05-13-2006, 01:45 PM
Sam,
I think that you are missing the big picture. WHY did Microsoft need to create the Safety Restore feature that you're talking about? Because they needed to. If you can count the number of times that you've had your PC crash on 1 hand, I'd say that you are definitely in the minority. I think that Windows 2000/XP was a huge leap in stability over its predecessors, but let's be honest. Most of the improvements between NT and 2000/XP were safety nets to help you recover from catastrophic failures of the OS. These features do work well, but they shouldn't be necessary at all if the OS were more reliable. Most of the problems with Windows can be traced to crappy drivers and 3rd party software, but it is MS' fault for creating a framework in which is possible to create this crappy software. They should have redesigned their security model a decade ago, just after Windows 3.1 came out.
I think that you are missing the big picture. WHY did Microsoft need to create the Safety Restore feature that you're talking about? Because they needed to. If you can count the number of times that you've had your PC crash on 1 hand, I'd say that you are definitely in the minority. I think that Windows 2000/XP was a huge leap in stability over its predecessors, but let's be honest. Most of the improvements between NT and 2000/XP were safety nets to help you recover from catastrophic failures of the OS. These features do work well, but they shouldn't be necessary at all if the OS were more reliable. Most of the problems with Windows can be traced to crappy drivers and 3rd party software, but it is MS' fault for creating a framework in which is possible to create this crappy software. They should have redesigned their security model a decade ago, just after Windows 3.1 came out.