Actually, I can agree with chevboy, but in a wider sense. All three OS's are a mess. Linux/Unix a little, MacOS a little more, but with Redmond products leading the pack and lapping the field.
Sorry but he has no credibility by using the word "Winblows". To use such a word tells me the individual lacks the maturity to provide a rational argument. If he has issues with Windows then he should, as requested, state what they are without hyperbole ("blowing up" and "severe mass destruction").
Windows isn't without its issues but I use it almost every single day without issue. In fact I can't recall the last time I had an issue with it.
But...
I come (and way, way back) from the mainframe side of the business, and from DOS days on, the idea that a system will have to be rebooted to fix a problem, or even to get the cursor back was nuts. Heck, if you remember WINNT 4.0, sometimes a complete reload of the system was faster than trying to figure out the problem. My thoughts in those days was that a computer should boot up and stay up until some MAJOR change is needed, either to software or hardware, whether next month or two years from now. Nowadays, it should stay up and running even with a hardware failure.
Mainframes are multi-million dollar systems which, at least at the time, had considerably more resources (processing power, memory, disk, etc.) then a garden variety PC. DOS's origins are for hardware with drastically lower computing power. Thus Seattle Computer Products (the origins of DOS) and later Microsoft had to make scarifies in its design.
For example processors lacked the necessary hardware to provide proper memory protection. 64KB, the starting point for the original PC, was quite constraining. Then there was the design of the PC itself. The ISA bus with its IRQs, COM ports, and DMA channel conflicts are essentially impossible for an OS to address. These issues didn't exist on mainframe computers because IBM did a proper design on them, unlike the PC.
Once computing power increased to the point where it could support proper memory protection and the legacy ISA bus was jettisoned the software side of the ecosystem was well entrenched. Microsoft could just discard like OS/2 attempted to do. Like it or not backwards compatibility was key to Microsoft's success.
But that's all in the past now. Today's systems and Windows versions are stable and reliable. Are they mainframe levels? Certainly not, but then they don't cost a million dollars and require dedicated IT support either.
I have used all three OS's extensively in my life, but this week I have to say that with Ventura, Apple is gaining on Microsoft. What a mess, and even on my vanilla setup.
I can't comment on Venture as the goal of my even being in this thread was to read about problems people may be having before I upgrade my Studio. However, when I see a comment where someone says Windows constantly "blowing up" and "severe mass destruction" I have to ask what the issue is that they're experiencing that leads to such statements.
