Linux-Advocacy Digest #66, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Feb 01 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Interesting article (Damien)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses
Date: 8 Feb 2001 23:01:13 -0600
I love the lies - this is really hilarious.
There are SOOOO many items in this post that make it perfectly obvious that
the writer is either lying or so completely idiotic that I refuse to believe
he could spell linux let alone run it.
This "Pfaffenberger" is a total fucking moron.
I laugh at him and would in his face.
Linux: it's fanatics lies outweigh any hope of acceptance.
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Windows 2000 Professional's Minuses Outweigh Plusses in Five-Day Ordeal
>
> by Bryan Pfaffenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 30-January-2001
>
> As Mark Kellner wrote recently in the opening of his widely cited Los
Angeles
> Times column ("Linux's Minuses Outweigh Plusses in 14-Day Trial",
published on
> 12/28/2000), here's the story so far.
>
> I decided to see whether I could successfully install Windows 2000
Professional
> on a computer that had been running Linux quite nicely, thank you, for
nearly
> four years. Of course, this was a flagrantly stupid thing to do, given
that the
> Windows 2000 Professional docs insist that you shouldn't even try to
install
> the software without first making sure that one's hardware is fully
compatible.
> But I've gotten Linux to work successfully with less-than-compatible
hardware,
> and part of my experiment was to find out just how flexible Windows 2000
might
> be in this respect. So, I moved all my data off Lothlorien, my well-loved
but
> somewhat elderly
> Linux-powered PII-400, wiped out Linux and installed Windows 2000
professional.
> I mean, I tried to.
>
> The experiment failed. Although Lothlorien readily accepted and ran Red
Hat
> Linux 5.2 through 7.0, it greeted Windows 2000 with all the enthusiasm of
a
> patient rejecting an incompatible organ transplant. In a futile attempt to
get
> Windows 2000 to run, I attempted to upgrade my motherboard, succeeding
only in
> zapping the BIOS. In the end, I had to buy over $500 of new hardware and a
copy
> of Windows ME to get Lothlorien working again. I lost days of work, came
close
> to committing a crime, suffered through innumerable crashes and lost my
temper
> repeatedly--and Lothlorien still isn't functioning with anything close to
the
> stability it had when it
> was running Linux.
>
> What's wrong with this picture? In case you miss my point, I'm not trying
to
> bash Microsoft or Windows 2000. I know that Windows 2000 installs very
nicely
> on fully compatible, up-to-date hardware. In addition, I'm not claiming
that
> any of what follows is Microsoft's fault, really. I made mistakes, didn't
read
> the docs as well as I should have and made dumb decisions, the most
glaring of
> which, I am sorely tempted to say, is the one that launched this entire
> endeavor. Arguably, my hardware is flaky, even though Linux had no trouble
> running it. But, darn it, Microsoft has gazillions to spend on improving
the
> installation experience and legions of talented programmers. Shouldn't a
user
> such as myself be able to install Windows 2000 Professional
successfully--even
> when my hardware isn't 100% certified by the hardware compatibility list?
After
> all, I've pulled this trick on Linux a few times. Admittedly, I wouldn't
claim
> to be a technical genius, but I am good enough to install Linux--many
times,
> with varying distributions, on a variety of systems--without experiencing
more
> than passing difficulties that I was, in each instance, able to resolve
> successfully. And Linux, as you know, is supposed to be so hard to
> install!
>
> WARNING: What follows is not for the faint-hearted; you will encounter
graphic
> depictions of hardware incompatibilities, irrational decisions and fits of
> rage. Vivid descriptions of motherboard destruction may prove disturbing
to
> young computer users. Do not try this at home!
>
> Day 1
>
> Looking back, the decision seemed reasonable at the time. My employer, the
> University of Virginia, had the temerity to demand that I return the
Windows-
> powered notebook system I had been using. I try to stay conversant with
the
> three leading operating systems, Windows, Linux and Mac OS, and, suddenly,
I no
> longer had a Windows system around. But I did have two systems running
Linux,
> and one of them, dubbed Lothlorien in my Middle Earth-inspired network,
now
> seemed redundant. I purchased a copy of Windows 2000 Professional and
forged
> ahead.
>
> I figured I'd be back on-line within two hours, maybe three. But the gods
have
> ways of punishing hubris.
>
> The first time-consuming ordeal followed quickly after I inserted the
Windows
> 2000 Professional CD-ROM to begin the installation process. Although my
system
> had no trouble booting from Red Hat CD-ROMs, it wouldn't boot from the
Windows
> disc. I solved this easily enough. I borrowed my son's Windows-powered
> notebook, made a Windows 98 emergency disk and booted from Drive A.
>
> Next, I attempted to use the venerable DOS fdisk utility, one of the
utilities
> provided on the emergency disk, to repartition my hard drive. After all,
> there's no need for all those Linux-specific partitions which would map
out as
> separate drives in the Windows universe. But fdisk kept telling me that
the
> extended partition contained drive letters, which it damned well didn't,
and
> refused to delete the existing partitions. In the end, I rebooted with my
Red
> Hat Linux CD-ROM, initiated an install and used the Linux version of fdisk
to
> eliminate the unwanted partitions. Microsoft has apparently done
absolutely
> nothing with fdisk since the utility first appeared, back when most of you
> reading this column were in diapers, most likely. Anyway, I was now ready
to
> switch to the CD-ROM drive and start the Windows 2000 Setup utility. When
I
> did, I was asked to type in my verification code.
>
> The next ordeal was moral and legal. I am ashamed to admit this, but I
came
> close to committing a crime.
>
> Never one to keep my personal space all that neatly organized, I had
misplaced
> the Windows 2000 Professional CD-ROM jewel box and, with it, the
all-important
> verification code which is printed on a sticker that is, in turn, glued to
the
> jewel box. I spent a frustrating hour looking for jewel box, without
success.
> The Windows documentation provided a number to call if you can't find your
> verification code, but it turned out to be the piracy hotline, and I
feared
> they wouldn't believe my story. Of course, I had also misplaced the
receipt for
> the program purchase along with the jewel box.
>
> Another member of my family, who must remain anonymous, handed me a list
of
> verification code numbers that he'd found in a few minutes of web
searching. I
> came darned close to using one of them, which would have been, of course,
a
> heinous criminal act, despite the fact that I own a lawfully purchased
copy of
> Windows 2000 Professional. You'd think they could put a copy of the
> verification code number in the manual! Fortunately, the jewel box finally
> turned up. I typed in the number, and all was well once again.
>
> From there, things seemed to go smoothly. (Ha!) After about an hour of
disk-
> grinding, the early afternoon saw Windows 2000 Professional on-screen.
>
> The first impression? Terrible. Windows 2000 Professional didn't detect my
> video adapter and, as a result, I was looking at a 640 x 480 display with
16-
> color resolution. Also not detected was my SCSI adapter and, in
consequence, my
> Zip drive and CD-ROM drive didn't work. From my sound card issued an
occasional
> shriek along with ominous buzzing noises.
>
> When seasoned Linux users run into problems of this sort, they drop
everything
> and go on-line to find the answers, which is just what I did. What a
shock! In
> place of the Linux community's abundant self-help resources, I found a
series
> of rather sleazy commercial sites, loaded with blinking GIF animations,
popup
> windows, demands for site registration and something like user discussion,
but
> none of them offered usable help. One search brought up a site with what
> appeared to be a user posting, an individual pleading for help with his
Zip
> Zoom SCSI adapter and Windows 2000. But there weren't any replies other
than a
> tip to visit site such-and-such, where all your answers will be found, as
long
> as you register and provide intimate details of your finances and web
browsing
> behavior. There are exceptions, I'm sure, but the Windows 2000 on-line
> community seems to have, in general, the moral and spiritual qualities of
your
> average porn site.
>
> Day 2
>
> There's a pattern here and I see it clearly now: I make my worst decisions
in
> the morning. As dawn broke on Day 2, I resolved that I would damned well
get
> this system running, even if my hardware wasn't officially labeled as
> compatible. From Linux, I've learned that it's often possible to get
quasi-
> compatible hardware running with a bit of tweaking; after all, Windows
2000 did
> install and it was running. The decision seemed sensible at the time.
>
> First, I tackled the SCSI adapter. It's a ridiculously simple ISA adapter,
a
> Zip Zoom adapter. The Adaptec chip identified it as an AHA-1502, but the
> Windows Hardware Wizard doesn't list an AHA-1502. It does, however, list
an
> AVA-1502. After spending a couple of hours doing an exhaustive web search,
I
> found out that the Windows 2000 AVA-1502 driver is really the driver for
the
> AHA-1502; it is, indeed, the Sparrow driver, which Linux users know and
> configure as the AHA-152x. And it worked.
>
> Next, I tackled the video adapter and sound card. Windows 2000 didn't
report
> any resource conflicts, but I discovered--after another four hours of
> experimentation--that the adapter and sound card seemed to be competing
for the
> same memory address. I recall hearing that adapter manufacturers often
fail to
> document the full range of their devices' resource usages, and my
experience
> seems to bear this out. (Now I know what they mean by "Plug and Pray.")
After
> remapping the video adapter's memory addresses, I had everything working
(or so
> I thought). I shut down the system and called it a day.
>
> Day 3
>
> With what I thought to be a working Windows 2000 system, I began the next
day
> by installing my copy of Office 2000 Premium, a process that ate up a
couple
> of hours. Still, it went very smoothly and by noon on Day 3, I believed--
> stupidly, naively--that I was ready to get back to work. I fired up Word,
> started to write, and...Zap! The dreaded Blue Screen of Death, with the
> horrifying message "IRQL NOT LESS OR EQUAL".
>
> To a competent user such as myself a message like this presents no special
> difficulty. One quickly deduces that the IRQL, whatever that may be, is
too
> large. It must be less than or, at the maximum, equal to, and it is not
that
> way now. Logic is indeed a powerful tool, is it not? But there is just
one
> problem. The phrase in question has no object, in the grammatical rather
than
> the computational sense of the term. Less than or equal to what?
>
> An hour of searching the Windows Knowledge Base turned up a
troubleshooter,
> which indicated, as if I didn't know, that the problem was most likely due
to
> an incompatible adapter. Still, I tried tweaking the adapter settings
manually,
> hoping I could figure out where the conflict was occurring. Click, reboot,
> crash, Blue Screen of Death. Click, reboot, crash, Blue Screen of Death.
>
> There comes a time when a rational person must say, "Enough!" Instead, I
made
> yet another boneheaded decision. I would continue. Damn the resource
conflicts,
> full speed ahead! The rationale was that I'd already spent two and
one-half
> days on this quest; I wasn't going to quit until I succeeded. Dimly, I
> perceived that I could well spend another two and one-half days in
futility,
> which would compound the damage, but I dismissed this thought from my
mind. And
> why not? Marginally compatible hardware has never stopped me from getting
Linux
> running successfully. In an attempt to pin down the problem, I spent hours
> working through the testing procedures suggested in the Knowledge Base
> troubleshooter, all without success.
>
> Since I was reasonably certain that the problem wasn't being caused by any
of
> the adapters, there was only one remaining possibility: motherboard
> incompatibility. I wasn't going to be able to get Windows 2000 working
without
> upgrading my motherboard's BIOS.
>
> A web search disclosed that my elderly motherboard's manufacturer was
still in
> business, and I found that a BIOS upgrade was indeed available. Unlike the
BIOS
> upgrades for some of the newer boards, though, the accompanying blurb said
> nothing about Windows 2000 compatibility. Still, I decided to give it a
try;
> the new BIOS was designed to fix system hangs after certain memory paging
> events, which seemed a likely explanation for the problems I'd
experienced.
>
> I followed the instructions religiously; really, I did. I rebooted with a
> floppy, launched the BIOS upgrade utility and watched in horror as the
utility
> updated all but one segment of Lothlorien's BIOS. And there it hung. For
hours.
>
> Finally, I gave up and switched off the power, knowing full well what the
> result would be. When I turned it back on, Lothlorien's communication
organs
> flashed randomly, like a zombie who's just had his brain ripped out. The
> screen? Blank.
>
> It's the end of the third day. With Linux, I had a fully functional
computer.
> Now I have a pile of useless junk.
>
> There followed a fit of rage. I yelled. I cursed. I made a big stack of
every
> Microsoft product I could find, piled them up in the middle of the floor
and
> made ready to jump up and down on them until they were mashed beyond
> recognition.
>
> Just in time, the words of Jimmy Buffett came to mind: "Hell, it could be
my
> fault." If you don't believe Microsoft when they say that you shouldn't
try to
> run Windows 2000 with incompatible equipment, you've only yourself to
blame.
>
> Windows 2000 just isn't like Linux. With Linux, hardware compatibility
comes in
> degrees, as we all know from the famous Red Hat compatibility lists; a
> moderately skilled user can get any marginally compatible adapter working
with
> a bit of tweaking and a little help from the community. With Windows 2000,
> apparently, it's a Boolean, either/or thing. If the hardware ain't on the
list,
> it ain't compatible. Period.
>
> So it was my fault all along.
>
> The Microsoft products survived. But it was a close call.
>
> Day 4
>
> Another morning. Arguably, another crappy decision.
>
> I had to replace the motherboard, that much was clear. Just about every
other
> component of my system isn't officially compatible with Windows 2000, but
it
> seemed clear that the major problem was the motherboard. The trouble was,
I had
> to find a new motherboard locally. I had to get this system up and myself
back
> to work, and that ruled out mail order.
>
> A visit to the local computer store revealed that none of the available
> motherboards were on the list of Windows 2000-compatible hardware, so I
decided
> to give up on Windows 2000 entirely. I purchased a copy of Windows ME,
> described by Microsoft as far more compatible with the full range of
hardware
> out there. I bought a new motherboard, a new SCSI adapter and a new video
card.
> Because I couldn't believe how sluggish my system ran Windows with the old
PII-
> 400 chip, I decided to buy a PIII-800. Out more than $500, I drove home
with
> the thought--illusion--that my problems would soon be over. (You know
what's
> coming next, don't you?)
>
> With a new brain and several new organs, Lothlorien came alive, and I
installed
> Windows ME. Then I reinstalled Microsoft Office. Taking into account time
spent
> looking for verification codes, which I had misplaced as usual, this phase
of
> my ordeal consumed another five hours.
>
> But at last I had a working system.
>
> Or so I thought.
>
> Day 5
>
> Running Windows ME, I'm left to wonder what's new about this product; it's
> virtually indistinguishable, apparently, from Windows 98 Second Edition,
save
> for the inclusion of some new multimedia software (most of which is
> downloadable from the Web). But this is supposed to be the best choice in
terms
> of hardware compatibility, right?
>
> Wrong. No sooner than I fired up Word, the system froze. No Blue Screen of
> Death this time, just a comatose mouse pointer. I won't go into the sordid
> details, but another three hours of system configuration and rebooting
finally
> unveiled a resource conflict involving my new more up-to-date hardware, a
> conflict that Windows ME didn't initially register, for some reason.
> Parenthetically, I think I made a mistake opting for ME; Windows 2000 may
offer
> less compatibility, but it gives you more tools for figuring out what's
wrong.
> I also think it's more stable, once you've worked out the resource
conflicts.
> But I can't bear to go through another install.
>
> By late afternoon on the fifth day, I finally had a working Windows ME
system,
> and I'm using it right now to compose this column. I still have the odd,
> unaccountable crash every now and then, but such crashes are of the type
you
> associate with a flawed memory architecture and buggy software rather than
a
> deep, underlying and undetected hardware problem. The intermittent crashes
sure
> do keep you on your toes, though. Don't forget to enable Autosave!
>
> I haven't experienced an essentially unstable OS in quite a while, and
it's
> bringing back a recollection of...of...of what? Oh, I remember.
>
> Of why I installed Linux in the first place.
>
> Bryan Pfaffenberger ( http://www.people.virginia.edu/~bp/) is Associate
> Professor of Technology, Culture and Communication at the University of
> Virginia, Charlottesville, and a UNIX (subsequently Linux) user since the
mid-
> 1980s. He assures us that he is recovering from his ordeal.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 09 Feb 2001 05:04:12 GMT
On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 04:00:19 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Why, is there a MS TCP/IP implementation which isn't shit? Is it still
> > in beta? When is it coming out? Up to now all have been one worse than
> > the other.
>
> Well, first we have tpc.org. We see Windows blowing away all Unixes.
Proving only that a clusters of Windows machines do much better than
single UNIX machines.
> Secondly, we have hackwindows2000.com or whatever it was called where
> no one was every successfully able to take down the Win2K box MS put
> up (despite tens of millions of packets per day).
I remember that. It was windows200test.com and it was usually
unavailable. MS kept blaming it on router problems, but it was pretty
obvious from the logs that the machine was going down frequently and
couldn't handle the traffic.
There was a similar challenge offered by linuxppc.org in response. It
was rather amusing. The linuxppc machine was rather ordinary
hardware-wise whereas the W2k machine was top-of-the-line at the
time. The linuxppc machine had a HTTPS server, MS put the HTTPS
server on a second machine. Same with the guestbook. Except MS's
guestbook didn't work. The PPC machine was to be given away to
anybody who could get access to it. MS offered no prize. The PPC
machine had to be rebooted once when it's too-small var partition
filled up. The W2k machine was repeated crashing and being rebooted.
The Linux machine had it's root password posted on the website, (to
try and stop someone who was trying to brute force the pass via
telnet). MS posted it's administrator password in response, but
didn't offer and remote access services.
> Thirdly, we have Win2K with a built in IPSec and QoS implementation.
> Linux may have an IPsec implementation, but does it have a QoS
> implementation?
Since 2.1.
> Fourthly, Windows 2000 has set several data transfer speed records.
> There was a big bally-who last fall where MS sent several gigabytes
> over fiber in a matter of seconds, IIRC. A casual search should turn
> it up.
A pretty ridiculous thing to do, but it it did point out a few
problems with the kernel that no one would have noticed otherwise.
Those problems have since been delt with.
> Please, in detail, describe why MS's TCP/IP implementation is so poor.
> You seem so confident of it, it shouldn't be that hard to come up with
> at least ONE or TWO major points.
See other post.
--Damien "feeding the troll"
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
