But this would basically just be a rant if I didn't throw this out to the wonderful people out there. What do you guys think? Is Windows 10 a re-skinned XP?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is Windows 10 a re-skin?
- Thread starter Michael Goff
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
But this would basically just be a rant if I didn't throw this out to the wonderful people out there. What do you guys think? Is Windows 10 a re-skinned XP?
If Windows 10 was all new code, Windows 7 apps wouldn't work...
Very un-Microsoft to code anything nowadays from the "ground up" like Apple, because Microsoft cares too much about backward compatibility. That's Windows 7 stuff/drivers would still be ok on Windows 10.
As we all now, anything fresh, tends to break, as Apple is also finding that out now
Every OS uses legacy code. There's fragments of the newest macOS dating back nearly 20 years. @MacDawg hit the nail on the head.
The argument gets more confusing seeing as MS is constantly pushing out updates to W10 where they refactor the code within. This is more noticeable if you're on the 'fast-ring' of updates as opposed to the annual cycle, or the 14-18 month deferral cycle.
My suggestion is to avoid silly posts like the one you've quoted. If someone makes a grand claim like that, they better have facts to back up their statement. Paper statements like that are less worthy than used toilet paper.
If Windows is simply a reskin, so is any Linux distro. You can install just about any x86 Linux distro on ancient hardware. And it'll work.
The argument gets more confusing seeing as MS is constantly pushing out updates to W10 where they refactor the code within. This is more noticeable if you're on the 'fast-ring' of updates as opposed to the annual cycle, or the 14-18 month deferral cycle.
My suggestion is to avoid silly posts like the one you've quoted. If someone makes a grand claim like that, they better have facts to back up their statement. Paper statements like that are less worthy than used toilet paper.
If Windows is simply a reskin, so is any Linux distro. You can install just about any x86 Linux distro on ancient hardware. And it'll work.
Last edited:
All the major versions of Windows since XP are "Windows NT kernel" systems. With Windows 2000, they stopped giving them direct version numbers - but the version numbers are still buried in the systems if you go searching.
Windows NT 3.1 was the first version of Windows NT - numbered 3.1 to match the same numbering as the consumer Windows 3.1
Then came Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 was Windows NT 5.0
Windows XP was Windows NT 5.1
Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP x64 were Windows NT 5.2
Windows Vista was Windows NT 6.0 (as was Windows Server 2008)
Windows 7 was..... Windows NT 6.1 (7 really was much more a "reskin of Vista" than anything else.) (as was Windows Server 2008 R2.)
Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012 were Windows NT 6.2
Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2 were Windows NT 6.3 (that's right, "8.0 -> 8.1" was the same internally as Vista -> 7.)
Windows 10 is... Windows NT 10.0.
Yes, they bumped the version number up to match, but the core is as different from Windows 7 as Windows 7 is from XP. Or XP is from Windows NT 4.0. While no, they didn't "rewrite the whole thing from scratch," a significant portion of 10 *WAS* rewritten from the Vista/7/8/8.1 code line. It is far more than just a reskin. Even Windows 8 was more than just a "skin" - the "Modern"/"Metro" interface uses completely brand-new code, encompassing the "Universal Windows Platform" application interface - something that does not exist in Windows 7 or previous.
Windows NT 3.1 was the first version of Windows NT - numbered 3.1 to match the same numbering as the consumer Windows 3.1
Then came Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 was Windows NT 5.0
Windows XP was Windows NT 5.1
Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP x64 were Windows NT 5.2
Windows Vista was Windows NT 6.0 (as was Windows Server 2008)
Windows 7 was..... Windows NT 6.1 (7 really was much more a "reskin of Vista" than anything else.) (as was Windows Server 2008 R2.)
Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012 were Windows NT 6.2
Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2 were Windows NT 6.3 (that's right, "8.0 -> 8.1" was the same internally as Vista -> 7.)
Windows 10 is... Windows NT 10.0.
Yes, they bumped the version number up to match, but the core is as different from Windows 7 as Windows 7 is from XP. Or XP is from Windows NT 4.0. While no, they didn't "rewrite the whole thing from scratch," a significant portion of 10 *WAS* rewritten from the Vista/7/8/8.1 code line. It is far more than just a reskin. Even Windows 8 was more than just a "skin" - the "Modern"/"Metro" interface uses completely brand-new code, encompassing the "Universal Windows Platform" application interface - something that does not exist in Windows 7 or previous.
old code may be there, but that doesn't mean it still has its users today. old code is ok to have, but if there is no reason behind it, either from system function point of view, developer point of view, or manufacture point of view, then its useless.
Yes MacOS may have more legacy code than Windows, but it "can't" be used because Apple's limiting on newer OS. and "depreciated' over time. yet its just stuck in the OS, defunct.
Open up Console,,, you'll find depreciated calls in there, even on Sierra, because it still works *sorta*, but would work better with new call in place. Yet I don't think Apple "force" it on devs.
Last edited:
Based on specificity the user can identify, no. Of course there's a very high chance Finder will have code hailing from OS 9. Which wouldn't be at all surprising. You don't reinvent the wheel when moving forward. Mojave is faster than the previous macOS because it uses CPU time more wisely. That's a very basic and over simplification of the subject matter. Doesn't mean a full re-write from the ground up of the file system structure and core system took place.
Apple doesn't care about supporting old products because they don't have enough market share for it to matter much. 9 out of 10 times, if you have a problem with Windows, it's the result of the software and not the OS. This is the same with macOS.
The notion that Apple writes an OS from scratch every 1-2 years is preposterous. Apple writes their own OS and gets to decide what components go into their computers. They can decide to deny updates to computers running x hardware and allow computers running y hardware.
Last edited:
I think I can understand and make a case for both perspectives. Without a link to the full thread it is hard to tell but I suspect "re-skin" was a loose choice of phrasing to try an encapsulate the idea that some screens saw no change (outside of inherited window border/chrome updates) in the XP-Vista-7-10 cycle. Foundations like like the NTFS file system and the registry are also present in all versions. These are not bad things, but they are not new things either.
It would be inaccurate to think of new releases as re-skins, but it would equally be inaccurate to think of new releases as wholly new products. macOS High Sierra is an ongoing refinement of NeXTSTEP 0.8 (more specifically Mac OS X 10.0) in the same way Windows 10 April 2018 Update is an ongoing refinement of Windows NT 3.1 (more specifically Windows XP/NT 5.1).
What gets classified as "new" in the evolution of these systems is fairly arbitrary as well. For instance Windows XP added significant new functionality over its lifetime and three service packs. Similarly Apple added major functionality like Intel (x86) support and the Mac App Store as minor point releases to Tiger (10.4) and Snow Leopard (10.6) respectively.
Uhmmmmmmm........
Wondering where @I7guy is in this discussion ...
Personal and professional opinion: No and No.
Wondering where @I7guy is in this discussion ...
Personal and professional opinion: No and No.
Poking the bear?Uhmmmmmmm........
Wondering where @I7guy is in this discussion ...
Personal and professional opinion: No and No.
[doublepost=1528910352][/doublepost]
What does a consumer think about the differences between xp and 10 or 7 and 10?
Can one get the same workflow accomplished in both environments assuming 32 bit? What workflow can’t be accomplished?
1. The filesystem is still NTFS, and it's (now that comparable HFS+ was replaced) the weakest filesystem in use by modern OS's. Yes, even weaker than ext4 in Chromebooks and Androids.
2. There are still left overs of Windows Vista era in icons and stuff.
3. Still has a monolithic registry.
4. Still nothing comparable to Fusion Drive (nobody has, though)
5. Even today, some areas (like device manager) don't support HiDPI, and others, they behave incorrectly.
6. Has two control panels, seriously, and both are equally unorganized compared to macOS, even GNOME has a better solution, which they should, as it's built by a community of "geeks" and not by a corporation that employs not only software engineers, but lots of humanists.
7. DLL-hell is still not resolved, Microsoft still doesn't use bundles.
Etc. etc. etc.
2. There are still left overs of Windows Vista era in icons and stuff.
3. Still has a monolithic registry.
4. Still nothing comparable to Fusion Drive (nobody has, though)
5. Even today, some areas (like device manager) don't support HiDPI, and others, they behave incorrectly.
6. Has two control panels, seriously, and both are equally unorganized compared to macOS, even GNOME has a better solution, which they should, as it's built by a community of "geeks" and not by a corporation that employs not only software engineers, but lots of humanists.
7. DLL-hell is still not resolved, Microsoft still doesn't use bundles.
Etc. etc. etc.
Any information to back up that claim of "weakest"? The number one goal of a filesystem is to not corrupt your files, and NTFS is still excellent at avoiding corruption.
So, you'll knock an OS because it hasn't changed icons recently. I actually consider that an advantage - I don't have to learn a new icon for an old friend. And "and stuff" could use some explanation.
I consider the registry a better alternative than random plists and conf files scattered across the filesystem.
How many Apple systems even support fusion drives?
You're really going to compare Windows support of resolution independence to Apple's "100% or 200%" crap?
I think that it is a feature that the traditional control panel is still around while the "settings" panel is being improved.
So, you like ".so hell"? And do you have some examples of common applications where the WinSxS subsystem doesn't eliminate DLL hell?
Blah. Blah. Blah.
No, it's not excelent at that.
NTFS doesn't have lower/uppercase distinction.
NTFS doesn't have snapshots.
NTFS doesn't have containers.
NTFS doesn't have snapshots.
NTFS doesn't have de-duplication on consumer versions of Windows (non "Server" line of OS's that cost a bunch.
NTFS is single-threaded.
NTFS limits file names to 255 UTF-16 chars.
NTFS is a good FS... for the 90's. Microsoft tried to create an APFS-like FS with ReFS, and failed.
You can call that an "advantage".
But it's not because Microsoft reskinned part of the OS, and left leftovers.
So it's inconsistent.
Yes it is.
But macOS is not, the plists are stored in ~/Library/Preferences, and they organized buy App bundle identifier, not randomly stored in a stupid enormous tree.
All of them.
Yes, Apple is system is undoubtedly better.
At it's not "100% or 200%".
More inconsistency.
Microsoft doesn't give a crap, admit it. They just go on with "most users are stupid, and everything they need is on the "new" control panel. The rest is on Linux and macOS already.
macOS dynamic libraries are .dylibs, and there's no ".so" hell like in Linux.
In macOS, dynamic libraries are organized in their respective bundles and stored in well known folders.
Since you didn't really support any of your claims (the "Yes, Apple is system is undoubtedly better." for example is ludicrous), I don't feel like it will accomplish anything to refute your post line by line.
One thing though, shows how divorced from reality you are:
Hint: the answer is not "all of them".
One thing though, shows how divorced from reality you are:
Fusion requires two drives. How many Apple systems support two or more drives?
Hint: the answer is not "all of them".
The answer is all of them.
You are the one divorced from reality.
After my list of arguments and justifications you just went with "he is a fanboy".
Well, good luck with your Windows PC and failed updates and cryptolockers that affect millions of computers, even those who are managed by IT professionals.
Last edited:
Having lived with both Windows, from version 3.0 through 10, and Mac from OSX 10.0 all the through to today, it is my personal observation that Windows has improved tremendously over the years. But so has the Mac OS. The big difference seems to be that MS took some time after Windows 8 to learn some lessons. Windows 10 is actually a good OS even with it's own minor niggles. I don't like how the updates are done with times where I wonder if anything is happening. But you know what? MacOS has some of the exact same issues. And doesn't always fix what is broke but rather keeps adding new stuff that may or not be ready, or needed. Exactly like Windows.
Bottom line, either OS is functional depending on what program you want to use. The old adage of the early 90's still applies, pick the software you want to use then buy the system that runs it. Worked back then for Quicken, still seems to work today.
Bottom line, either OS is functional depending on what program you want to use. The old adage of the early 90's still applies, pick the software you want to use then buy the system that runs it. Worked back then for Quicken, still seems to work today.
I have never had problems with updates applying when I don't have the spare time with macOS, while on Windows, it's always happening. Many people just disable Windows updates, as they break the system from now and then, and most people are not that tech savvy to solve the problem.
Last edited:
If your updates are interrupting you when you don't want, then you haven't set up the windows update schedule properly. It's an issue that seems to crop up mostly on Mac forums and in every case that I am aware of, folks needed to go in and look at their schedule for when to apply updates. We have NEVER had W10 updates occur at times that were inconvenient for us.
Is this what you meant by your post?
1) ntfs have a several features and there is also Refs.
2) mac os still have older icons than that
3) not that monolithic. There are several registry files on your computer and when you log on it is seen as one but there are many components behind. Each user have it's own registry hive being loaded/unloaded at each session or multisession.
4) I can't see why a fusion drive would be a goal. I only go full SSD
5) true, this is a valid point! but you can fix it. It will take several years to fix, they've been honest about that.
6) same as 5
I use Linux as my main desktop, but your example is also wrong. Gnome have it's own control panel but only a few settings. You must install GnomeTweaks which is another tool to manage extensions and the other settings. Which is kinda worse, because the 2nd panel is not even installed!
7) It's not really a problem. You have system wide DLL and if the app wants to use specific DLL, they simply put their own version in the app folder. You can also link the libraries inside the exe without generating DLL.
They're plenty of wrongs with Windows, I simply don't agree to your list!
And it's worse than APFS in any way.
Sure! /s
Basically a mess then... there's the registry, but it's not the only thing, and there's an hack for multiple users...
You can go full SSD with any OS...
I use Linux as my main desktop, but your example is also wrong. Gnome have it's own control panel but only a few settings. You must install GnomeTweaks which is another tool to manage extensions and the other settings. Which is kinda worse, because the 2nd panel is not even installed!
What I know about GNOEM is what some friends of mine have shown me about, they use GNOME3, and it's done well, for what I saw...
The whole point of being dynamic is that it's now static.
Fine, I'm not forcing anyone to agree.
LOL, I have had MacOS updates "brake" (break) the system also. It's not just Windows that has the issue. I have friends that won't update their Mac until our Apple User Group gives a majority okay.
- Status