One.
I remember when I got Windows 3.1 for the first time (a major upgrade from whatever version of DOS I ran before that), and I was happy. Then everyone else got Windows 95, and I was still happy with my old Windows 3.1. All along as I upgrade my system, I'm happy. Not because its perfect, but because it does a fairly decent job. I tend to find most desktops to be fairly useful, not perfect, but useful. Maybe the problem isn't the lack of usefulness, but the fact that we can do better and everyone has a different idea of how to do better, and what better means.
I believe the analogy is "which of those do you expect to be better" not "which is more popular." I'm going to have to choose Dolby software, sounds like even more of a over Microsoft software than Dolby AAC over Microsoft WMA.
Slashdot Mirror
I moderated you up but had no more Mod points, so I'm saying this: MOD PARENT UP!
Whether you agree with the denialist school of thought or not, you should definitely be presenting both arguments, not just one biased website.
One. I remember when I got Windows 3.1 for the first time (a major upgrade from whatever version of DOS I ran before that), and I was happy. Then everyone else got Windows 95, and I was still happy with my old Windows 3.1. All along as I upgrade my system, I'm happy. Not because its perfect, but because it does a fairly decent job. I tend to find most desktops to be fairly useful, not perfect, but useful. Maybe the problem isn't the lack of usefulness, but the fact that we can do better and everyone has a different idea of how to do better, and what better means.
I believe the analogy is "which of those do you expect to be better" not "which is more popular." I'm going to have to choose Dolby software, sounds like even more of a over Microsoft software than Dolby AAC over Microsoft WMA.