Now I Understand

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Bluuuue Rajah, Dec 20, 2008.

  1. 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?
    Bluuuue Rajah, Dec 20, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote in message
    news:Xns9B7AB9C822192fdgdfjhsrtg@207.115.17.102:

    > Ewewybody wightwy cwiticizes Micow$tiff fow sewwing a cwappy OS, and
    > Winux is obwiuoswy bettew, if you hawe th-th-the time and th-th-the
    > expewtise t-t-t-to use in it, but untiw th-th-this week I didn't
    > undewstand exacwty why Windows is such a POS.


    > When I had t-t-t-to uninstaww th-th-the Googwe toowbaw because Googwe
    > instawwed an update th-th-tht I didn't ask fow, which owewowde IE5's
    > ctww-f command, th-th-the weason beame cweaw. Windows'
    > instaww/uninstaww meth-th-thod causes bugs t-t-t-to accumuwate, if
    > powgwams awe not ununstawwed in pwecise th-th-the wewewse owdew of
    > which th-th-they wewe instawwed.


    > De powbwem is th-th-that tewwibwe meth-th-thod of sawing owd copies of
    > system fiwes, wike .ini fiwes, as backups, t-t-t-to be westowed when
    > softwawe is uninstawwed. So th-th-the mowe apps you uninstaww, out of
    > owdew, th-th-the buggiew youw system becomes, untiw you finawwy hawe
    > t-t-t-to weinstaww th-th-the OS.


    > Winux appawentwy doesn't hawe anyth-th-thing wesembwing th-th-this
    > powbwem, which makes me wondew, how did th-th-the Winux designews
    > (Towwawd?) handwe th-th-this powbwem, and can we weawn anyth-th-thing
    > fowm th-th-theiw sowution t-t-t-to hewp minimize th-th-the powbwem wif
    > Windows?


    > Youw th-th-thoughts?
    Reverend Doctor Kanakambujam Thuvaradran, Dec 20, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bluuuue Rajah

    Leonard Grey Guest

    You're an idiot.
    ---
    Leonard Grey
    Errare humanum est

    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?
    Leonard Grey, Dec 20, 2008
    #3
  4. Leonard Grey <> wrote in message
    news::

    > You're an idiot.
    > ---
    > Leonard Grey
    > Errare humanum est
    >
    > 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?


    Agreed - shoot him at dawns house.
    Alden Smallman-Bundlefield, Lieutenant General, 56, Dec 20, 2008
    #4
  5. Bluuuue Rajah

    Guest

    , Dec 20, 2008
    #5
  6. Bluuuue Rajah

    Dan Guest

    Windows is NOT a piece of shit. People just don't know how to use it.
    Dan, Dec 21, 2008
    #6
  7. 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?


    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.

    --
    Shenan Stanley
    MS-MVP
    --
    How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    Shenan Stanley, Dec 21, 2008
    #7
  8. 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.

    TDD
    The Daring Dufas, Dec 21, 2008
    #8
  9. Bluuuue Rajah

    Uncle Al Guest

    Uncle Al, Dec 21, 2008
    #9
  10. Bluuuue Rajah

    Guest

    The Daring Dufas <> 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.

    --

    Food chain.
    http://www.squidzone.ca/photos/uncategorized/185785.jpg
    , Dec 21, 2008
    #10
  11. wrote:
    > The Daring Dufas <> 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?

    TDD
    The Daring Dufas, Dec 21, 2008
    #11
  12. Bluuuue Rajah

    Benj Guest

    On Dec 20, 6:13 pm, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@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.


    Linux is NOT "obviously better". BOTH are POS!
    There are TWO problems: The problem with Windoze is Bill Gates.
    And the problem with Linux is programmers.

    > 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.


    Here is the understanding in a nutshell.

    1. Bill Gates (the smartest man in the universe) never even foresaw
    the internet, Bill Gates thinks that HIS time is valuable, but YOURs
    is not. Bill Thinks that if you use his software he "owns" your
    machine.

    2. Hence windoze is full of backdoors and other items which allows
    Bill and his minions to enter into your machine at will, stomp around
    in there, load software, run programs, examine your data, all without
    your permission. Google toolbar is simply a pimple on the ass of
    progress. All actions take forever wasting your (but not Bill's)
    time. Ever ask yourself why in this day and age you should be waiting
    15 minutes for a computer to "boot"? Hell, paper tape never took that
    long! Why should it do that at all? Why should you have to wait for
    ANY operation save the calculation of atomic bomb parameters? Shit.
    That's a CRAY supercomputer sitting there on your damn desk! The
    genius is that they managed to slow it down as much as they have!

    3. Programmers are almost without exception lazy morons. They are so
    caught up in details that they don't have time to ask "how would a
    user interact with this program?" Nope. They grab a language, use all
    the features built into that language as is with no regard to if they
    suck or not. The "true test" in their view is not is this convenient
    and easy for the user, but rather is there SOME way to do this
    operation? Even if you have to push on walls to find guns and food, if
    it does the job, it stays that way.

    4. Programmers are so imbued with the worship of details they never
    see the big picture. Hence, every job is done backwards from details
    outward. And therefore when added to lazy, you end up with new
    software being created by patching old software. This inspite of the
    well-known rule that says that it always takes less time to write a
    whole new program (and do it right) than to patch and modify an old
    POS. Now you know what "built on NT 'technology'" means. It means our
    heads are still up our lazy butts!

    5. Commercial pressures add a final disaster to the mix encouraging
    patching of old crap and releasing things before they are finished as
    well as an emphasis on hype rather than functionality.

    6. So is Vista the saviour of the world? All the sales people at my
    micro-store told me they are "really excited" about Vista. Truth? Go
    look at all the articles in the gaming mags telling how to strip Vista
    off your machine and put XP back on. Feh.

    7. OK, so is Linux the saviour of the world? Hardly. That OS is SO old
    it has a beard. It's FAR too complex because it came from another era
    of timeshare and terminals. Basically it's a monument to "patch
    rather than write" rule. Typical Linux flake: First tells you you
    don't have a certain kind of drive when booting up, but then waits 5
    minutes looking for them (I presume just in case you installed one in
    the last few seconds). Quote the Red Hat factory rep: "Yeah it's a
    real bug but we're not going to fix it..." In other words we got
    your money so bite me! Red Hat is dead so bite ME!

    8. People, however ARE aware of these problems. A "save game" program
    to restore you OS is an excellent investment. Too bad they seem to be
    harder and harder to find and work less and less well. So what
    happens when you go to the Logitech mouse site to add "full features"
    to your cool wireless mouse and their "features" crash and lock the
    whole OS? Obviously a "save game" is the answer. But that does NOT
    answer why the morons who put together the OS known as Windoze were
    allowed to sell that POS as if it were a real OS. It's not. though in
    many ways it's somewhat better than some others out there (Linux).

    9. So now that you understand the problem, just one question remains:
    Is there at least ONE programmer out there with the ability at the
    level to write a decent OS, with the time and motivation to start from
    scratch, considering the way the USER interacts with it foremost, who
    will respect the user's privacy and sovereignty over his own machine,
    and who is willing to do all this without trying to kluge something
    together from some shit that other high school students wrote in their
    basement?

    Well, IS THERE?
    Benj, Dec 21, 2008
    #12
  13. <snipped>

    wrote:
    > Both operating systems suck, AmigaOS is and always been the best.
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga


    The Daring Dufas wrote:
    > That's nice, what are you going to run it on?
    > It's my understanding that no one makes hardware
    > for it anymore.


    wrote:
    > The Wikipedia article was posted for a purpose.


    The Daring Dufas wrote:
    > What....are....you....going....to....run....it....on?


    Anything they want?
    http://emulation.victoly.com/amiga/
    (Emulators, virtual machines, etc)

    On the hardware that may someday appear?
    http://www.osnews.com/story/17748
    (AmigaOS4 and AmigaOS5?!)

    --
    Shenan Stanley
    MS-MVP
    --
    How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    Shenan Stanley, Dec 21, 2008
    #13
  14. Bluuuue Rajah

    Sam Wormley Guest

    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.
    >


    See: http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/hcs/index.html
    Sam Wormley, Dec 21, 2008
    #14
  15. Shenan Stanley wrote:
    > 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?

    >
    > 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.
    >

    After your assertion that personal experience is "inaccurate (at best)",
    your whole post has become a meaningless diatribe.
    Rev Turd Fredericks, Dec 21, 2008
    #15
  16. Shenan Stanley wrote:
    > <snipped>
    >
    > wrote:
    >> Both operating systems suck, AmigaOS is and always been the best.
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga

    >
    > The Daring Dufas wrote:
    >> That's nice, what are you going to run it on?
    >> It's my understanding that no one makes hardware
    >> for it anymore.

    >
    > wrote:
    >> The Wikipedia article was posted for a purpose.

    >
    > The Daring Dufas wrote:
    >> What....are....you....going....to....run....it....on?

    >
    > Anything they want?
    > http://emulation.victoly.com/amiga/
    > (Emulators, virtual machines, etc)
    >
    > On the hardware that may someday appear?
    > http://www.osnews.com/story/17748
    > (AmigaOS4 and AmigaOS5?!)
    >


    See, that wasn't so hard, was it?
    Coolish, I'll have to check that
    stuff out. I've only known one
    person who ever had an Amiga and
    that was back in the early 1990's.

    TDD
    The Daring Dufas, Dec 21, 2008
    #16
  17. Bluuuue Rajah

    gabydewilde Guest

    On Dec 21, 2:43 am, Benj <> wrote:
    > On Dec 20, 6:13 pm, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@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.

    >
    > Linux is NOT "obviously better".  BOTH are POS!
    > There are TWO problems: The problem with Windoze is Bill Gates.
    > And the problem with Linux is programmers.
    >
    > > 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.

    >
    > Here is the understanding in a nutshell.
    >
    > 1. Bill Gates (the smartest man in the universe)


    Ah, yes. The modern era Einstein has born.

    > never even foresaw
    > the internet,  Bill Gates thinks that HIS time is valuable, but YOURs
    > is not. Bill Thinks that if you use his software he "owns" your
    > machine.
    >
    > 2. Hence windoze is full of backdoors and other items which allows
    > Bill and his minions to enter into your machine at will, stomp around
    > in there, load software, run programs, examine your data, all without
    > your permission. Google toolbar is simply a pimple on the ass of
    > progress.  All actions take forever wasting your (but not Bill's)
    > time. Ever ask yourself why in this day and age you should be waiting
    > 15 minutes for a computer to "boot"?  Hell, paper tape never took that
    > long! Why should it do that at all?  Why should you have to wait for
    > ANY operation save the calculation of atomic bomb parameters?  Shit.
    > That's a CRAY supercomputer sitting there on your damn desk!  The
    > genius is that they managed to slow it down as much as they have!
    >
    > 3. Programmers are almost without exception lazy morons. They are so
    > caught up in details that they don't have time to ask "how would a
    > user interact with this program?"  Nope. They grab a language, use all
    > the features built into that language as is with no regard to if they
    > suck or not. The "true test" in their view is not is this convenient
    > and easy for the user, but rather is there SOME way to do this
    > operation? Even if you have to push on walls to find guns and food, if
    > it does the job, it stays that way.
    >
    > 4. Programmers are so imbued with the worship of details they never
    > see the big picture. Hence, every job is done backwards from details
    > outward. And therefore when added to lazy, you end up with new
    > software being created by patching old software. This inspite of the
    > well-known rule that says that it always takes less time to write a
    > whole new program (and do it right) than to patch and modify an old
    > POS. Now you know what "built on NT 'technology'" means. It means our
    > heads are still up our lazy butts!
    >
    > 5. Commercial pressures add a final disaster to the mix encouraging
    > patching of old crap and releasing things before they are finished as
    > well as an emphasis on hype rather than functionality.
    >
    > 6. So is Vista the saviour of the world?  All the sales people at my
    > micro-store told me they are "really excited" about Vista.  Truth?  Go
    > look at all the articles in the gaming mags telling how to strip Vista
    > off your machine and put XP back on. Feh.
    >
    > 7. OK, so is Linux the saviour of the world? Hardly. That OS is SO old
    > it has a beard. It's FAR too complex because it came from another era
    > of timeshare and terminals.  Basically it's a monument to "patch
    > rather than write" rule. Typical Linux flake: First tells you you
    > don't have a certain kind of drive when booting up, but then waits 5
    > minutes looking for them (I presume just in case you installed one in
    > the last few seconds).  Quote the Red Hat factory rep: "Yeah it's a
    > real bug but we're not going to fix it..."   In other words we got
    > your money so bite me!  Red Hat is dead so bite ME!
    >
    > 8. People, however ARE aware of these problems.  A "save game" program
    > to restore you OS is an excellent investment.  Too bad they seem to be
    > harder and harder to find and work less and less well.  So what
    > happens when you go to the Logitech mouse site to add "full features"
    > to your cool wireless mouse and their "features" crash and lock the
    > whole OS? Obviously a "save game" is the answer. But that does NOT
    > answer why the morons who put together the OS known as Windoze were
    > allowed to sell that POS as if it were a real OS.  It's not. though in
    > many ways it's somewhat better than some others out there (Linux).
    >
    > 9. So now that you understand the problem, just one question remains:
    > Is there at least ONE programmer out there with the ability at the
    > level to write a decent OS, with the time and motivation to start from
    > scratch, considering the way the USER interacts with it foremost, who
    > will respect the user's privacy and sovereignty over his own machine,
    > and who is willing to do all this without trying to kluge something
    > together from some shit that other high school students wrote in their
    > basement?
    >
    > Well, IS THERE?


    Ask Jeff.
    gabydewilde, Dec 21, 2008
    #17
  18. Bluuuue Rajah

    Guest

    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).
    , Dec 21, 2008
    #18
  19. 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.
    Bluuuue Rajah, Dec 21, 2008
    #19
  20. "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.
    Bluuuue Rajah, Dec 21, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joh
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    8,882
  2. Julien

    Configure & understand radius

    Julien, Jun 7, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    548
    Julien
    Jun 7, 2004
  3. maxxot2004
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    759
    maxxot2004
    Sep 10, 2004
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    433
  5. Grace Frehley

    Now i understand.

    Grace Frehley, Oct 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    1,075
Loading...

Share This Page