Who adores Windows? 12260 don't, it seems.

Jimllfixit

As of today, 9th October 2015, there are 613 posts of 20 lines per page on the thread

"Technology & Internet > Operating Systems > Windows".

That's a total of 12260 posts.

Most of them refer to having a hard time with Windows in some way.

Windows is the software that 90% of the developed world is using to keep our "civilisation" running.

I am worried.

ED E

Not having a problem: Go on facebook and play farmville.

Having a problem: Go on boards and b1tch.

You cant use that dataset like that. Not by a country mile.

Jimllfixit

ED E wrote: »

Not having a problem: Go on facebook and play farmville.

Having a problem: Go on boards and b1tch.

You cant use that dataset like that. Not by a country mile.

ED E, I just did use that dataset. It's valid.

The worry is that at some point, some Windows PC in some militant country is going to do something stupid.

What Microsoft should really do is re-write an OS from scratch. They've build new on old forever, and it is catching up with them. In the 1980's there was a neat program called "GEM" which did everything, and it was free. Didn't have "DLLs" as such.

The best option, which you didn't mention in your list was "Buy a Mac" . . . . .

CatInABox

Jimllfixit wrote: »

ED E, I just did use that dataset. It's valid.

The worry is that at some point, some Windows PC in some militant country is going to do something stupid.

What Microsoft should really do is re-write an OS from scratch. They've build new on old forever, and it is catching up with them. In the 1980's there was a neat program called "GEM" which did everything, and it was free. Didn't have "DLLs" as such.

The best option, which you didn't mention in your list was "Buy a Mac" . . . . .

There's over a billion copies of windows in use in it's various guises. 12260 posts isn't in anyway significant.

Also, not sure what you talking about, militant countries? How is a copy of Windows going to do anything?

ED E was stating that people without problems don't come onto boards to complement Windows, not providing any options.

If you want to put it this way... 12,260 threads in the Windows forum, yet there's 8,742 in the Mac forum and there's way less of them out there.

As ED E says, you can't use a support forum as a benchmark for the platform as a whole. Users aren't exactly going to post on here about how great Windows is, they post because they're having issues.

Jimllfixit

Karsini wrote: »

If you want to put it this way... 12,260 threads in the Windows forum, yet there's 8,742 in the Mac forum and there's way less of them out there.

As ED E says, you can't use a support forum as a benchmark for the platform as a whole. Users aren't exactly going to post on here about how great Windows is, they post because they're having issues.

You're both right. I've been using Windows since 3.1.1 and it does amaze me that so much of it actually works, most of the time. I have never met a disgruntled Mac user although almost everyone I know has had problems with Windows in some way.

I was thinking of upgrading to the next Windows (10, maybe?) but I am put off by all the negative publicity I hear, so I just stick with XP.

What really bugs me is that it takes 3-4 Gigabytes of operating system to put 1MB of desktop on your screen. There must surely be something more efficient, maybe? Just for fun, I counted all the DLL files on my PC . . . I found 5014 in the WINDOWS directory alone on the C drive.

How can anyone possibly need so many files just to talk to RAM, ROM, I/O and a few hard drives? And how does anybody know what they all do when writing software to make use of them?

BTW I am quite impressed with Ubuntu. So far it hasn't spat back anything containing the word "Error".

PropJoe10

I dont see the point in these Windows-bashing threads. Yes, Windows could be better, but people will always use Windows because it's mostly what they were brought up on. Windows 10 is a nice, stable OS (which you should really upgrade to, especially if you're running XP) - not perfect, but I've never come across a perfect Linux-based OS either. Just use what makes you happy and let others use what they're comfortable with.

Jimllfixit

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I dont see the point in these Windows-bashing threads. Yes, Windows could be better, but people will always use Windows because it's mostly what they were brought up on. Windows 10 is a nice, stable OS (which you should really upgrade to, especially if you're running XP) - not perfect, but I've never come across a perfect Linux-based OS either. Just use what makes you happy and let others use what they're comfortable with.

Hi PropJoe,

Well, I did say it amazes me that it does work so well. Being ancient & possible Luddite, it's the sheer size of the package that beats me.

When you have that much software, you have more and more chance of creating bugs as you "improve" it week by week.

My guess is that SOMEONE will come to their senses and realise that you could write an OS in a couple of MB (not GB!) that would

(a) Allow the CPU to talk to a generic keyboard
(b) Allow the CPU to talk to a generic I/O chip
(c) Allow the CPU to talk to a generic disk drive or two
(d) Allow the CPU to talk to a generic display
(e) Allow the CPU to talk to a generic sound chipset

It amazes me that Apple, who do this already, also need a huge amount of GB to run their OS.

I think what's happened is that "they" got carried away in 1991 or so and made a Graphical User Interface called "Windows" with all sorts of bells and whistles, which became popular and sold well, and got complicated, but was filled with software kludges to fix things they didn't have time to fix at the time. I love the term "bloatware". So evocative.

salamanca22

Jimllfixit wrote: »

Hi PropJoe,

Well, I did say it amazes me that it does work so well. Being ancient & possible Luddite, it's the sheer size of the package that beats me.

When you have that much software, you have more and more chance of creating bugs as you "improve" it week by week.

My guess is that SOMEONE will come to their senses and realise that you could write an OS in a couple of MB (not GB!) that would

(a) Allow the CPU to talk to a generic keyboard
(b) Allow the CPU to talk to a generic I/O chip
(c) Allow the CPU to talk to a generic disk drive or two
(d) Allow the CPU to talk to a generic display
(e) Allow the CPU to talk to a generic sound chipset

It amazes me that Apple, who do this already, also need a huge amount of GB to run their OS.

I think what's happened is that "they" got carried away in 1991 or so and made a Graphical User Interface called "Windows" with all sorts of bells and whistles, which became popular and sold well, and got complicated, but was filled with software kludges to fix things they didn't have time to fix at the time. I love the term "bloatware". So evocative.

Honestly, you are using windows XP which is unsupported and highly recommended not to be used. Of course you are going to have problems with it.

I have been using windows since early days as well and have wrote my own linux kernals so I think I qualify to say that windows is fine. Mac has its fair share of problems too OP.

Jimllfixit

salamanca22 wrote: »

Honestly, you are using windows XP which is unsupported and highly recommended not to be used. Of course you are going to have problems with it.

I have been using windows since early days as well and have wrote my own linux kernals so I think I qualify to say that windows is fine. Mac has its fair share of problems too OP.

Hi Salamanca,

That's an interesting post. I'd like to find out more about kernals sometime.

Windows XP has been grand on this PC since I bought it in 2003. It does the few things I need to do flawlessly, although I was forced to buy more RAM and a bigger hard drive at the time.

The "support" you refer to purported (while it was available) to fix things that might allow someone to hack into my PC. The antivirus software caught both incidents that have occurred since 2003. So why did I need "upgrades" all the time?

It's probably the wrong place to ask, but why are these OS's so huge? I came across "Lubuntu" which seems tiny. I might try it out for fun.

I am in the process of migrating to Ubuntu, although I am caught rotten with Windows audio software that is likely to catch latency 'flu when run in "Wine" in Ubuntu.

*sigh"

ED E

Lubuntu is tiny because it includes the bare minimum. When you got to use it you just end up installing a lot more dependencies to actually do day to day tasks.

Jimllfixit

ED E wrote: »

Lubuntu is tiny because it includes the bare minimum. When you got to use it you just end up installing a lot more dependencies to actually do day to day tasks.

Thanks ED E, this post is turning up more info than I actually looked for. It's interesting.

I'm still obsessed with the sheer size of the average OS.

I've myriads of questions, but one single question would be, is, how many of the 6000+ DLL files actually get used in a "normal" day of

1. Start the PC
2. Run email
3. word process
4. spreadsheet
5. music software
6. audio mixer
7. web browse
8. look at a photo
9. listen to a sound
10. Skype
11. Look at the clock.

I don't have any other apps (except to occasionally run a virus check!)


These are the main things I do which aren't in the start menu.

Fysh

Jimllfixit wrote: »

Hi PropJoe,

Well, I did say it amazes me that it does work so well. Being ancient & possible Luddite, it's the sheer size of the package that beats me.

When you have that much software, you have more and more chance of creating bugs as you "improve" it week by week.

My guess is that SOMEONE will come to their senses and realise that you could write an OS in a couple of MB (not GB!) that would

(a) Allow the CPU to talk to a generic keyboard
(b) Allow the CPU to talk to a generic I/O chip
(c) Allow the CPU to talk to a generic disk drive or two
(d) Allow the CPU to talk to a generic display
(e) Allow the CPU to talk to a generic sound chipset

It amazes me that Apple, who do this already, also need a huge amount of GB to run their OS.

I think what's happened is that "they" got carried away in 1991 or so and made a Graphical User Interface called "Windows" with all sorts of bells and whistles, which became popular and sold well, and got complicated, but was filled with software kludges to fix things they didn't have time to fix at the time. I love the term "bloatware". So evocative.

You're basically talking about Minix.

But, besides that, I think you're wrong. Systems have become more complex in part because new uses have become popular - generic displays and soundchips are find for a basic terminal interface, but not much use to someone using Cubase or Fruityloops for audio engineering work, or GPU-accelerated Lightworks for special effects video work, or Steam for gaming, or using GPUs to accelerate MATLAB programming.

As for never having met a disgruntled Mac user, I can only assume you've never talked to many of 'em :P Doing enterprise-level support including Macs as part of the endpoints means that I periodically curse Apple. Ditto Linux and basically any other piece of computer equipment, software or hardware.

Jimllfixit

Fysh wrote: »

You're basically talking about Minix.

But, besides that, I think you're wrong. Systems have become more complex in part because new uses have become popular - generic displays and soundchips are find for a basic terminal interface, but not much use to someone using Cubase or Fruityloops for audio engineering work, or GPU-accelerated Lightworks for special effects video work, or Steam for gaming, or using GPUs to accelerate MATLAB programming.

As for never having met a disgruntled Mac user, I can only assume you've never talked to many of 'em :P Doing enterprise-level support including Macs as part of the endpoints means that I periodically curse Apple. Ditto Linux and basically any other piece of computer equipment, software or hardware.

Hi FYSH,

True, I don't know too many Mac users. McWilliam Sailmakers used an Apple II for about 20 years to cut out sails, maybe they still do. I think they had to replace a 5-1/4" floppy drive at one stage.

I'm also fairly ignorant of the needs of pretty well all of the items you listed. I actually haven't had to curse my XP PC for several weeks.

I remember writing an accounting package for small businesses in dBase II which only needed about 128k to do its job. It was as reliable as the hardware, which, not having any moving parts, would probably have had a lifetime of 30+ years.

I tried searching for a few DLL's by name to see if there was any description of what they do, but I guess Microsoft keeps a lid on all that stuff - I didn't find anything I could understand. They range in size from 1KB to 14MB. Heaven knows what a 14MB file could do.

Anyway, I'll cease wondering and get on with a bit of music. Finale Songwriter runs well on this PC and only hangs occasionally . . . I save the work every twenty seconds or so just in case. I do use a dedicated sound card which no doubt needs plenty of MB to do its job.

The point I'm at is, why have OS's got so bloated, and will they keep getting "worse"?

salamanca22

Jimllfixit wrote: »

Hi FYSH,

True, I don't know too many Mac users. McWilliam Sailmakers used an Apple II for about 20 years to cut out sails, maybe they still do. I think they had to replace a 5-1/4" floppy drive at one stage.

I'm also fairly ignorant of the needs of pretty well all of the items you listed. I actually haven't had to curse my XP PC for several weeks.

I remember writing an accounting package for small businesses in dBase II which only needed about 128k to do its job. It was as reliable as the hardware, which, not having any moving parts, would probably have had a lifetime of 30+ years.

I tried searching for a few DLL's by name to see if there was any description of what they do, but I guess Microsoft keeps a lid on all that stuff - I didn't find anything I could understand. They range in size from 1KB to 14MB. Heaven knows what a 14MB file could do.

Anyway, I'll cease wondering and get on with a bit of music. Finale Songwriter runs well on this PC and only hangs occasionally . . . I save the work every twenty seconds or so just in case. I do use a dedicated sound card which no doubt needs plenty of MB to do its job.

The point I'm at is, why have OS's got so bloated, and will they keep getting "worse"?

It really is not bloated at all. Hardware has evolved to allow what we have now. In those DLL's are many, many API's that all programs running on windows will use. As both a software and hardware enthusiast (Electronic engineer with minor is software engineering, lead on a open source project with about 1.8million lines of code written in .net which uses those DLL's) I can safely say that. I have used minimal OS's and have wrote some myself for various microprocessors out there and while they do the job for that specific task they are in no way able to handle the millions of tasks that might be called upon them in a desktop enviroment (OS's I made are nowhere near as complicated as even the most basic of windows going back to the start)

Op, you are not the usual type of user, what you are looking for is not what computers have evolved to become. As more API's are developed and current ones are evolved and interfaces are added there will be more and more data added to the operating system. This is not a problem and my sub 10 second boot time and near instant loading of programs and data will attest to that. I have a windows 95 machine here somewhere and some older apple hardware. I would be lucky to be going in 15 minutes with them.

Jimllfixit

FYSH & Salamanca

This has been a very interesting thread. At least you have removed my state of paranoia, namely, that we are the victims of a rudderless US multinational with no ambition other than to make a colossal amount of money, maintain control over our daily lives via Windows and their ownership of it, and all with incomplete control over their product.

Unlike Volkswagen, but we won't go there.

I am also a software and hardware enthusiast (Electronic engineer with not a lot in software engineering, lead programmer on a Z80 project with 40-off A4 pages of commented assembler) and a believer in Moore's Law.

I like the sub 10 second boot time, it reminds me of CP/M at 1.5 seconds. My Asus M75 motherboard already takes 10 seconds to start Windows or anything else, whatever it does in that time. But let's not go there either. I always leave enough time for a Kerryman's Breakfast before attempting to get the PC to do anything I want to to in person.

Anyway, you have answered all my current queries - thanks.

Jimllfixit

One thing I forgot to mention that also amazes me is that so much excellent software is either free, or very cheap for what it does. Cockos "Reaper" would be a prime example.

salamanca22

Jimllfixit wrote: »

One thing I forgot to mention that also amazes me is that so much excellent software is either free, or very cheap for what it does. Cockos "Reaper" would be a prime example.

I am an avid believer of open source software. Allow people to use your software for free and earn from offering support packages or charging for a license if the user earns over x amount using it.

Most packages I create end up on github for free

Jimllfixit

Well, this has been an interesting adventure for me. I "upgraded" to Windows 7 ( ! ) last year and have had very few problems.

I referred to "militant nations" earlier, and this would be in reference to my paranoia about computer systems being hacked for various reasons.

It seems that hackers are able to literally take over other peoples computers & systems, in which case, what is to stop them from being able to launch a bogus military attack on a country run by a hot-head, who then turns around and unleashes nuclear devastation on the supposed aggressor? Are the military able to head these people off in some way? Windows seems to be endlessly vulnerable to nasty things being done to it, despite all the defenders, firewalls, AV and anti-malware programs you can buy.

I've been watching far too many apocalyptic movies!

ejabrod

Jimllfixit wrote: »

Well, this has been an interesting adventure for me. I "upgraded" to Windows 7 ( ! ) last year and have had very few problems.

I referred to "militant nations" earlier, and this would be in reference to my paranoia about computer systems being hacked for various reasons.

It seems that hackers are able to literally take over other peoples computers & systems, in which case, what is to stop them from being able to launch a bogus military attack on a country run by a hot-head, who then turns around and unleashes nuclear devastation on the supposed aggressor? Are the military able to head these people off in some way? Windows seems to be endlessly vulnerable to nasty things being done to it, despite all the defenders, firewalls, AV and anti-malware programs you can buy.

I've been watching far too many apocalyptic movies!

Wtf? You're worried about hackers hacking your PC to launch nuclear weapons? Seriously????

Jimllfixit

No no no! They hack into US military systems and so on, and maybe Windows is the "weakest link", the way they get in. There's been a lot of it in the news, even before wikileaks and Edward Snowden.

Hacking into my PC will only get them as far as the automatic coffee maker.

gctest50

Be grand - loads of it runs on IBM series/1 and 8 inch disks

http://time.com/4348494/pentagon-nuclear-floppy-disks/


Lt. Katie Grimly here looks like a woman who'd be really reliable when you need her :

and she keeps the launch key locked up in a secure storage box with not one but two locks !

ejabrod

Jimllfixit wrote: »

No no no! They hack into US military systems and so on, and maybe Windows is the "weakest link", the way they get in. There's been a lot of it in the news, even before wikileaks and Edward Snowden.

Hacking into my PC will only get them as far as the automatic coffee maker.

This is a píss take, right?

28064212

Jimllfixit wrote: »

It seems that hackers are able to literally take over other peoples computers & systems, in which case, what is to stop them from being able to launch a bogus military attack

What you've just said, that's the equivalent of

It seems that robbers are able to literally snatch a handbag in the street, in which case, what is to stop them from robbing a heavily-guarded vault in a Swiss bank

Wanderer78

Thank God the Donald is president of merica, sure everything will be grand!

Jimllfixit

Yee-Har!

Just a minute, I think we lost the plot.

This was a Jim-hates-Windows-and-Microsoft thread.