Well, I rarely have to reboot, but it speeds things up to do
so since it frees the memory that various badly-written
programs have leaked over the course of a week.
But see, that's the thing--we don't have to reboot because of those progs. Worst case, we restart them or change initlevels. Until one has used a truly stable system, one never really realises how nice it can be.
Re. your second paragraph, it's not about what's good enough, but what is the best possible. I don't want good, I want best. Failing that, I want better. Good is tolerable. Good is like bread, water and vitamins--it'll keep you alive, but where's the joy? Better is like McDonald's--at least it doesn't taste utterly awful. Best is a seven course meal at Mâison Fran¸ais [is that â right?].
Granted, as we all know, Worse is Better is correct: good enough now will triumph over best tomorrow, just like millions more eat McDonald's burgers than eat actual good food. But we few, we happy few, we band of cognoscenti, we know what is what, and we have the freedom to act on it. We are not locked into a foul and unpleasant platform. Ours is the capacity to choose, to evaluate and to decide. We may use Mac OS because, for our needs, excellent interface trumps stability. We may use Linux, because stability trumps ease-of-use. We may use FreeBSD, because stability trumps frequency. We may use anything we want. To throw away that opportunity is paramount to a sin, to failing to take advantage of all we have been given.
Windows has one thing going for it: it is common. It is not a good OS, it is not æsthetically attractive; it is not easy to use; it is not well-designed; it is a kludge upon a hack upon a mistake. It runs on one platform--a poorly-designed and archaic chip. It is not worht notice on its own merits.
There is no alternative to Windows which I can think of which is not materially better on a multitude of counts. Windows is the blue jeans of the computer world.
The only reason to run Windows is because it is common. But really, that's not a good enough reason. How many word processors does one need? Indeed, does one even need a word processor? Plain text or LaTeX each have convincing advantages over that bastard, the WYSIWYG document editor. Games are fun, but isn't spending thousands of dollars to play games just a little excessive, especially when one considers that most of them are hardly edifying or intellectually stiumulating? Some, I'll admit, are not bad. But a MUSH, MUD or good game of xconq is better for the mind than any number of FPS, I'll wager. Not that I dislike FPSes--I love 'em. But they're not why I compute.
Let's face it, for many Windows users the 'puter is just another TV. For those who know something, it is not another TV, but a replacement TV. We can read, we can cogitate, we can improve out minds and our souls. Sure, we have fun too--all work and no play &c. But we bear in mind that the goal in life is not to see how much so-called `entertainment' we can force through our eyes in a day, but rather to attempt to improve ourselves and to strive to be better people.
Of course, we fail at this impossible quest. But at least we are trying. The great unwashed masses don't even bother.
[ Parent ]