Why Windows Causes Stupidity

[Adcadet]

The other day I stumbled across some guys site which contains a few interesting rants. Among them, is this one. A brief quote:

Windows has significantly set back and held back the IT industry, and continues to do so. Windows encourages, rewards, and practically demands stupidity on the part of its users, and further attempts to force such on anybody who has to deal with the users.

The other two rants I found are BSD vs Linux and What User Friendly Really Means

Thoughts?

 

[Santilli]

The concepts the guy is trying to rail against are the same concept as limiting driver comptency. MSFT is trying to make computers accessible for everyone, and, in a sense, that gives chances to everyone to develop in computer ability. If a 2 year old can move a mouse, learn to click, and use the computer as a learning tool, are we going to blame MSFT for that? Yes, because they have a vision that is clearly different from the Unix crowd.

I deal with kids all the time that are blessed to have simple operating systems, because they may NEVER develop the intelligence to be able to use Unix.

Besides, this is really the mouse trying to attack an elephant...

gs

 

[Tannin]

An incompetently expressed argument for a particular point of view doesn't make the point of view invalid, it just demonstrates that the author either isn't capable of expressing himself clearly or isn't capable of thinking clearly.

The proposition "Windows makes people stupid" is obviously true, but you'd never know it from that ..... sorry, it ain't a rant, more like a vague and condescending ramble. There are probably six people here who have done better on this topic at some time (probably right here on SF somewhere); there are probably 26 people here who could do better if they tried.

If I was marking his paper, I wouldn't fail him, at least not yet, I'd hand it back and say "you can do better than this, strip out the waffle, make your points in a clear, succint way, and resubmit".

 

[Adcadet]

I think I largely agree with Tannin. And I disagree with at least one thing in particular:

All amateur psychologists, gather 'round. I pose to you a simple query. Given these two users, one of whom has invested the time and effort to gain a knowledge of Unix, and one of whom has invested the nothing to gain a knowledge of Windows, which one is going to have the motivation and the inclination to push forward and continue learning?

And that's the clincher, isn't it? One person is left with the impression that "I don't need to learn nothin', the computer does it for me", and thus has no reason to believe that learning more will improve their experience. After all, they didn't need to learn anything to get this far. And beyond the impression of the utility of learning, there's the question of investment; he has nothing invested in the project of using the computer, so he has that much less motivation to invest more. You're always less commited to improving something you achieved in passing, than something you've already put effort into.

If you take 100 people and expose them to Windows, probably 98 will work OK with Windows (2 will be hopelessly lost). Take the same 100, and maybe 2 will bother learning Unix (98 will be hopelessly lost). But the same 2 people who actually learned to use Unix will also learn to use Windows, but will take it much further. Just because you use Windows doesn't make you uncommitted to learning about computers. Do you seriously think that just by forcing people to use a difficult to use OS you're going to force the average Joe into becoming a very knowledgable computer user? I don't think so.

Now, can you do more on Unix than Windows, given a very smart and motivated user? Yeah, I bet you can. That should be the point of the article, which would then become a one-paragraph rant.

Now, does everybody need to treat computers as more than just simple appliances? Again, I don't think so.

 

[Tannin]

The key difference about Windows (as opposed to various other systems) is that Windows tries to hide the functioning of the system from the user. This is the root of the problem. By telling people that they are too stupid to understand a computer (which Windows does all the time) you make people too stupid to understand a computer.

(Ever taught children? This comes pretty close to being Rule One.)

 

[sechs]

Look at "Jurassic Park." Unix is accessible.

 

[Bozo]

I always thought the computer was supposed to be a tool to do things for us. It was supposed to work for us, we are not supposed to work for the computer.
Everytime I try Linux, I feel like I must do all the work.
Windows usually does the work for me.

I guess I'm just stupid


Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[LunarMist]

Bozo has it right. And the greatest stupidity is relying on computers for everything and expecting everyone to be an expert. It defeats the concept of division of labor. Windows is too complicated as it is for many users. Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but the few really brilliant people I know and work with personally use Macs. None of them are IT experts but they know how to get the most of the applications they use.

 

[Tannin]

Bozo, I think you have a valid point, but wind up drawing an invalid conclusion from it. I agree that the *nix experence can be very frustrating, and leave you feeling that you are working very hard just to do what should be a simple and obvious task. However, the undoubted and severe problems that the various *nix interfaces suffer from have no bearing on the conclusions we can draw about different systems.

The real problem with the Windows interface is that it does its best to hide the way the computer works from the user: it makes it very difficult indeed for the user to ever be in control of the computer. Take, as one very small example, the utterly daft place that Windows located the "My Documents" folder. The My Documents on the desktop is not the actual thing. Worse, the real My Documents folder is buried way down in a totally non-intuitive place, where the average user has no way of finding it. Worse still, it changes its name depending on who is logged in at the time! (The old Windows 9X method was much better.) Ever tried teaching someone about files and folders and where to find things on the system? This little idiocy makes it a lot harder.

(Much more to say on this topic but the power keeps flicking ... better post while I still have a working net connection.)

 

[Bozo]

Where I work we have 9 people in the IT/Process control group, and 600 computers and computer users. What I hear most is "I don't know anything about a computer". That's the way it should be. Just learn how to turn it on, log in, and start the program(s) that you need to do your job. And then learn how to use the program. The computer will take care of the rest.
To the best of my memory, every MS program saves everthing to My Documents (My Music, My Pictures) by default. Then MS supplied a shortcut to access those files. This keeps the average user out of Explorer. This in turn makes life a lot easier for us IT types. My worst nightmare is having someone get into Explorer and start 'Hmmm..what's this?' and 'what does this do?', and 'I don't need this!' This is why you have user profiles and gpedit.

Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[sechs]

Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but the few really brilliant people I know and work with personally use Macs.

Isn't the MacOS now just a flavor of BSD?

It has a very pretty interface that can gloss over the inner workings, but, in the end, I can open up a term window and muck around as root.

 

[Tea]

Huh? Never used a Mac in my life.

 

[ddrueding]

I've read all the post so far an the unified thought I can pull is this:

Users that don't understand the inner workings of a PC can't find them in Windows and therefore can't mess them up.
Users that do understand the inner workings of a PC can find them in Windows and tailor them to their needs.
Users that do understand the inner workings of a PC can find them in *nix and tailor them to their needs.
Users that don't understand the inner workings of a PC can't do anything in *nix.

Conclusion? Windows is the correct choice for most users (as is born out by useage %s).

 

[Mercutio]

Odd that you say that, as I had our 71-year-old receptionist using Knoppix today. I put on a desktop shortcut to our file server, configured one of our Textronix printers and told her Firefox = the web (she has firefox on her PC, but doesn't know it, cause I changed her default skin and icon).

She worked about five hours like that while I worked on her crappy old computer.

 

[sechs]

This is to say, what people don't know is often irrelevant.

 

[Tannin]

1: Users that don't understand the inner workings of a PC can't find them in Windows and therefore can't mess them up.
2: Users that do understand the inner workings of a PC can find them in Windows and tailor them to their needs.

1: just ain't so. Users can f*ck up anything if they put their minds to it. And do. Regularly. Constantly, in fact.

2: is true, but the real point is that Windows deliberately sets out to make it difficult for users in group (1) to become users in group (2).

It is a fundamental rule for creating anything that people are supposed to use and learn about that the interface it presents to the human should, so far as possible, directly mirror the actual function of the machine. It should not follow the Windows model, which is to obfuscate and disguise the function of the machine.

 

[Santilli]

1: Users that don't understand the inner workings of a PC can't find them in Windows and therefore can't mess them up.
2: Users that do understand the inner workings of a PC can find them in Windows and tailor them to their needs.

1: just ain't so. Users can f*ck up anything if they put their minds to it. And do. Regularly. Constantly, in fact.

2: is true, but the real point is that Windows deliberately sets out to make it difficult for users in group (1) to become users in group (2).

It is a fundamental rule for creating anything that people are supposed to use and learn about that the interface it presents to the human should, so far as possible, directly mirror the actual function of the machine. It should not follow the Windows model, which is to obfuscate and disguise the function of the machine.

This entire argument is moot. No matter what brilliant conclusion we come to, Bill Gates isn't listening.

To put it simply, the MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF A COMPUTER IS TO ALLOW THE USER TO DO A TASK AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, WITH THE LEAST NUMBER OF STEPS, AND AS DIRECTLY AS POSSIBLE.

Now, we see that as IT guys, most everyone here is of the notion that a computer is for them to allow employees to use certain programs, they
pick, to do the assigned tasks, and not be allowed to do anything that
will jeopardize the functioning of their network. And, allows them to do their job with maximum eze, and in the least possible time, regardless of what the end user wants.

The owner wants the most productivity, for the least amount of money he
can spend, and a system that is future proof, competing, and dynamically opposed ends in the first place.

And, Bill Gates wants control of the world, and for us all
"...to learn to think for ourselves...!" Thank you George Orwell.

I like to think of life in two categories, things I can do something about, and things I can't.

I find MSFT has provided a system that allows me to do many tasks, but, in a complicated enough manner, that learning each program seems to require a long term, dedicated study plan, to learn the various definitions, under each program for words that mean different things, in different programs.

Of course the mac, and it's "integrated" processing suite, certainly gave new meaning to obscure file locations, espically when you used the mac version, in windows.

I had a point, but it went sideways. Something about competing intrests
leading to a product, that, much like a sports car by commitee, leads to a product almost no one likes???

s

 

[Adcadet]

I'm pretty sure most of us agree that people have two purposes in using a computer. Two purposes that I have identified in myself personally:

1. To get stuff done. This is why I run Windows. It allows me to run apps that aren't available elsewhere, and lets me get stuff done without having to think too much. I'm sometimes limited, but things generally work without much thought on my part.

2. To have fun, to learn, to feel in control. For some this is playing with Windows themes, for some it's customizing KDE and Gnome to their liking, and for others it's playing with new file systems and re-writing software.

 

[i]

To put it simply, the MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF A COMPUTER IS TO ALLOW THE USER TO DO A TASK AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, WITH THE LEAST NUMBER OF STEPS, AND AS DIRECTLY AS POSSIBLE.

That is true for the masses. And those users should be using Macintosh systems.

Windows is inherently defective. Someone who has adopted the above stance and is using a Windows system is doomed to Hell, in part because they won't recognize the warning signs of impending doom, and they certainly won't be able to get themselves out once they've arrived in Hades itself.

Nobody should be using Windows. Unfortunately it's still the best option for a large crowd of technical and semi-technical users. For many of them, Linux does not yet qualify as a better solution. Maybe it never will. Still others within that crowd can't easily switch because they have invested so much in learning how to light up the dark, decrepit corners of Microsoft's various operating systems.

In a few years that will change. Either Microsoft will release an operating system that doesn't suck, or something else will come along (or evolve from today's Linux and BSD offerings) that will satisfy the needs of the technical and semi-technical crowd.

But in any case, Windows is just a stop-gap measure. One that should not be being used by the non-technical masses.

 

[Handruin]

Complicated and hackable windows lends itself for a profit in the hands of IT and individual PC shop owners. Enjoy making money off of other people's ignorance if/when you can. It happens to everyone of us in one way or another so it all balances out in the end. Think of how many jobs would be lost if windows was practically infallible?

 

[Adcadet]

Complicated and hackable windows lends itself for a profit in the hands of IT and individual PC shop owners. Enjoy making money off of other people's ignorance if/when you can. It happens to everyone of us in one way or another so it all balances out in the end. Think of how many jobs would be lost if windows was practically infallible?

I'd rather plunk all that effort into something more productive.

 

[Handruin]

Meh...it gives me something to learn. I learn more about a broken PC than I do about a healthy one. It's not just windows you learn, it's a sense of root cause analysis, something I'm sure you're familiar with in the medical field. At best, I can related this to those drug companies...they profit a ton from drug sales rather than "plunk"ing the effort into finding a cure. OK, enough derailment from me...carry on.

 

[Adcadet]

Actually, root cause analysis is a faily new addition to the medical curriculum.

Not that learning about comptuers is bad. But wouldn't you prefer that all cars be more reliable, so instead of wasting money fixing them we could use all that effort to do something worthwhile?

 

[sechs]

To put it simply, the MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF A COMPUTER IS TO ALLOW THE USER TO DO A TASK AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, WITH THE LEAST NUMBER OF STEPS, AND AS DIRECTLY AS POSSIBLE.

If this were true, we would have moved past qwerty keyboards a long time ago. The layout of the letters is designed to *slow down* typing!

 

[Gilbo]

You know what I got to do for 6 hours yesterday? I got to recertify my girlfriend's copy of Windows for her Dell after I replaced the mobo.

I rebooted the computer after installing the motherboard and I was locked out until I recertified. Of course I couldn't do this over the internet because I couldn't reset the wireless connection because I'd been locked out. I call Microsoft but my installation ID turns out to be invalid. Fuck you too. We paid for this copy of Windows! I call Dell, after jumping through more hoops than a circus elephant, I have a new installation ID. I call Microsoft back and finally get my girlfriend access to software she paid for.

This isn't stupid. It's downright hostile! I think I'm going to start refusing to fix my friends' computers if they run Windows. The nightmare, the time, it's not worth my trouble. I can't begin to express my contempt for that OS.

I've never run into such trouble with Linux. Or OpenBSD. Updating drivers is easier & quicker under both. Updating software is easier and quicker under both. The idea that Windows lets people just get things done more easily and more quickly is a myth. People only think that because they haven't taken the time, or had the opportunity, to give alternatives a real shot.

 

[Fushigi]

You know what I got to do for 6 hours yesterday? I got to recertify my girlfriend's copy of Windows for her Dell after I replaced the mobo.

http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/10/11/030/82390

 

[Buck]

Just as a note: I have never had license problems with the OEM copies of Windows that I buy. I've even transferred license ownership, no problems there either.

 

[jtr1962]

The idea that Windows lets people just get things done more easily and more quickly is a myth. People only think that because they haven't taken the time, or had the opportunity, to give alternatives a real shot.

Yes, exactly, and I admit I'm as guilty as anyone. I just haven't felt like investing the time yet to learn Linux, and also some of the apps I use probably don't have Linux equivalents. Windows may make things quicker or easier for most people when it's working, but that line of thought conveniently ignores the downtime common with almost all Windows systems. Windows has a knack for being fine one day, and then inexplicably having some stupid problem the next even though you don't remember changing a thing. For example, sometimes when you reboot all your desktop shortcuts are suddenly rearranged and you have to waste time putting them back the way they were. Other times the system just does stupid things on it's own like having the run box come up whenever you type the letter "r" (and a few other letters cause things to start as well). Never been able to figure out why, but it's annoying to be typing a post and then suddenly some of the letters you type start programs rather than appearing in your post. At that point all you can do is reboot. And there's loads of other problems like this with no apparent cause. Windows gains its apparent simplicity at the expense of being needlessly complex underneath, but often with no way for the end user to interface with that complexity.

 

[timwhit]

jtr, you are still running Windows 98, correct? Give Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 a try, they will probably take care of many of the problems you encounter with your OS.

 

[jtr1962]

Yes Tim, I'm still running Win98 but I'll probably be switching to either Windows 2000 or 2003 in the not too distant future. I just want to make sure I can keep most of my installed programs and menu items with an OS upgrade rather than having to start from scratch again.

 

[Mercutio]

You'll REALLY want to start from scratch. In my experience, upgraded Windows installs usually misbehave quite a bit.

 

[Tannin]

What Mercutio said.

Make no mistake, with a witches brew like you'll get if you try an over the top install with that system, you'll wish you were back running CP/M. Or possibly stone tablets.

 

[Fushigi]

I'll second the motion for a reinstall. I just reinstalled the same OS, 2000 Pro, since my HD failed (see Tech Supp thread). Despite going from a 15K drive to a 7200 RPM drive, the rebuilt system is current running faster than the old machine. Now, I don't have everything re-installed, but pretty much anything that'll affect performance is in there.

Windows installations accumulate program turds over time. Undeleted registry entries, unused DLLs, etc. A clean slate re-do is just about the only way to go to maximize performance & minimize consumed disk space.

Also, there are big differences in the underlying designs of 95/98/ME kernel-based OSes vs. NT/2000/XP/2003 kernel-based OSes. Apps may not work reliably; drivers will certainly be different.

I would suggest using a second HD. On it, create a directory called "old PC" or somesuch and back up your current C: drive to it. Then, go the web sites of the manufacturers of your various hardware components and download their drivers for the new OS. Download them to the second drive. Then, wipe the C: drive & re-install. Re-format the partition to NTFS while you're at it (the installer will do this). Install Windows, configure your Internet , go pull all available Windows updates (at least the critical ones) and apply them whether you think you need them or not.

Then load the drivers for your devices (printer, mouse, video card, etc.). After that, start adding the apps. Start with security stuff like AV, personal firewall, anti-spyware, etc. Now, tweak the system to your liking: display resolution, desktop, theme, etc.

Next, move on to productivity apps. Only install what you know you use; leave the reest for later as you may find you'll never need it. Configure personal settings if needed.

Finally, bring back your data from the backup.

It's a long process, but along the way you may discover that you like some of the things that the new OS does differently. Or the default behaviour of an app will do vs. your prior customization. You may also see it as a chance to try things you hadn't done before. For instance, I'm attempting to switch from Office 2000 to OpenOffice at home with my rebuild. And from Outlook to Thunderbird. I'll make an honest attempt to use them and then decide if I want to switch back to the MS suite.

 

[Buck]

You'll REALLY want to start from scratch.

I wholeheartedly agree as well.

 

[jtr1962]

Well, on the plus side is that my OS and most of my apps (except Train Simulator and Flight Simulator) are on my 4 GB boot partition. I have a 2GB partition used solely for temp files, internet cache, swap file (which is never used anyway). Therefore, it's fairly easy to copy my entire boot partition to another physical drive, or even burn it to a DVD (once I get a DVD burner). That makes putting back my old OS/apps a snap if I ever want to. All my data is on separate partitions anyway so it'll be totally unaffected by an O/S change.

My impetus now for considering a change in OS is the nice A7N8X-E motherboard and XP2500 processor Merc kindly sent me when my now fixed Powerleap died. I plan to let my mom use the Powerleap machine, and build a new machine around the stuff Merc sent. Anyway, the new M/B supports up to 3GB of RAM. Even though I'll only be buying 1GB to start, if I stay with Win98 I'll never be able to add more RAM, should I need or want to. Also, it's probably long past time for an upgrade since I'm sure it's only a matter of time before some essential software I want won't support Win98. Since my old machine will remain largely intact while I'm setting up the new one I can go back and forth and add my needed apps one at a time.

Now which is better, W2K or W2K3?

 

[Bozo]

If you have to buy the new OS, I would suggest XP Pro. XP Pro is a much improved version of W2K.
W2K3 is a server OS and some programs, such as games, won't load. Any backup software or disk utility software you might want to run will have to be 'server' software which cost $$$$$.
XP Pro can be made to look like W2k with a few tweaks.

Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[Buck]

If you have to buy the new OS, I would suggest XP Pro. XP Pro is a much improved version of W2K.
W2K3 is a server OS and some programs, such as games, won't load. Any backup software or disk utility software you might want to run will have to be 'server' software which cost $$$$$.
XP Pro can be made to look like W2k with a few tweaks.

Good point Bozo. Plus, if you're buying the OS, W2K3 is expensive.

 

[timwhit]

I'm not a big fan of XP.

I am running Windows 2003 Server and unless you set it up to be a server, then it really does not act like a server OS anymore than 2000 or XP does.

I would suggest 2003, but I'm sure some people will disagree with me.

 

[Adcadet]

I'm not a big fan of XP.

I am running Windows 2003 Server and unless you set it up to be a server, then it really does not act like a server OS anymore than 2000 or XP does.

I would suggest 2003, but I'm sure some people will disagree with me.

I've run XP and Server 2003 on the same machine for a while (currently only WinXP). For the most part I found S2003 to feel much superior to WinXP, although with a fresh XP install it's pretty comparable.

 

[timwhit]

Maybe someone around here has an extra Windows 2003 license available that they could help jtr out with for cheap...