Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
oddflux

I hate windows.

137 posts in this topic

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. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that I love Linux because it's open source, and you have people all over the world that know their stuff working on it. There are small glitches here and there, but Linux is still pure win. I have never encountered a computer or device not compatible with linux. I remember it was a pain in the ass installing a printer on Windows, and I had to install fuckloads of stupid drivers off of cds bundled with 30 more additional programs and drivers, but later I booted into Ubuntu and forgot my printer was on. In a couple of seconds, I got a notification in the corner of my screen that my printer is ready to use.

:D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See here is another good example of someone hating on windows, and not even knowing what theyre talking about. you obviously have no clue of how computer architecture, and hardware has the final say on memory allocation. even most 64bit processors have an artificial limit on how much memory they can address, and just because you have a 64 or 32 bit processor, the rest of your hardware configuration can limit how much memory your computer is able to address. "ZOMG WINDOWS SUCKS CUZ I CANT HAZ MAH 400GIGS OF RAMZ" most of my laptops that run vista have 3 gigs of ram, two of them have 2gigs, and the most i have in any of my computers is 4 gigs, and thats always been more than enough for anything ive needed to do. and ive never seen a 150meg hardware driver before, you should learn the difference between printer application suite and actual printer driver. so basically vista limits the amount of ram to around 3 gigs unless you have a chipset that supports 4, the reason they do this is so that there arent any driver compatibility issues when you have other devices installed such as video cards. with the correct chipset and sp1 vista will report you as having 4 gigs of ram. so you can stfu about that now. and dont forget theres always readyboost which can help a little too if you have the right flash drive.

so to recap you need a motherboard with a chipset that supports at least 8gigs of memory space, or any chipsets that support recent socket939 amd processors and later, or any amd proc with an integrated memory controller, which is pretty much any amd proc you can buy today, the cpu has to support x64, and you need a mobo that The BIOS must support the memory remapping feature.

so dont blame it on windows, they just doing their thang to make sure all your goddamn hardware will work together.

What I am saying is, I installed Vista 32 bit Ultimate, System Information only showed 2.75 GB ram. I'm aware that 32 bit machines can store up to 4 GB of ram, with some of it going to device drivers, etc. But I still seem to think I should be getting better that that. Anyway, Ubuntu detected all 4.

Plus, I wasn't aware that my 8600gt sapped a gig of ram. It has 512 mb of its own.

And yes, I have a 64 bit processor.

Ok, I exagerated on the printer driver.

http://www.siliconguide.com/drivers/device/470/

It was only 42 MB... But thats insane for a driver IMHO.

I'm sorry for whatever made you fell you had to lash out.

Have a nice day.

Zraith

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have this weird idea that memory mapped devices "steal" or "utilize" their RAM, that's incorrect... a 32-bit processor can access 4GB of address space, regardless of how much RAM you have installed, there is 4GB of address space, though... most of the addresses are disconnected, i.e: void space, installed RAM and other devices are eventually mapped into this space.

Now, if you have 4GB of RAM installed in a computer.. it's obvious you can't map all 4GB of it into physical address space... because other things, MMIO devices for example.. have first dibs.

Intel x86 processors for example.. actually have 36-bits of address space, but due to architectural limits.. i.e: 32-bit registers.. you can really utilize it without OS PAE or PSE36 support.

In this case, if you install 4GB of RAM on a processor that supports PAE/PSE36, some of that RAM is mapped above 32-bit physical.. out of reach unless the operating system supports PAE/PSE36 properly.

So again, memory mapped devices don't steal RAM... they just take its place.. with the exception of some embedded GPU implementations, they do that.. ;).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you're trolling? It was nice talking to you, bye.

So, you think I''m talking to you. you quote me, I quote you that is not talking. And you think you know what trolling is? Hello.

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)

And you sir have NO innovation, because I have heard almost this same thing 100's time just worded a little different, you need to start thinking outside the box and stop taking what is in the box.

Why would anybody put more then 2GB of ram in windows?

doomtroll and LUCKY_FUCKIN_CHARMS seem to be the only few people with a brain.

♫If I only had a brain♫ -The Scarecrow (Wizard of OZ)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

See here is another good example of someone hating on windows, and not even knowing what theyre talking about. you obviously have no clue of how computer architecture, and hardware has the final say on memory allocation. even most 64bit processors have an artificial limit on how much memory they can address, and just because you have a 64 or 32 bit processor, the rest of your hardware configuration can limit how much memory your computer is able to address. "ZOMG WINDOWS SUCKS CUZ I CANT HAZ MAH 400GIGS OF RAMZ" most of my laptops that run vista have 3 gigs of ram, two of them have 2gigs, and the most i have in any of my computers is 4 gigs, and thats always been more than enough for anything ive needed to do. and ive never seen a 150meg hardware driver before, you should learn the difference between printer application suite and actual printer driver. so basically vista limits the amount of ram to around 3 gigs unless you have a chipset that supports 4, the reason they do this is so that there arent any driver compatibility issues when you have other devices installed such as video cards. with the correct chipset and sp1 vista will report you as having 4 gigs of ram. so you can stfu about that now. and dont forget theres always readyboost which can help a little too if you have the right flash drive.

so to recap you need a motherboard with a chipset that supports at least 8gigs of memory space, or any chipsets that support recent socket939 amd processors and later, or any amd proc with an integrated memory controller, which is pretty much any amd proc you can buy today, the cpu has to support x64, and you need a mobo that The BIOS must support the memory remapping feature.

so dont blame it on windows, they just doing their thang to make sure all your goddamn hardware will work together.

Word. Most consumer gear is limited, thus targeted to consumers. For professional work running Windows with the Xeon architecture will dramatically increase memory addressing potential.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you're trolling? It was nice talking to you, bye.

So, you think I''m talking to you. you quote me, I quote you that is not talking. And you think you know what trolling is? Hello.

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)

And you sir have NO innovation, because I have heard almost this same thing 100's time just worded a little different, you need to start thinking outside the box and stop taking what is in the box.

Why would anybody put more then 2GB of ram in windows?

doomtroll and LUCKY_FUCKIN_CHARMS seem to be the only few people with a brain.

♫If I only had a brain♫ -The Scarecrow (Wizard of OZ)

Are you serious? I mean, was that a legitimate question?

In the case that you were serious, please stop posting on computer related forums. (1)You are a fucking moron! (2) What authority do you have on this subject, because frankly you have contributed nothing more than worthless shit stains on a legitimate exchange of opinions. (3) I'm gonna take a shot at this from your angle, maybe you'll understand the worthlessness of your posts - Why would anybody NOT put more than 2GB of ram in windows? (4) Perhaps the reason you hear the same arguments over and over again is because they are sound arguments. Do you have experience with any OS besides windows? Perspective is a magical thing, expand your horizons, you tool (sorry stepped back to stage 1). (5/6/7) You are aware that you need 4GB of ram to fully utilize a 64bit OS. I could also use personal reference to dispute your argument. I have 2 gb of ram in windows, linux, and mac os x and frankly it isn't enough in any of them.

It seems to me out of everyone posting here, you are the least effectual and as WhatChout stated, childish. In conclusion please STFU. Thanks, have a great day!

Before you respond here are a couple of references:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram,1190.html

post-12354-1222410594_thumb.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theres only two programs that ive ever used that pegged all of my ram

what programs?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow way to be a nice guy, but you have it wrong, actually you need the proper hardware configuration in order to be able to fully utilize 4gigs of ram in a 64 bit os. like i said in my previous post the CPU must support the x64 instruction set, the chipset must support at least 8 GB of address space, and the BIOS must support the memory remapping feature. if youre motherboards chipset only supports 4gigs of memory space you will NOT utilize all 4 gigs of ram it dosnt matter what os youre running. also i find that 2 gigs of ram is plenty enough for regular daily use, especially on a laptop. theres only two programs that ive ever used that pegged all of my ram, usually the processor gives out before you use all of your ram on tap. even on my hp mini note which sports 2gigs of ddr2 800 i run 90 plus processes and never use more than 75% of it. so unless youre a hardcore power gamer photo/video editor, or mad computer scientist, 2-4 gigs of ram currently should be more than enough for most people.

When you say you need a CPU that supports the x64 instruction set.... you mean to use a 64 bit operating system you need a 64bit processor (x86-64). Obviously. Also, when you say you need a chipset that supports 8GB of address space... you mean you need a motherboard compatible with the 64bit processor and support atleast 8GB of ram, again Obvious. That does nothing to refute the fact you need at least 4GB of ram for a 64bit OS. Yes, you do need a motherboard compatible with your processor, as well as support for 8GB of ram, you also need a 64bit operating system, and even 64 applications if you want optimal speed. That isn't the point. Isn't memory remapping is meant to circumvent limitations in the 32bit processor because the 32bit register meaning 2^32 or 4GB of ram can be accessed, and overhead of devices such as video cards. 64bit processors can have 2^64 registers or approximately "16.8 million terrabytes", and thus no limitation. Correct? Nevertheless, you bring up a good point more pertinent to my argument . If they saw fit to create the memory remapping feature, it is obvious that very many people want/need more than 2GB of ram. Power gaming, high throughput servers, photo/video editing, autocad, or for me virtual machine environments for pentesting etc.. Point being, his question/statement is solidly opposed, and if I was a jerk about it- Meh.

Edit:

The conjecture is a absurd as "640K should be enough for anyone". Too much memory is like too much sex. There is no such thing. Obviously the average user is only going to use so much, but honestly if you think 2GB of ram is enough lets call Intel, AMD, Microsoft, and even all the researchers developing quantum computing and tell them its time to stop. We will never find a use for more than 2GB of ram, computing is fast enough. I realize how facetious that is, I'm sorry. I agree about your "ZOMG WINDOWS SUCKS CUZ I CANT HAZ MAH 400GIGS OF RAMZ" statement. They are silly; however, superkippah implies that anyone who actually finds a use for more than 2GB of ram has no brain, and "2GB should be enough for anyone", which is simply wrong. Now I'm interested to see if he can actually dispute the topic, or just mock me as he did Ohm.

Edited by .solo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you think I''m talking to you. you quote me, I quote you that is not talking. And you think you know what trolling is? Hello.

Try harder, it's still bloody obvious.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I move for this thread to be locked.

Or just ban the troll.

Why let a troll ruin a good discussion? We shouldn't have to lock this thread...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why let a troll ruin a good discussion? We shouldn't have to lock this thread...
Try harder, it's still bloody obvious.

One wants me to leave, the other wants me to try harder?

In the case that you were serious, please stop posting on computer related forums. (1)You are a fucking moron! (2) What authority do you have on this subject, because frankly you have contributed nothing more than worthless shit stains on a legitimate exchange of opinions. (3) I'm gonna take a shot at this from your angle, maybe you'll understand the worthlessness of your posts - Why would anybody NOT put more than 2GB of ram in windows? (4) Perhaps the reason you hear the same arguments over and over again is because they are sound arguments. Do you have experience with any OS besides windows? Perspective is a magical thing, expand your horizons, you tool (sorry stepped back to stage 1). (5/6/7) You are aware that you need 4GB of ram to fully utilize a 64bit OS. I could also use personal reference to dispute your argument. I have 2 gb of ram in windows, linux, and mac os x and frankly it isn't enough in any of them.

It seems to me out of everyone posting here, you are the least effectual and as WhatChout stated, childish. In conclusion please STFU. Thanks, have a great day!

I haven't used windows is the last six years. I have been using ubuntu for the past 2 years because I lazy. And slackware before that and I even built my own LFS before I know there was a document on doing just that.

and as far as your memory problem. Please by all means educate me, and tell me what you are doing in all three of those OSes that you would need more then 2GB. and I give 9/10 when/if you tell me what you do with all that memory you will be wasting your system resources.

I would say that 2GB as of 09/27/08 is good enough for 99% of all end users and will be for the next three years.

I have a Q6600 and 2GB of ram and I don't know want to do with all that.

In my personal findings, have more L2, and L3 cache is want really makes you computer move.

and this is really getting off topic but any how.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you even using windows. I will admit vista and xp have their merrits but for hacking purposes cracking etc. there is no better than ubuntu. Endlessly customizable plus its smaller and will run better. I feel like windows bashing too. Unfortunately the last time I actually owned a windows OS was in the 90's 98 to be exact. I almost killed myself.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why are you even using windows. I will admit vista and xp have their merrits but for hacking purposes cracking etc. there is no better than ubuntu. Endlessly customizable plus its smaller and will run better. I feel like windows bashing too. Unfortunately the last time I actually owned a windows OS was in the 90's 98 to be exact. I almost killed myself.

Is it just me or dose this boy know nothing about linux or windows for that matter.

<ul><li>there is more software for windows then linux, hate to admit it.

<li>you can run around 95%+ of all *nix software through windows (cygwin) with some limitation to hardware layer support. (and you could do the same thing backwards with wine)

<li>and just by reading what you wrote you know less then I do.</ul>

and no html tags, bump

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I hate windows because I use linux" Anytime I sit down at a windows machine I am constantly saying "Windows sucks." or "I hate windows" or "Linux is so much better than Windows", but looking back now I see what I think this. Firstly, yes, Windows does have more security flaws than Linux, but let's be honest if they didn't how would Microsoft make their money? Think about it. The Linux community has a choice to make money or not so the majority of the time Linux is really up to date with the security issues. Microsoft doesn't have a choice. They are a -major- corporation so they have to make money. Not saying this is exactly right, but it doesn't mean that windows totally sucks. The reason I always say these negative things (and don't think I'm going to stop because of this post) is because I'm accustomed to Linux. I think I would probably say the same things if I had to sit down and work on say a Slack computer. I guess what I'm saying is that Windows has its place just as Linux does.

EDIT: Yeah, it seems like the ninja kid is just running around posting like an idiot. I've just been ignoring him most of the morning. Either he'll get in his place or tick someone off that shouldn't be ticked off. Same old story

Edited by Mr. E
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0