I used Windows XP today--Now I have a Headache!

[SiliconAddict]

It's been a while since I had to use a PC (Thank God!), but today I went over my friends house to help her making a VCD. It was a nightmare! First off the program I tried to make the VCD in was atrocious! It came with the Sony digital camera she got. It had all these weird icons that I had no idea what they were for--no label and icons didn't represent their function. And then I could only drag one photo in at a time. I gave up and downloaded another program which was better, but the XP experience sucked!

I burned a few picture CDs through the finder and everytime I received to strange dialogue boxes. The wording was so confusing I didn't know whether to click yes or no.

Did you even try and use MS Movie Maker? Its nowhere near as good as Appe's iApps wares but its easy. The fact that you called Microsoft's File Explorer a "finder" tells me you know nothing of Windows which can easily translate into frustration just as I've been frustrated with iTunes for Windows in how it works. Some of the features are not intuitively found. I've had to stumble across them to find them.
As for the burner. Yah. I don't know a single person that uses MS built in burning software. It sucks butt. That is why 99.9987% of any OEM system and 100% of the off the shelf CD burners come with either Nero (Best software out there.) or Easy CD Creator (Sucks.)

This isn't a hack at you Frisco. It’s just pointing out the fact that without knowing a platform its easy to get frustrated and jump to conclusions. This, IMHO, is why PC users scoff at Mac users. They've never REALLY used the OS before.

 

[janey]

meh, my pb has had three kernel panics in the last week. Perhaps it is time for a reinstall grrr.
I would hate to reinstall and recompile everything *sigh*

 

[oldschool]

Come on stop raggin' on frisco. He had a bad experience. He's obviously not as computer savvy as some of you. As for ubergeeks comment about OS problems being the fault of the user, i agree, to a point. Frisco obviously has no problems with OS X, and yet bad experiences using XP. This shows that OS X is easier to use for someone who's never used it.

 

[Mav451]

Frisco obviously has no problems with OS X, and yet bad experiences using XP. This shows that OS X is easier to use for someone who's never used it.

Reread what you just typed. Are you also implying that Frisco has ALSO never used OS X? Frisco probably has considerably more experience with OS X, and thus that argument is invalid.

If it was Frisco's first time trying out BOTH Windows XP and Mac OS X, and he made the very same conclusion, then yes, your argument woudl make sense...but the presumption is that Mac OSX is his primary OS, and then his experience with his primary OS would obviously be far greater than one he has basically no experience with.

 

[oldschool]

Reread what you just typed. Are you also implying that Frisco has ALSO never used OS X? Frisco probably has considerably more experience with OS X, and thus that argument is invalid.

If it was Frisco's first time trying out BOTH Windows XP and Mac OS X, and he made the very same conclusion, then yes, your argument woudl make sense...but the presumption is that Mac OSX is his primary OS, and then his experience with his primary OS would obviously be far greater than one he has basically no experience with.

no.

he obviously loves mac os x. His first experience with it then must have been positive because he now owns a mac computer. His first experience with XP, however, was not a good one.

 

[Mav451]

Ok fine. If my first experience was with OS 8.6 in middle school, and I denounced them then, I would be a fool. First impressions are sometimes correct, but other times they can be horribly wrong.

If we all based our JUDGEMENT on first impressions, well just think about it in that sense. Is everyone's first impression always the right one?

You do not see me denouncing OS X right now. I have been using it (limited) in the G5 computer lab here for a few months now. Even now, I reserve judging it until i can safely say that I understand the OS. Frisco on the other hand, did not have a second thought to base everything on his first impression. Everything.

 

[oldschool]

An OS should at least create a pleasurable first impression to attract potential buyers. Mac does this wonderfully, while as Frisco demonstrated, Windows has problems with first impressions.

I do though agree that opinions shouldn't be based on first impressions, but thats what most people go by.

 

[plinden]

... I still haven't warmed to the way folders are not put at the top of list views in Finder. ...

Funny, I've been prettry much an exclusive Windoze user and that's one of the things I hate about XP's Explorer - I want to see the files/folders sorted the way I ask for, dammit.

But then, 90% of my time on the PC is spent VNC'ed onto Unix machines, and I'm a command-line junkie. Typing "cd ~/workspace", "ls -a" is so much easier than searching for icons, "My Documents", "workspace" ... etc. Even working on my Linux box, I use xterm more than the KDE GUI.

That's one of the reasons I would like a Mac, less of disconnect between the UIs of the different computers I use. With a Mac I would probably use the command-line interface more than the GUI.

But XP is really not so bad. I've had my desktop PC for two years now and never had a blue screen. With 1GB RAM and the XP GUI set for maximum performance (rather than the Fisher-Price UI), it's pretty fast even at CD burning. But then, I'm pretty good at doing regular virus checks and spyware cleanups.

I still run into gotchas with some applications though, with ill-thought out user interfaces and preferences hidden in odd places. And I hate the way XP by default is set up to decide that it knows better than I do what I want to do, so I have to hunt down the settings to fix it to do nothing unless I ask for it (that's Word though, more than XP).

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Funny, I've been prettry much an exclusive Windoze user and that's one of the things I hate about XP's Explorer - I want to see the files/folders sorted the way I ask for, dammit.

But then, 90% of my time on the PC is spent VNC'ed onto Unix machines, and I'm a command-line junkie. Typing "cd ~/workspace", "ls -a" is so much easier than searching for icons, "My Documents", "workspace" ... etc. Even working on my Linux box, I use xterm more than the KDE GUI.

That's one of the reasons I would like a Mac, less of disconnect between the UIs of the different computers I use. With a Mac I would probably use the command-line interface more than the GUI.

But XP is really not so bad. I've had my desktop PC for two years now and never had a blue screen. With 1GB RAM and the XP GUI set for maximum performance (rather than the Fisher-Price UI), it's pretty fast even at CD burning. But then, I'm pretty good at doing regular virus checks and spyware cleanups.

I still run into gotchas with some applications though, with ill-thought out user interfaces and preferences hidden in odd places. And I hate the way XP by default is set up to decide that it knows better than I do what I want to do, so I have to hunt down the settings to fix it to do nothing unless I ask for it (that's Word though, more than XP).

You want to know what my biggest pet peeve is with Windows XP? My biggest pet peeve is that Windows XP sorts things in descending order by default, and the only way to change the sort order is to change views and click the column you want sorted. Plus, it sometimes reverts to descending order for no apparent reason when I want ascending order by default.

 

[Mav451]

Hmm, an interesting comment. I used to be annoyed that from folder to folder, it would change from Large Icons, to small, to details, tiles or what have you. This led me to use the "Apply to All Folder" setting in Folder views. Now, whatever folder I'm in, no matter what media I'm looking at, its in Icon form.

Now, I really have no idea what you are talking about for the descending/ascending order. All of my music folders that have track numbers (1,2,3) have never reversed to descending...if you don't use the "Apply to All Folders", then it is probably relying on its last saved form. Perhaps that is the problem.

Using Back button / Up botton may also get different results for the same folder...again the reason I use "Apply to All Folders" now.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Hmm, an interesting comment. I used to be annoyed that from folder to folder, it would change from Large Icons, to small, to details, tiles or what have you. This led me to use the "Apply to All Folder" setting in Folder views. Now, whatever folder I'm in, no matter what media I'm looking at, its in Icon form.

Now, I really have no idea what you are talking about for the descending/ascending order. All of my music folders that have track numbers (1,2,3) have never reversed to descending...if you don't use the "Apply to All Folders", then it is probably relying on its last saved form. Perhaps that is the problem.

Using Back button / Up botton may also get different results for the same folder...again the reason I use "Apply to All Folders" now.

It only does it after I add new files to or remove old files from an affected folder; even then, it doesn't happen consistently. Maybe it's an issue similar to the issue in Mac OS X where corrupt .DS_Store files cause all your view settings to get messed up.

 

[ltgator333]

I think that the fact that there's a excess of negative comments about XP may stem from the fact that this is a Mac forum..lol
Most in here are gonna be a lil more critical of XP for some reason or another- mine is I don't agree with Ms's business practices and Ms's tight grip on the consumer market makes me sick as their product, XP, really isn't any better than the alternatives. So, when I built an XP box for gaming my first impressions were 'wow this sucks', not just because I was unfamiliar, or that XP may or may not 'suck', but because I sat down at the machine biased to begin with.
-just another angle at it

 

[realityisterror]

"pretty decent processor" - that could be anything. Was it a celeron? Athlon? Pentium? Barton? We have no idea what it was. For all we know, it could be a Celeron 2.0ghz, god forbid, which performs even worse than a 5-year old AMD Thunderbird that run on 100Mhz FSBs.

Scrolling sucked? This is a video driver issue. If you don't have the right driver, it will not interact with DirectX9 (or 8.1, if they didn't upgrade), and thus you have your sluggish scrolling--well sluggish anything.

I don't believe that Windows controlled your behavior. What a blatant blanket statement for your trouble. It is your BIAS, your lack of knowledge and experience that controlled you. Please, enough of the stereotypes and bigotry. It really makes me sick.

*I am really suprised you burned through "finder". I don't know anyone who uses the default Windows software to burn--when Nero or Roxio SHOULD have come with the burner, and are FAR superior alternatives.*

That decision alone serves as a metaphor for your knowledge--and it taints what little factual information you have posted as your "experience".

perhaps your sig might indicate that you are also a little biased...
but really, people have different workstyles... that's why some people prefer dreamweaver and some prefer golive (totally random i know...) however, i do believe that if more people were exposed to windows, especially beginner computer users, more people would use it... some window users are just used to windows and macs don't work for them... but one person, or two for that matter, can't speak for everyone...

reality

 

[realityisterror]

Maybe using a Mac is the reason why my eyesight is screwed up.

i can say that with complete honesty...

reality

 

[janey]

I think that the fact that there's a excess of negative comments about XP may stem from the fact that this is a Mac forum..lol (snip)

Okay first off, Microsoft != Windows. If you're only going to bitch about the company's practices, don't bag on Windows at the same time. If you're only going to bitch about Windows, don't bag on Microsoft at the same time. Yes, Microsoft publishes the goddamned software, but if you dont have something bad to say about both, then don't do it.
Now, this is a Mac forum, but lots of PC users or Mac/PC users hang out here too, including me. I think XP is a fine operating system to use, and so is OS X. Its just that i'm ticked off because it seems like half the people bitching about XP in this thread do not use it as one of their primary operating systems or use it a handful of times then say bad thing after bad thing about their experience with the software and the hardware. That is totally unacceptable. If you don't have the knowledge and experience to figure out what some piece of hardware works best with or how to put parts together, don't bother putting together a PC because it's just going to be a waste of your money. If you just get random parts off the shelf and build one chances are its not a good config and -god forbid!- XP will behave erratically, just like any other software when there's something wrong with the hardware.
And PLEASE if you don't like something that much based on something unbelievable like someone's opinion or your own speculation based on 5 minutes worth of use, don't bitch until you know that you are proficient at using it and that you've used it for more than an hour.

 

[ltgator333]

I didn't actually complain about XP, at least I don't think. 'wow this sucks' does that count?? seems pretty weak to me. No I really can't say that I can complain formally about XP, I was just pointing out I COULD be biased against the software because I don't want to use it to begin with because of who makes it. I mean, really if you don't like the Ford motor company do you think your gonna think the new Mustang is the best thing ever? Probably not even close.
And the Mac forum thing.. was a joke...

 

[Mav451]

...So, when I built an XP box for gaming my first impressions were 'wow this sucks', not just because I was unfamiliar, or that XP may or may not 'suck', but because I sat down at the machine biased to begin with.
-just another angle at it...

You truly deserve a medal. This may be the very first time I've seen a Mac user ADMIT that they are biased, and for that I congratulate you on your honesty. Your honesty shows that at least you are aware of yourself, and that you made a conscious thought process. Really, I cannot congratulate you enough.

*realityisterror: With experience, comes considerable knowledge. But also with experience, comes a bias and "favoritism" towards a certain view, b/c NOT only do you understand its faults/weaknesses, but b/c you DO understand them you can highlight its STRENGTHS.

My sig does show bias, but it also shows a bit of experience. Overclocking is not a one-day process, but a long labored procedure that requires patience and a bit of risk taking. I did not arrive at my overclock overnight--I tested components individually--memory, hard drive tolerances, Northbridge temperatures, fan speeds (you do want to sleep right?). And obviously, benchmarking to show increases/decreases on performance (memory and multiple game tests illustrate gains or losses based on specific settings in BIOS, memory latencies, FSB/multiplier configurations).

 

[ltgator333]

wow! a medal.. geez.. yeah biased. lol.. Well I dunno I have kinda a strange bias though.. I do own a PC, and have a few others in the house.. just only one runs windows..

oooh yeah- I do have DOS 5 around somewhere too.. DOS 5 + win 3.1 = sweet!!

 

[Awimoway]

Okay first off, Microsoft != Windows. If you're only going to bitch about the company's practices, don't bag on Windows at the same time. If you're only going to bitch about Windows, don't bag on Microsoft at the same time. Yes, Microsoft publishes the goddamned software, but if you dont have something bad to say about both, then don't do it.
Now, this is a Mac forum, but lots of PC users or Mac/PC users hang out here too, including me. I think XP is a fine operating system to use, and so is OS X. Its just that i'm ticked off because it seems like half the people bitching about XP in this thread do not use it as one of their primary operating systems or use it a handful of times then say bad thing after bad thing about their experience with the software and the hardware. That is totally unacceptable. If you don't have the knowledge and experience to figure out what some piece of hardware works best with or how to put parts together, don't bother putting together a PC because it's just going to be a waste of your money. If you just get random parts off the shelf and build one chances are its not a good config and -god forbid!- XP will behave erratically, just like any other software when there's something wrong with the hardware.
And PLEASE if you don't like something that much based on something unbelievable like someone's opinion or your own speculation based on 5 minutes worth of use, don't bitch until you know that you are proficient at using it and that you've used it for more than an hour.

You know, it's not that big of a deal. Count to ten. Do some breathing exercises. Pen a haiku. You'll feel better. Really.

 

[encrypt3d]

Wow.... how's you do that on an XP box?

(p.s. it's called explorer)

its still gay

 

[MatMistake]

I've used every version of windows from 3.1 onward, and XP is by far my least favorite version. Sure XP is alot more stable that all previous versions, but its a bitch to actually use. So many things brake from the win 9x conventions that even for someone using windows for over a decade it is confusing to use. Things are in the wrong place, no longer exist, called something else, arranged in a way that means I need 5 minutes to figure out what is what. And networking with XP home, my god its horrid! I've lost days of my life to trying to get it all working, having to configure everything manually. I know people who have gotten a copy of XP, installed it, used it for a day or two, uninstalled it and taken it back to the shop. As far as usability goes its a downgrade.

Windows Me was the nicest version to actually use, its just a shame that its no longer supported and all new programs are developed just for XP.

 

[Mav451]

You know some other guys I know also said they preferred Windows Me, but not for the same reasons. They said they liked Me for its stability--I honestly could have died that day from laughing. Usability however, i guess is one of legacy. Since you were probably older than me when 3.1 was around, perhaps your experience with 3.1 was more impacting (I was just a kid then).

Because of this, most of my experience is actually with 95/98 (several years), and now XP (2 years). 95 had the least overhead of all systems--I could run it on a single stick of 128MB RAM and still have nearly 110 left after boot, 110! Now I have 512 on XP, and 90-100megs are already gobbled up in the beginning.

That said, networking, especially home networking with 95 was ridiculously bad. The same with 98. It was only with XP that I didn't have to install crappy drivers, and it did NOT require a restart for every lil TCP/IP change i made. That is 95/98's hugest pitfalls. Who wants to restart everytime? Honestly. Using a very old Linksys card, I was able to run a home network over the phone lines in less than a min (um, turn on, automatic install, it works). With 95/98, it was hope the installation runs smoothly, if you don't have the right settings, change them one-by-one, restarting each time, hoping it works. Oh and sometimes, it won't work no matter what you do. Try plugging/unplugging the ethernet cable in 95/98. You can get connected again at the *snap of the fingers* the way XP can.

**You might notice I don't mention Me. While I have heard things from my friends, I don't put it here b/c I have never used it.**

Also, all of my friends use XP Pro, so I really have no idea if Home is the cause of the problems or not.

 

[MatMistake]

Since you were probably older than me when 3.1 was around, perhaps your experience with 3.1 was more impacting (I was just a kid then).

I was only a kid, but due to my dad being very slow to upgrade I ended up using 3.1 for far longer than necessary. all I really did way play games, and I had to go in to DOS to do all that. I rember the file manager though, maybe I'm not rembering quite right, but it always struck me as a bit nicer then windows explorer with win9x

Because of this, most of my experience is actually with 95/98 (several years), and now XP (2 years). 95 had the least overhead of all systems--I could run it on a single stick of 128MB RAM and still have nearly 110 left after boot, 110! Now I have 512 on XP, and 90-100megs are already gobbled up in the beginning.

I've only been using XP for about 5 months
and on just 192meg of ram. no chance of anything resembling multi tasking on my computer

That said, networking, especially home networking with 95 was ridiculously bad. The same with 98. It was only with XP that I didn't have to install crappy drivers, and it did NOT require a restart for every lil TCP/IP change i made. That is 95/98's hugest pitfalls. Who wants to restart everytime? Honestly. Using a very old Linksys card, I was able to run a home network over the phone lines in less than a min (um, turn on, automatic install, it works). With 95/98, it was hope the installation runs smoothly, if you don't have the right settings, change them one-by-one, restarting each time, hoping it works. Oh and sometimes, it wont work no matter what you do. Try plugging/unplugging the ethernet cable in 95/98. You can get connected again at the *snap of the fingers* the way XP can.

my experience of networking has been really different. it was great under 98/Me (never tryed with 95) sure there was alot of restarting involved, but it was quick, and computers appeared quickly/instantly in network neighborhood. In XP its awful, I just can't get to work using the auto setup thing, or with dynamic/automatic IPs, and then if I have to set a static IP I have to set up everything else manually to get internet connection sharing to work (which was no hassle at in Me, everything just set itself up). And in XP will occasionally just break for, as far as I can tell, no reason. it was absolute hell setting up my wireless network, I'd get it working, go to bed (as it was late and taken so long to get it to work) and in the morning it was broken again, the most amazing thing being that I hadn't even turned anything off or on, just left it, and it broke of its own accord! but most annoying of all is when it is working fine, yet takes 2-5 minuites to find the other computers in 'my network places' (and not just the first time I look, every single time), I've never managed solve this, as far as I can tell its just part of XP.

Also, all of my friends use XP Pro, so I really have no idea if Home is the cause of the problems or not.

I don't know for sure, but I have heard that networking is alot worse in XP home...

 

[Mav451]

192MB is really...trying. Even 256MB is the bare minimum. XP's GUI (even without the original tacky theme) takes a toll on the CPU/RAM. If you are using hardware that is more than 5 years old (predating the first Athlons), I strongly recommend you get some new hardware first.

My friend, with little to no experience (more of a jock than anything), set up wireless by himself so he could do Fantasy BBall/Baseball all around the dorm. Now, he is using a 1-year old Toshiba Laptop, so maybe the hardware (and hence drivers) are newer...lending to a smoother experience.

Heck, he even explained to me how you have to log on every 20 hours (campus security)...while explaining why I should trade Tim Duncan for his Paul Pierce

 

[MatMistake]

192MB is really...trying. Even 256MB is the bare minimum. XP's GUI (even without the original tacky theme) takes a toll on the CPU/RAM. If you are using hardware that is more than 5 years old (predating the first Athlons)

its a toshiba laptop, not quite 4 years old. 600Mhz celeron, its slooow
I often run it without the windows/explorer shell, using
blackbox for windows insted. thats a bit faster...

I strongly recommend you get some new hardware first.

thats what I'm planning on doing as soon as I have the money. a powerbook