MS Windows Sucks
- Thread starter webguy321
- Start date
Chairman Meow
Class IV
Though I'm not a fan of Windows, I have to concur with Speedo. At least with XP (and probably Vista, though I've never used Vista), there is no reason that the machine should experience a bluescreen. The only things that still cause those are faulty hardware drivers, and that's either the hardware manufacturer's fault for releasing broken drivers, or the user's fault for installing a broken driver.
MarineCorps
Explosion!
I will have to record that for use someday The last time I got a BSOD was when my motherboard kicked the bucket.
carmen510
Deity
My only BSOD was when I got a virus.
Pentium
Digital Matter
Didn't it use to be the other way around, i.e. Windows likes stupid users?
sabo
My Ancestors were Vikings
Same here, in fact I don't ever rememeber a BSOD since the NT days. I won't buy Vista for another year or two though, I never buy Ver 1.0 of anything.
Don't buy vista, period. XP is a lot better. XP is actually a good OS for day-to-day household/gaming stuff.
carmen510
Deity
The only reason you would buy Vista is
A. You want/need DirectX10
B. You want the latest OS's
C. You are afraid of Microsoft shutting down XP tech support
D. You have a company
E. You are ********
A. You want/need DirectX10
B. You want the latest OS's
C. You are afraid of Microsoft shutting down XP tech support
D. You have a company
E. You are ********
Or you have a high-performance computer which XP would significantly cripple.
Or you don't have XP already, and are trying to judge which to buy simply on its own merit.
IamJohn
(was)?
From what I've heard online SP1 substantially improved the performance of the OS, so once that gets released to the general public it may be worth it to buy.
IamJohn
(was)?
Out of curiousity, what was XP like when it was just released and didn't have any service packs yet, did it have BSOD, or is that something that's a vista only problem?
Neither XP nor Vista have problems with crashing in general. With stable software and hardware, very few if any crashes will be experienced... conversely, buggy hardware (and software in many cases) can bring down any operating system, Windows, Mac OS, BSD, you name it.
3141592
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2007
- Messages
- 287
I have vista and although it is nothing terribly special it is better then XP in all fields except a few rare comparability problems (none of which I've experienced). It won't be worth buying an upgrade to Vista for a while, but if you're going to get or build a new computer it should have Vista. Also, if your not planning on getting a new computer in the next four years Vistas a pretty good idea too.
Bill Gates is not, nor will he ever be, an embodyment of Microsoft and or Windows. I don't care about how much money he gives to charity, how much money he makes, etc. Windows is an insecure and unstable OS which has lots of problems. Of course, go ahead and use it if you like. Also, Linux is free software and is more stable and secure and less expensive then Windows. If you want to argue that you could not go the corporate route and make a better OS, look at Mac.
Some have, some haven't. Still, more Windows complaints then Linux. Plus, learning the hard way sucks. I felt the same way pre-hard drive crash. Windows lost my data, Linux got it back. Try Linux before you down it, and don't trust that having no problems so far means you won't ever.
Get your facts straight. First off, both Linux and Mac are a huge threat to MS. Second off, the sales of an OS do not support the theory that it is better. The most expensive/best selling is often not the best. Just because it dominates the market does not mean that Mac and Linux are worse-just less popular. This is because of Microsoft's early business strategies-steal QDOS, trick IBM, make DOS/Windows universal, make the average user rely on them, kill off the competition.
Agreed.
I really hate the "must work for" statements. Please don't assume everyone who dislikes what you like must work for a competitor. I personally support a world in which choices are available-not where Linux/Mac/Windows is dominant, but where software/driver/hardware/etc problems due to lack of support don't define choices and all systems are equal. Then Linux and Mac would clearly emerge as stronger.
I agree with this being primarily a Civilization forum, however. It is okay to discuss things, but don't use it as a soapbox without being a Civ Fanatic.
Linux and Mac are easy too-just different. Know anyone who have parents that can't speak much English but are perfectly bilingual themselves? That is because they had English as an early language. Someone who grew up using Linux would find Windows arcane and unmanagable.
Also, software support is just a matter of market dominance. Windows does not have to be the best OS to dominate the market, and therefore does not need to be the best OS to have the most software. I can't find it anywhere, but John Devorak wrote a good article on why application and especially game support makes Windows the dominant OS in a vicious cycle.
Seems to be Microsoft's game plan that you don't need to have the best product, just the best marketing/business teams.
True. However, the server argument always has and always will suck when arguing about Linux on the desktop. Unless you are running a server, it does not matter what other servers use. Also, as Linux gets more media coverage and more people learn of it and try it, it will gain ground. It has nowhere to go but up. Windows has nowhere to go but down.
Actually, it's an atypical Mac/Linux user that rants like this. Most of us simply don't care about MS enough to rant.
Thank you. Tired of people thinking that arguing gets us anywhere. Spread the word if you can, but don't make your first CFC post a rant.
Another good point. Just because Windows works alright for someone does not mean it is the best.
It depends on where you get your data. Here are some different ways:
1. Sales analysis. Works horribly for Linux, because many Linux users don't pay for it, and many distros are not sold in stores (Donations are not counted as sales for most of these, since they are anonymous and not an accurate representation). Lowest value I have seen is .75%. Note that because Linux/Other Open-source OSes are included in the Mac and Windows percentages (in other words, saying that 95% of the market is Mac/Windows implies that research shows that 5% is not), this is not really accurate for Windows or Mac percentages either.
2. Website analysis. Probably the best for Linux, but depends on the site. This is where a website posts the stats from its traffic logs. However, Linux users can broadcast that they are using Windows or choose not to broadcast at all, so it is still inaccurate. Plus, an analysis of Linux.org or Ubuntu.org is much more likely to have high numbers, an analysis of a website that sells Windows software will be lower, an OSS soloution will be higher, etc.
3. Speculation. Absoloutly worthless on most counts. Might be actually somewhat accurate if the person is unbiased and knows what they are talking about.
4. Random Surveys. Most worthless. Unless you ask everyone, you are unlikely to get realistic answers. Someone who has taken Stats and knows how to make a good survey without misleading data may make an accurate one, but that is rare. Plus, telephone surveys are very hard to conduct, since most people hang up, making the most viable soloution a web survey, and it is eaiser here to just skip the middleman and use the website analysis. (of course, this has other problems like user agent broadcasts)
All in all, I don't care much about the numbers. I use Linux, and that's enough for me.
-Dylan
PS: One more thing. I hate Microsoft's business strategy. First they copied a perfectly fine open source project (OpenGL) to create a pretty worthless propritary Windows only solution (DirectX), then marketed it well, made it popular, and now, they are forcing gamers to upgrade to Vista for it. That sucks. I said goodbye to Halo 2 and sent MS an angry email, to which I did not recieve a reply. That made me more likely not to purchase Vista. I mean come on-create a horrificly glitched upgrade, remove your journaled WinFS and everything else you promised, still release the software years after you said you were going to, and start stripping users of other, unrelated features and making them Vista-only to try and improve sales????? That pissed me off. The monolithic design of Windows, where everything from graphics libraries to browsers that are all supposedly free are tied into $500 upgrades makes me sick. Plus all the versions. No way am I going to let you charge me $300 more then my XP upgrade for features I got with XP Pro, Microsoft. No way.
carmen510
Deity
Although I do have a bias for Windows, it is for good reason, it is the only system which has the games I play, Linux and the Mac can't run these games, but that doesn't mean they are worse than Windows. In fact, I think we should just leave games to Windows, and leave the rest of the OS to Linux and Mac.
Although I do have a bias for Windows, it is for good reason, it is the only system which has the games I play, Linux and the Mac can't run these games, but that doesn't mean they are worse than Windows. In fact, I think we should just leave games to Windows, and leave the rest of the OS to Linux and Mac.
Like I said, Games are probably the main reason Windows remains dominant. If there is a better OS, like Linux or Mac, but you can't play games on it, we have a problem. I think this needs to be fixed.
Since Civ has already been ported to Mac, a Linux port can't be that hard.
3141592
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2007
- Messages
- 287
I hate it when people point out that windows is the least secure operating system. Especially with Vista it is quite good. The reason it gets hacked the most is that it has the most market share, so is the largest target. Hackers aren't going to waste their time on a specific Linux distro when they could be targeting hundreds of millions of people.
laptop support
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 3
Since the origin windows is unsecure, linux is build secure this is a fact, I use vista and linux, MS have make great effort in vista for security but they can not reach linux.
An other thing actually the best solution for gamers, is to simply use dual boot if they want to use linux.
An other thing actually the best solution for gamers, is to simply use dual boot if they want to use linux.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Similar threads
