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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (42012)	4/14/2000 12:02:00 AM
From: david_si	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

"Which application is THAT?" It may be the OS, but more likely it's the program that was running at the time that crashed the OS. Here's my point: Have you ever seen the KERNL386 crash on Windows 2000? Nope. I'll never go back to Win9x.

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (42012)	4/14/2000 12:15:00 AM
From: mozek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Krnl386 is part of Win9x, not Win2000. Usually, when you see that error, it is caused by an application calling into the OS passing invalid data. Of course, it is possiblee that this error could very rarely be caused by the OS or device drivers, but odds are greatly against it. The biggest stability issues with Win9x are old, random device drivers and its inability to deal with errant applications. In response to a previous post recommending that Microsoft make it more clear that it is the application. In Windows 3.0, Microsoft had the UAE (Unrecoverable Application Error), which was basically the same error with a different name. They changed it because software ISVs rightly complained that at times the errors were caused by bugs in drivers or the OS. Microsoft decided to eliminate the name altogether while working to ensure that the errors were caused by the system as rarely as possible. As a result, Win95 was much more stable/robust than its predecessors and also any of the user friendly competition. Of course, since we're talking about a 5 year old release of an evolved PC OS, it's not surprising that the more fundamentally stable architecture of either Windows 2000 (Windows NT) or even versions of Unix or Linux have made it seem less stable in comparison. Mike

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (42012)	4/14/2000 7:22:00 AM
From: SunSpot	Respond to of 74651

Probably the same one that writes a memory dump on a blue screen...

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (42012)	4/14/2000 4:56:00 PM
From: Andy Thomas	Respond to of 74651

It's important to keep your data isolated from your os and apps, and when the os starts acting persnickity and no amount of registry editing, moving startup icons around, deleting and re-adding stuff in devman seems to get her back up on her feet, you need to format. That's why it's important to keep the data backed up. Yes windows does seem to deteriorate over time (depending upon the actions of the user(s)) but I don't see anything else out there with as decent a combination of usability and application support. Personally I have high hopes for the open source movement but at this time windows is the best thing going on the desktop for the average person. I only wish MSFT really cared about the software. In the area of interface development, so much of what they've done these past few years seems thoughtless. FWIW Andy