Off-Topic Hang out with people and talk about whatever. Feel free to suggest a better description for this forum as everyone seems to have an opinion. :D

Draconius GO
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #51    
Old May 31st, 2013 (5:08 PM).
Zet's Avatar
Zet Zet is offline
  • Platinum Tier
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 7,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonygooseD View Post
-Windows 8: don't even get me started, it's a tablet OS ffs.
People who say this have only seen a screenshot of the new start menu.

I suppose clicking this does nothing:





I really suggest researching before you spout 100% pure crap.
Reply With Quote

Relevant Advertising!

  #52    
Old June 1st, 2013 (1:20 AM). Edited June 1st, 2013 by tnfsf11.
tnfsf11
Guest
     
    Posts: n/a
    I have a PC with W8 just so you know...
    I know I can get a desktop, but switching between it & the "Metro" constantly is such a pain, also the absence of the start button proves my point.
    And yes W8 was made with tablets & touch-screen devices in mind.
    Reply With Quote
      #53    
    Old June 1st, 2013 (1:56 AM).
    Zet's Avatar
    Zet Zet is offline
    • Platinum Tier
     
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Brisbane, Australia
    Age: 27
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Jolly
    Posts: 7,755
    The only switching is clicking desktop or opening a program. The lack of the start button is irrelevant because it's no longer needed. While 8.1 brings back the start button it will do the exact same thing as clicking the left corner in 8.
    Reply With Quote
      #54    
    Old June 1st, 2013 (10:58 AM).
    XIII's Avatar
    XIII XIII is offline
    don't you remember?
    • Crystal Tier
     
    Join Date: May 2011
    Age: 19
    Posts: 1,835
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by QuilavaKing View Post
    I'd say Windows 8 (Granted, I've only used xp, vista, 7, 8 and Debian Linux... so that's not much to go on.) simply because it was designed 100% for tablets. It is literally not a PC operating system. Why is it on my PC?
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by リザードン View Post
    For me, it's Vista, hands down. 8 isn't too far off, but if a desktop version came out that is designed for a mouse and not a touchscreen, I would really like it more.
    For me I actually enjoy Vista and windows 7 because they are quite similar. I started out learning on vista and then 7 came out and I already knew how to use it.

    I don't understand why people get so wound up about 7 or vista.

    8 to me (like other users) I agree it should have no place in a laptop, desktop, any computer. It should be for tablets.
    __________________
    let's meet again
    in the next life
    (tumblr)
    Reply With Quote
      #55    
    Old June 1st, 2013 (3:08 PM).
    Zet's Avatar
    Zet Zet is offline
    • Platinum Tier
     
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Brisbane, Australia
    Age: 27
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Jolly
    Posts: 7,755
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Insomniac View Post
    8 to me (like other users) I agree it should have no place in a laptop, desktop, any computer. It should be for tablets.
    8 to you and others, is something you haven't even touched. Don't go spouting useless crap. There are tablets for Windows 8 which is called Windows 8 RT, and then there's Windows 8 for Desktops, and laptops called Windows 8. The desktop/laptop version can utilize the desktop feature like previous versions of Windows, while also being able to use apps from the tablet version(completely optional).

    No offence to you or anyone else, but you really need to research before you down talk something you haven't even touched.
    Reply With Quote
      #56    
    Old June 1st, 2013 (7:31 PM).
    Raymond1994's Avatar
    Raymond1994 Raymond1994 is offline
       
      Join Date: Jun 2013
      Gender: Male
      Posts: 18
      Windows 3.11 is worst
      Mac os 7 is worst
      Windows 2000 was OK
      Windows 95,98 are my favorite
      Anything above windows me is crap
      __________________
      Groudon= epic monster
      Reply With Quote
        #57    
      Old June 1st, 2013 (9:15 PM).
      Disgust's Avatar
      Disgust Disgust is offline
         
        Join Date: May 2013
        Location: Kansas
        Gender: Male
        Nature: Quirky
        Posts: 4
        Windows ME was a monumental turd, XP was so much better in terms of usability in my opinion, not to mention it was far more aesthetically pleasing.(once again, an opinion.) Vista is up there on the lists of terrible operating systems too.
        But... I would say out of all of the operating systems that I have tried, keeping the year of release in mind, Linux Mint has to be the worst. On the other spectrum of Linux, Backtrack 5 r3 KDE 64-bit, is quite amazing.
        Reply With Quote
          #58    
        Old June 2nd, 2013 (12:48 AM).
        Elaitenstile's Avatar
        Elaitenstile Elaitenstile is offline
        I am legend
           
          Join Date: Feb 2013
          Posts: 1,909
          Windows 7 / Vista. I mean, the looks and stuff are good and all, and the styles are awesome, but here's what I've accounted.

          ★Vista has 190215702847028347923 (still testing) bugs.
          ★Windows Vista/7 don't support many programs and have loads of compatibility issues.
          ★Windows Vista/7 take 3.534321 years (approx. 3 years 6 months) to boot up. And eats lot of time for loading startup programs and other shizz.

          I don't know if it's my processor, but I'm certain, because a double-time faster processor than mine takes loads of time to boot up.

          I haven't tried 8 yet. Is it nice?
          __________________
          ~
          Reply With Quote
            #59    
          Old June 2nd, 2013 (1:45 AM).
          Marth Marth is offline
          ...
          • Crystal Tier
           
          Join Date: Feb 2013
          Gender: Male
          Posts: 2,543
          Quote:
          Originally Posted by Disgust View Post
          But... I would say out of all of the operating systems that I have tried, keeping the year of release in mind, Linux Mint has to be the worst. On the other spectrum of Linux, Backtrack 5 r3 KDE 64-bit, is quite amazing.
          Mind (Ubuntu, too) is designed for beginners, so its major issue is, that it hides so much stuff from the user, making it hard to configure.
          Also, is Backtrack even maintained anymore?
          Quote:
          Originally Posted by ★Hoenn★ View Post
          ★Windows Vista/7 take 3.534321 years (approx. 3 years 6 months) to boot up. And eats lot of time for loading startup programs and other shizz.

          I don't know if it's my processor, but I'm certain, because a double-time faster processor than mine takes loads of time to boot up.
          The reason why Win7 needs so much time for boot and startup is mainly because it loads EVERY driver available. So there's much junk started (driver for telephone, fax, whatever).
          Start -> msconfig -> Services
          There you can choose which services to start. Disabling all unused services should give you a faster boot time. (even though it's nothing compared to like ten secounds boot time with Linux xD)
          __________________

          Reply With Quote
            #60    
          Old June 2nd, 2013 (6:40 AM).
          Tetrakeet's Avatar
          Tetrakeet Tetrakeet is offline
          Lilligant's Caretaker
             
            Join Date: Jul 2012
            Location: The Windy Forest
            Nature: Careful
            Posts: 239
            (Vanilla) Windows 95 was the absolute worst in my opinion. We had to use these infernal machines as a "retro" lesson in my school, and let me tell you this OS is the worst! X_X

            Even though people tear into Vista I rarely had issues with it. My main problem was the fact that it never memorized the folder views. The issue even carried with the Win7 upgrade.

            Boot times never matter to me because I use Hibernation mode. I'm surprised it's not used much, it's a great time saver for people who time crunch.
            __________________
            "With care she will grow, from love she blossoms. A thrill to behold, a sight so awesome.
            A flower's pure grace, with fragrance so sweet. An enchanting dance, with four little feet."



            Reply With Quote
              #61    
            Old June 2nd, 2013 (7:35 AM).
            twocows's Avatar
            twocows twocows is offline
            Mostly Benign
            • Gold Tier
             
            Join Date: Mar 2009
            Location: Michigan
            Age: 27
            Gender: Male
            Nature: Lax
            Posts: 4,202
            Quote:
            Originally Posted by ★Hoenn★ View Post
            Windows 7 / Vista. I mean, the looks and stuff are good and all, and the styles are awesome, but here's what I've accounted.

            ★Vista has 190215702847028347923 (still testing) bugs.
            ★Windows Vista/7 don't support many programs and have loads of compatibility issues.
            ★Windows Vista/7 take 3.534321 years (approx. 3 years 6 months) to boot up. And eats lot of time for loading startup programs and other shizz.

            I don't know if it's my processor, but I'm certain, because a double-time faster processor than mine takes loads of time to boot up.

            I haven't tried 8 yet. Is it nice?
            I don't know where you heard this nonsense, but that's exactly what it is: nonsense. At present, Vista and 7 are almost functionally equivalent. Neither has significantly more bugs than the other. Vista had more bugs when it first came out, but it came out years ago and most of those have been fixed.

            Whoever told you "Vista and 7 don't support many programs and have loads of compatibility issues" is full of crap. Unless you're trying to run ancient software, you shouldn't have any problems with compatibility. Some older games might require a quick Google search to get running right, but that's about it.

            And Windows 7 starts in under thirty seconds on my desktop, from power button to functional desktop. It might take longer if you're running hardware from ten years ago that's below recommended spec, but that's your own fault.

            What you are saying is commonly known among we computer specialists as "FUD," or "fear, uncertainty, and doubt." Put another way, it's false hearsay that makes a product seem not worth the hassle. In the future, you shouldn't comment on the supposed operation of a product unless you've actually used it.
            __________________
            8values
            Political Simulator
            Reply With Quote
              #62    
            Old June 2nd, 2013 (12:43 PM).
            tnfsf11
            Guest
               
              Posts: n/a
              I'm actually having the same problem as Hoenn, I run ancient programs/games all the time & when 1 of PCs had Vista & later 7, it was a pain for me to run these programs because:
              1. Not always a patch is available online to run them.
              2. The system takes up much memory than it's supposed to, thus programs that run sometimes lag/hang, which is horrible...

              As I previously said, I prefer an OS which utilizes little memory thus dedicating the rest to my programs as I usually run many programs at once, also this permits me to fill my Hard Disks to the max without worrying about performance...
              Reply With Quote
                #63    
              Old June 2nd, 2013 (3:15 PM).
              Tsutarja's Avatar
              Tsutarja Tsutarja is online now
              • Moderator
              • Platinum Tier
              • PokéCommunity Daily
               
              Join Date: Mar 2010
              Location: Florida
              Age: 22
              Gender: Male
              Nature: Jolly
              Posts: 22,911
              The amount of RAM that a program takes up should be at a flat amount, unless you can adjust those settings within the program. It's the specs of the computer that determine the speed of a program..

              Like twocows said above, Windows 7 loads for me in roughly 30 seconds to a minute on my desktop, and I only have 4 GB of RAM on it, which I consider as "below par" for this time. I also run Windows 7 on a tower that originally had Vista, too.
              __________________
              Happy Holidays
              Reply With Quote
                #64    
              Old June 2nd, 2013 (3:28 PM).
              Belldandy's Avatar
              Belldandy Belldandy is offline
              Ice-Type Fanatic
              • Crystal Tier
              • Crystal Tier
               
              Join Date: May 2013
              Location: Ottawa, Ontario
              Age: 25
              Gender: Female
              Nature: Timid
              Posts: 3,995
              I have Windows 7 Starter on my baby Acer.

              1.6GHZ / 2mb Cache Intel Atom N2600
              2GB RAM

              Really, it's nothing special and it boots in < 30sec, too! So it's balogna if someone says W7 doesn't boot fast; it does! They need to stop downloading pron and use Kaspersky or BitDefender to rid their comp of viruses. Can't expect a rabbit to hop very high if its got 30lbs of weight on it, so how can one expect W7 to boot fast if the HDD is overrun with trojans or worse.
              __________________
              Reply With Quote
                #65    
              Old June 10th, 2013 (2:30 PM).
              Berzerk!'s Avatar
              Berzerk! Berzerk! is offline
              Hey, c'mon! Get serious!
              • Crystal Tier
               
              Join Date: May 2011
              Location: Australia, Western Australia
              Age: 25
              Gender: Male
              Nature: Quirky
              Posts: 22
              Quote:
              Originally Posted by Belldandy View Post
              I have Windows 7 Starter on my baby Acer.

              1.6GHZ / 2mb Cache Intel Atom N2600
              2GB RAM

              Really, it's nothing special and it boots in < 30sec, too! So it's balogna if someone says W7 doesn't boot fast; it does! They need to stop downloading pron and use Kaspersky or BitDefender to rid their comp of viruses. Can't expect a rabbit to hop very high if its got 30lbs of weight on it, so how can one expect W7 to boot fast if the HDD is overrun with trojans or worse.
              I agree with you, my laptop has been through hell and back and it still works just fine... people need to learn to treat their property with respect, I tend to try and keep my machine as cool as possible and if i notice slowdowns I generally troubleshoot it so I don't have to suffer later on, trust me, finding out that your monitor kept shutting itself off because your laptop was struggling to run the hard drive was a real eye opener even when you do everything to look after it.

              On topic... I really can't say much about OS's, my experiences with windows 7 have just been fine, I don't have any complaints about load times, sometimes I even just lay around for a minute for it to load properly, it really doesn't bother me.

              Though I do say, in terms of impracticality, Ubuntu has to bite the nail, it's great for if you lack an OS or a quick fixeruper for troubleshooting, but it's not non-techie friendly, and even then there are so many ways to install one program it does get confusing, it though does run well IF you do things the right way. If you are going for just general annoyance, I really can't say I have had any experiences, It's just peoples lack of using their computers the right way.
              __________________
              You don't do anything! What do you know?!
              You don't do anything! How're you gonna change?!
              But, I've got you covered!
              I'm gonna give your reason a toxic shock and open up your mind!
              Reply With Quote
                #66    
              Old June 14th, 2013 (8:03 AM).
              Twiggy's Avatar
              Twiggy Twiggy is offline
              You like dragons?
              • Crystal Tier
               
              Join Date: Dec 2010
              Location: Plushies.
              Gender: Male
              Nature: Hasty
              Posts: 5,930
              I don't really believe in a "worst" operating system ever made. Sometimes hindsight is 20:20, but I guess there can be things that don't make themselves obvious even after a while.

              As we look back to failed operating systems... Sometimes it's probably because of a single, unwanted change in an operating system family that messes things up.

              You can even say that I'd probably be fine with Windows ME or 8, even though they aren't exactly the best operating systems in the world. In fact, they are far from it. Same thing goes with recent versions of Ubuntu Linux.

              Personally, though, there's an operating system that I don't really feel like using. It's not ME. It's not 8. It's... um, actually, Android pre-4.x. Something about the software felt really off. It's like... pieces are missing in the equation to the "perfect" smart device.
              Reply With Quote
                #67    
              Old June 14th, 2013 (11:20 AM). Edited June 14th, 2013 by Cerberus87.
              Cerberus87's Avatar
              Cerberus87 Cerberus87 is offline
              Mega Houndoom, baby!
                 
                Join Date: Jul 2012
                Location: Dream World
                Age: 30
                Gender: Male
                Nature: Lonely
                Posts: 1,671
                The Windows ME was the worst. A completely unnecessary update to Win98 which broke more things than it fixed...

                I used all Windows from 3.1 to 7, except 2000 and Vista, and I can tell you that Win98 was IMO the most, let's say, "efficient" product from Microsoft. It was slim in terms of memory usage and was still accompanied by MS-DOS in case you wanted to run a DOS program. There were lots of recently released DOS games which didn't have full integration with Windows yet (I think Duke Nukem 3D was from 1996, and not sure if Quake could be booted through Windows) and, believe me, the ability to exit Windows and go back to DOS, which was removed from WinME, was VERY useful to install and run these games.

                Win2000 was a failure, WinXP was decent but the memory requirements to run most things were already double those from Win98, and IIRC it was when MS started to implement unnecessary protection measures that prevented you from running Windows as you saw fit. XP also broke compatibility with several games developed for Win98. With time and hardware development, XP became a decent substitute for Win98, though.

                I missed Vista aka betaWin7.

                Nowadays Win7 is pretty much the way to go. Memory requirements are as high as ever, which forces you to install a 64-bit OS. WinXP had a 64-bit version with primitive support but I believe there are no drivers for it anymore. With the release of Win8, Vista will probably fall into obscurity because there are two products in front of it already. The most annoying thing of Win7 is definitely the UAC nanny. The first thing I did when finding out the Program Files folder was protected by UAC, which IMO was complete ********, was to disable UAC (luckily Google exists so finding out how took no more than five minutes). UAC might be good for the illiterate but anyone with some experience with computers will find it's more of a hindrance than help.
                __________________


                Omega Ruby & Alpha Sapphire, the day Pokémon pulled a Dallas and jumped the shark.
                Reply With Quote
                  #68    
                Old June 14th, 2013 (9:55 PM).
                Bevertails's Avatar
                Bevertails Bevertails is offline
                   
                  Join Date: Jun 2013
                  Location: West Coast
                  Gender: Male
                  Nature: Modest
                  Posts: 10
                  I have 8 and love it. and I do use it for business Metro isn't a big ordeal. just a click to get away from it.


                  Windows ME was my first OS. Gotta appreciate what you've got now.
                  __________________
                  If you've got Steam add me! ~ bevertails
                  If you've got Twitter Follow me! ~ @SociallyAwkDude

                  Reply With Quote
                    #69    
                  Old June 16th, 2013 (2:35 AM).
                  danks_'s Avatar
                  danks_ danks_ is offline
                  NOCH EIN BIER, BITTE!
                     
                    Join Date: Jun 2013
                    Location: Darmstadt, Germany
                    Gender: Male
                    Nature: Serious
                    Posts: 106
                    Well, I'm going to go out of my way as a Computer Eng. student and say a couple of things.

                    I've used all between Win95 to Win8 (disregarding the fact that I was actually born in 93, I was born in Venezuela and back then it wasn't so easy to get hands on this kind of upgrades, W95 stuck for a while and even with Win98 out, there were a lot of computers with Win95).

                    If you ask me which the worst WINDOWS version is, I'd throw ME and Vista, both of them were messy from the beginning and took Microsoft a while to update and fix most of the bugs. But I'll talk about the worst OS after a little rant.

                    On the Win XP being the best Operating System, I am really sorry but no, I can no longer accept such an outdated software to be the best, if you are not big on adapting to new things, that's your problem. Windows 7 and Windows 8 are actually really really good, specially W8. The amount of new features (and I'm not talking about the flashy shiny things, I mean stuff like the new Performance Information and Tools, the new Task Manager, the updated file explorer, the storage spaces function added to the control panel, BitLocker drive encryption, the new Resource Monitor and another handful of goodies) make W8 by far the strongest Windows Operating System I've had so far. Anyone who denies updating from XP because of the Vista fiasco, you people are just stuck on the past. Yes, I know that there is no actual Windows button on the task bar and that the Start screen looks horrible, but that's about the only thing. I haven't updated my computer (hardware) in a year and I always like to keep log on how efficient my computer is after a fresh new installation of Windwos. The last fresh installation of W7 (and I mean FRESH, just windows no extra programs) was running ALONE 41% of my RAM (I have 8gb) while the fresh installation of W8 alone (disregard it's flashy looks) consumed between 29% and 33%, after the installation of all of my programs, whenever I restart my computer, I never reach 41% of RAM before actually running anything, the memory usage has gone down a lot and you also need way less drivers for controllers as you did before with XP. The only other thing that pisses the hell out of me from W7 & W8 is the idiotic UAC that was created with vista, there's nothing more annoying than UAC.

                    XP doesn't support all of the new hardware that's been coming out for the past years, trust me people who believes that W8 looks like a console platform for games like Angry Birds, you are nothing but wrong. W8 has got to be the best thing that happened to Windows in the last years, it's the strongest Windows product on the market that's been released since W98.

                    --
                    About the worst OS ever in existence, I'll have to point out the last 3 versions of Mac OS X, I hate how everything apple is looked at by people and say "oh yeah, that's actually for like artists and stuff, like photoshop and other things" and nope, you are absolutely wrong, Windows can perform just as good if not better for cheaper prices than any machine running OS X, so if you want to throw any OS out as the worst, it's gotta be OS X. It's just as stupid and flashy as Vista was with their "friendly interface" where you can achieve nothing at all without having any console command knowledge, apart from the small amount of programming you can do with it, the lack of compatibility with anything that's not APPLE HURRDURR and the fake rumor about Mac OS X not having "viruses".
                    Get it straight kids, Mac OS X can get viruses and malware, but Mac OS X is not the most popular OS out there, they don't have the same viruses and malware from windows because it doesn't has the same architecture as Windows.

                    Need some more info on that? Top results from google: [Make sure to delete spaces before the .com]
                    securitywatch.pcmag .com/none/295168-the-ten-most-dangerous-mac-viruses
                    community.f-secure .com/t5/Home-Security/Known-Mac-OS-X-viruses-updated/td-p/631
                    mac-antivirus-software-review.toptenreviews .com/history-of-macintosh-viruses.html

                    There are more Windows viruses out there because there are more Windows users out there, it's pretty damn obvious.

                    Mac OS X doesn't even do a good job as a UNIX-based operating system, and that comes from someone experienced with Solaris 9, 10 and 11.
                    __________________
                    Reply With Quote
                      #70    
                    Old June 16th, 2013 (7:37 PM). Edited June 16th, 2013 by twocows.
                    twocows's Avatar
                    twocows twocows is offline
                    Mostly Benign
                    • Gold Tier
                     
                    Join Date: Mar 2009
                    Location: Michigan
                    Age: 27
                    Gender: Male
                    Nature: Lax
                    Posts: 4,202
                    Quote:
                    Originally Posted by danks_ View Post
                    Well, I'm going to go out of my way as a Computer Eng. student and say a couple of things.
                    And I will answer you as a computer science graduate.
                    Quote:
                    I've used all between Win95 to Win8 (disregarding the fact that I was actually born in 93, I was born in Venezuela and back then it wasn't so easy to get hands on this kind of upgrades, W95 stuck for a while and even with Win98 out, there were a lot of computers with Win95).

                    If you ask me which the worst WINDOWS version is, I'd throw ME and Vista, both of them were messy from the beginning and took Microsoft a while to update and fix most of the bugs. But I'll talk about the worst OS after a little rant.
                    Fair enough. Vista was pretty shoddy to start with. A lot of that was driver issues, which gradually got better as manufacturers started releasing Vista versions of their drivers. By the time SP1 came out, it was a lot more useable, both from bugfixes and better driver support. ME's problem was that the core system was error-prone, though, and it pretty much stayed that way until end of life. Even communities that still work on supporting the old DOS-based versions of Windows usually support 98SE with some backporting of ME utilities, from what I remember.
                    Quote:
                    On the Win XP being the best Operating System, I am really sorry but no, I can no longer accept such an outdated software to be the best, if you are not big on adapting to new things, that's your problem.
                    XP was overrated, but the end user liked it because, for the most part, it just worked. And it still hasn't reached end of life (that happens next year). That's almost 15 years of a consistent UI and a relatively stable OS, and people don't want to upgrade because they don't want to have to learn new things. That's a reasonable complaint, and it's something Microsoft should really learn from Apple; OS X does do a good job of keeping a consistent look and feel and giving the user cues as to what has changed when something does change.

                    And it's not just consumers; businesses don't like to have to rewrite software and retrain employees just to move to a new version of an OS. Sometimes it's not even in their hands; if they bought software 20 years ago that does what they need, they're not going to move off it without a very compelling reason. That's why there are still communities around to support Win9x, OS/2, etc. If they haven't already, Microsoft would benefit greatly from being able to guarantee forward-compatibility with a large part of their core system (I know they do in some ways, that's the point of WOW64, to allow 32-bit and 64-bit applications to co-exist on the same system without making an entirely separate subsystem like with Win16).

                    And unfortunately, peoples' inability to adapt is not their problem, it's ours. It doesn't bother them at all to use 15 year old software, at least not until it breaks, and then it's our problem (well, if you work in IT like me, but as an engineer you'll probably be doing programming or possibly hardware). It's also Microsoft's problem, and they began realizing it a few years ago. That's why you have sites like this. Even THEY don't want to have to keep supporting it.
                    Quote:
                    Windows 7 and Windows 8 are actually really really good, specially W8.
                    They threw too many UI changes at users with Win8 without providing appropriate cues and help to transition the user. They're also trying to stick a mobile UI on a desktop and a desktop UI on a mobile device without accounting for the fundamental differences in input methodology (a mouse is a lot different from a touchscreen) and typical use-case scenarios (there are some shared use-cases, but for the most part, people do different things with phones and desktops).
                    Quote:
                    The amount of new features (and I'm not talking about the flashy shiny things, I mean stuff like the new Performance Information and Tools, the new Task Manager, the updated file explorer, the storage spaces function added to the control panel,
                    The user doesn't care about that. It's nice, but they want to be able to accomplish their task without having to learn new stuff. That's why you still have to put up with XP on your grandma's computer or whatever.
                    Quote:
                    BitLocker drive encryption,
                    Has been around since Vista.
                    Quote:
                    the new Resource Monitor and another handful of goodies) make W8 by far the strongest Windows Operating System I've had so far. Anyone who denies updating from XP because of the Vista fiasco, you people are just stuck on the past.
                    Saying that means nothing to a user and will probably just tick them off. If you want to know why people are staying with XP, you have to look at it from their perspective. They want to do X, Y, and Z, and they know how to do it in XP. They don't care about under-the-hood changes and they don't want to have to learn new stuff.
                    Quote:
                    Yes, I know that there is no actual Windows button on the task bar and that the Start screen looks horrible, but that's about the only thing. I haven't updated my computer (hardware) in a year and I always like to keep log on how efficient my computer is after a fresh new installation of Windwos. The last fresh installation of W7 (and I mean FRESH, just windows no extra programs) was running ALONE 41% of my RAM (I have 8gb) while the fresh installation of W8 alone (disregard it's flashy looks) consumed between 29% and 33%, after the installation of all of my programs, whenever I restart my computer, I never reach 41% of RAM before actually running anything, the memory usage has gone down a lot and you also need way less drivers for controllers as you did before with XP.
                    That's because usage statistics in Win7 include low-priority and optimization services that do not interfere with your workload (and don't run at all if the system can't handle them). I'm guessing that they probably stopped tracking that stuff in Win8's task manager so people would stop complaining about how many resources the system was taking up, but I can't confirm that.
                    Quote:
                    The only other thing that pisses the hell out of me from W7 & W8 is the idiotic UAC that was created with vista, there's nothing more annoying than UAC.
                    UAC has an important purpose, but its initial state was useless because users would just click through it without understanding what it meant. In Win7, I think, they started color-coding UAC prompts. Green prompts don't show up by default, you have to specifically turn them on (stuff like changing settings in the control panel), yellow prompts show up for potentially dangerous actions, like running an application with elevated privileges, and red prompts show up when you're installing an unsigned component that can affect the core functionality of the system (e.g., unsigned driver, etc.). This was a better idea, but I'm still guessing most users just click through it without reading. However, it's a good idea, it just needs work. If they can pull off getting users to actually understand what it means, it'll go a long way toward making users more security-aware.

                    I think it would help if they'd work on getting things to install without requiring elevation by default. For instance, do these things: (a) make MSI easier to create (WiX is not exactly easy to learn), (b) deprecate other installer types, and (c) make a prominent "Install for current user (default, recommended) or globally (requires elevation)" thing a mandatory part of all MSI installers. Create a new "My Programs" directory in the user's home folder on all installs of Windows and have that be the default install directory instead of the global Program Files. Fewer UAC prompts means users will take the remaining ones way more seriously.
                    Quote:
                    XP doesn't support all of the new hardware that's been coming out for the past years,
                    Only because Microsoft is end-of-lifing WinXP next year. If they weren't doing that, people would support it indefinitely because that's what users use. I agree it needs to be EOL'd, but don't fool yourself that it's from some inherent flaw in WinXP, it's because manufacturers no longer find it worthwhile to support (again, that's a good thing).
                    Quote:
                    trust me people who believes that W8 looks like a console platform for games like Angry Birds, you are nothing but wrong. W8 has got to be the best thing that happened to Windows in the last years, it's the strongest Windows product on the market that's been released since W98.
                    Hardly. Screwing with the core desktop metaphor is just asking for problems. It might have a solid foundation, but if you screw with the UI and don't make it easy for the users, they're just going to stick with what they know, and that's bad for everyone.
                    Quote:
                    About the worst OS ever in existence, I'll have to point out the last 3 versions of Mac OS X, I hate how everything apple is looked at by people and say "oh yeah, that's actually for like artists and stuff, like photoshop and other things" and nope, you are absolutely wrong, Windows can perform just as good if not better for cheaper prices than any machine running OS X, so if you want to throw any OS out as the worst, it's gotta be OS X.
                    As someone who hates Apple with a passion, let me just say you're missing the point. Users like OS X because it's easy to learn and they know they can do what they want without a hassle. And things rarely change without helping the user to learn how to do their old thing the new way. I don't think anyone doubts that Windows can do the same thing for less money, but if it's more of a hassle (and it is), they're going to pay a premium to do things the hassle-free way.
                    Quote:
                    It's just as stupid and flashy as Vista was with their "friendly interface" where you can achieve nothing at all without having any console command knowledge,
                    That made no sense whatsoever. You can achieve almost any conceivable use case from the GUI of either Vista or OS X. If you had to drop down into the CLI to do basic things, nobody except power users would ever use it (like most distributions of Linux aside from the Ubuntu family).
                    Quote:
                    apart from the small amount of programming you can do with it,
                    You can program on any system, I don't think I understood this one right.
                    Quote:
                    the lack of compatibility with anything that's not APPLE HURRDURR
                    That is not Apple's fault, except maybe for remaining with HFS+ for so long. Then again, NTFS isn't much better.
                    Quote:
                    and the fake rumor about Mac OS X not having "viruses". Get it straight kids, Mac OS X can get viruses and malware, but Mac OS X is not the most popular OS out there, they don't have the same viruses and malware from windows because it doesn't has the same architecture as Windows.
                    That rumor is indeed fake. However, OS X has far fewer viruses, and not just by way of being obscure. As a BSD-derivative, it has a very solid foundation and OS X really takes the principle of least privilege to heart. Any particular application only runs with the privileges it requires, which, I believe, have to be declared by the programmer in advance (or maybe OS X determines this on its own? not sure). This might not be the case for older applications running on older APIs, but this is made obvious to the user and they actually found a way to make the user understand this and desire applications made in the newer APIs (by guaranteeing applications using the newer API confirm to their UI guidelines to some degree, I believe).
                    Quote:
                    Mac OS X doesn't even do a good job as a UNIX-based operating system, and that comes from someone experienced with Solaris 9, 10 and 11.
                    I have no idea where this supposition comes from. About the only thing OS X lacks is an official package manager (though you could say the Apple Store fills that role), and that's by no means part of the UNIX specification. It's something UNIX and UNIX-derivatives developed out of necessity, more than anything. OS X users don't need it, so it doesn't exist. And that comes from someone experienced with several distributions of Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, and Windows.
                    Reply With Quote
                      #71    
                    Old June 17th, 2013 (6:34 AM).
                    danks_'s Avatar
                    danks_ danks_ is offline
                    NOCH EIN BIER, BITTE!
                       
                      Join Date: Jun 2013
                      Location: Darmstadt, Germany
                      Gender: Male
                      Nature: Serious
                      Posts: 106
                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                      And I will answer you as a computer science graduate.
                      Yay, cool! :D

                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                      Fair enough. Vista was pretty shoddy to start with. A lot of that was driver issues, which gradually got better as manufacturers started releasing Vista versions of their drivers. By the time SP1 came out, it was a lot more useable, both from bugfixes and better driver support.
                      Yeah, I did mention it took them a while to release the bug fixes, I do admit that SP1 is usable, but it's still kind of rough for my taste.


                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                      ME's problem was that the core system was error-prone, though, and it pretty much stayed that way until end of life. Even communities that still work on supporting the old DOS-based versions of Windows usually support 98SE with some backporting of ME utilities, from what I remember.
                      I really have nothing more to say about ME, I also didn't use it for long, but I do remember upgrading to it, it took a while.


                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                      XP was overrated, but the end user liked it because, for the most part, it just worked. And it still hasn't reached end of life (that happens next year). That's almost 15 years of a consistent UI and a relatively stable OS, and people don't want to upgrade because they don't want to have to learn new things. That's a reasonable complaint, and it's something Microsoft should really learn from Apple; OS X does do a good job of keeping a consistent look and feel and giving the user cues as to what has changed when something does change.
                      Well, I'm someone who gets bored fast, I need change in my life every so often. I'm that kind of person that moves everything in it's room to another side about once every 4 months. I have upgrade stuff, I have to make it different. I don't know why, it's also not obsession, it's just, I get bored. And the 15 year consistent UI, hell, it kills me. I wasn't very happy with the Metro theme, but I got around it in a few days. Inconsistent things are so much more fun, gives me the option to explore and not only gives me the chance to explore, it gives me the chance to learn new things.


                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                      And it's not just consumers; businesses don't like to have to rewrite software and retrain employees just to move to a new version of an OS. Sometimes it's not even in their hands; if they bought software 20 years ago that does what they need, they're not going to move off it without a very compelling reason. That's why there are still communities around to support Win9x, OS/2, etc. If they haven't already, Microsoft would benefit greatly from being able to guarantee forward-compatibility with a large part of their core system (I know they do in some ways, that's the point of WOW64, to allow 32-bit and 64-bit applications to co-exist on the same system without making an entirely separate subsystem like with Win16).
                      I'm not portraying Windows as the best OS, it's just it pisses me off to see people kill W7 and W8 just because it looks different. When did schools stop teaching the "Don't judge a book by it's cover" thing? Different is not bad. Change is not bad. They haven't even tried it! Windows has a lot of problems and things that could be better, but W8 does not deserve to be thrown like that. If anything, do it to Vista.

                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                      And unfortunately, peoples' inability to adapt is not their problem, it's ours. It doesn't bother them at all to use 15 year old software, at least not until it breaks, and then it's our problem (well, if you work in IT like me, but as an engineer you'll probably be doing programming or possibly hardware). It's also Microsoft's problem, and they began realizing it a few years ago. That's why you have sites like this. Even THEY don't want to have to keep supporting it.
                      They threw too many UI changes at users with Win8 without providing appropriate cues and help to transition the user. They're also trying to stick a mobile UI on a desktop and a desktop UI on a mobile device without accounting for the fundamental differences in input methodology (a mouse is a lot different from a touchscreen) and typical use-case scenarios (there are some shared use-cases, but for the most part, people do different things with phones and desktops).
                      The user doesn't care about that. It's nice, but they want to be able to accomplish their task without having to learn new stuff. That's why you still have to put up with XP on your grandma's computer or whatever.
                      Saying that means nothing to a user and will probably just tick them off. If you want to know why people are staying with XP, you have to look at it from their perspective. They want to do X, Y, and Z, and they know how to do it in XP. They don't care about under-the-hood changes and they don't want to have to learn new stuff.
                      I do understand that Windows did a TERRIBLE job with the transitioning, and they didn't even give the user the option to enable the old UI, which really was a mistake if. If Metro wasn't a core function and you could choose to use it, I'm sure people would've upgraded to W8 and wouldn't have made a big fuzz about it.
                      And I don't mind having my grandma having XP, my grandma rarely uses the computer for anything and when she does it's to use Skype, done. I believe having our of all grandma's stick to XP is not bad, but I'm sure my grandma's not all over the internet saying nonsense about W8 being the worst OS. The excuse about having no time to learn how to do X, Y or Z on windows 8 because it looks different from XP is absurd. It's still windows, you install the software and you double click on it, if we are talking about the casual consumer and college/school students, then they are most likely using the computer for playing video games, surfing the web and the casual MicrosoftWord file. Same goes for a large % of people that works, they use Excel, some might have to deal with databases and specific software but there is really no difference between using Windows8 and WindowsXP, you still have your desktop where all your icons are at, you double click it and that's it. Metro's annoying, yes, I get it, but it's not that big of a deal. I know that most people don't care about the under the hood features, but not telling them why I think it's better? It'd turn to a "no 8 is better because it looks cool" thread.


                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                      UAC has an important purpose, but its initial state was useless because users would just click through it without understanding what it meant. In Win7, I think, they started color-coding UAC prompts. Green prompts don't show up by default, you have to specifically turn them on (stuff like changing settings in the control panel), yellow prompts show up for potentially dangerous actions, like running an application with elevated privileges, and red prompts show up when you're installing an unsigned component that can affect the core functionality of the system (e.g., unsigned driver, etc.). This was a better idea, but I'm still guessing most users just click through it without reading. However, it's a good idea, it just needs work. If they can pull off getting users to actually understand what it means, it'll go a long way toward making users more security-aware.
                      I think it would help if they'd work on getting things to install without requiring elevation by default. For instance, do these things: (a) make MSI easier to create (WiX is not exactly easy to learn), (b) deprecate other installer types, and (c) make a prominent "Install for current user (default, recommended) or globally (requires elevation)" thing a mandatory part of all MSI installers. Create a new "My Programs" directory in the user's home folder on all installs of Windows and have that be the default install directory instead of the global Program Files. Fewer UAC prompts means users will take the remaining ones way more seriously.
                      I personally don't use it, I love how they allowed people to turn the UAC off, it get's on my nerves to have my computer ask me if I'm sure I want to do stuff. I do agree with you on the WiX, MSI improvements that could be made tho. I know there is people that uses UAC for a reason, I have mines not to.


                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                      Only because Microsoft is end-of-lifing WinXP next year. If they weren't doing that, people would support it indefinitely because that's what users use. I agree it needs to be EOL'd, but don't fool yourself that it's from some inherent flaw in WinXP, it's because manufacturers no longer find it worthwhile to support (again, that's a good thing).
                      Never said it was a flaw from XP, sometimes an argument like that gets to people. I'm well aware if it weren't because of microsoft stopping XP, everyone would still go for XP. I'm so glad they did. Forcing people to move on it's kind of weird, but hell, it's been a long time, upgrade!


                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                      Hardly. Screwing with the core desktop metaphor is just asking for problems. It might have a solid foundation, but if you screw with the UI and don't make it easy for the users, they're just going to stick with what they know, and that's bad for everyone.
                      Like I said before, they did mess up the whole transition thing and they should have enabled the option to get rid of Metro, that would have made W8 a better OS. To my eyes, this has been one of the best Windows products.


                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                      As someone who hates Apple with a passion, let me just say you're missing the point. Users like OS X because it's easy to learn and they know they can do what they want without a hassle. And things rarely change without helping the user to learn how to do their old thing the new way. I don't think anyone doubts that Windows can do the same thing for less money, but if it's more of a hassle (and it is), they're going to pay a premium to do things the hassle-free way
                      Yeah, a closed system that allows nothing that hasn't been reviewed by Apple and forces you to certain options and doesn't let you modify core options certainly isn't user-friendly. I call that casual-friendly. I do count as a user, why can't the software be friendly to me as well? I'm not saying they should please me or anything, but that's one of the reasons apple lost me. And for believing they are giving "premium" software.


                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                      That made no sense whatsoever. You can achieve almost any conceivable use case from the GUI of either Vista or OS X. If you had to drop down into the CLI to do basic things, nobody except power users would ever use it (like most distributions of Linux aside from the Ubuntu family).
                      Sorry, I should've been more specific about this, I obviously didn't mean to say basic things need of the terminal, but there are customization options that can only be reached through terminal and I like customizing about EVERYTHING. I had a couple of VMWare machines running on Mac OS X because my girlfriend said "don't tell me, show me" and after she checked it out by her self (note: I didn't install it, I let it all for her to do because she knew I'd start ranting and saying how bad everything was the moment I saw it. Also, there are some known errors when running Mac OS X like that, I'm not taking those errors in consideration) I sat alone and decided to try it myself too, maybe I was wrong... I wasn't. Hidden files, getting rid of some animation effects, key repeating, how about I don't want the backup to run every hour? terminal, say you are playing with stuff and the desktop freezes, you have to go all the way through the terminal to kill the desktop, the windows task manager saves me from going all the way through CMD to do that and most things you can customize in the control panel. I haven't heard anything from the OS X remote control sadly. Also, having to pay for AppZipper because you don't want to go on deleting folders of apps you no longer want... It's easy if it's just one folder, I've had to uninstall Photoshop from my fathers computer a couple of times, not entertaining.


                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                      You can program on any system, I don't think I understood this one right.
                      Yeah, you'd have to see my friends reaction to Xcode sometimes not working to understand it. I know it was a bad example but I found it amusing. You can just ignore this one haha.


                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                      That rumor is indeed fake. However, OS X has far fewer viruses, and not just by way of being obscure. As a BSD-derivative, it has a very solid foundation and OS X really takes the principle of least privilege to heart. Any particular application only runs with the privileges it requires, which, I believe, have to be declared by the programmer in advance (or maybe OS X determines this on its own? not sure). This might not be the case for older applications running on older APIs, but this is made obvious to the user and they actually found a way to make the user understand this and desire applications made in the newer APIs (by guaranteeing applications using the newer API confirm to their UI guidelines to some degree, I believe).
                      I believe it's the programmer who has to declare that.


                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by twocows View Post
                      I have no idea where this supposition comes from. About the only thing OS X lacks is an official package manager (though you could say the Apple Store fills that role), and that's by no means part of the UNIX specification. It's something UNIX and UNIX-derivatives developed out of necessity, more than anything. OS X users don't need it, so it doesn't exist. And that comes from someone experienced with several distributions of Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, and Windows.
                      - Not open source
                      - Apache does not use PHP out of the box - PHP is integrated but you need to edit the config file, which is non-trivial given how locked down OSX is. My early years learning programming was PHP, needless to say, my father's apple wasn't very friendly to me.
                      - Developer tools need to be installed separately
                      - File system difficult to navigate via GUI imo
                      - Can only legally run on Apple hardware
                      - Costs a lot of money
                      - No freedom to choose because Apple decides what they sell on the Apple Store.
                      Reply With Quote
                        #72    
                      Old June 17th, 2013 (11:57 AM).
                      Regeneration's Avatar
                      Regeneration Regeneration is offline
                      meow
                      • Silver Tier
                       
                      Join Date: Nov 2010
                      Location: Somewhere I Belong
                      Gender: Male
                      Nature: Calm
                      Posts: 1,423
                      I've never hated anything as much as I hate Windows 8. I'm not talking about the lack of a start button and stuff. For me it's been crashing frequently and when it starts up with that quick boot thingy, sometimes it comes up with an error message about something going wrong and decides to restart instead. So much for quick boot. :(
                      Win 7 was better.
                      Reply With Quote
                        #73    
                      Old June 17th, 2013 (6:34 PM).
                      twocows's Avatar
                      twocows twocows is offline
                      Mostly Benign
                      • Gold Tier
                       
                      Join Date: Mar 2009
                      Location: Michigan
                      Age: 27
                      Gender: Male
                      Nature: Lax
                      Posts: 4,202
                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by danks_ View Post
                      Well, I'm someone who gets bored fast, I need change in my life every so often. I'm that kind of person that moves everything in it's room to another side about once every 4 months. I have upgrade stuff, I have to make it different. I don't know why, it's also not obsession, it's just, I get bored. And the 15 year consistent UI, hell, it kills me. I wasn't very happy with the Metro theme, but I got around it in a few days. Inconsistent things are so much more fun, gives me the option to explore and not only gives me the chance to explore, it gives me the chance to learn new things.
                      That's fine, but you have to realize you're not the typical user. The typical user is using the OS as a means to accomplish an end, and if you want the user to be happy, you need to let them accomplish that end with as few difficulties as possible. That includes difficulties like learning new stuff unless it's really, really important.
                      Quote:
                      I'm not portraying Windows as the best OS, it's just it pisses me off to see people kill W7 and W8 just because it looks different. When did schools stop teaching the "Don't judge a book by it's cover" thing? Different is not bad. Change is not bad. They haven't even tried it!
                      Change is not inherently bad, but change for the sake of change is when your goal is to facilitate accomplishing various tasks. It's not that it looks different (people change their desktop background all the time), it's that it's functionally different, and that requires relearning. And users don't like to have to relearn when their set of tasks hasn't changed.
                      Quote:
                      Windows has a lot of problems and things that could be better, but W8 does not deserve to be thrown like that. If anything, do it to Vista.
                      Not all problems have to be related to the stability and performance of the system. If a user can't figure out how to do something they need to do, that can be just as frustrating as having the system lock up or losing some important data, especially if it's something important that needs to be done quickly.
                      Quote:
                      I do understand that Windows did a TERRIBLE job with the transitioning, and they didn't even give the user the option to enable the old UI, which really was a mistake if. If Metro wasn't a core function and you could choose to use it, I'm sure people would've upgraded to W8 and wouldn't have made a big fuzz about it.
                      Quite right, and it's a shame Microsoft cares more about gaining market share on phones than making a solid desktop product (the whole point of Metro on the desktop is that Microsoft wants to force desktop users to get familiar with Metro so they'll be more amenable to purchasing a Windows Phone).
                      Quote:
                      And I don't mind having my grandma having XP, my grandma rarely uses the computer for anything and when she does it's to use Skype, done. I believe having our of all grandma's stick to XP is not bad,
                      I disagree, I think it is bad. XP is ancient, unstable, bug-ridden, unoptimized, and overall just a pain. What I do think we need is a Windows OS that looks identical (or nearly identical) that receives maintenance. There's no reason to force grandma to learn Metro when all she does is check her Facebook. They can even add new UI features, so long as the underlying UI functionality and way of doing things remains in place.
                      Quote:
                      but I'm sure my grandma's not all over the internet saying nonsense about W8 being the worst OS.
                      Probably because she's not using it.
                      Quote:
                      The excuse about having no time to learn how to do X, Y or Z on windows 8 because it looks different from XP is absurd. It's still windows, you install the software and you double click on it, if we are talking about the casual consumer and college/school students, then they are most likely using the computer for playing video games, surfing the web and the casual MicrosoftWord file. Same goes for a large % of people that works, they use Excel, some might have to deal with databases and specific software but there is really no difference between using Windows8 and WindowsXP, you still have your desktop where all your icons are at, you double click it and that's it. Metro's annoying, yes, I get it, but it's not that big of a deal. I know that most people don't care about the under the hood features, but not telling them why I think it's better? It'd turn to a "no 8 is better because it looks cool" thread.
                      I wasn't just referring to Win8 with that. Fundamentally, the overall way of doing things hasn't really changed, but Microsoft keeps changing small things here and there, and those add up. Most of the changes probably are for the better, some might not be, but regardless, the user doesn't like learning new things. That's not to say they shouldn't have to learn new things (let's not get stuck in the stone ages), just that if you're going to change what happens when a user does something, you need to let them know how to do what they expected. For instance, if you've moved some feature X to a new location, either make it blatantly obvious where the new X is or cue them in as to where it is now.
                      Quote:
                      I personally don't use it, I love how they allowed people to turn the UAC off, it get's on my nerves to have my computer ask me if I'm sure I want to do stuff. I do agree with you on the WiX, MSI improvements that could be made tho. I know there is people that uses UAC for a reason, I have mines not to.
                      UAC's really important and it's fine if you, as a power user, don't use it on your own machine. However, it's an important security tool for users. And part of changing it from "annoying thing that interferes with my work" to "important notice that this may be dangerous" is reducing the number of prompts for legitimate activities, like an install that you solicited. And part of THAT is allowing per-user installs to make elevation required only when absolutely necessary.
                      Quote:
                      Like I said before, they did mess up the whole transition thing and they should have enabled the option to get rid of Metro, that would have made W8 a better OS. To my eyes, this has been one of the best Windows products.
                      Indeed they should have. Win8 may be an improvement in a lot of ways, but nobody's going to switch when they hear about this Metro thing that might interfere with their work. It doesn't even have to, they just have to think it's going to and that's enough reason for them to stick with what they have.

                      I haven't had a chance to use Win8 myself, so I can't comment, but if Metro is something that only really gets brought up under specific circumstances and people are saying otherwise, that's something you should correct when it comes up. Misinformation like that is bad for everyone.
                      Quote:
                      Yeah, a closed system that allows nothing that hasn't been reviewed by Apple and forces you to certain options and doesn't let you modify core options certainly isn't user-friendly.
                      Which options are you talking about? OS X has an equivalent to the control panel and I believe most applications have to have their own settings dialog to be compliant.
                      Quote:
                      I call that casual-friendly.
                      Call it what you will. One of the big things OS X does right is not burden the user with a plethora of options they won't care about. Non-trivial settings can still be changed at the user's discretion and things that are really important still usually require user input (perhaps with a sane default value).

                      For instance, take this old, old example from over ten years ago. Microsoft got rid of this specific dialog, but they still failed to learn the principle behind it: don't interrupt the user's workflow with trivialities and only present the user with important settings.
                      Quote:
                      I do count as a user, why can't the software be friendly to me as well? I'm not saying they should please me or anything, but that's one of the reasons apple lost me. And for believing they are giving "premium" software.
                      Without knowing what irritated you, I have no way of knowing whether your problem was something they did wrong or just a cost-benefit sort of thing.
                      Quote:
                      Sorry, I should've been more specific about this, I obviously didn't mean to say basic things need of the terminal, but there are customization options that can only be reached through terminal and I like customizing about EVERYTHING.
                      "EVERYTHING" is vague. Too many choices just confuse most users (look at Linux distributions like Gentoo and Arch Linux for an example of where too many choices can be a bad thing), so it's going to be a cost-benefit issue; most users are going to want to accomplish a set of tasks and not tinker with how the system works. Part of being a developer is realizing you can't please everyone (nor should you try) and figuring out what you can do to make the common case run smoothly while still making outer-boundary cases functional (if maybe a bit less smoothly). And knowing your target audience plays into that; OS X is designed to let people accomplish their set of tasks efficiently and it does that well.
                      Quote:
                      Hidden files,
                      Are an attempt to prevent the average user from screwing things up.
                      Quote:
                      getting rid of some animation effects,
                      If you can't turn animation effects off, that's a design defect. They're designed to cue the user in to important things happening in the UI, but it's plausible that a user might want those off and that should be a tickable setting somewhere.
                      Quote:
                      key repeating,
                      I don't know what you mean by this.
                      Quote:
                      how about I don't want the backup to run every hour?
                      Backups are probably low-priority, which means their running isn't going to interfere with the operation of the system. Apple probably decided allowing the user to tweak this wasn't necessary, since backups are supposed to happen without the user's knowledge anyway (the only time the topic is supposed to come up is once something has already gone wrong and they need to restore).
                      Quote:
                      say you are playing with stuff and the desktop freezes, you have to go all the way through the terminal to kill the desktop,
                      I don't know about that. I thought they had a force-kill prompt when something freezes and, if that thing was the desktop, it would automatically restart. But I don't know for certain.
                      Quote:
                      the windows task manager saves me from going all the way through CMD to do that and most things you can customize in the control panel.
                      One of the things they did with Lion was get rid of the notion of running and stopping programs. Instead, they have it so that when a user "puts away" an application, it closes on its own after a while if it's not doing anything and saves whatever state data is necessary in order to resume. The idea is that a user shouldn't have to worry about what's actually running and should only have to worry about what's showing up on their screen. I don't know if I like that, but it was a design choice to make it so the average user doesn't have to understand yet another concept they shouldn't need to care about. On the other hand, that takes away fine-grain control of program operation from us. Again, that was to make things better for their target audience. And it's another reason I don't use OS X: it's not made for me (also it's way too expensive and a lot of older games don't run on it).
                      Quote:
                      Also, having to pay for AppZipper because you don't want to go on deleting folders of apps you no longer want... It's easy if it's just one folder, I've had to uninstall Photoshop from my fathers computer a couple of times, not entertaining.
                      I don't know much about that, but it sounds like a problem with Photoshop if they're leaving significant amounts of data behind after you get rid of the application.
                      Quote:
                      - Not open source
                      UNIX does not necessitate open source.
                      Quote:
                      - Apache does not use PHP out of the box - PHP is integrated but you need to edit the config file, which is non-trivial given how locked down OSX is. My early years learning programming was PHP, needless to say, my father's apple wasn't very friendly to me.
                      That sounds like a problem with Apache.
                      Quote:
                      - Developer tools need to be installed separately
                      That is true, but I do not believe that is part of the One UNIX Specification. And since most users will never need them, and they're still readily available online or from Apple, it's not that big of a deal.
                      Quote:
                      - File system difficult to navigate via GUI imo
                      The parts your typical user is going to need access to are easy to get to. I think you can also add / to the list of locations in the browser, not sure on that though.
                      Quote:
                      - Can only legally run on Apple hardware
                      I agree that is a very bad thing (one of my biggest gripes), but that doesn't really make it a bad UNIX system.
                      Quote:
                      - Costs a lot of money
                      Same as above.
                      Quote:
                      - No freedom to choose because Apple decides what they sell on the Apple Store.
                      I am almost certain you can install applications from outside the Apple Store. It may now require a setting that didn't used to be required, but I'm still pretty sure you can do it. But again, that doesn't really play into how it operates as a UNIX system. It conforms to the Single UNIX Specification (either entirely or for the most part), so it's UNIX.
                      Reply With Quote
                        #74    
                      Old June 17th, 2013 (6:37 PM).
                      Zet's Avatar
                      Zet Zet is offline
                      • Platinum Tier
                       
                      Join Date: Sep 2007
                      Location: Brisbane, Australia
                      Age: 27
                      Gender: Male
                      Nature: Jolly
                      Posts: 7,755
                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by Regeneration View Post
                      I've never hated anything as much as I hate Windows 8. I'm not talking about the lack of a start button and stuff. For me it's been crashing frequently and when it starts up with that quick boot thingy, sometimes it comes up with an error message about something going wrong and decides to restart instead. So much for quick boot. :(
                      Win 7 was better.
                      Sounds like you installed something that has gone horribly wrong. Either start removing programs one by one, or just do a format.
                      Reply With Quote
                        #75    
                      Old June 17th, 2013 (7:52 PM).
                      Pichu2Pikachu2Raichu's Avatar
                      Pichu2Pikachu2Raichu Pichu2Pikachu2Raichu is offline
                      Yep, that's me
                      • Silver Tier
                       
                      Join Date: Mar 2013
                      Location: Hastings, New Zealand
                      Age: 27
                      Nature: Naughty
                      Posts: 309
                      OMG that second to last post, what a quote.

                      Windows XP is the best OS

                      All other Windows OS are c***

                      EOS.
                      __________________

                      Pichu2Pikachu2Raichu
                      My favorite evolution series

                      Kiwi Land|Thunder Bolt Forums|ProBoards After Dark|New Zealand


                      Reply With Quote
                      Reply

                      Quick Reply

                      Join the conversation!

                      Create an account to post a reply in this thread, participate in other discussions, and more!

                      Create a PokéCommunity Account

                      Sponsored Links
                      Thread Tools

                      Posting Rules
                      You may not post new threads
                      You may not post replies
                      You may not post attachments
                      You may not edit your posts

                      BB code is On
                      Smilies are On
                      [IMG] code is On
                      HTML code is Off

                      Forum Jump


                      All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:23 AM.