Now I remember why I hate Windows

[hazel]

I've been off-line for a week (except for a slow dial-up connection) because I had a problem with my broadband supplier. My adsl router wouldn't synchronise and they said it was the router sending garbage, not their equipment. So I asked a friend of mine who also uses an ethernet card and a router to test it on his line (he uses a different isp). In the end we tested it together.

The box we were using runs Windows XP. Do you know how incredibly complicated it is to set up networking on XP? I'm used to just plugging the ethernet cable in and that's it. Not in Windows. There are all kinds of default settings that have to be changed before the computer and the router will even talk to each other. And practically everything you do brings up a firewall dialogue which asks you if it is allowed to do that. Because of course you can't run Windows without a firewall.

We got it to work in the end and the connection to the Internet worked too, so there's nothing wrong with that equipment. I took it home, plugged it in and it works fine now. But I've remembered afresh just why I went off Windows. I used to like Windows 95/98 but XP is a pain in the unmentionables!

[bigtomrodney]

I know how you feel. I've stopped doing maintenance work for friends and family because I get frustrated at how needlessly complicated things are in Windows.

[oz]

lol... I don't do much work on Windows boxes anymore, but on those occasions that I do, it's always a total nightmare!

[rcgreen]

To be fair, maybe the problem was that you use DSL. The default
on XP, and most Linuxes is ethernet with DHCP. With cable
internet, the modem passes you on to the provider's server
transparently, and you are connected. With DSL, don't you
have to config the computer to log on with user name and password?

[bigtomrodney]

Most DSLs in this part of the world do the loggin in at the router. All of the PPPoE is handled there and each connected PC is just a client on the LAN. So really, you just get your IP address and DNS server info from the router and off you go.

[Hal343]

I feel the same way you do, Hazel. I knew how to make 98 work. XP was a change to make things harder. My brother-in-law has a Vista box. Slow horrible pig of a machine, with everything changedf again. Since I no longer run Windows, I refuse to help people with problems on theirs. If they want to run a real OS, I will do whatever I can to help. I'm typing from a Windows box at work right now, and I get furious with it, mostly because of I.E. I can't wait to get home and use a real computer.

[hazel]

To be fair, maybe the problem was that you use DSL. The default
on XP, and most Linuxes is ethernet with DHCP. With cable
internet, the modem passes you on to the provider's server
transparently, and you are connected.

This box didn't have dhcp as the default; it had a fixed IP address and that was the source of the problem. I only found out by trying ipconfig. My friend, who's a Windows power user, brought up a dialogue to reconfigure the card for dhcp and then it worked.

With DSL, don't you have to config the computer to log on with user name and password?

That's if you're using rp-pppoe. In my case, it's the router you configure with those data, via the browser, but you can't do it until you get tcp/ip working between router and computer.

[pookiebear]

XP networking is far easier than vista or 7.
98 networking was aweful cause every time you changed a setting you had to reboot for it to take. 2000 and XP were easy just change the setting and go, I work with 100's of xp computers everyday. You just have to know where to go

[elija]

I get the "pleasure" of using Windows at work every day. It does have one advantage though....


It makes me really appreciate Linux when I get home

[Bemk]

I get the "pleasure" of using Windows at work every day. It does have one advantage though....


It makes me really appreciate Linux when I get home

I have to agree on that. I however do use winXP for some school things, because they just won't work on Linux (the admins really hate the fact that they're dependant of some external company to make it all platform compatible, which they don't).
I have worked with pretty much every release of Windows, (except for 2008 server) and the thing is, you just have to know where every thing is, just like with Linux, but Linux doesn't change the place where you have to be in every release.

If I want to set a static in Linux I go to /etc/networking/interfaces, in XP it is different than in 98, and when using vista it again is utterly different, and 7 is a bit of both, XP and Vista.

The only thing I can remember being fairly consistent in Windows is the cmd, however that has had quite a change from command.com untill Win 2000 to cmd.exe in xp and up.

Having worked with pretty much every Windows release I can honestly say it is not a proper OS for me.

In my opinion there is no such thing as a best OS, there is however a best OS for a specific person, and for some people that OS will be Windows, and for some it will be Mac, or Solaris, or BSD or for most of us here on the forums it will be GNU/Linux.