It's not about the OS

In other more exciting news: pre-orders for Squid Happens shirts are now open. This particular squid is available in both men's and ladies' cuts, and should come in just in time for Katsucon, so should ship shortly after the convention.

-----

This arc isn't about the OS Wars, but I will talk a bit about 'em. I can't actually give you a run down on Vista as I don't have it. My only interaction with it has thus far been the marketing and the demo computers I run into in the store. The bottom line is that it's shiney.

It is in fact the shiniest looking OS I have ever seen. Shinier than Tiger, Shinier than any skin for unix, it's just damn pretty. There you have it. I can't speak for any other facets of the OS than that. Not with any credibility. I can make conjectures if you like, and I feel they're pretty safe conjectures. I feel safe in saying, for instance, that it is an improvement over XP. Whether or not it's enough of an improvement seems to be the big debate, however.

Apple enthusists have, of course, been claiming that every advancement found in Vista is merely a copy of what's in Tiger (OS 10.4), and thus OS X still is the awesome of awesome. Eh. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but they do have a vaild point. Is this a big surprise? Hell no. Why wouldn't Microsoft offer up features in their latest software that are direct parrarells or improved versions of a competitor's software? It's stupid to think that any company wouldn't do that. That isn't even a bad thing. It's great that the differences between opperating systems is diminishing. IT'S FRIGGEN EPIC, even.

I may have spoken on this before, but it is of my opinion that the ultimate OS is a two part system. The baseline core programming that is common to all machines, thus making all programs available for all computers. And the second part being the interface. The interface being highly customizable, and being able to be tailored to different user's satisfaction. It'd revolutionize the computing world, create a whole new industry (making those spiftacular interfaces), and probably bring on it's own share of problems and startling improvements. But that's just my thought.

Until then, we'll have Apple's OS and Microsoft's Windows. They'll start to look an awful lot like eachother, and will continue to debate who's more original, safer, shinier, and in general kicks more ass.

Having pondered the question for a while, I've determined that the big and definitive difference between Macs and PCs is CHOICE. PCs are full of choice. Macs have very little. Now before I get an inbox full of angry emails (which has never happened, you all are so nice), I did not mean that in a bad way. PCs have nearly unlimited combinations of hardware, giving the user almost unlimited choice in what goes into their system. When you by an Apple computer, you have a list of options, a reasonably extensive list of options, but it's comparatively short. Apple is about simplicity, they say so themseves. They are obsessed with it even. So to obtain this simplicity and minimalist design, they limit your options. They control everything about the computer, the hardware combinations, the OS, everything. They run a tight little ship, yes they do. PCs, because they give you more options than you know what to do with, it's amazing that they work at all sometimes. But that's choice for you. You used to have maybe a dozen tv channels and could watch all the shows you were interested, now we have thousands and need special machines to record the shows we want to watch but can't because they're all on at the same time. You can have the freedom to choose. Or you can have things work. You can't necessarily have 'em both without putting some effort into it.

Welcome to the Comedity. Don't step on the Penguin.
Garth(Monday - February 5th, 2007) -04:17:31