OSDev.org

i have seen alot in these OS dev forums and all these programmers always cursing microsoft for there OS (windows) .. and i really dont understand why do u guys think like that ..
i mean even i accept that UNIX is a really powerful operating system but i have been using windows for so many years and i think its really user friendly .. the graphics are the best and it works JUST FINE ..
even when u r talking about UNIX X window system .. it still doesnt have nothing as compared to Windows graphics
almost 70% of computer users all around the world use Windows as there OS ..
if u guys think its easy to make an OS like windows .. then why dont u make something like that !!!

_guest wrote: i have seen alot in these OS dev forums and all these programmers always cursing microsoft for there OS (windows) .. and i really dont understand why do u guys think like that ..

Well, for most people, this is because

• M$ suxx. Just as a matter of fact. Don't take it as a rationale thought: that's just philosophical. That's what a lot of people say and therefore you can't decently say you're writing an OS without mentionning it. of course, this is mindless, but that's why 90% will say it.
• Bill Gates is at the top of the Computer Software Industry and he's not even a good software engineer. Note: what should he have to? If you wanna be the best-seller, what you must be good at is *selling*, not producing

now, there are other reasons that are closer to a kind of reality, and i'll explain them later, but for 99% of people, this is just for such reasons ...

i mean even i accept that UNIX is a really powerful operating system but i have been using windows for so many years and i think its really user friendly

Flaw #1: windows is *not* especially user-friendly. It just spent years in marketting and books to make the average user feel at home with it ... But try to learn to use windows to someone that has never used a computer before and you'll see what i mean... Is it really more friendly to select 5 mp3 files from window A by using CTRL + click, click on one of them, drag the selection to the task bar, wait for window B to raise or uniconify, drag again to window B, point to something that is *not* a dircetory or an executable on that window, hold "CTRL" (because A and B was not on the same partition and that you want to move files, not copy them) and finally release the mouse button ??
Or is it more user-friendly to type "mv *.mp3 ~/MUSIC" ?

This can also be extended to Microsoft applications that may sometimes be very hard to use for inexperimented user (for instance, what about extending a selection in Excel ? there are no less than 3 close operations you can d instead of what you want if you're a few pixels from the small handle at the bottom of the cell...)

.. the graphics are the best

Remember they're ripped from Mac OS for most versions of Windows ... Get a look at Mac OSX's look'n'feel . Then get a look at XP. Surprising enough, XP now has red-green-yellow buttons for iconify, etc.

and it works JUST FINE ..

i must admit i didn't use XP alot but every previous versions have several problems which required frequent reinstallations, etc. Usually, a faulty program in Unix world throws a segfault and stops. period. In the MS world (at least until Y2K), a faulty program could make the whole system hangs or crash.

Also consider the problem of viruses. Without denying the fact that a windows virus is more interresting because it could reach more victims, Unix environments are less virus-prone than MS ones.

almost 70% of computer users all around the world use Windows as there OS ..

and from them 99% had no choice but picking the system the vendor put on their machine because they don't have the skills to install another one -- because of the utterly attitude of MS sales management dept. which took benefit of their monopolistic situation to make people sell MS and nothing else than MS.

Now, don't take me wrong. I don't say Linux is the right choice for everybody. I just feel it's the right choice for me, and so i use it.

if u guys think its easy to make an OS like windows .. then why dont u make something like that !!!

i don't think it's easy to make something like windows. I don't even *want* to do something like it. What i want is showing what an OS could be. Try features noone dare to try before, etc.
Everytime i have to use Windows, i feel like a horse in a box. I can't move! i can't express my freedom ... i can't get a clear view of what's happening. I'm just fighting with a system that is unable to learn how i want it to be...

on the other side, under Linux, if i want a to add my multimedia player a "search for a song having XXX in its name and play it", i can add it. It's not even complicated: it only took 21 lines of shell script ... And there are plenty of window managers i can use if i don't like KDE. and about as much file explorers...

They don't have the freedom i wish from an OS, though ... and that's why i go on with OS development.

OK, I'll try to be honest:

1. I definitely do _not_ hate Microsoft, but their way of trying to sell their products does not really make me happy.
2. I prefer Linux as it is (in my oppinion) more stable, more comfortable and more faster (don't want to start a flame war, it is just a personal feeling - besides, I actually like the Linux philosophy, quite interesting).
3. Nevertheless, _guest, your are right. There are much too much people here blaming "m3cr0s$ft" to be "l3me" and so on, you know what I mean. I think on the one hand, you should respect the things Microsoft achieved (without their DOS versions, the intel PC would never have been that cheap), but on the other hand, you *have to* stay critical and try to see things from both sides.

However, that is just my oppinion: I don't hate Microsoft, but I don't love them

I use Microsoft, but one thing I don't like about it is...BILL GATES STOLE THE IDEA!!!! haha Bet you didn't know that _guest. Why do you even care what other people's opinions about Microsoft are?

Most criticism that Small Windows (95, 98, Me) receives is justified. I can't bring myself to call these pieces of software operating systems.

However, Big Windows (NT, 2000, XP) is far better. From what I've seen they are some of the best-designed and implemented operating systems around today, and certainly the best on the desktop. Sure, they have their faults; but Windows XP in particular is IMHO the most accessible and usable operating system available for virtually all desktop PC users.

I've never used OSX, but any version of Linux (including various desktop environments) has, at best, equalled what Windows XP has to offer, and has often fallen short.

thats true

you can get a sneak preview of MacOSX on apple.com (check those Quicktime anims). It is based on one of the most (if not THE most) kernel: freeBSD, and uses MACH microkernel as basis. You can use it as a complete newbie unaware of what happens behind the mouse cursor or open shells and use the full power of a unix operating system. The computer can speak and receive vocal commands with only a few minutes of training ...
And boy, let's talk about PDF, vector icons and OpenGL integration ... That's probably the best OS existing so far, easy to administrate and use. Fancy, but not too much, configurable (tough not yet enough to my tastes). Too bad it requires a MAC :p

Umm..
Indeed I find it nonsense trying to find which OS is the best one. Im using Win98, but I have great respect to Unix, and planning to use it sooner. Most of us write platform independed codes and no importance which os you use. Im using Microsoft products because we most learn computer with Microsoft products. So we are familier with it. And also I believe Microsoft contribute to computer world lots of things. But I found their OS weak, and so want to change my Os to Unix. By the way, I remember reading an article of Tanenbaum. 'The Unix is even not a complete OS'

Ya know what I want, is a small, decently fast OS that is easy to code it. All the kernel code should be re-writeable in real time. uuu.sf.net does an almost perfect job of this. My only quarrel is I dont remember asm that well (been a while), and it requires asm. I think after I code a basic learning OS, I am going to make uuu my desktop os.

I think I will then just code a Windows driver compatability layer. I dont even care that it will be a little slower than Windows (if not faster due to the small ram footprint). I will have total power on my system. I will be able to do incredibly cool things, and I will already know all the API's. Well, maybe not windows driver emulator. Maybe linux.

Oh yeah, OS X is the best OS I have ever used. Its like wiping your @$$ with silk Well, not really, because I dont know what that feels like. But it is the best user/developer experience I have ever had. I am on my little flat screen iMac right now. If this inspires you to get a Mac, wait until after Macworld (Mid June I think). Rumor has it the IBM 970 will be going in to Macs after that.

I agree that apple has done it right this time with mac OS X. The best part though is that its kernel is open source (not free though) through the darwin project. I'm bout to buy a mac just so i can get the source! I feel the main disadvantage about microsoft windows is the gigantic size of it. If it was smaller, more compact it would be faster and more stable. win2k+ is definatly an improvement of the days of win 9x.

well. you know about "Gnu is Not Unix", "Linux Is Not UniX", etc.
let's add this one (at least true for Win9x serie and that ME thing ):

"Windows Is Not a Decent Option to Work on your System"

of course, this is Not True for windows NT :p

there are 3 main reason why i don't use Win2K or WinXP for development:
- there are no free development environment for it. Okay, there's GNU tools, but if i use GNU tools, i prefer a system where they're better integrated (a U**X system, in other words).
- i don't like the XP license at all, especially those things about limited amount of reinstallations, etc.
- the developers community is much more available for Linux (afaik): have a problem with a linux package ? there's someone on the net that can help you (or helped someone else in the past) for free. Have a problem with a windows-based library ? there's someone on the net to sell you its assistance ... as i don't have a lot of money to spend in development ...

as a developer, a GPL-based world is *way* more interresting that a freeware/shareware/spyware based world... That's why i walk onthe Way of the Penguin

*offtopic* nice background picture you have there, pype ) My one is one of john howe showing the grey shores with the departing ship of the elves. good Old Tolkien rocks

*ontopic* I use linux/Unix environment for development, cuz it's ... if not simpler but clearer to use. I don't want to meddle around with a registry i want to concentrate on what I do. This is entirely possible in Unix world. No need for drag and drop or click around for doing system settings. Edit a text file and it does what you tell it to. In windows world you always have to count with os intervention due to some busy plug and play thing.

stay safe folks

Microsoft is VERY expensive
What if a programm crashes? => Whole windows crashes (most times), linux: you can work without problems and if you want....kill [pid]

User friendly and selfy-decicive - thaz the difference - on windows you can just press OK, on Lunix (linux/unix) you can do configure everything as you like - you can setup your own distribution, use your own libraries and thousands of programs are available for FREE


question to experts: is it true that bill gates proggd dos himself with friends, but did he really do a part himself???

LOneWoolF_PublicPC wrote: question to experts: is it true that bill gates proggd dos himself with friends, but did he really do a part himself???

AFAIK, Microsoft "stole" a DOS version (I think it was Q-DOS), modified a bit and published it as MS-DOS. Not sure, though.