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

[RisingFury]

What I don't understand is why an operating system needs to take 30 GB of my hard drive and 2 GB of my RAM. Does it come with 5 DVD quality movies or something? Microsoft Flight Simulator on my disk is at 16.7 GB. Operating system is 32 GB... what's going on there?!

When Vista was first introduced, the typical machine had 1 GB of RAM and Vista used like 800. There was also no graphics hardware yet out capable of running DirectX 10. <--- HIGH END GRAPHICS CARD TO RUN A FEATURE OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM! WHHHHYYYY???? :facepalm::facepalm:



If you want to look at a positive example of an OS, look no further than Chrome OS. What I would really kiss Microsoft's ass for is if I could get a Microsoft Windows Gamer operating system. I don't need to sync files to multiple computers. I got Dropbox or USB flash drives for that if I need to. I don't need an inbuilt email system. Got gmail for that. I don't need the operating system to ask me every time if I'm sure I want to open this .exe installer I just downloaded from the web. I know what I'm doing.

The problem I have is that Micorosft doesn't even give me the option to do what I want with my operating system. They just insist on treating me like a dumbass that will break everything.

 

[Eccentrus]

Thunder Chicken, your netbook may be 4 years old, but the technology inside that particular netbook is surely 8 years old, and if I were you, I would just keep using XP, it's like using an old VW Beetle from 1964 which doesn't have VW factory support anymore, it doesn't matter, if I keep liking it and I don't need computer controlled tranction controls and stuffs, I can still keep using it, nobody is forcing you to upgrade, and microprocessors tend to have 5-6 years of physical life under ordinary operation anyway (at least by me).

 

[Hielor]

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.

Er...then why are you complaining about not being able to get Win7 or 8? Why did you switch your machine off of a perfectly functional OS to try something newer?

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?).

Sorry, but you're rather out of date on what computers these days are doing. 1.6GHz and 1GB of RAM is definitely low-spec and obsolescent. Desktop computers in 2004 already were outperforming that.

And web-browsing isn't really a "low-power" task anymore--have you seen some of the major websites lately? Images and videos left and right that can easily bring an older system to its knees. That situation isn't getting any better. Having gotten used to a high-power machine for browsing the web, doing it on anything old and slow is just painful...

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.

Not really, no. You can still get parts for a 1970s station wagon if you know where to look, and I still see them driving around...

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.

Not even close. First off, computers have been advancing rather faster than cars have, and as pointed out, you're using a computer that's no better than 2005. Ten years in "computer years" is easily forty years in "car years" in terms of advancement.

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.

Absolutely not. Buying a new computer every year is for iTards with more disposable income than sense who treat computers as little more than fashion accessories.

There's a happy medium. Drop several hundred bucks every five years or so. Buy something that's decently powerful and at least a little future-proof (quite unlike your netbook, which as we've already said, was out-of-date several years before you bought it). You're going to be spending a ton of time with the computer, why shouldn't it be a fairly big purchase?

But then again, you already said your computer meets your purposes and you don't want to upgrade anyway...so I'm confused as to why you were complaining that you can't upgrade in the first place...

 

[kamaz]

And web-browsing isn't really a "low-power" task anymore--have you seen some of the major websites lately?

Adblock + Ghostery + (Flashblock or Noscript).

Works wonders.

 

[Urwumpe]

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...)

640 KB is all that you need. :rofl:

You maybe call DCS bloatware then. And you are right, nobody here needs it. But the hardware requirements (including the x86-64 requirement) are pretty well justified by the features and performance - so what?

Should an operating system have such high minimum requirements? Maybe not. But then, Windows has never been just an operating system. It is a minimal operating environment.

And this environment follows the same lifecycle processes as every product: Everybody has an expected product. And chooses the best among the extended products, that goes beyond the expectations - which then means, that the expected product becomes like the extended product.

No reason to complain about it. To run a computer, you only need a kernel, a textshell, some file and network tools and a package manager. Linux proves this pretty well. But still, even that minimum in Linux has changed by increased expectations AND increased hardware requirements.

And only for very few people, the expected product of today does not include a GUI and an internet browser. And since you need an extended product, you can only fix this by using better GUIs and better browsers than the expected product and the rival products.

(OK, you can argue there if the IE is really better. But it improve a lot lately)

And a minimal HTML 5 capable browser is already a VERY complex piece of software, an operating system within an operating system. Thus the idea to develop Mozilla OS (which is really a great idea, though still a bit academic).

So, complain about bloat. Go back to the 80s if you like. But if the new OS scales better on better hardware than the old one - I would be stupid to not use it. I can possibly still run MSDOS 6.22 on my new PC - if I would find a USB floppy disk somewhere. But this would mean 99.999% of my hardware would be unusable.

 

[jedidia]

And only for very few people, the expected product of today does not include a GUI

And those few people must be bat-crap insane.

I remember the days without a GUI alright. It worked pretty decently... in a time when you bought a hard drive of 100 MB and thought the space would last you for life (literally. It cost half your months salary, too). In a time where an LPT and a COM-port were the only external access you had. In a time where you didn't need more than a graphics driver, a mouse driver (strictly for playing simcity, of course), a printer driver and, if you're one of the lucky guys, a sound driver or even (OMG) a CD-rom driver.

A time, in short, where the folder structure on your computer was simple enough to keep largely in memory, attached peripherals didn't change by the minute, and the whole system configuration was done within 20 to 30 lines of a batch file.

To manage nowadays computers just via a command prompt... I don't know what kind of ludite would want to do that to himself :facepalm:

 

[TMac3000]

And those few people must be bat-crap insane.

I remember the days without a GUI alright. It worked pretty decently... in a time when you bought a hard drive of 100 MB and thought the space would last you for life (literally. It cost half your months salary, too). In a time where an LPT and a COM-port were the only external access you had. In a time where you didn't need more than a graphics driver, a mouse driver (strictly for playing simcity, of course), a printer driver and, if you're one of the lucky guys, a sound driver or even (OMG) a CD-rom driver.

A time, in short, where the folder structure on your computer was simple enough to keep largely in memory, attached peripherals didn't change by the minute, and the whole system configuration was done within 20 to 30 lines of a batch file.

To manage nowadays computers just via a command prompt... I don't know what kind of ludite would want to do that to himself :facepalm:

Wolfenstein 3D...and Napalm, and Populous, and Battle Chess, and Scorched Earth, and Duke Nukem (2D :lol, and Jazz Jackrabbit, and Linewars II...man, I miss those days

 

[Urwumpe]

And those few people must be bat-crap insane.

...

To manage nowadays computers just via a command prompt... I don't know what kind of ludite would want to do that to himself :facepalm:

I do that pretty often, for the CAx machines that we have here at work. I am faster for the Standard Tasks when I am using a text Shell.

For non-Standard Tasks or visual work (which I rarely do, I am a coder, not a Pixel Pusher), a GUI makes more sense.

I am not insane (HahahahahahahahAHAHAHAHAHAH... sorry) - just using some Computers in a very precise way.

AND NOW I HAVE MY NEW DEVELOPMENT MACHINE AT WORK!!!!1 :lol: Finally. And with Windows 8.1

 

[TMac3000]

A $400,000 Lamborghini is a ridiculous extravagance and a waste of money considering what I need in a car.

Unless it comes with a naked Selena Gomez on the hood

 

[Urwumpe]

Unless it comes with a naked Selena Gomez on the hood

That ruins your aerodynamics and distracts the Driver. Better have a naked Selena Gomez waiting at the Destination.

 

[n122vu]

I'm struggling to remember the last time I had to upgrade my car to keep up with the increasing speed of traffic around me resulting from everyone driving 'this year's model.'

Also can't remember any innovations in travelling from point A to point B that I couldn't take advantage of because my car was obsolete.

Computers are in no way like cars. Pretty poor analogy if you ask me.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm struggling to remember the last time I had to upgrade my car to keep up with the increasing speed of traffic around me resulting from everyone driving 'this year's model.'

Also can't remember any innovations in travelling from point A to point B that I couldn't take advantage of because my car was obsolete.

Computers are in no way like cars. Pretty poor analogy if you ask me.

Well, you are not living in Germany. :lol:

Also, I am planning an upgrade of my car for getting lower consumption, modern maintenance Interfaces and possibly a tank for LPG ...

 

[martins]

Here's what Sheldon has to say on the topic:

Couldn't have expressed it better :thumbup:

 

[jedidia]

I do that pretty often, for the CAx machines that we have here at work. I am faster for the Standard Tasks when I am using a text Shell.

Ok, slightly different thing if you do it for work and use it almost every day. But as a normal user, I'd have to go look up the syntax for most of the stuff I'm doing on an irregular basis over and over again...

 

[Urwumpe]

Ok, slightly different thing if you do it for work and use it almost every day. But as a normal user, I'd have to go look up the syntax for most of the stuff I'm doing on an irregular basis over and over again...

Yes, but only slightly - believe me, I don't know every *ix command and very often, "man" is my best friend. But I am developer, everything that can be simplified by a shell script or an alias is already implemented that way. :lol:

 

[Spacethingy]

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!

Huh, I was wondering where my nice thread went... :facepalm: (should have seen it coming I suppose...)

My final decision - try getting Office 2007 going on Wine, then head over to the 'buntu-verse. XP will be allowed to remain for games. Dad may take some convincing though... :lol:

 

[jedidia]

try getting Office 2007 going on Wine

Why would you want to do that? the open source alternatives work just as well for most stuff...

 

[Spacethingy]

Why would you want to do that? the open source alternatives work just as well for most stuff...

I actually quite agree. I'm not a Open/Libre-Office fan at all, but alternatives like Gnumeric are brilliant! Unfortunately, I work in collaboration with other people who are firmly stuck in Windows-land (e.g. triple embedded Word tables... ) so I need MS Office. Also, there's a kind of "we spent £60 bloomin' quid on that..." stubborness... :lol:

 

[thepenguin]

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 underestimate the necessary power needed for graphics. I consider the kind of graphics that actually need 4GB to be excessive, unnecessary, and overall detrimental to the concept of a game.

Quite honestly, I don't see what the problem is with letting people strip down the game and use a really simplified set of graphics. I guess I just expect less from my computer, not more.

 

[Pablo49]

I consider the kind of graphics that actually need 4GB to be excessive, unnecessary, and overall detrimental to the concept of a game.

Video games are an art. Art is too broad to say "using the medium like <whatever stipulation> is bad!" Some games are better served with simplistic graphics, some are not. Some can be DOS text adventures, others cannot. It's like when they added sound to movies, or colors to TV. It was supposed to ruin the format, take away from the experience and quality and on and on. If anything, I find artificially limiting the capabilities of a medium to be detrimental.

Quite honestly, I don't see what the problem is with letting people strip down the game and use a really simplified set of graphics. I guess I just expect less from my computer, not more.

There is nothing wrong with that, I would just never expect a developer to support that themselves, particularly if it breaks the vision they have for the game. Hopefully modding would allow people who want all models under 10 polys to do so themselves and share with their peers.