The Rip Off That Is Windows

Quite new to this forum. Not, however, new to Windows. I was dealing with these guys in the "Dark Ages" of Windows 95 and 98 (SE ).

So why is a new OS necessary every two years? Vista is the latest pile if poo to be dumped on us. Is it not true that the general public are expected to beta-test Windows for them. After all, if I sell you a car, I don't say "Come back in two months if the brakes don't work" So why SP1, 2 and 3. What exactly does Vista do?? It extracts money from the ordinary member of he public, but beyond that ....??????

Anyone who can Google "Useless Services" will find the following: Windows generally runs about 20 - 30 services in the background that do nothing more than take up RAM. Do you really think that if you report an error to Microsoft they're actually going to do something about it? If so I have some nice beach front property in Bedfordshire you might like Turn off things like System Restore/Windows Firewall and get something that works!!! Exterminate Windows Media Centre and Internet Explorer. There are better freebies out there. Anybody who puts Automatic Updates on their computer is asking for trouble. Why have I got no cookies/TIF files since I started using Mozilla and managed to suppress Internet Explorer? Why are there continually security leaks for Media Player and Office? Don't put on Automatic Updates! Look at what you are updating (Why do I need a security patch for Internet Explorer when I don't use it?)

Sorry about the length of this post, but it's something I care deeply about.

End Rant

 

Amusing.

Every two years you need a new OS?

How does that work out?

XP came out in 2001, Vista came out for consumers in 2007.


Please, come to the Linux forum. We will patch you right up with a real OS.

 

Begin response
Can i start at the top.
New OS every two years? xp is at least five years old. Service packs? Just an compilation of many security updates rolled into one patch for convince. Vista sucking? Ok dont use it, i happen to run vista on several machines and enjoy it, have no issues with it. Useless services running? You have a point there too, but do keep in mind xp had similar "useless services" As well as the fact that someone has a use for them. Error reporting? Well i do agree on that, dont think anyone reads those reports. Media center? Internet explorer? Work fine if your careful. I have used automatic updates on my windows boxs and such for years, simple reason is most repairs i do coulda been prevented with that alone, and most people forget to check for updates. Cookies? Are you serious, cookies aren't a threat. TIF is an image format, thats just ie trying to catch files to load websites faster. As for your last statement, why would you patch ie on a pc that doesn't use it. Its because ie ties into core os functions and such, so by patching it, thus secures/securing other os features that may still invoke ie or ie background type stuff. No offense was ment by this post, just trying to response to some of your points/concerns.
end response

 

You're right - it's mostly to make money.
If they released only one product, and it gets pirated, their profits drop as the pirated version spreads. They need to keep ahead of that by obsoleting old versions.

However, that's not ALL Vista is for.
It reduces the learning curve for new users as well as keeping them more secure.

Stricter driver requirements make for better hardware integration. May seem like a pain, as it would be harder to find good drivers, but that's less Microsoft's fault than the hardware manufacturers. They need to get their shtuff in gear, and produce a better driver.

It also takes advantage of some of the new hardware that's released, where older operating systems may not.

These useless services make for a wider range of functionality out of the box. Sure, my desktop doesn't need the "Wireless Zero Configuration" service running, but what if I had a laptop with a wireless card, and didn't know how to enable a service?

No, I wouldn't expect them to respond to me immediately, but it's useful for statistical analysis. How many customers have the same problem? Prioritize by frequency. Sort by common causes. How can we make the next OS better/patch the existing OS?

Not sure what you're talking about here. Mozilla Firefox uses cookies by default. (They can be turned off, but that would impair the function of MANY web services, Majorgeeks included)

.TIF files? Drawings?!?!?!

Because software developers aren't god. You would need the foresight of a god to be able to anticipate every avenue of attack. It's a process of continual improvement, and every developer is in the same boat. Even the developers over at Mozilla.

Why? Because an unpatched piece of software can be exploited within seconds. You'd better hope you don't accidentally launch your unpatched software. You machine will be port scanned, and unsecured services exploited by bots within the time to load a page.

 

I may be mistaken, but I too, thought it was Microsoft's intention to get on a development cycle that rapid.

Vienna's release date in 2009 seems to back that notion up, anyway....

 

Well, it does now, but referring to what the original poster was saying--it doesnt hold water.

For future releases, well, lets see if MS hits their target, as Vista ended up becoming a rewrite from the original vision, if you recall.

 

Ya know, I liked Longhorn better than Vista, 4015 looked great at WinHec 2003 and then MS pulled the plug on it after 4074 IIRC and started Vista going a scant 1.5 years after, I probably have my my dates wrong but it just goes to show that MS wanted to make a salable product in Vista which to me is a dumbed down version of Longhorn.

Seems MS bit off more than they could chew ATT. As far as every two years with a new OS, I find this really ludicrous as one can see with all the driver/peripheral problems we currently have with Vista and who the heck wants to go through this process every two years? It's insane IMO.

BTW, I do like Vista but it's far from what was promised at the outset.

 

According to the Mayan calendar MS will not meet this ETA. rolleyes

 

Reasons Why Linux Won't Make it to a Desktop Near You
This short article looks like Linux is not the answer
.
http://www.technoledge.com.au/pdfs/linux_desktop.pdf

 

I don't think anyone's suggesting that Linux will displace Windows in market share, but those willing to make Linux work can do without Windows.

I haven't booted my Windows machine since I built my Linux box. (Personal computers, I mean - work is Windows only)

 

I run a dual boot and spend most of my time in SUSE. the only real reason to boot into windows is to run the occasional game or if the wife is using the PC. Otherwise what MC said is already well known to pretty much everybody that has used a microsoft product in general. Although when MS first started making mice they were wonderful... if only because if you cracked them open it was all logitech hardware inside. Microsoft is the devil in some people's minds. Opinions. 'nuff said. Companies like MS will continue to give sub-par work to the public as long as we rely soley upon a capitalistic society. Why should they pump more time and money into something if their profits are lowered.... I mean c'mon they have stock holders to answer to, and if they lose that nickel then obviously they have to raise their prices by 100.00 or fire a cleaning person making minimum wage to recap that whole nickel. Now I am not saying that linux or even open source is the answer... however when something is open source and there is not a monetary connection to the program a hell of alot more gets done.

 

The problems with vista. While a fairly stable o.s. I just think microsoft really messed up with this release.

More secure, well sure but most users shut that off just so they dont have to deal with the popups.

It takes a pretty hefty system just to run vista with aero. Lets face it. You can buy starddock windowblinds for 50 bucks and get the same thing. WIthout the need for a beefed up system.

Microsoft just tried to hard to take over your computer with security and adminstrative rights.

Last thing is the boot up. If you wanna dual boot it can be a bit tough with vista and xp. Why they went this route is just nuts. Unable to edit the boot ini file in vista. Vista offers nothing new. The same thing you find in vista has already been done with mac and lynix.

 

Seem to have stirred things up a bit, don't I?

First of all, by my reckoning, we have Windows 95, 98 (crashed on introduction to the world so most people had 98SE ) , ME, 2000, NT, XP (with service packs 1,2 and 3 ) and Vista. My somewhat out dated maths tells me that is at least 7 operating systems in 12 years. OK, so XP has been around for 5 years and has had to be patched continually.

Maybe I could reply to a few points made individually.

Tim W: The analogy with cars is perhaps a little disingenious on my part, granted, but the point I was trying to get over is that most reputable software suppliers (I don't include Microsoft in that category!) will offer a beta version out well in advance, listen carefully to what its testers have to say and then make the necessary adjustments to the product. Only then is the product available for general release. You only have to look at the freebies available on this site to see the care that some people put into their programming. One should expect the best from the richest company in the world, not a shrug of the shoulders and "hey, we'll bring a patch out for it sometime." That is sloppy.

I too run XP Pro. Apart from a couple of games, the only other Microsoft programme I have is my copy of Office 2002.

Linux comments to follow.

Adrynalyne: Please see my above comments on "a new operating system every couple of years". As for Linux, I am in the process of reloading my other computer slowly, as I managed to fup it uck with my second go at installing Linux/Debian. I will certainly be asking some hard questions on the Linux forum very shortly.

Coleman: (No relation ) I wish you well with your version of Vista. I really do. At the moment I can only work in my field of software design infrequently and am not entirely up to speed with many of the issues. I do not use programmes such as Internet Explorer as I prefer Mozilla firefox. This removes it's cookies and TIFs when you close it of it's own accord. Why does the abomination that is IE7 not do this? Easy! Because the guys that set this up are too lazy and idle to write the coding. I don't need or want Windows Firewall. I don't need System Restore! I hate Windows Media player! Microsoft would be well advised to bring out a cut down version of of their operating system at a reduced price so that us poor pigs don't have to fork out lotsa dosh for stuff we don't want. Biggest security risks on the internet? Windows Messenger, Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player.

Mada_Milty:

By TIF files I mean Temporary Internet Files. Firefox deletes these by default as with cookies, whenever you close it. With regard to the comments about "Useless Services", have you looked what's running under the hood lately? Increased functionality? Half of the stuff has not been accessed by most users since they installed the OS and most of the rest can be turned to "Manual" rather than "Automatic" thus making it available on demand rather than just turning it on anyway. It's just lazy programming mate. I have some very good RAM purging programmes, all of them free and available on this site. Same goes for firewall, AV, clean up, media players and browsers. I paid for a decent back up programme (Acronis) so System Restore is OFF. Try gettting a bit of malware out of there without losing your backup point. Windows Firewall is OFF. It conflicts with my sensible firewall and is useless anyway. Automatic Updates is OFF. It willl tell me when updates are available but I don't need it putting updates in for Messenger if I don't use it.
I won't bang on any more for now, but if anybody takes the trouble to read this, they will see that I view Windows as an irksome necessity and think they are a bunch of lazy, money-grabbing bar stewards.

 

Firefox does not delete "TIF" files by default. You have to check the box. With IE it is the same thing. There is a box ye can check to automatically clear your "TIF" files.

As for windows' continuous patching, if you switch to *nix, you'll be going through the same ordeal.

I finally switched to Vista Ultimate x64 for my main windows box, and for my main *Nix box I have fedora core 6, which I see is now up to version 7.

 

Most Linux distros patch way more often than Microsoft!

 

And if my car hits you and kills you it's Ford's fault for not making better brakes. All their fault, and only their fault.

 

My post was dripping with sarcasm. Most people who decide to hate on MS, or can't get their heads around Windows (zomg, its too buggy, I crash too much, waaaah!) don't stand a chance with Linux.

Sure, you can run apps. But lets see you fix a problem with it. Trust me. To date, I've seen far more things to fix with Linux than Windows. Don't get me wrong, I hate on Microsoft all the time. But I also take the chance to hate on Apple, and Linux.

I'm an equal oppurtunity hater because I know that there is no perfect OS.

Obviously if you see Windows as a necessity, then your rant holds not water, and becomes hypocritical. How can you bash Microsoft, yet use their products? Stand up for your beliefs if they are true. Boycott them!

/yawn

Another rant of all bark and no bite.

 

Same argument holds true when users decide not to update Linux because its too troublesome.

Once again proving that the worst security risk is the user.

 

I've been using vista for the last few months. As mentioned by others, the Eye candy already exists in Linux and Mac OS's. The added security can be annoying, but I leave it on. I don't do automatic updates because, as said, I don't update things I don't use. I have two main beefs against Vista- the price tag, and the software incompatibilities- i know the latter will be resolved in time.

gimpster123

 

Thats the thing, ie is core to windows, you use its functions that can be exploited, your just not aware of it.

 

Personally I believe XP is great, don't really see why anyone has any major issues with it; although I have to admit my previous OS was Windows ME.

Does anyone really think they would be better off if there was no Microsoft ?

 

I may be a bit ancient here, but I started using DOS and Windows 3.1. If any of the complainers about Windows had ever had to manually set memory addresses and assign IRQ's for cards, then they would appreciate the progress that has been made!

While Windows may not be perfect, it is the easiest and most user friendly OS available at this moment, as best that I can tell, it does allow most people to add and remove devices and do what they want with little problem.

Only my opinion, as I was/am subject to the old dog/new trick syndrome concerning each new version of Windows, but I just accept it, learn, and go on.

 

My first computer was a Tandy Radio Shack TSR-80 about 24 or 25 years ago it was easy to program in M_Dos but took forever to load anything (cassettes and Floppy's) i had thought it would help my daughter with her course work but all she did was play Pacman and Ping Pong on it.

Microsoft gave us a lot of tools to help with just about anything you can think of OK they went a bit over the top with the OS (i can't get my head around XP) and it's difficult to use if your a computer dummy (me) but lets be grateful to Bill G for the advances he made in technology.

 

One thing for me is perfectly clear. Once you close Firefox, it automatically cleans up its own poo. Internet Explorer does not. It might make a mistake and close Firefox by mistake and it will then take a couple of milliseconds to restore your site. Internet Explorer puts TIFs on hard drive before you even connect to the Internet for God's sake. It is the biggest security risk on the entire internet.

 

Uh no, the biggest security risk on the internet is an uninformed user. Doesn't matter what browser your using, if your using it to download infected random files.

 

IE7 in Vista is a lot more secure than you might think.

That and, if you are worried about security risks because of Temporary Internet Files, then...

Keep your machine clean from malware!

Safe Computing and half a brain will go further to keep your machine secure than pimping out Firefox, which has its own security issues.

 

as theefool pointed out, IE7 can be set to do this

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc300/shanemail/ie7internetoptionsclearTemps.jpg

 

Sorry shane but it don't work!! Do your best to rip out IE 5, 6. (gawd 'elp us all 7). I have XP. I do not want Internet Explorer in any form. I think I have better. I also have better than Windowws Media Player 10. All forms of Messenger are absolute crap. I have an NVidia graphics card in all of my computers 'cos I like the way they install their drivers. Windows XP continually intrudes and tells me it has a better driver. If I install it, I get 4 colours and 640 res. only. If I tell it not to install and never to ask me about this again, it still does. It doesn't matter what you "set" XP to have. It will always turn on the stuff it thinks you should have.

Unless you dig very deep in the Registry and hack the Windows crap out mercilessly, it will always put the sh*** back in there. I have Windows Firewall off. I have better. I want System Restore off. I have better. Automatic Updates over my dead body!! It's useless and I have better. If someone can tell me how to eradicate Outlook Express, Windows Media Player, System Restore and the like without crashing XP, well you're a better man than I am Gunga Din

 

That has got to be the stupidest thing I have heard someone say in quite awhile.

Don't use it, sure, whatever floats your boat. But to tell others to rip it out...

 

So I'm stupid then, am I? I re-load quite a lot of computers. Adrynalyne, if you want to load a computer with XP, you suppress IE7, squash it! It is the worst piece of programming I have ever seen. If you load a hard disc with XP you will find security leaks before you go on the internet.

Ever done that pal! Anybody wants to know howto rip crap like IE off their hard drive, there are ways of doing it. You call me stupid - Hey I can call you a brainless, know-nothing, round-heeled bimbo. Your point is .....????

Don't insult my intelligence please, I will give as good as I get.

 

I didn't say you were stupid. I said it was the stupidest thing I've heard someone say....roflmao

Linux and OS X has security holes on initial install too. Not seeing your point there, bud.

I've installed XP on hundreds of computers. I doubt there are very many people on this board that have installed XP as much as I have.

 

In 20 years of computing, no viruses, no malware that I couldn't clean off in an instant. I refuse the "Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool" that Win***** keeps pushing 'cos it would remove Win*** if it worked.

All malware is immediately ripped out of my HD. Hope you're up to date with all your Micro*** stuff, otherwise some nasty person might sneak in through your back door.

 

You ready for this? I don't get viruses, or malware.

Ever.

So, to each their own...

There are those who have to rip out malware, and those who quite simply don't get any.

Are you up to date with your Microsoft stuff?

 

Re: The ?Rip Off? That Is Windows

Wow, I can't believe people still whine about this stuff. Who frickin' cares?!?

NOBODY makes a perfect OS, and you can choose any one of them that you want, within your budget.

And for you real whiners, you should all be thankful for Windows. Without it, what frame of reference would you have? Who would you cry about?? And without it, where would you find such a lucrative market in which to make a living??? Repairing problems on Windows machines has generated billions of dollars for thousands of people, and is likely to continue to do so.

I do find it interesting how different it is from place to place. The last place I was in was a "Microsoft house", and nothing worked properly [for long]. They had problems and more problems, and the IT staff ALWAYS blamed Microsoft. There were about 1000 users, give or take, and machines routinely crashed.

The place I am now is a multi-platform telecom, with thousands of machines; some linux, some Solaris and lots of Windows for the execs, management and marketing folks. Now I just KNOW that the anti-Microsoft crowd will never believe this, but on a percentage basis, the linux machines give us the most trouble, usually network related. It is NOT a lot of trouble, maybe a few systems a week (out of over 2000).
The Windows machines are not only solid performers - there is only 1 IT guy who takes care of all of them. The only issue people ever seem to run in to is problems with Lotus Notes. But the OS is solid. These people leave their machines running 24/7 almost all the time, and the systems never crash.

And the reason is that they are configured properly. Plain and simple. And the users are NOT allowed to indiscriminately install software. Any install has to first be approved by the IT department. We've got about 1200 machines running XP, and maybe 500 running Vista - and zero problems there. We've got over 2000 running linux - mostly RH "white box", but a lot of Ubuntu and a few others floating around in the labs - and once in a while there is a problem, generally nothing too serious. We have almost 1000 machines running Solaris, and they are virtually trouble free.

The IT team tells me it's all a matter of configuration. And seeing is believing.
One of the guys "tuned" my home desktop machine, and it runs day and night, and has not had a hiccup for over a year. It's running XP pro. I have notebook with Vista, and it too is a solid performer, with never a glitch (so far!). Upon purchase, I immediately uninstalled a ton of unnecessary crap that came with it, added what I wanted, and it has been solid.

It is my firm belief that if linux user base had as much crappy game software as the Windows user base, things would seem more equal. Windows also has wonderful software like Norton Internet Security, Lotus Notes, AOL, and almost anything made by Smith Micro to help screw things up.

Most whiners have no idea what they're talking about, in my opinion. Because they are too busy whining instead of learning.

 

Re: The ?Rip Off? That Is Windows

Perfect!

 

Re: The ?Rip Off? That Is Windows

I have made no points for or against Linux and your rant is meaningless. I run XP Pro. I have to use it becase my customers use it. Most of the time if someone wants a computer with Vista on it, I tell them to take it back to the supplier and let them sort it out. Vista is for geeks and thickos that don't know any better. I neither whine nor whinge about Windows XP. I make good money off the mugs who are dumb enough to buy it. I will learn Vista and stupid gits will end paying me money to fix it for them. Go back to my original point in this post and stop banging on about people criticizisg your beloved Microsoft.

 

No, I don't think we will.

You have made it quite clear that your opinion is superior to others and therefore have not listened to what anyone has said. Instead, you have become more argumentative, and combative.

Stick a fork in it, this thread is done.