?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Windows 2000 ... *sigh* - brad's life — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Brad Fitzpatrick

[ website | bradfitz.com ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Windows 2000 ... *sigh* [Nov. 29th, 2000|11:49 am]
Brad Fitzpatrick
[Tags|, , ]

It seems that the more I use Windows 2000, the more I hate it. Same with anything, actually.... the more I learn about Linux, Perl, web programming, MySQL ... hate them all. Come to think of it, there's very few implementations of anything that I really like.

Anyway, today's win2k silliness: I'm on a machine at school right now, a P3-766 or something, with 256 MB of ram... normally these machines fly, almost as fast as my win2k machine at home. Right now it's chugging along slower than a 486 with 16 mb of ram running win98. My keystrokes are delayed by a couple seconds as I type this. I check task manager and winlogon.exe is taking 99% CPU. I can't kill it because "This is a critical system process. Task Manager cannot end this process." Stupid Windows.

When will Microsoft make a reliable operating system?
LinkReply

Comments:
From: ex_ff928
2000-11-29 11:28 pm (UTC)

Xenix ok?

I respectfully must beg to differ. When MS licensed the AT&T UNIX source code, and ported it over to the 8086/8 in the late 70s, it was with the implicit understanding that the lack of any real memory protection would make it a novelty OS at best (at least, that's what common sense dictates.)

The very fact that they didn't even try to use the (granted, limited) protected mode availability on the 286, and the (granted, quirky) protected mode features on the 386, showed that they weren't taking the development of a true multiuser OS seriously, at least in regards to Xenix.

SCO saved Xenix, at least to some extent, by supporting the 286 and the 386.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)