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 5 of 72)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


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

nicely done. That 4 sentances summerized how I have felt for 10 years without being able to put words to it. Thanks.

Collapse -

"...most of you don't deserve your jobs."

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

I just love sweeping statements!

Collapse -

Not unhappy with hackers

by SynapseTECH In reply to Shoot the messenger...

People always equate windows problems with security issues. I don't have a problem with windows being susceptable to certain malicious code. Any OS will be in some form or another. I dislike the beta-testing on the public, the incompleteness of every aspect of their product that necessitates constant upgrades, and the bloated nature of the OS.

I am a windows user, and while there are many ways to maintain your system so that some of these issues are resolved, i dislike the need to do this.

Which is healthier, a 450 pound man, or a 185 pound track runner? Who will live longer? Move faster? Be sick more?

Trim and spare = good performance.


Collapse -

Point taken

by tselca In reply to Old tech vs. new tech

Dos was stable which version are you ferrign too dos 3.3 or maybe dos 4.01 no it must of been 6.0 no mayber 6.6 and lets not forget the network capability of dos wow no issues there. Most of MS stuff is easy to beat up becuase of their sheer size and power. But here is a funny fact everyone is trying to become MS with thier products aren't they?

Collapse -

Valid complaints, yet we buy anyway

by bjbrn In reply to Old tech vs. new tech

Microsoft products are full of bugs (known and not fixed)and a magnet for malware. I actually get more annoyed with the protection schemes that make things like downloading patches or reinstalling office after it crashes from a MS bug SO HARD. I have to have the CD in the drive or a complex network install and the computer ON the network to upgrade.
However, whenever I rant and rave (yes, often) I also remember we buy the stuff. MS didn't hold a gun to my head. As long as fortune 500's are "all MS shops" then there is a captive market and like any monopoly, there's no need to have a good product. If we were really serious about better software, we'd stop buying MS, but few of us do.

Collapse -

I agree with you there

by dbucyk In reply to Valid complaints, yet we ...

With Microsoft, they hold a huge majority of the popular software for running a computer. Yes, there is other OSs, but we still buy Microsoft.

One thing to note. With all the lines of code, a vast array of different hardware, and a wide selection of software, there is bound to be conflicts. That's what we have to live with unfortunately.

Yes, the IBM PC and clone hardware is not as stable as MacIntosh, but since they are not as strong as Microsoft yet, but I can see them gaining ground, then we have to put up with crashes, blue screens of death and alike.

It should be up to the novice, although sometimes it doesn't happen that way, and the IT professionals to make things run smoothly from PC workstation problems to server problems.

Be glad though there are people out there who try their best to make an operating system that works and all we can do is do our best to fix the problems as they arise.

Collapse -

previous post: good; yours: not so good

by apotheon In reply to I agree with you there

I agree with the text of the previous post. If we don't choose to use better technologies, we must to some extent blame ourselves for the problems of using technologies that are broken by design. I, for one, avoid software from Microsoft as much as I can. I work in a primarily Linux shop, and I don't have anything running Windows on my network at home. Thanks to this, I don't have to spend as much time screwing around with software failures as I would if everything was running Windows.

You said "we have to put up with crashes, blue screens of death and alike." In point of fact, we don't. That's the point: if you choose to use something more stable, you do NOT have to deal with that, and you can even save a lot of money while you're at it.

Collapse -

A step farther

by SynapseTECH In reply to previous post: good; your ...

Since I am completely anonymous, I can go a step further and say that, unlike music, while I use windows (soon to be in a dual boot configuration), I would NEVER stoop so low as to pay for it ;-)

Collapse -

Angus, is your brain a single-cell organism?

by hellums In reply to

Microsoft is hated not because of jealousy or ineptitude, or 1000s of installed apps (it's unstable with just the OS, media players, Adobe reader, and MS Office installed, and you know it). Microsoft is hated because of:

1. Antitrust, what's that? Who, us? No!!! (note 0)
2. Predatorial tactics
3. Reliance on FUD marketing--nobody likes being manipulated and played
4. Unstable architecture under the hood (note 1)
5. Perpetual unreliability (note 2)
6. Blue screen of death, and those cool app freezes that allow you to make spiffy designs and patterns of window frames as you drag your dead soldier all over the screen
7. Default wide open security and then immediate denial of any "critical security flaw" and slow response when finally acknowledged (note 3)
8. Incessant attempts to imbed privacy-robbing features in software and hardware, then reluctant acquiescence to its user base
9. Incessant and needless baseline interface paradigm shifts (Search vs. Find... why? wgaf?)
10. Repeated failure to follow their own consistency model--Ctrl-F is find function in virtually every text-centric application (ever try it on Outlook? what next, play with Alt-F, Ctrl-C, and Ctrl-V too?)
11. Poor customer focus and service, with incessant, never-ending, weekly, monthly, and quarterly hotfixes, patches, and security releases (Service Pack? SERVICE?!?) (note 4)
12. Long-term inability to give us close to Apple quality at the Microsoft price they know is all we can afford, despite the quadrazillion billion dollars they've raked in over the decades (the Mac mini might be a junior Robin Hood, but we'll need more where that comes from)
13. We'll make it a baker's dozen--because realistically we have very little choice (Linux too complex for average user, Mac too expensive for all but elite). Microsoft knows this and exploits it, gets plumply rich on it. Nobody likes having spinach or brussel sprouts jammed down their throat time and time again, especially when the server sups on caviar, lobster, and Dom Perignon.

Note 0 - Hey, I was alive and kicking and reading the Compaq CEO's quotes in the trades when they were being squeezed out in the early 90s, but they eventually rolled over and played stupid for the Justice Dept (who didn't read the trades), before being slyly pardoned as expected by the Republican Party... saved by the bell

Note 1 - why does multitasking in Unix/Linux allow me to perform floppy operations yet still stay productive? try writing to a floppy or connecting to the Internet and see how impossible it is to get anything else done at the same time... it's still DOS under there in too many ways

Note 2 - esp. IE, esp. with multiple windows up--God forbid they add the obvious Tab feature Firefox finally "discovered"

Note 3 - and we usually find out that the flaw is in some useless chunk of crap architecture or software that allows God only knows who to let their PC talk to their refrigerator or toaster

Note 4 - and how is the normal user expected to get the patches installed? by connecting to the Internet, of course... problem being that before the first patch is installed the system has been compromised by hundreds if not thousands of vulnerability probes, often successful (and how many hours does it take to download XP SP2 over a 56K modem?)

Collapse -

Spot On!!

by MiddleAgedNewbie In reply to Angus, is your brain a si ...

I can't address why other OSs might get bunged, but this post *nails* why MS draws complaints; rapacity, design issues and a smug mindset. Users are flocking to MS alternatives because they like the way issues are handled better, for one thing.

To draw a parallel from applications, Mozilla has been quick to acknowledge and patch problems with Firefox, while MS has ignored known problems and left IE users out to the wind. Who's growing faster, and getting plugs from security experts like Dan Golding? Firefox.

My conclusion? Competence may play a role in some gripes, but a great many are self-inflicted by the vendor.

Back to Windows Forum
719 total posts (Page 5 of 72)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums