A little question about operating systems

[Virgil0211]

Well, this is actually more of a curiosity I wanted to explore, but I was wondering just how much modern GUI operating systems are related to the old command-line interfaces like MS-DOS (the one I grew up with as a child, and had to tangle with whenever I wanted to play X-Wing). This was piqued when I started trying to play an old RTS game from a few years back that was designed to work with Windows 95/98 (Dark Reign, to be specific), and there's apparently no way for the game to operate properly in a 256 color format under Windows 7 unless explorer.exe isn't running. So, in order to play the game properly (and not have it like like a wideawake technicolor nightmare), I had to make a .bat file that would allow me to kill explorer.exe, run the game, and then press 'enter' in the command prompt window after I was finished. That's about the most I've ever done from a programming standpoint, and it's actually come in handy for some other things. Killing explorer and every other process on my computer allowed me to run a 1080p video file on my laptop, which I didn't think I'd be able to pull off.

Anyway, back to the original topic, I was just wondering how the modern GUI developed from the original command-line interfaces, and how much of the CLI was still in the GUI operating systems we use today. As far as I can tell, it seems like the GUI simply masks the command line processes beneath it, but the cmd.exe seems to operate separately from the windows, so this probably isn't the case.

Also, was Apple really the first company to make a GUI OS? How did Windows manage to out-compete them if they managed to be the first? Also, why aren't the OS' developed by Apple compatible with the same computers as Windows (at least, as far as I know, not without heavy modification and some methods that may or may not be violations of the DMCA. But, then again, that's not exactly saying much.).

[MrBogosity]

No, Xerox was the first to make a GUI OS. Windows out-competed them because Apple was stupid; Apple gave themselves a monopoly on the hardware and charged out the wazoo just to stick that little Apple logo on it (and it didn't help that the entire interface was condescending). Windows, of course, runs on a wide variety of hardware and people could select the cheapest or most appropriate option for what they wanted to do. Also, most companies already had IBM-compatible PCs, so they could upgrade to Windows without buying new hardware.

Now, Apple has expanded a bit; you can run Apple on Intel architecture (as long as it's THEIR Intel architecture) and install Windows either in a virtual machine or a dual-boot configuration. But it's still way too expensive compared to other hardware available.

Linux, of course, runs anydamnwhere and won't ever cost you a dime beyond copying/downloading costs. Your laptop may well be able to run 1080p video just by wiping Windows and installing Ubuntu. I did that a couple of months ago on my 5-year-old Toshiba, which had been running slower than Molasses in January. Now, it's running better than it did the day I bought it!

[Virgil0211]

No, Xerox was the first to make a GUI OS. Windows out-competed them because Apple was stupid; Apple gave themselves a monopoly on the hardware and charged out the wazoo just to stick that little Apple logo on it (and it didn't help that the entire interface was condescending). Windows, of course, runs on a wide variety of hardware and people could select the cheapest or most appropriate option for what they wanted to do. Also, most companies already had IBM-compatible PCs, so they could upgrade to Windows without buying new hardware.

Is it also true that the first Apple GUI didn't have the option of switching back to a command-line interface if necessary? I remember the earliest versions of windows (granted, this was back when I was around 5 or 6) having that ability. Hell, sometimes it was necessary to play certain games like X-wing or Wing Commander.

Now, Apple has expanded a bit; you can run Apple on Intel architecture (as long as it's THEIR Intel architecture) and install Windows either in a virtual machine or a dual-boot configuration. But it's still way too expensive compared to other hardware available.

The more I learn about Apple's business practices, the more I wonder just how they've managed to stay afloat all of this time. It's like they're trying to behave like a monopoly without actually having the necessary government backing for that to work in the long term. It just amazes me that people will complain on end about Microsoft being this big evil company, when they never tried to get you to completely change your hardware architecture in order to use their product.

Linux, of course, runs anydamnwhere and won't ever cost you a dime beyond copying/downloading costs. Your laptop may well be able to run 1080p video just by wiping Windows and installing Ubuntu. I did that a couple of months ago on my 5-year-old Toshiba, which had been running slower than Molasses in January. Now, it's running better than it did the day I bought it!

I've thought about that, but I'm not so sure I'm comfortable enough with my computer knowledge to switch over to Ubuntu yet. I've got an older machine that I might try it on, though. It's a bit older, and I haven't used it in years (mainly because the power source just blew out on me, and I never got around to getting it replaced), but it should still provide a nice testing ground.

I really should brush up on how to program and such. I mean, this .bat file is the first one I've ever used, and it was mostly copypaste. By way of for instance, I just futzed around using the command prompt window to open and close programs using the start and taskkill commands. I mean, I'm that unfamiliar with programming.

[MrBogosity]

Is it also true that the first Apple GUI didn't have the option of switching back to a command-line interface if necessary?

Correct; I don't think they had a command line until OSX.

I remember the earliest versions of windows (granted, this was back when I was around 5 or 6) having that ability.

The earliest versions of Windows ran on top of DOS.

I've thought about that, but I'm not so sure I'm comfortable enough with my computer knowledge to switch over to Ubuntu yet. I've got an older machine that I might try it on, though. It's a bit older, and I haven't used it in years (mainly because the power source just blew out on me, and I never got around to getting it replaced), but it should still provide a nice testing ground.

If you download the iso and burn it to a CD, you can boot your computer with the CD and try it out without affecting your hard drive.

[Virgil0211]

Correct; I don't think they had a command line until OSX.

The earliest versions of Windows ran on top of DOS.

So, just how much of the later Windows versions involve command line functions? I mean, it seems like alot of GUI functions have some correlation to CLI functions (a desktop shortcut being something like start _______.exe, and so forth). Is it a bit like a GUI shell operating over a command-line system, or am I completely off the mark?

If you download the iso and burn it to a CD, you can boot your computer with the CD and try it out without affecting your hard drive.

I see. How much of my hard drive would I have access to if I did this?

[MrBogosity]

So, just how much of the later Windows versions involve command line functions?

They all have a command line, but only the 3.1/9x line was built on DOS. The NT/2k/XP/Vista/7 line is its own thing, with an integrated command line.

I mean, it seems like alot of GUI functions have some correlation to CLI functions (a desktop shortcut being something like start _______.exe, and so forth). Is it a bit like a GUI shell operating over a command-line system, or am I completely off the mark?

In the 9x line, it's a GUI operating over a command line. In NT, as well as Linux and OSX, the GUI and the command line are each shells running on the kernel.

I see. How much of my hard drive would I have access to if I did this?

You should be able to get to all of it.

[AHPMB]

The more I learn about Apple's business practices, the more I wonder just how they've managed to stay afloat all of this time.

They've done it by cultivating a rabidly loyal cult following that believes owning a Mac instead of a PC is a mark of intelligence and sophistication.  It's essentially the same thing as the console wars, just fought with adults instead of 13 year old boys.  Just look at their "Think Different" adds.  The basic message there is, "buy one of the millions of identical computers we sell, and you'll be just like Picasso or Einstein, we'll even let you pick a color."  This has held true even with their more popular gizmos like the iPad and iPhone.  Steve Jobs has built an Empire on style over substance.

[Virgil0211]

They've done it by cultivating a rabidly loyal cult following that believes owning a Mac instead of a PC is a mark of intelligence and sophistication.  It's essentially the same thing as the console wars, just fought with adults instead of 13 year old boys.  Just look at their "Think Different" adds.  The basic message there is, "buy one of the millions of identical computers we sell, and you'll be just like Picasso or Einstein, we'll even let you pick a color."  This has held true even with their more popular gizmos like the iPad and iPhone.  Steve Jobs has built an Empire on style over substance.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Apple is quite capable of making good products, or at least products with benefits. Personally, I love my iphone. It's easy to use, straightforward, has multiple functions that I make use of on a regular basis, etc. Jailbreaking it has only increased its usefulness to me. Granted I guess that counts as going beyond its intended functionality, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still useful to me.

I've also heard that the OSX is better at keeping the registry files from building up too much, like what happens in Windows and necessitates wiping the hard drive every now and then. I don't know how true that is, considering my unfamiliarity with software, or how well it does this compared to other OS's (such as Ubuntu).

[FSBlueApocalypse]

On Apple, I agree that most of their computers are simply style over substance. Their entire ad campaign is targeted at hippy pseudo-intellectuals who think it's a mark of sophistication. On the iPod, I think it's a great MP3 player, but both I've both have broken within 6 months of buying them and Apple screwed me on the warranty, so never again.

[Virgil0211]

On Apple, I agree that most of their computers are simply style over substance. Their entire ad campaign is targeted at hippy pseudo-intellectuals who think it's a mark of sophistication. On the iPod, I think it's a great MP3 player, but both I've both have broken within 6 months of buying them and Apple screwed me on the warranty, so never again.

Honestly, Apple's ipod function leave's quite a bit to be desired. It does the job until I get a different one, and it's a bit convenient to have my phone let me know when I have a call while the mp3 player is going, but the interface and the way you manage music is complicated beyond belief. I miss the drag and drop ability I had with my old Creative Zen Touch. I could just dump the mp3s in there and be on my way. If I needed to, I could just store extra files in the excess HDD space. With the iphone, I have to put it into my itunes library, 'sync' it to my iphone, and every time I need to just delete one or two songs on there, I have to jump through a ton of hoops to do so without wiping my entire library. I can't even copy the mp3s that are on the iphone to my computer, so when my external hard drive crapped out, I basically lost all of my mp3s. I mean, I can use SSH to go in there and copy/paste the mp3s, but they're all reorganized and renamed randomly. Instead of the song title, it's got some random "GOLHUEDW" crap for a filename. I wish I could find a cheap mp3 player like my old zen touch. No fancy bells or whistles, no touch screen, doesn't play videos or any of that other crap. Just plays mp3 files and has alot of storage space (my old players had 40 GB and 20 GB respectively).

[MrBogosity]

it's a bit convenient to have my phone let me know when I have a call while the mp3 player is going,

My current AND previous LG phones both did that.

[Virgil0211]

My current AND previous LG phones both did that.

Did it have a cockamamie weird-assed mp3 management system that screwed with the mp3 file when you put it on the phone?

[MrBogosity]

Nope. You dump it into whatever directory (even a custom one you create) and when you disconnect it finds your mp3 files. You can even make custom playlists.