Ok then, my most reliable Windows machine still runs WinMe. (An original factory install to boot, I advertise it as the the worlds oldest install of WinMe (Don't ask me why it just works)).
What version of Windows do you use?
- Thread starter Hemdian
- Start date
Ok then, my most reliable Windows machine still runs WinMe. (An original factory install to boot, I advertise it as the the worlds oldest install of WinMe (Don't ask me why it just works)).
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
If only.
If I could find a Linux UI I could understand, I'd be out of Windows faster than a cat burglar with a rottweiler on his tail.
If only.
If I could find a Linux UI I could understand, I'd be out of Windows faster than a cat burglar with a rottweiler on his tail.
well, perhaps they are the same to me since I am a programmer with a lousy sense of user interface. The variances in Windows, Linux (GUI versions) & OS-X are simply a matter of placement for 95% of the interface. Is the start bar (or whatever that particular OS calls it) on the top, bottom, side or only accessible via an arcane mouse-click combo? Linux DOES tend to do things differently (you have primarily geeks writing software to do what THEY want it to do, and programmers generally think a lot differently about how things should work versus non-programmers. Just ask any of the people at my company!) Windows tends to shuffle things around between versions (even to where they place the frigging files!). I've not had any real experience with OS-X other than seeing it looks pretty, and noticing the close buttons on windows are on the opposite side than Windows & the Ubuntu distros I've played with.
For the most part, when I use Linux I tend towards the command line. My background being Unix (and then a few years of Datapoints RMS OS which was command line as well) means I am much more comfortable with that. Some of the icon-based GUI stuff I have no idea what those buttons do!
And for the comment about those w/o Windows & being unable to use Universe 2: you choose an OS for what it does for you. If you want or need a specific program then you pretty much have to get the OS that the program supports. A lot of companies still have some MS-DOS machines as that is the only OS to support some odd piece of software they still use (sad but true).
An individual programmer would be very hard-pressed to maintain any relatively complex software across multiple OS. And sorry - cross-platform languages/frameworks NEVER work seamlessly across differing OS. And for something that will yield very little financial payback, it probably is not worth the effort for a small user base in a small niche market to do so.
Sorry, I tend to rant on. Maybe I read too many forums where you have this blind adherence to the host OS. For me, an OS is just a tool, and I choose the best one for the job I have to do. And for now, that is Windows & Linux.
colliver, OSX, linux and unix all do all the non-interface stuff the same way (tho linux names devices differently). Amongst those three, yes, it's all about placement, and for OSX, a handful of value added tools.
Older MacOS, Win 3-2K, MSDOS: each was a different mode of operation. Win 3.x to 2K was annoying from a programming standpoint especially because you also had to know DOS progamming hooks if you wanted to do any non GUI ios.
XP-Vista is a varian on the older windows model
A high-enough level programming environment (eg: RealBasic, Python with the right libs) can make it seem just a matter of placement, but there are fundamental differences. Differences that one needs to be aware of to write truly portable code.
And then the other 2 OSs in common use: Palm and Symbian. Palm doesn't even do IOS the same way, and I've never worked with Symbian.
(Sony PRS Readers do linux. So do many of the other ebook devices.)
And then, there's the issue with Windows that MS won't back-port dev environments to older versions, and do add new OS and Dev Hooks with each OS and DevEnv upgrade.
Older MacOS, Win 3-2K, MSDOS: each was a different mode of operation. Win 3.x to 2K was annoying from a programming standpoint especially because you also had to know DOS progamming hooks if you wanted to do any non GUI ios.
XP-Vista is a varian on the older windows model
A high-enough level programming environment (eg: RealBasic, Python with the right libs) can make it seem just a matter of placement, but there are fundamental differences. Differences that one needs to be aware of to write truly portable code.
And then the other 2 OSs in common use: Palm and Symbian. Palm doesn't even do IOS the same way, and I've never worked with Symbian.
(Sony PRS Readers do linux. So do many of the other ebook devices.)
And then, there's the issue with Windows that MS won't back-port dev environments to older versions, and do add new OS and Dev Hooks with each OS and DevEnv upgrade.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Yeah, it's like all cars look the same to an enthusiast with his head under the hood.
Unfortunately, as you say, Linux is designed by geeks for geeks, and whilst they're happy with, even supportive of, double-declutching, manual shift, nitrous oxide and cleaning chrome spoked wheels with a toothbrush, the rest of the world just wants to drive to the office and do the shopping, and all of the above are counter-productive.
The UIs are improving, but there's a long way to go before the average bear can just run apps without realising what OS he's using.
Wouldn't it be great if there was just one standard, and all apps worked on all OS...
Unfortunately, as you say, Linux is designed by geeks for geeks, and whilst they're happy with, even supportive of, double-declutching, manual shift, nitrous oxide and cleaning chrome spoked wheels with a toothbrush, the rest of the world just wants to drive to the office and do the shopping, and all of the above are counter-productive.
The UIs are improving, but there's a long way to go before the average bear can just run apps without realising what OS he's using.
Wouldn't it be great if there was just one standard, and all apps worked on all OS...
Then what version do you use? I upgraded to Xp when they stopped providing support for 98 SE and had to upgrade them when the Office 97 would not run under XP.
I've had some problems after installing SP3, but not from it. Appears to run on my old Dell Demision 2350 with maxed out ram (1Gb for that mother board) and a 2.4 Intel CPU.
Which version of Linix if you don't mind?
I have owned Macs and Wintels. I have even done upgrades on both. What decided me was inital cost and what software I wanted to run. Unfortunately I can't afford what I would like, so I buy what I can afford - usually no longer part of cutting egde in either hardware or software. In the meantime I try to stay somewhat current on what is cutting edge, but seldom have the time to stay up to date. I usually have had good luck buying parts from E-bay to keep my current machine chugging along.
SP3 also includes the post-install license verification software, that rejects verification if the hardware doesn't check as the same computer...
Maladominus
SOC-14 1K
Wouldn't it be great if there was just one standard, and all apps worked on all OS...
No, it wouldn't be great.
Because the day that happens, Capitalism is dead.
And so is free market choice.
No, it wouldn't be great.
Because the day that happens, Capitalism is dead.
Exactly. You may like/not like what we have, but a universal OS would be universally horrible and restrictive in ways you cannot imagine. Multiple OS is actually a healthy way - it breeds more innovation versus the stagnation that a monolithic OS would have (see MS for an example of no competition = no improvements in pretty much ALL of its software offerings; but this is true for almost all companies - no competition means no need to change stuff). It is relatively cheap to run multiple OS if you really really need to have a specific program that is only on that 1 OS. And with virtual machines you can run pretty much any OS on a single machine.
Use what you like is what it boils down to. Best tool for the job and all the other homilies may now be applied.
Of course - the opposite is equally bad - too many OS and you have a different sort of issue. But, with virtual machines, I suppose that is no longer a real issue either anymore. And note - there are actually a LOT more OS out there that few people have ever heard of. Most for very special purposes, and a lot of home brew for specific purposes as well. Heck - there will be a Google OS next year.
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
I don't believe Icosahedron proposed there be only one OS or that all OS's had to be identical. There is a standard for the internet but you can still buy networking devices from different manufacturers, you still have a choice of different browsers. There could be a standard for OS's and yet be multiple OS's. When one OS company or another has an innovation, the standard can be updated. Computers have had Video standards, networking standards, storage standards, and so on and there has still been innovation and there has been updates to the standard. I see no reason there couldn't be some kind of OS/software standard so that software could run on any OS while still allowing competition between OS's.No, it wouldn't be great.Wouldn't it be great if there was just one standard, and all apps worked on all OS...
Because the day that happens, Capitalism is dead.
Last edited:
the problem is then the money: why do you think MS made IE6 so incompatible with web standards AFTER beating Netscape? To drive people to use their tools & OS. The closest we can get, from a commercial aspect at least, of a common OS basis is the virtual machine which can run any OS. The 'free' OS out there are supported by support fees for the most part, or by the people who want to use that particular OS (see previous notes on Linux). So I don't expect there to ever be a 'standard' OS that will run any software. Some programs need certain things that are not provided for in the base OS, and suddenly you need version A of the standard rather than version B. For any complex software (other than a 'hello world' program) you are going to start needing things that a generic OS may not have.
We have essentially 3 commercial grade, consumer-level OS out there: OSX (which is really a version of Linux under the GUI), Windows & Linux (with a few dozen variations on the Linux theme!). Three is enough for competition, not too much for fragmentation of the developer base. For me it is just right and gives people choices.
And we could always move into the car analogy which seems popular as well: should we only have a single car manufacturer so that all the parts can be standardized? I mean, who needs 16" wheels when 15" are perfectly fine?
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
I don't believe this is what is being suggested.
Don't think anyone is suggesting there should only be one OS (one size wheel). Instead, all OS's must adhere to standards and be able to run 'standardized' software *1 (standardized wheel mounting so that any standardized 16" wheel will fit on any car, or 15", or 14, or 17)
*Note 1: There could still be specialized software that does not adhere to the standards and only runs on a specific OS because of the extra bells and whistles it includes and is capable of. Current computer example: certain software will not work on the 'standard' operating system and require certain additional items, like a flash player, or a certain version of Direct X, or a certain game controller to run.
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
Simply can't / won't work. Aside from the Toy computers most peole are used to there are real systems out there that require stuff like RealTime processing or massiv multi-parralle jobs. Can't add that to the toy breeds like Linux or Windows without breaking other stuff. It's like trying to use a Yorkshire terrier as a police dog. Looks cute but won't be effective.
And those big OS also need specialised programming techniques and tools. So languages like JAVA or .NET with their Garbage collection etc. won't work there either since they have problems with guaranteed real time, not to mention their "low scale" math libraries.
And those big OS also need specialised programming techniques and tools. So languages like JAVA or .NET with their Garbage collection etc. won't work there either since they have problems with guaranteed real time, not to mention their "low scale" math libraries.
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
To those who care, sorry this is straying so far from the OT, but I've just been responding to others posts.
Back to the wheel example, an 18 wheeler wouldn't use the imagined/hypothetical wheel mounting standard as passenger cars. I also would not expect a server to be using the same imagined/hypothetical standardized OS as a desktop.
Yes, I did say 'all OS's' in an earlier post. Language and my ability to put my thoughts into words is not perfect. The discussion was about desktops so I meant all desktop OS's. Cell phones, gps computers, and other devices, also would probably not use the 'standardized' OS for a desktop.
Just because there might be a 'standardized' OS specification for desktops doesn't mean alternative OS's couldn't be, or wouldn't be produced. But the theory is that the majority of software would be written for the 'standardized' OS and the majority of OS's and desktops would be designed to run 'standardized' software. Even if this is done with a built in emulator so that the provider can market their OS as 'standardized'.
Last edited:
At the moment, about 90% of OS's available are based upon the BSD 4.4 standard. That includes all unix and linux OS's, and several other posix compliant OSs. It includes Mac OSX, as well, which is actually BSD Unix. It includes every functional supercomputer in north america that I've heard of save 1, which was, last I heard, running VMS.
Now, 75% of the installed userbase worldwide, counting all OS based products including cellphones and ebook readers, and palmtops, runs MS Windows. Less than 1% use something other than a posix, palm or windows OS. (Most cellphones and readers run Linux; one reader runs WinCE, as do several phones, and a large chunk of PDAs, and almost all the rest of the PDAs run PalmOS.) 15 years ago, VMS was still holding a significant sliver, but Unix and Linux installs provide the same functionality with less overhead and lower upkeep costs, plus access to more software. You can still get a VMS machine.... but in general, that's only done as a legacy software issue.
Most servers run Linux. Most routers run Linux. Lots of different flavors of Unix and Linux, but they all adhere to a collection of standards enforced by the Trademark licenses. Without linux, most of us couldn't afford the internet.
20 years ago, several OS's had significant shares: Windows 3.11, Windows NT, MS DOS, Mac OS 7, OS2, Unix, Amiga, Atari TOS, VMS, IRIX. 25 years ago, it was MS Dos, Windows 3, Mac OS 1, Apple DOS 3.3, Apple DOS 8, Atari TOS, Unix, VMS, Sinclair OS, Commodore Vic20/C64 COS, Apple Pascal (OS and Programming environment in one), CP/M.
the BSD 4.4 lite open source release really set the standards for the internet.
And every specialized supercomputer I've heard of is running Unix or Linux... sometimes custom builds thereof, but still, a posix compliant unix or linux.
Now, 75% of the installed userbase worldwide, counting all OS based products including cellphones and ebook readers, and palmtops, runs MS Windows. Less than 1% use something other than a posix, palm or windows OS. (Most cellphones and readers run Linux; one reader runs WinCE, as do several phones, and a large chunk of PDAs, and almost all the rest of the PDAs run PalmOS.) 15 years ago, VMS was still holding a significant sliver, but Unix and Linux installs provide the same functionality with less overhead and lower upkeep costs, plus access to more software. You can still get a VMS machine.... but in general, that's only done as a legacy software issue.
Most servers run Linux. Most routers run Linux. Lots of different flavors of Unix and Linux, but they all adhere to a collection of standards enforced by the Trademark licenses. Without linux, most of us couldn't afford the internet.
20 years ago, several OS's had significant shares: Windows 3.11, Windows NT, MS DOS, Mac OS 7, OS2, Unix, Amiga, Atari TOS, VMS, IRIX. 25 years ago, it was MS Dos, Windows 3, Mac OS 1, Apple DOS 3.3, Apple DOS 8, Atari TOS, Unix, VMS, Sinclair OS, Commodore Vic20/C64 COS, Apple Pascal (OS and Programming environment in one), CP/M.
the BSD 4.4 lite open source release really set the standards for the internet.
And every specialized supercomputer I've heard of is running Unix or Linux... sometimes custom builds thereof, but still, a posix compliant unix or linux.
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
@Aramis:
I disagree on quite a few points.
+ Mac OS/X is NOT a BSD, it is a MACH-Microkernel with a BSD Personality added
+ Most modern Unix are based on System V Version 4 (Sun-OS/Solaris, AIX, HP-UX etc)
+ System V.4 has some elements of BSD 4.2/4.3 integrated
+ Linux is based on ego and the concept of "making it useless"
+ Linux is NOT the majority of servers. Maybe the toy breeds and web presence but when it really counts it's SOLARIS, AIX and similar systems. Including BSD
+ The majority of Big Iron (!= Supercomputers) run z-OS, VMS, BS-2000 or OS/400
I disagree on quite a few points.
+ Mac OS/X is NOT a BSD, it is a MACH-Microkernel with a BSD Personality added
+ Most modern Unix are based on System V Version 4 (Sun-OS/Solaris, AIX, HP-UX etc)
+ System V.4 has some elements of BSD 4.2/4.3 integrated
+ Linux is based on ego and the concept of "making it useless"
+ Linux is NOT the majority of servers. Maybe the toy breeds and web presence but when it really counts it's SOLARIS, AIX and similar systems. Including BSD
+ The majority of Big Iron (!= Supercomputers) run z-OS, VMS, BS-2000 or OS/400
Similar threads
