Slashdot Mirror
Is Windows Ready For Joe Longneck?
Carewolf writes "Is Windows ready for the desktop? We have heard it year after year, that now is the time for Windows on the desktop. But is it really time? Richard K. Yamauchi at OSNews don't think so and has writen a piece that list a number of issues that needs to be solved before Windows is really ready for the masses and "Joe Longkneck"."
Read the article, people. It is humor. Laugh, don't make serious rebuttals or get defensive.
Personally, I love joke about the new "better colors".
I really didnt understand the post after the first read, but now that Ive actually read the article, (yes, I really did!), I see that Its a joke. Its amusing and all, but this one paragragh actually makes sense!
/s". But there's one thing that has always bothered me: What if I want to do a Clean Install and still have all my applications that I installed on let's say Win98? Here's what you can do: You can do a clean install beside Win98, but you won't have all your applications on XP. You can also upgrade win98 and most of your applications, if not all will move to XP. However, what if there is an application that I NEED that won't run on XP. Or what if XP dies. Then I have no Win98. I'd like to see an upgrade feature that let's me keep my existing Win98 installation as WELL as upgrade Windows 98 to XP at the same time. Until this happens, Windows is just not ready.
That leads to the install itself. Yes, windows installing has gotten 100 times better since the days of DOS. Finally, users don't have to type "a:/setup" or "a:/install" anymore. And thank God "Sys c:" is history. And for the sake of all that is holy, good riddance to "format c:
Just goes to show that even in humor there often lies truth....
(Lies truth???)
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
Instead, you have to download *free* tools. And suffer the ignominy of reading man pages and using Google! That just sucks. I want to spend my $50 on TurboPascal or the old shareware C compilers you could get back then!
- Barrie
(who still has a TurboPascal in the original shrinkwrap with the little handwritten pricetag on it from the mom&pop computer shop that sold them in his neighborhood back in the 80s)
.NET Framework SDK is FREE
... so what exactly was your point about not being able to develop for free?
No, you don't get the Visual Studio development environment, but you CAN compile VB.NET, C#, or C++ code with it.
If you want a visual dev environment and still don't want to pay for it, try sharpdevelop
If you'd done some research before posting, you'd have realized that your criticism is unfounded. Additionally, there's nothing stopping you from getting GCC running under windows as well. You also have perl, python, or any number of other languages
Actually, Mac OS X Server has been around since 1998. I ran version 1.0 and then 1.2. They were nothing like the current OS X.
Anyway, in this case, when you look at the "OS, Web Server and Hosting History for binomial.dhs.org" for this site, it says it was running Linux back in July. So something is wrong...
What, me worry?
That was my question I had from reading the article, are all of these users that aren't ready for windows using Linux right now? And is that better for them?
I really can't figure out the guys freaking point beyond blatant MS/OS bashing, and alot of the crap he's slamming MS for exist a plenty on other platforms. So again, just what the hell was his point?
Was it that the current state of GUI interfaces in general are stopping Joe Blow from using computers? (And if so, why pick on MS only?) Or that just windows are that bad. And if that's the case, why are all these Joe Blow's out there using windows already when they aren't ready for it as the article states? (These same users that aren't ready for it by the way, seem to have a lot of knowledge of a certain 5 year old OS, which is hard to explain if these same people still aren't ready for windows...)
And further, it almost seems that if this is all the case, that the best thing that could have been done in the authors opinion is to keep windows 98?
My god man!
Slam Gui's if you want but sheesh, at least slam them all on the same merits.
XP is a wonderful OS, compared to all previous OS's from redmond. And it has a GUI that is VERY comparable to ALL other GUI's in major use right now, including problems and limitations. Sure, maybe one is worse than others in certain areas, but just what soap box is this guy standing on?
I could write a very similar article slamming either Linus or Mac if I wanted to, and what would it mean? Fuck all, just like this one.
No Comment.
According to that site, it's listing the max uptimes for the servers over the servers' entire lifetimes...and then it lists the most recently reported operating system.
In other words, it's entirely possible that that OS X system achieved such amazing uptime before it had OS X. The same can be said of the Windoze 2000 server.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
er, sorry, I meant left click drag
Hur hur hur.
drag is move
- drag/w shift is copy
- drag/w control is shortcut
- file type or source/dest should not have any effect on these actions
Umm, this is almost exactly what Windows does. Shift-drag moves a file (you 'shift' it), ctrl drag copies a file, and ctrl-shift drag makes a shortcut.
I agree the apparent randomness of the unmodified drag is a pain in the ass. Although it is consistent in what it does, it is consistent with some bizarre rules, which makes it seem strange. I don't think I even know all the rules, but I do know that, for some reason, dragging EXE's is more likely to make shortcuts >:(
If X is properly set up by your distro vendor, it will automatically detect and use the highest possible resolution your videocard/monitor combo can handle. Simply switching monitors should not influence that.
Now, in certain edge cases, this may turn out to be problematic. But then again, the solution to similar problems in Windows often mean editing the registry (getting nVidia drivers to do more than 60Hz refresh on some systems for example).
Therefore, since this is not a common failing (as you yourself admit it might not be), and since similar problems on Windows are as complex to find a solution for, your snide remarks at config file editing were uncalled for. Since us Linux users have been hearing this for years ('Linux is hard because you have to edit config files'), I think I have a right to feel slightly irate and call your post FUD. Heck, if you had complained that setting the default resolution to a different setting than the maximum possible involved editing XF86Config, I would not have been so harsh, even though the major distros do provide graphical tools for this task.
I did not ignore your comment. I did point out that in the vast majority of cases your comment is inapplicable. Your sneer of 'how typical' is more typical of Linux-bashing MS astroturfer trying to deflect attention from the fact that he's been caught out.
Problems will happen on any system, but if you can't even do enough research to find out that your problem is not common, you shouldn't be surprised if people give you attitude.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Run my X11 software? No?
Depends on what you mean by 'run'. There are X11 servers so you can access your favorite window manager or desktop environment from within Windows, so maybe the answer is 'Yes'. If you mean 'execute *nix binaries', then the answer would be 'No', mostly.
How about the best page-layout software? Hmm, mostly need a Mac for that, huh?
No, there's a Windows version available too. (No assertions made about the relative quality of each version.)
Okay, well I'm sure Windows will work great with my Firewire-based A/D audio rack...
Not to dismiss you out of hand, but you show me a 'Joe Longneck' at CompUSA asking the salesdrone 'Can I hook up my Firewire-based A/D audio rack to this PC???' and I will eat a stick of RAM like it was Juicyfruit.
Congratulations on identifying a tiny niche of consumers for which Windows is not a reasonable desktop solution, but that doesn't do anything to refute the claim that 'for MOST people, Windows on the desktop is acceptable'.
"Therefore, since this is not a common failing (as you yourself admit it might not be), and since similar problems on Windows are as complex to find a solution for, your snide remarks at config file editing were uncalled for..."
.. uh. registry! Yeah! And it.. uh.. well I'll make up something and present it as a devastating blow to your case! That way, I won't have to answer the tough questions about how usable Linux really is! Yeah!!"
My comment was very much called for. First off, your example is not relevant. The problem with Nvidia's card (assuming that problem ever existed, let's pretend it did) was not Microsoft's fault. Video support in Windows works very well. If it took a registry hack to make the Nvidia card work, then Nvidia fucked up pretty bad. Know what that means? It means that Linux is just as vulnerable to problems like that. Only, to fix a problem like that, you better know your way around shell.
Secondly, MS provides you with a UI to install, configure, and troubleshoot video card problems. If KDE or Gnome has something like that, I've yet to find it. Strike 2 against Linux.
"I did point out that in the vast majority of cases your comment is inapplicable"
So let me get this straight: Having to enter shell and edit a text file is a totally acceptable way for Joe Longneck to maintain his machine? Sorry bud, you missed my point entirely. I'd try to explain it more clearly if I thought you would respond rationally, instead you're trying to attack my credibility. Pity though, you really should listen. I'm a Systems Analyst. My job is to make my company's products usable. If that's not credibiilty enough to let you know when something's broken from the user-end point of view, then you are ready to be promoted to Mindless Linux Zealot.
"Your sneer of 'how typical' is more typical of Linux-bashing MS astroturfer trying to deflect attention from the fact that he's been caught out."
Heh. I could say the same for your response to my comment. "Oh yeah? Oh YEAH?! Well Windows has the
You're nitpicking the details (like a true MS Bashing Linux Astroturfer) trying to prove that the problem I had didn't really exist. So yeah, you deserved the 'how typical' comment.
"Problems will happen on any system, but if you can't even do enough research to find out that your problem is not common, you shouldn't be surprised if people give you attitude."
How am I or John Longneck supposed to know if it's common or not? That's exactly what this thread is about. You Linux Zealots think the user has to know more about their computer than they should to make it work. It's your attitude that it's not called for. "Well your problem isn't commmon, so we don't need to address it'. Bull-fucking-shit. What happened to me is exactly the type of problem that'll make somebody say "Fuck it, I'm installing Windows. It works."
So yeah, I can undrstand your defensive attitude. You were 'caught out' just like the guy who started this thread predicted. Thank you for illustrating his point.
Actually, recently trying to install told me this was not so. After putting freebsd on, i then expected to simply be able to put an xp cd in, and have windows installed (and yes, i also expected windows to overwrite my mbr so it could boot itself).
Not so. NTLDR missing. I tried a fixmbr and fixboot C: from the recovery console. Still nothing. I formatted my fresh install of freebsd away: i was getting desperate. Fortunately I had booted a knoppix cd, so i booted that up to try and find out what was going on. And here was the answer at M$ support. I needed to get a win98 boot floppy and sys c:.
*sigh*
Anyone have any links to a really funny Windows lambasting? I'd enjoy being proven wrong.
Yeah, plenty on Satirewire