Neowin.net

Just like cell phones have ring tones I think the OS should have crash tones! Then instead of being upset when your computer crashes you will be calmed by your favorite song being played on the computer's cheesy internal speaker.

yeah, can you just imagine if they decided to use the crazy frog when your computer crashed............

No it is not in beta, but they use that terminology to refer to pre-release testers - Longhorn is still pre-alpha (the alpha was expected at WinHEC, but was delayed).

The beta starts in june or early july the post needs to be edited

Agreed. 2000 was extremely stable and XP is even better. I have seen a small number of BSOD on the 100+ computers I support, but they have all been hardware related.

maybe because you have to turn the reboot on error off so it shows he BSOD...

if you get restarts, then you're really BSODing, and I bet you see that a lot more, especially if you are a tech

No, in fact my systems all log unexpected shutdowns or restarts so we can track computers with problems. The average computer never crashes; when a computer has a hardware problem we start seeing them crash any ware from a few times a week to several times a day.

EDIT: What do you mean by turning off the option to reboot on error? I know of no such option. I know you can configure a service to either restart its self or the entire computer if it stops, but that is not something that would cause a blue screen anyway and is turned off by default.

Last edited by 74534 on 11 May 2005 - 19:26

This is what he's talking about. The "automatically restart" option skips over the BSOD.

QUOTE

maybe because you have to turn the reboot on error off so it shows he BSOD... if you get restarts, then you're really BSODing, and I bet you see that a lot more, especially if you are a tech

Listen dude, don't patronise me my computer is not blue screening or rebooting spontaneously, not saying that it never happens just that its very very rare, hardly a plague.

QUOTE

This is what he's talking about. The "automatically restart" option skips over the BSOD

Okay, I forgot about that option. It will actually still show the blue screen, but will reboot when it is done with its memory dump. At any rate; that option is turned OFF by default, so I’m not sure what his point was. Perhaps some OEMs ship their computers with that option turned on.

Actually it's ON by default

it is on by default
it restarts instantly by default, not BSODing at all
Deviate_X, I was responding to sphbecker, not you. I know it's POSSIBLE to go that long before it happens, but it's VERY rare for a system to last more than 1.5 years without windows problems, so it IS a plague

I found a number of web pages that say you are right (it is on by default); I find this odd because all of my computers have the options unchecked and I did not change the option (perhaps Dell turns it off by default?)

As far as how long Windows computers last; again I support a large number of computers and have not seen this problem except for those users to install loads of malware. I think there is a problem, but it is not with the OS, it is with filesharing programs. Every computer I have seen that is really screwed up had some filesharing software installed along with all the bundled malware.

Say what you like, but am around a lot of XP computers and I find it to be very stable.

I was ad occasionally still work as a computer tech building and fixing computers. I can safely say that 90% of the problems that occur to my customers are windows related. Windows has horrid issues with IRQs (though I must admit they have done a lot to patch windows to do this less frequently, but it still happens), explorer crashes, dll's erasing themselves (yes, I always check for hard drive corruption when this happens, it rarely is), and crashes. Very very few people who come in have hardware problems.

sphbecker on 11 May 2005 - 12:04 wrote:

QUOTE

EDIT: What do you mean by turning off the option to reboot on error? I know of no such option. I know you can configure a service to either restart its self or the entire computer if it stops, but that is not something that would cause a blue screen anyway and is turned off by default.

LOL Looks like someone exposed you as a NOOB.

You expect us to take you seriously regarding Longhorn when you don't know this? Doesn't everyone with some experience with Windows 2000+ know this?

I am certainly no noob. I have been administrating Windows computers for 12+ years. I actually have seen that option before, it just slipped my mind. I recognized the screen as soon as I saw the screen shot. One cannot be expected to remember ever single option in Windows, especially ones like this which almost never needs to be configured.

I was wrong, but if you notice I did pose it in the form of a question. I didn’t start by telling him he was wrong. At any rate, that does not change the fact that Windows is rock solid when it comes to reliability.

aristotle, that's just a trollish flamebait. I was surprised that he didn't know that, but does anyone know everything about something they're an expert on?

Thanks for the screenshot!

Nice misspelling of "execution".

^ rofl i was just about to say. that's some nice engrish.

Damn it! Virtual PC?! I thought you couldn't run that beta on Virtual PC!

Viruses do exist for Linux. They aren't as common, though.

sick 'bout people like this.
Anyone see anythong about Linux in this article?

You're judging the security of and OS a full 18months before it's even released, you have no idea how silly that is.
Don't get me wrong, I'm far from a MS fan boy, but if you're going to use Linux, don't be stupid and say it's because of security

That's great. How is this in any way relevant? Why do we care? I'm so sick of OSS users trying to convert everyone else.

Well most OSS users got nothing exciting in their lives anyway ... most fanboys try to convert because they got nothing better to do.

They want more friends in the end

QUOTE

You're judging the security of and OS a full 18months before it's even released, you have no idea how silly that is.

I think he's actually judging the security of an OS by how it has been historically for the last 10+ years. I don't think that's particularly silly.

And hey, markjensen, you are the master of understatement . Yep, they exist, all.. like, what.. 3 of them hehe . I like it when people say "Why is it that people say there are no viruses on Linux, but there are linux virus scanners?" cause then I can say "Those are for scanning attachments for windows viruses on your linux email server, which keeps those viruses off your windows machines." .

You say that after testing out SUSE 9.3 your not interested in Longhorn any more, perhaps you might change you mind after testing Longhorn (when it has something approaching final code).

The fact that Linux is less vulnerable, has nothing to do with it being more "powerful" or that it has "Multimedia support also!" but I guess that might just be bad use of the English language on your part. But I do believe that Linux could have a bright future.

Anyway, I can't wait for longhorn. I think it looks great and has loads of potential.
I love XP so any improvement on that, can only be a good thing, right?

QUOTE

I think he's actually judging the security of an OS by how it has been historically for the last 10+ years. I don't think that's particularly silly.

Concider how many Kernel updates there has been to linux in the past 10 years, then throw in the amount of distributions there are.

Now look at how many major revisions of the NT core we've had in the last 10 years (I'll admit that 9x was pathetic) and look at how much better it's gotton.
Don't get me wrong, by today's standards I'd say Linux beats XP on a lot of levels, but look back to Windows 2000, when we moved to XP, it DID get a lot better. Then when SP2 came out, albeit with a few teething errors, security did improve a hell of a lot.
All I'm saying is that lately Windows has made a few leaps in the area of security, concidering how Long LH has been in development and with MS's supposed focus on security, it's fair to say that it should be worth looking at

QUOTE

All I'm saying is that lately Windows has made a few leaps in the area of security, concidering how Long LH has been in development and with MS's supposed focus on security, it's fair to say that it should be worth looking at

I agree that MS has made advances, even if they were of the "hey, lets bundle in a firewall and antivirus/spyware software.. and actually turn it on by default" kind. The *reason* they're doing this though (and you seem to be of the mindset that might agree with me, fanboys will just pout and argue about it hehe), is precisely *because* of the competition that is starting to appear. They went stagnant in many areas for so long due to lack of competition.

I'm not really sure how you were meaning to compare the evolution of the Linux kernel to the NT kernel though, as those two things are developed in totally different ways, I don't really know how MS does their versioning scheme (though I think they're at version 5 something maybe?) while Linux is at 2.6 with more a more finely grained upgrade scheme, yet Linux is the more mature of the two, being based on much older ideals, and an eye on security since it's birth. If MS can manage to get it's security act together by actually fixing the things that are problematic in it's core architecture rather than bundling band-aids (if I need band-aids I would prefer to pick my own color thank-you-very-much), I say more power to them, and the internet will be a much happier place all round . There is plenty of room for everybody, MS, Mac, Linux and others. MS can keep it's top spot, but I would like them a bit better if they could shake their image of being the neighborhood bully, and I mean get rid of it instead of trying to cover it up. Treat customers as the valuable people they are, instead of looking at every one as if they were potential criminals (all these auth schemes and DRM crap that do absolutely nothing to hinder the real bad guys, yet just make it more of a pita for legit users).

LOL... Someone with a username 'InternetExplorer' calling someone else a fanboy.

thats what i was thinking too

That would work wonders for people with epilepsy!

I think that it works quite well...



(Sorry to any epileptics, although by now your probably not gonna end up reading this)

Aiiiieeeeee!!!! My eyes!! My EYES!!!! Make it stop!!!

LOL!

OMG. But consider also puttin the beep-speaker or something to make an audio alarm as well! That would give a heart attack to a lot of people.

Perfect!

BSOD was so Win9x.

a RED BSOD? lol...
ure funny...

-fm

Yes. And my yellow truck is green.

Shut up and enjoy ;P

MS has never said 2007, only pessimistic journalists. Based on Microsoft's history it would not shock me if the project when into over-time and was not available until 2007. They are shooting for a code completion around mid-2006, so they have a lot of buffer between that time and the estimated October release time-frame.

Dos hasn't been there in any version of Windows NT (2000, XP or Longhorn). I guess by DOS you actually mean a non-graphic character display. That is just an easy way to display messages if you don't have a GUI running.

WTF? DOS is dead.

The non-NT versions of Windows had the shell running on top of DOS (which accordingly means "disk operating system". However, with NT, MS started from scratch, and "merged" the two parts into one. When you go to write a file to your disk, the Windows kernel does it; there is no middle man.

Like becker said, you're probably confusing the CLI for DOS.

Well the Blue Screen of Death is an NT thing. So NT 3.5, 4.0, 2000, XP and 2003 server use it for reporting system failure errors. Windows 95/98/ME had a blue screen that would come up from time to time, but it was not the Blue Screen of Death, and in fact many times it was not death, it was just an error message that for whatever reason was text based instead of graphics. I recall seeing them if there was a error using a CD drive, but you could just press any key to return to windows.

I was referring to the red screen

I'm well aware what a BSOD is, thanks

But then we would never see a blue screen!

That sounds like something a TERRORIST would say, you're not a terrorist are you? Just because of that, I'm turning the terror alert up to "ULTRA: BLACK AND WHITE CHECKERED."

Not a terrorist, just calling it like it is. With the terrorism threat as it is now and little hope of a quick fix it seems unlikely the level would ever be lowed to blue. Maybe 10+ years from now after all these large and well organized terror cells have been split up.

Exactly. I'd say someone at MS was having fun and forgot to change the colors back before they sent out the latest build.

I'll take a purple screen of death and a yellow buffer overrun please!

I have had quite a few. Usually, this is due driver issues and not directly related to the kernel. I have been suprised how stable the kernel is XP, and 2000 for that matter.

Linux users don't agree with you unfortunately. They're too blinded by Linus and his worshippers to realize that the Windows XP kernel is kickass.

The few BSODs I have had were all due to eaither hardware fault or driver.

To respond about why you would want Longhorn when XP is already so stable. Well as you see most users are posting that their BSOD was caused by driver or hardware problem. Longhorn's driver model will protect the system from crashing even with bad drivers installed, and if a non-critical piece of hardware fails it will simply be disabled.

I haven't had any blue-screen-of-death in the last 6 years so far (windows 2000 came in 99, right?). But I've seen BSOD on windows xp in another computer... it was because of a hardware failure too, so I wouldn't blame the O.S. for that

I think that windows 2000 is the most stable release of windows so far :p windows xp is based on it, I dont really think they have done any big improvements on it, apart from more hardware compatibility (back in those times where the most used OS was a non-NT based system, it was hard to find drivers and even applications ).

However Linux kernel is quite stable. On my computer both are equally stable. ==> VERY stable I'm happy with 'em.

QUOTE

Linux users don't agree with you unfortunately. They're too blinded by Linus and his worshippers to realize that the Windows XP kernel is kickass.

Sorry dude, are you seriously just trolling looking for a fight? With a nick like InternetExplorer I don't think you're in any position to be throwing the fanboi card. Pot - kettle - black.

Get your facts straight btw, if any windows kernel is worthy of recognition it's 2k. Don't use it unless I *have* to, which is rarely, thank goodness, but it gets the job done when the job calls for that particular tool.

Only when messing around with drivers I probably shoundn't be.

The Windows 2000 Kernel is certified for 99.999% uptime. XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 have very similar Kernels, the newer version of the one used for Windows 2000.

Newer is not always better, I messed around with XP (mainly so I'd know my way around when my friends call me over to fix it), and found it much slower than 2k, and less stable, configured as similarly as possible, on the same machine. My husband does use 2003 (he's the server admin at his corp) and likes it better than 2k, but he won't go near XP.. calls it a piece of crap.. I call it worse (well, so does he hehe). Only thing I run regularly that runs a windows kernel is my XBox, and that's a modified 2k kernel .

your computer will explode.