InterviewSolution
Saved Bookmarks
InterviewSolution
| 1. |
Solve : Deathmatch Review Win 8.1 vs OS X Maverick? |
|
Answer» This article might be comparing Apples to Oranges ... I haven't tried out 8.1 yet, but will check it out on store demo computers before buying it while my wife is at Walmart etc and I hit the electronics section. Also haven't played with latest MAC OS to say whether I like it any better than the prior. Im still happy with Win 7 and there are no features that Win 8 or 8.1 have that are worth upgrading yet from what I already have. For some reason the layout of the Windows 8 GUI calls out "Microsoft BOB" yeah, what with everything looking and acting completely different in every imaginable way, I can see how you can be reminded of it. To Segway to the topic however, Being reminded of MS Bob when you use Windows 8.1 is like being reminded of usable software when you use OSX. They have nothing in common. OSX is trash. It's a mutated algamation of nextSTEP, a forked BSD kernel, and then a bit of OS Classic UI thrown badly on top, which doesn't fit at all because they changed the paradigm. And that was to start, Now they are introducing iOS inspired features and capabilities and turning OSX into their intern SANDBOX. They can let their newly hired folks loose on it because nobody buys Apple Computers for their OS, they buy them because they have managed to become deluded enough to think that an extra one or two thousand dollars is worth the word 'pro' and some brushed metal. Not to mention the ridiculous marketing material that calls things like INSTALLING a fan "engineering breakthroughs". Quote Windows 9 could be worse if they break the hit and miss OS release pattern.There is no hit and miss release pattern. Or, to be more precise, it actually has nothing to do with the actual software. As far as I an tell the only alleged "misses" are ME, Vista, and, if we count it, Windows 8. that means 95, 98, and 98SE which were released SEQUENTIALLY were in fact not misses. Windows 2000 was released before ME as well, meaning that was four sequential OS releases that had good reception. So then we have to wonder why ME got a bad one. Marketing. First off, before that point they had strongly marketed and pushed that they were merging their consumer and business lines- and creating a Consumer version of Windows NT. It was supposed to be based on the same core as Windows 2000, and was code-named Project Neptune. Project Neptune was effectively cancelled when the Neptune team was merged with the team that was working on the next release of the Business Windows NT system (The "Windows Odyssey" team). This would eventually become Windows XP, but at the time they needed a Consumer release of Windows so they dusted off their 9x code base and started to make some changes to try to mirror some of the things they had in Neptune UI wise as well as hide it's 9x base. BASICALLY ME got a bad rap because it wasn't based on NT at all- probably the biggest and best reason- and also tries to faux it's way AS an NT system both by using a similar theme to Windows 2000 as well as missing the "Restart in MS-DOS mode" option. To the everyday observery it could almost pass as an NT Windows system. The other reason was that Most vendors didn't want to package ME since it wasn't NT-based, so Microsoft had a looser distribution agreement that allowed them to subsidize the cost of the machines with even more crapware. Systems with Pre-loaded Windows ME have more crapware than pretty much any other Windows OS release on average. Vista got a bad rap because people are stubborn idiots. They complain about Windows being insecure, so the next version of windows Basically addresses all those security concerns with UAC. Then they turn around and say that Vista is controlling their system. The biggest thing that annoyed the piss out of me in terms of people having no idea what they were talking about was self-professed computer experts saying that "Why is Vista saying I don't have permission? This is my computer waaah" like ignorant morons. The security features limit your security token when you log on and will only give the full token to programs that get your consent through the secure desktop. People saying the previous quote is the exact same as saying "I don't want to have to give programs specific permissions to use my full security token.". Added to this Vista itself was a Release that came after the largest gap in Windows Releases (2006, XP was released in 2001). Existing users had "5 years of familiarity". Additionally at that point running Windows XP on a modern system was like running Windows 3.1 on a Pentium 2. Moving to Vista was moving to an OS that was built to use the advances in hardware that had occurred in the meantime. it didn't help that because of some issues with how MS setup their Logo requirements, some manufacturers got away with the "Vista Capable" Logo when the system was ridiculously underpowered. (I do like how people managed to blame MS solely for this- as if the manufacturers being massive dishonest cheats is Microsoft's fault). Add to THAT the fact that people would usually just try to upgrade their existing XP systems and it was a recipe for reception disaster. Given all that it actually did quite well. There were some holdouts who continued to complain about how Vista was somehow some software reincarnation of Hitler and Stalin combined, A good example being "guitar_man" on the CH chat, who would probably struggle to find his rear-end with both hands if he was given a map. Microsoft decided that they would take Vista and their current working Copy of the kernel (they basically continue to work on Windows constantly, more or less) make some minor UI tweaks, fix it up some, and release it as a new version of Windows, relabelled and with a better product launch. This was Windows 7. And it worked- there are lots of people that seem to think Windows 7 fixes some imagined showstopping problems that existed in Windows Vista, but it was pretty much just a second Vista Launch. Windows 8's negative reception is from people still using the All Programs Menu. They shouldn't be using the All Programs Menu so the fact that it's gone shouldn't be a problem- the All Programs Menu was lobotomized with Vista and 7 anyway, and most people moved to search and found it extremely powerful. I find myself frustrated personally whenever I need to use XP or earlier Windows versions for something, as I frequently find myself trying to type into the Start Menu.Quote There were some holdouts who continued to complain about how Vista was somehow some software reincarnation of Hitler and Stalin combined, A good example being "guitar_man" on the CH chat, who would probably struggle to find his rear-end with both hands if he was given a map. Had a great laugh at this.. That definately was overboard for a definition of Vista. My biggest issue with Vista when it came out was that I had to support many many users at the time, and we had some software that was breaking with Vista and the vendors of the software didnt have cures other than to state to run on on XP, we currently do not support Vista related problems. So on top of people complaining about Vista asking them millions of times "are you sure" you want to do something and the other problems with software features BROKEN due to lack of vendor support, we ended up wiping Vista off of the batch of systems that came in and buying XP Pro for them all. Later systems were able to be purchased with XP or Vista for business class computers and we opted to go with XP instead of Vista without the additional cost to buy XP Pro licenses. Thanks for correcting me btw in the release pattern. My hit and miss pattern with troublesome OS was more towards Home Computer OS, even though some used early NT on home computers such as myself before XP brought a solid form of NT OS to home computers: Home Computer OS : 95, 98, Me, XP Home, Vista Home, Windows 7 Home, Windows 8 Home, Windows 8.1 Home Business Computer OS: NT3.51, NT4, 2000 Pro, XP Pro, Vista Pro, Win 7 Pro, Win 8 Pro, Win 8.1 Pro Home Computer OS being: * With Windows 95 being a problem with BSOD's * With Windows 98 being solid OS * With Windows Me being a problem with BSOD's, Driver Madness, and Software compatibility issues * With Windows XP Home being a solid OS * With Windows Vista (All Versions) being a problem for Drivers, Software compatibility, and annoying security "Are you Sure" to just about everything. * With Windows 7 ( All Versions ) being a solid OS * With Windows 8 ( All Versions ) being an issue with Drivers, Software compatibility, and drastically changed GUI * With Windows 8.1 ( All Versions ) ... Too early to make a determination, but it appears to be better from details on web. Business OS Computers ( NT ) being pretty good until Vista, although I remember some issues with software compatibility and drivers for early NT in which it was fun trying to get drivers to work with certain systems. |
|
