Why do you hate Windows XP

[slave]

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?

[choasforages]

quote: Windows XP is basically just Windows NT 5.1

notice the word basically, windows xp is the only OS i know of that can lock you out of it. the reason i hate it is becuase it deoisnt' like samba too much  :mad:  and i had to jump through flaming hopes to get my friends network to work .

P.S
it's not the only reason, its just the one i am pissed off about right now there are many more

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: choasforages ]

[markdcc]

Hey Gates XPee Drinker #5225982375:
I have read alot of your posts, and I'm sorry to say, not one has posed even a decent argument for running XP.  You ask all the questions, but never answer the ones asked of you.  Have you ever even seen a Linux box in action, much less logged in and rooted your friends NT box with it.  Yes linux isn't as easy to use as some other crap OSs, and granted you probably couldn't get past the Login: prompt, but when you can do a real comparison go ahead and tell us what you think.... You'll probably join us.

[choasforages]

sad but true, one of my friends tryed linux then hated it for a while, then he tried it with an open mind and found out that windows doesn't stack up to the advanced features of unix

[Master of Reality]

I didnt like Linux very much at first (a couple years ago) and then switched back to windows. But windows was absolutly horrible and kept getting me more pissed off, and i tried Linux again and noticed that it looked a lot better than last time. And now that I have started using Linux again just as KDE 3.0 came out, it is amazing compared to... any OS.

[Master of Reality]

oh yeah... what i hate about XPiss is that it will contact MS all the time and it locks you out. It doesnt look nearly as good as KDE 3.0. There is always the consideration about it being made by a vicious monopoly. It is no where near as powerful as Linux and as a cant really comment on its stability i am still sure that it isnt as stable as Linux.

[voidmain]

I have a better question. Why is it that XP Luser is still hanging around here?  I swear he's gum on the bottom of my shoe. He has yet to convert one single person from *any* other OS to XP, yet hoards are making the switch from XP and every other M$ product to either Linux or Mac. Hmmmm, could it be that XP really sucks?  I think so...

[slave]

Most people switch from XP for "moral" reasons, not because the OS pisses them off or anything.

[Master of Reality]

I think everyone is switching to Linux (and mac) because they are slow, bloated, take way too much resources. Fuck the resource and HD space usage is bad... I mean it hardly fit on my 137 MB hard drive and it almost takes up half of my 16 MB of RAM.

[slave]

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.

[Master of Reality]

KDE 3.0 works just great on Red Hat 7.2 on my 200 MHZ 80MB RAM machine

[slave]

How can you say that?!?! what the hell did you do to get it to run decently on 200 mhz??  It crawled so bad on my "old" 233 mhz/ 64 mb ram machine that it was a joke; it was like playing quake on a 486 and watching it move at 1 fps.

[choasforages]

all i have to say is that kde 3.0 ran very nicely on my thinkpad-600 laptop /*it is now one  of my three webservers*/, which by the way is a 266 machine, it has 192 megs of ram and can do many things at once, besides on a 15 inch monitor that pulls 640x480 at 8 bit color, how am i going to notice anit-aliased fonts, the one thing about kde that may be slow is the konsole, try using rxvt instead

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: choasforages ]

[markdcc]

Really, If look and feel is that important then you need a slightly faster machine.  I used to run Afterstep on my K5 100 w/ 32 megs of RAM, and it ran way faster than win95 and looked killer.  You can still turn off all the animations and cool graphics in KDE just like in XP.  And you can do that well below the bottom line requirements to run XP... Ok M$ says that it will run on a 233, but i'd like to see anyone do anything productive on it.

[slave]

Eh, turning off all the detail in KDE didn't seem to speed it up much for me.  Programs that don't use the QT framework run pretty decently on an old computer (GIMP, Xterm, etc.) but when you take the already bloated X and add something like KDE to that you incur a huge performance hit.