Windows 10
-
@Dashrender said:
And additional desktops - does OS X have that?
UNIX had that at least back to 1998 (pre OSX era) as we were using them on Linux with KDE then. I believe that the predate that a bit too, but that was the first that they were extremely mainstream and that even our non-technical people were using them.
-
@ajstringham said:
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@ajstringham said:
Looking forward to Microsoft finally catching up to every other OS out there in many ways.
Can you elaborate?
yes please.
And additional desktops - does OS X have that?OS X has had multiple desktops for years. I'm glad Microsoft is add the feature in, and that they brought back the start MENU, and not a button that still goes to the metro interface.
So how does Microsoft need to catch up?
-
@IRJ said:
@ajstringham said:
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@ajstringham said:
Looking forward to Microsoft finally catching up to every other OS out there in many ways.
Can you elaborate?
yes please.
And additional desktops - does OS X have that?OS X has had multiple desktops for years. I'm glad Microsoft is add the feature in, and that they brought back the start MENU, and not a button that still goes to the metro interface.
So how does Microsoft need to catch up?
Microsoft has often not added in features other OSes have had, and have stuck to a certain path. Multiple virtual desktops is a huge step forward in my mind, because even though they're behind the curve, they are at least waking up.
-
@ajstringham said:
@IRJ said:
@ajstringham said:
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@ajstringham said:
Looking forward to Microsoft finally catching up to every other OS out there in many ways.
Can you elaborate?
yes please.
And additional desktops - does OS X have that?OS X has had multiple desktops for years. I'm glad Microsoft is add the feature in, and that they brought back the start MENU, and not a button that still goes to the metro interface.
So how does Microsoft need to catch up?
Microsoft has often not added in features other OSes have had, and have stuck to a certain path. Multiple virtual desktops is a huge step forward in my mind, because even though they're behind the curve, they are at least waking up.
OK what other features are they missing?
-
@IRJ said:
So how does Microsoft need to catch up?
How do you define an amount? As of Windows 8.1. it is running more than sixteen years behind in some pretty common features. But Windows 10 should fix some of that. But that is just one feature. They are different OSes. For sixteen years it has been a "feature they don't want to provide." Now that they have added it, it shows that it was really that they were just lagging.
What about native networked interface? I'm sure they don't want to do that, but if they do it in ten years, they will have lagged thirty years. It's completely subjective.
-
@Dashrender said:
OK what other features are they missing?
Native network is massive. Native multi-user is pretty massive. That's less a feature and more a license limitation, but still.
What about paravirtualization and containerization options?
-
@Dashrender said:
@ajstringham said:
@IRJ said:
@ajstringham said:
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@ajstringham said:
Looking forward to Microsoft finally catching up to every other OS out there in many ways.
Can you elaborate?
yes please.
And additional desktops - does OS X have that?OS X has had multiple desktops for years. I'm glad Microsoft is add the feature in, and that they brought back the start MENU, and not a button that still goes to the metro interface.
So how does Microsoft need to catch up?
Microsoft has often not added in features other OSes have had, and have stuck to a certain path. Multiple virtual desktops is a huge step forward in my mind, because even though they're behind the curve, they are at least waking up.
OK what other features are they missing?
Off-hand, I'm drawing a blank. This was a big one I added on my first XP desktop with a 3rd party utility. That was back in 2006. My Ubuntu box had that, as had the OS for years, back in 2005.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Now that they have added it, it shows that it was really that they were just lagging.
I'm not sure I agree with that. There's a new captain at the helm. He might have simply changed the course.
What about native networked interface? I'm sure they don't want to do that, but if they do it in ten years, they will have lagged thirty years. It's completely subjective.
What is a native networked interface?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Now that they have added it, it shows that it was really that they were just lagging.
I'm not sure I agree with that. There's a new captain at the helm. He might have simply changed the course.
What about native networked interface? I'm sure they don't want to do that, but if they do it in ten years, they will have lagged thirty years. It's completely subjective.
What is a native networked interface?
It was a change that should have happened years ago.
-
@ajstringham said:
@Dashrender said:
@ajstringham said:
@IRJ said:
@ajstringham said:
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@ajstringham said:
Looking forward to Microsoft finally catching up to every other OS out there in many ways.
Can you elaborate?
yes please.
And additional desktops - does OS X have that?OS X has had multiple desktops for years. I'm glad Microsoft is add the feature in, and that they brought back the start MENU, and not a button that still goes to the metro interface.
So how does Microsoft need to catch up?
Microsoft has often not added in features other OSes have had, and have stuck to a certain path. Multiple virtual desktops is a huge step forward in my mind, because even though they're behind the curve, they are at least waking up.
OK what other features are they missing?
Off-hand, I'm drawing a blank. This was a big one I added on my first XP desktop with a 3rd party utility. That was back in 2006. My Ubuntu box had that, as had the OS for years, back in 2005.
One 'feature' does not lagging make.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Now that they have added it, it shows that it was really that they were just lagging.
I'm not sure I agree with that. There's a new captain at the helm. He might have simply changed the course.
How is that not fixing an issue of lagging? You can call any lack of features that get added late as having "changed direction." Technically, catching up in any way is a change of direction - from lagging a lot to lagging less.
-
@ajstringham said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Now that they have added it, it shows that it was really that they were just lagging.
I'm not sure I agree with that. There's a new captain at the helm. He might have simply changed the course.
What about native networked interface? I'm sure they don't want to do that, but if they do it in ten years, they will have lagged thirty years. It's completely subjective.
What is a native networked interface?
It was a change that should have happened years ago.
If Bill Gates didn't think so.. and Balmer after that.. why? just because you and some small percentage want/like/use it? Can't say I agree with you there.
-
@Dashrender said:
One 'feature' does not lagging make.
Not but they have lagged in basically every feature since day one. Windows has always been in the position of catching up. This one feature was really glaring and lasted an incredibly long time in the queue. But what aspect of the Windows desktop has not been a lagged feature since the 90s?
-
So what you're saying is that MS isn't innovating. OK I'll give you that.
-
What about Active Directory and what that has done to advance manageability of users, workstations, and servers? I believe Active Directory in itself is a huge accomplishment in the Windows world.
Sure Novell came first but from what I heard the it was harder to implement and did not have as many features.
-
Maybe this link from 1998 is just Microsoft Propaganda, but I dont know enough about Novell to say either way.
-
@Dashrender said:
What is a native networked interface?
The UNIX desktop interface is networked, always, even when local. UNIX does not have the concept of a local console like Windows does. Windows has a local console and then you use protocols like RDP or RFB (VNC) to connect to that console or a copy of that console. This is based on the DOS legacy and the assumption that computers have a local monitor and a person sitting physically at them.
The UNIX world does not have this assumption. If you have a local console, it is actually connected over a network. The network might be local, but there is a network connection. Using a UNIX machine locally or remotely is transparent, you are always a network connection no matter where you are. The X protocol handles this. This loose coupling of the desktop and the hardware helps to give UNIX the native multi-user feel that Windows lacks.
The entire concept of VDI is a Windows thing because it doesn't need to exist on Linux. Linux natively handles multiple users in a way that Windows does not. Windows is using virtualization to make containers to mimic what UNIX and Linux were doing in the 1970s.
-
@IRJ said:
What about Active Directory and what that has done to advance manageability of users, workstations, and servers? I believe Active Directory in itself is a huge accomplishment in the Windows world.
Sure Novell came first but from what I heard the it was harder to implement and did not have as many features.
There are still features that Novell Netware had that MS has not implemented (I can't remember what, I only barely scratch the surface of Netware, and will admit, it's possible by now that MS has actually caught up to feature parity). But Novell lost marketshare and funding therefore died - plus I'm guessing their pricing structure had something to do with it.
-
@Dashrender said:
So what you're saying is that MS isn't innovating. OK I'll give you that.
Correct. They make a great product, but to get their stability and to save costs they lag far behind UNIX systems. They let UNIX forge the modern desktop and they follow along gleaning what makes sense for their userbase.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
What is a native networked interface?
The UNIX desktop interface is networked, always, even when local. UNIX does not have the concept of a local console like Windows does. Windows has a local console and then you use protocols like RDP or RFB (VNC) to connect to that console or a copy of that console. This is based on the DOS legacy and the assumption that computers have a local monitor and a person sitting physically at them.
The UNIX world does not have this assumption. If you have a local console, it is actually connected over a network. The network might be local, but there is a network connection. Using a UNIX machine locally or remotely is transparent, you are always a network connection no matter where you are. The X protocol handles this. This loose coupling of the desktop and the hardware helps to give UNIX the native multi-user feel that Windows lacks.
The entire concept of VDI is a Windows thing because it doesn't need to exist on Linux. Linux natively handles multiple users in a way that Windows does not. Windows is using virtualization to make containers to mimic what UNIX and Linux were doing in the 1970s.
ah ok. SO that is kind of what Microsoft is trying to do with Server Manager?
