[Full-disclosure] Save XP
varcher at denyall.com
Tue Jan 29 09:28:05 GMT 2008
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 01:00 +0100, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:52:37 EST, T Biehn said:
> > Do you guys really think that any of those options are viable
> > alternatives to windows?
> Actually, they *are* viable alternatives to Windows for a very large percentage
> of things that need doing...
However (unfortunately, from my PoV as well), Windows has one pretty big
advantage on the market.
A Mac OS X system is largely better for a large range of applications,
a pretty poor performing one for another, and nearly non-existant for
another segment. Ditto for Unix - most of the desktop-level applications
are semi-amateur copies of windows apps.
What Windows has for himself is that it supports every segment of
the application space, and usually does it moderately well, even if
not the best. If you're using a computer for a single thing, you
usually have better stuff out there, be it a game console, a racked
server, or something else. If you're using your computer for a whole
slew of various applications (doing some office tasks, picture/video
editing, games...), then choosing Windows means you're going to find
all your application needs on the same system. Which, even if some
are underperforming, means probably more comfort overall.
Windows survives on the strength of its application ecosystem, not
because of any strength in the OS itself. That's true of any system;
except for a few fanatics, you care about what applications you run,
not what the system under them is.
Full-Disclosure is hosted and sponsored by Secunia.