I agree entirely with the need for session saving. I also wish the system tray support was much better than just a simple extension that doesn't work perfectly.
I used to use Avant (IE with all the features of Opera, basically) before going to Firefox, and I really miss just being able to close my browser window, then bring it back up from the icon in the tray (instantly, I might add) and then still having all my pages loaded.
I guess I used to be pretty pro-IE for a while, mostly because of compatibility reasons with the majority of the user base I deal with. Firefox just wasn't loading all pages the same/properly, so I generally didn't try to support it. Dealing with multiple browsers like that was just a headache. I always kept my system up to date, and trusted Microsoft enough to release patches for the worst of what popped up. I didn't go to shady sites or anything, and used Thunderbird for email, so I wasn't really worried about bad stuff. And I used Avant for my IE browsing, mind you, so I already had tabbed browsing and all that (even some things Firefox does not have). I just didn't need or want Firefox.
Well it really isn't a bad browser overall, and it's nice to have an alternative, so I decided the only way I'm gonna be able to make everything work properly across browsers is to just suck it up and force myself to use it full-time and adapt to the actual standards, even if I did think some of Microsoft's DHTML additions and such gave IE a leg up over Firefox. A few of them really should be official standards, and it required me to rewrite a lot of code to adapt appropriately (sometimes losing some functionality). But I managed to get everything to comply and at least work in Firefox, since I knew some of my users were starting to use it.
I admit that I like the customization I can do with the interface, which just isn't possible with IE or Avant. I've modified several things, but just haven't been able to find a good chrome reference yet to really get into it, though.
But my qualm with Firefox overall is just the fact that they seem to focus primarily on how many platforms it can run on. If they want to take more of the market share, they need to have a seperate team or something to focus primary on a Windows edition. Try to customize it for speed and memory use, and add in some Windows-specific features, like keeping it loaded in the system tray. I don't like waiting for my browser to load. I know there's an extension to do that now, but it's more of a hack, and just doesn't work the way I'd like it to. That icon should be permanent in the tray, opening new browsers when you double click it, not disappearing from the tray as soon as you do click it.
They also need to take advantage of MDI, like how Avant handles its tabs, instead of forcing you to always fill up the browser window. I've gotten used to it, but I kind of liked being able to cascade or tile tabs in Avant to compare things in pages.
I generally only want ONE browser window open, and for things to only open in tabs inside of that. This is possible in Firefox with some tweaking, but I came across problems when trying to run a single window along with using the system tray extension. Links will try to open in the tray copy sometimes, and not in the one I already have open. So I had to go back to using multiple windows for opening urls externally, cluttering up my task bar.
Avant would also let me just close the window, always having an icon in the tray, and when I brought it back up, all my sites were still loaded. I've heard about an extension that can do something similar for Firefox, but again, it's more of a hack, and requires entirely reloading the browser (and the sites), not keeping it active, from what I understand.
So as I said, I'd like to see some more Windows-specific additions. Being multi-platform is nice and all, but it's just not the best way to becoming popular. With IE7 looming in the distance, Firefox may just lose some of its users if they don't throw in some better features for the Windows users (who I'm sure makes up a majority of the Firefox users).
Someone should mod the parent post out of Flamebait status, as it's far from it, as previous replies to it have pointed out.
Having been a user of older computers for many years, Java has always been a scourge to me. It was one of those things where I would literally sigh out loud when I'd come across something that used it, because I knew I was in for a horrible experience. Many times I'd just close whatever it was immediately, because it was pointless to try and suffer through it. I could run XP on one of the particular machines in mind, even, but not Java!
Even now, on a modern speedy machine, I still have no use for it, as a user nor a developer. Software created to "bridge the gap" between platforms is just never what it's cut out to be.
It's part of the reason why Linux can never be a true platform like Windows has become, because too much of it has been created to just work on anything, making it slow and bloated overall. A program will call a script that runs some interpreted language, which may in turn call another, etc. Granted, this makes for a very configurable system, but generally results in a big performance hit because of all the processes (and processing) involved.
Windows is only aimed for one type of system, using mostly compiled code, so you get the speed and lower memory usage that your average user wants. Linux can just never have that, not without reworking it to the point that it's not Linux anymore.
I'm sure hardcore Linux advocates will disagree with most of what I said, either telling me I'm wrong or that their systems "run just as fast as Windows", etc. I've heard it all before, and will never believe it, because it's just not true. I use Linux on some machines myself for various reasons, but my primary desktop machine is Windows. I want no-fuss and the best performance I can get for my general computer usage. So does the average user.
I know that a lot of the fans are going to be disappointed when they see the movie, but seriously, how many movie versions of anything end up being what you wanted them to be? Even LotR fans had stuff to complain about with the movies, and you see how popular they became. And if you want an even more drastic comparison of medias, just remember Super Mario Bros. You had to just like that movie for what it was, because if you were rating it based on its likeness to the games, you might as well go home.
So the same holds true with H2G2. I doubt they're gonna make a major mess out of it, but you know there's gonna be things that aren't perfect, for various reasons (intentional and otherwise), so the best you can do is just sit there and try to enjoy it for what it is. It's not like there's any other new H2G2 stuff to watch in place of it.
Everyone keeps whining about not being able to remove IE from Windows. But did you ever stop to think about just how many applications actually use IE's API, and integrate html and web pages into their programs? So even if it were possible to rip IE out of Windows, which so many people seem inclined to do for whatever reasons, those programs just wouldn't work anymore.
And you know why? Because nobody else has developed such an API for Windows. It's not impossible for one to replace IE's API if they really tried. I know that many of the open source software developers are a clever breed, and can work around any obstacle presented to them. It's just that nobody's done it, or even tried to do it that I know of.
So don't whine about not being able to remove IE if you don't have an adequate replacement to prevent many other pieces of software from breaking. It would become a tech nightmare if IE WAS removable, because then every dummy would be trying to uninstall it to hate on Microsoft like all the "cool" people, then be crying for someone to come fix their machine when all their instant messengers stopped working.
I mean seriously, if you hate IE that much, why are you even still using Windows?
I thought it started out kind of boring with the first episode. Things picked up somewhat (if you want to refer to more typing and phone calls as "picked up") as each episode went along, though. But I guess I was mildly entertained by the whole thing or I wouldn't have watched all 5 episodes.
Seriously though, these guys act nothing like what people assume guys like this to be. They wouldn't talk in such good English, and use so many emoticons. They probably wouldn't be using AIM and ICQ. Their mIRC wouldn't be so horribly plain, with such huge fonts. They'd be using Windows shortcut keys to do actions instead of using the mouse to do every single thing. They wouldn't use such generic terms to describe what they're doing. They might not even be using Windows!
There were just lots of things I saw wrong with this, aside from the things I mentioned above even. It really could have been a lot better. But then again I guess it could have been a lot worse. As I said, it managed to entertain me somewhat, so I give the fellows credit for that. Hopefully I'll think to check around for new episodes in the future to see how it turns out.
These kinds of things never work. I've seen many of them pop up over the years, from Windows boxes to Macs to Linux, and they all fail. The reasons of course, are:
a.) So many people will be trying, that the bandwidth available to do anything with the machine at all will be practically zero.
b.) Some "hax0r" will decide to just packet the machine to death, thereby making it impossible to even do anything to.
c.) The software will be up to date, limiting any vulnerabilities that can be taken advantage of, compared to your average server out there.
d.) The time limit to do it is never long enough, especially because of the above problems.
I've seen contests where they even turn on a firewall. Obviously whoever was in charge of those had no idea how anything works. Once that firewall goes up, there's not much of anything that can be done to the system solely from a remote position. It was even a default Windows install on the particular one I'm thinking of, and despite the vulnerabilities in a bare Windows XP install, nobody was ever able to do anything to it.
I know the Linux machine in this contest is said to have no firewall, but like I said, the software will be mostly up to date. Most servers that are broken into are done so because they're running older versions of things with known vulnerabilities. Many of these machines are also on the web, running vulnerable versions of PHP and forums and whatnot, which allow one to take advantage of flaws from there, not necessarily via direct TCP connections.
So while it's entirely possible to break into this particular Linux machine, I just don't think many "real hackers" will bother, for the reasons I mentioned above. It's fun to have challenges and all, but they're just not realistically implemented.
While I've never been a Netscape fan, I have to give them credit for such a totally unique browser. If a page doesn't display properly, it's a simple matter of telling it to switch rendering engines. That's pretty ingenious! I've never heard tale of a browser capable of using both.
I may in fact start using this when testing pages, just to keep from having to have both IE and Firefox open when testing code. Still hafta open Opera, but I don't see them ever integrating that into it.
Microsoft's security has always been such a huge public issue in the past primarily because a.) nobody online has anything else to report on, and b.) people love to hate on Microsoft, despite most of them still using their products.
All complicated pieces of software, like browsers and operating systems, are going to have flaws. They've been found in every OS, and every browser. They'll continue to be found, as long as they make up a large part of the market, because not only are these what "hackers" search for, but also security professionals.
So the Firefox team will fix their flaws, just as the Microsoft team has continued to do so for theirs. However, Firefox's will now get brought into the public's attention much more as it becomes more popular, even though flaws have existed for it all along, as anyone who views the release log on their site can see. But only IE got the attention for being riddled with problems up till now.
So this just further proves that it's not just Microsoft's problem. Firefox is going to get its share of the limelight now, for better or worse.
Being dominant however is directly based on the decency of the OS. Had it not been decent, it wouldn't have ever become so dominant in the first place. Back in the day, the choices for a graphical OS for the general desktop market were primarily between like Windows and OS2. While OS2 might have been a fine OS for what it was, Windows won out, and I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with marketing, considering IBM was just as capable of marketing a product as well as Microsoft was, if not more so.
When compared to other OS's for the PC, Windows today is very fast and polished, and very easy to use for the general computer user who doesn't know much. All of these things together are hard to come by. Despite the claims, Linux does not offer all of these things. BeOS perhaps came close, but it has no chance of catching up at this point.
OSX is nice and polished and easy to use, but Apple hardware is extremely overpriced due to the grip they retain on their hardware market. If Apple were to release the rumored x86 version of OSX, while it would probably destroy their hardware market forever, I'm sure it would give Microsoft a run for their money. Hell, even I would probably have it on at least one machine. Whether it would ever become dominant though is a whole 'nother story.
You'll never find any particular body of people who can say beyond any doubt which OS is better, because that's just impossible. Each OS has its high points, each has its low points, with a backing of people behind each who like them for their own set of reasons. None of these are perfect, and anyone who claims one is obviously has no idea what they're talking about. Besides, trying to tell people which OS is "best" is a waste of time, because people are gonna continue to use what they like and are used to.
So while I don't necessarily agree with how Microsoft carries out its business practices, I don't think it's fair to say Windows isn't a decent OS. The majority of computer users may not know a lot about stuff these days, but they know enough to see what's good and what's not. They don't understand or really even care about the security issues, so to them, it's a perfectly good OS, compatible with most everything, runs smooth, does what they need to do, etc.
To be honest, even if Microsoft had a perfect security record, which would drastically increase the quality of their OS, I'm positive that there would still be plenty of anti-Microsoft/pro-Linux people out there, finding some other reason to dislike it.
Yeah you're right, I guess all this means it's not a decent OS, which is why Microsoft is having to go to the trouble of stopping people from stealing thousands of copies a year.
Anti-Windows comments are so predictable. If you're going to make one, at least try to make some kind of sense when doing it.
I think people are kind of missing the point. While it's easy to find reasons to poke fun at Microsoft, and I myself don't care for this bit of news, the fact remains that they're doing it for a reason. They lose millions of dollars in software sales due to piracy and theft like this every year. If you were in charge of such a huge company and were faced with making a decision on how to stop your profits from being stolen, what would YOU do?
What I do have a problem with is people who utter complete falsehoods. Repeatedly. And when somebody shows that they are utterly wrong, trying to squirm out of it by saying that they said no such thing. That's disingenuous and it makes you look like somebody who is badmouthing people to try and provoke a reaction.
You have failed to explain where I was pointing out total falsehoods, and only continue to reply in ways that are attempting to make me appear hostile and false. I have never attempted to "squirm out of" anything I said, as I still stand behind it.
I'm also perfectly capable of admitting when I'm wrong, which I just did in my last post with a javascript issue, but apparently you decided to ignore that.
You also keep failing to see that these are opinions, and not facts. I take your replies also as opinions, and don't resort to insulting your character based on what you think of the issues at hand.
If they actually acted like you describe, they would be acting like petty children. But they aren't acting in the manner you describe. Have you backed up your original claim that they intentionally ignore Microsoft yet? Where did the W3C say that?
As I said, you're twisting my words into what you want them to sound like. If you go back and read my original post, again, you will see that the wording I used clearly stated that the factions of W3C were not getting along, and couldn't agree on important issues, resulting in this browser divide. That's what the very news story at the top of this is about! How you got "acting like petty children" out of any of my words is totally your own doing.
My opinion on how the W3C is ignoring many of Microsoft's standards is of course not backed up by any word from the W3C. Why would it be? It's based on how I view what the W3C has done over the years. This is my opinion, as well as that of many others. The fact that you're asking for proof to an opinion only further proves your goal is to only try and start conflict.
You keep talking about how much Microsoft is involved with the W3C. Well you keep failing to mention all the entirely proprietery features they continue to add to their browser, despite these things not being part of the standards. If they were so interested in sticking to those standards, as you claim they do, then why is there still such a huge rift in compatibility in certain languages, which doesn't seem to be getting any smaller?
Dunno. Probably the same reason people come here and post GNAA or Goatse stuff; they think annoying people is funny.
The difference in this, and what you're implying that I'm trying to do, is that people usually ignore crap posts from people like that. The very fact you've chosen to reply this many times proves that you feel the need to defend your beliefs against my opinions. And even if you did feel my posts were filled with nothing but lies and trickery, the simple fact that you would continue to reply to them only shows that you're interested in conflict.
But yes, I did in fact say that them ignoring many of Microsoft's versions of the standards is a huge detriment to the web. People want to follow standards, but when they do, they tend to end up not always compatible with the dominant version of that standard (aka, Microsoft's version). You can call my opinion false if you choose, that doesn't make it stop being my opinion. That said, me having this opinion should not give off an impression of dishonesty or ignorance no more than I consider your opinions to be that way. You can read whatever you want into it and try to make me sound wrong, but it won't change what I really said here or how I think about these things.
So really, while debating these issues has been interesting, the fact remains that we'll never agree, and you'll only continue to reply with personal accusations, so there's nothing more to say.
I overlooked part of what you said when I replied.
As for the javascript thing, countless pages on the internet teach how to develop javascript based on IE's leniency of standards. If some budding web developer needs to know how to do something, and checks Google for an answer, chances are they'll find a page which explains it for IE. Or they'll come across MSDN, which is a wealth of easy to access information. This causes many pages to get developed around IE's implementation of the standards, and then pages just break in other browsers. I've seen this so many times. This is why I said that the standards need to somehow take Microsoft's changes into account, to fix this vast problem. Trying to maintain a seperate "correct" set of standards when Microsoft isn't following them is just not working.
You do have a point, and I never wanted to sound like I was defending Microsoft for what they did with standards. There SHOULD be one central place who creates these things, and everyone should follow them. Unfortunately, this just doens't happen. In Microsoft's case, this is probably partially due to profit reasons. The more custom features they develop, the more reason people have to use that browser over another.
I also want to point out that while I said I felt the W3C is stubborn, I'll point out that I feel Microsoft is the same way. But, as I said, they have enough power to throw their weight around on the issues, and if standards don't live up to what they want (or if they don't exist), they tend to just make their own. I don't necessarily agree with this, but the fact remains that it's been done, and something has to happen now to try and fix things. Microsoft is surely not going to be the one to help competing browsers be more compatible, which leaves the task up to the W3C. And, as I was trying to point out in my post, it's just not happened yet.
And trust me, "trolling" you was not my intention at all. Hear me out on this one.
Say you have a section of html, in a table and such, with dynamic images and text based on the current user, arranged to look all nice. But perhaps, for whatever reason, you want this rotated 90 degrees to the left (or any angle for that matter) on some pages, so that it can fit nicely in the side of page out of the way, and have a neat look to it at that. IE is not only capable of rotating images, but entire sections of html in this manner. It's really an awesome feature if you ask me. I truly wish this was capable in other browsers because of all the possibilities it opens up.
And no, it's not for editing images. It's merely for rotation of content (among other things). I shouldn't have to use Java or Flash to manipulate a single component on the page in such a way these days. And you can't always get the same appearance using these 3rd party plugins to do it, either.
You mentioned startup times, but as I said, IE already does these things. IE runs and starts faster than Firefox, which doesn't do these things. I don't want an image editor in my browser. I just want them to be able to do what IE can already do.
Here we go again. I'm so wrong wrong wrong! How dare I have a difference in opinion!
I never insulted the W3C or the people there, I merely pointed out my point of view on how they're doing things, where as the original replyer directly insulted me on more than one account. This is typical of people around here, as soon as someone puts out some kind of contradicting view, and as such, if one can't maintain intelligent conversation without resorting to name calling, I have no use for that person.
A lot of what you said is only managing to try and twist my words. Who developed the standards was never ever the point, as I've tried to say, and anyone can in fact go back and read it to prove this. The point was where the standards have gone SINCE that time. Microsoft has taken many of them in their own direction. This means that just because it was originally supposed to be one way, that doesn't necessarily mean that's how it can stay, since obviously Microsoft's stance on the matter isn't going to change, and they're not going to suddenly change how their browser works at this point. It's up to the W3C to try and bridge this gap Microsoft has created, because nobody else can do it.
I also think it's kind of pointless that you replied with your name the first time, then anonymous the second time, only to give yourself away in that paragraph.
And what is with people like you instantly screaming that I'm lying about stuff? What possible reason in this universe would I come here to lie anything? You need to relax already. The last thing on my mind is posting a comment which will result in this type of response, but people just naturally see things I say as flamebait, since they're incapable of reading it and processing it without immediately attacking.
I also agree that Microsoft has decided to release IE7 due to Firefox's increasing numbers. However, this just shows that Microsoft isn't going to let any other browser step on its toes. They've always managed to stay on top, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. It also means probably even more new things will be implemented.
And again, with your next to the last response, you twist my words again. Why must you insist on making me out like a bad guy? My original point, if you go back and actually read my words and not what you want to read into them, is that who created the standards has nothing to do with anything anymore. What happens now with the standards IS the point, and has always been my point since the very beginning of this conversation. The only thing that matters is what the W3C does to try and make things more compatible in a Microsoft world. And my very original statement was that I didn't think they were doing enough to BE compatible. Just go back and read it already. I'm not going to argue with you about it when it's right there.
And lastly, I will in fact give you credit for the images and getelementbyid, because I was thinking of the wrong thing at the time. However, trying to get form elements is a whole different story.
I've been noticing some popups squeezing their way through Avant's popup blocker, myself. A recent upgrade fixed it somewhat, but I have a feeling it won't be the end of'em.
Sometimes I just fail to see why these companies keep forcing ads on us like this. I mean, we don't want'em, we go out of our way to prevent'em, we never click on'em. And when it comes to email ads, anyone with half a brain knows not to try and get refinanced by a company who slipped an email past your filters by using horrible language and spelling.
But then I remember that a majority of the world is filled with stupid people, who will in fact click these things, and even go as far as to buy things from'em. So unless humanity's intelligence factor happens to spike suddenly, I don't see an end to these ads anytime soon.
And now comes the expected name-calling. This is of course typical and makes me take anything you say here or in the future with a grain of salt, but I will put aside your childish behavior for the moment and reply to what you say, for the benefit of anyone else reading this.
Whether Microsoft had a hand in the creation of HTML or CSS is beside the point, and has nothing to do with what I was talking about. The point is, there are many things, primarily with languages such as Javascript, in which Microsoft has deviated from the official specificiations, in many cases adding very useful functionality. While the W3C may include a few things here and there from Microsoft, this has mostly been because nothing fundamental was being changed to add it, and/or they had no such feature previously.
As a result, you have people like the Mozilla Foundation who are so completely anal about specificiations that they adhere very strictly to how things should be, giving no room for error. This causes huge problems for the internet community, and results in many sites just not working correctly. Opera realized that following the standards to the letter like this was not a smart move, and because of their more open-minded attitude about everything, their browser is much more compatible with the web at large than Mozilla or Firefox is.
So, like my original point stated, if we are to have any hope of creating a single standard for which the web can work with, the W3C is going to have to stop being so stubborn and accept more of these changes that Microsoft has implemented on their own. Not just additions, but changes to the languages themselves. Like in Javascript, allowing one to access an ID'd element in the page directly, instead of having to go through document.getelementbyid or document.images, etc. You can access SOME things directly in Firefox (albeit get warned for not following specifications), but other things you cannot. IE lets you access any ID'd thing directly, which is a very logical approach. Or you can use getelementbyid to try and be more compatible with Opera if need be. But even that function isn't as robust when you try to use it in Firefox, forcing you to use yet other methods to make your code work with it. Many of these standards are just not rationally implemented.
One can argue that Microsoft had no place to create and change things in the first place, but the deed is done and the browser is dominant. If the standards and the people that make them want to remain useful, they're going to have to play catch up.
I mean really, in this day and age, one should be able to do something as simple as rotate an image on a page without needing a plugin like Java or Flash. These kinds of things should be doable in the browser by now. But, only Microsoft has made such a thing happen. A very useful feature, which can't be taken advantage of to its full potential, because only IE supports it.
So it doesn't matter how much money Microsoft puts into the W3C. It's certainly not working very much to bridge the gap in standards. Only the W3C itself can do that.
This is exactly what I've been talking to lately with people about the W3C. They're becoming useless. They have these factions and everyone wants things done one way or another, nobody agrees, and nothing gets done to help the people. And like in this case, it only creates new problems.
And they apparently won't even consider taking any of Microsoft's adaptations to the standards into consideration, even though many times some of these changes are actual improvements. IE is such a superpower that the only way we can ever have ONE standard is to start blending everything together. At the rate we're going, the browser compatibility divide will only continue to INCREASE, not get better.
So really, why should Microsoft give any credibility to these standards and the people behind them when they can't even agree with one another on such important things?
I just wanted to say that I think you summed up everything I've thought all along, and did so in a much smaller amount of space than I woulda used. lol
But just wait, a Firefox fanboy will immediately strike your post to Troll or Flamebait, because that's what always happens around here. Being Pro-IE is horrible, you know.
I'm pretty sure the biggest (maybe only?) reason that Remote Desktop works better for me than VNC is because it's more tightly knit into the Windows messaging and window drawing layers than something like VNC would be. VNC seems to just do the traditional "capture the parts that change" method, which is how it's able to support so many platforms.
Back when I used Remote Desktop though I very happy to find a Linux program for my laptop called rdesktop, which seemed to be able to communicate perfectly with the Remote Desktop server. It had its quirks, but it was still a lifesaver, and kept me from having to reboot to Windows on the laptop everytime I needed to access the desktop machine for something.
The only time I've ever remotely administered a Linux machine graphically was through an actual Windows x-client. And this was so long ago and on somewhat poor machines, so I can't really compare the speed of that to VNC, though I would assume it's faster due to the nature that it works.
I can't remember which x-client it was, but it wasn't freeware. I was kind of disappointed that it was all I could find at the time. Other than that I've always administered Linux machines via ssh, partially since those had no graphical interface installed at all.
I'd like to jump in here to say that while VNC is a fine product for what it does, it's just not very practical unless you're using it over a high-speed network. Trying to use it over wifi, for example, just doesn't cut it.
I used to use Remote Desktop with Windows XP, using my laptop to remotely control my desktop machine, making everything seamless (and as if I were sitting at the desktop machine). But then I went to a better desktop machine that only had XP Home, so I no longer had that functionality. I started using VNC instead, but it doesn't even come near the speed that Remote Desktop did. VNC also leaves artifacts on the screen at times, even when set to the best quality. The input feels sluggish at times, too.
So like I said, VNC might be a fine application when used on a hard-wired LAN, and just for monitoring what's going on on a pc or whatever, but when it comes to a true remote desktop experience, I just can't hardly stand VNC anymore.
Yeah, you seem to be much more open-minded about it all than some. My post was mostly directed to all the people who immediately strike down Microsoft and anyone who even remotely gives Windows credit for anything. I see it all the time. It's just silly.
I won't say whether or not that fellow actually works for Microsoft or not, cause nobody knows for sure, but Microsoft does put out more than its share of blathering like that. That paragraph about IE7 alone was full of it. All they needed to say was "IE7 this summer" and I woulda been interested. But they are a big company after all, so it's kind of expected that they'd put out a lot of fancy talk to make themselves look good.
I think countless Slashdotters and various others keep missing the fundamental point here. Some people LIKE Windows, and want to continue using it because of that reason alone.
It's not about what OS is "best", since none of them are "the best". I like many aspects of Linux, and have used it quite a bit on many machines, but only for specific tasks. I would not want to use it as my personal desktop machine. I've never gotten as smooth and polished an experience out of Linux as I have with Windows when it comes to a full GUI interface. People will of course reply and tell me I'm stupid or that I did it wrong, but I know what I like, and a Linux desktop is just not it. There's also the problem with lack of good software and games.
OSX, while it's a very polished OS, suffers from a similar problem as Linux; the application base is just not nearly big enough. Can I be just as productive on a Mac as a PC or Linux? Sure. There's equivalent applications to most of the things I require. But there's not enough choice in what to use. And when it comes to games, your choices are drastically lower. I enjoy a good pc game once in a while.
People can of course argue that the fact that Linux is based on open-source technology, so the number of applications available is huge. But how many of these applications actually end up being good enough to compete with a professional product? Yes there are good ones. But much as I said about the Linux GUI itself, most applications don't feel very polished to me. They get the job done, but that's about it.
Windows has been around for a long time, has a huge user base, a huge software base, and is the most compatible with your hardware. Most people's friends have it too, so they all know what each other are talking about. XP runs great and is perfectly stable compared to earlier versions of Windows. Security is of course an issue, and while not to downplay that fact, Microsoft still fixes most of these flaws. But the whole security aspect alone could be debated by people till they're blue in the face. Of course it shouldn't exist, but come on, even if the security of Windows was top-notch, people would find some other reason to hate it.
So no OS is better than another, each has its attractions for people in various fields and such. But the general public just want something that works and runs what's out there. When I'm sitting here at home, I don't want to fool with making a piece of hardware work in Linux, or trying to find something new to entertain me in OSX. I run whatever I want easily and almost always painlessly, which makes it perfect for when I just want to USE the computer and not WORK the computer.
So while it seems to be impossible for some to believe, there are many people who use and like Windows, and just don't care what other OS's have to offer. They like what they like. Many people reading this are probably ready to reply with "YOU W3RK 4 MICRO$OFT" or "U SUX", but then that's the kind of reply I would expect! You just have to face it. Many people like Windows. They're not stupid or blind to other choices out there. They just want to use the computer.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree entirely with the need for session saving. I also wish the system tray support was much better than just a simple extension that doesn't work perfectly.
I used to use Avant (IE with all the features of Opera, basically) before going to Firefox, and I really miss just being able to close my browser window, then bring it back up from the icon in the tray (instantly, I might add) and then still having all my pages loaded.
I guess I used to be pretty pro-IE for a while, mostly because of compatibility reasons with the majority of the user base I deal with. Firefox just wasn't loading all pages the same/properly, so I generally didn't try to support it. Dealing with multiple browsers like that was just a headache. I always kept my system up to date, and trusted Microsoft enough to release patches for the worst of what popped up. I didn't go to shady sites or anything, and used Thunderbird for email, so I wasn't really worried about bad stuff. And I used Avant for my IE browsing, mind you, so I already had tabbed browsing and all that (even some things Firefox does not have). I just didn't need or want Firefox.
Well it really isn't a bad browser overall, and it's nice to have an alternative, so I decided the only way I'm gonna be able to make everything work properly across browsers is to just suck it up and force myself to use it full-time and adapt to the actual standards, even if I did think some of Microsoft's DHTML additions and such gave IE a leg up over Firefox. A few of them really should be official standards, and it required me to rewrite a lot of code to adapt appropriately (sometimes losing some functionality). But I managed to get everything to comply and at least work in Firefox, since I knew some of my users were starting to use it.
I admit that I like the customization I can do with the interface, which just isn't possible with IE or Avant. I've modified several things, but just haven't been able to find a good chrome reference yet to really get into it, though.
But my qualm with Firefox overall is just the fact that they seem to focus primarily on how many platforms it can run on. If they want to take more of the market share, they need to have a seperate team or something to focus primary on a Windows edition. Try to customize it for speed and memory use, and add in some Windows-specific features, like keeping it loaded in the system tray. I don't like waiting for my browser to load. I know there's an extension to do that now, but it's more of a hack, and just doesn't work the way I'd like it to. That icon should be permanent in the tray, opening new browsers when you double click it, not disappearing from the tray as soon as you do click it.
They also need to take advantage of MDI, like how Avant handles its tabs, instead of forcing you to always fill up the browser window. I've gotten used to it, but I kind of liked being able to cascade or tile tabs in Avant to compare things in pages.
I generally only want ONE browser window open, and for things to only open in tabs inside of that. This is possible in Firefox with some tweaking, but I came across problems when trying to run a single window along with using the system tray extension. Links will try to open in the tray copy sometimes, and not in the one I already have open. So I had to go back to using multiple windows for opening urls externally, cluttering up my task bar.
Avant would also let me just close the window, always having an icon in the tray, and when I brought it back up, all my sites were still loaded. I've heard about an extension that can do something similar for Firefox, but again, it's more of a hack, and requires entirely reloading the browser (and the sites), not keeping it active, from what I understand.
So as I said, I'd like to see some more Windows-specific additions. Being multi-platform is nice and all, but it's just not the best way to becoming popular. With IE7 looming in the distance, Firefox may just lose some of its users if they don't throw in some better features for the Windows users (who I'm sure makes up a majority of the Firefox users).
Someone should mod the parent post out of Flamebait status, as it's far from it, as previous replies to it have pointed out.
Having been a user of older computers for many years, Java has always been a scourge to me. It was one of those things where I would literally sigh out loud when I'd come across something that used it, because I knew I was in for a horrible experience. Many times I'd just close whatever it was immediately, because it was pointless to try and suffer through it. I could run XP on one of the particular machines in mind, even, but not Java!
Even now, on a modern speedy machine, I still have no use for it, as a user nor a developer. Software created to "bridge the gap" between platforms is just never what it's cut out to be.
It's part of the reason why Linux can never be a true platform like Windows has become, because too much of it has been created to just work on anything, making it slow and bloated overall. A program will call a script that runs some interpreted language, which may in turn call another, etc. Granted, this makes for a very configurable system, but generally results in a big performance hit because of all the processes (and processing) involved.
Windows is only aimed for one type of system, using mostly compiled code, so you get the speed and lower memory usage that your average user wants. Linux can just never have that, not without reworking it to the point that it's not Linux anymore.
I'm sure hardcore Linux advocates will disagree with most of what I said, either telling me I'm wrong or that their systems "run just as fast as Windows", etc. I've heard it all before, and will never believe it, because it's just not true. I use Linux on some machines myself for various reasons, but my primary desktop machine is Windows. I want no-fuss and the best performance I can get for my general computer usage. So does the average user.
I know that a lot of the fans are going to be disappointed when they see the movie, but seriously, how many movie versions of anything end up being what you wanted them to be? Even LotR fans had stuff to complain about with the movies, and you see how popular they became. And if you want an even more drastic comparison of medias, just remember Super Mario Bros. You had to just like that movie for what it was, because if you were rating it based on its likeness to the games, you might as well go home.
So the same holds true with H2G2. I doubt they're gonna make a major mess out of it, but you know there's gonna be things that aren't perfect, for various reasons (intentional and otherwise), so the best you can do is just sit there and try to enjoy it for what it is. It's not like there's any other new H2G2 stuff to watch in place of it.
Everyone keeps whining about not being able to remove IE from Windows. But did you ever stop to think about just how many applications actually use IE's API, and integrate html and web pages into their programs? So even if it were possible to rip IE out of Windows, which so many people seem inclined to do for whatever reasons, those programs just wouldn't work anymore.
And you know why? Because nobody else has developed such an API for Windows. It's not impossible for one to replace IE's API if they really tried. I know that many of the open source software developers are a clever breed, and can work around any obstacle presented to them. It's just that nobody's done it, or even tried to do it that I know of.
So don't whine about not being able to remove IE if you don't have an adequate replacement to prevent many other pieces of software from breaking. It would become a tech nightmare if IE WAS removable, because then every dummy would be trying to uninstall it to hate on Microsoft like all the "cool" people, then be crying for someone to come fix their machine when all their instant messengers stopped working.
I mean seriously, if you hate IE that much, why are you even still using Windows?
I thought it started out kind of boring with the first episode. Things picked up somewhat (if you want to refer to more typing and phone calls as "picked up") as each episode went along, though. But I guess I was mildly entertained by the whole thing or I wouldn't have watched all 5 episodes.
Seriously though, these guys act nothing like what people assume guys like this to be. They wouldn't talk in such good English, and use so many emoticons. They probably wouldn't be using AIM and ICQ. Their mIRC wouldn't be so horribly plain, with such huge fonts. They'd be using Windows shortcut keys to do actions instead of using the mouse to do every single thing. They wouldn't use such generic terms to describe what they're doing. They might not even be using Windows!
There were just lots of things I saw wrong with this, aside from the things I mentioned above even. It really could have been a lot better. But then again I guess it could have been a lot worse. As I said, it managed to entertain me somewhat, so I give the fellows credit for that. Hopefully I'll think to check around for new episodes in the future to see how it turns out.
These kinds of things never work. I've seen many of them pop up over the years, from Windows boxes to Macs to Linux, and they all fail. The reasons of course, are:
a.) So many people will be trying, that the bandwidth available to do anything with the machine at all will be practically zero.
b.) Some "hax0r" will decide to just packet the machine to death, thereby making it impossible to even do anything to.
c.) The software will be up to date, limiting any vulnerabilities that can be taken advantage of, compared to your average server out there.
d.) The time limit to do it is never long enough, especially because of the above problems.
I've seen contests where they even turn on a firewall. Obviously whoever was in charge of those had no idea how anything works. Once that firewall goes up, there's not much of anything that can be done to the system solely from a remote position. It was even a default Windows install on the particular one I'm thinking of, and despite the vulnerabilities in a bare Windows XP install, nobody was ever able to do anything to it.
I know the Linux machine in this contest is said to have no firewall, but like I said, the software will be mostly up to date. Most servers that are broken into are done so because they're running older versions of things with known vulnerabilities. Many of these machines are also on the web, running vulnerable versions of PHP and forums and whatnot, which allow one to take advantage of flaws from there, not necessarily via direct TCP connections.
So while it's entirely possible to break into this particular Linux machine, I just don't think many "real hackers" will bother, for the reasons I mentioned above. It's fun to have challenges and all, but they're just not realistically implemented.
While I've never been a Netscape fan, I have to give them credit for such a totally unique browser. If a page doesn't display properly, it's a simple matter of telling it to switch rendering engines. That's pretty ingenious! I've never heard tale of a browser capable of using both.
I may in fact start using this when testing pages, just to keep from having to have both IE and Firefox open when testing code. Still hafta open Opera, but I don't see them ever integrating that into it.
So kudos to Netscape, this time.
Microsoft's security has always been such a huge public issue in the past primarily because a.) nobody online has anything else to report on, and b.) people love to hate on Microsoft, despite most of them still using their products.
All complicated pieces of software, like browsers and operating systems, are going to have flaws. They've been found in every OS, and every browser. They'll continue to be found, as long as they make up a large part of the market, because not only are these what "hackers" search for, but also security professionals.
So the Firefox team will fix their flaws, just as the Microsoft team has continued to do so for theirs. However, Firefox's will now get brought into the public's attention much more as it becomes more popular, even though flaws have existed for it all along, as anyone who views the release log on their site can see. But only IE got the attention for being riddled with problems up till now.
So this just further proves that it's not just Microsoft's problem. Firefox is going to get its share of the limelight now, for better or worse.
Being dominant however is directly based on the decency of the OS. Had it not been decent, it wouldn't have ever become so dominant in the first place. Back in the day, the choices for a graphical OS for the general desktop market were primarily between like Windows and OS2. While OS2 might have been a fine OS for what it was, Windows won out, and I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with marketing, considering IBM was just as capable of marketing a product as well as Microsoft was, if not more so.
When compared to other OS's for the PC, Windows today is very fast and polished, and very easy to use for the general computer user who doesn't know much. All of these things together are hard to come by. Despite the claims, Linux does not offer all of these things. BeOS perhaps came close, but it has no chance of catching up at this point.
OSX is nice and polished and easy to use, but Apple hardware is extremely overpriced due to the grip they retain on their hardware market. If Apple were to release the rumored x86 version of OSX, while it would probably destroy their hardware market forever, I'm sure it would give Microsoft a run for their money. Hell, even I would probably have it on at least one machine. Whether it would ever become dominant though is a whole 'nother story.
You'll never find any particular body of people who can say beyond any doubt which OS is better, because that's just impossible. Each OS has its high points, each has its low points, with a backing of people behind each who like them for their own set of reasons. None of these are perfect, and anyone who claims one is obviously has no idea what they're talking about. Besides, trying to tell people which OS is "best" is a waste of time, because people are gonna continue to use what they like and are used to.
So while I don't necessarily agree with how Microsoft carries out its business practices, I don't think it's fair to say Windows isn't a decent OS. The majority of computer users may not know a lot about stuff these days, but they know enough to see what's good and what's not. They don't understand or really even care about the security issues, so to them, it's a perfectly good OS, compatible with most everything, runs smooth, does what they need to do, etc.
To be honest, even if Microsoft had a perfect security record, which would drastically increase the quality of their OS, I'm positive that there would still be plenty of anti-Microsoft/pro-Linux people out there, finding some other reason to dislike it.
Yeah you're right, I guess all this means it's not a decent OS, which is why Microsoft is having to go to the trouble of stopping people from stealing thousands of copies a year.
Anti-Windows comments are so predictable. If you're going to make one, at least try to make some kind of sense when doing it.
I think people are kind of missing the point. While it's easy to find reasons to poke fun at Microsoft, and I myself don't care for this bit of news, the fact remains that they're doing it for a reason. They lose millions of dollars in software sales due to piracy and theft like this every year. If you were in charge of such a huge company and were faced with making a decision on how to stop your profits from being stolen, what would YOU do?
What I do have a problem with is people who utter complete falsehoods. Repeatedly. And when somebody shows that they are utterly wrong, trying to squirm out of it by saying that they said no such thing. That's disingenuous and it makes you look like somebody who is badmouthing people to try and provoke a reaction.
You have failed to explain where I was pointing out total falsehoods, and only continue to reply in ways that are attempting to make me appear hostile and false. I have never attempted to "squirm out of" anything I said, as I still stand behind it.
I'm also perfectly capable of admitting when I'm wrong, which I just did in my last post with a javascript issue, but apparently you decided to ignore that.
You also keep failing to see that these are opinions, and not facts. I take your replies also as opinions, and don't resort to insulting your character based on what you think of the issues at hand.
If they actually acted like you describe, they would be acting like petty children. But they aren't acting in the manner you describe. Have you backed up your original claim that they intentionally ignore Microsoft yet? Where did the W3C say that?
As I said, you're twisting my words into what you want them to sound like. If you go back and read my original post, again, you will see that the wording I used clearly stated that the factions of W3C were not getting along, and couldn't agree on important issues, resulting in this browser divide. That's what the very news story at the top of this is about! How you got "acting like petty children" out of any of my words is totally your own doing.
My opinion on how the W3C is ignoring many of Microsoft's standards is of course not backed up by any word from the W3C. Why would it be? It's based on how I view what the W3C has done over the years. This is my opinion, as well as that of many others. The fact that you're asking for proof to an opinion only further proves your goal is to only try and start conflict.
You keep talking about how much Microsoft is involved with the W3C. Well you keep failing to mention all the entirely proprietery features they continue to add to their browser, despite these things not being part of the standards. If they were so interested in sticking to those standards, as you claim they do, then why is there still such a huge rift in compatibility in certain languages, which doesn't seem to be getting any smaller?
Dunno. Probably the same reason people come here and post GNAA or Goatse stuff; they think annoying people is funny.
The difference in this, and what you're implying that I'm trying to do, is that people usually ignore crap posts from people like that. The very fact you've chosen to reply this many times proves that you feel the need to defend your beliefs against my opinions. And even if you did feel my posts were filled with nothing but lies and trickery, the simple fact that you would continue to reply to them only shows that you're interested in conflict.
But yes, I did in fact say that them ignoring many of Microsoft's versions of the standards is a huge detriment to the web. People want to follow standards, but when they do, they tend to end up not always compatible with the dominant version of that standard (aka, Microsoft's version). You can call my opinion false if you choose, that doesn't make it stop being my opinion. That said, me having this opinion should not give off an impression of dishonesty or ignorance no more than I consider your opinions to be that way. You can read whatever you want into it and try to make me sound wrong, but it won't change what I really said here or how I think about these things.
So really, while debating these issues has been interesting, the fact remains that we'll never agree, and you'll only continue to reply with personal accusations, so there's nothing more to say.
I overlooked part of what you said when I replied.
As for the javascript thing, countless pages on the internet teach how to develop javascript based on IE's leniency of standards. If some budding web developer needs to know how to do something, and checks Google for an answer, chances are they'll find a page which explains it for IE. Or they'll come across MSDN, which is a wealth of easy to access information. This causes many pages to get developed around IE's implementation of the standards, and then pages just break in other browsers. I've seen this so many times. This is why I said that the standards need to somehow take Microsoft's changes into account, to fix this vast problem. Trying to maintain a seperate "correct" set of standards when Microsoft isn't following them is just not working.
You do have a point, and I never wanted to sound like I was defending Microsoft for what they did with standards. There SHOULD be one central place who creates these things, and everyone should follow them. Unfortunately, this just doens't happen. In Microsoft's case, this is probably partially due to profit reasons. The more custom features they develop, the more reason people have to use that browser over another.
I also want to point out that while I said I felt the W3C is stubborn, I'll point out that I feel Microsoft is the same way. But, as I said, they have enough power to throw their weight around on the issues, and if standards don't live up to what they want (or if they don't exist), they tend to just make their own. I don't necessarily agree with this, but the fact remains that it's been done, and something has to happen now to try and fix things. Microsoft is surely not going to be the one to help competing browsers be more compatible, which leaves the task up to the W3C. And, as I was trying to point out in my post, it's just not happened yet.
And trust me, "trolling" you was not my intention at all. Hear me out on this one.
Say you have a section of html, in a table and such, with dynamic images and text based on the current user, arranged to look all nice. But perhaps, for whatever reason, you want this rotated 90 degrees to the left (or any angle for that matter) on some pages, so that it can fit nicely in the side of page out of the way, and have a neat look to it at that. IE is not only capable of rotating images, but entire sections of html in this manner. It's really an awesome feature if you ask me. I truly wish this was capable in other browsers because of all the possibilities it opens up.
And no, it's not for editing images. It's merely for rotation of content (among other things). I shouldn't have to use Java or Flash to manipulate a single component on the page in such a way these days. And you can't always get the same appearance using these 3rd party plugins to do it, either.
You mentioned startup times, but as I said, IE already does these things. IE runs and starts faster than Firefox, which doesn't do these things. I don't want an image editor in my browser. I just want them to be able to do what IE can already do.
Here we go again. I'm so wrong wrong wrong! How dare I have a difference in opinion!
I never insulted the W3C or the people there, I merely pointed out my point of view on how they're doing things, where as the original replyer directly insulted me on more than one account. This is typical of people around here, as soon as someone puts out some kind of contradicting view, and as such, if one can't maintain intelligent conversation without resorting to name calling, I have no use for that person.
A lot of what you said is only managing to try and twist my words. Who developed the standards was never ever the point, as I've tried to say, and anyone can in fact go back and read it to prove this. The point was where the standards have gone SINCE that time. Microsoft has taken many of them in their own direction. This means that just because it was originally supposed to be one way, that doesn't necessarily mean that's how it can stay, since obviously Microsoft's stance on the matter isn't going to change, and they're not going to suddenly change how their browser works at this point. It's up to the W3C to try and bridge this gap Microsoft has created, because nobody else can do it.
I also think it's kind of pointless that you replied with your name the first time, then anonymous the second time, only to give yourself away in that paragraph.
And what is with people like you instantly screaming that I'm lying about stuff? What possible reason in this universe would I come here to lie anything? You need to relax already. The last thing on my mind is posting a comment which will result in this type of response, but people just naturally see things I say as flamebait, since they're incapable of reading it and processing it without immediately attacking.
I also agree that Microsoft has decided to release IE7 due to Firefox's increasing numbers. However, this just shows that Microsoft isn't going to let any other browser step on its toes. They've always managed to stay on top, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. It also means probably even more new things will be implemented.
And again, with your next to the last response, you twist my words again. Why must you insist on making me out like a bad guy? My original point, if you go back and actually read my words and not what you want to read into them, is that who created the standards has nothing to do with anything anymore. What happens now with the standards IS the point, and has always been my point since the very beginning of this conversation. The only thing that matters is what the W3C does to try and make things more compatible in a Microsoft world. And my very original statement was that I didn't think they were doing enough to BE compatible. Just go back and read it already. I'm not going to argue with you about it when it's right there.
And lastly, I will in fact give you credit for the images and getelementbyid, because I was thinking of the wrong thing at the time. However, trying to get form elements is a whole different story.
I've been noticing some popups squeezing their way through Avant's popup blocker, myself. A recent upgrade fixed it somewhat, but I have a feeling it won't be the end of'em.
Sometimes I just fail to see why these companies keep forcing ads on us like this. I mean, we don't want'em, we go out of our way to prevent'em, we never click on'em. And when it comes to email ads, anyone with half a brain knows not to try and get refinanced by a company who slipped an email past your filters by using horrible language and spelling.
But then I remember that a majority of the world is filled with stupid people, who will in fact click these things, and even go as far as to buy things from'em. So unless humanity's intelligence factor happens to spike suddenly, I don't see an end to these ads anytime soon.
And I of course forgot to tell it to use plain text to catch my line breaks!
And now comes the expected name-calling. This is of course typical and makes me take anything you say here or in the future with a grain of salt, but I will put aside your childish behavior for the moment and reply to what you say, for the benefit of anyone else reading this. Whether Microsoft had a hand in the creation of HTML or CSS is beside the point, and has nothing to do with what I was talking about. The point is, there are many things, primarily with languages such as Javascript, in which Microsoft has deviated from the official specificiations, in many cases adding very useful functionality. While the W3C may include a few things here and there from Microsoft, this has mostly been because nothing fundamental was being changed to add it, and/or they had no such feature previously. As a result, you have people like the Mozilla Foundation who are so completely anal about specificiations that they adhere very strictly to how things should be, giving no room for error. This causes huge problems for the internet community, and results in many sites just not working correctly. Opera realized that following the standards to the letter like this was not a smart move, and because of their more open-minded attitude about everything, their browser is much more compatible with the web at large than Mozilla or Firefox is. So, like my original point stated, if we are to have any hope of creating a single standard for which the web can work with, the W3C is going to have to stop being so stubborn and accept more of these changes that Microsoft has implemented on their own. Not just additions, but changes to the languages themselves. Like in Javascript, allowing one to access an ID'd element in the page directly, instead of having to go through document.getelementbyid or document.images, etc. You can access SOME things directly in Firefox (albeit get warned for not following specifications), but other things you cannot. IE lets you access any ID'd thing directly, which is a very logical approach. Or you can use getelementbyid to try and be more compatible with Opera if need be. But even that function isn't as robust when you try to use it in Firefox, forcing you to use yet other methods to make your code work with it. Many of these standards are just not rationally implemented. One can argue that Microsoft had no place to create and change things in the first place, but the deed is done and the browser is dominant. If the standards and the people that make them want to remain useful, they're going to have to play catch up. I mean really, in this day and age, one should be able to do something as simple as rotate an image on a page without needing a plugin like Java or Flash. These kinds of things should be doable in the browser by now. But, only Microsoft has made such a thing happen. A very useful feature, which can't be taken advantage of to its full potential, because only IE supports it. So it doesn't matter how much money Microsoft puts into the W3C. It's certainly not working very much to bridge the gap in standards. Only the W3C itself can do that.
This is exactly what I've been talking to lately with people about the W3C. They're becoming useless. They have these factions and everyone wants things done one way or another, nobody agrees, and nothing gets done to help the people. And like in this case, it only creates new problems.
And they apparently won't even consider taking any of Microsoft's adaptations to the standards into consideration, even though many times some of these changes are actual improvements. IE is such a superpower that the only way we can ever have ONE standard is to start blending everything together. At the rate we're going, the browser compatibility divide will only continue to INCREASE, not get better.
So really, why should Microsoft give any credibility to these standards and the people behind them when they can't even agree with one another on such important things?
I just wanted to say that I think you summed up everything I've thought all along, and did so in a much smaller amount of space than I woulda used. lol
But just wait, a Firefox fanboy will immediately strike your post to Troll or Flamebait, because that's what always happens around here. Being Pro-IE is horrible, you know.
I'm pretty sure the biggest (maybe only?) reason that Remote Desktop works better for me than VNC is because it's more tightly knit into the Windows messaging and window drawing layers than something like VNC would be. VNC seems to just do the traditional "capture the parts that change" method, which is how it's able to support so many platforms.
Back when I used Remote Desktop though I very happy to find a Linux program for my laptop called rdesktop, which seemed to be able to communicate perfectly with the Remote Desktop server. It had its quirks, but it was still a lifesaver, and kept me from having to reboot to Windows on the laptop everytime I needed to access the desktop machine for something.
The only time I've ever remotely administered a Linux machine graphically was through an actual Windows x-client. And this was so long ago and on somewhat poor machines, so I can't really compare the speed of that to VNC, though I would assume it's faster due to the nature that it works.
I can't remember which x-client it was, but it wasn't freeware. I was kind of disappointed that it was all I could find at the time. Other than that I've always administered Linux machines via ssh, partially since those had no graphical interface installed at all.
I'd like to jump in here to say that while VNC is a fine product for what it does, it's just not very practical unless you're using it over a high-speed network. Trying to use it over wifi, for example, just doesn't cut it.
I used to use Remote Desktop with Windows XP, using my laptop to remotely control my desktop machine, making everything seamless (and as if I were sitting at the desktop machine). But then I went to a better desktop machine that only had XP Home, so I no longer had that functionality. I started using VNC instead, but it doesn't even come near the speed that Remote Desktop did. VNC also leaves artifacts on the screen at times, even when set to the best quality. The input feels sluggish at times, too.
So like I said, VNC might be a fine application when used on a hard-wired LAN, and just for monitoring what's going on on a pc or whatever, but when it comes to a true remote desktop experience, I just can't hardly stand VNC anymore.
Yeah, you seem to be much more open-minded about it all than some. My post was mostly directed to all the people who immediately strike down Microsoft and anyone who even remotely gives Windows credit for anything. I see it all the time. It's just silly.
I won't say whether or not that fellow actually works for Microsoft or not, cause nobody knows for sure, but Microsoft does put out more than its share of blathering like that. That paragraph about IE7 alone was full of it. All they needed to say was "IE7 this summer" and I woulda been interested. But they are a big company after all, so it's kind of expected that they'd put out a lot of fancy talk to make themselves look good.
I think countless Slashdotters and various others keep missing the fundamental point here. Some people LIKE Windows, and want to continue using it because of that reason alone.
It's not about what OS is "best", since none of them are "the best". I like many aspects of Linux, and have used it quite a bit on many machines, but only for specific tasks. I would not want to use it as my personal desktop machine. I've never gotten as smooth and polished an experience out of Linux as I have with Windows when it comes to a full GUI interface. People will of course reply and tell me I'm stupid or that I did it wrong, but I know what I like, and a Linux desktop is just not it. There's also the problem with lack of good software and games.
OSX, while it's a very polished OS, suffers from a similar problem as Linux; the application base is just not nearly big enough. Can I be just as productive on a Mac as a PC or Linux? Sure. There's equivalent applications to most of the things I require. But there's not enough choice in what to use. And when it comes to games, your choices are drastically lower. I enjoy a good pc game once in a while.
People can of course argue that the fact that Linux is based on open-source technology, so the number of applications available is huge. But how many of these applications actually end up being good enough to compete with a professional product? Yes there are good ones. But much as I said about the Linux GUI itself, most applications don't feel very polished to me. They get the job done, but that's about it.
Windows has been around for a long time, has a huge user base, a huge software base, and is the most compatible with your hardware. Most people's friends have it too, so they all know what each other are talking about. XP runs great and is perfectly stable compared to earlier versions of Windows. Security is of course an issue, and while not to downplay that fact, Microsoft still fixes most of these flaws. But the whole security aspect alone could be debated by people till they're blue in the face. Of course it shouldn't exist, but come on, even if the security of Windows was top-notch, people would find some other reason to hate it.
So no OS is better than another, each has its attractions for people in various fields and such. But the general public just want something that works and runs what's out there. When I'm sitting here at home, I don't want to fool with making a piece of hardware work in Linux, or trying to find something new to entertain me in OSX. I run whatever I want easily and almost always painlessly, which makes it perfect for when I just want to USE the computer and not WORK the computer.
So while it seems to be impossible for some to believe, there are many people who use and like Windows, and just don't care what other OS's have to offer. They like what they like. Many people reading this are probably ready to reply with "YOU W3RK 4 MICRO$OFT" or "U SUX", but then that's the kind of reply I would expect! You just have to face it. Many people like Windows. They're not stupid or blind to other choices out there. They just want to use the computer.