Talk:Criticism of Microsoft Windows/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

comment

This, very short, article, seems to deal with a user's pet-peeves of Windows and its Shell. It doesn't focus on the design of Windows, or it's architecture. The article should be a critique of the Windows operating system architecture, compared to that of other operating systems. (i.e. you not liking the sort order in Windows Explorer is not a valid critique. Not every edition of Windows even has Explorer as a shell) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.139.6 (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To do

Here is a list of criticisms from my point of view. To integrate them into the article, we need reliable sources.

• poor software installation and uninstallation management
• poor separation of user data from system data
• bloated and difficult to edit registry
• intransparent behaviour
• paternalism of the user
• no symbolic links until vista
• no support for other file systems, e.g. ext2/3
• poor mounting support via drive letters
• no support for swap partitions
• disk fragmentation
• poor command-line support
• unusual use of backslashes instead of slashes
• incompatible handling of line breaks
• no support for multiple languages
• poor system tools
• no differentiation of letter cases
• software bloat
• closed sources
• too expensive
• system gets slower and more instable with time
• deaf ears for user wishes
• poor security, especially before vista
• complicated driver management
• very much work to install and configure OS and basic software
• many reboots required when changing software or system settings
• create own standards, violate or ignore other standards
• inventing own terms (e.g. "folder" instead of "directory")
• bad default settings (e.g. hide file extensions)

--X-Bert (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

not sure I agree with all of these...

• there is decent software installation management, it's just a lot of software doesn't use it ;)

You shouldn't have to rely on an application to uninstall itself properly. If you expect lazy software companies to do their job properly, you are not meeting the traditional requirements of an operating system.Bostoner (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• again, any software that doesn't require admin rights to run (ie all the well-written stuff) will only be storing user data under the user folder (or in the user's registry hive, which resides in the user's folder)
• not sure what you mean by bloated, and it's got a nice gui so you can edit it ;) (as well as command-line tools)
• windows has a plugin architecture for filesystems and free ext3 plugins do exist, coz I use one
• on the contrary, windows mounts things very _well_ using drive letters ;) if you mean using drive letters is a bad idea... then don't. You can mount drives as folders if you prefer.
• you can create a partition and stick a swap file in it if you want, but I don't think the fact that windows has a simpler and more flexible system than a swap partition (easier to change size, location of swap file) is a disadvantage (in fact my linux server does it the same way)
• NTFS drives really aren't that prone to fragmentation, and at least you can defragment them
• the command-line support, especially if you include scripting, is better than you think... I solve quite a lot of support queries with psexec to get a remote command prompt on the user's machine.

Windows batch files are a joke. Of course, Perl also runs on Windows, and Perl is far easier to write than Bourne shell.Bostoner (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• using backslashes is not "unusual" in that when the design decision was made the slash was already being used (cp/m compatibility) and a majority of desktop OS's use that form so by definition it's not "unusual" (also windows accepts forward slashes when you type paths, it just only _outputs_ backslashes)

Not exactly. Forward slashes are WRONG, and are auto-corrected by Windows before being processed, because Windows knows that you meant backward slashes. So they are corrected on input, not on output. --DanielPharos (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• incompatible line breaks with what? The standard for http and smtp, for example, is crlf, and again this decision stems from cp/m

CP/M is a dinosaur. LF instead of CRLF saves memory, and makes processing a text file much easier. It's time for Windows to upgrade.Bostoner (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you think about it, Windows is doing it correctly. This is how CR and LF were meant. Of course, it's silly to have two characters, but tell that to the people in the 70's that thought of this. --DanielPharos (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• not sure what you mean by poor system tools (especially in vista)
• I've yet to meet someone to claim that a case-sensitive filesystem is a good idea (as long as the filesystem is case-preserving). There are difficulties writing apps that need to operate in both environments (if developing on the insensitive side, you need to make sure you always use the correct case when referring to something; if referring to the sensitive side, you need to make sure you never create 2 files with the same name but different case) but you could just as easily turn that around and say that's a flaw with case sensitive systems
• software bloat - what do you mean here? If you're referring to the tendency for newer releases of applications to be larger over time, that's not a fault of the OS
• bad default settings (e.g. hide file extensions) - frankly, if you believe this you've never done desktop support. The amount of calls you'd get through people deleting the file extensions would be astronomical. This is very much a power user setting and very properly off by default.

It would not be hard at all to get a GUI to re-attach the original file extension, when it is changed. You'd simply select the filename in the file manager, type in a new name, if the user did not type in the exact same extension, it gives him a simple dialog box whose default value is to use the new name but add the original file extension to it. At least Mac OS X warns you before letting you change the extension.Bostoner (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have recieved these messages myself. On Windows XP. I think they are triggered if you try to remove the extension of a known-extension file. --DanielPharos (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the ones I didn't list are too wooly for me to even comment on. Frankly, what you seem to be saying is "windows isn't linux" and the unspoken assumption is that the linux way of doing things is somehow "better" (backslashes instead of forward slashes for example, or CRLF instead of LF). Frankly, the direction of the slash was never a factor in me downloading ubuntu. Some other of your points are more properly criticism of MS as a whole (closed source, deaf ears to users) 129.215.141.101 (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I found that the article is very short and gives the impression, there is really not much to criticise with Windows. X-Bert makes some valid points, but I think many of them could be summarized and not all are equally important. I want to state some more general ones. I think most are common criticisms I hear often from colleagues or read in news articles or forums (e.g. slashdot). However, first a disclaimer: I've been working with Linux for several years since a virus distroyed important data on a Windows PC. I was also working on MacOS for some time.

1. It is unstable as compared to Linux and MacOS. Processes and even the whole OS tend to freeze and crash (very well known: Blue screen of death).
2. It is susceptible to viruses. You need to install an anti-virus program and firewall and other programs that run in the background and slow down your computer. This is not necessary on Linux or MacOS (see Linux malware).
3. There is no centralized package updating system (compare Advanced Packaging Tool on Linux). If you need some program on windows you have to search the internet and often find programs that are malware, buggy, for money, and present some outrageous software license agreement.
4. These two criticisms fall into usability: it slows you down and diverts your attention from what you are doing. Reaction to keystrokes or mouse clicks even on fast computers are sometimes slow and you might have to wait until some process ends until you can resume your work. Background processes may interrupt you any time, with pop up messages, warnings, or they might want to update.
5. Windows doesn't give you the control of your computer you have with other operating systems (e.g. Linux or even MacOS), this includes installing or updating programs in the background. When updating ends your computer may even be restarted automatically terminating all your running programs. Important in this category I also find not being able to kill programs fast any time I want and not having a powerful command line, which allows me to automate many processes and where I am not prompted for confirmation many times over.
6. Windows is not Free and open source software. This restricts the control you have over software (earlier point), but is also about the freedom you have to run, study, and copy the software. This also restricts what you know about software and can endanger the privacy of your data.

I think these are central points of criticism and some of them should be incorporated in the article in one form or other. Ben ^T/_C 14:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Your point on stability is subjective and lacks completeness of scope. You can also witness Linux and OSX kernel-panic under situations similar to what causes the Windows BSOD [Hardware problems, driver issues, bad application programming].
2. One aspect of critisism missing from Windows comparitive susceptibility to infection is the general environment Windows faces the other two platforms do not. Neither OSX nor Linux enjoys a large enough install-base for Worm propogation. Linux certainly has users more savvy in general about computing issues like security. OSX is inherently less secure than either Linux or Vista, but its just not targeted like either of those two are.
3. Having a central package updating system like APT is no gaurantee of a lack of flaky applications. Plus, it's not an operating system integral service. It's more of a linux platform phenomena that seems to work well with the OSS environment. Most Windows software is more retail.
4. Windows prompts for reboot, unless some greater administration policy is in play on a Windows domain. Windows also has the taskkill command.
5. Windows does have a significant OSS body of work associated with it.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.239.144 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 

About (3): There would have to be some central repository that lists all programs. Who would manage that? Microsoft. Do you REALLY want Microsoft to manage what programs show up in the repository?

About (4): This is mainly caused by bad programs/installers, not Windows itself. --DanielPharos (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

1. The issue of susceptibility to virus is more caused by the design of the filesystem, specifically the organization of rights/permissions as they are by default than by the large userbase. (To be honest, I think people making virusses would be more amused if they can have worms killing webservers, since there they affect many more people with one stroke. Since the largest share of webservers runs some kind of linux, that would mean that it is a very interesting platform to write virusses for. But I have never seen one.) Mariusthart (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Prompting for reboot is nice, but not four times in a row during a presentation. Or -on Vista- with the choice to reboot either now or in an hour or so with no option to postpone indefinitely. This behavior kills longer, unattended data analyses. Basically it comes down to lack of control. Mariusthart (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"design of the filesystem"? NTFS takes care of that. Standard users have never been able to touch the Windows directory, since Windows NT4 (3?). True, there were holes, but they've been fixed with Windows Vista. Also, for Linux viruses, see Linux malware. And, killing webservers doesn't give you creditcard information, so criminal hackers aren't going to bother. --DanielPharos (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The prompting: you're right, that's annoying as hell. Feel free to add it. Although, that's the price you pay for letting Windows automatically update (doesn't the Windows Setup ask you nicely if you want it enabled? If so, it's your own choice!). That's as "automatical" as it can be (without forcing a reboot altogether). --DanielPharos (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of 'File sort order'

This is

• POV
• original research
• unsourced

Furthermore this feature was added by Microsoft due to user request. The majority of users out there do not understand the way computer sort, e.g. 1, 10, 11, ..., 19, 20, 21, 22, ..., 29, 30, 31, ...

Therefore removed.

--PlainHolds (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually programs still access files in alphanumeric orders. You may test this by creating files with names 1, 2, and 10, and typing dir command. It will list them as 1 10 2, while explorer lists them as 1 2 10. I don't want to remove that part of article because Windows deserves every criticism people can come up with, but file sort order has never been a problem with Windows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.190.194.74 (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is true. File enumeration returns files in an arbitrary order. This CAN be the order they were created in, and that's probably what you are seeing (or the order they get defragged into):

"The order in which the search returns the files, such as alphabetical order, is not guaranteed, and is dependent on the file system. If the data must be sorted, the application must do the ordering after obtaining all the results." [1]

So "Actually programs still access files in alphanumeric orders" is NOT true. --DanielPharos (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

File Sort Order in this instance is referring to the option in Windows Explorer to specify the order in which files are displayed - Name, Date, Size, etc. Since Win XP, MS decided to start sorting numeric portions of a file name numerically instead of alphanumerically. So if you had named files in sets BA1 BA2 BA3, and BA01 BA02 BA03, Windows Explorer would now display them as BA01 BA1 BA02 BA2 BA03 BA3. The file sets are intermixed and the problem gets worse the more numeric characters you used interspersed throughout the filename. It can especially be troublesome when you actually tried naming your files YYYYMMDD or some portion thereof at the beginning or middle of the filename. There was a checkbox in Windows XP Folder Options to switch the sort order between (pseudo)numeric and alphanumeric. There was no checkbox in Windows Vista to change this option but you could edit registry keys to accomplish the desired effect. In Windows 7, I have not been able to find a solution to this problem as the registry changes that worked in Vista do not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.174.223 (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No criticism from me

Mate, there's been no criticism of Windows from me! Done me good for years, anyhow I'm hooked on my 360! mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

External reference

To bring this article on track I want to suggest a reference. I just found an article called 10 key differences between Linux and Windows. I feel an essential part of criticism of Windows should be shortcomings compared to other operating systems, such as Linux and MacOS. The same reference could also serve for the article Criticism of Linux. Please, also see my discussion in the first section. Ben ^T/_C 10:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Windows Rot redirect

Apparantly 'Windows Rot' redirects here, but there is no metion of it in the article? What gives? Newmansan (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that it exists and would make a good part of this article, but it just seems odd that the redirect points here when there is nothing on that subject in teh article. That is all Newmansan (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:RFD#Windows_Rot Meewam (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

File sort order

There is a good presentation here: http://mrsqueezles.blogspot.com/2006/05/windows-explorer-file-sorting-problem.html

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Windows Explorer file sorting problem help

I was getting really annoyed by Windows XP's method of sorting files. As a programmer, I often work with documentation files that are named with strings of numbers. I'd like the sorting of those numbers to look like this.

   * 00111.txt
   * 25.txt
   * 3.txt
   * 92.txt

Instead of that, I get this.

   * 3.txt
   * 25.txt
   * 92.txt
   * 00111.txt

In a way, this makes sense. Files are sorted by number instead of their text contents. Unfortunately, when looking through a longer list of files, this makes things difficult. It's much easier to look for files starting with "00" than to find the number "111". I did some searching and found this registry modification. It will add a new option in your folder settings. Save this text to a file called "sort.reg" or something. Double click it and apply the patch. Open an Explorer window and go to Tools->Folder Options->View->Files and Folders. Scroll to the bottom of the list and check the "Use textual file sorting" entry. The first time you change this setting, you may have to log out, then back in for the change to take effect. Who knows? Maybe I'll be using Gnome at work sometime soon and won't have to worry about Windows hacks anymore ;-)

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced\Folder\List Order]
"Type"="checkbox"
"Text"="Use textual file sorting"
"ValueName"="NoStrCmpLogical"
"CheckedValue"=dword:00000001
"UncheckedValue"=dword:00000000
"DefaultValue"=dword:00000000
"RegPath"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Policies\\Explorer"
"HKeyRoot"=dword:80000001

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\Explorer]

"NoStrCmpLogical"=dword:00000000

posted by MrSqueezles at 8:33 AM

I used it because it's a compact and clean presentation. --FO8735 (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism not mentioned

The "Criticisms that apply to several or all versions of Windows" does not mention anything being criticized. It's just a list of arguably bad facts.

We're looking for this:

"So-and-so criticized Bob for forgetting to pick up the dry-cleaning."

not this:

"Bob forgot to pick up the dry-cleaning." - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to mean "Names of the critics not mentioned". IMHO it's not important to mention the names of the critics in the text; it would only distract the reader. They are given in the references. If you'd write an article about Bob, nobody would like to read something like: "His mother, his aunt Annie, his sister Kate and his brother Mike criticized Bob for forgetting to pick up the dry-cleaning. However, his father, his uncle Joe and his sister Amy didn't care." Just deleting all criticisms isn't really an improvement of the article. There are obviously many more criticisms of MS Windows. --FO8735 (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Still, it's "Bob was criticized..."', not "Bob did such-and-such." - Josh (talk | contribs) 13:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the article is named "Criticism of Microsoft Windows", it's unnecessary to mention this explicitly every time. --FO8735 (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

by default, the Windows Explorer file manager hides filename extensions. This can be used to trick users into running malicious programs that they have previously downloaded. If a computer virus has the name "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs", for example, its name will be displayed as "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT" and appears to be a text file. The hiding of a large number of filename extensions can be disabled via menu settings,[6] but some extensions will remain hidden unless you edit the registry.[7]

A) No extentions that MATTER will remain hidden. I think the only other extention is the .src shortcut.

B) If "Love-letter-for-you.txt" becomes "love-letter-for-you" then there is an obvious problem... mostly people being too stupid to notice the difference betwen a vbs icon and a txt icon.

WHY this is a critisim? WHO KNOWS, by DEFAULT you don't CHANGE the extentions. And those that do can simply turn them back on. It's FAST, It's EASY, It's BETTER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.222.251 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of work still needed.

The "Criticism of Microsoft Windows" is way too short and requires a lot more additions, including the list of problems mentioned by X-Bert. There are still many problems with Microsoft Windows that I see to this day! If we can include reliable resources and prove beyond a shadow of doubt there are many criticisms pertaining to Microsoft Windows, including:

• Manual device driver installation after installing a retail version Microsoft Windows e.g. chipset drivers. Okay, this is sometimes required in Ubuntu for 3rd party drivers like Nvidia graphics drivers, but you are prompted to install the correct driver instead of trying to find the right driver on the Internet and install it yourself, which can be difficult if you don't have the original installation media. Trying to find the correct drivers can be very difficult for inexperienced users, especially for devices integrated in the motherboard e.g. sound.
• Device drivers need to be updated as buggy drivers can cause instability; the end user must find these drivers, such as running Windows Update and searching for them (if available on Windows Update) - instead of choosing the default option of installing critical updates only. Alternatively, the user must visit each vendor's website, find the correct drivers, install them manually and reboot each time if prompted, for the changes to take effect.
• Defragmentation is required at least monthly, regardless of the filesystem on the hard drive. NTFS is used as the default filesystem on the newer versions of Windows and it DOES get fragmented, otherwise the market would not have 3rd party defragmentation programs for NTFS. I have read that some operating systems don't require defragmenting.
• In the event of troubleshooting, there are lack of built-in troubleshooting tools and the Event Viewer is very cryptic.
• Too many programs start up with Windows, which you can easily see by running MSConfig after you've installed all the required device drivers and programs. Many of these are not required and waste resources, which makes the computer run slower and also makes Windows start up slower.
• Temporary files litter the hard drive, waste precious disk space and don't get deleted automatically by Windows on a regular basis, such as those in the %temp% folder. 3rd party programs exist to facilitate the removal of hundreds of unnecessary files, such as CCleaner, which the user could use occasionally.
• Poor security and delays in getting the required patches from Microsoft; in one case it took Microsoft 200 days to release a security fix for Windows! Source.
• Peripherals such as printers that worked fine in previous versions of Windows, no longer work when a new version of Windows is released, and the manufacturer won't provide the necessary driver for the device to work in the newer version of Windows. For example, a scanner that's a few years' old which worked in Windows XP is unlikely to work in Windows Vista. Why do newer versions of Windows prevent older hardware from working?
• It's easy for programs to gain full control (and cause damage, in the case of viruses): if the account is not the "administrator" type, the program will not install or could malfunction when running. When the user has an "administrator" account, the program has full access to the whole system. It could be argued that as of Windows Vista, the User Account Control (UAC) could help prevent this, but constant UAC prompts will annoy the end user and they will just click "Continue" regardless. When using the Command Prompt in Windows Vista, the user must right-click the Command Prompt and left-click "Run as Administrator", otherwise programs won't run in the Command Prompt. This defeats the purpose of the UAC.
• No package manager. Installing new programs becomes arduous as the user must find the program (often from a website), install the program and in some cases, reboot, before the next program can be installed and the process has to be repeated again and again before all the required programs are installed.
• Windows is constantly infected by malware which can cause many problems, such as: data loss, data theft, insecurity, slower performance and in some cases Windows may not start up if it's badly infected!
• I agree with the statement above by X-Bert: "system gets slower and more instable with time". You buy a brand new computer with Windows installed, for the first few months it's fast. About 2 years down the line, the computer is running slow. Yes you can defrag it, yes you can delete temporary files, yes you can optimise this and that, but the performance is never restored to its "brand new" state. I'm well aware that other operating systems don't suffer this problem, I have noticed this is true since I stopped using Windows on my computer.
• I'm adding more when I remember them, since there are so many lol. Remember, "ref" links are always required to prove these statements are true. I know they are!! I will include these in the article when I find the ref links. Thanks for reading. :) TurboForce (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the following:

• Manual device driver installation: You can use Windows Update to install drivers, since at least Windows 98. However, many manufacturers don't submit (all) their drivers to Microsoft, so Microsoft can't distribute them! This is thus a criticism of those manufacturers, not Microsoft Windows. Also, if you lost the original installation media, that's your own problem, not Windows' fault.
• Buggy drivers can cause stability problems in any OS. This is not criticism of Windows, but more a comment of computing in general. "Bugs cause problems." Also, Windows Update doesn't push driver updates, because Microsoft has no control over drivers: they didn't write them, so they can't fix them if problems appear. Microsoft doesn't want to run the risk of breaking hundreds of thousands of PCs because of a bad driver, without a way to fix it too, so they don't push driver updates automatically.
• Defragmentation: Windows Vista and higher automatically defrag. Stop talking about XP and lower.
• Troubleshooting: Windows Vista and higher have a extremely large log facility, with too much information if anything. Stop talking about XP and lower.
• Too many programs: What programs start with Windows per default? Could you provide an example of a program a clean Windows install starts? (Remember, services are not programs!)
• Temp files: If programs forget to delete their temp files, that's the programs fault. Also, Windows has a Cleanup Wizard that runs when you run out of diskspace, that allows you to delete temp files.
• Poor security? Relative to what? The security of Windows 98 was horrible, yes, but Windows Vista/7 is MUCH better.
• Peripherals: If manufacturers decide to not write new drivers, how is that Windows' fault? Also, the old stuff breaks because it's not supported anymore, or badly written in the first place. I suggest you get to know Raymond Chen.
• Full control: UAC fixes this. Don't disable it. Get better written programs (that know about UAC, and play by the rules Microsoft made with Windows NT 4).
• No package manager: This isn't criticism: it's a choice by Microsoft (a forced choice, mind you).
• Malware: Goes for every (consumer) OS; not Windows-specific criticism. Also, Windows Vista's UAC (mostly) fixes this. Don't disable it.
• Slower: Not always true, but I agree. However, Vista and higher auto-defrag, and about programs that slow down the PC: that's not Windows' fault. Also, this goes for all other OSes as well, even if you think it doesn't.

I suggest you take a closer look at most of your criticisms, and figure out what they are criticizing, because most aren't about Windows. --DanielPharos (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to mention: any criticism of Windows is welcome. I agree that there probably is something that could be added to this article (properly sources, of course). But it's very difficult to find the sources, and make sure it's actually criticism about Windows, and not just about bad software/drivers/etc. --DanielPharos (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A rebuttal to DanielPharos:

• Why doesn't Windows direct you to install the correct driver? Yes you can blame the hardware manufacturers for poor website layout e.g. the "support" section, but when you install Linux, everything works immediately and a 3rd party driver e.g. Nvidia graphics drivers are located and you then install it from the options given.

• How does the end user know if a driver is causing stability problems, especially inexperienced users? Drivers do cause stability problems, okay that's not Microsoft's fault if the manufacturer writes a faulty driver, but the user must must manually update all the drivers, especially graphics drivers to try and fix the problem. Since using Ubuntu, yes at first I did have problems with the sound not being loud enough (not a stability issue I must add), but upgrading Ubuntu to version 9.10 (which also updates the kernel) fixed the problem. I didn't have to manually fix the driver problem. Windows does not make it easy for users to troubleshoot stability problems and assist the user to fix the problem easily.

• Defragmentation: why does Windows require defragmenting in the first place? Other operating systems/file systems never need defragmenting e.g. ext4, xfs etc. As for the automatic defrag in Windows Vista and higher, it does NOT do a thorough job as it runs in the background. A thorough defragmentation requires an "offline" defrag of the system files, which are normally locked whilst Windows is running. Then an "online" defrag must be performed with no other programs running, especially anti-virus programs, otherwise many files will NOT be defragmented.

• The logs do not provide clear information, just weird numbers and letters, not a description of the actual problem in a simple to understand manner.

• Poor security, yes this has improved since the days of Windows 9x, but Windows has been and still is criticised heavily for poor security e.g. on the grc.com website for having unnecessary services running like raw sockets, which was addressed by Microsoft I must add. That's an example only.

• Why are programs simply allowed to start with Windows and drain resources? This problem has been known about for YEARS and such bad behaviour is not discouraged by Microsoft as far as I'm aware, otherwise it would not still be occurring. When you install things like printer drivers you get junk in the system tray guzzling resources when Windows starts up.

• The cleanup wizard only runs when you get desperately low on disk space. In Linux, it automatically cleans temporary files that are no longer required. Thousands of temporary files littering the hard drive unnecessarily not only wastes disk space, but makes operations such as virus scanning the hard drive and defragmenting take many times longer to complete.

• Poor security - yes. Viruses attack Windows all the time, including Windows Vista and higher. No operating system is completely secure, but Windows has a poor track record and the problem is not going away.

• Old hardware that stops working: why does Microsoft keep peeing around with the operating system in such a way that older hardware simply stops working? Even worse, if you have to change a faulty motherboard with a different make or model, Windows will tie itself up in knots with confusion next time it starts up and then you have to re-activate Windows (activation applies to Windows XP and higher).

• Full control... UAC is annoying and simply clicking "Continue" allows a program to do what it wants. Windows was never designed to run programs under the principle of least privilege. Using the Command Prompt requires you to right-click its shortcut or cmd.exe and run it as Administrator. Windows doesn't stop malacious users or malware from tampering with critical components. I know that Unix and other "Unix-like" operating systems will NOT allow users and malware from doing what they like unless the user is "root". Under everyday usage, "Unix/Unix-like" operating systems do not require "root" or "superuser" privileges. In Windows, at least one account is an "Administrator" type.

• No package manager is a criticism from an "ease of use" point of view.

• Malware - Windows has been plagued by this for years. Yes other operating systems can be infected, but not as badly as Windows. An example is the Conficker worm!

• Slower. Yes Windows gets slower and slower everyday. My Ubuntu operating system is in constant use, I'm trying and testing many different programs all the time and it still feels as fast as it did on day one.

• All the criticisms are about the bad design in Windows, also 3rd party software can cause problems in Windows due to the poor design in Windows, for example, I've seen many times programs that don't un-install cleanly and then you can't re-install them without cleaning the redundant entries in the Windows registry, cleaning out left-over files and folders etc. Why is this allowed to happen in the first place?

Over time, I will be adding valid criticisms to this article and prove them with ref links. There will always be people who don't agree. I would like to enlist the help of other Wikipedia editors who are reading this. Cheers. :) PS. Apologies for any typos, I'm trying my best and I'm an honest guy. TurboForce (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's my reply:

• Drivers: How can Windows know you installed the wrong driver? Try installing a video card driver for a sound card: Windows complains nicely. Now install the "wrong" driver that claims compatibility with the device: it works. Of course it does, that's what the driver said it supported! If the driver lies --> is bad, how can Windows know? Also, everything works as "out-of-the-box" with Windows as it does with Linux. Try Windows 7 and any hardware that was out around that time. That said, Windows 7 downloads updated drivers from Windows Update automatically. So stop talking about XP and lower already.
• How does Windows knows the driver is bad? Computers aren't psychic either! The user must manually update the driver (if Windows Update doesn't have it), but this is the "package manager"-"criticism" you mention below.
• Ever filesystem that allows random-length writes will fragment over time. Some filesystems just INCLUDE a defrag-thing. NTFS doesn't. Choice, not criticism. Some people would argue that defragging is not a job of the filesystem anyway, but a OS job. Just like Vista and higher are now doing. (I agree that the default defragger sucks, but it is "good enough" for normal users.)
• Logs: What do you want? I can understand the messages in the log fine: that's what they are meant for: so experts can track down problems. Windows doesn't have AI, so it can't figure out what the solution is!
• Raw socket functionality isn't a security hole: it's a huge and stupid mistake. Linux has raw socket capabilities: is that then a security hole too, in your eyes? Listen very carefully to Steve Gibson's argument: he's arguing against raw socket functionality in consumer/mainstream OSes, and not that the idea itself is a security hole!
• Again, not criticism of Windows. If people want programs to run on start-up, that should be possible. Same on Linux, and every decent OS I can think of. Also, Microsoft does have guidelines for this, it's just that nobody is following them.
• Again, choice, not criticism. Why spent time deleting files when there still is enough diskspace? And: "What's that harddisk doing? Windows sucks!"
• Viruses: The problem is not going away, because new versions of Windows are being released all the time, with new bugs. That's normal for any software. Why is this criticism of Windows? Also, Windows Vista/7 are doing MUCH better than Windows XP originally did. Microsoft is doing all they (reasonably) can to fix this.
• So Windows is bad because some (non-Microsoft) drivers are bad, and some (non-Microsoft) hardware is faulty? Nice one. And the activation: true, but all it takes is one phone-call. I think this issue is mentioned on the Microsoft criticism page?
• "malacious users"? Please don't tell me you let "malacious users" run as Admin?!? Seriously, a good configured Windows is as secure as a good configured Linux (nowadays, and excluding exploits/bugs).
• Package manager: sure, it would be nice. But it's a (non-)choice by Microsoft. I personally wouldn't call it criticism, but if you can source it: please do add it.
• *sigh*: Windows is a big target: it gets all the virii. There is horrible malware for other platforms, too. Actually, most malware currently exploits errors in non-Microsoft software. (Adobe is going to be #1 in 2010, some McAfee report said.)
• Slower: please provide proof this is Windows getting slower, and not other programs messing up.
• Poor design: That's called backwards compatibility. Ever used DOS?

I still think most of this is not criticism, or not criticism against Windows. However, I suggest you be WP:BOLD and see what happens (I'm not a deleter). --DanielPharos (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

These are valid criticisms on this page. I have read about these online and I will track down this information. I have used DOS and Windows NT/XP/VISTA/7 does NOT run many old DOS programs and games, why do you think a 3rd party invented DOSBox? Backwards compatibility, that's a joke. 64-bit versions of Windows will not run 16-bit applications (which can be done with emulation, as the DOSBox example proves). Windows is very expensive to buy retail or adds to the price of a new computer purchase with Windows pre-installed, yet it's still more problematic on my computer than Ubuntu - which is free to use without restrictions of any kind. I'm not a Linux fanboy - there are things about Ubuntu which REALLY annoy me too! I will not keep on repeating valid points, we obviously disagree and there's a "tug of war" going on here. I will do my best to find the "ref" links and I would really like help from other Wikipedia editors please. Cheers. TurboForce (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"These are valid criticisms on this page. I have read about these online" Oh, I actually agree with the annoying-ness of some of these items, no doubt about that! The problem is that I think these aren't "valid criticisms" against Microsoft Windows, and thus they don't belong in this article! You've nowhere addressed that point.

Everybody that claims Microsoft isn't doing everything they possible can to provide backwards compatibility, really needs to read Raymond Chen's blog. Because you say these things, I think you've never seen all of this from Microsoft's point of view, or are unable to. Your comment about the pricing of Windows confirms that. Anyway, I guess we'll agree to disagree. (For the record, I'm not a Windows-fanboy, but I do fight any false/bad arguments fanboys tend to produce.)

However, I am surprised you didn't respond to my comment about Steve Gibson... --DanielPharos (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My points are echoed on another website - please read it very carefully from start to finish: http://members.apex-internet.com/sa/windowslinux/

Steve Gibson was making a point at the time: adding unnecessary network features in Windows opens it up to more security problems.

Just to finish my discussion... I'm not comparing Windows directly to Linux. Anyone reading this: have you heard of the (now defunct) company called Acorn Computers? I remember using them at school and the Archimedes versions onwards had the RISC OS operating system, which is still being maintained by two companies. These Acorn computers NEVER had any problems, then one day the school introduced Windows 95 and problems began shortly afterwards e.g. computers starting up with strange error messages etc. TurboForce (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll read that website, but I can already tell it's not a good source (note: source!): the website references wikipedia almost exclusively, and that isn't allowed.

Steve Gibson: No. Steve was saying that adding a dangerously easily and potentially heavily exploitable feature to an insecure OS is a mistake. Raw sockets themselves are secure: they can only be used if the program creating them runs on the local machine with enough rights (I think they needed admin-rights). But by that time, it's already too late: you're already on the other side of the airtight lock. See, I just demonstrated: raw sockets are NOT a secure hole. And if features = security problems as you seem to imply, then shouldn't Linux (or any other OS) that claims security be extremely barebone? As in: without any features except the most essential? Wouldn't that defeat the entire idea behind code-sharing and consumer OSes?

Ah, so because the IT department of your school was incompetent, Windows is bad? OK, they probably weren't incompetent, but you can't proof that. Maybe they just had bad hardware. Maybe they installed the wrong drivers (and ignored the Windows warnings that often pop up when you attempt that). You can't use anecdotal "evidence" like that at all. This all just indicates you're just a frustrated ex-Windows user!

You know, maybe we both should take a break from this. It's starting to look like a flamewar. As I already said: I'm not a deleter, so feel free to add these items to the article. --DanielPharos (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I read a good part of that website, but couldn't finish. It seems the person that wrote that indeed agrees with you, but therefore (from my point of view) also suffers from the same thing: a bitter hatred towards Windows (which Windows only partly deserves). --DanielPharos (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel: This page is an inventory of what criticism people have of Windows. That means two things: first, it's not an inventory of what you think is valid criticism of Windows. Second, it's not a list of criticism of Windows 7, but of all Windows versions. Therefore, all your arguments are completely misplaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariusthart (talk • contribs) 11:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

1) *you think*. True, but it is a page about "criticism of Windows", so anything that isn't, doesn't belong here.

2) *all your arguments*, right...

Still, we need to limit the list to the most recent versions of Windows (which would be Windows Vista+, since Microsoft is dropping support for XP really really soon). For instance, criticism about 30+ years old Unixes is misplaced on a Unix-criticism-page as well. Old versions = not interesting anymore. However, I guess if one includes a "fixed/changed in Windows XYZ" text, it would be OK (certainly with me). But I think there's a bunch of people deleting exactly that kind of paragraphs.

But, my comments up above are mostly related to the fact TurboForce was talking about "Windows" in general, which is interpreted as still being valid for the most recent version, which obviously was not the case. Touching an article like this should only be done with the utmost diligence, eye for detail and care, since a lot of people are really sensitive about these kinds of subject (obviously, myself included). --DanielPharos (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Windows tax

A Microsoft refund policy has nothing to do with the functionality of the OS. I propose a relocation to Criticism of Microsoft. Meewam (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

But I seem to remember the refund policy is specifically mentioned in the EULA of Windows itself. Some people would argue that that would make it 'part of what Windows is' instead of a 'mere Microsoft policy'. (I'm not sure where I stand on this, though.) --DanielPharos (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a point in having a philosophical discussion about what Windows is - at least not in the context of this article, which is about the functional aspects of Windows. Meewam (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine, I have no problems with that. I was just pointing out it's not so obviously clear as you put it. --DanielPharos (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

System performance over time

I have removed the section because it lacks reliable sources. The originally 6 references used are unreliable because:

• ref 1 is a message board discussion -> not reliable (WP:ELNO, 10)
• ref 2 cites "According to iolo's tests, Windows 7 starts up 42% slower than Vista" - iolo tech claims to be a maker of so called pc tune-up software. A cite (press release) from a company that lives off selling tune-up software could be accused of generating FUD to make sales -> not a reliable source (a NPOV one at least)
• ref 3 references an article from 1999 in Washington Post that does not exist -> unverifiable = ureliable
• ref 4 cites an urban dictionary and is anectodal in its discription (and tells users not to install warez and freebie offers) (WP:ELNO, 11)
• ref 5 is a reference to a dictionary
• ref 6 says "According to findings by LA-based iolo technologies, makers of System Mechanic PC tune-up software, Windows 7 is also susceptible to aging through use." - This ref is unreliable for the same reasons as ref. 2

1. http://www.computing.net/answers/windows-xp/laptop-getting-slower/142570.html
2. http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/study_finds_microsoft_windows_7_boots_slower_than_vista/
3. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/is-your-pc-getting-slower,news-1250.html
4. http://www.winvistaclub.com/e2.html
5. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Windows+rot
6. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-rot-7-vista-reinstall,8829.html

Please read WP:EL and especially the section under WP:ELNO before adding references. And please discuss before simply reverting. Thank you Meewam (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm very happy to discuss this true fact: Windows gets slower over time. FACT! If fans of Windows are reading the article and don't like 6 sites (see above) that all say the SAME thing, you people are very mistaken. Okay, I will be finding other "ref" links which are 'suitable', however the fact remains that regardless of the ref links' quality, they all say the SAME THING: THAT WINDOWS GETS SLOWER AND SLOWER EVERYDAY! I quote from Microsoft's own webiste: "No matter how fast or shiny computers might be when they are new, they all seem to get slower over time." They tell you how to make Windows Vista faster (why would you need to follow all them steps if Windows wasn't slow in the first place?). Here's the ref link with that quote I could use in the main page (if the link suddenly breaks, it's probably because someone from Microsoft is reading this!): Link to content on Microsoft's website. Yes I'm fully prepared for your lame excuses which blame the problems on anything but Windows; doesn't mean I will be taking any interest in your excuses. Finally, I've noticed that you Windows fans are too quick to remove things from the criticism page because the truth hurts. Shame on you! TurboForce (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"you Windows fans" Excuse me? NPOV much? Seriously, your post almost overflows with hatred towards Windows and its users/fanboys. "true fact"? "FACT!"? "your lame excuses"? "Shame on you!"?

I personally couldn't care less about fanboys, but I do care about Wikipedia policy. And that demands reliable sources. And there Meewam is totally right: those sources don't look reliable at all. --DanielPharos (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Read THIS page thoroughly and you will see the fans/fanboys doing everything they can to remove the true facts from the "Criticism of Microsoft Windows" page. How many other Wikipedia pages have edits removed so fast? I've edited many pages on Wikipedia - only this page has "fans" or "fanboys" removing edits faster than you can blink. I'm a down to Earth guy and I will give praise and criticism fairly. In the case of Microsoft Windows, I have used it since about the Windows 95 era and I've regularly fixed peoples' computers with Windows because Windows is going really slow, constant error messages and so on. The software market has an abundant supply of utility software to "fix", "optimise", "secure" Microsoft Windows. If Windows was so reliable in the first place, why would these 3rd party products exist? Why would Microsoft have to write pages on how to make Windows faster (see my previous paragraph above)? SIX ref links say the same thing - that Windows gets slower over time, but they are not "reliable" enough. Anyone reading this: if you can make ref links which passes the judges' approval on here, please add it to the main page; it's common knowledge that Windows gets slower over time. TurboForce (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no desire to rant/fight with you, but I'll address a few points:

"How many other Wikipedia pages have edits removed so fast?" It's called 'watchlist', and is a Wikipedia feature. There's probably a lot of editors watching this article, since it's pretty prone to vandalism.

"I have used it since about the Windows 95 era" = Personal anecdote. I've seen an extremely slow Windows PC myself. After removing a few dozen pieces of malware, it regained its normal speed. You see, you'll have to prove it's Windows that's slow, not all the other crap installed. But I agree with you that Windows seems to slow down over time, but so does just about every other consumer OS. Usage results in wear and tear. Cars require maintenance too to keep them in top condition.

Also, I noticed you haven't provided any new refs or arguments, so I guess that means Meewam's point still stands.--DanielPharos (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's one such "ref" link which proves Windows gets slower and slower. No amount of defragmenting etc. will restore Windows to the speed it was on day one - please read point 8 on that page, near the bottom: Windows problems page TurboForce (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That page is completely biased. And it provides only a single personal anecdote, no actual proof (as in: benchmarks). Also, it's not up-to-date (it's clearly talking about Windows XP or lower: "Windows just flat out lacks these mechanisms"). And most importantly: it provides no clue as to what is the actual underlying problem. Maybe that person installed a bad driver, and it's that driver's fault? Who can tell? --DanielPharos (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read that site from start to finish and read that page very carefully. That site is kept updated and Windows 7 is mentioned on that website; click section 1 on the table of contents and read the entire site CAREFULLY.

"Windows just flat out lacks these mechanisms" - the author is referring to the lack of mechanisms to keep the operating system clean and smooth running, primarily - Windows does not remove old temporary files automatically. Did you read point 2 on that same page? Malfunctions can be resolved by removing the temporary files. If you use CCleaner (which I have many times), see how much c*** that program can remove!

I sympathise with the author of that site. Many times over 10 years I've fixed malfunctioning Windows computers that play up for no reason other than flaws in Windows on THOROUGHLY TESTED AND WORKING HARDWARE. Yes I know about running prime 95 for 24 hours non-stop to test the CPU, motherboard and power supply for errors, yes I know you can run memtest86 for 24 hours non-stop in order to test the RAM for errors, testing the hard disk by running the manufacturer's diagnostics (the slowest and most thorough test), testing the CD/DVD drive and so on. Yes I know you can defragment the hard drive, reduce start-up programs, turn off visual effects, check for and remove malware and make sure the computer doesn't have dusty fans and vents etc. etc. etc. etc. NOTHING WORKS!!!! When Windows has been installed for a long time, you cannot make it run at the same speed it was when "brand new", unless you re-install Windows on a clean partition and waste hours or even DAYS of your life re-installing everything from scratch: from all the latest drivers e.g. motherboard chipset drivers, all the Windows service packs and then all the programs, rebooting when requested, waiting hours for service packs to install - all of which takes a long time. I'm sick and tired of this and I'm sick and tired of people being brain-washed into thinking it's normal for computers to get slower over time and start malfunctioning. I'm here to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that WINDOWS GETS SLOWER THE LONGER IT'S USED! I will be finding "ref" links. TurboForce (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've expressed my opinion of that particular website up above, in the "Lots of work still needed." section, where you referenced it too. Anyway, let me just say this:

"see how much c*** that program can remove" --> Try running it on a clean Windows install. Hey, it finds barely anything! Everything else it finds is c*** from PROGRAMS, not Windows! So who's to blame?

"and then all the programs" --> There's your problem. No wonder Windows doesn't run "as new": you install all kinds of software that mess Windows up! (Also, see previous point.)

I agree with you that Windows doesn't have all the tools needed to maintain it properly. But a clean Windows install doesn't need to be maintained. It's the additional software that people install (Microsoft's own software included!) that create the mess. Now, one could argue that Windows "allows" this to happen. That may be true, but it's still not Windows actually doing it. Blame must be put where it belongs, and in most cases, that's with the third-party software!

I also agree with you that the computer indeed becomes slower after a lot of usage. But you'll have to proof it's Windows that's slower, or directly causing the slowdown, and not all the c***py other software that's putting its stuff in places it doesn't belong.

If you could find a benchmark of somebody that had their computer run for a few years straight on a clean Windows install (so no other software installed, except for maybe their benchmark software), that would be an awesome ref, because that would be the ultimate proof! --DanielPharos (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I just realized: You and I both are seeing a slowdown over time. Both of us can't really explain where it's coming from. So I say: I don't know where it's coming from. You say: It must be Windows! You claim to know where the slowdown is coming from: you'll have to proof that claim, beyond a reasonable doubt, with objective evidence. That's the way science/the world works. --DanielPharos (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad you've noticed it too. :) If someone can find a page with definite evidence, maybe benchmarks, which prove that Windows gets slower and slower the longer it's used, we can add this to the main page. It's obvious that running CCleaner after a fresh Windows install will find barely anything, but run CCleaner after about 1 year, especially after installing many Windows updates - then see how many leftover files CCleaner can safely remove! My point here is that Windows does not clean up temporary files e.g. those in the %temp% folder and I believe this is one of many reasons that Windows gets slower all the time. It's bad that users must manually run programs like Disk Cleanup (unless Windows notices that you are desperately low on free disk space! Then it will run Disk Cleanup). CCleaner does find countless extra files that are missed by Disk Cleanup.

You say that you are seeing a slowdown over time. I would be grateful if someone could help me add this to the main page - you never know, Microsoft could be reading and decide to fix the problem in the next version of Windows after Windows 7 lol. Highly unlikely, but the slowdown issue is a perfectly valid criticism of Windows and worth mentioning in the main page, with the proper citations. TurboForce (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

They can't fix that particular issue, since it's not their fault. Programs that leave files in the TEMP folder without ever deleting them should be shot/fixed. There is no way Microsoft can fix this without breaking backwards compatibility with A LOT of programs (some of them probably their own!). Also, it's just files. I can't imagine Windows doing anything with the TEMP folder, not even enumeration, so I don't see how this could cause a general slowdown.

Anyway, if you do find something concrete/proven, please do put it in the article. I'm actually very interested in the underlying science of this performance degradation, as I would imagine Microsoft itself is too! --DanielPharos (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also very interested in the "underlying science of this performance degradation" as it's a definite problem with all versions of Microsoft Windows. As for the TEMP files, they are called "temporary files" for that reason and they should be deleted after use. Yes, programs should delete them after use, including Microsoft's. If the computer has crashed, the temporary files won't get deleted by a program installer anyway - even one that does behave and delete its own temp files. That's why the operating system should automatically purge old temporary files without user intervention. I believe this problem, along with Windows being bloatware and MANY other problems, causes Windows to get slower and slower over time. DanielPharos, could you find suitable "ref" links and add this to the article? It isn't fair on everyday Windows users to have a slow computer after a short while e.g. 2 years after purchasing a new computer with Windows pre-installed. I'm sure millions of computers get taken to the tip (rubbish dump) prematurely because Windows is running slower than a dead snail. TurboForce (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried, but it's difficult to filter through the complainers/whiners, people encountering this, and to find anything even closely resembling unbiased. I can't find any benchmarks that test (semi-)clean Windows installs, and/or track down the actual slowdown. I'm actually doubting there is any such benchmark: who would run their PC for a few years, doing nothing (not install any program, that is)?

About the temporary files: please define "after use" in the phrase "should be deleted after use". Is that immediately after when the last handle to the file gets closed? Oops, you just broke 95% of all programs using temp files. Is it 5 minutes after the last handle was closed? Why not 10 minutes? What is Daylight Savings kicks in at exactly that moment (now you're an hour off!). Or maybe even 2 days, or is that too long? What if an installer drops its logs there (perfectly legal), errors, and displays a message box, but has already released the file, and you're away from your PC. Suddenly the file disappears. (You'll shout: Installer's fault! Sure, now imagine the installer CALLING an external program, and that's the one with the log and crashes. Also, you can't move the log file around: that's even worse! Now nobody knows where it is to delete it!) Do you want Windows to run timers for every file, or some kind of cleanup cycle every X hours? Both have their disadvantages. Do you really want Windows to go in and delete files 'randomly' in the temp folder?

Conclusion: Nowadays, you can't fix this problem anymore: even if you find a way it'll no doubt break backwards compatibility. You see, in the early days Microsoft trusted that programmers knew what they were doing, and that they would clean up after themselves. Clearly they were mistaken.

And in the case of a computer crash: all bets are off. Something fatal happened, so your filesystem (or even the harddisk itself!) is bound to be in an undetermined state, and literally anything could be wrong, so you can't blame programs, Windows, or any OS for not handling that correctly 100% of the time. That's life.

But again: "I believe this problem, along with Windows being bloatware and MANY other problems, causes Windows to get slower and slower over time." Temporary files don't slow down the OS, unless there's a LOT of them, or they are eating up a lot of diskspace. Bloatware doesn't slow down over time: bloatware IS slow to start with. Please define these "MANY other problems", because I've already ruled out the two you just mentioned from being the main cause. Also, you said earlier deleting the temp files didn't help, SO THAT CAN'T BE IT! --DanielPharos (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you're seeing what I mean about Windows slowing down. I believe temporary files should be purged after one week of being inactive. Linux deletes unused temporary files and log files using "tmpwatch" and "logrotate" respectively. Again, I'll post the same source page - point 2 under "Top 10 Windows Anomalies": please click here.

I don't know what the "MANY other problems are", but I believe there are too many problems in Windows, as I've seen time and time again, Windows just gets slower and slower, from booting up, to the time it takes to start programs. Maybe nobody except Microsoft knows the real reasons behind all these problems, since Windows is closed source thus the underlying code is invisible to all but Microsoft. Bloatware plays a part and yes it's slow in the first place, but a brand new computer doesn't feel slow on the first day - it's after about 2 years that same computer is MUCH slower than it was originally. Bloatware shows itself in the minimum hardware requirements: each new version of Windows requiring more powerful hardware, and older computers not being capable of running newer versions of Windows without upgrades e.g. adding more RAM memory. Even if the older computers meet the minimum hardware requirements, the performance is painfully slow!!

At the moment, the only reliable "ref" link I can find which proves that Windows gets slower over time is the one I posted above. Here it is again - read point 8 under "Top 10 Windows Anomalies": please click here.

Would that be a suitable "ref" link? It's written from an independent IT expert who is not trying to sell 3rd party utilities to "fix" these Windows problems. This problem of Windows running slower and slower over time needs adding to the main page and that "ref" link is suitable in my opinion. TurboForce (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have two problems with that link:

1) It's a personal anecdote, not supported by any objective evidence. I see no benchmarks of anything. No links to research.

2) The website is so obviously biased, that it's not funny anymore. Why are you ignoring this? This is the third time you link me to this website to support your argument, and you haven't demonstrated that that person is non-biased. When you read the text, there's Windows-bashing written all over/through it.

So no, I wouldn't consider that link suitable. --DanielPharos (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If every link I post is 'unsuitable', that effectively means that every single "ref" link on Wikipedia would have to be put under the microscope. So far, 6 links I previously put on the main page are not good enough, that link above in my previous paragraphs - again is not suitable, despite all of my sources saying the SAME thing. I'm glad not to be re-installing Windows about every 2 years, defragmenting, deleting temporary files, virus scanning, waiting aeons for service packs to install, turning off unnecessary services e.g. visual effects, waiting longer and longer to boot the computer and be able to start programs after logging into windows, and having to reduce the bloat to try to and make Windows run at an acceptable speed and start programs quickly. No more stress now I don't use Windows on my computer, I love it.  :) Before anyone says this... I don't apply "tweaks" to Windows which can make it run slower than it does. To be fair, users can slow down Windows by applying "incorrect" tweaks e.g. deleting the contents of the prefetch folder. As for the main page, I will be adding the criticism about Windows getting slower and slower over time and adding the ref links to prove it. If it gets removed, I will add it again. I'm sure the Windows fans/fanboys are too quick to remove the truth and other Wikipedia editors give up trying - but I won't be giving up! TurboForce (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't stop you, but this: "If it gets removed, I will add it again." is a Wikipedia policy violation waiting to happen. Please, reconsider blindly re-posting content. You already KNOW it's "controversial" (according to Wikipedia policy), so it's best you/we/people talk this out before adding it. Heck, that's the entire reason Meewam removed it in the first place!

Also, I suggest you read up the Wikipedia policy for external sources; it might proof helpful if you actually understand what good sources are according to Wikipedia policy.

Also, I wish to note you again haven't addressed the actual concerns about the refs, which is the entire reason we're here on the talk page. --DanielPharos (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, I will post future "ref" links in here and see if any of them will be accepted; no point wasting time trying to edit the main page and keep going round in an infinite loop posting the same thing over and over again. I'm sure by now, people reading this know that I have seen Windows get slower everyday and it does happen to every computer with Windows installed. How we can prove it with suitable "ref" links is proving very tricky. Since it's a perfectly valid criticism, it needs mentioning in the main page with the right "ref" links. I don't see many volunteers willing to do that, only myself. TurboForce (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the main reason nobody is adding it, is because nobody (us included) can find a proper link, and that's because such a link doesn't exist: if anybody would know where the slowdown is really coming from (and thus making a good page to link to), Microsoft would jump on it and fix it immediatelly (as in: next service pack). --DanielPharos (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The only places I can find such links are from them greedy companies ripping people off by claiming to "fix" Windows slowdowns. You got to be joking about Microsoft fixing this problem!! It's been around for YEARS. A home computer with Windows installed is guaranteed to get slower and slower. Okay, I can't prove to people here in my own words that I've seen Windows go slower on MANY computers and I've had to re-install Windows so many times and waste hours of my life, but it DOES happen. Think about a Windows computer made in, say, 2005: what was it like during the first few weeks of its life compared to today? Go and fix slow Windows computers for people and you will quickly become as angry as I am with this problem. I also put the blame on bad practices which allow 3rd party programs to slow down Windows - which Microsoft does NOT discourage (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Why doesn't Microsoft discourage countless programs from starting up with Windows and guzzle resources? Yes I know about msconfig. Why does Windows have so many visual effects enabled by default, which Microsoft ADMITS are slowing down your computer and you should turn them off source. That source link I just posted now could be used as a ref link to prove all this once and for all. It's on Microsoft's website and uses the words "Whatever the cause" when describing computers with Windows slowing down. TurboForce (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"You got to be joking about Microsoft fixing this problem!!" No, I am not. You seem to think Microsoft is doing this on purpose, as if Microsoft is Evil(tm). Well, they are not. If you are now claiming that Microsoft is actively not fixing this, please provide proof for this conspiracy theory. "It's been around for YEARS." I'm getting tired of this: put up or shut up. You have not been able to show even a single piece of objective evidence (for example, a benchmark) that shows this is caused by Windows. Your new source doesn't specify the slowdown's cause: you even explicitly mention that. Showing pages that talk about Windows slowing down is not enough. You need (A) proof, (B) proof that it's actually Windows slowing down. And about that page: They are just general pointers to speed up a machine bogged down with crappy software, left-over rubbish, etc. If you think otherwise, please point to the piece of text mentioning the cause of the slowdowns please.

"which Microsoft does NOT discourage (correct me if I'm wrong on that)." Microsoft DOES discourage this. They have been posting guidelines since at least Windows 95. They have special directories to put certain types of files in for Windows 95. But nobody is listening. Hell, they are even correcting these flaws: ever heard of "compatilibity mode"? Oh, and before you ask: if Microsoft had ENFORCED this from day 1, people would be here kicking and screaming how Microsoft is telling you how to live your life in Windows. In Raymond Chen's words: "No matter what you do, somebody will call you an idiot".

"Why does Windows have so many visual effects enabled by default, which Microsoft ADMITS are slowing down your computer and you should turn them off." Enabled by default: that's what the majority of users wants. Slowing down: duh! Should turn them off: Please explain the usage of the word "should" here. Why "should" I turn the visual effects off? Let's redirect this one: "Why do most Linux distributions have the GUI enabled by default, while a text-mode command-line interface is MUCH more resource friendly?" This isn't criticism of Windows, this is asking questions about the design philosophy of user interfaces. WAY outside of the scope of this article.

"Why doesn't Microsoft discourage countless programs from starting up with Windows and guzzle resources?" --> "Why is Microsoft preventing my program from starting up with Windows!!1!11" Remember what I said: Microsoft used to trust programmers' ability to think, and not do stupid stuff. Obviously, as I said before, they were mistaken.

"That source link I just posted now could be used as a ref link to prove all this once and for all." I'm not seeing any benchmarks. It reads as a "Help, my PC is generally slow and I don't know what to do?"-page. If you claim this page as "proof", you MUST also agree that the mentioned items on that page actually FIX the problem. Me and you both know they don't. And that puts the page back at the "vague slowdown"-part of the spectrum, and thus not supporting criticism of Windows specifically. Heck, the article points in just about every direction EXCEPT Windows!

Self-quote from two months ago: "Because you say these things, I think you've never seen all of this from Microsoft's point of view, or are unable to." I couldn't agree with myself more. Overall, I see a lack of compassion/empathy for Microsoft in your writing. In other words: you're behaving biased. You reply to my responses, but continue to ignore the actual deeper content of my posts. I see no reason to continue this discussion: we'll always disagree. I've become convinced you're biased and unable to decouple your (apparent) hatred of Windows. You've become convinced there's no pleasing the Microsoft-fanboys/Wikipedia-editors. Oh, I do not claim the moral highground here, but let's stop this senseless arguing.

And for a second time this post, I will repeat myself: "I wish to note you again haven't addressed the actual concerns about the refs, which is the entire reason we're here on the talk page." --DanielPharos (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

@DanielPharos - I got nothing further to say about you vehemently defending Microsoft Windows. I will not be giving up on this and one day the main page will tell the world the truth - that Windows gets slower and slower and slower the longer it's used, along with 'suitable' ref link(s). Obviously you're a Windows fanboy who is emotional with his views about Windows and won't have one bad word said against it. This discussion will be open again when I have a long list of possible ref links and we'll see if any of them get approved by the judges on here. Enough said!!!!!!!!!!! TurboForce (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, as I thought, you've mistaken me for a Windows fanboy. Well, I guess that ends this discussion then. You've been unable to provide a suitable link (at least, for now), and haven't been able to attribute the slowdown to Windows itself. So yes, in this case I am defending Windows, because you haven't provided evidence that Windows is at fault here. If you call that fanboy-ism, I guess you're using a different definition of the word than I am. I already indicated I'm not an actual fanboy months ago, but that my position might seem otherwise. I guess the difference is too subtle for you (and many other) to pick up. Ah well, in the end all of this doesn't matter: we still haven't unearthed a suitable link. So Meewam's point still stands, end of story. --DanielPharos (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel. If there was a problem in Windows itself AND people were aware of it, Microsoft would fix it very quickly. Thus either nobody knows what's the problem or there's no problem at all. In both cases it's not appropriate to write about it in Wikipedia. Personally, I think that the problem isn't Windows. Take simple example, an application loads slowly. What does windows do? Loads executables/needed libraries from memory, 'connects' them with each other, as well as with system libraries, etc, and runs. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Where the slowness could come from? Fragmented disk could be the cause, but usually it has negligible impact. The same can be said about crap in the Registry. Thus there should be something that directly interferes with application loading process. The answer is simple: antivirus. A lot, if not all, people use antiviruses and there are millions of reasons why antivirus software can become slow. For example if the updates are not optimized after several months there could be over hundred of separate virus definition files which are very slow to load. So, as we have a real world model, how Window can become slow because of external reasons, Windows shouldn't be accused unless there is certain evidence. 1exec1 (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Windows (any supported version) is going slow on and it needs to be "fixed" to make it "faster". You will never make Windows run at "brand new" speed again (like it did the first day the computer was used). Below is a very basic list of 9 things that can be done to improve performance the best you can, without re-installing Windows - it shows that 3rd party programs are to blame too. This list assumes that Windows is running on hardware that is working properly and also assumes Windows can start up and shut down properly. If you are competent at I.T. you could do the following:

• 1. Run CCleaner to remove all unused temporary files and unneeded files left behind by hotfix installers installed by Windows Update. Don't tick the box labelled "Old Prefetch Data" as this will make Windows slower; see the Prefetcher article to see why.

• 2. Check for and remove malware. For best results, cold boot and then use a boot disk such as AntiVir Rescue System to remove malware that may be difficult to remove when Windows is running. Also, use other anti-malware tools because a single anti-virus/anti-malware program will not find and remove 100% of all infections - obviously don't run more than one of these simultaneously (see Anti-virus#Issues_of_concern).

• 3. Install all of the latest critical updates from Windows Update and of course the service packs, if that's not been done already.

• 4. Install the latest updated drivers, starting with the motherboard chipset drivers.

• 5. Turn off unnecessary visual effects. Font smoothing is one that can be left on, otherwise fonts will look too jagged (unless that doesn't bother the user).

• 6. Disable unused services such as the indexing service and advanced networking features; the latter improves security.

• 7. Add more RAM memory if Windows is running on the "minimum" required (or even the "recommended" required) e.g. if Windows XP has 128MB or less of RAM, you could upgrade the RAM to the maximum amount supported by the motherboard. System Requirements for Windows XP. I mentioned Windows XP as it's so widely in use.

• 8. Stop unnecessary programs from starting up with Windows e.g. using MSConfig.

• 9. Defragment the hard drive. To be done properly, it's imperative that an "offline" (boot time) defrag is performed first, followed by an "online" defrag (when Windows is running) and having closed ALL programs first. UltraDefrag is an example of a defrag prorgram that can perform both types of defrag. I'm aware that Windows Vista and higher have an "automatic" defrag utility, but this will NOT do a proper job - that is: an offline defrag, defragmenting as many files as possible including locked files in use by open programs (the automatic defrag is designed to run in the background and users don't know to close all programs when you defrag).

I'm sure that list could be added to and we could write a whole book on this subject! On the list above, points 1, 4, 5, and 7 deserve a special mention: point 1, Windows leaves countless temporary files littering the hard drive that don't get removed automatically at regular intervals e.g. once a week. Point 4 - there's no built-in system in Windows that alerts you to install the latest drivers. Some computer manufacturers may include their own utility e.g. Toshiba Tempro. Point 5 shows that Windows enables a long list of visual effects that waste resources and you will notice Windows is more responsive after turning off many of these. Finally, point 7 is a major one: if the computer meets the "minimum" requirements for Windows, performance is painfully slow! If the computer meets the "recommended" requirements, the performance is still slow and the computer will be replaced much sooner because most computer novices will not know how to add more RAM and will soon get sick and tired of Windows running slower and slower.

The only reason I can't yet mention in the article that "Windows gets slower over time" is because there is no "ref" link that's good enough. If anyone has read this entire page, I'm sure they will realise that Windows needs constant maintenance to reduce - but not totally prevent - sluggish performance over time. I need to save this now and sorry if there are any typos. TurboForce (talk) TurboForce (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a more appropriate criticism could be something like "Windows requires frequent maintenance" or "3rd party programs often cause Windows to run slowly", the latter being a valid criticism as there are few safeguards in Windows to prevent this from happening. Here's another page on Microsoft's website and Here's another more recent one pertaining to Windows 7. Again, mentioned in the latter link: "Turn off visual effects". Reading further through that page, it makes me laugh that Microsoft's solution is to (I quote): "Restart regularly" and "Add more memory" - the latter being yet more money wasted, not forgetting the price you paid for your computer and the extra cost incurred for having Windows.

There are many sites which tell you how to improve Windows when it's going slower than it should. Windows requires lots of maintenance and 3rd party programs will make Windows slow down and cause end users to become extremely frustrated. I also believe Windows itself has flawed design that allows it to become slower when used in a typical fashion e.g. to browse the web, install games etc. TurboForce (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Between step 8 and 9: Also run "Rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks" to clean up Windows' idle tasks. This also defrags the boot-files.

"1, Windows leaves countless temporary files littering the hard drive that don't get removed automatically at regular intervals e.g. once a week"

Are you sure those aren't the uninstall files? Doesn't deleting those files prevent you from ever uninstalling those updates again? In that case, they aren't "temporary" or "unneeded". However, I do see some large log files floating about, but those are (for instance) from the .NET Framework (I'm on Windows XP right now). That's not part of Windows (XP), and they don't bother anybody anyway (as in, they're not causing a slowdown).

"Point 4 - there's no built-in system in Windows that alerts you to install the latest drivers."

And how on earth would Windows know there's an update available? Also, I've heard Windows 7 actually does this (Windows Update), and if I'm reading this right, Vista can be set-up to do this: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Demo-Update-your-drivers-automatically So stop talking about Windows XP and older!

"Point 5 shows that Windows enables a long list of visual effects that waste resources"

Negative: this is the Windows user experience. In other words: Question: On *nix/MAC-OS, do you work with the the graphical interface disabled? You only use command-line interfaces? You don't use graphical webbrowsers? </extreme> These visual effects are part of Windows, just as the ones I mentioned are part of *nix/MAC-OS. They might not be entirely hardware accelerated in Windows, but on the other hand: old programs still run fine with them enabled (MS can't accelerate them, since that would break backwards compatibility).

"if the computer meets the "minimum" requirements for Windows, performance is painfully slow!"

I guess that's what the definition of "minimum" is in Microsoft's eyes. The minimum required to actually run Windows in a barely usable state. (Actually, it's not even the REAL minimum. That's something like a 80 MHz Pentium for Windows XP, I remember reading about.)

"Windows needs constant maintenance"

Every consumer OS needs this. Windows just isn't very good at it, apparently.

"the latter being yet more money wasted"

If it works, it's not money wasted, per definition. Just nitpicking! :)

"I also believe Windows itself has flawed design that allows it to become slower"

Now you're talking! Since Windows has to maintain a lot of legacy stuff (backward compatibility), there's not much Microsoft can change! Windows' design is flawed in the sense that the idea of running with the least amount of resources and using hacks to get there, was a good idea in 198*, but is not in 201*. It doesn't scale, and is impossibly complex to maintain, if possible at all. They might have conquered the market with that raw speed back then, but now it's biting them back. --DanielPharos (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Constant maintenance

Okay, the previous section is true but no "ref" link is good enough to prove it. Users have to manually intervene to reduce Windows running very slowly, as the 9 examples in the previous section prove. There are more things the user can do which are not immediately obvious e.g. Rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks (how many people know about that?). Yes I know that one or in the Command Prompt: defrag %systemdrive% -b does the same thing.

"Windows needs constant maintenance" Every consumer OS needs this. Windows just isn't very good at it, apparently.

So if every consumer OS needs maintenance, I would like you to answer the following: I'm using Ubuntu Linux - what regular maintenance must I perform? Ubuntu still runs as fast as it did on day one; and I've installed LOTS of different programs, I've been using sites like YouTube and many others. I've created and deleted lots of files. Yes I did install the Ubuntu restricted extras.

If anybody knows of maintenance tasks I must perform on Ubuntu to "stop it from running slowly" I would like you to post them below here. Before anyone mentions drivers, I must say this: I have all of the latest drivers installed automatically. The only 'manually' installed driver was the proprietary Nvidia driver - which was located for me and all I had to do was click on it and tell Ubuntu to use its latest driver - that easy. I didn't need to find it myself, Ubuntu done that for me. :)

Windows needs constant maintenance: that's a valid criticism in my opinion. With the "suitable" ref links in place, it could be added to the main article. The previous section is a valid criticism, but so far no "ref" link is good enough. TurboForce (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm no *nix/MAC-OS expert, but here's some proof that maintenance needs to be done on non-Windows machines as well:

• HFS+ auto-defrags certain files: Fragmentation arguments never stop
• ext3 can become fragmented: Ext3#Defragmentation
• And of course: Linux Migration Guide: Everything You Never Wanted to Know About Linux Maintenance

The biggest difference is that Windows isn't good at doing this per default/automatically. However, that's been much improved with Windows Vista+ (but not to Linux-levels, no). So, as I said: "Every consumer OS needs this. Windows just isn't very good at it, apparently."

Thusly: "So if every consumer OS needs maintenance, I would like you to answer the following: I'm using Ubuntu Linux - what regular maintenance must I perform?" This is a misinterpretation of what I was actually trying to say. I never said or meant the USER needs to take action. Fundamentally speaking, any changing-size-chunks (called files) write-able medium will fragment, as I mentioned before. Since fragmenting is generally seen as 'bad', that results in all modern filesystems needing maintenance, *nix ones included.

And to finish: "Windows needs constant maintenance: that's a valid criticism in my opinion." That goes for ALL modern consumer OSes. This is thus not really a criticism against Windows, but against the concept of the modern consumer OS, so I'm not convinced THAT criticism belongs in this article. You probably mean something along the lines of: "Windows needs constant user-help to maintain itself." --DanielPharos (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your quote:

"Windows needs constant user-help to maintain itself."

People will only defrag, scan for viruses, un-install programs (and the list goes on and on and on) WHEN WINDOWS IS PLAYING UP AND/OR RUNNING SLOW. I know some small businesses who make money out of fixing slow computers running Windows. I'm sure Linux can be defragmented and I reckon my own Linux drive is fragmented, but the performance is so fast that it's not a problem. If Ubuntu Linux ever started going slow, I would need to worry about performing the necessary maintenance that Windows users have to constantly battle with, but so far Ubuntu is running as fast as it did on day one - with no constant maintenance. So yes, "Windows needs constant user-help to maintain itself." TurboForce (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So then, Windows is installed on a hard drive with plenty of free space and it still requires regular defragmenting, about once a month. If Windows is never defragmented, performance WILL suffer. The creators of 3rd party defrag programs will market their tools as being absolutely wonderful, but you have to pay for their defrag tool and you have the added inconvenience of defragmenting Windows regularly. Linux does not need defragmenting. It could be argued that it's impossible to prevent files becoming slightly fragmented, especially on disks will little free space, however the performance difference of slightly fragmented files is not even noticeable to the end user, compared to the Windows method of constantly fragmenting files into lots of pieces. As I've already mentioned earlier on this page, the automatic defrag tool in Windows Vista and higher does NOT defragment ALL files. Windows requires constant maintenance to be performed manually by the end user - a valid criticism. TurboForce (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Time for change

If you wish to add perfectly valid criticism about Microsoft Windows, provided you have the "suitable" ref links, go ahead. Expose the evil Microsoft Windows for: poor security, vulnerability to malware, slow performance, constant maintenance needed to be performed manually by the user, constant reboots, slow installation when you have to install or re-install Windows, restrictions and expense, fragile registry being a single point of failure (and warnings on Microsoft's website that a recommended fix that involves editing the registry carries warnings and Microsoft cannot be held liable example) and so on.

This is what Microsoft says when you have to edit the registry in order to fix a problem (which they recommend you do on the same page that carries this warning):

"WARNING: Using Registry Editor incorrectly can cause serious problems that may require you to reinstall your operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that problems resulting from the incorrect use of Registry Editor can be solved. Use Registry Editor at your own risk."

I don't care if the Windows fanboys try to suppress the truth. It's about time people spoke the truth and realise that computers with properly working hardware should NOT misbehave and should NOT become slower as a result of everyday normal usage! Let's turn up the heat and get the ball rolling. Don't be scared to add your points, either in the Criticism of Microsoft Windows page or any other page on the Internet that exposes Microsoft Windows for its pure evil! That's what I'm doing and I love it. TurboForce (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lack of 16-bit support in 64-bit windows

This is due to a technical limitation, not an arbitrary removal of NTVDM as the article suggests. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTVDM#History for details. --70.30.84.163 (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That same section also says "Wine also includes a VDM, which it utilizes for running Win16 and DOS applications.[1] Wine's VDM is compatible with both 32-bit and 64-bit operating systems; however, compatibility is more limited on 64-bit systems."

Which means that Wine can run 16-bit programs on a 64-bit x86 processor. I can run the old 16-bit games on a 64-bit Ubuntu computer using Wine or DOSBox. TurboForce (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, Wine cannot run 16 bit software on native 64 bit: [2] [3] [4] Remember, Wine is NOT an emulator! Dosbox however is one, and thus can. --DanielPharos (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

@DanielPharos Wine can run 16-bit programs on a 64-bit x86 CPU, albeit not natively. From what I've read so far, 16-bit runs on 64-bit x86 using 32-bit. So we're right in saying you cannot run 16-bit programs on native 64-bit, but using 32-bit on 64-bit you can get the 16-bit programs to work fine. I've played many ancient 16-bit Windows games with Wine e.g. Windows 3.1 games on a x86 64-bit computer. It's totally bizarre that Microsoft requires users to install both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows just to run 16-bit programs; using the 32-bit version of Windows for running 16-bit programs and using the 64-bit version to fully reap the benefits of 64-bit computing. But Wine lets you run these 16-bit programs on a 64-bit Linux operating system (although not always perfectly as Wine is a bit "hit or miss").

I don't know why Microsoft are pushing 64-bit versions of Windows so fast and not fully utilising PAE on 32-bit versions to allow up to 64GB of RAM in all but the "Server" versions of Windows. This requires a separate discussion section I think!! TurboForce (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So we're both right: Wine can only run 16 bit software on 64 bit hardware, because Wine itself is 32 bit (although they are working on 64 bit, I heard). And since Windows 64-bit doesn't carry around a 32-bit VDM, that's the end of that. I'm not sure, but from what I remember about how VDM works, Microsoft can't package a 32-bit version of it with a 64-bit OS due to integration issues... So I think this is per design, not per choice. Not sure about that though, but I think I ultimately have to agree with 70.30.84.163: this is a technical limitation.

About PAE: Because it doesn't work. I remember reading almost no drivers or programs can actually handle PAE, thus making it next to worthless. Pushing 64-bit software (most hardware is 64-bit today anyway) totally makes sense to me. Also: it's not just Microsoft pushing: the entire industry is! --DanielPharos (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In the article, the sentence: "64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows can't run 16-bit programs, because of hardware limitations." appears to be incorrect? Should it read something like: "64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows can't run 16-bit programs, because the necessary 32-bit VDM is not included."?

Wine is being developed to run 64-bit programs, but it still runs 16-bit programs fine. If you have a treasured 16-bit program (such as a game) you want to keep using that is no longer developed, you can continue to run it if you want. The difference here is that only the 32-bit versions of Windows will allow it to run, but Wine on 64-bit will probably run it fine (and if it doesn't, post a bug report on the Wine website). TurboForce (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the line of text in the article "because of hardware limitations" is correct.

But from what I've read, 64-bit Wine will NOT be able to run (real mode?) 16 bit programs correctly! Because the 16-bit support is missing from 64-bit hardware, and Wine is NOT an emulator! --DanielPharos (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That sentence is wrong because it does NOT mention real mode. If you want to run real mode 16-bit programs, then you need something like DOSBox for the job. If I remember, real mode programs were all DOS programs, not Windows programs?? Wine can run 16-bit WINDOWS programs on a 64-bit x86 processor e.g. the Ballistic Paddle game, which is a Win16 game (16-bit). Let's make sure there is no confusion between real mode and protected mode when talking about 16-bit programs. Windows 32-bit editions can run the 16-bit programs on a 64-bit x86 CPU, but Windows 64-bit cannot. TurboForce (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Wine cannot! 70.30.84.163 source See the first line of text of section 8.8.2.1 (Wine can only run 16 bit programs on IA-32 architectures). What you're talking about is a 32-bit Wine running on 64-bit hardware, which causes the hardware to switch to 32-bit compatibility mode, and thus makes it able to execute 16-bit (protected mode?) software. Strictly speaking: yes, Wine can run (some?) 16-bit software on 64-bit hardware, but so can Windows: you just have to use a 32-bit edition. Anyway, we're splitting hairs, the real discussion is about that single line of text.

Simple fact is: that sentence of text is right (although it probably could need some improvement based on this discussion): Due to hardware limitations, Microsoft had to drop 16-bit program support in Windows 64-bit. (Even Wine does this!) The sentence doesn't need to mention real mode, since (due to hardware limitations) Windows 64-bit can't run real mode OR protected mode. So all 16-bit software is out. You MAY complain that Microsoft should have provided a 32-bit version of the VDM with 64-bit Windows, but (as I said before) if I remember correctly, there were some fundamental problems with that (mainly due to drivers? I can't remember now... I'll look it up.). --DanielPharos (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What the heck am I doing: It's right here, first line of text: Virtual DOS machine#Overview, and explained in the third paragraph of the next section. --DanielPharos (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. Strictly speaking - to a limited extent - you can run 16-bit programs on 64-bit, such as old Windows games, but even Wine may may have problems. I've read that page and I'm wondering what we should do with that sentence in the Criticism of Microsoft Windows page we're talking about?? This is what I've read on that page you link to:

"Versions of Windows NT for 64-bit architectures (x64 and IA-64) do not include the NTVDM and are unable to run DOS or 16-bit Windows applications. This is because, in an x86-64 CPU, virtual 8086 mode is available as a sub-mode only in its legacy mode (for running 16- and 32-bit operating systems), not in the native, 64-bit long mode; a hard reset of the CPU is required to switch to legacy mode. Wine also includes a VDM, which it utilizes for running Win16 and DOS applications. Wine's VDM is compatible with both 32-bit and 64-bit operating systems; however, compatibility is more limited on 64-bit systems."

So strictly speaking, you can run some 16-bit programs on 64-bit such as Windows 3.1 games, but real mode programs require a proper emulator like DOSBox, since Wine is not an emulator. The sentence in the page could be changed to: "64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows can't run 16-bit programs for two reasons: support for some 16-bit programs are encumbered by hardware limitations of the 64-bit x86 CPU. Also, 64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows no longer include the Virtual Dos machine."

Having done my research, I think that sentence in bold should replace the one in the Criticism of Microsoft Windows page. TurboForce (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that Wine can run 16-bit programs on 64-bit hardware. Actually, the linked Wine page explicitly denies that ability... So now I'm confused: you say you are able to run 16-bit software on 64-bit hardware using Wine? The example you give, Ballistic, are you sure that's not actually a 32-bit application: Win32s (more info here: [5])? --DanielPharos (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Ballistic game IS 16-bit. I tried running the very same .exe file of that game on a 64-bit Windows Vista computer and Windows refused to run it, but Wine on 64-bit runs it fine. Also, Wine produces a black window with a title bar that has the word "winevdm.exe" at the end if you run a 16-bit program. I have also tested the 16-bit version of Pegasus Mail in Wine on an x86 64-bit and it runs; (click here scroll down to the bottom of that page and you can download the 16-bit Windows version). Perhaps I should post a screenshot which shows the computer is 64-bit (uname -a in a Terminal) and a 16-bit program running in Wine on that same computer? TurboForce (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's clear by now that the main page needs editing. I am going to edit the statement and if there are any disputes, just add "" to it. TurboForce (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What we (you) should do, is contact the Wine-people, because you're claiming to have done something that they explicitly deny being possible... --DanielPharos (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with your change though, so I guess we could also drop this discussion, although I am interested in what's really going on here. --DanielPharos (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Earlier today, I uploaded an image on the Wine page which proves that Wine CAN run a 16-bit program on an x86-64 CPU, running on Ubuntu - 64-bit version of Ubuntu. I am considering editing the Criticism of Microsoft Windows page and briefly stating that Wine is capable of running 16-bit Windows programs on 64-bit operating systems running on the x86-64 CPU. TurboForce (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wine is also able to run 16 bit processes, but this feature is only supported on Intel IA-32 architectures." Your claim is in direct conflict with this quote from the Wine site itself. I consider a direct, clear statement from the software's manufacturer itself to have more weight than a screenshot by somebody that needs to prove something. I'm afraid that if you add that (without more supporting evidence that the Wine site is wrong), I'm going to have to delete it.

Oh, I also found some info that 64-bit Windows actually CAN run some 16-bit software: [6] --DanielPharos (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It goes to show that Microsoft can dictate what programs a user can or can't run; it can run SOME 16-bit software but is deliberately designed not to run other 16-bit programs and games like Chips Challenge. I find it very strange that I can run 16-bit Windows programs on my 64-bit CPU and 64-bit Ubuntu, but Windows 64-bit will simply refuse to run the same 16-bit programs. If I find proof for anything, I will be adding the information and of course adding the ref links. I will be contacting CodeWeavers about this issue and showing them my proof. Keep the fire burning! I'm loving this. xD TurboForce (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You're so-called "Microsoft dictatorship"-rant is off-topic, so I'm going to ignore that.

It's not weird Wine can run more software than Windows: Wine is an implementation of not only Win32, but also the Win16 stuff. Windows 64 bit has no implementation of Win16. Tada, issue resolved. You're trying to run unsupported software; of course that's not going to work (well)!

An honest question: Can Ubuntu run 16-bit software natively? --DanielPharos (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never knowingly used a Linux 16-bit program on Ubuntu. All of the classic and ancient Unix programs seem to be there e.g. top and work fine, but I can't give you a definite answer as I've not been using Ubuntu for as long as I've used Windows. My research has revealed that the removal of the Windows Virtual DOS Machine is a major reason why 16-bit Windows programs won't work and you say Windows 64-bit has no implementation of Win16.

The Linux community continuously work on "old" technology—which has the advantage of years of hard work behind it and proven reliability, rather than re-inventing the wheel constantly. The most obvious example that comes to mind is the X Window System. Some old programs can be compiled from source, but I've not had to do that so far. :) Excluding Wine running 16-bit on a 64-bit CPU and 64-bit Ubuntu (which by now has proven 16-bit can run on 64-bit), I cannot say whether a 16-bit Linux program will run on Ubuntu natively as all the "old" technology is kept up to date. TurboForce (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I just checked: On Red Had 64-bit, top is a 64-bit executable, so that doesn't prove anything. About the removal of the VDM: everyone agrees that it was removed and that's the reason why 16-bit software is unsupported on Windows 64-bit; why are you restating the obvious? Also, "your research"? Dude, it's a simple Google-search!

The Linux community part is off-topic; why are you bringing that up? Also, Linux is the one reinventing the wheel: how many package manager are there? Window managers? Command-line shells? Hm? Note: Using the X Window System as an example of good software is laughable at best: X window#Limitations and criticisms of X

But you've avoided a major point: Why is dropping old and outdated technology, whose support is only going to eat up more and more resources (as in: money, time and manpower), a bad idea? Especially for a commercial company? Especially if hardware support was dropped? Especially if more than 99.9% of software used isn't 16-bit anymore? Especially if that older software ran fine on older PCs (duh)? And Virtualization is becoming available for common-usage?

Hey, that's actually a good point: The XP Mode of Windows 7 MUST be able to run 16-bit software, right? So in a sense, support wasn't dropped; just 'moved'! :D --DanielPharos (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I figured it out: [7] See: "BV: Will a compile time option be added to not include support for DOS? Or would that be a bad thing?" Wine is doing a full-blown emulation for DOS and Win16! That's how they can run 16-bit on 64-bit! --DanielPharos (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Doing full-blown emulation of DOS and Win16 is the right thing to do as it WORKS. Imagine a scenario of JPEG image support being dropped, then in 20 years time, someone discovers important historical data with JPEG images. Does that mean that they would not be allowed to view JPEG images? What about programs and games which are no longer developed i.e. abandonware which need to be used? Do you think DOSBox is a waste of time? As for the Unix utilites, on my 64-bit Ubuntu, the man page for the uptime program is dated 26 Jan 1993 and it runs fine, however I can't say for sure if it's 16-bit.

You make me laugh when you say outdated technology "is only going to eat up more and more resources". Microsoft adds "new" technology to each new release of Windows and the bloatware appalling. Have you looked at the minimum hardware requirements of Windows 7 compared to Ubuntu 10.04? I find it even more laughable that Windows 7 is basically an "improved Vista" (cos there were so many problems in Windows Vista) and 1) you have to pay again to get the "improved" version of Windows Vista - i.e. Windows 7 and 2) the minimum required RAM is 1GB compared to Vista's 512MB (although the actual amount should be higher if you don't want to suffer from a painfully slow computer, as these are the bare minimum hardware requirements!!). "XP mode" of Windows 7 is ONLY available on Professional, Enterprise or Ultimate editions — which cost more money.

I'm not saying Linux is perfect and it does indeed have its criticisms. Yes the X Window System is criticised, but it's so stable that if a program such as a web browser in Linux is misbehaving, you can still move its window around. I've seen many cases in Microsoft Windows where the GUI can totally freeze and require either continuous pressing of CTRL ALT DELETE to try to kill the program or in some cases, powering off the computer and starting again. I've never had the GUI in Ubuntu crash on me, but if it did, you can switch to the command mode and start again without a reboot.

Don't criticise my research, as doing a "simple Google search" and reading things very carefully and thoroughly is what I do. I don't "just" add things to Wikipedia pages, I spend a long time checking things extremely thoroughly. Am I the only person on here who does a "simple Google search"?

I don't care what Windows fanboys try to tell me. I'm sticking to the mantra that Microsoft Windows is more problematic, requires lots of maintenance, is insecure, monopolistic and buggy in comparison with all other operating systems, not just Linux. Check out AmigaOS and RISC OS as 2 of many examples, not forgetting Mac OS X. I'm very happy to switch on my computer and use it at the same fast speed everyday, without the constant manual maintenance and irritations I used to suffer with under Microsoft Windows. As and when I come across new information about the subject of Microsoft Windows, I will be adding it to Wikipedia with ref links. That's it now. TurboForce (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the original topic is now completely understood and agreed upon, we can stop it right here. All this off-topic ranting should be done on talk-pages, but actually I prefer not to. It's so childish. You just admitted to being unreasonable when it comes to Windows/Microsoft, so I prefer not to be a part of this 'discussion' anymore. God, I HATE fanboys! --DanielPharos (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

So do I HATE fanboys - in this case, a typical Windows fanboy who can't accept that alternatives exist to the Microsoft's Windows monopoly/monoculture! For anyone reading this who feels their edits could be removed from pages such as Criticism of Microsoft Windows or similar pages - don't be afraid, as long as you have valid ref links (that is the golden rule) there is nothing anyone can do - if they try to remove your edits and you have valid ref links, I know what can be done. :) TurboForce (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(I guess I had that one coming.) Please don't make assumptions about me like that. I use Linux on a daily basis. Therefore, you're wrong in calling me a typical Windows fanboy. --DanielPharos (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Bloatware

WHO REMOVED MY SECTION ABOUT WINDOWS BEING bloatware?

I think most people know that older computers have terrible trouble running newer versions of Microsoft Windows because it requires much more powerful hardware? WHY?

I don't care what you Windows fanboys try to tell me, I will just ignore you and I will revert my edits on the page again! TurboForce (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)