🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:52:22 -0600, "Shenan Stanley"
<newshelper@gmail.com> 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.
>
>-- 
>Shenan Stanley
>     MS-MVP
Well said. I have few problems myself.