Windows is not any less of an operating system because it's Windows.

[Guest Ramm]

You're acting as though Linux is a company. There is no company called Linux... there is no such thing as the "Linux Phone" or the "Linux MP3 Player." Don't complain about it (with horrible spelling and grammar, I may add) if you know nothing about it. Right now, Linux is the most expandable operating system. And yes, it is ATI's fault (in regards to the driver issue). What are the Linux distributors supposed to do? Make their own video drivers? That's stupid - Microsoft and Apple don't make video drivers, so why should the Linux community have to?

 

The moral of the story.. Sony is to Microsoft and Nintendo is to Apple. and Sega is to Linux. One steal off the other...one invents then get stoled from others... and One drops out in failer....

 

What the hell does that mean? If you were trying to make a comparison, you failed. "One drops out in failer" - I am not going to begin to want to try to attempt to understand what the hell that means.

[MadDoggyca]

You're acting as though Linux is a company. There is no company called Linux... there is no such thing as the "Linux Phone" or the "Linux MP3 Player." Don't complain about it (with horrible spelling and grammar, I may add) if you know nothing about it. Right now, Linux is the most expandable operating system. And yes, it is ATI's fault (in regards to the driver issue). What are the Linux distributors supposed to do? Make their own video drivers? That's stupid - Microsoft and Apple don't make video drivers, so why should the Linux community have to?

What the hell does that mean? If you were trying to make a comparison, you failed. "One drops out in failer" - I am not going to begin to want to try to attempt to understand what the hell that means.

 

 

It means a long time ago sega made hardware.... use to bee called Dreamcast.... adn no sega no loger makes hardware.... In other words it failed and they folded up in there hardware side....

 

same fate will happen to linux..... sooner or later it too will collaps and fold up

 

the resone why ati and other hardware manifactors build drivers in MS and OSX is becuz they see it as being long team investment.... There no longterm in linux.... and they see linux not going anywere.... and in all honest its not going any were.... they still havn't cought up to OS 9 or windows 95 for that fact... and becuz its not closed soures and pitioy software so why wast the effort in building something when tommorw it may not even exsite or the hole code gest change and they have to rebuild new set of drivers....Also the difrence between OSX/WIndows adn linux is people actulyl get paid to build it as in linux no one gets paid... tehre for there no real work done and no real motvation expect for the geeks that like to code....and the old saying it takes money to make money.

 

look at xp and OSX its gapes between relases so they done mined having to rewite drivers ever 5 or so years.... with linux u have to rewite dever ever soo monthes for diffrent distors.... agian in .rmp .dep. gz and soo on... its worth no ones time and atlest ati knows that....

 

and I know Linux isn't a compeny I waz compairing software. And personly if linux is to servies they will need ot have 1 compines to build it... not have 50X dirtors and people like mandrive and Redhat debeing selling there on OS that are not even really compadilbe with wach other but yet built on the same code? waz up with that?

 

 

------------------

What are the Linux distributors supposed to do? Make their own video drivers? That's stupid

 

Yes if they want to remain open soures then hell they should be forced to have to build there own drivers...you ether open soures or your not ... no half way between BS

----------------------

 

Linux is the most expandable operating system

 

yes linux is the most expandable OS becuz its opend.... but is it expanding... NO....there been no real exspaninding on the linux... when waz kernal 2.6 relased...... years ago soo far back I can;t remmber... were kernal 2.7??? no were in site...?

 

so no in the end its not expanding at all

 

windows Just relased kernal 6.0

OSx is aorudn the conorn to realse kernal 10.5.0

Linux dosn;t have a clue when kernal 2.7 comming out....

 

the only major upgrade to linux in Bery/ALGX add on to Grome and KDE UI..Witch is buggy like I said before.....

 

Grome and KDE havn;t really advanced much in the last few years ether.....

Wine just got into beta after 10 years in develment.(2006)....

 

Oh lets also look at fedor.. seems to be a comin distor... Fedore core 5 Kernal 2.6 Fedora 6 kernal 2.6 Fedora 7 kernal 2.6????? they all these new OS... last I check a new os has a new Kernal. infact I think kernal 2.6 waz used in fedora core 1 and up....so in the past 5-7 years there been no kernal upgrade....??yep that progress if I ever saw it/// and no kernal 2.6.1 to kneral 2.6.2 and soo on are not new kernals... there just slite updates...

 

point proven with OSX 10.4.0 to 10.4.10 its not a new os but jsut updated...

 

 

now that I hit the major parts of linux form the Kernal/UI/Wine its hasn't gone anywere in the past years.....so much for expandable? the real term is slipping behined but ok will your term "expandable"

[apowerr]

Madoggyca, I appreciate that you are trying to express your points. I respect that too. But your grammar and spelling are so atroucious thats its become almost impossible to understand what you are getting at. If aren't 100% sure that you can spell a word correctly: Google it.

 

And I really think that Microsoft, Apple and the individual Linux Developers contribute a lot to computing in their own way. Sure, for desktop users its mostly Microsoft and Apple you hear about. But Linux (for desktops) is getting better and better all the time. PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu, both have taken a different approach to "Linux made easy", both now have two awesome, easy to use OSs. And Microsoft innovates too. Replacing all of Office's drop downs with tabs that change to meet your needs was very clever. Instant search? Sure Apple and Google pushed it out first, but Microsoft announced they were planning to include this in "Longhorn" in '03 or '04. And as far as how Apple innovates, im pretty sure its obvious

[MadDoggyca]

sry english isn;t my first lang...

 

MSN lang is my first lang. net lingo is my second lang then its 1337 is my 3rd lan and 1011010 is my forth lang then eng is my 5th lang.. thats all I know how to speek sry

[Guest Ramm]

sry english isn;t my first lang...

 

MSN lang is my first lang. net lingo is my second lang then its 1337 is my 3rd lan and 1011010 is my forth lang then eng is my 5th lang.. thats all I know how to speek sry

 

That was the most pathetic comeback I have yet to witness.

 

You focused mainly on the Linux kernel, and how it's rarely updated. It's because it doesn't need to be updated. There are no instabilities, or people trying to crack it to get it to work on other hardware.

 

Linux is software. Sega is still a thriving company. Get over it.

[MadDoggyca]

NO linux is {censored} and sega still makes supermonky balls..... I love that game....

 

come on say it with me

 

"lin-sucks" "Lin-sucks" sounds like "linux sucks".....

 

cheap spin off the Unix kernal...

 

and i didn;t jsut attack the kernal I attacke all 3 main aspects of the os

 

Kernal-UI(grome/kde/ice) and Wine.... did u forget to read that? I also attacked the poorly Instlaiion and Mounting system as well as the packmagers... sigh u missed a lot

 

of cooures "no people trying to crack it to get it to work on other hardware" cuz no one uses it and there no point tryign to get it to work on other hardware... Even ATI dosn't attpent to get there cards to work on it... there no point its just that bad.. and when big mainstream Compiny like ATI/AMD don;t bother to realy had out drivers for a os that a bad sign of the os it self

 

and that last stament wazn;t a comeback ether... it wazn't even a attack on one thing or anyone? it waz actully true but ok?

 

 

----------------------

coment i foudn in a linux comunitie. (ubuntu) FYI I love haing aorund linux forums and bashing the hell out of the OS/Kernal no ones can really defend it... then agian there really nothign to defend when u speak linux...also when normal linux user give nagitive feed bad as well to help the conquest of linux suck further..

 

Migration bomb out aside, the install went fine however and I booted into my tasty new 7.04 desktop. And herein lies another complaint I had with 6.10, and which 7.04 seems to continue -- I have a widescreen LCD monitor, and not only is this not detected from the monitor EDID on bootup, but the Ubuntu (or Gnome) Screen Resolution tool thinks my monitor's native res of 1920x1200 doesn't exist. So I couldn’t even manually correct it myself.

 

The official Nvidia drivers fared much better, allowing me to properly set the widescreen resolution -- however its version of the xorg.conf file didn't mesh well with Ubuntu's. So, yet another problem fixed by jumping to the command line and sudo nanoing xorg.conf, old stylz, to insert resolutions into the modelines -- but again, what if some poor {censored} had installed Ubuntu to replace Windows on the recommendation of his Linux nut friend, and he can't even get it to display properly? If Ubuntu is the most user-friendly distro, and pushing hard to be an alternative to Windows, is it really ready for prime time if can't even set up the monitor correctly? This same display, under Windows, works first time with no fiddling.

 

I have to come down on this hard here -- widescreen monitors are ubiquitous now, and after all these years of X development (not to mention official driver support from Nvidia and ATI, though the latter are lacklustre) why does it not 'just work' under Linux? Five years ago this could be forgiveable, today there is no logical reason why the resolution of the monitor shouldn't work out of the box -- and if not automatic, then at least to have the option in the settings dialog. We all like to show off how Vista's snazzy effects were already done by Compiz and Beryl before Vista was released -- but at least it gets the resolution right first time.

 

 

 

1: Linux

I agree with the above statements. I decided to give the new ubuntu a go, did a fresh install, and with a few minor hiccups installed ok.

Like the article said, it didnt recognise my widescreen so i downloaded the driver from nvidia and "expected" to double click the icon and the install to take place....was i wrong!

I had to open a shell and type "sh c:/........" I did this and then it mentioned something about "X install" or something. I searched the forums for 2 hours trying to find out how to do it.

I finally gave up! It takes 5-6 mouse clicks with Vista (even with UAC), and my driver was installed.

Until Linux can fix these problems, and others like this I feel that it wont be a widespread OS for the Masses.

I am not saying that Vista hasnt got problems, i went back to XP after there were lackluster drivers for my creative and Nvidia products. But once the drivers came out, i am enjoying the ease of this new operating system.

 

And to the comment that linux is free, and windows vista cost money. Sorry I prefer to pay for a user friendly OS that i can use with minimal fuss, rather than have to go to a command shell just to install a driver.

 

Dwayne

(PS don't give me any of that blue screen of death BSOD argument ether)

 

 

---------------------------

oh did ubuntu screw up again? or is even the geek coders getting lazy cuz there not getting paid????? this is why OSX and windows works and linux dosen't...I'll say it again OPen Soures DOSE NOT WORK!!!

[Guest Ramm]

You seem to have missed the fact that I said "You focused mainly on the Linux kernel" and not "You only talked about the Linux kernel and absolutely nothing else, even in your pathetic excuse for the English language."

 

What I meant with my "getting it to work on generic hardware" comment was in reference to OSx86. It's not like the Linux kernel constantly needs updating for protection, or anything of the such.

 

Linux is not for new people. If you can't figure out how to install a lowly video driver for it, then you need to go pick up a copy of Windows or Mac OS X.

 

cheap spin off the Unix kernal...

 

Your point is? Linux is a form UNIX. It's not a "spinoff". If that were the case, Mac OS X would be a cheap spinoff of BSD and UNIX. ATI and AMD don't hand out drivers because they don't feel like it - in my opinion, ATI and AMD are failing. They are not the most high quality and top-level products. I would choose an nVidia or Intel over an ATI or AMD any day.

 

Just because you're incompetent at *NIX doesn't mean everyone else is. Have you ever actually tried Linux, instead of basing it off other peoples' stories and opinions? Or, if you have, have you used it for more than 15 minutes?

 

I also thought I would bring this up:

...being a IT in Linux, OSX as well being a MS Connect Member for QA and other inside jobs I lost it....

 

That begs the question: why are you an IT in Linux, when Linux is such a terrible OS (supposedly..)?

[apowerr]

ATI and AMD don't hand out drivers because they don't feel like it - in my opinion, ATI and AMD are failing. They are not the most high quality and top-level products. I would choose an nVidia or Intel over an ATI or AMD any day.

I have always had an NVIDIA card and I probably always will. NVIDIA's 8 series offers better performance than ATI's HD2K series.

As far as AMD and Intel go, untill Intel came out with the Core 2 Duo, Intel was getting some serious competetion from ATI. I think that once AMD's K10 line is out, Intel will again be on the defensive. Intel's Wolfdale and Yorktown CPUs are looking good however. I need to upgrade my motherboard and processor sometime within the next year; I will buy depending on who is offering the better processor.

[MadDoggyca]

I'm "IT" in all cuz I like to keep my self up to date .. perosnly I download nad tryed 133 Difrent distos of linux but I no not have any curently running in a main invertment... U usely test for a week and the say how {censored} it is... becuz it is {censored},.... I only stick my noise in it in hopes there will somthing diffren between the relases but its failing short ever time.....

 

with windows I can go wow ever time I see a new release as there alwazs somthign diffrent and improved..

 

OSX I can go wow as there alwazs somthign to look forword to...

 

Linux the ONLY time I went wow... waz form the Compize ALGX.. thast the only wow moment I had in linux world....the only other time I mite go wow in linux is when wine comes out of Beta and into RC1 or GOLD...

 

but ever os I touch I spend a good week inside and out of it...

 

and Linux is a spin off of the actully unix kernal. Linus Torvalds even said that. And OSX is not.. Last I check OSX is built on Darwin UNIX not LINUX....

 

And last I check the actully unix code is not free and is not open sorced software ""AT&T now licensed UNIX System III, based largely on Version 7, for commercial use, the first version launching in 1982."" At&T licensed Unix ....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix<<history of unix....

 

In 1997, Apple Computer sought out a new foundation for its Macintosh operating system and chose NEXTSTEP, an operating system developed by NeXT. . It was based on the BSD family and the Mach kernel. The deployment of Darwin BSD Unix in Mac OS X makes it, according to a statement made by an Apple employee at a USENIX conference, the most widely used Unix-based system in the desktop computer market.The core operating system was renamed Darwin after Apple acquired it

The core operating system was renamed Darwin after Apple acquired it apple had to buy it..... why do u think redhat has to give the code away and OSX dose not.... cuz UNIX is in the long term is NOT OPEN SOURED

 

The unity of Unix

TalkBack 90 of 96: Next Previous Linux is not Unix

"Unix" is the registered Trademark of the Open Group; see http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix.html. To be called "Unix", a system needs to pass the Open group's certification process. So far, no distribution of Linux has been certified. Linux is not Unix - it's that simple.

 

I guess this article is making some kind of sentimental or emotional claim that Linux should be classed with Unix because they both share a loosely similar design; or more likely, it is trying to arrogate some of the reputation and prestige of venerable Unix for newcomer Linux.

 

Unix is a well-defined standard. Linux is a loose approximation - it's not SVR4, it's not BSD, it's not POSIX, and it's not Unix. The best definition of Linux is "a loosely Unix-flavoured operating system which implements the glibc API".

Posted by: Andymc Posted on: 07/28/05

[Morpheus Phreak]

I'm "IT" in all cuz I like to keep my self up to date .. perosnly I download nad tryed 133 Difrent distos of linux but I no not have any curently running in a main invertment... U usely test for a week and the say how {censored} it is... becuz it is {censored},.... I only stick my noise in it in hopes there will somthing diffren between the relases but its failing short ever time.....

 

with windows I can go wow ever time I see a new release as there alwazs somthign diffrent and improved..

 

OSX I can go wow as there alwazs somthign to look forword to...

 

Linux the ONLY time I went wow... waz form the Compize ALGX.. thast the only wow moment I had in linux world....the only other time I mite go wow in linux is when wine comes out of Beta and into RC1 or GOLD...

 

but ever os I touch I spend a good week inside and out of it...

 

and Linux is a spin off of the actully unix kernal. Linus Torvalds even said that. And OSX is not.. Last I check OSX is built on Darwin UNIX not LINUX....

 

And last I check the actully unix code is not free and is not open sorced software ""AT&T now licensed UNIX System III, based largely on Version 7, for commercial use, the first version launching in 1982."" At&T licensed Unix ....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix<<history of unix....

 

In 1997, Apple Computer sought out a new foundation for its Macintosh operating system and chose NEXTSTEP, an operating system developed by NeXT. . It was based on the BSD family and the Mach kernel. The deployment of Darwin BSD Unix in Mac OS X makes it, according to a statement made by an Apple employee at a USENIX conference, the most widely used Unix-based system in the desktop computer market.The core operating system was renamed Darwin after Apple acquired it

The core operating system was renamed Darwin after Apple acquired it apple had to buy it..... why do u think redhat has to give the code away and OSX dose not.... cuz UNIX is in the long term is NOT OPEN SOURED

 

The unity of Unix

TalkBack 90 of 96: Next Previous Linux is not Unix™

"Unix" is the registered Trademark of the Open Group; see http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix.html. To be called "Unix", a system needs to pass the Open group's certification process. So far, no distribution of Linux has been certified. Linux is not Unix - it's that simple.

 

I guess this article is making some kind of sentimental or emotional claim that Linux should be classed with Unix because they both share a loosely similar design; or more likely, it is trying to arrogate some of the reputation and prestige of venerable Unix for newcomer Linux.

 

Unix is a well-defined standard. Linux is a loose approximation - it's not SVR4, it's not BSD, it's not POSIX, and it's not Unix. The best definition of Linux is "a loosely Unix-flavoured operating system which implements the glibc API".

Posted by: Andymc Posted on: 07/28/05

 

 

 

I'm sorry, could you please kindly STFU until you learn to type properly?

 

Now I know this will be considered flaming, but it's truly for your own good.

 

 

You talk about english not being your 1st language, but MSN being your first language.

 

First of all you hapless techno-weenie, MSN is not a language, it stands for MicroSoft Network.

 

For the most part it no longer exists, there are still some small remnants such as msn.com & MSN Premium, but that's about it.

 

Also if you think what you type in is "net lingo" you're sadly mistaken.

 

You see, those of us over the age of 12, with an IQ anything above the mandated level required to no longer be retarded, can actually comport & express ourselves eloquently in social discourse.

 

 

The occasional LOL, or WTF are more than acceptable as those are commonly used acronyms.

 

However having no sense of grammatical style or ability to spell is simply atrocious.

 

There is no way in life that you will ever be taken seriously or have anything resembling a career if you insist on acting this way.

 

Seriously, get yourself enrolled in some English as a Second Language courses if you have to (since MSN is your first language, right? ), and get a clue.

 

 

Now onto EFI, I won't be too harsh on you, but one thing I noticed that you said wrong earlier in this thread is that in Vista you run as an Admin by default.

 

That's not true. You run as a Standard User by default. However when you "disable" UAC it promotes all of your priviledges to a level similar to admin.

 

It's still not quite a full admin account, but it is close enough.

[bonestonne]

hmm. i kinda have to throw my $0.02 in here.

 

despite how people rationalize the operating systems [such as Apple is for the arts] is just stupid. you just can't do that without showing how predjudice you are. its like saying i drive a kit car, and because i built it, its better than your car...when in fact, that kit car could be falling apart, and the bought car is still holding up.

 

personally, i use all three operating systems [as i triple boot] and in school i use OS X [for the radio station]. i can't say any one is better off than another, and when i visited NJN studios two years ago, i blew the greatest question of all.

 

If you have a program thats available for Mac and Windows, what would make you opt for one over the other?

 

then answer i got was along the lines of 'it depends on too many things' which is damn straight. how can you blow any specific operating system against another? they're different, and its meant so that you can pick what you work best with.

 

i haven't read too much of this topic to know everyones bash on anyone else, but honestly...arguing the topic is the dumbest thing possible.

 

i pick Linux over windows...but lately [as i cannot get beryl working] i've been using OS X.

 

if i bash anyone over preference, what kind of person does that make me?

[E-werd]

MadDoggyca, please tell me where you get your information. As far as I can tell, you are TRYING to take real facts, destroy them, and rebuild them with raw material from your local sewage plant.

 

Linux spawned from Minix, which was a Unix-like clone designed for educational purposes. Linus Torvalds took the source of Minix and made it his own, basically to see that he could do it. It was never originally designed to become what it is and is becoming today. It is really quite impressive that it has become so big and compatible with so much hardware. The thing that makes Linux great is that it keeps hardware compatibility through it's entire development. The current kernel could still run on a 486DX (with little GNU software, of course) given the correct configuration. So what, right? Well, consider this: thin clients are becoming more and more common in the market for things such as order terminals (i.e. MTO at Sheetz) and consumer electronics. It would be improbable to dedicate large boxes to these tasks, so they use lesser hardware...but what will run on it? Linux. Companies like Palm, for example, do imbedded proprietary OS's but at a large price that businesses are often not able to afford.

 

Now, as far as Linux on the desktop is concerned...

 

Companies and communities like RedHat, Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS have made great strides in making Linux usable by the general population. Is it ready for prime time? No, of course not. It is close, but not quite there. Linux hardware support is nothing short of remarkable. Load a LiveCD (Knoppix or Ubuntu, mainly) into nearly any desktop computer and you will more than likely have sound support, acceptable 2D support, and an acceptable monitor resolution. You cannot expect it to be perfect out of the box. Install Windows XP, what do you have out of a fresh install? Questionable sound support, lagged 2D support, and 800x600 monitor resolution. If you do not have driver CD's on hand, you are out of luck--especially if need LAN drivers (which is unlikely, for wired anyhow). Distributions like Ubuntu have made the issues of proprietary driver installation simple with their latest "Restricted Driver Manager" (that is close to the exact name).

 

As for monitors, that is still a little tough. It is hard to detect those right because there are as many different monitors as there are clothing name brands and styles. That is where Microsoft's payroll comes in for the win. Linux will at least give you 1024x768, which is usable--there are tutorials to get it working for you, though. They are even easier to find than Windows drivers on the internet.

 

GNOME and KDE are far, far more advanced display managers than Windows has ever had, with the exception of Vista. They are much more feature rich and usable than the Windows UI of late. To say that it has yet to catch up to Windows 95 is naive and just plain stupid. Everything about Linux has far surpassed the likes of the 9x family all together.

 

Furthermore, you cannot compare kernel versions between Darwin, Windows, and Linux. The advancements between kernel versions 5 and 6 in the Windows kernel are comparable to the advancements from the 2.6.10 Linux kernel to the 2.6.20 Linux kernel--or something along those lines. Linux doesn't need to update its 2nd number in the version every year because it's not necessary. Only when new hardware (and other necessary new revolutionary software/hardware features) can no longer be supported under the 2.6 line will the 2.7 kernel rear its head.

 

In summary, Linux is loosely based on Unix/BSD. It is becoming very usable, but with sometimes questionable hardware support. Yes, it is ATI's fault because of the driver issues with their hardware. It is not "half way" to expect them to support their own hardware. It is far beyond a reasonable complaint in the community. Linux is going nowhere? Hardly. It may not be the desktop of tomorrow, but it is surely going to be significant down the road with the widespread use of embedded systems. It will continue to grow as a viable desktop operating system, but I don't see that ever being its meal ticket.

 

 

 

Windows is a great operating system, yes. But consider this: what if Apple had taken the same moves that Microsoft did back in the day? What if they let more third parties develop on their API? They would be in the same boat that Microsoft is in today--only, I believe, it would be overall more stable because of the advent of a UNIX-based kernel. You can't beat the reliability and stability of UNIX with a stick compared to the NT kernel. The same can even be said about DOS to the NT kernel.

 

The success of Windows is basically based on the luck of the draw pertaining to hardware. It supported affordable hardware, and as we all know, the discussions may be technical but the subject is always money.

 

You say "wow" every time something new in Windows comes out? Hardly. Most everything new in Windows has already been implemented in Linux and MacOS. Take indexed searching for example. Before Microsoft could get their implementation of it on the market, Linux (and IIRC MacOS) already had theirs out--Linux in the form of the amazing Beagle application. The new windows permission verification? It has been in UNIX and UNIX-based systems forever.

 

Windows is for the most part playing the catch-up game with the other OS's, but it goes unnoticed because of the overwhelming Microsoft marketshare. Not to say that Microsoft has never done anything great by themselves--because they have--but the more noticeable "WOW!" factors are typically born elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My friend, within your incoherent, horribly-typed ramblings I believe there is a decent amount of knowledge. However, you do not know near as much as you think you do. Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but you cannot have opinions that conflict with truth. Linux is going somewhere, it is undeniable. In one form or another, it is going to play a more important role in the future. Please do more research before you start flaming a successful worldwide project because you are not educated enough to fully understand its purpose.

 

You are far from "IT."

[E-werd]

Sorry about the short novel, but I got really fired up after reading this thread. I left a lot of stuff out that I wanted to say for the sake of keeping it short and sweet... obviously that didn't work too well.

 

I tried as hard as I could to not sound mean, so I apologize if the above post comes across as sour.

[Ryan BG]

I believe Windows is a fine operating system, with some major flaws, including security vulnerabilities, mainly because the system is a monopoly on the market and most day-to-day computer users run it. It has generally well written drivers, a BSOD here and there but hey, we all have problems with every operating system. I have experience in most OS's including BeOS and Solaris, BSD distributions, Linux Distributions, and OSX (also BSD but closed source as we all know). I really spend an equal amount of time on all of them and Unix DOES has exploits and vulnerabilities, they just aren't as common, so please stop being a tool and saying "M$ sux! get Ubuntu1!!11, Lawl" because Ubuntu takes minimal effort to run, easier than Windows, but that was the way it was designed, all have there ups and downs, all in all I would say I like open source BSD distributions like FreeBSD the most because there aren't inexperienced coders making bug fixes and adjustments to applications and the kernel itself, unlike GNU/Linux, but it's still a solid operating system.

 

BTW MadDoggyca, I like your theory on Sony, Nintendo, and Sega. I think it's relatively relevant :-p

 

My two cents :-p

Ryan

[MadDoggyca]

all I do is copy and past and for wiki sites mostly

[~T.E.K.B.O.I.~]

then when i got into my super awesome smart ass high school that 700 out of 28000 people that apply (actual stats) get into my parents said they would bye me a laptop of my choice

Oh yea, THAT makes your opinion credible now. You got into a decent college........ GOOD JOB!

 

Doesn't it bother you mac users that there are not many options as far as upgrading the unit. And that mac tends to put users in this "controlled" environment where you(the user) are not totally in control? think about it

 

and this is coming from somebody who has a windows and a mac machine. So don't come to me with that "oh your a winblows fanboy" BS.

[EFI]

Oh yea, THAT makes your opinion credible now. You got into a decent college........ GOOD JOB!

 

Doesn't it bother you mac users that there are not many options as far as upgrading the unit. And that mac tends to put users in this "controlled" environment where you(the user) are not totally in control? think about it

 

and this is coming from somebody who has a windows and a mac machine. So don't come to me with that "oh your a winblows fanboy" BS.

I said this in another thread, but as long as the company does a good job of throttling its users (ie. easy to use, slick, powerful products), then I could care less of however controlled it may get...because the end result is great products, and excellent integration.

 

You only need to constantly keep upgrading your PC if you are a gamer (what ever the level may be). For everything else even on the PC side, there is a fixed standard (which can last for several years without upgrading) for sometime. In that sense, you shouldn't be getting a Mac anyways if all you are going to be doing...or primarily atleast, is gaming.

 

The part about us not being totally in "control" is the same reason why the platform is secure. I believe that user stupidity is the prime cause of threats. What more better way to prevent this than limiting the user itself so that they dont have this kind of power to begin with? I don't quite get your full reasoning, but as far as I can tell...everything that I can do in Windows, I can do on my Mac as well, and I dont feel this sense of "being controlled" whatsoever. Or were you meaning something else?

[jglavin]

What about if you plug your digital camera into your mac, and want to copy a single picture off of it, rather than importing them all into iPhoto?

 

I encountered this issue and the only viable solution I could come up with was to turn to windows. Anyone know a better (e.g. OSX - based) way? My GF's ibook doesn't have the hard drive space to offload 2 gigs of pictures. The camera is relatively new, but mounts as a disk in XP. It doesn't mount at all in OSX but instead opens iPhoto and presents the frustrating single "import all" button.

 

Really, this isn't a knock at OSX as much as a technical inquiry. But oh well. Thought it would fit here.

[~T.E.K.B.O.I.~]

@EFI

 

So, you rather have someone dictate what you can do on your OWN computer that your spent YOUR hard earned money one??? And why? because there are a couple of idiots out there? Well, i guess its different strokes for different folks. But what JGLAVIN mentioned above is just one of the many examples of what i'm talking about. Itunes is a very limited program also, in MANY ways. And managing your media is much easier on a pc. They have better options. I mean, if i wanna hear an album on my pc I just play it in windows media play. All the songs i want.. RIGHT THERE. with one click. If i wanna do that on a mac then I gotta either play the songs one by one OR load them up in that disgrace of a program we call ITUNES. And then that can't even find the my songs half of the time, even though I haven't moved them. I mean, its like we get less control of our computers everyday. Next thing you know, you'll need to contact apple just to get in your bios. Its happening slowly, but surely.

 

And plus, there is still a small lack of development. Nothing major(like it was in the 90's). But its still there... or NOT there.

[EFI]

@EFI

 

So, you rather have someone dictate what you can do on your OWN computer that your spent YOUR hard earned money one??? And why? because there are a couple of idiots out there? Well, i guess its different strokes for different folks. But what JGLAVIN mentioned above is just one of the many examples of what i'm talking about. Itunes is a very limited program also, in MANY ways. And managing your media is much easier on a pc. They have better options. I mean, if i wanna hear an album on my pc I just play it in windows media play. All the songs i want.. RIGHT THERE. with one click. If i wanna do that on a mac then I gotta either play the songs one by one OR load them up in that disgrace of a program we call ITUNES. And then that can't even find the my songs half of the time, even though I haven't moved them. I mean, its like we get less control of our computers everyday. Next thing you know, you'll need to contact apple just to get in your bios. Its happening slowly, but surely.

 

And plus, there is still a small lack of development. Nothing major(like it was in the 90's). But its still there... or NOT there.

 

I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. In what way is my operating system (OS X) dictating me? The things I can do with Windows....I can do with OS X as well. Unless you fool around with the unix core, and play with deep system settings, OS X is not even controlling. I don't understand what you mean by "controlling", because you are describing to an extreme as if I have to have Apple's permission to turn on my Macbook Pro. Where strict security and permissions needs to be...it's there. I'm sorry to say, but when you mean "couple of idiots", you are speaking for billions of users...not hundreds or even thousands...to say couple.

 

IMO, iTunes by far is the best music player software out there. I have used Windows Media Player, Winamp, and now iTunes...and by far iTunes is the best, so I think calling it a disgrace...when it's the most widely used software who's userbase is several folds higher than that of Windows Media Player...is incorrect. I honestly have no clue why you can't find your songs on iTunes. It's search function is far more accurate than WMPs, and the smart playlist makes everything completely automated. I know when Apple makes a crappy software *cough* iMovie 08 *cough*, and I will openly admit when Apple screws up...but I (and if statistics mean anything) perceive iTunes to be far, far, far from being even remotely being considered a "disgrace".

 

I have bought Dell's, Hp's, Alienwares (Area-51), and Toshibas in the past....and I can tell you straight off the bat that my best spent money was with Apple only. I have no regrets in spending the money for my MBP.

[jglavin]

The fact is that EFI is right. ITunes is simply better than the competition in almost every way. Yes, it sacrifices efficiency - but for user-friendliness; and it wants to be in charge of your music from top to bottom, again for user friendliness. If you use iTunes the way it is meant to be used, it works wonderfully. Personally I am a fan of party shuffle, some people don't like it. And for those who claim it chokes on large libraries, I'm gonna have to disagree. I have over 20k songs and it's fine, on both windows and OSX. If you have an older machine your experience might be less than awesome, but if that's the case there are other options on both platforms. It was written for modern hardware, like most new programs. It grabs your album covers, keeps track of ratings, all the stuff you could expect from a player. And it does it all in the simplest way. I choose to organize my music outside of itunes, and it hasn't lost any of my music...

 

I had brought up the one and only time that I can think of where I had to use windows to do something that OSX couldn't do the way I wanted; I hoped someone would come forward with a solution. In fact I'm sure it's a matter of some third-party software that I haven't found yet. Fact is, I do have a windows machine so I just used it rather than spend the time looking for the program.

[~T.E.K.B.O.I.~]

I'm not saying that I hat OSX and that windows is better. Because actually. I think OSX is better @ the moment. What i'm saying is that EVENTUALLY, if things keep going they way they are, we will be controlled like that.

 

Yea, i have an older mac, about 5 years old. So my views maybe a little misguided. But Most of what i say is truth. I'm not trying to persuade anybody on this board to do anything. I don't really care. ITUNES IS GARBAGE. Simple is that. agree or don't agree I don't care.

 

Its just my opinion

[jglavin]

I liked the program SoundJam MP, which Apple absorbed and turned into iTunes. I'll admit that they did take a few of the better features out of that program in the transition. But that was ages ago.

 

edit - a couple features they took out -> folders in playlists, skinning.. folders were pretty handy for playlists with many albums mixed with individual songs. Like conversations in gmail...

[EFI]

What i'm saying is that EVENTUALLY, if things keep going they way they are, we will be controlled like that.

 

You do realize that Apple has been doing this since the dawn of OS X right?....what's the outcome? Apple has grown by over 400% in the last 5 years thanks to this "controlled" environment, while the rest of the industry, with the exception of HP (whose growth rate still does not match Apple's) has plateaued...and in the case of Dell...dropping.

 

This method has been proven to work. Another example; the same thing was said about the opening of Apple Stores as well. Back when they first opened up, the entire industry (including those misguided "analysts") stated that Apple was bound to fail, since Dell (who was the computer behemoth at the time) has failed and Microsoft has failed in private retail operation. Why was Apple, who was a puny company just coming out of near shutdown successful, and the others failed? Because of the integration (ie. "controlling"), and how well Apple is able to bring the products together, in 1 environment.

 

You know why this idea of controlling is being questioned negatively?...becuase literally no one in the computer industry has accomplished this before successfully. So when a company (Apple) does it right...it is looked upon negatively...when infact track records show the exact opposite.

 

About the iTunes, as long as it's your own personal preference....then I could care less. So that's that.

 

edit - a couple features they took out..., skinning..

 

You can skin iTunes if you wanted. There are numerous skins avaliable for iTunes. The only downside is that every time Apple releases a new version of iTunes (eg. 7.1-7.2), then your skin wont be compatible with the newer version. You have to wait until the developer updates it for the new framework resource forks. With that little bit aside....and considering the fact that there is usually a good time between each versions...this would be less of an issue.

[Morpheus Phreak]

You do realize that Apple has been doing this since the dawn of OS X right?....what's the outcome? Apple has grown by over 400% in the last 5 years thanks to this "controlled" environment, while the rest of the industry, with the exception of HP (whose growth rate still does not match Apple's) has plateaued...and in the case of Dell...dropping.

 

This method has been proven to work. Another example; the same thing was said about the opening of Apple Stores as well. Back when they first opened up, the entire industry (including those misguided "analysts") stated that Apple was bound to fail, since Dell (who was the computer behemoth at the time) has failed and Microsoft has failed in private retail operation. Why was Apple, who was a puny company just coming out of near shutdown successful, and the others failed? Because of the integration (ie. "controlling"), and how well Apple is able to bring the products together, in 1 environment.

 

You know why this idea of controlling is being questioned negatively?...becuase literally no one in the computer industry has accomplished this before successfully. So when a company (Apple) does it right...it is looked upon negatively...when infact track records show the exact opposite.

 

About the iTunes, as long as it's your own personal preference....then I could care less. So that's that.

 

 

 

You can skin iTunes if you wanted. There are numerous skins avaliable for iTunes. The only downside is that every time Apple releases a new version of iTunes (eg. 7.1-7.2), then your skin wont be compatible with the newer version. You have to wait until the developer updates it for the new framework resource forks. With that little bit aside....and considering the fact that there is usually a good time between each versions...this would be less of an issue.

 

 

Congrats.

 

In 5 years they've gone from 1% market share to 4% market share.

 

Give them another 160 years (if I did the math right) and they'll own it all