"For instance, the whole "God created the Earth in seven days." Seven days could mean seven million years, or seven billion years. It's worded in a way that man can understand. "
Heh. Kind of reminds me of when Dr. Evil said "one million dollars!"
"Considering the grammar and spelling travesties on Slashdot, not to mention the execrable comprehension of story headlines, summaries, and TFAs themselves, this pseudoliterate community is the last place to ask that question."
Oh, please. There are lots of people here who are quite qualified to offer advice on this topic.
Slashdot is not a grammar contest. There isn't a lot of reason to measure anybody's grammatical ability (or IQ...) here.
"Personally, I pay $100 per year for Rhapsody. For me it makes sense -- there's no way I could purchase enough music for $100 to satisfy my needs, and downloading music for free would cost me literally thousands of dollars in terms of time spent. If it doesn't make sense for you, fair enough -- but don't act like it's a blinding insight to point out that I'm renting rather than buying."
I'm a Rhapsody subscriber as well, and I'd like to chime in on why I chose this service over say iTunes:
1.) I don't have an MP3 player, nor am I on the market for one. I'm nearby a computer most of my waking life, certainly when I want to hear music. The only reason I mention this is if I did rely on an MP3 player, that probably would have significantly altered my decision.
2.) I'm rather picky about music. I don't really get into albums. I like individual songs. For that reason, it's VERY important to me to listen to every song I wanna buy first. (That's what attracted me to MP3s in the first place.) The first 30 seconds isn't enough. Sometimes I need to hear a song a few times before I've decided I like it. For that reason, Rhapsody is beautiful. I pay $10 a month and I can listen to ANY of their songs at ANY time. I can pull down an album, listen a few times, and filter out the songs I don't like. I love this. With iTunes, I would have wasted a bunch of money by now.
3.) All of my music is stored on their server. A lot of people may grimace about this, but I'm happy about it. I work across 3 different computers. (1 at work, laptop, and 1 at home.) If I add or delete a song at home, I can easiliy pick it up at work. No massive backups. No juggling of files. (If anybody's curious, there is a 1 gig cache on my machines, so I'm not redownloading a song every time i hear it.)
4.) There's been a lot of "but you can't keep the song!" discussion here. This is true. If I cancel the subscription, all that music is gone. The flip side, however, is that I have gotten sick of a bunch of music. There are songs I thought were great a year ago that I don't really care to hear ever again. I'm glad I haven't paid for those. The other flip-side is that I have instant gratification if there's a song I want. If somebody suggests a song, 10 seconds later I'm listening to it.
In short, Rhapsody was a better choice for me. It's an AWESOME service if you're like me and want to broaden your music horizons and not have your credit card bill run up just for being active. I've been a customer for 2 years now. I suspect based on my current list that I would have spent a little less money using iTunes. However, if you count all the music I've listened to trying to find songs I'd actully have paid for, iTunes would have sucked a lot of money out of my wallet. On top of all that, it's easier for me to just remove $10 a month out of my budget and never have to deal with surprise music purchases. But, that's just me.
"Too bad there's not a mod point for porn potential, the shot of their demo panning up and down on the woman gave me the idea that this would be perfect for all manner of perversions. It's like an X10 on wheels."
Well, since it's using short-range Bluetooth, it's like an X10 on wheels using a 3-foot power cord.
"Linux-based Bluetooth vibrator might be commercially potent idea. Integrate phone control, flashlight and camera - and you have a nice adult toy plus a whole new porn niche!"
Heh. Totally off-topic, but Daleks can hover. I dunno when it started, but "Rememberance of the Daleks" (from the Sylvester McCoy years) showed it happen.
"It figures that they would sign Opera as their browser....then they can sell you the Antispyware software to go along with the phone which is an additional $10."
Uh, what? Are you saying that Opera is/has spyware? If so, can ya pass the pipe?
"More accurate translation: All you people who have ridiculous over-fucking-reactions to a damned movie need to find something better to care about."
I doubt the motivation was that civil. Most stories on Slashdot feature noisy twerps who have ridiculuous over-fucking-reactions to whatever has bunched up their panties. This guy posted that comment becuase it was about something he cared about.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with the sentiment that some people are too noisy about a movie they aren't going to see. However, the fans (fanatics?) of the movies bring a lot of it on themselves. The moment anybody makes a critical comment about Star Wars, a bunch of George-Lucas-Reacharound-Volunteers come out of the woodwork and immediately go into "You're just stupid" debate mode. Here's a few of the tired debate tacticts they try to win with:
- Episodes I and II made hundreds of millions of dollars. (Afterall, if they made that much money, a lot of people must have enjoyed it, right? Well, let me put it this way: Most Star Wars games are quite succesful even though the vast majority of them are realy bad. Stamp Star Wars on something and it's succssful.)
- We should all like the new trilogy because GL did a good thing by making the original triology! (Faith? Right. The dude is trying to get my money TODAY with this new trilogy, not 20 years ago. Entertain me TODAY.)
- You're not qualified to criticize because you've never made a movie / you are stupid / you missed the point / you don't work at ILM. (George is trying to get ME to watch his movies and be entertained. He is not trying to impress James Cameron, members of Mensa, Film School students, or the studio that makes his effects. He is trying to get ME to buy a movie ticket. Since the movie is made for me, I am perfectly qualified to say "Not impressed.")
- You're mentally defective. (Yeah, you're sporting an underwear tent over a trilogy of movies that have measurable problems with them, but I'm the one with the mental problem?)
- Just don't watch the movie and shut up then! (Funny how this one doesn't come out until somebody takes a successful jab at Star Wars. "Yeah, Anakin's a big hero, that's why he ACCIDENTLY destroyed the bad guy ship!" "Shut up!!! Just don't watch the movie!!")
- Well.. well... I can't convince you that you're wrong, so I'm going to attack your motivation. You're the bad guy for being negative in the first place! (... said the guy that called me unqualified to criticize and mentally defective.)
The Star Wars fanatics shouldn't be throwing stones about critics of the movies. Telling somebody to shut up because they're overreacting is overreacting. But, alas, the Star Wars fanatics are righteous. They should be allowed to speak without fear of criticism, right? Uh huh.
"we should all know in about 4.2 minutes whether it is really a black hole or not."
Some of us think it's a matter-rearranger capable of re-organizing matter exactly the way it was 13 seconds ago. 13 seconds? Personally, I don't know why they're doing this when they could be installing Linux into an alarm clock or something.
I hear ya, man. I just wanted to touch on one little part, though:
"I don't play with the taskbar."
Before I start, I just want to mention that I'm not preaching to ya or anything.:)
I really think that XP's taskbar is one of the most underrated features of this OS. (Actually, most of what I find useful about it started with 98...) You can do some really slick stuff with it. For example: I have 'my computer' linked to it like the Quicklaunch bar. I have all the drives ready to go just by clicking on the appropriate button. If I have a CD in the drive (I have 2 optical drives), I can see the title of the disc. I can tell which drive I put the disc in at a glance.
I also have my computer set up so that a bunch of apps I use can be simply copied over to the drive and executed. (i.e. I don't have to reinstall all those apps.) I have a folder of shortcuts for each of those apps sitting there. So I just link that folder as a Quicklaunch tab, and blammo, they're all ready to go. That's quite handy when I move computers or re-install Windows.
One other little thing I have sitting there is the address bar. I can just type in a drive letter or path and go straight to the point.
It's very flexible and I've saved a good deal of time by making it more to the point. That sort of make sense?
Anyway, to each is own, YMMV, etc. Just thought I'd mention that. MS really did do a good job on that aspect of the UI for Windows.
This doesn't work on XP. Explorer.exe is automatically restored when you mess with it. Of course, it'll be assumed that this is because Microsoft is enforcing a monopoly instead of it simply being a security feature.
"Is it me or nothing MS is pitching in Longhorn sounds that exciting? "
That depends: Whenever Microsoft announces something, everybody on Slashdot is suddenly a minimalist. "Oh, I don't REALLY need a scrollwheel."
Whatever.
I'm personally excited about their vector based UI. There's a couple of reasons I'm digging it:
1.) Some of the UI (the most important part for a good deal of computing) will be offloaded from the main processor to the GPU. Reality may tell a different tale, but I'm happy about the idea of Windows being more responsive as a result. Heck, just going to a dual processor machine has made my computing time much more responsive.
2.) The nice thing about vector based graphics is that the difference between 1024 by 768 and 1600 by 1200 is simply clarity. We'll be buying monitors based on DPI instead of what their max resolution is. I dig the idea, for example, of being able to just scale a window up or down. (Anybody who has used Opera knows what I'm talking about.) It could mean a real significant change in how monitors are used, and it could potentially mean LCDs capable of much higher resolutions.
But, like I said, it's Microsoft's idea so we're all minimalists who are happy with what we've got or have desires to return to the stone-age. But if Apple or the OSS Community talks about it...
" I still don't see the benefits of XP over 2000 as a lowly end-user."
I use XP-pro at work, 2k at home. When I'm at home, there are a few reasons I'd rather have xP. I'm not trying to talk you into switching to XP (I doubt you'd be all that happy if you did) but I figured I'd share in case you or anybody else is considering it.
1.) I like ClearType. YMMV. 2.) XP's image viewer is nice for viewing sequences of images. Some of you probably know what I'm implying.;) 3.) You can run multiple simultaneous users on XP. Mildly nice, but if you're the only user, hardly worth mentioning. 4.) You can actually LOCK the taskbar so you don't accidently drag that around. I'm extremely hacked off that I can't do this in 2k. Because of this feature, my Task-bar is quite useful since I've tweaked it. 5.) Grouping of common tasks (i.e. several folder windows) and system tray items takes a little getting used to, but in some cases it's very useful. (Potentially annoying, too. But you can always choose.) 6.) The start menu shows the most recently used stuff. Not the greatest whoop-de-doo ever, but I have to admit I've saved a little time as a result of it.
XP has grown on me. I haven't had stability or security issues with 2K or XP so I can't tell you that it's better or worse in that regard. 2K to XP is sort of like getting a moon-roof for your car. You pay more for it, and it has its uses, but you probably wouldn't miss it if you didn't get it.
Okay, I'm not being terribly on-topic here, but I imagine there are people out there wondering if 2K to XP is worthwhile.
"Can it do my laundry? Can it Walk the dog? Can it cook my meals? Hrmm... Guess its not a replacement for Wife 1.0, I never shoulda upgraded in the first place."
Being an early adopter is hell. I still haven't gotten any calls on my video phone. I ended up rerouting my cable to it so I could pretend celebrities are calling.
"I can't imagine having your head that far up there can be comfortable. You are not talking about broader adoption of linux, you are talking about what you want. "
Wrong. I didn't even bother reading past this line. I really don't want to spend the energy saying the same damn thing over and over and over again only to have you try to shoot me down for whatever reasons you've got.
You wanna be reasonable and turn this from a debate into a discussion, I'm willing to dump some of my shitheadedness (I'm not claiming to be squeaky clean here. I've been an ass.) and have a worthwhile discussion with you. If not, that's on you. Grow up or shut up.
"And you don't want linux to be better, you want linux to be more like windows, and hence worse."
Again, you're not listening. I have made this pretty darned clear.
"The universe does not revolve around you, there is no desire to spend hours and hours working hard to provide you with what you consider the perfect OS for free.."
Again with the not listening. I'm talking about broader adoption of Linux, not me specifically and solely. "What's so hard to understand about that?!?!?! *fizzle fizzle grunt*" It's being offered to me for free, and I'm being told left and right to switch to it. Whether or not you personally want to do the work doesn't matter to me in the slightest. The people working on Linux, whether it's the kernel or with the distros, want Linux to be more user friendly and more broadly adopted.
"If you don't like linux, don't use it. Plain and simple."
You know, it's funny, you're telling me about how the universe revolves around me etc, yet you're sitting here telling me to shut up and live with it because you don't want to hear it.
"If you do not like what linux is, then nobody who matters cares, and nobody is willing to make linux crappier for you. "
Uh yeah. Again with the not listening. Okay, maybe you're not arguing with me because you like Linux, maybe it's just because you hate Microsoft. Whatever, it doesn't matter much. I'm the bad guy for suggesting improvements to Linux. Bad me. I should stfu and let the developers spin on their thumbs. Heh. I'm sooOOOoo sorry.
"No, there is no indisputable point in your post, its your opinion. Your opinion is that linux is not as easy to use as windows. But what is easy for one person, isn't easy for someone else, so you can't claim anything to be indisputable facts."
Normally I'd agree. However, there are two important facts: 1.) We're primarily talking about desktop Average Joe users. If we were talking about administrative tasks, I wouldn't make a statement like that. 2.) It would be easy to provide a list of common everyday tasks and compare the Linux version to the Windows version and figure out which one was 'easier'. Count the number of steps, or count the intuitiveness, etc. Frankly, if copy/paste doesn't even work right, I don't understand how you can possibly make that claim.
"If linux is less valuable to you because you would require time to be productive, then do not use it. There is no obligation involved here. Linux was written for the people who wrote it, and it serves them just fine. If other people benefit from that, great. If you don't, then go away. Whining about how people aren't making your perfect custom OS just for you, for free, because you want them to isn't going to help anyone."
There is a wide-spread dream of making Linux replace Windows. It can't do that if it can't lure Windows users. What I'm saying is relevent no matter how dismissive you're being about it. I want Linux to be better, not to say that Linux sucks.
"And finally, yes I truely don't care. I am not being defensive..."
Bullshit. You're not even listening to me. You're telling me I'm wrong wrong wrong and using common debate strategies to blow me off. Don't tell me you don't care or that you're not being defensive, I don't buy it. I especially don't buy it when you're posting anonymously and having to reload to stay on top of this convo. You do care, and you don't think highly of Windows and don't want Linux leaning that way. Frankly, assuming my assumption is correct, I wouldn't blame you for feeling that way. Microsoft has done some things really badly. (*cough*registry*cough*) Nobody wants the bad things coming. However, nobody wants to be tripped up by stupid UI oversights. There's no harm in suggesting Linux have stronger UI features. No reason to shake your Linux-is-great pitchfork, either.
"My mom uses linux. You cannot possibly put less time into learning linux, or windows, or anything else than she has. And she can use it just fine."
Whoop-de-shit. I also have anecdotal evidence that Windows is more secure than Linux. I wouldn't dare profess that as I'd be rightfully shot down. Linux is not as easy to use as Windows or OSX. Simple, indisputable point.
"People who have gotten used to windows and want to think they know "all about computers" expect linux to be windows. "
That's a fair point. They've become productive with Windows. Linux is less valuable because it'd take them time to be as productive. Be dismissive all you want, but this actually is a problem with mass-adoption of Linux. Frankly, it's not like Linux's differences are necessarily for the better. Too many cooks.
"There is no point to linux if its just going to be windows"
Wrong. Windows users would love if a.) They didn't have to reinstall Windows every 6 months, b.) Windows were more secure, c.) Windows was free. d.) All the other little benefits of OSS software that Slashdot collectively pops underwear tents over. There's plenty of reason to put the Windows UI on top of Linux. Stubbornness to move that way is usually motivated by zealousy.
"Just stfu about it, we don't care if you use linux, or what you want linux to be."
You don't care? Bullshit. You obviously do care or you wouldn't be so defensive. Frankly, brushing me off isn't doing you any good. I find it just astonishing that somebody from the same community that's holding Linux on it's shoulders shouting "Choice choice choice!!!" is telling me to shut up because my choices aren't in line with his.
" Stuff like "if stuff doesnt work do round-robin installs of remotely related drivers till it does." is seen way to often as a best practice by those "trained users"."
Err actually I was thinking more like: (note: Examples may not necessarily contradict what Linux does.)
"Let's have one place where the network connections are and call it something cute like 'network neighborhood'."
"Let's have a place called 'control panel' where every system configuration option is, then we'll have categories under it for more specific aspects of the computer."
"Let's make sure copy and paste work properly in the right context regardless of what the target app is."
"Let's make it super easy to install a driver or piece of software. Step 1.) Run Install. Step 2.) Press [OK] a few times. Let's also create a place under Control Panel where they can uninstall ANY app installed to the machine."
"Let's standardize on particular apps to do particular jobs by default, then let the user pick alternatives later." (anybody who's been confused by all the K-words in their equivalent of a start menu knows what I'm talking about.)
If you're hitting reply because you want to argue the details, don't, taht's not what I'm pushing here. With Windows, a user doesn't have to have that broad of knowledge to get started with. Once you learn a handful of basic things (like where Control Panel is or that ctrl+c means 'copy'), you're rockin and rollin. Linux distros need to take on this philosophy. Don't believe me? Ask Apple about it.
Slashdot Mirror
"For instance, the whole "God created the Earth in seven days." Seven days could mean seven million years, or seven billion years. It's worded in a way that man can understand. "
Heh. Kind of reminds me of when Dr. Evil said "one million dollars!"
"Considering the grammar and spelling travesties on Slashdot, not to mention the execrable comprehension of story headlines, summaries, and TFAs themselves, this pseudoliterate community is the last place to ask that question."
Oh, please. There are lots of people here who are quite qualified to offer advice on this topic.
Slashdot is not a grammar contest. There isn't a lot of reason to measure anybody's grammatical ability (or IQ...) here.
"Personally, I pay $100 per year for Rhapsody. For me it makes sense -- there's no way I could purchase enough music for $100 to satisfy my needs, and downloading music for free would cost me literally thousands of dollars in terms of time spent. If it doesn't make sense for you, fair enough -- but don't act like it's a blinding insight to point out that I'm renting rather than buying."
I'm a Rhapsody subscriber as well, and I'd like to chime in on why I chose this service over say iTunes:
1.) I don't have an MP3 player, nor am I on the market for one. I'm nearby a computer most of my waking life, certainly when I want to hear music. The only reason I mention this is if I did rely on an MP3 player, that probably would have significantly altered my decision.
2.) I'm rather picky about music. I don't really get into albums. I like individual songs. For that reason, it's VERY important to me to listen to every song I wanna buy first. (That's what attracted me to MP3s in the first place.) The first 30 seconds isn't enough. Sometimes I need to hear a song a few times before I've decided I like it. For that reason, Rhapsody is beautiful. I pay $10 a month and I can listen to ANY of their songs at ANY time. I can pull down an album, listen a few times, and filter out the songs I don't like. I love this. With iTunes, I would have wasted a bunch of money by now.
3.) All of my music is stored on their server. A lot of people may grimace about this, but I'm happy about it. I work across 3 different computers. (1 at work, laptop, and 1 at home.) If I add or delete a song at home, I can easiliy pick it up at work. No massive backups. No juggling of files. (If anybody's curious, there is a 1 gig cache on my machines, so I'm not redownloading a song every time i hear it.)
4.) There's been a lot of "but you can't keep the song!" discussion here. This is true. If I cancel the subscription, all that music is gone. The flip side, however, is that I have gotten sick of a bunch of music. There are songs I thought were great a year ago that I don't really care to hear ever again. I'm glad I haven't paid for those. The other flip-side is that I have instant gratification if there's a song I want. If somebody suggests a song, 10 seconds later I'm listening to it.
In short, Rhapsody was a better choice for me. It's an AWESOME service if you're like me and want to broaden your music horizons and not have your credit card bill run up just for being active. I've been a customer for 2 years now. I suspect based on my current list that I would have spent a little less money using iTunes. However, if you count all the music I've listened to trying to find songs I'd actully have paid for, iTunes would have sucked a lot of money out of my wallet. On top of all that, it's easier for me to just remove $10 a month out of my budget and never have to deal with surprise music purchases. But, that's just me.
"Too bad there's not a mod point for porn potential, the shot of their demo panning up and down on the woman gave me the idea that this would be perfect for all manner of perversions. It's like an X10 on wheels."
Well, since it's using short-range Bluetooth, it's like an X10 on wheels using a 3-foot power cord.
"Linux-based Bluetooth vibrator might be commercially potent idea. Integrate phone control, flashlight and camera - and you have a nice adult toy plus a whole new porn niche!"
And a lot of slashdotters with chipped teeth.
Heh. Totally off-topic, but Daleks can hover. I dunno when it started, but "Rememberance of the Daleks" (from the Sylvester McCoy years) showed it happen.
"It figures that they would sign Opera as their browser....then they can sell you the Antispyware software to go along with the phone which is an additional $10."
Uh, what? Are you saying that Opera is/has spyware? If so, can ya pass the pipe?
I doubt the motivation was that civil. Most stories on Slashdot feature noisy twerps who have ridiculuous over-fucking-reactions to whatever has bunched up their panties. This guy posted that comment becuase it was about something he cared about.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with the sentiment that some people are too noisy about a movie they aren't going to see. However, the fans (fanatics?) of the movies bring a lot of it on themselves. The moment anybody makes a critical comment about Star Wars, a bunch of George-Lucas-Reacharound-Volunteers come out of the woodwork and immediately go into "You're just stupid" debate mode. Here's a few of the tired debate tacticts they try to win with:
The Star Wars fanatics shouldn't be throwing stones about critics of the movies. Telling somebody to shut up because they're overreacting is overreacting. But, alas, the Star Wars fanatics are righteous. They should be allowed to speak without fear of criticism, right? Uh huh.
"I have an idea... DONT WATCH IT. Nobody's forcing you to watch his latest movie."
Translation: I like the movies and don't want to listen to criticism of them.
"I already enjoy having a huge disc."
Funny that you mention you instead of a partner. Busted.
" but no one has claimed my stomach is a black hole."
Well, no, not your stomach anyway.
"we should all know in about 4.2 minutes whether it is really a black hole or not."
Some of us think it's a matter-rearranger capable of re-organizing matter exactly the way it was 13 seconds ago. 13 seconds? Personally, I don't know why they're doing this when they could be installing Linux into an alarm clock or something.
"Is it just me or someone else thinks that a high bishop will steal this, kill the Pope and plant it inside the Vatican ?"
That would suck!
"Wow, you are a giant nerd. A flaming nerd." ... said the guy using the internet to register his complaint about nerds for the entire world to see.
I hear ya, man. I just wanted to touch on one little part, though:
:)
"I don't play with the taskbar."
Before I start, I just want to mention that I'm not preaching to ya or anything.
I really think that XP's taskbar is one of the most underrated features of this OS. (Actually, most of what I find useful about it started with 98...) You can do some really slick stuff with it. For example: I have 'my computer' linked to it like the Quicklaunch bar. I have all the drives ready to go just by clicking on the appropriate button. If I have a CD in the drive (I have 2 optical drives), I can see the title of the disc. I can tell which drive I put the disc in at a glance.
I also have my computer set up so that a bunch of apps I use can be simply copied over to the drive and executed. (i.e. I don't have to reinstall all those apps.) I have a folder of shortcuts for each of those apps sitting there. So I just link that folder as a Quicklaunch tab, and blammo, they're all ready to go. That's quite handy when I move computers or re-install Windows.
One other little thing I have sitting there is the address bar. I can just type in a drive letter or path and go straight to the point.
It's very flexible and I've saved a good deal of time by making it more to the point. That sort of make sense?
Anyway, to each is own, YMMV, etc. Just thought I'd mention that. MS really did do a good job on that aspect of the UI for Windows.
"C:\WINNT> copy firefox.exe explorer.exe"
This doesn't work on XP. Explorer.exe is automatically restored when you mess with it. Of course, it'll be assumed that this is because Microsoft is enforcing a monopoly instead of it simply being a security feature.
"Is it me or nothing MS is pitching in Longhorn sounds that exciting? "
That depends: Whenever Microsoft announces something, everybody on Slashdot is suddenly a minimalist. "Oh, I don't REALLY need a scrollwheel."
Whatever.
I'm personally excited about their vector based UI. There's a couple of reasons I'm digging it:
1.) Some of the UI (the most important part for a good deal of computing) will be offloaded from the main processor to the GPU. Reality may tell a different tale, but I'm happy about the idea of Windows being more responsive as a result. Heck, just going to a dual processor machine has made my computing time much more responsive.
2.) The nice thing about vector based graphics is that the difference between 1024 by 768 and 1600 by 1200 is simply clarity. We'll be buying monitors based on DPI instead of what their max resolution is. I dig the idea, for example, of being able to just scale a window up or down. (Anybody who has used Opera knows what I'm talking about.) It could mean a real significant change in how monitors are used, and it could potentially mean LCDs capable of much higher resolutions.
But, like I said, it's Microsoft's idea so we're all minimalists who are happy with what we've got or have desires to return to the stone-age. But if Apple or the OSS Community talks about it...
" I still don't see the benefits of XP over 2000 as a lowly end-user."
;)
I use XP-pro at work, 2k at home. When I'm at home, there are a few reasons I'd rather have xP. I'm not trying to talk you into switching to XP (I doubt you'd be all that happy if you did) but I figured I'd share in case you or anybody else is considering it.
1.) I like ClearType. YMMV.
2.) XP's image viewer is nice for viewing sequences of images. Some of you probably know what I'm implying.
3.) You can run multiple simultaneous users on XP. Mildly nice, but if you're the only user, hardly worth mentioning.
4.) You can actually LOCK the taskbar so you don't accidently drag that around. I'm extremely hacked off that I can't do this in 2k. Because of this feature, my Task-bar is quite useful since I've tweaked it.
5.) Grouping of common tasks (i.e. several folder windows) and system tray items takes a little getting used to, but in some cases it's very useful. (Potentially annoying, too. But you can always choose.)
6.) The start menu shows the most recently used stuff. Not the greatest whoop-de-doo ever, but I have to admit I've saved a little time as a result of it.
XP has grown on me. I haven't had stability or security issues with 2K or XP so I can't tell you that it's better or worse in that regard. 2K to XP is sort of like getting a moon-roof for your car. You pay more for it, and it has its uses, but you probably wouldn't miss it if you didn't get it.
Okay, I'm not being terribly on-topic here, but I imagine there are people out there wondering if 2K to XP is worthwhile.
I found that very interesting, thanks man. :)
Question: Would this be fairly easy to script together?
"Can it do my laundry? Can it Walk the dog? Can it cook my meals? Hrmm... Guess its not a replacement for Wife 1.0, I never shoulda upgraded in the first place."
Being an early adopter is hell. I still haven't gotten any calls on my video phone. I ended up rerouting my cable to it so I could pretend celebrities are calling.
"I can't imagine having your head that far up there can be comfortable. You are not talking about broader adoption of linux, you are talking about what you want. "
Wrong. I didn't even bother reading past this line. I really don't want to spend the energy saying the same damn thing over and over and over again only to have you try to shoot me down for whatever reasons you've got.
You wanna be reasonable and turn this from a debate into a discussion, I'm willing to dump some of my shitheadedness (I'm not claiming to be squeaky clean here. I've been an ass.) and have a worthwhile discussion with you. If not, that's on you. Grow up or shut up.
"And you don't want linux to be better, you want linux to be more like windows, and hence worse."
Again, you're not listening. I have made this pretty darned clear.
"The universe does not revolve around you, there is no desire to spend hours and hours working hard to provide you with what you consider the perfect OS for free.."
Again with the not listening. I'm talking about broader adoption of Linux, not me specifically and solely. "What's so hard to understand about that?!?!?! *fizzle fizzle grunt*" It's being offered to me for free, and I'm being told left and right to switch to it. Whether or not you personally want to do the work doesn't matter to me in the slightest. The people working on Linux, whether it's the kernel or with the distros, want Linux to be more user friendly and more broadly adopted.
"If you don't like linux, don't use it. Plain and simple."
You know, it's funny, you're telling me about how the universe revolves around me etc, yet you're sitting here telling me to shut up and live with it because you don't want to hear it.
"If you do not like what linux is, then nobody who matters cares, and nobody is willing to make linux crappier for you. "
Uh yeah. Again with the not listening. Okay, maybe you're not arguing with me because you like Linux, maybe it's just because you hate Microsoft. Whatever, it doesn't matter much. I'm the bad guy for suggesting improvements to Linux. Bad me. I should stfu and let the developers spin on their thumbs. Heh. I'm sooOOOoo sorry.
"No, there is no indisputable point in your post, its your opinion. Your opinion is that linux is not as easy to use as windows. But what is easy for one person, isn't easy for someone else, so you can't claim anything to be indisputable facts."
Normally I'd agree. However, there are two important facts: 1.) We're primarily talking about desktop Average Joe users. If we were talking about administrative tasks, I wouldn't make a statement like that. 2.) It would be easy to provide a list of common everyday tasks and compare the Linux version to the Windows version and figure out which one was 'easier'. Count the number of steps, or count the intuitiveness, etc. Frankly, if copy/paste doesn't even work right, I don't understand how you can possibly make that claim.
"If linux is less valuable to you because you would require time to be productive, then do not use it. There is no obligation involved here. Linux was written for the people who wrote it, and it serves them just fine. If other people benefit from that, great. If you don't, then go away. Whining about how people aren't making your perfect custom OS just for you, for free, because you want them to isn't going to help anyone."
There is a wide-spread dream of making Linux replace Windows. It can't do that if it can't lure Windows users. What I'm saying is relevent no matter how dismissive you're being about it. I want Linux to be better, not to say that Linux sucks.
"And finally, yes I truely don't care. I am not being defensive..."
Bullshit. You're not even listening to me. You're telling me I'm wrong wrong wrong and using common debate strategies to blow me off. Don't tell me you don't care or that you're not being defensive, I don't buy it. I especially don't buy it when you're posting anonymously and having to reload to stay on top of this convo. You do care, and you don't think highly of Windows and don't want Linux leaning that way. Frankly, assuming my assumption is correct, I wouldn't blame you for feeling that way. Microsoft has done some things really badly. (*cough*registry*cough*) Nobody wants the bad things coming. However, nobody wants to be tripped up by stupid UI oversights. There's no harm in suggesting Linux have stronger UI features. No reason to shake your Linux-is-great pitchfork, either.
"My mom uses linux. You cannot possibly put less time into learning linux, or windows, or anything else than she has. And she can use it just fine."
Whoop-de-shit. I also have anecdotal evidence that Windows is more secure than Linux. I wouldn't dare profess that as I'd be rightfully shot down. Linux is not as easy to use as Windows or OSX. Simple, indisputable point.
"People who have gotten used to windows and want to think they know "all about computers" expect linux to be windows. "
That's a fair point. They've become productive with Windows. Linux is less valuable because it'd take them time to be as productive. Be dismissive all you want, but this actually is a problem with mass-adoption of Linux. Frankly, it's not like Linux's differences are necessarily for the better. Too many cooks.
"There is no point to linux if its just going to be windows"
Wrong. Windows users would love if a.) They didn't have to reinstall Windows every 6 months, b.) Windows were more secure, c.) Windows was free. d.) All the other little benefits of OSS software that Slashdot collectively pops underwear tents over. There's plenty of reason to put the Windows UI on top of Linux. Stubbornness to move that way is usually motivated by zealousy.
"Just stfu about it, we don't care if you use linux, or what you want linux to be."
You don't care? Bullshit. You obviously do care or you wouldn't be so defensive. Frankly, brushing me off isn't doing you any good. I find it just astonishing that somebody from the same community that's holding Linux on it's shoulders shouting "Choice choice choice!!!" is telling me to shut up because my choices aren't in line with his.
" Stuff like "if stuff doesnt work do round-robin installs of remotely related drivers till it does." is seen way to often as a best practice by those "trained users"."
Err actually I was thinking more like: (note: Examples may not necessarily contradict what Linux does.)
"Let's have one place where the network connections are and call it something cute like 'network neighborhood'."
"Let's have a place called 'control panel' where every system configuration option is, then we'll have categories under it for more specific aspects of the computer."
"Let's make sure copy and paste work properly in the right context regardless of what the target app is."
"Let's make it super easy to install a driver or piece of software. Step 1.) Run Install. Step 2.) Press [OK] a few times. Let's also create a place under Control Panel where they can uninstall ANY app installed to the machine."
"Let's standardize on particular apps to do particular jobs by default, then let the user pick alternatives later." (anybody who's been confused by all the K-words in their equivalent of a start menu knows what I'm talking about.)
If you're hitting reply because you want to argue the details, don't, taht's not what I'm pushing here. With Windows, a user doesn't have to have that broad of knowledge to get started with. Once you learn a handful of basic things (like where Control Panel is or that ctrl+c means 'copy'), you're rockin and rollin. Linux distros need to take on this philosophy. Don't believe me? Ask Apple about it.