All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Muzzy, why does Windows rule?
jtpenrod:
Today valves are only used in very high quality audio amplifiers because they're less noisy than transistors...
I strongly suspect fad appeal here. As they say, "First impressions are lasting impressions", and the first solid state audio amps blew chunks. That hasn't been true for a very long time now.
One of these "very high quality" audio amps is the Cary CAD-300SEI triode amplifier. This has a 2A3 power triode connected as a Class A(1) amp. Being asymetrical, it lets through even as well as odd order harmonics. That's not a good design as it has 3% THD at 9 Watts, at a cost of $3400. It is easy to get the THD down to 0.001% with solid state at a fraction of that cost. I'll bet they're still laughing all the way to the bank on that one. :D
While the valves themselves may have outstanding linearity, you then ruin it by connecting them to a very non-linear silicon steel core transformer. As these are low gain devices, there isn't enough open loop gain for sufficient inverse feedback to linearize that transformer. Nor is the necessary construction (big steel core and lots of wire) for good low frequency response good for high frequency response where the core losses really build up, and the stray capacitance of all that wire interferes with high frequency operation. Given that, solid state clearly is better. The clueless audiophile who gets ripped off to the tune of $3400 for inferior tech isn't going to do anything other than rave on about how much "better" his "valve" amp is. It's too painful to admit the obvious: He wuz had. (Yeah, he's a lot like the typical Windows XP user in that regard. ;) )
If you build the simplest FM transmitter possible consisting of a 1 transistor colpitts oscillator it will be very unstable compared to a high quality stereo transmitter built with a special purpose IC containing I don't know how many 100s possibly 1000s of transistors. Having said this the simpler design is far easier to troubleshoot and cheaper in general so which one you use will depend on the application.
That isn't what I was referring to. In this case, additional complexity solves a problem: frequency stability and base band sound quality at the receiver. It's not the same thing as adding more and more bullshit "features" that the vast majority of users won't use, or which serve no real purpose, to an op-sys, for no other reason than to point to the "latest and greatest" in order to get the customer to buy something he doesn't need. Given the typical computer useage, Win 95 is more than sufficient for the vast majority of users.
Ha! I laugh at your assumtion that the Linux Documetation Project would help out your average computer user who doesn't even know what an "Operating System" is.
Then they shouldn't be using computers. After all, is it reasonable to expect to buy a set of clubs, a sleeve of balls, and shoot par if you've never held a golf club before? Is it reasonable to expect to fly your new Cessna off the show-room floor if you've never spent any time with a flight instructor? Why in the HELL should it be any different when it comes to computers? Again, this was a marketing ploy: convince folks out there that they did not have to "pay their dues" before joining the computer "revolution" by learning even a little something about it first. We're all paying for it as these are the yutzes who click on those "p0rn pics" in peculiar E-Mails from strangers. The folks who continue to support companies that make billions off the clueless who think that it's perfectly normal to have to reboot every half-hour, or that it's normal to expect to lose your hard work every now and then. Ford, GM, Crysler, etc. would have been sued out of existance a long time ago if their products were even 1.0% as defective as the Windows "operating" system.
piratePenguin:
Who would/wouldn't agree with the following statement:
--- Quote from: me ---There are stable and secure Windows systems, but this is rare. Most Windows systems are unstable and insecure.
There are unstable and insecure GNU/Linux systems, but this is rare. Most GNU/Linux systems are stable and secure.
--- End quote ---
?
piratePenguin:
--- Quote ---I'd have to respectfully disagree here. I think is was a personal problem, and mr piratepenquin solved it by switching to Linux. Good for him.
--- End quote ---
It might well be a personal problem, and I see where you're coming from.
BUT: Microsoft is also partially to blame (BTW, the rants on that site are pure class IMO).
Now, I used Windows for approx. five years. I'm still (undoubtably) the best Windows user for miles (well.. I do live in the country, heh). I know alot about the OS (well, actually, it seems I don't. But I know hundreds of times more than some ppl that've had me over to fix their retarded OS), but I've barely ever (if ever) used a Windows system that a sane, half-educated computer user could call stable.
By contrast, I've never (ever!) used a GNU/Linux system that a sane, half-educated computer user could call unstable.
toadlife:
I've seen that site before. Read his piece on BSD, and you'll see why I like it so much.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: toadlife ---I've seen that site before. Read his piece on BSD, and you'll see why I like it so much.
--- End quote ---
I read that piece on BSD when I switched from GNU/Linux to FreeBSD not so long ago (that's how I discovered the site).
Didn't stay on FreeBSD for too long tho, couldn't get ISDN working (even tho I know it is possible, just not for me, yet).
I'll more than likely give it another go soon enough (during the Summer holidays).
I'd still like to know some ppls (especially Windows users) reactions to this:
--- Quote from: me! ---There are stable and secure Windows systems, but this is rare. Most Windows systems are unstable and insecure.
There are unstable and insecure GNU/Linux systems, but this is rare. Most GNU/Linux systems are stable and secure.
--- End quote ---
'Cause I think it's almost time to draw up a conclusion.
We can do it quick, and pray that muzzy never returns, and live happily ever after :thumbup:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version