I Really Hate Windows Sometimes | Hacker News Reader

I Really Hate Windows Sometimes

devtopics.com

17 pointsblazzerbg23 comments

Reminds me how my Ubuntu wireless stopped working because an automatic update installed a new and broken driver. Ah and all the songs on my ipod were deleted without warning because I had plugged it into "the wrong" computer.

Seems nothing is ever going to save us from ignorance and complexity. There's no escape, at least when it comes to operating systems.

KISS - Keep It Simple and Succinct.

I really wish I could find a Linux 1.2 that was just updated for new hardware and bug-fixes; hell, even an updated Windows 98 would be better than the current alternatives (including Ubuntu which is a royal pain).

May I ask what you want specifically? There are tons of distros out there, one may serve your needs.

I like the Windows 98 interface because it is simpler and cleaner than the later windows versions and is easy to use for things of peripheral interest to me, like browsing, than linux is. For most things like this, I want something that just works, without my having to fiddle with it.

I like the early versions of linux, because I am basically just a hobbyist in computers and they are easier to script and even program in without the extra layers of cruft, mostly intended to make it easier to use (as I use Windows). But they don't succeed at being anywhere near as easy to use as Windows.

I used to dual-boot, but the new computer I bought 2 years ago uses SATA hard drive and I haven't been able to get any non-crufty linux to work on it. I can't use Ubuntu on it to browse since I am not buying a separate modem because they were too lazy to include for support Winmodems. So I use it with Windows for browsing and image work, and use older computers for linux.

If you really want the Windows 98 experience, you can always turn your resolution down to 800x600 (or smaller, if you can) and do:

Right click on My Computer, Click Properties Select the Advanced Tab Click Performance Select "Adjust for best performance".

That sets the most obvious appearance to something akin to Windows 98.

As far as things just "working" I have yet to use a system that is as good in that aspect as Windows 7 (and Vista before that). The problem of things not working doesn't lie in the OS, it's almost entirely for the crap we consider "working" now, that wouldn't have even been thought of now.

As an anecdote, a year or two ago I acquired an old Windows 98 machine, which I played around with for a few hours. After fighting with it to get all of the drivers found. This was a fresh installation, on Windows 98 era hardware, and I ended up having to install a floppy drive into my desktop, find some floppies and go out and download each of the drivers for everything to even get it working. Once I finally had it up and running, I decided I would try and go online. The only site I usually go to, and could get to an even usable state was GMail, through the "Low Bandwidth" version.

The problem isn't with the OS. Its all the crap we try and do on computers, and how shoddily that is put together. If you want to see it for yourself: Go out and get a copy of Windows 7 (Get a 90-day trial: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/cc442495.aspx) and go install it on a VM. Disable networking, and try and use it like you normally would. Install the minimum applications you need to do your work. You will be amazed at how things "Just Work". Then try and go online for a few days on it, and watch it DIAF.

If you desire a "simpler and cleaner [interface] than the later windows versions and is easy to use for things of peripheral interest to me, like browsing", may I suggest DSL[1] or Puppy[2]? Both are simple and clean interfaces with modern linux drivers. Puppy has a slightly nicer interface.

However, it sounds to me like you don't like Linux due to it's lack of soft modem drivers. If that's the case, I don't think you're judging this software fairly, as a hardware modem is available for less than the price of a windows license.

[1]http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

[2]http://www.puppylinux.org/

My favorite is the windows automatic restart when left unattended after certain updates. Back in College, I had this program that allowed me to snag released tickets to our basketball team (it was first come first served after release) for lots of friends. I went out and windows updated -- on the biggest game of the year.

Updates are particularly difficult to get right. For something that requires a restart, you have two main options: restart the computer for the user, or wait for the user to restart on its own. You run into two problems if you wait for the user: Many never actually restart, and if you let it trigger on Shutdown also, then you'll have the problem of users turning on their computer and having to wait 20 minutes for all 200 updates they haven't been bothering with to install.

As far as automated updates go, they should be requiring the user to acknowledge the "Restart now?" box, and nag the hell out of users until they acknowledge it somehow.

Yea. I would be fine if it popped up and said "Restart Now." as a modal dialog box that had no other option than "Yes".

I like the "Ask me again in 20 minutes" option. Sometimes I'm in the middle of something and would like it to go away for a little while. My preference would be two options: "Restart Now" and "Nag me in 10 minutes".

Why should a system update ever require you to restart your computer, though?

I would rather have the critical system files locked while Windows is loaded. If it was a server, I would understand allowing those files to be changed, but on my workstation I run lots of code that other, not necessarily trustworthy people have written. Keeping the files that Windows relies on most safe from editing (while the computer is on) seems worth having to restart every couple weeks or so for updates.

I would put this forward: If you run on a system where it gets slower the longer it is left on (which is almost universally from programs running on top of the OS), you should have to restart for any update which changes any critical part of the OS (which I would roughly define as any piece of the OS required to get to a desktop/terminal window).

The automatic restart caused us no end of difficulties at my work. We were running long running data loading integration test scripts on windows boxes. Nothing worse then finding out that the script that was supposed to run over the weekend made it 8 hours then the machine rebooted to install updates.

There's a regedit/GPO that should be applied on any system like this. The key is in Local Computer Policy > Computer Configuration > Administrative Templates > Windows Components > Windows Update (under GPO), and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate (Some place in there, I'm on 7 right now and can't find what it would be on XP).

It is particularly strange that it would happen over the weekend. Updates should be downloaded and installed only on Tuesdays, unless you set it otherwise. If your scripts are running every weekend, why not set the machines to update on Mondays?

Yes, this. I'm a happy windows user (probably a minority here) except for this bloody feature. And the fact that every time windows updates are downloaded I have to review them to make sure they don't contain some kind of genuine validation checker that won't benefit me in any way except probably make my windows copy illegal by mistake.

Murphy's laws "If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong"

I don't want to sound like a Mac fan boy here, but if (when) things like this happen the Genius Bar will help you right out. I know there have been cases where they don't help, but they're good for 90% of the problems that come in.

the issue with almost every other than Windows OS is that there are limited community support. Most of the *X OS has good and straight support but only on certain places, MS may be has the most grasping marketing strategy - make people talk about his products everywhere and value them. This is valid not only for OS but for every product especially for programming languages and tools..... Everybody can try to search issue on Mac/Unix/Linux and for Windows #.... Statistic is not result from fact that there are less issues on OS but talks how much people are familiar and actually using one OS.

I'd say other than Windows OS and Mac OS X. I haven't had a Mac problem that other people couldn't solve. Three cheers for standardization of hardware/OS, I guess.

Yea I remember the days of obscure hacks and fixes for windows. The good thing is that lots of people use windows, so eventually you'll find it. But I can honestly say I've never had to do any weird hacks since I've switched to mac.

very first thing i had to do when I tried a mac mini before it didn't feel like I'd contracted some kind of motor neurone disease was install some dubious hack (If I recall correctly it was called iMouseFix or somesuch). And the default schemes pissed me off, I messed with them a bit trying to make them less eyesore-esque but gave up after realising magnifique (sp?) themes were just bad hacks also.

This whole "it just works" thing never ceases to confuse me.

Gave up, went back to linux, never again considered a return.

...but there is a little pride when you are able to "put hands into" any OS.

This is the way always is and expected to be ....

s/Sometimes//

Reply on news.ycombinator.com