Windows

[erricrice]

Alright, so with all the bashing that's been going on in recent threads, it got me wondering some things.

First of all I'm not a programmer, nor do I have any programming background of any kind.

So I would like to know, as objectively as possible:

What is actually wrong with Windows?  What flaws does it have that causes you guys to bash it so often and so easily?

I'm actually curious, I don't have any data one way or the other, I just would like to know from people who have more experience than I do.

[TexasFlood]

Alright, so with all the bashing that's been going on in recent threads, it got me wondering some things.

First of all I'm not a programmer, nor do I have any programming background of any kind.

So I would like to know, as objectively as possible:

What is actually wrong with Windows?  What flaws does it have that causes you guys to bash it so often and so easily?

I'm actually curious, I don't have any data one way or the other, I just would like to know from people who have more experience than I do.

I don't hate or bash Windows in general.  You do have to be careful especially with early versions of major releases.  Some releases like Windows ME, and Vista to a lesser extent, I don't have to bash as the very term is a slur in the minds of many.

In a more general sense I believe that competition is good.  Micro$oft has shown a pathological drive to establish product monopolies and mercilessly crush competitors under its oppressive heel (gee is my cynicism showing ).  Company success is arguably due more to this aggressive competitiveness more than product superiority.

Early versions of their products are rarely jewels (with exceptions such as Visio which was acquired) but have the luxury of time and relatively low competitive pressure to improve until decent.  The reality is that MS Office, and therefore Windows, are industry standards to have to be used no matter how you feel about them or the "mother ship".

[ricercar]

Microsoft Windows tends to be less secure than other OS
Microsoft Windows UI ignores human psychology and advantages of muscle memory.

[pfink]

Microsoft Windows tends to be less secure than other OS

I would add "out of the box" to this. Most operating systems can be configured to be more secure by someone that knows what they're doing, or less secure by someone that doesn't.

[ch_123]

Windows 7 is a pretty decent OS (especially compared with some popular mainstream Linux distros which we won't mention here)

Prior releases have been pretty dire for reliability and security, even after the extensive patching process. Windows 2000 is often championed as the best Windows, but it's security record, even after all the service packs, is inferior to even XP and Vista...

Windows NT 4 was a solid OS, but had poor backwards compatibility (definitely a correlation there)

Overall, Windows main strength is that there's lots of software out there for it... It's the sort of recursive advantage that monopolies in the computer field tend to generate. Mac OS X is arguably provides the best overall user friendly experience, at the expensive of being limited to expensive computers, and having a more limited software library. *nix systems provide the most power at the expense of requiring above average technical knowledge to use effectively.

[erricrice]

Ok, so it's basically the stuff I thought it was, I just thought there was some huge underlying fact I was missing...

Thanks for the responses and actually taking my query seriously(some of you...lol)

[Phaedrus2129]

I think I have a lot in common with Microsoft. How so? Look at how I play racing games. Most people do their best to avoid the other cars and pass them. I creep up on each car in turn and pit it mercilessly so they crash and fall behind.

[Brian8bit]

I haven't had a BSOD since ME. As for security a lot of people seem to forget that it's OSX and Safari browser exploits that has fallen first for the past few years or more at pwn2own, with Charlie Miller commenting that exploiting OSX is much easier than Windows because of the security MS impliments in it's OS. Of course, it's got holes wider than goatse as well, but for the most part, exploitation of Windows operating systems is because the end user is an idiot, or a pirate and not running the latest patches.

[mr_a500]

I've used every version of Windows from 3.0 up to Vista. It's a long story, but around 12 years ago when I started having to use Windows at work (mostly NT 4.0, 98, 2000, XP - for software development and systems integration), I started to keep a list of bugs, design flaws and annoyances that I found in Windows. After just 3 years, I had filled an entire notebook with thousands of entries. (I did this to keep from going insane and smashing all the PCs around me, shouting, "Why the f@#$% doesn't this work right?!?")

People who have grown up with Windows probably wouldn't see many of the design flaws (or bugs even) as flaws at all. If that's all you've known or if that's what you first learned on, you'd think it's normal. If you've known better ways of doing things, using Windows can be like a kick to the groin.

Of course, I later found I could make a similar list for the various versions of Linux (which I was horrified to find was even worse than Windows), OSX or any OS out there. I've used or own nearly every major OS ever made - including NeXTstep, IRIX, QNX, BSD, OpenSolaris... and so on. They all have problems. It's just that some have more annoying problems than others and I think Linux and Windows top the list.

[Mercen_505]

1. Inefficiency. Too many services are installed by default, too many odd pauses as the OS waits for one service to catch up to another, etc.

2. DLL hell. It was a thoroughly rotten idea, and has festered on our hard drives since 1995. It's a failed experiment aimed at making life easier for enterprise customers at the expense of everyone else.

3. DirectX. In general, what a miserable API! cluttered, full of verbiage, and chock full of gotchas from all the previous versions' mistakes. It needs a total reboot.

[FunkTrooper]

I've used every version of Windows from 3.0 up to Vista. It's a long story, but around 12 years ago when I started having to use Windows at work (mostly NT 4.0, 98, 2000, XP - for software development and systems integration), I started to keep a list of bugs, design flaws and annoyances that I found in Windows. After just 3 years, I had filled an entire notebook with thousands of entries. (I did this to keep from going insane and smashing all the PCs around me, shouting, "Why the f@#$% doesn't this work right?!?")

People who have grown up with Windows probably wouldn't see many of the design flaws (or bugs even) as flaws at all. If that's all you've known or if that's what you first learned on, you'd think it's normal. If you've known better ways of doing things, using Windows can be like a kick to the groin.

Oh, do elaborate!

[microsoft windows]

Windows is a great operating system. Especially Windows 2000 and XP.

[ch_123]

[ricercar]

BeOS was good for its time. The journaling file system, and multi-threaded processing were firsts on a home computer.

My Anniversary Macintosh absolutely flies on BeOS 4, where the same hardware is merely OK on MacOS 9, which has no journaling or multithreading, and the TAM cannot run MacOS X at all (lack of ROM support). And no contemporary NT/2K machine could run 20 simultaneous video windows like BeOS.

Near as I can tell, no Windows has a journaling file system, and the multithreading is still dismally implemented even on 7.

BeOS --> Palm --> HP. I wonder what we'll see.

[ch_123]

Mac OS 9 was a bit of a joke by all accounts...

[whininggit]

1. Inefficiency. Too many services are installed by default, too many odd pauses as the OS waits for one service to catch up to another, etc.

I have to disagree here. There was a time that I disabled services (Black Viper guide and other related placebo nonsense) and in reality disabling services made no difference to system responsiveness and a minute difference to memory usage.

2. DLL hell. It was a thoroughly rotten idea, and has festered on our hard drives since 1995. It's a failed experiment aimed at making life easier for enterprise customers at the expense of everyone else.

This isn't anywhere near as bad as it used to be (as of Vista), and even on 2000 and XP, it is nothing compared to the dependency issues that certain alternative OS suffer from.

The biggest issue I have with Windows is PEBKAC. I rarely have issues with my own boxes, but I've tended to some horrendous-mangled installations, but that isn't a fault of Windows. Multiple antivirus tools (free of course), a few fake antivirus from some popup (which the user actually went and installed), a few search toolbars, chat applications for 10 different services, some random crap that they installed off a magazine trial disc. If the same crapware was available for MacOS X and Linux, I'm sure they would be the same. At least if something is written for Linux, they probably won't be able to install it because of dependency conflicts...

[kishy]

I recognize there are objectively better solutions than Windows.

I choose Windows because it's "better" as a matter of opinion.

I use Model Ms because I like them, not because they're good. In fact, they could be utter crap keyboards in the eyes of everyone else, and I'd still like them.

All this crap about what's better than what is ridiculous. Use what you like, and if you don't like change, then stick with what you're comfortable with. Just accept the consequences of security risks (Win2k and prior being major risks at this point, regardless of what sorts of stuff you do online - if there's an active internet connection, it's at risk) and lack of compatibility with modern software. Even MS doesn't provide a Windows Live Messenger client for older copies of Windows anymore.

[keyb_gr]

NTFS is not a journaling FS? Last time I checked, that was one of the big advantages over the FAT systems.

There have definitely been efforts to tackle the "DLL hell" problem. I think apps get the versions they want from XP on. Ever stumbled across this mysterious big folder in the Windows directory from Vista onwards? This keeps much of the actual system files, with lots of hardlinks elsewhere in the Windows directory.

My biggest software-related headache these days is keeping up with updates. Having too many computers that aren't used so often doesn't help. Thankfully I found WSUS Update (for Windows and Office as far as still supplied with updates from MS). That still leaves the usual archiver - editor - browser canon, and whatever else.

Oh, another case of "useful 3rd-party utility" - ShellExView. Helps tremendously when troubleshooting a crashy Windows Explorer. (Something you wouldn't normally trace to an outdated Bluetooth stack, right?)

As for security risks, having your boxes behind a NAT at the very least has never been a bad idea.

[kishy]

As for security risks, having your boxes behind a NAT at the very least has never been a bad idea.

I can't think of a single instance where a home user wouldn't be behind a NAT...

[ricercar]

NTFS is not a journaling FS? Last time I checked, that was one of the big advantages over the FAT systems.

That must be my ignorance posting while I was away. My bad.

[ch_123]

NTFS is a pretty decent file system. Much better than ext3 with it's regular need for fscks that seem to last forever on large hard drives.

[bhtooefr]

I can't think of a single instance where a home user wouldn't be behind a NAT...

Plugging directly into a cable modem, or plugging directly into a DSL modem that requires that the computer initiate the PPPoE connection.

[ch_123]

I don't know about the US, but it's very rare over here to get a modem that doesn't also double as a wired and wireless router.

PPPoE is also quite rare. There was a phase were some companies used to have dial-up broadband (i.e. the broadband was time limited) but that appears to have gone out of fashion.

[itlnstln]

With Time Warner (Roadrunner), we only get standalone modems without a built-in router.  Other services, like AT&Ts DSL service, have modems with built-in routers.  I don't really care either way as I would rather have my own, better router.

[bhtooefr]

Here, DSL is all about PPPoE. Some ISPs use a modem that also has a single-client router (DHCP pool restricted to one IP,) and the PPPoE connection is initiated by the modem. Some use one that's a dumb modem, and just has an ethernet and a USB port, no router, and you have to have a PPPoE client on the machine connecting to it.

And cable, they usually give you a Motorola SB5101 or similar, and you like it. That only gives you a local IP if the cable connection isn't up, otherwise, you get an internet-facing IP, no NAT.

[bhtooefr]

Here, the SB5101 is free. (Or, rather, you pay for it in the bill, but you'd pay for it even if you brought your own, so might as well take the "free" one.)

[ch_123]

Be sure to buy your own SB5101 and save the $3 a month.

I hate Comcast.  It always cracks me up when Geekhackers go on and on about Apple/Microsoft/Dell/Intel being evil.  Telephone and cable companies are the true evil.

You have to pay rental for the modem? Wow... the US sounds like Ireland 6-8 years ago... and that' really not a good thing.

[bhtooefr]

Depends on the company.

Time Warner charges it in the price of service, it's not a separate line item for modem rental.

[kishy]

My ISP, you buy a modem. In my case I've got a SpeedStream 4200 that was a lease from previous ISP...but you see, they shipped me two, and only had a record of me having one.

On account of their system screwing up, it couldn't issue the necessary paperwork for me to return it if I wanted to, effectively giving me it.

[audioave10]

All I know is Windows and I don't have any problems with XP. Windows 7 feels like they finally got it right.
I guess I've never had a problem with IE either. One virus in 9 years ain't bad.

[ch_123]

IE... that's one of those things that you don't know what you're missing till you try the competition.

[itlnstln]

IE... that's one of those things that you don't know what you're missing till you try the competition.

You know, they all have their pros and cons.  I really like the layout and "accelerators" in IE, I like the ability to customize in Firefox, and I like the speed and interface of Chrome.

I don't like the speed and rendering (to a certain extent) of IE, I don't like the clunkiness of Firefox (though, this can be changed to a certain extent), and I don't like the rendering and lack of a dedicated search box in Chrome.

I am using Chrome right now, but I could use any of the three and be OK.  Not happy, per se, but OK.

[ch_123]

Just reading about these accelerators... Most browsers have had a 'right click highlighted text to search' for ages now. Other features could be added in by extensions in Firefox and other browsers.

You should try out the newer version of Opera... Has the same style of UI as Chrome, except is far more customizable (even lets you have a dedicated search box), has plugins and extensions (not sure how many compared with Firefox though) and is very fast at rendering pages. It also feels pretty complete and polished unlike Chrome...

[itlnstln]

The thing I like about the accelerators over other browsers is that all of the options are on the context menu not just "search for X on Google."  In IE, Maps, blogs, translation, and more are all right there.  Like you said, though, these could be added via extensions in other browsers.  I still need to try Opera, too, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

[bhtooefr]

Opera doesn't have extensions. (The general thought is, they make the browser less stable, and they're not really needed.)

[bhtooefr]

Personally, I'm too used to Opera's quirks to switch away, and Opera does a hell of a lot more positive for web standards than Apple.

(And, Opera allows a hell of a lot more customization than OS X. It just doesn't have extensions, but they tend to implement extension features in the browser itself.)

[erricrice]

You know, they all have their pros and cons.  I really like the layout and "accelerators" in IE, I like the ability to customize in Firefox, and I like the speed and interface of Chrome.

I don't like the speed and rendering (to a certain extent) of IE, I don't like the clunkiness of Firefox (though, this can be changed to a certain extent), and I don't like the rendering and lack of a dedicated search box in Chrome.

I am using Chrome right now, but I could use any of the three and be OK.  Not happy, per se, but OK.

You guys know address bar is the search bar in chrome right?  or is there some other reason you would want a dedicated search bar?

[bigpook]

webwit, you drinking again?

[bhtooefr]

webwit: Note that he asked if there was some other reason to like a dedicated search field.

Anyway, one thing I like about having a dedicated search field in a browser is, I can see what my previous query was at a glance, even after I've moved off of the site I'm using to search.

Opera even has dedicated unique search fields per tab, so you can see what you last searched for in that tab. At that point, I can start using the dedicated search field as a note-taking field.

[erricrice]

Opera even has dedicated unique search fields per tab, so you can see what you last searched for in that tab. At that point, I can start using the dedicated search field as a note-taking field.

That's pretty cool, I gotta start looking into these other browsers, I just got hooked on chrome and I haven't looked back...

[ch_123]

Gotta have Greasemonkey and my top 20 pull down Search Engines or I'm not switching.

Pull down list of search engines is soo 2003... Hot-key in the URL bar, search term, wham....

[bhtooefr]

I actually use a combination approach. The dedicated search box is usually used for Google, everything else is in the address bar, for me. Some of these are custom ones that I've added:

w Model M - pulls up Model M on Wikipedia
e Model M - looks for Model Ms on eBay
euk Acorn A3010 - looks up Acorn A3010s on eBay UK (it's a good search to use for stuff in Europe)
r http://geekhack.org - makes a shorter link on rdr.to
wa http://geekhack.org -Web Archive
down http://geekhack.org - down for everyone or just me
gt http://ebay.fr - translates from any language Google supports, automatically

[didjamatic]

I use Chrome as my main browser, IE and FF as backups.

I use 1 Box to Rule Them all... the address bar.  I never really use history, maybe that's why.  You can be on any page, just hit 1 F key and start typing in the address bar without mousing around.  (Chrome/FF F6, IE F4)  Not sure if there is a key combo to jump to a dedicated search box, there probably is.

[erricrice]

I use Chrome as my main browser, IE and FF as backups.

I use 1 Box to Rule Them all... the address bar.  I never really use history, maybe that's why.  You can be on any page, just hit 1 F key and start typing in the address bar without mousing around.  (Chrome/FF F6, IE F4)  Not sure if there is a key combo to jump to a dedicated search box, there probably is.

Yeah, you can also use alt+d(cmd+L in osx) for the address bar.  Search bar is ctrl+e(cmd+K in osx) in FF/IE

[ch_123]

I use software that has an outdated interface. Clearly the keyboard is to blame.

[erricrice]

Thanks for the CTRL-E tip, I was looking all over for that one.

Works great in Firefox.   And yeah, I'm old school.

CTRL-E to search box
CTRL-Arrows to scroll engines   (the HHKB really needs those arrows....)

Yeah I kinda go nuts if I have to take my hand off my kb to go to my mouse, move it to the search box, then go back to the keyboard, so I put my life into finding kb shortcuts for everything.

Anything less than that would be just frustratingly slow...

[bigpook]

Firefox keyboard shortcuts
firefox

Google Chrome keyboard shortcuts
Chrome

[lmnop]

Osssssssssssss 2 warrrrrrrrrrrrrp

[mr_a500]

And back to the OP. Everyone should use Windows since you probably have that nice key on your keyboard anyway.  Win7 shortcuts abound - lifehacker link.

Show Image

I own over 35 keyboards and not one of them has a Windows key on it.

[noctua]

I own over 35 keyboards and not one of them has a Windows key on it.

hmm.. no daily windows user.. please tell which os you use currently?