The Big Facebook/Google/Apple/Microsoft Debate

[Cerez]

Your argument about Newegg is ridiculous. For starters, they do lots of ad campaigns (including TV ads). Secondly, Newegg isn't the only place that sells Linux computers, and you ignored my point about calling manufacturers. There's plenty of brick-and-mortar stores that sell Linux computers, but it requires searching and researching, just like with any specific product. It's tempting to say "Well, I can walk into Staples and pick whatever laptop I like and it is guaranteed to have Windows or Mac." However, you'd be browsing a store's stock, and not actually searching for what you want. If you want to say "Well, MS and Apple are flexing their corporate dominance!" this is tempting too, but false. I used Staples as an example here. They're a business meant to make money, and keeping Linux laptops in stock is simply not going to be financially viable when Linux makes up a very small margin of laptop users. Complicating this is that there's so many Linux distros out there, and maybe someone wants Arch instead of Ubuntu, or maybe they want Gentoo, or Mint, or RedHat, or Fedora, or Scientific Linux, or...

 

I understand that the majority of computer stock in a store would have Windows as an OS pre-installed because of business, but tell me, do Apple's Macs have a much larger market share than Linux? No. Then why does one quarter of a stock in most computer stores today comprise of Apple computers? I'll tell you why; because Apple is a corporate business.

 

I am talking about wide-scale options and accessibility. Things that were present in the world of computers before the arrival of today's IT corporations. In a free, Western economy you will always have small specialist retailers -- until we don't have full corporate totalitarian censorship. The fact remains that to get my free options back, I would need to spend extra effort, money, and time -- whereas before these corporations arrived, I wouldn't have had to face these special problems. My point is that these corporations have taken over and controlled the market, and limited my options as a free choice consumer.

 

If I walk into a decent computer store today, and ask them if I could have Linux installed for me on one of the computers I'm considering to buy, chances are they will say they can't do that because of their affiliation with Microsoft. Try it. I've had that honest response handed to me a few times now.

 

Which computer manufacturers will allow you to purchase from them directly with a Linux OS pre-installed? I have never heard of such a thing. It would be bad for their business.

 

There are mainstream and popular distros that are just as easy to use as a Mac. Ubuntu is one example, and Fedora comes pretty close. So your point about Linux being obsolete or hard to use is not right. Linux is a valid option for an OS, and not at all an obscure one today. If stores carried more Linux computer stock, the open OSs would quickly gain a much higher popularity. In many aspects Linux PC is a lot more useful for work than a Windows computer or a Mac.

 

There are Linux distros that are intended for computer professionals, and yes, Arch and Gentoo are two of these. You're right there. But not all Linux distros require advanced computer knowledge.

 

But Linux is a competitor to Mac OS X and Windows, and the corporations that own these products will do everything in their mighty power to stop such a thing from happening.

 

The kernel was developed independently from the FSF, but they just decided to call it GNU/Linux. Even Linux thinks the logic behind it is ridiculous. The kernel also does not require GNU code in order to work.

 

The kernel does not require the GNU code to work, but by itself the kernel amounts to nothing. In order to have a full Unix-like OS -- which is what Linux is -- you need all the utility apps, which are a part of the GNU code. So Linux is just a kernel; GNU/Linux is the operating system. To be entirely fair and accurate, these days a lot more has been added to Linux distributions than just the GNU apps, so Linux is even more now than just GNU/Linux. But the core the OS stems from is still Linux and GNU.

 

Anyway, what personal liberties do you think are being sacrificed here?

 

All you can imagine, really. Free speech can become a thing of the past. With such detailed corporate databases on each individual person and their activities, we could soon be entering a totalitarian regime if the political climate changes. It's Big Brother and more.

 

What makes the CIA and the NSA so powerful? Information. Information on people. The more information corporations can gather from their users, the more powerful and controlling they become.

 

Free market -- you can say goodbye to small businesses catering with quality products. As a small business owner you can't compete with monopoly from a giant corporation.

 

Free choice -- as a consumer your options are limited to what corporations want you to buy. Forget about what you really need. They don't have it. Buy what they are offering, or don't buy at all.

 

Social life -- "where did my friends go? We never hang out anymore, except online. And that's not the same." Social habits could be changed entirely to suit corporate sales, rather than what is the natural way of people.

 

Privacy -- imagine a world where every laptop you buy has a built-in camera for potential surveillance -- oh wait, that's already here... Okay, imagine a world where every single computer and TV had this, with remote activation possible without the knowledge of the user.

 

These are just a few points I could think of on the run...

[eezstreet]

I understand that the majority of computer stock in a store would have Windows as an OS pre-installed because of business, but tell me, do Apple's Macs have a much larger market share than Linux? No. Then why does one quarter of a stock in most computer stores today comprise of Apple computers? I'll tell you why; because Apple is a corporate business.

No. They definitely DO have a much larger market share. Like 10x as much as all distros combined. (graph from 2012)

 

I am talking about wide-scale options and accessibility. Things that were present in the world of computers before the arrival of today's IT corporations. In a free, Western economy you will always have small specialist retailers -- until we don't have full corporate totalitarian censorship. The fact remains that to get my free options back, I would need to spend extra effort, money, and time -- whereas before these corporations arrived, I wouldn't have had to face these special problems. My point is that these corporations have taken over and controlled the market, and limited my options as a free choice consumer.

What problems? You're being entirely too vague.

 

If I walk into a decent computer store today, and ask them if I could have Linux installed for me on one of the computers I'm considering to buy, chances are they will say they can't do that because of their affiliation with Microsoft. Try it. I've had that honest response handed to me a few times now.

No, chances are they don't have it in stock because of their affiliation with Microsoft. Dell does ship laptops with Ubuntu on them. System76 does too. So does Acer. So does Lenovo. There's a special vendor called ThinkPenguin as well that sells Thinkpads with Linux on them (how clever). If your computer store has an affiliation with Microsoft, they're probably not selling Apple stuff either.

 

 

Which computer manufacturers will allow you to purchase from them directly with a Linux OS pre-installed? I have never heard of such a thing. It would be bad for their business.

See above. It would not be bad business because you could charge people the same amount of money for better profit margins when using Linux. That simply doesn't make any sense.

 

 

There are mainstream and popular distros that are just as easy to use as a Mac. Ubuntu is one example, and Fedora comes pretty close. So your point about Linux being obsolete or hard to use is not right. Linux is a valid option for an OS, and not at all an obscure one today. If stores carried more Linux computer stock, the open OSs would quickly gain a much higher popularity. In many aspects Linux PC is a lot more useful for work than a Windows computer or a Mac.

That's why I say they have an association with being hard to use. They often even teach people in high schools that Linux is for supercomputers only, so the reputation for it being hard to use definitely does exist. I'm not even suggesting that Linux is invalid or even obscure.

 

 

There are Linux distros that are intended for computer professionals, and yes, Arch and Gentoo are two of these. You're right there. But not all Linux distros require advanced computer knowledge.

I never said they did?

 

 

But Linux is a competitor to Mac OS X and Windows, and the corporations that own these products will do everything in their mighty power to stop such a thing from happening.

There's no guarantee that they will. In fact, Microsoft just released MSBuild's source code, which could do a great number of good for cross-compiling on a Linux machine, so that kinda disproves what you're saying.

Also, there's the fact that Microsoft Azure offers both Windows and Linux cloud servers, so...again, that really makes zero sense.

 

 

 

The kernel does not require the GNU code to work, but by itself the kernel amounts to nothing. In order to have a full Unix-like OS -- which is what Linux is -- you need all the utility apps, which are a part of the GNU code. So Linux is just a kernel; GNU/Linux is the operating system. To be entirely fair and accurate, these days a lot more has been added to Linux distributions than just the GNU apps, so Linux is even more now than just GNU/Linux. But the core the OS stems from is still Linux and GNU.

There are alternatives to the utility apps. Dash isn't GNU and it's also immune to the Shellshock Exploit that GNU Bash suffered from. I wouldn't touch GNU software with a barge pole if I had to, anyway; the exception to this rule being gcc or libc.

 

 

All you can imagine, really. Free speech can become a thing of the past. With such detailed corporate databases on each individual person and their activities, we could soon be entering a totalitarian regime if the political climate changes. It's Big Brother and more.

 

What makes the CIA and the NSA so powerful? Information. Information on people. The more information corporations can gather from their users, the more powerful and controlling they become.

I'm not really concerned with "woulds" and "shoulds". The government is now informed of the NSA's actions and they're being exposed for breaking the constitution, so it's clear that politicians definitely aren't in favor of it.

And like I said, I'm not really concerned with people spying on me. If there is a god (I can't claim to know, and this is a different discussion entirely), wouldn't you have been spied on constantly all your life? Why does that not bother you, but the idea of people (who- let's be for real -probably don't give a damn about my or your personal lives) having a fraction of that information be bothersome? Businesses and corporations are out to make money, they really aren't going to pay attention to information in their databases unless they can figure out a way to target you best with product advertisements. And you know? I'm okay with that. If I'm at home watching TV at 2AM, I'd much rather see ads about new stuff at Taco Bell than about porno websites. But that's just me.

 

 

Free market -- you can say goodbye to small businesses catering with quality products. As a small business owner you can't compete with monopoly from a giant corporation.

Unless the government steps in with antitrust lawsuits. Which, in the case of MS, they most certainly did.

 

 

Free choice -- as a consumer your options are limited to what corporations want you to buy. Forget about what you really need. They don't have it. Buy what they are offering, or don't buy at all.

Ya...if you only shop at Wal-Mart.

 

 

Social life -- "where did my friends go? We never hang out anymore, except online. And that's not the same." Social habits could be changed entirely to suit corporate sales, rather than what is the natural way of people.

Uh...what? How?

 

 

Privacy -- imagine a world where every laptop you buy has a built-in camera for potential surveillance -- oh wait, that's already here... Okay, imagine a world where every single computer and TV had this, with remote activation possible without the knowledge of the user.

Don't care. If someone wants to spy on me at 4AM eating hot cheetos and being a neckbeard, that's their wanton desire. I personally could not care less about this subject.

[Cerez]

No. They definitely DO have a much larger market share. Like 10x as much as all distros combined. (graph from 2012)

 

Those pie-charts have some serious flaws. I grant I was wrong and Mac does have a larger market share (about 2 times as large on average, not 10 times!) on the PC market, but Linux has a larger market share on mobile devices and web servers by a significant amount! See here for more stats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

 

Uh...what? How?

 

Think Facebook.

 

See above. It would not be bad business because you could charge people the same amount of money for better profit margins when using Linux. That simply doesn't make any sense.

 

Yes it does. What will their retailers think about them selling direct to the public? Often this is a clear suicide action by the manufacturer for their distributor/retailer connections. A manufacturer is generally not supposed to sell direct to the public. But if you're thinking about them selling through the retailers, then the answer is that this would jeopardise the heavy commitment business relationship that the manufacturer has with Microsoft for a not so promising, currently smaller market. It's not so profitable for the manufacturer, and Microsoft plays a big part in stopping it from happening. I'm not sure how the manufacturer you've bought from is managing this. That's why I find it hard to believe.

 

But whether I am right or wrong specifically about the Linux/Windows question is truly irrelevant. We're getting very much bogged down on superfluous details. I've only brought that up as an example of corporate influence, but perhaps it is not the clearest example for everyone. Whether I am right or wrong about this particular question doesn't change the fact that corporations are hoarding information on their users and they are controlling the market, and our lives through usage of their popular products.

 

I'm not going to answer the rest of these points, because I have nothing else to say, really. If you believe all this is okay, and nothing is being compromised, then that's fine by me. I don't feel the same. In fact, I feel it's going all wrong. I've said my piece. It's for each and every one of us to decide what is right and what is wrong for us. That's what personal freedom is all about -- about having freedom to fulfil our needs. No corporate ads dictating our needs, and not being restricted in our everyday choices. Having the freedom to think free, speak free, and fulfil our needs freely while respecting all life and the needs of those around us.

[eezstreet]

Those pie-charts have some serious flaws. I grant I was wrong and Mac does have a larger market share (about 2 times as large on average, not 10 times!) on the PC market, but Linux has a larger market share on mobile devices and web servers by a significant amount! See here for more stats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

I'm not even sure where you're getting your numbers at at this point, because the ones on this Wikipedia article you linked are the same that I've come up with? I'm also not sure what you're trying to argue anymore, since you mention web servers and mobile devices, which weren't part of this argument to begin with. Vendors don't keep Linux laptops in stock because it's a safe avenue for them as a business, not because of some ultimate corporate conspiracy.

Web servers often use Linux because it outperforms other computers in this area.

Mobile devices are kinda skewed, because Android is technically a Linux offshoot, but you wouldn't know it because of all the crap Google piles on it. It's also funny, because Google gets extremely pissed off when manufacturers don't use vanilla Android and instead opt to go with a fork. Even though Android is a fork of Linux. Reasons like this are why I don't like Google.

 

 

 

A manufacturer is generally not supposed to sell direct to the public.

Oh. Really? Are you sure? That can't be right...

 

But if you're thinking about them selling through the retailers, then the answer is that this would jeopardise the heavy commitment business relationship that the manufacturer has with Microsoft for a not so promising, currently smaller market. It's not so profitable for the manufacturer, and Microsoft plays a big part in stopping it from happening. I'm not sure how the manufacturer you've bought from is managing this. That's why I find it hard to believe.

No, because it would be stupid to sell a product which caters to 1% of the whole market. Again, strictly business. If you want to order one customized from the manufacturer to have a specific operating system on them, they will do this for you, most likely at no additional charge, since they'd be saving OEM fees anyway by you asking for this. Likewise, if you walk into McDonald's and order a hamburger with no pickles, there's literally no reason why they wouldn't do this because they'd be saving money in the first place, and they want to please you as a customer. This is especially the case since a laptop or premade computer is much more expensive than a hamburger.

 

 

But whether I am right or wrong specifically about the Linux/Windows question is truly irrelevant. We're getting very much bogged down on superfluous details. I've only brought that up as an example of corporate influence, but perhaps it is not the clearest example for everyone. Whether I am right or wrong about this particular question doesn't change the fact that corporations are hoarding information on their users and they are controlling the market, and our lives through usage of their popular products.

 

I'm not going to answer the rest of these points, because I have nothing else to say, really. If you believe all this is okay, and nothing is being compromised, then that's fine by me. I don't feel the same. In fact, I feel it's going all wrong. I've said my piece. It's for each and every one of us to decide what is right and what is wrong for us. That's what personal freedom is all about -- about having freedom to fulfil our needs. No corporate ads dictating our needs, and not being restricted in our everyday choices. Having the freedom to think free, speak free, and fulfil our needs freely while respecting all life and the needs of those around us.

You still haven't stated why this is specifically a bad thing, so I don't really have anything to work with. All you've given me is vague possibilities, so I can't really reason with the unreasonable.

[Cerez]

You still haven't stated why this is specifically a bad thing, so I don't really have anything to work with. All you've given me is vague possibilities, so I can't really reason with the unreasonable.

 

Have it your way, Eez...  I have no intention of turning this into a personal battlefield. There really is no need. If I'm being unreasonable to you, then let's leave it at that. We all have the right to speak our minds.

 

I can see why you would think that this is all just normal business, but my perspective is a little different on the values of privacy and freedom, and so I see things in a different light.

 

It may be that both of us are right from a certain viewpoint.

[Cerez]

Personally my big gripe with my Macbook, running Mac OS X 10.8.5, is that every time I sit down to do work on it, I end up waiting for the system to do something, and not doing any work! It's either a backup, or an update, or apps getting slow and having to restart the computer -- which takes a million years, by the way. Spotlight (the search utility) is always indexing at something in the background and slowing things down, and the entire memory management of the OS is absolutely horrible.

 

It didn't use to be like that. When I bought my first Macbook with Mac OS X 10.3, the little machine was a speedy thing with less apps than what they have today, but a better workflow, performance, and stability. You knew that whatever apps you have installed, they will work reliable and the computer would always be ready for work. And the user interface was simply gorgeous in comparison to Windows XP's -- which I did like, by the way.

 

But the new Macs are just not doing it for me. This whole idea of merging iOS with Mac OS X gives me the creeps in a similar way as the Windows 10 start menu does. Maybe even worse.

 

Now, before you start saying that my Macbook is a slow machine with not enough RAM, let me assure you, it has enough to run the standard workflow apps I use:

 

Processor: 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo

Memory: 5GB 1067 MHz DDR3

Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 320M 256 MB

 

In the world of Linux this would run things at the speed of light. But not here. Mac OS X is just way too demanding, and inefficient for work on my setup today.

 

As Windows slows the more apps you install (and the more they start running in the background), so does Mac slow with each (free) OS update, always forcing you to buy a new computer -- almost every two years! That's just not my idea for a work-station... 

 

Edit: The other thing is my system needs at least 10GB of free space on your hard drive to run properly. I'm not kidding. 10 gig! As I start to open and close a few apps, I'm just watching the free space on my hard drive disappear. That's how bad the memory management is. And that's with upgraded memory!

[Xeby]

Mac OS X it self is a malware OS like Win8.1 or Win10. This is the reason Dell or other private people prefer Unix/Linux OS or older Windows 7, XP, Server 2008 R2 x64.. etc.

[Cerez]

Mac OS X it self is a malware OS like Win8.1 or Win10. This is the reason Dell or other private people prefer Unix/Linux OS or older Windows 7, XP, Server 2008 R2 x64.. etc.

 

Didn't use to be such a hack, though. It was quite well designed at first. But then they overloaded it with unnecessary, junk features -- and compromised its performance and stability. OS X is in part a Unix-like system. Its core works much like any other Unix system. I used to be a big fan. But not anymore.

 

You're right, it's much like Windows. Used to be good, and then they overloaded it with junk features. (I'm looking at you, Windows 8 and 10!)

 

If anything, Windows 8 should have been its own tablet operating system. Like iOS from Apple. Not a successor to Windows XP and 7, which are OSs designed for work.

[Syko]

Personally my big gripe with my Macbook, running Mac OS X 10.8.5, is that every time I sit down to do work on it, I end up waiting for the system to do something, and not doing any work! It's either a backup, or an update, or apps getting slow and having to restart the computer -- which takes a million years, by the way. Spotlight (the search utility) is always indexing at something in the background and slowing things down, and the entire memory management of the OS is absolutely horrible.

 

That's one of my other big gripes with Apple. I'm almost certain that they purposely slow down your devices after system updates. My iPad Mini ran perfect on iOS 7 but when I updated to iOS 8 it ran like garbage, and there is no significant graphical difference between iOS 7 and iOS 8. I'd understand if it was slow on the update to iOS 7 since there were a ton of new effects, but seriously, either they purposely slow down your device or purposely don't optimize the OS for old devices. I agree too, my Mac Mini has 4 GB of ram and manages it terribly. That's why I just ordered 16 GB of Mac Ram, hopefully that will be enough. I had 4 GB on my old PC for years and I never had such huge slowdowns like I have on my Mac. 4 GB I thought was modest but not incredibly slow.

 

Apple products are awesome for that first year that you use them, but it seems like after the year-long honeymoon of having the latest thing they just want you to feel like shit for not buying their newest product.

[Cerez]

I'm not sure the 16 GB of RAM will really help. My theory is that the reason the system gets slow is that it's constantly filling up the RAM and never emptying it until a reboot. When the RAM is full it starts dumping to the hard drive, which makes things even slower. 16 gig will help you increase the time it takes to fill it up, but I doubt it will help solve the problem. I've heard that reinstalling the whole system with a clean wipe can help, but that's just too difficult to pull off and totally inconvenient, not to mention risky.

 

A temporary workaround is to run the command "purge" in the Terminal. If you rig a periodic shell script to purge the RAM every so-and-so minutes, that may help to avoid the memory fill problem.

 

Also, based on my observations, Spotlight plays a big part in overloading the RAM. Which doesn't make any sense, but that's what seems to be happening. And you can't turn it off without losing the system-wide search in Finder! And the Dock and the Finder's Quicklook feature seem to be doing the same. When I open stacks in the Dock or browse media with Quicklook, each time I open/preview a new one the system gets a little slower, and more delay is added to the operation.

 

I'd understand if it was slow on the update to iOS 7 since there were a ton of new effects, but seriously, either they purposely slow down your device or purposely don't optimize the OS for old devices.

 

I believe you are right. That's my assumption as well. Planned obsolesce is what it is. Each update is purposefully designed so that the patches slow the system down. Either that, or the OS X developer team knows jack-all about how to properly maintain and update an operating system -- which is not likely.

 

I remember back in the Panther to Tiger (10.3-10.4) transition period we didn't have any slowdowns. If I remember correctly, the slowdowns started after the release of Leopard. (But it could be that there was no highly noticeable difference simply because it was my first system update.)

 

Edit: Also, beware that 16 GB of RAM will automatically put a requirement of 18 GB of minimum free hard disk space for normal system operation. When the Mac goes to deep sleep, it dumps the RAM to the hard drive.

[eezstreet]

If you need to purge the RAM that often, it sounds like you're dealing with severe memory leaks. It'd be fairly easy to purposefully cause memory leaks, because quite frankly, if you've got 16GB of RAM and you're getting severe slowdowns, something is seriously wrong with the machine, whether through the OS or otherwise. I've had 8GB of RAM and only with a failing hard drive have I noted slowdowns.

 

PS - It's totally Linux, not GNU/Linux. Even my spellchecker knows that. <3

[Guest Deleted]

brain 

[Cerez]

If you need to purge the RAM that often, it sounds like you're dealing with severe memory leaks. It'd be fairly easy to purposefully cause memory leaks, because quite frankly, if you've got 16GB of RAM and you're getting severe slowdowns, something is seriously wrong with the machine, whether through the OS or otherwise. I've had 8GB of RAM and only with a failing hard drive have I noted slowdowns.

 

PS - It's totally Linux, not GNU/Linux. Even my spellchecker knows that. <3

 

Seeing as I'm not alone in this, it's safe to say that Mac OS X, or its apps, are doing that bad a job at memory management...

 

P.S. My spellchecker says "optimize" is not a valid word. I've had to teach my spellchecker a lot of words. You should, too.

 

How is OSX, 8.1, or 10 a malware OS? Seems like paranoia to me. Also XP is outdated as 7 will be.

 

8.1 is effectively the same as 7 with a few additions. Win10 is shaping up to be something much different, and better IMO.

 

If you are into casual activities (web browsing, email reading, simple writing, simple office stuff), Windows 8 and 10 are okay. But if you are into developing stuff, programming, running advanced games, running old classics, really customising your computer to your liking, then Windows 8 and 10 are quite frankly a nightmare. Anything that's not in their app stores is a real pain to get to work with these new releases of Windows. It's the same situation on the new Mac OS X. On the Mac they even have a lockout system that initially prevents you from using any software that you haven't installed from their App Store.

 

I've had many of my old games just stop working recently on Windows 8.1 due to a "recommended" system update. Yeah, thanks but no thanks...

[Futuza]

If you are into casual activities (web browsing, email reading, simple writing, simple office stuff), Windows 8 and 10 are okay. But if you are into developing stuff, programming, running advanced games, running old classics, really customising your computer to your liking, then Windows 8 and 10 are quite frankly a nightmare. Anything that's not in their app stores is a real pain to get to work with these new releases of Windows. It's the same situation on the new Mac OS X. On the Mac they even have a lockout system that initially prevents you from using any software that you haven't installed from their App Store.

 

I've had many of my old games just stop working recently on Windows 8.1 due to a "recommended" system update. Yeah, thanks but no thanks...

Win 7 and Mac OSX is better for developing stuff, programming, running advanced games, running old classics, and customizing to your liking?  Do you have a source for that?

[Cerez]

Win 7 and Mac OSX is better for developing stuff, programming, running advanced games, running old classics, and customizing to your liking?  Do you have a source for that?

 

I'm not following. 

 

Windows 7 is a little more backwards compatible than Windows 8, and is less prone to breaking necessary libraries for programs. Mac OS X is a pain in the ass, don't get me started... Ironically Windows XP is still in many ways best for development and running all sorts of games. Win 7 has some workspace features which make it a little more convenient for work, and is more up to date, so you can run all of today's programs on it.

[CrimsonStrife]

I keep an install of 8.1 on my laptop, and I run old software on it all the time, and didn't have to do any special tinkering. The only time I had an issue was the first time I installed 8, because I upgraded my 7 installation, which apparently breaks some files, making installing old software difficult or impossible. But once I did a fresh install as opposed to an upgrade, it works fine.

[Xeby]

I think @ world are many uneducated people to work with IT systems. The oudated system is mankind itself. If majority say the Win 8 or Mac OS is a good OS is cleary the mankind are some kids with bikes that thinks they are cars. LOL ! xD

[eezstreet]

I've never had a compatibility issue with 8 that I didn't have with 7.

 

I think you're kidding yourself if you say that XP is the best for development, because it's most definitely the worst compared to 8 and 7. The UI is a pain in the ass after being so used to snapping things left and right. Also, it can't run DirectX past 9 and it has an OS-enforced max RAM of 4GB. That would automatically disqualify you from running newer versions of Max/Maya, certain mod tools like CoD4Radiant, Creation Kit, etc which rely on DirectX 10+.

 

Furthermore, most compatibility issues with games have been solved via third party tools like DOSBox and the Glide wrapper. I wouldn't recommend XP at all quite frankly.

[Cerez]

I've never had a compatibility issue with 8 that I didn't have with 7.

 

I think you're kidding yourself if you say that XP is the best for development, because it's most definitely the worst compared to 8 and 7. The UI is a pain in the ass after being so used to snapping things left and right. Also, it can't run DirectX past 9 and it has an OS-enforced max RAM of 4GB. That would automatically disqualify you from running newer versions of Max/Maya, certain mod tools like CoD4Radiant, Creation Kit, etc which rely on DirectX 10+.

 

Furthermore, most compatibility issues with games have been solved via third party tools like DOSBox and the Glide wrapper. I wouldn't recommend XP at all quite frankly.

 

Fair enough. 

 

To me Linux is always best for work, anyway. 

 

I have Windows 8.1 running on a partition and I'm scared to update it because every time I do, one of my classic games loses something important that it requires to function properly. And the OS management is horrible in Windows. For example, ever noticed how some icons show badly or show as the wrong icon? That's because Windows caches all icons, and it often triggers some sort of bug that mixes the icons up. Now, how do you empty the cache? Take a wild guess. You need to quit Windows Explorer from the Task Manager, and then run a series of commands in the Command Prompt to delete the cache files, then restart your computer. That's real user friendly. Hurray for Windows. XD

[eezstreet]

To me Linux is always best for work, anyway. 

Linux*

oh wait, you wizened up!

Here, have some toejam:

 

 

I have Windows 8.1 running on a partition and I'm scared to update it because every time I do, one of my classic games loses something important that it requires to function properly. And the OS management is horrible in Windows. For example, ever noticed how some icons show badly or show as the wrong icon? That's because Windows caches all icons, and it often triggers some sort of bug that mixes the icons up. Now, how do you empty the cache? Take a wild guess. You need to quit Windows Explorer from the Task Manager, and then run a series of commands in the Command Prompt to delete the cache files, then restart your computer. That's real user friendly. Hurray for Windows. XD

I've never noticed that or had that problem, but then again I really don't care about minor things like icons.

[Futuza]

Fair enough. 

 

To me Linux is always best for work, anyway. 

 

I have Windows 8.1 running on a partition and I'm scared to update it because every time I do, one of my classic games loses something important that it requires to function properly. And the OS management is horrible in Windows. For example, ever noticed how some icons show badly or show as the wrong icon? That's because Windows caches all icons, and it often triggers some sort of bug that mixes the icons up. Now, how do you empty the cache? Take a wild guess. You need to quit Windows Explorer from the Task Manager, and then run a series of commands in the Command Prompt to delete the cache files, then restart your computer. That's real user friendly. Hurray for Windows. XD

Now, I really don't want to sound rude, but so far every time you say something it seems like one of us shortly thereafter corrects you or offers a contradictory opinion, you then change yours.  Changing your mind, when new relevant information becomes available is an admirable quality, but maybe you should do some research before you keep spouting on about things that aren't true/relevant/sensible?  Just as a tip.  

 

Also icon display functionality has very little to do with "OS management", a better example would have been comparing the way windows manages processes compared to the way (a specific branch of) linux does.  Also I've never had this problem or heard of it being a persistent problem.  Caching icons is a valid solution, so that multiple directories and originating exe/programs don't have to be scanned to display the correct icon and waste time when you could just cache it as far as I'm concerned.  I mean how many applications actually change their icons frequently?  Besides, all of that stuff really shouldn't be necessary to fix it if the cache gets corrupted, just a restart usually does the trick.  Or you could delete the cache'd icons and tell it to refresh the directory.  Alternate solutions.

 

Finally, as a software developer please give me windows 8 over xp anyday.

[Guest Deleted]

brain

[minilogoguy18]

DUDE, THAT VIDEO IS SO GNARLY EEZ!

 

Anyone who's still using XP is officially retarded, social media is a joke, apple wants way too much money for a shelf unit and if hipster kids can't understand linux it wont become popular.

 

I summed it all up that easily.

[Syko]

Just got my 16 GB for the Mac. Everything runs way better now. Programs still start up slower than my main rig (Mac has dual Core i5, main rig has AMD-FX 8320 quad/eight core) but since I have such a massive amount of memory I can just leave everything in the background like Mac always does and then pull programs up when I need to. 

 

This Mac still eats up a ton of ram though. I just pretty much have Chrome and Photoshop open and 6.5 gigs of memory are in use. My main rig only has 8 GB and I can alt tab out of games and have Photoshop open and only have like 50% memory usage.

[Xycaleth]

Watching the RAM usage isn't all that useful. Operating systems will swap memory out to disk whenever it feels it needs to (for example to keep a set percentage of RAM free). On Windows it seems like it always tries to keep 50% RAM free when I'm just idling/not doing much. Different operating systems will use different strategies though. OS X will compress memory if the program's not being used etc but I think still keeps it in RAM? I'm not sure about Linux...