Microsoft Confirms XP Data Loss

ShackNews ^ | Nov 11, 2001

[John Jorsett]

According to The Inquirer, Microsoft has admitted that under certain circumstances, the repairing, reinstalling or upgrading of Windows XP may lead to data loss on your hard drive. Though some of this data might be on a backup that XP makes, there could still be data lost that can't be retreived. There's no word on an upcoming fix.

[msgt]

According to Fred Langa, an upgrade to XP hardly ever goes-off without multiple hitches.

Moreover, the "improved" performance of XP over Win9x products is debatable.In addition, XP has been proven to NOT be compatible with a lot of existing hardware, ie printers, sound & video cards et al; in spite of what uSoft's saying in their promotions.

FLanga recommends if one's "happy" with Win 9x; forget XP.

I don't know about Fred, or what his problem was, but I've upgraded from Win98SE, Winnt4 and W2k with no problems at all.

I upgraded my home system, a 3 year old Gateway PII 450, with a superdisk, USB modem, printer, scanner and camera and while Win2K had to have special drivers downloaded for each, XP recognized them all with no problem.

I even upgraded one system from win98SE, to XP Beta 1, then upgraded to Beta 2, then RC 1, then release version, without a single hiccup.

XP is absolutely the most plug and play OS I've ever seen. I installed a Promise ATA 100 card and a 40GB drive in my existing system. Didn't even have to run the Found new hardware wizard - it just recognized on bootup and I started using it.

[Sabertooth]

And it is inherently obvious that OS's with greater numbers of users will exercise a greater number of lines of code; thus, revealing a wider variety of bugs. If you either don't know or deny this simple fact, I would advise you to read Watts Humphrey's "A Discipline for Software Engineering" (Addison-Wesley), for starters.

I'll take your word on Hymphrey. But is that the only reason that Windows OS requires so much code?

It's my understanding that another, not insignificant reason is because Windows is a Mac-like GUI laminated over DOS. It takes a lot more code to get a GUI that way than Mac does using it's propietary chip architecture.

(We can skip over the whole Xerox thing here. I'll stipulate that Apple mimicked Xerox, popularized the GUI, and that Windows mimicked Mac when they saw it was a commercial success.)

[SoDak]

My only complaint on AIX is the occasional unexplained burp like both yours and mine. Other than that, it's a great OS, and we have moved to it exclusively now for the db's we sell and support. Mksysb has saved us many times.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"I've yet to hear a good reason to upgrade from 2K."

As far as I've been able to research, XP is nothing more than Win2K with snazzy new GUI face paint and some video oriented CDRW multimedia apps thrown in for good measure. The initial complaint against 2K was poor gaming performance, but it appears to be no coincidence that service pack 2 for Win2K brought it up to almost identical 3D and graphical frames per second performance with XP. It looks like the only thing that XP buys you that Win2K doesn't is the intrusive anti-pirate registration feature that monitors hardware upgrades, notifies Redmond, and shuts down the OS if the new configuration looks too much like a new computer.

[Bush2000]

Absolutely. I don't debate that there are many clueless Windows users, as well. But Windows users are accustomed to bugs and they're usually not going around foolishly touting the reliability of their OS like some deluded Mac and Linux users.

By the way, did you like the Watts Humphrey text?

[Landru]

"XP is absolutely the most plug and play OS I've ever seen."

I did Fred Langa a huge disservice; & I apologize to you & any other for my failure to state all Fred had reported.

Fact is, Fred had three machines of varying age & all running a different Windows 9x & ME.
All were prepared for a clean install by Fred's eliminating anything which might complicate loading.
He experienced multiple problems with all of his machines; which, he reported on in his new, ongoing, "review" of the XP OS.
The least of which problem was easily rectified by installing a newer video card, if I recall correctly.

However, after his XP review article appeared?
Fred recieved, and published several letters (emails) just like your's, where people claimed no problems whatsoever.

Naturally, Fred recieved emails from people who were livid with uSoft, complaining of similar trouble; the "Install Wizard" malfunctioning amoung the beefs.

Here's what FredL said, & I'll paraphrase; If you're happy with your "present" Win 9x OS, and DON'T want to RISK the troubles I've experienced? Pass on XP. If you must have the latest from uSoft, go for it & let me know of your experience(s)
*Not* an exact quote, but close enough for hand grenades.

Frankly, I'm glad to hear you've had a complete success, Top.
I'm looking at getting a new machine, & XP will be preloaded; my concern was whether I'd have problems with my printer & external CDRom burner.
What's worse than paying good money & expecting something; then not getting it delivered OR discovering you're in for an addtional investment?

[Bush2000]

I'll take your word on Hymphrey. But is that the only reason that Windows OS requires so much code?

What basis do you have to state that Windows contains more code than Mac OS?

It's my understanding that another, not insignificant reason is because Windows is a Mac-like GUI laminated over DOS. It takes a lot more code to get a GUI that way than Mac does using it's propietary chip architecture.

I have 2 points to make here. First, Windows XP is completely 32-bit from stem to stern without a single bit of DOS code. Second, if the Mac OS uses a proprietary chip (for QuickDraw or whatever other GUI components it uses), that would reduce the code footprint required in dynamic RAM; however, the fact that code resides in a proprietary chip doesn't mean that it doesn't exist; it is part of the operating system and has to be included as part of what you would call its "bloat".

(We can skip over the whole Xerox thing here. I'll stipulate that Apple mimicked Xerox, popularized the GUI, and that Windows mimicked Mac when they saw it was a commercial success.)

Thank you. It always amuses me when Mac proponents insist that they didn't steal ideas from Xerox when it is clear that they did. I credit them for knowing a good thing when they saw it. And I also credit the Windows engineers for the same reason. Some things are pretty damned obvious: It's much easier to convey a message with graphical images than text.

[Bush2000]

Frankly, I'm glad to hear you've had a complete success, Top. I'm looking at getting a new machine, & XP will be preloaded; my concern was whether I'd have problems with my printer & external CDRom burner. What's worse than paying good money & expecting something; then not getting it delivered OR discovering you're in for an addtional investment?

I would advise anybody who's considering moving to XP to check with the manufacturers of peripherals such as CD burners, CF readers, IEEE-1394 cards, webcams, sound cards, digital camera software, video cards, etc to make sure that drivers are available before making the plunge. Microsoft is not responsible for providing every driver in the planet. That is the OEM's responsibility. And since many OEMs stopping updating drivers after a few years, some older equipment just won't be compatible. Most equipment such as hard drives, SCSI cards, keyboards, and mice are pretty well covered right out of the box, however. In fact, I was surprised to find that XP supports my networked Lexmark InkJet printer: WinME refused to allow me to print to it, citing driver incompatibilities. It's been my experience that XP installation is a lot smoother regarding digital imaging products, too.

[HamiltonJay]

You should remain at least 2 versions behind MS Windows current version if you want an OS that is even remotely reliable and stable... I was on 95 until a few months ago, upgraded to 98... as long as MS has the ludicrous copy protection scheme that it has now on XP, will never do XP.. only have 1 box running MS of any sort anyway... other 12 are all Unix flavors.

[Sabertooth]

What basis do you have to state that Windows contains more code than Mac OS?

Didn't you concede as much when you said "it is inherently obvious that OS's with greater numbers of users will exercise a greater number of lines of code?" I thought that was the point you were making when you said "My complaint is that few Mac and Linux users seem to be aware of simple engineering dynamics," implying that the reason those OS's used less code is that they have less users.

Anyway, it''s my understanding that MS code bloat is pretty common knowledge. It's something I've run across a number of times, though I can't cite a specific source at the moment. David Pogue, maybe?

I've got a buddy up in Redmond at MS, and this is one of our general understandings when we're comparing Mac apples vs Windows oranges. 10 gigs on a Mac hard drive goes farther to do the same thing than 10 gigs on a Wintel machine, because of the extra code necessary. (We're talking pre-OS X and pre-XP, anyway). Same with the mHz on the processors... a 500 mHz G-4 is faster than a 500 mHz Pentium III, for example. Granted, Wintel machines make up for this by offering bigger hard drives and processors with more mHz than Macs, so those sorts of things tend to balance out.

...if the Mac OS uses a proprietary chip (for QuickDraw or whatever other GUI components it uses), that would reduce the code footprint required in dynamic RAM; however, the fact that code resides in a proprietary chip doesn't mean that it doesn't exist; it is part of the operating system and has to be included as part of what you would call its "bloat".

That's kind of a technicality. The bottom line is that the code isn't in the software, and that's where the recent XP glitches are showing up, no?

[Moridin]

Personally, I never keep my data on the same partition as my OS. So even if I had to do a clean install, I can format that partition and never even touch my data files. IMO, that type of precaution should be done with any OS you run.

As for XP, I have it on two of my computers and they run better than they ever have (one from Win98se, the other from WinME).

[Bush2000]

Didn't you concede as much when you said "it is inherently obvious that OS's with greater numbers of users will exercise a greater number of lines of code?"

No, not true. Let's pretend that the Mac OS and Windows have an equivalent number of lines of code (let's call it 10M, although that falls way short). If there are more users running Windows (and there are), then a greater number of lines of code within the Windows source code will be exercised than the Mac. You could think of this analogy, if it helps. Let's say that you set Windows users loose in the same park. Since there are so many more Windows users than Mac users, it is more likely that the Windows users will walk on more of the walkways in the park than the Mac users. Make sense?

Anyway, it''s my understanding that MS code bloat is pretty common knowledge. It's something I've run across a number of times, though I can't cite a specific source at the moment. David Pogue, maybe?

I don't know how anyone other than the MS engineers would be privy to such information. The executable formats are different, the functionality is completely different, and there is little to be gleaned by disassembling the binaries or comparing their sizes. That's a red herring.

I've got a buddy up in Redmond at MS, and this is one of our general understandings when we're comparing Mac apples vs Windows oranges. 10 gigs on a Mac hard drive goes farther to do the same thing than 10 gigs on a Wintel machine, because of the extra code necessary. (We're talking pre-OS X and pre-XP, anyway). Same with the mHz on the processors... a 500 mHz G-4 is faster than a 500 mHz Pentium III, for example. Granted, Wintel machines make up for this by offering bigger hard drives and processors with more mHz than Macs, so those sorts of things tend to balance out.

The only thing that I can vouch for is that the comparison is apples and oranges and doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

That's kind of a technicality. The bottom line is that the code isn't in the software, and that's where the recent XP glitches are showing up, no?

Well, since XP has no equivalent to Mac proprietary hardware chips (other than the ROM BIOS which isn't even owned by Microsoft), any comparison would be pointless and moot.

[Sabertooth]

Let's pretend that the Mac OS and Windows have an equivalent number of lines of code (let's call it 10M, although that falls way short). If there are more users running Windows (and there are), then a greater number of lines of code within the Windows source code will be exercised than the Mac. You could think of this analogy, if it helps. Let's say that you set Windows users loose in the same park. Since there are so many more Windows users than Mac users, it is more likely that the Windows users will walk on more of the walkways in the park than the Mac users. Make sense?

Not really. What you're apparently saying is that because there are more Windows users, they're more likely to come across the code errors than the Mac users. Perhaps. That doesn't necessarily explain away the higher incidence of Windows errors. It's just as possible that Windows has more errors AND more users.

While Windows certainly dominates the market, there are still millions of Mac users perfectly capable of discovering glitches in the OS.

Well, since XP has no equivalent to Mac proprietary hardware chips (other than the ROM BIOS which isn't even owned by Microsoft), any comparison would be pointless and moot.

Not moot at all. It's the exactly propietary hardware that is at the root of everthing that makes a Mac different than a PC, and Mac users so loyal.

It's why PCs start out with such a handicap.

[The_Reader_David]

Foolishly touting? I've used all three OS's. Maybe XP has caught up with the others finally, but I can tell you from experience that Linux and Mac OS 9.1 are vastly superior in stability to NT, 95 or 98. (Admittedly Mac OS 7.xx and 8.1 were almost as bad as contemporaneous MS releases on stability. They still win on ease of use.)

The only times OS 9.1 has frozen on me was when I or a family member was running MS Internet Explorer or MS Office (my brother-in-law works for MS and gave us a copy).

I have never had Linux freeze in years of use at my office.

In my book emperical evidence trumps software engineering theory, no matter how exalted the author.

[CheneyChick]

Hey Lizzy W, thot you might want to see this picture of Gov. Rick Perry and his G4 PowerBook.....

Click on the pic for the story....

[CheneyChick]

And another former Texas Governor and his PowerBook.....

[Lizzy W]

thought you might want to see this picture of Gov. Rick Perry and his G4 PowerBook.....

I'm drooling!

[CheneyChick]

LOL!

[danelectro]

By the way, did you like the Watts Humphrey text?

i haven't read it, which is one reason i looked up the link. i've been working my way through the tcp/ip (wright/stevens [r.i.p]) series and (very slowy) knuth. the humphrey book is a prime candidate to go on my christmas list.

[philetus]

There is no good reason to upgrade from Win 2k