What do you need on your desktop?

[mikeymike]

Stuff that needs/wants to be ported (typically from other platforms), IMO:

apps: Mozilla, OpenOffice
games: Quake 3, Worms 2
services: Apache, mysql, PHP

'Classic' Amiga software that should be ported, IMO:

IBrowse (well, we're going to get that anyway :-)), YAM, WordWorth, Final Writer, SnoopDOS.

I would suggest old Amiga games but that'd make this thread fly way out of control :-)

[mikeymike]

@ downix

To name off specific apps is being a short-sighted fool

Thank you for calling me a fool!  Any more insults you'd like to throw into the conversation, or will that do for now?

Did you consider that I named specific apps because I happen to like/prefer those specific apps?

If you say you want 'an office package' running on OS4, would you settle for any old one, or one that you know has features that work the way you want to use them for?

[mikeymike]

As "OO" is vastly over used and overrated, care to elaborate on what you mean?

@ downix

Hey! My bedroom is object-orientated... there's the desk, the bed, the wardrobe.... :-)

... I really want to know what a  "fully object orientated desktop experience" is, considering the only place I've heard the term OO used is to describe Java, and I know why it's referred to as that, but a 'desktop experience'?

[mikeymike]

I mean OO in a similar manner to how OS/2 had an OO desktop:  Each program was built-up from other components, and when a new program added new capabilities, those same capabilities were availible to other programs to utilize.

From that point of view you could say that Microsoft operating systems have an 'objected orientated' setup, but you'd still find that a million Java advocates would want to kill you for using the term like that.

And wasn't it you that said:

So how about we keep this focused on needs

Surely your needs are for it to all 'work properly', not to tell a load of developers who they should be doing their jobs.

[mikeymike]

@ whabang

1)A _single user_ OS.

Why does it have to be single user only?

[mikeymike]

I don't like to log in every time that I start my computer, and I don't like the XP-style login screen either. I want an OS which is made to be used by one user. I don't need the capability to switch from one user to another, while still running the programs from the other user. I don't need the possibility to run my computer in a major network.
On the other hand, an OS doesn't have to be designed to be a single user OS. Who knows, I might need those features one day...

Did you know you can completely switch off the need to log in at all on Win2k/XP (and I don't mean use auto-logon)?  I can point you in the direction of all the relevant info you need to do that, if you want.

The advantages of a multi user OS may not be obvious straight away, but a decent OS security model is usually the greatest benefit, including a filesystem that allows per-user permissions (even not allowing the system to access particular files, but allowing your user to).

[mikeymike]

Add integrated support for a bunch of protocols apart from TCP/IP to that. SMB

You want integrated support for the most buggy and security-hole'd  filesharing protocol in existence?

[mikeymike]

@ whabang

:-)

What's so wrong with FTP I have to ask... and don't tell me people seriously need to directly print files to a printer on another PC... even I just FTP the file to the other PC at home and print it off from there, and both computers are running Windows! :-)

(It's been years since I've needed to print something from my Amiga)

[mikeymike]

@ whabang

Not without using auto-logon... HOw do you do that?

I don't have XP handy, but I doubt it's different from Win2k Pro in this respect.  There's two ways of changing that setting, one is when you've just reinstalled, it asks you whether you want to log in every time or not.

The other way is in Control Panel > Users & Passwords: the check box:

"Users must enter a user name and password to use this computer"

Personally I prefer having to log in as it stops other people with local access from being tempted to snoop

[mikeymike]

@ Seehund

Having support for it is one thing, but I'd much prefer it to be a third party piece of software.  Your use of the term 'integrated support' worried me as to what you might mean.  I certainly wouldn't want it to be installed by default either, even if you could fully uninstall that component without screwing everything else up.

There's probably also potential legal problems if an official company tries to make an implementation of SMB.  Let the samba guys do it :-)

[mikeymike]

@ whabang

It's probably something only people who've actually manually reinstalled Win2k/XP would know for sure that that feature exists, so I don't think the DOH factor is that high :-)

Oh, and if anyone is deluding themselves that they're "reinstalling Windows" by using a recovery CD, stop it now!  Be a man and reinstall it properly!

:-)