What is Digg?143 Comments
- pseudojd, on 10/12/2007, -16/+82judging what vista feels/ looks like I will be speding a few more years with XP.
- clinko, on 10/12/2007, -4/+55If you have time, you use linux.
If you have money, you use a mac.
If you have a girlfriend, you have no money or time.
I use a PC. - jboi, on 10/12/2007, -11/+47Weird article.
It starts by telling that windows XP is bad, because of the registry, bad 3th party drivers & bad 3th party installers?! Never had real problems with this.
XP was a huge improvement compared to windows 2000 & windows 98/me.
The main problem with XP is, that it has such a huge user base, that it can't afford any ***** ups. This means development and changes are slow towards the core of the OS.
The main flaw in windows computing today, is the lack of decent software, lack of standardization of software interfaces & communication between other devices. Most issues windows has today (and any other OS) is because of the market. Hardware vendors are making a mess of everything. So are software vendors. All to protect there own market share. - pseudojd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32MS activation disabler on my legit copy of xp = someone getting stabbed in the eye.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36Apple can afford to dump old code. Apple can do something new and cool and it's easy for them to replace any users they lose to the change (Apple could replace 25% of their user base by capturing an additional 1% of the total market).
Microsoft has a huge corporate base and they're not too fond of change. Look at the new Microsoft Office--it features a radically redesigned interface that most say is immensely better, but every thread that talks about it contains a dozen Microsoft users complaining until they're blue in the face because it's different.
At some point Microsoft will probably have to completely abandon their code base, but they're going to put it off as long as they can. That's what their big customers demand. Microsoft's and Apple's user base is just DIFFERENT. - RandomGuySteve, on 10/12/2007, -15/+40"real computing experience?" It sounds like your ideal of a real computing experience is spending thousands upon thousands of dollars.
Which makes you the perfect Mac Zealot. Quick, go buy another 400 dollar ipod before yours becomes obsolete! - LordofShadows, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28I dont think I would consider XP a leap ahead of windows 2000, but this article seems like a pretty hard mindless rant on windows xp.
- MoneyShot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22WinNT 4.0 lasted a lot longer than 3 years. Corporations were still buying it up until mid-2003 when MS finally axed OEM sales. You'd be surprised on how much it's still used; very popular in kiosk-type systems that are halfway between an embedded system and a PC.
- camkerr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22We ran '95 on the computers in my highschool for 10 years. We had a birthday party, there was cake.
- deeznuts69, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22I'm certainly no MS fanboy but for the past 5 years XP has been a very solid OS for me. I have gone as long as 30 days without a restart, running Photoshop, Illustrator and more the whole time. Never in my experience with XP have I encountered a blue screen of death. The only problems I've seen are with inexperienced users installing every scam spyware malware program.
- wibblewibble, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21You obviously know jack ***** about activation and so busy being paranoid so here is the clue.. http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_faq.mspx
Will Microsoft use activation to force me to upgrade? In other words, will Microsoft ever stop giving out activation codes for any of the products that require activation?
No, Microsoft will not use activation as a tool to force people to upgrade. Activation is merely an anti-piracy tool, nothing else.
Microsoft will also support the activation of Windows XP throughout its life and will likely provide an update that turns activation off at the end of the product's lifecycle so users would no longer be required to activate the product. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20There one point I don't think anyone can argue with:
Windows XP was the best Windows OS to date (with the exception of 2k).
It's just about as stable as 2k, and more compatible.
Some of the UI updates are obnoxious, but you can disable most of them (I use 'classic' mode on all my windows boxes).
The "Forced Upgrade" claim is spurious -- there are still thousands of PCs out there running windows 2k and 9x. Of course you can't buy windows 98 now -- that doesn't mean that you have to do anything to your existing 98 installations. - ArmandoM, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20If they tried to disable everyone's legitimate copies of Windows XP I believe they would be opening themselves to one hell of a class action lawsuit.
Ending support for a product is one thing. Taking the product that you paid for away from you and just saying "you can't use this, even though you paid for it" is another. - ornellasm, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26Just because the comment isn't fair doesn't mean its not true. Though XP might have been a "forced" upgrade and given a lot more time on the market, still does not mean it was the most successful release ever.
- redxii, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"Software that looks ugly can work ugly, and XP has been too forgiving of that as well. The operating system has done little to ensure that programs move in and move out in an orderly manner; they can throw supporting files and data all over the hard drive, then leave the junk behind when software is uninstalled. As a result, something that should have been fixed in Win 95 -- the way Windows slowly chokes on the leftovers of old programs -- remains a problem."
The installer/uninstaller only does what the person who made the program tells it to do... throwing files all over the hard drive and leaving them there is the will of the developer of that program.. - kendra, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I don't think I've ever had a problem with Windows XP, had a few problems with 2000 which were mostly hardware related, but it's fine.
If I knew what I know now, I'd probably have installed it five years ago, rather than waiting for a year. - ArmandoM, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Yeah...I've managed to keep my job for almost years administering a couple thousand windows machines by knowing jack ***** about how they work.
Microsoft still considers copying Windows 95 without paying for it piracy, even though it's way beyond it's life cycle. In 10 or 15 years they'll still consider copying Windows XP without a valid license piracy. And you said it yourself, activation is an anti-piracy tool.
If they really release us from the activation requirement, I'll be first in line to cheer. But Bill Gates could tell me in person that they're going to do it, and I'll still believe it when I see it happen.
And btw, I'm not so busy being paranoid, it's that I'm spending too much time trying to decipher cryptic posts and match up what someone says with what they really meant to say.
Patiently waiting for your next insult.... - Rikkochet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Can you cite a source for that disabler? That sounds absurd.
- MagisterJoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Precisely. He's saying that Windows shouldn't allow a program to throw its files wherever it wants. He understands that's not MS's decision as to where files go, but that Windows should formalize and restrict the install process more.
- thefinger, on 10/12/2007, -19/+30MS hatred = penis envy for the 21st century
- fallenone05, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19I am a little tired of the same old windows/apple bashing so on this ocassion, instead of making a statement that will only be dugg by those who agree with me, and digged down by the rest, I just want to take a different spin on this subject: ***** YOU ALL! thank you.
- airniqueel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I think its sort of unfair to completely blame Microsoft. I still blame many of those other large corporations that couldn't make a flawless piece of software. This would include all those companies with poorly written drivers and bloated software. If many companies stuck to perfecting their code prior to release, I'm sure many people would experience fewer problems with Windows. In fact, Windows crashes due to the faults of other software, so in a way, it's also the fault of those companies just as much as it is Microsoft's. My two cents.
By the way, I use Linux happily :) So no, I'm not a defender of Microsoft, but I do believe in fairly spreading the blame across the table. - redxii, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11So your issue is not with Windows, but with Foxit and Acrobat?
- ArmandoM, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14I'll get a clue when you start making what you're talking about clear.
As for disabling the activation requirement, I'll believe it when I see it. - forgiste, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12...3th?!
I think it's 3rd... - sp3ctrecs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Thank you for picking that up. Didn't anyone notice that most of the problems mentioned in that article were because of 3rd party software? I mean, XP has its faults, but most of what people consider when they say "XP sucks" is the problems that OTHER people's software produce. If you know how to take good care of your system, then you won't run into these problems. Don't install shady homebrewn drivers, don't install crapware like kazaa, don't use IE. Its simple. XP was a huge step up from 9x in terms of setting things up like networking, multimonitors, etc. I'll take XP over 9x any day and I'll at least try Vista when it's mature enough to be my main OS before dismissing it off because of its beta releases.
- alwaysmc2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"It's never about the stupid users."
Like the ones who think User Account Controll and the Windows Firewall anoying, so they turn them off.
I have no sympathy for those people. - dw2005, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"(Note, also, what Microsoft never thought to include in XP: anti-virus software and a capable backup utility.)"
1.) Start >> Accessories >> System Tools >> Backup >> Advanced mode
2.) If Microsoft included an Antivirus they would be sued through for AntiTrust violation. - RandomGuySteve, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17You're not arguing for or against anything. And there's a 60 gig video ipod that costs $399. But you know what, you enjoy your mac experiences. I'll be doing real work.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Of course we're celebrating... by switching to Linux or Vista.
- frequencyone, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Bravo!
- psylence, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19"That raises a scary thought: What's the ugly flaw in Windows Vista that people will be screaming about in 2010, but is escaping people's attention right now?"
The exact same problem that was in 95, 98, ME, 2000 and XP. Security. - adiggtion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Some depressing news - also a previously submitted digg. The MacOS only barely managed to beat out Windows ME, arguably the worst OS release in computing history.
Link:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Owns-96-97-of-Global-OS-Market-33363.shtml - oriondr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Once I got rid of the candy wrapper on Windows XP (the fisher-price look), it became my favorite operating system.
The obvious shortcomings to me are it could be more stable, and it could be more secure. I would also love if it was a bit lighter in both primary and secondary memory. - devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Well, I'll celebrate it. XP has been pretty good to me... just like 98/ME, 95 and 3.1 before it. I take care of it, and it takes care of me. I've had macs too in every OS since 6 and I value all of them.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@OBKenobi
XP is the successor to the NT family, which was developed by the team that design VMS. It has very little to do with Win98 except for compatibility. Apple had to start over after OS 9 because it was junk obsolete software. - darrin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9So, if I use Linux and mac..and have a girlfriend, do I win a PC?
- noGoodNamesLeft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7turgor: "95 had 2 years, 98 was released in 97"
No, Windows 98 was officially released in mid-1998. HOWEVER... there were several updated/enhanced releases of Windows 95 which were only available (for some reason) as OEM versions. These were actually far closer to 98 than they were to the original release of 95. Windows 98 however was the first time they were available in the retail version. Why? Don't know.
"98 had 2 years, 98 released in 97, 98se released in 98, Me released in 99
Me had 2 years. WinNT had 3 years 96-99. Win2000 had 2 years"
Yeah, but that's marketing names. I mean, 95 was really "new" compared to the MS-DOS/3.1 combo (even if much of the old version remained under the surface). 98 included quite a lot of changes, but was still essentially just an improved 95 (see above). ME wasn't really new either; strikes me that they released that because they wanted a "new" version of Windows out, and they hadn't managed to migrate the home version of Windows to the NT/2000 base as intended that time round.
Windows 2000 (AKA NT 5.0) was new.... as for Windows XP. Well, although that's technically only NT 5.1, it successfully moved the home/low-end market to an NT-based product and improved its capabilities in that area.
I get the impression that whilst Vista was originally intended as a genuine next-generation version of Windows with lots of cutting edge technology, this has been cut back so much that it's more going to be an evolution of XP / NT 5.1. - dgp1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Look, here's what's ridiculous about Windows' install and uninstall process:
You know some application "App A" is on your system--perhaps it's stealing your filetypes, perhaps it has a tray icon... You probably see a folder for it in Start/Programs... You decide you hate "App A" and want it gone.
In Windows, you are forced to go to the Control Panel, "Add or Remove Programs" (cute name since no one EVER EVER used that .cpl to ADD programs), and hunt for the program. If that entry has gotten damaged (happened to me tons of times), Windows will offer to remove that ENTRY thus leaving your damaged install.
You end up having to reinstall the program hoping that will fix the uninstall and hoping that it won't leave you with duplicate copies of crap in different places, and then you uninstall it.
On a Mac, you hate a program, you delete it. The program is right there in Applications unless you put it someplace else, and all its CRAP is inside it. Delete it and it's gone.
How can you say the Windows way is better?
If you do want to preserve most of the Win infrastructure, what you should do is the same as Windows does for installers who try to replace vital Windows DLLs with some kooky version from 1996--Windows smartly uses something called WinSxS (side-by-side) to let that app THINK it's replaced the DLL, keeps that kooky one on file, and directs that program to that DLL whenever it requests it.
Windows should do the same thing for ALL files an app (installer or runtime) tries to spew out--keep track of where the app thinks it's putting it, keep the files on file in the user's profile where they have the permissions to do so, direct the app's requests to those files when they need it, and have an OS-MANAGED uninstaller that would simply DELETE the app and all its crap in a single click. Uninstalls would only take 2 seconds and would completely obliterate the application. NO MORE remnants left behind. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7They're going to have to remove the activation requirement someday. It'd be dumb for them to keep staff on hand to support the activation process for decades on end.
There are still machines out there running DOS. And there'll be XP machines for a long time too -- especially since today's computers are more than "good enough" for many tasks: word processing, etc. - jonathansnook, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7This "article" seemed more like a rant, complaining more about 3rd party software than about the OS itself; complaining that XP should have more control over how and where applications install icons and the like. For me, XP has been a rock-solid OS, much like its sibling Windows 2000 (I say sibling since much of the codebase is the same).
I almost feel sorry for Microsoft. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. - sluggo916, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Come on. So Windows XP is 5 years old and needed some service packs. Every other operating system has been replaced several times. This guy just has an axe to grind against Microsoft. I haven't had a blue screen that wasn't related to a bad driver or a hardware failure since Windows 2000. And since Microsoft isn't responsible for either of those, I am happy. Linux is better in a lot of ways, but the ease of use and software availability is still in Windows favor.
- Lynn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I love XP. Great OS. Most stable I have used and yes I have used OSX and Linux. I like all 3 but I prefer XP. I get more done while using it.
- matts0344, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6At least it works on my computer, can't say the same thing for the current Linux kernel.
Windows XP is not as bad as people make it to be. It does 90% what I need it to do and it plays games great. - regeya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The current incarnation of Windows is pretty darn stable. It's the users who're such a problem...
...and this is coming from a Kubuntu Linux and OS X user. I don't deal with Windows machines unless there's a problem, which is rare, except when some bonehead screws something up. - MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Between Vista running IE7 in a special protected mode, and users not running as admin by default, IE7 will not be nearly the same security risk that IE6 was. ActiveX was a big problem, but now that Firefox is gaining marketshare, ActiveX is going to become less common.
Vista will be more secure. I'll even go as far as to say that it will be as secure as Linux and Mac. Vista will still suffer from more exploits than the alternatives, however, because Vista's marketshare will make it a big target, like XP was. There will still be some exploits, maybe a few will be serious, but there won't be nearly the same problems as XP had. - skizatch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This guy got paid to write this article? It's complete trash. Must be a very slow news week.
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Wow...this article is total *****. Is the author getting paid by Apple or something?
XP beats the ***** out of Apple in terms of functionality, in terms of adaptability, in terms of compatibility, in terms of stability, and in terms of price.
Functionality:
Office, programming, games, networking, media editing, publishing...everything you can do on a Mac, but more...
Adaptability and Compatibility:
Hundreds of thousands of usuable hardware and software configurations, device drivers, etc. That doesn't even include USB products.
Stability:
Companies can actually run servers on XP, but not on a Mac (Server 2003 uses the same codebase as XP). Why? Because XP is more stable; when programs crash, they don't take down the entire computer, they only take out the program.
Price: $129 once in 5 years with 2 free service pack upgrades for the OS and free SPs for all major MS products versus versus $100/yearly for minor upgrades to the Mac OS and some of the major Mac programs...but not all. That doesn't even take into account the hardware price comparison.
Really, all in all, i can live with having an ugly OS if it means I can do more for less money. - alwaysmc2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4...That can be turned off if you don't want it.
However, all of the animations mean something, and they look good, so I keep them on. - Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And I'm calling idiocy on your statement, OBKenobi. BSODs don't happen on XP unless you have hardware issues or advanced malware problems where the thing's hijacked your .dlls, and the're nothing for the OS to run in a particular situation.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 142 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is