I've run Ubuntu on my home computer since I was about 16. Now I'm 40. It has been great. Some frustrations. But a good experience. I'm surprised that more people don't take the leap and run Ubuntu.
From 14 years old till 29, my experience with desktop Linux
31–39 of 39 posts
Re: From 14 years old till 29, my experience with desktop Linux
#32I've tried desktop Linux every few years for many years and the result is always the same - the user experience is inconsistent and flaky. It has surely got better but there is always the feeling that it is a "Frankenstein GUI". Windows is guilty of this too - what a mess of different user interface styles and a patchwork of stuff being stitched together. MacOS by comparison is a beautifully consistent GUI well thoug…
>The thing is - making a consistent, easy to use well thought out operating system experience is a gargantuan task and it must take gargantuan time money and effort to do it well. Not really: Apple did it long before they were as large and rich as they are now. The key is forcing limitations on everyone, including independent software vendors, and mostly ignoring backwards compatibility. Apple has always controlled t…
>mostly ignoring backwards compatibility
>MS, by contrast, seems to have long been a company that more closely resembled an organized crime syndicate
I think we all need to give more credit to Microsoft for being the only one who cares about backwards compatibility, and to an insane extent at that.
We take for granted the sheer convenience of running something written 30+ years ago today almost seamlessly.
Re: From 14 years old till 29, my experience with desktop Linux
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the "Aero" UI in Windows Vista was the high point for Windows UI. The OS ran poorly and its fundamentals (like all Windows versions) was junk, but the UI looked really nice. This modern flat stuff is crap.
It all depends when you started using computers. To me, Win95 was the high point for Windows UI.
I started in the mid-90s, and though I didn’t use 95 much I did use 98SE (which is aesthetically very similar to 95) and 2000 plenty.
For releases with the classic Windows look, I think 2000 is best. It makes a few refinements to the theme that at least to me make it more pleasant to use than 95/98.
Re: From 14 years old till 29, my experience with desktop Linux
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's an enormous number of Windows users who hate Microsoft's changes to the Windows GUI and wish they could still run XP or 7. The Windows 7 UI has aged pretty well too, even if the glossy visuals have become somewhat outdated (though personally I think they look better than modern flat stuff). I rigged up an old laptop of mine with 7 not too long ago and plugged into a modern monitor and it was striking how ni…
I think the "Aero" UI in Windows Vista was the high point for Windows UI. The OS ran poorly and its fundamentals (like all Windows versions) was junk, but the UI looked really nice. This modern flat stuff is crap.
Aero was still used in Windows 7, with some additional nice features. But I agree, it was the high point of Windows for me - jump lists, Aero Peek, window snapping. It was all transformative.
Then they threw the baby out with the bath water in Windows 8.
Re: From 14 years old till 29, my experience with desktop Linux
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the "Aero" UI in Windows Vista was the high point for Windows UI. The OS ran poorly and its fundamentals (like all Windows versions) was junk, but the UI looked really nice. This modern flat stuff is crap.
Aero was still used in Windows 7, with some additional nice features. But I agree, it was the high point of Windows for me - jump lists, Aero Peek, window snapping. It was all transformative. Then they threw the baby out with the bath water in Windows 8.
I never really used Vista, only 7, but it seemed like 7's UI look was watered down compared to Vista: Vista looked prettier to me from what I saw of it.
Re: From 14 years old till 29, my experience with desktop Linux
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The thing is - making a consistent, easy to use well thought out operating system experience is a gargantuan task and it must take gargantuan time money and effort to do it well. Not really: Apple did it long before they were as large and rich as they are now. The key is forcing limitations on everyone, including independent software vendors, and mostly ignoring backwards compatibility. Apple has always controlled t…
>mostly ignoring backwards compatibility >MS, by contrast, seems to have long been a company that more closely resembled an organized crime syndicate I think we all need to give more credit to Microsoft for being the only one who cares about backwards compatibility, and to an insane extent at that. We take for granted the sheer convenience of running something written 30+ years ago today almost seamlessly.
From what I've read, you can't actually run a 30-year-old Windows program natively on Windows today: when you do, it actually runs in "WOW" (Windows On Windows), which is basically an emulator built into Windows to handle old programs. It's not really much different than running that same program on Linux with WINE, which many people claim works even better than running it on modern Windows.
Re: From 14 years old till 29, my experience with desktop Linux
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
>mostly ignoring backwards compatibility >MS, by contrast, seems to have long been a company that more closely resembled an organized crime syndicate I think we all need to give more credit to Microsoft for being the only one who cares about backwards compatibility, and to an insane extent at that. We take for granted the sheer convenience of running something written 30+ years ago today almost seamlessly.
From what I've read, you can't actually run a 30-year-old Windows program natively on Windows today: when you do, it actually runs in "WOW" (Windows On Windows), which is basically an emulator built into Windows to handle old programs. It's not really much different than running that same program on Linux with WINE, which many people claim works even better than running it on modern Windows.
WoW64 is practically native because Windows keeps 32-bit copies of all system libraries for 32-bit binaries to refer to. There is a very minor performance hit when Windows thunks calls to SysWOW64 behind the curtains, but it's impossible to notice.
You can see it for yourself, the 32-bit libraries are stored at C:\Windows\SysWOW64; the 64-bit libraries are stored at C:\Windows\System32.
Yes, the naming dissonance is not missed. The glory of backwards compatibility. :V
You're probably using WoW64 right now and not realized it because it's so seamless; there are still plenty of new/current 32-bit programs including Steam and many games.
As for running a 30 year old program, it's not exactly 30 years old (yet!) but I run stuff like Winamp and Paint Shop Pro 5 daily without fuss to this day in Windows 11 thanks to Microsoft's devotion to backwards compatibility.
The older WoW which was based around NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine) for running 16-bit programs on 32-bit Windows was actual emulation, as evidenced by the name.
Re: From 14 years old till 29, my experience with desktop Linux
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I've read, you can't actually run a 30-year-old Windows program natively on Windows today: when you do, it actually runs in "WOW" (Windows On Windows), which is basically an emulator built into Windows to handle old programs. It's not really much different than running that same program on Linux with WINE, which many people claim works even better than running it on modern Windows.
WoW64 is practically native because Windows keeps 32-bit copies of all system libraries for 32-bit binaries to refer to. There is a very minor performance hit when Windows thunks calls to SysWOW64 behind the curtains, but it's impossible to notice. You can see it for yourself, the 32-bit libraries are stored at C:\Windows\SysWOW64; the 64-bit libraries are stored at C:\Windows\System32. Yes, the naming dissonance is…
>You're probably using WoW64 right now and not realized it because it's so seamless
That's very unlikely, since I'm typing this on a Debian system.
Re: From 14 years old till 29, my experience with desktop Linux
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
WoW64 is practically native because Windows keeps 32-bit copies of all system libraries for 32-bit binaries to refer to. There is a very minor performance hit when Windows thunks calls to SysWOW64 behind the curtains, but it's impossible to notice. You can see it for yourself, the 32-bit libraries are stored at C:\Windows\SysWOW64; the 64-bit libraries are stored at C:\Windows\System32. Yes, the naming dissonance is…
>You're probably using WoW64 right now and not realized it because it's so seamless That's very unlikely, since I'm typing this on a Debian system.
:V