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 489243
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: They always promise this
by sorpigal on Mon 12th Sep 2011 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: They always promise this"
Member since:

No you weren't being supportive of Microsoft ... it was a cheapshot.

I really don't see how.

Windows Vista Service Pack 2 and Windows 7 are so stable ...

How easily you forget the 90s (and the 80s... oh my). Perhaps you just weren't there?

Considering Windows has been ported to ARM pretty easily considering it is probably in excess of 100 million lines of code actually suggests they are fucking excellent system engineers.

Portability is a positive sign, but doesn't prove much. Does that make it better designed? In terms of code structure, perhaps, but little else.

Windows NT has always been portable. Some parts of the kernel reflect good design, IMO, but there's a lot of craziness running around there, too.

Slag Microsoft off all you want ... you won't change the fact that many people use Windows everyday with zero problems

Wow, nice straw-man argument! I didn't say anything of the kind, so I don't know why you'd care to bring it up.

I have never needed to drop to the command line to fix a problem with Windows.

Aha, so you've never really had to use Windows? That explains a lot. FYI, there are a lot of things which can only be done via the command line on Windows... or (sometimes) are just much easier.

The fact is that Microsoft haters like yourself pretty much have nothing else to slag Microsoft off about other than "freedomz"

I am indeed a Microsoft hater, though how you arrive at that conclusion by reading this thread I cannot imagine. I hate Microsoft because they make things that are unpleasant, broken, break under me, are inscrutable, fragile and sometimes impossible to fix. It's not fanaticism, it's tired experience. (Full disclosure: I am also a GNU fanatic, but I am rational enough not to let my preferences color my facts to any excessive degree.)

ancient business practices (which many of the competitors have done the same which are now proponents of Linux), it isn't *nix based and that The OS doesn't run that well on computers that are considered ancient now.

Which "Ancient" practices? As far as I am aware, they've never stopped doing any of the bad things they do... except for when it no longer matters. Are you just saying "Don't complain, you didn't get screwed THIS month!"?

I do have a problem with Windows not being Unix-like: The problem is that it could be, but sometimes is arbitrarily not, and in some cases that bites me. I have a problem with getting bitten for (as far as I can tell) no good reason.

As for ancient computers... who is it you *think* you're arguing with, here? Did I claim "Windows sucks because Windows 7 doesn't run on my PII350!"? I would never be able to run Fedora 15 on it, either, but I don't complain about that very much.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:

Basically your post boils down to

"I hate Microsoft ... rah rah lalalalal ... I had some random problems with Microsoft products that nobody else has ... rah rah ... something about anti-trust stuff that happened 15 years ago ... rah rah ... UNIX way is perfect (but forget about Plan9 ... All Hail GNU and RMS"

Please ... I think 90% of your problems are made up.

Edited 2011-09-12 21:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

sorpigal Member since:

Nobody gives a crap anymore except the Linux crowd. In tech terms it is the ancient past.

Are you serious? Are you saying "The current software put out by Microsoft is finally at a quality level that isn't laughably bad, so therefore you can't say that Microsoft makes bad software." Is that really your argument?

Enough of this Straw-man crap ... you brought up Windows apparently being crap when it isn't with no reasons what-so-ever.

Are you trolling? The user 'kovacm' said that Microsoft never knew how to build quality. You replied and held up Visual Studio and Windows Mail as counter-examples. I replied and allowed that their *applications* group has gotten pretty good, but that their engineering wasn't good. This isn't me "bringing up WIndows being crap" - I'm just clarifying what kovacm was saying: VS and Windows Mail do not disprove it.

Like what exactly ... the code is well structured and it works but ... it is still crap?

Portability *might* indicate well structured code, but well structured isn't the be-all and end-all of quality.

I brought this up because it disproves you main point that Microsoft products (Windows) are crap ... most people have no problems with them .. therefore they are "good enough" ... which kinda disproves you whole point.

I said, specifically, that only some of their software was crap. "Most people use it" is not a very strong argument: Most people eat at McDonalds, it's "good enough," but the food there is really not very good. I don't see my point being disproven at all; Microsoft isn't good at systems software, and no matter how popular it is that doesn't change.

Actually it shows that you don't know how to use Windows ...

Don't be offensive. Because I know something you don't, I don't know how to use Windows?

Ever notice if you fire up notepad in cmd.exe it doesn't return output to the terminal via Console.Write ... that is because it is an instance of WinMain() not Main().

What has this got to do with *ANYTHING*? Seriously, you've baffled me here. "Notepad.exe isn't a command line tool!!!" - well, no kidding.

Everything you can do at the command line in Windows for what matters can be achieved via the GUI ... unless they are equivalents of unix commands (tracert for example).

In fact, there are tools for traceroute and ping. I am not talking about such trivial nonsense. Let me pull an example that's fresh to mind (since I just did this): Set up an IIS7 virtual host with a single SSL cert so that you have two SSL sites running on port 443. Do it without invoking a command line tool.

Firstly I could say the same about most of the open source tools and APIs. It is swings and roundabout ... some Microsoft stuff is crap ... while .NET is bloody fantastic.

You can say many bad things about open source tools and APIs, but in the end they are never impossible. You can always know. Furthermore, I am not here promoting Free Software. I am here describing Microsoft. I don't care how many times you say "But look over here! It's bad too!" it doesn't detract one iota from my legitimate criticism.

Which .net is fantastic? The class libraries leave a lot to be desired, but the platform is okay. Clearly you think that this makes up for decades of worse things, but I don't forgive so easily.

"I am a GNU fanatic", pretty much does make you colour your preferences ...

It shows my point of view, but it doesn't automatically make what I say untrue. I do not let my bias alter any facts.

the whole point of GNU is to destroy making money from Software

Bullshit. You're either a troll or a fool: GNU is about MY freedom, not your profit. If you believe that a *side effect* of a GNU software world would be little money made by software then perhaps you have a point we can discuss, but to propose that this is the *purpose* is disingenuous and offensive. I have tried to stay away from hyperbolic, ridiculous claims about Microsoft and I think you could show a similar courtesy.

Anyway most of the GNU toolkit is poorly documented.

Irrelevant, as I have said, since I am not defending GNU.

I have never had a Microsoft break anything that wasn't third party. I run a pretty clean system though.

Microsoft is well known for caring about the platform over all else, so this is no surprise. It's a lesson others would do well to learn.

.NET has been consistent now for 6 years, Win32 since as long as it matter. I have games and apps from the Win 95 era that work fine with Win7 if I so choose to fire them up and you complain that Microsoft stuff is broken.

I think we're using a very different definition of "broken." Hint: It's not about being to load up old executables.

I have never had Microsoft screw me once ...

Lovely to be young, I suppose?

I have had open source developers arbitrarily breaking shit for the sake of it ... swings and roundabouts ... again.

Irrelevant, as I have said, since I am not defending arbitrary "open source" developers. "Microsoft writes good software, provably, because other people write bad software." Even if I agreed with the premise that constantly breaking the platform is evidence of bad engineering (which I will not admit on the face of it) the argument is a logical fallacy and, thus, unsupportable.

Like Unix is the epitome of Operating System design ... please.

Do you even read what I write? I'm beginning to think no... I'm complaining about places where Microsoft chose incompatibility when all else was equal (a thing they do rather often, really). There are a huge number of problems with Unix as OS design, which is why I am more of a Linux fan than a FreeBSD fan (for one) and quite fond of Haiku. Can you stop attacking straw men and focus on Microsoft?

I honestly think that many GPL fanatics make up many of these problems ... because I had more problems with GNU stuff than anything provided by Microsoft.

Aha, the crux of the matter. "Works for me, you must be a liar." I'm glad your spoon-fed software world as provided by Microsoft(tm) (so long as you do things their way) is so wonderful and glorious and idyllic that you cannot imagine why anyone would ever have a problem with it! Despite the fact that you said that some Microsoft software is crap a few paragraphs earlier.... can you pass me some of that kool-aid? I'd like to get it analyzed so I can become rich selling the essential ingredients.

I despised Windows long before I ever heard of Linux or GNU. There's a lot to dislike. If you don't, GREAT!!! I don't wish to associate with you, or speak to you. Go and live your the life that your upstream vendor permits you to live. Work inside the limits that were arbitrarily chosen by people concerned with what's fast and profitable and not what's correct. Don't let my assessment of the competence of the people who define your horizons affect you to even the smallest degree! It can't possibly matter to you, just as the desperate way you cling to your little world doesn't matter to me.

Have you yet realized that I am not trying to convince you, or debate you? I speak so that those who can hear will understand. If you don't see what I mean the message isn't for you. It is, in all probability, only for me. Sooner or later all conversations become metaphysical in nature and any further reply of mine would necessarily speak only of the vagaries of perception, the difficulty in proving that anything exists, and the questionable value of claiming to know things. That is the only useful thing left for you and I to talk about. We clearly stopped talking about the topic long ago.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:

the whole point of GNU is to destroy making money from Software

Although you have edited this out now ... is that what you really believe? Amazing! Why would anyone do that? Spite? It makes absolutely no sense.

In actual fact, GNU is organised as a consumer's co-operative business.

A cooperative (also co-operative or co-op) is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit. A cooperative is defined by the International Cooperative Alliance's Statement on the Cooperative Identity as "an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise". A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or by the people who work there.


A consumers' cooperative is a business owned by its customers.

The actual objective of a co-operative is to create quality goods for minimum cost.

There are essentailly two ways for enterprises to increase profits ... one is to increase prices and the other is to reduce costs.

For the vast majority of the world's businesses, who are consumers not producers of software, GNU software (being a consumer's co-operative) is an EXCELLENT business opportunity to increase profits. Software is purely a cost to most businesses.

GNU is a great way for businesses to make more money from their use of software.

Edited 2011-09-12 23:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2