Anyone think the Windows OS design is just plain wrong ?

Just curious:

Does anyone else think the entire design of the Windows suite or programs is just totally wrong?

The concept of the registry - wrong
The forced file structure layout of the newer releases - wrong
The design of admin rights etc - wrong
The enforced used of outrageous formats - wrong
The attempts to make the OS part of the internet - hysterically wrong
The applications delivered - very poor quality
Enforced use of microsoft components - wrong
Total inability to use a firewall - wrong
And so on... the list seems endless

These are just of the top of my head concepts that lead to all manner
of problems that can and should simply not exist (IMO of course)

Many people complain but seldom state what they don't like and why.

I'm just curious to know if others think the same sort of things are as wrong
as I believe them to be.

jack

IMHO , upto windows2000 (and win98) everything
was right.

after that it may be due to corporate suggestions.

I agree 101%

I have been working with computers for many years (Hmm.. actually 36 years which dates me doesn't it!) so I've seen many OS come and go. Windows wins the award for least compatibility between versions and even updates of the same versions. If OS/2 had won the war against Win95 I think todays computing experience would be vastly superior to the mess it is. That isn't to say OS/2 was perfect but it did in 1995 what XP took another 6 years to match and it was so much more user friendly too.

I mix with lots of computer users and I would say they are polarizing at the moment, there are those who have switched to Linux and those who haven't yet tried it. That is not intended to be an inflamatory remark against Microsoft but an observation that people have noticed that Linux is designed by it's users to fulfill the tasks asked of it. In comparison Windows is designed by a marketing team that force flashy bright lights and jingling sounds on people, just like toys for babies, because they promote 'the experience' over the functionality.

Brian.

ok I know every system has it drawbacks, and dont call be a windows fan but for me at this time everything works just fine...

mobile-it said:

ok I know every system has it drawbacks, and dont call be a windows fan but for me at this time everything works just fine...

Click to expand...

Again right off the top of my head without even needing to think about it -

When you uninstall a program does it uninstall everything? Does it even tell you? Is the register totally clean?

How easy is it to locate any bits left over? Where will they be found?
Do you think thats right/wrong or even competent programming?

Is that really so fine?

jack

For what it's worth - my thoughts:

A program should be solely in charge of saving it's own settings and where possible they should be in human readable formats.
If a program requires specific drivers for hardware, it should install them in it's own space and not a communal pool where it can be 'contaminated' by other programs.
The OS should provide functions for allocating, isolating and releasing work space from the pool when requested by a program.
The OS should have a user friendly manager to allow errant programs to be shut down without halting other programs.
The OS should be in charge of network links, print spooling and GUI management.
The OS should NOT provide any utilities except those needed for basic setup and configuration.

The last item alone condemns Windows!

As for left over bits, on many occasions I've been handed faulty computers to repair and in almost all cases it is something wrong in Windows. I usually boot from an Ubuntu 'live' CD to repair Windows but when I show the owner a list of the last hundred or so web sites they visited, the things they browsed for and a list of the cookies they never knew they had, they are usually horrified. Although I'm meticulous about cleaning up old software, even my own Windows installations get cluttered with left over registry entries and files. I wish there was a way of back-tracking all the thousands of CLSID entries in the registry because I'm sure many of them are orphaned or are left as markers during installations. I know there are utilities to clean up the registry but none can be 100% effective.

Brian.

betwixt said:

I agree 101%

I have been working with computers for many years (Hmm.. actually 36 years which dates me doesn't it!) ...

Brian.

Click to expand...

Hmm ... beat me by 2 I think.
With you on all so far.
I guess I should just shut up a while and let others have their say.

jack

One of my friends who is an expert in these areas says that windows is so complex that it has a nearly infinite number of security holes. He suggests using unix or unix-like operating systems. He also likes the macintosh OS.

Imagine if Microsoft made cars. Would you buy a model that had a product safety recall on average once every five and a half days for the last 10 years - especially if the salesman told you "that's why it's so safe" !

Nostalgia - remembering the glow of the Braun tube. (for youngsters, that's the thing that came before the VDU was invented)

Brian.

I agree 100%
Linux is the better than win

amjadali56 said:

I agree 100%
Linux is the better than win

Click to expand...

No - linux is now totally unaceptable.

However
This is a thread about Windows failings.
If you want to say linux is "better" you need to state
specifically what is better and why windows fails please.

thank you.

jack

I use both PClinux and windows XP.
Between these two i think windows has better software collection, you may find what you need for Linux but for professional programs or games i think windows wins (yes there are exception).
I don't consider using wine to run windows programs a solution, i compare program solutions made for each OS.

The other factor (this is not a fault of Linux) is that many hardware designers don't have drivers for Linux or the drivers have not very good performance.

I can almost say for sure that unless you are prepared to get into command line you will find it very difficult to use Linux because sooner or later you will need to use it.

I had many problems installing some linux programs, like xilinx or lazarus and many others, also programs that are not included in the repository that need many different libraries to compile and you have to find them and face all kinds of problems while trying to compile, i was also faced with a pc that couldn't boot just because i changed the graphics card (linux), i tried every solution i found on the internet but it wasn't possible, i had to reinstall Linux, windows is very easy in that area.

I find very annoying the way that libraries are used in Linux , there are times when i upgrade a program and also have to upgrade the library it uses and then some other programs stop working because they need the old version of the library, you must either find a new version that works with the new library or recompile if you can , again this is not a problem for Windows.

If we talk strictly about web servers, or dedicated software solution or database or scientific multi task computers etc. Linux is better and faster and has better resource management but for a novice i have to recommencement windows.
Also Linux if free and has many free applications and the security issues get fixed much faster because of the open source nature of the OS so this may also be a factor.

I use both, and i have had problems with both, i had cases when Linux stopped booting after an update and similar things happen to windows too.
Its really depend on everybody's needs, but i prefer windows.

Alex

Agreed, the Windows environment is geared toward novice users and the built-in driver database is probably better than the Linux one. However, looking at the Windows programs I use, which are mostly for electronic development and have their own hardware, almost all have drivers written by and provided by the hardware manufacturer, in fact the MS guess at drivers usually stops the hardware working. That means drivers could equally be written for Windows or Linux and I'm seeing more development in the Linux direction at the moment.

If you look closely at the Windows system files you will almost certainly find lots of duplicates, these are there because program developers supply their own copies of the files in case the Windows ones are no longer compatible. For example on my system I have 6 different versions of the same DLL file in different folders, all installed because the 'official' MS one isn't trusted. This is a prime example of developers using the Linux 'program has control' methodology rather than the MS 'OS has control' technique, so even on the Windows platform, people defy the MS library system in favor of the Linux one.

System resources is another reason for me using Linux, some systems I use and my customers use have embedded PCs which are quite old. For example, one is a 233MHz P2 with it's full compliment of 256Mb of memory, of which 32Mb is shared with the video. Linux (Xubuntu) runs on it perfectly and at respectable speed, the last version of Windows it could boot was 'ME' back 11 years ago. I've even had a 33MHz 386 machine running Linux in text mode with only 4Mb of RAM !

It's a personal preference, and like you, I use both but in my critical applications I much prefer Linux.

Brian.

Brian
So what you are saying is that the system used for common OS code
(DLL's) does not work and requires all applications to duplicate them anyway.
Can you suggest a better method? At the end of the day of course - all the software
is running on the same hardware...

I've suffered driver problems (who hasn't) - but how else could a driver be
developed. Should drivers be OS specific or a higher level - if higher you get the
problem of who writes the low level code for custom hardware?

Alex
Are you saying the microsoft common installer method works well?
Or if the registry didnt exist as it does now how would you like to see installs work?

jack

If you follow the MS method to the letter, all system DLL files live together in the /system32 folder and only ones specific to an application should reside anywhere else. The point I was making is that because MS have released so many "almost" compatible versions of the same DLL files, developers are forced to package versions of system files in their own application folders to be sure they have a known working version.

I thinks all hardware should use a common descriptor table, like USB is supposed to do (but often doesn't). Obviously hardware drivers hook into the OS so the software entry points will not be the same under different OS. Done properly, there is no reason why all systems shouldn't interrogate the descriptor and use resources as appropriate. Making 'universal' hardware that only obeys the installation rules of one OS is just plain wrong in my view.

As for the registry, while some core OS settings are essential, including information on running processes, storing absolutely everything in one file and in a format that's incredibly difficult to fix if something goes wrong is in my mind a bad idea. Letting individual programs save their own parameters and settings and either in text or XML seems far more sensible.

Brian.

Resource utilization on my Linux box is alot more efficient than any windows machine. I can use Ubuntu 10.10 with the latest software for RDP, Image Editing, Web Browsing, etc. and still have a usable experience (on a Pentium 4 2.26 GHZ, 2 gig ram). Try THAT with a Windows machine. In my experience the bloatyness of Windows will bring that machine and many others to its knees. (I'm not sure why they continue to release new versions of Windows $$$? when that had a decent OS in Windows XP......provided all the functionality you need in a modern computer.

in windows no protection is there

MichaelD - the ONLY reason XP was "updated" was to force users into a new MS market again. It had reached saturation point with XP so they pushed people to Vista. What a disaster that was! However, look what happened, people who had already paid MS for Vista either paid again for a copy of XP or paid again for a copy of Windows 7. They got at least two sales by releasing a new sub-standard OS and persuading people they needed it. It's clever marketing but in my opinion morally wrong.

I'm using a dual boot Ubuntu 10.10 and XP SP3 machine at the moment. Boot times, up to a stable and usable desktop are 35 seconds for Ubuntu and 160 seconds for XP. Everything else is faster too and I find if I have to emulate XP with Wine, it runs quite a lot faster than the real thing. An old Toshiba laptop here with a 233MHz P2, 256K or RAM and a 4Gb hard disk runs Xubuntu like a dream but is too slow and has too little memory to even install XP.

Personally, I think MS got their design completely wrong back just before Win95 was released, at the time they collaborated with IBM in the OS/2 project. They split because IBM wanted to make a general purpose OS and MS wanted an audio visual experience to dazzle the user with tinkling noises and bright pictures. IBM got it right, MS got it wrong and since then they have chained themselves to an Elephant (no offense to elephants!) and had to keep reinventing the same problems in new colors to maintain some kind of backward compatibility.

Brian.

I am not an expert in this field but vista is the worst thing I have ever seen in my life!!! I am thinking about moving to Linux or Linux like OS. so any suggestion??

Abeer:evil:

I suggest you download Ubuntu from Ubuntu homepage | Ubuntu and burn it to a CD. You can boot off the CD and try it out before installing it. Almost everything works from CD, it's just a lot slower than when it's installed on the hard disk. If you like it, click on install and it will guide you through the process, it is MUCH easier than installing Windows and it will add a boot menu for you so you can either use Windows or Ubuntu. Note that Ubuntu and most other versions can read and write Windows files so you can easily migrate your existing work to the Linux installation. Open Office, which is similar to Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, Powerpoint...) is installed as standard so you don't have to buy it as an extra.

Also worth trying are Fedora and Red Hat Linux. All Linux distributions are built on the same core files, it is only the presentation to the user that is different from one type to another.
You have nothing to lose by trying it - 'live' CD trial does not write to the hard disk (unless you ask it to save work there) so all you have to do is restart the computer to go back exactly as before.

Brian.