...and they all stole the GUI from Xerox! :)


Seriously though, I don't know how Apple could steal from Linux if both Apple and Microsoft are older than Linux (but not Unix).

You also have rate of development and imagination. That appears to be more significant than old age. Note that the Linux ideas are built on very well proven and deeply developed foundations from as far as 40 years ago... A big change more recently is that there has been more interest and effort to also make the (multiple desktops, yes you have a choice there) look more 'friendly'.

For a certain contrasting system you also have the 'dinosaur syndrome' of commercial hubris to stiltify all further progress. You additionally can have an impossible tangled web of lock-in and history that makes the system unmaintainable...


Personally, I think the greatest difference is in the focus of the development... Is the OS designed to be good to use and good for the user? Or is the OS contrived primarily to exploit the market?


Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Its no wonder why Microsoft follows the pack when it comes to features. Then they get accused of stealing ideas.

Superficially and in Marketing, any argument can be twisted any way you like.

More difficult is to untangle the cause and effect and intentions... Then again, there is a certain very repetitive history of Embrace, Extend and Extinguish notably demonstrated for one large corporation...

I've never understood why it was so wrong for Microsoft to include a media player in Windows...It's not like you can't get others if you want them...Yet it was a raging controversy in the EU...
[...]

And that and other examples should be equally controversial elsewhere in the world. I think it is called bullying and monopolistic anti-competitive practices to 'control the marketplace'.

Look up the history and outcome for Netscape.

Note that Microsoft do not let you completely uninstall IE and their media player even if you want to use anything different.

Note also that there are web browsers and then there is IE that does things (deliberately?) very differently. That forces web designers to waste an horrendous amount of time putting in conditionals to do something 'special' for Microsoft and then to much more easily and productively follow agreed standards for the rest of the world.

Note that the usual design flow is get a web page correct, and then add the rubbish required to make IE show something acceptable. The other way is to make it IE-based, and then abandon all hope of quickly getting the obscurities to work with the rest of the world...


You might see that web browsers and media players are free of cost. Sorry but there is a lot of commercial maneuvering that forces a lot of (unnecessary) expense everywhere else.

Regards,
Martin


(Merely all my own opinion of course!)

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

You also have rate of development and imagination. That appears to be more significant than old age. Note that the Linux ideas are built on very well proven and deeply developed foundations from as far as 40 years ago... A big change more recently is that there has been more interest and effort to also make the (multiple desktops, yes you have a choice there) look more 'friendly'.

That's an interesting comment because both KDE and GNOME are so horribly cluttered (at least on every Linux distro I've tried) and not intuitive at all. And being able to have 4 desktops in one windowing system is hardly imaginative. Its downright confusing and, if I may say, a stupid idea.

Not to mention that with two different windowing systems comes much confusion on which to develop apps for, creating sort of a user-divide on a platform. Its great to have choice, but where's the uniformity? Imagine writing documentation for your app where you have to double up your text with explanations for both. At least on a Mac and Windows systems you have a basic foundation you can rely on.

Strictly speaking on my perspective here, but the Linux GUIs are hardly 'friendly' at all. OS/2 was almost as bad with their unfriendly-ness.

For a certain contrasting system you also have the 'dinosaur syndrome' of commercial hubris to stiltify all further progress. You additionally can have an impossible tangled web of lock-in and history that makes the system unmaintainable...

Most companies try to lock in their users. There's nothing wrong with it as long as the consumer is happy. Comcast and AT&T do it. IBM used to do it.

Personally, I think the greatest difference is in the focus of the development... Is the OS designed to be good to use and good for the user? Or is the OS contrived primarily to exploit the market?

Exploiting the market is certainly am opinionated view, one that I don't entirely share. If Linux is claiming to be focusing on what's good to use and good for the user, either I disagree with their philosophical direction altogether or they need to re-examine what the term 'user friendly' means. When they do, then they might be a serious competitor on the desktop for the 'average' person out there.

Its no wonder why Microsoft follows the pack when it comes to features. Then they get accused of stealing ideas.

Superficially and in Marketing, any argument can be twisted any way you like.

Call it twisting an argument all you like, but its my take on things (so from my view, not twisted at all).

Note that Microsoft do not let you completely uninstall IE and their media player even if you want to use anything different.

So? As long as you can use whatever you want, who cares if its not uninstalled? I can understand back in the day when hard drives were small and space was limited and you needed every MB you could get, but who cares if it just sits there today? I hardly use any of MS's built-in options and I have no problems with using third party products. I use Firefox for web browsing, Yahoo Jukebox (formerly Musicmatch jukebox) for music, Thunderbird for email and Nero for burning my CD/DVDs. I don't really care if MS's products are just sitting there unused. It doesn't really bother me at all.

Note also that there are web browsers and then there is IE that does things (deliberately?) very differently. That forces web designers to waste an horrendous amount of time putting in conditionals to do something 'special' for Microsoft and then to much more easily and productively follow agreed standards for the rest of the world.

I'll agree that MS screwed up standards compliance in IE, and they've admitted it too. That's why IE8 is supposed to have all that fixed. Reserving judgement for final release, I think its a good intention overall. Don't know if I'll actually use IE8 as I'm happy with Firefox, but at least the problem has been identified and they are working on it.

You also have rate of development and imagination. That appears to be more significant than old age. Note that the Linux ideas are built on very well proven and deeply developed foundations from as far as 40 years ago... A big change more recently is that there has been more interest and effort to also make the (multiple desktops, yes you have a choice there) look more 'friendly'.

That's an interesting comment because both KDE and GNOME are so horribly cluttered (at least on every Linux distro I've tried) and not intuitive at all. And being able to have 4 desktops in one windowing system is hardly imaginative. Its downright confusing and, if I may say, a stupid idea.

Not to mention that with two different windowing systems comes much confusion on which to develop apps for, creating sort of a user-divide on a platform. Its great to have choice, but where's the uniformity? Imagine writing documentation for your app where you have to double up your text with explanations for both. At least on a Mac and Windows systems you have a basic foundation you can rely on.

Strictly speaking on my perspective here, but the Linux GUIs are hardly 'friendly' at all. OS/2 was almost as bad with their unfriendly-ness.

For a certain contrasting system you also have the 'dinosaur syndrome' of commercial hubris to stiltify all further progress. You additionally can have an impossible tangled web of lock-in and history that makes the system unmaintainable...

Most companies try to lock in their users. There's nothing wrong with it as long as the consumer is happy. Comcast and AT&T do it. IBM used to do it.

Personally, I think the greatest difference is in the focus of the development... Is the OS designed to be good to use and good for the user? Or is the OS contrived primarily to exploit the market?

Exploiting the market is certainly am opinionated view, one that I don't entirely share. If Linux is claiming to be focusing on what's good to use and good for the user, either I disagree with their philosophical direction altogether or they need to re-examine what the term 'user friendly' means. When they do, then they might be a serious competitor on the desktop for the 'average' person out there.

Hm.. I can't fully agree..
Some years ago I was given a copy of Suse 8.1 when it was still almost new... It was the first Linux distro I tried...
Comparing to XP, I can't say that this was too user-unfriendly... apart from driver problems which vanished after some weeks after an online update, and that I had to download the media codecs from third party websides because of legal reasons...
And I'm someone who tries to use the registry or the command tools as seldom as possible... who prefers to click a symbol and the program works...
And for the look of Vista... you can give your KDE any Look&Feel you want it to have.. from DOS to Vista, from OS/2 to OS/X , from other OS-related to self-made ones... Windows kind of restricts you. And also Vista does not include any needed software right from installation of the OS, just a few programs...

---

Account frozen...

You also have rate of development and imagination. That appears to be more significant than old age. Note that the Linux ideas are built on very well proven and deeply developed foundations from as far as 40 years ago... A big change more recently is that there has been more interest and effort to also make the (multiple desktops, yes you have a choice there) look more 'friendly'.

That's an interesting comment because both KDE and GNOME are so horribly cluttered (at least on every Linux distro I've tried) and not intuitive at all. And being able to have 4 desktops in one windowing system is hardly imaginative. Its downright confusing and, if I may say, a stupid idea.

Not to mention that with two different windowing systems comes much confusion on which to develop apps for, creating sort of a user-divide on a platform. Its great to have choice, but where's the uniformity? Imagine writing documentation for your app where you have to double up your text with explanations for both. At least on a Mac and Windows systems you have a basic foundation you can rely on.

Strictly speaking on my perspective here, but the Linux GUIs are hardly 'friendly' at all. OS/2 was almost as bad with their unfriendly-ness.

For a certain contrasting system you also have the 'dinosaur syndrome' of commercial hubris to stiltify all further progress. You additionally can have an impossible tangled web of lock-in and history that makes the system unmaintainable...

Most companies try to lock in their users. There's nothing wrong with it as long as the consumer is happy. Comcast and AT&T do it. IBM used to do it.

Personally, I think the greatest difference is in the focus of the development... Is the OS designed to be good to use and good for the user? Or is the OS contrived primarily to exploit the market?

Exploiting the market is certainly am opinionated view, one that I don't entirely share. If Linux is claiming to be focusing on what's good to use and good for the user, either I disagree with their philosophical direction altogether or they need to re-examine what the term 'user friendly' means. When they do, then they might be a serious competitor on the desktop for the 'average' person out there.

Hm.. I can't fully agree..
Some years ago I was given a copy of Suse 8.1 when it was still almost new... It was the first Linux distro I tried...
Comparing to XP, I can't say that this was too user-unfriendly... apart from driver problems which vanished after some weeks after an online update, and that I had to download the media codecs from third party websides because of legal reasons...
And I'm someone who tries to use the registry or the command tools as seldom as possible... who prefers to click a symbol and the program works...
And for the look of Vista... you can give your KDE any Look&Feel you want it to have.. from DOS to Vista, from OS/2 to OS/X , from other OS-related to self-made ones... Windows kind of restricts you. And also Vista does not include any needed software right from installation of the OS, just a few programs...

Well, not everyone has to agree with me. Just giving my perspective on things. ;)

I've tried Suse, Mandriva, Kubuntu, Ubuntu, Mandrake, Red Hat, Caldera OpenLinux, FreeBSD, Fedora (yes, some of them are old distros no longer in existence or have evolved into something else), and every single one of them never worked 'out of the box' for me, were too difficult to find things, manuals (or "manpages") weren't very clear to understand, required community help (which I don't like to use, nor could I use if I only had a Linux machine that I couldn't get on the internet, which is a serious problem for the 'average' person), required arcane fiddling with a kernel at times, and was generally a pain to use.

I like Windows because everything just works (at least it does for me; obviously others seem to have problems). I don't feel 'restricted' at all. I'm able to get what I want done and that's good enough for me to feel unrestricted. I spend too much time actually configuring Linux than I do getting work done when things should have been working right in the first place, because that's what an OS is supposed to do.

I don't really care about giving my GUI a certain look or feel at all. The minimal customizing that Windows provides is good enough for me. Anything else I want left alone so I can get stuff done. Even skins for my apps were cool at one point, but now I don't really use them because they're a waste of time. I just want to use my app and be done with it. If they want to spruce up their app by making it look cool, then do it by default and I'll play with it that way. Otherwise I'm not really interested in making my own cosmetic changes to apps because I've got better things to do with my time.

If anything, I feel restricted with Linux in the software I can choose from. Most of the open source offerings are (IMHO) pretty crappy, often buggy and require too many updates. Any commercial offerings, if you can find them, seem half-hearted in effort and not very intuitive in design or functionality is limited because of lack of support.

Again, just my view on things. Didn't really want to turn this into a Windows vs. *nix thread.

Again, just my view on things. Didn't really want to turn this into a Windows vs. *nix thread.

The OS is specifically engineered to confound the user.......and optimize profits, not computer performance.......
Don't you get it?????

How do you think Billy G. got this far??????????

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Again, just my view on things. Didn't really want to turn this into a Windows vs. *nix thread.

The OS is specifically engineered to confound the user.......and optimize profits, not computer performance.......
Don't you get it?????

How do you think Billy G. got this far??????????

LOL Well the first part sounds like *nix, but the second part is definitely Windows & Mac OS. :)

being able to have 4 desktops in one windowing system is hardly imaginative. Its downright confusing

I only use 2... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

being able to have 4 desktops in one windowing system is hardly imaginative. Its downright confusing

I only use 2... ;)

You can set that down to just one if you wish, and without the 'wobbly windows' glitz also :-p


More seriously, I agree with the "overly-confusing" sentiments. Development has been greatly driven by offering a deluge of 'features' just for the sake of Marketing additional 'tick-boxes' and bigger numbers, and bigger costs. (Greater profits? The users be damned.)

For those that want it, you should have computers that just simply and reliably work.

A good example that I've seen recently is the Asus EeePC. Plug it into a full sized keyboard, mouse, and TFT monitor, and it makes a very good device for the web, email, and simple office documents. Don't try it if you wish to play with movies or thousands of photos.

The biggest hurdle is to accept and to try (and begin learn) what might appear to be 'different'. I'm sure we're not working in the best way possible.


Or is there really only the "Windows Way" of doing things? Or is it just all hubris for what we've been brought up with?

Happy crunchin' (on one of four desktops, two in use),
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

The biggest hurdle is to accept and to try (and begin learn) what might appear to be 'different'. I'm sure we're not working in the best way possible.

Speaking for myself, I'm open to trying and learning new things, and I frequently try new Linux versions every so often. Unfortunately, every time I do, the experience isn't a pleasant one. I don't expect it to be Windows, but I do have certain expectations of the OS I'm using that Linux, thus far, hasn't been able to fulfill.

Or is there really only the "Windows Way" of doing things? Or is it just all hubris for what we've been brought up with?

Of course it isn't all the "Windows Way". Linux obviously has a hardcore following and a niche in the marketplace/industry. I won't knock that.

Actually, I have a Pentium 4 Extreme 3.2GHz chip with 2GB of RAM, a case, DVD drive and hard drive that I would be interested in trying Linux on again, but I haven't any money to purchase an old Socket 478 motherboard or a graphics card (I think the ATI Radeon X1600 I have works, but I won't know until I buy the motherboard).

Maybe in the future when things lighten up on me financially, I'll try again (as I always do, with an open mind). I don't mind trying to use Linux, I just don't like the (IMO) non-intuitive way of doing things.

sometime ago here was a gripe that you can´t remove iexplorer out of your computer, living in finland, which sits nicely in scandinavia, were we have
tv & radio stations which runs on money from coverment as bbc does in GB, it is actually good that you can´t remove ie, cause only way to look programs from their archive is by ie, cause they have pay royalties from those programs and other legal rigths, others wont do

---

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exist elsewhere in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
Calvin to the Hobbes

Well i've read through the entire thread and haven't spotted the single most important factor which (to a broke student at least) makes Linux, specifically Ubuntu and Fedora, stand out from the crowd further than any commercial offering.

Its FREE, and for the sake of an occasional driver issue or compatibility problem on a webpage, that four letter word means Windows or Macs can't even get close.

As an added bonus all the software is free as well, ok so maybe it won't run some of the Windows programs you've been used to, though it can manage a lot. If you want to run all your proprietary stuff you've slightly missed the point.

(Almost) all programs for Windows have a free, and usually better, alternative available in the repositorys.

And as a cherry on the cake, A Dell Inspiron 1501, my laptop, is normally £350 inc VAT and Vista. Without Vista; £250. And 3 hours later i have a fully functional laptop which can do just about anything, and cost bugger all to make it so.

Vive le Penguin!

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Vista is dead. I apparently didn't read the fine print about installing a 2nd operating system (XP64), and have inadvertently corrupted my Vista boot.

I got the system from an eBay seller, with a backup on a separate partition of the HDD. No DVD came with the system, and there will be no support available from the seller.

The system is currently operating under XP64, so the Vista(32) wont be too sorely missed, however I would like to recover it if possible.

Does anyone know of a way to do this from within XP? (XP is on a separate HDD, which I just happened to have... thankfully.)...

---

Vista is dead. I apparently didn't read the fine print about installing a 2nd operating system (XP64), and have inadvertently corrupted my Vista boot.

I got the system from an eBay seller, with a backup on a separate partition of the HDD. No DVD came with the system, and there will be no support available from the seller.

The system is currently operating under XP64, so the Vista(32) wont be too sorely missed, however I would like to recover it if possible.

Does anyone know of a way to do this from within XP? (XP is on a separate HDD, which I just happened to have... thankfully.)...

Has the Vista partition been over written and I didn't think a 64 bit OS and a 32 bit OS could co-exist on the same machine. I never could get them to. Do you have any recovery software to restore the partition?

---

The way is allways the same sniper.
If you install an older OS over a new one the bootmanager can´t handle it.
If you installed XP64 on another partition you can fix the bootmanager.
There are some free progs available just google for it.
If the Osses are on the same partition vista is unuseable.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

The way is allways the same sniper.
If you install an older OS over a new one the bootmanager can´t handle it.
If you installed XP64 on another partition you can fix the bootmanager.
There are some free progs available just google for it.
If the Osses are on the same partition vista is unuseable.

Thanks

---

The biggest hurdle is to accept and to try (and begin learn) what might appear to be 'different'. I'm sure we're not working in the best way possible.

Speaking for myself, I'm open to trying and learning new things, and I frequently try new Linux versions every so often. Unfortunately, every time I do, the experience isn't a pleasant one. I don't expect it to be Windows, but I do have certain expectations of the OS I'm using that Linux, thus far, hasn't been able to fulfill.

Or is there really only the "Windows Way" of doing things? Or is it just all hubris for what we've been brought up with?

Of course it isn't all the "Windows Way". Linux obviously has a hardcore following and a niche in the marketplace/industry. I won't knock that.

Actually, I have a Pentium 4 Extreme 3.2GHz chip with 2GB of RAM, a case, DVD drive and hard drive that I would be interested in trying Linux on again, but I haven't any money to purchase an old Socket 478 motherboard or a graphics card (I think the ATI Radeon X1600 I have works, but I won't know until I buy the motherboard).

Maybe in the future when things lighten up on me financially, I'll try again (as I always do, with an open mind). I don't mind trying to use Linux, I just don't like the (IMO) non-intuitive way of doing things.

Have you tried openSuSE?

---

I don't mind trying to use Linux, I just don't like the (IMO) non-intuitive way of doing things.

As a user of OSX Linux and Windows, I find Windows to be the least intuitive of the bunch...

Of course, there are plenty of add-ons to rectify that situation... ;)

(Example: Why do I have to select a tab to close a tab? Yes, I know I can right-click, but it still takes two clicks.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Have you tried openSuSE?

Is that the same as SuSE? If so, yes.