So, what about people who are bisexual? I've been attracted to both men and women, and can make a choice at any time to choose either or both. I know plenty of people in a similar position.
Indeed, this is an example where it really is a choice. But note, you're not choosing who you're attracted to - you're still attracted to both and that you didn't choose. You instead make a choice about what relationships to have and so on.
Is it really a choice in that sense for everyone? That's not my experience of many people, who insist that they don't have any attractions towards the same sex. When the typical homophobic person claims it's "a choice", is he really saying "Yes actually I'm attracted towards men too, but I just choose not to do anything with them"?
(I agree that sexuality seems to be a continuum, but there still seem to be people who are over towards one end of the spectrum - and more to the point, they didn't choose their location on this continuum. Sexuality is about who we're attracted to - i.e., where we are on this continuum - and not about which choices we make.)
Moderation on Apple stories really is broken - calling someone "retarded" is okay, but responding calmly is trolling, just because I dare to be critical of Apple?
Yes, my phone Just Works with my computer if I want it to (e.g., I don't need to hack it in order to get basic things like "tethering" working). However, I expect my phone to Just Work Out Of The Box, and not have to lumber it to connecting it with a Windows box. If Iphones can't do that, well that's not the end of the world, but it's confusing since (a) they are held up as if they were the best phones on the market (e.g., consider all the Slashsdot Slashvertisements such as this story), and (b) the only reason that people can come up with for why they are good is that they "Just Work" - so when we get evidence that they don't in fact Just Work, it makes me suspicious of such claims.
Yes, we're talking phones here - which are now portable computers complete with their own Internet connection. Why should I need to have to strap it to a PC in order to get something working?
Apple were not the first to allow syncing with computers - it's been done by other phones for years. I entirely get that phones should integrate with computers (which Apple don't get, btw - see the example of tethering). What you don't get is that a phone should also be able to Just Work Out Of The Box on its own. A computer gives me extra optional features but it shouldn't be required to give me what other phones can do as standard.
You are confusing the difference between connecting to a computer to add features that are impossible for a phone to have on its own, versus needing to use a computer to remove some artificial constraint that only exists on the Iphone.
So pointing out I have a phone that Just Works is Trolling? Right. Sounds like there's an Iphone fan out there who can't acknowledge that other phones exist, that work without requiring hacks.
Blimey, I love how any comment negative of Apple results in a torrent of abuse. The only one "blathering" here is you. "OMG RETARDED LOL" What are you, 12?
Yes, my phone Just Works with my computer if I want it to (e.g., I don't need to hack it in order to get basic things like "tethering" working). However, I expect my phone to Just Work Out Of The Box, and not have to lumber it to connecting it with a Windows box. If Iphones can't do that, well that's not the end of the world, but it's confusing since (a) they are held up as if they were the best phones on the market (e.g., consider all the Slashsdot Slashvertisements such as this story), and (b) the only reason that people can come up with for why they are good is that they "Just Work" - so when we get evidence that they don't in fact Just Work, it makes me suspicious of such claims.
Yes, we're talking phones here - which are now portable computers complete with their own Internet connection. Why should I need to have to strap it to a PC in order to get something working?
(see, they -- like you -- don't really 'get it' that a modern phone should be coupled with a modern user's computer). Apple, BTW, gets that.
What? Are you seriously suggesting that other phones don't do syncing with a computer? Please don't tell me you believe this as yet another Mythical Apple First? They've been doing it for years.
I entirely get that phones should integrate with computers (which Apple don't get, btw - see the example of tethering). What you don't get is that a phone should also be able to Just Work Out Of The Box on its own. A computer gives me extra optional features but it shouldn't be required to give me what other phones can do as standard.
You are confusing the difference between connecting to a computer to add features that are impossible for a phone to have on its own, versus needing to use a computer to remove some artificial constraint that only exists on the Iphone.
Windows Mobile phones have no restrictions on the software you can run, and as far as I know, there haven't been any viruses or security issues. Even if there HAVE been, they have to be obscure, and limited to people who installed specific, weird applications.
Windows Mobile phones are SO much better than an iPhone for *actually doing stuff* that it isn't even funny. There are REAL applications for Windows Mobile phones, because anyone can make an app. The only thing the iPhone has going for it is, well, I don't know what it has going for it. Pretty icons?
I entirely agree. Note to mods - just because someone dares to express an opinion about an Apple product that you disagree with, doesn't make them a Troll.
(I also find it interesting that rather than answering his question on what the Iphone has going for it, people would rather mod it out of sight.)
Wait - so the reason why OS X is (supposedly) more secure than Windows is because Apple prevent people writing 3rd party apps for OS X, too?
I'm calling Poe's Law on this post. If it's genuine, then I'm not sure what to say. Have you used any other phones? Yes, clearly we're all bogged down with malware, and everyone runs antivirus on their phone!
Why choose between two inferior alternatives? I'll take phones with good UIs, and that don't require jailbreaking to just work.
I don't know if it's true that Android has a poorer UI than the Iphone (a poorer UI than one that doesn't even support copy and paste? That is bad), but even if that was true, these are only two phones, that are both niche players in a large market. For some reason, we never hear about any of the other phones here though.
Why? When you can have the polished UI without jailbreaking?
[Plenty of phones have polished UIs. If you disagree, the burden is upon you to provide evidence and objective examples of how the Iphone's UI is better than all other UIs, rather than simply making assertions. Since when has a mere assertion been insightful? Oh right, that's moderation on Apple stories for you.]
I disagree. A URL in words is something I can read, and (assuming they haven't introduced subtle misspellings), I can easily memorise and retype accurately. That's far harder to do with random jumbles of characters.
Consider: memorising and retyping developers.slashdot.org is trivial. How quickly can you memorise or retype random strings of 23 characters? Even if we reduce the number to 10, how easy is it?
Yes, there is the risk of getting the order wrong. But with the shortened version, you would be more likely to get the order mixed up - or more likely still, just forget it outright.
If you think Gimp is even close to the same as Photoshop
You're missing the point. How many average users are running Photoshop? Seriously - the cost is what, $699?
The topic here is "Linux on the desktop", not "Usage in the niche market of graphic design". Yes, the lack of a killer app like Photoshop may mean Linux is never the platform of choice for graphic design, but that's totally irrelevant to a discussion on gaining market share in the home.
We're also talking about netbooks. Are you seriously suggesting that the average netbook user buys a netbook, then spends about twice as much as the hardware to get Photoshop? I don't think so.
It's an interesting tactic - showing that some actions aren't so bad, because those people also do far worse things.
I can just imagine you as a defence lawyer. "It's ludicrous to suggest that the defendant has done anything wrong. Here is a list of far more despicable things that he's been up to".
Yes, it's true that I'd be far more concerned over the other stuff, but you're missing the point that it's all part of the same problem. There's something distasteful that they not only commit these other acts of real torture, but that we also see cases like this where they are gloating about it. Maybe I'm just expecting a bit of professionalism.
I love South Park, but I'd rather not mix my entertainment with propaganda.
Incarceration serves a purpose - it is not Needless, which is what the OP stated.
I'm not sure what the need or purpose of this was, however?
Most prisons outside of the US are 'more cruel' in their nutritional and hygienic standards, perhaps the international community can fix themselves up first.
So now we've switched from justifying needless cruelty by the history of the victim, to justfying it based on what third parties do? That's even weaker.
In my 50 years of experience there are three types of women * Those who hate sex (common and really sad- seems to last decades) * Those who are extremely promiscuous (uncommon but more common than you think) * Those who enjoy sex and are reasonably or totally monogamous (uncommonly for a decade, rare for a lifetime)
Well, logically it seems obvious: either people hate sex or they don't. Either people are promiscuous or they aren't. Either they are monogamous or they aren't.
So you missed out people who aren't monogamous, but aren't promiscuous. As well as people who are monogamous and promiscuous (which in my experience are more common, simply because non-monogamous people are less common as a whole).
That was nice, though see my post at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1191473&cid=27503149 . They didn't open source it, nor did they release the ROMs (which formed a necessary and significant part of the OS) for free AFAIK.
So you're saying that all the OS X versions are equivalent to one version of Windows, and so OS X hasn't really change much since the days of Windows 2000? That's not exactly making Apple look good!
Not to mention that OS 8 isn't an earlier version - OS X is an entirely different OS to classic MacOS. But it doesn't change my point, as even OS 8 isn't open sourced.
Its not Apple's fault that Microsoft isn't more aggressively evolving.
I don't understand - you're claiming that all the OS X versions over the years are just equivalent to one version of Windows, but Microsoft are the ones who aren't aggressively evolving?
Apple bashing? The only bashing here was Microsoft-bashing from the OP. I merely pointed out that this is an unreasonable thing to bash companies for, and other companies do the same. Apple was simply one of many examples.
I'm not bashing anyone - if you actually read my post, you'll see that I'm not the one who thinks that companies should open source their past products. Take your gripe up with the OP.
Mac users generally don't need support for older systems since their OS upgrades are actually good. I've never heard of a Mac user downgrading to Tiger because Leopard sucked. Or for a better comparison, from Leopard to OS 9.
I fail to see how that has relevance to what I wrote.
And the only reason you never see people downgrading to OS 9 is because classic MacOS was abysmal (not to mention that it won't run on newer machines). So yes, Microsoft are at fault for producing an OS (XP) that's just too good.
The problem is that every software company would be burdened with supporting every single previous version of all their products, out of fear of being forced to open up the source.
Another problem is how would such a law distinguish between different products, and newer version? I mean, when a company releases v1.1 to fix issues in v1, they'd claim that this is their support, and from that point on, they only have to support v1.1 - they no longer have to support v1, because v1.1 is the support for that.
But Microsoft would say that Vista is the supported upgrade for XP. Yes, there are clearly major differences, but where do you draw the line? Could they get round this simply by calling it XP 1.1 rather than Vista?
And how would you define "support"? All that would happen in practice with such a law is that they'd claim that support never ends, but then only release a minor change every couple of years or so for anything other than their most recent versions.
Does support have to be free? If so, that's a burden for companies that charge for continual upgrades. If not, all that'll happen is that companies will gladly support old versions, with a hefty price tag.
An analogy would be making DOS or Windows 95 freely distributable. It would be nice if they did that, but I think neither this nor what Apple do is comparable to open sourcing Windows XP.
ISTR that you still need to have Mac ROMs to run those operating systems anyway, which are not freely distributable. So it would be more like Microsoft giving away some of the Windows 9x files that allowed you to upgrade from an older version, but was useless otherwise.
Also, Apple are primarily a hardware company, so it wouldn't really matter too much if they gave their OS away for free. But for this reason, they'd never open source OS X, because they'd have too much to lose from someone making it so that it runs on any PC - and worse, it would be legal for competitors to sell such machines with that OS installed as standard.
Having no rights to it would imply losing their copyright. I think it's a far stronger thing to demand that they turn over the source code (I presume this is what the OP was suggesting).
And is Apple going to open source OS X 10.4 now that 10.5 is out? Can we criticise them for not doing so?[*]
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the general principle of opening old products that are abandoned by the company. But it would be complete madness for any company to open source one of their major products, one that is still widely used. Working out how to encourage people to upgrade is bad enough of a problem as it is - but open sourcing a discontinued product would create a major new competitor for them.
Yes, we know how the source code for Doom was released just 4 years after Doom's release, but the computer games industry moves much faster, such that in 1997, Doom was no competition for ID's new releases, nor would it provide much of a boost to anyone wanting to update it to be a competing engine. The OS market, by contrast, is fairly mature now - indeed, this is why Microsoft have so much trouble getting people to upgrade, because XP is good enough for most people.
(Are there any examples of application software that get open sourced, OOI?)
[*] For the pedants - yes, I know Darwin is open source, but that's not OS X.
I have XP on my laptop, so I know the differences.
1. Good point, although I think it's better to remove safely at all times.
3. Quicktime is abysmal, and I'm not going to let Apple dictate what OS I use. I try to avoid it altogether, but if I must use it, an old version is fine with me.
4. Motorola phones are fine:)
5. No problems with the software that I use. As I say, it's starting to be a problem, as driver support is gradually ending.
No one cares about unrealistic hypothetical cases - an Amiga 500 can run a multitasking GUI is a minute fraction of the processing power and RAM, after all - what matters is real world tests.
If one OS lets me do something (such as working with >3GB) faster than another, that's all that matters.
Do you have evidence btw that Vista (or Windows 7) is slower on a 2GB machine, compared with XP?
Some of us go one step further, and still run Windows 2000:) (I have XP on my laptop, but that just means I need to spend ages turning off the new interface settings, and it's annoying that the search-in-files features is broken (did they fix that in Vista?)) I remember when everyone on Slashdot was complaining about the then new XP, and how 2000 was better...
Unfortunately it's reaching the stage where manufacturers are dropping it from driver support, so I may have to upgrade just for that. Hopefully XP will have a longer life though, due to greater use as a "home" OS.
And it will be interesting to watch 50% of the population miss out on new gadgets (or have to awkwardly carry them around), because they are constrained by centuries old social gender roles. (Or perhaps the old requirement about having to cram everything into a small pocket will finally be done away with - of course, they'll be "netbook bags", not handbags...)
Slashdot Mirror
So, what about people who are bisexual? I've been attracted to both men and women, and can make a choice at any time to choose either or both. I know plenty of people in a similar position.
Indeed, this is an example where it really is a choice. But note, you're not choosing who you're attracted to - you're still attracted to both and that you didn't choose. You instead make a choice about what relationships to have and so on.
Is it really a choice in that sense for everyone? That's not my experience of many people, who insist that they don't have any attractions towards the same sex. When the typical homophobic person claims it's "a choice", is he really saying "Yes actually I'm attracted towards men too, but I just choose not to do anything with them"?
(I agree that sexuality seems to be a continuum, but there still seem to be people who are over towards one end of the spectrum - and more to the point, they didn't choose their location on this continuum. Sexuality is about who we're attracted to - i.e., where we are on this continuum - and not about which choices we make.)
Moderation on Apple stories really is broken - calling someone "retarded" is okay, but responding calmly is trolling, just because I dare to be critical of Apple?
Yes, my phone Just Works with my computer if I want it to (e.g., I don't need to hack it in order to get basic things like "tethering" working). However, I expect my phone to Just Work Out Of The Box, and not have to lumber it to connecting it with a Windows box. If Iphones can't do that, well that's not the end of the world, but it's confusing since (a) they are held up as if they were the best phones on the market (e.g., consider all the Slashsdot Slashvertisements such as this story), and (b) the only reason that people can come up with for why they are good is that they "Just Work" - so when we get evidence that they don't in fact Just Work, it makes me suspicious of such claims.
Yes, we're talking phones here - which are now portable computers complete with their own Internet connection. Why should I need to have to strap it to a PC in order to get something working?
Apple were not the first to allow syncing with computers - it's been done by other phones for years. I entirely get that phones should integrate with computers (which Apple don't get, btw - see the example of tethering). What you don't get is that a phone should also be able to Just Work Out Of The Box on its own. A computer gives me extra optional features but it shouldn't be required to give me what other phones can do as standard.
You are confusing the difference between connecting to a computer to add features that are impossible for a phone to have on its own, versus needing to use a computer to remove some artificial constraint that only exists on the Iphone.
So pointing out I have a phone that Just Works is Trolling? Right. Sounds like there's an Iphone fan out there who can't acknowledge that other phones exist, that work without requiring hacks.
Blimey, I love how any comment negative of Apple results in a torrent of abuse. The only one "blathering" here is you. "OMG RETARDED LOL" What are you, 12?
Yes, my phone Just Works with my computer if I want it to (e.g., I don't need to hack it in order to get basic things like "tethering" working). However, I expect my phone to Just Work Out Of The Box, and not have to lumber it to connecting it with a Windows box. If Iphones can't do that, well that's not the end of the world, but it's confusing since (a) they are held up as if they were the best phones on the market (e.g., consider all the Slashsdot Slashvertisements such as this story), and (b) the only reason that people can come up with for why they are good is that they "Just Work" - so when we get evidence that they don't in fact Just Work, it makes me suspicious of such claims.
Yes, we're talking phones here - which are now portable computers complete with their own Internet connection. Why should I need to have to strap it to a PC in order to get something working?
(see, they -- like you -- don't really 'get it' that a modern phone should be coupled with a modern user's computer). Apple, BTW, gets that.
What? Are you seriously suggesting that other phones don't do syncing with a computer? Please don't tell me you believe this as yet another Mythical Apple First? They've been doing it for years.
I entirely get that phones should integrate with computers (which Apple don't get, btw - see the example of tethering). What you don't get is that a phone should also be able to Just Work Out Of The Box on its own. A computer gives me extra optional features but it shouldn't be required to give me what other phones can do as standard.
You are confusing the difference between connecting to a computer to add features that are impossible for a phone to have on its own, versus needing to use a computer to remove some artificial constraint that only exists on the Iphone.
Windows Mobile phones have no restrictions on the software you can run, and as far as I know, there haven't been any viruses or security issues. Even if there HAVE been, they have to be obscure, and limited to people who installed specific, weird applications.
Windows Mobile phones are SO much better than an iPhone for *actually doing stuff* that it isn't even funny. There are REAL applications for Windows Mobile phones, because anyone can make an app. The only thing the iPhone has going for it is, well, I don't know what it has going for it. Pretty icons?
I entirely agree. Note to mods - just because someone dares to express an opinion about an Apple product that you disagree with, doesn't make them a Troll.
(I also find it interesting that rather than answering his question on what the Iphone has going for it, people would rather mod it out of sight.)
Wait - so the reason why OS X is (supposedly) more secure than Windows is because Apple prevent people writing 3rd party apps for OS X, too?
I'm calling Poe's Law on this post. If it's genuine, then I'm not sure what to say. Have you used any other phones? Yes, clearly we're all bogged down with malware, and everyone runs antivirus on their phone!
Why choose between two inferior alternatives? I'll take phones with good UIs, and that don't require jailbreaking to just work.
I don't know if it's true that Android has a poorer UI than the Iphone (a poorer UI than one that doesn't even support copy and paste? That is bad), but even if that was true, these are only two phones, that are both niche players in a large market. For some reason, we never hear about any of the other phones here though.
jailbreaking (in windows) requires about 5 clicks from an installshield type application.
Apple, it Works, Just!
I just switched my phone on and used it. It Just Works. What is this Windows thing you speak of? - we're talking phones, not PCs.
Why? When you can have the polished UI without jailbreaking?
[Plenty of phones have polished UIs. If you disagree, the burden is upon you to provide evidence and objective examples of how the Iphone's UI is better than all other UIs, rather than simply making assertions. Since when has a mere assertion been insightful? Oh right, that's moderation on Apple stories for you.]
I disagree. A URL in words is something I can read, and (assuming they haven't introduced subtle misspellings), I can easily memorise and retype accurately. That's far harder to do with random jumbles of characters.
Consider: memorising and retyping developers.slashdot.org is trivial. How quickly can you memorise or retype random strings of 23 characters? Even if we reduce the number to 10, how easy is it?
Yes, there is the risk of getting the order wrong. But with the shortened version, you would be more likely to get the order mixed up - or more likely still, just forget it outright.
I'm no Linux fan, but:
If you think Gimp is even close to the same as Photoshop
You're missing the point. How many average users are running Photoshop? Seriously - the cost is what, $699?
The topic here is "Linux on the desktop", not "Usage in the niche market of graphic design". Yes, the lack of a killer app like Photoshop may mean Linux is never the platform of choice for graphic design, but that's totally irrelevant to a discussion on gaining market share in the home.
We're also talking about netbooks. Are you seriously suggesting that the average netbook user buys a netbook, then spends about twice as much as the hardware to get Photoshop? I don't think so.
It's an interesting tactic - showing that some actions aren't so bad, because those people also do far worse things.
I can just imagine you as a defence lawyer. "It's ludicrous to suggest that the defendant has done anything wrong. Here is a list of far more despicable things that he's been up to".
Yes, it's true that I'd be far more concerned over the other stuff, but you're missing the point that it's all part of the same problem. There's something distasteful that they not only commit these other acts of real torture, but that we also see cases like this where they are gloating about it. Maybe I'm just expecting a bit of professionalism.
I love South Park, but I'd rather not mix my entertainment with propaganda.
Incarceration serves a purpose - it is not Needless, which is what the OP stated.
I'm not sure what the need or purpose of this was, however?
Most prisons outside of the US are 'more cruel' in their nutritional and hygienic standards, perhaps the international community can fix themselves up first.
So now we've switched from justifying needless cruelty by the history of the victim, to justfying it based on what third parties do? That's even weaker.
In my 50 years of experience there are three types of women
* Those who hate sex (common and really sad- seems to last decades)
* Those who are extremely promiscuous (uncommon but more common than you think)
* Those who enjoy sex and are reasonably or totally monogamous (uncommonly for a decade, rare for a lifetime)
Well, logically it seems obvious: either people hate sex or they don't. Either people are promiscuous or they aren't. Either they are monogamous or they aren't.
So you missed out people who aren't monogamous, but aren't promiscuous. As well as people who are monogamous and promiscuous (which in my experience are more common, simply because non-monogamous people are less common as a whole).
That was nice, though see my post at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1191473&cid=27503149 . They didn't open source it, nor did they release the ROMs (which formed a necessary and significant part of the OS) for free AFAIK.
So you're saying that all the OS X versions are equivalent to one version of Windows, and so OS X hasn't really change much since the days of Windows 2000? That's not exactly making Apple look good!
Not to mention that OS 8 isn't an earlier version - OS X is an entirely different OS to classic MacOS. But it doesn't change my point, as even OS 8 isn't open sourced.
Its not Apple's fault that Microsoft isn't more aggressively evolving.
I don't understand - you're claiming that all the OS X versions over the years are just equivalent to one version of Windows, but Microsoft are the ones who aren't aggressively evolving?
Apple bashing? The only bashing here was Microsoft-bashing from the OP. I merely pointed out that this is an unreasonable thing to bash companies for, and other companies do the same. Apple was simply one of many examples.
I'm not bashing anyone - if you actually read my post, you'll see that I'm not the one who thinks that companies should open source their past products. Take your gripe up with the OP.
Mac users generally don't need support for older systems since their OS upgrades are actually good. I've never heard of a Mac user downgrading to Tiger because Leopard sucked. Or for a better comparison, from Leopard to OS 9.
I fail to see how that has relevance to what I wrote.
And the only reason you never see people downgrading to OS 9 is because classic MacOS was abysmal (not to mention that it won't run on newer machines). So yes, Microsoft are at fault for producing an OS (XP) that's just too good.
The problem is that every software company would be burdened with supporting every single previous version of all their products, out of fear of being forced to open up the source.
Another problem is how would such a law distinguish between different products, and newer version? I mean, when a company releases v1.1 to fix issues in v1, they'd claim that this is their support, and from that point on, they only have to support v1.1 - they no longer have to support v1, because v1.1 is the support for that.
But Microsoft would say that Vista is the supported upgrade for XP. Yes, there are clearly major differences, but where do you draw the line? Could they get round this simply by calling it XP 1.1 rather than Vista?
And how would you define "support"? All that would happen in practice with such a law is that they'd claim that support never ends, but then only release a minor change every couple of years or so for anything other than their most recent versions.
Does support have to be free? If so, that's a burden for companies that charge for continual upgrades. If not, all that'll happen is that companies will gladly support old versions, with a hefty price tag.
An analogy would be making DOS or Windows 95 freely distributable. It would be nice if they did that, but I think neither this nor what Apple do is comparable to open sourcing Windows XP.
ISTR that you still need to have Mac ROMs to run those operating systems anyway, which are not freely distributable. So it would be more like Microsoft giving away some of the Windows 9x files that allowed you to upgrade from an older version, but was useless otherwise.
Also, Apple are primarily a hardware company, so it wouldn't really matter too much if they gave their OS away for free. But for this reason, they'd never open source OS X, because they'd have too much to lose from someone making it so that it runs on any PC - and worse, it would be legal for competitors to sell such machines with that OS installed as standard.
Having no rights to it would imply losing their copyright. I think it's a far stronger thing to demand that they turn over the source code (I presume this is what the OP was suggesting).
Oh... wait, it is Microsoft.
And is Apple going to open source OS X 10.4 now that 10.5 is out? Can we criticise them for not doing so?[*]
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the general principle of opening old products that are abandoned by the company. But it would be complete madness for any company to open source one of their major products, one that is still widely used. Working out how to encourage people to upgrade is bad enough of a problem as it is - but open sourcing a discontinued product would create a major new competitor for them.
Yes, we know how the source code for Doom was released just 4 years after Doom's release, but the computer games industry moves much faster, such that in 1997, Doom was no competition for ID's new releases, nor would it provide much of a boost to anyone wanting to update it to be a competing engine. The OS market, by contrast, is fairly mature now - indeed, this is why Microsoft have so much trouble getting people to upgrade, because XP is good enough for most people.
(Are there any examples of application software that get open sourced, OOI?)
[*] For the pedants - yes, I know Darwin is open source, but that's not OS X.
I have XP on my laptop, so I know the differences.
1. Good point, although I think it's better to remove safely at all times.
3. Quicktime is abysmal, and I'm not going to let Apple dictate what OS I use. I try to avoid it altogether, but if I must use it, an old version is fine with me.
4. Motorola phones are fine :)
5. No problems with the software that I use. As I say, it's starting to be a problem, as driver support is gradually ending.
And all this will one day be true of XP.
By "core OS" you mean "not doing anything"?
No one cares about unrealistic hypothetical cases - an Amiga 500 can run a multitasking GUI is a minute fraction of the processing power and RAM, after all - what matters is real world tests.
If one OS lets me do something (such as working with >3GB) faster than another, that's all that matters.
Do you have evidence btw that Vista (or Windows 7) is slower on a 2GB machine, compared with XP?
Some of us go one step further, and still run Windows 2000 :) (I have XP on my laptop, but that just means I need to spend ages turning off the new interface settings, and it's annoying that the search-in-files features is broken (did they fix that in Vista?)) I remember when everyone on Slashdot was complaining about the then new XP, and how 2000 was better...
Unfortunately it's reaching the stage where manufacturers are dropping it from driver support, so I may have to upgrade just for that. Hopefully XP will have a longer life though, due to greater use as a "home" OS.
An excellent point.
And it will be interesting to watch 50% of the population miss out on new gadgets (or have to awkwardly carry them around), because they are constrained by centuries old social gender roles. (Or perhaps the old requirement about having to cram everything into a small pocket will finally be done away with - of course, they'll be "netbook bags", not handbags...)