A Flash Developer Resource Site

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Windows XP Bad???

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    11
    I heard that windows XP Is not much better then the other windows versions is this true??

    I heard that it's not stable.it crashes faster then
    win 2000 is that true?????

    please let hear your comment

  2. #2
    Work sucks ]v[orpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    198
    Oh right!

    Where'd you hear this?

    My mates who tried it said it runs sweet! But I'll ask my teacher about this, I saw XP on his laptop yesterday when I was in his office. He's probably tested it to the max and I'll ask him.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    11

    ok


    I heard it from some classmates.
    Well ask it

  4. #4
    ScratchingEverything

    100% Swedish
    DaPurno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    325

    Hmm,

    Well it does crash for real, but not as much as 98, ME etc

    Win 2000 runs just a smooth but crashes a bit more often..


  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    6
    I personally already wrote down my severe objections to Windows XP. For a start, it gives full raw socket access, implementing the entire UNIX Sockets set, instead of the limited version that used to be integrated within Windows. Also, this raw socket access is available to EVERYONE, not just the superuser as in Un*x. This was integrated into Windows 2000, but only under administrator access, I believe. This also turns it into a hackers paradise, with the full ability to generate mis-formed, spoofed and downright dangerous packets. Also, you'll find if you're an experienced user, you are quickly frustrated by it's "helpful" wizards. Here's a quote of one such user, who is a friend of mine...

    if you're a basic PC user thinking about buying XP, don't. It's basically malware. It harangues you with nagging, fake-friendly reminders to obtain a Passport and submit to product activation, and treats you like a child when you try to do anything heretical, like install a device driver of which it disapproves.

    You get your first hint of its 'you're an idiot; let Daddy help' posture during the install, where the progress summary informs you that Windows is "analyzing your computer". Yeah, right. Analyze this....

    Got a suspicious piece of hardware on that box of yours? You might be out of luck if XP doesn't like the drivers it needs to function. MS has a new scheme of 'preferring' signed drivers which it will distribute, automatically, no less, via its support Web site.

    That wouldn't be quite so bad if the digital hand of Daddy wasn't programmed deep within XP to keep us all from harm. In the old days, when you went to install a driver manually, you could search through a list of those you'd installed previously and stuff around until you got one going to your satisfaction. No more.

    If you've already installed one that XP 'likes' but then attempt to choose one it 'dislikes', you won't be given the chance to defy the Wisdom of Redmond. You'll get a little message telling you that 'Windows has determined that the driver already loaded better suits your hardware.' And that's it. Gone is the little query allowing you to 'install your choice anyway.' Let Daddy help.

    During the installation of any unsigned driver using the 'Wizard' you'll be harangued twice with warnings that it's not signed, and invited to interrupt your work to view Redmond's PR propaganda on why this driver-signing is ever so much in your best interest.

    Network support is largely concealed for your safety. Devices, services and protocols which one used to be allowed to install no longer appear anywhere, either in the Control Panel networking system app or in the add/remove system app.

    No, you have to install the device first, and let the Wizard decide what support to install. All you can enable on your own is client for MS networks and basic TCP/IP. That's it!

    Screw you if your network configuration is a bit eccentric, like mine. Using the Wizard and Control Panel, I can't even find the stuff I need, and what XP thinks I need is wrong, wrong, wrong....

    The splash screen looks a lot better, but the desktop is a queer blend of slick graphics and kindergarten safety engineering. "Start Here" a large yellow balloon pointed at the start menu informs you. This goes on until you click the start menu button while the balloon is displayed. Otherwise you get it with each re-boot until you capitulate.

    Other balloons emerge from the tray toolbar, urging you to 'take a tour of Windows XP', get yourself a Passport, and enjoy the pleasure of product activation.

    Menus and windows default to full-on graphics entertainment mode. They fade in and out, they have shading and shadowing, menus not only fade, they 'slide', and icons have immense palettes, all of which gobbles up immense amounts of system resources for absolutely nothing, and slows your desktop to a crawl. If you're nine years old, you are just going to love it. If you're a few years older, you'll resent the choking paternalistic atmosphere of vapid gee-whiz kiddie entertainment (babysitting), euphemism, and fake-friendly bullying.

    Incredibly, MS has failed to include a virus scanner in spite of its recent public humiliations by means of Code Red and Sircam and its sudden interest in security. Outlook is still one of the finest worm and virus propagation mechanisms known to man, though the IE6 package now includes a version of Outlook Express which no longer launches executables. But you still can't force OE or Outlook to display HTML message bodies as plain text, to avoid malicious links, AxtiveX controls, JavaScript and 'Web bugs'. No, the advertising lobby wouldn't like that. The spam industry would object. 'Functionality' (bl***y illiterate word) has got to take precedence over common sense.

    Viruses, worms and Trojans make their way onto your machine because of Outlook's default insecurity, or because you are an idiot and you'll download anything off the Web that sounds interesting and launch it, or because your teenage kids take what they think are porn and music files from their 'friends' in IRC and ICQ without question. The solution is a virus scanner and a more secure Outlook -- and we'd have both if MS was actually serious about security, which it obviously isn't.

    There's a firewall in XP, which is installed by default whenever you make a new Internet or networking connection. It's also turned full-on by default. This covers the clueless newbies who'll be making their first forays onto the Net from XP.

    But if, by some miracle, your device drivers are all up to XP's demanding standards and you successfully carry over an existing connection from a previous version of Windows, the firewall has to be enabled manually. Not the best situation, but clearly better than nothing.

    As for the firewall itself, I recently wrote a satirical article 'lauding' its power on the basis of a "Full Stealth" A+ rating I got from Gibson Research's little ShieldsUp toy. I'll be subjecting the firewall to more rigorous testing this week, and I fully expect it to be a disappointment. Just like ShieldsUp.....

    Redhat 7.2 (on the other hand) installed perfectly, has unlimited "tweaking" potential, and is free. Granted, you need to actually know something about computers to use it, but we're not dumb. Now i`ve got a BETTER os than XP, with free MS Office standard office software, free Photoshop standard graphics software, free DVD ripper, free games, free... everything.
    Hmm...
    (slightly edited in respect of this being a g-rated forum!)
    [Edited by Microchip on 10-30-2001 at 08:20 AM]

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    529

    xp

    personally i think its the best OS that microsoft have published.
    its faster and much more reliable than 98 (my old OS).
    shame about the security holes but zone alarm hopefully will sort them out.
    i'd recommend it..

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    67
    Xp is crap. It's made only thinking of stupid people that don't know shiZ about computers. That's why they're busting out this crazy new add campaign. "Film stuff.. upload it.. and send it out to your friends all on the same computer!!" Ooh wow. Frickin' Amazing!!

    Anyway.. I think those security holes are a big enough reason to stick with 2k.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    529
    Quote by Arse
    Xp is crap. It's made only thinking of stupid people that don't know shiZ about computers. That's why they're busting out this crazy new add campaign. "Film stuff.. upload it.. and send it out to your friends all on the same computer!!" Ooh wow. Frickin' Amazing!!

    Anyway.. I think those security holes are a big enough reason to stick with 2k.
    ----------------------------------

    Care to explain in a bit more detail?
    i'm running xp pro and i think it is the dogs doodahs.

  9. #9
    New Wave Visionray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    X
    Posts
    544
    Its working great for me.

    If you dont like all the options it comes with, simply turn them off. Thats what I did. My OS is basically functions and looks like Win2K now, but its much more stable.


  10. #10
    Senior Member CrashedStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    197
    xp dials home more then et

    i havent used it so cant comment much, but expect a huge security problem to be made public sooner then later...

    remember xp users... back up all your data!!! - you have been warned

    and if your using a pirated xp os, lmao... you in even more trouble... you shoulda waited till it had been out for a while and people had 'fixed' all the 'bugs'

    cs

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    5,087
    Originally posted by darkstar
    Quote by Arse
    Xp is crap. It's made only thinking of stupid people that don't know shiZ about computers. That's why they're busting out this crazy new add campaign. "Film stuff.. upload it.. and send it out to your friends all on the same computer!!" Ooh wow. Frickin' Amazing!!

    Anyway.. I think those security holes are a big enough reason to stick with 2k.
    ----------------------------------

    Care to explain in a bit more detail?
    i'm running xp pro and i think it is the dogs doodahs.
    Lets start with the 20 Meg of patches that it needs from the get go...

    The way it continually nags you to get a passport.

    The unbundling of MS Back Office from the liscense (bundled with 2K) making it even more expensive.

    The Fact that the Firewall prevents networking with another computer.

    The Fact that it has Raw XML sockets and is a huge security risk.

    MS Media Player is junk and is set as the defualt.

    The higher cost than previous upgrades from MS... Making it even more expensive.

    The fact that it is unusable if you have the MS min requirements (seriously what are you going to do with 200 meg of space??)- more realistic requirements are 500+ mhz CPU with 3 Gig of Hard drive space 256 meg of ram. Most realistically is a P4 1.0+ Ghz 256 meg ram.

    It runs like junk on most Socket 7 arch (as the highest it can be upgraded to is a 550 mhz k6-3+) which is still in wide use. (Read you will have to replace your motherboard or get a brand new machine or migrate to Linux)

    It runs like Junk on P II's, k6 and Celeron Processors (all in wide use). You will have to buy a new machine in order for it to run faster than 98 SE with those machines. ( Agian you would have to replace the Mother Board in most cases or get a new machine).

    On P III's and P 4's it is actually slower in most cases than Win 2K, with the exception of start up and shut down.

    No support for 16 bit apps and several newer 32 bit apps like the ATI media center.

    It treats you like you are a child....

    - Now as far as being better than ME or 98- well yeah its based on the NT - 2K code which was always more stable... you are comparing apples to oranges.

  12. #12
    Well I've been using XP and haven't had any problems with it. It comes with it's own Firewall which even at it's default setting when XP is installed is quite secure...I believe you'll find a good article about this on Wired today.

    If I have any probs I'll let you know but it runs faster than 98, crashes a lot less, and handles applications better. I've been a system technician for years and haven't been too impressed with Microsoft but I have to say with XP I am.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    5,087
    Originally posted by [-S|NiStEr_MiNd-]
    Well I've been using XP and haven't had any problems with it. It comes with it's own Firewall which even at it's default setting when XP is installed is quite secure...I believe you'll find a good article about this on Wired today.

    If I have any probs I'll let you know but it runs faster than 98, crashes a lot less, and handles applications better. I've been a system technician for years and haven't been too impressed with Microsoft but I have to say with XP I am.
    I hope you are joking- the Firewall that is included with XP is pure Junk and I can produce about 1,000 stories suggesting that it is not enough- In fact everyone out there suggest that you imediatly upgrade your firewall and get a virus checker.

    This is a pretty fair and thorough look at XP http://www.pcmag.com/category/0,,s%3d1841,00.asp

  14. #14
    I dunno..I'm running the professional edition and have ran extensive scans and tests after setting up the firewall and everything came back secure.

    I'm not promoting or attacking windows XP. I was just saying that I've used it so far and have had absolutely no problems with it.

    If you're refering to the raw socket capabilities of XP being a security risk then you need to do some more reading...Raw socket has been around in Unix and Linux long before it was ever in Windows OS's. There isn't as big of security risk there as people think there is. The only security risk is the person using the computer that doesn't know anything about it...
    [Edited by [-S|NiStEr_MiNd-] on 10-30-2001 at 07:49 PM]

  15. #15
    Senior Member CrashedStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    197
    lol - expect m$ firewall to be the first on the target list, then the msn saved list... then outlook... and then maybe the dial home feature to be used on sites you couldnt even like to accept cookies off

    if you've got xp... at the moment your playing with a time bomb, maybe in about 6months i'll give it a go... but for now i'm peachy

    cs

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    5,087
    Originally posted by [-S|NiStEr_MiNd-]
    I dunno..I'm running the professional edition and have ran extensive scans and tests after setting up the firewall and everything came back secure.

    I'm not promoting or attacking windows XP. I was just saying that I've used it so far and have had absolutely no problems with it.

    If you're refering to the raw socket capabilities of XP being a security risk then you need to do some more reading...Raw socket has been around in Unix and Linux long before it was ever in Windows OS's. There isn't as big of security risk there as people think there is. The only security risk is the person using the computer that doesn't know anything about it...
    [Edited by [-S|NiStEr_MiNd-] on 10-30-2001 at 07:49 PM]
    The firewall that comes with XP only blocks incoming not outgoing- it is an inferior product- In fact if you have XP I recommend at least installing Tiny Personall Firewall as it is a free product and superior to the one included in XP.

    As far as Unix and Linux having raw sockets this is true but not all users groups have access to them like in XP-

    The Microsoft XP implementation of Raw sockets is the most insecure thing I have ever seen.

    Plus Microsoft has earned its critism in making insecur products- the common reaction by Microsoft is to deny publicly that something is insecure. Heck look at their sound format that they are pushing down our throats- 6 mos ago somone claimed that it was hackable and it is only now that somone has posted a program to hack it and it is in the Media's eye that they admit that it was hacked where as before they denied it was hackable.

  17. #17
    Senior Member CrashedStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    197
    Originally posted by Microchip
    Here's a quote of one such user, who is a friend of mine...

    if you're a basic PC user thinking about buying XP, don't... yadda yadda yadda
    a friend of yours!!! ...hmmm, does this friend work at the register ?

    lol

    cs

  18. #18
    supervillain gerbick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    undecided.
    Posts
    18,979
    I have not read one post in this thread... but, I will say this.

    XP is Win2k with a prettier GUI, and more backdoors than necessary. If you are a consumer OS type of person READ: You actually liked WinME then WinXP will be for you.

    However, if you are at least concerned with security, then do not get XP.

    Win2k and WinXP are equally stable.

    Win2k and WinXP are both based off the WinNT kernel.

    Win2k and WinXP both require a higher level of understanding the OS to properly administer the machine.

    Win2k and WinXP (at least Pro versions) are both good OS's.

    WinXP boots faster than Win2k.

    Win2k is TONS more secure than WinXP.

    Both can play Max Payne... that's all I care about at the moment...


  19. #19
    New Wave Visionray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    X
    Posts
    544
    I have a question.
    Why would Microsoft make they're upgrade less secure? Was there some sort of trade of from other enhancements? Im not talking about for their own purposes, Im talking about basic network security. Whats the reason for this?

  20. #20
    Senior Member CrashedStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    197
    Originally posted by Visionray
    I have a question.
    Why would Microsoft make they're upgrade less secure? Was there some sort of trade of from other enhancements? Im not talking about for their own purposes, Im talking about basic network security. Whats the reason for this?
    good question... answer: stupidity!

    seriously i have no clue, i've yet to use xp myself so i guess i cant talk much... but i think of this like ME - all i heard was a bunch of bad things about ME, and upon 2hrs of using it i 100% agreed

    i've yet to hear one good reason why an upgrade to xp would help me in anyway... i dont care much for a flashy desktop, i'm sure i could create a better one with windows blinds/desktop x and enabling web page view...

    the only thing i'm worried about is m$ run the market, so in 5years i'll be forced to upgrade to there latest os - who knows?

    i'm still waiting for windows 2

    cs

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width

HTML5 Development Center