Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
oddflux

I hate windows.

137 posts in this topic

I've never really had any problems with Windows until the annoying endless configuring loop came around on Vista. Otherwise, My experience has been alright, little to no issues at all, if any, easily fixable. The same applies ( ease of use/lack of problems ) to my experiences with Linux ( Slackware? Ubuntu? etc... ) as well as OpenBSD. OpenBSD is my all time favorite OS, when I want a server, or a 'basic desktop' on old hardware ; it is my first choice. If I want a little bit better of a desktop experience I would go torwards Slackware or Ubuntu. ( Depending on hardware ) Slackware would be my first choice, since it was my very first experience with Linux. ( However, OpenBSD was my first little project to toy with.. )

Every OS/Distro has it's own problems, mostly on a per user basis (opinion), you can maintain a fairly secure Windows install, just as a OpenBSD, just as Linux, it's a matter of know-how and taking the time to understand the OS you are using. ( Insert argument here as to which is the winnnaaarrrr. )

I feel safe no matter what I use. If i had to pick in order, out of personal preference? OpenBSD / Slackware / Windows 2003. I enjoy the following three.

My laptop is currently running Ubuntu, My desktop is running Windows 2003. Back at home, I have an OpenBSD server, but its kind of out of commission due to having moved out.

Also there is an XP box, and another 2k3 desktop, those are in use, but not by me, but i maintain them, keep them in good shape.

I can adapt to using almost anything, I enjoy technology.

A few years ago I might have ranted about how much better x is than y, but my ideas have changed since then.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Point out something new, stop rehashing what was most likely posted in 1995.
I'm done posting in this pointless topic

One hundred and one replies, pointless topic? numbers say different.

I just feel like bashing on windows, completely ignore this if you aren't up for bashing.

this topic was about windows bashing not which one is better. Even though linux is better, please by all means tell me why windows is even equal to linux.

Linux has better uptime, is able to do the basics better, better support, hundreds of options, free and open source. Windows can't touch linux. The only thing that windows is good for is playing on people's stupidity.

i beg to differ on linux having more support, the latetest debian, gentoo, arudius(idk was bored so tried it), ubuntu 8.04 and 8.10 desktop(had douchbag error saying that it couldnt read the disk even though i downloaded multiple times from different and the same mirrors all ftp, more like it didnt support dual intell pentium 3 xeons) ubuntu 8.04 and 8.10 server (was closer than desktop as it supported the hardware but sometimes it could not find where the cd was located in a cpu with 1 cd slot after live booting and doing a scan to find itself, and if it did work the os could not be found by my bios even if i installed mulltiple times and used rescue mode multiple times) slackware doesnt support architecture, fedora said the cpu was not x86 but i386 so dont know, and solaris 2008.5 got pretty close but didnt have driver for hard drive but going to try when i have internet connection as they may have it on there network. but by all means recommend one that actually works and i may change my opinion. i386/x86 dual intell pentium iii xeon 550mhz with 2gb ram, 2 9.1gb hdd's no video or sound card as its a friggen hp so has intel board. and as for linux being wayyyyy faster why does it take wayyyyy longer to boot the minimalist install of ubuntu like 20-40mins, when windows 2000 server(bloated version) takes like <5 mins? i dont know i was just going to use it as asomewhat decant linbox and if worked good enough use it as a firewall/router.

anyways from what i have seen trying to install multiple distros is that linux is very unprofessional but if thats your "bag" then more power to you. i mean solaris was proffesional redhat looked to be fairly nice and ubuntu was ok.(installing options splash images ect.) i would still have to say windows is better because there programming ide's are pretty nice i mean they actually show which lines and which specific words/typos are bad in code. where vi is just you know try to figure it out. but they all seem to pretty good and have there ups.

bt3 doesnt work either list keeps growing of wasted time downloading fin 695mb downloads.. mandriva as well.. devil linux. openbsd "paniced" as well

Edited by dinscurge
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

Typically most Drivers I seen for windows these days come in installation packages that contain more than just that specific driver however more of a group of drivers for similar devices that make it appear semi-large, however that seems like a precise driver, while some of it could be an installer, some pretty graphics and it may come with a 'utility' manager however that is a little large...

I never had RAM issues with vista to this day and typically run with 4.00 GB on a 32-bit version...

I think someone mentioned about BSoD not providing proper information, I believe there's a checkbox in advanced system settings that will initiate dumps to a specific file where you can also uncheck to automatically restart the computer. Vista has a neat feature called TDR that will attempt to recover display issues rather than just give a BSoD and restart the computer as well which I have witnessed and do enjoy this feature.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to bother trying to compare Windows to Linux or BSD because, well, I could care less about getting into an OS argument and there are plenty of other people here who can fill my place in the argument.

I'll just throw in that I like to mess with shit and explore. Linux is more conducive to "messing with shit and exploring". I've yet to try BSD, but I will soon. However, I've been using various Linux distros starting with Red Hat 7 when it came out ...

When my friends ask me, "Why the fuck do you use Linux? Why not just use Windows like everyone else, it's so much easier ... " I reply "Exactly. It's easier. I like doing shit the hard way."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When my friends ask me, "Why the fuck do you use Linux? Why not just use Windows like everyone else, it's so much easier ... " I reply "Exactly. It's easier. I like doing shit the hard way."

I agree with that statement. My fiancée thinks that I am insane for even bothering with linux. She's says things like: "If it's so damn hard to get the wifi card working right on that machine, why don't you just use windows?" Which I would reply with "Because once I get it working, I know that I got it working. I didn't use an executable to figure it out for me."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could be the smartest person in the world about computer but when you have a company breathing down your neck because of downtime and they're losing money. you have three options; figure it out in 10 minutes, call support, or you're fired, period!

I would disagree. I deal with (very large) corporation networks and their servers.

When a system goes down, you do one thing.

Call who ever you have that makes your server (lets use Dell for this example)

Give them your gold member number and tell them that your sever is not working, they have someone out there in less then 4 hours, they fix it for you, and you get the pay check. :D

No need to call tech support to have them tell you what to do (you should know what to do...But I like being lazy).

Call give them a number and a van pulls up in less then 4 hours.

Easy.

Am I the only one that always buys the best support when I buy a new server for corporations? :(

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not going to bother trying to compare Windows to Linux or BSD because, well, I could care less about getting into an OS argument and there are plenty of other people here who can fill my place in the argument.

I'll just throw in that I like to mess with shit and explore. Linux is more conducive to "messing with shit and exploring". I've yet to try BSD, but I will soon. However, I've been using various Linux distros starting with Red Hat 7 when it came out ...

When my friends ask me, "Why the fuck do you use Linux? Why not just use Windows like everyone else, it's so much easier ... " I reply "Exactly. It's easier. I like doing shit the hard way."

That's exactly how I feel about this whole situation. I honestly don't see how this has been going on this long. It has a simple answer. Either you like it the hard way or the easy way. That is all there is to it. You can take the challenge to getting everything working perfect with Linux or you can take the easy way out and install Windows. It is just a matter of how much time you are willing to put into something.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can take the challenge to getting everything working perfect with Linux or you can take the easy way out and install Windows. It is just a matter of how much time you are willing to put into something.

I concur with that...For the most part.

Easy of use

|

|

|******** Linux

|

|

|

|*********Windows

-|-------------------------

Easy of Securing

| ************************ Windows.

| **

| **

| **

|************Linux

| **

|**

-|-------------------------

Sorry if it is hard to read.

Edited by biosphear
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with wanting to do things more difficult. I know for me, I love doing less work. It comes down to sacrificing functionality for simplicity. If I can't get my work done no amount of simplicity is going to make it worth it. But there is no reason for me to do extra work when it's not needed. I've been without windows for over a year up until recently because I wanted better performance while gaming. The only time I turn on my windows machine is for gaming. I have two linux machines, one my file server and the other my laptop, which I use when needed, and then I have my work provided macbook pro which is what I use a lot of the time. It can do almost everything I need Linux for and I still have linux machines to fall back to when I need something linux specific. There is no reason to complicate things if it isn't needed unless of course you are bored and have nothing better to spend your time doing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't hate Windows. Vista has some pretty good ideas, and some not so hot ones. When it comes to ease of use, Linux doesn't hold a candle to Windows. There's still some system-related things in which the editing of obfuscated text entries is the only way to handle. I'm thinking in the Xorg department especially. There's no reason for a lack of GUI here. Linux is getting much better now, but it still pales in comparison to Windows in that regard.

Right now, however, I'm doing some software development. Between developing C code for Windows, and doing it for Linux, I have to say that Linux rocks hands down. Cygwin brings much of what makes Linux a kick-ass platform to windows (POSIX ftw), however, it is limited. There's some essential libraries which have not been ported to windows (ie. resolv.h, nameser.h) which would making writing cross-platform netcode so much easier to do. Linux really is a developer's platform. Windows is a user's platform. Both have their pros and cons.

Edited by Seal
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always recommend Debian (my choice distro) to people wanting to start on linux I think Debian is more user friendly and come on how hard is it to teach someone to apt-get install to get a app. I cant stand windows its to easy to get malware and what not on it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would disagree. I deal with (very large) corporation networks and their servers.

When a system goes down, you do one thing.

Call who ever you have that makes your server (lets use Dell for this example)

Give them your gold member number and tell them that your sever is not working, they have someone out there in less then 4 hours, they fix it for you, and you get the pay check. :D

No need to call tech support to have them tell you what to do (you should know what to do...But I like being lazy).

Call give them a number and a van pulls up in less then 4 hours.

Easy.

Am I the only one that always buys the best support when I buy a new server for corporations? :(

4 hours LMFAO. First you don't work for large corporation with that time, and if you do you're an entry level at best, if not the janitor (nothing wrong with being a janitor).

dinscurge,

When I start building a new computer I build it around the software not the other way around. Don't look at a distro and say linux has problems. learn something about hardware first. x86 is an i386, they're one in the same. installing multiple distros is very eazy. Please know a little about what you're trying to talk about before you type.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being better than Windows isn't exactly hard in any way

I'd like to see you write a complete, modern OS that is "better" than Windows if it's so easy.

This line of reasoning is bullsh*t. No one person programs an OS, let alone one that is backed by a multi-billion dollar corporation so STFU seriously. You want to see a better OS that was created 'easily' by another multi-billion dollar software giant, look at OSX. Built on BSD, eye candy galore, and stable as the rock of Gibralter. No one hacks together an OS in their garage that can be competitive in the OS market today, with hardware variation, and the advancements made in the past 30 years in personal computing, it is not possible. Its like saying that the Chinese Space program is the greatest and you have no grounds to criticize it because you can't put together a Manned Space craft in your garage.

Microsoft is at the top of the market not by virtue of the excellence of their product, but because of aggressive and illegal business practices that destroyed any competition coupled with the backing of IBM, and the United States Government. Their market superiority has been furthered by being entrenched. Just because the US Justice Department was unable to enforce its own rulings doesn't mean that Microsoft isn't a monopoly.

Every time that Microsoft releases a new operating system they do so with millions of lines of unedited code. The initial releases are then buggy. In time, updates and service packs tighten the OS enough that it becomes a decent OS... just in time for the next OS to be released. I remember despising Win 98 when it came out, and by SP2 respecting it. Similarly there were the same growing pains with XP. Now, years after its release, it is deemed good, but it is also running on machines that have the base specs that are in some instances 4 times faster , more RAM, etc than the 1 Ghz, 256 MB Pentium 3's that were in common use when XP was released. Vista usability will be improved by hardware advances, software updates, and time. This does not ofset the fact that at the outset it is not designed for efficiency. Updates in security are AMAZING when compared to XP, and it does not sound unreasonable that Vista is more secure out of the box than Linux. It has to refine its used of the user privileges in order to streamline usability, and therin lies the rub. Windows seems to feel there is a zero sum game between security, usability, graphics, and performance. This leads to an OS that is graphically stunning, and secure, but is sluggish and awkward.

I prefer Linux to Windows. It is not an apples to apples comparison though. I like the freedom and I like the free software. Linux would not be seen as an extremely secure OS if it had the market share (and hence was as large a target) as Windows. I do believe that it would be more responsive to security threats.

I dislike Windows. I use Windows though. I can't afford a MAC (Or the software for it). I mostly use Linux, but I also do public policy research that requires me to use SPSS, and other proprietary statistical and other analytical software.

So if Linux has some Fan Boys, so be it. It's only going to be good in the long run. I refuse to believe that having viable alternatives that use alternate business philosophies is a bad thing, and Microsoft's past, coupled with its product, make me loathe to use it.

But hell, what do I know, I'm just a Fanboi...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi... I have Windows Vista and it has a lot of problems, the thing I dislike most is that it takes up so much RAM. I ended up disabling a lot of the little effects.

I'm finally getting around to double-booting Ubuntu Linux onto my little laptop along with Vista, so I can still play my games on Windows. I want Ubuntu for primary stuff though because Windows has a lot of exploits and viruses/trojans/worms/etc. Ubuntu is more secure I think. Also it's more customizable and I definitely like that. ^^

Anyways that's all I have to say lol.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isnt this just like the argument about ford vs gm vs DC? Its all in what your comfortable with right? Somebody should start a thread about " What do you like and dislike about your os('s)? " Dont rip on somebody else's choice.... unless it's one of your kids. Otherwise, dont worry about it. If you have the position of computer repair, then look at it this way... JOB SECURITY. The perfect OS doesnt exist. Not a single one of them is flawless. I would like to hear some constructive criticism on the subject.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah and for that matter its just not right to say anything is better than anything else. Its ALL a matter of preference. That brand new desktop isn't any better than my IBM PC Junior! I prefer my PC JR, so to me its better, and you have no right to compare the tech specs because its just your opinion!

I mean come on... grow a set of balls, and put that Hippie relativism bullshit away, it has no place in science and technology. People are going to disagree, and some of them for good reason, no reason to be a pussy about it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it all depends on what you need.

Most users cant understand *nix so they windows or mac is a great option for them.. would you want to teach your grandparents debian o.O

I would be using linux, but it dosnt run Adobe software well enough so it conflicts with my job. I am a web designer so im a dirty mac user.

I wish mac os could easly installed on any computer.. they could if they wanted to and it would be a user friendly alternative to windows. (sorry ubuntu.. your just not there.. yet ;))

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 2.3GhZ Intel Socket 775 Processor with 3GB of RAM DDR3 and it's vista all the way on the box, haven't had any problems yet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah and for that matter its just not right to say anything is better than anything else. Its ALL a matter of preference. That brand new desktop isn't any better than my IBM PC Junior! I prefer my PC JR, so to me its better, and you have no right to compare the tech specs because its just your opinion!

I mean come on... grow a set of balls, and put that Hippie relativism bullshit away, it has no place in science and technology. People are going to disagree, and some of them for good reason, no reason to be a pussy about it.

says the guy with the anti microsoft avatar.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Agreed 100% I remeber when ME came out and I switched from Win2k ASAP to it. The problem was Win2k was horrible this (was pre SPacks grant you(, because it had the flaws in indexing/Ntfs not quite getting Fat yet), and too much overhead for what it really could do. But I loved WinNT/ Win98 for what it could pull of multimedia wise; thus the illusion of 2000 was it would merge the best of both worlds simply wasnt ready at the time till 2000 severs started to rollout and admins + service packs came to learn their BS MCSE2000 crap to make Win2000 work strictly as a business OS.. Then it was fine under a corp environment... However this was the same problem was ME vs 98se, honestly it worked quite well if you did the upgrade install from 98SE and yeah it was mostly just a gui/networking component refresh of 98.. Fresh installs of WinME had problems with drivers and other parts of the 98/95 .dll/driver base that it really shared with upgrade .cab installations. Yet you really couldnt upgrade NT 4.0 you had to do a fresh install. ( Plenty of room for debate here however this is not the talking point) but with WinME it worked the other way.. Two OS's in a very short amount of time to fill the GAP and the needed user base to finalize XP.

However the problem with both 2000 and ME is they were mere refreshes of NT and 98.. Thus when XP came out it merged the problems of both of these over time into something of complex migration of NTFS and FAT into something that would appease business and Multimedia users. It no matter how much people bitched were the steps in the right direction of challenging merging a business and a consumer OS into the success XP has been. Linux OS's have never achieved a status of merging that stature. Ubuntu is the closest thing to emerge and OSX with the unix shell... But really no UX OS has ever had the stability and driver support for hardware like windows.

Personally I would rather "Jizzmop" Windows security flaws all damn day including malware. Most malware is all caused by behavior patterns, as with linux folk get mad in the same token when they complain of security, gui, kernel and compatibility issues with games. For me I personally think that unix/linux open source are only worth a damn in closed platforms likes POS, Routers and Gaming Machines (Xbox,Xbox360 Hybrid OS's) because once the structure is made just for a specific purpose it does work with less overhead.

However it comes down to what the hell you want to do with your machine and what hangs you up in your experience. Like I said I would rather clean malware all day long as security holes in windows are griped about by Linux/Mac peeps because of all the other things that do work in windows that dont work on their OS. But for me the soultions are always quick and usually bad habits. Windows does and will always be an OS than can embrace most all the problems rather than fanboys snubbing other N00b's and not trying to really innovate to the massive population and not just a trendy group. Yes the rising Mac Fan Boys see the same problem as their OS even with their BSD based cmd prompt is still closed off to make an universal but slightly open experience that Windows can achieve too.

And the last note it all comes down to who makes the hardware work well with any current OS and have hardware specs perform on all levels of gaming, security, DB, Multimedia, *.* .. This will take people wanting to not bitch and figure out what works best for them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When my friends ask me, "Why the fuck do you use Linux? Why not just use Windows like everyone else, it's so much easier ... " I reply "Exactly. It's easier. I like doing shit the hard way."

I agree with that statement. My fiancée thinks that I am insane for even bothering with linux. She's says things like: "If it's so damn hard to get the wifi card working right on that machine, why don't you just use windows?" Which I would reply with "Because once I get it working, I know that I got it working. I didn't use an executable to figure it out for me."

Yeah but why reinvent the wheel all the time when you dont have to? Wow you can spend all this time to make a cheap piece of hardware working on a free OS.. ugh I guess I felt the same way about hacking the xbox but at least that changed what the xbox could do. I mean really how many damn wardrivers that want to be good security wpa experts are there?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi... I have Windows Vista and it has a lot of problems, the thing I dislike most is that it takes up so much RAM. I ended up disabling a lot of the little effects.

I'm finally getting around to double-booting Ubuntu Linux onto my little laptop along with Vista, so I can still play my games on Windows. I want Ubuntu for primary stuff though because Windows has a lot of exploits and viruses/trojans/worms/etc. Ubuntu is more secure I think. Also it's more customizable and I definitely like that. ^^

Anyways that's all I have to say lol.

Exploits and malware most times are user behavior related and not paying attention to installations for "free stuff". Really I am a malware expert in this manner and I still get infected once in awhile, not windows fault it is the places I get careless at times about and trust me all OS's are vunerable to the same user behavior that makes a windows experience bad.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, everyone seems to have an opinion. Well here's mine.

Personally i dont dislike Windows as an OS. It works fine and most of the time and when friends/family force me to help them fix their computer it's usually from user error where install every bit of crap that comes on the front of a magazine. Before i switched to Linux i was running XP and as far as i could tell i never got infected by anything.

I DO dislike M$ tho. It's their right to create a closed source OS but forcing every consumer to by a computer with windows pre-installed is unacceptable. I bought a laptop for my gf for xmas and every one i looked at came with Vista pre-installed and i will never support a company which does this. Ever. Not to mention their other questionable business practices.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm, everyone seems to have an opinion. Well here's mine.

Personally i dont dislike Windows as an OS. It works fine and most of the time and when friends/family force me to help them fix their computer it's usually from user error where install every bit of crap that comes on the front of a magazine. Before i switched to Linux i was running XP and as far as i could tell i never got infected by anything.

I DO dislike M$ tho. It's their right to create a closed source OS but forcing every consumer to by a computer with windows pre-installed is unacceptable. I bought a laptop for my gf for xmas and every one i looked at came with Vista pre-installed and i will never support a company which does this. Ever. Not to mention their other questionable business practices.

I agree with that in only some sense. I don't like OS's just being shoved involuntarily in my face after purchasing a new computer. But Microsoft owns the market first of all, and 98% who walk into a local Best Buy has probably not even heard of Linux/Unix/BSD Software to begin with.

To the corporate world it's all about Target Audience. And in there eyes Linux isn't gonna put money in their account. I am not trying to pick a fight but this is how the computer world currently is. XP is cool, but I hate Vista oh so much! :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like xp simply for the ability to play games. I do prefer ubuntu over it, HOWEVER I would say the goofy effects and shit i have on ubuntu have probably made my system crash as often as windows has. I prefer linux, but i still feel its in more of an experimental stage than windows is at.

Oh and apple has done the same bad business bullshit as windows has.

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