@Faildows users: how do you put up with it?

[nux]

Ive been using Linux as my main and pretty much only operating system for about 6 years now, with only a few months on faildows in between. My HD is currently in the process of becoming trash as its life is starting to slowly end; ive had it for around 7 years now. So before i lost all its data, i hooked up my laptop's HD as only device. I used this laptop for gaming mostly, so it had faildows XP installed, so when i booted with the "new" HD, faildows loaded on a 640x480 resolution with a color depth of FOUR bits. I was staring at the screen when suddenly, "new hardware found" spam all over my taskbar; tried to close them, but no, my usb mouse didnt work. I still remember some of the "hacks" and enabled the keyboard mouse, finally being able to start handling the spam. Luckily, the usb mouse was recognized and the drivers installed automatically (!!!). But then i realized something... i didnt have my network card drivers; i tried the same way as with the mouse to install them, but it kept asking me to connect to a VPN i used for "LAN" gaming with a friend.

I am now back on Linux, thanking Linus, Richard, and everybody who made this beautiful piece of software possible; while sighing about how much work i have to do to make the faildows install bearable until i get a new HD.

[sinewav]

I use Windows XP because it rocks.* Before wiping it off my hard drive in 2010 for Linux, I had been running the same install for six years without a single hardware incompatibility, driver issue, or even a BSOD. It was just a few weeks ago when I abandoned Linux and went back to XP, a dead operating system, because it meets my needs better than Linux does. I don't know if I will upgrade to Win7 or Metro when XP support runs out in April of 2014, but considering Linux sucks for my computing needs, I may have no choice but to continue using a completely awesome Windows system.

So how do Faildows users put up with it? It meets their needs better than the other options, just like Linux meets your needs better than Windows.

INB4 Linux fanboy "blame the user" fest.


*Saying WinXP rocks is objectively true. Microsoft had the worst time trying to get people to upgrade and they were forced into supporting XP far longer than the 10 years they intended.

[nux]

*Saying WinXP rocks is objectively true. Microsoft had the worst time trying to get people to upgrade and they were forced into supporting XP far longer than the 10 years they intended.

That wasnt because XP was too awesome, that was because Vista sucked biiiiiiiig time.

[sinewav]

*Saying WinXP rocks is objectively true. Microsoft had the worst time trying to get people to upgrade and they were forced into supporting XP far longer than the 10 years they intended.

That wasnt because XP was too awesome, that was because Vista sucked biiiiiiiig time.

All the negativity surrounding Vista's 2007 release was one of the reasons I considered switching to Linux. I thought, "is this the future of Windows? No thanks." But even three years after its release, Windows 7 is just barely taking over XP. Quite strangely, Microsoft offers customers the option to downgrade from Win7 to Win XP (not Vista) and apparently this offer stands for the lifetime of Win7. Windows 8 will be out shortly and XP will still be on more desktops than Mac, Linux, and Vista combined. That's one tough OS.

[Z-Man]

Simple: I think about how if Linux didn't have Distributions and applications would install the same way as on Windows, with nobody making sure they uninstall cleanly no matter what, nobody taking care there are no conflics, noboy syncing up the library versions your applications are using, installations would break just as quickly. If not faster. And if Linux didn't come with almost every hardware driver ever preinstalled and vendors were instead responsible for supplying theirs, well, you'd have the same behaviour as you just observed if you take a Linux installation without preparation (that's the thing, you need to revert Windows back to basic, greatest common denominator drivers before you move the HD) from one PC to the next. So let's not forget the countless distribution maintainers and kernel developers. Praise to you!

(Side note, Linux's comfort of use seems to increase just as my willingness to cope decreases. Remember when you had to compile your own kernel? Yeah. That was fun, but not the kind of fun I want any more.)

[delinquent]

I use windows 3.0. It still rocks my world.

On a serious note, I tried Ubuntu on my late laptop, which incorporated a nifty HD graphics chipset. Under XP, the HD functions didn't work, but the power was still evident. Under win7, they were true 1080p and awesomely high quality. Under Ubuntu, the resolution stayed put at 800x600, no HD, no video playback, and every so often the graphics handler crashed.

That being said, on the Compaq laptop I have, I run backtrack, which is facking brilliant. True HD, 3d sound, all the accessories you could dream of and so much available CPU power that I might just piddle myself.

Oh, I read somewhere that a 32bit OS can only ever truely use 2.02Gb of ram. Tried it out with XP, it's true. In a tower with 32Gb physically available, only 2Gb was ever used, even when rendering a short video. on XPx64, it uses the lot...

[nux]

Im not saying XP is bad, it is the best one from micro$oft so far, but Vista was a really hard blow for them; it sucked so much that made people lose faith in faildows altogether. Also, 8 will not be better than 7, or so it seems by the reviews i've read.

Same could be said for every OS, really. "If they didnt have X, Y and Z it would be the same as K". And yes, i know there is some stuff that is complicated on Linux, same as windows; but problems in Linux tend to be a one-time issue, while windows is constant.

That was probably due to lack of specific video card drivers, you were most likely running on generic drivers. Without having to install anything, i could watch 720p with no real issue on Ubuntu 10, with the difference that i have an integrated graphics card. Also, windows is known for limiting the RAM even if you have more available; i've read that W7 cant handle more than 8GB of RAM; i dont think 32/64 bits matter.

[Z-Man]

You're missing my point, partly because I didn't make it very clearly, and partly because, well, I'm no big fan of the big W myself; what I'm saying is that it is not the OS itself that makes the experience better (for some), it is the culture and infrastructure that was built around it.

[vov]

I use both windows and linux, for whenever I need something the other one doesn't provide. Simple as that

[Word]

I own Vista and it's serving me better than XP did. All programs I ever wanted run without problems, and if my laptop has problems they're usually hardware-related. And all bugs that could possibly happen have already been fixed and discussed, it's easier to find them on the web. But, while I like the idea of OpenSource, and actually sympathize with a few ideas of the pirate party (although I'd never vote for them), I'm annoyed by some of this generation's representatives who seem to know nothing else besides their Linux stuff (like, um, general knowledge about the stuff that I care about) and are ultra-arrogant to people who don't. Windows users just want a good computer that does its job. The OS isn't a self purpose for me (I don't think that it is for Linux users, but it comes across like that sometimes - hey, do you see people with Microsoft T-shirts and cups outside of an official Microsoft subsidiary?). Also, Photoshop is still a million times easier to use than GIMP (you don't need to choose a different tool for changing the size, moving and turning a selection, and don't need to confirm things like that etc.).

[kyle]

Remember when you had to compile your own kernel? Yeah. That was fun, but not the kind of fun I want any more.)

I still compile everything and 180 some more! However now that i have a laptop I do like the ease of not having to mess with it.

@delinquent: The 2 GB was a kernel limitation, there where ways to get around it though. I remember there being a kernel option in linux to allow for more. I've never used 32 bit linux though.
Also for the video issue that sounds like driver problems. I Don't have the best video cards, but i can play blu-ray qulity video withought any problem. I actually had to change from ATI's drivers to xorg's drivers to handle it, when I was initailly testing blu-ray on linux. (Note: Blu-Ray on linux is comparable to the fun Z-man has compiling kernels)

Also I agree with Z-man a lot of it is the culture around the operating system. But to me this is not all of it. There are several things I am able to do on linux much more efficiently than on windows. When forced to use linux one of the first things that annoys me is I am no longer able to hover over an inactive window and scroll.

[nux]

When forced to use linux one of the first things that annoys me is I am no longer able to hover over an inactive window and scroll.

Ah, you reminded me of how xfce allows you to do this, but changes focus to that window.

[Phytotron]

OSX > Linux > Windows

That's my judgment, putting aside any of the philosophical crap surrounding any of these—open source versus proprietary, silly cultural marketing nonsense fools buy into (including Linux users), all that stuff. Also putting aside most of the under-the-hood geek stuff. Just the OS itself. My experience with Linux has only made me appreciate OSX even more. Without going into a long diatribe, Linux feels (and to large extent, is by its nature) amateurish, cobbled together, incoherent and disjointed, unfinished, and just plain old. And no, I'm not referring to cosmetics (and after all, Linux has compiz, et al; so don't give me that "OSX is just eye candy" bullshit). There's too much superfluous and stubborn geekiness still required, too much lacking of basic functionality, too many workarounds, too much that's just plain broken—all of which Linux users just take as a matter of course. It's "expected behavior." Plus, most distros are basically Windows knock-offs with some minor tweaks. Whoopdeedoo.

So I don't get how Linux users can ask Windows users how they put up with it. How do you put up with Linux? Again, don't get me wrong, I think Linux is OK, and is clearly superior to the crap that is Windows; if limited to those two (as I am presently) I would always choose the former, no question. But a lot of the time, in many respects, it's nonetheless just a different, somewhat more tolerable set of hassles and headaches.

I can't think of anything about Linux that I've yet found it does better than OSX. Well, the comprehensive updates dealio is nice; I'll give it that.


Delinquent, I don't know what your problems were. I'm presently using Ubuntu 12.04, 64-bit, and I've got a full 1920x1080 resolution going just fine. That's with an Intel i5 HD integrated graphics; no video card.

As for the -bits and RAM, from what I've read 32-bit chips (any OS) can't recognize RAM above 4 GB. And of course, you need a 64-bit processor to run a 64-bit version of a given OS.

Also, Photoshop is still a million times easier to use than GIMP.

And how. Ugh. I think GIMP is sort of representative of Linux on the whole, in fact. Not that Windows is much better. Again, OSX kills them both. But you can't just put it in terms of "easy" (which the geeks will invariably bash); it's a matter of sensible design.

[sinewav]

Also, Photoshop is still a million times easier to use than GIMP.

And how. Ugh. I think GIMP is sort of representative of Linux on the whole, in fact. Not that Windows is much better. Again, OSX kills them both. But you can't just put it in terms of "easy" (which the geeks will invariably bash); it's a matter of sensible design.

Ok, I need to jump in here. Not as some sort of Gimp fanboy, but as someone who used Photoshop professionally for over a decade. PS is not a million times better. Sure there are a several things PS does well or that GIMP doesn't do at all. I'll give you that much. But speaking as a professional who worked in the photo industry, GIMP is not that bad.

[kyle]

As for the -bits and RAM, from what I've read 32-bit chips (any OS) can't recognize RAM above 4 GB. And of course, you need a 64-bit processor to run a 64-bit version of a given OS.

Like i said Linux can if you configure the kernel to handle it.