I'm surprised that there aren't dozens of posts flaming on about how much Micro$oft sucks... Meh.
Anyway, to really convey the concept and OS that is Microsoft Windows, we'll need to start at the beginning.
Way back in 1981, Microsoft had this brilliant idea (well, actually it was Xerox who designed the "look and feel" of a window environment) that one could possibly control dialog boxes an menus via a mouse and/or keyboard. This opened up a whole new world of user interactivity (at the time), and operated as an abstraction atop DOS. Common user-oriented tasks, such as editing text files, editing a calendar, or even checking email, was reduced to point-and-drool (erm, I mean point-and-click) simplicity.
The first incarnation of Windows occurred in 1985, with the unleashing of Windows 1.0 upon the DOS-using masses. Compared with other windowing systems like XWindows, NeXT Step, Plan 9, et al., it was archaic and painfully rudimentary, plus it only had one color: white. There was really no need to use Windows at the time, since DOS was already a common OS, and PC users everywhere knew it by hand.
As such, Windows didn't enjoy widespread popularity until the early 90's, with the advent of Windows 3.1. This OS was a whole other beast entirely, with a lucid color interface, advanced networking capabilities, sound, a logical program grouping system, and easily modifiable system settings. At 7 install floppies, 1.44 MB each, it was huge for its time. This was the last stable, solid Windows platform to be released.
Windows 95 started the downhill spiral for the OS, now supplanting DOS as the de facto OS for standard home PCs, which opened them up to non-technical users as well as the traditional computer geek set, who readily found themselves at home tweaking the bloated Registry. Bug fixes were routine; the major ones requiring further payment to Micro$oft. Windows 95 SR2 readily comes to mind, as does Windows 95 rev C.
The ultimate irony of these "upgrades" is that they tended to introduce even worse bugs, and degrade the performance and stability of the OS with each revision. This reached its peak with Windows ME, which is nigh but worthless for anything.
The sad part of the whole Windows downward spiral is not only did customers pay hundreds of dollars for second-rate software that was really only necessary for playing games or surfing the WWW, but that those very operations were the main reason why people stuck with it.
Imagine, if you can, Linux having solid multimedia and video game support from kernel 2.0 on, in addition to its traditional system hacking (programming), networking, and server application support. If that happened, instead of Windows, Linux would probably be the de facto OS for home computers these days.
I know I would have heard about Linux years before I first started using it in 1997, if I could play natively compiled games with it.
Objective analysis: Microsoft Windows will run on 32-bit CPU computers, or in the case of XP 64-bit and Vista, 64-bit CPU computers. It is a resource hog, and as such, the newer incarnations (XP Home, Pro, Vista) require at minimum 128MB of RAM, although in practice you'd want to use around 512MB.
It contains an elaborate, intuitive interface which is presented as a simplistic collection of icons and windows, the file system may be NTFS or FAT32, based on which OS you are using. Older versions of Windows (pre 2000), use FAT32 or FAT16. NTFS seems to be the recommended file system these days, but your mileage may vary. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but only versions of Windows running on an NTFS file system may access partitions larger than 32GB, due to a structual limitation within the OS code. Theoretically, FAT32 can access up to 4 TB, but Windows won't have any of that, apparently.
Windows is, by and large, a closed-source OS. This means that you won't get a chance to peek at the underlying source code unless you work as a Microsoft developer. You probably wouldn't want to anyway, since the code for just the DLL files must be disgustingly elephantine and fugly. Just thinking about debugging that kind of code makes my stomach turn. Microsoft has been known for finding the most complicated solutions to various user-interface problems, and I'm sure their code reflects that.
Basically, Windows has been both a thorn in the side of academics and programmers, and the Holy Grail of user interfaces for gamers, casual users, and the John and Jane Publics of the world. It's also been a pain in the tuchus for everyone who uses it, and has to reboot 10 times a day.
Process management is limited to a terse program called Task Manager. Using a Vulcan nerve pinch (Ctrl-Alt-Del), summons it forth and lets you terminate foreground processes (what about the background processes?).
You need drivers for everything inside of your computer, and these need to be updated frequently, about once a week. Of course, most people don't update them that much, and problems inevitably occur.
Right-clicking is your constant friend and companion within the Windows world, as is the Control Panel. These two wonderful things allow one to exert some form of control over what is going on, thus Context Menus are one of the most important thing you will learn when working with Windows. Every program has them, so use them whenever possible. Right-clicking on the Desktop brings up a Display Properties menu entry, from which you can tweak various aesthetics in Windows. From themes to screen-savers, it's all there.
For more info, go to wikipedia.com and search for Windows.
2007-01-20 21:33:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by twelfthdimensiontraveller 1
·
0⤊
0⤋