Like many people, I've been around Windows from the beginning. The first version I used was version 1.x or 2.x or something like that. It was an "Embedded" version of Windows, circa 1990 or thereabouts, that applications could use to give themselves a "User Interface" with drop-down menus and mouse controls and things like that. That evolved into Windows 3.0 and then Windows 3.1 and then Windows For Workgroups 3.11 and then Windows NT, 95, 98, ME, 2000, and XP. Except for 2000 and XP I've used them all, and I'm not sure what happened.
The only thing that could be said for Windows 3.0 was that it was "A Good Start". It was the start of an idea, and as would be expected, was buggy as hell. Instead of being the actual operating system it was run as a "Layer" over MS-DOS. We spent about as much time getting kicked back to a DOS prompt and restarting Windows as we did using it. Windows 3.1 fixed a lot of those problems, and WFWG 3.11 fixed a lot more. Windows 95 was a whole new variant and instead of running as an application later over the DOS operating system it was the first version that truly became the operating system.
Windows 95 had some holes in it, some have described them as "Caverns" but all in all it did a pretty decent job. OEM Software Release 2 (or OSR2 or Windows 95-B as it came to be known) was much better. It fixed a lot of the holes in Windows 95, added some functionality without adding much system overhead, and in general was just a better operating system.
Windows 98 was the next release, and touted as being so great we'd be fools not to load it. Of course, Internet Degrader (excuse me, that should be Internet Explorer) was such an integral part of it that you couldn't get rid of it if you tried. But, instead of just fixing the problems in Windows 95 Microsft tried to reinvent the wheel. The first release, as would be expected, was buggy and full of holes. A few months later, Windows 98 Second Release came out to fix all the problems in Windows 98, and finally Windows ME came out as the last variant of Windows 98 to resolve the problems in Windows 98 SE which resolved the problems in Windows 98 which resolved the problems in Windows 95 which resolved the problems all the way back to Windows 3.0.
Windows NT and Windows 2000 (which is built on the Windows NT code base) are different operating systems entirely. I've used NT Server a lot, and, with some reservations, really like it for a server-based operating system. NT Workstation has its place, but I'm not sure what that place would be. It is too security conscious for a home system or most office environments, and while it is a very solid OS the overhead caused by the security functions make it seem sluggish and bloated for a single user computer. I've never bothered with 2000 so I'll stay away from that one entirely.
So much for the Windows History Lesson. The point of this page is to stop and look at where we have gotten to, and please remember that these are my opinions only.
Every version has had the same basic Microsoft claim behind it: Our fastest and most reliable and most robust and most feature rich and etc., etc., etc. I won't argue with the "Feature Rich" part, they can cram more junk on top of an operating system than anyone I've ever seen, but I do take exception with all the rest except "Robust" (and that's because I've never figured out what the term "Robust" means when applied to an operating system). Reliable is hogwash because this only means they fixed a few of the bugs from the previous version that kept causing it to crash entirely. Fastest is also hogwash because the minimum system requirements keep going up with every release. Sure, Windows XP is faster than Windows 95 and that's because the minimum system requirement for XP is something on the order of a 300 mHz Pentium whereas it was an 80386 for Windows 95. When you compare the computing power of a 386 to a 300 mHz Pentium you sure as hell should get something that runs faster. Yeah, I know that's going from one extreme to the other, but it's incrementally the same for every release; this version runs faster but you have to have a faster computer for it to be able to do that.
Microsoft took a basically good, solid operating system in the form of Windows 95 OSR2 and turned it into an internet-enabled, multimedia-driven monster. They seem to be unable to distinguish between an operating system and application software. I don't want an operating system that is "Internet Enabled" or one that "Enhances My Multimedia Experience", that is what application software is for. I don't want an operating system with an embedded web browser that is so woven through my operating system that I can't get rid of it. I don't want an operating system that is optimized for multimedia, I want an operating system that is optimized for operating the computer. I'll let the application software handle all the other junk.
This is one of the reasons that Linux is gaining such a following. The core operating system is small, fast, and does what the name implies, it operates the computer. Everything else is added as application software, and runs independently of the OS. The user can choose what he wants to install, and what he doesn't want to install. Compared to a Windows OS as far as speed or resource utilization goes, there is no comparison. To get the same level of speed out of a Windows environment you would have to use a computer that has not been designed yet.
If Microsoft would quit trying to cram this garbage down our throats and concentrate on writing a true operating system they could write one that is better than anything the world has ever seen. If they would eliminate Internet Explorer entirely, eliminate all the multimedia crap entirely, and focus on writing code that operates the computer it would be an awesome operating system.
Stop and think about this: How much time each day do you spend actually using the internet? An hour? Two hours? And how much time each day do you spend dealing with multimedia files, such as videos or music? Another hour? Two hours? Now, how much time each day do you use your computer for other things? Four hours? Six hours? I can only speak for myself, and there will certainly be those whose uses are completely different, but I probably spend an hour each day on the internet and an hour a week messing with multimedia files. Figure, at most, 2 hours a day doing what the OS is "Optimized" for and another 6 hours a day doing what it is NOT optimized for. I'm paying the price in the way of system overhead ALL THE TIME though. Every time I use my computer, whether it is using the internet or just typing this information, my computer is constantly trying to convince itself that what I am doing is in some way related to the internet or multimedia. The drivers are loaded and running and eating up system speed, system memory, and system resources ALL THE TIME, and you can't get rid of them.
Another thing that we can't stop is the attempts of the computer to protect itself from our misuse. This is a good idea, but in keeping with Microsoft's apparent philosophy of screwing up a good idea, badly implemented. Before Windows ME there was virtually no protection for the operating system. Windows 95 had some rudimentary protection of a few of its files, and Windows 98 had "System File Checker", but neither of these provided true protection for the core system files. Software could indiscriminately replace critical system files with their own versions that could completely disrupt the operation of the system. This has happened to me, and most other users, on many occasions; you install something and the system quits working entirely. In an attempt to prevent this from happening, Microsoft implemented "PC Health" in Windows ME. These functions monitor "Critical" system files and prevent them from being overwritten with non certified files. It also provides "System Restore" functionality that allows you to recover from a software installation that caused problems.
"System File Protection (SFP)" monitors a list of protected files and maintains copies in a hidden location. If one of the protected files is deleted or replaced by an unauthorized version, SFP will quietly, and without user intervention or knowledge, replace it with the original file. This, in and of itself, is a good idea. I have several problems with it though:
- Even though the list of protected files can be edited to remove certain files, there are no provisions at all to ADD files to the list. Microsoft has determined what files need to be "Protected" and if we, the computer OWNERS, decide that we want to add files to the list that we feel should be protected as well, we can't do that.
- I disagree with many of the files that are on the list (there are about 1,500 of them in my copy of Windows ME). For example, I do not feel that a "Connection Wizard" for Internet Explorer should be considered a "Protected System File". Nor do I feel that the "History" or "Cookies" directories utilized by Internet Explorer (and only Internet Explorer) should be considered "Protected System Files".
- It is apparently OK for Microsoft to violate the rules. One of the files used by SFP is named SFPDB.SFP and is located in the \SYSTEM\SFP subdirectory of Windows. If you install an update to Internet Explorer or Outlook Express (there may be more, these are the only ones I have personally seen do this) they will delete this file so that a new one will be created, presumably to include themselves as part of SFP. This is APPLICATION SOFTWARE and **NOT** part of my operating system. I can understand them wanting to protect Outlook Express files though, since every virus in the world tries to attack that thing.
Don't get the wrong impression, I'm not really bashing Microsoft here, I'm just trying to point out that Windows could be so much better than it is. I bash Microsoft often enough, but in this case I'm not. I once had a huge amount of respect for Microsoft because they wrote code that was absolutely bullet-proof; gold-plated, cast in stone, bullet proof. Over the past few years they appear to have changed from a company that was controlled by software engineers with a marketing division working for them to one that is controlled by a marketing division and has software engineers working for it. Instead of developing the code, getting it right, and then telling marketing when it will be released, it now appears that marketing tells engineering when the code will be released and it is engineering's job to get it as close as they can before that date. I've seen this happen before, Microsoft isn't the first corporation to go down that road.
Why can't Microsoft just write an operating system that is an operating system? Pick one code base, I don't care which, 95, 98, ME, XP, NT, 2000, whatever rocks their boat. Get rid of all the junk that is not necessary for a true operating system and make it optional add-on application software. De-Bloat the code, optimize it as an operating system, focus on getting the bugs out and make it run right. Get Internet Degrader out, get the "Active Desktop" crap out, get the "Internet Enabled" junk out, get the multimedia garbage out, get the "Computing Experience" trash out, get rid of all the junk that isn't part of a true operating system. Make all this nonsense optional installation components so that the people who want it have it and those who don't can avoid it. Call it a "Pro" version if they want to, I don't care, but give us an operatnig system that is truly and simply an operating system and not an attempt to be everything for everybody.
In my opinion, Microsoft appears to prefer the "Shove It Down Their Throat" philosophy to the "Give Them What They Want" philosophy. What if I don't want Internet Explorer or the limitless directories that it creates for itself (for you new computer users out there, there is no such thing as a directory or file that is empty or doesn't take up any disk space, they ALL take up disk space!), it doesn't matter, I'm stuck with it. What if I want to move my "Cookies" directory or completely delete it? Can't do that, "This folder is 'Required' by Windows." What if I don't want "Application Data" stored in my operating system directory, doesn't matter because that's what is best for me as determined by benevolent Microsoft. I want control of my computer and I don't appreciate anyone telling me what will be installed, where it will be installed, or that I can't delete it.
I'm not a computer rookie. I realize that a lot of people are, and don't know a lot about computers, but there are still thousands (millions?) of us around who don't need our hands held every time we try and do something with our computers. Many of us may not want separate "History", "Cookies", "Favorites", "Temporary Internet Files", "Recent", "Spool", "My Documents", "My Music", "My Pictures", "My Videos", "Temp" directories, we may want all that garbage in one directory that can be deleted entirely from time to time. What if we want "Program Files" named something else? We can't get any of that any longer because Microsoft is protecting us from ourselves.
Here's a crazy thought ... among the endless flags in the system registry, how about one for "Beginning User" or "Experienced User". If Experienced User is set, change the default for showing stupid damn animated paper clip icons from On to Off so we don't have to waste time trying to figure out how to turn the worthless thing off! If "Experienced User" is set, tell me that it might not be a good idea to delete the "Cookies" directory but if I say do it anyway, then DO IT. If "Experienced User" is set and I want everything put into one directory (not "Folder", dammit, "DIRECTORY") then put it there!
Microsoft should try listening to what people say instead of telling people what they said. Yeah, I know, they do extensive "Market Research" before each new release, but it appears to me that all of their comparisons use "New" computer users (our results indicate that Windows xx is much easier for a new computer user to learn to do many tasks than in any previous version). What about "Experienced" computer users, and I don't mean the ones that only know the difference between a spreadsheet and a picture file, I mean the TRULY experienced users. I talk to a LOT of experienced computer users, the ones that understand that not everything is an "Object" and that there is a difference between memory and disk space, and not a single one of them truly "Likes" Windows, we use it only because the alternatives are even less attractive. Our conversations always revolve around resolving problems in Windows or how to disable things in Windows or how to get around problems in Windows or how often we have to reinstall Windows because it ate itself again or how to get some performance out of it. They never revolve around how great Windows is or how to better utilize Windows, only the problems or how to get around "Features" that we don't want.
I also know that Microsoft does extensive Beta testing for each release, the company I work for was on the Beta list for Windows 95 and 2000, but they appear to only hear the reports that they want to hear. They may fix some of the problems that are reported, but I get the impression that as far as things like "Make It Faster" or "Get Rid Of The Junk" go, Marketing has the final say.
Microsoft should also look at the number of books on the market about how to fix Windows problems or "Tips And Tricks". Look at the magazine articles or web sites oriented toward problems in Windows or how to remove "Features" or how to "Fix" enhancements that don't work. Look at their own support section with "over 150,000 support articles" or their own newsgroups with endless posts about problems with Windows. Maybe if their software was right before they released it they wouldn't need 150,000 support articles or so much throughput for their newsgroup servers.
Of course there are going to be problems, given the complexity of the operating system and hardware / software combinations on the market today that is inevitable. But the quantity of problems we have to deal with today is absurd, and it is not the same Microsoft I knew 20 years ago. That Microsoft would never have considered releasing some of the junk they are throwing out these days.
I like a lot of the things I can do with Windows, and would never go back to what I used to have, but that is not the same as thinking it is a "Good" operating system because I don't think it is. It could be, but it's not; right now it's a bloated cow with an iron fist. I use Windows because, in my opinion, it is better than the alternatives since I'm not masochistic enough to go the Linux route yet. Give ME control of my computer, give ME the control to decide what is installed and where it is installed and what can be deleted and what cannot be deleted. Let ME decide what level of assistance I want from the OS in the way of structuring the installation and operation. Give me an operating system that is lean and fast and doesn't waste all of my system resources with garbage I don't need or want, one that does what it is supposed to do. Maybe then I can tell people that I think Windows is a GOOD operating system.
Scott Craig - December, 2001
Next Time .... The
Dark Ages
Last Time ..... Internet
Advertising
Copyright © 1997-2008, Scott A. Craig, All Rights Reserved