145 replies to this topic

[superkippah]

If anything, I would say that Vista is the worst of all Windows.

Apparently you're not familiar with Windows ME, the Operating System Microsoft refuses to admit they ever created.

I haven't used windows in a long time on my personal computer but...

I loved Windows ME I didn't have any problems with it at all.

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.

[Ohm]

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.

[Lord Wud]

Also in my mind, if you want one Microsoft product for which there really is no competition, look at Office. OpenOffice kind of blows, AbiWord and Gnumeric are alright but they are not Word and Excel (mostly Excel).

I use M$ Office at work, and openoffice.org at home. I find them both to be bloated and sluggish, I don't remember it always being like this. Does anybody know when word processors got so slow? Maybe its the power of nostalgia, but I remember works, and wordperfect as being very snappy. It is much easier to create formulas in excel, and visio is good stuff. Besides those things, I cant think of anything good about M$ office. What do you really like about Microsoft Office better? I don't do much word processing or spread sheeting, so there are probably lots of features I am unaware of.

Oh and since this is a bash on Microsoft thread, there is no way I would ever pay $500 for office. Especially if i owned a business and would need multiple licenses.

[systems_glitch]

I use M$ Office at work, and openoffice.org at home. I find them both to be bloated and sluggish, I don't remember it always being like this. Does anybody know when word processors got so slow? Maybe its the power of nostalgia, but I remember works, and wordperfect as being very snappy. It is much easier to create formulas in excel, and visio is good stuff. Besides those things, I cant think of anything good about M$ office. What do you really like about Microsoft Office better? I don't do much word processing or spread sheeting, so there are probably lots of features I am unaware of.

Oh and since this is a bash on Microsoft thread, there is no way I would ever pay $500 for office. Especially if i owned a business and would need multiple licenses.

I like OpenOffice, but I don't do much with Excel. Mostly, I use the OpenOffice spreadsheet or gnumeric to generate charts of CSV data output by other programs I write. I've been using LaTeX for most of my word processing/typesetting needs lately, since it can be composed in any old text editor. It's less hassle to use LaTeX than loading either Mac Office 2008 or OpenOffice (well, Neo Office). And, of course, it owns MS Equation Editor.

[livinded]

Office is actually a pretty good suite. OpenOffice.org is slow, boated, and generally just ugly and doesn't have all the features that MS Office does. I don't use MS Office at home but when it comes to layouts it's much better than OpenOffice.org is. The other major office suite out there that really doesn't get the credit it deserves is iWork. The original release really was missing a ton of features and it is still not caught up to MS Office, but the UI is much nicer and for most basic tasks I prefer it to ms office. When it comes to having to create very specifically layed out pages (and since I don't use desktop publishing tools like inDesign yet) MS Office is the way to go. The other huge issue with free office suites is the lack of accessibility functionality in them. Adobe and Microsoft both have a lot of tools to testing and creating accessible documents so those who need assistance (eg. screen reader) can easily understand the document. I've noticed that the open source alternatives generally don't have this functionality which makes it's use in many government and education institutions unacceptable.

[duper]

Religious wars are so easy to start.

[superkippah]

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!

[LUCKY_FUCKIN_CHARMS]

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.

[superkippah]

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.

[Ohm]

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.

[superkippah]

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.

[Spyril]

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.

[LUCKY_FUCKIN_CHARMS]

oh ya thats right because pc mag articles are completely un bias

[tekio]

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.

[WhatChout]

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.

[R4p1d]

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.

[Seal]

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.

[mirrorshades]

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. :)

[spaceout]

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.

[Lord Wud]

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.