[KLUG Advocacy] re: Windows Stability

[Mike Williams]

>
>
>I would just like throw in my 0010 cents...
>>I've noticed that Windows installations that * I * do are much more
>>stable than those done by OEMs or the average user.  Also, I tend to
>>believe (maybe incorrectly) that machines that I built from scratch are
>>more stable than most.  (I've seen some rock solid ibm and dell boxes
>>but my homebuilt ones seem to beat most others.)
>  
>
That matches my experience as well.  It's partially hardware, as the 
flakier hardware you'll get in a low-end box could have flakier 
drivers.  Dell and IBM (usually) know to put good motherboards in their 
machines.  Also, an experienced installer knows to do things like 
install the latest 4in1 drivers as early in the process as possible.  I 
doubt that happens in an HP box.

>I concur, the "default" installation of XP, at least on HP & Compaq 
>workstations (what we have here) is terrible.  Mostly this is due I think 
>to the tremendous amount of crap accesories installed by default.  
>Unfortunetely it is really hard to install "just XP" on one of these boxes 
>(no actuall install media, just a restore CD).
>
>  
>
Restore CD's suck.

>>>XP is definitely more stable but it bugs the crap out of me.  Maybe I
>>>haven't used it enough, but the simple act of changing an IP address
>>    
>>
Changing an IP address is only tricky if you don't have the network icon 
in the taskbar turned on.

>Right, some seemingly basic tasks are still really way to hard - and the 
>command line interface is downright painful.  It would be nice if one 
>could make it "get out of the way" more than seems possible.
>  
>
Well, Windows was from the beginning aimed at people who were scared of 
typing and reading.  Just  point at it and grunt, like you haven't had 
your morning coffee yet.  At least the XP's typing interface now has tab 
completion, but it's still incredibly weak next to bash, a tcsh, or any 
other real shell.  It just wasn't and isn't a major priority for the 
GRAPHICAL operating system.

<soapbox>The worst part about the mandatory GUI for Windows is the 
resources it takes.  That's fine on a desktop where most people want a 
GUI, but it's almost useless on a back room server.  My "house server" 
is an ancient 350 Mhz Linux box that is brought to its knees by most 
GUI's.  But since XWindows is optional, it runs along just fine without 
it.  You can't do that with Windows.  Anybody remember hearing a few 
months ago, the security bug in one of the Windows 2003 Server betas?  
It was in DirectX!!!  Something that has no business being on a server, 
but has to be there because it's Windows.</soapbox>

>>>seems like such an order.  I like the switch user feature but I don't
>>>like the automatic "cleanup" of your desktop (it seems my mozilla icon
>>>on my in-law's computer gets deleted everytime I visit).  
>>    
>>
Well, you CAN turn that "feature" off.  You just need to find where the 
switch is hidden.