Why I hate Windows...
Author
I hate windows because:
1) Windows 95 had a funny bug (By funny I don''t mean funny ''haha'') in the GDI whereby DestroyObject did not destroy an allocated font resource. This bug was not fixed even in Windows ME, I have yet to find out whether XP has fixed it.
2) The memory management model is crap.
3) The kernel is buggy. If there''s one thing that shouldn''t crash, only one thing, it should be the kernel.
4) The driver architecture sucks.
5) The core of Windows is command.com, which is a 16 bit executable. Don''t believe me? Install DOS and look in root of C:, there will be command.com, now delete it - the system will not work. Now repeat for an installation of Windows. Windows isn''t even a true 32 bit OS!
6) I had Windows98 installed on my computer, shut it down the way Windows likes you to, tried my computer the next day and explorer had become corrupted. I''m posting this on my laptop which is a fraction as powerful as my desktop PC.
I may now be forced not to enter the Apocalypse competition which I have been anticipating entering since it was first announced last month. I am absolutely gutted, but there''s nothing I can do about it. I could beg to have the deadline put back another week or two, but that would be unfair on everyone else, not to mention the fact that the competition was originally meant to end at the 25th of last month! So I''m screwed, and it''s all thanks to windows.
Funnily enough my Linux distro is still fine. Everything is working perfectly fine - no crashes, no hardware problems, just fine! Windows on the other hand, is now unusable. I''ve got to format the system and start again. Bear in mind that I last reformatted my system 3 days ago.
If it''s only Explorer that''s corrupt, why don''t you try copying it from another system?
quote:Original post by TheGilb
5) The core of Windows is command.com, which is a 16 bit executable. Don''t believe me? Install DOS and look in root of C:, there will be command.com, now delete it - the system will not work. Now repeat for an installation of Windows. Windows isn''t even a true 32 bit OS!
Well, windows 9X/ME isn''t completely 32 bit, but NT based OSes, (such as Win2K or XP) are completely 32 bit. They finally got there just in time to start running their 32 bit code on 64 bit processors, though. Heh.
Also, did you know that command.com hasn''t even been in .com format since windows 3.1? It''s actually an .exe file now, but they were forced to give it a .com extension to be backward compatible with old 3.1 code.
TheGilb : You cant critisize ALL windows...OK, I agree that win9x systems (95/98/SE/ME) are piecr of c****.(what do you expect form DOS based OS?)
But winNT/2K/XP/(LH?) are just just GREAT...
There are more worlds than the one that you hold in your hand...
But winNT/2K/XP/(LH?) are just just GREAT...
There are more worlds than the one that you hold in your hand...
TheGilb: You are *absolutely* right.
Win95/98/Me is crap, but WinNT/2k/XP are even worse.
I dumped Windows alltogether for over a year now, and my work got much more productive. Finally I can concentrate on my work, rather than trying to get the system up and working.
Win95/98/Me is crap, but WinNT/2k/XP are even worse.
I dumped Windows alltogether for over a year now, and my work got much more productive. Finally I can concentrate on my work, rather than trying to get the system up and working.
I have a windows98 box at home that''s been up for over 5 weeks. It''s just a spare computer that I browse the web on while playing games like Everquest, or running my network apps on during development, but its still holding out.
I would upgrade to win2000 but theres just a lot less hassle when dealing with Win98 with regards to permissions and stuff. I''ve had Win2k give me an Access is Denied error when trying to shutdown a simple service such as VNC even logged in as the local admin account. Also theres a lot of nitpicky things I don''t like about the GUI compared to Win98, for example, in Win98 when browsing a directory and hitting Start->Run and running command it defaults to the directory that i was working with in explorer. Win2k doesnt do this.
Theres quite a few other little things like this that I enjoy with Win98 but don''t get in Win2k. Granted Win2k is somewhat more stable than Win98, if such a time comes that I do need to reboot, due to a crash or something, I don''t mind the whole 30 seconds that it takes.
*shrug* To each their own I guess.. =)
Gerald Filimonov
-=[ Megahertz ]=-
I would upgrade to win2000 but theres just a lot less hassle when dealing with Win98 with regards to permissions and stuff. I''ve had Win2k give me an Access is Denied error when trying to shutdown a simple service such as VNC even logged in as the local admin account. Also theres a lot of nitpicky things I don''t like about the GUI compared to Win98, for example, in Win98 when browsing a directory and hitting Start->Run and running command it defaults to the directory that i was working with in explorer. Win2k doesnt do this.
Theres quite a few other little things like this that I enjoy with Win98 but don''t get in Win2k. Granted Win2k is somewhat more stable than Win98, if such a time comes that I do need to reboot, due to a crash or something, I don''t mind the whole 30 seconds that it takes.
*shrug* To each their own I guess.. =)
Gerald Filimonov
-=[ Megahertz ]=-
Why I hate Linux and the BSDs:
1) The "community" is rather divided. GTK vs. QT, KDE vs. Gnome,
etc. etc. etc.
Why I hate Windows:
1) It's a bitch to install drivers.
2) So someone installs an old directx. It breaks SDL programs,
and it breaks RayDream. Understandable. What sucks is that when
I reinstall a newer Directx, the problem isn't solved. It isn't
solved until I reinstall the whole OS.
3)Win32 has the registry database that is has to seek through
to get info for programs; It gets bigger and bigger as the
system ages. Eventually it lags the system searching through
the database for information for trivial programs.
Why I prefer (and use) Linux:
1) It has yet to break itself.
2) I like the way the widgets in KDE look.
Why I will never buy WindowsXP:
1) "Windows95 is now faster and more reliable!"
2) "Windows98 is now faster and more reliable!"
3) "WindowsME is now faster and more reliable!"
4) "Windows2000 is now faster and more reliable!"
I'm beginning to see a pattern in their definition
of "faster" and "reliable."
"Well that depends on what your definition of `is' is."
Edited by - Frapazoid on November 16, 2001 3:30:09 PM
Edited by - Frapazoid on November 16, 2001 3:33:53 PM
1) The "community" is rather divided. GTK vs. QT, KDE vs. Gnome,
etc. etc. etc.
Why I hate Windows:
1) It's a bitch to install drivers.
2) So someone installs an old directx. It breaks SDL programs,
and it breaks RayDream. Understandable. What sucks is that when
I reinstall a newer Directx, the problem isn't solved. It isn't
solved until I reinstall the whole OS.
3)Win32 has the registry database that is has to seek through
to get info for programs; It gets bigger and bigger as the
system ages. Eventually it lags the system searching through
the database for information for trivial programs.
Why I prefer (and use) Linux:
1) It has yet to break itself.
2) I like the way the widgets in KDE look.
Why I will never buy WindowsXP:
1) "Windows95 is now faster and more reliable!"
2) "Windows98 is now faster and more reliable!"
3) "WindowsME is now faster and more reliable!"
4) "Windows2000 is now faster and more reliable!"
I'm beginning to see a pattern in their definition
of "faster" and "reliable."
"Well that depends on what your definition of `is' is."
Edited by - Frapazoid on November 16, 2001 3:30:09 PM
Edited by - Frapazoid on November 16, 2001 3:33:53 PM
I concur.
Windows 9x and ME were just crap, always were. Until 2000, I was forced to use these just for games. Now, never again.
2000 I like--stable, full DX support.
XP -- I won''t migrate until I''m utterly forced too. I really don''t see any advantages beyond some of the built in tool, none of which can''t be found elsewhere for free or at a marginal price.
Linux -- If only it would commercialize a bit. Problem with Linux, while it''s great in theory, until end-users purchase software, there won''t be any commercial pressure to fix software. Most of the software out there is good, but just needs that last little $ push to be great. Still, for programming, networking, and administration, nothing beats Linux. End-User, getting closer, but the apps just don''t cross that line to "professional" quality yet.
I thought BeOS might have made a good contender, but now I''m thinking MacOSX might be a good contender (BSD core).
R.
Windows 9x and ME were just crap, always were. Until 2000, I was forced to use these just for games. Now, never again.
2000 I like--stable, full DX support.
XP -- I won''t migrate until I''m utterly forced too. I really don''t see any advantages beyond some of the built in tool, none of which can''t be found elsewhere for free or at a marginal price.
Linux -- If only it would commercialize a bit. Problem with Linux, while it''s great in theory, until end-users purchase software, there won''t be any commercial pressure to fix software. Most of the software out there is good, but just needs that last little $ push to be great. Still, for programming, networking, and administration, nothing beats Linux. End-User, getting closer, but the apps just don''t cross that line to "professional" quality yet.
I thought BeOS might have made a good contender, but now I''m thinking MacOSX might be a good contender (BSD core).
R.
quote:Original post by Rube
Linux -- If only it would commercialize a bit. Problem with Linux, while it''s great in theory, until end-users purchase software, there won''t be any commercial pressure to fix software. Most of the software out there is good, but just needs that last little $ push to be great. Still, for programming, networking, and administration, nothing beats Linux. End-User, getting closer, but the apps just don''t cross that line to "professional" quality yet.
R.
Microsoft has been supporting the SSSCA law, which if passed
will ban Linux in the US. Also, they call Linux users communist,
because competition between companies is communist, appearently.
So, I will not buy anything from Microsoft again, not even
their hardware, because they have offended me.
I think many of the apps do seem professional quality.
I use Gimp, StarOffice (6.0 beta), Mozilla, Gcc, and a text
editor.. I''ve also got 3 games on here; Quake3, Civilization,
Terminus. Works fantastic
Hehe, well ive always been a windows/dos fan, so windows 98 is still running good for me. Ive tried linux a few times now, but i just dont see how everything is controlled by the OS. Windows on the other hand, i understand. I understand how the registry works, (so i can know if a trojan has been installed by some newb whereas in linux i wouldnt know where to look for it) how the filesystem works, how to use win32 code to get the OS to do what i want and when i want, and its just suitable for my usage.
I would love to start working in linux, just for trial''s sake, but being a programmer in pascal only understanding win32 code, i doubt linux would even support people like me.. who knows..
I dont like the way Microsoft operates, but i like the products they come out with. Sure my windows system crashes sometimes, but at least i know how to fix it.
I would love to start working in linux, just for trial''s sake, but being a programmer in pascal only understanding win32 code, i doubt linux would even support people like me.. who knows..
I dont like the way Microsoft operates, but i like the products they come out with. Sure my windows system crashes sometimes, but at least i know how to fix it.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement