No, I think this guy has a point...
on
Lindows Reviewed
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Let's say you're Mr. Joe Generic PC User, and you run solitaire, Outlook Express, some Internet Explorer, and maybe you have an AOL dialup account. You also run a couple of other programs you happen to like, such as Quicken or Word.
What is the incentive for you to change?
Think about it. The biggest killer of Office sales is not StarOffice or KOffice, but older versions of Office. People want something that just "gosh-durn works". They don't care about upgrading, and they certainly aren't interested in the fact that the new Athlon 2GHz processor is faster than the equivalent Intel.
If you've ever done PC helpdesk, you know the inevitable deer-in-headlights look that regular computer users get when you say "the U word": upgrade. "Will my applications be okay? What about my documents? How about my email?" Change scares people! Even changing to Windows XP is scary because it doesn't look like other versions of Windows.
I can't even convince people to get rid of 9x and switch to Windows 2000, even though I can promise them stability and more configuration options. The panicked look comes onto their face, and then they say "You know, Windows 98 isn't that bad, and it runs this and this and this, and what if my documents get deleted?!" These people in no way are ready to switch to something that is not Windows, and the more someone makes a big deal out of it, the more scared they get.
I think the parent post has a valid point. If what you are using works, why change? Personally, I'm still on the crusade to rid the world of Windows 98 and switch people over to 2000/XP, but even that is a long and unforgiving ride. If Lindows doesn't even run the applications these people need, forget it. That battle isn't even worth fighting.
Why Lindows is not doing business in Washington St
on
Lindows Reviewed
·
· Score: 3
"Lindows.com Founder and CEO Robertson said that his firm would provide proof that no business was done in Washington, let alone Redmond, and talked about it in a public statement.
'We're looking forward to showing the Court the widespread use of the term 'windows' or variations thereof by literally hundreds of companies which are not endorsed or sponsored by Microsoft. The fact that Microsoft has chosen not to sue these companies demonstrates their true motivation in this case is to crush competition from a promising new technology which threatens their illegally obtained monopoly,' said Lindows.com CEO, Michael Robertson."
"Windows users who are trying out Lindows won't be concerned about this, though, so if they are the target market for LindowsOS, the "running as root" thing shouldn't be a problem."
Okay, just because Windows 98 doesn't have security, that means Lindows shouldn't either...? All of the NT-based Windows OSes do have the ability to not run users/programs as root. This is a ridiculous step backward for security, and the "just because Windows 9x does it" excuse is poor at best.
If Lindows becomes popular, viruses will abound for that platform. Is this really any better than Windows? Now Linux has lost the main advantages it has over Windows, namely:
-- It's "free" (interpret that as you will)
-- It's more secure.
This is Microsoft's dream come true -- a chance to point out that not only is "Linux" less secure than Windows, but "Linux" is also not free (never mind that Lindows != Linux; Microsoft also has trouble remembering the difference between GPL and open-source.)
The bottom line is that Lindows as it stands today is not a boon to the Linux community, and it could cause a dangerous black eye to those currently promoting Linux on the desktop. Tread carefully.
If what they have works, why force-feed them an upgrade that forces them to use emulation?
You know, the company pays you for your time, too. If you spend 10 hours per computer installing and testing VMWare and Linux, and there are 10 computers, you've spent 100 hours on the problem. Assuming a decent wage rate, this Linux upgrade has cost the company several thousand dollars of your time, benefits, etc. And all to run emulation software for something that already works?
Your position is ridiculous, and I stand by my earlier comment that you want to run Linux because it is Linux, not because it will make you or your developers any more productive.
"AOL?, Redhat?, IBM? someone please help these guys."
Why? You seem to be missing the main point of Loki's business model. Loki took games that the game developers considered unprofitable to port to Linux and paid royalties to these game developers to port these games to Linux.
Now, with Loki having gone out of business, it has proven the developers' original point: Linux gaming is just not economically profitable. Heck, even John Carmack says (and I quote): "[T]he linux market is not viable for game developers to pursue. Linux ports will be done out of good will, not profit motives."
The harsh reality is that no one is going to bail Loki out. At this point, Linux games remain unprofitable. As long as gamers have good 3D support and decently easy game setup in Windows, they will continue to use Windows. My advice is to move on and not pursue the issue until Linux gets more desktop market share.
A couple of years ago (more?) when this whole thing started, I was a staunch supporter of Netscape. I really wanted to see Microsoft lose this one.
Now, however, I worry about things like the following:
"A judge would still have the challenge of choosing a remedy that would restore competition to the Internet browser market. Netscape has only a sliver of the Internet browser market, compared to its dominance several years ago."
One of the "suggested" remedies is to force Microsoft to not include a browser with the OS. I have to question, though, whether this would really be best for the consumer.
Remember back in the day when Windows 95 first shipped? The first thing I did upon loading 95 was to install a web browser. Usually, this meant a tedious process whereby I would use FTP to connect to ftp.netscape.com and go through several directories until I found the correct binary. This was a time-consuming and tedious process. Without a web browser, I couldn't install many of the programs I typically used, including an FTP client and WinZip (used to unpack programs back before the self-extracting.exe was in use.) I either had to have these programs on a CD, or I had to wait for Netscape to download (through command-line FTP, even!)
So I question whether the "stripped-down" version of Windows is a real remedy, as it causes more inconvenience to consumers that way. Rather, I'd like to see Internet Explorer installed and a shortcut to install Netscape on the desktop, much like there are AOL shortcuts on most desktops now. That way, Netscape could be installed locally with little hassle, but there would still be a web browser in the OS for those who didn't care.
A few years ago, I was up in arms about this whole thing. Now, I don't care any more, and I have a feeling that the vast majority of users feel the same way. I like my IE6 with its Google toolbar and Web development tools ("view partial source", anyone?). I would have applauded this decision a while ago, but now I think that Microsoft should just pay AOL its due and move on. This lawsuit is about something that should have been settled years ago, and it's time to worry about.Net, which is the future of Microsoft, instead of IE, which is the past.
"When do I click once, and when do I double click?"
There's an easy way to answer that question.
Open Windows Explorer and go to Tools -> Folder Options. At the bottom of the dialog box, there is a "Click items as follows" selection box. Select the bottom radio button, and everything on your desktop acts like the Web -- single click to execute; mouseover to select.
That's not to say that Windows doesn't have its share of usability issues. However, this one is no longer one of them.
Actually, it's not X Windows, but the X Window System. And actually, Microsoft Windows predates it -- Windows was released in 1983, and the X Window System's first commercial release was in 1986.
I'd guess that most product names that could help Lindows have already been submitted. Really, the name "Lindows" is pretty much doomed at this point.
...is that Microsoft has a very high chance of winning this case.
For example, take a look at the list of other product names that have "Windows" or something similar in them. All of these products run on Windows. They aren't a competitor to Microsoft's core operating system business; rather, they enhance that market by providing valuable third-party add-ons to Windows.
Lindows, on the other hand, is obviously capitalizing on the popularity of Windows. To make matters worse, Lindows has a real problem becuase the name is phonetically so similar to Microsoft's product. Try to say "Lindows" out loud in a sentence. In fact, try saying the following out loud to someone else and see what they think you said:
"Lindows is an operating system that runs on your personal computer."
In fact, this is the worst possible outcome for Microsoft, because they HAVE to sue to protect their trademark. Suing a) creates negative publicity for Microsoft by geeks who think Microsoft is just trying to lay the smack down on a smaller competitor; and b) creates a lot of publicity of something that may be a threat to Microsoft's core business.
I would hazard a guess that this lawsuit will generate more publicity and hype for the-soon-to-be-former-"Lindows" than the product would have on its own. Had it not been named so similarly to Windows, I doubt that many people outside of the geek community would have even paid attention to it. As it is, even though it costs $99 per user and can't run everything as well as the real Windows, it still puts egg on Microsoft's face.
It must really stink for Microsoft to have to give tons of free publicity to a direct competitor. I'd look for Microsoft to push for a quiet settlement and get the "Lindows" pill swallowed as quickly as possible.
"Since they rarely use a standard VGA connector, they require a proprietary video card which sometimes will not have open source driver support."
This is absolutely untrue. Most LCD monitors are either driven through analog VGA or through a standard digital interface (DVI.) Of course, the DVI-driven displays will provide higher-quality images.
And what makes you think that OLED cards will have open-source driver support, anyway? IMHO, if the drivers work well, does it really matter if you have the source code? It seems good to try for the utopia of all-open-source, but not purchasing a great monitor just because the drivers aren't open-source seems a bit overboard.
"...dropping an LCD results in a sloppy mess and a couple hundred dollars down the tubes."
Whoa. Stop there. If you spent $200 on an LCD monitor, no wonder you're complaining. The low-end monitors are crappy. I have an SGI 1600SW with Multilink Adapter that will soon be driven by a Geforce3. I spent over $1000 on it, which is more than I have spent on most of my computers. However, it is worth every penny. I would not trade it for any other LCD and I certainly wouldn't wait for a still-vapor technology.
Yes, LCDs are pricey! No, LCDs are not for everyone. But for those of us who want an absolutely gorgeous display -- one that every person who walks into your house will say "Wow!" about, and one that never makes your eyes hurt -- we are more than happy to pay for an LCD.
BTW, I thought this Tom's Hardware article was horrible. Instead of focusing on the wonderful high-end LCDs, this article is dueling the low-end LCDs. Most of these monitors are awful. I would recommend that anyone who is in the market check out the following:
Whatever you do, I wouldn't recommend paying less than $600 for an LCD. Also, definitely read the shopper.com reviews before purchasing. Their thumbs up / thumbs down system is a good way to figure out what people actually thought of the product after bringing it home.
I have a 128MB (base) CompactFlash MP3 player that does USB. What is really cool about the USB-based players is that in Windows ME, 2000, and XP, you don't need drivers or special software to interface with the MP3 player. You just plug it into the USB port and voila! Instant drive letter. It's due to a "USB Mass Storage Device" specification that all of these OSes use.
I can load files onto my MP3 player in a matter of seconds, and I don't need funky software -- just the USB connector and any PC running a recent Windows with a USB port. I have instant expandability via Compact Flash. My MP3 player runs 12 hours on one AA battery, and the USB transfer isn't really that slow (a few minutes to fill up all 128MB.) I don't really listen to my MP3 player except while commuting on the train, so I don't feel the need to cart around a lifetime's worth of MP3s.
The iPod (and all of these huge MP3 players) are cool. But if you need a quick-and-dirty music and file mover, you can't beat the tiny Compact Flash units. USB is quickly becoming the floppy drive of computers -- sure, it may be slow, but everyone has it. For now, until the iPod or similar players are in the $199 range, I'll be staying with the instant compatibility that a lil Compact Flash player gives me.
It sounds to me like the budget has already been ironed out and that the budget for these PC's includes a provision for Windows. If so, can we stop for a minute and think about the GOOD things that come out of this?
-- Every person in this country gets access to a computer that they might not have had at all. They get Internet access, which provides them with a wealth of new information. Some of them will pursue computer-related jobs that wouldn't have otherwise. In general, the country will benefit from this.
So why is it necessary to post an article on Slashdot basically asking people to flood this government with email complaining about Microsoft? Can we leave well enough alone and accept that the more computer-literate people there are, the better our industry benefits as a whole? These people will buy our hardware. They will visit our websites. They might even patronize Slashdot. This is a good thing.
It's sad, really, to see what should have been a "look what this great country is doing!" article turn into a pro-Linux, anti-Microsoft rant. I'd much rather see Slashdot readers take their time to go volunteer computer training or to build hardware and install software at a local school than to see Slashdot readers criticize a country for what is, in the long run, an incredibly Good Thing.
I was surprised that Cringely didn't mention the seemingly ubiquitous OS wars.
There are so many people convinced of one or both of the following: that Microsoft sucks; and that Linux will rule the desktop.
What is unfortunate about these viewpoints is that it obscures the real issue, which is making better software.
The industry has been crying out for a "killer app" for about 8 months. Basically, there are no reasons for people to upgrade their computer. But instead of really trying to make the "killer app", the Linux community is focused on:
-- emulating Microsoft, which is similar to those Wile E. Coyote cartoons, with Microsoft as the Roadrunner always being "one step ahead..."
-- trying to convince people that Microsoft sucks and that Linux is really better.
How about a New Years resolution for the Slashdot community? "For every comment I write on Slashdot, I will write at least 100 lines of code for an application that I believe will truly change the world. For every time I bash Microsoft for having poor security or buggy applications, I will contribute half an hour of my time to a project that I believe can truly succeed in a market dominated by Microsoft."
Remember, any executive will tell you that "This other product sucks" is a terrible business plan. However, "I have a plan to make x product more secure" is a great idea. And you don't need to be a programmer to change the world -- any good project needs marketing and donations and general help to succeed. It may be as simple as walking a newbie through the setup procedure or canvassing a message board looking for people who need help and offering to help them.
Here's my shocking prediction: in 5 years, the OS wars won't matter. Why is that? Not because Microsoft has been stomped, but because the world will have moved on. Look at TiVo, for instance. It runs Linux. So what? I don't get a bash prompt when I turn it on; I get a useful device that does exactly what I want to do. The fact that it runs Linux doesn't matter to the vast majority of TiVo subscribers.
Remember, people don't want something that has this feature or that feature. They want something that will solve an immediate need. Businesses are the same way. Prove that your solution will solve an existing and immediate need, and you're hired -- regardless of whether you're using Windows 2000, Linux, or a commercial UNIX to solve the problem.
So go out there and create that killer app, and stop arguing about whether Linux is this or that. I'm telling you, in 5 years, the Linux vs. Microsoft wars will be moot, but the killer application need will still be there. Don't argue about the platform; argue about whether your users' needs are being fulfilled.
I really thought that Cringely had misheard some information at that point. I couldn't see how or why Microsoft would want to do that.
Then I read the interview with Bill Gates that was part of C|Net's end-of-year wrap-up. Check out this quote:
[C|Net] As described by Microsoft, HailStorm has to be hosted on servers globally for the system to work. How do you plan to do that and ensure security?
[Gates] "We are doing a lot. All of those things are being done with other people. The very protocols of the Internet will evolve for security and quality of service and richer caching. And so we are out talking with the Ciscos and the Akamais and Intel--you name it--for that level of stuff." [italics mine]
All I can say is: wow.
How much do you want to bet that Microsoft will be calling this "Secure TCP/IP"?
From the article:
"Fair or not, RIAA president Hillary Rosen and Osama Bin Laden are interchangeable in the eyes of many Net savvy consumers."
Since when did Hillary Rosen kill 5,000 people? Or is she just a mass murderer in her spare time? She's definitely not a saint, and she definitely has greedy corporate interests in mind instead of consumers and artists, but she's nowhere near the scale of evil that Osama Bin Laden is!
Please don't compare someone who has killed members of his own species to someone who is trying to run a profitable business (no matter what you think of that business.)
My parents bought a big-screen (52") projection TV in 1986. Mom was the one who ended up buying it, because Dad insisted on waiting for HDTV.
They still have that TV. It does everything they need (it has S-video inputs, for instance), and still looks like a lot of the models in stores today. Will they upgrade to an HDTV? Sure. But not for a couple of years.
Take my mom's advice: Buy something you like now if there is something out there that is significantly better than what you have. You can always upgrade again later.;)
Not just Windows XP... 98, ME as well!
on
WinXP Security Flaw
·
· Score: 5, Informative
What the article doesn't mention is that Windows 98 with XP sharing is also affected, and that any version of Windows ME is affected as well.
If you are running Windows 98 or ME, you should immediately go to Microsoft's website and download the patch for your system.
1) CmdrTaco likes his job.
2) CmdrTaco liked the movie.
Which is great (I'm glad you liked it.) But this review doesn't tell me anything about why I would like the movie, or even the #1 reason to see this movie according to CmdrTaco. It doesn't even go into detail of why CmdrTaco liked the characters, or which one was his favorite and why.
"I liked the movie and you should see it" is certainly passable for an elementary school show-and-tell, but for a popular geek website geared toward college students and adults, this doesn't cut it. Most of us have read the books, so even a little "This scene was like the book and that rocked" teaser would be helpful. At least give us one good reason to hand $8.75/person over to the movie theater!
You're going to have just as many problems downloading another browser as you are downloading the patch. Instead, why don't you order the IE6 CD? It costs $10. There's also another one that includes Windows Media Player for $10.
Also, I believe that the free 30-day trial CDs of Earthlink and such have the latest IE on them. You should be able to get this from an office supply store or computer store.
Finally, if you have a friend with broadband, or you have a fast work connection, you can use the advanced option in IE's install to save the files to a disk instead of just installing it directly. Burn to a CD and you're all set.
I was really disappointed with this article. I was hoping that the author would explain some ways that Linux could fight the "only-for-geeks" perception. Perhaps he would even have a suggestion for how we could introduce Linux more easily to junior system administrators!
But no, he lists the (common, cliched) reasons that Linux isn't fit for the desktop, and then goes on to deny them, point by point. He then throws in a little Microsoft-bashing, which makes the article seem less like a helpful "Where do we go from here?" and more like a "Linux rocks; I don't understand why everyone isn't using it" rant.
Case in point: He cites the "infamous reliability" of Windows, then says: "it has become okay for a PC (running Windows) to crash once a day (or more often)." Since when? And since when does a non-9x OS from Microsoft crash more than once a day? I run Windows 2000, and it doesn't crash. If it crashes, it's a hardware problem. Applications crash, sure. But no one has yet solved the application crash problem. Windows NT and XP have about the same reliability. Uptimes of 5-100 days (which I have seen with Windows 2000) are perfectly fine for workstations, most of which get turned off at the end of the day, regardless. As much as I hate some of the features in Windows XP, I am still encouraging people to upgrade to it if they use a 9x-based OS. Folks, no computer should crash more than once a week, and you don't have to run around saying "Use Linux" if you want that type of reliability.
The author then goes on to quote students who say "Linux is seen as a geek's OS. Programmers love it and that puts everyone else off." But instead of explaining how Linux can be more friendly to non-technical users, he cites the "anti-Linux FUD campaign coming out of Redmond". Microsoft or no Microsoft, Linux vendors and programmers are just now realizing that ease-of-use matters, even to technical professionals. Instead of addressing this need in his article, he points fingers at Microsoft, which isn't productive.
One final comment which really irked me was his response to the following complaint: "The Linux command line is hard to learn and use." He responds with "No, it simply is not." How does this comment address the real issue? If your students feel that the command line is hard to use, give them a training manual. Better yet, sit down with them and explain that the command line may have a steeper learning curve, but show them how much more powerful it is!
Let's be honest: there is a lot of FUD in the computer world, made worse by those who think they know what they are talking about. "Windoze crashes constantly. Linux is too hard to use." Instead of regurgitating the same old excuses, let's figure out how to work with these problems. Fight FUD with education, not with more mindless flaming of the supposed "enemy". If your friend says that the command line is too hard to use, don't blow him or her off and say "No it isn't! See, all you have to do is pipe it to wc -g." Instead, sit down, start from the beginning, and explain the benefits of your method of working!
That is what the author should have done with his students.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's say you're Mr. Joe Generic PC User, and you run solitaire, Outlook Express, some Internet Explorer, and maybe you have an AOL dialup account. You also run a couple of other programs you happen to like, such as Quicken or Word.
What is the incentive for you to change?
Think about it. The biggest killer of Office sales is not StarOffice or KOffice, but older versions of Office. People want something that just "gosh-durn works". They don't care about upgrading, and they certainly aren't interested in the fact that the new Athlon 2GHz processor is faster than the equivalent Intel.
If you've ever done PC helpdesk, you know the inevitable deer-in-headlights look that regular computer users get when you say "the U word": upgrade. "Will my applications be okay? What about my documents? How about my email?" Change scares people! Even changing to Windows XP is scary because it doesn't look like other versions of Windows.
I can't even convince people to get rid of 9x and switch to Windows 2000, even though I can promise them stability and more configuration options. The panicked look comes onto their face, and then they say "You know, Windows 98 isn't that bad, and it runs this and this and this, and what if my documents get deleted?!" These people in no way are ready to switch to something that is not Windows, and the more someone makes a big deal out of it, the more scared they get.
I think the parent post has a valid point. If what you are using works, why change? Personally, I'm still on the crusade to rid the world of Windows 98 and switch people over to 2000/XP, but even that is a long and unforgiving ride. If Lindows doesn't even run the applications these people need, forget it. That battle isn't even worth fighting.
It's because of the court case. According to a recent article on internetnews.com:
"Lindows.com Founder and CEO Robertson said that his firm would provide proof that no business was done in Washington, let alone Redmond, and talked about it in a public statement.
'We're looking forward to showing the Court the widespread use of the term 'windows' or variations thereof by literally hundreds of companies which are not endorsed or sponsored by Microsoft. The fact that Microsoft has chosen not to sue these companies demonstrates their true motivation in this case is to crush competition from a promising new technology which threatens their illegally obtained monopoly,' said Lindows.com CEO, Michael Robertson."
"Windows users who are trying out Lindows won't be concerned about this, though, so if they are the target market for LindowsOS, the "running as root" thing shouldn't be a problem."
Okay, just because Windows 98 doesn't have security, that means Lindows shouldn't either...? All of the NT-based Windows OSes do have the ability to not run users/programs as root. This is a ridiculous step backward for security, and the "just because Windows 9x does it" excuse is poor at best.
If Lindows becomes popular, viruses will abound for that platform. Is this really any better than Windows? Now Linux has lost the main advantages it has over Windows, namely:
-- It's "free" (interpret that as you will)
-- It's more secure.
This is Microsoft's dream come true -- a chance to point out that not only is "Linux" less secure than Windows, but "Linux" is also not free (never mind that Lindows != Linux; Microsoft also has trouble remembering the difference between GPL and open-source.)
The bottom line is that Lindows as it stands today is not a boon to the Linux community, and it could cause a dangerous black eye to those currently promoting Linux on the desktop. Tread carefully.
If what they have works, why force-feed them an upgrade that forces them to use emulation?
You know, the company pays you for your time, too. If you spend 10 hours per computer installing and testing VMWare and Linux, and there are 10 computers, you've spent 100 hours on the problem. Assuming a decent wage rate, this Linux upgrade has cost the company several thousand dollars of your time, benefits, etc. And all to run emulation software for something that already works?
Your position is ridiculous, and I stand by my earlier comment that you want to run Linux because it is Linux, not because it will make you or your developers any more productive.
"AOL?, Redhat?, IBM? someone please help these guys."
Why? You seem to be missing the main point of Loki's business model. Loki took games that the game developers considered unprofitable to port to Linux and paid royalties to these game developers to port these games to Linux.
Now, with Loki having gone out of business, it has proven the developers' original point: Linux gaming is just not economically profitable. Heck, even John Carmack says (and I quote): "[T]he linux market is not viable for game developers to pursue. Linux ports will be done out of good will, not profit motives."
The harsh reality is that no one is going to bail Loki out. At this point, Linux games remain unprofitable. As long as gamers have good 3D support and decently easy game setup in Windows, they will continue to use Windows. My advice is to move on and not pursue the issue until Linux gets more desktop market share.
IE5 Web Accessories
;)
I am not sure if these are available for IE6. Apparently I'm still running 5.5 on this computer.
A couple of years ago (more?) when this whole thing started, I was a staunch supporter of Netscape. I really wanted to see Microsoft lose this one.
.exe was in use.) I either had to have these programs on a CD, or I had to wait for Netscape to download (through command-line FTP, even!)
.Net, which is the future of Microsoft, instead of IE, which is the past.
Now, however, I worry about things like the following:
"A judge would still have the challenge of choosing a remedy that would restore competition to the Internet browser market. Netscape has only a sliver of the Internet browser market, compared to its dominance several years ago."
One of the "suggested" remedies is to force Microsoft to not include a browser with the OS. I have to question, though, whether this would really be best for the consumer.
Remember back in the day when Windows 95 first shipped? The first thing I did upon loading 95 was to install a web browser. Usually, this meant a tedious process whereby I would use FTP to connect to ftp.netscape.com and go through several directories until I found the correct binary. This was a time-consuming and tedious process. Without a web browser, I couldn't install many of the programs I typically used, including an FTP client and WinZip (used to unpack programs back before the self-extracting
So I question whether the "stripped-down" version of Windows is a real remedy, as it causes more inconvenience to consumers that way. Rather, I'd like to see Internet Explorer installed and a shortcut to install Netscape on the desktop, much like there are AOL shortcuts on most desktops now. That way, Netscape could be installed locally with little hassle, but there would still be a web browser in the OS for those who didn't care.
A few years ago, I was up in arms about this whole thing. Now, I don't care any more, and I have a feeling that the vast majority of users feel the same way. I like my IE6 with its Google toolbar and Web development tools ("view partial source", anyone?). I would have applauded this decision a while ago, but now I think that Microsoft should just pay AOL its due and move on. This lawsuit is about something that should have been settled years ago, and it's time to worry about
"When do I click once, and when do I double click?"
There's an easy way to answer that question.
Open Windows Explorer and go to Tools -> Folder Options. At the bottom of the dialog box, there is a "Click items as follows" selection box. Select the bottom radio button, and everything on your desktop acts like the Web -- single click to execute; mouseover to select.
That's not to say that Windows doesn't have its share of usability issues. However, this one is no longer one of them.
From the article: "Three-Dimensional Presentation of Multiple Data Sets in Unitary Format with Pie Charts"
;)
Gah, and you thought Marketing was the only group that made up complex phrases to describe something so obvious.
"...it definitely predates Microsoft Windows by many years."
No, it doesn't. Check my other post regarding this.
Actually, it's not X Windows, but the X Window System. And actually, Microsoft Windows predates it -- Windows was released in 1983, and the X Window System's first commercial release was in 1986.
I'd guess that most product names that could help Lindows have already been submitted. Really, the name "Lindows" is pretty much doomed at this point.
...is that Microsoft has a very high chance of winning this case.
For example, take a look at the list of other product names that have "Windows" or something similar in them. All of these products run on Windows. They aren't a competitor to Microsoft's core operating system business; rather, they enhance that market by providing valuable third-party add-ons to Windows.
Lindows, on the other hand, is obviously capitalizing on the popularity of Windows. To make matters worse, Lindows has a real problem becuase the name is phonetically so similar to Microsoft's product. Try to say "Lindows" out loud in a sentence. In fact, try saying the following out loud to someone else and see what they think you said:
"Lindows is an operating system that runs on your personal computer."
In fact, this is the worst possible outcome for Microsoft, because they HAVE to sue to protect their trademark. Suing a) creates negative publicity for Microsoft by geeks who think Microsoft is just trying to lay the smack down on a smaller competitor; and b) creates a lot of publicity of something that may be a threat to Microsoft's core business.
I would hazard a guess that this lawsuit will generate more publicity and hype for the-soon-to-be-former-"Lindows" than the product would have on its own. Had it not been named so similarly to Windows, I doubt that many people outside of the geek community would have even paid attention to it. As it is, even though it costs $99 per user and can't run everything as well as the real Windows, it still puts egg on Microsoft's face.
It must really stink for Microsoft to have to give tons of free publicity to a direct competitor. I'd look for Microsoft to push for a quiet settlement and get the "Lindows" pill swallowed as quickly as possible.
"Since they rarely use a standard VGA connector, they require a proprietary video card which sometimes will not have open source driver support."
This is absolutely untrue. Most LCD monitors are either driven through analog VGA or through a standard digital interface (DVI.) Of course, the DVI-driven displays will provide higher-quality images.
And what makes you think that OLED cards will have open-source driver support, anyway? IMHO, if the drivers work well, does it really matter if you have the source code? It seems good to try for the utopia of all-open-source, but not purchasing a great monitor just because the drivers aren't open-source seems a bit overboard.
"...dropping an LCD results in a sloppy mess and a couple hundred dollars down the tubes."
Whoa. Stop there. If you spent $200 on an LCD monitor, no wonder you're complaining. The low-end monitors are crappy. I have an SGI 1600SW with Multilink Adapter that will soon be driven by a Geforce3. I spent over $1000 on it, which is more than I have spent on most of my computers. However, it is worth every penny. I would not trade it for any other LCD and I certainly wouldn't wait for a still-vapor technology.
Yes, LCDs are pricey! No, LCDs are not for everyone. But for those of us who want an absolutely gorgeous display -- one that every person who walks into your house will say "Wow!" about, and one that never makes your eyes hurt -- we are more than happy to pay for an LCD.
BTW, I thought this Tom's Hardware article was horrible. Instead of focusing on the wonderful high-end LCDs, this article is dueling the low-end LCDs. Most of these monitors are awful. I would recommend that anyone who is in the market check out the following:
Low-end: IBM T-Series 15" analog
Midrange: Samsung 17" 170MP with built-in TV tuner and PIP
High-end: The SGI 1600SW with Multilink, since discontinued; any Apple LCD
Whatever you do, I wouldn't recommend paying less than $600 for an LCD. Also, definitely read the shopper.com reviews before purchasing. Their thumbs up / thumbs down system is a good way to figure out what people actually thought of the product after bringing it home.
Good luck...
I have a 128MB (base) CompactFlash MP3 player that does USB. What is really cool about the USB-based players is that in Windows ME, 2000, and XP, you don't need drivers or special software to interface with the MP3 player. You just plug it into the USB port and voila! Instant drive letter. It's due to a "USB Mass Storage Device" specification that all of these OSes use.
I can load files onto my MP3 player in a matter of seconds, and I don't need funky software -- just the USB connector and any PC running a recent Windows with a USB port. I have instant expandability via Compact Flash. My MP3 player runs 12 hours on one AA battery, and the USB transfer isn't really that slow (a few minutes to fill up all 128MB.) I don't really listen to my MP3 player except while commuting on the train, so I don't feel the need to cart around a lifetime's worth of MP3s.
The iPod (and all of these huge MP3 players) are cool. But if you need a quick-and-dirty music and file mover, you can't beat the tiny Compact Flash units. USB is quickly becoming the floppy drive of computers -- sure, it may be slow, but everyone has it. For now, until the iPod or similar players are in the $199 range, I'll be staying with the instant compatibility that a lil Compact Flash player gives me.
It sounds to me like the budget has already been ironed out and that the budget for these PC's includes a provision for Windows. If so, can we stop for a minute and think about the GOOD things that come out of this?
-- Every person in this country gets access to a computer that they might not have had at all. They get Internet access, which provides them with a wealth of new information. Some of them will pursue computer-related jobs that wouldn't have otherwise. In general, the country will benefit from this.
So why is it necessary to post an article on Slashdot basically asking people to flood this government with email complaining about Microsoft? Can we leave well enough alone and accept that the more computer-literate people there are, the better our industry benefits as a whole? These people will buy our hardware. They will visit our websites. They might even patronize Slashdot. This is a good thing.
It's sad, really, to see what should have been a "look what this great country is doing!" article turn into a pro-Linux, anti-Microsoft rant. I'd much rather see Slashdot readers take their time to go volunteer computer training or to build hardware and install software at a local school than to see Slashdot readers criticize a country for what is, in the long run, an incredibly Good Thing.
I was surprised that Cringely didn't mention the seemingly ubiquitous OS wars.
There are so many people convinced of one or both of the following: that Microsoft sucks; and that Linux will rule the desktop.
What is unfortunate about these viewpoints is that it obscures the real issue, which is making better software.
The industry has been crying out for a "killer app" for about 8 months. Basically, there are no reasons for people to upgrade their computer. But instead of really trying to make the "killer app", the Linux community is focused on:
-- emulating Microsoft, which is similar to those Wile E. Coyote cartoons, with Microsoft as the Roadrunner always being "one step ahead..."
-- trying to convince people that Microsoft sucks and that Linux is really better.
How about a New Years resolution for the Slashdot community? "For every comment I write on Slashdot, I will write at least 100 lines of code for an application that I believe will truly change the world. For every time I bash Microsoft for having poor security or buggy applications, I will contribute half an hour of my time to a project that I believe can truly succeed in a market dominated by Microsoft."
Remember, any executive will tell you that "This other product sucks" is a terrible business plan. However, "I have a plan to make x product more secure" is a great idea. And you don't need to be a programmer to change the world -- any good project needs marketing and donations and general help to succeed. It may be as simple as walking a newbie through the setup procedure or canvassing a message board looking for people who need help and offering to help them.
Here's my shocking prediction: in 5 years, the OS wars won't matter. Why is that? Not because Microsoft has been stomped, but because the world will have moved on. Look at TiVo, for instance. It runs Linux. So what? I don't get a bash prompt when I turn it on; I get a useful device that does exactly what I want to do. The fact that it runs Linux doesn't matter to the vast majority of TiVo subscribers.
Remember, people don't want something that has this feature or that feature. They want something that will solve an immediate need. Businesses are the same way. Prove that your solution will solve an existing and immediate need, and you're hired -- regardless of whether you're using Windows 2000, Linux, or a commercial UNIX to solve the problem.
So go out there and create that killer app, and stop arguing about whether Linux is this or that. I'm telling you, in 5 years, the Linux vs. Microsoft wars will be moot, but the killer application need will still be there. Don't argue about the platform; argue about whether your users' needs are being fulfilled.
Good post! I wholeheartedly agree.
Remember a while ago when Cringely wrote the article about Microsoft building their own version of TCP/IP?
I really thought that Cringely had misheard some information at that point. I couldn't see how or why Microsoft would want to do that.
Then I read the interview with Bill Gates that was part of C|Net's end-of-year wrap-up. Check out this quote:
[C|Net] As described by Microsoft, HailStorm has to be hosted on servers globally for the system to work. How do you plan to do that and ensure security?
[Gates] "We are doing a lot. All of those things are being done with other people. The very protocols of the Internet will evolve for security and quality of service and richer caching. And so we are out talking with the Ciscos and the Akamais and Intel--you name it--for that level of stuff." [italics mine]
All I can say is: wow.
How much do you want to bet that Microsoft will be calling this "Secure TCP/IP"?
From the article:
"Fair or not, RIAA president Hillary Rosen and Osama Bin Laden are interchangeable in the eyes of many Net savvy consumers."
Since when did Hillary Rosen kill 5,000 people? Or is she just a mass murderer in her spare time? She's definitely not a saint, and she definitely has greedy corporate interests in mind instead of consumers and artists, but she's nowhere near the scale of evil that Osama Bin Laden is!
Please don't compare someone who has killed members of his own species to someone who is trying to run a profitable business (no matter what you think of that business.)
--
Turn on my friend Paul's lights and spy on his life!
"I'd be willing to bet my house that over 5% of households don't have VCRs, and they cost less than $100 and have been around for over 20 years."
Hand over the house keys, my friend.
My parents bought a big-screen (52") projection TV in 1986. Mom was the one who ended up buying it, because Dad insisted on waiting for HDTV.
;)
They still have that TV. It does everything they need (it has S-video inputs, for instance), and still looks like a lot of the models in stores today. Will they upgrade to an HDTV? Sure. But not for a couple of years.
Take my mom's advice: Buy something you like now if there is something out there that is significantly better than what you have. You can always upgrade again later.
What the article doesn't mention is that Windows 98 with XP sharing is also affected, and that any version of Windows ME is affected as well.
If you are running Windows 98 or ME, you should immediately go to Microsoft's website and download the patch for your system.
A more technical description can be found here.
Windows 2000 is not affected.
I got two things out of this review:
1) CmdrTaco likes his job.
2) CmdrTaco liked the movie.
Which is great (I'm glad you liked it.) But this review doesn't tell me anything about why I would like the movie, or even the #1 reason to see this movie according to CmdrTaco. It doesn't even go into detail of why CmdrTaco liked the characters, or which one was his favorite and why.
"I liked the movie and you should see it" is certainly passable for an elementary school show-and-tell, but for a popular geek website geared toward college students and adults, this doesn't cut it. Most of us have read the books, so even a little "This scene was like the book and that rocked" teaser would be helpful. At least give us one good reason to hand $8.75/person over to the movie theater!
--
SlashChick
You're going to have just as many problems downloading another browser as you are downloading the patch. Instead, why don't you order the IE6 CD? It costs $10. There's also another one that includes Windows Media Player for $10.
Also, I believe that the free 30-day trial CDs of Earthlink and such have the latest IE on them. You should be able to get this from an office supply store or computer store.
Finally, if you have a friend with broadband, or you have a fast work connection, you can use the advanced option in IE's install to save the files to a disk instead of just installing it directly. Burn to a CD and you're all set.
I was really disappointed with this article. I was hoping that the author would explain some ways that Linux could fight the "only-for-geeks" perception. Perhaps he would even have a suggestion for how we could introduce Linux more easily to junior system administrators!
But no, he lists the (common, cliched) reasons that Linux isn't fit for the desktop, and then goes on to deny them, point by point. He then throws in a little Microsoft-bashing, which makes the article seem less like a helpful "Where do we go from here?" and more like a "Linux rocks; I don't understand why everyone isn't using it" rant.
Case in point: He cites the "infamous reliability" of Windows, then says: "it has become okay for a PC (running Windows) to crash once a day (or more often)." Since when? And since when does a non-9x OS from Microsoft crash more than once a day? I run Windows 2000, and it doesn't crash. If it crashes, it's a hardware problem. Applications crash, sure. But no one has yet solved the application crash problem. Windows NT and XP have about the same reliability. Uptimes of 5-100 days (which I have seen with Windows 2000) are perfectly fine for workstations, most of which get turned off at the end of the day, regardless. As much as I hate some of the features in Windows XP, I am still encouraging people to upgrade to it if they use a 9x-based OS. Folks, no computer should crash more than once a week, and you don't have to run around saying "Use Linux" if you want that type of reliability.
The author then goes on to quote students who say "Linux is seen as a geek's OS. Programmers love it and that puts everyone else off." But instead of explaining how Linux can be more friendly to non-technical users, he cites the "anti-Linux FUD campaign coming out of Redmond". Microsoft or no Microsoft, Linux vendors and programmers are just now realizing that ease-of-use matters, even to technical professionals. Instead of addressing this need in his article, he points fingers at Microsoft, which isn't productive.
One final comment which really irked me was his response to the following complaint: "The Linux command line is hard to learn and use." He responds with "No, it simply is not." How does this comment address the real issue? If your students feel that the command line is hard to use, give them a training manual. Better yet, sit down with them and explain that the command line may have a steeper learning curve, but show them how much more powerful it is!
Let's be honest: there is a lot of FUD in the computer world, made worse by those who think they know what they are talking about. "Windoze crashes constantly. Linux is too hard to use." Instead of regurgitating the same old excuses, let's figure out how to work with these problems. Fight FUD with education, not with more mindless flaming of the supposed "enemy". If your friend says that the command line is too hard to use, don't blow him or her off and say "No it isn't! See, all you have to do is pipe it to wc -g." Instead, sit down, start from the beginning, and explain the benefits of your method of working!
That is what the author should have done with his students.