Microsoft formally names Windows 7 release date

[CThinker]

OK, Linux or the MAC is for you then
And then, half your chess programs won't run at all.

That many really? I haven't found one that won't run on my Mac yet.

You have to hack around Fritz and 64-bit Rybka to get it to run on Wine. Who has time for that?

Its not politically correct to criticize Linux, but the reality is, its a total crap for the average user. Of the more than 500 distros, a tiny few is usable at all, by geeks.

The average user who has bought a Linux pre-installed on a netbook, returns it and exchanges for a Windows one. The consumer rejects Linux, totally. When netbooks first came out, they were "all" sold with Linux, but very few bought them. Now, almost all that are sold come with Windows. Windows pushed Linux out of the market in the only market that Linux is supposed to be good at - free OS on a cheap hardware.

If all one would do is browse the web, Ubuntu 'might' be usable. Now try installing Flash to watch youtube. Goodluck. "sudo aptget" what? Netflix? Edit raw photos with GIMP - not even doable, even if you could forgive the awful interface and crashing. Play Crysis anyone?

What is Linux good at then? If you can program, then its for you. It runs gcc well. It will surely run a chess engine that has a source code.

[bob]

OK, Linux or the MAC is for you then
And then, half your chess programs won't run at all.

That many really? I haven't found one that won't run on my Mac yet.

You have to hack around Fritz and 64-bit Rybka to get it to run on Wine. Who has time for that?

Its not politically correct to criticize Linux, but the reality is, its a total crap for the average user. Of the more than 500 distros, a tiny few is usable at all, by geeks.

The average user who has bought a Linux pre-installed on a netbook, returns it and exchanges for a Windows one. The consumer rejects Linux, totally. When netbooks first came out, they were "all" sold with Linux, but very few bought them. Now, almost all that are sold come with Windows. Windows pushed Linux out of the market in the only market that Linux is supposed to be good at - free OS on a cheap hardware.

If all one would do is browse the web, Ubuntu 'might' be usable. Now try installing Flash to watch youtube. Goodluck. "sudo aptget" what? Netflix? Edit raw photos with GIMP - not even doable, even if you could forgive the awful interface and crashing. Play Crysis anyone?

What is Linux good at then? If you can program, then its for you. It runs gcc well. It will surely run a chess engine that has a source code.

So you want an "easy to install" windows, that comes with lots of "easy to install" viruses? Lots of "easy to crash" system applications?

I've installed windows XP on multiple machines. Fedora 10 installs easier and faster. And (gasp) stays up for years unless you choose to take it down for a hardware upgrade or whatever...

Windows is horribly designed to allow the nonsense it allows.

[Steve Maughan]

I have to agree with Lance on this one. Linux may be great for servers and programmers (of C, C++, PHP and Java - nothing else) but as a business, chess or general user environment it's not up there with Windows. And Windows 7 would seem to be smokin' hot.

Go Bill, Go!

Steve

[CThinker]

OK, Linux or the MAC is for you then
And then, half your chess programs won't run at all.

That many really? I haven't found one that won't run on my Mac yet.

You have to hack around Fritz and 64-bit Rybka to get it to run on Wine. Who has time for that?

Its not politically correct to criticize Linux, but the reality is, its a total crap for the average user. Of the more than 500 distros, a tiny few is usable at all, by geeks.

The average user who has bought a Linux pre-installed on a netbook, returns it and exchanges for a Windows one. The consumer rejects Linux, totally. When netbooks first came out, they were "all" sold with Linux, but very few bought them. Now, almost all that are sold come with Windows. Windows pushed Linux out of the market in the only market that Linux is supposed to be good at - free OS on a cheap hardware.

If all one would do is browse the web, Ubuntu 'might' be usable. Now try installing Flash to watch youtube. Goodluck. "sudo aptget" what? Netflix? Edit raw photos with GIMP - not even doable, even if you could forgive the awful interface and crashing. Play Crysis anyone?

What is Linux good at then? If you can program, then its for you. It runs gcc well. It will surely run a chess engine that has a source code.

So you want an "easy to install" windows, that comes with lots of "easy to install" viruses? Lots of "easy to crash" system applications?

I've installed windows XP on multiple machines. Fedora 10 installs easier and faster. And (gasp) stays up for years unless you choose to take it down for a hardware upgrade or whatever...

Windows is horribly designed to allow the nonsense it allows.

It is not me who wants the easy-to-use and just-works environment. Its the world. That is a fact. Linux has less than 1% desktop use. Given that Linux is free and Windows cost a lot, something is definitely terribly wrong with Linux.

Someone gives you free food, and instead you opt to pay for another (expensive) food, simply says that it must be a terrible food.

Ive been a Linux user since 1993! Back then, X was not yet ported to Linux. Everything fit in 6 floppy disk. You multitask with virtual consoles (alt-1, alt-2,...). I have Ubuntu now, and it still sucks, as much as it did in 1993.

I'm sure you love your Linux. You know how to program right? Of course.

Let me give you another fact on Unix/Linux rejection by the non-programming IT world.

Before the year 2000, the server world is totally dominated by Unix. Windows server had zero market share. When Windows 2000 came out, together with Active Directory, the IT community celebrated. Finally, a server for the non-geeks.

In 2008, Windows Server had 70% market share. That's from 0% - 70% market share in 8 years.

Desktop World: Linux, 0% to <1% in 20 years. What a total flop!

Server World: Linux/Unix: 100% to 30% in 8 years, and still dropping.

How do you configure Linux Servers? "Edit config files". Try enabling PXE on a Linux server. You have to edit at least six config files. What exactly should you put on those text files? Good luck. On Windows Server - one check box. Yes, one check box.

How do you manage Linux/Unix servers? MIBs? That archaic MIBs? That sums up the problem with Linux - zero innovation, zero invention. The Linux kernel itself is a re-implementation of Unix.

Linus Torvalds re-implemented Unix, while Dave Cutler designed and built a totally new OS. I can easily tell you which one is smarter (and way, way richer). I have implemented an OS (Itron) and its a piece of cake. I have not invented one. That is the hard part. Even Apple has abandoned the OS that they invented. They now use BSD Unix, and charging people for it.

The Linux interfaces (confusing, multiple, non-complementing interfaces) is a re-implementation of the Windows interface. And a very bad copy at that. Nothing new, and missing a lot.

[Werewolf]

Lance,
What's your opinion of MacOS c/p windows?

[krazyken]

OK, Linux or the MAC is for you then
And then, half your chess programs won't run at all.

That many really? I haven't found one that won't run on my Mac yet.

You have to hack around Fritz and 64-bit Rybka to get it to run on Wine. Who has time for that?

Its not politically correct to criticize Linux, but the reality is, its a total crap for the average user. Of the more than 500 distros, a tiny few is usable at all, by geeks.

The average user who has bought a Linux pre-installed on a netbook, returns it and exchanges for a Windows one. The consumer rejects Linux, totally. When netbooks first came out, they were "all" sold with Linux, but very few bought them. Now, almost all that are sold come with Windows. Windows pushed Linux out of the market in the only market that Linux is supposed to be good at - free OS on a cheap hardware.

If all one would do is browse the web, Ubuntu 'might' be usable. Now try installing Flash to watch youtube. Goodluck. "sudo aptget" what? Netflix? Edit raw photos with GIMP - not even doable, even if you could forgive the awful interface and crashing. Play Crysis anyone?

What is Linux good at then? If you can program, then its for you. It runs gcc well. It will surely run a chess engine that has a source code.

I'll agree with all this readily. Of course most windows users can't run Rybka 64-bit either.

[krazyken]

Lance,
What's your opinion of MacOS c/p windows?

When it comes down to it, EVERY OS sucks. They all have their niches where they do good, but none of them do it all. I use Mac OS personally, because I like the polish of a commercial GUI, and power of the UNIX command line needed for work. I could do the same with windows and cygwin. Windows seven is a nice product from what I've seen so far, and I'll keep it on some virtual machines I'm sure. Oh well, I guess it's time to join the drooling masses waiting to see what Apple will do today.

[fern]

You are absolutely right. As one of those current users so despised by geeks and programmers, I have no patience for a OS like Linux with which you sometimes does not know even how to start a program.
Windows can have -but it have less at each new version- lot of problems, but we can make it work easily so we can concentrate in our real task.
I have tested windows 7 an it rocks...

Fern

[bob]

I have to agree with Lance on this one. Linux may be great for servers and programmers (of C, C++, PHP and Java - nothing else) but as a business, chess or general user environment it's not up there with Windows. And Windows 7 would seem to be smokin' hot.

Go Bill, Go!

Steve

This is more a case of "I use what I grew up with." And most have grown up with windows. For chess, windows has absolutely no advantage over linux, and in fact, is generally worse. If you are talking about software availability, that is a different issue. There are more bicycles on the planet than automobiles. Doesn't mean the bicycles are better, however. Just that there are more of them.

It is, to me, quite valuable to not have to deal with virus issues and such, whereas the world of windows has a new scare and/or outbreak every day that goes by. A reasonable design would not have this kind of flaw built in.

[bob]

OK, Linux or the MAC is for you then
And then, half your chess programs won't run at all.

That many really? I haven't found one that won't run on my Mac yet.

You have to hack around Fritz and 64-bit Rybka to get it to run on Wine. Who has time for that?

Its not politically correct to criticize Linux, but the reality is, its a total crap for the average user. Of the more than 500 distros, a tiny few is usable at all, by geeks.

The average user who has bought a Linux pre-installed on a netbook, returns it and exchanges for a Windows one. The consumer rejects Linux, totally. When netbooks first came out, they were "all" sold with Linux, but very few bought them. Now, almost all that are sold come with Windows. Windows pushed Linux out of the market in the only market that Linux is supposed to be good at - free OS on a cheap hardware.

If all one would do is browse the web, Ubuntu 'might' be usable. Now try installing Flash to watch youtube. Goodluck. "sudo aptget" what? Netflix? Edit raw photos with GIMP - not even doable, even if you could forgive the awful interface and crashing. Play Crysis anyone?

What is Linux good at then? If you can program, then its for you. It runs gcc well. It will surely run a chess engine that has a source code.

So you want an "easy to install" windows, that comes with lots of "easy to install" viruses? Lots of "easy to crash" system applications?

I've installed windows XP on multiple machines. Fedora 10 installs easier and faster. And (gasp) stays up for years unless you choose to take it down for a hardware upgrade or whatever...

Windows is horribly designed to allow the nonsense it allows.

It is not me who wants the easy-to-use and just-works environment. Its the world. That is a fact. Linux has less than 1% desktop use. Given that Linux is free and Windows cost a lot, something is definitely terribly wrong with Linux.

Someone gives you free food, and instead you opt to pay for another (expensive) food, simply says that it must be a terrible food.

Ive been a Linux user since 1993! Back then, X was not yet ported to Linux. Everything fit in 6 floppy disk. You multitask with virtual consoles (alt-1, alt-2,...). I have Ubuntu now, and it still sucks, as much as it did in 1993.

I'm sure you love your Linux. You know how to program right? Of course.

Let me give you another fact on Unix/Linux rejection by the non-programming IT world.

Before the year 2000, the server world is totally dominated by Unix. Windows server had zero market share. When Windows 2000 came out, together with Active Directory, the IT community celebrated. Finally, a server for the non-geeks.

In 2008, Windows Server had 70% market share. That's from 0% - 70% market share in 8 years.

You jumped too far forward too quickly. You do realize that 10 years ago windows was by far the most common server platform? And that over the last 10 years linux has eaten into that to reach the 30% point to day (and still growing). Care to guess why? Performance. Plain and simple. Linux scales far better on SMP boxes and clusters, the system is so much more reliable that we won't even mention windows in the same breath, etc...

Desktop World: Linux, 0% to <1% in 20 years. What a total flop!

Server World: Linux/Unix: 100% to 30% in 8 years, and still dropping.

That's off. Linux is not "dropping". It is climbing. So much that Microsoft has had to take notice. You ought to try to buy a large cluster from Dell and ask them to ship it with windows installed. Won't happen.

How do you configure Linux Servers? "Edit config files". Try enabling PXE on a Linux server. You have to edit at least six config files. What exactly should you put on those text files? Good luck. On Windows Server - one check box. Yes, one check box.

You should try distros from the last 5 years, not something from the 90's. I don't "edit config files". I run one of several dozen configuration utilities. Set up printers. Set up network. Set up file systems. And it is a lot more intuitive doing it in linux today than in windows.

How do you manage Linux/Unix servers? MIBs? That archaic MIBs? That sums up the problem with Linux - zero innovation, zero invention. The Linux kernel itself is a re-implementation of Unix.

Never heard of Rocks? Didn't think so.

Linus Torvalds re-implemented Unix, while Dave Cutler designed and built a totally new OS.

Sorry, but that is dead wrong. Windows NT kernel came _directly_ from a rewrite of DEC's VMS operating system. It is _still_ just as clunky today as it was back then. Shoot, about 6 years ago, Microsoft announced that a couple of their engineers had spent three years and had developed something they called a "symbolic link" in the file system. Ken Thompson had that working in the middle 70's.

I can easily tell you which one is smarter (and way, way richer). I have implemented an OS (Itron) and its a piece of cake. I have not invented one. That is the hard part. Even Apple has abandoned the OS that they invented. They now use BSD Unix, and charging people for it.

The Linux interfaces (confusing, multiple, non-complementing interfaces) is a re-implementation of the Windows interface. And a very bad copy at that. Nothing new, and missing a lot.

"re-implementation of windows."

We live in _different_ universes. Nobody in their right mind wants to re-implement windows. Any more than they want to re-invent the Edsel automobile.