All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Hmm.. 'What's so bad about Windows XP?'
KernelPanic:
quote: You're either lucky or stupid
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version