[merged] Realplayer 10

[Defiant]

Originally Posted by Bifta

It's been changing for years and it's still not much easier and the thing is, so has Windows. Linux will never catch up, it's like Coke vs someobscurecola .. it'll never get anywhere near the consumer foothold Microsoft has currently or will have in the future.

Yep now they don't have there hands tied with the win9x kernel there's going to be no stopping them. I've heard allot of good thing about Windows Longhorn too. There working on a new file system for that one aren't they

[Bifta]

WinFS

[Defiant]

If you think back to the Win9x days the introduction of Windows XP has made it so easy for the none pc literate its unreal

[sonygeezer]

I am still using real player basic 8

Microsoft is really about to come though dispite all this fines. If you thought they where big before just wait.

XP is a massive improvement and we are about to see a huge leap forward again with lornhorn. I use a mac and like it but know that windows will continue to move forward. No matter what people say microsoft do make good products

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

I apologise for my lack of knowledge of economic terminology. We, in Europe, have a controlled market which has proved that it does work. That is the level of control that I advocate, so I don't see why it always has to come back to total control (communism).

Europe used to be free market, but has steadily drifted towards socialism and planned economies. What you have right now is semi-capitalism with a touch (ok more than a touch...) of planned economies. Planned economies do not work. Just compare East Germany to West Germany. North Korea to South Korea. Hong Kong and Republic of China to People's Republic of China.

Why is it that you advocate restriction of fundamental liberties and freedoms when you walk through the door into a factory or business? Who are you to tell another company how to run itself? Who are you to force companies to go into certain directions, or to prevent companies from expanding into certain fields?

I'm sure you would object if all your personal actions were to be reviewed and planned by a higher authority. Your life just wouldn't work out. The same can be said for corporations and businesses. The economies of the above-mentioned countries are prime example of what planned economies end up with.

The United States' GDP per capita is $37,000. The quasi-free economies of western Europe can't even reach $30,000 except for a few single exceptions. The former planned economies of eastern Europe is even worse. China's GDP per capita is below $4,000.

So no, planned economies do not work, and Europe is drifting steadily over to the left that advocate exactly that. Restricting a company's freedom to innovate is a bad idea. Luckily, the United States is still around so even if you restrict innovation, research, development, and entrepeneurship, you can still marginally reap the benefits of American ingeniuty and innovation.

See here: http://www.time.com/time/europe/maga...574849,00.html

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

Supermount, runs in the same way as the MS mounting system, takes away the need for explicit mounting. Installed by default in most of the more user-friendly distributions.



Mozilla/Thunderbird, also commonly used mailers on windows systems. Evolution, Outlook look-alike with some improved features. Also installed as default on most user-friendly distributions.



Gnome/KDE, desktop managers that provide a graphical interface, in much the same way as Windows Explorer provides a graphical interface on Windows desktops. Again, installed as a default

That is nice, but zoooooooooooooooooooooom, you completely missed the point. WINDOWS IS EASIER THAN LINUX. End-of-discussion.

What I take issue with is the way Microsoft conduct their business and that their use of closed standards (that's standards, not source, I take no exception to proprietary software) locks people in to their software and does reduce freedom of choice.

HOW? The only reason your freedom of choice is reduced is because YOU *want* to run THEIR product. If you get rid of THEIR product(s), you have the entire market to choose from. Their product is only ONE on the market. CHOOSE something different! It isn't hard to comprehend!

They have every right to do whatever they want with their software. No one forces you to buy it. You enter into a deal with Microsoft when you buy their software. If the deal is unacceptable, DO NOT ENTER IT. It is THEIR SOFTWARE. YOU are the person that want to use it. YOU don't own it. YOU have no right to say how another person or company should run his life or the business.

QUIT complaining and start innovating and deliver a product that is better.

If you look more closely at the history of computing, you'll soon see a different picture of why Microsoft dominate.

Innovation, good marketing, and a good sense for business. AND, they are CUSTOMER focused. USER focused. Something which Linux still needs to learn.

And yes, currently, Linux is for nerds. It is inwieldy and complicated. But that is a picture that is very rapidly changing, very very rapidly thanks to the likes of Sun and Novell.

I thought you said that you're locked into buying Microsoft products? I thought you said that Microsoft is a barrier to entry into the market? How can Linux then be changing and evolving so rapidly?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Then it would have been done already.

It has. Look at recent distibutions of Redhat or Mandrake.

Although I personally like Windows (and Mac OSX), I do think there are four reasons people use Windows

• Because it was pre-installed on the machine. AFAIK Microsoft require any PC manufacturers that licence Windows to install it on all new machines as the Primary OS. This, in my view, is extremely anti-competitive.
• It has loads of software available.
• Inertia. People know it, and stick with what they know, even if it is worse (not that I am saying Windows is worse).
• They know that any thing they do on their PC will be readable on other PCs.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Bifta

It's been changing for years and it's still not much easier and the thing is, so has Windows. Linux will never catch up, it's like Coke vs someobscurecola .. it'll never get anywhere near the consumer foothold Microsoft has currently or will have in the future.

I'm not so sure about that. Linux has no doubt been improving, and there is only so many improvements one can make to a system. I mean, Word 2000 and Word 2003 is very similar.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by scastle

Because it was pre-installed on the machine. AFAIK Microsoft require any PC manufacturers that licence Windows to install it on all new machines as the Primary OS. This, in my view, is extremely anti-competitive.

No. Dell offers Linux based servers. BUT, even if they did require manufacturers to only install Windows, IT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.

No one is forcing the manufacturer to use Microsoft products. Microsoft can make any requirement they want with the deal that the manufacturer signs with them. If it is unacceptable, don't take it. If it is acceptable, take it. I see NOTHING wrong with this strategy. If manufacturers had something else to turn to they would all say no. BUT, they don't really have an alternative, so most agree to it. Does that force the user to use Windows? NO. He can remove it and isntall whatever he wants.

• It has loads of software available.
• Intertia. People know it, and stick with what they know, even if it is worse (not that I am saying Windows is worse).
• They know that any thing they do on their PC will be readable on other PCs.

I agree.

[Stuart]

I do find it ironic that Sun are helping develop an open source operating system, yet they used to force the users of their systems to use propriatory hardware, which was usually more expensive than the generic PC equivalent. Still, maybe they have changed their ways

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Why is it that you advocate restriction of fundamental liberties and freedoms when you walk through the door into a factory or business?
Who are you to tell another company how to run itself? Who are you to force companies to go into certain directions, or to prevent companies from expanding into certain fields?

Restrictions of whose fundamental liberties and freedoms? I do not advocate restricting anyones liberties. It is my personal belief that people be free to do whatever they choose, so long as it does not (actively) cause a negative impact on anothers liberties. I hope and believe that this gives everyone the maximum freedom possible. I do not see businesses as people, they are quasi-physical constructs (okay, I made that up ) that should not be afforded the same liberties as individuals. It is my belief that what you call free enterprise does negatively impact on the liberties of individuals, but, without major change, they are a necessary evil.

Why do I feel that I have the right to tell businesses what to do? I don't, but I feel I have a right to have an input in what businesses do. Where does this right come from? It comes from the fact that I am one of the people, and I feel that the people as a whole have a right to influence businesses. The higher authority is the people, and we are all part of that higher authority.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

The United States' GDP per capita is $37,000. The quasi-free economies of western Europe can't even reach $30,000 except for a few single exceptions. The former planned economies of eastern Europe is even worse. China's GDP per capita is below $4,000.

Monetary wealth is one way of looking at things, not my chosen way though. Also, I feel that all people should have access to approximately equal wealth, if you accept that there is only a finite amount of money in the world then for things to balance out the GDPPC of the US would have to be reduced. From that, I hope that you can see that according to my beliefs, free enterprise is not the way to go about things.

I'm not trying to say that my way is right, or even that it would work. But these are my strongly held beliefs and all I would like from it is for people to undersatnd that. As an individual, all I can do is make these beliefs known and have my say in how things are to be, the same as that is all you can do, and the actual path that is taken will be a consensus decision based on the beliefs of all of the people.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

That is nice, but zoooooooooooooooooooooom, you completely missed the point. WINDOWS IS EASIER THAN LINUX. End-of-discussion.

Hmm, you pointed out specific parts of a *nix operating system that were not user-friendly, I countered those, so I feel that it is you that has missed the point on that one. As you will have seen, I didn't disagree with you that, overall a Linux distribution is harder to use than windows.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

HOW? The only reason your freedom of choice is reduced is because YOU *want* to run THEIR product. If you get rid of THEIR product(s), you have the entire market to choose from. Their product is only ONE on the market. CHOOSE something different! It isn't hard to comprehend!

Well actually, I don't want to run their OS, and funnily enough, I don't. So you ask, what is the problem? The problem is, they have people so locked in to their technology that it is impossible to avoid. Why can I not visit some webpages when I have a standards compliant browser? Why do people keep sending me word document files? Why do java applications not run on my VM?

[QUOTE=Jerrek]
They have every right to do whatever they want with their software. No one forces you to buy it. You enter into a deal with Microsoft when you buy their software. If the deal is unacceptable, DO NOT ENTER IT. It is THEIR SOFTWARE. YOU are the person that want to use it. YOU don't own it. YOU have no right to say how another person or company should run his life or the business.
[QUOTE]

Again, it is your belief that they can do what they want with the software they write. I don't, it's all opinion so there's no need to shout See my above posting for my views on individuals/businesses.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

QUIT complaining and start innovating and deliver a product that is better.

Watch out, I just might Though user interfaces aren't my forte, I'm planning to start work on some open-source AI software.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Something which Linux still needs to learn.

Linux, the kernel doesn't need to learn anything, it already does what it's supposed to. Those who want to market distributions based on that Kernel do need to learn some lessons though. Look, I'm not trying to evangelise Linux and cause damnation to Windows here. I think that windows is a very sound product. I have said it before but I'll say it again, what I take exception to is the way MS does business.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

I thought you said that you're locked into buying Microsoft products? I thought you said that Microsoft is a barrier to entry into the market? How can Linux then be changing and evolving so rapidly?

I'm not locked into buying them, but I'm still locked into certain fundamentals of their technology (e.e word files). And where did I say that MS were a barrier to entry into the market?

Originally Posted by Jerrek

No. Dell offers Linux based servers. BUT, even if they did require manufacturers to only install Windows, IT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.

No one is forcing the manufacturer to use Microsoft products. Microsoft can make any requirement they want with the deal that the manufacturer signs with them. If it is unacceptable, don't take it. If it is acceptable, take it. I see NOTHING wrong with this strategy. If manufacturers had something else to turn to they would all say no. BUT, they don't really have an alternative, so most agree to it. Does that force the user to use Windows? NO. He can remove it and isntall whatever he wants.


I agree.

Although I have agreed to most of your points about windows which i think is the market leader primaily because its a good product i disagree with that windows is installed on most computers and that is a large reason for thier success

I think pre-installed Linux is a bad idea if you not good enough to install it you shouldnt be messing with it. For the avrage consumer microsoft is the best product out there. It seems to have become a 'status symbol' to hate microsoft which is stupid and petty. All companys are about making money and that includes Apple and linux companys the only diffrance it microsoft have been the best at it.

End of the day microsoft make great products and their main reason for their success is the standard of their products. Office and winXP for example are excellent bits of software.

And how many people here use a XBOX?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Damien

Although I have agreed to most of your points about windows which i think is the market leader primaily because its a good product i disagree with that windows is installed on most computers and that is a large reason for thier success

I think pre-installed Linux is a bad idea if you not good enough to install it you shouldnt be messing with it. For the avrage consumer microsoft is the best product out there. It seems to have become a 'status symbol' to hate microsoft which is stupid and petty. All companys are about making money and that includes Apple and linux companys the only diffrance it microsoft have been the best at it.

End of the day microsoft make great products and their main reason for their success is the standard of their products. Office and winXP for example are excellent bits of software.

And how many people here use a XBOX?

Actually, I believe it was my point (the one Jerrek was answering)

And, my point was that it would be relatively easy for one of the larger companies to take an OS like Linux, and put a nice GUI on it, in much the same way Apple did with FreeBSD (Mac OSX). I was not necessarily advocating the use of current distributions on Linux.