"RHF" <rhf-newsgroups@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:be1e828c-afba-46da-a4d4-bff69c349932@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

>MAC/Apples has three problems to Real Growth and
>becoming a the Premier World Wide Standard :
>propioritory, Proprietary. PROPRIETARY ! -aka-
>single-source, Single-Source. SINGLE SOURCE !

I agree with your statement, the proprietary locking comes at a cost.
Usually in a form of lack of competition. PCs have gone from IBM 8088
4.7MHz @ $8,000 to less than $600.

Software, namely Microsoft has done the opposite, abet not to the same
extreme.

That being said, Apples move to Intel chips makes this less so. Apple could
in theory from this point forward slowly start adding first class driver
support and shift modes out of hardware+software to just software.
Leaveraging the cost advantages of commodity PCs. In essense, todays Apple
is a PC, a modified and much more standaradized version, but a PC none the
less.

The future could get interesting fast.

"Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message
news:6bKdneoQktzGT9zVnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> Pete KE9OA wrote:
>>
>> Linux is still my favorite operating platform, but unfortunately, it is
>> incompatible with the electrical engineering programs that I use. When it
>> eventually grows up, I thing Linux will be the way to go.
>
> Adolescence? Prepubescence?
>
> http://packages.ubuntu.com/gutsy/electronics/

Probably is. A simple google search for "linux electrical engineering" gets
lots of hits.

"Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking******.com> wrote in message
news:y7qdnXLyX-hJmt_VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> "Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message
> news:4841F669.4020705@biteme.com...
>> Billy Smith wrote:
>>>
>> How do you explain this?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png
>
> What it says to me is that your corporate and university level people
> working with supercomputers are going to Linux versus Unix or in the case
> of Microsoft they aren't going to use it. Thats doesn't mean that
> Microsoft makes a bad product for the general consumer market. Linux does
> have its use and one of its uses is that it tends to be rather fast for an
> operating system. However, if you consider speed anything you should use
> Linux. Yet when you use a wide variety of PC appplications, you will find
> that they aren't usable in Linux format. You can partition your drive to
> use both Microsoft based stuff and Linux or you can stick with what you
> know.
> For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is no
> need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit Linux
> based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in the computer
> field very well might get some usage out of it. For most people, they are
> content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works for plug and play
> applications.
>
> Theyr'e not going to waste their time formatting their hard drive to run a
> program and system that while being faster doesn't have the applicable
> uses that a Microsoft system has. The Microsoft systems have that
> advantage because you can put in any XP or Vista or 98 based software of
> which I have at least one in each operating system. You can put in any
> program that is made for that system and use it. That cannot be said for
> converting your system to Linux no matter how much faster it may be. Its
> not really worth the time for most people
>
> If you want to put Linux and make it customizable to your system that
> works for those applications then go for it.. For the general computer
> user that exists in the general public, then most people go for Microsoft.
> They're not going to use Linux and I would venture than Microsoft is much
> more recognizable than what Linux has been or probably will ever be.
>
> Linux is still at the infancy state of the computer realm. Its not going
> to catch on all that much for the hundreds of millions of computer users.
>
> Thats why Mac will never be a viable competitor to Microsoft. They're
> still stuck in the proprietary and infant stage. Just like the Iphone. I
> would have actually been interested in getting an Iphone but when I have
> to use ATT for service, they can forget it. I used to have Cingular and it
> was a joke for phone service but also their customer service section was
> incompetent at best. I can actually pay my bill through Verizon and know
> what I actually owe. Nice concept isnt it.
>
> Macs will never become more than fancy overpriced boxes for graphics
> users, game players, etc. You never see that many Macs ever used for
> servers, internet commerce, etc. Thats why you can go to the Apple store
> here in Louisville and find out that a Mac will cost you 1500 to 2000
> dollars when a basic Vista/XP computer will net you half those amounts.
> When Apple learns to market their computers and systems correctly and
> produce something worth really having, then they will take off. Until
> then, they don't have a prayer competition wise.

If you mean is Linux finished growing up and fully mature? Heck no, it has
only begun. I suspect it will be evolving well past my lifetime.

Linux is vastly superior to Vista in most ways, you bet. I place it just on
the heals of XP right now but ahead of Vista. I will grant, XP is quite
mature, but stagnant. Where as Linux is still, and will always perpetually
evolve.

The Linux maturity is going to be evolutionary and not the dump everything
change now you see with Microsoft products. Where as Microsoft has a
grand-batch mentality. The later can't get continuous improvement, can't
evolve. Take Vista, is now in maintenance mode. Its active development has
ceased! Understand that. They all moved on to Win 7 for the next
disruption.

Mind you, Vista is a bad batch of soup, the best place is the garborator.

"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
news:85v0k.179962$rd2.36576@pd7urf3no...
>
> "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking******.com> wrote in message
> news:y7qdnXLyX-hJmt_VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>
>> "Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message
>> news:4841F669.4020705@biteme.com...
>>> Billy Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>> How do you explain this?
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png
>>
>> What it says to me is that your corporate and university level people
>> working with supercomputers are going to Linux versus Unix or in the
>> case of Microsoft they aren't going to use it. Thats doesn't mean that
>> Microsoft makes a bad product for the general consumer market. Linux does
>> have its use and one of its uses is that it tends to be rather fast for
>> an operating system. However, if you consider speed anything you should
>> use Linux. Yet when you use a wide variety of PC appplications, you will
>> find that they aren't usable in Linux format. You can partition your
>> drive to use both Microsoft based stuff and Linux or you can stick with
>> what you know.
>> For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is no
>> need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit Linux
>> based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in the
>> computer field very well might get some usage out of it. For most people,
>> they are content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works for plug and
>> play applications.
>>
>> Theyr'e not going to waste their time formatting their hard drive to run
>> a program and system that while being faster doesn't have the applicable
>> uses that a Microsoft system has. The Microsoft systems have that
>> advantage because you can put in any XP or Vista or 98 based software of
>> which I have at least one in each operating system. You can put in any
>> program that is made for that system and use it. That cannot be said for
>> converting your system to Linux no matter how much faster it may be. Its
>> not really worth the time for most people
>>
>> If you want to put Linux and make it customizable to your system that
>> works for those applications then go for it.. For the general computer
>> user that exists in the general public, then most people go for
>> Microsoft. They're not going to use Linux and I would venture than
>> Microsoft is much more recognizable than what Linux has been or probably
>> will ever be.
>>
>> Linux is still at the infancy state of the computer realm. Its not going
>> to catch on all that much for the hundreds of millions of computer users.
>>
>> Thats why Mac will never be a viable competitor to Microsoft. They're
>> still stuck in the proprietary and infant stage. Just like the Iphone. I
>> would have actually been interested in getting an Iphone but when I have
>> to use ATT for service, they can forget it. I used to have Cingular and
>> it was a joke for phone service but also their customer service section
>> was incompetent at best. I can actually pay my bill through Verizon and
>> know what I actually owe. Nice concept isnt it.
>>
>> Macs will never become more than fancy overpriced boxes for graphics
>> users, game players, etc. You never see that many Macs ever used for
>> servers, internet commerce, etc. Thats why you can go to the Apple store
>> here in Louisville and find out that a Mac will cost you 1500 to 2000
>> dollars when a basic Vista/XP computer will net you half those amounts.
>> When Apple learns to market their computers and systems correctly and
>> produce something worth really having, then they will take off. Until
>> then, they don't have a prayer competition wise.
>
> If you mean is Linux finished growing up and fully mature? Heck no, it
> has only begun. I suspect it will be evolving well past my lifetime.
>
> Linux is vastly superior to Vista in most ways, you bet. I place it just
> on the heals of XP right now but ahead of Vista. I will grant, XP is
> quite mature, but stagnant. Where as Linux is still, and will always
> perpetually evolve.
>
> The Linux maturity is going to be evolutionary and not the dump everything
> change now you see with Microsoft products. Where as Microsoft has a
> grand-batch mentality. The later can't get continuous improvement, can't
> evolve. Take Vista, is now in maintenance mode. Its active development
> has ceased! Understand that. They all moved on to Win 7 for the next
> disruption.
>
> Mind you, Vista is a bad batch of soup, the best place is the garborator.
>


You people don't give up easily, do you. This argument has been raging for
years, but only at user level mainly because users don't understand the
whole picture.

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

Canuck57 wrote:

> I place it just on the heals of XP right now


The heals? In knew it was wounded!





mike

Billy Smith wrote:
>
> "
> For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is no
> need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit Linux
> based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in the
> computer field very well might get some usage out of it. For most
> people, they are content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works for
> plug and play applications.
>
That's ridiculous. Unless you are gaming you don't need Windows. If
you're not editing video you don't need a Mac. For what most people do
on a computer (surf, mail, spreadsheets, word processing, photo editing,
media recording and playback, etc.) Linux does it faster, better and
100% cheaper.

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
> news:85v0k.179962$rd2.36576@pd7urf3no...
>>
>> "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking******.com> wrote in message
>> news:y7qdnXLyX-hJmt_VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> "Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4841F669.4020705@biteme.com...
>>>> Billy Smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> How do you explain this?
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png
>>>
>>> What it says to me is that your corporate and university level people
>>> working with supercomputers are going to Linux versus Unix or in the
>>> case of Microsoft they aren't going to use it. Thats doesn't mean
>>> that Microsoft makes a bad product for the general consumer market.
>>> Linux does have its use and one of its uses is that it tends to be
>>> rather fast for an operating system. However, if you consider speed
>>> anything you should use Linux. Yet when you use a wide variety of PC
>>> appplications, you will find that they aren't usable in Linux format.
>>> You can partition your drive to use both Microsoft based stuff and
>>> Linux or you can stick with what you know.
>>> For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is
>>> no need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit
>>> Linux based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in
>>> the computer field very well might get some usage out of it. For most
>>> people, they are content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works
>>> for plug and play applications.
>>>
>>> Theyr'e not going to waste their time formatting their hard drive to
>>> run a program and system that while being faster doesn't have the
>>> applicable uses that a Microsoft system has. The Microsoft systems
>>> have that advantage because you can put in any XP or Vista or 98
>>> based software of which I have at least one in each operating system.
>>> You can put in any program that is made for that system and use it.
>>> That cannot be said for converting your system to Linux no matter how
>>> much faster it may be. Its not really worth the time for most people
>>>
>>> If you want to put Linux and make it customizable to your system that
>>> works for those applications then go for it.. For the general
>>> computer user that exists in the general public, then most people go
>>> for Microsoft. They're not going to use Linux and I would venture
>>> than Microsoft is much more recognizable than what Linux has been or
>>> probably will ever be.
>>>
>>> Linux is still at the infancy state of the computer realm. Its not
>>> going to catch on all that much for the hundreds of millions of
>>> computer users.
>>>
>>> Thats why Mac will never be a viable competitor to Microsoft. They're
>>> still stuck in the proprietary and infant stage. Just like the
>>> Iphone. I would have actually been interested in getting an Iphone
>>> but when I have to use ATT for service, they can forget it. I used to
>>> have Cingular and it was a joke for phone service but also their
>>> customer service section was incompetent at best. I can actually pay
>>> my bill through Verizon and know what I actually owe. Nice concept
>>> isnt it.
>>>
>>> Macs will never become more than fancy overpriced boxes for graphics
>>> users, game players, etc. You never see that many Macs ever used for
>>> servers, internet commerce, etc. Thats why you can go to the Apple
>>> store here in Louisville and find out that a Mac will cost you 1500
>>> to 2000 dollars when a basic Vista/XP computer will net you half
>>> those amounts. When Apple learns to market their computers and
>>> systems correctly and produce something worth really having, then
>>> they will take off. Until then, they don't have a prayer competition
>>> wise.
>>
>> If you mean is Linux finished growing up and fully mature? Heck no,
>> it has only begun. I suspect it will be evolving well past my lifetime.
>>
>> Linux is vastly superior to Vista in most ways, you bet. I place it
>> just on the heals of XP right now but ahead of Vista. I will grant,
>> XP is quite mature, but stagnant. Where as Linux is still, and will
>> always perpetually evolve.
>>
>> The Linux maturity is going to be evolutionary and not the dump
>> everything change now you see with Microsoft products. Where as
>> Microsoft has a grand-batch mentality. The later can't get continuous
>> improvement, can't evolve. Take Vista, is now in maintenance mode.
>> Its active development has ceased! Understand that. They all moved
>> on to Win 7 for the next disruption.
>>
>> Mind you, Vista is a bad batch of soup, the best place is the garborator.
>>
>

First the fluff off:

> You people don't give up easily, do you. This argument has been raging
> for years,

Then the put down:

> but only at user level mainly because users don't understand
> the whole picture.

No, Mike, you don't understand the whole picture. Ubuntu and other
versions of Linux are taking off. If you can joggle your poor memory a
bit, when XP came out, you didn't see *any* posts about Linux in the XP
General newsgroup. No media was covering it and practically no major OEM
was offering it preinstalled. All that's changed and the reason is that
distros like Ubuntu are so user friendly, easy to install and easy to
configure and tweak.

Alias

"Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:g1udpt$vdp$1@aioe.org...
> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
>> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
>> news:85v0k.179962$rd2.36576@pd7urf3no...
>>>
>>> "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking******.com> wrote in message
>>> news:y7qdnXLyX-hJmt_VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4841F669.4020705@biteme.com...
>>>>> Billy Smith wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> How do you explain this?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png
>>>>
>>>> What it says to me is that your corporate and university level people
>>>> working with supercomputers are going to Linux versus Unix or in the
>>>> case of Microsoft they aren't going to use it. Thats doesn't mean that
>>>> Microsoft makes a bad product for the general consumer market. Linux
>>>> does have its use and one of its uses is that it tends to be rather
>>>> fast for an operating system. However, if you consider speed anything
>>>> you should use Linux. Yet when you use a wide variety of PC
>>>> appplications, you will find that they aren't usable in Linux format.
>>>> You can partition your drive to use both Microsoft based stuff and
>>>> Linux or you can stick with what you know.
>>>> For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is no
>>>> need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit
>>>> Linux based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in the
>>>> computer field very well might get some usage out of it. For most
>>>> people, they are content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works
>>>> for plug and play applications.
>>>>
>>>> Theyr'e not going to waste their time formatting their hard drive to
>>>> run a program and system that while being faster doesn't have the
>>>> applicable uses that a Microsoft system has. The Microsoft systems have
>>>> that advantage because you can put in any XP or Vista or 98 based
>>>> software of which I have at least one in each operating system. You can
>>>> put in any program that is made for that system and use it. That cannot
>>>> be said for converting your system to Linux no matter how much faster
>>>> it may be. Its not really worth the time for most people
>>>>
>>>> If you want to put Linux and make it customizable to your system that
>>>> works for those applications then go for it.. For the general computer
>>>> user that exists in the general public, then most people go for
>>>> Microsoft. They're not going to use Linux and I would venture than
>>>> Microsoft is much more recognizable than what Linux has been or
>>>> probably will ever be.
>>>>
>>>> Linux is still at the infancy state of the computer realm. Its not
>>>> going to catch on all that much for the hundreds of millions of
>>>> computer users.
>>>>
>>>> Thats why Mac will never be a viable competitor to Microsoft. They're
>>>> still stuck in the proprietary and infant stage. Just like the Iphone.
>>>> I would have actually been interested in getting an Iphone but when I
>>>> have to use ATT for service, they can forget it. I used to have
>>>> Cingular and it was a joke for phone service but also their customer
>>>> service section was incompetent at best. I can actually pay my bill
>>>> through Verizon and know what I actually owe. Nice concept isnt it.
>>>>
>>>> Macs will never become more than fancy overpriced boxes for graphics
>>>> users, game players, etc. You never see that many Macs ever used for
>>>> servers, internet commerce, etc. Thats why you can go to the Apple
>>>> store here in Louisville and find out that a Mac will cost you 1500 to
>>>> 2000 dollars when a basic Vista/XP computer will net you half those
>>>> amounts. When Apple learns to market their computers and systems
>>>> correctly and produce something worth really having, then they will
>>>> take off. Until then, they don't have a prayer competition wise.
>>>
>>> If you mean is Linux finished growing up and fully mature? Heck no, it
>>> has only begun. I suspect it will be evolving well past my lifetime.
>>>
>>> Linux is vastly superior to Vista in most ways, you bet. I place it
>>> just on the heals of XP right now but ahead of Vista. I will grant, XP
>>> is quite mature, but stagnant. Where as Linux is still, and will always
>>> perpetually evolve.
>>>
>>> The Linux maturity is going to be evolutionary and not the dump
>>> everything change now you see with Microsoft products. Where as
>>> Microsoft has a grand-batch mentality. The later can't get continuous
>>> improvement, can't evolve. Take Vista, is now in maintenance mode. Its
>>> active development has ceased! Understand that. They all moved on to
>>> Win 7 for the next disruption.
>>>
>>> Mind you, Vista is a bad batch of soup, the best place is the
>>> garborator.
>>>
>>
>
> First the fluff off:
>
>> You people don't give up easily, do you. This argument has been raging
>> for years,
>
> Then the put down:
>
>> but only at user level mainly because users don't understand the whole
>> picture.
>
> No, Mike, you don't understand the whole picture. Ubuntu and other
> versions of Linux are taking off. If you can joggle your poor memory a
> bit, when XP came out, you didn't see *any* posts about Linux in the XP
> General newsgroup. No media was covering it and practically no major OEM
> was offering it preinstalled. All that's changed and the reason is that
> distros like Ubuntu are so user friendly, easy to install and easy to
> configure and tweak.
>
> Alias


For now Linux is seeing better times, but Vista has hoisted the hardware
requirements, and in a couple of years from now, many will have upgraded
their computers. Vista will have improved enough that it is the force to be
reckoned with, and then Windows 7 will release, easily able to run on the
same hardware as Vista.

In the meantime, Linux will make inroads in third world countries where
cheap equipment is all that can be afforded.

The only problem is that the Linux distros trying to compete with Windows
and MacOS get heavier at each release, and may well find themselves out of
the third world 'game'.

You really ought to prepare yourself for disappointment because the gains
seen now may not last long.

Also, the world of Linux distro creation is fast moving. Ubuntu is doing ok
now, but Linux fashions are as fickle as any catwalk display, especially at
home user level.

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

Microsoft of course. If you don't mind losing your money, buy apple.
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
news:GJt0k.181226$Cj7.99089@pd7urf2no...
>
> "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking******.com> wrote in message
> news:P6ednWvt7dqlXdzVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@earthlink.co m...
>>
>> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
>> news:m2j0k.309335$pM4.146740@pd7urf1no...
>>>
>>> "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking******.com> wrote in message
>>> news:zLmdnevejfyBJ9zVnZ2dnUVZ_r6rnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
>>>>
>>>> "Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:H7WdndbTffhKJdzVnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@earthlink.co m...
>>>>> Billy Smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> B> I run this Vista computer for mostly multimedia purposes and web
>>>>>> browsing. I haven't rarely had a coughing fit out of it. Nothing like
>>>>>> what older models did. XP included.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can do that stuff way faster on a Linux box. And with a lot less
>>>>> risk and hassle.
>>>>
>>>> Linux is generally crap. I know because I installed it on a couple of
>>>> my machines. It caused more problems using that crap and utilizing
>>>> software than anything I have ever seen. Pure garbage. Just about like
>>>> that other computer operating system called the Mac. I wouldn't have a
>>>> Mac for toilet paper. Every Mac I saw ran like crap and you couldn't do
>>>> 1/3 of what you can do on a Windows based Machine. That comes from a
>>>> lot of personal experience with Mac based stuff back in the 90s and
>>>> early part of this decade.
>>>>
>>>> It might be great now but back in those days they should have called it
>>>> Crap versus Mac.
>>>
>>> Linux and Apple have their place, and with your comments I doubt you
>>> have ever owned an Apple.
>>>
>>> The HUGE benefit of Linux over say Vista is Linux is not DRM invasive.
>>
>> I never owned an apple but I used to have a lot of experience running the
>> Apple/Mac system. I wasn't impressed with anything that it could
>> allegedly do. Personally it was like an overhyped Ipod phone or Touch. A
>> lot of glitz but little real performance. Not user friendly, not even for
>> the novice. I probably spent at least a year on that sort of a system and
>> I was none too impressed. Thats why Mac will never catch up to Microsoft
>> in anything. The only people I personally knew that used Macs were kids
>> wanting to use it for graphics. For business operations, office work,
>> etc, it was never worth anything. I wouldn't even give a Mac system the
>> time of day for even audio listening or multimedia video and audio.
>>
>> If Macs were so proficient and useful, then why in the hell doesn't
>> everyone in the world switch to Macs. Since there is a free market in
>> computers and a great deal of industriousness and ingenuity in the
>> computer industry, then Macs should be right up there. Not to mention the
>> facts are that a Microsoft based system can be had for 300 to 1000
>> dolllars and a good one at that.
>>
>> What does a Crap cost? I was in the local Apple store recently here in
>> Louisville KY. It was laughable that they wanted twice as much as any
>> Microsoft PC and with less performance capabilities, less general
>> respect. You'll see who buried who in the computer systems operating
>> business environment. It sure wasn't Mac. Probably more people use Linux
>> than Mac and thats sad.
>
> Apples market share is growing. Which stock would you rather own?
>
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=A...urce=undefined
>
> Wall Street sees the numbers.
>

"Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message
news:A7idnR83wvfSN9_VnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> Billy Smith wrote:
>>
>> "
>> For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is no
>> need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit Linux
>> based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in the
>> computer field very well might get some usage out of it. For most people,
>> they are content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works for plug and
>> play applications.
>>
> That's ridiculous. Unless you are gaming you don't need Windows. If
> you're not editing video you don't need a Mac. For what most people do on
> a computer (surf, mail, spreadsheets, word processing, photo editing,
> media recording and playback, etc.) Linux does it faster, better and 100%
> cheaper.


Linux word processes faster? Will my 30 wpm speed increase if I use Open
Office in Ubuntu?

Who are you to say whether computers users need Windows or MacOS? Isn't the
Linux argument all about giving users freedom of choice without prejudice?

Windows took off because it captured the imagination of everybody. It was
and is commercially and economically possible to write programs for Windows
and MacOS for a living, and as a result, the choice of slick programming is
way better for Windows and MacOS, and it always will be.

Computer users will use whatever OS suits them best, which is how it should
be..

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
news:OpeRDj%23wIHA.4772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Mind you, Vista is a bad batch of soup, the best place is the garborator.
>
> You people don't give up easily, do you. This argument has been raging for
> years, but only at user level mainly because users don't understand the
> whole picture.

Most people who spend $1000 for a nice system for home don't know how to
replace or dual boot and install another OS. They just assume the OS is a
native part of the computer. WinMe, I gave it about the same amount of time.
I gave OS2 about the same too. Loved OS2, but the driver support was just
too bad for it to be useful. And I get calls from non-tech friends and
relatives, unanimous, Vista is not the best.

Users (technical or not) understand the _full_ picture absolutely. For
without users, there would be absolutely no need for Microsoft. Microsoft
is in a false sense of security because of the monopoly position with PC
vendors, but with Eee PC (Linux) and a hoard of new systems like it the base
is crumbling.

Problem is Redmond wants to lead myopically and push customers, not service
their needs. They want to pump profits in a commodity market by fast
regurgitation of old tech making it unstable. And are now failing. It will
be slow to start, like the mainframe. But Microsoft zenith has passed if
they don't change course fast.

People are tired of the crash learn of big changes. If they have to, it had
better be cheap.

Businesses are balking at the fast expensive refresh cycle. They expect a
2-3 year old device to work with a PC today. This is NOT unreasonable.
Would you buy a car you couldn't get tires or spare parts for in as little
as 3 years? Or a car that needed a major over haul every 3 years? This is
why many businesses still run W2000.

Software, including the OS needs to be a series of smaller, more planned and
evolutionary steps. Vista is a complete failure in this regard. Thus,
continuous improvement of unfinished Vista is improbable. Just minimal
patchwork. It is in "maintenance" mode while everyone runs off to Win 7.

A few suggestions to Microsoft:

We know you know your software market has hits it's elasticity of growth in
dollars and cents. Software, including the OS is now going to follow
hardware as a commodity item. Microsoft aught to gear for this now, and not
wait for 4 quarters of declining revenue to hear the wake up call.

Evolve the OS with compatibility in mind, perhaps on a subscription basis.
But don't expect $300/3 years for Vista. It needs to be like $20/year tops.
When you buy a PC it is prepaid for 3 years, like a car warranty. Ditto
MS-Office. Only rich fools go out and buy the full MS-Office ultimate.

Let the user chose, loose the WeSaySo corporation attitude. Users know what
they want. This means XP will not die until the users don't want it any
more. Even Ford still makes a Taurus. And due to it's popularity and
longevity, I can still get parts for it 12 years later.

Simplify licensing. Your own people don't understand it very well. Quit
packaging a product like Vista 17 different ways confusing everyone. An OS
isn't a Lamborghini. And it will never sell like it either.

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:50:16 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
<mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote:

>"Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com> wrote in message

>> No, Mike, you don't understand the whole picture. Ubuntu and other
>> versions of Linux are taking off. If you can joggle your poor memory a
>> bit, when XP came out, you didn't see *any* posts about Linux in the XP
>> General newsgroup. No media was covering it and practically no major OEM
>> was offering it preinstalled. All that's changed and the reason is that
>> distros like Ubuntu are so user friendly, easy to install and easy to
>> configure and tweak.
>>
>> Alias
>
>
>For now Linux is seeing better times, but Vista has hoisted the hardware
>requirements, and in a couple of years from now, many will have upgraded
>their computers. Vista will have improved enough that it is the force to be
>reckoned with, and then Windows 7 will release, easily able to run on the
>same hardware as Vista.

Vista will have improved enough?

Funny to watch fanboys change their tune as they constantly move the
goal posts. I though Vista was already the greatest version of Windows
ever. If so, why does it need to improve?

After all that was the song you guys were humming over a year ago.
However now that Vista has been out awhile and proved to be just
another bloated, poorly implemented, bug riddled, sluggish pile of
coding mistakes like every prior version of Windows before it was, you
now say wait to the next version. I'll say one thing good about you
Mike, you sure know how to repeat the party line issued from Redmond.

Microsoft has been saying the same thing for over two decades... just
wait for the next version of Windows, it will knock your socks off.
Sure, right. Only problem is I like tens of millions of others are
tired of waiting and being disappointed over and over again. People
are more seriously starting to look at alternatives to Windows.

>In the meantime, Linux will make inroads in third world countries where
>cheap equipment is all that can be afforded.

You really are clueless and dense on world events aren't you. Would
you consider China third world? Are you sitting down? Right now China
has over 300,000,000 MIDDLE CLASS citizens and that number is growing
at explosive rates. That's as many middle class as the entire
population of the United States. Are you aware Russia soon might have
more millionaires then there are in the United States? Their middle
class is exploding too. While Windows "sales" in China is a drop in
the bucket they already have more Internet users than in the United
States. Hint: Those people are running all those computers on
something, and it isn't paid for copies of Windows.

The reality is Microsoft's time in the sun is fading. That is why
Ballmer tried, but failed to take over Yahoo, to start building a new
cash stream since people are fed-up giving Microsoft piles of money
for one broken OS version after another.

Microsoft's other cash cow Office, has been equaled or surpassed by
FREE Office alternatives. That's not good news for Microsoft either.
Their two biggest product lines, Windows and Office are showing signs
of cracking.

You know what the biggest sign of Microsoft's pending doom really is?

Simple. That would be Bill Gates founder getting ready to throw in the
towel. His belly no longer burns for Microsoft. He's more than willing
to give Microsoft over to flimflam artists like Ballmer while he
starts to give away his billions. That surely can't be good for
Microsoft's future. No, not when the founder only 53 year old decides
he's had enough. Maybe he sees the writing on the wall clearer than
anybody.

Your argument is totally ridiculous. The primary reason for Microsoft's
popularity is simply because it is so flexible.
What do you want your computer to do? Microsoft's OS does it. Who uses
Microsoft's OS? Everyone. Corporations and businesses alike.
Can't you get that through your head?
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
news:85v0k.179962$rd2.36576@pd7urf3no...
>
> "Billy Smith" <chungkingchungking******.com> wrote in message
> news:y7qdnXLyX-hJmt_VnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>
>> "Dave" <nospam@biteme.com> wrote in message
>> news:4841F669.4020705@biteme.com...
>>> Billy Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>> How do you explain this?
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png
>>
>> What it says to me is that your corporate and university level people
>> working with supercomputers are going to Linux versus Unix or in the
>> case of Microsoft they aren't going to use it. Thats doesn't mean that
>> Microsoft makes a bad product for the general consumer market. Linux does
>> have its use and one of its uses is that it tends to be rather fast for
>> an operating system. However, if you consider speed anything you should
>> use Linux. Yet when you use a wide variety of PC appplications, you will
>> find that they aren't usable in Linux format. You can partition your
>> drive to use both Microsoft based stuff and Linux or you can stick with
>> what you know.
>> For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is no
>> need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit Linux
>> based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in the
>> computer field very well might get some usage out of it. For most people,
>> they are content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works for plug and
>> play applications.
>>
>> Theyr'e not going to waste their time formatting their hard drive to run
>> a program and system that while being faster doesn't have the applicable
>> uses that a Microsoft system has. The Microsoft systems have that
>> advantage because you can put in any XP or Vista or 98 based software of
>> which I have at least one in each operating system. You can put in any
>> program that is made for that system and use it. That cannot be said for
>> converting your system to Linux no matter how much faster it may be. Its
>> not really worth the time for most people
>>
>> If you want to put Linux and make it customizable to your system that
>> works for those applications then go for it.. For the general computer
>> user that exists in the general public, then most people go for
>> Microsoft. They're not going to use Linux and I would venture than
>> Microsoft is much more recognizable than what Linux has been or probably
>> will ever be.
>>
>> Linux is still at the infancy state of the computer realm. Its not going
>> to catch on all that much for the hundreds of millions of computer users.
>>
>> Thats why Mac will never be a viable competitor to Microsoft. They're
>> still stuck in the proprietary and infant stage. Just like the Iphone. I
>> would have actually been interested in getting an Iphone but when I have
>> to use ATT for service, they can forget it. I used to have Cingular and
>> it was a joke for phone service but also their customer service section
>> was incompetent at best. I can actually pay my bill through Verizon and
>> know what I actually owe. Nice concept isnt it.
>>
>> Macs will never become more than fancy overpriced boxes for graphics
>> users, game players, etc. You never see that many Macs ever used for
>> servers, internet commerce, etc. Thats why you can go to the Apple store
>> here in Louisville and find out that a Mac will cost you 1500 to 2000
>> dollars when a basic Vista/XP computer will net you half those amounts.
>> When Apple learns to market their computers and systems correctly and
>> produce something worth really having, then they will take off. Until
>> then, they don't have a prayer competition wise.
>
> If you mean is Linux finished growing up and fully mature? Heck no, it
> has only begun. I suspect it will be evolving well past my lifetime.
>
> Linux is vastly superior to Vista in most ways, you bet. I place it just
> on the heals of XP right now but ahead of Vista. I will grant, XP is
> quite mature, but stagnant. Where as Linux is still, and will always
> perpetually evolve.
>
> The Linux maturity is going to be evolutionary and not the dump everything
> change now you see with Microsoft products. Where as Microsoft has a
> grand-batch mentality. The later can't get continuous improvement, can't
> evolve. Take Vista, is now in maintenance mode. Its active development
> has ceased! Understand that. They all moved on to Win 7 for the next
> disruption.
>
> Mind you, Vista is a bad batch of soup, the best place is the garborator.
>

What a bunch of misguided trash.
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:vqh544525eginmae9foba0ksll5pts1kul@4ax.com...