If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
William Black wrote:
You should have been around a few years ago when Windows wasn't the only choice arounf the place. I rather liked an operating system called GEM made by Digital research, but Microsoft killed it, and I don't mean outsold it, I mean sued them and stopped them selling it under very strange circumstances. I remember GEM, but it was a GUI (or, in those days, a WIMP system), not an operating system. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
aracari writes:
Duh! Because neither are GUI op/systems. So? MS-DOS did have GUI-like add-ons. The GUI is grafted on after development. That is one reason why many functions exist in the op/sys which are not supported by the GUI. Yes, for some operating systems and configurations. See above. You don't quite understand how op/sys are developed ...although I agree that GUIs take a lot of system resources. I've developed operating systems; I know a great deal about how they are designed. I've also seen the source code of just about every operating system I've used. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
In message , John Stubbings
writes On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:20:46 +0000, Chris H wrote: In message , John Stubbings writes On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:01:46 +0000, aracari wrote: 'Mxsmanic' wrote this: aracari writes: That depends on whether developers get their act together and bring it to prime time. That will never happen. If it were going to happen, it would have already done so. I don't agree. It has taken MS since the halcyon days in mid 1980s to arrive at XP. Too bad they lost the plot after that... Idiot, in the real world, smart people are using Vista In the real world Business ignored Vista. The sales figures for Vista are appalling without taking into account that the majority of business users promptly "downgraded" to XP This is why XP is STILL available and will continue to be so until Windows7 is released. There are Beta's about now. I think this is the first time MS has kept the old OS running and available until the launch of the next OS after the current one. I said, "smart people are using Vista"... the world moves on Then your definition of "smart" seems to be equivalent of most smart people's definition for "stupid" But what would I know? My degree is in Operating Systems and I have 30 years SW engineering behind me. Though it is in high reliability systems not Windows or Linux. getting ready for Windows 7, That is true. yes, bloody exciting, it's 95% Vista Quite so. SO it will be interesting to see what happens. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
Mxsmanic wrote:
White Spirit writes: I often run FreeBSD as well but to say that it is a real UNIX(tm) as opposed to a fake UNIX(tm) is ridiculous. Beyond POSIX compliance, what more do you want? FreeBSD and the other freeware BSDs are actual descendants of UNIX, whereas Linux has a kernel that is a clone of UNIX functionality. Additionally, the BSD operating systems are complete operating systems that are functional "out of the box," whereas Linux is just a kernel around which a great deal of additional software must be added in order to get anything resembling a functional operating system. And since everyone adds something different, there are zillions of different "distributions" of Linux, whereas there's only one FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc. That's an accurate description, aside from the meaningless 'zillions'. It certainly conveys more meaning than 'real' or 'fake' Unices. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
William Black writes:
Almost all users do almost nothing with their computers. Not true. There are two basic types of users: Those who have a computer for the sake of having a computer (the geeks), and those who have a computer in order to do productive things that interest them that just happen to require a computer. The latter group represents the vast majority of computer users. The former group represents the vast majority of Linux users. The major problems only turn up when people write their web pages in such a way as to only work on Microsoft products, as is currently the case with the British government's 'Government Gateway' system. I thought the British government was supposed to be using Linux? As for the musician who couldn't get software, very few professionals in the music business use Windows products. They're almost all using Apple products, including software. Indeed, when Apple bought 'Logic' and insisted on stopping manufacturing the PC version it caused something of a stir in the industry. . Now, this being the case, there's little reason why people shouldn't use, for example, Ubuntu on their computers. There are other users besides musicians. It's free, reasonably easy to install, something which most Windows users find hard work anyway, runs a friendly GUI and finds just about everyone's hardware with remarkably few problems. Apart from not being free, all of this is even more true of Windows. Already there are larger numbers on Linux computers about than ever before. The Asus 'eeepc' type devices the shops are currently full of almost all run Linux in some form or other, with a software fit that is remarkably like the one I mentioned above for the home user. As the public become educated (an inevitable result of computer education in schools), and as government departments in Europe abandon Windows for legal reason, the user base will expand. At some point in the reasonably near future I fully expect Unix and its variants will become dominant. I've been hearing this for years, and it is no more true today than it was when fanatics first started saying it. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
"erilar" wrote in message ... In article , dest wrote: Linux is way to much customizable. Now that strikes me as an advantage. One of my complaints about some "up"grades I've been forced to accept is that they chop out customizable features I found very useful in favor of supposedly idiotproof clunky features. And that's from a Mac point of view! At least with pre-OS X Mac I could keep using old versions for quite a while. OS X of course squares the circle, by making a Unix type operating system that runs with a GUI and is usable by the sort of people who have 'technical issues' with plugging something into a USB port (not you Mary) The problem is that it only works with a very constrained hardware set, but if Apple could make their product work with a reasonably wide range of hardware they'd probably have a product that would kill most of the other operating systems on the market and make bloody sure what was left did actually work when you used it... Who isn't sick of 'Don't buy any Micro$oft product until after Service Pasck 2 is released? -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
White Spirit writes:
Yep. I often complain that user-friendliness has now become idiot-friendliness. Mainstream operating systems and programs are targeted at the lowest common denominator ... That is the only way to enlarge the user base ... something Linux advocates don't seem to understand. Every other mass-market consumer gadget works this way, and computers are increasingly working this way, too. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
White Spirit writes:
What a load of rubbish. I do far more with Linux than I ever did (or could) with MICROS~1. I'll also give Mac OSX a miss, thank you very much. So what exactly do you do with your computer? I have roughly 100 applications on mine that I use (under Windows). |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:51:15 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
White Spirit writes: I often run FreeBSD as well but to say that it is a real UNIX(tm) as opposed to a fake UNIX(tm) is ridiculous. Beyond POSIX compliance, what more do you want? FreeBSD and the other freeware BSDs are actual descendants of UNIX, whereas Linux has a kernel that is a clone of UNIX functionality. Additionally, the BSD operating systems are complete operating systems that are functional "out of the box," whereas Linux is just a kernel around which a great deal of additional software must be added in order to get anything resembling a functional operating system. And since everyone adds something different, there are zillions of different "distributions" of Linux, whereas there's only one FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc. Indeedy, that's pretty much the crux of the matter. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. As a generalisation it means BSD is more stable but the diversity of GNU/Linux development makes it more cutting edge wrt features and hardware support. You can argue that all you like of course... -- web site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - news comment service, logic, economics, energy, education, politics, etc .... no tits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the working class [] don't feed the squirrels can kiss my arse [] I mean the tories i've got the foreman's job at last [] never trust a man with a wig only when it's money -- i chav made good -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
life after Windows....
SMS writes:
Unless there is a convergence of all the different versions of Linux, with applications and hardware being as easy to install as in Windows or OS-X, it will remain an OS mainly for servers. Even for servers, the lack of coherency in Linux versions works against it. That's one more argument in favor of full-service, single-version operating systems like FreeBSD or commercial UNIX systems, or even Windows servers. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Optimization for Windows XP | [email protected] | Europe | 0 | August 20th, 2007 07:05 PM |
No Windows on Row 6 of UAL 737-500 | BFSON | Air travel | 5 | May 29th, 2004 12:30 AM |
7E7 Windows | Lou Minatti | Air travel | 34 | November 27th, 2003 12:19 AM |