Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Showing 1 of 28 conversations about:
General_Winter
64
Jun 3, 2018
bookmark_border
LCaseyKwhat does have to do with the quality of the product, EVERY windows machine in the past few years comes with WIN 10 by deafult, you can always change it back to windows 7 or linux or really whatever floats your boat
TheDarkTrumpet
128
Jun 26, 2018
bookmark_border
happytreesSome people don't like Windows 10. Me, being in that camp.
My issue more has to do with the distribution of packages and advertisements than anything else. With Windows 10, Microsoft went to of a trend of treating a PC like a smartphone. Installs of software and restarts as a result are really common, and difficult to turn off properly (even with GPO policies). Also, advertisements are not what I want on my desktop. In other words, I have no intention of playing Candy Crunch or whatever it's called.
That said, I have two machines (work and personal) which I use Windows 10 on. But, my point in posting is not everyone likes Windows 10, and there are likely good reasons why that's the case.
My issue more has to do with the distribution of packages and advertisements than anything else. With Windows 10, Microsoft went to of a trend of treating a PC like a smartphone. Installs of software and restarts as a result are really common, and difficult to turn off properly (even with GPO policies). Also, advertisements are not what I want on my desktop. In other words, I have no intention of playing Candy Crunch or whatever it's called.
That said, I have two machines (work and personal) which I use Windows 10 on. But, my point in posting is not everyone likes Windows 10, and there are likely good reasons why that's the case.
DickMcBalls
1
Jun 26, 2018
bookmark_border
TheDarkTrumpetTo each his or her own OS...
In today's computer landscape, there are only minor features that separate all the major operating systems. Most GUI operating systems have the same paradigms and patterns, just packaged differently. For example: applications run in a window that can be moved around, some sort of "desktop" exists where shortcuts can go, a dock or task/start bar has items for quick access, processes run in the background and can be managed by a process manager, etc.
The difference really comes down to personal preference, licensing costs, and specific software needs (such as graphic design software that will only run on MacOS, like Sketch).
Most modern hardware will support and run all major operating systems (MacOS is a bit tricky, but not impossible to get onto non-Apple hardware). Thus, avoiding a hardware purchase because of pre-installed software like an OS is ignorant and completely overlooks what really matters, which is the internal components of a machine. The way of the world is interchangeability and software (including operating systems) is largely that way.
In today's computer landscape, there are only minor features that separate all the major operating systems. Most GUI operating systems have the same paradigms and patterns, just packaged differently. For example: applications run in a window that can be moved around, some sort of "desktop" exists where shortcuts can go, a dock or task/start bar has items for quick access, processes run in the background and can be managed by a process manager, etc.
The difference really comes down to personal preference, licensing costs, and specific software needs (such as graphic design software that will only run on MacOS, like Sketch).
Most modern hardware will support and run all major operating systems (MacOS is a bit tricky, but not impossible to get onto non-Apple hardware). Thus, avoiding a hardware purchase because of pre-installed software like an OS is ignorant and completely overlooks what really matters, which is the internal components of a machine. The way of the world is interchangeability and software (including operating systems) is largely that way.
RayF
22218
Jun 30, 2018
bookmark_border
DickMcBallsThat's about the dumbest defense/non defense of whatever the hell you were trying to say, I've read all damn day! If you think "minor features" somehow catalogs the differences between a Windoze anything and an iMac or MacBook pro, you obviously haven't used either one in the last ten years.
I'll admit both are likely to have keyboards, but that's where the similarities end.
BTW: all windoze keyboards suck too--yeah, and their mice suck too. Did I mention their computers are crap? Yeah, I probably did--but I forgot to mention their operating system sucks even worse (like on a scale of 1 to 10, ten being the most suck there is in the universe), I'd give them a ten to the 14th power suck-rating.
Nothing "minor" about that!
I'll admit both are likely to have keyboards, but that's where the similarities end.
BTW: all windoze keyboards suck too--yeah, and their mice suck too. Did I mention their computers are crap? Yeah, I probably did--but I forgot to mention their operating system sucks even worse (like on a scale of 1 to 10, ten being the most suck there is in the universe), I'd give them a ten to the 14th power suck-rating.
Nothing "minor" about that!
General_Winter
64
Jul 1, 2018
bookmark_border
RayFYou're Avi really matches you
All you did was whine about windows without making any concrete points
For basic task you can do pretty much everything on an even footing, it's just preference and specfic needs
All you did was whine about windows without making any concrete points
For basic task you can do pretty much everything on an even footing, it's just preference and specfic needs
TheDarkTrumpet
128
Jul 1, 2018
bookmark_border
RayFI have to agree that @DickMcBalls was wrong on their criticism of my points, but the one thing that he was right on is, and this is pretty much the only thing:
> The difference really comes down to personal preference, licensing costs, and specific software needs (such as graphic design software that will only run on MacOS, like Sketch).
Although, incorrect about the first part. I'll do my best to explain what I mean. To be clear, all my criticisms here are for @DickMcBalls, I can only reply to one person specifically, but am tagging them.
Operating systems are classified into major "buckets" of sorts now days. Windows is by itself, OSX falls into the BSD category, and Linux into the Linux category. Each operating system classification varies very strongly from each other, with less of a varying between BSD and Linux, compared to either BSD or Linux to Windows. I'm ignoring embedded and mobile operating systems, as those require their own major posting like this. Major things that are different:
1) The kernel. BSD runs off the mach kernel (think like an onion), whereas the Linux one is more customizable. But, in general, Linux runs a similar idea as Windows does in the sense that the core kernel accepts libraries attached as less concern over the security and stability of the kernel itself. You can separate the layer on BSD, not so much on Windows/Linux (generally speaking)
2) The filesystem. Windows uses NTFS, and Linux/OSX/BSD use different systems. OSX uses their own file system, whereas Linux/BSD use ext3/reiserfs/etc. Why this matters is not only due to performance of the disk (how are the block size difference, does it need to be defragged, is it case sensitive, etc, etc, etc). Furthermore, related to this is the execution and reference paths related to programs being used. For example "/home/user/x" vs "c:\home\user" or the like.
3) How settings are stored. On Linux/BSD, it's more or less traditional to store settings in the home directory of the user. On OSX, there's a Library/Application Support, on Windows, it's generally the Registry.
4) The execution and bootup for the system itself. Linux/OSX/BSD have a bootloader that is a bit more customizable than Windows is. You have to use Linux-based bootloaders (Grub, etc) to dual boot in a windows environment. Also, on Linux there are runlevels, as is on BSD. OSX not so much, although they do exist and you can modify them. Windows, apart from Windows Server 2016+, all have a GUI and safe mode. They aren't the same thing, and operate very differently apart from each other.
5) Filesystem segmentation and execution. On Linux/OSX/BSD, you have a lot more customization about isolating applications into buckets, if need be. Think like Docker. Windows, that doesn't exist. You may be able to accomplish a very light version of that by working the library and paths, but it's not nearly as functional. In theory, you can chroot a linux system within a linux system (yes, I've done this), whereas you can't do the same on windows without resorting to the hyperv.
6) Application building. The libraries behind windows and linux variants differ to a very, very, extreme level. This mostly deals with linking, and it's more difficult to link to customized libraries in Windows, than Linux. This mostly has to do with how frameworks are released. I'm talking, specifically, about C++/C#/etc here. Most other languages can bundle the libraries together with the application, but not so easily with the MS ones. It's gotten better, but you may recall the notion of "dependency hell". This is the process of tracking down specific builds of libraries you need. This is also why many applications are installing .NET framework versions when you install applications. To be fair, linux isn't much better in this sense, but the problem is solved differently. Furthermore, statically compiled code is not cross platform, for the most part (yes there's a heavy disclaimer here since emulators do exist - such as wine). They have to be rebuilt. Also, different libraries are used to expose information to the user in a GUI. Windows has their own controls, which have to be emulated. On linux, there's gtk and a few others. gtk can run on windows, but the application still needs to be recompiled. Event handling is different, as well (as it is for IOS and mobile devices).
7) The shell. Windows implemented PowerShell some years ago, but only within the last few years has it really matured nicely to be usable. PowerShell is not equal to bash/etc, and they operate very very differently from each other. Personally, I'm growing more fond of PowerShell given this need.
The reason why I'm even bothering to type this all out is to really demonstrate specific ways that the operating systems are different from each other. Also, I could have spent the entire night typing up more examples, such as scheduling, expansions on the system (like the hyperv and how its execution is handled), and so on. To just claim that you can point and drag windows around as a "They operate, on the very front user level similar, they must be the same!" is asinine at best, and I'm trying to be nice here.
Windows sells more than Linux/OSX, so I don't blame the drop for including it. I realize that. Windows 10, though, is not a decision everyone likes - and I expressed a very specific reason why I dislike it, and more or less was condemned without explaining how to resolve that specific concern. Your first sentence should have been enough: "To each his or her own OS". To outright not cover my point, and claim that everything's the same was not helpful.
Also if you're asking for a source for my information. I have strong experience in Linux/Windows/OSX, and use all of them on a daily basis. I don't use BSD as much now days, but I have set up many, many machines and virtual machines with this software. I have a lot of experience in this field, something I've been doing now for over 20 years.
> The difference really comes down to personal preference, licensing costs, and specific software needs (such as graphic design software that will only run on MacOS, like Sketch).
Although, incorrect about the first part. I'll do my best to explain what I mean. To be clear, all my criticisms here are for @DickMcBalls, I can only reply to one person specifically, but am tagging them.
Operating systems are classified into major "buckets" of sorts now days. Windows is by itself, OSX falls into the BSD category, and Linux into the Linux category. Each operating system classification varies very strongly from each other, with less of a varying between BSD and Linux, compared to either BSD or Linux to Windows. I'm ignoring embedded and mobile operating systems, as those require their own major posting like this. Major things that are different:
1) The kernel. BSD runs off the mach kernel (think like an onion), whereas the Linux one is more customizable. But, in general, Linux runs a similar idea as Windows does in the sense that the core kernel accepts libraries attached as less concern over the security and stability of the kernel itself. You can separate the layer on BSD, not so much on Windows/Linux (generally speaking)
2) The filesystem. Windows uses NTFS, and Linux/OSX/BSD use different systems. OSX uses their own file system, whereas Linux/BSD use ext3/reiserfs/etc. Why this matters is not only due to performance of the disk (how are the block size difference, does it need to be defragged, is it case sensitive, etc, etc, etc). Furthermore, related to this is the execution and reference paths related to programs being used. For example "/home/user/x" vs "c:\home\user" or the like.
3) How settings are stored. On Linux/BSD, it's more or less traditional to store settings in the home directory of the user. On OSX, there's a Library/Application Support, on Windows, it's generally the Registry.
4) The execution and bootup for the system itself. Linux/OSX/BSD have a bootloader that is a bit more customizable than Windows is. You have to use Linux-based bootloaders (Grub, etc) to dual boot in a windows environment. Also, on Linux there are runlevels, as is on BSD. OSX not so much, although they do exist and you can modify them. Windows, apart from Windows Server 2016+, all have a GUI and safe mode. They aren't the same thing, and operate very differently apart from each other.
5) Filesystem segmentation and execution. On Linux/OSX/BSD, you have a lot more customization about isolating applications into buckets, if need be. Think like Docker. Windows, that doesn't exist. You may be able to accomplish a very light version of that by working the library and paths, but it's not nearly as functional. In theory, you can chroot a linux system within a linux system (yes, I've done this), whereas you can't do the same on windows without resorting to the hyperv.
6) Application building. The libraries behind windows and linux variants differ to a very, very, extreme level. This mostly deals with linking, and it's more difficult to link to customized libraries in Windows, than Linux. This mostly has to do with how frameworks are released. I'm talking, specifically, about C++/C#/etc here. Most other languages can bundle the libraries together with the application, but not so easily with the MS ones. It's gotten better, but you may recall the notion of "dependency hell". This is the process of tracking down specific builds of libraries you need. This is also why many applications are installing .NET framework versions when you install applications. To be fair, linux isn't much better in this sense, but the problem is solved differently. Furthermore, statically compiled code is not cross platform, for the most part (yes there's a heavy disclaimer here since emulators do exist - such as wine). They have to be rebuilt. Also, different libraries are used to expose information to the user in a GUI. Windows has their own controls, which have to be emulated. On linux, there's gtk and a few others. gtk can run on windows, but the application still needs to be recompiled. Event handling is different, as well (as it is for IOS and mobile devices).
7) The shell. Windows implemented PowerShell some years ago, but only within the last few years has it really matured nicely to be usable. PowerShell is not equal to bash/etc, and they operate very very differently from each other. Personally, I'm growing more fond of PowerShell given this need.
The reason why I'm even bothering to type this all out is to really demonstrate specific ways that the operating systems are different from each other. Also, I could have spent the entire night typing up more examples, such as scheduling, expansions on the system (like the hyperv and how its execution is handled), and so on. To just claim that you can point and drag windows around as a "They operate, on the very front user level similar, they must be the same!" is asinine at best, and I'm trying to be nice here.
Windows sells more than Linux/OSX, so I don't blame the drop for including it. I realize that. Windows 10, though, is not a decision everyone likes - and I expressed a very specific reason why I dislike it, and more or less was condemned without explaining how to resolve that specific concern. Your first sentence should have been enough: "To each his or her own OS". To outright not cover my point, and claim that everything's the same was not helpful.
Also if you're asking for a source for my information. I have strong experience in Linux/Windows/OSX, and use all of them on a daily basis. I don't use BSD as much now days, but I have set up many, many machines and virtual machines with this software. I have a lot of experience in this field, something I've been doing now for over 20 years.
RayF
22218
Jul 1, 2018
bookmark_border
TheDarkTrumpetWell Dark One, you raise some interesting points--for people like yourself, who know computers the way a Coroner knows a cadaver--which is to say: well, but not humanely. I don't say that's a bad thing, we need people who know enough about the blood and guts of a computer to build them in the first place, but as Windoze has proven over the years, that particular skill doesn't alway translate into a great user experience. While MS and Apple may share a few distant evolutionary genes, both companies and their operating systems split off to form two very different species a long, long time ago. Yes you can create a spreadsheet or type out an email message on either platform, but only after you've opened their respective boxes, plugged everything in and got them all up and running--I argue doing all that with an Apple product is measurably more enjoyable than on any Windoze box, even one designed by Porsche--and while were on that subject for a moment, does anyone in the universe not recognize that this and virtually every laptop created in the last ten years looks exactly like the the very thin, aluminum Apple MacBook they've all copied? Christ, does anyone even remember what laptops used to look like, before Apple introduced that form factor?
Now I'm the first to admit I have only a cursory understanding of what's actually going on inside the Apple products I own, but I'm intimately familiar with the interface that allows me to control them all. Apple's UI has been the standard by which all other have been judged for years. Apple user's don't bemoan a system update the way Windoze users seem to--you think any of us are still using System 7?!!! Of course not. On the other hand, despite the fact that a majority of computers in the world probably do run an MS OS, very few of them run the most current version of that OS. Why? Because it doesn't do what those users want it to do the way they want it done. We don't have that problem. We also don't have to suffer the slings and arrows of bloated third party commercialization--what we get in our OS is precisely what the creator has endowed it with, and nothing more.
Many years ago, I began using an Apple computer with a command line interface (an Apple III), since then I've watched Apple computers grow and evolve into today's current iMac design. Each iteration of software and hardware has improved the product and, equally important, the user experience. Over that time, I have occasionally been forced or required to use a Windoze equipped computer (and for the same reasons, have even run Windoze on my Apple laptops) and I can tell you unequivocally, each and every instance was painful and frustrating--made even more so because I could compare the task I was attempting in Windoze with the same task on a Mac--and frankly, there is no comparison. The fact that most Windoze users can't/don't compare the two computers side by side, to my mind, is the only explanation for why Windoze computers remain in the majority today--and frankly, I like it that way--it enhances my user-expeirance!
Many years ago, I began using an Apple computer with a command line interface (an Apple III), since then I've watched Apple computers grow and evolve into today's current iMac design. Each iteration of software and hardware has improved the product and, equally important, the user experience. Over that time, I have occasionally been forced or required to use a Windoze equipped computer (and for the same reasons, have even run Windoze on my Apple laptops) and I can tell you unequivocally, each and every instance was painful and frustrating--made even more so because I could compare the task I was attempting in Windoze with the same task on a Mac--and frankly, there is no comparison. The fact that most Windoze users can't/don't compare the two computers side by side, to my mind, is the only explanation for why Windoze computers remain in the majority today--and frankly, I like it that way--it enhances my user-expeirance!
DickMcBalls
1
Jul 10, 2018
bookmark_border
TheDarkTrumpetAll valid points, and things I am aware of and deal with on a daily basis -- I too work in IT and bounce between about 3 to 5 OS platforms a day (counting mobile device platforms), though I work on the software development side where it sounds like you are more on the IT administration side. Honestly, I was not directing my comment toward you, as your response made sense and was respectable -- I thought the only way to reply to the full thread was clicking "Reply" after the last comment.
I tried to keep my comments at a high level regarding OS similarities because the majority of consumer computer users only care about accomplishing tasks and have no clue what a kernel is or how applications are packaged. This is why Apple has been so successful because they've abstracted most of the "technical stuff" to provide the best experience. You and I know the struggles of debugging software on Windows versus Linux or getting drivers to work across systems, but for someone who just wants to check email, watch YouTube, write a document or spreadsheet, etc. those technical details largely do not matter (with the exception of the filesystem, due to Windows lack of HFS support without a 3rd party utility).
Nowhere did I make the claim that "the front end looks similar so they must be the same." If you boil down the essence of my comment it is more aligned with, "OS is personal choice and the modern world is on a path of technical convergence." The technical convergence part you've even conceded in some of your points about how much Windows has changed/improved; heck, there is now bash shell in Windows core as part of the Linux subsystem.
The way of the world is shifting from isolated camps and fanboys to unification and seamless integration. Open source and Docker play a big role in that, and I personally am not an advocate for one OS over another, they all have pros and cons (which you've succinctly started to outline in your prior comment). I think tech people understand this, but you'll still have ignorant folks that just see things for the marketing that goes into them and not the technological components.
The heart of what I'm getting at is that for general computer users, you can learn any modern GUI OS with relative ease because of the similarities in design patterns. It is the same as driving a gas-powered car then driving an electric-powered car: they perform the same functions with similar patterns (a steering wheel, instrument panel, etc) but under the hood they are much different and have trade-offs. And same as computers, you have haters that only see the brand of the car and tout that as the differentiating feature.
No offense meant to you good sir, and I appreciate your thoughtful comment and dialogue. It is refreshing to read rational comments grounded in facts, as opposed to opinions presented as facts with a conflation of unrelated ideas.
I tried to keep my comments at a high level regarding OS similarities because the majority of consumer computer users only care about accomplishing tasks and have no clue what a kernel is or how applications are packaged. This is why Apple has been so successful because they've abstracted most of the "technical stuff" to provide the best experience. You and I know the struggles of debugging software on Windows versus Linux or getting drivers to work across systems, but for someone who just wants to check email, watch YouTube, write a document or spreadsheet, etc. those technical details largely do not matter (with the exception of the filesystem, due to Windows lack of HFS support without a 3rd party utility).
Nowhere did I make the claim that "the front end looks similar so they must be the same." If you boil down the essence of my comment it is more aligned with, "OS is personal choice and the modern world is on a path of technical convergence." The technical convergence part you've even conceded in some of your points about how much Windows has changed/improved; heck, there is now bash shell in Windows core as part of the Linux subsystem.
The way of the world is shifting from isolated camps and fanboys to unification and seamless integration. Open source and Docker play a big role in that, and I personally am not an advocate for one OS over another, they all have pros and cons (which you've succinctly started to outline in your prior comment). I think tech people understand this, but you'll still have ignorant folks that just see things for the marketing that goes into them and not the technological components.
The heart of what I'm getting at is that for general computer users, you can learn any modern GUI OS with relative ease because of the similarities in design patterns. It is the same as driving a gas-powered car then driving an electric-powered car: they perform the same functions with similar patterns (a steering wheel, instrument panel, etc) but under the hood they are much different and have trade-offs. And same as computers, you have haters that only see the brand of the car and tout that as the differentiating feature.
No offense meant to you good sir, and I appreciate your thoughtful comment and dialogue. It is refreshing to read rational comments grounded in facts, as opposed to opinions presented as facts with a conflation of unrelated ideas.
Citroen2cv
1
Jul 25, 2018
bookmark_border
DickMcBallsWhat a civilized, beautifully written comment. Nice to wake up to -- thank you.
Ortep
67
Nov 10, 2018
bookmark_border
TheDarkTrumpetWhile I certainly get the "not everyone likes", I installed Win10 on an old desktop (well, old but *well* endowed) and I don't see ads or any of that.
I wonder what I did differently?
TheDarkTrumpet
128
Nov 11, 2018
bookmark_border
OrtepWhen did you install it? Was it pretty recently? Did you install the home version, pro version, or education version? Each act a bit differently, and given that MS is no longer giving out licenses, they may have curtailed the ads for those that pay for it.
Here's an article that talks about the settings, what shows up, and how to remove them. It's about a year old, but I still see some of these ads - specially ones from the MS Store.
https://www.howtogeek.com/269331/how-to-disable-all-of-windows-10s-built-in-advertising/
Drop Refurbished
Like-new products you can trustDrop Rewards
Get $5 for every 500 points you earn! Learn more
Drop Keyboard Club
Become a member and expand your keycap collectionCollaborate With Us
For Brands & DesignersFollow Drop