Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Decoding Jobs' Keynote

By Refrag in MLP
Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 09:27:06 PM EST
Tags: Technology (all tags)
Technology

ZDNet News Andreas Pfeiffer has written an article that tries to decode Steve Jobs' message given in his keynote speech yesterday (January 9, 2001). Andreas seems to feel that their are two polar opposites that are using Windows: those who put up with it because it's the "standard", and nerds who get a kick out of the OS.


There are a lot of people in between there, and I'm one of them. I use Windows because at this point I see no viable alternatives, however I am constantly seeking them out (Mac OS X maybe). I'd also say there are more people to the right that use Windows along side another OS.

Pfeiffer also thinks that Apple will be releasing a PDA soon.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Why are you using Windows?
o It's the "standard." 8%
o I'm a Microsoft-geek. 4%
o I'm waiting for a better alternative. 11%
o I use Windows along side another OS. 38%
o I don't use Windows. 36%

Votes: 114
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o ZDNet
o article
o Steve Jobs
o keynote speech
o Windows
o Mac OS X
o Apple
o Also by Refrag


Display: Sort:
Decoding Jobs' Keynote | 21 comments (15 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden)
Polarize *this*! (4.52 / 17) (#1)
by Signal 11 on Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 01:10:14 PM EST

I have to disagree that computer users are somehow "poliarized" on why they use Windows. Steve Jobs is an excellent speaker, but try watching his speeches a couple minutes at a time, and your critical thinking skills start to click back into place -

Microsoft Windows, for better or for worse, is the standard desktop operating system. It most definately is not the preferred server OS on the internet right now, and with the move towards intranets and extranets, Microsoft may be losing more ground than many people realize. But people use Windows for only one reason - that's where the applications are. Without applications, what good is an OS? One need only contemplate Amiga to see what I mean.

People often go on and on about the operating system. The OS is pretty irrelevant - when you use "Linux" you're not using Linux, you're using a shell like bash, or X-Windows, grep, ls, rm, ifconfig. You aren't using "Linux" - the computer is. You are using the applications.




--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.

Damn. (3.87 / 8) (#2)
by simmons75 on Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 01:14:19 PM EST

Sig11, you've hit the nail on the head. Lack of apps is the #1 reason I'm not using BeOS right now. Come to think of it, I've almost been tempted by the "dark side" to move over to FreeBSD--the promise of nearly every app I normally use going native on their system, as well as faster-than-Linux Linux binary emulation, is appealing. :-)
poot!
So there.

[ Parent ]
He certainly did! (3.75 / 4) (#3)
by SbooX on Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 01:51:38 PM EST

Sig11, you've hit the nail on the head. Lack of apps is the #1 reason I'm not using BeOS right now.

Actually, thats the only reason I'm not using BeOS. Its a real shame that what is a really quality OS (in my opinion, for my uses, its the best) just can't get any apps. I've taken Be off my computer for now, but will probably reinstall it when/if some of the BIG PROJECTS ever get finished (i.e. BONE, OpenGL, Mozilla, Opera 4/5, Java, etc.)

---

god is silly. MGL 272:36
[ Parent ]

windows is not bad (3.37 / 8) (#5)
by Delirium on Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 01:52:48 PM EST

While the primary reason that people use Windows is for the apps, that's not the only reason. In fact, for a while OS/2 had a pretty decent chunk of apps for it, and it still lost out to Windows. Windows is generally well-designed from a UI standpoint (despite a few annoying flaws), and most of the time it just works. Sure, things might piss you off about it, but at least 99% of the time it does what it's supposed to, and if not you can reboot and then it will. No recompiling programs, messing with config scripts, editing files, etc. It might be a horrible piece of crap that crashes a lot, but it gets the job done.

Given the choice, I'd choose Windows over Linux even if both had the exact same apps. Hell, I prefer to use Netscape 6 on Windows rather than on Linux, and that's the exact same program.

Plus I'm lucky in that I've gotten a Windows98 setup that rarely crashes, so I'm pretty happy with it. (I regularly have uptimes of 7-10 days and reboot usually because badly-written programs/games have memory leaks that pile up over that period of time).

[ Parent ]

Is this a satire? (4.00 / 5) (#12)
by itsbruce on Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 03:04:57 PM EST

Plus I'm lucky in that I've gotten a Windows98 setup that rarely crashes, so I'm pretty happy with it. (I regularly have uptimes of 7-10 days and reboot usually because badly-written programs/games have memory leaks that pile up over that period of time).

7 to 10 days and then you have to reboot if it hasn't already crashed? That's "good"?


--

It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
[ Parent ]
uptimes (4.00 / 7) (#14)
by Delirium on Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 03:45:54 PM EST

7 to 10 days and then you have to reboot if it hasn't already crashed? That's "good"?

Well, I rarely have to reboot, but it speeds things up to do so since it frees the memory that various badly-written programs have leaked over the course of a week.

And, yes, for the needs of most people, it is good. Most people I know turn off their computers at night anyway,(I'm talking about casual computer users, not techies) so one day uptime is perfectly acceptable to a large portion of the public. Seven to ten days uptime is certainly more than enough. If Windows only needed a reboot once a week I'm pretty sure 99% of the public would be happy with it - it's only the fact that often it's less stable than that (with certain combinations of hardware/software and settings) which annoys people.

[ Parent ]

You've Proved the Opposite Case (4.83 / 6) (#20)
by Robert Uhl on Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 09:50:28 PM EST

Well, I rarely have to reboot, but it speeds things up to do so since it frees the memory that various badly-written programs have leaked over the course of a week.

But see, that's the thing--we don't have to reboot because of those progs. Worst case, we restart them or change initlevels. Until one has used a truly stable system, one never really realises how nice it can be.

Re. your second paragraph, it's not about what's good enough, but what is the best possible. I don't want good, I want best. Failing that, I want better. Good is tolerable. Good is like bread, water and vitamins--it'll keep you alive, but where's the joy? Better is like McDonald's--at least it doesn't taste utterly awful. Best is a seven course meal at Mâison Fran¸ais [is that â right?].

Granted, as we all know, Worse is Better is correct: good enough now will triumph over best tomorrow, just like millions more eat McDonald's burgers than eat actual good food. But we few, we happy few, we band of cognoscenti, we know what is what, and we have the freedom to act on it. We are not locked into a foul and unpleasant platform. Ours is the capacity to choose, to evaluate and to decide. We may use Mac OS because, for our needs, excellent interface trumps stability. We may use Linux, because stability trumps ease-of-use. We may use FreeBSD, because stability trumps frequency. We may use anything we want. To throw away that opportunity is paramount to a sin, to failing to take advantage of all we have been given.

Windows has one thing going for it: it is common. It is not a good OS, it is not æsthetically attractive; it is not easy to use; it is not well-designed; it is a kludge upon a hack upon a mistake. It runs on one platform--a poorly-designed and archaic chip. It is not worht notice on its own merits.

There is no alternative to Windows which I can think of which is not materially better on a multitude of counts. Windows is the blue jeans of the computer world.

The only reason to run Windows is because it is common. But really, that's not a good enough reason. How many word processors does one need? Indeed, does one even need a word processor? Plain text or LaTeX each have convincing advantages over that bastard, the WYSIWYG document editor. Games are fun, but isn't spending thousands of dollars to play games just a little excessive, especially when one considers that most of them are hardly edifying or intellectually stiumulating? Some, I'll admit, are not bad. But a MUSH, MUD or good game of xconq is better for the mind than any number of FPS, I'll wager. Not that I dislike FPSes--I love 'em. But they're not why I compute.

Let's face it, for many Windows users the 'puter is just another TV. For those who know something, it is not another TV, but a replacement TV. We can read, we can cogitate, we can improve out minds and our souls. Sure, we have fun too--all work and no play &c. But we bear in mind that the goal in life is not to see how much so-called `entertainment' we can force through our eyes in a day, but rather to attempt to improve ourselves and to strive to be better people.

Of course, we fail at this impossible quest. But at least we are trying. The great unwashed masses don't even bother.

[ Parent ]

Uptime (3.50 / 4) (#19)
by darthaya on Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 09:02:13 PM EST

As long as it doesn't crash when I am using it, I dont give a flying cow about how often I have to reboot the computer.

It is fine to reboot it, say, everyday, if it can work for straight 4 hours while I am playing diablo 2, I will be kissing my windows 98 CD. :)

Too many geeks are too obsessed with the uptime. longer uptime doesn't mean bigger p3n1s. u know...

[ Parent ]

Never mind the length, feel the width (4.00 / 1) (#22)
by itsbruce on Thu Jan 11, 2001 at 11:39:39 AM EST

Too many geeks are too obsessed with the uptime. longer uptime doesn't mean bigger p3n1s. u know...

No, but it is a sign that the computer is doing something right. The short uptime available on so many windows installations is an indicator of what is going wrong underneath. That will punish you eventually no matter that you turn off your PC every day.


--

It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
[ Parent ]
All the apps 95% of people need run on MacOS (4.00 / 2) (#23)
by imperium on Thu Jan 11, 2001 at 07:03:06 PM EST

Like PhotoShop, Office, Eudora, Dreamweaver, etc etc etc. I'm not going to bore you with the list, but the only missing things I've ever seen a decent case made for have been arcane programming tools and games. And besides, TA was ported ages ago, so who cares?

x.
imperium
[ Parent ]

Poll (3.14 / 7) (#11)
by Malicose on Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 02:46:50 PM EST

I chose "I'm waiting for a better alternative," but I just don't know if this accurately reflects my situation. It's more like a paradox in which developers won't (or can't) create games for a system without a viable number of users, and users won't buy the system until there are a viable number of games--a most vicious circle. I despise having to run Windows on my high-powered machines, but am required to use it for gaming. There are most certainly others in this same predicament, whether for gaming, work, or something else.

games (3.00 / 6) (#16)
by jbridge21 on Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 05:43:16 PM EST

The sole reason I have windows installed is so that I can properly play "Pod Racer"...... it's a WONDERFUL game.

Of course, Quake3 and some others came after that, but those also run on linux, so they don't really count.

It's the pod racing.

I use Windows because I'm lazy. (3.40 / 5) (#17)
by kingcnut on Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 07:52:35 PM EST

I'm too damn lazy to crowbar windows off my Sony Vaio Notebook. I'd like to install Linux on it because I am more comfortable with Unix, but someone already put Windows 98 on it for me. I use the computer for email, microsoft money, web browsing (opera), downloading the pictures from my digi-camera and occasionally transferring footage from my DVcamera to my FireWire disk which is shared with my Mac. I'm not too sure how much functionality I would lose by moving to Linux but I am vaguely aware that even if I could afford to spend the time finding out it would be less than the sum of time currently being wasted using such a loathsome and backward OS as windows98.
I once bought a desktop PC but was so bitterly disappointed with the *everything* of Windows NT 4.0 that I took up the company's 14day money-back guarantee after the third day and returned it. A few months later I bought a desktop Mac and have never looked back - a passerby of the window where I was unpacking the G3 on the day I bought it even cheered when he saw the box. Now I think myself *quite* the designer ;) ...hey, where did I leave my micro-scooter :P

Your poll. (3.20 / 10) (#18)
by Dolgan on Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 08:56:56 PM EST

What should I do if I use Windows because I actually do know how to run the OS properly, as opposed to those who complain about it sucking when it's just them who can't operate it right? The problem with Windows is the users - not the OS. "Windows' simplicity" is an oxymoron, and it's an illusion. Windows is not simple. Just because you do most things in it from its GUI does not make it an easy OS. The whole point and click business is marketing. So-called "geeks" don't take any other marketing seriously - why do they take Microsoft marketing seriously? Learn to discover the truth under the lie that is "plug & play," "point & click," etc.

But as I was saying, I use Windows (although I use *NIX more, even on my desktop - mainly FreeBSD and Debian GNU/Linux. Yes, I even use FreeBSD on my desktop.) because I know how to run it and it's very, very solid and fast for me. I like IE and I like games besides Quake III (which I also play in Linux - actually I usually play it in Linux, not Windows). And I only reboot FreeBSD, Linux or Windows when I'm updating something. Yeah, Windows needs reboots for updates much more commonly, but that's why you schedule them and do them all at once - it boots fast if you haven't screwed up your installation (though you probably have, thanks to misjudging the proper way to use the OS). And I'm not a "Microsoft geek."

You need an "I use Windows - I like Microsoft" option.

BTW, in all instances above, I refer to Windows 2000. Not Windows 98. And I don't care if your win2k installation sucks because you broke it but're too arrogant to think it's not your fault and therefore insist "win2k and M$ sux". Join the Official Micro$oft Sux Club if you wanna do that. Follow the *nix guru's most common answer and RTFM. It just might be your fault this time.

suggested option exists (3.75 / 4) (#21)
by Refrag on Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 10:47:04 PM EST

It's called "I'm a Microsoft-geek" whether you think so or not. I never said that Windows 2000 is broken, I merely said that I'm awaiting something better.

Refrag

Kuro5hin: ...and culture, from the trenches
[ Parent ]

Decoding Jobs' Keynote | 21 comments (15 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!