Why not give credit to other OSes they deserve

A

asifnaz

I started computing with Windows 95 and then windows 98 they both were great at their times . There was some stability issues but they were extremely user friendly and easy to use . And had very good support of available software .

Windows xp ...I started using windows xp in 2002 . It is beautiful (I wonder why people say it is ugly ) it has good compatibility with software and hardware .
There are drawbacks : Like viruses , worms , malware and slow downs(may be this because xp is most used OS in the world) .
But that can be avoided using security software and updating

Microsoft has fixed many things with windows 7 which is more secure and stable and if you are gamer its your ultimate destination .

I use Macbook with mac OS X . as it is unix like os it is very secure and stable . Its jaw dropingly beautiful and its great for professional use ( like video editing , photo , music composing editing etc)
Its cons
Pretty much no games for it
Harder to find programs for it Hardware you have to get through Apple

Linux:
I like linux because the liberty it has . The idea of free and open source is so good . Its stable and secure virus free .
It still have some hardware and software incompatibility issues .This is my opinion I am not presenting as fact .

I am looking for upcomming OS "Haiku"

I am really eager to know your response .
 
I agree with UNIXgod, but it need not be so. I take the thread title to mean that it is a good idea to look at the positive side of other OSs and not just the negative. Certainly I've found this to be a good tactic for myself. I used to be very anti Microsoft and would talk about the problems with their OSs. However, as I matured, I figured out that I really don't care how secure, or stable, or whatever, their software is. What I didn't like about Microsoft was not about that at all. What I didn't like has got to do with ethics and business practice, not software - or ever open/closed source. I'm sure many here know what I mean.

So I switched to keeping the arguments separate. I have never used MS-Windows myself (and never will) but I now recognize the value of XP as a very functional OS for many people. I hear many people talking about '98 the same way. They got to know it and were able to utilize it to their advantage. I've even seen some people who were able to operate Vista in a professional environment without security incident. Some people do make these things work and I can't ignore that. Because of professional commitments some people don't have a choice either.

My choices for giving credit though would go to some less mundane OS. How about QNX? That's much more interesting isn't it? However, my personal all-time choice would be DOS. I run a 16 bit dos machine to this day. It is completely structured by me and runs completely off batch files. It is very functionally networked, has cut and paste _everywhere_, command line completion, remembers and recalls screens in a single key stroke, most regular UNIX commands, and on and on - all the good stuff. And I love TSRs. It's deadly fast because mostly it runs in RAM, and best of all, it has no mouse and there is not any windows or related dysfunctional software anywhere about. It also needs no updating, even though there are a number of programs which go back to 1983. Funny how they still work, eh? Anyway, I can bend this environment to my needs and barely need to look at the screen any more because I know the environment. I think that the environment you know is the best one of all. It's like home - so that 's where my vote goes. :)
 
I use/d *DOS, Windows - from 3.0 up to Vista, MINIX and I-don't-know-how-many others. I recognize the pros and cons of every system I've ever used.

That's all I'll be saying.
 
The term "user-friendly" is a very personal point of view or marketing of companies like Apple and Microsoft. I didn't start with Windows or DOS, I started with a ZX81 and Apple II, used the Amiga, the Atari ST, Siemens Sinix, SGI Irix and sometimes even DOS and Windows 3.0 etc. The broader your experience the more different is your point of view about "user-friendliness" or "quality". There are some valid points about quality and user-friendliness even in Windows, but they are rare. That said, you picked the wrong community, usually Linux-communities tend to badmouth anything different than Linux. I do know a lot of people using some *BSD and additionally Windows or Apple operating systems.
 
Beastie:. . . I recognize the pros and cons of every system I've ever used.
Click to expand...

oliverh: The term "user-friendly" is a very personal point of view . . .
Click to expand...

Good points!

I'm just a hobbyist, but when I first became aware of the fact that there were a LOT of different operating systems, I felt like I should know at least a little about them. It just seemed like it was mandatory in this age of computers.
 
UNIXgod said:
The problem with a thread like this is that it's flame bait whether the op realized it or not.
Click to expand...

My intention was to have a healthy discussion not to flame bait . I've started playing with FreeBSD for some months now & ran FeeNAS the FreeBSD based NAS system for over a year. They were all great.

All of the systems are great, I truly appreciate that we have so much choice, both commercial & free. What doesn't suit one persons needs/desires is perfect for someone else. Otherwise they wouldn't exist.

As far as hating anybody, or any corporations are concerned; fortunately I don't.
 
I see this exact same topic brought up on other forums over and over again for many years so I don't see the point of it being brought up again and there's really nothing to gain from it.
 
I used to have a deep passion for OS choice, and then it subsided. I think my 15th birthday was in there somewhere.

People don't like being told that they're wrong or that their decisions were stupid. In the case of OSes, if you're not using the one that makes sense for the application, then you're using the wrong one. I believe, in my mind, that the choices I've made (OS selection or otherwise) have been the right ones. That said, you can find Microsoft Windows (not "Micro$haft Windaz") on my desktops, and FreeBSD on my servers. Maybe I'm wrong in using these two OSes, but I don't care to defend it or hear arguments against it. And if people think they know better, then I invite them to celebrate their intelligence on their own, because I just don't care to hear about it.
 
what !!!

who said that we are not , please don't make assumption if you want to thank xp or linux go to there forum and thank thim as you want .......
 
oliverh said:
The term "user-friendly" is a very personal point of view or marketing of companies like Apple and Microsoft.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Now that I think about it, it tends to conflate two different terms - "easy to learn (without instruction)" and "easy to use". Evaluating software in the Windows universe comes down to two basic things - "does the job" and "user friendly", meaning that so long as it does the job, the software that is easiest to learn will be the best. But it leaves out any question of how efficient the software is to use after familiarization - which is a one-time expense.

Classic example - editors/vim. It is notoriously difficult to use without instruction. But after familiarization it is a very powerful, intuitive, and dare I say it, easy to use text editor. Those who are used to being spoon fed in the Microsoft universe will find it almost hard to believe that there can be something that is very difficult to use initially but is a better investment of your time to learn than any other editor, if you will be doing significant editing of text files.

Anyone good with money knows that small amounts of money every day will often trump much larger, one-time costs. So it is with much of the non-consumer OS world. Big investment of time up-front, gift that keeps on giving over time.
 
Yes, vim is a good counter-example to the argument that ease-of-use is the same thing as easy-to-learn. The commandline with any Unix shell is another.

But that raises the important question when evaluating any software: is it something that will be used often enough to repay the effort required to learn it?

If nobody will ever use it more than a few times a year, software should be designed on the assumption that every user is a novice. That puts a premium on easy-to-learn, because you essentially have only shot at teaching the user what to do.

So, in the spirit of the OP's request: I'll give Windows and OS X their due. They've mastered the art of designing apps that are rarely used. ;)
 
ckester said:
So, in the spirit of the OP's request: I'll give Windows and OS X their due. They've mastered the art of designing apps that are rarely used. ;)
Click to expand...

hahahahahaha
devilgrin.gif
 
In all fairness and respect I would have to give The Amiga the most.
Why you ask, here's the list...

* First personal computer to ship standard with a preemptive multitasking operating system
(Window3.1 and Macintosh System 7.0 still support less-efficient cooperative multitasking).
* First personal computer to Always came with a 3.5" floppy standard (no 5 1/4" drives)
* First personal computer to to use "long filenames" (filenames over 100 characters with spaces, etc.)
* First personal computer to support more than 16-color output as a standard feature.
* First personal computer with an inexpensive genlock option.
* First personal computer to ship with a standard double-sided 3.5" disk drive.
* First personal computer to include a two-button mouse as standard
(the new Power Macs still don't, hehe).
* First personal computer to offer a choice of command line and graphical user interface.
* First persoanl computer to include four-channel, digital sound on the motherboard.
* First personal computer to ship standard with speech synthesis.
* First (and unfortunately only) personal computer to ship with a keyboard garage.
* First personal computer to include plug-and-play (AutoConfig) expansion cards.
* First personal computer to have Proportional sliders (scrollbars)
* First personal computer to have The IFF format concept (via Electronic Arts--an Amiga company at the time)
* First personal computer to have The music module format (*.mod)
* First personal computer to have Datatypes
* First personal computer to have Multimedia years before the term ever existed
* First personal computer to have Multiple independant processors (what PC users would term 'local bus') for audio, video, I/O, (and more!) in use nearly a decade before it finally became available on the PC
* First personal computer to have Desktop video (via the Video Toaster)
* First personal computer to have Complete multi-language support for the OS and apps via simple and easy to use catalog files
* First personal computer to have Multiple simultaneous, draggable screens each with their own independant color depth and resolution
* First personal computer to have User-configurable preferences such as desktop fonts, screen modes, locale, sound, etc. (Byte magazine gave the Amiga kudos for this in a comparison between the Amiga, Mac and PC)
* First personal computer be used for raytracing and raytraced animation
* First personal computer to do emulation many years before Mac's or PC's got the idea

The proceeding information was pulled from the 100th issue of Amiga World and other Web sources.

Sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation...
 
drhowarddrfine said:
I see this exact same topic brought up on other forums over and over again for many years so I don't see the point of it being brought up again and there's really nothing to gain from it.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with discussion of other operating systems being brought up, that is if brought up in those other operating systems' forums - not here.

(comparisons - maybe to some extent - but not if trying to state which is better for the world)
 
rbelk said:
In all fairness and respect I would have to give The Amiga the most.
Why you ask, here's the list...
Click to expand...

Ahh, that were the days.

Please let me add some points to that list which may not be so well known:

- at least untill some years ago, A4000s were still in use at NASA for some kind of control job (because interrupt latency was better than most "hard real time OS"s)
- were used in some 3D-XRay machine due to the ability to swallow huge amounts of data by DMA into memory and then stream this onto HDs so the scanning process would not "hiccup" (their words, not mine) even for complete scans. Tripple buffering, i was told. Analysis was then done on other machines.
- was used in TV productions a lot due to the external video clock ability. I know of one call-in game here which is running on two A1200 in genlock mode.

Oh, and of course : it was fun to use!

*pats RKRM manuals*
 
Ask the same question to one thousand people, and you will get one thousand answers.
Ask that question on a few forums and you may receive one hundred replies.
Of all of the forums you asked this, which was the most mature?
 
Crivens said:
Oh, and of course : it was fun to use!
Click to expand...

I second that; it was fun to use.
One of the things I liked most about Amiga and it's os was ARexx. No, not the language itself, but the idea that all programs had an ARexx ports and a set of commands to remote control it from a simple ARexx program. Much easier than today's solutions (dbus etc.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top