Quote: "If you really hate linux then why do you have it installed?."
Perhaps because I'm not a small minded individual who believes there is only one true OS that must be followed and worshiped.
I'm also not stupid enough to believe emulation is better than the real thing.
Also, imo Experience out-weights Education.
If let's say someone has read up on the technical abilities of Linux, and another personal has simply used it for 4years... the personal I would want to help me develop on the platform is the guy with the experience.
Simply because there are things you get with experience you can't learn from a book. It's the same when you want to argue about the validity of a product.
This is why most here I firmly believe have no basis for arguing the merits of Linux vs Windows. I will however argue (and have done in the past) in quite a civilised way with Kentaree, becuase like me he uses both platforms regularly.
Often is the case in our arguments we end up actually learning a bit more about the OS the other prefers.. but it has never boiled down to a simple "Linux is best" or "Windows is best" situation. We both do often see the others point-of-view and see the validity of using one over the other for something.
It isn't basless accusations and claims trumpted up between people who frankly don't have the experience with either OS like it is in threads like this.
Hell, I bet most who panned Microsoft planning a new OS for 2010 to replace Vista don't even know half of what Vista actually has under the hood. Most of you are still on the fence or firmly and baselessly believe it is the OS of evil.
Saw this same behaviour when Windows XP was released, at someone point people will realise they're being stupid; but it takes a while.
I've seen so many bitching about UAC, but it protect you and your data. They bitch about Vista's lack of compatibility; but frankly it's a damn sight better than what XP has for legacy applications... and XP was an enhancement of old libraries not new ones written from scratch.
That in itself is truely an amazing achievement!
I mean there are only a handful of Windows XP-era programs that don't work, something like 200-ish recorded by Microsoft out of a library of over 10,000 software applications.
That's a compatibility rate of over 99%, from an entirely new library set. Am I the only person seriously impressed by that?!
Sony couldn't even achieve that compatibility rate with the PS2 despite having the bloody PSOne hardware built-in.
Seriously, the sheer work and time Microsoft put in to make sure this OS was the most stable to date (which it undeniably is) from release; and their dedication to make sure that it still works, looks and acts like legacy Windows. When you consider the size of what Windows actually provides services wise... it's just mind-boggling.
They've made huge stride in security, ease-of-use, functionality.
I mean, it's like id Software releasing RAGE with the ability to run any game created in it's legacy engines back to Wolfenstein3D and all but say 2 or 3 running exactly as they did when they were created with the new spit'n'shine of the RAGE engine.
Sorry, but that would impress people... yet for Windows no one seems to care or realise how big a deal this is.
One feature people don't realise is in there, is that Vista will automatically utilise multi-core/processor systems to enhance the speed of legacy applications that only utilise a single hardware thread.
But because it is done in the background without anyone knowing this, it's an ignored but fundimentally important aspect of the OS.
No instead people bitch and compare to other Operating Systems.
Vista is an evolutionary step. As big as Windows 95, which people just can't see right now as they're too worried about things that frankly don't matter.
