I'm sorry but are BSOD's MS's fault?

Whenever I ever rarely do get them with my XP system they usually occur because of a hardware problem. Bad stick of memory? Yea, you might get a BSOD sometime, but when an app crashes, yea it's a pain to end it but it never results in a BSOD.

Fixing stuck apps in Linux is far easier. Pop open a console, xkill, click, done.

Windows you have a whole slew of different things you can try to close it and when you get to the "end now" part it can take forever to close it.

I haven't seen a BSOD on this computer in... I can't remember. But the fact that Mac and Linux users always poke fingers at MS for BSODs is usually because they've seen 3.1/95/98/ME crash... yea, those versions were total shit, bit I've found 2k and XP to be a lot better when it comes to BSODs.

I probably sound like I'm defending Windows, but I probably am, but what I'm say is:
1) It's usually crappy/faulty/incompatible hardware issue/ buggy software. Totally out of MS's hands of fixing, thats up to the QC people in buildings or you debugger dudes or even people picking out the hardware.
2) The fact that mac and linux users still complain about them is the least of concern.

My computer has very few things installed:
MS XP Home, SP2 and completly updated.
Firefox, Thunderbird, Office '97, World of Warcraft, MM2 (google search it), and a few minimal apps. The closest thing when it comes to firewall is the questionable how good it is one on my linksys router. And Ad-Aware.

When I turn my computer on, the only process ran by me (not including the system, network, and local servies) are explorer.exe and ctfmon.exe (comes with Office).



Windows sucks and doesn't.

I hate MS just because
Windows is [was] the world standard
It can run on cheap hardware that noobs can use... yea, don't tell a Windows user 4life to find a 486 and put Ubuntu on it, they'd rather buy a new $350 pc from Dell or buy used ones for $100 on eBay.
If macs were pc dirt cheap everyone would buy those, but the cheapest they got starts at $600.

Since I use a minimal amount of apps (most should run on OS X already) and that macs finally use decent processors(Throw XP on just in case), I really wanna save up and obscenely large amount of money for one of those Macpros.

Paying 4k bucks isn't that bad. It'd like 2 PCs in one. Has the XP/vista ass kicking OS X, and run XP too.

Try to build your own dual Xeon computer with PCIex16 etc. It's not gonna match the quality and price of the mac etc.

I could probably sell my main machine for $1000, the 17" for $100, another computer for $250, another maybe for 50-100, and I'm left with nothing but $1400.

I'd probably have to pay 4600 for the macpro, 600 for a 23" LCD, 300x2 new ATI cards... 5800! Some 4k bucks to go...

Wait 5 years and this crap will be on the curb.

2018 and I can be runnin around with 16nm fab xeons with with cores coming out of my ears. Gigs and gigs of DDR8 memory, the monitor is plugged into the back of your head...

Hell I don't see why I even bother upgrade at all. You need to spend 1-5k$ every 2 years to stay in the lead of technology.

You know, look back 10-20 years, what'd you have? '85 mac came out with it's 68k cpus and its half of meg of ram, PCs on it's 8080 cpu. Late 90's were G3s and Celeron/PIII range, 128mb of ram was crazy. Early 2k was P4 and G4 256mb ram to a gig, now we've dumped PPC and now its only Intel vs AMD. With smaller fabs and more cores being more popular (which I don't disagree with :P).

This got off topic, I don't know what it says. Go skim it, reply. I'm sleepy lol.

BSOD in Windows is rarely seen now in the NT line, compared to of course the 3.1 and 9x series since those have dos running underneath. I do agree with the whole windows sucks yet it doesn't, the only versions of windows I will truely defend and keep on mentioning in other posts about ms stuff, is windows nt4.0 and windows2000 (nt5.0) , those two versions as far as I've seen are the best, and I have worked with them. XP (5.1) seems like a side step in a wrong direction, and Vista is just horrible, mostly due to drm in the background. Honestly, I don't see how gaming in Vista can be a good thing, since it needs a very high end machine to run it well, and if thats the case, you will be dropping even more money for an over the top system just to handle gaming decently, I think its going to be a nightmare for gamers. As to reiterate, NT4.0 and 5.0 were the best, and there will never be another like them.

High prices in USA i see...

In Poland ive checked hardware like:
GIGABYTE GA-M55S-S3 NF550 AM2
AMD ATHLON 64 X2 5600+ BOX 2800MHZ AM2
1024MB GEIL DUAL 800 ULTRA
GF8600GT 256MB 128BIT GIGABYTE 570/1400 SP2 S.C.
SEAGATE ST3250620AS 250GB SATA-II 16MB

that gives around 640 $
all the rest like case, dvd, lcd, thats next 500.

and You have compi which will be good for more than 2 years

My computer is pretty good, I'm thinking of buy some memory with a better latency (mine is like 5-5-5-12). Pay 300$ and you can have 4x1GB DDR2 667 with a cas latency of 3-4-3-8 (I think thats right).

The only other thing I think I'd like to upgrade it the monitor to the 23/24" I said above. It would be a dell and I think its acctually only 550$. It's a very nice monitor, nice pixel pitch, brightness, 1000:1, DVI, really big resoltion, and very cheap compared to similar monitors.

I use XP just because I've found it to load a little faster then 2k and it had some more multimedia type things built in (picture viewer app, wifi support, etc)