Slashdot Mirror
Why Does Windows Still Suck?
RatBastard writes "SF Gate's Mark Morford asks: Why Does Windows Still Suck? After wtaching his significant other's Windows PC drown in a sea of viruses and worms after only 4 minutes on her new DSL connection, Mark Morford wonders why the masses have not stormed Redmond waving torches and scythes in anger over the never-ending security flaws in Windows. Why haven't they jetisoned the foul beast from Redmond and migrated en mass to the Macintosh or even Linux?"
They don't know of anything else, and Windows came with the computer.
Why? Because Microsoft focuses its resources on market share rather than making a robust and stable system. Once consumers are locked in they tend to stick with what they know and buy the upgrades. It's that inertia that MS banks on when they release repackaged corn-laden turd and call it "Windows NextGen-2010+++ with Lemon Scent" Seriously: what real ideas have they come up with in the past many years? Everything they make is a bit shinier and fatter than the previous versions but where is the innovation?
Trolling is a art,
They don't care
Sounds like too easy of an answer, but for non-tech savvy people, a computer is just a tool for email, web, etc. If computers were a vital part of people's lives, they might care. Corporations can pay administrators to keep their computers clean, but joe twelvepack doesn't use his computer for anything that he can't do without. QED.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
People have been taught that computers are inherently unstable, will often crash, are very complex machines that are basicly a house of cards. They have been fed the line that 'security is too hard!' so much they believe it.
Apparently the connection is through SBC Yahoo! DSL.
I recently got DSL through my phone provider (SBC) and am torn on if I like it or not. The CD they send with it has spyware, its own browser, and all sorts of nasty things that WILL bring your system to a crawl easily. Sure Windows doesn't do very well, but a provider's CD like SBC Yahoo's does not help at all.
Hooking it into my Linux box with rp-pppoe was nice though - and the speed is impressive.
unf.
Without Antivirus, how do you know it's "clean as a whistle"? It's kind of a schrodinger's cat scenario; you haven't looked.
Why would you let your SO attach an unpatched and unprotected PC to the Internet?
To download security patches from Microsoft? There is a real chicken and egg situation here; you need to go online to patch your machine, but as soon as you are online you are hit by worms.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
What kind of excuse is that? Do you have to patch your brakes, or update your steering defintions on your car just to make it safe to use?
Second, the average user could no more tell you the difference from an OS and an application than from a Trojan versus a Virus.
Finally, the average user isn't all that clued that there are any other options out there, and there are few if any application or game ads on TV that say "Runs on Mac" or "Runs on Linux" to make them even look.
---
More rants like this on my blog
The worms and viruses are designed to be hard to detect. People have infected machines that they don't know are infected. Out of sight, out of mind.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
Pure and simply laziness. Yes there computer is slower, but they can still kinda check e-mail. And when it is really slow they can go out and fork over another $1000 for a new DELL. Also you know the saying "Back in my day..." What that really means is: "I am old and lazy and don't care to learn any new tricks". People are lazy asses who just like to sit around and will easily pay $1000 to make their problems go away without having to "learn" the complicated Apple computer. People are LAZY. They are so lazy that if they thought about it for a minute they would realize that the five minutes it takes to learn OSX (and two days to move files) far outweights the two months of lost time on windows. It really ticks me off how lazy people are.
-Benjamin Meyer
Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?
But they don't, so there isn't, so they won't.
In Slashdot terms, that article was Interesting, but not Informative, and certainly not Insightful. It basically boils down to two things:
What it does not provide, though, unfortunately, is an attempt to explain why that actually is the case. The author goes on to dismiss every attempt that has been made to explain just why Windows is still so dominant (like "Macs are too expensive") - or, for that matter, why Windows is (still!) so inherently insecure (like "Macs have no viri because they are not an attractive target") -, but he doesn't even attempt to offer other reasons for these things. Rather, he just says "these are what I claim to be the facts, they're contradictive, but I'm not gonna explain it".
Considering the article's title ("Why Does Windows Still Suck?") promises an explanation, that's rather unfortunate, and I'm afraid I have to conclude it's just praise for the Mac with little to no informational value, and minor goof-ups like confusing PCs with "PCs that run Windows" just make it even more clear that this is not an objective comparison or explanation attempt.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
It's "cheap", and by cheap I mean free as in "already installed on the PC when I bought it" cheap. No installation work needed, I'm used to using it's features, etc. - that's what the typical computer user would say these days.
And if the computer "breaks" or slows down it's not that expensive to go buy a new one. It's just a part of our American "throw-away" consumerism. Apple computer users are like the Jaguar and Mercedes crowd - they're pretty damn expensive cars, but they'll last for a long time and look great on the road no matter how old they are. Linux computer users trying to use Linux on the desktop are like the "ricers." The car doesn't always work, is usually a "work in progress," but when done right can demolish any comparably priced car. They're still not as classy or long-lasting as the Mercedes and Jaguars, but every once in a while they're pretty cool.
'Cept Linux users don't get hot booth babes at the trade shows.
It's the same reason why people don't storm the White House...
It's the same reason why people don't storm the RIAA headquarters...
It's the same reason why people don't storm the *insert whatever you like*...
Sure, Slashdotters might get angry and send off snail mail/email/faxes to whoever they're angry at. But we're a minority.
The MAJORITY are just too complacent with their lives. They're happy within their immediate environment. They may think it's not right, but they'll never take the action against it. It's too much of a hassle.
So instead they just acceot it. Windows crashing is obviously not so much of an inconvenience that they must storm Redmond. It's easier to push the reset button.
Why do people eat at McDonald's? They definitely don't make the best burger in town.
Things like consistency, convenience, perceived value, brand recognition, etc., all play a big role.
Even easier: http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=3 4&scid=29&prid=561
There's no chicken and egg about it as the other poster seemed to think. Whatever OS you're running, make sure you're behind one of these routers - there's a huge choice and they're fairly cheap these days (less than the cost of 1 month on DSL for a lot of people).
If you think A/V is the only way to protect your box or figure out what it's doing, you're probably one of the people who needs it.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Preinstalling their os with every new computer is huge advantage for them. If the government told them to sell their OS on the market for over $100(xp cost) then people would wise up and buy something else.
Another reason though is that Linux still can be a hassle like downloading firefox and having to use administrator login to install.
If all the software that people ran was available on linux and macs, games included, then more people, including myself, would switch. And honestly, I am computer savvy, but I am not even sure if there are still many different versions/releases of linux outhere, where to get them from, wether they are free or I gotta buy them. I know IT guys are all over linux, but I don't think the article, and the question is poses are aimed at IT/programmer types. So in a nutshell, being a regular guy using my computer, if there was more software available for linux, and it was clear how to acquire it, I would be switching. Most people, like myself just want to put a disc in a drive,install and not worry about it any more.
" Maybe if his S.O. was a little more competent, Windows wouldn't suck so much."
Think about it. If it was a TV.
"My SO plugged the brand new TV into the cable system and 4 minutes later it stopped working." You SO is a moron. Why wasn't your SO smart enough to open the back of the TV and rewire the power supply!
Or if it was a car.
"My SO just got a new car and the engine was trashed after driving it 4 minutes."
Why was your SO so stupid to drive a brand new car with out first opening the hood and setting the valve clearance!
You statement is just dumb and insulting. She is not a moron. She is just not a system admin. What is moronic is that people are selling Windows XP boxes that are so insecure that they can not live on the Internet long enough to download SP2.
Maybe every Windows Box should come with the network stack inactive. When you want to connect to the Internet a special super restricted TCP/IP stack pops up and downloads the latest updates for you. Windows is being pushed as a consumer item it should be expected to act like one.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
This analogy sucks. The correct analogy would be akin to this person buying a car and driving straight into the middle of the highway and expecting not to be hit by another motorist.
Put your coat on when you go outside. Wear your seatbelt. Put on SPF 30. Lock your doors. Tie your shoes. Kill the power before you do any electrical work.
We do millions of things each day to protect ourselves. Why should hopping on the 'Net and operating a computer be any different? I don't imagine the author expects that ANY new computer owner simply opens the box and has no problems operating the computer (Mac, Linux, Windows or any OS).
There's evil out there. Be careful.
This space intentionally left blank.
The whole topic of games development using DirectX vs OpenGL has been discussed to death here. Sure, the game writers could do it in OpenGL instead of DirectX, but Microsoft has apparently made using DirectX extremely easy. Maybe what it will take is someone to write a translation library that will basically translate the DirectX calls into OpenGL calls. Once that's out there, more games can be done for non-Windows systems. While all that's going on, OpenGL must be made friendlier to use than DirectX.
OK, it's a lot... but if you really want to lure the games developers to the side of platform independence, you have to give them a good reason to do so.
OCO is Loco
Can someone explain to me again why I have to buy another piece of hardware to compensate for flaws inherent in my computer's software? Am I missing something here?
You know, there didn't used to be a big "firewall-everything" mentality on the net... it's a shame that inferior products have convinced people that they need extra layers of frivilous security just to do what the OS ought to do on it's own.
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
As a long time Mac user and developer, I'd have to agree. While the original article mentions that 97% of tasks can be performed by Macs just fine, it's that confounded 3% that Microsoft has been able to exploit in the marketplace. Games, enterprise business apps, and obscure in-house projects have pretty much sustained the Windows platform up to this point. Creatives, home users, and students (the Mac's historical user base) have not had the financial or political clout to compete with the technological preferences many IT organizations have.
Those who complain about affect & effect on
I have three systems at home:
Desktop: Windows XP Home + SP2
Laptop: Windows 2000 Pro + SP4
Server: Fedora Core 3
Both Windows machines are stable, virus, spyware and hacker free. Windows 2000 has given me no trouble at all. Windows XP has had a few issues caused by third party drivers. Windows update keeps everything current.
FC3 is a great system, but it's a Windows world. There is a fair amount I simply can't do because I don't have DirectX, Windows Media Player, Quicktime, or one of many other Windows only (or non-Linux) applications.
The only time I was ever hacked was on Linux (an unprotected Red Hat 6.2 box back in 2000)
Classic MacOS is as (un)stable as Windows 98. MacOS X is quite nice, but my experience is that the hardware and software support still isn't there.
A $20 router/firewall is all you need to protect you long enough to get Windows patched. The bots are fairly dumb and easily stopped. Ad-aware and AVG free edition protect from spyware and viruses. Using Firefox over Internet Exploiter eliminates the browser hijacks.
The biggest problem with Windows is that Microsoft gave a very powerful OS to Joe Servicepack who has NO CLUE how to get it stable and keep it stable.
For 97 percent of users in the world, Macs would be a more elegant and intuitive and appealing solution. Period.
so... explain to me why 97 percent of users are NOT on macs? look. i use both a windows pc and i own a powerbook. they both do their job well. and it has its own specific use. but until i can play a game like oh, madden 2005 on a mac, well, the sheer flexibility that a PC offers gets my money. and yes, i upkeep it and maintain it.
thousands of glorious iPods have already infiltrated the Microsoft campus up in Redmond, causing MS management no end of humiliation and frustration. Can revolution be far behind?
honestly, this guy's use of adjectives is sickening. to me, his journalistic integrity (for a columnist anyway) went out the door...
she promptly dumped the useless hunk of sad landfill and bought herself a beautiful new iBook.
i rest my case. ugh.
your right... its his fault because he is not savvy...
and its the woman in the haltertop fault because she was asking for it...
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Gamers will not use Linux because they cannot game on it. Because almost no people game on Linux, almost no games are ported. If more people switched to Linux, more games would be ported. But gamers won't switch before games are ported. And companies won't use time and money on porting before more gamers use Linux.
Yeah, a more interesting discussion would be:
"Why does Linux still suck?"
Talk about presumptuous.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Can someone explain to me again why I have to buy another piece of hardware to compensate for flaws inherent in my computer's software? Am I missing something here?
Yeah, fault vs. personal responsibility. It's MS fault that the OS is crappy. But if you take personal responsibility the problem goes away. The same can be said for so many things in life.
Agreed. But it should have been limited in the settlement. This is the one hook they have on most of the industry. Also, many people keep using Windows because they just don't understand what's happening. Viruses often don't completely crash a system and spyware will run and the user can still "work." Another reason is they just don't want to learn a new OS. Many people feel like Windows took enough time to learn. I have my kids on Linux. They work fine. My wife doesn't like it, but she works fine too. I plan on getting a Mac soon and I'm sure they'll use that fine too. The key, teach the young! Give you kids something other than Windows and then they can show the parents how to move around etc. Hey, it's an idea.
But why would I, one of the unwashed, game-playing masses, start using another OS?
Sure, I could stop playing 95% of the games I like, install Linux, and then let my computer sit idle (I really don't use my home computer for anything other than playing games) while I wait for game developers to start producing games for my new OS of choice. But I'm not that altruistic. And neither is anyone else.
The fact of the matter is that Windows is currently by far the best platform for playing PC games, and, with a little bit of technical sense ("use a firewall"), it's "good enough" for pretty much everything else. There is currently no compelling reason for gamers to switch OSes, and as a result, no compelling reason for the bulk of publishers to release games for anything other than Windows.
So I was reading /. when I came across a typical 'OMG Windows SuXors' article..
I casually sipped my afternoon coffee, set it down, and clicked the article link, bracing myself for the deluge of mind-numbing numbers and references to obscure studies.
After reading the article, I looked to the right side-bar for a list of other recent articles by the author. Trying to get a feel for the authors views, I decided to peruse a few of them.
Well, I must say. Mark Morford has to be one of the most rabid, extremist, over-reactive, leftist, tin-foil hat wearing, Moore wannabe's I've had the displeasure of reading.
Now, before the flames begin to rise, please understand the last paragraph was a simple reciprocle example of Mr. Morford's diatribes. Basically take a simple statement, and make it appear so sensationistically over-the-top.
So now to my point. How can this article be used on a news site, when it is simply nothing more than a rant? I use Linux and Windows, and on occasion Macs. I rarely have any problems with any of my systems. I have never had my Windows boxed filled with virii/trojans, nor have I had a crash in as long as I can remember. Am I just one of the lucky ones, or do I simply ignore the little monkey moving back and forth in a feeble attempt to evade my mouse click for a Free iPod
You've listed only 4 games. What if he wants to play one of the 40,000 other games available for Windows? It's a lot less hassle to run them on the OS they were designed for than to mess around with emulators or wine.
Secondly, why should anyone need an excuse for selecting a particular operating system? It's a matter of choice, and the parent clearly explained his reasons for preferring Windows. Linux appears to suit your particular needs better, and that's great too.
Why bother? As a gamer, 80% of my home computer-using time is spent playing games (90% of which don't run in Linux). The remaining 20% is taken up by web browsing (using FireFox) and email (using Thunderbird).
As I said in another post, if you're primarily a gamer, chances are that Windows is "good enough" for any non-gaming application you want to use. If you've got a firewall installed and don't use IE, chances are good you've never run into anything like the author of the article describes. At which point, there's really no appeal to the bother of rebooting every time you want to switch between game and non-game applications.
Actually, they don't. Microsoft have repeatedly threatened & upped the price on vendors who sell machines without the OS pre-installed. And they have also charged for a Windows license for every machine sold, regardless of what OS was actually on it. This was the meat of one of the many lawsuits pending against MSFT when W. took office (and then they went away...)
Karma: Excellent (Mainly due to Bill & Ted's Karma Adventure)
paraphrased: firewall, etc.
Red herring. What portion of the 91% of computer users infected with spyware were infected by an inbound attack? I'll give you a hint. It's probably smaller than the number of Linux workstations in use currently as personal computers. The vast majority of infected users got that way as a direct result of the hideous security flaw that is IE. All they had to do was visit the wrong web site. Windows firewall can do NOTHING to stop that.
Seriousily, where has this woman been in the past few years. If she had any brains at all she would have known, and the author of the the article should have told her, that she needs to have a firewall and virus protection when you have a broadband connection. It justs makes sense. I hate how many people on this site always jump on the I hate Microsoft and evil corporations bandwagon. Granted, Microsoft does have many sercurity problems and issues. However, Windows is the most widely used OS. As a result they have the most attackers in the world. If you were a spyware or virus creator, hacker, or whatever what would you attack. A realatively small market such as Linux or Mac or would you go after the largest market. I know Linux probably has better security in some respects, but we all need to look at the Microsoft situation from their perspective from time to time. And I don't completely like Microsoft. I pretty much thought all their OSs unitl XP completely sucked. You have to give them credit that XP was a huge step forward in the right direction from ME. Just thought I'd put my 2 cents in.
You may count me in as one of the first anniversary with Mac crowd. I switched specifically for OSX, after having used windoze since version three.
I have turned three people to the osx generation macs so far; each of them took over six months to decide to switch, all of them have more than enough cash to buy whatever computer they want.
The problem was in each case...
They were thick.
They simply could not understand simple phrases like, "all of your computer problems will be over once you buy a mac"..."you will never have to worry about viruses and worms again after you buy your mac"..."your work will never be lost again due to a crash if you buy a mac" etc etc.
Finally, each one switched, and they now scream the praises of macintosh to anyone within hearing range.
The problem with people (ordinary users) using windows is that they have little or no imagination; they cannot imagine another OS, and most of them dont even know what an os is. Most of them think a computer IS windows sitting on a 'TV' screen. These are the same sorts of people who, despite being told the contrary, persist in believin that Iraq had something to do with 911, or that they had WMD. There is no reaching these people, and never will be. They are inured to windows, to stupidity, to suffering. They think that is what using a computer is about; poor connectivity, no usability, crashes, worms and virri, and after all is said and done, why not? That has been their universal experience of computers for years.
And for the ones that wanted to try Mac, it was always a non starter because of the price. Now perhaps, we might see a change and an uptake of Macs with the new reasonably priced model, but honestly, I fear the white box is too small to impress the bumpkins.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Okay, first the obligatory note that I've done my share of Microsoft bashing in my time. I'd also be the last person to stand up and declare an MS box "secure" in almost any regard.
... let's not exxagerate just because it makes the article sound better.
That aside, there are enough problems with TFA that I feel the need to point out some issues with it.
Heck, let's look at the first sentence: "So about a year ago..." We're in the computer field here, folks. Have I complained about things that took place with Windows ME? Yeah, I have. But I also acknowledge that what's out today can be a lot different from what was available a year ago.
Certainly if I were writing an article about what was wrong with something, I'd check to make sure I was reviewing a recent edition. SP2, while not the ultimate solution to everyone's problems, is a darn sight better than what the author is writing about. Would I put my parents online with just the built-in firewall? Probably not long-term, no. But I certainly wouldn't be afraid that within four minutes they'd be "DOA."
Also, when the author is posting the rhetorical "why not a Mac?" questions, he throws out lines like: "I know Macs are (well, were) more expensive, even though they're really not..." which is, well, disingenuous at best. I've had several Macs, and loved them all -- but yeah, guess what? They were several times more expensive than the beige-box PCs I'd put together from my local shop, even after all the "video cards and sound cards and disk burners to make it comparable to a Mac." There are lots of reasons to love Macs
All in all, the article reads as a whiny post to me, rather than anything well thought-out. There are reasons Windows sucks in many ways, but this article just rehashes the tired old "my hardware is better than your hardware" stuff we all (I hope) got sick of years ago.
Longhorn will not be the answer. Managed code will not fix users from breaking their machine. One of the first and foremost reasons why computers get messed up is because of user mistakes. Using social engineering a virus tricks them into running something they shouldn't. No amount of "managed code" will protect the user from pressing the wrong buttons.
The answer has been staring at us for 20 years now. Many of the security problems in Windows are born of legacy. And ironically they were problems born from not learning lessons learned by other Operating Systems.
But in typical fashion, Microsoft is throwing more software at the flaws instead of fixing the fundemental design which created the issue in the first place. The whole chain about any virus using IE as an vector should show you this.
There are fundemental issues that were learned by other systems along time ago that MS continues to ignore and throw more software upon in an attempt to obscure the problems. So many things would go away if users never had the previliage to screw up their system easily. So many things would go away if the web browser was treated as a viewer instead of a platform for execution. So many tools could be simplified and made less confusing if they fixed the underlying problems...but they won't.
I'm sorry to sound like flamebait but I'm sick of it. Longhorn will get released and people will harass me on what in the world "code group permissions" are. People can't figure out IE's "zones" and they want me to explain to users how "code groups" work?! Thanks Microsoft...thanks for completely avoiding the problem.
Er, no. A customer of my shop decided his computer was too infected with crap and tried to reformat and reinstall using the convenient recovery CDs he got with his computer. This was an older computer, and the recovery CDs came with basic Windows XP, with no service packs. The recovery was successful, but as soon as he installed his cable modem software, he was infected with Blaster, Sasser, and Nachi worms all before he finished downloading Service Pack 2.
Having a firewall would have most definitely stopped those infections. Granted, most crap beyond self-infecting worms are caused by the user, but don't say such a small amount of users won't get infected by not having a firewall.
So the biggest problem with Windows is the users? The solution is clear, then, get rid of Windows users: have them all buy a Mac or install Linux.
And then we'd be hearing instead, "The biggest problem with MacOS/Linux is that Apple/Linus gave a very powerful OS to Joe Servicepack who has NO CLUE how to get it stable and keep it stable."
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Windows 98? Sucked. No arguments from anyone about that. Windows ME? Sucked. Again, little defense even from MS. Windows 2000? Not as sucky--marked improvement in stability. Windows XP? Much better. Not perfect, but glad to see it's better.
If you're going to run Windows the simple fact of life you're going to have to get used to is this: high maintenance. Well, maybe it's not all that bad...
- Patch and then patch again.
- Before you even think about plugging into the network, patch it from CDs after you re-install the OS (don't trust what comes from the factory)
- install your anti-virus and your adware prophylactics before you think about going on-line, too.
- Install Firefox and turn off that damned built-in firewall on XP2 after you install a 3rd party firewall package like ZoneAlarm.
- Don't log-in as Administrator ever and make sure you're using a 15 character password with a few unicode characters in it for all accounts.
- Install a firewall router on your LAN and work from behind it.
- Don't use the same password on any other computer.
- Update your virus DAT files daily--maybe twice a day
- Run RKDetector everynow and then just to make sure.
- Boot from a Knoppix CD once in a while to make sure you're not owned.
- If you enabled any kind of services, turn them off.
If you're running linux, you'll need to practice the same kind of vigilance. Those boxes are 0wn3d more often by "real" people instead of zombie processor or worms. In fact, crackers like Linux boxes much more than Windows because they're more fun and harder to 0wn.Macs are easily knocked over two if you're running services like SSH. A dictionary attack is trivial.
They all still suck
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Of the 33 people (just offhand) that I know that have home computers, only four are gamers. Four! 12% The fact of the matter is that my mom, dad, sister, brother-in-law (and his parents), and most people are NOT gamers. Slashdot geeks are gamers. Most are not.
In order to be sure the computer worked in the first place, they had to install Windows to test the peripherals and other devices!
That may have been an excuse in 1999, but Knot anymore.
Fuck, 800 plus comments as of now, and no one with any real insight gets modded up? Perhaps that is the problem, in itself? No one, not one person that I saw, attempted to take the arrticle and make a decent discussion out of it.
Premise 1: We have a computer user, who is a journalist, has been using Macs for nigh on 15 years, is not extremely tech savy (Get to that in a mo') and sees that his fellow computers users, most of them on one of the millions of brands of PC and one of the various flavours of Windows, be it from Win98 to WinXP, have, in general, more problems with their computers than he does.
What does all that tell me?
I am a Mac user myself (well, I use a PC as well with Linux and Win2000 on it and I used to be a Windows shop sys admin). I agree with his OBSERVATIONS 100%. I mean observations because apart from his subjective ranting on why the world doesn't string BillG up from the rafters, which is his OPINION, his article has a good point.
I have seen and expereienced the same problems with Windows machines, until learning better, such as the 20 seconds till being hacked when first going online with WinXP and the numerous bugs in the OS over the years. Yes, I know as well as you that putting a simple router in front of the machine stops 90% of the bugs and being careful about mails and what you download and keeping up with pacthces will stop the rest, but it is a real pain and, in my experience, one has to ask the simple question: why?
In that I agree with the article. Using Windows is more complex than a Mac with OSX. Now on to the tech savy bit. The author writes about the prize that was offered for hacking the webserver Webstar, which was the only real webserver on classic Mac OS. It was never used widely in the server world and thus is not a good example of application security. The guy reveals his lack of expertise because, all those who know that OSX is based on BSD know that the webserver shipped with OSX is Apache, the same one that upsets the numbers game of OSS with respect to commercial offerings when compared to IIS.
Also, the argument that Windows has more software available is a real one, especially for gamers and for CAD and specialised business applications and the situation will stay that way while Windows has such a dominating marketshare.
And that is a reason for staying with Windows, but it isn't the reason why 90% of the world's computer using public uses PC's and Windows. That reason is simply because PC's are more available and most people have no idea that there are alternatives and are only interested in getting a "computer" with which they can chat, browse, mail, write letters, store photos, listen to music etc. Although a Mac arguably, in my experience, does all of this much better than Windows does, most people will simply go to the nearest shop and use what is there.
Ahmen.
Windows crashing is obviously not so much of an inconvenience that they must storm Redmond. It's easier to push the reset button.
I used to wonder why things that annoyed me a lot about Windows, and the fact that it's crap, didn't seem to bother other people so much. Then I realised that, apart from the usual valid explanation that most have had their expectations lowered so much regarding computers that they're almost impossible to disappoint, only a small percentage of other users I know spend as much time on a computer as I do. Most people just spend maybe a few hours a day on a computer, e.g. do some simple tasks like e-mail and web, maybe a Word document or spreadsheet. So if something annoys them, it's for a short time and then they go about doing other things. But as a software developer, I basically spend nearly all my time behind the computer - a 40 hour week is rare relaxation, 60 hour week not uncommon. So when some little Windows bug annoys you, it annoys you 10 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week, for months and sometimes years. I think this inherently puts a different perspective on it. It's one thing being annoyed for an hour or two then going back to what you enjoy and do all day. It's another if what you enjoy and do all day has become annoying all day due to the system you're using being crappy. Because you also 'explore' the system deeper, you also uncover far more bugs and annoyances. It's like, if I drive to work in a junky car, that sucks but only for 20 minutes a day. But if my job involves driving all day, then having a decent ride is going to make a world of difference.
Of course, if you managed to convince the manufacturer to sell you a computer without an operating system pre-installed, you had to pay an extra $10-$50 for that choice. Why? In order to be sure the computer worked in the first place, they had to install Windows to test the peripherals and other devices! Oh, did you want warranty support too? Sorry. "We don't support other operating systems."
Excuse me, but whoinhell needs to buy that? I buy the motherboard, the cpu, the memory, video and sound card, cpu cooler, front panel usb portage, case, psu, hard drives etc from maybe half a dozen places when I want to build a new machine. I can run a screwdriver and put it all together. That, and some uncommon sense called commen sense, are about all you really need to do it your way, without M$ ever getting its camels nose in the tent in the first place.
By way of defineing common sense, I'm 70, and have an 8th grade education.
The post (Power On Self Test) in the bios completing successfully is all the insurance that the hardware works you will *ever* need. The requirement that they had to install windows on the box to test it is pure, sometimes still warm, usually green, and found on the ground behind the male of the bovine specie.
This is commonly called Bull Shit by the non-M$ sheeple, and grounds to load up the shotgun by windows lover sheeple. Go figure, I gave up long ago.
As far as warranty is concerned, the mobo maker doesn't really care about a whole hell of a lot except the post output. If it won't 'post' then the mobo, or the cpu, has obviously gone to that great graveyard. Running mostly socket A stuff, I've always got a cpu that will fit the socket and cross-check the cpu thats in it.
They don't care what os is running on it, other than they may not have a resident expert in "superdos-5.4.1.2" on staff to answer your stupid setup questions. Thats not their job anyway, their job is to make you a good motherboard, at a competitive price. And many do exactly that, for as low as a 50 dollar bill!
So the dealers trying to cover their collective asses from redmond driven retaliation should quit this FUD, because thats exactly what it is. The retaliation may well be real, and thats what double-you doesn't give a fat rats ass about, so that will no doubt continue until we get an administration that actually works for the people. We most certainly don't have that now, but thats another horserace entirely.
--
Cheers, gene
Proudly M$ free since forever.
It's absurd to prevent a company from install its OS on the computers it sells. We have no problem letting Microsoft put Windows on the hardware it sells.
And I'm sure you're willing to apply the same standard to Novell, Mandrake, and Red Hat, right? God forbid a software company be allowed to pre-install an OS on a system that somebody else built!
By that standard, we'd have exactly three choices in computer hardware today - IBM, Sun or Apple. It's not very FOSS-ish of you to argue that less choice in both software and hardware would be good for anybody. Besides, if MS had to, you know they'd be able to outspend any of these guys on developing consumer hardware, so they'd still be a monopoly. You'd just have less Linux out there.
MS can be blamed for a lot of things, but really, this article is just a lot of pro-Mac, anti-MS hooey. Why it gets featured on Slashdot is not really a mystery given the site's post-OS X pro-Mac bias, but that doesn't make it really newsworthy either. I don't honestly even believe the guy's story about installing Windows on his SO's machine; the 4 minute attack is lifted straight out of an article that appeared here about 4-5 months ago. Seems a bit coincidental that a self-confessed lifetime Mac user would suddenly be installing Windows XP on his SO's machine just so he can write about how awful it is.
The second half of his article just goes on at length with the standard Mac fanboy arguments that we've heard for years - it stops being about security and instead touches on the prices of Macs vs. PC's (he argues PC's are actually more expensive once you bring them "up to the level" of a comparable Mac), the user-friendliness of Windows vs. OS X, the innovativeness of Apple vs. MS. I mean seriously, blah blah blah. If I wanted to read this, I'd just search the Usenet archives from 1986.
There's no doubt that Windows XP has its share of security problems, moreso than most OS's. But there's no new info in this article and lots of annoying fanboy hyperbole. I've seen more insightful writing in Slashdot posts, and that's saying something.
In other words, you tried installing an experts-only distro (Slackware) on hardware with no good linux drivers. Then, having apparently not learned the lesson, you bought more hardware without checking if it has good linux drivers.
Perhaps your next project should be getting GNU HURD/L4 on a Mac Mini working with a firewire video capture device...
P.S. : as for the SATA issue, if you've done some XP installs recently, you are probably aware that XP installation requires a driver floppy inserted during a certain 20-second window for untraditional hard drive configs (RAID, SCSI, and I think SATA also). By analogy if nothing else, you should have had in the back of your mind that there might be difficulties with installing Linux on a SATA drive.
In about 30 seconds, I found http://www.mythtv.org/ and within the documentation, nice RPM packages for Fedora which are installed by something as simple as "yum install mythtv-suite" (after telling yum about the repo). Discounting download time, I suspect you could have had this running within minutes on a Fedora or SuSE or even Debian install.
The wireless card support is a bad situation, and not much can be done about it aside from not giving that particular manufacturer any money (and letting them know they are losing sales). Other than that, your primary problem was that you chose Slackware.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?