The whole point of this story is that PKWare is doing some kind of encryption thing that they aren't sharing with others. So only PKWare's zip program will support said encryption. It isn't just WinZip that won't. WinRAR will still support zip the way it has, sure. But it won't support the new encryption deal.
So switching doesn't do a hell of a lot of good unless you switch to theirs. Which is probably the plan, I guess.
The point, I believe, is that even WinZip *would* follow the same format, if they possibly *could*. Therefore, no, other programs aren't going to be able to handle PKWare's version, either.
So, in actuality, it sounds like perhaps PKWare is setting themselves up to no longer *be* the standard. Putting out a product incompatible with the others isn't going to help them win friends and influence people, not when most everybody I know is using the Winzip product. I myself haven't even looked at PKWare since the days of Windows 3.11... and won't be switching anytime soon.
I mean, what if I want to buy an Xbox to turn it into a paperweight?
Or an aquarium?
Or hell, maybe I'll hollow the thing out and wear it as a hat.
I bought it, paid through the nose for it, and if I want to ignore all their games and use the case as a home for fish, well, that's my business.
Now, I can understand them blocking modded Xboxes from the online stuff, because people *could* use modifications of some sort to cheat in online games. But that's not an IP problem; when they offer a service like that, they can deny it whenever the want. If they start going after people legally for modchips, though, that's a different story.
Why should he have to, if he knows it *will* work? If it *doesn't*, then the patent is for an object that's effectively worthless, so it doesn't matter. If it does, then he's done all he needs to.
...it was, you know, *his idea*, and that's the whole point?
He came up with this thing. He knows, apparently, how to produce it. And this is what patents were made for--not stupid business practices which are all but common sense, or software concepts with only minute differences from other software concepts, or whatever.
This is the sort of thing the patent office was meant to do: Allow people who really innovate to secure ownership of those innovations and therefore rights to money made from them later if they so choose. This is a good thing, because it prevents me from inventing the machine that does your homework for you... and having my neighbor start up a company producing those machines and make millions, not giving me so much as a dime.
My father once new a guy who invented a new gadget of some variety. I want to say it had something to do with a regulator for an airgun or something. He patented it--not a cheap proposition. But he'd invented it; it was his. A largish company in that field, shortly thereafter, copied his design to use for their own products. He innovated--they stole it. And because he'd patented it, he was able to take them to court over it, and protect his work, so that he could continue to produce that item and make his living.
There's a difference between 'using the system' and 'abusing the system'. Patents are not completely evil in and of themselves. The problem comes when the goal becomes stifling competition instead of protecting innovation.
Hannibal Lecter, played by Brian Cox in 'Manhunter' and Anthony Hopkins later. (Quality left to others--but certainly, the later movies have done well.)
El Mariachi, played by Carlos Gallardo in 'El Mariachi' and Antionio Banderas in 'Desperado'. I'm much more partial to Desperado.
Also, upcoming, we have Michael Gambon taking over for the much-missed Richard Harris as Dumbledore in the third Harry Potter movie, which would have to try very hard to be bad. (Provided one likes Harry Potter in the first place, granted.)
...that one must be one of the people with *legitimate* access to the actual debris? And while it was, yes, a tragedy, that'd point to one of the people actually looking for the *answers*, which I don't think is in bad taste at all.
Are there really that many ISPs out there which disallow NAT use?
The last three places I've used--all broadband, in two different areas of the country--actually came out and just said to people, "You get one IP. If you want more than one machine hooked up, get a broadband router."
Okay, granted, one of those three does actually offer extra IPs for sale. (Which I'd have if I could; I don't *like* using NAT, personally. But I get a deal through my university, so.) The other two, it wasn't even an option.
But they never seemed to really care if you used NAT or not. Multiple computers in a household becoming a common thing, it seems like the only sensible way to handle it.
Are there that many places out there that ban NAT?
...while people do abuse it, most of the disputing feedback receivers are probably doing it for frivolous reasons. I've had to leave negative feedback for a few people, and it's not a pleasant experience. It doesn't matter if you're just telling the truth--they send you nasty emails, leave *you* negative feedback even if you did nothing wrong, etc.
So Ebay would probably end up spending all their time pointing out to people, "Yes, if you lie about what shipping method you're using, they're justified in leaving negative feedback. Yes, if you send them the wrong item, they're justified in leaving negative feedback." And so on, and so forth.
...most of the problem isn't at the top level, it's farther down. I can say this, as someone learning all of this at the moment. I can figure out that systemwide config will probably be under/etc. *Where* under/etc is the problem. That sort of thing. I know I'm a little more savvy than a lot of people, but it really isn't any harder to pick up that scheme than 'C:\Program Files\', 'C:\Documents and Settings', etc. (And they're far quicker to type--I'm all for keeping the short versions!)
I also agree with not cutting out options, but his point about setting defaults certainly stands. I'd like to see it continue to come with a bunch of options, but make it easier--one config utility, for example--to set which mail/browser/whatever I want to use, and hide the other options from the menu. Or maybe even do that straight from install, and not even install the others, but give me an easy way to add them later if I want them.
This is the one that's always gotten me. It's obviously one of the worst possible things in spam. But how do you then track down who happens to be sending it and punish them for it?
I don't care whether wardriving is legal or not. I don't do it. I do, however, use my laptop--with its wireless card in, I never bother to remove it, but not with any kind of extra antenna or anything--in the car when riding with other people, occasionally. Windows has on numerous occasions thoughtfully informed me, in the middle of nowhere, that it had connected me to whatever network it happened to find.
And as long as things are set up so that connecting to the network doesn't involve anything more than just happening to be where that network is, the idea that you could be prosecuted for 'breaking into' their network is a scary one. There's often no 'breaking' involved. If I end up connected to somebody's network, and it required nothing more than a laptop configured for my *usual* wireless access, then no, it's not my fault.
If you have a wireless network and you're using it to transmit 'corporate secrets', etc, then secure the thing. People who run around purposefully trying to find other people's networks to go online from are a little slimy, maybe, but it's not 'breaking in'. It's complaining that somebody's sitting on the chair you happened to leave on the sidewalk. It may be your private resource, but you've left it sitting in public space with absolutely nothing to indicate that people *shouldn't* sit in it. And the average stranger who does is probably just resting his feet, not sabotaging your property.
But you don't seem to have explained, here, how that solves anything, really. As more places start doing that, more other places will start providing mail on nonstandard ports, and inevitably you'll end up with poorly-secured mail servers running on all *kinds* of ports.
And not all of us using third-party email servers have any control how the admins of those servers set them up. The one I use--because my ISP server has been known to lose messages entirely--happens to operate on port 25. I am not able to just tell the people who run that server, despite being a paying customer, that they must operate on a nonstandard port just to please me. Most people--whether they are customers of other providers or employees using work emails--are not in a situation to arrange for different ports.
So blocking outgoing traffic on port 25 blocks a good number of people from getting to servers they have a legitimate right to use, and a *few* people from spamming. And the spammers will quickly pick up an ISP that doesn't do this, so pretty soon you'll be left with *only* legitimate customers being inconvenienced.
So why is blocking this port outgoing a good thing again?
The idea is almost as dumb as the places that block ports outgoing that have been known--in the distant past--to have been used by trojans and the like, despite having a good number of valid and current uses. (MUDs are beginning to see some of this.) For whatever slim benefit it might provide, it's not in any way worth the hassle.
My desktop gets covered with useless old documents and applications just fine on its own. Adding that feature would just mean more bloat! We can't have bloat! The browser should have a directory the size of a small text file! It shouldn't take more than three seconds for me to download it on my dialup connection, after all...
Tell that to the Victorians, who were of an opinion that tuberculosis was a romantic disease, and that women who fainted a lot and couldn't do anything on their own were ideal.
Tell that to many of the older scifi authors, for whom the 'strong' heroine always fell into the arms of a stronger male in the end. Maybe she did save the planet, but she still couldn't live without a man. And ignore all the scifi which has barely any female characters at all.
Strong isn't even really sexy *now*, not for a lot of people. I have no idea of the gender of the parent poster or how much involvement they have with the opposite sex, but at least in my generally college-age social contacts, the ideal is still a girl who's thin, dresses up, isn't too 'pushy'. Athletic is only okay if it's a "girl" sport. The guy gets uncomfortable if his girlfriend drives. Oddly enough, this attitude seems to vanish somewhat when dealing with who ought to *pay* for the date. But, still, god forbid she even *look* at anyone else, while he's heading home to play Bikini Action Sluts 2000.
'Strong' women appear in fiction plenty, but it's almost always using somebody's fucked-up idea of what a 'strong woman' is. Save the world, sure, but her basic role doesn't change. She still doesn't stand on her own. And that's the problem in video games, too. Female characters are much more two-dimensional, much more likely to serve largely as somebody's love-interest even if they can kick ass themselves. Fix that, it doesn't matter what they look like, whether their breasts are cartoony H-cups or bound with duct tape.
Unfortunately, it's not going to become widespread anytime soon, because among other things, Japan is one of the least gender-conscious post-industrial countries. And they still have a tremendous influence on our games.
A lot of people don't know about games like The Longest Journey.
And personally, I've never heard of Syberia.
The bikini-girl games are the ones that get a lot of press. TLJ, I never would have heard of if a guy at work hadn't had it and offered to let me borrow it.
Here's a novel idea, though.
Women are not sexual tools. They are, however, sexual. Every portrayal of a woman doesn't have to deliberately throw that away in order to be 'serious'. Which seems to have been part of the upshot of the article--it's not inherently evil that these things happen. There just needs to be an awareness that women are people. That even incredibly model-gorgeous women are people.
Okay, granted, I'm not one of them myself. I wear glasses and a size 15. I have hips. I even kinda like my hips. And what the gaming companies may eventually get is that there are women *like* me out there who'd pay through the nose for a character who was strong, deep, and not in the least bit asexual.
The thing about being a woman is that a woman is not somehow gendered but sexless. Trying to insist that we *should* be is no better than saying we should be sexy but mindless.
There's no medicine in the parent post's argument. This is my problem with these things. I'm willing to concede that low-carb works, although I'm not sure it's actually as healthy as a diet lower in fats (and meat products especially) would be.
But this stuff about 'you must eat fat for your body to burn fat'? Um... yeah. Oookay. The human body *does* need a certain amount of fat in the diet to operate; you can't cut it out entirely. But in no way is it necessary to burn fat.
The equation is simple. Burn more calories than you ingest.
And it's not really all that hard to eat low-cal and still get your fill. I don't think I've ever gone away from a vegetarian restaurant hungry, and yet I *always* eat healthy. Vegetables, whole grains, 'good' fats.
You don't have to starve to eat the way that's good for your body. You also don't have to throw away everything that science *and* nature says in regards to what human beings should eat. Look at our closest relatives, and it's generally a diet high in plants with occasional meat thrown in. Novelly enough, eating this way in the modern world also usually goes well.
But one of the aspects of the low-carb diet is very sensible, and that's cutting down on sugar. My own personal demon.:) However, a can of Coca-Cola and a couple slices of whole wheat bread are not created equal. 'Carbs' aren't the problem. Fat, sugar, everything over-processed and too much of it besides... those are the problems.
MS offers support? Maybe to businesses. As someone with two completely legitimate running copies of WinXP--one laptop, one desktop--I can say that I've looked, and there's no way to get actual real live support from Microsoft for them. I have to go to the vendor. What do the vendors say? "System restore. If that doesn't work, reformat."
The up side is that WinXP *does* recognize all manner of hardware without so much as blinking at it, and so on. Which is largely why I still use it, at the moment.
But, actually, as far as taking a relatively standard system and using it for non-gaming everday things? Linux does pretty well. It's not hard to browse the web, get email, write papers, IM people, that sort of thing. Which is good progress.
No, you can't game, do major graphic design and desktop publishing, whatever, as well as on WinXP. But there was a long time when people said you couldn't really do those things on Windows, either. (Less so in the games department, but I do recall Sierra having a lot more Mac-emphasis, and they used to be huge.)
So I wouldn't install Linux on my grandparents' computer right now, no. But by this time next year? This time two years from now?
Everybody always acts like these things are fixed in stone, and they aren't. Everything changes. Maybe Joe User depends on the status quo, maybe Joe User just uses whatever's most likely to land in his lap, but the future isn't really determined by Joe User. The future is determined by the people who actually want things, and the people who're willing to do something about them.
Well, I'm no programmer, so I don't know specifics about anything, but I do know I've had a personal list of several dozen programs which worked fine in previous Windows versions which broke with XP. Some had fixes; others didn't. (Some, like some earlier 3DO games, had fixes which the company adamantly denied.)
But I somehow suspect that a lot of this had more to do with poor coding practices than real problems with the differences between XP and earlier Windows versions.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of this story is that PKWare is doing some kind of encryption thing that they aren't sharing with others. So only PKWare's zip program will support said encryption. It isn't just WinZip that won't. WinRAR will still support zip the way it has, sure. But it won't support the new encryption deal.
So switching doesn't do a hell of a lot of good unless you switch to theirs. Which is probably the plan, I guess.
The point, I believe, is that even WinZip *would* follow the same format, if they possibly *could*. Therefore, no, other programs aren't going to be able to handle PKWare's version, either.
So, in actuality, it sounds like perhaps PKWare is setting themselves up to no longer *be* the standard. Putting out a product incompatible with the others isn't going to help them win friends and influence people, not when most everybody I know is using the Winzip product. I myself haven't even looked at PKWare since the days of Windows 3.11... and won't be switching anytime soon.
I mean, what if I want to buy an Xbox to turn it into a paperweight?
Or an aquarium?
Or hell, maybe I'll hollow the thing out and wear it as a hat.
I bought it, paid through the nose for it, and if I want to ignore all their games and use the case as a home for fish, well, that's my business.
Now, I can understand them blocking modded Xboxes from the online stuff, because people *could* use modifications of some sort to cheat in online games. But that's not an IP problem; when they offer a service like that, they can deny it whenever the want. If they start going after people legally for modchips, though, that's a different story.
Why should he have to, if he knows it *will* work? If it *doesn't*, then the patent is for an object that's effectively worthless, so it doesn't matter. If it does, then he's done all he needs to.
...it was, you know, *his idea*, and that's the whole point?
He came up with this thing. He knows, apparently, how to produce it. And this is what patents were made for--not stupid business practices which are all but common sense, or software concepts with only minute differences from other software concepts, or whatever.
This is the sort of thing the patent office was meant to do: Allow people who really innovate to secure ownership of those innovations and therefore rights to money made from them later if they so choose. This is a good thing, because it prevents me from inventing the machine that does your homework for you... and having my neighbor start up a company producing those machines and make millions, not giving me so much as a dime.
My father once new a guy who invented a new gadget of some variety. I want to say it had something to do with a regulator for an airgun or something. He patented it--not a cheap proposition. But he'd invented it; it was his. A largish company in that field, shortly thereafter, copied his design to use for their own products. He innovated--they stole it. And because he'd patented it, he was able to take them to court over it, and protect his work, so that he could continue to produce that item and make his living.
There's a difference between 'using the system' and 'abusing the system'. Patents are not completely evil in and of themselves. The problem comes when the goal becomes stifling competition instead of protecting innovation.
Hannibal Lecter, played by Brian Cox in 'Manhunter' and Anthony Hopkins later. (Quality left to others--but certainly, the later movies have done well.)
El Mariachi, played by Carlos Gallardo in 'El Mariachi' and Antionio Banderas in 'Desperado'. I'm much more partial to Desperado.
Also, upcoming, we have Michael Gambon taking over for the much-missed Richard Harris as Dumbledore in the third Harry Potter movie, which would have to try very hard to be bad. (Provided one likes Harry Potter in the first place, granted.)
So... it's not always such a big deal.
...that one must be one of the people with *legitimate* access to the actual debris? And while it was, yes, a tragedy, that'd point to one of the people actually looking for the *answers*, which I don't think is in bad taste at all.
Are there really that many ISPs out there which disallow NAT use?
The last three places I've used--all broadband, in two different areas of the country--actually came out and just said to people, "You get one IP. If you want more than one machine hooked up, get a broadband router."
Okay, granted, one of those three does actually offer extra IPs for sale. (Which I'd have if I could; I don't *like* using NAT, personally. But I get a deal through my university, so.) The other two, it wasn't even an option.
But they never seemed to really care if you used NAT or not. Multiple computers in a household becoming a common thing, it seems like the only sensible way to handle it.
Are there that many places out there that ban NAT?
...while people do abuse it, most of the disputing feedback receivers are probably doing it for frivolous reasons. I've had to leave negative feedback for a few people, and it's not a pleasant experience. It doesn't matter if you're just telling the truth--they send you nasty emails, leave *you* negative feedback even if you did nothing wrong, etc.
So Ebay would probably end up spending all their time pointing out to people, "Yes, if you lie about what shipping method you're using, they're justified in leaving negative feedback. Yes, if you send them the wrong item, they're justified in leaving negative feedback." And so on, and so forth.
Maybe what they mean is that IPv6 is going to make it better?
...most of the problem isn't at the top level, it's farther down. I can say this, as someone learning all of this at the moment. I can figure out that systemwide config will probably be under /etc. *Where* under /etc is the problem. That sort of thing. I know I'm a little more savvy than a lot of people, but it really isn't any harder to pick up that scheme than 'C:\Program Files\', 'C:\Documents and Settings', etc. (And they're far quicker to type--I'm all for keeping the short versions!)
I also agree with not cutting out options, but his point about setting defaults certainly stands. I'd like to see it continue to come with a bunch of options, but make it easier--one config utility, for example--to set which mail/browser/whatever I want to use, and hide the other options from the menu. Or maybe even do that straight from install, and not even install the others, but give me an easy way to add them later if I want them.
This is the one that's always gotten me. It's obviously one of the worst possible things in spam. But how do you then track down who happens to be sending it and punish them for it?
I don't care whether wardriving is legal or not. I don't do it. I do, however, use my laptop--with its wireless card in, I never bother to remove it, but not with any kind of extra antenna or anything--in the car when riding with other people, occasionally. Windows has on numerous occasions thoughtfully informed me, in the middle of nowhere, that it had connected me to whatever network it happened to find.
And as long as things are set up so that connecting to the network doesn't involve anything more than just happening to be where that network is, the idea that you could be prosecuted for 'breaking into' their network is a scary one. There's often no 'breaking' involved. If I end up connected to somebody's network, and it required nothing more than a laptop configured for my *usual* wireless access, then no, it's not my fault.
If you have a wireless network and you're using it to transmit 'corporate secrets', etc, then secure the thing. People who run around purposefully trying to find other people's networks to go online from are a little slimy, maybe, but it's not 'breaking in'. It's complaining that somebody's sitting on the chair you happened to leave on the sidewalk. It may be your private resource, but you've left it sitting in public space with absolutely nothing to indicate that people *shouldn't* sit in it. And the average stranger who does is probably just resting his feet, not sabotaging your property.
Just be careful picking it out, because some of them *don't* use acetone now.
But you don't seem to have explained, here, how that solves anything, really. As more places start doing that, more other places will start providing mail on nonstandard ports, and inevitably you'll end up with poorly-secured mail servers running on all *kinds* of ports.
And not all of us using third-party email servers have any control how the admins of those servers set them up. The one I use--because my ISP server has been known to lose messages entirely--happens to operate on port 25. I am not able to just tell the people who run that server, despite being a paying customer, that they must operate on a nonstandard port just to please me. Most people--whether they are customers of other providers or employees using work emails--are not in a situation to arrange for different ports.
So blocking outgoing traffic on port 25 blocks a good number of people from getting to servers they have a legitimate right to use, and a *few* people from spamming. And the spammers will quickly pick up an ISP that doesn't do this, so pretty soon you'll be left with *only* legitimate customers being inconvenienced.
So why is blocking this port outgoing a good thing again?
The idea is almost as dumb as the places that block ports outgoing that have been known--in the distant past--to have been used by trojans and the like, despite having a good number of valid and current uses. (MUDs are beginning to see some of this.) For whatever slim benefit it might provide, it's not in any way worth the hassle.
Looking at the pictures... wow. Pirate gnomes! Goth gnomes! Alcoholic gnomes!
:)
I think some people really need to get lives.
That appears to be the problem. You can't sue without some way of contacting the person.
My desktop gets covered with useless old documents and applications just fine on its own. Adding that feature would just mean more bloat! We can't have bloat! The browser should have a directory the size of a small text file! It shouldn't take more than three seconds for me to download it on my dialup connection, after all...
Wouldn't it be far less time-consuming and dangerous to just get a girlfriend?
*snickers*
Tell that to the Victorians, who were of an opinion that tuberculosis was a romantic disease, and that women who fainted a lot and couldn't do anything on their own were ideal.
Tell that to many of the older scifi authors, for whom the 'strong' heroine always fell into the arms of a stronger male in the end. Maybe she did save the planet, but she still couldn't live without a man. And ignore all the scifi which has barely any female characters at all.
Strong isn't even really sexy *now*, not for a lot of people. I have no idea of the gender of the parent poster or how much involvement they have with the opposite sex, but at least in my generally college-age social contacts, the ideal is still a girl who's thin, dresses up, isn't too 'pushy'. Athletic is only okay if it's a "girl" sport. The guy gets uncomfortable if his girlfriend drives. Oddly enough, this attitude seems to vanish somewhat when dealing with who ought to *pay* for the date. But, still, god forbid she even *look* at anyone else, while he's heading home to play Bikini Action Sluts 2000.
'Strong' women appear in fiction plenty, but it's almost always using somebody's fucked-up idea of what a 'strong woman' is. Save the world, sure, but her basic role doesn't change. She still doesn't stand on her own. And that's the problem in video games, too. Female characters are much more two-dimensional, much more likely to serve largely as somebody's love-interest even if they can kick ass themselves. Fix that, it doesn't matter what they look like, whether their breasts are cartoony H-cups or bound with duct tape.
Unfortunately, it's not going to become widespread anytime soon, because among other things, Japan is one of the least gender-conscious post-industrial countries. And they still have a tremendous influence on our games.
A lot of people don't know about games like The Longest Journey.
And personally, I've never heard of Syberia.
The bikini-girl games are the ones that get a lot of press. TLJ, I never would have heard of if a guy at work hadn't had it and offered to let me borrow it.
Here's a novel idea, though.
Women are not sexual tools. They are, however, sexual. Every portrayal of a woman doesn't have to deliberately throw that away in order to be 'serious'. Which seems to have been part of the upshot of the article--it's not inherently evil that these things happen. There just needs to be an awareness that women are people. That even incredibly model-gorgeous women are people.
Okay, granted, I'm not one of them myself. I wear glasses and a size 15. I have hips. I even kinda like my hips. And what the gaming companies may eventually get is that there are women *like* me out there who'd pay through the nose for a character who was strong, deep, and not in the least bit asexual.
The thing about being a woman is that a woman is not somehow gendered but sexless. Trying to insist that we *should* be is no better than saying we should be sexy but mindless.
They both exist. Along with 'Camino', for OSX. At least using mythological creatures seemed moderately creative. Cars? Eh.
There's no medicine in the parent post's argument. This is my problem with these things. I'm willing to concede that low-carb works, although I'm not sure it's actually as healthy as a diet lower in fats (and meat products especially) would be.
:) However, a can of Coca-Cola and a couple slices of whole wheat bread are not created equal. 'Carbs' aren't the problem. Fat, sugar, everything over-processed and too much of it besides... those are the problems.
But this stuff about 'you must eat fat for your body to burn fat'? Um... yeah. Oookay. The human body *does* need a certain amount of fat in the diet to operate; you can't cut it out entirely. But in no way is it necessary to burn fat.
The equation is simple. Burn more calories than you ingest.
And it's not really all that hard to eat low-cal and still get your fill. I don't think I've ever gone away from a vegetarian restaurant hungry, and yet I *always* eat healthy. Vegetables, whole grains, 'good' fats.
You don't have to starve to eat the way that's good for your body. You also don't have to throw away everything that science *and* nature says in regards to what human beings should eat. Look at our closest relatives, and it's generally a diet high in plants with occasional meat thrown in. Novelly enough, eating this way in the modern world also usually goes well.
But one of the aspects of the low-carb diet is very sensible, and that's cutting down on sugar. My own personal demon.
MS offers support? Maybe to businesses. As someone with two completely legitimate running copies of WinXP--one laptop, one desktop--I can say that I've looked, and there's no way to get actual real live support from Microsoft for them. I have to go to the vendor. What do the vendors say? "System restore. If that doesn't work, reformat."
The up side is that WinXP *does* recognize all manner of hardware without so much as blinking at it, and so on. Which is largely why I still use it, at the moment.
But, actually, as far as taking a relatively standard system and using it for non-gaming everday things? Linux does pretty well. It's not hard to browse the web, get email, write papers, IM people, that sort of thing. Which is good progress.
No, you can't game, do major graphic design and desktop publishing, whatever, as well as on WinXP. But there was a long time when people said you couldn't really do those things on Windows, either. (Less so in the games department, but I do recall Sierra having a lot more Mac-emphasis, and they used to be huge.)
So I wouldn't install Linux on my grandparents' computer right now, no. But by this time next year? This time two years from now?
Everybody always acts like these things are fixed in stone, and they aren't. Everything changes. Maybe Joe User depends on the status quo, maybe Joe User just uses whatever's most likely to land in his lap, but the future isn't really determined by Joe User. The future is determined by the people who actually want things, and the people who're willing to do something about them.
Well, I'm no programmer, so I don't know specifics about anything, but I do know I've had a personal list of several dozen programs which worked fine in previous Windows versions which broke with XP. Some had fixes; others didn't. (Some, like some earlier 3DO games, had fixes which the company adamantly denied.)
But I somehow suspect that a lot of this had more to do with poor coding practices than real problems with the differences between XP and earlier Windows versions.