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

[AirSimming]

What makes you think that 8 will come only two years after 7, when the average/goal is three years?

Chris Green, an alleged Microsoft employee, has published the estimated product support life cycles on his blog. According to that, Windows 8 currently seems to be targeted for July 2011:

http://photos.macnn.com/news/1001/windows8roadmapdraft.pdf

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/chris.green/

 

[Hielor]

Chris Green, an alleged Microsoft employee, has published the estimated product support life cycles on his blog. According to that, Windows 8 currently seems to be targeted for July 2011:

http://photos.macnn.com/news/1001/windows8roadmapdraft.pdf

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/chris.green/

I was about to say, "if he actually was a Microsoft employee, he wouldn't be for much longer after publishing that" and then checked his blog and oh look he's not an employee anymore.

Regardless, I would take that chart with some *very* hefty pinches of salt, given the question marks everywhere around Windows 8 and the fact that it's named as a "draft."

 

[TMac3000]

Should each new computer or copy of Windows come with a disclaimer saying that the user should get an IQ test before purchasing in order to make sure that they're qualified to use the software?

Maybe if they stipulated it in the license agreement:lol:

Okay, this thread is God only knows how many pages long, and I have finally decided to weigh in. I am a Linux man myself. No offense intended to anyone out there; I don't begrudge anyone their choice to use Windows XP, or Vista, or Win7 or whatever. I don't really understand it, but I don't begrudge it.

I was a Windows man for most of my computer-using life. I stuck with it through 3.1, 95, 98, XP (I had a few unfortunate encounters with ME and 2000), Vista, and now I have 7 on my Acer netbook. But a few months ago, I decided to make the move to Linux. Why?

Three reasons. 1) Guilt-free computing. I get tired of hearing sticklers talk about how supposedly awful so-called software piracy is. I don't care what Microsoft's tyrannical license agreement says; I own my damn computer, and as far as I am concerned, that means that I by-God own whatever is on it. The creators of Linux and other open-source software recognize this, and so have my endless respect and admiration. 2) Pure efficiency. Linux, or at least the GNOME desktop, is just so much cleaner than Windows. Compare any Windows Start menu to the menu in GNOME, and you will see what I mean. 3) Security through simplicity. Linux provides the unthinkable in modern computing: no viruses, spyware, etc, and no defragging.

To be sure, Linux has some caveats. My first Linux was Fedora 9, and it took me a week just to get my graphics card to work and figure out how to install programs. Also, it is heavily Internet-dependent; you can use Linux without the Internet, but that's a bit like using Windows without a mouse. I have Ubuntu 9.10 on my desktop machine now, and a wireless router for my Internet, and I simply cannot imagine using anything else.

 

[Ghostrider]

Three reasons. 1) Guilt-free computing. I get tired of hearing sticklers talk about how supposedly awful so-called software piracy is. I don't care what Microsoft's tyrannical license agreement says; I own my damn computer, and as far as I am concerned, that means that I by-God own whatever is on it. The creators of Linux and other open-source software recognize this, and so have my endless respect and admiration.

Well, this reason alone is enough for cheering the Linux crowd (as noxious as they can be sometimes). Call me an old grumpy M1-toting Gran Torino-driving get-off-my-lawn geezer but I grew up in a time where your computer and the stuff that you ran on it and its output belonged to YOU, not to some faceless too-big-to-fail megacorp with an army of lawyers and the self-given right to lay claim to your stuff because they're aw-so-big.

And as much as MS is guilty, worse precedents have been set by the likes of Sony with the PS3 "otherOS" removal, or Amazon with the Orwell Kindle incident. Having our information-storing devices owned for all intents and purposes by another party (especially one as big as they are) bodes very very bad for the future.

 

[orb]

Compare any Windows Start menu to the menu in GNOME, and you will see what I mean.

I don't like the default Start Menu in Windows, too. This isn't about only vanilla Windows, but about almost all software written for Windows.

Since Windows 98, I've created folders for categories, subcategories, and moved program shortcuts there, or chose during installation of a program, that allowed changing this, the Start Menu shortcuts' location to the subcategory. But in Vista+, in the default Start Menu / All programs, this doesn't look good either, because of treeview instead of submenus used (I know I could use a classic layout, but I don't like it either). I started doing this after my first installation of Linux with KDE desktop environment in 1999, where programs menu was categorized, and hence clear to read and to find a program I wanted to execute.

I was always wondering, why in Windows for example: games don't create their shortcuts in "Games/<subcategory>", media players, codecs' utilities & encoders, image viewers in "Multimedia", Internet browsers, e-mail, IM, ssh or other clients and download managers in "Internet" (or "Net", or "Web"), device driver's utilities in "System/Hardware", system tools in "System/Tools", firewalls and antiviruses in "System/Security", shell extenders or something similar in "System/Add-ons", compilers, IDEs, 2D and 3D graphics editors in "Development/<subcategory>", etc.

Why do all programs want to install their shortcuts to main Programs subdirectory? Sometimes, when I'm at somebody's computer, I need to search for a program that is somewhere in a one entry among 4 or more columns of other shortcuts or folders. It's a real pain for me. Sometimes, when someone asks me to clean their computer from unneeded software, I don't know what I can or cannot uninstall, because I don't know for what purpose some program was installed and is used on that computer, before I run it and check it myself.

 

[Enjo]

Wait, you're complaining that Windows caters to "stupid users," and then provide an anecdote of how you at some point started picking random options and couldn't be arsed to investigate what it was actually going to be doing?

Whether you get my point, or not while making your own assumptions, have some respect.

I'm outta this thread.

 

[Linguofreak]

Ah, I see. So, the language needs to be more user friendly, then, since it wasn't user friendly enough for him to understand what it would do.

No. The "user friendliness" of the language concealed the actual meaning. From what he was saying, it was the *attempt* to make it user friendly that made it confusing to the technical user by giving a "layman friendly" name to a concept that the technical user would be more familiar with by a technical name.

There's a Clippy in win7? Or, there's a clippy in any verison of Office this decade?

No, but it still demonstrates the general attitude that Microsoft has regarding their customers.

If you want something a bit more recent, then that annoying dog that always shows up whenever you try doing searches on Windows XP.

You haven't actually mentioned any features that are still applicable...


I stopped reading there. We're not talking about 9x/ME.

No. In fact, we're not talking about any specific Windows version at all. We're talking about a pervasive attitude that keeps showing up in Microsoft UI's. Other people have found it in Vista/7, I'm more familiar with it from XP (the most recent version I've used heavily) and earlier.

Three reasons. 1) Guilt-free computing. I get tired of hearing sticklers talk about how supposedly awful so-called software piracy is. I don't care what Microsoft's tyrannical license agreement says; I own my damn computer, and as far as I am concerned, that means that I by-God own whatever is on it. The creators of Linux and other open-source software recognize this, and so have my endless respect and admiration.

Likewise. I've simply gotten tired of Microsoft EULAs and DRM.

2) Pure efficiency. Linux, or at least the GNOME desktop, is just so much cleaner than Windows. Compare any Windows Start menu to the menu in GNOME, and you will see what I mean.

Meh... Properly set-up GNOME is on a par with properly set-up Windows, but it isn't that special... I actually found the menu a bit annoying when I got started, and I still have a few pet peeves with Nautilus, but as a whole it's grown on me. But I will say that I have generally preferred older Windows Start menus to more recent ones.

3) Security through simplicity. Linux provides the unthinkable in modern computing: no viruses, spyware, etc, and no defragging.

Defragging? I don't recall the last time I've seen that required on *any* machine. And while I do believe that Linux is more secure, all other things being equal, than Windows, I don't believe it's quite as secure as it's hyped up to be. Some of its added security comes from being used by users that are, on average, more security conscious (I have seen the difference that the user can make on a Windows system), and some of it comes from not really being a target.

To be sure, Linux has some caveats. My first Linux was Fedora 9, and it took me a week just to get my graphics card to work and figure out how to install programs. Also, it is heavily Internet-dependent; you can use Linux without the Internet, but that's a bit like using Windows without a mouse.

Howso? I wouldn't say that it's any more Internet dependent than any thing else these days...

 

[Hielor]

No. The "user friendliness" of the language concealed the actual meaning. From what he was saying, it was the *attempt* to make it user friendly that made it confusing to the technical user by giving a "layman friendly" name to a concept that the technical user would be more familiar with by a technical name.

I think a true technical user would bother to look up a term that they don't know/didn't recognize.

No, but it still demonstrates the general attitude that Microsoft has regarding their customers.

If you want something a bit more recent, then that annoying dog that always shows up whenever you try doing searches on Windows XP.

If by "a bit more recent" you mean "nearly a decade old," sure.

You can change that dog to a couple other choices of avatars, and I'm pretty sure you can also remove it entirely. I typically just ignore it.

No. In fact, we're not talking about any specific Windows version at all. We're talking about a pervasive attitude that keeps showing up in Microsoft UI's. Other people have found it in Vista/7, I'm more familiar with it from XP (the most recent version I've used heavily) and earlier.

Except that you're arguing from the past, not the present. If you can make references to 98/ME/XP and argue that they're still valid today, then shouldn't I be able to say that Linux is only usable by highly technical users, doesn't have drivers for a very large variety of hardware, and requires you to build your own kernel in order to be remotely usable?

The point is that a lot of what you're talking about no longer exists in Microsoft's UIs, and that they don't have these issues anymore.

 

[Linguofreak]

I think a true technical user would bother to look up a term that they don't know/didn't recognize.

His post indicates that he wasn't able to find any info on what it did. (And, searching for "Advanced Partition" I wasn't able to find any info on it either). Now, he did make a mistake: At that point, I would have said "screw it" and gone and used a tool that gave me useful information on what it was doing.

If by "a bit more recent" you mean "nearly a decade old," sure.

You can change that dog to a couple other choices of avatars, and I'm pretty sure you can also remove it entirely. I typically just ignore it.


Except that you're arguing from the past, not the present. If you can make references to 98/ME/XP and argue that they're still valid today, then shouldn't I be able to say that Linux is only usable by highly technical users, doesn't have drivers for a very large variety of hardware, and requires you to build your own kernel in order to be remotely usable?

More my point is that the fact that I know that Microsoft has behaved in a given way in the past makes me a lot more inclined to believe people when they complain that features of current MS products exhibit the same behavior.

When people's complaints about a current version match my own complaints about an earlier one, I tend to believe them.

RE: Linux usability: The driver issue, in my experience, is still a bit of a concern, though from what I hear it has improved from a decade ago.

The point is that a lot of what you're talking about no longer exists in Microsoft's UIs, and that they don't have these issues anymore.

But what I'm concerned about is not any specific feature (specific features are generally easily enabled/disabled, and only last a few versions), but the general design philosophy that goes into Microsoft UI's.

 

[TMac3000]

Howso? I wouldn't say that it's any more Internet dependent than any thing else these days...

Trust me. I used Fedora 9 without an internet connection for weeks. It was RPM hell. VLC Media Player alone had more dependencies than an AA meeting, and I spent more time in that stupid terminal screen than I did in the graphical interface

The error messages from RPM will tell you which dependencies you need, but some of those dependencies have dependencies themselves, which the program doesn't tell you about until you try to install the first level. So I ended up carrying my flash drive back and forth five or six times between my Windows internet machine and my Fedora machine.

If your Linux machine has broadband, you will find that pretty much every distribution has a Software Management Center of some kind, where you just look under the category in question and download whatever you want without even opening your browser.

Long story short: if you have broadband, get Linux. If you don't, get XP or 7.

 

[Hielor]

Long story short: if you have broadband, get Linux. If you don't, get XP or 7.

It's a significantly larger decision tree than that, for example:

Do you enjoy needing to know how the innards of your OS work? If so, get Linux. If you prefer things to just work without you having to do anything about it, get Windows (no, not everything is perfect in Windows, but statistically speaking...)

Do you want to play games with your PC? Get Windows.

Do you want to be the person that everyone you know asks for tech help? Get Linux.

 

[computerex]

If you don't have an ounce of creativity in you, and have no desire for any customization, get Windows.

If you want people to make you feel as if they know more about what you want to do then you do yourself, get Windows.

For everything else, there is Linux and a Playstation 3.

 

[Hielor]

If you want people to make you feel as if they know more about what you want to do then you do yourself, get Windows.

Odd, I don't have that problem, so I'd like to counter that with the corresponding Linux version:

If you enjoy feeling like you know more about what people want than they do (even when you don't), get Linux.

 

[Ghostrider]

If you don't have an ounce of creativity in you, and have no desire for any customization, get Windows.

Do you think writers need Linux to show they're creative? And what about Martin Schweiger himself? He seems to be quite a creative fellow, and Orbiter is Windows only.

For everything else, there is Linux and a Playstation 3.

Sony shot down Linux for the PS3 a little while ago. It caused some justified anger in the community but Sony is, for all intent and purposes, a kind of deity that can do as it pleases. Can't argue with their army of lawyers.

 

[computerex]

Odd, I don't have that problem

Well I do. It costs me an extra fifteen minutes every time I want to install windows on a machine, owing to the fact that it overwrites the MBR every single time.

If you enjoy feeling like you know more about what people want than they do (even when you don't), get Linux.

You got Windows mixed up with Linux. Easy way to remember, Windows stands with a "W", you know, "W" for WINDOWS. They are the things through which sunlight comes in (if you live in a sunny area).

Do you think writers need Linux to show they're creative? And what about Martin Schweiger himself? He seems to be quite a creative fellow, and Orbiter is Windows only.

Creativity in the sense that Windows doesn't really allow much customization...For example, I would like to resize my trash can icon to an arbitrary size. I can't really do that.

I don't really give the slightest piece of cake as to what anyone else uses. An "OS WAR" thread wouldn't be nearly as much fun if everyone simply agreed to disagree, or agree on one "best" OS. Therefore in the spirit of this thread, I will continue to fight until my fingers are gone. I will relentlessly continue my campaign of slaughtering Windows users until I expire or my foe lies defeated at my feet, keyboard, thing.

 

[Hielor]

Well I do. It costs me an extra fifteen minutes every time I want to install windows on a machine, owing to the fact that it overwrites the MBR every single time.

So just use the MBR it gives you? Or stop dual-booting? Or stop re-installing it multiple times?

You got Windows mixed up with Linux. Easy way to remember, Windows stands with a "W", you know, "W" for WINDOWS. They are the things through which sunlight comes in (if you live in a sunny area).

Oh, I thought you were referring to Linux users who always think they know more than Windows users...

And again, even with the correct parsing, I don't have all these problems that you claim to. I use Windows every day, and I don't feel "insulted" by my computer, perhaps because I'm comfortable enough with my intelligence that I don't allow a piece of machinery to insult me.

Creativity in the sense that Windows doesn't really allow much customization...For example, I would like to resize my trash can icon to an arbitrary size. I can't really do that.

Ctrl-scroll on the desktop

 

[computerex]

So just use the MBR it gives you? Or stop dual-booting? Or stop re-installing it multiple times?

I can't use the MBR it gives me, cause then I won't be able to boot inside linux and will be stuck in Windows full time. I wouldn't allow my worst enemies to experience that punishment... So you are telling me that it is either only Microsoft or no Microsoft at all? Not duel booting is not a solution. Multiple installations cannot be helped either. Users shouldn't have to adapt to the OS, the OS has to adapt to the user. Why else do we dish out so much money for each freaking OS release? To see the pretty borders?

Oh, I thought you were referring to Linux users who always think they know more than Windows users...

They know more.

And again, even with the correct parsing, I don't have all these problems that you claim to. I use Windows every day, and I don't feel "insulted" by my computer, perhaps because I'm comfortable enough with my intelligence that I don't allow a piece of machinery to insult me.

You are either very lucky, or you don't use Windows enough.

Ctrl-scroll on the desktop

But that resizes all of the other icons too. I don't want that. I just want my trash can icon resized.

 

[Hielor]

I can't use the MBR it gives me, cause then I won't be able to boot inside linux and will be stuck in Windows full time. I wouldn't allow my worst enemies to experience that punishment... So you are telling me that it is either only Microsoft or no Microsoft at all? Not duel booting is not a solution. Multiple installations cannot be helped either. Users shouldn't have to adapt to the OS, the OS has to adapt to the user. Why else do we dish out so much money for each freaking OS release? To see the pretty borders?

Wait, don't you hate Windows?

Then why are you using it?

Simple solution: If you don't want the "evil windows" installing itself over your MBR, don't install it. That was difficult.

They know more.

Sorry for the delay in replying to you, I was busy playing Grand Theft Auto IV. It has multiplayer, you should totally...oh, right, you use that other OS. Nevermind.

While the average linux user knows more than the average Windows user, it is by no means true that all linux users know more than all Windows users.

You are either very lucky, or you don't use Windows enough.

How much would be "enough," do you think? 12 hours a day? Because I'm already past that...

But that resizes all of the other icons too. I don't want that. I just want my trash can icon resized.

I think you're in the vast minority when it comes to desiring this particular feature...and hasn't it already been established that Windows doesn't typically add features which would only be used by a fraction of a percent of its users?

 

[computerex]

Wait, don't you hate Windows?

Not really. I think it can be annoying at times, but so can the other OS'. Windows can be pretty nice actually. I am used to the thing, the behavior is deterministic most of the times, and the glassy borders DO look sexy
Plus I can't really play Orbiter without it There is no question of ditching Windows anytime soon. It is just minor, but many problems that are annoying. For instance, my sound output would suddenly just disappear. I didn't have that issue with XP, however apparently it is common in seven. The only solution as far as I know is to restart. Not a show stopper, but very annoying.

Sorry for the delay in replying to you, I was busy playing Grand Theft Auto IV. It has multiplayer, you should totally...oh, right, you use that other OS. Nevermind.

No you weren't! You just said that to try to make me feel bad! :rofl: But honestly? GTA IV blows...Vice City is still the best in my opinion. I don't like that game that much to be honest. But on a slightly less relevant note, you should totally try this thing called "Arch linux". It is really, REALLY fast. Looks better too. Costs a couple hundred dollars less then the crummy old OS you use now...

While the average linux user knows more than the average Windows user, it is by no means true that all linux users know more than all Windows users.

Well duh, there is an exception to every rule. But since the average linux user DOES know more then the average Windows user, like you said, then for most situations the linux user doesn't merely think that he knows more then the Windows user, he/she really does know more.

How much would be "enough," do you think? 12 hours a day? Because I'm already past that...

My god...The outside is a wonderful world too

I think you're in the vast minority when it comes to desiring this particular feature...and hasn't it already been established that Windows doesn't typically add features which would only be used by a fraction of a percent of its users?

Not really... I have personally met many people who want this exact same thing. You can't really say conclusively that I am in the vast minority who wants this feature. But as we are on the topic of Microsoft not typically implementing things used by a fraction of a percent of its users, how about UAC or the scroll-ctrl feature you just mentioned? I don't think anyone wants to be harassed by their OS anytime they want to move a file, and I hadn't even heard of the icon resize feature till now. I doubt many knew about it.

 

[TMac3000]

Boys, boys! Can't we all just get along?

As I said, I don't begrudge anybody their choice of OS. Windows has its uses: I plan to keep 7 on my netbook so I can do video editing and play a couple of my favorite games if I get stuck somewhere with nothing to do.

Linux is also good, and in fact I obviously prefer it. I didn't have to learn a great deal about the innards of Linux to use it, just how to use the package manager (which admittedly was a pain before I got my wireless network hooked up), and Ubuntu is even easier. Stuff tends to just work like in Windows, but without paying a dime for it If Linux ever makes it big on the desktop, Ubuntu will undoubtedly be the way it happens.