windoze sucks

sam70001 · Post by **sam70001** » 2003-07-03 02:16

Just scam after scam, performance getting worse and worse. Micros$ft seem to be very good at making people upgrade unneccessarily! <---- using windows98 and Me. I am very pleased. WinXP = more shit, more junk that you don't need. I just want to play divx files goddamnit, don't need bloatware. It seem that every thing that I do is only half as fast as Win9x or Me. Me is great because it never crashes unless your hardware is flawed, which I have found out xp crashes as well. Me boot faster, and it take only 3 sec to restart not 30 sec like xp. not to mention that winxp doesn't accept 9x driver so that's another drawback. Well folks what can't XP do that 9x,me can't? :roll:

why i choose me over 9x, me take only 30 sec or less to bootup where else 9x takes up to 2min to boot up. oh well, just because everyone uses xp doesn't mean it's best.

Sedulus · Post by **Sedulus** » 2003-07-03 02:33

xp is (like 2k) based on NT,
which is way more stable/reliable than 9x/me

9x/me suck in comparison to NT... NT is a lot more safe when it comes to memory management (i.e. doesn't allow (as easily) process X to corrupt process Y's memory)

yakko · Post by **yakko** » 2003-07-03 03:20

Here's something I dug up on Windows 98 from here:

9X can only efficiently use about 160 Mb. Anything over 256 will actually slow the system down in most cases. [ depending on the motherboard & BIOS ] When 98 first came out, most systems were running 32 to 64 Mb of memory & 128 to 256 sticks were in servers. It wasn't built to run large amounts of RAM like NT 4.0 / 2000 / XP was.

We've benchmarked 98 & 98SE with from 32 to 512 of memory & see a definate increase in performance up to the 160 mark. It drops off up to 192 & is about totally flat above 192. Anything that will grab & use anything from 192 & above will usually crash most 98 systems.

Besides the fact that you can't go months on end without rebooting, which you can do in XP. I also enjoy being able to play the latest games at a high resolution (1600x1200) with no slowdown and with about a dozen apps running in the background.

jbyrd · Post by **jbyrd** » 2003-07-03 12:42

I actually love XP. Not to say that there aren't better operating systems out there, but I find it's the best made by microsoft. :wink:

mai9 · Post by **mai9** » 2003-07-05 22:35

I love Win98

It automatically gives you a break every hour or so (guess how)

TheParanoidOne · Post by **TheParanoidOne** » 2003-07-05 23:59

A soothing blue screen, methinks. It's Microsoft's way of saying "You're working too hard. Go take a break."

sam70001 · Post by **sam70001** » 2003-07-06 20:57

What you guy saying is that win9x need little memory to operate efficiently, cool! I have most like 128mb and 256mb LOL and I believe that max is 512MB which is very fine as I don't think speding more $$$ just to crave XP's hunger justify any of that. XP is not faster, it not more stable, look nicer more feature you don't need. BTW I am not using 9x, ME is much more stable, when it crashes, it crashes hard but rarely does it happen maybe once a day at most and I been running for 48 hours no problem. Also you need to reboot at least once a day refresh memory etc, better stability. With XP you still need to reboot so, it isn't better. Just more of a pain and PLUS it harder to back up cause it 1.5GB instead of 750mb for winme. Took me 20 min to use Drive Image 5.0 to backup XP, with Me only 10 min. This is with Duron 1.3ghz btw, and my memory performance is like 1.5gb/sec using DDR 2100.
Not saying me is best OS but surely an alternative to XP and does a much better job at everything else cause uses less resources as well.
Until MircoShit can come up with something better then ME, or 2K, the upgrade is just smokes screen.
Heck win95 OSR2 is the best windows OS consuming only 100mb of HD space, btw win95 OSR1 consume only 50mb then win98 200mb, 98SE 350mb. ME 750mb, XP 1.5gb
Why less space is better? It's easier to backup and you don't have too much crap lottering around, jamming up your computer causing more lags, instability.

Post by **GargoyleMT** » 2003-07-06 22:23

Wow, how can anyone argue with all of that anecdotal evidence? Once again, you win Sam.

TheParanoidOne · Post by **TheParanoidOne** » 2003-07-06 22:40

sam70001 wrote:ME is much more stable

sam70001 wrote:when it crashes, it crashes hard but rarely does it happen maybe once a day at most and I been running for 48 hours no problem.

Where is the smily for "I'm laughing so much I'm crying"?

You think "only" one crash a day = stability? You are bragging about a 48 hour uptime? Oh you do make me laugh.

sam70001 wrote:Also you need to reboot at least once a day refresh memory etc, better stability.

No, you don't. A decent OS has proper memory management and will not leak memory by the gallon. You think Microsoft is shit, yet you have been drawn into the MS myth that computers "need" to be rebooted regularly, and that system crashes are also "normal".

sam70001 wrote:Until MircoShit can come up with something better then ME, or 2K, the upgrade is just smokes screen.

And why exactly would you be upgrading to another MS OS anyway, if you think they are so shit? You do realise that there are non-MS operating systems out there, don't you?

jbyrd · Post by **jbyrd** » 2003-07-06 23:01

I've been running XP for 4 weeks without restarting.

I would have to say that most problems are caused by bad RAM, poor components, etc. About two months ago I got 528MB of Crucial Micron RAM, and for some reason my computer didn't like it. I got some Samsung Xstreme, and it's been running flawless since.

there are non-MS operating systems out there, don't you?

Unfornunately, those other OSs don't run MS programs (or just a few). Lindows and the like are alternatives, but not equivalents.

TheParanoidOne · Post by **TheParanoidOne** » 2003-07-07 00:10

jbyrd wrote:Unfornunately, those other OSs don't run MS programs (or just a few). Lindows and the like are alternatives, but not equivalents.

He didn't mention any thing about wanting to be able to run MS apps. And shouldnt that be "those other OSs don't run Windows programs"?

Charalambos · Post by **Charalambos** » 2003-07-07 08:01

TheParanoidOne wrote:"those other OSs don't run Windows programs"?

Hehe.

Very funny and entertaining discussion though.

ME ist best. HA!
Even Windows 1.0 is more stable and more reliable.

There is so much i want to reply, but i lack of time.
Later...

jbyrd · Post by **jbyrd** » 2003-07-07 12:37

Paranoid wrote:He didn't mention any thing about wanting to be able to run MS apps. And shouldnt that be "those other OSs don't run Windows programs"?

Not sure who you're making the wise crack to, because it's too early in the morning...but, in case it was me:

No, I meant to say MS apps. Other OSs don't run MS apps, just like MAC OS won't run MS apps.

I hope I didn't mess up your joke, Paranoid.

If I didn't get it, I appologize ahead of time. :oops:

cologic · Post by **cologic** » 2003-07-07 12:42

just like MAC OS won't run MS apps.

You're quite wrong.

jbyrd · Post by **jbyrd** » 2003-07-07 19:25

Ok, now I see my flaw. I did mean to say Windows programs. The thing is, not being able to use Windows programs is much more of a pain in the ass than not being able to use MS programs.

Other OSs aren't as user friendly, with the exception of MAC. But, MAC doesn't have the Software titles that PCs do. Sure, you can find the "best" games and programs for MAC, but you will probably get them later and they will cost more. And, alot of times they don't make expansion packs for MAC.

Besides MAC, there is not really a good alternative for the average user. Linux is the next obvious choice, everything is open source and cheaper/free. But, it's not user friendly. Most novices using Linux will have to reinstall their OS many, many, many times because they WILL F it up.

Who cares, I'm not going to stick my neck out for Microsoft, but I will say that they have improved. XP is far superior to ME, 9x in many ways.

sam70001 · Post by **sam70001** » 2003-07-16 01:33

This is getting stupiditer, or is stupidier?

he, is, she, we, them, us, together, it, you, i, they!

Xan1977 · Post by **Xan1977** » 2003-07-17 19:57

Microsoft Security Bulletin MS03-026
"Buffer Overrun In RPC Interface Could Allow Code Execution (823980)"

Affected Software:

Microsoft Windows NTÃ‚Â® 4.0
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Services Edition
Microsoft Windows 2000
Microsoft Windows XP
Microsoft Windows ServerÃ¢â€žÂ¢ 2003

Not Affected Software:

Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition

Sam is safe, the rest of us are screwed :shock:

DC++

windoze sucks

windoze sucks

Who is online