Mac Office 2008 Hits Private Beta

[nplima]

I used Linux for many years, and finally gave up. Hardware support was a big issue no matter which distribution I used. Sometimes when patching. the patch would break something. Linux is a great OS, but it is not like OSX where everything just works.

At Apple inc. someone does the hard work of ensuring that the hardware and software will work well together, with Linux you have to do that by yourself, by checking hardware compatibility lists (well, people do that with Windows to ensure their US$500 on Premium Xtra Gold Edition are well spent).

What do you get in return for your hard work picking your own components? loads of choice in hardware and software.
That may not be enough motivation for many, but the wise MacRumor Forum readership will agree that Apple cannot possibly provide all the right options at the right time (headless iMac, 12" MacBook Pro, ...).

Still on the subject of hardware/software tinkering: all those servers where Linux works great, they weren't "born" 100% hardware compatible. everyone benefits from hobbyists tinkering with computers, what's with the permanent insult and discouragement?

 

[dr_lha]

Windows has crappy support for even never hardware. Plug something in, and it will propably prompt you to feed it drivers.

Needing a driver is not the same as having bad hardware support. As long as a driver is available, Windows has the hardware support. Sure its nicer to have everything built into the box, but I'd sooner have a CD to install than just being told "its not supported". Quite simply more hardware is supported on Windows XP than on Linux, if you argue against this you are either a fool or a liar.

Good for you! But that doesn't change the fact that my findings differ from yours.

I'm suggesting your findings are based on a smaller sample than mine, that's all. I've used Linux since 1995, so I have some experience in this, and have worked as a system admin of Linux systems. I love Linux, but one of the reasons I left it behind for my everyday desktop is that you have to spend to much time getting it to work, rather than just being productive.

I don't have Linux or second monitor at hand, so I can't test that.

Hint: It doesn't work. You have to reconfigure the whole X11 configuration, often by hand editing th XF86Config file (or xorg.conf, whatever).

Since I don't routinely change monitors, I have no firsthand knowledge.

Again. You have to resort to editing the XF86Config to add the extra resolutions on most Linux setups (including Ubuntu).

And why is it that you seem to think that I'm attacking Mac or something?

No, I'm just pointing out fallacies in your argument. If you noticed I mainly talked about Windows in my post, not Mac.

I'm not. I use it every day, and I love it. What I AM attacking against is this notion of "you need to recompile your kernel to get your hardware to work in Linux!".

Indeed, that is no longer true, and actually hasn't been true for a long time. However the fact is that Linux has not reached the level of "it just works" that Windows and Mac have. If you believe it has I say you need to try installing Linux on a few more diverse platforms, as see if it works without effort. It's getting there, sure, but it has been gettting there for a long time now.

 

[Evangelion]

Needing a driver is not the same as having bad hardware support.

I was talking about hardware-support out of the box.

As long as a driver is available, Windows has the hardware support. Sure its nicer to have everything built into the box, but I'd sooner have a CD to install than just being told "its not supported".

And I haven't really ran in to a situation where a piece of hardware I have owned was not supported in Linux. They just worked, straight out of the box. Compare that to the time when I was re-installing Windows. My computer had no floppy-drive anymore, but in order to install windows, I actually had to scavenge one, so I could get Windows to install. Reason being that it did not support the SATA-controller in my computer, and it only accepted driver-floppies during installation. Linux had no such problems.

How about installing the Apple USB Keyboard? Plugged it in to the machine, and it just worked on Linux. On Windows it required several different drivers and 2-3 reboots. And if I accidentally plugged it to a new USB-port, it had to be re-installed.

Quite simply more hardware is supported on Windows XP than on Linux, if you argue against this you are either a fool or a liar.

Again: I was talking about support OUT OF THE BOX. That is, built-in support right in the OS.

Indeed, that is no longer true, and actually hasn't been true for a long time. However the fact is that Linux has not reached the level of "it just works" that Windows and Mac have.

It did "just work" on my desktop. It "just works" on my neighbours desktop. I have seen it "just work" on numerous desktops. The Windows-machine at my in-laws place? It does not "just work".

Yes, of course I have seen Linux-installs that have some kind of problems. And I have seen A LOT of Windows-installs that have had problems (I actually admin Windows-machines for a living). I have also seen few Macs that have had problems. I'm not saying that Linux is perfect, But I am disputing the claim that Mac and Windows "just work", whereas Linux does not.

If you believe it has I say you need to try installing Linux on a few more diverse platforms, as see if it works without effort.

So far I have installed Linux on half a dozen different laptops, dozen or so desktops of varying configurations, few oldish rack-servers and a Mac Mini. I had some issues years ago, but not recently. There were some issues with Mac Mini, mainly due to the fact that Adobe does not provide Flash-player for PPC-Linux.

No, I'm just pointing out fallacies in your argument.

Really? It seems to me that we have people making totally baseless arguments about Linux. And when someone says "you know, Linux actually just works these days", out comes the jihad-squad.