# Any programmers and people that understand the OS



## zergpc208 (Jan 15, 2006)

Note it was not so bad back in the windows 95 and windows 98 days.

Anyone know why windows use so many files just to keep the OS going and so bloated? Windows may be more user friendly than Linux do to Linux and Unix uses alot of command line and was built more for security where by windows for the average person.

The under line of files of windows is messy and loads self every where and very bloated with windows vista and windows 7 very much so. I'm not sure if Linux /Mac OS X is like this or not .


I know windows needs to support alot more software and hardwar but is that not where drivers come in for the hardware.And programmers need to write the software for windows or Linux / Mac OS X.

And fore security most seem to use Unix and do not run GUI but a command line .Why is GUI no good?

Why is windows 9 x easer to use than windows vista and windows 7? Or should I say more user frendly.Note I find windows vista and windows 7 hard to use than windows XP and windows 9 x.


----------



## JimmySeal (Sep 25, 2007)

Why do you care how many files the Windows folder has? There's no need to open that folder or do anything with it.

I don't know what you mean about Windows 9x being more user-friendly than Windows 7. Care to elaborate?


----------



## mt2002 (Sep 14, 2005)

Hello,

Windows contains quite a bit of legacy software kept for backward compatibility. This includes boot class drivers, other device drivers, command line utilities, old and new APIs and frameworks (DLLs), configuration files, et al that are part of Windows, but not the OS itself. The number of libraries actually required by the Windows OS are small -- but by removing these other components software might fail to function properly.

Last I seen Mac OS is just as bloated but I have had limited experience with OS X so could be wrong. (This statement is based on the Mac OSs that ran exclusively on PPC.)


----------



## zergpc208 (Jan 15, 2006)

So the main reasons why.

-windows tries to maintain backward compatibility
-Another thing is that windows allows multiple versions of the same library to exist at same time
-There are many backups (dll backups, system restore points) that tend to eat disk space, and some applications forget to delete -temporary files
-And drivers for all kinds of hardware for compatibility for the thousands of different hardware out for windows)

Has for Mac OS x it is a close system.The OS X will only run on Mac computer hardware and drivers tested by apple. And it is illegal to try to load OS X on PC not to say it probably would not work do to diver problems as OS X is designed to only work on Mac computers where the hardware is small and tested by apple with OS X.

Where windows you can load it on thousands of different hardware thus bigger code and more files ..That why the fact windows even works is amazing not so much Mac computers are so much better but they only run on Mac computers where the hardware is small and well tested by apple where windows runs on thousands of different hardware .

For Linux no idea .But less than 1% of the people use Linux so you find most software and hardware do not run on Linux.

Well OS X yes it is more user friendly but than the OS is so so so so so so different!!



> I don't know what you mean about Windows 9x being more user-friendly than Windows 7. Care to elaborate?


More user friendly for advanced computer users but not so user-friendly for kids or grandparents.Where windows vista and windows 7 is more user-friendly for kids or your grandparents but not so user friendly for advanced computer users .

Also redundancy in windows vista and windows 7 we know where go to find it , we don't need so many ways to get through .Again windows vista and windows 7 is more user-friendly for kids or grandparents .


----------



## mt2002 (Sep 14, 2005)

Hello,


> And it is illegal to try to load OS X on PC


Incorrect. Mac OS X is supported on PPC and x86 architectures (PCs).



> Where windows you can load it on thousands of different hardware thus bigger code and more files


Incorrect also. Windows only supports x86, PPC, and ARM architectures.



> For Linux no idea .But less than 1% of the people use Linux so you find most software and hardware do not run on Linux


Incorrect. While I am not a Linux user, Linux does support more architectures then Windows and is dominant in the server and supercomputer markets.


----------



## zergpc208 (Jan 15, 2006)

> And it is illegal to try to load OS X on PC
> 
> Incorrect. Mac OS X is supported on PPC and x86 architectures (PCs).


No it not . Read Mac message board here you will see mod close thread ASAP for people trying to do that .

Some people have tried to do that and thread will get close for people trying to do that .

read the TOS of .techguy.org.



> Incorrect. While I am not a Linux user, Linux does support more architectures then Windows and is dominant in the server and supercomputer markets.


,
You mean Unix CIA ,FBI ,NSA ,milittary and defence?


----------



## mt2002 (Sep 14, 2005)

Hm, alright, it appears you are correct. Mac OS X is supported on x86 but on "Apple-Intel architecture" machines that have x86 CPUs.



> You mean Unix CIA ,FBI ,NSA ,milittary and defence?


I meant what I said. A few of the fastest supercomputers run Linux -- Tianhe-1A, Cray Jaguar and a dozen others.


----------



## zergpc208 (Jan 15, 2006)

The way it works most of time the OS makers try to get the hardware to work with OS than hardware makers making the hardware work with the OS.

Yes windows comes pre-loaded with drivers for most hardware.


----------



## doctorzeus (Jun 10, 2010)

zergpc208 said:


> Note it was not so bad back in the windows 95 and windows 98 days.
> 
> Anyone know why windows use so many files just to keep the OS going and so bloated? Windows may be more user friendly than Linux do to Linux and Unix uses alot of command line and was built more for security where by windows for the average person.
> 
> ...


Linux has always been kept small due to it being one of its major plus points along with reliablity (some people are now putting Linux distros on their tablets to give them a fully functioning desktop OS). Concerning the GUI I think the Linux every-day GUI has more potential than the Windows one (although technically the Linux OS doesn't have a gui as it runs XServer which handles the GUI). Compiz Fushion as well as multiple desktops in my opinion is a huge plus for Linux (e.g. wobbly windows and smooth transition affects and window selection).

The biggest problem I think with Linux for regular users is how devloped the forms that control the system are..There is no central "Control Panel" like there is on Windows Systems and if you enconter problems you will almost always have to use the command line in some way which is beyond most every-day users who don't even know what a CLI is (It also all depends on the distro you have).

Linking into this I think Windows had expanded greatly in order to account for usablility (hence its bloatedness, especially since vista  ). Also remember Microsoft has a team of psychiatrists and billions to pour into Windowses research interface (something a community-maintained OS would never be able to match up to unfortunatly). I think the term "easier" is subject to opinion as you are probubly used to the Windows interface on the old and therefore find that easier as I personally think Vista and 7 are the most user-friendly of the Windows distros (I have bought and used every single version since Windows 3.0).

I use Linux on an every-day basis on my laptop because of its reliablity and Windows on my Desktop at home but also I have to aplaud Microsoft for the .NET framework (some may disagree with me ) as it makes programming even for the higher languages (such as C and C++) sooo much easier. On the downside it could be said it is bending an entire generation of programmers towards MS languages and functions only present on MSWindows...From experience moving from programming in Vc++ on Windows to C/C++ on Unix systems was a lot more difficult than I first thought finding some of the functions I used to use everyday are MS based .

DoctorZeus


----------



## centauricw (Jun 26, 2010)

To address the original question, Vista and Windows 2008 changed how they handle DLLs and such to address "DLL Hell". Instead of keeping all the DLL and other system files in C:\WINDOWS\system32, the files are now kept in the C:\WINDOWS\winsxs folders, what Microsoft calls the Side-By-Side Library. This allows Windows to keep multiple versions of system files available. When a program wants to load a particular version of a DLL, then Windows chooses the most appropriate DLL from WinSXS. (That's the theory, anyway). This is more useful for .NET applications than older programs.

Since just about every Windows program expects the system files to be in C:\WINDOWS\system32, Vista/2008 and higher create hard links from the files in WinSXS to C:\WINDOWS\system32. This is the reason for the Stage 3 of 3 updating when Windows boots. Windows is recreating the hard links from the updated files in WinSXS to C:\WINDOWS\system32. (It's also why it's very bad to power off the computer during Stage 3 of 3. If the hard links are not all updated, Windows can become unbootable.)

Now when files are deleted from C:\WINDOWS\system32, the file doesn't actually get deleted, just the hard link to the file in WinSXS. You might be tempted to try and cleanup the WinSXS folders. DON'T! First, the files are protected from being casually deleted, even by the administrator, and second, you could (probably) make Windows unbootable. There is very little documentation available about the structure of the WinSXS folders and it's best to leave them be or you make Windows unbootable.


----------



## zergpc208 (Jan 15, 2006)

What was this DLL Hell ? Why so some people like dll files and other people not?

What are the pros and cons if using dll ?

I know Linux usees dll but is not the same has windows dll.

I thing these are the 3 reasons windows is bloatled with so many files just to keep every thing working.

-windows tries to maintain backward compatibility
-And drivers for all kinds of hardware for compatibility for the thousands of different hardware out for windows
--There are many backups (dll backups, system restore points) that tend to eat disk space, and some applications forget to delete -temporary files

I these needs many files just to keep windows working.


----------



## centauricw (Jun 26, 2010)

There is not really a choice of using DLLs. This issue is often forced, especially if you make system calls.

DLL Hell is a reference to having a system DLL upgraded by a system update or another application that installs a newer DLL and breaks an existing application because of a slight change this turns out not to be fully backwards compatible.


----------



## zergpc208 (Jan 15, 2006)

Can you elaborate on this.


----------



## centauricw (Jun 26, 2010)

Practically everything you ever wanted to know about DLL Hell can be found in this Wikipedia article.


----------



## zergpc208 (Jan 15, 2006)

Okay back on topic.


----------



## zergpc208 (Jan 15, 2006)

so a more updated better list would be

-windows tries to maintain backward compatibility
-Another thing is that windows allows multiple versions of the same library to exist at same time* and Linux and Mac OS X does not*
-There are many backups (dll backups, system restore points) that tend to eat disk space, and some applications forget to delete -temporary files
-And drivers for all kinds of hardware for compatibility for the thousands of different hardware out for windows)

But Linux will work on more hardware than windows it not that it has all the drivers like windows but need tweaking and newbie to Lunux may have problem getting it working.

Where windows comes loaded with lots of drivers and files to work with the thousands of different hardware thus making it more bloated.

The windows allows multiple versions of the same library to exist do to DLL hell.


----------



## zergpc208 (Jan 15, 2006)

Just bumping thread to top.


----------



## JimmySeal (Sep 25, 2007)

What is it you still want to know?


----------

