Why Windows sucks

There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is just
one of them:

Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program. It
has the following prototype:
int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR
lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow);

hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. If there was an existing
instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about
it because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same address
space. Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to ensure that
the two instances didn't conflict. Most programmers simply limited the
application to one instance.

Microsoft fixed this with Windows 95 - at which time it was over
twenty-five years behind Unix in this regard(*)! Windows NT was also
over twenty-five years behind Unix by being multiuser for the first time
and finally allowing multiple permissions for the file system. Of
course, the filesystem still became severely fragmented after a short
amount of normal use - something that still happens with Windows XP,
over thirty years behind Unix filesystems.

* Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86
architecture was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only
truly available with 32-bit x86. The i368 was first released in 1985,
so it's certainly fair to say that Windows 95 was ten years behind the
techonology. At least it didn't take MS that long to release 64-bit
versions of Windows. It's a shame that they're buggy, slow, have poor
driver support and come at an exorbitant price.

So what?

A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows
counterparts.

On Apr 11, 6:19*pm, White Spirit <wspi...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
> There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. *This is just
> one of them:
>
> Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program. *It
> has the following prototype:
> * * * * int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR
> lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow);
>
> hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. *If there was an existing
> instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about
> it because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same address
> space. *Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to ensure that
> the two instances didn't conflict. *Most programmers simply limited the
> application to one instance.
>
> Microsoft fixed this with Windows 95 - at which time it was over
> twenty-five years behind Unix in this regard(*)! *Windows NT was also
> over twenty-five years behind Unix by being multiuser for the first time
> and finally allowing multiple permissions for the file system. *Of
> course, the filesystem still became severely fragmented after a short
> amount of normal use - something that still happens with Windows XP,
> over thirty years behind Unix filesystems.
>
> * Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86
> architecture was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only
> truly available with 32-bit x86. *The i368 was first released in 1985,
> so it's certainly fair to say that Windows 95 was ten years behind the
> techonology. *At least it didn't take MS that long to release 64-bit
> versions of Windows. *It's a shame that they're buggy, slow, have poor
> driver support and come at an exorbitant price.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:38:31 -0700, AqD wrote:

> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows
> counterparts.

Anyone got a 1908 version of Windows to enable us to make the comparison?

--
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

AqD wrote:

> So what?

> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows
> counterparts.

It depends on the app. But the application is not part of the OS, so
it's a moot point. With a better OS, the same app will run better.
Admittedly, there aren't many Linux games available without running
Cedega, but those that run natively have always run better under Linux
in my experience.

Robin T Cox wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:38:31 -0700, AqD wrote:

>> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows
>> counterparts.

> Anyone got a 1908 version of Windows to enable us to make the comparison?

On the Microsoft scale, I think we're talking Windows for Workgroups.

We all know that vista sucks.
You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.
Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.
I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.
But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

Not to worry, vista will be history soon and forgotten.

"White Spirit" <> wrote in message
news:ftndvv$7bm$...
> There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is just
> one of them:
>
> Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program. It
> has the following prototype:
> int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR
> lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow);
>
> hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. If there was an existing
> instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about it
> because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same address
> space. Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to ensure that
> the two instances didn't conflict. Most programmers simply limited the
> application to one instance.
>
> Microsoft fixed this with Windows 95 - at which time it was over
> twenty-five years behind Unix in this regard(*)! Windows NT was also over
> twenty-five years behind Unix by being multiuser for the first time and
> finally allowing multiple permissions for the file system. Of course, the
> filesystem still became severely fragmented after a short amount of normal
> use - something that still happens with Windows XP, over thirty years
> behind Unix filesystems.
>
> * Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86 architecture
> was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only truly
> available with 32-bit x86. The i368 was first released in 1985, so it's
> certainly fair to say that Windows 95 was ten years behind the
> techonology. At least it didn't take MS that long to release 64-bit
> versions of Windows. It's a shame that they're buggy, slow, have poor
> driver support and come at an exorbitant price.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:19:41 +0100, White Spirit
<> wrote:

>There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is just
>one of them:

Fine. Then don't use Windows.
Now stop your ****ing whining.

> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

Don't agree. My Vista installation is working perfectly. I mean really -
no problems at all. And the user interface is SO much better than the
tasteless and patronising XP interface, with it's Fisher Price colour
scheme, moronic "My" in front of everything, stupid fanfares and giggling
children in the standard sound scheme, and so on.

Vista is XP for grown-ups. Maybe you aren't grown up yet?

SteveT

Steve Thackery wrote:
>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.
>
> Don't agree. My Vista installation is working perfectly. I mean really
> - no problems at all. And the user interface is SO much better than the
> tasteless and patronising XP interface, with it's Fisher Price colour
> scheme, moronic "My" in front of everything,

Yep, it ain't your computer anymore and that's why Microsoft removed the
"my".

> stupid fanfares and
> giggling children in the standard sound scheme, and so on.
>
> Vista is XP for grown-ups.

97% of all businesses disagree with you.

> Maybe you aren't grown up yet?
>
> SteveT

Maybe you foolishly spent your money on an OS that is dying before it
even reaches puberty.

Alias

funny.. I have more than 2000 themes for XP that use the built in themeing
engine of XP, using the neowin theme uxtheme patch.

The themes make XP look like any OS you can imagine and its still fast.
If you have bad taste you can even make it look like Vista.
But of course then you will run in to all the bad problems vista has:
Bad selection of colors, bad fonts, black taskbars etc.

But I guess that people like you are satisfied with ONE theme (and one
classic theme) that vista provides, that is
badly made, and hundreds of people have complained in this very newsgroup
about various elements of the vista theme,
for example the infamous "light blue selection color"

XP is for professionals, vista is for kids that like seeing transparent crap
(that can be done on XP with windblinds if you want to
get dizzy seeing undreneath windows.. LOL)

Vista is stupid? OH YES IT IS!



"Steve Thackery" <> wrote in message
news:...
>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.
>
> Don't agree. My Vista installation is working perfectly. I mean really -
> no problems at all. And the user interface is SO much better than the
> tasteless and patronising XP interface, with it's Fisher Price colour
> scheme, moronic "My" in front of everything, stupid fanfares and giggling
> children in the standard sound scheme, and so on.
>
> Vista is XP for grown-ups. Maybe you aren't grown up yet?
>
> SteveT