General discussion


Why do IT people really bash Windows?

I wrote about this in another thread in response to a comparison of windows question.

Anyway, it's a hot topic in my opinion so let me recap. Comment away. :)

Why does everyone "bash" Windows? I could sit here and bash linux, windows, mac os and anything else, but that is just pointless and pedantic.

The point is every operating system has it uses. You just need to choose what best suits your needs.

Anyone who claims to hate Microsoft Windows, Linux, Mac OS or any other operating system is not a true techie or network guru. You don't ever bash the OS, in fact if the OS crashes then it's your fault not the OS; Why didn't you make sure that it was using the right drivers, or the hardware is compatible or blah this and blah that, and so the list goes. Any OS crashes for a reason, not because it just feels like it. Compatability is there for a very good reason, why support something that is old when you need to keep moving forwards. Example, all leaded petrol car owners here in Australia can no longer purchase leaded petrol, they are forced now to use unleaded and an additive. Why? Because those cars are so old and they are few and far between now because unleaded cars are cheap enough to buy second hand as your first car. Get my point there?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

719 total posts (Page 4 of 72)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

i have had it !!

by avid In reply to Shoot the messenger...

that's it.. i am going to write a new OS AND grow a larger *****... both will be finished next week ! (ha ha)

Collapse -

What, you happy with M$ quality??

by BloodyUsername!! In reply to i have had it !!

Take 2 weeks and make it better!!

Collapse -

You have some studies to back that up?

by tommy higbee In reply to Shoot the messenger...

If so, I want to know who did the studies linking physical endowment with OS preference ....

Collapse -

More Visible you are, More Hurt You get

by yuvipanda In reply to You have some studies to ...

I donno if you know this, But, just as the Front line of a Battle Force Suffers most damage, since it is exposed most, Windows is also Bashed Most about, Since It is the Most Common and MOST SUCCESSFUL. That's why, Since, maybe it's Pure Ego.

Collapse -

How do you explain Apache?

by jmgarvin In reply to More Visible you are, Mor ...

It is 60% of the market and VERY popular. Why isn't it having the same problems as MS?

Collapse -


by noyoki In reply to More Visible you are, Mor ...

Is it logical to say: "The more people that have eyes on a program, the more flaws that will be found and fixed"? There was a study on Firefox, Opera, and IE. Opera was left vulnerable 16% of the year, Firefox (Windows version) was left vulnerable 7% of the year... IE was left vulnerable *98%* of the year.
(If anyone has a link to that study, as it was posted here weeks ago, please let it be known? I have it at work, just not here.)

It's really your choice.

Collapse -

Why you should bash Windows

by Bite Me_Ax_Moron In reply to Shoot the messenger...

Lets get right to the heart of it. Since most of you don't seem to know. Windows in flawed at the kernel. IBM and MS's break up was largely to do with Bill Gates not accepting that hooking straight into the kernel was the wrong thing to do. There can never be security in windows, because it so fundamentaly flawed. But Gates & his hackers saw they could sell it even if it was unsafe. And back then who cared. But now, you can't fix it. It's insecure because it can't be any other way. A total rewrite, including the lose of all current software would do it, but that as they say is when pigs fly. I'm suprised so many of you professing to be IT experts don't know whats wrong with windows. Yes UNIX & its clones have problems. But, they don't normally let programs manipulate the kernal like windows. There always one ring or more rings in between the kernel & the programs. Windows, doesn't and never will in its current incarnation. So lets call it the way it is Windows is alot more flawed then you think, or most likely most fo you just don't know. The Nix's are not flawed that way. If any of you ever bother to find out how windows is put together, you'll realize the bloat is patches to the holes in the entire OS. It'll never be secure, so where does MS spend its money? On spin & advertising. Not security, most of you don't deserve your jobs.

Collapse -


by brian.teeters In reply to Why you should bash Windo ...

Opinions are like a$$holes, everyones got one and nobody likes to hear em.

With that said, Yes windows might be flawed, yes linux is a better built OS, but if MS didn't take the lead with personal computers where do you think we would be, no MS office no MS money to do your checkbook for you we would be in a bad way without Microsoft and even if Linux Or Mac OS was out in front there would be a line of Hackers, Crackers and Script Kiddies out there trying to bring down "the man" just as long as the current one.

Before you bash Microsoft just think of the long days of trying to teach doris the receptionist how to mount her cd rom so she can listen to a CD, or trying to explain to the boss that he will have to write his own drivers for the new video card he just spent $500 on.

Collapse -

You must be a brave boy indeed Brian

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Opinions

Telling the Boss that he has to write his own drivers for that Video Card I would have thought you as the resident IT guy would have been doing that! Anyway the Hardware makers wouldn't only be providing drivers for one OS they would be providing Drivers for each competing OS and they would all be as good as each other not the current position of only supplying drivers for one OS and then having a Web Site with second rate drivers available for a different OS so really you wouldn't be that indispensable anyway would you?

But lets look at what was available before MS caused the opposition to disappear. Various forms of DOS that would run on any system and had more and better switches than anything that MS ever brought out, Lotus 123 was the standard along with Word Perfect and Paradox had most of the office covered and you didn't need to mount a CD Drive so Doris could listen to music. Mostly you didn't have a CD anyway as they where way to expensive and anyway the software came on up to 7 or 8 Floppies so what did you need a CD for? Oh I remember Windows 95 as that required 40 specially formated 3.5 inch floppies to install so at that point it became faster to install from CD rather than use the Floppy installation method that we had all been using previously. Lets see DR DOS 6 came on 4 Floppies Lotus 123 came on 4 Floppies Word Perfect came on 8 depending if you needed printer drivers as well. And we where all using 100 MEG HDD's and the old 486 DX was fast! Even today you'll have a faster loading DOS machine that is capable of doing all your office work if you wish to compare it to a Windows XP install which takes around 1 hour to install in that time you could have a DOS system not only loaded with an OS but every program that was required and tweaked for best performance and on the desktop working before you even get Windows XP Installed. If you want to see something very interesting put a DOS system and a Windows XP Pro system side by side and apply power at the same time! I'll give you one guess which will be working first.

Now just how is it that you still maintain that MS has made our lives so much easier?

Col ]:)

Collapse -


by johns_revelation In reply to Why you should bash Windo ...

Lets see Unix came out sometime in '69 security was a huge issue then...Physical Security. Computer security wasn't even a beginning thought. Maybe keeping your punch cards in the right place. So basically from it's roots Unix was created WITHOUT security in mind. They tried to patch things up over the years but people seem to continue to get root kitted regularly. With all those text based files smattered all over the disk and an editor and a little help from SUID you can pretty much do whatever you want with the Nx's.

You got your rings mixed up sounds like the last ring architecture you looked at was either Windows 95 or NT 4. I remember when Windows 95 came out all the IBM OS2 or whatever crybabies said 95 was unstable and would crash all the time because of the RING issue you are speaking about. But the last thing I remember that was able to hook into the kernel (Ring O) like you are talking about was the video drivers in NT 4.

So it sounds like you are a little misinformed about Ring issues in Windows 2K's and XP

Back to Windows Forum
719 total posts (Page 4 of 72)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums