A different mindset
-
@jmoore said in A different mindset:
@StuartJordan said in A different mindset:
@jmoore I just got to the point I didn't want to touch my computer anymore. I have suffered some health issues that I thought might of affected my interest but, I don't think it was just that. Linux is just working how I would expect an OS to work and has give me a bit more interest again. Even BASH command line makes more sense.
The windows team have halved asked trying to remove the control panel and still not changed all the way over to the new settings screen yet, more clicks are now needed to change the network adaptor..I could just go on how unproductive it is. No mater how much you try and snooze on an update it will eventually restart, and I like leaving certain screens open, like my cameras for example. Anyway I won't keep ranting about that..I've been running Linux based servers now for a while, I'm just glad I put the effort into learning a while back. It's now my main desktop
To me, Linux is just more fun. I also enjoy learning different flavors too.
Completely agree, so much customisation you can do as well.
-
@scottalanmiller said in A different mindset:
@StuartJordan said in A different mindset:
in the past when vista or Windows Me were launched we was able to stay on the previous OS and Microsoft soon launched a better replacement causing us to eventually move on.
That's not actually quite true. A few things about that statement...
- Windows ME was part of the DOS/Windows family, not part of the Windows NT family that you are discussing. Windows ME was the successor to Windows 98 SE, not to Windows 2000. Windows ME was garbage, but never had a replacement. Windows 98 users were told no further release of DOS was going to happen, but so many people demanded one that ME was created to punish them, and punish them it did. But it was never replaced, it just died.
- The notion that some releases, like 2000 and Vista and 8 were crap and you quickly got something fixed is really a myth. None of those were actually that bad, all of them were just big changes that people didn't like to swallow. Their replacements (XP, 7, and 8.1) were all better, yes, but only in the normal incremental way that you would expect. If you go back and look at the originals now in a direct time line, the only real problems with them, much like Office 2007 with the Ribbon, is that they presented new interfaces and people hate change. Microsoft didn't "fix" problems for the next releases, it was the end users having accepted the changes getting the same thing release "again" and feeling better about it the second time around that gives that weird impression. If you go back and use Vista today, honestly, it's almost identical to 7. They aren't really different things. And nearly all the problems with 8 are the same in 10 still. Nothing was ever addressed for real.
There has never been a good reason to avoid the latest Windows release. Avoiding Windows entirely? Yes, always an argument available for that. But once you were on Windows, if you skipped even the worst releases, you were simply not keeping up and not getting the latest features and having to make bigger jumps later.
Which version was it that MS replaced the network stack with their own and it was utterly horrible? was that Vista RTM? and fixed by Vista SP1?
I know I stayed on Vista SP1 for close to a year after Windows 7 came out, not because I hated Windows 7, I had it on other devices and it was fine (good even), but really more to prove there wasn't anything really wrong with Vista SP1.
-
@Dashrender said in A different mindset:
@scottalanmiller said in A different mindset:
@StuartJordan said in A different mindset:
in the past when vista or Windows Me were launched we was able to stay on the previous OS and Microsoft soon launched a better replacement causing us to eventually move on.
That's not actually quite true. A few things about that statement...
- Windows ME was part of the DOS/Windows family, not part of the Windows NT family that you are discussing. Windows ME was the successor to Windows 98 SE, not to Windows 2000. Windows ME was garbage, but never had a replacement. Windows 98 users were told no further release of DOS was going to happen, but so many people demanded one that ME was created to punish them, and punish them it did. But it was never replaced, it just died.
- The notion that some releases, like 2000 and Vista and 8 were crap and you quickly got something fixed is really a myth. None of those were actually that bad, all of them were just big changes that people didn't like to swallow. Their replacements (XP, 7, and 8.1) were all better, yes, but only in the normal incremental way that you would expect. If you go back and look at the originals now in a direct time line, the only real problems with them, much like Office 2007 with the Ribbon, is that they presented new interfaces and people hate change. Microsoft didn't "fix" problems for the next releases, it was the end users having accepted the changes getting the same thing release "again" and feeling better about it the second time around that gives that weird impression. If you go back and use Vista today, honestly, it's almost identical to 7. They aren't really different things. And nearly all the problems with 8 are the same in 10 still. Nothing was ever addressed for real.
There has never been a good reason to avoid the latest Windows release. Avoiding Windows entirely? Yes, always an argument available for that. But once you were on Windows, if you skipped even the worst releases, you were simply not keeping up and not getting the latest features and having to make bigger jumps later.
Which version was it that MS replaced the network stack with their own and it was utterly horrible? was that Vista RTM? and fixed by Vista SP1?
I know I stayed on Vista SP1 for close to a year after Windows 7 came out, not because I hated Windows 7, I had it on other devices and it was fine (good even), but really more to prove there wasn't anything really wrong with Vista SP1.
Yeah Vista had hardware compatibility issues at release also. But again, I had clients on Vista Business for years with no issues
-
@jmoore said in A different mindset:
I feel like Novell was a better product than Windows at this time. I worked at a small IT shop that provided support for all kinds of things and places that were all Windows just had problems all the time. This was in the 97-2000 period.
Well, it was way, way older and more mature. And it was focused on a single function, or really tight set of functions. It wasn't a desktop, it was easier for them to make it do what it did.
I think within its limitations, it was better. But Windows NT was just more flexible. Eventually, the unnecessary difficulty and complexity and limitations of Novell Netware just lost out to the ease or use and generally flexibility of Windows.
-
@jmoore said in A different mindset:
While it does mostly work, and probably ideal for a certain subset of users,
A very, very tiny subset of probably contrived users. Meaning... it's ideal only because of people making the necessary products to only run on it. The OS itself, as a platform, likely never being ideal.
-
@scottalanmiller said in A different mindset:
@jmoore said in A different mindset:
I feel like Novell was a better product than Windows at this time. I worked at a small IT shop that provided support for all kinds of things and places that were all Windows just had problems all the time. This was in the 97-2000 period.
Well, it was way, way older and more mature. And it was focused on a single function, or really tight set of functions. It wasn't a desktop, it was easier for them to make it do what it did.
I think within its limitations, it was better. But Windows NT was just more flexible. Eventually, the unnecessary difficulty and complexity and limitations of Novell Netware just lost out to the ease or use and generally flexibility of Windows.
Not to mention the draconian licensing. While MS legally required you to have licensing, they almost never enforced it (terminal services was a major exception). But Novell - damn, you couldn't do jack shit if you didn't have a license. Setting up a demo environment was difficult if not impossible.
-
A user actually asked me today if we had dual-booted systems from the brand new Apple she was setup on.
Besides not asking the user their preference (which generally we do) this user said she'd get used to it and just work with Apple.
The setup and maintenance is easier as far as I'm concerned since I can send two commands to a mac and everything gets updated.
On Windows with a domain I need either a third party tool like PDQ Deploy or to use the DC to send package updates (or manually).
Windows definitely feels like it's falling behind, even with solutions like Chocolatey.
-
@DustinB3403 said in A different mindset:
A user actually asked me today if we had dual-booted systems from the brand new Apple she was setup on.
Besides not asking the user their preference (which generally we do) this user said she'd get used to it and just work with Apple.
The setup and maintenance is easier as far as I'm concerned since I can send two commands to a mac and everything gets updated.
How do you do that for say - Citrix on Mac?
-
@Dashrender say what? How would you dual boot?
-
No, how do you make a Mac update Citrix without a third party tool?
-
@StuartJordan said in A different mindset:
@jmoore said in A different mindset:
@StuartJordan said in A different mindset:
@jmoore I just got to the point I didn't want to touch my computer anymore. I have suffered some health issues that I thought might of affected my interest but, I don't think it was just that. Linux is just working how I would expect an OS to work and has give me a bit more interest again. Even BASH command line makes more sense.
The windows team have halved asked trying to remove the control panel and still not changed all the way over to the new settings screen yet, more clicks are now needed to change the network adaptor..I could just go on how unproductive it is. No mater how much you try and snooze on an update it will eventually restart, and I like leaving certain screens open, like my cameras for example. Anyway I won't keep ranting about that..I've been running Linux based servers now for a while, I'm just glad I put the effort into learning a while back. It's now my main desktopTo me, Linux is just more fun. I also enjoy learning different flavors too.
Completely agree, so much customisation you can do as well.
I've never been interested in customizing my Linux desktop, which is why I'm such of fan GNOME3. Enough for me to consider it modern but with a nice clean layouts. In fact, I wouldn't mind GNOME3 layout for MacOS and Windows 10
-
@Dashrender said in A different mindset:
No, how do you make a Mac update Citrix without a third party tool?
Are you referring to a specific piece of software, like Citrix Receiver? If you had no other tool (brew.sh is the one to use by the way) you'd either have to use the App Store or download updates directly from the software provider's website.
-
@Dashrender said in A different mindset:
@scottalanmiller said in A different mindset:
@jmoore said in A different mindset:
I feel like Novell was a better product than Windows at this time. I worked at a small IT shop that provided support for all kinds of things and places that were all Windows just had problems all the time. This was in the 97-2000 period.
Well, it was way, way older and more mature. And it was focused on a single function, or really tight set of functions. It wasn't a desktop, it was easier for them to make it do what it did.
I think within its limitations, it was better. But Windows NT was just more flexible. Eventually, the unnecessary difficulty and complexity and limitations of Novell Netware just lost out to the ease or use and generally flexibility of Windows.
Not to mention the draconian licensing. While MS legally required you to have licensing, they almost never enforced it (terminal services was a major exception). But Novell - damn, you couldn't do jack shit if you didn't have a license. Setting up a demo environment was difficult if not impossible.
but hey did kick start the certification industry for IT.
-
@DustinB3403 said in A different mindset:
@Dashrender said in A different mindset:
No, how do you make a Mac update Citrix without a third party tool?
Are you referring to a specific piece of software, like Citrix Receiver? If you had no other tool (brew.sh is the one to use by the way) you'd either have to use the App Store or download updates directly from the software provider's website.
Then I don't understand what you were saying about Windows requiring third partdy stuff - does does Apple by the sounds of it.
-
@Dashrender said in A different mindset:
@DustinB3403 said in A different mindset:
@Dashrender said in A different mindset:
No, how do you make a Mac update Citrix without a third party tool?
Are you referring to a specific piece of software, like Citrix Receiver? If you had no other tool (brew.sh is the one to use by the way) you'd either have to use the App Store or download updates directly from the software provider's website.
Then I don't understand what you were saying about Windows requiring third partdy stuff - does does Apple by the sounds of it.
Apple, specifically doesn't if you want to use the App Store, but using a tool like brew is much more simple and straight forward.
