Make yourself at home: this forum is for visitors and officers who enjoy humour and actuality, you are allowed to speak about anything here within reason.
Alexraptor wrote:
But Hell, even Apple isn't stupid enough to make OS X look and behave like iOS. And fundamentally, the Mac OS interface has remained unchanged since 1984.
(...)
Choose your words with care. I've been using Windows 8/8.1 since it was released, and use it on a daily basis, and its "tolerable" on a laptop" with its smaller screen and multi-touch pad.
But its absolutely unbearable on desktop computer with a large monitor, incredibly clunky and unwieldy, which is why my high-end gaming rig sticks with Windows 7 for now.
I'm gong to give you the benefit of the doubt here but you do know that "Launchpad" is literally the iOS Home Screen for Mac. Which means you would also know that Notification Center is almost a carbon copy of the original iOS Notification Center. Even the App Store on OS X can be traced back to iOS a long with the new Messages app and Facetime (though you could say they can trace back to iChat). iOS can be found throughout OS X Yosemite and Mavericks.
What Apple did right was gradually introduce these changes and opted not to shove them into the forefront like Microsoft did. That's what Microsoft is fixing in Windows 10 - they aren't shoving Metro into the forefront even though the damage has been done.
With my high end PC I've opted for Windows 8. 75% of the time it just operates as a file and media server so I'm never usually at it. The other 20% of the time it's being used to display entertainment in my screening room via a Wireless HDMI transceiver so I have Windows 8 set up so I can control it with a remote control. Then there is the final 5% where I'm physically at the PC but I don't really interact with Metro then unless you consider interacting with the charms bar as interacting with Metro.
Frankly, I prefer my Mac and iPad over Windows so yeah :).
But heres the thing, and crucial difference between Apple and Microsoft, the launchpad was an "addition" made to OS X, that added something new to the OS, same with the Notification Center. But if you want you can still essentially use Mac OS X just like any other version of the Mac OS over the decades.
And that is where Microsoft failed. They went and changed the way you interact with the OS, replacing the Start Menu with the Start Screen, a clunky full screen interface with big-ass tiles. And that, as I mentioned before, is something they just arbitrarily shoehorned Windows uesers into.
Windows 10 is everything that Windows 8 should have been... Deja vu.
Seeing many parallels. With GPUs and CPUs, it is often best to skip the first iterations of a new process and wait for the next. In a strange way this applies to Software company.
EVOXSNES wrote:Seeing many parallels. With GPUs and CPUs, it is often best to skip the first iterations of a new process and wait for the next. In a strange way this applies to Software company.
It's known as the tick-tock. Or, more commonly, it's known as the odd Windows rule - i.e. always skip the even number Windows and go for the odds. I'll miss out the "Server" OSs like 2000, even though this was used by a lot of professionals it wasn't intended as a home OS.
Windows 3.1 - Odd - good
Windows 95 - Even - OK but buggy
Windows 98 - Odd - good
Windows ME - Even - baaaad
Windows XP - Odd - good
Windows Vista - Even - bad
Windows 7 - Odd - good
Windows 8 - Even - bad (although I like it)
Windows 10 - Odd - .....
The idea is that Microsoft innovate on the tick (the even) and improve on the tock (odd), with the improved ones being generally better accepted. ME/XP and Vista/7 are the classic examples of course.
Warfire wrote:It's known as the tick-tock. Or, more commonly, it's known as the odd Windows rule - i.e. always skip the even number Windows and go for the odds. I'll miss out the "Server" OSs like 2000, even though this was used by a lot of professionals it wasn't intended as a home OS.
(...)
The idea is that Microsoft innovate on the tick (the even) and improve on the tock (odd), with the improved ones being generally better accepted. ME/XP and Vista/7 are the classic examples of course.
You skipped Windows NT 4/4.5 :) but I only ever saw that on servers. Windows 2000 on the other hand was a desktop operating system aimed at the enterprise market as Microsoft's thinking was DOS based Windows ME was for consumers and NT based Windows 2000 was for the enterprise market. 2000 really wasn't a server OS; especially when you could purchase it with a notebook at that time.
Windows ME/2000/XP was the only exception to that odd/even rule.
But Windows XP was really bad when it first came out. There are memos from Bill Gates to the Windows design team about it that are readily available on the internet. It wasn't until Windows XP Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2 that XP became the OS we remember today.
Most people never experienced XP until Service Pack 2 so they don't know how atrocious XP was when it first came out.
Also, Windows XP 64bit was like the second worst OS ever made by Microsoft. Windows ME was the first. I think we can all agree that Vista and 8 are better than XP 64bit which is in turn better than ME though that's not saying much :P.
Warfire wrote:I'll miss out the "Server" OSs like 2000, even though this was used by a lot of professionals it wasn't intended as a home OS.
You skipped Windows NT 4/4.5 :) but I only ever saw that on servers. Windows 2000 on the other hand was a desktop operating system aimed at the enterprise market as Microsoft's thinking was DOS based Windows ME was for consumers and NT based Windows 2000 was for the enterprise market. 2000 really wasn't a server OS; especially when you could purchase it with a notebook at that time.
You're right, I did miss NT4 - mostly because I, like 2000, consider that not a home OS. You're absolutely right that 2000 was available on off the shelf kit but in my experience I didn't see anyone but IT pros run it outside of the office.
Janeway wrote:But Windows XP was really bad when it first came out.
This is also spot on and I could have worded XP better as "good, eventually". I used XP pre SP2 for a long time professionally and it was so hard to work with it probably gave me a good year of work.
Win7 is probably my favourite Windows ever, and that's from someone who ran Windows 98 until 2004. I will however be upgrading my personal kit to 10 as soon as it hits stable and my professional (if I'm allowed to) kit once it hits "SP1".
