Do you consider windows systems in general to be good?

[Cyraxzz]

Just checking reactions, since a great deal of Ubuntu users own an XP partition.

[aysiu]

I think Windows XP is an excellent operating system.

I just happen to like Ubuntu better.

[Kilz]

I used to have an XP partition. But I deleted it after 4 months. It was just taking up space. I don't miss it at all. After 8 months of using Linux I don't think I will ever go back. I recently had to help a friend clean out xp. It just drove me crazy, it was so limiting and slow to get anything accomplished.

[someusernoob]

Actually there is not much 'wrong' with Windows. But the things you have to do to maintain it makes you go crazy (virus scan, spyware scan, defragment, registery cleaner etc.). Also installing software is horror.

Besides that, when you have a:

default Windows XP box (SP2, last updates)
default Ubuntu box (6.06.1, last updates)

and use it, you'll find out which is better, and why Windows isnt that 'good' actually.

I might switch back to Windows when they got a package manager, and i dont believe this will ever happen.

[K.Mandla]

I voted "unsure" only because I consider them sufficient for the task. They get the job done, and if that's what you like and that's what you want to use to get the job done, then hey, I say use it.

I will note, however, that I used to think EasyScript on the Commodore 64 was sufficient to get the job done. But you won't see me typing up my resume on my old breadbox. ;)

[tonyr]

My sentiments lie pretty much along the same lines as K.Mandla. I'm
having a hard time finding a sufficiently general context in which
to define 'good' as it pertains to an operating system. Works pretty
well for most of the Windows community. Is way bloated. Has
delusions of grandeur. Provides a whole passle of solutions
across a wide range of disciplines, and they even work well enough.

Am I over-analyzing here? ...somebody stop me...

EDIT: Actually, I like aysiu's answer, completely subjective,
concise, to the point, which I guess was the whole point in the first
place.

[xXx 0wn3d xXx]

Windows is a good operating system, I have no problem with it. In my opinion there are better choices avaible though.

[FineE]

I voted no.
I do think that Windows XP pro would be an excellent operating system if one took out the DRM (Product activation, WGA etc.). Windows Vista will take this even further allowing Microsoft revoke the product key of a Vista Computer requiring activation again. This may be added to XP in a future service pack. Product key revocation can be deliberate or accidental. The latter occurred recently with WGA when for example problems with one of Microsoft's server's caused the computers in an educational institution to fail WGA.

More specifically I would say

Vista / Longhorn Server not good
Windows XP becoming not good fast
Windows Server 2003 maybe (only infected with product activation no WGA yet)
Windows 2000 / Server 2000 good but possible WGA infections
Windows NT (Workstation and Server) 4, 3.51, 3.5 good
Windows NT (Workstation and Server) 3.1 Very new but sill fairly good
Windows ME no DRM but not good because it crashes all the time. The only non DRM version of Windows I am prepared to fail outright.
Windows 98 / 98SE good
Windows 95 good
Windows 3.1 / Windows for Workgroups 3.11 good
Windows 3.0 and earlier (Windows 386/ 286, 2.xx 1.xx ) good for their time.
MS DOS (all Versions except 4 ) good
MS DOS 4 very iffy

[Sef]

I voted unsure. It can get the bsic jobs done (word processing, internet and such, but, as was mentioned, there is the updating of anti-viruses, spyware, and malware protection. Really depends on what you need to get done. Sometimes Windows software is better than non-windows software; sometimes not. (At least right now this is true.) If it does use Windows, or WINE, or Crossover, if they can work on one of the last two. I prefer to stick with GPL software whenever possible.

[rfruth]

Windows is okay but thank my lucky stars I don't need it !

[cunawarit]

Great:
XP, NT4, 2003

Good:
2000, 3.11

Bad:
98

Terrible:
95, Me

I am hoping that Vista will be better than ever! From what I have seen it is, the Unix like security model seems much better and admin is going to be easier with PowerShell. Vista is looking good.

[Rhubarb]

@cunawarit
Yes Vista is looking good.
But having tried RC1, I don't like anything about it. Even the new security model is poor - it won't stop users from accepting malware to run. Some software that did work with XP now has to be run in software compatibility mode (and the executable has to be on a writable medium, like a hard disk, not a CD or DVD).
It can't even run a java applet without temporarily disabling the aero interface.
So to sum it all up, vista looks ok.
But performs like xp, but with more annoyances.
Personally my experience with windows me was good, didn't have any (many) crashing problems with it at all. But it's old and quite useless now.

[Somenoob]

It's compltetly aimed at the casual user, so it's easy to understand why it's dominant. In my honest opinion it's not that good, endless security problems and it's occasionaly a bit of a resource hog.

[nocturn]

Ok, these are my personal feelings off course.

I find Windows XP a lousy OS. Not just because it is commercial because that would also apply to OS X and OS/2 (in the past).

I have worked with my share of OS's in my lifetime, including anything from MS from DOS 4 (I think) up, OS/2, Solaris, HP-UX, Reliant Unix, VMS, some BSD's and for a big part Linux.

I liked a lot of them, including OS/2, but WinXP just doesn't cut it compared to any of them. My specific gripes are instability, lack of any kind of package management, insecure design and practices.

The biggest gripe to day is control. I have the feeling that MS has more control over an XP machine then the owner does (WGA, DRM, ...) and I do not want such a system.

Linux on the other hand has united a lot of the strong points of all the others while being Free (as in freedom).

[cunawarit]

It's compltetly aimed at the casual user, so it's easy to understand why it's dominant. In my honest opinion it's not that good, endless security problems and it's occasionaly a bit of a resource hog.

I wouldn’t say Windows is completely aimed at the casual user, XP Home is. But a lot of the business Microsoft makes is from the corporate desktop market, which they dominate. I do think they really are the top players in terms of collaborative technologies for the office environment; this is one of the reasons stopping Linux from penetrating this market more successfully.

Also lets not forget Windows 2003 Server, it is true that Linux and Unix dominate the server market but Windows is no small player. It does have a significant slice of the pie, much greater than Linux has of the desktop market.

[knucklehead2354]

I don't think that Windows is a bad OS at all. It's just that product activation reactivation (when upgrading the motherboard) has gotten annoying. I really don't like Microsoft's DRM.

[argie]

Windows 98SE served me fine while I had it. I find Ubuntu easier to use though.

However, I have this big -ve attached to cost, (I got my Win98 disc with my computer), so XP and Vista are all "bad". :D

Actually, I could buy a fancy computer with the money for Vista Ultimate.

[FISHERMAN]

The WindowsNT-based-ones(2000, XP,..) are good(though I have my doubts about the upcoming Vista).
The Win9x-ones(95,98,Me) were a disaster.

[justin whitaker]

Windows systems, out side of ME, have never given me much problem.

Although AVG found a trojan on my system in this morning's AV sweep, so that's a little disheartening. :rolleyes:

I mostly find the activation annoying, but not the OS overall.

[Reshin]

Uh, am I really the only one who thinks that ME was the best from 9X-series? :D (might be 'cause I skipped 98se)

[3rdalbum]

I just find the interface to be awful and the operating system unmaintainable. I also hate how it assumes it is more intelligent than the user. Even though I've told it that I don't want to automatically download and install updates, it still does so whenever I have the modem plugged in.

Yep, I don't like KDE's interface either as it too closely mirrors Windows'.

On Windows, when I want to digitise video, I have problems. If I want to capture to the hard disk, the disk's fragmentation causes the audio to go out of sync with the video. If I capture to an empty DVD-RAM, I don't get AV sync problems; but there's SOME process still active which tries to access the DVD-RAM, and sometimes ruins the capture.

I have to think that Windows is the most insecure operating system with the most security features. Microsoft's documentation proudly boasts all these very interesting introspective security monitors, but many things Windows does are completely insecure. I'll give you an example:

* Windows has an RPC daemon (Remote Procedure Calling). I don't know if it sends RPC requests or recieves them, but whatever it is, it's facing the Internet and for security reasons I don't want it open. So I go to the Task Manager and kill it. Windows then tells me that the RPC program has shut down unexpectedly, and that Windows itself will shut down in 1 minute.

What's to stop a virus from continually killing the RPC daemon on startup, causing the computer to shut down immediately? Maybe I should write this as a proof-of-concept so Microsoft will fix it?

I originally didn't intend to bash Microsoft or Windows, but it looks like I have. Even most of Microsoft's fans (except the ones who insist that IE has "superior security features") have grave doubts about Vista's real level of security. The parts of Windows' framework that cause users to run in an insecure manner are not parts that Microsoft has changed.

[Demio]

About the RPC daemon, there was already a virus that did that hehe. I think it was the "I love you" virus. Pretty darn annoying.

[3rdalbum]

Well then, I must be a haxxor genius. (according to Wikipedia, the "I Love You" virus didn't do that, but now that I think about it I do recall hearing about a virus that managed to shut down the computer immediately after startup).

[Ob1]

XP has been their only good one. But it's really nothing compared to any modern Linux distrobution.

[kenweill]

Do a fresh install of both OS, Ubuntu and Windows.
1. Windows - Not very usable. No office suite.
2. Ubuntu - Very usable. Have, almost, everything you need. Office suite is there.

But adding add-ons, Windows is better for me. Almost, or most devices comes with a driver for windows. The biggest problem in windows is its security. Virus. Worm. Trojan. Spyware. Defrag.

In Ubuntu, no need to worry viruses, worms, spywares, defrag. Trojan i guess can penetrate linux.

The worst Windows is Windows ME. Some called it ME is in Maximum Errors. Thats the worst Windows i have ever used.

Ubuntu is good.
Windows is good.
They are both good.
Both have advantages and disadvantages.
The only reason I use windows is for games(online games), Yahoo Messenger, and Modem.

My Ubuntu machine connect to a Windows which acts as a gateway.

[Craftycorner]

Unfortionately, I must keep Windows XP Home Addition because a good deal of my hardware does not play well with others.](*,)

[Artificial Intelligence]

The worst Windows is Windows ME. Some called it ME is in Maximum Errors. Thats the worst Windows i have ever used.


Wrong. They called ME = Major Error :mrgreen:


Personally I don't like windows with an exception of win98 which I find okay. The reason is I like to see what's happening behind all the gui so I have an idea what's happening and the lack of control in windows is also annoying. When an error pop up saying 765EE563 you don't stand a chance to do something about it. You got two options, wait for an update or reinstall.

[Craftycorner]

I'll be running a double OS, my sensitive crap in the Linux half, my play crap and printing and scanning needs, some video crap in the Windows ghetto. Any surfing in the unsafe wild I will be doing on Linux time, as Windows is about as safe as skinny dipping in a shark reef!:D