Reason 4,817,549^3 why I hate Windows
Actually I’ve probably missed a few, but this one has always annoyed me…
I had to use System Restore today.
I tried to install Windows XP SP2, even though it was in beta. Why? Because I read some Microsoft lackey’s website and he said it was pretty much ready to roll.
Yes, it’s my own dumb fault.
Windows Update no longer works, and the machine locks up every time it tries to come out of hibernate. Oh yay oh yay.
System Restore is that new feature of Windows XP which says, “Ok, well your computer is screwed up today but when do you think it was working properly?
However, what you need to know is that System Restore is a joke. I know of literally one person who it has worked for when they needed it.
I picked a point about a week ago, and did a system restore.
Now your first question is going to be: Does Windows Update work now?
Well I’d be glad to tell you except that now I can’t even get online at all.
I’m not exactly sure when I installed XP SP2, but I’ll tell you this, the networking has worked since day one, so any restore point should have been fine.
Of course it isn’t fine. In fact it is a steeping pile of filth.
I get this nice little “bubble” telling me that “One or more wireless networks are available.” I click on the bubble, and a window comes up and says, “There’s this network here, but it’s unsecure!!!! Are you sure you want to use it!?!?!? GOOD LORD BE CAREFUL!!!!”
Of course it is secure. It is very secure. It is secure to the tune of using MAC address filtering. For you non-techies out there, what that means is literally only the computers that I allow on the network (by typing in an obscure code tied to the hardware) can access it.
Windows XP thinks it isn’t secure because I’m not using WEP. I’m not using WEP because the hardware I have only support a WEP so weak that it could be broken by pouring Country Time Lemonade over it. All WEP would do is make the connection slower, and the last thing Wireless-B (801.11b) needs is to run any slower than it already does.
Anyway, there is this little checkbox next to the warning that says, “Allow me to connect to the network even though it is not secure.”
I check the box, and click OK, and you know what happens?
Now did anyone say, “You get to access the network?” Well if so you were SO VERY WRONG and have clearly never met Windows.
No, what happens then is that nothing happens, and a few seconds later that same bubble appears telling me that one or more wireless networks are available.
So, to recap:
Windows XP Service Patch 2 Release Candidate 2 managed to screw up the vitally important Windows Update which gives me the bug fixes for the latest security patches and broke hibernation on my machine (the one feature that I wish Mac OS X had).
System Restore then stepped in and did fix the hibernation problem, however it also completely broke my network connection, which was working fine from the day I installed Windows right up until the point that I used System Restore. I can’t say whether Windows Update would work now since I can’t even access my local network.
But hey, at least hibernation works… so I can turn the computer off.
6 Responses to “Reason 4,817,549^3 why I hate Windows”
on 30 Jul 2004 at 4:12 pm # TjL
By the way, this is not the first time that Windows has done this to me with a wireless network. Each time it eventually fixed itself “automagically” as they say.
This time was no different. I tried removing the entries for the wireless networks and let them rediscover them. I tried updating the driver, reinstalling the driver, all those things you’d suggest.
Finally I just wanted to copy the (few) files I needed off the machine onto my Mac, so I told the Mac to create an “ad hoc” wireless network.
At which point the Windows machine magically jumped onto the previously existing wireless network.
Ah the joy of Windows.
on 31 Jul 2004 at 6:27 am # Matthias Viehweger
This is one of the days I am happy with my Win2000-Machine. It works. I don’t have to deactivate all those cute and fancy graphics, they are not there. I don’t have to worry about a 100MB-bugfix in beta shipping some obscure time in the future and so on. It just works.
However, I know that there are benefits of an upgrade.
“But hey, at least hibernation works… so I can turn the computer off.”
Great conclusion, anyway. ;-)
on 31 Jul 2004 at 9:27 pm # Kim GammelgŒrd
You wrote:
“and broke hibernation on my machine (the one feature that I wish Mac OS X had).”
I hate hibernation on my one Windoze-laptop and really really love it on my three other Macs where it just works(tm), if that is what you call sleep on a Mac.
You must have a Lemon of some sort that really needs to become an Apple if you really have that kind of trouble (Thanks, T Molnar of the Ti-list for the metaphor :-) )
It is really not normal to have that kind of trouble!
on 14 Aug 2004 at 12:17 pm # Dami‡n Cirelli
Why? Do you want to tell me WHY you even bother with Windblow$??? If you hate it so much you have tons of Linuxes to be a happy computer user again. Just a thought.
on 14 Aug 2004 at 8:27 pm # TjL
Windows is easier than Linux.
I really don’t have the time to deal with configuring a window manager and all that.
If I had the time to invest in all that, I would.
I decided I didn’t have time to learn Linux (or FreeBSD), so I bought a Mac. I keep the Windows machine around for a few specific uses, especially one app that doesn’t exist for Mac. There are plenty of other apps for Mac that do the same thing, but I prefer this one, for the time being at least.
The time it takes me to whack Windows into shape is still remarkably less than it would take me to get everything up and running with Linux. And I have no real need to run Linux since I have Mac OSX.
Now when I can switch entirely over to Mac (probably around the time someone comes out with a good calendar/PIM that will sync well with a Palm), I can ditch Windows altogether.
I’m a big supporter of Linux and FreeBSD and other free alternatives, but the initial investment of time to learn it is not inconsequential.
Easier, and smarter, in my opinion to switch to Mac OS X.
on 17 Aug 2004 at 5:45 pm # Dick Kistler
I don’t want to shake you up, but mac address filtering is not a useful security method. The reason is that mac addresses are readable, ie your router will tell anyone that asks what mac addresses it will accept. and mac addresses on nic’s are changeable. So that a wardriver can be on your system in a minute.
Windows is right about trying to get you to run WEP at whatever level you can run it. Although WEP is not as good as WPA, it is not an insignificant hurdle.
Note also that not broadcasting your ssid is also not a security method, since your router can be made to spill the beans about that too.
I normally run WPA 256 bit, so my wireless “g” router runs about as fast as a “b” router without encryption, so I sympathize about your data rate. The real problem is that wireless networking is just not there yet, either in overall data rate or security.
Another item: I’ve never been able to hibernate successfully more than once or twice on any machine I have. I think that connected devices(like nic’s) change state between power on and power off, and the drivers and XP can’t deal with that.
I am a little more philosophical about SP2. First, I’ve got 2 computers running with SP2 RTM, without any problems. Secondly, any major upgrade to an OS is going to cause things to break. I’ve been dealing with computers since the ’60’s and the only trend I see is that it seems to be getting a little better. In the
’60’s and ’70’s it was not unusual for a major OS upgrade to keep a computer system down for two weeks. So it is best not to be on the leading edge of OS update installs unless you are willing to be the one that is finding out what breaks first.