4 ms·

> First, it was the first solid (in relative terms) consumer operating system from MS. I used Windows 3.1 for years and I never had to reinstall it for stabili

> First, it was the first solid (in relative terms) consumer operating system from MS. I used Windows 3.1 for years and I never had to reinstall it for stability reasons. At some point I also switched to XP and after 2 years it wouldn't boot anymore because of a blue screen appearing before the graphical interface would show up. That made the decision easy for me to use Linux exclusively - which I had on dual boot already for a considerable time. To me Windows 95-XP were really frustrating to use since random parts of the system (CD-ROM, Word, Games...) would stop working at random times. Or for instance on Windows 95 sometimes the system would only boot if I opened and closed the (empty) CD tray. At work I sometimes used Vista and 10, I think they are okay but macOS and Linux are far more fun.

necovek 6y ago
Before committing to GNU/Linux in 1998 or 99, I've had a similar experience with moving away from DOS/Windows for workgroups 3.11 to '95: Windows 95 tried to achieve too much in terms of backwards compatibility between 16- and 32-bit software, and was very flimsy as a result. However, I've briefly used NT4 as my "development box" (Delphi addict for a while, though in my defense, I was like 15 at the time) for 6-12 months, that was as stable as anything you could get. But it had the same problems as Linux: it was very specific as to what hardware it supports. The same "soft modems" (called "winmodems" at the time) were equally unsupported in NT4 just like in Linux, so you had to get yourself external hardware modems which were like 5-10x the cost (whatever came out of US Robotics?). So since I was more into the hacker mindset, I moved into GNU/Linux world and never looked back. But I did grow an appreciation for MS engineering: they can develop quality software, and did it even in 96, but their consumer OSes strive for unparalleled compatibility and allow anybody (literally anybody) to write system level code that runs on the kernel ring level due to that. A couple years down the line, I've even seen an article how many workarounds they had to introduce into '95 to allow old software employing their own extended/expanded memory management tricks to continue to function (think stuff like DOS games, WordPerfect...). For all the fun we make of it, Windows 95 was a marvel of engineering when you consider the constraints and requirements. Just oppose that to the new web app approach to software engineering: breaking backwards compatibility is such a common theme that nobody bats an eyelid.
kwanbix 6y ago
I admire what the community has achieve with Linux. I think is really great and I have used Linux in the past (Redhat, Fedora, Suse, Ubuntu, Mint). However, I always wonder what makes your experience so different than mine. For me I can simple replace what you said and it will still be valid: To me Linux were really frustrating to use since random parts of the system (CD-ROM, Word, Games...) would stop working at random times. (well the part about the CD tray never happened to me with any OS). I really like the customizability of Linux and such, but in the end, Windows 2000, XP, and 10 just works 99% of the time. At least for me who I consider an advanced user. Of course there are things I don't like, like telemetry, but the pros vs the cons, at least for me, make me always return to Windows. I have also worked with macs and for 4 years my wife had a MacBook. Not only do I find the prices crazy expensive, compared with ThinkPads, but I never found anything that was better in OSX than in Windows. Again, I can use macOS if needed be, and I find it just fine. But I prefer Win/ThinkPad. Of course this is my own opinion.
- blablabla123 6y ago
  For me the main difference between (early) Windows and Linux is, Windows is quick to setup and quick to break. Linux is hard to setup and hard to break - I cannot tell how much time I spent tweaking my Linux desktop. Also I could for instance use an old SCSI scanner on Linux much longer unlike Windows where they eventually stopped developing drivers for new Windows releases. But now things are of course a bit different, especially when choosing well supported hardware. On the other hand driver support tends to be more stable and long-term oriented on Linux since they tend to be maintained centrally in the Linux kernel. I agree that macOS is a bit mediocre in some sense, but somehow it unites the worlds of Linux and Windows.
  - kwanbix 6y ago
    It could be a matter of experience. If you are more experienced with Linux, it could be easier than if you are more experienced with Windows. For me, Linux is easy to install, and it has been for a while, but then trying to customize it to do what I want, is much more complicated than Windows. For example, I want RAR support. There is no LinRAR, so I had to download a library and install it. It wasnt that bad, but in the end I ended up with a tool that was not as simple to use as Winrar. Want to use Total Commander? Either install Wine or run Midnight Commander or some other similar program that are not up to par with TC. Want to use Office? Wine or Crossover. Want to use Illustrator? Same. Need to install VMware? In Linux you have to import some signing key first and do some additional steps (don't completely remember). Nothing major, but you need to find out first how to do it. In Windows, just download the installer, double click and follow the wizard. For me it seems like it is always more complicated to do simple things in Linux, and you end up with some not as good solution. Also, I don't understand how can I download an installer from Windows XP and will 99% of the time install in Windows 10. However, if I want to install something old in the latest version of Linux, it won't install, will have to fix dependencies or similar. And for me the worst thing is that energy management for notebooks is not exactly the same. If my battery lasts 4 hours in Windows, it lasts 3 or 2 in Linux. Drivers it could be what you say for old ones where the manufacturer did not update to Windows 10, but if you have a supported device, usually the support is better on Windows. Of course there are advantages, like no telemetry, no antivirus, but for my use case, I found the experience worst. I am not saying totally worst. Maybe it is a 10 to 20% worst. Of course, I have used maybe 90% of my time Windows and 9% Linux and 1% MAC, so maybe I am just more experienced.

necovek 6y ago

Before committing to GNU/Linux in 1998 or 99, I've had a similar experience with moving away from DOS/Windows for workgroups 3.11 to '95: Windows 95 tried to achieve too much in terms of backwards compatibility between 16- and 32-bit software, and was very flimsy as a result. However, I've briefly used NT4 as my "development box" (Delphi addict for a while, though in my defense, I was like 15 at the time) for 6-12 months, that was as stable as anything you could get. But it had the same problems as Linux: it was very specific as to what hardware it supports. The same "soft modems" (called "winmodems" at the time) were equally unsupported in NT4 just like in Linux, so you had to get yourself external hardware modems which were like 5-10x the cost (whatever came out of US Robotics?). So since I was more into the hacker mindset, I moved into GNU/Linux world and never looked back. But I did grow an appreciation for MS engineering: they can develop quality software, and did it even in 96, but their consumer OSes strive for unparalleled compatibility and allow anybody (literally anybody) to write system level code that runs on the kernel ring level due to that. A couple years down the line, I've even seen an article how many workarounds they had to introduce into '95 to allow old software employing their own extended/expanded memory management tricks to continue to function (think stuff like DOS games, WordPerfect...). For all the fun we make of it, Windows 95 was a marvel of engineering when you consider the constraints and requirements. Just oppose that to the new web app approach to software engineering: breaking backwards compatibility is such a common theme that nobody bats an eyelid.

kwanbix 6y ago

I admire what the community has achieve with Linux. I think is really great and I have used Linux in the past (Redhat, Fedora, Suse, Ubuntu, Mint). However, I always wonder what makes your experience so different than mine. For me I can simple replace what you said and it will still be valid: To me Linux were really frustrating to use since random parts of the system (CD-ROM, Word, Games...) would stop working at random times. (well the part about the CD tray never happened to me with any OS). I really like the customizability of Linux and such, but in the end, Windows 2000, XP, and 10 just works 99% of the time. At least for me who I consider an advanced user. Of course there are things I don't like, like telemetry, but the pros vs the cons, at least for me, make me always return to Windows. I have also worked with macs and for 4 years my wife had a MacBook. Not only do I find the prices crazy expensive, compared with ThinkPads, but I never found anything that was better in OSX than in Windows. Again, I can use macOS if needed be, and I find it just fine. But I prefer Win/ThinkPad. Of course this is my own opinion.

blablabla123 6y ago
For me the main difference between (early) Windows and Linux is, Windows is quick to setup and quick to break. Linux is hard to setup and hard to break - I cannot tell how much time I spent tweaking my Linux desktop. Also I could for instance use an old SCSI scanner on Linux much longer unlike Windows where they eventually stopped developing drivers for new Windows releases. But now things are of course a bit different, especially when choosing well supported hardware. On the other hand driver support tends to be more stable and long-term oriented on Linux since they tend to be maintained centrally in the Linux kernel. I agree that macOS is a bit mediocre in some sense, but somehow it unites the worlds of Linux and Windows.
- kwanbix 6y ago
  It could be a matter of experience. If you are more experienced with Linux, it could be easier than if you are more experienced with Windows. For me, Linux is easy to install, and it has been for a while, but then trying to customize it to do what I want, is much more complicated than Windows. For example, I want RAR support. There is no LinRAR, so I had to download a library and install it. It wasnt that bad, but in the end I ended up with a tool that was not as simple to use as Winrar. Want to use Total Commander? Either install Wine or run Midnight Commander or some other similar program that are not up to par with TC. Want to use Office? Wine or Crossover. Want to use Illustrator? Same. Need to install VMware? In Linux you have to import some signing key first and do some additional steps (don't completely remember). Nothing major, but you need to find out first how to do it. In Windows, just download the installer, double click and follow the wizard. For me it seems like it is always more complicated to do simple things in Linux, and you end up with some not as good solution. Also, I don't understand how can I download an installer from Windows XP and will 99% of the time install in Windows 10. However, if I want to install something old in the latest version of Linux, it won't install, will have to fix dependencies or similar. And for me the worst thing is that energy management for notebooks is not exactly the same. If my battery lasts 4 hours in Windows, it lasts 3 or 2 in Linux. Drivers it could be what you say for old ones where the manufacturer did not update to Windows 10, but if you have a supported device, usually the support is better on Windows. Of course there are advantages, like no telemetry, no antivirus, but for my use case, I found the experience worst. I am not saying totally worst. Maybe it is a 10 to 20% worst. Of course, I have used maybe 90% of my time Windows and 9% Linux and 1% MAC, so maybe I am just more experienced.