MikeNovember wrote: ⤴Thu May 05, 2022 11:19 am
Microsoft generally alternates "good" and "bad" versions of Windows...
Bad: Windows 3.0
Good: Windows 3.1
Good: Windows 3.11
Bad: Windows 95
Good: Windows 95 OSR2 (might have been called 97...)
Bad: Windows 98
Good: Windows 98 SE
Bad: Windows Me
Bad: Windows Vista
Good: Windows XP
Good: Windows 7
Bad: Windows 8
Bad: Windows 8.1
Good: Windows 10
There
were good versions of Windows? Really? When did this happen, and why didn't I get the memo?
Honestly, the very first version of Windows I
ever felt seemed particularly "solid" to me was Windows 2000. I remember it being the first one to impress me with the mouse movement being (finally) as fluid and smooth as what I was used to on a Mac. It also had really decent protected memory and just overall seemed to be very stable and finally worthy as a workstation OS. Windows XP was only ever an updated version of Win2K (from my perspective) and honestly no version of Windows has ever made me particularly happy to use.
Marie SWE wrote: ⤴Wed May 04, 2022 10:55 pm
Most things in the world is in the eye of the beholder.. Art, Love, Cars, Home design etc. and for the most part even operatingsystem.
And also reality itself, sadly.
... Example: Say you open Fifrefox and you have 10windows and 50-80tabs in each window ...
Who in the name of Linus Torvalds does
that? Seriously, is that a thing?
... But it also is differences in there philosophy ...
Definitely. And when you have billions of dollars at your beck and call, then as you say, it's amazing how much focus you can put into every last bit of fit-and-finish. Though of the three companies you listed, only two of them have ever really cared about (or gotten right) that fit-and-finish. ProTip: The odd man out on that list is Microsoft.
MikeNovember wrote: ⤴Mon Apr 25, 2022 7:01 am
- MacOS, LInux, Windows
can be used very securely or not, depending on the user, and with more or less difficulties.
The fact that
each OS has advantages and inconveniences and different images explains why people choose different OSes.
In the old days I may have been more inclined to agree with you (except for the "depending on the user" bit, more anon) but neither Mac OS X nor Linux has ever been the gaping-security-hole liability that Windows has. In fact, with pretty much any operating system
other than those produced by Microsoft, you have to
disable or manage to bypass things in order to expose yourself to the same level of risks Windows has by default. In every era, Microsoft's OS offerings have been the substandard (though clearly institutionalized) choices.
In 1987, as an example, I could install six graphics cards, connect six monitors, and span a 256 color (a.k.a. "8 bit color") desktop across them ON A MAC. In MS-DOS on ANY x86 box, users were still having to manually configure IRQ and DMA jumpers on cards, and then manually configure corresponding settings in various different programs, just to get hardware to either work, or to keep it from conflicting with each other. There were HUNDREDS of viruses for MS-DOS at that time. A few years later, the total number of viruses EVER for the Mac stood at perhaps a dozen and a half. And by that point, nearly all of them were already extinct.
So if one wants to talk about "cheap hacks" on the desktop, I'd say every version of MS-DOS, and pretty much every version of Windows up through at least Win ME felt crude and hack-ish, especially if you had the experience (like many of us did back then) of touching the wide variety and array of other computer platforms on the market.
Moem wrote: ⤴Thu May 05, 2022 5:09 pm
Marie SWE wrote: ⤴Thu May 05, 2022 4:30 pm
computer community's can be a hostile place sometimes it apples to win-forums too..
and as a woman on computer forums, you often need to prove everything twice as much to get the same respect as a man's knowledge.
Yeah, this is one of the points where we (the Linux Mint forum) strive to do better than average. And luckily we have several female moderators, which can't hurt.
Sadly, ladies, what you said is often true. Also, women (when they identify themselves as such, or when it's possible to discern gender by other means) also have to put up with a lot of harassment. That's BS, and I'll support any well-reasoned, good faith effort to stop that, whether online or "IRL".
I wasn't aware any of the other mods were women,
Moem. I guess I should have paid more attention. Alternatively, you could take away from that comment that a user's gender simply isn't something top-of-mind for me when co-habitating an online space or interacting with them.