PDA

View Full Version : Hasta la Vista


MacBytes
Dec 22, 2006, 10:56 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Hasta la Vista (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20061222115636)
Description:: Why Windows rules the world

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Max Payne
Dec 22, 2006, 11:05 AM
But the real difference between Unix-like operating systems and Windows is their design philosophies. Windows may squander computing power through its clumsy architecture. But by favouring simplicity of use over simplicity of design, Microsoft has been able to leverage cheap but powerful commodity hardware, to provide cost-effective software solutions. These may be complex in design—and full of bugs to boot—but, boy, are they easy to use and maintain. That’s a winning formula in anyone’s book, and the reason why Windows rightly rules the world.

Can someone please explain the bold setences because I am confused. :confused:

Thank you.

bigmc6000
Dec 22, 2006, 11:09 AM
This thing says that 10.4 has no fewer than 84 million lines of code and I distintly remember reading an article, not very long ago from a reputable source - not this we love MS crap, that 10.4 had somewhere b/w 25 and 30 million lines. Any help here and/or a link to a non-fan boy site???

BTW - I know plenty of people who use Windoze 2000 and they aren't about to upgrade to Vista - they hate their computers being so slow just to run the OS. And I do suppose that begs an important question. Why if Vista is basically 10.4 are the min system requirements absolutely insane compared to the 10.4 min requirements???

bigmc6000
Dec 22, 2006, 11:12 AM
Can someone please explain the bold setences because I am confused. :confused:

Thank you.

I think they are saying that if you look at, say, Linux it's not a friendly to the eye what with the UI not being user friendly. Basically - you're paying a good 200MB of RAM to go from the "simplicity of design" of Linux to go to the "simplicity of use" of M$. Of course that's making the assumption that Windoze is actually "easy" to use...

killmoms
Dec 22, 2006, 11:17 AM
Can someone please explain the bold setences because I am confused. :confused:

Thank you.

I'll give you a hint—they don't mean anything. This boob has no idea what he's talking about. The hardware Windows runs on isn't any different than the hardware Linux or OS X run on these days. Windows "rules the world" because BACK IN THE DAY, Macs and UNIX systems resided on their own (more) esoteric hardware. Subsequently, Microsoft made shady deals and cheaped their way into the number one spot. Now they're number one because of existing massive investment in the platform on the part of businesses and familiarity on the part of home users—the Devil you know is better than the one you don't and all that rot.

SkyBell
Dec 22, 2006, 11:20 AM
It is rediculous. "Windows rules the world." Close, but not yet. And it never will. There'll always be some programmer out there, making a new OS.
They are just a bunch of fanboys.

Most of the people on this site don't hate Windows, they just don't like using it.
Windows is just another pain in the glass. And like it or not, it's here to stay.

But geez, get your facts straight before you write an article.:mad:

bigmc6000
Dec 22, 2006, 11:58 AM
So I re-read the article and this is way way too funny. In the beginning of the article he says "..especially in its look and feel and ease of use, Vista out-Macs the Mac’s latest operating system—the Tiger version of OS X. However, that could change when Apple releases its Leopard version of OS X in spring."

So he's saying Vista is made to look like OS X and it's ease of use and in some areas, in his strangly distorted world, thinks Vista one ups OS X - for now anyway. Then later he describes Unix based OS's (Linux and OS X) as "But the real difference between Unix-like operating systems and Windows is their design philosophies. Windows may squander computing power through its clumsy architecture. But by favouring simplicity of use over simplicity of design.." Wait wait wait. So he's saying Vista is a minor enhancement of OS X but OS X favors "simplicity of design" over "simplicity of use"???? RRRiiiiggghhhtttt. Wouldn't that mean that Windoze itself has the same design philosophy as OS X? And thus the whole argument falls apart. Well that and all the typos... (organizing is spelled with a z by the way...)

superleccy
Dec 22, 2006, 12:03 PM
Can someone please explain the bold setences because I am confused. :confused:

A good example is the search function in XP. You are assisted by a cheerful animated dog character which hides the complexities from you (this is simplicity of use), despite the fact that the actual results of the search will be perplexingly useless (absence of simplicity of design).

HTH
SL

aranhamo
Dec 22, 2006, 12:04 PM
This thing says that 10.4 has no fewer than 84 million lines of code and I distintly remember reading an article, not very long ago from a reputable source - not this we love MS crap, that 10.4 had somewhere b/w 25 and 30 million lines. Any help here and/or a link to a non-fan boy site???

He doesn't exactly what he's including in that count, but OS X comes with literally hundreds of programs that get installed with the OS, that are not actually part of it. He may be including those, as I suspect he is when he says that Linux distros are more than 200 million lines of code. These would be things such as apache, perl, ssh, ftp, sftp, etc. that all get installed along with OS X, but are actually developed and maintained outside of Apple.

Windows doesn't typically come with a lot of those types of programs. If you want an ftp server on your Windows PC, for example, you generally have to go buy or download one. On Linux and OS X, there's one already installed.

skunk
Dec 22, 2006, 12:05 PM
That article makes no sense whatsoever.

However, since it's published in a British paper, I would expect organise to be spelled like that.

iJawn108
Dec 22, 2006, 12:09 PM
ll the latest patches and updates released weekly by Microsoft

uhh what windows update version does this guy use? I don't remember microsofts patch cycle ever being that timely.

I wish I got good money to write articals and pull them out ass without getting the facts correct.

Max Payne
Dec 22, 2006, 12:11 PM
A good example is the search function in XP. You are assisted by a cheerful animated dog character which hides the complexities from you (this is simplicity of use), despite the fact that the actual results of the search will be perplexingly useless (absence of simplicity of design).

HTH
SL

Oh man, not the dog. I hate the dog. :D

But good explanation though. Now I know how Windows is easier to work with.

DMann
Dec 22, 2006, 12:13 PM
That article makes no sense whatsoever.

However, since it's published in a British paper, I would expect organise to be spelled like that.

A dilettante at best, knows not the facts. Well organised, almost....

bayoutech
Dec 22, 2006, 12:16 PM
Almost makes you want to switch, huh? Except for that whole Windows thing!

someguy
Dec 22, 2006, 12:21 PM
Make no mistake, this is more than just a slicker, prettier version of Microsoft’s current operating system for desktop computers, Windows XP.
No. I'm pretty sure that's all it is.

So... percentage-wise... how much of the malware written for XP runs in Vista? (http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/11/30/HNmalwareaffectvista_1.html) :p

Vista out-Macs the Mac’s latest operating system—the Tiger version of OS X.
What the hell does this even mean? If Microsoft was shooting for a product that could "out-Mac" Tiger (which they clearly were), then they didn't really do a very thorough job (they clearly didn't).

mkrishnan
Dec 22, 2006, 12:21 PM
A dilettante at best, knows not the facts. Well organised, almost....

The Economist is so weird this way... every once in a while, they publish some article that is almost somehow seeking to reduce the combined store of knowledge in the world on a particular topic. This article is just so silly... regardless of whether or not you like Vista or think it's a good thing.

bozigle
Dec 22, 2006, 12:21 PM
And as any programmer will tell you, software contains typically five to ten errors for every 100 lines of code. So, even if 90% of them were squished during the extensive testing programme, Vista will hit the shelves with at least a quarter of a million bugs in it.


???

I'm software developer... i would be fired after one month for doing that.
Do they actualy hired people to bug their code?

bozigle

Linkster82
Dec 22, 2006, 01:05 PM
Overall, a very poorly written article. Even if reading it was just for the entertainment value, there were so many plot holes and undeveloped ideas I became lost. And not in a good way.

Swarmlord
Dec 22, 2006, 01:48 PM
Vista outMacs Tiger? At least Apple has been updating their operating system on a regular basis rather than promising the world and delivering nothing.

Also, I can't believe someone that writes that OS-X is somehow more difficult to use than Windows. Maybe he was referring to a command line interface on Knoppix or something.

danny_w
Dec 22, 2006, 02:26 PM
Also, I can't believe someone that writes that OS-X is somehow more difficult to use than Windows. Maybe he was referring to a command line interface on Knoppix or something.
Unfortunately that is a correct statement in some cases, especially for a longtime Windows user. For example, the lack of a folder cut/paste in OS X is a real pain (sometimes drag-and-drop is just not convenient). And connecting to network shares is so much clumsier (and much less likely to work) in OS X. Despite these things, I love my Mac and would never go back (for home at least; at work I have no choice).

superleccy
Dec 22, 2006, 03:07 PM
Unfortunately that is a correct statement in some cases, especially for a longtime Windows user.

I agree. I have some friends who hate me for "making" them buy an iBook. They keep expecting to see a button with "start" written on it in the bottom left hand corner, expect to be able to copy using ctrl-c, and expect the Finder to behave exactly like Windows Explorer. Everyone has their niggles and I know I still have mine, two years on.

Whatever, there will always be those that fall into the "OS X is not Windows, therefore OSX is crap" category. Such a person wrote this article for The Economist.

winmacguy
Dec 22, 2006, 03:16 PM
And connecting to network shares is so much clumsier (and much less likely to work) in OS X.

Eh? :confused: Please explain.

OwlsAndApples
Dec 22, 2006, 03:39 PM
(organizing is spelled with a z by the way...)

only if the site is American...English english spelling is more archaic and illogical, whilst American is phonetic, nonetheless only one is English :rolleyes: :D

iW00t
Dec 22, 2006, 03:47 PM
Can someone please explain the bold setences because I am confused. :confused:

Thank you.

Think of it by recalling the process involved when you install some Applications. With OSX sometimes you get a prompt to enter your password, with Windows you never get this prompt because Window's dumb design assumes everything is running with full privileges. It is little things like this which results in why PC users always telling me they find Mac "difficult to use".

Peterkro
Dec 22, 2006, 03:58 PM
only if the site is American...English english spelling is more archaic and illogical, whilst American is phonetic, nonetheless only one is English :rolleyes: :D

In fact it is American that is archaic.Organise or organize are both correct in English it's just that the second has become archaic.

Shadow
Dec 22, 2006, 04:02 PM
Can someone please explain the bold setences because I am confused. :confused:

Thank you.

I *think* he's trying to say that Windows is easy to use but the internal design (the kernely bits and stuff) arn't as simple. Hmmm...that guys an idiot.

someguy
Dec 22, 2006, 04:10 PM
Windows is easy to use for those who are familiar with only Windows.

Mac OS is easy to use for those who are familiar with only the Mac OS.

For those who are familiar with both, or neither, I believe they are better off using a Mac.

There's a reason that after 10 years of using nothing but Windows, I sold all my PC's and bought a few Macs. What's more is that this was the result of using an iMac G4 for about 15 minutes w/ absolutely no other experience with Mac's before owning my first one.

vocaro
Dec 23, 2006, 04:35 AM
And thus the whole argument falls apart. Well that and all the typos... (organizing is spelled with a z by the way...)

LOL... Gosh, you're right. That article is just riddled with typos! He also spelled "favoring" with a "u"! I'll bet he spells "check" with a "q" and "tire" with a "y" and "defense" with a "c"! What an idiot that guy is! :D

a456
Dec 23, 2006, 05:05 AM
In fact it is American that is archaic.Organise or organize are both correct in English it's just that the second has become archaic.

Either organise or organize is acceptable in England. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), often favoured by publishers uses the -ize variant, but other dictionaries use -ise. And, thank goodness there is still some fluidity and ambiguity in language and that it hasn't utterly frozen and come to a standstill.

chatin
Dec 24, 2006, 08:51 AM
Sounds like it was written by an economist, who are fairly presumtive and mostly wrong!

Supply side economics - Apple needs plent of supply when this low-life OS hits the skids.

:)

Snowy_River
Dec 24, 2006, 06:48 PM
The author of this article should read this one (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20061223132609). Provides an interesting contrast... :rolleyes: