[Site Home] [Forum Home] [Articles] [File DB] [News Archives]
Software and Hardware -> Windows XP sucks!
(View original topic)
| wtd - Oct-22-2004 server time |
| Well... duh! 15K RPM SCSI drives are insanely expensive anywhere, and for all but a very select few they're completely unnecessary. A tip: use a RAID array of ATA or SATA drives. If they're parallel ATA, put each on its own channel. Add a PCI IDE controller if you have to. The bandwidth is wonderful. As for software availability, what software do you need? There's a good chance you're just poorly informed about the software availability with other operating systems.  |
| Furball - Oct-21-2004 server time | ||
I would use a real operating system. But all the good software doesn't work for the other operating systems. Technicians don't know how to fix comps with a different OS and all the software for it is either miles away from where I live OR it's too expensive. Windows sucks, but the service packs suck more |
| Furball - Oct-21-2004 server time |
| Next year hopefully. Probably going to go to Hamilton. |
| Red Squirrel - Oct-21-2004 server time |
When are you moving?  |
| Furball - Oct-21-2004 server time |
Well thank God I'm moving down south then. I'll get some good deals  |
| Red Squirrel - Oct-21-2004 server time |
| Well south of Canada is not too bad, like Toronto, Ottawa etc... but up here in the north prices are insane. I saw a HDD for 30 bucks on an american site, so that would be about 50 Canadian... it was a SCSI!!! A SCSI drive here is about 200 bucks, they go past 300 in the 50GB range, even more crazy if you want 15,000rpm. That's based on wholesale, so if I was to go in a store (I doubt they even sell SCSIs here though) it would be way more expensive. |
| wtd - Oct-21-2004 server time | ||
Really... where would that be? Because Australia gets screwed the worst on electronics prices, and Apple stuff is only ever about twice as much there. |
| Red Squirrel - Oct-21-2004 server time |
| Yeah it's WAY faster. I find XP to be so bloody slow, even on a clean computer free of spyware and other junk. Getting rid of the fisher price interface speeds things up allot though. |
| sintekk - Oct-21-2004 server time |
 I can see how you can misinterpret it  Actually, it's probably just as vulnerable as windows XP is, but if you use Firefox, you don't worry bout nothing Besides, W2003 is more optimized and runs faster (look up some benchmarks on the interweb) |
| Fuzzy_Fox - Oct-21-2004 server time | ||
Well, maybe it's too early in the morning for me, but it almost sounded like they said do more with less security, reliability and so on  .I've went at the update, I can't remember the last time I did it though. |
| Red Squirrel - Oct-21-2004 server time |
Wow stuff that's over 100 bucks in the US is usually over 1000 here.  So yep, they're expensive.  |
| wtd - Oct-20-2004 server time | ||
eMacs run around $799 USD, but you can get them for ~$649USD with educational discount. The iMac is really the great value, though. A G5 and a beautiful widescreen 17" LCD for $1299USD is a bargain. iBooks are a killer value too. A 12" notebook from any other manufacturer would be at least $1300USD, with no optical drive and integrated graphics. The iBook starts at $999. |
| sintekk - Oct-20-2004 server time | ||
1. Yes, the cost of the Mac is prohibitive in my opinion. Plus, parts for them (the ones that are interchangeable) tend to be more expensive than their pc counterparts (For instance, the Radeon 9800 pro for Mac is 349, while you can get it for the PC for 198 dollars). 2. They are less interchangeable, but that's a plus for them; you can't possible screw things up with the hardware and there are less compatibility issues with the mac than the pc. (Course, there's less software too ) |
| Red Squirrel - Oct-20-2004 server time |
| Arn't macs like super expensive though? And they're less interchangable then PCs, like you can't just "add a new cpu" since everything is built in. Or am I wrong? I never worked with a mac, let alone open one so I may be completly wrong... Macs are nice for graphic-related stuff though, and I would not mind getting one simply for that, if I could afford it, and have the room for it. |
| wtd - Oct-20-2004 server time | ||
The cost isn't any higher if you compare equivalent Macs and AMD/Intel-based PCs. |
| Red Squirrel - Oct-20-2004 server time |
| Wine on linux only works with some programs though, that's the problem. I heard of VMware though but you have to pay for it. I think in a way it's good that linux is not the "standard desktop OS" because if it was, I can guarantee they'd all be charging for it, that's what red hat did, and I'm sure slackware and all the other distros would decide to do the same, then next thing you know they'd even be charging for the linux core itself. But now less people are using it so they know they won't make that much money if they charge for it. I'm happy with my win2k anyway. If long horn is like what I hear, I'll be using win2k for a very long time. |
| sintekk - Oct-20-2004 server time | ||
Bah, Macs are fine I can do my computer work on either a Mac or PC (Dreamweaver and Photoshop work), it's just a shame that more games aren't natively supported and the cost is so high. |
| sintekk - Oct-20-2004 server time |
| I'm personally satisfied with my Windows experience, but I've heard nothing but good things about the G4 and WINE-X (cedega)for games. Only grumbling I've heard from my Mac buds is the price of the computer and Cedega (you have to pay a monthly fee). |
| wtd - Oct-20-2004 server time | ||
DOS wasn't an operating system at all. It was an interrupt handler. Basically a slight candy coating over BIOS. With WINE and Crossover Office (there's a small fee for licensing this one) you can use those applications. Apple's machines are more computer than anything that runs Windows. |
| Red Squirrel - Oct-20-2004 server time |
| Like dos? I'd switch to linux in a heart beat if Photoshop, autocad, 100% msoffice compatible suite, ease of install/uninstall etc... would be available. In my opinion, Linux is for servers only. Mac, well I don't really consider those computers. They're computers in the same sense as a cell phone is a computer. |
| wtd - Oct-20-2004 server time |
| Errmmm... instead of complaining about Windows, why not just use a real operating system? |
| sintekk - Oct-20-2004 server time | ||
|
| Wren - Oct-20-2004 server time |
| Fuzzy Fox, you might try going to Windows Update from the start menu...it should scan for any updates you may need. |
| Fuzzy_Fox - Oct-20-2004 server time |
That would explain why I've never heard of Windows 2003  ...... .Does ME even have any Service Packs? I never seem to hear about them. Maybe it's one of the things I just get without thinking with the Windows install reminder thingy. |
| sintekk - Oct-19-2004 server time |
| People only make a big noise over bad things, that's why you never hear complaints about 2k and 2k3 (I'm all smilies about 2k3 ) |
| Red Squirrel - Oct-19-2004 server time |
| Makes me happier I use win2k, umm with service pack 4!!! LOL I wonder why though that there was hardly any hype over win2k service packs and no one ever had problems, at least not as big as XP. In fact, all the exploits you hear of only affect XP in most cases. Kinda funny. If MS was smart their next OS would be win2k based more then XP based. |
| Furball - Oct-19-2004 server time |
| I have deleted SP2 from my system. Here are the reasons why I believe that WINDOWS XP SERVICE PACK 2, is 10x worse than the whole Windows ME thing. 1) Whevenever I booted up, I got 4 conseuitive error popups. MSV and FIREDAEMON popups came up twice (What bs) 2) Anything transfered in MSN went at 1 mb/ 2 sec. This was not my ISP's fault. Although crappy as it is, I blame SP2 (It's just easier) 3) IE really peed off the seat on this one. Anything that had to be downloaded, would give me an error message and immediately SHUT DOWN IE. What a blow. 4) The firewall is probably the worse innovation in windows history (In my opinion of course). It seemed to be active when it was turned off. Wtf? I dunno, maybe it's just me, but that firewall has given me sooo many problems. 5) CONTROL PANEL AND WINDOWS EXPLORER gave me a big error message and shut down automatically, then, after about a minute, I was able to get into them. If I tried to open them before that, super freeze, and my whole OS crashes (Nothing new in windows, just a real pain) So accept the obvious and look at your options. DO NOT INSTALL SERVICE PACK 2!!! |
| Red Squirrel - Oct-19-2004 server time |
| Haha true. |
| sintekk - Oct-19-2004 server time |
| It is NOT NT based. Still 95 core. Nothing NT based can be that horrible |
| Red Squirrel - Oct-19-2004 server time |
| Basically ME was a worthless attempt at putting NT into windows 98, at least I think it's NT based... I've only worked on a few systems that had it. (thankfully ) |
| sintekk - Oct-19-2004 server time |
| ME was quite a big step down from 98. System Recovery sucked and it made many of my games (designed for w98) incompatible with my system. |
| Furball - Oct-19-2004 server time |
| oh don't worry Fox, I wasn't dissing you. I was dissing MICROSOFT. Because ME was one of the buggiest OS's yet (Mind you SP2 is pretty buggy as well). However, I also disliked Windows NT. About HALF THE SOFTWARE AVAILABLE works for all windows EXCEPT NT. |
| Fuzzy_Fox - Oct-19-2004 server time |
| Ignoring Furball's comment about ME.... I thought XP was supposed to be so much better. And since we're talking about ME (hehe...me), my Windows ME seems to work very well, especially considering all the junk that I have removed yet. Like the ROM folder. The one that freezes on entry lol. |
| sintekk - Oct-19-2004 server time |
| The Longhorn Beta isn't much different than XP so far |
| Red Squirrel - Oct-18-2004 server time |
| Yeah this one has SP2 installed... probably why there's so many problems. Everything is fixed now, the only thing is that it's freaken slow! It's like windows 98 on a 486. I click a menu, it has to "draw" itself and takes like a few seconds before I even see the icons, etc... everything is just so slow. So I'm doing a defrag now. That's another thing, xp makes it harder to do scandisk and defrag, you can't just type it in the run bar anymore, though I think it's been like that since ME, since I know that does not work in win2k either. I can't wait to see windows long horn. Man if they took the same path as XP path while making that it will be one heck of a crappy operating system. One thing for sure I'll never let XP touch my system. It's scarry enough seeing it on a compaq. |
| sintekk - Oct-18-2004 server time |
| Well, the firewall is decent for n0o0obee users, I guess, that don't care for maximising their resources, it does a better job than no firewall, but on all the XP Computers I use, I opted not to install sp 2. |
| Furball - Oct-18-2004 server time |
| Whatever you do, do not downlaod Service Pack 2. It's worse than the previously released ME (Malfunction Edition). I installed it on my new comp and I get crummy errors ALL the time. What a pain. There is such thing as TOO much protection. Then again, there's such thing as RESOURCE HOGGING as well. Who's ever gonna use that firewall?! |
| sintekk - Oct-18-2004 server time |
| You should get the W2003 Trial ISO Red, and, *ahem*, make it a full version It's much faster than XP and more stable. Of course, you need to disable services and tweak the registry to get the full potential, but there is plenty of guides for this. |
| Wren - Oct-18-2004 server time |
| I've always had, "My Computer" and Recycle Bin" after loading XP. I also use the free version of Zone Alarm and on a port scan, my pc is stealthed. Xp is a resource hog, so unless you have memory to spare, you'll need to tweak services. There's a lot of programs set to run on startup, that are not needed. |
| Red Squirrel - Oct-18-2004 server time |
| It was actually already installed, but is now clean of spyware and I'm just finalizing the clean process. But that's the thing with XP, it goes down hard on spyware compared to win98, 2k, or even 95. I managed to get the recycle bin back, but that's the thing with XP, by default all that stuff is not there, which is pretty stupid if you ask me, especially things like "my computer" which is widely used. I probably can't install that firewall either because that's probably what made it crash. So it will be stuck with a less good firewall like zone alarm, or worse yet, the built in one. Doing a virus scan now, but it takes bloody ages to do anything in XP. I speeded things up a bit by getting rid of the fisher price theme though. That eats up all the resources. |
| Chris Vogel - Oct-18-2004 server time |
| XP Home has been a very good operating system for me, although I must admit that I would pick Windows 2000 over it. |
| Wren - Oct-18-2004 server time |
| Red, did you put XP on that pc? Sounds like a bad install if you have no, "My Computer" or "Recycle Bin". I've run XP for a few years and never had a problem that I didn't cause. When you get into a spyware ridden machine, all kinds of things can go wrong trying to get it cleaned up.  |
| Red Squirrel - Oct-18-2004 server time |
| The more I use it, the more I hate it! I actually like troubleshooting win98 problems better. Windows XP is so freaken fragile, it crashes to anything. For example I had a system full of spyware and crap, so I delete it all, reboot, all is fine. Then I do a port scan on the machine to test security, a bunch of ports were open so I installed a firewall and disabled the XP one... bang, next reboot it just crashes with a BSOD and I have to go to the next restore point. Sure restore points are a good XP feature, but in win2k or any other OS, you just DON'T NEED it! It won't crash for no reason! Not to mention XP installatiosn varry SO MUCH it's unpredicable what you're going to get. In this particular PC, there's no recycle bin whatsoever (well c:\recycler, but not very fun to dig through, and that's if you can even GET to C, because half of the time there's no "my computer" so you need to type the path in run, if it's there) And I've meantion this many times, and I'll mention it again, it has a HORRIBLE default user interface and requires tons of tweaking to get it to actually be somewhat usable. Also, it's just not fit for computer newbies, everything is just so much harder to do in XP, you're better off with linux as a newbie, if say, compatibility with other programs is not an issue (for a newbie that never used any programs). Bah, rant ended. Use win2k! Hmm I should write an article on how much I hate XP, I'll probably get tons of flames though but it's still traffic. |
(Showing 50 last posts, newest on top)