What do you REALLY think of Windows?

madindehead · 24 Oct 2011 at 20:47

Hey all,

Quick question for you:

What do you REALLY think of Windows? Is it a good OS? Is it badly designed? Is the UI good? Etc?

This all stemmed from an argument I had with someone as to whether Windows was a good OS or not.

His points were as follows:

1) It has bad resource management
2) The UI is badly designed
3) It's security is meaningless
4) It based on a software architecture that should have died years ago

Now, I should point out he is a MASSIVE Linux fan, and tends to rage about every single little thing Windows does. Including force rebooting after installing all the updates after a fresh install.

I'm just interested to see what other people make of this

I hope it can become a thoughtful and interesting debate. Over to you

d_brennen · 24 Oct 2011 at 20:54

Having been a Windows user since 3.1 I have come to recognise it is a necessary evil. It runs billions of devices that make the world go round. Windows 7 is brilliant, Vista was better than most would say it was and XP had it's day. The 7 UI and features are the best ever in Windows. Security is as good as the retard piloting it

Linux is good and has it's place
Mac OS is good and has it's place

You're friend is a noob. IMO

NathanE · 24 Oct 2011 at 21:08

I can confirm that all four of the guys points are wrong.

Points 3, 4 and 5 are particularly hilarious. As he should know, as a Linux person, that it is actually Linux which violates those so flagrantly. Monolithic kernel design such as Linux's was being questioned by prominent computer scientists even back in the early 1990's. The UI design of Linux is well known to be fragmented, with lots of different shells like KDE and Gnome available but none of them as good or consistent as Windows or even OSX. Security on Linux is a great paradox. Mostly it derives its security through its failure to truly penetrate the market and therefore present a large enough target surface area. Because if you've ever actually deployed some proper server software on Linux it is a rather enlightening experience. I deployed Haproxy for instance, some months ago, and you have to manually lock it down. Create restricted user accounts for it and setup the service process to de-elevate itself during execution. If you do not do this, any vulnerability could be exploited and grant the attacker with a root privilege escalation. And this is the same with pretty much all of Linux's server softwares, from web servers to e-mail servers. On Windows this type of situation when deploying software is almost unheard of. Server software especially tends to be locked down by default, without needing serious user intervention like is needed on Linux.

Resource management... to be honest, both OSes are perfectly fine at this. It's not exactly hard.

PS: Linux requires a reboot too after installing a significant enough set of updates.

kylew · 24 Oct 2011 at 21:23

Was this permabanned in the "steve jobs wanted to crush android" thread?

1) It has bad resource management

Based on what? RAM usage?

This is a common argument used by people who are for whatever reason "anti windows", they seemingly want to have lots of RAM but don't want their computers to actually use it. I've heard so many times "windows uses too much ram", but when asked to quantify what "too much" means, they're unable to explain their thinking on it outside of "well I have 4GB of RAM and windows shows it's using 2GB, that's too much".

I've even heard "well I use Windows 7 within a virtual machine on my OSX computer, and that pushes RAM usage up loads, so I don't like Windows because it uses too much RAM", they completely ignored any sort of argument about what would you expect when running a virtual machine within another operating system with loads of other things running?

2) The UI is badly designed

Again you could say based on what? It works, does what most/all need it to do and isn't complicated. Is this person confusing "bad" with "I prefer linux's UI"?

3) Its security is meaningless

In what regard? Is he claiming that windows gets viruses, therefore it's insecure?

4) It based on a software architecture that should have died years ago

Did he quantify what this actually meant?

ian54 · 24 Oct 2011 at 21:26

Windows was an early adopter of the "driver" methodology which opened the door for a vast amount of hardware compatibility, you can be sure that the graphics card market would never have bloomed without this kind of design, beginning with the simple "windows accelerator" cards, to "3D", to the monster GPUs of today.

Linux has always been reliant on "basic" capabilities of hardware, it just hasn't got the capability to take advantage of hardware specific design, and Apple have just made their own hardware to suit, which due to being a walled business model is always first to market but quickly left behind by Windows compatible hardware on both price and performance.

I remember the days of DOS when software suites like Lotus 1-2-3 and Wordperfect came with hundreds of printer and tablet drivers, that became a bad memory once Windows 3.0 took over.

Windows 7 is a very capable OS for today's multi-core CPU design, which was one area badly lacking over Linux.

theheyes · 24 Oct 2011 at 21:28

It's a great OS. I've happily bought most versions since Windows 3.0. I also have a MacBook Pro, and I ran Ubuntu on my main PC for about 8 months a few years ago (I went back to Windows though). I use a Linux live CD fairly often and love it so I would say my opinion is fairly well balanced.

I'll let somebody else argue the points (he's wrong by the way) but I think somebody should tell him that being a Linux fan doesn't necessarily mean he has to "rage against Windows". If he's happy with his choice then why waste his time picking fault with an OS he doesn't even use. If Linux is so much better, then his time is surely better spent talking about why that is.

madindehead · 24 Oct 2011 at 21:29

kylew said:
Was this permabanned in the "steve jobs wanted to crush android" thread?

Based on what? RAM usage?

This is a common argument used by people who are for whatever reason "anti windows", they seemingly want to have lots of RAM but don't want their computers to actually use it. I've heard so many times "windows uses too much ram", but when asked to quantify what "too much" means, they're unable to explain their thinking on it outside of "well I have 4GB of RAM and windows shows it's using 2GB, that's too much".

I've even heard "well I use Windows 7 within a virtual machine on my OSX computer, and that pushes RAM usage up loads, so I don't like Windows because it uses too much RAM", they completely ignored any sort of argument about what would you expect when running a virtual machine within another operating system with loads of other things running?

Again you could say based on what? It works, does what most/all need it to do and isn't complicated. Is this person confusing "bad" with "I prefer linux's UI"?

In what regard? Is he claiming that windows gets viruses, therefore it's insecure?

Did he quantify what this actually meant?

No, it wasn't permabanned in that thread

And really, he didn't back up any of his claims with any evidence or proof

memyselfandi · 24 Oct 2011 at 21:33

Speaking as someone who has worked with Linux/Unix boxes for the last 14 or so years and is Red Hat Certified I would say ....

... there's nothing wrong with Windows in its place. I wouldn't agree with any of the points the OPs friend makes really ... they may have been partially accurate at some point in some cases but not particularly for the modern iterations of Windows.

Personally I prefer to run Linux at the server level in most cases, (as it's the area I get paid for). As NathanE says to get a truly secure system does require manual configuration steps.

On the desktop I'd prefer to run either Windows 7 or OSX ... both work well for me and I've had roughly the same number of issues (which is a very low amount) with both.

NathanE · 24 Oct 2011 at 21:55

Points 1, 3 and 4 would apply to Windows 9x. But that OS is long since obsolete...

Deleted member 77746 · 24 Oct 2011 at 21:56

OSX is better...

/waits for the bashing.... Lol

Reaper 392 · 24 Oct 2011 at 22:19

i really like windows. i used to have a hole in the wall, but now ive installed windows i can still get light in the house and see outside, but i dont get that pesky draft or the massive chill at night/winter times. its also improved my security massively as burglars would have to smash it to get in, making an awful lot of noise, whereas before anyone could get in and out of the house as they pleased

koolpc · 24 Oct 2011 at 22:20

Tried OSX and hated it. Much prefer Windows 7. So much Easier to use for me.

Mattus · 25 Oct 2011 at 03:29

Resource management and security are moot points. Windows 7 manages resources well, as do all modern OSes. Windows has made big strides in security in recent years. Its security is perfectly adequate - like other OSes, so long as you exercise some care over what you install on your machine, you'll be fine!

As for UI, I really think it's all a matter of opinion. Having been told how amazing the UI on OS X is, I was expecting a revelation when I got my MacBook. What I've found to be the truth is that neither Windows or Mac OS really has a better UI than the other. They just have different strengths and weaknesses. Mac OS tends to feel much smoother, 'prettier' and more consistent in terms of UI than Windows - but I find the Windows UI more flexible and much more logical in terms of window management and keyboard shortcuts.

madindehead · 25 Oct 2011 at 09:15

Interesting points here.

My main concern with the person I was speaking to is this:

I don't think he WANTS to like Windows, as he is the kind of person who still using M$ to describe Microsoft. Really, he is wheeling out terrible arguments, even out of date arguments, to lay down hate on an OS I think he will never like.

His argument about a badly designed UI makes little sense to me. Windows has a great UI now, very intuitive and makes a lot of sense as to where things are.

Resource management is fine on Windows (from what I know, I'm not a software expert). As for security, I also feel that Windows has made great progress. But, a lot of it comes down to the fact that Windows is much more popular, and is therefore worth developing viruses/malware for!

The fact that all of this stemmed from him slamming Windows for rebooting after installing updates after a fresh install, and damning anyone who works on Windows, just annoyed me. Whilst I respect that he has a choice to choose his own OS, and I have nothing wrong with any OS, as someone said above, every OS has its place! However, since he is studying computer science, you would have thought he would have more appreciation for an OS and it's capabilities. Surely he would know that Windows isn't based on a dead architecture.

NathanE · 25 Oct 2011 at 09:19

madindehead said:
As for security, I also feel that Windows has made great progress. But, a lot of it comes down to the fact that Windows is much more popular, and is therefore worth developing viruses/malware for!

I think Windows is the most fundamentally secure desktop/workstation OS. It is the most "battle hardened", by far. Admittedly, most of this has been acquired in around the last 5 to 7 years.

If somehow one was to give Linux or OSX the market share that Windows has, overnight... it would be rather hilarious I think how quickly those OSes would be turned into swiss cheese. I'd give it a month, tops, before a "MSBlaster" level of attack was unleashed across the web.

edscdk · 25 Oct 2011 at 09:21

after using an ipad 2 for 6 months,

I cannot believe how SLOOOOOOOOOOW windows is, and amazingly long it takes to boot and shut down. I admit some times programs load almost instantly on windows however its not always the case some times word opens in 1 second other times its 5seconds (not long but still anoys me) other times it can take longer

by the time my i5 8gb ram has booted I can check my email on my Ipad and be browsing por.... other material...

I avoid using the PC for anything now really because its so frustratingly slow

Hotwired · 25 Oct 2011 at 09:23

What do fish think of water?

I haven't bothered to try other operating systems and I don't know what I'm missing.

As such, no opinion.

I'd say that would be the majority view for the country if you asked. Shortly after puzzlement if you did mention other operating systems.

Your friend cares too much about too little.

edscdk said:
after using an ipad 2 for 6 months,

I cannot believe how SLOOOOOOOOOOW windows is, and amazingly long it takes to boot and shut down. I admit some times programs load almost instantly on windows however its not always the case some times word opens in 1 second other times its 5seconds (not long but still anoys me) other times it can take longer

by the time my i5 8gb ram has booted I can check my email on my Ipad and be browsing por.... other material...

I avoid using the PC for anything now really because its so frustratingly slow

Your hardware knowledge demonstrates why my post is valid.

Consumers don't care about the hardware or software, they want results with minimal extra effort.

Your Ipad uses a SSD and your PC uses a hard drive unless you've upgraded since the last time you discussed your computer.

Change your PC storage to a SSD and you'll find it boots and loads programs much faster.

Or be like me and leave it on standby so it's back up again faster than anyone boots.

madindehead · 25 Oct 2011 at 09:28

edscdk said:
after using an ipad 2 for 6 months,

I cannot believe how SLOOOOOOOOOOW windows is, and amazingly long it takes to boot and shut down. I admit some times programs load almost instantly on windows however its not always the case some times word opens in 1 second other times its 5seconds (not long but still anoys me) other times it can take longer

by the time my i5 8gb ram has booted I can check my email on my Ipad and be browsing por.... other material...

I avoid using the PC for anything now really because its so frustratingly slow

All I can say is: SSD.

Windows being slow to boot is a hard drive thing. Not a Windows thing.

NathanE · 25 Oct 2011 at 09:28

edscdk said:
after using an ipad 2 for 6 months,

I cannot believe how SLOOOOOOOOOOW windows is, and amazingly long it takes to boot and shut down. I admit some times programs load almost instantly on windows however its not always the case some times word opens in 1 second other times its 5seconds (not long but still anoys me) other times it can take longer

by the time my i5 8gb ram has booted I can check my email on my Ipad and be browsing por.... other material...

I avoid using the PC for anything now really because its so frustratingly slow

It's kind of unfair to compare an iPad to a full blown Windows desktop PC. One is a portable device running a compact operating system. The other is a highly capable PC that can run all sorts of software and hardware.

That said... wait for Windows 8 and you will see how crappy the iPad is. It's a first-gen product. Which means, early adopters / stop-gap solution. Windows 8 will show the world what a *real* tablet PC is all about. PS: I own a iPad2 also and Windows 8 pre-beta already boots faster.

edscdk · 25 Oct 2011 at 09:30

NathanE said:
I think Windows is the most fundamentally secure desktop/workstation OS.

yep good old virus proof windows..... most people never get a virus....

reading email / browsing the internet on a tablet, mac or linux is much more likley to get you a virus...