Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (
More info?)
"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uvcewcZLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Ian Hoare wrote:
> <snip>
>> If around 1.8 millon people HAVE contacted Microsoft, (presumably in
>> just the USA) that demonstrates some serious problems. No one
>> WANTS to under maintain their system, you know. Windows XP has
>> been deliberately marketed as being self maintaining, self
>> diagnosing, and perfect for those who AREN'T very computer
>> literate. So don't criticise someone who isn't and who chooses XP.
>
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>> I cannot say I agree that it has been marketed (completely) in such
>> a way. It is better at self-maintenance than most other Operating
>> Systems - out of the box. There are many cars that don't need oil
>> changes as often as others.. Air compressors that do not require
>> lubrication.. Easy to clean flooring materials.. Self-cleaning
>> ovens.. But all of these objects require some knowledge to utilize
>> and maintain. I do not think it is too much to expect the same
>> thing from your computer.
>> I have little sympathy for those who do not bother to learn to
>> properly maintain/use something they own. Empathy for not
>> understanding they need to learn.. maybe. Windows is more
>> self-maintaining and better for those not computer literate than
>> Linux, BeOS, etc.. It may NOT be more so than OS X, but in as far
>> as applications and mass market appeal - Windows XP does have the
>> bear's share.
>> It's not a fault of an OS that people install (or allow to be
>> installed) malware. It is not the fault of an OS that some hardware
>> manufacturers decide not to support their hardware beyond a given
>> point and leave those who own said hardware out in the cold. There
>> is no substitute for learning to use the equipment you have before
>> it goes south on you.
>> I will not say that SP2 did not cause issues - I will venture to say
>> most of those issues boiled down to some underlying problem that
>> existed before SP2 - but SP2 uncovered on the system OR with the
>> support (lack of) given by hardware/software manufacturers whose
>> product was installed on machines and then caused issues. The
>> number of manufacturers who did not come out with patches for 3
>> months after SP2 was officially released (although the beta existed
>> for months before that) or those who did not update drivers to allow
>> full functionality in Windows XP SP2 (instead pushing their new
>> products, as they would if a new OS was released) is quite high in
>> relative terms. They make more selling new products/revisions than
>> giving away patches to maintain old versions.
>> No one may WANT to "under maintain thier system", but since they now
>> have requested help, it is an opportunity to make sure they have the
>> proper tools to avoid it, is it not?
> <snipped>
>
> Tom wrote:
>> I think you make a good point, but what I get from Ian's posts, is
>> Bobby's conscending attitude about how others should just about know
>> what he knows. Though you stress almost the same points as Bobby, you
>> point out the issues without noting "if you are lazy ", or "you
>> wouldn't have a clue to fixing", etc. Bobby knows what he's talking
>> about (sometimes), but he is rough when he replies, and it shows when
>> others reply to him.
>
> True. We all have our "blunt" moments - some have more than others.
>
Yes, I have that too, but not right off to be a dick about it. Bobby is a
constant when it comes to disrespectful replies; he and MPT are co-virtuals
in these forums.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram