I get your point. Our mistake is generalizing too much. Probably, it's not
Microsoft that makes idiots, but rather, lots of idiots are attracted to MS.
I don't mean everyone is idiot, reason for that is because MS makes things
easier for everybody as much as possible.
[Jerome Tan]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Backup E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.skyinet.net/users/jt888/
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=pgpkey0
ICQ=1850588
>
>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 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 being multiuser, 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 hobbyists(commonly referred as 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.
>
