WinXP As House: Discuss
- September 25th, 2006
- Read 1376 times
- 2 Comments
It’s not often you read an article in the Washington Post or New York Times excoriating a device or technology. Hell, even Walt Mossberg, the Wild-Man of the WSJ, only occasionally fires of a strongly worded column against a particularly egregious example of crapitude. That’s what makes this article in the WaPo especially interesting. It’s basically a recap of Windows XP that says:
You can think of Windows XP as a house with a second floor built of spackle, wood filler and duct tape.
Gua! He’s going to lose his access from Microsoft’s PR people! Abort!
And even with all those updates, the operating system has met only a few of its goals while falling short of others in a catastrophic manner.
Now if only more mainstream rags would hit Sony, Intel, and a few other major names in the same pugilistic way and we’ll all be better off. Instead, it’s the blogs that say stuff SUX0RZ. And who reads blogs? Nobody, that’s who.
If Only We Knew Then What We Know Now About Windows XP [WashingtonPost]









webonics (Who am I?)
1 year ago
It seems a little redundant and well overdue to make a critique of an O/S that has been out on the market for over 5 years and the newest version is on the verge of release. The article also really lacked much substance.
I’d give more weight to this article if it was stating that Vista, Ubuntu, or Leopard were crap only because they are forthcoming. I don’t like to review products in hindsight, just IMHO yo.
Lee451 (Who am I?)
1 year ago
I am sure Mr. Bunting probably was too busy writing the code for his own O/S to actually research and write an article of substance. Windows XP is not perfect but it is much better than the 95, 98, ME, etc. versions of the operating system. And as it is used by a large majority of the computer users on this planet, faults are bound to be found. I have never used a Mac or any open sourse O/Ses but if they are so superior, why did MS end up being on 95% of personal computers?