What do you guys think of Windows? [Archive]

MarkW19

Oct 24, 2002, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Mac n' Steve
In school, we are always talking about how much Windows sucks!
My friend draws Bill Gates as the devil, its funny as hell. He also makes flash movies(with sound) and its really funny as well. But What do YOU think of windows and how it operates... Try to make it funny and origanal.

Well, I'd always be suspicious of an operating sytem that makes you press "START" to shutdown your computer ;)

sturm375

Oct 24, 2002, 09:53 AM

As much as I dislike MS's tactics, I have to hand it to them. Win2K, and XP are by far the most stable platforms I've seen, if you take into account the vast variaty of hardware they support. Yes OS X, is more stable, but it only runs on Apple Hardware, if MS had as much control over the hardware they supply an OS for, it would not crash as often as it does either.

Regardless, I've had OS 10.1 running on my TiPB for a little over a year now, and only had one hard crash. (It was weird, the whole system froze, and I saw command line stuff over the whole screen). I've been running Win2K on a self built dual Athlon system for 1.5 years, and never had a hard crash.

I like windows because I have control of the hardware, not SJ, nobody else. I can build a system with just about any hardware I want, and Windows will run on it. Linux is great, but it is slow to adapt to newer hardware.

medea

Oct 24, 2002, 10:07 AM

I don't think about Windows, I have a Mac.

jefhatfield

Oct 24, 2002, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by MarkW19

Well, I'd always be suspicious of an operating sytem that makes you press "START" to shutdown your computer ;)

:D :D :D

FattyMembrane

Oct 24, 2002, 12:31 PM

if the mac os did not exist, windows might be ok, but when you compare the two side by side, the faults of windows become far more glaring.

jefhatfield

Oct 24, 2002, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by FattyMembrane
if the mac os did not exist, windows might be ok, but when you compare the two side by side, the faults of windows become far more glaring.

and be a pc tech and it becomes obvious bg put windows out to be first and it shows how hastily the whole windows empire was started

there were good operating systems before windows but not with the mindset that the os could be a standalone product worth billions

if anything, bg and paul allen had vision

steve ballmer dropped out from being a founder of microsoft so he could finish his harvard degree...what if ballmer stayed out and decided to be a math professor or something?

...then we would still have to see bg's mug on the tele with the subscript of CEO of microsoft:p

medea

Oct 24, 2002, 01:03 PM

So Balmer went to Harvard eh, did they teach him the "monkey dance" in his business class?:D

hvfsl

Oct 24, 2002, 01:07 PM

I like the Mac OS, but hate Apple Hardware. Windows is just CRAP.

patrick0brien

Oct 24, 2002, 03:18 PM

I have and use both OS's

One primary thing I've noticed as a difference between the platforms is that Apple is focused on User Experience and Functionality, whereas Microsoft is focused on the technology.

I realized this when a fellow I used to work with, who is an expert for MS and contributes to the exams for MCSD and MCSE, got all excited that "In XP port x's default is 'closed', so there won't be any security problems with it anymore [woo-hoo!]"

I have a fundamental problem with that. If the emphasis is on the tech, and not the user, the user get's left behind. Key examples are the cold and sometimes accusatory error dialogs: "Because Windows was not properly shut down..." or "This Application has performed an illegal operation..."

Yeah, I know these are details, but then again, it's just icing on a deeper problem.

vniow

Oct 24, 2002, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by patrick0brien
I have and use both OS's

One primary thing I've noticed as a difference between the platforms is that Apple is focused on User Experience and Functionality, whereas Microsoft is focused on the technology.

I realized this when a fellow I used to work with, who is an expert for MS and contributes to the exams for MCSD and MCSE, got all excited that "In XP port x's default is 'closed', so there won't be any security problems with it anymore [woo-hoo!]"

I have a fundamental problem with that. If the emphasis is on the tech, and not the user, the user get's left behind. Key examples are the cold and sometimes accusatory error dialogs: "Because Windows was not properly shut down..." or "This Application has performed an illegal operation..."

Yeah, I know these are details, but then again, it's just icing on a deeper problem.

I think Windows wants to focus on the user, but it has so many bugs and holes that it can't help to be more tech oriented.
For example, Linux is like that, only more extreme, it's definately more tech than user oriented, though that is starting to change really quick cuz of new MS policies such as Liscence 6.

As for Windows itself, don't really like it, don't really hate it, just sorta tolerate it, it gets what I need it to so quickly and effeniently, though I would gladly replace it with something a bit more trustworthy.

To be honest, I don't know anybody that actually likes Windows, they're sorta like me, they just tolerate it.
Sux that there's no actual likable, user-friendly OS within my price range.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/damn.gif

mcrain

Oct 24, 2002, 03:54 PM

I think windows are necessary, otherwise, how would you know what was going on outside without going out yourself?

JupiterZen

Oct 24, 2002, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by MarkW19

Well, I'd always be suspicious of an operating sytem that makes you press "START" to shutdown your computer ;)

That's why I used a resource editor and edited the explorer.exe

Now it says: Stop!

JupiterZen

Oct 24, 2002, 04:27 PM

:D :cool:

beez7777

Oct 24, 2002, 04:28 PM

DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!

'nuff siad

vniow

Oct 24, 2002, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by beez7777
DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!

'nuff siad

the video (http://www.instantcool.com/video/ballmer_music.mov)

sparkleytone

Oct 24, 2002, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by sturm375
As much as I dislike MS's tactics, I have to hand it to them. Win2K, and XP are by far the most stable platforms I've seen, if you take into account the vast variaty of hardware they support.

Linux is great, but it is slow to adapt to newer hardware.

As far as pure stability over a range of hardware goes, Linux wins that race hands down. I can run Linux on just about any machine from a 386 to today's P4/Athlons. Not to mention Sparc, PPC, Alpha hardware. m$ cant touch Linux when it comes to this.

King Cobra

Oct 24, 2002, 05:00 PM

Not original, but I found out a couple of "problems" with Windoze, one by word of mouth. :)

Anyways, I know someone, who experiences problems typing in numbers with Excel 98. He got a date, or something, instead of "1". A few minutes into the fustration, he gets the famous "illegal operation" message, and Excel quits. Turns out that some people didn't plan for Y2K. :rolleyes:

Also, at class today, one of the computers, running Windows NT4, took about 5 minutes to log in someone, and required an emergency log out to log out, which took about a minute.

I'm still reminded of the old favorite Windows satire, brought up a while ago. At least the person experiencing Y2K can relate better now. :D

http://www.surfersonacid.com/pages/winrg.html

beatle888

Oct 24, 2002, 05:05 PM

oh my god what is that video lmao

ok so anyway...i though that xp pro was really
stable...i know some people that run it and they
love it. and this brings us to something that we
cant deny. XP Pro is kick ass. Stable and works
with LOADS AND LOADS of different hardware.

solvs

Oct 24, 2002, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by edvniow

As for Windows itself, don't really like it, don't really hate it, just sorta tolerate it, it gets what I need it to so quickly and effeniently, though I would gladly replace it with something a bit more trustworthy.

To be honest, I don't know anybody that actually likes Windows, they're sorta like me, they just tolerate it.
Sux that there's no actual likable, user-friendly OS within my price range.

Exactly. Nobody likes Windows. They just sort-of tolerate it. I have Win2000 (98 kept crashing, ME is just plain bad), but I refuse to get XP. Having played with it, when I was offered it for free, I said no thanks.

I wonder if they got those 65,000 KNOWN bugs out of 2000. Of course if you upgrade to Service Pack 3 or WMP 9, you lose practically all of your privacy (they replaced the old security holes with lots more brand new ones).

Can't wait to get my new Mac.

medea

Oct 24, 2002, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by beatle888
ok so anyway...i though that xp pro was really
stable...i know some people that run it and they
love it. and this brings us to something that we
cant deny. XP Pro is kick ass. Stable and works
with LOADS AND LOADS of different hardware.
Actaully before I switched I was using XP pro, and though in the very begining I thought it was the greatest thing to grace my computer, I soon had plenty o' problems with it and in the end it ruined my computer. I am glad for that though because that's when I got my mac.......;)

*some issues (but not all) were compatibility with hardware, software, having to reinstall it every month, and in the end it started to boot up "pixelated" and in weird colors. and soon after that my HD crashed.:eek:

mrpepsi

Oct 24, 2002, 05:50 PM

...until I seen OSX.

I'm a sys admin, and when I install windows 2k on a machine in my network I feel like I am racing against a clock to install the updates. Like Mission Impossible or something ;)

I remember once I made the mistake of not updating a fresh install of 2000 server. It was late on a friday and I was only using it to test some new filtering software. I got it setup and left for home...little did I know my network was being hijacked as I drove home.

I was greeted that Monday with email after email from my ISP. We had been hacked and used for DoS attacks. Then came nimda... <shudder>

After a few days of reformatting, reinstalling, patching, getting rid of nimda (with the help of Norton AntiVirus Corporate Edition) I swore I'd never leave an unpatched 2k install.....EVER!

I tolerate Windows because OSX won't run on my all PC network. Also I haven't been won over by the performance of the G4. Maybe win the 970 comes out I can begin the Apple shift in my network...

Nipsy

Oct 24, 2002, 06:01 PM

Since a lot of people have mentioned the hardware available on Windows, I thought it important to point out that the Mac is rapidly catching up.

Thanks to being a *NIX OS, there are already drivers which can be tweaked and recompiled for PPC. Via CUPs, we can now print to pretty much anything. El cheapo Adaptec SCSI cards for PCs (the ones that come free with scanners and such) were added to 10.2.

And developers are using OSX, which means when they like something, but can't get it to run, they'll write the appropriate driver. This means the hardware gap will continue to narrow.

Apple will only support a limited subset, which is good, as it means things won't get as bloated or hard to support as in Windows. It also means that if you want to, you can use unsupported (often less expensive) hardware.

On an on topic note, I'll admit that Windows is much better than the olden days, but still clunky, counter intuitive, and visually revolting.

scem0

Oct 24, 2002, 06:19 PM

Windows is very under-rated by mac users. It isn't that bad of an OS. Don't get me wrong - os x is 10x better, but Windows ins't so bad. Millions of people wouldn't use it if it was so bad.

Choppaface

Oct 24, 2002, 06:53 PM

I've been using an XP box and OSX side by side now for about six months, and I find that they are equally impressive. before I got the PC, I had only used macs, though I briefly used a laptop that ran win 95 and mostly just used it for games. When I first got the PC, i expected to have a load of problems, and it turned out that I really underestimated it. for what I do, XP works just as well as OSX, though quite a bit faster, and I'm not sure I'm ever going to be able to buy one computer in the future without buying the other >_< he he..... it's just so handy to have both around.

solvs

Oct 24, 2002, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by scem0
Windows is very under-rated by mac users. It isn't that bad of an OS. Don't get me wrong - os x is 10x better, but Windows ins't so bad. Millions of people wouldn't use it if it was so bad.

Sure they would.

Whenever someone says something like "millions of people can't be wrong", I point them to the fact that just a few hundred years ago people thought the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it. Millions of people can be wrong. Most of them just don't know any better.

Do I need to point out the whole WWII thing, with the Nazis?

- to paraphrase another poster's sig "OS X isn't perfect, it just looks that way next to a PC".

spinner

Oct 24, 2002, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by scem0
Millions of people wouldn't use it if it was so bad.

Millions of people don't have much choice. Most users aren't computer savvy enough for Linux and are too cost oriented for Macs.

Stelliform

Oct 24, 2002, 09:11 PM

I am a consultant who services PC's and just recently Macs. (Although I would go out of business if I just serviced Macs, or I would need 10 times the clients.) :D

The differences in Windows and Mac can best be summed up in the problems I had at one Mac and one PC on the same day. I was told that they both have pressing issues. (They are in the same office) The Mac's problem was the "M" in AM/PM was getting cut off on the clock. The PC user's problem was the computer crashed 3 times a day. Both people were equally distraught about their problems..... :rolleyes:

Also I have been servicing PC's since Windows 3.0. I think the supposed XP stability is being voiced by windows 95/98/ME converts. I have been using NT/2000/XP on my personal workstations since NT 4.0. I find XP's stability Less than 2000, but XP has more bells and whistles. (But XP well outshines any of the DOS based OS's) :cool:

macktheknife

Oct 24, 2002, 09:31 PM

I use both Windows and OS X, and I believe that while the former has more issues than the latter, I don't believe that Windows is all that bad. It has a much larger library of software available, although most major apps are also available for OS X.

Most importantly, PCs are definitely faster than Macs. Yes, I'm sure that Macs running Photoshop doing something really exotic will outpace the PC :rolleyes: , but PCs are generally faster for most tasks.

Plus, let's not forget the price chasm (it's too wide to be called a "gap" anymore): I can get a fully-loaded Dell with a top-of-the-line processor and the bells and whistle for about the price of a 17-in iMac. Yes, the Dell will probably crash more than a Mac, but Windows XP definitely crashes less than its predecessors did.

I'm a recent switcher who dumped his Dell laptop for a nice TiBook. I have no regrets about the switch, but after using both Windows and Mac so extensively, I can see both the advantages and disadvantages of using both OSes. However, unless the performance of future Macs improve significantly, I cannot justify spending another +$2,600 for another Mac laptop. I don't plan on upgrading for another 2 years or so, so I'll be happy to give Apple a chance to win my future spending money.

bbarnhart

Oct 24, 2002, 09:39 PM

I find text selection on Windows to be more intuitive than on a Mac. On Windows you select text with shift-arrow and then shift-other_arrow moves the end of the selection the other way. On the Mac, shift-arrow selects text and shift-other_arrow selects text from the original position.

With Windows, you can select and copy text uniformily from virtually any screen text with ctrl-c or right-click then copy. On a Mac it is hodge podge.

It could be that I use Windows all day long and use my Mac at home occasionally that I find Windows text editting easier.

I also find my Windows 300 MHz PC much snappier than my 466 iBook with Mac OS X. But, I think the difference is attributed to HD speed and screen size. One day I'll have to try out a fast Mac.

aafuss1

Oct 25, 2002, 06:27 PM

I like Windows because you can get a encycolpaedia that has local content (such as a UK edition). With apple computers-worldbook-US content-no good for non-us uysers. And MS work's package has a projects organiser (not with applerworks) and it also has the best games (like zoo tycoon-non mac versin). And my isp only does windows-not mac (and with AOL|7-they don't have a mac client like ion other countries).