If it's really ready for use today, why aren't we seeing it?
Maybe it's more ambitious than any of the existing alternatives and simply isn't finished yet ?
The computer world is leapfrog after leapfrong. 5 years ago Apple's OS was (technicalogically) trailing the competition by 5 - 10 years. Today, MacOS is in many ways cutting edge.
The fact is, Windows XP is technologically behind all of its competitors.
What competitors are you thinking of ? OS X is probably ahead on the whole, but it's still got performance issues and for most aspects of networking, is worse.
Linux ? It has some advantages in a few corner cases - mainly to do with customisability - but on the whole it's, at *best*, just on par with Windows.
There's certainly not enough distance between/any/ of the current crop of OSes/on average/ to call one a clear winner.
Most well trained admins prefer a Unix server box over a Windows server box.
"Well trained admins" use whatever platform best suits the task at hand. In some places (like my old job) this is predominantly Windows. In some places (like my new job) this is predominantly unix.
Apple has made Mac OS X an extremely pleasent environment to use with little things like Alt-TAB through applications, then Alt-` through an application's windows. These little things add up into a much nicer user environment.
Interesting you pick something I consider to be one of the most frustrating and inefficient aspects of the OS X UI...
Honestly, if you haven't used an Apple, consider getting one or borrowing one. After just a little bit of everyday use, I think you'll find what everyone is raving about.:-)
I own a Mac. It's nice, but it's hardly the second coming. There are still a lot of areas Apple needs to improve (like the interactive responsiveness).
Bootstrap doesn't count, every computer, x86 or not needs enough "BIOS" to hand off to the boot loader. Don't be obtuse.
I'm not. The original poster claimed that the only reason the BIOS still exists was because Windows required it. This is false - we still have the BIOS because *every* x86 OS "requires it".
Windows needs a BIOS as much - or as little, depending on your perspective - as Linux, BeOS, OS/2, OS X, etc.
Probably because some crufted-over operating system of 20 years ago still doesn't know how to live without it, and even more perplexingly, is still used despite lack of a modern implementation that takes into account today's hardware and security concerns. Even you noticed modern OSs lack this problem.
False. All x86 OSes "need" a BIOS to bootstrap. Once the bootloader kicks in, however, the BIOS is irrelevant. This applies to Windows, Linux, BeOS, OS/2, even OS X/intel - all of them.
Apart from really, really shitty customer service on AMD's part, what other explanation could there be?
Because while AMD's processors may well be excellent, the supporting hardware that goes with them (ie: motherboards) tends to be either crap or _really expensive_.
We don't buy AMD based servers because we don't like AMD. We don't by AMD based servers because we can't find decent, affordable, capable motherboards to put them in.
If that were true, the PowerMac G4 Cube would have been a top seller.
The Cube is, perhaps, a special case - because even for Apple it was stupidly overpriced and underpowered.
The "look" of the machine is a nudge factor that people consider "when all else is equal". But they do not pay a premium for "looks". (Again the G4 Cube example.)
Actually they will (the Mac Mini being an excellent example), they just won't pay "too much". The Cube was "too much". The Mini is within reason.
If things continue as they are, in 20 years the only "alternative" media (i.e., not owned and operated by corporate plutocrats) the USA might have is Pacifica Radio, and that's assuming there IS radio in 20 years or that it wasn't bought out by AirAmerica and its corporate sponsors.
There is a vast gulf between "censorship" and "selective hearing".
Places like China and Iran have "censorship". Places like America have "selective hearing". There's nothing _stopping_ people from voicing and listening to alternative media, they're simply not interested in doing so.
Liberals more often embrace an arrogant refusal to accept anyone not bowing before their views and worshipping the ground they walk on and fight like mad to get their way no matter what the cost to others, as long as they win and their ideas are enshrined.
No, it doesn't. "You need to be admin to change screen resolution in Windows" and "you can restrict users from not changing the screen resolution" are two *very* different statements. The one I responded to was the first, which is incorrect.
It's ignored because Windows was never designed with security in mind and grew to be the mess it is because that's the only way you can properly run Windows, as admin.
Windows NT was most certainly designed with [multiuser] "security in mind".
To come along much later and fix this, then blame the users is very poor on Microsoft's part.
They should be blaming the developers. It's their fault they're writing applications that "need" admin privileges.
Sure, adding Office or Baldurs Gate should require admin, changing screen resolution? Hell no.
Changing the screen resolution in Windows does not require admin privileges.
Half the spyware normal users get uses privledge escalation holes anyway so it does not keep that crap down.
Which ones ? Privilege escalation bugs aren't exactly common.
Anyway, I have been told (but have not tried) that making the "temp" folder trees "Everyone" read/write explicitly, and adding each account explicitly fixes most of the "run as admin" problems.
You've been told wrong. For starters, every user on the machine can create new files and modify existing files that belong to them in C:\Windows\Temp. Secondly, most all apps (even the badly written ones) use the per-user TMP variables that point to directories within the users profile (that they have "Full Control" over).
Most programs dont do much registry editing, but a lot need scratch space and if they use the temp folders, they need access to them.
No, in fact the most common problem is applications that try to store things that *should* go in HKEY_CURRENT_USER in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE. Bugs like this are actually a good indicator of the developer's lack of interest in updating their product, because per-user registry hives were introduced to Windows 9x back with Windows 98 (they've always been in NT AFAIK).
The second most common problem is stupid developers trying to write to files (often user or application preferences) in either their program's directory or the Windows directory (DOOM 3 has this problem).
The Mac, for example, won't let you put stuff into the Applications folder unless you can supply an administrative password.
This statement gets bandied around a lot, but it is not true. If a user is an "admin", they can copy things into/Applications (amongst other places) without needing to authenticate.
It's a fault that non-util software also requires admin to run, but whether that's Windows' fault or the developer of the software is open to question at best.
No, it isn't. The fault lies with the developers. Windows NT has been multiuser since 1993. All versions of Windows since Windows 98 have had the necessary APIs, registry features, filesystem layout, etc to allow developers to write their apps to contain user preferences, saved files, etc to the right places. So for ~7 years now developers have had an _in production_ version of Windows to target "multiuser friendly" applications at.
There is no excuse today for Windows developers to be routinely writing applications that require Administrator access. None.
"Wow, look at these new things Microsoft created! They're amazing!" because they've never used anything but IE.
Of course, this is no different from Linux or OS X getting something that's been around for years and having all their respective fanboys running around going "look how cool $OUR_OS is, it's got $FEATURE".
In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service.
So what is this "product or service" that only Microsoft provide ?
Server Operating Systems ? Nope, plenty of them to pick from.
Desktop Operating Systems ? At least one fully functional alternative, and several if you listen to the Linux community.
Office Suites ? Nope, several of them as well.
Development environment ? Of course not.
"Just because Microsoft has made it nearly impossible for anyone to choose an alternative to Windows, doesn't mean there aren't alternatives."
It is - and always has been - trivial to choose an alternative to Windows.
Hell, people won't buy anything besides Intel for the same reason they won't buy anything other than Windows. It's all they know - mainly because of Intel/Microsofts control.
You mean poor marketing, products and services from their competitors ?
While not true for Intel, in the past, the combination of Microsoft/Intel made int nearly impossible for anyone to actually enter the field.
AMD has been "in the field" since the early 80s. Other processor manufacturers have come (and gone, usually because their product sucked) as well.
Or, what happens when 95% of the desktop users suddenly have a free browser bundled, right into the OS? Why, consumers use it, instead of going with the alternative (which, at one time, was Netscape) - hell, why download and pay for something, when you have a free version right there.
Except when IE destroyed Navigator's marketshare, it _wasn't_ bundled with Windows.
This argument gets pretty tired and its stupidity is exposed as soon as you start substituting "browser" with "TCP/IP Stack", "internet dialler", "calculator", "text editor", "paint program", "GUI", or any of the other myriad pieces of software that *used* to be third-party addons but are now packaged as part of the OS - because customers demanded them.
Has anyone suggested that Microsoft create 2 parallel operating systems: slimware version and bloatware version?
Almost certainly. The problem is, one man's bloat is another man's essential feature, so how do they choose what goes and what stays ?
OTOH, WTF kind of computer are you running XP on that it's "struggling along" ? I sit in front of a ca. 1999 dual P3 all day running Windows and it's more than fast enough.
Also, exactly how do you differentiate between "minor" and "major" sex offenses?
Minor sex offense: some guy walking through the park flashing his wang at everyone.
Major sex offense: bunch of guys from $RACIAL_OR_RELIGIOUS_GROUP_1 getting together and gang-raping a girl because she's from $RACIAL_OR_RELIGIOUS_GROUP_2.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's more ambitious than any of the existing alternatives and simply isn't finished yet ?
The computer world is leapfrog after leapfrong. 5 years ago Apple's OS was (technicalogically) trailing the competition by 5 - 10 years. Today, MacOS is in many ways cutting edge.
The fact is, Windows XP is technologically behind all of its competitors.
What competitors are you thinking of ? OS X is probably ahead on the whole, but it's still got performance issues and for most aspects of networking, is worse.
Linux ? It has some advantages in a few corner cases - mainly to do with customisability - but on the whole it's, at *best*, just on par with Windows.
There's certainly not enough distance between /any/ of the current crop of OSes /on average/ to call one a clear winner.
"Well trained admins" use whatever platform best suits the task at hand. In some places (like my old job) this is predominantly Windows. In some places (like my new job) this is predominantly unix.
Interesting you pick something I consider to be one of the most frustrating and inefficient aspects of the OS X UI...
Honestly, if you haven't used an Apple, consider getting one or borrowing one. After just a little bit of everyday use, I think you'll find what everyone is raving about. :-)
I own a Mac. It's nice, but it's hardly the second coming. There are still a lot of areas Apple needs to improve (like the interactive responsiveness).
No they didn't. They had to _already_ "be where they were" before they could have been considered to be "breaking the law".
What "paradigm shifts" ? OS X is nice and all, but it's hardly doing anything revolutionary.
I raise you a Nokia 6310i.
Which provides exactly the same function - performs some basic hardware initialisation and then bootstraps the OS, after which it becomes irrelevant.
I'm not. The original poster claimed that the only reason the BIOS still exists was because Windows required it. This is false - we still have the BIOS because *every* x86 OS "requires it".
Windows needs a BIOS as much - or as little, depending on your perspective - as Linux, BeOS, OS/2, OS X, etc.
False. All x86 OSes "need" a BIOS to bootstrap. Once the bootloader kicks in, however, the BIOS is irrelevant. This applies to Windows, Linux, BeOS, OS/2, even OS X/intel - all of them.
IME, most modern BIOSes do...
Because while AMD's processors may well be excellent, the supporting hardware that goes with them (ie: motherboards) tends to be either crap or _really expensive_.
We don't buy AMD based servers because we don't like AMD. We don't by AMD based servers because we can't find decent, affordable, capable motherboards to put them in.
The Cube is, perhaps, a special case - because even for Apple it was stupidly overpriced and underpowered.
The "look" of the machine is a nudge factor that people consider "when all else is equal". But they do not pay a premium for "looks". (Again the G4 Cube example.)
Actually they will (the Mac Mini being an excellent example), they just won't pay "too much". The Cube was "too much". The Mini is within reason.
So use software written in 1999.
There is a vast gulf between "censorship" and "selective hearing".
Places like China and Iran have "censorship". Places like America have "selective hearing". There's nothing _stopping_ people from voicing and listening to alternative media, they're simply not interested in doing so.
So 'W' and his cohorts are liberals ?
No, it doesn't. "You need to be admin to change screen resolution in Windows" and "you can restrict users from not changing the screen resolution" are two *very* different statements. The one I responded to was the first, which is incorrect.
By that reasoning it's identical to Windows.
Windows NT was most certainly designed with [multiuser] "security in mind".
To come along much later and fix this, then blame the users is very poor on Microsoft's part.
They should be blaming the developers. It's their fault they're writing applications that "need" admin privileges.
Changing the screen resolution in Windows does not require admin privileges.
Half the spyware normal users get uses privledge escalation holes anyway so it does not keep that crap down.
Which ones ? Privilege escalation bugs aren't exactly common.
Anyway, I have been told (but have not tried) that making the "temp" folder trees "Everyone" read/write explicitly, and adding each account explicitly fixes most of the "run as admin" problems.
You've been told wrong. For starters, every user on the machine can create new files and modify existing files that belong to them in C:\Windows\Temp. Secondly, most all apps (even the badly written ones) use the per-user TMP variables that point to directories within the users profile (that they have "Full Control" over).
Most programs dont do much registry editing, but a lot need scratch space and if they use the temp folders, they need access to them.
No, in fact the most common problem is applications that try to store things that *should* go in HKEY_CURRENT_USER in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE. Bugs like this are actually a good indicator of the developer's lack of interest in updating their product, because per-user registry hives were introduced to Windows 9x back with Windows 98 (they've always been in NT AFAIK).
The second most common problem is stupid developers trying to write to files (often user or application preferences) in either their program's directory or the Windows directory (DOOM 3 has this problem).
"Run as".
Even though WinXP has a "Run As..." option, I'm hesitant to take it up on it's offer in fear it'll break something else.
Don't be. It works. I've been using NT as a regular user for ~9 years now.
This statement gets bandied around a lot, but it is not true. If a user is an "admin", they can copy things into /Applications (amongst other places) without needing to authenticate.
It's a fault that non-util software also requires admin to run, but whether that's Windows' fault or the developer of the software is open to question at best.
No, it isn't. The fault lies with the developers. Windows NT has been multiuser since 1993. All versions of Windows since Windows 98 have had the necessary APIs, registry features, filesystem layout, etc to allow developers to write their apps to contain user preferences, saved files, etc to the right places. So for ~7 years now developers have had an _in production_ version of Windows to target "multiuser friendly" applications at.
There is no excuse today for Windows developers to be routinely writing applications that require Administrator access. None.
Of course, this is no different from Linux or OS X getting something that's been around for years and having all their respective fanboys running around going "look how cool $OUR_OS is, it's got $FEATURE".
So what is this "product or service" that only Microsoft provide ?
Server Operating Systems ? Nope, plenty of them to pick from.
Desktop Operating Systems ? At least one fully functional alternative, and several if you listen to the Linux community.
Office Suites ? Nope, several of them as well.
Development environment ? Of course not.
"Just because Microsoft has made it nearly impossible for anyone to choose an alternative to Windows, doesn't mean there aren't alternatives."
It is - and always has been - trivial to choose an alternative to Windows.
Hell, people won't buy anything besides Intel for the same reason they won't buy anything other than Windows. It's all they know - mainly because of Intel/Microsofts control.
You mean poor marketing, products and services from their competitors ?
While not true for Intel, in the past, the combination of Microsoft/Intel made int nearly impossible for anyone to actually enter the field.
AMD has been "in the field" since the early 80s. Other processor manufacturers have come (and gone, usually because their product sucked) as well.
Or, what happens when 95% of the desktop users suddenly have a free browser bundled, right into the OS? Why, consumers use it, instead of going with the alternative (which, at one time, was Netscape) - hell, why download and pay for something, when you have a free version right there.
Except when IE destroyed Navigator's marketshare, it _wasn't_ bundled with Windows.
This argument gets pretty tired and its stupidity is exposed as soon as you start substituting "browser" with "TCP/IP Stack", "internet dialler", "calculator", "text editor", "paint program", "GUI", or any of the other myriad pieces of software that *used* to be third-party addons but are now packaged as part of the OS - because customers demanded them.
Almost certainly. The problem is, one man's bloat is another man's essential feature, so how do they choose what goes and what stays ?
OTOH, WTF kind of computer are you running XP on that it's "struggling along" ? I sit in front of a ca. 1999 dual P3 all day running Windows and it's more than fast enough.
Minor sex offense: some guy walking through the park flashing his wang at everyone.
Major sex offense: bunch of guys from $RACIAL_OR_RELIGIOUS_GROUP_1 getting together and gang-raping a girl because she's from $RACIAL_OR_RELIGIOUS_GROUP_2.