














Comments     Threshold


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Belard on 7/8/2009 8:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
But until someone at IBM gets a clue, as well as other "big" players figure this simple solution out...

Pay Adobe, Intuit and a couple of other companies to PORT the software to LINUX... duh. But the general issue with Linux is the support night mare for the flavors. KDE vs Gnome. ubuntu vs. redhat vs Google... and with MS helping to KILL the PC-Gaming market so they can sell Xboxes, then who NEEDS a "windows" computer anymore?

- Most people do work/play on the web.
- Open Office is free (yeah, I know - its NOT MS-Office 03/07)
- Game companies are ditching PCs for PS3s and Xbox360.
(seriously, want to hurt MS for hurting PC Gaming? Buy a PS3 instead)
- IE has lost enough market share that very few websites DEMAND IE.

An OS should be light, fast and simple. Windows7 is quite nice, its fast... and it maybe their last chance. If anyone used an Amiga, Version 3.0 was easily faster than 2.0 or 1.3. While it grew drivers and features, its memory management was improved.

Or how about the new OLPC? Their new 2.0 hardware design looks amazing. And its a simple interface, it too can be ported for adults, in a sense.

The true function of an OS is to launch applications and manage your data. Other than that, stay out of the way.

RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Lightnix on 7/8/2009 11:00:45 AM , Rating: 3
Until RTS's and FPS's on consoles stop sucking, the PC platform for gaming has a very long way to fall.

RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By SavagePotato on 7/8/2009 11:30:13 AM , Rating: 4
Do you believe your own BS at this point?

I get such a laugh every time morons like you come out with grandiose statements like "this is Microsoft's last chance!"

Wake up to reality, linux is still struggling for any coherence, mac is a joke, and a new netbook OS that is highly internet dependent isn't going to make your fantasy reality of Microsoft going under in the blink of an eye from 90% plus market share happen.

I think you should have don't stop believing as your theme song.

RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By mforce on 7/8/2009 12:15:59 PM , Rating: 3
I'm no MS fan but I've got to agree with this. We live and will live in a Windows world for some time now.
Having worked on one I think that yes , Mac is a pretty good joke, you could use it instead of Windows but seriously why would you want to ?
As for the whole internet and cloud thing I think it's a bit over hyped, I prefer many of my native apps and I prefer them running on my desktop not some cloud or something.

RE: Why Linux and not BSD?




RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By MrDiSante on 7/8/2009 7:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. On top of that, this particular iteration of the "Windows-killer" is going nowhere because of Google's mad desire to take everything off of the PC. Note that this thing cannot run ANY native code - EVERYTHING will be written for Chrome. That means in order to listen to music, watch a movie, process a word document, or do anything else you'd need to be connected to the internet. Maybe in 10 years. Maybe even in 5. Not today.

On top of that, as a developer, I'd rather shoot myself in the foot than develop for browsers (although I end up doing it a lot anyhow). HTML/AJAX are impressive compared to web 1.0 technologies, but they are nowhere near powerful enough to replace all of your desktop apps.

I think this thing is going to be yet another carcass in the enormous pile of netbooks that have tried to take on Windows. Remember that despite Linux, a proper OS, being available for just about every netbook, Windows has 96% of the netbook market. This "Chrome OS" is a sorry mockery of a proper operating system that is less suited for netbook use than Android. Don't know what the suits at Google were thinking.

RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Spuke on 7/8/2009 12:26:35 PM , Rating: 5
Wake up to reality, linux is still struggling for any coherence, mac is a joke, and a new netbook OS......
Every few years I load up Linux and give it a try for about a year on a laptop or spare computer. My intention is to switch to it for my main OS and just run Windows inside a VM until I'm fully switched over to Linux. Linux is improved but I keep running into the same problems which keep me from fully moving over:

1. Installing a driver. Why isn't this simplified yet, it's a friggin driver?
2. Applications. Why are applications given names that make no sense whatsoever? Do three year olds write this sh!t?
3. Centralized management of OS functions. Why do I need 16 different apps to setup a wifi connection pre-installed when I load the OS? Why is one wifi setup in one location and 5 others in another location? Can't they all be listed under ONE location? Example: in Windows, if I want to use any network management apps I go to Control Panel/Admin Tools. In Linux, there would be 13 Control Panels, one named Control Panel, another named Admin Mods, another named Raped Goat, another named PARzChiclet... This is ridiculous.

I'd like to give Linux a chance but, Jesus, it needs to grow up and become an adult OS. I do admit, I prefer it for servers though as it can be stripped down to bare necessities. It's still a pain to tweak though.

RE: Why Linux and not BSD?





RE: Why Linux and not BSD?


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?


RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Belard on 7/8/2009 3:29:49 PM , Rating: 3
Do you believe your own BS at this point?

Er... I didn't say its a fact... Vista blew chunks, Windows7 is easily a better OS. BUT in the real-world, people just want to browse. Unlike the 90s with Windows95~XP, we ran everything on the computer.

Just like in the 90s, we went to blockbuster to rent VHS tapes. While today we have OnDemand or downloads of videos and music to our cellphones and PCs.

How many home users care to spend $125~150 for MS-Office? If its work-related, the company should buy it. And a smart employee would have the company buy the computer too.

So if a typical person uses their CelPhone as their PDA. A browser for work & play... and browsers WORK the same on ANY OS... and people are printing less & less... and there are fewer and fewer games for Windows. Even enough that MS themselves ARE not supporting their OWN OS platform! Then what *IS* the point of having an MS-OS?

Its a fact about MS with their views on Windows Gamings. Halo3 and Gears of War2... hello? I bought gears for Windows... very good game. I play it in 1920x1200, easiy sharper than any xbox console. But MS stated "NO" for Windows.... gee thanks.

linux is still struggling for any coherence,

Really? NO, YOU DON'T SAY! Gee, I think I already brought that up. Linux is a serious OS. But as I stated, the various flavors makes things difficult. And a lot of Linux geeks *like* it that way, its their "club" - like back in the 80s and 90s when the avg Joe didn't use a computer.

But its really quite simple. They need to agree on an official Desktop PC Spec, which Utunbu is perhaps the best so that companies like Adobe knows that Install files and basic setup operations are the same on Utunbu, Chrome, Redhat, etc.

a new netbook OS that is highly internet dependent

Lets see... my Cel Phone operates great, not a WindowsOS. I have a Thinkpad notebook... which if it was worth it, I'd replace it with a netbook. I a much more portable computer that handle all my needs. On of my clients is actually replacing his 17" notebook with a 10" netbook.

If no games or specialized software is needed, then the OS becomes less important. With Linux, Mac, Celphones and even Amiga - a person can watch videos on Hulu & youtube. Use Google and other web-apps for word processing an even (gasp!) play games... the importance of MS goes down.

I didn't say MS is going under. They may last for another 10, 20 years or maybe 200. I don't know and I don't really care.

I'd like to see more gaming on the PC... higher res, details and power. Sure todays PS3s & 360s are powerful - but these guys expect these consoles to be "mainstream" for another 3 years! Our PC GPUs are already 3 generations ahead and DX11 is about to come out. But DX11 and whatnot means nothing if there isn't any major game development. The #1 game... WOW. And that'll work on any POS computer, which is why 10million+ people play it. No GTX 285 required. But something like Crysis has high demands, yet will work fine on todays $60 video cards.

The developers sees where the money is. Computer savvy users in which many are pirating or your typical human who only has a few buttons on his console?

This has ramifications. If PC gaming (I mean high-end 3D) dies, it would also effect consoles since they are using the experience and derivatives of PC hardware (CPU & GPU) to design the consoles. But if I have a PS3/PS4 plugged into a 50"+ TV to play games... why do I need to have a noisy and heat-generating $200 video card? Also, the demands for faster CPUs will reduce.

I'm playing with Windows7 on a 2Ghz AMD computer, it runs very good. Not quad-core / 8GB power system.

So with that... why do WE need Windows? With MS making software for all aspects of their OS (Office, paint, DTP, image manager, Firewall, AntiVirus, etc) - then these guys should start porting their software for Linux and Mac...

Not saying this WILL happen... like I SAID, Linux/GNU community have their issues. Its NOT the OS itself that is the problem. But its a possibility.

I still use Office 2000, it works 110% of my needs. I can get Office2010 for $100... but I see that as a waste of $$$. I give people OpenOffice 3.x and many find they don't require 100% or any MS compatibility... and its price is great... $0. (Yes, OpenOffice is NOT in the same league as Office2007/2010 - but for MOST home users, OpenOffice gets it done). If it Wasn't for Open Office, the Home/Student version of MS Office that sells for $100 wouldn't exist!

If MS actually loses Desktop market share... we WILL start to see the prices go down. World Wide... MS owns 90% of the market. Mac has 5%, Linux at 1+. Linux & Mac market share is growing. MS can only go down.... oh, and 66% of the Windows Market is STILL XP. Vista will never go over 25%.

As of NOW... the most expensive part for a PC that the end user buys, if building himself or from a small company is MS-Windows at $100~200.

RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By SavagePotato on 7/8/2009 4:05:24 PM , Rating: 3
Microsoft isn't dominant in the market because of PC games.

The last PC game ever made could come out tomorrow and Microsoft would still be dominant in the market.

The majority of that market is and will continue to be business users.

Just keep on hoping for your big day and making grand statements like "this is Microsoft's last chance" I enjoy watching people make themselves look stupid with statements like that.

RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Belard on 7/10/2009 8:55:24 AM , Rating: 2
MS wont last forever. But they aint going anywhere soon. As long as Linux, Google and Apple keep picking pieces off, its better for everyone one, including us Windows users. And yes, I'll be buying Windows7... its a pretty good product.

RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Smilin on 7/8/2009 1:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
MS killing the PC gaming market??


If MS sucks so bad at gaming why are there such few games for Mac and Linux? It's disproportionate even considering their low market share. Windows is an easy platform to develop on...especially for games.

RE: Why Linux and not BSD?
By Belard on 7/8/2009 3:52:53 PM , Rating: 1
There will always be games being made for Windows. Especially those young programmers learning how to do program, etc.

Look at sales figures and the actions of the big companies.

Especially Microsoft. They screwed YOU and the rest of us.

Tell me when & where you can buy Halo3 and Gears of War 2 for Windows7 to prove me wrong. I'm not comparing PC gaming to Mac and Linux... I compared gaming to CONSOLES.

RE: Why Linux and not BSD?



RE: Why Linux and not BSD?


- First (ever) Burnout game for PC
- Capcom games like Lost Planet, Street Fighter IV
- Square Enix is doing Final Fantasy XIII for PC
- etc etc





RE: Why Linux and not BSD?


Related Articles
