PDA

View Full Version : Windows 7: A distorted Linux



Tamalin
August 18th, 2009, 05:20 PM
I was looking at a few Windows 7 PC's yesterday, and I have come to the conclusion that Microsoft is attempting to squash the competition of Linux by copying it's many features. I thought Windows 7 looked suspiciously more like a pretty Linux distribution than XP did.

Examples:
In Vista, the organization of files changed mimicking Linux
In Windows 7, the toolbar struck me as surprisingly similar to linux.
Microsoft is acting like they want their OSs to be quality for some reason now.

JillSwift
August 18th, 2009, 05:25 PM
http://www.stuartngbooks.com/kelly_we_have_met_enemy_cvr.jpg

NullHead
August 18th, 2009, 05:27 PM
It sounds like you're saying "You stole my idea!!11"

Tamalin
August 18th, 2009, 05:29 PM
It sounds like you're saying "You stole my idea!!11"

I tend to be defensive of things that I enjoy! :)

Yes
August 18th, 2009, 05:31 PM
So? If they're good ideas that work well there's no reason they shouldn't go ahead and use them.

Tamalin
August 18th, 2009, 05:37 PM
Yes, it could be a good thing or a bad thing.
Pro) People get used to the wonderful way Linux works, Life is easier
Cons) People will assume that Linux is just a copy of Microsoft Windows, even when it is the other way around. People have less reason to use Ubuntu if windows is exactly the same, hence Proprietory wins again!!!

Bachstelze
August 18th, 2009, 05:42 PM
Cons) People will assume that Linux is just a copy of Microsoft Windows, even when it is the other way around. People have less reason to use Ubuntu if windows is exactly the same, hence Proprietory wins again!!!

http://www.legaljuice.com/life%20is%20not%20fair%20unfair-thumb.jpg

tehchibipanda
August 18th, 2009, 05:46 PM
http://www.legaljuice.com/life%20is%20not%20fair%20unfair-thumb.jpg

^Greatest reply ever. Hell, if Microsoft wants to incorporate Linux ideas into the newest OS, let them. Its all a matter of preference of what the people want to use. I grew up with Windows, and I decided about six months ago to look into Linux distros, and I love Ubuntu.

blithen
August 18th, 2009, 05:46 PM
http://www.legaljuice.com/life%20is%20not%20fair%20unfair-thumb.jpg

xD Wow.

oldsoundguy
August 18th, 2009, 05:48 PM
The folks in Redmond seldom have had an original idea since DAY 1 when they BOUGHT DOS. (and later stole Apple's look and feel for Windows.)

All you have to look at is how long it took them to get tabbed browsing as just ONE example.

NT, the basic kernel for XP and those using NTFS file systems, was also a PURCHASE. It did NOT originate in house.

If it is a good idea and they can steal it and get away with it, damn straight they WILL.

OCCASIONALLY they get caught (such as their modifying of code to get DOSX in Word.) That little error in judgment has cost them a LOT .. 300 million in fines off the top and they can't MARKET any program that includes Word that uses DOSX!!!

Bachstelze
August 18th, 2009, 05:51 PM
The folks in Redmond seldom have had an original idea since DAY 1 when they BOUGHT DOS.

And still they have a ~90% market share. No, really, life's not fair. :(

benj1
August 18th, 2009, 06:01 PM
The folks in Redmond seldom have had an original idea since DAY 1 when they BOUGHT DOS. (and later stole Apple's look and feel for Windows.)


which was stolen from xerox ;)

microsoft dont realy create anything, im struggling to think of anything original that microsoft created itself (clippy?, bob?), they just buy companies out that do something interresting, or just steal it.

i wouldnt go as far as saying windows is copying linux though, its just convergence, theres only so many ways of doing something, gnome has probably been influenced by other OS environments, and is pretty different from the traditional *nix way of doing things.

JK3mp
August 18th, 2009, 06:06 PM
I suprisingly liked Windows 7 but true to the fact that there mimicking linux in many ways. But at least they've figured out they need to go for more stability than looks, but they've hit a nice median.

Greg
August 18th, 2009, 06:17 PM
I vote no. I don't see how Windows 7 is like Linux at all.

meho_r
August 18th, 2009, 06:48 PM
I vote no. I don't see how Windows 7 is like Linux at all.

Hehe, take a look at KDE4 and then at W7 and say that again :P

Greg
August 18th, 2009, 06:50 PM
Hehe, take a look at KDE4 and then at W7 and say that again :P

Yeah, but saying that KDE looks like Windows is hardly a new thing. They're both chock full of way too much transparency. KDE!=Linux.

meho_r
August 18th, 2009, 06:57 PM
Yeah, but saying that KDE looks like Windows is hardly a new thing. They're both chock full of way too much transparency. KDE!=Linux.

Yes, but it is one of 2 most popular DE for Linux. And making comparison about "look" and talking about Linux (which is kernel in fact) and not referring to KDE, Gnome, XFCE etc. is ridiculous. W7 is so much looking like KDE4 that I was amazed when I first saw it. One can't say that KDE4 is copying W7 though, because of date at least.

Greg
August 18th, 2009, 07:04 PM
Yes, but it is one of 2 most popular DE for Linux. And making comparison about "look" and talking about Linux (which is kernel in fact) and not referring to KDE, Gnome, XFCE etc. is ridiculous. W7 is so much looking like KDE4 that I was amazed when I first saw it. One can't say that KDE4 is copying W7 though, because of date at least.

Windows 7 looks a lot like Vista, which UI is a somewhat logical progression from the Windows Classic look. KDE4 is a good logical progression from KDE 3.5. They always looked similar.

fela
August 18th, 2009, 07:04 PM
Thing about Linux is that it's just a kernel at the end of the day. The only way MS could possibly immitate Linux is by making it have /usr, /bin, /home, you get the idea. They could even call their NT kernel image (wherever the hell it's installed) vmnintuz, lol!

Saying they immitate KDE is a whole different thing. I don't use KDE, I use GNOME. It's faster and prettier. yes, prettier. I don't like too much transparency :P.

Plus KDE immitated whatever windows immitated in the first place (I take it) - and GNOME by default is obviously very similar to the windows look (it even has a taskbar :))

markbuntu
August 18th, 2009, 10:58 PM
Microsoft, like Apple, will eventually copy unix. This will be for "security reasons".

I wonder how many mac users realize they are paying through the nose for a BSD remix?

Microsoft could replace their OS with a linux stack and very few people would ever notice, and fewer would believe that MS and linux used the same stack even if they were shown.

Bachstelze
August 18th, 2009, 11:04 PM
I wonder how many mac users realize they are paying through the nose for a BSD remix?

I wonder how many Linux users realize that this argument is moot and only proves that they haven't ever used Mac OS nor BSD.

Too bad, I use both on a daily basis, so I know better.

fela
August 18th, 2009, 11:05 PM
Microsoft, like Apple, will eventually copy unix. This will be for "security reasons".

I wonder how many mac users realize they are paying through the nose for a BSD remix?

Microsoft could replace their OS with a linux stack and very few people would ever notice, and fewer would believe that MS and linux used the same stack even if they were shown.

Completely agree. MS have already copied *nix OSes with their sudo knock-off, UAC. Except that it sucks because viruses can actually get round it, which renders it as nothing more than an annoying piece of trash, although it's meant to be better in windows 7. Still, I doubt they'll make it so viruses can't get round it.

Umm, OSX is strictly speaking a BSD remix, but only at the backend level which most mac users aren't really interested in, as are most windows users. OS X consists of (IMO) one of the best *nix GUIs, but yeah it is essentially BSD.

If the windows frontend was reworked to run ontop of a Linux backend and open sourced it all, I would certainly run it as I'd be running an open source OS with all the benefits of windows' massive hardware and software compatibility. Dream on though, this isn't gonna happen. The windows GUI is too tied into the kernel and lower down stuff, they'd have to pretty much rewrite the OS for a Linux backend. Then it would essentially be a better version of Wine.

fela
August 18th, 2009, 11:10 PM
I wonder how many Linux users realize that this argument is moot and only proves that they haven't ever used Mac OS nor BSD.

Too bad, I use both on a daily basis, so I know better.

Why is that argument moot? OSX is a BSD remix. Just because it has lots of proprietary software added doesn't stop it being a BSD remix/distro. Just because you use both on a daily basis doesn't automatically mean you know a thing about either of them. I once asked if a windows user for 10 years knew what the NT kernel was, and she didn't even know what a kernel was let alone NT. So IMO that argument is 'moot'.

Bachstelze
August 18th, 2009, 11:23 PM
Why is that argument moot? OSX is a BSD remix. Just because it has lots of proprietary software added doesn't stop it being a BSD remix/distro.

Just because it uses some BSD code doesn't make it a "BSD remix" (let alone a "distro", whatever the hell that means). For your information, every OS does, including Linux and Windows. Does that make them "BSD remixes" to you?


Just because you use both on a daily basis doesn't automatically mean you know a thing about either of them. I once asked if a windows user for 10 years knew what the NT kernel was, and she didn't even know what a kernel was let alone NT. So IMO that argument is 'moot'.

You can use Windows without knowing how it works under the hood. This is not quite true of BSD.

geoken
August 18th, 2009, 11:31 PM
Why is that argument moot? OSX is a BSD remix.

Wow, you're really stretching the definition of remix. By your standards every piano composition in history would be a remix of the previous ones.

geoken
August 18th, 2009, 11:34 PM
Examples:
In Vista, the organization of files changed mimicking Linux
In Windows 7, the toolbar struck me as surprisingly similar to linux.
Microsoft is acting like they want their OSs to be quality for some reason now.

Can you please provide some examples?

The only difference between XP<->Vista/7's file structure is that "Documents and Settings" was changed to "Users". And even then the internal files are the same.

The toolbar looks like the vista toolbar without text labels. I wasn't aware that there was a DE called 'Linux' or that it had a panel that looked like Windows 7's.

Tamalin
August 18th, 2009, 11:50 PM
Well, the old XP filesystem used to be organized C:/Documents and Settings/USER/My Documents/(My Pictures/My Videos/My etc...). Your home directory was USER, even though most non-technical XP users would have considered My Documents to be their "home" directory, because everything was centered around that one directory. Most non-technical users probably barely ever (if at all) viewed their true home directory in explorer.

Now in Vista, My Documents has been cut out of the picture. I think filesystem is organized like C:\Users\HOME\(Documents/Pictures/Videos/etc...). This is a lot more like Ubuntu, where the file organization looks like this: /home/HOME/(Documents, Pictures, Videos, etc..). Basically you replace the "C:" with "/" and "Users" with "home", then reverse all the slashes (because for some weird reason windows uses backslashes). And you get the Ubuntu initial default file arrangements.

Did I explain this well enough?

fela
August 18th, 2009, 11:53 PM
Just because it uses some BSD code doesn't make it a "BSD remix" (let alone a "distro", whatever the hell that means). For your information, every OS does, including Linux and Windows. Does that make them "BSD remixes" to you?

You can use Windows without knowing how it works under the hood. This is not quite true of BSD.

Well by that definition you might aswell say that Ubuntu isn't a Linux remix. And can you please point out what BSD code there is in Windows and Linux? Just so I know :)

And my mum used Linux (similar techy level to BSD isn't it?) for about 6 months on her laptop (she was fine with it) - she doesn't know what partitioning is, and she doesn't know what a 'linux distro' is either. You can use any OS without knowing how it works under the bonnet (I'm english :P). It just needs a friendly GUI to work with.


Wow, you're really stretching the definition of remix. By your standards every piano composition in history would be a remix of the previous ones.

No, that's like saying every piece of software is a remix of previous software. You do know that OSX is based on BSD don't you? Windows isn't based on BSD, so it's not a BSD remix.


Well, the old XP filesystem used to be organized C:/Documents and Settings/USER/My Documents/(My Pictures/My Videos/My etc...). Your home directory was USER, even though most non-technical XP users would have considered My Documents to be their "home" directory, because everything was centered around that one directory. Most non-technical users probably barely ever (if at all) viewed their true home directory in explorer.

Now in Vista, My Documents has been cut out of the picture. I think filesystem is organized like C:\Users\HOME\(Documents/Pictures/Videos/etc...). This is a lot more like Ubuntu, where the file organization looks like this: /home/HOME/(Documents, Pictures, Videos, etc..). Basically you replace the "C:" with "/" and "Users" with "home", then reverse all the slashes (because for some weird reason windows uses backslashes). And you get the Ubuntu initial default file arrangements.

Did I explain this well enough?

Erm...I fail to see how this is mimicking Linux in any way. Sure I agree that MS mimics other operating systems (including Linux desktop environments) but they definitely don't mimic the filesystem. If they did they wouldn't be using DOS drive letters, they'd be using a *nix filesystem structure.

geoken
August 19th, 2009, 12:04 AM
No, that's like saying every piece of software is a remix of previous software. You do know that OSX is based on BSD don't you? Windows isn't based on BSD, so it's not a BSD remix.

OS X is based on parts of BSD, parts of Mach and IO Kit. Then they throw on their own window manager, drivers and tons of proprietary apps. Like I said, your use of the term 'remix' is extremely overstretched here. A remix is taking something, moving it's parts around, and creating a different yet still obviously recognizable thing. Taking the core of something, then building everything around it to the point where it's completely unrecognizable from the original is not a remix.

Bachstelze
August 19th, 2009, 12:08 AM
Well by that definition you might aswell say that Ubuntu isn't a Linux remix.

This would be true if it weren't for the fact that Ubuntu uses the whole Linux kernel, not just tiny bits of it.


And can you please point out what BSD code there is in Windows and Linux? Just so I know :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_sockets

Without them, no internets.

(I give myself a bonus point for the rhyme.)


And my mum used Linux (similar techy level to BSD isn't it?)

Er, not really...

geoken
August 19th, 2009, 12:16 AM
Well, the old XP filesystem used to be organized C:/Documents and Settings/USER/My Documents/(My Pictures/My Videos/My etc...). Your home directory was USER, even though most non-technical XP users would have considered My Documents to be their "home" directory, because everything was centered around that one directory. Most non-technical users probably barely ever (if at all) viewed their true home directory in explorer.

Now in Vista, My Documents has been cut out of the picture. I think filesystem is organized like C:\Users\HOME\(Documents/Pictures/Videos/etc...). This is a lot more like Ubuntu, where the file organization looks like this: /home/HOME/(Documents, Pictures, Videos, etc..).


XP:
C:\Documents and Setting\$username\(desktop,my documents, favorites, app data)

Vista
C:\Users\$username\(desktop,my documents, favorites, app data)


The only difference is that pictures and videos were moved out of the documents subfolder. Documnets, Desktop, Favorites, AppData, and app specific storage (hiden or not) still goes to the exact same place.


Basically you replace the "C:" with "/" and "Users" with "home", then reverse all the slashes (because for some weird reason windows uses backslashes). And you get the Ubuntu initial default file arrangements.

Did I explain this well enough?

Do the exact same thing with XP (except you're changing "Documents and Settings" to "home") and you get the same results.

fela
August 19th, 2009, 12:19 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_sockets

Without them, no internets.

Wow, I really didn't know about that! :lolflag:


Er, not really...

I used OpenBSD, it didn't seem very different on a tech-skills requirement than Linux to me. But I configure everything from the command line on Linux and maybe you're thinking of stuff like the automatic printer config wizard in Ubuntu. I don't stray too far into that sort of territory.


OS X is based on parts of BSD, parts of Mach and IO Kit. Then they throw on their own window manager, drivers and tons of proprietary apps. Like I said, your use of the term 'remix' is extremely overstretched here. A remix is taking something, moving it's parts around, and creating a different yet still obviously recognizable thing. Taking the core of something, then building everything around it to the point where it's completely indistinguishable from the original is not a remix.

It's not indistinguishable actually. Have a look through the OSX kernel's source code and you'll see why. After you compare it to BSD's source code. Just because Apple obfuscate it with tons of proprietary crap, doesn't mean that the BSD bits just 'fade away'! :) BTW don't reply back with your counter argument, it's a stupid discussion. Let's just let it lie.

Bachstelze
August 19th, 2009, 12:22 AM
It's not indistinguishable actually. Have a look through the OSX kernel's source code and you'll see why. After you compare it to BSD's source code. Just because Apple obfuscate it with tons of proprietary crap, doesn't mean that the BSD bits just 'fade away'! :) BTW don't reply back with your counter argument, it's a stupid discussion. Let's just let it lie.

Now that settles it, you really don't know what you're talking about. Mac OS X's kernel is based on the Mach microkernel, there is absolutely no BSD code in it. Sorry man, you lose.

Chronon
August 19th, 2009, 12:22 AM
Taking the core of something, then building everything around it to the point where it's completely indistinguishable from the original is not a remix.

True. That's what you would call a clone. Perhaps you didn't mean indistinguishable, though.

fela
August 19th, 2009, 12:24 AM
Now that settles it, you really don't know what you're talking about. Mac OS X's kernel is based on the Mach microkernel, there is absolutely no BSD code in it. Sorry man, you lose.

I knew that OSX was based on the mach kernel, and anyway who said we were having a fight? I was just saying what I thought. You're right, you know more about OSX than me. Why does that mean that I somehow lose? Is life some sort of big game to you, you have to win it? Some people need to calm down a bit.

Bachstelze
August 19th, 2009, 12:27 AM
I knew that OSX was based on the mach kernel, and anyway who said we were having a fight? I was just saying what I thought. You're right, you know more about OSX than me. Why does that mean that I somehow lose? Is life some sort of big game to you, you have to win it? Some people need to calm down a bit.

It's just funny when someone read somewhere that "Mac OS X is just a BSD remix", and throws that back at us without investigating further. This is basically what you did, right? Well, next time, be more careful. ;)

fela
August 19th, 2009, 12:32 AM
It's just funny when someone read somewhere that "Mac OS X is just a BSD remix", and throws that back at us without investigating further. This is basically what you did, right? Well, next time, be more careful. ;)

It doesn't mean I lose though. Remember we're humans not pit bulls. Not everything's about fights and winning and losing. Maybe you should get out more if you want to have a fight. It's just not nice saying 'I lose' just because you're right and I'm wrong. And for the record, I didn't 'just read somewhere that OSX is a BSD remix'. My first suspicions were aroused when I first installed it on one of our computers - I was looking through the system folder and saw something like 'BSD base' or something very loosely entitled that. Then I read up on it and it turned out that it was based on BSD. Funny thing was the guy on this blog didn't actually know himself (if I can trust you that is) - he said there was parts of BSD in the OSX kernel, which you say is wrong. There. Point proven, no need to get too narky.

Jimleko211
August 19th, 2009, 12:38 AM
Examples:
In Vista, the organization of files changed mimicking Linux
In Windows 7, the toolbar struck me as surprisingly similar to linux.

Vista's filesystem is -nothing- like Linux's. You still have your standard C: drive. The only thing that is the same is the 'home' folders, and if you look at the function of My Documents, that was the function of it since it was made.

The toolbar in Windows 7 has no similarity at all to Linux's! If anything it's more like Mac's dock feature, but I have seen nothing in KDE or GNOME that has the feature of 'quick launch integrated with the window buttons.'

fela
August 19th, 2009, 12:40 AM
Vista's filesystem is -nothing- like Linux's. You still have your standard C: drive. The only thing that is the same is the 'home' folders, and if you look at the function of My Documents, that was the function of it since it was made.

The toolbar in Windows 7 has no similarity at all to Linux's! If anything it's more like Mac's dock feature, but I have seen nothing in KDE or GNOME that has the feature of 'quick launch integrated with the window buttons.'

I agree, the filesystem is nothing like *nix. About the taskbar: have you heard of avant window navigator and gnome do docky? Or cairo dock?

geoken
August 19th, 2009, 12:42 AM
It doesn't mean I lose though. Remember we're humans not pit bulls. Not everything's about fights and winning and losing. Maybe you should get out more if you want to have a fight. It's just not nice saying 'I lose' just because you're right and I'm wrong.

An argument with two varying points is about winning, loosing or compromising. In this situation the factual basis of your premise was incorrect therefore your argument lost. No one, except you, is implying the presence of anger or violence.

Bachstelze
August 19th, 2009, 12:43 AM
It doesn't mean I lose though. Remember we're humans not pit bulls. Not everything's about fights and winning and losing. Maybe you should get out more if you want to have a fight. It's just not nice saying 'I lose' just because you're right and I'm wrong.

Well, I could say that to me, you were the one who picked a fight with your blunt statement about Mac OS X and BSD. ;) But it you weren't, you have no reason to be offended.

geoken
August 19th, 2009, 12:45 AM
I agree, the filesystem is nothing like *nix. About the taskbar: have you heard of avant window navigator and gnome do docky? Or cairo dock?

Those all openly admit to falling somewhere between being heavily inspired to downright cloning the OS X dock. So at best, you can only say they're copying OS X. But even that would be an extremely superficial comparison which completely ignores the functionality of the taskbar and makes the case based solely on the removal of text labels.

fela
August 19th, 2009, 12:49 AM
Those all openly admit to falling somewhere between being heavily inspired to downright cloning the OS X dock. So at best, you can only say they're copying OS X. But even that would be an extremely superficial comparison which completely ignores the functionality of the taskbar and makes the case based solely on the removal of text labels.

Actually no: those docks all have the ability to provide launchers, to act like the OSX dock. Sure they're immitating the OSX dock but who cares? It's just a dock :)

running_rabbit07
August 19th, 2009, 12:51 AM
Hyundai mimicked Jaguar, I wander how many Jag owners were ticked off about that?

fela
August 19th, 2009, 12:52 AM
hyundai mimicked jaguar, i wander how many jag owners were ticked off about that?

omg lolzors!!!11!!1! The tumbledryer copied washing machine lmaooooooo!!!111111111!!1!11 WASHING MACHINE FTW!!11!1!

geoken
August 19th, 2009, 12:53 AM
Actually no: those docks all have the ability to provide launchers, to act like the OSX dock. Sure they're immitating the OSX dock but who cares? It's just a dock :)

What exactly are you saying 'no' to?

fela
August 19th, 2009, 12:54 AM
What exactly are you saying 'no' to?

what you said about the dock icons being like the taskbar but without text. Next time, read your own writing! :)

NTolerance
August 19th, 2009, 12:56 AM
As a gamer and formerly employed technology worker I know that Windows isn't going anywhere. While using it alongside Ubuntu on a daily basis I applaud Microsoft for making it more UNIX-like. Examples of this:

C:\Users
Powershell
UAC
mklink.exe

fela
August 19th, 2009, 12:58 AM
As a gamer and formerly employed technology worker I know that Windows isn't going anywhere.

Gamer? Windows = heaven. Technology worker (whatever that is)? Windows...sucks.


While using it alongside Ubuntu on a daily basis I applaud Microsoft for making it more UNIX-like. Examples of this:

C:\Users

OK you're joking.


Powershell

'scuse my ignorance. What is it?


UAC

A feeble attempt at a sudo knock-off. Sucks though.

geoken
August 19th, 2009, 01:02 AM
what you said about the dock icons being like the taskbar but without text. Next time, read your own writing! :)

You misunderstood. I was saying the Windows 7 taskbar is like previous taskbars except without the text labels (in both form and function).

fela
August 19th, 2009, 01:03 AM
You misunderstood. I was saying the Windows 7 taskbar is like previous taskbars except without the text labels (in both form and function).

OK. Well, you still didn't get it right then! The task bar in windows 7 I believe is also a launcher. Isn't it? When I tested windows 7 it was like that.

Bachstelze
August 19th, 2009, 01:03 AM
'scuse my ignorance. What is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerShell

geoken
August 19th, 2009, 01:05 AM
OK. Well, you still didn't get it right then! The task bar in windows 7 I believe is also a launcher. Isn't it? When I tested windows 7 it was like that.

The taskbar in Vista is also a launcher. The Windows taskbar has contained a launcher element since it's inception.

Bachstelze
August 19th, 2009, 01:07 AM
OK. Well, you still didn't get it right then! The task bar in windows 7 I believe is also a launcher. Isn't it? When I tested windows 7 it was like that.

You can make it a launcher, but you don't have to. By default, it has icons to launch IE and Windows Media Player, but you can remove them and leave just the Start button (and of course you can also add other launchers).

fela
August 19th, 2009, 01:09 AM
The taskbar in Vista is also a launcher. The Windows taskbar has contained a launcher element since it's inception.

You don't mean quick launch? that's nothing like the OSX dock.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerShell

Good to see MS are finally seeing the light of the CLI. I mean, computers are programmed in text mode so isn't it obvious that it's more powerful and efficient using them in that way aswell.

geoken
August 19th, 2009, 01:11 AM
You don't mean quick launch? that's nothing like the OSX dock.


I never said it was.

fela
August 19th, 2009, 01:11 AM
I never said it was.

I thought that's what we were originally discussing though? Whatever I guess.

geoken
August 19th, 2009, 01:18 AM
I thought that's what we were originally discussing though? Whatever I guess.

To quote myself

You misunderstood. I was saying the Windows 7 taskbar is like previous taskbars except without the text labels

By previous taskbars I meant previous taskbars in Windows. I wasn't making any comparison to OS X.

Bachstelze
August 19th, 2009, 01:18 AM
The taskbar in Vista is also a launcher. The Windows taskbar has contained a launcher element since it's inception.

True, but the way taskbar launchers worked was changed in 7. For example, on mine I have Firefox, PuTTY, Filezilla and PowerShell launchers. When Firefox and PuTTY are launched, my taskbar looks like this:

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/1621/taskbar1.th.png (http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/1621/taskbar1.png)

And after I launch Filezilla and PowerShell, it looks like this:

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/5879/taskbar2.th.png (http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/5879/taskbar2.png)

So basically, when you start an application with a launcher, its taskbar item replaces the launcher, so it's closer to how the OSX dock works. And yes, I've activated text labels, without them it looks even closer to OSX.

fela
August 19th, 2009, 01:20 AM
To quote myself

You misunderstood. I was saying the Windows 7 taskbar is like previous taskbars except without the text labels

By previous taskbars I meant previous taskbars in Windows. I wasn't making any comparison to OS X.

Right.

Bachstelze
August 19th, 2009, 01:22 AM
To quote myself

You misunderstood. I was saying the Windows 7 taskbar is like previous taskbars except without the text labels

By previous taskbars I meant previous taskbars in Windows. I wasn't making any comparison to OS X.

And that's not true. ;) See my previous message with screenshots.

fela
August 19th, 2009, 01:24 AM
And that's not true. ;) See my previous message with screenshots.

I just accidentally and indirectly told you that I couldn't be bothered to read the post again...nice! :lolflag:

geoken
August 19th, 2009, 01:36 AM
And that's not true. ;) See my previous message with screenshots.

Yeah, the Window list and quick launch icons have been merged. I mean similar as in start menu | launchers | window list | notification area | clock where Win 7 merged the launchers and window list (it also added the show desktop area). The functionality of the window list/launshers is closer to the OS X dock, but the taskbar itself still retains it's traditional 'panel' layout (ie fixed width, very static, many fixed position elements, various applets).

Bachstelze
August 19th, 2009, 01:38 AM
Yeah, the Window list and quick launch icons have been merged. I mean similar as in start menu | launchers | window list | notification area | clock where Win 7 merged the launchers and window list (it also added the show desktop area). The functionality of the window list/launshers is closer to the OS X dock, but the taskbar itself still retains it's traditional 'panel' layout (ie fixed width, very static, many fixed position elements, various applets).

Still, it's quite a bit of a change. It wasn't too much of a bother to me since I was already used to OSX when I switched to 7, but I suppose it was for most users.

"OMG my quick launch where o.o"

swoll1980
August 19th, 2009, 02:38 AM
Those Linux bastards stole their ideas from UNIX! Have they no shame?

Tamalin
August 19th, 2009, 03:32 AM
Those Linux b*******s stole their ideas from UNIX! Have they no shame?

Ha ha. At least they kept part of the name, didn't they? And I didn't say it was necessarily bad thing that they were using some ideas from Linux. It makes it much easier when one goes to a public computer and must use whatever operating system is installed because live CDs are not allowed.

phrostbyte
August 19th, 2009, 03:50 AM
Now that settles it, you really don't know what you're talking about. Mac OS X's kernel is based on the Mach microkernel, there is absolutely no BSD code in it. Sorry man, you lose.

I don't think this is true. Mach is a very simple kernel, they seem to have used BSD code for filesystem and network support. Plus much of the non GUI userspace is from BSD.

Mac main difference from BSD is they use Aqua instead of X11, and the NEXTSTEP API. There have a huge plethora of apps built on-top of this API, and these apps are not available on BSD. From the outside, it looks very different. But when you get down to low level stuff, the BSD parts are there. But I would say OS X is far more different then BSD then Ubuntu is from Fedora though.

Frak
August 19th, 2009, 04:02 AM
Inspiration: The process of taking something better than your own and claiming it as your own.

@HymnToLife
XNU uses code from OpenBSD for its TCP/IP stack.


which was stolen from xerox ;)

Which was stolen from CP/M, not Xerox, created by one of my heroes (due to him being a co-host on the Computer Chronicles) Gary Kildall.

RiceMonster
August 19th, 2009, 04:04 AM
Those Linux bastards stole their ideas from UNIX! Have they no shame?

/thread

NTolerance
August 19th, 2009, 04:32 AM
Gamer? Windows = heaven. Technology worker (whatever that is)? Windows...sucks.



OK you're joking.



'scuse my ignorance. What is it?



A feeble attempt at a sudo knock-off. Sucks though.

It's OK that you didn't bother to explain why everything "sucks", but what you need to understand is not that I think that Windows is superior in any way. It's simply attempting to become more UNIX-like, which can only be a good thing.

The C:\Users structure is more logically laid out like the very clean /home you get on a UNIX system. In past versions of windows you had a very convoluted path to your "home" directory which really made no sense. So, in essence, Microsoft has realized their mistakes and it just so happens that their solutions to those mistakes are to be a bit more like how UNIX has been all along.

Chronon
August 19th, 2009, 05:35 AM
Which was stolen from CP/M, not Xerox, created by one of my heroes (due to him being a co-host on the Computer Chronicles) Gary Kildall.

Really? You say that Apple got their idea for a GUI from CP/M? Do tell!

Frak
August 19th, 2009, 05:53 AM
Really? You say that Apple got their idea for a GUI from CP/M? Do tell!
I don't recognize () when I quote as part of the subject (most of the time) when both pertain to the same action (this time, theft). So I responded to his accusation that, from what I understood, that DOS was stolen from Xerox, so I corrected him.

It's ok, we don't all understand English, and not everybody feels the glory of making it on my blacklist.

Chronon
August 19th, 2009, 06:11 AM
The folks in Redmond seldom have had an original idea since DAY 1 when they BOUGHT DOS. (and later stole Apple's look and feel for Windows.)
which was stolen from xerox ;)

It's pretty clear to me that benj1 was referring to "Apple's look and feel". I'm not certain if you're just trying to play grammar police here or not.