FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

[quote="5735guy"]"To run OS X (legally) you need to use Apple hardware which is priced at a premium"

That particular point is very much a straw man argument.

Much of the time to expect similar performance the cost of the Hardware is similar to that of a Mac. So the cost of the Hardware includes cost of the license to run Windows.

The consumer pays to run Windows as much as the Mac user pays to run OS X (macOS).

The Mac user gets free operating system upgrades. The Windows user is expected to pay. Without doubt the Mac user is getting the better deal.

Furthermore a Mac can run Windows natively.[/quote]

No, the cost of Apple hardware *far* exceeds the cost of a simple Windows license / do you have any idea how high Apple marks up their RAM upgrades? Of course they're not the only OEM that does that, [b]however in some cases you have no choice if the RAM is soldered in[/b]. Unless you own a BGA rework station.

The "mac user" only gets [i]free[/i] updates [u]so as long OS X is supported on that machine[/u]. I can install Windows 7 from a computer from the year 2000. You can't do that under Apple's licensing agreement. Heck, you couldn't [i]even if you wanted to[/i] since they completely changed their architecture as backwards compatibility is not a concern of theirs.

So who has the better deal, the Windows user that pays for a single license and can run it on virtually any hardware? Or the "mac user" who is stuck with whatever hardware platform they're using at the time?

Cost aside, the real issue is that Apple restricts what can run on what. You have no say, and this will bother anyone used to the "wintel" model.

[quote="5735guy"]"Linux has VERY little commercial software: so is Linux a Windows replacement? Not at all."

Not true.

It is all about whether the consumer is prepared to adapt their operations to the Linux platform. Excellent open source alternatives to proprietary software are available.

If the Business consumer were to install Linux on a single machine for testing purposes the full potential of the platform would become evident.

Furthermore there is always the fallback option of virtualisation if the consumer needs to run a specific software.[/quote]

No. There exist no complete Linux replacements for Windows and OS X software. I actually do extensive graphics designing and music production, and I've already tried to see if it was possible.

Sure you can try to run Photoshop / Illustrator / Cubase / FL Studio etc under Wine. But there are far too many glitches and in some cases fatal incompatibilities that just make it impossible. For instance you can't run iLOK & eLicenser dongles on Linux which are *required* for some of the software to run. [b]In many cases virtualization is a no-go when it comes to audio software and hardware[/b] (i.e. Windows needs ASIO and you still need the dongles to communicate properly). And off the top of my head, Roland doesn't support their audio plugins under virtual machines--they make it very clear on their website. And for good reason.

And there are just no platform specific programs developed FOR Linux that come close to the commercial stuff. The GIMP and Inkscape are very buggy / and are missing common place features that Adobe has. Ever try using a Wacom Intuous with the GIMP? You don't have rotation capabilities that Photoshop does... Ever try using Inkscape? The UI sometimes fails and its handling of WDM is inproper leaving to glitching on 4K+ displays.

The problem is (and especially at ZDnet) you have journalists talk about subjects they know nothing about and ZERO real-world experience. I can't name a single musician that uses Linux for their production platform or a business that doesn't use Active Directory.

"Linux has VERY little commercial software: so is Linux a Windows replacement? Not at all."

Not true.

It is all about whether the consumer is prepared to adapt their operations to the Linux platform. Excellent open source alternatives to proprietary software are available.

If the Business consumer were to install Linux on a single machine for testing purposes the full potential of the platform would become evident.

Furthermore there is always the fallback option of virtualisation if the consumer needs to run a specific software.

"To run OS X (legally) you need to use Apple hardware which is priced at a premium"

That particular point is very much a straw man argument.

Much of the time to expect similar performance the cost of the Hardware is similar to that of a Mac. So the cost of the Hardware includes cost of the license to run Windows.

The consumer pays to run Windows as much as the Mac user pays to run OS X (macOS).

The Mac user gets free operating system upgrades. The Windows user is expected to pay. Without doubt the Mac user is getting the better deal.

Furthermore a Mac can run Windows natively.

Windows is the odd operating system out because unlike Linux, Mac OS/OS X and any other Unix flavours, Windows has been supporting the same software since the 90's. I can load up software written in 1996 and have it operate under Windows 10. You can't really do that with anything else because backwards compatibility doesn't matter.

Linux has VERY little commercial software: so is Linux a Windows replacement? Not at all. The ONLY possible replacement would be OS X as it has had a lot of software developed for it ported from Windows. Easier now that it's on x86 instead of PowerPC.

BUT GUESS WHAT! To run OS X (legally) you need to use Apple hardware which is priced at a premium. So unlike Windows and Linux (which can run on almost anything), you have to use the hardware the Apple thinks you should. Therefore, people who can't use Linux because their software doesn't run on it, and the need to buy something cheaper than a stupid MacBook--you're going to probably land on with Windows.

So Apple's operating systems aren't exactly "free" since you're RESTRICTED to *their* hardware. Linux is free because there's nothing but shit when it comes to production software. Windows allows you to run on whatever hardware you like AND having production software to boot.

[quote="David Gewirtz"]For those of you who don't think Chrome OS should be included in that list, let me remind you that Chromebook sales have been growing in certain segments, most notably education, but the category is still a very small percentage of the overall PC or tablet market. -- And, yes, I know Chrome is based on Linux, just like Android is based on Linux, and macOS, the former OS X, is based on Mach and BSD. With the exception of Windows, all modern mainstream operating systems can trace their parentage to some form of *NIX.[/quote]
So... David's response to Chrome OS being a Linux fork (because IT IS!) is that all OSes are based on UNIX? Uhhh... if that was the case, then the SCO Group would have been able to attack more than just IBM'S AIX:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group,_Inc._v._International_Business_Machines_Corp.

AIX isn't even REMOTELY close to Linux, just as IBM i (formerly OS/400) has nothing to do with Linux, OS X or Windows. Sure a lot of computing concepts were derived from Unix (including Windows!) but that does not mean the share the same kernel [b]or are even programmed with the same languages[/b] (re: z/OS being compiled with XL C/C++). But Gewirtz isn't a programmer so we can assume he's ignorant on compilers. In fact, he doesn't even bring up OS X's connection with NeXTSTEP after it was absorbed into Apple./

Also, we could probably make the argument that more people use OS/2 Warp than Chrome OS (lol).

So no. I don't agree with him that Chrome OS should be on that list, since it's a Linux FORK, and not a unique kernel. In fact, he should be putting SOLARIS on there before he puts Chrome OS. But he probably doesn't know what Solaris is and probably never touched it.

[quote="David Gewirtz"]We can all pretty much agree that Windows has some staying power. That said, when I asked our resident Windows soothsayer Ed Bott about actual numbers of users, he told me, "Given that PC sales are flat or down in recent years and are probably close to the replacement rate, it's likely that the very large Windows installed base is shrinking slowly."[/quote]
*COUGH* Ed Bott is more of a drooling idiot than a soothsayer. So now I know why Gewirtz doesn't know anything about operating systems.

In my experience, Windows isn't slowing down in the business sector (in fact we roll out Windows 7 machines nonstop / sometimes Windows 10 if the client wants it or if it's the only thing the device supports like the surfaces). All business software is still more or less rooted in Windows. Not to mention OS X and Linux solutions for Active Directory are so terrible I don't even want to get into it.

OF COURSE Windows is slowing in adoption with consumers / but only with a certain type of consumer group. These consumers have moved on to iPads or smart phones. Whereas the other ones buy cheap $300 acer bottom-of-the-barrel laptops.

[quote="David Gewirtz"]I run Windows in Parallels on my iMac specifically because there are applications (like Autodesk Inventor) that only run on Windows.[/quote]
THERE YOU GO! Gewitz runs Apple hardware. And as he rightly justifies, there is software that will (never) run properly outside of windows.

I actually have software that can't even be ran in a VM, so I'm stuck with the real deal. Not that I'd want to run Apple hardware anyways... I can't settle for anything with less than 96 GB of RAM.

--

To conclude, this is just some silly journalistic drivel that brings nothing new to the argument. It's already KNOWN that *typical consumers* have switched out to more simplistic devices. But to ASSUME that Windows will be displaced entirely will be a tall order. It's hard to kill off an engraved platform; which is why you still have unique languages, or the fact that business PCs still come with VGA and PS/2 ports... despite newer alternatives being around for decades.

Waht do you think of his arguments?

In a world of free operating systems, can Windows 10 survive?
http://www.zdnet.com/article/in-a-world-of-free-operating-systems-can-windows-10-survive/