Anyone still use any of the old Windows OS's?

[geekbot]

What I'm saying is this, and it's not too different from the post above. Any OS is only as good as the person using it is proficient. Windows is good, Linux is good, OS/X is good.

One advantage of OS X is that it's good even if you aren't proficient. No problems with fatal crashes, drivers, wireless/wired, or viruses. Yes, I realize that part of this is due to limited hardware configurations and limited market share. But I don't think Apple controlling the hardware and the software is the only reason they are able to be easier to use.

There are "easy" things which Windows should be able to do but can't: Hibernating with a 2nd monitor connected and unhiberating somewhere else with no monitor connected works about half the time. Switching from a wireless to a wired connection either doesn't work or takes minutes. (You can't blame those things on me )

We use Microsoft Messenger (RVP protocol) with dedicated Exchange servers at work but Messenger doesn't scale to our size- daily logouts, overwhelmed servers, and reporting online users as offline were constant problems (and sometimes still are). We have a 1.5 year old trouble ticket that's still open with Microsoft. Could an IM program on Windows using MS servers really be that hard to write/configure correctly? It's passing text messages for cryin out loud.

Yes, I realize that there are disadvantages to Mac OS X and buying Apple. I had a co-worker who wouldn't talk about Apple because he doesn't believe in 3% market share. And I can give you as much anecdotal evidence as you want but in the end it's apples/oranges, Beta/VHS, what's practical/what's pretty, etc.

Maybe I'm annoyed because things don't work at my company the way I'd like them to and (from my perspective as a user) Microsoft seems to be part of the problem. Maybe I'm just upset that I haven't found a good way to seamlessly use my PowerBook at work and get rid of my Dell. I like not constantly doing virus scans, being able to switch back and forth between wireless and wired ethernet, hibernating/unhibernating instantly, etc., etc.

I'm very interested to see what happens after Apple moves to Intel- if they decide to support more hardware configurations and if they gain significant market share. Will Mac OS still "just work" if Apple starts supporting more and more hardware and other companies start supporting OS X and writing (possibly buggy) drivers? Will viruses ever be a problem for Linux/unix/Mac OS?

[Tone]

the 3% share is Jr High School Computer labs, children with multi colored iMacs , a few adults, and some music and art studios who are running a few programs (mostly just midi sequencing in the case of music which is the exact same on any machine) and uninterested in anything else

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

One advantage of OS X is that it's good even if you aren't proficient. No problems with fatal crashes, drivers, wireless/wired, or viruses. Yes, I realize that part of this is due to limited hardware configurations and limited market share. But I don't think Apple controlling the hardware and the software is the only reason they are able to be easier to use.

It may not be the only reason, but it's a damn good one. That's why console gaming is a lot more stable than desktop gaming--you only have one hardware profile to shoot for. If you get it right for that one platform, it's good for all your customers. Same deal applies to Apple. They own the hardware, so it's pretty much a slam dunk for compatibility. And yeah, I do agree that OS X is great for people who don't want to think about how an operating system works. However, people want everything, and don't realize that by wanting everything that they may have to open up a little and actually learn things--some things can't be dumbed down to a "big red button marked GO" no matter what. I guess that's the thing that makes me most angry--that people think it can be in ALL situations.

We use Microsoft Messenger (RVP protocol) with dedicated Exchange servers at work but Messenger doesn't scale to our size- daily logouts, overwhelmed servers, and reporting online users as offline were constant problems (and sometimes still are). We have a 1.5 year old trouble ticket that's still open with Microsoft. Could an IM program on Windows using MS servers really be that hard to write/configure correctly? It's passing text messages for cryin out loud.

There's always "net send"

I'm very interested to see what happens after Apple moves to Intel- if they decide to support more hardware configurations and if they gain significant market share. Will Mac OS still "just work" if Apple starts supporting more and more hardware and other companies start supporting OS X and writing (possibly buggy) drivers? Will viruses ever be a problem for Linux/unix/Mac OS?

Yes and yes. Who knows if they'll ever have the market share to really make it a problem, but people suck in general and will attack whatever the biggest target is. And the wider the hardware compatibility is for Mac, the more difficult it's going to be to write quality drivers and software. That's just pretty much fact.

See, I like debating things like this with geekbot and Squeezer (hell, even schope, for that matter) because they have a good grasp on what things actually do, and who actually uses them. They do this instead of making wild conjectures about something that they don't even know about.

[geekbot]

And yeah, I do agree that OS X is great for people who don't want to think about how an operating system works. However, people want everything, and don't realize that by wanting everything that they may have to open up a little and actually learn things--some things can't be dumbed down to a "big red button marked GO" no matter what. I guess that's the thing that makes me most angry--that people think it can be in ALL situations.

A good example of this is the unix underlying OS X. It's very cool that it's there, available for unix geeks to mess around, and it's cool that you can run X applications, but it's a part of OS X that's not beautifully integrated and Apple-like. Things don't just work and X applications don't look and work like OS X application. But I think Apple generally gets it right by making the "easy" stuff, the most common stuff, work. And after that there's some level of higher complexity available for those who want to tweak and hack more.

I don't blame Microsoft for defending their gi-normous market share and leveraging off legacy software and making things for the most part backwards compatible (God knows how much I complain when they break backwards compatibility) but I wonder if it isn't time for some major re-writes to do things the right way vs. keeping with what they have. OS X and Firefox are both examples of complete re-writes that people thought would kill them but didn't. Then again both had the advantage of being way behind and needing to do whatever it takes to turn themselves around. MS might not think they can afford themselves such a "luxory".

In general, I really think we need *more* of a push towards "Big red GO button". We're exposed to more and more technology, and more and more gadgets....what we need instead are solutions. Cell phones and cameras with OSes and firmware updates? These are everyday things that should be simple and WORK. Wireless everywhere is still a long way off but a laptop should connect anywhere on whatever network is available. Intel's announcements about a 802.11a/b/g and possibly 802.16 all on one chip hopefully will be a step in allowing some smart people to make things work the right way.

I am not a technophobe, I like tinkering, configuring, fixing, and optomizing. But that should be on my time. If I buy something for my day-to-day use, please make it "just work" first, and super configurable second. Open source is great, but make it work from install to up-and-running. If I want to peal open the source and "fix" something particular for myself, then I can do it when I want to. A lot of great sourceforge projects work like that- some you don't even realize they are sourceforge projects until later. Hopefully more companies/developers have those kinds of goals.

Enough preaching...

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Yeah, but the reasons we CAN'T ever have a big red "go" button for everything is because everyone wants to do their own little specific thing. For instance, a person at work wanted a "go button" to scan a document, simulataneously convert it into PDF, send off a notification via email, update an SQL database with the PDF, create a calendar object (on a third party app), and send a voice mail to herself.

Yeah, this could all be done through scripting, but she wanted it to change "magically" whenever she didn't want a certain step to not be taken. The reason why a "go" button won't work is because people want that button to almost read their mind. It can't be done.

As far as wireless goes, yeah, I think it could also be simpler, but I think you can sacrifice security while making it simpler. Let's put it in simple terms. Ideally, no one would need passwords (be they robust or whatever), and if they did, they'd only need one their entire lifetime. But the fact of the matter is that people DO need robust passwords. The fact is that there are bad people out there who DO sniff for passwords, or even just brute-force them. Same goes for wireless. I can set up an open access point that people can just simply "connect" to, but if you're going to be even halfway safe, you're going to use something like a WEP key (yes I know WEP keys are weak, but bear with me for a second--it's an example). Immediately by doing that, you're taking away the "big red go button." Yes, you could operate without it, but like anything else, THERE ARE TRADEOFFS. Everyone wants a big fucking cake, and not only wanting to eat it too, but also drizzle it with fairy dust and pile it up high with ice cream.

I want a big red "go" button to fix my plumbing too, but gee, that hasn't happened yet either.

[MaGi kOz]

Is there a better browser out there than IE?

(ps. good reads- thanks to concrete and geek)

[Kolar]

I think there's better ones professionals and tech guys use but Firefox has worked way better. Also from what I've read the security over the past year has been something like 84%, IE was 24-40 % secure during the year plus you can stop all popups, dump history faster and easier and use tabs to save screen space.

[Krusnik]

Yeah firefox is the best for a browser. I use IE when I do my dirty work, and when I don't trust a site. I have a dual boot setup between windowsxp, and linux. If u want my opinion you should get linux.

[geekbot]

Firefox, Opera, and Mozilla are the most popular Windows alternatives.

I think Firefox is the most popular. If you use it, check out the many, many extensions available.

Opera is blazing fast and was the first (that I know of) to incorporate many cool things like tabbed-browsing, mouse gestures, fast-forward and rewind. Fast-forward detects "next page" links and takes you there with shift-x. Rewind brings you back to the first page in a domain that you surfed. Say you went to cnn.com and clicked through a bunch of articles. shift-z and you're instantly back to the first cnn.com page that you entered from.

Mozilla shares a code base with Firefox.

I use all three for different reasons (platform, compatibility....it's complicated).

IE has fairly old security holes that apparently are not getting updated last I heard. I wouldn't recommend using it except when necessary.

[my nutsack]

If I'm web browsing or maybe listening to some MP3s, yes, but otherwise, wireless can bite my nutsack.

Hey, leave me out of it.