The Gates legacy

[Wudang]

Go play in the back with the rest of the 16 year olds who think they're so great because they can do in 10 minutes what I can do in 1, but with more commands.

So way wrong. I'll be 50 this year. I don't care what you can do, I care about what the guy who wrote your GUI didn't imagine I wanted to do, or didnt realise I wanted to do it so often that I wanted to write a shell script to do it (as a friend of mine in the Macjihad realised).

If the OS and the GUI are developed separately, one day you will have a GUI that breaks or loses functionality thanks to an operating system update. The only way to prevent that is to do the GUI in house with the OS, or accept that you won't release updates frequently or quickly.

No, FFS CS101, SMP/E, this all old hat even for someone my age.

Why do you think that every single "Operating system" that has achieved significant usage comes with its own GUI? Ubuntu is an OS and a GUI (technically GNOME, but they install together by default), Mac distributes its OS and GUI together, and so does Windows. And they all have very user-friendly GUIs as defaults.

If you don't undeerstand why this is a weak argument please start by googling on "kernel".

 

[ddt]

Go play in the back with the rest of the 16 year olds who think they're so great because they can do in 10 minutes what I can do in 1, but with more commands.

Sorry, but my UNIX 'find' command gives me more fine-tuned control over which files I want to find than the graphical Find tool on Windows. Admitted, I have invested time to learn it, but it pays off. Or what about all those things that GUIs don't have. And how do you, say, create a large number of users from a list with a GUI? One by one? Or do I write a script that does that automatically?

If the OS and the GUI are developed separately, one day you will have a GUI that breaks or loses functionality thanks to an operating system update. The only way to prevent that is to do the GUI in house with the OS, or accept that you won't release updates frequently or quickly.

I don't see why the that would be the case. As long as the kernel interface doesn't change, it can updated without interfering with the GUI, and vice versa. A great error that Windows has made is to tie in the GUI on a much too low level in the OS kernel.

Why do you think that every single "Operating system" that has achieved significant usage comes with its own GUI? Ubuntu is an OS and a GUI (technically GNOME, but they install together by default), Mac distributes its OS and GUI together, and so does Windows. And they all have very user-friendly GUIs as defaults.

Because people most often want them. But if I don't want it, I can leave out installing the GUI with Ubuntu (don't know about MacOS).

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

Not to get too involved in this heated derail, here's some information as I understand it:

Vim is an editor, make is a command line tool. Neither are languages. As for developing on OS X, gcc, the compiler and XCode, the IDE are shipped with every Mac as optional installs. You get the option of developing C, C++, Objective-C, Java, Python, and Ruby apps out of the box.

Runtimes or VMs for Python, Perl and Java are installed on every machine by default, as well as the applescript tool, the shell, and the automator for scripting.

As for GUI-less Mac OS, that would make most sense for the server version. I don't know much about that, though.

 

[WildCat]

Netscape was pushed out of the market by providing IE for free, and the same is happening with Real and Windows Media Player.

Netscape pushed itself out of the market with, IIRC, version 7. What a clunky, memory-sucking computer-crashing beast that was! I was a loyal Netscape user until that came out, but this forced me to IE for the first time and I never went back. Same with Real player, they turned that into a monster that sucked up all computer resources. Would constantly crash my computer, which worked fine after I uninstalled it.

 

[JonnyFive]

Dang. I say one thing positive of MS and it gets shot down too.

Nah, man, it's not like that.

I think the XP OS was great, but only once it had its issues worked out. Similarly, the Vista SP1 fixed a lot of its problems, and it's a pretty swell OS. For one thing, they appear to have patched up a lot of the major performance issues it had. 98 was the same way. 95 was garbage. Pure, unadulterated garbage.

This all strikes me as kind of a strange discussion, actually. I completely, 100% agree that MS Windows is suboptimal for many tasks, but no one is forcing you to use it for those tasks. I'm sure there's some reason why so many sysadmins and what-not use UNIX-based systems. If only I could figure that out...

The vast consumer market is moved by things like "what's on my PC I just bought?" and "what runs my games?" MS did a good job of embracing that consumer market and giving them what they want. They also did a good job of catering to the non-technical business market for a long time. Oh yeah, and a lot of the technical segments of the market too, since someone has to develop all those pieces of consumer software, business software, and games.

And, honestly, MS makes decent software, and Windows really isn't a bad OS (ARGH! BLASPHEMY!). You can bitch and moan about Windows or Office or whatever if you'd like, but there's really nothing wrong with the tools they provide for most of the user base. The tools are easy to use, and they enable people to do their jobs. In the end, that's all most people care about.

This is just like the discussion about programming languages in that other thread. Use what gets the job done within the constraints imposed on you.

 

[coalesce]

This is just like the discussion about programming languages in that other thread. Use what gets the job done within the constraints imposed on you.

That's why I stick with my Frinkiac-7.

Michael

 

[JonnyFive]

That's why I stick with my Frinkiac-7.

Damn straight!

P.S. I'm not saying I don't understand the whole "my preferences are clearly superior and you're an idiot for not seeing that" argument. I just think it's silly is all.

P.P.S. XBox360 is totally better than PS3!!!!

P.P.P.S. DOS 4 LYFE!!!!!

 

[PingOfPong]

It must be difficult to be a computer auteur always arguing with secretaries and clerks that entering commands at a console prompt is a superior method of computing.

 

[GreyICE]

It must be difficult to be a computer auteur always arguing with secretaries and clerks that entering commands at a console prompt is a superior method of computing.

Truly horrible, I feel sorry for them

 

[Wudang]

It must be difficult to be a computer auteur always arguing with secretaries and clerks that entering commands at a console prompt is a superior method of computing.

Well some of us do this stuff for a living. I do use GUI's for some things where they work well enough, where they're the right tool (I've used command line based editors in the past that make vi user friendly) and of course there's games. Text games suck.

Anyway, I guess the debate is over now the kids are kicking out the ad homs.

 

[PingOfPong]

I'm hurt, Mr. serious Wudang, that you would take my light hearted rib as a dastardly attack against your character. Also, why did you dignify my statement with a response? Did the shoe fit just a little bit? You fell for the oldest lawyer trick in the book!

and of course there's games.

I can give you at least one example then of something that MS did right... Direct3D. MS created a uniform standard that bridged programming and hardware design then posted the SDK on the intertubes. It blew the lid off the PC gaming industry and gave us some great titles. The best of which I'm sure you would all agree is "Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude".

P.S. The folks I work for could sell catsup popsicles to ladies wearing white gloves. That is their skill. They don't know squat about computers. What they want is to touch an on switch, click at a word processor icon, type up a proposal, and finally print. That's all. A DOS window looks as alien to them as the code in the matrix looks to me. They don't care about kernels, threads, API's, CLI's, CLR, shells, or IP stacks. Who provides that "dumb enough for me" service better and cheaper than MS? Really, I'm asking. I haven't looked at Linux OS's for a while. I see that Dell sells an Ubuntu box. Any good?

 

[Wudang]

I think Ubuntu and OpenSuse are now as easy to get started with and use as windows XP but I'd still advise people to get windows if they're doing anything more than basic internet surfing and typing letters because any advice or "things they should try" will be based on the assumption that they have windows. Unless they're vaguely computer literate then the answer would be "it depends". I'm kind of split on OpenOffice because I think it's actually simpler than MS Office in a number of ways (inserting rows in a spreadsheet for example) but again if they need help from say a colleague or family....
Direct3D - absolutely - let the game writers focus on the game and not the mechanics of it.
Yeah - I have this funny hot button - when people think that their ignorance of something is a good thing rather than just a fact it always winds me up. Not you btw.
And I get annoyed by a lot of gui's because they're badly thought out and implemented (where the **** has this one hidden "options"? etc) because I worked with a really good GUI designer.

 

[ddt]

I can give you at least one example then of something that MS did right... Direct3D. MS created a uniform standard that bridged programming and hardware design then posted the SDK on the intertubes.

Ever heard about OpenGL^WP? It existed and was well-established at the time that MS designed Direct3D. Video card manufacturers supported it. Reading Comparison of Direct3D and OpenGL^WP leaves one with the same conclusion as with the various web issues and with .NET: MS couldn't control the OpenGL standard so they invented their own, and by heavily promoting it, they ensured lock-in on their (already dominant) platform. A game developer who develops for OpenGL can easily port his games to Linux or MacOS or other platforms; one who develops for Direct3D is locked in to MS platforms.

Sorry, you lose.

 

[PingOfPong]

Yes I've heard of it. As someone who's dabbled in both I can tell you that D3D is far supperior in performance. OpenGL tried to be hardware independent while D3D married itself to emerging shader technology. The end result is that OpenGL is programmer friendly and D3D is complicated yet more powerful. I'm sure that by now OpenGL has some way of accesing the shader instructions but I haven't seen any jaw dropping graphics from it.

Graphics aren't everything of course. I've played some neat little OpenGL games.

sorry you lose.

We're competing?

locked in to ubiquitous MS platforms.

... fixed!

 

[Reeco]

snip... I'm kind of split on OpenOffice because I think it's actually simpler than MS Office in a number of ways (inserting rows in a spreadsheet for example)...snip

In Excel you right-click and select "Insert".

 

[Wudang]

In Excel you right-click and select "Insert".

I should have said multiple rows.

 

[nimzov]

I should have said multiple rows.

Not really difficult. There are 2 methods:

1) Insert a single row then press F4 to repeat.

2) Select the number of rows you want to insert then select Rows from the insert menu.

nimzo

Edit: (I am using windows and office 2k)

 

[Wudang]

Yes I know how to insert multiple rows in MS Office. That's why I was able to say that I considered OpenOffice's method simpler - but I really should have said more intutive.

 

[JonnyFive]

Sorry, you lose.

Well, it seems like most of the PC game development community has decided it doesn't really matter and they'll just use D3D, since most of the gaming platforms are MS ones, and those with Linux and Mac OS can just suck it and find a way to work around things.

Since when is it a matter of winning and losing though? Developers are still free to work with whatever platform they want, if they choose. Many indie developers do work with OpenGL and with non-Windows platforms... it's just that the mainstream PC gaming market pretty much targets Windows/D3D platforms.

There are, of course, notable exceptions. Id Software has historically released their games with OpenGL powering the rendering engine, and many games from the mid 1990's offered a choice of either D3D or OpenGL rendering.

 

[ddt]

Yes I've heard of it (OpenGL, ddt). As someone who's dabbled in both I can tell you that D3D is far supperior in performance. OpenGL tried to be hardware independent while D3D married itself to emerging shader technology. The end result is that OpenGL is programmer friendly and D3D is complicated yet more powerful. I'm sure that by now OpenGL has some way of accesing the shader instructions but I haven't seen any jaw dropping graphics from it.

I'm no graphics developer, but the wiki page suggests no "far superior" performance for D3D, and that shader technology has since long been adopted in a standard way by OpenGL. Do you have any serious benchmarks showing a performance difference?

We're competing?

You claimed MS had done something right. What's right in trying to push an open standard out of the market and replace it with a proprietary one? In my book, that's pure, unadulterated evil. Really the only thing for what that's good is MS's chequebook.

This article compares two computer graphics API's: 1) Direct3D is a proprietary API designed by Microsoft Corporation for hardware 3D acceleration on the Windows platform; and 2) OpenGL is an open standard API that provides a number of functions for the rendering of 2D and 3D graphics and is available on most modern operating systems.

That's about where I stop reading . Only a very thoroughly documented, independent benchmark showing that D3D is indeed superior, would convince me otherwise.

When you want me to convince that MS did something good, show me something where MS really moved technology forward and not only for locking people into their platform.

Well, it seems like most of the PC game development community has decided it doesn't really matter and they'll just use D3D, since most of the gaming platforms are MS ones, and those with Linux and Mac OS can just suck it and find a way to work around things.

That's an accurate portrayal of reality indeed.

Since when is it a matter of winning and losing though?

For the "losing" part, see above.