Uncreative Labs

Guest

Heres what I hate about it.

1. Internet Explorer
2. Product Activation

What do you hate about it?

Joined: 22 Oct 2005 Posts: 61 Location: sunny AZ

I love windows. I use older versions tht dno't have pa, and I dont' use planet exploder, so there's really nothing to hate.

unless of course you actually paid money for it.

Joined: 19 Oct 2004 Posts: 138 Location: Lynnwood,WA

Wndows....depends on the version....though this is more of a view of what's bad about all of them, rather than what I hate about them.....

Windows XP
-The default user interface "Windoze Fisher Price"
-The Program Bloat due to said user interface amongst other things
-Vulnerability due to undiscovered bugs, and the undiscovered bugs themselves
-The minimum system requirements (all because of the pretty menus)
-Product Activation.....GRRRRR, so I have to call Microsoft everytime I upgrade a bunch of parts.....f*** that!
-IE 6 Is bundled in

Windows 2000 Professional
-The inability for some Windows 9x games and DOS programs to work with it
-That annoying USB "unplug" manager feature, "hot-swap" my eye!
-Bundled IE 5

Windows ME
-The instability of the operating system from too much bloat to make it like NT
-Bundled IE 5
-The bloat itself, who really needs a version of 98 prettied up to instability
-The removal of the "restart in MS-DOS mode" feature to tell us "DOS Is Dead"

Windows 98/98 SE
-Bundled IE 4/5 (I'd rather use Mozilla and cut out that one useless, uneeded resouce)
-The memory and speed limits of the O/S (yep, I might have to dump it soon for XP/2000/vista b/c if I upgrade to anything faster 98 WON'T RUN).

Windows 95
-Windows Explorer, the neverending crash upon execution
-Bundling of IE 4 in Windows 95B
-The Instability issues lying therein

Windows 3.1/3.11/For Workgroups
-General Protection Faults
-Multi-Media Limitations
-Finding good graphics cards/drivers for 486 and better systems
-Microsoft removed safe/real mode support

Windows 3.0
-My 360K Diskettes going bad one by one
-Chintzy Mouse Support
-No simple upgrade to 3.1
-No Web Browser Availible (even IE!!)
-the general uselessness of it for anything outside office use

Windows 2.xx
-Woohoo, 16 colors.......no SVGA capabilities
-B&W Paintbrush program
-Ditto, no Browsers for the web
-The funny effect of running the system out of resources till the Icons go black
-Lack of Games
-Even less Support
-Requires that you have the setup disk in Drive A: during installation, no other default drives availible.

Windows 1.xx
-Non-Layered Windows
-B&W paint once again
-No Games or Software known to be written for it by me
-Nada support
-Tricky to Configure
-Requires that you have the setup disk in Drive A: during installation, no other default drives availible.
-Getting this to install on an XT clone reliably is like trying to get Fat Albert down a Chimney

Yep, I've used all these versions of Windows before, with my personal faves being 98 SE and 3.11 for Workgroups.

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:40 am

Most my hates of Windows were fixed by switching to the NT-based versions of Windows. I haven't seen one computer GUI I've really liked, so I just stick to the Windows 9x look and not "bubbles" like I call the original scheme. I wish they'd get rid of "bubbles" permanently.

One major complaint has been useful things are being hidden deeper and deeper and wizard-ized. Wizards are just fine for installing programs, but once you get done with that, don't make me use them.

The other thing is Windows needs to be rebuilt from the ground up without compatibility code written in. If your program breaks, you should have written it better. Programmers /must/ write good programs for the /users/ and they're too /stupid/ to use them safely.

A neat thing that seems to be built in to Vista (Longhorn--a name I liked better) is the Principal of Least Authority idea. Programs wouldn't immediately have the ability to access your disk at random just by being written, they'd have to ask for it.

Joined: 03 Oct 2004 Posts: 24 Location: Finland

Windows XP:

- Don't really like the layout.
- Bloat
- Programs in the Uninstall menu kept disappearing... (not the programs themselves, just the icons in the uninstall menu)

Windows 2000:

Nothing bad to say about this one. I love this OS Smile

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:51 pm

creepingnet wrote:

Windows 98/98 SE
- ....
-The memory and speed limits of the O/S (yep, I might have to dump it soon for XP/2000/vista b/c if I upgrade to anything faster 98 WON'T RUN).

This is a new one on me. I thought Windows 98 would run on anything 486DX 66mHZ or better. Your saying it won't run on a new pentium 4 or athlon 64? I figure the OS wouldn't take advantage of features such as hyperthreading or dual core. But your saying too much speed is a bad thing. How is this so when it comes to Windows 98?

Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 594 Location: Western NC

Yep, you can run (or crawl) Win98 with a 486DX66 and 24MB of RAM , but I seem to recall that there's a speed limitation at 2.4GHz before you start getting errors. Also, it won't utilize more than 512MB of RAM without some "tweaks". Never had to worry about either with the Celery600 and 192MB...

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:04 pm

I had no end of problems with FAT32, a 120 gig hard drive and Windows 98. After I upgraded to Server 2003, the problems all went away and I've not lost any data since.

Joined: 22 Oct 2005 Posts: 61 Location: sunny AZ

do you think the problem is with fat32, or the win98 implementation of it? maybe having small partitions helps?

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:27 am

jforb wrote:

do you think the problem is with fat32, or the win98 implementation of it? maybe having small partitions helps?

The Win98 implementation of it was likely the cause. Theoretically FAT32 should be able to handle up to 2 TB, but Win98 won't. It may not have been too happy with swtiching back and forth between Linux and Windows either.

Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 377 Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Puckdropper wrote:

The other thing is Windows needs to be rebuilt from the ground up without compatibility code written in. If your program breaks, you should have written it better. Programmers /must/ write good programs for the /users/ and they're too /stupid/ to use them safely.

That's exactly what Vista is goi´ng to be I believe.

And about those Windows 98 resource limitations: Windows ME has them as well. It refuses to boot with 640MB of RAM, goes really slow with 512MB of RAM and goes fastest with 256MB of RAM at least in my experience.
I don't like the Product Activation in Windows Server 2003 and the default style in XP but other than tht I don't have too many problem with Windows.

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:21 am

Windows 95, 98 and XP are bothersome to begin with but after learning and finding tweaks etc. one can get them to behave reasonably well.

Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:12 am

I have found every version of Windows to be a compromise. There's at least one thing I dislike about every version:

Windows XP:
Default "Bozo the clown" theme, Start menu organization.
Internet Explorer over-over-integrated and difficult to remove.
Windows Media Player becomes obnoxious (and where's the normal CD Player?)
Product activation.
Too much frivolous eye candy (Animations, stylized toolbars, etc.)
Hides things it doesn't want you to see by default.
Primary focus of security exploits.
"Will my temperamental 16-bit wave editor work properly?" concerns, especially with SP2.
Shell interface is infuriating to use.

Windows 2000:
Internet Explorer over-integrated and difficult to remove.
Too much frivolous eye candy (Animations, stylized toolbars, etc.)
Primary focus of security exploits.
Hides things it doesn't want you to see by default.
"Will my temperamental 16-bit wave editor work properly?" concerns.
Shell interface is infuriating to use.

Windows NT 4.0:
No FAT32 support.
Internet Explorer bundled (though not nearly as much so as in later versions).
Not good for DOS and DirectX games.
"Will my temperamental 16-bit wave editor work properly?" concerns.
Potential to "kill" the OS with incorrect drivers.
Hard to run on new hardware*

Windows ME:
Internet Explorer over-integrated and difficult to remove.
Too much frivolous eye candy (Animations, stylized toolbars, etc.)
Hides things it doesn't want you to see by default.
Maddeningly buggy and unstable.
Reduced backwards-compatibility with no boot-to-DOS option by default.
Shell interface is infuriating to use.
Hard to run on new hardware*

Windows 98:
Internet Explorer over-integrated and difficult to remove.
Too much frivolous eye candy (Animations, stylized toolbars, etc.)
Original release is much too buggy.
Shell interface is infuriating to use.
Hard to run on new hardware*

Windows 95b/c:
OEM-only release.
Internet Explorer bundled (though not nearly as much so as in later versions).
Hard to run on new hardware*
I get ridiculed in some circles for using and preferring it to later versions. Sad

Windows 95 original release and a:
No FAT32 support.
Can be too buggy and unstable.
Hard to run on new hardware*

Windows 3.1:
Unstable; system resources drain too fast; you don't want to run more than one large app at once.
A pain to get online; no vaguely modern web browsers available.
Shell interface is not very versatile.
Can be frustrating to track down and configure hardware drivers.
Hard to run on new hardware*

*unavailable driver, speed concerns.

I'll choose not to comment on other versions since I haven't used them extensively and, in the case of 3.0 and under, they're not very useful anyway IMO.

Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 377 Location: Stuttgart, Germany

I don't think Windows 2000 has too much eye candy. Maybe if you compare it to DOS, but compared to stuff like Windows XP, 2k really doesn't have a whole lot of eye candy stuff. I agree that the Windows XP default theme sucks.
But then you have to keep in mind that the XP OS wasn't designed for geeks or computer enthusiasts, it was primarily designed for novice computer users and inexperienced users. Those are the kind of people that will like the new interface with all the wizards etc and with all the harmful ( harmful if used the wrong way ) stuff disabled by default.
Although there's one advantage Windows XP has over every other Windows version so far. It's called 'Shared Computer Toolkit'. That's a freeware app from M$ ( yes u heard right Wink

) which locks the computer down pretty good, given it runs Windows XP. You can disable various items in the start menu, the installing of applications by regular users and even the right click menu! That thing is awesome for computers that are (ab)used fpr example in schools were all those want-to-be hackers are always trying to break the OS. The Shared Computer Toolkit doesn't completely stop them BUT it makes breaking the OS a lot harder ....
Just my 2ct.

Joined: 22 Oct 2005 Posts: 61 Location: sunny AZ

There isn't much you have to disable in 2000 to make it look ok. I think there are maybe a dozen things I have to change when I set up a system....mouse pointer shadow, turn off transition effects, set windows explore to classic (and rename the shortcut "file manager" and use the old file cabinet icon), change the icons on the desktop to the old style, set the view in file manager to "details" instead of icons, that's about it. And turn off a few services.