[rescue] NeWS

[Sridhar Ayengar]

Steve Sandau wrote:
>>Its obviously fashionable to bitch about Windows, but I'll counter that
>>I am a happy Windows user and have been since I first purchased a P90
>>with Windows for Workgroups 3.11.  Each successive release has been an
>>improvement for me over the previous one and I am looking forward to
>>Vista as well.  IMO, you get an incredible array of functionality for
>>what you pay for Windows.
>>
>>Now before you jump all over me, let me say that I'm not telling you
>>what you have to like/buy/use.  You are free to hate Windows as much
>>as you like -- go shout it from the highest rooftop if you feel the
>>need.
> 
> Most people have to admit that there is some usefulenss in Windows. 
> However, there are some really basic things that are *so* frustrating to 
> me that it really obscures any benefit.

There are plenty of things Windows does well.  None of them are what I 
need.  Windows tends to make easy tasks trivial and difficult tasks more 
difficult.  I am a power user.  I don't want the OS getting in my way. 
The only piece of software I use at work that couldn't easily be 
replaced with a piece of UNIX software is Lotus Notes.  If they still 
made a client for AIX, I would have no problem using only AIX and NetBSD 
at work.

Granted, Cygwin takes care of a lot of Windows annoyances.  But then why 
bother?

> My first example would be Windows networking. Windows is *so* terrible 
> at networking that I don't think that Windows should be allowed on any 
> network. Starting with Windows 3.11's stupid error messages like "The 
> network is busy" and "No network provider accepted the given path" 
> through the awful organization of DNS components in Windows 2000 and XP, 
> Windows networking has always been a disaster.

Don't get me started on the quality of Windows error logging and messages.

> For hundreds of dollars, I expect better. Solaris does better, and free 
> software does better.

How much do commercial Solaris licenses for workstations cost?

> And, I haven't even touched security, the lag time in accepting new 
> concepts (like the Internet, ssh), DRM, recycling old code in new 
> products (and denying it, like "no DOS in Windows 95), finding new 
> hardware on the 200th reboot, refusing to produce standards-based 
> programs, and so on.

Again, Cygwin takes care of much of this.

> Yes, each Windows version (with the possible exception of PlaySkool 
> Windows, i.e. Windows XP) has been an improvement over previous 
> versions. So?

I have to admit that Windows XP is a definite improvement over Windows 
2000 in a couple of areas.  Wireless networking comes straight to mind.

Peace...  Sridhar