Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: Electric Jaguar on 10 December 2002, 14:23
-
I don't see what's wrong with my Windows XP Professional. I've tweaked it and removed all spyware. It *never* crashes on its own. It is either some fault of my own or another program that crashes. A fresh boot of Windows XP leaves a memory footprint of about 56000 KB.
So what's so bad about Windows XP? I don't want to hear about what's so bad about Microsoft (http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com/content/whatsbad.shtml).
[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Electric Jaguar ]
[edit - title changed - You'll get more answers if you have descriptive titles - Calum]
[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
-
Internet Explorer is still intergraded... Windows would be a lot faster without Internet Explorer (and yes, I'm not using the standard Windows UI right now, so I can tell)
You can never remove all spyware. Can you tell me what programmes you removed, because, for example, Aplication Layer Gateway (ALG) is spyware too, and I don't think you removed that.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Electric Jaguar:
I don't see what's wrong with my Windows XP Professional. I've tweaked it and removed all spyware. It *never* crashes on its own. It is either some fault of my own or another program that crashes. A fresh boot of Windows XP leaves a memory footprint of about 56000 KB.
So what's so bad about Windows XP? I don't want to hear aboutwhat's so bad about Microsoft (http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com/content/whatsbad.shtml).
You're either lucky or stupid. I'm not gonna tell you how bad your windows is, i'm not gonna force you to use a new OS. But when windows screws up on you, please, please don't come crying to us.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Refalm:
Aplication Layer Gateway (ALG) is spyware
Hmm, really? How? Do you know what servers it reports to? Where can I find more information? I haven't heard that the ALG is spyware.
EDIT: silly me, I do have that disabled (http://smile.gif)
[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Electric Jaguar ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tux:
You're either lucky or stupid.
Oh really? How am I lucky? If I'm not that, how am I stupid?
quote:
I'm not gonna tell you how bad your windows is
Why not? That is, after all, the question I asked.
quote:
i'm not gonna force you to use a new OS
Gee, thanks, although I fail to see how you would force me to "use a new OS"
quote:
But when windows screws up on you, please, please don't come crying to us.
Boo hoo.
-
quote:
You're either lucky or stupid
You would be lucky for XP to work well.
You would be stupid to think XP is working well, when it likely isn't.
quote:
I am not gonna tell you how bad your windows is
Firstly it is your choice.
Secondly, I have never ever seen windows XP work properly, but it is your experience that counts.
quote:
I'm not gonna force you to use a new OS
Why should I waste my time trying to persuade you to do anything new when you are happy where you are now?
quote:
But when windows screws up on you, please, please don't come crying to us.
It will happen some day...
-
quote:
Originally posted by Electric Jaguar:
I don't see what's wrong with my Windows XP Professional. I've tweaked it and removed all spyware. It *never* crashes on its own. It is either some fault of my own or another program that crashes. A fresh boot of Windows XP leaves a memory footprint of about 56000 KB.
So what's so bad about Windows XP? I don't want to hear about what's so bad about Microsoft (http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com/content/whatsbad.shtml).
if you want to find out why windows xp is bad, then find out for yourself. as you can see nobody has written an article on that subject for MES yet, so if you do write one, i am sure it would be appreciated if you send it to the webmaster, or if it's appropriate, send it to me and i might put it
in the FAQ.
but if you think people here have a duty to help you, then think again. with a negative attitude such as yours (not unfriendly, just that you have a habit of putting down people's answers to you) i don't think people will go out of their way that much to be honest.
Welcome to the board et c.
PS product activation and binary only distribution are my two main gripes with XP, but poor implementation of code, undocumented security flaws and inflated prices to pay for useless advertising are on that list too.
-
It is not easy to figure out at first, you have to look closely. That internet explorer thing is a good point, but there is another good reason. What does your XP require now to run FAST? What does Windows 95 require to run FAST? Each new windows(and this applies to other software) uses new hardware to pickup programming slack.
Also remember that W95 doesn't have IE intergrated. IE is an in-secure and low quality browser, tying it to an OS is bad.
There is also the possiblity of later Windows(W98 onwards) being designed to get quite crappy after 2 years(until you re-install it). If this is so, then this may mean a worser day to day OS in general. Also, W98 is suposed to be crappier then W95(despite included W95 service pack bugfixes), and XP probably works better then it. So people automatically assume that W95 must be just as bad as W98.
A very easy to backup reason is past compatibility. The older windows are far better then XP(and probably 2K) at running DOS games, especially running them properly. Ok but it is logical that XP may not be so good at DOS, but Windows is far more recent then DOS, so why the fuck are there plenty of W9X games that don't like XP?! (http://smile.gif)
Another boon to the past wind0ze, you got a real DOS included that you can boot into(or so I think).
Im sure there must be XP only issues that W9X has the advantage of avoiding, but I am not advanced enough to know them. Of course, there is W9X issues that XP avoids. (http://tongue.gif)
All I know is MES has spooked me, and im not so sure if I wanna hold on to this XP, definitly gonna see whether W95 is so "primitive" after all. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
So what's so bad about Windows XP? I don't want to hear about what's so bad about Microsoft.
That's the point most people here hate M$, XP is just another product they produce that fails us.
Okay to try to answer. What gets sent where, that is totally open for debate, if you get hard verifiable evidence one way or another and can show exactly what was sent then please post it here.
Removed spyware - NO you have not. IE and WiMP are integrated into the OS, if you have completely removed either them then you have evidence of purgery on the parts of several M$ executives - make this evidence known (the DA for Mass would like to know this).
Now M$ make XP GUI driven this is wrong. It slows down the system and makes efficient control of your processes impossible (that is from a M$ analysis). They have broken the M$-dos function, which means I cannot get complete control of my system. XP is unstable, it breaks network connections for no reason, and refuses legal admission from networked computers on an ad-hoc basis. I cannot get the control I need of XP to get it to perform properly, and do not claim hardware here - the PC in question has designed for Windows XP stickers every fucking where.
Secondly ever since I started working with computers I have believed that I am entitled to the source code. Companys who make hardware can be forced to supply schematics and parts lists (most provide these anyway, for a minimal charge) and the same must be true for software. XP is closed source and until it is available for review - with an open source compiler - I will not use their products voluntarily.
I have problems witht the GUI, It looks like they took the Gnome desktop and made it child friendly. I hate that sort of thing. Secondly they talk about XP being a new product, it is not, it is an minor upgrade to W2K and that was a minor upgrade to NT (and W2K is just NT with some parts of teh 98 API back in place), if you purchased NT then you should be entitled to XP for free.
XP forces you to use IE, well I gave up with IE, it is for the most part slower, less flexible and more insecure than most other browsers. To my knowledege M$ still refuse to acknowledge that the insecure SSL implementation is their responsablilty, and so it's not been fixed.
When bugs are found with XP they may or may not get fixed several months or years down the line, and when you install them you can no longer guarantee your system will reamin the way it was, after all by default the update packages change all your settings to whatever the upgade has as it's standard settings. I've watched insecure settings on outlook get set by the XP update, despite removing them. The trouble is that the upgrade is different for everyone, some report no trouble others report their systems collapsing - more instability.
Why should I pay $300 for a system that cannot do what the one I choose to use can, why should I pay for an OS that is basically offering no innovation, no originality, and nothing I cannot get elsewhere with better support and increased functionality. XP may be good for you, I use a system that is better in my opinion. I can do more with my 3 REDHAT cds than the cds I need to build up the XP system, currently that's six CD's not including special software that you don't get with a Linux install.
-
It's not so much that XP is a terrible OS, it's just that Linux (and Mac OS X) is a better OS and offers more freedom and better implimentation of features. Actually in terms of being a server operating system and in terms of how quickly security holes are patched after they are discovered, XP *is* a terrible OS. I also hate how they tie in all those stupid M$ apps like IE and WMP, not that I'm forced to use them but why the hell do they have to be integrated into the operating system?? Terribly poor decision. Furthermore, XP just paves the way for more garbage like Palladium and DRM. Will *you* be upgrading to Palladium when it comes out? I know I won't.
-
xp is slow & bloated. [sarcastic voice] and because appearance is the most important thing about an os [/sarcastic voice] xp even failed at that. when i do a search on the local drive looking for a file ON MY COMPUTER, xp sends something to microsoft. (if you want the article on that, search google or the forums). thats just not cool. when i come into work in the morning, turn my computer on, and the first thing that happens is explorer.exe has had a fatal error. from starting up. it wasnt even doing anything. the goddamn media player that you cant remove, the goddamn msn messenger that you cant remove (easily), and fucking exploder. windows update. drives mapped with a letter. at least on my mac i can move entire folders and not fuck up the map between a program and the file. windows does not support any other filesystem unless its a microsoft fs. i dont want to use explorer, i cant uninstall it. i cant remove anything really. the level of customization is a fucking joke. the registry?? WTF!. memory management, or rather the lack of decent memory management. when i am doing an animation and its rendering, i decide to stop it because something doesnt look right, windows will not release the memory back to the pool. which means to run the program decently, i have to restart after EVERY RENDER!!! i dont have that problem on my mac. home edition costs $200, pro costs $300. dumb. they even made home suck more, it cant even run autocad decently. product activation. i think buying it is enough, i shouldnt have to activate and register with microsoft. activation didnt stop the crackers did it, it only hurts the consumer who actually bought it. what happens if they change their mobo, or add a new harddrive, or what if they want to buy a new computer, they have to buy a new copy of windows. why cant they use the one they already bought, siincec they are not going to use the old computer anymore?? you get shit for software with windows, with linux i get countless quality apps. linux even ships with source code, and the tools to make your own software. even mac ships with developer tools. microsoft paint anybody?? you know, i could go on and on, but im beating a dead horse here. windows sucks.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
but if you think people here have a duty to help you, then think again. with a negative attitude such as yours (not unfriendly, just that you have a habit of putting down people's answers to you) i don't think people will go out of their way that much to be honest.
I do not expect people to answer my questions, although it would maintain the integrity of the site to give me some. Hey, where did I put down a person's answer to my questions? Are you talking about my reply to Tux? Well, let's see what he first said to me:
quote:
Originally posted by Tux:You're either lucky or stupid. I'm not gonna tell you how bad your windows is, i'm not gonna force you to use a new OS. But when windows screws up on you, please, please don't come crying to us.
This reply does not answer my questions, nor does it give me friendly advice. I stand by my decision to disregard, or as you said, "[put] down people's answers to you", at least in this case. However, you said I have a habit of it and since at the time of your posting I had only replied to two people, I shall assume you think I was also putting down Refalm's answer. I was not; the questions I asked about the Application Layer Gateway still stand, regardless of whether I have it disabled or not. How is asking more questions about a reply putting it down or disregarding it?
EDIT: PS- Thanks for the responses guys. I will have to look over my debian boot and see if it is worth making it my only OS.
EDIT: PPS- Thanks for changing my thread topic, Calum.
[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Electric Jaguar ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Electric Jaguar:
This reply does not answer my questions, nor does it give me friendly advice. I stand by my decision to disregard, or as you said, "[put] down people's answers to you", at least in this case. However, you said I have a habit of it and since at the time of your posting I had only replied to two people, I shall assume you think I was also putting down Refalm's answer. I was not; the questions I asked about the Application Layer Gateway still stand, regardless of whether I have it disabled or not. How is asking more questions about a reply putting it down or disregarding it?
EDIT: PS- Thanks for the responses guys. I will have to look over my debian boot and see if it is worth making it my only OS.
EDIT: PPS- Thanks for changing my thread topic, Calum.
[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Electric Jaguar ]
I tried to stand on the fence, but maybe my Linux geek communication skills aren't comptible with your '1337' proprietory windows comprehension skills.
Maybe it was a bad post, I don't know and to tell the truth I don't give a shit :D
Yeah you should make Debian your only OS, once you make that step you really notice where windows was screwing you.
-
EJ asked a valid question and deserves an accurate response.
The first thing that really bugged me about XP was product activation. I had a copy of win2K that could do everything XP could, but didn't require activation. All XP offers over win2K is a flashy GUIDispite this, XP costs twice what win2K does. Why would someone upgrade, what would the motivation be? I couldn't think of a good reason at all to spend money for somehting that offers me almost nothing, and trys to limit what I do. That is not innovation, that is abuse of monopoly powers, such a product would never have sold had M$ not already had 90%+ market share.
This web page (http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm) describes what XP is all about in detail. Its very good, if you have time, I suggest you take a look at it.
As far as the quality of OS goes. XP is good compared to win98, but linux does beat it. Linux runs faster and on computers with lower specs. You have a helluva lot more control of the going ons with Linux than windowsXP. While XP rarely crashes, it does crash, I've heard of it. It also dosn't run well for a long period of time according to many. Linux does not have these problems. Linux is more secure, the list goes on. I don't want to repeat whats been said above, but the points I have read are very valid.
V
-
Here is what I have been thinking about XP. There is good reasons against it, but they don't answer the most basic questions that appeal to the less enlightened users.
Spyware-What if the user isn't really concerned at the moment about invasion of privacy. Not everyone is super paranoid/uses their comp for undesirable purposes.
Paving the way for DRM-Problem is, this won't affect users for quite sometime. Im sure there is plenty of people who can notice when shit really hits the fan, and jump ship.
Activation-Suppose you are a pirate(so many windows users are), activation doesn't affect you.
These are three major reasons, im sure there are others. This is what should be answered:
Speed-If XP runs good on a modern system, would an older Windows run better due to the lower requirements?(on the same modern system of course) Remember it is not just the GUI, consider programs and multi-tasking.
Stability-Is it really more stable on average then the the past Windows? If it is, there are systems(hardware configurations) that are "Windows cursed", which throw this stability out the window. With older Windows, were there less "cursed" systems?
Longetivity-Basically, how long before something fucks up beyond repair, whether it is the registry, or something else. Does XP suffer more from longetivity problems then older Windows? Does it last longer? Does it last longer?
Security(probably not a major reason to the common folk, but still more relevant then some reasons)-Is XP security worse then the past windows? Is it more secure, just has crappy default security settings?
Now for these 4 aspects of Windows, how does XP compare to 2K, ME, 98, and 95.
-
quote:
Activation-Suppose you are a pirate(so many windows users are), activation doesn't affect you.
Please, activation only hurts legitimate users, not pirates. Pirates can just download the corp. edition without activation and use the Bluelist CD-key generator. I did it and it was easy as pie. On the other hand when I bought XP for the new computer I was building I installed it on my old computer as kind of a "test drive." When I finally got all of the parts together and built my new PC, I uninstalled XP from the old computer and went to install it on the new one, but it wouldn't let me. I had to "prove" to M$ first that I wasn't pirating their software. I had to call tech support (wasting more of my time and money) and after being transferred around and given 32 different numbers to call I finally found someone who gave me a 40 digit code over the phone line that reset WPA on my copy of Windows. Bleeagh.
-
for me xp was slower, even after i setup* histerical laugh* xp to run as fast as it could. i did uninstall everything i could, including IE. funny thing tho xp said it wasnt on my hd but if i clicked a link in mirc, IE would open.* strange?*
i had to upgrade some hardware which is pure bs.
also i never trusted it. how can you m$ has lied so many times about so many things. i am constantly looking for funerabilities on the net, even tho m$ say's everything's fine and safe.
i found win 2k is the same os but with less fluff.
after looking into various linux distro's ive found that all of win products are incredibly lacking in tools to use for the comp. oh as for stability, i need to reboot both 2k and xp all the time because of bad memory managemnt.
ive also found that my bandwidth in win. is 280KB down but in linux its 400KB.
also in the linux distro's ive found they were a breeze to install, with win. i have to have at least 3 cd's of drivers close by or im screwed.
just my opiions :rolleyes:
-
There are countless things wrong with Windows, like for instance:
1. Windows was, is and will remain closed source which in turn means that you have no real control over your OS eg you can't customize it and bring it closer to your needs.
2. Everything is integrated into the OS and I mean everything, from IE to MSN messenger and from Media Player to Movie Maker which leaves you with no fuckin choice at all. For example, what would you do if you were low on hard disk space but still wanted to install, let's say, another brower? The answer is nothing, since you can't remove IE or any other app that comes with Windows.
3. Lack of security. When you buy a Windows machine, you have to buy half of Symantec's or other vendors security software, just to feel that you're secure (which is most of the times just an illusion).
4. Lack of support. Bugs in Windows are usually patched months or even years after they are discovered (not by M$ most of the times).
5. Poorly-designed GUI, a cheap OS X rip-off.
6. Lack of stability, mostly due to the Explorer's integration with the OS and also from poorly-designed third-party drivers etc.
Those are only a few examples of why Windows sucks. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Doctor V:
EJ asked a valid question and deserves an accurate response.
The first thing that really bugged me about XP was product activation. I had a copy of win2K that could do everything XP could, but didn't require activation. All XP offers over win2K is a flashy GUIDispite this, XP costs twice what win2K does. Why would someone upgrade, what would the motivation be? I couldn't think of a good reason at all to spend money for somehting that offers me almost nothing, and trys to limit what I do. That is not innovation, that is abuse of monopoly powers, such a product would never have sold had M$ not already had 90%+ market share.
This web page (http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm) describes what XP is all about in detail. Its very good, if you have time, I suggest you take a look at it.
As far as the quality of OS goes. XP is good compared to win98, but linux does beat it. Linux runs faster and on computers with lower specs. You have a helluva lot more control of the going ons with Linux than windowsXP. While XP rarely crashes, it does crash, I've heard of it. It also dosn't run well for a long period of time according to many. Linux does not have these problems. Linux is more secure, the list goes on. I don't want to repeat whats been said above, but the points I have read are very valid.
V
Heh well not here (in AUS) where on average Windows 2000 costs $50 - $150 more than Windows XP Professional. Weird micro$$$ft marketing scheme.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Electric Jaguar:
I don't see what's wrong with my Windows XP Professional. I've tweaked it and removed all spyware. It *never* crashes on its own. It is either some fault of my own or another program that crashes. A fresh boot of Windows XP leaves a memory footprint of about 56000 KB.
So what's so bad about Windows XP? I don't want to hear about what's so bad about Microsoft (http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com/content/whatsbad.shtml).
[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Electric Jaguar ]
[edit - title changed - You'll get more answers if you have descriptive titles - Calum]
[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
Here is an idea. Later on, remove your network interface card from your Windows XP box, then start it up. Guess what, it now will not work. Then if you want XP to work again you must call up MS and ask permission. If it is 2 am when you do this, dont expect to have your computer working for another 6 hours.
-
A large portion of us hate Microsoft because their software is shit. Another large portion of us hate M$ for their fucked-up business practices. For most of us though, its BOTH.
-
What's so bad about WinXP? Hmmmm, that's a tough one. It's what finally pushed me to Linux. Oh, wait, check out this poor bastard's lament from the WindowsBBS site.
http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12260 (http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12260)
Yeah I still go there, occasionally try to give assistance, but mostly laugh at the poor lost windroids still stuck in windows hell. And since my advice is generally fixing Windows from DOS, I get a whole lot of "huh?'s" and "what?'s" and etc.
Poor lost little "point and clickers"....
Jim
[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: DOSman ]
-
Jeez, that's quite a story. That poor slob doesn't stand a chance.
-
quote:
Originally posted by HibbeeBoy:
Jeez, that's quite a story. That poor slob doesn't stand a chance.
My lord. I have never EVER had that sort of lack of control with my Mac in my entire life!
Come to think of it, now that I have been running my RedHat PC for a few weeks, i have never felt more IN controll.
Win98SE has fucked up over and over and over and over, and it's a reletively clean install. Pathetic...
Why can't Apple just make OS's, the world would be a much better place if all computers could run OSX and Darwin.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Electric Jaguar:
I don't see what's wrong with my Windows XP Professional. I've tweaked it and removed all spyware. It *never* crashes on its own. It is either some fault of my own or another program that crashes. A fresh boot of Windows XP leaves a memory footprint of about 56000 KB.
So what's so bad about Windows XP? I don't want to hear about what's so bad about Microsoft (http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com/content/whatsbad.shtml).
[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Electric Jaguar ]
[edit - title changed - You'll get more answers if you have descriptive titles - Calum]
[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
If you dont think something is wrong, then why are you here?
If i bought a new stero, and i liked it. it's great with no problem. would i go out and find a website where people dont like it and tell them that mine is good and what's wrong with mine? I wouldn't. perhaps that's because i have more common sense than you, or perhaps you just need to find something to fulfill your lack of life by coming here.
I'm not meaning to insult you, i'm just trying to understand.
-
quote:
If you dont think something is wrong, then why are you here?
yeah! fuck off! (http://smile.gif)
quote:
I'm not meaning to insult you, i'm just trying to understand.
oh, uh... yeah, me neither, have a nice day! (http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif)
also:
quote:
What's so bad about WinXP? Hmmmm, that's a tough one. It's what finally pushed me to Linux. Oh, wait, check out this poor bastard's lament from the WindowsBBS site.
]http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12260
(http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12260[/QUOTE)
why does this guy persist? he seems sensible, but he continues to throw good money after bad for a problem that, lets face it, will never be fixed.
would somebody who actually posts on that board reply to him so he can come to this thread and see what we thing please?
[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
-
[ they even made home suck more, it cant even run autocad decently. product activation. ]
I'm trying to learn all I can about this OS thing, but for the moment, I have a question about AutoCADD. I have the student edition and I just upgraded my computer to a P4. Someone told me AC was a memory hog but it seems to work more or less ok so far with this new machine. Anyway, to get to the point, would Linux run AC better? If so, how would someone as clueless about OS as I am go about learning enough to install and use it?
:confused:
-
if it is distributed as a windows binary (most windows programs are, and i think *all* that cost money are) then it will not run on linux *at all* unless you use a dodgy third party conversion thing such as WINE or WINEX.
I don't know if linux binaries have been released. Maybe some other program has been released for linux that does the same job? If i were you i would start a new topic about this and ask people about it as this post is just going to get buried quickly.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
if it is distributed as a windows binary (most windows programs are, and i think *all* that cost money are) then it will not run on linux *at all* unless you use a dodgy third party conversion thing such as WINE or WINEX.
I don't know if linux binaries have been released. Maybe some other program has been released for linux that does the same job? If i were you i would start a new topic about this and ask people about it as this post is just going to get buried quickly.
OK, I'll do that. I appreciate the answer. I kinda figured that this was the case :(
-
If you have XP, and look around in the system files you will see that it actually says NT 5.1 Also, if you have XP when you are on the web, the information that the web sites that you visit see when you are connected show that you are using NT 5.1
Neuro7
-
quote:
if it is distributed as a windows binary (most windows programs are, and i think *all* that cost money are) then it will not run on linux *at all* unless you use a dodgy third party conversion thing such as WINE or WINEX.
Dodgy? Are you sure you aren't one of those anti-wine advocates, and are letting your ideoglogy corrupt your vision? Maybe you aren't, but I can't remember a whole lot about anyone here. (http://smile.gif)
I have no WINE experience, but it sounds like alot of people like it, even if it is not perfect.
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:
Why can't Apple just make OS's, the world would be a much better place if all computers could run OSX and Darwin.
You know what, it would not be a better place. It would be a better place if we had a lot of viable options for everyday computing. In much of this world, if you dont use windows, or at least macs, you dont exist.
-
i use XP.....it's stable but it's slower than fuck. when i turn my computer on it's about 5 minutes from the time i hit the switch to the time it's a usable computer. during that 5 minutes, about 1 minute is getting into Windows itself and the other 4 minutes is loading all the shit with the system such as MySQL (not starting any databases inside it, just starting the service), ICQ loading, MSN loading (in XP, it forces itself to load all the time) and that's about all. the huge slowness problem is from the hard drive, Windows is so disorganized that the hard drive just goes nuts trying to start a program up such as mozilla, photoshop elements (it's a low budget version of photoshop that came with my scanner) or even 1st Page 2000 (great HTML editor).
my mouse just goes fucking crazy from time to time, moving the mouse down makes it click both the buttons and move all over the place, i found it that it's the OS, not the mouse. while playing the game Half-Life in dev mode (all console stuff is shown in top left of screen), when the mouse goes fucked it will say hundreds of lines of "mouse3 is not bound" meaning that the mouse' tantrum is trying to hit mouse3.... problem is, my mouse only has 2 buttons and no wheel! it's a Microsoft mouse btw.
-
Sounds like you need a dif mouse. My A4 started doing that and I just replaced it. Notihng wrong now.
-
i used this mouse on Linux no more than a month ago, no problems at all. it's just on windows that it has a problem :(
-
Re-install? (http://smile.gif)
-
whats wrong with wxp? and the whole lot of windows, and to some extent macos.
it is artificial limitations, like not supporting stuff, and needing drivers for specific cd-burners/*hmm, generic-mmc???? betcha you don't have anything quite as nice as that*/ and apple locking appz from using non-superdrive's. however, with the free unix's, the only limitations are those of the hardware kind
-
I think average users like XP because they are lazy and want everything done for them.
Besides runing linux I have XP installed just to play games and I get every week new security releases. If you like being hacked and want computer viruses to destroy your valuable information then XP it's the right OS for you.
XP stands for "eXtra Problems".
-
ok guys lets show some incentive at why xp sucks!! ok Electric Jaguar, you are in luck, for i am using winbloze xp right now, for i am not at home. first:
quote:
It *never* crashes on its own. It is either some fault of my own or another program that crashes.
Yes, XP is pretty stable but you say it's either your fault or another program that crashes. if in this you mean that when a program crashes you have trouble getting your system to become stable, or in this you are saying that xp crashes because of programs, that is something wrong with xp. on my linux box when an app crashes or freezes, i simply press win+del and click the frozen window and the app ends, no slow down or anything. Also, linux and other alternatives never come with spyware to begin with.
ok now, here is my reasons i hate winblows xp.
security
problems like the winblows xp help center hole should not exist at all. this is so stupid that i seriously doubt microsoft is spending any money on programmers and just hiring chimpanzees. the ability to delete files on a computer should NOT be given to the help center anyway!
patches
the majority of the problems fixed by patches, service packs, and other forms of winblows updates should not exist at all in a major release of the os. this stuff should be fixed before the os comes out. i guess i can't compare linux and windows because one is oss and one is commercial but i can compare mac's and windows. i have seen very few major security holes for MacOS <= 9. I *shouldnt* really compare MacOS X and winbloze because darwin is open source but i will. i have seen no major security holes (but i dont really watch that keenly).
inconsistent ui
this exists throughout all winblows versions. things like moving files and folders are inconsistent. Dragging from the quick launch toolbar to the desktop moves a file, while dragging a file from the start menu to the desktop copies a file. btw, shortcuts are limited, nothing like sym links in linux, which represent the actual file in every way, not just in windows components. in this i mean (im not sure correct me if im wrong) when you specifically fopen c:\somedir\shortcut or c:\somedir\shortcut.lnk in a c/c++ program, it will open the actual shortcut file and read it, not the file it points to.
i like netscape
when im on winbloze i like netscape, and never use explorer. why can't i get rid of it? there is no internet explorer entry in add/remove programs, i know winblows doesnt need it, it uses explorer.exe for file management and shell stuff not iexplore.exe. the only way to remove it is to go into the hdd and delete the files, and there is still dependencies on the desktop (on the plus side xp lets me take off the button from the desktop)
why all the patches in the add/remove programs?
speaking of add/remove programs, when i look at the program list there are about 20 Windows XP Hotfix (SP1) entries that mean nothing to me. These aren't programs! it would make much more sense to put these in the windows update active x thing.
why is it add/remove programs?
i never see an option to add a program in that dialog. When i remove an application, it does not give me an option to add it again at a later date.
windows messenger
windows has trouble realizing the user hates windows messenger. it starts it a lot for no apparent reason, even after i have told it not to in the win messenger options.
search feature
search feature requires too much interaction first of all, if i want to find a file im not going to sit there and talk to the dog and tell it what to do as it explains worthless features to me. also the search feature is notoriously buggy.
where do i make boot disks?
i can't find the place to make a boot disk! i looked in help and support which leads me to
help and support
right when i entered the help and support program i noticed this:
Did you know?
When you are connected to the Internet, this area will display links to timely help and support information. If you want to connect to the Internet now, start the New Connection Wizard and see how to establish a Web connection through an Internet service provider.
I *am* connected to the internet through a cable modem, which XP acknowledges promptly. why doesnt help center know this??
Anyway now im in help center and i see all these categories of tasks that i can learn about. System Admistration sounds like it would know how to make a bootdisk... nope. i looked in all categories that would make any sense at all having bootdisk tutorials. Heh, i find it pathetic to need a tutorial to make a bootdisk... I looked all over the place in help center to no avail. if xp has no boot disk support (which i am almost *sure* i remember from when i owned xp before i sought rehabilitation through slackware) shouldnt it have an entry explaining why it isnt there and other options available to make sure i can boot xp??
the lack of always on top
for this reason i find it hard to use winbloze after using KDE for weeks. I cannot make a window i need 'always on top' over other windows, unless the program provides such functionality, and the only program i can think of that does is winamp.
the lack of good features in general
now that i think about it, if microsoft wants to play the ui features game, linux and other competitors have already won. For instance, some features KDE has over windows explorer shell:
-multiple desktops
-always on top
-sticky windows
-themability that is actually open (microsoft doesnt want ppl to make themes for xp)
-boot disk creation (http://smile.gif)
-ability to have your own window manager button setup (i.e. able to move the buttons on the top of the window to the way you prefer them)
-ability to have MANY more applets on the KDE taskbar then windows.
-ability to have a macos style menu bar.
-ability to instantly close any app thats frozen, without having to open the ctrl+alt+del box (which kde has btw) and find the proper process name. (win+del or ctrl+win+del)
-when items are too long on taskbar, title is gradually faded out.
and about the features that you winbloze zombies think xp has over kde and other microsoft ui competitors: kde DOES have transparency, fading menus, animated actions etc. All that is already put in. The one thing id like to see in kde (and x11 environments in general) is the cursor shadows.
the lack of freedom
if i want a different look in linux i will open up gnome... or xcfe... or fvwm, or icewm, or twm etc etc etc etc the list goes on and on, there is a HUGE list of window managers and desktop environments available for linux and unix. in macos i wouldnt want to have a different look, it's so beautiful already (http://smile.gif)
i could probably think of more but this post is huge and im getting bored.
-
well done! you are the first person who has seriously been arsed to write this response! i might even make this a FAQ question now a long enough answer has been posted! is it okay if i quote you?
-
certainly! and i have more after getting through half of that 'why i hate microsoft' paper
the lies of microsoft
"Windows XP is completely 32-bit.". bull shit. Windows XP is based on NT, which includes code from DOS. Yes, it does. And no, microshit hasn't taken it out all the way through XP. Under the hood, there is still quite a bit of 16 bit code.
In fact, as almost everyone knows, Microsoft purchased a product called QDOS from Seattle Computing Products when IBM needed an OS for their personal computer. They renamed it PCDOS, later MSDOS, in which DOS stands for Disk Operating System. HOWEVER! QDOS, as it was created and named by SCP stands for Quick and Dirty Operating System. Apparently, although not proven, code was stolen from the CP/M operating system! That could mean that Microsoft's monopoly is based on a crime!
quote:
"Windows [n.]
A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition."
(Anonymous USEnet post)
BTW has anyone made it through that whole article?? Im halfway through so far. After that i plan to study the Halloween documents (http://smile.gif)
FUCK MICROSOFT. And yes, it's personal.