Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th Sep 2011 15:17 UTC
Windows More news on Windows 8. This time around, Gabe Aul, a director of program management in Windows, blogged about the changes Microsoft has made to Windows 8's boot process. The results are impressive - a boot time not much slower than waking from sleep on current Windows 7 and Mac OS X machines. This is, of course, a vital component of getting Windows NT ready for tablets.
Thread beginning with comment 489218
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: They always promise this
by sorpigal on Mon 12th Sep 2011 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: They always promise this"
sorpigal
Member since:
2005-11-02

Microsoft makes bad systems software. At engineering, they fail. Their applications group has gotten pretty good, on the other hand, and is less easily maligned.

Reply Parent Score: 2

vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Microsoft makes bad systems software. At engineering, they fail.

Cheap shot and unsubstantiated claim. Such a cheap shot and yet you don't give an example. I have one counter-example: Microsoft's SndVol.exe vs Linux sound system. And yes, a second one: video driver crash on Vista and video driver crash in X. I know which boat I'd rather be in.

Reply Parent Score: 2

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Are you seriously suggesting that I need to provide *evidence* that MS isn't good at writing systems software? Is your counter-argument *REALLY* going to be that they made one utility better than a similar utility that can be found elsewhere?

User-facing utilities like that are solidly on the application side of things. Perhaps you're talking about alsa vs. the Windows sound subsystem? That would be more solidly on the systems side of things. But, even so, your argument is fallacious: "Because A does B, which is a member of class C, better than E does B, this proves that A is good at doing things of class C." This doesn't hold. It proves at least that A is better at B than E is, and at most that A is better at C than E is.

If you are trying to say "Audio sucks under Linux more than under Windows" you are saying something which is supportable but irrelevant. Very few people, or companies, fail at everything all the time. It was never my intention to say that Microsoft has *never* done *anything* right when it comes to systems software, just that they're generally not good at it. One counter example doesn't disprove this.

I know what you're thinking! "COUNTER example? Where's YOUR example to begin with?!" I hold up to you the last 30 years as evidence.

Honestly, I'm surprised. I was trying to be *complimentary* to Microsoft, which is something I am loath to do. I am forgiving MS its well known failings and being supportive by saying that there are, indeed, some things they do well. Take the compliment and try not to make yourself appear ignorant by trying to argue that Microsoft hasn't repeatedly failed to produce quality software.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Microsoft's SndVol.exe vs Linux sound system.


Uh, those two aren't even remotely comparable. SndVol.exe is comparable to kmix, puvucontrol etc. The equivalent to the Linux sound system would be Windows Audio.

Reply Parent Score: 2