OS?

2 see MacGameFiles
3. From Linux Journal
4. Quantity is no measure of anything.
5. You obviously have spent no or little time using OSX because even hardcore Windows devout friends of mine have been very impressed by it.

I'm just messing around for a laugh, dagaz.

I don't think there's any argument that the Mac OS family is operationally inferior to the Windows OS family. In fact, in some regards, the Mac family has the advantage; A/V Production and Editing comes to mind immediately. And while pervasiveness is no measure of quality, quantity is a factor which must be taken into account. For example, consider traffic laws; a few folks are perfectly capable of handling a well designed, superbly maintained machine at incredible speeds with the utmost safety and unfailing courtesy. However, niether are the majority of folks behind the wheel capable of doing so, nor are the majority of machines on the road finely designed and superbly maintained. Hence, we have traffic laws. The analogy isn't direct, of course, but illustrative none the less. Preferences and prejudices aside, the Windows family of operating systems is ubiquitous, while the others, Mac, Unix, Linux, Solaris, BeOS, and what have you, are niche products, regardless their relative merits. In response to dagasz, I'd say that no matter how impressive something might be, its market presence is the standard by which ultimately it is measured, and for over the past two decades, the Windows family has become the standard against which all other operating systems are measured. If anybody has earned the right to laugh, itsd Bill Gates. Of course, he's also earned himself the right to be laughed at by a lot of other folks. Sworn at, too. Poor Bill ... one thing he could not do, even if he were to figure out a way to personally spend $1 Million an hour for the rest of his life, is exhaust the fortune he's amassed. Hell, a swing of a few cents one way or the other in the daily closing price of Microsoft stock impacts Bill's net worth to the tune of millions of dollars.

Market share is only one way to measure success. An ability to advance technology and benefit an industry is another.

Windows is a marketing coup rather than a technological one. In my opinion, Microsoft has done a lot to hurt the advance of technology. They seem to have the opinion that if it is not theirs they will sabatage it.

I hope and expect that over the next decade, Windows will lose its dominance. And there is a good reason for this. Try as they might, Microsoft has been unable to squash Java. Linux, although still small is making big inroads in the server world, and still gaining in the desktop market.

I have had a strong distaste for Microsoft as a company since the early 80's. They have always had a knack for advancing inferior technology through marketing and business deals.

A joke for the old-timers (anyone else remember this one)....

What is the difference between a DOS machine and a boat anchor?....















The DOS machine has segmented memory.

That's fine, but for me the standard by which to judge an OS is how stable, secure, fun and easy to use it is and on all four points OSX wins hands down for me. I am forced to use Windows at work and continually find myself frustrated by it on all four levels.

eBrown and dagaz, I think you're both right on a lot of points. For all its ubiquity, the Windows OS family has a history of flubs, blunders, foibles, and just plain incomprehensible stupidities. It is definitely a marketing phenomonon, and gained its position despite its technology. Truth be told, I find it often frustrating, limiting, and counterintuitive, no less so in its current incarnation, just differentlly so. It seems no sooner do I get a Windows OS figured out and wiorking satisfactorily, a new one comes along, with a whole new learning curve and its own unexpected unpleasant surprise revelations, though in fairness, much the same may be said of the others. In the realm of technology, the only constant is change. Maybe Windows dominance is on the wane. I woul;dn't feel bad about that at all. Henry Ford didn't build the best car, he was just better at building and selling them than anyone else for a long time. Competition finally caught up, and driven by competition, cars have gotten better, safer, and more reliable, with an amazing variety of choices all of which pretty much do the job. Maybe the same will happen with computers and operating systems. It probably will. Bear in mind that the computer of today is really still an infant technology. There are amazing things to come, no doubt. I just wish so much patience wasn't required