MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k

MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k

Post by Jame » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k.  I am no linvocate, but I
find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
Shame on you MS!!!

James

 
 
 

MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k

Post by Steve Madin » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


: Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
: endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
: Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k.  I am no linvocate, but I
: find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
: push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
: Shame on you MS!!!

What the hell is "13 times less reliable" supposed to mean?  How do
you attach numbers to a concept like "reliability"?

 
 
 

MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k

Post by DeAnn Iw » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


On 9 Jul 2000 09:07:02 GMT, Steve Mading



>: Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
>: endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
>: Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k.  I am no linvocate, but I
>: find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
>: push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
>: Shame on you MS!!!

>What the hell is "13 times less reliable" supposed to mean?  How do
>you attach numbers to a concept like "reliability"?

           I guess it means that instead of crashing several times a
day, it only crashes a few times a week.  Or, perhaps it means instead
of crashing frequently when using Word, Netscape or Canvas, it only
crashes frequently when using Netscape or Canvas.
 
 
 

MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k

Post by Aaron Kulki » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> On 9 Jul 2000 09:07:02 GMT, Steve Mading


> >: Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
> >: endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
> >: Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k.  I am no linvocate, but I
> >: find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
> >: push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
> >: Shame on you MS!!!

> >What the hell is "13 times less reliable" supposed to mean?  How do
> >you attach numbers to a concept like "reliability"?

>            I guess it means that instead of crashing several times a
> day, it only crashes a few times a week.  Or, perhaps it means instead
> of crashing frequently when using Word, Netscape or Canvas, it only
> crashes frequently when using Netscape or Canvas.

Ever notice how M$ **NEVER** owns up to the bugs in their products
until they have something new and expensive to sell you...

--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642

I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
    premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
    you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
    you are lazy, stupid people"

A:  The wise man is mocked by fools.

B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.

C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
   sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
   that she doesn't like.

D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.

E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
   ...despite (D) above.

F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
   response until their behavior improves.

G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
   *ery while concurrently committing *ery with Tammy Hahn.

H:  Knackos...you're a retard.

 
 
 

MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k

Post by Arthur Frai » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




> : Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
> : endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
> : Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k.  I am no linvocate, but I
> : find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
> : push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
> : Shame on you MS!!!
> What the hell is "13 times less reliable" supposed to mean?  How do
> you attach numbers to a concept like "reliability"?

I'm not saying either MS or NSTL or the ad is using a
reasonable measure of reliability, but it is possible
to quantify it. "Reliability" is "performs to specs
over time" or some similar definition. You simply
measure the time between failures (MTBF - "mean time
between failures") or the reciprocal (FITS or 'failures
in time'). If you're really interested, see if
MIL-HDBK-217 is online.

Given my (brief, unhappy) experience with Win98, I
would not be eager to purchase something which was
only 13 times as reliable - several orders of magnitude
more would seem to be necessary before claiming
this as a benefit.

Arthur

 
 
 

MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k

Post by Ferdinand V. Mendoz » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Five years from now, WinNT5 aka. Win2K would be proclaimed
as 20 times less reliable  than WinNT6 aka. Win2005.
As usual, Bill Gates would be laughing himself to the bank.
Observe the Wintrolls statements nowadays, Win2k is much
better than NT4, NT4 is less realible than NT5 etc. ,etc.
A year back, they would die for NT4 no matter what.
Singing a different tune now eh!

Ferdinand


> Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
> endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
> Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k.  I am no linvocate, but I
> find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
> push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
> Shame on you MS!!!

> James

 
 
 

MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k

Post by Bobby D. Bryan » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
> endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
> Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k.  I am no linvocate, but I
> find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
> push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
> Shame on you MS!!!

They used to have a Web page touting NT as being k time more reliable than
Windows 9x.  (I forget the k, but IIRC it was more like 40 than 13.  Anyone
remember?)

Anyway, they supported the assertion with their own poll, which still showed
a truly horrendous number of people reporting that they lost time or data at
least once a month under NT.  (OK, by my standards *one* such loss would be
"truly horrendous".  But this was much worse than that; something like 30%
IIRC.)

Alas, I can't find *any* of this either on Deja or Google.  Does anyone of
sounder mind remember the details?

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

p.s. -- Give up WinTrolling, Mr. Bond?

 
 
 

MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k

Post by Jame » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Bobby,

Unlike some, I really don't give a damn who make the OS.  I also don't have
any particular hate for MS/Billy, although I think they have become a bit
too greedy [an opinion shared by the USA DOJ].  I have certain tasks to
perform, basically all on the desktop.  I have tried all the Linux distros
since about the mid 1990's and whilst their has been radical improvement,
the overall usability [IMHO] is still not on par with MS latest desktop OS
(Win2k).
[I use Win2k on my office PC (a P2/350) and my home PC (a P/200mmx) and
Win98 on my laptop.  Win2k really runs well on the office PC, runs ok at
home except no DMA or UDMA.  Win98/Me runs like *on anything, but my
laptop is too slow and have too little memory to run Win2k.]

Linux is useful for learning how an advanced and stable OS operates - yes, I
acknowledge that.  We use Unix at work for most of our big mission critical
servers (Sequent, HP, etc).  What Linux now requires (for those interested
in desktop software) is the final polish and, of course, those corporate
desktop apps.  I wonder what would happen to Linux if MS ported all it's
apps to Linux.  I will probably get flamed for that statement, but for one
will consider migrating full time to Linux if that had to happen.  Maybe
2001 will be the year of the Linux Desktop.

James




> > Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
> > endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
> > Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k.  I am no linvocate, but
I
> > find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
> > push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
> > Shame on you MS!!!

> They used to have a Web page touting NT as being k time more reliable than
> Windows 9x.  (I forget the k, but IIRC it was more like 40 than 13.
Anyone
> remember?)

> Anyway, they supported the assertion with their own poll, which still
showed
> a truly horrendous number of people reporting that they lost time or data
at
> least once a month under NT.  (OK, by my standards *one* such loss would
be
> "truly horrendous".  But this was much worse than that; something like 30%
> IIRC.)

> Alas, I can't find *any* of this either on Deja or Google.  Does anyone of
> sounder mind remember the details?

> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas

> p.s. -- Give up WinTrolling, Mr. Bond?

 
 
 

MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k

Post by Jame » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Also wanted to add that Linux, as one correspondent put it, is finding
itself between an chicken and egg.  Users don't use it because the desktop
are not there, and the desktop apps are not there because there are few
users.

The only way to break this vicious cycle is to start adopting the system as
soon as it meets some of one's needs.  Therefore the developers should focus
on giving it that final polish [like prettying up those fonts &
concentrating on desktop design/ergonomics] and some basic *high quality*
*desktop* apps to attract these desktop users.

James




> > Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
> > endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
> > Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k.  I am no linvocate, but
I
> > find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
> > push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
> > Shame on you MS!!!

> They used to have a Web page touting NT as being k time more reliable than
> Windows 9x.  (I forget the k, but IIRC it was more like 40 than 13.
Anyone
> remember?)

> Anyway, they supported the assertion with their own poll, which still
showed
> a truly horrendous number of people reporting that they lost time or data
at
> least once a month under NT.  (OK, by my standards *one* such loss would
be
> "truly horrendous".  But this was much worse than that; something like 30%
> IIRC.)

> Alas, I can't find *any* of this either on Deja or Google.  Does anyone of
> sounder mind remember the details?

> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas

> p.s. -- Give up WinTrolling, Mr. Bond?

 
 
 

MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k

Post by j.. » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



>Bobby,
[deletia]
>servers (Sequent, HP, etc).  What Linux now requires (for those interested
>in desktop software) is the final polish and, of course, those corporate
>desktop apps.  I wonder what would happen to Linux if MS ported all it's

        ...assuming that what you do really NEEDS such apps rather
        than being suitably achieved with any other application
        with your threshold set of features...

[deletia]

        Professional document handlers were quite productive and
        successfull before even the mere existence of Microsoft's
        current trapware...

--
        The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
        as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
        barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.    

                                                                |||
                                                               / | \

 
 
 

MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k

Post by Steve Madin » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


:  
:> : Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
:> : endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
:> : Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k.  I am no linvocate, but I
:> : find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
:> : push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
:> : Shame on you MS!!!
:  
:> What the hell is "13 times less reliable" supposed to mean?  How do
:> you attach numbers to a concept like "reliability"?

: I'm not saying either MS or NSTL or the ad is using a
: reasonable measure of reliability, but it is possible
: to quantify it. "Reliability" is "performs to specs
: over time" or some similar definition. You simply
: measure the time between failures (MTBF - "mean time
: between failures") or the reciprocal (FITS or 'failures
: in time'). If you're really interested, see if
: MIL-HDBK-217 is online.

Yeah, but that is meaningless unless the inputs over that time run the
gambit from one end of the scale to the other.  Otherwise you can be
missing the conditions that cause the crashes.  Testing by throwing
infinite monkeys at the problem doesn't work if the number of monkeys
isn't really infinite - you end up missing large parts of the testspace.

 
 
 

MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k

Post by Spud » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


[snips]



Quote:> Microsoft is being very honest and very streight for a change.
> They are saying that if all you want to do is play games, buy
> a toy machine like Windows 98.  If you actually care about the
> information on your machine, and you want to stick with Windows,
> you should buy 2000.  True, the hardware is 3-5 times more

expensive,

I've got a listing here for an HP 600Mhz Celeron based box, 64Mb RAM,
10.2Gb HD, assorted other crud - sound, accelerated video, software
bundle, etc.  Price is $974.  Add in another $100 to get an additional
64Mb RAM and you have a box perfectly capable of running Win2K.  Add
in the cost of Win2K (from this vendor, $299.99 for the upgrade, with
a $100 rebate available) and you're talking a total increase in price
of about $400 - versus the initial list of about $1000.  That's about
a 40% increase in system price... not 3-5 times, and that's including
the added cost of the software; the hardware costs went up about 10%.

Quote:> If you want to save about 60% off the price of Windows 2000 hardware
> and software, and are willing to pay about 20% more than 98, you
> can get a fully configured Linux professionally installed on
hardware
> engineered to support Linux (and vice versa).  You might even be
able
> to get a PC that runs BOTH Linux and Windows (Wine emulation).

Linux's big problem right now isn't that it's a technically inferior
product... it isn't.  It's big problem right now is that it is
competing against a system which already has a large installed
software base.  Example: I use Office 2000.  What has Linux got to
offer that allows me to maintain all my existing O2K documents -
including all the scripting and suchlike behind them?

Quote:> Microsoft is relying on it's ability to keep Windows NDAs, Windows
98
> "no modification" clauses, and obligatory incorporation of
Windows-only
> hardware,

"Windows-only hardware"?  How do you manage that?  As far as I can
see, if you could write a Linux driver for a given piece of hardware,
you could use it under Linux.  If hardware vendors aren't providing
Linux drivers, there may be a reason for it... perhaps a perception -
correct or not - that Linux is but a bit player, not worth the effort.

Quote:> I don't know if Microsoft is just rolling over and playing dead,
> hoping to get off with a gentle slap on the wrist from the Supreme
> court, or if they have a new bag of tricks planned to torpedo Linux
> systems and all Linux-friendly applications.

To be honest, I'm not sure they care about Linux... at least not in
terms of where Linux is today.  Where Linux will be in 2-3 years
depends on a lot of things, not least of which is whether it can
sustain the effort to provide a truly competitive solution for the
home-user and office-user desktops - which means, among other things,
compatability with existing document formats, even if with different
software, and a vastly improved user interface (yes, it has improved a
lot lately.)
 
 
 

MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k

Post by mst » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


(deletia)

Quote:>  Where Linux will be in 2-3 years
> depends on a lot of things, not least of which is whether it can
> sustain the effort to provide a truly competitive solution for the
> home-user and office-user desktops - which means, among other things,
> compatability with existing document formats, (..)

...precisely the ones that are unnecessarily a moving target, courtesy
of MicroShit.

MST

 
 
 

1. MS Says Unix better than W2K

Take a look at /. this morning (http://slashdot.org)

First, read:

"BSD:Why Unix is better than Windows ... by Microsoft"
(also links to a Register article)

then read:

"Another Critical Microsoft Hole".

Yeah, I know, the second one is almost a daily
feature, but this one claims MS is saying you
can't trust ActiveX controls signed by MS.

The first one is utterly hilarious and is a
perfect final chapter to the debates about
FreeBSD vs. W2K on hotmail that have gone on
here sporadically. Lots of stuff on why the
CLI is better than a GUI for server admin too,
all written by MS'ers.

I expect I'll be smiling all day - funniest
stuff I've read in a long time.

Jim

2. Off-topic: XFree86 modeline for 1280 @ 75Hz

3. Tri Boot win98,w2k,linux using w2k boot manager?

4. PHP Question:Is manual 3.0.12 are very different with manual 3.0.6?

5. Can it take less time then 20000 ms for reading a socket.

6. 9600/300 PowerPC 604e problems

7. pnp - OSS SB update from Paul Laufer (13/13)

8. Dumping Linux Installation Screens

9. fh_verify: request/reply permission failure, acc=13, error=13

10. s390 (13/13): 31 bit compatability layer.

11. ReiserFS 4 of 13, please apply all 13

12. real time less than user time?

13. Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away