To be perfectly honest, building software for a fixed set of hardware products is a piece of cake. Doing it for every bit of hardware on this earth, yeah, that is PITA. So, even though I don’t like MS at all, I have to hand it to them in the conpatibility department. Not as backwards compatible as Linux, but they sure are a close second.
Buidling software for an already stable as fuck platform (*BSD) is a lot easier, plus you already know what hardware it’s gonna run on, lol. You cherry pick security/bug fixes and everything else regarding optimizations gets thrown under the carpet… and of course you charge your customers for the security/bug fixes, that’s always a plus 👍.
MS realized that the way into the future is making the OS a subscription, like Apple did. Yes Apple were first, MS copied. You see something that’s good, you adjust to implement it on your terf.
Regarding the charging for updates part, I don’t actually own a Mac, so it’s just what I’ve read over the years online. I’m sorry if I made a mistake on that part.
You do have a point though about MS passing the ball to the manufacturers regarding the drivers. Still, even with just the native drivers, Windows supports a lot more hardware than MacOS does.
Regarding the NT kernel vs the *BSD one, I just don’t agree. Sure, the team behind it might be top notch, but in my experience the *BSD kernel is more stable. Sure, lack of drivers, smaller user base, but if you manage to get everything running, any of the BSD flavors is rock solid. Sorry, but can’t say the same about the NT kernel.
Exactly. Saying windows is problematic has nothing to do with supporting multiple hardware configurations and everything to do with Microsoft having no empathy for the user experience.
Uuum, no.
To be perfectly honest, building software for a fixed set of hardware products is a piece of cake. Doing it for every bit of hardware on this earth, yeah, that is PITA. So, even though I don’t like MS at all, I have to hand it to them in the conpatibility department. Not as backwards compatible as Linux, but they sure are a close second.
Buidling software for an already stable as fuck platform (*BSD) is a lot easier, plus you already know what hardware it’s gonna run on, lol. You cherry pick security/bug fixes and everything else regarding optimizations gets thrown under the carpet… and of course you charge your customers for the security/bug fixes, that’s always a plus 👍.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
MS realized that the way into the future is making the OS a subscription, like Apple did. Yes Apple were first, MS copied. You see something that’s good, you adjust to implement it on your terf.
Regarding the charging for updates part, I don’t actually own a Mac, so it’s just what I’ve read over the years online. I’m sorry if I made a mistake on that part.
You do have a point though about MS passing the ball to the manufacturers regarding the drivers. Still, even with just the native drivers, Windows supports a lot more hardware than MacOS does.
Regarding the NT kernel vs the *BSD one, I just don’t agree. Sure, the team behind it might be top notch, but in my experience the *BSD kernel is more stable. Sure, lack of drivers, smaller user base, but if you manage to get everything running, any of the BSD flavors is rock solid. Sorry, but can’t say the same about the NT kernel.
Is supporting every bit of hardware on earth why Linux shows ads everywhere?
I run Linux daily, I’ve never seen an ad (unless it was in a browser).
Exactly. Saying windows is problematic has nothing to do with supporting multiple hardware configurations and everything to do with Microsoft having no empathy for the user experience.
Yeah, agreed, you have a point there 👍.