|
|
|
There is nothing essentially wrong with Vista/XP. No OS is perfect. Which is why you have patches and updates for every single one of them. Microsoft is very efficient with updating every small little problem that comes under their radar and I think they do a bloody good job at it. For an average user (who makes up most of the consumer base), tinkering with the command line is not really his idea of ideal computer usage. He'd much rather have everything right in front and easy to use. Windows does just that. Doesn't mean you can't still use the command line to customize as much as you'd like.
What is funny is that even when hundreds of people are complaining out there, Microsoft has reported that it has sold over 180 million Vista Licenses by mid-July 08. That is a staggering sales figure. Ubuntu, SUSE, Fedora combined don't come close. Not by a long shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and Aaron, seriously, yes.  It's not like they're making a huge deal out of it - it's just there to show that some people are too easily swayed by mere words. :X
Last Edit: Aug 15, 2008 19:34:35 GMT by 3:
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing essentially wrong with Vista/XP. No OS is perfect. Which is why you have patches and updates for every single one of them. Microsoft is very efficient with updating every small little problem that comes under their radar and I think they do a bloody good job at it. For an average user (who makes up most of the consumer base), tinkering with the command line is not really his idea of ideal computer usage. He'd much rather have everything right in front and easy to use. Windows does just that. Doesn't mean you can't still use the command line to customize as much as you'd like. What is funny is that even when hundreds of people are complaining out there, Microsoft has reported that it has sold over 180 million Vista Licenses by mid-July 08. That is a staggering sales figure. Ubuntu, SUSE, Fedora combined don't come close. Not by a long shot. I completely agree with that, except for the Vista sales. A huge reason for the insane amount of sales is the fact that all new PCs ship with Vista. That, along with the fact that computer sales are at record highs, helps Microsoft a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
What is funny is that even when hundreds of people are complaining out there, Microsoft has reported that it has sold over 180 million Vista Licenses by mid-July 08. That is a staggering sales figure. Ubuntu, SUSE, Fedora combined don't come close. Not by a long shot. Yes. True, no doubt. BUT: that doesn't make it good. That just means that it's the dominant. In my opinion, Linux is better -- just flat-out better than Windows. It's kind of like putting Beta next to a VCR (Beta was a tape system like a VCR, but it was waaaay better). Beta is better, but eventually the company crashed because the Japanese company that made VCR was getting all the sales, and the tapes for Betas stopped getting made. Numbers aren't how you measure quality. Now, I'm sure a lot of OS out there are better than Linux -- it's just a point that just because Windows gets more sales than any other company, doesn't make it better.
Last Edit: Aug 15, 2008 21:07:28 GMT by Twitch
|
|
|
|
|
What is funny is that even when hundreds of people are complaining out there, Microsoft has reported that it has sold over 180 million Vista Licenses by mid-July 08. That is a staggering sales figure. Ubuntu, SUSE, Fedora combined don't come close. Not by a long shot. Yes. True, no doubt. BUT: that doesn't make it good. That just means that it's the dominant. In my opinion, Linux is better -- just flat-out better than Windows. It's kind of like putting Beta next to a VCR (Beta was a tape system like a VCR, but it was waaaay better). Beta is better, but eventually the company crashed because the Japanese company that made VCR was getting all the sales, and the tapes for Betas stopped getting made. Numbers aren't how you measure quality. Now, I'm sure a lot of OS out there are better than Linux -- it's just a point that just because Windows gets more sales than any other company, doesn't make it better. This is where the problem lies, though. This is all subjective. All these different operating systems do different things better than others and worse than others. The general consensus is that OS X is best for multimedia and design. It does that better than Windows and any Linux distro. Windows has a massive third party software library, both free and paid for. And yes, it is bigger than Linux's. That, and Windows is the absolute best OS for gaming. Linux is free, open source, and is constantly being worked on. It's fresh and has a lot of potential to be a great desktop OS. I just think it's unfair to say that there is a clear cut best OS when there really isn't. It's all about the user.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. True, no doubt. BUT: that doesn't make it good. That just means that it's the dominant. In my opinion, Linux is better -- just flat-out better than Windows. It's kind of like putting Beta next to a VCR (Beta was a tape system like a VCR, but it was waaaay better). Beta is better, but eventually the company crashed because the Japanese company that made VCR was getting all the sales, and the tapes for Betas stopped getting made. Numbers aren't how you measure quality. Now, I'm sure a lot of OS out there are better than Linux -- it's just a point that just because Windows gets more sales than any other company, doesn't make it better. This is where the problem lies, though. This is all subjective. All these different operating systems do different things better than others and worse than others. The general consensus is that OS X is best for multimedia and design. It does that better than Windows and any Linux distro. Windows has a massive third party software library, both free and paid for. And yes, it is bigger than Linux's. That, and Windows is the absolute best OS for gaming. Linux is free, open source, and is constantly being worked on. It's fresh and has a lot of potential to be a great desktop OS. I just think it's unfair to say that there is a clear cut best OS when there really isn't. It's all about the user. I quite agree =]
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. True, no doubt. BUT: that doesn't make it good. That just means that it's the dominant. In my opinion, Linux is better -- just flat-out better than Windows. It's kind of like putting Beta next to a VCR (Beta was a tape system like a VCR, but it was waaaay better). Beta is better, but eventually the company crashed because the Japanese company that made VCR was getting all the sales, and the tapes for Betas stopped getting made. Numbers aren't how you measure quality. Now, I'm sure a lot of OS out there are better than Linux -- it's just a point that just because Windows gets more sales than any other company, doesn't make it better. This is where the problem lies, though. This is all subjective. All these different operating systems do different things better than others and worse than others. The general consensus is that OS X is best for multimedia and design. It does that better than Windows and any Linux distro. Windows has a massive third party software library, both free and paid for. And yes, it is bigger than Linux's. That, and Windows is the absolute best OS for gaming. Linux is free, open source, and is constantly being worked on. It's fresh and has a lot of potential to be a great desktop OS. I just think it's unfair to say that there is a clear cut best OS when there really isn't. It's all about the user. I didn't say there was a clear best OS. Yeah, it depends on the user. I just don't like Windows generally. As a gaming OS -- the last time I gamed on Windows, I installed it, went through EVERYTHING and got rid of all the free trials and junk. Everything. I put FireFox on it, and my games -- that was about it. But damn, before I went though and deleted things it was pretty slow. Not slow like it could be, but still slower than Linux. Now, if you try to run an MMO on Linux using Wine, it's crap next to Windows. That's probably just on my computer, but since I quit gaming a while ago, it doesn't matter to me. You're right about it depending on the user, but my point was that just because Windows is dominant that doesn't make it the best. If you grab an average Joe off the street, and ask him if he uses Windows, he'll probably say yes; if you ask him if he's a gamer, he'll probably say no -- so, why is he using Windows? More than likely because it came on the computer he bought and he didn't know any different. Most people don't know as much about a computer as you or I, so, how would they know if it's good? Plus, in all likelihood, they never used any other OS because most people buy a computer with Windows pre-installed. I made my own and my dad forced me to use Fedora, and after a while I liked it. I actually like XP, as a gaming OS, and it functioned on my computer because the hell if that thing was ever slow. I still prefer Linux -- it's fun to toy around with since I'm fairly new to it (about a year, year and a half maybe).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously though, Windows is generally easier to use and maintain for say average Joe. If every new PC/Laptop came with Linux pre-installed, most people wouldn't have a clue how to fix things when they went wrong because there is no easy to use GUI facility for maintenance, repair or the recovery of Linux. It's all command lines. I know people who struggle to do an ipconfig in Command Prompt. I don't know what they would do if we unleashed Linux on their poor souls.
|
|
|
|
|
This is where the problem lies, though. This is all subjective. All these different operating systems do different things better than others and worse than others. The general consensus is that OS X is best for multimedia and design. It does that better than Windows and any Linux distro. Windows has a massive third party software library, both free and paid for. And yes, it is bigger than Linux's. That, and Windows is the absolute best OS for gaming. Linux is free, open source, and is constantly being worked on. It's fresh and has a lot of potential to be a great desktop OS. I just think it's unfair to say that there is a clear cut best OS when there really isn't. It's all about the user. I didn't say there was a clear best OS. Yeah, it depends on the user. I just don't like Windows generally. As a gaming OS -- the last time I gamed on Windows, I installed it, went through EVERYTHING and got rid of all the free trials and junk. Everything. I put FireFox on it, and my games -- that was about it. But damn, before I went though and deleted things it was pretty slow. Not slow like it could be, but still slower than Linux. Now, if you try to run an MMO on Linux using Wine, it's crap next to Windows. That's probably just on my computer, but since I quit gaming a while ago, it doesn't matter to me. You're right about it depending on the user, but my point was that just because Windows is dominant that doesn't make it the best. If you grab an average Joe off the street, and ask him if he uses Windows, he'll probably say yes; if you ask him if he's a gamer, he'll probably say no -- so, why is he using Windows? More than likely because it came on the computer he bought and he didn't know any different. Most people don't know as much about a computer as you or I, so, how would they know if it's good? Plus, in all likelihood, they never used any other OS because most people buy a computer with Windows pre-installed. I made my own and my dad forced me to use Fedora, and after a while I liked it. I actually like XP, as a gaming OS, and it functioned on my computer because the hell if that thing was ever slow. I still prefer Linux -- it's fun to toy around with since I'm fairly new to it (about a year, year and a half maybe). True, true. But let's be honest, here- you don't have to proclaim yourself to be a gamer to play games on Windows. There are many games available on Windows geared toward your Average Joe all the way to the hardcore, and yes, self-proclaimed gamer. There's also another point here- if Windows works efficiently for the general user, then what's the point of throwing to them an OS that you may believe is better at them when they don't need it? I do like Linux. I've used Linspire, Ubuntu, and Mandriva and liked them all. It was a lot easier for me to operate and fiddle with them since I had a general knowledge of what I was doing. Your everyday consumer doesn't, however. Give Linux some more time to mature, and I think it will be ready for the general consumer.
Last Edit: Aug 16, 2008 1:53:31 GMT by .trance\\
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just gonna give a few of the reasons that other people have given for Linux use. They're really more in line with what Trance has just said, except in one respect: they don't advocate Linux for the masses.
blog.anamazingmind.com/2008/03/real-reason-we-use-linux.html
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
Perhaps I'm more guilty of this mindset than I've let on. If someone can't suck it up and buckle down when something goes wrong, why are they using the computer. We should have these standards. Heck, we should have these standards for other things too: driving, education, just being in public. That last quote by itself convinced me I ought to switch to KDE. Because, it's fun to have control. It's fun to be responsible for that little world inside your screen. It's fun to find your limits and then say, "Screw the limits." That's why I use Linux.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't say there was a clear best OS. Yeah, it depends on the user. I just don't like Windows generally. As a gaming OS -- the last time I gamed on Windows, I installed it, went through EVERYTHING and got rid of all the free trials and junk. Everything. I put FireFox on it, and my games -- that was about it. But damn, before I went though and deleted things it was pretty slow. Not slow like it could be, but still slower than Linux. Now, if you try to run an MMO on Linux using Wine, it's crap next to Windows. That's probably just on my computer, but since I quit gaming a while ago, it doesn't matter to me. You're right about it depending on the user, but my point was that just because Windows is dominant that doesn't make it the best. If you grab an average Joe off the street, and ask him if he uses Windows, he'll probably say yes; if you ask him if he's a gamer, he'll probably say no -- so, why is he using Windows? More than likely because it came on the computer he bought and he didn't know any different. Most people don't know as much about a computer as you or I, so, how would they know if it's good? Plus, in all likelihood, they never used any other OS because most people buy a computer with Windows pre-installed. I made my own and my dad forced me to use Fedora, and after a while I liked it. I actually like XP, as a gaming OS, and it functioned on my computer because the hell if that thing was ever slow. I still prefer Linux -- it's fun to toy around with since I'm fairly new to it (about a year, year and a half maybe). True, true. But let's be honest, here- you don't have to proclaim yourself to be a gamer to play games on Windows. There are many games available on Windows geared toward your Average Joe all the way to the hardcore, and yes, self-proclaimed gamer. There's also another point here- if Windows works efficiently for the general user, then what's the point of throwing to them an OS that you may believe is better at them when they don't need it? I do like Linux. I've used Linspire, Ubuntu, and Mandriva and liked them all. It was a lot easier for me to operate and fiddle with them since I had a general knowledge of what I was doing. Your everyday consumer doesn't, however. Give Linux some more time to mature, and I think it will be ready for the general consumer. Because the things that the average Joe does on Windows might happen to be easier on Linux. I'm out of this argument because I'm already a repetative person by nature (plus, my bad wrist is starting to hurt from typing all day). And yes, part of the reason I like Linux is because it gives me a way to learn more about computers. If Windows does everything for you, what's there to learn? I like screwing around with Linux. Yeah, you can do it on Windows, but some things it corrects for you, and it isn't the same as completely screwing up the entire system and then going back and fixing it. Like Web said, it's fun stuff. I'd type more, but my wrist really hurts badly now, and I can't find the support brace.
|
|
|
|
|
First let me state by saying The Mojave Experiment is bullshit. I agree with Josh. You can't have an un-biased opinion on an operating system you've never actually operated. What I mean is it's more likely those people were paid to say that to boost sales. They didn't even get to try the OS out, they were just told about its perks. That said, let me move on to try and respond to three pages worth of stuff. Vista just flat out sucks. The security is damned annoying (I shouldn't have to tell the computer that I really want to open up the control panel. =\), the system is slow (For fuck sake, drop legacy support. You shouldn't be supporting 20 year old system software anymore) A common problem users report about Vista; however, a problem easily solved. I barely EVER use Vista. Not because I don't like it, because believe me, I don't love it, but I don't hate it. But because I don't give a shit about testing my codes in Internet Exploder. But anyway, when I DO use Vista, I don't get those annoying messages. Ever. Start > msconfig > "Tools" > Scroll to "Disable UAC" and select it > Press Launch Then reboot your computer. No more annoying messages. You can also disable it via the Control Panel, but I don't remember how. Something in the User Accounts panel though. As for legacy support - supposedly, they're dropping legacy support with Windows 7. HOWEVER, they began to attempt this in an early build of Vista as well, and as you can see, there's still legacy support. Vista takes a gig or two at idle. Sorry, but no, it doesn't. My Vista uses about 300mb idling. If you know what you're doing, you can easily tweak Vista and remove the resource bloat. As for that link... meh. Anyone can be bribed. 'Nuff said. I don't trust anything Microsoft does...hell, I hate Microsoft. The only good thing that ever came from them was the Xbox (2, 360 counted as "Xbox") and Halo (1, 2, and 3). Actually Halo is developed by an independent software company called Bungie. They partnered with Microsoft to produce the Halo games, but there is no way in hell I'll let you give Microsoft full credit for the games. Gadgets (why the hell didn't they just call them widgets like normal people?) work better in Konfabulator and Dashboard. Internet Explorer. You shouldn't have to buy an entire new machine to install the OS (Linux and OS X updates can run on damned near anything). They're Gadgets instead of Widgets because Microsoft can't publicly state "Hi, Apple. Yes, we did attempt to steal Leopard.. But as you can clearly see, our spotlightsearch function is in the start menu. Also, our Widgets are actually called Gadgets. And instead of a dashboard, we decided it would be best to use up more of the users screen by creating this non-relocatable Sidebar." "Linux and OS X updates can run on damned near anything" Amen. No OS is perfect. Which is why you have patches and updates for every single one of them. Microsoft is very efficient with updating every small little problem that comes under their radar and I think they do a bloody good job at it. Again, Amen. I'm finally glad to read an un-biased opinion. I'd like to conclude with a video of what Windows could have become. Granted, you can see that the GUI needed a little bit of work, but seriously, look at it. To me it looks like a great OS. and in 2003 too. www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPEypljdPNQ
|
I'm gonna start dishing out internet beatings if people keep it up with this 4chan shit, I swear.
|
|
|
