Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [OT] Windows Users - I Dislike Them for SPAM, But I Also Feel Bad for Them

[snips]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:53:18 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:

> Ive been sat for 3 hours waiting for GParted to repartition a 120 gig
> drive. No feedback, nothing.

Must be something buggered with the HD or the system then; I use GParted
fairly regulalrly, it doesn't take nearly that long for a drive that size.

>> I have spent the past weeks grappling with openGL and Sound issues.

You're using Windows again, aren't you?

> I never had *any* of this under XP

Then you've never used XP.  All it takes is a single reinstall to send you
scrambling for driver CDs right, left and center.  XP has about the worst
hardware support out there; if it weren't for constant babying by
hardware vendors, it'd be left on a stock VGA/P3/SB16 setup for eternity.

> furthermore in years of using XP as
> a development machine, it froze on maybe one occasion.

That makes you unique.  MS themselves admit that, a good 5% of Windows
boxes crash *more than twice per day*.  Given that the whole "phone home
on crash" bit didn't even exist in Win9x, that means we're talking newer,
more modern, supposedly stable versions of Windows.  And with the claimed
billion or so Windows boxes around, that's a *minimum* of 150 *million*
crashes *per day*.  (5% of 1 billion, multiplied by three - recall, it's
_more than_ twice per day, so _minimum_ three times.)

That doesn't even include machines that crash only once or twice per day.
Assuming that for every machine crashing three or more times per day,
there's one machine crashing twice a day and one crashing only once a day,
that's some 150,000,000 machines and 300 million crashes.  Per day.  This
works out to 1 in 6 Windows machines crashing at least daily, or almost 1
in 3 if you average out the crashes.

1 in 3 or 1 in 6... either way, the notion it's stable enough to run doing
serious interactive stuff for years with only one crash is laughable.

Let us not forget, while we're at it, Windows even has an "advantage" in
these comparisons, insofar as it has to be rebooted for pretty much
anything beyond moving the mouse.  Security updates, web browser updates,
etc, etc, etc, all demand a reboot, while Linux boxes grasp the notion
that systems are meant to be _used_, not rebooted, so apply the fixes "in
place", no reboot required for much of anything short of a kernel upgrade
- so such boxes can, indeed, be up for years at a time.

> Linux is good : it aint that good buddy boy.

Good enough to go up and stay up until the user decides to bring it down,
not just because some pathetic twit software designer can't grasp that a
web browser is *not* a critical OS component.



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index