Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 4 votes

I hate windows.


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#41 duper

duper

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 816 posts
  • Location:NYC

Posted 22 September 2008 - 03:38 PM

Religious wars are so easy to start.

#42 superkippah

superkippah

    HACK THE PLANET!

  • Members
  • 58 posts

Posted 22 September 2008 - 04:09 PM

I know a lot of people that hate Windows ME, I know a lot that love Windows ME.
I know a lot of people that hate Vista, I know a lot that love Vista.

Windows ME is like Windows Vista, you either love it or hate it.


Windows ME was notorious for... well, not working at all. It would just break, die, not install, crash all the time, do unexplained things, etc. One time my icons all got corrupted (random colors and patterns) less than an hour after the install finished. If you managed to get it to work... it was virtually identical to Windows 98. People were slow to adopt it and Windows XP was released less than 2 years later, so it's more or less (rightly so) forgotten about.


Windows ME was notorious for... well, for working. It would just install, stay ranning all the time, do explained things, etc. One time my icons did not got all corrupted (don't have random colors and patterns)....
---------

First Ohm, you really need to sit down and learn how to use a computer that would solve three quarters of your problems.

Like I said I never had a problem with ME, and I know a lot of people that didn't. you need to speak for yourself. and only for yourself. Boy!

#43 superkippah

superkippah

    HACK THE PLANET!

  • Members
  • 58 posts

Posted 22 September 2008 - 05:02 PM

I know a lot of people that hate Windows ME, I know a lot that love Windows ME.
I know a lot of people that hate Vista, I know a lot that love Vista.

Windows ME is like Windows Vista, you either love it or hate it.


Windows ME was notorious for... well, not working at all. It would just break, die, not install, crash all the time, do unexplained things, etc. One time my icons all got corrupted (random colors and patterns) less than an hour after the install finished. If you managed to get it to work... it was virtually identical to Windows 98. People were slow to adopt it and Windows XP was released less than 2 years later, so it's more or less (rightly so) forgotten about.


Windows ME was notorious for... well, for working. It would just install, stay ranning all the time, do explained things, etc. One time my icons did not got all corrupted (don't have random colors and patterns)....
---------

First Ohm, you really need to sit down and learn how to use a computer that would solve three quarters of your problems.

Like I said I never had a problem with ME, and I know a lot of people that didn't. you need to speak for yourself. and only for yourself. Boy!


this is exactly what im talking about. people might have something go wrong once or twice and then talk about it as if it happens all the time, people like to act as if linux is this magical os that walks on water and never has a hiccup, never has any errors, never crashes, never has any errors, is soooo super easy and simple for anyone to use, which is simply just not the case.


I agree with you. As far as linux, I have been using linux for around 6 years, I have never has the kernel crash but I have had X and alot of GUI apps crash many times over.

#44 Ohm

Ohm

    I could have written a book with all of these posts

  • Members
  • 3,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maine, USA

Posted 22 September 2008 - 05:20 PM

this is exactly what im talking about. people might have something go wrong once or twice and then talk about it as if it happens all the time, people like to act as if linux is this magical os that walks on water and never has a hiccup, never has any errors, never crashes, never has any errors, is soooo super easy and simple for anyone to use, which is simply just not the case.


I was fixing machines at that time, and it seemed like every other person calling me was having problems with either their new computer (which ran Windows ME) or their new upgrade to Windows ME. Seriously, it had problems. A lot of problems. It would crash, bluescreen, have random quirks or just fail completely. Some people got lucky and it ran good for them, great. A significant percentage were not so lucky. I think the situation also improved after a few rounds of patches.

I have problems with Linux all the time. The NVidia drivers killed my network drivers, sound would randomly stop working and flash crashed firefox. I had to disable ACPI and abandon the integrated sound (but now it runs great). Linux is not a "better" operating system because it's a magic bullet, Linux is good because it gives me the tools I need readily. That's what's important to me.

#45 superkippah

superkippah

    HACK THE PLANET!

  • Members
  • 58 posts

Posted 22 September 2008 - 05:34 PM

this is exactly what im talking about. people might have something go wrong once or twice and then talk about it as if it happens all the time, people like to act as if linux is this magical os that walks on water and never has a hiccup, never has any errors, never crashes, never has any errors, is soooo super easy and simple for anyone to use, which is simply just not the case.


I was fixing machines at that time, and it seemed like every other person calling me was having problems with either their new computer (which ran Windows ME) or their new upgrade to Windows ME. Seriously, it had problems. A lot of problems. It would crash, bluescreen, have random quirks or just fail completely. Some people got lucky and it ran good for them, great. A significant percentage were not so lucky. I think the situation also improved after a few rounds of patches.

I have problems with Linux all the time. The NVidia drivers killed my network drivers, sound would randomly stop working and flash crashed firefox. I had to disable ACPI and abandon the integrated sound (but now it runs great). Linux is not a "better" operating system because it's a magic bullet, Linux is good because it gives me the tools I need readily. That's what's important to me.


I was fixing machines at that time, and it seemed like every other person calling me was having success with either their new computer (which ran Windows ME) or their new upgrade to Windows ME. Seriously, it had no problems. A lot of good things. It would have great uptime, no bluescreen, or just ran great completely. Some people got stupid and it didn't ran good for them, bad. A significant percentage were so lucky. I think the situation also improved after a few people learned how to use a computer.

#46 Spyril

Spyril

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 588 posts
  • Location:North Dakota

Posted 22 September 2008 - 05:39 PM

First Ohm, you really need to sit down and learn how to use a computer that would solve three quarters of your problems.

Like I said I never had a problem with ME, and I know a lot of people that didn't. you need to speak for yourself. and only for yourself. Boy!


You're either trolling or have shit for brains.

From http://en.wikipedia....iki/Windows_ME:

Windows Me was criticized by users for its instability and unreliability, due to frequent freezes and crashes. A PC World article dubbed Windows Me the "Mistake Edition" and listed it as the fourth "Worst Tech Product of All Time".[16] "Shortly after Me appeared in late 2000," the article states, "users reported problems installing it, getting it to run, getting it to work with other hardware or software, and getting it to stop running." Even Microsoft acknowledged its unpopularity.[17]


Btw, my mom still has Windows ME on one of her old computers. After an extensive amount of time using it, I'm confident in saying that it's easily the worst operating system I've ever used. I remember getting freezes or BSODs almost daily.

Edited by Spyril, 22 September 2008 - 05:41 PM.


#47 tekio

tekio

    5(R1P7 |<1DD13

  • Binrev Financier
  • 1,303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Blue Nowhere

Posted 23 September 2008 - 02:52 AM

It is difficult to design an OS that does not suck to somebody. Each is designed with features that appeal to some and suck to others. OSX, Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD all have features that appeal to me.

In my experiences 90% of Windows kernel panics are caused from poorly written 3rd party drivers or faulty hardware. When MS is responsible it seems the issue is resolved quickly (every issue I've encountered anyway). Only twice have I needed to install 3rd party drivers for OSX. The first was a WiFi driver for the Prism 2.5 chipset. That would kernel panic the OS every five minutes. The other driver was for a Realtek chipset. It beach balls every time the client utility attempts to power cycle the radio (probably an issue with the client utility and not the driver). IMO the Unix developer base, on average are much more competent than those of other operating systems. I would also speculate having access to the kernel's source code would effect the task of developing its drivers in a positive manner.

To join in on the fun. I've always hated the MS implementation of Netbios/SMB file sharing. It seems prone to random failures that after careful inspection and protocol analysis can only be answered as glitches in the matrix To-boot, it is clunky as heck when transferring large files. Never had any troubles with SAMBA though.

EDIT: up to Windows 3.11, ME is the only version I've never used once. Perhaps I'll get a copy from ebay to run in a VM. For me, it would be interesting to know if it is lame as everyone claims.

Edited by tekio, 23 September 2008 - 04:19 AM.


#48 WhatChout

WhatChout

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 814 posts

Posted 23 September 2008 - 11:36 AM

I was fixing machines at that time, and it seemed like every other person calling me was having success with either their new computer (which ran Windows ME) or their new upgrade to Windows ME. Seriously, it had no problems. A lot of good things. It would have great uptime, no bluescreen, or just ran great completely. Some people got stupid and it didn't ran good for them, bad. A significant percentage were so lucky. I think the situation also improved after a few people learned how to use a computer.

Your post is childish and you should feel childish.

this is exactly what im talking about. people might have something go wrong once or twice and then talk about it as if it happens all the time

Yes, but strange quirks like the system getting sluggish over time, no matter how tidy you want to keep it or programs that would just hang up all sum up to the general experience, (this is my experience with XP, by the way - I still see enough advantages of it to keep it, besides I'm too lazy) which is what Ohm has been describing.

people like to act as if linux is this magical os that walks on water and never has a hiccup, never has any errors, never crashes, never has any errors, is soooo super easy and simple for anyone to use, which is simply just not the case.

Which people exactly? Can you name them? I don't remember saying anything to the effect of Linux being the next incarnation of Jesus, nor do I remember any seasoned forum users doing that. Of course you're going to find a lot of innecessary or pretentious bitching, but that doesn't mean people can't not like Windows for absolutely legitimate reasons.

#49 R4p1d

R4p1d

    Hakker addict

  • Members
  • 840 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:
  • Location:Space

Posted 23 September 2008 - 03:44 PM

I was fixing machines at that time, and it seemed like every other person calling me was having success with either their new computer (which ran Windows ME) or their new upgrade to Windows ME. Seriously, it had no problems. A lot of good things. It would have great uptime, no bluescreen, or just ran great completely. Some people got stupid and it didn't ran good for them, bad. A significant percentage were so lucky. I think the situation also improved after a few people learned how to use a computer.

Your post is childish and you should feel childish.

this is exactly what im talking about. people might have something go wrong once or twice and then talk about it as if it happens all the time

Yes, but strange quirks like the system getting sluggish over time, no matter how tidy you want to keep it or programs that would just hang up all sum up to the general experience, (this is my experience with XP, by the way - I still see enough advantages of it to keep it, besides I'm too lazy) which is what Ohm has been describing.

people like to act as if linux is this magical os that walks on water and never has a hiccup, never has any errors, never crashes, never has any errors, is soooo super easy and simple for anyone to use, which is simply just not the case.

Which people exactly? Can you name them? I don't remember saying anything to the effect of Linux being the next incarnation of Jesus, nor do I remember any seasoned forum users doing that. Of course you're going to find a lot of innecessary or pretentious bitching, but that doesn't mean people can't not like Windows for absolutely legitimate reasons.




I love reading your post. :devil:

#50 Seal

Seal

    Not a fan of clubs.

  • Agents of the Revolution
  • 2,440 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:
  • Location:Canada

Posted 23 September 2008 - 08:34 PM

I was fixing machines at that time, and it seemed like every other person calling me was having success with either their new computer (which ran Windows ME) or their new upgrade to Windows ME. Seriously, it had no problems. A lot of good things. It would have great uptime, no bluescreen, or just ran great completely. Some people got stupid and it didn't ran good for them, bad. A significant percentage were so lucky. I think the situation also improved after a few people learned how to use a computer.

Your post is childish and you should feel childish.

I'm enjoying this debate. Much like political exchanges, you're bound to see all types come into the fold that fit by certain stereotypes. It's not that their opinions are invalid, but its interesting to observe. It's like people watching on a crowded subway.

To the extent that there is no need for this to be anything but a pleasant exchange, I'd suggest that if anyone feels animosity, that they hang back. Conflicting viewpoints are the name of the game. Putting your views out there invites an onslaught, and with that comes a likely tiring defense of your opinions. But that's the nature of it all. Accept it, and smile at the folley. No need to be buzzed.

Edited by Seal, 24 September 2008 - 07:37 PM.


#51 mirrorshades

mirrorshades

    aviatorglasses

  • Agents of the Revolution
  • 952 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 September 2008 - 11:35 PM

I was fixing machines at that time, and it seemed like every other person calling me was having success with either their new computer (which ran Windows ME) or their new upgrade to Windows ME. Seriously, it had no problems. A lot of good things. It would have great uptime, no bluescreen, or just ran great completely. Some people got stupid and it didn't ran good for them, bad. A significant percentage were so lucky. I think the situation also improved after a few people learned how to use a computer.

No... see, that kind of rhetoric really only works *maybe* once. And it has to be a real whopper, otherwise you'll get responses like you did. :)

#52 spaceout

spaceout

    Gibson Hacker

  • Members
  • 86 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2008 - 12:08 AM

Am I the only person that never had ME bsod? I had an ME box for a solid 3 years, unfortunately, but it didn't give me too many problems.

XP wins pretty hard, I keep it installed on this box, I'm currently posting this from my Debian install. I use both windows and linux on a regular basis.

Vista can suck my cock. It is complete failsauce, I have nothing more to say about that.


Both operating systems have their strengths and weaknesses, I keep both of them around for this reason. Just because you're "UBER FUCKING 1337" (read: fat and live in a basement) and Bill Gates is a n00b, (read: filthy rich, with a nicer basement than you) doesn't mean windows is a complete failure. If anything you should applaud MS for their powerful propaganda machine, they manage to move their products into many households, and they get people to pay for frequent upgrades. MS sells software like Hitler killed Jews, efficiently.

#53 Lord Wud

Lord Wud

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 423 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 24 September 2008 - 10:02 AM

I think ME got a bad rap. Mostly because it was about the same time as malware's coming of age. From about 2000-2004 Running ad-aware and spybot fixed almost every computer issue I worked on. Napster had just died, iTunes wasn't around, and the RIAA had not yet started to attack end users. So you had an endless amount of people installing every piece of "Ad-supported" crap they could to download music illegally. About the same time REAL had reached an all time low in there hijacking techniques. Netscape 6 was completely unusable, with firefox still a few years off almost everyone was using IE and getting nabbed by the drive-by install of the week. Plus all the crap people actually wanted to use. Everybody liked Bonzi buddy at first, and looked for money in that stupid tree. Then xupiter, and gator, I even had people get mad when they lost coolwebsearch as their homepage. Granted, ME should have been a service pack for win98, and anyone who paid for it boxed probably felt royally screwed, but I think it was a victim of circumstance.

#54 superkippah

superkippah

    HACK THE PLANET!

  • Members
  • 58 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 06:57 AM

Your post is childish and you should feel childish.

I do feel childish and anyone that post on this from should feel childish too.

No... see, that kind of rhetoric really only works *maybe* once. And it has to be a real whopper, otherwise you'll get responses like you did. :)

No, it did work twice, because you replied to it. All I'm looking for is a reply of any kind ;)

And spaceout you're not the only one that did not have BSOD in ME.

Alot of people do not understand what cause a BSOD. When I was working on computer the most common problem was, "All i did was took the CD out and the BSOD came." Nine out of ten times the BSOD tells you what you did wrong or what windows doesn't want you to do.

#55 WhatChout

WhatChout

    Dangerous free thinker

  • Members
  • 814 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 09:21 AM

Your post is childish and you should feel childish.

I do feel childish and anyone that post on this from should feel childish too.

No... see, that kind of rhetoric really only works *maybe* once. And it has to be a real whopper, otherwise you'll get responses like you did. :)

No, it did work twice, because you replied to it. All I'm looking for is a reply of any kind ;)

And spaceout you're not the only one that did not have BSOD in ME.

Alot of people do not understand what cause a BSOD. When I was working on computer the most common problem was, "All i did was took the CD out and the BSOD came." Nine out of ten times the BSOD tells you what you did wrong or what windows doesn't want you to do.

So, you're trolling? It was nice talking to you, bye.

#56 doomtroll

doomtroll

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 313 posts
  • Location:785

Posted 25 September 2008 - 10:59 AM

My dislike for windows is simple..

I can run *nix on any hardware created in the last 20 years, Windows is limited to x86(they did RISC once or twice on the desktop) architectures. Being as I own multiple machines running on a variety of CPU Architectures, windows is not even a choice.

Windows is a consumer OS 1st and a Power user OS 2nd, *nix is all about power. Security can be good on any OS if you know what you are doing. The Windows Vista arguments that the security is Great/Horrible are redundant in our forum, for the simple fact that we should all be well versed enough in security to take it into our own hands.

#57 SAGA

SAGA

    SUP3R 31337

  • Members
  • 175 posts
  • Location:India

Posted 25 September 2008 - 11:35 AM

windows is lacking innovation.........just they are building everything on the same weak basement :P .........may be windows will be usefull for people who don't have brains(means who don't want to explore the inner things)............but for engineering people Linux is the best.........(i am building a Linux cluster out of ordinary 10 PC's)

#58 SAGA

SAGA

    SUP3R 31337

  • Members
  • 175 posts
  • Location:India

Posted 25 September 2008 - 11:54 AM

yeah i have compiz installed on my ubuntu box and yes its alot better than aero, but with object desktop from stardock i can completely freak out the way vista looks from custom themes, skins, windows, backgrounds, animations, icons everything and anything you can think of i can do it, and that basically pwns fusions asscheeks.

In what way?

Themes? System->Preferences->Appearance->Theme ( and a healthy dose of http://www.gnome-look.com/ )
Skins? All panels can be edited by default
Windows? IDK what you're referring to here...
Backgrounds? As in wallpaper...?
Animations? I have no idea why this isn't installed on Ubuntu by default but sudo apt-get install compizconfig-settings-manager and you can edit all animations (along with a whole host of other things)
Icons? System->Preferences->Appearance->Theme->Customize->Icons ( and again gnome-look )
Docking? AWN (Avant Window Navigator) is you're best bet.

I looked into stardock, and from what I saw I was rather impressed, but I didn't really see anything necessary that couldn't be supplied by Compiz + AWN




its http://www.gnome-look.org/ not .com

#59 zraith

zraith

    SUP3R 31337

  • Members
  • 198 posts
  • Location:Southern Indiana

Posted 25 September 2008 - 12:50 PM

I don't have a problem with either. Though I still use XP, I get plenty of Vista working for the IT sector at my university.

I *HAD* vista on my dv6000 that ships with Vista. After a project where i uninstalled Vista premium, I tried to install it again. Its worked for about three days, then gave me hal.dll errors, etc. Replacing Hal.dll didn't fix it. I threw Gutsy Gibbon on it, installed WINE and away I went. I can run all my games with better FPS, a smaller footprint, and reliability. The best part, my HP printer installed automatically when I plugged it in, I didn't have to download the 150 MB driver pack. In the end, I found Ubuntu to have better hardware support than vista, in my case at least.

Not to bash on Vista, but the footprint sucks, especially if I still can not even use all 4 gigs of ram. That's ridiculous. And, as I am a student, I am not to go out and spend 400 dollars on Visa Ultimate 64 bit.

While I still run XP dual booted on all but one of my machines, Vista just isn't polished enough for me.

That's my two cents.

Zraith

#60 friendless

friendless

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 336 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 25 September 2008 - 03:10 PM

Not to bash on Vista, but the footprint sucks, especially if I still can not even use all 4 gigs of ram. That's ridiculous. And, as I am a student, I am not to go out and spend 400 dollars on Visa Ultimate 64 bit.


I believe most schools have deals with Microsoft to where students can purchase new operating systems such as vista ultimate for little as $1 to $15.

As far as I was aware there shouldn't be any problems running 4 Gigs in vista under 32-bit unless your video card is eating a lot of the available space or there's some sort of special restrictions set I have not witnessed/know about?

I would also like to note 32-bit keys work with 64-bit installation as well... you can also send your 32-bit to Microsoft to receive a 64-bit version...

Edited by friendless, 25 September 2008 - 03:11 PM.





BinRev is hosted by the great people at Lunarpages!