PC != Windows

[zmatt]

I love the Apple's UI, where the Super (Windows) key of Windows and Linux is replaced by a meta-key. I guess it also helps that Mac OS doesn't have a start menu like Windows and some Linux flavours.

See, I'm the other way, I love start menus. I also don't like how the programs toolbar is not part of the window.

[Vash]

I love the Apple's UI, where the Super (Windows) key of Windows and Linux is replaced by a meta-key. I guess it also helps that Mac OS doesn't have a start menu like Windows and some Linux flavours.

What's the difference?

[NickNackGus]

I love the Apple's UI, where the Super (Windows) key of Windows and Linux is replaced by a meta-key. I guess it also helps that Mac OS doesn't have a start menu like Windows and some Linux flavours.

What's the difference?

In windows, the windows logo key (META, SUPER, WIN, and MOD4 are other names) does one thing: open the start menu. I use Ubuntu, which makes SUPER a key modifier, like ALT, CTRL, and SHIFT. Never used a MAC, but In Ubuntu I can make shortcuts for stuff, such as SUPER-W for "open web browser", since I don't have a dedicated button for that. I can also make different effects respond to it, such as CTRL-SUPER-R for rain, CTRL-SUPER-W for wipers, etc. This gives me access to more tools I frequently use, without leaving me with strange combos or interfering with existing key combos, like CTRL-S for "save" and CTRL-SHIFT-S for "save as" (Actually a standard for many apps, still not seen in Windows-specific apps).

[zmatt]

Anyone else annoyed when they first used a mac and hit that goofy clover leaf key and the Apple didn't open like the start menu? Mac, Y U No Intuitive?

[Dason]

Anyone else annoyed when they first used a mac and hit that goofy clover leaf key and the Apple didn't open like the start menu? Mac, Y U No Intuitive?

Why would that be intuitive though? Maybe if you came from windows you might grow to expect that but I wouldn't call it intuitive. Plus Macs don't really have a start menu so how would that work?

[zmatt]

It's intuitive from someone who has a windows background. The apple logo is in the same general place as the start button except on the top of the screen and the clover leaf/command key is in the same general sport as super. Put 1 and 1 together and you assume it would do that. Besides given Window's market dominance form the 90's to today and how most people grew up on windows it's interface is the defacto standard for how a modern PC interface works and people expect things to work in a windows-ish way. IMO aside from incompatibilities and the love of the command line I think that is one of the reasons why Linux has had such a hard time getting mainstream adoption. It isn't as different interface wise as OSX is, but it's enough to make people feel uncomfortable. I understand the attractiveness in being different, but humans are creatures of habit. if they don't feel comfortable with something they are much more likely to complain and give up rather than learn. I see it every day in my job. Hell even moving to windows 7 cause complaints.

[NickNackGus]

I'm pretty sure Alton Brown disapproves of the WINDOWS key in Windows. He really hates unitaskers. IE: something that only does one thing. Then again, For the few minutes I spent using Windows 7, I learned that WINDOWS-(arrow key) is used to adjust windows, such as left, right, minimize, maximize. Before Windows 7 came out, I thought future windows OS could not be worse than Vista. Windows 7 proved me wrong.

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

I love the Apple's UI, where the Super (Windows) key of Windows and Linux is replaced by a meta-key. I guess it also helps that Mac OS doesn't have a start menu like Windows and some Linux flavours.

See, I'm the other way, I love start menus. I also don't like how the programs toolbar is not part of the window.

I like the topside toolbar. It might not make sense for some programs (Chrome, MS Office with Ribbon, and Opera) but it prevents designers from making their own bad UI and reduces clutter by putting the toolbar in an existing bar

[flying sheep]

It's intuitive from someone who has a windows background.

No, it's what they are accustomed to. "intuitive" means that it's easy to get right without previous knowledge. apple gets this one frequently right; the reason why they got so poular in the last years. even zero-tech middle-age housewomen get to use ipads right without working themselves into it.

The apple logo is in the same general place as the start button except on the top of the screen and the clover leaf/command key is in the same general sport as super. Put 1 and 1 together and you assume it would do that. Besides given Window's market dominance form the 90's to today and how most people grew up on windows it's interface is the defacto standard for how a modern PC interface works and people expect things to work in a windows-ish way.

definitely, but it's not quasi-standard. it's what people with a windows-background expect. apple is different. most linux desktops are, too. and windows is 100% not modern.

IMO aside from incompatibilities and the love of the command line I think that is one of the reasons why Linux has had such a hard time getting mainstream adoption. It isn't as different interface wise as OSX is, but it's enough to make people feel uncomfortable. I understand the attractiveness in being different, but humans are creatures of habit. if they don't feel comfortable with something they are much more likely to complain and give up rather than learn. I see it every day in my job. Hell even moving to windows 7 cause complaints.

yeah, because they have the attitude of "having to" learn it to do something with it. if people get interested in how the pc and the os work, they have fun learnig it. in the future i hope more people will be nerds

[zmatt]

I'm pretty sure Alton Brown disapproves of the WINDOWS key in Windows. He really hates unitaskers. IE: something that only does one thing. Then again, For the few minutes I spent using Windows 7, I learned that WINDOWS-(arrow key) is used to adjust windows, such as left, right, minimize, maximize. Before Windows 7 came out, I thought future windows OS could not be worse than Vista. Windows 7 proved me wrong.

Please tell me how Windows 7 is bad? It has great hardware support, has a massive library of apps, has better backwards compatibility than Vista, is fast, looks good, is secure, and is compared to Linux, easy to set up and use. I only have to touch the command line if I want to. In Linux rule #1 is learn to use the command line. That right there puts it at a major usability disadvantage.

The problem for Vista wasn't actually Vista. It was people's expectations. Until Vista we were accustomed to a new version of windows every 3 years or so. And because of that it was reasonable to expect that a computer that shipped with the previous version of windows would be capable of running the new one well enough. The cap between XP and Vista was 7 years. People still expected (and everybody's marketing department claimed) that this old hardware could run vista. That is like putting windows 2000 on a 486. If Vista had been released in 2005 and if it performed like something from 2005 then it would not have been a problem. M$ took way too long and people expected vista to be to xp what xp was to 2000.

No, it's what they are accustomed to. "intuitive" means that it's easy to get right without previous knowledge. apple gets this one frequently right; the reason why they got so poular in the last years. even zero-tech middle-age housewomen get to use ipads right without working themselves into it.

Intuitive can and is used that way. If they don't have prior knowledge of macs and can easily figure it out then it's intuitive

definitely, but it's not quasi-standard. it's what people with a windows-background expect. apple is different. most linux desktops are, too. and windows is 100% not modern.

I would consider a 20 year long majority in the market more or less a standard. Also, how is windows not modern? It has support for most modern technologies and tends to before macs and Linux do. if you are referring to the interface Gnome, KDE, and OSX's GUI aren't exactly ground breaking either and they all oerate on the same basic principle of a "desktop" with your work sitting on it.

yeah, because they have the attitude of "having to" learn it to do something with it. if people get interested in how the pc and the os work, they have fun learnig it. in the future i hope more people will be nerds

I don't think it's a nerd thing as much as a human nature thing. Everyone is like this about something. if you are passionate about it then year you will learn it cause you enjoy it. But for things you are uncomfortable with most of the time you will go with what you know or get someone who knows it to do it. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing. Not everyone can be an expert in everything. I can't cook, so I get delivery and carry out a lot. Someone who is in to cooking would look down on us the same way we look down on technologically inept people.

[Vash]

In windows, the ... Windows-specific apps).

Actually, the Windows key has a number of key bindings assigned to it. I do not know if any are available for reassignment, though.

[flying sheep]

Everyone is like this about something. if you are passionate about it then year you will learn it cause you enjoy it. But for things you are uncomfortable with most of the time you will go with what you know or get someone who knows it to do it. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing. Not everyone can be an expert in everything. I can't cook, so I get delivery and carry out a lot. Someone who is in to cooking would look down on us the same way we look down on technologically inept people.

i love cooking. and climbing, biking, computers, women, camping, architecture,…

i don’t care about soccer (a thing most of my countrymen go nuts about), but i can’t think of a useful thing i would hestitate to learn about.

[flying sheep]

In windows, the ... Windows-specific apps).

Actually, the Windows key has a number of key bindings assigned to it. I do not know if any are available for reassignment, though.

that’s why i don’t like windows in the first place.

the worst thing about it is that you can’t configure it properly without hacking about in the registry. srsly, what sense has a “NO COMMAND LINE OS” when you have to browse an ugly enourmous tree of cryptic key/value-pairs to make some trivial changes?

and most stuff you can’t do this “easy.” you’ll have to replace vital system files to change your desktop theme[1]; you’ll have to install 3rd-party applications to enable basic functions like the ability to scroll the element under your mouse without having to activate it via clicking[2].

[zmatt]

Those are several very odd UI requests. As for themes I have no problem changing them. I have never had to screw with the registry to do so. Windows isn't about total customization though, its about getting stuff done. Customization is great and all but if you are going to use Linux as an example of doing it right there are many problems there. Dependency hell is trivial to get into once you start mucking about with the system settings and installing UIs, documentation for all but the most popular things is never good and sometimes never there, it's written by people who aren't very good at it, and everything is a hack and a work around. hell the entire wireless driver system is just one big hack involving windows drivers. I remember when Compiz came out several years ago. I downloaded the packages (I hate the package system btw, I like the standalone .exe and dmg model that windows and OSX use) did my make file, it installed fine. And then didn't work. The documentation had nothing on it. Finally after using my Googlefu for 2 hours I found a forum where someone else had the problem, turns out it was related to the graphics drivers. It wouldn't work with the newest ones, I had to roll back, but the old ones were unstable fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.


I will put up with windows interface as long as windows works and nothing else does. Both Linux and OSX let me down hard on different occasions. When windows screws up I can fix it really easy. It isn't perfect and it has some big flaws (why does the registry even exist anymore?). But in my experience in using pcs and doing IT for almost 7 years I think it's the best choice for 90% of the people 90% of the time in a desktop environment.

[Vash]

that’s why i don’t like ... it via clicking[2].

Most of the time people have already figured it out, though. Microsoft also tells you in a ton of cases. You can just Google it. Some things are also done through the command line.

Maybe Linux is easier to tweek. Would you not have to look up specific settings in the command line or know how to program it, though? I have no idea. All I know is that installing the programs I wanted to was comparatively a huge bitch, even in Ubuntu (though that was a while ago).

I don't like how bloated Windows 7 is. I don't like the media copy protection (though, it is breakable). GNU/Linux is just a better OS before you get to the interface level. I will check up on the status of Ubuntu. As for other distributions, KDE SuSE was doable. GNOME SuSe was absolutely horrendous. Least usable OS I've ever tried. I would rather use Windows 3.1x It seems like trying other OSes might be fun, though.

[GenericAnimeBoy]

Customization is great and all but if you are going to use Linux as an example of doing it right there are many problems there. Dependency hell is trivial to get into once you start mucking about with the system settings and installing UIs, documentation for all but the most popular things is never good and sometimes never there, it's written by people who aren't very good at it, and everything is a hack and a work around.

Maybe I just don't pick up on these sorts of things, but I hadn't noticed any dependency hell problems on my Ubuntu systems. If you run into such a problem, the person who set up your distro's repositories screwed up somewhere.

hell the entire wireless driver system is just one big hack involving windows drivers.

Not anymore. My 2-year-old Acer Netbook works just fine with the native and completely OSS ath5k driver. How long ago was it that you last looked?

On my desktop computer I use Win7 without any problem. I'm just as comfortable with OSX, but I'm not going to pay 3 times as much for the hardware to run it on unless I've got a good reason to do so (for high end DAWs and Edit Bays it is SO worth it). But on limited hardware like a netbook? A fresh boot of Win 7 uses a shade over 1.1GB of RAM. With firefox and outlook, it expands to well over 1.5, which is the maximum amount my first gen netbook supports. By contrast, the bloatiest desktop install of Ubuntu, with lots of bells and whistles installed boots in less than 600MB (IIRC) and typically stays under a gig with several tabs in FF, Evolution or Thunderbird running, and a couple other things. It's true that most Linux environment UIs are designed by programmers, and they feel pretty rough and inconsistent at times. That doesn't mean their code is incompetent--just that they need more artist friends.

[NickNackGus]

Please tell me how Windows 7 is bad? It has great hardware support, has a massive library of apps, has better backwards compatibility than Vista, is fast, looks good, is secure, and is compared to Linux, easy to set up and use. I only have to touch the command line if I want to. In Linux rule #1 is learn to use the command line. That right there puts it at a major usability disadvantage.

The problem for Vista wasn't actually Vista. It was people's expectations. Until Vista we were accustomed to a new version of windows every 3 years or so. And because of that it was reasonable to expect that a computer that shipped with the previous version of windows would be capable of running the new one well enough. The cap between XP and Vista was 7 years. People still expected (and everybody's marketing department claimed) that this old hardware could run vista. That is like putting windows 2000 on a 486. If Vista had been released in 2005 and if it performed like something from 2005 then it would not have been a problem. M$ took way too long and people expected vista to be to xp what xp was to 2000.

OK, they may not be BAD, but they rewrote the shortcuts, and I don't want to relearn Windows after trying to use Vista! I will also admit that I was using Vista on an HP laptop whose battery has been replaced twice, whose screen has been replaced twice, whose motherboard cannot access the wireless card, and has experienced so many other problems, that I find it unlikely that ANYONE could sell it. Yet, somehow, I own one .

definitely, but it's not quasi-standard. it's what people with a windows-background expect. apple is different. most linux desktops are, too. and windows is 100% not modern.

If apple is different, and Linux is different, then aren't they really the standard, and Windows is different?

Also, how is windows not modern? It has support for most modern technologies and tends to before macs and Linux do. if you are referring to the interface Gnome, KDE, and OSX's GUI aren't exactly ground breaking either and they all oerate on the same basic principle of a "desktop" with your work sitting on it.

I've never seen Windows do THIS, and I have almost never installed a driver for Linux. I recall the acronym "Will Install Necessary Drivers, Or Won't Start": WINDOWS. I've also never been able to figure out the Windows programming environments, but I am now able to start learning the GNOME interface after only two years of use, with lots of homework and stuff in the way. Also:

In the event that you can't find any Windows application replacements, you can always use Wine or Crossover on Linux or Mac. Don't know the link code, but Wine is available through "http://www.winehq.org/", and Crossover is also available from there.

in the future i hope more people will be nerds

Agreed. ^-^

I don't think it's a nerd thing as much as a human nature thing. Everyone is like this about something. if you are passionate about it then year you will learn it cause you enjoy it. But for things you are uncomfortable with most of the time you will go with what you know or get someone who knows it to do it. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing. Not everyone can be an expert in everything. I can't cook, so I get delivery and carry out a lot. Someone who is in to cooking would look down on us the same way we look down on technologically inept people.

Also agreed. Just need to know who to ask for help sometimes. ^-^

[zmatt]

OK, they may not be BAD, but they rewrote the shortcuts, and I don't want to relearn Windows after trying to use Vista! I will also admit that I was using Vista on an HP laptop whose battery has been replaced twice, whose screen has been replaced twice, whose motherboard cannot access the wireless card, and has experienced so many other problems, that I find it unlikely that ANYONE could sell it. Yet, somehow, I own one .

Yeah that sounds like your problem. Anything will suck given sucky hardware.

I've never seen Windows do THIS, and I have almost never installed a driver for Linux. I recall the acronym "Will Install Necessary Drivers, Or Won't Start": WINDOWS. I've also never been able to figure out the Windows programming environments, but I am now able to start learning the GNOME interface after only two years of use, with lots of homework and stuff in the way. Also:

In the event that you can't find any Windows application replacements, you can always use Wine or Crossover on Linux or Mac. Don't know the link code, but Wine is available through "http://www.winehq.org/", and Crossover is also available from there.

How do flashy effects that ultimately add nothing to my productivity make it modern? Eye candy without utility is just that. I tend to operate in a stripped down UI anyways. And while some compiz functions like the cube and the fire are cool for 5 minutes the novelty wears off quickly and you realize the entire reason for it's existence is so you can shove it in the face of a pc or mac user. IMO modern is defined by what the OS supports in terms of Industry standards. Does it support 64bit processors? Does it support processors with very high core/thread counts? What is the maximum possible size of a formatted drive? Speaking of drives how good is the file system? How secure is it? Does it have strong network protocol support? Can it interface with X piece of modern non-pc hardware/software? How well does it perform compared to it's competitors? How sophisticated is the Kernel and it's core APIs? I could go on, but you get my point.

Maybe I just don't pick up on these sorts of things, but I hadn't noticed any dependency hell problems on my Ubuntu systems. If you run into such a problem, the person who set up your distro's repositories screwed up somewhere.

Things may have improved since then, at this point Compiz was very new and cause X to crash all the time.

Not anymore. My 2-year-old Acer Netbook works just fine with the native and completely OSS ath5k driver. How long ago was it that you last looked?

That's an atheros chipset, they do support linux, but aside form them and Intel nobody else does. The majority of wireless chipsets out there are broadcom units and getting them to work with fwcutter or ndiswrapper has always been a crap shoot. And when you update Ubuntu to the newest version it for some reason undoes all of your work.

On my desktop computer I use Win7 without any problem. I'm just as comfortable with OSX, but I'm not going to pay 3 times as much for the hardware to run it on unless I've got a good reason to do so (for high end DAWs and Edit Bays it is SO worth it). But on limited hardware like a netbook? A fresh boot of Win 7 uses a shade over 1.1GB of RAM. With firefox and outlook, it expands to well over 1.5, which is the maximum amount my first gen netbook supports. By contrast, the bloatiest desktop install of Ubuntu, with lots of bells and whistles installed boots in less than 600MB (IIRC) and typically stays under a gig with several tabs in FF, Evolution or Thunderbird running, and a couple other things. It's true that most Linux environment UIs are designed by programmers, and they feel pretty rough and inconsistent at times. That doesn't mean their code is incompetent--just that they need more artist friends.

Actually I want my OS to have high ram consumption, that means it's getting put to good use. If it's slow and only using 600megs of ram wtf? I'd rather it be fast and use all of my memory. I will agree that on netbooks Linux tends to be better if you are tech savvy. I do want to take the time to point out that 1st gen netbooks like the EEEpc 700 had linux, by the end of the year almost all netbooks had windows. The Linux community had a great opportunity to break into the mainstream and they failed even though the tailor made OS's were better suited to the hardware than windows XP ever could be. I would also argue that the only reasons Android is doing so well now is because Google has put it's weight behind it. You have regular updates that are well polished and nothing is consistently in beta (ironic considering Google's web apps). Which leads to another complaint I have about the Linux community at large is that even for major releases they always have a feel for a lack of polish or professionalism to the releases. They feel like they are in permanent Beta and that major releases aren't major releases but just the same version with all updates downloaded for whatever day they decided to release it. There is nothing wrong with continually improving. But to have a sucessful product you have to reach major release goals for shipping it. The community is 99% programmers who don't understand good UI design and don't understand product development plans. Why? because they aren't artists and managers, they are programmers. To have a viable product it takes all kinds.

[Vash]

This is somewhat OT, but does anyone know of an OS that runs on a RISC CPU without the x86 overlay? I have dual Opterons, and I want that. To make it more OnT, let me just say: I think that OS would be far superior to all others. I also really do, so it works, haha.

[GenericAnimeBoy]

This is somewhat OT, but does anyone know of an OS that runs on a RISC CPU without the x86 overlay? I have dual Opterons, and I want that. To make it more OnT, let me just say: I think that OS would be far superior to all others. I also really do, so it works, haha.

GNU/Linux and FreeBSD are OSS and written mostly in C, so if I understand such things correctly they will run on almost any architecture you can get a C compiler for. However, as far as actually getting that to happen, you're on your own--Compilers are pretty complicated beasts. Is the (probably modest) speed improvement worth it?

On my desktop computer I use Win7 without any problem. I'm just as comfortable with OSX, but I'm not going to pay 3 times as much for the hardware to run it on unless I've got a good reason to do so (for high end DAWs and Edit Bays it is SO worth it). But on limited hardware like a netbook? A fresh boot of Win 7 uses a shade over 1.1GB of RAM. With firefox and outlook, it expands to well over 1.5, which is the maximum amount my first gen netbook supports. By contrast, the bloatiest desktop install of Ubuntu, with lots of bells and whistles installed boots in less than 600MB (IIRC) and typically stays under a gig with several tabs in FF, Evolution or Thunderbird running, and a couple other things. It's true that most Linux environment UIs are designed by programmers, and they feel pretty rough and inconsistent at times. That doesn't mean their code is incompetent--just that they need more artist friends.

Actually I want my OS to have high ram consumption, that means it's getting put to good use. If it's slow and only using 600megs of ram wtf? I'd rather it be fast and use all of my memory. I will agree that on netbooks Linux tends to be better if you are tech savvy.

Point taken--using available RAM with technologies like prefetching can improve performance on common tasks tremendously, and it works very well on a desktop or a powerful laptop--but if a system's going to work on a wide range of hardware it needs to be scalable. With Windows, you can't turn that shit off on less powerful computers (at least, not without some serious forum searching and registry hacking), and the result on old or lightweight hardware is constant disk swapping. The current forms of Ubuntu, from which I quoted that ~600MB number above are actually using quite a bit of prefetching (though not as aggressive as Vista or Win7) and are at least as responsive as any version of Windows I've ever used. And Ubuntu is one of the heavier weight distros...ask an Arch or Mint user if they ever have to wait for anything.

I do want to take the time to point out that 1st gen netbooks like the EEEpc 700 had linux, by the end of the year almost all netbooks had windows. The Linux community had a great opportunity to break into the mainstream and they failed even though the tailor made OS's were better suited to the hardware than windows XP ever could be. I would also argue that the only reasons Android is doing so well now is because Google has put it's weight behind it. You have regular updates that are well polished and nothing is consistently in beta (ironic considering Google's web apps). Which leads to another complaint I have about the Linux community at large is that even for major releases they always have a feel for a lack of polish or professionalism to the releases. They feel like they are in permanent Beta and that major releases aren't major releases but just the same version with all updates downloaded for whatever day they decided to release it.

Linux didn't fail to break into the mainstream on netbooks; they just failed to make money at it. Most netbook owners I know bought the model with XP or Win7 Starter preinstalled (because those systems have better hardware specs than the ones that ship with the stripped down linux distros) and then promptly replaced the OS with UNE (which is actually pretty close to an acceptable level of polish for an average user IMO). So the failure was on the part of companies like Linpus that packaged linux for netbook manufacturers, then allowed the manufacturers to dump it on only the lowest end hardware.

There is nothing wrong with continually improving. But to have a sucessful product you have to reach major release goals for shipping it. The community is 99% programmers who don't understand good UI design and don't understand product development plans. Why? because they aren't artists and managers, they are programmers. To have a viable product it takes all kinds.

Canonical has a lot more visual designers working on Ubuntu than you'd think, and with the regular release schedule, and they've come a pretty long way even in the last 2 years in terms of usability, thanks in part to initiatives like the 100 papercuts program. As a matter of fact, my current Ubuntu system, 10.04 LTS, didn't require any forum searching or command line work do get it to do anything I wanted it to do (which is, in point of fact, more than can be said for any of the windows computers I work on).

[Vash]

GNU/Linux and FreeBSD are OSS ... worth it?

I don't see why you think it is modest, and it would be. Thanks for the info, btw!

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

I'm pretty sure Alton Brown disapproves of the WINDOWS key in Windows. He really hates unitaskers. IE: something that only does one thing. Then again, For the few minutes I spent using Windows 7, I learned that WINDOWS-(arrow key) is used to adjust windows, such as left, right, minimize, maximize. Before Windows 7 came out, I thought future windows OS could not be worse than Vista. Windows 7 proved me wrong.

Please tell me how Windows 7 is bad? It has great hardware support, has a massive library of apps, has better backwards compatibility than Vista, is fast, looks good, is secure, and is compared to Linux, easy to set up and use. I only have to touch the command line if I want to. In Linux rule #1 is learn to use the command line. That right there puts it at a major usability disadvantage.

The problem for Vista wasn't actually Vista. It was people's expectations. Until Vista we were accustomed to a new version of windows every 3 2 years or so. And because of that it was reasonable to expect that a computer that shipped with the previous version of windows would be capable of running the new one well enough. The cap between XP and Vista was 7 years. People still expected (and everybody's marketing department claimed) that this old hardware could run vista. That is like putting windows 2000 on a 486. If Vista had been released in 2005 and if it performed like something from 2005 then it would not have been a problem. M$ took way too long and people expected vista to be to xp what xp was to 2000.

If you read the Wiki articles about the development of XP, Vista, and 7, you find a really interesting story. Some highlights:

• XP was supposed to be the last Windows version, with updates on a subscription basis. This was the basis for the product key, even though that plan was scrapped almost immediately
• The reason why Vista feels half-baked is because it was split from development because MS needed to release something already
• Vista was also sucked because many of the features in the Longhorn (which you could buy pirate copies of in China) snapshots (like the sidebar) were cut (along with a useful Sound Recorder and the instant win cheats for Solitaire and Freecell)
• Win7 is the response to all this

In windows, the ... Windows-specific apps).

Actually, the Windows key has a number of key bindings assigned to it. I do not know if any are available for reassignment, though.

that’s why i don’t like windows in the first place.

the worst thing about it is that you can’t configure it properly without hacking about in the registry. srsly, what sense has a “NO COMMAND LINE OS” when you have to browse an ugly enourmous tree of cryptic key/value-pairs to make some trivial changes?

and most stuff you can’t do this “easy.” you’ll have to replace vital system files to change your desktop theme[1]; you’ll have to install 3rd-party applications to enable basic functions like the ability to scroll the element under your mouse without having to activate it via clicking[2].

Thanks for that 2nd link! I'll be trying it out once I boot Windows. Another annoyance that this company fixes is the really awkward accent support in Windows. Mac OS has a (not very intuitive), but much simpler solution to adding accents to characters, but I'm not playing $25 or risking a nag screen just to get easy Unicode support without having to resort to the Character map all the time.I will put up with windows interface as long as windows works and nothing else does. Both Linux and OSX let me down hard on different occasions. When windows screws up I can fix it really easy. It isn't perfect and it has some big flaws (why does the registry even exist anymore?). But in my experience in using pcs and doing IT for almost 7 years I think it's the best choice for 90% of the people 90% of the time in a desktop environment.[/quote]
However, I prefer Apple's laptops because of how well-integrated the OS is with the hardware. I'm still waiting on a non-Apple laptop with a trackpad as nice as Apple's (or a glass screen for that matter). It's also why Windows never caught in the tablet market. Unless you are in graphic design and need a precision and a pen, an iPad-like interface is easier in that form-factor.

I don't like how bloated Windows 7 is.

I don't think the OS itself is too bloated (at least compared to Vista), but it lacks a lot of built-in features (PDF viewing, mainly) that other OS's have (damn you, feature-limiting EU antitrust legislation!)

Please tell me how Windows 7 is bad? It has great hardware support, has a massive library of apps, has better backwards compatibility than Vista, is fast, looks good, is secure, and is compared to Linux, easy to set up and use. I only have to touch the command line if I want to. In Linux rule #1 is learn to use the command line. That right there puts it at a major usability disadvantage.

The problem for Vista wasn't actually Vista. It was people's expectations. Until Vista we were accustomed to a new version of windows every 3 years or so. And because of that it was reasonable to expect that a computer that shipped with the previous version of windows would be capable of running the new one well enough. The cap between XP and Vista was 7 years. People still expected (and everybody's marketing department claimed) that this old hardware could run vista. That is like putting windows 2000 on a 486. If Vista had been released in 2005 and if it performed like something from 2005 then it would not have been a problem. M$ took way too long and people expected vista to be to xp what xp was to 2000.

OK, they may not be BAD, but they rewrote the shortcuts, and I don't want to relearn Windows after trying to use Vista! I will also admit that I was using Vista on an HP laptop whose battery has been replaced twice, whose screen has been replaced twice, whose motherboard cannot access the wireless card, and has experienced so many other problems, that I find it unlikely that ANYONE could sell it. Yet, somehow, I own one .

definitely, but it's not quasi-standard. it's what people with a windows-background expect. apple is different. most linux desktops are, too. and windows is 100% not modern.

If apple is different, and Linux is different, then aren't they really the standard, and Windows is different?

This

I've never seen Windows do THIS, and I have almost never installed a driver for Linux.

I've never seen Mac OS do that, either

in the future i hope more people will be nerds

Agreed. ^-^^

Don't we all?

[Vash]

My PC is now Ubuntu/Windows 7. I think I liked Ubuntu a lot less before I used an android phone (a list of predefined applications seemed restrictive to me. On PC, I like to look for the best applications from as complete a selection as possible). I should learn to compile things with ease anyway, it's better. I can run WordPerfect Office in Wine quite easily (best word processor in my opinion because of reveal codes), so it's a good work setup. I am going to try a RISC-based OS soon, though. That still is far superior.

Thanks for that 2nd link! I'll be trying it out once I boot Windows. Another ... environment.

I bound accent to the Windows key on one of my computers. I agree that the default system is not good enough, however. My solution also does not fix it that well because of all the different markings in various languages. I am sure I could come up with an adequate solution, but I have not so far. If you buy the right (foreign) keyboard, it's not such a pain, but then English may be (IIRC from my research).

That is definitely true. I love fixing Windows because it is a relative cinch, at least when it comes to everything but the dreaded 6-month slowdown. I seem to even be getting that in 7 on my dual-core or less computers (it could be the result of viruses, however. My single-core is perfectly fine).

I may not bother with Ubuntu on my gaming/media computer. That is an example of the 90% rule.

I don't think the OS itself is too bloated (at least compared to Vista), but it lacks a lot of built-in features (PDF viewing, mainly) that other OS's have (damn you, feature-limiting EU antitrust legislation!)

IIRC, the default memory consumption is the same as Vista. I find it to be faster than XP (even on my single core), but I have seen benchmarks that show it losing to XP in a few tests, and winning in a few others (still, with advantage XP). That is until you get to a rather large multitude of cores (if you install 7 on a PS3, it might be awesome). 7 is also definitely faster and better designed than Vista. There are various other OSes that are not nearly as bloated, as well.

Yeah, that is unfortunate. There are ways to streamline installation of adobe reader, etc. on a new computer, however. I actually do like that not a single (or even a list of) option(s) is(are) offered for many programs. I like to choose my own program in general. I suppose for some programs (especially obscure ones) packaging can be nice. I remember that when I downloaded SuSE, it had everything. Most of it was very good, too. Also, this is sort of a technicality, but one could consider that Windows actually does have a built-in PDF viewer if you count Google. The exception to this is in a computer without internet or without some form of local Google Apps installed, which I think probably exists but have not checked for.

[Sc4Freak]

This is somewhat OT, but does anyone know of an OS that runs on a RISC CPU without the x86 overlay? I have dual Opterons, and I want that. To make it more OnT, let me just say: I think that OS would be far superior to all others. I also really do, so it works, haha.

The AMD Opteron is an x86 CPU, so I don't think you'll see any benefit from installing an OS compiled for a RISC architecture.

[Vash]

The AMD Opteron is an x86 CPU, so I don't think you'll see any benefit from installing an OS compiled for a RISC architecture.

I think AMD processors are RISC with some kind of translation for x86. I am not sure whether or not the core RISC is accessible, regardless. Apparently CISC and RISC are not very different anymore, also.

[NickNackGus]

I find it to be faster than XP (even on my single core), but I have seen benchmarks that show it losing to XP in a few tests, and winning in a few others (still, with advantage XP). That is until you get to a rather large multitude of cores.

Yes, in some cases earlier versions of Windows are faster than others. I once tried to apply an audio effect to a long song in audacity. My laptop, running Vista at the time, claimed it would take an hour, then crashed before finishing. This was repeated with the same results. I took out an old desktop that has enough trouble with 98, told it to do the same thing, and it finished in a week. So if it's between a week and never, sometimes older versions are worth it. (Speed VS Stability)

If you install 7 on a PS3, it might be awesome.

Sony disabled the "Other OS" feature. Some suspect Sony thought people who bought the PS3 and used Other OS were less like to buy games, or something like that. Within eighteen months, it was hacked to add Linux support. This is from the time Sony disabled Other OS, before that there was no reason to hack the Other OS feature.

7 is also definitely faster and better designed than Vista.

Can't argue with that, but Vista truly made me hate Windows, although it was probably my laptop's fault. It still needs to have major repairs every vacation I have. It proved that when it broke the afternoon before winter vacation, just barely too soon for me to start using the desktop I got for Christmas.

There are various other OSes that are not nearly as bloated, as well.

PuppyLinux is tiny, and runs on computer with VERY limited hardware. I never tried it, but I bet it matches Linux's "Low floor, no ceiling" standard.

[_Axle_]

The AMD Opteron is an x86 CPU, so I don't think you'll see any benefit from installing an OS compiled for a RISC architecture.

I think AMD processors are RISC with some kind of translation for x86. I am not sure whether or not the core RISC is accessible, regardless. Apparently CISC and RISC are not very different anymore, also.

The majority of AMD is x86 ( or x86-64 ), but AMD did release a RISC called AMD 29k

If you install 7 on a PS3, it might be awesome.

Sony disabled the "Other OS" feature. Some suspect Sony thought people who bought the PS3 and used Other OS were less like to buy games, or something like that. Within eighteen months, it was hacked to add Linux support. This is from the time Sony disabled Other OS, before that there was no reason to hack the Other OS feature.

eh . . except the Cell processor isn't all that is seems to be. It is nice, but has some issues once you get down to the low level stuff.

[Sc4Freak]

The AMD Opteron is an x86 CPU, so I don't think you'll see any benefit from installing an OS compiled for a RISC architecture.

I think AMD processors are RISC with some kind of translation for x86. I am not sure whether or not the core RISC is accessible, regardless. Apparently CISC and RISC are not very different anymore, also.

Most CISC CPUs these days, Intel included, are RISC under the hood. Intel calls their RISC instructions "micro-ops", but I don't know what AMD calls them. Regardless, these are all implementation details: the only instruction set you can actually use on these CPUs is x86. No doubt you could run Linux compiled for ARM in a virtual machine, but what's the point?

[zmatt]

Point taken--using available RAM with technologies like prefetching can improve performance on common tasks tremendously, and it works very well on a desktop or a powerful laptop--but if a system's going to work on a wide range of hardware it needs to be scalable. With Windows, you can't turn that shit off on less powerful computers (at least, not without some serious forum searching and registry hacking), and the result on old or lightweight hardware is constant disk swapping. The current forms of Ubuntu, from which I quoted that ~600MB number above are actually using quite a bit of prefetching (though not as aggressive as Vista or Win7) and are at least as responsive as any version of Windows I've ever used. And Ubuntu is one of the heavier weight distros...ask an Arch or Mint user if they ever have to wait for anything.

Well that's what system requirements are for. The people who are using outdated hardware with a new OS and are getting poor performance have only themselves to blame. As for keeping old machines alive I always use Linux for that. But my main machine has never been so outdated to have to worry.

Linux didn't fail to break into the mainstream on netbooks; they just failed to make money at it. Most netbook owners I know bought the model with XP or Win7 Starter preinstalled (because those systems have better hardware specs than the ones that ship with the stripped down linux distros) and then promptly replaced the OS with UNE (which is actually pretty close to an acceptable level of polish for an average user IMO). So the failure was on the part of companies like Linpus that packaged linux for netbook manufacturers, then allowed the manufacturers to dump it on only the lowest end hardware.

That isn't exactly true though. Off the top of my head I can't remember any netbook that had both a windows and linux option with the linux equipped version having worse hardware. And while you may have anecdotal evidence that some people switched from XP to Linux, it has been well documented that the opposite is true.

Canonical has a lot more visual designers working on Ubuntu than you'd think, and with the regular release schedule, and they've come a pretty long way even in the last 2 years in terms of usability, thanks in part to initiatives like the 100 papercuts program. As a matter of fact, my current Ubuntu system, 10.04 LTS, didn't require any forum searching or command line work do get it to do anything I wanted it to do (which is, in point of fact, more than can be said for any of the windows computers I work on).

Well that certainly is an improvement. Unfortunately what is true for Ubuntu isn't true for all of Linux world. And as far as I can tell it hasn't done much to change adoption rates.

[NickNackGus]

The AMD Opteron is an x86 CPU, so I don't think you'll see any benefit from installing an OS compiled for a RISC architecture.

I think AMD processors are RISC with some kind of translation for x86. I am not sure whether or not the core RISC is accessible, regardless. Apparently CISC and RISC are not very different anymore, also.

Most CISC CPUs these days, Intel included, are RISC under the hood. Intel calls their RISC instructions "micro-ops", but I don't know what AMD calls them. Regardless, these are all implementation details: the only instruction set you can actually use on these CPUs is x86. No doubt you could run Linux compiled for ARM in a virtual machine, but what's the point?

I believe I saw an ISOLinux file in some Windows drivers once. So if Windows NEEDS Linux just to access hardware and function normally, then running it on the CPU could be helpful.

[Sc4Freak]

The AMD Opteron is an x86 CPU, so I don't think you'll see any benefit from installing an OS compiled for a RISC architecture.

I think AMD processors are RISC with some kind of translation for x86. I am not sure whether or not the core RISC is accessible, regardless. Apparently CISC and RISC are not very different anymore, also.

Most CISC CPUs these days, Intel included, are RISC under the hood. Intel calls their RISC instructions "micro-ops", but I don't know what AMD calls them. Regardless, these are all implementation details: the only instruction set you can actually use on these CPUs is x86. No doubt you could run Linux compiled for ARM in a virtual machine, but what's the point?

I believe I saw an ISOLinux file in some Windows drivers once. So if Windows NEEDS Linux just to access hardware and function normally, then running it on the CPU could be helpful.

Uh-huh, and Linux contains some Hyper-V drivers which require Windows Server to run. Therefore, by your logic, Linux requires Windows in order to run.

Driver written for Windows != Windows

[NickNackGus]

The AMD Opteron is an x86 CPU, so I don't think you'll see any benefit from installing an OS compiled for a RISC architecture.

I think AMD processors are RISC with some kind of translation for x86. I am not sure whether or not the core RISC is accessible, regardless. Apparently CISC and RISC are not very different anymore, also.

Most CISC CPUs these days, Intel included, are RISC under the hood. Intel calls their RISC instructions "micro-ops", but I don't know what AMD calls them. Regardless, these are all implementation details: the only instruction set you can actually use on these CPUs is x86. No doubt you could run Linux compiled for ARM in a virtual machine, but what's the point?

I believe I saw an ISOLinux file in some Windows drivers once. So if Windows NEEDS Linux just to access hardware and function normally, then running it on the CPU could be helpful.

Uh-huh, and Linux contains some Hyper-V drivers which require Windows Server to run. Therefore, by your logic, Linux requires Windows in order to run.

Driver written for Windows != Windows

Actually, I guess my logic is flawed. Still, I use Windows Wireless drivers on Linux (straight from XP!), so I guess that's emulation. ISOLinux was definitely found in one of my Windows hardware drivers, I forget which. I also know that Ubuntu, and possibly other Linux Distributions, are able to use generic drivers for almost everything. Since I can always view "Additional Drivers", and Ubuntu has ISOLinux already, I can only assume that it is used in some way for Windows. Apparently, ISOLinux is a "no emulation" interface for hardware not natively supported, so I am hereby officially confused, and am willing to read an article explaining this.

[Vash]

I am going to play devil's advocate here and make an argument for Chrome as the best OS there is. It's as lean as possible. It has everything you could possibly need (as long as you can find it). Since Microsoft Windows and Linux for some tasks may require a Google search, that is relatively equivalent. Chrome has all of the functionality of Windows and Mac OS X with none of the redundancy. In fact, you do not even need to install anything. You can only use something when you go to it. Redundancy is actually impossible (either that, or relatively equivalent in its vast magnitude).

[phlip]

When did this become the "What OS is best" thread? We already have one of those. Several of those, in fact. There's no need to derail more threads into that debate...

[zmatt]

Actually, I guess my logic is flawed. Still, I use Windows Wireless drivers on Linux (straight from XP!), so I guess that's emulation. ISOLinux was definitely found in one of my Windows hardware drivers, I forget which. I also know that Ubuntu, and possibly other Linux Distributions, are able to use generic drivers for almost everything. Since I can always view "Additional Drivers", and Ubuntu has ISOLinux already, I can only assume that it is used in some way for Windows. Apparently, ISOLinux is a "no emulation" interface for hardware not natively supported, so I am hereby officially confused, and am willing to read an article explaining this.

It is possible that the maker of the drivers released both the windows and linux version in the same archive to simplify matters. It is also possible that the linux drivers for said hardware use the windows drivers in an API wrapper (like ndiswrapper or fwcuter) or the drivers could for some reason make use of POSIX commands and its was easier/free to use the ISO linux library than anything else. Last I checked Windows NT is POSIX compliant now.

[phillipsjk]

Those are several very odd UI requests. As for themes I have no problem changing them. I have never had to screw with the registry to do so. Windows isn't about total customization though, its about getting stuff done. Customization is great and all but if you are going to use Linux as an example of doing it right there are many problems there. Dependency hell is trivial to get into once you start mucking about with the system settings and installing UIs, documentation for all but the most popular things is never good and sometimes never there, it's written by people who aren't very good at it, and everything is a hack and a work around. hell the entire wireless driver system is just one big hack involving windows drivers. I remember when Compiz came out several years ago. I downloaded the packages (I hate the package system btw, I like the standalone .exe and dmg model that windows and OSX use) did my make file, it installed fine. And then didn't work. The documentation had nothing on it. Finally after using my Googlefu for 2 hours I found a forum where someone else had the problem, turns out it was related to the graphics drivers. It wouldn't work with the newest ones, I had to roll back, but the old ones were unstable fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.


I will put up with windows interface as long as windows works and nothing else does. Both Linux and OSX let me down hard on different occasions. When windows screws up I can fix it really easy. It isn't perfect and it has some big flaws (why does the registry even exist anymore?). But in my experience in using pcs and doing IT for almost 7 years I think it's the best choice for 90% of the people 90% of the time in a desktop environment.

Ignoring the OS-bashing, zmatt seems to be saying PC=Windows because PC's have been "designed for Windows" since 1995. He has a point. New PCs come with documentation saying that Windows is an intergral component, and if you don't like it, you should return the computer to the store.

If we accept that "PC=Windows", my newest computer is not a PC for just that reason. I have also turned down work doing PC repair for that reason. I am currently trying to do self-study in order to become a "Mathematical Locks risk mitigation specialist." Certain hardware such as Video cards and Blu-ray drives must have secret interfaces to get Windows logo certification.

[zmatt]

Well sorta, if it has the native ability to run windows then yes. So basically if it's cpu conforms to x86, it has a BIOS it's motherboard uses pci, agp, pci express slots etc, and it conforms to a physical case spec that has been used by pCs (atx, btx, at, baby at, etc). A computer running linux and not windows but retains the ability to run windows by my definition is a pc. A Mac is not, and unless they adopt BIOS never will be. PC is a specification, not a "hard" one, where it is published on a regular basis, but a loose one. You know it when you see it.

[Vash]

Well sorta, if it has the native ... it when you see it.

What if I mount my motherboard to a block of wood?

[Dason]

You know it when you see it.

Doesn't the amount of arguing in this thread sort of disprove that?

[zmatt]

Well sorta, if it has the native ... it when you see it.

What if I mount my motherboard to a block of wood?

Does the motherboard conform to ATX or a similar form factor? If so then IMO yes.

You know it when you see it.

Doesn't the amount of arguing in this thread sort of disprove that?

That was meant more of a rhetorical device. But generally I think most things we would agree on as being a pc or not. When you start to get computers that share qualifications of both ie: an Intel powered mac there is some disagree. The more ambiguous the harder it is to nail down. I don't expect to get everyone to agree with my method, but I think it's a pretty good one.