Windows

Status
Not open for further replies.

waynejkruse10

Fully Optimized
Messages
3,782
You know how linux, unix, mac os x are all similar. Well what is windows based upon? And since windows is so unstable (compared to linux/osx)n why doesnt microsoft (like apple) build a os on a unix base.

Wayne
 
waynejkruse10,

oopz, the question is kinda vague. windows doesn't mimic anything. Its just an OS written with a high level language [ mostly c programming and some assembly code] . The approach in the construction of these OS are different . That what makes windows very unstable.

More info here.. http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/33089.html
 
microsoft could use unix as a base, and write a os to go on top of the unix base like apple did with thier great os.
 
The only reason that Windows is more "unstable" than other operating systems is because is the most widely used, thus more hackers target it. It's the same with Firefox and Internet Explorer, Firefox has less security holes because they are not sought out as much as Internet Explorers.

By the way, Linux/Unix is for the most part, a server OS and is not meant for the average user, so basing Windows on Linux/Unix is quite stupid, seeing as how Windows would lose the majority of it's constumers due to the fact that most of them wouldn't know how to use Linux/Unix if presented to them.

Have you ever wondered how on Earth free Operating Systems are less widely used than expensive ones like Windows? The answer is simple, Windows is built for the computer illiterate consumer, it's not hard to use, and most people don't even realize, and frankly, don't care about the security risks involved with using Windows.
 
however mac os x is based upon unix but you dont need to know unix commands to use it. Its very easy to use compared to windows.
 
microsoft could use unix as a base, and write a os to go on top of the unix base like apple did with thier great os.

First off, they could use that. But then , they can't continue their greed and deceit ways of making money through the market.

The only reason that Windows is more "unstable" than other operating systems is because is the most widely used,
I stronlgly disagree here. Windows is designed in such a pathetic way , that it is more vulnerable when connected to networks. I dont think ,linux will be any problem when connected via networks. Because ,the approach is different and is quite hard for a hacker to knock in the wall of linux.

Yes, at this point I agree that linux is less user friendly to use. But Linux isn't "windows". You expect all the operating system to have an interface that windows uses. Yes, a wide usage...why? simple..MS monopoly. Now. if every computer shipped with has a OS built in wih windows , this is what would happen.

BTW, I like windows OS in many aspects. Now ,iam working in linux. Iam a complete noob when it comes to unix/linux environment. But I find no difficulty in working with the linux ditributions.
 
Yes, at this point I agree that linux is less user friendly to use. But Linux isn't "windows". You expect all the operating system to have an interface that windows uses. Yes, a wide usage...why? simple..MS monopoly. Now. if every computer shipped with has a OS built in wih windows , this is what would happen.
Oh no, no, no, don't get me wrong at all. I love Linux on so many levels, but it's a server OS, you can't just plug something into your usb port with Linux and expect it to work, it's really tricky and can give you a lot of headaches. I have actually toyed around with a couple different versions of Liniux, and although open sourced coding is wonderful, I just don't have the time to figure out every problem that arises with it.

In all honesty, if Mac was as compatible as Windows, I would probably be using OS X Panther right now.
 
lets not forget... Windows is also limited to how much they expand by the original design, DOS. now everything has to have evolved from that, or it's not windows anymore. we're talking about copywrite and pattents here... if Microsoft put thier OS on top of a Unix kernal, they would not have the copyright power they now hold.
 
hmm, yeah, so microsoft would rather make a crap os, and have a monopoly, than make a good os and not have so much of a monopoly but still make millions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom