Off Topic Post

[Richard Bailey]

Thank you for sharing your opinions.

Our sites are hosted on a virtual dedicated server running Linux. We'd love to use Macs, but the hosts that offer them charge extra for the privilege. Everything runs super-stable, which is a tribute to the quality of the software, but also HostICan, the firm we use.

I agree that Microsoft is suffering a lot more than some might admit. Consider the $1 billion-plus charge they are taking against defective Xbox's. The fact that the head of that division left is an indication there's trouble afoot, but a lot of the tech press won't cop to the truth.

In Europe, Firefox is gaining market share big-time, and in some countries has almost approached a majority status. This despite the fact that Microsoft gave Internet Explorer 7 to Windows XP users as a standard required update, and the fact that it's the default browser in Windows Vista.

Times -- they are a changing.

Thanks for giving us a place to discuss this topic Gene.

Linux was born out of a networking environment. So from the beginning stability has been a priority. The original Linux Kernel was built from scratch with networking in mind. I go for months on my Linux boxes without rebooting them because they are so stable and if one app crashes the system continues business as usually. That is the great thing about not having the operating system locked into the GUI.

Microsoft isn't going to let anybody know what the real story is, they don't want their stockholders to get nervous. The worse things at a big corporation the more they try to cover it up. Kinda like Enron.

I like Firefox and Thunderbird. I have been using them since I switched from Netscape Navigator 4.7 . Funny old thing about Firefox it is the fastest growing, most bug free browser on the market. However the Redmond bunch just about lost their mind over it having a single security glitch in one of the recent releases. Doesn't matter that that is the first in some time and a patch was available in less than a week. They didn't mention the hundreds in IE every time there is a new version. You would think with a three and four year release cycle MS would be able to catch a few of those security problems.

Firefox is beginning to pull into the lead globally. With Konquerer, Opera, Epiphany, Galeon, Ice Weasel, Ice Ape and so on availble without the problems that come with IE it has just about gotten to the point only the appliance operators are using IE.

I here the MAC users have some really good internet tools available to them.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Thank you for sharing your opinions.

Our sites are hosted on a virtual dedicated server running Linux. We'd love to use Macs, but the hosts that offer them charge extra for the privilege. Everything runs super-stable, which is a tribute to the quality of the software, but also HostICan, the firm we use.

I agree that Microsoft is suffering a lot more than some might admit. Consider the $1 billion-plus charge they are taking against defective Xbox's. The fact that the head of that division left is an indication there's trouble afoot, but a lot of the tech press won't cop to the truth.

In Europe, Firefox is gaining market share big-time, and in some countries has almost approached a majority status. This despite the fact that Microsoft gave Internet Explorer 7 to Windows XP users as a standard required update, and the fact that it's the default browser in Windows Vista.

Times -- they are a changing.

Thanks for giving us a place to discuss this topic Gene.

Linux was born out of a networking environment. So from the beginning stability has been a priority. The original Linux Kernel was built from scratch with networking in mind. I go for months on my Linux boxes without rebooting them because they are so stable and if one app crashes the system continues business as usually. That is the great thing about not having the operating system locked into the GUI.

Microsoft isn't going to let anybody know what the real story is, they don't want their stockholders to get nervous. The worse things at a big corporation the more they try to cover it up. Kinda like Enron.

I like Firefox and Thunderbird. I have been using them since I switched from Netscape Navigator 4.7 . Funny old thing about Firefox it is the fastest growing, most bug free browser on the market. However the Redmond bunch just about lost their mind over it having a single security glitch in one of the recent releases. Doesn't matter that that is the first in some time and a patch was available in less than a week. They didn't mention the hundreds in IE every time there is a new version. You would think with a three and four year release cycle MS would be able to catch a few of those security problems.

Firefox is beginning to pull into the lead globally. With Konquerer, Opera, Epiphany, Galeon, Ice Weasel, Ice Ape and so on availble without the problems that come with IE it has just about gotten to the point only the appliance operators are using IE.

I here the MAC users have some really good internet tools available to them.

A lot of what Linux users have can work fine with little or no modification under Mac OS X, due to its Unix core. There are reports that Mac notebooks are showing up at Linux user meetings, because they can be used to run just about everything one needs to run.

 

[dbtrek]

Now that iMac's are powered by Intel chips they can run most MS software using one of the many Virtual Machine packages out there. Can your Windows do that with Apple software?

The computing world at large doesn't seem too worried about whether their PC's can run Apple software or not. In fact, it is Apple that has to go out of it's way to make sure that popular versions of it's software are available to MS users (iTunes, QuickTime, Safari) in order to remain marginally competitive.

All but one or two Linux desktop distro's are a free download, Cell phones and other appliances don't have there OS's tracked.

We're not arguing about 'appliance' OS. We're talking about PC's. Take a look at the first sentence you typed in that quote and remember it, I'm going to refer back to it in a sec.

Fedora is the desktop version of Red Hat and is a free download. So you will not get capitalization figures concerning Fedora 7. That doesn't stop it from being one of the most download pieces of software on the internet.

If it is one of the 'most' downloaded software packages on the internet why don't network analytics reflect that? It says here: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2 that Linux accounts for 0.71% (not even a whole 1%) of OS's being used. Are people just downloading it and leaving it unzipped on the hard drive?

Doesn't hurt that there is one five miles in any direction, even in the parts of town that other companies won't open a store in. Doesn't hurt that they are in most of the Walmart's nation wide either. Don't we call that market saturation. Guess that makes Microsoft the Mcdonalds of operating systems.

Wait a second . . . just a minute ago you were arguing that Fedora is one of the 'most' downloaded software packages on the internet. Before that you were pointing out how all but two distros of Linux are free for download. Now you're complaining that Microsoft has a distribution advantage. What's their advantage when Linux is free, and freely availabe?

OK, Last but not least. DB do the math. I think the workstation license for Vista is about $90, I am not sure what the server license cost. I think the per workstation cost of a license for Microsoft office is in the $300.00 range. Now not factoring in hardware. 20 workstations, 1 server. $7800.00 plus sever license for windows.
In Linux, Server software, Desktop OS, Open Office which will do Microsoft documents and let you save as PDF. 20 workstations, 1 server not factoring in hardware = $0.

Yep . . . the primary advantage of Linux . . . it's free. I'm glad you're saving money, I still don't see any tangible evidence of Microsoft spriraling towards last place in the OS market.

-DBTrek

 

[dbtrek]

Another nail in the coffin of the argument that MS is 'rapidly' falling to last place in the OS Game.

Here are the trendline numbers from the same site I cited above (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5):

Marketshare Percentage Over Last 6 Months:

Win XP (Starting Jan 07): 85.02, 84.33, 83.57, 82.65, 82.02, 81.94
Win Vista: .18, .93, 2.04, 3.02, 3.74, 4.52
Mac OS: 4.34, 4.29, 3.94, 3.89, 3.95, 3.52
Other (and Linux): 3.64, 3.6, 3.6, 3.69, 3.47, 3.54

For a company 'rapidly falling in to last place', MS has the only OS consistently gaining marketshare over the last six months. Look at those Apple numbers . . . ouch! Well, at least Apple had one month of gains in there. To it's credit, even after plummeting below 4% marketshare Apple still has more users than Linux/Other.

Kinda odd for the 'best' operating systems to be doing so poorly among users. Afterall, the car is superior to the horse and we saw how that competition played out. The refrigerator is superior to salt packing, the electric light superior to the candle, the motorboat superior to the raft . . . we've seen how all these events have played out. Yet the Linux crowd and Mac users are going to cling to their (less than) 4% market share and delude themselves into thinking they've found the ultimate OS that the rest of the PC using world is just too stupid to recognize.

This phenomena would be a great thesis paper for a psycology student.

-DBTrek

 

[Gene Steinberg]

All you producing there is a single benchmark of browser access, rather than a real demonstration of operating system market share. The numbers you cite vary somewhat from survey to survery.

The fact of the matter is that Macs sales are growing faster than the PC industry as a whole, which means that Mac market share is going up.

In the end, though, and this is the argument you can't seem to address: The most popular product isn't always the best product.

 

[dbtrek]

In the end, though, and this is the argument you can't seem to address: The most popular product isn't always the best product.

I don't mind addressing it (again). The problem arises from the word 'best' being highly subjective. You and I probably use our computers in different ways, and we probably value the abilities and features of our systems differently as well. Because of this it will be impossible to agree on the 'best' platform because we'll both be using different standards of measurement.

What we can agree on is which platform is most widely adapted an continues to outsell the competition hands down. Since human history is a long story of adaptation and evolution I don't think it is unfair to say that the 'best' OS we have is the one most widely adopted by every human culture coming in contact with it.

Either way, the numbers clearly show that Richards claim of MS 'rapidly approaching last place' are fabrications. It's nowhere near last place, and it's not headed in that direction presently.

-DBTrek

 

[Gene Steinberg]

In the end, though, and this is the argument you can't seem to address: The most popular product isn't always the best product.

I don't mind addressing it (again). The problem arises from the word 'best' being highly subjective. You and I probably use our computers in different ways, and we probably value the abilities and features of our systems differently as well. Because of this it will be impossible to agree on the 'best' platform because we'll both be using different standards of measurement.

What we can agree on is which platform is most widely adapted an continues to outsell the competition hands down. Since human history is a long story of adaptation and evolution I don't think it is unfair to say that the 'best' OS we have is the one most widely adopted by every human culture coming in contact with it.

Either way, the numbers clearly show that Richards claim of MS 'rapidly approaching last place' are fabrications. It's nowhere near last place, and it's not headed in that direction presently.

-DBTrek

There are historical reasons why Microsoft came to dominate the personal computer business. It was never about which was best, however. I've also asked you to provide productivity surveys about Windows, and you haven't done that either

 

[dbtrek]

There are historical reasons why Microsoft came to dominate the personal computer business. It was never about which was best, however. I've also asked you to provide productivity surveys about Windows, and you haven't done that either

There may have been reasons that MS got the early jump, but the fact remains they've held the #1 position for a long time. Apple has had ample time to address whatever early advantages MS had.

As for productivity . . . it occurs to me that I'm the only one in three pages of debate that has cited any hard data. That being the case, I'm once again content to sit back for a while, confident that others reading this thread will be able to look at the data provided and come to their own onclusions.


-DBTrej

 

[Gene Steinberg]

There are historical reasons why Microsoft came to dominate the personal computer business. It was never about which was best, however. I've also asked you to provide productivity surveys about Windows, and you haven't done that either

There may have been reasons that MS got the early jump, but the fact remains they've held the #1 position for a long time. Apple has had ample time to address whatever early advantages MS had.

As for productivity . . . it occurs to me that I'm the only one in three pages of debate that has cited any hard data. That being the case, I'm once again content to sit back for a while, confident that others reading this thread will be able to look at the data provided and come to their own onclusions.


-DBTrej

Actually you have given us no data whatever. System benchmarks do not demonstrate worker productivity.

In another thread, over at The Paracast, I did cite studies that you more or less ignored.

So you can sit back but right now you have not provided anything relevant to what was requested of you.

 

[Richard Bailey]

Well DB I can see you are an enthusiast windows user. I also se that you have fallen for the propaganda that goes along with it. You have learned well from your masters. Since you seem to only have one website to use to buttress your argument I can only conclude that you haven't done your homework. It is easy to be top dog when everyone that purchases a new PC also has to purchase your operating system as part of the price. That is beginning to change. Since you have refused to address any of the pertinent points of this discussion I can only conclude that you are not as sure about your operating system as you want us to believe. It is natural to be afraid of things that are unfamiliar.

What is the mark of a good operating system? It just works. I can sit down at my machines and use them and they just work. No hangs, no hiccups, no waiting for the drive to catch up, no blue screen of death. I am also comforted in the fact that if I am in the terminal (DOS screen for the windows folks) I can run any program on my system without having to worry about getting the message " This program must run in windows". The feedback I get from my friends that use MAC's is that they just work too.

So enjoy your one tired little website and wrap yourself in the blissful assurances from the Redmond propaganda machine. It is my hope that you are able someday to acquire a truly good and useful tool and get away from your toy. Might I suggest a playstation, WII or a Nintendo. Stay away from Xbox I here the have problems.

 

[Richard Bailey]

A lot of what Linux users have can work fine with little or no modification under Mac OS X, due to its Unix core. There are reports that Mac notebooks are showing up at Linux user meetings, because they can be used to run just about everything one needs to run.

I had heard that the current MAC os had its roots in UNIX. I did a little research the other night and found that that was the case. The MAC hardware in a lot of cases is better made than the PC version. The Linux users love them. If I end up with one it will probably be because the OS is gone and I get it really cheap. The Linux Distro I use on my Internet machine is called Ubuntu and I can take a Intel based PC, an AMD based PC, a Power PC, and IMAC. and use the same operating on all of them. The only difference is the Kernel.

My next question would be do the MAC's have more than one file system format? I can think of five right off the top of my head in Li.nux

 

[Gene Steinberg]

A lot of what Linux users have can work fine with little or no modification under Mac OS X, due to its Unix core. There are reports that Mac notebooks are showing up at Linux user meetings, because they can be used to run just about everything one needs to run.

I had heard that the current MAC os had its roots in UNIX. I did a little research the other night and found that that was the case. The MAC hardware in a lot of cases is better made than the PC version. The Linux users love them. If I end up with one it will probably be because the OS is gone and I get it really cheap. The Linux Distro I use on my Internet machine is called Ubuntu and I can take a Intel based PC, an AMD based PC, a Power PC, and IMAC. and use the same operating on all of them. The only difference is the Kernel.

My next question would be do the MAC's have more than one file system format? I can think of five right off the top of my head in Li.nux

Traditional Mac file systems have included HFS and a modification, HFS+ and then HFS+ with journaling. Macs read Windows formatted drives, and preliminary support will be added for ZFS in the next Mac system release, code-named Leopard, promised for October.

 

[dbtrek]

Well DB I can see you are an enthusiast windows user. I also se that you have fallen for the propaganda that goes along with it. You have learned well from your masters. Since you seem to only have one website to use to buttress your argument I can only conclude that you haven't done your homework. It is easy to be top dog when everyone that purchases a new PC also has to purchase your operating system as part of the price. That is beginning to change. Since you have refused to address any of the pertinent points of this discussion I can only conclude that you are not as sure about your operating system as you want us to believe. It is natural to be afraid of things that are unfamiliar.

What is the mark of a good operating system? It just works. I can sit down at my machines and use them and they just work. No hangs, no hiccups, no waiting for the drive to catch up, no blue screen of death. I am also comforted in the fact that if I am in the terminal (DOS screen for the windows folks) I can run any program on my system without having to worry about getting the message " This program must run in windows". The feedback I get from my friends that use MAC's is that they just work too.

So enjoy your one tired little website and wrap yourself in the blissful assurances from the Redmond propaganda machine. It is my hope that you are able someday to acquire a truly good and useful tool and get away from your toy. Might I suggest a playstation, WII or a Nintendo. Stay away from Xbox I here the have problems.

Typical response of the defeated. Yes Richard, name call and then please tuck your tail between your legs and vacate the premesis. My 'one' tired website (though I've quoted more than that) is an infinite quantity more than the zero you and Gene have quoted. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Enjoy preaching your Linux religion to the less that 1% of PC users who care, and please keep attacking the rest of the populace because the problem obviously lies with them, not you.

Hahahah

-DBTrek

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Well DB I can see you are an enthusiast windows user. I also se that you have fallen for the propaganda that goes along with it. You have learned well from your masters. Since you seem to only have one website to use to buttress your argument I can only conclude that you haven't done your homework. It is easy to be top dog when everyone that purchases a new PC also has to purchase your operating system as part of the price. That is beginning to change. Since you have refused to address any of the pertinent points of this discussion I can only conclude that you are not as sure about your operating system as you want us to believe. It is natural to be afraid of things that are unfamiliar.

What is the mark of a good operating system? It just works. I can sit down at my machines and use them and they just work. No hangs, no hiccups, no waiting for the drive to catch up, no blue screen of death. I am also comforted in the fact that if I am in the terminal (DOS screen for the windows folks) I can run any program on my system without having to worry about getting the message " This program must run in windows". The feedback I get from my friends that use MAC's is that they just work too.

So enjoy your one tired little website and wrap yourself in the blissful assurances from the Redmond propaganda machine. It is my hope that you are able someday to acquire a truly good and useful tool and get away from your toy. Might I suggest a playstation, WII or a Nintendo. Stay away from Xbox I here the have problems.

Typical response of the defeated. Yes Richard, name call and then please tuck your tail between your legs and vacate the premesis. My 'one' tired website (though I've quoted more than that) is an infinite quantity more than the zero you and Gene have quoted. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Enjoy preaching your Linux religion to the less that 1% of PC users who care, and please keep attacking the rest of the populace because the problem obviously lies with them, not you.

Hahahah

-DBTrek

DBTrek, I don't see any responses about what I asked, a study showing Windows productivity compared to other platforms.

Where is it? Do you have such a thing?

 

[dbtrek]

DBTrek, I don't see any responses about what I asked, a study showing Windows productivity compared to other platforms.

Where is it? Do you have such a thing?

Please tell me the standardized unit of measurement for productivity.

Oh, there isn't one?

Probably because 'productivity' is subjective and entirely arbitrary. The results of a 'productivity' test will be determined by however the tester has defined 'productivity'.

Am I to take it that you have no easily quantifiable fields where Macs can demonstrate their vast superiority to Windows?

That must be why Macs continue to langush as a distant second platform in the PC market for the last few decades.

"Forget all the quantifiable numbers and what they say! Our Mac experts says that MacIntosh users are more productive . . . when they're controlling the productivity tests and controlling the definition of 'productive', that is"

Wow . . . what an inspiring selling point!

-DBTrek

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Try this for starters:

http://www.pfeifferreport.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=42

 

[Richard Bailey]

Typical response of the defeated. Yes Richard, name call and then please tuck your tail between your legs and vacate the premesis. My 'one' tired website (though I've quoted more than that) is an infinite quantity more than the zero you and Gene have quoted. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Enjoy preaching your Linux religion to the less that 1% of PC users who care, and please keep attacking the rest of the populace because the problem obviously lies with them, not you.

Hahahah

-DBTrek

Defeated ok, your right dear. I don't recall any name calling (ie. DBTrek is a hammerhead) but if you say so, ok. I can live with defeat for a long time and I will giggle while I watch. That still doesn't alter the fact that you haven't answered any of the hard questions put to you. You are very good at hiding behind semantics and skirting the issues put to you. Where windows is concerned, The deer is so intent on watching the lights that he doesn't even realize it when the semi smacks him.

 

[dbtrek]

That still doesn't alter the fact that you haven't answered any of the hard questions put to you. You are very good at hiding behind semantics and skirting the issues put to you.

I've been taking all real issues as head-on as I can. If I've overlooked one feel free to be specific enough that I can address the criticism. So far the only thing I haven't done is produce an arbitrarily defined 'productivity' report for Gene . . . mainly because I don't know of one existing. Is it my fault that Gene wants me to conjure up reports that may or may not exist at his whim? I think not.

Here are the top Google returns for "Windows Productivity Report":

HMG : : Current Projects : : CEC PIER Daylighting StudiesThese new productivity studies consider the impact of daylight on human performance, ...

Borland Delphi 2005 Boosts Microsoft Windows Productivity ...Borland Delphi 2005 Boosts Microsoft Windows Productivity,

IT-Enquirer - Pfeiffer Research Reports on Cost and Productivity ...Pfeiffer Research recently released a new report on the differences between Mac and (THIS is the report Gene is referencing, but it costs several hundred dollars to see.)

DOC] WindowsFile Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
In this module, you will create a Counselor Productivity Report for Corn Conn ...

Customers Report Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 ...Customers Report Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 Helps Increase Productivity ...

excel spreadsheet productivity report Excel Spreadsheet Productivity Report search results - free library of articles, downloads, ...

So . . . what am I supposed to do about that? There is one report that costs considerable money to access. It claims to address 'productivity', though how this is tested, defined, and performed I can't say. Nor can I magically make reports exist, so I'm forced to use data that is available for us all to access and analyze.

The data I've found indicates that your claim that Microsoft is 'rapidly approaching' last place in the OS market is false. If you have hard data to show that it is, let's see it.

-DBTrek

 

[Gene Steinberg]

What I want here, and which you haven't provided yet, is a report comparing Mac versus Windows productivity. On which platform can you get the most work done?

That has nothing whatever to do with the platform that's the most popular.

Meanwhile, here's some more stuff for you to chew over:

http://www.it-enquirer.com/main/ite/printpage/pfeiffer_report_mac_windows/

 

[dbtrek]

What I want here, and which you haven't provided yet, is a report comparing Mac versus Windows productivity. On which platform can you get the most work done?

Right . . . I got that. The problem is your desire for this information doesn't make it spontaneously appear in reality. I've searched for something similar to what you want and I can't find it. This $900 report seems to be the only game in town (499 British pounds is about $900 or so right?).

That has nothing whatever to do with the platform that's the most popular.

True. As mentioned earlier 'productivity' is purely subjective, so the 'most productive' PC will be the one that meets whatever standards the tester creates.

http://www.it-enquirer.com/main/ite/printpage/pfeiffer_report_mac_windows/

Yeah, I read that last week. It's interesting, but without the entire report there's not much I can say about it. It's heartening to see that the author seems to be taking a balanced approach to the problem . . . but I'm not dropping hundreds of bucks to read it. If you want to send me your copy you have my email.

-DBTrek