Reasons You Hate Windows

[JonM33]

one thing i hate about windows is that it comes with a bunch of adware/promotional crap that's taking up potential hard space and is totally useless after 30days unless i crack it becuase I'm not going to pay for something like WORD when theres a free alternative on windows such ass Open Office.

Windows does not come with any adware/promotional crap. I installed Windows 7 from the DVD on my primary system and see nothing of that. I see Notepad and Wordpad. Both are not adware. You might have purchased an OEM PC (Dell, HP, Acer, etc) and it would have came with crap like that as well as McAfee.

That's not a Windows standard though.

[linuxviolin]

myspacecommassergio, I'm sorry but OpenOffice.org is quite inferior to Office. There is no competitor to Office. Me and FedoraRefugee have already explain this somewhere in the forum... e.g. http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... 52&start=0 or

There is plenty of open-source or just freeware that runs on Windows too. And, really, Office 2007 and the upcoming 2010 are terribly advanced. OpenOffice.org is a dead end, it will never reach any standards of usability and quality.

or

OpenOffice.org should never have happened, because… «Whatever Microsoft haters say, the reality is that there is no at par substitute for Microsoft Office applications.» So everyone should be using now Microsoft Office under WINE, no matter the cost of the license!

Etc. But yes, it is relatively expensive.

And Windows "does not come with any adware/promotional crap". You talked about Word for instance but it doesn't come with Windows... Oh and IE is not so bad now you know, it is even quiite usable.

I don't hate Windows. XP was "the best Windows" until now but Windows 7 superseded it (Vista was a failure) Really, Windows is now a quite good product.

[JonM33]

I don't hate Windows. XP was "the best Windows" until now but Windows 7 superseded it (Vista was a failure) Really, Windows is now a quite good product.

Vista was a financial failure for Microsoft but not as an operating system. It was a necessary step towards creating a better OS.

[MintyFree]

It's sad that major companies like google haven't taken this kind of attitude in and contributed to linux by having a dedicated team of developers create they're own Linux distro with added support for alot of things. Imagine if there was somethign like "Linux Google Mint" you know Google has the big bucks to make EVERYTHING work in linux.

Actually, Google already has. Not only is there the Android OS made by Google, but they are also working on Chromium OS.

Google is evil and will monitor your every move with the Chromium OS. I'll end up with a Chromium netbook anyway though b/c it's an epic OS (BTW, Chromium will be netbook-only).

[linuxviolin]

Vista was a financial failure for Microsoft but not as an operating system. It was a necessary step towards creating a better OS.

A "necessary step towards creating a better OS", maybe, but it was a failure, sorry. But you can have another advice...

BUT Win 7 can perhaps not be so good, e.g.:

Back to my Windows 7, I also feel mad. It’s not a question of memory (I have 2 GB of RAM), it’s apparently not a question of CPU (the CPU monitor that’s part of the task manager doesn’t show a visible load), but the Windows Explorer is terribly disappointing as a file manager — it’s not as responsible as I wished it was.

In fact, the file manager in Windows 7 is puzzling me more and more every day. It can’t react instantly most of the time. What the heck does it do? I want to be able to switch quickly between several explorer windows, to quickly change the current folder or the current view, to quickly move, copy or delete files without seeing at any moment the stupid “Discovering items” text, and fact is that the system doesn’t react at the expected speed. Even the “Save As” dialog in Firefox doesn’t open at the speed it used to have in Windows XP!

Too bad for the otherwise more intelligent file management in Windows 7, it simply looks too slow. It’s also much slower than Windows XP in copying or moving hundreds of thousands of files — and no, this is not because of the antivirus, I’ve also checked with it disabled.

As shitty as it might sound, I guess I’ll downgrade to Windows XP SP3 tomorrow or very, very soon.

A Google OS? Oh my God! No thanks... Never.

[JonM33]

A "necessary step towards creating a better OS", maybe, but it was a failure, sorry. But you can have another advice...

Okay, then the marketing was a failure for it. There was nothing until the "Windows Mojave" commercial and that was after negative reviews and Apple chewed it up and spat it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Experiment

So, once skeptics actually TOUCHED the OS that they supposedly disliked, they actually rated it a 8.5/10. That's not a "failure" in my book.

I used Windows Vista as well, switched to it completely about a year after it came out. SP1 really helped it and it was a solid OS after that. It wasn't so hot on low end Pentium M based laptops but it handled fine on a Pentium 4 with 2GB RAM, even better on a Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM.

[linuxviolin]

It wasn't so hot on low end Pentium M based laptops but it handled fine on a Pentium 4 with 2GB RAM, even better on a Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM.

And even better on a Quad Core and 8 GB RAM...

[JonM33]

And even better on a Quad Core and 8 GB RAM...

No, it did run great on a Pentium 4 with 2GB RAM. I ran a Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM because I am a gamer. Now my old rig is running Linux Mint 9 instead.

[Old Marcus]

Why the Windows hate? It's not a bad OS, and excluding Microsoft's practices, I like Windows, especially 7. Never liked Vista much, although that might have been partly due to the fact I only ever used it when having to fix it.

As for OO.o, I find it a reasonable product, but at the moment I'm using Word 2007 in Virtualbox because at college they've got 2007 and compatibility between that and OO on the docx or even odt form is horrible. Only the most basic stuff will look the same in either program, anything more advanced done in either program will balls up in the other, and I just find Office nicer to use. However, for home/domestic stuff, it is fine. It would be fine for college were it not for the compatibility issues.

[JonM33]

Why the Windows hate? It's not a bad OS, and excluding Microsoft's practices, I like Windows, especially 7. Never liked Vista much, although that might have been partly due to the fact I only ever used it when having to fix it.

As for OO.o, I find it a reasonable product, but at the moment I'm using Word 2007 in Virtualbox because at college they've got 2007 and compatibility between that and OO on the docx or even odt form is horrible. Only the most basic stuff will look the same in either program, anything more advanced done in either program will balls up in the other, and I just find Office nicer to use. However, for home/domestic stuff, it is fine. It would be fine for college were it not for the compatibility issues.

You cannot really compare Office 2007 to OpenOffice. Microsoft went above and beyond with Office 2007. OpenOffice is more equal to Office 2003 and is a great FREE alternative. It's what I recommend to people when they want an Office-type product but don't want to pay for it.

[linuxviolin]

Microsoft went above and beyond with Office 2007.

Yes, Office is much better than OO.org even if for simple work, this last can be/is sufficient.

OpenOffice is more equal to Office 2003

Er...

and is a great FREE alternative.

Free, yes, but great...

It's what I recommend to people when they want an Office-type product but don't want to pay for it.

Well, in any cases, you have not really the choice...

[JonM33]

Well, in any cases, you have not really the choice...

Yes, they could try to get illegal copies of Office on the internet, which of course leads to malware/virus infections. So why not recommend something that is legit and functions without a problem? Some people need OpenOffice for just basic use. It provides that.

[Chris Weimer]

I think I'm one of the few voices who didn't like MS Office 2007, preferring the 2003 (and the OO.org look) much more. The one major flaw I do see in OO.org though is how OO.org's Word Processor handles footnotes. Can't stand it. Their gray in the text, and there's not enough spacing between the text and the footnote. It might seem petty to some, but I write a lot of papers with quite a few footnotes.

[Old Marcus]

Yes, I find Office 2007 is a far better product than OO.o, and hence I prefer using it. But for basic stuff, it does the job ok.

[MintyFree]

Why the Windows hate? It's not a bad OS, and excluding Microsoft's practices, I like Windows, especially 7. Never liked Vista much, although that might have been partly due to the fact I only ever used it when having to fix it.

As for OO.o, I find it a reasonable product, but at the moment I'm using Word 2007 in Virtualbox because at college they've got 2007 and compatibility between that and OO on the docx or even odt form is horrible. Only the most basic stuff will look the same in either program, anything more advanced done in either program will balls up in the other, and I just find Office nicer to use. However, for home/domestic stuff, it is fine. It would be fine for college were it not for the compatibility issues.

Here are a few reasons I don't like Windows:
-The filesystem is poorly organized
-The filemanager is garbage and it's nearly impossible to change the default filemanager to something better
-The window manager is heavy and difficult to customize or change
-You can't hack away at Windows like you can with Linux otherwise you're breaking the law
-Most of my favorite applications either require gtk+ for Windows or arn't compatible at all (Pidgin, Banshee, Swiftfox, Cheese, ect...)
-There is no Synaptic File Manager

I could go on but I'd rather move onto Word. Idon't use OpenOffice or like it, it's heavy. I use AbiWord. You could also use SoftMaker Office which is like M$ Office but at only 70 Euros which is a hell of a lot cheaper. It also has good support with the MS Office filetypes.

[JonM33]

Here are a few reasons I don't like Windows:
-The filesystem is poorly organized
-The filemanager is garbage and it's nearly impossible to change the default filemanager to something better
-The window manager is heavy and difficult to customize or change
-You can't hack away at Windows like you can with Linux otherwise you're breaking the law
-Most of my favorite applications either require gtk+ for Windows or arn't compatible at all (Pidgin, Banshee, Swiftfox, Cheese, ect...)
-There is no Synaptic File Manager

Woah, sorry but that's all weak. You basically don't like it because it's not Linux.

The file system is not hard to understand. C:\Program Files has all of your applications and C:\Windows has your OS data. C:\Users has your user home (profile) folders. Really, that's all reaching on your part.

[MintyFree]

You basically don't like it because it's not Linux.

No, I dislike it because it's slow, heavy and cannot be customized as fully as an open-source Operating System like BSD, Linux or Hurd.

The file system is not hard to understand. C:\Program Files has all of your applications and C:\Windows has your OS data. C:\Users has your user home (profile) folders. Really, that's all reaching on your part.

Why is it C:\ though? That's stupid. Why is that ":" there? I prefer Linux because I can go to / for the root and then /home/bravo/my documents to go to my documents.

[Old Marcus]

Here are a few reasons I don't like Windows:
-The filesystem is poorly organized
-The filemanager is garbage and it's nearly impossible to change the default filemanager to something better
-The window manager is heavy and difficult to customize or change
-You can't hack away at Windows like you can with Linux otherwise you're breaking the law
-Most of my favorite applications either require gtk+ for Windows or arn't compatible at all (Pidgin, Banshee, Swiftfox, Cheese, ect...)
-There is no Synaptic File Manager

-I find the Linux filesystem to be worse when it comes to organisation. I can see the advantages of it, but trying to find bits of program, or even the programs themselves can be a pain.
-I agree, the filemanager is not the best, but it's better than it was. My main gripe with it is if it crashes, it takes the taskbar with it.
-I personally like it, and yes, it isn't that customisable, but then, I don't particularly care, since I don't expect that from Windows without third party apps.
-No, you can't, although I'm sure if you do it for yourself and don't distribute it (which is illegal) I doubt MS execs are going to kick your door down and paint the wall with your brains.
-This is basically a 'it's not linux' moan. Exactly the same as the 'Its not Windows' moans we all like to laugh at.
-Read above statement.

Yeah, your arguments basically go 'it's not Linux, so it's rubbish.' Do you have any idea how much like all the 'Its not Windows' morons you sound? No? well read your post then compare it to an anti Linux rant on Ubuntu forums or similar and you'll see the similarity.

Windows has it's flaws, definitely, but Linux is no Jesus OS, it has flaws as well, just a different set of flaws. Keep on like this and Steve Jobs is going to want to recruit you as his PR man.

[MintyFree]

Yeah, your arguments basically go 'it's not Linux, so it's rubbish.'

It's not "It's not Linux", it's "It's not Free or Open" and I don't mean free as in beer. I mean free as in Open. BSD, Linux, Hurd, ect... There are plenty of Open OSs and that's all I need to be happy. OPEN.

Steve Jobs is going to want to recruit you as his PR man.

I hate Macs just as much (if not more than) Windows, it's like everything I hate about Windows magnified, they even made it so you have to run OS X on their machines (unless you use one of those special hacked kernal things which is super illegal).

[linuxviolin]

MintyFree and Old Marcus , about Windows Explorer, in fact it was perhaps better in XP. In Win 7 the Windows Explorer is terribly disappointing as a file manager — it’s not as responsible as I wished it was. It can’t react instantly most of the time. What the heck does it do? I want to be able to switch quickly between several explorer windows, to quickly change the current folder or the current view, to quickly move, copy or delete files without seeing at any moment the stupid “Discovering items” text, and fact is that the system doesn’t react at the expected speed. Even the “Save As” dialog in Firefox doesn’t open at the speed it used to have in Windows XP!

Too bad for the otherwise more intelligent file management in Windows 7, yes it's true, you are wrong on this, but it simply looks too slow. It’s also much slower than Windows XP in copying or moving hundreds of thousands of files — and no, this is not because of the antivirus, I’ve also checked with it disabled. And no, this is not a question of memory (I have tried on a PC with 2 GB of RAM and another with 4 GB of RAM), it’s apparently not a question of CPU, the CPU monitor that’s part of the task manager doesn’t show a visible load (and a dual and a quad core should have no problem, right?)

So, if I used Windows, I guess I would downgrade and I would use Windows XP SP3 rather.

Why C:\? And why not? It's just a convention. It must be something. In Linux you write /etc/fstab for instance, in Windows you have C:\Program Files and what? What is the problem?

It's not "It's not Linux", it's "It's not Free or Open" and I don't mean free as in beer. I mean free as in Open. BSD, Linux, Hurd, ect... There are plenty of Open OSs and that's all I need to be happy. OPEN.

It's not open, ok, and what? Be not "open" doesn't mean obligatory the product is bad. You know, the state of the Open Source currently is not very rosy, even rather relatively sorry and many " open" projects are just crap so it can be preferable sometimes to use a closed work...