No, consumers killed it because they didn't know how to use Linux. They'd buy the machine, get it home, unbox it, boot up, then suddenly ask 'What the hell is this crap?' and 'Why can't I install my software?'. Once they discovered that they can't easily get their stuff to run, the netbooks were almost immediately returned. Microsoft didn't have to do anything to kill Linux on netbooks, anyone saying so is just another 'MS is Evil' spouting moron.
On desktop, I'd say killed by iTunes and Rythymbox applications and Pandora or Spotify streaming services. On mobile, Poweramp is Sondbird's biggest competition for locally stored music and (once again) Pandora/Spotify streaming.
For me, Windows is nothing more than a gaming platform now. I transitioned over to Ubuntu soon after the release of Windows 8 for daily operations, but keep a Win7 based gaming machine. Win8 was the catalyst, as I didn't want to put up with Microsoft's Metro interface on a 15" or 17" display. I don't need a 15" smartphone on my desktop, I need a usable desktop. The fact that so much of the software I use already was cross-platform (Win/Linux) aided the transition. I was comfortable with the whole system within 5 hours, and had Unity tuned to my needs within 5 minutes. I may not even be using Windows for gaming too much longer if Valve's forays into improving gaming on Linux continue and other developers see that there is a market to be had there. Dispite it's popularity, Windows has gone and made itself irrelevant in my life. For me, this is the year of the Linux Desktop.
I'm counting all devices here, not just PCs. In home theater, DP/TB are almost non-existant. Which is going to become a problem in 4K adoption. Moreso since both new upcoming game consoles support 4K output, yet seemingly lack DisplayPort.
And what's going to happen to everyone attempting 3D (which is possible now) or 48FPS content (available once people listen to Peter Jackson)? There isn't enough bandwidth to handle 3D 4K on HDMI and 48FPS falls outside HDMI's capabilities.
No, DisplayPort and Thunderbolt aren't widely deployed. That's the problem. Sure, they're on most if not all Apple hardware. But DisplayPort and Thunderbolt aren't in common deployment on PCs or even in home theater setups. So great job for your assumptions.
No it can't. Not with the same clarity, color depth, and sound along for the ride. VGA being used on displays higher than a 1280*720 flat panel start looking muddier and muddier, lose color definition, and VGA doesn't carry audio.
Actually, it is an issue. I don't see DisplayPort on a GTX560 or HD6770 nor a lot of other recent graphics cards that can drive such resolution. So yeah, it's still an issue.
Obsolete, yes. But try telling that to the millions of people with HDMI capable hardware that'd have to upgrade to DisplayPort. Increase DisplayPort adoption before marking something to the masses as obsolete and give them a reason to upgrade their hardware.
I don't often respond to ACs, but this deserves an response. Thunderbolt suffers from the same problem as DisplayPort, only moreso. TB is a new standard, really really really new. Like DisplayPort, there aren't anywhere near enough devices that support it or offer it outside of the turtleneck kool-aid club (Apple). So again, once it has halfway decent adoption, we can consider it a solution since it carries DisplayPort as part of it's spec.
The fact that nowhere near enough devices or displays even support DisplayPort. Increase DP's adoption rate and the problem goes away, until then, it's a pretty big stumbling block against 4K for both PC users and home theater.
What's the point of this? We won't have an effective way to properly drive these displays at a meaningful refresh rate. Yes, the graphics cards can support both levels of 4K. But HDMI has an upper limit of 44FPS and a realistic framerate of 30. Shouldn't we wait until we've got an interconnect that'll support 4K's bandwidth requirements at 60FPS at the very least?
Actually, my library consists of over 100 titles, most of thel installed. The difference may be as simple as the skin you're using (I run an exceedingly minimal one) and that I keep Steam in 'Small view' instead of the full and pointless window. May want to try a few things. But even at 110MB usage, that's still minimum compared to the average gaming PC's RAM loadout of 4GB+. People complaining about memory usage of a software platform that uses less than 5% of total RAM have nothing better to do.
Just how is Steam bloated? Looking at it's two processes right now, it's barely using 11MB of system RAM... The Dropbox client uses more than that and does a whole lot less... Windows Explorer uses even more than Steam. Browsers? Far more RAM usage.. That's far from bloated considering according to Steam's monthly hardware surveys where the average gaming PC is running a minimum of 4GB or ram or more. Seriously, look at the numbers yourself: 21.85% have 4GB, 23.48% have 8GB, and 9.62% have in excess of 12GB... Soooo 10-12MB of RAM is honestly a drop in the bucket for the average PC gamer. You may want to get your facts straight before posting, but then again posting as AC is there for those who love to troll and comment inaccruacies.
Um.... You'd be kinda surprised about what sorts of information is stored on a legacy system, mostly because the those using it aren't aware it's a legacy system. Only the ones maintaining it have some clue of how old the machine/network is.
You're right, they do want stability... Which with XP, so long as it's facing the internet, is going to go down in a giant pile of ratshit within the next 2 years. Any organization still running XP should have started researching a migration to Windows 7 the day SP 1 released and been prepared to deploy with 90% of the major problems squashed by the 18 month mark (i.e. September 2012). 18 months is plenty of time to research, analyze, repair most of the problems that a business might have with the upgrade. The fact that so many haven't is rather frightening.
There's a reason for that though. A car engine isn't succeptable to remote exploitation. Browsers and any internet-facing software are. So it starts becoming a problem when the tools you use start becoming the source of a problem you didn't even realize was possible. To bring the analogy back to the tool and die guy, he's perfectly fine working with decades old tools, they work just fine until they begin to rust out and cause problems elsewhere. That's all this is, digitial rust. And the problem is exasterbated by the fact malicious programmers work a whole lot faster than oxidization.
First time linux users are going to get the same dialog as experiencd linux users when attempting to set up Windows viewable folder shares or access Windows hosted fileshares. It's their fault for ignoring a fairly obvious dialog box instructing them on what do to solve the problem. Ubuntu practically guides you though using file sharing when working in tandem with Windows PCs, so you can't exactly claim ignorance.
The sole reason for the tone of my comment is the fact he's using Ubuntu (a distro I actively use) and trying to do something I've had to do many times, while not paying attention to any dialogs that show up. Any time you try to enable a Windows compatible folder share in Ubuntu, without Samba installed, it prompts you to install it. You can't ignore the dialog without being an idiot. If what he was trying to do required a rarely needed package, that'd be one thing and I wouldn't have a need to call him out for it... But we're talking Samba here, any Linux user worth a damn working in a mixed environment knows that it's required for Windows interoperability.
If you're an Ubuntu user, and can't get your Windows PCs to see the Ubuntu systems, or the Ubuntu systems to see the Windows machines.... Frankly, you're an idiot. First time I tried accessing a Windows machine or setting up a shared directory, Ubuntu has ALWAYS prompted me to install Samba, which I do, which completely fixes the problem your stupendous amount of idiocy can't seem to over come.
Slashdot Mirror
No, consumers killed it because they didn't know how to use Linux. They'd buy the machine, get it home, unbox it, boot up, then suddenly ask 'What the hell is this crap?' and 'Why can't I install my software?'. Once they discovered that they can't easily get their stuff to run, the netbooks were almost immediately returned. Microsoft didn't have to do anything to kill Linux on netbooks, anyone saying so is just another 'MS is Evil' spouting moron.
On desktop, I'd say killed by iTunes and Rythymbox applications and Pandora or Spotify streaming services. On mobile, Poweramp is Sondbird's biggest competition for locally stored music and (once again) Pandora/Spotify streaming.
For me, Windows is nothing more than a gaming platform now. I transitioned over to Ubuntu soon after the release of Windows 8 for daily operations, but keep a Win7 based gaming machine. Win8 was the catalyst, as I didn't want to put up with Microsoft's Metro interface on a 15" or 17" display. I don't need a 15" smartphone on my desktop, I need a usable desktop. The fact that so much of the software I use already was cross-platform (Win/Linux) aided the transition. I was comfortable with the whole system within 5 hours, and had Unity tuned to my needs within 5 minutes. I may not even be using Windows for gaming too much longer if Valve's forays into improving gaming on Linux continue and other developers see that there is a market to be had there. Dispite it's popularity, Windows has gone and made itself irrelevant in my life. For me, this is the year of the Linux Desktop.
Again, I'm not just counting strictly PCs here.
I'm counting all devices here, not just PCs. In home theater, DP/TB are almost non-existant. Which is going to become a problem in 4K adoption. Moreso since both new upcoming game consoles support 4K output, yet seemingly lack DisplayPort.
And what's going to happen to everyone attempting 3D (which is possible now) or 48FPS content (available once people listen to Peter Jackson)? There isn't enough bandwidth to handle 3D 4K on HDMI and 48FPS falls outside HDMI's capabilities.
No, DisplayPort and Thunderbolt aren't widely deployed. That's the problem. Sure, they're on most if not all Apple hardware. But DisplayPort and Thunderbolt aren't in common deployment on PCs or even in home theater setups. So great job for your assumptions.
But this is more than just a PC problem. It's also a hurdle in the home theater space as well.
No it can't. Not with the same clarity, color depth, and sound along for the ride. VGA being used on displays higher than a 1280*720 flat panel start looking muddier and muddier, lose color definition, and VGA doesn't carry audio.
Actually, it is an issue. I don't see DisplayPort on a GTX560 or HD6770 nor a lot of other recent graphics cards that can drive such resolution. So yeah, it's still an issue.
Obsolete, yes. But try telling that to the millions of people with HDMI capable hardware that'd have to upgrade to DisplayPort. Increase DisplayPort adoption before marking something to the masses as obsolete and give them a reason to upgrade their hardware.
I don't often respond to ACs, but this deserves an response. Thunderbolt suffers from the same problem as DisplayPort, only moreso. TB is a new standard, really really really new. Like DisplayPort, there aren't anywhere near enough devices that support it or offer it outside of the turtleneck kool-aid club (Apple). So again, once it has halfway decent adoption, we can consider it a solution since it carries DisplayPort as part of it's spec.
Why assume the use case is gaming? This is just as applicable for home theater as well as gaming.
The fact that nowhere near enough devices or displays even support DisplayPort. Increase DP's adoption rate and the problem goes away, until then, it's a pretty big stumbling block against 4K for both PC users and home theater.
What's the point of this? We won't have an effective way to properly drive these displays at a meaningful refresh rate. Yes, the graphics cards can support both levels of 4K. But HDMI has an upper limit of 44FPS and a realistic framerate of 30. Shouldn't we wait until we've got an interconnect that'll support 4K's bandwidth requirements at 60FPS at the very least?
I somehow doubt that RIM is going to recover at this rate.
Why the hell didn't RIM work on this shit 5 years ago when they started to see their sales plummel more and more with every quarter?
Actually, my library consists of over 100 titles, most of thel installed. The difference may be as simple as the skin you're using (I run an exceedingly minimal one) and that I keep Steam in 'Small view' instead of the full and pointless window. May want to try a few things. But even at 110MB usage, that's still minimum compared to the average gaming PC's RAM loadout of 4GB+. People complaining about memory usage of a software platform that uses less than 5% of total RAM have nothing better to do.
Just how is Steam bloated? Looking at it's two processes right now, it's barely using 11MB of system RAM... The Dropbox client uses more than that and does a whole lot less... Windows Explorer uses even more than Steam. Browsers? Far more RAM usage.. That's far from bloated considering according to Steam's monthly hardware surveys where the average gaming PC is running a minimum of 4GB or ram or more. Seriously, look at the numbers yourself: 21.85% have 4GB, 23.48% have 8GB, and 9.62% have in excess of 12GB... Soooo 10-12MB of RAM is honestly a drop in the bucket for the average PC gamer. You may want to get your facts straight before posting, but then again posting as AC is there for those who love to troll and comment inaccruacies.
Um.... You'd be kinda surprised about what sorts of information is stored on a legacy system, mostly because the those using it aren't aware it's a legacy system. Only the ones maintaining it have some clue of how old the machine/network is.
You're right, they do want stability... Which with XP, so long as it's facing the internet, is going to go down in a giant pile of ratshit within the next 2 years. Any organization still running XP should have started researching a migration to Windows 7 the day SP 1 released and been prepared to deploy with 90% of the major problems squashed by the 18 month mark (i.e. September 2012). 18 months is plenty of time to research, analyze, repair most of the problems that a business might have with the upgrade. The fact that so many haven't is rather frightening.
There's a reason for that though. A car engine isn't succeptable to remote exploitation. Browsers and any internet-facing software are. So it starts becoming a problem when the tools you use start becoming the source of a problem you didn't even realize was possible. To bring the analogy back to the tool and die guy, he's perfectly fine working with decades old tools, they work just fine until they begin to rust out and cause problems elsewhere. That's all this is, digitial rust. And the problem is exasterbated by the fact malicious programmers work a whole lot faster than oxidization.
First time linux users are going to get the same dialog as experiencd linux users when attempting to set up Windows viewable folder shares or access Windows hosted fileshares. It's their fault for ignoring a fairly obvious dialog box instructing them on what do to solve the problem. Ubuntu practically guides you though using file sharing when working in tandem with Windows PCs, so you can't exactly claim ignorance.
The sole reason for the tone of my comment is the fact he's using Ubuntu (a distro I actively use) and trying to do something I've had to do many times, while not paying attention to any dialogs that show up. Any time you try to enable a Windows compatible folder share in Ubuntu, without Samba installed, it prompts you to install it. You can't ignore the dialog without being an idiot. If what he was trying to do required a rarely needed package, that'd be one thing and I wouldn't have a need to call him out for it... But we're talking Samba here, any Linux user worth a damn working in a mixed environment knows that it's required for Windows interoperability.
If you're an Ubuntu user, and can't get your Windows PCs to see the Ubuntu systems, or the Ubuntu systems to see the Windows machines.... Frankly, you're an idiot. First time I tried accessing a Windows machine or setting up a shared directory, Ubuntu has ALWAYS prompted me to install Samba, which I do, which completely fixes the problem your stupendous amount of idiocy can't seem to over come.