Microsoft Xpos... indeed

Snake · Post by **Snake** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 4:14 pm

With the recent death of my old system, I had to procure a replacement. And of course, all the newer hardware out there has no Win98-SE drivers, so now I'm stuck with XP. And after 20 minutes of the XP-OS, I can say that the letters "POS" have never been attached to a more fitting product.

Well, looks like it's time to solve the problems of shifting to a new system... with booze. And lots of it.

~*ShadowDancer*~ · Post by **~*ShadowDancer*~** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 4:34 pm

Ahhh, good old X-tra Problems...

There are 3 PC's in my house, 2 run XP and have been reformatted at least 19 times in the last 2 months, mine runs ME (like it or loathe it) and has been perfectly stable & completely error free since March.

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 4:36 pm

But why is it a pos?

Is it because of the programs/applications you use? Is it too intrusive? I don't understand, because there's no backwards compatibility? Is that the only reason?

When people complain about their operating systems, in this case WinXP, are they all complaining about different elements of it, or is there something about it that is **** and affects almost everyone?

Strafe · Post by **Strafe** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 4:36 pm

Ever since going from 95 to XP, I haven't had one major problem with XP yet.

Frankly it's a damn sight better than 95, 98, 98SE, and ME...then again when you use the 2000 kernel something good is bound to happen...

Brave Maximus · Post by **Brave Maximus** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 4:37 pm

Meh, I'm still running 98SE at home and have never had any major problems (though tempted to upgrade to XP to get a new soundblaster card).

4 of the computers at work use XP and I hate them. They are so hard to fix problems with. And far to easy for people to cause problems with.

Good example - some one at work managed to delete their fonts out of windows XP - it took for ever to fix the problem.

Auntie Slag · Post by **Auntie Slag** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 4:40 pm

Originally posted by Brave Maximus
some one at work managed to delete their fonts out of windows XP - it took for ever to fix the problem.

Is there not a safety feature where you can lock such files to prevent them from being trashed in the future?

Computron · Post by **Computron** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 4:55 pm

Linux is the way forward

Of interest SUSE 9.0 is released on October 24th and for those with a fast enough connection and who fancy dipping there toe into the Linux pond might I suggest a visit to http://www.suse.com around that date. It is supposedly got a whole bunch of new features designed to aid the Windows migration user - It also should have Win-modem support

Mandrake 9.1 is also alledgedly good for those who can't wait, It also has support for the Alcatel Speedtouch USB DSL modem which is why I'm d/l it now so that I can use Linux and my DSL connection together.

Redhat 9 is a good beginner model for those able to download it but it is starting to creep towards M$ cost for profesional editions. Still it auto-detects most hardware over a year old which isn't to bad

If you really are brave you also have Debian and FreeBSD, both of which are alledgedly quite difficult for begginers but immensly powerful (specially FreeBSD)

Brave Maximus · Post by **Brave Maximus** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 5:00 pm

Not to my knowledge.

here's what I've noticed (I could be horribly wrong, but it's my perception of things, feel free to correct)

Windows 98 allowed you to change what ever you want in the settings and files, and put them were you could easily find them. Unfortunatly too many people did that and ended up calling their local computer guy or worse, Microsoft to fix the problems they created (Too many stupid people moving stuff around that they don't know about). So Microsoft decided to come out with 98SE which hide the windows files when you opened the folder. But damn the teeming masses figured out what that blue button did and then they could mess up their OS again.

Along comes XP - and you can't do to terribly much with it. Everything that can mess the system up is burried. This is a double edged sword. People can (and unfortunatly do) dig around in the system (why, I have no idea) and then mess with the settings and delete files. But when you try to go fix the problem, what you need is also burried (try finding what you need to restore the fonts on XP, when there is no language displayed and you're not to familiar with the system, and things aren't where they are with 98).

Beyond that XP and 98 don't really like eachother (why I don't know, they just don't) and we've been having problems with our network because of it.

Post by **Denyer** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 6:11 pm

Get a copy of 2000. Microsoft don't advertise the fact, but a license for a current consumer/professional version of Windows permits you to run a previous equivalent version if such is your preference to (or, as tends to be the case in business environments, your need to)...

This goes the same for Office. We managed to beat confirmation out of their UK contact.

"Things that bend over backwards to cater to newbies end up doing a sh*tty job for people who have a clue."

The only reason I'm likely to have for upgrading is the breaking of interoperability, and I'm likely to switch to a non-MS solution rather than buy XP.

Compy, Linux will be the way forward. However, hardware support is a chicken and egg problem. And games support is always likely to be worthless.

So, whilst I'd recommend it in a heartbeat for an office which just wants a bit of DTP and email, it won't sell to consumers until flavours improve dramatically.

Sir Auros · Post by **Sir Auros** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 8:01 pm

I haven't had any problems with XP other than the security problems and only then because I can no longer update my copy because it's apparently illegal.

The control panel and just about everything else can be configured so that it operates a lot like the older versions of windows. Other than the security problems and relatively huge amount of hdd space it takes up, I don't see what the problem is.

Grandmaster Shockwaeve · Tue Sep 30, 2003 8:08 pm

I've had many fewer problems with my XP machine than I've had with any of my previous ones, although I didn't have too many with 98SE either. So far the only complaint I've had is that it's hard for me to rearrange my start menu into my own categories because programs are spread out over several different users (well, me and all users, mostly).

Plasmodium · Post by **Plasmodium** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 9:50 pm

Most cases I find where people say a certain OS is **** (Mostly Windows) is because theyre noobs when it comes to comps.

I have had 95, 98, ME, and currently running XP.

95 had the most problems. Why? Not because it was a ****ty OS, but because I was a semi comp noob at the time, therefore problems were frequent.

Progress to 98-XP. ZERO problems. ME is NOT ****, I had NO problems with it.

Perhaps if people didnt have 5089u45 things loading at startup and useless **** on their comp, they wouldnt be complaining. Maybe if they actually kept their system operating at peak efficiency hm?!

Plasmodium · Post by **Plasmodium** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 9:50 pm

edit: ****ing pos.

Computron · Post by **Computron** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:20 pm

Originally posted by Denyer
Compy, Linux will be the way forward. However, hardware support is a chicken and egg problem. And games support is always likely to be worthless.

So, whilst I'd recommend it in a heartbeat for an office which just wants a bit of DTP and email, it won't sell to consumers until flavours improve dramatically.

I agree Linux is difficult to get into but newer versions are getting better, If what they say about SUSE 9.0 is true then the ability to auto-detect win-modems and a lot of the USB ADSL modems is a massive step forward, the Interfaces are generally going GUI (with the ability to use CLI if needed) which should help the newbie and the idea fact that virus's are not widespread on Linux is also handy (that and the fact that the only real way a virus can harm a Linux system is to be invoked as root, something the wise person shouldn't do)

I think that by version 12 of the current big 3 (Mandrake, Suse & RedHat) a mass migration will occur amongst the general public, especially when you have the O/S for $30 (or free if u want to d/l it) and unlimited free upgrades.

Also if the plans for the next kernal work out it will help, Linus has come back to program it and they are hoping to allow it to run programs designed for M$ under Linux. However last I heard (4-5 months ago) it was turning into a court job with M$ trying to stop Linux from being able to run programs written for windows without an emulator

The Plant · Post by **The Plant** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:34 pm

Originally posted by Denyer
"Things that bend over backwards to cater to newbies end up doing a sh*tty job for people who have a clue."

This is why...
ME<98 &
XP<2k.

I'm a little rusty as to many of the specifics since my Computer Engineering class in High School, but the fact is that 98 and XP don't like each other. It's because they're based on two different File Allocation Tables.

DOS, 95, 98, ME use a FAT 16 or 32 partition
NT, 2k, XP use a NTFS (New Technology File System).

They aren't really that compatible with each other and the NTFS is ultimately more stable than the old FAT's. Not too much difference in quality though. XP is essentially 2k mutated nearly beyond recognition, as ME is 98. They do essentially the same thing as their predecessors but are more "User Freindly" or ****ty, take your pick of terminology.

I change the look on my XP computer to classic style so I don't have to put up with all the huge bulky **** associated with the regular XP format and I'm fine with it. At home I have a ME machine and it has amazingly not had many problems since we've gotten it. I being the technological genius that I am (not really, just lucky) managed to tie (network) the two beasts together successfully.

I still pride myself on that.

I think I've totally lost the original intent of the message. Anyway, if you need any help with your OS, theoretically I'm your guy. Denyer's always right. 2000 is probably the best OS on the market today. I think I've covered most the bases right there. Peas for now.

EDIT: Ever notice how "XP" looks like a dead smiley? Coincidence? I think not...

Post by **Denyer** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:48 am

Originally posted by Plasmodium
Most cases I find where people say a certain OS is **** (Mostly Windows) is because theyre noobs when it comes to comps.

No, I simply feel XP is bloated, comes with a disgusting EULA and doesn't offer me anything over the relatively clean 2000 Pro.

Originally posted by Plasmodium
95 had the most problems. Why? Not because it was a ****ty OS, but because I was a semi comp noob at the time, therefore problems were frequent.

...it was also unstable and not particularly well thought out. A radical improvement on 3.1, to be sure, but not something I'd want to risk work on now that we have better alternatives.

Originally posted by Plasmodium
ME is NOT ****, I had NO problems with it.

I suspect you haven't tried to use it for much networking, haven't tried to remove superfluous components and may actually have use for system restore, then. It isn't a bad consumer OS, I agree, but it does have some severe architectural limitations when you place it under heavy loads.

Originally posted by Plasmodium
Perhaps if people didnt have 5089u45 things loading at startup and useless **** on their comp, they wouldnt be complaining. Maybe if they actually kept their system operating at peak efficiency hm?!

This holds true for a worrying number of people, but I assure you I'm not one of them.

Originally posted by Compy
the ability to auto-detect win-modems and a lot of the USB ADSL modems is a massive step forward

Collosal. Winmodems are used by a majority of hardware owners, I'd say. People are also becoming more used to multi-user setups and things like admin rights.

Unfortunately, quite a few Linux distros are themselves quite unstabled out of the box, but if the number of unused services included by default can be streamlined, this will change. As a general criticism, Linux distros usually offer far too many choices and options to the average user—the advent of Windows-equivalent "idiot" versions can only be a good thing for people such as myself who can't be bothered to throw time after huge degrees of customisation, however ultimately productive.

Snake · Post by **Snake** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 11:56 am

Lack of support for older (but still perfectly viable) hardware, flukey MS DOS legacy, the aforementioned "protect the user from their own curiosity" configuration, worthless big-deal features (do we really need all those extra colors for icons?), and this ultra-(un)stable hype. I crashed XP SIX times in under three hours. The marjority of them seems to have something to do with the file-thumbnail view, which is sad, because that is one feature I actually do like.

But come on; it doesn't even put a My Computer link on the desktop. Big deal right, easily rectified with the creation of a shortcut and then tossing it on the desktop. "I think there's something basically wrong with that." - Cowboy, Full Metal Jacket. I can't explain it, but that just doesn't sit right with me, especially since the IE icon is there for quick and easy use.

Win98 SE was just fine in my opinion (as I recall, SE was a bit more stable than the original 98) and XP comes off as Microsoft's answer to Macintosh's pretty-looking and simple OS. Too bad so much integrated hardware (along with shrinking space for replaceable components) is forcing the old OSes out of existence.

Sir Auros · Post by **Sir Auros** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 3:55 pm

I dunno, I think it's your setup or something. Mine put a My Computer icon on the desktop and the OS itself never crashes for me. Some programs will crash, but unlike other versions of windows, XP will keep on running.

Post by **Denyer** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:17 pm

Originally posted by Sir Auros
I dunno, I think it's your setup or something.

Bear in mind that an OS shouldn't be unstable, regardless.

I've bombed out 2000 plenty of times before now. NT flavours are still susceptible to driver issues, problems which affect the shell, and various other things. The only true way to keep a machine stable is to not switch it on.

But I have my "Save as Web Archive..." icon in Internet Explorer, have found some partial backups following a lapse of sanity whilst reinstalling and am moderately happy again...

If anyone wants similar, download WinX32 5.0 and use the following:

/sendkeys {ALT}FA{TAB}{DOWN}{DOWN}{ENTER}+{TAB}

Sixswitch · Post by **Sixswitch** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:22 pm

I dislike XP because it's very tricky to get at the guts of the damn thing on the occasions that I need to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a minor symptom of this is that the 'winipcfg' command no longer exists in the 'Run' option of the start menu. Granted, this is a minor gripe, since there are tons of ways to discover your IP, but it's a small example of oversimplifying.

I used to really hate when Linux users would go 'I hate Windows, it's too simple.' My typical response was along the lines of 'You want a challenge when using your PC? Try covering the monitor in green felt and sitting on an iron spike.'

But with the advent of XP, I'm beginning to understand what they meant.

-Ss