🚀 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.

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