Apple, Microsoft, or Linux?

[Great Balt State]

My problem now is that you are obviously some sort of fanboy tool.

this is also my problem with Macs.

Otherwise, it would just another type of pc, just one not as universal as windows, but like linux server or playstation console.


But Nooooo, mac users have to go and worship their computers...
... if i think about it then the problem is same as with any religion. they are fine, until the moment when they try to persuade that their way is better than others

[Hairless Kitten II]

Linux isn't sexy.

[Beachchairs]

Itunes for PC is famously horrible on its own. It's glitchy and crashes often. It doesn't help that it comes with all the awful bloatware mentioned above, which CAN'T be uninstalled. The only way to get rid of quicktime that I know is to install the quicktime alternative which is a third party piece of software. And can someone explain to me, why the hell does quicktime exist if itunes now comes with a video player built in :/

iTunes actually uses Quicktime to play files.

You click a song, and iTunes goes "Hey, Quicktime! I need you to play this song!"

Same is probably true for videos too.

[Rejistania]

Linux isn't sexy.

Errr: I beg to differ: http://fun.drno.de/pics/tux/linux_chick49.jpg

[Pure Metal]

My problem now is that you are obviously some sort of fanboy tool.

this is also my problem with Macs.

Otherwise, it would just another type of pc, just one not as universal as windows, but like linux server or playstation console.


But Nooooo, mac users have to go and worship their computers...
... if i think about it then the problem is same as with any religion. they are fine, until the moment when they try to persuade that their way is better than others

that's largely my issue, too. the PR of Apple is doing just that, and fanboys who spit it back out are as irritating as religious evangelicals. i don't really care - each has its own use, but Macs have no selling points for me (unlike Windows and nix). but what's worse, if the fanboys really hate "M$" so much, or think Mac has better features as an OS, and if they looked into the issue for a second, they'd probably use nix instead. so either they just buy the "i wanna be cool" PR (which is just sad.... like someone said on here once, if you need a certain piece of technology to define your personality, you probably don't have a personality), or they subscribe to the "Mac is better/just work" or "MS sucks" PR, in which case why not use nix instead?

of course there are many, many normal, sensible non-fanboy Apple users out there. and many likely use Macs for a specific reason... but the ones that blindly spout PR are irritating.... which is why some PC users can get a bit fanboyish as well.

ps, a friend of mine is a big Mac evangelist, but he hasn't used Windows since Windows 98, and refuses to believe that PCs have moved on at all since then (largely because Mac ads and PR tell him things are still terrible on PCs). this irks me. he also thinks nix is only for geeks, when his own beloved OS has more in common with nix than anything else

[Rejistania]

Fools, Plan 9 is the surperior os!

You win an internet (well, the part of it you can reach from your Plan 9 installation).

[Treznor]

Because even if there are only a hundred million computers in the US (I think I'm guessing on the low side here) and only 10% of them are Macs, that's still ten million computers to add to your botnet. Last I read a few years ago, most of the bigger botnets are around a few hundred thousand strong. What hacker wouldn't like an unsuspecting quarry of ten million computers to invade and control?

With the scale we're talking about, it'd be worth it. Few Mac users are really on the alert for malware because they've learned they simply don't need it.

Yes, in absolute terms there are enough macs out there to hypothetically make a huge botnet. But you're still going to get like 8 times as many computers targeting Windows. That's why so few people bother targeting macs.

Everybody targets Windows computers. A lot of malware specifically checks for and removes competing malware because the competition is so cut-throat. What if you had a vast field of virgin computers that nobody targets? Say, for example, ten million or more? But nobody targets them, and I'm guessing that Apple's security architecture plays a larger role in this than Microsoft would care to admit. So they fall back on the "market share" argument. Nobody goes after Macs because nobody uses Macs. Except that isn't true: there are enough Macs on the network to make it worthwhile if it were possible to do.

Infecting 10 million computers still needs getting to 10 million computers. If you infect one site with a Mac specific virus, you'll have a relatively low spread rate. You could spam mail a bunch of trojans and hope that enough Mac users will get them to spread to other Mac users, which is not guaranteed, since they aren't statistically likely to know each other.

Whereas the higher traffic of PCs to websites means that your spread ratio is simply that much higher. It's the numbers game, and odds are really low on big payoff for infecting Mac machines, even if they're dead easy to infect.

Why would the spread rate necessarily be slow? I thought one of the major complaints about Apple users (in this very thread, in fact) is that they're all such fanbois, circle-jerking each other about what fantastic machines Apple makes. It is a numbers game, and when your botnets are typically in the hundreds of thousands, a pool of millions of potential targets should look mighty appealing. Since there aren't a proportionate number of trojans and viruses to target non-Windows computers, I'm suggesting there's another also reason why Windows is such a popular target: it's easier to crack.

[Disposablepuppetland]

Each of the main desktop OS's have their problems, but Apple irritate me particularly.

For a start, their marketing. It takes hypocrisy to new levels.
With Apple there is no freedom whatsoever. You are totally locked in to Apple products and the Apple way of doing things. It's like a cult.

"Think different" ? Nonsense. It should be - "Don't think. Believe"

I can't stand the OSX GUI either. It's so slow. It takes about 20 clicks to do something that would take three on XP, and after every click you have to wait a few more seconds for some irritating animation.
Admittedly XP starts off like this when first installed, but at least it only takes about 10 minutes to reconfigure it to work like Windows 2000 - simple and quick.
Apple's design philosophy is "if something's over-complex or badly made: hide it away, lock it down, and make it pretty" whereas it should be "redesign in a straightforward and functional way"

Unfortunately MS seem to be following Apple and making their OS's increasingly flashy and cumbersome.
I'm not sure what I'm going to do once XP support expires. Windows 7 looks pretty bad. OSX is just horrible. Some of the Linux distros are ok, but they don't run Photoshop, or any games.

[Dakini]

My problem now is that you are obviously some sort of fanboy tool.

this is also my problem with Macs.

Otherwise, it would just another type of pc, just one not as universal as windows, but like linux server or playstation console.


But Nooooo, mac users have to go and worship their computers...
... if i think about it then the problem is same as with any religion. they are fine, until the moment when they try to persuade that their way is better than others

Actually (since that was addressed to me), I don't worship my computer. I was just trying to explain to pantless (who has come across as a Windows fanboy, who expressed earlier disdain for linux programs such as emacs, vim and LaTeX) that he doesn't have to use iTunes if he hates it so much. He has come across as a windows user who likes to pretend that every other operating system is a pile (although he hasn't mentioned actually using OS X, just apple programs on a windows machine where they probably aren't optimized).

Yet when I point out that this is silly (and when other posters point out that iTunes say, uses quicktime thus this isn't an unnecessary program), I'm a "fanboy" even though OS X is not even my primary operating system and when I use it I don't use the large majority of the iLife crap.

[Dakini]

Each of the main desktop OS's have their problems, but Apple irritate me particularly.

For a start, their marketing. It takes hypocrisy to new levels.
With Apple there is no freedom whatsoever. You are totally locked in to Apple products and the Apple way of doing things. It's like a cult.

How so? Get Fink, install all the Linux programs you want on your Mac. The only Apple products I "have to buy" are adaptors to connect my machine to projectors. You don't have to use iTunes, iMovie, iCal... whatever else they have. You can have a non-iPod mp3 player, you can have a non-Apple external hard drive, you can read your photos off a card reader, how are you locked into a cult?

I can't stand the OSX GUI either. It's so slow. It takes about 20 clicks to do something that would take three on XP, and after every click you have to wait a few more seconds for some irritating animation.

Do you have an example? I find them both about equally easy to configure. Sometimes there is an issue of figuring out where something is on a mac, but there was also this same problem on windows when I first used it too.
And by irritating animation do you mean the little rainbow swirl that's about the same effect as the hourglass?

Admittedly XP starts off like this when first installed, but at least it only takes about 10 minutes to reconfigure it to work like Windows 2000 - simple and quick.

Why would you want XP to work like 2000?

I'm not sure what I'm going to do once XP support expires. Windows 7 looks pretty bad. OSX is just horrible. Some of the Linux distros are ok, but they don't run Photoshop, or any games.

Wine. It definitely runs photoshop, I think the best running thing out there is WoW, I don't know which games you play but there's definitely support for them (though it probably varies based on what the people who know enough to code wine play).

Although if you don't like having to click a lot to configure things or use the command line then I'd stick with Ubuntu. The only people I know who have had to spend a significant amount of time tinkering with that are people who had dual monitor setups with it.

[Disposablepuppetland]

Each of the main desktop OS's have their problems, but Apple irritate me particularly.

For a start, their marketing. It takes hypocrisy to new levels.
With Apple there is no freedom whatsoever. You are totally locked in to Apple products and the Apple way of doing things. It's like a cult.

How so? Get Fink, install all the Linux programs you want on your Mac. The only Apple products I "have to buy" are adaptors to connect my machine to projectors. You don't have to use iTunes, iMovie, iCal... whatever else they have. You can have a non-iPod mp3 player, you can have a non-Apple external hard drive, you can read your photos off a card reader, how are you locked into a cult?

Damnit, can't you just unthinkingly accept what I say as truth without question? Now I have to actually try and remember stuff. I don't use Macs often. I try to avoid them.

To be honest I didn't know about Fink, so that makes quite a difference. I'm mostly going on problems my Mac owning friends have had. While it might technically be possible to replace iTunes or an iPod, in practice that doesn't seem to work so well.
It the hardware where you're really locked in. You have to use an Apple machine, and third party stuff is a bit of a lottery.

I can't stand the OSX GUI either. It's so slow. It takes about 20 clicks to do something that would take three on XP, and after every click you have to wait a few more seconds for some irritating animation.

Do you have an example? I find them both about equally easy to configure. Sometimes there is an issue of figuring out where something is on a mac, but there was also this same problem on windows when I first used it too.
And by irritating animation do you mean the little rainbow swirl that's about the same effect as the hourglass?

No I mean stuff like the dock, and the window animations. Maybe you can turn some of these off, I don't know.
The control panel is poor, although oddly, that needs more clicks. It needs 'ok', 'test', and 'cancel' buttons. The network file sharing set up was particularly frustrating, and didn't seem too reliable compared to Windows and Linux.

Admittedly XP starts off like this when first installed, but at least it only takes about 10 minutes to reconfigure it to work like Windows 2000 - simple and quick.

Why would you want XP to work like 2000?

The Windows 2000 GUI was quick and responsive. XP in classic theme is also good. Vista and Windows 7 seem to be a step backwards.
Thinking about it, the NT GUI is amazingly fast, although lacking many features these days.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do once XP support expires. Windows 7 looks pretty bad. OSX is just horrible. Some of the Linux distros are ok, but they don't run Photoshop, or any games.

Wine. It definitely runs photoshop, I think the best running thing out there is WoW, I don't know which games you play but there's definitely support for them (though it probably varies based on what the people who know enough to code wine play).

Although if you don't like having to click a lot to configure things or use the command line then I'd stick with Ubuntu. The only people I know who have had to spend a significant amount of time tinkering with that are people who had dual monitor setups with it.

Using the command-line is fine, and in fact I have Ubuntu server (no GUI) running my music/video server/backup machine. It was very straightforward to configure the things that came in the repository, but installing and compiling a music player was a chore. Following the never-ending trail of dependencies took hours. Power management support was hopeless too, but that wouldn't really matter on a desktop machine.

I'll have to try Photoshop in Wine, maybe that would be ok, but I suspect games would be a problem. SimCity4 grinds along like a crippled slug even on XP, so I'm not hopeful about that. It's also encumbered with some EA DRM so that might cause trouble.
Half-Life series requires Steam, so I'm not sure how that'll go. Other than that, GTA, Total War series,

[Dakini]

Damnit, can't you just unthinkingly accept what I say as truth without question? Now I have to actually try and remember stuff. I don't use Macs often. I try to avoid them.

To be honest I didn't know about Fink, so that makes quite a difference. I'm mostly going on problems my Mac owning friends have had. While it might technically be possible to replace iTunes or an iPod, in practice that doesn't seem to work so well.
It the hardware where you're really locked in. You have to use an Apple machine, and third party stuff is a bit of a lottery.

My laptop is a Mac and I personally don't use iTunes, I use Cog for playback and Max to rip CDs. I prefer to use .ogg for my music files when possible and iTunes is not a fan of these.
I haven't heard about problems running the digital music player I'm looking at (iAudio 7, different company going with the "i" trend) on OS X unless you count the software it comes with not working as a "problem" (I don't, I'm actually happy that it apparently acts like opening a flash drive and it makes me want this device more).
In my limited experience with other mac users, a lot of them aren't particularly competent and seem to have a lot of problems with their computers which they tend to attribute to the computer instead of their own incompetence. I mean, yes, hardware can have problems and there might be issues with some software I don't use, but I've never had a problem connecting an external device to my computer and I haven't actually heard about any serious problems when trying to replace parts (hard drives, ram etc) that wouldn't be expected from any other computer.
Actually, something that I like about the mac a lot is that it came with CDs for installing the operating system so when I dual booted the thing I didn't have to worry about not being able to put my operating system back on right away.

I can't stand the OSX GUI either. It's so slow. It takes about 20 clicks to do something that would take three on XP, and after every click you have to wait a few more seconds for some irritating animation.

Do you have an example? I find them both about equally easy to configure. Sometimes there is an issue of figuring out where something is on a mac, but there was also this same problem on windows when I first used it too.
And by irritating animation do you mean the little rainbow swirl that's about the same effect as the hourglass?

No I mean stuff like the dock, and the window animations. Maybe you can turn some of these off, I don't know.
The control panel is poor, although oddly, that needs more clicks. It needs 'ok', 'test', and 'cancel' buttons. The network file sharing set up was particularly frustrating, and didn't seem too reliable compared to Windows and Linux.

I'm not sure how much the dock animations take in terms of time and computing power, they seem to happen pretty quick and stop if the program is small and starts fast. Same with the window animations (I assume you mean for like minimizing things, how it changes shape and this?). I haven't tried setting up a network (I don't need one) so I suppose this could be troublesome.

Admittedly XP starts off like this when first installed, but at least it only takes about 10 minutes to reconfigure it to work like Windows 2000 - simple and quick.

Why would you want XP to work like 2000?

The Windows 2000 GUI was quick and responsive. XP in classic theme is also good. Vista and Windows 7 seem to be a step backwards.
Thinking about it, the NT GUI is amazingly fast, although lacking many features these days.

The new windows operating systems contributed heavily to my mac purchase... but I like XP.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do once XP support expires. Windows 7 looks pretty bad. OSX is just horrible. Some of the Linux distros are ok, but they don't run Photoshop, or any games.

Wine. It definitely runs photoshop, I think the best running thing out there is WoW, I don't know which games you play but there's definitely support for them (though it probably varies based on what the people who know enough to code wine play).

Although if you don't like having to click a lot to configure things or use the command line then I'd stick with Ubuntu. The only people I know who have had to spend a significant amount of time tinkering with that are people who had dual monitor setups with it.

Using the command-line is fine, and in fact I have Ubuntu server (no GUI) running my music/video server/backup machine. It was very straightforward to configure the things that came in the repository, but installing and compiling a music player was a chore. Following the never-ending trail of dependencies took hours. Power management support was hopeless too, but that wouldn't really matter on a desktop machine.

Ah, then that works. Though one of my friends has reported battery problems with his laptop in while running Gentoo, I didn't know it was a multiple distro issue.

I'll have to try Photoshop in Wine, maybe that would be ok, but I suspect games would be a problem. SimCity4 grinds along like a crippled slug even on XP, so I'm not hopeful about that. It's also encumbered with some EA DRM so that might cause trouble.
Half-Life series requires Steam, so I'm not sure how that'll go. Other than that, GTA, Total War series,

I haven't really used wine (I don't play games and Gimp suits me fine), I'm mostly going on what they've got on their website. They have lists of which applications are supported that are ranked (platinum = works best etc) and you can run a search to see if a desired application works, but Photoshop is supposed to work, though you might have to tinker a bit, I'm not sure.

[Hairless Kitten II]

Why would we download, install and tweak Linux and spend weeks of our time to make it work, just to see...porn!

I don't get that.

[The_pantless_hero]

Actually (since that was addressed to me), I don't worship my computer. I was just trying to explain to pantless (who has come across as a Windows fanboy, who expressed earlier disdain for linux programs such as emacs, vim and LaTeX) that he doesn't have to use iTunes if he hates it so much. He has come across as a windows user who likes to pretend that every other operating system is a pile (although he hasn't mentioned actually using OS X, just apple programs on a windows machine where they probably aren't optimized).

You completely and entirely convoluted every point I had to label me a "Windows fanboy." Perhaps you should pull your lips off of whatever OS creator's ass you are kissing to think for a second.

[Treznor]

Why would we download, install and tweak Linux and spend weeks of our time to make it work, just to see...porn!

I don't get that.

Probably because I spend less time downloading, installing and tweaking Linux to get it working than I do installing, tweaking and reinstalling Windows.

[Dakini]

Actually (since that was addressed to me), I don't worship my computer. I was just trying to explain to pantless (who has come across as a Windows fanboy, who expressed earlier disdain for linux programs such as emacs, vim and LaTeX) that he doesn't have to use iTunes if he hates it so much. He has come across as a windows user who likes to pretend that every other operating system is a pile (although he hasn't mentioned actually using OS X, just apple programs on a windows machine where they probably aren't optimized).

You completely and entirely convoluted every point I had to label me a "Windows fanboy." Perhaps you should pull your lips off of whatever OS creator's ass you are kissing to think for a second.

How did I misinterpret your argument (I assume this is what you meant*)? You were complaining about iTunes and how it runs on a windows machine. I pointed out that you don't have to use iTunes and that you can probably uninstall much of the unnecessary software that comes with it, you claimed that you can't uninstall QuickTime, other posters pointed out that iTunes uses QuickTime (making it a necessary rather than unnecessary program). If you don't want to use iTunes and hate it and apple so much then why don't you use a microsoft alternative? All I've seen you do in this thread is shit on other operating systems and the programs that come with them and point to microsoft superiority. I don't think I'm the one with my lips on the ass of an OS's creator here. I mean, for example:

Vi sucks and the only thing emacs is good for is the built in side by side comparison utilities.

Both vi and emacs have one thing in common -- they hammer any (every) other editor in terms of features and speed of operation.

It's a text editor. No computer today, or any made in the past 10 years, is going to run any editor noticeably faster than any other. Unless you are confusing text editor and word processor. And Vi looks like it has nothing on either Crimson Editor or Notepad++. Like I said, the only thing Emacs has for it is the ability to compare multiple documents side by side. Otherwise I can't stand using it. I refuse to accept features over user friendliness.

And the responses:

vi (and Emacs) hammers the programs you gave as examples, in terms of feature set, configurability, extensibility, and speed of use. They do language specific hilighting, integrate with debuggers, connect with shells, interoperate with external programs, feature multiple extension languages, contain comprehensive inbuilt help, etc.

Lol, Linux fanboy. I clicked every menu on vi that I pulled up on the Linux box. I don't see anything that significantly surpasses Notepad++ or Crimson. Emacs has more utilities, but it is even more user unfriendly than Vi is.

And more:

Bad design is dirty. One can have a powerful program that isn't user unfriendly. It's been done, it will be done again, Vi, Emacs, and I will easily guess Latex given the Linux fanboy propensity for it, do not meet that standard.

You're rather fond of calling everyone else a fanboy when they aren't advocating the use of MS products because they find that other ones work better. Maybe you should stop and think that the only person here acting like a fanboy is you.
I could also note that you stop responding to posts when you're corrected.


*convoluted is an adjective, not a verb, it means extremely complicated and difficult to follow. I could not have convoluted your argument.

[Secruss]

'Soft rules!

[The_pantless_hero]

How did I misinterpret your argument (I assume this is what you meant*)? You were complaining about iTunes and how it runs on a windows machine. I pointed out that you don't have to use iTunes

You do if you want to access the iTunes store - the predominant digital media store.

and that you can probably uninstall much of the unnecessary software that comes with it,

Which fails to make iTunes not bloatware.

you claimed that you can't uninstall QuickTime,

You can't if you want to use Itunes, you can only replace it. Also, I never claimed that anyway.

If you don't want to use iTunes and hate it and apple so much then why don't you use a microsoft alternative?

Because you don't pay attention

All I've seen you do in this thread is shit on other operating systems and the programs that come with them and point to microsoft superiority.

Not once did I do anything of the sort. I called iTunes a terrible program for the Windows system and I called some programs you apparently have a sexual attraction to unnecessarily user unfriendly.

You're rather fond of calling everyone else a fanboy when they aren't advocating the use of MS products because they find that other ones work better.

Crimson Editor and Notepad++ are Microsoft products? I was under the impression that they were opensource freeware.

*convoluted is an adjective, not a verb, it means extremely complicated and difficult to follow therefore I could not have convoluted your argument.

Convoluted, past tense of convolute: to twist or make unnecessarily complex.

[Hairless Kitten II]

Why would we download, install and tweak Linux and spend weeks of our time to make it work, just to see...porn!

I don't get that.

Probably because I spend less time downloading, installing and tweaking Linux to get it working than I do installing, tweaking and reinstalling Windows.

Yes, that's what we do all the time. Reinstalling Windows and again, again and again.
It reminds me that I have to reinstall my Windows, I only did it three times today.

It's kind of fun. In 1992 the Linux girls used your argument too, 18 years later the Linux market share is still less than 1%, the rest of the world is reinstalling his or her Windows...

Linux evangelists sometimes sound like used car salespeople.

[Dakini]

How did I misinterpret your argument (I assume this is what you meant*)? You were complaining about iTunes and how it runs on a windows machine. I pointed out that you don't have to use iTunes

You do if you want to access the iTunes store - the predominant digital media store.

But it's by no means the only place to buy digital media.

and that you can probably uninstall much of the unnecessary software that comes with it,

Which fails to make iTunes not bloatware.

And what does iTunes = bloatware have to do with OS X as an operating system?

you claimed that you can't uninstall QuickTime,

You can't if you want to use Itunes, you can only replace it. Also, I never claimed that anyway.

You claimed that QuickTime was unnecessary, but it is necessary for iTunes.

If you don't want to use iTunes and hate it and apple so much then why don't you use a microsoft alternative?

Because you don't pay attention

Fine. You don't like iTunes, but you feel that it is necessary to use because you want to buy music from the iTunes store. If iTunes was such an inconvenience, you could easily go elsewhere to shop for your digital media, but apparently the convenience of the iTunes store outweighs the inconvenience of iTunes so you don't. Instead, you complain about apple producing products that work poorly on your operating system and give them your business. Have I got that about right?

All I've seen you do in this thread is shit on other operating systems and the programs that come with them and point to microsoft superiority.

Not once did I do anything of the sort. I called iTunes a terrible program for the Windows system and I called some programs you apparently have a sexual attraction to unnecessarily user unfriendly.

Yes. I am sexually attracted to programs. While I might occasionally describe LaTeX as "sexy" this isn't exactly the sense that I mean. Nor is it actually user unfriendly.

You're rather fond of calling everyone else a fanboy when they aren't advocating the use of MS products because they find that other ones work better.

Crimson Editor and Notepad++ are Microsoft products? I was under the impression that they were opensource freeware.

I've never used them. Sorry about that. However, do they run on anything other than windows?

*convoluted is an adjective, not a verb, it means extremely complicated and difficult to follow therefore I could not have convoluted your argument.

Convoluted, past tense of convolute: to twist or make unnecessarily complex.

Hmm... wtf @ my dictionary, it gives adjective, adverb and something about leaves for convolute. Note to self: dictionary = unreliable.

And at any rate: you seem to be in the habit of calling everyone who uses something other than windows a "fanboy".

[Treznor]

Why would we download, install and tweak Linux and spend weeks of our time to make it work, just to see...porn!

I don't get that.

Probably because I spend less time downloading, installing and tweaking Linux to get it working than I do installing, tweaking and reinstalling Windows.

Yes, that's what we do all the time. Reinstalling Windows and again, again and again.
It reminds me that I have to reinstall my Windows, I only did it three times today.

It's kind of fun. In 1992 the Linux girls used your argument too, 18 years later the Linux market share is still less than 1%, the rest of the world is reinstalling his or her Windows...

Working with computers involves a learning curve whether you're dealing with Windows, Mac, Linux, BeOS or whatever. For professionals and hobbyists, a clean install of Windows is preferable to the preload versions with all the bloat provided by vendors like Dell, HP and the rest.

The first time you install Windows, it's going to take a while. The first time you install Linux, it's going to take a while. Windows is considered more "user-friendly" simply because it's more common in the business world (evidence of Microsoft's marketing genius) so people are more likely to use it at home as well. Familiarity with a product does not mean it's inherently easy to use.

Compared side-by-side, a knowledgable tech installing Linux involves less work than a similarly knowledgable tech installing Windows. Just because you're not interested in installing Linux for yourself doesn't make Windows is technically superior.

[Hairless Kitten II]

Why would we download, install and tweak Linux and spend weeks of our time to make it work, just to see...porn!

I don't get that.

Probably because I spend less time downloading, installing and tweaking Linux to get it working than I do installing, tweaking and reinstalling Windows.

Yes, that's what we do all the time. Reinstalling Windows and again, again and again.
It reminds me that I have to reinstall my Windows, I only did it three times today.

It's kind of fun. In 1992 the Linux girls used your argument too, 18 years later the Linux market share is still less than 1%, the rest of the world is reinstalling his or her Windows...

Working with computers involves a learning curve whether you're dealing with Windows, Mac, Linux, BeOS or whatever. For professionals and hobbyists, a clean install of Windows is preferable to the preload versions with all the bloat provided by vendors like Dell, HP and the rest.

The first time you install Windows, it's going to take a while. The first time you install Linux, it's going to take a while. Windows is considered more "user-friendly" simply because it's more common in the business world (evidence of Microsoft's marketing genius) so people are more likely to use it at home as well. Familiarity with a product does not mean it's inherently easy to use.

Compared side-by-side, a knowledgable tech installing Linux involves less work than a similarly knowledgable tech installing Windows. Just because you're not interested in installing Linux for yourself doesn't make Windows is technically superior.

If something is better then the people would move. It just seems that Linux isn't providing what the people want.

Visual Basic 1.0 and 2.0 didn't catch on. Visual Basic 3.0 was a succes.
The people didn't move from MS DOS to Windows 1.0 and even 2.0. They started to migrate at version 3.0
And do you remember MS Bob? Or the Office paperclip (derived from Bob)?

Microsoft can't push everything, they have to work hard and convince the people they have a good offer.

[Disposablepuppetland]

If you don't want to use iTunes and hate it and apple so much then why don't you use a microsoft alternative?

Because you don't pay attention

All I've seen you do in this thread is shit on other operating systems and the programs that come with them and point to microsoft superiority.

Not once did I do anything of the sort. I called iTunes a terrible program for the Windows system and I called some programs you apparently have a sexual attraction to unnecessarily user unfriendly.

Pantless, your argument is so incoherent I'm beginning to doubt my own sanity. Technically we agree... I think... but your comments are so illogical they can't possibly be right.

Therefore I'm forced to conclude that Macs are awesome and I shall go out and purchase one immediately.
Thanks for clearing up this issue.

[Dakini]

If something is better then the people would move. It just seems that Linux isn't providing what the people want.

You assume that people aren't lazy and that there isn't a lot of inertia involved in sticking with the same operating system. I mean, there's a learning curve to every operating system. If you started with windows then you get over the learning curve once. If you stay with windows then you have to relearn how to do a lot of things on linux or OS X because it's done differently. Even if it's all "easy" to a first time user, it's not going to seem as easy when you're used to something else.

[Treznor]

Probably because I spend less time downloading, installing and tweaking Linux to get it working than I do installing, tweaking and reinstalling Windows.

Yes, that's what we do all the time. Reinstalling Windows and again, again and again.
It reminds me that I have to reinstall my Windows, I only did it three times today.

It's kind of fun. In 1992 the Linux girls used your argument too, 18 years later the Linux market share is still less than 1%, the rest of the world is reinstalling his or her Windows...

Working with computers involves a learning curve whether you're dealing with Windows, Mac, Linux, BeOS or whatever. For professionals and hobbyists, a clean install of Windows is preferable to the preload versions with all the bloat provided by vendors like Dell, HP and the rest.

The first time you install Windows, it's going to take a while. The first time you install Linux, it's going to take a while. Windows is considered more "user-friendly" simply because it's more common in the business world (evidence of Microsoft's marketing genius) so people are more likely to use it at home as well. Familiarity with a product does not mean it's inherently easy to use.

Compared side-by-side, a knowledgable tech installing Linux involves less work than a similarly knowledgable tech installing Windows. Just because you're not interested in installing Linux for yourself doesn't make Windows is technically superior.

If something is better then the people would move. It just seems that Linux isn't providing what the people want.

Visual Basic 1.0 and 2.0 didn't catch on. Visual Basic 3.0 was a succes.
The people didn't move from MS DOS to Windows 1.0 and even 2.0. They started to migrate at version 3.0
And do you remember MS Bob? Or the Office paperclip (derived from Bob)?

Microsoft can't push everything, they have to work hard and convince the people they have a good offer.

That's a false assumption. People don't use things that are better unless they know about them. Poll a large number of average computer users in the nation about Linux and the average answer will range between "it's open source, so it's bad," "it doesn't work like Windows" and "what's that?" This is all a product of marketing, not technology. Most people speak about Linux without actually knowing what they're talking about.

Microsoft achieved this domination by making exclusive contracts with vendors (threatening to withdraw licensing rights if those vendors supplied non-Windows systems to users), sweetheart deals with businesses and billions of dollars in advertising (including a great deal of disinformation about rival software, like Linux). Their product is not and never has been superior, just their distribution.