Why computers don't have Legs

A couple of quick things before I pass out. One, the song Alice is listening to is "Wonderland Rave Mix" by Alice Deejay. Two, there's an update (color this time) to the Muse drawing attached to the vote icons. So go cast your ballot. And the third, most important thing:

Phil Foglio's Girl Geinus Comic is now online! If you are not aware of this comic, you should be, and if you're not reading it, you really ought to. The art's great, it's funny, the characters are deep and engaging, and it's just good old-fashion gas-lamp fun (it's not steam punk, because there are no punks).

I'll be back after some sleep to rant on more subject matters

Alright, so back to rant about things. First off, if you don't already know Adobe just announced it was buying Macromedia. Now, I'm sure this doesn't matter beans to most people but to anyone in the multi-media biz this is huge. On the one hand you've got Adobe, the powerhouse of print media: Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Pagemaker, etc, etc. And on the other you have Macromedia, the pinicle of online media: Dreamweaver, FLASH,, Fireworks, etc. And now they will all be under one company. I know this seems to be the year of the mergers, but damn. This is like Microsoft buying out ... Dell or something. Now, Adobe will have ultimately secured themselves as the King of all digital media (non-video). Whether you're preparing a book for print, retouching photographs, creating masterpieces, or just doing up a website with too much unnecessary Flash animation, you will be using an Adobe Product. Now if only Adobe had bought Painter rather than Corel. But then someone would probably object to Adobe monopolizing the market.

And now the bit of the rant where I talk about something that bothers me. I was browsing the net, minding my own business and I came across a number of articles talking about Microsoft's next version of Windows: the elusive Longhorn. So, being a Windows user, and being mildly curious, I say "cool" and I check it out. Well, the various articles weren't exactly enlightening. But they amount to: Longhorn will be prettier, easier, more secure, and down right better than XP, and it'll be available around Christmas time next year. Wahoo. Ok, so nothing exactly to get thrilled about, but I'm all about the next best thing, who isn't right? But none of that is what bothers me. What does bother me are the people who post these little replies to these articles. Most of them are Apple and Linux fanatics, saying how their OS of choice "already does all the things Longhorn will do half-assed." Occassionally you'll get a Windows Fanatic, in there to bash the other OSes, but it's seldom.

For reasons I cannot understand both Apple and Linux seem to have these vocal and very devout (though comparitively small) followings, where as the Windows fanatics seem far quieter and farther in-between. And if for only one reason and one reason alone I say that the Windows fanatics are a kinder, more respectful bunch. And that reason is simply: they spell the competitions name right. I can't tell you how many times I've seen "M$" or "Micro$oft" spouted off by haters declairing their OS superior. I wish someone would clue them in that it's spelled with an "S" not a "$." I understand their point, but expressing it that way instantly tags their oppinion as narrow minded and not worthy of regard. How would I sound if I refered to Apple Inc. as "ol' Granny Smith?" I'd sound like an ass. Right? And frankly, anyone who thinks that Apple isn't out to make a buck is sadly dillusioned. They're a company. Companies live by making money. That's just how it goes. Besides, both Apple and Microsoft have had or still have business practices that are not looked well upon. Point in case: Apple's lawsuits against bloggers for "revealing trade secrets." But whatever, they're companies, not saviors, or ultimate evils, either one of them. I'm not sure exactly what the Open Source Movement is though. They seem to be a bunch of idealists determined to make it happen. It's a pitty that everyone has to be on-board for that dream to work, though.

Anyway, so that little annoyance got me to thinking about why Macs aren't more popular than they are, or why more desktop users don't use Linux or one of it's varrieties. And I think the answer is simply that they just don't have one thing that Windows has always had: compatibility. I'm sure someone's skoffing by now, but hear me out for a moment. We all know most comercial programs aren't written to run on a Linux box (mind you, I'm still talking desk tops, not servers). There are a lot of nice interfaces for Linux now, some of them acting exactly like Windows even. But they don't have the standard program selection that a user expects and demands. They have a lot of their own programs that mimic a lot of commercial programs, but you still can't run Photoshop on a Linux Box.

Macs are kind of the other way around. Instead of having a purely open "if you write it, we'll run it" mentality of Linux, Apple computers are have a "Mac Only" mentality. One of the Apple computer's strong points is that one company controls all the hardware and software that goes into the product. This allows for a very controled environment with no unknown factors, potentially making the unit more inherently stable. Of course, Apple does let other software companies know enough about their OS to let software be written for it, but they keep a very tight lid on the hardware production. They are, of course, a computer company (more like Dell or IBM than Microsoft), so that makes sense. However, I think because of this very tight interworking, Apple has inherently limited it's market. Apple products work best (if not exclusively) with other Apple products.

Take their very successful iPod, for instance. Their Software (iTunes) is intrinsically tied to their music format as well as their player. If you have any one of the three items, player, file, or program, you're practically forced to use the other two. An Apple music file won't play in any player other than iTunes or an iPod (the wonders of proprietary formats). Similarly an iPod won't work without iTunes. And because of this Apple and Apple only mentality, I think Apple computers will never be the predominant desktop.

That is not to say that they're not nice computers, they just have a self imposed incompatibility. Linux, however, suffers from incompatibility due to outside groups/individuals failing to offer enough products that support the OS.

But practically everything works with Windows. Unlike the strict hardware specs of Apple computers, a Windows PC can be built out of millions of different combinations of hardware. Considering all the different hardware configurations possible, it's kind of impressive that Windows runs at all. Now I've heard it said that the way Microsoft deals with the varriety of hardware configurations involves a certain flexibility in the Windows software which is at least part of what makes it so "vulnerable" to viruses and hacking. Not being a software expert I cannot say whether or not this is the case. But it sounds fairly plausible to me. But in the end that flexibilty, the ability to run on almost any machine, and the way Microsoft Licenses the OS out to other companies is ultimately (I think) why Windows is the domninant OS today. Like it or not.

Well, I hope I haven't upset too many people. And, of course, if any of the information I have based my thoughts upon is incorrect, please feel free to bring it to my attention.

P.S. Karen informs me to tell everyone that "GROUP PROJECTS SUCK!"

Welcome to the Comedity. Don't step on the Penguin.
Garth (Monday - April 18, 2005) -21:57:19