The Drunken Lizard Pub

I use Fedora Linux x86_64 and am very happy with it. Windows XP was the last Microsoft OS I used at home (I still use it at work) before I started using Linux in 2002 (I dual booted until 2004 but barely ever used Windows once I got used to Linux). My parents have Windows 7 and from the tiny bit I've gotten to use the system it seems fairly good but that's based on an extremely small sample size. I never used any Apple OS (well not since using my buddy's Apple II ES at his house, but that was so long ago I couldn't really comment on it) though before I tried Linux I thought about switching to Mac but I didn't have the money so I tried Linux because it was free. I'm really glad I did.

Evnissyen wrote:Maybe someone here can tell me where it is. I knew XP. But I haven't figured out yet, in W7, how to uninstall something except by running the inital program and -- now this is rich -- last time I tried it it didn't work. The uninstall ran for a few seconds then stopped. Program is still there. Program won't run, of course, because it's partially uninstalled.

Here ya go. ^_^

Evnissyen wrote:However . . . well, I'll just tell you about the trouble I had installing the Cable modem I put in just before I left Boston for the week. I plugged it into the PC: nothing. Windows 7 won't recognize it. I turn off the computer and boot it up, thinking maybe when it boots up then Windows will recognize it. Nothing. I spent several minutes investigating the problem, trying to troubleshoot, trying to get Windows to recognize the hardware, to simply establish a connection, anything . . . no success.

So I decide to experiment. I unplug the modem from the PC and plug it into my Mac. Zap. My Mac instantly recognizes the modem and in the same second I get a window saying I'm connected. The icon below says I'm connected. I go into Firefox and I'm doing stuff.

Then I plug it into the PC again . . . no recognition from Windows. Finally after maybe 2 or 3 more minutes of troubleshooting, Windows finally realizes something is there and gives me a "problem corrected" (or however it goes) message.

Pain, pain, pain.

What you're describing is a freak problem that could have happened to anyone... in Windows, OSX, or any other operating system. Just because it happened with your pc, you automatically peg Windows as being at fault. It sounds like there was a short from either the usb port or the cable. Keep in mind that Microsoft doesn't make the hardware. I'd like to see Apple make an OS that works as well as Windows with even a third of the market share that Windows has.

Evnissyen wrote:you know better than to suggest that Mac is not actually stable, fast, and nearly bug-free.

I also know better than to suggest that Mac is actually stable, fast, and nearly bug free. I can tell you I've seen as many problems with Windows and PC's as I have on Apple OSes and hardware (admittedly, I don't work on Apple hardware/software much... but keep reading), so you won't get a "This is more stable and bug free than that!" statement out of me. The difference is, with a "PC," the PC tech will offer a way to fix the problem. With a Mac, the Mac tech will offer you a new computer. Seen/heard it happen more times than I'd care to keep track of. Award winning support my ass.

Evnissyen wrote:Also, Windows is just simply poorly organized, still. It's hierarchies within hierarchies.

The only reason you can even say this is because Windows actually lets you look at the file system. Apple hides everything from view... 'cause they're afraid of handling actual support calls.

As for copying Mac . . . they're still doing it, now with the dock and the 'smooth type', except they haven't gotten either one right.

It works both ways, friend. By the way, you can run OSX on a pc, if you really want to.

Evnissyen wrote:So . . . save any fanboy accusations. You're one yourself.

Understand, I'm not saying that OSX (or any other OS for that matter) is a bad operating system. But you have to understand that when you own 90%+ of the market, you're going to have more problems than the next guy. Apple (and the other OSes) use this as a silly marketing scheme to claim their products are faster/stable/more reliable. They use those statistics (a.k.a. smoke and mirrors) to "back up" their claims. In reality, it's just plain bullshit, any way you slice it. The fact that Apple computer products (notice I purposely singled out their computer products) have any problems, given their marketshare and insane pricing, is frankly quite horrifying.

If I had to choose an alternative operating system, it would likely be some Linux derivative. Not because of the price difference, but because Steve Jobs and his company's elitist-snob-with-a-pole-so-far-up-my-ass-you-can-read-the-mfg-stamp-through-my-nostrils attitude makes me sick. To this date I have not purchased an Apple product at a retail location. I never intend to. I have bought a couple of used laptops for the purpose of learning/repairing/reselling them.

And finally, if preferring an OS that allows me to do everything I want to do without having to get another computer or install another OS (looks pointedly at Evnissyen) makes me a fanboy, then color me proud.

Ugh, are we still on the "my OS can beat up your OS" debate?! I posted my thoughts on this subject much earlier in this thread. Since then they have changed a bit...

Windows 7 is awesome. I still think it is ridiculously bloated, but it works (most of the time) and seems fast.

MacOS is pretty good. My favorable opinion of it has dropped a bit since I started playing with 10.6.3. Namely: it doesn't communicate well with Windows 7. I have to do some weird things to connect to my network drives on the Win 7 machine. There are a number of other things I dislike as well, but I still think it's a quality OS.

Linux (namely Ubuntu 10.04) is still a really fun OS. It connects to any network flawlessly (it finds all my Win7 shared drives, and it connected to the network printer flawlessly- something my WinXP still can't do.). Still, I can't recommend it to the novice user because there is far too much manual labor involved in using software and drivers.

So, let's review:

Windows 7 - Pros: Fast and stable - Cons: Bloated and expensive
MacOS 10.6.3 - Pros: Easy to use - Cons: Communicates poorly with others
Ubuntu 10.04 - Pros: Cheap and flexible - Cons: Not suited for computer noobs

And what have we learned? No OS is perfect, but some OSs may be better for certain users than other OSs.

Hey, Evnissyen and I are just trying to show everyone how to have a civil and constructive slugfest. No need to rain on our parade with your self absorbed, fascist views!

Yeah, what Bernie said.

No, really... I guess this is all my fault for starting it up again; I tend to [accidentally/unwittingly] start arguments a lot because I'm opinionated. I don't mean any harm.

Anyhow, first: Bernie: Thanks for the clip, now I feel like an idiot, but in my defense I did switch the Control Panel to "classic" view (since I'd rather look at icons, all in one place, than lines of text organized into layers of screens). I don't know, I won't be able to analyze it all until I return to Boston (I brought my Mac with me, left my PC there), but I'm sure it's partly for that reason that I didn't find it, and partly not looking in the right place.

When I talk about disorganization and hierarchies and the scattering of files... I'm talking about the fact that I have to go through an uninstallation process because Windows scatters the elements of a file throughout a number of folders instead of localizing them. With Mac you just throw the folder into the trash. Sure, there might be lingering code on a record or two that tells Leopard you've used this program and for how long and gives other info important for System Restore and so forth . . . but that seems unimportant; the important thing is that I don't have this lingering sense that there's memory-hogging programs still installed because I didn't go through the Uninstall process to get rid of all those scattered elements.

Localization of both programs and procedures, in an OS, is important, I think. This is not like a government where you have to hide things and scatter things to increase impenetrability. Maybe Windows does this to defend against viruses, I don't know, but if that's the case I'm not sure how effective it is.

Don't even talk about tech support. These people aren't techies. I've never tried Apple's tech support, so I don't know how good it is, but I suspect they, too, are used to dealing primarily with people who are baffled by computers and therefore would be useless if I ever had a legitimate problem.

But I think the fact that I've never had a tech problem with a Mac speaks for itself.

At any rate, with W7 I still need to do a little more poking around to get better working and troubleshooting knowledge from it.

You said the problem with the modem was a fluke... but no, there was nothing wrong with my USB ports, and yes, I tried switching ports as well. After a few minutes of poking around and running the troubleshooter several times, I finally got W7 to recognize that it was receiving signals from a strange device, but really, there shouldn't've been a problem in the first place. Leopard identified it immediately. W7 didn't. That's all I know.

All I'm doing is relating an experience. Perhaps I'll never have a negative experience again with W7. But regarding comparisons between W7 and Mac's Leopard . . . I can only judge what I've seen/experienced.

These 'flukes' happen again and again, with other people more than myself, though admittedly -- except this one time -- these were all with earlier versions of Windows. As far as W7 goes: I'll see.

Anyhow: Peace.

(And: sorry everyone for these long posts. I hate them just as much as you do, honest. Anyway, I should get back to writing, which I'm supposed to be doing instead of posting on the Basilisk boards. That's what I come to CT for, anyhow . . . to reduce distractions.)

(By the way: BW: Both Bernie and I are opinionated and hard-headed, and I think we both trust one another not to get angry if we happen to have opposing opinions. Plus: I like to hear opposing opinions because, if people can tell me something I hadn't thought about: then I learn. I suspect Bernie's the same way.)

In the end, I suppose: we could all learn Linux and that will be the end of all Leopard or Snow Leopard vs. W7 or XP arguments.

Driver issues happen everywhere except on OSX (because Apple controls the hardware there). For every driver difficulty I've had in Linux, I've had a dozen in Windows. I don't feel Windows is any more newb-friendly than Ubuntu is. Frankly, people like my mother-in-law just don't know squat about computers. She needs my help to fix her Windows machine just as much as she would need me to fix her Linux machine. Just last week, I spent hours fixing her NIC driver; it ended up being far more convoluted than any Linux driver I've dealt with. That's just the way the dice roll. It sort of depends on what hardware you have.

Windows is what most people are familiar with; that comes with having 90% market share, but Ubuntu is not that hard to use.

If you use a Mac you never go back!

Nevermore wrote:If you use a Mac you never go back!

Heh . . . I've returned to PC a couple of times, for different reasons, but have always preferred Mac, generally, the feel of it, the reduced sense of complication, and the sense of stability . . . that's just me, others do and will have different opinions. I hope W7 turns out to be a good, reliable system, it's been okay so far except for incompatibility issues (OSX has those too, of course) and that one problem with the modem (report from one of my roommates, however: no problem hooking up the router to the cable modem and establishing the service on Windows).

Somehow, I was the one who ended up with the modem and router. I didn't lobby too hard... .

I only want to mention one thing: I said something that was incorrect about Vista, about their version of the dock: The user is, in fact, able to make it disappear, or make it vanish when the cursor moves away. On Mac: the dock looks nicer, it serves the same purpose as the bottom bar in Windows (as it does in Vista, so in Vista it's a little redundant - were I a Vista user, getting rid of it would've been one of the very first things I'd've done), and it can be made to pop up only when the cursor goes there: convenient. Unlike Vista, on the Mac you cannot get rid of it, but also apparently unlike Vista you can shrink it so it becomes less intrusive or more aesthetically pleasing (plus there's no bottom bar like in Windows, so the dock is not redundant). You can do some other things to it that you apparently can't do in Vista, but I won't go into it. It's just a dock, for humanity's sake.

Now . . . now that I've corrected the record . . . let's bury this thread, somewhere deep where no one will find it again and resurrect it. I've decided I do not like this thread.

Mac OS X of course

Ubuntu never let me down. Even if it did, re-installing the OS would take a few minutes.

I use Linux, Ubuntu 10.04 64-bit .
At work I'm forced to use RHEL5 (RedHat).
While RHEL is still Linux (and I prefer using Linux to Windows) it's a whole different world, and not recommended for desktop use.
But Ubuntu is great both as server and desktop.

I don't have Windows installed on my home PC for several years now (since I've finished with the MCSE crap).

I never used MacOS so I can't comment on this.

King_ov_Death wrote:

BasiliskWrangler wrote:Now Linux is the most extreme "to the metal" OS you can use. It's not for the timid, but if you like to customize your OS you can't do any better. I enjoy using Linux because it gives me the sensation of being truly in control of my computer.

What do you mean?

Perhaps are you trying to say that the fact of being open-source allows you to modify Linux at your own desire? That's a good thing, anyway.

Even without knowing enough to edit the kernel, you can still recompile the kernel with what are (these days) relatively (relative to "edit the config file," anyway) decent UIs (mostly in the form of a series of multiple choice questions: "who manufactured your hard drive?" and such) - so instead of making a kernel that can support any hardware, you could compile one that only supports your exact hardware (if you wanted to) - and as such does so with a mind-bogglingly small footprint. (note: this isn't necessarily the best idea if one of your hardware pieces ceases to be manufactured and then dies).

Plus there's the fact that Linux kernels do not implement a GUI. X11 (pretty much the standard GUI for Linux) is a separate and entirely optional process - so your base operating system is wasting exactly no time on graphics and sound unless you ask it to... If you are running Linux as a server in a distant location, you don't even need to install the graphics and junk, which saves a large amount of space (which I then promptly fill up with emacs lisp extensions, but that's just me ).

Finally, most "extra processes" for Linux (the ability to receive email, or act as a file-share, or whatever) are also separate from the OS entirely - so while it's harder to configure NFS to share my disk in Linux than it is to right-click on the drive icon and say "share", I also waste no resources implementing the ability to share unless I choose to - everything Windows moves into the OS just means less stuff you can do without. Linux has more of an "opt in" model (though the pain of the opt-in model is that nothing 'feels' integrated - it's all different commands in different places with different styles of config files - because all these things were written by different people at different times. It can also mean, if you're not careful, accidentally having three different ftp servers worth of config files lying around, not sure which to edit, or which one you're even using - increasingly common these days with packing like RedHat's which tries to compete with the "ease" of Windows by installing everything (including the kitchen sink) by default)

So that's what he means by customizable and "to the metal". I say all of the above purely as explanation, entirely without advocating for Linux (frankly, I use Linux for servers and Windows for home use - I spend a lot time running Putty on Windows ).

My personal rule is that "no OS is good - they all suck. They just all suck in different ways, so choose the one that sucks least for your intended purpose." Which is why I'll never host a web server on Windows or try to game on Linux

(In my world, the "I'm a PC, and I'm a Mac" guys would show up some day and see some big, heavily bearded guy in sweat pants and birkenstocks and a cheap t-shirt lying around on a bean bag, with a big "784 days" sign over him. After inquiring about the purpose, they'd be shocked to discover that's not how long he's had his Linux server - that's just how long since he last had to reboot his server).