Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Sep 2005 17:24 UTC, submitted by Linuxfanboy
Windows "I do not consider Windows ready for the desktop. I found it difficult to use, buggy and lacking in security. I also found technical support lacking. While Windows captured a significant portion of the desktop market, the product is clearly not a good fit for consumers who do not understand the risks associated with logging on to the Internet. The costs of providing aftermarket products can run higher than the price paid for the hardware."
Permalink for comment 37015
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by astroraptor on Tue 27th Sep 2005 18:03 UTC
Member since:

Man, these articles are really ridiculous. How and why isn't Windows ready for the desktop? I mean, really, give out actually good reasons for this "fact". Also, I think logic dictates that upgrading a 16-32bit crossover "OS" of sorts to a full fledged 32bit OS is stupid. Do a clean install and XP will work just fine. I don't like it myself but it works just fine, has great software and hardware support. There's a lot of exploits for it but Microsoft is relatively fast on responding to the threats. I've been running Windows 2000 for 4 years now and haven't had any problems, I format about once a year to start fresh and my system has never become so unstable that I couldn't even rectify it. As for Linux, well, I've been trying it for 6 years and I still can't get a distro to just work. There's always something, it won't detect my FAT32 partition, won't detect my sound card, video card, etc etc. It is obviously ready for the desktop but by no means is it a viable replacement to Windows, unless you know what you're doing and can resolve problems you might run into while running Linux, and of course if you don't mind the lack of commercial games and software.

Reply Score: 1