Windows 7 should be Windows 11

Mystere · 10 Dec 2014

Rickkins said:

The point is, for me, multi-user capability is one thing, as an option, but for a very large number of people who are never ever gonna have more than one user on their computer, it's more of an annoyance than anything else.

PC=Personal Computer.
Get it..??
(oh, and who gives a toss about unix...??)

Except that you don't have a single-user computer. You have a multi-user computer that only one human user is using.

Multi-user is not an option, and every user of windows, including you is currently right now running multiple users (at least 5 of them) on your computer simultaneously. Just not multiple human users. As such, you are dead wrong when you say "a very large number of people who are never ever gonna have more than one user on their computer", because it's impossible to NOT have more than one user.

Don't confuse Human beings who sit at a keyboard with operating system accounts called users.

Rickkins · 10 Dec 2014

Well now you're just being deliberately obtuse, and my morning gallon of coffee has yet to kick in...

Lady Fitzgerald · 10 Dec 2014

Mystere said:

Lady Fitzgerald said:

Oppsie! I responded to the wrong post. sorry!

Lol. That's a relief. I was actually quite shocked by your remark, and thought my world view had changed

I'm telling you, old age sucks!

Jody Thornton · 10 Dec 2014

Lady Fitzgerald said:

Jody Thornton said:

Why should he "get over it"? He's correct. Unix has been multi-user since it's inception in 1969. It's a smart architechural design.

H shouldn't. I should pay more attention o which post I'm responding to.

Haaaaa - no worries. Hey, it's all good.

Jody Thornton · 10 Dec 2014

Mystere said:

Rickkins said:

The point is, for me, multi-user capability is one thing, as an option, but for a very large number of people who are never ever gonna have more than one user on their computer, it's more of an annoyance than anything else.

PC=Personal Computer.
Get it..??
(oh, and who gives a toss about unix...??)

Except that you don't have a single-user computer. You have a multi-user computer that only one human user is using.

Multi-user is not an option, and every user of windows, including you is currently right now running multiple users (at least 5 of them) on your computer simultaneously. Just not multiple human users. As such, you are dead wrong when you say "a very large number of people who are never ever gonna have more than one user on their computer", because it's impossible to NOT have more than one user.

Don't confuse Human beings who sit at a keyboard with operating system accounts called users.

Well, just to be complete, he could have a single user computer. OS/2 and Win9x allowed such configurations. But the way I see it, that represents a poor and unsafe quality level of computer use. That's like saying, "We used to smoke in restaurants, and I wish we could go back to those carefree days", but now that's considered in most jurisdictions to be operating below safety code.

Mystere · 10 Dec 2014

Jody Thornton said:

Well, just to be complete, he could have a single user computer. OS/2 and Win9x allowed such configurations. But the way I see it, that represents a poor and unsafe quality level of computer use. That's like saying, "We used to smoke in restaurants, and I wish we could go back to those carefree days", but now that's considered in most jurisdictions to be operating below safety code.

Well, what I meant by "impossible" was not that it was impossible for a computer to be single user, but rather that the design of windows is such that it's impossible. It's been this way since Windows NT was first created in the late 80's (and current Windows is based on this early NT design).

Windows would have to be completely redesigned to make it single-user.