Windows Bad? I Think Not.

[jipman 0]

qwijbow, it's probably not that USING linux is difficult, the GNOME gui and stuff is quite user friendly. The problem arises when one tries to change some settings or add new software. The way of installing rpm's for example is kinda weird, sometimes in konqueror you can just click to install, but sometimes you have to use commandline. And a lot of times one has to find depencies that some rpm's have. Also, Changing display properties and sound properties is quite difficult, it's a whole bunch of clicks just to change the display resolution.And, this can't be helped, most people formerly used windows and the way the menu structure is in linux is just quite different from windows.What also is a big problem, (i had when first started using linux, and sometimes now too), is the way of storage linux uses. all those names, /etc /home /usr /bin..... to first time users, this is quite a problem, and a lot of times after people install their software, they can't even find it if their's no ICON on their desktops. :|....Whereas most of the software for windows are GUI'ed, quite logical, since windows is dependant on it. Linux has probably more commandline based tools than graphical ones, which makes the level of difficulty much higher since most windows people don't even know what a shell is.Although I think most Linux users would agree that commandline works very fast and easy once one gets the hang of it, it's in our nature to choose looks over performance, also, Microsoft does M a r k e t i n g. Which the Linux users don't.This all brings me to my final point:If people don't want to learn about how to use a slightly more complicated OS, let them be. If windows does what they want it to do, why would they have to go Linux? We all know that Linux is cheaper faster safer (as in virus threats safer), and way way more 1337er than windows .No seriously guys, if people don't want to expand their horizons, we can't force them. All we can do is show them that there's more outside the Window, and hope they decide to give it a shot.

[qwijibow 0]

but i still cant get away from the fact that it is one of the easiest os's to use

alot of pople say that, what other OS's did you try ?
and what did you find difficult about them ?

The funny thing is, m the oppiste way around, i cant figure out how to use windows properly.

for example, in linux, if the networking is not running, i sumply run "net start"

but to do the same in windows, i hae to go into control panel, and follow this endlessly annoying Wizzard... and god help me if i neet to setup IP masquerading or Ntwork Address Translation, lol.

Im also having the opposite porblem wiith games...

I have Half Life 2 installed on windows and linux (the same machine, dual boot)

In Linux, running a DirectX9 emulator, i get about 50+ frames per second...
I tired in windows, and i get 14 frames per second...

ive tride everything, inclding re-installing graphics drivers, and AGP gart drivers.

In theory, windows should run DirectX games faster than a Linux DIrectX emulator.
There MUST be somthing wrong with a driver...

if there was somthing wrong with a linux driver, i would run "lsmod" to make sure the driver is loaded. and "dmesg" to see if the driver reported any errors.

but in windows, well... there's a trouble shooter wizzard that keps asking me to make sure my Graphics card is plugged in.

[qwijibow 0]

Jipman... I agree.When it comes to Administering linux, it can be more difficult, depending on the distro.RPM's were origonally designed for Redhat when it was primarily a server distro, designed for server admins.And as you say, i wouldnt want to force rpm's on my mum B)But what about Linspire's install program "Click'N'Run"Im just argueing that not all aspecs of linux are difficult.And 99% of users on this forum are "techies" that could learn how to use RPM's in a few minutes.Linux IS harder than windows to administer, but its not beyond anyone's abilitys's in this forum.Too be honest, i wouldnt want Linux to be accepted by the masses.. (makes me feel special.. LOL nerd )

[moonwitch1405241479 0]

OK, I am using Win XP Pro, you know why? Because well, I seem to be unable to get my audio in to work in Skype on Linux, and the mp3 support still is missing. It's strange, I've done the same as I had done in FC3, but FC4 won't cut it. Mind you, I am unwilling to give up fedora. In fact - weeeeeeeeeee- let's go switch to FC4 and try some more (after saving my book marks LOL)Anyhow, I had very little computer experience, only some rudimentary 386 and Win 3.11 for workgroups. Well, I had DOS, which I loved with Norton Commander (ps. Anyone know how I can install a full DOS on my old pc, no windows, only DOS?) And I got thrown into Linux, I actually made it to the top 3 of the class, Unix System Admin. (Ok, the group counted 11 heads LOL). So it's not all bad, although I must admit that in the last few years of using windows too much, I forgot a lot. But the key to Linux knowledge is refusing to give up, refusing to settle for "oh well, I can't do it". You just use google.com/linux and search. Read all you can find, and you'll get there. Sure you can mess up, but let's face it. In Win you can mess up even easier. One wrong move in the registery and you're screwed. Linux at least requires you to be root, and when you're super user, and you mess up, it's your responsibility.

[organicbmx 0]

What I do is devote one day a month to giving my machine a good clean up and refresh. This includes disc scanning and checking for new drivers, defragging etc etc. I generally clean out the inside as well, (yeah, I know, bad English usage there!) blowing out all the dust & **** that gets inside the case.

The problem i have with windows is that i really do not feel that i should need to do that. I dont think that many mac or linux users spend a whole day doing that. All i'd do in linux is just make sure that kynaptic [or the same] is fully up to date about once or twice a week. (but maybe im need to do more because im still new to linux)

[Killer008r 0]

I agree that Windows isn't the most stable OS but, the fact is Most people would rather use Xp than any Mac OS. If you want to have a good OS I Say go with Linspire 5.0 It has the bases of all 3 major operating systems, Plus they have a 64 bit OS, along with the regular 32 bit. And the price of the operating system is under 100 dollars... Infact it is only 59 dollars for the 32 bit system.

[unimatrix 0]

People really bite into windows because they are the big dog on the street. Not to say that all of Microsoft's past dealing have been legal not to even mention fair is one reason. I still run Windows 2000 pro. Now Windows 9x had some stablity issues and problems with many technologies not working as advertises, like plug and pray. I won't even mention the bastard child known as Windows ME. However, the Windows NT line in business has always been pretty darned stable. I never had any problems with Windows NT 4 or NT 4 Server and then with 2000 Pro on the desktops. Personally I think XP, once turned to the "classic" interface, is okay, but is a bit of a resource and memory hog especially on older systems. With Norton Internet Security/Antivirus and keeping it up to date, I've not had any problems with with viruses on our 2 Windows machines in the office. (We're a Mac Shop). A lot of people blast Apple for not having a 64-bit OS for a 64-bit Chip (G5). Here is the main reason why: they still have a lot of 32-Bit chip machines in the market and very few applications will gain anything from 64-bit code. Those that can, do take advantage of the 64-Bit processess via extentions. Most applications will run faster on a 32-bit system than 64-bit. This is something I discovered long ago working with the Sun Solaris system. Most Engineers used 32-bit workstations to run their apps and then processed large simulations/renderings/lots of numbers on 64-bit servers. I started using 64-bit systems in 1996 with the DEC Alpha platorm. How much we gained from the 64-bit vs. the 500Mhz processing speeds was always debated amoungst the engineers. (Running NT4 for ALpha and Lightwave 4). Our PC terminals were Dual Pentium Pro 150's (maybe 200's I can't remember now) and a whopping 256MB of ram. Most of our Alpha boxes were dual 500 Alphas with 2GB of Ram. Today, I really have to give Apple credit for designing an effective, easy to use Unix based OS for the masses. I still have the same issues about developing for Linux I did over six years ago, (Although at the time there were new distros almost weekly and no clear winners yet)that is there are not really any definitive standards for a Linux desktop platform. Even within distros, people use different desktops, library packages, some tweak boxes more than other, and finally the different distros don't keep their dependancies in the same place, even from version to version. Then if you develop an application, let's say for Red Hat/Fedora, other distro users will grip and flood your tech support with "Why won't this work with XYZ Linux?". Takes a lot of time and money to pay people to reply: "Sorry we don't support you," and fosters ill will towards your product.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

another reason why Windows is a bad OS is because their programmers aren't the smartest either, if they had been a smart good programmer, they didn't need to make the OS bloat. When you have a bloat OS, it's easy to be infiltrated and can be leaked. Linux, and other FOSS in contrast are liteweighted because the programmers around the world know how to program litely. The reason (@ least me) for targeting Windows as the bad one, because seriously, a computer is NOT just a tool, it's a learning environment, entertainment, you DO need to know how to run it, and people's connotation of having it just run is a bad idea, that is why evil corporations will brainwash these people and slave them forever. I'm not targeting it because it is the most popular and I'm envious about it, I seriously do think that Macs and FOSS operating system is way better and also let the user actually know and control the computer.xboxrulz

[the empty calorie 0]

I have used many, many operating systems. More than most computer users these days. I have used CP/M, MP/M, Apple DOS 3.3, MS-DOS, DR-DOS, AmigaOS, TOS, Macintosh System 6 and 7, Mac OS 8-10.4(Intel). BeOS, Linux, System V, and BSD. and Also, I have used Windows 1.0-XP.First off, out of all of those, Windows, hands down, is the worst one I have ever experienced. Why? Well, Yes, Microsoft does steal other people's ideas...or buys them. Also, once Microsoft has done that, they do a horrible job at implementing whatever the feature is. Even features of their own (like the infamous Close, Ignore box)...You ever notice the only button that has ever, and still to this day, worked is the "Close" one? Go through Windows sometime, and look at how many flaws you find like this. Like those corners that are supposed to start or prevent the screensaver? Those have never worked as far as I've seen. Doesn't this kind of make you wonder what kind of programmers are writing this software? I've seen "unstable" builds of OS'es that are more finished than the retail version of Windows, and more stable!Think of it this way...Would you buy a car that had a wheel fall off every fifteen miles? It may have many accessories, and lots of people may have them, but would you buy something that had that risk?

[Reaver 0]

Well my experiance with windows has been fairly uneventful in the way of bad things happening to it, even as far back as good ol windows 3.1 which i reckon the most tedious thing was the box sets of floppy disks and yes nortons was the in thing back then aswell and to install that was hell ( approx. 50 floppys). I had a bule screen in the windows ME version that i used but a week later microsoft released a new set of VxD's which made ME run brilliantly unfortunately it was released in the development resources area so the average jo blog had no idea ME could be run properly. I soon switched to windows 2000 and loved the permision system and the introduced idea of the ctrl alt del leading to a "control box". then as claimed by microsoft themselves along came along xp pro with its NT stability and uber pleasing gui, which seems to work fine for me and i havnt had a problem with it yet although i must add that i am running a resource hacked version for gamers which dulls down the amount of desktop resources xp usually outlays.But all in all, Good Job Microsoft.

[pomjim 0]

I made the origianl post asking the question, is windows as bad as it's made out to be.Why has it come to the usual my o/s is bettter than Windows? I never suggested Windows was the best, and I wonder why, whenever a post is made about Windows being.........well, ok, people who use another o/s start on?The answer I think is contained in many of the above posts. It is that many users of o/s like linux feel "superior" to windows users becasue linux is sopposedly a better o/s, and it's free (or some versionsa are).Now, that may be true (as a user of both, I don't think any linux is that much better than windows) but so what? You have to realise that most people who use them are not particularly "into" them as machines, but merely as something to play games on and send email etc.As long as it works and is easy to use, that's all they care about.So how about we get back to the origina question, which was is Windows as unstable as made out?My answer is no, and we are talking here about XP, not 95!!! l

[qwijibow 0]

I think so.Have you ever booted a freshly installed version of XP?it boots quite quickly.Dureing use however, if completely fragments the disk.eventually grinding to a hault.Disk fragmention doesnt cause crashes, but i would still consider it a stability issue, as performance degrades over time.The disk de-frag tool is a cheap and dirty fix to this flaw.in the wndows95 days with 2gig disks, it was an acceptable solution,but over a decade later, 120gig disk sizes, and windows has still not resolved this issue.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

just did, it crashes immediately once I install my NVIDIA driver and run a game. User-friendly? Nope, I had to crack down to it's registry and system files, and still couldn't figure out what the problem is because I have no access to the source code to fix the problem.xboxrulz

[wutske 0]

I've had some good and bad experience with Windows.I won't say that it's realy bad, but never expect me to say that it's good.The sole reason why most of the people around the world use windows, is because decades ago, windows was ought to be better than Mac. So, to be competitive and compatible to the rest of the world, you should have M$ stuff installed (ok, I know you can use Linux+OpenOffice.org etc..., but compatibility will never be perfect).The reason why people don't buy macs is because most users don't know Mac, users who might know it, don't want to buy some expensive computer that can't run windows apps (ok, Mac mini, but be honest, it's a weak Mac, isn't it ?) and the reason why people don't use Linux, is because they don't know it or they are afraid of using a console.Normal people just want to click on it so it works, they don't want to type some whole command to installe a program, click and play is what matters, and that's what M$ offers in XP SP2.Somebody said Windows shipped with an anti-virus program ? It does not (and if it does, it'll be infected within the hour after release), it only informs you about the need of a virusscanner, but fails to give inform you about free alternatives (that work better).I hear (read) a lot of people telling that windows can be safe when you have a firewall, virusscanner and some anti-spyware stuff installed. That's a wrong way of thinking. Do you buy a car and install a windsreen, bumper and gaskets afterward to make the car drive safely ??? I don't think so. All those apps to make windows safe use a lot of resources, and a loss in performance (ok, it's small, but it is there).So, why shouldn't we all use linux ? Because. Linux is still too hard for the average users and there are too less applications for it that people can buy (don't forget this, most people prefere going to a shop than searching the net for hours). Imagine, your daugther wants that newest Barbie game, you'll have to say no, because it won't work on linux (or you can't install good drivers, since it's a real pain in the *** to install ATI or nV drivers).And why not going to Mac, about the same reason (except the drivers). Still Macs are good alternatives, they are powerfull and look good, but they are expensive.

[wutske 0]

Forgotten to tell you my experience with Windows .My first contact was with Windows3.1(1). I loved it, because I couldn't work with DOS then, it honestly, it works pretty well on the old PI 166 .Then we got Win95 and I started to learn how it all worked and how I could administate it and still it was pretty stable, even when a 10y (?) old kid was messing around with it .Win98 on the other hand worked a litlle less stable and I had to reinstall it more than once (even once lost all my 'data'), because it refused to start.Meanwhile, my dad had WindowsNT4 installed and we used his to computer to surf the internet. Well, that was the crappiest OS I had worked with since Win3.x . There were some serious problems with the services so I could log-in during the first 5minutes, it couldn't remove empty folders if I had opened them before and sometimes I would hang completely.Then I moved to WinXP, in the beginning, I liked it, but after a while, but after a while, it realy got messed up. Loads of adware and spyware screwed the whole system. I've reinstalled WinXP about 15 times since I have it (and if I wouldn't be that lazy, it would have been 3 times more. Even now I'd like to reinstall it, but it takes too much time).Meanwhile, I've worked with ME, it crashed immediatly. Win2K is good, but not fast (kinda normal when you have the server edition ).SP2 was a no-go. I've installed it and 5 min later I was already rebooting to reinstall SP1.And, I've allready tried Longhorn, it's actualy pretty good, but I'm going to wait till the final version.