|
Member 4724084 wrote: No, while they all do the same thing, they do it differently.
Not so differently as you seem to think.
How many ways are there to print a pixel on the screen?
How many ways are there to read a character from memory?
How many ways are there to connect to a wifi access point?
Hint: There's one way for each.
The "base code" -- the commands sent to the hardware -- are absolutely identical for each item of hardware, no matter what device the hardware is a part of.
Saying that Windows 3 and Windows 999 use the same machine code is a waste of breath. They have no choice but to use the same machine code, because the one and only machine code is what makes computers work, for every version of every operating system from everyone who makes operating systems.
Everything else is window dressing -- no pun intended (for once in my life).
Do you think that having taskbars or menus built with ever-so-slightly different third- or fourth-generation code makes operating systems incredibly unique?
Look more closely at the machine. When you write code, you are putting together sets of instructions to be sent to the hardware, nothing more, nothing less.
Sure, you can vary the commands to a very small degree, and vary the order in which they're sent to a higher degree -- you can modify the recipe, as you put it -- but that doesn't change your root ingredients, which are the same ingredients that everyone has to use.
Nothing in Windows is unique to Windows. Their task bars and menus are printed on the screen using exactly the same "base code" as everyone else's.
I dunno. Kids these days...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
How many ways to print a pixel on a monitor? 3, one for CRT, one for LCD, one for Plasma.
How many ways to read a character from RAM? Depends on the RAM architecture.
How many ways are there to connect to a wifi access point? Ok you got me on that one.
There is more than one type of Machine code, so your statement that there is only one that makes computers work is entirely false. The machine code that is used is dependant entirely on the architecture.
Software, including base code such as is found in kernels, is ever changing with each iteration, eventually you have something that has little to no resemblance to the original. This also happens as new more efficient algorithms are discovered to perform any given task, as those new algorithms are implemented, less and less of the original code remains.
As hardware undergoes an iteration, so to does the code that runs on that hardware, again after x iterations you have little to nothing left of the original. Also the code that runs on a binary computer is substantially different to code that runs on a ternary computer. By your definition it is the same thing, in practice it is not, radically so.
Any variant of windows you can name prints a task bar/menu on the VDU in a different manner than Mac OS system 6, again by your definition they are the same thing. In practice they are not.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't like answers that come from wikipedia.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: I don't like answers that come from wikipedia.
Neither do I, exactly why I don't use it.
To use one of your phrases "Kids these days..."
|
|
|
|
|
It was a typical wikipedia answer, in that it was a lot of useless detail that is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
For example:
In response to my statement that all OS manufacturers have to use one method for printing a pixel, you responded that there are three methods, "one for CRT, one for LCD, one for Plasma".
So are you:
a: Saying that Microsoft uses CRT for Windows, apple uses plasma, and Linux uses LCD?
b: just responding with the result of a google search through wikipedia that threw up totally irrelevant details that are meaningless in the context of the discussion?
In response to my statement that there is only one machine code you replied "There is more than one type of Machine code"
So are you:
a: Saying that Microsoft uses one variety of machine code for Windows, apple uses another for iOS, and Google uses another for Android?
b: just responding with the result of a google search through wikipedia that threw up totally irrelevant details that are meaningless in the context of the discussion?
In both examples, the answer appears to be b.
If you want to have a discussion with someone, have a discussion with them.
Don't force people to sit through tiresome discussions with you + wikipedia.
Believe it or not, your opinion is more interesting than any "information" from wikipedia (which is often incorrect, as -maxx- likes to demonstrate).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You said:
Mark_Wallace wrote: How many ways are there to print a pixel on the screen?
How many ways are there to read a character from memory?
How many ways are there to connect to a wifi access point?
Hint: There's one way for each.
Your hint is utterly false on two of those statements.
What I am saying is an OS, while achieving the same goal, is not the same across the board, just like two of the answers to your questions.
Yes there is more than one variant of machine code. Machine code is processor dependant. Motorola does not use x86 machine code, for example, nor does PowerPC, or a host of other processor fabricators you care to name.
The way software is 'cooked' is, as you have already pointed out, largely dependant on the hardware that it runs on. The end result is largely the same, how that end result is achieved varies with each iteration of hardware and code. After x amount of iterations of either, it becomes largely unrecognisable when compared to the first iteration. Again, comparing win 3.x to win 8.x is like comparing apples and oranges.
That is the entire point I have been making.
|
|
|
|
|
But I though Windows 8 was the new name for Vista... (:
|
|
|
|
|
How does Microsoft capture part of the mobile market without everyone saying that there are too many versions of Windows and there should only be one?
Again, I have never owned a touchscreen and Windows 8 & 8.1 have worked marvelously for me since the Windows 8 beta. The big secret: use the traditional Windows desktop that comes with Windows 8, you just press the windows key to switch to it, and you're off and running with you standard keyboard and mouse. It functions just like windows 7. If you want to start a program and don't have an icon for it, you press the windows key, start typing the name of the program, and press enter to start it. Back to the Windows 7 experience.
Interesting now how Windows 10 is right around the corner, and this thread has some of the nicest things to say about Windows 8. People always seem to be OK with the previous version.
Remember when windows 7 came out and all of a sudden everybody was in love with Vista, after YEARS of ripping it apart? Human nature.
hatfok
King Yiddum's Castle
Pegasus Galaxy
|
|
|
|
|
You had me at hollandaise!
|
|
|
|
|
Kyle Moyer wrote: Windows ME was back to ramen.
Windows ME was stale overcooked ramen and someone forgot to include the flavor packet.
|
|
|
|
|
Linux is a Michelin-starred all-you-can-eat buffet.
|
|
|
|
|
I had it at home, didn't hate it once 8.1 came out as you could boot into desktop mode.
The start menu didn't bother me as I usually pin frequent used items to the task bar.
I can't see an advantage for it to be used into a corporate environment to be honest. At work were waiting for Windows 10 as were on XP due to legacy software that were rewriting at the moment from Access 2000
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
For me, it's a matter of not being able to really get there. I am on a service pack on Windows 8.0, as an upgrade from Windows 7. After three several hour attempts to upgrade to Windows 8.1, it fails with an esoteric blue screen crash, and takes a few more hours to roll itself back.
I loathe Windows 8.0, primarily for its flakiness and app incompatibility, but I cannot move the box forwards or backwards without wiping it. I'll use Windows as required at work, but this box killer, plus Dell laptops now shipping with Ubuntu, means I'll never personally buy a Windows device again. {end mini-rant}
|
|
|
|
|
One thing I have to agree with is that YES - - - EVERY time I try to upgrade a version of Windows it goes horribly wrong. Then spend hours trying to fix itself. I always end up wiping the drive and installing from scratch. Doesn't matter if it's my gaming rig, gaming laptop, regular laptop, wife's or kid's machines, the upgrade nor the recovery have ever worked for me.
hatfok
King Yiddum's Castle
Pegasus Galaxy
|
|
|
|
|
The app and driver incompatibility in regards to Vista comes down to vendor laziness, no different to how it was in Vista. Vista came out, vendors scrambled to catch up. The only real thing to blame there is the length of time before it was released, vendors got lazy, thought Vista was just vapour ware that would never get released then BOOM! everyone has to scramble to catch up. You use Dell machines? Well there's your problem. They are notoriously flaky, have had numerous issues with some variant of malware being cooked into their firmware, some 95% of machines requiring after market hardware maintenance etc. There is a very big reason why Michael Dell bought out the public shares and made the company private again.
|
|
|
|
|
We use both in our household. I use 8.1 with a boot directly into the 7 style desktop. From my perspective, there is not much difference. I'm happy with either, but maybe it just takes little to keep me happy. 
BTW: I never experienced problems with any of the updates.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you are a genius!!! I spend most of my life when windows 8 came out explaining and re-explaining to everyone I know that you do not need a touchscreen to use windows 8. Finally some people are intelligent enough to see that! Cheers!
hatfok
King Yiddum's Castle
Pegasus Galaxy
|
|
|
|
|
Two MAJOR issues:
Usability!
Win 8 is a totally different paradigm that Win 7. For a laptop and the Windows Phone the Tiles were cute, but for a Corporate environment, no one really wants to work like that.
Security!
Win 8 has gone completely overboard with security. As a developer your app can only write to it's own folder or the cloud... so I can't build an app that write app that write to another app's folder.. something I've done in the past.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Marois wrote: As a developer your app can only write to it's own folder or the cloud...
Only if you're writing a don't-call-it-Metro "app". If you write a proper application, you can still do all the same stuff you could do in 7.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Oh good Lord - see the previous post --> "boot directly into the 7 style desktop. From my perspective, there is not much difference. I'm happy with either"
I thought this was over. 
hatfok
King Yiddum's Castle
Pegasus Galaxy
|
|
|
|
|
The corporate environment is full of dashboards, Metro apps born for that. It is full with restrictions (or downtime for removing viruses), too.
Added: and full with longing for full screen, single apps the users can't switch from.
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't worked with win 8, but everytime I'm working on any of our servers I'm thinking up new cruel punishments for whoever it was that decided a tablet operating system was fitting for a server.
I'm not going into details as to why, as Griff has described it all quite well in another post.
|
|
|
|
|
It actually works well with future MS tech, I cite hololens. Think about it, tapping a virtual button makes sense, you don't even have to be at the machine except for hardware maintenace, just look at it, the "menu" buttons come up, you "tap" the one you want in the virtual space and the world is at your finger tips.
|
|
|
|
|
I've got 8.1 on a tablet. It isn't as reliable as Android. But life is quieter than Android, which does sh!t through the eye of a needle updates everytime I switch on.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't use Windows 8.0 or 8.1, and have never made the switch to it. I have no doubt there are improvements from Windows 7, but these were never really significant enough for me to "upgrade".
As a primarily desktop user, what really killed it for me is the UX. Although it may seem like a non-factor at first, it is actually a huge factor due to its significant changes from Win 7. What Win 8 tried to do was create an OS that fits all. This simply does not work, my desktop is not a tablet, my tablet is not a desktop.
The start screen while optimized for a touch system, is not intuitive for a non-touch screen. I certainly have no desire to touch my desktop monitor. When 99% of the time I spend would be in desktop mode, it makes no sense to exit desktop mode, open a start screen that blocks my whole view, just to open another app on the desktop mode. Then you have things like duplicated functional apps due to the newer metro store apps. Should I use IE in metro mode or use the desktop IE? The Metro UI is just sour icing on top that makes it worst. They brought the whole UI to Windows Server, and now it's easier to shut down the machine than to log off. The start screen is even more irrelevant on a server.
Can I get used to these changes? Yes I certainly can, but I am much more satisfied and happy with staying at Windows 7. Although... Win 10 might change my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
