x0r515t said:
I thought google was the number one homepage. Anyways, MSN may have some significance but I don't think this is to critical of a situation. The fact is a small amount of MSN actually requires ActiveX. I have been browsing MSN with firefox and clicking on a few links on the MSN home page. Really if you think about it, a small percentage of MSN does infact require ActiveX, and if this is infact the most ActiveX filled site on the internet, it kind of shows ActiveX's significance. Sure i'm sure ActiveX could be used for usefull things, but hey there's always java.
Nah, MSN
It is automatic with Intenet Explorer, you have to know how to change it not to go there. Yeah, Java can do most of the things, but there are still things ActiveX can do that JavaScript, because of what it is, will not be able to do. The Internet will have to see more technologies, probably from Microsoft, that do what ActiveX does, if it is ever going to get out of HTML and these limited Pages.
x0r515t said:
But you see that's just the problem, you shouldn't have to write to a specific web browser for a standard. Instead a set of standards is needed so all web browsers render web pages the same. Believe it or not, even microsoft recognizes the W3C as the standard. MS tries sometimes to meet W3C standards. Heres an example of MS at least recognizing the W3C:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dom/domoverview.asp
Even MS themselves do not believe they are the standard over the W3C. If you want a funny and interesting read, check this out:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/11/hakon_on_ms_interroperability/
You shouldn't
You should write in the Standard, that which renders in Intenet Explorer, and the other Browsers should conform to it. They don't though do they. The point is, who is in the wrong for not supporting the standards?
Yeah, they do... and I don't agree with them for it
Considering market penetration, they should have helped create a new way to code pages for Browsers Years ago and made off with the old stale HTML and CSS...
x0r515t said:
Well whatever. The fact is Windows 2000 is still fine for most people. It has all the stability and the driver and software support of XP. Ah well any new windows OS will do fairly well just because of the "latest and greatest craze" everyone seems to have. Frankly though I wouldn't want my OS to have any winME technologies, even if it is mixed in with win2k technologies! I will admit I do run windows sometimes, but guess what version? win2k and it is just fine. I have yet to find anything that I can do on XP that I can't on 2000. Although 90% of the time I run Linux
The only reason I have a windows box though is so I am still familiar with windows so I can help customers.
Windows 98 is fine for people, were it still patched. Windows XP will still be fine for people for the next half a dozen years, maybe more, the point is companies have to release new software... they can't just keep updating the old Software
Linux probably hasn't learnt this point... They did it with Windows Me Technologies because Windows Me was newer than Windows 98 SE, which they would have had to use otherwise.
The point is not that Windows 2000 is fine. You are obviously used to using 'fine' Operating Systems. The point is that Windows XP is better, and people will always want what is better.
x0r515t said:
Just to add, Gnome uses icons as well by default. Really only the lightweight window managers don't use icons, but even they can be tweaked if for some reason you want icons on your desktop.
I suppose in a way it has to be said Icons are old... but they are what people want to use. And even if they are old; the fact that Linux still only has two Desktops that use the system... is not a good sign for Linux...
x0r515t said:
Yes they both got the idea of the GUI(desktop, folders)from xerox. The difference though is that Apple licensed the idea from xerox, MS just flat out copied it.
Ah yes, but in the end, who got that GUI to the people and quite obviously started a ball rolling that made Computers what they are today? It wasn't Apple with their Single Computer one system one Operating System approach
It was IBM's Hardware and Microsoft's vision, even if that vision was pieced together from other visions, it is still a vision nobody else had.
x0r515t said:
Well yeah you would need an OS to compile the software, a liveCD would work fine. What other architectures you ask? Well other than x86, PPC and SPARC are popular architectures, more people use these architectures than you would think. Heres a SPARC compatible linux distro I just found:
http://www.ultralinux.org/
But of course we all know SPARC processors are meant to run SunOS, and PPC Macintosh right?
Haha... PowerPC... SPARC... Nah. I know Linux runs on these things. After all, every Virus needs to be able to grow and feast upon other things. Even if it does decide it might as well feast on a carcass.
x0r515t said:
Maybe it's small in the consumer market, but not the server market.
Ah yes, but as far as I am aware, Microsoft's growth in the Server Market is in double figures... Linuxs' is not.
x0r515t said:
Have you tried OSX? Mac versions pre-OSX are basically the win9x of the Mac world. OSX is as much of a improvement in stability over previous versions of MacOS as the NT based windows are over win9x.
I can imagine, but such a leap from pre-OSX Mac is still barely the stability of Windows Me
It just looks nice, and sometimes seems stable, because it has one possible way of being run. It is easy to make an OS work in an unchanging setup.