WHY do you hate XP?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hedgehog
  • Start date Start date
H

hedgehog

Let me make it clear that I have hated Windows since ver 2.0. It is a
disk and memory hog and, like the MAC o/s, assumes that I am too
stupid to operate a computer.
That being said, Windows XP, both home and professional, is one of the
most solid GUI presentations that I have seen. I have XP running on
several of my (company's) machines..true HP's, the new HP/Compaqs,
IBMs, Gateways (E4200 and up), a couple of Dells, and some no-name
clones that I bult out of scrap parts and generic m/b's from the local
chain store. In short, anything with a P3 or higher cpu.

XP works.

Drivers are not +much+ problem. There's only one that I haven't found
for a 1x cd-r/w drive and who cares about a slow drive like that?
Video cards from my venerable Diamond Stealth 64 through the
latest-greatest NVidia work find. Ditto hard drives up through 160GB,
stuff that I can't personally afford yet.
So, XP works fine for me across a wide range of hardware and users
(from know-nothing word processor users to my engineer colleagues).
Most of the software works without upgrades, even the DOS stuff, so
long as I set Windows properly for it.

_Someone_ explain to me just why XP is so horrible.
 
hedgehog said:
That being said, Windows XP, both home and professional, is one of the
most solid GUI presentations that I have seen. I have XP running on
several of my (company's) machines..true HP's, the new HP/Compaqs,
IBMs, Gateways (E4200 and up), a couple of Dells, and some no-name
clones that I bult out of scrap parts and generic m/b's from the local
chain store. In short, anything with a P3 or higher cpu.


XP works fine for me across a wide range of hardware and users
(from know-nothing word processor users to my engineer colleagues).
Most of the software works without upgrades, even the DOS stuff, so
long as I set Windows properly for it.

_Someone_ explain to me just why XP is so horrible.
Click to expand...

I decided to respond even though I am obviously not the type of person you
asked to respond (since you questioned why someone "hates" XP). I love
XP -- it is far more stable than any previous edition of Windows, and I no
longer need to worry about crashes. Moreover, System Restore is a great
feature, in case you want to revert to a previous status after installing a
program. On the other hand, my two primary complaints are these: (1) I
dislike the look of XP (childish, cartoonish figures) and find it more
awkward to navigate than Win 98 -- possibly because I had so much experience
with Win 98. That is easily solved by setting XP to the "classic" view,
which emulates the look and feel of Win 98. Someone on another newsgroup
said that I am missing some of the features of XP by doing this, but he
never responded to my request for some examples. (2) Much as I like System
Restore, it has a major problem -- it will sometimes become corrupt, and the
only way the user will know it is (of course!) at the very time when
something goes wrong and you want to use the feature. It's Murphy's Law in
operation!

MaryL
 
Probably just your attitude problem.

Testy

hedgehog said:
Let me make it clear that I have hated Windows since ver 2.0. It is a
disk and memory hog and, like the MAC o/s, assumes that I am too
stupid to operate a computer.
That being said, Windows XP, both home and professional, is one of the
most solid GUI presentations that I have seen. I have XP running on
several of my (company's) machines..true HP's, the new HP/Compaqs,
IBMs, Gateways (E4200 and up), a couple of Dells, and some no-name
clones that I bult out of scrap parts and generic m/b's from the local
chain store. In short, anything with a P3 or higher cpu.

XP works.

Drivers are not +much+ problem. There's only one that I haven't found
for a 1x cd-r/w drive and who cares about a slow drive like that?
Video cards from my venerable Diamond Stealth 64 through the
latest-greatest NVidia work find. Ditto hard drives up through 160GB,
stuff that I can't personally afford yet.
So, XP works fine for me across a wide range of hardware and users
(from know-nothing word processor users to my engineer colleagues).
Most of the software works without upgrades, even the DOS stuff, so
long as I set Windows properly for it.

_Someone_ explain to me just why XP is so horrible.
Click to expand...
 
XP is a vast improvement on earlier operating systems, but that doesn't mean
that it is good. It has a vast number of bugs and faults. You only have to
read this or any other board to see how incompetently it has been designed
and put together.
 
I decided to respond even though I am obviously not the type of person you
asked to respond (since you questioned why someone "hates" XP). I love
XP -- it is far more stable than any previous edition of Windows, and I no
longer need to worry about crashes. Moreover, System Restore is a great
feature, in case you want to revert to a previous status after installing a
program. On the other hand, my two primary complaints are these: (1) I
dislike the look of XP (childish, cartoonish figures) and find it more
awkward to navigate than Win 98 -- possibly because I had so much experience
with Win 98. That is easily solved by setting XP to the "classic" view,
which emulates the look and feel of Win 98. Someone on another newsgroup
said that I am missing some of the features of XP by doing this, but he
never responded to my request for some examples. (2) Much as I like System
Restore, it has a major problem -- it will sometimes become corrupt, and the
only way the user will know it is (of course!) at the very time when
something goes wrong and you want to use the feature. It's Murphy's Law in
operation!

MaryL
Click to expand...
Well, I really am curious as to what others are finding wrong with XP.
I appreciate your response which gives observations, not just Windows
bashing. I have experienced failed backups on _all_ systems,
including our 'impervious' network backup server, so that may be
something that still needs work..i.e., system restore is only a type
of backup. I also didn't like the new look, at first. A few days of
using it has cured that. I've even gotten so that I like the
'Teletubby' default background.
I did look, but didn't find any functional differences between the
classic and XP default views.
 
XP is a vast improvement on earlier operating systems, but that doesn't mean
that it is good. It has a vast number of bugs and faults. You only have to
read this or any other board to see how incompetently it has been designed
and put together.
Click to expand...
That's why I'm here asking these questions and making my observations.
I'm stuck with responsibility for the company computers, and though
I've had no trouble +yet+, my users are sure to find all the knotholes
in the thing.
 
hedgehog said:
Well, I really am curious as to what others are finding wrong with XP.
I appreciate your response which gives observations, not just Windows
bashing. I have experienced failed backups on _all_ systems,
including our 'impervious' network backup server, so that may be
something that still needs work..i.e., system restore is only a type
of backup. I also didn't like the new look, at first. A few days of
using it has cured that. I've even gotten so that I like the
'Teletubby' default background.
I did look, but didn't find any functional differences between the
classic and XP default views.
Click to expand...

Yes, System Restore is a type of backup. However, it will restore the
entire system to a previous state in only about 30 seconds of time. Very
useful! Also, System Restore does not change personal data -- it resets
programs, so it can be used to quickly and easily revert to programs "as
they were" before installing (but this assumes that you make a new restore
point immediately before installing a new program). I still do daily
backups in the "traditional" format (usually on Zip disks) for data.

MaryL
 
hedgehog said:
That's why I'm here asking these questions and making my observations.
I'm stuck with responsibility for the company computers, and though
I've had no trouble +yet+, my users are sure to find all the knotholes
in the thing.
Click to expand...

Frankly, there are few "knotholes" that normal users in a company will
find in XP. These people should be focusing their attention on other
things like applications (like Word, Excel, databases, email, etc.).

If you do the following, you won't have many problems:

1. ensure your virus protection policies (formal, written, and approved
by management) and anti-virus software are adequate and in place and
operational.
2. your firewalls are in place, configured correctly, and operational.
3. evaluate and apply all appropriate (all) Microsoft updates
4. ensure users are trained and informed of how to use their machines in
the context of their work processes.
 
Suggest that if you are having failed backups, you fix that.

XP Pro provides a rudimentatary backup program. It works. If not
working for you, then fix it.

Recommend you NOT use XP's default backup for your "impervious network
backup server". Use a more functional backup for that important device.
If not important then don't even bother having this backup server.

System restore is just that. System restore. Don't think of it as
backup becuase it isn't. It's just a way to go back to a previous
SYSTEM configuration that was stored (manually or automatically). No
more, no less.
 
I think you intended to reply to someone else. I was simply responding to
another poster who referred to System Restore as a backup. I agreed but
said that it only restores programs, not personal data. Your description of
restoring system configuration is better (more accurate).

MaryL
 
Back
Top