I had the displeasure of reading a post in which someone explained why so many people have problems with their Win9x machines. The reason, according to the author, was that people run too many programs. You see, the more programs you run, the more unstable the system becomes, so to fix this you should stop running all of those unnecessary programs and just stick to a small set of applications. Many manufactures load so much extra software on these machines that they get bogged down and crash.
The author concluded that people should just be more careful about what software they run, and the operating system will not crash as often. The author exposed a valid problem, then came up with a "solution" which will keep current users of the operating system happy. However, the author did not tackle the underlying problem, my response focuses on this problem, why it exists, and why the authors "solution" actually reinforces the problem instead of trying to solve it in future releases of the operating system.
Do Mac's crash when they are, literally, not doing anything? No! Do win9x boxes crash when they are, literally, not doing anything, again no. OSs crash when they are running software. But wait, why should software be able to crash an OS. That makes absolutely no sense.
Could you imagine my roommate walking into my room and saying that he just installed the new teTeX distribution and it crashed his FreeBSD box. This is ludicrous. latex is a user land program, it does not have permission to write outside of its memory space, or affect OS processes. I could run umpteen different programs, eating up my 64MB RAM, 30MB swap, and all available CPU time, yet I wouldn't worry about my Linux box crashing. A program may very well crash if I run out of memory and it tries to malloc some from the system; this is to be expected when a program makes a mistake --to crash itself. But, a program should not be able to crash the OS.
If an OS crashes because of a running program, then it is still the OSs fault. If an OS cannot reliably run a dozen large applications at the same time --given sufficient memory-- then I do and we all should make fun of it. It is upsetting to see how people look at computing today; people accept rebooting as part of their daily routine. Then, people come along and say, the OS crashed because you tried to run a program. That is what the OS is for. It did not perform its function if it crashed. This is a major problem, and it should upset you.
One of the reasons that Micro$oft does not offer a better product, is because people do not demand one. Everyone I know who wanted a better OS uses Linux or FreeBSD.
I am not saying that win9x is completely devoid of useful or attractive features, but I am saying it is unstable and it is the fault of Micro$oft that it is unstable. No one person should be made to feel that they did something wrong because they tried to run a program. Remember, no matter how pretty the stocking is, coal is coal.
So, now you have this piece of coal in a beautiful stocking, what should you do with it? You should use whatever tricks necessary to get your work done. Many people do not have the resources or knowhow to move to something better. However, you need to talk with your purchasing consultant, boss, information technologies group, or anyone else to let them know that you are upset with the level of quality with which your OS was constructed. Make them aware that you know there are better choices out there and you want to use something better. Force their hand, make them aware, and above all make sure that Micro$oft knows you feel this way. Write letters, send email, and make sure Micro$oft knows you will not be buying any upgrades until a stable solution is available. Remember, however, that more stable is not necessarily stable.
Allow me to make an analogy. If your firm was buying screwdrivers which broke all the time, you would be upset. Let us also say that the company which furnishes the screwdrivers gives you a new one each time one breaks. So, you have to pay no money for the replacement. Nevertheless, your firm looses production time each time a tool breaks --while it is waiting for the receipt of a new screwdriver. Every company which I have ever dealt with would complain about this. They would spend the money on a more reliable tool and, in the end, save money.
So, why should a OS be any different? It shouldn't be! Micro$oft has done a wonderful job of convincing you that this is just the way things are, and there is no reason to expect more. What they are doing, is to play on the ignorance of people.
Demand a better product, and you might just get one.
As usual, feel free to flame me if you disagree with what I have said here.
1 This response has been slightly edited to better suit this medium, and to make some points clearer and more explicit. Although, it still retains it's original Usenet format.
Copyleft: (C) 1999, William Totten