|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 203 responses total. |
vivekm1234
|
|
response 72 of 203:
| 
Feb 1 15:19 UTC 2007 |
Re #68: I totally agree that Windows is a piece of shit from a programmers
or computer scientist/engineers point of view..
Re #71: Correction, everyone did not have a DEC. A very small percentage of
the total worlds population did have a DEC. That's not quite the case with
Windows. Most people today that can afford a computer have Windows on it.
The DEC period wasn't known for home computing - imho (at least in India/
Asia).
One is forced to use Windows through market inertia. Openoffice does not
format Word documents reliably, i'll have problems opening .ppt's. If i
go to an architect's office, he isn't going to have Linux or OpenOffice
or StarOffice. Same thing applies in my computer lab wrt Matlab. If i
had to make a presentation in college it's more likely that they'd have a
Windows box ready and waiting. Then there are my P2P apps, one or two
of them don't work on Win2K without wine and major headache. My Dad
knows and is familiar with Excel - he doesn't want to sit around learning
and familiarising himself with StarOffice. Then there are the various
distro's. I don't want to spend time hunting around wondering where to click
when i got to make a class or transfer files - some colleges may go with
KDE other's with Gnome and some others with something-else.
Unless there are compelling reasons to move away from Win2K i won't move
and that's my point. There are no compelling reasons and it would be
impossible given the current state of development Linux is in given the
market penetrance that Windows has.
Nothing better illustrates this philosophy better than gardenweb. The interface
is lousy when you compare it with NNTP/Grex, but to a horticulturist it's a
familiar easy to use interface that requires little or no extra effort.
Lecturing him about the wonders of Grex/NNTP isn't going to bring him here.
What he would want are concrete reasons why he should (freedom of speech is one
that i can think off) but gardenweb may curtail your freedom occasionally
or trample on a user occasionally and that to most ppl is acceptable.
JFTR i love Linux and when i'm not P2Ping that's what i mostly use.
|
twenex
|
|
response 73 of 203:
|
Feb 1 15:30 UTC 2007 |
Re #68: I totally agree that Windows is a piece of shit from a programmers
or computer scientist/engineers point of view..
I would argue that makes it a POS from everyone's point of view, because
people who program a POS are going to make it inflexible and full of holes,
etc.
Re #71: Correction, everyone did not have a DEC. A very small percentage of
the total worlds population did have a DEC. That's not quite the case with
Windows. Most people today that can afford a computer have Windows on it.
The DEC period wasn't known for home computing - imho (at least in India/
Asia).
OK, yeah I should have said that most people /who worked on computers/, used
DEC's.
But note that history is repeating itself - Unix grew in use on DEC's /despite
the fact/ that DEC hated it, wouldn't supply it, and wouldn't support it.
One is forced to use Windows through market inertia. Openoffice does not
format Word documents reliably, i'll have problems opening .ppt's. If i
go to an architect's office, he isn't going to have Linux or OpenOffice
or StarOffice. Same thing applies in my computer lab wrt Matlab. If i
had to make a presentation in college it's more likely that they'd have a
Windows box ready and waiting. Then there are my P2P apps, one or two
of them don't work on Win2K without wine and major headache. My Dad
knows and is familiar with Excel - he doesn't want to sit around learning
and familiarising himself with StarOffice. Then there are the various
distro's. I don't want to spend time hunting around wondering where to click
when i got to make a class or transfer files - some colleges may go with
KDE other's with Gnome and some others with something-else.
Word doesn't format Word documents reliably either. I haven't had any problems
reading presentations in OO.org, which was writtern to be familiar to Office
users - unlike recent versions of Office!
Unless there are compelling reasons to move away from Win2K i won't move
and that's my point. There are no compelling reasons and it would be
impossible given the current state of development Linux is in given the
market penetrance that Windows has.
That's exactly the problem. Let's assume that your W2K box dies tomorrow (I
most CERTAINLY hope it doesn't). If you get a new computer you will have no
alternative but to get Vista on it. Even if you have kept your W2K cd's, there
is no guarantee that it will work on new hardware.
Nothing better illustrates this philosophy better than gardenweb. The
interface
is lousy when you compare it with NNTP/Grex, but to a horticulturist it's
a
familiar easy to use interface that requires little or no extra effort.
Lecturing him about the wonders of Grex/NNTP isn't going to bring him here.
What he would want are concrete reasons why he should (freedom of speech is
one
that i can think off) but gardenweb may curtail your freedom occasionally
or trample on a user occasionally and that to most ppl is acceptable.
That STILL doesn't address my main point, since although neither Grex nor
Gardenweb is forced on people, Windows most certainly is.
|
easlern
|
|
response 74 of 203:
|
Feb 1 15:32 UTC 2007 |
I think it's silly to get so upset over the Windows monopoly. If you're a
consumer looking for a home computer, even if you're aware of all the
different choices, you don't have much choice. Apple is proprietary,
expensive, and has limited upgrade options. Linux flavors have no support at
all (unless you count mailing lists/forums and that kind of stuff I guess),
until you start paying for them. Then there's MS's offerings, which are almost
guaranteed to work from day one until the day they're obsolete years later,
on such a wide array of hardware from servers to handheld devices that it
makes the choice a no-brainer. If you have to blame something, blame the
market. If these were car brands, you wouldn't blame consumers for buying a
crappy Ford before they picked up a BMW or ordered a kit car.
|
jep
|
|
response 75 of 203:
|
Feb 1 15:36 UTC 2007 |
It's amusing to watch Linux/Unix snobs arguing the evils of Microsoft.
I understand what you guys mean, but no one could who isn't familiar
with Unix already. You're assuming everyone agrees that Windows stinks,
whereas not everyone agrees with that at all. You're also overlooking
the fact that most people with computers are using Windows and doing
quite nicely with their computers. Without Windows they wouldn't *have*
computers.
|
twenex
|
|
response 76 of 203:
|
Feb 1 15:45 UTC 2007 |
Then there's MS's offerings, which are almost
guaranteed to work from day one until the day they're obsolete years later,
Um, no they aren't.
on such a wide array of hardware from servers to handheld devices that it
makes the choice a no-brainer.
Linux runs on a far greater range of devices.
If you have to blame something, blame the
market. If these were car brands, you wouldn't blame consumers for buying
a
crappy Ford before they picked up a BMW or ordered a kit car.
If these were car brands, you wouldn't be forced into buying a Ford even if
you wanted a Chevy.
It's amusing to watch Linux/Unix snobs arguing the evils of Microsoft.
I understand what you guys mean, but no one could who isn't familiar
with Unix already.
I disagree. Linux is no harder to use than Windows, these days, and despite
that STILL doesn't get viruses or spyware. Some people put that down to the
fact that "almost no-one uses it", but it has 25% of the server market, it's
marketshare can't be counted because people don't have to buy it, it runs most
of the internet and most of the top supercomputers, and if you express
marketshare in terms of raw numbers, then the 5% or so of people who are
*assumed* to be running Linux translates to 15 mil, which is hardly "no-one".
You're assuming everyone agrees that Windows stinks,
whereas not everyone agrees with that at all.
I don't know anyone who's familiar with the recent state of Windows and Linux,
and actually thinks Windows is a better choice (except for running
Windows-only applications).
|
jep
|
|
response 77 of 203:
|
Feb 1 15:49 UTC 2007 |
Windows-only applications are critically important to a lot of people.
|
twenex
|
|
response 78 of 203:
|
Feb 1 15:55 UTC 2007 |
I didn't say they weren't. That's different from saying the OSes they run on
are good. If DOS runs more applications than Windows, does that mean Windows
is crappier than DOS?
(I've no doubt that DOS runs more apps than Windows, since in the days
following DOS's heyday, Microsoft have killed off most of the competition in
all the important application areas, too.)
|
easlern
|
|
response 79 of 203:
|
Feb 1 15:56 UTC 2007 |
I don't think there's any reasoning with twenex anymore. :(
|
twenex
|
|
response 80 of 203:
|
Feb 1 16:04 UTC 2007 |
I don't think there's any reasoning with twenex anymore. :(
Why not? I mean, do mind explaining where you get the idea that Windows runs
perfectly for years on end, and (by implication) everything else doesn't, an
experience (and this is where I have difficulty with the idea) contrary to
all the known accounts?
Or is it just because I don't shrink from shooting down arguments that don't
stand up?
|
jep
|
|
response 81 of 203:
|
Feb 1 16:09 UTC 2007 |
I work in tech support for a product which can run either on Windows or
Linux or any of various Unix versions. I tell people all the time that,
for Windows, they should reboot their server at least once per week.
"It just helps, we all know it helps" I tell them, and they always agree
with that.
If they ask about Unix versions, I tell them that Unix admins usually
reboot once per year, though it's not really necessary. There's a
different level of expectations for Unix versus Windows.
So anyway, I get it. I understand that Linux is better than Windows in
many ways.
But people persist in running Windows. It's not because they are
bullied into it by Bill Gates and his bespectacled geek thugs. It's
because it works for them. They can take a Windows server machine, slam
some extra RAM into it, and run our very demanding and bulky product.
Or they can take the same server, slam some memory and Linux in it and
be better off in some ways. But then they'll have to learn something
about Linux.
Some people even go from Linux versions to Windows versions. It
happens, usually at the initiative of a system admin who knows Windows
better than Linux, I expect. No one consults me on these issues, they
just tell me what they're going to do, and then I help them to do it.
|
easlern
|
|
response 82 of 203:
|
Feb 1 16:17 UTC 2007 |
I don't know of anyone who has bought hardware that does not run a version
of Windows. I know of a lot of people, myself included, who have installed
a Linux and found it has limited functionality for their hardware. If the
trend is opposite for you, I'd be interested in knowing what you guys do
differently across the pond!
|
jadecat
|
|
response 83 of 203:
|
Feb 1 16:18 UTC 2007 |
resp:80 Windows may not run *perfectly* for years, but as a user of
Windows machines, who knows very little about computers really, Windows
works just fine for what I need. I have no idea how to use Linux, and I
don't see that is has much of a precense anywhere outside of computer
groupies.
The average consumer knows little about how computers really work. They
want to bring it home, plug it in and have it work. They like the bells
and whistles- even if they don't use them- because then they can brag
that their computers CAN do those things.
People are lazy, and they want things to be easy- for minimal usage
requirements- Windows fits the bill. Sure, some things don't work right-
at which point people either work around it, scrap the idea, or consider
getting help. The user doesn't WANT to fiddle with settings, or
recompile kernels- they want to plug and play. They also manage to
forget about all the time spent actually making Windows work the way
they (mostly) want it to. Similar to the memory deletion of the time it
takes to search for that special key stroke command.
Are these last two pargraphs indications of wisdom? Nope, not even
close. But it's the kind of thinking that Windows has capitalized on-
and the other groups missed the boat on.
|
twenex
|
|
response 84 of 203:
|
Feb 1 16:24 UTC 2007 |
I don't know of anyone who has bought hardware that does not run a version
of Windows. I know of a lot of people, myself included, who have installed
a Linux and found it has limited functionality for their hardware. If the
trend is opposite for you, I'd be interested in knowing what you guys do
differently across the pond!
I buy hardware specifically known to work with Linux, and I'm probably better
off in that it's almost by definition the low-margin vendors making
bog-standard rubbish who only support Windows (Linksys routers, for instance).
Anyway, I may have misinterpreted you. My reading of what you said above was
that once Windows is installed, it runs trouble free for years, and other
OS'es get "hiccupy". Most people's experience, otoh, and certainly mine, is
that Windows is the hicccupy one - in fact that's what brought me to Linux.
Jep seems to agree on the point.
As I think I have already repeated, however, I just don't understand this
attitude that if you go into a store, and buy pc hardware, most times you
/don't get/ to choose the OS software.
|
twenex
|
|
response 85 of 203:
|
Feb 1 16:30 UTC 2007 |
Re: #82. There's also the point that when you release binary drivers, as most
people who write drivers for Windows do, then your old hardware might not be
supported when you upgrade to a new version. With source, the OS distributor
can just recompile.
resp:80 Windows may not run *perfectly* for years, but as a user of
Windows machines, who knows very little about computers really, Windows
works just fine for what I need. I have no idea how to use Linux, and I
don't see that is has much of a precense anywhere outside of computer
groupies.
Linux can be used in almost exactly the same way as Windows - and to forestall
the argument that "almost exactly"is not good enough, different versions of
Windows are used in different ways. Mostly gratuitously, too.
The average consumer knows little about how computers really work. They
want to bring it home, plug it in and have it work. They like the bells
and whistles- even if they don't use them- because then they can brag
that their computers CAN do those things.
"The average consumer"knows little about cars "really work" too. But knowing
how to *drive* a car is a *legal requirement*.
|
twenex
|
|
response 86 of 203:
|
Feb 1 16:33 UTC 2007 |
People are lazy, and they want things to be easy- for minimal usage
requirements- Windows fits the bill. Sure, some things don't work right-
at which point people either work around it, scrap the idea, or consider
getting help. The user doesn't WANT to fiddle with settings, or
recompile kernels- they want to plug and play.
OK, we're back in FUD territory here. There's no need to do that these days.
They also manage to
forget about all the time spent actually making Windows work the way
they (mostly) want it to.
Which if true only proves my argument that Windows is very far away from being
judged on its merits.
Similar to the memory deletion of the time it
takes to search for that special key stroke command.
I don't know what this is referring to.
|
edina
|
|
response 87 of 203:
|
Feb 1 16:36 UTC 2007 |
I really have no opinion on Windows v. Linux. I'm sorry - that gene
has just never been stimulated. That being said, I find this:
"re #53 oh c'mon twenex, you don't support Gates' philanthropic work
because he's a flaming liberal. He and his buddy, the world's second
richest man warren buffett, are both supporting Barack Obama in fact"
to be one of the FUNNIEST things EVER written.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 88 of 203:
|
Feb 1 17:05 UTC 2007 |
resp:86 someone posted a link awhile back to a study on which was really
faster- using only a keyboard and special combination keystrokes, or
switching to using a mouse. People thought kayboard only would have to
be faster, but the adherents 'forgot' about the time it took to remember
the specific combination keystrokes they needed to achieve what they
wanted. The time spent moving touse a mouse ended up being about the
same or faster than keyboard only. That's what I mean.
And I do agree, I don't think that Windows is really being judged solely
on it's merits.
People may need a license to drive a car- but that doesn't mean they
know how the car really works. That's why they have mechanics. ;)
|
twenex
|
|
response 89 of 203:
|
Feb 1 17:09 UTC 2007 |
resp:86 someone posted a link awhile back to a study on which was really
faster- using only a keyboard and special combination keystrokes, or
switching to using a mouse. People thought kayboard only would have to
be faster, but the adherents 'forgot' about the time it took to remember
the specific combination keystrokes they needed to achieve what they
wanted. The time spent moving touse a mouse ended up being about the
same or faster than keyboard only. That's what I mean.
?It takes far less time to learn the limited amount of commands you had to
use to learn Linux years ago (not now) than to deal with a repeatedly crashing
Windows machine. If you solve a problem by rebooting or reinstalling, you can
bet your bottom dollar it is going to happen again.
People may need a license to drive a car- but that doesn't mean they
know how the car really works. That's why they have mechanics. ;)
Notwithstanding the fact that typing commands into a computer is most
certainly not necessary with Linux, it's not "knowing how it works" either.
Yes, I can get around the commandline in Linux, but ask me how all the bits
fit together and I'd be stumped.
|
vivekm1234
|
|
response 90 of 203:
|
Feb 1 17:23 UTC 2007 |
Re #73:
" I would argue that makes it a POS from everyone's point of view,.."
Not necessarily. See shit is useful as manure..Windows may contain
shitty code and may have bugs but that does not necessarily imply
that it is less useful than Linux.
"But note that history is repeating itself - Unix grew in use on DEC's /despite
the fact/ that DEC hated it, wouldn't supply it, and wouldn't support it."
Oh yeah, i feel that Linux/Unix will get better with age unlike Windows
which has saturated. Well unless they come up with new stuff and not just
eye-candy.
"Word doesn't format Word documents reliably either. "
The question is to what degree - my personal experience with OpenOffice
is that it horribly slow and mangles complicated word doc's. Whereas with
MS-Word it's not too bad..in fact i've never noticed it till date.
" since although neither Grex nor Gardenweb is forced on people, Windows
most certainly is."
Your idea of something being forced on you is the fact that it comes pre-
packaged with hardware. However i would like to point out that you could
just as easily toss it out and put Linux. Also note that you don't HAVE
to buy from said dealer. No one is blackmailing, threatening you to buy
the darn thing. It's like advertisement - it's in your face between shows.
What you are actually saying is that "Linux does not come pre-packaged"
or "i'm not getting a blank machine". Well you can only blame Linux for
that - if they could market better or if there was greater user demand..
see what i mean
Re #84:
"attitude that if you go into a store, and buy pc hardware, most times you
/don't get/ to choose the OS software.""
Because it isn't a right. It might be bad business practise but that's
something the market should decide and right now the winds of fortune blow in
favour of MS.
|
remmers
|
|
response 91 of 203:
|
Feb 1 17:24 UTC 2007 |
When you install Vista, you agree to some licensing terms that are
pretty far reaching, and go even farther than Microsoft has gone before
in limiting what you can do with your computer and its software.
Michael Geist's blog about legal matters has a posting on this.
(http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=1641&Itemid=135 or if you prefer,
http://tinyurl.com/29ohhb). Some tidbits that caught my eye:
Vista's legal fine print includes extensive provisions granting
Microsoft the right to regularly check the legitimacy of the
software and holds the prospect of deleting certain programs
without the user's knowledge.
...
Once operational, the agreement warns that Windows Defender will,
by default, automatically remove software rated "high" or
"severe,"even though that may result in other software ceasing to
work or mistakenly result in the removal of software that is not
unwanted.
...
For those users frustrated by the software's limitations, Microsoft
cautions that "you may not work around any technical limitations in
the software."
...
...numerous limitations in the new software [were] seemingly
installed at the direct request of Hollywood interests. . . .
[There are] restrictions associated with the ability to playback
high-definition content from the next-generation DVDs such as Blu-
Ray and HD-DVD (referred to as "premium content"). . . .
Vista intentionally degrades the picture quality of premium content
when played on most computer monitors. . . . the technological
controls would require considerable consumption of computing power
with the system conducting 30 checks each second to ensure that
there are no attacks on the security of the premium content.
No thanks. I'll pass.
|
twenex
|
|
response 92 of 203:
|
Feb 1 17:35 UTC 2007 |
Well it looks like Vivek and I will have to just agree to disagree on the
subject of whether you have the right to do what you like with stuff you
purchase.
|
vivekm1234
|
|
response 93 of 203:
|
Feb 1 18:29 UTC 2007 |
Res #91 #92: Wow! Note however that i use Win2K and have no intentions of
ever upgrading so long as there is support for 2K by the various software
companies. As to: "right to do what you like with stuff you" i don't know
depends on what the courts say. Logically you have no such right..
Look it's a agreement with the devil. Devil's told you what's in the contract.
It's upto you to decide. However there are plenty of instances where the
benefit of the common good dominates..so..might is right.
BTW are there any stats comparing KDE/Gnome with Win2K - in terms of memory
and CPU? Also, things like start up time between SUSE and 2K. Not to mention
StarOffice and MS-Office..
I found this but it looks flaky: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/Ou/?p=14
0
|
twenex
|
|
response 94 of 203:
|
Feb 2 01:46 UTC 2007 |
might is right.
Responses like that are why half the planet is still stuck in the sociological
stone age.
|
twenex
|
|
response 95 of 203:
|
Feb 2 01:59 UTC 2007 |
Linux applications typically start up slower than their Windows counterparts
(it's a function of the split between "fork" and "exec") but they typically
stay up longer. There was some discussion a while back about investigating
how to make start up times quicker, but it doesn't seem to have come to
anything.
Regardless, without being able to compare with W2K, when Windows starts up
it takes a LONG time before the computer is usable after the desktop comes
up. In Linux the desktop takes longer to come up, but is actually usable when
it does and is therefore probably faster than Windows. The only case when this
might not be true is when you have a LOT of programs set to start up on login,
but as far as I can tell, even in that pathological case it's still possible
to interact with the desktop (starting up other applications, etc.)
|
vivekm1234
|
|
response 96 of 203:
|
Feb 2 15:13 UTC 2007 |
Re #94: "might is right" that was wrt to society imposing it's will on
individuals for the greater good.
|
