What do you have against Windows?

[Zylstra]

I really don’t get it. I hear people saying "Microsoft Steels Money" or "Windows will KILL your computer". I would like to know why.
I have a Windows computer, and I trust it more than a Mac, that’s for sure.

Hear me out for a second:
Before you post "Macintosh never gets viruses, and are plenty more secure" I would like to give my simple explanation for this:

Macintoshes are not targeted for viruses, adware, or spyware because they are not compatible with running the files needed to infect most computes. Sure, viruses can be downloaded, but not activated within a Mac. People don’t target Macs because they are not often used. They are only good for office computers. I would die if my school started replacing them. If I were a virus maker, or a hacker, I would want to target the most used OS and PC’s on earth, Microsoft and comp’s that run with Intel’s or Athlon’s (yes, I know that for the first time, the Intel Chip is being locked down to eak out a miserable existence inside, please hold your breath, a MAC) I have a Mac, and the only thing I am impressed with is the voice reorganization programs. (Yes, that’s right, I talk to my computer. It can also sing, but that’s not one bit useful).

OK, I'm prepared to be BOMBARDED with replies now. And I will make some polls.

[Dilbert]

I really don't have anything against Windows per se, but it's like Internet Explorer and Firefox - IE does well for a browser, but FireFox can do so much more it's not funny. It's every time I uninstall and see the message: "Some files could not be removed..." It's these files that are the easiest to delete; the stuff in C:\Program Files and whatnot. It just seems odd that it's not capable of doing that. Then there's the fact that some programs don't do much at all; the XP Defrag program is a good example. If I defrag, then refresh, it looks disturbingly like before. Not good.

Then there's the Windows "AntiVirus" protection. It's unreliable, doesn't block outgoing traffic (such as worms, trojans, etc.), it... it just doesn't perform like it should.

Overall, Windows is pretty good. But it just doesn't do as much as it should, and Microsoft doesn't have the best record of fixing these problems.

[Zylstra]

"Some files could not be removed" but you may remove these files by yourself....

After running Defrag, you should not be able to SEE the difference.
All it does is re-arranges your data on your disk. The data that is used most often will be put toward the fromt (because it can be read faster there) and data not used often will be moved to the end (where it reads slower) and so on.
It does not actually arrange your folders order, or the desktop order, if that is what you meant. Which I'm sure you probably meant that you didnt notice any difference in proformance.

[Dilbert]

What I mean is that it says what is is before, and what it should be after. After I do this, the preview of before another defrag, should I choose to do so, looks the same as before, as if I never defragged.

[GX1_Man]

I am a Linux guy. Once you get past the initial learning curve (and there was one with Windows too!) you realize you do NOT have to be locked into an expensive operating system and expensive applications to go along with it, with ridiculous licensing schemes and security flaws in the design too numerous to mention.

I'm not trying to get up on the soapbox, and I am not a gamer, but it works for me!  I think it would be in everyone's best interest to use Windows if you MUST game on one partition or drive, but all net activity should be done more cautiously.

[2k_dummy]

you do NOT have to be locked into an expensive operating system

Therein is the problem with Windows. You pay exorbitant prices for flawed software, then have to pay again to get M$ to fix it (and their fixes are dubious, at best).

[Flame]

I haven't had many problems with XP, and ME was *censored*, so of course, I love XP compared to ME.

Flame

[Fed]

You hate ME & love XP Flame... a vexing dilema, what did you vote for?  :-?
The best Windows OS (W2K) didn't even get a mention.  

[R0SS]

All it is Total Computer Nerds that think Microsoft is bad.

i have a friend who got a Dos Manual when he was like 12.

And YES! When he gets a computer BAm Linux is on and FireFox and all the other stuff.

Realistically they have read too much crap on the internet.

I think there is nothing wrong with Microsoft i wouldn't use and FireFox crap or Linux that's for sure.

Make your Own assumptions dont ask "why" people think its bad because then you might think its bad to.


Microsoft is Ace

R0SS

P.S Yes i would like a Job in Microsoft delivering PR speeches providing the price is right

[GX1_Man]

You're on the right path then!  

[Dilbert]

LOL

[Windows98]

I am a Windows 98 user person.
I really do not have any problems with Windows 98 but the newer Operating Systems are a bit faster and can run many more applications at once. When I tend to use the computer for web surfing some MMORPG thats about it. I do not really use the computer for really intense stuff. Personally I am fine With my current Operating System but I have use Windows 2000 at school and it seems pretty good. I had a bad experience with Windows ME so I've been avoiding all the newer OS upgrade. Plus my computer  seems to run better with 64MB RAM then more ram.

Linux. I am still trying to install, The first time I tried to the download was somehow corrupted so the installation files didnt work. I redownloaded the second time installation seems fine but then the computer wont boot. When I have time I plan to try again.

Mac OS. When I first tried it at school, the very old kind that was "new" but still took forever to open IE I thought to myself Mac sucks. Now the newer versions are better and faster. Its too bad when the school was throwing out computers people took dibbs on the Mac's before I can get my hands on one :-/ Oh well Im sure I can get an Old Mac to play around with.

Personally I have no problems with any OS except Windows ME. *to tramatic experience*  I really would like to try other OS instead of stareing all day at a Windows screen.

[Zylstra]

I really don't have anything against Windows per se, but it's like Internet Explorer and Firefox - IE does well for a browser, but FireFox can do so much more it's not funny. It's every time I uninstall and see the message: "Some files could not be removed..." It's these files that are the easiest to delete; the stuff in C:\Program Files and whatnot. It just seems odd that it's not capable of doing that. Then there's the fact that some programs don't do much at all; the XP Defrag program is a good example. If I defrag, then refresh, it looks disturbingly like before. Not good.

Then there's the Windows "AntiVirus" protection. It's unreliable, doesn't block outgoing traffic (such as worms, trojans, etc.), it... it just doesn't perform like it should.

Overall, Windows is pretty good. But it just doesn't do as much as it should, and Microsoft doesn't have the best record of fixing these problems.

Now to get back to each individual response
Dilbert:
Now that I think about it, it seems like your right. I could go and analyze my HD right now, then defrag, and analyze it again, and it would probably look exactly the same. Like those "fish detectors" that should help you with fishing, its more like a video game that wastes your time. (where I live, those fish detectors do not work. I don’t know about other places. )
Dilbert, you mentioned, Windows All-In-One, right?
If you did, the main point is to prevent security risks, and keep your PC at top shape, but its no different that getting Zone Alarm, Avast, and running Defrag every so often.
I am glad that you don’t have anything against Windows, because I don’t like Macs. (Linux isn’t too bad, I want to find the new Linux that lets you flip screens)

[Zylstra]

I am a Linux guy. Once you get past the initial learning curve (and there was one with Windows too!) you realize you do NOT have to be locked into an expensive operating system and expensive applications to go along with it, with ridiculous licensing schemes and security flaws in the design too numerous to mention.

I'm not trying to get up on the soapbox, and I am not a gamer, but it works for me!  I think it would be in everyone's best interest to use Windows if you MUST game on one partition or drive, but all net activity should be done more cautiously.

GX1_man:
The one thing that I do like about Linux is the fact that it is free. I have bootable Linux CD that I downloaded, called Feathers Linux. Its useful (if you remember to save configuration) I don’t think it has ever gone haywire on me. The only problem I had was trying to connect to the internet through my Ethernet and router.

[Zylstra]

you do NOT have to be locked into an expensive operating system

Therein is the problem with Windows. You pay exorbitant prices for flawed software, then have to pay again to get M$ to fix it (and their fixes are dubious, at best).

2k_dummy:
Windows is expensive, but look at it this way:
Its an operating system that can have so much done with it.
Go find your favorite game, not necessarily one that you have, just one that you would really want. Now, lets look at the requirements on the box. You will probably see "Requires Windows XP" or maybe you just might find "Requires Windows XP or Mac OS X".

My point is that Windows has advanced thought the years. I don’t have many problems with it. It runs the programs I want, when I want it to. (Unless I download a 650MB file and it goes crazy for a minute or too, but that would probably happen on a Mac too)
I do realize that you were not comparing Windows with Mac, I just needed a comparison.

[Zylstra]

I haven't had many problems with XP, and ME was *censored*, so of course, I love XP compared to ME.

Flame

Flame:
Same here. I haven’t had any really big problems with Windows XP, just the software I have installed on it. (Like Yahoo Online Protection which will not remove itself from the system)
To tell you the truth, Windows ME is the best 9.X OS made for Windows. (I know that my poll has Windows ME with XP and 2003, it was part of my classification process)
The reason I like Windows ME is because it is similar to 98 and somewhat similar to 95. The best part is the fact that it has a bunch or drivers that can be automatically detected and I can just connect my flash drive no problem at all.

[Zylstra]

You hate ME & love XP Flame... a vexing dilema, what did you vote for?  :-?
The best Windows OS (W2K) didn't even get a mention.  

Fed:
Windows 2K:
I never really knew the difference between 2K and ME.
I think its mostly the same, could you please tell the differences?

[Zylstra]

All it is Total Computer Nerds that think Microsoft is bad.

i have a friend who got a Dos Manual when he was like 12.

And YES! When he gets a computer BAm Linux is on and FireFox and all the other stuff.

Realistically they have read too much crap on the internet.

I think there is nothing wrong with Microsoft i wouldn't use and FireFox crap or Linux that's for sure.

Make your Own assumptions dont ask "why" people think its bad because then you might think its bad to.


Microsoft is Ace

R0SS

P.S Yes i would like a Job in Microsoft delivering PR speeches providing the price is right

Anyone who likes computers and is a computer nerd/geek will ALWAYS say they don’t like Windows. That's because everyone seems to have it. They want to say that they can do something that you cant do, and they are leading themselves into the world of not being able to use Windows.

Firefox is somewhat useful, but mainly for the tabbed browsing. Microsoft is coming out with Internet Explorer 7 that will be better than Firefox, it will have tabbed browsing, and phishing alerts.

I know my way around a few OS, but I like Windows the most.

[Zylstra]

I am a Windows 98 user person.
I really do not have any problems with Windows 98 but the newer Operating Systems are a bit faster and can run many more applications at once. When I tend to use the computer for web surfing some MMORPG thats about it. I do not really use the computer for really intense stuff. Personally I am fine With my current Operating System but I have use Windows 2000 at school and it seems pretty good. I had a bad experience with Windows ME so I've been avoiding all the newer OS upgrade. Plus my computer  seems to run better with 64MB RAM then more ram.

Linux. I am still trying to install, The first time I tried to the download was somehow corrupted so the installation files didnt work. I redownloaded the second time installation seems fine but then the computer wont boot. When I have time I plan to try again.

Mac OS. When I first tried it at school, the very old kind that was "new" but still took forever to open IE I thought to myself Mac sucks. Now the newer versions are better and faster. Its too bad when the school was throwing out computers people took dibbs on the Mac's before I can get my hands on one :-/ Oh well Im sure I can get an Old Mac to play around with.

Personally I have no problems with any OS except Windows ME. *to tramatic experience*  I really would like to try other OS instead of stareing all day at a Windows screen.

And last, but not lease for now: Windows 98:
I love Windows 98, but I'd say if I had the chance to upgrade my computers RAM and processor to 500MHz and 250MB RAM, I would definitely want to get Windows XP.
Windows XP is not for older systems. Windows 98 is for any system that still runs at 90MHz with a whopping 40MB of RAM.

But, that’s what I say.

I am really disappointed that Microsoft is going to take Windows 98 and SE updated off the web. But its their server, there choice, what are you going to do about it?

[steelegbr]

I've tried LINUX, Win 3.0/3.1/WFW/85/98/2000/ME/XP and used an Apple Mac a few times.


The problem with LINUX is that very few people use it (or can even teach you how). I tried it once, it was ok but installing anything just made no sense (dependancies, etc.).

I do use Firefox / OpenOffice etc. for the functions it has and the cost (MS office student & teacher edition costs £110 where I work).

[Zylstra]

I've tried LINUX, Win 3.0/3.1/WFW/85/98/2000/ME/XP and used an Apple Mac a few times.


The problem with LINUX is that very few people use it (or can even teach you how). I tried it once, it was ok but installing anything just made no sense (dependancies, etc.).

I do use Firefox / OpenOffice etc. for the functions it has and the cost (MS office student & teacher edition costs £110 where I work).

Steelegbr:
MS Office is around $300 here, but anyone who can afford it, its worth it. You can find used copies on Ebay for a much lower price, or find the older versions for an even lower price.

[Fed]

98SE was good until microsoft decided to fix it so they created ME.
W2K was based on NT and it was also good until microsoft decided to fix it & created XP.
Notice how only ME & XP have system restore, I wonder why? LOL

[soybean]

I believe Windows ME should have been classified in the Win 9.x category.  I can't get into a technical discussion on this point right now, but I've usually seen it grouped with 9.X, rather than later versions of Windows, in various OS discussions.

I used Win 98SE for years and still have it under a dual boot configuration on my main computer and on an old Pentuim.  But, Win XP gets my vote; just the ClearType feature alone makes it more pleasant to use.  Although ClearType was developed for laptop and LCD screens, I find that it also makes text look much better on CRT monitors.

[Zylstra]

I believe Windows ME should have been classified in the Win 9.x category.  I can't get into a technical discussion on this point right now, but I've usually seen it grouped with 9.X, rather than later versions of Windows, in various OS discussions.

I used Win 98SE for years and still have it under a dual boot configuration on my main computer and on an old Pentuim.  But, Win XP gets my vote; just the ClearType feature alone makes it more pleasant to use.  Although ClearType was developed for laptop and LCD screens, I find that it also makes text look much better on CRT monitors.

Soybean: (what an intresting Forum name)

The reason I classified Windows ME with XP and 2003 was because Windows ME has a similar driver compatilility. By that I mean that you can put in whatever USB device you want, and it will install it for you.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ClearType", but I think you mean that Windows XP has a cleaner look. I do think that the Windows XP look should be used for LCD (what I am using now) and laptop screens. The look just isnt as great on a regular monitor, but it still is clear.

[Zylstra]

98SE was good until microsoft decided to fix it so they created ME.
W2K was based on NT and it was also good until microsoft decided to fix it & created XP.
Notice how only ME & XP have system restore, I wonder why? LOL

Fed:
You have an excellent point, makes you wonder. System Restore in Windows XP and ME, some similarities. Im sure it was just so Microsoft could test this feature. Did you hear about the update for Windows ME system restore? There was a really BIG error in it.

It does seem like it was a fix and re-create operation, but aren't all OS's like that?

[Sidewinder]

I always liked OS/2 and in fact still occassionally run OS/2 Warp 4 to remind myself what I'm missing. IBM was on the right track when they had written the original code for what turned out to be WinNT 4. Too bad they couldn't figure out how to market PCs,  after all they were a BIG IRON shop in those days.

After Microsoft and IBM went their separate ways, IBM was restricted to running programs that were then current on OS/2, leaving users stuck on VB4, Word 2.0 etc. Windows took off, IBM crashed and burned and the rest is history. Still one of the best OSes ever produced.

 8-)

[Zylstra]

I always liked OS/2 and in fact still occassionally run OS/2 Warp 4 to remind myself what I'm missing. IBM was on the right track when they had written the original code for what turned out to be WinNT 4. Too bad they couldn't figure out how to market PCs,  after all they were a BIG IRON shop in those days.

After Microsoft and IBM went their separate ways, IBM was restricted to running programs that were then current on OS/2, leaving users stuck on VB4, Word 2.0 etc. Windows took off, IBM crashed and burned and the rest is history. Still one of the best OSes ever produced.

 8-)

Sidewinder:
To tell you the truth, I dont have a responce for your answer. I have never used OS/2, its no longer on the market.

Is it downloadable?

[Sidewinder]

OS/2 is not downloadable. Support is being phased out in 2006. It was good OS with excellent script support (REXX) which came from the IBM VM/CMS mainframe operating system. REXX later became supported on PC-DOS 7.0

You can find a brief history of the OS at OS/2 Warp

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Windows...or hardly nothing....well maybe a little something....but in any case companies other than Microsoft have built better OSes and part of the fun is giving them a spin around the block.

Happy Computing.  8-)

[GX1_Man]

I used, and loved, OS/2. I have one system running eComstation, which is the updated version.