Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rudedog who wrote (27669)	2/12/2000 2:46:00 PM
From: QwikSand	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

...it is WAY better than any previous MSFT OS in performance, stability, and features, and will surely enhance MSFT's ability to sell higher in the enterprise. Dog, I'm certainly not doubting the quality of your user experience with this fine new product, and I'm sure most of the bugs on the list are nits. Solaris probably has many thousands of open bugs too. As David Gelernter says, "Bug-free software is beyond us." But I have to bring up one point: the combinatorially infinite number of hardware configurations that people are going to expect W2K to work with. Drivers can crash the OS, can interfere with each other, can hang applications, and so forth. If I'm not mistaken W2K introduces an entirely new driver interface. What it does for backward compatibility with existing drivers I don't know. I do know that it wasn't until service pack FIVE that NT 4 stopped BSOD'ing several times a week on my machine, with the dump info usually pointing to a driver (driver code faulted or driver was on the stack calling into the kernel, which faulted). NT now, at least for me, doesn't crash any more although it is loaded with annoying minor bugs. I looked on the Matrox web site where they list a Beta W2k driver as the only one available for my G400. I can't wait for the fun I'm going to have with my 2 Adaptec SCSI host adapters in a 2-processor BX machine fighting over the bus with my 1394 card, a combination that finally settled down completely after NT service pack SIX and umpteen new drivers. With a jillion lines of new code, new devices coming out in a rush (USB, wider SCSI, 1394, AGP 4x, Rambus, PCI sound cards, etc. etc. etc.), a new driver interface and dependencies on every IHV in the world to have done the right thing (since M$ will get blamed for their bugs too), new chipsets on new motherboards, and all of it being combined in brand new ways every day by ignorant error-prone pilots who expect every combination they can throw together of 15-year-old 8-bit ISA garbage with brand new errata-filled chipsets to just work, I can't help believing there are going to be a lot of pissed-off people. Linux and Solaris don't have the same problems because a) they don't have the attention of the IHV's and ISV's and therefore doen't have the combinatorics problem; b) they don't have the massive code changes with new interfaces, and c) in the case of Linux, bugs tend to get fixed overnight whereas with Microsoft you wait for months. Windows NT and 98 are mature, and they still don't really work. People in corporations who get a pre-loaded W2K Dell box and then never do anything but plug in a network cable may be OK. Many others will feel pain for a year or two. Microsoft will make a ton of money on it anyway. Just my opinion, --QS

To: rudedog who wrote (27669)	2/12/2000 4:05:00 PM
From: paul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

rudedog - were just having a little fun since were going to be history next week anyway..

To: rudedog who wrote (27669)	2/13/2000 8:49:00 AM
From: Lynn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 64865

Good morning, rudedog: Going with your serious comment followed by break-down of bug categories, one thing that bothers me about MSFT releasing a product with so many bugs is the expense OEMs will incur as a direct result of these bugs. Without knowing what the bugs are, there is no way (for me, at least) of knowing the financial or "reputation" impact of Windows 2000 on OEMs. It is because of my own experiences with MSFT and Compaq technical support last year that I ask my question. I wonder if Windows 2000 is going to cause similar problems for OEMs as a homeowner would face if someone dumped hazardous waste in their back yard in the middle of the night: they are not responsible for the problem occurring but they both get stuck with the expense of cleaning it up. Last year when I bought my notebook, an Armada 7400, I had a problem with Windows and also one question. Instead of calling Compaq, I telephoned MSFT and was unable to get anyone to provide me with any assistance because the OS had come loaded on the machine. They informed me that any assistance with the Windows problem would have to be addressed by CPQ. MSFT would take no responsibility at all for helping me with the problem, a 100% MSFT Windows problem. Compaq ultimately helped me, but even CPQ initially told me to call MSFT. It was only after I relayed the entire, frustrating story of my calls to MSFT that they did. The assistance CPQ provided cost _them_ money. All these MSFT "bugs" that result in CPQ customers calling, some recognizing that the problem is a Windows problem and others, possibly angry, calling for technical (or warranty) service because they think it is a problem with their CPQ machine, must be taken into account by CPQ when determining staffing requirements for technical support. Although I only mention CPQ above, I assume the same holds true for OEMs such as DELL, GTW, and IBM. Even though I found CPQ very, VERY helpful, I do not know if this is because the technical support people I deal with are in the "enterprise" division (big business, non-consumer) such that people who have Windows bug related problems on their consumer CPQ PC would have a different experience with tech support. The way I feel about Windows, I think MSFT should _pay_ OEMs to use the OS in their machines. Lynn