[PLUG-TALK] What Windows Is _Really_ Like

[plug_0 at robinson-west.com]

> > Windows
> > opened the door to computing for hundreds of millions of people.

Or closed it.  Operating systems and even personal computers existed 
long before Microsoft became dominant in the 80's.  Microsoft would
have the public accept a model where all software is sealed and more
is spent to procure permits to use programs than what is spent on 
training and software comparison research.  There should be a free 
fixed version of 98 now, Microsoft isn't supporting it anymore and 
where newer versions of Windows are too heavy for a lot of the aging 
computers around.  Why should the public invest in hotter computer 
equipment simply because they can't run the latest operating system?  
Since when is the operating system supposed to be the most resource 
intensive software on a computer?  One could argue that Windows massive
waste of resources has pushed more powerful computers into the personal
computing domain.  The more resources you waste the more you need to get
anything done.



>> As did the Commadore 64, the Apple II, and so forth. 
>> "It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools."

> It is a bigger fool who uses crappy tools when much better tools exist and 
> are within reach.
 
> > Beyond that, the OS underneath NT and XP is quite good.  It's the shell
> > that results in all the problems.  And anyone who understands the OS can
> > easily puncture the shell in the same way that a competent unix person can
> > puncture X11.
 
> Bullshit!
 
> No fork.  Inconsistant use of environment variables.  An API with security 
> holes all over the place.  An OS that was hacked into a multi-user OS that 
> still can't get it right.  Locking of files in such a way that you cannot 
> upgrade components without rebooting.
 
> I can go on.

> > To sum up, anyone who levels blanket criticisms at Windows is really just
> > showing their own incompetence.

Oh really?  If it were common knowledge that, "Windows is the best operating
system around," then there wouldn't be ample legitimate criticism to the
contrary.  

How hard would it be to start with say Freedos and create a gui to run on 
top that commercial software vendors who write for Windows now will accept?  
My thought is, do a 98 like system the way Micorosoft should have, but never
did.  If a registry is needed, make it a simple and tightly controlled one.
Replace bad ideas in 98 with good ideas from MacOSX, etc.  No, 
"reboot no matter what you change," issues.  Linux friendly, networking
abstracted properly so that TCP/IP is as easy as IPX/SPX or even a custom 
OSS protocol to implement.  A gui based on a carefully designed network
programming API that is protocol neutral.  All computer networking protocols:
work with buffers, use network hardware drivers, and address nodes or whatever
individual destinations are called.  More universal qualities of computer
networks probably exist beyond what I've come up with so far.  What is
keeping Linux from being targeted as a viable consumer software platform? 
Why aren't we seeing companies release the latest and greatest RPGs, etc. to
Linux instead of Windows?  How hard would it be to port the Gnome desktop and 
X to Freedos?

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/