Each of the four writers is positive that his operating system is the best and will try his hardest to convince you of that -- and is not above taking a few swipes at the competition. These are not rational, disengaged reviews; these are opinionated essays meant to sway your point of view.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-09-23
Member since:
2006-01-07
Member since:
2006-05-02
I feel pretty much the same way as all the things they wrote. I use Linux because I love the fact I can forget I am in it, if that happens you know the system runs great. I have XP for games. I know I will have to upgrade to Vista because of the fact I game. And a Apple is a great PC, I just never understood paying that kind of money for hardware.
But the main thing for me and all the reviews like this you see running around, you have to ask why? All the different choices you have in a OS are exactly that and we choose based on our usage habits. I like Linux a lot, but at the same time it more then likely would be of no use to a die-hard gamer, so the gamer would likely have nothing nice to say about Linux or have no opinion. Use what works! And if you have a desire to tinker, do it! You can't go wrong using whatever works for you!
Member since:
2005-10-19
This article is a rare example, a very good idea.
Each opinion was very "user friendly" but not too boring 
I liked it.
There is only one thing i don't understand. Why they say that on Mac OS X it's only a drag & drop to install most applications. This is not true. After you download the dmg (every developer creates a disk image for their software) and open it then you have to drag it to the Applications folder but first you have to click on the "Show toolbar" button (the one on the top right corner of the window which looks like a capsule) to make the left shortcut bar appear. Then you have go to the Applications folder and drag the program to the Dock manually because none of the Mac apps create a Dock icon automatically (of course it's not necessary but every mac user do it anyway). Last but no least you have to eject the dmg before you can delete it.
I don't like the Windows way either, actually software install sometimes works best with apt-get on Linux but there are some intelligent utils for Windows like uTorrent which installs (copies) itself into the Program Files folder and the Start Menu in two clicks maybe.
Whatsoever.
Edited 2008-04-08 08:36 UTC
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-10-19
Oh, really, then where do you store your programs? On the Desktop?
Anyway.. you didn't get the point. This drag&drop install myth is a selling point for Macs and most mac users drag apps to the applications folder, then they drag them onto the Dock to get a shortcut because they think this is THE way on Mac OS X.
I would like to tell you I don't drag & drop most things on Mac OS X because this method is painful for me. I'm a power user and i use mainly the keyboard. I eject the disk images with command-e, close the windows with command-w, copy the files with command-c, delete files with command-backspace, reach the menubar with ctrl-F2 etc, so I use the mouse only in graphic apps, browsers and on those stupid Mac dialogs where i can't cancel with Escape, switch buttons with Tab or activate "Don't save" with the D key.
I'm just irritated by those mac fans who think OS X is better than the competition.
Member since:2005-06-29
I use quicksilver which can work with finder. So the copy is just a quick 'command command' away. I rarely use the mouse, I come from command line worlds of Linux and FreeBSD.
So yeah, I know what you are saying, but I still don't find copying from a disk image to applications (or any other directory, which i have in my homedir for multiuser systems) more than just a click away.
Member since:
2006-01-08
that all these modern OSses (yes, that includes XP) will do fine for most people. Each has its own specific set of advantages and drawbacks that people on the internet like to magnify and argue to death over, but for most regular computing purposes, they'll all do fine.
Hypothetically, if MS went ballistic and decide to sell on subscription base only, no prob, I'll get a Mac or install Linux. If Apple's success got to their heads and they decide to raise prices on Macs 50% across the board, I'm happy enough to use Windows or Linux. If all Linux distros got a bad case of fundamentalism and decide to sabotage all non-GPL software efforts under Linux, I've no problems using Windows or Macs. I can get both my work and my entertainment done perfectly fine on all the main platforms.
The sooner you realize that there is really no need to support your OS team, the happier you'll probably be with your computing experience.
Edited 2008-04-08 08:37 UTC
Member since:
2007-12-16
Well... At least the dude reviewing Vista really let's it show that he has not ever used anything but Vista nor does he even want to know anything of the others OSs let alone the one he's preferring to. Also the XP dude got a smile on my face when telling XP is good because it is a familiar environment to work in. Hmm... I thought the point was to explain others why "this OS" is supreme and not try to convince yourself from switching to something better.
Edited 2008-04-08 08:57 UTC
Member since:2005-08-11
"Well... At least the dude reviewing Vista really let's it show that he has not ever used anything but Vista nor does he even want to know anything of the others OSs let alone the one he's preferring to"
It would be pretty hard for a guy the reviewers age to use anything but Vista, it's only been out for a year and a half. He would have had to use something else, most likely XP for years now.
Member since:
2006-01-04
Member since:
2005-11-05
Enjoyed these though I rather wish they'd included a BSD in the mix (stand-alone, not undercover as Mac OS). If you want to do geek, I'd say it's BSD now that Linux has gone mostly mainstream. Also, I reckon that simply huge numbers of people use another OS many times every day without ever thinking about it - Symbian or Windows Mobile or etc on their mobile phone. Would be good to have these given the same treatment. Of course they're not the same, but they touch as many lives and for some folks are probably just as or more important.
Member since:
2007-07-04
At last an article where there is no attempt at impartiality!
For too long we've had to endure articles where supposedly open minded writers review software and within 1 or 2 paragraphs we can all see where the article is going to go.
These guys are all trying to make a pitch - great!
Member since:
2006-05-18
From someone who has to get work done:
Vista - bad because I have to spend money on a new OS and new hardware without any apparent benefit over XP
MacOS X - could be good, but I'm not going to spend that kind of money on new software and pricey hardware without being able to first test a Mac
Linux - bad because there is no way I can do my job on it due to lack of good applications (I'm a webdeveloper)
XP - good because it has all the right applications and it's light on the resources. bad because in a few years will become obsolete
The conclusion ... XP for now, Vista later.
Member since:2007-12-16
Linux - bad because there is no way I can do my job on it due to lack of good applications (I'm a webdeveloper)
I find this very odd since no expensive nor operating system dependent software is needed for webdeveloping. Not at least if the webdev has any knowledge of the web itself, not just the apps he's using to get the job done. Besides there're plenty great software for every OS, even the same apps, not just alternatives.
Member since:2006-05-18
Well, in Linux you don't have Photoshop (please don't say GIMP - I tried to like it, but I'm sorry - until they redesign the UI, I can't work with it) or Flash. I guess you could do PHP development.
In MacOS X, you could do everything, but then again, I find it hard to spend a lot of money to get a new system that I have no idea if I can get along with.
Member since:2008-04-08
There's still Pixel for Linux and many says it's superior to GIMP and mostly compare it to Photoshop. http://www.kanzelsberger.com ... sorry I couldn't resist
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2007-03-06
Member since:2007-01-04
C'mon. You can't say an alternative is worse if you aren't willing to put in the effort to learn it. I learned the GIMP before I learned Photoshop and I thought Photoshop did everything wrong, and was going "against the grain" but now I can use both because I've put in the effort to learn how to use both.
Member since:2005-07-09
"Linux - bad because there is no way I can do my job on it due to lack of good applications (I'm a webdeveloper)."
Eh? Aside from Photoshop (replaced by gimp), pretty much everything you need for web development (which is to say a good text editor) is present on Linux.
Member since:
2007-07-04
Just thought I would follow up.
Could you write an impartial review or article on an OS? I've thought about this and I think that, generally, no is the answer for most of us.
Our experiences (good or bad) shape our opinions and also other people's experiences (through reading reviews) shape them too. When it comes to reviewing I think it must be quite difficult not to allow personal prejudice (strong word, but you know what I'm getting at) to influence our final opinion.
This article doesn't make a pretence at this - it has some people telling things as they see them.
With regards to the OS's being discussed. What do the overwhelming majority of people use pc's for? Browsing, e-mails, simple documents and viewing media. All of these OS's allow them to do this with very little fuss. I use Linux and I scratch my head when I read the (sometimes scathing) opinions that "this distro can't do x,y,z" when I never (and I mean NEVER) have the slightest problem using my OS (I never need to resort to the CLI I might add). The truth is that ALL of the OS's discussed are perfectly capable of performing the tasks most people need them for.
Yes, there may be some security issues. Yes, someone may need to use a particular piece of software and these considerations may / will shape their choices. But, with good virus scanners, firewalls, etc most users can use these systems quite happily with little or no hassle, learning curve maybe but that's the same with any change.
Anyway, that's my tuppence.
Member since:
2005-07-29
"If you want a safe, modern operating system that will run the software you want on reasonably priced hardware without requiring an advanced degree in geekology, Windows Vista is the only way to go"
I stop to read here and at this point the entire article lost any credibility
Member since:2006-10-10
I stop to read here and at this point the entire article lost any credibility
don't forget, it's written by four different person, each boasting their own OS of choice.
Member since:2005-09-13
Member since:
2007-02-27
Member since:2005-07-29
What car is best the one with 80 hp that run at 180 km/h or the car that run at 250 km/h but you need 2 engines with 300 hp?
What runner is better the one that run 100 m in 8 seconds with 2 legs and with a reactor in the back or one that run 100 meters in 12 secons but with only 1 leg and Dragging a ball of 50 kg?
catch the idea?
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
2005-07-29
Member since:2008-04-08
The point of a car to you is the accessories? For me it's getting from one point to another. If I want to go to some island a car would make a very bad boat. What we're talking about here is that most of the roads are XP compatible, a little fewer are Vista compatible. OSX can drive on some of them, and finally Linux can use some of them, but might get hurled off.
But then, Linux and OSX have made their own roads, and this is where the analogy ends.
Member since:2005-07-08
This roads and cars analogy could bring us to the general question of commitment to open standards and interoperability between operating systems:
Wouldn't it seem totally insane if different car manufacturers all had their own roads where the owners of other cars couldn't drive their different cars?
In the OS world the equivalent for public roads could be network standards, common standards for electronic documents, Internet standards like HTML, multimedia formats and such very general things.
Good OS manufacturers should try to agree on certain standards ("public roads") more, so that their operating systems could cooperate and compete on the same terms better. Of course, there may be some technical obstacles to that, but nevertheless, often the obstacles seem to be somewhere else than in some fundamental technological differences between OSes, however.
We want our cars to work on as many roads as possible and we wouldn't want to support a monopoly of a certain car manufacturer because it would be bad for the whole industry. Should it be very different in the OS business?
So - one criteria for choosing a good OS is also the degree of interoperability and commitment to open standards it offers, now and in the future.
Edited 2008-04-08 11:16 UTC
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-08
But that's precisely the goal of open standards and interoperability. The idea is that you could use many sorts of operating systems and programs to access the same data, as the documents/data/files are available in open standardized formats. Like is the case with network connections and web pages (HTML standards etc.).
Of course, you might need a program that is available only for some operating system(s). Well, that is still quite possible, unfortunately. But most of the time there are equivalent alternative apps for the same tasks for all the major OSes compared in this article.
But alternatives would be very few if, for example, some web site worked only in some OS / web browser, because the website and/OR browser and/or OS wouldn't be standards compliant enough.
Edited 2008-04-08 20:24 UTC
Member since:
2007-07-24
"These are not rational, disengaged reviews; these are opinionated essays meant to sway your point of view."
And why would my point of view likely be swayed by an irrational essay with a narrow perspective? I agree with the earlier posts that the pretense of neutrality is irritating when in is obviously not genuine, but that's par for the course. Read between the lines, and always think for yourself before you are persuaded by someone else's rhetoric.
IMHO all OSs will always suck. There is suffering involved in the use of every OS because all worldly things are imperfect and transitory in nature. Today's comfortable working environment is tomorrow's frustrating lock-in. The problems we expect to solve with our computers change over time so that an adequate solution can never remain adequate forever. Even if our OS is improved or replaced with something good enough we then feel compelled to create new problems for which it sucks... and the cycle continues.
Member since:
2007-04-11
Boy those two Windows guys had a hard job.I kinda felt for the Vista guy.They did pretty well overall though.
Maybe because I am a Linux user but the others seemed to take a liking to almost digging into Linux to the verge of bashing.Oh well, I didn't take it personal.Showed what "gumption" Linux has.
The Apple guy seemed a bit too much.
Member since:
2005-11-15
It is very comical to see the OSX advocate comment on driver problems in Windows.
I have Apples latest Leopard OS (10.5.2) running on Apple Hardware, In addition to the 300+ new features - I got the following new features included for free:-
The keyboard and/or the mouse randomly slow down or freeze up.
The kernel panics in the USB drivers. This crashes the Mac.
The finder hangs when copying files to USB disks and hangs when reading from USB cameras.
The finder once hung does not even normally relaunch; it is back to the power off button.
Oh yes and sometimes the Mac asks me if I really want to shut down or sleep - all by itself, with the sleep option turned off in preferences.
Since Apple never ever have driver problems this must all be my fault or the fault of my Formac monitor hub, coincidentally my Sony digital camera and my Lacie USB hard disk must also have developed sudden faults.
None of these USB devices work properly now either together or by themselves.
So I have disconnected them all;
At least the apple keyboard and mouse seem to work Ok.
I like Macs but the way people irrationally defend Apple all the time just makes me cringe.
Member since:
2007-07-06
Member since:2007-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-09
The fact that an article is opinionated doesn't mean it has to be snide and unreasoned. A good essay actually thinks through and refutes opposing arguments, rather than just reiterating dry talking points.
Also, I didn't appreciate the snide comments about Linux users. WTF?
Edited 2008-04-08 12:08 UTC
Member since:2007-07-04
I think you're mostly right about the snideness but to be honest at least it's quite open in this article (by the Windows guys).
But here's the deal - the Linux and OSX guys mainly talk up their choices, the Windows guys talk down the opposition.
This is a major point I think. If, in order to sway people to your way of thinking, you have to diss the opposition and it's proponents rather than be positive about the features of your own favorite - there's something wrong.
I also feel the same about the comments aimed at Linux users - really pisses me off. But I assure you they wouldn't say it to your face - these types of articles give people the opportunity to say what they like without the threat of a smack in the face.
My tuppence.
Edited 2008-04-08 12:22 UTC
Member since:
2006-07-26
Member since:2005-09-13
//I'm going to order a laptop (Dell XPS m1530) within a couple of days and I plan to run all 4 of those OS's on it. Two legally, and two illegally ;-)...not too hard to guess which of them will be Legal / Illegal.//
No, but it is hard to guess why the hell you're telling us that.
Edited 2008-04-08 14:03 UTC
Member since:
2007-07-26
The Windows XP reviewer says of GNU/Linux:
"...but there are too many distros, packages, ISOs, GNUs, Gnomes, awks, GREPs, flavors, kernels, KDEs, licenses and modules."
Distros, packages, ISOs, flavours, modules: no, we want more of these things. And packages? How could anyone ever say there are too many packages?
GNUs, GNOMEs, awks, GREPs, KDEs: no, there's only one each of these. One's an OS dedicated to your freedom, two are competing desktop environments (which can live together), and the other two are programming tools.
Kernels, licenses: well since all the licenses are like honey compared to the competition (with really friendly bees), I don't see the problem. Kernels... well maybe this is GNU/Linux's greatest hero and its most infamous enemy.
Typical the XP author would fill his article with FUD.
Member since:
2005-07-01
Member since:
2005-07-06
From the article:
What is he running, Windows 3.1? Or perhaps visiting too many shady porn sites and getting loaded with viruses and spyware?
Also, like previously mentioned, not all distros are created equal. Try running SuSe 10.3 with Gnome or KDE or even Fluxbox on that good ol 486. =)
Edited 2008-04-08 13:33 UTC
Member since:2008-03-17
Member since:2007-02-17
Member since:2007-08-29
Member since:2007-07-01
Member since:
2005-07-06
I enjoyed reading this article. I had a big belly laugh at the Vista guy who said it is the best OS for enterprise class software.
Tell that to the Citibank Group....
Other peoples problems are highlighted here..
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2007-03-02-vist...
Why is it Vista or XP users feel the need to spread FUD about a system they clearly know nothing about ?
"many GREPS and KDE's etc"
Oh, and the "no virus on Linux because only 1% of people use it", clearly they do not understand that millions of webservers are running Linux and they would be more of a target than some dickheads Windows box ?
Edited 2008-04-08 17:34 UTC
Member since:
2006-03-29
Member since:
2007-07-01
Member since:
2007-08-29
I just like the way the Vista guy starts out with a big list of features that everybody else has had since the dark ages (i.e., 18+ months ago).
It's kind of an interesting idea, but the reasons they give aren't necessarily the reasons a given person (the target audience) might use it. Do normals care that you can run Linux on a 486? Do they even know what a 486 is?
Member since:
2007-01-04
From the Pro Vista:
1) Do these games even need DirectX?
2) Do these games even need DirectX 9?
3) These games are available on Mac OS X anyway.
Member since:
2007-05-13
(1) The GNU/Linux guy was the only one who argued for his OS; everyone else argued against the others, not for his own. It was obvious he doesn't really have a bunch of Windows boxes around. DLL conflicts? But then he didn't discuss the graphical and cloud advantages that GNU/Linux has over the other OSes.
(2) The OS X guy just argued for "I can run any app on my Mac!" and little else.
(3) As for Vista, the newer games are proving that the days of gaming on the PC -- even with the most expensive videocards made -- are numbered. He wrote, "...don't expect to run your company's enterprise software, much less mainstream software and games." Uh, you mean your own "Microsoft" software? I'm not a gamer, dude, so that crap doesn't fly with me.
(4) XP? As soon as Microsoft finally fixed the damn thing, they run away from it and cancel support. Silly Microsoft, always making the wrong decisions.
Conclusion. I moved from Windows to GNU/Linux and haven't looked back, and haven't regretted it one time. I've never had more fun on a computer, and I know my hardware investment will last for 2-3 times (5-8 for Mac!) longer than that of a typical Windows purchase.
Edited 2008-04-09 10:21 UTC
Member since:2005-09-13
Member since:
2008-04-09
I use Linux for every workstation in my office except for the 2 that need construction management and scheduling software required by the government for their contracts as well as a very popular accounting software package. When Linux can run those, I will be completely off the leash.
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:2008-04-09
Member since:2005-07-24
I hope that my previous post did not seem too flippant. I understand your situation all too well.
In the universe of my own personal computing, if someone requires a Windows app, I can just flip 'em the bird and go on. But in my business consulting life, I have to find a solution that works for my client.
Within the next few years (and after 20 years), I may reach a point where I do not need to do consulting anymore. And to that end, I am actively, and enthusiastically, practicing my bird-flipping skills. ;-)
Member since:2008-04-09
I hear you. I have a dozen workstations interacting with OO.o and evolution + my associates have a lot of fun finding little applications already installed to help with their job. With th advent of Vista and Office 2007, it is time for some of the big boy software people to realize that we are not willing or cannot afford to upgrade equipment and licenses for all of our personnel when the software they are using is sufficient. They need to expand their user base. More and more companies will keep their old equipment and run Linux than upgrade to Vista-just watch.
Member since:2007-02-17
You mean - when the companies that make those applications port them to Linux, you can then run them on Linux.
So why don't you request a Linux version from the vendor of those applications?
Without any of their customers asking the vendors won't see the need for doing the port to Linux.
If they do see a demand, and they do the port ... then you are better off (because you aren't chained to Windows any longer) and so are they also better off for having pleased their customer, and the fact that their customer has bought a new version (for Linux) that they probably would not have otherwise.
Make it more attractive for your software vendor to come up with a new Linux version than a new Vista version. Everyone will win.