Serious XP gripes...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Not only do I have to use WinXP at work... not only do I have to administer XP at work on 7 computers... but I have to administer XP at work on 7 computers in Chinese.



But my gripes are mainly on usage of the OS.



1) Why the HELL does it take so long to copy files?



2) Why the HELL does it take so long to empty the "recycle bin"?



3) Why the HELL, when you're copying files, if one file has an "in use error" does it abort the entire fucking process?



4) How long does it take to search for something on YOUR hard drive?



There are so many more issues... just thought I'd start here.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    scavangerscavanger Posts: 286member
    Why are you starting this thread? It seems as if you want to start a flame war. Please don't play with fire.
  • Reply 2 of 46
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    on occasion on different machines, i've had those same issues in OS X, so YMMV.
  • Reply 3 of 46
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Answer to all: because the architecture needs some rethinking. File search, for example, could be implemented a lot faster, and is done so in Vista.
  • Reply 4 of 46
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sandau

    on occasion on different machines, i've had those same issues in OS X, so YMMV.



    Impossible...there aren't any recycling bins on OS X.
  • Reply 5 of 46
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    Answer to all: because the architecture needs some rethinking. File search, for example, could be implemented a lot faster, and is done so in Vista.



    Vista will finally be the first Microsoft OS I might actually like using.



    After being spoiled with Exposé for window management and Spotlight for file searching, I just can't stand Windows. And don't even talk to me about killing a hanged process in Windows...on OS X, when I kill a process, the process disappears instantly.



    **yes I do realize I can download apps that will tune Windows to fill my need for Exposé and Spotlight...no, I won't download them. These features should be in the OS.
  • Reply 6 of 46
    joeyjoey Posts: 236member
    Although... in a primarily Apple forum... you're more likely to get people agreeing than flaming back. Out of everything listed... I can't say I really have a problem with any of them... except when copying (or deleting for that matter) a bunch of files... if there is an "in use" error on one of them, it kills the process there and doesn't try the rest of the files... that is kind of annoying. BUT... if we were going to list all the things that we don't like about XP... we'd be here a long time... and since most of us prefer OS X, we already know the issues we each may have with XP.
  • Reply 7 of 46
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    on OS X, when I kill a process, the process disappears instantly.





    bah, not for me, iTunes WILL NOT GO AWAY if i kill it. I have the worst trouble with iTunes and my iPod, and yes everything is up to date. That stupid POS of a program doesn't know when it has an iPod or not, so updating is a real hassle as it JUST DOESN'T WORK (everytime). This isn't the first OS X machine or first iPod I've had this problem with.



    iTunes is the primary reason for rebooting my machine other than software updates.



    But the rest of the processes seem to die fast.
  • Reply 8 of 46
    joeyjoey Posts: 236member
    I've had a few iPods and I've never had any problems with iTunes or OS X recognizing the iPod. I don't think I've ever had iTunes lock up to where I needed to kill the process.
  • Reply 9 of 46
    Good old fashioned Windows-bashing used to be an everyday occurrence here, even when we were in our days of gloom. I agree with you Tonton. I have to use XP at work and really don't like it. I think I will by an Intel Mac next year so that I can use XP when I must (mainly for using SAP). I will try to do the rest of my work in OSX.
  • Reply 10 of 46
    spindlerspindler Posts: 713member
    I have also had the problem of Windows taking like two full minutes just to search for a file by name. Even on a slow Mac, it might take ten seconds. I never understood why it took forever. Is it that maybe it is also searching INSIDE the file for text and you have to turn that off? I know exactly what tonton is talking about.



    Maybe it has something to do with having too little RAM.
  • Reply 11 of 46
    skatmanskatman Posts: 609member
    Quote:

    Not only do I have to use WinXP at work... not only do I have to administer XP at work on 7 computers... but I have to administer XP at work on 7 computers in Chinese.



    But my gripes are mainly on usage of the OS.



    1) Why the HELL does it take so long to copy files?






    File copy speed depends on the drive speed, the bus speed and the drivers. Without further info on anyone of those, no one will be able answer your questions nor determine whether any improvement is possible.



    Quote:

    2) Why the HELL does it take so long to empty the "recycle bin"?



    See above.



    Quote:

    3) Why the HELL, when you're copying files, if one file has an "in use error" does it abort the entire fucking process?



    Because you're foolish enough to use the Windows' basic file management front end. Use file management software like Total Commander.



    4) How long does it take to search for something on YOUR hard drive?



    About 0.5 seconds. Use Copernic destop indexed search... just like Spotlight, only you got much better better contol over when, how, what, and where it searches.



    Alternatively you can use software like Windows Commander... it takes about 15-30 seconds to go thought 3 physical drives and about 500k files on my desktop.



    If you got other problems... fire away!
  • Reply 12 of 46
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by skatman

    Because you're foolish enough to use the Windows' basic file management front end. Use file management software like Total Commander.



    Bullshit. You can't use "use a different piece of software!" as a response to "why does this software (Windows, in this case) suck?".
  • Reply 13 of 46
    joeyjoey Posts: 236member
    Windows takes a long time to find files because they're not indexed like they are in Spotlight. OS X basically creates a realtime table of all of it's files. When you need to find something, it takes seconds to locate because you're simply searching the indexed data, not the files themselves. When you search on a Windows machine, you're actually going through and reading all the files which takes much much more time (as well as resources). Windows Desktop Search can be downloaded from MS and basically does the same thing as Spotlight in OS X. It will be part of Vista by default.
  • Reply 14 of 46
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,740member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Joey

    Windows takes a long time to find files because they're not indexed like they are in Spotlight.



    It's not just that. Searching in 10.3 (which doesn't have spotlight) is still a damn sight faster than searching in XP. (comparing a 500 MHz Titanium G4 with 768 MB RAM with 80 gig 5400 rpm HDD to a 3 GHz desktop PC with 1 Gig RAM and 7200 RPM 120 gig HDD)
  • Reply 15 of 46
    skatmanskatman Posts: 609member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    Bullshit. You can't use "use a different piece of software!" as a response to "why does this software (Windows, in this case) suck?".



    Windows is an OS. The function of an OS is to manage the backend of software/software and software/hardware interaction. User interface to file management is NOT the purpose of the OS. Rather it is an application. Such application is provided by application software. Don't confuse the two.

    Microsoft may not have provided the most feature rich file management application, but that doesn't make the OS any better or worse.



    The same goes for file searching (indexed and not indexed). It is an application and not a core function of the OS.
  • Reply 16 of 46
    noah93noah93 Posts: 168member
    Quote:

    I have also had the problem of Windows taking like two full minutes just to search for a file by name. Even on a slow Mac, it might take ten seconds. I never understood why it took forever. Is it that maybe it is also searching INSIDE the file for text and you have to turn that off? I know exactly what tonton is talking about.



    Maybe it has something to do with having too little RAM.



    The main reason for this is because Windows does not have built-in defragmenting, unlike OS X, which has had it all along. In Windows case, it shoves peices of files anywhere on any availible part of the drive. X on the other hand, keeps all the pieces of a file together, thereby increasing search time. Think of it as two file cabinets, one not filed by anything at all, and the other filed alphabetically, which one is easier to find something in?



    The same goes for why Windows takes so long to do other harddrive related tasks( trash, copy, etc...). It can be fixed by using the defragment utility (somewhere in the mess of a start menu).



    Noah
  • Reply 17 of 46
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    Not only do I have to use WinXP at work... not only do I have to administer XP at work on 7 computers... but I have to administer XP at work on 7 computers in Chinese.



    But my gripes are mainly on usage of the OS.



    1) Why the HELL does it take so long to copy files?



    2) Why the HELL does it take so long to empty the "recycle bin"?



    3) Why the HELL, when you're copying files, if one file has an "in use error" does it abort the entire fucking process?



    4) How long does it take to search for something on YOUR hard drive?



    There are so many more issues... just thought I'd start here.




    We are all Mac fans here but do NOT be stupid about it!



    Most of these symptoms boil down to one of three issues:



    1: Insufficiant RAM or HDD -- take junk like QTTASK (quicktime) realplayer, and the like out of startup and run an app like crapcleaner to clean the HDD



    2: your admin is running a crappy third party setup like Novell Netware (in an umproperly configured enviornment), or Symantec anything...



    3: bitrot...after so much general use, not to mention update, patches, and the like, a windows install degrades; even a properly configured windows box can be rotted in 6 months, that is why a lot of media pros and heavy power users running windows will reimage their systems in between projects or whenever they get some downtime...no less than once every 6 months, more if they install and remove stuff constantly.





    ^^^^^DO NONE OF THE ABOVE TWEAKS WITHOUT THE BLESSING OF YOUR IT GUY^^^^^
  • Reply 18 of 46
    skatmanskatman Posts: 609member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by noah93

    The main reason for this is because Windows does not have built-in defragmenting, unlike OS X, which has had it all along. In Windows case, it shoves peices of files anywhere on any availible part of the drive. X on the other hand, keeps all the pieces of a file together, thereby increasing search time. Think of it as two file cabinets, one not filed by anything at all, and the other filed alphabetically, which one is easier to find something in?

    Noah




    Absolutely not true. Windows NT based systems defrag on the fly and, just like OSX, try to keep files together.

    Windows 9X is a different story.
  • Reply 19 of 46
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by skatman

    Windows is an OS.



    Yeah, no shit.



    Quote:

    The function of an OS is to manage the backend of software/software and software/hardware interaction. User interface to file management is NOT the purpose of the OS.



    Really, now.



    I guess you should have told the designers of System 1 (Mac OS 1.0 for you late-comers), Windows 1.0 (which was pretty much exclusively a file manager), etc.



    Are you sure you're not confusing "OS" and "kernel"?



    Quote:

    Rather it is an application. Such application is provided by application software. Don't confuse the two.



    Any half-way useful OS comes with a whole buttload of applications.



    Quote:

    Microsoft may not have provided the most feature rich file management application, but that doesn't make the OS any better or worse.



    Yes, yes it does. Initial post-installation user experience is extremely important. Apple knows this. Microsoft knows this.



    Quote:

    The same goes for file searching (indexed and not indexed). It is an application and not a core function of the OS.



    Ah, "core function". Now we're going down "ambiguous terms" hill. Is the kernel "the core"? Is the GUI part of "the core"? How about file system support? Or support for your DVD burner? How about, say, a media framework, like QuickTime? Is that part of "the core"? And they all are, wouldn't that imply at least one application that comes bundled that actually implements those frameworks? Such as a file browser, and a media player?



    Thought so.
  • Reply 20 of 46
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by skatman

    Absolutely not true. Windows NT based systems defrag on the fly and, just like OSX, try to keep files together.



    That must be why Windows XP still ships with a defragmentation application.



    NTFS is more efficient at avoiding fragmentation than FAT32 is, but it does not, to my knowledge, have the same level of anti-fragmentation techniques as OS X does (since 10.3 Panther).
Sign In or Register to comment.