3 ms·
> I never had any direct contact with Microsoft code So your claims are rather reflecting your memory of your interaction with the people who did have the dire
by acqq 7y ago
> I never had any direct contact with Microsoft code
So your claims are rather reflecting your memory of your interaction with the people who did have the direct contact, and not the actual state.
In reality, Windows 3.0 and 3.1 is hugely different from 3.11, and from 95/98/Me. Starting with 3.11, there was actually the of code avoiding the lower lever calls to BIOS and DOS if possible (if the hardware allowed) but using the new 32-bit code instead.
The stability of the OS was definitely not as you describe, one could surely use the system for days without having the system crashes.
The system's design was the effect of the engineering goal of having a system that can work with very small amounts of memory, compared to the competing safer systems. With more memory available on the computer to implement the "hardware" memory protection one was able to use the "safer" systems like NT.
The wide use of that lineage vs. NT was a strong reflection of the market needs: people did have the computers with too little RAM for the "safer" systems but still wanted to run the programs that had the functionality they needed.
Additionally, the "safer" system not only demanded more RAM, but were often for some tasks less convenient.
A lot of users who "had to reinstall the system often" were actively doing "unhealthy" steps themselves: "trying" the software they didn't need, which did the interventions on the system which damaged the system.
The programs running on the OS (even on NT) typically did tend to crash regularly, however. Especially including the biggest like Microsoft Word. Fascinatingly, that was by design: it was the "knowledge" of the managers that delivering fast the new versions of programs with more features was more important than the code correctness. Just like in the web world more recently...
- ncmncm 7y agoWow, two, three whole days without a crash!? Imagine! At the time, people running Linux on the same hardware resented being obliged to shut down after six months to upgrade their OS or disk storage. Back then, Linux was much less professionally maintained, but if it ever crashed at all it was a big deal. OS/2 likewise. Windows crashes were not just for tinkerers. In any office, secretaries and receptionists were very used to re-booting in midday, despite shutting the machines off every night. They considered it completely normal.
- acqq 7y agoIt's not what I've said. My claim was more in the direction that the OS crashes happened, for properly maintained system, on reliable hardware, starting with 3.11 more like... never. The user space programs did crash, but it was often practically a "feature" of the design goals. Linux? In 1993 kernel was not even v1? And the distributions didn't exist? Linux was a text based toy back then, with nothing for those who needed the user space GUI programs running on 3.11 or 95, and who couldn't afford to have a computer to run the NT which was released in 1993. Since 1993 there was a safe Windows system, anybody using a less safe one, like 3.11, 95, 98, Me did that as a trade-off in order to be able to pay less for the hardware. Or to use a program which had used something that NT didn't have (an Linux surely even less). But even 3.11 already had a stable 32-bit core. Hardware was expensive then. Your memory is definitely not reflecting the actual state of that time.
- ncmncm 7y agoLinux, in fact, had its X Window System practically from the beginning, so your recollection is 100% false. Most people could not use Linux because it did not run Windows programs, or anyway because they did not feel competent to install it, but it needed no more machine than W95. OS/2 needed no more machine either, and would run Windows programs more reliably than Windows could, but cost real money and also had to be installed. NT was pretty crashy back then, too, and a huge resource hog besides, and many Windows programs didn't run on it either. Vista was an even bigger hog. 10 is hundreds of times bigger, but RAM and disk got cheap, so we don't often notice.
- acqq 7y agoYour mentioning of Vista from 2007 shows the amount of confusion: the relevant years for comparison in the thread were: Linux, for which no distribution existed before around 1995 at minimum, and no serious software with the features of those written for Windows, and Windows systems for which a stable Windows NT existed since 1993. Since the same year users chose non-NT Windows systems because they needed cheaper hardware. That’s it. And even the non-NT systems were more stable than the confused comments claim. The instabilities were typically bad hardware or bad user software.