Why Linux will not take over Microsoft anytime soon
 

I just recently moved my Zip100 drive from my newer machine running Windows ME to a (slightly) older one using RH8.

Before, when I installed the drive in Windows, all I had to do was stick the CD in the drive and follow a few on-screen prompts.

Now, with Linux, I have searched the Internet for help with my ATAPI ZIP drive and have gotten complicated instructions for me to recompile my kernel, use SCSI emulation, or insert different modules into the kernel.

I am admittedly a computer geek, so I at least understand what those things mean, if not how to do them. BUT... I have no doubt that if either my parents or perhaps all but one or two of my classmates out of 100 tried to add this fairly common device on Linux they would be overwhelmed with geek-speak and give up. If they did this on Windows they would pop the CD in and go. No problem.

This is why Linux in it's current state won't take over the PC world. It's too tecnical, which I don't mind, but the fact is that most of the people who use computers are not geeks, but normal people who want to do something with their computer instead of spending quality time with their computer figuring out how to do something. And issues such as PnP and lack of extensive popular programs will continue to keep Linux from growing as it should. Because God knows we don't want Microsoft to own the world.

IMO, it's good for people to realize that not all of the world is "point and click" :p

Why bother with a driver CD in Windows? If you get a USB zip drive, it should show up as a removable drive in (a recent version of) Windows. And guess what - it should show up as a removable drive in (a recent distro/kernel version) Linux. So, where's the problem? :D

Commonly, the problem areas for new users are proprietary driven devices, such as Winmodems, parallel scanners, etc. Some devices are supported but need some work to get them to work due to the inability (as far as I can see) to probe for the device sufficiently - am I right in thinking that the parallel Zip drives do not show up as removable devices in Windows before you use the drivers?

Dear TexasDex, who provide the driver for the windows? If the person who provides the driver is nice enough to include the drivers for linux, your 100 friends won't have to go through the hassel of compiling stuff.

Re: Why Linux will not take over Microsoft anytime soon
 

not only that, but microsoft business strategy wouldnt allow it


microsoft controls the home os industry, all OEM pc's use microsoft, without even the option of linux

or freebsd or what have you

honestly, if m$ didnt control the industry, other user friendly versions of linux or off-shoots of linux would emerge

well, as someone said, "if you build a system that a fool can use, then only a fool will want to use it". Another point is, that both Linux and Microsoft have their own places. Admittedly, Linux may be slow to conquer the world in the personal desktop market, but in other areas, Linux rocks!

Why Linux "will" kick Microsoft's Rear.
 

Because they already did.

That is why Microsoft lost over 16k+ lisences in Germany.

That is why that same company in Germany moved to Linux.

That is why Microsoft is going to lose all there server lisencing and client based OS lisencing with Dell (#1 PC and strong server distributer in the US at the present time).

That is why Dell is intergrating there servers with Red Hat Linux, and there client PC's with Lindows (Linux).

That is why Microsft create a lawsuit against Lindows and lost it horribly.

That is why Microsoft, after years of advisement and years of trying to do it alone, has finally decided to conduct a contract agreement with "ScoUnix" (Unix OS) This contract allows Microsoft to research developement so they can create a new kernal that works like Linux.

That is why more companies are making drivers for Linux and not leaving Linux Engineers to do them.

That is why Microsoft is going to start charging .net domains (windows servers) monthly, instead of yearly (which in turn is causing more people to move to Linux)

In a nut shell, because Linux is free and far more reliable then Windows, Microsoft has done everything in it's power to ensure you experience every problem possible with Linux. This way you can feel the way you are now and spend that extra dollar you saved up on Microsoft. That way, Microsoft can buy your soul by charging you twice as much tomorrow.

But do not fear, there is a version of Linux for you out there.

Try out Lindows or Lycoris. Both are user friendly and can be installed on a FAT16/32 filing system. In short, they are very user friendly and even more so, compatible with Windows programs. This includes plug'n'play support and driver install.

Good luck to ya, Microsoft victom. <smiles>

...and more or less the reason why people come out and say that linux will never take over microsoft, all comes down to the reasoning that you were brought up using microsoft, you got "spoiled" by the ease of just double clicking something and your done, and not all times is it going to be this dummy-proof in linux, but it can still be done....people think this way cause of little things like when you pop something in windows you click an icon and its installed, and sometimes when they give linux a try and they see that they have to issue a command like modprobe or what have you to do something they are like omg this is pathetic, i didn't have to take these one or two extra steps to do this in windows.....
anyways, thats my personal take on it..

Why do people try to say that everything always works great in Windows?

he he he :rolleyes:

By the way, SuSE recognized my zip and even put an icon on the desktop. Maybe you should rephrase your post to read "redHat will never replace microsoft"

When do you think the Linux XP will be available and the windowers will all move and say love to LINUX !

I need to say I love Linux and not much for M$ !

Although, we've been knocking at the very same thing "Linux Vs Windows" here infinitly times, 2damncommon post with "Why do people try to say that everything always works great in Windows?" rocks. Kinda a nice forum signature IMHO ;). ghehe.

My comment is also not so much a dig at Windows as it is a statement that all software may present problems to some people.
I had ment to do a google search for people having problems on Windows with Zip drives and post the page. It contained too many references to problems with Zip files, so I did not. I like the Microsoft knowledgebase articles as a close second.
If someone feels that Windows is easier for them in some ways I am not going to argue much as that is their opinion. However when one attempts to state that Windows "one clicks everything perfectly" I can only say that there are an awful lot of Windows forums and newsgroups that would show this is not completely true.
If someone has better luck than that I say great.
:)

I had an ide zip drive on Mandrake when I first started using linux, before the cd-rw became popular and I had no problem with it. I don't remember what I had to do to get mandrake to reconize but this was the same time I learned about mounting a file system. So it could not have been that hard.

Using a newer release of LINUX, my ZIP was autodetected, with no driver installed by me manualy.

As for Windoze Plug and Pray, many a time I have switched my USB CD-ROM from one port to another, only to be presented with a kernel crash and immediate reboot.

As far as Linux stability, I used a "live" Knoppix CD to recover data on a bad hard drive, even though the drive was logging errors, it still managed to keep at it and recover the data. My "live" Win98 CD and DOS both could not even access the drive.

And, my router running Mandrake has been up for 287 days, try that with Windoze... ;-)

To each his own, but I'll keep with the Linux cause.

The possiblities!!!
 

Let's keep a few things in mind when we think, Microsoft vs Linux.

First off, go to www.linuxiso.com. There are a few versions of linux. Go to there links and do a rough skim of what they are designed for.

You'll find there are many versions of Linux and some are designed for servers, Macintosh's and PC Clients.

What does this mean? Because Linux is free, companies can expose themselves to overloading in research and developement for improving and customizing there version of Linux to meet there needs.

Like all companies, some will become strong, while others will fall. This is the bussiness world. However, what some do not notice, is that research and developement is far greater and stronger, when the rise and fall of companies are at there peek.

When IBM lost there spot as the leading monopoly as PC distributer (around the end of the 80386), computers and computer chips have been coming out by countless numbers. The 80486 came, and 3 years later, the 80586 (Pentium). 2 years after the Pentium came out, then Pentium Pro came out. Not even a full year after that, the Pentium 2 came out. The entire point is, when IBM lead the PC distributing market, the research and development was slow. But after they lost there monopoly, that changed.

When the market became strong, Microsoft was already a strong OS distributer. However, because of the rate of how fast new computers came out, Microsoft was given a red carpet into becoming a monopoly. But the fact is, they bacame the monopoly because of the marketing and not because they had the better operating system.

As a result, Windows is just a poor Operating System with alot of things attached to it. Where as, Linux was a great Operating System with only a few things attached to it. However, as companies began to dislike Microsofts pricing and lisencing agreements, Linux aquired more attention. Companies provided more resorces and addition to Linux. Finally, when Linux had enough to become a half decent user friendly operating system, several companies took advantage of this, buy adding there own features to it and selling the Linux modifications.

When windows emulation became more of a reality for Linux, this was a sign for companies that could not be ignored. Companies valued this alot due to the easy transion from Windows into Linux and knowing how much more reliable Linux could be. When we speek of Windows Emulation, we don't speek mainly about the wine command. We speek about Samba. With Linux, you can access windows fat16/32 and NTFS filing systems to aquire data. Linux can map into these drives via network. Linux could run basic programs with wine to run some that are not yet able to run in Linux. In a nut shell, Linux can be one with Windows, but Windows can not be one with Linux. The transition is far easier.

Why is this important? Because Linux is so powerful, customizable, compatible with other Operating Systems and free, the things that can be dome with Linux are endless. Microsoft Windows has no value next to the possiblities that are emitted from Linux.

If Microsoft lost there place as the Monopoly in Operating Systems, Linux would become the major Operating System and companies would profit more money in them. Linux is free, so only addition services applied to it are costly. This is money saved for the buyer, money earned for the retailor, money earned from the developer and more money earned for the research.

Linux is not a block head. As I said earilier, Linux can be made to run on the Macintosh. There's already good versions out there for it. In fact, the most common operating system, the OS X (Jaguar) is based on the Linux Kernal. With Microsoft out of the way, people would become dependant on Linux. With service packs, the average user would no longer be limmited to only buying a 32bit computer. Even though Macintosh's are fully compatable with any Windows program now, they are restrictive to only one OS. With Microsoft out of the way, Macintosh would take monopoly as the computer distributer. People would finally step away from a 32bit platform. Need for better computers would be required! Intell, AMD, Motarola would be put at the threshold of what they could create. When standardized, the 128bit computers could even change the TCP/IP protocal to to either a new protocal or something that exceeds TCP/IP 6! Networking would be considered more reliable, faster, stronger, and far more broad! I can go on and on and I'm sure you can too. Microsoft is what says no to it. They now work with ScoUNIX to make a Linux based kernal of there own, but not for thes reasons, but to keep your money coming to them!

There are times, when change is good and sometimes bad. In the past, even though Linux was good, the change to it was not so. But now, with Linux becoming so close to being fully user friendly, the change has never been better!

The greatest thing you should see in a operating system is not how easy it is, but how easy it could become without reducing your ablity to process the power of many dreams!

God... all I can say is windows blows...

Dummy proof -- definately not self-corrupting-system proof though

All I know is that Linux has defeated Windows in my house. There is only one windoze machine left (of 5 machines) and even it is dual booted. I only use windoze these days for games and the occational VB assignment for my schoolwork. So as far as I am concerned, windoze has already lost....

The point I'm trying to make here is that Linux still has a ways to go in user-friendlyness.

The fact is that most of the people who use computers are fools, at least as far as computers are concerned. They may be very intelligent people in other ways but they just do not understand computers that well.
These users are what will make or break Linux as an operating system. As a server OS it is clearly superior and is making significant progress but servers are not 90% of computers, desktops used by semi-computer-literate workers who just want to do something useful with their computers without too much grief. Linux is tecnically superior to Windows, certainly, but these users don't care as long as it works well enough, which it usually does. Most complaints about desktop reliability were addressed with the release of Windows XP.

Part of the problem may be that hardware makers make some things without any intention of releasing Linux drivers for it (hence, I believe, the term "WINmodem") and as long as Linux is not run to any significant extent as a desktop OS they see no reason to. This is, of course, a cycle of microsoft domination and the same thing is true for software. As long as Linux is a minority desktop OS there will be few software developers.

Notice that the title of this topic contains the clause "anytime soon." That is because this cycle can eventually turn the other way. The first step would be Linux instead of Microsoft as a choice in new desktops. As fewer manufacturers feel threatened by post Monopoly lawsuit Microsft this will start to be true. I did not say that Microsoft will continue to dominate the world forever, but I did say that if Linux is going to do so it will be a long journey.

Well, as you rightly observed, one of the problems is that Linux is not (usually) offered as an option when you buy a PC. There are some (read: Evesham, Walmart) that do offer it, but they are few and far between. This is a double edged sword. On the one hand, because the general public are not given the choice to start with, by the time they hear about Linux, they have already been indoctrinated into the Windows way of doing things. Most newer distros are really not that newbie-unfriendly. They may well be hardcore Windows user unfriendly, but if you put a person who has never used a PC/Mac before infront of a both a Windows PC and a Linux PC, they will find both hard - it is not an OS thing. The key would be to get people into Linux before they become so ingrained in the Windows way of doing things that they find it hard to switch.

I, personally, do not believe that the Linux community has that far to go in terms of userfriendlyness, but I do believe that hardware vendors should really wake up soon and smell the open source coffee. It is here, it is alive, and it is not going to go away.

£0.02

That's a funny topic considering how many times I had to reboot a client's XP and ME boxes this week. I'd rather chew tin foil than go through that again. Still trying to find out where this "user friendly" thing is that people keep referring to in Windows.

I use ME at home and know firsthand what a bi+ch it can be. I've rebooted countless times due to kernel or shell crashes.

I use XP at school and dispite how I similarly abuse it (installing software and such, which I'm not really supposed to do at school, but oh well) it manages to keep on chugging for days at a time. I didn't say it was perfect but it's an improvement over the crash-happy DOS-based Windows of yore.

As for the "user friendly" thing, I am speaking in relative terms. Compared to a Mac a Windows PC is not very user friendly but Linux has always been rooted in the "Geek" tradition and until somebody wraps it in an open-source GUI as good-looking and powerful as the Mac's Aqua interface it will still have a "geek" flavor.

I was under the impression that the Aqua interface was just a heavily tweaked KDE? It certainly has more than a passing resemblance to KDE... or am I thinking of something else?

I'm pretty much in agreement with the original poster. I'm no Windows expert, but I know my way around, and I have some X-term experience from college, but my past week with Mandrake has been totally harrowing. I can respect that a lot of peripherals aren't supported, but there's no reason that a generic driver USB mouse should cripple my whole GUI. I'm sure Linux is more powerful and stable, but in the end, I just don't care - I want to use my computer, not tinker with it.

There's nothing wrong with point and click. I don't type some arcane command to get my washing machine to wash my clothes. It's great that Linux appeals to power users but there isn't any reason it can't appeal to someone who just wants to use his machine like he would in Windows.

More than anything else, my experience with Mandrake has really caused me to finally appreciate Windows.

:eek: ;)

I can at least understand that. I don't agree with it, but those are 2 totally different things.

However..

I tend to believe it's more of a comfort thing. If you are old enough, and have experienced this (assuming it wasn't long ago ;) ) do you remember when you moved away from home the first time? For most people it isn't easy. It's going to be rough, because it's their first time doing things on their own. Some will run into 'brick walls' and end up turning back and going home. There's no problem with that. But for others they will go out, learn something, succeed and make a great life for themselves, the turning point in both of those lives are the brick walls. When you hit that brick wall do you turn and run to the "comfort zone" or do you scale that wall only to approach a larger, less over-come-able wall? There's no shame in the first, but there is a HUGE feeling of accomplishment in the second.

You just gotta decide what you wanna do ;)

Cool

Because of the comfort Windows supplys. It's just like somebody said in the discussion - one double click - all done. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not a big fan of Windows or Microsoft and I can even tell you what's the thing that's gonna kill them - their greed.
As for me - for 6 months I used Red Hat Linux but a friend of mine who is deeper in the subject told me that I had reached my goal - to learn the basics of Linux and now was time to pass to something more difficult in order to understand the real system and the way it works. Then I switched to Slackware and I really find out what he ment. Nothing was the same. Spending hours of your time to set up one little peace of tech. And I enjoyed it (most of the time) but that was my goal now - to understand how it works so this time was worthed for me.
Now imagine that you are a user that has been working all day long and wants when he get home, to turn on his PC and to just enjoy a couple of minutes in net or doing something else. Why would that man need to know so much information that doesn't concerns him in any way? He may want to relax infront of the monitor, not spend his little time home setting up his ethernet device or whatever.
And that's the basic problem of Linux integrating - it does not provide you with the possibility to do things by only double clicking.
Maybe it is time now that Linux manufacture takes a split - one sort of distibutions that are like Windows - build for the users facilitation (but not to squeeze out your pockets:)). A system that will provide them with the opportunity to learn something new - to learn the basics of the system, but also to provide you with all the comforts user can need.
And another one - build for those who love Linux the way it is now, who love to spend their time in setting up every little detail of their system. Who like to know it as their child (I got carried away).
It's not Microsofts fault that Linux is still not very popular and widely used. It's out fault that we can not tell those people what better system this is on the language they want to hear it.
A few months ago in my country there was a Linux OS exhibition called 'OpenFest'. People were supposed to bring their home PC there and the guys taking care of the fest would install Linux on their PC and explain them how to use the system, but what I noticed was that what all did was to install the system and answer all the questions by sending people to look in the manuals ot HOWTOs. And that's one of the biggest obstacles in the Linux diffusion. A begginer can not get the help and the guidance he needs so unable to manage with this OS he turns back to Windows where everything is simple. I know many guys matching that description. And they had a lot of willingness to enter the world of Linux.
Windows has the billions of Microsoft behind its back. Well Linux only has us. And if we want to diffuse its usage it all depend on us :)

The sad thing is that I really want to use Linux but at the same time I want to use my computer, and I don't have the time to learn enough Linux to get it up and running.

I guess the right thing to do is go with Windows for now and dual boot to get Linux running over time. I'm just not at the point where I can run Mandrake by itself and keep my sanity.

But then, part of my reason for choosing Linux was to avoid paying MS. Once I get XP, will I keep bothering with Linux, though?

I got it! The number one reason Linux will never beat Microsoft!. I finally figured it out..

Drumroll please ............

It is because everyone who knows anything about Linux is stuck in mindless Linux vs. Windows threads instead of furthering the open-source cause helping newbies! :-)

You guys are all missing a very important fact... There is one OS that many people love and agree. It is based on user friendliness, considered and proven better then Windows, and is in-deed a Linux based OS that only a few knew about.

There are an outstanding amount of people, both those who love Windows and/or those who know nothing about Linux, who think this OS is the best.

MAC, OS X (Jaguar) -the "TRUE" 1 click and it does everything OS.

It is 100% compatable with Windows based programs.

It is designed to work under a 128bit processor.

It is designed with the Linux Kernal and has put Macintosh into a new level of understanding for those who seldomly hear it.

It is Linux, with a flavor of Windows (hence WINE WINEX).

On networking problems, it is SO MUCH EASIER to resolve.

If you want a Linux OS "NOW" and can not stand using a OS that is not user friendly, invest a few more $100 on a MAC with OS X.

It is in my opinion, the OS X has inspired far more developement in Windows Emulation, if not re-awaken it.

Keep in mind, the MAC 9.0 and under is DOS based. That is why there was such a gigantic difference between 9.0 and OS X (Linux Based).

linux = is innovative, and reliable, I have to give it that.
But there is a reason why it is more stable, and security isnt a problem as much with it anymore.

Its because it wasnt as popular as m$ for a long time, so we had time to fix these things :) So now that its up to the ub3r stable, and ub3r secure, we can work on being user friendly.

But there is still one HUGE HUGE HUGE problem with linux.
Nothing is standard, and while that may be a good thing to many people, its not for home users.
Win32 is what holds windows together, its standard, and with just that, I can run every game under the sun made for windows provided that I have video card drivers, and sound :)

So to sum it up:
a) Linux needs to be a little more standardized
b) Linux is now ready to become user friendly, and by user friendly I mean NO interaction is needed with the beloved console

Not to be a flamer, but I have to point this out.

DOS = Microsoft Product

Apple is and never was based off of MS-DOS

Come on man... MAC OS was around before DOS 1.0 was published.

Mac OS was not based off of anything. It was made from the very begining to be a GUI... so therefore mac 9.x and below are all the same kernal and everything.

No DOS or any console type OS was the basis for MAC OS X

Sorry for being an A-Hole about it... its my old-mac-user-extremist coming out of hibernation or something.

I had quit being a mac user right before OS X was released. Went to PC (wincrap)

After 2 years of using Wincrap.... I still used pc... but get this.... I'm now using some operating system called... lih.. lin.. *Scratches head* Linux, yea thats it! ;-)
woohoo!

D.O.S. = Disk Operating System.

DOS =! Microsoft Product

Microsoft + (R) = MS-DOS

IBM + (R) = PC-DOS

Apple + (R) = Apple-DOS

MAC OS = Apple-DOS + GUI.

Apple did not have the budget to create a Linux based OS at that given time.

Apple DOS was made the same way DOS was made only with different commands.

The MAC OS was the first GUI enviroment that came out for MAC (Inspired by Xerox). This came out only a few months prior to Windows 3.0

MAC OS was a DOS system, that had a kernal running very identical to the MS-DOS. Mac OS X was the first of there OS line that was made with the Linux Kernal.

You come on. <smiles>

Since we're being so pedantic here, I'll join in! Mac OSX is not based on the Linux kernel at all! It is based on, in part, the FreeBSD kernel. It is called Darwin.

Other potential infringers are Apple with its Unix-based Mac OS X, Microsoft, and the Linux releases.

That is correct. My bad...
Quote taken from http://www.vnunet.com/News/1139300

12th Paragraph

dolvmin,

u make a decent point about OS X, my only beef with the whole MAC thing is that it runs on proprietary hardware. once you buy MAC you are fsking stuck with MAC and whatever they wanna charge you for whatever it is you need for your machine. and to go with that, their prices are really high. i can get a pc for 700 bucks, macs just arent that cheap brand new. when i get some spare cash tho, i will buy one of the newer iMacs, they look pretty nice.

Hehe! I bought myself a Mac the other week... for a whole £3 (that would be three English pounds). My local 'recycling center' (also known as the dump) had one down there. I have no monitor for it and I can't find an Apple-->VGA adapter cable, but I think it boots OK (it certainly makes that funky Apple noise when you turn it on - and I see no smoke :D). Oh, it's an Apple Macintosh Performa 630. Old, but still different from the PC - and that's why I bought it, because it is different.

</end random diversion>

I'll give you this, your half right. RAM on PC's can work on Mac as well. Some AGP display cards can work on Mac (Radeon). Some Eithernet Cards can work on Mac. There's actually alot of stuff that can work on Mac. The problem is not nessasarly the hardware. It's the drivers. The combination of Mac OS and the Motorola CPU gives driver distributers a fearful financial thought. This usually results in less PC hardware compatablity with Mac.

In the Mac, they have PCI slots, and AGP slots. Mac reverted there slots from proprietary to PCI/AGP when the Power PC came out. Yes, the iMac looks really good.

You know what I find funny though? Gateway put out advertisements comparing there computer to a iMac. They say there computer is faster. There computer is 32bit, running on a Windows Kernal. iMac is 128bit running on a Unix Kernal (works like Linux). All I have to say is, ha ha ha ha ha, that is a good JOKE!!!

If you like being different, go check out Yellow Dog. It's a version of Linux designed for Mac. <smiles>

wtf, whose the idiot who says im spoiled for wanting everything to work right away?

why do i want to spend all day setting up like a scanner or other hardware. why cant it be done automatically and quickly.

yeah its aight for you cuz you a geek, but what about grandma? you think she wants to be editing config files to make sure she dont got open ports, or going thru the errors to find out why make and compile a program?

come on now. stop bashing Windows

I'm pretty sure that is the defination of spoiled.
:)

There's no shame in pursuing the I.T. holy grail of:

Just works!

the focus of windows tends to go

1 - Nice looking GUI
2 - User Friendly
3 - Stability
4 - Security

the focus of linux goes

1 - Stability
2 - Security
3 - User Friendly
4 - Nice Looking GUI

so its up to you. if a nice looking UI is more important then stability, use windows. if it isnt, and you decide to go linux, dont complain about linux not being ready for the pc. its more then ready, just in the case of linux, pretty UIs are the last thing anyone cares about.

i've been 'using' linux(RH9) for about 4-5 days now and already i've moved all my PC work (98%)(2%=surfing because i can;t always connect to the internet for some reason + a few games) away from window$. i can understand why some ppl would want to use windows because i was one for a LONG time. But linux IMO is even better. some ppl said stuff like linux is for power users, but i don;t do anything more then most other users that use windows. and one more thing i like about using linux is that help is so readily available...i've solved all but one problem i've ever had in RH just by doing a simple search in here!! how much better can it get?

i would completely move away from wondows in a flash if i can play CS in linux and i solve my modem problem. :)

heh, check out wine or winex for counterstrike. as for the internet problems, modems can be a bitch. i have a router + dsl connection, so in linux the internet is as easy (if not easier) then windows.

No disrespect to you, but Mac OS X is even easier then Windows XP.

If you want to setup your network, you need to go through many locations and adjust settings to do it for you. Only way this would not happen is if you had a "program" do it for you. Thus, it is not Windows that simplies your life, it was the program vendor. With Mac OS X, you set it up once, you'll never forget how to do it again. I have not trouble-shooted or used a Mac for over 1.5 years. I still remember without any aids how to setup your ISP connection.

With installing programs into your computer, you have to go through the install wizard with windows. This asks for details as to how and were you want to install the program. If you don't know the fileing system c:\<dir>\<file> then you can't do this even with the install wizard. With the Mac, it's as simple as pull the cut and paste.

Perhaps you are gettig slow speeds? With a PC (windows xp) you need to hit ctrl + alt + del to see the resorces being used. You have to open up your "my computer" and ensure details is up to see avaible space (perhaps your low on it). Mac does all this automatically and tells you when you should be concerned.

Perhaps you got a really nice program, let's say a game. This game eats up video memory like a plegue. You go into your control panel and adjust some of your own ram into the video partition. Boom, problem resolved. With Windows XP, you need specially made motherboards to do that. Also, because it is from the mother board, it is the software provided from the motherboard, not windows, that makes that happen. Yet another non-user friendly addition to Windows.

My friend, Windows is all looks. When you have a problem, you spend your $50 giving your computer to people like me to fix it. With a Mac, you would be suprised how many times that computer fix it's own problems. All this was done even before OS X. Now a Mac runs smooth and great with OS X because the Kernal was changed. Windows might be user friendly, but considering you pay $200 for Windows XP Home Addition, and less then that for Jaguar OS X, Windows is ripping you of in the base line for user friendliness (not including stablity and speed).

Did you know that OS X helps people like you, install Windows XP into the computer, to make duel boots? Where in that so called easy to use windows, does it help you do this? <laughs> Microsoft helping you install an OS that is not theres? LOL when cows fly! hahaha

i used to be quite a mac addict, and am actually thinking of purchasing a mac again, cause OS X looks so incredible.

two points. mac wont run windows (except through an emulator like virtual pc) the motorola CPUs use a totally and completely different instruction set then the x86 cpus. what you can do is dual boot linux ;)

also, the big negative point is software. there is plenty available, but games are ported 6 months to a year after they come out (if ever). also, everything is more expensive. (software/hardware)

I don't know which installers you have been using, but it has been a LONG time (read never), since I have had to put an install path in myself - frankly if you know enough to choose where you want it, you know enough to know how to change it.

btw, I'd expect someone whom I pay to fix my computer to know that it's kernel, and edition

Networks? Use the Network Wizard and answer a couple of questions about how your computers are physically arranged.

Low Space? XP alerts you when there is something to worry about, and the Graphics Partition you mention - it is not meant to be changed willy nilly, it's in the BIOS for a very good reason. And you don't need special motherboards to do it anyway - you were able to do it (as standard) on every single AGP capable motherboard made.

incidentally, Apple didn't "change" the kernel when they moved to OS X, they just switched to a tweaked UNIX-esque one.

You pay $200 for windows, true, but only $90 for the upgrade version, which is exactly what Panther is, you cannot buy an Apple Mac without OS X, and if it isn't the newest version then you pay $90 to upgrade, just like Windows.

And actually, Windows Setup does help install alongside other OS'es, but only using their bootloader - which isn't such a good thing.

I too use Linux (why else would I be here), RH9 to be exact, and my philosophy is that the end-user should not need to know what the root account is, or be able to do rm / -rf, or ever have to touch the command line.

Open Source may be good, in its own ways, but an MS coding monkey team all working to the exact same design is my preferred design model. Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, but I just like Windows more - as soon as everything becomes integrated and I can copy and paste from gedit after I've closed the app, and when someone develops a decent office suite (MS port maybe) then I will consider switching, oh and I'll be needing driver support from manufacturers too.

btw, isn't there a better way of organsing files than the current way of usr, etc, bin, lib etc. At least MS had the idea of putting windows in a folder called, you guessed it, Windows!

Linux needs an overhaul, like MS did with NT - oh so very long ago.

have you ever tried to back up a windows system?, its a lot easier to copy /etc /home and parts of /var than spending hours trying to find where outlook express has stored your email.

ever tried to execute a program you downloaded, from the command line, you soon find that your path is 3 trillion directories long.

cant find that 1 vital piece of documentation i can tell you where it'll be in a unix system.

the file heirarchy used in unix makes it obvious where to find something and i think you'll find it is a very good design.

yeah and most if not all distro's put X in /usr/X11R6 but at least all the X libraries are in /usr/X11R6/lib and the binaries are in /usr/X11R6/bin, bet you cant make a similar statement about the windows directory, as i remember its a complete mess.