View Full Version : OS Bitching

23rd August 2001, 23:56
OK! Here's the spot to bitch at any OS that you want!

Here's my OS bitchlist :

Windows :

I hate it when Windows causes all sorts of illegal operations and that it freezes my computer to heck! I hate their utilities (Norton and FixIt are way better) ! I hate the fact that they don't provide hardly any programs! I hate the fact that Microsoft's acting unfair about the Windows XP release when it comes to software! I hate the fact that I can't do updates with Windows ME! I hate the fact that they don't let people who useweb browsers other than IE to use Windows Update to update whatever Windows they use! I hate the fact that Microsoft intregrated Internet Explorer with their OS!

Macintosh :

Why couldn't they allow partitioning (eg. Installing other OSes)?

Linux :

Linux is not bad, but I did manage to root out some bugs! Here are the Linux bugs that I've discovered :

Linux doesn't support my modem! Linux doesn't support as much hardware (blame that one on Microsoft for hogging the OS market) ! Linux print quality is not that good!

Anyway, that's my OS bitchlist! :)

24th August 2001, 02:03
Thanks for that...

25th August 2001, 02:18
Well, first of all, I gotta turn off the Plug'n'Play OS function so Linux can detect any new hardware since I forgot to do that during install! So if that doesn't work, then I'll try that site! :D

25th August 2001, 05:20
Originally posted by AmpliDex
Macintosh :

Why couldn't they allow partitioning (eg. Installing other OSes)?

Because Apple computers use different hardwear and other OSes (Windows) wouldn't work.

26th August 2001, 04:26
my linux bitches:
opensource everything scares me
alsa should have a new "how-to", their last one is almost 2 years old

my win2k bitches:
the occasional explorer crash when i close age of king's expansion
hmmm uhhh... 2k is pretty good

my winxp bitches:
eats ram
hurts my eyes
too much intergrated shit like firewalls and passport
strange licensing

i don't mind ie intergration, it makes it really fast :)
i'm wondering how ms will pull of their version of windows after xp, called .Net. it has more integration and more strange leasing/licensing sh!t.

Kalervo Manni
26th August 2001, 14:42
Linux is the only OS that really works. It's damn fast and has an excellent uptime. It's a shame that there are not so many unix apps and games.

26th August 2001, 16:25
I went to install Linux for the first time on my machine at least, and it detected my video card perfectly. But did the video card test work? NOOOOOO!! Apparently Linux likes ATI cards mainly, but unfortunately I have a card by the recently deceased 3dfx. Poor 3dfx, had such a good future.

So for no I run w2k with sp2. Runs perfectly .... except for when it doesn't run perfectly, then it doesn't.

Oh! and sometimes my machine decides to restart on it's own (I've checked everything out, I can't see anything), and when I shut it down, it turns back on! (No WOL, or WOR)

27th August 2001, 04:44
I wanted to install linux and triple boot it with my other oses. It would have worked, but the whole 1024 cylender thing screwed everything up.

27th August 2001, 16:48
Damn! I couldn't get Gnome to work anymore! The one thing I hate about it is when I try to use XMMS while configuring the Gnome desktop environment, it freezes my computer! It didn't do that in KDE, though! :) And I hope I got the right drivers for Linux! :D

29th August 2001, 01:41
i need OSS drivers for a CMedia CM8338A... but i dont want to spend like 15 bucks... so if anyone could help me there... i'd appreciate it alot. :)

30th August 2001, 02:46
Which OS, exactly, d00d? If it's Windows, I could send them to you by e-mail, if you want! If it's Linux, it should have been detected! And is it for 8738?

1st September 2001, 10:56
I hate MS's abortion of an OS. They have such a monopoly of not only the software but the hardware also. Why is it that your software doesn't work with Linux/Unix? Why is it that name brand hardware works for almost all components from Microsoft and not UNIX which has been around longer? Linux is UNIX based and therefore based off of many of the drivers that power servers. Initially, they were not designed to contend with the eye candy that locks the gamers into a MS environment. Since Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD already has progressed this far in half the time based on a solid foundation, it just gives an alternative. And I hear cries about how Windows is so great, coming from the same people that believe that AOL gives free access to the internet. These are people who have never forked out the money for a server, and went to a MS course to brainwash them into thinking that what they are learning is the elite product. If you can read a book, you can learn Linux/UNIX, Python, Apache, C, C++ (not Visual C++ proprietary crap), Java, Assembler. Did I mention that the cost is less than the roll of toilet paper MS uses to wipe it's ass with your money. Something to think about.

2nd September 2001, 00:56
You wanna bitch? LET'S BITCH!

Now that I have that outta my system:

I recently received a 386 (circa 1991) from a friend of a friend, and it's perfect. I had lots of fun installing DOS from the original restore disks (the hard drive was all messed up). But this is DOS 5.0, but I need Defrag and Scandisk for it, but they start with DOS 6.0. I try to copy them from my dad's 486, but they REQUIRE DOS 6.0. I run a search for a defragger/diskscanner, but the OS is JUST OLD ENOUGH that you can't get anything for it.

My Linux bitch:
DOS/Win: C:
Linux: dev/somethinggohere/hda0
See what I mean? I find linux to be nothing but a server/geek's hobby OS.

My MacOS bitch:
It's just like Win3.1. Nothing is customizable. If it crashes (FACE IT, STEVE, IT DOES CRASH), you have to pull yer iMac out from the desk, and flick the switch, WHICH IS ON THE BACK FOR SOME STUPID REASON!

My PocketPC bitch:

My PalmOS bitch:
Gimme an hour or two to find something wrong about this OS from heaven...

Oh yes, the geniuses at Palm Inc. are having $$$ problems.

Chris Beman
8th September 2001, 00:02
You can read very good OS bitching here:

8th September 2001, 00:05
Microsoft is going from bad to worse every time. Just for once can't they produce a shell with stable Dial-Up Networking? you don't know how many of my customers get dropped connections after updating to WinME from 98

9th September 2001, 00:49
bitchin about os....hell here goes

linux: sometimes complex for a first time user, takes an ass load of time to load up on a pentium 200. my dsl connection wont work on it. and i hate it.

windows 9x/me: longest time spent without a reboot: 3 hours, eats resources like a fat man whose got the munchies at midnite, crashes for no reason at all (eg. sitting and not even moving mouse and u get an illegal op), scandisk and defrag dont work that great and are slow as hell, insecure, hackable, and overpriced.

windows 2000: slow load time, scandisk and defrag are worse i think, no game support, i guess i liked this one more.

windows xp: CRAZY ASS MEMORY HOLE USING AIM ....seriously i use aim all day, and have tested this and it keeps happening, within 8 hours of constant operation of aim on xp, 100MB's of memory has been used! you exit and then it gives it back, restart and its ok. 8 hours its back to 100 megs using in the virtual memory pagefile. look yourself one day, some programs dont work well on it, and i cant really burn anything using easy cd creator cuz theyre too dum to leave compatibility with it. oh well i use it. i guess i will like it.

seriously though if someone can figure out why aim takes 100 megs of ram that would surely help out. some reason i noted that with every sign on and sign off the ram usage increases by a little. other than that its when u start an im convo with someone, even when u close it it still keeps it in memory! I'm serious check it out

Chris Beman
28th September 2001, 23:33
As far as I read this Thread, Ithink that nobody read the articles I suggested! Everybody gets an F! Please go home now! And excuse my bad English!

29th September 2001, 06:02
Would you like to hear my opinion on this subject? Of course you would!

Macs are simply amazing. Unfortunately, there is barely any hardware for it, and what is out there is exceedingly expensive. The UI looks a bit cartoonish, but other than that, they are powerful and stable.

As someone noted before, Linux is a geek's server playtoy. It's far too complex to be commercially viable. The home consumer is looking for something that can be plugged in, started up, and understood within seconds. Linux is far too confusing for that. It has too much of an emphasis on networking and technical crap that it becomes unweildy and frankly, unusable for day to day tasks. The free sourceness of it makes it a horror for standardization, making the portability of skills almost impossible (if you are able to use one machine, there is no guarantee that you can handle the configuration of another machine), and makes quality control a bit sketchy.

Win9x... well, the devil couldn't have built a better device for torture. The file system is terribly inefficient and insecure, it's littered with memory leaks, security flaws, and isn't too great for multiple users. It's good for games and such, and has a lot of support from the software industry. This will obviously change as it starts to become obsolete. It's uptime is simply too low. It is merely satisfactory for the home user, and completely inadequate for business or power users.

WinME is perfect for what it was built for. It's the best blend of ease of use, and power; just what the home user requires. Unlike win9x, it employs many great and innovative technologies, yet, doesn't get bogged down in configurability. It's great for spreadsheets, household money management, internet surfing, games, minor entertainment, and other things the home user may wish to do. Don't expect it to power your home stereo system too well, because the threat of a system crash is always looming; pretty embarrassing when you are hosting a party. It's fine for everyday music listening though. It has a bit of a problem with memory usage, and isn't entirely efficient with system resources.

Win2000 is a dream to run. I've only had a single system crash, and that was when I was trying to render a large PS document, and burn a cd at the same time. It's true multithreaded environment is a big plus for folks like me who like to run 50 million proggies at once. It can handle very memory intensive tasks such as searching through large DBs, or burning a cd. Incredibly stable, and very configurable, it's the perfect choice for the power user. Very innovative technologies such as a true alpha channel for transparency, and very effective data mining in the form of Index Searches make win2k cutting edge.

So, if win9x/ME is leaving you feeling inadequate, and on the verge of sending a letter bomb to Microsoft, try win2k

29th September 2001, 08:42
Originally posted by n_ick2000

Because Apple computers use different hardwear and other OSes (Windows) wouldn't work.

I don't know if this is right... but does (did?) Apple not use a PowerPC computer at some point. And was Windows NT4 not available for it.

Also, you can use BeOS on a Mac...

29th September 2001, 20:42
I got Drake 8.1 up and running, ALSA came pretty much preloaded. I actually have sound now. But the more I fix the more problems this damn OS gets.

Sound keeps nearly muting itself everytime I logout so I need to turn my speakers to the max to hear a slight noise or rerun the audiomix everytime which tends to freeze.
My cdroms no longer mount, one's a DVD another a CDRW.

QNX RTP just sucks, even though it's faster than BeOS.

30th September 2001, 04:06
Originally posted by c2R

I don't know if this is right... but does (did?) Apple not use a PowerPC computer at some point. And was Windows NT4 not available for it.

I think that there is software out so the mac can emulate other oses but the hardware inside a mac is completely different from a pc so you can't take a windows cd, put it in a mac, and expect it to work.

Bilbo Baggins
30th September 2001, 09:57
*Yawn* XP *Yawn*

2nd October 2001, 19:06
I gotta agree with xenofex, win2k is da bomb :D I've had no crashes since I installed it (a mont ago). It's very compatible with all the harware I own and with all the games I've got, even the older ones :)

So as for win2k... no bitching :)

Win98 on the other hand... I guess I could reach a maximum up time of 2 hours or something like that. The minute I started using Explorer (or Netscape for that matter :p), things went wrong...

I think ppl should lay off Macs... They're not that bad, but I wouldn't use them 'cause I need certain programs which aren't available for Mac.

I've only got very little experience with Linux, but what I DO know is, that's it's a bitch to hook up to a network or to the Internet. Let alone hardware compatibility problems...

mark e
2nd October 2001, 19:36
I hate Microsoft and all their products (like IE...) :o
and I hate Bill Gates, and all his team... :mad: :(

16th October 2001, 10:19
do you want to hear something about a fruity os?

my parents purchased a pentium 200 compaq back in 1996. Recently, I took a look under the hood to work on the os, and attempt to increase the uptime. It turns out that compaq thought that they could code a better shell for the windows 95 os. Thus, they install cpqshell.exe to run the tasks that explorer.exe would typically run. However, for cpqshell to run properly, exploror would have to run too. This became even more insane when one notices that the cpqshell is coded even worse than the explorer shell, and for fun, when the cpqshell fucked up, it produced an error in explorer. And like a row of dominos, explorer would crash and the system would halt. It was as if Compaq tried to fix a leaking damm with a box of bandaids. How the hell can you get anything done when there are two faulty programs running your filesystem? As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

Anywho, I have had the best luck with windows 98 on a HP (with a little help from Norton system works, the computer works fine). I like linux, but I need a bit more education before switching over again. As for xp, win2k, NT, and mac, I haven't really tried them, so I can't really comment on them.

18th October 2001, 12:51
Originally posted by AmpliDex
Linux :

Linux doesn't support my modem!

Linux print quality is not that good!

Linux does not support winmodems, these are software modems. get a real modem ;)


My print quality was better with my Linux driver, (epson stylus colour 400 thing)

What linux distro u on bout anyway? Theres loads :D

18th October 2001, 12:53
Originally posted by n_ick2000

Because Apple computers use different hardwear and other OSes (Windows) wouldn't work.

Linux PPC?

18th October 2001, 12:57

the only thing you'll need on a keyboard with windoze ;)



18th October 2001, 13:07
Old one.
And that signature is way too large. Reduce it please.

21st October 2001, 04:02
the only thing you'll need on a keyboard with windoze
lol :p Where the hell did you find that Equ1n0x?

21st October 2001, 12:22
Originally posted by AmpliDex
Macintosh :

Why couldn't they allow partitioning (eg. Installing other OSes)?

Everyone who is stupid enough to install Machintosh are too stupid to own a computer.... and thus to use another OS

27th October 2001, 16:20
Originally posted by wild_pointer

Everyone who is stupid enough to install Machintosh are too stupid to own a computer.... and thus to use another OS

You don't "install" macintosh And mac's are the easiest computer to boot in several different platforms. All you need is a different system folder. OSX is based off one of the most efficient platforms (unix). You don't need to worry about finding hardware for a mac because they have the best hardware installed. Why do you think everyone uses mac computers to render graphics? Any 500 mhz macintosh processer will smoke a 1.4 ghz processor. The back-end speed is 4 to 5 times of your typical processor. The only problem with mac's is the Imac. They come with soft modems and crappy video cards. I also can't stand the mouse. Those are the most awkward things in the world.

Windows 9x really sucks because it always drains my resources. The only great thing about windows 9x that really can't be matched by any other operating system is that almost every program you run is designed to run on this machines. When you put it on nt or 2000 the program loses some functionality. And if you have a major problem with the OS reinstalling windows won't fix the registry and you'll completly have to F-disk.

Windows ME...Would you drive a car that has over 10,000 known malfunctions? I don't have as bad a memory leakage problem with ME as I do for 9x. I think this Operating system was born from a microsoft aquisition of Crayola. If you have problems, reinstalling the OS typically will fix it because windows ME fixes the registry. A small concession, because you will be installing it A LOT!

Windows 2000.. Great! I love multiple users where you can assign them privilages. (macs do it too, but it doesn't work as well, except on OSx but you can't get anything to run on it and it hogs memory) I really can't think of too much bad to say about windows 2000 except that hardware drivers don't work as well with it because they were all designed for the 9x platform. If you must go windows...go 2000 I also hate that only about 3/4 of games acctually work on 2000 and if it does work, the graphics aren't as good because the video drivers aren't as good. Oh yeah! NO MEMORY LEAK!

WinNT.. great if security is a huge issue like running a small server but NOTHING works on it really :-D

Win XP.. A cross between ME/2000/and mac OSX This is another birth of the crayola merger. Doesn't leak memory which is a good thing because XP hogs all the memory to begin with. Don't even think of running XP without less than 256M of RAM. Its VERY customizable you can do anything you want on it. This Operating system, when it goes mainstream, will finally teach people to NOT be stupid. It has so many great features that you can't help but want to learn to use them. XP has the greatest multiple user scheme. It also has the best drivers available for all your hardware and no matter what you buy its always detected by windows.

Linux.. I have never had so many problems. Its so effecient though. When I had linux I could leave the computer on for weeks and never have that affect the performance. It feels good to get it working though. I was so happy when I finally got my modem working and my sound card. But, why? Who wants to do all this work to run virtually NO applications. I would prefer windows/mac any day. The time spent configuring linux would be the equivilent of 100,000 reboots. I would only use linux if I paid somebody else to set it up for me, but then I would have to basically relearn it. WHY? Linux is the redheaded step-child of OS's

27th October 2001, 17:31
The reason Mac's won't work with PC's is one thing, the bios. Thats the only thing that IBM acctually designed on the first PC's. Apple has been around as long as them, and had to design their own bios equivilent. IBM had it copyrighted, and windows was the OS used on the IBM's and was designed to work with their bios. Since IBM's were more cost effective more people bought them and popularized the bios so other companies were using it. If apple computers were more cost effective when they came out and they allowed more clones to come out. They would be the most popular computers.

16th February 2005, 03:54
OK obviously you people need a lesson in computers but im only gonna address the really dumb replies.

Linux is not a bad OS. It's designed to be left on forever unlike windows. See the cron daemon updates the environment every night around midnight. Windows does not do this which is one of the reasons they ahve so many problems especially when people leave a windows system on for a long time without rebooting. And it's not that linux doesn't have a lot of support or there are a lack for drivers, you're just not looking in the right place. most of the time you need to find third party drivers because the actual manufacturer does not make these drivers. Linux is also faster because, in laymens terms, i does not contain all the crap windows os's have. Linux is also better because it is open source so there a re a large number of people working to fix problems in the kernel and the rest of the OS unlike micorosft who aare the only ones who work on their source and they have even admitted to releasing many versions of windows without testing many parts of it leaving it open to problems. I'm not saying linux doesn't ahve problems, but atleast LInux fixes them before a real problem comes along. And you can run many games and programs on linux with a little work. There are two main ways to do this, the first is called vmware, which creates virtual machines on a linux system so you can install a windows system that runs within the linux environment. the setbacks are you are of coarse using a microsoft product and vmware only does 2d graphics. the other option is a program called wine. this actually emulates a windows system and tricks the program into thinking it is running on a windows os. this is much more stable, usues less system resources, and does 3d rendering. there is an extremely wide list of apps and games that work with wine allowing you to run the most common windows based programs on a linux box.

As for Machintosh, yes they do use different hardware but, like vmware, you can use virtual pc to emulate a pc system and install any pc based os you want and run apps, virtual pc does do 3d rendering and i ahve seen it run cad programs on a mac seamlessly. And contrary to the statement above taht macs are better than pc's, in recent tests between the new 64-bit AMD processors and the new G5 with dual 64-bit chips, a single cpu AMD system kept up or out performed the mac in the most common high intensity applications. the reason for this is the software is not written well enough so there is a software bottleneck. And as a matter of fact OSX is unix based.

Moving onto windows, it is an operating system designed mainly for unknowledged end users and most of their problems are not caused by their poor programming abilities, but their inability/unwillingness to find and fix problems in the system. therefore, hackers look for these problems on windows systems. THey do this for two main reasons, first, they hate microsoft because of the monopoly they ahve and the wayt hey treat their customers. Secondly, hackers use linux so they will not build a virus that will attack their own system. In fact, linux probably ahs jsut as many if not more security issues than windows, but you ahve to realize that the ahckers arent making linux viruses and it is a free OS that is open source so you can't really expect that you should have a system that has the simple exploits fixed like you do with a microsoft product that you pay for.

I could sit here and list individual problems with each windows OS but there is no point since each of them causes more problems than they can handle. The best thing for you people out there that think linux is a bad OS, which is most likely because you took one look at it and when "crap i actually gotta do some work to get this running". First things first, for people who don't know how to use computers and have problems with windows (and even thoes that have no problems with windows), if you have a GUI for linux that loads automatically, it is just as easy to use as windows. Second, there are actually PC's shipping with linux or hybrids of windows and linux (Lindows is the most popular) on them that the genreal public use so it is a viable OS and not jsut a server/geeks playtoy. If you want to use/learn linux, start off with a simple distribution like Fedora, Mandrake, Suse, etc there are installers that are jsut as easy to follow as the windows installation process. Go out and get a linux book like the red hat bible, you can find basic linux books at stores like big lots for like $5 that do a very good job explaining things. If you get scared about "it bein to hard" stop your whining and go look a Gentoo or Knoppix. These are what you could call geek playtoys not the simple linux distro's. If you were to print out the install manual for Gentoo it would be inexcess of 150 pages ebcause Gentoo does not come with an installer, you have to do all the work yourself.

16th February 2005, 07:06
"If you get scared about "it bein to hard" stop your whining and go look a Gentoo or Knoppix."

You forgot Ubuntu!

19th February 2005, 23:14
Originally posted by amdfrkslpknt
OK obviously you people need a lesson in computers but im only gonna address the really dumb replies.

You need to learn how to READ DATES. 2001
All of the people that posted in this thread in 2001 are not even active anymore (Except Bilbo). Now who is the dumb one?

21st February 2005, 22:51
Sad thing is that means four years ago people feel the same they do now. MS sucked ass then and sucks ass now. Linux is advancing every few months, Windows is still the same bug ridden fuckstick it was four years ago even after hundreds of bug fixes. I don't reboot as much as I used to and it's not quite as fucked as it used to be but when I look how far Linux has come and Windows has come, Linux is kicking Windows ass - but it takes brains to run it which is why so many people don't. An idiot can install and run Windows. An idiot cannot install Linux and run it without ALOT of help.

And many also need Windows for Dummies to even accomplish this much.

22nd February 2005, 04:34
here's why I dislike Linux.
Lets say I want to install some bit of software on my linux installation. okay so I download the software and attempt to install it and I get some error saying I need some other software installed before I can install this one. Okay so I go hunting on the internet to find this other software to install it so I can install the software I originally wanted to install. Finally I find the second peice of software and download it and try to install it and then I get an error saying I need some other software installed before I can install this one. So again I go hunting on the internet to find this software to install it so I can install the software which will allow me to install what I originally wanted to install.

Ad infinitum.

22nd February 2005, 20:54
Actually, the real problem with linux is that once you get it right, it's best to just leave it alone. If you like to tinker around with your system, there's a good chance you'll fuck up something big time on a linux system.