OSDev.org

Already twenty-first century, almost everyone has a computer or cell phone, but what do we have?

I started using the computer when I was 14 years, it seems, now I'm 23, I used DOS, Windows 3.11, XP, NT, Vista, Mac OS X Tiger, Leopard, Linux, FreeBSD (Ubuntu, Suse, Slax, and many more) , OS / 2 Warp.

But we just think that a lot of operating systems, in fact, the situation as follows:

1. The popular Windows is not fit to work, because XP already obsolete (released date 2001), Vista is not suitable (too demanding of system resources), a dumb system UAC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUPxkzV1RTc (which is impossible to live, show me a person who does not disable it).


2. Mac OS X - the best of all, that is, but it is expensive and it is particularly good when working with Mac computers, but the price is great for most people (otherwise would have bought all the poppy). Hakintosh terribly compatible, generally you will have problems with the installation.

3. Linux (and various Unix like systems) is just a toy for geeks. No, seriously! Linux does not have the virus as well as Mac OS X, Linux is stable (if you set up and did not touch), Linux is open to change, it sounds good, right? But it is still not compatible with many computers, most manufacturers do not think that write drivers for Linux, they believe it is no prospect of success.
Also, you will constantly have to adjust it, patch up and pick one's code.
Especially that I do not like in Linux, it is difficult to install applications (they should learn from the Mac OS X ... very much ...).

And the biggest problem is the lack of good Linux software. It seems to me that they might normally use only those who need office, Internet and music video. And of course developers! (When I put the latest version of Ubuntu, it was not able to play mp3 (!!! Wtf? When you buy a microwave oven, you have to twist cog in it, or add additional fees?) and did not include a codec, and a modern operating system, why should I swing).

Games ... On Linux there are so few, that the Mac OS X seems game console, compared with him. Who needs these old (with horrible graphics) card or board games, which includes the distribution of Gnome or KDE?


Summarize.

1. Windows? You kidding?
I tired to treat your computer from viruses and reinstall every six months XP (because the producers were unable to establish a system for cleaning debris and removing it each time it in the registry or system folders remains the debris, through half a year, this leads to terrible braking system error ). And buy more megahertz, but that the system otkusila half of them.

The interface is not user-friendly, taksbar in my opinion (as in Linux) is the worst choice of all that can be done. Elements of the interface device and the system (who invented the menu, right-mouse button, and the most popular option to create a new folder, placed in custody under the menu??? Omg ... remember where it is located in the Mac).


If you ever worked two weeks in Mac OS X and returned to Windows XP (or Vista), you will be very inconvenient. Each element of the system must be understood.

2. Mac OS X - this is the best operating system, a simple and secure. User-friendly and attractive to producers of software and devices. But it is still a road.

3. Linux - soft, soft, soft, high-quality software compatible with the devices, the new user-friendly interface designed by professionals.


I invite all those who have ideas or money or skills in any field, come together and create a system that would be a competitor to Windows, Linux and Mac OS X.

In the century of computer technologies, we should have more choice than the 3 OS's!

We can develop a Windows interface that is easy to use. We could create a Unix-based operating system is easy to install. We could sign a contract with the manufacturers of computers and optimize it for three (in different price category), computers (or laptops). And we could create a program for easy listening music, to view the movie (your DVD is simple enough to simply insert a disc and press play? And your operating system allows you to just as quickly to do this?), We could create a program not only for those who need Office, but also for architects, for learning, for musicians, for the house.

But make it a really simple, simple, that everyone can enjoy them as easily as a pencil. Imagine, if you would have had a pencil instruction.

We have excellent examples of what to strive to remember the genius Canon Cat http://www.jagshouse.com/swyft.html, a look in the direction of Mac OS X, and let's make sure that these laptops were attractive looks decent stuffing. And remember - these are the essential simplicity and design - this is not how it looks, but also how it works.

And let us cease to be slaves to computers, make sure that they are subject to us! And when we forget to reinstall the OS, on viruses, the drivers and problems with the programs and be able to do it for the money available, we will be able to say - Yes, we really entered the age of computer technology.

On the Internet there are millions of people from different countries, I urge you to come together and we will do what should have been done other many years ago.


P.S. To Bill Gates, instead of spending $ 10 million on advertising a piece of crap, pay for professional designers, programmers, psychologists to develop a truly high quality product, and then you do not need advertising!

To Steve Jobs. Steve, you have to produce an excellent product! But why 90% of the world enjoy these terrible operating systems? You think they like the truth to set the antivirus? Or, spend 3 minutes to open the calculator? Lower prices, so you can sell more.

To all those who created Linux. I saw all the latest distributions, they are not suitable for life. You need to stop trying to create a system to be installed on all computers worldwide. Simplify simplify simplify! Sign contracts with a few specific notebook computers, and create a system of working in their ideal and consider who will use them and give them what they need and make work of designers, psychologists and programmers together. No need to copy someone else's design, you need to think over every pixel of the screen.

P.S. Look at this video to the end http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LrTZWmGraQ ( "So today we need more Mhz? Or do we just need, programmers like in the 80's real professionals, with skills?")

1986 Macintosh (8 megahertz) booting its fully graphical OS under 30 seconds, insanely.

2009 (2000-3000 megahertz) omg ... my system have hdd and more more Ram but booting have more than 30 sec: (((


Alexandr Green

Original post (with pictures) http://makeyouridea.ning.com/profiles/b ... ux-or-lets

Another stupid linux propaganda, neutrality disputed, flame-war warning...

example nr 1 wrote:3. Linux - soft, soft, soft, high-quality software compatible with the devices, the new user-friendly interface designed by professionals.

example nr 2 wrote:1. Windows? You kidding?

And as for this,

I invite all those who have ideas or money or skills in any field, come together and create a system that would be a competitor to Windows, Linux and Mac OS X.

read

http://wiki.osdev.org/Beginner_Mistakes

and as for this,

Original post (with pictures)

is nothing more than "lets make the best community open source linux like operating system yay lol rofl omg imho lolcat ruacodemonkey" thing.

AlexGreen wrote:I invite all those who have ideas or money or skills in any field, come together and create a system that would be a competitor to Windows, Linux and Mac OS X.

Can I see your initial design document and business plan, please?

And as inflater hinted, please could anyone thinking of replying to this flamebait think very carefully first.

Cheers,
Adam

In the century of computer technologies, we should have more choice than the 3 OS's!

SkyOS. There, I've proven you wrong already. Oh, don't forget the *BSDs. I'm sure I could think of more if need be. The choice is there, but people do not take it. The problem is that Windows has become the standard. Making something better isn't going to get people to use it, unless it is 100% compatible (Intel had this problem when they designed their first 64-bit architecture. In the end they just copied AMD, who just extended x86's 32-bit mode into 64-bits).

read
http://wiki.osdev.org/Beginner_Mistakes

Yep… interesting!

many people start from the very beginning of development of the operating system. they spend a lot of time to develop what has already been done by others (why not use Unix as a basis?), and when they get their own OS enthusiasm disappears, because they did a great job, but their product is too weak to compete with others.

look at this list, all these people are doing their OS from the start http://wiki.osdev.org/Projects

but you need people? they need the comfort of work, none of this is not Linux! (and even SkyOS is too bad). Wait, people! Why did you develop Gui copy them from windows??? taskbar is the worst option.

I will write an article at a later date and will put the screenshots of the errors, which allow developers OS's. I just want to make the world better!

What's your role in the project then? What have you made before?

I'll consider myself trolled

Hi,

AlexGreen wrote:why not use Unix as a basis?

A common complaint about 80x86 hardware is that the design of the hardware is obsolete (16-bit CPU, < 1 MiB of RAM, etc) and that it's been extended with so many ugly additions (with the intention of keeping it modern) into what it's become today - an ungraceful mess of hacks, that's design is inferior to many competing architectures, that only survives (and will continue to survive) because of market forces (backward compatibility and economies of scale) and not for any technical reason.

Of course the same can be said for the design of modern Unix (and Unix clones) - an OS design that dates back to late 1960's, that was surpassed by Plan 9 (Bell Lab's successor to Unix) less than 10 years later; that's still usable today because of a constant stream of ugly extensions and additions (introduced with the intention of keeping it modern), that only survives (and will continue to survive) due to momentum - e.g. thousands of developers spending huge quantities of time trying to breath life into the rotting corpse it's become, and lots more freeloaders (end-users) taking advantage of cheap software.

Why not start with a clean design intended for modern computers; instead of recycling the mistakes from 40 years ago (and all the ugly hacks slapped on it since)?


Cheers,

Brendan

Hi,
I am not willing to start a flame war , here . Please do read about Windows internals and architecture , than posting comments coz "you heard it somewhere" . Windows is not badly designed at all , it is a commercial operating system and its design really shows the various trade offs involved .Although I will not go to the extent of saying that it is "the best " system , it really is pretty good.

Regards
Sandeep

/agree Shrek

Windows isn't badly designed on the inside, just.. easily hackable from both ends, inside and out. I put a copy of Windows 95, the HxD hex editor, and eXeScope (16 and 3-bit resource editor, can't register it anymore so you have to do everything on a file in one pass) on a virtual hard drive, booted the thing up, and changed important windows resources while it was running!

On the subject of "roflcats hai guiz letz mak t3h best 0s evar!!!!!!!!!1111oneoneone111!!11!1one", I think this pic, thanks to M-Saunders, explains it all:

sounds like me im kidding, and like the the post at the top, the real pofessionals are the 1980's ones, they invented the wheel without help, now they just build off of what they have to save time and call it the next version


p.s. if this is OT just delete it

Troy, I remember you wishing for some trolls previously . Be careful what you wish for.

Windows isn't badly designed on the inside

I would have to disagree. At least from observing its operation and its hardware requirements, it seems that Windows (at least XP and Vista) are full of bloat code. When I switched from Windows Vista Ultimate to Linux (Ubuntu) I noticed a visible speed increase. My average memory usage was also cut in half in many situations.

I don't mean to start a flame war, and Windows vs. Linux is an argument that's pretty much impossible to win. But I would say it comes down to this: Linux would be able to at least match Windows if

1. It had a convenient and user-friendly distribution that allowed average users to function with just the GUI (Ubuntu has made some very good progress on this front)
2. Drivers had Linux versions. This by far is the biggest issue I've had with Linux. When I used my onboard wireless card, I had to not only compile the driver myself, I had to fix a problem that prevented it from compiling. The average user doesn't know C, and would be out of luck in such a situation.

I think if someone wants to use Windows because it works well for them, that's good. However, they should at least try Linux, to see if they find it more convenient.

JohnnyTheDon wrote:I would have to disagree. At least from observing its operation and its hardware requirements, it seems that Windows (at least XP and Vista) are full of bloat code. When I switched from Windows Vista Ultimate to Linux (Ubuntu) I noticed a visible speed increase. My average memory usage was also cut in half in many situations.

It's not the Windows kernel that's the problem. The core Windows files are fine. It's the extra UI bloat that kills XP and Vista, simply because people want that. It's simple economics: Microsoft make what people want, and people buy it. Cycle continues. I turned off all the extra services and processes and UI "enhancements" that come with Vista, and now my laptop runs faster than anything else I've ever used.

JackScott wrote:It's the extra UI bloat that kills XP and Vista, simply because people want that.

Have you tried any of the Linux UIs (gnome, kde, etc.)? I find that gnome actually has more built in features than Windows. And unless Vista's design was very radically changed from XP, the GUI is implemented inside of the kernel (This may no longer be the case, but I know that Windows has always done it that way in the past).

JohnnyTheDon wrote:Troy, I remember you wishing for some trolls previously . Be careful what you wish for.

Yeah, but I wanted cotton back so I could screw with his "mind" again.

2. Drivers had Linux versions. This by far is the biggest issue I've had with Linux. When I used my onboard wireless card, I had to not only compile the driver myself, I had to fix a problem that prevented it from compiling. The average user doesn't know C, and would be out of luck in such a situation.

Yeah. I used to have to hack at the Nvidia drivers to get them to compile...lol

But seriously, I like the idea of developing the perfect OS, hell Im sure we all do. But the feasibility of it must be questioned.

-JL