On Windows, all you have to do is click start and type in what you need help on. Type in "Change wallpaper" and it shows you how to do that. Type in "Connect to Internet" and it shows you how to do that. It's an OS built for dummies really.
It's absolutely not an OS built for dummies.
You seem to think that you can repeat that until we get it. I won't get that and I won't ever agree to that because it's patently untrue. It's no more built for dummies than OS X is.
And it's not one lick easier.
I just told you how to get help on a Mac, and you just tried to prove again something that can't be proved.
How about that easy for dummies run command brought up earlier?
Perhaps you've forgotten that a great many Windows configurations, as shipped, don't have that tool in the Start menu, and you have to configure it by right-clicking Start.
And if it's not there in the first place, you have to know that it can be made to exist and that Start itself is right-clickable.
And then you have to know to run things like sysedit that are not for dummies at all.
I've done systems programming for Windows. My company builds and distributes industrial software for Windows. I have used each and every version since it was ripped off from OS/2, as a professional adult. I am not new to it. There is practically nothing about Windows that I don't actually know or knew at one time.
I have written operating systems.
And I seem to know something that you don't - Windows is simply not for dummies and it's not one bit easier than that other operating system for an end user.
And I also know that you're not going to explain what you think I don't get when my intention of language was to be gentle, so you can teach me about Windows.
You haven't learned another way of doing things by your admission.
Perhaps when you learn two things you can then compare them properly and then decide which part is easier on which side and perhaps when you've done enough of that, you too will realize that both of them are getting it fundamentally wrong.
The word dummy ought not never have associated with computing machinery in the first place, but that's just an old-school thing.
Then again, we live in an age of where this exists, so it's all good.
Windows is easier for you. Some of that may be ingrained, but clearly some of it is your choice.
Last edited by EarlyMon; January 17th, 2012 at 11:40 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
You don't have to put the command prompt in the start menu. It's right there out of the box. Turn it on. Click start. There's your command line. It's configured that way by default and you can't turn it off. Type any question you've got and it'll come up.
You don't have to put the command prompt in the start menu. It's right there out of the box. Turn it on. Click start. There's your command line. It's configured that way by default and you can't turn it off. Type any question you've got and it'll come up.
That's really great!
What happens when you type a dummy question, like, What's my email password, I forgot? or, How come this thing keeps popping up? or, I sent the report to Microsoft, so why does it still crash?
Did you hear the one about - Press Any Key to Continue.
Not. For. Dummies.
PS - I stated that the command prompt is not there on some Windows configurations, as shipped. You have said I am wrong. How was it that I knew how to add it then?
By the way, I put "change wallpaper" into the run command available under the Start menu in XP - I got an error dialog. The run command is absolutely a command prompt, is it not?
Last edited by EarlyMon; January 17th, 2012 at 12:54 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
What happens when you type a dummy question, like, What's my email password, I forgot? or, How come this thing keeps popping up? or, I sent the report to Microsoft, so why does it still crash?
Did you hear the one about - Press Any Key to Continue.
Not. For. Dummies.
PS - I stated that the command prompt is not there on some Windows configurations, as shipped. You have said I am wrong. How was it that I knew how to add it then?
By the way, I put "change wallpaper" into the run command available under the Start menu in XP - I got an error dialog. The run command is absolutely a command prompt, is it not?
I just clicked on Start and immediately typed "Change Wallpaper". It brought up two options - Change Desktop Background and Change Screensaver. Both take me directly to those options and both are probably what you're looking for if you are searching for that. This is on Win7 which is the one on any new computer you're going to buy.
I just clicked on Start and immediately typed "Change Wallpaper". It brought up two options - Change Desktop Background and Change Screensaver. Both take me directly to those options and both are probably what you're looking for if you are searching for that. This is on Win7 which is the one on any new computer you're going to buy.
I think you have missed the point.
Last edited by EarlyMon; January 18th, 2012 at 03:02 PM.
On Windows, all you have to do is click start and type in what you need help on. Type in "Change wallpaper" and it shows you how to do that. Type in "Connect to Internet" and it shows you how to do that. It's an OS built for dummies really.
Sorry, but I'm about to rip your posts into tiny tiny little pieces. Here's why.
1) You're comparing Windows 7 and using that as the de facto standard for Windows OSs. I hate to burst your bubble, but a little bit of History for you:
Windows 7 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Windows 7 dates back to 2009 (and as early as 2005 if you really consider the Longhorn Alphas and Betas to be part of the core of Windows 7, which is partially true, but in practice really isn't completely true.
Mac OS X (play /ˈmæk ˌoʊ ˌɛs ˈtɛn/)[8] is a series of Unix-based operating systems and graphical user interfaces developed, marketed, and sold by Apple Inc.
If you can work in *nix, you can work in Mac OS. Since 2002 (commercially) and late 2000 (public betas). Around the same time that I was playing around in Fedora Core 2
2) Now that that is said, the start search bar was only introduced in Vista, and was not a part of XP or previous Windows OSs. Furthermore, On iMacs that were a part of a Bioinformatics lab that I set up in summer 2008 running both XP and OSX Tiger 10.4, on any Mac OS I could easily use the finder to find applications just as easily -and I did not need to use a command key (the open and closed apple keys that morphed into the present day command keys, IIRC) to us it either - the finder app that ran as your default desktop had a built in search bar at the top, and it supported find as you type as well. So, I'm pretty sure that all versions from Tiger on forward have this feature as well, And since Tiger came out in 2005, whereas Vista came out in 2007, Well, I think you can pick the winner here.
3) An OS built for dummies is intuitive - which Windows is not. I guarantee you that I take 100 people who've never used a computer before and put them down in front of each type of OS, the majority will go for OS X over Windows. Windows 7 is by far the best of the OSs yet (and having used 8 for a while I can say it is very well poised to be much more intuitive than 7 or anything previous by M$) but OS X is much easier to use and finding help is much faster and easier - and the help is written in more natural language in OS X than in Windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous
You don't have to put the command prompt in the start menu. It's right there out of the box. Turn it on. Click start. There's your command line. It's configured that way by default and you can't turn it off. Type any question you've got and it'll come up.
Wrong again - the start search bar can run some run commands, not all of them.
The Run command no longer appears on the Start menu in this version of Windows. The search box that appears on the Start menu provides much of the same functionality as the Run command. However, the Run command is still available if you prefer to use it. You can even add it to the Start menu for easier access.
Note, it says much not all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous
I just clicked on Start and immediately typed "Change Wallpaper". It brought up two options - Change Desktop Background and Change Screensaver. Both take me directly to those options and both are probably what you're looking for if you are searching for that. This is on Win7 which is the one on any new computer you're going to buy.
Finally, you mention Windows 7. Been out for a whopping 2.5 years. That's 1/4th of the time that OS X has been out - and almost 1/3 of the time since I regularly used OSX Tiger, but regarding Windows 7, I tested it back to 4 years ago, much longer if you count my Longhorn days.
You can argue until you're blue in the face, but I guarantee you that if I were to sit down with you for a week doing the same exact tasks in Windows and Mac side by side you'd be amazed -no, flabbergasted at just how ridiculously easy it is to do many of the same things you do in Windows on a Mac.
And I'm rusty as hell on a Mac - get Early and me to tag team and we'll have your head spinning on what you really can do on a Mac. I've been using Windows as my main OS since Win 3.1 and I'm pretty confident that I can call myself a guru at the end user desktop experience and many of the things that I need to get done - and in reading Early's posts in the last couple of weeks, he's every bit as fluent in MacOS as I am in Windows, if not more.
Now, mind you. I'm not saying go out and get a Mac - I refuse to own iAnything b/c of Apple's business model for both consumers and developers. Still, though, I'm being extremely objective on rating the OS on its own merits and without any fanboism coming into play.
________________________________
A great example of what I mean is derived from the same iMacs in that Bioinformatics lab I set up. In order to dual boot the iMacs (using Boot Camp + rEFIt, which I installed so I would not confuse the Windows only crowd, so that on boot they could select which OS to boot into) we had to join the computers to the University domain - both OSs. In Windows XP it took anywhere from 30 seconds to 1.5 minutes (the latter usually occurring b/c of a timeout error), and in newer Vista-based machines on our domain it took still at least 30 seconds (but timed out in 55-60 seconds). On the Mac side? It took 10 seconds to join to a domain.
T
E
N
And gone are the days of the old AppleTalk routers that pinged the network every 60-70 milliseconds saying "I'm alive, I'm here, send me a packet, anyone wanna chat?" (This annoyed me to absolutely no end when trying to mix Apple server hardware with regular old Gigabit Ethernet networks around 12 years ago - can't count the number of times the network inexplicably crashed!)
Now, someone may make the distinction that I was using XP on Mac hardware - true enough. Which is why I threw in the newer Vista-based machines comment into the loop - those are native PCs running Vista and Vista only.
So, You're a sports car driver who felt completely lost behind the wheel of an 18-wheel semi rig. Not surprising - you need knowledge to operate it. But, your opinions on Windows, while your own, are based on a very limited POV in that you've barely used *nix and almost never used MacOS, and thus really have no basis to form such an opinion.
B/c no company exec in their right mind is going to pay a premium price to a guy whose basic training includes saying "The server crashed" as a part of their SOP....
PowerShell, just from reading, reminded me of dtksh, although it does more.
I'm assuming that everyone who wants to run bash and other Linux commands on Windows already knows about cygwin, but just in case there it is. Sorry if already mentioned.
OBTW, yes, I have used OS X since before the public beta, and yes, my little website was the top for instructions on migrating to it, networking it with Windows and unix (examples given for various flavors), and so forth. Apple and others seemed to like it, it was the original full tips site. I guess I'll stop there rather than tell more stories.
Last edited by EarlyMon; January 17th, 2012 at 10:52 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
Ooops... well, I do recall reading that now, though I interpreted it as meaning a (for lack of better word) 'suped' up cmd. I hadn't really dealt too much with powershell until tonight (still haven't done 'much' with it...)..... >.>
opps. :P
M$ bash sounds about right though...
needless to say, I was quite surprised finding a man alias in there...
NT Admin skills don't seem to translate well to a profitable career path. NT guys still make 1/3 of a UNIX/Linux tech.
Unix techs make more because of scarcity. There are very few Unix servers floating around in production environments. If you're a Unix tech it is very, very difficult to find employment where I live. There are very few companies running Unix based servers and very few techs that support them. If a position opens for a Unix tech, there are not very many applicants and most of them are very highly qualified and the positions do pay better. The same can be said for AS/400 techs in these parts. Those guys make more money than Unix techs. There are also far fewer of them because the OS is not in wide use.
The Following User Says Thank You to A.Nonymous For This Useful Post:
unix techs make more because of scarcity. There are very few unix servers floating around in production environments. If you're a unix tech it is very, very difficult to find employment where i live. There are very few companies running unix based servers and very few techs that support them. If a position opens for a unix tech, there are not very many applicants and most of them are very highly qualified and the positions do pay better. The same can be said for as/400 techs in these parts. Those guys make more money than unix techs. There are also far fewer of them because the os is not in wide use.
There are also far, far fewer Unix servers floating around in production environments. I think Windows owns something like 80% or more of the server market when it comes to business. Might be higher than that. I'd look it up on Wikipedia but..............
There are also far, far fewer Unix servers floating around in production environments. I think Windows owns something like 80% or more of the server market when it comes to business. Might be higher than that. I'd look it up on Wikipedia but..............
your starts are off.
MS dominates the departmental servers (small servers used for file and print serving).
The lion share of serious servers are UNIX based.
Google, Twitter, facebook all run *nix based OSes. Amazon's cloud is based off *nix.
Over 80% of webservers are Apache/NGIX/Google. MS IIS is under 18%.
I think A.nonymous is talking about production environments where the product is not a server or a server based service. As in at a work place, even if that workplace is an IT company. In which case if I were to put my finger in the air and pluck out a pure guesstimate number, it would be around the 80% mark.
In fact out of all the large scale IT companies I have worked for, I only saw one Sun box and that was it.
To be honest this whole thread is getting nitpicky and going around in circles. Everyone is trying to prove a point that cannot be proven as largely the question is subjective. The entire premise of the thread was borne out of the classic misconception that there was going to be a winner. There will not be.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SUroot For This Useful Post:
I think A.nonymous is talking about production environments where the product is not a server or a server based service. As in at a work place, even if that workplace is an IT company. In which case if I were to put my finger in the air and pluck out a pure guesstimate number, it would be around the 80% mark.
In fact out of all the large scale IT companies I have worked for, I only saw one Sun box and that was it.
To be honest this whole thread is getting nitpicky and going around in circles. Everyone is trying to prove a point that cannot be proven as largely the question is subjective. The entire premise of the thread was borne out of the classic misconception that there was going to be a winner. There will not be.
Exactly. Web servers are just a subset of production servers. I don't for a second that Unix based boxes dominate that subset. When you are talking about production servers - application servers, database servers, file servers, email servers, directory servers, print servers, etc..... those are almost all Microsoft. If you take web servers out of the equation, then almost all of them are Microsoft across the board. Throw in web servers and MS has a share in the 80% ball park. Web servers are just a subset of production servers in my mind. I may not have been clear.
We have 70 some odd clients of different sizes at the company I work for. One of them has an AS/400 box (which I confess I have no clue how to support) and one of them has an extremely ancient Unix box that is all but retired. It may not even boot at the moment due to hardware issues. Everything else is all Windows. We did have a client who wanted to talk to us about putting an Apple server in. That was an interesting conversation.
And we've not gone from occasional interesting interjections to a thread hijack, or are we now proving that Windows servers rule (outside of the US government)?
I agree with SUroot on this.
The Following User Says Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
There are also far, far fewer Unix servers floating around in production environments. I think Windows owns something like 80% or more of the server market when it comes to business. Might be higher than that. I'd look it up on Wikipedia but..............
We ran a Unix server at 3Com/USR/Palm/MSL. We had to because HP built our in-circuit testers and they needed to be able to DL updates and they charged us for every PCB we tested.
Then we went with different methods and manually updated our testers because updates took forever to implement and we could not afford to have a dozen ICTs down while HP changed this and that. The machines still ran Unix.
Our modem testers were DOS based, running batch programs. Then we went with something else and the tech wizards had to learn something other than how to write batch files. Pneumatic testers for Palm Pilots was done with Winders.
