Full disclosure: sick of blue screens? get a mac!

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

Full Disclosure: Sick of Blue Screens? Get a Mac!

Don't fret: Fantasies about ditching Windows are perfectly normal--maybe even healthy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Stephen Manes

From the September 2002 issue of PC World magazine

Posted Thursday, July 25, 2002

Mac heads are dissing our machines again! Nothing new about that--except that now they're doing it on television in commercials paid for by Apple. They're calling Windows machines "horrid" and "clunky" and "unwieldy." They're even saying that they're "disgusted!"

You're probably thinking, "So what? They're like a religious cult. Apple's last big campaign featured famous dead people who'd never touched a computer, let alone a Mac."

But now they're bringing up the Blue Screen of Death! In public!

You're probably thinking, "Hey, that's our dirty little secret. These Apple guys must be stopped!"

Or maybe you're thinking something else--the Appleseed that Steve Jobs wants to plant in your brain: "Is the Mac really easier and more reliable? And should I consider it for my next computer?"

After all, you're already using lots of Apple's pioneering concepts: Microsoft acknowledged in a written agreement with Apple back in 1985 that Windows was "derivative...of the visual displays generated by Apple's Lisa and Macintosh." And from Windows 1.0 to XP, the operating system has grown more Mac-like, not less.

Then there's innovation. The 3.5-inch floppy disk drive? First seen on the original Mac. Wireless networking via 802.11b (Wi-Fi)? As AirPort, it rolled out first in Macs. And Macs had built-in ethernet when it was a mere add-on for PCs. Although these technologies weren't invented at Apple, it committed to them long before they trickled down to Windows.

Some things were invented at Apple, including one advance now in every Mac: FireWire. Too bad the high-speed port (aka IEEE 1394) has been slow to catch on in PCs, in part because of the even slower-to-arrive copycat USB 2.0 standard. And the Mac is often far more elegant: Thanks to Apple software, editing digital video or burning a DVD on a Mac is almost a pleasure. On PCs, it's almost always a pain.

Windows users just get used to annoyances that Mac users don't have to put up with. Exhibit A: the Registry. That nightmarish Microsoft innovation means it's far easier to move applications between Macintoshes than it is to go through the grueling reinstallation process that keeps PC users clutching their current machines rather than upgrading.

Go To Apple.com/switch?

Prior versions of the Mac OS managed memory poorly and crashed more often than Windows. My limited experience with OS X suggests that these problems have largely been corrected. Still, the Mac is far from perfect. I continue to prefer the PC's windowing interface, its lack of proprietary connectors, and its freedom of hardware choice (particularly in laptops, where I like 'em small and Steve Jobs apparently doesn't).

But every day that brings a Blue Screen of Death, a networking disaster, or a collection of security warnings from Microsoft is a day that more Windows users will consider making the Big Switch. And while there's no hard evidence that Apple is developing an Intel version, consider this: If OS X were available for the machine you have now, wouldn't you be frustrated enough with Windows to give it a try?

<span id='postcolor'>

CLICK HERE.

[kegetys 2]

Why do they assume that PC = Windows?

[Renagade 0]

Why do u think

[Aculaud 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ Aug. 18 2002,22:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why do they assume that PC = Windows?<span id='postcolor'>

what other options are there? not challenging you, i honestly want to know!

[LBGS_Stewart 0]

there Linex there is also one made by IBM cant reamber the name but its pritty good i hear thos are the two i know of

[kegetys 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 19 2002,08:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ Aug. 18 2002,220)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why do they assume that PC = Windows?<span id='postcolor'>

what other options are there? not challenging you, i honestly want to know!<span id='postcolor'>

Eh? Well, out of my 6 computers, only 2 have Windows. The rest run Linux (3 Debian systems and one Freesco). Theres also loads of other OS's PC's can run (BSD's, BeOS(kinda dead now), etc etc)

[LauryThorn 0]

I have a dual-booting machine, I can choose between Windows ME and Red Hat Linux.

If OFP would run on Linux, then I would probably dump ME.

[ralphwiggum 6]

OS/2 was from IBM...

[Aculaud 0]

Alright, lemme put it this way. What operating systems other than windows would OFP and other games run smoother on?

[ralphwiggum 6]

don't know...OFP only runs in windows so far...

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What operating systems other than windows would OFP and other games run smoother on?<span id='postcolor'>

Windows applications run on Windows only..

Although there is an "Windows adapter" (called Wine)for running Win applications on Linux,

but I don't think that it is smooth enough.

[kegetys 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 19 2002,09:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Alright, lemme put it this way. What operating systems other than windows would OFP and other games run smoother on?<span id='postcolor'>

OFP and many other games most propably WOULD run smoother in Linux, at least when looking at the performance comparations of those games which run in both win and linux, linux seems to run them all better.

Macs dont run OFP either though, and OFP (and gaming in general) isnt even mentioned in that article, which is idiotically "Macintosh vs Windows" while it should be "Machintosh vs PC" or "MacOS vs Windows"

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Sure.

But would Wine be able to run OFP with Fade? I mean that crappy CD-protection..... Isnt that allmost impossible to bypass without a no CD-crack to linux?

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Espectro @ Aug. 19 2002,10:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But would Wine be able to run OFP with Fade? I mean that crappy CD-protection..... Isnt that allmost impossible to bypass without a no CD-crack to linux?<span id='postcolor'>

I have never used Wine myself, but I don't think that it would

activate Fade.

Why should it?

It would run the Program pretty much the same as the Windoze would

do.

And I don't know if Wine supports DirectX.

[spiderman6999 0]

linux also has a windows style operating system called "Lindows" dont know much about it but you can read up on it here:

http://www.lindows.com/

if it runs games like windows im gonna try it, i will read up on it first though.

spidey

[WKK Gimbal 0]

Always someone raise a hand and says "Windows is not the only option, Linux is the rational choice" ... yes, if you're a ***SuPeR-GeEk***. Normal people don't type in binary code - most even dread bringing up a DOS console. Windows is the only option on a PC, unless you're a geek who communicate with the machine through a SCSI jack in the forehead.

Personally I never have any problems with Windows. I'm a former Mac user and had loads of problems with that. My PC runs whenever I need it to and for as long as I need it to. Without OSX or Linux...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WKK Gimbal @ Aug. 19 2002,13:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes, if you're a ***SuPeR-GeEk***. Normal people don't type in binary code - most even dread bringing up a DOS console. Windows is the only option on a PC, unless you're a geek who communicate with the machine through a SCSI jack in the forehead.

Personally I never have any problems with Windows.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats my Man!

Damn hell, at least we got a system here that everyone uses and knows how to use it. I hate it when I get an e-mail telling me: sorry sir we couldnt open your *.ppt file, we use linux. Secondly what do you expect people to know. People with a non computer-related job have no time to work themselves into depth of Linux programs. It is not due to intelligence but convenience. Most people have no time to "optimise their PC resources". The most likely answer you would get in a company is "screw it! Just get your stuff done till friday, or we will be screwed".

Furthermore I know that we have a lot of problems with windows all the time. But I think those problems are rather due to external software that we install than to due to Windows. The less bullshit you install the more stable your program gets.

Linux is great, no doubt! Already the way it was created is great! And to kick MS ass is good as well! But Linux is a programm for Geeks! Geeks know what they are talking about but noone else does.

OS2 was a stupid copy of windows.

Microsoft has become an unbeatable institution. If things should be improved Microsoft should finally publish their code for Windows and then companies could create new packages for Windows, patent them and sell them to Microsoft. That would change a lot!

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LauryThorn @ Aug. 19 2002,08:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have a dual-booting machine, I can choose between Windows ME and Red Hat Linux.

If OFP would run on Linux, then I would probably dump ME.  <span id='postcolor'>

Windows ME is the worst incarnation of Windows by a mile...

And for all you people who enjoy MS bashing, what other choice do serious gamers have?

Beta was a better format than VHS, but it's all about marketing...

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Aug. 19 2002,15:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OS2 was a stupid copy of windows.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, it's the other way around.

OS2 was created in 1987 through a partnership between Microsoft and IBM as a successor to DOS. Only afterwards did Microsoft abandoned OS2's technology for its own Windows platform.

If I'm not mistaken, OS2 was the first commercial OS on a PC to support true multi-tasking. It was highly stable and up-time was quite impressive.

I should say "is" and not "was". Our IBM IS390 mainframe here in the office is running under OS2 as I write.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Aug. 19 2002,15:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Beta was a better format than VHS, but it's all about marketing...<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah. But Marketing doesnt mean simply advertising. Marketing means NOT to sell the product you like to produce but UNDERSTANDING what product the customer wants and create it for him. Windows does exactly this. Linux is a for a small community of rebellious geeks! ( )

[kegetys 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WKK Gimbal @ Aug. 19 2002,14:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Always someone raise a hand and says "Windows is not the only option, Linux is the rational choice" ... yes, if you're a ***SuPeR-GeEk***. Normal people don't type in binary code - most even dread bringing up a DOS console. Windows is the only option on a PC, unless you're a geek who communicate with the machine through a SCSI jack in the forehead.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, the latest Linux distros are very easy to use (and install too, though not everyone can even install Windows). If you get a system with Redhat or Suse or something preinstalled, it boots up with a graphical UI similar to windows, and even for a beginner its not that hard to use. Of course, if you already have used windows/office/etc. for a long time theres some things you need to get used to.

If you would get a person who never ever has used a computer before, I dont think there would be much difficulties in his/her learning to use a desktop Linux distro, not at least any more than learning to use a Windows system.

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Normal people don't type in binary code - most even dread bringing up a DOS console. <span id='postcolor'>

Well, there are very sophisticated graphical interfaces available for linux - like KDE and Gnome.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Windows is the only option on a PC, unless you're a geek who communicate with the machine through a SCSI jack in the forehead.<span id='postcolor'>

I know even some cute girls that use Linux!

I have to admit that installing linux may be a little tough, but once you

get it running, it doesn't anyhow differ from using Windows.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Damn hell, at least we got a system here that everyone uses and knows how to use it. I hate it when I get an e-mail telling me: sorry sir we couldnt open your *.ppt file, we use linux.<span id='postcolor'>

That's M$'s fault with their stupid non-standard non-documented file formats. But you can get at least viewers for all Office file formats for linux.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Windows ME is the worst incarnation of Windows by a mile...<span id='postcolor'>

I've used NT, and it sucks even more.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And for all you people who enjoy MS bashing, what other choice do serious gamers have?<span id='postcolor'>

Somebody wants to answer that?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I'm not mistaken, OS2 was the first commercial OS on a PC to support true multi-tasking. It was highly stable and up-time was quite impressive.<span id='postcolor'>

You're right, as far as I'm concerned.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Linux is a for a small community of rebellious geeks! (<span id='postcolor'>

Linux is superior in the server-side, and I think that it has all the potential

to be used as a desktop computer as well, at least for work.

Many poor countries use linux because it's free.

Here in Finland some cities have made research about how much money

would be saved, if those towns' offices would start using linux.

I think that even if no money would be saved, it would still be

good to start using linux, because then the money would go to

the finnish administrators instead of money-greed Microsoft leaders.

(What's the term for the people who install machines and help

the workers in their computer using, I mean those people with "administrator")

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

OF course you are right about the server issue. Most offices even the public ones use Linux to run their servers nowadays. There is no doubt about that!

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WKK Gimbal @ Aug. 19 2002,13:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Windows is the only option on a PC, unless you're a geek who communicate with the machine through a SCSI jack in the forehead.<span id='postcolor'>

FireWire would be better...

[moerty 0]

i've used macs for work and studies, all i can say is that they're good for graphix works and AOL type of tasks, nothing else. you want a functional, flexible, multi-purpose machine you get a PC, you want modular options (IE change cards at will) you get a PC.

macs are for those people you see in AOL adverts, for you europeans who haven't been exposed to these ads you're not missing anything, except some class A entertainment. examples "instant messaging is like having a conversation with someone online!!" "whenever you get mail you get a sound message (you've got mail!, that is so cool, i wonder who that guy is?" and my favourite "my father uses it, both my brother's use it." . how stupid are these people, and how ignorant are they of their stupidity that they'll be willing to expose it on the teevee?

*edit* the mac VS pc debacle also goes a long way to show that specialized mechanisms (macs) will be more stable than open ended mechanisms (PCs). you might say a PC is a jack of all trades and master of none.