Windows or Mac?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Kaito Fujiwara
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 3:36 pm
- Location: The Daidoji-Ryu Zanjutsu Dojo
-
OrangeSlice
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 8:02 pm
- Location: Everywhere
-
The Partisan
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:00 am
- Location: Where fantasy meets reality, and technology is caught in between.
-
Mitsuhide_Akechi
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:58 am
- Location: (Omega) Captive,Fallen,Angel
-
OrangeSlice
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 8:02 pm
- Location: Everywhere
I haven't found a game I wanted to play that wouldn't run on my Linux box. Lately I've been playing Call of Duty 2.
Almost all of Windows as we know it today has been bought, stolen and/or plagiarized. A nice link is the Microsoft Hall of Innovation.
And, just for the hell of it, What's so bad about Microsoft?
Almost all of Windows as we know it today has been bought, stolen and/or plagiarized. A nice link is the Microsoft Hall of Innovation.
And, just for the hell of it, What's so bad about Microsoft?
-
Lady Tsukaru
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:48 pm
-
OrangeSlice
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 8:02 pm
- Location: Everywhere
“Windows is popular because it’s best.”
This is a common theme as to why many people believe Windows is the best operating system.
Windows isn’t popular at all. People have had it rammed down their throats with little choice in the matter.
First and foremost, Windows did not get to a position of prominence by any technical merit, but rather by strong-arm tactics which have been consistently applied since the early eighties. That’s right - over 20 years.
Let me relate a story or two.
This was about the same time as the introduction of the first PC as such, the MITS Altair. The box cost a little under $400, was based upon the Intel 8080 and sported lights, switches and 256 bytes of RAM. That’s right; 1/4096 of a megabyte.
Microsoft was founded soon thereafter to supply the Altair community with BASIC interpreters of every type. Note that there was no OS as such - people wrote their own code and built their own interfaces to use cassette tape, paper tape, floppies (much later) and so on.
The first real operating system for any PC was CP/M, and it was everywhere until IBM introduced their PC and businesses standardized on it because “no-one ever got fired for buying IBM.”
The IBM PC ran MS-DOS, which, by the way, included a lot of stolen CP/M code. CP/M-86 was another operating system for the IBM PC, and after MS was found guilty of theft, Digital Research (the CP/M people) were granted the right to sell their own (much better) version of MS-DOS, by name DR-DOS.
MS did not sell IBM or anyone else the right to use MS-DOS. Rather, they licensed computer manufacturers (OEMs) to provide MS-DOS with computers they sold. These licenses required that the manufacturers provide an MS-DOS license with every computer--and pay Microsoft for every such license--and that they could not use or provide any competing product else MS would yank their license.
These terms were illegal (and very much so,) but because to lose your MS-DOS license was to be out of business the manufacturers agreed and kept quiet.
Microsoft started the Interface Manager (later known as Windows) project in 1981, producing a barely viable product eight years later.
Microsoft then required manufacturers to provide Windows with each machine else they would yank their DOS license. Again illegal, but Windows spread.
That was Windows 3.0. The tactics have continued for every new variant - along with even more insidious tricks.
Once a large user base depended upon Word, for instance, MS started orphaning document formats so that to be able to exchange documents with others, people all needed similar versions of Word, which in turn drove the upgrade cycle with Windows because newer versions of Word won’t install on older versions of Windows.
Competing operating system products never had a chance because of similar tactics, such as refusing any support to a vendor who develops for anything other than Windows.
This applies to hardware as well. If a device is not Windows certified, the install will produce dire warnings (this is most prominent in Windows XP.) Hence, manufacturers wish to have their network, video and other adapters certified so they’ll sell. If a vendor provides drivers for Linux, OS/2, or any other OS, or even lets on about hardware specifications so people can write their own drivers, they’re not so likely to get Windows certification and it’s certain to take a lot longer.
There’s much more to tell on that line, but hopefully you get the idea. Were Windows intrinsically superior to anything else Microsoft would not need a billion dollar PR budget, a multi-billion dollar legal budget and mafia-like tactics to get it onto the desktop.
This is a common theme as to why many people believe Windows is the best operating system.
Windows isn’t popular at all. People have had it rammed down their throats with little choice in the matter.
First and foremost, Windows did not get to a position of prominence by any technical merit, but rather by strong-arm tactics which have been consistently applied since the early eighties. That’s right - over 20 years.
Let me relate a story or two.
This was about the same time as the introduction of the first PC as such, the MITS Altair. The box cost a little under $400, was based upon the Intel 8080 and sported lights, switches and 256 bytes of RAM. That’s right; 1/4096 of a megabyte.
Microsoft was founded soon thereafter to supply the Altair community with BASIC interpreters of every type. Note that there was no OS as such - people wrote their own code and built their own interfaces to use cassette tape, paper tape, floppies (much later) and so on.
The first real operating system for any PC was CP/M, and it was everywhere until IBM introduced their PC and businesses standardized on it because “no-one ever got fired for buying IBM.”
The IBM PC ran MS-DOS, which, by the way, included a lot of stolen CP/M code. CP/M-86 was another operating system for the IBM PC, and after MS was found guilty of theft, Digital Research (the CP/M people) were granted the right to sell their own (much better) version of MS-DOS, by name DR-DOS.
MS did not sell IBM or anyone else the right to use MS-DOS. Rather, they licensed computer manufacturers (OEMs) to provide MS-DOS with computers they sold. These licenses required that the manufacturers provide an MS-DOS license with every computer--and pay Microsoft for every such license--and that they could not use or provide any competing product else MS would yank their license.
These terms were illegal (and very much so,) but because to lose your MS-DOS license was to be out of business the manufacturers agreed and kept quiet.
Microsoft started the Interface Manager (later known as Windows) project in 1981, producing a barely viable product eight years later.
Microsoft then required manufacturers to provide Windows with each machine else they would yank their DOS license. Again illegal, but Windows spread.
That was Windows 3.0. The tactics have continued for every new variant - along with even more insidious tricks.
Once a large user base depended upon Word, for instance, MS started orphaning document formats so that to be able to exchange documents with others, people all needed similar versions of Word, which in turn drove the upgrade cycle with Windows because newer versions of Word won’t install on older versions of Windows.
Competing operating system products never had a chance because of similar tactics, such as refusing any support to a vendor who develops for anything other than Windows.
This applies to hardware as well. If a device is not Windows certified, the install will produce dire warnings (this is most prominent in Windows XP.) Hence, manufacturers wish to have their network, video and other adapters certified so they’ll sell. If a vendor provides drivers for Linux, OS/2, or any other OS, or even lets on about hardware specifications so people can write their own drivers, they’re not so likely to get Windows certification and it’s certain to take a lot longer.
There’s much more to tell on that line, but hopefully you get the idea. Were Windows intrinsically superior to anything else Microsoft would not need a billion dollar PR budget, a multi-billion dollar legal budget and mafia-like tactics to get it onto the desktop.
-
OrangeSlice
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 8:02 pm
- Location: Everywhere
The new graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for Linux are every bit as functional and easy-to-use as Windows.
The most windows-like, KDE, is windows-like because it’s based on HP's CDE--which Microsoft used as the base for the Windows 95 and subsequent interfaces. I would reccomend KDE for anyone trying out Linux for the first time.
My personal interface choice is Xfce. Few Linux distributions come with it though, so it has to be installed manually.
To check out just how easy it can be without doing ANYTHING to your precious data, check out Knoppix. Knoppix will boot from a CD and run in memory and not change any of your hard drive; however, you will get a taste of Linux. Knoppix uses KDE as well. (Note that running from a CD is going to be slower than running from a hard drive.)
The truth about Windows 2000 was that it was supposed to be the solution to the problems older releases caused. Unfortunately, it proved to be a giant security hole, much like previous releases. Windows 2000 was based on the (very old) NT code, and never truly brought up to standard. Windows XP's release was pushed up (hey, they can always patch it later, right? ...) not only because of the failure of Win2k, but because Microsoft was eager to, once again, make millions of dollars charging OEMs to license the new system. Windows XP is as broken, if not more so, than its predecessors. Service Pack 2 was supposed to make it secure, but holes in SP2 were found (and exploited) within hours of its release. Millions of people's data was compromised because of Microsoft's incompetence.
There is no viable reason to continue using any Microsoft product. Just say no to Microsoft.
The most windows-like, KDE, is windows-like because it’s based on HP's CDE--which Microsoft used as the base for the Windows 95 and subsequent interfaces. I would reccomend KDE for anyone trying out Linux for the first time.
My personal interface choice is Xfce. Few Linux distributions come with it though, so it has to be installed manually.
To check out just how easy it can be without doing ANYTHING to your precious data, check out Knoppix. Knoppix will boot from a CD and run in memory and not change any of your hard drive; however, you will get a taste of Linux. Knoppix uses KDE as well. (Note that running from a CD is going to be slower than running from a hard drive.)
The truth about Windows 2000 was that it was supposed to be the solution to the problems older releases caused. Unfortunately, it proved to be a giant security hole, much like previous releases. Windows 2000 was based on the (very old) NT code, and never truly brought up to standard. Windows XP's release was pushed up (hey, they can always patch it later, right? ...) not only because of the failure of Win2k, but because Microsoft was eager to, once again, make millions of dollars charging OEMs to license the new system. Windows XP is as broken, if not more so, than its predecessors. Service Pack 2 was supposed to make it secure, but holes in SP2 were found (and exploited) within hours of its release. Millions of people's data was compromised because of Microsoft's incompetence.
There is no viable reason to continue using any Microsoft product. Just say no to Microsoft.
Last edited by OrangeSlice on Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
DragonoftheEarth
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:28 am
- Location: shillington, PA
-
OrangeSlice
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 8:02 pm
- Location: Everywhere
-
Hidden Blade
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:37 am
- Location: the nearest book or computer store
-
CopainChevalier
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:20 pm
- Location: HEY LOOK OVER THERE!!! (Runs)
-
OrangeSlice
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 8:02 pm
- Location: Everywhere
Walmart sells PC's preloaded with Linux? Whoa.
It's probably easier to install Linux yourself, rather than try and get someone to sell you a machine with it already loaded. If you're lucky, you can convince the retailer to omit the Microsoft tax, too. Most OEMs (manufacturers, i.e. Compaq, HP) have special contracts with Microsoft that say they can't sell a machine with any operating system except Windows pre-installed. This is Illegal, but the courts don't really care, because Microsoft has a lot of money.
It's probably easier to install Linux yourself, rather than try and get someone to sell you a machine with it already loaded. If you're lucky, you can convince the retailer to omit the Microsoft tax, too. Most OEMs (manufacturers, i.e. Compaq, HP) have special contracts with Microsoft that say they can't sell a machine with any operating system except Windows pre-installed. This is Illegal, but the courts don't really care, because Microsoft has a lot of money.
-
OrangeSlice
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 8:02 pm
- Location: Everywhere
-
OrangeSlice
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 8:02 pm
- Location: Everywhere
-
OrangeSlice
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 8:02 pm
- Location: Everywhere
-
OrangeSlice
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 8:02 pm
- Location: Everywhere
Linux will also be available on the new Intel Macs.