You don't give enough detail:
Are you an employee of a company for which you don't make management decisions or do you develop whatever you wish to develop?
If there were a product that Microsoft offered that were better than any existing alternative, and you did not have the power to create an alternative would you be opposed to recommending it, in spite of its superiority, because of religious/political views that compel you to only use OSS or software that has documented APIs?
Has no one ever asked for your recommendation on a product that has no existing alternative other than for use in Windows? (I can give you of applications for which there is no alternative in my business)
"you are most likely off here by enough to cost you all those crashes...aka incompatible memory??? But a 400mhrz won't runn anything modern and I hate eye candy so that isn't what's good about macs...unless of course you like eye candy??"
this demonstrates that you really don't know what you are talking about. The memory is completely compatible. It is PC100 crucial/micron memory that goes in loads of different machines.
I am fully aware that the free computer I got is not a new one. since you're the genius here, you may recall my acknowledgement that my windows machines are "newer"
Basically the sum of my post was I *really* like OS X (more than windows, and in spite of wanks like yourself) but have no reason to use it.
I just got my first mac sunday. (I am a PC user, and have been since christmas 1984 - PC Jr.) It's a G4 400mhz that a friend gave me because I've really had a surge in mac interest since first, I was given an ipod (christmas 2003) but more so I've really been interested recently because of the intel switch - I've really been excited about the possiblity of OS X into real mainstream.
The G4 is obviously slow, compared to my other PCs, which are newer. This Mac crashes a bit. The guts are all fairly standard, the CD drive behind the plastic door is just a beige OEM looking thing. It uses plain old PC100 memory that and I upgraded with memory from an old Dell. I'm sure the parts are of the same quality as any standard dell optiplex, or higher end dimension.
However, I really like OS X, it really is something quite special. A lot of it is "eye candy" I suppose - but what eye candy! I much prefer the dock to the taskbar. If I could use it exclusively over Win XP, I would. I just like. I like the little blinking power light when the thing is in sleep mode.
I have invested more time into linux (about a month), and have to say that between linux and OS X there's no contest for the "desktop." And coming from a month of linux expirimentation to Mac OS X basically makes you feel as if there is no limitations on your computer at all!
I actually make a lot of the computer purchase decisions in the accounting firm where I practice. And maybe someday OS X will be an option.
However, the problem is that in the business world, there are zero applications for mac. Obviously they are some, but there is just no way I could get by on one now. The other problem is that interoperability with the rest of business world requires a windows pc. Doublebooting would be a waste of time and money, even if it becomes an option.
So for now, since I am quite competent on windows, my personal machines are plenty secure and reliable, and I would be no more productive on a mac in any real terms at all, at this point there is no reason to "switch."
"headed in the right direction with Windows 2000, but then screwed it all up with XP."
I read this a lot but I don't understand it. Is the bloat ust because of the default colorful skin? Is it the task wizards everywhere?
those things can be turned off. I don't think it runs any slower.
I think XP is perfectly fine and does everything I need it to do to be productive. I have wishes about the actually GUI that I like in OS X. I also wish there were a seperate "data" file system that clearly seperated data (which is irreplacealbe) from programs (which are replaceable fairly easily and for which the files don't need to be accessed by 99% of users ) and settings (which would be nice to easily back up). I think these things are coming, microsoft has tried to seperate this stuff and is going to do more of that with Longhorn.
Otherwise I can get everything I need to get done on my windows xp machines, which is more I can say for my debian machine.
The biggest problem I see with Linux, as a complete noobie who settled on debian stable because it didn't try and provide the illusion of actually being a usable complete distro that had everything you'd ever need (suse, fedora and even ubuntu) - because no distro is going to have exactly everything you want. but was closer to Windows in the sense that it comes pretty bare bones and also that by forcing myself to install some stuff manually has taught me a bit about linux, again I'm a complete noob.... I digress...
I'm all for a desktop linux consolidation.
If linux is going to become a mainstream solution it needs a fully developed uniform "reference" system as a starting point, which of course, can remain fully open source. From that point, people can choose to customize as they wish.
There is an elitism on here that responds in a knee-jerk fashion to the word "mainstream" because there is an attitude that anything usable by the mainstream is going to suck for the expert. It doesn't have to be that way. Automate everything that can be automated, and ensure that things "just work" and then if people choose to go back and hack at that, more power to them, a lot of that hacking is in a hobby spirit anyway I think.
A lot of the hacking that has to be done to get real stuff to work is an indication of an incomplete product, which will sometimes be worth the costs of dealing with. Some of the hacking has to do with bridging technologies from different generations and platforms and getting them to work together, which is fine, because the end-user doesn't *need* that stuff to be automated or easy to get at. But even here the more automation the better because these are computers we are talking about, they should be doing all the hard work.
Also, if you believe that there are true advantages to technologies that are unincorporated in the reference, standardized distribution, and you can sell those advantages to your customers, that the benefits you propose outweigh the costs of screwing with things, then again you'll have the freedom to do that.
That's where minor distributions would still play a role. The would be derivative of the known standard.
I think all of you IT people like the idea of regaining control back from the unanointed masses. That's why you like it hard.
Additionally, again from and end-user point of view it is better that there be a system where if people are trained on they'll be able to transfer those same skills and familiarities to other organizations.
A standard free basic desktop OS for which everyone who writes desktop linux software can write for. Meaning I can go to a website and know that they will have a version of their linux software for my distro.
(Just for the record as far as world domination more often than not the software I want is simply not available (or satisfactory substitute) on linux, someday hopefully)
The bottom line is that as bandwidth and network performance increases and peer-to-peer use becomes more pervasive and legitimate (e.g. built into opera browser), the circumstances allowing people to receive high quality (in terms of a/v resolution) digital content over networks comes into place simultaneously with the means for effortless piracy.
I would love to be able to buy "I'm Alan Partridge" directly from the BBC without having to wait for it to come out on DVD (let alone come out on DVD in the US). I would love to watch the SABC news from south africa, in High Def. I would love to buy out of print records in full SACD quality, but only pay for the B-side.
Imagine an online record store that sold everything on allmusic.com!
instead of an online record store that looks like a local sam goody (itunes)
One of the major things preventing these products from being available is the lack of a universal, accepted DRM systems.
As far as keeping "backups" of your purchased content, if all of the content is purchased over a network, then certainly if local copies of your purchased content are damaged or lost, then you'd be able to re-download it, the DRM system would easily identify the download as legitimate (because you already paid for that item) (I know itunes doesn't do this, but others do)
And if it all is too cumbursome (which it doesn't have to be e.g. itunes) people will bag it and continue to purchase content by traditional means.
If, however, the product is better quality, more convienient, cheaper, and there is a greater selection, then by all means bring it on.
There hasn't been a clear statement *from Apple itself* that they wouldn't run OS X on any other hardware that I am aware of. Certainly it is an arbitrary decision either way.
Even if they say they are going to lock things up, it doesn't mean they wont change their mind.
There's no way they'll have world domination if they keep the OS arbitrarly closed.
Yes but there must be 10,000,000 productivity apps for windows and I wouldn't expect windows to come with them all.
By "applications" I didn't mean the standard browser and office suite. I meant the actual in the line production applications that firms by computers for in the first place.
This was such as classic BS excuse for why people stole music. Besides bootlegs, the overwhelming majority of stolen over the internet music was widely and easily available and the catalog of what is available on amazon must be 10 times what has ever been available illegal.
the major providers of legal downloads have tiny little catalogs with restricted use.
emusic is the bright spot, it's signifcantly cheaper than buying the equivalent music on CD (wow there's a concept!) and it has a selection of actually difficult to obtain music.
otherwise hard core music fans got no time for downloading your crappy music.
It always digresses to windows versus linux on a website that doesn't even have a windows section (as if windows isn't a signficant part of the nerd world)
what about OS X versus linux?
Oh and Apple is a for profit corporation in case you weren't aware.
"You install it, there's no apps (or crap ones - compare IE to Firefox or Outlook Express to Evolution), or you pay lots of money to get them."
This represents the classic slashdot point of view where IT people try to understand how real people use their computers.
Outside of the admin and support staff, the productive value of computers are appplications. I'm a CPA, and the reason I use windows has nothing to do with whether or not microsoft is an evil corporation or whether I feel I need to be able to recompile my own portions of the operating system, or even if I crash once a day and have to reboot (which I don't ever have happen) it's because the tax software, accounting write-up, and financial modeling has zero alternative on any other platform.
I don't see the value in having my OS come with free fake Photoshop.
No one is saying that 'we' should take away the enthusiest product. The point is that the enthusiest product is merely that. The real tool is the camry.
Slashdot Mirror
If I recall I actually was pointed towards Phoenix by Thurott's winsupersite.com and have been using Phoenix/Firefox ever since.
He's been on this for quite sometime.
You don't give enough detail: Are you an employee of a company for which you don't make management decisions or do you develop whatever you wish to develop? If there were a product that Microsoft offered that were better than any existing alternative, and you did not have the power to create an alternative would you be opposed to recommending it, in spite of its superiority, because of religious/political views that compel you to only use OSS or software that has documented APIs? Has no one ever asked for your recommendation on a product that has no existing alternative other than for use in Windows? (I can give you of applications for which there is no alternative in my business)
It may be widely "known," but that doesn't mean it has been substantiated.
I have been trying to follow this closely and I haven't seen anything definative to prove to me that apple has ruled out selling the OS seperately.
I'd prefer a DVI KVM switch and seperate mac and windows boxes to dual booting.
I am not plagued by virii and malware and I am almost exclusively on windows.
I'd be ecstatic to see Mac OSX overtake Windows too though.
It looks like from that tagline (revealed here: http://news.com.com/Longhorns+new+name+Windows+Vis ta/2100-1016_3-5799734.html?tag=nefd.lede)
and of course the name "vista" they are really going to promote the translucent features and the eyecandy.
"you are most likely off here by enough to cost you all those crashes...aka incompatible memory??? But a 400mhrz won't runn anything modern and I hate eye candy so that isn't what's good about macs...unless of course you like eye candy??"
this demonstrates that you really don't know what you are talking about. The memory is completely compatible. It is PC100 crucial/micron memory that goes in loads of different machines.
I am fully aware that the free computer I got is not a new one. since you're the genius here, you may recall my acknowledgement that my windows machines are "newer"
Basically the sum of my post was I *really* like OS X (more than windows, and in spite of wanks like yourself) but have no reason to use it.
I just got my first mac sunday. (I am a PC user, and have been since christmas 1984 - PC Jr.) It's a G4 400mhz that a friend gave me because I've really had a surge in mac interest since first, I was given an ipod (christmas 2003) but more so I've really been interested recently because of the intel switch - I've really been excited about the possiblity of OS X into real mainstream.
The G4 is obviously slow, compared to my other PCs, which are newer. This Mac crashes a bit. The guts are all fairly standard, the CD drive behind the plastic door is just a beige OEM looking thing. It uses plain old PC100 memory that and I upgraded with memory from an old Dell. I'm sure the parts are of the same quality as any standard dell optiplex, or higher end dimension.
However, I really like OS X, it really is something quite special. A lot of it is "eye candy" I suppose - but what eye candy! I much prefer the dock to the taskbar. If I could use it exclusively over Win XP, I would. I just like. I like the little blinking power light when the thing is in sleep mode.
I have invested more time into linux (about a month), and have to say that between linux and OS X there's no contest for the "desktop." And coming from a month of linux expirimentation to Mac OS X basically makes you feel as if there is no limitations on your computer at all!
I actually make a lot of the computer purchase decisions in the accounting firm where I practice. And maybe someday OS X will be an option.
However, the problem is that in the business world, there are zero applications for mac. Obviously they are some, but there is just no way I could get by on one now. The other problem is that interoperability with the rest of business world requires a windows pc. Doublebooting would be a waste of time and money, even if it becomes an option.
So for now, since I am quite competent on windows, my personal machines are plenty secure and reliable, and I would be no more productive on a mac in any real terms at all, at this point there is no reason to "switch."
Yes they should come out with some sort of server product hmm, maybe they could call it 'windows server 2003.'
"headed in the right direction with Windows 2000, but then screwed it all up with XP."
I read this a lot but I don't understand it. Is the bloat ust because of the default colorful skin? Is it the task wizards everywhere?
those things can be turned off. I don't think it runs any slower.
I think XP is perfectly fine and does everything I need it to do to be productive. I have wishes about the actually GUI that I like in OS X. I also wish there were a seperate "data" file system that clearly seperated data (which is irreplacealbe) from programs (which are replaceable fairly easily and for which the files don't need to be accessed by 99% of users ) and settings (which would be nice to easily back up). I think these things are coming, microsoft has tried to seperate this stuff and is going to do more of that with Longhorn.
Otherwise I can get everything I need to get done on my windows xp machines, which is more I can say for my debian machine.
Hopefully he has what it takes.
Some random thoughts:
The biggest problem I see with Linux, as a complete noobie who settled on debian stable because it didn't try and provide the illusion of actually being a usable complete distro that had everything you'd ever need (suse, fedora and even ubuntu) - because no distro is going to have exactly everything you want. but was closer to Windows in the sense that it comes pretty bare bones and also that by forcing myself to install some stuff manually has taught me a bit about linux, again I'm a complete noob.... I digress...
I'm all for a desktop linux consolidation.
If linux is going to become a mainstream solution it needs a fully developed uniform "reference" system as a starting point, which of course, can remain fully open source. From that point, people can choose to customize as they wish.
There is an elitism on here that responds in a knee-jerk fashion to the word "mainstream" because there is an attitude that anything usable by the mainstream is going to suck for the expert. It doesn't have to be that way. Automate everything that can be automated, and ensure that things "just work" and then if people choose to go back and hack at that, more power to them, a lot of that hacking is in a hobby spirit anyway I think.
A lot of the hacking that has to be done to get real stuff to work is an indication of an incomplete product, which will sometimes be worth the costs of dealing with. Some of the hacking has to do with bridging technologies from different generations and platforms and getting them to work together, which is fine, because the end-user doesn't *need* that stuff to be automated or easy to get at. But even here the more automation the better because these are computers we are talking about, they should be doing all the hard work.
Also, if you believe that there are true advantages to technologies that are unincorporated in the reference, standardized distribution, and you can sell those advantages to your customers, that the benefits you propose outweigh the costs of screwing with things, then again you'll have the freedom to do that.
That's where minor distributions would still play a role. The would be derivative of the known standard.
I think all of you IT people like the idea of regaining control back from the unanointed masses. That's why you like it hard.
Additionally, again from and end-user point of view it is better that there be a system where if people are trained on they'll be able to transfer those same skills and familiarities to other organizations.
A standard free basic desktop OS for which everyone who writes desktop linux software can write for. Meaning I can go to a website and know that they will have a version of their linux software for my distro.
(Just for the record as far as world domination more often than not the software I want is simply not available (or satisfactory substitute) on linux, someday hopefully)
The bottom line is that as bandwidth and network performance increases and peer-to-peer use becomes more pervasive and legitimate (e.g. built into opera browser), the circumstances allowing people to receive high quality (in terms of a/v resolution) digital content over networks comes into place simultaneously with the means for effortless piracy.
a u67ur080j3
I would love to be able to buy "I'm Alan Partridge" directly from the BBC without having to wait for it to come out on DVD (let alone come out on DVD in the US). I would love to watch the SABC news from south africa, in High Def. I would love to buy out of print records in full SACD quality, but only pay for the B-side.
Imagine an online record store that sold everything on allmusic.com!
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:6
instead of an online record store that looks like a local sam goody (itunes)
One of the major things preventing these products from being available is the lack of a universal, accepted DRM systems.
As far as keeping "backups" of your purchased content, if all of the content is purchased over a network, then certainly if local copies of your purchased content are damaged or lost, then you'd be able to re-download it, the DRM system would easily identify the download as legitimate (because you already paid for that item) (I know itunes doesn't do this, but others do)
And if it all is too cumbursome (which it doesn't have to be e.g. itunes) people will bag it and continue to purchase content by traditional means.
If, however, the product is better quality, more convienient, cheaper, and there is a greater selection, then by all means bring it on.
Am I alone in being a little worried about that ? Wow I hate slashdot, but I can't stop reading it.
There hasn't been a clear statement *from Apple itself* that they wouldn't run OS X on any other hardware that I am aware of. Certainly it is an arbitrary decision either way.
Even if they say they are going to lock things up, it doesn't mean they wont change their mind.
There's no way they'll have world domination if they keep the OS arbitrarly closed.
Apple is a corporation.
that nobody, not even professional mutual fund managers, can consistently predict what will happen with any individual stock.
And it's absurd that an individual trying to research "fundementals" thinks that they can somehow beat the market.
Google is no different, it's a crap shoot, it's monkeys throwing dart whether you'd make money by owning it or short-selling it.
Yes but there must be 10,000,000 productivity apps for windows and I wouldn't expect windows to come with them all.
By "applications" I didn't mean the standard browser and office suite. I meant the actual in the line production applications that firms by computers for in the first place.
they had no choice
This was such as classic BS excuse for why people stole music. Besides bootlegs, the overwhelming majority of stolen over the internet music was widely and easily available and the catalog of what is available on amazon must be 10 times what has ever been available illegal.
the major providers of legal downloads have tiny little catalogs with restricted use.
emusic is the bright spot, it's signifcantly cheaper than buying the equivalent music on CD (wow there's a concept!) and it has a selection of actually difficult to obtain music.
otherwise hard core music fans got no time for downloading your crappy music.
It always digresses to windows versus linux on a website that doesn't even have a windows section (as if windows isn't a signficant part of the nerd world)
what about OS X versus linux?
Oh and Apple is a for profit corporation in case you weren't aware.
"You install it, there's no apps (or crap ones - compare IE to Firefox or Outlook Express to Evolution), or you pay lots of money to get them." This represents the classic slashdot point of view where IT people try to understand how real people use their computers. Outside of the admin and support staff, the productive value of computers are appplications. I'm a CPA, and the reason I use windows has nothing to do with whether or not microsoft is an evil corporation or whether I feel I need to be able to recompile my own portions of the operating system, or even if I crash once a day and have to reboot (which I don't ever have happen) it's because the tax software, accounting write-up, and financial modeling has zero alternative on any other platform. I don't see the value in having my OS come with free fake Photoshop.
No one is saying that 'we' should take away the enthusiest product. The point is that the enthusiest product is merely that. The real tool is the camry.
macs don't crash, linux boxes crash
Watch out for I'm Alan Partridge
don't you think that perhaps something to do with this being a beta version? I could've used a "report a bug" on Suse 9.3 Pro
Every day on slashdot I read Win v. Linux comments. What I'd like to see is OS X versus Linux, from the desktop perspective.
here comes the 'off topic' but I just couldn't think of anywhere else to post this.