However every time I see an ad or an article about Windows anti-virus or anti-malware it is always more than I pay for Mac OS X, and it is always recommended if you want to have even a chance at privacy and security.
Except you don't have to pay for that stuff. I'm running Windows 2000, and have got away fine with never having to pay for commercial software.
Ads are inaccurate and misleading in general - but I have fair less tolerance for ads that just slag off the competition in such a manner, rather than telling us the good points of their product.
I don't think there's been that much a change, at least regarding Macs. The media mentioned OS X when XP was launched, and in fact with classic MacOS before that, the mainstream press long gave obligitary mention to the Mac, whether or not it was warranted, and even when there were other popular home machines, which were ignored.
It's always been "Mac or PC and nothing else" for the mainstream media, where "PC" only ever meant a machine running DOS or Windows.
What has changed I think this time round is more coverage for Linux.
It's just you IMHO. It sounds like someone that doesn't like the fact that Google is doing it for the sole reason of improving its image in the world and not for the reason that its algorithms shouldn't have allowed it to occur in the first place.
So what, they shouldn't fix their algorithms if they find something wrong? They should act in a way that makes people think badly of them?
Spending six years and six billion dollars to achieve little more than a (debatable) improvement in security and a glossy but irritating GUI is wrong.
Imagine what a company that cared about its customers could do with those resources.
Release OS X? Oh wait.
I think it's a case of damned if they do, and damned if they don't. When Apple release a glossy but irritating GUI, it gets nothing but praise, but meanwhile Vista is complained about for wasting resources on it. I realise it's probably different people doing the complaining, and all the more reason it's annoying that Microsoft have had to follow Apple in the looks department, but it's not Microsoft alone who are at fault here.
Similarly with security - if they don't, then obviously people would complain at them for that too. I suspect less money was spent on the development of OS X, but anyone pointing out it's little more than an increase in security and a glossy but irritating GUI and claiming it is therefore wrong would be quickly modded down.
In response to this article, I think it's a case that new operating systems in general have not much to offer people, because it's hard for anyone to see what else new an OS could offer. Microsoft aren't alone in this.
The porn one is also a good example of "the other side being more zealous" - an opposing petiton to criminalise private possession a wide range of porn (including just filming yourself and your partner in private), has gathered almost twice as many signatures in a shorter time.
It's being promoted by mediawatch-uk (general pro-censorship group, set up by Mary Whitehouse), and as far as I can tell appears to be circulating through all the religious channels.
I even asked someone who'd signed why they'd want to criminalise two people filming themselves, and the response was "Why would anyone want to do that?"
That's a good point - and I think that's a good thing for most of us, in that often these petitions were a vocal minority who suddenly got a large amount of publicity, and the Government was forced into implementing stupid or unnecessary laws as a result. Not that drink-driving is anything I'd condone of course, but there are plenty of examples where people have claimed all sorts of things should be banned for dubious reasons (usually playing on the emotive example of some poor dead person).
My fear with this website is it would allow more people to do this, but as you say, if they don't get the publicity, then the effect is greatly reduced.
Often those on one side of an argument are more zealous. I wasn't about to go out spamming people to get votes. Also, those viewing one petition and it's arguments wouldn't necessarily consume the counter arguments. So I think an automated "anti-petition" or "nosign" would be a better solution.
But I would be worried of that backfiring, again because of the other side being more zealous - imagine I set up a petition trying to promote some important cause, but it gets flooded with anti-signatures from a load of zealots; I'll have made things worse for myself than before...
remember, the original iMac is the first machine that didn't have a floppy drive.
I'm curious why so many say this, when it clearly isn't true (obviously there were loads of machines without floppies before then). As I stated in another comment, the Amiga CDTV came without floppy in 1991.
It would be more significant for a manufacturer to do away with floppies altogether (as presumably Apple did do at some point).
In 1991, Commodore released the Amiga CDTV without floppy drive...
Okay, floppies were still useful back then, but then some people feel floppies were still needed in 1998 - the day when they were useless isn't really dependent on when a particular manufacturer released a computer without floppy drive.
I was shocked when the XP networking wizard seemed to insist on a floppy when it offered to write a disk so I could set up other machines on the network...
So your "I am sick and tired of Windows constantly crashing and having to replace hardware." comment is based on both a completely different OS (Windows 9x/ME are nothing to do with NT/2000/XP/Vista), and one which is over a decade old (NT 4)!
OS X didn't even exist when Windows ME or NT were around. And if you want to compare to the joke that was Apple's offering at the time ("classic" MacOS), then that's a whole different story. I might as well complain Macs are bad because they can't preemptively multitask, or they have no memory protection...
Really, Windows 2000 onwards is much more stable, and no comparison to Windows ME. If you want to avoid activation, then I'd recommend getting hold of Windows 2000 (which I use). Activation is a reason to avoid Windows and go for other OSs such as Linux, but don't be led into thinking that experience of ME has anything to do with how XP/Vista behave.
I'm annoyed by the phrase "for PC or Mac" - if it works with any computer and you fear people will assume PC means Windows, why not just say "for a computer"? And if you specifically want to say it works with Windows, why not say "for Windows or Mac"?
The word you're looking for is "microcomputer". "PC", as you point out, is short for "Personal Computer". "Personal Computer", in turn, is IBM's market-speak for their entry into the microcomputer market and its descendants; specifically with microsoft's OS running on Intel CPUs. Thus a PC is never a Macintosh, and until Apple switched from PPC to Intel chips, it was never possible for a Mac to be a PC.
Apple marketed PowerMacs as "PCs".
Now, it is possible to turn a Mac into a PC by using Bootcamp and running windows natively on it.
You think that running Windows makes something a PC?
Note that there are other, arguably better, systems to STV (e.g., Condorcet Method) - we should ditch FPTP, but it's a shame that it's only STV ever seems to get any attention.
Well, the way I see it there are two sets of users: Those people who get on and use a computer to do what they want, and those people who spend their time saying how their OS is better, how rubbish the other OS is, and even going so far as to make ridiculous stereotypes of those who use the other OS.
Whether this group is more common on one platform or another is left for the reader to decide.
The irony is that with the PowerPC Macs, Apple seemed to insist that Macs were PCs (see the ads where they falsely claimed "first 64 bit PCs", and dubiously claimed "fastest desktop PC"), yet when they switched to Intel, the ads insisted they weren't PCs, in that the adverts went something like "Now Intel CPUs will be running on something other than PCs..."
Honestly, even though I'm used to equating PC with that very specific type of computer, I still thought at first it was going to be an Intel ad advertising CPUs being used in something like embedded use (i.e., not a typical computer). Given that the average person is not going to see the distinction between personal computer and Macs at all (especially after what Apple have advertised previously), I don't see how that advertising campaign made much sense.
I didn't say the US system would do that, the post I replied to said it would be good to store all this information together. Furthermore, the idea that European countries have "ID cards" is not in itself relevant, as "ID card" can mean many different things, including storing such information.
Although at the same time, lots of people seem to treat Wikipedia as worse than other encyclopedias - they happily cite those (or even random webpages), but claim Wikipedia should never be cited.
The information may be completely accurate and objective, but if you can't give a better source than "HanSolo666" it isn't worth squat.
So drawing on Britannica is only worth anything you also name the individual authors who wrote those words? How come people only ever say "Britannica", rather than telling me their names?
I would prefer to have one digital pad which contained all my personal information, including money and tax information, so I do not have to carry a cash card, credit card, health card, library card, bus & metro card and money with me all the time.
The problem is not with a standardised ID system (which most countries without "national ID cards" already have on a voluntary basis anyway), but it's the things which go with it - e.g., a big Government database which stores all your personal information, including everything you spend money on, your health, books you take out the library, and every journey you make on public transport.
And given a choice between "having" to carry a few items (where not doing so gives me minor inconvenience, and I don't have to if I don't need those things) and having to carry an ID card (where not doing so means I am a criminal), I think I'll take the former.
Also note that not all ID card systems are the same. I don't know about the US' plans, but the UK plan differs from those that "most European countries already have" (e.g., biometrics, one big database, the immense cost of it - over £90 per person...)
Yeah, I'd seriously hope that this only includes non-work use at home, and only considers people living with an SO - the report implies that, but who knows.
Even if it does though, this still doesn't surprise me - long term couples living together do not tend to spend all their time doing activities *together* (other than simply being in the same room). You have things like watching TV together, which a lot of people probably spend most of their free time doing - how does that count? And if that counts as time with your SO, why doesn't both using their computers counts? Or one using a computer and one reading a book?
Slashdot Mirror
However every time I see an ad or an article about Windows anti-virus or anti-malware it is always more than I pay for Mac OS X, and it is always recommended if you want to have even a chance at privacy and security.
Except you don't have to pay for that stuff. I'm running Windows 2000, and have got away fine with never having to pay for commercial software.
Ads are inaccurate and misleading in general - but I have fair less tolerance for ads that just slag off the competition in such a manner, rather than telling us the good points of their product.
I don't think there's been that much a change, at least regarding Macs. The media mentioned OS X when XP was launched, and in fact with classic MacOS before that, the mainstream press long gave obligitary mention to the Mac, whether or not it was warranted, and even when there were other popular home machines, which were ignored.
It's always been "Mac or PC and nothing else" for the mainstream media, where "PC" only ever meant a machine running DOS or Windows.
What has changed I think this time round is more coverage for Linux.
It's just you IMHO. It sounds like someone that doesn't like the fact that Google is doing it for the sole reason of improving its image in the world and not for the reason that its algorithms shouldn't have allowed it to occur in the first place.
So what, they shouldn't fix their algorithms if they find something wrong? They should act in a way that makes people think badly of them?
I imagine most Windows copies are sold with new machines? So I guess the answer will be "same as with XP".
Spending six years and six billion dollars to achieve little more than a (debatable) improvement in security and a glossy but irritating GUI is wrong.
Imagine what a company that cared about its customers could do with those resources.
Release OS X? Oh wait.
I think it's a case of damned if they do, and damned if they don't. When Apple release a glossy but irritating GUI, it gets nothing but praise, but meanwhile Vista is complained about for wasting resources on it. I realise it's probably different people doing the complaining, and all the more reason it's annoying that Microsoft have had to follow Apple in the looks department, but it's not Microsoft alone who are at fault here.
Similarly with security - if they don't, then obviously people would complain at them for that too. I suspect less money was spent on the development of OS X, but anyone pointing out it's little more than an increase in security and a glossy but irritating GUI and claiming it is therefore wrong would be quickly modded down.
In response to this article, I think it's a case that new operating systems in general have not much to offer people, because it's hard for anyone to see what else new an OS could offer. Microsoft aren't alone in this.
The porn one is also a good example of "the other side being more zealous" - an opposing petiton to criminalise private possession a wide range of porn (including just filming yourself and your partner in private), has gathered almost twice as many signatures in a shorter time.
It's being promoted by mediawatch-uk (general pro-censorship group, set up by Mary Whitehouse), and as far as I can tell appears to be circulating through all the religious channels.
I even asked someone who'd signed why they'd want to criminalise two people filming themselves, and the response was "Why would anyone want to do that?"
That's a good point - and I think that's a good thing for most of us, in that often these petitions were a vocal minority who suddenly got a large amount of publicity, and the Government was forced into implementing stupid or unnecessary laws as a result. Not that drink-driving is anything I'd condone of course, but there are plenty of examples where people have claimed all sorts of things should be banned for dubious reasons (usually playing on the emotive example of some poor dead person).
My fear with this website is it would allow more people to do this, but as you say, if they don't get the publicity, then the effect is greatly reduced.
Often those on one side of an argument are more zealous. I wasn't about to go out spamming people to get votes. Also, those viewing one petition and it's arguments wouldn't necessarily consume the counter arguments. So I think an automated "anti-petition" or "nosign" would be a better solution.
But I would be worried of that backfiring, again because of the other side being more zealous - imagine I set up a petition trying to promote some important cause, but it gets flooded with anti-signatures from a load of zealots; I'll have made things worse for myself than before...
remember, the original iMac is the first machine that didn't have a floppy drive.
I'm curious why so many say this, when it clearly isn't true (obviously there were loads of machines without floppies before then). As I stated in another comment, the Amiga CDTV came without floppy in 1991.
It would be more significant for a manufacturer to do away with floppies altogether (as presumably Apple did do at some point).
In 1991, Commodore released the Amiga CDTV without floppy drive...
Okay, floppies were still useful back then, but then some people feel floppies were still needed in 1998 - the day when they were useless isn't really dependent on when a particular manufacturer released a computer without floppy drive.
I was shocked when the XP networking wizard seemed to insist on a floppy when it offered to write a disk so I could set up other machines on the network...
So your "I am sick and tired of Windows constantly crashing and having to replace hardware." comment is based on both a completely different OS (Windows 9x/ME are nothing to do with NT/2000/XP/Vista), and one which is over a decade old (NT 4)!
OS X didn't even exist when Windows ME or NT were around. And if you want to compare to the joke that was Apple's offering at the time ("classic" MacOS), then that's a whole different story. I might as well complain Macs are bad because they can't preemptively multitask, or they have no memory protection...
Really, Windows 2000 onwards is much more stable, and no comparison to Windows ME. If you want to avoid activation, then I'd recommend getting hold of Windows 2000 (which I use). Activation is a reason to avoid Windows and go for other OSs such as Linux, but don't be led into thinking that experience of ME has anything to do with how XP/Vista behave.
I'm annoyed by the phrase "for PC or Mac" - if it works with any computer and you fear people will assume PC means Windows, why not just say "for a computer"? And if you specifically want to say it works with Windows, why not say "for Windows or Mac"?
The word you're looking for is "microcomputer". "PC", as you point out, is short for "Personal Computer". "Personal Computer", in turn, is IBM's market-speak for their entry into the microcomputer market and its descendants; specifically with microsoft's OS running on Intel CPUs. Thus a PC is never a Macintosh, and until Apple switched from PPC to Intel chips, it was never possible for a Mac to be a PC.
Apple marketed PowerMacs as "PCs".
Now, it is possible to turn a Mac into a PC by using Bootcamp and running windows natively on it.
You think that running Windows makes something a PC?
Note that there are other, arguably better, systems to STV (e.g., Condorcet Method) - we should ditch FPTP, but it's a shame that it's only STV ever seems to get any attention.
Now Vista may be more stable but I don't want to have to deal with Activation or WGA.
Surely XP has activation too? Or has it become worse in some way?
Well, the way I see it there are two sets of users: Those people who get on and use a computer to do what they want, and those people who spend their time saying how their OS is better, how rubbish the other OS is, and even going so far as to make ridiculous stereotypes of those who use the other OS.
Whether this group is more common on one platform or another is left for the reader to decide.
The irony is that with the PowerPC Macs, Apple seemed to insist that Macs were PCs (see the ads where they falsely claimed "first 64 bit PCs", and dubiously claimed "fastest desktop PC"), yet when they switched to Intel, the ads insisted they weren't PCs, in that the adverts went something like "Now Intel CPUs will be running on something other than PCs..."
Honestly, even though I'm used to equating PC with that very specific type of computer, I still thought at first it was going to be an Intel ad advertising CPUs being used in something like embedded use (i.e., not a typical computer). Given that the average person is not going to see the distinction between personal computer and Macs at all (especially after what Apple have advertised previously), I don't see how that advertising campaign made much sense.
I didn't say the US system would do that, the post I replied to said it would be good to store all this information together. Furthermore, the idea that European countries have "ID cards" is not in itself relevant, as "ID card" can mean many different things, including storing such information.
Wikipedia has been shown to be riddled with errors
{{fact}}?
Of course, no encyclopedia should be cited for research. Accuracy is irrelevant here.
Although at the same time, lots of people seem to treat Wikipedia as worse than other encyclopedias - they happily cite those (or even random webpages), but claim Wikipedia should never be cited.
The information may be completely accurate and objective, but if you can't give a better source than "HanSolo666" it isn't worth squat.
So drawing on Britannica is only worth anything you also name the individual authors who wrote those words? How come people only ever say "Britannica", rather than telling me their names?
I would prefer to have one digital pad which contained all my personal information, including money and tax information, so I do not have to carry a cash card, credit card, health card, library card, bus & metro card and money with me all the time.
The problem is not with a standardised ID system (which most countries without "national ID cards" already have on a voluntary basis anyway), but it's the things which go with it - e.g., a big Government database which stores all your personal information, including everything you spend money on, your health, books you take out the library, and every journey you make on public transport.
And given a choice between "having" to carry a few items (where not doing so gives me minor inconvenience, and I don't have to if I don't need those things) and having to carry an ID card (where not doing so means I am a criminal), I think I'll take the former.
Also note that not all ID card systems are the same. I don't know about the US' plans, but the UK plan differs from those that "most European countries already have" (e.g., biometrics, one big database, the immense cost of it - over £90 per person...)
Yeah, I'd seriously hope that this only includes non-work use at home, and only considers people living with an SO - the report implies that, but who knows.
Even if it does though, this still doesn't surprise me - long term couples living together do not tend to spend all their time doing activities *together* (other than simply being in the same room). You have things like watching TV together, which a lot of people probably spend most of their free time doing - how does that count? And if that counts as time with your SO, why doesn't both using their computers counts? Or one using a computer and one reading a book?