«

Dan <> wrote in news:5pg3l.3387$cu.1789@news-
server.bigpond.net.au:

> Windows is NOT a piece of ****. People just don't know how to use it.

You can't tell me how to fix the problem I just described.

Cody Jarrett <> wrote in
news::

> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:50:09 GMT, Dan <> wrote:
>
>>Windows is NOT a piece of ****. People just don't know how to use it.
>
> What you Aussies lack in elegance you more than make up for in... um,
> ... er, ....
>
> Gimme some more time. I'll think of something.

Lunkheaded brutishness.

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
> Sam Wormley <> wrote in
> news:Idi3l.489340$yE1.298419@attbi_s21:
>
>> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>>> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
>>> Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to
>>> use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
>>> Windows is such a POS.
>>>
>> http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/hcs/index.html
>
> There's no reason to trust that.
>

Trust what?

Tom Potter wrote:
> "The Daring Dufas" <the-daring-> wrote in message news:gik5e9$olr$...
>> wrote:
>>> The Daring Dufas <the-daring-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
>>>>>> Linux is obviuosly better,
>>>>> Both operating systems suck, AmigaOS is and always been the best.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga
>>>> That's nice, what are you going to run it on?
>>>> It's my understanding that no one makes hardware
>>>> for it anymore.
>>> The Wikipedia article was posted for a purpose.
>>>
>> What....are....you....going....to....run....it.... on?
>
> Windows, Macintosh, DOS, Linux, etc.
>
> http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/amiga.shtml
>

Neeto! Thanks for the link, I've had The Free Country
in my bookmarks for a long time but haven't explored
the site extensively yet. Still, there are no new boxes
to run the software.

TDD

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
> Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to use
> in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why Windows is
> such a POS.
>
> When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed an
> update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command, the
> reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes bugs to
> accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the reverse order
> of which they were installed.
>
> The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
> files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
> uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the buggier
> your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the OS.

You need to work on the procedures which you use to backup your computer
system.

<snip>

/BAH

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
> "philo" <> wrote in
> news::
>
>> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg@207.115.17.102...
>>> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
>>> Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to
>>> use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
>>> Windows is such a POS.
>>>
>>> When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
>>> an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command,
>>> the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes
>>> bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the
>>> reverse order of which they were installed.
>>>
>>> The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
>>> files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
>>> uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
>>> buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the
>>> OS.
>>>
>>> Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem, which
>>> makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?) handle this
>>> problem, and can we learn anything from their solution to help
>>> minimize the problem with Windows?
>>>
>>> Your thoughts?
>>
>> I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.
>>
>> Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
>> and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can
>> sometimes be harder to sort out.
>>
>> That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not
>> require a re-install.
>> I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% +
>> trouble free for *many* years.
>
> You're living in a fantasy world. Everybody knows that Windows slowly
> accumulates bugs. They've known almost from day one, when people
> started griping about what a POS it was.

Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son.

/BHA

On Dec 21, 10:59*am, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 21, 9:13*am, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
> [...]
>
> The problem with windows is
> *[1] Management - constantly making wrong decisions, deliberately
> breaking bridges in software/APIs for their "commercial advantage" and
> the rest of the typical corporate idiocy. Microsoft Management is
> filled with people who have
> * *- never self-funded and run a profitable business on their own
> * *- never produced a profitable consumerable in the free market
>
> Features, functionality and robustness always come after marketing and
> politics and this is a sign that the company is on its way out.
>
> *[2] User interface design needs to accomodate the entire spectrum of
> computer users from idiots to experts, old to young, culture, race,
> etc. As a result, the UI designed to fit everybody in reality fits
> nobody. It is inefficient, etc.
>
> *[3] Backwards compatibility - rather than dismiss the old and start
> new, windows always carries the bad design principles through into new
> version to support older software. They could've taken a
> virtualization path as Apple have done in their OS, but idiot
> management led by idiot Balmer decided that would be too easy,
> profitable and make too much sense for them, so they support the
> archaic APIs and software concepts in newer versions XP/Vista, etc
> (and it looks like Windows 7 will still carry the same design).
>
> That being said, Linux is worse (much worse).

Wondoes is not bad at all if you appreciate what it was made for. The
main purposes are "make big business bigger" and "allow the US
government to eavesdrop on everyone in the whole wide world" So from a
technical perspective it truly is revolutionary. Every non US
government gave their cyberspace to Microsoft! I mentioned how
upsetting this was in 1995 The response talked mostly about a nice
green start button. And how I should support the mainstream consensus
of ubertruth.

You know the theorem: If you are 10 steps ahead of the crowd you are a
lunatic. I must say it took very long for people to figure it out.
Even today most minions love using M$ and I'm using it to! Because
there is no good alternative left alive. Honestly, Commodore was godly
compared to this crap.

Take for example the Chinese with the black screen. I thought it was
hilarious! Even the Chinese are to stupid to write their own operating
system. Would much rather use the US military application. Of course
long before that lots and lots of smaller businesses went bankrupt
thanx to micro$oft. You just got to give them credit for that.

A 10 cent CD that costs hundreds of Euro's !! What to do with the
money? Lets go and use it to kill kids in Africa and call it a fax-
ination program.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4204425.stm
"The foundation run by Microsoft magnate Bill Gates has announced it
is dedicating $750m (£400m) to a worldwide infant vaccination
programme. Mr Gates said the donation would help save millions of
children's lives."

Ohh I thought people around the world needed drinking water and food
stuffs?

You ever try to eat a vaccine? "ohh, I'm hungry please give my
shots!"; who believes that? But of course, the windoes crowd loves all
Billo rhetorics universally!

Here, this is the real work.

http://www.ryanswell.ca/

Put your hands on the screen!

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
> Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise
> to use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
> Windows is such a POS.
>
> When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
> an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f
> command, the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method
> causes bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in
> precise the reverse order of which they were installed.
>
> The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
> files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
> uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
> buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall
> the OS.
>
> Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem,
> which makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?)
> handle this problem, and can we learn anything from their solution
> to help minimize the problem with Windows?
>
> Your thoughts?

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> I think you have made gross generalizations based off personal
> experience - which are usually proven inaccurate (at best.)
>
> I utilize many different operating systems (and flavors/versions of
> said operating systems) and if there is a single OS that is not
> lacking in one or more (mostly more after years of use on any given
> OS) ways, I have yet to come across it. Many times - some of the
> 'problems' found could have been avoided with experience and
> know-how on the part of the user - which is acceptable in most
> cases because I don't believe someone whould 'hold my hand' in
> everything I do. Also - many times - it is a 'personal' issue with
> the OS - meaning it won't do something the end-user believes it
> *should* do.
> As far as your gross generalizations - I have a system I have been
> running since Windows XP was released. It has been through two
> different sets of hardware, several hardware failures, many *MANY*
> installations and software removals and is now finally running as a
> VirtualBox machine on top of my Windows Vista and Windows Vista x64
> Ultimate machines. I have *not* had to 'reinstall my OS' (assuming
> you mean a clean installation) nor did it ever slow down in any way
> I did not expect (when you upgrade applications, seldom do they
> actually utilize less resources than their prior versions...)
> In my specific experience - Windows (XP, Vista and some prior
> versions to a certain extent) are fairly stable operating systems
> that have given me personally little trouble. I've thrown a lot at
> them - and my experience is not limited to just the applications I
> utilize on a daily basis nor is my experience limited to just one
> or two hardware configurations (I would put myself in the thousands
> (possibly tens of thousands), easily, as far as how many different
> hardware configurations I have had to deal with in the years since
> Windows XP was first released alone.) I also pull from the
> experience of those whose systems I have cleaned up from a mess or
> setup initially - in that they seldom have the same trouble after a
> little configuration and a little tutoring on how to properly
> utilize their system.
> YMMV.

Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
> After your assertion that personal experience is "inaccurate (at
> best)", your whole post has become a meaningless diatribe.

Not what I said.

I said, "I think you have made gross generalizations based off personal
experience - which are usually proven inaccurate (at best.)"

It's the 'gross generalizations based off personal experience', not the
personal experiences themselves. There is nothing wrong with personal
experiences and if built up and combined many times - personal experience
can become pretty strong evidence. The original poster had ... seems to be
.... one personal experience and made an assertion that their personal
experience proved a point when combined with the trouble they saw (but had
no personal experience with) in the newsgroups (the whole 'walk into an
emergency room and assume the whole world has an epidemic of broken arms'
scenario...) - a "gross generalization".

It's best to read the entire message you respond to - not just one part.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

"Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote in message
news:Xns9B7B39348C4E1fdgdfjhsrtg@207.115.33.102...
> "philo" <> wrote in
> news::
>
> >
> > "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg@207.115.17.102...
> >>
> >> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
> >> Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to
> >> use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
> >> Windows is such a POS.
> >>
> >> When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
> >> an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command,
> >> the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes
> >> bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the
> >> reverse order of which they were installed.
> >>
> >> The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
> >> files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
> >> uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
> >> buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the
> >> OS.
> >>
> >> Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem, which
> >> makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?) handle this
> >> problem, and can we learn anything from their solution to help
> >> minimize the problem with Windows?
> >>
> >> Your thoughts?
> >
> >
> > I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.
> >
> > Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
> > and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can
> > sometimes be harder to sort out.
> >
> > That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not
> > require a re-install.
> > I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% +
> > trouble free for *many* years.
>
> You're living in a fantasy world. Everybody knows that Windows slowly
> accumulates bugs. They've known almost from day one, when people
> started griping about what a POS it was.


If you think that you are a *total* idiot and do not know how to use a
computer.

Except when I've moved a HD into a new hardware environment
and had to perform a repair install...
I've never had to fool with one of my Windows installations.

At one time I had been using Linux for most of my work...
but for software compatibility reasons with the organization where I do my
volunteer work,
I found it easier to just stay with Windows.

I have used Linux, BSD ,Solaris, BeOS, OS/2 & ECS ...etc over the years
and they all have their own strengths and weaknesses.


To say that one OS is better than another is like saying
a chain saw is better than a hack saw. It depends what the hell you are
trying to do.

Sam Wormley <> wrote in
newswq3l.490007$yE1.194324@attbi_s21:

> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>> Sam Wormley <> wrote in
>> news:Idi3l.489340$yE1.298419@attbi_s21:
>>
>>> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>>>> Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS,
>>>> and Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the
>>>> expertise to use in it, but until this week I didn't understand
>>>> exaclty why Windows is such a POS.
>>>>
>>> http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/hcs/index.html
>>
>> There's no reason to trust that.
>
> Trust what?

Are you serious?