🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

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