Windows is easy, right?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Mrkvonic, Jun 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ocky

    Ocky Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    George, S.Africa
    :D
    Everyone here knows how to get the max out of their cellphones, except me. I can't stand them so have never bothered to learn effective usage.
    I like Linux (the easy distros) so 'learning' the basics came sort of naturally. One does best in what one enjoys most. Nothing should be a grind to use, like getting into some sort of Yoga position to make calls from those #2**% cellphones.:argh:
     
  2. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    Windows server are not for average home users either, because they don't understand what a servers job really is.

    Workgroup networking is for home users, or a client pc that has some shares.

    Linux vs Windows for a home server has no bearing. BTW, what OS do you suppose is in every router and NAS box that home users own? You have the correct base idea, servers are not for home users, but missed the bigger picture that it does not matter what OS or hardware.

    But I will say this, if you are used to windows, it is easier to configure windows server than linux, but only because you are familiar. Leave home users out of servers, they don't belong there.

    Sul.
     
  3. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    I admire that you know assembly.

    I don't make a red cent writing programs, yet I use a high level language(s). I go out of my way to create loops or logical algorithms that are fast.

    Some of us who are not paid to code have only so many resources and so much time to devote to it. I wrote a program for speedfan one time that used a bit of assembly, and some other little tidbits. My dad is old school and like you, espouses assembly. Like I said, I admire that and wish I knew it inside and out, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

    I understand you sentiment, but you can't lay all your eggs in one basket like that, it is not quite so cut and dry.

    Sul.
     
  4. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    I never claimed that Windows Servers are for Home Users. You misunderstood my point.Linux supporters boast about the High Penetration of Linux in the Server market.
    However, Linux difficulty, as an OS, is reflected by their Low Penetration in the Home User market.
     
  5. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    Ah. I see.

    I thought you were referring to home users not having linux servers but windows ones instead.

    The assumption that the low share of linux on home desktops being due to its complexity I would say has always had a ring of truth. However, having recently installed a whole bunch of distros, an average user could do it, at least most of it. Linux has came a mighty long way, and if it continues its course, will slowly evolve onto more home users machines, due to many reasons. It has always been, in my mind, that average users don't want to do anything but click some buttons on a GUI. Linux distros are certainly gaining ground in that respect, which I believe will lead more people to giving it a go if all they have to do is read prompts or start a control panel sort of tool. The repos are also a great help, although basic users probably don't udnerstand the security implications it offers. I think you lose some prospective linux users when they have to break out the command prompt to make something work. As well you undoubtedly have a decent group of people who might try it but figure "why should I when I can't play my games on it"

    Sul.
     
  6. MaxEntropy

    MaxEntropy Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Posts:
    101
    Location:
    UK
    Windows can't be at all easy using MASM.

    Not so sure about the swipe at high-level programming languages, though. Assembler is rated as 2nd generation, whiilst C/C++ is 2.5th and Fortran is 3rd. But C/C++/Fortran are all very useful for scientific programming, where the maths can be pretty complicated (like that in "Numerical Recipes in C" http://www.nrbook.com/a/bookcpdf.php). I doubt that you'd get far there with assembly language.

    Moreover, the scientists who toil away programming in C/C++ are hardly in it for the money. And, actually, fast code is quite important to them too (although some of the young ones do inevitably get seduced by OOP).

    Some problems are too complicated to program in C++, so we use an even higher-level 4th generation language like Mathematica. It's a matter of using the right tool for the job, not whether you're using a low- or high-level language.
     
  7. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    We have a winner! And the first half of that sentence applies to virtually every endeavor I know of. Ignore the proper tool at one's own peril.

    As for the subject of this thread..., any subject is "easy" once you learn it, although "easy" is really the wrong word, familiar is probably a better characterization and given the choice between familiar and unfamiliar, most go with familiar. Hard vs. easy really doesn't figure into it since that trade-off is difficult to estimate for the unfamiliar and it's basically discounted for the familiar.

    It's not a matter of Windows being easy, it's simply the OS platform with which most folks have the greatest familiarity.

    Blue
     
  8. Shankle

    Shankle Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Posts:
    515
    You are right MaxEntropy.
    For scientists most likely it should be as you say.
    My oversight.
    I have programmed in high level languages and I hate it.
     
  9. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,380
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Firstly there is more to writing code than "good fast code". Secure, stable, tested, value for money, portability/compatibility, understandability, expressiveness and maintainability are all important factors.

    I use a carefully benchmarked and tested framework and where bottlenecks have been found they have been rewritten in a lower level language where needed, but writing the entire app/framework in ASM would be futile as the most significantly slow areas are already optimised as best as possible and the performance gains would be minimal.
    There are areas where we have utilised scripting languages, but looking at the overall typical execution of the application, these scripts are amongst the least frequently access areas of code and the the ease and speed which we can maintain and configure the scripts is far faster than using any high or low level language.

    I use the tools that give me a good blend of productivity, performance, stability, security and have been chosen to give our customers the best value for money. Pure ASM does not provide this.

    It may be the case that ASM is the best language for the code you write for your customers, but I do not agree in general with your reasons for not using a high level language.

    Cheers, Nick
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.