Foo - Ok Microsoft. Let me get this straight...

So, today we release Vista's SP2 beta. (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2335851,00.asp) Beta testing should last until about April? Is that right? You want to have SP2 roll out in April (http://www.pcworld.com/article/154912/vista_sp2_six_things_you_need_to_know.html).

Ok. Fine. That's quick for a second service pack but it's needed.

So now you are also going to start rolling out Windows 7 Beta DVD's (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2335858,00.asp)? And it looks like you intend on distributing it to everyone on January 17th (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0&fp=49371eb0070dbe74&ei=kPg3SaLMHoaqNvmknKwP&url=http%3A//www.computerworld.com/action/article.do%3Fcommand%3DviewArticleBasic%26articleId%3D9122158&cid=1276999229&usg=AFQjCNFzGAiUOHIfEnJS-NtLc400ltQ2pA). Why is this already in beta? Every time you launch an OS you do it prematurely and this past time with Vista was probably the worse and most harmful to your company.

Yet, with Vista's SP2 beta and Windows 7 beta being released, essentially at the same time, you are pushing for a manufacturing date of Windows 7 for june or july (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/dec/04/windows-7-beta)?

Slow down M$, please give us an operating system that is worth a ****...please.

And to be fair and balanced:

This little gem is funny Apple deletes Mac antivirus suggestion (http://www.download.com/8301-2007_4-10111958-12.html)

If you're trying to compare the Windows clusterfukc with Apple's contradictory advice on anti-virus software, keep reaching. It's good exercise.

With Windows 7, they explicitly stated that they wanted to get back to following their regular two-year release cycle to avoid the mismanagement that went into planning Windows Vista. With this said, they are just on time in releasing their first public beta. Just quickly thinking about it, most first OS betas from MS are released a year or so after the stable release. Do you remember Windows 2000 Beta? XP Beta? Longhorn?

I was a bit wary about them releasing a public beta of Service Pack 2, but realizing that most people will not install it anyway (or have it pushed out through MS Update), it's actually a good idea. A lot of people were still not satisfied with Service Pack 1, and there were still more issues that needed attention. Keep in mind that they did the same thing for Windows XP SP2 and SP3; this is not unique.

If you're trying to compare the Windows clusterfukc with Apple's contradictory advice on anti-virus software, keep reaching. It's good exercise.

Point missed.

BTW, don't be too shortsighted. Windows is only as insecure as the user. Its security model may not be as robust as that used in a UNIX operating system, but a TON of the trojans/r00tkits/viruses released for Windows can only get through in the following ways:

a) User intervention ("Click HERE to install" sort of thing),
b) Weak security for the Administrator account (or no sandboxing),
c) Low firewall security (the OS soft firewall is actually pretty good), or
d) No antivirus/anti-spyware software (though a hardened installation of XP or Vista doesn't need one)

If you're trying to compare the Windows clusterfukc with Apple's contradictory advice on anti-virus software, keep reaching. It's good exercise.

Nope, not at all. Apple has pumped out a good OS and their security by obscurity is working very well. What i find funny is that once their market share reaches a certain level (which i suspect it will), they will become every bit as vulnerable.

Their current approach seems to be fueled by marketing more than by the IT people. If we don't discuss vulnerabilities, then people will think we have none and if people think we have none they will buy more machines. Most vulnerabilities these days come through browsers anyways. They shouldn't be so insecure.

But no, this thread is more about how MS sucks, and if you want to make the claim that they suck harder than Apple, i couldn't disagree with you.

With Windows 7, they explicitly stated that they wanted to get back to following their regular two-year release cycle to avoid the mismanagement that went into planning Windows Vista. With this said, they are just on time in releasing their first public beta. Just quickly thinking about it, most first OS betas from MS are released a year or so after the stable release. Do you remember Windows 2000 Beta? XP Beta? Longhorn?

I was a bit wary about them releasing a public beta of Service Pack 2, but realizing that most people will not install it anyway (or have it pushed out through MS Update), it's actually a good idea. A lot of people were still not satisfied with Service Pack 1, and there were still more issues that needed attention. Keep in mind that they did the same thing for Windows XP SP2 and SP3; this is not unique.

Do you think XP was ready for release when it was?
Do you think Vista was ready for release when it was?
What makes you think that Windows 7 will be ready for release at the end of '09?

Windows 7 is nothing more than Microsoft's Mojave Experiment on grander scale. They've heard how people/business will wait for 7, so they ramp up speed of delivery and everyone is just going to get a newer, maybe slightly better, version of Vista. Good move if you ask me - people are going to buy it.

Timmy, good point though, definitely moving faster than we'd want to see from MS, but they're doing it since people are purposely waiting to avoid Vista. Again, we see marketing driving development at Microsoft. It's too bad.

Disclaimer: I'm a reverse Mac switcher and Vista x64 has worked perfectly for me for just shy of a year now. I'd go back to a Mac, but the only system they offer that meets my needs is a Mac Pro (couldn't afford that unless I was Pcad) :) I can homebrew a good system for much, much less that meets my needs. A computer is nothing more than a tool. :)

A pox on all their houses, whether Windows or Linux. One is as bad as the other. Either way, you end up depending on some other organization to provide you with the OS and its updates.

(1) You should not think of the operating system as being the computer itself, or as being of any importance other than to run programs on. As for choosing one, you're probably best just sticking with what came with the computer if you already have one, or choose the appropriate computer if you're buying a new one. But remember that the OS is not the medium.

(2) Try to choose your programs in a way that makes you as independent of the OS as possible. Almost all common programs are cross-platform nowadays unless you intend to buy your programs (now there's something that's is really not necessary anymore!). Look at OpenOffice, Abiword, Gnumeric, MPlayer, VLC Player, Firefox, Thunderbird, Opera, FileZilla, Gimp... and so many others.

(3) If you're into programming or scripting as a hobby or just for your own needs, choose a language that is crossplatform, like Python, maybe Rexx, or any of a great many open source solutions, from BASIC to LISP.

(4) Even if you can't always do this, it pays to keep your text and files needs to being ordinary text files, so that you are independent of any future file format changes that programs might impose on you. Many people don't realize that they don't need OpenOffice or MS Office to write things. Write them as text files with no formatting as much as possible. You don't even need these programs to spell check your files.

If you run your computer like this, you won't have to get into any arguments, and you can ignore those who do, plus, you won't be a slave to every whim of the people who provide the operating systems. You can just forget the OS (except for security updates, of course), and just work or play with whatever programs you want.

At this point in time, if I was to buy a new computer, I would get a very generic one that can run a good Linux distribution such as Ubuntu. It's not that I prefer Linux as such, but it seems to be the lesser of 2 evils. But having to work with what I already have, which includes a problematic laptop, a scanner, etc., I just follow my own advice as above. I run the Windows XP that came with it because I need all the features of that laptop to work as intended, but I use Cygwin for almost all the work I do on it. It's kind of the best of both worlds.

a) User intervention ("Click HERE to install" sort of thing),
b) Weak security for the Administrator account (or no sandboxing),
c) Low firewall security (the OS soft firewall is actually pretty good), or
d) No antivirus/anti-spyware software (though a hardened installation of XP or Vista doesn't need one)


I had all that and more. Followed several of the popular security guides as well as the guides published by the parent company I worked for. Made a simple typo in internet explorer and got infected with somthing nasty despite all of the above. Second time getting spyware within a year after buying my first laptop with xp, formated and switched to linux, never looked back.

Point missed.

BTW, don't be too shortsighted. Windows is only as insecure as the user. Its security model may not be as robust as that used in a UNIX operating system, but a TON of the trojans/r00tkits/viruses released for Windows can only get through in the following ways:

a) User intervention ("Click HERE to install" sort of thing),
b) Weak security for the Administrator account (or no sandboxing),
c) Low firewall security (the OS soft firewall is actually pretty good), or
d) No antivirus/anti-spyware software (though a hardened installation of XP or Vista doesn't need one)

You labor under the amazing delusion that 99.99% of the world is 1/10th as much of a computer geek as yourself. That's OK, sometimes I share similar delusions about my love for cycling.

But no, this thread is more about how MS sucks, and if you want to make the claim that they suck harder than Apple, i couldn't disagree with you.

You're not kidding.

You labor under the amazing delusion that 99.99% of the world is 1/10th as much of a computer geek as yourself. That's OK, sometimes I share similar delusions about my love for cycling.

Unfortunately i have to disagree with you. It's not difficult to avoid banners ads and pop ups that aren't legit. It isn't difficult to install and run spybot. It is difficult to have a clean system. What it is difficult to do is to convince the masses that this isn't difficult.

Instead, what most people are are a bunch of whimpering little babies hiding in the corner of computer ignorance unable to take 10 mins to read about why their machine is running slow and how to fix/avoid it. Most those people go out and buy Macs ;)
(i should add that most of those people either go buy macs or they continue to whimper in the corner...you know, based on market share)

Almost all of the problems that I've heard people having with Vista are due to one of two things

1: underpowered hardware... Yes, Vista is a resource hog and if you want full Aero it's even more... but people buy a $600 laptop and expect it to deliver... not going to happen.

2: Driver incompatibility... Yes, Microsoft changed the way the OS interacts with the drivers... no, not all hardware vendors were ready with Vista drivers when Vista released... So... either Microsoft sucks because there are no drivers, or Microsoft sucks for not maintaining backward compatibility.

Whatever... the only issues I've had with Vista have all been hardware related... the OS works just fine.

You really want to get down to comparing OS's??? How about 'ease of use' ... Take a program that is available for multiple operating systems and install, configure and use them... see what OS is easier.

Let's take an example from my recent experience: VMWare server

Windows experience: Download, install, use. No gotchas, no problems, nothing.
Linux: Download... install... Run the configuration script... Everything is working wonderfully
-Reboot.
Uh-oh... nothing works. It says it's not configured. Re-run the configuration script... everything works.
Two days later: Reboot. Nothing works. VMWare says it's not configured... What the... reconfigure. Everything works.

Reboot. Nothing works. :mad:

In the end I figured out that it was kernel updates... what the... they used to be disabled by default on CentOS, but they're not anymore. Reconfigure the host OS to disable kernel updates.

Shut down the server... reboot... Guest os (Also linux) is hosed... it didn't shut down properly like it was supposed to... why? Because the VMWare tools ALSO have to be reconfigured every time there is a kernel update and without the tools installed/running, the host can't tell the guest OS to shut down. You have to disable kernel updates in the guest, as well.

Fun stuff.

Linux has come a LONG way, but it's not QUITE there yet for Joe Average... maybe soon.

vista sucks. period. end of discussion.

whether Microsoft sucks or not ? get over it. it has the most widely adopted
set of operating systems on earth. so....guess what sucks ?...not microsoft.

they did screw up with Vista though. a lot.

1: underpowered hardware... Yes, Vista is a resource hog and if you want full Aero it's even more... but people buy a $600 laptop and expect it to deliver... not going to happen.

I agree with this but i also argue that the system just has performance issues.

I've got a C2D OC'ed to 3.3ghz
4 gigs of ram
loads of storage, of which the OS is on a 10,000rpm drive
8800GTS video card

And after a week, all that pretty stuff runs like crap. I had to turn it off.

vista sucks. period. end of discussion.

whether Microsoft sucks or not ? get over it. it has the most widely adopted
set of operating systems on earth. so....guess what sucks ?...not microsoft.

they did screw up with Vista though. a lot.

Brilliant business does not always equate to brilliant product.

Brilliant business does not always equate to brilliant product.

wrong. the software is brilliant because it works and runs a part every major business operation that
matters worldwide and locally. there are lots of other companies writing OS's, Microsoft is the most
widely adopted... and not by some trickery or smoke and mirrors. it is because the stuff works and gets stuff done. from mom and pop shops to Bank of China with over 3 million end user nodes and every country and government, science house, university...all the players. MOST of them all have it as part of the core infrastructure.

solaris, redhat, macintosh are simply also-rans.


get over it

wrong. the software is brilliant because it works and runs a part every major business operation that
matters worldwide and locally. there are lots of other companies writing OS's, Microsoft is the most
widely adopted... and not by some trickery or smoke and mirrors. it is because the stuff works and gets stuff done. from mom and pop shops to Bank of China with over 3 million end user nodes and every country and government, science house, university...all the players. MOST of them all have it as part of the core infrastructure.

solaris, redhat, macintosh are simply also-rans.


get over it

This isn't about enterprise solutions. We're talking about Joe the Average Computer User. And in that regard, the last couple of releases have been headaches from the start only getting better with time. If i wanted something that got better with age I would be into wine.

Furthermore, Microsoft isn't what it is because of some brilliant programing. It's because it successfully got its foot in the door early. Bill wrote excellent software for its time and as a result he gained a massive foothold in the market. With that comes money and with that comes power, the power to develop something like Windows. But the problem is that for the money Joe the Plumber pays for an OS, it should not be as big of a headache as it is. Plain and simple.

You are basing MS's worth on market share when market share is partly there because of...previous market share.

When you're the first one in the game it takes a hell of a lot to get knocked down. Example: Ipod.

No software is ever complete upon release. This is why I never like to actually pay for a piece of software but rather the support for it, or the technicians to manage it.

No software is ever complete upon release. This is why I never like to actually pay for a piece of software but rather the support for it, or the technicians to manage it.

You're playing a game of semantics. No one expects "perfect" or "complete" but christ, how about a Vista System that doesn't stop working within two weeks. That was fixed with SP1 for me, but why did it require a patch in the first place?

Furthermore, Microsoft isn't what it is because of some brilliant programing. It's because it successfully got its foot in the door early. Bill wrote excellent software for its time and as a result he gained a massive foothold in the market.


can you contradict yourself some more please ?, it is the best laugh I've had in a while

U
i should add that most of those people either go buy macs

Correct. And considering the fact that 95%+ of the world could give a **** about your computer weenie concerns, that's a big problem for a company that doesn't make idiot proof computers. Macs are arguably more idiot proof. Why do you think I like them?

However you'll be happy to hear that my MS Bashing did result in the Bill Gates Entourage Database Crash, which was particularly baffling today (this happens every 15 months or so). Microsoft has stopped supporting my old version of Office for the Mac (mine dates from 2001).

I relented and ordered the new full version today. No matter what happens MS makes money.* Later, through myriad tricks, upgrades, re-installs, etc., I was able to get the old software working again. I am a computer friggin GENIUS. No thanks to you nerds.

*Remember, GM used to be the same way. Not any more eh?

Let's sum up both sides of the argument. :lol:

Correct. And considering the fact that 95%+ of the world could give a **** about your computer weenie concerns, that's a big problem for a company that doesn't make idiot proof computers. Macs are arguably more idiot proof. Why do you think I like them?

However you'll be happy to hear that my MS Bashing did result in the Bill Gates Entourage Database Crash, which was particularly baffling today (this happens every 15 months or so). Microsoft has stopped supporting my old version of Office for the Mac (mine dates from 2001).

I relented and ordered the new full version today. No matter what happens MS makes money.* Later, through myriad tricks, upgrades, re-installs, etc., I was able to get the old software working again. I am a computer friggin GENIUS. No thanks to you nerds.

*Remember, GM used to be the same way. Not any more eh?


See, this is generally your problem old man. You think i have a vested interest Microsoft. I couldn't give two craps if they fall on their face.

can you contradict yourself some more please ?, it is the best laugh I've had in a while

If you took the the time to read what i said you would realize there were no contradictions. I said that Bill Gates wrote some of the best software of his time. This gave him a foothold, one that his company still holds. Because of this they have the resources to pour millions into developing new software. Because of that the software is expensive as hell.

What you pay, and what you get, don't equate. However, because of that brilliant software that was written back in the day, the foothold (ie 95% market share, 99% market share in enterprise environments) allows him to charge a lot for a crap piece of software because there is no other real choice.

I can't wait until that market share is more spread among apple and MS and perhaps a couple other companies. Until then, i expect crap.

See, this is generally your problem old man. You think i have a vested interest Microsoft. I couldn't give two craps if they fall on their face.

What makes you think I care about MS? I wouldn't own their stock. No thanks.

Your characterization of me as 'old man' will only make your humiliation more complete when we ride together and I pwn you.

Your characterization of me as 'old man' will only make your humiliation more complete when we ride together and I pwn you.

Oh there is no doubt about it that i'm a hack on a bike. Just ask Psimet and company...

Oh there is no doubt about it that i'm a hack on a bike. Just ask Psimet and company...

Oh, there's a shock. You're alright kid. It's not all about cycling anyway. Some people have a life. Not me of course, but just sayin'.

Do you think XP was ready for release when it was?
Do you think Vista was ready for release when it was?
What makes you think that Windows 7 will be ready for release at the end of '09?

I haven't caught up too much with Win7 (lack of interest), but if it's a fixed up and feature-added Vista, then why wouldn't it be on schedule? Windows Vista had to adopt a new base in the middle of its life cycle because the old one (XP) didn't play nice with it (I beta tested it then, and I can attest to that.) They probably won't do that this time, and their usual OS refresh cycle is two years. Windows Vista came out in 2007, so...yeah.

BTW, I think XP was ready enough. I think that if it took five years for that OS to be released, it would have garnered the same kind of negative response. It was pretty buggy for some people, but now it's one of the best operating systems that they've released.

Windows Vista, on the other hand, wasn't all ready...but the difference was that they mismanaged it kind of badly. That's been written about a few times, actually.

(2) Try to choose your programs in a way that makes you as independent of the OS as possible. Almost all common programs are cross-platform nowadays unless you intend to buy your programs (now there's something that's is really not necessary anymore!). Look at OpenOffice, Abiword, Gnumeric, MPlayer, VLC Player, Firefox, Thunderbird, Opera, FileZilla, Gimp... and so many others.


The problem with a lot of these open source offerings is that they are not as streamlined as their commercial competitors. It might be because of NDAs and a lot of information being locked away, but that's the truth of the matter. I highly respect what they do and have done for computing; in fact, I think that there are people who can replace Microsoft Office with OpenOffice and Photoshop with GIMP, for example. However, the biggest customers in IT are not consumers; they are corporate bodies. Because of the fact that there is no way OpenOffice Calc is as good of a substitute as Microsoft Excel or that GIMP is as good as Photoshop (spotty CMYK support means newspapers won't get it; simple as that), they are at a loss.

I find that using products that have extensive testing with the operating system at hand (like those from Adobe or Microsoft) are usually best for reliable use.

You labor under the amazing delusion that 99.99% of the world is 1/10th as much of a computer geek as yourself. That's OK, sometimes I share similar delusions about my love for cycling.

That would be true...if any of that was remotely difficult. However, it's really not (maybe save (2), but sandboxing is a shortcoming of Windows anyway). Installing an antivirus and antispyware program is not hard. Getting a browser with a solid pop-up blocker (Firefox is pretty good, though not for all) is not hard. The problem is doing nothing is easier, which is why lots of people complain about a security model they know little about and switch to Macs because "they just work."

I'm not saying that you fit that audience; you probably don't. (Though you're an impressive shill. I like that. :p) It's just the mode of thinking many of Apple's user base displays. It's inherently flawed; what are they going to do when Safari starts throwing popups for Mac "spyware" products and they get hit with nasty trojans? (It's an inevitably; no operating system is bulletproof.)

Maybe then we might see the year of the Linux desktop. Or not.

Timmy, you do have a point. I've also noticed that running Aero for a little while leads to performance issues. I've experienced that on my laptop too, and it's pretty nicely powered.

On the other hand, I'm running Windows Server 2008, it's bigger brother. This OS is fast (just like Server 2003 was) and can be hardened to the bone. (Though I'd rather not do that; usability decreases as security increases.)

I also agree that Linux has come a long way, but I still can't use dual desktops on it correctly. It's not an Ubuntu issue, it's an X.Org issue that's been around since...ohhh....FOREVER?! I know ATi kind of sucks with drivers, but seriously? I don't mind tinkering on a command line; I installed a mail server all on command line (not a big deal) and it was a lot of fun for me. However, it WON'T be fun for my uncle who needs to work on taxes and needs the printer to work as consistently as possible.

I wish it were possible for Microsoft to pull an Osborne/Sega (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect), so they could finally STFU and GTFA.

That would be true...if any of that was remotely difficult. However, it's really not (maybe save (2), but sandboxing is a shortcoming of Windows anyway). Installing an antivirus and antispyware program is not hard.

Oh man. You really, REALLY don't get it, do you? I may not be a total technoidiot, but here's an actual call they got at some software company about 15 years ago:

'Tech support, can we help you'

'Yes, I can't figure out what I'm supposed to do with this foot pedal. It's like the one on my sewing machine, but it doesn't work'

'Maam, that's the computer mouse, you use it with your hand on your desk'

'If any of that was remotely difficult'? Maybe not for you and me. For me 75-85 year old parents, for whatever reason, anything computer related like installing software or learning how to use it is like me trying to defuse an Iranian thermonuclear device. Newflash: 90% of the world is more like my parents than like you or even somebody in-between like me. I can figure out software, I have a computer network here, I'm the company tech weenie, and I keep it running. I figured out my Entourage problem today (more like I kept trying different things until it got fixed). But the vast majority of users look at computers like toasters, cars or clock radios, not something they should have to burn one brain cell trying to unravel.

You think 90% of the world is stupid for that reason? Perhaps you should consider a career with Microsoft. That's their approach. Let me know how that all works out for them in 10 years or so.

I don't think "90% of the world" is stupid because some couldn't tell the difference between a power button and their coat button. It's not even stupidity that's the problem; those people have other priorities than learning how to use the computer. As you stated, they see the computer as a tool rather than a hobby, and people don't want to think when using tools. They just want it to work, hence Apple's selling point ("It just works."). As a technically-oriented person, it can be difficult to see that, but by having done work for the type of people you describe and currently working in a position with many people of the same caliber, it becomes much easier to appreciate this.

Either way, there are two flaws with your argument:

1. Apple's target audience (the people I'm making my case against) is not the same as those eligible for Medicare. If that were the case, they would be marketing like hell right around now. Their audience are mostly people that should know about basic virus protection measures, especially if some of them are migrating to Apple because they are fed up with insecurities in Windows.

also

2. Even for the case you bring up here, that person should have some basic protection installed on her computer because there's no way that he or she got that computer up and running by itself. If someone did it for her, that person should be knowledgeable enough to hide Internet Explorer away from the user, install Firefox as a replacement and install a decent antivirus scanner (hint: it's not McAfee or Norton Antivirus). If it's an OEM computer, these measures should already be taken. (Did you know that a lot of OEM computers only come with a trial period of antivirus protection, and many of those users see the "time expired" message as a background hinderance?)

Keep in mind that I'm not trying to downplay the Mac; I really do think that it's a great system, and there have been plenty of times where I considered getting one and couldn't afford it. (I mean, who doesn't want a sexy and light notebook that runs Vista/XP better than many laptops it replaces?) I'm arguing against the mindset that assists people in migrating over to that platform. It must be a pretty popular one, since Apple commercialized it.

Macs are arguably more idiot proof. Why do you think I like them?

I would argue that the internet would be a much smarter place without Macs.

Learning how to avoid the pitfalls of PCs is a great entry exam. Make a computer idiotproof and the internet is full of idiots.


OK, more full of idiots.

I'm arguing against the mindset that assists people in migrating over to that platform. It must be a pretty popular one, since Apple commercialized it.

You mean the one where people don't mind paying a few hundred bucks more for a computer that's cool, easy to use, not a constant pain in the ass in their day to day lives? That mindset?

I mean, what the F are people thinking with that? Go figure.

I find that using products that have extensive testing with the operating system at hand (like those from Adobe or Microsoft) are usually best for reliable use.

If companies like Microsoft and Adobe do so much extensive testing they why are they releasing software with so many problems. I wish I had tracked how many cases I have had to open with MS. They have been anythng but reliable. Grated open source programs have bugs too but the main difference is I can go onto a mailing list and report the bug and someone sends me back a patch. Microsoft says "this bug had priority extra super low so we'll never fix it, you can work around it by purchasing some third party application".

I find it funny people keep pointing to windows for its ease of use. Several years ago I started playing with Linux and chose a distro called Slackware. its the oldest distro and needs the most manual configuration. Every couple years i put a larger drive in my laptop and download the latest and install it then copy my data over and each time it takes maybe an hour or two to be up and running. Install, configure xorg, download the latest openoffice, etc. I put Windows XP on with a dual boot and it takes hours to get working. Install takes a good hour even if just taking defaults, then yu have to download all the drivers, then all the security updates, then antivirus, then ani spyware, then the fixex for various bugs then finally your apps, then a bunch of registry changes, etc. A bunch of reboots in the process as well. It takes so much work to get windows running and so much more to keep it running because you have to keep updating stuff and make sure your antivirus and spyware are up to date. Yes there are updates for linux but look at how minor they are, I generally don't update anything unless I want new features. Then your parents/grandparents, etc call you in 6 months because their windows system crashed because yahoo games pushed down some adware and you do it again. I 'forgot' to backup my MIL's e-mail last time I reinstalled her system and she hasn't asked me to since. I kept telling her she needs to run her antisyware and avoid places like aol and yahoo or she would keep having the problems over agan and she said oh well. it was no big deal to her because I aparently had a whole day to waste reinstalling it for her, then of course we'd never see her in between, she only came around when her system crashed. I switched her to OpenOffice and Firefox but her other daughter told her those weren't real programs and gave her a copy of MS Office. So she then calls me when Word or excel throws errors and crashes or her documents get corrupted, I'm amazed at the instability of MSOffice compared to OpenOffice, even my work supplied system MSOffice has lots of issues.

You mean the one where people don't mind paying a few thousand bucks more for a computer that's cool, completely restrictive, and can't do squat? That mindset?


Fify.