This is how a windows machine looks in the network panel in MacOS.

ok, and...?

photo realistic

File: sheep apple repair.png (9KB, 495x159px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 495x159px

>>62221103

>>62221103
>MacOS
>>>/toy/

>>62221205
linux>MacOS>Windows

File: Screen shot 2011-11-09 at 12.33.31 PM.png (194KB, 967x749px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 967x749px

>>62221103
old news but still funny

>>62221103
kek

>>62221103
how does a gnu/linux machine look like

>>62221103
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

File: Windows-10-BSOD-fLIKR.jpg (30KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1366x768px

>>62221103
they need to update that icon, it's a sideways frowny face now.
>tfw winshit still BSODs regularly
After all these years, why still?

Imagine being one of the people on /g/ - of which there are many - who will literally get angry IRL at this.

>>62223121
>After all these years, why still?
Because Windows code is never written from scratch. They simply take the latest stable install then, customize it and debug a little, then release it again.

Proof? Windows XP has Win31 files in the file system folders, Windows XP fresh install has IE6 registry entries in the exact same place they would be of a IE6 install on a fresh Win95 system.

>>62223121
yeah why don't macs ever crash?

Lol ahsha vluescewwn xddd
Um drunk lol

>>62223198
>IE6
>Win95

>>62223230
sorry.. meant to say IE4. been a while

>>62223121
>winshit still BSODs regularly
false, in fact the whole "regular BSOD" thing only ever existed with 9x, NT is and always has been remarkably stable. If your system is crashing it is most likely not Windows' fault, by far the main causes of a crash is poorly written 3rd party drivers, followed by malfunctioning hardware.

>>62223198
>Because Windows code is never written from scratch.
Why would anyone do that? No operating system does that between regular versions and for good reason. Please read https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/

NT has no need to be rewritten from scratch, despite the meme about Windows being a hacked together Frankenstein-esque mess, the Win2k source leaks showed that under the hood it's actually very well written. Of course NT has evolved since 5.0, but not radically so.

>Proof? Windows XP has Win31 files in the file system folders
They include holdovers from old systems for backwards compatibility purposes and because it's familiar to users, I knew quite a few people who still used the program manager as their shell over Explorer back in the day. It's not like they accidentally included them.

>Windows XP fresh install has IE6 registry entries in the exact same place they would be of a IE6 install on a fresh Win95 system.
IE6 doesn't run on 95, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're talking about 98. I would assume that the same software creates the same registry keys no matter what system it runs on, not sure what this has to do with the quality of Windows' code.

>>62223504
>Despite the meme about Windows being a hacked together Frankenstein-esque mess, the Win2k source leaks showed that under the hood it's actually very well written
>HACK HACK HACK UGLY HACK
It's not a meme, it's a clusterfuck in there.

>>62223504
>They include holdovers from old systems for backwards compatibility purposes
Explain to me why would you include "Program Manager" in Windows XP?