Windows is the Lowest of lows in terms of operating systems

l0Rd 0f D05 · Post by **l0Rd 0f D05** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:05 pm

Who here hates windows and how horrible it is when it comes to stability, and what alternative (if any) do you prefer to windows

Amro · Post by **Amro** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:14 pm

Windows 97?

Well, everyone hates windows, and, all those people use windows*. There's no 'good' alternative, unless you like Mac, and I don't (half my software doesn't work on it).

*well, most of them. Few people have windows and LIKE it.

By the way, I think it's time they change the name to 'latrines' or 'toilets' or 'crapholes'. So buggy... yet I can't do anything about it.

Well, come to think of it, Windows isn't THAT bad.

Kazer0 · Post by **Kazer0** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:43 pm

Man, I hate peopl like this who think Windows sucks. EVERYTHING HAS PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD. Oops, world trade center was knocked over by a plane, must be crap, I hate New York.

We all know that unless you started on a Mac, then you started on Windows after DOS was done. Obviously you use it, when you can download linux, but your obviously on Windows XP.

Get on with your life. Windows 2000 never crashes on me, and I love it. Windows XP almost never crashes (Blame yourself for installing 20 million programs that run on startup, and then not scan for adware), and like all new technology, Windows 98 was improved on 95, 2000 on 98, and XP Pro on 2000.

Interon 2.0 · Post by **Interon 2.0** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:11 pm

It's the difference between simplicity and complexity. With about 50 million lines of code, I don't expect them to be even close to perfect, neither do I expect Windows to be perfect in 30 years from now.

If Microsoft worked REALLY hard to make Windows 99.999% bug-free, it would probably cost $10,000 to buy a copy.

And increasing reliability may require sacrifices, like eliminating compatiblity with Windows 3.x/DOS software, making programs more difficult to develop, increasing system requirements, needing more expensive hardware, needing more RAM, etc.

Yeah MS could put together the ultra-reliable Windows, but then it won't be able to do very much. Software and hardware would need to be designed in very strict parameters, and every computer would have to be identical in configuration.

Windows 95 was designed for 386s, 486s, Pentiums, Pentium MMXs, and Pentium IIs. That's 5 generations of hardware!

With trillions of possible combinations of hardware, software, and human habits, there's only so much you can do to ensure quality testing.

Unlike Commodore 64s, Apple IIs, Atari 800s, etc. which are almost all alike, it is easier to make them bug-free. Also DOS was fairly reliable due to lack of native support for lots of things.

If I needed an ultra-reliable system I can spend tens of thousands of dollars on a powerful UNIX system. But since I'm not operating a billion-dollar company server, Windows will do fine.

Granted, there's room for improvent, but you get what you pay for.

Post by **Wally** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:09 pm

l0Rd 0f D05 wrote:Who here hates windows and how horrible it is when it comes to stability, and what alternative (if any) do you prefer to windows

Ho Ho Ho !!!! Rubs hands together quickly

I dislike Microsoft Strongly as their products are soo easy to hack and it is proven by many people.

Their xbox is even exploitable but i have to admit its a pretty good toy that plays Emulators (N64, SNES, SEGA etc). All you have to do is put James bond in and then load a saved game off the xbox (Off a site).

My Os of choice would have to do Mac Os even though I have older macs but still they work and play a good game of marathon (Sorry Pc users this is like the first two chapters of halo or somthing). Also you can get around in a pretty much Virus and hacker free environment.

Great post though.

Post by **Dogbreath** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:28 pm

Microsoft Windows has it's downsides, but ultimately, it's probably the single most useful tool after the lightbulb ever invented. Period. Think about all the good it's done for the world. I definately don't hate it, though I do wish Microsoft would do a better job with DOS compatibility in their NT based OS's. My personal favorite is 98SE, which is fast, runs almost anything, and almost never crashes. If you're big on internet/media and video editing, XP, 2000, or a MAC might be what you need.

nastypoisonspikes · Post by **nastypoisonspikes** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:42 am

I like Windows XP. The only instability on my computer is probably my fault.

I dislike Microsoft Strongly as their products are soo easy to hack and it is proven by many people.

If as many people were looking for faults in Linux as they were Windows, I'm quite sure they'd find just as many.

Anyway, this "Linux is soooo much better than Windows" etc. crap is childish. Of course, they all have their own uses. You can't beat *nix systems for servers and Mac for imaging, but there can be no denying that most software is made for Windows, and thus I'd say that Windows is clearly the best OS for general use.

Dopefish · Post by **Dopefish** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:25 pm

Macs are great as long as you don't like playing games or running new software...

Linux is just the "rebellious" OS that everyone uses just so they can say "I run Linux, so I'm a computer master!". I wonder why big programmers like John Carmack use Windows...

JKSM · Post by **JKSM** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 1:33 am

I currently have Windows 95 and Windows XP but have ever owned and used computers with all version of Windows except for Win 98, Win ME & Win CE. So far, an extremely large number of people have liked Win 98 and the platform with most complains is Win 2000.

Windows 98 should be the best. It have more compatibility and better than the Win 95 that I like and is good for playing old games.

Win XP is more for new games and programs and usually comes with a higher speed machine with better graphics card.

Why not do a dual boot and get the best of both worlds - playing / using old games / programs on Win 98 and new ones on Win XP.

One day, I should try that.

Hmm, someone must be using MS Office too much and came up with Win 97.

Anyway, what's the difference between Win 98 and Win98SE?

Post by **Dogbreath** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:56 am

98SE == Windows 98 Second Edition... Windows 98 WITHOUT any bugs and even more versatile. Truly a masterpeice, IMO. It's probably the best Microsoft OS ever made. I've never had any problems with it. (Though some would say XP is better, I guess it depends on what you use your computer for, exactly)

Amro · Post by **Amro** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:14 am

I said it's not that bad... all those people complaining, if you take away their windows they'll start crying.

Interon 2.0 · Post by **Interon 2.0** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:32 pm

Despite the Monopoly, you still have choices.

If Windows bothers you that much, go straight ahead and try:

OS/2
Linux
Macintosh
BeOS
FreeBSD
FreeDOS
ReactOS
...others

and see how fun that will be.

Kazer0 · Post by **Kazer0** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:05 am

JKSM wrote:I currently have Windows 95 and Windows XP but have ever owned and used computers with all version of Windows except for Win 98, Win ME & Win CE. So far, an extremely large number of people have liked Win 98 and the platform with most complains is Win 2000.

Windows 98 should be the best. It have more compatibility and better than the Win 95 that I like and is good for playing old games.

Win XP is more for new games and programs and usually comes with a higher speed machine with better graphics card.

Why not do a dual boot and get the best of both worlds - playing / using old games / programs on Win 98 and new ones on Win XP. One day, I should try that.

Hmm, someone must be using MS Office too much and came up with Win 97.

Anyway, what's the difference between Win 98 and Win98SE?

What? WHAT? W H A T? Windows 2000 is the most stable and complete OS out of all the Windows put together. Since it wasn't meant to run DOS, that's why there are some complaints from old software people. Not to mention it was the first actually used NT system (Windows NT was just poop for servers), it wasn't compatible with some out-of-date FAT requiring software. Its not 2000's fault, its the software.

I believe the one you meant had the most complaints was Windows ME, which is COMPLETELY diffrent from 2000.

Annorax · Post by **Annorax** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:49 pm

I personally use Windows 2000, but find it a bit buggy and crashes every now and then, but 2000 is probably my favorite OS.

The only reason Microsoft software is so full of bugs and has many viruses that hurt it is because it's the MOST commonly used. Linux and Macs would have the same problem. I love Macs, but they can't run the programs I want and cost way too much, and Linux is great but I have friends who struggle with compatibilty issues all the time.

I assure you I'm far from a Microsoft fan. I'm half tempted to try Linux, I hear it's pretty decent, but I'm not sure if it can do what I want. I like 2000 and Office, but I don't like Microsoft and am trying to use little of their software.

Kazer0 · Post by **Kazer0** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:34 pm

Ue your favorite downloader and grap a copy of VMware annorax. It will let you run linux IN Windows. In other words, its like opening IE and linux is in IE. That way you can run both. (Just a note: It does not actually run in IE. IE was an example) That way you can try linux.

As wardrich if you want better details.

Post by **Wally** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 pm

You can also get a bootable linux CD which just loads itself into ram.

Has everything you need to get started with linux on it.

Called either Knoppix or Morphix and they are usually bundled with a PC magazine.

Post by **CPT Worm** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:04 pm

I use Mac OS X and I love it. And I've been using PCs all my life.

I had an IBM with Windows 3.1 back in the day. It had a few fun DOS programs....I didn't know what I was doing, but eh, I had fun on it.

Then I got a Packard Bell with Windows 95. It was okay....I later put 98SE on it (with a bad disc, so it didn't work to well). It ran much quicker, but it had problems because not everything was properly installed.

Now, I have an eMachine with XP Home at my house. It blows hardcore. I hate it so much. I've turned off sounds and transparency and the like, and it still clunks around with AIM and Firefox open.

What I want to do is get a G5 iMac and emulate 98SE on it. I'd have the best of both worlds. <3

Cakephatt · Post by **Cakephatt** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:07 pm

I used to have a Mac - it sucked. It was alright with load times and speed and compatability and everything, but it didn't run half of my software. I would probably still have a Mac if it ran my software. I started out with a Windows 95, which was great because it was really easy to tweak and screw around with, although it did suck with a regular pentium. I think I just really like it because it was my first version of Windows. I never go to try windows 98SE but I did know some people who had it and they said it was alot better than Windows 95 and 2000. I hated 2000, but that was only because my computer was packed full of adware and spyware and I never got around to deleting it. I now run Windows XP and it is just fine for me. I think I will just stay with that right now. I would rather sit alone, play X-com and MOO on my old, old pentium 95.

DOS Games Discussion

Windows is the Lowest of lows in terms of operating systems

What windows do you have?

Windows is the Lowest of lows in terms of operating systems

Re: Windows is the Lowest of lows in terms of operating syst