RE: Windows BSOD vs. AS/400

["M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>]

Dave,

At 8/1/00 08:54 AM -0400, you wrote:
> It isn't as simple as Microsoft
> unilaterally
> defining Windows API's - many of the hardware interfaces are _below_ the
> OS
> level, and naturally when you have multiple manufacturers defining
> and
> interpreting such interfaces you get huge opportunities for
> mismatches.  

 OK, maybe I was oversimplifying it somewhat.  I was trying to
make a point; we are being too excusing of Windows' shortcomings in a
real production environment. I'm familiar w/ many of the hardware /
driver issues, since I've worked w/ PC's since 1983.  If we waited
until API's came out for everything (even on the /400) innovation would
be stifled.

 
> Could Windows protect itself better?  Of
> course - consider that NT/2000 (and
> the OS/2 design they're based on) handle these issues a lot more
> gracefully
> than Win 95 and 98.

 That in itself proves that M$ could handle the reliability issues
better.


>   The OS/400 protection model is even
> better, but still
> not perfect.  I had a machine down twice on V3R1 because of
> workstation
> controller LIC issues.  Certainly OS/400 didn't crash, but just as
> certainly
> the machine was unavailable to the users and therefor nearly useless,
> just
> as a Wintel machine with video driver problems would
> be.

 Ah, but here's a difference.  Were you able to get in via
passthru or Telnet or some other emulator?  Probably.  Which
means that the machine is still alive and you could apply patches,
right?  Most importantly, you could end jobs or start recovery far
more gracefully than any PC hard crash.  (BTW, bringing up V3R1, the
black stain of OS/400 releases, is a low blow!)  :-)


 -mark