Try going with IBM or CA or SAP or IFS and you'll find they all tend to work much better with their own products than trying to piece together a best of breed.
The difference being that none of those provide a "best results with our software" operating system.
Well, MY experience with Windows was sort of similar to your experience with Linux.
First, I install it. SEVERAL hours installing the system, and oh those last dreadful steps to finish. Activation codes, I hardly remember them. Then, reboot and open windows. Time to get my mobo CD and install some drivers (video, sound, etc)(I have an A7S266 - VM/U2, if you want to know), like half an hour, counting rebootS (like one for driver, recommended). Now, get my CD with my basic software: Winamp, Vim, DVD Player software (I forget wich), Nero, blablabla, K-Lite Codecs, anti-*. And Office. Quite some extra hours.
OK, everything installed, time to configure. Take from onBoot everything but anti-virus, firewall, SiS managing program, and some other stuff. Reboot. Now go and disable unwanted windows services. Reboot, just to be on the safe side.
About half a day, even more. Of course, I could have a better mobo, but that wouldn't make that much of a difference.
And don't get me started on the periodic registry clean-ups, and even with system running minimum, I STILL had a slow crappy system. In one year, I managed to freeze linux as many times as I froze windows per week, perhaps less.
AND I did that at least once a year (granted, mostly my fault, but hey, one's gotta learn) for years.
Just one little question: they mean to say they're software recognizes stupidity based on the words? What about the meaning in context? You can't claim the amout of stupidity in a text based on the words used. Sure, you can get some of it right (lke ppl who writ lke ths -- annoying), but what about real stupidity? What about internet trolls and the like?* You need semantics to actually get this right, and I know only two ways to manage this: get people to say what is stupid (bad**) or annotate text with the semantics and let the computer decide (bad too, involves people and infinite work).
And no, I don't believe in Bayesian systems.
*Am I going to get in trouble for saying this in/.? ** I say involving humans are bad because it would be difficult to get consensus, in any way you try.
One could place the actual code for the ads in the bottom of the html document, and use layers and CSS to place them on the intended spot. Like I do in my weblog, posts always come first, then the sidebar. Makes a world of difference.
It probably is about as stable as XP was before it's first service pack though
I don't think that's entirely true... I ran XP without any Service Packs or updates (I don't trust Microsoft Update website, and WGA proved my paranoia right) for years on a row without a single BSOD. This year, a friend from college convinced me to update my system entirely, and so I did. Three BSODs so far, and I just don't expect any other because I switched to linux.
And I'm not that sure about security. Home-user-wise, XP was pretty secure, at least to me. Of course, I had antivirus, firewall, spyware seeker... the basics, but rarely used them (except for the firewall -- main use: block windows core from accessing the web (why would the kernel access internet?)).
And this friend (the one who convinced me to update my system) now uses Vista (since beta) and regularly reinstalled it (the reason he stopped is that his motherboard fried. Had it not, I think he would still be reinstalling it).
Slashdot Mirror
I have to say, so does Fedora, and it seems to me that it is far better than *buntu.
> and would jeopardize Microsoft's goodwill with class members.
>
>
> What does this mean in normal human language, rather than lawyerspeak???
Well, were Microsoft la cosa nostra, it would mean that someone would go for a dive, capicce?
Well, MY experience with Windows was sort of similar to your experience with Linux.
First, I install it. SEVERAL hours installing the system, and oh those last dreadful steps to finish. Activation codes, I hardly remember them. Then, reboot and open windows. Time to get my mobo CD and install some drivers (video, sound, etc)(I have an A7S266 - VM/U2, if you want to know), like half an hour, counting rebootS (like one for driver, recommended). Now, get my CD with my basic software: Winamp, Vim, DVD Player software (I forget wich), Nero, blablabla, K-Lite Codecs, anti-*. And Office. Quite some extra hours.
OK, everything installed, time to configure. Take from onBoot everything but anti-virus, firewall, SiS managing program, and some other stuff. Reboot. Now go and disable unwanted windows services. Reboot, just to be on the safe side.
About half a day, even more. Of course, I could have a better mobo, but that wouldn't make that much of a difference.
And don't get me started on the periodic registry clean-ups, and even with system running minimum, I STILL had a slow crappy system. In one year, I managed to freeze linux as many times as I froze windows per week, perhaps less.
AND I did that at least once a year (granted, mostly my fault, but hey, one's gotta learn) for years.
You must be new here. "Must"? I suppose you're new here too, right?
You know there's something wrong with your OS when you need a robust tool to copy files.
Just one little question: they mean to say they're software recognizes stupidity based on the words? What about the meaning in context? You can't claim the amout of stupidity in a text based on the words used. Sure, you can get some of it right (lke ppl who writ lke ths -- annoying), but what about real stupidity? What about internet trolls and the like?* You need semantics to actually get this right, and I know only two ways to manage this: get people to say what is stupid (bad**) or annotate text with the semantics and let the computer decide (bad too, involves people and infinite work).
/.?
And no, I don't believe in Bayesian systems.
*Am I going to get in trouble for saying this in
** I say involving humans are bad because it would be difficult to get consensus, in any way you try.
It's humans. Always those damned humans.
... is the use of layers.
One could place the actual code for the ads in the bottom of the html document, and use layers and CSS to place them on the intended spot. Like I do in my weblog, posts always come first, then the sidebar. Makes a world of difference.
And I'm not that sure about security. Home-user-wise, XP was pretty secure, at least to me. Of course, I had antivirus, firewall, spyware seeker... the basics, but rarely used them (except for the firewall -- main use: block windows core from accessing the web (why would the kernel access internet?)).
And this friend (the one who convinced me to update my system) now uses Vista (since beta) and regularly reinstalled it (the reason he stopped is that his motherboard fried. Had it not, I think he would still be reinstalling it).
Of course, I'm referring to Steve "MonkeyBoy" Ballmer.