Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Here's a good one

0 helpful
6 replies

by oz_media 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I was doing a little researching and ended up at clubcdfreaks.com , these guys REALLY are freaks.

They have a thread titled "WinXP worst operating system out!!"
I read on only to find the person who started the thread ran out and bought 4 copies of XP when it was first released and installed it on four PC's.
NO hardware compatibility check, NOTHING, just "hey it's new, I gotta have it!"

The POST goes on to say that the software was removed from a couple because it wasn't compatible with the CDRW's. Another was removed due to incompatibility with a scanner and the last install was just removed because the user was sick of XP.

Now for the puch line.

The software was removed and the user reverted back to ME because it is much better!

I couldn't resist but to sign up and add to the thread. heheheheh !

Anyone who knows how I love to attack the unsuspecting, will know how I responded to this mindless idiot who doesn't make very good use of her resources. the forum was mediated so my post was changed to
"Hi i promise i will be friendly next time i post ...
Courtesy of Hemispasm ... PM me"

Does that REALLY sound like me??

You can read this persons post at http://tinyurl.com/m56t

NOTE: others have said that W2K was better (even though it had a crappy driver set at first ??).

6 replies

by jackofalltech

I have to agree that XP *is* the worst POS M$ has ever foisted on us. Just on this site alone, the number of problems and questions directly related to XP far outnumber anything else. I can't stand the new, cute User Interface. Sure, you can make it LOOK like W2K but you CAN'T remove all that crap! It's all still there using up CPU cycles. And don't get me started on security issues.

Ralph

by jim phelps

I have a feeling that the reason XP is such a dog is because it tries to be all things to all people. It's also a pure M$ creation.

W2K, on the other hand, is such a nice system, because M$ STOLE it from DEC. When DEC discovered this, M$ had to settle up with them out of court.

I will NEVER use something which has just been released from M$. I'd rather let all of the other suckers beta test it for a few years, then when it is working fine (or determined to be a dog), I'll use it.

by oz_media

I actually despise XP and have removed it from several PC that I downgraded to W2K Pro or 98Se (if you can call that a downgrade).

That's the whole reason I found the post so amusing. This person went out and bought FOUR copies and installed it no FOUR machines! No harware checks, no software checks just "Hey, it's the latest and greatest" maybe so but WHO's latest and greatest ? MICROSNOT's!

After reading the horror stores here and helping several people get thier cards working among other stupid little incompatibility issues, I read this on a nother site. NOTE: That site is also filled with guys and gals who think they are at the top of the PC Media chain. DVD copiers and movie pirates.
:-P

by voldar

Okay, lets talk a little about XP. From my point of view XP is nice and good loking only to persons that are faceing a computer first time in their life. If you go deep inside - and start using it - you start to wonder : why should I install so many services, so many "media enhancements" etc, when I really don't know what every service is doing (not me, but most of user don't know anything about them). And the spyware is veeeeery "on top" :).
Now, think about W2003 - which Microsoft says it's built on XP technology. I have a 360 days W2003 release, I installed it, and you know what? It's nice and it's doing just fine. Of course, I undressed the server from the facelift (too many used RAM for nothing) - and now it looks like a W2K server :). I know, server systems are not the same as workstation system, but ... it's good to know that at least someone is learning from his mistakes :P.
On the other side, I think W2K Pro is quite robust, stable and let's face it - built on NT technology - which by the way last from some "few years" - it is obvious it has these performances.

About the post of that "freak" - I am not surprised at all. I saw people buying not only system programs but 5+1 speakers brand name - very expensive though - when they don't have a sound card to support them :)). I stop here with my "comments" for now :)

by djent

This idiot was probably standing in line to get the first copy of the first release of Windows 95 on Chump USA's doorstep at midnight. Suckers are such because they never learn. It take two years for a MS OS to mature, it shouldn't but it does.

This discussion is closed to new replies.