Jump to content

Why I hate WinXP crap!


trodas
 Share

Recommended Posts

Most peoples tell you that XP is great and stuff...

Now my turn.

I use computer to WORK. WORK, not stare at "nice" graphical OS. I hate XP to death :angry: I never saw worse OS - right after installed with SP 1.0a - to hell with this childish garden!

Peoples talking about how XP is faster - bullsh*t, Win2k is faster in everything, except boot time - but since I boot once per day... Peoples talking about how XP is more "stable" - another nonsense - my folding machines use XP (sadly, for the easy install + network desktop access), server use Win2k server (pain to install, but ROCK stable since then - 102 days on-line for application server where almost all the time someone logging and running stuff - I say impressive - and it did not crash, just we tried Bluetooth and need reboot then...) and my main machine use W2k SP2 (SP3 is ok, but slower and SP4 did bring some nasty XP bugs in packets + 3DMark1999 patched no longer work with SP4, together with other programs - just like on the XP sh*t) ...

Now true reasons, what anyone who did not agree on my "XP is sh*t" opinion has to defeat first, before talking any further:

1) on machine overclocked beyond stable limits, XP destroy itself during booting, many times beyond what is repairable... Win2k NEVER do this!

2) normal user with normal XP need activation after every hardware change, with I find repulsive enough for 1) never ever pay for XP 2) use stolen version for companies...

3) impossibility to disable some "great" features, like the annoying window each time I insert Zip/CD card - No, selection DO NOT DO ANY ACTION and remember this selection for future does NOT help me to get rid of this sh*t!

4) controlling me too much - XP send way too much data to M$ - I can set fire wall rules, but who did not have good hardware firewall and knowledge witch outgoing ports one can block - then he/she is naked to the M$ - I find this very alerting and controlling - no way this for me!

5) speaking about control, when one save web page to HDD and then try delete/rename the data folder XP created, there come the annoying WinXP message informing me, that I'm about... To hell with these messages - I know what I doing. If not, I'm ready to face the consequences. Not need childish sh*t to tell me what to do! :(

6) space on screen is the most valuable space ever. XP, even in classic mode, eat more of this precious space... I truly did NOT want give my space to XP "beauty" - I want WORK with OS, that it is!!!

7) XP can't minimize taskbar button enough. I using mostly over 50+ programs. Collapsing the same ones means much slower access/more chaos on screen only. But hell, XP can't let me do this:

http://doublescan.wz.cz/taskbar.gif

...and that is my typical working situation... Show me, if you can do THIS on XP :-D

8) frankly, after win install, the most disturbing thing is the number of need re-configurations what has to be done to one feel at home. And in WinXP is the number of necessary re-configurations need to the OS look like OS and not like toy for 10-year old child - some has to be made so the XP crap even become configurable after all - way much higher that for Win2k, witch are user-ready "out of the box", unlike XP...

9) Win2k did NOT force me to use NTFS for OS disk. Because NTFS is effective only on big drives and not on my 2G system partition, I use FAT32 there - more recent SP packs (when installing from CD, with already updated XP) allow you format only with NTFS, witch is ineffective thing on small partitions - speaking about size, my Win2k need only 450MB, 490MB with all programs and stuff installed - therefore backup of the partition is under 300MB mostly, so it is easy to transfer on CD - for easy restore (DriveImage2002, high compression) - some XP images did not even fit on the CD!!! :angry:

10) I hate XP also because most "geniuses" think so simply - XP = more new that W2k = must be better! Mostly, in software, is the exact opposite. Old OS have most of their kinks already cured, while XP is more on the start of the journey to become long-time reliable OS (current negative experiences with SP2 for XP are good example...) My friend tried use XP as server OS. After it for NO REASON failed after about month for third time, totally destroying itself, he finally accept Win2k server - witch is, like I say, pain to install and configure properly, but then...

11) access over 100MBi/full network NIC from W2k machine to WinXP machine into windows/system32 directory took almost minute on fast systems. The very same thing is instant, like normal directory listing when the network machine run win2k or win2k server.

This seems to be fixable by disabling windows file protection (WEP)http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/790 But only for accessing the "magical" system32 folder from XP machine. When accessing it from W2k machine, the hang is still there. At least half the time faster, but about 30sec is still hell of the difference from instant listing. The WEP disabling fix for this works entirely fine for XP SP2, tough. But using SP2 is for masochists only... so...

12) WinXP simply ignore the settings about maximal possible resolution in the monitor driver - so they display all possible resolutions, driving chaos to the resolution selection (too sensitive, too much resolutions) and also possible danger of selecting too high resolution, that might damage your monitor...! (at least in WinXP is the question after resolution change displayed only once per resolution, in W2k is always... a little trick how to fix this could be handy too :-) )

This actually seems that is more nVidia drivers bug. It could be cured with latest Cool Bits: http://ax2.old-cans.com/coolbits.zip

13) default icon for attached CF card reader can't be (like in W2k) simply turned off. It is possible, however, to disable inactive system tray icons, witch hide it, but since the button to un hide the hidden tray icons took almost as much space as the single icon, it make the "hide" pointless in terms of wasting my valuable space on my monitor. Curse the d*mn XP!

14) WinXP low disk space checking and warnings. WinXP continually checking if free space on your hard drive system partition aren't bellow 200MB. Then it start complain and run the Clean Disk utility. A absolutely expendable watching process and also very very annoying one. Luckily, with a little register tweak it can be disabled: http://ax2.old-cans.com/NoLowDiskSpaceChecks.zip :he:

15) only WinXP does hang for about few seconds, when the attempted to be deleted file is in OS use. This is very frustrating, especially and since the W2k react instantly on this, did not locking itself into endless waiting loop <_<

16) on WinXP is impossible to make the Terminal window remember it's position. That is weird, since I have no problem with this on my W2k - using 800x600 terminal windows in right bellow part of the screen. Tough this is not major problem, it bothering me pretty much on XP...

So untill someone properly challenge me on these sixteen major milestones why use Win2k instead of bloated XP crap, I did not want to hear any more "great XP" messages, grrr!

trodas love this: http://doublescan.wz.cz/trodas_w2k.gif :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dude you are a moron.

2. Activation buy a volume license if you dont like it.

3. It is possible if you look hard enough.

4. Sending error reports is a good thing. How do you expect them to fix something if they dont know its broke.

5. Confirmation is good. I take it you've never accidentally deleted something.

7. Why do you have so much crap open at once....

9. NTFS is better plus why the heck is your system partition only 2gb...

10. Your friend is stupid. It was not meant to be a server os. You want a server OS USE a server OS.

14. Its good that it tells you your running out of space. I take it you have never ran windows out of space. It doesnt like it know matter what version you are using.

To sum it up though to each his own but you arguments make no sense.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all trodas not alone guys and it his opinion!

@trodas

Just keep in mind that you post it among loverrrrs of that OS.

I'm do not like much WinXP too, only use it to make money from people to help them to fix many, many problems with that OS.

It's good for me and I waiting for next crap from MS, when I can make more money!

Moo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay, I'm bored at work right now and can't resist your challenge.

1) This is out of sheer blind luck that win2k doesn't completely go to crap because when a processor is run outside its over clocking limit, it gets to hot, when it gets to hot, gate delay becomes overly long and you start running into problems with signals not propagating far enough. Because this happens, you don't have any idea what the processor is actually doing, it's literally executing random commands which are in no way related to what it's supposed to execute, as such, it not foobaring win2k and it is messing up winxp has nothing to do with either of the OS's and everything to do with luck.

2)I've never had to activate XP other then on initial installation. Granted, if you change enough hardware you will have too, I've never come across this and I often change hardware in my box. I believe you have to change at least 3 hardware components before it requires a reactivation, and seeing that a guy like me who constantly changes hardware has never run into problems with this, I don't see it as a serious problem. And as someone else already mentioned, if you don't like activation, get a volume license, it actually is possible to get these legally if you have the right friends.

3)Registry tweaks, my computer at one point had these turned off, though I turned them back on because I found them rather convenient. Heck, the computer I am typing on this very second doesn't have that feature turned on. Every time I insert anything, I must go to my computer to bring it up.

4)You know, you could always hit that little button that says "Don't send to Microsoft", or again, simply turn off error reporting via a registry tweak. And also, configuring all firewalls requires this knowledge you speak of. With default configurations you either end up with too lax of rules, or the more common way to restrictive rules which annoy the crap out of me. I prefer the Microsoft route because I rely on a hardware firewall and prefer to say what can and can't come out of my computer over what Microsoft thinks I should. But then again, everything dealing with configuring security should always be handled by the individual and not some faceless company you buy the product from.

5)Yet again, this can be turned off by a simple registry tweak, I know this because I have it turned off on my box at home. Granted if you used firefox instead of IE, you also would avoid this problem. As such, this is more a problem with IE and not XP, so since IE is technically a separate program from XP and you are in no way required to use it, it can't be held against XP. If your IT people require to use it, it's still not fault of XP but your IT people.

6)Ummmmmm, wha? In classic mode, I don't see any recognizable difference between XP and 2K. Tool bars are the same size, task bar is the same size. Everything is the same size. In fact, to go above and beyond, even with the XP look, all the bars are still identical size as the classic look, they're just textured with bitmaps. If you're talking about the size of icons in IE, again, this is an application and not the operating system.

7)Okay, at first I had to see what your problem was with this, but now I see, if you put too many on there, it starts scrolling them, but you say grouping is no good cuz you can't find what you're looking for. This one I truly don't get seeing that when it groups them, it still leaves them in order with the most recently opened at the top of the list and oldest at the bottom. And you get the added bonus of seeing the entire window title instead of just the first letter. So unless you spend all your time switching between two windows next to each other, I don't see how it's any faster. I mean, with grouping you can actually see the name of the window and not just the icon.

8)Of course after a reinstallation you need to reconfigure stuff to make it feel at home. Everyone likes a different configuration, Microsoft tried to default it to one that appeals to the most people, if you don't happen to like it, of course you've got to reconfigure some stuff. But for that, simply do like me if you find yourself having to reinstall often and write a script to do it. Your complaint isn't that it isn't user ready out of the box it's that it's not you ready out of the box. Sorry if they try to make it convenient for the maximum number of people possible and not for a select few.

9)Odd, I've got an XP SP2 install disc and I've always had the option for fat32, not that I'd use it seeing it's painfully outdated. I mean, I know how favorable it is, being able to address all of 36 gigs and all, and that's only if you use the updated fat32, and NTFS is terrible with how it scales it's file lookup table size with the size of the disk and all. Terrible that they'd do such a thing as want to use a dynamic file system instead of a static one. Oh, and as for the increase in installation size, did you know that there's this thing called virtual memory located in a file called pagefile.sys which increases in size the more system memory you have. And there's also a hibernate file which increases with the more system memory you have. As such, the actual bulk of increase in install size for windows XP has to do with having more system memory and not with the operating system itself. And as you said before, you regularly run 50 programs at a time, so you need that memory to run all those programs.

10)Wow, that's not even a factual argument against XP. So in other words, according to you, because with age an OS has it's kinks worked out, we should still be using DOS? Sorry, but to have new features have the kinks worked out eventually, they must eventually be added to an operating system. And again as said before, why was he using XP as a server? It was never meant to be used as a server. As such, with deadlocks, they tend to ignore them because it was never meant to be used as a server. Sorry, but you try to use a geo metro in a drag race, you can't get upset about it not performing to what you want because it was never meant for that. Also, you really need to define "destroyed itself" cuz I can think of several hundred ways something can destroy itself, some are minor, some are major.

11)Ummmmm, WEP is wireless encryption protocol used to make a wireless router as secure as a wired router, or so says the marketing. WFP would be windows file protection, which is there to keep stupid people from trashing their own systems and can be easily shut off via registry tweaks. As for your instant directory listings under win2k, could you please tell the IT people at my school how to do that because god knows, on a win2k client, accessing a win2k server, directory listings are exactly on par with winxp client on to win2k servers which are pretty much the same speed as my grabbing winxp directory listing between xp boxes at my house. Now, I can't say I've ever dealt with grabbing directory listings from a winxp server, because as mentioned before, xp wasn't meant to be a server, as such, I've never been stupid enough to try to configure it as such. But all in all, I've NEVER had instant directory listings anywhere, not until windows caches them after the first access that is.

12)That's odd, my monitor has a max resolution it supports, my video card can go higher then that, but windows xp only shows the settings my monitor can support unless I purposely tell it to show all settings supported by my video card. Me thinks your monitor isn't plug and play, which would mean the monitor is incapable of telling windows what it's display settings are.

13)You mean that easy access disconnect the USB device icon? cuz I'd rather have that icon in the task bar then having to get to it through the control panel. And I still don't see the issue cuz even you yourself stated how to eliminate the problem. Again, something isn't configured to the way you want it but to the way the majority want it so you complain about it. You need to stop being so self centered you know. Not to mention, I know, using that entire 10 pixels by 10 pixels, how dare they!

14)Did you know? Hard drives effective performance begins to drop dramatically when it becomes more then 80% full. hard drives like many other data structures are not meant to be utilized at 100%. In fact, UNIX and Linux actually flat out bar you from allowing free space to drop below 5% because of problems it causes with the operating system. Whether you know it or not, win2k probably has this low disk feature as well, it may just hide it from view like Linux and UNIX by simply disallowing you to use that much of the disk. As such, low disk checking is hardly expendable.

15)Actually, if a file is in use, even just normal use, not just OS use, it's impossible to delete it. So quite clearly, before it can be deleted, the system must wait until it is freed. But all operating systems prefer to simply say the file is in use due to not being able to predict when it will be freed. So quite clearly, the operating system isn't using it if you were able to delete it. And as for a hang on deleting, are you talking about deleting many files at once, because win2k has always paused on my while it indexed them just like winxp does.

and finally....

16)Okay, I'll give you this one of windows xp not remembering window locations, and honestly, I've never paid enough attention to if any other version of windows remembered window locations because honestly, if that's the biggest reason for not using an operating system, you need help. That isn't even an incontinence unless the window consistently appears off screen. And that is a problem I've never had in XP, I can ensure that. At least not with windows spawned by xp itself, cuz sometimes other programs which keep track of that thing mess themselves up and save the window display coordinates off screen, but that's hardly windows fault.

Again, just because a lot of things aren't configured the way you want them, doesn't mean it's windows XPs fault. Fact of the matter is, they have the options to configure these things, and many of the configuration choices they make are due to trying to protect the ignorant from dangers of the internet or trying to protect the user from themselves. They try to configure it for the majority, so just because you don't like how something is, doesn't mean they should change it for your choice when everybody else wants it a different way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xp has improved windows in all regards: compatibility, speed, and stability.

comparing a server with a crappy home xp isn't a fair comparison.

just as you have learned over the years how to properly tailor 2000 to your server needs, xp needs some trimming and tweaking to bring out it's workstation best.

xp pro sp2, with about half the features turned off, makes for the most stable and productive workstation i've had in years.

the fact you have a 2gb system partition speaks volumes about your own technical "genius". the real geek knows that having a system partition was -always- a flawed theory and in reality it can do nothing but slow down your overall harddrive access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true, - but what most forget is that a system partion should NOT be used for pagefiles.... and aren't ment for spead but for safety (as a system might nead re-installing, and you dont want to copy all your data away from your machine everyttime, reinstall is recomanded).

Running xp als a server is, indead is NOT a good idea,

a short tail...

When MS desited to got NT, they already know that a server- ready OS also neads a client that works in pretymutch the same way, therefor a shared base-system (as has linux / unix) is prefered.

Normaly they would optimize the kernel for both projects, (witch makes swapping a Deskop version to a server) not hard at all..

but than 98 outlive its use, and MS was initali geared toward Neptune (a home version of windows 2000). the problem than was that they had been to ambitious, and would have never made it in time, so they instead release ME

But than came the realy big trouble, many of the features already working in Neptune they ported to 9x/ME kind of collaped in the real world,

and MS had a REAL problem, so eventualy they scraped nearly all feature that where to be part of nepute, and overhastly fixed the last bugs, for XP,

at least it was better than ME ... but the endless list of patches and bugs in xp tells us that even though better than ME it was FAR from perfect (or maybe even release ready, at first).

but in the NT5.1 they had to make some big desicions to get it ready on time, nearly al memory adressors and many other parts of the kernel and base system where patched (and later optimized) for Desktop use,

so when eventualy XP server (windows server 2003) was release with kernel version 5.2 this now also showed 2 diferent forks.

in the end it came out pretty well because after the long period of fixing problems 2 quite optimezed kernels came out, that both on a specific user-erea where faster and more stable than 2k (but also less all-round-capable).

windows 2k is lighter than xp, by default, but xp has for a fact some better feature (witch btw are NOT on places youd see them.

i have some old hardware too, a celeron 1,7ghz laptop and i wouldn't dream of running xp on it. (even though it works quite good, realy good actualy), but that doens't mean i HATE xp...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this reopened?

Anyway I do agree with some of those points, but I still say XP is the best Windows. Let's go over some of these problems, many of them aren't hard to solve.

1) Never happened to me. Sounds like you're OCing too far. Win2K may be able to handle it, but to say X is better because it works better on a faulty system isn't much of an argument.

2) Yes, this is very annoying, but I'm pretty sure you don't need it for every single change.

3) You can disable that, I don't recall how though. It's probably a registry tweak. Use the Search link at the top of the page.

4) Third party and/or hardware firewalls will take care of that, if you're so paranoid. Or you can just turn off error reporting (and the service that goes with it; for some reason it runs even when this is off >_>).

5) Totally agree here. Many warning messages need a "Don't show this message again" option.

6) Totally agree here too, but there's a simple solution. Go to Display -> Appearance -> Advanced, and you can shrink everything way down. :)

7) Put your taskbar on the side, it's awesome! I never run out of space that way.

8) Agreed, but after doing those changes once, you can export the registry, make an image, or use nLite to avoid having to do a lot of it again next time.

9) XP allowed me to use FAT32 for the system partition, and it worked fine. NTFS is better, though, so I switched it. The bloat does suck though.

10) Yes, people who think newer=better are annoying. I don't find that XP randomly fails and obliterates itself, though. (Now ME on the other hand...) It just kinda wears down, building up a lot of little bugs, then bigger and bigger ones until you reinstall.

11) Could be a driver problem or faulty NIC.

12) Agreed here too. XP will happily let me select a far higher refresh rate than my monitor is capable of. It seems to get the resolutions and colour depths right, though.

13) Agreed. Although my card reader is technically removable, it slides right into a dock and looks as if it were built in. I rarely remove it, and all the cards have disk caching disabled so I don't need to use that safe removal thing anyway, so why have that icon there? (I turned off that icon hiding thing because it always hides the wrong icons. <_<)

14) Annoying, but I seem to remember a way to turn it off. I just move stuff to DVDs when that happens, though.

15) This is fairly annoying, but it's also kinda nice in those cases where you hit Delete, then realize "oh crap, that's still open". If you're fast enough you can close it before the warning, and it'll delete OK. Basically it's just waiting for the file to be closed instead of failing right away. What'd really be nice is if it kept trying, but displayed a window saying the file is in use, with the options to stop trying or ignore it (close the file manually and delete it). The error message does get on my nerves, the way it pops up and makes noise and I have to go back and try again.

16) I use a program called Console instead, it looks many many times better (translucency!) and you can specify a position for it to start at, the window size, whether it has a titlebar, border etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10)Wow, that's not even a factual argument against XP. So in other words, according to you, because with age an OS has it's kinks worked out, we should still be using DOS?
Where I am, there are large datacenters that still use mid 1970s mainframes. Also, for some mission-critical applications DOS is still used as a kernel, again due to its maturity and lack of bugs (count how many "fixes" have been released for XP, compared with any of the earlier OSs. If I remember correctly, DOS 3.30 never had *any* fixes issued after its release.)
xp has improved windows in all regards: compatibility, speed, and stability.
Maybe stability, but definitely not speed or compatibility.

Compatibility has not improved, for example the XP DOS emulator lacks many features and its speed is slow and intermittent. Setting ntvdm's priority to High or Realtime improves the performance, but the rest of the system becomes almost unresponsive.

Speed has definitely not improved. All that's gotten faster is the hardware, not the software. The software continues to become less efficient. A look at the system requirements for XP vs 2K or any of the earlier OSs clearly shows this. More CPU and RAM are required for the newer OS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...