All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Why do you hate Windows XP
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 ]
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version