Does Windows XP suck?

[RSO:Gray]

Dose Windows XP suck?

well i have had XP pro since it first started.
It started off fine but with lots of bugs and driver issuses like the auto update didn't acomidate my Eax sound card but did my onboard one. After a while this was fixed and it seemed my PC ran like a dog after the postman, soon it started to slow down.
I had only formatted my PC once after useing XP and this was due to a beta vertion of Direct X 9 i installed, i forgot to put a rollback ghost on my hard drive and ended up screwing the whole machen up.

Well back to when it was good, I bought my first HIGH end gpu back in 2002 [ELSA - gladic geforce 3] and it seemed to make my life so much better when playing online games. I had my adsl for just over a year then and had invested wisly [or so i thought]
the upgrade cost me around £300 and was worth the money at the time, I got a grapic card and a game to go with it [Giants citizen kabuto that is].

the frame rate was blinding in Quake 3 almost 200 FPS and online i could reach arount 120 fps WOW this card rox.

well patch after patch for the latest games and driver updates for the grapic card, then updating my XP pro to SP1 n numros patchs for securty [mind thats stupid cos i still got hacked]
after some time the game play FPS started to drop.

Quake 3 nows peaks offline at around 90 fps and online at around 40 FPS

I'm now wondering where to point my finger of blame, XP seems the likely one to blame tbh.

I'm comming to the end of the road for my cheap PCs and come 2005 we will all have to buy Retail PCs form Windows resale componys.

and come 2005 the price of PCs will shoot up due to the TCPA monopoly. there will be no escaping it unless some one breaks the 2048 hardware encryption on all the PC componets that XP-se will be useing.

I think i should start getting to know Linux a bit more in the mean time and wait till 2004 to start worrying about how this will effect Home PC users.

IMH XP SUX but Its the only OS that played all the Good games atm.

 

[Jonty]

Hi RSO:Gray

Only I flying visit, I'm afraid To be perfectly frank, Windows is going to be an easy scapegoat for most people's PC problems. Whilst it may not be perfect, XP remains arguably the best platform for home computing, something which Longhorn should build upon in 2005.

Whilst you consider Linux a possible alternative, it simply isn't and probably won't be for a long time. Linux is great in the areas its designed for, no one denies that. But ask anyone whose serious about Linux development (not the fanatics) and they'll tell you no distribution of Linux is ready to seriously take on Microsoft or even Apple in the home computing market. You have to remember that whilst great for servers and other such specific uses, Linux can't natively run Windows applications or games without some sort of port being made in the latter instance.

So whilst Windows may not be perfect, it's not the root of all the world's problems. Ask the people who browse this board, people, it has to be said, who really know their computers. Whilst many use Linux and other operating systems on a day to day basis, the vast majority revert back to Windows for their gaming and home computing needs.

Kind Regards

 

[nath]

Win 2k all the way, I'm not moving off it untill stuff simply doesn't work on it.

 

[Testin da Cable]

indeed. I've been re-evaluating XP for some time now, and frankly I don't like it. Moving back to 2k for me too, if only for morrowind

 

[[UKLans]Khan]

I have used Windows XP since it's launch. I have re-installed my computer once in that time. My system never crashes, some times applications crash but not very often.

I know people where and still are very happy with Win 2k and I don't belive that people should upgrade until they have to. I got XP so early on beacuse I got a licence from work.

People are far to fast to blame PC problems on Microsoft, the thing is, it's like Jonty said, there is nothing upto XP standards on the market.

Khan

 

[nath]

Originally posted by [UKLans]Khan
there is nothing upto XP standards on the market.

Actually that's totally wrong. Linux is totally up to and way beyond XP standards. I lived with a linux geek for a year and realised that you can do so much with it, it's a very powerful platform. The problem is support. Games rarely if ever support it, drivers are often a pain to get and so on and so on.

2k/XP are good platforms, but the reason they have a strong hold is because of the ease of use and the support by manufacturers/software developers. You can actually devise a linux workstation that will be incredibly easy to use, especially for home users, it'll just take a bit of tinkering. My old housemate did one for his mum (who hates computers). She needed it for the internet and word processing, so he insisted on linux. She remained totally happy with it, no problems whatsoever. When she did have some questions/issues he could telnet on and solve them immediately.

Linux is incredibly powerful and useful, it just needs more support from developers and manufacturers to become a bit more mainstream. I don't see that happening any time soon. Point is, you can't blame Linux for not having support. Judging on merit alone, it's far superior an OS.


Ughhh, can't believe I wrote all that praise for the operating system of the unwashed :/

 

[Jonty]

hehe I don't believe anyone is saying Linux is a bad OS, far from it, merely that it's not really suitable for the vast majority of home users. Whilst Linux may be far superior to Windows in some areas of the market, this doesn't mean it's an all singing all dancing replacement for Windows. I think the best approach, as everyone here seems to do, is recognise the fact that no OS is perfect

Kind Regards

 

[[UKLans]Khan]

The problem is support

therefore not upto Windows standards.

Variety is what we (the consumer) need. Once an OS capable of the kind of stablilty/style and compatability with programs/games hits the desktop we will start to see a more competative Home OS market. At the moment we don't have such a product. Until then, Microsoft have us (consumer) by the "balls".

Khan

 

[Will]

Its a chicken/egg situation. Linux will become more popular when it has more developer support, and will get more developer support if more people use it. The OS itself, and the newer versions of the window managers, are excellent. As nath said, better than Windows in some situtations.

Try Knoppix if you want to see. Download, burn, and boot.

 

[RSO:Gray]

I take it Win 2k3 Server Kicks ass server wise

but Unix should still be the best for Webspace

 

[nath]

Originally posted by [UKLans]Khan
Once an OS capable of the kind of stablilty/style and compatability with programs/games hits the desktop we will start to see a more competative Home OS market.

That's the point I was making: Linux is capable. Developers just decide not to write software for it.

Id actually frequently release their games for *nix, there's no problem there. It's not a constraint on the Linux's part that developers don't write software for it.

Sure, Windows is the better thing to use now, given the current situation, but Linux is the better operating system.

E.G. Imagine you could get a Mercedes Benz for free, but the petrol it required was nigh on impossible to come by. Alternatively you could have a Nissan Micra, the petrol was easy to come by, and lots of it.

Sure you'd go for the Micra because it's pointless having a Merc if you can't drive it the way you want, but the Merc is the better car. Once petrol for it is more widespread, you'll be cruising around laughing at the Micra people who said it was shit.

 

[Jonty]

I've heard good things about Windows Server 2003, but I'm not sure about the take up rate. Has anyone else heard that Microsoft are going to try and implement their forthcoming WinFS file system into Windows Server 2003 in a service pack sometime later this year/early next year? Not sure whether it's pure rumour or not, quite an interesting move if they do.

Kind Regards

Jonty

Edit ~ hehe, nice metaphor nath, but true as it is, it still doesn't change the present 'landscape of fact'

 

[RSO:Gray]

i hear windows 2k3 server can save you a nickle on business transfers

good thing if you make 25,000,000 transfers a month

 

[Sibanac]

actualy the main lack for desktop acceptance is games realy.
I run linux almost exclusively at work, open office works pretty well these days so i can open all documents that get sent to me except powerpoint files... but we all know nothing usefull was ever don in PP
and using evolution/ximian connector to connect to the excange servers here.

My stephfather (sp?) doesnt know the diffrence between a cpu and a HD. so you can imagine i got sick off cleaning up his pc after the umpteent outlook virus hit him.
So i decided to install SuSE showed him open office, evolution ect , made sure his digi cam auto mounted and left him to it.
He now does all his office work on that machine and is verry happy about it.
and i get alot less phone calls
(he does have a PS2 for games )
Granted this is not the solution for everybody but in certain cases linux is a verry good alternative for windows.

 

[RSO:Gray]

He he kinda like my wife too
Her PC is riddled with problems and a dodgy hard disk

I have Linux Red hat 9 ISOs on cd and may think about installing them on her PC but i don't know if it will effect my win XP crossover Lan connection.

 

[Jonty]

Originally posted by Sibanac
so you can imagine i got sick off cleaning up his pc after the umpteent outlook virus hit him.

hehe I sometimes wonder (as you do ) what it would be like if Linux were used on such a wide scale as Windows. It seems from recent reports that Linux certainly isn't as secure as people would like to make out, but surely attacking an operating system to which the source is openly available would be rather easy? By and large Windows is closed source, and yet look at the havoc people still manage to inflict, so what would it be like with an open source application? I suppose there's the fact some people may be reluctant to attack something purely because it's nothing to do with Microsoft, but you're always going to get some *censored* who wants to bring misery to the masses

Kind Regards

 

[Sibanac]

crossover lan connection ?
you mean like the 'internet sharing thingy' ?

 

[RSO:Gray]

yeh i use network places.
Im thinking about it but i doubt i will due to her like for MP3s n stuff and the fact i store most of my DIVX movies on her hard disk lol

 

[nath]

Use samba, it's compatible with windows networks. Either that, or it is the foundation on which windows networks are based, or something along those lines.

Either way, I had a network with my housemate who used linux. He used samba. No problem at all.

Jonty said this stuff
so what would it be like with an open source application?

Well, there's that worrying aspect. But there's also the fact that because it's open source, people spot it quicker and sure, you'll get people who'll exploit it, but you'll get people who will make others aware, and fix it quicktime.

If you register with Redhat, they send out an e-mail every time there's a critical update that needs some attention. Pretty handy.

 

[Sibanac]

Originally posted by Jonty
hehe I sometimes wonder (as you do ) what it would be like if Linux were used on such a wide scale as Windows. It seems from recent reports that Linux certainly isn't as secure as people would like to make out, but surely attacking an operating system to which the source is openly available would be rather easy? By and large Windows is closed source, and yet look at the havoc people still manage to inflict, so what would it be like with an open source application? I suppose there's the fact some people may be reluctant to attack something purely because it's nothing to do with Microsoft, but you're always going to get some *censored* who wants to bring misery to the masses

Kind Regards

Well its actualy much harder on *nix systems because of the user permisions , think about it if you have a normal logon on any windows machine its not that hard to screw the system up while on a *nix machine a normal user acount can only touch his home dir and /tmp ad d to that nifty apps like chroot(linux) or jail(bsd) and you can run the most bug ridden software without your system beeing in any real danger

 

[Mellow-]

If Linux was ever used mainstream, I.T departments would be 4 times as large due to user idiocies.

... and yes, Windows Server 2003 is infact rather slick.

 

[(Shovel)]

As was pointed out, Linux and Virii is less an issue because of the hugely more secure user accounts over Windows.

However, I'm sure that should Linux become a "Home user" contender, then whatever user permission exploits there are, as well as disruptive virii as it is, will spread quicker.

The big risk from home users will be "the incompetants", the ones who cannot adjust to the *nix way of life and therefore have root permissions to make life easier. It's for them that the malicious code types could spell disaster.

 

[abovethesystem]

It's a common myth that Linux systems are more secure than windows xp or 2k systems at least. The security of a system depends on how well the system is configured and managed. As for virus attacks, windows systems are more widespread so more people spend time making viruses to infect them. If there were more linux systems than windows systems i'm sure the situation would be reversed.

 

[PR.]

My Shuttle XP Machine:

Computer Uptime: 5wks 8hrs 11mins 41secs
Record: 5wks 8hrs 11mins 41secs Set: Tue Jul 01 22:25:34 2003
Started: Tue May 27 14:13:52 2003

I'm quiet blown away by the reliability tbh

It gets used about 18hours a day either from me remote desktopped into it from work, or using it at home. It doesn't feel any slower than it did when I booted it up for the first time 5 weeks ago. I don't play games on it as thats not what it was intended for.

 

[(Shovel)]

Originally posted by abovethesystem
It's a common myth that Linux systems are more secure than windows xp or 2k systems at least. The security of a system depends on how well the system is configured and managed. As for virus attacks, windows systems are more widespread so more people spend time making viruses to infect them. If there were more linux systems than windows systems i'm sure the situation would be reversed.

Although true, I think Linux still counts for being "more secure" since you can configure it far, far more than any version of Windows. Windows security is always limited by the exploits hard coded into it that you can't configure or disable. With *nix you are far more able to safely configure something in the first place, or in the event of a hole in the code, patches are quicker to appear to fill them in again.

Having said that, the idea that Windows (with a good firewall, obviously) is "horribly horribly insecure" is (in my opinion) an equally dubious acusation.

 

[Testin da Cable]

Originally posted by (Shovel)

Having said that, the idea that Windows (with a good firewall, obviously) is "horribly horribly insecure" is (in my opinion) an equally dubious acusation.

the average smarts on the average doze user makes it horribly horribly insecure Ben. sad fact #525662

 

[Jonty]

I believe Windows undoubtedly has a bad security reputation, and mud sticks, as they say. And whilst I agree that Microsoft do need to address security issues, as they are actively seeking to do, at least with the aid of third-party software the threat of disruption can be kept to a minimum.

One thing that strikes me, though, is the way in which Microsoft's security updates come about. A fair few security concerns are only ever risks when the hacker, for want of a better word, is actually present at the PC and logged in, which is fairly unlikely outside of a business context. Furthermore, a great many updates are proactive, meaning Microsoft's own security team has found a bug, rather than some malicious code forcing them on to the backfoot (yes, they pay people to constantly try and exploit Windows ).

Whilst I agree security is of great concern, Windows XP, for example, consists of around two billion lines of code, accumulated and patched time and time again, being run on almost an infinite number of different system configurations across the globe. You have to feel for Microsoft, sometimes. They're damned if they do release security updates and damned if they don't.

Kind Regards

 

[(Shovel)]

I'm not sure about feeling for Microsoft. This is the market they wanted to take on, they have to take the responsibility for that. If they wanted an easy ride, they'd have started their own offshoot of the IBM Compatible and controlled the hardware ala Apple.

I guess buying security firms and anti virus producers is probably a good thing for the average user, since I fear how many people don't run anti virus (and then the number who don't run a firewall on top of that). However, it would be infinitely preferable if they'd just provide recommendations of "get a virus scanner" to all the users who buy it, rather than leaving people out in the cold until they have their own solution.

 

[Mellow-]

They may have "taken on" this market, but seeing as how a majority of users and companys use their products, i'd say they're doing pretty well. Despite people saying "windows sucks, I hate it" etc

 

[(Shovel)]

I think when you consider how complex the task of producing software that runs on an infinite hardware base is, the fact that it works at all is pretty good going... that is probably just me in an "awe at technology" moment though.

There will always be room for improvement in features. Someone will always be the leading the way outside of the mainstream and someone else will always steal such a feature.
Similarly, there will always be security risks for as long as there are people looking to exploit them.

After XP, they'll have gained a lot of ground in the opinions of "everyday" users. The leap between 98 and XP is gigantic (this is the jump I made) and the stability improvement is genuinely astronomical. No, the gap from 2000 is not as big, but as we know, 2000 was not attached to the "Home user" crosshairs.

The fact that Longhorn has such a long development period before its release (and therefore the long term life span for XP) shows that they should make similar strides next time around too. A long product life for XP will do my wallet a favour too.