Program Manager to the Start Menu/Taskbar design.
NTFS, a journaled, secure file system, was created for NT. NT also allows for other installable file systems, and with versions 3.1 and 3.51, NT could also be installed on DOS's FAT or OS/2's HPFS file systems. Later versions could be installed on a FAT partition gaining speed at the expense of security, but this option is no longer present in Windows Vista."
There you have. Me right, you wrong.
Got your resume updated yet techie?
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
From: Pikesville, MD
I'm not sure of Rolling Rock's qualifications but I know Dzervit's.
He is more than qualified to discuss this topic.
Im not sure what RR's point is but Dzervit is right that poor hardware will cause OS crashes and performance problems.
All things being equal with regards to the OS, poor hardware will cause system crashes, I can't believe this is even open to debate.
He is more than qualified to discuss this topic.
Im not sure what RR's point is but Dzervit is right that poor hardware will cause OS crashes and performance problems.
All things being equal with regards to the OS, poor hardware will cause system crashes, I can't believe this is even open to debate.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1
From: Your moms house
Originally Posted by vader716
I'm not sure of Rolling Rock's qualifications but I know Dzervit's.
He is more than qualified to discuss this topic.
Im not sure what RR's point is but Dzervit is right that poor hardware will cause OS crashes and performance problems.
All things being equal with regards to the OS, poor hardware will cause system crashes, I can't believe this is even open to debate.
He is more than qualified to discuss this topic.
Im not sure what RR's point is but Dzervit is right that poor hardware will cause OS crashes and performance problems.
All things being equal with regards to the OS, poor hardware will cause system crashes, I can't believe this is even open to debate.
Well vader, consider the source....F150online, everyone knows more than the next person.
I like to watch people debate...sure beats the daily news.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,700
Likes: 0
From: my apartment
I'm not computer engineer but its been my experience that its cheap/bad ram or the wrong BIOS ram timings that cause the majority of BSOD's... oddly enough I havn't had a BSOD in about 8 years since the windows 95/98 days
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,813
Likes: 0
From: Aurora Texas
Originally Posted by vader716
I'm not sure of Rolling Rock's qualifications but I know Dzervit's.
He is more than qualified to discuss this topic.
Im not sure what RR's point is but Dzervit is right that poor hardware will cause OS crashes and performance problems.
All things being equal with regards to the OS, poor hardware will cause system crashes, I can't believe this is even open to debate.
He is more than qualified to discuss this topic.
Im not sure what RR's point is but Dzervit is right that poor hardware will cause OS crashes and performance problems.
All things being equal with regards to the OS, poor hardware will cause system crashes, I can't believe this is even open to debate.
My qualifications? I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.