Could someone please design a not horrible OS?

[morkus64]

<rant>
After using Windows and a little Linux for years, I switched to OSX back in 2012 or so because I was sick of Microsoft's crap. Now, after 4 years of putting up with OSX's crap, and Apple's inability to actually produce a technologically up to date laptop, I got a Dell 9550 with Windows 10. "It's better, we swear!" they said. No. No it is not.

I'd love to switch to Linux, but unfortunately I need real AutoCAD and a few other 3D design programs. And frankly most Linux distros suck too.

Is it too much to ask for someone to just make an OS that doesn't try to be anything more than a nice, simple, clean, useable OS that doesn't try to force garbage down your throats?

</rant>

 

[Ketchup]

Honestly, if you want an OS that does exactly what you want, the way you want it done, you would probably need to design it yourself.

Microsoft gained its popularity because Gates was better than anyone at giving the masses "close enough" to this.

Linux is your stripped-down OS. Unfortunately, it is never going to get to the status of Windows as an "everything works with it" OS. Gates had the right ideas with the right people at the right time in order to grab that one.

 

[morkus64]

I know, and I know I'm a curmedgeon. But even if they made something like Diet Dr. Windows, which was basically just an application launcher, a file explorer with a decent file search and that's it, I'd be happy. Let third party applications do everything else.

 

[Mike64]

Microsoft gained its popularity because Gates was better than anyone at giving the masses "close enough" to this.

And all this time, I thought Windows gained its "popularity" because every consumer PC (er, "microcomputer") in the world that wasn't a Mac shipped with the damned thing pre-installed...:whiste:

 

[SparkyJJO]

And all this time, I thought Windows gained its "popularity" because every consumer PC (er, "microcomputer") in the world that wasn't a Mac shipped with the damned thing pre-installed...:whiste:

You forget back in the day there were a few different OSes around (PC-DOS, MS-DOS, etc). Microsoft won the popularity contest way back when. Granted, that has been a very long time ago now.

IMO, Linux after all these years just isn't a viable option for a lot of people yet (partially because it too fragmented) and Apple is stubbornly in their own little world, so Microsoft remains the standard because they've done the best job of the 3 being open enough to encourage lots of software yet closed enough to maintain a level of consistency.

 

[Mike64]

You forget back in the day there were a few different OSes around (PC-DOS, MS-DOS, etc). Microsoft won the popularity contest way back when. Granted, that has been a very long time ago now.

Well, only the two that I can think of, unless by some sort of weird extrapolation you count OS/2 (which of course wasn't "DOS" but was MS and which, in any event, I frankly remember absolutely nothing about at this point)... Did IBM sell PC-DOS retail? I didn't remember that. I also don't remember any functional differences worth mentioning, but then, my memory of that sort of detail has gotten pretty (ok, totally) "fuzzy around the edges" by now...

 

[SparkyJJO]

A lot of that stuff happened before my time and I don't remember all the details. I believe there were a couple others but they didn't make it very far.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Well, only the two that I can think of, unless you by some sort of weird extrapolation you count OS/2 (which of course wasn't "DOS" but was MS and which, in any event, I frankly remember absolutely nothing about at this point)... Did IBM sell PC-DOS retail? I didn't remember that. I also don't remember any functional differences worth mentioning, but then, my memory of that sort of detail has gotten pretty (ok, totally) "fuzzy around the edges" by now...

You're forgetting all the non-x86 hardware. Commodore 64s didn't run DOS. AmigaOS on Amiga hardware. Apple II's had a couple non-MacOS OSes developed for them. RISC OS on Acorns...

And third parties were in the game, too. (The Commodore 64 and Apple II had GEOS, for instance.)

 

[Mike64]

A lot of that stuff happened before my time and I don't remember all the details. I believe there were a couple others but they didn't make it very far.

Although I've been "paying attention" to developments in computing for going on 40 years by now, I was never "intimately" involved with microcomputing (or for that matter any computing) enough to remember the nitty-gritty details of a lot of what happened from the mid-80s through the mid-90s when the computing world more or less simultaneously imploded and exploded (ie, "microcomputers" overtook "minicomputers" which were replacing or had largely replaced "small-scale" mainframe installations, and then networked microcomputers more or less took over the world at large except for really major institutional applications), when all kinds of stuff got splattered against the walls to see what would stick (as it were). But I really don't remember there being any significant DOS variants to speak of apart from PC-DOS (RIP) and MS-DOS. There were, iirc, quite a few *nix variants vying for what popularity for it there was to be had (although obviously it never achieved the "Truly Next Great Thing" status many hoped it would during that time.) But not DOS...

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Although I've been "paying attention" to developments in computing for going on 40 years by now, I was never "intimately" involved with microcomputing (or for that matter any computing) enough to remember the nitty-gritty details of a lot of what happened from the mid-80s through the mid-90s when the computing world more or less simultaneously imploded and exploded (ie, "microcomputers" overtook "minicomputers" which were replacing or had largely replaced "small-scale" mainframe installations, and then networked microcomputers more or less took over the world at large except for really major institutional applications), when all kinds of stuff got splattered against the walls to see what would stick (as it were). But I really don't remember there being any significant DOS variants to speak of apart from PC-DOS (RIP) and MS-DOS. There were, iirc, quite a few *nix variants vying for what popularity for it there was to be had (although obviously it never achieved the "Truly Next Great Thing" status many hoped it would during that time.) But not DOS...

DR-DOS too.

The DOSes were all, for the most part, compatible with each other and ran on the same hardware. So they were hard to distinguish from each other.

Since MS had licensing/bundling locked up with the PC OEMs, they won.

 

[nerp]

I agree with you that OSX sucks, especially because Apple is putting zero effort into it. It's so painfully dated and klunky.

Windows 10 will grow on you. Give it time.

If you want to run Linux on a laptop, you should have gotten a Thinkpad.

 

[escrow4]

<rant>
After using Windows and a little Linux for years, I switched to OSX back in 2012 or so because I was sick of Microsoft's crap. Now, after 4 years of putting up with OSX's crap, and Apple's inability to actually produce a technologically up to date laptop, I got a Dell 9550 with Windows 10. "It's better, we swear!" they said. No. No it is not.

I'd love to switch to Linux, but unfortunately I need real AutoCAD and a few other 3D design programs. And frankly most Linux distros suck too.

Is it too much to ask for someone to just make an OS that doesn't try to be anything more than a nice, simple, clean, useable OS that doesn't try to force garbage down your throats?

</rant>

What is it about 10 you want to murder? I've tried Linux on and off a few years ago but have given up (minus a server) and now use Windows exclusively. As another poster mentioned Windows is the closest to getting everything working fine.

 

[sbpromania]

<rant>
Is it too much to ask for someone to just make an OS that doesn't try to be anything more than a nice, simple, clean, useable OS that doesn't try to force garbage down your throats?

</rant>

I see your point here, and I myself would want such a "stripped-down" OS. The problem with this is that the majority of people would not want such a software, mainly because people need stuff to work out of the box.

Linux would be such OS, only if more software...

 

[Mike64]

You're forgetting all the non-x86 hardware. Commodore 64s didn't run DOS. AmigaOS on Amiga hardware. Apple II's had a couple non-MacOS OSes developed for them. RISC OS on Acorns...

And third parties were in the game, too. (The Commodore 64 and Apple II had GEOS, for instance.)

No, I'm not forgetting them (or for that matter, heaven forbid, TRSDOS), but I thought we were talking about Intel 8x86-based PC/MS-DOS-type "variants", not just anything with "DOS" or "-OS" in the name. And anyway, basically none of those survived for practical purposes past the late 80s, or even in name only past the very early 90s...

 

[John Connor]

You never used XP or Windows 7? XP was great, and now I use 7. Won't be using 10 at all. Just for gaming and that will be in a separate partition.

 

[morkus64]

What is it about 10 you want to murder? I've tried Linux on and off a few years ago but have given up (minus a server) and now use Windows exclusively. As another poster mentioned Windows is the closest to getting everything working fine.

The first thing I wanted to murder was all of the crap that gets bundled in. Some of it was Dell, and I get that, but plenty of it is baked into windows. The start menu begins as just a giant billboard for other services. The action center chirps irritatingly all the damn time. Cortana is a great idea that is implemented terribly and forces using Edge, which still sucks (and even if it didn't suck, let me use the browser I want).

Mostly Windows 10 feels like it is trying desperately to be 1) Cool, 2) Mobile, even though it's a goddamn desktop OS, and 3) everything to everyone.

 

[JackMDS]

If humanity will wait to act only when No one would complain and wait for perfect, we will still be sitting on Trees,. or leaving in Caves and eating Bananas (or whatever was available around us).

As an example, why would humankind started to use fire when it is Burning and Risky even today after thousands of years of use.

 

[Mike64]

DR-DOS too.

The DOSes were all, for the most part, compatible with each other and ran on the same hardware. So they were hard to distinguish from each other.

Since MS had licensing/bundling locked up with the PC OEMs, they won.

I had totally forgotten about DR-DOS, though in my defense, I imagine so has almost everyone else in the world except maybe its designers. I never used it myself, but I do have a very vague recollection of the existence of "Concurrent DOS", which apparently DR-DOS was modeled or based on (or maybe vice versa?), though...

Since MS had licensing/bundling locked up with the PC OEMs, they won.

That's what I meant by my first post, though I guess I should have written "Microsoft" instead of "Windows". Among a relatively small group of professional users, and a very small group of "power" consumers, conscious choices were made (often, to switch to something not published by Microsoft), but for 99.xxx percent of the microcomputer-buying public, what their machines came with was what they used. Even today, when the Internet makes information about the alternatives (the mere fact of their existence, let alone availability, or user documentation) much more obtainable by the public-at-large, only a small percentage of the computer-using public ever purposely changes the OS on their existing machines, even to upgrade to a new version of the same basic thing, never mind switching to a completely different one...

 

[Hugh Jass]

You never used XP or Windows 7? XP was great, and now I use 7. Won't be using 10 at all. Just for gaming and that will be in a separate partition.

Is anyone surprised by this logic fail from this particular poster?

 

[Red Squirrel]

I know your feeling. Windows 7 is a good OS, but eventually it will be considered obsolete and programs will stop working on it, so can't stick with it forever. After that there is no viable upgrade path if you want to stick to Windows. 8 is a disaster and 10 is slightly better but still annoying. If anything it's just so damn ugly and hard to read text. Who's bright idea was it to put fuzzy light gray over white and remove the concept of borders and lines and other means to separate stuff? It's just such an ugly GUI. So that leaves Apple or Linux.

I personally made the switch to Linux years back when I saw what direction MS was starting to go in and while it has it's quirks it's not as bad as what Windows has become. You may have to compromise a lot due to some stuff not working though, either find alt apps or use VMs. Sadly I have not really found any good CAD programs in Linux, What makes Autocad nice is you can draw a line, type a number and boom, it's that long. None of the Linux CAD programs I've found can do this. That alone is a deal breaker for me, when I was doing lot of CAD this was pretty much a must to quickly whip out any kind of plan. What you could do is run a VM with Autocad in it, but that can be kinda annoying. Wine is not really an option for a big programs either.

Someone/an organization who can be trusted needs to make a hacked copy of Windows where they basically get rid of all the garbage, build a new GUI/shell environment that is better and ship it as a separate OS. Too bad it would be illegal.

 

[stockwiz]

just install classic shell. You can make most of windows 8/10 disappear.

It's kind of strange how they just crammed all these different interfaces together on one operating system... to access updates you have to use a different screen than a lot of the stuff which is still in the 'old' control panel, etc.

Honestly they should have just kept the windows 7 interface.. it most resembles android and there's nothing wrong with it. I'm always the one forcing all my android browsers to use the desktop version though because I dislike 95% of android version websites. This whole blocky solid colors being attractive thing? No, it's not. Give me nice, vibrant icons, aero glass, etc.

 

[ralfy]

What Stock said. I use Win 8.1 with Classic Shell.

 

[silicon]

<rant>
After using Windows and a little Linux for years, I switched to OSX back in 2012 or so because I was sick of Microsoft's crap. Now, after 4 years of putting up with OSX's crap, and Apple's inability to actually produce a technologically up to date laptop, I got a Dell 9550 with Windows 10. "It's better, we swear!" they said. No. No it is not.

I'd love to switch to Linux, but unfortunately I need real AutoCAD and a few other 3D design programs. And frankly most Linux distros suck too.

Is it too much to ask for someone to just make an OS that doesn't try to be anything more than a nice, simple, clean, useable OS that doesn't try to force garbage down your throats?

</rant>

your rant is completely valid as most users have thoroughly cursed windows, linux and apple OS, myself included. I don't think an OS that "just works" exists in this universe.As imperfect as humans are so go the OS's designed by them. I have avoided windows 10 for the above reasons and for the intrusion of privacy that it insists upon.

 

[morkus64]

If there was the will, and the people willing to donate time (or, GASP!, even get paid for it), is it feasible / legal to write an OS that is compatible with existing windows and/or mac applications? Or an OS that comes so close to compatibility that if a company was willing to release a NotCrapOS compatible application, the resources required would be minimal (and maybe even doable by a third party)?

 

[Steltek]

If there was the will, and the people willing to donate time (or, GASP!, even get paid for it), is it feasible / legal to write an OS that is compatible with existing windows and/or mac applications? Or an OS that comes so close to compatibility that if a company was willing to release a NotCrapOS compatible application, the resources required would be minimal (and maybe even doable by a third party)?

https://www.reactos.org/

It has been in development since 1996, and is currently at the "advanced" level of alpha version 0.4.0. Considering that Microsoft has been working on Windows for 33 years as of this November, I guess they are doing Ok considering that they finance development via donations.

Windows has so much built-in legacy baggage that developing a 100% compatible OS is a gargantuan undertaking.

Plus, you can bet M$ will break out the patent portfolio the instant it even looks like somebody is within the stratosphere of producing a competitive clone. Monopolists don't tend to easily surrender their advantages, and there are many countries in the world with less in terms of financial resources than M$ has.

You can bet Apple would be even quicker to sue over OSX -- it is their own interface (thoroughly patented, of course) on top of a BSD-derived distro. I'm sure everybody remembers when Apple went after MS over icons and how long that court case lasted. They'd go fracking nuts over a compatible user interface.