Why do you hate Windows XP

[KernelPanic]

Win NT/2K is the most *nix like OS that Microsoft are knocking about at the moment. That is why is is the 'least hated'.
Win XP is Win2K loaded with loads of shite, spyware, bugs, help for dummies, and it needs a hefty system just to run its ugly GUI that seems to be designed for people with crap vision and mouse control that would miss stuff on screen if everything wasn't so massive.All of microsofts 'crapware' like IE and Media Player is linked too closely into the OS and eXtraPants just generally suxx.


It only has one good(ish) point and that is microsoft have finally reunited thier core.


Opera

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: * Tux * ]

[PintClock]

Windows XP is horrible.

You think it doesn't crash - think again.

[Gooseberry Clock]

[Gooseberry Clock]

Seems Barrack doesn't like ACTION GoMac.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: * Red Ranger Software * ]

[Gooseberry Clock]

And here's the director's cut:

[Refalm]

Gee, copying Mac OS 9 dialogs and changing them...

Your pethetic man... idiot...

("Aaack". Totally realistic *NOT*)

[hoojchoons]

First of all, do not compare Win2k with Windoze XP. Although, they both seem to rely on the same (more or less) kernel, the latter has been so much tampered with, in order to be more user friendly than some of the previous NT versions, that you can't really call it NT any more. By that, I'm simply saying that M$ tried to bundle the Win32 API into the NT kernel to make it much more user friendly (yak!).

[MS_detainee]

Actually, i like windows XP. The thing is, the stupid cd is ridiculously expensive. In order for a clean install(the method that works best) of XP home edition, i would have to pay $200 and an additional $100 for the "pro" version which is EXACTLY the same. Normally i would just obtain a compatible serial# from some site and a Windows cd from a friend (i've paid M$ enough in oems, keyboards, software, games, etc. for this to be justified) but Xp's stringent registration process cannot be passed. Regardless of XP's merits, the fact remains that the OS is costly and overrated. A few years ago this would not be a valid reply as macs were not fully compatible and linux distros were for techies, but the times have changed and it is becoming ever more apparent that windows is lacking. Why should i pay an additional 100 dollars for XP pro when Redhat's pro edition is an actual PRO OS, including additional documentation and cd's. Also, XP's user friendly advantage is no longer an issue now that the Lycoris desktop/lx release is imminent.

[Bazoukas]

We have in one computers WIndows XP at my work and I installed XP at a friend's computer.

why i hate XP?

a) The activation shit. If i payt for something I own it. PERIOD. I dont need to pay more if i wanna install it on my second PC.

b) The fact that it does not give me total control. When XP doesnt agree with you, thats the end of the story. You dont have much say.

c) The look and functionality of XP is pure copycat from KDE-Gnome and Macs. The feel of IE is stolen from Galeon and such other borwsers. The taskbar also is a copycat from Linux and Macs.

d) Overpriced and no need for it in the market. Win2k does a much better job than XP.

e) I dont want the FUCKING thing chasing my ass like a horny bitch, asking me to sing in for a.NET passport all the time.
 
 Thats about it.

 I mainly use Linux (RH and Mandrake) and FreeBSD.  When i wanna play a game i go to WIN98.

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: bazoukas ]

[smokey]

Even my mum who is fairly computer illiterate knows how dodgy and unreliable Microsoft products are (Especially window$)

[lazygamer]

I am running a version of XP that is the corporate version and is a very late beta. As such it doesn't seem to have XP's stupid stuff like this talking animation you can't get rid of, or that "call microsoft" stuff. Could anyone fill me in more on this version? I got it off my Brother.  

 

quote: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

This will never happen. The vast majority of the people in the world are stupid. Majority rules. Even if the governments rule such vast amounts of people, the majority still reigns in the 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

Im curious, how does Linux run on a 286? Anyone tried?  

Oh and XP user, I think your full of shit. However if your telling the truth of Linux running that badly, logic would suggest to try it all over again on another computer. You can't argue with all these diffrent Linux versions available(if Linux was a fucked up source, no one would bother making it better) and all these people backing up it's performance, then what you say is an isolated incident... or a lie.

[Lloydr]

when we put the i386 version of redhat 7.3 on the intel pentium 50....it jus left it under i386....it ddin't change it down to i286 or nothin but it works....jus slower than anything new we got LMFAO but who can argue...it works and is stable lol...and all our other systems runnin redhat just configure themselver up to i686 and run just fine also.....so far we haven't had a single reject out of the systems we've tried with redhat 7.3 lata

[voidmain]

Why would it change it down to i286?  A Pentium 50 would be an i586. But are you sure it was a Pentium and not a 486?  I don't recall Intel ever producing a 50 Mhz Pentium.  The earliest Pentium I recall was 75 Mhz.  The fastest 80286 ran around 20 Mhz.  80386 was around 16-33Mhz, 80486 went all the way up to 120 Mhz with the DX4.

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]

[Lloydr]

yes it was a pentium....an extremely old pentium....its clocked at 50mhz.... may have been 75 to start but it's running 51mhz right now....buts it's not exactly the hottest or newest processor out there ....it may have lost a bit of clock speed through the years....but it configured itself up to i386.....thats what it's running as....but it's diffenateley a pentium I processor....100% of that...but as of this moment it's clock speed is 51mhz with 1-2mhz range of error......very sluggish but fun to mess around with...lol lata

[neo_x500]

I'm only sixteen, but I know my computer history, the slowest intel processor ever was the original 8086, It ran under 10 mhz, so it was like watching paint dry, it was only an 8bit system, if I remember correctly. IBM used it in the original Pc they desinged. Those ones were real useful, no input except for some BASIC programs you could enter with the handy dandy keyboard, It was great. I think it did use tape storage and some type of floppy drive/ Guess who this was also the beginning for- our friends at microsoft. IBM was looking for an OS to use, a big company turned them down, so they went to some loosers in washington. Microsoft designed (stole) MS-DOS 1.0 for IBM. Then some other companies got in on the action and Microsoft started selling MS-Dos to the public and to other PC companies. IBM eventually fell from compitition, and MS became rich. Thus beginning the shitty, anti compitition, anti piracy company, who used a form of piracy themselves to take over the computer market. It's all IBMs fault, wanna know why? Because they didn't fully licsence DOS for their system, if they had, Microsoft couldn't sell it to anyone else. We could have hacked away the seedling before it became a big fucking weed. My knowledge came from a book, there is no way I could remember all this stuff, This all happened before I was even born. Cool stuff though.

We now continue with XP users question- WIN XP sucks because there is too much spy ware, middleware, and XP has too much control over the system. It craps all over itself if you enter the fucking serial number wrong.

I guess I should watch what I say now that I've given away my age. So from now on I'll watch my fucking mouth, quick, someone get me a mirror.