# OS WARS MEGA THREAD (Now debating proprietary vs. open-source!)

#### Face

Beta Tester
By all accounts I've seen, Win7 is vastly superior to Vista. "Gaming" benchmarks are at least near, and often surpass, XP's. Looks as if they've managed to lighten up Aero, also. Several sources say 7 runs it on much lesser hardware than Vista required to run it.

I think Vista will be remembered as a mistake. About the only nice thing I can say about it is that it isn't ME! Thats twice now MS seems to have shot itself in the foot by rushing a product to market before it was ready. Hopefully this time they've learned their lesson.
Well, I wouldn't call it a mistake. Just the first version without "service packs" . I'm sure you'd not be happy with XP without SP2.

There is a rule of thumb I used to have in order to deal with Windows OS: never install a Windows version's "first" for production use - and I don't mean beta versions here. It never failed for me.

regards,
Face

#### Nerull

[Moderator note: the next five posts were moved to this thread from the 'NASA Discovers Computer Virus Aboard the International Space Station' thread.]

SELinux protects against external attacks on server systems, not Stupid User Tricks or preinstalled malware. It's a trivial matter to dump a virus in someones user account on linux if you can trick them into doing things, and if that user is an admin user you can steal their root password too.

For fun, stick ~/bin on the front of your PATH in Ubuntu, put a shell script called 'sudo' in ~/bin which prints "Hello World" or something, and then run a sudo command. You'll find your system may not be as bulletproof as you thought. It's a trival matter to make the shell script act like the real sudo and steal passwords instead. Some program that pretends to be a game or some other software people tend to download without thinking about it could automate this easily.

In fact, I just wrote a script that replaces sudo, then runs the real sudo with its own arguments when the user tries to sudo for any purpose. Sudo happily asked for the password then ran my possibly-malicious program with root access. This could be done so the user never notices it happening. Doing the same for the graphical sudo should be just as easy.

And, of course, viruses don't actually need root access. This virus steals game passwords. Unless you run your games as root, it can easily run as your user and do the same. You can also do normal spyware and adware stuff as user.

#### Scarecrow

##### New member
SELinux protects against external attacks on server systems, not Stupid User Tricks or preinstalled malware. It's a trivial matter to dump a virus in someones user account on linux if you can trick them into doing things, and if that user is an admin user you can steal their root password too.

For fun, stick ~/bin on the front of your PATH in Ubuntu, put a shell script called 'sudo' in ~/bin which prints "Hello World" or something, and then run a sudo command. You'll find your system may not be as bulletproof as you thought. It's a trival matter to make the shell script act like the real sudo and steal passwords instead. Some program that pretends to be a game or some other software people tend to download without thinking about it could automate this easily.

In fact, I just wrote a script that replaces sudo, then runs the real sudo with its own arguments when the user tries to sudo for any purpose. Sudo happily asked for the password then ran my possibly-malicious program with root access. This could be done so the user never notices it happening. Doing the same for the graphical sudo should be just as easy.

And, of course, viruses don't actually need root access. This virus steals game passwords. Unless you run your games as root, it can easily run as your user and do the same. You can also do normal spyware and adware stuff as user.
Every system in vulnerable to the administrator. If you can fool the person who can get around the security mechanisms, there is no way to protect anything. Even the most high security prison in the world would be easy to escape from if you could somehow fool the guards into disabling automatic security systems, and letting you out. The key is not to get fooled. Don't accept candy from strangers.

#### Usquanigo

##### New member
Hacking Linux, particularly if it's properly configured, is vastly more difficult than Windows.
And we see the relious zealotry come out again. Ok, you're in love with Linux, we get it, really. But do you think it would REALLY be so hard to let things go once n a while and actually not spread BS claims at every turn? Does it REALLY get you THAT riled up that not everyone subscribes to your faith? If so, then man, you REALLY need a hobby.

EVERYTHING can be improperly OR properly configured, EVERYTHING can be hacked or made nearly impossible to do so. Doesn't matter WHAT the hardware or OS is. Put the crack pipe down. Seriously. (to re-turn a previously used phrase - if your Windows box is hacked - yer doin' it wrong - User Error - I D ten T Error - PEBKAC)

#### mbartley

##### New member
For fun, stick ~/bin on the front of your PATH in Ubuntu, put a shell script called 'sudo' in ~/bin which prints "Hello World" or something, and then run a sudo command.
In college, on Unix systems with lots of student shell accounts, I kept a shell script called "ls" in my home directory, which was something like:

#!/bin/sh
echo 'rm -rf $HOME' sleep 2 echo "Just kidding. This is why you shouldn't have . at the beginning of your PATH." Followed by some commands which emailed me the name of the user who just ran the script. #### Linguofreak ##### Well-known member And we see the relious zealotry come out again. Ok, you're in love with Linux, we get it, really. But do you think it would REALLY be so hard to let things go once n a while and actually not spread BS claims at every turn? Does it REALLY get you THAT riled up that not everyone subscribes to your faith? If so, then man, you REALLY need a hobby. No one tends to get riled up by a religious zealot more than a religous zealot of a competing faith. If you don't consider yourself a zealot, be careful about throwing that accusation against others lest they throw it against you. People sometimes sound like they care alot more about an issue than they really do. And if you do consider yourself a zealot, don't blame others for being zealots. Blame them for having chosen the wrong object of zealotry, but not for being zealots. #### Tommy ##### Active member I'm not any happier with XP SP2 than I was with XP plain. My home computer isn't compatible with SP1, so of course SP2 isn't an option. With the exception of some MS software that won't install without SP2 I've had no problems. I've found 3rd party fixes or workarounds for the vulnerabilities patched in SP1 and SP2, so no problems with security either. The PC I use at work is fully updated with the SP's, and isn't any more stable or faster. Mt housemate's (with all the SP/updates) is quite a bit slower and less stable, even though her hardware is much better. That, however, is most likely her fault - she has all kinds of crap running on the right side of the taskbar. I don't consider that to be MS's fault, rather it's the third party vendors (like Real, Quicktime, etc) who automatically put their stuff in startup since they seem to think everybody needs it to start instantly - even if they only use it once in a blue moon. #### RisingFury ##### OBSP developer Addon Developer I don't consider that to be MS's fault, rather it's the third party vendors (like Real, Quicktime, etc) who automatically put their stuff in startup since they seem to think everybody needs it to start instantly - even if they only use it once in a blue moon. Don't you just hate that!!! Then you have to go through the settings, looking for where to turn that off, just to find that you can't and have to run msconfig or that other thing to shut it off. #### Pilot7893 ##### Epik spaec mishun! Onboard the ISS, following the virus detection "Hey, uh Houston?" "Yeah?" "There's something on the laptop here." "What's it say?" "Lifesupport.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvinience." "Uh, that's quite an inconvinience." "Should we send an error report to Microsoft?" "No, you should get the f*** off that station." #### Dickie ##### Wannabe Rocket Scientist Donator I've always been curious, what are the advantages of Linux vs say, Mac OS or Winblows? Or is it just another OS capable of running stuff on your computer in a slightly different flavour? [edit - and I mean this as a genuine question, I've often been tempted to try Linux just to see how it's different but have never had the time, or spare pc to give it a go!] Last edited: #### doggie015 ##### Addon Developer Addon Developer One thing with Linux. You need to be a real tech geek to set it up correctly. if the following path "dev\hda1" makes any sense to you; you are halfway there. For complete novices, Mac OS is the best as it is easy to setup and modify. Windows is somewhere in between that #### Linguofreak ##### Well-known member One thing with Linux. You need to be a real tech geek to set it up correctly. if the following path "devhda1" makes any sense to you; you are halfway there. For complete novices, Mac OS is the best as it is easy to setup and modify. Windows is somewhere in between that From my experience this weekend with Ubuntu, I wouldn't say that exactly. The real problem I've had is poor documentation, both with the OS and with programs I've tried running on it. From what I've seen, I wouldn't say the OS itself is a lot harder to deal with than Windows, it's just that there's a lot less to *tell* you how to deal with it. #### Moonwalker ##### New member If Linux is really so much better in every possible way, why hasn't it taken Windows' place? Microsoft has the powerful position and money to enable Windows to be sold together with the majority of new computers. That's what it makes the success, plus DirectX. Without that, Windows would be nothing more than just another choice beside Apple and Linux. Linux got more attention within the last few years. I was not impressed of Linux a few years ago. But this has changed significantly. Linux is going to replace Windows in some areas, at least in Europe. For example the city administration of Munich has converted a huge amount of their PC's to Linux. But also Peugeot (about 20.000 computers) and some other companies, administrations and authorities (like the police). An increasing number of pre-installed Linux distributions on new computers has also increased the growth of Linux on desktops by about 30%. When you buy the Asus Eee PC you get Linux Xandros or Linpus Linux when you buy the Acer Aspire. The PS3 also uses Linux as the OS. But of course MS still has the monopoly position. For$35 you could go buy FSX Deluxe and the expansion pack, which combined have something like 30 (or more) planes.
Since FS95 I bouth any new version the day it was available (and never the standard version).

I already resold FSX Deluxe on ebay, together with Vista Because I did not discover any reason to change from FS9 and WinXP to FSX and Vista. Throwing away all the FS9 addons, to again buy them for FSX where they look and work the same way, makes no sense to me but also to a lot of other FS9 users.

The reason why I use MS FS (and all other professional desktop simmers do so, no matter how ridiculous it may sound) by far is not the ~30 poorly MS standard planes or the missions and training flights. It is the professional addons and the ATC model which makes MS FS the winner.

I feel no reason to enumerate a list of all the new features in 7, since you can easily find a description of all of them online.
I'm honestly not really interested in Windows 7. Windows XP still fulfills my requirements of desktop flight-simming, while Linux Ubuntu gives me a free OS that is well ahead of Windows Vista in look and performance (even before Vista was released) and gives me the opportunity to do everything I want on any number of PC's at any time (without annoying WGA tools and activation).

Linux people love nothing more than spending time with their computer trying to figure out why Firefox won't work (since the Linux version has external dependencies that aren't listed anywhere).
Again you are talking about past days (before 2006)

Firefox works as fine as in Windows. You get it by default with Linux. After Linux setup you don't need to do anything, just open the browser, install the flash player and that's it. Just like the way you do it in Windows + Internet Explorer also works in Linux by the way . I use both browers on both systems without issues. Ubuntu setup even takes less time than Windows. Installing the graphics card takes even less mouse clicks than in Windows (you don't even need to download the latest vesion as it is done automatically). Updates are also installed automatically just like in Windows.

If more people would know all that, they'd also use Linux for sure

#### Hielor

##### Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Microsoft has the powerful position and money to enable Windows to be sold together with the majority of new computers. That's what it makes the success, plus DirectX. Without that, Windows would be nothing more than just another choice beside Apple and Linux.
The major OEM manufacturers also offer Linux on their desktops. People don't buy them.

Linux got more attention within the last few years. I was not impressed of Linux a few years ago. But this has changed significantly. Linux is going to replace Windows in some areas, at least in Europe. For example the city administration of Munich has converted a huge amount of their PC's to Linux. But also Peugeot (about 20.000 computers) and some other companies, administrations and authorities (like the police). An increasing number of pre-installed Linux distributions on new computers has also increased the growth of Linux on desktops by about 30%. When you buy the Asus Eee PC you get Linux Xandros or Linpus Linux when you buy the Acer Aspire. The PS3 also uses Linux as the OS. But of course MS still has the monopoly position.
Growth by about 30% over it's already low market share. If you take almost-nothing and you increase it by 30%, it's still almost-nothing. And netbooks are not desktops.

I already resold FSX Deluxe on ebay, together with Vista Because I did not discover any reason to change from FS9 and WinXP to FSX and Vista. Throwing away all the FS9 addons, to again buy them for FSX where they look and work the same way, makes no sense to me but also to a lot of other FS9 users.
You know you can use FSX on XP, right? You don't have to switch to Vista, and in fact being on Vista adds nothing (since the DX10 preview mode is incomplete)?

The reason why I use MS FS (and all other professional desktop simmers do so, no matter how ridiculous it may sound) by far is not the ~30 poorly MS standard planes or the missions and training flights. It is the professional addons and the ATC model which makes MS FS the winner.
I'm confused now, because you just said that MS FS is the winner, which was my point from the start...

I'm honestly not really interested in Windows 7. Windows XP still fulfills my requirements of desktop flight-simming, while Linux Ubuntu gives me a free OS that is well ahead of Windows Vista in look and performance (even before Vista was released) and gives me the opportunity to do everything I want on any number of PC's at any time (without annoying WGA tools and activation).
And Windows 7 RC will give you a free OS. Honstly, if you haven't used it, then you do not have the right to insult it.

Again you are talking about past days (before 2006)
No, actually, I was talking about eight months ago, when I tried to upgrade to the newer version of Firefox on my linux machine.

Firefox works as fine as in Windows.
No it doesn't. Not for me, anyway. The version that came with the Linux install was buggy and crashed constantly, and when I attempted to upgrade it had unresolved dependencies and wouldn't start. The dependencies were not listed anywhere.

You get it by default with Linux.
Funny, didn't Opera sue MS for allowing people to get IE by default with Windows? The best part is that they're getting what they wanted--an OS without IE. Except, minor problem--now they don't have a browser, which means they can't get to the Opera site to download it. Oops.

After Linux setup you don't need to do anything, just open the browser, install the flash player and that's it. Just like the way you do it in Windows + Internet Explorer also works in Linux by the way . I use both browers on both systems without issues.
Again, the version that came with my distro was buggy and crashed constantly, and when I tried to update it, it wouldn't run.

Ubuntu setup even takes less time than Windows.
Right, because installing an OS is something that you do often. A speed increase in something that you should be doing less than once a year is irrelevant. Plus, I think you would be pleasantly surprised at the install time of 7 compared to previous versions.

Installing the graphics card takes even less mouse clicks than in Windows (you don't even need to download the latest vesion as it is done automatically). Updates are also installed automatically just like in Windows.
Again, how often do you install a graphics card? Plus, when I installed 7 I didn't even need to go get the latest version of the driver at all, everything just worked. In fact, when I went to get the latest version, there was actually a slight performance decrease compared to the in-box drivers.

If more people would know all that, they'd also use Linux for sure
Somehow I doubt that the average user cares about the install time for an OS or graphics card (since they'll never install an OS or graphics card themselves).

#### movieman

And Windows 7 RC will give you a free OS. Honstly, if you haven't used it, then you do not have the right to insult it.
Like Linux.

Except, oops, the Microsoft 'free OS' will disable itself in a few weeks.

Personally I've bought two new PCs in the last year, and both are running Linux; I'm going to buy another in the next year, which will also run Linux. I'll probably buy another one too, which will also run Linux, since my current MythTV server is a bit too limited in disk capacity and performance.

I really do want to buy another PC to run Windows apps, but I can't because I'd have to wait for 'Windows 7' (aka Vista 1.1). But then, with Microsoft now talking about 'Windows 8', should I really bother with 'Windows 7' if there will be yet another version out in two years?

Microsoft's whole 'sell people what we want and not what they want' strategy is a disaster from my viewpoint.

Oh yeah, and we use Linux at work, sell Linux-based software and I'm typing this on a company Linux laptop. In comparison, Windows is an abomination that I only use because I have a bunch of apps and games which will only run on Windows.

P.S. I agree with the earlier comments about this particular feature: I have images in various places around the six hard disks in my Windows PC and don't need or want the operating system to go looking for them for me. This whole 'users are idiots and the computer knows much better than they do what they want' is one of the reasons why I despise Windows so much. One of the biggest changes that might make me want to upgrade to 'Windows 7' would be if Microsoft were to add an 'I'm not a frigging idiot' button that disabled all this nonsense.

---------- Post added at 01:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 PM ----------

When GE, one of the largest corp in the world won't upgrade to Vista, you know you have one piece of "crappy" software
To be fair, that's probably at least as much due to the massive cost of upgrading all their PC hardware to run Vista for no business benefit over running XP.

#### Moonwalker

##### New member
In comparison, Windows is an abomination that I only use because I have a bunch of apps and games which will only run on Windows.
That's why Windows is widely used I think, and which is the only case why I'm still using it. But as I said, WinXP for me is the last one for sure. I'll go away from desktop simming anyway sooner or later, after many years, either to buy a fixed base simulator or to get a real licence, which depends on the job I might get next year. Gaming is something that can be perfectly done on consoles. And the PS3, including the capability to use Linux on it, is something I really like. On my computers I'll only use Linux in the future.

And now I'm off, installing the latest Ubuntu, which was released just two days ago...

#### Hielor

##### Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Like Linux.

Except, oops, the Microsoft 'free OS' will disable itself in a few weeks.
Months, not weeks.

Personally I've bought two new PCs in the last year, and both are running Linux; I'm going to buy another in the next year, which will also run Linux. I'll probably buy another one too, which will also run Linux, since my current MythTV server is a bit too limited in disk capacity and performance.
Good for you.

I really do want to buy another PC to run Windows apps, but I can't because I'd have to wait for 'Windows 7' (aka Vista 1.1).
Win7 is not Vista. If you don't believe me, try it.

But then, with Microsoft now talking about 'Windows 8', should I really bother with 'Windows 7' if there will be yet another version out in two years?
Microsoft is talking about Windows 8? What? Where? Development has most certainly not started on a next version.

Microsoft's whole 'sell people what we want and not what they want' strategy is a disaster from my viewpoint.
Wait what? Did you not read the part where several features of Win7 were based on what customers want?

Oh yeah, and we use Linux at work, sell Linux-based software and I'm typing this on a company Linux laptop. In comparison, Windows is an abomination that I only use because I have a bunch of apps and games which will only run on Windows.
Good for you. Plus, how is Windows an "abomination"? (which, btw, is "anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred"). Seems like 90% of PC users are using Windows, which would hardly make it "greatly disliked or abhorred."

P.S. I agree with the earlier comments about this particular feature: I have images in various places around the six hard disks in my Windows PC and don't need or want the operating system to go looking for them for me. This whole 'users are idiots and the computer knows much better than they do what they want' is one of the reasons why I despise Windows so much. One of the biggest changes that might make me want to upgrade to 'Windows 7' would be if Microsoft were to add an 'I'm not a frigging idiot' button that disabled all this nonsense.

This specific feature does not "go looking for [your images] for" you. It only shows you files and folders in the exact set of places you tell it to look. I really don't understand why I've had to say this four times and people still aren't getting it. Your computer isn't doing anything for you here. And, as I've said several times already, you don't have to use the libraries if you don't want to. If you don't use them, they use negligible hard drive space and zero CPU/memory.

As for the 'I'm not a frigging idiot' button, there is an area to "turn Windows features on or off." Not really sure what's there though, I haven't looked.

---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:13 PM ----------

That's why Windows is widely used I think, and which is the only case why I'm still using it. But as I said, WinXP for me is the last one for sure. I'll go away from desktop simming anyway sooner or later, after many years, either to buy a fixed base simulator or to get a real licence, which depends on the job I might get next year. Gaming is something that can be perfectly done on consoles. And the PS3, including the capability to use Linux on it, is something I really like. On my computers I'll only use Linux in the future.

And now I'm off, installing the latest Ubuntu, which was released just two days ago...
"Gaming is something that can be perfectly done on consoles'....sure, unless you're smart enough to realize that console controllers are far worse than mouse/keyboard for several of the most popular game genres.

#### Keatah

##### Active member
All in all, I think having user-friendly software is good, but Microsoft has taken things to a level so high that it now makes it difficult for an advanced user to customize their system for performance. And with the whole "simplicity" thing, Microsoft has spoiled the public into not learning anything about their computers.
I mean... if the internet doesn't connect, people say their computer is broken... they don't try to ping or renew their IP.
Well, if computers are being advertised as simple and easy and fast 1-click devices, like how they do it on tv and in the movies, sure! Folks *are* going to complain if that is not the case.

---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------

Advertising dumbs us down (as a nation) and sets up unrealistic expectations. When those expectations are not met then there is a problem.

On another note I seem to be able to do everything I *need* to do with winXP. Is there a reason why I need to get the next version of windows? After all, I skipped over Vista and everything still runs as it should.

And now there is talk of Windows-8? I have not gotten around to learning Vista yet, and if 8 is coming soon, why bother with 7, let alone Vista? Especially when XP works fine??

Do these folks change things for the sake of changing things?

Now, on to this Doom and Quake think. Doom was 'new' because it was the first time something like this was done on the computer. Quake was new because it was one of the first (if not the first) fps game to use 3d hardware and blast against other online players. Ahh well, Doom and Quake - many firsts for those. All other games after are simply copycats.

As for the windows/linux/osx debate, puhhlleeeezzee! People will go with what works for them, for whatever reason.

#### Moonwalker

##### New member
Microsoft is talking about Windows 8? What? Where?
Yes MS is talking about that. They even search for additional developers and already talk about some features of Windows 8. They want to keep up again with what they did already in the 1990's: to release an OS every very few years. It's their mon(k)ey making strategy.

Seems like 90% of PC users are using Windows, which would hardly make it "greatly disliked or abhorred."
90% of PC users are using Windows because it is simply sold together with the majority of new computers. Plus the fact that a huge amount of users don't really care about the OS as long as they can do what they want. A lot of users don't even know that there is something else than Windows. Last week I talked about Linux with a workmate who also uses it at home. Another workmate who listened asked: Linux? What's that? I said it's another operating system. He asked: operating system? (keep in mind that he is a merchant!) I replied that it is something like Windows: the thing you are working with at work each day, you f...ing dumbass (we are always joking that way). He said that he actually doesn't care as long as he can send emails and download movies and music.

Imagine, it's the year 2009...

"Gaming is something that can be perfectly done on consoles'....sure, unless you're smart enough to realize that console controllers are far worse than mouse/keyboard for several of the most popular game genres.
If you are used to play with mouse and keyboard, you'd have problems using a controller. When I first started to play on computers (I only used consoles in the 1990's so far, after the good old days of Amiga and Comodore), I had the same problem vice versa. The only thing which just won't really work by using controllers is advanced flight simulation. Anyting else on a console is even way more relaxing than to sit in front of computer, especially when you have a good beamer and a big comfortable couch and lounge. Not for no reason did Microsoft close the Aces Studios (the crisis was just a good opportunity to get a "reason") and is going to leave the desktop game market rather obviously...

#### movieman

Months, not weeks.
Big deal. Only fanatics are going to install a new OS on their computer that will be disabled in the near future, just so they can determine whether it sucks less than Vista.

I was amused when I went to buy a laptop after I moved to Canada, because my desktop PC was on a boat somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic; at pretty much every computer store I went to sales people were telling me _not_ to buy Vista, even though most stores didn't even sell XP laptops anymore and the few XP laptops which were available were typically half the price of the Vista ones and probably had substantially lower profit margins.

When even the people selling computers, who stand to make more money by selling Vista to me, think it sucks, Microsoft have a real problem.

Win7 is not Vista. If you don't believe me, try it.
No, as I said, it's Vista 1.1.

You're not seriously claiming you believe the Microsoft have developed a complete new OS in two years, are you?

Microsoft is talking about Windows 8? What? Where? Development has most certainly not started on a next version.
Maybe you should keep up with the news: there have been several articles in the last week about 'Windows 8' and Microsoft hiring developers for it. This isn't the 90s anymore... my XP desktop has lasted six years; why would I want to have to pay to install a new OS on my PC every two years?

Wait what? Did you not read the part where several features of Win7 were based on what customers want?
Wow, several new features! Stop the press!

What the majority of Microsoft's customers want is... XP. They don't want to have to buy a super-fast system just to run the operating system, nor do they want to be forced to pay money to replace it with software which gives them no perceived benefit and requires massive retraining costs if they're using it in a business environment.

I honestly see no reason whatsoever to install anything beyond XP on my computers; Vista (and Vista 1.1) provide nothing new that I want, yet Microsoft persist in trying to push it on me if I want to run Windows programs.

Plus, how is Windows an "abomination"? (which, btw, is "anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred"). Seems like 90% of PC users are using Windows, which would hardly make it "greatly disliked or abhorred."
What's Microsoft's marketing tactic for every new version of Windows?

'Buy Windows X+1! This is the version of Windows that doesn't suck, unlike Windows X. Ok, we told you that Windows X was the version of Windows that didn't suck, unlike Windows X-1, but this time we really mean it!'

Come on, even Microsoft use their own products' failings as a marketing ploy to try to get people to buy the next version. And you don't think it's an abomination full of half-developed APIs and vast swathes of junk that's in there purely for backtwards compatibility?

I'm sorry, but I've spent years working with the internals of Windows, and the whole thing is an absolute disaster zone. And that's merely the operating system, even before we start on the garbage that's pushed on users from applications (e.g. every program wanting to start up some piece of crap 'update manager' when you boot so that you can't even use your system for two minutes or more after logging in).

This specific feature does not "go looking for [your images] for" you. It only shows you files and folders in the exact set of places you tell it to look
Then, uh, what's the point?

Microsoft tried to force people to put all their pictures into 'My Pictures', and then discovered that people don't want to do that. Why do they think that people who don't want to put their pictures there are suddenly going to go through the hassle of telling it where to go looking for the pictures they do have, so they can be put in a 'My Pictures' folder that they're not using?

You know why I don't put my pictures in 'My Pictures'?

Because of the freaking antiquated 1980s drive letter nonsense, and the way that Windows wants to put all user documents and all applications and the operating system all on the c: drive. You run out of space there and you buy a new drive to store your data on... and... uh... oh... but Microsoft want it to all go in 'My Documents', which is stuck on the c: drive. So you're stuffed.

And you don't think Windows is an abomination?

(And yes, I know that in theory you can move an individual users' files to a different hard drive, but doing so is vastly beyond the capability of the average user: even I couldn't get it to work in XP, particularly as so many applications ignore the settings and assume they can just use the normal path on c:\)

Seriously, I can barely stand to use Windows anymore: if it wasn't for the fact that I have numerous games and a few multi-thousand-dollar applications that are Windows-only, I'd wave bye-bye to Microsoft for good. I will celebrate the day I can toss the last Windows PC out of my house.

You know, I remember a time when ATMs didn't crash, or come up with a screen asking me to press Ok to close the current application. I remember a time when you could go to an airport and actually see the flights listed on the displays, rather than a blue-screen crash dump.

A while back someone actually asked me why we use Linux for this system I'm installing, and not Windows. Substantial downtime could cost customers millions of dollars, inconvenience large numbers of people and put thousands of lives at risk, and we're going to run it on... Windows?