3 ms·

I try to be fair, I really do. Of course I'm biased - I grew up using Windows and can't help being bitter about it - but I try to keep things in perspective. Pu

by sjs 16y ago

I try to be fair, I really do. Of course I'm biased - I grew up using Windows and can't help being bitter about it - but I try to keep things in perspective. Push Button Reset is great for geeks using Windows, but it's a bandage not the cure. My experience is that Windows' performance deteriorates over time just by using the OS normally. Installing programs and using them, etc. That's one of the things that drove me away from Windows several years ago. Vista and 7 may have changed this but Push Button Reset indicates to me that's not the case. While I agree that the solution to the Bootcamp problem is lame, the situation is quite different. Apple is not recommending you reinstall just to be able to use OS X normally. Maybe it's not that different, maybe my bias is too strong for me to see it clearly, but I don't think it is.

koeselitz 16y ago
Hmm. I agree with what you say here, but for the opposite reasons. That is: I think any OS will deteriorate over time with use. The question is how the OS deals with this fact. The Windows method of memory management and defragging is... passable, but not nearly flexible or versatile for modern machines. For one thing, it's horrendous at dealing with boot configurations. And that reminds the user that Windows (up to 7!) doesn't appear to have any sort of actual boot configurator that even a hard-core geek could use. What's more, while I see where you're going, and I agree with the thrust, I actually disagree with you that "Push Button Reset is great for geeks." It's the opposite of great for us; what we'd like to do is be able to manage clean reinstalls, and most of all to be able to partition hard disks to our liking. Considering that Windows 7 offers less partitioning options and capabilities than Windows 95 did (seriously, think about that for a moment) and that Vista was the first in a decade even to allow partitioning, we're far from a Windows which affords actual control over the machine or the media that goes into it. That's really the thing here to me, as a geek. What does Windows 8 have to offer me to impress me and make me happy as a user? The ability to partition seamlessly; the ability to force a partitioning over errors if I want to; the ability to reinstall seamlessly as many times as I need to, to burn reinstallation software as many times as I need to; the ability to easily and directly configure boot parameters, and to make a boot sturdy and permanent for all users on a machine running multiple partitions with differing encryption levels; finally, direct manipulation of inodes/indexes. These are all things which are still, so far as I can tell, flatly impossible within the context of Windows; and where any of them is possible, it's only with the help of expensive software. Whereas a person with a free, burned copy of Knoppix on a disk can do all of them in five minutes with any computer she choose. I'm not even saying Windows is evil here, or anything like it. It's just that it doesn't in any way meet what I need out of an operating system; there is no control over even the slightest thing, like indexing or bad-sector flags or defragging or partitioning or anything. And I sometimes wonder how Windows developers convince themselves that they're producing a powerful system. Maybe some of them can answer this; I know they're reasonably intelligent. Do any of you know why Windows won't offer these things? And what we're supposed to do in a world where more and more operating systems do?
- danieldon 16y ago
  I think any OS will deteriorate over time with use. Why?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - epochwolf 16y ago
    I'd like to know why as well. I can't reproduce this bug on my linux server.
    - contextfree 16y ago
      I can. I've borked several Linux partitions by installing incompatible versions of libraries, etc. Any highly-configurable system carries the risk of falling into an unusable (for you) configuration.
  - koeselitz 16y ago
    Because that's how hard drives work. You move and copy - often very large files nowadays - and fragments of data are left behind, muddying up the system. The question is how the system deals with it. I actually believe that Windows 7 represents a real improvement on how memory and fragmentation are managed. Vista wasn't bad, either. They both do pretty well.
    - sjs 16y ago
      I think it's more that the registry and filesystem get bloated and crufty. You can defrag an older installation and it'll still be slow. It happens on new systems too. I've done it dozens of times, install Windows and be happy about the fresh, fast installation. Install some apps so you can use the machine and it slows down. Office was always the worst, even on a brand new install.
    - danieldon 16y ago
      We are talking about the Push Button Reset feature and resintalling operating systems, not defragging a drive.
encoderer 16y ago
No Joke -- Win7 has really changed all this IME. I use an iMac at work. I like it. (I prefer the way my mouse feels in Windows but aside from that, I enjoy the iMac a great deal). Still, I think Win7 is the best consumer OS i've ever used. And specifically to the point you're making -- I got used, with the iMac, to keeping the box up for ages, 30, 60, 90 days at a time. Just by habit I've done the same with my Win7 box at home. Wasn't even stunning to me until I realized one day "Oy! I've got a Win box that's been up for 40 days and feel as snappy as day 4." I tell you what, you can hold on to your bias or not, your choice, but this is a great OS and a great starting point for them in Redmond for Win8.
- sjs 16y ago
  Fair enough, I'm glad to see them improve. I don't hate MS or anything of the sort I've just traditionally had bad experiences with their products. I used Vista SP1 for 8-9 months in 2008. It never crashed (when I wasn't OCing) and was great for surfing the web, listening to music, and gaming. I still programmed in a Linux VM though. Cygwin and coLinux don't quite cut it. It's way too late for me now. I prefer Unix and there's no going back to Windows. I'm a command line junkie. :)

by sjs 16y ago

koeselitz 16y ago

Hmm. I agree with what you say here, but for the opposite reasons. That is: I think any OS will deteriorate over time with use. The question is how the OS deals with this fact. The Windows method of memory management and defragging is... passable, but not nearly flexible or versatile for modern machines. For one thing, it's horrendous at dealing with boot configurations. And that reminds the user that Windows (up to 7!) doesn't appear to have any sort of actual boot configurator that even a hard-core geek could use. What's more, while I see where you're going, and I agree with the thrust, I actually disagree with you that "Push Button Reset is great for geeks." It's the opposite of great for us; what we'd like to do is be able to manage clean reinstalls, and most of all to be able to partition hard disks to our liking. Considering that Windows 7 offers less partitioning options and capabilities than Windows 95 did (seriously, think about that for a moment) and that Vista was the first in a decade even to allow partitioning, we're far from a Windows which affords actual control over the machine or the media that goes into it. That's really the thing here to me, as a geek. What does Windows 8 have to offer me to impress me and make me happy as a user? The ability to partition seamlessly; the ability to force a partitioning over errors if I want to; the ability to reinstall seamlessly as many times as I need to, to burn reinstallation software as many times as I need to; the ability to easily and directly configure boot parameters, and to make a boot sturdy and permanent for all users on a machine running multiple partitions with differing encryption levels; finally, direct manipulation of inodes/indexes. These are all things which are still, so far as I can tell, flatly impossible within the context of Windows; and where any of them is possible, it's only with the help of expensive software. Whereas a person with a free, burned copy of Knoppix on a disk can do all of them in five minutes with any computer she choose. I'm not even saying Windows is evil here, or anything like it. It's just that it doesn't in any way meet what I need out of an operating system; there is no control over even the slightest thing, like indexing or bad-sector flags or defragging or partitioning or anything. And I sometimes wonder how Windows developers convince themselves that they're producing a powerful system. Maybe some of them can answer this; I know they're reasonably intelligent. Do any of you know why Windows won't offer these things? And what we're supposed to do in a world where more and more operating systems do?

danieldon 16y ago
I think any OS will deteriorate over time with use. Why?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- epochwolf 16y ago
  I'd like to know why as well. I can't reproduce this bug on my linux server.
  - contextfree 16y ago
    I can. I've borked several Linux partitions by installing incompatible versions of libraries, etc. Any highly-configurable system carries the risk of falling into an unusable (for you) configuration.
- koeselitz 16y ago
  Because that's how hard drives work. You move and copy - often very large files nowadays - and fragments of data are left behind, muddying up the system. The question is how the system deals with it. I actually believe that Windows 7 represents a real improvement on how memory and fragmentation are managed. Vista wasn't bad, either. They both do pretty well.
  - sjs 16y ago
    I think it's more that the registry and filesystem get bloated and crufty. You can defrag an older installation and it'll still be slow. It happens on new systems too. I've done it dozens of times, install Windows and be happy about the fresh, fast installation. Install some apps so you can use the machine and it slows down. Office was always the worst, even on a brand new install.
  - danieldon 16y ago
    We are talking about the Push Button Reset feature and resintalling operating systems, not defragging a drive.

encoderer 16y ago

No Joke -- Win7 has really changed all this IME. I use an iMac at work. I like it. (I prefer the way my mouse feels in Windows but aside from that, I enjoy the iMac a great deal). Still, I think Win7 is the best consumer OS i've ever used. And specifically to the point you're making -- I got used, with the iMac, to keeping the box up for ages, 30, 60, 90 days at a time. Just by habit I've done the same with my Win7 box at home. Wasn't even stunning to me until I realized one day "Oy! I've got a Win box that's been up for 40 days and feel as snappy as day 4." I tell you what, you can hold on to your bias or not, your choice, but this is a great OS and a great starting point for them in Redmond for Win8.

sjs 16y ago
Fair enough, I'm glad to see them improve. I don't hate MS or anything of the sort I've just traditionally had bad experiences with their products. I used Vista SP1 for 8-9 months in 2008. It never crashed (when I wasn't OCing) and was great for surfing the web, listening to music, and gaming. I still programmed in a Linux VM though. Cygwin and coLinux don't quite cut it. It's way too late for me now. I prefer Unix and there's no going back to Windows. I'm a command line junkie. :)