Apple, Microsoft, or Linux?

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Actually those of us with iPod Touches and iPhones which are both great devices are stuck with terrible itunes.

[Hairless Kitten II]

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.

If Linux would provide in something what people really wanted and can't find it at Windows then they would do the effort.

In 1990 Lotus Corporation was much bigger as Microsoft at that time. Lotus who?
Millions of Lotus 1-2-3 users left their safe environment to something new.
Individuals, schools & companies already spend billions of $ to study Lotus 1-2-3, however they did migrate.

[The_pantless_hero]

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

You are again purposefully convoluting my point.

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

Considering I never said anything about OS X, maybe you should answer that yourself, Captain Transference.

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

No, I claimed iTunes was a standalone program after you brought up Zune software, the point being iTunes is a standalone media player.

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.

No, it is necessary to use to use the iTunes store. I don't play media on it because it is crap.

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?

Not unless your point is that you are a sycophant.

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

Not natively, but neither is that the point.

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

Only when they are making a point about how awesome it is, or continually transferring attacks on specific software to attacks on an OS as a whole.

[Hairless Kitten II]

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.

What is a false assumption?

Microsoft didn't push Visual Basic by contracts. It just happen to be better as the solutions of the competition. At that time it was CA, Borland and a few others.

Better distribution? Hello, this the era of the internet. Distribution is almost free.

If something is pretty good then it's hyped very fast on the internet those days...

Microsoft their OS is superior to Linux: just read the market shares. They are fair and right into your face.

[North Wiedna]

PC all the way.

The only things I see Macs as useful are...

-Using as a boat anchor
-Matching your chic decor
-Using the fancy image editor (Which is negated by the fact that you can just download paint.NET for free)
-A blunt weapon
-Making someone commit suicide (By giving it to them as a gift, presuming they cannot get a PC)
-Pissing off your friends because NOTHING WORKS on a Mac

My sister's HP laptop looks better and runs Vista. No mac here!

[North Wiedna]

Actually those of us with iPod Touches and iPhones which are both great devices are stuck with terrible itunes.

Mac has something over Microsoft with iTunes and iPod. iPhone uses AT&T, though. Which sucks.
Also, macs don't have a very good selection of games compared to PC. Their commercials are getting monotonous, too.

[Dakini]

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

You are again purposefully convoluting my point.

How? You say iTunes is the biggest place to buy digital media. Fine. It isn't the only place to buy digital media out there. If you want to buy digital media, there are hundreds of other places to go. You don't need the iTunes store if you don't want it.

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

Considering I never said anything about OS X, maybe you should answer that yourself, Captain Transference.

Here I thought this thread was discussing the merits of different operating systems?

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

No, I claimed iTunes was a standalone program after you brought up Zune software, the point being iTunes is a standalone media player.

...which apparently requires QuickTime to run (according to other posters).

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.

No, it is necessary to use to use the iTunes store. I don't play media on it because it is crap.

How is it necessary to go to the iTunes store? I understand that iTunes is necessary to shop at the iTunes store, but shopping at the iTunes store is not necessary.

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?

Not unless your point is that you are a sycophant.

My point is that I'm attempting to understand what your argument is, exactly.

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

Not natively, but neither is that the point.

I think the point was that someone else pointed out that there were good editing programs on unix and you denied this, then claimed that these other ones that run on windows were better although I find this kinda unlikely because they do not appear to have a lot of the useful functionality of emacs (and vim has much more functionality than emacs does... I just don't know how to use it well so I don't [I'm lazy]).

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

Only when they are making a point about how awesome it is, or continually transferring attacks on specific software to attacks on an OS as a whole.

Only when other people make a point about how awesome software on another operating system is. You've been doing about the same thing for windows or things that run on windows (except iTunes which runs on windows). So when you do it, you're normal, but when anyone else does it, they're a fanboy?

[SD_Film Artists]

I'm reading this increasingly large thead and I'm still none-the-wiser on why a Mac has more going for it than just Final Cut Pro and skilled PR guys.

[Treznor]

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.

If Linux would provide in something what people really wanted and can't find it at Windows then they would do the effort.

Correct, in part. Linux doesn't perform a different function than Windows, they perform the same function better. That's not enough to convince people to look to switch, especially since software companies don't write for Linux. Of course, software companies don't write for Linux because not enough people use it. Catch-22.

In 1990 Lotus Corporation was much bigger as Microsoft at that time. Lotus who?
Millions of Lotus 1-2-3 users left their safe environment to something new.
Individuals, schools & companies already spend billions of $ to study Lotus 1-2-3, however they did migrate.

In 1990 Lotus Corporation was charging high fees for software that ran on the Windows platform. Microsoft then offered the same product written natively for Windows at a cheaper price. Customers then switched because it made sense.

Switching to a new operating system would involve much larger changes. There would be long-term savings, but first you have to defeat Microsoft's FUD (also known as their TCO initiative) to convince them that there would be those savings. Businesses and governments around the world are tentatively looking at the change, but Microsoft has been issuing legal challenges as well as marketing blitzes. You don't think the SCO lawsuit was really about ownership rights, did you?

[Treznor]

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.

What is a false assumption?

Microsoft didn't push Visual Basic by contracts. It just happen to be better as the solutions of the competition. At that time it was CA, Borland and a few others.

Did you know that multiple companies used to put out software for programming Basic? Somehow, all those programs managed to create software that ran the same everywhere except on Windows platforms. Microsoft put out different version of Basic (and Java, C++, etc) that runs natively on Windows, while the standardized versions of software doesn't run quite right.

You may remember this about ten years ago. There was an anti-trust lawsuit about Microsoft's business practices this way. Microsoft couldn't put out a better product, so they tweaked their OS so the better software wouldn't run right on their platform.

Better distribution? Hello, this the era of the internet. Distribution is almost free.

Why bother downloading an operating system, even if it works better, if one comes already installed on your computer? Remember: average users don't care. They just want it to work, and since Microsoft got Windows installed on the majority of business computers, that's what people will use at home. Professionals and hobbyists are the ones who branch out to see what else is available, not the average user.

If something is pretty good then it's hyped very fast on the internet those days...

Provided it can overcome the FUD that's put out about it. Microsoft has spent a lot of money poisoning people's minds about Open Source and Linux-based software.

Microsoft their OS is superior to Linux: just read the market shares. They are fair and right into your face.

Microsoft's marketshare is a testament to their superior marketing and legal strategy. Their OS is not and never was superior.

[Disposablepuppetland]

What is a false assumption?

Microsoft didn't push Visual Basic by contracts. It just happen to be better as the solutions of the competition. At that time it was CA, Borland and a few others.

Better distribution? Hello, this the era of the internet. Distribution is almost free.

If something is pretty good then it's hyped very fast on the internet those days...

Microsoft their OS is superior to Linux: just read the market shares. They are fair and right into your face.

MS might have the best OS now, but that certainly hasn't always been the case. I don't think anyone could seriously argue that MS had the best OS from 1985-1995, and yet that's when they grabbed most of their market share.
There were many reasons why they became popular:
- It came pre-installed with the most popular computers.
- The software they wanted to run ran on it.
- It was fairly cheap - compared to UNIX or a Mac.
- Their competitors got themselves into trouble. (Amiga, Atari, Apple)


The quality of the OS wasn't one of the reasons.

[Hairless Kitten II]

Correct, in part. Linux doesn't perform a different function than Windows, they perform the same function better. That's not enough to convince people to look to switch, especially since software companies don't write for Linux. Of course, software companies don't write for Linux because not enough people use it. Catch-22.

Better as in userfriendly? I guess not.

In 1990 Lotus Corporation was charging high fees for software that ran on the Windows platform. Microsoft then offered the same product written natively for Windows at a cheaper price. Customers then switched because it made sense.

I don't believe you. Source?

Switching to a new operating system would involve much larger changes. There would be long-term savings, but first you have to defeat Microsoft's FUD (also known as their TCO initiative) to convince them that there would be those savings. Businesses and governments around the world are tentatively looking at the change, but Microsoft has been issuing legal challenges as well as marketing blitzes. You don't think the SCO lawsuit was really about ownership rights, did you?

Larger? From which point of view? A Lotus 1-2-3 was often the only program that was running for millions of clerks around the world. In a way it was 'their' OS.

Studying a modern OS isn't that difficult. My grandparents managed that after 3 or 4 classes.

[Hairless Kitten II]

What is a false assumption?

Microsoft didn't push Visual Basic by contracts. It just happen to be better as the solutions of the competition. At that time it was CA, Borland and a few others.

Better distribution? Hello, this the era of the internet. Distribution is almost free.

If something is pretty good then it's hyped very fast on the internet those days...

Microsoft their OS is superior to Linux: just read the market shares. They are fair and right into your face.

MS might have the best OS now, but that certainly hasn't always been the case. I don't think anyone could seriously argue that MS had the best OS from 1985-1995, and yet that's when they grabbed most of their market share.
There were many reasons why they became popular:
- It came pre-installed with the most popular computers.
- The software they wanted to run ran on it.
- It was fairly cheap - compared to UNIX or a Mac.
- Their competitors got themselves into trouble. (Amiga, Atari, Apple)


The quality of the OS wasn't one of the reasons.

The Atari ST its OS was firmware. That's even better than pre-installed. But where is Atari now?
Do you think that Linux was excellent in 1991? Remember no GUI!
Cheap? Linux was and is free.

[Treznor]

Correct, in part. Linux doesn't perform a different function than Windows, they perform the same function better. That's not enough to convince people to look to switch, especially since software companies don't write for Linux. Of course, software companies don't write for Linux because not enough people use it. Catch-22.

Better as in userfriendly? I guess not.

What does an OS do? It provides a platform for running other software. Is it easy to install that software? Is it easy to find the software once it's installed? Does the software run reliably? Does the OS provide a secure platform for running that software?

In every category, Linux consistently beats Windows. But nobody knows that unless they try it. I've burned dozens of "live CDs" for Linux, allowing people to try it without committing to installing it on their computers. I can count the number of people willing to try it on one hand. Microsoft has marketed Linux as the IT boogeyman, and people have believed them. Linux doesn't have the marketing clout to effectively refute Microsoft's FUD.

In 1990 Lotus Corporation was charging high fees for software that ran on the Windows platform. Microsoft then offered the same product written natively for Windows at a cheaper price. Customers then switched because it made sense.

I don't believe you. Source?

A brief history of the spreadsheet.

Switching to a new operating system would involve much larger changes. There would be long-term savings, but first you have to defeat Microsoft's FUD (also known as their TCO initiative) to convince them that there would be those savings. Businesses and governments around the world are tentatively looking at the change, but Microsoft has been issuing legal challenges as well as marketing blitzes. You don't think the SCO lawsuit was really about ownership rights, did you?

Larger? From which point of view? A Lotus 1-2-3 was often the only program that was running for millions of clerks around the world. In a way it was 'their' OS.

Studying a modern OS isn't that difficult. My grandparents managed that after 3 or 4 classes.

Lotus 1-2-3 had to run off an OS. They couldn't boot straight into it. Once Microsoft developed Excel and tied it into the Windows kernel, it became easier and cheaper to run Excel. Clerks grumbled about the change, but they weren't the ones responsible for paying for it, so they were forced to adapt.

Studying a modern OS isn't that difficult. Your grandparents are unusual in that they took the initiative to learn something new.

[Dakini]

I'm reading this increasingly large thead and I'm still none-the-wiser on why a Mac has more going for it than just Final Cut Pro and skilled PR guys.

Depending what you do, there technically are a lot of potentially useful applications. I know people who make a lot of use out of GarageBand and iPhoto (there's some face recognition software that picks out individuals in the photos) for instance. I like it because it's unix based so when I do things on the command line it's the same as linux (and a lot of things are easier to do on the command line) and I can also ssh more reliably to my work computer. MacTeX is also very handy for writing LaTeX documents and there's a program called Papers that's apparently very good for organizing academic articles stored on one's computer (I haven't got around to trying it, but a number of my friends swear by it).

[Hairless Kitten II]

Correct, in part. Linux doesn't perform a different function than Windows, they perform the same function better. That's not enough to convince people to look to switch, especially since software companies don't write for Linux. Of course, software companies don't write for Linux because not enough people use it. Catch-22.

Better as in userfriendly? I guess not.

What does an OS do? It provides a platform for running other software. Is it easy to install that software? Is it easy to find the software once it's installed? Does the software run reliably? Does the OS provide a secure platform for running that software?

In every category, Linux consistently beats Windows. But nobody knows that unless they try it. I've burned dozens of "live CDs" for Linux, allowing people to try it without committing to installing it on their computers. I can count the number of people willing to try it on one hand. Microsoft has marketed Linux as the IT boogeyman, and people have believed them. Linux doesn't have the marketing clout to effectively refute Microsoft's FUD.

In 1990 Lotus Corporation was charging high fees for software that ran on the Windows platform. Microsoft then offered the same product written natively for Windows at a cheaper price. Customers then switched because it made sense.

I don't believe you. Source?

A brief history of the spreadsheet.

Switching to a new operating system would involve much larger changes. There would be long-term savings, but first you have to defeat Microsoft's FUD (also known as their TCO initiative) to convince them that there would be those savings. Businesses and governments around the world are tentatively looking at the change, but Microsoft has been issuing legal challenges as well as marketing blitzes. You don't think the SCO lawsuit was really about ownership rights, did you?

Larger? From which point of view? A Lotus 1-2-3 was often the only program that was running for millions of clerks around the world. In a way it was 'their' OS.

Studying a modern OS isn't that difficult. My grandparents managed that after 3 or 4 classes.

Lotus 1-2-3 had to run off an OS. They couldn't boot straight into it. Once Microsoft developed Excel and tied it into the Windows kernel, it became easier and cheaper to run Excel. Clerks grumbled about the change, but they weren't the ones responsible for paying for it, so they were forced to adapt.

Studying a modern OS isn't that difficult. Your grandparents are unusual in that they took the initiative to learn something new.

Where's written in your source:

"In 1990 Lotus Corporation was charging high fees for software that ran on the Windows platform. Microsoft then offered the same product written natively for Windows at a cheaper price. Customers then switched because it made sense."?

Because I don't see it.

[Disposablepuppetland]

MS might have the best OS now, but that certainly hasn't always been the case. I don't think anyone could seriously argue that MS had the best OS from 1985-1995, and yet that's when they grabbed most of their market share.
There were many reasons why they became popular:
- It came pre-installed with the most popular computers.
- The software they wanted to run ran on it.
- It was fairly cheap - compared to UNIX or a Mac.
- Their competitors got themselves into trouble. (Amiga, Atari, Apple)


The quality of the OS wasn't one of the reasons.

The Atari ST its OS was firmware. That's even better than pre-installed. But where is Atari now?
Do you think that Linux was excellent in 1991? Remember no GUI!
Cheap? Linux was and is free.

What point are you making there? Are you saying that MS-DOS and Windows 1, 2, and 3 were the best OS's available during that time?

I didn't mention Linux, I said UNIX. I mean things like SunOS/Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc.

[Treznor]

I don't believe you. Source?

A brief history of the spreadsheet.

Where's written in your source:

"In 1990 Lotus Corporation was charging high fees for software that ran on the Windows platform. Microsoft then offered the same product written natively for Windows at a cheaper price. Customers then switched because it made sense."?

Because I don't see it.

Nice nitpicking. But apparently I stand corrected. Excel was eventually lauded as a superior product to Lotus 1-2-3 in 1988, as well as cheaper. Of course, Quattro was also considered a superior product and far cheaper than either of them, but few people even remember the name let alone the product. So my argument still stands: superior products do not succeed in our markets just because they're superior or cheap. People have to know about them, and not a lot of people paid attention to Quattro.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

I'm reading this increasingly large thead and I'm still none-the-wiser on why a Mac has more going for it than just Final Cut Pro and skilled PR guys.

Depending what you do, there technically are a lot of potentially useful applications. I know people who make a lot of use out of GarageBand and iPhoto (there's some face recognition software that picks out individuals in the photos) for instance.

Garageband and iPhoto both have Windows equivalents.

[The_pantless_hero]

*continued brickwalling*

That was my only comment, also possibly

[The_pantless_hero]

What does an OS do? It provides a platform for running other software. (a) Is it easy to install that software? (b) Is it easy to find the software once it's installed? (c) Does the software run reliably? (d) Does the OS provide a secure platform for running that software?

In every category, Linux consistently beats Windows.

Except on points a, b, and c.

[Dakini]

I'm reading this increasingly large thead and I'm still none-the-wiser on why a Mac has more going for it than just Final Cut Pro and skilled PR guys.

Depending what you do, there technically are a lot of potentially useful applications. I know people who make a lot of use out of GarageBand and iPhoto (there's some face recognition software that picks out individuals in the photos) for instance.

Garageband and iPhoto both have Windows equivalents.

Ok. I was just mentioning some of the programs I know other people use that seem useful (though might I ask how much these windows equivalent programs are since I don't recall them coming with my windows machine?).

My mac still gives more stable connections to my remote linux machine letting me work from home easily. There isn't an equivalent of Papers for windows that I'm aware of. I've vaguely heard of some LaTeX programs for windows, but I haven't heard if they're any good etc.

[Dakini]

*continued brickwalling*

That was my only comment, also possibly

I'm not sure how trying to figure out what your problem is = brickwalling, but fine. Whatever.

[Dakini]

What does an OS do? It provides a platform for running other software. (a) Is it easy to install that software? (b) Is it easy to find the software once it's installed? (c) Does the software run reliably? (d) Does the OS provide a secure platform for running that software?

In every category, Linux consistently beats Windows.

Except on points a, b, and c.

Have you ever used (and done sys admin tasks for) linux? If so, which distro?

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

I've owned both Macs and PCs. They're both good for different things. I really don't understand the obsessive fanboy love/hatred on this topic.

If you can't get irrationally bent out of shape and inappropriately self-righteous about purchases other people make, then the internet would collapse like a hollow shell.

Speaking of which, did you get rid of that antique Combi ... or did Cash for Clunkers only apply to a new Prius which you can't afford ...?

Combis are fairly green. It's usually quicker to walk.