digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at gizmodo.com

Why I Still Use Windows Despite the Peer Pressure

gizmodo.com — There are over a dozen people working at our fair Gizmodo, but as a Windows user, I'm in a definite minority. I still rock XP, and I'm pretty happy with that. Why haven't I switched to Macs? Plenty of reasons, not least of which being that I'm just too smart to switch to a Mac.That's right, I'm too smart for Macs.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Adam420, on 06/25/2008, -451/+1035Windows is way better than Mac.
    Linux is great, but not better than Windows..yet
    XP ftw
    • PATSCRU, on 06/26/2008, -27/+170xp sp3 FTFW...also, while we're on the subject, here's what i consider the holy grail of anti-mac tirades:
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2 ...
      • LimeParrot, on 06/26/2008, -9/+45omfg
        best article ever...
        • kalkin, on 06/26/2008, -11/+2---- Original Message ----
          From: Bill Gates
          Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:05 AM
          To: Jim Allchin
          Cc: Chris Jones (WINDOWS); Bharat Shah (NT); Joe Peterson; Will Poole; Brian Valentine; Anoop Gupta (RESEARCH)
          Subject: Windows Usability Systematic degradation flame

          I am quite disappointed at how Windows Usability has been going backwards and the program management groups don't drive usability issues.

          Let me give you my experience from yesterday.

          I decided to download (Moviemaker) and buy the Digital Plus pack ... so I went to Microsoft.com. They have a download place so I went there.

          The first 5 times I used the site it timed out while trying to bring up the download page. Then after an 8 second delay I got it to come up.

          This site is so slow it is unusable.

          It wasn't in the top 5 so I expanded the other 45.

          These 45 names are totally confusing. These names make stuff like: C:Documents and SettingsbillgMy DocumentsMy Pictures seem clear.

          They are not filtered by the system ... and so many of the things are strange.

          I tried scoping to Media stuff. Still no moviemaker. I typed in movie. Nothing. I typed in movie maker. Nothing.

          So I gave up and sent mail to Amir saying - where is this Moviemaker download? Does it exist?

          So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated.

          They told me to go to the main page search button and type movie maker (not moviemaker!).

          I tried that. The site was pathetically slow but after 6 seconds of waiting up it came.

          I thought for sure now I would see a button to just go do the download.

          In fact it is more like a puzzle that you get to solve. It told me to go to Windows Update and do a bunch of incantations.

          This struck me as completely odd. Why should I have to go somewhere else and do a scan to download moviemaker?

          So I went to Windows update. Windows Update decides I need to download a bunch of controls. (Not) just once but multiple times where I get to see weird dialog boxes.

          Doesn't Windows update know some key to talk to Windows?

          Then I did the scan. This took quite some time and I was told it was critical for me to download 17megs of stuff.

          This is after I was told we were doing delta patches to things but instead just to get 6 things that are labeled in the SCARIEST possible way I had to download 17meg.

          So I did the download. That part was fast. Then it wanted to do an install. This took 6 minutes and the machine was so slow I couldn't use it for anything else during this time.

          What the heck is going on during those 6 minutes? That is crazy. This is after the download was finished.

          Then it told me to reboot my machine. Why should I do that? I reboot every night -- why should I reboot at that time?

          So I did the reboot because it INSISTED on it. Of course that meant completely getting rid of all my Outlook state.

          So I got back up and running and went to Windows Update again. I forgot why I was in Windows Update at all since all I wanted was to get Moviemaker.

          So I went back to Microsoft.com and looked at the instructions. I have to click on a folder called WindowsXP. Why should I do that? Windows Update knows I am on Windows XP.

          What does it mean to have to click on that folder? So I get a bunch of confusing stuff but sure enough one of them is Moviemaker.

          So I do the download. The download is fast but the Install takes many minutes. Amazing how slow this thing is.

          At some point I get told I need to go get Windows Media Series 9 to download.

          So I decide I will go do that. This time I get dialogs saying things like "Open" or "Save". No guidance in the instructions which to do. I have no clue which to do.

          The download is fast and the install takes 7 minutes for this thing.

          So now I think I am going to have Moviemaker. I go to my add/remove programs place to make sure it is there.

          It is not there.

          What is there? The following garbage is there. Microsoft Autoupdate Exclusive test package, Microsoft Autoupdate Reboot test package, Microsoft Autoupdate testpackage1. Microsoft AUtoupdate testpackage2, Microsoft Autoupdate Test package3.

          Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable? The file system is no longer usable. The registry is not usable. This program listing was one sane place but now it is all crapped up.

          But that is just the start of the crap. Later I have listed things like Windows XP Hotfix see Q329048 for more information. What is Q329048? Why are these series of patches listed here? Some of the patches just things like Q810655 instead of saying see Q329048 for more information.

          What an absolute mess.

          Moviemaker is just not there at all.

          So I give up on Moviemaker and decide to download the Digital Plus Package.

          I get told I need to go enter a bunch of information about myself.

          I enter it all in and because it decides I have mistyped something I have to try again. Of course it has cleared out most of what I typed.

          I try (typing) the right stuff in 5 times and it just keeps clearing things out for me to type them in again.

          So after more than an hour of craziness and making my programs list garbage and being scared and seeing that Microsoft.com is a terrible website I haven't run Moviemaker and I haven't got the plus package.

          The lack of attention to usability represented by these experiences blows my mind. I thought we had reached a low with Windows Network places or the messages I get when I try to use 802.11. (don't you just love that root certificate message?)

          When I really get to use the stuff I am sure I will have more feedback.
      • wolferz, on 06/26/2008, -6/+106"Ultimately the campaign's biggest flaw is that it perpetuates the notion that consumers somehow "define themselves" with the technology they choose. If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality."

        OMG Woooooooooooow. That's... so ***** awesome.
        • GassyTurd, on 06/26/2008, -36/+14I have a Macbook. I don't use Macs because I think they make me look cool, I use them for the stability. I am a DJ and my Macbook is part of my setup. I can't have any possibility of BSOD while playing. I also have a big sticker on the back of the screen that covers up the glowing Apple. ;P
        • prophetpimp, on 06/26/2008, -6/+27oh you would rather enjoy a kernel Panic during your gigs then.
        • melat0nin, on 06/26/2008, -12/+26The fact you call it a 'Macbook' and not a 'laptop' or 'notebook' really says it all. It's not about computing, it's about the fact that it's a Mac you're choosing to use. Pretty tragic, really.
        • Septimus, on 06/26/2008, -6/+20Switched to Mac only at home a few years ago. I've had more Kernel Panic's with Macs in 3 years than I ever had in Windows for 7 (well since XP). Used Windows since v3, and I do like Vista.
        • roodammy44, on 06/26/2008, -3/+5@GassyTurd

          There's still the spinning beachball of death to think about
          You know what I mean.

          I haven't had a bluescreen on XP for anything less than hardware failure, however the SBBOD happens on macs far too often.
        • Spuy767, on 06/26/2008, -9/+7@prophetpimp Have you ever seen a kernel panic? I've been using OS X since 10.0, even been using a pair of flashed 8800's as my GPUs, and I've never seen a kernel panic outside of pictures.
        • Tenoq, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1@Septimus - that's probably because Windows doesn't have kernel panics, no matter how hard you try. BSODs though.... not to mention viruses. How many viruses did u you have on your PCs? Or how many AV programs have u been through?
        • tvanwyk, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2When are you Mac twits (and, for that matter, Linux zealots) going to stop playing the tired virus card? Believe it or not, a responsible PC user can go literally years without getting a virus. I've been using XP since I've been in books, and never - to my knowledge - got a virus on the XP machines that have been mine.

          An operating system is as safe as the user.

          (And, just a quibble - from an end-user standpoint, a BSOD and a kernel panic aren't really all that different because they cause an interruption of work no matter what they're called. From a strict kernel standpoint, there's more in common in principle between a panic and a "BSOD" stop error than any differences between the two.)

          PS - way to save four keystrokes.
      • jamesdew, on 06/26/2008, -2/+8fantastic
      • IndigoMoss, on 06/26/2008, -5/+29That's a great article, I especially love the first comment in which he bashes the editors:

        "Hello. Charlie Brooker here.

        I wrote this piffle. Then it was subbed. And whoever subbed it decided to add a bit describing Doom as “the first shoot-em-up game”.

        Words fail me.

        They also changed every abbreviation -– so “they’re” becomes “they are” and “it’s” becomes “it is”, and so on -- presumably in an attempt to inject a bit more plodding, impersonal joylessness to the whole thing.

        Bet they did it on a Mac, too."
        • brettmurf, on 06/26/2008, -15/+14When did "they're" and "it's" become abbreviations?
        • zeromous, on 06/26/2008, -12/+10Thats ok Brettmurf, I dugg you up because I also know they are not abbreviations.
        • zeromous, on 06/26/2008, -5/+15Hey digg, "they're" called CONTRACTIONS

          Cuz like you know, "they are" is two words contracted into "they're".

          The word abbv. would be ABBREVIATED.

          Abbreviations end with a period, and are missing non-critical letters.

          DA MO' JOO KNOWZ, JUST AXE THE QESTION, DIGZ
        • fuze44, on 06/26/2008, -2/+0Conjunction Junction, what' s your function?

          Hookin up words, clauses, and phrases....

      • bparkey, on 06/26/2008, -26/+12The holy grail of anti-mac tirades is an article that only has one actual complaint against the computers themselves. And it is an inaccurate complaint at that. Macs have supported two button mice for some time now. The rest is disliking people. Which is just stupid. Disliking a product because of the followers makes no sense.
        • ShakeWell, on 06/26/2008, -3/+7why not? you're telling me that the people who choose to use a product do not reflect the product itself?
        • melat0nin, on 06/26/2008, -1/+33lol that very fact you said 'followers' instead of 'users' sums up the whole ***** problem.
        • chewbie, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2so what you're saying is that owning a Mercedes doesn't differentiate you from other people somehow?
        • roodammy44, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3@chewbie

          No, the Mercedes itself doesn't differentiate you from other people.
          But what it does do is reflect your personality:
          "Hey, I'm a dull middle manager with no sense of style but I wanted to spend a lot of money on a comfortable car".

          It's like buying furry dice for your car - the dice doesn't make you different, just tells other people that you should be avoided.
        • ericcire, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Yes, but the sons of bitches ship with the one button mouse. Not that big a deal with a desktop, but on the Macbooks, you either carry a mouse with you, or you right click with three fingers. Especially infuriating is the fact that on the Macbook pro, the button is THREE INCHES WIDE, and could easily have left and right click functionality.
        • bparkey, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1eric, they ship a mouse with 5 buttons. How many buttons do you want? And maybe this is just preference but I far prefer the single button and using three fingers on my laptop. I don't know what the advantage to the two buttons are. I have to consciously think about using the second button on PC laptops now, where the two fingers on the trackpad and click is very easy. It isn't any more difficult. I mean how far from the trackpad can your fingers really be when you are right clicking?
      • remccain, on 06/26/2008, -5/+39BSOD? I haven't seen one of those since... win98.

        Has XP crashed on me? Yes. But I deserved it because I was doing stuff that I wasn't supposed to do, pushing the OS just to see if it would crash.
        But under normal operations, XP has never once crashed and forced me to reboot.
        • ooby, on 06/26/2008, -0/+25A BSOD on anything past Windows NT usually means you've got a hardware problem. Before that, some GPFs would triggers a BSOD. If you get a BSOD in XP, you should plan on cracking open your case.
        • heterological, on 06/26/2008, -9/+4Most windows XP boxes are set to reboot automatically on blue screen. Have you ever had your box reboot at random?
        • po43292, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4I don't know why you're getting dugg down, they are set by default to reboot instead of actually showing the evil blue screen.
        • remccain, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Reboot at random? No. I can honestly say that XP has been the most stable Microsoft OS that I've ever used. And when I say stable, I mean that normal, day-to-day operations never, ever, cause me problems. Multiple windows, multiple programs, never caused a problem.

          It's only when I start doing stupid things on purpose that it gives me problems.
          Like opening and running 26 youtube videos at one time.
          Things like that.
      • drunkinbda, on 06/26/2008, -2/+36lol glorified fisher price activity centers for adults....

        i just HAD to email that downstairs to our mac guy :P

        must say.. imma fan of this site
        http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=ma ...
      • roodammy44, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2Charlie Brooker is a genius. Him and Chris Morris have redefined British comedy.
        • niceyuk, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Charlie Brooker is an idiot. The only thing he has redefined is how bad a TV series can be. His baseless rants about anything and everything are tedious in the extreme.
      • Klak, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8that was the most british thing ive ever read, complete with Dr Who reference.
      • homercles337, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Im forwarding this to some macophiles i know as i write this. I expect to get back, but...but unix? Dugg up.
      • rodz91, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6Macs are glorified Fisher-Price activity centres for adults

        Best. Quote. Ever.
      • ebmnoize, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the link, I totally forgot about it!
      • MisdaHappy, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Someone should submit that link so I can digg it.
    • known, on 06/26/2008, -13/+104Tip to Linux:
      Usability is inversely proportional to the number of USER clicks for the desired feature.
      • freehunter, on 06/26/2008, -6/+112My biggest problem with Linux (even though I am typing this on my main computer, running Linux, and not in a dual boot, no VMs of XP, and no Wine software installed) is not the number of clicks it takes to do things, but the number of times I need to go to the command line in a day. If, in an average week, I need to go to the command line more than, let's say, once, it's too much. Want to install a downloaded file? Gotta do it on the command line, unless it is a .deb file (rpm, etc, per distro).
        Even on the most user friendly distro out there, Ubuntu, if the file is not in Synaptic or available as a .deb, you have to sudo, then sh, ./, or worse yet, compile, just to install a program. Why not a binary double click? Yes, the files size will be larger due to needed libraries, but suck it up, I'm sick of chmod'ing and ./'ing.
        • Fordi, on 06/26/2008, -1/+15ahh, good ol' ./configure && make && checkinstall...

          I'm all windows right now (I need Adobe Flash for my job), but I do end up on the command line an obscene amount of the time. Mind you, I *could* avoid it, but I cut my teeth on DOS - some stuff is just easier for me in CLI.
        • arjie, on 06/26/2008, -7/+11freehunter: There's something not quite right about that, most software that's 'ready' will come in binaries with, in most cases, packages for Debian or SuSE or Fedora. It's the not-yet-ready software with 0.x version numbers that you have to compile. While you have to do the same thing with not-yet-ready software in windows too, nobody ever bothers. That's all.

          There's a thread in the ubuntuforums where a user asked for a list of programs that weren't in the repository but were available in source form. If there is some software that you would like to have someone compile and package for you, it only takes a single thread in the Ubuntuforums. And then everyone else who wanted that package won't have to ask. If you do do that, thanks for the effort!

          Most common software does come as binaries in a tarball, you just have to extract and run. Look on sourceforge, for example.

          known: I don't mean to offend, but surely you have some particular experience in mind? Please do share, in my experience things go both ways. But if no one is being told what exactly the problem is then they can't change. Help them help you.
        • Waterrat, on 06/26/2008, -12/+13What are youy using!? I've used Linux for three years and I can count on one hand how many times I've had to use the command line!
        • known, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Here is an irrational and insensitive discussion on Usability
          http://digg.com/linux_unix/A_critical_look_at_Ubun ...
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/26/2008, -5/+18You nailed one of Linux's two big problems. Installing software should be as easy as Windows, but is often a mess requiring command line and administrative access.
          The other problem is DirectX.

          @arjie
          "If there is some software that you would like to have someone compile and package for you, it only takes a single thread in the Ubuntuforums."

          You must be joking. Who has time to wait for something like that.

        • rockefeller2, on 06/26/2008, -2/+10No, it's just adapting to the Linux environment. Think about when you first started using Windows and how lost you felt. Expect to feel somewhat lost when you first start using Linux. Yes, it's different, adapt. Fortunately for me, I was forced to use Linux at work, so switching to Linux at home has been less painfull after working with the OS for a year.There are some open source programs that I really like more than their Windows equivalent (like digiKam).
        • ooby, on 06/26/2008, -4/+13@MacSuxWindozSux

          Installing software is far easier than windows. You just go to the package manager and get it. You never have to search for it.

          Everything a normal user would need is available from one source. How is that harder than going to winzip.com and grabbing winzip, then going to adobe.com and grabbing reader, and so on, and then installing them one by one.

          If you're installing anything by hand in linux, you have to compare it to installing something just as obscure in windows.
        • pedepy, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6wow .. i run on the KDE4 GUI, which is as close as you can get from an 'all encompasing GUI' for linux, and I *still* pop the console on a frequent basis.

          It's just such a straightfoward, efficiant way of working, for most things. That is, as long as you get used to it.
        • czarr, on 06/26/2008, -3/+5@MacSuxWindowzS

          Not only is installing software easier in linux, as mensioned by ooby, but keeping all your software on the bleeding edge is also much easier. Running one simple command "pacman -Syu" will upgrade all of your programs. In windows you have to go to each website and redownload your programs manually or worse yet, wait for that stupid popup when you reboot your computer, telling you to upgrade, that you didn't even ask for.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/26/2008, -4/+10To all of you.

          Installing software in Linux at it's easiest is far easier than Windows. Easily.

          But there's less consistency. Once your program (or the version you want) isn't listed in your package manager, you're stuck googling websites for either the proper repository or the program itself.

          If you find a repository, you have to figure out how to register that repository with your system. For Many people that means hunting down a configuration file, and manually editing it with administrator privileges.

          If you find the program itself then all bets are off. You might find an easy to use .rpm or .deb, or you might be stuck compiling the program. Do you have to proper version of GCC? Is there a make file? Dependencies?


          Installing software on Linux can be divinely perfect or it can descend deep into hell.
        • balazsbela, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4Most of the times you don't need the command line to compile and install a tar.gz.
          Check out Kompile, it's a kde frontend to compiling, you can easily compile with a few clicks.

          http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php/Kompile?c ...

          I, for one, am not bothered by using the command line and I use it as many times as possible since it spares me a lot of time.It's just another thing I like about linux.
        • Gudeldar, on 06/26/2008, -4/+1@czarr

          You just poked a big hole in your own argument when you said run a simple command "pacman -Syu".

          I won't claim to be an expert Linux user by any measure but as someone who used Linux as my only OS for over a year before switching back to XP (I wanted to play games without them crashing every 30 seconds), I've never even HEARD of the pacman command, on Ubuntu if you want to update from the command line you have to use "sudo apt-get upgrade". Most Windows users don't even know what a command line is used for much less how to issue commands with it. Yes I know about Synaptic and how to use it, but no distros repository has everything you want in it.

          Linux's biggest problems are, too many distributions I know many feel that this is a positive because it gives you a lot of choice this is really only useful for power users. For regular users have to choose between over 100 different distributions is confusing as hell. Lack of consistency in the file system structure is another problem. Each distribution has to have a different set of packages for each program that is available for that distro you can't have one .deb or .rpm that works on all distros. There are very few programs for Linux that are distributed by the makers in a binary form for Linux. Lots of OSS comes with Windows binaries and installers but almost all of them only provide the source for Linux and leave it up to the distro to compile and package them.
        • greywolfexcel, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3@czarr: Good to see another arch user around. :)

          @Gudeldar: czarr is referring to a different package manager entirely. Pacman is the default package manager of Arch Linux, the best linux distro around (imho).

          @The general thread: the power of the command line is one of the things I *like* about linux; many aspects of file management and similar things take much longer in a GUI than in a console anyway. If you don't like/don't want to learn the console/bash, then don't use linux!
        • djbon2112, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5Anyone who thinks installing programs in Linux is harder than in Windows is delusional. 1, the command line is not a bad thing, in fact that's one of the reasons I like Linux better than Windows. 2, 99% of software you'd ever need is in the repositories (which DOES have a GUI), and 3, even with the stuff that isn't, ./configure && make && sudo make install isn't that hard.

          People bash Linux for it's lack of "usability" because you "have" to use commands like that, but isn't it a noble goal to make users more aware of what they're doing, and to have them know more about their operating system than just "double click this"?
        • cawpin, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1@known - Considering the guy who posed the question is wrong, I'm not going to take any advise from him. It takes 2 clicks in Windows XP.
        • Syphon8, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2The command line is the funnest part of Linux.
        • linuxpenguin, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Why don't you right-click on it and just change the permissions that way?

          As for binaries. . . different distros use different binary formats. While many don't understand, and many say "why not just have one common format", there are good reasons for having each. Red Hat was first with its RPM format, which has since been used in Fedora, Mandrake/Mandriva, and others. Slackware has its own .tgz format which was once used in many other distros (but which many no longer use). Debian has its .deb format which is also used by its derivatives, such as Ubuntu and KNOPPIX. Gentoo has its ebuilds, and some of the smaller home-built distros have no package system at all.

          Each of these has its benefits and disadvantages:
          Slackware's doesn't care about dependencies - if one dependency won't install, or is only needed for a certain feature of a program that you don't need, then it won't force you to install it. Disadvantage being that if you want all the features to work, you'll get pissed at it unless you use an extra tool to help make sure you've got all those dependencies.
          Red Hat's was the first to care about all those dependencies which is important to many less-technical users who want all the features. Disadvantage being that you sometimes are forced to install features you won't want or need.
          Debian's also cares about dependencies, but it also allows developers to list "recommended" packages which aren't needed but help the program or give it extra functionality. Disadvantage being that, like Red Hat's format, you sometimes are forced to install features you don't want or need.
          Gentoo's doesn't actually use packages - it actually compiles all the software for you from scratch, which allows you to have the most up-to-date software WITHOUT anyone having to make a package. Disadvantage being its strength - you have to compile the software, which can take a really long time. You also have to be careful when choosing which programs/features to enable/disable or you will not have things working the way you want (and you'll have to wait for another recompile if you "fix" this).

          In short, there's so many systems that get used, and all have their own strengths. In the past, they've all been popular. Ubuntu might be popular now, but people still use the other distros. I don't touch Ubuntu Desktop - how can I guarantee that the .deb build I use is going to work for Ubuntu? I'm using straight Debian - I don't touch Red Hat, Fedora, Slackware, Gentoo, etc. How can I build packages for these systems without having one myself? And even if I do, how can I guarantee they work?

          All of these package systems promised to be the newest hot ***** - but at the same time, the newest, handiest, most featureful one is the one most people don't care about (Gentoo). Long compile times and a steep learning curve aren't worth the plethora of programs that are guaranteed to work with the system, for most users. You get full customizability, and once it's all set up right, you have all the ease of use of other systems. Problem is. . . that's "once you get it all set up right".

          Klik was supposed to be the absolute greatest - you go to the site and download a single file, which contains the software and all its dependencies. So you don't have to worry about them - and when you don't want it anymore the dependencies go away with the program. But that makes for some mighty huge downloads, and often times you may get things included in the package which are already installed as packages or libraries on your PC!

          There is an answer - there is one single format that works across all distributions. But it's not a binary - it's a compile script. Many are very easy to use - just a double-click. Some (like the one for id Software's games) even use a GUI if you run them in X. All of them have a README too (or at least most).

          So I guess the short answer is that this is a lot of extra work for people making the software. They could make a .deb file, or an .rpm, or whatever, but they can only guarantee it'll work for whatever distro they make it on.
        • theaceoffire, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1I went the linux route due to cost (My XP OS died on me, and I had no money to buy a new MS OS, and did not want to steal a corporate edition due to moral issues), but I really enjoy my OS now.

          I never realised what a burden my Virus scanner was until I didn't need it anymore.
        • diecastbeatdown, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1there were not enough over zealous linux user replies so here is mine.

          commandline is the reason why we use linux. remote use with everything available, automation, intelligent OS, etc.

          i use macosx, windows, linux, bsd and anything else because there are too many things to do and i can limit myself.
      • bobbyi, on 06/26/2008, -0/+16I guess that makes the command line infinitely usable.
      • ToadX, on 06/26/2008, -4/+2Linux has good uses, but using it on a desktop workstation is not one of them yet. The only people that use Linux on their primary desktop workstation either
        1. only do so because they think it's cool to use Linux
        OR
        2. are using it for a specialty purpose such as video editing, development, etc..

        In most cases using Linux as your primary desktop workstation is counter-productive. Even the developers in many Linux communities admit to major downfalls in mainstream usability and are working to improve it. Until then, Windows is probably the best way to go for most people, including your grandma.

        Windows has the best 3rd party application support, mainly because 95+% of people use it. If you need to get something done, there's the best chance you'll be able to get it done quickly in Windows. It's a fact you can't deny. Who needs to jump through hoops trying to get connected to your company's VPN server or trying to get your webcam or wifi card to work?
        • Origin415, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Yes I use linux, but not because I think its "cool", but because everything works a whole lot slicker with linux. I have 3 computers, if they ran windows, communicating between them would be a nightmare without ssh, x-forwarding, etc. You can share files with smb, but its no where near as slick as NFS, nor as fast.

          My computer at my job is windows, but the first thing I had to do when I got there is set up a mingw environment to use Eclipse, as compared to the simple sudo aptitude install eclipse. On top of that, every night I upload my code to a linux server. Why? Because despite the fact that my computer is on, there is no way to securely connect and access files from home to it. On the otherhand, on the Linux box, its just a sftp/scp away.
        • nickert0n, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1I use it on my home workstation because of
          philosophy and expierence.

          Graphics render better, Applications work faster, and I HAVE CONTROL OF MY EXPIERNCE.

          btw

          I still like XP better then a Mac andyday.
      • Theli, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2"Tip to Linux:
        Usability is inversely proportional to the number of USER clicks for the desired feature."

        1. Linux cannot receive or act on tips as it is not a sentient being.
        2. There's a big difference between Linux and Linux. I think we need to narrow it down a bit.

        The reason I prefer to run Ubuntu over Windows XP or Windows Vista is that GNOME DOES reduce the number of clicks I have to do to perform day-to-day tasks. Mostly thanks to the centralized package install/update system and the "Places" and "System" menus. The one thing that brings me back to XP from time to time is software support. I hope to one day be able to run my favorite applications on my favorite operating system without having to compromise between the two.
      • CCmachined, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6Linux > Windows > Mac.
        why?
        Freedom.
        Linux: Free of charge, freedom of speech
        Windows: Freedom to run it on any hardware you like (provided it's PC)
        Mac: everything is locked down. Mac hardware sucks, eh?
    • altinnovation, on 06/26/2008, -8/+35When using Linux I had a hard time installing applications. I wanted to install that 3d desktop cube thing, and no matter how easy some sites claimed it to be, when I ran the install code through the terminal I got an error that said I don't know what.

      I also tried the auto-installer but no luck there either. I will agree with you that the console-installer let's you have more control over your computer, but it was still too hard for me :(
      • sb76117, on 06/26/2008, -7/+12i had the same problem with firefox3... then i realized that synaptic packet manager already had it on it's list. all i had to do was mark it for install and press apply. that 3d cube thing (compiz-fusion) will also mess up your flash based videos (like youtube and google video) so turn it off before you browse those sites.
        • reginaldino, on 06/26/2008, -1/+25"that 3d cube thing (compiz-fusion) will also mess up your flash based videos"
          What? No it doesn't.
        • Fordi, on 06/26/2008, -1/+14Depends on your video card / config. One of the downsides to a completely customizable OS is that some configurations just don't work right, and it's hard to find the ones that do.
        • LeviTheSmith, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3For me it was already included with 8.04.
        • czarr, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8@Fordi
          That's actually one of the downsides to closed source video drivers, not a customizable OS.
        • Fordi, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1@czarr:
          Open or closed source, you'd have the same problem until someone writes an auto-configurator for the system. Open source makes this easier, but doesn't solve the issue.
      • arjie, on 06/26/2008, -1/+11Things have changed since you tried, Ubuntu and SuSE atleast will give you that out-of-the-box if you have a modern computer.
        • Angostura, on 06/26/2008, -9/+3I started tinkering with Ubuntu and thought, "hey this looks really good". And then I downloaded Firefox 3.

          Never did work out how to install an application from a download, so I gave up.
        • directrix13, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8Well, unless it is a .deb file (the native installer format for Debian based systems like Ubuntu) then the installation is usually extracting it somewhere and running it or extracting it and compiling it. Thats why you generally want to stick with downloading .deb files or installing straight from Synaptic. Both of which are just as easy (if not easier) compared to the Windows equivalent and its all point and click. The parent is right. Things have changed. Most Linux distros are largely point and click. The only reason you read about the command line junk is because its easier in a forum to say "type in these two lines" instead of giving a bunch of screenshots saying where to go. Sorry, you had a bad experience. If you ever try again, go to the Ubuntu Forums. The people are always friendly and more than willing to help (much more so than I ever got from a commercial product).
        • czarr, on 06/26/2008, -0/+10@Angostura,
          That's because you're trying to install software the windows way. You could have had it in *3* clicks by (1)opening up "synaptic package manager", searching firefox, (2)marking it for installation, and then (3) processing your downloads. When you do it this way your system will automatically keep it up to date for you, so you dont' have to hassle with redownloading it from the website, the microsoft way.
        • sonicjosh, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1@Angostura
          When I downloaded the firefox 3 beta I didn't actually install it; I just untared, and ran it from that folder I extracted it to, then I just made some shortcuts and I was done. I had fx 2 and 3 just in case, but when Ubuntu 8.04 rolled around I just deleted the folder and used the old one (which was now the same version).

          Of course now I could just go to add/remove and check the box on firefox and hit apply. On Ubuntu ,most software I find a it is lot easier to install; just go to add/remove, search, check, apply.
      • lilSears, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1Why the hell have they not fixed libflashsupport with FF3?!?!?!?!?! I like using ubuntu. I really do. It's actually fun and it'd be a lot more fun if I could play games on it without wine, which I haven't got wine to work right either. But sometimes, there are just stupid little bugs that don't get addressed like flash and the whole deal with the new nautilus not assigning names to partitions but just let it be called by its size!!!! arg.
        • directrix13, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5The problem is the Adobe folks not fixing their player.
        • cheeseplease, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Flash works perfectly in Firefox 3, what are you talking about?
        • directrix13, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I'm talking about how (in Linux mind you) Flash crashes quite often after playing a couple videos taking Firefox with it. Flash does not yet take advantage of the capacity to be transparent in places. It is always on top making menus pop below it (very annoying). And it also doesn't work great with Compiz in full screen mode.
        • Origin415, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Libflashsupport and flash itself are both closed source. Gnash unfortunately has a long way to go.

          Flash 10 is in beta, people are saying its fixed there, so I'm just waiting for it to be put in hardy-proposed.
        • daverave999, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=789578
          may help you. Remember to check the 'proposed updates' box in Software Sources.
      • harveywalbanger, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5You ain't a real computer nerd unless you can do command line!
      • Theli, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2"When using Linux I had a hard time installing applications. I wanted to install that 3d desktop cube thing, and no matter how easy some sites claimed it to be, when I ran the install code through the terminal I got an error that said I don't know what."

        That would be "Beryl". A complete nightmare to install. I remember there being about 8 different methods of installing the spinning-cube-software, with about 0.5 of them actually working. And even if you got it to install and run, the window decorators would disappear and you had to go dig in xorg.conf to get it fixed. Looked cool though. :-)
        Luckily, compiz fusion has all but removed the hassle with getting your desktop to look like a cube.
    • sfacets, on 06/26/2008, -72/+7The fact that there are a majority of Windows users here, an that you only got 35 diggs for your comment is saying something.
      • HigherLogic, on 06/26/2008, -3/+33Well let's see how far your comment gets dugg down then...
      • quikboy, on 06/26/2008, -1/+11People do rank people down (bury) comments as well you know.
        • HigherLogic, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8Word. As I type, 77 thumbs up, -32 thumbs down.
      • wafflez, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4you realize that digg is so full of mac fanboys...they're the ones who tend to digg things up or down, the pc and linux users are generally indifferent.
        • ventura7, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2"Generally indifferent"? You are drinking too early in the morning again.

          The best definition of a Fanboy is someone who cares a bit too much about the OS and hardware they use, to the point of actually identifying with it and blah-de-blahblah about it. I see waaaaay more PC Fanboys (evidenced in Digg comments especially) than "Mac Fanboys".

          If you need proof, just read the comments on Digg. PC Fanboys are overpopulated.

    • Elranzer, on 06/26/2008, -43/+104Most people who fawn over the Mac platform never really used it. It's just a case of the "grass is always greener" syndrome.

      I work with Macs everyday at my work, from the inside out (actually administrate the *****) and I don't see the appeal. They're actually downright annoying.

      The only really good thing I've used with Macs is the iLife suite. And even that isn't technically Mac-only, as since iTunes was ported to Windows, it means eventually the rest of the suite could eventually make it over, too. There's nothing OS-specific about iLife; hell even Safari made it to Windows.

      As someone who works regularly with all three major OS (Windows, Mac, Linux), the Mac interface just makes ME feel stupid when I use it. To get the same tasks done in Mac requires almost twice as many clicks as the same task in Windows or Linux (and let's not even touch right-lcicking).

      And the Dock... is simply the worst app launcher ever conceived.
      • GassyTurd, on 06/26/2008, -22/+7Thanks for your opinions.
      • prophetpimp, on 06/26/2008, -13/+22Thank you for the Facts.
        • harveywalbanger, on 06/26/2008, -13/+4Those aren't facts! I use Mac OSX, Solaris, Fedora, Ubuntu, Server2000, Server2003, XP all day long and the Mac is the only one that works out of the box as it is supposed to.

          Also, with a Mac - you don't have to uninstall all that CrapWare (Google Desktop on XP sucks ass - resource hog only Billy's idiot programmers could love).

          By far the Macs work more often, with less reconfiguration and far more stability.

          Ever try printing to a shared printer on Windows when the printer is off? That's right, you have to teach Windows how to talk to that printer all over again, like a retarded child...
      • EpicSelekta, on 06/26/2008, -8/+7Not entirely true. I won't deny that for a lot of people (the average computer user who isn't THAT fanatically obsessed with 'performance'), it is a case of grass-is-greener. However, as a graphic designer trained in Freehand, Flash, and 4 different editions of Photoshop, I've spent more time on Macs than most Mac users. Given that, I still agree with the author: Windows is just a more logical system.
        • Syphon8, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2If you needed training or Photoshop, there's no helping you. Also, it works better on Windows.
      • Angostura, on 06/26/2008, -4/+12"To get the same tasks done in Mac requires almost twice as many clicks as the same task in Windows or Linux"

        Examples?
        • tugger, on 06/26/2008, -10/+8here's an example..

          try running antivirus on a mac.. it's a pain in the arse!
        • Elranzer, on 06/26/2008, -5/+29"Examples?"

          1. Try connecting to a Windows domain
          2. Try connecting to a Windows server share
          3. Try adjusting the Virtual Memory

          Oh, you thought I meant simple ***** like web browsing or ripping MP3s??
        • directrix13, on 06/26/2008, -13/+4@Elranzer:

          I understand where you are coming from, but lets try not to bring in interoperation with Windows as the big issue. Windows TRIES TO NOT INTEROPERATE with anything that isn't Windows. But I generally do agree with your point. When an interface is dumbed down, usually complex things are much harder to do.
        • djbon2112, on 06/26/2008, -0/+10@directrix13

          Linux and Windows play well most of the time. Mac OSX is just a POS.
        • directrix13, on 06/26/2008, -5/+2I hate people that digg others down without an actual explanation. But to that effect, you are just proving how fickle a community you are a part of.
        • cawpin, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4"Linux and Windows play well most of the time. Mac OSX is just a POS."

          That's funny. I have an Ubuntu server at home sharing through SAMBA (Windows File Sharing) and I connect to it every day from Windows and Mac OS X without a problem. As for the domain thing, I've never done it personally but I've seen it done and it was no harder than with a Windows machine. Virtual memory, never had to worry about it on my Mac. The only time I've EVER had to do anything to VM is in Windows because it likes to use a page file instead of using the physical memory I have. I'm actually going to try this, adjusting the VM, tonight to see how hard it is.
      • munna80, on 06/26/2008, -1/+13I am a sound engineer and I also work with both systems, and by FAR I rather work with Windows, but many stupid customers will see a studio with a PC and tag it as an amateur studio.

        Same thing with design, I believe many customers won't take you too seriouslly if you show your work using a PC....

        Quite sad and stupid, but it happens...

        And also, when working on a Mac I have a lot more crashes than with PC...I've had 8hour recording sessions wasted due to crashes with Mac that corrupted the Protools files....
        • directrix13, on 06/26/2008, -10/+5That's more than likely a problem with Protools though.
        • Syphon8, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Solution: Buy a Mac, uninstall Mac OS X. It's more expensive hardware for less bang, but you have to spend money to make money, yaknow?
        • salomejones, on 06/26/2008, -11/+1A studio with a PC IS an amateur studio, sorry about that charlie.
        • directrix13, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6Just because a lot of people use Macs to make music does not mean it is required by any means. It can all be easily accomplished easily in Windows and Linux. A person who thinks a Mac is required to have a studio is just being an elitist ass hole.
      • homercles337, on 06/26/2008, -0/+11I feel your pain. During my second postdoc i worked in a "mac-only" lab. I hated every minute of working on that thing. I had a fancy new G5, dual processors, 2GB of ram, OSX. The thing was slow, constantly crashing, and buggy. I was there for a little over a year and really only got things done when i worked at home on a newly built XP machine.
        • AmaDaden, on 06/26/2008, -4/+1Lab computers tend to suck. They add in tons of crap ware and administration software. A system you take care of your self on the other hand would be more stable since you tend to know what caused what.
      • saikyan, on 06/26/2008, -6/+17>Most people who fawn over the Mac platform never really used it. It's just a case of the "grass is always greener" syndrome.

        This is true on all sides of the OS wars. I see PC users bash Macs endlessly without *ever* having used one. So, lets not make this into a one-sided issue.

        >I work with Macs everyday at my work, from the inside out (actually administrate the *****) and I don't see the appeal. They're actually downright annoying.

        So do I. Only, it so happens the Mac's are far, far less needy than the Windows PCs, much less annoying.

        >As someone who works regularly with all three major OS (Windows, Mac, Linux), the Mac interface just makes ME feel stupid when I use it. To get the same tasks done in Mac requires almost twice as many clicks as the same task in Windows or Linux (and let's not even touch right-lcicking).

        It's clear you're experience on the Mac platform is not as extensive as you'd like us to think. This is almost never true. Some of the most common ***** you do on a computer is far easier on a Mac. Examples? Setting up a printer, burning CDs/DVDs (reading/writing any media, really), formatting or partitioning a hard drive, checking ones IP address or any other networking information quickly and comprehensively (ipconfig is a joke), installing the operating system... I could go on.

        >And the Dock... is simply the worst app launcher ever conceived.
        I'm not a huge fan of the dock... but at least it doesn't run out of room as quickly and easily as the taskbar does. It's also more flexable and dynamic given its purpose. The taskbar tries to be too much at once, and the results are mixed.

        >1. Try connecting to a Windows domain
        2. Try connecting to a Windows server share
        3. Try adjusting the Virtual Memory

        1. If your Windows domain is set up right... hit Command K and input the IP address. What's so hard about that??

        2. I'm no network engineer, but again, I do this routinely at work. Input the IP, connect. Not a problem.

        3. I suppose this is valid, since I've never even needed to attempt this. Why would one need to attempt this, when OS X manages VM itself...

        I suspect you're a knowledgable Windows admin who gets frusterated on Macs because you don't know them as well as you know Windows. Not an uncommon story.
        • ganus, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4"I suspect you're a knowledgable Windows admin who gets frusterated on Macs because you don't know them as well as you know Windows. Not an uncommon story."

          This was my problem before I actually started using Macs and used to bash them all the time. After using OS X I think windows feels kind of stupid and I've been using Microsoft OSes since DOS.
      • jumbalia, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6as opposed to the Start menu, which is basically a dock but requires more clicking? What were you saying about needing more clicks....

        I think the argument of what OS is better is just silly anyways. Different OSs are better for different users. The Mac OS is meant for people who don't want to know alot about how a computer works in order to use it, whereas Windows and Linux are preferred by people who like to fiddle with computer and for developers.
        • Origin415, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5The start menu has far far more use though. In my (granted, somewhat limited) experience with Macs, if it wasn't on the bar, you had to open up finder and go through the applications folder, which is the windows equivalent of exploring your program files directory, ie crap.
          The start menu from XP on has spots for your most common applications, requiring only one additional click in exchange for not taking up space. In Vista, the menu has a search bar, so no additional clicks for anything in your start menu or user folder.

          And besides that, theres a quick launch bar.
        • P373Y, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2@origin415
          its called stacks.
          http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2265/1799434196_2e3 ...
        • magus_melchior, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4@Origin415
          To add to P373Y's point, drag the Applications folder to the right side of the Dock. If you're using one that can use Stacks, you now have an instant (if slightly more primitive) Start Menu.
          Your point about the quick launch bar is rendered moot by the Dock, which itself is a quick launch bar.
        • AKremlin, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Not to mention spotlight, which beats the need for a start menu at all. cmd-space, start typing the app name and it pops up. command-enter and it's open.
      • SHv2, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4hi ho quicksilver to the rescue!
      • ijwhelan, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3The dock isn't THAT bad, I actually find it useful as a launcher for frequently used programs, but not every one on the computer. I hate Macs, and I am a die-hard Windows user, and I LOVE Vista Ultimate on my new loaded ThinkPad T61, but I use RocketDock for my frequently used apps (Firefox, Photoshop, Word 2007, WMP11, iTunes, Media Center), as it is easier to click on the icons on the RocketDock than on the Quick Launcher, especially on a laptop.
        • magus_melchior, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1The Dock's application launching/switching ability is one of the things that most closely followed Fitt's Law. They still use text menus for a lot of things, which can be rearranged at the cost of consistency across apps...
    • smpx, on 06/26/2008, -8/+68From the article:

      "But really, when it comes down to it, the main reason I still use Windows is this: I'm stubborn and lazy. I don't want to switch because it will amount to admitting that I've been wrong for the last 15 years or so."

      Let's face it, forget the fanboys, the trends, the ridiculous "iconic" image of the mac, this is ultimately the biggest reason we're not switching. I don't care that it's better, my XP really hasn't presented a big enough problem for me to re-learn how to use computers.
      • mrBitch, on 06/26/2008, -14/+6FTA : "But really, when it comes down to it, the main reason I still use Windows is this: I'm stubborn and lazy. I don't want to switch because it will amount to admitting that I've been wrong for the last 15 years or so."

        Why is it so hard to admit you were wrong (for the last 15 years or so) ?

        What's the big deal? Why not just use something that makes your life better? (better defined by the fact that less time dealing with OS specific issues = more time out in the sunshine).
      • priegog, on 06/26/2008, -9/+2Yeah I think teh same thing. I definitely believe Desktp Linux is pretty redy for prime time, but the reality is that people are just happy with XP. If computers started shipping with Linux, something might change.. But until then I'm afraid that paying an antivirus subscription and/or doing a full system reinstall every 6-18 months is "good enough" for most of the world.
      • MacParrot, on 06/26/2008, -3/+6My first question is if you substituted the word "Windows" with the word "Macintosh" and the reverse as well, how many of you would still have dugg it up? It would have sounded like every Pro-Mac article many of have complained about for some time.

        Next, if he's happy with Windows (and I'm not saying that's impossible, I use it every day and have no big issues with it), then why is he even considering giving it up? Yes, I RTFA. I think he's protesting too much. Happy with Windows? Then stay with it and don't worry about "Peer Pressure". What a load of crap.
        • asnider, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2I don't think he's really considering giving up Windows as much as he's just making a joke about how ***** Vista is.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/26/2008, -1/+9"I don't care that it's better, my XP really hasn't presented a big enough problem for me to re-learn how to use computers."

        The author of the article was pointing out that Macs really aren't better.

        "Why is it so hard to admit you were wrong (for the last 15 years or so) ?"
        Because he doesn't believe that he was wrong. Which he was explaining in the beginning of the article.
    • pleasureismine, on 06/26/2008, -12/+6I bought my computer and it came with Vista. I upgraded back to XP and I love it! It runs so much faster and most of the features of the computer are preserved for as long as you go to the manufacturer's website to download the drivers.
      • silfiriel, on 06/26/2008, -5/+4bla, bla , bla...
        make it interesting and switch to ubuntu.
        I dual boot vista and ubuntu, but lately i boot in ubuntu only, because this ***** rocks
      • wufoo, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Thats funny that you called it an upgrade. Backwards in time but better OS.
      • ProfessorFoo, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Vista's performance has pretty much caught up or even passed XP's in most cases. It was ***** drivers that made it so slow originally. It does require more memory, but applications launch much faster (and when you can buy 2 gb of ram for $20 who gives a damn). And yes, I have read articles with benchmarks to prove it, but no, I will not take the time to find them because I am way too lazy.
    • Waterrat, on 06/26/2008, -8/+14 I used Windows as long as him,but unlike him,three years ago I tried Linux...No looking back for me.
      Of the Windows Os's I've usd, however,XP is the best of show..I have no plans to ever use Vista,however/
      • TypeEE, on 06/26/2008, -10/+3I just don't see linux is ready for a regular user as a desktop. Pain in the a$$
        • earlycj5, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8Funny, as a Linux user I find Vista to be a pain in the a$$ to use. I've booted into it on my laptop about five times in total since owning it for two months now.

          It's all in what you know and are comfortable with. Has little to do with the OS and much to do with familiarity.
      • ericcire, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_bar
    • Cobain27, on 06/26/2008, -30/+5MAC is better in every way. The ONLY way in which it isn't better is that it has had little notoriety because of the juggernant that is Microsoft. And Macs arn't "hip", Windows are, that's why so many people buy them. When buying a computer, buy the best performance and the easiest to use: unless of course you're an idiot and want less bang for your buck and more crashes and viruses. It's time to stop buying whatever everyone else buys and buy a real computer: a MAC. They are technically and aesthetically better than Windows garbage: Vista, Blue screen, IE.
      • slmsaberhagen, on 06/26/2008, -3/+11God damn fan boys.
      • Balanced, on 06/26/2008, -0/+18Putting all three letters in caps weakens your point. Try again.
      • Trax91, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Play a game. NOT Call of Duty 2 or some games released 4 years ago.
      • slazer, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2i thought macboys are supposed to be smart. really? better in EVERY way? and pretty much everything else in ur comment.
      • HalfBurntToast, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1First of all please define what a "real computer" is. As far as I know a computer is something that can be programmed to do things automatically. But obviously, according to you, its not.

        Secondly I would LOVE to see a Mac beat my PC at gaming. I tried to run UT04 on my parents Imac g5 and it was horrible. Even my 5 year old laptop could play it better than the brand new Mac could. It may be better at a few things, but it is not even close to being best.
      • Cobain27, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I use consoles (PS3) so I don't care that your PC is better at gaming. PC gaming is overrated and is on the defensive (except Wow). Macs are just smoother and all I'm hearing is that Windows are better for all the super nerds who actually know how to use Windows, but that leaves a lot of people who don't, and those people should switch to Mac because it's easier to get more done if you're not a computer super genius. So if you are someone who knows way to much about how a computer works, stick to Windows, we don't want you, but if you're a casual user, Mac is better and more user friendly.
    • Cobain27, on 06/26/2008, -30/+8WINDOWS SUCKS ASS!!!!!!!!!!!VirussssssVirusssssssPopupsSpywareBLUESCREENCRASHAHHHHH!!!!!
      • LoveAndSeagulls, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8maybe if you stop going to dangerous weird porn sites and fapping to steve jobs you wouldn't have any ***** viruses.

        seriously. no one really gets viruses unless they make a stupid move. and the truth is, the mac will get viruses too in due time, especially with its rising popularity.
        • backseatchris, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1I'm going to have to agree here with you Love. I have been using some version of a Gate's OS for about 15-20 years.
          As long as all of your settings are right and your'e not downloading ***** via P2P, from midget porn sites, or opening email attachments asking you to download a form to fill out for a free trip to Hawaii, you'll be fine.
          I have RARELY ever had some sort of virus or crash.

          The positives highly outweigh the negatives for me. Although, this may not be the case w/ everyone, so I wont trash the Mac as I do understand the appeal of the device. That and I am guilty for owning a number of Mr Job's products (iPhone, iPod (2), etc)
        • kidathinnes, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1No midget porn?????? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
      • HalfBurntToast, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2I don't know what your going on about. It must of been over a year sense I've had my last virus. And I don't think this PC has ever had a blue screen. Its called CWAB (Computing With A Brain).
      • Cobain27, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Well I'm talking about a non-nerd, someone who uses the computer for simple things and that gets sent viruses for no reason. Tell me these people, who no nothing about viruses are supposed to deal with it? But anti-virus, that cost money and is useless when you can buy a Mac, which doesn't get viruses. So Like I said before ^ if you're a Windows nerd than yes, you shouldn't switch to Mac, but the casual users (the majority of users) should switch to make things easier on themselves. Not everyone knows all the useless ***** you people know about Windows.
    • paulielatex, on 06/26/2008, -25/+4daily prison gang rape for 3 years is a walk in the park compared with using windows for 30 seconds -- that is a fact, look it up assholes
      • daedalus1982, on 06/26/2008, -0/+9obvious troll is....what the hell? paulielatex? i was going to inquire as to your knowledge of that baseless comparison you just made but with a name like paulielatex you might know more about receiving a "cell block appeal" than I originally thought
      • Darksider, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Damn you really need to get new comparisons
      • Kirizan, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7Wow, you must be slightly retarded or something if you think Windows is more of a pain in the ass the 3 years of gang rape. That, or your into the gang rape thing, but hey, to each his own right.
    • rohan037, on 06/26/2008, -11/+48i could not even imagine this kind of a comment getting +109 on digg...

      on a similar note.. "Macs are too hip. Oh, look at me! I do graphic design! I wear women's jeans and hang out in coffee shops!"

      EPIC STATEMENT.
      • Icetype, on 06/26/2008, -6/+6Thank you for the lulz. I know exactly the people you're talking about. The women's jeans thing man... It's almost worse than the hyper sagging pants idiots wear around their knees, one hand required to hold them up as they run from the police.
        • ganus, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2So... everyone who wears excessively baggy pants is a criminal? Profiling at its finest.
        • Icetype, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Dress for the job you want. ;)
        • Dauntless1, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0Really? Profiling? So, guess what. Sagging pants is a jail phenomenon to indicate that noone better rape you in the shower cause you are already SOMEONE'S BITCH. Congrats on doing your homework.
    • marksands07, on 06/26/2008, -11/+6Well as of now, only 133 of us know the light side of the computer world and 306 of us are still in the dark.. what a shame.
    • moomza, on 06/26/2008, -30/+15Windows sucks ass, it's just a fact, sorry.

      Digg me down PC fanboys nerds, let's see how low we can go!

      (I won't be reading any replies, because they are so predictable)
      • ransomduke, on 06/26/2008, -2/+9I'm a giraffe!
      • ericcire, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7Pedobear approves!
      • blackgt93, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Your mom!
      • eltrev, on 06/26/2008, -4/+4ssɐ ʞɔns sǝop sʍopuıʍ 'ʇɔǝɹɹoɔ ǝɹɐ noʎ ʎllɐnʇɔɐ
      • bobfrancis, on 06/26/2008, -3/+4This is currently at the top of "controversial" with +13 / -16. What's so controversial about it? Windows does suck ass.
      • Cowboy1015, on 06/26/2008, -4/+3So you're not reading the replies...
        ... Mac is gay and so are you suckass...
        • ventura7, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3you are both - a nerd and a *****.

          That must suck for you.
        • Cowboy1015, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2@ventura7: ahh shut up...
        • ventura7, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Just come out of the closet! It's OK to be a nerdy gay cowboy.
      • itspuddingtime, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5whatever, we all know you're checking these replies
      • ventura7, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6"Windows sucks ass" - the truest 3 words ever strung together.
      • Xihix, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4How is sucking ass bad? If an OS can toss my salad, that is one hell of a machine I wouldn't even hesitate to buy.
    • MattFid, on 06/26/2008, -8/+16"I don't want to switch because it will amount to admitting that I've been wrong for the last 15 years or so."

      ...and I think that sums up the article.

      [closes casket door in preparation for burial]
      • StolenLamp, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Yeah, it has nothing to do with all the other things he said...
    • kelmaster1, on 06/26/2008, -13/+26Vista FTW!
      • burnin8r28, on 06/26/2008, -2/+16everyone never shuts up about how much it sucks but i haven't had one problem yet.
        • helpfulcorn, on 06/26/2008, -1/+8I didn't have a problem either, until I tried to use it.
        • longbow486, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1dugg just for the Pirates of Silicon Valley quote
        • Syphon8, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Same.
        • ijwhelan, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3No problems for me! Best version of Windows I have ever used.
        • tim5779, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0I've been so frustrated with it... I have a laptop with vista ultimate and dreamweaver randomly quits without any chance to save whenever I bring up the "open" or "save" window. it's very annoying. One time I had a file get corrupted that way and I had to start my work all over again. I'm still using XP on my main machine and I won't switch.
      • MxM111, on 06/26/2008, -3/+8I think people who bush Vista are those who do not want to pay money for the new system, and convinced themselves that XP is better. Those are the same people who wanted to sit on Windos 98 and not to upgrade to XP.

        Any new system has some problems in the beginning, but Vista is older than 1 year, and most of the problem are solved (anyway the majority of them were related to 3rd party drivers, and using 3rd party hardware is the strength of Windows when compared to Macs, but it does create these problem when the new windows is introduced)
        • AmaDaden, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3"Any new system has some problems in the beginning, but Vista is older than 1 year, and most of the problem are solved"
          You're miss understanding three of large issues with vista.

          The first is that for Vista MS has FINALLY tried to enforce security. Since they never enforced it before a lot of programs would do things they should not. MS asked people to not do things like change the windows kernel and use hidden undocumented APIs but they did it any way. Because A) MS was doing it in programs like MS office and B) MS never gave out anything more then a light warning about it being dangerous. Now in Vista things are starting to get locked down. So programs that worked on XP can not work on Vista. It's worth noting that THEY HAVE NOT FINSHED LOCKING IT DOWN. More and more things will have old versions of programs fail.

          Also DRM has been built in to every inch of the system. So even when you are not using DRM. Even if you never have and never will use it you still will run DRM based code. This should not be a big deal but the truth is that having the ability to turn the DRM on adds a LOT of complexity to the code. Complex code is bug prone code. This is also why ATI and nVidia had such a problem with making their Vista drivers.

          Lastly they made many MANY bad choices in the past. Since MS LOVES to try to keep backwards compatibility they tried where ever they could to support old ways of doing things. This means that A) unseen XP bugs can be in Vista for reused code(happened already), B0 fresh code can have bugs that have already been fixed (also happened already), and C) most importantly they can not make the improvements to the basic way that Windows works that they need to do. This is why OS X was such a jump forward for Apple, they redesigned it from the ground up using everything they learned.

          None of this prevents Vista from working but it makes it damn near imposable for it to be better then the other stuff out there in any kind of timely manner.
      • jaredog, on 06/26/2008, -2/+8I've been using Vista since release and have had zero problems whatsoever.
      • ganus, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2I've run Vista since launch and the only issues I ever had were in the very beginning trying to find some drivers.
      • Syphon8, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Never had an issue. Everything I own plug & played.
    • kd1s, on 06/26/2008, -10/+15My experience has been otherwise. I've used both Windows and MacOS in their various versions. I will say that MacOS didn't get good until OS-X and the reason was that it had a real live Unix kernel underneath it all.

      Windows boxes have ALWAYS had proprietary API's, etc. And they've always been more of a problem to support.

      Actually I've been trending towards getting a MacBook. Why? Because I want to be able to run ALL OS's, and with VMWare Fusion I can run OS-X, with XP in a VMware virtual machine, and I've got full access to the BSD shell on OS-X. I haven't yet found a reliable port of OS-X that'll run under VMWare for Windows.

      And the authors assertion that you can customize a Windows box to a greater extent than OS-X is false. You can customize the hell out of OS-X. The only issue is that before you do an update to OS-X, backup your config directories.

      It is my guess that the author is a Windows fanboy, and those are far more insufferable than the Mac fanboys.
      • Phyltre, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5I think he meant customize it hardware wise, which is why he used the word "box". I build my own desktops, which is one of the reasons I don't consider Macs much of an alternative for me.
      • Jessimo, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I strongly agree with the whole mac not getting good until osx. I grew up on os8 and os9, and they were by far some of the worst operating systems i've ever used , while osx is in my worthless opinion the best i've used.
    • thaistick, on 06/26/2008, -18/+25I only have 7 words for all you PC Fanboys:

      *****, piss, *****, *****, *****, *****, and *****.
      • bradleyland, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6That was awful nice of you to throw some ***** in there.
      • MasterGrief, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Heh, since Carlin died, I've seen a lot more of his humor on Digg. While it is immensely depressing that the old guy finally kicked it, it sure is nice to see his influence in such quantity.
      • SuminderJi, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Dugg for Carlin but I'm a PC fanboy.

        Sorry.
    • saikyan, on 06/26/2008, -2/+12Nothing like a vast, sweeping blanket statement to win over the mob.
    • Cowboy1015, on 06/26/2008, -10/+5I totally agree here. I've been using windows, and happy with it.

      So for the Mac fanboys... stop calling us PC fanboys. It just happen that we're contented. And Mac is gay.
      • ganus, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2Have you given Macs a legitimate chance? Use a Mac exclusively for a few weeks and then come back and tell me what you think.
      • Jessimo, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2stop calling them gay
    • soopafly, on 06/26/2008, -15/+10Wow.. look at all the PC fanboys!!
      The original commenter said that Windows was better than Mac without giving any sort of reasoning...yet he gets majorly dugg?
      • ProfessorFoo, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2I almost never see pro-mac comments that say anything other than windows is slow, crashes, gets viruses, and is somehow not easy enough to use. None of those things are true from what I've seen, so obviously 90% of pro mac comments should be buried, yet never are.
    • TracerMan, on 06/26/2008, -4/+8In one sentence you pissed off both linix and mac fans, yet you have +100s diggs. Linix and Mac is not as big as I thought.
    • MattFromSeattle, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2I use XP at work and a Mac at home for my personal usage. Love them both as they both do things well. Apple has been an on and off love affair for me. Loved my Apple IIE, loved my original Macintosh, hated everything after that. Up until OSX, you couldn't have paid me to use an Apple product as they fouled the OS up so much in the 90's.

      But the bottom line for why OSX works so well now - UNIX at its core.
    • skyshock1, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Not for large scale datacenter clusters it's not.
    • kenedamick, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4Opinions are like assholes, and you're one of them. Way to present a moving argument, moron.
    • slazer, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2HX2BJ YJTTY T27MD 767KP JGRPJ
      i wish it was free. when i'd set up peoples' boxes i used to be able to get around wga, but it's hard to pass up on the service packs. plus, the whole watermark thing is a well-played pain in the ass. now i just pretend like xp can't be cracked and get them to ***** buy it already.
      i love windows xp more than videogames.
      • tkr2099, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2FCKGW-RHQQ2-YXRKT-8TG6W-2B7Q8!
        • Ocelot13, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1i can do it too
          09F91-1029D-74E35-BD841-56C56-35688-C0
    • jluebbert, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6Your name is Adam420, your opinion doesn't count.
    • salomejones, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3I beg to differ. I'm not the brightest bulb in the basket, but I have been working with computers for a couple of decades, from VMS, through about every UNIX/Unix/*nix there ever was, Amigas, every Windows version from 3.1 on, even QNX and RiscOS, and I'll tell you something:

      I prefer macs. Not only do I prefer macs, but I converted my entire company to macs a couple of years ago and have never looked back. I'm not too dumb to use Windows---I'm just too damn lazy to have to fix it all the time.
    • dlite922, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7Keep your desktop XP and your server Linux.

      Mac can peek through the window like a jealous kid.

    • jim1977, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Why I still use Windows, despite peer pressure: because all my friends hate OS X, and despite the fact most of them run Linux installs too, they don't chat about it much.
    • PullingTeeth, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Should I feel weird for liking Vista?
      • StaticThunder, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1YES. You're obviously insane and should be institutionalized. Haven't you noticed how not only slow, but ******* slow opening an explorer window is?
    • da_bradler, on 06/26/2008, -1/+13YOu know why I use windows? http://store.apple.com/ca/configure/MA970LL/A?mco= ... an extra 3-2gb sticks of DDR2-800 ram cost 1,500 dollars on the apple store

      while I can get 4 sticks of 2gb DDR-800 low latency ram for 190 dollars.

      the absolute most I could find 2 sticks of 2gb DDR-800 was 500 dollars and that's for extreme performance made for heavy overclocking ram(which you would have to special order), are you ***** telling me that they have ram that cost TWICE as much as the highest you could possibly pay on a PC?

      Apple straight out ***** its consumers you pay a 200% premium on any of there computer products minimum, I"m not willing to pay that much for a system that can never be upgraded.
      • knightboat, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1I'm all for the wacky contentious OS debate going on in this thread, but why are you comparing RAM sticks bought through Apple with RAM sticks bought from somewhere cheaper?

        Why not compare RAM bought from a cheaper store with RAM from the same store? You know, since Macs use the same RAM as any Windows or Linux box. Come on, you're just being willfully ignorant here.
    • Zorkon, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I think you meant to say "Windows is way better than Mac, for me." Right? Because you certainly aren't trying to argue that a computer OS should be a one-size fits all kind of thing, are you? If that's the case, then asparagus is way better than eggplant, apples are way better than oranges, and redheads vs. blondes vs. brunettes? No contest. ONE SIZE SHOULD FIT ALL!

      Seriously - if Windows turns your crank that's great. Hope it works out for you. If Macs and Unix are more your thing, then that's OK too.

      This whole "x is better than y" crap is ridiculous. If it were remotely true, we'd only ever have one kind of anything. People like choice. Respect that.

      • StaticThunder, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1At risk of offending my girlfriend, redheads are way better than blondes are way better than brunettes. Fortunately, in this enlightened age, SCIENCE can fix EVERYTHING.

    • manningbowl135, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7Mac is too expensive on every level. If you have the money, go for it. I'll stick with windows and go linux when I'm more literate with computers.
    • davidaod, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0What...? Just... What?
    • BabyWookie, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1Windows are for techie nerd fags, who get off on having to tweak and take care of their crappy OS all the time, while Macs are for cool people, who just want something that enhances their productivity and creativity. If I didn't want to play the latest 3D games and have to use MS dev tools, I wouldn't touch any ugly ass Windows OS with a ten foot pole. I really wish that I could just run OSX on my MacBook Pro and Ubuntu on my main home rig, but I have to also run XP on both of those. :
      • StaticThunder, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Umm... okay.

        If it weren't for the latest 3D games which I really like, I'd be running Linux, and MacOS wouldn't even place.

        But then I guess that makes me a techie nerd fag. Honestly man, its hard to tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Macs are for people who like to spend too much for mediocre hardware and a cool plastic case, Windows is for people who have no choice (and hate life .. especially Vista), and Linux is for people with time on their hands and a sadomasochistic streak.

        Its not like there's a huge difference.
      • BabyWookie, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1@StaticThunder:

        Mediocre hardware? Whatever, dude. I wouldn't even consider getting a 15" laptop other than a MacBook Pro. Even my Mac hating friend admits that it's a work of art, as far as hardware design goes. Also, it's made of aluminum, not plastic. All the other laptops are ugly and feel flimsy in comparison.

        I am definitely a Windows power user though. Ever time I install XP, I spend a couple of hours going through the Admin Tools and the registry, trying to close some of the obvious security holes that are left often by default. I disable a bunch of services, ***** with the the security policy, etc.

        It takes me like 10 minutes to tweak a new OSX install to my liking. Everything just feels so much simpler, natural and more intuitive in OSX.
    • Randmitter, on 07/03/2008, -1/+0Just counting how many ***** are in this thread. Nobody likes the mind cult of Steve Jobs. But you have to be secure. It's obvious that when it comes to security you people are so shockingly stupid. You deserve all the malware ***** thrown at you.
    • Randmitter, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0How laughable. Nobody likes the Steve Jobs mind cult but Windows isn't secure. Period. You deserve all the malware ***** thrown your way. You deserve it because you're so ***** stupid.

      That article has no content. In his own words he doesn't switch because he's feeble minded and proud of it. I guess you turnips fall into the same category.

      I'm going to start a malware company. That's the easiest way to make billions today.

      Bill Gates will go to jail before he wins any awards for his sham of charity. He could start by treating his own customers right, you ***** for brains.
    • MathueTaxion, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1"Adam420 wrote"

      Geese, another windows stoner? Maybe I am starting to understand why Windows users act as they do. ;)
  • frenchkick, on 06/26/2008, -112/+530Thank you for actually saying something good about windows.
    people bitch about it some goddamn much even though it is a good OS

    i also switched to a mac for a few months and while i did enjoy some of leopards features, it did just feel dumbed down
    and i do agree with him on the bill gates thing, but that didn't really influence my decision
    • altinnovation, on 06/26/2008, -23/+7Is there a right-click button in mac-osx? Mine didn't work...
      • str1fe, on 06/26/2008, -5/+6Mighty Mouse.
        • GassyTurd, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6Or any other USB mouse.
        • gandhii, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4the mighty mouse is pathetic... please don't embarrass macs by bringing that up.
      • Rsulliv1, on 06/26/2008, -3/+10control click, or put two fingers on the trackpad and click. it sounds awkward, but it feels great.

        You can get this option on older macbooks, too. I have it working on my G4 powerbook.
        • 11oops, on 06/26/2008, -1/+10That's what she said?
        • chevyorange, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Look up "SideTrack" on VersionTracker to get new touchpad functionality on older iBooks.
        • gandhii, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2ctrl click has worked since long before OSX on macs.
      • EllimistX, on 06/26/2008, -1/+10You can also just tap with 2 fingers on a trackpad... it takes a few tries to get used to, but feels more natural than clicking a button. The only thing that sucks is that it's annoying when you can't use it anymore on other laptops.
        • Fordi, on 06/26/2008, -0/+10Aaaand, half the time it scrolls.

          Mind you, I do prefer the two-fingered scroll to the side-of-the-pad scroll.
      • darienphoenix, on 06/26/2008, -5/+14Macs have been able to right-click for years.

        Sure, it took them long enough, and was a dumb idea not to do it immediately, but this is a VERY old criticism, and you look like an idiot for bringing it up.
        • altinnovation, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4I wasn't critisizing, so thank you for calling me an idiot when our OSX in school doesn't have right-click. Just because I don't use a mac and wanted to learn something doesn't make me an idiot.
        • prophetpimp, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7Same as the BSOD *****. If mactards keep shocing BSOD in our faces then Windows users will not stop shoving the stupid one mouse button in their faces.
        • gandhii, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3altinnovation: your "OSX in school" does have right click. It is not the OS's fault that there isn't a 2 button mouse plugged into the machine.
        • Nitesmoke, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2@gandhii "It is not the OS's fault that there isn't a 2 button mouse plugged into the machine."

          Then why the hell do they come with a one button mouse?
        • darienphoenix, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1They don't.
      • gandhii, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I agree.. it is dumbed down. But there are a few undocumented features that smarten it up. Google "mac hot keys".
    • sfacets, on 06/26/2008, -30/+32If you read it carefully, the article goes on to say that the writer is to old/lazy to switch, but would if he could.
      • Rsulliv1, on 06/26/2008, -18/+8How are you being dugg down? It's in the author's own words that he says that he's "stubborn and lazy". But, I'll back you up even more:

        He has no real arguments against osx. Windows has its strong points, but this article doesn't mention any of them. Laziness? And you told the world this? are you serious?

        Since when is not doing something because it "admit[s] that [he's] been wrong for the last 15 years or so.". For some reason I bet he upgrades his hardware when better stuff comes out..

        He doesn't consider about how much time he could save in the long run by learning osx's shortcuts and intricacies. Here's one long-term time saver: when a windows app loads the processor, the os is froze.. in linux or osx, the app temporarily freezes. that means you don't have to sit at the screen and wait because your entire system is frozen. How often have you had a froze system and the Task Manager says that the System Idle Process is at 99? That boils my blood every time..

        Here's his conclusion paragraph:

        "But really, when it comes down to it, the main reason I still use Windows is this: I'm stubborn and lazy. I don't want to switch because it will amount to admitting that I've been wrong for the last 15 years or so. And it would be just a huge pain to do it even if I swallowed my pride, having to relearn all the shortcuts and commands and little nuances that make an OS tick. I know all those for Windows already. I am just far too lazy to relearn OS X, and I don't care how easy you claim it is. I've made my choice, and I'm sticking by it. At least until I buy my next computer, because I sure as hell don't want to have to use Vista. I mean, I like Windows, but I'm not crazy."

        Note that at the end he even says that he'll consider OSX when he's ready to buy a new computer? What's the other option? I haven't yet seen a version of OSX that will run on a non-apple machine..
        • MacParrot, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7Just a poorly written article. Not because he prefers Windows, but his argument for staying with Windows, or anything else with the excuses he uses, is ludicrous.

          If he want's to stay with Windows, then he should do so, even if it means eventually using the apparently repulsive to him Windows Vista. If he want to keep using the same hardware as he's already purchased, then throw Linux on there. But he really is just whining
        • VyRuZ, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1I'm on Vista and I've had crashes from Yahoo! Messenger all the way to GRID & Unreal Tournament III.

          CTRL + ALT + DEL would always close the apps without crashing the system. The only BSOD I had was because my former HDD was faulty. I've now replaced it and all is well.

          Remember, press CTRL + ALT + DEL even though it gets you to that other screen, don't just press CTRL + SHIFT + ESC for the Task Manager. I find C+A+D works every time.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/26/2008, -3/+19You guys are reading what the author wrote:
        "when it comes down to it, the main reason I still use Windows is"

        with what you want to believe which is this:
        "when it comes down to it, the ONLY reason I still use Windows is"

        He only says that being lazy is the single largest factor, not the only one. If he thought it more important he wouldn't have spent so much time talking about other things.
        • Rsulliv1, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Doesn't matter,

          The main point is still in his conclusion:

          "I am just far too lazy to relearn OS X, and I don't care how easy you claim it is. I've made my choice, and I'm sticking by it. At least until I buy my next computer, because I sure as hell don't want to have to use Vista. I mean, I like Windows, but I'm not crazy"

          He basically says that he's not yet ready to buy a new computer. When he is, he'll consider OSX.

          It's just not a very good article, in my opinion.
      • skidooer, on 06/26/2008, -2/+10Funny, I switched away from Windows because I am lazy. Windows is a fine system, but it requires way to much work to use; work that I don't want to have to do.
      • Mushroomhero, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1He's taking jabs at Apple but then saying he's lazy and would have to swallow his 15 years of pride and glory running Windows if he were to make the switch. I find that boring. There's nothing new here about this article as I think that this is how most people feel about considering switching to Apple.

        Personally I like Apple because I've never had a problem: no crashes, bugs, viruses, or unexplained system failures. Apple computers just work, and you can't deny that. And saying that it's "too hip" just sounds like some kind of personal insecurity. That is a problem with the marketing or the consumers, but should not impact one's view of the product or it's functionality.
        • Rsulliv1, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1People that buy apple because they're "hip" are quite lame...

          People that don't buy apple because they're "hip" are quite lame...

          They're both being worked by the marketing instead of the product. I call that uninformed consumerism.
        • Mushroomhero, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0Rsulliv1 I agree.
    • TLLOTS, on 06/26/2008, -13/+43As someone who's been using a Mac for the past three to four months I have to respectfully disagree that a Mac feels dumbed down when compared to Windows XP. With its roots in Unix there's just so much power available under the hood, you just need to look for it.
      • priegog, on 06/26/2008, -8/+6Yeah I found funny those comments too. It almost seemed like the perfect description of someone who would love to use Linux. Macs are a tid harder to "expose" (like he says), but still far from just little toys. It is true however than on a mac you seldom need to "look under the hood", so it's not that important in my opinion.
        Oh, and I also LOL at him thinking he's a hardcore computer power user when he can do EVERYTHING from a GUI. But that's just me and my bitternes.
        • zeromous, on 06/26/2008, -2/+15Unfortunately what passes for hardcore these days is:

          "I can strip DRM from your Fairplay files"
          "I know how to make the annoying Vista permissions screen go away"
          "The registry is so complex. Have you ever just taken a look in there?"
          "I use Firefox"

          Not defending Mac here, but its "20 year old (BSD) command line" is still the bees knees.
        • zeromous, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Just want to add:

          My Mom (56yo) is now officially hardcore- she just IMed me that she's owned the permissions screens on Vista once and for all. Good for you mom.
      • mossblaser, on 06/26/2008, -7/+12Look, if you valued unix roots you'd know mac os was a ***** choice for unix lovers. Unix lovers use just that, UNIX, not a stripped down unix with massive numbers of propriotary bolt ons. I've yet to meet a mac user who actually uses anything unix related but a good half of them don't half bang on about it.
        • skidooer, on 06/26/2008, -2/+11"Unix lovers use just that, UNIX"

          OS X and Solaris are really the only mainstream UNIX systems left, and I don't know anyone who uses Solaris. Unix lovers either use OS X, or don't use UNIX at all (Linux, FreeBSD, etc.)
        • CCB0x45, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4How is it stripped down? I hate when idiots like you say ridiculous statements like that but provide no evidence, I develop on OS X, I use unix functions all the time, I have a few linux boxes at home, mostly just use it for my mythtv box, and it is not stripped down, if anything they have beefed up the toolset on OS X.
        • CCB0x45, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2I also wanna say I guarantee when you say "Unix lovers use just that, UNIX" you actually mean Linux, which are obviously similar but seperate entities.
        • mossblaser, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1@skidooer : Mac os is based on a BSD and BSD is prettey close to unix
          @CCB0x45 : Really, the bits that are unix specific are not compilers and grep - the stuff that makes unix good are its server stuff and networking. Also I do not mean Linux. I mean UNIX. If i meant linux I'd say linux.
        • CCB0x45, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2mossblaser, what form of unix do you use? are you using Solaris? Did I ever say the bits that are unix specific are compilers and grep?
          And how exactly is the networking worse on OS X, you say these idiotic statements..."server stuff" and networking... there is Mac OS X Server as well, let me know which version of Unix you use, and how its "Server Stuff and Networking" on OS X is so "stripped down". You are a moron.
    • clickmyface, on 06/26/2008, -13/+5" I like the soon-to-be-retired Bill Gates way more than Steve Jobs, because the guy cares about more than just making enough money to build a castle for himself out of stacks of $100 bills (not that Bill can't do that)"

      Bill Gates' house is worth $150 million~ and is 50,000 sq feet. Steve Jobs wanted to demolish a 17,000 sq foot mansion he bought in the 70