Clearly express my thoughts on OSes

[Ctrl Alt Del 123]

This was first posted on another MB, but I should also post it here.

Ok, I'll gently add my comments here.

My Background: Windows user since Windows 95, went from a 120 MHz PC to a 1 GHz PC.

My Current OS: Windows XP Pro Corperate

My Current Computer: 1 GHz AMD, 512 MB RAM, 40 gig HD, nVidia GeForece 2 MX, Sound Blaster Live.

My thoughts:
First and foremost, as always, let me make this clear. I DO NOT LIKE MICROSOFT AS A COMPANY. They are a giant ***hole to me. I DO NOT LIKE .NET (.Assimilation), I DO NOT LIKE PASSPORT (Pass-gass), AND I CANNOT STAND WINDOWS (MSN) MESSNEGER! (Just plain a b*tch), and IE pimps MSN search to the extend I want to beat the living snot out of my monitor.

Now that's out of the way, I must also say that I have never used OS X, the only experience with Macs I've had thus far is OS 8.6. And in my opinion, overall, OS 8.6 sucks compared to XP. BUT, there are some very cool options in 8.6 that I WISH XP had nativly, although I've found most options in 8.6 can be found for XP with 3rd party downloads.

If I had the time and money, yes, I would DEFINATLY BUY A MAC! I DESPERTLY want to try OS X. I cannot argue on something I have never used, and I have never used OS X. From what I have seen, it has GREAT PROMISE, but I will never know until I first hand use it. If someone told me Ford Pinto's ruled, I can't trust him until I've tried it to some extent. Truthfully, I lust to try OS X more than I did for any Windows OS.

Now Apple nor Microsoft have actually created anything completely new themselves. No, Apple didn't invent and create the mouse. No, Apple didn't create the first OS. Most of what you see is a collection of previous people's ideas all melted into one. Who created the first car? Wasn't Henry Ford, and if you look in different text books, you get different answers. So who made (fill in computer part)? NOT just one company like Apple, Xerox, IBM or MS, but a collection of people over time. Granted, some small specific software may have been created by one person, but it's just that, small and specific.

I use Windows XP because
1) I like it.
2) PERMISSIONS
3) Stable and secure (My reason's are below)
4) It works. If it works, DON'T FIX IT.
5) Other than 2000, it's MS's best OS.
6) Supports everything (like my digital camera, printer). I plug it in and it works, done.
7) Compadible with the rest of the world
8) Does what I need to do, when I need it done, and doesn't screw up in the process.
9) It works and doesn't crash.
10) It's simple, if my dad can take pictures off our digital camera and save them to this main computer, edit them with Picture It, and then send them to the downstairs computer though my home network, HE impresses ME.
11) Anything is better then Windows ME I had before.

Windows and Security. I have my own opinion on this, please read this all the way through. I think Windows XP is only slightly less secure than any other OS. Why? Well, first of, because 90% of the world uses it, that's 90% more chances it will he hacked and cracked at. What more people use, is what will be hacked at more. Also, if you wanted to wreak havok on people, would you want to mess up your own beloved OS (Linux or Mac)? Of course not! You'd make a virus for "the other OS" (winblows). It's not that Windows is really insecure per say, it's just so big it's poked at more. But it being big is bad. Kinda cinfusing isn't it?

Again, yes I know about other choices for OSes, and believe me, I AM ALL FOR CHOICE! I am GLAD there are other OSes out there. I'm GLAD I can choose something other than Windows. Because if MS slips, that's one less person who's searching for the next MS OS every 2 years.

Also, I know the most recent version of Linux can probably do all I currently use Windows for and even more. I KNOW. I still use Windows because...
1) The only computer we have is used by 4 other people. I can't experiment, because my mom makes money on our computer.
2) (Linux) It's new to me. I'd have to really play with it before it goes on this PC.
3) For Macs, money is a TIGHT issue with me. As for Linux, I know it's free if you download it, but really, that's one hell of a download. Thank god I got cable.

MS's practices. Yup, MS is like a giant baby. They use their power way too abusivly. You know what? I see Microsoft as a king in the middle ages, a noble who has complete control over the peasents (us) who is a complete idiot and who soon will be overthrown in a revolution by us. I'll gladly lead it too.

And if I could change one thing about MS: I would make Windows open source. I believe open source means open minds. Which gets completed faster, a research project by a group of 5 people, or a community? Get a good leader (the distro's) and you've got a thriving community (linux users).

I hope I didn't offend anyone or whatever. I myself and not an Windows fanatic, a Mac fanatic, or a Linux fanatic. I'm in the center of the triangle right now. Once I get my own computer, I WILL go crazy and probably do a 13 OS multi boot.

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ctrl Alt Del 123 ]

[psyjax]

Very well thought out.

But M$ has stolen alot of their ideas. It wasn't a situation like the first car, M$ went after companys and asimilated them. Hence Borg.

They did rip off the MacOS, Bill Gates even  said his goal was to make the PC like a mac in the early days.

I have posted this a billion times, but it's the best article on the subject I know of:

http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html

As far as firt OS's, the MacOS is a true OS. Windoze has always been a GUI shell for DOS up untill recently.

Windoze is not insecure because it gets poked at more, it has blatant security flaws that are easely exploited by any kid with limeted technical knowledge. UNIX is infact the OS that is most attacked considering all info worth looking at is usually under it's protection. As a result UNIX is the most secure, as a phisycal fact. Windoze is not as secure, or can be securesd, nearly as well as UNIX despite it's popularity.

That aside, everything you posted was pretty well thought out. Like you said, it's a matter of choice, if you think windoze is great, go ahed use it.

But you should realize that if M$ is indeed that idiot king, he dosn't have as much power over you as you think since it is easy to deffect and go to a smaller more level headed kingdom.

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: psyjax ]

[Calum]

the best analogy for the whole history of operating system development is this comparison that Neal Stephenson makes in his chapter "In the Beginning was the Command Line", in the section near the start entitled "MGBs, TANKS, AND BATMOBILES ". Go and read that section here:
http://www.spack.org/words/commandline.html

quite apt i thought.

[Kintaro]

quote:Originally posted by psyjax:
Very well thought out.

As far as firt OS's, the MacOS is a true OS. Windoze has always been a GUI shell for DOS up untill recently.

What about Windows NT 3.51 That was a true OS. Not a shell for dos with permissions. And it was made in 1991 why doesnt ctrl-alt-del 123 just use Linux?

[Master of Reality]

quote:Originally posted by X11:

What about Windows NT 3.51 That was a true OS. Not a shell for dos with permissions. And it was made in 1991 why doesnt ctrl-alt-del 123 just use Linux?

i'm pretty sure that he explained why he doesnt use Linux:
 

quote: Also, I know the most recent version of Linux can probably do all I currently use Windows for and
                even more. I KNOW. I still use Windows because...
                1) The only computer we have is used by 4 other people. I can't experiment, because my mom
                makes money on our computer.
                2) (Linux) It's new to me. I'd have to really play with it before it goes on this PC.
                3) For Macs, money is a TIGHT issue with me. As for Linux, I know it's free if you download it, but
                really, that's one hell of a download.

and he probably doesnt have enough hard drive space to do a dual boot with linux and windows. I'm guessing that his Mother proabably uses a windows based program to make money from [risky](maybe her digital camera only works with windows... how is she gonna get her porno pics onto the net if her dig. camera doesnt work?)[/risky]

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: Master of Reality ]

[Ctrl Alt Del 123]

Naww, mom uses QuickBooks, Quicken, Corel WordPerfect, and some legal transcript program that I've never seen before in my life and god knows if it runs in anything other than Windows.

I know Corel and soon the other 2 will be ported to Linux, but still, I need to play with it before it goes on the main PC.

[hoojchoons]

You seem to have some pretty strong arguments there. The only one I disagree upon is where you say that XP is M$'s best OS other than the 2000 version. The NT kernel was really a good effort by M$ to promote a more reliable OS. But since they incorporated part of the Win32API in Windoze XP (NT 5.1), they proved once more that profit over reliability and stability is what they prefer to see.

[Ctrl Alt Del 123]

XP doesn't crash on me. But it isn't the most stable OS either.

[Heru]

quote:Originally posted by Ctrl Alt Del 123:
XP doesn't crash on me. But it isn't the most stable OS either.

It didn't crash for me either....  It just simply reset.

XP is a worthless pile of crap(spyware, spyware everywhere!).  Overall the best version of Windows is 2000, and the most stable is by far NT 3.51.

[Ctrl Alt Del 123]

Only time XP has ever reset or crashed is when I put 1024 MB of RAM inside my computer, only to find that my motherboard supports up to 512...


Oops.....


Got a nice error there!

[hoojchoons]

As I previously said, M$'s best chance to come up with at least one stable version of Windoze, was by developing the NT kernel and thus make a move towards more stability. But, let's be realistic here. Developing the NT kernel would mean big losses for Microsoft, since third party software or hardware vendors would have to re-establish their whole programming philosophy. They should start from scratch since the Win32API was saving them enormous amount of time. That's why M$ decided to freeze the project. They simply decided that, as far as profit is concerned, it would be better to bundle the Win32API into the NT kernel. So, they managed to create a hybrid OS, an abomination as I prefer to call it.

[Master of Reality]

quote:Originally posted by Ctrl Alt Del 123:
Naww, mom uses QuickBooks, Quicken, Corel WordPerfect, and some legal transcript program that I've never seen before in my life and god knows if it runs in anything other than Windows.

I know Corel and soon the other 2 will be ported to Linux, but still, I need to play with it before it goes on the main PC.

you can get corel for linux. I happen to have the Corel Suite on "6" CD (or some other number between 1 and 23).

[Master of Reality]

i think that the registry is a big part of the unstability of windoze. Compare the registry to linux config files"

All the programs must search through the entire registry to find their own configuration info. This will become an increasingly long time as you install more programs (or even a couple big programs). Because all the files are almost constantly accessing the registry, it is the most accessed file on the computer and therefore often gets corrupted. Another contributing factor to corruption is the architecture of the registry.
Linux has individual conf files for most of the programs, this means that each file is not accessed nearly as much as the registry in windoze is. It is also in plain text format which makes it much more stable then the registry and is not easily corrupted.

This might be part of the reason that after trying to use win servers for a week, microsoft switched to unix-like servers. They have oodles of developers (As bad as they may be) they should be able to patch their OS enough to run a server on it unless there was a critical problem in the underlying design of the OS, this underlying flaw that cant be fixed without totally redisgning the OS could be the registry.

[Heru]

I can think of 4 reasons why Windows is a pile of crap and unstable.

1) Internet Explorer.  It is no coincidence that after I forcefully removed IE from my WindowsME installation that I saw a drastic increase in speed ans stability; of course my Linux installation still beats the pants off of ME.

2) The hybrid NT/Win32API kernel.  What a pile of crap.  How many times have you seen this message: 'rundll32 has caused an error in *****'?  I have seen it hundreds of times on every version of Windows I've tried.

3) The registry.  A highly disorganized pile of dog crap.  A program that uses it has to search throuh it and hope that it's config info is still in tact.  This can often take a long time.  And it seems to corrupt parts of itself auto-magically.

4) DOS.  Every version of Windows has inherited DOS.  Even NT, 2k and XP; MS claims they aren't based on DOS, but they most certainly are!

[Ctrl Alt Del 123]

Heru

1) Mistake Edition. Doesn't count as an OS.
2) Can't say that I've ever gotten one of those errors.
3) Yea, the Registry SUCKS. It'd be MUCH easier to store my settings WITH my programs. I like how Macs have all the programs in their own folders. Then backing up prefferences would be SOOOOO much easier.
4) Nt, 2K and XP are NOT dos based. They just aren't. A dos emulator is in there, but dos is no longer the underlaying work horse. Even when you try to boot into Safe mode with command prompt, it still opens as a window inside Windows, not before windows.

DOS = Dumb Old Shit