Windows or Linux interface and file system [Archive]

nec207

April 16th, 2011, 07:21 PM

Not sure where to post this other than the cafe has it is not a Linux question but a question about windows and linux.

My question is why does windows use so many files just to keep the OS going ? And why does windows still use DLL and Exe and the registry when most Unix,Linux and Mac OSx do not.

It is true windows may be more user friendly than Linux do to Linux and Unix use alot of command line and was built more for security where by windows for the average person.

The under line of files of windows is messy and loads self every where. Any Mac user where tell you that you just drag and drop one appliication from one Mac computer to other and works.Where windows you must run the install or unstall program and most 90% of the time need a reboot

Also no idea why windows vista or windows 7 GUI interface started to use KDE Fedora interface the KDE Fedora interface is not easy to use ,it well may be splashing interface the way it looks but windows 95,98 or windows Me interface or FreeBSD that mac OS X use is much easer to use.

screaminj3sus

April 16th, 2011, 07:24 PM

I don't know what the hell programs you are using if 90% of them require a reboot. Even installing my ati or nvidia drivers in windows 7 don't require a reboot anymore.

And the registry is in theory faster than the flay files *nix uses, but I suspect it may be pretty negligible on today's hardware. Fact is removing the registry would destroy compatibility with many applications and it really wouldn't be worth it. People massively exaggerate how "bad" the registry is. I haven't had problems with it since windows 9x. Crap like registry cleaners that some people think are necessary are totally unnecessary snake-oil.I have no problem with how either works. They both have their pros and cons.

For example yes, installing programs in windows could certainly be more streamlined, its a little all over the place, every application has a totally different looking installer, but the good size is in windows its always incredibly easy to find any program you need on the internet. Package management in linux has some huge advantage, being able to have every single package in your system automatically updated is impressive in itself, but is also quite a complex system that isn't without its problems. Installing certain lesser known apps can be a pia in linux. Ubuntu users don't usually have an issue because its the most popular distro, and there is almost always a deb or ppa for most programs, but I find in non ubuntu-debian based distros it can be a problem. And even in ubuntu installing certain versions of applications can be a pain. For example handbrake is a very popular open source program. its not available in ubuntu's repos, and its ppa is totally out of date.

Windows and linux are simply different. I don't find one inherently worse than the other.

wolfen69

April 16th, 2011, 07:28 PM

I don't know what the hell programs you are using if 90% of them require a reboot. Even installing my ati or nvidia drivers in windows 7 don't require a reboot anymore.

Yes it does.

el_koraco

April 16th, 2011, 07:28 PM

...why does windows still use DLL and Exe and the registry when most Unix,Linux and Mac OSx do not...

...Fedora KDE interface...

...FreeBSD that mac OS X use... .

lol, dude, you need to sit down and have yourself a cold one.

Pogeymanz

April 16th, 2011, 07:30 PM

You have a lot of misinformed ideas.

I'm pretty sure that Windows Vista came out before the new KDE. So KDE copied Microsoft.

Also, Linux has tons of files too, that is not Windows or OSX specific.

There is no fundamental difference between a .dll on windows and an .so on OSX and Linux. Just as there is no difference between a .exe and an executable file on Linux or OSX.

Linux was not built for security. Linux was built for exactly two reasons: The kernel was written by Linus Torvalds because he liked the Minix operating system and wanted to write his own version of it that was free to use. The rest of the operating system tools were written by GNU, headed by Richard Stallman, because he wanted a completely open/free operating system.

If Linux is more secure, it's not because that was the original goal.

The whole OSX drag-and-drop app kind of bugs me. You can't properly uninstall programs in OSX because it always leaves all kinds of settings files everywhere.

screaminj3sus

April 16th, 2011, 07:39 PM

Yes it does.

No they don't. I believe they only require a reboot the first time you install them. I have updated my ati and nvidia drivers many times on 3 win7 machines. They do NOT ask to reboot.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MlTEjineQhIJ:support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/GPU15-reboot-not-required-Catalyst-Windows-7.aspx+reboot+not+required+for+catalyst&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=ubuntu&source=www.google.com

google cache link cause amd's site is down for maintenance.

wolfen69

April 16th, 2011, 07:50 PM

No they don't. I believe they only require a reboot the first time you install them. I have updated my ati and nvidia drivers many times on 3 win7 machines. They do NOT ask to reboot.

Well no kidding! I assumed we were talking about initial install. Every OS needs a reboot after you INITIALLY install the video drivers. Btw, when there is a video driver update, you still need to reboot for the updated drivers to kick in. It doesn't require that you reboot, because you are still using the previous version until you reboot. I'm sure other windows sympathizers can back me up on this.

I have my own pc repair business. It's my job to know these things. ;)
After a couple thousand windows installs, I think I know what I'm talking about. ):P

screaminj3sus

April 16th, 2011, 08:52 PM

Doesn't change the fact that saying 90% of programs need to restart after install in windows is completely absurd.

nec207

April 16th, 2011, 09:15 PM

You have a lot of misinformed ideas.

I'm pretty sure that Windows Vista came out before the new KDE. So KDE copied Microsoft.

But Microsoft must of copied the KDE look even if it not KDE it well looks like KDE and must of copied it from some where.

Also, Linux has tons of files too, that is not Windows or OSX specific
.

All unix and linux has tons of files ? You would think over year programmers would find ways to cut down on all these tons of files .

No idea about Mac OS X if it has tons of files , I think it is mostly hidden in Mac OS X not like windows.

There is no fundamental difference between a .dll on windows and an .so on OSX and Linux. Just as there is no difference between a .exe and an executable file on Linux or OSX.

What do you mean?

Linux was not built for security. Linux was built for exactly two reasons: The kernel was written by Linus Torvalds because he liked the Minix operating system and wanted to write his own version of it that was free to use. The rest of the operating system tools were written by GNU, headed by Richard Stallman, because he wanted a completely open/free operating system.

If Linux is more secure, it's not because that was the original goal.

Than why do military use unix and not windows than? We are talking about Unix here .

The whole OSX drag-and-drop app kind of bugs me. You can't properly uninstall programs in OSX because it always leaves all kinds of settings files everywhere.

The files are link to app that is why you can drag and drop and the windows files are not and must be loaded to make directories.

When you move app the files go with it.

Doesn't change the fact that saying 90% of programs need to restart after install in windows is completely absurd.

Read the media hipe the late 90's when there was rumors that Microsoft was working on a new OS that does not need restart or very little.

And the registry is in theory faster than the flay files *nix uses, but I suspect it may be pretty negligible on today's hardware. Fact is removing the registry would destroy compatibility with many applications and it really wouldn't be worth it. People massively exaggerate how "bad" the registry is. I haven't had problems with it since windows 9x. Crap like registry cleaners that some people think are necessary are totally unnecessary snake-oil.I have no problem with how either works. They both have their pros and cons.

humm the DLL ,exe and registry are good way for malware to mess up your system.

Not say registry errors over the years of computer use.

3Miro

April 16th, 2011, 09:19 PM

I don't see a problem with .exe and .dll files in windows.

KDE 4.0 and Vista were developed more or less concurrently, however, KDE was the first to released many of the "new and cool" features of Windows 7.

The windows registry is a flawed concept. The entire OS depends on the operation of a single database. Once a program is installed, it rarely uninstalls its registry entries. If you have a lot of programs installed, you are slowing down the database and effecting all running applications. If a program on Linux is not running, it only takes space on the HDD. If a program on Windows is just installed (not running), it still slows down the machine. This is probably not a big deal on a modern fast machine, but it is there.

MS can keep the registry for compatibility reasons (just like wine under Linux has a registry), and then MS can move to another scheme, but they don't.

Rebooting to install drivers: this depends on both the type of driver and version of windows. Home Premium reboots for everything. Only windows 7 Ultimate can install graphical driver without rebooting. Under Linux installing the graphical drivers requires reboot of Xorg not the kernel, modules can be loaded on the fly. Then there are drivers that require reboot anyway.

Windows program would often require reboot. A particularly bad example is Adobe Reader. It requires reboot to install and then again every time it updates. This may be due to crappy engineering by Adobe and may not be MS problem, but it is there.

Linux is build for security. The original Unix design was heavily security oriented and while Linux Torvalds started the kernel as a side project, it evolved into something more than that. Saying that Linux was build around security in not incorrect.

Windows 95 - XP on the other hand were not designed with security in mind. Only XP SP2 came with a firewall and some measures. Vista and 7 are better, but ultimately the security scheme of Windows requiring people to run AV is flawed. No serious OS should ever require AV program.

I think by far the worst problem with Windows is the memory management and CPU scheduling. I may be biased since I work in scientific computation where we need every once of power form the machines, but Windows has a long way to go (if ever) before it can compete with Linux in that ares.

nec207

April 16th, 2011, 09:42 PM

Windows 95 - XP on the other hand were not designed with security in mind. Only XP SP2 came with a firewall and some measures. Vista and 7 are better, but ultimately the security scheme of Windows requiring people to run AV is flawed. No serious OS should ever require AV program.

That true but I was just saying that windows 95 ,windows 98 and windows Me is simple OS and easer to use .Windows vista and windows 7 is more conplex and not so eaer to use .

Some people like the KDE and some people not.

If you know how to use DOS and the understanding of the directory tree you know how to use windows 95 ,windows 98 and windows Me .

Windows 2000 and windows XP was bridge and was base on NT and well Windows vista and windows 7 through the DOS and the understanding of the directory tree out the window .

Not say they dumbed down the OS interface so your grandmother and kids can use Windows vista and windows 7.But for computer experience people it not easy to use the interface.

screaminj3sus

April 16th, 2011, 10:30 PM

Rebooting to install drivers: this depends on both the type of driver and version of windows. Home Premium reboots for everything. Only windows 7 Ultimate can install graphical driver without rebooting.
.

This is completely false. Depends on the driver, yes. Like as was posted earlier as long as there is an nvidia or ati driver previously installed a reboot is not required as the old driver stays in use, like in linux. But there is no difference between versions of windows when it comes to under the hood stuff like this. I have installed ati and nvidia drivers without rebooting in professional and home premium.

This thread is full of ridiculous claims.

3Miro

April 16th, 2011, 11:02 PM

K_45

April 16th, 2011, 11:07 PM

What do you mean the old driver "stays in use"? I am talking about using the new driver.

Under Linux, if you start with FOSS Nvidia driver and then install the prop Nvidia driver, you can use the new driver without rebooting the system. You have to reboot Xorg and that's it.

I have seen two instances of windows 7 Home and Ultimate. Home required reboot, Ultimate did not. Hardware was different, but not fundamentally so. What is the difference between the different windows "flavors" anyway.

The difference is how much you will pay for features you will never use unless you run a corporation. Windows has gotten fat and bloated - 10GB+ for a fresh install and it wants a decent GPU to run Aero. More to the point Windows isn't free to modify or change completely which I'd say is what I like the most about Linux.

SeijiSensei

April 16th, 2011, 11:10 PM

There is no fundamental difference between a .dll on windows and an .so on OSX and Linux. Just as there is no difference between a .exe and an executable file on Linux or OSX.
What do you mean?

http://www.inetdaemon.com/tutorials/computers/software/operating_systems/unix/libraries.shtml

looks like a pretty good overview to me. Executables make calls to shared libraries (.dll in Windows; .so in *nix) that provide common services many different programs all require.

On my Kubuntu 10.10 machine, there are about 4,200 shared libraries (.so) in /lib and /usr/lib combined. I don't know what constitutes a "lot" of libraries, but that doesn't seem remarkably large to me considering the enormous range of services they provide.

scott-ian

April 16th, 2011, 11:53 PM

This should probably be in the "Other OS/Distro Talk" forum.

JohnAStebbins

April 17th, 2011, 12:01 AM

For example handbrake is a very popular open source program. its not available in ubuntu's repos, and its ppa is totally out of date.

If you follow the links on HandBrake's download page (http://handbrake.fr/downloads.php), they lead you to here:
https://edge.launchpad.net/~stebbins/+archive/handbrake-releases

That's the most recent official release. Looks pretty up to date to me. And if you follow the links in the HandBrake forum article about nightly builds (https://forum.handbrake.fr/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=15901), you'll find yourself here:
https://edge.launchpad.net/~stebbins/+archive/handbrake-snapshots

The only way you could be more up to date is if you built it yourself from source.

screaminj3sus

April 17th, 2011, 12:50 AM

What do you mean the old driver "stays in use"? I am talking about using the new driver.

Under Linux, if you start with FOSS Nvidia driver and then install the prop Nvidia driver, you can use the new driver without rebooting the system. You have to reboot Xorg and that's it.

I have seen two instances of windows 7 Home and Ultimate. Home required reboot, Ultimate did not. Hardware was different, but not fundamentally so. What is the difference between the different windows "flavors" anyway.

Windows 7 version makes absolutely no difference. I have little experience with the nvidia driver in linux, but I know when you install catalyst the open source driver stays in use until you reboot or restart x.

screaminj3sus

April 17th, 2011, 12:51 AM

If you follow the links on HandBrake's download page (http://handbrake.fr/downloads.php), they lead you to here:
https://edge.launchpad.net/~stebbins/+archive/handbrake-releases

That's the most recent official release. Looks pretty up to date to me. And if you follow the links in the HandBrake forum article about nightly builds (https://forum.handbrake.fr/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=15901), you'll find yourself here:
https://edge.launchpad.net/~stebbins/+archive/handbrake-snapshots

The only way you could be more up to date is if you built it yourself from source.
That repo had been 404ing for me for days, I assumed it was dead.

3Miro

April 17th, 2011, 03:37 AM

Windows 7 version makes absolutely no difference. I have little experience with the nvidia driver in linux, but I know when you install catalyst the open source driver stays in use until you reboot or restart x.

If Windows 7 version makes no difference, then where is the difference? Why is it that some graphical drivers under windows require reboot while others don't.

nec207

April 17th, 2011, 04:21 AM

This is completely false. Depends on the driver, yes. Like as was posted earlier as long as there is an nvidia or ati driver previously installed a reboot is not required as the old driver stays in use, like in linux. But there is no difference between versions of windows when it comes to under the hood stuff like this. I have installed ati and nvidia drivers without rebooting in professional and home premium.

This thread is full of ridiculous claims.

well a advance computer user and 20 years of computer use I will tell you most big programs need re-start it is even recommended to restart your computer even with no message to do so.In fact some computer problems with software can be fix some times with a re-start.

So you ask why .I should explain at no charge here.

1.software makes changes to the registry and wont function correctly in some cases until the resgistry is reloaded
2.Windows system files doesn't allow files to be written to while they are running
3.Some fils need to be loaded before you booted fully into windows.

I strongly recommend you read little more how windows OS works .

And secondly why use Linux unless you fed up with malware or you don't like the way windows work .Your pro windows trash talk holds no water for advance computer user.

You love DLL and the registry not say the inability to drag and drop programs to work okay go and marry windows.You want to boot windows on windows message board go for it , you want to boot windows to a person that is a computer novice go for it .You going boot windows on Unix,Mac or Linux message board or some one that knows how use windows and OS you going get walked over.

On less note I would say with out coming across has windows rant that windows has inprove need with out all the restart but not 100% perfect and may never be.

The difference is how much you will pay for features you will never use unless you run a corporation. Windows has gotten fat and bloated - 10GB+ for a fresh install and it wants a decent GPU to run Aero. More to the point Windows isn't free to modify or change completely which I'd say is what I like the most about Linux.

I just check spects for Mac OS X Snow Leopard.

Mac computer with an Intel processor (IA-32). "Yonah" processors such as Core Solo and Core Duo can run only 32-bit applications; later x86-64 architecture processors such as Core 2 Duo will also be able to run 64-bit applications.
1 GB of RAM
5 GB of free disk space

Well doing the homework Mac OS X Snow Leopard is 2 times less Hardware intensive than windows .

Even though windows 7 say 1GB RAM it is a joke it more likely you need at leat 3 GB or 4 GB of it.Trying running with 1GB or 2GB of RAM you will be using the Swap file too much and have watch want you running.

Has for OS it saying Mac OS X Snow Leopard need 5 GB of free disk space and windows saying 16 GB of free disk space for the 32-bit and 20 GB of free disk space for the 64-bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

Khakilang

April 17th, 2011, 04:44 AM

NightwishFan

April 17th, 2011, 04:48 AM

Even though windows 7 say 1GB RAM it is a joke it more likely you need at leat 3 GB or 4 GB of it.Trying running with 1GB or 2GB of RAM you will be using the Swap file too much and have watch want you running.
I think it would probably run ok in 1gb of RAM without Aero on. I have run it in 1gb virtual machines just fine.

inobe

April 17th, 2011, 04:53 AM

I'm pretty sure that Windows Vista came out before the new KDE. So KDE copied Microsoft.

everyone one copies, take apple for example and don't lead us into the load of who rah:P

pi3.1415926535...

April 17th, 2011, 04:53 AM

I think it would probably run ok in 1gb of RAM without Aero on. I have run it in 1gb virtual machines just fine.

I agree. I have run Windows 7 Starter on 1gb of ram, it is relatively slow, but it operates fine, it can even play standard definition videos reasonably well.

K_45

April 17th, 2011, 04:55 AM

So where is this thread going? Not another OS bitchfight :P.

inobe

April 17th, 2011, 05:04 AM

So where is this thread going? Not another OS bitchfight :P.

not really, folks tend to learn from the bitching a touting.

during the entire discussion, some leave knowing that they've accomplished something and others feel like a horses behind :P

over all it's a good thing, and in the end, they come to realize that it's just another operating system thread:D

nec207

April 17th, 2011, 07:54 AM

After 20 year with Window I still manage to use Linux without any difficulty. Some good reading and research is what I need to use any OS. The only thing I am afraid to use Window is because of virus, malware and spyware.

Don't know too much about Linux ,Unix or Mac OS X has I'm more a windows guy.Well windows having lots ,lots lots and I say lots of files to keep OS working no idea if Linux ,Unix or Mac OS X has less or not.

Yes you would think over the years programmers would make a OS less fat and bloated .I have seen people use Mac OS X and on the surface a computer novice can learn how to use Mac OS X in less than day it so easy to use.But no idea if the underline workings of OS is hidden from view .Meaning Mac OS X may have lots ,lots and lots files almost like windows or close to windows but not so so apparent to user like windows.

Windows vista and windows 7 is very Hardware intensive and Microsoft has got alot flak on it from people.

Has for Windows vista and windows 7 copying KDE no idea .Some people like the KDE look and feel and some people not.

everyone one copies, take apple for example and don't lead us into the load of who rah

From what I understand Mac OS X interface look and feel is a copy from FreeBSD .

el_koraco

April 17th, 2011, 02:19 PM

From what I understand Mac OS X interface look and feel is a copy from FreeBSD .

The base system of Free BSD has no graphical interface. You can add X and a VM/DE if you want, though. You probably misinterpreted the info that OSX is built on top of the Darwin operating system, which is partly based on FreeBSD.

nec207

April 17th, 2011, 07:54 PM

The base system of Free BSD has no graphical interface. You can add X and a VM/DE if you want, though. You probably misinterpreted the info that OSX is built on top of the Darwin operating system, which is partly based on FreeBSD.

Can you or some one elaborate on this.

NightwishFan

April 17th, 2011, 08:29 PM

Can you or some one elaborate on this.
http://lmddgtfy.com/?q=mac+os+x

el_koraco

April 17th, 2011, 08:44 PM

When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, the company went towards recreating their flagship OS, by building it on top of the userland of FreeBSD, the interface of NextStep, and the Mach microkernel (which NextStep used). Together, these elements formed what is now known as the XNU (X is not Unix) hybrid kernel, the Cocoa and Carbon API's, the Quartz compositing engine, and the Aqua user interface - Mac OS X. All these elements are proprietary, and used exclusively in Apple's products.

FreeBSDS is a descendant of BSD Unix, and when you install it, all you get is a command line interface. Its primary use is as a server OS, so the GUI is optional. If you want to add a GUI, you need to add the X Server, and one of the window manager or desktop environments, like say Gnome, KDE or Openbox.

This is all extremely basic information. If you wanna learn more, I suggest you google Mac OS X.

el_koraco

April 17th, 2011, 08:45 PM

http://lmddgtfy.com/?q=mac+os+x

that's also a response :D

nec207

April 18th, 2011, 11:23 PM

Do you know of a web site where I can learn more about it.

el_koraco

April 18th, 2011, 11:36 PM

sure: http://www.google.com/ (http://www.google.hr/)

Derxst

April 19th, 2011, 04:57 AM

Doesn't change the fact that saying 90% of programs need to restart after install in windows is completely absurd.

80% of all statistics are made up on the spot!

nec207

April 22nd, 2011, 11:26 AM

80% of all statistics are made up on the spot!

I think this thread is getting off topic now on talk about doing reboots .Well personally my view a bloated system and large number of files just to keep OS running and files loaded every where than one spot is 1,000,000,000,000 times more important than doing reboots.

I have not used a Mac computer but seen people use it and does not look bloated or large number of files just to keep the OS running but I don't know enough about Mac OS X that may be on the surface it not like this but in gutts of system it is ,so does not appear like that on the surface .

But Mac OS X seem to be friendlier on hardware.

Has for Linux not sure.No idea why windows vista and windows 7 became even more bloated system and large number of files just to keep OS running .May be the problem is windows darwinism and just need to scrap it and just build a new OS from scratch.

sffvba[e0rt

April 22nd, 2011, 12:32 PM

I think this thread is getting off topic now on talk about doing reboots .Well personally my view a bloated system and large number of files just to keep OS running and files loaded every where than one spot is 1,000,000,000,000 times more important than doing reboots.

I have not used a Mac computer but seen people use it and does not look bloated or large number of files just to keep the OS running but I don't know enough about Mac OS X that may be on the surface it not like this but in gutts of system it is ,so does not appear like that on the surface .

But Mac OS X seem to be friendlier on hardware.

Has for Linux not sure.No idea why windows vista and windows 7 became even more bloated system and large number of files just to keep OS running .May be the problem is windows darwinism and just need to scrap it and just build a new OS from scratch.

I would suggest trying Windows 7. It works well... is fast and stable... To compare different OS's and saying one should work like the other is like comparing apples and oranges and complaining an apple should taste more like orange juice...

Just saying... 2c and all.

404

nec207

April 23rd, 2011, 05:24 PM

I would suggest trying Windows 7. It works well... is fast and stable... To compare different OS's and saying one should work like the other is like comparing apples and oranges and complaining an apple should taste more like orange juice...

Just saying... 2c and all.

404

Windows 7 is not that much better than windows vista it still needs large number of files just to keep OS running and loads stuff every where.

It is little better on hardware.Even the people on the windows groups where complaining.

nec207

April 28th, 2011, 11:21 PM

The only thing I can dig up on this matter why windows is so bloated and need so many files just to keep windows going..

-windows tries to maintain backward compatibility thus windows need massive about files.
-Another thing is that windows allows multiple versions of the same library to exist at same time thus windows need alot.
-There are many backups (dll backups, system restore points)
-And drivers for all kinds of hardware for compatibility for the thousands of different hardware out for windows)
-temp files for programs.

Has for Mac OS x it is a close system.The OS X will only run on Mac computer hardware and drivers tested by apple. And it is illegal to try to load OS X on PC not to say it probably would not work do to diver problems as OS X is designed to only work on Mac computers where the hardware is small and tested by apple with OS X.

Where windows you can load it on thousands of different hardware thus bigger code and more files ..That why the fact windows even works is amazing not so much Mac computers are so much better but they only run on Mac computers where the hardware is small and well tested by apple where windows runs on thousands of different hardware .
For Linux no idea .But less than 1% of the people use Linux so you find most software and hardware do not run on Linux.

Well OS X yes it is more user friendly but than the OS is so so so so so so different!!