PDA

View Full Version : Why do people hate XP



Pages : [1] 2

ripkirby
June 5th, 2006, 08:59 AM
Personally, I believe a lot of the people here do not like XP just looking from the posts on the forums. But, I do not see why. XP has been a very good OS for me to use. I have 0 problems using it. The only good reason not to use it is the price.

It seems people are willing to go tweak linux rather than tweak windows and then rant off how windows sucks.

As for viruses, I don't get any. Anti-Virus detects none and that is free too. I don't go off to sites that potentially have viruses.. and why would anyone. (My hardware has firewall and some extra protection anyway... but not everyone has my hardware..)

There are lots of open-source/free applications on XP. Tons of games and applications and as far as I can see the performance is great.

I'm not saying Linux sucks. I'm just asking why is there so much negativity on Windows XP? Not Microsoft and not Vista just windows XP. Vista and Microsoft I can see why people don't like those.

Jammy_Stuff
June 5th, 2006, 09:05 AM
If you haven't had any problems then you may not see why people don't like XP. However, the reality is it is one of the most insecure OSs ever.

dada1958
June 5th, 2006, 09:14 AM
I don't hate Windows XP because I don't have anything to do with it. It becomes another story when I call a store with the question 'can I obtain that laptop without XP license?' Because I'm not going to use it so paying for it would be wasted money. No, that wasn't possible but I could format the hard disk. But I was still paying for that unused license and that makes me mad. I really hate that :confused:
I had that issue last Friday, I said good bye then, I refuse to pay that Microsoft tax so I shopped on the web for another secondhand laptop with an illegal copy of XP on it and Saturday I saw a really bargain, a Compaq Evo N400c. Installation of Dapper Drake was a breeze and I really like that machine...

helpme
June 5th, 2006, 09:28 AM
Did it ever occur to you that other people might have different experiences from yours?

Did it ever occur to you that people have different expectations about what an OS should offer and that XP just doesn't fit their needs.

Personally, I simply get tired of being called by friends and family because their XP is borked.

I don't go off to sites that potentially have viruses.. and why would anyone.
See, personaly I don't like my OS to determine the sites I should avoid.

Finally, why does this come up again and again and again? Seriously, in every other field it's pretty normal that people prefer one product above some other product, only when it comes to OSes people act as if not liking windows somehow borders on the irrational.

FISHERMAN
June 5th, 2006, 09:31 AM
I don't hate XP, it's one of the better OS'from MS.(WinME on the other hand, that was something I hated).
But I do hate the near MS-monopoly, because it means that fewer (game)companies will invest in cross-platform applications(Which basically forces me to dual boot).
As for security: the out-of-the-box security is pretty low on all Windows-versions, but anybody with a minimum of computerknowledge should know how to handle this.

curuxz
June 5th, 2006, 09:31 AM
oh ffs another one of these windoze fan boys who talk complete nonsense about how it works fine, no it does not. i fixed pc's for 2 years i saw poor familys who could not afford their pc fixed and 99999999 times out of 100 the fault was windows, something screwed up something was not working, security flaw this, crashed and damaged the hard drive that. Rarely did I see the users screwing up their own pc most of the time they were just honest hard working people that m$ over charged and then let down.

You love windows go to a windows forum, I dont wana have to read another one of these stupid threads I vote it be jailed or backyarded it has nothing to do with this community and will only annoy people.

bluenova
June 5th, 2006, 09:35 AM
I don't hate XP, as an operating system it works great once you have all the security setup. I don't like the explorer shell, but I used to get rid of that and use Aston shell instead. And I don't like Microsoft in general as a company, and try to stay away from their products now (and that's a challenge in it's self as I have to use their software everyday at work).

Sushi
June 5th, 2006, 09:52 AM
My list of problems with XP:

- It takes ages to boot. Yes, you get the desktop quite fast, but then it still spends ages to load all that background-crap. And you can't actually do anything while it does so

- The default UI is clunky and ugly

- The Control Center has two different look and feels available, making "support by phone" harder than it needs to be, since the two are not "compatible" with each other.

- On the Tablet-edition, the taskbar gets screwed up occasionally. There seems to be something consuming space on the taskbar (you can see the "handles", and you can resize it, but there's nothing there. Hard to explain), so you have space for only one running app in the taskbar

- It's insecure. Yes it is. Sure, you can help Windows out with antivirus and the like. But it's yet another app consuming memory and CPU-cycles.

- Where are the virtual workspaces?

- the default Start-menu is CRAP. It huge and confusing.

- Windows Explorer sometimes mysteriously loses it's network-shares

- Shutting it down hangs on occasion. It can spend minutes showing the "The system is shutting down"

this is coming from someone who supports about 40 XP-workstations, and uses XP to type this message. There is also that general feel of "clunkiness" in XP. things seem to be harder than they need to be. But this is something that I can't point with my finger, so I haven't listed it above.

bluenova
June 5th, 2006, 10:10 AM
My list of problems with XP:

- It takes ages to boot. Yes, you get the desktop quite fast, but then it still spends ages to load all that background-crap. And you can't actually do anything while it does so

- The default UI is clunky and ugly

- The Control Center has two different look and feels available, making "support by phone" harder than it needs to be, since the two are not "compatible" with each other.

- On the Tablet-edition, the taskbar gets screwed up occasionally. There seems to be something consuming space on the taskbar (you can see the "handles", and you can resize it, but there's nothing there. Hard to explain), so you have space for only one running app in the taskbar

- It's insecure. Yes it is. Sure, you can help Windows out with antivirus and the like. But it's yet another app consuming memory and CPU-cycles.

- Where are the virtual workspaces?

- the default Start-menu is CRAP. It huge and confusing.

- Windows Explorer sometimes mysteriously loses it's network-shares

- Shutting it down hangs on occasion. It can spend minutes showing the "The system is shutting down"

this is coming from someone who supports about 40 XP-workstations, and uses XP to type this message. There is also that general feel of "clunkiness" in XP. things seem to be harder than they need to be. But this is something that I can't point with my finger, so I haven't listed it above.
Most of your problems seem to be about the shell rather than the operating system, so just as people who don't like gnome use KDE why not use another shell? I always used Aston shell, it's fast and very customizable, but there are plenty more out there.

Kryptizzle
June 5th, 2006, 10:12 AM
I don't really have a problem with it. I just hate how after you use it for about 6 months or so, the startup gets all clogged up and you need to wait like 10 minutes to do something. Sometimes I had to restart 2-3 times just to do something. Security I guess was a problem. If you're reckless and kinda newbish, you can get screwed over very easily.

MenZa
June 5th, 2006, 10:13 AM
Short answer? I don't. XP is a very nice operating system for certain tasks (Image editing [Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign to name a few], gaming...), for which I also use it.

Sushi
June 5th, 2006, 10:19 AM
Most of your problems seem to be about the shell rather than the operating system

The shell is the thing users use to interact with the OS. To them, the shell IS the OS.


so just as people who don't like gnome use KDE why not use another shell?

Because Windows only supports one shell, explorer.exe, and the alternative shells are just hacks that are not supported by Microsoft? Sure, you could use some other shell, but then we are so deep in hackery that 99.99% of users will NOT do it. And there is ZERO chance you could do something like that in a corporate environment.

And I fail to see how another shell could fix the issue of slow boot-time, disappearing network-shares, viruses and freezing shutdown-process.


I always used Aston shell, it's fast and very customizable, but there are plenty more out there.

Out of curiosity I took a look at Aston. So I would have to pay to fix problems that simply should not exist? ANd can you just IMAGINE the support-headaches if users were running different shells?

sherlock-holmes
June 5th, 2006, 01:33 PM
i dont hate XP....GNU/Linux is just another way to interact with the stupid box and i think i like that better than XP...thats all...

and is free....and its challenging, i can screw up my system and look for solutions and then try to repair..... i can edit important files and play with it...there are tons of things i can install ....etc...

i get help and i can help people in the forum....

tha being said.......if you are curious by nature....

bluenova
June 5th, 2006, 01:40 PM
Because Windows only supports one shell, explorer.exe, and the alternative shells are just hacks that are not supported by Microsoft? Sure, you could use some other shell, but then we are so deep in hackery that 99.99% of users will NOT do it. And there is ZERO chance you could do something like that in a corporate environment.
Sure you have to pay, but then we are talking about proprietary software here not open source. Microsoft only support 1 shell, windows will run whatever (windows) shell you throw as it. There is no hackery about replacing the shell, it's as simple as with Linux if not simpler, you just close explorer.exe and startup what ever shell you want to use, I even had a friend with a cybercafe that made his own.

Sushi
June 5th, 2006, 01:44 PM
There is no hackery about replacing the shell, it's as simple as with Linux if not simpler, you just close explorer.exe and startup what ever shell you want to use, I even had a friend with a cybercafe that made his own.

Well, you have your hackery right there. Closing down explorer.exe is not something you normally do. And you are doing something that is not supported by Microsoft.

egon spengler
June 5th, 2006, 02:08 PM
I don't understand why shutting down explorer.exe constitutes a hack. Ok *most* people won't do it but equally *most* people won't try a different browser, media player or email client but I don't think using opera is a hack.

As far as a preference for gratis software there are several open source shells available for Windows which are completely free in financial cost

Sushi
June 5th, 2006, 02:24 PM
I don't understand why shutting down explorer.exe constitutes a hack. Ok *most* people won't do it but equally *most* people won't try a different browser, media player or email client but I don't think using opera is a hack.

Do you see regural people shutting it down? Do you see regural people replaicing explorer.exe with something else?

Yes, it's a hack. It's something that you are not supposed to do.

bluenova
June 5th, 2006, 02:38 PM
Do you see regural people shutting it down? Do you see regural people replaicing explorer.exe with something else?

Yes, it's a hack. It's something that you are not supposed to do.
I don't think regular users are supposed to edit registry settings either, but for some things it's the only way to do it.

nickle
June 5th, 2006, 02:45 PM
I don't think any piece of software has ever evoked an emotion as strong as hate for me. Irritation, exasperation, despair maybe but not hate...!

I don't have XP so it is not an issue for me. But one of the things that keep me away from XP or other MS operating systems is that they not only charge you for the OS (sometime even when you don't want it!!), but then having bought the product they will charge you again if you change your HD or MB; the latter is completely unacceptable. Over the last years I have changed my system many times, swapping bits and pieces with my kids or friends. Why should I be taxed for this activity?

Also the security thing is real pain in the butt. Many friends of mine have had their systems destroyed or have had to get expensive repairs due to virus and worm problems. With Linux I have never had such problems and I do not think in advance whether I should use a particular site or not!! I agree that much of this stuff can be avoided in MS if you have a subscription to a good security package and are a bit careful about where you go (but hey tell that to my kids!!!). However that is all extra expense on top of an already expensive software package. Surely, given the fact that MS is one of the biggest corporations in the world, it should be able to deliver an OS that is at least as secure as linux or OSX...??

jc87
June 5th, 2006, 02:52 PM
I hate XP because donīt work for me the way i want :

A) I hate always having to double-click something to install , for me using apt-get with CLI or with add/remove programs , or synaptic is just better , i personally cant stand double-click anymore!

B) Anti-vírus , i keep my OS updated , i donīt install stuff i donīt Thrust , why the hell i still need a AV? Another thing i hate at XP

C) Defrag? loosing hours of my life just so my hard-drive will remain as fast as it was before? and XP defragger sucks you have to get a better one:???:

D) Pop-ups , Windows is all annoying me with pop-ups , being because i plugged hardware , because it got few disk space , etc... with Ubuntu i can just disable all pop-ups i donīt want without a fuss.

E) Drivers , with Windows i have to install a bunch of drivers and sometimes comes bundled a lot of crapware i donīt want , with Ubuntu i only have to install the GPU (Radeon 9250) drivers , the rest all work OUT OF THE BOX .

F) I love Gnome

G) With Windows i donīt have real control over my pc , with Ubuntu i feel the sky is the limit!

H) I hate M$ monopolistic tactics!

Ubuntu just works for me in ways that Xp donīt , at the moment i still dual-boot both OSīs ( Ubuntu for anykind of work , XP for gaming only).

Sushi
June 5th, 2006, 02:52 PM
I don't think regular users are supposed to edit registry settings either, but for some things it's the only way to do it.

Since Microsoft provides users with tools to edit Registry, it's not really a "hack".

meng
June 5th, 2006, 03:05 PM
For many Linux users, it's not a case of hating Microsoft or Windows XP, but preferring to use something else, and more importantly, having the freedom of choice to use something else. If Windows XP works just as the OP desires, and the price is right, then I for one have no quibble with that; it's a matter of personal preference. But if anyone were to suggest that my personal preference should be the same, well that's waaaay off-base.

qalimas
June 5th, 2006, 03:37 PM
I have a huge problem with it. I used to work in a PC repair shop, everytime a computer was brought in, it had a Windows problem. Never was anything at fault other than the OS. I had to reformat computers with XP daily, and drivers and Windows Update are a serious pain. I have local people who come to me, and it's always Windows, not the computer or user. I have a few people I felt could use Linux, so I gave it to them. Guess how many times they've been back with a problem? None, every now and then during lunch at school they'll ask me how to do something, but it's always something easy, like what torrent program do I need to use?

That, my friend, is my problem with XP.

egon spengler
June 5th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Since Microsoft provides users with tools to edit Registry, it's not really a "hack".

Well in that case using Litestep, BBlean et al is not a hack because they only need one line in the registry changed ('default shell' I think it is)

aysiu
June 5th, 2006, 04:18 PM
I don't hate XP. I just got bored with it. I still have to use it at work, but at home I prefer Ubuntu.

kriding
June 5th, 2006, 04:23 PM
I don't Hate XP, I just dislike the fact that everytime it goes wrong (and it frequently does) it invariably needs a reinstall, which then requires driver updates, all anti spyware and malware products installed and updated, then the time consuming task of editing the registry and basic system settings in order to harden windows aghainst the outside world, bizzarley, XP Pro has more vulnerabilities then home edition!!!! which is down to the fact that XP allows itself to be more 'open' so that the average end user can use it...if people were using an OS that allowed them the freedom to fully configure their system wouldn't they be less 'dumb' when it comes to computers?, so in that sense, windows makes people 'dumb' and prevents them learning anything really useful..does MS have that right, to prevent people learning?

After trying Ubuntu, I found the only thing XP was good at was gaming..and even then it used to crash, or have read errors aswell as a dozen or so other problems..so why do I dislike windows?..it's unreliable and unstable

AlexC_
June 5th, 2006, 04:44 PM
A) I hate always having to double-click something to install , for me using apt-get with CLI or with add/remove programs , or synaptic is just better , i personally cant stand double-click anymore!

So typing sudo apt-get install {PROGRAM} is harder than 2 clicks?


B) Anti-vírus , i keep my OS updated , i donīt install stuff i donīt Thrust , why the hell i still need a AV? Another thing i hate at XP

Agreed


C) Defrag? loosing hours of my life just so my hard-drive will remain as fast as it was before? and XP defragger sucks you have to get a better one:???:

If you defrag your hard drive every night, it takes less than 5 mins


D) Pop-ups , Windows is all annoying me with pop-ups , being because i plugged hardware , because it got few disk space , etc... with Ubuntu i can just disable all pop-ups i donīt want without a fuss.

Agreed,


E) Drivers , with Windows i have to install a bunch of drivers and sometimes comes bundled a lot of crapware i donīt want , with Ubuntu i only have to install the GPU (Radeon 9250) drivers , the rest all work OUT OF THE BOX .

Agreed - I tried to install my HP printer on Windows, I couldn't install the drivers without installing HP's Image Viewer, Printer Control Jazz Master 4000 Bloatware - With Ubuntu I don't even have to install my printer



H) I hate M$ monopolistic tactics!

Agreed!!!

I use WinXP, I don't mind using it - I would prefer to use Linux, but I am forced to use WinXP as the software I use doesn't run on Linux, plus some alternative programs on Linux just are .... rubbish and never ( or take a long time ) to get passed Beta. Windows, Linux or Mac I will use it as long as it does what I want, which all 3 do.

IYY
June 5th, 2006, 05:00 PM
I don't hate XP. I try not to think about it at all. I don't know about your installation of it, but on my machine it is slow and very buggy. No spyware or viruses, because I installed an antivirus, firefox and the latest service packs, but it's still a horrible system. Maybe other people were more lucky, but on my machine it's not even remotely ready for the desktop (I have 256 MB of RAM, maybe it's too little, but it's more than enough for Ubuntu, even when running intense 3D games).

G Morgan
June 5th, 2006, 05:25 PM
So typing sudo apt-get install {PROGRAM} is harder than 2 clicks?

Lets be fair its quicker than hunting around for that stupid install disk or googling like mad for the file you need. A centralised repository just makes things simpler.

I don't hate XP, doing so would be like hating my PS2 or a X-Box. As long as you use the OS for what it was created for you'll have no problems :mrgreen: .

meng
June 5th, 2006, 05:34 PM
So far only a small minority of responders hate XP. The rest could be described as indifferent or better.

FISHERMAN
June 5th, 2006, 07:09 PM
Lets be fair its quicker than hunting around for that stupid install disk or googling like mad for the file you need. A centralised repository just makes things simpler.
Untill you want a piece of software that isn't on a repo. Go and search for a deb , didn't found it. A RPM to Alien? Install from source?(a nightmare for the new linux user)
Besides Googling for a piece of software takes only a few seconds(unless it's illegal).
Clicking .exe's isn't maybe as great as repo's, but it does have certain advantages.

aysiu
June 5th, 2006, 07:15 PM
I think it all depends on what your needs are. If you like obscure software or the most up-to-date software (must be version 0.93, not 0.92... right now!), then the repositories will screw you over, and you would be better off with setup.exe files.

But if you're like me and need only basic stuff and then some, and you don't care about cutting edge versions (at least not until six months later), then the repositories are a godsend.

imagine
June 5th, 2006, 07:27 PM
I'm just asking why is there so much negativity on Windows XP?
Forced activation. Same as DRM this is a no-go area for me.

Drakonik
June 5th, 2006, 07:34 PM
I don't hate Windows XP. I love it, in fact. Admittedly, there are hiccups, but as a computer user with a brain, they are few and far between. I like how things generally 'just work'. Plug and Play is very nice, because I don't have to worry about configuring every single device I want to use.

Don't get me wrong. I'm waiting for my Dapper Drake cds to pass through the bowels of the postal system, and once I get them, I think I might never go back to XP. I would like to be secure without needing an antivirus, antispyware, and antiadware running constantly.

To put it simply, XP appeals to the part of me that likes to be able to start immediately, with moderate hiccups. Ubuntu (and Linux in general) appels to the part of me that likes to get deep inside, and poke the inner workings, and to see how it works.

K.Mandla
June 5th, 2006, 07:55 PM
I don't hate XP, or any other version of Windows. I use them everyday at work because that's the software my witless employer bought.

But I find it inferior and defective, and so I don't use it at home.

If someone else likes it, that's fine. They're free to use it. To each his own.

Dr. C
June 5th, 2006, 07:58 PM
Product activation and the related DRM. That is what is wrong with Windows XP and most Microsoft Software since about 2000 when they started this.

If someone relases a virus that de-activates Windows XP the potential worldwide economic losses will be in the billions.

John.Michael.Kane
June 5th, 2006, 08:50 PM
I don't hate any OS. every OS has it's use, and it's fair share of issues.

sfpeter
June 5th, 2006, 09:25 PM
I don't hate XP, or even Microsoft. I hate the way they do business.

My number one gripe on XP is product activation. I tinker a lot, and have had to reactivate Windows for all kinds of things, I haven't run into the dread, "Sorry, you need to buy a new copy," but I know people who have. It's very ironic (read ridiculous) that Microsoft is so up in arms about piracy and trying to make sure every single person has every single copy licensed, yet XP is getting seriously behind the times. Lately I've had to make a "critical" update for the "Geniune Advantage" tool to make absolutely sure I'm legitimate.

Another gripe is how easy it is for spyware, adware, etc. Of course, any OS is vulnerable so it may just be a matter of exposure, too much of it.

Lastly is Microsoft's tendency to make everything under their control. A movie maker that works only with WMV files, they have DirectX for OpenGL, and so on. Enough is enough is enough, how much control can we have over anything? More importantly, how about getting stuff done we'd like to do, without having to do it the Microsoft(tm) Way?

G Morgan
June 5th, 2006, 09:30 PM
Untill you want a piece of software that isn't on a repo. Go and search for a deb , didn't found it. A RPM to Alien? Install from source?(a nightmare for the new linux user)
Besides Googling for a piece of software takes only a few seconds(unless it's illegal).
Clicking .exe's isn't maybe as great as repo's, but it does have certain advantages.

Yes but this is being slowly solved with the LSB. When its done there is no problem and we will have a situation where 99% of software comes from repositories with the odd 1% coming via the same method as Windows software. MS have created all new sets of problems in Vista and UAP is a joke. Also what happens when people start hacking palladium. We already have the lock home up and blackmail for the unlock password scams, imagine the hell palladium is going to cause when Joe 'script' Kiddie down the street starts with the delight of TC and twisting it to his own ends.

Essentially as Linux continually moves forwards in a manner that suits the user, MS continually makes the users life hell in order to protect their bottom line. This is why Linux advances at pace, there is no need to build in spyware and product activation so theres no wasted effort on it.

gr0kzer0
June 5th, 2006, 10:56 PM
I hate XP. I hated Win3.1, Win95, Win98. I suspect I'll hate Vista. Why? Cos bleeding Microsoft Windows has become synonymous in so many people's heads with computers. You talk about computers, they think you're on about Windows.

If I go into a store to buy a peripheral, and ask the assistant if it's compatible with Linux, I'll usually get a blank stare. Linux? What's that? If I explain that it's an operating system that isn't Windows, the idiots are likely to think I mean Apple. If I go to the trouble to explain that it's not Windows, it's not Apple, it's a completely different system, I'll probably get looked at like I've just escaped from a lunatic asylum or I'm talking some regional dialect of Swahili. But by that point I've usually burnt the store to the ground and taken my custom elsewhere.

"Aha," I hear you say. "That's not XP's fault. You can't blame Microsoft for the ignorance of a sales assistant." But I do blame Microsoft. They're the ones who have annihilated their competition, who have dumbed down computing to the level where a talking paperclip is considered good marketing.

Microsoft have deliberately trashed the software industry. They market Fisher Price toys as computer equipment, and have trained the public to want nothing better. And if someone should want to do some real computing, Microsoft will have him shaved, neutered and destroyed.

For God's sake, Linux is based on Unix. A real operating system, designed by hackers to do read computing tasks. The internet was created around Unix. Linux clusters are amongst the most powerful supercomputers on Earth. Yet Billy G and his cohorts would have us playing in a sandpit, and paying him every penny we own for the privilege.

If you use Windows - if you have XP on your computer - you don't own that operating system. Billy's lent it to you. Under very strict conditions. Study that licence well, cos if you break any of those conditions he'll sic his highly-trained attack-lawyers on you before you can draw a breath.

I own my Ubuntu. I can make a million copies of it if I like and sell them for as much as I want. That's ownership. Private property. It's mine to do what the hell I like with it.

You want to be in thrall to Billy G, fine. It's your life, it's up to you. But don't expect me to like the crap he's deigning to let you borrow.

YourSurrogateGod
June 5th, 2006, 11:01 PM
If you haven't had any problems then you may not see why people don't like XP. However, the reality is it is one of the most insecure OSs ever.
No, that title belongs to all operating systems that sit on MS-DOS. The reason why XP is so 'insecure' is because people run it in admin mode and use IE 6.0. If you run it in regular user mode (with the firewall turned on ofcourse and updated) and use something like firefox, only rarely will you ever get any viruses in your system and those that do slip through can be easily terminated before they hurt you (in regular user mode, they can't install themselves.) How do I know this? Experience, I've used XP for some time, it's a decent OS.

Having said that:
Ubuntu > XP

YourSurrogateGod
June 5th, 2006, 11:05 PM
I don't hate Windows XP because I don't have anything to do with it. It becomes another story when I call a store with the question 'can I obtain that laptop without XP license?' Because I'm not going to use it so paying for it would be wasted money. No, that wasn't possible but I could format the hard disk. But I was still paying for that unused license and that makes me mad. I really hate that :confused:
I had that issue last Friday, I said good bye then, I refuse to pay that Microsoft tax so I shopped on the web for another secondhand laptop with an illegal copy of XP on it and Saturday I saw a really bargain, a Compaq Evo N400c. Installation of Dapper Drake was a breeze and I really like that machine...
You can get around that. There was one link that someone posted in the Ubuntu Cafe describing a legal way that you could either 1) get your money back from the retailer or 2) avoid paying altogether. I think that's how it goes, it's been a long time so I don't remember exactly.

givré
June 6th, 2006, 12:02 AM
It's not that i don't like XP, but i don't like to have no choise. That's why there is linux

Rumor
June 6th, 2006, 12:15 AM
I think a large percentage of people who "hate" XP or all things Microsoft do so to be 'fashionable.' It is more out of a sense of standing against the evil monopolistic capitalist than it is that they feel personally wronged by Microsoft.

I don't like the cost of their products, XP included. I have purchased no fewer than three retail XP and XP Pro discs, plus MS Office, plus, plus, plus. Bill Gates and company have enough of my money, thanks.

But, if I need a reason to eschew XP and Internet Explorer, the answer is simple: Active X

::shudder::

KLineD
June 6th, 2006, 12:59 AM
What I hate of XP:

Older XP versions (pre-SP1 or 2) can become infected with malware too quickly, so I need to install XP, unplug it from the network, have an antimalware ready and install it, then get on the net and install SP2. Sure I can remaster a CD with SP2 slipstreamed but it's another step.
Too many drivers need to be installed so hardware works correctly. With Ubuntu I just install Ati drivers and that's it. Also I find easier to install programs in Ubuntu.
I hate how Windows looks and hate the fact that you need some hackerish dll to change the look and feel.
I hate needing to install an Antivirus, Antispyware and then separate tools for new viruses that pop up and are very destructive.

AndyCooll
June 6th, 2006, 01:45 AM
I'm in the "I don't hate XP" brigade, more I dislike the activities of M$.

Like some folks have mentioned already in this thread it's the product activation aspect, the DRM, and the "treachorous" computing (to quote RMS). I damn well bought my XP disk I should damn well be able to do what I like with it. Why should I have to keep going through hoops to prove I'm an upstanding citizen of the community? I own my computer, it's up to M$ & Co. to prove I can trust them that they are worthy of use on my system, not the other way round.
I don't have any problem with the 1 copy on 1 computer aspect, it's the further restrictions placed on me after that I don't like. I abide by UK law not M$. And when DRM, TC and other stuff place on me even further restrictions those my friends are steps too far.

I want freedom, I want choice. The actions of M$ continually prove they are not to be trusted on my computer.

RussianVodka
June 6th, 2006, 03:56 AM
I have Windows eXPensive edition installed on my brothers computer (the more powerful one), I use it to play games, and he uses it for flash animation.

On my computer I have Linux. I use it for downloading, doing work, programming, chatting, surfing the web, etc. And I do it with alot less concern for the OS than I used to with Windows. Plus I have the Open-Source equivalent of maybe $10,000 worth of Windows software on my computer. And not only did I get if free, it only took me about a half hour to download (thanks to apt-get and Automatix).

So it's not that I hate Windows, it's just that I find it useless.

P.S. Also, I must admit, I do enjoy gDesklets alot. :D

Edit: Oh, and... First post on the Ubuntu forum! Wooo!

Compucore
June 6th, 2006, 04:30 AM
The reason that I don't like XP home or the professional is that it calls home on ocassion when your on hiugh speed internet. And if your online with your computer via cable it check the licenses that you are using on your system. Closes them if the cd belongs to some one else. I have seen that happen to three other people that I know. I'd rather have something like Ubuntu where all the applications that are available to you that are free you can use without getting the kind of thing that MS has where it closes your apps without any given reason. Or it tells you that you are using a ripped version of the OS. Which happened to a niece that I know. Which I am also trying to convert over to Ubuntu with the 64 bit version. I had left the cd's at a relatives place to hand off to her when she goes there often next time around. Rock more solid than what XP does instead of looking into your computer for serial numbers.

Compucore

nocturn
June 6th, 2006, 08:00 AM
Most of your problems seem to be about the shell rather than the operating system, so just as people who don't like gnome use KDE why not use another shell? I always used Aston shell, it's fast and very customizable, but there are plenty more out there.

This reasoning applies to modular systems (like most Unices), but not not Windows.

The 'Shell' is an integral part of the Windows OS, not a layer (like Gnome or KDE).

Sure you can get some programs that change the look, but they run on top of the existing system instead of replacing it, thereby consuming additional resources wich are already clogged up by constantly running AV software.

Sushi
June 6th, 2006, 08:33 AM
Well in that case using Litestep, BBlean et al is not a hack because they only need one line in the registry changed ('default shell' I think it is)

Since Microsoft never intended people to use alternative shells, I do think that is could be considered a hack. And it does take a bit more than simply editing the registry. You do have to install the shell ;).

Sushi
June 6th, 2006, 08:54 AM
So typing sudo apt-get install {PROGRAM} is harder than 2 clicks?

Where did that setup.exe come from? Either it came in a CD you bought from a store, or you downloaded it from somewhere. Either way, getting that setup.exe is a hassle. Then you doubleclick it, and it starts a wizard, that offers you a number of options you have to go through during the install.

And what if you want to remove the app? Well, either you use an uninstall-utility that came with the app, or you use the add/remove programs-tools (does anyone use that thing to actually ADD programs?). And even though you uninstall the app, it usually leaves traces of itself behind.

In Linux, I use the same tool to both install and uninstall. I don't need to go hunting for those executables, I don't have to go through wizards, installation is clean, uninstallation is clean.

curuxz
June 6th, 2006, 09:33 AM
Where did that setup.exe come from? Either it came in a CD you bought from a store, or you downloaded it from somewhere. Either way, getting that setup.exe is a hassle. Then you doubleclick it, and it starts a wizard, that offers you a number of options you have to go through during the install.

And what if you want to remove the app? Well, either you use an uninstall-utility that came with the app, or you use the add/remove programs-tools (does anyone use that thing to actually ADD programs?). And even though you uninstall the app, it usually leaves traces of itself behind.

In Linux, I use the same tool to both install and uninstall. I don't need to go hunting for those executables, I don't have to go through wizards, installation is clean, uninstallation is clean.


I think its about more than just this, because yea winsuck installing one program is fine, asuming you can get a non-virused exe, but you windoze users try and install the equivelent of open office, all your programing stuff, your games, your graphics apps. It will take you guys hours going through cd's checking stuff doing options. We select what we want from a list and hey presto we got it all downloaded installed and setup for us. Thats whats so much better about apt is when you have loads of programs to install it makes the doze model of installing software look lame.

bluenova
June 6th, 2006, 10:10 AM
This reasoning applies to modular systems (like most Unices), but not not Windows.

The 'Shell' is an integral part of the Windows OS, not a layer (like Gnome or KDE).

Sure you can get some programs that change the look, but they run on top of the existing system instead of replacing it, thereby consuming additional resources wich are already clogged up by constantly running AV software.
That's not true, my friend with the cyber café completely removed explorer.exe and replaced it with his own shell, and I'm pretty sure that when I was running aston shell explorer.exe was not in the task manager.

jonathan21
June 6th, 2006, 10:24 AM
firstly your a very brave person to come to this forum with this kind of topc why people hate xp.personally i don't hate xp but there are alot of flaws attached to it.until windows is flawless or close to it won't be using it.once it becomes easier to install programs and linux looses its only for tech's image.people will flock to it.then don't be surprised if after that we see out first linux virus.other than that have nothing else to complain about linux .have now been totally been converted from windows to linux

egon spengler
June 6th, 2006, 11:14 AM
Since Microsoft never intended people to use alternative shells, I do think that is could be considered a hack. And it does take a bit more than simply editing the registry. You do have to install the shell ;).

Wrong again, my friend. At this very moment I am running bblean on an Xp box and it is NOT installed, it's just an executable in "My Documents". Explorer.exe is not running either so it doesn't take more resources (or at least it doesn't take bblean + explorer amount of resources)

As I said, it takes one line in the registry to change the default shell (you can do this on a per user or global basis), seeing as the option is there I would assume that MS put it there by design. I doubt that a bug in, say, outlook magically created a registry key to change shell.

Oh and by the way, you don't even have to actually edit the registry yourself, both Litestep and any of the BB4Win family can set themselves as default shell for you



The 'Shell' is an integral part of the Windows OS, not a layer (like Gnome or KDE).

Sure you can get some programs that change the look, but they run on top of the existing system instead of replacing it, thereby consuming additional resources wich are already clogged up by constantly running AV software.

You're almost 100% wrong

Sushi
June 6th, 2006, 11:53 AM
Wrong again, my friend. At this very moment I am running bblean on an Xp box and it is NOT installed, it's just an executable in "My Documents".

In other words: it has been installed. I mean, if I changed the registry right now on this machine, would I get a different shell? No I would not. Why is it so difficult for you to accept the fact that MS did not intent people to replace the shell by themselves?

And furthermore: I REALLY fail to see why all this noise about shells. Because I had problems with the GUI of XP? Well, the GUI IS a central part of the OS, so all the problems of the GUI are problems with the OS. If you replace the GUI, then it's not "Microsoft Windows XP" anymore but something else, IMO. What do you think "OS" is? The kernel and handful of tools? I beg to differ.

When people ask "what is your problem with XP?", they are not referring to just the kernel (like you seem to refer), they are referring to the entire package, and that includes the GUI and the stuff that comes with it. The fact that you can replace explorer.exe with something else is irrelevant. It's not supported, it's not encouraged and it's simply not done in the grand scheme of things. There's handful of people who do it, but they are the exception to the rule.

So I dislike Windows XP. Shell included. So sue me.


As I said, it takes one line in the registry to change the default shell (you can do this on a per user or global basis), seeing as the option is there I would assume that MS put it there by design. I doubt that a bug in, say, outlook magically created a registry key to change shell.

I don't see MS telling people that "hey, you can change the GUI!"What they ARE telling people is that you can change the theme. Just because the registry-entry is there, does not mean that MS wants people to change the GUI. Nor does it mean that MS supports it.


Oh and by the way, you don't even have to actually edit the registry yourself, both Litestep and any of the BB4Win family can set themselves as default shell for you

I assume they do that during the installation-process? So what was that "you don't have to install it" then about?

bruce89
June 6th, 2006, 11:54 AM
...Because it stands for Xtra Pish!

bluenova
June 6th, 2006, 12:04 PM
In other words: it has been installed. I mean, if I changed the registry right now on this machine, would I get a different shell? No I would not. Why is it so difficult for you to accept the fact that MS did not intent people to replace the shell by themselves?

And they do not encourage the installing of firefox either, I'm sure Microsoft would much rather you used Internet explorer.


And furthermore: I REALLY fail to see why all this noise about shells. Because I had problems with the GUI of XP? Well, the GUI IS a central part of the OS, so all the problems of the GUI are problems with the OS. If you replace the GUI, then it's not "Microsoft Windows XP" anymore but something else, IMO. What do you think "OS" is? The kernel and handful of tools? I beg to differ.

Could the same not be said about Linux? If you replace gnome with xfce is it no longer Linux?


When people ask "what is your problem with XP?", they are not referring to just the kernel (like you seem to refer), they are referring to the entire package, and that includes the GUI and the stuff that comes with it. The fact that you can replace explorer.exe with something else is irrelevant. It's not supported, it's not encouraged and it's simply not done in the grand scheme of things. There's handful of people who do it, but they are the exception to the rule.

And the same was true for firefox when it was first released, people using it were the exception to the rule.



So I dislike Windows XP. Shell included. So sue me.

Fair enough, me too.



I don't see MS telling people that "hey, you can change the GUI!"What they ARE telling people is that you can change the theme. Just because the registry-entry is there, does not mean that MS wants people to change the GUI. Nor does it mean that MS supports it.

Same goes for firefox, Microsoft would never suggest people use something other than Internet explorer.

Sushi
June 6th, 2006, 12:15 PM
Could the same not be said about Linux? If you replace gnome with xfce is it no longer Linux?

If I replace the GNOME on my Ubuntu-system with XFCE, it's no longer Ubuntu, but Xubuntu. "Linux" is the kernel, and generic name of OS'es that use it. But the actual name of the OS is (in this case) "Ubuntu Linux". And Ubuntu comes with GNOME. If I replaced GNOME with KDE, I would not be using "Ubuntu" anymore, the OS would be "Kubuntu".

bluenova
June 6th, 2006, 12:22 PM
If I replace the GNOME on my Ubuntu-system with XFCE, it's no longer Ubuntu, but Xubuntu. "Linux" is the kernel, and generic name of OS'es that use it. But the actual name of the OS is (in this case) "Ubuntu Linux". And Ubuntu comes with GNOME. If I replaced GNOME with KDE, I would not be using "Ubuntu" anymore, the OS would be "Kubuntu".
Fair enough

egon spengler
June 6th, 2006, 01:31 PM
In other words: it has been installed. I mean, if I changed the registry right now on this machine, would I get a different shell?

Well quite obviouslly you can't run an executable that is not on the system



So I dislike Windows XP. Shell included. So sue me.

I truly could not give a ****. You were just spouting inaccuracies and so I felt to point out where you were mistaken.


Just because the registry-entry is there, does not mean that MS wants people to change the GUI. Nor does it mean that MS supports it.

Well as the other guy pointed out they also don't want you to install an alternative browser, word processor or media player. So i guess using foobar is nothing but a hack too.

[
I assume they do that during the installation-process? So what was that "you don't have to install it" then about?

Well you know what happens when you assume right?


If I replace the GNOME on my Ubuntu-system with XFCE, it's no longer Ubuntu, but Xubuntu. If I replaced GNOME with KDE, I would not be using "Ubuntu" anymore, the OS would be "Kubuntu".

Really? So I guess back when I thought I was using ubuntu I was actually alternating between using Fubuntu and Oubuntu? I use Openbox on the Suse machine here at work, I guess that means I'm really using Ouse. Arch doesn't come with any DE as standard but I use a FVWM/Gnome-settings-daemon combo or a Gnome/Ob hybrid, how would you describe that? FGArch? GOrch?

Funny thing is, when I log in it still says Arch, I think I'll file a bug. In fact now I think about it I'd bet that my ubuntu installation used to say ubuntu even when I wasn't using Gnome, how do you think that happened?

Sushi
June 6th, 2006, 02:14 PM
Well quite obviouslly you can't run an executable that is not on the system

So I have to install it? It doesn't work out of the box?


I truly could not give a ****. You were just spouting inaccuracies and so I felt to point out where you were mistaken.

such as?


Well as the other guy pointed out they also don't want you to install an alternative browser, word processor or media player. So i guess using foobar is nothing but a hack too.

No, it's an app. But I don't consider a shell to be an app. I don't consider GNOME or KDE to be apps either.


Well you know what happens when you assume right?

You didn't answer the question BTW.


Really? So I guess back when I thought I was using ubuntu I was actually alternating between using Fubuntu and Oubuntu? I use Openbox on the Suse machine here at work, I guess that means I'm really using Ouse. Arch doesn't come with any DE as standard but I use a FVWM/Gnome-settings-daemon combo or a Gnome/Ob hybrid, how would you describe that? FGArch? GOrch?

If you have problems with Canonicals naming-scheme, that's your problem. Fact remains that Ubuntu is an OS that uses GNOME as it's GUI, period. Xubuntu is an OS that uses XFCE as it's GUI, period. Kubuntu is an OS that uses KDE as it's GUI, period. If you have problems accepting that fact, that is your problem, and no-one elses.


Funny thing is, when I log in it still says Arch, I think I'll file a bug. In fact now I think about it I'd bet that my ubuntu installation used to say ubuntu even when I wasn't using Gnome, how do you think that happened?

There are distros out there that do not have a default GUI. Gentoo doesn't have one for example. But Windows MOST CERTAINLY does have a default GUI. Even Ubuntu has a default GUI.

What does Windows's GUI look like? It looks like this (http://www.granneman.com/images/windows_xp_screenshot.gif). This (http://www.xakep.ru/post/24758/Litestep.JPG) is NOT Windows XP GUI, it's something else entirely (Litestep in this case). Sure, it runs on Windows, but it's not Windows-GUI as such. Windows-GUI is this (http://www.granneman.com/images/windows_xp_screenshot.gif)

givré
June 6th, 2006, 02:20 PM
This (http://www.xakep.ru/post/24758/Litestep.JPG) is NOT Windows XP GUI, it's something else entirely (Litestep in this case). Sure, it runs on Windows, but it's not Windows-GUI as such.
That's an horrible one my friend.

egon spengler
June 6th, 2006, 02:26 PM
So I have to install it? It doesn't work out of the box?

No, you don't have to install it. Having an executable on your system is not the same thing as installing an executable. If I write a bash script right now and set it to 755 is that installed?


You didn't answer the question BTW.

I thought a facetious answer at least slightly implied that no, setting as default shell is not an installation option. I wonder how you could read me state that there is no installation needed and still ask that question.


If you have problems with Canonicals naming-scheme, that's your problem. Fact remains that Ubuntu is an OS that uses GNOME as it's GUI, period. Xubuntu is an OS that uses XFCE as it's GUI, period. Kubuntu is an OS that uses KDE as it's GUI, period. If you have problems accepting that fact, that is your problem, and no-one elses.

So really, what OS was I using when I thought I was using ubuntu? And is ubuntu the only distro that transforms to a new distro solely through use of a different DE? A serious question, is Suse + Openbox no longer Suse?

Sushi
June 6th, 2006, 02:43 PM
No, you don't have to install it.

Sure you do. Details on what "installation" means can wary, but it's still installation.


I thought a facetious answer at least slightly implied that no, setting as default shell is not an installation option. I wonder how you could read me state that there is no installation needed and still ask that question.

You do need to install it. It does not ship with Windows, it's not available by default.


So really, what OS was I using when I thought I was using ubuntu?

Do you want me to start inventing names for variations of Ubuntu? Sorry, not interested.

Yes, you have the option of using some other GUI if you want to. But that does NOT change the fact that official GUI of Ubuntu is GNOME. When you install Ubuntu, you get GNOME. When someone asks the questions "Which GUI does Ubuntu use?", the correct answer is "GNOME", even though you have the option of using something else.


And is ubuntu the only distro that transforms to a new distro solely through use of a different DE? A serious question, is Suse + Openbox no longer Suse?

In a way, no. And why limit ourselves to the GUI? Would Gentoo still be Gentoo if I removed Portage? No it would not. If I replaced GNOME with KDE on my Ubuntu-box, I would not have Ubuntu, but Kubuntu.

Oh, and I see that you didn't care to mention what "errors" I made ;).

givré
June 6th, 2006, 02:47 PM
Sure you do. Details on what "installation" means can wary, but it's still installation.


Who cares, i don't really understand your debat.
If people hate hate XP it is for the all, not only for the gui

EDIT: i hate so much windows that i put it twice :cool:

Christmas
June 6th, 2006, 05:23 PM
I don't hate Microsoft, I'm not even using it for about 3 or 4 months. What I hated about it when I used it was the way they implemented all their applications, to make the user use Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer.

Scarabomb
June 6th, 2006, 05:36 PM
XP is my backup. I also took the heart to modify the themes and customize some important files to my liking so I can definitely say that I don't hate it.

However, compared to Ubuntu, even though the start up whoops my Ubuntus' ***, the overall OS itself is way slower. Opening programs, surfing net, other stuff just slow. Also, I don't have the same amount of freedom on XP that I have with Linux. No firewalls or spywares or adwares here (so far?) but I gotta deal with that **** on any Doze system. As a matter of fact, when I got my new laptop, my dumb *** threw it on the net, opened up IE (I was going to download FireFox but it was a brand spankin' new system) and insta Adware baby. Was pissed as hell. So I'm justified but like I said, I don't hate it because it's the thing I fall back on when Ubuntu gets weird and stuff.

Reshin
June 6th, 2006, 07:01 PM
Um...what I wanna know is how the hell you get adware/spyware/other **** in windows just by opening IE?

I had a clean WinXP SP2 installed a while ago (reinstall, had nothing wrong with it. Just wanted to do a cleaning reinstallation, for some odd reason) with nothing but windows firewall. I did some random surfing with IE (because I accidentally deleted firefox-installationfile) and after finally installing virusscanner and other firewall I did scans with spyware- and antivirus-scanner and aside from two tracking cookies, the system was completely clean.

And I'm using this with administration rights, all times!


Default theme for windows ugly? I could say the same about *buntu defaults. Still, wish I could use visual styles without using a patched dll....


About these problems in windows....just how much efford did you use for trying to solve them? Ubuntu (or whatever you're using) magically gives or has an easier solution for every problem you encounter?

Everyone likes to blame windows for having bugs and stuff. If ubuntu/any other linux/open source in general doesn't suffer from these then why the hell do you download updates for linux and apps?

AlexC_
June 6th, 2006, 07:06 PM
May I just say, well said gr0kzer0!! :D


Edit:
"About these problems in windows....just how much efford did you use for trying to solve them? Ubuntu (or whatever you're using) magically gives or has an easier solution for every problem you encounter?"

I agree - this is just a general opinion but I feel that Windows users don't want to solve problems with Linux they may have, and Linux users when they use Windows don't care about it and don't bother to solve the problems, instead they just moan.

djsroknrol
June 6th, 2006, 07:26 PM
When my wife first bought XP and installed it on her 'puter, and then handed it off to me to install, I found out what WPA was all about...I mean, all of the rigs in the house are basically the same owner..why should I have to pay for 5 copies of something when I only need 1 ????.....That was when I decided it was time to move on in the OS world, and MS is not the only fish in the sea...

What else has NOT impressed me as far as XP goes....

viruses, spyware, instablilty, and on and on....Windows is getting too old...

besides, I think Billy boy sold us out to the DOJ...backdoor vulnerablities worry me....

egon spengler
June 6th, 2006, 07:53 PM
Oh, and I see that you didn't care to mention what "errors" I made ;).

Well I notice that you didn't answer any of my questions either but seeing as I'm not making stuff up as I go along I'm able to respond

1. Editing the registry is a hack. Oh no, sorry editing the registry in this one particular instance is a hack. Editing the registry in any other way is not a hack

2. Running an executable file is the same thing as installing a program.

3. Different DE = now a completely new OS

Irony
June 6th, 2006, 08:34 PM
Microsoft is great... without it Linux would be at the command line and we wouldn't have Ubuntu.

phillywize
June 6th, 2006, 09:07 PM
Microsoft is great...
I wholeheartedly agree, with only the following to add: Microsoft is also not to be trusted. As far as their competitive practices are concerned, MS is exhibit A for why legal and economic systems need muscular antitrust and other trade regulation laws. Let them innovate all they want, and come up with cool products with cool functionality. That's competition. Let's just make sure they don't damage the marketplace doing it.


without it Linux would be at the command line and we wouldn't have Ubuntu.
Yeah, it's true...it's amazing how windows (and MacOS) (and their apps) -- the for-profit OS's -- drive a lot of innovation in the open source world. E.g., GIMP, evolution, GAIM, gnome applets, nautilus, OOO Impress, etc. But it's a two way street. Linux specifically (ok, to the extent you can talk about linux "specifically") and open source generally have managed to put a real light under Microsoft's a**. Particularly in the server world where LAMP is huge (whatever (http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/06/0451239)), but you also see it with Linux's well-known stability and security. That's obviously had something to do with MS making Win2K and getting XP up to SP2. But maybe the most recent and dramatic effect open source has had on MS is the new Internet explorer...TABS! RSS Feeds!...Firefox scared the living daylights out of them.

Anyhow, I think linux and open source generally compete with Microsoft, and the two bring each other the benefits of competition. So I think MS needs to be regulated to make sure it doesn't use its weight unfairly.

Fred Doolie
June 21st, 2006, 07:49 AM
The only good reason not to use it is the price.

1) Yes, the price.
2) For $180 (Home) or $299 (Pro) you are only renting the OS. Microsoft can take it away from you at any time. Too bad.
3) The code is proprietary and you MAY NOT try to examine it. Only people who are approved by MS and pay the high fee may see the code.
4) XP has to be activated. This requires MS looking at your system first.
5) It's a HUGE memory hog.
6) It's slooooooooooooooooow
7) It's buggy buggy buggy and full of security holes.
9) It locks up every little while.
10 You have to reboot every couple hours because your system slows WAAAY down gets brain damage.
11) You have to reformat/reinstall every couple months because your HDD gets bogged up and gets brain damage. After a few days my system runs slower and slower and slower (yes, I do defragment - every bloody day!) and after month and a half the system is unuseably slow. Things take forever to load and run. Then one day that loading line on the boot-up screen stops about 3/4 way across and the system won't boot any more.
12) It's not compatable with many of my games.

All that is why I dumped XP for 2000 a long time ago. 2000 has most of the above problems too but it's only about 75% as bad, has no activation required and it does run most of games. Now that I have Ubuntu my Win partition is games only. I just might reformat it to W98SE and have a fast game compatible system. If I can find 98 drivers for my hardware that is. :(

AlexC_
June 21st, 2006, 07:58 AM
I'm neutral with Microsoft/XP - I don't mind using it but i'd prefer to use Linux. But recently on these forums I've noticed that A LOT of the Linux users bash Windows for silly little things that they just don't bother to find a fix for, as they would in Linux.

For Example; Fred - I disagree with some of your points:

For $180 (Home) or $299 (Pro) you are only renting the OS. Microsoft can take it away from you at any time. Too bad.
I have no idea where you are getting your OS from, but it's actuall around $160-70 for XP Pro - I can pick it up for Ģ100 here in the UK.


It's slooooooooooooooooow
No it's not, I find Windows faster than any Linux distro. It will only become slow if you let it,


10 You have to reboot every couple hours because your system slows WAAAY down gets brain damage.
My PC is on usualy 9am-10PM with no restart ( with XP pro ) and it doesn't get slower at all.


11) You have to reformat/reinstall every couple months because your HDD gets bogged up and gets brain damage. After a few days my system runs slower and slower and slower (yes, I do defragment - every bloody day!) and after month and a half the system is unuseably slow. Things take forever to load and run. Then one day that loading line on the boot-up screen stops about 3/4 way across and the system won't boot any more.

I re-install Windows XP about once a year, yes it does got bogged up a little - but only if you let it. If you are finding your system slowing down after a few days, then you have something wrong. I also defrag, run Ad-Aware and disk cleanup every night and even after months of good use it STILL runs as good as the day I installed it.

I just wish Linux users would not bash Windows ( I like Windows AND Linux AND Mac ) for stupid little things like this which is not the truth. If you were to just take a little care of your system it will work perfectly. I've never had a crash, virus or ad-aware since the day I've installed it and I don't even have a firewall! I see so many people saying "I just installed XP, Pluged in the Network cable and got a virus within 1 min!!" <-- that is NOT true.

rai4shu2
June 21st, 2006, 08:38 AM
In my experience, people who hate XP say that it is because of bugs and lack of support. I don't really hate XP, but I know where they are coming from. I would literally sit at the computer for ten seconds and the computer would crash. I would shake my head, reboot, and all would be well for a day or two. It was just weird, but for a lot of people it can be a very stressful experience.

acht
June 21st, 2006, 09:04 AM
10 You have to reboot every couple hours because your system slows WAAAY down gets brain damage.

11) You have to reformat/reinstall every couple months because your HDD gets bogged up and gets brain damage. After a few days my system runs slower and slower and slower (yes, I do defragment - every bloody day!) and after month and a half the system is unuseably slow. Things take forever to load and run. Then one day that loading line on the boot-up screen stops about 3/4 way across and the system won't boot any more.
:(

i can leave my computer with windows running on all night without a reboot. i have never had it slow down.

i do a reinstall about every 18 months. you just gotta watch what you put on you computer. find a program you wanna try out? have a test computer to put it on first to see if you like it.

also, i have never gotten a virus without expecting it on windows. even then it was deleted right away. i have never had a virus infect windows.

lptr
June 21st, 2006, 11:22 AM
i can leave my computer with windows running on all night without a reboot. i have never had it slow down.

i do a reinstall about every 18 months. you just gotta watch what you put on you computer. find a program you wanna try out? have a test computer to put it on first to see if you like it.

also, i have never gotten a virus without expecting it on windows. even then it was deleted right away. i have never had a virus infect windows.


Well - XPp or MS things will be for some longer times (customer related). But I try to integrate both worlds wherever possible. I am into Kubuntu since 2003 (Hoary still runs on my main working machine).

Since Win98 was that OS needed to be reinstalled every 12 to 18 months XP has significantly got better (things got more stable especially network). But: I dislike things like calling home (the new Genuine Advantage Fix does this for example) TPM, DRM and the like. So for this things I am a real XP hater. Until now it is 'just' an option to switch on -- really nobody does for now. But in Vista things will change radically.

Here on the box I'm currently writing this is a Thinkpad Z60m. I installed Kubuntu yesterday on a brand new harddrive because the original XPpro installation all the time keeps the harddrive busy, strange internet activities occuring. In other words: I DO NOT TRUST IT!

I am surprised how much is working right out of the box. OK that ATI support, SD card reader (sadly), finger printreader does not work (unimportant). WIFI I did not test yet. All I see until now is that there is nearly no need to use XP even on this Designed for WindowsXP branded device.

As in close future AJAX apps getting more and more important we can wait for the time that MS specific (browser) things will not be needed anymore.

just my five cent

bruce89
June 21st, 2006, 11:29 AM
I also defrag, run Ad-Aware and disk cleanup every night and even after months of good use it STILL runs as good as the day I installed it.
The thing is that in Linux neither of these are applicable. It's a bit of a pest having to run things every night, i'd imagine. How can you reinstall so often, as I thought you only got 3 licences?

I see so many people saying "I just installed XP, Pluged in the Network cable and got a virus within 1 min!!" <-- that is NOT true.
Actually, this did happen to me, but it was 15 minutes. Mind you this was with SP1, so the firewall was switched off, I thought it didn't matter as I'd only be a few minutes. I then tried to download Zonealarm. I didn't download anything else, and the system was messed up in a matter of minutes. There were 5 spyware/viruses running after I rebooted.

AlexC_
June 21st, 2006, 04:24 PM
Actually, this did happen to me, but it was 15 minutes. Mind you this was with SP1, so the firewall was switched off, I thought it didn't matter as I'd only be a few minutes. I then tried to download Zonealarm. I didn't download anything else, and the system was messed up in a matter of minutes. There were 5 spyware/viruses running after I rebooted.

Then you seriosuly have a problem with setting up XP and/or go on dodgy sites to download some werid crap. I am sorry, but there is NO WAY even with the smallest bit of common sense you can get a Virus and spyware within 15 mins. Hell I had SP1 for ages and I NEVER got a virus or spyware - I still havn't to this day had any.


I would literally sit at the computer for ten seconds and the computer would crash.
Then you too have a problem.

I've also yet to have a crash that has forced me to re-start, yeh maybe the odd 1 or 2 appliaction crashes but they have all been from Beta software.

zenwhen
June 21st, 2006, 04:34 PM
I hate Windows (all versions), and all of Microsoft's offerings. For one, the software is proprietary. I hate Microsoft's business practices. I hate that many businesses are locked into Windows because of these practices. I hate that I have to use Windows at work.

I won't go on to bash the quality of their software. It did not suit my needs. I found it to crash much more and slow down over time much more than Ubuntu/Linux on my system, being used for the things I do on my computer.

I would never recommend a Microsoft product to anyone who I think Linux could suit as well or better. Even with a slightly larger learning curve, I feel that Ubuntu is best for all people who's needs it can fill.

AlexC_
June 21st, 2006, 04:38 PM
I hate Microsoft's business practices. I hate that many businesses are locked into Windows because of these practices. I hate that I have to use Windows at work.

That's probably the one reason why I hate Micorosft, there Monopolistic ways and getting every distrubutior to ship Windows with there PC's. I bet if I was to walk into PC World *shudder* and asked for the Latest OS, they would say XP - not Dapper or FC5 or any other recent well know LinuxOS.

andrecasteliano
June 21st, 2006, 04:53 PM
I donīt hate WinXP. It simply does not fit my needs anymore.

Windows is not ready for advanced users! :)

rai4shu2
June 21st, 2006, 04:55 PM
Something to keep in mind is that people sometimes put thousands of files in their "My Documents" folder and then when they open it in Explorer they think that their computer has "crashed" on them (because it takes five minutes or so for the folder to load). I've seen people hit the reset button when that happens. :p

For me, however, XP always seemed to find the worst hardware problems I've ever seen. I suppose it would have crashed for Linux had I been using that at the time.

Carrots171
June 21st, 2006, 05:39 PM
I don't hate Windows XP. I just prefer Linux/OSX for several reasons. The first reason is the system tray. The system tray on a Windows computer, even on a new one, is usually a MONSTER. The Windows PC I'm typing this on has 13 icons in the system tray. This is annoying to me because it adds more icons to the already cluttered desktop and takes forever to load. I also don't like the Windows XP desktop and menus. Instead of keeping icons in a dock/panel, the XP desktop has tons and tons of icons all over the place. Instead of having menu categories such as "Office" and "Games" like in Ubuntu, Windows XP has a very disorganized menu that's basically a long list of all the applications installed. I hate the little speech bubbles that pop up from the bottom of the screen telling me to help Office improve or to clean up unused icons. I also dislike having to defragment the hard disk regularly (something you don't have to do with Linux/Mac).

BrokenKingpin
June 21st, 2006, 05:48 PM
I don't hate Windows XP. I just prefer Linux/OSX for several reasons. The first reason is the system tray. The system tray on a Windows computer, even on a new one, is usually a MONSTER. The Windows PC I'm typing this on has 13 icons in the system tray. This is annoying to me because it adds more icons to the already cluttered desktop and takes forever to load. I also don't like the Windows XP desktop and menus. Instead of keeping icons in a dock/panel, the XP desktop has tons and tons of icons all over the place. Instead of having menu categories such as "Office" and "Games" like in Ubuntu, Windows XP has a very disorganized menu that's basically a long list of all the applications installed. I hate the little speech bubbles that pop up from the bottom of the screen telling me to help Office improve or to clean up unused icons. I also dislike having to defragment the hard disk regularly (something you don't have to do with Linux/Mac).
You can remove a lot of the icons from the system tray, and you can customize the menus and remove the icons from the desktop in XP. I like XP, but I prefer Linux over it for many reasons.

AlexC_
June 21st, 2006, 05:50 PM
I don't hate Windows XP. I just prefer Linux/OSX for several reasons. The first reason is the system tray. The system tray on a Windows computer, even on a new one, is usually a MONSTER. The Windows PC I'm typing this on has 13 icons in the system tray. This is annoying to me because it adds more icons to the already cluttered desktop and takes forever to load. I also don't like the Windows XP desktop and menus. Instead of keeping icons in a dock/panel, the XP desktop has tons and tons of icons all over the place. Instead of having menu categories such as "Office" and "Games" like in Ubuntu, Windows XP has a very disorganized menu that's basically a long list of all the applications installed.

Again another Linux users who obviously doesn't know how to use XP properly. Currently in my System tray I have 4 Icons ( MSN, Tb-tray extension for Thunderbird, Winamp and AVG ). You know ,if you would use your brain like you do in Linux - you'd find out you can disable applications loading in the system tray ;)

Currently my desktop icons are nicely arranged how I want them, and I only have 12 of them. It's all I need.


I also don't like the Windows XP desktop and menus. Instead of keeping icons in a dock/panel, the XP desktop has tons and tons of icons all over the place.

Again if you would learn how to use Xp, you would know how to sort things into Folders, but I suppose as Windows is the 'enemy' you don't want to learn about it. I have my WinXP menu as folders like in Ubuntu ( Internet, Productivity, System, Games ) It hardly takes up any room at all.

Yes Windows may not do this by Default, but with a little common-sense it can be a very easy fix. Stop your moaning and learn how to use XP - people are probably thinking i'm all for Xp and Anti-Linux - but I am NOT, I like both OS's and I use both, they do as I want perfectly and find they each have there disadvantages and advantages, imho they are an equal match.

Carrots171
June 21st, 2006, 06:24 PM
Again another Linux users who obviously doesn't know how to use XP properly. Currently in my System tray I have 4 Icons ( MSN, Tb-tray extension for Thunderbird, Winamp and AVG ). You know ,if you would use your brain like you do in Linux - you'd find out you can disable applications loading in the system tray ;)

Currently my desktop icons are nicely arranged how I want them, and I only have 12 of them. It's all I need.



Again if you would learn how to use Xp, you would know how to sort things into Folders, but I suppose as Windows is the 'enemy' you don't want to learn about it. I have my WinXP menu as folders like in Ubuntu ( Internet, Productivity, System, Games ) It hardly takes up any room at all.

Yes Windows may not do this by Default, but with a little common-sense it can be a very easy fix. Stop your moaning and learn how to use XP - people are probably thinking i'm all for Xp and Anti-Linux - but I am NOT, I like both OS's and I use both, they do as I want perfectly and find they each have there disadvantages and advantages, imho they are an equal match.

Note that I use the word usually. I'm aware that you can go and re-organize the menus, delete the icons, and disable programs on the stystem tray. I just like the way a Linux/OSX desktop is arranged out-of-the-box better than how a Windows desktop is arranged out-of-the-box. I'd rather get a car that's arranged the way I like than get a car that's not arranged the way I like and then install an extra seat and attach extra cupholders using suction cups. It's just a matter of preference; I'm not saying that one OS is better than another. Some of my friends like having icons out on the desktop, and I understand why, even though I prefer using menus.

bruce89
June 21st, 2006, 07:00 PM
Then you seriosuly have a problem with setting up XP and/or go on dodgy sites to download some werid crap. I am sorry, but there is NO WAY even with the smallest bit of common sense you can get a Virus and spyware within 15 mins. Hell I had SP1 for ages and I NEVER got a virus or spyware - I still havn't to this day had any.
This is true, I didn't go anywhere dodgy, only to Zonealarm.

acht
June 21st, 2006, 08:11 PM
The thing is that in Linux neither of these are applicable. It's a bit of a pest having to run things every night, i'd imagine. How can you reinstall so often, as I thought you only got 3 licences?

you can install XP 3 times. after the 3rd time you must call and reactivate it, which doesn't cost any extra money.

23meg
June 21st, 2006, 08:30 PM
Maintainability: Horrible; bloats up irrecoverably in four months in my use.

Stability: It's the second most stable MS OS (the first being Windows 2000) but still goes nuts under heavy load. Not a good workstation OS; not as good as OSX, Windows 2000 or a well rounded Linux distro.

Security: Horrible, but a non-issue for me, since I wouldn't go online with it anyway.

This could go on but the deal breaker for me is:

Basic rights. It doesn't respect my privacy and basic rights, and noone has any way of proving otherwise, since the source is closed. It calls home, like every MS OS. I won't go online with a closed source OS, ever, especially with TC coming up with the next generation of closed source OSes. This can be enough of a reason for me to go tweak Linux and not Windows and then rant about how Windows sucks, along with the reasons why.

I just don't trust and believe in the whole concept of a closed source OS. Something as centrally important as an OS should be transparent, open, modular, easily tweakable for own purposes and should respect its user's basic rights.

bruce89
June 21st, 2006, 08:32 PM
My main issue is that it's sold as a condition of hardware purchases (at least for laptops).
Funny, because they call then notebooks now, that's because they heat up, and burn people's laps. In fact, apple have been saying to people "They are notebooks, not laptops", to anyone who says they overheat.

Jasper Houtman
June 21st, 2006, 09:00 PM
Reasons why I stopped using XP.

1\ It's a lot slower than dapper drake (on my PC)
2\ Stupid multiple connection limitations
3\ Webpages load much slower and downloads are slower (don't know why)
4\ takes a lot longer to boot than Dapper drake, and a lot longer to power down.
5\ have to continuously clean up your system in XP
6\ NTFS is a very inefficient file system (defragmenting sucks)
7\ Annoying security updates every other day (almost feels like your testing a beta OS)
8\ spyware, adware, viruses. etc
9\ uninstallers almost never completely remove software, have to clean up manually.
10\ If my XP cd get's corrupted I have to buy a new copy, I can download ubuntu for free.
11\ Lot's of software included which I don't need, don't wan't and can't remove without editing my registry.

Could prob think of more reasons. But these are enough for now.
Still have XP as dual boot but I haven't bootet it since I have Ubuntu. My wife stopped using XP after she tried ubuntu (even though she protestet heavily when I installed it vowing never to quit her beloved XP).

For the windows software I do need (for example IE for flash 8 and web page testing). I installed WINE.

I will probably completely remove XP as soon as I need extra HD space for my linux partition or as soon as a more stable beta for edgy comes out so I can try it (whichever comes first).

BTW had a look at Vista beta. Huge unreliable resource wasting (beta) OS in my opinion. Maybe that will change, but I doubt I would ever waste my money on an OS like that.

clparker
June 21st, 2006, 09:22 PM
The only good reason not to use it is the price.

No Joke, Vista Ultimate is gonna be like 350 bones. No Thanks.

Fred Doolie
June 21st, 2006, 09:45 PM
Reasons why I stopped using XP.

3\ Webpages load much slower and downloads are slower (don't know why)
4\ takes a lot longer to boot than Dapper drake, and a lot longer to power down.
6\ NTFS is a very inefficient file system (defragmenting sucks)


That's the other thing; all the drive activity! Under Windows (2000 now and XP back then) the HDD is running and running and running even if you aren't doing anything. I use to think my drives were hosed. Two noises actually; an audible click....click....click-click when I access things and a soft fast "bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" that runs for many minutes at a time. Then it's quiet for a few seconds. Then "bzzzzzzzzzzzz" again. And I'm not doing anything! Startup takes 1 or 2 minutes. If the system has been idle for a long time shutdown can be very fast (2 seconds) but if I've been doing anything it takes a couple minutes and is very click-y and bzzzzz-y.

Even a clean virgin install will do this. No dodgy websites. Nothing extra installed. Just a new out of the box install of Windows. Boot up, let sit, shut down. Fine. Boot up, do something, shut down. Takes quite a while.

Sometimes (very rarely- only about once/2 weeks) startup and/or shutdown locks up.

Then came Ubuntu. Click-click-click it's up and running. Click-click it's shut down. No more "bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz". My drives weren't hosed after all.

I like the startup of Ubuntu. When the desktop screen appears 3 seconds after boot-up you're ready to go.

Windows fools you. "Here's your desktop.....wait.......wait......not yet...wait, sucker......here's your cursor.....HA fooled ya, I'll take it away....here it is again....wait....OK now you may have your system.

I can be websurfing before work and all is going quite fast. Then I'll turn off the monitor and go to work. When I get home and continue surfing it's very slow and jerky until I reboot.

Don't even think about hibernating the system. It won't wake up again until you boot up in safe mode first, then reboot normally.

I'll stick to Ubuntu. I kiss the foot of the Ubuntu team. \\:D/

Talan6400
June 21st, 2006, 10:50 PM
It's not that I hate XP. As a matter of fact it has been a very good operating systme for me. My problem comes from M$ wanting to see inside of everyones system with their new authenticity verification "upgrade". My copy is licensed and paid for, I have always gotten all my updates like a good little M$ lemming, and now they feel the need to have my system ping their server every day. I think not!
My issue is with M$ wanting to "dictate" what hardware and software I "should" have on my system as will be required with Vista. And I haven't even started thinking about the price.

Right now somewhere upwards of 80+% of hte worlds computers will not even be able to run Vista, and they are talking the most aggresive time from for making XP obsolete once Vista really hits the market.
I'm taking the time to learn Linux now before the rush! and so far, I am VERY happy with Ubuntu, and the community I have found here, unlike most so called windows experts who don't like to share information!

Nonno Bassotto
June 22nd, 2006, 02:21 AM
I've read the whole thread through, and identified basically two categories persons amongst the others. The firsts will complain about stupid things they know they can arrange better (and they would do this in linux) but don't do this. The seconds don't understand this behaviour and like to tweak their Windows desktop as well as their Linux one.
The question now is: why people who are used to tweaking things in linux just complain when they are in windows? I'm not sure about this. I've tweaked windows for a long time, but now I use mostly linux and don't care anymore. I can't explain well why this is so, but I think that simply playing with linux is more fun. More seriously we have support. This forum is a neverending source of information, and I try to contribute when I can. I've never found a similar windows community; maybe if I found it I'd play with XP from time to time.

rai4shu2
June 22nd, 2006, 02:42 AM
The question now is: why people who are used to tweaking things in linux just complain when they are in windows?

It is a bit of a pain to track down all the options and/or third-party programs that make Windows as nice and flexible as Linux. Good example, if you want something like Gnome Commander or Krusader in Windows, you're pretty much going to need to pay for Total Commander.

MikePnKY
June 22nd, 2006, 03:53 AM
I don't hate XP, in fact I still use it quite a bit, as I'm still REALLY new at Ubuntu. But XP DOES worry me a lot. If I set my firewalls' security level to "high", about a half dozen little windows programs with names like "xi10808dfjz000-139887-23303020xklffhs" start harrassing the firewall wanting internet access. They don't tell me why they need internet access, who they plan to talk to once they get there, or what they will be sending them when they do.

With Ubuntu, I pretty much already know what it's up to! =D>

23meg
June 22nd, 2006, 06:05 AM
Good example, if you want something like Gnome Commander or Krusader in Windows, you're pretty much going to need to pay for Total Commander.
And let's face it: most shareware apps or other small to mid-sized proprietary apps that are meant for daily use in Windows to extend its features are typically never paid for; there's a reason why there are so many crack/warez sites out there. With equivalent or even better software available in Linux distros which either come preinstalled or wait an apt-get away in the repositories, available for free, Linux distros start making a lot of sense.

Most users of pirated proprietary software have a constant feeling of guilt that they'd love to throw off.

Ubunted
June 22nd, 2006, 06:28 AM
I don't hate XP. I understand it.

I understand it is insecure (spyware/virii), unsafe (spies on the user), improperly made (Limited User accounts usesless outside the corporate network) and makes every effort to stamp out competition ("Program Access and Defaults does NOT work - try it) and standards (IE, need I say more?).

rai4shu2
June 22nd, 2006, 07:19 AM
And let's face it: most shareware apps or other small to mid-sized proprietary apps that are meant for daily use in Windows to extend its features are typically never paid for; there's a reason why there are so many crack/warez sites out there.

I think this is why a lot of apps are getting loaded with spyware (with opt-out available on install if you're lucky). For example, DaemonTools and Irfanview.

NikoC
June 22nd, 2006, 07:50 AM
Don't hate XP at all! As a matter of fact guess what I'm using right now on my laptop @ work? Once in a while I get curious so I experiment with different OSs and that's why I'm messing around with linux... so far my experience is that linux is a good replacement OS for my desktop but for my portable i still prefer windows because basic things like hibernate, suspend to ram do not work with Ubuntu. I've tried different solutions but none of them have done the trick for me so far... but I'll give it another try in a month or 2 when I do my 3 monthly format c: /q... so I have to a agree on the 'windows slowing down in time' item ;-)

lilo2pope
June 22nd, 2006, 10:24 AM
If you hate XP, then which window OS that you like the most?

Sometimes I think XP is more likely designed for novice user. I think the interface of XP is nice and user friendly :cool:

------
http://forums.dyndns.dk/standalone/phpBB/index.php

regeya
June 22nd, 2006, 02:47 PM
Personally, I believe a lot of the people here do not like XP just looking from the posts on the forums. But, I do not see why. XP has been a very good OS for me to use. I have 0 problems using it. The only good reason not to use it is the price.

It seems people are willing to go tweak linux rather than tweak windows and then rant off how windows sucks.

I've seen the opposite: People who're willing to tweak Windows who install a random Linux distribution and go off on a rant about how Linux as a whole sucks because it didn't work like their tweaked XP install, and state it as further proof that Linux will never be ready for the drooling masses.

I use (or rather, maintain) XP in a work environment and wish I could say that I've had zero problems with it. I wouldn't say it's been hell, but for a system that is touted as a masses-friendly OS, it doesn't work as advertised.


As for viruses, I don't get any. Anti-Virus detects none and that is free too. I don't go off to sites that potentially have viruses.. and why would anyone. (My hardware has firewall and some extra protection anyway... but not everyone has my hardware..)

If you must avoid websites that could give you a virus...well, that should tell you something.

My work policy is simple: it's a small office, I'm the only one maintaining them, and I'm not an XP/NT expert by any means, so here's what I insist on: No installing random software, no using Internet Explorer, and if you insist on it, you need to find a friendly MS expert with an affordable hourly rate. :)


There are lots of open-source/free applications on XP. Tons of games and applications and as far as I can see the performance is great.

With regular maintenance, XP performance can be great, yeah, especially with a bit of tweaking. I'm supposed to expect the mythical Grandma who can't be expected to find the K or GNOME menu if she's subjected to (U)(K)(X)(Edu)buntu to be smart enough to perform routine maintenance? And the proverbial grandma probably has dialup too, a few hundred megs of Windows Updates to install, and probably has a performance problem because she managed to stay online just long enough to get "rooted" thanks to those unpatched exploits.

And I totally agree about the quality of software, especially the Free/Open software available for the platform. :)


I'm not saying Linux sucks. I'm just asking why is there so much negativity on Windows XP? Not Microsoft and not Vista just windows XP. Vista and Microsoft I can see why people don't like those.

XP represented a great leap forward...or rather, Win2K did, and XP just happened to be aimed at the masses. There's still work to be done, though, before Windows is ready for Grandma.

Carrots171
June 22nd, 2006, 04:41 PM
The question now is: why people who are used to tweaking things in linux just complain when they are in windows?

I've heard many people complain that in Windows, by default, the user has administrative permissions. In Windows, you COULD create a seperate administrator account. Even so, I still complain about this. Why? Because I think it doesn't make any sense at all from a security standpoint. And it encourages bad security practices, since most people who are inexperienced with computers won't bother to create an administrator account, let alone know what one is.

Many people have also complained that Windows comes with very little software out-of-the-box. (Apple actually has this complaint in their advertisements (http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac_ads2/box_480x376.mov)) You COULD download/buy/install extra software. (This would count as a "tweak"). But why spend time and money installing software when you could get a computer that has everything you need out-of-the-box?

And could someone tell me how to disable those annoying speech bubbles that pop up whenever you plug in a piece of hardware/plug in a network cable in Windows?

bruce89
June 22nd, 2006, 04:45 PM
Many people have also complained that Windows comes with very little software out-of-the-box. (Apple actually has this complaint in their advertisements (http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac_ads2/box_480x376.mov))
Sorry, this is offtopic, but I hate the way in Apple's campaign, they call Windows PC's just PC's. There is nothing inherently wrong with the hardware, it's just Windows. Anyway Mac use the same architechture as PC's anyway. I also don't understand why they went for 32-bit.

aysiu
June 22nd, 2006, 04:48 PM
XP represented a great leap forward...or rather, Win2K did, and XP just happened to be aimed at the masses. There's still work to be done, though, before Windows is ready for Grandma. Windows never has to be ready for grandma or anyone else. People will use Windows because it's there, because it's what "everyone" else uses, because it comes preinstalled on most computers, and because almost all commercial software has a Windows version.


I've heard many people complain that in Windows, by default, the user has administrative permissions. In Windows, you COULD create a seperate administrator account. Yeah, but the "run as" feature in Windows is crippled--believe me; I've tried it. It's no sudo.

bruce89
June 22nd, 2006, 04:50 PM
Yeah, but the "run as" feature in Windows is crippled--believe me; I've tried it. It's no sudo.
My brother recommended this technique to me, I got fed up after a week. I had to run X-Plane as "root" and everything, not to mention having to login as "root" to install new files for X-Plane, and Celestia.

aysiu
June 22nd, 2006, 04:53 PM
My brother recommended this technique to me, I got fed up after a week. I had to run X-Plane as "root" and everything, not to mention having to login as "root" to install new files for X-Plane, and Celestia.
Not to mention you can't even do "run as" for Windows Updates and have the updates actually install.

There are also a number of programs in the Control Panel (and Explorer itself) that do not have the "run as" option at all.

bruce89
June 22nd, 2006, 04:57 PM
Not to mention you can't even do "run as" for Windows Updates and have the updates actually install.
Even Ubuntu allows non-sudoers to install update (or is it just security ones).

There are also a number of programs in the Control Panel (and Explorer itself) that do not have the "run as" option at all.
Yes, I forgot about them.
Also, by the looks of things Vista will be even worse, "1 step more to remove a desktop shortcut than Ubuntu's install process". I realise it's beta, but it doesn't look as if things are getting better, I think I remember beta 1 didn't have as many steps. There is a fine line between security and nagging, as if you nag too much, users will try to get round it.

ballgofar
June 22nd, 2006, 05:26 PM
I for one HATE XP WITH A PASSION!

I didn't know what I was missing as I actually made the switch from Redhat to XP when XP was in BETA. Man it was FAST! But there was a huge difference in performance just from XP Beta and the actual release. I then continued to use it, putting up with spyware which forced me to run Adaware and spybot and other antispyware apps. All of which caught spyware that the others did not.

I then thought of playing around with Linux again at the beginning of this year and the difference is night and day. With vmware on my laptop using 2 GB of RAM, I can run 8 VMs at the same time with a little performance loss. When using XP as my main OS the system will become unusable at 4 VMs.

I ran the test with nothing else on. So, memory management and speed are well superior in the default Ubuntu install. And how about the fact that I can install Ubuntu from a 650 MB CD and here comes Vista at a whopping 4.5 GB!!!! Talk about bloated!

I'm at a client right now who has given me a company standard laptop that I have to use to get on their network and it is running XP. I went to move the mouse yesterday to turn the screen saver off so I could login and the thing blue screened on me!!!!!

I don't care about the Microsoft Power House or any of that crap. The OS that XP has become is simply well below the standards of anyone who wants a secure, stable and well performing system.

bruce89
June 22nd, 2006, 05:29 PM
I didn't know what I was missing as I actually made the switch from Redhat to XP when XP was in BETA. Man it was FAST! But there was a huge difference in performance just from XP Beta and the actual release.
That doesn't bode well for Vista then, it appears to be "faster" than Linuxes, but when it's released, it'll be all "slow" again, probably due to antivirus software etc.

joe_lace
June 22nd, 2006, 05:34 PM
I like XP. I use it constantly. I like windows server technology too. My main reason for switching to Linux was so that I could learn a new OS and also because I like the open source values. I get sick of the proprietary-ness of everything Windows. I like the ability to customize and I like to get my hands dirty when working on the PC. But I do like XP and will probably continue to use it.

luca.b
June 22nd, 2006, 07:35 PM
create a seperate administrator account. Even so, I still complain about this. Why? Because I think it doesn't make any sense at all from a security standpoint.

I also add that unlike sudo or su in Linux/UNIX, the Run As... function in Windows most of the time doesn't work as advertised, since a lot of times the right environment isn't loaded and installing programs like that fails.

facefur
June 22nd, 2006, 09:29 PM
As for the XP operating system, I have no real problwms with it (so far) and of the evolving chain of Microsoft OS's, it's much more stable and effective. Many people, however, truly resent that Microsoft has, over the years, taken advantage of its dominant market position to force the direction of application development.

OTOH, Linux cost me almost nothing, and except for a few programs critical to me, runs everything I need, with no real tweaking or modifications on my part.

So, like many users, I dual boot.

Brando569
June 23rd, 2006, 02:47 AM
i dont hate windows xp so to speak but it does annoy the hell out of me sometimes. like right now, my dads 4 thousand dollar computer is running like crap now under xp, it always gets infested with spyware no matter what i do to secure it and stuff always screws up.

i just re-installed xp 2 nights ago from an OEM cd (meaning its not unattended or anything) stuff went fine for about an hour once i got to the desktop, then all the sudden it didnt want to install any of the updates and wouldnt tell me why. now i went to launch an installshield installer and it says it can load ikernel.exe cuz the RPC server is unavailable, yet it is running...

windows can be so retarded sometimes it just annoys the crap outta me... id much wrather use ubuntu for 95% of the things i do, the only thing windows is good for ATM is gaming...

shuttleworthwannabe
June 23rd, 2006, 03:45 AM
as always his to his own: use what works best for you. It is like comparing apples and eggs, these 2 different platforms each with its own special set of quirks and advantages. I use both: I love XP and I love Linux. XP is boring, linu xis excting. XP does what I want when I want; linux does the same, it all depends what I want achieve .

People hate XP because it is made for the lowest common denominator (and it works: if only they would have all the expert modes also shown, like security enhancement, etc) it would be an excelent OS. XP is intuitive imo. And it is what people use and will continue to use as long as M$ is around.

Spyware is a result of careless browsing and email habits (just like any habit it can be controlled and worked on). Those sites caneasily be browsed using FF or Opera for windows. Now IE has received an even better security enhancement by switching activex off by default (for those who still want to go to the dark side).

I personally use my computer for work and academic purposes, and surf to only sites I know are reliable and not likely to shoot a worm or spam or spyware. I do not click on ads or flashing balloons; FF and Opera have so many extensions that get rid of these annoyances that sometime it feels like you are ina linux environment (just kidding).

Anyhoo, just use what works for you. Both are equally good for what they have been made for. Stop comparing them side by side (they just do not obey the rules of correct comparison groups: there are too many confounders in the equation to account for the differences.

My 2c.
Thanks

ballgofar
June 23rd, 2006, 08:53 AM
It is like comparing apples and eggs, these 2 different platforms each with its own special set of quirks and advantages

Actually, it's more like comparing Big Shiny Red apples with nasty rotten worm infested stank eggs. :)......Just playin'.

To be very honest, Windows as an OS is great......if you don't put it on a network or try to run any software on it. I started out as a Unix Admin who went to Windows and am slowly making my way back to the NIX world. After working with a team of 40 SA's for several years supporting over 10,000 Windows servers ranging from NT 4, 2k to 2k3 I have seen it with my own eyes. It really isn't Microsoft's fault. Most of the software written for MS is crap. I don't know if that is because the developers don't get to see the source code or what.

The servers that only do file sharing run great. Solid, secure....when patched and some of them could stay up for months without needing a reboot. Same for XP. You throw Norton or McAfee on XP and you can watch it take 35-40% of the performance from the OS.

But then you take a look at that one samba server or apache or the lowly unix server in the corner and it is still running from when it was first booted in 10 A.D. :D And that's only because it was patched from the OS that was installed in 5 B.C.

I only installed Linux to run Kismet to sniff my neigborhoods wifi networks. Who knows, I'll give Vista a shot and if it is as fast as XP was when it came out, I'll probably love it. It's going to be pretty hard to beat Ubuntu performance wise though.

shuttleworthwannabe
June 23rd, 2006, 04:00 PM
Off topic'sh but relevant to access on web:

it is world cup season. I am at college completing my PhD so have very little time and am bound to my PC. I do not own a TV so cable/satelite is out. I rely on internet for news and sports. The only place I get a minute by minute commentary is on SUN daily audio service, and I get delayed live highlihgts of the goals on Yahoo. Ubuntu (linux or even FF in wondows) do not allow me to see this. I rely on XP and IE6. So I do not hate it (i should hate the peopel that coded these site for IE6 only!! BTW I have writtent to Yahoo webmaster about this many time).

Can u imagine if I did not have Xp, wher I would be? not knowing how the goals were scored. Bummer
==end off topic'ish====

MikePnKY
June 23rd, 2006, 05:27 PM
I'm still dual booting between Dapper and XP, because I'm a total noob at this Ubuntu stuff :o ......

But I just noticed something that I had not really paid any attention to before....why is it that media players in windows, like Mediaplayer and Real, just flat out refuse to play music files that I have ON MY PC, unless I allow them to access the internet???? Who are they talking to?? It's not like they have to go find the file or anything? Should I worry about this?

bruce89
June 23rd, 2006, 06:06 PM
But I just noticed something that I had not really paid any attention to before....why is it that media players in windows, like Mediaplayer and Real, just flat out refuse to play music files that I have ON MY PC, unless I allow them to access the internet???? Who are they talking to?? It's not like they have to go find the file or anything? Should I worry about this?
They look up album info, and they are probably "phoning home" with information about what you are doing. It also might have something to do with DRM.

Brando569
June 23rd, 2006, 11:39 PM
just what i was gonna say. digital rights management. I cant play the Oasis album whats the story (morning glory) in windows w/o it acquiring all the liscences and all that crap, but yet im listenin to it now using amarok :D

as for windows it works great off of a fresh install (most of the time) but after about a few weeks to a month it starts to get crappy, linux will still work the same as when you installed it. most likely better then when you installed it :D

im tired of reinstalling windows and fixing it on my dads computer (im the tech of the two computers in out house lol) so i installed kubuntu dapper on here (which is what im using now obviously) they havent used it yet but it shouldnt be that hard for them to get used to they pretty much just browse the internet, although the problem with flash 8 still exists :(

Windows is too "all up in your business" for me, it wants to know every little thing you doing and there are so many programs that spy on what your doing without you know, which annoys me.

bruce89
June 24th, 2006, 12:05 AM
just what i was gonna say. digital rights management. I cant play the Oasis album whats the story (morning glory) in windows w/o it acquiring all the liscences and all that crap, but yet im listenin to it now using amarok :D
I saw somebody in my chemistry class with that today, better warn them!

graigsmith
June 24th, 2006, 12:14 AM
It seems people are willing to go tweak linux rather than tweak windows and then rant off how windows sucks.

microsoft tries to curtail tweaking as much as possible. like, making themes in xp only work if they were digitally signed. therefore you had to hack a dll file, and disable protections, to get it to work. why couldn't they just allow people to use whatever theme they wanted? i don't know. it's their platform they have control of it. Mabey they just like to be in control.

vstamour
June 24th, 2006, 03:43 AM
I wouldn't say that I hate Win XP, but I think it's a painful OS to work with. I used to run it on my PC, but even with a firewall, firefox, AV software, Ad-Aware and all that, plenty of malware managed to sneak in. I had to format and re-install XP a few times because it just became a pain to use.

Since I switched to Ubuntu, maybe a month or so ago, I never had my computer crash. Not even once. Ubuntu (or even Kubuntu) is also much faster than XP, imho. Since my computer is quite old, the difference is really appreciated.

Overall, even if I still have a few problems with MIDI or my video card, I have to say that Ubuntu is a much more pleasant OS to work with. Keep up the good work, guys :D !

michael1977
June 28th, 2006, 04:32 AM
I don't hate XP either, I hate monopolies. The reason I hate monopolies, well lets say I believe as a consumer I should have the choice to run what ever OS I feel like and not have to suffer say a windows tax when buying a new computer, or dealing with tie in products like mp3 players that only support proprietary non-free codecs that work you guessed in only on say windows. Don't get me wrong Mac does this too. I also feel like things like the internet and its content should be free of proprietary crap. How's that answer. There is alot more including the failed sp2 installs and re-installs and all that crap lost thesis and what not lol.

fluffington
June 28th, 2006, 07:04 AM
Personally, I believe a lot of the people here do not like XP just looking from the posts on the forums. But, I do not see why. XP has been a very good OS for me to use. I have 0 problems using it. The only good reason not to use it is the price.

It seems people are willing to go tweak linux rather than tweak windows and then rant off how windows sucks.

As for viruses, I don't get any. Anti-Virus detects none and that is free too. I don't go off to sites that potentially have viruses.. and why would anyone. (My hardware has firewall and some extra protection anyway... but not everyone has my hardware..)

There are lots of open-source/free applications on XP. Tons of games and applications and as far as I can see the performance is great.

I'm not saying Linux sucks. I'm just asking why is there so much negativity on Windows XP? Not Microsoft and not Vista just windows XP. Vista and Microsoft I can see why people don't like those.

I don't hate XP (or any of the other Windows varieties, though ME comes close), but I do dislike it. Here's why:

Horrible support for multihead setups. I had to buy a third-party utility software just to get a taskbar that spans both of my monitors.
Viruses. I only ever got two, and one of them was entirely my fault. But the other one got through without me having to do anything (my computer was idling at the login prompt when it got infected).
Security. It's nearly impossible to use XP as a non-priviledged user, and as such, anything that does get through has full access to the entire system. If something infects any of my Linux boxes, it might delete a config file or two at worst.
A craptastic terminal. There are things that the terminal is better at than a GUI will ever be, but Windows forces me to use the GUI anyway.
The dev tools suck.


The only reasons I continued to use XP as long as I did were games and couple of Adobe products.

jon_herr
June 28th, 2006, 03:32 PM
I've been a windows guy since 3.1 - XP has been very reliable for me.
I used to plan on a re-install every 6 months to a year because of bloat and other problems but now I have been running my current XP install for about 2 years, other PCs I've put together have been up for at least that long on the same install.
Security / Viruses usually aren't a problem since I use Firefox and basic virus scanning. IE is the #1 gateway for bad things to happen. Followed a close second by the outlook family of email clients. Windows updates are key to keeping bad things from happening.
All that said...
Thanks to Ubuntu I use windows less and less. The Ubuntu community is great. It's so nice to have people who are genuinely involved in making this OS better and better - actually responding to user needs and helping out. Prior to Ubuntu I was really turned off about the 'righteousness' of most linux users. Quick answers to simple questions with "well you're a stupid windows user, what do you know?" didn't help things at all.
Anyway.
In my humble opinion... XP is where the windows line should end. Some people said this about Windows 2000... XP is the 'b' movie that everyone kinda liked... anything after XP will just be "XP2 - Return of the Pocketbook Raider."
Jon

JeevesBond
June 30th, 2006, 08:45 PM
In my humble opinion... XP is where the windows line should end. Some people said this about Windows 2000... XP is the 'b' movie that everyone kinda liked... anything after XP will just be "XP2 - Return of the Pocketbook Raider."
Jon, that's the funniest thing I've heard today! It's funny because it's so true! I personally stopped at Windows 2000, XP is just so "Mum, Dad and the kids." Architecturally very little changed between the two versions (although MS still released software I either wanted (http://www.ageofempires3.com/) or need (http://www.ageofempires3.com/) to use that only works under XP, note there is a workaround (http://aoe3.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=st&fn=1&tn=23485&f=1,,0,10&st=50) for the former)

So my reasons are:

Closed source. Who knows what's in that code.
Too "Mum, Dad and the kids."
Annoyingly patronising
Assumes way too much e.g. that you need to be told you're using USB1 every time you plug a device in, that Windows knows best how you want to be shown data according to the contents of folders, basically that every user is equivalent to the lowest possible demoninator: Stupid.
Intensely annoying habit of locking files, get this a lot when trying to compile DLL's.
Lying about having started up when it hasn't
It's slower than 2000 by an appreciable margin.
Blue. I do a bit of Web Design (semi-professional I suppose) and most people want to make every design blue! Just look out for it, blue designs are everywhere, it's so safe and boring. Everything in XP is blue, aaaaaaaargh! Am sorry KDE people, your desktop environment is very good, honestly. :eek:
People phoning me for help because they've broken Windows XP. So I have to go to their houses and remove ten tonnes of Spyware from their systems because Internet Explorer is bundled with Windows.
Which neatly leads me to the next point, which is Internet Explorer. Apparently it's now part of Windows, so I can be mean about it. This finally made me switch to Linux. As a Web Designer/Developer I was being held back by this browser due to Microsoft sitting on the product to protect their API (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html).
That damn registry. What the heck's wrong with some nice accessible text files in a directory?! Called, oh I don't know, /etc/ or something ;)
It can't even support or open SVG files, let-alone allow you to use them as scaleable icons. :rolleyes:
There's only one desktop! Hah!
It makes me feel suppressed by corporate sheen. With Open Source (not just Ubuntu) I feel free!
The start menu is big, blue and patronising.
Anti-virus??!! Pathetic software firewalls??!! Anyway, why should anyone have to pay extra to make up for security deficiencies in the Operating System?! I know it's not always the OS, it's the people using it, am generalising here. Although AV should not be the gigantic industry it is today!
The really camp and annoying sounds whenever you do anything.
The "My" this and "My" that... My ****!
No package management! Whenever trying to deploy something we've written for Windows (they still haven't seen the light where I work) there's always the wrong DLL version installed on the machine, some missing crap you have to rummage around for on Microsoft's Bag-o-Fun Dev Tools Web Site for.


Am going to stop there before the anger consumes me, and I start ranting about COM. Oh the hoops a developer must leap through!

bruce89
June 30th, 2006, 08:50 PM
Closed source. Who knows what's in that code.
Too "Mum, Dad and the kids."
Annoyingly patronising
Assumes way too much e.g. that you need to be told you're using USB1 every time you plug a device in, that Windows knows best how you want to be shown data according to the contents of folders, basically that every user is equivalent to the lowest possible demoninator: Stupid. Intensely annoying habit of locking files, get this a lot when trying to compile DLL's.
Lying about having started up when it hasn't
It's slower than 2000 by an appreciable margin.
Blue. I do a bit of Web Design (semi-professional I suppose) and most people want to make every design blue! Just look out for it, blue designs are everywhere, it's so safe and boring. Everything in XP is blue, aaaaaaaargh! Am sorry KDE people, your desktop environment is very good, honestly. :eek:
People phoning me for help because they've broken Windows XP. So I have to go to their houses and remove ten tonnes of Spyware from their systems because Internet Explorer is bundled with Windows.
Which neatly leads me to the next point, which is Internet Explorer. Apparently it's now part of Windows, so I can be mean about it. This finally made me switch to Linux. As a Web Designer/Developer I was being held back by this browser due to Microsoft sitting on the product to protect their API (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html).
That damn registry. What the heck's wrong with some nice accessible text files in a directory?! Called, oh I don't know, /etc/ or something ;)
It can't even support or open SVG files, let-alone allow you to use them as scaleable icons. :rolleyes:
There's only one desktop! Hah!
It makes me feel suppressed by corporate sheen. With Open Source (not just Ubuntu) I feel free!
The start menu is big, blue and patronising.
Anti-virus??!! Pathetic software firewalls??!! Anyway, why should anyone have to pay extra to make up for security deficiencies in the Operating System?! I know it's not always the OS, it's the people using it, am generalising here. Although AV should not be the gigantic industry it is today!
The really camp and annoying sounds whenever you do anything.
The "My" this and "My" that... My ****!
No package management! Whenever trying to deploy something we've written for Windows (they still haven't seen the light where I work) there's always the wrong DLL version installed on the machine, some missing crap you have to rummage around for on Microsoft's Bag-o-Fun Dev Tools Web Site for.


Am going to stop there before the anger consumes me, and I start ranting about COM. Oh the hoops a developer must leap through!
I especially like the "My ****" bit! All of that makes sense, and I hate blue as well. I hope that Ubuntu stays orangey.
The scalable icons bit reminds me of this - http://www.rw-designer.com/vista-icon. Who ever heard of 256x256 PNG's being called scalable? I particularly liked the comments on this article. Especially the first one, typical eejit Mac user.

Unknown author (2006-06-08):
Yeah, Microsoft Windows is used by OVER 90% of the world. Apple sucks period, go Microsoft! I cannot wait 'till Vista comes out!!! Why, are you mad? Anyway they wouldn't touch SVG with a barge pole, they would use there own VML.
That was me.

JeevesBond
June 30th, 2006, 09:02 PM
The breaking change in Vista icons is that images in icon may be stored as PNGs. With PNG compression, the size of an icon is reduced and because PNG is loss-less and supports 8bit alpha channel, the quality of icon is not lowered.
Oh, so that would be the 8bit alpha in PNG that Internet Explorer has abismally lacked for years (http://www.petitiononline.com/msiepng/) then (don't worry folks: Market forces (http://www.spreadfirefox.com/) have made Microsoft finally put it into version 7 - something we've only been waiting 5 years for)! Makes my blood boil! But alas, am off topic so must shut up.

Agreed on the orangey thing! I like the coffee theme, it's cute while not too Starbucks. :)

kalosaurusrex
June 30th, 2006, 09:11 PM
1. Having to reboot after doing just about anything. I hate rebooting.
2. Virus/Spyware (yes I can install programs to take care of these problems but it is a waste of my RAM and processing power)
3. Lack of stability in Windows.
4. Linux is just more FUN. and a stronger community, I think. There are more smart people using linux because they WANT and work together to come up with better and stronger applications. Where as most windows users think they HAVE to use windows. and the users have NO say in where their operating system goes in the future.

The linux community makes the OS of the future. The users do.

Microsoft chooses the direction of where Windows users future OS goes. What gives Microsoft the power to choose how you will use your computer in the future?

You choose with linux, it's freedom of a sorts.

Just my personal view..

A

JeevesBond
June 30th, 2006, 09:15 PM
Yeah, Microsoft Windows is used by OVER 90% of the world. Apple sucks period, go Microsoft! I cannot wait 'till Vista comes out!!!Another well informed and empowered individual at work. *sigh*

Really I feel that Linux could possibly do without people like that anyway, it's not as if comments such as that are going to help the Linux community. Very sorry for going woefully off-topic!

Having to reboot after doing just about anything. I hate rebooting.Dash it! I knew there was something I missed!

imaiden22
August 10th, 2006, 06:30 PM
i'll tell you why I hate XP, just recently came the biggest reason, a litle thing we like to call Windows Genuine Advantage, and as the topic starter pointed out, the price is a big reason why people don't like XP and I am a huge believer of that as well. And let's just say my windows isn't "genuine" as most windows users can say that same..and now i'm total restricted and constantly annoyed by the pop-up messages. That was the last straw for me, i'm officially dumping xp and going linux at full blast and tweak it to my liking...because I CAN!

flaak_monkey
August 10th, 2006, 06:43 PM
Conversation between me and friend earlier today:


(10:20:15 AM) Carcass87: i had some strange bugs today as well
(10:20:28 AM) Carcass87: no shut down button, no task manager, NO worm though
(10:20:37 AM) bigmik365: lol
(10:20:38 AM) Carcass87: prolly because of the latest windows update, ******* gay
(10:20:51 AM) bigmik365: Ubuntu, that **** dont happen :)
(10:21:24 AM) Carcass87: yeah
(10:21:37 AM) Carcass87: remember kids, get windows viruses xD
(10:21:43 AM) bigmik365: lol


this is why people hate windows. :razz:

craiger316
August 10th, 2006, 08:32 PM
Just a side note:
I'm doing a little experiment (http://www.acmebinary.com/blogs/craiger/archive/2006/07/29/No_I_will_not_Fix_your_Computer.aspx) where I install Ubuntu for my non-tech auntie. She is to try it for a month and if she can live without XP, then she'll stick with Ubuntu.

In the next couple of days I'll be updating the blog post with my install/setup findings. One interesting tidbit: XP boots much faster and runs much faster than Ubuntu on a low-end machine (600Mhz, onboard crap video, 256Meg). I had to up the ram to 512M to get tolerable performance. I'm gonna try throwing in a video card as well. I was kind of surprised.

I have pretty much every app she uses covered by comparible Ubuntu-friendly app (which were all installed right out of the box so to speak, which was nice), the exception being support for her all-in-one fax/scan/printer. That *might* be the deal breaker as she uses it quite a lot.

Craig.

craiger316
August 10th, 2006, 08:35 PM
i'll tell you why I hate XP, just recently came the biggest reason, a litle thing we like to call Windows Genuine Advantage, and as the topic starter pointed out, the price is a big reason why people don't like XP and I am a huge believer of that as well. And let's just say my windows isn't "genuine" as most windows users can say that same..and now i'm total restricted and constantly annoyed by the pop-up messages. That was the last straw for me, i'm officially dumping xp and going linux at full blast and tweak it to my liking...because I CAN!
LOL, I'm sure they are really going to miss a person pirating their software. You showed them! No more XP for you :P

Chipmunk
August 15th, 2006, 12:39 AM
Why do people hate xp... well, because it's helpful.](*,)

Yeah, that kind of helpful. And it occasionally (for values of occasionally that equal quite frequently) goes horrribly wrong and needs completely reinstalled.

Strike>>
August 15th, 2006, 02:12 AM
In my Opinion some people have different tastes in opertaing systems and some dont even care what they are running. well personaly i like windows, i had problems with security too, all the security software slowed down my pc. however from 8 months ago, i decided i dont need securtiy software if i use firefox, or lock down Internet Explorer, tons of howtos for that, and i havent gotten anything. and with the help of a router i run 0 security software. now My xp runs smooth and fast!

However its true that not everyone is a pro, or would want to waste anytime, so my sujestion is that they use a simple linux distribution, and later decide that they want to get more experienced about pcs, then try out windows.

Perhaps that would change with vista, haven't tryed out the beta version.

beniwtv
August 15th, 2006, 12:49 PM
I personally don't hate windows. But the company after it.

As DRM, WGA and Trusted computing turns out, I can't trust in M$ anymore. (Search for the terms if you don't know what they are).

This company is just EVIL. Yes, evil. They want to take away my freedom. I don't know you, but I CAN'T and WON'T NEVER like it. I like my freedom. I'd rather stop using computers than going the M$ way.

Just for my 2 cents anyway. :D

Somenoob
August 15th, 2006, 02:09 PM
because it lacks quality. I never got any system error pop ups on XP, much of my hardware worked on it, but it is not as fast as Linux and it's insecure as hell.

Strike>>
August 15th, 2006, 05:27 PM
Personaly i think the same way about Mac. i mean they are pcs with unix on them,putting away the strenght in multimedia, and they are a Monopoly company like MS.

Freedom FTW!

Fred Doolie
September 21st, 2006, 07:22 PM
I don't go off to sites that potentially have viruses

That's a toughie though. Which sites have them? I've gotten virus alerts from gaming sites, sites for motor homes, shopping sites and many others. The only way to avoid "sites that potentially have viruses" is to stay off the net completely. ALL sites have potential.

JeevesBond
September 26th, 2006, 11:10 PM
LOL, I'm sure they are really going to miss a person pirating their software. You showed them! No more XP for you :PNot necessarily, in fact loads of copies of Windows were genuine, but Microsoft arbitrarily decided they weren't. Take the famous example of American McGee: http://www.americanmcgee.com/wordpress/?p=171

That's one person who can certainly afford a copy of Windows, and had a genuine copy, he now uses Ubuntu. Microsoft' first mistake: driving away paying customers. American McGee's not the only one, I've heard of whole offices of Dell-supplied, legit PC's deciding that they're illegal. There is at least one court case because of the security implications of WGA 'phoning home' too.

Microsoft' second mistake is they're losing market share, certainly those people who pirate don't pay for Windows but they helped ensure it remained ubiquitous. This just means Linux gains more momentum in the desktop market. Personally I love WGA, the more people driven to Linux, the better IMO! :D I hope MS carry on with more initiatives like this one, there're are plenty of people who got around WGA very easily.

MentholLite
June 3rd, 2007, 09:26 PM
For me, I don't really hate XP.
In fact, I think that was by far the best of all Windows Client OS.

I have been a Wintel Sys Admin in the past, and currently a UNIX Sys Admin.

I am using Ubuntu now is because I do not have that kind of money to pay for MS products.
Windows for filthy rich man, *NIX for an old and poor man like me. :lol:

However, I got a concern as alot of ppl are taking for granted that Linux are more secure than Windows.
*NIX is not absolutely free from exploits including viruses; reason why Windows are always attacked because it has a larger base of users.

Seriously, I hope the *NIX community could really start embarked into something that will make *NIX a secure desktop environment for normal users.

What will the future of *NIX be!? Something to ponder about... ;)

JordanII
June 3rd, 2007, 09:27 PM
People on THIS forum hate XP. :p

Acglaphotis
June 3rd, 2007, 09:37 PM
I dont hate xp . I just had a virus. Once. Ubuntu since then, but i can really tell why people hate it. It has become a standard, nobody likes standards. Its like everyone else having the same shirt as you do, only the shirt is full of holes, it has bugs everywhere, and some things are patched with a different material than the shirt itself, and then you have to buy protection for the shirt, which is already full of holes, and then, you realized you paid 300 bucks for your outfit but like 150$ went to Microshirt because your shirt is patented.

EDIT: About the virus thing, remember virus isnt just stuff they send you on email and someone is stupid enough to open it... it can be ActiveX too, people running code from some holes in internet explorer 6 and etc..

karellen
June 3rd, 2007, 09:48 PM
oh ffs another one of these windoze fan boys who talk complete nonsense about how it works fine, no it does not. i fixed pc's for 2 years i saw poor familys who could not afford their pc fixed and 99999999 times out of 100 the fault was windows, something screwed up something was not working, security flaw this, crashed and damaged the hard drive that. Rarely did I see the users screwing up their own pc most of the time they were just honest hard working people that m$ over charged and then let down.

You love windows go to a windows forum, I dont wana have to read another one of these stupid threads I vote it be jailed or backyarded it has nothing to do with this community and will only annoy people.

chill out man, they're just operating systems (both linux and windows)

karellen
June 3rd, 2007, 09:52 PM
That's a toughie though. Which sites have them? I've gotten virus alerts from gaming sites, sites for motor homes, shopping sites and many others. The only way to avoid "sites that potentially have viruses" is to stay off the net completely. ALL sites have potential.

I think you are wrong. I had very few problems with xp during the years, all I need was a firewall (zonealarm), a free antivirus (avast) and some knowledge about what I'm doing as I'm not really the stupid average joe. and xp works just fine. and that's why I dual-boot

mech7
June 3rd, 2007, 09:53 PM
That's a toughie though. Which sites have them? I've gotten virus alerts from gaming sites, sites for motor homes, shopping sites and many others. The only way to avoid "sites that potentially have viruses" is to stay off the net completely. ALL sites have potential.

It is very easy to avoid them :)
http://www.siteadvisor.com/download/ff.html

Btw i never get any virusses / spyware on XP sp2 either i think it's just a myth, when was the last big outbreak? I can only remember blaster worm and that was a long time ago and did not do anything real harmfull and was easy to fix :)

patrick295767
June 3rd, 2007, 09:58 PM
Why these typical threads are allowed in Ubuntu?
Bashing might be more wisely watched out by admin & moderators. (More moderation & closed threads... )

Good evening

karellen
June 3rd, 2007, 10:00 PM
Why these typical threads are allowed in Ubuntu?
Bashing might be more wisely watched out by admin & moderators. (More moderation & closed threads... )

Good evening

who's bashing what?

kamaboko
June 3rd, 2007, 10:15 PM
If you haven't had any problems then you may not see why people don't like XP. However, the reality is it is one of the most insecure OSs ever.

And you forgot to add, works with more software and hardware than any other OS.

karellen
June 3rd, 2007, 10:17 PM
And you forgot to add, works with more software and hardware than any other OS.

I cannot but agree with you kamaboko, that's a fact

KiwiNZ
June 3rd, 2007, 10:17 PM
If you haven't had any problems then you may not see why people don't like XP. However, the reality is it is one of the most insecure OSs ever.

No it's as insecure as the user makes it. If managed right it's as secure as any other.
The XP is the most insecure is simply reverse FUD.

gunbladeiv
June 3rd, 2007, 10:24 PM
i dont hate XP but for me the security isnt flexible enough.

just my point of view

KiwiNZ
June 3rd, 2007, 10:30 PM
i dont hate XP but for me the security isnt flexible enough.

just my point of view

How?

bobbocanfly
June 3rd, 2007, 10:35 PM
The reasons i dont like XP:

- When you first get it, you spend at least 30 minutes getting rid of all the shitware (Technical Term that :D) that gets bundled with it

- You have to spend time configuring multiple Anti-Virus/Anti-Spyware/Anti-Adware apps and your hardware/software firewalls

- Viruses are so common and it is extremely easy for a virus to delete your system files, due to the massively insecure permissions system, so every few months say goodbye to your system folder

- Codecs for .avi files on Windows : 45 minutes of googling and 2 viruses, Codecs for .avi files on Ubuntu : 2 minutes of Point and Click GUI, 3 minutes setup time after that

- After about a month XP will slow to a crawl especially when you first log in to your profile

- The command line is just ugly by default. Grey on Black = Ewwww

- Windows Genuine Advantage. Nuff said

- Windows Genuine Advantage phoning home with your BIOS info

- That ugly theme! My god it is worse than Ubuntus default and much harder/more expensive to change

- Only one workspace, clutters everything

- Networking, even between two windows computers. Really hard to set up a simple shared folder then share it to every computer on the network. On linux, simply connect to that computer and it will find all the shared folders

- Internet Explorer. Need i say more?

- The Registry. Good idea but executed so badly that it is essentially a hole full of rubbish taking up space on your hard drive.

gunbladeiv
June 3rd, 2007, 10:37 PM
i cant set the permission of the files like i did with linux, i cant set ip routing and firewall like i did with iptables on linux.(XP can but need another software and surely need to pay)

misfitpierce
June 3rd, 2007, 10:40 PM
I hate Vista more than XP. But honestly you still need security software for XP if you use firefox. Antivirus... Antispyware is a good idea and other things. Firefox is still capable of picking up tracking cookies and so on. XP was just built poorly in my opinion and I dislike it with a vengeance. Vista is even worse with DRM crap and so on.

gunbladeiv
June 3rd, 2007, 10:45 PM
I hate Vista more than XP. But honestly you still need security software for XP if you use firefox. Antivirus... Antispyware is a good idea and other things. Firefox is still capable of picking up tracking cookies and so on. XP was just built poorly in my opinion and I dislike it with a vengeance. Vista is even worse with DRM crap and so on.

yes i have to agree with you,..

KiwiNZ
June 3rd, 2007, 10:46 PM
i cant set the permission of the files like i did with linux Yes its do-able


i cant set ip routing and firewall like i did with iptables on linux.(XP can but need another software and surely need to pay) Yes and for free

KiwiNZ
June 3rd, 2007, 10:51 PM
I hate Vista more than XP. But honestly you still need security software for XP if you use firefox. Antivirus... Antispyware is a good idea and other things. Firefox is still capable of picking up tracking cookies and so on. XP was just built poorly in my opinion and I dislike it with a vengeance. Vista is even worse with DRM crap and so on.

When Linux becomes far more widely used the virii will come. You will need Anti virus software for Linux.Right now its just not worth it for the writers of virus software to bother .After all they are just attention seekers .
As for Firefox and etc , that's not XP, and you can control what you get

gunbladeiv
June 3rd, 2007, 10:56 PM
Yes its do-able
then tell me how..


Yes and for free
erm what soft should i use?

lakersforce
June 3rd, 2007, 11:02 PM
We don't hate XP. We just don't like Microsoft. I'm using XP right now, but it would never cross my mind to pay Microsoft for it. And if that thought actually would cross my mind I would instantly reject it.

My reasons? I agree with the ideology behind free software. Why I am using XP then? I don't know. Why havn't our society rejected Windows yet? What I really like using Windows for is doing all the things with it that Microsoft tells me is illegal, but what growth and innovation comes from: by peeking under the hood.
What's this about "you don't own a copy of Windows. You own a license!"? This software is on my computer and therefore I am free to do with it what I want, no matter what the DMCA tells me. This is my computer Microsoft, not yours. I do with it what ever I feel like. Same thing applies to my Xbox. And what ever FUD you spread, what are you gonna do about it Microsoft? What can you do? Nothing, except what you are already doing: spreading FUD! And that just does not work on me.

KiwiNZ
June 3rd, 2007, 11:06 PM
We don't hate XP. We just don't like Microsoft. I'm using XP right now, but it would never cross my mind to pay Microsoft for it. And if that thought actually would cross my mind I would instantly reject it.

My reasons? I agree with the ideology behind free software. Why I am using XP then? I don't know. Why havn't our society rejected Windows yet?

Its just a product

Do you buy cars , food , furniture ,stereos ? or should they be free as well?

If you don't want it , don't buy it .

This Microsoft /Windows is evil stuff is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo old .

RedDwarf
June 3rd, 2007, 11:17 PM
- You have to spend time configuring multiple Anti-Virus/Anti-Spyware/Anti-Adware apps and your hardware/software firewalls
Well, I really didn't use any Anti-Virus/Anti-Spyware/Anti-Adware on Windows. My ADSL router doing NAT was enough to keep the system safe. Yes, there are tracking cookies and so on, but there are also on Linux. And in Windws at least you have tools against them.

And I'm not the guy that says that my system never was infected just because I never tested it. I made a full scan from time to time with different updated antivirus (that were not doing real-time analisys, just these manual full scans) and they never found nothing.


- Viruses are so common and it is extremely easy for a virus to delete your system files, due to the massively insecure permissions system, so every few months say goodbye to your system folder
You can use a restricted account... but I really didn't do. The are a lot of third party programs that expect write access in their installation directory. No a Windows fault, but a problem after all.
But anyway, even with an administrator account I never got infected... and without antivirus.


- Codecs for .avi files on Windows : 45 minutes of googling and 2 viruses, Codecs for .avi files on Ubuntu : 2 minutes of Point and Click GUI, 3 minutes setup time after that
ffdshow is everything you need. And is hosted on Sourceforge, you don't really need Google.


- After about a month XP will slow to a crawl especially when you first log in to your profile
Ok, having a clean XP system isn't easy. Every hardware manufacturer thinks he can install any kind of stupid software within the drivers. And every program has a "manager", "agent", etc. to install in your systray. But a "msinfo" to disable all this **** is enough to have a clean system in a minute.

JulianRoot
June 3rd, 2007, 11:37 PM
What's the problem?
If you don't user Windows, you can't have problems... ;)

I "hate" it because of the bluescreens, it's instable, it crashes all the time etc.
And the price, too.

Julian

KiwiNZ
June 4th, 2007, 12:13 AM
Its as stable as the skill level of the person who has set it up. I have not had a blue screen for years.

kamaboko
June 4th, 2007, 12:19 AM
What's the problem?
If you don't user Windows, you can't have problems... ;)

I "hate" it because of the bluescreens, it's instable, it crashes all the time etc.
And the price, too.

Julian

You must possess an extraordinarily low level of computer skills. My 82 year old grandmother installed her own XP OS and software, and...has never had it crash.

lakersforce
June 4th, 2007, 12:30 AM
Allow me to quote you here:


Do you buy cars , food , furniture ,stereos ? or should they be free as well? I buy food!


If you don't want it , don't buy it .
The correct sentence would be: if you don't like it, don't buy it.


This Microsoft /Windows is evil stuff is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo old .
But true...if you care about your freedoms.

Despite it's "sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo old" does not change the fact that our rights are declining, properly every second.

So why don't you shut up and crawl back under the iceberg you live by Mister Penguin administrator guy :)

KiwiNZ
June 4th, 2007, 12:33 AM
Allow me to quote you here:
I buy food!


The correct sentence would be: if you don't like it, don't buy it.


But true...if you care about your freedom.

Despite it's "sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo old" does not change the fact that our rights are declining, properly every second.

Your rights are not declining.Approved protection is being enforced more now .

KiwiNZ
June 4th, 2007, 12:52 AM
Allow me to quote you here:
I buy food!


The correct sentence would be: if you don't like it, don't buy it.


But true...if you care about your freedoms.

Despite it's "sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo old" does not change the fact that our rights are declining, properly every second.

So why don't you shut up and crawl back under the iceberg you live by Mister Penguin administrator guy :)

Thats enough

Concorde
June 4th, 2007, 02:34 AM
I don't hate Windows, I just wanted an alternative to my computing needs. I still use Windows XP as a virtual machine for PE-Builder which I need to do diagnostics on friends and family pcs but other than that, Ubuntu satisfies my needs.

I have been watching alot of Mark Shuttleworth's presentations and have embraced his philosophy. If you are happy with Windows and/or Mac, stay with them, but if you want something that will fulfill your needs other than Mac or Windows, by all means check out Ubuntu. I don't push Ubuntu onto my friends and family if they are satisfied with their OS of choice, but if they come to me and say that they want to try an alternative to Windows, then I'll show them Ubuntu and all of it's key features.

matchstich
June 4th, 2007, 02:53 AM
i have 2 computers

this has ubuntu

the other has xp home.

have no intention of getting rid of the xp.

i need to have a working scanner.

the way i am doing it now, is scan into my windows machine--
put on a disc and load it into ubuntu.

both ubuntu and xp are good, just depends on what you want from them.

dell is selling machines with ubuntu on them.
going to be alot of unhappy customers who buy one,
only to find out they can't use scanners.

mystman
June 4th, 2007, 02:55 AM
Personally, I've been on Ubuntu for 2 years now and I'm never going back! I still haven't removed XP yet, and a few weeks I booted back in to it, just for kicks. I had to restart explorer.exe within 30 seconds of Windows booting up. Never had that problem with linux...

afljafa
June 4th, 2007, 06:46 AM
i cant set the permission of the files like i did with linux, i cant set ip routing and firewall like i did with iptables on linux.(XP can but need another software and surely need to pay)

Well - service pack 2 comes with a more than adequate firewall that is entirely configurable and if you turn of simple file sharing then you can simply right click the file - select properties and adjust permissions - this is trivial stuff.

karellen
June 4th, 2007, 08:27 AM
Its just a product

Do you buy cars , food , furniture ,stereos ? or should they be free as well?

If you don't want it , don't buy it .

This Microsoft /Windows is evil stuff is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo old .

I totally agree with all you've said...
and to answer the thread's question, (the ) people that hate xp/microsoft do it because they don't have something better/constructive to do

gunbladeiv
June 4th, 2007, 09:43 AM
I totally agree with all you've said...
and to answer the thread's question, (the ) people that hate xp/microsoft do it because they don't have something better/constructive to do

what do you mean by constructive? i cant relate with your statement.

karellen
June 4th, 2007, 10:13 AM
what do you mean by constructive? i cant relate with your statement.

constructive = constructing or tending to construct; helping to improve; promoting further development or advancement (opposed to destructive); see constructive criticism ;)
imho constructive is when you spend your time learning something new, reading, meeting interesting people, travelling and so on. not when you bash something (windows in this case) instead of focusing your efforts on improving the other thing you say you like (linux here)...it's as simple as that. I fail to see how you cand help Linux by hating/bashing windows...

DirtDawg
June 4th, 2007, 10:51 AM
You know what I hate about XP? Updates. They're buggy, they can take forever to download, and after you install them, the most annoying damned window in the universe continuously interrupts whatever you're doing to ask, "Wanna restart now?", "How about now?", "How about now?", "How about now?", "How about now?"

stefaan.dutry
June 4th, 2007, 11:24 AM
Why i hate windows:

XP:

slow startup
crappy use of resources
made me have to boot in safe mode atleast once a month
made me have to restart in recovery mode 2x in 1 year, basicaly meaning i lost all my files i didn't backup and made me have to reinstall all the programs on it
updates take forever
restarts


VISTA:

even slower startup
13 min of loading background crap till it finaly starts to take less than 70% resources.
uses 46% CPU by just doing nothing
while it's getting updates, you can basicaly not do anything because it grabs every possible resource for that even if it almost needs nothing ( I know you can turn this off, but then i never update at all )
firefox stops working once in a while on it (and i don't like internet explorer)
restarts


Compared to ubuntu 7.04 :

fast startup
2 - 3% CPU usage when doing nothing
easy to find free software for most of your needs
not good for windows designed games
some microsoft programs dont run on ubuntu

gunbladeiv
June 5th, 2007, 03:27 AM
constructive = constructing or tending to construct; helping to improve; promoting further development or advancement (opposed to destructive); see constructive criticism ;)
imho constructive is when you spend your time learning something new, reading, meeting interesting people, travelling and so on. not when you bash something (windows in this case) instead of focusing your efforts on improving the other thing you say you like (linux here)...it's as simple as that. I fail to see how you cand help Linux by hating/bashing windows...

for ur information im not hating windows actually. I just dont like the freedom that windows cant give like we had in linux.thats all. And when it comes to networking, linux is more flexible to use. It works for me anyway.

init1
June 5th, 2007, 03:43 AM
Personally, I believe a lot of the people here do not like XP just looking from the posts on the forums. But, I do not see why. XP has been a very good OS for me to use. I have 0 problems using it. The only good reason not to use it is the price.

It seems people are willing to go tweak linux rather than tweak windows and then rant off how windows sucks.

As for viruses, I don't get any. Anti-Virus detects none and that is free too. I don't go off to sites that potentially have viruses.. and why would anyone. (My hardware has firewall and some extra protection anyway... but not everyone has my hardware..)

There are lots of open-source/free applications on XP. Tons of games and applications and as far as I can see the performance is great.

I'm not saying Linux sucks. I'm just asking why is there so much negativity on Windows XP? Not Microsoft and not Vista just windows XP. Vista and Microsoft I can see why people don't like those.
Some people get lots of errors and have lots of problems in XP, and some have none. Same goes with linux. It depends on personal experience.

kamaboko
June 5th, 2007, 03:56 AM
You know what I hate about XP? Updates. They're buggy, they can take forever to download, and after you install them, the most annoying damned window in the universe continuously interrupts whatever you're doing to ask, "Wanna restart now?", "How about now?", "How about now?", "How about now?", "How about now?"

You must be on dial-up. My XP and Ubuntu take the same amount of time. Can you name some specific buggy updates as of late? What "exactly" did they do to your system? Got an error numbers you care to read off, or were you just blathering away?

igknighted
June 5th, 2007, 04:28 AM
I find XP inferior for many reasons:

1) Security. OOTB, if you surf the web, you are in for trouble. With Linux, you are fine. Adding AV, Anti-spyware, etc. is merely a workaround to the real issue, and lets be honest, slows many computers down.

2) OOTB, Windows is mostly useless. You need to spend $250 on office software, or $900 on photoshop to be ready to go. Linux comes with almost anything you will need.

3) For getting nothing, you need a decently fast computer for XP. I run Beryl on machines that barely run XP... lets be real, if I can do that, what is XP doing with my hardware thats so important?

4) Cost! Linux, even a boxed set, is very cheap compared to windows. Also consider the price of software, and linux compares even better.

5) Customizability. Windows has some options, but running things like window blinds eats resources, unlike choosing a new GTK theme or KDE theme. Also, even deeper, you just get far more control over linux.

6) Ease of use. Linux wins this hands down (in the high end user department). In linux, you don't have to put up with any BS, just a few commands usually and voila, done. In windows, you have to sift through GUI after GUI, and I can't stand it. Even the GUIs in linux are direct and to the point, in windows they try to hide everything so simpletons cannot mess things up. Great for them, but then give power users a way to get past that.

Windows has its strong points, mainly the ease of going with the flow like everyone else, getting more corporate support and blah blah blah, but from a technical standpoint, there really aren't any features in windows XP that I miss or want in linux, just maybe a few more commercial apps. But that pales in comparison to the above.

kamaboko
June 5th, 2007, 05:22 AM
I find XP inferior for many reasons:

1) Security. OOTB, if you surf the web, you are in for trouble. With Linux, you are fine. Adding AV, Anti-spyware, etc. is merely a workaround to the real issue, and lets be honest, slows many computers down.

2) OOTB, Windows is mostly useless. You need to spend $250 on office software, or $900 on photoshop to be ready to go. Linux comes with almost anything you will need.

3) For getting nothing, you need a decently fast computer for XP. I run Beryl on machines that barely run XP... lets be real, if I can do that, what is XP doing with my hardware thats so important?

4) Cost! Linux, even a boxed set, is very cheap compared to windows. Also consider the price of software, and linux compares even better.

5) Customizability. Windows has some options, but running things like window blinds eats resources, unlike choosing a new GTK theme or KDE theme. Also, even deeper, you just get far more control over linux.

6) Ease of use. Linux wins this hands down (in the high end user department). In linux, you don't have to put up with any BS, just a few commands usually and voila, done. In windows, you have to sift through GUI after GUI, and I can't stand it. Even the GUIs in linux are direct and to the point, in windows they try to hide everything so simpletons cannot mess things up. Great for them, but then give power users a way to get past that.

Windows has its strong points, mainly the ease of going with the flow like everyone else, getting more corporate support and blah blah blah, but from a technical standpoint, there really aren't any features in windows XP that I miss or want in linux, just maybe a few more commercial apps. But that pales in comparison to the above.

1). Name the last security issue you had surfing the net with XP? My computer is **** fast with XP and w/the latest version of McAfee. There's no diff in speed surfing the net or running programs. I'm running a Sempron Mobil 2800+ w/less than a gig of ram. Next excuse...

2). Then use Open Office (which copied MS to a T) with XP if you're on the cheap. Use Gimp if you like, but it's a cheap version of Photoshop. No comparison. Next excuse....

3). Need a pretty desktop? Next excuse...

4). That's because people are offering their work for free. If you like the idea of free labor, I've got some cleaning you can do around my house. Next excuse...

5). Who gives a rip about Windows Blinds? Do you wear makeup as well? I work on my computer. I don't need a pretty computer. Next excuse...

6). Shift through one GUI after another? Care to give specific examples?

igknighted
June 5th, 2007, 06:16 AM
1). Name the last security issue you had surfing the net with XP? My computer is **** fast with XP and w/the latest version of McAfee. There's no diff in speed surfing the net or running programs. I'm running a Sempron Mobil 2800+ w/less than a gig of ram. Next excuse...

2). Then use Open Office (which copied MS to a T) with XP if you're on the cheap. Use Gimp if you like, but it's a cheap version of Photoshop. No comparison. Next excuse....

3). Need a pretty desktop? Next excuse...

4). That's because people are offering their work for free. If you like the idea of free labor, I've got some cleaning you can do around my house. Next excuse...

5). Who gives a rip about Windows Blinds? Do you wear makeup as well? I work on my computer. I don't need a pretty computer. Next excuse...

6). Shift through one GUI after another? Care to give specific examples?

1) I've got 1ghz athlon, 128mb ram... yeah, it might not show up on yours, but I notice it. I had a virus just the other day actually, norton managed to sniff it out and contain it (I think, I haven't swept the whole drive yet)

2) A possibility to be sure, but I was reffering to MS's platform in general.

3) No, I need a functional one. And yes, I would rather it not look like it was designed for a toddler (cough, default XP), or in the 80's (cough, the other skin included). Lots of people take looks into consideration (hence apple is still in business), you can't just dismiss it. Besides, you missed my point completely here. Linux has the resources available to run something like beryl on low hardware... what is windows doing that is taking up those resources? Thats the real issue, because I don't see any benefit of giving up those precious mb of ram or few processor cycles.

4) HA, you are funny. I'll pay for software. I would buy games for linux. I would buy a whole distro if I had a compelling reason (legal DVD decoders, games, any number of reasons), but Windows offers me nothing for the price it costs me (sure I could pirate it, but I'd rather not. If I wanted it I would buy it)

5) Cool, glad windows works for you. I care what my computer looks like, as I use it for school and work every day. Do you not paint your walls or your house? After all, it just keeps you protected from the elements, and it does that with or without paint. Environment matters.

6) Sure. Ever want to install anything? Did you have to click through like 20 screens, then end up having to go back cause missed some trivial step? Ever have to set up a network that XP didn't automatically recognize? How about install drivers? Config files are like a one stop shop to bypass this crap, and apt (or any other decent package manager like Yast, SMART or Yum) are a far more efficient way of installing software and drivers.

nutz
June 5th, 2007, 06:33 AM
Most people don't hate XP as in the actual code or operating system. It is good code and gets the job done for the average user very well.

Lot's of open source guys just don't like the way you never really know what is going on behind the scenes because Microsoft won't open the code. If they did that I think a lot less people would have problems with it. They of course would also have to allow people to modify the code then too. Can't have one without the other...So you can see where it is going...

Not only that but who knows what dark ugly secrets that would reveal! If only we knew...

It also has a lot to do with the way Microsoft forces their way of computing on you. Microsoft clearly gears their products towards people who are either unable or unwilling to learn about how their computer works. The kind of people who will spend $200+ on an operating system and can point and click and fill in their myspace profile with the latest can't miss information... But nothing more...

I like to compute in my own way; not the Microsoft way...

Your average Linux user knows a great deal more about how computers actually work than a Windows users does. This is why they strive for the freedom of being able to do whatever they want with it. Maybe even discover a new way of doing something. You have an almost unlimited amount of software that you can get for free with Linux! And most of it is free to modify as you see fit or need!

With Microsoft you pay, install and then point and click your way through life all the while never really knowing what those mouse clicks are doing...

karellen
June 5th, 2007, 08:04 AM
for ur information im not hating windows actually. I just dont like the freedom that windows cant give like we had in linux.thats all. And when it comes to networking, linux is more flexible to use. It works for me anyway.

agree with this. nobody said anything about freedom. just about the lack of hate ;)

karellen
June 5th, 2007, 08:05 AM
Most people don't hate XP as in the actual code or operating system. It is good code and gets the job done for the average user very well.

Lot's of open source guys just don't like the way you never really know what is going on behind the scenes because Microsoft won't open the code. If they did that I think a lot less people would have problems with it. They of course would also have to allow people to modify the code then too. Can't have one without the other...So you can see where it is going...

Not only that but who knows what dark ugly secrets that would reveal! If only we knew...

It also has a lot to do with the way Microsoft forces their way of computing on you. Microsoft clearly gears their products towards people who are either unable or unwilling to learn about how their computer works. The kind of people who will spend $200+ on an operating system and can point and click and fill in their myspace profile with the latest can't miss information... But nothing more...

I like to compute in my own way; not the Microsoft way...

Your average Linux user knows a great deal more about how computers actually work than a Windows users does. This is why they strive for the freedom of being able to do whatever they want with it. Maybe even discover a new way of doing something. You have an almost unlimited amount of software that you can get for free with Linux! And most of it is free to modify as you see fit or need!

With Microsoft you pay, install and then point and click your way through life all the while never really knowing what those mouse clicks are doing...

as long as people don't care (or more precisely they care about other things than computers and how an os works) it's nothing wrong in point-and-clicking for them. they get what they want/need...

nutz
June 5th, 2007, 08:25 AM
as long as people don't care (or more precisely they care about other things than computers and how an os works) it's nothing wrong in point-and-clicking for them. they get what they want/need...


True. And I see that as a problem because it gears products towards people that need their hand held rather than people who want to go advanced and tweak each application just right for what they are trying to do.

Just a different kind of user I guess.

karellen
June 5th, 2007, 08:50 AM
True. And I see that as a problem because it gears products towards people that need their hand held rather than people who want to go advanced and tweak each application just right for what they are trying to do.

Just a different kind of user I guess.

...:)
I know people whom if you remove a shortcut from their (windows) desktops they are clueless about how to bring it back there...:D
and that's where most people are

shijirou
June 5th, 2007, 05:17 PM
Don't really hate windows (except the time it went BSoD on me when I was doing a 3 page report at work). My main machine at work is running Windows XP (but its dual booted with Ubuntu) since most of the software that I need is on windows.

DirtDawg
June 5th, 2007, 06:10 PM
You must be on dial-up. My XP and Ubuntu take the same amount of time. Can you name some specific buggy updates as of late? What "exactly" did they do to your system? Got an error numbers you care to read off, or were you just blathering away?

I will gladly explain myself. I have a cable connection, btw.

Usually how it goes, I'll boot up my XP partition and everything will be running x-tra slow, causing me to cuss, "wth is wrong with this damned thing?" Then, the little yellow shield icon will pop up on the lower right to indicate downloads are ready, so I say, "oh", and click it.

Normally, after the updates are done downloading, the install will begin. But often, the shield disappears and nothing happens. Not a thing. Since I can't manually install the updates, I have to wait for Windows to decide when to install them.

Often, I will boot out of Windows before it installs the updates because I have other things to do. On the next boot into Windows, however, that damn shield will pop up AGAIN, and want to download the same patch! Even if everything downloaded correctly the first time (which I can only assume, since I can't actually see what's going on).

Conversely, if the download did work the first time, Windows will want to install the new patch immediately then have me reboot, which I don't want to do because I just booted up. But if I install the patch with the idea to reboot later, I get ye olde: "Wanna restart now?" window that will literally interrupt anything I'm doing. Even kick me out of fullscreen applications to "remind" me that I need to reboot.

Same thing with laptops and Windows. Once the battery is full, a damned window will interrupt anything you might be doing to tell you the battery is full. I once saw a fellow giving a speech at City Hall get kicked out of his PowerPoint presentation in the middle of the speech so he (and the audience) could be told the battery was full.

Frustrating and a little idiotic.

justin whitaker
June 5th, 2007, 06:35 PM
I've been on XP the past couple of days (got frustrated with Ubuntu...again....), and I can say the following:

The whole paradigm is getting long in the tooth..for me, anyway.

The recover discs that I have for XP install Home SP2. Then I have to:

1. Update, which can take a while because you wouldn't want to miss the latest version of Installer...
2. Reboot.
3. Update some more, this time grabbing .Net 2.0, .Net 3.0, various and sundry critical patches, IE7, and WMP11.
4. Reboot.
5. Install Nvidia drivers.
6. Reboot.
7. Take out all of the Symantic, AOL, McAffee, BigFix, Napster, and other crap I don't need from the reinstall.
8. 1 hour later, reboot.
9. Install CCleaner, Adaware, Spybot.
10. Run CCleaner, removing 1.5gb of crap that I just uninstalled, plus some compressed files that the install deleted along the way. Fix 200 registry errors. Remove any autostarts that I don't want.
11. Update Adaware.
12. Update Spybot.
13. Install AVG, update it.
14. Install Comodo Firewall.

That's a good night's work to get to a clean, lean, and secured XP install. Then I need to install everything else (iTunes, WoW, Steam, etc.).

By contrast, Ubuntu is 20 minutes to install, and about 1 hour to update and extend via Synaptic, which is mostly unattended (need to press OK for Java). I still need to install WoW, Steam, etc., but the core functions are there.

Even then, I am not really satisfied. What I want to be able to do is to get down to writing documents, listening to music, watching a DVD, and taking out terrorists with a well placed grenade...not having to muck around with the underlying operating system or hardware.

We still aren't there yet, although it is coming.

gunbladeiv
June 5th, 2007, 07:38 PM
I will gladly explain myself. I have a cable connection, btw.

Usually how it goes, I'll boot up my XP partition and everything will be running x-tra slow, causing me to cuss, "wth is wrong with this damned thing?" Then, the little yellow shield icon will pop up on the lower right to indicate downloads are ready, so I say, "oh", and click it.

Normally, after the updates are done downloading, the install will begin. But often, the shield disappears and nothing happens. Not a thing. Since I can't manually install the updates, I have to wait for Windows to decide when to install them.

Often, I will boot out of Windows before it installs the updates because I have other things to do. On the next boot into Windows, however, that damn shield will pop up AGAIN, and want to download the same patch! Even if everything downloaded correctly the first time (which I can only assume, since I can't actually see what's going on).

Conversely, if the download did work the first time, Windows will want to install the new patch immediately then have me reboot, which I don't want to do because I just booted up. But if I install the patch with the idea to reboot later, I get ye olde: "Wanna restart now?" window that will literally interrupt anything I'm doing. Even kick me out of fullscreen applications to "remind" me that I need to reboot.

Same thing with laptops and Windows. Once the battery is full, a damned window will interrupt anything you might be doing to tell you the battery is full. I once saw a fellow giving a speech at City Hall get kicked out of his PowerPoint presentation in the middle of the speech so he (and the audience) could be told the battery was full.

Frustrating and a little idiotic.

yes you can manually update windows. I once a windows user and i know it can be done. Just turn off the auto update mode and the "little yellow shield" will never disturb you again. And you can download your update by visiting the Windows website. But surely your windows version must be a genuine version.

DirtDawg
June 5th, 2007, 07:53 PM
yes you can manually update windows. I once a windows user and i know it can be done. Just turn off the auto update mode and the "little yellow shield" will never disturb you again. And you can download your update by visiting the Windows website. But surely your windows version must be a genuine version.

Yes, I could update manually, but that defeats the purpose of an automatic update, which I prefer because left to me, the thing would never get updated.

Besides, the fact I could do it another way is no excuse for poor performance when trying to do something the way I want to. After all, Ubuntu pulls off auto updates flawlessly. In fact I've had the update icon hanging out unobtrusively at the top-right corner of my screen now for about 4 days, allowing me to get to it when I damned well please.

bewoofy
June 5th, 2007, 08:23 PM
I never hated xp, but even as early as win 95, I was hearing @ the shady things gates had done to apple. Later heard more of the same, the 2007 office has so much of adobe's acrobat 8 pro, it is stupid. yeah if u can ignore all the horrible things the corp has done and like the programs it is fine.I do like their office, but honestly it is not better than oo or corel's for that matter.

The problem I had with xp was not how slow it boots or background stuff, cuz those can be changed to a degree.How long the updates take as well as many av corps is in today's world a security problem.if u read enuff, some of the updates (not just mscorp) have dropped trogans.also the os has hidden partitions, making it hard to find malware if it does get on there.

I cannot say that any OS is entirely secure, but in today's world, it is critical to see what is on the pc and that is not possible with xp.

Laura

gunbladeiv
June 5th, 2007, 08:50 PM
Yes, I could update manually, but that defeats the purpose of an automatic update, which I prefer because left to me, the thing would never get updated.

Besides, the fact I could do it another way is no excuse for poor performance when trying to do something the way I want to. After all, Ubuntu pulls off auto updates flawlessly. In fact I've had the update icon hanging out unobtrusively at the top-right corner of my screen now for about 4 days, allowing me to get to it when I damned well please.

it make sense to me. :)
my xp has never get update due to turning off auto updates

drummaster33
June 6th, 2007, 01:37 AM
I don't know. The truth is, no OS is perfect, no OS will ever be perfect, no OS never has been perfect. Windows has the most well-known OS's ever, yet everyone agrees that it stinks. I have XP, and it is really annoying, but honestly, I would rather have XP than anything else. I've run Windows pretty much my entire life (we had an Apple computer when I was little, not sure which OS), so I'm very comfortable with it, and starting to learn how to fix its many flaws. I do rant about Windows a lot, because it just has so many tiny imperfections. At least they're only tiny imperfections, though.

NOTE: I really don't know anything about any OS other than Windows. Just saying...

Sabar
June 6th, 2007, 03:58 AM
I am new at this Ubuntu thing. I have been using Windows basically my entire computing career. Here is why I am here

#1

Curiosity. I have been hearing about Linux for years now, and it sounded like it was finally easy enough for a redneck to use. So I wanted to learn new things and give it a try. So far I have been rather pleased with it.

#2

Price. I personally like playing and learning more about my computer and doing new things with it. unfortunately I can not afford most programs for Windows, to play with. This I can.

#3

Business Practices. I will be the first to prays Mr. Bill Gates for outstanding marketing strategies in the beginning. How ever I feel not so much he but the industry in General has now made Microsoft a COMPLETE Monopoly. To the point were no one else can compete. SO if John Smith over here came up with the PERFECT O/S no one would buy it because they can not buy any of the programming they like for it. hell in some cases you can not even do certain things on the internet because they will Only work with windows. Most people put the blame on Gates for this, I am not so sure that is completely fair. the man is in business and business is a game you can not afford to lose. Unfortunately when Windows Started showing up on 90% of the computers sold in the world. other programmers stopped making programs / drivers for any other O/S out there.

Being the Rebel I am this is my way to fight the system.

Thats my reasons. And not to make this a bitch session about any O/S, but just about every time I have installed windows on any computer I have had problems with the install. I can not contact Windows for help with out paying an incredible fee. and there forums like these are a pain in the *** to use. In fact at the moment I have been pretty much using Ubuntu exclusivly because windows botched another install. To read more about this and maybe offer a hand with it (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=464634) Well thats my $.02

Sabar
A little knowledge can be a very very scary thing

kamaboko
June 6th, 2007, 04:50 AM
It amazes me to hear people suggest that Gates is an evil, corrupt person, particularly when they cannot point to any specific instances and substantiate those claims with first-hand resources. All of these statements are born out of ignorance. I’ve heard rumors for years about this guy, but have not been supplied with any primary resources to prove it. So unless you can do so, drop the insinuations. Thank god we require more than rumor in our justice system.

RAV TUX
June 6th, 2007, 04:52 AM
I don't hate XP, I have no problem with XP I just don't use XP at home.

karellen
June 6th, 2007, 07:33 AM
isn't it a little stupid to hate an OS?...I mean, come on....you can hate somebody, but not something. It's like saying I hate Ford, or my bicycle. you don't like, that's perfectly understable, but hating seems a little misplaced in this particular (and techincal) context

gunbladeiv
June 6th, 2007, 10:06 AM
isn't it a little stupid to hate an OS?...I mean, come on....you can hate somebody, but not something. It's like saying I hate Ford, or my bicycle. you don't like, that's perfectly understable, but hating seems a little misplaced in this particular (and techincal) context

i dont hate or dislike, i just prefer using linux.thats all.

HJam72
June 6th, 2007, 11:58 AM
I'm pretty much still a newb, but I'd like to throw my 2 cents in here. To me, it all comes down to ease-of-use vs. security vs. performance. XP is inarguably easy to use, unless you are arguing the case for Linux being easier to perform some "expert" task; however, it's a magnet for malware. IMHO, Windows CAN even run just as fast as Linux, but that is without antimalware apps and you are just asking for it. Turn them on, get secure, and your performance goes from great to HORRIBLE. HIPS protection is an option, but in my experience, HIPS doesn't really keep out the spyware very well without an antispyware app--you might be able to go without the antivirus though (crazy as that sounds). Oh, you're also going to need a professional registry cleaner, or Windows will still run like crud, even without all the security software.

Here's the thing though. I don't mean to tick anybody off, but Windows (with ALL its slowness) just freaking works. It has driver support for EVERYTHING, and I know that isn't Linux's fault, but it matters (just ask my Lexmark 4in1 printer). I also (believe it or not) actually feel safer using XP (when all the resource hogging security software is running), but of course it runs like crud. i don't get the "double-click" complaints. Frankly, I think Linux's #1 thing to strive for (by far) in the future needs to be more clicking. A LOT MORE--and a lot less command line typing--and a lot less searching and searching forums and reading and reading things, one of which MIGHT turn out to be the answer that you're looking for.

I'd like to take this time to thank Gparted for f*&(*^ing up my partition recently. Wish I'd known that it thinks "grow a partition" means "leave it 4 GBs in size, and just forever make yourself and all other partitioners believe it is 73 GBs". Thanks very freaking much.

XP allows default administrative (root) priveledges, which is an obvious security issue. That has been Linux's claim to security all along, it seems. What about now? Vista doesn't allow default administrative privedges (I don't believe). I know it is still having problems, but I think a whole lot of that is just getting the kinks out. It's slow as mud, from what I hear, but you can turn that aeroglass crud off. What I'm leading up to is that I really do think that most of Linux's security advantage over Windows (well, Vista) lies in obscurity. What are ya gonna do about that when the popularity comes and the &*&(^ (spyware) hits the fan (OS)??? I don't think most Linux "people" are aware of the mass onslaught of spyware Windows has to deal with every day, because Linux isn't targeted yet. My guess? Well, I think propriety antispyware apps will start selling for Linux--and then, with a lot of improvements in ease of use (and driver support), whataya got? LINUX VISTA, LOL.

This is not a knock on Linux or Windows, although I agree about the Microsoft business practices, AND IT IS A KNOCK on FREAKING GPARTED. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

Dedoimedo
June 6th, 2007, 12:46 PM
Hello,
I don't hate it. But I dislike MS quite a bit and growing.
The practices they started last year with WGA delight is probably the beginning of their end.
All in all, Windows XP is a solid release - compared to other Windows, but it is nothing special in the grand picture. But when you combine price, compatibility issues, registry mishaps, the pool of malware, and finally the Balmerology, you get a very negative view of Windows XP.
Dedoimedo

kamaboko
June 6th, 2007, 03:31 PM
Hello,
I don't hate it. But I dislike MS quite a bit and growing.
The practices they started last year with WGA delight is probably the beginning of their end.
All in all, Windows XP is a solid release - compared to other Windows, but it is nothing special in the grand picture. But when you combine price, compatibility issues, registry mishaps, the pool of malware, and finally the Balmerology, you get a very negative view of Windows XP.
Dedoimedo

I've found XP 32bit OEM for just under $100.

I would bet the farm that XP can work with more peripherals than any flavor of Linux. So much for compatibility. Furthermore, that makes my $100 investment for the OS much more valuable than a free OS that works with "some" peripherals. Oh..and I almost forgot to mention software. XP will work with more business, engineering, financial, and gaming software than Linux. In short, XP allows business to get done.

I've never had a registry mishap, but then I KNOW how to setup and maintain XP. If any of the Linux
people are as technically savvy as they claim to be, they could as well.

Malware. It's there, and McAfee catches all of it.

Who gives a rib about Steve Balmer? Do I think about him when I'm working on my computer? No.

Dedoimedo
June 6th, 2007, 04:00 PM
Hello,

You do realize that the amount of hardware supported by Linux exceeds that of Windows by several orders of magnitude. The same applies for software - save games. Microsoft Office and Visio are not the only software available - unfortunately most people have only heard of those and this is what makes them believe that the Linux world has little to offer as alternative.

Knowing how to setup Windows on a personal level is not the issue. Any Linux guru could tell us that he can setup his distro and get things done. Windows is supposed to be "user-friendly."

I don't think about Steve Balmer too much and I have Windows licenses that I have bought from MS employees for US$25. That still does not make me love the MS practices - mainly treating the customer as a thief.

I participate quite a lot on several Windows forums. Just go to any of these, look for "Hijacked" and you will see tens of thousands of entries of simple people having a very very hard time with their Windows. If someone told us in 1985 that we would have to spend 200 dollars for anti-malware protection in 2007, have our Windows license wrongly labeled as "pirated" or have to buy new computers to run fresh flavors of Windows, I do not think there would be that many Windows users nowadays.

It's more than personal. Yes, on a personal level I'm not troubled by anything. I don't know what a virus is. That does not make me turn a blind eye on millions of people who do suffer. And to help them is to raise their awareness regarding MS practices - and the superior alternatives of the open-source world.

Dedoimedo

Eddie Wilson
June 6th, 2007, 05:03 PM
oh ffs another one of these windoze fan boys who talk complete nonsense about how it works fine, no it does not. i fixed pc's for 2 years i saw poor familys who could not afford their pc fixed and 99999999 times out of 100 the fault was windows, something screwed up something was not working, security flaw this, crashed and damaged the hard drive that. Rarely did I see the users screwing up their own pc most of the time they were just honest hard working people that m$ over charged and then let down.

You love windows go to a windows forum, I dont wana have to read another one of these stupid threads I vote it be jailed or backyarded it has nothing to do with this community and will only annoy people.

This is a windows discussion forum. What are you doing here?
Eddie

morghi76
June 7th, 2007, 08:51 PM
I don't hate XP, as everybody in the last 11 pages of posts. I use it at work, I have it installed as dual-boot. I think is quite ok if you keep installing patches, running antivirus apps, anti malware, adware, whateverware, if you know what you're doing. No, it's not that bad. But then you try Ubuntu and you see how fast you're computer can be, how stable and - believe it or not - easy to fix! It might not be as easy to install (and we all know it depends on MS action on the manufacturers), but then it will work forever.

Sweet Mercury
June 8th, 2007, 06:33 AM
Personally, I believe a lot of the people here do not like XP just looking from the posts on the forums. But, I do not see why. XP has been a very good OS for me to use. I have 0 problems using it. The only good reason not to use it is the price.

It seems people are willing to go tweak linux rather than tweak windows and then rant off how windows sucks.

As for viruses, I don't get any. Anti-Virus detects none and that is free too. I don't go off to sites that potentially have viruses.. and why would anyone. (My hardware has firewall and some extra protection anyway... but not everyone has my hardware..)

There are lots of open-source/free applications on XP. Tons of games and applications and as far as I can see the performance is great.

I'm not saying Linux sucks. I'm just asking why is there so much negativity on Windows XP? Not Microsoft and not Vista just windows XP. Vista and Microsoft I can see why people don't like those.

Like you, I was nothing but pleased with XP. In all my years using it at home and at work, It never crashed on me. For a Windows release, that is saying something. In fact, if it weren't for Microsoft hinting that they will stop supporting XP in the next year, I wouldn't have began this little experiment with Linux. (Of course, happy as I was with XP, I'm discovering how much I love Linux).

I don't want Vista. I don't want to deal with it's RIAA DRM boot-liking. I don't want to deal with its unreasonable system requirements. I don't want to deal with its less the XP reliability/stability.

afljafa
June 8th, 2007, 08:01 AM
Hello,

You do realize that the amount of hardware supported by Linux exceeds that of Windows by several orders of magnitude. The same applies for software - save games. Microsoft Office and Visio are not the only software available - unfortunately most people have only heard of those and this is what makes them believe that the Linux world has little to offer as alternative.

Knowing how to setup Windows on a personal level is not the issue. Any Linux guru could tell us that he can setup his distro and get things done. Windows is supposed to be "user-friendly."

I don't think about Steve Balmer too much and I have Windows licenses that I have bought from MS employees for US$25. That still does not make me love the MS practices - mainly treating the customer as a thief.

I participate quite a lot on several Windows forums. Just go to any of these, look for "Hijacked" and you will see tens of thousands of entries of simple people having a very very hard time with their Windows. If someone told us in 1985 that we would have to spend 200 dollars for anti-malware protection in 2007, have our Windows license wrongly labeled as "pirated" or have to buy new computers to run fresh flavors of Windows, I do not think there would be that many Windows users nowadays.

It's more than personal. Yes, on a personal level I'm not troubled by anything. I don't know what a virus is. That does not make me turn a blind eye on millions of people who do suffer. And to help them is to raise their awareness regarding MS practices - and the superior alternatives of the open-source world.

Dedoimedo

Well - you don`t. You simply install Windows Defender (formally Giant) from Microsoft and get it for free.

karellen
June 8th, 2007, 08:34 AM
Well - you don`t. You simply install Windows Defender (formally Giant) from Microsoft and get it for free.

...or avast/zonealarm/avg/adware/spybot and the list goes on. they're all free and do their job

Jungle-Cat
June 8th, 2007, 08:43 AM
im a noob and have no idea what im talking about, but im sure my oppion still has some minor meaning ;)

Theres a game i play, i thought it ran alright on my winxp box alright despite a few hitches.
I decided to switch to linux, since its more secure and a more developed breed of computing (apparently...). Since i still needed winxp for games (C'mon, we all need games) i made a dual boot like many people do. Ubuntu nicely automated this procedure. After fiddling with ubuntu for a few days and setting up some knicks and krannies, i decided to go back to that game i play.

It ran horribly. Absolutly horribly. I had the same hardware setup and drivers, and it was a fresh winxp install. Strange... update my nvidia drivers in windows made no difference, however whilst attempting that i notice something major in windows. Its general speed. After using ubuntu solidly, i had gotten used to it.

I have an athlon64 3000+, running winxp 32bit and ubuntu 32bit. However, the ubuntu gui and overall performance, i found, to be significantly better than in windows.

Clicking a menu item in windows took forever, it took so long to load. Everything took so much time. However, i only noticed this after using the quick and speedy ubuntu linux.

i can now hardly play my favourite game without abusing my poor defencless computer.

You know how in windows, after running an intensive program such as a 3D game, back in widnows it takes time before windows gets back in the drift of things? in ubuntu, none of that.

Thus i conclude Ubuntu (and presumably all other linux OS's) are generally faster than Windows.

anyone else agree?

karellen
June 8th, 2007, 09:02 AM
im a noob and have no idea what im talking about, but im sure my oppion still has some minor meaning ;)

Theres a game i play, i thought it ran alright on my winxp box alright despite a few hitches.
I decided to switch to linux, since its more secure and a more developed breed of computing (apparently...). Since i still needed winxp for games (C'mon, we all need games) i made a dual boot like many people do. Ubuntu nicely automated this procedure. After fiddling with ubuntu for a few days and setting up some knicks and krannies, i decided to go back to that game i play.

It ran horribly. Absolutly horribly. I had the same hardware setup and drivers, and it was a fresh winxp install. Strange... update my nvidia drivers in windows made no difference, however whilst attempting that i notice something major in windows. Its general speed. After using ubuntu solidly, i had gotten used to it.

I have an athlon64 3000+, running winxp 32bit and ubuntu 32bit. However, the ubuntu gui and overall performance, i found, to be significantly better than in windows.

Clicking a menu item in windows took forever, it took so long to load. Everything took so much time. However, i only noticed this after using the quick and speedy ubuntu linux.

i can now hardly play my favourite game without abusing my poor defencless computer.

You know how in windows, after running an intensive program such as a 3D game, back in widnows it takes time before windows gets back in the drift of things? in ubuntu, none of that.

Thus i conclude Ubuntu (and presumably all other linux OS's) are generally faster than Windows.

anyone else agree?

for me it's exactly the opposite...but every os it's like no other os, doesn't it? I don't install crap in xp and I clean all the unnecessary processes in the background, from startup and so on.

Chethan N
June 9th, 2007, 08:52 AM
Windows XP or other OS from MS is PURE CRAP except for 2k which is stable than others and slightly better. Firstly its Damm not the qustion of paying to buy a software hell I would settle for buying MAC OS X than windows in case of spending money.
93% of the world computer users use Winsows, Who follow each other like sheeps. I'll start of with one by one.

Windows bloat gets affected by Viruses, Trojans, Adware. Spyware, Keyloggers, Malicious code, Malicious script, Hackers of all kinds etc.. . You get infected by these just minutes entering into the web. Even if you have a real good antivirus and firewall and other software you will still get infected. Once your hacked all you personal information is stolen.
But in case of linux you can go on for months without installing Antivirus. And Antivirus is a waste of time on linux. Moreover linux cannot get infected in any ways by Trojans, Adware. Spyware, Keyloggers, Malicious code etc. One has to really exceptionally very good in programming to hack UNIX.

As you go on adding and removing programs things get left behind in the registry and takes up disk space . Even with registry cleaner it dosent get off completely. This slows down windows for sure.:p
In case of linux you dont need to bother with that at all. When you delete some program everthing is deleted and nothing is left behind. and definately dosent slow down your system not even by 2%.
The list goes on and on. I can write hundreds of pages as to why Linux is better than windows. Unfortunately I dont have the time to do it.

Chayak
June 9th, 2007, 08:58 AM
Windows XP does have it's uses if used in the correct manner which means locking it down. I see it as a game OS and that's about all I use it for at home. When I'm at work I have to admin over 200 machines and the servers supporting them.

Shouldn't this be moved on to "Why do people hate Vista?" ;)

afljafa
June 9th, 2007, 09:30 AM
Windows XP or other OS from MS is PURE CRAP except for 2k which is stable than others and slightly better. Firstly its Damm not the qustion of paying to buy a software hell I would settle for buying MAC OS X than windows in case of spending money.
93% of the world computer users use Winsows, Who follow each other like sheeps. I'll start of with one by one.

Windows bloat gets affected by Viruses, Trojans, Adware. Spyware, Keyloggers, Malicious code, Malicious script, Hackers of all kinds etc.. . You get infected by these just minutes entering into the web. Even if you have a real good antivirus and firewall and other software you will still get infected. Once your hacked all you personal information is stolen.
But in case of linux you can go on for months without installing Antivirus. And Antivirus is a waste of time on linux. Moreover linux cannot get infected in any ways by Trojans, Adware. Spyware, Keyloggers, Malicious code etc. One has to really exceptionally very good in programming to hack UNIX.

As you go on adding and removing programs things get left behind in the registry and takes up disk space . Even with registry cleaner it dosent get off completely. This slows down windows for sure.:p
In case of linux you dont need to bother with that at all. When you delete some program everthing is deleted and nothing is left behind. and definately dosent slow down your system not even by 2%.
The list goes on and on. I can write hundreds of pages as to why Linux is better than windows. Unfortunately I dont have the time to do it.

And - I`ll bet they will be just as rubbish as what you`ve posted.

insane_alien
June 9th, 2007, 08:12 PM
personally, i hate XP because it has caused the greatest loss of data from a failure(not hardware). it wasn't even connected to the internet and only had office installed. i was working away at an essay with several others on the disk that were finished and going to get printed off once i was finished. but no. i go to the final save and BAM! the whole thing goes wonky. i need to press the reset button and i figure i'll just write the last hundred words or so and everything will be peachy. but wait! whats this? not only has it took out the essay i was working on its also took out everything in 'My Documents' everything was corrupt. 2 days of work just gone.

i've had worse under ubuntu but th OS can hardly be blamed for my mistake with an electromagnet.

HJam72
June 10th, 2007, 03:46 AM
I think Microsoft just basically gives the average consumer what they WANT, and that is not a good thing in all areas (although it is in some), because the average consumer is basically a computer illiterate who thinks they know almost everything about them. I was once told by a very average person that the average 8 yr. old knows as much about computers as adult computer programmers (which I was about to get an AAS in). I mean they can even play games on 'em an' everything. That's the mind set of your average 60 year old consumer speaking of your average 8 yr. old consumer, with regards to computers.

My dad gets a new computer with XP. What's the first thing he does when he sits down? Well, the first thing he does is try to open IE a bunch of times before the OS is through starting up; but, the next thing he does is notice the free Norton AV and McAfee AS programs in the tray--and immediately commence to turning them off, with no intention of ever turning them back on or replacing them with anything else. XP, no protection, illiteracy, and IE 6. Yeah, that's gonna be reliable.

On the peripherals thing, though, yeah, maybe Linux supports more hardware, but what percentage of that hardware is at Walmart, Office Max, etc.? See, that's the problem. It's not even the new hardware, actually. It's the fact that homes are already filled with previusly purchased hardware from those places that only runs on Windoze.

karellen
June 10th, 2007, 09:53 AM
I think Microsoft just basically gives the average consumer what they WANT, and that is not a good thing in all areas (although it is in some), because the average consumer is basically a computer illiterate who thinks they know almost everything about them. I was once told by a very average person that the average 8 yr. old knows as much about computers as adult computer programmers (which I was about to get an AAS in). I mean they can even play games on 'em an' everything. That's the mind set of your average 60 year old consumer speaking of your average 8 yr. old consumer, with regards to computers.

My dad gets a new computer with XP. What's the first thing he does when he sits down? Well, the first thing he does is try to open IE a bunch of times before the OS is through starting up; but, the next thing he does is notice the free Norton AV and McAfee AS programs in the tray--and immediately commence to turning them off, with no intention of ever turning them back on or replacing them with anything else. XP, no protection, illiteracy, and IE 6. Yeah, that's gonna be reliable.

On the peripherals thing, though, yeah, maybe Linux supports more hardware, but what percentage of that hardware is at Walmart, Office Max, etc.? See, that's the problem. It's not even the new hardware, actually. It's the fact that homes are already filled with previusly purchased hardware from those places that only runs on Windoze.

not all are average (or you mean illiterate) consumers, you know...;)

xhilyn
June 10th, 2007, 11:00 AM
I don't really hate Win XP either, but it is my least favorite OS, it just seems messy and clunky to me and wasn't any real improvement over Win 2000. In fact what with the added 'Bonus' of 'Activation' and continual 'Verification' it's a good deal less friendly than Win 2000. I never actually bought Win XP as such, I just got it on the first new PC I had ever bought, I had an old Win 2000 PIII box before that. I originally used Macs in the OS 7 - 9 era but found I could no longer afford the hardware, which as far as I was concerned had become far less reliable anyway. So I bought a cheap Acer PC which came with Win XP, but I really dislike the activation and verification and embedded DRM. So I bought myself a cheap second hand PIV box and installed Ubuntu 6.06 and then upgraded to UbuntuStudio. Ubuntu, or should I say Gnome, really reminds me of Mac OS 9 in how its laid out, though it's way more stable than Mac OS 9 ever was, no rebooting all the time. I currently run all three main OS's, Mac OS X 10.4, Windows XP, and UbuntuStudio on different and fairly old hardware. Out of the three I much prefer my Ubuntu box as its nicer than Win XP and less corporate than Mac OS X. It's the intangible things really that sway me as I just prefer Ubuntu, which I think is great.

ivesjd
August 20th, 2007, 04:03 AM
My biggest problem with XP was getting a virus while INSTALLING and then having to reinstall about a week later because the system was already dead.

cmat
August 20th, 2007, 05:41 AM
My biggest problem with XP was getting a virus while INSTALLING and then having to reinstall about a week later because the system was already dead.

How did you manage to pull that off?

karellen
August 20th, 2007, 07:21 AM
well right now XP is my work horse so

ivesjd
August 20th, 2007, 05:22 PM
How did you manage to pull that off?

I'm not to sure, was on the network at MIchigan Tech, which is a mess of people with a ton of viruses. And ya, I dont really know how it happened.

darksong
August 20th, 2007, 06:36 PM
And - I`ll bet they will be just as rubbish as what you`ve posted.

Your quote does not hold any strengh - answer me this why do hackers ect write malicious programmes for windows - 92% market share, thats a billion or so people that they are writing a virus, keylogger, spyware ect. Linux on the otherhand only has .75% of the os market share (or something around that region) that is only a few million people using linux compared to the billions that use windows. If you were a hacker who would you target, the large or small target? Let me answer that you would target the large target. If it was linux with the 92% market share it would have just as many virus, spyware, key loggers written for it.

Due to having the largest market share also works in windows favor - it make the system more worth while to write programmes for because; 1- more people will use your programme 2- you can make more money writing programmes for windows. More developers support windows making it the easier to use system. Linux can't boast bieng able to get a CD with a camera and install the software striaght of a disk from a manufacture like cannon ect. (this ofc is not linux's faught, but it does work against the linux OS on a whole)

I feel that all linux distros are not making the most out of the chance they got - the technology world is not ready for vista. Linux distros need to make their distros more feature rich, vista and XP are both very feature rich. Some distros are trying to make their distros more feature rich - ubuntu doesn't seem to be. If they don't catch up within a couple of years i feel windows, mac os/x will leave linux behind in terms of intergrated features (not software, things like config tools, help files, menu systems, layout, look and feel) I belive if linux devs across the board don't start to make new + add more features to their distros linux as a whole will loose more and more of its already very very small market share.

Depressed Man
August 20th, 2007, 06:54 PM
My biggest problem with XP was getting a virus while INSTALLING and then having to reinstall about a week later because the system was already dead.

If your going install XP without SP2 then you shouldn't hook it up to the internet (or network if you can't trust it) before putting a firewall (Soft or Hard) or antivirus on it lol. Though I've never really had problems with it myself. And while I do agree with you darksong that if Linux was the majority shareholder it would have alot of viruses, trojans, whatever written for it. Though I think the infection rate would be slower as well as lower compared to Windows.

Though that's just my opinion since I would imagine it's easier to figure out what's wrong in an open source project vs a closed source project.

pjkoczan
August 20th, 2007, 09:24 PM
Your quote does not hold any strengh - answer me this why do hackers ect write malicious programmes for windows - 92% market share, thats a billion or so people that they are writing a virus, keylogger, spyware ect. Linux on the otherhand only has .75% of the os market share (or something around that region) that is only a few million people using linux compared to the billions that use windows. If you were a hacker who would you target, the large or small target? Let me answer that you would target the large target. If it was linux with the 92% market share it would have just as many virus, spyware, key loggers written for it.

Due to having the largest market share also works in windows favor - it make the system more worth while to write programmes for because; 1- more people will use your programme 2- you can make more money writing programmes for windows. More developers support windows making it the easier to use system. Linux can't boast bieng able to get a CD with a camera and install the software striaght of a disk from a manufacture like cannon ect. (this ofc is not linux's faught, but it does work against the linux OS on a whole)

I feel that all linux distros are not making the most out of the chance they got - the technology world is not ready for vista. Linux distros need to make their distros more feature rich, vista and XP are both very feature rich. Some distros are trying to make their distros more feature rich - ubuntu doesn't seem to be. If they don't catch up within a couple of years i feel windows, mac os/x will leave linux behind in terms of intergrated features (not software, things like config tools, help files, menu systems, layout, look and feel) I belive if linux devs across the board don't start to make new + add more features to their distros linux as a whole will loose more and more of its already very very small market share.

Ah, but Unix (and most commonly Linux) runs on a great deal of *servers*, servers which hold a lot of files, serve up a lot of data, or keep networks and websites rolling. Estimates place Linux having around 25% of the server market share. These servers are honeypots, big time targets. Windows attacks are like pickpockets, a lot of small, piddly targets with little return. *NIX attacks are like bank robberies, a lot more difficult, a lot rarer, a lot harder to succeed, but when/if you do...JACKPOT!!!

While you may make more money selling to Windows customers. If you don't write for Unix/Linux, you're shutting out some small but very important user bases. Namely, web servers, some branches of academia, and large datacenters. These are the people who can pay a lot of money for licenses on a lot of computers. Do you think Oracle could survive by shutting out the Linux market, or Matlab, or Mentor Graphics. The statement that the extra effort of writing programs for Linux is not worth it, is a myth. Though, for some, the effort is not worth it, the "Linux is too small" argument doesn't hold water. It may have been true 10 years ago, but times change.

As far as being feature-rich. Personally, I find GNOME to be much more feature-rich than the Windows display manager. I can put anything I want on my panels, anywhere I want (and the interface is easy enough). Hell, there are multiple desktops, show me where multiple desktops are in the default "feature-rich" windows display.

I could go on, about how a great deal of hardware is supported right out of the box in Linux, how Apple has done so much with a relatively small market share and how people write programs for Macs without a second thought, or even how I've taught Windows people the basics of GNOME and they've found it to be very familiar, but that's all been explained to death before.

darksong
August 20th, 2007, 09:32 PM
yup, It is most probably easier for someone to solve problems with opensource software - only if 1- the source code is kept up to date - 2 - people that understand it work on it and re-submit the corrections/changes to the code. It is also open to abuse and upto the devs weather they use the changes.

Paul133
August 20th, 2007, 09:37 PM
First of all, I don't hate XP. I'd love to dualboot with it instead of Vista. The main reason I dislike Windows is because it's not UNIX-like. The Windows philosophy is "never get it done with the CLI, if you can get it done with the GUI". I LIKE the command line (though I still love Gnome and Compiz-Fusion). With Linux, you have the X window system running on top of the shell, but the shell is still where it's at. With XP, all you have is a DOS emulator. You can't shell script on that. And you can't use it to actually configure anything (at least, ot as far as I know; most people who use XP never use the cmd). Linux is much more customizable than Windows. If you know what you're doing, when it comes to computers (that's "computers", not "Windows"), you'll probably like Linux more than Windows.

noenter1
August 20th, 2007, 09:48 PM
For me, i dont really hate XP, its windows. Although all my hardware is compatible with windows, it just wont work with windows BSOD about harddrive and memory errors(only way to fix it would be to do illegal tampering with the windows OS). Yet all my hardware works perfectly fine. And besides compared to Vista, Xp is like a long lost child.

sargetech
August 20th, 2007, 10:03 PM
The main reason that I do not like XP is that it is a hackers paradise!!
If you go on the internet there are so many people trying to attack it and screw it up!!! just to make your life miserable!!!!:(
or trying to steal your indentity!!! through holes in windows and internet explorer!!! enough already!!!!!!:mad:

Depressed Man
August 20th, 2007, 10:11 PM
yup, It is most probably easier for someone to solve problems with opensource software - only if 1- the source code is kept up to date - 2 - people that understand it work on it and re-submit the corrections/changes to the code. It is also open to abuse and upto the devs weather they use the changes.

True, I imagine as Linux grows bigger we'll start seeing (if not more if it already happens) attempted submissions of malicious code to developers.

bcw
August 21st, 2007, 02:38 AM
Microsoft is a criminal organization. They are convicted in open court in the US, in the European Union, in Japan, in South Korea.

If you give criminals more money, they do more crimes. If you care about the society you live in, don't reward criminals.

Smart, honest people that work for Microsoft can find jobs with other companies that don't cheat in the market.

Those convictions are more real than any opinions.

Cheers,
Bret

Midwest-Linux
August 22nd, 2007, 02:51 AM
I don't hate XP, I think its Microsoft's best OS to date. The XP home and XP Pro are very stable...however the XP Media is very buggy and programs seem to freeze and get unresponsive at times and its a high end machine with 2 gig of ram. In fact I am thinking of downgrading to Windows XP Home. My lower end E-machine with XP Home out performs the expensive high end Gateway with XP Media.

Chymera
August 23rd, 2007, 06:39 PM
XP is a great os, the reason why i changed to ubuntu is that the future of windows looks grim...

aitorcalero
August 24th, 2007, 09:47 AM
For me XP SP2 is the best Microsoft OS, but Ubuntu is better except for games. But even in this case, is not a problem of Ubuntu, but comercial instead.

aitorcalero
August 24th, 2007, 09:57 AM
Linux distros need to make their distros more feature rich, vista and XP are both very feature rich. Some distros are trying to make their distros more feature rich - ubuntu doesn't seem to be.

Feature rich? :confused: OpenOffice and many more apps are included in almost every Linux distro right out of the box! :O Isn't it Feature rich?
Try to do something productive with windows right out of the box. You have to spend 1 or 2 hours to install drivers, printers, office and so on...



If they don't catch up within a couple of years i feel windows, mac os/x will leave linux behind in terms of intergrated features (not software, things like config tools, help files, menu systems, layout, look and feel) I belive if linux devs across the board don't start to make new + add more features to their distros linux as a whole will loose more and more of its already very very small market share.
Look and feel choices are far better in Linux than Windows. Also Compiz/Beryl is a great enhancement that Windows dont have.
And also you missed the most important thing in terms of help. Linux and Ubuntu forums rocks!!!! :guitar:

bignelly
August 24th, 2007, 01:43 PM
i'm a noob here, well almost. i have been runing Ubuntu on my laptop for two weeks now and really like it, it rocks:guitar:

i have left XP on my desk top and on my other laptop .....

i haven't found anything that either OS cannot do yet.
i mostly surf, email and noodle about with mp3's

until 4 moths ago i didn't own a comuter and hadn't used one regularly since windows 2000 was the coolest thing around, and linux was for techie geeks and anti establishment crusaders. by comparison both Ubuntu and XP are like OS heaven, each having thier pro's and thier cons.
so, i am more than happy to make use of the best bits of each system
i see no sense in becoming a microsoft monkey, doing only what they bid me to do and using only the programs they prescribe for me, nor do i see sense in become a linux rebel marching off to battle against microsoft with Che Guevara T-shirt and a penguin badge on my breast.

mcurtiss1970
August 24th, 2007, 01:47 PM
i just didn't like that i had to wpie the OS and reinstall 2-3 times over 5 years because it got so bloated.

Spam Banjo
August 24th, 2007, 02:20 PM
I hate XP. I hated Win3.1, Win95, Win98. I suspect I'll hate Vista. Why? Cos bleeding Microsoft Windows has become synonymous in so many people's heads with computers. You talk about computers, they think you're on about Windows.

I have hated windows since using Windows 2000. Everything after 2000 seemed like a step backwards. I like vista, but only because it gives me a slighty Beryl-Like feel when I'm using non wine-compatible software. The over-protective security is an annoyance to a seasoned user.

That and the fact that my new computer is a bit of a beast, and therefore can handle aero, unlike many unfortunate users who were forced to have it installed on their new machines whether they want it or not... although it doesn't seem such a bad an Idea to have it when you consider something like 75% (educated guess) of hardware & peripheral manufacturers are STILL not supporting Linux or even offering drivers, over 10 years since I was first made aware of it.

I personally think the lack of support is a disgrace. There are SO MANY different Linux flavors... Ubuntu (not to mention Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu...), Fedora, Red Hat, Debian, Mandrake, OpenSuSE, Turbolinux, Slackware Linux... Need I go on...

...And all of the above mentioned are CURRENT VERSIONS. Still being updated and developed. How can it be justified that these OSs are ignored by manufacturers.

There are 2 current versions of Windows. Vista, and XP... and pretty soon XP will be unsupported. Yet drivers are still created to support 98, me, 2000, 2003, XP and Vista.

I'm not expecting them to support Hoary, Dapper Drake, etc... but at least make some effort to support the current versions.

I imagine writing drivers for one KDE/Gnome/X environment would be much similar to another, ie: OpenSuSE and Kubuntu. If the community can write Linux drivers, why the hell can't the manufacturers?!?!?

hessiess
August 24th, 2007, 02:35 PM
xp is a bolted and extremely slow operating system witch brakes itself rather allot(vista is worse)

ukripper
August 24th, 2007, 02:48 PM
People don't hate XP but do hate viruses. Viruses love XP

bignelly
August 24th, 2007, 02:51 PM
nice rant Spam :biggrin:

what is beryl ?

bignelly
August 24th, 2007, 02:56 PM
you dont have to answer that, i just found it in Synaptic package manager