Worst Operating System you ever used?

Page 11 of 13 [ 204 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ToadOfSteel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,157
Location: New Jersey

22 Dec 2008, 11:08 am

computerlove wrote:

One girl next to me I think has the world record: she got a virus on her laptop in less than an hour...

nah, 20 minutes surfing the web off a clean install is more than enough time...

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

22 Dec 2008, 1:07 pm

gamefreak wrote:

RaceDrv709 wrote:

Windoze ME and Kubuntu. Me crashed to much and KDE is such a pain in the butt.

Why Kubuntu, a lot of my friends use it with no problems. It has great eye candy too.

For me at least, the proble \m with Kubuntu and other KDE distros isn;t that they;re bad; it's that I just really really don;t like KDE. Just a personal preference, and I know people who feel the same way about GNOME. One of the great attractions of Linux is that you get so much choice in the UI that there is something for everyone.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Jkid
Velociraptor

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 487
Location: College Park,MD

22 Dec 2008, 4:22 pm

Windows Vista, until I found out how to disable User Account Control.

PrisonerSix
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 689
Location: The Village

23 Dec 2008, 1:26 pm

My first computer was a Commdore VIC20 with 3.5K RAM I got around 1982. We loaded programs from audio cassettes. For it's time and price it was OK, same could be said for the Commodore 64 then the 128. Of course, Commodore didn't support the 128 too well and made it backward compatible with the 64 so most software vendors wrote for the 64 instead of the 128. When the market was flooded with PCs, Commodore was pretty much on it's way out.

As for worst OSes, the first PC I had came with Windows 3.0 which was terrible. It crashed alot plus it had printing issues. I'd do a document in a word processor and try to print it and it was for no reason start printing blank pages. That's why I stuck to Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS for so long.

Windows 95 had problems with stuff hanging and locking up alot and the first time I installed it, it wouldn't boot but of course, I made the mistake of doing and upgrade instead of a clean install.

When Windows 98 was coming out, I debated if I should use it or NT4.0 Workstation. I decided to go with '98 because some of my hardware didn't have NT drivers available. Windows 98 actually worked pretty well for me, I kept it updated and didn't have many problems.

I studied for(and completed) a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer certification in NT4.0, but didn't think much of the OS once I got into it. For one thing, hardware options were limited because there weren't NT drivers for alot of the stuff out there. In addition. servers had to be rebooted regularly. The Novell Netware guys I talked to told me you could but Netware on a server and it would practically run forever without a reboot, ditto with Linux servers. I guess I don't think much of NT then.

I never used ME and haven't used Vista, so I don't know how they are. I've heard good and bad about Vista, so I don't know what to think for sure. One thing that kept me away from it is I read that alot of current hardware couldn't handle it well and many experts were suggesting to buy a new computer to run Vista. Since I didn't want to do that, I'm still running XP on my 1.583ghz AMD with 1.5GB RAM. I've had few problems with it, but do sometimes get some software hanging in it.

As for Linux, I've tried Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Mepis, and Linux Mint. Xubuntu was OK, but some software didn't run on it well if it all. Of course, I ran it on a 400mhz system. As for Kubuntu, PCLinuxOS, and Mepis, I found the KDE desktop environment to be a little resource heavy, plus on Mepis, I couldn't get multimedia to work, in spite of following instructions. For PCLinuxOS, I found the selection of software in the repositories too limited and installing other software on it was too difficult.

My two favorite Linux distros so far are Ubuntu and Linux Mint. Mint has a slight edge of Ubuntu because it has all the multimedia stuff already installed on it unlike Ubuntu where you have to go get it. The only hardware issues I've had with either of them were with an old Intel webcam and an old cheapie obscure brand scanner that even though could do 2400dpi in Windows 98/XP, would only scan at 100dpi in Linux because of the limited driver available. I've since junked that scanner for an HP printer/scanner/copier(very well supported on Linux, thanks HP, there's even printer software similar to what's available in Windows) and have no problems at all.

My only complaint with some Linux distros, and I understand it's due to legal reasons, is alot of stuff that comes installed in Windows you have to go out and look for in Linux, kind of like we did in Windows 10 years or so ago. On the other hand, many Linux distros ship with OpenOffice now, something Windows I doubt will ever do.

For my worst OS, based on the ones I've used, I would guess it is a toss up between Windows 3.0, 95, or NT.

_________________
PrisonerSix

"I am not a number, I am a free man!"

gamefreak
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,119
Location: Citrus County, Florida

25 Dec 2008, 10:41 am

PrisonerSix wrote:

Basing opinions based on compatibility & stability I see. Very educated on what you are using. Windows 95 wasn't bad for its time but still [well the same for the good majority of OSe's] needed a good stability push to do anything right.

Windows NT was stable but still wasn't consumer friendly & didn't have a lot of driver support. [Like a particular Gateway Docking Station a friend had.] However I would use Windows NT before 95 due to stability & I don't need all those bells, whistles, games, and eyecandy.

Windows 3.0, You where better off just using MS-DOS & occasionally using DOS-Shell. That was until 1993 when Windows For Workgroups 3.11 came out. Stable, User-Friendly, Great Networking Tools & few compatibility issues. I would say WFW 3.11 was more stability and conherant than 95.[Well it was an enterprise OS.]

Windows 98 & then 2000 was around the time Microsoft got the OS thing down. Stability, Ease-Of-Use, Compatibility, Innovative Features. Oh yes, the greatest thing ever. Windows Update. Before Windows 98 if bought a early version of a certain Windows OS [Like Windows 3.0.] you would have to pay for a upgrade to Windows 3.1 to get some bugs and flaws fixed up. By Win98 all you had to do is use Windows Update from there on.

Vista itself however was still a beta of another Microsoft Project when it came out. Vista is not too bad but isn't that great either. It was something Microsoft rushed to the board just because its been 5- Years since XP xame out. Windows 7 is going to be so much better.

nodice1996
Supporting Member

Joined: 3 Jan 2008
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,047
Location: Michigan

25 Dec 2008, 9:01 pm

vista was bad until I replaced everything and turned off every feature in msconfig

_________________
Guns don't kill people--Magic Missiles Do.

falcorn
Blue Jay

Joined: 28 Oct 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 89

26 Dec 2008, 1:33 am

ubuntu is the worst os i've used, it has a horrible interface, it's very buggy, and the programs for it are horrible

also windows 95/98 was horrible it would always crash on me, and xp was good because it didnt crash but it had a very ugly interface, the only os that is good is vista it's bug free, has great programs, and a nice interface

gramirez
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Nov 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,827
Location: Barrington, Illinois

26 Dec 2008, 1:45 am

falcorn wrote:

the only os that is good is vista it's bug free, has great programs, and a nice interface

Wrong, wrong, and WRONGGGGGG........

_________________
Reality is a nice place but I wouldn't want to live there

falcorn
Blue Jay

Joined: 28 Oct 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 89

26 Dec 2008, 2:12 am

gramirez wrote:

falcorn wrote:

the only os that is good is vista it's bug free, has great programs, and a nice interface

Wrong, wrong, and WRONGGGGGG........

i've been using vista for 2 years and have never had 1 undesired result,

i use:
firefox
world of warcraft
windows live photo gallery
windows live messenger
warcraft III
zune music player
windows media player for movies
wordpad

all of which are excellent programs

and the the interface is much more usable and good looking than any other UI

so yes yes and yes vista is a flawless and excellent operating system

and it also runs incredibly fast with a computer i built myself with $400

ubuntu however is extremely bugged and near useless as it cannot do 90% of what i use a computer for (hint: it's not to run a supercomputer or serve other computers)

i also dont feel like spending a ton of work typing in code into a command line and googleing what to type. (it's 2008 not 1998)

gamefreak
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,119
Location: Citrus County, Florida

27 Dec 2008, 11:22 am

gramirez wrote:

falcorn wrote:

the only os that is good is vista it's bug free, has great programs, and a nice interface

Wrong, wrong, and WRONGGGGGG........

Maybe he likes Vista because everything is ready right out of the box. Where else Ubuntu is not and you do have to type scripts into command lines to install programs. Not everyone has a bunch of free time on there hands to tinker around with there computer.

Why else do people just stick with the software preinstalled on the computer. Its because people don't have time to findle around with programs. They just want to get the computer on the net. Do Word Processing & in the meantime set with Media Player with all of there favorite music. While installing games for entertainment in the downtime.

This is where Windows has its strong points.

falcorn
Blue Jay

Joined: 28 Oct 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 89

30 Dec 2008, 10:06 pm

gamefreak wrote:

gramirez wrote:

falcorn wrote:

the only os that is good is vista it's bug free, has great programs, and a nice interface

Wrong, wrong, and WRONGGGGGG........

That is completely wrong, it has absolutely nothing to do with having enough time. I don't care if I had 5000 years with nothing but me a computer and linux and windows. Why would I spend hours to get something working and even then it still wont work because all programs for linux are complete garbage.

Linux can't even compete with windows 95' it's THAT bad. I don't even think I could say with a straight face that it's better than windows 3.1.

And don't even get me started about virus', the linux kernel has holes the size of mars in it. Give a skilled hacker 1 hour and he could take over the linux operating system without even trying. The only reason a linux user never gets a virus is because there are 0 virus' for linux. It's such a pathetic operating system that nobody even cares enough to make a virus for it.

Linux would have been cutting edge back in 85', now it's just a unusable artifact used my angry virgin nerds that are jealous of Microsoft.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 Dec 2008, 10:31 pm

falcorn wrote:

i've been using vista for 2 years and have never had 1 undesired result,

You're lucky.

Quote:

i use:
firefox
world of warcraft
windows live photo gallery
windows live messenger
warcraft III
zune music player
windows media player for movies
wordpad

all of which are excellent programs

Probably are, but the apps that I need and want are mostly available for any OS I could choose, so that's not a major factor for me. Sage is a cool program that you can't get properly in Windows.

Quote:

and the the interface is much more usable and good looking than any other UI

Subjective preference, others may disagree. I personally agree that Aero is pretty slick, but Linux is very customizable, much more so than Windows. As far as usability, no. Just no. Network configuration in Vista? It sucks. Hard. I shouldn't have to navigate through three menus and spend five minutes just trying to connect to the wifi. Even the Apple GUI is more usable.

Quote:

so yes yes and yes vista is a flawless and excellent operating system

Flawless? Hell no. Vista has its problems, as does every OS in existence. Excellent? Depends what you're using it for, what you want out of your computer, and what your own personal tastes are. For you, it may be an excellent OS. For me, it's not horrible, but it's more of a hassle than Ubuntu and not really what I want to be using as my primary OS.

Quote:

ubuntu however is extremely bugged and near useless as it cannot do 90% of what i use a computer for (hint: it's not to run a supercomputer or serve other computers)

Buggy? Hm. Ubuntu's not perfect, but in my experience I get more bugs in Vista than Ubuntu, and that's even with using Linux much, much more than Vista. 90%? You really spend that much time gaming? All right then. I'm not a gamer, but if you need Vista for games, use Vista. "Near useless" is just BS, Ubuntu is a very powerful OS.

Quote:

i also dont feel like spending a ton of work typing in code into a command line and googleing what to type. (it's 2008 not 1998)

I've found Ubuntu more user-friendly than Vista. I've still never gotten my touchpad drivers working in Vista, and when I go online to look for an answer it isn't there. Also, configuring my printer in Vista was a bloody nightmare. At least with Linux, if it doesn't know how to do something for me, it will let me take a crack at solving the problem myself, and I can ask others to help me out.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 Dec 2008, 10:38 pm

falcorn wrote:

all programs for linux are complete garbage.

Like Firefox, Sage, Pidgin, Opera, Skype, OpenOffice, MPlayer, Rhythmbox, GIMP, etc ad nauseam? I haven't found anything I want to do that can only be done in Windows. I also haven't found anything I want to do that can only be done in Linux. It comes down to personal preference.

Quote:

Linux can't even compete with windows 95' it's THAT bad. I don't even think I could say with a straight face that it's better than windows 3.1.

Oh BS. You obviously have not tried Linux anytime in the past decade.

Quote:

And don't even get me started about virus', the linux kernel has holes the size of mars in it. Give a skilled hacker 1 hour and he could take over the linux operating system without even trying. The only reason a linux user never gets a virus is because there are 0 virus' for linux. It's such a pathetic operating system that nobody even cares enough to make a virus for it.

...riiiight. Linux is based on UNIX. UNIX is more secure than Windows. The virus issue is only partially security through obscurity; Linux actually is more secure than Windows. If you know so much about the Linux kernel (more, apparently, than Linus Torvalds) why don't you describe some of these gaping vulnerabilities to us?

Quote:

now it's just a unusable artifact used my angry virgin nerds that are jealous of Microsoft.

Unusable? Tell that to the 30 million people who use Linux successfully. Tell that to the businesses who rely on Linux to keep their servers running. Jealous of Microsoft? Then why did I switch from Mac OS X to Linux? And why did I try out Windows after installing Linux?

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

gamefreak
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,119
Location: Citrus County, Florida

30 Dec 2008, 10:44 pm

Orwell wrote:

falcorn wrote:

i've been using vista for 2 years and have never had 1 undesired result,

You're lucky.

Quote:

i use:
firefox
world of warcraft
windows live photo gallery
windows live messenger
warcraft III
zune music player
windows media player for movies
wordpad

all of which are excellent programs

Probably are, but the apps that I need and want are mostly available for any OS I could choose, so that's not a major factor for me. Sage is a cool program that you can't get properly in Windows.

Quote:

and the the interface is much more usable and good looking than any other UI

Quote:

so yes yes and yes vista is a flawless and excellent operating system

Quote:

ubuntu however is extremely bugged and near useless as it cannot do 90% of what i use a computer for (hint: it's not to run a supercomputer or serve other computers)

Quote:

i also dont feel like spending a ton of work typing in code into a command line and googleing what to type. (it's 2008 not 1998)

Believe it or not Orwell I would have to say Ubuntu is better than Vista. However I would not say the same for XP due to the fact that XP was engineered with near perfection.

I never like Macs personally due to the fact that OSX doesn't give too much freedom. I honestly think Macs or overpriced toys. For people just learning how to use a computer.

Just my pick on the whole thing. Besides, I didn't like how I put a $80 piece of software into a IBook G4 @ school & couldn't eject it out. Macs should have the sliding tray based CD Drives Windows has. At least then CD's won't get stuck and even when you press the particular cd button on keyboard it still won't come out.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 Dec 2008, 11:02 pm

gamefreak wrote:

Believe it or not Orwell I would have to say Ubuntu is better than Vista.

Now you are beginning to see the power of the dark side...

Or the dork side if you prefer.

Quote:

However I would not say the same for XP due to the fact that XP was engineered with near perfection.

XP is good. I haven't used it extensively enough to say whether it is better than Ubuntu or not, but it definitely is a very good system. One of its biggest problems is that Microsoft is trying to kill it.

Quote:

I never like Macs personally due to the fact that OSX doesn't give too much freedom. I honestly think Macs or overpriced toys. For people just learning how to use a computer.

Yeah, the lack of freedom is my main issue with OSX. If you want to do stuff on your own in a Mac you really have to become a crazy hacker and know some hard-core UNIX stuff. Otherwise, you're stuck with what Apple decides is best.

Quote:

Just my pick on the whole thing. Besides, I didn't like how I put a $80 piece of software into a IBook G4 @ school & couldn't eject it out. Macs should have the sliding tray based CD Drives Windows has. At least then CD's won't get stuck and even when you press the particular cd button on keyboard it still won't come out.

My sister managed to do the same with her iBook G4. I'm neutral on the sliding tray vs just putting the CD in, since Apple seems to have manufactured the later ones somewhat better and it's not as much of an issue anymore. But just to nitpick... Windows doesn't have any sliding tray based CD drives... it's just an operating system. Dell, HP, and all the other computer manufacturers may well have sliding CD trays, though.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

30 Dec 2008, 11:09 pm

falcorn wrote:

<snip>

Is Pat back? Almost sounds like it.

_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.

Page 11 of 13 [ 204 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next

Jump to:

Worst Operating System you ever used? Post Reply New Topic

Worst Operating System you ever used?