Why a Reboot?

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Funny since the original windows was stolen code from Apple and Steve Jobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

funny since the lawsuit was because of look and feel, not code
funny since the gui concept was lifted from xerox parc by apple
funny since you don't know what you're talking about

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no fan of Microsoft, but you are correct that they were never accused of stealing code from Apple. My recollection of what I've read about the Apple vs. Microsoft suit is that Microsoft actually licensed the GUI from Apple, and Apple's complaint was that they exceeded the terms of that license. However, because they didn't actually use Apple's code, it was eventually decided, in that suit and another between Lotus and the publishers of Quatro Pro, that software copyrights only cover source code, not look and feel. Besides, as you pointed out, the basic layout of the modern GUI, mouse, windows, icons, etc. was invented not by Apple, but by Xerox. Apple, MIT's X window project (UNIX GUI), Windows and OS2 (probably and incomplete list) all "borrowed" from Xerox's original design. However, none of them used Xerox's code, and AFIK, Xerox did not patent the concept, so it was all perfectly legal. Apple was, I believe, first to market with a GUI (though X was not far behind), but they didn't invent it.

Also, Windows has improved a lot. When I had Windows 95 on a work PC, I could count on it locking up comletely about once a day, usually requiring a hardware reset (remember those?) to bring it back. My NT 4.0 work PC, which I ran for years, probably had to be rebooted about once every week or two, and usually would fespond to a restart or shutdown command. I rarely have to reboot either my XP home PC or my XP work PC, and almost never due to OS problems. I occasionally have to reboot my work PC because Lotus Notes has crashed and won't work without a reboot, but that is because Lotus Notes is a pile of crap with more bugs than a tropical rainforest.

In general, the Windows 9x series is unstable junk, but the NT series, especially 2000 and later(2000, XP Server 2003), is pretty solid. Reboots are often necessary becuase of memory or resourse leaks in applications software, not the OS. Windows has its flaws, especially in the security area, but so does every other OS. UNIX and Linux, while great for stability, security and scalability, can be a real pain to administer and configure.

[smoore]

UNIX isn't inherently difficult to configure and administrate, it's just a different method of working. Setting up Windows for real work makes me gnash my teeth and rend my clothing in truly biblical style.... "WHY CANT I JUST USE UNIX!?!??!?!"

In a nutshell: Windows makes the easy stuff easy and the hard stuff impossible. (for me)

"more bugs than a tropical rainforest"... heh, good one.

[CORed]

I don't disagree with you. On balance, I like UNIX better. However, it seems that in UNIX, every applications has it's own configuration file, with it's own syntax. I don't generally find these too difficult to work with, but I know some people who really struggle with these. OTOH, once you get a system set up the way you want it, you can set up another system the same way by just coying the config files. It usually isn't that easy with Windows. Both OS's have their strengths and weaknesses. UNIX and Linux are beginning to copy some of the better user interface features of Windows, but still maintaining the stability and security of UNIX. I also like the fact that in UNIX, you can pretty much do anything you need to do with a shell and vi. There may be an easier way to do it, but if things go sour, those two basic tools are often all you need to fix them. You certainly can't say the same thing regarding cmd and notepad in Windows. Hell, if things have gone sour in Windows, you may not even be able to get cmd or notepad to run.