Why Windows XP sucks.

[wrldwzrd89]

Isn't that what's holding Longhorn up? The re-write can only help the computing world in the long run. The chances are that whichever job I'm in I will be sat in front of a Wintel, so the idea that it's continually developed to be safer and better is fine with me.

Microsoft SAID they rewrote Windows NT from the ground up, but in reality they "borrowed" the kernel and core OS from elsewhere, and refitted it into Windows NT. Does that tell you anything about how lazy Microsoft is?

I'd guess that Microsoft's being lazy again, and not really rewriting Windows, just "borrowing" stuff they need from elsewhere and from the existing NT kernel, then sandwiching it all together into what we'll know as Windows Longhorn.

 

[Savage Henry]

I'd guess that Microsoft's being lazy again, and not really rewriting Windows, just "borrowing" stuff they need from elsewhere and from the existing NT kernel, then sandwiching it all together into what we'll know as Windows Longhorn.

Deep down I fear you may be right. But I'm giving them the benefits of my doubts .... for now. I'm just still struggling to understand how it's taking them this long. I thought it may be some marketting scam that iby the time it eventually comes out, no one will have an OS that's younger than 4 years old, so the chances of it selling big numbers very quickly are greater.

 

[kiwi-in-uk]

Deep down I fear you may be right. But I'm giving them the benefits of my doubts .... for now. I'm just still struggling to understand how it's taking them this long. I thought it may be some marketting scam that iby the time it eventually comes out, no one will have an OS that's younger than 4 years old, so the chances of it selling big numbers very quickly are greater.

From Paul Thurrott's Winsupersite ...

Back to square one. During the same set of meetings reference above, I discovered that the core Windows team, which had been working to componentized Longhorn, had given up and would restart their efforts using the Windows XP SP2 code base (previous Longhorn builds had utilized the Windows Server 2003 code base)

 

[Timelessblur]

IOW, a lot (most? all?) of what you hate about OSX is that it's designed differently than Windows, whereas none of my complaints about Windows are based on personal preference per se -- but on human engineering issues, or more specifically, Microsoft's utter lack of concern for them. I can easily start with the example of how Windows is (are?) shut down, which is a total cognitive bollox. Then we can move onto what happens in Windows when you connect an external drive or insert removable media into a drive (nothing). It's like pushing a button on a machine and then having to push another button to find out if the first button did anything.

hmm some of them yeah are from being use to windows other ones of them I have hated before I ever touch a windows computer. Particler the menu system and lack of full screen ablilty. I have hated all the pull down menus are at the top of the screen since I was 8 and using one of the first macs. So that a vailad hate. Personly I never understood why it never was just on the windows that you are using.

The task bar well the lack there off hurts macs because Macs have nouthing that is as effeniced and as fast as jumping bettween mulitple windows. Expos is good but not nearly as fast or has easy. the dock is close but at best it is a wanna be taskbar. Mainly everything but how diffent windows are stored on the task bar Mac OS's have had just in diffence location so thta works but the lack of having a way to jump bettween muiltple windows is bother some.


Full screen. Lets see considering I have seen that a very comon complaint across reviewing sites and many people complain. OSX windows size control is crap compared ot XP. They lack full screen and you can only resize the window from one corner compared to XP where you can do it from any side of corner. OSX really could use one if not both of those features.

Most of my compains come from my engineering view and from just simple logic on easy of jumping around.

 

[Savage Henry]

From Paul Thurrott's Winsupersite ...

Thanks for the site link, but it does make me gloomily think whether Microsoft engineers are so out of their depth with this one.

Longhorn: Same Windows, just slightly different colour.

 

[BornAgainMac]

I found that the taskbar in Windows is unusable when you have more than a few windows open. The dock rocks!

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'm just still struggling to understand how it's taking them this long.

Why do you think it's called "Longhorn?" Actually, there's a second reason, but I'll let you figure that one out yourself.

 

[Applespider]

So that a vailad hate. Personly I never understood why it never was just on the windows that you are using.

The task bar well the lack there off hurts macs because Macs have nouthing that is as effeniced and as fast as jumping bettween mulitple windows.

Full screen. Lets see considering I have seen that a very comon complaint across reviewing sites and many people complain.

Most of my compains come from my engineering view and from just simple logic on easy of jumping around.

Most of your complaints come from using Windows primarily and getting used to that way of doing things - I shared some of them for a while and they're always the first 3 that potential switchers bring up along with the one button mouse.

The first one is still a personal preference regardless of how long you've held it. I think your first and third complaints are linked. If the menus aren't linked to the window, then there's no need to have the window full sized. The only reason I have the window full sized on my work XP machine is so that I can always find the menu bar at the top. Otherwise, with the current screen resolutions and bigger screens meaning that I end up with lots of white space on the right hand side, I'd prefer working in smaller windows with more applications visible.

So my personal preference is having my menu bar at the top and the flexibility to see more things like working in Excel, looking at my iTunes (Synergy) title and seeing what Mail is up to in the background. The green button on the Mac takes the application to a good usable width most of the time, if I really feel the need to make it bigger, I can.

As far as the task bar goes, yes, it's handy if I'm working in multiple Excel windows creating formulas that cross them. But too many things open and it gets too small to read. The new XP of linking all the program windows for one application together can be good but when you've got used to one always being midway across the screen and suddenly it's not, it's annoying. I like my disappearing Dock that I can just click on the active programme - or more likely on both systems I just Alt Tab!

I agree with the earlier statements about 'most' users. My mother had a PC for years - I'd update it with NAV etc and head back to London. 2 months later she'd have a virus - the concept of updating virus definitions and Windows updates was something she didn't really think about particularly while on a dial-up connection. It as too much hassle. Now she has an iBook! And I get a lot less 'help' calls - we can talk about good stuff

 

[Timelessblur]

I found that the taskbar in Windows is unusable when you have more than a few windows open. The dock rocks!

all depends on monitor resolution. I currenlty have 12 diffent windows in mine (none of them group) and it not press for space. It starts grouping them at when there are 5 windows from the same place (like 5 folder open 5 windows from firefox AIM ect.) I find it very usefull. Now I give you by the time I hit 15 it starting to get pressed but normaly by then I things started getting grouped. It all how you choose to use it. I have mine set up for give most of it room to windows. The Quick launch is only 4 icons wide and on the other side where the clock is I have a vast majority of those icons hidden but if I open it up yeah my task bar is pressed for space but all those icons I have hidden on ones that I really dont need to see or ever need to really see if I need them I just exapaned it out for a second get to it. Personly I find the dock weak and slow for nagiation mulitple windows.

Mind you the dock blows quick launch away but all things considing that dock gain in the quick launch is a very small thing and the weakness in navagtion mulitple it to high of a price to pay.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

all depends on monitor resolution. I currenlty have 12 diffent windows in mine (none of them group) and it not press for space. It starts grouping them at when there are 5 windows from the same place (like 5 folder open 5 windows from firefox AIM ect.) I find it very usefull. Now I give you by the time I hit 15 it starting to get pressed but normaly by then I things started getting grouped. It all how you choose to use it. I have mine set up for give most of it room to windows. The Quick launch is only 4 icons wide and on the other side where the clock is I have a vast majority of those icons hidden but if I open it up yeah my task bar is pressed for space but all those icons I have hidden on ones that I really dont need to see or ever need to really see if I need them I just exapaned it out for a second get to it. Personly I find the dock weak and slow for nagiation mulitple windows.

Mind you the dock blows quick launch away but all things considing that dock gain in the quick launch is a very small thing and the weakness in navagtion mulitple it to high of a price to pay.

Another weakness of Quick Launch is that the icons aren't true proxies - that is, you can't drag stuff to the icon to open it with that application.

 

[IJ Reilly]

hmm some of them yeah are from being use to windows other ones of them I have hated before I ever touch a windows computer. Particler the menu system and lack of full screen ablilty. I have hated all the pull down menus are at the top of the screen since I was 8 and using one of the first macs. So that a vailad hate. Personly I never understood why it never was just on the windows that you are using.

The task bar well the lack there off hurts macs because Macs have nouthing that is as effeniced and as fast as jumping bettween mulitple windows. Expos is good but not nearly as fast or has easy. the dock is close but at best it is a wanna be taskbar. Mainly everything but how diffent windows are stored on the task bar Mac OS's have had just in diffence location so thta works but the lack of having a way to jump bettween muiltple windows is bother some.


Full screen. Lets see considering I have seen that a very comon complaint across reviewing sites and many people complain. OSX windows size control is crap compared ot XP. They lack full screen and you can only resize the window from one corner compared to XP where you can do it from any side of corner. OSX really could use one if not both of those features.

Most of my compains come from my engineering view and from just simple logic on easy of jumping around.

I'd suggest that "full screen ability" is a bit of an abstract quality for most users. Personally, I have no idea why it should be seen as such a virtue, especially when it comes at the price of having application menus located at the tops of windows, which not only takes up the same amount of unusable screen real estate for every open window, but also scatters menus around the work area. It's more efficient for the user to find menus when they're in the same location every time. (Just so we're clear, this wasn't some sort of "mistake" Apple made, but a deliberate design decision based on human engineering principles.) The lack of a fixed menu bar in Windows is also why Windows is stuck with that awful Start menu. They needed a place to put system-wide functions but instead of including this requirement in the UI design process, they just tacked it on awkwardly at the end.

As for jumping between windows on the Mac, I just click on the application icon in the Dock, and there they are. I'm not sure how the Windows Task Bar makes this operation easier, and certainly in other ways, it's far less functional than the Dock. For one thing, on the Mac it's easy to determine which applications can open a given file simply by dragging it over the Dock icons, then dropping when you find the application you want to use. If such a thing is even possible in Windows, then for the life of me I can't figure out how.

Oh, and you'd think that since the Task Bar stores collapsed open windows, that you'd be able to drag an open window to the bar. Try it sometime -- the result is amusingly counterintuitive. And while I'm thinking of it, what happens when you try to drag a Windows program to the desktop? Does the result make sense, and was this the behavior you were expecting? Incidentally, why are they called "programs" in some parts of Windows, and "applications" in another? Why didn't Microsoft think through this small, simple detail? And so on.

Resizing windows. Sure, it would be nice if windows could be resized by dragging on any side, but this comes at the price of lost screen real estate. And since the green button control does essentially what you want, I'm not sure what functionality is lost.

 

[Timelessblur]

I'd suggest that "full screen ability" is a bit of an abstract quality for most users. Personally, I have no idea why it should be seen as such a virtue, especially when it comes at the price of having application menus located at the tops of windows, which not only takes up the same amount of unusable screen real estate for every open window, but also scatters menus around the work area. It's more efficient for the user to find menus when they're in the same location every time. (Just so we're clear, this wasn't some sort of "mistake" Apple made, but a deliberate design decision based on human engineering principles.) The lack of a fixed menu bar in Windows is also why Windows is stuck with that awful Start menu. They needed a place to put system-wide functions but instead of including this requirement in the UI design process, they just tacked it on awkwardly at the end.

As for jumping between windows on the Mac, I just click on the application icon in the Dock, and there they are. I'm not sure how the Windows Task Bar makes this operation easier, and certainly in other ways, it's far less functional than the Dock. For one thing, on the Mac it's easy to determine which applications can open a given file simply by dragging it over the Dock icons, then dropping when you find the application you want to use. If such a thing is even possible in Windows, then for the life of me I can't figure out how.

Oh, and you'd think that since the Task Bar stores collapsed open windows, that you'd be able to drag an open window to the bar. Try it sometime -- the result is amusingly counterintuitive. And while I'm thinking of it, what happens when you try to drag a Windows program to the desktop? Does the result make sense, and was this the behavior you were expecting? Incidentally, why are they called "programs" in some parts of Windows, and "applications" in another? Why didn't Microsoft think through this small, simple detail? And so on.

Resizing windows. Sure, it would be nice if windows could be resized by dragging on any side, but this comes at the price of lost screen real estate. And since the green button control does essentially what you want, I'm not sure what functionality is lost.

umm dude you I have not clue what you are saying about the windows task bar. Draging folder apps there. All windows weather they are active or minmized. Dock only puts them if they are minmized which is the weakness is.

Menu I think I stated I though it was crap since day one since before windows 95. Never liked it then still dont like it. I always though they should be a the top of the active window.

Star menu onces you get used to it it a very powerful thing and a very easy way to access programs but people who seem to stuggle with it hte most are Mac user who have no clue how to use it. If it set up correclty it a very nice thing. but each OS has something like the start menu so I consider it a pointless thing to complain about. Alt tabing is nice up to a point but it usefullness starts to be useless in dealling with number of open windows long before the task bar.

Btw I would never use the one mouse button arguemtn since the first thing I do on any computer is toss the mouse and replace it with one I want.

 

[7on]

Okay, now that i've read a bit more of the topic I will make another reply!

I blame Microsoft as it's fun. Of course Windows is targeted, still most of the computers on this planet that are connected by the net or otherwise to each other are windows and as a result virus coders are hitting the most people at one time. If it was reversed, apple was the world's largest provider of computer software, we'd see about the same amount of viruses written for apple. I think it's good that Microsoft is the target for all of these viruses, trojans, worms, spyware etc, it means that the Mac users use Windows as a sacrificial anode, its a method of Mac virus protection!

Check out this article I found on my Harddrive (it is written from a Linux/unix standpoint, but Applies here too)

Isn't Microsoft Corporation's market dominance, making Linux an insignificant target, the only reason it doesn't have a virus problem? Not at all. This question is virus pundits' pons asinorum: If they can't think past this fallacy, don't even try to reason with them, as they're hopelessly mired in rationalisation. The speaker's supposition is that virus writers will (like himself) ignore anything the least bit unfamiliar, and attack only the most-common user software and operating systems, thus explaining why Unix viruses are essentially unknown in the field. This is doubly fallacious: 1. It ignores Unix's dominance in a number of non-desktop specialties, including Web servers and scientific workstations. A virus/trojan/worm author who successfully targeted specifically Apache Linux/x86 Web servers would both have an extremely target-rich environment and instantly earn lasting fame, and yet it doesn't happen. 2. Even aside from that, it completely fails to account for observed fact: Assume that only 1% of Internet-reachable hosts run x86 Linux (a conservative figure). Assume that only one virus writer out of 1000 targets Unixes. Then, given the near-instant communication across the Net that at this writing is blitzing my Linux Web server with dozens of futile probes for the Microsoft "Nimda" vulnerability per second, the product of that one virus writer's work should be a nagging problem on Linux machines everywhere -- and he'll be working very hard to achieve that, given the bragging rights he would gain. Yet, it's not there. Where is it? The answer is that, for various reasons discussed in prior essays, such code is very easy to write, but completely impractical to propagate. And likely to remain so.

I like specifically the "bragging rights" part.

As for jumping between windows on the Mac, I just click on the application icon in the Dock, and there they are. I'm not sure how the Windows Task Bar makes this operation easier, and certainly in other ways, it's far less functional than the Dock. For one thing, on the Mac it's easy to determine which applications can open a given file simply by dragging it over the Dock icons, then dropping when you find the application you want to use. If such a thing is even possible in Windows, then for the life of me I can't figure out how.

Command + ` will cylce through windows in an application under OSX

 

[IJ Reilly]

umm dude you I have not clue what you are saying about the windows task bar. Draging folder apps there. All windows weather they are active or minmized. Dock only puts them if they are minmized which is the weakness is.

Menu I think I stated I though it was crap since day one since before windows 95. Never liked it then still dont like it. I always though they should be a the top of the active window.

Star menu onces you get used to it it a very powerful thing and a very easy way to access programs but people who seem to stuggle with it hte most are Mac user who have no clue how to use it. If it set up correclty it a very nice thing. but each OS has something like the start menu so I consider it a pointless thing to complain about. Alt tabing is nice up to a point but it usefullness starts to be useless in dealling with number of open windows long before the task bar.

Btw I would never use the one mouse button arguemtn since the first thing I do on any computer is toss the mouse and replace it with one I want.

Dude, I do know what I'm talking about because I've tried it. "Dragging folder apps" is a concept that eludes me though, so maybe you should explain it.

Also, I thought I made it clear that I wasn't going to argue about personal preferences. I'm also not going to debate what a person "can get used to," because a person can "get used to" nearly anything -- including prison, if they are forced to stay in one. So that is an utterly useless concept where product design is concerned (except perhaps when you're dealing with a monopoly, so perhaps the prison analogy applies here).

 

[BornAgainMac]

Mind you the dock blows quick launch away but all things considing that dock gain in the quick launch is a very small thing and the weakness in navagtion mulitple it to high of a price to pay.

I prefer how the dock resizes as I have additional running programs. If it gets too small I can have it enlarge the icon so that I can see it when I move the mouse to it. In Windows, I see "Microsoft..." in the program name and I don't know if it's Microsoft Word or Excel. I tried creating a Start panel and moved it to the side and it was more useful.

Dragging a folder to the Dock with alias to all common programs or even just a folder has been huge.

Having said all that, it is interesting to hear from a Windows power user their prospective of the dock and the taskbar. Both are very different approaches to managing windows.

 

[Mord]

I have no viruses, and no ad/spy/mal-ware. Why? I use Firefox, install my windows updates, and run NAV Corp. It's not rocket science.

yes but you dont use your pc much do you.

 

[Mav451]

Regarding the start menu, I believe he is referring to "Pin to Start Menu".

This appears in the context menu whenever you right-click over an EXE file (i.e. in Program Files). If you set up Start Menu to use

1) Small Icons
2) 0 for # of Programs in Start Menu (this prevents XP from adding the programs it "thinks" is getting used often). I find that if you drag all the applications you use yourself into it (or using Pin) it allows quick access to anything.

Here's a picture of my Start Menu:

 

[TENBLUE7™]

Word to that...

...not only XP but everything Windows, I've been using mac's for nearly ten years and everything Windows or PC is a joke, take putting a new system on for example.

My old mans Dell Lap Top upgraded from 2k to XP just as bad if not worse, so:

• Boot from ME floppy
• Format C:
• Not supported because the HD has some crazy partition going on
• F Disk delete non logical partition then create logical partition
• Format C: (again with success)
• F Disk (name the b*stard)
• Boot from CD
• invalid system disk, please retry
• Scream throw everything at the wall, cry, kiss my G5.
• Boot again but hit return before the time out kicks in and it works!
• Wait a week for it to install and crash three times
• Install a SP update that makes everything worse than before.
• Re do all the above six months later.

On a mac:

• Insert CD hold down C
• Disk Utility - wipe required drive
• Install

I love Apple, and my old man is beginning to see the light and is looking for a G4 iBook.

 

[Toe]

On a mac:

• Insert CD hold down C
• Disk Utility - wipe required drive
• Install

Actually, with recent versions of OS X, you can do the same thing by:

• Insert CD
• Double-click Installer
• Follow prompts

The installer will reboot for you, and will wipe the drive as an option.

Oh, and in an enterprise environment, it's awesome:

• Reboot holding N
• Select the appropriate Image

That is, reboot off of a specially-built net-boot image (I.T. has to builkd this image, mind you) on the Xserve. That image has a startup script which wipes the hard drive (OK, since you're net-booting) then installs OS X custom-configured to the company. One-touch complete rebuild of a computer.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Regarding the start menu, I believe he is referring to "Pin to Start Menu".

This appears in the context menu whenever you right-click over an EXE file (i.e. in Program Files). If you set up Start Menu to use

1) Small Icons
2) 0 for # of Programs in Start Menu (this prevents XP from adding the programs it "thinks" is getting used often). I find that if you drag all the applications you use yourself into it (or using Pin) it allows quick access to anything.

I'm aware of this, but you bring up another Windows annoyance, the fact that it's way over-designed to anticipate what the user wants to do -- or more accurately, XP assumes that the user is a chimpanzee with no idea what they want to do, let alone, how to do it. With a new Windows setup, you need to go through and methodically turn off the default "I am a big dumb hairy ape" settings. (The cartoon assistant is especially insulting to intelligent bipeds.)

 

[Applespider]

XP assumes that the user is a chimpanzee with no idea what they want to do, let alone, how to do it. With a new Windows setup, you need to go through and methodically turn off the default "I am a big dumb hairy ape" settings

Ironic though that we've gone through this thread assuming that most XP users aren't techie enough to understand critical upgrades, updating virus definitions, checking for spyware, installing a different browser, using a popup blocker - let alone understanding not to click on just any window. And then we slag off XP for treating people like they don't know jack. Or perhaps it's just that XP's little messages emphasise the wrong things.

 

[brap]

Or perhaps it's just that XP's little messages emphasise the wrong things.

Absolutely true. It makes it hell for the 'power' user to set up a system to begin with through Retard Fluff, but you try to open a Works 6 file in Office XP...

The Windows 'Help and support centre' is a joke; I could list the rare occasions on which I've needed to use it for one reason or another and been utterly infuriated - if I hadn't repressed them.

 

[Toe]

Absolutely true. It makes it hell for the 'power' user to set up a system to begin with through Retard Fluff, but you try to open a Works 6 file in Office XP...

What I love is the books about Office; nay about just Word. The typical Microsoft Word book is over 600 pages. For a word processor. What the fork is MS thinking?

If Word 5 worked perfectly/natively in Panther, I'd dump Office 2004 in a second.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Ironic though that we've gone through this thread assuming that most XP users aren't techie enough to understand critical upgrades, updating virus definitions, checking for spyware, installing a different browser, using a popup blocker - let alone understanding not to click on just any window. And then we slag off XP for treating people like they don't know jack. Or perhaps it's just that XP's little messages emphasise the wrong things.

I haven't made this assumption personally, but I think this is a related technical issue. Windows makes you know scads of things an ordinary user should not have to learn. I don't believe the consuming public would tolerate any other product that demanded so much care and feeding in ordinary daily use but at the same time treated them like they were dopes.

 

[rueyeet]

1. My computer is permanently connected to the Internet, but sits behind a router (so other PCs can share the connection), making it invisible from the outside world.
2. I use the Opera browser for all my web surfing, apart from Firefox (for GMail) and Internet Exploder (for Windows Update).
3. I use WebWasher to filter out pop-ups, ads and other junk. This makes Web browsing much nicer. I strongly recommend WW - it works very well with both Opera and Firefox (Download link).
4. Symantec Antivirus is running permanently. Fully up-to-date.
5. Running XP SP2, Automatic Updates are turned on, so any critical updates are downloaded and installed for me in the background. I check for non-critical updates and Office 2003 patches regularly and use Microsoft Baseline Security Adviser to check for anything else required (MBSA download link).
6. I use AdAware to scan for spyware. It picks up cookies and that's about it.
7. I have a number of email addresses. My main one is used for people whom I trust (family, friends) and companies whom I feel have good reputations (Apple, Amazon, etc). I use free ones (GMail, Yahoo) for signing up for forums and for people whom I don't entirely trust not to send me silly pictures in an email.
8. When posting on Usenet, I spoof my email address and use a fake name.
9. I re-install Windows every couple of months, using a Symantec Ghost image I took of a clean post-SP2 installation. I can get all my apps up and running in a few hours.

This is exactly what I was talking about.

So, to fully protect yourself, you had to buy a router and Symantec AV, then you had to make use of Opera, Web Washer, AdAware, and Microsoft's Baseline Security Advisor. Five programs that don't come with the OS. How many of those were free? and how much research and experience to have assembled all those pieces? And that's along with the commonsense of being careful with your email addresses, and doing regular updates of Windows and your AV, and not opening funny attachments and whatnot.

Gee, on my Mac, I run System Update every so often. And that's it. I've already got a firewall, can get away without AV, and don't need the ad-blockers and pop-up blockers and spyware blockers because Safari isn't loaded with vulnerabilities like IE is. And I haven't had to install a single thing beyond what came with my Mac.

I certainly have had no need to reinstall my system, not even once over the last two years, and my TiBook still runs as well as the day I got it.

Why do Windows users put up with this? Every single person who's said, "oh, but Windows isn't that bad" has listed all the usual suspects: Don't use IE, use this for spyware, that for adware, the other for popups, and don't forget to get a firewall and an AV. Out of the box, from the get-go, a Mac user doesn't have to worry about ANY of that!

I agree, an ad campaign is in order. Show the Windows user and Mac user unpacking their new computers. Then show the Windows user installing his AV program while the Mac user checks his email; show the Windows user installing his malware blockers while the Mac user fires up Safari and gets surfing; show the Windows user installing his firewall (or applying SP2 to turn it on) while the Mac user has some fun in iTunes (which a lot of people ought to recognize on sight by now!). Then show the Windows user finally firing up IE, and doing the standard closing of all the resulting pop-ups, while the Mac user just clicks "Block Pop-Ups" and keeps on surfin'.

If I had to run Windows at home in this day and age, I'd be driven mad.