Now I Understand

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:52:22 -0600, "Shenan Stanley"
wrote:

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise
to use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
Windows is such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f
command, the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method
causes bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in
precise the reverse order of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall
the OS.

Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem,
which makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?)
handle this problem, and can we learn anything from their solution
to help minimize the problem with Windows?

Your thoughts?

I think you have made gross generalizations based off personal experience -
which are usually proven inaccurate (at best.)

I utilize many different operating systems (and flavors/versions of said
operating systems) and if there is a single OS that is not lacking in one or
more (mostly more after years of use on any given OS) ways, I have yet to
come across it. Many times - some of the 'problems' found could have been
avoided with experience and know-how on the part of the user - which is
acceptable in most cases because I don't believe someone whould 'hold my
hand' in everything I do. Also - many times - it is a 'personal' issue with
the OS - meaning it won't do something the end-user believes it *should* do.

As far as your gross generalizations - I have a system I have been running
since Windows XP was released. It has been through two different sets of
hardware, several hardware failures, many *MANY* installations and software
removals and is now finally running as a VirtualBox machine on top of my
Windows Vista and Windows Vista x64 Ultimate machines. I have *not* had to
'reinstall my OS' (assuming you mean a clean installation) nor did it ever
slow down in any way I did not expect (when you upgrade applications, seldom
do they actually utilize less resources than their prior versions...)

In my specific experience - Windows (XP, Vista and some prior versions to a
certain extent) are fairly stable operating systems that have given me
personally little trouble. I've thrown a lot at them - and my experience is
not limited to just the applications I utilize on a daily basis nor is my
experience limited to just one or two hardware configurations (I would put
myself in the thousands (possibly tens of thousands), easily, as far as how
many different hardware configurations I have had to deal with in the years
since Windows XP was first released alone.) I also pull from the experience
of those whose systems I have cleaned up from a mess or setup initially - in
that they seldom have the same trouble after a little configuration and a
little tutoring on how to properly utilize their system.

YMMV.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
Well said. I have few problems myself.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...
wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

wrote:
Bluuuue Rajah Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote:

Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better,

Both operating systems suck, AmigaOS is and always been the best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga

That's nice, what are you going to run it on?
It's my understanding that no one makes hardware
for it anymore.

The Wikipedia article was posted for a purpose.


What....are....you....going....to....run....it.... on?

Windows, Macintosh, DOS, Linux, etc.

http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/amiga.shtml

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ingleberry.htm

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Sam Wormley wrote in
news:Idi3l.489340$yE1.298419@attbi_s21:

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to
use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
Windows is such a POS.


http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/hcs/index.html

There's no reason to trust that.

"philo" wrote in
:


"Bluuuue Rajah" Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote in message
...

Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to
use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
Windows is such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command,
the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes
bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the
reverse order of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the
OS.

Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem, which
makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?) handle this
problem, and can we learn anything from their solution to help
minimize the problem with Windows?

Your thoughts?


I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.

Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can
sometimes be harder to sort out.

That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not
require a re-install.
I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% +
trouble free for *many* years.

You're living in a fantasy world. Everybody knows that Windows slowly
accumulates bugs. They've known almost from day one, when people
started griping about what a POS it was.

"Bluuuue Rajah" Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote in message
...


"When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed an
update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command, the
reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes bugs to
accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the reverse order
of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the buggier
your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the OS."

================================

The above is not the fault of Windows. It did not write the uninstall
program for the google toolbar and it did not tell the uninstall program to
leave files behind. The fault lies with badly written code for the uninstall
process. The google toolbar program overwrote the IE5's ctrl-f command not
windows.


--
Regards,
Touch Base
Report back on the results, good or bad so others may benefit

Tom Potter wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...
wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

wrote:
Bluuuue Rajah Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote:

Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better,
Both operating systems suck, AmigaOS is and always been the best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga
That's nice, what are you going to run it on?
It's my understanding that no one makes hardware
for it anymore.
The Wikipedia article was posted for a purpose.

What....are....you....going....to....run....it.... on?

Windows, Macintosh, DOS, Linux, etc.

http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/amiga.shtml


Neeto! Thanks for the link, I've had The Free Country
in my bookmarks for a long time but haven't explored
the site extensively yet. Still, there are no new boxes
to run the software.

TDD

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to use
in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why Windows is
such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed an
update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command, the
reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes bugs to
accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the reverse order
of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the buggier
your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the OS.

You need to work on the procedures which you use to backup your computer
system.

snip

/BAH

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
"philo" wrote in
:

"Bluuuue Rajah" Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote in message
...
Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to
use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
Windows is such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command,
the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes
bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the
reverse order of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the
OS.

Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem, which
makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?) handle this
problem, and can we learn anything from their solution to help
minimize the problem with Windows?

Your thoughts?

I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.

Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can
sometimes be harder to sort out.

That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not
require a re-install.
I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% +
trouble free for *many* years.

You're living in a fantasy world. Everybody knows that Windows slowly
accumulates bugs. They've known almost from day one, when people
started griping about what a POS it was.

Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son.

/BHA

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise
to use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
Windows is such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f
command, the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method
causes bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in
precise the reverse order of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall
the OS.

Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem,
which makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?)
handle this problem, and can we learn anything from their solution
to help minimize the problem with Windows?

Your thoughts?

Shenan Stanley wrote:
I think you have made gross generalizations based off personal
experience - which are usually proven inaccurate (at best.)

I utilize many different operating systems (and flavors/versions of
said operating systems) and if there is a single OS that is not
lacking in one or more (mostly more after years of use on any given
OS) ways, I have yet to come across it. Many times - some of the
'problems' found could have been avoided with experience and
know-how on the part of the user - which is acceptable in most
cases because I don't believe someone whould 'hold my hand' in
everything I do. Also - many times - it is a 'personal' issue with
the OS - meaning it won't do something the end-user believes it
*should* do.
As far as your gross generalizations - I have a system I have been
running since Windows XP was released. It has been through two
different sets of hardware, several hardware failures, many *MANY*
installations and software removals and is now finally running as a
VirtualBox machine on top of my Windows Vista and Windows Vista x64
Ultimate machines. I have *not* had to 'reinstall my OS' (assuming
you mean a clean installation) nor did it ever slow down in any way
I did not expect (when you upgrade applications, seldom do they
actually utilize less resources than their prior versions...)
In my specific experience - Windows (XP, Vista and some prior
versions to a certain extent) are fairly stable operating systems
that have given me personally little trouble. I've thrown a lot at
them - and my experience is not limited to just the applications I
utilize on a daily basis nor is my experience limited to just one
or two hardware configurations (I would put myself in the thousands
(possibly tens of thousands), easily, as far as how many different
hardware configurations I have had to deal with in the years since
Windows XP was first released alone.) I also pull from the
experience of those whose systems I have cleaned up from a mess or
setup initially - in that they seldom have the same trouble after a
little configuration and a little tutoring on how to properly
utilize their system.
YMMV.

Rev Turd Fredericks wrote:
After your assertion that personal experience is "inaccurate (at
best)", your whole post has become a meaningless diatribe.

Not what I said.

I said, "I think you have made gross generalizations based off personal
experience - which are usually proven inaccurate (at best.)"

It's the 'gross generalizations based off personal experience', not the
personal experiences themselves. There is nothing wrong with personal
experiences and if built up and combined many times - personal experience
can become pretty strong evidence. The original poster had ... seems to be
.... one personal experience and made an assertion that their personal
experience proved a point when combined with the trouble they saw (but had
no personal experience with) in the newsgroups (the whole 'walk into an
emergency room and assume the whole world has an epidemic of broken arms'
scenario...) - a "gross generalization".

It's best to read the entire message you respond to - not just one part.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

"Bluuuue Rajah" Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote in message
...
"philo" wrote in
:


"Bluuuue Rajah" Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote in message
...

Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to
use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
Windows is such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command,
the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes
bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the
reverse order of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the
OS.

Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem, which
makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?) handle this
problem, and can we learn anything from their solution to help
minimize the problem with Windows?

Your thoughts?


I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.

Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can
sometimes be harder to sort out.

That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not
require a re-install.
I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% +
trouble free for *many* years.

You're living in a fantasy world. Everybody knows that Windows slowly
accumulates bugs. They've known almost from day one, when people
started griping about what a POS it was.


If you think that you are a *total* idiot and do not know how to use a
computer.

Except when I've moved a HD into a new hardware environment
and had to perform a repair install...
I've never had to fool with one of my Windows installations.

At one time I had been using Linux for most of my work...
but for software compatibility reasons with the organization where I do my
volunteer work,
I found it easier to just stay with Windows.

I have used Linux, BSD ,Solaris, BeOS, OS/2 & ECS ...etc over the years
and they all have their own strengths and weaknesses.


To say that one OS is better than another is like saying
a chain saw is better than a hack saw. It depends what the hell you are
trying to do.

Sam Wormley wrote in
newswq3l.490007$yE1.194324@attbi_s21:

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote in
news:Idi3l.489340$yE1.298419@attbi_s21:

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS,
and Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the
expertise to use in it, but until this week I didn't understand
exaclty why Windows is such a POS.

http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/hcs/index.html

There's no reason to trust that.

Trust what?

Are you serious?

jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote in :

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
"philo" wrote in
:

"Bluuuue Rajah" Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote in message
...
Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS,
and Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the
expertise to use in it, but until this week I didn't understand
exaclty why Windows is such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f
command, the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method
causes bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in
precise the reverse order of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall
the OS.

Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem,
which makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?)
handle this problem, and can we learn anything from their solution
to help minimize the problem with Windows?

Your thoughts?

I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.

Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can
sometimes be harder to sort out.

That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not
require a re-install.
I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% +
trouble free for *many* years.

You're living in a fantasy world. Everybody knows that Windows
slowly accumulates bugs. They've known almost from day one, when
people started griping about what a POS it was.

Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son.

Do you run Linux?

"jmfbahciv" jmfbahciv@aol wrote in message
...
Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
"philo" wrote in
:

"Bluuuue Rajah" Bluuuuue@Rajah. wrote in message
...
Evwere installed.
erybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to
use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
Windows is such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command,
the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes
bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the
reverse order of which they
The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the
OS.

Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem, which
makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?) handle this
problem, and can we learn anything from their solution to help
minimize the problem with Windows?

Your thoughts?

I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.

Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can
sometimes be harder to sort out.

That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not
require a re-install.
I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% +
trouble free for *many* years.

You're living in a fantasy world. Everybody knows that Windows slowly
accumulates bugs. They've known almost from day one, when people
started griping about what a POS it was.

Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son.

/BHA


Wow...where the hell did you come from...
and when are you going back there?

Many years ago you gave me the best insult I have ever gotten...
so I honestly respect you for that. G


I still chuckle about it from time to time.

Leonard Grey wrote in
:

You're an idiot.

You're an a-hole.



Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to
use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
Windows is such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command,
the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes
bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the
reverse order of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the
OS.

Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem, which
makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?) handle this
problem, and can we learn anything from their solution to help
minimize the problem with Windows?

Your thoughts?

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise
to use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
Windows is such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f
command, the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method
causes bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in
precise the reverse order of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall
the OS.

Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem,
which makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?)
handle this problem, and can we learn anything from their solution
to help minimize the problem with Windows?

Your thoughts?

I do have one question to pose (in addition to my 'thoughts' given
earlier)...

You stated, "... which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command ..." in your posting
(quoted above in its entirety) - which leads me to ask, "Just what Windows
Operating System are you running?

I assumed it to have been Windows XP - given one of your chosen places to
post (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support) but if that was true -
you would not have access to Internet Explorer 5 directly - you would have
access to Internet Explorer 6 (at least.)

If you are using Internet Explorer 5 - that brings up other interesting
points. You installed a software that "Requires Internet Explorer 6.0+"
(among other requirements) according to the download page:
http://toolbar.google.com/ ... How?

I'm only asking because if you are going to claim a problem - you should be
fairly complete and accurate in your description of said problem before you
start throwing out accusations - otherwise it may be assumed the problem
doesn't even exist.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html