ploopster at gmail.com
Sat Jan 21 23:13:57 CST 2006
Steve Sandau wrote:
>>Its obviously fashionable to bitch about Windows, but I'll counter that
>>I am a happy Windows user and have been since I first purchased a P90
>>with Windows for Workgroups 3.11. Each successive release has been an
>>improvement for me over the previous one and I am looking forward to
>>Vista as well. IMO, you get an incredible array of functionality for
>>what you pay for Windows.
>>Now before you jump all over me, let me say that I'm not telling you
>>what you have to like/buy/use. You are free to hate Windows as much
>>as you like -- go shout it from the highest rooftop if you feel the
> Most people have to admit that there is some usefulenss in Windows.
> However, there are some really basic things that are *so* frustrating to
> me that it really obscures any benefit.
There are plenty of things Windows does well. None of them are what I
need. Windows tends to make easy tasks trivial and difficult tasks more
difficult. I am a power user. I don't want the OS getting in my way.
The only piece of software I use at work that couldn't easily be
replaced with a piece of UNIX software is Lotus Notes. If they still
made a client for AIX, I would have no problem using only AIX and NetBSD
Granted, Cygwin takes care of a lot of Windows annoyances. But then why
> My first example would be Windows networking. Windows is *so* terrible
> at networking that I don't think that Windows should be allowed on any
> network. Starting with Windows 3.11's stupid error messages like "The
> network is busy" and "No network provider accepted the given path"
> through the awful organization of DNS components in Windows 2000 and XP,
> Windows networking has always been a disaster.
Don't get me started on the quality of Windows error logging and messages.
> For hundreds of dollars, I expect better. Solaris does better, and free
> software does better.
How much do commercial Solaris licenses for workstations cost?
> And, I haven't even touched security, the lag time in accepting new
> concepts (like the Internet, ssh), DRM, recycling old code in new
> products (and denying it, like "no DOS in Windows 95), finding new
> hardware on the 200th reboot, refusing to produce standards-based
> programs, and so on.
Again, Cygwin takes care of much of this.
> Yes, each Windows version (with the possible exception of PlaySkool
> Windows, i.e. Windows XP) has been an improvement over previous
> versions. So?
I have to admit that Windows XP is a definite improvement over Windows
2000 in a couple of areas. Wireless networking comes straight to mind.
More information about the rescue