🚀 go-pugleaf

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?
> 
> 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.
> 
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
>> It's best not to backpedal when you say something stupid.
> 
> It's good you admit to what you did.
> 
Good one Pee Wee.