You mean the government which was deregulating banking since George I, allowing "investors" to buy up subprime mortgages given to people that really couldn't afformd them? And then the ponzi scheme collapsed?
It was a failure of captialize; let it run wild, and this is what we reap.
Of course the real solution to the mortgage problem would be 1) tell the investors "tough shit, you made a bad investment, you lose your shirt" and 2) tell the homeowners "you lucked out; you own your home free and clear."
I'll just say "me too." I found I was spending more time trying to keep Linux up to date than I did using my computer. Everything was a fight, so I ditched my Linux server of 10 years, and removed Linux from my desktop after using it for two or three years, I think.
I really don't know why you think Linux on embedded OSes will help it in other markets; I know my cable box runs Linux. That has no impact on me though and my desktop OS. I doubt I'd change my desktop due to what my phone runs, or what my Zune runs.
The problem is that through the lazyness of users it leads to less competition, less innovation and more websites that breaks.
I thought I already explained why it's not laziness. And the website only breaks for those that aren't using what almost everyone else is using. Everyone here is assuming if IE wasn't bundled, people wouldn't use it. I'm not convienced of that, and my proof is the rising share of FF.
Users do not have to make the choice. OEM A bundles windows with FF, OEM B bundles windows with Opera, OEM C bundles windows with IE.
OEMs should be able to do this now. That's what the whole antitrust case was about. Do you have any evidence that OEMs aren't bundling FF because MS is telling them not to TODAY?
Because the bundled application is being anti-competitive by being bundled.
What does that have to do with the users being "lazy?" If they are happy, who are you to force them to make a choice they don't want to?
Also because it's probably not up to the task because it doesn't meet web standards.
Um, whether or not IE is "up to the task" is defined by the users, not you. For the most part, users just want the page to load, I doubt they could give a shit if the browser or site is following standards.
last thing we need is IE market share creeping up once W7 is released, even if IE8 is better at CSS than its ancestors, because it is still going to be a joke of a web browser compared to the others in terms of Javascript execution speed and web standards.
IE6 and IE7 being so poor has forced people to look for an alternative. IE8 could be just enough to never trigger that effort.
Sorry, I don't see IE having significant market share as a problem. And yes, I do develop websites. It's my clients that pay the price though if they want it to work in more than IE (if it's not just an external web application).
You may care about javascript execution time or web standards... but most people don't. That doesn't make people lazy, it means they have other things that are more important in their life than which web browser they should be using. But you'll probably call me lazy for giving up on linux because it was taking too much of my time as well.
First, try not to be such a prick and people will like you better.
I don't care if people here like me or not.
Second, I was showing how your original argument was flawed. [...] Of course there is no advantage, but that is an unrealistic oversimplification of reality. There is a lot more to surfing the internet than "display the webpages they want" to the average user. If there weren't, why would anyone with an iPhone bother to surf the internet on something larger if the iPhone displays the webpages they want?
I'm not so sure it is an oversimplification. At any rate, you've given nothing but anecdote to show otherwise. Your point about the iPhone is silly, unless you have some indication that people are choosing to use the iPhone when they have a computer readily available. So your example is something where all things are not equal; that is, convience / portablity has now come into play. So let's stick to the matter at hand, which is the browser one is using on their desktop, and leave the strawmen behind.
I do not think that word means what you think it means. I was providing an example of something that might matter to a user as I had met other users that it mattered to. I didn't say that it mattered to all users, or even a majority of users I've met.
Then why are you trying to answer my general question that is aimed at the majority of users?
Seriously, cut out the goofy straw man arguments. I obviously wasn't claiming that FF doesn't ever crash. I said "crashes less". How could that be confused? All software crashes, be it due to software bugs or hardware glitches. There is a reason that NASA uses redundant pieces of software and hardware to perform tasks, because they know there will be crashes.
Says the pot to the kettle. My point, which you missed, is that IE isn't crashing more than FF. All things being equal, I expect them to crash at about the same rate. But please, if you have evidence otherwise, please present it. Because the "crashes less" sounds like anecdote to me, not based on any facts.
Saying that FF takes less time to display a webpage is not an anecdote. It is easily demonstrative, and there is so much information on the internet about it, that I find it unnecessary to provide links.
Please try to understand what you read. The anecdote part is that most people don't care about how much time a web page takes to display.
And saying that "if you show someone a feature they would be interested in, they will favor that product if all other things are equal" is hardly a far fetched statement. I haven't seen any studies about it, but I'm just going to risk life and limb here and assume it to be generally true. The experience with ColorfulTabs was simply a simple experience demonstrating a time with the assertion was true. There were others, but it didn't seem important enough to go into detail with. I could provide others if you really care that much. I doubt most users think about add-ons at all, which is why you have to show them.
Um, if you believe you have to show users add-ons to care about them at all, I think it's pretty safe to say users don't care about add-ons. Your other "experiences" are anecdote you're trying to use to prove your point, which is to demonstate that FF is somehow better than IE. My assertion is that it's not in any way the average user actually cares about. So before you say FF is better because of add-ons, its on you to first demonstrate that average users actually would care to begin with... and you don't do that by citing your personal experiences.
And yes, IE supports add-ons. But, to use a car analogy, the Ford Pinto supports all sorts of modifications to the body and engine. But you're just not going to find the range, usefulness or selection as you would for something like the Honda Civic. [...] Please try thinking rationally about my post... and realize your straw man arguments are just that.
It's amazing how people on this site copout. Even if you disagree with my issue on who should pay, that doesn't mean I didn't raise other valid points for you to counter. My only conclusion when I see stuff like this is that you don't really have a good counter point.
I ask again; where is your evidence that students aren't getting the attention they need to learn how to read? Come on already, I've asked half a dozen times already.. show me a study that says teachers are failing because they don't want to spend enough time with their kids. One link, anything that I can read that might back up your point.
Don't worry... I don't expect you to actually be able to produce such a thing... which is why I think your side of the discussion is nothing more than feel good non-sense.
No, because you're stupid. I defended my statements, and there seem to be a lot more people arguing my point of view than yours right now.
I think you know where your argument breaks down.. because you quoted one line where I insulted you, and completely ignored the rest of my post where I take down your argument. When people have no valid point, they often focus on a copout like you did.
Better interface. Almost every user I met complained about the IE7 interface.
Well, thanks for your anecdote. But it doesn't mean anything.
It makes terrible use of space, while the FF interface uses the standard File/Edit/View bar, and the tabs area goes all of the way across which provides more room for tab labels.
Again, thanks for your opinion. If I remove the Favorites bar, IE uses less space than my FF toolbars. Of course in either of them you can hit F11 and go full screen if you're really concerned about space. But this whole part of the discussion is moot; you think it's relevent, but you may very well be a minority, and except for your anecdote, there's no facts here.
FF also crashes less.
Thanks for this comment from 1999. Since FF never crashes, I guess they wasted their time saving state so that it could get back the pages you were viewing at the time of the non-existent crash.
It also takes less time to display webpages. And if you show the average user what can be done with extensions they find interesting, they are totally sold on FF (I had one user switch just for the Colorful Tabs add-on).
Sorry, did you read my post? And again with your anecdotes. I like how your argument hinges on something as trivial as Colorful tabs. I doubt most people would care enough about that add-on (or add-ons in general) to switch.. especially when IE supports add-ons as well.
Please try thinking rationally about my post... and realize your anecdotes are just that.
How to you quantify "better?" I know you can say FF is faster, or more standards complaint or whatever.. but I supsect the average user doesn't case about these things. If both FF and IE display the webpages they want, and the user don't care about anything else... in what way is FF "better?"
His hobby is working on something that is indistinguishable from numerous businesses doing the same thing. Just because you aren't getting paid for it doesn't make it "residential."
That describes just about anything on the internet. God damn you are stupid. I guess anyone uploading video of their cat to a website is also using their connection for business purposes.
Yeah, but you have to have some "average" number you are aiming for. If the users don't hit it, you can charge them more or cap them. Capping them affects fewer and results in the same profit.
Capping or charging more is a way to squeeze more profit out of customers. Remember the idea is that the higher load users are using the bandwidth the 100s of almost no-load users AREN'T using. That's the point. Capping or charging more is double dipping.
Would you prefer that prices increase for everyone to subsidize the heavy users?
The prices don't have to increase for anyone; the people paying for a connection they aren't using at all are already subsidizing the heavy users. Nice false dilemma.
Oh yeah, since you are a heavy user, you want the cheap connection they are losing money providing rather than having the heavy users pay a heavier cost.
Ass. I'm one that rarely uses my connection. I spend more time out of my house than I do in it. And for the record, if it's Comcast we're talking about, yea, I want them to bankrupt. I'm really glad my city came to it's senses and built its own fiber optic network, with reasonable prices for reasonable speed... instead of a crap business plan that purposefully oversells the bandwidth it has.
Oh joy, another idiot/. poster that thinks googling is a replacement for research. As if the people that did successfully install the game are going to quit the game and post. Hey, just want to let everyone know the game installed fine for me! Dolt.
Whatever dude. I never managed to get Windows to 'just work.' even on a preload and I don't know anyone else who has either. Because something always manages to get hosed or infested and forces a reinstall. When something goes wrong on Windows you can't fix it other than by a reload. If it has worked for you, thats great.
Well, maybe you just don't know what you're doing. I had XP running 3 years without a reinstall (prior to that the box was running Linux). Then I upgraded to Vista, doing an in-place upgrade. Still running fine, and that was about a year ago now.
Yes installing Linux is hard, but so is installing Windows and getting everything sorted out.
No, installing Linux was the easy part. Keeping it running was the hard part. It had just as many quicks as XP did when I left XP. Getting the latest Kopete using RPMs was an absolute nightmare. I had to get 15 other packages. Then other things broke (and Kopete didn't still). After a few days spending about three hours a night, finally got it working. Then it broke again (due to Yahoo / MSN changes). Had to repeat again. Except this time I couldn't use the packages.. they were taking too long to get out. Not to mention the other weird things (email vanishing in KMail.. fixed by deleting the index files it created in the mail directory).
We now have the option of preloads though. Try one sometime. Just do your homework because some of the preloads have been craptastic, which is where the tales of high returns came from. A 'preload' that doesn't even support the built in webcam is just pathetic. I'd probably return a turd like that too.
Why? Windows is working great for me. I don't want to go back to the nightmare that is supporting Linux, worrying about how I was going to get applications I wanted working (and no, GNUCash is NOT a replacement for MS Money or Quicken), never getting the printers I ALREADY HAVE working.
By the time I decided to swtich back to Windows, I was so fed up I even bought SBS 2003 to replace my 10 year old Linux server I'd been using all along, and later bought the retail Vista (so I can upgrade my aging computer without worry).
I'll toy with Linux in the future for sure sometime... but I would never run it as my desktop OS. I think it will do fine sticking to nitche things and running my cable box.
Right.. I shouldn't have said it never causes problems. As if Linux is any better though, right? But I think most people don't encounter issues. Of course all we'll hear on google searches are the complainers.
And what is RA3? Red Alert 3? If you're wanting to run a program designed for WINDOWS you need Wine installed first. Linux isn't Windows
No shit Sherlock. As if the people asked on the street would understand this though, which was the whole point of my comment. If they ended up with the computer demoed, they'd likely be at a huge loss when they buy software and have it not just work.
And again, Google is not research. I actually play RA3 myself, and had absolutely no problems with it. Given the advice is usually FIRMWARE updates to the drive, I suspect it's not a Windows problem at all, but a CD drive problem.
Your personal opinion on the game itself is irrelevent.
First of all, Microsoft screwed up initially because DOS and the non-NT versions of Windows didn't implement the concept of a multi-user, networked operating system like Unix and NT did. This means that when the internet took off, Microsoft was selling an operating system for the masses that was not architected to be used securely over the internet.
I don't even see it as a screw up. They were at the time targeting computers used by one person that wasn't on a network. The problem was the internet blew up and they HAD to add internet features, but they couldn't also do the whole multi-user, network thing all in one shot. It would have immediately failed.
If they saw the internet coming years ahead, they may have been able to add the needed features before... but that's not how it happened. They (and I think most people) were suprised, and reacted. When they reacted I'm guessing many of their developers were still in the single user no-network mindset. Not a shift you can make overnight.
Really? So my grandmom should have to muddle through sys admin tasks that make it as difficult as possible just so she can use her computer? I don't buy your argument; normal people should be able to use their computer with minimal hassle. So we need to find the right balance of usabilty and security.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the government which was deregulating banking since George I, allowing "investors" to buy up subprime mortgages given to people that really couldn't afformd them? And then the ponzi scheme collapsed?
It was a failure of captialize; let it run wild, and this is what we reap.
Of course the real solution to the mortgage problem would be 1) tell the investors "tough shit, you made a bad investment, you lose your shirt" and 2) tell the homeowners "you lucked out; you own your home free and clear."
Because change for teh sake of change is stupid, unnecessary, and potentiallly dangerous?
I'll just say "me too." I found I was spending more time trying to keep Linux up to date than I did using my computer. Everything was a fight, so I ditched my Linux server of 10 years, and removed Linux from my desktop after using it for two or three years, I think.
Geeks like us have already dominated the server-side of the Linux equation, now fools will win the desktop for us.
Huh? http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016_3-6041804.html
I really don't know why you think Linux on embedded OSes will help it in other markets; I know my cable box runs Linux. That has no impact on me though and my desktop OS. I doubt I'd change my desktop due to what my phone runs, or what my Zune runs.
Sorry, no. Especially when the one man with the anecdote is an anoymous poster on the internet.
The problem is that through the lazyness of users it leads to less competition, less innovation and more websites that breaks.
I thought I already explained why it's not laziness. And the website only breaks for those that aren't using what almost everyone else is using. Everyone here is assuming if IE wasn't bundled, people wouldn't use it. I'm not convienced of that, and my proof is the rising share of FF.
Users do not have to make the choice. OEM A bundles windows with FF, OEM B bundles windows with Opera, OEM C bundles windows with IE.
OEMs should be able to do this now. That's what the whole antitrust case was about. Do you have any evidence that OEMs aren't bundling FF because MS is telling them not to TODAY?
And now we arrive at the copout.
Because the bundled application is being anti-competitive by being bundled.
What does that have to do with the users being "lazy?" If they are happy, who are you to force them to make a choice they don't want to?
Also because it's probably not up to the task because it doesn't meet web standards.
Um, whether or not IE is "up to the task" is defined by the users, not you. For the most part, users just want the page to load, I doubt they could give a shit if the browser or site is following standards.
last thing we need is IE market share creeping up once W7 is released, even if IE8 is better at CSS than its ancestors, because it is still going to be a joke of a web browser compared to the others in terms of Javascript execution speed and web standards.
IE6 and IE7 being so poor has forced people to look for an alternative. IE8 could be just enough to never trigger that effort.
Sorry, I don't see IE having significant market share as a problem. And yes, I do develop websites. It's my clients that pay the price though if they want it to work in more than IE (if it's not just an external web application).
You may care about javascript execution time or web standards... but most people don't. That doesn't make people lazy, it means they have other things that are more important in their life than which web browser they should be using. But you'll probably call me lazy for giving up on linux because it was taking too much of my time as well.
First, try not to be such a prick and people will like you better.
I don't care if people here like me or not.
Second, I was showing how your original argument was flawed. [...] Of course there is no advantage, but that is an unrealistic oversimplification of reality. There is a lot more to surfing the internet than "display the webpages they want" to the average user. If there weren't, why would anyone with an iPhone bother to surf the internet on something larger if the iPhone displays the webpages they want?
I'm not so sure it is an oversimplification. At any rate, you've given nothing but anecdote to show otherwise. Your point about the iPhone is silly, unless you have some indication that people are choosing to use the iPhone when they have a computer readily available. So your example is something where all things are not equal; that is, convience / portablity has now come into play. So let's stick to the matter at hand, which is the browser one is using on their desktop, and leave the strawmen behind.
I do not think that word means what you think it means. I was providing an example of something that might matter to a user as I had met other users that it mattered to. I didn't say that it mattered to all users, or even a majority of users I've met.
Then why are you trying to answer my general question that is aimed at the majority of users?
Seriously, cut out the goofy straw man arguments. I obviously wasn't claiming that FF doesn't ever crash. I said "crashes less". How could that be confused? All software crashes, be it due to software bugs or hardware glitches. There is a reason that NASA uses redundant pieces of software and hardware to perform tasks, because they know there will be crashes.
Says the pot to the kettle. My point, which you missed, is that IE isn't crashing more than FF. All things being equal, I expect them to crash at about the same rate. But please, if you have evidence otherwise, please present it. Because the "crashes less" sounds like anecdote to me, not based on any facts.
Saying that FF takes less time to display a webpage is not an anecdote. It is easily demonstrative, and there is so much information on the internet about it, that I find it unnecessary to provide links.
Please try to understand what you read. The anecdote part is that most people don't care about how much time a web page takes to display.
And saying that "if you show someone a feature they would be interested in, they will favor that product if all other things are equal" is hardly a far fetched statement. I haven't seen any studies about it, but I'm just going to risk life and limb here and assume it to be generally true. The experience with ColorfulTabs was simply a simple experience demonstrating a time with the assertion was true. There were others, but it didn't seem important enough to go into detail with. I could provide others if you really care that much. I doubt most users think about add-ons at all, which is why you have to show them.
Um, if you believe you have to show users add-ons to care about them at all, I think it's pretty safe to say users don't care about add-ons. Your other "experiences" are anecdote you're trying to use to prove your point, which is to demonstate that FF is somehow better than IE. My assertion is that it's not in any way the average user actually cares about. So before you say FF is better because of add-ons, its on you to first demonstrate that average users actually would care to begin with... and you don't do that by citing your personal experiences.
And yes, IE supports add-ons. But, to use a car analogy, the Ford Pinto supports all sorts of modifications to the body and engine. But you're just not going to find the range, usefulness or selection as you would for something like the Honda Civic. [...] Please try thinking rationally about my post... and realize your straw man arguments are just that.
Ahh the irony. This is why people m
It's amazing how people on this site copout. Even if you disagree with my issue on who should pay, that doesn't mean I didn't raise other valid points for you to counter. My only conclusion when I see stuff like this is that you don't really have a good counter point.
I ask again; where is your evidence that students aren't getting the attention they need to learn how to read? Come on already, I've asked half a dozen times already.. show me a study that says teachers are failing because they don't want to spend enough time with their kids. One link, anything that I can read that might back up your point.
Don't worry... I don't expect you to actually be able to produce such a thing... which is why I think your side of the discussion is nothing more than feel good non-sense.
No, because you're stupid. I defended my statements, and there seem to be a lot more people arguing my point of view than yours right now.
I think you know where your argument breaks down.. because you quoted one line where I insulted you, and completely ignored the rest of my post where I take down your argument. When people have no valid point, they often focus on a copout like you did.
Better interface. Almost every user I met complained about the IE7 interface.
Well, thanks for your anecdote. But it doesn't mean anything.
It makes terrible use of space, while the FF interface uses the standard File/Edit/View bar, and the tabs area goes all of the way across which provides more room for tab labels.
Again, thanks for your opinion. If I remove the Favorites bar, IE uses less space than my FF toolbars. Of course in either of them you can hit F11 and go full screen if you're really concerned about space. But this whole part of the discussion is moot; you think it's relevent, but you may very well be a minority, and except for your anecdote, there's no facts here.
FF also crashes less.
Thanks for this comment from 1999. Since FF never crashes, I guess they wasted their time saving state so that it could get back the pages you were viewing at the time of the non-existent crash.
It also takes less time to display webpages. And if you show the average user what can be done with extensions they find interesting, they are totally sold on FF (I had one user switch just for the Colorful Tabs add-on).
Sorry, did you read my post? And again with your anecdotes. I like how your argument hinges on something as trivial as Colorful tabs. I doubt most people would care enough about that add-on (or add-ons in general) to switch.. especially when IE supports add-ons as well.
Please try thinking rationally about my post... and realize your anecdotes are just that.
This is because bundling does give a massive advantage, because people are lazy and if something is there that does the task, they will just use it.
Um, if the bundled app does the task, why is it lazy of the user not to download something else?
If being better
How to you quantify "better?" I know you can say FF is faster, or more standards complaint or whatever.. but I supsect the average user doesn't case about these things. If both FF and IE display the webpages they want, and the user don't care about anything else... in what way is FF "better?"
Maybe they should remove the "news for nerds" part then. Maybe "entertain for nerds."
You find the OP disingenuous because of your anecdotal experience?
Are you sure? I had 3.11, and I thought you still needed Trump Winsock to get internet connectivty.
His hobby is working on something that is indistinguishable from numerous businesses doing the same thing. Just because you aren't getting paid for it doesn't make it "residential."
That describes just about anything on the internet. God damn you are stupid. I guess anyone uploading video of their cat to a website is also using their connection for business purposes.
Yeah, but you have to have some "average" number you are aiming for. If the users don't hit it, you can charge them more or cap them. Capping them affects fewer and results in the same profit.
Capping or charging more is a way to squeeze more profit out of customers. Remember the idea is that the higher load users are using the bandwidth the 100s of almost no-load users AREN'T using. That's the point. Capping or charging more is double dipping.
Would you prefer that prices increase for everyone to subsidize the heavy users?
The prices don't have to increase for anyone; the people paying for a connection they aren't using at all are already subsidizing the heavy users. Nice false dilemma.
Oh yeah, since you are a heavy user, you want the cheap connection they are losing money providing rather than having the heavy users pay a heavier cost.
Ass. I'm one that rarely uses my connection. I spend more time out of my house than I do in it. And for the record, if it's Comcast we're talking about, yea, I want them to bankrupt. I'm really glad my city came to it's senses and built its own fiber optic network, with reasonable prices for reasonable speed... instead of a crap business plan that purposefully oversells the bandwidth it has.
Oh joy, another idiot /. poster that thinks googling is a replacement for research. As if the people that did successfully install the game are going to quit the game and post. Hey, just want to let everyone know the game installed fine for me! Dolt.
Whatever dude. I never managed to get Windows to 'just work.' even on a preload and I don't know anyone else who has either. Because something always manages to get hosed or infested and forces a reinstall. When something goes wrong on Windows you can't fix it other than by a reload. If it has worked for you, thats great.
Well, maybe you just don't know what you're doing. I had XP running 3 years without a reinstall (prior to that the box was running Linux). Then I upgraded to Vista, doing an in-place upgrade. Still running fine, and that was about a year ago now.
Yes installing Linux is hard, but so is installing Windows and getting everything sorted out.
No, installing Linux was the easy part. Keeping it running was the hard part. It had just as many quicks as XP did when I left XP. Getting the latest Kopete using RPMs was an absolute nightmare. I had to get 15 other packages. Then other things broke (and Kopete didn't still). After a few days spending about three hours a night, finally got it working. Then it broke again (due to Yahoo / MSN changes). Had to repeat again. Except this time I couldn't use the packages.. they were taking too long to get out. Not to mention the other weird things (email vanishing in KMail.. fixed by deleting the index files it created in the mail directory).
We now have the option of preloads though. Try one sometime. Just do your homework because some of the preloads have been craptastic, which is where the tales of high returns came from. A 'preload' that doesn't even support the built in webcam is just pathetic. I'd probably return a turd like that too.
Why? Windows is working great for me. I don't want to go back to the nightmare that is supporting Linux, worrying about how I was going to get applications I wanted working (and no, GNUCash is NOT a replacement for MS Money or Quicken), never getting the printers I ALREADY HAVE working.
By the time I decided to swtich back to Windows, I was so fed up I even bought SBS 2003 to replace my 10 year old Linux server I'd been using all along, and later bought the retail Vista (so I can upgrade my aging computer without worry).
I'll toy with Linux in the future for sure sometime... but I would never run it as my desktop OS. I think it will do fine sticking to nitche things and running my cable box.
Right.. I shouldn't have said it never causes problems. As if Linux is any better though, right? But I think most people don't encounter issues. Of course all we'll hear on google searches are the complainers.
And what is RA3? Red Alert 3? If you're wanting to run a program designed for WINDOWS you need Wine installed first. Linux isn't Windows
No shit Sherlock. As if the people asked on the street would understand this though, which was the whole point of my comment. If they ended up with the computer demoed, they'd likely be at a huge loss when they buy software and have it not just work.
And again, Google is not research. I actually play RA3 myself, and had absolutely no problems with it. Given the advice is usually FIRMWARE updates to the drive, I suspect it's not a Windows problem at all, but a CD drive problem.
Your personal opinion on the game itself is irrelevent.
Hmm... I got an Acer 1951B some years ago, and haven't had any problems with it. Guess I got lucky.. it was great deal too.
I'd love to get another one, but sadly they were discontinued shortly after I got it.
First of all, Microsoft screwed up initially because DOS and the non-NT versions of Windows didn't implement the concept of a multi-user, networked operating system like Unix and NT did. This means that when the internet took off, Microsoft was selling an operating system for the masses that was not architected to be used securely over the internet.
I don't even see it as a screw up. They were at the time targeting computers used by one person that wasn't on a network. The problem was the internet blew up and they HAD to add internet features, but they couldn't also do the whole multi-user, network thing all in one shot. It would have immediately failed.
If they saw the internet coming years ahead, they may have been able to add the needed features before... but that's not how it happened. They (and I think most people) were suprised, and reacted. When they reacted I'm guessing many of their developers were still in the single user no-network mindset. Not a shift you can make overnight.
Ya, you're point? It WAS by design. People complained, apparently enough that they responded by CHANGING THE DESIGN. Yes, that's valid to do.
Of course had they done nothing, I'm sure you'd be posting "see, M$ doesn't listen to their customers!"
Really? So my grandmom should have to muddle through sys admin tasks that make it as difficult as possible just so she can use her computer? I don't buy your argument; normal people should be able to use their computer with minimal hassle. So we need to find the right balance of usabilty and security.