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

[thepenguin]

There really isn't any good reason to upgrade if XP does everything you need/want it to do.

 

[malisle]

Totally offtopic:

I misread "XR End of Support" :huh:

 

[Swigert]

I upgraded to Windows 7, if I remember correctly, in the fall of '13, so I have nothing to worry about...Unless in a few years, they end the support of 7.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

People still use DOS.

Believe it or not, apparently some Hydrology software is still only available on DOS. An older student taking some courses for a certification mentioned that it was quite a pain to try and find a computer that could still run DOS while printing the results. :facepalm:

But I guess DOS was pretty efficient compared to a lot of what followed...

 

[garyw]

Believe it or not, apparently some Hydrology software is still only available on DOS. An older student taking some courses for a certification mentioned that it was quite a pain to try and find a computer that could still run DOS while printing the results. :facepalm:

But I guess DOS was pretty efficient compared to a lot of what followed...

Not the brightest student then?

Start -> Cmd

Oh look, DOS.

Other alternatives are DOSBox and virtualbox so that you can run DOS as a VM.

I upgraded to Windows 7, if I remember correctly, in the fall of '13, so I have nothing to worry about...Unless in a few years, they end the support of 7.

If it's service pack one then Windows 7 will be out of mainstream support on January 13th 2015 and out of extended support January 14th, 2020.

 

[kamaz]

Not the brightest student then?

Start -> Cmd

Oh look, DOS.

1. cmd.exe shell, despite visual similarity, is not DOS.

2. DOS (16-bit) programs cannot be run on 64-bit windows. On 32-bit windows, 16-bit software is supported using the WoW quasi-virtualization scheme. However, on 64-bit windows WoW is used to run 32-bit programs, and you cannot have WoW-on-WoW, so, no 16-bit software for you. Sorry.

3. DOS programs cannot access windows printers. You can get this to work only if you have a 1980s era printer connected to a parallel port. (And even this requires some trickery, since Windows blocks DOS software from direct hardware access). Otherwise, DOS does not know USB.

Other alternatives are DOSBox and virtualbox so that you can run DOS as a VM.

Ahem, did you ever try to print something from inside a VM? The only to options are printing over the network, or connecting the USB device to the VM. Since DOS doesn't support networking (*) or USB, you're still not gonna be able to print anything.

(*) I remember that later versions of DOS you could get them to talk to windows machines over the network using the packet driver and get file sharing, but don't remember if you can print this way.

 

[garyw]

1. cmd is an evolution of DOS.

2. True enough about the 16 bit programs.

3. Yes, I know this as well, print to a file then copy to the host?

Considering that I've supported 2,000 seat VDI solutions, yes, I have gotten things to print from a VM.

DOS can support networking via shell extentions. I started out connecting DOS based machines to a Novell netware box. over IPX/SPX.

 

[kamaz]

1. cmd is an evolution of DOS.

Sort of, but it does not mean that you actually have 16-bit DOS inside that window, as cmd.exe is a win32 application.

3. Yes, I know this as well, print to a file then copy to the host?

If the vintage application you use can print to the file.

---------- Post added at 08:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------

DOS can support networking via shell extentions. I started out connecting DOS based machines to a Novell netware box. over IPX/SPX.

:thumbup: Yes, but this knowledge is quite arcane nowadays...

 

[Thunder Chicken]

My primary computer is an Asus netbook that I purchased just 4 years ago with Windows XP installed. What people forget is, yeah, XP has been around for 13+ years, but it was being sold on NEW equipment up until a few years ago.

Even so, XP EOL would be perfectly acceptable if Microsoft just gave me a reasonable option to upgrade. They did not. I can't upgrade this netbook to Windows 7 because it is not available anymore for non-OEM installation or to 8.* because of the specs. So if I really wanted to stick with Windows, I'd have to buy a whole new machine. Even with Microsoft's ridiculous $100 upgrade "incentive", this is a terrible expense just to get back to the simple capability I had with XP. All I typically use this machine for is internet, email, spreadsheets and documents (and the odd Orbiter session, of course). I have no need for more bells and whistles and certainly not for a touch interface, thanks.

I've used UNIX/Linux workstations at work and dabbled with Debian and Ubuntu at home years ago and found that they were NOT ready to use "right out of the box". A lot of things that were seamless in other operating systems, like connecting to wireless, printers, peripherals, etc.. required a lot of fiddling in the terminal. To me, it felt like purchasing a brand new car and finding that the tires were not included as the manufacturer didn't see the need for them. A GUI seemed to be something to be sneered at by the Linux community - if you weren't writing machine code to print a document then you were not worthy of Linux, it seemed.

However, over the last month I made a bootable USB drive and put several modern Linux distro ISOs on it and have been experimenting with them, and I just wiped my machine and installed Linux Mint 13 LTS yesterday. I have to say that Linux has cleaned up nicely since the last time I played with it and it really is ready for prime time now, at least in Mint. Everything just works. I had wireless connected with a password authorization in a few seconds after login. I even got my printer and scanner up and running after about 10 minutes after a brief search for drivers. Package management is easy now. The desktop is not laid out exactly like Windows but everything is intuitive and obvious, so the learning curve is nearly non-existent. It's clean and no nonsense. LibreOffice came with the distro and works with all of my old MS Office documents and spreadsheets, again not exactly the look of Office software but intuitive enough that there is hardly any learning curve. The really nice thing is the lack of bloatware.

24 hrs after leaving XP I am up and running comfortably on Linux Mint and doing everything on a computer that I ever wanted to do (I even got Orbiter running under Wine).

Microsoft basically told me that they didn't want someone with my computing needs as a customer, so they left me with no other option than to migrate to Linux. I'm not sure what their business plan is, but I'll never be their customer again, that's for certain.

 

[n122vu]

I received this in a TechRepublic newsletter last week. It looks promising.

Let Zorin OS pick up where Windows XP left off

 

[Hielor]

Microsoft basically told me that they didn't want someone with my computing needs as a customer, so they left me with no other option than to migrate to Linux. I'm not sure what their business plan is, but I'll never be their customer again, that's for certain.

So wait, it's Microsoft's fault that you bought a low-end machine that wasn't capable of running the latest operating system at the time, and isn't able to run more recent ones either?

 

[Linguofreak]

1. cmd is an evolution of DOS.

The user-interface side of cmd is an evolution of the UI side of command.com. Other than that, cmd is a user-space NT application that is of no help in running DOS application software (which is handled by ntvdm, if at all).

---------- Post added 03-30-14 at 00:31 ---------- Previous post was 03-29-14 at 23:45 ----------

2. DOS (16-bit) programs cannot be run on 64-bit windows. On 32-bit windows, 16-bit software is supported using the WoW quasi-virtualization scheme. However, on 64-bit windows WoW is used to run 32-bit programs, and you cannot have WoW-on-WoW, so, no 16-bit software for you. Sorry.

It's not an issue of not being able to do WoW-on-WoW. It's a matter of v86 mode and segmentation not being available in compatibility mode under any operating system (without VT-x extensions on the processor or CPU emulation in the VDM), and DOS and Win16 applications not being able to run without them. If v86 mode and segmentation were available in long mode, WoW-on-Wow wouldn't be necessary to run 16-bit applications (you'd just have WoW64to16 and WoW64to32), and without them (or some workaround for their absence) WoW-on-Wow is not sufficient to run 16-bit applications.

To nitpick my own argument, a very small subset of DOS and Win16 prorgrams actually could run in compatibility mode: 16-bit pointer widths can be used in compatibility mode, so a tiny memory model DOS or Win16 program that never attempted to use any far pointers (a few more restrictions would probably be necessary), could, in principal, run.

---------- Post added at 00:46 ---------- Previous post was at 00:31 ----------

Microsoft basically told me that they didn't want someone with my computing needs as a customer, so they left me with no other option than to migrate to Linux. I'm not sure what their business plan is, but I'll never be their customer again, that's for certain.

I'm certainly all for Linux and have my share of bones to pick with Microsoft, but I have to agree with Hielor: XP hitting end of life is not a great reason to switch.

 

[jedidia]

I skipped XP and went directly to 7... from 2000, which hadn't had any support for years at that time :shifty:

So, XP users can probably use their OS a few years more if they want to. Just get readdy to do some serious dll wrapping if you want to get the new games to run... :lol:

EDIT: And while writing this, the whole thread migrated, confusing the hell out of me :blink:

 

[garyw]

So wait, it's Microsoft's fault that you bought a low-end machine that wasn't capable of running the latest operating system at the time, and isn't able to run more recent ones either?

You could say the same about the gaming industry.

"What? This game needs 4GB RAM and a graphics card?! That's it! The gaming industry doesn't want me as a customer!"

It's a very daft argument, much like to saying 'Compared to DOS, Windows 7 is bloatware'.

As someone who has worked in the IT industry for 20 years and had my run ins with Microsoft, VMWare, Novell, NetApp and other vendors I do have to wonder why people grow so attached to hardware that was probably out of date when they bought it. Even my mother who is not exactly computer literate understands the need to upgrade.......

EDIT: And while writing this, the whole thread migrated, confusing the hell out of me :blink:

Sorry, we decided to move the whole thing into the OS wars mega-thread as it was heading that way. I hope I didn't accidentally chew on your post during the move!

 

[Ripley]

Totally offtopic:

I misread "XR End of Support" :huh:

Now, THAT would be a tragedy!

 

[Thunder Chicken]

So wait, it's Microsoft's fault that you bought a low-end machine that wasn't capable of running the latest operating system at the time, and isn't able to run more recent ones either?

My machine was plenty adequate for XP, and Windows 7 didn't come preinstalled on those machines at the time. XP did everything I needed on a relatively small footprint. Windows 7 is now only available on new machines, and Windows 8 is too big to work on my machine.

I don't think it is Microsoft's fault that I bought my current machine, but it IS their fault that they are trying to railroad me into buying all new hardware and an OS far more bloated than suitable for my needs. Microsoft is telling me that I need to buy a big new shiny computer just so I can buy their big new shiny operating system, an OS where I won't ever use half of the so-called "improved features". For what reason would I want to pay for stuff I don't want or use? Microsoft is merely trying to maintain perpetual market growth, nothing else.

PCs, laptops, and net books met and exceeded the specs for speed and memory for my computing needs over 10 years ago. I don't need bigger & faster anymore. I need a simple, light, supported OS that is reasonably secure and can run a browser, spreadsheet, and document software. That's ALL I need, and all I have needed for the last 10+ years. My current hardware is more than up to the task. I just need an OS that will permit this.

A car analogy - I have a very serviceable, lightly-used station wagon that does everything I need it to do (commute to work, run errands, etc). Microsoft desperately wants to sell me a $400,000 Lamborghini just to do the same job. A $400,000 Lamborghini is a ridiculous extravagance and a waste of money considering what I need in a car.

 

[thepenguin]

You could say the same about the gaming industry.

"What? This game needs 4GB RAM and a graphics card?! That's it! The gaming industry doesn't want me as a customer!"

Gary, to be honest, needing 4GB of RAM and an advanced graphics card to run qualifies as bloatware in my book. (Orbiter claims needs 512MB of RAM, for comparison...)

At risk of venturing into basement territory:
Personally, I find the default Orbiter install far too bloated for most purposes, and so I trim it down even further. However, the difference with Orbiter is that we are able to modify and trim down the simulator. Many games don't even give the opportunity to "optimize" the game by removing excessive and unused features, and so I have to call them what they are: bloatware.

It's one thing to use 4GB if you were calculating something like fluid dynamics that has a good reason to use that much power, but using that much memory and CPU power for a game is just excessive.

 

[Hielor]

My machine was plenty adequate for XP, and Windows 7 didn't come preinstalled on those machines at the time. XP did everything I needed on a relatively small footprint. Windows 7 is now only available on new machines, and Windows 8 is too big to work on my machine.

XP was not the "latest operating system" at the time. You bought a machine that was very low specs, and are acting all surprised that it doesn't run modern software.

I don't think it is Microsoft's fault that I bought my current machine, but it IS their fault that they are trying to railroad me into buying all new hardware and an OS far more bloated than suitable for my needs. Microsoft is telling me that I need to buy a big new shiny computer just so I can buy their big new shiny operating system, an OS where I won't ever use half of the so-called "improved features". For what reason would I want to pay for stuff I don't want or use? Microsoft is merely trying to maintain perpetual market growth, nothing else.

Or, you know, your out-of-date computer is...you know...out-of-date. Microsoft isn't "railroading you." You could maybe say that if they were threatening to flip some kind of switch and cause your existing stuff to stop working, but that's not the case.

If you don't want newer and fancier, that's great, but don't complain that you can't get newer and fancier software without having a newer and fancier machine.

PCs, laptops, and net books met and exceeded the specs for speed and memory for my computing needs over 10 years ago. I don't need bigger & faster anymore. I need a simple, light, supported OS that is reasonably secure and can run a browser, spreadsheet, and document software. That's ALL I need, and all I have needed for the last 10+ years. My current hardware is more than up to the task. I just need an OS that will permit this.

Then stick with XP? Nobody's forcing you to change.

A car analogy - I have a very serviceable, lightly-used station wagon that does everything I need it to do (commute to work, run errands, etc). Microsoft desperately wants to sell me a $400,000 Lamborghini just to do the same job. A $400,000 Lamborghini is a ridiculous extravagance and a waste of money considering what I need in a car.

More correct analogy (dates made up to make more sense in the car world)--when you bought a car in 1990, you picked up a station wagon from the late 1970s. Now you're complaining that the latest-and-greatest in-dash MP3/nav system doesn't work in your ancient car, and blaming the MP3/nav system maker for "forcing you" to buy a newer car in order to make use of their product.

Well, yeah. That's technological progress. And no, you don't need the $400k Lambo. A $10k used model from a couple years ago can support the MP3 player and nav system just fine.

Gary, to be honest, needing 4GB of RAM and an advanced graphics card to run qualifies as bloatware in my book. (Orbiter claims needs 512MB of RAM, for comparison...)

...

It's one thing to use 4GB if you were calculating something like fluid dynamics that has a good reason to use that much power, but using that much memory and CPU power for a game is just excessive.

I think you vastly underestimate the amount of computing power needed for the kind of graphics that are expected of modern games. 4GB is perfectly reasonable for what computer gamers expect to see in modern games.

 

[Linguofreak]

My machine was plenty adequate for XP, and Windows 7 didn't come preinstalled on those machines at the time. XP did everything I needed on a relatively small footprint. Windows 7 is now only available on new machines, and Windows 8 is too big to work on my machine.

Win8's minimum RAM and disk requirements are no greater than Win7's. There are reasons Win8 wouldn't work on a netbook of that age, but they don't relate to storage space or performance (because Win8 is targeted at mobile use, so it needs to fit into a smaller package compared to the current state of the art than Win7 did).

I don't think it is Microsoft's fault that I bought my current machine, but it IS their fault that they are trying to railroad me into buying all new hardware and an OS far more bloated than suitable for my needs. Microsoft is telling me that I need to buy a big new shiny computer just so I can buy their big new shiny operating system, an OS where I won't ever use half of the so-called "improved features". For what reason would I want to pay for stuff I don't want or use? Microsoft is merely trying to maintain perpetual market growth, nothing else.

The thing is, it's wise to replace your hardware every 3 to 5 years anyways (at the very least, to budget on the assumption that you will, especially when it's consumer hardware as cheaply built as a netbook), before the requirements of the OS or software stack you're using even come into play.

Microsoft is just acting on the assumption that we will replace our hardware every 3 to 5 years and designing OS's based on what they anticipate the specs of our will be. I have plenty of problems with their business practices, on account of which I don't buy their software, but this isn't one of them.

A car analogy - I have a very serviceable, lightly-used station wagon that does everything I need it to do (commute to work, run errands, etc). Microsoft desperately wants to sell me a $400,000 Lamborghini just to do the same job. A $400,000 Lamborghini is a ridiculous extravagance and a waste of money considering what I need in a car.

The issue is more like a Lamborghini today selling for the price that a Corolla sold for 4 years ago.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

XP was not the "latest operating system" at the time. You bought a machine that was very low specs, and are acting all surprised that it doesn't run modern software.


Or, you know, your out-of-date computer is...you know...out-of-date. Microsoft isn't "railroading you." You could maybe say that if they were threatening to flip some kind of switch and cause your existing stuff to stop working, but that's not the case.

If you don't want newer and fancier, that's great, but don't complain that you can't get newer and fancier software without having a newer and fancier machine.


Then stick with XP? Nobody's forcing you to change.


More correct analogy (dates made up to make more sense in the car world)--when you bought a car in 1990, you picked up a station wagon from the late 1970s. Now you're complaining that the latest-and-greatest in-dash MP3/nav system doesn't work in your ancient car, and blaming the MP3/nav system maker for "forcing you" to buy a newer car in order to make use of their product.

Well, yeah. That's technological progress. And no, you don't need the $400k Lambo. A $10k used model from a couple years ago can support the MP3 player and nav system just fine.


I think you vastly underestimate the amount of computing power needed for the kind of graphics that are expected of modern games. 4GB is perfectly reasonable for what computer gamers expect to see in modern games.

I don't think you are actually reading my comments carefully, or at all. I am speaking to MY needs. YOU may need games and graphics and etc.. That's fine, but *I* do not. YMMV. I specifically DO NOT need or want newer or better anything. That is my point.

Also, I don't think a 4 year old net book with two 1.6 GHz processors, 1 GB RAM, and 120GB disk space is anywhere near low-spec or obsolescent, especially if all I am doing is web-browsing, spreadsheets, and document editing (did you read that part?). It works as well as the day I purchased it and I can still get parts for it if needed, so your 1970s station wagon analogy fails pretty badly, I'm afraid. At worst I am driving a well-maintained 2010 model station-wagon that just rolled past it factory warranty period. It still has lots of miles in it.

Really, you're telling me that if I just want to use a computer for browsing, spreadsheets, and document editing, I should drop a few hundred bucks every Christmas to make sure I have the most shiny, cutting-edge, high-spec rig on the market, just because? Sorry, but that would be just plain stupid.

---------- Post added at 07:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------

The thing is, it's wise to replace your hardware every 3 to 5 years anyways (at the very least, to budget on the assumption that you will, especially when it's consumer hardware as cheaply built as a netbook), before the requirements of the OS or software stack you're using even come into play.

Why exactly is this "wise"? If my hardware is in good condition, why get rid of it? Can you point me to some data about hardware failure rates, etc..? I'm not arguing with you, but I want some proof.

I could see a company ensuring their hardware was new and updated because an unexpected failure would affect operations. But if my netbook died tomorrow, no big loss. My files are backed up and it was only $300 a few years ago. Why shouldn't I run my hardware until it fails?