"Unix is a real OS", "Windows is a toy": Where does this come from? Please no bashing
 

I have heard and read phrases like "Unix is a real OS" and "Windows is a toy" in various places. (Removed a link to another post because that person did not approve of my linking to his post. My apologies to you.) I can even remember one of my college professors calling Windows a "toy". These are educated people, not mindless teenage boys we're talking about.

Fanboy-ism aside, I've always wondered exactly what people mean when they say these things.

I've always wanted to ask:

• By what criteria could one judge Windows to be a toy?
• What are the criteria for a software system to be a real OS?
• Are they merely expressing their own biases, or do they really have some objective measures to base these statements on?
• In what historical context did these phrases come into use, and in what groups? (I'm guessing Microsoft employees are out here.)

What I'm hoping for here is some perspective on the roots of these ideas and the nature of the people who express them. Or if there is a provable origin of these phrases then a link would be great!

Please avoid Windows bashing in this thread. It is tiresome and not at all the point. I'm looking for information, not evangelism.

Edit
I think this is a genuine meme. Web searches aren't very helpful due to the sheer number of results.

• Google "windows is a toy" (About 241,000 results)
• Steve Gibson says Windows is a toy. Gibson is an established assembly language programmer and security researcher who develops software for Windows users.

In my opinion *nix based systems make you think , whereas M$ and Mac are dumbed down to a point and click mentality. The other thing is windoze requires added software kind of reminiscent of "batteries not included" IE: antivirus, registry cleaners, defragging tools ...the list is seemingly endless.

The earliest reference I can find on Google is this discussion from 2002. The basis of the argument seems to be primarily uptime. Especially back in 2002, it wasn't unusual for Windows to have to be rebooted several times a day, while UNIX/Linux had uptime measured in years. The idea of doing serious work in the Windows environment was laughable.

My opinion about that:
While Unix was planned as a multiuser system for large systems, the first Windows systems were nothing more than addition for DOS, a simple single user system mostly intended for the home and small business market. That was also somewhat true for the Windows 9x-versions, and I think that Windows is called a toy for that. This is not anymore true for the versions based on the NT-kernel.
Nowadays I wouldn't think that any one of the Windows or Unix/Linux versions is not an real OS. One can argue about the quality, the openness, the technical base or the philosophy/politics/marketing-behaviour of the companies/communities that develop them. But neither of them is a thing that defines an OS.
As long as it can mediate the hardware and the applications it is doing what a real OS should do.

I think it is a matter of "us and them" mentality.

AFAIK there hasn't been a really great OS since DEC VMS.

UNIX and Linux have plenty of design flaws. (See recent threads on file locking for an example.)

Windows is an easy target. It's flaws are widely known and those flaws cause a lot of problems for Windows customers. That results in a lot of publicity in computer circles.

If UNIX and Linux were more widely used on the desktop then more of the vulnerabilities would be exploited and their reputations would suffer.

My point being that nothing is perfect. It is probably incorrect to say that the overall quality of one is better than the overall quality of another. Windows has its problems. UNIX and Linux have their problems.

I am an operating system agnostic. I use whatever OS works best for the job that I want to do. I used Slackware to rip my CD collection and make FLAC files because all the tools were there. I use Windows and WinAmp to play them back, because I notice a distinct loss of high frequency response in Linux. Whether it is the codecs or the ALSA sound card drivers I don't know. I admit that I am still using Windows 2000 because I refuse to pay Microsoft for an OS that deactivates itself when I modify my hardware. If you want steady employment in IT, it helps to know a little about both UNIX and Windows.

This doesn't exactly matter. I knew "educated people that could talk about 2012 apocalypse, aliense from andromeda (and telepathic communication with them), auras and such. An educated person can have a biased/unusual opinions/belief.

IMO, it is their subjective opinion.

IMO: You can't do that. If you are familiar with the system, then you can't call it a toy. The "toy" opinion probably came from somebody who believed that Windows machines are made for newbies, but IMO for a "toy" windows is waaay too complicated. For the same reason, you can't call Mac OS a toy - too complex. ZX-Spectrum ROM is closer to the "toy" than that, but I wouldn't call it a "toy" either. I think you could call OS a toy if it was written from scratch within 3..6 months by one person - with such amount of code it is a "toy", not an operating system. Anything bigger than that, however, is another story - people don't normally spend 25 years of teamwork making a single toy. Linux was a toy in the beginning.

(Subjective, personal opinion).
Something like that:

1. Protected mode support, starts in protected mode.
2. Real multitasking - threads.
3. Support for threading primitives - mutexes, critical sections, semaphores, etc
4. Support for I/O primtives - files, pipes(optional), memory mapping(optional).
5. Virtual memory
6. Support for external devices + ability to make a driver
7. Documented system API.
8. Kernel space/user space separation.
9. Support for memory security rings
10. Ability to run additional programs.

Something like that. Sometimes it is very hard to distinguish between "Non OS" and "real OS". Smartphone operating systems can be somewhere on the border line.

IMO: They're expressing their own biases, but some of them believe that they have some objective measures (which isn't true).

I'm quite certain the origin of this meme can be dated much earlier than 2002. It may very well have roots in the Win 3.x era when Windows was little more than a shell on top of DOS.

It's called "hyperbole," an exaggeration to make a point, not meant to be taken literally.

I do believe that Linux is superior to Windows, but anyone who has worked in a Windows NT/2000/2003 server environment knows that Windows is not a toy. Convoluted, confusing, and overly complex, but not a toy.

@ frankbell ,you forgot frustrating ;)

Wow, I can't believe the way you are going about your inquiry and you chose my comment as your trigger. And I didn't say Windows was a "toy". If I had to call it a toy, then I suppose I would have to qualify that description by saying it is a very tortuous toy.

At any rate, I find it amusing the wonder and mystery you are displaying as to why many people make such statements against Windows as if it's not obvious for those who have any professional experience with the two operating systems at all. Usually any complaints you come across will include the reasons for those complaints. There are countless explanations as to why Windows sucks and Unix is a "real OS". So, which of those explanations specifically do you have a hard time understanding? Surely, your not asking us to compile a list for you in this thread when Google would suffice?

I think your attempt to characterize the reality of Windows shortfalls as just due to some irrational meme is disingenuous in the least. You're feigning interesting like a concerned sociologist; pretty funny.

I think it would be MUCH more interesting, psychologically speaking, why a professional in IT or development, having at least 10 years experience with both Unix and Windows platforms, would rate Windows over Unix in general. THIS, I would suspect would be more attributed to something like a meme since upon close scrutiny any such judgment would be totally incorrect and baseless. We're talking about quality of engineering and usability... like a car, if you will. It's like the difference between a Porsche and a Ford.

I find it rather funny that you post this from an OS that sucks and is no real OS ;).
But anyways, instead of bringing a real explanation or any information to this thread, all you have to say is "Google will show you"?

Complexity is not a reason to disqualify something from being a toy. I think the point behind calling Windows a "toy operating system" is to say that the level of quality is low and that it is not suitable for high risk or "serious" ventures. It's like the difference between a toy rocket and the Space Shuttle. Of course, these are exaggerations to make a point. And, the point is all about quality/stability and usability/productivity... cost and risk, just about any measure Unix wins.

Let me ask the OP which OS would he suggest be in control of a nuclear power plant in his home town? The best Unix distribution/release or your choice of Windows platform? Which would you bet you and your families lives on? And, a serious hypothetical like this is warranted these days. The world is getting more and more complex and dependent on technology. Quality engineering is not just a luxury anymore. Our world cannot be running on toy-tech. Software developers already claim no fault for losses due to their products. We have to push back as much as we can by holding software products to ultra high standards. There is nothing to lose in doing that and everything to gain. These are not trivial issues. Microsoft has so much money that they literally have no excuse for the crapola they dish out. Windows should be flawless at this point with ZERO bugs. We are getting ripped-off; it's that simple. No excuse.

None of both.

Sorry I have to say that, but this statement clearly shows that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. It is simply impossible to develop an OS for a platform that diverse like the PC platform (in hardware terms) with that complexity (in hard- and software) with zero bugs. Any developer that knows what he is doing will confirm that.

Why is that funny? I have three unix servers for serious business and I am planning on replacing Windows on my laptop with unix as soon as I have the time. I don't see why all this is funny. It's funny that I paid good money for a new Windows 7 laptop to give Microsoft another chance to impress me and was disappointed yet again? You think it's funny when others are inconvenienced or ripped-off? Are you suggesting that I move to Linux 100% and THEN I will be allowed to complain??? When someone's car breaks down and they have to get it repaired, do you laugh at them if they complain?

You sound like you don't have your opinion since yesterday, so I assumed that you already knew that "Windows sucks". Why should it be different with Windows 7?

What I find funny is complaining with lack of information. Why did you buy Windows in the first place? Why not buy a laptop without OS and try Windows 7 with the free trial version?
You actually did not get ripped of, you donated your money because of lack of information.
Or in your car analogy: If you buy a new car, wouldn't you read the break-down statistics before buying? Wouldn't you make a test-drive to see if you really like your new car?

You seem to have missed the point. I am not attempting to characterize anything about Windows. I am not feigning my interest. The point of this thread is not to discuss Windows at all.

I am interested in the origin of the meme. I want to know when it started, who said it first and why. I want to know how it spread and in what circles. I want to know if my college professor was just full of crap. I can't learn anything if this thread becomes polluted with bias.

Please no more posts like this

You may be sorry, but you are also dead wrong my friend. Fixing bugs is just a matter of resources. Are you telling me that Microsoft doesn't have the capital to higher enough programmers to fix all their bugs? Especially the ones that have been around for 10-15 years? I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about. Microsoft netted over 18 BILLION in PROFIT last year. You don't think that will hire enough programmers if not the best architects money can buy and give us A-1 quality software? 18 billion / 100K = 180,000 developers. Hehe, man, I don't know what to say if you can't see there is room for massive improvement.

BTW, I wanted to comment on the "don't bash windows" comment by someone. Guess what? Microsoft and Windows aren't people. They will not get their feelings hurt. It's OK to bash inanimate abstract objects... I promise ;o)

Please no more posts like this. Please don't drag the thread off topic. You are welcome to start your own thread about an OS for nuclear power plants, or whatever you like.

Thanks for participating.

Well, since you want to pick my decision making process apart, the reason why I bought Windows 7 is because I had gotten used to Widnows 7 and assumed that the Windodws OS had improved over time. So, I guess I gave Windows 7 the benefit of the doubt. So, that was my mistake. Are you happy now? Are you rolling on the floor laughing at my bad decision? Why must you make this a personal attack instead of remaining on the issue that is the lack of quality of the Windows OS? Focusing on my mistake is not the point of this thread. Instead of addressing my points, you are bashing me. Please mind the forum rules.

Yeah, and one crappy driver will bring down the whole OS. Besides that, according to Wikipedia the Windows Server 2003 contains approximately 50 million lines of code, that is a gigantic mass. And fixing bugs will some times bring up new bugs in the code. In Windows this is just the basic operation system. Debian 5.0, with all of its 29.000 packages, brings up 324 million lines of code, so the basic operation system should be a good amount smaller than the Windows basic operating system. No software in this magnitude and complexity can be absolutely flawless. And you really think, developing the next version of an OS is just bringing down the bugs? No research? No ideas that get abandoned? No design team? Every change in the new version is a potential bug, and not all bugs can be tracked down with simple manpower.

You are right, bashing Microsoft will not hurt Microsoft. There are just two things why I think bashing Microsoft is somewhat harmful:
1. The OP wanted a clean discussion about his topic.
2. The bashers look to everyone else to zealots and mindless fanboys.

Now let's get back on topic.

Hey Telengard. You are out of line. If someone is going to attack me personally instead of my arguments, then I will respond to defend myself. You need to make your comment to Tobi. Leave the moderating to the moderators.

If you think that I a personally attacking you feel free to report the specific post to a moderator.

But anyways, you are contradicting yourself: In my opinion it is rather pointless to discuss with you any further topic. Welcome to my ignore list.

Exactly. :hattip:

You are free to defend yourself against Tobi by PM or in your own thread. Please don't bring the flame war here.

Right.

Nooooo, I never said all of that! Yes, work on design, do more research! Of course, all of the above! There is so much room for improvement! I CAN be done! Stop giving them excuses! $18,000,000,000 <- look at all of those zeros! I just don't get the feeling Microsoft is even trying to improve. Why can't they take us to a whole new level of OS? A revolution! They have to power and the resources. Think positive man!

Ok, I don't think the opinion that Unix is a better OS is due to a meme. And, a meme by definition is irrational, so that is what the OP is implying. So, that's why I think his premise is unfair to begin with.

Telengard, I'm afraid you set yourself up for this. You characterized the opinion of those who prefer Unix over Windows as suffering from a meme. A meme is completely irrational. Do you think readers aren't going to know what you were clearly implying??? You decided to do your own attack under the guise of being intellectual. Nice try. Sorry, but you've been called on it. I hold my views based on experience, not because I'm suffering from a mind virus (which is what a meme is in case you didn't know.)

"A meme is an idea that behaves like a virus--that moves through a population, taking hold in each person it infects."

I have use Windows 98 up to 2005. Then jumped straight to the deep water - Gentoo Linux

My experience is

In Windows :

I remember working with Windows 98, Netscape, MS office, NO antivirus or firewall, and i cant say i was dissatsfied with it. I left it just because i found out about Linux and decided to try, then didnt want to go back

I am the tech support for several Windows boxes : family, friends, others (paid), even helped the school tech guy several times

I do eventual format / install / help me / data recovery, and when i woked with the tech i also configured some networking (basic stuff)

With that said I never installed or dealt (other than surfed the internet) with Vista or 7

In Linux :

I use it every day since 2005 on desktop (Gentoo 2005-2007 Arch 2007-now)

Now on several desktops, been thru great times (ehen KDE 4 came out), bad times (when my computer woul'dnt support KDE 4 or when glibc guys decided to drop support for my router), and had experience with Linux on desktop



I would not call Windows a toy, but there is stuff i just love about linux which is not there in Windows :

Linux gives you powerful tools : package manager, powerful CLI tools, STDOUT error messages. . . . even stuff that you can install in Windows but it just makes you love Linux (or KDE) when it is allready there : text editor with highlighting, hex editor, and so on. When I run into a problem on Linux i am capable of solving it with the tools that came with the system. When I run into a problem on Windows and cant find a solution within 5 min google i just format it, cause i have no tools or clue what the problem is or how to solve it

Linux is modular : want different desktop ? get one or all together. want super duper kernel ? compile one. X makes troubles ? download earlier version and install it

Linux is mobile : install to your hard drive - move it to another computer - copy the installed OS to a usb flash - use this flash as live medium - install it on another computer - use it to recover data on a failed Windows computer - get online on a different computer than it was ever before andupdate it - copy the contents to a blank computer to get working desktop in 5 minutes - continue your pokemon journey

Linux won't stop you : it won't test if it's pirated then cease working in the least convenient moment, it won't have DRM built in, it is (legally) ok to do all the "mobile" stuff with it

And besides, Linux IS a "hacker operating system" and IS a "open source cult" thing. You see the difference in Linux forums vs Windows forums, and i am speaking about the general mass here and not about the fanboys. Sometimes the actual software developer is writing in the same forum as you

When you use Linux and the above attributes of Linux become the standard you expect from a computer, it is tempting to call a "toy" a system that does not satisfy them

When my dad was an HPUX admin in the late 80's, it was a commonly held belief that Windows was written in crayon.

I say this to people mainly because I only keep Windows for playing games on - everything else I can do with Linux. And even there Linux is catching up. There are a few major titles that I enjoy playing that the producers see fit to only release under windows so I'm stuck with that annoying Windows partition.

So for me Windows is literally just a glorified games platform now.

Nice one! Whole room just LOL'd

It is. Once a product made it through mutliple iteration (develop, test, release) and reached certain size, it is not a "toy" anymore.

You're derailing the thread into flamewar. I'd suggest you to stop.

Your request is impossible to fulfill. Software of this size cannot be bug free. This also includes Linux system.

You are mistaken. It is not a matter of resources. It is human nature to make mistakes, so bugs will always remain. To get rid of bugs, you'll need to remove people from software development.

It doesn't matter. Once development team reached certain size, adding more people or resources will either change nothing or make things worse.

I don't see any flaming going on, only provocation by others by attacking me personally to which I have restrained myself quite nicely. I'd suggest you calm down and not make false accusations. That could be viewed as disrespectful and underhanded. It would be better to focus on the other excellent replies to this post which make good points and I think answers the OP's questions very well (while ignoring his implication that Unix proponents are suffering from memes).

So, back to the topic at hand. I take issue with the OP's premise that Unix proponents are suffering from some sort of meme, or any other delusion. Therefore, discussing the why and how this alleged trumped-up meme originated is not worthy. So far, no one as been able to provide any evidence that Unix proponents are infected with memes. Of course, the whole idea is preposterous, but I'm willing to stand by and hear the evidence. Maybe someone should email Richard Dawkins and ask him what he thinks. But, being as intelligent as he is, I would bet that he's a Unix guy.

I think one has to look at the history.

IBM and Microsoft started working on a GUI (yielding Windows and OS2 when they fell out) because people were looking at the Mac, Amiga, and Atari ST and saying "Why can't we have something like that?" They were providing a new feature for small computers that were seldom networked. The problems started as PCs got bigger, as they started networking, and as Microsoft tried to muscle in on the server market. Scaling up is never easy.

Linux started because people wanted to get a PC with the same sort of OS that you had on mainframes and servers. Obviously the result worked on big computers, because the target of their emulation did, and it worked on small computers because they were simpler.

I suspect those who say "Windows is a toy" are those who have been faced with a Windows server and been frustrated by the GUI getting in their way: like mending a bike with oven gloves on.

That's what I say! :D
No, seriously.

Incorrect. The first GUI interface has been created in 1973 by xerox. See Xerox Alto.

In my opinion, the reason Windows is sometimes called a "toy" is becasue it has a dumbed down point-and-click interface and tries to protect you from yourself all the time (keeping you from understanding or modifying the OS in the process).

Unix, on the other hand, is very modular and you can modify any part of it, and it also has all these powerful commands that let you do even the most complex, boring, repetitive tasks automatically with a few keystrokes.

When I first started with Linux, the thing that really hit me the most was its modularity. I couldn't stop thinking about how amazing it is to have an OS made up of interchangable building blocks that you are free to understand, replace, and experiment with, especailly compared to the impenetrable, secret black box that is Windows.

I don't believe I ever attacked you, directly or indirectly. I apologized for linking to your post in another thread because you seemed to disapprove of having it associated with this thread. I have openly pleaded with you to stop bringing bias into this thread, seemingly to no avail.

Fine, you may disagree with my use of the word meme. So far I've struggled with how to express my interest in this topic in such a way as to garner useful, informative responses. As I started the thread it really is on me to explain myself the best I can.

What I would view as a positive contribution to the thread is historical context. When was the first time you ever heard either of the two phrases from the OP used, either as exact quotes or paraphrased? Who used them and what did they mean?

For purposes of this thread I'm not interested in debate over the merits of Windows vs. Linux (or anything else). Those threads exist in great quantity, and the debate is practically endless.

Actually, it was in this thread. No adult person I ever communicated (online/offline) with (before reading this particular thread) called windows a toy and not a real OS. There were bunch of people claiming that linux is better, there were bunch of people saying windows is for *noobs* ( != "toy OS", and != "not a real OS"), there were few people saying "I dislike Microsoft because of their business practices", and so on, there were mac haters, windows haters, linux haters, mac fanboys, linux fanboys, etc, but I do not remember even a single adult person ever saying or writing that "windows OS is a toy and not a real OS". Maybe I forgot, of course.

As for "Unix is a real OS" - well, the phrase is stating the obvious. Unix is an operating system.

I remember at least one of my college professors saying these things. I didn't know at the time whether he was joking or not, nor could I tell you exactly what he meant. Wish I'd interrogated him further about it, but that was a very busy time for me.

boring.. get this thread in the linux vs windows thing.

Since this has gone all over the show, it is now locked. I think the original question was not focused enough (or incorrectly focused) (or our members are incorrectly focused) to get enough meaningful responses.