Now hold it there,
I can understand a few people whining about computer illiterates and MS, but
calling them idiot -by describing their behavior idiocy, is completely outta
line.
I built my computer myself, used to have 4 OSs on my custom box and consider
myself an advanced user if not accomplished one, but unlike you all, I don't
think every computer user has to be computer literate.
Computer are nothing more than devices that supposed to make the life easier
just like your car does. You get in your car start the engine and drive, you
don't give damn about inner workings of a diesel engine. Infact most drivers
can't tell the engine from the battery. Cool thing is they don't need to. Who
gives a damn!!! They just drive the thing and when the thing get screwed up they
take the damn thing to garage and have it fixed. And that's how/why technicians
get paid. Most of you are computer professionals I believe, you should respect
this fact, it is those idiots who are paying your salary.
I personally, looking at the current state of linux, don't see any use of it for
an average computer user. The reason MS sells is that they make their OS so even
an idiot can make use of it and use it.
Why are you people are so much concerned about an OS which you'll never use? If
you think Windows sucks, don't use it. That is understandable. But why complain
about it? I don't like Windows95/98 myself(check my sig.) because I find them
incomplete, as in my opinion a complete OS should have features like
multiusership, a web and ftp server and all other networking capabilities,
-which admittedly Win95/98 are missing. But NT on the other hand, has that great
GUI interface that linux people were not able to get even close to yet and not
all that terrible, at least have a http/ftp server built-in and buncha other
networking stuff.
I think the needs should be the number 1 concern here. Why is it you want a
computer? What are you planning to do with it? What are your and your companies
needs? The answers to these questions should lead a computer user to correct OS,
and for the rest of us it is Win95/98/NT.
If you're going to do some word processing, surf the web, need multimedia
capabilities, home entertainment etc., it is Win95/98 you're looking for. If you
have some programming/networking needs and want a more stable OS go for NT. As
these 3 OS are now industry standards, supported by all (major)hardware
companies out there, and there are sh*t load of software available for these.
Win95/98/NT answers the needs of most computer users that's why they have an
awesome market share, esp. in home computing.
Only if your needs are so special, if you need something more configurable
(therefor not pre configured), if you think you have guts and knowledge to get
it done, get it work; then go for linux.
I also think that we all should face the fact that it is only computer
hobbiests(commonly called geeks) and computer professionals who have enough time
to deal with linux. The rest of us want to get the things done without spending
great deal of time. Because -well it may be hard to understand for some of you
but, the time is most expensive for some.
Thank you,
Jerome Tan wrote:
> Good opinion! I agree! :) You are right that that is where Microsoft earns
> there money, they use to earn them from the idiocies of the computer user.
>
> One of the common idiocies of the people is their preference for feature,
> ease of use over reliability, quality, and strenght of the OS. I admit I'm
> one of them who also fall in the victim's category.
>
> [Jerome Tan]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Backup E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.skyinet.net/users/jt888/
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=pgpkey0
> ICQ=1850588
>
> >I think that statement should be qualified:
> >More people are knowledgable "of" computers: that is true.
> >However, in the past, the average user of a computer had more knowledge
> >"about" the computer they were using. They had to be.
> >The current state is sad indeed: Many users of computers have no idea
> >"about" the computer they use. It's actually COMMON to find people
> >who have no idea what a directory is, or the difference between
> >RAM and hard disk space. And these people actually USE and OWN
> >computers!
> >
> >In other words, five/ten years ago things may have looked like this:
> >85%: people who didn't use computers
> >14%: people who used computers, and actually knew stuff about
> > computers (ie: knew more than just how to start programs)
> >1%: people who used computers, but didn't know much about them
> >
> >Now it looks morelike this:
> >40%: people who don't use computers
> >20%: people who use computers, and actually knew stuff about
> > computers (ie: knew more than just how to start programs)
> >40%: people who use computers, but didn't know much about them
> >
> >THESE NUMBER ARE FICTICIOUS, but they illustrate the trend
> >that seems to be growing. More people using computers, but a smaller
> >percentage of computer users who know what they are doing.
> >
> >I suppose this is to be expected in a society where people will save
> >money for a month, only to spend it on a device that programs their
> >VCR. Actually spending an hour reading the manuals that came with
> >the VCR is never a consideration.
> >
> >This is where MicroSoft shines: They've designed a system that
> >let's you use a comuter without really knowing ANYTHING about
> >computers. The problem with such a sustem is that Win 95/98/NT
> >is designed not with the intent of being
> >powerful/versitile/efficient/etc., but rather with the intent
> >of keeping novice users from shooting themselves in the foot.
> >It's the other users who get screwed.
> >
> >Take my parents. They own a P-200MMX, running Win95. When they have
> >a problem, they call me. And it's a damn good thing that they have a
> >son who knows computers, because M$ tech support would have put them
> >in the poor house by now!
> >
> >>
> >> I agree with you that an average computer user don't know what video card
> >> they have, they only know to complain when things go wrong or see an
> error.
> >> That's why, many people think Linux is not for everyone.
> >>
> >
> >I agree, Linux is not for everyone. I have never seen a system that
> >allowed novice users the simplicity that they need, yet gave the
> >so-called power-users the abilities they need.
> >
> >>
> >> I chose to think differently, if Linux is COMPLETELY or ALMOST
> customizable,
> >> we can customize one for those people, at least, we increase the market
> >> range of Linux and more software will be ported for Linux. Don't you
> think
> >> so?
> >>
> >
> >Agreed. that is why different distributions exist. From the power-user
> >distibutions (like debian), to the buisness-targeted distributions
> >(like Caldera).
> >
> >
> >Bryan Scaringe
> >
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haluk L. Aka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows 95: n. 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch
to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor,
written by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
