Random thoughts I have about the major OSes.

[Jaredvcxz]

Linux: Most distributions don't have everything installed when you install the OS. Like mp3 codecs. I install a distribution, and when I get bored during the first updating process I try to play some music but can't because nobody bothers to put the right codecs in and I can't install the codecs because I'm busy installing updates. I know, Linux isn't big on media, but not even having the codecs is just ridiculous.
Afterthought: Windows doesn't really come with everything, either...
So far that's the only real problem I have, besides fedora's uber slow updating which I'm not going into.


Apple Macintosh: Please excuse my frenchieness, but their fans are, for the most part, jerks. Every time I see a mac vs pc discussion, there are always mac users who call every windows users an "Ignorant idiot who has never even touched a mac". Now, I know that it could just be a small percentage, but it's large enough to be annoying. And have you seen their monstrous attack ads? They're worse than the Kerry Vs Bush attack ads!
Afterthought: But then again, windows users tend to be jerks, too.

Besides those fanboys/girls, Macs are pretty cool. Sure, their personalization is kinda low by today's standards, but that makes them more secure. The thing I hate most, though, is the one button mouse. Mighty Mouse? Not quite. I'm tired of having to press ctrl just to get into the context menu. I think this is why windows has a button on the keyboard for the context menu.

The good thing: Any usb mouse can work on Macs.



Microsoft Windows: This is my favorite because I can actually play games on it. Sure, windows parallel for macs can let you boot up windows in your mac, but just think of the lag caused by two operating systems on at the same time. Plus it costs an extra $80 at staples. Wine is pretty good, but configuring it is torture for my tiny brain.

And Windows computers come with almost all the codecs you need. The sad part is that Word is only a trial most times. It's also more stable than people say it is. My computer crashed the other day, it's running Vista. But guess what? It was the first time it crashed in the first time since I got it 2 years ago.


I'll type more later, I'm starting to get some weird headache/lightheadedness/doublevision thingie and can't type anymore.


To make this thread actually useful: You can post your own rants/raves.


And yes, I am slightly biased towards Windows, but I try to be fair.

[gruven]

Linux distros don't come with all of the codecs usually because of legal issues. When you purchase a computer with Windows installed, you pay for Windows and software licenses, but you don't notice it because it is included in the price.

Windows is all fine and good for some people, but not for me. Vista may be stable for you, but not for everyone. I have all kinds of problems with it, on several different computers. Linux usually works the first time, and it continues to work.

Coming from a Windows world, I am sure you have noticed that there is a completely different atmosphere in the free software world. We don't charge you for upgrades, you have choices, etc...

As for Windows and Linux coming with things pre-installed, the last time I installed Windows XP it came with....ummmm.....Solitaire? And that is about it. After trying to find all of the drivers for my hardware (searching, downloading, installing, rebooting after every one) and two days worth of updates, I gave up. The last time I installed Vista, it still needed bootup drivers for my 3 year old Intel ICHR9 AHCI SATA controller. When that was done, it still needed two days worth of updates, half of which wouldn't install with "Windows Update" and I had to go manually install them from microsoft.com. That is annoying. After it was installed, and updated (bleh), I noticed it came with....ummmmmm....Solitare, ooooo, and this time, Spades. It wouldn't play dvds without nero installed, because nero provides the dvd decoder, it wouldn't play youtube videos without downloading flash, I couldn't surf without fear of getting infected with some sort of spyware or virus, so I had to go download Avast Antivirus (which takes up resources and grinds the hard drive even more than "superfetch"), and to top it all off, it tells me I must "activate" it to keep using it.

Really, do we really need to "rent" our operating system from a large corporation just to have them tell us what we can and can't do with it? It may work for you, but I don't approve.

Now, last time I installed Ubuntu (picked because it is one of the most popular), it booted up into a live environment, which allowed me to surf while I installed, and it included a nice partition editor (gparted) which allowed me to resize partitions and move them around. Now last time I installed Windows, I don't remember seeing ANYTHING of that magnitude. On with the ubuntu install. I clicked "Install to hard drive" and it asked me a couple questions, and actually started installing. Nothing hard, just what I wanted my user name to be, my password, where to install it, and if I wanted to install a boot manager. That was it, and it installed while I was surfing with my Linksys WMP54G PCI wireless card. That is leaps and bounds ahead of Microsoft. Keep in mind this is the same computer than Vista needed the drivers at bootup for, whereas Ubuntu just booted, and even the sound worked, and my screen worked at native resolution in the desktop environment. Windows was like 800x600 at first boot (well, it was like the third or forth boot because you have to reboot it multiple times just to get it installed).

After it was installed, I booted into it, and put in my username and password, and then I had a popup asking me if I wanted to install Nvidia drivers for my 8800 GT. I clicked yes, and it installed them. It suggested I reboot, but I am fairly proficient with Linux so I just restarted X, and it worked.

One area where linux excels for me is wireless. I have two wireless G cards, one of which won't work in Vista (Atheros Chipset, it says it is too old) and the other which works sometimes in Vista (RaLink Chipset, have to jump through a couple hoops and install two sets of drivers just so it will recognize the card), but throws blue screens about twice a day. In Ubuntu, these just work. No configuring, just put in the key and you connect. Another piece of hardware that does not work at all in Vista is my Abit Uguru chip on my motherboard. The driver bluescreens and locks the computer up constantly. The driver in linux is included in the kernel and reads temps and fan speeds like it is supposed to.

I realize that not every distro is like Ubuntu (I use Gentoo, and all my hardware works), but it is the one I feel is coming close to be a Linux for the masses.

Now, some of those gripes about Windows can be attributed to the hardware and the hardware manufacturers producing less than top quality products and drivers, but really, that argument goes for both operating systems. Until hardware vendors start making Linux drivers, it won't be a fair comparison for ALL hardware. I know for Vista and 7 from what I have heard you have to research your hardware and choose accordingly, which, from what I can remember, is what the Windows people always hate about Linux. Funny how that works.

Windows may have the largest market share, it may be semi easy to use (for some), and it may have the largest third party support, but that does not mean it is the best. It means Microsoft put out the product at the right time, and they marketed it stupendously. Most of their product has been stolen from various other companies (Apple, IBM, BSD, Linux). I can't view the code to prove it, but just look at the product.

End of my rant for now.

[GNU-Fan]

To make this thread actually useful: You can post your own rants/raves.

Ok. I try to be verbose.
[rant]
Freedom, now!
[/rant]

[elija]

Ok. I try to be verbose.
[rant]
Freedom, now!
[/rant]

Now then... how did it go?

Freedom Freedom Freedom OI!
Freedom Freedom Freedom OI!

[techieMoe]

Linux: Most distributions don't have everything installed when you install the OS. Like mp3 codecs. I install a distribution, and when I get bored during the first updating process I try to play some music but can't because nobody bothers to put the right codecs in and I can't install the codecs because I'm busy installing updates. I know, Linux isn't big on media, but not even having the codecs is just ridiculous.

This has nothing at all to do with Linux "not being big on media." There's actually several distributions of Linux specifically designed for media artists (Ubuntu Studio, for example). The real reason why most Linux distributions don't include codecs is licensing costs. Different countries have different rules when it comes to shipping a product with the ability to decode proprietary media formats like MP3 and WMA/WMV.

The US for instance has particularly strict rules on the ability to decode DVD video. Rather than pay the various companies necessary and hire lawyers to figure out the logistics, most distributions leave the installation of codecs up to the end user, therefore keeping their hands clean of any liability. This is not an issue in MS Windows because (as someone else said) Microsoft has licensing deals with the companies involved and a legion of lawyers to work out the details. Not to mention you also PAY for their operating system, so it offsets the cost of the codecs.

Apple Macintosh: Please excuse my frenchieness, but their fans are, for the most part, jerks. Every time I see a mac vs pc discussion, there are always mac users who call every windows users an "Ignorant idiot who has never even touched a mac". Now, I know that it could just be a small percentage, but it's large enough to be annoying.

You apparently haven't met very many real Apple users. Every sub-group has its fanatics. Linux has Stallman, Windows has Ballmer. You hear from those who yell the loudest, regardless of how unrepresentative they are of the whole. The vast majority of Apple users I know (and I do know quite a few) are quite nice people who realize that an operating system is a choice. They have more in common with Linux users than you might think.

And have you seen their monstrous attack ads? They're worse than the Kerry Vs Bush attack ads!

Attack ads? Please. The "I'm a Mac" ads are nothing compared to the rhetoric Microsoft has used in the past, calling Linux "a cancer" and its users "communists." (That's just Steve Ballmer I'm quoting there.) The company hints that you need "protection money" or they'll sic their lawyers on you to enforce their software patents. Bill Gates himself considers the idea of people sharing source code to be obscene.

Ballmer: ?Linux is a cancer? ? The Register
MS' Ballmer: Linux is communism ? The Register
Microsoft claims software like Linux violates its patents - May 28, 2007
Open Letter to Hobbyists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The thing I hate most, though, is the one button mouse. Mighty Mouse? Not quite.

Give me a break. This is the oldest complaint from Mac-haters whose last experience with Apple was the candy-colored iMac. Multiple button mice have been around (and included standard) for nearly 4 years and several generations of computers now. The "Mighty Mouse" you so easily malign is a good example of this. It looks like it's one button but is actually 3.

I'm tired of having to press ctrl just to get into the context menu. I think this is why windows has a button on the keyboard for the context menu.

When was the last time you played with a Mac? OS X has supported right-click context menus for quite some time, and the Mighty Mouse works great for that.

[Jaredvcxz]

When was the last time you played with a Mac? OS X has supported right-click context menus for quite some time, and the Mighty Mouse works great for that.

I've been using one Monday-Friday for the past school year. And the mice they have there have only one button.

[D-cat]

I've been using one Monday-Friday for the past school year. And the mice they have there have only one button.

Obsolete models donated to schools both for the tax write-off and because noone would buy them any more?

[rokytnji]

Not ever being a longtime Windows user or even touching a Mac I have nothing to compare my experience with. I jumped into Linux the minute I powered up. Not used to anything else. Trying to fix a Windows Laptop for a wifes girlfriend at present. Local shop told her, buy a new laptop, this one is used. Have removed 1 trojan and countless adware cookies. I liked it how Symantic would have a hissy fit and state ,Trojan found! Cant' Delete, Can't Quarantine! Permission Denied. WTF good is it then. Clam AV running live Linux found the file and showed it to me. I picked it out and deleted it. Laptops running Ok now for a XP Laptop. Linux fixed it. Ironic or what. And I guarantee if I asked my wifes friend if she would like a dual boot install. I'd get that horrified scared look like I am offering to eat her children. Can't fight programmed ignorance or dogma in all its forms unless you show your way is better.

[techieMoe]

Obsolete models donated to schools both for the tax write-off and because noone would buy them any more?

Ding-ding. Give the man a prize! Of course he wouldn't be impressed by an obsolete piece of hardware, regardless of whether it was a Mac or PC. The Macs that end up in schools tend to be several years old and not in great condition.

If the Macs you saw had single-button mice they were most likely G3s or G4s, back before the transition to Intel-based chips. Those were very different times. We had some of them at my college in a corner of the computer lab. They were very much the redheaded stepchildren that no one really wanted to use and the techs had no idea how to service.

If you want an idea of a modern Apple computer, find an Apple store near you. They let you play with just about every gadget they sell and the folks who work there will answer any questions you might have. It might not convince you they're worth the money, but you'll at least get an idea of what those "I'm a Mac" adverts are talking about.

[Roxoff]

I know, Linux isn't big on media, but not even having the codecs is just ridiculous.

Hmm. This statement is wrong. Utterly wrong. Overflowing with wrongability.

Linux has the broadest base for media of any operating system out there. On Linux I can play stuff that windwos can only dream of. I even had trouble getting FLAC to work on that commercial platform

The only area which Linux struggles with is with Digital Rights Management. But even this is completely on it's head. If I were writing a system for rights management of media that I'd produced, I'd want to issue it on a system where I could be sure there was no way to work around it. That rules out Windwos straight away. As it's closed source, I have no way to guarantee that my rights wont be violated.

Here's a tip:
If your media wont work out of the box on your operating system, try to get your media into a better format. FLAC is lossless compression, so you get -all- the audio.