Hmm.. 'What's so bad about Windows XP?'

[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.

[ 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 ]

[Refalm]

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.

[KernelPanic]

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.

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.

[Electric Jaguar]

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  

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Electric Jaguar ]

[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.

[KernelPanic]

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...

[Calum]

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.

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.

[lazygamer]

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?!  

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.  

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.  

[pkd_lives]

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.

[slave]

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.

[xyle_one]

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.

[Electric Jaguar]

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 ]

[KernelPanic]

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  

Yeah you should make Debian your only OS, once you make that step you really notice where windows was screwing you.

[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 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

[lazygamer]

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.