Just Adventure: Off Topic Forum

Just Adventure News :

Addon: Legacy of Romulus Expansion to Star Trek Online Launches Game: Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment wishes gamers Good Night, Good Luck in Dying Light Beta: Second Phase of Eldevin Closed Beta Begins News: Video Games: The Movie Press Release: Indie Narrative / Strategy Game 7 Grand Steps Will Release June 7 for PC and Mac Gold: The Incredible Adventures of Van Helsing Demo: Jack Haunt: Old Haunting Grounds Alpha Demo Released Game: Might And Delight Presents "Shelter" Early Gameplay Footage Press Release: Legendary Monsters Are Invading Age of Conan Press Release: New Settler and Scientist Path content for WildStar

Search Active Topics

Home - Forum Home

Welcome Guest, please Login or Register!

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register or login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Topic: Hate XP?

Page 1

All Forums : [General] : Off Topic Forum > Hate XP?

#1 20 SEP 2006 at 3:08am
Deleted User	I read that in the main AG forum, but I didn't want to hijack someone's ND thread or start a stupid OS flame war. Why do people hate XP? I'm not being an MS apologist here by any means, but XP is generally the most stable Windows OS by far, and it certainly isn't missing any major functionality of Win98 (which is still an old 16bit legacy OS). I'm guessing it's due to frustration playing older games, but does that make sense? If you stay on Win98, you're cutting yourself off from newer, more advanced gaming, limiting yourself to a set of legacy games that's not going to grow.

#2 20 SEP 2006 at 3:22am
Andromus Guild Master Posts : 5538 Joined: 6 NOV 2002 Status : Offline	Don't know. I like to pick on Microsoft as much as the next guy, but honestly, I don't have any major complaints about XP. It was actually a refreshing change as I switched over to it from Windows ME. (Now there was a lousy OS!)
Profile Search
#3 20 SEP 2006 at 4:40am
SirDave Guild Master Posts : 4941 Joined: 17 OCT 2002 Location: US Status : Offline	*Originally Posted By Not A Speck Of Cereal (20 SEP 2006 3:07am)* I read that in the main AG forum, but I didn't want to hijack someone's ND thread or start a stupid OS flame war. Why do people hate XP? That's easy: IGNORANCE! The future ain't what it used to be!
Profile Search
#4 20 SEP 2006 at 8:30am
alkis21 Schattenjger Posts : 2112 Joined: 23 OCT 2002 Location: GR Status : Offline	*Originally Posted By Not A Speck Of Cereal (20 SEP 2006 3:07am)* XP is generally the most stable Windows OS by far "The most stable Windows OS" does not equal "The most stable OS". But I agree that XP is much more reliable than the previous versions, and I have no major complaints either. Do you like classic adventure games? Check out Diamonds in the Rough!
Profile Search
#5 20 SEP 2006 at 4:41pm
Chris. Schattenjger Posts : 1842 Joined: 8 MAR 2005 Status : Online	The only problem is that it likes to eat up your resources... ...not to be confused with Keira Knightley
Profile Search
#6 20 SEP 2006 at 7:56pm
SirDave Guild Master Posts : 4941 Joined: 17 OCT 2002 Location: US Status : Offline	*Originally Posted By alkis21 (20 SEP 2006 8:30am)* *Originally Posted By Not A Speck Of Cereal (20 SEP 2006 3:07am)* XP is generally the most stable Windows OS by far "The most stable Windows OS" does not equal "The most stable OS". Actually, if you compare apples with apples I think it does. None of the other 'potentially more stable' OSes have been tested out there in the big, bad public the way WinXP has been. In other words, if operating systems such as Linux and MAC OS were driven to the point WinXP has been with the same number of users and with the same numbers of varying programs and hardware over a period of 5-6 years, would they be more stable? We'll never know of course, but I have my doubts that they would be any better than WinXP under those circumstances. I'm no apologist for Microsoft/WinXP, but I like to keep it real! The future ain't what it used to be!
Profile Search
#7 20 SEP 2006 at 11:50pm
Helen Guild Master Posts : 3436 Joined: 12 OCT 2002 Location: US Status : Offline	I wonder the same thing, I was afraid to "go XP" but I have to say I havent had any complaints. :-?
Profile Search
#8 21 SEP 2006 at 12:42am
Terry Penrod Grand Inquisitor Posts : 6693 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline	. I agree. Other than a small handful of older games that have issues with XP (which I simply play on a Win98 SE PC and/or using DOS Box or SCUMM VM), I haven't had any problems at all. There have been zero major crashes, very little need to defrag and the restore point feature is great. All peripherals work fine, all newer games work fine and assuming you have a halfway decent system by even modest standards these days, the "resource drain" is not noticeable. Cheers, Terry
Profile Search
#9 21 SEP 2006 at 3:43am
Deleted User	The reason that a lot of the older games don't work so well is because they were breaking the rules, writing to the hardware and stuff like that. But to be fair, in earlier Windows versions, that's what they had to do. Then.

#10 21 SEP 2006 at 3:46am
jujigatame Schattenjger Posts : 1976 Joined: 14 FEB 2003 Status : Online	XP is an excellent OS. I prefer the GUI to Mac OSX's and they are very comparable where stability is concerned.
Profile Search
#11 21 SEP 2006 at 9:03am
Alan Thorn Sorcerer Apprentice Posts : 240 Joined: 8 JUN 2005 Status : Online	In so far as an Operating System may be defined as a platform to ensure stable running of applications, then I believe Windows XP does not fair badly overall. It is the work of many varied and skilled developers from all parts of the globe, and Windows generally runs securely so long as it is upon hardware it recognises. But by comparison I do not see Windows as being the most economical, or the best value, or founded upon the noblest principles, or as secure as it should be considering the price. Furthermore, the one area where Windows has a definite advantage is in the selection of games, but this is not so much a representation of the power of windows so much as it is a commercial decision for game developers who realise most people own a Windows PC. In contrast, GNU/Linux is not at all perfect in the sense of being the most approachable for beginners. But in terms of reliability, the varied collection of free bundled software, and in the sense of it all being free in terms of freedom- freedom to distribute, freedom to change and learn from, and so on; I see GNU/Linux as being the greater social good in the world of computing on the grounds that it is free and open to all kinds of people including developers, whereas I see Windows as becoming a more closed and restrictive architecture with each release. Though I have no reason to suppose my comments will convert people en-mass to change to GNU/Linux, it is important to remember the dangers for consumers when total reliance upon a provider becomes so established that there can be no other alternatives.
Profile Search

#12 21 SEP 2006 at 3:17pm
anthony Journeyman Posts : 1270 Joined: 11 JUN 2003 Status : Offline	Alan, what's with all that surplus verbiage? Why not just a simple haiku: A stable OS, but restrictive and not cheap. That's Windows XP. _{Yes, I do not plan to quit my day job. Thank you.}
Profile Search
#13 21 SEP 2006 at 8:38pm
SirDave Guild Master Posts : 4941 Joined: 17 OCT 2002 Location: US Status : Offline	*Originally Posted By anthony (21 SEP 2006 3:17pm)* Alan, what's with all that surplus verbiage? Or better that he had avoided this:'But by comparison I do not see Windows as being the most economical, or the best value, or founded upon the noblest principles, or as secure as it should be considering the price.' which I doesn't make any reasonable sense. Better to simply say that it is nice that there is an OS like Linux for those with the skills to get it to do what they want. I get a little incensed on this subject and I come from it objectively, because I was brought up on DOS & all things DOS. I programmed in 4 different dialects of Basic & was proficent in the C Language (the original C that is). I wanted nothing to do with Windows when it arrived. I resisted it until Win95 forced me to grudgingly come aboard and I didn't like it at all. But then I started seeing the benefits of it and have followed it thru Win92SE, a reasonably good OS, to WinXP which is overall a remarkable product that is taken very much for granted. Let's all get a grip here: It's not just that WinXP allows us to play more games because, well, the developers have made some sort of 'commercial decision'. Windows is, in fact, a result of capitalism at its best. It exists and is successfull because there is the recognition that it has to please and work for the masses who buy it and the manufacturers who want an OS through which to sell their software & hardware that run it. That takes a lot of know-how & a lot of money and there has to be the incentive to do it which is that you will make reasonable amount of money as a return on your investment. If you go with the premise that it should be more open and cheaper and of better value (whatever that means) then you will end up with an OS that isn't as good overall for the broad diversity of people who use it, because there is no economical incentive to make it better. Linux is simply not an alternative for the great majority of people. It has had plenty of chances to be a true competitor of Windows (which it was original promised to be) if the premise of 'more economical' and a 'better value' worked. And Linux has not lived up to the promise because Microsoft bashed it, on the contrary, it didn't live up to it because there was simply no economical incentive to make it a reliable OS that worked, out of the box, with all the hardware & software out there. No one was ready to put the money into it in a gamble that it would pay off by people buying it. So, all you have now is an OS that works for a few basic products and programs and if you want anything really specific, you'd better know how to do a bit of programming. So, to conclude: It's nice having Linux available. It means that those free, independent spirits have something to use if it fits their requirements and they can make sure they know how to get it to fit their needs. But if there were no Windows XP and we had to rely on something like Linux that was an open system and was cheap and was 'founded on nobler principles' (which I take to mean, was provided almost at cost by a few well-meaning individuals for the good of mankind) then we would have a relatively buggy OS with very limited capability. End of rant! The future ain't what it used to be!
Profile Search
#14 22 SEP 2006 at 3:43am
Deleted User	*Originally Posted By SirDave (21 SEP 2006 8:38pm)* So, to conclude: It's nice having Linux available. It means that those free, independent spirits have something to use if it fits their requirements and they can make sure they know how to get it to fit their needs. But if there were no Windows XP and we had to rely on something like Linux that was an open system and was cheap and was 'founded on nobler principles' (which I take to mean, was provided almost at cost by a few well-meaning individuals for the good of mankind) then we would have a relatively buggy OS with very limited capability. End of rant! Amen! Long live Linus and those that care to use it. For the rest of us, there is Windows (insert current flavor). In the future, who knows?

All Forums : [General] : Off Topic Forum > Hate XP?

Page 1

Jump to:

0 Members Subscribed To This Topic

Topic: Hate XP?

Andromus

SirDave

alkis21

Chris.

SirDave

Helen

Terry Penrod

jujigatame

Alan Thorn

anthony

SirDave