Things you hate about Windows

For the sake of balance, I thought it was only fair to have this thread.

Again, I think the word 'hate' is not completely totally appropriate, but necessary as it was used in the other thread.

My main dislike is the business strategy. I bought a new laptop recently and had no option but to have Windows pre-installed. The price I paid for the laptop is inflated by the cost of Windows. The first thing I did was reformat the drive and install my own OS but statistics will be distorted as it will shown another unit of Windows being sold and used when I did not want it and do not use the OEM software pre-installed.

Totally immoral. Could be argued as unlawful too in my opinion (anti-trust & anti-competition legislation)

 

I'd say unlawful rather than immoral, and I have asked myself on several occasions why the European anti-trust body made such a big fuss about Internet Explorer and Media Player but they don't say squat about the pre-installed Windows. Another aspect of Windows that I find critical is the price of their OSs and Office suites. Being so omnipresent everywhere their price is too steep, making piracy for some people almost justifiable (I don't condone it, though).

 

It don't have a front door, but a lot of back doors.

 

I wish OS X were cheaper and Linux easier...

I hate when Windows Updates Fail...

 

- The repeated and unnecessary attempts by svchost.exe spawned services to continually phone home to the MS Mothership.

- Although improved considerably with Win 7, Windows as a security model with a default install pales in comparison to linux.

- Enhanced security features found in Pro and Ultimate versions of Windows such as SRP and AppLocker, to name a few, are not available in basic versions. I'd like to see one Windows version with all available features included, and at a an affordable price.

 

Agree with all points. BTW svchost acts like malware

 

Reasonable price - $33 like it was years ago for an upgrade. Updates were free. Especially since they are coming out with a new version every 3 years. These are IMHO the same old versions with a new paint job and a few more whistles. Windows 8 is going to be the pits. I'm having no part of it. It's a toy for kids. If I could program in Linux with MASM32 I would be gone in a flash. Wine doesn't cut it... OS IMHO should be constructed so that I could shape the OS to my needs. Not to Microsofts needs.
Ex: My only language is US English. Why to I need 100
other languages tying up space in ram and the HD.
There is no flexability buillt into the OS. It's needed.
But for me the only game in town is Windows. That's the trouble with a monopoly

 

1. Price

2. Security Model

3. The Registry

4. Fresh installation takes far too long to install (I'm talking taking off the shrink wrap and installing from the disk mostly)

5. Updates almost always still require a restart

6. Pricier versions get security tools that would benefit all Windows users and make the OS much safer to use

7. Ballmer...had to toss that one in there

I'm not going to use the "malware targets it" excuse. That's the price you pay for being the most popular. Mac and Linux would suffer the same fate if they were the most popular.

 

Generally like Windows but would like to see:

1. Group policy editor in Home Premium version

2. System-wide dictionary like Mac has (although this may be a feature in Windows 8.)

3. Reduced number of services running by default

4. Ability for firewall to notify on outgoing connections (i.e., something similar to some of the firewall control programs but built-in to Windows and something that can be toggled on and off)

5. Improved registry

6. Complete uninstall of programs (ties into registry item also)

*7. The ability to have dual-panes in Windows Explorer (and the ability to toggle them on and off)


* = one of my biggest complaints/wishes

 

The update process:

- Too many updates. I am using Windows 7x64 since January 2010. In this period, I think I have installed about 200 updates, 77 after SP1. Most of them are related to security. When W7 appeared, i thought it was a very secure system.
-- Frequent problems with Windows Update --I have detailed them in other threads.

 

All of the above.
[MOVE]The end.[/MOVE]

 

Nothing - it's bloody fantastic!

 

That is a really good point. You can always have a custom box made, but it is difficult to find a laptop without Windows. Some now have Ubuntu though.

Windows is expensive in the UK compared to some other countries. The money I saved using a freeware office suite was considerable; in fact I used it to upgrade my old CRT monitor to a flat screen!

 

Strangely enough, I can't really think of anything I hate about it. Maybe because I've been using it since it first appeared ages ago and I'm just used to it after all these years. One thing I do hate is all the garbage they load onto a new machine when you buy one. That I find extremely annoying. When you have to reformat a new machine just to clean it up, that's a bit ridiculous IMO. Would also be nice if MS Office was a bit more reasonably priced. Anyway, overall, no great complaints...

 

Lol. You just argued with yourself in the same post!!



DRM making hardware more expensive and software drivers costlier to design due to licensing.

Poor backward compatibility forcing costly OS upgrades

 

1, The way Windows keeps getting more bloated. My default Windows OS takes up less than 1GB of the hard drive. How much did a default Vista install need?
2, How each new OS version requires more powerful hardware in order to get the same amount of work out of it.
3, The default-permit security policy.
4, Online activation.
5, Calling home.
6, WGA, Windows genuine aggravation. Being expected to prove I didn't steal it.
7, Unnecessary running services and the resulting open ports.
8, Deliberately making it harder to disable the above with each new version.
9, Forcing vendors to drop support for older versions, including removing links for existing drivers.
10, Buying out other companies and immediately removing their products compatibility with the older OS versions. Examples: VPC, SAS
11, Artificial incompatibilities in their software and updates.
12, Each new version takes more system control and access away from the user.
13 Storing large amounts of user activity records that aren't needed by the user or the OS, aka Spyware. Each new version worse than the one before.
14, Refusing to fix existing bugs in the current OS in order to market the next one.
15, Deliberately handicapping the cheaper version of an OS in order to promote the more expensive version, especially the ability to secure the system or to fully utilize the hardware.

Fortunately, on the version I'm using these problems either don't exist or have been fixed/mitigated.

 

There are lots of things to dislike, each of us use it differently so I don't see how it cannot be so.

My main gripe would be that it is a canned experience, drafted for the masses. If they masses don't mind the bloat of needless items, then we all get it. If the masses don't mind a redisgned interface that is less productive for some, too bad, we all get it.

A lot of this can be altered in some fashion. That is the silver lining to using windows, there are many options because it has the largest market share and thus the most software available.

However, I would really rather see them focus on build options at install time. For example, if one buys ultimate, how about further optimizations. How about options of what to actually install. How about a geeks version and a noobs version. Things of that nature would really save a lot of time during install, as well as offer alternate versions of tools that would be more complicated for noobs, but more productive for advanced users. With all the money they throw around and all the issues they have to deal with, you would think they would do something like that.

But, we don't have that. We all get the same thing, and hope with each new version that we can modify what they did to get back what is productive to each of us.

I won't go into updates and pricing and lack of vision in certain areas, I think that has been covered quite well enough.

Sul.

 

> Price - could be cheaper to buy
> Too many editions - could be simpler to choose
> Driver updates on Microsoft Update - could cause problems less often

Everything else is fine and already getting dramatically refined/better.

 

haha... I was doing my best to try and think of something that bothered me...

 

Windows 7 is the first OS I've actually liked.

I don't like the Windows registry - so many problems could be avoided if programs had read INI files. It wouldn't be that difficult to have a separate INI file per user. Life was easier when you could just delete the folder and the program was gone. I use Portable apps and/or install in sandboxes where possible.

The general bugginess from the 95/98 era is gone.

The various options are quite hidden and non-intuitive compared to XP, but Windows 7 needs less configuration overall than previous OSes.

I don't like Directx, and would prefer to see a resurgence of OpenGL.

I don't like the various anti-competitive practices of MS over the years. Most people don't realise how significant they have been until they bother to look into it. I'd suggest anyone 'wondering' what the big deal is to bother to do some research

 

My main dislike about windows is the amount of times you have to run windows update multiple times requiring multiple reboots just to get up to date.
I dont know about osx since I dont own a mac but with linux you can update everything in one update and if no kernel update you dont even need to restart.

I feel microsoft went backwards with service packs with vista and 7. with windows xp you can use an offically supported method to burn a new windows disc with the lastest service pack. With windows xp you can install service pack 3 on virgin windows xp.

on windows vista and 7 you have to install service pack 1 before you can install service pack 2. to make things worse there isnt an easy officially supported way to slipstream service packs to media.

I have to say after using other operating systems windows doesn't seem as bad as I once thought. all operating systems have pros and cons but overall windows 7 works for my needs.I agree that all versions should have all the security features.
Im sure if microsoft didnt sign the deal with IBM to ship their OS on pretty much all personal computers someone else would have. Imsurprised they have got away with it for so long and wasnt stopped near the start. I feel that new industries need to get away with things they shouldnt. example 2. pay as you go dongles. you top up say £15 and lose it within 30 days if not used. I feel that practice should be illegal.

 

The horrible security. That's my biggest issue. Win8 solves the rest of mine honestly.

 

I wanted to go over a few things in this post:

1. I'd say 7 was a big step forward in reducing bloat. However, I'm aware that is mostly down to individual opinion.

2. Yes and no. There are some differences like graphics cards, but, Aero, which takes some "oomph" can be shut off.

3. I agree with default security. It's better, but by no means perfect.

4. I'm neither for or against online activation. It's just "there".

5. Calling home unnecessarily isn't just a problem of Windows, it happens with a lot of software these days.

6. WGA isn't going to go anywhere, and it's most likely going to start showing up in many other types of software. Sandboxie has it's own WGA, games are starting to require that you are online at all times to play, even when it's not really an "online game".

7. Trigger services helped some, but there are still far too many obscure services to deal with.

8. I'm not certain anything is harder to disable, maybe just buried deeper in menus, etc.

9. I've not seen much of forcing anyone to drop support. Hardware possibly and likely, software, not really, as they really can't force anyone.

10. Business as usual, and not just for Windows.

11. I'm not certain what you mean by artificial incompatibilities.

12. This is good and bad, but, it is kind of included with the complaint about better security tools being available only to pricier versions of Windows.

13. It's the design of Windows to hold on to data. That won't change either, much to the delight of LEA and others.

14. I haven't seen much of this, but it makes sense if it's happening. Again, it's business.

15. Goes along with number 12 and is indeed a huge issue that needs rectifying.

 

Probably things like hardware acceleration not being available for IE on XP, where in reality there's no technical limitation given that Mozilla has achieved it for Firefox on the same platform.

Another example would be Directx - people who know more than me on the subject suggest that concepts like "Directx10 compatible" graphics cards are more arbitrary/artificial than a reflection of true technical limitations. They suggest that features of OpenGL would work on all graphics cards, and that features being introduced in later Directx versions have been present for years in OpenGL already.

 

Ahh, I see. Well, hardware acceleration is problematic itself. Just look at the blacklists for Mozilla and Chrome. I have a relatively recent card and I still have to force Firefox to use it. It was one of those things that got a lot of hype and tossed into browsers before it was ready, imho. Just like HTML5, actually, but I digress.