Why do they make so many operating system. I thought windows would've been enough?
Why do they make so many operating system. I thought windows would've been enough?
Who do you mean by "they"? Do you mean to say, why does Microsoft make so many different versions of Windows? Or does "they" mean the computer industry in general, and why does Apple make Mac OS, why does Linux exist, etc.?
Different people want to make money.
People in the Linux environment don't want to pay money, and want an operating system which is more robust and reliable, or does other things.
There have always been multiple operating systems - 25 years ago there was DOS, Netware, UNIX, etc... They all had different purposes and were making money for different people.
It only makes sense that there have been more operating systems and more derivatives created over the years.
What bugs me though, is the fact that they STILL can't make Windows run blindingly fast.
Windows 3.11 still loads quicker on a 486 than XP does on any modern hardware.
I've always attributed this simply to bloat; MS keeps trying to make it look prettier for the average computer user, but they haven't figured out how to do so and still make it run at a good speed. All those fancy Aero effects cost a lot of power, and even in earlier systems like XP that didn't have nearly as fancy effects, it was still costing them a lot.
It isn't really their fault; they're just trying to keep up with Apple, whose own OS can produce pretty effects without making it run dog slow (of course how they do it I have no clue).
They need to code the entire operating system in ASM as much as possible.
I'm not going to try and pretend that I know how they write the system, but I am certain the majority of the code is not ASM. Obviously this is because ASM is more complex and requires more expertise.
But to me, that would be the absolute solution to their problems. But I doubt it will ever happen.
Also, apparently when the Win2k source code was leaked the code was full of comments obscenely cursing other programmers, hahaha . - Actually, that was in C++. So no, it's not all in ASM .
why do they make so many different cars?
can you answer this question.
Windows would have been enough but MS would have been in monopoly then.
We need to have different things in order to have a competition and bring out the best product in the process.
Each OS has its strengths and weaknesses. As such, no one OS will adequately work for everyone's applications, and some have taken it upon themselves to try and build the OS that will work the way they want it to... hence you get a bunch of OSes, all of which perform the same basic function, but excel in areas where others founder, but may not work as well in other aspects.
All OSes are not created equal... which really, is the point.
Choose the OS that matches your usage.
The world would end if Windows was the only operating system. Seriously - the world's governments' computers would all be hacked into and the nuclear weapons held by the larger powers would be in the control of any decent hacker. Because hacking into Windows is EASY. Making viruses for Windows is EASY.
The same can't be said about - say - UNIX and its derivatives. You can fit an exhaustive list of non-Windows viruses onto one page, and that's without columns and using a fairly large font. And low resolution.
Finally, imagine if Microsoft was the only option. Windows XP would lock itself down the minute Windows Vista was released, replacing the OS with a screen "you must buy Windows Vista to continue using your computer". Each new version would have to be bought by everyone, and would cost hundreds more than it does now, possibly thousands. And quality would just plummet. After all - if there's no competition you can do what you like.
Fortunately, there is competition. If Windows were to lock itself out to all current users of older versions, only allowing use of the newest version which turned out to be terrible and extortionately expensive, everyone would either buy a Mac or use a Linux/UNIX operating system.
Because people have a lot of different uses for computers.
Not to mention that Unix was around long before Windows, as were Mac OS and several other OSes that aren't very prominent. Even before Windows there was just MS-DOS. Windows is just the most popular because... well actually I couldn't even explain that one.
Windows is the most popular because Microsoft had the best marketing for a long time.
It was actually IBM's fault .
IBM created an OS called "PC-DOS", which Microsoft butchered and turned into MS-DOS. IBM also had the opportunity to monopolize the desktop PC industry by patenting their desktop PCs, but they didn't think it would be worth it.
My memory's a bit sketchy about it now, but I *think* Windows came about as a response to OS/2 and the Macintosh OS, which was the first GUI driven OS. The biggest kicker was that there were ALWAYS more desktop PCs than Apple computers, and being as UNIX wasn't GUI driven it was much easier to cut into a market when you have more money and a brand new GUI driven OS.
In short, Microsoft got their foot into the door really early on while wearing a very shiny boot.
Here's a bit more information, I was close but not quite right about it
It's a good read and you can see screenshots of Windows 1 and 2
That is an insanely bad idea. Yes, coding things in Assembly would be great; because it would
Hacking into Windows XP and onwards isn't easy. Sure, you can exploit the stupidity of 99% of humans, but unless somebody's found an exploit and it remains unpatched you won't be able to hijack it. Period.
The reason Windows is so insecure is the basic premise that 99% of computer users know absolutely nothing about what's going on behind the scenes. They see a security dialog and immediately think "Hey, let's chmod this to 777 so I don't encounter these security dialogs again " (and yes, I know you wont' find chmod on Windows, but you see my point).
In addition, viruses don't exploit computers at all. Worms do, viruses do not. If a virus spreads by email, the significant problem would be the person opening the attachment or clicking the link; not the OS.
Of course, their IQ would have to be somewhere in the range of 60-70 in order for that to happen.[/list]
Mainly because of the programming always getting better, but another reason is money. Although linux is free, someone somewhere is paying to sponser, for example .. donations. the last reason would have to be variety... everyone likes a variety of things and having just one operating system would be rather boring.
Same reason why there are so many soaps, toothpaste, sodas,shoes etc but aside from money matters.. its actually human nature.... since the discovery of fire, wheels blah blah blah. we are never contented from what we have and ofcourse nobody likes to be monopolized......... (unless u like playing the board game)
It's because of capitalism. If we had communism, one operating system per country would be enough. With capitalism, we're constantly reinventing the wheel. That's how the system works.
If it were because of capitalism, why are there free Linux based OSs and free BSD based OSs?
Competition is important in a market, and each OS currently brings different things to the table. Different people value different things, and hence Linux and other operating systems come into the mix.
Why are there so many different types of cars?
Why are there so many different flavors of soda?
Why are there so many brands of clothes?
Different people want to go into business to make their own money - that's capitalism. Different companies will try to reach out to different people with different needs in order to make profit.
Because they're sponsored by companies. In a communist world, the state would make one operating system that everyone gets for free. Competition is only important in a capitalist market, not in a communist one.
That's why, in the end, communism works better for robots, but capitalism works better for humans.
Looks like a trollthread to me
But it's fun to see how a simply phrased question causes so clever and complex answers
A single operating system is a single point of failure; and thus is a completely insecure option
The lack of competition is one of the reasons Communism is such a complete, utter failure. People should be able to make free choice, aspire to be what they want to be and be rewarded thusly so.
Why? We now have two commonly used operating systems, one for desktops (Windows) and one for servers (Linux). 95% of computers use one of those. Having one operating system wouldn't be a lot less secure. Especially when the state controlled it, so security could be a lot stricter.
Communism isn't a complete, utter failure. That's what America wants you to believe. It's not as good as capitalism, but it also works, and it has a lot of advantages. But because of human nature, it doesn't works as good as capitalism.
If you don't believe me, think about this: you have to program a society of robots. Every robot is programmed the same way, but during construction small errors are introduced which make the robots slightly better at different things. The robots can produce luxury goods, which make them "happy". But the robots burn fuel, which has to be searched for by other robots. And there's more work to do. So they all rely on each other. Your job is to give every robot the best life possible.
What would you go for? Communism or capitalism? Would you program the nature of your robots to work together, everyone producing what they're best at, and producing as much as possible? Or would you program them to compete against others, and ask for more money when they have a monopoly, and try to compete other robots out of the market to get a monopoly or oligopoly, and all those things?
The sane choice would be communism. But we're not robots, and that's why for humans capitalism is a better choice. But we can learn things from communism, it's not just a complete failure.
Communism fails because someone always has to be 'more equal' than someone else. If people were perfect it would be a different story.
Capitalism inspires creativity and freedom of choice.
Hogwarts - thanks for the information, I wasn't aware of that side of things.
Viva la Difference!
Would you like a world with only one skin, one sex, one religion, one way to do the things?
The humans are not robots with simply instructions to do the tasks. Every of us has a ambition, feeling, way to do the things, and that's the reason where other people do stuff that make sense for a group of people, making the things in other way, so they have a choice that simpathize with the way they are.
And remember, if you don't like the other OSes, you always can close your eyes and let it pass. Other people will use it and take advantage of them, meanwhile you are stuck in an OS that maybe only make you to produce only what you need, and no more.
All these comments about communism and OSes... and no one's mentioned Cuba's own Linux distribution (Nova)??
Why do they make so many different cars and yet come up with newer ones every year?
Why is so much diversity in the world?
Why all humans don't belong to same race ?
Why all countries don't adopt democracy?
Why doesn't everyone speak the same laguage ?
etc etc etc etc etc etc .......
Different needs ...different systems ...different OSs...
That's nice. China have Red Flag Linux I believe, and Russia something else.
Some people (mainly Microsoft and their cronies) say that Linux is like communism. Well, perhaps it is, but it's like it in such a way that it's impossible to be corrupt. People contribute what they can if they want to, and nobody is obligated to give anything back. Now that's freedom. Anybody can contribute if they have the ability, and people can make software or improve on existing software, for free. Now that's creativity.
People have different desires for their operating system, so different operating systems are made. People also want money...
Because they want to stop Plan9 from user space
It's a joke.
There's not beauty without variety.
Also I think Computer Science would be boring without new OS to test and to criticize.
its too risky to have robots totally run our lives..................
as we all know there is a pending rebellion of AI's (artifcial intelligent) which could cause the apocalypse and wipe-out the entire human race..... it is the inevitable....
The terminator - skynet computer logically thinks that human is a threat to the planet.
I-robot - humans is a threat to humans.
the matrix - or better yet watch animatrix wherein robots started a rebeliion.
just something to blab about......
robot uprising is at hand...........
All men have to face a dragon along their path of life and it is not so much whether you bite the dragon or the dragon bites you. - Danny Davis
Um... what? Nobody said robots would run OUR lives... Stubru Freak was talking about a society made of robots and how one would program them. And there isn't a pending rebellion of AIs at all. No, it is not inevitable. What you are mentioning with your abundance of ......... are nothing more than science fiction. Fiction. Not real. Robots are not going to take over the world. Sheesh, do you think anyone would be stupid enough to make that even a possibility?
"While they are taken to the bridge, it becomes apparent that after centuries of being reliant on the machinery around them, microgravity, and consuming liquid food, humanity has suffered severe bone loss, becoming extremely obese and unable to walk, reclining on moving chairs and communicating only through video messaging; even piloting the ship is handled by its computerized autopilot, Auto, rather than the human Captain."