What is so bad about Windows?

[presbp]

I have been using Windows for a long time and I have never had that many problems with it.
I hear all the time about Linux being superior and all but everything I need to do I have always been able to do in Windows.

I have never gotten a virus that I know of and have never had any problems with spyware.
I have gotten a few instances where programs wouldn't uninstall and things like that and while defragging does take some time it doesn't take that long, you can just start it right when you are about to go to sleep. Most of the free open-source software that I can use/do use in Ubuntu I can download for Windows.

While [from what I hear] technically the operating systems running on the Linux kernel are superior, what are some obvious things that are better about it/things that would make one choose a Linux distro over Windows (do not include the major fact that most all Linux distros are free)?

I know that with Beryl/Compiz you can fully customize your themes of your windows and such and you can also have different login windows and stuff. But I ask apart from eye-candy what does Linux offer that is noticeable apart from Windows?

[Trebuchet]

But I ask apart from eye-candy what does Linux offer that is noticeable apart from Windows?Seriously? Linux makes some people who use it feel superior to those who don't. Fortunately they aren't a majority or the Linux community would be insufferably smug.

I happen to like certain aspects of Windows, Linux, and Mac OS. I guess that makes me a heretic.

[uNmentaLogic]

The only real difference to me is that linux runs better on older hardware.

[ickyfeet]

The thing I noticed right off the bat after switching from Windows to Linux is the fact that Windows is so "Bloaty". Currently I have 2 gigs of memory in my system. When running Windows I could never get away with using less than 500-700 Megs of ram AND use as much swap space. Currently running Firefox on Ubuntu I'm using 370 Megs of ram and ZERO swap. Another thing I noticed about Windows is that I frequently had to close programs because they weren't responding, often times I had to restart the system all together just to get the system running "normally". I can't tell you the last time I had a program quit responding in Linux.

I don't really think that Windows is bad. I think that it's what people are used to . . .

[GFree]

I think the ideology of Linux has an attraction to many people. Windows has a corporate feel to it, whereas Linux has a "people" feel. It's hard to describe especially since Windows is supposed to have superior user-friendliness, but I'm mainly referring to the fact that Windows evolves to suit corporate needs whereas Linux evolves to suit people's needs.

You'll never see a demand for DRM in Linux, because that's not what people want. But Windows? Sure, no problem. They're in league with the big companies, and will do what they want instead of what we want. Hope that makes sense.

[aysiu]

It depends what you consider "bad."

A lot of people think the proprietary nature of Windows is bad. A lot of people don't like Microsoft's business practices. And some people (not you, apparently) have had problems with viruses and spyware (I know I have).

But you're right--XP is a pretty capable system. I like it a lot. I also happen to like Mac OS X, too. Ubuntu is just the best fit for me. I happen to dig how easy it is to customize, too. Yes, I've tried Windowblinds and BBLean and LiteStep and Flyakite and all that. Can't beat dragging and dropping a .tar.gz to the Theme Manager window...

[ricardisimo]

The short version? Money.

The long version? Money. I mean not only the cost of buying a MS OS in a box, but also the "hidden" costs of buying it pre-loaded on a comp. That same machine could have cost half the price with a Linux system on it.

I mean also the "hidden" costs in probably everything you purchase - since most manufacturers and their distributors are keeping inventory, and running their marketing and communications on proprietary systems for which they paid, and the price for which will eventually be passed on to you.

Consider also the cost in your taxes to buy and to regularly purchase upgrades of Office software for your local school district, municipalities, community colleges, county government, state government, state universities and federal government. We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars here.

I'm always very quick to point out that I think people should get paid for what they do, and that certainly includes programmers/web designers/hackers who might be working in either the public or private sectors. But I'm a good union man; they should (collectively if possible) negotiate a price for their work and get paid for their hours. On the other hand, people like Gates and Jobs have no business (pun intended) getting even one red cent for manipulating and distorting their markets beyond recognition, when they themselves serve no necessary or even desirable function in the natural development of the computer world.

That's what I think, anyhow. Don't know if that was just a rant or a decent response to your question.

P.S. - There are still some significant things about Windows that I prefer over Linux (or Ubuntu, at least). I'm an idealist, not an ideologue.

[runningwithscissors]

It is an inferior product.

A few points that back that view up:
- it is difficult to use (try mounting partitions on local directories)
- it costs more than comparable alternatives
- it infringes on consumer freedom
- its security record is woeful
- it lacks functionality (decent scripting support/virtual desktops/etc.)
- the registry (which makes any kind of upgrade/fresh installation a pain in the ****)

[Sunnz]

It is not that there is something 'bad' about Windows, it is about the quality of the code.

It takes a high end machine to run Vista with all the bells and whistle while you can get away with last year's computer running Beryl on Linux or OS X... they all function, it is just how efficient they do it.

[uNmentaLogic]

It is not that there is something 'bad' about Windows, it is about the quality of the code.

It takes a high end machine to run Vista with all the bells and whistle while you can get away with last year's computer running Beryl on Linux or OS X... they all function, it is just how efficient they do it.


That is not quite true, my machine is nearly 18 months old and it runs Vista with all the bells and whistles very nicely. Granted when I bought it, it was a beast. I've found that both Vista and Opensuse 10.2 run very nicely on it, I cant really say much about oldercomputers as I dont have access to any. For me Vista and Suse run the same, I'm either lucky or cursed take your pick.

uNmentaLogic

[Sunnz]

Well how high is your computer's spec?

Anyway it is about how it generally runs on computers, not specific individual cases, which is where the quality of codes are important.

[esaym]

It cost way too much. I don't like the way they run there business. Since I have switched I feel like my computer is all mine[-(

[Mike Tomasello]

Well how high is your computer's spec?

Anyway it is about how it generally runs on computers, not specific individual cases, which is where the quality of codes are important.
My laptop with an 1.86GHz Intel Pentium 4, HT, 64MB graphics card and 768MB RAM ran Vista just fine. So did my 2.6GHz Intel Pentium 4 (without HT), 256MB graphics card and 1GB RAM. So I have to confess I have no idea where these reports of Vista needing 4GB of RAM!!! (which 32bit Vista, nor XP, doesn't even support), super amazing graphics card and intel core 2 extreme thingy! :P

They run it at least as well as they run Ubuntu 6.10 with Beryl.

Personally there are only a few things I prefer about Linux/Ubuntu to Windows, and they're not exactly major.
I also dislike the registry. It's not usually a problem, but when an installation goes awry there seems to be hundreds of entries for the item to delete. I'm not sure how it all works, but it can't work very well.
I dislike the way programmes are installed. Typically, they make a folder in the start menu which is the name of the software company, within that often the name of the programme as a sub-folder, within that there is usually the programme's shortcut, then a "safe mode" shortcut, then an uninstaller, then a help documentation link, then a link to the software company's web-site, then a link to the product's website, and often a link to the publisher's web-site aswell. The amount of time I have to spend deleting and moving things around in my start menu really annoys me. :P
I love the way fonts appear in Ubuntu compared to XP. That said, using ClearType in XP makes things look a lot better, especially with the Office 2007/Vista fonts installed.
Oddly enough, wireless networking works much better for me on Ubuntu than on Windows. No tedious fiddling around installing drivers then setting up a network connection and all that stuff. I just plugged in the Linksys wireless network card and off it went. I hear this is generally the opposite for most people though.However, things I prefer about Windows:

Sound support. Everything sound related seems to be work better in Windows.
The fact that a lot of very nice applications are written specifically for it (and sometimes for OS X as well). I love Photoshop and I love MSN Messenger. I just can't seem to get used to the Linux alternatives, and Wine is not the panacea that it is often claimed to be.
Games. Though this is sort of part of the above.
The fact that I've used it for years and know a lot about it and how to get it to work well, whereas I've used Linux very little in comparison and am fairly clueless.I've also don't have virus/spyware/etc. related problems. I don't use a firewall/anti-virus on Linux or Windows.

Mike

[Sunnz]

I haven't seen anyone said it need 4GB of RAM... their recommended requirement is something like 1 GB of RAM though.

I had to ask this... which version of Vista are you running? Have you tried using Flip 3D? You said 32 bit version doesn't support 4 GB of RAM... do you know how much the 64 bit would support?

[runningwithscissors]

I haven't seen anyone said it need 4GB of RAM... their recommended requirement is something like 1 GB of RAM though.

I had to ask this... which version of Vista are you running? Have you tried using Flip 3D? You said 32 bit version doesn't support 4 GB of RAM... do you know how much the 64 bit would support?

32 bit systems support 2^32 bytes of memory.
Hence 64 bit systems support 2^64 bytes of memory.

[Rodneyck]

I haven't seen anyone said it need 4GB of RAM... their recommended requirement is something like 1 GB of RAM though.



Actually, to run it well, they recommend 2gb. I ran it with 1gb and it was fine. Apparently from all the articles I have read, one of the major complaints is that Vista's 3D system (what is it Aura or sonething like that) utilizes about 100% of memory to run it. Compared to Ubuntu with beryl which only takes up about 25%. So the more ram, the better I suppose.

[steven8]

I run Linux on a five year old computer. It is not all original, I have added ram to 768mbs, and I have a 1.2ghz athlon. I could probably run Vista on it as well, but it'd be rough. I had to go back to my geforce4 card, as my fx5200 pooped out on me. :-( That may be the downfall of a Vista for me.

I say some of the bells and a few of the whistles would have to be left in the box.

[Medieval_Creations]

I can tolerate Windows. As with most of us we've been using it long enough, that we've figured out how to get it to do what we need it to. Getting to that point is the adventure. :)

I prefer Linux for a lot of the same reason I think most of us do.
1.) It's free. As well as all it additional programs, Apt-Get is a heck of a lot easier than going and buying a proprietary counterpart.
2.) Customization, you can completely customize a Linux OS for your system, by either compiling the kernel, or changing a few flags when you run the ./configure You have complete control of what functionality you system and your programs have.
3.) Security. Because of it being open source when a bug, fix, or security hole is found it’s usually fixed immediately, at least within a realistic time line, unlike Windows who still has know issues that haven’t been address or resolved.
4.) Linux does what it’s told; it doesn’t do what it thinks you want it to.

My big thing with Linux is it gives me control of my PC. I can set it up with what I want and need and nothing else. I don’t get what someone at Microsoft thinks I need.

[CallsignBaron]

Why Linux is better than Window$? Great question, simple answer. At this very moment my system up time is 392 days 15 hours 27 minutes.... and counting :)

[Sunnz]

OpenVMS systems has been known to have up-times of a decade or more, does it make it waaaaaaay better?

[Somenoob]

Because it's closed-source, and that makes it's bad enough for me.

[Sunnz]

Dude lots of things are closed source...

Do you for example, use nVidia driver?

[yigal.weinstein]

Sunnz,

I don't understand why you have the quote, "Windows isn't a virus, viruses do something." as a signature if you keep defending Vista. Is it Windows you dislike but you are reasonably happy with Vista, or is it something more, or different?

For me what is bad about Windows/Vista is about the same thing. I really like the freedom Linux provides and the ethical claims Ubuntu/Linux make as apposed to a company devoted seemingly to no other goal than to make a $. I can be as creative as I want on Linux, as a trade off I must spend more time on the computer on coding, configuring what I have, the way I want it to be. But this pay off is worth it to me. However, I understand other people who simply do not want to know how the car works and simply wants to drive the car. I like to build things, so again Linux makes sense for me.

[Adamant1988]

I have been using Windows for a long time and I have never had that many problems with it.
I hear all the time about Linux being superior and all but everything I need to do I have always been able to do in Windows.

I have never gotten a virus that I know of and have never had any problems with spyware.
I have gotten a few instances where programs wouldn't uninstall and things like that and while defragging does take some time it doesn't take that long, you can just start it right when you are about to go to sleep. Most of the free open-source software that I can use/do use in Ubuntu I can download for Windows.

While [from what I hear] technically the operating systems running on the Linux kernel are superior, what are some obvious things that are better about it/things that would make one choose a Linux distro over Windows (do not include the major fact that most all Linux distros are free)?

I know that with Beryl/Compiz you can fully customize your themes of your windows and such and you can also have different login windows and stuff. But I ask apart from eye-candy what does Linux offer that is noticeable apart from Windows?

A lot of people dislike the security. But honestly, windows is plenty safe as long as you just do basic, routine, upkeep. Microsoft is usually effecient in releasing patches quickly to plug holes that are discovered. Get a Decent AV, antispyware, and firewall, and you should be fine. There are perfectly decent options in all of those that are completely free.

The rest lies with you, be careful what you download, follow basic safety advice, and you should be virus and spyware free for quite sometime. I have no major issues with XP, and I'm waiting for the bugs to get sorted out in Vista before I consider upgrading to it.

A lot of people dislike windows based on moral grounds, and it's understandable. Since the Sony root-kit fiasco I refuse to use any sony products, and the instant I find out that Microsoft is deliberately doing something to compromise the security on my computer, I'll be done with them too.

What seems to happen is that a lot of people feel that it's necessary to bash windows when coming to Linux, like it's some manner of required initiation. Which is completely wrong, I came to Linux because I was curious, and I knew about it. I had a perfectly safe and secure XP system that ran how I liked it, I just wanted something new. But that's me.

[Adamant1988]

The short version? Money.

The long version? Money. I mean not only the cost of buying a MS OS in a box, but also the "hidden" costs of buying it pre-loaded on a comp. That same machine could have cost half the price with a Linux system on it.

I mean also the "hidden" costs in probably everything you purchase - since most manufacturers and their distributors are keeping inventory, and running their marketing and communications on proprietary systems for which they paid, and the price for which will eventually be passed on to you.

Consider also the cost in your taxes to buy and to regularly purchase upgrades of Office software for your local school district, municipalities, community colleges, county government, state government, state universities and federal government. We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars here.

I'm always very quick to point out that I think people should get paid for what they do, and that certainly includes programmers/web designers/hackers who might be working in either the public or private sectors. But I'm a good union man; they should (collectively if possible) negotiate a price for their work and get paid for their hours. On the other hand, people like Gates and Jobs have no business (pun intended) getting even one red cent for manipulating and distorting their markets beyond recognition, when they themselves serve no necessary or even desirable function in the natural development of the computer world.

That's what I think, anyhow. Don't know if that was just a rant or a decent response to your question.

P.S. - There are still some significant things about Windows that I prefer over Linux (or Ubuntu, at least). I'm an idealist, not an ideologue.

I typically agree. I think that anyone who does work deserves to be paid for it. I don't want the programmers of my software going home to kids they can't feed, bills they can't pay, etc. They don't deserve that outcome for the wonderful work they do to bring software we need to us.

The only real solution I've ever heard of is "Software by contract" which is basically:

"I'll pay you to make this for me, but once it's made, you give up ownership of it. You'll have to make something else to keep making money"

I mean, personally, I would love to be able to get the software I need free. But frankly, I think the whole point is going to be moot very soon, since Web Applications are on the rise, we'll all be using free programs that are supported by advertisements by the likes of google. When that happens, operating systems won't matter anymore, as long as you've got a web client that can access those sites.


Personally, I would be just fine if companies wanted to put adverts inside of the software as long as they didn't infringe on my rights as a consumer to do it. I don't want spyware, so if "Sony" is supporting the development of this product, then by golly, I have no problem at all seeing some Advertising space sold to the highest bidder in my programs. Perhaps as a splash screen when the program starts "This program was brought to you by Budweiser" sort of deal.

If it would bring the prices down on my software, I would be fine with that, since it would also help bring more cross-platform applications into the mix. Of course the advertisers would pay more to have their products sold to a more wide audience. I'm thinking you could get the cheap, ad-supported version, or the expensive ad-free professional version that companies would just love to shell out for for no reason. Just don't clutter my interface, and don't steal my data or compromise my security in anyway.

I mean hell, I wouldn't even mind if Windows showed a different advertisement on the boot-splash every time I started my computer. Just don't make it intruisive is all I ask.

[ricardisimo]

I mean hell, I wouldn't even mind if Windows showed a different advertisement on the boot-splash every time I started my computer. Just don't make it intruisive is all I ask.

I'm sure you know how the world works without me having to tell you. It's starts with a splash and pretty soon you're drowning in it. I watch Sesame Street in the morning with my son, and I'm appalled by the amount of advertising (and make no mistake - it is advertising) that they run beforehand. The announcer is doing his best John Moschitta impression and it still seems to go on forever and ever and ever.

It'll be the same with your login splash. Whenever you find yourself thinking like that, remember and reflect on that next-to-last scene in Brazil, with the billboard-lined highway beyond which is a pre-Raphaelite paradise that the drivers will never be able to see thanks to the interminable "Central Services" ads.

[Adamant1988]

I'm sure you know how the world works without me having to tell you. It's starts with a splash and pretty soon you're drowning in it. I watch Sesame Street in the morning with my son, and I'm appalled by the amount of advertising (and make no mistake - it is advertising) that they run beforehand. The announcer is doing his best John Moschitta impression and it still seems to go on forever and ever and ever.

It'll be the same with your login splash. Whenever you find yourself thinking like that, remember and reflect on that next-to-last scene in Brazil, with the billboard-lined highway beyond which is a pre-Raphaelite paradise that the drivers will never be able to see thanks to the interminable "Central Services" ads.

That's why I'm saying unintrusive. Google has ads up all over the place, but they very rarely ever get in my way. They're always visible, yet not distracting and stupid.

[cbrehm]

Here's a news story about this. You would think that a company that makes as much money from their software as Microsoft does would be able to create software that worked well.



Some bumps on the road to Vista
Windows Vista has been in consumers' hands for about a week now and, while there haven't been a flood of problems, there have been a few bumps along the way. Among the initial gripes are trouble installing or activating copies as well as reports that the system isn't working quite as they expected. In addition to the sporadic reports of bugs and upgrade issues, other people are discovering that hardware and software incompatibilities are impeding their path to Vista. More than five million people had access to test versions of the software, meaning the company had a better chance to catch a wider array of potential compatibility issues than in the past. For the vast majority who have upgraded their PC without incident, there are still little things that aren't quite as expected. Some MP3 players, for example, aren't properly being recognized. Another user found that his Black Eyed Peas track, which displayed fine in XP, showed up in Vista's Windows Media Player with all of its metadata in Chinese. (c/net News www.news.com 02/07/07)

[Adamant1988]

Here's a news story about this. You would think that a company that makes as much money from their software as Microsoft does would be able to create software that worked well.



Some bumps on the road to Vista
Windows Vista has been in consumers' hands for about a week now and, while there haven't been a flood of problems, there have been a few bumps along the way. Among the initial gripes are trouble installing or activating copies as well as reports that the system isn't working quite as they expected. In addition to the sporadic reports of bugs and upgrade issues, other people are discovering that hardware and software incompatibilities are impeding their path to Vista. More than five million people had access to test versions of the software, meaning the company had a better chance to catch a wider array of potential compatibility issues than in the past. For the vast majority who have upgraded their PC without incident, there are still little things that aren't quite as expected. Some MP3 players, for example, aren't properly being recognized. Another user found that his Black Eyed Peas track, which displayed fine in XP, showed up in Vista's Windows Media Player with all of its metadata in Chinese. (c/net News www.news.com 02/07/07)

Microsoft is an excellent software company that produces great applications. The problem is their operating system is kind of iffy in spots.

[CallsignBaron]

Personnally don't know anything about OpenVMS but I would speculate....yes! :)
Sorry, I just never went a whole year with windows without seeing the dreaded BSOD, and that would only be one of many reasons I find Linux to be superior.
Regards,
Baron

[uNmentaLogic]

Well how high is your computer's spec?

Anyway it is about how it generally runs on computers, not specific individual cases, which is where the quality of codes are important.

Admitedly when I bought it my machine was near top of the line, the specs are:
AMD 64 3200@ 2GHz
1GB DDR Dual Channel 400
Nvidia Geforce 7800GT
200 GB SATA

[Ocxic]

with that spec I'm not suprised you rean vista ok, but pout vista on a P-III comp and see waht happens...

[Sunnz]

Admitedly when I bought it my machine was near top of the line, the specs are:
AMD 64 3200@ 2GHz
1GB DDR Dual Channel 400
Nvidia Geforce 7800GT
200 GB SATA
Ok now try to edit a movie in Premiere (or Windows Movie Maker®) and try to do the same on an Mac Pro (or iMac?) if you have access to one.

[Eddie Wilson]

I dual boot for now, but Windows is taking away fair use with DRM. Those three little letters are what''s destroying computer freedom for everyone. Its a money thing for MS and their backroom buddies. I know because I've been in computing before there was a Microsoft Windows.
Eddie

[Medieval_Creations]

I know because I've been in computing before there was a Microsoft Windows.

I think that's one of the reasons I prefer Linux. Reminds me of the fun & control we used to have running DOS (yes I know, still a MS product), but you had control and could change anything you needed to to get the system running the way you wanted.

:lolflag: Long live the CLI