The real wht Land Warrior will not make it

Sargeant - "We've got the enemy surrounded, men! Open fire!"

Men - "Sorry, sir, our OICWs all crashed. We have to reboot."

Sargeant - "Curse you, Bill Gates!"

-Keiichi

I don't think anyone with even half a brain would use any Windows-OS if they wanted a real-time OS ...

But then again, somebody thought the OICW was a good weapon ...

OICW

I think it looks super cool.

But that is probably its biggest problem. The thing looks like it will break after any decent drop. And all that electrical equipment probably doesn't operate too well in jungles, deserts or just about any kind of inhospitable climate.

Funny.

In all the tests performed, I have found that the operating system is not the weakest link on such a system. In fact, the Windows operating system was extremely stable in field tests.

Of course, what would I know?

Win2K is the most stable system I have ever had, it's the memory and CPU that proved me wrong.

Yes, Windows can be pretty stable & reliable.
The NT-system I use at work hasn't crashed at all.

There are IMHO two very basic problems I see :
1) is that Win2k has not been designed as a *real-time* OS ...
How fault-tolerant is Win2k really ?
What are the chances they've left some pretty stupid errors in there ?
"Keyboard error: press F1 to continue" ?
"Bootfailure : Insert Systemdisk " ?

2) Win2k is closed source ...
You have to ask MS & hope they can and want to fix it ...
I don't know how the rest of the hardware in the army is designed, but I'd assume that for most parts there is at least 1 alternative supplier ...

An example of what can be done if you don't want to rely on MS:
http://www.qnx.com
http://www.qnx.com/literature/whitepapers/faultres.html

Anyone who says Windows 2000 is stable must be smoking some pretty strong stuff. First off, if you don't have hardware that Microsoft had in mind when programming Windows 2000, you will notice some terrible stability problems. Any hardware support that didn't exist at the time of its release won't be stable, blue screens everywhere. Second, if you use hardware from a vendor Microsoft isn't allied with, you will notice major problems. Case and point: Windows has problems dealing with the AMD Athlon processor when using processor intensive features like 3d acceleration. You have to use a registry patch to fix it, but of course the reg patch isn't integrated into any sort of update package or service patch, because that would be too easy, and then they couldn't force you over to Intel processors. Third, memory management in Win2k is so pathetic that it is not only possible but probable that it was programmed by monkeys. Any operating system that uses more than 32 mb of ram just for itself is of very poor quality. Even if you are one of the lucky people with MS certified hardware drivers and an MS supported processor, the stability is nowhere near normal. Anything that can even possibly crash, even if you are trying to crash it, is unstable. Look at operating systems with average stability like linux, you won't ever have to reboot that unless you recompile the kernel. And then there operating systems like bsd and solaris that are pretty much impossible to crash. In Win2k all you have to do is write a program that initiates a command that conflicts with one of the Windows functions and (unless you changed the settings in Startup and Recovery) Windows will immediatly reboot, without any kind of warning or anything. Windows never has any never will be stable.

RogueLeader--

I think some of your opinions might be misguided by a limited set of experiences.

To reply to your post on a point-by-point basis:

Any hardware support that didn't exist at the time of its release won't be stable.

Click to expand...

This is baloney. Although there are a few cases of hardware causing conflicts, Win2k generally has pretty strong hardware support. New standards of USB, IEEE 1394, WaveLAN, IDE, and SCSI have come out after Windows was released and the operating system integrates them with ease. More often than not, hardware problems are caused by someone buying a $20 scanner at CompUSA with terrible drivers ported from Win9X. Bad drivers are not the fault of the operating system. Furthermore, Windows handles hardware faults and device conflicts pretty darn well through the HAL.

Windows has problems dealing with the AMD Athlon processor when using processor intensive features like 3d acceleration.

Click to expand...

Can you point me to the MSDN article or the knowledgebase article where this is documented? I am really curious about this one...

Third, memory management in Win2k is so pathetic that it is not only possible but probable that it was programmed by monkeys. Any operating system that uses more than 32 mb of ram just for itself is of very poor quality.

Click to expand...

What, an operating system using less than 32 MB of RAM? This is total crap. Unless you want to run UT on PCDOS, I think you might want to move out of the stone age. Even *nix uses more that 32MB of RAM in most cases. You could argue back by saying that Linux can run on a 486 laptop with a CGA graphics card and 2 MB of RAM. Well, it can but you will be giving up X and about every other feature that makes the computer usable. But hell, the console is pretty nice, VT100 is quite a standard. And I'm not even gonna to get into Linux swap files.

Look at operating systems with average stability like linux, you won't ever have to reboot that unless you recompile the kernel.

Click to expand...

HA! Maybe if your load averages look like this: 0.01 0.02 0.01! When people say Linux doesn't crash, the usually are either 1) not using it too much or 2) using it for non-interactive duties such as web servers.

And then there operating systems like bsd and solaris that are pretty much impossible to crash.

Click to expand...

There is a reason the Solaris doesn't crash too much. It runs only on a specific set of hardware. There aren't 200 different video cards, 300 different MOBOs, or millions of add-ons for any Sun product. They have tight control over the hardware that their operating system runs on. Albeit, they do have a version of Solaris for x86, but most Unix pros have difficulty getting it working at 100%.

In Win2k all you have to do is write a program that initiates a command that conflicts with one of the Windows functions and (unless you changed the settings in Startup and Recovery) Windows will immediately reboot, without any kind of warning or anything. Windows never has any never will be stable.

Click to expand...

I think you mean Win98. Win2k has a protected mode kernel and protected memory. You will be hard pressed to take down the WHOLE operating system with one of your little C++ programs. As well, you are even protected from screwing up your system when you are logged on as Admin in 2k. Try to delete critical system files or kill critical processes when you are poking around as Admin. Harder than you thought?… Now try to remove /dev/hda in Linux. You'll be in for a surprise.

I don't mean to flame you, but I just want to set the record straight. Windows does a pretty fine job considering the hardware situation out there.

Linux, BSD, and Solaris are all good operating systems. But I would like to see the average computer gamer try to run these OSes. They are meant for high caliber workstation use, not for home/business applications. They are hard to install and get running properly. Case in point: Try enabling UDMA in Slack without FUBARing your system.

Now, finally, I wanna to say that I'm not the Microsoft Zealot that I make myself out to be. I code with GNU tools under Solaris and work with many Linux distros. However, I do use windows for games and the thousands of other programs for which Richard Stallman hasn't written a GNU version.

Thanks for your time.

JaFO: Windows as a closed source solution

Now back to the topic at hand:

The closed source nature of Windows doesn't really pose a problem to Land Warrior. Using COTS (commercial off-the-self) components doesn't have to harm a milspec product. You need to look at what the computer was designed to accomplish to realize that the operating system isn't the pivotal feature of the design. As long as you can write code for Windows, you should be fine to use it as a backend to your situational awareness tools.

Let me take a different angle. The Land Warrior program was first pioneered by Raytheon as a "pet project." They spent $90 million and produced almost nothing. Their computer was based on software developed by Raytheon and as a result the system was more closed that it ought to be. Contractors withheld their code and protocols for more money. They played chicken with the army, and lost.

The project was handed to a couple of small companies based in California and prototypes were delivered almost immediately. And these new prototypes were based on Windows. Windows allowed these systems to be smaller, lighter, more modular, and support a wider array of hardware than the Raytheon units. Furthermore, the price was dropped from $100k to $15k. Not a bad deal, I would say.

Off the shelf products sometimes DO allow for more flexibility than perceived on initial inspection.

In my experience, any time Win2k said there wern't drivers for hardware when I installed it, the drivers I installed had problems. This goes for my COM port, a Viper II video card, and my GeForce 2 video card.

The Athlon issue is addressed here. http://support.microsoft.com/suppor...hlon&rnk=1&src=DHCS_MSPSS_gn_SRCH&SPR=WIN2000
If it was just a bug that's okay, **** happens. But I am very suspicious of how this was handled. I have Win2k installed now, but for the last two months I've used WinME. The reason I formated and went back to a 9x version of Windows is whenever I played a game Windows 2000 would crash at random. I went back to Win2k when I found this. You would think that a problem that makes it impossible to play games on a Athlon system would be a pretty major problem, and yet there is no automatic update on the Windows Update system, nor is it included in the Service Packs. The only way to find it is to search the knowledge base. It seems like they don't care about the problem.

What, an operating system using less than 32 MB of RAM

Click to expand...

Take a look at any half descent OS, like BeOS or Unix. They all work with 32mb or less. BeOS is even a GUI, and the most powerful one there is for multimedia.

HA! Maybe if your load averages look like this: 0.01 0.02 0.01! When people say Linux doesn't crash, the usually are either 1) not using it too much or 2) using it for non-interactive duties such as web servers

Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I didn't use linux much before switching to BSD, so I personally never ran much with Linux. However, I have had a lot of experience with Linux through shell accounts and friends (who do much much more than host web servers) and never seen a crash.

There is a reason the Solaris doesn't crash too much. It runs only on a specific set of hardware

Click to expand...

I never bought into MS's excuse that the reason their products were unstable was the variety of products. *nix supports a huge ammount of hardware, too, and I never had any trouble.

Try to delete critical system files or kill critical processes when you are poking around as Admin

Click to expand...

I already have deleted critical system files. I don't like the Windows icons, so I modified the files with icons, shell32.dll for example, and replaced the default ones. It isn't hard to get around the "protection".

Linux, BSD, and Solaris are all good operating systems. But I would like to see the average computer gamer try to run these OSes. They are meant for high caliber workstation use, not for home/business applications

Click to expand...

Solaris is for workstations, but BSD and Linux are perfect for desktops, as well as servers.

They are hard to install and get running properly

Click to expand...

I don't think they are that hard. I'll give Windows credit where its due, its easier to install than most other operating systems, but that isn't always good. It automates things a power user might want to configure themselves. Ultimately, I think that is the real problem behind Windows. Whenever you make something easier to use, you take away function. Windows is made to easier, and so MS has it automate a lot of things. The problem is, this means Windows is setup for just a general system, not optimized for what you want. That is what leads to the hardware problems. User friendliness is all good and well, but you need a way to keep features for those who will use them.

Thanks for the KB article. I'll patch all of our Athlon systems. The problem hasn't shown up, but it is good to be safe. Don't you agree?

Now on the the heart of the matter:

the drivers I installed had problems. This goes for my COM port, a Viper II video card, and my GeForce 2 video card.

Click to expand...

Your COM port requires nonstandard drivers? How odd. I always though RS-232 was fairly standard. I think you meant an IRQ conflict? No?

Take a look at any half descent OS, like BeOS or Unix. They all work with 32mb or less. BeOS is even a GUI, and the most powerful one there is for multimedia.

Click to expand...

A couple quick responses to this one: Which modern Unix variants use less than 32 MB of RAM? Also, I tend to remember that BeOS 5 makes heavy use of a disk based swap file. Finally, for multimedia, you should try IRIX (made by SGI). It really whips Be's ass.

BeOS is a nice operating system though, I'll give you that. It took me a while to get past an IRQ conflict with my mouse and TNT2, but other than that I like it quite a bit. It runs my OpenGL programs very quickly.

*nix supports a huge ammount of hardware, too, and I never had any trouble

Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion. I was refering directly to Solaris' hardware support. Its HCL is as long as a recipe for hot water.

Linux has great hardware support with the new kernel. Too bad most of the device drivers are still stuck in CVS repositories. Case in point: We are currently working on drivers for the USB version of the Happuage WinTV. It is quite a challenge, and it takes forever!

The difference between hardware support in Windows and Linux is most evident in timing. It usually takes Linux developers much longer to add new hardware support to the operating system. For example, it took Linux many many months longer to release USB and ATA66/100 support than it did Microsoft. This is not necessarly a "good thing," but that is how the situation stands, and we have to deal with it.

I never bought into MS's excuse that the reason their products were unstable was the variety of products.

Click to expand...

Perfection is a hard thing to attain when writing software, believe me. Microsoft cannot be responsible for future products they can't control. That is, unless they restrict their API's even further. Anyhow, l believe Microsoft deals with the latest and greatest hardware better than linux/unix/bsd. I maintain my original position that Win2k's software/hardware support scalability is darn good.

I'll be honest, I didn't use linux much before switching to BSD, so I personally never ran much with Linux

Click to expand...

I meant BSD&Linux in the same respect. And I still maintain that they both can crash. No operating system is infalliable. Many a time I have seen an X Server crash the whole computer. Not noly that but ext2fs can be a pretty nasty FS to recover with if fsck doesn't work. A journaled FS (like JFS) is usually better though, so whatever floats your boat.

I don't think they are that hard.

Click to expand...

And you said you use BSD? What variant is easy to install? I can say for sure that Open* and Free* are tough to get working 100%. Maybe Net* is eaiser, who knows?

and so MS has it automate a lot of things. The problem is, this means Windows is setup for just a general system, not optimized for what you want.

Click to expand...

Show me one default Linux install that is "optimized" beyond the inital choice of "development," "web server," "desktop," etc. Show me one distribution that comes with a kernel that has only the device drivers that you need compiled in. Show me one Linux newbie that knows how to use modprobe properly. Then I will believe you. Linux installs a surprisingly large amout of "nonoptimized" programs, drivers, and other stuff. If you want a real custom job, you have to do a lot of work. It gives the impression of being "optimized" but it really isn't.

You can optimize Windows more that you could ever imagine.

Finally, I want to say, our little discussion has been fun! But I am gonna quit for the day. I am sick of staring at the computer, I've been doing it for like 12 hours now. Anyways, our argument seems to be on two different levels.

Thank you once again sir.

Your COM port requires nonstandard drivers? How odd. I always though RS-232 was fairly standard. I think you meant an IRQ conflict? No

Click to expand...

My COM port worked well in Win98. In Win2k i've had my system crash when I used it. I can't even get working drivers for the COM port in WinMe, its completely non-functional. My theory is its another one of MS's schemes to "phase out" hardware they don't want to deal with.

you should try IRIX

Click to expand...

I've never heard of IRIX, it sounds interesting, where could I found out more about it?

Which modern Unix variants use less than 32 MB of RAM

Click to expand...

I know for sure FreeBSD uses less than 32mb. I'm talking about just the operating system, not any programs, servers, x, or anything else. Just Windows 2000 uses 96mb on my system.

And you said you use BSD? What variant is easy to install

Click to expand...

I think FreeBSD is very easy to install. I found it easier to install than Debian Linux, which is the linux variant I had installed before BSD. OpenBSD, I will admit, is quite another story But then again, they wern't going for user friendliness when making OpenBSD. I think they want to make sure that OpenBSD remains only available to the sup3r l33t h4x0rs.