Windows XP SUCKS compared to OS X

solrac

solrac

Mac Ninja
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-
 
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.
 
I installed it and played with it just a bit.. it looks like a fisher price OS :p

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 :p)


Admiral
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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. :p

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).
:rolleyes:
 
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.
Click to expand...

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. :p
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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")
 
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. ;)
 
...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!
 
Originally posted by lonny
...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!
Click to expand...

Are you and/or these friends Windows users already? What didn't they like about it compared to NT or 2000?
 
Originally posted by lonny
...that xp was crap.


Unresponsive, illogical, ugly, and so obviously copied from OSX that irritates me.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Probably better off that way, since MS is HORRIBLE at making deadlines. :) I think they just barely made it with 95.
 
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!
Click to expand...

And OS X has support for stuff?!? XP is WAY ahead right now in that respect!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top