New medical study: Microsoft products better for your health

An unbiased medical study was recently completed which included blood tests, double-blind placebo-controlled user tests, heart monitors and urine samples, among other techniques. The study was led by Dr. Robert Wilkes and his assistant Dr. Li Huang, both of whom have a strong background in computer software. The details have not yet been made available to the public, however Drs. Wilkes and Huang have asked that the public be provided with a summary of their findings as soon as possible.

This study was conducted over a period of two years, and the results will be published shortly in a major medical journal. The subjects for the study were 235 computer users and programmers, of varying skill levels, selected at random from major cities in the U.S., and carefully monitored on a periodic basis for software-related stress, illness, injury and other ailments. They also performed psychological evaluations to determine the effect of various software brands on the users' mental health.

Below is a brief summary of the results of their findings.

Users of Microsoft Windows, Office and Internet Explorer have a significantly lower incidence of stomach ulcers, colonic gas, redness of the eyes, and stress-related high blood pressure than their Unix & Linux counterparts -- particularly the users of Solarus, Red Hat, NOME, KDE and Netscape, among others. It was believed that the ocular redness was related to the high percentage of marijuana abusers in the Linux community, and urinalysis confirmed this to be the case. Further study and psychoanalysis showed that the stress and ulceration (found in the Unix & Linux users) were primarily caused by the following factors:

Uncertainty about the future of their operating system.
The perceived need to "fight the system", or a sort of internal struggle against large corporations (such as Microsoft).
The necessity of posturing oneself as "reet" in order to gain the respect of colleagues. (These users failed to inform Dr. Wilkes as to the meaning of this obscure term. If anyone here can provide a definition, that would be appreciated.)
Feelings of fear or paranoia concerning illegal hacking, cracking and "where's" smuggling activities. (Such feelings were quite widespread among this group, and tend to also cause the flatus which was mentioned earlier.)

The Unix & Linux users also had a greater incidence of carpal-tunnel syndrome, due to the greater necessity of typing at the command line. Examination of the wrist muscles in this group of users found numerous cases of inflammation and irreparable injury caused by their incessant command-line usage, whereas the majority of Microsoft users, who primarily use the mouse and seldom type, had healthy wrist muscles.

The Microsoft users exhibited tranquility, good mental and physical health, and balanced emotional well-being. They tend to spend more time at the gym, visit family and friends more often, and are more outgoing and social. Dr. Huang found that this is due to the fact that their operating system doesn't require them to spend long hours studying Mann pages in order to perform simple maintenance tasks. Their primary reasons for feeling secure were as follows:

Their choice of software is friendly and colorful, plays interesting sounds when they start up, shut down, or click on certain pictures, and Microsoft provides plenty of hotfixes such as Windows Update to keep their computer safe from hackers.
They feel secure about the future of Microsoft, partly because its founder is the richest man on the planet. As one user noted, "Bill Gates is one smart cookie. He knows how to make computers easy for people like me. I trust him with the future of my computer, because he always comes up with nifty ways to make computers fun. Plus he's darn rich, so they won't be going bankrupt anytime soon! LOL!"
User enjoyed the catchphrase "Where do you want to go today?" because it made them feel as though Microsoft were catering to their wishes and needs, which does in fact appear to be true.

Among the focus groups examined were numerous programmers, of various software persuasions. The programmers using Visual Basic, ASP and .NET technologies were the healthiest overall, and Dr. Wilkes found that this was directly related to the security they felt in their careers. The .NET programmers were especially well-adjusted, partly due to their sense of pride and being on the cutting edge of technology. "Microsoft is the biggest game in town," one engineer raved, "and those who miss the .NET bandwagon are getting left by the wayside. Nobody in the industry has produced a virtual-machine-based, object-oriented language like Microsoft's C# until now."

The Unix & Linux programmers using Java, J2EE, JSP and PHP were found to have the lowest health ratings. Upon further analysis, it was determined that this was due to the following primary factors:

Lack of drag-and-drop interfaces which automatically generate source code. In comparison to the Microsoft-based developers, this group spent a lot of extra time writing code from scratch. This led to less time spent with family and friends, which led to ulcers, gastrointestinal disorders and high levels of stress.
A feeling of being "left behind" or "out of the loop" with regard to Microsoft's revolutionary new technologies in the .NET family of products. These users have an unwritten "anarchic" rule that they will not install Microsoft's products on their PCs, thus they often wonder what new, exciting features they are missing. Some develop psychological complexes based on their high levels of curiosity.
Uneasiness about being involved in illegal hacking activities, or in many cases, the need to be perceived as "reet" among peers.

Keep in mind that this study was performed without prejudice, and with the strictest adherence to the guidelines set forth by the profession for clinical trials of this nature. Dr. Wilkes and his colleagues are educated professionals of the highest degree, and their vast research in medicine and the field of computer software allows them to speak with authority on these issues.

Please take this opportunity to reevaluate your choice of software, and be aware that it can drastically affect your physical and mental health.

	I'm astonished. (none / 0) (#4)
	by because it isnt on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 09:44:28 AM PST

	That no-one, as of yet, has commented on the outrageous racist slur contained in this article. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	what it is? (none / 0) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 11:23:30 AM PST

	YHBT (0.00 / 1) (#52)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 03:04:55 PM PST

	HTH YHL HAND and so on. HAH HAH HAH LOLOLOLOL!!!!!! k thx bye

	Not so. (none / 0) (#64)
	by because it isnt on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 07:35:06 AM PST

	I was alluding to 'The necessity of posturing oneself as "reet"', which is highly offensive to either Asians or Geordies, or both. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Common Knowledge (4.00 / 4) (#6)
	by Icebox on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 11:58:39 AM PST

	Anyone who has been paying attention to the saga of Open Source should know this information already. Linux (and Open Source in general) is a curious thing, the reality of it all does not fit with the squeaky clean 'help the average J03' image they put forth. Here is the dirt on the Linux industry: Linux began as a hobbyist OS. About 5 years ago a handful of unscrupulous corporations began to assimilate themselves into the industry, they could smell some money somewhere in it I suppose. Generally, corporations make money by selling some product or service that the public wants. This is impossible with Linux, because it has no value, which is why it appealed to hobbyists and why people just gave it away back in the old days. These Linux corporations did a little research and ran across the perfect way to build the little hobbyist OS into a money making titan. Think about it. If you had a product that was bad, maybe even harmful to people, and you wanted to turn a profit off of it, who could show you the way? That's right, the Linux corporations borrowed a page from Big Tobbacco. These corporations rapidly threw together a handful of web sites to promote Linux as a fashion statement. Fake news sites, coding sites, rah-rah mags, they had it all. Just like the cigarette companies they aimed their product at the most impressionable market segment of them all, young people. Idealistic and ignorant, the youth jumped on the Linux bandwagon in droves, artificially inflating the value of the Linux corporations. The executives knew what was going on so they typically jumped ship soon after the stock price skyrocketed, usually screwing their underlings in the process. How fitting. Essentially, the question comes down to this: Which is more harmful to your health, Big Tobbacco, or Microsoft? Any reasonable person knows the answer to that. Only unreasonable geeks could possibly screw it up.

	Microsoft vs Big Tobacco (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by The Mad Scientist on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 12:51:49 PM PST

	Microsoft is now more harmful than Big Tobacco. There are all sorts of laws and regulations to protect people from passive smoking. However there are no regulations that would protect the innocents from the harm inflicted by being on the receiving end of documents in incompatible file formats (which in case of Microsoft are frequently incompatible even between their own versions). You can choose to not attend places where other people smoke. But I wish you good luck convincing others to send you documents in anything that isn't their pre-set default format.

	Unreasonable Geek (n/t) (none / 0) (#9)
	by Icebox on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 01:04:26 PM PST

	Once again, (3.00 / 2) (#10)
	by derek3000 on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 01:10:28 PM PST

	you show your utter contempt for humanity. Let me put this in terms you can understand: `Receiving a file you can't read != dying from lung cancer you ultimate-frisbee playing fuck` Or something like that. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	You must understand, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
	by tkatchev on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 02:23:09 PM PST

	It takes a certain level of physchological development to fully realize what death is all about; certain mentally underdeveloped people have a very difficult time with this concept -- they, subconsciously, belive that dying isn't "for real", that it's in fact some sort of long and unpleasant sleep. -- Peace and much love...

	Whoa! Why didn't I think of it? (none / 0) (#18)
	by gzt on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 08:18:12 PM PST

	I mean, I knew that, but I just didn't make the connection. This explains why that fella thought people who made fun of other people ought to die.

	Making fun... (none / 0) (#25)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 11:31:26 AM PST

	...of other people is acceptable and can be enjoyable for both sides. However, there is a continual transition between mere fun and open hostility. An act of attack can be interpreted as attacker's voluntary waiving of the right to live. Besides, what's so bad on death from the subjective point? Either there is no further subject's existence after its death, then it has no meaning for the subject anymore (as the subject itself doesn't exist anymore), only for other related subjects. Or there is a "life after life", then the death is a form of "phase transition". I am not afraid of death itself, only of dying.

	Correct. (none / 0) (#26)
	by tkatchev on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 12:36:24 PM PST

	So why don't you go kill yourself right now? Huh? Scary, no? I guess you're not as "rational" as you claimed to be... -- Peace and much love...

	On first glance, yes. (none / 0) (#27)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 01:24:57 PM PST

	So why don't you go kill yourself right now? Because I can do it only once and I can't undo it and there is no real reason to yet. Rule of thumb: If there is no reason to do nor to not do something, and you can't undo it once you do it, don't do it. Huh? Scary, no? Not as much. I had some suicidal thoughts some time ago. I guess you're not as "rational" as you claimed to be... Sometimes it may seem so.

	dude. you saved my life. (none / 0) (#136)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 23rd, 2002 at 07:30:10 PM PST

	i had the blade to my wrists, really.

	Act of Attack != Waiving Right to Live (none / 0) (#29)
	by gzt on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 03:21:16 PM PST

	I don't mind your philosophy of your own death; I have a similar one about your extinction. However, I don't see how being on the receiving edge of a wedgie gives you the right to decapitate Bob the Bully. In fact, why do you think you are able to continue the cycle of violence at all? Why does his sin excuse yours, whether it's returning the wedgie or giving a swirlie or setting fire to his severed tongue? Cheers, Geoff

	How American. (none / 0) (#30)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 03:48:48 PM PST

	I don't mind your philosophy of your own death; I have a similar one about your extinction. Come on. However, I don't see how being on the receiving edge of a wedgie gives you the right to decapitate Bob the Bully. Ever been on the receiving edge of wedgies for longer than year? Even figured out that breaking a glass frame over his head when you finally lose your patience will not only get you problems with your teachers - especially for not showing any remorse - but also buys you couple weeks of being left alone? Actually, enough to rehash the situation and "buy" a bodyguard (with help with homework and cheating the tests)? In fact, why do you think you are able to continue the cycle of violence at all? Why got Kissinger his Nobel Prize of Peace, when he came up with the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine? Why does his sin excuse yours, whether it's returning the wedgie or giving a swirlie or setting fire to his severed tongue? How American, denying the victims the right to defend themselves, when the current sympathies lie with the stronger (or more popular) ones. Being it Afghans, or the class geeks. Why should his aggression prevent me to defend myself and my personal space, even if it means use of force? Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. If enough bullies will get taught this simple rule, regardless of cost, the world will be better place to live. Sometimes the hunter becomes the hunted. Which is a very good thing. Makes me feel the justice works both ways.

	I fail to see... (none / 0) (#31)
	by gzt on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 04:40:12 PM PST

	how violence on your part makes it right. Come now, Mr. Rational, how is your violence justified? So you experience pain and probably will continue to. Why does that justify your causing somebody else to receive pain, or even die? Your self-defense is possibly the end of another self. Why should your existence continue instead of somebody else's? Please don't bring justice (vengeance) into this. These numinous, religious concepts have no place in rational discourse. Why should I care if you think my questions aren't "American"?

	Wipe your glasses. (none / 0) (#32)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 06:00:04 PM PST

	how violence on your part makes it right. Violence against third party isn't right. Violence against the one who started first is called self-defense. Mutual Assured Destruction, ever heard about this doctrine? If it worked for keeping nuclear superpowers in their respective bays, why it shouldn't work on lower levels? Come now, Mr. Rational, how is your violence justified? So you experience pain and probably will continue to. Why does that justify your causing somebody else to receive pain, or even die? Because it is the one who causes the pain to me, it is my way - apparently the only working one - to show him I don't like it. I am strong advocate of fighting back by less dramatic means than outright killing, though. You can call it cognitive behavioral therapy; cause pain to others, and the others will cause pain to you. Your self-defense is possibly the end of another self. Why should your existence continue instead of somebody else's? It's my existence. I have the right to defend it by all means, if I will desire to do so. Why should the other party continue to exist if they willingly cause me pain? Besides, they can quite easily preemptively defend themselves; the top-secret method is to just leave me alone. Please don't bring justice (vengeance) into this. These numinous, religious concepts have no place in rational discourse. Religious is to offer the other face and hope the attacker will get bored. The disadvantages are that it hurts and you run out of faces soon. Why should I care if you think my questions aren't "American"? Your questions are American. Read me better.

	Yes, and you're not thinking about my questions (none / 0) (#34)
	by gzt on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 06:17:50 PM PST

	What I'm asking is what makes self-defense right. All you're doing is saying it's self-defense. So you don't like being picked on. Why do you have the right to defend your existence by all means? You exist for a while, and then maybe you don't. So what? You're claiming you may kill somebody if they, say, punch you. Why does pain on your part justify the cessation of their existence? Yes, I read you too well: I assumed you mis-spoke. If you claim my questions are American you aren't a very good thinker.

	Re: (none / 0) (#35)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 07:05:41 PM PST

	What I'm asking is what makes self-defense right. All you're doing is saying it's self-defense. Okay. Is there anything that makes it wrong? From my side it looks perfectly right to pursue happiness. How you will handle me is what rules I will apply on you; behaving as a "mirror" as far works well for me. So you don't like being picked on. Why do you have the right to defend your existence by all means? You exist for a while, and then maybe you don't. So what? So I want to keep the short time of my existence somehow better. Anything wrong with that? You're claiming you may kill somebody if they, say, punch you. Why does pain on your part justify the cessation of their existence? The pain on my part justifies the means to eliminate that pain. If you push me to the point of killing you, it is a clear sign you went too far. Yes, I read you too well: I assumed you mis-spoke. If you claim my questions are American you aren't a very good thinker. How could I have expected that a citizen of the world's biggest international bully will understand that comment.

	I'm curious (none / 0) (#36)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 10:02:41 PM PST

	When you were at school, did you ever actually fight back against the people who were tormenting you? You've managed to come off as someone who is terrified of an honest fistfight, so I'm assuming you didn't get into many as a boy. Most people who have been in a schoolyard scrap or two have realised that a few bruises aren't anything to be afraid of. Of course, bullying is a slightly different case. Bullies never give their targets much of a chance, but it must be remembered that bullies tend to pick on the boys who they know are incapable of fighting back. It seems to me that the best way to overcome bullying, whether in the schoolyard or the real world, is to try not to be a such a sissy. If you'd learned to defend yourself and stand your ground early on, you wouldn't be a repeat target for bullies. They'd find someone else to torture. The real victim here is the safety of the other students of the school. Bullies may be an unpleasant reality for many children, but they aren't the ones who bring knives and guns to school. It is the victims, in a misguided attempt to "defend" themselves who consistently overreact, to the detriment of the school system itself. If victims of bullying would just learn to stand up for themselves like men, rather than getting so emotionally bent out of shape that a killing spree seems logical to them, we wouldn't need metal detectors and security guards at our high schools.

	Fight back (none / 0) (#45)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 10:11:12 AM PST

	When you were at school, did you ever actually fight back against the people who were tormenting you? A precious few times. In most cases I lost, except special circumstances. It was quite a surprise for everyone when I jumped at him, and I don't remember much of it except that he ran away bleeding a lot and that if he wouldn't retreat I would probably killed him. If your target stops caring about its own defense, seems to not feel pain anymore, and goes to full attack only, run away to save your life. I think it is called berserk. Of course, bullying is a slightly different case. Bullies never give their targets much of a chance, but it must be remembered that bullies tend to pick on the boys who they know are incapable of fighting back. Quite true. Each time I flipped and became violent bought me some time. What ultimately helped, though, was when I got fists-for-hire. If you'd learned to defend yourself and stand your ground early on, you wouldn't be a repeat target for bullies. They'd find someone else to torture. If you have some chance in an eventual fight, yes. However, there are people that prefer to spend their time in a library instead of training fighting. The real victim here is the safety of the other students of the school. Bullies may be an unpleasant reality for many children, but they aren't the ones who bring knives and guns to school. No, but they are the cause why the knives and guns are brought. Hey - even a keyring on a chain, when spinned, has quite an intimidating effect. Especially when it is heavy with keys. Besides, if you need a weapon, there is plenty of things anywhere that can serve as one. It is the victims, in a misguided attempt to "defend" themselves who consistently overreact, to the detriment of the school system itself. Any attempt to defend yourself is good enough. If victims of bullying would just learn to stand up for themselves like men, rather than getting so emotionally bent out of shape that a killing spree seems logical to them, we wouldn't need metal detectors and security guards at our high schools. If bullies would be identified and kicked out of the school, the same will apply. Meanwhile we will have to go along with killing sprees. And I will not feel any pity for their victims, at least the ones who deserved it. Face it, not everyone is fistfight-happy.

	Heh. (none / 0) (#46)
	by tkatchev on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 10:19:37 AM PST

	Do you realize that in the "real world" people like you get beaten and raped almost immediately? Are you at all familiar with prison "culture"? Ver sobering, I suggest you do some reading on the topic. -- Peace and much love...

	Heh. (none / 0) (#48)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 10:35:57 AM PST

	Do you realize that in the "real world" people like you get beaten and raped almost immediately? If they don't have position protected by fists of others. Knowledge is a form of power and can be exchanged for physical power in quite good exchange rate. If you have at least a little luck. As far, worked for me, in several settings. A weapon can shift the balance of power quite neatly, too. Are you at all familiar with prison "culture"? Ver sobering, I suggest you do some reading on the topic. Depends on the level. At least here, if you get between the white-collar criminals, it's similar to be locked in a worse overcrowded hotel with lousy kitchen and the biggest problem is boredom. A friend got there. If we talk about the higher-security prisons, though, you are right.

	Pursue happiness? (none / 0) (#37)
	by gzt on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 11:21:40 PM PST

	Thank you, you almost seem to have answered my questions. Pursuit of happiness, avoid pain, better existence, yada yada. I can understand what's going on in there. It all seems rather arbitrary to me. A slight problem: punching Jack back won't alleviate your pain or make your existence "happier", whatever that means. The level of your response is based on how far you were pushed, ie, how pissed you are. This is rather dangerous, dude. It's completely arbitrary and does not respect the lives of others. Dude, your method of justification is your feelings. Your feelings are providing a guide to your moral conduct, man. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? I understood it quite well, but you don't realize that most of the rhetoric I see regarding American foreign policy is based on self-defense. And what makes you think my comments don't apply to bullies, as well?

	Yes. (none / 0) (#43)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 09:52:21 AM PST

	It all seems rather arbitrary to me. Yes. Any reason why it is wrong? Or are you not pursuing happiness yourself? A slight problem: punching Jack back won't alleviate your pain or make your existence "happier", whatever that means. It is a way how to make him think twice and then not punching me next time. As far, it works. The level of your response is based on how far you were pushed, ie, how pissed you are. This is rather dangerous, dude. Yes. It is dangerous. It is bloody dangerous. It's the principle of its function. It's completely arbitrary and does not respect the lives of others. It respects the lives of others as long as they respect me. It takes a while of conscious effort to get me pissed enough to act. And I give warnings. Dude, your method of justification is your feelings. Yes. Anything wrong with it? Your feelings are providing a guide to your moral conduct, man. Anything wrong with it? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? Why? It was empirically proven it works, including fairly critical situations. I never had any remorses for anything I done that was based on my feelings.

	Ego boy (none / 0) (#88)
	by hauntedattics on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 12:46:18 PM PST

	I'd get into a whole discussion with you here about morality, but we've already been through a fairly useless argument about laws and their importance. Basically, what you're saying in the above thread is that anyone who attacks you/your ego/your precious sense of self deserves more-than-equivalent punishment and/or complete destruction. Are you that insecure in who you are and your worth as a human being? And, as a corollary, are you that egomaniacal? That's quite a frightening thought. (And before you respond that everyone is that insecure and that egomaniacal...they aren't. Really.)

	Hi (none / 0) (#90)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:14:23 PM PST

	Basically, what you're saying in the above thread is that anyone who attacks you/your ego/your precious sense of self deserves more-than-equivalent punishment and/or complete destruction. Single, statistically insignificant attacks should be considered as meaningless incidents. The punishment clause applies to clear, prolonged intent to harass. If applied symmetrically to all related parties, greatly reduces both the long-time harassment problems (by eliminating the harassers and/or providing a counterincentive to them) and eliminates the overreactions caused by simple misinterpretations. Are you that insecure in who you are and your worth as a human being? Maybe. However, I found good compensation factors. Now I am pretty stable. I got some means to let people have accidents. I also developed a well-scaled tolerance to people. You will need to show real, clear and prolonged intention to make me mad at you seriously enough to act; even then, most likely I will only find some data about you and identify your weak spots, then stopping there if you will be just annoying instead of seriously threatening. In last 10 years, only one such case almost happened, and he retreated (amusingly quickly) in the middle of the data collection phase, after being warned. You can't piss me off by mere mistake. And, as a corollary, are you that egomaniacal? That's quite a frightening thought. Wanna find out?

	there's only one flaw in might makes right (none / 0) (#95)
	by nathan on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:11:38 PM PST

	You have to make sure that the good guys have all the might, and the evil bastard retards don't have any. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	So because... (none / 0) (#96)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:41:48 PM PST

	...the definition of who is good and who is bad is strongly dependent on what side are you on (I never seen any side claiming it is the bad one), you have to get all the power available.

	Egomania (none / 0) (#103)
	by hauntedattics on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 06:42:42 AM PST

	Do I want to find out whether you are egomaniacal? I think your last post spelled it out quite clearly, thank you.

	Smokers are a minority. (1.00 / 1) (#28)
	by aoc on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 02:47:57 PM PST

	We are restricting their rights for the benefit of the majority. Most people have enough sense to use industry-standard Microsoft products (and enough sense to keep those products all up to date). Users of non-Microsoft products are a (dangerous, ignorant) minority. We should be restricting their right to use "alternative" systems to protect the majority's ability to universal user-friendly computing. This UNIX nonsense (and the derivative Lunix (L33t-UNIX)) has got to go. There ought to be a law.

	Poorly designed study (5.00 / 1) (#7)
	by First Incision on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 12:05:43 PM PST

	There are several large problems with this study. I expect the good doctors will have to make many edits before the paper is finally accepted for publication. How can the researchers make these claims while failing to use proper controls? At the very least, they need a third group of non-computer using controls. They also make wild claims such as x was "due to" y. Ulcers are "due to" a lack of drag-and-drop programming? Might they want to analyze eating habits and rates of H. Pylori infection before making such claims? "Examination of the wrist muscles in this group of users found numerous cases of inflammation" What were the real causes of the wrist muscle inflammation in Unix/Linux group? It surely wasn't carpal-tunnel syndrome. Maybe the researches had forgotten the portion of their medical education where they learned carpal tunnel syndrome is caused by inflammation of the tunnel's connective tissue (there is no muscle in the tunnel) and the subsequent compression of the median nerve. This leads to atrophy (not inflammation) of the muscles of the thumb. "Microsoft is the biggest game in town," one engineer raved, Why were these Microsoft sponsored raves never addressed in the study? Were members of the Microsoft group taking MDMA (also known as ecstasy)? Missing important points such as this severely compromises the credibility of this study _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	.. GARBAGE (none / 0) (#61)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:19:50 AM PST

	I read the garbage above and then I read some of the peoples comments. What a load of horse droppings is all I can say, and trust me thats the polite version. The study was seriously floored. For a start how many linux users are not technical compared to the number of windows users? As the study looked at users and programmers was it fair to compare a typest to a c programmer? Also, some of the people that posted comments. Go read some thing and learn because one of these I-Love-MS people really should go read the history of linux. The L dosn't stand for Leet you gimp! Typeing can course problems, but I think that people type a fair amount in windows to. All them urls that need to be types, emails, documents.... can't do it all with the mouse. I don't know, its all stupid. Oh, I can't be bothered to comment more, but in parting I will say I use windows far more then linux, I am a programmer and not some user.