On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, J.C. Wren wrote:
Don't give me that crap.
That it is inappropriate to deny problems exist,
merely because you haven't encountered them?
what the Windoze reference was a metaphor for:
that it is inappropriate to deny that problems exist with Fry's,
merely because one went in there once without any problems?
I've been using personal computers since CP/M
and whel you may have been doing it longer, I think that's damn well long
enough for me to recognize trends.
If it is meant to IMPRESS, then you gotta do better.
BUT,... it does back up your claim to recognize trends, by indicating that
you have been around for most of the development of Windoze. (CP/M, DOS,
etc.) I had no intention of impugning your length of time in the field.
Yes, "normal" people have Windows problems
now and again also. MY experience
shows that people who have the most problem are those that seem to be already
biased against Windows/MS, and are looking for problems.
I freely acknowledge that there are SOME people who create their own
And here certainly are cases where Windoze gets unfairly blamed for
other problems, including user error, and problems in applications
[Side note: I know of an Office-Jet composting on a shelf that had less
than 100 pages through it before an "upgrade" to Win2K resulted in it
being permanently removed from availability due to non-existence of
And some problems are not CAUSED by the OS, but consist
merely of GROSSLY inappropriate reactions by the OS to external problems
(ex: SMARTDRV write-caching, when encountering a bad sector)
And few would differentiate between what is validly a problem with the
OS v a problem with inadequate documentation or poor tech support.
Some people NEVER have a problem. Sometimes it is due to VERY limitied
types of usage (which might not apply to you, although the list of
software that you use does not include some catagories of software -
could those be related to your more positive experiences?). Sometimes
it's just a matter of probabilities.
NT,2K, and even XP, are significantly more reliable than 3x and 9x. And I
will grudgingly accept the need for added hurdles for intrinsically
destabilizing things like writing disk sectors (rather important to some
But I hardly think that the current state of reliability is beyond
reproach, beyond the possibilities for significant improvement, nor
even exempt from complaint.
And it will take a long time with high reliability to outlive reputations
acquired due to debacles like SMARTDRV.
SOME people actually have had unacceptable levels of reliability.
Those who have NOT experienced such problems should not
marginalize those who do.
Blaming the user is not always acceptable.
You don't like my theory, too bad. To quote
yourself: "YOU ARE AN ASS."
Aren't we all