Why do you hate Windows XP

[markdcc]

And by the way, I don't run XP because of moral reasons AND it pisses me off.  I had to setup a demo SQL server on a new machine that came pre-loaded with XP.  After the activation bullshit, it told me that SQL Server isn't supported under XP Professional. WHY! There is no reason that SQL could not run under XP Pro, only that M$ wants you to buy a more expensive version of windows to run as a DB server.  That pisses me off.  They've also excluded using PCAnywhere or any other non-M$ tool to remotely administer a machine unless both machines are running XP.  Just more of the same shit with M$ forcing me to do something that I don't want to do.

[choasforages]

o, so your telling me that nautlilus runs fast, its part of gnome, i hardly think so, nautlius is slow on anything including my friend's new athlon xp1700, /*xp as in the processor not os*/, well konquerer is quite quick on my laptop

[slave]

I admit nautilus is horse shit.  Konqueror is far, far better than that abomination.

[choasforages]

hehehe,a s for moral issues, i didn't start getting into the moral issue of linux until a year after i started using it. me was da warez biyatch, hehehe, i even had a windows me cd that came up with the serial already in place. i switched cuase linux obeyed me and gave me far more control then windows ever did, and did't crash more

[Scotty]

quote:Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
Of all the things ever despised in these forums, the thing that makes most of you go into the biggest rage is whenever anyone mentions Windows XP.  Why is this?  Why the extreme XP loathing?  Windows XP is basically just Windows NT 5.1, and I've actually heard some of you Microsoft haters praise Windows NT/2000 before.  Furthermore, of all the versions of Windows, Windows XP is the best.  So why does it bear most of the hatred?

Well.. my favourite XP-marketer. Have you replaced the previous guy from m$ dickware that tried to convince us of m$ goodness? Your tone has radically changed and you are even capable of making valid arguments (biased and very far from true.. but still).

Do you try to collect information on to m$ anti-linux campaign?

This time you have even got the names right concerning linux desktop.. Didn't your "linux is inferior software" shit work? And now you try different approach.. more polite and and speaking about the desktop (the only thing in linux that m$ can dream to argue for) I refer to your posts about kde and gnome stuff.

I'll answer for you only once more (your bla bla has taken too much of my time.)

1)      

quote: Why the extreme XP loathing?

The reason: XP is constrictive spyware.

2)      

quote: I've actually heard some of you Microsoft haters praise Windows NT/2000 before.

 
NONE of m$ dickware so called "operation systems" are good! Every windows version has severe flaws and security issues (search the web I won't bother to provide links) The only reason I mentioned NT4 (or dos) is that even unstable crappy NT4 can actually do things better than w2kp or xPiss. (Even shit's colour can vary            )

Don't bother to argue this.. I have given examples and answered for you ad nauseum.

     

quote: Furthermore, of all the versions of Windows, Windows XP is the best.

one question: How you know this is true? What makes you feel this is the case? That phrase isn't a fact like "humans are mortal creatures"

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: SingleMalt ]

[choasforages]

hmmm, on the desktop area, lets compare ximian evolution to outlook. which one is most likey to comprimise your computer....

[Chooco]

linux is frustrating as hell until you get all the commands by buying a $50 book (Canadian dollars) all based on commands (Linux In A Nutshell) then writing down other commands on a sheet of paper such as xinit, tar zxvf, how nice works, how the --prefix command works and so on..
after going to windows i noticed just how slow windows really was. my Celeron 500 boots into KDE in about....30 seconds i'd say, my AthlonXP 1700+ which is hella fast takes about 5 full minutes to boot WinXP Home then stop thinking (i mean when you can actually click on stuff and it pops up immediately instead of waiting 10 seconds before it even starts to load.
another pet peave about Linux is that absolutely NOTHING runs when i just click on it, i NEED to use the console.....it makes me learn very fast but it's a bitch sometimes.. like if i click on a shell script, it does nothing, if i click on an executable, it does nothing. Mandrake 8.0 btw

on a side notes, isn't WinXP supposed to be WinNT 6.0? there was NT4.0 then there was 2000 which was NT5.0 and now XP which is NT6.0
that's what i heard anyway

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Chooco ]

[Calum]

no it's NT 5.1

This thread is thick as mince. I don't hate XP, as i have never used it, although i do disapprove of it since it is more a marketting tool than a computer one.

At least topics like this keep XP Loser in his own threads with his moronic arguments and the huge number of irritated responses he generates.

[badkarma]

why I dislike xp?

1. WPA
2. M$'s EULA
3. irq steering
4. nagging for updates
5. uninstallable middleware
6. it sucks with old DOS games
7. poor performance with games (see point 3)
8. poor security
9. The way it treats you like a complete idiot

edit:

then again, point 9 would be in xp luser's advantage

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: BadKarma ]

[choasforages]

how does this forum attract people like this, it makes me wonder

[iustitia]

Actually I don't see why XP is so bad either, except for the bloat and the fact that that it wasn't much of an upgrade from 2k. Oh yeah, I hate not having dos also, stupid emulater doesn't cut it.  But it's a hell of a lot better than 9x in terms of security, and ease of use.

[preacher]

Simply put, I do not like Windows XP because I like having total control, and XP doesnt allow that.

[iustitia]

quote:Originally posted by BadKarma:

9. The way it treats you like a complete idiot

edit:

then again, point 9 would be in xp luser's advantage

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: BadKarma ]

Windows XP does treat you like a complete idiot.  However, I think people must understand that in order to eradicate M$, you must make another OS also idiot proof.  I mean, windows takes a lot of heat from power users for putting their regedit.exe in places hard to find, but can you imagine the damage a single idiot could do by deleting HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE?  And then, much to the suprise of people like me and probally you, he would complain to M$ that they make it to easy to fuck up his system.  Linux is supremly easy to fuck up if youre logged in as root.  I mean, just imagine someone deleting some config file or something, or maybe compiling an older version of a program in such a way that it will not work.  

Imagine one of those idiots on a linux system.  I didnt have too much trouble setting up grub for dual boot, but it was sort of a pain.  Imagine one of those idiots to which M$ caters trying to set up grub.  Also, redhat has this automounting system, (I dont think its conventional automount though).  If the user did get a different distro however, I cant imagine them setting up automount all by themselfs,  In fact, many programs require a considerable amount of configuring before they are used.  One of the easiest ways to set up a program is to ./config make, make install, and that requires the console!  The user hasnt required the DOS console since M$ win98 came out.  Could you imagine their relucance to use the console.
 
Some people argue otherwize.  I have heard of an example of an old couple that used Linux computer, and then whenever there was a problem they would get hs grandson, or son I forget which, to ssh.  But lets face it, people wont always have someone we trust to ssh into their system to fix everything.

RedHat has taken some steps to idiotproof their systems.  Somethings include RPMs, and the default alias of rm as rm -i, also the automount they seem to have, and numberous GUI adaptations of things like chgrp.  Their manuals which dont seem to be directed toward computer programmers.

They have also taken steps to ease the instalation process.  Some of these steps include something similar to plug and play.  I can imagine the avrage user installing an OS w/o something similar to plug and play.  So, in short, a major reason that linux will probally never catch on to the desktop market is that it in fact doesnt treat you like an idiot.  

sorry about the quotation marks, deadkeys isnt working again

edit: added some things, paragraphed everything so it didnt look like one block

                                -Justice

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: iustitia ]

[Chooco]

that's the sad part about this whole thing, most people are stupid and Windows is for stupid people. sort of like the government isn't it? stupid people run the country.

can't wait for the smart people to take over the world and become a utopia where we are smart enough to solve a ton of problems without stupid people getting in the way  

[Lloydr]

quote:Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
Yeah right, maybe you can run a text shell of Debian under those specs... get real, KDE won't work properly on anything under 600 mhz.  The average Linux distribution takes up over 2 gigs of space as well.  Windows XP "looks" like it takes up a lot, but if you disable system restore and decrease the swap space it really doesn't take up that much.

u got that wrong BUB!!!! I've got many of systems running linux redhat 7.3 without 600mhz.....matter of fact right now i've got a Inel P3 450mhz with less than a 1gig hdd that linux is installed on(full server install) then it serves 192 webpages, an ftp server, and a mail server with it's 120gb hdd mounted in linux.....although it does have 512mb ram.....also have an original all intel chipset and intel pentium (original) 50mhz with 16mb ram and just shy of 1gb hdd with a second hdd with 4gb(an old computer i use to show what linux can even do without newest technology)the 2nd hdd is practically empty with maybe 20mb taken up....linux can run on anything u put it on.....everything i have running has Linux Redhat 7.3 Server full installation...also got high end systems running redhat apache and oracle9i servers......LINUX CAN DO IT ALL!!! and do it fast! and do it with complete stability! UNLIKE WINBLOWS XPos!!!!!!!!! winxp user, you are a F-in dumbass!!!! u don't know what your talking about! how much system experience have u had? and how much of that has been with UNIX/LINUX systems??? probaly like 2 weeks for a system and 0seconds with linux/unix??? right? LMFAO dumbass!!! lata