Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!olive.mil.adfa.oz.au!navmat.navy.gov.au!posgate.acis.com.au!warrane.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!mel.dit.csiro.au!news.bhp.com.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!swidir.switch.ch!swsbe6.switch.ch!surfnet.nl!newshost.vu.nl!cs.vu.nl!sun4nl!Utrecht.NL.net!rubens.telebyte.nl!news From: ritchi@telebyte.nl (David Ritchi) Newsgroups: misc.misc,misc.forsale.computers.discussion,comp.os.os2.marketplace,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,comp.os.mach,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.os.magic-cap,comp.os.lynx,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.bugs Subject: Re: *** PLEASE TAKE THIS OS SURVEY *** Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 08:29:35 GMT Organization: Telebyte Lines: 78 Message-ID: <4fhldb$2he@rubens.telebyte.nl> References: <Pine.D-G.3.91.960124225044.20914C-100000-100000@erc.cat.syr.edu> <4eu2n6$bvu@rubens.telebyte.nl> <4fflmt$jh3@c4.hrz.uni-giessen.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: nm-0-18.telebyte.nl X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au misc.misc:29599 misc.forsale.computers.discussion:3029 comp.os.os2.marketplace:2023 comp.os.msdos.misc:48384 comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc:103208 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc:90970 comp.os.mach:5038 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:110795 comp.os.misc:4699 comp.os.magic-cap:1478 comp.os.lynx:1694 comp.os.linux.misc:86461 comp.os.386bsd.development:3350 comp.os.386bsd.bugs:3090 chris.traxler@theo.physik.uni-giessen.de (Chris Traxler) wrote: >ritchi@telebyte.nl (David Ritchi) wrote: [snip] >>>3.) Have you ever had a crash on your computer, that was blamed, or the >>>fault of the OS/OE, if so.. which system/environment was the cause? >>I'm afraid I'm the one to blame for crashes. >NO! That kind of answer has been given frequently in this thread. >I would like to clarify one point: >* If a TASK or PROCESS crashes, it is your fault as the programmer. >* But if the whole SYSTEM crashes due to a faulty written program >started under non-supervisor (root) permission, it is ALWAYS a bug in >the operating system, as a serious OS supports full memory protection >and there should (in an idealized environment) be no way whatsoever to >make the system hang unless you are root and changing configurations. >The normal user cannot make a reasonable OS crash. That rules out >Win3.1, Win95, and Mac OS (I don't know about NT or OS/2). >Any comments are welcome, flames are not, and please send a copy of >your follow-up to me by email. >Kind regards, > Chris I sort of agree with what you're saying. W95 effectively still isn't much more as a graphical shell. And has almost zero protection. Also great parts of W95 are still not using real multitasking (try resizing an image in paint for example, it just takes all the system resources available. The only time a crashed W95 completely, it was my fault though (keeping the W95 limitations in mind - but that's what it's all about). I know it's really easy to let W95 crash, and even easier to stop it from booting (try creating a com port conflict with an I/O card com port and internal modem for example, or select the wrong video driver - that will make W95 lock up during boot! Some hardware detection! It doesn't even detect the conflict. It just locks up. W95 also has the nasty habit of playing around in the cmos. Eg. if you have an old bios/ide controller that supports only 512Mb partitions, and you have a 540Mb HDD configured as a 512Mb one, it'll set it back to 540Mb during installation. Result: here's you're disk I/O error, and no boot. (just set the settings back to 512Mb to continue). The main problems with w95 IMO are: 1. PnP sounds ok, but most of the existing system don't have a full hardware PnP support. And even if they have I'm wondering if it really works. 2. It still relies on DOS, fat partitions etc., effectively mixing two operating systems. 3. Lots of hardware pieces still rely on W3.11 drivers 4. it's just too easy for a novice user to screw up settings and prevent it from booting. (and it's often hard to find what settings should be corrected). If you read the above it may seem I despise W95. That's not the case. I see W95 as just a bit more steady W3.11, with a nicer interface. It's not because of the OS, more because of the applications I'm running W95. (along side with DOS6.2+W3.11 and Linux). The problem is that MS succeeded more or less in creating a myth that W95 will put an end to all your trouble. That is definitely not case, on the contrary... You're right about what you said about true OSes. I hope the above somewhat clarifies my answer to the question in the earlier post. Dave.