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

[AirSimming]

And Vista was nothing more than a faster/slightly improved (or slower/less-improved, depending on your point of view) XP, which was itself nothing more than a faster/slightly improved Win2000 targetted at home users as well...

This is how OS development works. You don't start from scratch every time, you build on what's already there.

Moreover, "it really sucks somehow" isn't a particularly valid or useful point. You say it's nice and fast, but that it sucks. How does it suck?

That an operating system is based on its previous version is not a surprising news.

That's the thing:

Windows 7 is a benefit for former Vista users. It renownedly runs faster and more stable. It also doesn't cause too much confusion in terms of the user interface. For people, basically non-gamer, who still use XP and are just fine with it, Windows 7 is not a benefit just as Vista was not. It turns out to be slower than XP in daily usage, and to a lot of people the user interface seems rather confusing in comparison. Especially the start menu is something I personally don't like in Windows 7 at all. Even if you change to the classic Windows user interface, the start menu remains impractical to my taste. You have to fool Windows 7 (i.e. find hidden folders etc.) to at least make the start menu a little bit of what could be called individually adjusted.

The basic question to me is: why should I change a perfectly running OS that even Microsoft and for example NASA does not change? They still widely use XP (even at Mission Control in Houston), and if my eyes get it right you'll see even Windows 2000 on NASA laptops. The company I worked for until last summer also still uses XP Germany-wide. No change within sight at all. And not only that there is the XP mode for Windows 7 (which is actually a crap mode that does not even support drivers), but Microsoft also offers business clients downgrade versions of Windows 7 until 2011. I don't play new games and I can easily dispense with DX10 and/or 11. I'm using Orbiter, SSM2007 (both based on OpenGL) and MSFS 9. Why should I change? If you use the computer just for office work, you don't even need to think about a change. Office 2007 runs perfectly in Windows 7. But a lot of companies even still use Office 2003. I've made a screening test last week, and it was done using Office 2003 among other things...

The big difference between XP and previous M$ OS versions is that XP managed to be widely used for amolst a decade. This is something that won't happen to Vista and in my point of view won't happen to Windows 7 as well. Humans are creatures of habit. That's why you hear so much complaining about a new M$ OS. You pay for being confused and slowed down with the next version. And they intend to do it more frequently now that XP stayed that long and still stays. This strategy might fail in the long term, and as I see it, it already is failing actually.

 

[MeDiCS]

Computers are nothing more then tools, no knowledge of how a computer works should be required to use it as a tool. A good, well written program should only let the user focus on issues that the program is written to solve. If "bad things happen", that is a short coming of the programmer.

In an ideal world, yes. But until bugs are extinct and there's no difference between you and your computer, a minimum level of knowledge is required on how to use it and how to remedy certain issues.

I don't really understand. You can't tell me that the vast majority of the drivers know anything about the internal workings of their automobiles... I certainly don't, and I have yet to cause an accident or receive an infraction. I don't expect myself to get one either, and I don't expect other people who don't know how their cars work to get one.

You can drive a car without knowing how an internal combustion engine works internally, but you need to know what gearbox is for, how and when to change gears, how to stop the car, how to accelerate it, how to fix certain problems, what not to do and lots of other things. You can't just say 'go to x', and the car will promptly respond. You have to make it go there.

It's the same situation for any kind of tool. We're not in an ideal world where knowledge is not a prerequisite for their use.

 

[AirSimming]

We're not in an ideal world where knowledge is not a prerequisite for their use.

That's true. Especially Windows is made for the stupid user who does not need to know a lot about computers (Linux is different to handle for example). I've fixed issues in Windows (mostly caused by careless and rash usage) on peoples laptops who didn't even know what a driver exactly is and does. I had to explain that. But they work with the laptop for years.

Oh, by the way, being aware that Windows is for the stupid user does not mean that I'm smart! :lol:

---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:50 PM ----------

You forgot for Windows ME. :lol:

It was that much increadibly slow and unstable that it's not even worth mentioning :lol:

Honestly, I don't know any OS which was that much terrible.

 

[garyw]

Windows is made for the stupid user who does not need to know a lot about computers

Thanks for turning 90% of what I do into "stupid user who doesn't know a lot".

Care to explain Active Directory to me then as obviously I've missed the "stupid user" bits of some of the finer elements of this system.

 

[Loru]

Windows is made for the stupid user who does not need to know a lot about computers

Thank you very much. Should I need to dig up my c64 and start using BasicOS or change my nickname to "Stupid User" from now?

 

[Ghostrider]

That's true. Especially Windows is made for the stupid user who does not need to know a lot about computers (Linux is different to handle for example).

Windows - and other commercial OSs - is made for the user who has no time or inclination to learn a dumptruckload of stuff about computers that he doesn't need to know.

Would you call a neurosurgeon "stupid" because he's got more important stuff to do with his time than learning how his PC works? I know how to use a CLI, I've been using all sorts of OSs since CP/M was around, but honestly the time when you needed to know how a computer worked in order to use it is long past. Once upon a time pilots knew how to maintain their planes, now you have crews who take care of that.

Time is money. You can't ask professionals to waste time learning a trade they will never need. I know how you feel because I can't remember the times I've been asked to fix someone's computer because of this and that (by the way the answer is "NO") but there has been a lot of progress between Windows versions. Besides, the CLI is always there if you need it.

What scares me is locked-down stuff like the iPhone and its relatives. I wouldn't want a future where my computer only responds to its maker and associate shareholders, and on which I can't tinker.

 

[Coolhand]

You can't ask professionals to waste time learning a trade they will never need.

Very true in my experience, nearly all the 3d artists i know use some flavour of windows, all the CAD places i've worked at also use entirely windows pc's. I have my complaints about windows and i'm sure linux is better in some areas, but i personally would never use it for anything. Even if it did run everything that windows could and more, its low cost would be offset by staff re-training so its basically cheaper to pay for windows.

I'm probably way off the mark but it always seemed to me like an OS for its own sake, perhaps something to shake in M$ piggy face and laugh like its going to give it nightmares, and like its the product of the people fighting back against the corporate machine or something and is therefore more worthwhile and noble an OS.

Which is great, but personally i look for the practical applications of software and for me there's a lot less opportunities with Linux and like many i don't want the complication of multiple OS installs which offsets the benefits of running both - if there even are any.

 

[AirSimming]

One can be sure that most neurosurgeons know how their tomographs and even the little desktop computer works. Also airline pilots for example learn more than just how to insert a route into the flight management system.

I'm reffering to people who know literally nothing about computers (and so complain that their systems do not run properly as a result). I'm reffering to a secretary who for example calls the admin because she has accidentally deleted one of her desktop shortcuts and so is almost panicking now (I've known it to happen!).

I guess that anyone here knows what a driver is and does and a lot more If somebody has to work with computers like neurosurgeons and lots of other occupational groups, a basic knowledge actually is asked. The seminars are not for nothing.

If you know almost nothing about Computers and what an OS is and does, you will have a difficult time with Linux for example. Windows, once installed, can be almost used by apes. That's what I mean.

 

[Enjo]

What do you mean by "dumbing down?"

Do you mean "increasing the capability of the system while also increasing its accessibility to end users?"

Because I fail to see how that's a bad thing. Are you honestly saying that navigating one's computer with a command line is better than having a GUI?

"Increasing the capability of the system while also increasing its accessibility to end users" would be the good part of it. Let me bring up a counter example: I wanted to partition my HDD on Vista, but I forgot the relic DOS fact that you can't have more than 4 primary partitions. Assuming that you've grown up on Vista, you wouldn't be even able to recall that fact, but instead you would accept the Vista's (dumbing down) proposal to create an "advanced partition" (or sth. I even failed to find info about it). So I though - why not? This move made my HDD unusable. Even trying to reinstall Vista didn't help, because the OS failed to support the HDD afterwards. What would somebody who didn't know the old / alternative OSes do? Pay God knows how much money to a tech savvy to fix it, while being unable to use the computer. I just fired up System Rescue CD (yes, Linux), and fixed / partitioned everything from there. I hope that this example explains my point.

I've also never said that GUI is worse than a command line (at least for everybody). This is far too big misinterpretation.

And Vista was nothing more than a faster/slightly improved (or slower/less-improved, depending on your point of view) XP, which was itself nothing more than a faster/slightly improved Win2000 targetted at home users as well...

This is how OS development works. You don't start from scratch every time, you build on what's already there.

The new "Search" function is hardly an improvement to me. Just because of that I'd downgrade to XP, but my hardware wouldn't accept it.

And to continue Vista bashing - the company where I work, bought new laptops with preinstalled Vista, but since we work on control engineering software, whose creators (Big companies with lots of cash) apparently didn't care too much about Vista, none of this software worked, so we had to downgrade all the laptops to XP.

So it seems that MS somehow started from scratch where it shouldn't have, and the rest, which was built on earlier versions, went broke. At least those parts which interest me the most.

I don't think that is a valid point. Who cares what the end user knows about the computer science that is used behind the OS? Computers are used as tools. A computer scientist may concern him/herself with the algorithms, techniques, etc behind an OS, but someone who is using the computer for easy billing doesn't need to know.

Maybe computer science wasn't a good word (I didn't mean algorithms), but as MeDiCS said - you need to know where the gearbox is or you either make an accident, or you're too dependent on others. A person needs to have at least one DIY skill, while the knowledge to use a computer is widely documented and you can experiment with it almost without any risks.

As Ghostrider said, people rarely have time and inclination to learn things that don't interest them, but for me this point is mostly valid for adults. The kids who have time and willingness to learn, IMHO shouldn't be taught in schools only to use the sponsored OSes ...
I still don't understand the adults around me, but hey, that's me.

Against the odds, I also agree with Gary, whose example shows that Windows also has advanced features that no other OS has, and they're clickable! But I, at least, wasn't talking about these parts of Windows.

 

[Linguofreak]

What do you mean by "dumbing down?"

Do you mean "increasing the capability of the system while also increasing its accessibility to end users?"

Oftentimes it means "The computer makes assumptions about what you're trying to do and tries to 'help'."

At best, it's annoying, like the Office Paperclip. At worst it can actively get in the way and make it considerably more difficult to get something done that would otherwise be fairly simple.

Because I fail to see how that's a bad thing. Are you honestly saying that navigating one's computer with a command line is better than having a GUI?

Other times "dumbing down" can mean that the designer assumes "nobody but the real techheads will use this feature. Let's remove it from this options dialog here and make it only accessible from the command line so that it doesn't confuse the 'average user'."

In such situations, the middle user who knows his way around but isn't necessarily a command line junky gets screwed over.

Moreover, "it really sucks somehow" isn't a particularly valid or useful point. You say it's nice and fast, but that it sucks. How does it suck?

Well, I personally find it horribly ugly. But it's not something that I particularly have against Vista/7, because the default settings for XP were ugly to, as are the default settings for every other major GUI you'll find nowadays (MacOS, KDE, GNOME, etc). It seems other people like bubbly, rounded-cornered interfaces a lot more than I do. So it's more a problem I have with the tastes of modern culture than it is with Vista/Aero.

 

[Hielor]

Apparently, people new to this thread aren't bothering to catch up on what's been said before. Rather than quoting people individually I'll just list out some of what was already established months ago in this 24-page-long thread:

-Windows 7 has new features over both XP and Vista. If you like those features, then sure, Win7 is great for you. However, expecting to get more features AND faster performance on the same hardware is just asking to get disappointed. If you don't use/like any of the features that Win7 adds, then feel free to stick with XP. No one is forcing you to move up.

- As for why XP stuck around so long, and accusations that Microsoft has plans to release new versions "more frequently," I had this to say more than a year ago:

Every major OS release prior to Vista was approximately 3 years after the previous one. Win7 is shaping up to be about 3 years after Vista. Vista was the anomaly.

XP was widely used for so long because Vista didn't do particularly well, so there wasn't a good replacement for it for most users for eight years. This isn't a surprise to anyone except those who aren't paying attention (or think there's some kind of grand conspiracy at work).

-As for Windows catering to "stupid" users...how else should it be? 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?

---------- Post added at 13:17 ---------- Previous post was at 13:15 ----------

"Increasing the capability of the system while also increasing its accessibility to end users" would be the good part of it. Let me bring up a counter example: I wanted to partition my HDD on Vista, but I forgot the relic DOS fact that you can't have more than 4 primary partitions. Assuming that you've grown up on Vista, you wouldn't be even able to recall that fact, but instead you would accept the Vista's (dumbing down) proposal to create an "advanced partition" (or sth. I even failed to find info about it). So I though - why not? This move made my HDD unusable. Even trying to reinstall Vista didn't help, because the OS failed to support the HDD afterwards. What would somebody who didn't know the old / alternative OSes do? Pay God knows how much money to a tech savvy to fix it, while being unable to use the computer. I just fired up System Rescue CD (yes, Linux), and fixed / partitioned everything from there. I hope that this example explains my point.

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?

 

[garyw]

If you know almost nothing about Computers and what an OS is and does, you will have a difficult time with Linux for example. Windows, once installed, can be almost used by apes. That's what I mean.

So once a windows server is installed and I'm there admistrating the likes of Active Directory, Exchange, Visual SVN, MS SQL I'm just an ape?

Thanks. No really thanks for that. I'll make a note to inform my work collegues that we, who specalise in windows server systems are just button pushing apes.

 

[computerex]

Frankly cars are not analogous to computers. If by 'basic knowledge' you guys mean (Enjo and medics) thing such as file manipulation (moving, copying, deleting, etc) then I agree with you, without that knowledge you'd be lost. You have to however stress the fact that programmers should keep things as simple as possible. Microsoft and Apple I think do an excellent job at this, presenting the user with an interface that is designed for the layman, and I think a lack there of is the prime reason why Linux has not been having as much success as a desktop computer.

 

[Linguofreak]

Windows - and other commercial OSs - is made for the user who has no time or inclination to learn a dumptruckload of stuff about computers that he doesn't need to know.

Would you call a neurosurgeon "stupid" because he's got more important stuff to do with his time than learning how his PC works? I know how to use a CLI, I've been using all sorts of OSs since CP/M was around, but honestly the time when you needed to know how a computer worked in order to use it is long past. Once upon a time pilots knew how to maintain their planes, now you have crews who take care of that.

Time is money. You can't ask professionals to waste time learning a trade they will never need. I know how you feel because I can't remember the times I've been asked to fix someone's computer because of this and that (by the way the answer is "NO") but there has been a lot of progress between Windows versions. Besides, the CLI is always there if you need it.

What scares me is locked-down stuff like the iPhone and its relatives. I wouldn't want a future where my computer only responds to its maker and associate shareholders, and on which I can't tinker.

Aye, although, arguably, the reason that locking down stuff like the iPhone works is that users don't have a good enough idea of what a computer actually is and does to realize how badly they're being screwed over. And a "dumbed down" interface can certainly make it difficult to tinker at times.

-As for Windows catering to "stupid" users...how else should it be? 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?

Not exactly. But for certain things there should be some level of expectation that the user will learn by doing and/or will get help from someone else.

---------- Post added at 13:17 ---------- Previous post was at 13:15 ----------


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?

Well, the point, I think, is that instead of giving options that made clear what exactly was going to be done, Windows was giving new "user friendly" names to concepts that he was already familiar with under more "technical" names, with each option quite possibly changing several settings at once.

So once a windows server is installed and I'm there admistrating the likes of Active Directory, Exchange, Visual SVN, MS SQL I'm just an ape?

No your not, but some of us sometimes get the impression from the Windows interface that the boys in Redmond *think* we're all button pushing apes.

Thanks. No really thanks for that. I'll make a note to inform my work collegues that we, who specalise in windows server systems are just button pushing apes.

Well, firstoff, I've never used a server edition of Windows, but I have a hunch that the server editions might be a wee bit less insulting than the desktop editions. Secondly, see above: It's not that any of us complaining about the dumbed-down interface think you're a trained monkey, it's that we feel like Microsoft is treating the whole lot of us like trained monkeys.

Frankly cars are not analogous to computers.

Not entirely, but sometimes I feel that when I open up the hood, Windows greets me with "Hi! It looks like you're trying to change a spark plug! Would you like some help?"

If by 'basic knowledge' you guys mean (Enjo and medics) thing such as file manipulation (moving, copying, deleting, etc) then I agree with you, without that knowledge you'd be lost. You have to however stress the fact that programmers should keep things as simple as possible.

As simple as possible without hiding useful options in obscure places, or making assumptions about the user's setup or what they want to do that hinder them if their setup or wishes differ from those assumptions.

Microsoft and Apple I think do an excellent job at this, presenting the user with an interface that is designed for the layman, and I think a lack there of is the prime reason why Linux has not been having as much success as a desktop computer.

I'm going to disagree here. GNOME on Ubuntu, at least, I find to be fairly decent. The biggest problem for Linux that it actually has control over is that of horribly inadequate documentation. The man pages are fairly good, but that assumes you know they exist. They also deal more with the behavior of CLI programs, or the CLI side of graphical programs. The help dialogs that you get from hitting the "help" button in a GUI window tend to be sparse, and, this is the real killer, for some reason the documentation always seems to be at least one version behind the program, such that the pictures you see and descriptions you read in the help dialogs don't match what you're actually working with.

To sum up: The problem with Windows is that it tries to help you when you haven't yet asked for help. The problem with Linux is that when you ask for help, it's often as not out of date, or otherwise unhelpful.

 

[Hielor]

Well, the point, I think, is that instead of giving options that made clear what exactly was going to be done, Windows was giving new "user friendly" names to concepts that he was already familiar with under more "technical" names, with each option quite possibly changing several settings at once.

Except that he clearly wasn't familiar with the concept, because he didn't use it correctly and ended up hosing his machine...

No your not, but some of us sometimes get the impression from the Windows interface that the boys in Redmond *think* we're all button pushing apes.

Well, firstoff, I've never used a server edition of Windows, but I have a hunch that the server editions might be a wee bit less insulting than the desktop editions. Secondly, see above: It's not that any of us complaining about the dumbed-down interface think you're a trained monkey, it's that we feel like Microsoft is treating the whole lot of us like trained monkeys.

Not entirely, but sometimes I feel that when I open up the hood, Windows greets me with "Hi! It looks like you're trying to change a spark plug! Would you like some help?"

To sum up: The problem with Windows is that it tries to help you when you haven't yet asked for help. The problem with Linux is that when you ask for help, it's often as not out of date, or otherwise unhelpful.

I've been using Win7 since Beta, and all of this talk of it being "insulting" and treating its users like "apes" really confuses me because I've never noticed any of it. Maybe at some point during install I clicked something or did something which turned all of what you're complaining about off, but can you give me a specific example of something which does this after the first time you've used it?

 

[AirSimming]

XP was widely used for so long because Vista didn't do particularly well, so there wasn't a good replacement for it for most users for eight years.

I think that XP still is used by a lot of people. Most polls I have seen show that XP still is used by the majority. Last year XP was called to hold a market share above 60% vs. 20% for Vista and if I remember right about 10% for Windows 7 even as of April this years.

Maybe the time span between XP and Vista was too long, combined with the problems of Vista and that it does not really offer reasons to change. People got accustomed to XP within many years. It improved a lot. We have SP3 meanwhile and it runs absolutely perfect, at least on my machine. There are new features in Vista and 7, yes, but I think that just as me, a lot of other users also don't see a need to scrap XP now that it runs fine for many years (never change a running system ). It would take years for 7 to outrun XP, but next year there'll be Windows 8 already, as far as I know. As for me: as long as there won't be a worthy FS9 replacement, I certainly still won't scrap XP once Windows 8 is released.

Oh, yes, I know, FSX is the intended replacement for FS9. But there we have the same issue as for Windows XP and the Vista/7: FS9 with all the tons of addons works great and the visual difference to FSX is not really significant (beside the resource-killing water and some really exaggerated glare and light effects and cartoonish graphics in general). I don't see a reason to get/buy all the addons again for FSX that look the same in FSX, and some even are not available for FSX. It would be hundreds of Euros to change both, XP and FS9 and all the addons, just to get the feeling of "wow, now I have something new".

No your not, but some of us sometimes get the impression from the Windows interface that the boys in Redmond *think* we're all button pushing apes.

I couldn't have said it any better

 

[Hielor]

I think that XP still is used by a lot of people. Most polls I have seen show that XP still is used by the majority. Last year XP was called to hold a market share above 60% vs. 20% for Vista and if I remember right about 10% for Windows 7 even as of April this years.

That's about right, although Win7 is up some and Vista is down some.

It would take years for 7 to outrun XP, but next year there'll be Windows 8 already, as far as I know. As for me: as long as there won't be a worthy FS9 replacement, I certainly still won't scrap XP once Windows 8 is released.

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

 

[dbeachy1]

OS Statistics data since 2003: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

 

[Linguofreak]

Except that he clearly wasn't familiar with the concept, because he didn't use it correctly and ended up hosing his machine...

You're missing the point. He was familiar with the *concept*, but not with the "user friendly" *language* being used to describe it.

I've been using Win7 since Beta, and all of this talk of it being "insulting" and treating its users like "apes" really confuses me because I've never noticed any of it.

Not even Clippy? (Which, admittedly, is part of Office rather than Windows, but still part of an MS product).

Maybe at some point during install I clicked something or did something which turned all of what you're complaining about off

More likely you did several somethings. Many (though I'm not sure all) of the features I'm talking about can be turned off, but only piecemeal, so that things a still popping up for weeks or months after you make a new install.

Or maybe you just have thicker skin than some of us.

, but can you give me a specific example of something which does this after the first time you've used it?

Well, at the moment I don't have a Windows system at hand, but I recall one thing from 9x/ME fairly well. In fact, it didn't have anything to do with settings, just the messages you got when a certain event happened:

Remember Scandisk? Remember how, whenever the machine got hard-rebooted for any reason it would say something along the lines of "You shut down your computer improperly. Scandisk will now check your disk(s) for errors. To avoid this message in the future, please always shut your computer down properly." The only problem was that, given the stability problems that 9x had, hard reboots were almost always the result of the thing locking up on you, which it did quite often. So here the thing is accusing you of being a ham-fisted button-pushing ape that needs to be trained a bit better on the proper procedure for pushing the "power" button, when in fact it had forced you to do a hard reboot that you would have preferred to have avoided.

They were attempting to explain things really well for non-technical users, but all they managed to do was give the thing a really insulting and condescending tone. Something along the lines of "Hard reboot detected, checking disk(s) for errors" would have been perfectly fine. And you couldn't avoid that message. If you were in a hurry you could skip the disk check, but it would always show that message when scandisk came up.

In any case, eventually I think there was a version of it that wasn't so horribly insulting, and when the home editions moved to the NT kernel with XP, the problem went away because: A) NT is a ton more stable, and B) Disk maintainance has been moved into the background (which is something I do prefer over Linux. A disk check every 30 boots is a bit annoying).

Now maybe it's just that I'm thin skinned, but there's stuff like this all over Windows, even though that particular example no longer applies.

 

[Hielor]

You're missing the point. He was familiar with the *concept*, but not with the "user friendly" *language* being used to describe it.

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.

Not even Clippy? (Which, admittedly, is part of Office rather than Windows, but still part of an MS product).

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

More likely you did several somethings. Many (though I'm not sure all) of the features I'm talking about can be turned off, but only piecemeal, so that things a still popping up for weeks or months after you make a new install.

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

Well, at the moment I don't have a Windows system at hand, but I recall one thing from 9x/ME...

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