Which OS do you use?

everyone beats up on MS.
their browser, OS, Apps, etc.

It does get rather old. digg.com is really bad about it. Every two days, there is a new front page article about how FF is taking over the world, it's really lame...

 

You mean to say? The total downloads from firefox site are fake?
They are hittin refresh buttons themselves, huh?

 

Don't be obtuse.

The bottom line isn't how many people download the browser. It's how many people USE it. And almost without exception, statistics from sizeable websites still indicate 75% or more of visitors are using Internet Explorer.

I downloaded Firefox. Every version since 0.7 or whatever it was. I use it to test web pages. I hate the thing. I never use it for browsing. It's clunky and slow.

 

Like I said its just an opinion, you say its clunky and slow, and here am trying my best to avoid IE, like you use firefox to test webpages, I use IE tab in my firefox to test my pages, as more than 98% of people in my nation still use IE, why? simply because it comes auto installed, and whenever I am fixing some friends PC, i install firefox and change its name to internet explorer on the desktop and also set its icon to internet explorer, and dont tell them about it, and they are quite happy about this new thing.

 

This is an invalid assumption - trotted out repeatedly by Firefox zealots and the anti-Microsoft crowd but invalid nonetheless. I've just given you one example (me) of someone who has other browsers installed but prefers IE to FF (in fact, my second choice is Opera, not FF) and there are many others who are members of this forum.

 

Minstrel, everyone has their own taste and some people (but not all) might try other web browsers. It's undeniable M$'s dominance in this area is helped by the fact that IE is supplied with the OS.

Loathe or love them, M$ has made some good marketing strategies. No-one can deny that. Their success has nothing to do with product quality but marketing. (I am not saying that M$ products aren't of good quality, but neither am I saying they are.)

When trying other web browsers, people might like them, or might not. It's personal taste. Each to their own.

Alternative web browsers are gaining ground, though, and this is good for features development.

 

My point is that to say, in essence, that the only people who use IE are people who out of ignorance or laziness use whatever comes with the computer or OS they just bought is not only false but condescending. There are some of us who actually use IE, Windows, etc., BY PREFERENCE - a concept that a lot of Linux and Firefox zealots cannot seem to comprehend.

 

Minstrel, I agree with that. And the reverse is also true, though.

Regardless of our personal opinions and choices, we should respect other's opinions and choices and not look down on them for those choices, regardless of what they are.

 

That's exactly my point, Ryan. I don't believe I was suggesting people should not use alternative browsers or operating systems - just don't disparage those who like to use the Microsoft products.

I myself do sometimes use Opera - there are some features I really like about Opera (I also prefer Linux servers to MS servers). My son prefers Firefox. My father likes Netscape. My girlfriend and one of my sisters likes AOL. Freedom of choice is great and ultimately everyone benefits.

 

No you weren't. That part of my post was a general comment by me regarding the thread's topic; it wasn't directed to you. I should have made that clear.

 

Er.. I might be sorry for this comment, but Mistrel, you seem always all to ready to defend MS wherever you can. It might be that you just prefer using their products for whatever reason, but it does almost sound as if you're their shareholder or even working for them.

If you are, I'll be free to ignore your comments from now on.

-- Your "linux zealot". (Note: actually, I'm a GNU zealot. )

 

I use Windoze,but I have also runned both linux and MacOSX before.

I would like to try BeOS sometime. BeOS is from 1997 so it's very old, but it is probably the best OS ever made. It had all features that you have in XP many features from the coming Vista pluss many features that Windows Longhorn never ever got(such as a superfast database-filesystem).

BeOS was stable, reliable, flexible, extremly fast, worked very well with multiple aps and all that on lowend hardware from 1997. I can't imagined how well it would run on new hardware.

The reason why BeOS didn't hit was that Microsoft warned all resellers that they would end their partnership if they started to sell BeOS, so very few resellers dared to make contracts with BeOS.

The wikipedia article about Be OS | Newsletters

 

Hey Latehorn, nice nick.

I also liked what BeOS was and here is some good news for you (if you're not already aware of it). There is an ongoing project of recreating what BeOS was and then going further into making a BeOS-like operating system for the future: Haiku OS

It is also Free Software under the GNU GPL. I can't wait till the first fully functional beta is released, though I imagine we'll still have to wait a good while.

In a proprietary realm there already is YellowTAB Zeta which is also BeOS based. I'm not sure how much chance they have at succeeding though, since they're rather marginal, so it might actually be possible that YellowTAB releases Zeta as Free Software too.. we'll see.

Anyway, apparently the BeOS world is still not dead. It is just in starting phases of revival for the next decade when it could become one of the serious choices for the desktop.

 

Win XP, Redhat Linux, Dos.

 

1. I do not work for Microsoft. I don't even know anyone who does.

2. I run my sites on Linux or Unix servers by preference.

3. I like Windows (note the correct spelling, latehorn ) and Internet Explorer and Office personally - they're not the only products I use but I like them

4. I prefer some competitive products to MS - example: Quicken blows Money out of the water

5. I use some freeware and open source products and love them too

6. I get annoyed when people make blanket statements about MS products that are inaccurate, especially when in many cases it is apparent they've never used those products and are simply repeating ad nauseum things they've read somewhere else because they think it makes them look cool

7. I get annoyed when people hype Firefox, Linux, or {insert product of your choice here} claiming that they are secure and that they will avoid all of the security problems that come with MS products (e.g., you don't need AV or firewalls with Linux; if you use Firefox you don't need antivirus because it's secure... and before anyone says no one would make such claims, I have heard them personally) - they won't - and that does a disservice to everyone

8. I get especially annoyed when people imply that anyone using MS products or Windows is only doing so out of ignorance or laziness - I started my programming career with punch cards on a Unix mainframe and when PCs came along graduated to many years od DOS - I don't use a Linux desktop OS because I don't know how to but because I prefer not to

9. you are not a "Linux zealot" jujst because you like Linux - a Linux zealot is someone who makes absurd claims along the lines of those outlined above in order to try to make a case that anything MS is a piece of junk and that if everyone suddenly switched to Linux all internet virus problems would suddenly disappear

 

Well, if these statements are inacurate then certainly, I agree. There's the same problem the other way around as well though. Alot of Windows users tend to judge GNU/Linux while they never even used it or have only used it like maybe two or so years ago. (Considering that it is being updated literaly monthly, two years is like an eternity for it. Those who've tried it two years ago have no experience of GNU/Linux as it is today to judge it). Both sides should watch out for repeating false hype and FUD about things they don't really know a thing about.

Ah, man, anything is possible until proven oppositely. That said, what if Firefox indeed is secure, at least much more secure than IE? What if GNU/Linux users indeed don't need antivirus programs? Is it really THAT hard to believe this?

Well, I'm using GNU/Linux for about two years now and I've never gotten a virus or anything of the sort, and I've never had an antivirus installed. I grant you that one reason for that may be that GNU/Linux isn't as widely used to be such big a target, but then again, I've never heard of a single guy getting his GNU/Linux system infected. It's not that unpopular. It ought to be the target for some crackers (especially on servers where it is actually more popular than windows) and yet you don't hear about security problems on GNU/Linux. You hear about them on Windows.

That said, I'm not claiming GNU/Linux, Firefox and other Free Software is perfect and secure as in totally invincible. I'm sure someone could at least pull some kind of a phishing attack on a firefox user for example. In fact, I'm not claiming anything. I'm just pointing to the overall reputation that Firefox and GNU/Linux get about this. You can't call all of it hype and zealotry.

Well thank you. There's more to the reason why I use and advocate GNU/Linux than technical reasons alone actually. It's not even to rid the world of security problems (indeed that can hardly ever happen completely no matter what OS you use). I'm using it out of principle. I want to be in control of my computing experience instead of allowing Microsoft or whoever to have that control. I could pay hundreds of dollars for MS software and I would still not own it and control it, because if I did then I'd be able to share it with my peers, take a look at its code in order to learn and possibly adapt it to my needs and then even share modified versions with my peers, all legally. I can't do that with MS software because MS artificially treats software as physical property (which I don't think it is).

Free Software allows me to be in control, to have freedom, that's why I use it. Technical reasons matter less actually, but with freedom and control I usually eventually get technical benefits as well.

 

For all windoze defenders(Note the spelling, ministrel )

 

I didn't know that it was haiku, I thought it was OpenBeOS. Anyway, great news! Hopefully they will do something with it. There's a big userbase that wait's for a functional free BeOS for todays hardware. In the future(5-10 years), I think BeOS will get competition, especially from from the HURD project

 

Latehorn, that tired old gag might (MIGHT) have been cute 10 or 15 years ago. Now it's just unimaginative, lame, annoying, and dumber than dumb, just like its cousins M$ and Micro$oft

 

It was OpenBeOS at first, but they renamed it sometime around the first half of last year I think, I don't remember exactly. I also like the name Haiku better actually.

Well it would certainly be nice to see HURD come rising from the dead. Then we'd have a system we can call just GNU instead of GNU/This or GNU/That (since HURD was the supposed kernel for the GNU OS)

I think that Haiku could have a great chance in the future Free Software OS market especially for multimedia, music production and such things currently being mostly attributed to Mac OS X.