Make it simple - make it work - make lots of it

Here I go again, rambling on.

"Make it simple - make it work - make lots of it" is a phrase adopted from the old USSR (or CCCP depending on which language you speak)

XP certainly meets all of these criteria. As for "lots of it", well, the old diehard's will never give up XP.

Since 1980 or so I have used so many operating systems, PC and mainframe I forget them all.

My opinions only:-

CP/M was ok for Z80 based machines.

DOS 5 was the best of DOS.

Windows 3 and 3.1 for workgroups was the breakthough.

Windows 95 and 98 (SE2) started the ball really rolling.

Skip 2000, ME, and straight to XP.

XP did and still does the lot with a little thought and sensible "tweaking".

Vista, Windows 7, 8, 8.1 - yes, very pretty to look at but do they actually do more than XP for everyday things. "That is the question" - stealing a line from William Shakespeare.

Anyway, I do tend to ramble on (Led Zeppelin).

I expect and will welcome any contrary views.

Cheers from Aunty Jack.

 

I can't argue with any of that.

I didn't use CP/M and my experience with Windows3 was commercial as I was working in a computer bucket shop at the time.

I think the problem most are having with Windows is that it isn't designed for us. It's a office program, intended to be used by secretaries, assistants and anyone else, in an offcie environment, all supervised by an administrator.

It's a networking language for which games were originally designed to be short term diversion for bored workers.

That is the core of its insecurities and especially its slowness. Apple users dubbed it Windoze in the early 90s, back when a computer could take 20 minutes to start up in the morning.

My XP has most unused services switched off, but some are integrated with the OS and remain. It's a lot zippier than most, but could be a lot better.

Ideally, someone needs to issue a new OS, without the networking stuff, for lone users. That would mean integrating with M$ OS, which M$ don't seem to eager to do.

M$ could do it quite easily and probably deal with numerous other problems, such as the clogging up of the web, but from their perspective, the sort of prices paid by home users are insignificant compared to professional customers.

Apple is too busy making itself the master of the universe. It's machines could easily be the fastest around if they would remove their spyware.

Linux is a bit like leaving the front door open and inviting anyone to come in a decorate your walls, then wondering why there's so much graffiti!

 

Hello Jojo,

I have been waiting and looking for what is "in the wind" in China as the next major OS. There is some reference to OS's being developed and whatever is released will probably be a beauty to blow Microsoft/Apple/Linux off the road so to speak.

Perhaps - maybe - but in time - probably yes.

Regards to you,

Aunty Jack.

 

Hi Aunty Jack:

I really liked OS/2 Warp 3. I would agree that DOS flavours 3.3, 5.0 and 6.2 were very good.

As for Windows I liked 98 SE, 2000 (I think it was THE MOST stable version of Windows ever - completely down to business) and then XP x64 (it's just a hair better than 32-bit XP provided you have supported hardware).

Vista, 7 and 8x can indeed do things that XP (WinNT 5x) cannot do as well, (in fact using breadcrumbs in file save/open dialogs are really handy; once used to it, you'd never go back), and hardware support of new CPUs and Sata/SAS subsystems are MUCH better handled. I know Eatup and I debated that but it's still in Vista/7/8's favour.