Why the fuck would Final Cut be released for PC when its OWNED BY APPLE?
Using your logic and language:
Why the fuck would QuickTime be released for PC when its OWNED BY APPLE? Why the fuck would iTunes be released for PC when its OWNED BY APPLE? Why the fuck would Microsoft Office be released for MAC when its OWNED BY MICROSOFT? Why the fuck would Microsoft Messenger be released for MAC when its OWNED BY MICROSOFT?
Developers that do this in a world with growing mac market share are in for a world of hurt when they seen inversely proportional movement of customers to competing products written in native code.
Let me know when there is a competing Half Life 2 product on the Mac.
20 or so years of MS Office dominance has created an enormous legacy of files. Nothing will be ever accepted as a competitor in business unless there is a 100% backwards compatability with ms docs
OpenOffice.org can read old Microsoft Office files that new versions of Microsoft Office can't.
That can't happen because of vba (visual basic for applications - the cut down version of VB6 that essentially turns Ms Office into a development environment in the hands of people like me).
Which is why OpenOffice.org already supports the most common Visual Basic macros already, futher development continuing.
You may be able to read and write compatable excel docs - but can you open the attached compiled vba, complete with api function calls and active x components and make it do something sensible on a mac?)
Nope, but I actually haven't seen macros used to that extent yet.
This is Especially true now that Ms have announced discontinuation of vba emulation in future OSX versions
I think Crossover is going to become more popular on Mac OS X for this reason.
That is exactly what I'm saying. When an OS is designed the last thing you should ever look at is backwards compatability. It sounds shitty, but as soon as you go down that path you start giving up things in turn for backwards compatability.
Why are we even on x86 then?
With as slow as OS releases are, this slows down innovation quite a bit.
Because the lack of UAC, Aero, Desktop Search, DVD maker, Parental controls and bitdrive in windows xp will slow down innovation quite a bit... Pardon?
Most decent companies start writing their new versions as soon as the spec is released and stay up with beta builds to ensure at release their application is working.
You generally need more than a spec to begin development.
Waiting until after the OS is released is a bad management call, sure your dev costs are quite a bit less... But at the cost of not having a product ready for a few months after release (what we are running into now)
If you're working on corporate applications, corporations don't usually just move to a new OS version as it just comes out. Most people aren't going to buy a new computer the immediate moment they hear a new version of a OS is out either.
What brands are you comparing it to? If you've only ever used stuff like IBM, or built it yourself,
Most of my computers were custom built by a local computer shop (can get what I want with a good warranty). However, if I have to use a brand (usually for laptops), I'll get a corporate laptop from HP, Acer, Asus -- Just because they're sturdy.
I'd expect Apple to look relatively bad because your standards are so high.
I don't understand how I can get hardware assembled within the day to my specifications, lasting.. say... several years, but here I get a Mac, that had it's specifications and hardware well planned out long ago. Then it just has 'failures' continuously.
Not to mention, horrible assembly like too much thermal paste, high pitch noises (be it from the PSU, graphics card, monitor, motherboard or even a combination) -- I have sensitive hearing, hardware getting too hot to touch. These are things I would expect maybe from a system that was just put together on the spot without really thinking.
If you've had experience with Emachines or something, on the other hand...
We don't even have eMachines, Gateway here (here being Poland)... We have Dell, Sony stuff, but while it's possible to get their stuff, it's rare that one would ever see it -- even in shops.
Main big brands here: Optimus, HP, Compaq, Toshiba, Asus, Acer (Most people haven't even heard of a Mac).
Each time my iBook needed to be repaired, Apple sent a postage-paid box for me to pack it in, had it overnighted to their repair center, and had it back to me within a week.
Each time I had my PowerBook sent to be repaired, few times it got 'lost' when it was sent to them... Found later... Then they would just send it back unrepaired. No message or anything. It would be difficult to get anything repaired as they continuously didn't want to acknowledge there was a issue at all -- this happened too often. As for repair times... I think every time I sent something, it took at least two weeks to get it back. On another note, the local shop lets me get things repaired usually within the same day =)
Apple replaced the battery without any argument.
To be honest, I'm surprised you and the others who have posted here did have decent support from Apple. I've had 100% of time bad service. Not only that, but there are others I know of that have had very similar experiences to me.
I have been really patient with Apple, accepting a lot of things as "it can happen anywhere" sort of issues. But this has been 100% of my usage of Apple products and Apple services.
So are you saying the iMac uses slow ram and has a motherboard that can't support it? (667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-5300))
No, but I had a theory that the PCs you were comparing to had slower bus speeds.
I've experienced the exact opposite. So much so, I'm just gonna call bull and say you don't really have a mac, otherwise you wouldn't make such wild claims. My G4 tower is 6 years old and it runs just fine.
My old imacs, powerbook have suffered again and again logicboard failures. Powerbook's wireless card kept dying. Dealing with Apple-care was atrocious each time.
Later I got a Mac mini. It was emitting a high pitch noise whenever it was turned on. Within the first week, the internal wireless card just stopped connecting to my network. I didn't want to-do the Apple-care dance so I just ignored it. Then two weeks later, the entire Mac stopped working, I returned it and couldn't get a full refund. Unfortunately I didn't have the time to actually pursue the matter at the time.
What's been a major deal breaker for me with the new Macs, is that a lot of the latest hardware from Apple make high pitch noises (most people can't hear them).
The main reason I have mostly macs is because they last more than the two or three years (max) that the pc's I've owned do.
Oldest x86 system that's used daily here (in this house), is a Pentium 3 system from 1999 (only thing I've upgraded was the RAM and harddrives so far in it), which is being actively used as a desktop - Running Windows XP Pro SP2, has a few old games on it too. It runs pretty well (responsive), although takes two and half minutes to boot and get into desktop.
That said, there are also sold 'models' of computers that don't work really well unless you upgrade them in some way (usually it's a obscenely small amount of RAM).
Hell, this work pc I'm on now is only a couple of years old (P4 1.7GHz) and it is practically a dinosaur. It barely runs Win 2000 and probably can't even run XP
I have a five year old p4 1.8ghz (was advertised as 2ghz -- Intel's fault), not noticeably slow for everyday tasks (although Second life run 14fps average at mostly low settings -- not really good).
At least my 6 year old G4 can run the current version of Mac OS X.
Yeah, I could probably shove Vista on the P4 system, it's well within the minimum specifications, I'd just need to upgrade the graphic card to get proper DX10 support. But to be honest, there is nothing in Vista I'm particularly interested in yet.
But let's not let our own experiences cloud our judgement and let's look to the data instead. I'm not sure what's wrong with your Apple hardware, considering they are consistently #1 in both customer satisfaction and repair rates.
I'm more interested in comparisons against Asus, Acer, Hp, Optimus.. Since eMachines, Gateway are unheard of (and Sony isn't known for selling laptops here -- here being Poland).
From the article by the way, As we've said in the past, Mac owners are unusually passionate about their machines, and this may have had an effect on the company's unusually high Service and Reliability scores.
Arguing against the quality of Apple hardware is done out of spite and not by looking at the data that exists.
Despite the fact that it doesn't really explain why so many people I've met on-line who have used Apple-care have had problems with them (helpers in Mac help channels on IRC have even admitted this). Additionally I must of used Apple-care over twenty times in my life and each and every-time, it was long and difficult to deal with.
I suppose you could call that out of spite, as I've never seen any real statistics so I will take the statistics you gave as reliable.
So, in general, I'd consider Apple machines to be some of the highest-quality out there, right up with IBM and building it myself.
My own personal machines haven't really been problematic, except for every Mac I've owned. From 'logicboard failures' (In all the years I've been using computers, I've never had a motherboard just 'fail' except when it came to mac) to the wireless card just dying a few days after I got it (and then Applecare trying to dodge dealing with it).
These experiences I have I know aren't unique to me, as I've talked about this with others who have had the same issues.
Applecare is at worst inconsistent, not uniformly "horrible." If it were, there wouldn't be people like me around, who had good experiences with it.
First time I've heard this. Usually, those I've talked to who haven't had problems, just didn't deal with Apple-care in the first place.
The Wikipedia article doesn't mention any of that.
From the wikipedia article you linked: SonicStage 3.4 includes an option to de-DRM your whole library (obviously the larger your library is, the longer this will take) allowing as many copies of files as you like, on as many players as you want, on as many PCs as you want. You can even share non-DRM files with friends or colleagues.
My PC's have better video cards, and faster cpu cycles
That isn't everything.
but are outperformed by the Core 2 Duo iMac.
So, how do they compare against Intel Core 2 Duo PCs with better graphic cards?
Because I some how doubt they are going to give worse performance.
Neither of my PCs can break 50 fps, with "superior" video cards.
Graphic cards aren't everything, you need fast RAM, a motherboard that can support RAM at such speeds etc.
Stating the iMac isn't a viable video game machine because you can't upgrade the video card isn't a valid argument at this point, but may be an issue in the future.
I still have x86 computers from seven years ago, I upgrade them a bit still, because they're capable of doing more. None of my Macs have even survived this long (mostly due to hardware issues, but also because they're becoming utterly useless in what they can do).
Unless you can point me to a game that is more demanding than Half-Life 2 with maxed out settings (I'm sure there are some, but I'm not exactly a hard core gamer)
Second life -- Just try all the settings maxed out.
I would say the iMac is a GREAT gaming platform for 99% of the games available.
Perhaps. But then again, I don't really see how it's superior to most modern PCs (with similar specs) for sale out there.
So why would someone want to run OS X on something OTHER than an Apple made computer?
To get the hardware that's right for them. Apple provides too few choices. For example, the only machine I would get for 'real' gaming, is the top one from Apple, because they don't have something in between that would allow me to use a decent graphics card.
Do Mac owners want to deal with cheap hardware, driver problems, things not working?
To be fair.. Often Apple hardware has issues often. Just do a Google on airport express cards, too much thermal paste causing the hardware to get too hot to touch, high pitch whining (many people can't hear that, but I can) etc.
And what is the cost benefit? Like $100?
Perhaps the benefit is that you know the hardware won't fail on you, and you know that you don't have to deal with Applecare's horrible service.
And what is wrong with iTunes? It has, by far, the fairest DRM.
The fairest DRM is SonicStage. Letting you create unlimited copies with the latest version, de-DRM them etc.
You can burn unlimited copies of the music (you are limited to a certain number per playlist, but you can make a new Playlist and do more).
Most Linux distros don't even have the relevant codecs, and while you can get them, how many people *want* to spend their time that way?
It takes me less time to install w32codecs and ffmpeg (less than a minute -- just two packages after all) to get support in xine and mplayer engines, than it does to install the DVD software and codecs under windows (about 40 minutes -- yes, I did time myself -- mainly because I'm taking my own time to help other people).
Besides, the multimedia applications themselves are simply not of the same quality.
Huh? What's wrong with Kaffeine, VLC etc?
And this is an evolving area: even Microsoft has trouble keeping up with iTunes (Windows Media Player, for example, has no RSS/podcast support)
I wonder if that Zune player application does.
and the Linux stuff is nowhere near.
Yeah, I agree. Amarok went far beyond iTunes in what it can do. Apple is going to have a hard time to catch up with features alone. Nevermind the interface.
And, of course, iTunes won't run on Linux while it will run on XP.
Well, actually, it runs under Crossover just fine.
You think, these days, people want a system that can't play MP3s or DVDs out of the box
Yeah, Windows really needs to catch up with DVD support out of the box (Linux mint definitely beats windows out of all the support out of a clean install, even wireless support).
a system that can't sync with a portable MP3 player easily?
It's a shame windows can't actually synchronize stuff out of the box like I can with many linux distributions.
You think they want to mooch over to YouTube and find they can't watch the vids, because they have't got Flash. (And some geek telling them to install Wine so they can use Flash just won't walk.)
Actually, if you didn't have it preinstalled, they'd tell you to install it through the package manager... There is a Linux version of Adobe's Flash after-all...
But non-enthusiast home users? No way. Maybe the odd person who only does web and email, but that's not the norm now.
There aren't many, but I know at least a handful of non-enthusiast home users in real life who do more on Linux than just web and e-mail.
A common pacakage format. RPM and DEB are both nice but the Linux Standards Base (LSB) has decided on RPM so let's all just use it.
Debian and Ubuntu fully support using RPMs (converts it to.deb and installs actually), which is all the LSB requires. Also, there are Deb to RPM converters available, so it isn't really that big of a deal which package format to use (I've installed.deb packages on Mandriva just fine)
RPM is open source software, if it doesn't have something that DEB does, suck it up and add it.
Yes, the differences in RPM formats between Mandriva, SuSE, Redhat can cause annoyances actually, your suggestion doesn't really work practically as we've already seen in a few instances.
A consistent configuration layout. I should be able to log onto Gentoo, Fedora, RHEL, Debian or Ubuntu and find that the configuration files for a given application or system feature are the _same_ format and exist in the _same_ places on the system. Why does every distro need to do something this simple in 10 different ways?
It's not a simple matter. There are different philosophies with how configurations should be handled. If Apache's configuration was kept as it's 'vanilla' configuration, we'd never have a modular installation system for modules with Apache... Like installing the PHP module and it would work immediately with your Apache installation.
Every distribution also has it's own philosophies on how things should work, I don't see this as a bad thing at all, it helps keep things evolve.
A solid set of GUI configuration tools. Following the previous point about a consistent configuration layout, there should be a common API for manipulation of said files and a set of GUI applications that can do common tasks without requiring a user to drop to the command prompt.
Could you give a example? Theres nothing really that I can think of in the desktop that doesn't have a GUI interface for configuration (Note: I use KDE more than any other WM, so I can't vouch for others).
A package manager capable of installing software that the user downloads from the internet.
Got plenty of those already, moot point?
Users of Mac OS and Windows expect to be able to go to Evolution's - for example - website and download and install the latest version of that application. This _has_ to work.
Evolution can provide cross-distribution compatible binaries in a RPM or a Loki installer if they want. Nothing is stopping them. If you're going to complain about lack of installers, packages and so on. There are cases of lack of installers too for some windows programs.
If you don't like the lack of cross-distribution packages, I don't really see many projects objecting your help to maintain them.
it seems the best choice for an open source desktop would be PC-BSD
FreeBSD/PC-BSD isn't fully compatible with most of my x86 hardware (from wireless to 3d acceleration), most major Linux distributions are.
So far, that's been the main reason why I don't really use FreeBSD/PC-BSD.
I would however consider it in future, if you knew of a computer vendor that sells computers that have modern hardware that's been in existence (the hardware, not the company) of say.. about 0-2 years, fully supporting FreeBSD. In the past I've looked and I've not been impressed by the support (or lack) of modern hardware on FreeBSD.
I don't intend to buy outdated hardware in the future, that's just silly.
Linux has System76, which in my opinion, is very suitable for modern gaming among many other things.
I Try that with Linux and most of the threads don't have solutions, they have flaming A-holes yelling about how the solution is so simple that a retarded monkey can fix the problem.
I daily try to help people in various IRC channels and mailing lists. I can't really remember a instance of that happening.
Eitherway the hostility that the majority of Linux community has towards those who are trying to learn more or figure out a problem with Linux is so discouraging that most "users" are scared off.
I spend a lot of time in major helping areas (mostly IRC channels), I really don't see any of this happening.
Until the community and moderators Linux forums actually start encouraging and supporting the unknowing masses Linux as a standard OS will suffer.
To my knowledge, they are.
It also doesn't help that every distro has it's own "standard". Example, Ubuntu uses GZ and Red Hat uses RPM.
I don't understand the problem? What is wrong with having different package management? Different goals? By the way, Ubuntu uses Deb packaging.
A given GZ or RPM might not work with the distro you currently are using but might work with others.
Actually, the RPMs, DEBs, GZs that were made to work cross-distributions, do generally work very well (ie: staroffice, crossover etc). Complaining about distribution specific packages is pointless, unless you want to stop Linux distributions from evolving.
Additionaly there is also complexity when it comes to installing software/apps/packages that general users do not/can not take time to learn.
... ?
Well, for non-distro software I just do things like...
Double-clicking a.deb package to install the package. Double-clicking the.bin file to install Unreal Tournament off the CD.
Or do you mean people not being used to the idea that you have a large software library available in the form of a package manager. So we should get rid of it and use a classical method of installing software because it's easier? I don't agree.
Windows on the other hand is easy, double click on the executable and bang your done.
Yeah, I can do that just fine on Linux as I've mentioned before.
Typing in the program name (or the program type -- like a webbrowser) in search, selecting it and clicking install. Which automatically downloads it, downloads any dependencies I need (think of.net/vb/java on windows), installing and configuring it.
Verses, finding website of said program, going to website, looking for download link, downloading, waiting for the download to finish before you can start the installer (ie: can't go for a walk or something), starting it and getting harassed with a warning message that you got this file off the internet, clicking "next" a few times, then the program may work or perhaps may not work because it's lacking.. say.. a visual basic DLL -- So it gives you some baffling error that many people wouldn't understand.
It doesn't require 3 pages of instructions to do an typical install.
I feel you're trying to spread FUD, because you're not describing a typical package installation.
In my opinion this is why Linux has had problems taking over as the mainstream in desktop OS.
In my opinion, if Linux were preinstalled on computers being sold in shops, with no other OS in the shops (just like Windows often is), I wouldn't see Linux having a problem becoming a mainstream desktop OS like Windows.
On another note, wireless has always worked for me on Ubuntu without the need for configuration. Worked directly off the Edgy live/installer CD. I'm sorry that you don't have hardware that's supported out of the box.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not proprietary.
Why the fuck would QuickTime be released for PC when its OWNED BY APPLE?
Why the fuck would iTunes be released for PC when its OWNED BY APPLE?
Why the fuck would Microsoft Office be released for MAC when its OWNED BY MICROSOFT?
Why the fuck would Microsoft Messenger be released for MAC when its OWNED BY MICROSOFT?
You generally need more than a spec to begin development.If you're working on corporate applications, corporations don't usually just move to a new OS version as it just comes out. Most people aren't going to buy a new computer the immediate moment they hear a new version of a OS is out either.
Lotus Notes sucks
Not to mention, horrible assembly like too much thermal paste, high pitch noises (be it from the PSU, graphics card, monitor, motherboard or even a combination) -- I have sensitive hearing, hardware getting too hot to touch. These are things I would expect maybe from a system that was just put together on the spot without really thinking.We don't even have eMachines, Gateway here (here being Poland)... We have Dell, Sony stuff, but while it's possible to get their stuff, it's rare that one would ever see it -- even in shops.
Main big brands here: Optimus, HP, Compaq, Toshiba, Asus, Acer (Most people haven't even heard of a Mac).
Each time I had my PowerBook sent to be repaired, few times it got 'lost' when it was sent to them... Found later... Then they would just send it back unrepaired. No message or anything.
It would be difficult to get anything repaired as they continuously didn't want to acknowledge there was a issue at all -- this happened too often. As for repair times... I think every time I sent something, it took at least two weeks to get it back.
On another note, the local shop lets me get things repaired usually within the same day =)
To be honest, I'm surprised you and the others who have posted here did have decent support from Apple. I've had 100% of time bad service. Not only that, but there are others I know of that have had very similar experiences to me.
I have been really patient with Apple, accepting a lot of things as "it can happen anywhere" sort of issues. But this has been 100% of my usage of Apple products and Apple services.
No, but I had a theory that the PCs you were comparing to had slower bus speeds.
My old imacs, powerbook have suffered again and again logicboard failures. Powerbook's wireless card kept dying. Dealing with Apple-care was atrocious each time.
Later I got a Mac mini. It was emitting a high pitch noise whenever it was turned on. Within the first week, the internal wireless card just stopped connecting to my network. I didn't want to-do the Apple-care dance so I just ignored it. Then two weeks later, the entire Mac stopped working, I returned it and couldn't get a full refund. Unfortunately I didn't have the time to actually pursue the matter at the time.
What's been a major deal breaker for me with the new Macs, is that a lot of the latest hardware from Apple make high pitch noises (most people can't hear them).
Oldest x86 system that's used daily here (in this house), is a Pentium 3 system from 1999 (only thing I've upgraded was the RAM and harddrives so far in it), which is being actively used as a desktop - Running Windows XP Pro SP2, has a few old games on it too. It runs pretty well (responsive), although takes two and half minutes to boot and get into desktop.
That said, there are also sold 'models' of computers that don't work really well unless you upgrade them in some way (usually it's a obscenely small amount of RAM).
I have a five year old p4 1.8ghz (was advertised as 2ghz -- Intel's fault), not noticeably slow for everyday tasks (although Second life run 14fps average at mostly low settings -- not really good).
Yeah, I could probably shove Vista on the P4 system, it's well within the minimum specifications, I'd just need to upgrade the graphic card to get proper DX10 support. But to be honest, there is nothing in Vista I'm particularly interested in yet.
I'm more interested in comparisons against Asus, Acer, Hp, Optimus.. Since eMachines, Gateway are unheard of (and Sony isn't known for selling laptops here -- here being Poland).
From the article by the way, As we've said in the past, Mac owners are unusually passionate about their machines, and this may have had an effect on the company's unusually high Service and Reliability scores.
Despite the fact that it doesn't really explain why so many people I've met on-line who have used Apple-care have had problems with them (helpers in Mac help channels on IRC have even admitted this). Additionally I must of used Apple-care over twenty times in my life and each and every-time, it was long and difficult to deal with.
I suppose you could call that out of spite, as I've never seen any real statistics so I will take the statistics you gave as reliable.
What I mea
These experiences I have I know aren't unique to me, as I've talked about this with others who have had the same issues.First time I've heard this. Usually, those I've talked to who haven't had problems, just didn't deal with Apple-care in the first place.
From the wikipedia article you linked:
SonicStage 3.4 includes an option to de-DRM your whole library (obviously the larger your library is, the longer this will take) allowing as many copies of files as you like, on as many players as you want, on as many PCs as you want. You can even share non-DRM files with friends or colleagues.
- IBM
- System76
I'd appreciate it, if someone could add more to this list.Because I some how doubt they are going to give worse performance.
Graphic cards aren't everything, you need fast RAM, a motherboard that can support RAM at such speeds etc.
I still have x86 computers from seven years ago, I upgrade them a bit still, because they're capable of doing more. None of my Macs have even survived this long (mostly due to hardware issues, but also because they're becoming utterly useless in what they can do).
Second life -- Just try all the settings maxed out.
Perhaps. But then again, I don't really see how it's superior to most modern PCs (with similar specs) for sale out there.
If it's not comparable to Photoshop, why do you think this?
The fairest DRM is SonicStage. Letting you create unlimited copies with the latest version, de-DRM them etc.You're not limited on SonicStage.You lose sound quality that way.
System76 is also another vendor one can use for Linux systems.
Yeah, Windows really needs to catch up with DVD support out of the box (Linux mint definitely beats windows out of all the support out of a clean install, even wireless support).It's a shame windows can't actually synchronize stuff out of the box like I can with many linux distributions.Actually, if you didn't have it preinstalled, they'd tell you to install it through the package manager... There is a Linux version of Adobe's Flash after-all...
There aren't many, but I know at least a handful of non-enthusiast home users in real life who do more on Linux than just web and e-mail.
Every distribution also has it's own philosophies on how things should work, I don't see this as a bad thing at all, it helps keep things evolve.Could you give a example? Theres nothing really that I can think of in the desktop that doesn't have a GUI interface for configuration (Note: I use KDE more than any other WM, so I can't vouch for others).Got plenty of those already, moot point?Evolution can provide cross-distribution compatible binaries in a RPM or a Loki installer if they want. Nothing is stopping them. If you're going to complain about lack of installers, packages and so on. There are cases of lack of installers too for some windows programs.
If you don't like the lack of cross-distribution packages, I don't really see many projects objecting your help to maintain them.
So far, that's been the main reason why I don't really use FreeBSD/PC-BSD.
I would however consider it in future, if you knew of a computer vendor that sells computers that have modern hardware that's been in existence (the hardware, not the company) of say.. about 0-2 years, fully supporting FreeBSD. In the past I've looked and I've not been impressed by the support (or lack) of modern hardware on FreeBSD.
I don't intend to buy outdated hardware in the future, that's just silly.
Linux has System76, which in my opinion, is very suitable for modern gaming among many other things.
To my knowledge, they are.I don't understand the problem? What is wrong with having different package management? Different goals? By the way, Ubuntu uses Deb packaging.Actually, the RPMs, DEBs, GZs that were made to work cross-distributions, do generally work very well (ie: staroffice, crossover etc). Complaining about distribution specific packages is pointless, unless you want to stop Linux distributions from evolving.
... ?
Well, for non-distro software I just do things like...
Double-clicking a
Double-clicking the
Or do you mean people not being used to the idea that you have a large software library available in the form of a package manager. So we should get rid of it and use a classical method of installing software because it's easier? I don't agree.
Yeah, I can do that just fine on Linux as I've mentioned before.
Typing in the program name (or the program type -- like a webbrowser) in search, selecting it and clicking install. Which automatically downloads it, downloads any dependencies I need (think of
Verses, finding website of said program, going to website, looking for download link, downloading, waiting for the download to finish before you can start the installer (ie: can't go for a walk or something), starting it and getting harassed with a warning message that you got this file off the internet, clicking "next" a few times, then the program may work or perhaps may not work because it's lacking.. say.. a visual basic DLL -- So it gives you some baffling error that many people wouldn't understand.
I feel you're trying to spread FUD, because you're not describing a typical package installation.
In my opinion, if Linux were preinstalled on computers being sold in shops, with no other OS in the shops (just like Windows often is), I wouldn't see Linux having a problem becoming a mainstream desktop OS like Windows.
On another note, wireless has always worked for me on Ubuntu without the need for configuration. Worked directly off the Edgy live/installer CD. I'm sorry that you don't have hardware that's supported out of the box.