Windows is better - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Windows is better - Microsoft Windows ; After 12 year in IT my experience with Windows, Linux and Macintosh have shown me that Windows is better. Care offer a sane rebuttal? Nah, you can't because 95% of the world is on MY side :-)...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Windows is better

  1. Windows is better

    After 12 year in IT my experience with Windows, Linux and Macintosh have
    shown me that Windows is better.

    Care offer a sane rebuttal?

    Nah, you can't because 95% of the world is on MY side :-)



  2. Re: Windows is better

    Graeme Sheppard wrote:

    > Mike Byrns wrote:
    >
    >> After 12 year in IT my experience with Windows, Linux and Macintosh have
    >> shown me that Windows is better.
    >>
    >> Care offer a sane rebuttal?
    >>
    >> Nah, you can't because 95% of the world is on MY side :-)

    >
    > 12 years - really? What version of Windows was that in 1991? I know NT
    > made its debut in 1993 with version 3.1.


    Follow up: year 1991 screen shots would be nice.


  3. Re: Windows is better

    Graeme Sheppard wrote:
    > Graeme Sheppard wrote:
    >
    >> Mike Byrns wrote:
    >>
    >>> After 12 year in IT my experience with Windows, Linux and Macintosh
    >>> have shown me that Windows is better.
    >>>
    >>> Care offer a sane rebuttal?
    >>>
    >>> Nah, you can't because 95% of the world is on MY side :-)

    >>
    >> 12 years - really? What version of Windows was that in 1991? I know
    >> NT made its debut in 1993 with version 3.1.

    >
    > Follow up: year 1991 screen shots would be nice.



    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Win...roGraphic.mspx

    --
    Winerr 012 - Cash Underflow - Credit Card Number Will Be Assimilated



  4. Re: Windows is better

    Windows 3.0 was released in 1990.

    "Graeme Sheppard" wrote in message
    news:N6i5b.136052$JA5.3242313@news.xtra.co.nz...
    > Mike Byrns wrote:
    >
    > > After 12 year in IT my experience with Windows, Linux and Macintosh have
    > > shown me that Windows is better.
    > >
    > > Care offer a sane rebuttal?
    > >
    > > Nah, you can't because 95% of the world is on MY side :-)

    >
    > 12 years - really? What version of Windows was that in 1991? I know NT
    > made its debut in 1993 with version 3.1.
    >




  5. Re: Windows is better

    On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 07:07:06 GMT, mike.byrns@technologist.com blathered and smoked:

    > After 12 year in IT my experience with Windows, Linux and Macintosh have
    > shown me that Windows is better.
    >
    > Care offer a sane rebuttal?
    >
    > Nah, you can't because 95% of the world is on MY side :-)


    And 90%+ thought Adolph was the cat's meow.

    How can anyone expect anyone else to refute an *opinion* which is based
    on emotion? Possibly try to persuade? Maybe. Offer reasons to consider?
    Possibly. Refute? that's plain silly.

    --
    XP: The ME of NT.

  6. Re: Windows is better

    On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:14:51 GMT, HadMyFillofSpam@Thanks.com blathered and smoked:

    > Graeme Sheppard wrote:
    >> Graeme Sheppard wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mike Byrns wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> After 12 year in IT my experience with Windows, Linux and Macintosh
    >>>> have shown me that Windows is better.
    >>>>
    >>>> Care offer a sane rebuttal?
    >>>>
    >>>> Nah, you can't because 95% of the world is on MY side :-)
    >>>
    >>> 12 years - really? What version of Windows was that in 1991? I know
    >>> NT made its debut in 1993 with version 3.1.

    >>
    >> Follow up: year 1991 screen shots would be nice.

    >
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Win...roGraphic.mspx


    I know I'm impressed!

    Some other "facts" presented by MICROS~1:

    1. The browser is inseparable from the OS.

    2. NT will be a better unix than UNIX.

    3. They didn't steal Stac's IP. They "innovated" it.

    4. "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run" was tongue-in-cheek.

    5. Having a virus/worm attack on the OS has nothing to do with the OS
    itself being insecure and unstable.

    6. They couldn't help it if the only people they could find to
    hide^H^H^H^Hhost their servers with just happened to be running
    Linux. It was merely a coincidence that they moved them right when
    they were under their worst worm attacks in history, too.

    HTH

    --
    Microsoft's relationship to its users is that of the blue whale to
    krill. Our only purpose is to breed, feed and get squeezed against its
    giant tongue until every last drop of money is released.
    -- Rupert Goodwins, ZDNet(UK)

  7. Re: Windows is better

    Sinister Midget wrote:
    > On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:14:51 GMT, HadMyFillofSpam@Thanks.com
    > blathered and smoked:
    > I know I'm impressed!
    >
    > Some other "facts" presented by MICROS~1:



    Only serious Linux advocates such as yourself and Mark S Bilk know anything
    worth knowing. Thank you for the valuable input. Much appreciated.
    --
    Winerr 012 - Cash Underflow - Credit Card Number Will Be Assimilated



  8. Re: Windows is better

    [snips]

    Mike Byrns wrote:
    > "Sinister Midget" wrote in message
    > news:l2nh21-bpv.ln1@host.newsservicer.org...
    >> On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:14:51 GMT, HadMyFillofSpam@Thanks.com blathered
    >> > Graeme Sheppard wrote:
    >> >> Graeme Sheppard wrote:
    >> >>> Mike Byrns wrote:


    >> 2. NT will be a better unix than UNIX.

    >
    > VMS was always better than UNIX. DEC always had the better engineers. NT
    > is it's progeny.


    If NT etc is so good, why does it crash so much? Bill admits about 50% of
    crashes are due to MS bad code. Who knows what the other 50% are.

    >> 3. They didn't steal Stac's IP. They "innovated" it.

    >
    > How long ago was that? How many other companies have done similar things
    > since? Microsoft didn't innovate this behavior, capitalism did.


    So capitalism is evil? Whatever you say - sounds about right. This must
    mean FLOSS is good.

    > You forgot to mention that Hotmail uses BSD too :-)


    Good choice Indeed.

    >> HTH

    >
    > Happy? You sound frustrated to me. Help? If you call spreading false
    > anti-Microsoft propaganda helping anyone but your fellow Microsoft haters.
    > When are some of you folks finally going to get together and do it up
    > right and plan a suicide bombing in Redmond?


    I'm thinking Redmond will collapse under its own weight and become a black
    hole once all the bug reports come in.


  9. Re: Windows is better

    On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 03:36:56 GMT, HadMyFillofSpam@Thanks.com blathered and smoked:

    > Sinister Midget wrote:
    >> On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:14:51 GMT, HadMyFillofSpam@Thanks.com
    >> blathered and smoked:
    >> I know I'm impressed!
    >>
    >> Some other "facts" presented by MICROS~1:

    >
    >
    > Only serious Linux advocates such as yourself and Mark S Bilk know anything
    > worth knowing. Thank you for the valuable input. Much appreciated.


    Thank you for your vote of confidence. I *do* welcome the input of
    others, though. Despite the obvious admiration you have for me, I can
    assure you I don't know *everything* there is to know!

    Most of it, maybe.

    --
    MS could solve all their problems tomorrow regarding security and
    stability and I wouldn't use them more than I have to now because for
    years they fed me cow **** and told me it was cake.

  10. Re: Windows is better

    >
    >> 5. Having a virus/worm attack on the OS has nothing to do with the OS
    >> itself being insecure and unstable.

    >
    > Nor does it have anything to to with 1) being the biggest target 2) users
    > who don't apply patches sometime years after release 3) cadres of wild
    > eyed Microsoft hating loonies toiling away at the next big worm...
    >



    NO NO NO NO!!!

    arghhhhhhhhhh! you thick sods just don't know do you?

    windows is not as secure as UNIX - BY DESIGN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    it is EASY to compromise windows - it is NOT NOT NOT easy to compromise
    UNIX - they are different OS's - and windows is less secure cos it
    initially came up with a C:\ prompt - no security (or networking) at all -
    these were tacked on afterwards and have NEVER worked properly.

    i almost give up....

    go on a course for a year - learn computing and specifically UNIX - then
    you will know why it is superior!!!!

    unless it seems like it might be too much for you - in which case you have
    to take the word of people who HAVE studied and therefore know more than
    you do,

    what will it take - if the slammer worm had caused the ohio nuclear plant
    to melt down may - just maybe - you'd let us TRAINED professionals decide
    which systems are best,

    kev bailey

  11. Re: Windows is better


    "kevin bailey" wrote in message
    news:bj7kj6$kcg$1$830fa7b3@news.demon.co.uk...
    > >
    > >> 5. Having a virus/worm attack on the OS has nothing to do with the OS
    > >> itself being insecure and unstable.

    > >
    > > Nor does it have anything to to with 1) being the biggest target 2)

    users
    > > who don't apply patches sometime years after release 3) cadres of wild
    > > eyed Microsoft hating loonies toiling away at the next big worm...
    > >

    >
    >
    > NO NO NO NO!!!
    >
    > arghhhhhhhhhh! you thick sods just don't know do you?


    Oh, thank God. To continue along so unenlightened would be sheer torture.

    > windows is not as secure as UNIX - BY DESIGN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    What Windows are we talking about? DOS based Windows or VMS based Windows?

    > it is EASY to compromise windows - it is NOT NOT NOT easy to compromise
    > UNIX - they are different OS's - and windows is less secure cos it
    > initially came up with a C:\ prompt - no security (or networking) at all -
    > these were tacked on afterwards and have NEVER worked properly.


    You're talking about DOS-based Windows. VMS-based Windows has never started
    to a C:\ prompt, and has had security and networking integrated from day
    one.

    > i almost give up....


    I think you'd better.

    > go on a course for a year - learn computing and specifically UNIX - then
    > you will know why it is superior!!!!


    Nah, I'll rely on my work experience. 12 years spanning Windows 3.0-2003,
    Mac System 7 to OSX, Solaris, AIX, Linux and VMS. VMS was always superior
    to UNIX and now it's found under the most common Windows versions in use
    today. 2000 and XP usage dwarf 98 usage now and that lead is growing every
    day.

    > unless it seems like it might be too much for you - in which case you have
    > to take the word of people who HAVE studied and therefore know more than
    > you do,


    You didn't know that VMS-based Windows has never started to a C:\ prompt,
    and has had security and networking integrated from day one. I'm not taking
    your word for anything at this point.

    > what will it take - if the slammer worm had caused the ohio nuclear plant
    > to melt down may - just maybe - you'd let us TRAINED professionals decide
    > which systems are best,


    Anything to further your cause huh? Terrorist.



  12. Re: Windows is better

    i take you point about windows NT line being based on a different heritage

    at least we're agreed that the DOS/9x line was not good enough for a
    networked world

    and regards the NT line - i don't get it...

    if VMS was good - and windows (NT line) is based on it. then why is
    windows security/networking so bad?

    kev bailey

    Mike Byrns wrote:

    >
    > "kevin bailey" wrote in message
    > news:bj7kj6$kcg$1$830fa7b3@news.demon.co.uk...
    >> >
    >> >> 5. Having a virus/worm attack on the OS has nothing to do with the OS
    >> >> itself being insecure and unstable.
    >> >
    >> > Nor does it have anything to to with 1) being the biggest target 2)

    > users
    >> > who don't apply patches sometime years after release 3) cadres of wild
    >> > eyed Microsoft hating loonies toiling away at the next big worm...
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >> NO NO NO NO!!!
    >>
    >> arghhhhhhhhhh! you thick sods just don't know do you?

    >
    > Oh, thank God. To continue along so unenlightened would be sheer torture.
    >
    >> windows is not as secure as UNIX - BY DESIGN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    >
    > What Windows are we talking about? DOS based Windows or VMS based
    > Windows?
    >
    >> it is EASY to compromise windows - it is NOT NOT NOT easy to compromise
    >> UNIX - they are different OS's - and windows is less secure cos it
    >> initially came up with a C:\ prompt - no security (or networking) at all
    >> - these were tacked on afterwards and have NEVER worked properly.

    >
    > You're talking about DOS-based Windows. VMS-based Windows has never
    > started to a C:\ prompt, and has had security and networking integrated
    > from day one.
    >
    >> i almost give up....

    >
    > I think you'd better.
    >
    >> go on a course for a year - learn computing and specifically UNIX - then
    >> you will know why it is superior!!!!

    >
    > Nah, I'll rely on my work experience. 12 years spanning Windows 3.0-2003,
    > Mac System 7 to OSX, Solaris, AIX, Linux and VMS. VMS was always
    > superior to UNIX and now it's found under the most common Windows versions
    > in use
    > today. 2000 and XP usage dwarf 98 usage now and that lead is growing
    > every day.
    >
    >> unless it seems like it might be too much for you - in which case you
    >> have to take the word of people who HAVE studied and therefore know more
    >> than you do,

    >
    > You didn't know that VMS-based Windows has never started to a C:\ prompt,
    > and has had security and networking integrated from day one. I'm not
    > taking your word for anything at this point.
    >
    >> what will it take - if the slammer worm had caused the ohio nuclear plant
    >> to melt down may - just maybe - you'd let us TRAINED professionals decide
    >> which systems are best,

    >
    > Anything to further your cause huh? Terrorist.



  13. Re: Windows is better

    > After 12 year in IT my experience with Windows, Linux and Macintosh have
    > shown me that Windows is better.


    After 20 years in IT as a programmer, I am tired of patching MS software. I
    have used Windows 1.0 in 1985 and DOS 1.0.

    Of late I have had to apply KB824146 to Win 2000 and NT 4.0

    Stephen Howe



  14. Re: Windows is better

    "Stephen Howe" wrote in message
    news:3f63d471$0$262$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com.. .
    > > After 12 year in IT my experience with Windows, Linux and Macintosh have
    > > shown me that Windows is better.

    >
    > After 20 years in IT as a programmer, I am tired of patching MS software.

    I
    > have used Windows 1.0 in 1985 and DOS 1.0.
    >
    > Of late I have had to apply KB824146 to Win 2000 and NT 4.0


    And I've had to apply about a dozen different patches to RedHat AS, Oracle
    9iAS and it's infrastructure components recently just to prevent RedHat and
    Oracle from "dropping support" for my servers. This is just out of the
    blue, no warning. If I want to remain supported (paid support I might add)
    I had to IMMEDIATELY patch the OS, the app server and several parts of the
    infrastructure including the database. I had to railroad this through our
    development environment first, then test, then integrationm then production.
    IT management didn't even blink an eye because this is the "new stuff" --
    it's linux and it's hot-hot-hot! CIO magazine says it's the cat's pajamas
    so it can do no wrong.

    All this effort and noise with linux while several mundane security patches
    were applied, automatically, enterpise wide on the Microsoft side of the
    house. If you're tired of patching either get out of IT or automate it.
    Patching happens everywhere.



+ Reply to Thread