windows rant

i hate windows
sorry for all u windows fans out there but u need to wise up. windows blows
for example-constant crashes-doesnt always shutdown(win98)-bugs up the wazoo(ME)slow as hell(XP)
today my rant is with win98se my favorite of them all but still hated with a passion.
i load off a fresh install-install the program that CAME WITH THE WIFI CARD yet the program doesnt see the card when it works on my other 2 laptops. windows knows its there but it ses card not found-d-link 650 wireless card- then the gateway solo 1450 has an oddball videocard that i can not find drivers for-not even at www.driverguide.com (recommend driver site, logon is username:driver psswd:all) or gateway or at intel (makes of the video card) and all the gateway site told me was it had an 830M chipset. that was it in the video card section.

once again sorry winblows fans but I HATE WINDOWS :3pow: :sadwin: :shootem:

I don't hate it but yeah it sucks, im just waiting for my contract with AOL to end so i can order Cable and install Gentoo.

Heck, I don't install a full linux distro because there are no linux drivers available for my wireless adapter :(. Having an os without being able to access the internet is sort off useless :(

I hate windows for sure, but I still use it because I really like C#. Sure, it's like java and C thrown in a blender, but reflection, VSA, and delegates are all real nice to have. Also, designing GUIs in C# is much easier than in java. But, soon I hope I'll be converting my WinXP box to a RH9/FreeBSD5/WinXP box. However, like el-half said I'm not sure all my hardware is compatible. It's a pickle, for sure.

Windows Rocks, that was my vote but it aint worth arguing over here at AO, this is like the ultimate use-Linux site.

Windows Rock! Why? Because it'll give me a job as a tech! :)

I would just like to mention that Windows keeps most of us employed. ;)

I just like Windows, my XP has yet to crash and Ive had her at least six months. You can take care of your box and it should be ok. I have no illusions that this is due to the relatively low technical usage my XP gets so ultimately from a home user point of view with a few technical interests Windows is nice.

From a security point of view perhaps not.

But you state you dont like XP because it is slow as hell...

I think from a 'general user' standpoint, XP is a good OS. It is easy to use, it is stable, I've never gotten a BSOD, it is as easy to protect as the next OS if you take care to do it, install your updates, check your firewall, update your AV software. Most people who use computers aren't looking for *nix or anything like that, they need a good way to check their email, and dl music. XP provides that, and MS takes advantage of it. When someone makes a better product, and you have to keep in mind here that the definition of 'better' is easy-to-use, extremely accesible, and totally compatible, then Windows will fall out of the forefront. Until that happens, there are going to be unlimited jobs available for MS products and support. "Hating" Windows is just pissing into the wind.

Quote:

---

I've never gotten a BSOD

---

That is just not possible.

I have a laptop from work with XP on it ( can't help it ), and when you put it to the test a bit it freaks out, just like any windoze version i ever got. I'm just very very sorry i didn't start with linux earlier.

Quote:

---

... pissing into the wind.

---

can come in handy on a cold winter's night :p

Greetz

I take a pragmatic view.........

If linux was that good it would pose a serious threat to windows..............it isn't so it doesn't.

You may not like that, but it is fact...........I know that if I installed linux in any corporate client I would destroy that client. Too many distros, too little support, too few apps, too few drivers and so on.

Be real folks, it is close to Christmas, hundreds of thousands of computers will be sold........they will boot windows not linux.

Basically of all the domestic/home users I can think of, NONE of them would get past the boot sequence on a linux box. Bill Gates did not get where he was by accident.........he is a cunning b*****d, and he isn't about to belly up and let a shower of anoracks/propeller heads take over his empire.

Until there are serious applications contenders and turnkey systems ( as in they work straight out of the box with no brains required :D ) in your local store that run on linux, Gates will stay in control. That is a simple economic and practical reality. He (Gates) has been allowed to get too big for too long.

OK, the technically aware have a choice, but at the moment I think that "joe public" does not?

Just my £0.02 worth

Cheers

yea with XP i got BSOD every time i booted on my laptop and my amd xp athlon 2000 couldnt keep xp stable so i just dont care for it. it may hav been a bad install every time but 7 times in a row? probably a bad disk

I don't mind Windows, it's only an operating system. For some people it's the best choice. I doubt my grandmother will ever learn how to mount /dev/hda4 or whatever. I love Linux myself, but the vendor and software support is just not there. I am setting up a dual boot system on the new laptop, SuSE and Windows XP.

I run RH 9 on two other systems, Windows 98SE on another and I have 1 1/2 Macs. Plus two more systems that don't have any OS. I'll get arount to it when I get SuSE.

may be a dum question but how can u hav 1 1/2 macs?

It's a good question old chap, but I can remember when you got dual booting Apple boxes that had twin processors and the lot. Ran Mac and Doze they did..... :D

I regret not purchasing one when they were going cheap...quite a collector's item now I would have thought?

Cheers

Windows has its days, just like teh computer does.
its kind of like a child, when it is good it is mine, when it is bad or pissing me off it is Nightfalls


Nightfalls_Girl

Ok I guess I'll jump in here...

If all you need a computer for is to check your email, write some resume's, chat, download music, and maybe do some taxes, does it really matter which operating system you use? No. It doesn't. Why would most people even care which operating system they're using?

Like Nihil said, until someone can put together a distribution with a button that says "Install Linux Now", with nothing else required from the user, Windows will dominate the market. I would further add that until somebody actually advertises a Linux distribution and tries to convert normal users, people will still continue not caring. But since Linux is not made for profit, nobody will advertise it. Because of that, it will remain the realm of computer geeks. Even Redhat, which came close to the ease of a Windows installation, was still severely lacking in user friendliness and far too tchnical in thier installation screens. And thier RPM managament is still too buggy to rival the Windows installer.

Redhat is really the only company ever to take a shot at Microsoft. And they missed. Once enough people began using thier product and needing support, downloading updates and images without paying a dime for it, the whole enterprise became too expensive, so they scrapped it and started selling thier nonpaying customers on Enterprise Redhat. SuSE is coming close to that point now, but I fear they will eventually walk the same path.

The big difference is that *nix was designed for programmers by programmers, and Windows was designed for idiots by businesspeople.

I like my Slackware because it does everything I wan't it to, but more importantly, nothing I don't. It does everything my Windows installation does, and it does it faster. But none of my Linux-challenged friends can even find the buttons they need to push to log in with Gaim or check thier email, with what is in my opinion an extremely friendly Gnome desktop. Some won't even touch it after seeing the boot screen scroll all the kernel messages past them. Obviously it is still far too different from Windows to ease enough people's fears of change to make a difference.

Yes, Linux may be more secure, more stable, more configureable, and more cheap than Windows, but until the rest of the world knows it exists nobody will ever use it. And once the world starts using it it will become too expensive to maintain for free.

I belive that some Linux distributions have the potential to rival Windows one day, but that until somebody finds a way

haha, don't let catch see this thread. He'll have a field day :D

I think when it comes down to it Linux is by no means user friendly enough for you average home user yet. As far as Win XP being crap; I have found that XP once set up properly runs great even on AMD machines. What I have found as well is that most people that have complaints are running a pirated version. What I am trying to say is "XP Pro Legal = Good" "XP Pro pirate = Crap".

I would love to know if I am on to something. Please let me know if you have a legal copy of xp, with updates, that gives constant trouble.

we run Xp pro legal edition with no problems at all!!


Nightfalls_Girl

You could argue that Linux is useless because it doesn't support a lot of hardware, or because it's relatively difficult to install (in comparison with Windows 2000), installs uneccessary services etc. Also, Linux isn't 100% stable - in fact I've probably had as many crashes on my laptop running RedHat 9 as I have had with Windows XP on the same box.

Yes, Windows sucks in a lot of respects, but you have to criticise it in a balanced manner and in comparison with Linux.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by .: Shrekkie :.
That is just not possible.

---

Actually, it is. I've got Windows XP on my laptop and I've never had a BSOD (admittedly it's crashed a few times, but usually I've been able to kill whatever process is causing the problem and more or less recover). On the other hand, not getting a BSOD whilst using Windows 98 would be somewhat unusual.

Regarding XP Pro.

I built a box for it when it first came out, well almost.

I had a lot of problems because:

1.It was unfamiliar, and I had a lot of experience of things that worked differently. All of a sudden a fair bit of my "intuitive knowledge" was obsolete.
2. I made a cardinal error of changing the computer specs on the fly. It did not like that :)

It has now run for almost a year without a BSOD. OK I have had hangs and crashes, but due to software that I have loaded, not to XP Pro per se.

pwaring:

Quote:

---

On the other hand, not getting a BSOD whilst using Windows 98 would be somewhat unusual.

---

I see where you are coming from, but that is not quite fair. If you give Win98 256Mb of RAM and 384Mb to Win98se and Me they are extremely well behaved. They just happen to be total resource pigs, very prone to memory leaks. I always run a RAM manager with them and have found them very stable with the levels of RAM I just mentioned. But be careful, they are unstable if you give them more than 512Mb!!!

Cheers

u guys are right
windows is probably better then linux but i love linux just the same
the reason for this thread was pure anger
i had been working on my sisters laptop for days trying to find drivers and get the wifi working and my sis was riding my ass and i was getting discouraged and pissed off and my shrink said to express my feelings so i thought ide give it a shot
pwaring ur right this thread was pritty much useless

Quote:

---

I see where you are coming from, but that is not quite fair. If you give Win98 256Mb of RAM and 384Mb to Win98se and Me they are extremely well behaved. They just happen to be total resource pigs, very prone to memory leaks. I always run a RAM manager with them and have found them very stable with the levels of RAM I just mentioned. But be careful, they are unstable if you give them more than 512Mb!!!

---

Fair point, but 256Mb of RAM wasn't the standard amount that shipped with PCs when Windows 98 was released - in fact it was probably more like 64Mb. So, for the PC environment at the time Win98 was new, it would cause at lot of BSODs. Obviously, if you pump some memory in that may stablise things, but then the requirements for Win98 didn't include a minimum of 256Mb of RAM.