quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5245625768598563312382456436374574573151:
Although this charlatan's rantings are clearly sarcastic, it does bring up something that you goons frequently spout off while you're wallowing in the self-gratifying sensation of blasting Microsoft.
Tell me, why do you people believe Windows is for idiots just because it's easy to use? If that is so, then Macs must be made for only the most cretinous individuals, since the person who would complain about Windows being "too hard to use" is exactly the same type of person who couldn't dress himself without having an entourage of people to help him into his pants.
what the fuck are you talking about, monkey mind? How can you possible start posting on a forum, and just tell people what their opinions are? I am astonished to find that i think all that stuff is true considering it's all bullshit.
I am perfectly inclined to believe that there is nothing wrong with the intellects of windows users. The other forum i moderate is made up almost entirely of windows users. It's not a computer forum though, and that's what this is about.
If you devote any large part of your thoughts towards systems, you cannot help but realise that the design and implementation of windows is sorely flawed, especially when compared to many unix style systems. It is that simple. Many people use windows and they put up with the glitches, crashes and not being able to do whatever they want to do exactly the way it should be, and they live with it. Their choice. Fair enough.
I do think it is a bit of a shame that the result of this apathy is that Microsoft gets a whole load of dough and then uses it to cripple other technologies whom it sees as "competition" rather than "fellows in arms".
What i am saying though is that many people don't have the time to agonise over the ins and outs of the information industry. Those people take the easiest way out and cobble together what knowledge they have gathered, to help them get by using the software that is handed to them.
For ages i didn't know the difference between netscape and internet explorer, despite having used both, i only found out about linux in 1997, and even then, i had a little trouble understanding what an operating system actually was.
If you consider yourself one of those people, then fine, that's no problem, but why are you posting here if that is the case? If you do not consider yourself one of those people then you would be a fool not to concede that windows in all its forms is poor at best. The only thing that keeps it from floundering completely is the cheapness of the hardware it runs on, and the readily availability of third party software binaries for that platform.
quote:
I'd also like to rid you misguided souls of the notion that Windows is only for playing games and looking up porn. While it may be used for that a great deal, (Linux browsers don't display most porn pages correctly - don't ask me how I know this
why not? how
do you know this?
quote:
- and Linux doesn't have any good forms of gaming entertainment on it unless you consider spending ten hours of tweaking to get Diablo to run in a jerky wine window to be "entertainment".)
blah blah blah, heard it all before, first, most games are written by third party software developers, not Microsoft, second, don't use gaming as a benchmark, since many linux users could not give a monkeys about games, ipso facto game development may not be such a priority, thirdly, actually i have heard that games run a lot better on linux if they are ported properly, myself i prefer what are known as puzzle games, and they are not so intensive on sound, video, or fast movement.
I personally think linux is great for games. Mandrake 8.2 came with 30 or 40 puzzle games, and a couple of racers and so on, and what did i get with windows? minesweeper and solitaire. (i prefer the linux versions of those) Older versions of windows come with reversi, but not anymore. Luckily that was in the default install of linux too.
quote:
Windows can actually do far, far more Linux users could ever dream of doing, which they'd see if they actually ever tried to use it.
Oh come on, i was trying to be serious before, but now i can see the foam at the corners of your mouth...
"if they actually ever tried to use it"? what are you on? it does not work that way round. Many linux users are seasoned windows veterans who have chosen linux (or BSD or whatever)
because they know how to use windows so well. They know it inside out, see its flaws and they run for the cover of the nearest functional OS around.
Most if not all linux users are almost boringly competent at using windows, and have a decent grasp of DOS. Put the average winXP user in front of a DOS box and see what happens. Remember to put a bucket under their seat first though to catch the drips...
quote:
Windows is used for professional graphics design, (like the Mac but without the expensive, overrated hardware and limited software choice)
Again, like many of your panty sniffing ilk, you fail to acknowledge that the range of software available for an OS is almost entirely down to what software companies deign to release.
There happen to be more people releasing for the winNT/DOS platform right now than for mac (although i bet that there's more choice per user for macs rather than windows). So fucking what? do you expect apple to singlehandedly take up the shortfall, just so they can say there's just as wide a range of software for their OS?
Also, let me ask you this, and this is the real point of this paragraph, what's the point in having a wider range of software when MOST of it is turgid, and ALL of it is unstable as fuck due to being forced into the iron maiden of the operating system it has to run on? Even decent code cannot transcend an operating system's limits.
Some would say that the hardware windows runs on contributes to it's instability, giving MacOS another good advantage. I am not so sure about this myself, since a number of OSs seem to run fine on the ix86 architecture, windows of course not being one of them. Pity that's the only architecture it runs on.
quote:
Windows is used for professional graphics design, ... audio authoring/editing, 3d animation, web page design, business, and much more, and provides programmers with an excellent, consistent GUI API to write code in.
well all that pish about a programming GUI is a matter of opinion. if you mean programmers don't even have to know what the programming language they use means then yes it does have that, this method has the advantage of not being able to do any debugging efficiently, and as i understand it 90% of programming is debugging, am i right?
Plus, may i point out AGAIN, that windows is *not* used for all that stuff. *Programs* are used for that stuff, every single time. Windows just gets in the way quite well.
Also, your implication is that windows is the only system that has the capability to run programs that do all that stuff, what the fuck have you been sniffing? *many* other systems are used for doing *all* that stuff and they *all* do it a good site better than windows ever will.
quote:
Also, while Linux may offer a "cheaper" solution for servers that looks free on the surface, the total cost of ownership can actually be higher for Linux than for Windows, especially if the IT people aren't familiar with Linux. Microsoft outlines the advantages of Windows 2000 Server over Linux and Unix on their website.
you are seriously joking aren't you? is that what you think free means?
It means not having to sign a non-disclosure licence when you buy a program. It means that when you get a program, you get the source code as well, so you can change it and recompile it to fit your personal needs, it means that you have the freedom to add to the program or streamline some of it to run better, and you can then sell it on, or give it away.
Free means "freedom", little boy, you have been completely swallowed up by the "me" orientation of our present culture if you missed that. Plus, why do you think Microsoft spouts all this laughable bullshit about open source anyway? because their software is shit, everybody's realising it, so they have to make a lot of noise, to try and make people think there's no alternative to windows, and that they might as well stick with it now they have got their feet wet.
Here's the true meaning of "free". Read the whole thing or i will not be able to begin to ever take you seriously.
quote:
Windows can run just about every program in existance
What a pile of arsewank! windows itself runs on only one type of computer architecture, unix runs on dozens, so does linux, so does BSD, even BeOS runs on a few. That alone puts windows out of the running for "most" programs. Add to that the fact that unix, linux and BSD run a large selection of the programs written since the sixties including the DOS ones and a good few windows ones too, and that DOS, and its bastard son "Microsoft windows" has spent all its efforts trying to be
incompatible with all other programs and systems, i think that what you just said deserves the most utter contempt imaginable.
quote:
and, while most Windows programs aren't free, they are of a much higher quality than the pathetic open source imitations.
and this is how you want to end this travesty of a missive? what a joke. Grow up.
There is little more to say. i have not really addressed many of your points adequately. To do so would take several pages and quite frankly, you do not deserve it. I have got better things to do than explain the facts of life to every little prepubescent that comes along here spouting closedminded rubbish, especially when i know they will only attempt to insult me in return.
You should do well in life as a professional. You know what they say, 'hire kids while they still know it all'. Why not get in touch with zombie4136145145614561315? you two could set up a business together.....
[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
