Post by: garrettwc on October 13, 2005, 07:57:06 AM
Now my definition of that term is to do something that hasn't been done before, or take something that exists and do it in a dramatically different way.
After reviewing all the new features and promises, I didn't see anything that hasn't been available to Mac or Linux users for a few years already. So where is this innovation?
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on October 13, 2005, 08:18:31 AM
Quote from: garrettwc
After reviewing all the new features and promises, I didn't see anything that hasn't been available to Mac or Linux users for a few years already. So where is this innovation?
In the minds of the Marketing Department, 1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA.The hope is that they can convince every organization and individual on the planet to switch over to the Next Big Thing.
Eighteen months later, they'll be telling you what a dog NextBigThing '05 was, and how the ONLY way you can be productive in the office and secure on the 'net is by purchasing the NextBigThing '07 upgrade Plus Media Pak for $179.95.
Now you see how it works?
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 13, 2005, 08:21:27 AM
Well...hmm. They'll drop XP support, and thus force users to upgrade...that's innovative.
It will be a resource hog. It will still be slow, unstable, and a steaming pile of monkey crap. And everyone will still use it. Me, I'll stick with XP, and my beloved Linux box.
Post by: Zundfolge on October 13, 2005, 08:26:51 AM
Quote
So where is this innovation?
Now with 20% more evil.Also on Slashdot today, the newest version of Ubuntu was released ... get that instead
Post by: jefnvk on October 13, 2005, 08:29:02 AM
If you are a Linux gamer, there are so many great choices. You could become a Tux Racer mastermind, or a Solitare genius
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 13, 2005, 08:29:08 AM
Quote
Also on Slashdot today, the newest version of Ubuntu was released ... get that instead
"apt-get dist upgrade" in progress as we speak
Post by: mtnbkr on October 13, 2005, 08:36:19 AM
Chris
Post by: jefnvk on October 13, 2005, 08:56:36 AM
The only game I was aware of that had a dedicated Linux version is America's Army.
Post by: TarpleyG on October 13, 2005, 09:03:49 AM
Greg
Post by: mtnbkr on October 13, 2005, 09:19:36 AM
Quote from: jefnvk
Were they running on a Windows emulator?
The only game I was aware of that had a dedicated Linux version is America's Army.
Nope, these were Linux native games. I bought both, at full retail price, in support of Linux gaming back when I used linux on my desktop and played games.The only game I was aware of that had a dedicated Linux version is America's Army.
IIRC, Loki Games was the distributor.
Chris
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 13, 2005, 09:38:40 AM
Quote
is that you can set it up so that regular users can install software without admin rights.
That is the LAST thing I want. No software is installed on any machine on my network without prior approval, and then I do the install.
Post by: garrettwc on October 13, 2005, 09:44:05 AM
However, the more I see of the newer Windows versions, the more I want a Mac or Linux.
Post by: cfabe on October 13, 2005, 10:04:30 AM
I used to be a die-hard linux nut back in school when I had time to mess with it. Honestly though, I'm running XP these days and it's pretty darn stable. Not as stable as my redhat webserver in the basement, that I haven't touched for 2 years, but plenty stable for my desktop needs. Now security is another issue entirely, of course.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on October 13, 2005, 10:12:29 AM
Post by: garrettwc on October 13, 2005, 10:52:46 AM
Quote
if you are into gaming, get a dedicated XBOX
+1. At lot of my favorite PC games like Rainbow Six series have been ported over to Xbox. For gaming I would rather use a console system.
Post by: jefnvk on October 13, 2005, 12:56:08 PM
Quote
if you are into gaming, get a dedicated XBOX
PC's are far superior to consoles for gaming.
Post by: Justin on October 13, 2005, 01:35:53 PM
Quote
That is the LAST thing I want. No software is installed on any machine on my network without prior approval, and then I do the install.
So people in your company would like to install Bonzi Buddy, eh?
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 13, 2005, 01:43:23 PM
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on October 13, 2005, 06:07:38 PM
I work on the AIX KERN team. That should tell some folks what I *really* like.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 13, 2005, 06:49:58 PM
Quote from: jefnvk
Linux is great, if you are not a gamer.
If you are a Linux gamer, there are so many great choices. You could become a Tux Racer mastermind, or a Solitare genius
Tux Racer ROCKS!!! If you are a Linux gamer, there are so many great choices. You could become a Tux Racer mastermind, or a Solitare genius
Post by: Zundfolge on October 13, 2005, 08:28:43 PM
Quote
Linux is great, if you are not a gamer.
Two words; dual boot
Post by: jefnvk on October 13, 2005, 09:03:36 PM
Quote
Two words; dual boot
Two more words: Dual machines. Actually, triple machines if you throw in the Sun Ultra 5. Quad if you throw in the XP Home running laptop.I have Linux (Fedora Core 4). I have Solaris 9. I have Windows XP. All three do the exact same thing, with the Windows machine only having the advantage in games. Other than that, I have no real preference. If I had to choose one, I like Solaris the best. But the box is old and slow, so I don't use it much.
I have never had any security issues on any of the machines, so it is a moot point.
Honestly, you could toss me any of them, and with the exception of gaming, I could be happy doing anything else. I frequently start writing code in Windows, and end up finishing up on the Sun or Linux box. I'll obviously test it on a couple OS's, and then on the CS department's Fedora machines, if for nothing else than to see any differences that may occur.
I know how to use all of my machines, I can use them all effectively. OS doesn't make much of a difference to me. I wouldn't go out and buy Vista, just like I didn't buy XP Pro (Academic license) or Home (came on the laptop), unless I couldn't run a game on XP. Just like I wouldn't buy Solaris (although licensing is free on their hardware), if Linux was free.
The only thing I don't really like is Macs. You wanna talk overpriced, start there. Especially when the OS is built on something that was free.
EDIT: Oh, and yeah, didn't mean to knock Tux Racers. I have played that game and lost track of time on numerous occasions. Excellently addicting game.
Post by: caseydog on October 13, 2005, 09:13:26 PM
I see so many users who can't understand the concept or use of a data partition, this is gonna give someone a stroke.
Hopefully this time they will get the user created data portion of documents and settings off the damn C: drive by default, and make two partitions the default install.
Ray
Post by: TarpleyG on October 14, 2005, 12:59:29 AM
Quote
That is the LAST thing I want. No software is installed on any machine on my network without prior approval, and then I do the install.
Look, I tried to do it my way but we have a CIO that won't stand up against our users and anything the users want, the users get. So, with nearly 20,000 computers to deal with, let 'em do what they want. We have taken the Gateway approach--if it's broke, reimage it. They aren't supposed to keep files locally and we could care less about your Bonzai Buddy (whatever that is). This approach will allow the end user to think they have it all and they stop bitching and moaning. I am really sick of IT. I need a new job. Anyone in the Raleigh area need a well rounded, responsible, hard-working manager for anything BESIDES IT? Call me.Greg
Post by: garrettwc on October 14, 2005, 03:53:57 AM
One more reason I won't be switching.
Quote
The only thing I don't really like is Macs. You wanna talk overpriced, start there. Especially when the OS is built on something that was free.
Are you talking hardware or software? I think that used to be true on the hardware, but recently the price gap has narrowed to the point it's almost a non issue.
Post by: Zundfolge on October 14, 2005, 08:53:39 AM
Quote from: jefnvk
The only thing I don't really like is Macs. You wanna talk overpriced, start there. Especially when the OS is built on something that was free.
BSD Unix is not and never was free ("FreeBSD" is not exactly the same as BSD).At any rate, my MacMini cost me $500 and is every bit as powerful and useful as any other $500 computer out there.
Next generation Macs are going to be running Intel processors so its about to become a moot point.
Post by: garrettwc on October 14, 2005, 09:57:16 AM
Quote
Next generation Macs are going to be running Intel processors so its about to become a moot point.
It might not be as moot a point as you think. The Windows zealots have always claimed that Mac OS worked better because of the Apple hardware. Imagine the backlash if/when Apple starts beating them on WIntel hardware.
Post by: mtnbkr on October 14, 2005, 10:39:00 AM
Quote
The Windows zealots have always claimed that Mac OS worked better because of the Apple hardware.
Not a Windows zealot (or any OS zealot, they all suck) here, but I'd be willing to bet money that when MacOS starts running on Intel hardware, it won't be the same hardware that's available to Windows/Linux users. It'll be tailored to fit MacOS needs. It might be made by Intel and be nominally the same (they'll both be pentium processors for example), but you won't be dual booting MacOS and Windows.Chris
Post by: Zundfolge on October 14, 2005, 10:55:27 AM
Quote from: mtnbkr
Not a Windows zealot (or any OS zealot, they all suck) here, but I'd be willing to bet money that when MacOS starts running on Intel hardware, it won't be the same hardware that's available to Windows/Linux users. It'll be tailored to fit MacOS needs. It might be made by Intel and be nominally the same (they'll both be pentium processors for example), but you won't be dual booting MacOS and Windows.
Chris
The plan is that MacOS will only run on Intel machines built for Apple ... I imagine they will either do this in the bios, or with an extra instruction set on the chip.Chris
I guarantee you there will be ways around it. Other then the "security" there won't be any functional difference between the Windows/Linux Intel machines and the Mac Intel machines ... the processors will still be to the same specs...they will still be x86 (and other stuff like drives, memory, video cards etc are already the exact same in Macs and Windows boxes).
As for dual booting, you will be able to dual boot Windows and/or *nix on the Intel Macs ... but not the other way around (at least not legally ... see my "there will be ways around it" comment)
Post by: Zundfolge on October 14, 2005, 10:59:48 AM
Quote from: garrettwc
It might not be as moot a point as you think. The Windows zealots have always claimed that Mac OS worked better because of the Apple hardware. Imagine the backlash if/when Apple starts beating them on WIntel hardware.
The backlash against Windows is already starting ... the opening shot against MS was Firefox ... now there are more and more good desktop Linux distros out there ... MacOSX on Intel could very well be the first major victory against MS (and I believe that Jobs is blowing it big time ... again ... by not allowing anyone with a Pentium machine to run out and buy a copy of OSX and install it ... he could take over MS and he's not going to ... its this elitist attitude that kept him and Apple from being where MS is today).
Post by: jefnvk on October 14, 2005, 12:35:51 PM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 14, 2005, 05:06:24 PM
Laptop provided by work, Win XP.
2.4 GHz Ubuntu Linux box at home.
650 MHz Windows 2000 box at home.
Post by: Sindawe on October 14, 2005, 05:38:57 PM
Post by: Nathaniel Firethorn on October 15, 2005, 09:07:41 PM
- NF