3 ms·
I'd agree with that if windows was less bloated. If it was an acceptable position that it never had good terminal support because it did one thing and did it we
by DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
I'd agree with that if windows was less bloated. If it was an acceptable position that it never had good terminal support because it did one thing and did it well, and that thing happened to be GUI, then yes, why bloat it with useless shell features that their user base doesn't need. Instead, windows has always been filled with features nobody wants or needs (looking at you, Internet Explorer 10), and most of them are way larger and probably took more development effort than it would have been to just build a good terminal emulator.
- JdeBP 8y agoYou're rather missing the fact that Windows does not have a terminal I/O model. It has a console model. Consoles are what the 1960s terminal model evolved into during the 1980s; from firmware-mediated access to CGA, through the VIO+KBD+MOU subsystems of OS/2, to Windows NT console objects. * http://jdebp.info./FGA/tui-console-and-terminal-paradigms.html http://jdebp.info./FGA/tui-console-and-terminal-paradigms.ht...
- evfanknitram 8y agoYou are crazy if you think that more people would prefer a terminal emulator than a built in web browser in Windows. There's a reason most home users use Windows and not Ubuntu, and it's not spelled terminal.