And talk about the BUGS?
yet another specious claim. Of course there are bugs in windows- any non-trivial software project is going to have them.
What get's me is that people constantly refer to these "windows bugs" and yet they seem to be very evasive bugs, only appearing for brief instants when needed to argue that Windows has bugs. Best of all the best quotes are usually in the form "well if you replace XP's XXX.dll with a dll from windows ME, it breaks! Thatz so a bugz!"; those are obviously coming from the less informed. And those that don't understand what "DLL *censored*" is shouldn't throw the term about wildly either. Linux zealots love to point out the fact that Windows has COM Errors and DLL problems, but those COM errors and DLL problems all arise because people mess about and try to "optimize" their machines.
And of course, their favourite point to poke at is the registry. usually all they demonstrate is a completely lack of understanding of the registry, by stating that windows get's "registry errors" over time. Which is completely bogus, because there is no such thing as a "registry error" for reasons I've stated previously on more then one occasion. Personally, I prefer INI files for most of my applications (simply because it's easier to debug); but if you had a program like Word or Flash CS5 saving all their configuration data into a INI file you would A:) certainly overrun the 64K limit of the APIs (deprecated in Windows 95 so pretty much stuck with the windows 3.1 limits, although still b etter then Linux, which has no Config API, unless you call fwrite() and fread() a Config file API) and B:) even of you overcome this limitation (it's not hard to write an INI file parser, of course) the output configuration data will be huge. and every time it needs to be read in by the program, parsed back into the relevant data structures, when you can simply create a class that holds all the properties you want to save and simply implement IPersistFile and save it out to a registry BLOB. Sure, it's not user-editable, but generally speaking INI files weren't really intended for that either.
No, of course the standard Windows INI format is not sufficient. No, all programs should use a .config file, but they should all use a completely unique format for the file itself, so that no two files have the same lexical configuration. yep, that makes learning an OS a lot easier when fiddling with every program requires you to not only manually edit configuration files (you say this is because the developers want to give you more flexibility. That is untrue. the reason is because they were too lazy to provide a GUI so make <YOU> change the options yourself. It has nothing to do with some higher standard of flexibility (and since when did editing text files represent flexibility, anyway?).
Spend 119.99$ to get Win7, realize that it doesn't support your current hardware
The system requirements aren't hard to look up. at all. in fact if you are dense enough to buy a software product such as an Operating System without the slightest regard for wether it will be any use to you you may as well be a control rod in a nuclear reactor. (yes, that quip was rather obscure, oh well).
Perhaps I should try this with a Linux distro. While there will certainly be no cost to me involved, if I downloaded Fedora and can't get it to work on my Thinkpad 755CDV who do I complain to? Of course, the responses will be in the manner of "RTFM NOOB" which is a crude but correct description. Why does this same logic not apply to windows? Is taking the time to research and find the correct distribution for ones hardware and use cases really easier then reading the system requirements on a software box? probably not. Oh wait! it is,
when the example is biased.
then spend another 50$ to get the antivirus that the Message Centre or something like that informs...
First, there are free anti-virus programs that generally operate faster then many of the commercial offerings. Second, the Action center can be disabled. At the moment, despite the fact that I have no AV installed, the only Message/Action I have is to "address a problem with my NVidia driver" which no doubt is because of the times the driver crashed the last few days due to the rather extreme ambient temperature of 32 (celsius). I might also point out that none of these resulted in the Blue screen of death; each time the display driver was successfully recovered. Lastly, an AV is really only required (IMO) if you tend to like to hang around shifty websites. Personally the only AV/anti-malware programs I use are simply to keep an eye on task manager whenever I open it for whatever reason to watch for unknown processes, keep my sniffer open (my nose, not some sort of network program, it's a metaphor, *censored*) for any sort of curious activity, etc. I run malware bytes whenever I'm bored or stuck on a sticky problem (and therefore need time to think about it away from the code itself anyway) or think there is anything suspicious, usually it doesn't find anything, sometimes it will find one or two things, usually something adware related that is easily removed.
then 10-15$ / 2 months on the tech guy that fixes it once you've screwed it up.
What? This doesn't even make any sense. The irony here is that you are posting on a site dedicated to helping computer users avoid said fees, regardless of wether they use Windows, Linux, a Mac, FreeBSD, or something else. Perhaps you had to pay a tech guy, but that seems to reflect a unwillingness to learn on your part rather then some sort of inherent flaw in the OS.
And I forget to mention about the regular antivirus scans, disk defrags, etc etc etc which take up your time regularly without fail and the malware etc despite all your efforts. Boot up and general response time can be plotted as a exponential relation against time.
Don't have an AV, never, or, very rarely, defragment- with NTFS it isn't really that necessary, certainly helps, but isn't necessary. I certainly don't notice any sort of disk-oriented slowdown, besides, from what I can tell, Windows Vista and 7 defragment in the background anyway, as part of it's idle-tasks loop. so it's not wasting time in that case at all since nobody is using the computer. This install has been on the machine for... hmm, about a year now, I think- programs have been installed, uninstalled, updated, deleted, moved, the OS itself was upgraded from Vista to 7, and the boot time is well under 5 seconds from post screen to logon screen.
Waste system resources there.
I agree somewhat. On the other hand, what should he be using those resources for instead? running eclipse? (DO NOT get me started on eclipse)
I did my homework
There shouldn't be any - you're using the computer - you're superior - not the computer.
Oh I see. "I'm in charge of the machine so I don't need to know anything about it, how it works, or how to use it" utter nonsense. Are you implying that I can just plug a Mint CD-ROM into my old 8MB RAM laptop and have it boot up with full desktop composition support? because I'm pretty sure that isn't going to happen. of course if it doesn't work it's not my fault, because I'm superior, not the computer, right? I shouldn't have to know what any piece of software requires before I try to use it. Instead, I should just shove it in and if it doesn't work yell at the authors for making me do homework.
On the other hand, considering I've never had a problem with homework, school or otherwise.
NoScript on Firefox
Limiting your actions.
This doesn't even make any sense. It has absolutely nothing to do with windows anyway- noscript is a firefox plugin, and the scripts it blocks will run just as well on Linux, and they can be just as dangerous (you know, because firefox on windows and firefox on Linux have the same bloody JS engine!).
I take daily image backups (it takes 20 minutes) so if I "screw it up" as you put it, I am up and running very soon.
Thats again some homework, should happen automatically, as we do with cron.
How is it "homework" are you perhaps confusing the definition? ST originally used it to refer to actually understanding the requirements of the software before installing it, something you instantly refute, evidently without even comprehending what was said. And now you say that a daily task is somehow homework? and then you say "we do with cron". ST could, and possibly is, performing the backup via a scheduled task. I have a scheduled task that performs a backup of my project folders to my external drive every morning at 3:00AM. If I'm using the computer, I can simply cancel it and continue later, or, more likely, I simply minimize the window and let it do it's job.
And again, you should prepare for the worst, not live for the worst.
Again, nonsensical self-referencing statement. how is making data backups "living for the worst" as opposed to preparing for it? At what point does performing a routine backup change from preparation for the worst to living for it. I'm rather curious how you make this distinction, and am well aware that you just made up that entire sentence off the top of your head, since it has absolutely no relation to the quoted passage.
PS: Windows is an old looser back from its 95's and now modern in Vista. So .... 
Windows is a "looser"? I assume you mean "Loser"?
I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone who can keep a straight face and cry that 'MS is a monopoly, they keep Apple and Linux, and FOSS down!'. It is like a bigger kid on the playground who can play rugby better than everyone else can. Should that big kid suddenly start playing at 10% of his capacity so everyone else can win? No. He should continue to kick everyone else's *censored* so that everyone has to try and become better. Will some people decide to never play rugby again? Sure. Does anyone care? Nope.
Additionally, it doesn't make a *censored* bit of difference what Operating System you use- unless you take steps to <ensure> it's secure, it's not. Windows' Defaults are more or less aimed at making things work properly (or trying too) from the get go, whereas Linux distro's differ- some try a "batten down the hatches" approach and pretty much make you edit about 50 .config files just to get a browser to work, whereas others (mostly in the "OMG this is the best desktop Linux evar") category) usually go with a windows-like setup where the user is required to make as few choices as possible and settings are defaulted to what works for most people. Of course, a Linux Distro is going to be more secure then windows, but this isn't because Windows is necessarily more bug-ridden, or because they are a closed source product.
Think of an Operating System- or any program, for that matter, as a hose.
Now, the amount of liquid flowing through that hose can b e considered the number of people "looking for holes".
if this was the case, a "windows brand" hose would have a lot higher pressure(far more users)- and as anybody who has tried to run water at a higher pressure then a hose was designed for- this finds the "weak spots" (vulnerabilities, bugs). So while Windows based OS's have more pressure, a relatively "stronger" hose (because of the bugs that have been found and fixed because of the higher pressure) and more holes, at the same time, while the "linux" hose has fewer holes, it's still questionable how many more holes would be found if the number of people (pressure) was higher. I hope that analogy made sense. Basically, more people looking for vulnerabilities translates to more people finding them. It doesn't matter what software product we're talking about. The fact that not as many vulnerabilities are found in Linux distributions and how they are not found as frequently could just be a function of how their are overall fewer people looking for them. But this doesn't matter. (Back to the hose analogy) if you're smart, you can predict exactly where "holes" would appear, and do something to prevent it, like put duct tape on it. Same with an OS- it doesn't matter what OS we're talking about. There <ARE> undiscovered vulnerabilities, and relying on the default config, regardless of OS, is simply asking to have those exploits used on <you> when they are discovered.
If Linux is so great, and completely free of charge, then why hasn't it displaced any Windows sales in over a decade of actually trying to compete? That doesn't just mean on the desktop, but also on the server where Linux had such a huge head-start out of the gate that (all else being equal) Windows Server sales should be in the single digits of marketshare right now. The icing on the cake? Apple's OS X has had absolutely no problem displacing Windows desktop sales in the same amount of time... proving that Microsoft is not some unstoppable juggernaut, but that the Linux community is doing something wrong.
The only open source project that's been very successful in recent years is FF. If you could replicate Firefox's performance in, say, Ubuntu, then Ubuntu would have a 30%+ share right now... but that's not happening. Why?
Well, perhaps because Ubuntu gets released with moronic bugs that cause peoples laptops to blast out a 123 dB ear-rape at random intervals. Perhaps it's because after a decade of trying, power management still does not work right. Perhaps it's because Linux has never been "out in front" of any technological innovation from a rival in all the time I've been aware of it.
*. These are solved problems. Windows has had decent Power management since at least windows 95 ; they were pretty much at the crest of the wave as the concept of power management was formed. I watched as they refined, and further refined their implementation, while Linux was having trouble showing a bloody desktop environment at the time. This is understandable- the developers weren't (and most aren't, except I suppose Ubuntu devs) they are just hobbyists. Power management was a hot topic at the time ,but it was also an incredibly boring one. Devs prefer to work on exciting fun things, like making multiple desktops appear on a cube, which has dubious real-world use, but hey, it looks cool, so +1 Linux I guess.
As I've noted before, The Linux Community's greatest success is blame-shifting. where PHP gets the blame for DB insertion errors on Linux, but Windows (not ASP) gets the blame in Windows. How it's "Microsoft's fault" that they can't compete, how they are "stifling" OSS. Or how Linux can shovel out the old: "well hardware support would be better of OEMs gave us their spec sheets!" Or: "we can't ship working code because of patents in the US!" Undoubtedly true, but where does the buck stop? You have a problem, solve it. Microsoft manages to solve it. Apple manages to solve it. Linux zealots just whine and whine and whine.
As ST said, Linux users can always claim to be ahead of the pack, because there are so many thousands of skunk-works projects in Linux implementing various ideas. None of these projects develop past pre-Alpha stage, or end up in any distros, until a competitor announces that they're adding the same feature-- then all of a sudden: "that useless buggy skunk-works project was started in 2005, so we had it first! It doesn't matter that it was unusable, or that no distros shipped it!"
I also find it curious how there is quite a lot of self-contradiction in your responses. On the one hand you imply that the computer should essentially configure itself "no need to do homework", and yet, on the other, you contend that editing config files to change simple sets of options is acceptable. that seems to be a contradiction of terms. I think you're going to have to consolidate your arguments in a form that is both comprehensable as well as not self-contradictory if you want to pass as somebody who actually knows what they are talking about. Otherwise, you just sound just a babbling idiot.
*) This is the point where you claim that Linux "had GPU-accelerated windows first", forgetting that:
1) It didn't, OS X did by any reasonable measure
2) The only half-decent implementation, Compiz, was a buggy piece of crap that everybody ignored until Microsoft announced they were putting the same feature in Vista-- suddenly it becomes priority number 1. (Despite that, it still never shipped on any mainstream distros before Vista did, so see number 1.)
