Sure. You can play stuff up to H.264 in DOS, can't say that anyone is using DOS on machine powerful enough to play that format but i used to play 320k mp3s in DOS.
I don't see why you shouldn't be able to compile ffmpeg with x265 for/on DOS...? Encoding speed would suffer because all but one of your cores will just be twiddling their thumbs, of course, but that's a concession you'll have to make for running an OS completely free of bluescreens and "telemetry". Don't forget you get to use fast, non-ribbonized word processors too. Like Wordstar. Or maybe MS Word 5.5 is more to your liking? Go ahead, it's free! And thanks to DOS' extensive multitasking capabilities, you can even continue working while you print! What's the DOS Flash player that got mentioned earlier? A gnash or lightspark port?
Windows 10 is great, much better than the self harming of installing linux. I don't install any of the wannabe apps like classic shell either.
Windows 10 is meh I don't care for the look of it and the whole privacy thing is a big issue but there isn't really any other option if you wanna game
Screw Windows 3.1, I like my DOS Screw Windows 95, I like my Windows 3.1 Screw Windows 98, I like my Windows 95 Screw Windows Me, I like My Windows 98 Screw Windows NT4, I like My Windows Me Screw Windows 2000, I like My Windows NT4 Screw Windows XP, I like My Windows 2000 Screw Windows 7, I like My Windows XP Screw Windows 8, I like my Windows 7 Screw Windows 10, I like my Windows 7
The only "pro" argument I ever heard about it were the sidebar apps, which disappeared again once Win7 came around. From a technical standpoint, the switch to an imaging-based installation was quite interesting, but that of course had no bearing whatsoever on the not-so-good day-to-day user experience. Worst. "retail beta". OS. ever. (but only because ME doesn't count since it was at the end of the 9x line.)
Whatever version it is, Windows is total crap. I can't understand why people still use that train wreck of an OS.
In the case of casual users: Because it came with the PC (that's also how IE got a lot of its market share). For the more tech savvy: Games, and other things with weird copy protections. Wine is nice, but doesn't run everything.
@americandad: Thank you, had a doubt since the automatic correcter said that, but deal done, I disabled it for good. @rso: I never had to use Wine and don't plan to. The only thing I run on a (black-legit) Windows 10 copy through Bootcamp is AnyDVD HD. Everything else, is done on macOS, FreeBSD and, as little as possible, Linux. Sure, it cuts me from some games (Cuphead, really, and some other crap I am not interested in or also exists on consoles), but otherwise, besides one application for a VERY niche need that I had to code myself, I can do more things on Unix than on Windows and it works so way better...
FYI Classic Shell is not a wannabe app. It's practical and offers you choice and customization. Nobody is forcing you to install it but if you do, you might find the experience a whole lot better. Windows 10 is super-shit anyway with its forced bloated constant updates but try Classic Shell with Windows 8.1 and it is like a modern Windows 7.
After being into computers since a very young age, then working in IT for a long time. This is what really annoys me about *nix users. It works better FOR YOU. Because thats what you CHOOSE to use. Guess what, Windows works much better for me day to day and I can do SO MUCH MORE in Windows than Unix. That has no reflection on either operating systems at all. But I am not trying to tell you Windows is better, just because its better for me. Choice of operating system is just like anything else in life - down to the person making it. If you are trying to convert people away, its just like OS Jehovah's Witnesses coming to my door. Linux doesnt work with most of the hardware I need to use on a day to day basis. Its basically useless for me to run it as my desktop OS. But I am not saying its useless.
> xpclient > Joined:Today, Messages:1 ITT: Fanboys registering just to voice their opinions. I'm out.
Linux/Unix works with most of the hardware that exists. And windows tendency to not let you do whatever you want to do is bothersome for advanced users. That's basically the reason people have a gripe with it. For casual use of a computer, whatever OS is basically the same, but I wouldn't do any kind of complex programming/development on Windows. Linux with wine and a VM with win7 allows you to do anything on a PC (except maybe modern gaming), while being in control of your system. That's a big plus for me. We're in 2017, everything should be platform independent anyways.
Personally, I believe the problem is that Linux is free - not many people are willing to do a good job at no cost. Everything under the hood still feels 1990'ish IMO. One of the most irritating things to me, is that there's no standardized mechanism for installing software, leaving the most "universal" options the "build from source" and "copy + paste the files" methods. Still waiting for there to be functional Japanese input support too. Whenever the OS blows up (i.e. due to power failure and filesystem becomes corrupted), it is rather difficult to fix if you don't often mess with the shell. Yes, we now have Google and mobile phones to aid us with finding help on obscure error messages, but it's not really an excuse to not automate recovery processes in 2017... On the other hand, Microsoft has been (overly) trying to do what they think is best. Perhaps for the clueless users out there, it would be a big help to shove them in the right directions by getting Windows to do updates in the background, but it's actually rather disruptive if you don't have a SSD installed. I was appalled when I discovered that Windows Vista (and later) only ran very well with a SSD, but now it seems to be even more important because of Windows update. :| I'm also waiting for someone, either Intel or Microsoft, to fix the dancing dots that I see on Youtube's seek bar. This has been there since I got this laptop in 2015. But if I had to choose, I would have and still will choose Windows 10 over Windows 8. I touched that cancer in 2013 and had fun with its unintuitive interface. I totally forgot about it until around new year 2017, when I tried to help my aunt with her laptop that was running that horrible OS. Windows 8.1 fixes quite a bit of that mess, IMO.
There is a great deal more than just reflexive dislike of novelty going on with the aversion to Windows 10, though. I've been using MS operating systems for a depressingly long time, and there were certain releases that have to be regarded as objectively flawed. The first one was Windows ME - it was released as being a suitable upgrade for users running the various flavors of Windows 98, but in practice it often ran poorly on platforms that had previously run 98 without problems and in many cases simply crashed because it exposed incipient bugs in things like old device drivers. Obviously, MS can't be blamed for bugs in other people's drivers, but they can be faulted for insufficient testing. The next bad release was Vista - it also tended to run poorly on the sort of system that was current at the time of it's release, and this was exacerbated by the fact that a lot of people had bought machines that were shipped running XP with an included Vista "upgrade" - which resulted in the situation where they ended up doing a direct A:B comparison of the two OSes on the same hardware, and ended up concluding that Vista stunk. Next, we have Windows 8 - where MS decided that their users really didn't want a desktop computer, what they wanted was a giant smartphone - and proceeded to lovingly recreate pretty much the same UI that had already fallen flat on it's face in the mobile space. Since then, MS has backed off on some of the more objectionable characteristics in Windows 8.1 and 10, but have still ended up with a OS that has gone through 3 releases with the apparently addition of only "features" that nobody was asking for while removing many things that were actually useful and adopting a UI design style that appears to have been crafted by a developmentally disabled 8 year old with zero aesthetic sense. OK, I don't think Windows 10 is entirely unusable, and I have it on a couple of my machines - but it's depressing to compare it with Windows 7 (which is an 8 year old OS at this point!) and marvel at the pretty much total lack of added useful functionality. Of course, I also think the best version of OS-X is Snow Leopard, so I might just be a reactionary
I'd argue than the nicest thing about Linux for a beginner is the installation of softwares. The package manager varies from a Linux flavour to another, but it's mostly as simple as "sudo apt-get install *program*". No more finding the right version online and running setup.exe and realizing you're missing dependencies then hunting for them, all is done automatically. The free argument is a fallacious one. Linux is one of the (if not The) most worked on software project in the world, there are a ton of people whose full time job is developing (part of) it. Keep in mind it's in virtually all servers and Android phones, there's a real professional need to develop it. I'm not trying to convert anyone, but Linux really doesn't deserve its reputation anymore. It's very user friendly and works with new hardware. I find win10 useable, but it really bothers me that there are two versions of every basic windows programs, e.g. control panel. I would just put a switch somewhere to select between the "tablet" and "desktop" set of apps. Beats vista any day.
