Actually, I think Armada on Dreamcast uses Win CE. And I know that some of the developers are going to port PC games to DC just because they don't have to recode that much. But you're right - most developers use the much lower-level, faster Sega OS. Oh yeah, and I think the X-Box WILL use CE for games and all. They do have a version of DirectX for CE... besides, why else would they port CE to Dreamcast? How about practice for making their own system?
I had already typed this up once and cancelled it, but re-reading some posts has caused me to try again. Sorry if I'm repeating statements written earlier, I just had to write how I felt...
For a good chunk of computer users, the underlying OS is pretty much important - it's just a nuisance keeping them from running their applications. They don't care if their OS has a super-spiffy 64-bit journalistic file system or built in support for SMP and multiple users. They just want to be able to connect up to AOL / the Internet, type up documents, and play games with a minimum amount of fuss. That's what keeps a lot of people on Windows - it's pre-installed, kinda does what they want it to do, and it has a large software base. What am I trying to say? I'll summarize in two points:
1. Applications ARE important. Despite the fact that AOL is extremely resource-intensive and bloated, that's what people want. And people aren't going to have any motivations to switch OSes if what they want to run doesn't exist anywhere else. Linux, BeOS, and other OS advocates: this means requesting ports of anything and everything that the general public uses, even if it is (by most standards) sub-par. It also means developing innovative and creative applications to lure people over to your OS. All too often, I have seen hundreds of knockoffs ported from one OS to another. If all you have is knockoffs, what incentive is there to switch OSes? A truly innovative program, however, will tempt users over to your side. 2. Keep it simple, stupid. Remember that the OS is their so users can run their applications - they don't want to go through a hassle in order to do what they want to. Despite Microsoft's millions of dollars invested into UI research, I think their interface is still too intrusive and unnatural. Why do I think this? I've noticed that a lot of novice computer users tend to place shortcuts to programs on their desktop - not in the Start Menu where they're supposed to be. Why? It's much simpler and quicker this way, even if they do end up with a screen full of icons. If the point of a OS is to run to run apps (like I've been arguing above), the OS should be almost transparent to the end user.
Oh well, that's my rant. I personally think applications are the driving market behind OSes, and not vice-versa. In order to coax people to your OS, you must deliver the apps and a minimal amount of fuss.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but what's the point? You can't run FireWire over a distance of a couple hundred miles...
Actually, I think Armada on Dreamcast uses Win CE. And I know that some of the developers are going to port PC games to DC just because they don't have to recode that much. But you're right - most developers use the much lower-level, faster Sega OS.
Oh yeah, and I think the X-Box WILL use CE for games and all. They do have a version of DirectX for CE... besides, why else would they port CE to Dreamcast? How about practice for making their own system?
I had already typed this up once and cancelled it, but re-reading some posts has caused me to try again. Sorry if I'm repeating statements written earlier, I just had to write how I felt...
For a good chunk of computer users, the underlying OS is pretty much important - it's just a nuisance keeping them from running their applications. They don't care if their OS has a super-spiffy 64-bit journalistic file system or built in support for SMP and multiple users. They just want to be able to connect up to AOL / the Internet, type up documents, and play games with a minimum amount of fuss. That's what keeps a lot of people on Windows - it's pre-installed, kinda does what they want it to do, and it has a large software base.
What am I trying to say? I'll summarize in two points:
1. Applications ARE important.
Despite the fact that AOL is extremely resource-intensive and bloated, that's what people want. And people aren't going to have any motivations to switch OSes if what they want to run doesn't exist anywhere else. Linux, BeOS, and other OS advocates: this means requesting ports of anything and everything that the general public uses, even if it is (by most standards) sub-par. It also means developing innovative and creative applications to lure people over to your OS. All too often, I have seen hundreds of knockoffs ported from one OS to another. If all you have is knockoffs, what incentive is there to switch OSes? A truly innovative program, however, will tempt users over to your side.
2. Keep it simple, stupid.
Remember that the OS is their so users can run their applications - they don't want to go through a hassle in order to do what they want to. Despite Microsoft's millions of dollars invested into UI research, I think their interface is still too intrusive and unnatural. Why do I think this? I've noticed that a lot of novice computer users tend to place shortcuts to programs on their desktop - not in the Start Menu where they're supposed to be. Why? It's much simpler and quicker this way, even if they do end up with a screen full of icons. If the point of a OS is to run to run apps (like I've been arguing above), the OS should be almost transparent to the end user.
Oh well, that's my rant. I personally think applications are the driving market behind OSes, and not vice-versa. In order to coax people to your OS, you must deliver the apps and a minimal amount of fuss.