All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Muzzy, why does Windows rule?
piratePenguin:
Can we pleeeeeease get back on topic?
Complexity: Complexity doesn't matter. It's the advantages that this "complexity" brings that matters.
If A is more complex than B, then I'd guess B's better, unless A (because it's more complex) is faster, more stable, more secure etc...
Windows might be more complex, but complexity doesn't matter. It's the advantages that this "complexity" brings that matters.
I know of no such advantages. Humor me.
Aloone_Jonez:
Even Windows does have advantages you know.
Even though Windows isn't as stable or secure as UNIX it has a better desktop and I'm not talking about the user interface either, KDE and Gnome are both easy to use. I'm talking about the the way different Windows programs can interoperate with each other. For example OLE is consistent across the Windows platform this isn't the case with UNIX, and the clipboard is another example, let's not forget drag and drop. Yes I know KDE/GNOME might solve some of these problems but KDE applications don't communicate with the GNOME desktop very well and vice versa, dependences also aren't a problem with Windows.
As I've mentioned before Windows XP boots faster than most OSs.
Not to mention (this isn't so much of an advantage of Windows more of crippleing of other OSs by MS' dominance) most software and hardware is designed for Windows but I'd rather this not be the case, I'd rather everthing be multi-platform.
These are the only advantages of Windows, personally I'd rather use a more secure and stable operating system.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Even Windows does have advantages you know.
Even though Windows isn't as stable or secure as UNIX it has a better desktop and I'm not talking about the user interface either, KDE and Gnome are both easy to use. I'm talking about the the way different Windows programs can interoperate with each other. For example OLE is consistent across the Windows platform this isn't the case with UNIX, and the clipboard is another example, let's not forget drag and drop. Yes I know KDE/GNOME might solve some of these problems but KDE applications don't communicate with the GNOME desktop very well and vice versa, dependences also aren't a problem with Windows.
As I've mentioned before Windows XP boots faster than most OSs.
Not to mention (this isn't so much of an advantage of Windows more of crippleing of other OSs by MS' dominance) most software and hardware is designed for Windows but I'd rather this not be the case, I'd rather everthing be multi-platform.
--- End quote ---
That it?
And because X (where X is either software or hardware; I'm not talking about X11) wasn't designed/built for GNU/Linux, that is not a valid reson to believe that GNU/Linux is any worse than the OS (Windows/Mac OS X/whatever) that X was designed/built for. GNU/Linux can handle everything that was designed/built for it (within reason).
"GNU/Linux is shit 'cause I can't use (my) X on it" TOUGH SHIT! The vendors of X obviously (assuming you did a bit of research before complaining) didn't design/build X for GNU/Linux. You're just trapped on Windows/Mac OS X/whatever because that's what the vendors of X designed/built it for.
I agree with everything else in your post, and some of those issues about the UI, clipboard, etc. will have to (somehow) be addressed (could have been already, but I dunno). But they're only minor issues, and should never put anyone off.
I'm still not convinced that Windows (XP) boots faster... Maybe technically it does, but in practice, I would seriously doubt it. I've had Windows systems boot fast (but I never thought of timing my boot speeds), and I've had Windows systems boot sloooooooow, and I've had Windows systems fail to boot (far too often).
muzzy:
Oh my. I go away and there's lots of talk here all suddenly. With so many posts, I don't think I can answer everything. When messages get too long, all signal tends to disappear in the noise.
Mr. piratePenguin seems to have issues with windows being unstable. I honestly have to say that I'd love to have unstable windows system. Why? Because then I could fscking understand what everyone's talking about! I know win9x was unstable. However, I simply can't get my NT-based installations to misbehave in the way that I hear people talk about. Not even in the way that my mom's windows installation behaves like. I have no idea what she did, although I suspect even not running antivirus/firewall helps my situation significantly.
In my experience, windows is stable. I've had few crashes lately, but they haven't been because of windows. How can I tell? Well, after I hit reset button, the system doesn't go through bios. If I do a quick powercycle, it goes through bios and freezes during startup. If I keep power down for over 10 seconds and then restart, it'll boot up fine. I'm not sure what's broken, exactly, but it's definitely not a software issue. The above mentioned behaviour happens everytime the system crashes, it has crashed 4 times so far. My best guess is PSU or motherboard, but could be anything. I wonder how large portion of unstable windows systems are really hardware flaws? You know, users won't be able to tell the difference.
Also, as I've mentioned earlier, I believe that computer is a tool and not a multimedia center. I find it completely ridiculous that kids learn computer by merely using it. Their parents buy them a computer, and then they poke around and see what happens. Back when I was young and had C-64, the damn thing shipped with a manual. I don't know about average users, but I actually read it. Alright, so it was simpler than the modern systems, but it really seems like that people these days learn to use computers without any reference material whatsoever. Why can't computers ship with a manual that explains what a computer is, and what operating system is, and how these things work? I suspect that even if someone made such a manual, people wouldn't read it because they think they already know enough. Nobody ever wants to learn basics :(
piratePenguin:
I have no idea how the hell your system could possibly be so stable.
I know for a fact that I'm not the only person that finds Windows unstable.
Anyhow, how come my system crashed alot on Windows and not on GNU/Linux? It's the exact same hardware.
I was already told (way up there, can't be bothered to check it atm) that it's the drivers fault. If the manufacturers drivers are no good, what the hell can be done?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version