# Windows XP SUCKS compared to OS X



## solrac (Dec 13, 2001)

God damn, a friend installed Windows XP and deleted it cuz he can't connect to Windows 2000 machines. XP supports networking with all Windows EXCEPT 2000.

He got so pissed when he saw my Mac OS X connect to a Windows 2000 that he erased XP and just installed Windows 2000.

I played around with his XP and it SUCKS. What a lame OS. It's just Windows 2000 with different graphics. There's no real reason to upgrade to it.

Mac OS X is pushing apple into the future. Windows XP is just adding pretty graphics and annoying stuffed animals for assistants. No REAL changes. 2000 can do everything XP can do.

Windows just sucks. I can't even win the solitaire game on Windows! Then I downloaded Mac Solitaire and I won. God damn Windows sucks anus!!

-solrac-


----------



## Jadey (Dec 13, 2001)

The merits and pitfalls of an OS, come down to a mere game of solitare


----------



## chemistry_geek (Dec 13, 2001)

From what I've read over at Slashdot (http://www.slashdot.org/) I would argue that XP can do LESS than Windows 2000.  It doesn't support Sun's Java unless you download it and install it.  M$ saw fit to load XP with all sorts of Digital Rights Managment bull$#!t.  It won't play MP3's right (limits their sound quality) and it does some funky things when trying to burn MP3's to CD.  Hell, you can't RIP songs from a CD and encode them in MP3 format without going through all sorts of bull$#!t (you have to use M$'s proprietary format, and AGAIN, sound quality is limited by Big Brother).  You have to RE-REGISTER it with Bill if you modify, remove, replace, or add ANY 6 hardware components.  I can confidently say I WILL NEVER PURCHASE A PC WITH A M$ OS.  If I ever did purchase one, it would certainly have some flavor of Linux on it.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Dec 13, 2001)

I installed it and played with it just a bit.. it looks like a fisher price OS 

I will be plaing with it some more this weekend and I will make a posting about that on sunday.  It has some features which I definatelly like (like how they inlcuded greek in there from the get go, not like OS X which I am STILL waiting for greek )


Admiral


----------



## vanguard (Dec 13, 2001)

Are we really going to rip XP and say it sucks?  It seems like some of the people who are bashing it haven't really spent enough time on it to judge it.

Want to know how XP is different from Win2K?  Try going here: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/itprotop10.asp

You say that XP doesn't connect to win2k machines.  I say you're wrong.  It does, you just didn't get it to work.  Is that the OS's fault.  Yeah, partly. 

Anyway, let's not stress what our OS does best at the risk of forgetting what XP does better (net meeting, for example, is great.  Also, all the browsers seem to be slower on OSX).  If we do, MS will continue to improve and we'll be stuck talking about the advantages we used to have.


----------



## Krevinek (Dec 13, 2001)

> _Originally posted by chemistry_geek _
> *From what I've read over at Slashdot (http://www.slashdot.org/) I would argue that XP can do LESS than Windows 2000.  It doesn't support Sun's Java unless you download it and install it.  M$ saw fit to load XP with all sorts of Digital Rights Managment bull$#!t.  It won't play MP3's right (limits their sound quality) and it does some funky things when trying to burn MP3's to CD.  Hell, you can't RIP songs from a CD and encode them in MP3 format without going through all sorts of bull$#!t (you have to use M$'s proprietary format, and AGAIN, sound quality is limited by Big Brother).  You have to RE-REGISTER it with Bill if you modify, remove, replace, or add ANY 6 hardware components.  I can confidently say I WILL NEVER PURCHASE A PC WITH A M$ OS.  If I ever did purchase one, it would certainly have some flavor of Linux on it. *



1) If you bought a PC with an 'M$' OS, it wouldn't come with Linux, you would have to install it. The only company I am aware of that bundles Linux with any of their machines is IBM, which makes fairly decent business-oriented x86 machines to begin with though, and makes the best G3 chips on the market right now.

2) WTF is up with MS limiting sound quality for digital music playback/rip/encoding? Also, why not just install something like WinAmp and a 3rd Party rip/encode solution to get around that? Even if I have to use an MS OS, I don't have to use the pathetic software they bundle with it. (Even if I don't have a choice of installing it) I use Opera and a bunch of freeware to get my PC work done when I need to. 

Although, overall... I agree that WinXP is not the way to go, and I really pity my friends who are currenty rather hyped up about it because they are getting it for 15$ (full copy). I just comment: You are getting what you pay for... and at that price, it isn't much (employee discount).


----------



## chemistry_geek (Dec 13, 2001)

Krevinek:

Check out http://www.elinux.com/ I think they sell PC's with Linux on them.  If they don't do it now, I know they used to.


----------



## hazmat (Dec 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Krevinek _
> *
> 
> 1) If you bought a PC with an 'M$' OS, it wouldn't come with Linux, you would have to install it. The only company I am aware of that bundles Linux with any of their machines is IBM, which makes fairly decent business-oriented x86 machines to begin with though, and makes the best G3 chips on the market right now.
> *



Dell now ships with Linux.  There are more.  But Linux?  Check out the BSD's.  FreeBSD and OpenBSD.  Much more secure and well supported.  FreeBSD moreso for a desktop.  OpenBSD is awesome for a server, but I find a PITA otherwise.



> *
> 2) WTF is up with MS limiting sound quality for digital music playback/rip/encoding? Also, why not just install something like WinAmp and a 3rd Party rip/encode solution to get around that? Even if I have to use an MS OS, I don't have to use the pathetic software they bundle with it. (Even if I don't have a choice of installing it) I use Opera and a bunch of freeware to get my PC work done when I need to.
> *



I am not saying anyone is wrong on this, since I don't know about it, but it seems odd to me.  I think it would be a HUGE screw-up on their part to do this, but could be.

I have only briefly played with XP, but have run NT and 2000 extensively.  Very good OS's.  I prefer NT because of the faster shell.  MS is going the way of Netscape.  More and more bloated every release.  Still, there is one thing that REALLY pisses me off that Mac OS is missing that Windows always had.  A GLOBAL way to go to the beginning and end of a text line.  Home and End.  Unix has it too.  ^A and ^E.  The method in Mac OS (IF the app has it in the first place) varies app to app.  I find this EXTREMELY irritating.  I beg anyone to correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Zeigan (Dec 14, 2001)

Im using XP and Os X.  I like both.  XP has not crashed on me since its beta stage.  I know that this is already a OS/X is better than Windoze thread, but i will put my two cents, not my friends.

First off, to the i cannot listen to mp3s comment.  Where do you guys come up with this stuff??  I am listening to Fear Factory's Resurrection with Neil Diamonds Hey Hey My My next as we speak.  Even works in Windows media player.  I currently use winamp.

I used audio catalyst, NOT an MS product, to rip my mp3s.  Works like a charm.

You guys have to remember, 2000 is a business product and sold as one.  XP is a home product, so of course it is going to be taylored to look better.

If the machine doesnt network, its the users fault.  This product connects to everything.  Its just everything else doesnt connect to it, since it has a built in firewall..(Not saying it is better in anyway, i truly like os x more right now.)  IT will network with another XP machine easier than it will with a machine with a different OS, microsoft or not.  I would say that is true for most OS's.

Changes that i have noticed....Mostly image quality or associated to image quality.


The java comment.....If you were being sued by a company, would you put their product as a default install??? I think not.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Dec 14, 2001)

_From Zeigan:_ 


> The java comment.....If you were being sued by a company, would you put their product as a default install??? I think not.



Microsoft made a Java version that ONLY ran on Windows.  M$ broke Sun's license agreement.  M$ was begging to be sued - and they should have paid millions for the damage to Sun's reputation for NOT having a platform independent product as Sun intended it to be.  M$ is lucky I'm not the antitrust lawsuit judge because I would never have publicly commented to the media like that idiot Pennfield-Jackson did, and M$ would be two or more companies right now, not later.  BASH, BASH, BASH IT (See Joe Cartoon @ http://www.joecartoon.com and download "James Brain")


----------



## Krevinek (Dec 14, 2001)

MS always makes a Windows-only version of some standard to try to say that they are _MORE COMPLIANT TO THE STANDARD THAN OTHERS._ Of course this is not true, but people buy into it, and soon it is the 'standard'. Take DivX for example. It is claimed to be MPEG-4, but in reality, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH MPEG-4.

MS was begging to be sued by making their own version of Java. I am surprised they haven't been sued over the MPEG-4 FUD already. Personally, I am going to wait until someone implements true MPEG-4 format support (Apple really doesn't have to do anything) and some MPEG-4 *optimized* codecs before I comment on it further.


----------



## lonny (Dec 14, 2001)

...that xp was crap.
And then I actually used it for a while:

it's much worse! It makes me throw up!

Unresponsive, illogical, ugly, and so obviously copied from OSX that irritates me.
My friends who installed it are complaining. A friend even asked me if it is possible to install OSX and his wintel box (!).

The stores here aren't selling that many copies... no wonder why!


----------



## hazmat (Dec 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by lonny _
> *...that xp was crap.
> And then I actually used it for a while:
> 
> ...



Are you and/or these friends Windows users already?  What didn't they like about it compared to NT or 2000?


----------



## vanguard (Dec 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by lonny _
> *...that xp was crap.
> 
> 
> ...



What does that say about OSX? 

Zeigan: XP is not just a home product.  It used to be that Win2k was the bus product line while win98/mil was the home line.  Now XP serves both.  They have a more capable professional version that costs more than the home version but it's the same kernel.

I've found that all the modern operating systems have pretty good kernels.  

* OSX drives me crazy because after a while the mouse starts to move *very* slow.  Usually happens after some wild mouse movement. (Yes, I submitted the bug to apple).  It's almost as bad as a crash because I have to reboot to fix it.  

* Linux makes me nuts because X windows has lousy fonts and X windows freezes on me. 

* Windows bothers me because it crashes about once a week.  (Seems related to switching from one wireless network to another)

None of these OSes are perfect none of them make me want to throw up either.  The really crappy OSes are the ones that allow applications that run at the user level (as opposed to the kernel level) to crash the system.  Win 95/98/mil and OS9 fit in that catagory.


----------



## dlookus (Dec 14, 2001)

Why does MS have so many damn operating systems? If I had any desire to get a PC at all I wouldn't know what to get. Can someone explain the lineage. Is 2000 a mix between NT and 98? If so, what are ME and XP? Why release 3 operating systems in 1 1/2 years?

I haven't used XP much, but I will say this: MS doesn't get aesthetics. Rendering out shiny window frames and task bar and throwing ugly aliased text on top of it, is proof of that.


----------



## hazmat (Dec 14, 2001)

Amen, Vanguard. 

dlookus, MS has basically two lines of Windows.  There are the 9x/Me ones, which are what most people see and base their opinions on.  IMO they do suck.  Unstable.  Like OS 9 to me.  95 became 98 which became Me.  Just like OS 8 -> OS 9 -> OS 9.1, etc.  They are just updated versions, but MS seems to like to change the name, I guess to make you think you are getting something better.  Me seems to be one of the worst things they have put out.  The NT line, NT, 2000, XP, were always for more professional use.  They may look like 9x/Me, but it's a totally different kernel and doesn't let you directly access the hardware, etc., and makes for a very stable OS, for desktop use at least.  I don't like it as a server.  So NT became 2000 which now has become XP.  All evolutions of the same kernel.  But I think that the 9x and NT lines have now merged into a home edition and a professional edition.  Same kernel, but Pro gives you more functionality that the basic home user wouldn't need.  It was a smart move on MS' part to make a home version of XP.  Now the basic user of both Windows and Mac OS (because of X) will get a lot more stability.


----------



## lonny (Dec 14, 2001)

The fact that xp is copied from OSX irritates me, not because I don't like X (I love it), but because it reminds me of how much MS lacks immagination.

My frieds who installed xp had 98. They need drivers. They switched off the new theme. They want OSX.... jealousy!


----------



## dlookus (Dec 14, 2001)

I think the most confusing aspect is that it went:
95->98->ME instead of 2000
So they ditch the year theme on one product and start using it on another.
Make's no sense, but thanks.


----------



## hazmat (Dec 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by dlookus _
> *I think the most confusing aspect is that it went:
> 95->98->ME instead of 2000
> So they ditch the year theme on one product and start using it on another.
> Make's no sense, but thanks. *



Probably better off that way, since MS is HORRIBLE at making deadlines.   I think they just barely made it with 95.


----------



## hazmat (Dec 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by lonny _
> *The fact that xp is copied from OSX irritates me, not because I don't like X (I love it), but because it reminds me of how much MS lacks immagination.
> 
> My frieds who installed xp had 98. They need drivers. They switched off the new theme. They want OSX.... jealousy! *



And OS X has support for stuff?!?  XP is WAY ahead right now in that respect!


----------



## lonny (Dec 14, 2001)

Sure OSX needs more drivers.
We still have a long way to go. But the ones I have now work flawlessy (at least for me).

On xp, apparently, everything is more messy. Plus it's not only drivers that are needed. I heard people having different sorts of problems. All in all the impression that I got is not good. People I talked to are disapponted.

OSX is perfect for me. Others may use xp or other flavours of win. My point is that xp has been over hyped. It feels wrong to me. I don't like using it. OSX (once again, IMHO) is a pleasure to use. My friends had never been interested in my Mac before. Now they ask me if they can get the same sort of feel on their machines.

I wasn't about defining which one is technically better, but which one feels better. OSX feels right to me.


----------



## hazmat (Dec 14, 2001)

Exactly, lonny.  Whatever works best for you personally.  Neither OS is bad, they are just very different.  Like with cars.  A Honda Civic is not a bad car at all, but I wouldn't want one as a track car.  Something like that.


----------



## dlookus (Dec 14, 2001)

> And OS X has support for stuff?!? XP is WAY ahead right now in that respect!



"right now" being the key words.

In the past, the Mac OS has been plagued by legacy code. OSX helps get rid of that problem.

MS will find themselves in the same position Apple was before OSX.

Getting Apps to OSX is an uphill battle, but I have to say they're doing pretty well. I think you'll find, down the road, that OSX will be better suited to the times and MS will be scrambling to reinvent their OS.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Dec 14, 2001)

well, NT has historically been server-network
9x based windows wre for home.

M$ released XP which is like the "OS X" of the windows world since it unifies the home and business market under one OS.
(and probably getting rid of the old stuff like OS X kinda does)


Admiral


----------



## vanguard (Dec 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by dlookus _
> *Can someone explain the lineage. Is 2000 a mix between NT and 98? If so, what are ME and XP? *



Sure.  In the early 90's msft decided they needed a better os.  They (with the help of IBM) came up with NT.

For a long time the DOS -> Windows -> Win95/98/ME strain ran next to the NT -> 2000 -> XP strain.

Msft has wanted to get rid of the DOS line for a long time but because of incapatibilities, min hardware requirements, gamers, etc. they had to keep it alive.

Now, finally, the DOS line is supposed to be dead.  What we have instead is a professional and a home version of XP.  They are the same core but msft removed some extra stuff from the home version.  The home version is also cheaper.

Is it as good looking as OSX, not to me.  Is it but ugly and unusable, not to me.

I'm not sure why the multi-media apps that ships with it are so terrible.  I'm guessing the either don't want to get in trouble for crushing more partners or that they want to sell you better versions later.


----------



## vanguard (Dec 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by hazmat _
> *
> 
> Probably better off that way, since MS is HORRIBLE at making deadlines.   I think they just barely made it with 95. *



Win95 shipped in July of 95.  Still, your point is valid.  It was originally going to be called Win94.


----------



## Pascal (Dec 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by vanguard _
> *Win95 shipped in July of 95.  Still, your point is valid.  It was originally going to be called Win94.*


If I recall correctly, Windows 95 (Code name : Chicago) was supposed to be called Windows 4. In 1994, since they were 2 years late, the marketing guys at Microsoft found a way to spin the new OS in a new way that would make people forget that they had been victims of the "it should really come out any time now" syndrome... and thus ease the frustration of the Windows 3.1 users.


----------



## Pascal (Dec 14, 2001)

That *Windows 2000* is stable is a urban legend. I use it every day at work and it is always broken. OK, I agree : it doesn't crash and there are seldom BSODs to be seen, but that doesn't mean everything is fine. Every now and then, something suddenly stops working (the mouse, Office, Explorer) as if the machines were possessed or something. And, mind you, this happens many time per week. 

This contrasts sharply with my two Macs running *Mac OS X*. Take my iBook, for instance : I never shut it down (I always lug it around in sleep mode), and right now, the Terminal's uptime tell me it has been running for _15 days straight_ without a restart (although I will have to restart any minute now since I am currently installing iTunes 2.0.3 !) or any problem whatsoever. 

So for all those who insist in saying that *Windows XP* is stable, I allow myself to doubt. But then even if we do pretend that XP is as stable as Mac OS X, those of you using it still have to deal with the _Big Brother_ approach of Microsoft and its .Net _initiative_ ! Poor fellows !


----------



## vanguard (Dec 14, 2001)

When I first got my new notebook at work with Win2k on it, it was very stable.  I think I went the first few months without any trouble.  However, now I'm lucky to go a week without a BSOD.

We'll probably be hearing the same reports of XP being stable that we did with w2k.  Why?  Because it is stable, at first.

Every windows distribution has been the same for me.  It's good at first but after 6-12 months it's terrible.  I've been using NT since 3.51 and it's always been the same.  I'll believe that XP is stable when I see it stay up for months in 2003.  Unix can do it.


----------



## Jadey (Dec 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by hazmat _
> *Dell now ships with Linux. There are more. But Linux? Check out the BSD's. FreeBSD and OpenBSD. Much more secure and well supported. FreeBSD moreso for a desktop. OpenBSD is awesome for a server, but I find a PITA otherwise. *



Actually Dell has dropped linux pre-installations in consumer machines. The news was all over Wired and Slashdot.


----------



## hazmat (Dec 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Jadey _
> *
> 
> Actually Dell has dropped linux pre-installations in consumer machines. The news was all over Wired and Slashdot. *



Damn, sorry.  I had no idea.  Until XFree86 is significantly improved, Linux I don't think will ever be a viable alternative.  That's what I love about OS X.  It's Unix-based, yet has a proper GUI and the Mac software range.  What was the last version of Photoshop that was made for Linux?   The Gimp I guess is good, but I love Photoshop.  Just an example.


----------



## fryke (Dec 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by lonny _
> *The fact that xp is copied from OSX irritates me, not because I don't like X (I love it), but because it reminds me of how much MS lacks immagination. *



Erhm... Have you ever worked on a machine with Windows XP? It does not look like a Mac OS X ripoff. It looks like candy alright, but it's quite different from OS X.

Windows XP is a Windows 2000 that has been revamped with a new user interface. It gets in the way of users sometimes, but Mac OS X does that very well, too. 

Well, whatever you guys think... I think Windows XP is the best Windows as of yet. It's easy to use, quite stable and reduces some of the 'bad things' older Windows incarnations had. Usually Win32 software runs on XP. Compatibility is already better than Windows 2000 was when it was twice or four times its age, mainly because XP is also aimed at the private home user.

Mac OS X has some catch up to do in *that* area at least, for many hardware extensions to the Mac still don't work in OS X (modems, PDAs, cameras etc.).


----------



## fryke (Dec 14, 2001)

Mac OS X has nice antialiasing on LCD screens. Really nice.

Windows XP has ClearType. If you've ever used that feature on a notebook or an LCD screen, you don't think about it once more: Windows XP is BETTER in that feature.


----------



## mailseth (Dec 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *
> Erhm... Have you ever worked on a machine with Windows XP? It does not look like a Mac OS X ripoff. It looks like candy alright, but it's quite different from OS X.
> *



Ummmm.... I beg to differ. I can't stand using XP either, and it is really for the same reason. Granted that it is a horrid copy of OS X, but a blatent ripoff none the less.

I shutter when I remember a story that I heard of one of those compusa ppl telling a customer that Apple ripped off microsoft.


----------



## vanguard (Dec 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Mac OS X has nice antialiasing on LCD screens. Really nice.
> 
> Windows XP has ClearType. If you've ever used that feature on a notebook or an LCD screen, you don't think about it once more: Windows XP is BETTER in that feature. *



Can somebody explain this to me?  My interests lie closer to the machine but I often hear guys talk about apple's fonts and how wonderful they are.  From what I can see, Apple and MSFT have good looking fonts, the X Window system has ugly ones.

What's the difference between clear type and anti-aliased?


----------



## fryke (Dec 14, 2001)

Mac OS X uses basic antialiasing. You use shades of gray on type, so it actually seems like the screen has a better resolution. Or, as others put it, it makes the type look fuzzy.

CoolType (Adobe) and ClearType (Microsoft) use subpixel-antialiasing, which works best on TFT monitors. Every pixel is made of three pixels (RGB), and by antialiasing the type using color-based masks, type actually looks better. You can try it in Acrobat Reader's preferences (CoolType). MS has made ClearType available to the whole system in Windows XP.

(And I also hate Windows XP and its look, but it's still better than what it was before.)


----------



## vanguard (Dec 14, 2001)

Thanks fryke.

Vanguard


----------



## Pascal (Dec 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Mac OS X uses basic antialiasing. You use shades of gray on type, so it actually seems like the screen has a better resolution. Or, as others put it, it makes the type look fuzzy.*


For what its worth, I've read somewhere that subpixel-antialiasing is planned for Mac OS X 10.2...


----------



## swizcore (Dec 14, 2001)

I must say after using XP on my girlfriends SISTERS computer, i think it is just W2K with a cheesy appearance theme and some wannabe-clever puppet assistants. Oh yeah, and a gawd awful hunk of crap video-shop app. woo hoo M$! Way to sustain my expectations for the next onslaught of misleading propaganda for your OS.


----------



## Jadey (Dec 15, 2001)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Erhm... Have you ever worked on a machine with Windows XP? It does not look like a Mac OS X ripoff. *



My favorite feature of XP is that it looks more like Mac OS then ever!


----------

