Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu 9.04 Is As Slick As Win7, Mac OS X
An anonymous reader writes in with an opinion piece from ZDNet Australia. "Here's what the official press release won't tell you about Ubuntu 9.04, which formally hit the streets yesterday: its designers have polished the hell out of its user interface since the last release in October. Just like Microsoft has taken the blowtorch to Vista to produce the lightning-quick Windows 7, which so far runs well even on older hardware, Ubuntu has picked up its own game."
"But I can't run 'foo-app' on Linux! And Linux is too hard for us lusers!"
Okay, for the average Windows user, they 'can't' run MS Office, or Photoshop.
But you can't run Conflicker either! Or a myriad of other Windows malware!
So, all of you MS trolls, just go away. Keep using your precious MS stuff, keep messing with your computer and networks trying to keep them clean, and leave the rest of us alone..we have productive work to do.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
In the days of XP, I had to reinstall my OS once a year just to keep it running at a tolerable rate
I've been running the same XP install (patched over time of course) since October 2004 with no issues.
I will never touch Vista (nor 7 most likely) outside of work...I'm replacing all the home systems with Macs this year (minis for the kids, iMacs for wife and I).
"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live." - Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"
I'm installing Ubuntu 9.04 on a mates new machine tomorrow. I suggested he try it first and if he doesn't like it he just shell out for Windows 7.
I'm just about to upgrade my Ubuntu installation. I doubt I play the same games as you but so far most of the ones I'm interested in seem to run ok under wine (Empire at War, COD4), I'm not really a big gamer though.
Well here goes, clicking upgrade now...
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
MY COMPuTER IS FAST! FINaLLY! FINALLYFAST.COM!
Touch is good for handheld devices. But for reglar use they are almost worthless, except as you said for a kiosk.
I use my iPhone regularly.
Your arm is going to get worn out raising it to select each item you want to act upon. And touch isn't precise so you end up doing it more than once sometimes.
My arm doesn't get "worn out" using my iPhone, and I actually have to hold the iPhone. Chefs, drivers, musicians, teachers, and couch potatoes all use their arms without much trouble.
Touch also smears your screen, making it dirty. It's not like the old days of glass tube monitors (CRTs) that can be wiped clean with windex. You have to be careful of your flat screen when touching and when cleaning.
The iPhone screen smudges, but it's really not an issue. It's glass, and just wipes clean, but doesn't really need to be done that often as the screen is relatively bright and the glass seems designed to not be annoying with smudges.
You've listed reasons why you think touch screens are a bad idea as though you started with the conclusion and are just coming up with excuses to justify it. Now, get out of the way and let people who aren't so limited in thought get things that you've deemed impractical done.
...But it's responsive...
Responsive to what? Will it respond to me wanting to download a program to my iPod? Will it allow to share my music and video library on the 1 TB disk drive connected to the Airport Extreme in the family room to the computer (Mac Mini) in the living room connected to the stereo and a 47" LCD TV screen and to the laptop used while relaxing in bed sometimes? I can do all of this easily, without fuss with Apple products running OSX. That is the kind of responsiveness which matters in the end, not whether the computer responds to a mouse click in 80 milliseconds or 40.
All theory is gray