"Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:drph57$2rr5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> I've had fewer problems with XP than any of the previous Windows systems.
>
> That's it exactly.  It's not that XP is a "good" OS in some abstract sense so much as that it's at least marginally better than previous versions. It still suffers from creeping bloat, etc, that's plagued all versions of Windows since 3.1.

Microsoft would make me happy if they made a version of Windows that I could reinstall without having to reinstall all my apps.

Walter Bright wrote:
> "Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:drph57$2rr5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> I've had fewer problems with XP than any of the previous Windows systems.
>> That's it exactly.  It's not that XP is a "good" OS in some abstract sense so much as that it's at least marginally better than previous versions. It still suffers from creeping bloat, etc, that's plagued all versions of Windows since 3.1.
> 
> Microsoft would make me happy if they made a version of Windows that I could reinstall without having to reinstall all my apps. 

If they did that I'd go back to a multi-partition system in a heartbeat.  As it is, I've abandoned that in favor of a single partition and frequent data backups.  I suppose it's some consolation that PCs now ship with hardware RAID support, though I couldn't resist the performance boost of a RAID 0 on my gaming rig :-p  Since the reinstalls will happen regularly anyway...


Sean

"Matthew" <matthew@stlsoft.com> wrote in message news:drp4ao$2d8o$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: digitalmars.D
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: copy/paste XP cmd
>
>
>> Ameer Armaly wrote:
>>> "Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:drm2bl$vtf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>>
>>>>Matthew wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for that. Now I can just hate XP because it crashes, and three
>>>>>months
>>>>>after each re-install it decides that some COM object somewhere is
>>>>>missing
>>>>>so it can no longer save Word or Excel documents (or let you copy their
>>>>>contents).
>>>>
>>>>Weird.  XP has turned out to be at least as stable as 2000 for me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Same here; I've gotten it to hold up since June of 04 with no problems whatsoever.  But then again, I've been known for beeing a complete Nazi as to what goes in and out of my computer.
>>>
>>
>> XP is perfectly stable .. the only time it crashes on me is due to hardware faults.
>
> Well, I have it on two machines. It lasted one year on the laptop before going totally squiffy and requiring a reinstall. On the desktop it's been installed for 3 years, but every few months one less things works - I just can't face the reinstallation headache, so I use the Win2K boot.
>
> While I'm happy for you and Sean that you have no major issues, 3 does not make a statistical sample, and in any case 33% of users thinking your product is a stinking pile of overengineered crap might make your sales manager happy, but it sure shouldn't make the head of development proud.
>

I used Ghost to create a series of partition images immediately after installing XP and my standard suite of apps.

Every now and then I use Ghost to restore a pristine XP image (which takes about 15 minutes at the most).

I haven't experienced any stability problems with XP and I believe it is due to this.  It also means that I don't hesitate to install software temporarily, as I know I can easily revert to a known good Windows XP image.

Tony
Melbourne, Australia

"Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy@gmail.com> wrote in message news:drpbgo$2lpe$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy@gmail.com>
>> Newsgroups: digitalmars.D
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:11 PM
>> Subject: Re: copy/paste XP cmd
>>
>>
>>
>>>Ameer Armaly wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:drm2bl$vtf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Matthew wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for that. Now I can just hate XP because it crashes, and three
>>>>>>months
>>>>>>after each re-install it decides that some COM object somewhere is
>>>>>>missing
>>>>>>so it can no longer save Word or Excel documents (or let you copy
>>>>>>their
>>>>>>contents).
>>>>>
>>>>>Weird.  XP has turned out to be at least as stable as 2000 for me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Same here; I've gotten it to hold up since June of 04 with no problems whatsoever.  But then again, I've been known for beeing a complete Nazi as to what goes in and out of my computer.
>>>>
>>>
>>>XP is perfectly stable .. the only time it crashes on me is due to hardware faults.
>>
>>
>> Well, I have it on two machines. It lasted one year on the laptop before
>> going totally squiffy and requiring a reinstall. On the desktop it's been
>> installed for 3 years, but every few months one less things works - I
>> just
>> can't face the reinstallation headache, so I use the Win2K boot.
>>
>> While I'm happy for you and Sean that you have no major issues, 3 does
>> not
>> make a statistical sample, and in any case 33% of users thinking your
>> product is a stinking pile of overengineered crap might make your sales
>> manager happy, but it sure shouldn't make the head of development proud.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I think there are far more people unhappy with linux than there are people unhappy with windows.
>
> Go to any computer science lecture room/theater, and ask students who uses windows and who uses linux! I think windows will always win, at least in my university!
>
> Even better, ask how many people have linux installed, then ask those
> people, how many of you actually use it?
> One prof asked us this question once; about 13 people raised their hands
> for "I installed linux on my machine", and only _one_ person raised his
> hand for "I actually use it!".

Sorry, but at what point did I even intimate that Linux was a preferred alternative, never mind mention it? You appear to be picking an argument with someone and supplying both sides of it.

Surely a person has a right to say "Windows XP is shite" without being accused of having any opinion whatsoever on other operating system families, no?

Or has moral relativism crept into IT? Bob, forfend ...

Regan Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:30:44 -0800, Walter Bright  <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 
>> "Matthew" <matthew@stlsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:drp4ao$2d8o$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>> While I'm happy for you and Sean that you have no major issues, 3 does  not
>>> make a statistical sample, and in any case 33% of users thinking your
>>> product is a stinking pile of overengineered crap might make your sales
>>> manager happy, but it sure shouldn't make the head of development proud.
>>
>>
>> I've had fewer problems with XP than any of the previous Windows systems.
> 
> 
> +1 :)
> 
> Regan

One more here. I very, very rarely have a system crash, and my computer is on 24/7 and I use it for usual web browsing, gaming, development, samba file server, game server.
It is still bloated, and some user-level programs still crash sometimes (like file explorer and Internet explorer), but the system itself is much more stable.
In fact blue screens now freak the hell out of me, since they now probably imply a hardware problem :(
-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
"Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural."

Matthew wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: digitalmars.D
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: copy/paste XP cmd
> 
> 
> 
>>Ameer Armaly wrote:
>>
>>>"Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:drm2bl$vtf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matthew wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for that. Now I can just hate XP because it crashes, and three months
>>>>>after each re-install it decides that some COM object somewhere is missing
>>>>>so it can no longer save Word or Excel documents (or let you copy their
>>>>>contents).
>>>>
>>>>Weird.  XP has turned out to be at least as stable as 2000 for me.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Same here; I've gotten it to hold up since June of 04 with no problems whatsoever.  But then again, I've been known for beeing a complete Nazi as to what goes in and out of my computer.
>>>
>>
>>XP is perfectly stable .. the only time it crashes on me is due to hardware faults.
> 
> 
> Well, I have it on two machines. It lasted one year on the laptop before
> going totally squiffy and requiring a reinstall. On the desktop it's been
> installed for 3 years, but every few months one less things works - I just
> can't face the reinstallation headache, so I use the Win2K boot.
> 
> While I'm happy for you and Sean that you have no major issues, 3 does not
> make a statistical sample, and in any case 33% of users thinking your
> product is a stinking pile of overengineered crap might make your sales
> manager happy, but it sure shouldn't make the head of development proud.

I'm with you. I find XP to be completely unstable. XP-SP2, anyway (The original XP Pro was OK). It seems less stable than even Win95 (admittedly, the hardware now is much more sophisticated).
Particularly annoying about SP2 is the fact that Ctrl-Alt-Delete no longer kills programs instantly.

I never get blue screens, though. It just freezes.

Maybe it's only the Australian XP that's a disaster :-)

Hasan Aljudy wrote:
> 
> I think there are far more people unhappy with linux than there are people unhappy with windows.
> 
> Go to any computer science lecture room/theater, and ask students who uses windows and who uses linux! I think windows will always win, at least in my university!
> 
> Even better, ask how many people have linux installed, then ask those
> people, how many of you actually use it?
> One prof asked us this question once; about 13 people raised their hands
> for "I installed linux on my machine", and only _one_ person raised his
> hand for "I actually use it!".

Sorry, but this is the wrong way around the issue.

Those who use Linux are seldomly unhappy about it, because most of them chose it themselves. The rest won't even try because they know Windows (not necessarily to be a good system, just know), and don't like change. And most people, even if they heard of Linux, have no idea what it do, so how can they be unhappy about it?

My workplace clearly shows that even with major efforts to create stable images for large organizations, standard PC configurations, etc, Windows is not what you would call a stable system. It works fine for most, and servers seldomly crash, but seeing it every day at work, I'm now quite positive that I won't ever use it at home again for anything but games.

How stable we as ppl confident in our computer skills thinks windows is, has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. My Windows systems, from Windows 3.10 and upto Windows XP SP1, have all been stable (admittedly, I've never had Windows ME), but I believe that is because I can act relatively sensible when something unexpected happen. Most users don't act sensible.

Matthew wrote:
> "Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy@gmail.com> wrote in message news:drpbgo$2lpe$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Matthew wrote:
>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy@gmail.com>
>>>Newsgroups: digitalmars.D
>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:11 PM
>>>Subject: Re: copy/paste XP cmd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ameer Armaly wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:drm2bl$vtf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Matthew wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks for that. Now I can just hate XP because it crashes, and three months
>>>>>>>after each re-install it decides that some COM object somewhere is missing
>>>>>>>so it can no longer save Word or Excel documents (or let you copy their
>>>>>>>contents).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Weird.  XP has turned out to be at least as stable as 2000 for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Same here; I've gotten it to hold up since June of 04 with no problems whatsoever.  But then again, I've been known for beeing a complete Nazi as to what goes in and out of my computer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>XP is perfectly stable .. the only time it crashes on me is due to hardware faults.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, I have it on two machines. It lasted one year on the laptop before
>>>going totally squiffy and requiring a reinstall. On the desktop it's been
>>>installed for 3 years, but every few months one less things works - I just
>>>can't face the reinstallation headache, so I use the Win2K boot.
>>>
>>>While I'm happy for you and Sean that you have no major issues, 3 does not
>>>make a statistical sample, and in any case 33% of users thinking your
>>>product is a stinking pile of overengineered crap might make your sales
>>>manager happy, but it sure shouldn't make the head of development proud.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I think there are far more people unhappy with linux than there are people unhappy with windows.
>>
>>Go to any computer science lecture room/theater, and ask students who uses windows and who uses linux! I think windows will always win, at least in my university!
>>
>>Even better, ask how many people have linux installed, then ask those people, how many of you actually use it?
>>One prof asked us this question once; about 13 people raised their hands for "I installed linux on my machine", and only _one_ person raised his hand for "I actually use it!".
> 
> 
> Sorry, but at what point did I even intimate that Linux was a preferred alternative, never mind mention it? You appear to be picking an argument with someone and supplying both sides of it.
> 
> Surely a person has a right to say "Windows XP is shite" without being accused of having any opinion whatsoever on other operating system families, no?
> 
> Or has moral relativism crept into IT? Bob, forfend ...
> 
> 
> 
> 

I just assumed that Window$ haters will try to promote linux at the end of the day, since it's usually the case! I don't think there is anything wrong with that, nor anything to take offence for.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

Don Clugston wrote:
> 
> I'm with you. I find XP to be completely unstable. XP-SP2, anyway (The original XP Pro was OK). It seems less stable than even Win95 (admittedly, the hardware now is much more sophisticated).
> Particularly annoying about SP2 is the fact that Ctrl-Alt-Delete no longer kills programs instantly.
> 
> I never get blue screens, though. It just freezes.

This sounds like a hardware problem to me.  The freezes I've had in the past have been in games and are typically attributable to the video or audio drivers.  I've also had spontaneous resets, though not with my latest PC setup.


Sean

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> 
> My workplace clearly shows that even with major efforts to create stable
> images for large organizations, standard PC configurations, etc, Windows is
> not what you would call a stable system. It works fine for most, and
> servers seldomly crash, but seeing it every day at work, I'm now quite
> positive that I won't ever use it at home again for anything but games.

I've never much liked the way IT does Windows configurations at work--I find my home setup to be far more stable.  But then I also seem to be the only one in the company with stability issues.  Go figure.

> How stable we as ppl confident in our computer skills thinks windows is, has
> absolutely no bearing whatsoever. My Windows systems, from Windows 3.10 and
> upto Windows XP SP1, have all been stable (admittedly, I've never had
> Windows ME), but I believe that is because I can act relatively sensible
> when something unexpected happen. Most users don't act sensible.

True enough.


Sean