New Windows Vista shots
I have winfs installed on my box at workraw wrote:No WinFS though.Dave wrote:Oh and it's not "Tiger", it's Windows. If you're like me and use both, the difference is obvious. Vista isn't a radical rethinking of process and usability. Other than the new presentation layer, most of the changes are behind the scenes, which is why most people think Vista is a minor update and looks like crap.
I have the beta downloaded but haven't installed it.Dave wrote:I have winfs installed on my box at workraw wrote:No WinFS though.Dave wrote:Oh and it's not "Tiger", it's Windows. If you're like me and use both, the difference is obvious. Vista isn't a radical rethinking of process and usability. Other than the new presentation layer, most of the changes are behind the scenes, which is why most people think Vista is a minor update and looks like crap.
Foo wrote:glossy wrote:As soon as Mac OS is realised on x86, i'm dualbooting it with XP, and hopefully using the Mac OS as much as possible.
2. Linux is becoming a contender. This has died down over the last 6-12 months a lot, but is still a factor.
What? How has it died down? The linux desktop options today blow away those of a year ago.
Also, dependencies are no longer a problem with tools like apt-get and apt-rpm. In fact, you can apt-get a new kernel if I recall.
The complaints against linux are just as stupid as the complaints against windows.
Eraser wrote:What we need is a Linux that looks and feels like windows.
No bullshit with script files to do the most basic things or folders called "pub" instead of "public" or "usr" instead of "user".
case in point.
No it's not.duffman91 wrote:case in point.
The average user can barely handle the Windows control panel, let alone fuck around with scripts and Linux weirdness all round. The fact that the preffered method of input for Linux users is still through typed commands speaks volumes.
Sure, my statements might come from an utter lack of knowledge when it comes to Linux, but I was even barely able to install Firefox on a Linux box, let alone figure out how to change the IP adress of the thing.
I would go as far as to say that I'm a pretty computer savvy person. I can figure out most things on my own in Windows. In Linux however, I still couldn't tell my arse from the floor after two evenings messing around with it. Too much hassle with too few results. The point is that if I can barely figure it out (or at least, having to refer to google to figure out how to do it), my grandma will go screaming nuts.
Linux is not fit as a desktop OS for the average consumer. It's far too hard to handle.
You talk as if you were the know all of computing standards. I don't know about these "command line" and "scripts" you keep referencing to. On a Ubuntu or RedHat installation, you'll never have to deal with that. In fact, installing software is just like the Add/Remove panel.Eraser wrote:No it's not.duffman91 wrote:case in point.
The average user can barely handle the Windows control panel, let alone fuck around with scripts and Linux weirdness all round. The fact that the preffered method of input for Linux users is still through typed commands speaks volumes.
Sure, my statements might come from an utter lack of knowledge when it comes to Linux, but I was even barely able to install Firefox on a Linux box, let alone figure out how to change the IP adress of the thing.
I would go as far as to say that I'm a pretty computer savvy person. I can figure out most things on my own in Windows. In Linux however, I still couldn't tell my arse from the floor after two evenings messing around with it. Too much hassle with too few results. The point is that if I can barely figure it out (or at least, having to refer to google to figure out how to do it), my grandma will go screaming nuts.
Linux is not fit as a desktop OS for the average consumer. It's far too hard to handle.
If you couldn't figure out a different layout and operating system in 2 evenings, well, that is expected. Some people go their entire life trying to learn Windows.
The learning curve on both systems is the same.
Approach linux as a new operating environment with a different point of view. Don't expect it to be windows. It never will be. Not because it can't, but because it SHOULDN'T.
Oh btw, OSX is based on top of the FreeBSD kernel. If a mac is fit for a "dumb user", then so is linux.
What I'm trying to get at is this: Alot of people try linux/BSD/Unix with the impression that they will get windows XP 2. If you approach it for what it is(in the case of linux, a unix like system on x86 architecture), then adapting to it takes no time at all. Finally, ignorance does not give enough merit to decide wether something "sucks".
What I'm trying to get at is this: Alot of people try linux/BSD/Unix with the impression that they will get windows XP 2. If you approach it for what it is(in the case of linux, a unix like system on x86 architecture), then adapting to it takes no time at all. Finally, ignorance does not give enough merit to decide wether something "sucks".
-
Tormentius
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 8:00 am
The learning curve is vastly different. How many normal people (non-nerds) do you know that even want to know wtf a shell script or kernel is? Almost none.duffman91 wrote:
If you couldn't figure out a different layout and operating system in 2 evenings, well, that is expected. Some people go their entire life trying to learn Windows.
The learning curve on both systems is the same.
The point is that *nix is a LONG ways still from being anything but bragging rights for nerds, a platform for development, or pain in the ass to administer server. I think Mac on x86 will do very well but that is primarily because it (like Windows) is easy to use. The rest of the *nix-core distros can't make that claim.