Windows Vista Why Windows sucks

  • Thread starter Thread starter White Spirit
  • Start date Start date
W

White Spirit

Guest
There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is just
one of them:

Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program. It
has the following prototype:
int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR
lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow);

hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. If there was an existing
instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about
it because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same address
space. Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to ensure that
the two instances didn't conflict. Most programmers simply limited the
application to one instance.

Microsoft fixed this with Windows 95 - at which time it was over
twenty-five years behind Unix in this regard(*)! Windows NT was also
over twenty-five years behind Unix by being multiuser for the first time
and finally allowing multiple permissions for the file system. Of
course, the filesystem still became severely fragmented after a short
amount of normal use - something that still happens with Windows XP,
over thirty years behind Unix filesystems.

* Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86
architecture was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only
truly available with 32-bit x86. The i368 was first released in 1985,
so it's certainly fair to say that Windows 95 was ten years behind the
techonology. At least it didn't take MS that long to release 64-bit
versions of Windows. It's a shame that they're buggy, slow, have poor
driver support and come at an exorbitant price.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

So what?

A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows
counterparts.

On Apr 11, 6:19 pm, White Spirit <wspi...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
> There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap.  This is just
> one of them:
>
> Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program.  It
> has the following prototype:
>         int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR
> lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow);
>
> hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days.  If there was an existing
> instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about
> it because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same address
> space.  Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to ensure that
> the two instances didn't conflict.  Most programmers simply limited the
> application to one instance.
>
> Microsoft fixed this with Windows 95 - at which time it was over
> twenty-five years behind Unix in this regard(*)!  Windows NT was also
> over twenty-five years behind Unix by being multiuser for the first time
> and finally allowing multiple permissions for the file system.  Of
> course, the filesystem still became severely fragmented after a short
> amount of normal use - something that still happens with Windows XP,
> over thirty years behind Unix filesystems.
>
> * Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86
> architecture was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only
> truly available with 32-bit x86.  The i368 was first released in 1985,
> so it's certainly fair to say that Windows 95 was ten years behind the
> techonology.  At least it didn't take MS that long to release 64-bit
> versions of Windows.  It's a shame that they're buggy, slow, have poor
> driver support and come at an exorbitant price.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:38:31 -0700, AqD wrote:

> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows
> counterparts.

Anyone got a 1908 version of Windows to enable us to make the comparison?

--
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

AqD wrote:

> So what?

> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows
> counterparts.

It depends on the app. But the application is not part of the OS, so
it's a moot point. With a better OS, the same app will run better.
Admittedly, there aren't many Linux games available without running
Cedega, but those that run natively have always run better under Linux
in my experience.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Robin T Cox wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:38:31 -0700, AqD wrote:

>> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows
>> counterparts.

> Anyone got a 1908 version of Windows to enable us to make the comparison?

On the Microsoft scale, I think we're talking Windows for Workgroups.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

We all know that vista sucks.
You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.
Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.
I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.
But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

Not to worry, vista will be history soon and forgotten.

"White Spirit" <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ftndvv$7bm$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is just
> one of them:
>
> Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program. It
> has the following prototype:
> int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR
> lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow);
>
> hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. If there was an existing
> instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about it
> because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same address
> space. Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to ensure that
> the two instances didn't conflict. Most programmers simply limited the
> application to one instance.
>
> Microsoft fixed this with Windows 95 - at which time it was over
> twenty-five years behind Unix in this regard(*)! Windows NT was also over
> twenty-five years behind Unix by being multiuser for the first time and
> finally allowing multiple permissions for the file system. Of course, the
> filesystem still became severely fragmented after a short amount of normal
> use - something that still happens with Windows XP, over thirty years
> behind Unix filesystems.
>
> * Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86 architecture
> was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only truly
> available with 32-bit x86. The i368 was first released in 1985, so it's
> certainly fair to say that Windows 95 was ten years behind the
> techonology. At least it didn't take MS that long to release 64-bit
> versions of Windows. It's a shame that they're buggy, slow, have poor
> driver support and come at an exorbitant price.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

Don't agree. My Vista installation is working perfectly. I mean really -
no problems at all. And the user interface is SO much better than the
tasteless and patronising XP interface, with it's Fisher Price colour
scheme, moronic "My" in front of everything, stupid fanfares and giggling
children in the standard sound scheme, and so on.

Vista is XP for grown-ups. Maybe you aren't grown up yet?

SteveT
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Steve Thackery wrote:
>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.
>
> Don't agree. My Vista installation is working perfectly. I mean really
> - no problems at all. And the user interface is SO much better than the
> tasteless and patronising XP interface, with it's Fisher Price colour
> scheme, moronic "My" in front of everything,

Yep, it ain't your computer anymore and that's why Microsoft removed the
"my".

> stupid fanfares and
> giggling children in the standard sound scheme, and so on.
>
> Vista is XP for grown-ups.

97% of all businesses disagree with you.

> Maybe you aren't grown up yet?
>
> SteveT

Maybe you foolishly spent your money on an OS that is dying before it
even reaches puberty.

Alias
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

funny.. I have more than 2000 themes for XP that use the built in themeing
engine of XP, using the neowin theme uxtheme patch.

The themes make XP look like any OS you can imagine and its still fast.
If you have bad taste you can even make it look like Vista.
But of course then you will run in to all the bad problems vista has:
Bad selection of colors, bad fonts, black taskbars etc.

But I guess that people like you are satisfied with ONE theme (and one
classic theme) that vista provides, that is
badly made, and hundreds of people have complained in this very newsgroup
about various elements of the vista theme,
for example the infamous "light blue selection color"

XP is for professionals, vista is for kids that like seeing transparent crap
(that can be done on XP with windblinds if you want to
get dizzy seeing undreneath windows.. LOL)

Vista is stupid? OH YES IT IS!



"Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:e8eT4C9mIHA.4292@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.
>
> Don't agree. My Vista installation is working perfectly. I mean really -
> no problems at all. And the user interface is SO much better than the
> tasteless and patronising XP interface, with it's Fisher Price colour
> scheme, moronic "My" in front of everything, stupid fanfares and giggling
> children in the standard sound scheme, and so on.
>
> Vista is XP for grown-ups. Maybe you aren't grown up yet?
>
> SteveT
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

> 97% of all businesses disagree with you.

You nailed him ...

> Maybe you foolishly spent your money on an OS that is dying before it even
> reaches puberty.

You nailed him again...


"Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message
news:ftnmk0$rk1$2@aioe.org...
> Steve Thackery wrote:
>>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
>>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.
>>
>> Don't agree. My Vista installation is working perfectly. I mean
>> really - no problems at all. And the user interface is SO much better
>> than the tasteless and patronising XP interface, with it's Fisher Price
>> colour scheme, moronic "My" in front of everything,
>
> Yep, it ain't your computer anymore and that's why Microsoft removed the
> "my".
>
>> stupid fanfares and giggling children in the standard sound scheme, and
>> so on.
>>
>> Vista is XP for grown-ups.
>
> 97% of all businesses disagree with you.
>
>> Maybe you aren't grown up yet?
>>
>> SteveT
>
> Maybe you foolishly spent your money on an OS that is dying before it even
> reaches puberty.
>
> Alias
 
Re: Why Windows sucks


Thank you for contacting Vista sucks Support.

My name is Punjab and I will be assisting you in this issue.

I understand that you think Vista sucks. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Based on the information provided, you are currently using Windows Vista
sucks. Thus, I would suggest that you download the latest software from the
link below:

http://www.Vista sucks.com/index.cfm/download...,contentid=sucks

Please uninstall the current Vista sucks software and reinstall with this
downloaded Vista sucks version. There is a possibility that the software was
corrupted during installation.

Your message was successfully forwarded to the Vista sucks Advanced Support
Team. You should receive an additional reply from a representative of our
Vista sucks Advanced Support Team by the end of the next decade.
Occasionally we receive a very large number of Vista sucks messages, and
your response may take up to a millennium. If this occurs, we appreciate
your patience, and we assure you that you or your heirs will receive a
response.

Should you require further assistance in relation to this issue, please feel
free to contact your nearest Vista sucks neighbor.



"White Spirit" <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ftndvv$7bm$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is just
> one of them:
>
> Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program. It
> has the following prototype:
> int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR
> lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow);
>
> hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. If there was an existing
> instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about it
> because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same address
> space. Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to ensure that
> the two instances didn't conflict. Most programmers simply limited the
> application to one instance.
>
> Microsoft fixed this with Windows 95 - at which time it was over
> twenty-five years behind Unix in this regard(*)! Windows NT was also over
> twenty-five years behind Unix by being multiuser for the first time and
> finally allowing multiple permissions for the file system. Of course, the
> filesystem still became severely fragmented after a short amount of normal
> use - something that still happens with Windows XP, over thirty years
> behind Unix filesystems.
>
> * Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86 architecture
> was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only truly
> available with 32-bit x86. The i368 was first released in 1985, so it's
> certainly fair to say that Windows 95 was ten years behind the
> techonology. At least it didn't take MS that long to release 64-bit
> versions of Windows. It's a shame that they're buggy, slow, have poor
> driver support and come at an exorbitant price.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:

> There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is
> just one of them:
>
> Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program.
> It has the following prototype:
> int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE
> hPrevInstance, LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow);
>
> hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. If there was an existing

You need to ask Mark Kent about that.

According to him there is NO binary comparability between applications
written for different versions of Windows.

Honesty : he claimed this.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:

> AqD wrote:
>
>> So what?
>
>> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows
>> counterparts.
>
> It depends on the app. But the application is not part of the OS, so
> it's a moot point. With a better OS, the same app will run
> better. Admittedly, there aren't many Linux games available without
> running Cedega, but those that run natively have always run better
> under Linux in my experience.

Please name them as I am on the look out for modern native games. Try
not to limit them to quake.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Hadron wrote:

> White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:

>> It depends on the app. But the application is not part of the OS, so
>> it's a moot point. With a better OS, the same app will run
>> better. Admittedly, there aren't many Linux games available without
>> running Cedega, but those that run natively have always run better
>> under Linux in my experience.

> Please name them as I am on the look out for modern native games. Try
> not to limit them to quake.

Off the top of my head:

Quake II, Quake III, Quake IV.

Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

Unreal Tournament, Unreal Tourament 2003, Unreal Tournament 2004.

Neverwinter Nights.

Not necessarily modern - blame the developers.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> It depends on the app. But the application is not part of the OS, so
>>> it's a moot point. With a better OS, the same app will run
>>> better. Admittedly, there aren't many Linux games available without
>>> running Cedega, but those that run natively have always run better
>>> under Linux in my experience.
>
>> Please name them as I am on the look out for modern native games. Try
>> not to limit them to quake.
>
> Off the top of my head:
>
> Quake II, Quake III, Quake IV.
>
> Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
>
> Unreal Tournament, Unreal Tourament 2003, Unreal Tournament 2004.
>
> Neverwinter Nights.
>
> Not necessarily modern - blame the developers.

So mostly quake and some other old stuff.

Why blame the developers?
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Hadron wrote:

> So mostly quake and some other old stuff.

> Why blame the developers?

The answer to that should be obvious. For games to exist on platforms
other than Windows, software houses have to make them for other platforms.

But the original point still stands - all the games listed in my
previous post run better on Linux (and FreeBSD) than they do on Windows.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> So mostly quake and some other old stuff.
>
>> Why blame the developers?
>
> The answer to that should be obvious. For games to exist on platforms
> other than Windows, software houses have to make them for other
> platforms.

Really? I blame the platform and its users.

see http://www.loki.com for details.


>
> But the original point still stands - all the games listed in my
> previous post run better on Linux (and FreeBSD) than they do on
> Windows.

No they don't. I have played them on both.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Hadron wrote:

> White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:

>> Hadron wrote:

>>> So mostly quake and some other old stuff.
>>> Why blame the developers?

>> The answer to that should be obvious. For games to exist on platforms
>> other than Windows, software houses have to make them for other
>> platforms.

> Really? I blame the platform and its users.

> see http://www.loki.com for details.

Uh... That's a GPS site. Loki haven't been in business for a while. I
don't see what your point is.

>> But the original point still stands - all the games listed in my
>> previous post run better on Linux (and FreeBSD) than they do on
>> Windows.

> No they don't. I have played them on both.

I've played them on both and my experience is that they work better on
Linux.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>
>>>> So mostly quake and some other old stuff.
>>>> Why blame the developers?
>
>>> The answer to that should be obvious. For games to exist on platforms
>>> other than Windows, software houses have to make them for other
>>> platforms.
>
>> Really? I blame the platform and its users.
>
>> see http://www.loki.com for details.
>
> Uh... That's a GPS site. Loki haven't been in business for a while.

Sorry.

http://www.lokigames.com/

> I don't see what your point is.

Well, you wouldnt. You blame the developers. But the fact is that there
is almost zero market for games. Dx is much easier to develop for
because MS actively courted the programmers and HW manufacturers to
advance the 3d engines and HW.
>
>>> But the original point still stands - all the games listed in my
>>> previous post run better on Linux (and FreeBSD) than they do on
>>> Windows.
>
>> No they don't. I have played them on both.
>
> I've played them on both and my experience is that they work better on
> Linux.

Not in mine, Far more stutter from sound for a start and almost
impossible to configure external controllers should you wish to use
them.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Hadron wrote:

>> I don't see what your point is.

> Well, you wouldnt. You blame the developers.

That and MS business tactics.

> But the fact is that there
> is almost zero market for games. Dx is much easier to develop for

Have you ever programmed DirectX versus OpenGL or SDL? Take it from me,
OpenGL and SDL have much cleaner, more elegant APIs. Just about all the
Windows APIs are ugly. The only thing Microsoft has got right so far is C#.

> because MS actively courted the programmers and HW manufacturers to
> advance the 3d engines and HW.

No. They applied their usual business tactics in order to put DirectX
above OpenGL.
 
Back
Top