SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CowboyTeal writes:
"Windows 8 is still being disputed as either the product of a genius or a nerdy sadist but that doesn't mean Windows 9 isn't in the works. That said, how would you guys improve Windows if you could change anything about it? Has windows 8 improved or degraded your overall experience of the Windows platform? If you're not a Windows user, what features would you like to see in Windows for possible assimilation?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Grelb's Reminder:
Eighty percent of all people consider themselves to be above
average drivers.
(Score: 5, Funny) by crutchy on Sunday March 02 2014, @10:36AM
duh
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jt on Sunday March 02 2014, @11:49AM
Joking aside, the NT kernel is not the big problem with Windows. I want to see Windows get package management and repositories like Linux distros so the OS and applications would be kept up to date without a million app specific updaters or manual intervention. I know this dream will remain a dream as the app vendors won't agree, or give up a path to shovel toolbars and general adware and malware.
(Score: 1) by Aighearach on Sunday March 02 2014, @11:50AM
Just make it a linux window manager, problem solved. To differentiate from Apple and others, they can use the OpenBSD versions of commands.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 02 2014, @12:18PM
Isn't that what the Windows 8 App Store [microsoft.com] does?
That's not a rhetorical question, I've never used it or Win8, so I don't know.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Sunday March 02 2014, @05:08PM
The Windows app store locks you to one store, same as OSX and iOS. It's not a repository manager. The Linux repo managers are great in that they allow us to keep software up to date across multiple providers through a central mechanism. The commercial OSes want to limit what you can install and because of that they will always take a hit in security because they require multiple mechanisms.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by TheloniousToady on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:36PM
I can live with the Windows update process as it is but I have a similar dream that Linux will one day get plug-and-play - and finally catch up to Windows 95 in that regard ;-)
But seriously, folks, maybe I'm just confused on this. Does Linux, 1) already have plug-and-play, 2) lack it by design, or 3) lack it because it just isn't there yet? I read an article awhile back that suggested it was 2), but I really don't know, so this is an honest question, not a troll.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02 2014, @07:45PM
It has plug and play already.
Have I been trolled?
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Sunday March 02 2014, @08:59PM
Have I been trolled?
Apparently. I just did a fresh Mint install this week to my more or less generic Dell box, and everything just worked. Took all of ten minutes including formatting the new drive.
Bonus: even Windows Vista is running better now, inside VirtualBox.....
(Score: 2) by TheloniousToady on Sunday March 02 2014, @10:20PM
No, it wasn't a troll, it was an honest question. (I hope those are being allowed here, even if they were systematically surpressed at The-Site-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named... ;-) Thanks for answering it. I haven't tried Linux in a couple of years, but the (apparent) lack of plug-and-play support at that time was one of the main reasons I quickly abandoned it. I went through a great deal of misery back then trying to get sound to come out via ALSA.
However, I recognize that things improve over the years, so it's not surprising they've finally gotten something like that going. However, from an article I had read a few months ago, I got the idea that the Linux kernel simply wasn't designed to allow that. The article suggested that people actually enjoyed recompiling the kernel to add drivers. But the article was wrong, or maybe I misunderstood. (Likewise, this message is *not* a troll. Feel free not to respond if you have any doubts.)
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Sunday March 02 2014, @11:55PM
I've never recompiled anything, and wouldn't know where to start. I have though downloaded a handful of distros and installed them from a USB stick. Or first tried them as a live instance.
Mainstream linux is pretty painless these days for average systems.
(Score: 2) by TheloniousToady on Monday March 03 2014, @01:58AM
Glad to hear it's working for you. I recently tried installing Linux as a dual boot on a Windows 8 machine that I had just built. It installed and ran fine in a little nominal use. But when I tried to boot it later from the HDD, it wouldn't boot, I think due to the UEFI issue. So, I kindda lost interest and rebooted into Windows.
In a general sense, this has pretty-much been my experience with Linux over the years, starting with Red Hat 6 many years ago. It always basically works, but there always seems to be some sort of significant snag that I run into - and a different one each time. Last time it was audio, this time it's UEFI. Each problem I've run into is surmountable (including the most recent one), but I end up just going back to Windows.
I admire those of you who either have better luck with Linux or who actually enjoy solving these sorts problems. I keep hoping, so I'll try Linux again in a few months or years.
(Score: 1) by EvilJim on Wednesday March 05 2014, @12:10AM
I've got ubuntu 3 or 4 running on a pentium 233 laptop with 64mb ram, never could get the S3 video drivers working properly so stuck with VESA, that and my older 486dx4-100 laptop with 16mb ram are the only two systems I've had to re-compile a kernel for or mess with driver settings to get working. even USB plug and play works fine. running Deli Linux on the 486. all of my more recent machines just work straight out of the box, oh except one where I had to de-blacklist the wifi card after an update.
(Score: 1) by tangomargarine on Monday March 03 2014, @09:56PM
If what you're *actually* trying to refer to is AutoRun, yes, Linux lacks that by design. Although I'm sure those damn Gnome devs will put it in one of these days (if they haven't already).
I have been plugging arbitrary flash drives/external disks into my desktop and Ubuntu autodetects them since 2007 at least.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Sunday March 02 2014, @09:56PM
I can live with the Windows update process as it is but I have a similar dream that Linux will one day get plug-and-play - and finally catch up to Windows 95 in that regard ;-)
But seriously, folks, maybe I'm just confused on this. Does Linux, 1) already have plug-and-play, 2) lack it by design, or 3) lack it because it just isn't there yet? I read an article awhile back that suggested it was 2), but I really don't know, so this is an honest question, not a troll.
I don't know about (2) and (3), but every I've installed it on a PC (whether it's a desktop, laptop or netbook) everything "just worked" (advertising term borrowed from some computer company or other).
Sometimes I've had to select one of the installed sound drivers, and the scanner I have tries really hard to not play nice with Linux, but that's it.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by TheloniousToady on Sunday March 02 2014, @10:27PM
Darn, I was hoping that, unlike Slashdot, I could express some sort of mild pro-Windows/anti-Linux sentiment without being labelled as "Flamebait". (Didn't anybody notice the "wink"? ;-) Is Soylent going to be the narrow, dogmatic place that Slashdot is? Can't we have "News for Nerds" or something like that without enforcing humorless dogma about the Windows/Linux divide and related issues like the copyleft/BSD/proprietary divide?
I try not to use my own moderator points in a dogmatic fashion here or elsewhere, so please don't do it to me.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 03 2014, @05:07AM
Didn't anybody notice the "wink"?
Wit is in the eye/ear of the beholder [google.com]. You need to try harder.
As for your original point, as others have alluded to, if you have hardware that doesn't "just work" it's because you have chosen a sucky product from a sucky manufacturer with sucky support.
For years and years, the Linux Driver Project has offered labor (gratis) to make products Linux-compatible.
If a manufacturer's products aren't, it's because that vendor is standing in the doorway and blocking progress [googleusercontent.com].(orig) [lwn.net]
Even Broadcom, who has a reputation for zero Linux support (wouldn't even release specs and made everyone reverse-engineer everything), is coming around [google.com].
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 03 2014, @05:20AM
An interesting point of view: if something doesn't run well on Linux, it must be the hardware manufacturer's fault. Maybe so, but personally, I enjoy being "free" to use whatever hardware I want...
(Score: 1) by tangomargarine on Monday March 03 2014, @10:01PM
I guess if you value the "freedom" to only run Windows...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 04 2014, @02:01AM
it must be the hardware manufacturer's fault
Exactly my point. Glad you got it.
Now, who do you think produced the device driver for that item so that it would run under Windoze? M$?
Bzzzzt. Wrong. The hardware manufacture who refused to support Linux was the same bunch who produced that Windoze-compatible driver.
I enjoy being "free" to use whatever hardware I want
As tangomargarine intimated, you guys who not only enjoy slavery but will willing purchase your own chains are really strange.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:23PM
An example of fringe gear (a dance pad):
Convention wisdom would say that getting a Windoze device driver that works would be duck soup.
Convention wisdom (aka Windoze fanboys' opinions) would say that there is no Linux support for the device.
Wrong on both counts. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [archlinux.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:37PM
What you're proposing is already mostly done: it's the Windows App Store. MS gets a big cut of everything. Apple has something nearly identical. On either one, you're limited to what the OS vendor wants you to have access to.
If you want something like what Linux has, just use Linux. It's that simple. You're never going to get a Debian-like repo system from a proprietary vendor. It's simply not in their interests to provide freedom like that.
(Score: 2, Informative) by iamjacksusername on Sunday March 02 2014, @05:16PM
It exists and it is called WSUS. A WSUS service can be customized to include non-Microsoft packages but the licensing implications (i.e. requires server CALs for each unique connection), the client side technical requirements (it can break rather spectacularly and opaquely if you do not do it right), as well the fact that WSUS server is a "free" product that Microsoft could arbitrarily change the licensing agreement terms on essentially make it unworkable as a public repository solution.
This does not exist in a vacuum of course. Microsoft makesx far too much money selling companies package management tools for that capability to be "standard". Adobe, HP and Dell. SCCM does what you are thinking of but it bypasses the built-in WSUS client side technologies in favor of requiring the use of SCCM. And that is another subject for another day.
(Score: 1) by iamjacksusername on Sunday March 02 2014, @05:19PM
There is a missing sentence...
I meant to say "Adobe, HP and Dell are the only major vendors I am aware of that publish publicly accessible SCCM repositories."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by hash14 on Sunday March 02 2014, @05:30PM
I'm not sure I agree that the kernel isn't a problem (though I agree that it's not THE problem). From a technological standpoint, the Windows kernel just isn't as advanced as the Linux kernel and you can see it in all sorts of ways. Linux is more responsive, has better task scheduling ie. is less likely to freeze up when processes become resource intensive (CPU, disk and memory I/O), has better admin/management utilities (though I have never admined a Windows box myself), supports dozens more file systems (nearly all of which are far, far superior to NTFS) and rarely requires restarts. Generally speaking, it's just more responsive, secure and modular than the Windows kernel.
I understand that people who use Windows often don't care about these sorts of things, but Macs are successful because they try to emulate the Linux kernel (or at least what it does well). The only thing that Windows may do better than Linux is graphics hardware support, and yet given Linux's open community model, people are constantly contributing support to improve it (e.g. Valve). The primary difference is that Windows is built to make money, and Linux is simply made to be as good as can be.
It may not be noticeable to average users, but it is to me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jt on Sunday March 02 2014, @06:22PM
I think it's fair to say that the various kernels have pros and cons for any given situation. The Linux kernel is undoubtedly excellent, modern, and can be tuned/configured to perform well for almost any application. The NT kernel is certainly good enough for desktops and has some strengths in this area, particularly with multimedia applications, and does have modern OS design features. Other alternatives like QNX might be a better choice than the Linux kernel for some hard real-time applications. It's important to remember that 'Windows' implies much more than just the kernel and its these other elements, and the surrounding ecosystem of applications and hardware support, which differentiate Windows from the alternatives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02 2014, @10:58PM
I don't think your dream is that far off from being realized, though I worry that it'll look more like the iOS walled garden with the official repository whitelisted, everything else blocked, for the "protection" of the users.
It's already what they've moved toward in the mobile market on ARM devices.
If they went with everything blocked by default, with a big fat disclaimer to override that default (much like Android warns when you install from third party sources), I wouldn't complain much about that. We'll see where the MS heads take it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by cx on Sunday March 02 2014, @01:45PM
I see this request, serious or in jest, every time there is a question about what is so wrong with Windows. And I don't get it.
Seriously, what is wrong with NT kernel? The fact that 'it is not Linux' doesn't really qualify as valid answer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SurvivorZ on Sunday March 02 2014, @02:56PM
Quite simply, it's the Windows API!! OH MY GOD! You have apparently never tried to work with this monstrosity or you would not even need to ask such a telling question!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Grishnakh on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:41PM
You're absolutely right about the API, but you're absolutely wrong about the kernel. I just started a job where I have to do some work with the Win32 API (not by choice, if I had known this about the job I wouldn't have accepted it), and holy shit, it's the most ridiculously arcane thing I've ever seen in my life.
However, the Win32 API predates the NT kernel mostly, as it was used in Win95/98, and is an API to the OS libraries, not to the kernel itself. It's retained in XP/Vista/7/8 because of backwards compatibility concerns and inertia. If they switched to a Linux kernel for some odd reason, they'd still have to put in a compatibility layer for Win32. Of course, we actually already have this on Linux: it's called "WINE". But for Windows, they'd make it a primary API probably, along with some kind of .NET stuff, and the Linux libraries and APIs we know and love would probably not be there.
(Score: 1) by andrew_t366 on Sunday March 02 2014, @05:12PM
Windows NT existed before Windows 95.
(Score: 0) by mendax on Sunday March 02 2014, @09:05PM
I don't know where you got your history from but this is completely wrong. I wrote a Windows app for Windows 3.1 way back when, then ported it to the Win32 API when I discovered the Win32S package that would generally allow programs using the Win32 API running in the already well-established, multitasking and stable Windows NT to run in 16-bit Windows on a 32-bit machine. This was about a year before the introduction of Windows 95. Thus, I know something about this history. The basic Win32 API is essentially the original 16-bit Windows API with some adjustments. When Windows 95 came out, Windows NT was already well-established but not being used by the masses, mainly because memory was astoundingly expensive in those days (I paid $500 for 16 MB in 1995). Windows 95 could run fairly well in 4 MB.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 03 2014, @04:11PM
Ok fine, but the point is the API is not tied to the kernel, since the NT kernel and the Win95/98/Me kernel have very little in common, but both support the Win32 API.
(Score: 1) by EvilJim on Wednesday March 05 2014, @12:16AM
Shit son, last time I bought ram for retail it was 8mb for $800. that was right after the factory fire or something, my single speed cd rom drive and soundblaster was $680, all on a 486 sx-25, man those were the days.
(Score: 0) by mendax on Wednesday March 05 2014, @12:04PM
Well, this was memory for a 33 mhz 486DX. It did run Windows 95 nicely after getting all that memory. After the upgrade it had 20 mb of RAM.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by cx on Sunday March 02 2014, @04:48PM