[yellowapple]

> So, this kind of list of complaints seems to be really common among folks who don't like Windows. Some times the list varies and wonders from one category of problems to another, but the core theme is still the same: The end user isn't capable of using the computer.

Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause ntdll to break. Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause Windows activation to break. Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause shutdowns to take hours instead of seconds. Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause suspend to spontaneously bork.

You're blaming inexperience for things that are fixed on pretty much every modern operating system. Yes, those problems are caused by the OS, because it's really the only OS that chronically has those kinds of issues in those quantities.

Let's go through and demonstrate exactly why blaming the user for broken software is inaccurate at best:

* According to jjoonathan, the ntdll segfaults started happening after an update - something which should be routine. Do you expect users not to update their software? Especially when Windows will happily do the update and reboot automatically (and annoyingly, I might add).

* Shutting down isn't that hard, yet somehow Windows pretends that it is. It's rather hilarious to watch Windows take twice as long as, say, openSUSE to do something as basic and fundamental as shutting down. This isn't even including Windows' hilariously-convoluted method of installing system updates; if my laptop's openSUSE installation can install updates without having to drop down into some sort of maintenance mode, why can't Windows (for the record, though, OS X annoyingly has the same problem). I shouldn't have to sit through 100 updates installing when all I want to do is shut off my laptop and continue with my life.

* Activation problems with Windows are very common. I've run into them repeatedly with clean installs and multiple Windows versions. I shouldn't have to open a command prompt and type in arcane commands in order to activate Windows so I can customize the homescreen. Hell, I shouldn't have to do something as silly as activating my rightfully-purchased copy of my operating system, period, but that's another story.

* Really? You're going to blame Windows' fragility when it comes to power management on the user?

These sorts of problems are common with Windows. They aren't common with modern operating systems like GNU/Linux and BSD (and even OS X, no matter how hard Apple tries to mangle it and force it to be as poor of a product as Windows).

Yeah, "unbelievably stable" and "Windows" don't belong in the same sentence (except for this one, obviously). You're delusional if you sincerely believe Microsoft's shoddy programming to be the fault of their customers* of all people.

[mkautzm]

You are the person I'm talking about when I say that people that blame Windows for problems are their own worst enemy, and it's way worse when Dunning-Kruger is in full effect as well...

> Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause ntdll to break. Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause Windows activation to break. Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause shutdowns to take hours instead of seconds. Inexperience with a computer doesn't cause suspend to spontaneously bork.

Inexperience causes all these things. Listen, my experience goes way, way beyond 'anecdotal' when it comes to managing end users running Windows. Never, ever, ever with the exception of a small handful of updates, does Windows fundamentally break itself. When you see a bluescreen, 100% of the time it is your fault or it's your hardware's fault. 100% of the time. Sometimes it might look like it's not your fault. Sometimes it's McAfee removing important files that break the OS because it's being stupid, but that's not a Window's problem.

If shutdowns are taking awhile, something is broken. Your inability to diagnose that isn't the fault of the OS. Ever.

If your computer 'suddenly borks', then your hardware failed, or you are bad at computer. 100% of the time.

If you can't manage to upgrade Windows, than I can't help you. Someone did it from 1.0 to 6.2 in a straight shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WP7AkJo3OE

When stuff like this happens:

> According to jjoonathan, the ntdll segfaults started happening after an update

It usually means that some third party software, usually legacy/dated drivers or your AV solution, has fucked up. The aforementioned McAfee bug is pretty famous for that, which you can read about here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/21/mcafee_false_positiv...

Your inability to diagnose the problem isn't the fault of the OS.

The half dozen Windows computers I own and the close to 600 I manage never, ever have these problems that seem to plague other people who seem to insist 'it's just Windows'. So, why is it that my customers never have these problems that you insist are ubiquitous to the platform? It'd be because I can manage them. I can leverage GPO to make sure my AV solutions at least report when it's doing something fishy. I monitor my computers so when something bluescreens, I get a copy of the dmp file and I can peel through it immediately. I don't let my users have unrestricted access to absolutely everything. I can use and manage the OS and leverage the extremely potent tools Microsoft gives me to diagnose problems and use that knowledge to prevent problems in the future.

And here's the thing: I don't really enjoy white-knighting Windows, but I also really don't enjoy people in the field of IT acting like Zealots in regards to products and platforms they don't know anything about.

I'm not a huge fan of Linux. I'm not a big fan of how esoteric the OS is and how management is unintuitive and complex. I'm not very good at fixing the problems that show up on the platform because quite frankly, I'm just not experienced enough to take any problem and pave a path to a solution. I've sworn more at my SAN running Openfiler because of Openfiler than I care to admit and if I could do it all over again, I'd never have put Openfiler on that box, but here's the thing: I'll never say, 'Linux is bad' or 'Linux isn't stable' or 'Holy shit I'm so mad at OpenFiler because if you have an iSCSI implementation and your boot device fails, your arrays are fucked unless you can rebuild', because I'd be speaking from misunderstanding, inexperience, and an incomplete understanding of the tools I'm using and I might look like an idiot by saying as much.

[yellowapple]

My point is that there are plenty of operating systems out there that don't have these issues. That's a point you're missing (or perhaps deliberately ignoring). It's fine and dandy that you've found ways to work around Windows' awful design, but my point is that you shouldn't have to do so, seeing as there are plenty of operating systems which don't have these problems. My point is that there shouldn't be anything to cause shutdowns to slow down in the first place, because something as elementary and critical as halting execution shouldn't take long at all. My point is that upgrading one's operating system (and all the other software, for that matter) shouldn't be a convoluted ordeal with multiple reboots (and even more shutdown delays) and high risk of seemingly-minor updates breaking things irreparably. My point is that that you shouldn't have to be a MSCE and manually prevent your system from imploding; my point is that your system shouldn't spontaneously implode in the first place.

These things are the fault of the operating system when other operating systems have already solved these problems. Blaming users for Microsoft's bastard child of DOS and VMS being poorly designed is, well, misguided, to say the least.

I don't particularly like white-knighting Unix, either, but after about a decade and a half of Windows support and administration - in environments ranging from ordinary households to healthcare facilities with hundreds of workstations and almost half as many virtualized servers - it eventually got to the point where I'd rather use something that doesn't require that level of babysitting - something like Unix, for example - and put my time and energy into better things than unclogging my Registry and sitting through 2-hour-long shutdowns due to Windows Update and such.

I don't even particularly like GNU/Linux, either, but it's certainly amusing to see someone like you compare it with Windows and call the former, of all things, "esoteric". Windows is the textbook definition of esoteric.

And nice ad hominem, by the way, assuming that the Dunning-Kruger effect is in play right now.

[yellowapple]

My point is that there are plenty of operating systems out there that don't have these issues. That's a point you're missing (or perhaps deliberately ignoring). It's fine and dandy that you've found ways to work around Windows' awful design, but my point is that you shouldn't have to do so, seeing as there are plenty of operating systems which don't have these problems. My point is that there shouldn't be anything to cause shutdowns to slow down in the first place, because something as elementary and critical as halting execution shouldn't take long at all. My point is that upgrading one's operating system (and all the other software, for that matter) shouldn't be a convoluted ordeal with multiple reboots (and even more shutdown delays) and high risk of seemingly-minor updates breaking things irreparably. My point is that that you shouldn't have to be a MSCE and manually prevent your system from imploding; my point is that your system shouldn't spontaneously implode in the first place.

These things are the fault of the operating system when other operating systems have already solved these problems. Blaming users for Microsoft's bastard child of DOS and VMS being poorly designed is, well, misguided, to say the least.

I don't particularly like white-knighting Unix, either, but after about a decade and a half of Windows support and administration - in environments ranging from ordinary households to healthcare facilities with hundreds of workstations and almost half as many virtualized servers - it eventually got to the point where I'd rather use something that doesn't require that level of babysitting - something like Unix, for example - and put my time and energy into better things than unclogging my Registry and sitting through 2-hour-long shutdowns due to Windows Update and such.

I don't even particularly like GNU/Linux, either, but it's certainly amusing to see someone like you compare it with Windows and call the former, of all things, "esoteric". Windows is the textbook definition of esoteric.

And nice ad hominem, by the way, assuming that the Dunning-Kruger effect is in play right now.

[yellowapple]

My point is that there are plenty of operating systems out there that don't have these issues. That's a point you're missing (or perhaps deliberately ignoring). It's fine and dandy that you've found ways to work around Windows' awful design, but my point is that you shouldn't have to do so, seeing as there are plenty of operating systems which don't have these problems. My point is that there shouldn't be anything to cause shutdowns to slow down in the first place, because something as elementary and critical as halting execution shouldn't take long at all. My point is that upgrading one's operating system (and all the other software, for that matter) shouldn't be a convoluted ordeal with multiple reboots (and even more shutdown delays) and high risk of seemingly-minor updates breaking things irreparably. My point is that that you shouldn't have to be a MSCE and manually prevent your system from imploding; my point is that your system shouldn't spontaneously implode in the first place.

These things are the fault of the operating system when other operating systems have already solved these problems. Blaming users for Microsoft's bastard child of DOS and VMS being poorly designed is, well, misguided, to say the least.

I don't particularly like white-knighting Unix, either, but after about a decade and a half of Windows support and administration - in environments ranging from ordinary households to healthcare facilities with hundreds of workstations and almost half as many virtualized servers - it eventually got to the point where I'd rather use something that doesn't require that level of babysitting - something like Unix, for example - and put my time and energy into better things than unclogging my Registry and sitting through 2-hour-long shutdowns due to Windows Update and such.

I don't even particularly like GNU/Linux, either, but it's certainly amusing to see someone like you compare it with Windows and call the former, of all things, "esoteric". Windows is the textbook definition of esoteric.

And nice ad hominem, by the way, assuming that the Dunning-Kruger effect is in play right now.

[yellowapple]

My point is that there are plenty of operating systems out there that don't have these issues. That's a point you're missing (or perhaps deliberately ignoring). It's fine and dandy that you've found ways to work around Windows' awful design, but my point is that you shouldn't have to do so, seeing as there are plenty of operating systems which don't have these problems. My point is that there shouldn't be anything to cause shutdowns to slow down in the first place, because something as elementary and critical as halting execution shouldn't take long at all. My point is that upgrading one's operating system (and all the other software, for that matter) shouldn't be a convoluted ordeal with multiple reboots (and even more shutdown delays) and high risk of seemingly-minor updates breaking things irreparably. My point is that that you shouldn't have to be a MSCE and manually prevent your system from imploding; my point is that your system shouldn't spontaneously implode in the first place.

These things are the fault of the operating system when other operating systems have already solved these problems. Blaming users for Microsoft's bastard child of DOS and VMS being poorly designed is, well, misguided, to say the least.

I don't particularly like white-knighting Unix, either, but after about a decade and a half of Windows support and administration - in environments ranging from ordinary households to healthcare facilities with hundreds of workstations and almost half as many virtualized servers - it eventually got to the point where I'd rather use something that doesn't require that level of babysitting - something like Unix, for example - and put my time and energy into better things than unclogging my Registry and sitting through 2-hour-long shutdowns due to Windows Update and such.

I don't even particularly like GNU/Linux, either, but it's certainly amusing to see someone like you compare it with Windows and call the former, of all things, "esoteric". Windows is the textbook definition of esoteric.

And nice ad hominem, by the way, assuming that the Dunning-Kruger effect is in play right now.

[yellowapple]

My point is that there are plenty of operating systems out there that don't have these issues. That's a point you're missing (or perhaps deliberately ignoring). It's fine and dandy that you've found ways to work around Windows' awful design, but my point is that you shouldn't have to do so, seeing as there are plenty of operating systems which don't have these problems. My point is that there shouldn't be anything to cause shutdowns to slow down in the first place, because something as elementary and critical as halting execution shouldn't take long at all. My point is that upgrading one's operating system (and all the other software, for that matter) shouldn't be a convoluted ordeal with multiple reboots (and even more shutdown delays) and high risk of seemingly-minor updates breaking things irreparably. My point is that that you shouldn't have to be a MSCE and manually prevent your system from imploding; my point is that your system shouldn't spontaneously implode in the first place.

These things are the fault of the operating system when other operating systems have already solved these problems. Blaming users for Microsoft's bastard child of DOS and VMS being poorly designed is, well, misguided, to say the least.

I don't particularly like white-knighting Unix, either, but after about a decade and a half of Windows support and administration - in environments ranging from ordinary households to healthcare facilities with hundreds of workstations and almost half as many virtualized servers - it eventually got to the point where I'd rather use something that doesn't require that level of babysitting - something like Unix, for example - and put my time and energy into better things than unclogging my Registry and sitting through 2-hour-long shutdowns due to Windows Update and such.

I don't even particularly like GNU/Linux, either, but it's certainly amusing to see someone like you compare it with Windows and call the former, of all things, "esoteric". Windows is the textbook definition of esoteric.

And nice ad hominem, by the way, assuming that the Dunning-Kruger effect is in play right now.