“Even if Longhorn ships in mid-2006, it will be mid-2007 before we see it in real quantity, late-2008 before it has a significant installed base, and perhaps 2011 before XP finally fades away. That’s if Microsoft hits its marks from here on and customers actually want what Longhorn manages to deliver. Now factor in time for WinFS and the confusion when XP starts getting some Longhorn features, and it looks like the fun just won’t be stopping,” David Coursey writes for eWeek.
“Longhorn’s woes may open a door for Linux, a very tiny door, but Linux just isn’t a good choice for desktops. Instead, desktop Linux proponents should wake up and switch to the Mac OS,” Coursey writes. “People who use Mac OS X and think about such things consider it to be ‘Linux done right.’ Of course, it’s Unix, not Linux, but that’s a minor point. As Linux fragments, as it must, the distinction will become even more academic that it is already.”
Coursey writes, “Mac OS X has a better user interface than Windows, better security and is more stable. It’s all the operating system most users need. It doesn’t have the application support Windows enjoys, but there are many more excellent commercial OS X apps than there are Linux apps. If the desktop Linux people really cared about using a great operating system, they would stop trying to reinvent the wheel and rally around Mac OS X. It would be great if the contest were between two worthy operating systems, like Mac and XP/Longhorn. But Linux vs. Longhorn? You’ve got to be kidding.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Mac OS X vs. Windows XP is not much of a contest today, as users of both understand. Mac OS X vs. ‘Longhorn’ is not a contest at all since Mac OS X is the only contender that actually exists, it wins by default. Even if the stripped-down, feature-shedding ‘Shorthorn’ debuted today, Mac OS X ‘Panther’ would wipe the floor with it. Microsoft has always followed Apple’s Mac with their me-too Windows OS and they’re falling behind more and more with their never-ending Longhorn fiasco. It is time for our Linux cousins to join forces with us and adopt quality hardware complete with advanced 64-bit G5s and Mac OS X. Mac OS X is everything (except totally free) that Linux wants to be, but will never achieve. With Mac OS X powered by passionate Mac users and former Linux users, Microsoft would feel some serious pressure. You have to wonder if the bloated Microsoft behemoth would even be able to make a timely and coherent move to defend its ill-gotten, monopoly-abused Windows turf.
It is amazing how quickly something turns from an Apple discussion to GWB and Kerry discussion. but i was so disturbed by what i read so…
Quote:
Modern day liberals are weak-kneed, limp-wristed pacifists. They are tax raisers, bleeding hearts, hyper-regulating socialists, they enable and even advocate infanticide, and they believe in the redistribution of income.
Why so much hatred? People believe in different things and are allowed to voice their beliefs which is what makes America so great, but the way you talk shows nothing but hate. I was for the afgan war (Which I still support), I was for the iraq war ( even though I was wrong to support it as I believed Bush & Co.)I am not weak-kneed nor a pacifist. As for hyper-regulating, Bush is trying to get an amendment to the constitution to ban homosexual marriages. Not only does this go against the basic beliefs of the Republican party ( States rights over big government) but it is hyper-regulation because you are telling me who I can marry because of YOUR religious belief. I remember reading something about separation of church and state, but I guess Bush missed that in his cliff notes of the constitution. Same thing for infanticide, that is based on YOUR religious beliefs and I hate to break it to you, but not everyone in the US has a religion or even shares yours. If your faith can’t keep you from having an abortion, then maybe your faith isn’t strong enough. As for your points about raising taxes, redistribution of wealth, bleeding heart, i believe the point of government is to help people of all kinds live safely and prosper. Sometimes when you are down on your luck, you need a helping hand. Ever heard this, Bring Us Your Poor, Your Tired, Your Huddled Masses? Government is supposed to help, not be a free-for-all for connected, rich people. Most of that great tax “cut” went to the top 1% of the country and just so you know, even bush’s dad, GHWB, said that trickle down economics does not work.
Lastly, based on you limp-wristed comment, I am heterosexual and having the beliefs that I do has no correlation to sexual orientation.
To conclude, I don’t hate you, i just disagree and I would never slam you personally for you beliefs as I realize that this a free country and you are entitled to your opinions. At least we agree on something… Apple makes a damn fine computer.
JO wrote:
…As for hyper-regulating, Bush is trying to get an amendment to the constitution to ban homosexual marriages. Not only does this go against the basic beliefs of the Republican party ( States rights over big government) but it is hyper-regulation because you are telling me who I can marry because of YOUR religious belief.
———-
No, in this case it actually reinforces states rights, and it is hardly hyper-regulation, in that it merely maintains the legitimate traditional and majority-approved status quo that is currently under attack by a small group of sexual degenerates.
Look, our hand has been forced, and if you don’t like that an amendment is going to settle the issue, you have only the liberal subversion of the democratic process to blame.
States, even liberal ones like California and Massachusetts, have at the polls voted to uphold that marriage is to be what it has been: Between one man and one woman. Do you understand that? The voters have already decided.
But democracy is not good enough for liberals when it interferes with their agenda. So, they circumvented the will of the people by having liberal activist judges override democratically enacted measures. In the liberal world, anything they don’t like is declared “unconstitutional”. But in fact, if you ever bother to read the constitution you will nowhere find any “right” to gay marriage. It’s just not in there.
So it comes down to the matter of whose values will prevail. We can’t always get our way, and though there are sometimes absolute rights, there are very few of them. One guy in an apartment building that wants to blast his stereo at 3 in the morning does not get to claim “opression!” when everyone else in the building tells him he can’t do that. Or is the majority somehow inexplicably obliged to be so self-sacrificing and accomodating as to let him do whatever he pleases.
When you have gays, which are a tiny and very whiny vocal minority enlisting the help of activist judges in pursuit of their agenda, an agenda that goes against the grain of the democratically affirmed vast majority, THAT, sir, is oppression.
JO wrote:
I remember reading something about separation of church and state.
———-
Really? That’s funny, because my copy of the constitution doesn’t say anything about “separation of church and state”. The only time my copy of the constitution gets into any religious matters is when it places a restriction on CONGRESS, not to establish a religion OR prevent the free exercise thereof.
Those last five words, not favorites of the ACLU, would seem to indicate that voters, as individuals, may vote according TO their religious beliefs if they so desire and are in no way obliged to leave them at home when they go to the voting booth.
In other words, just because YOUR value system is not Christian or traditionally American doesn’t mean that YOUR values get to prevail. Again, I say to you, it’s a democratic process. The voters decided – NOT George Bush – the VOTERS – and we’re not going to allow that liberal activist judges overthrow the will of the people on this matter.
As gays so often love to say: Deal with it!
JO wrote:
“I hate to break it to you, but not everyone in the US has a religion or even shares yours.”
———-
Jo,
I hate to break it to you, but you’re outnumbered.
JO wrote:
“Sometimes when you are down on your luck, you need a helping hand. Ever heard this, Bring Us Your Poor, Your Tired, Your Huddled Masses?”
Helping hand? That’s what charities are for. But don’t be generous with MY money. Be generous with your own. MY money, is STILL my money, and those that did not earn it are not entitled to it. If I want to give to chairitable causes, I’ll certainly avail myself of that opportunity, but it will be IF, WHEN, and HOW I so choose, and shall remain my business, an no one else’s, in that, again, it is MY MONEY!
As for the “Bring Us Your Poor, Your Tired, Your Huddled Masses” statement, that is nowhere in the constitution, so I can’t imagine what it has to do with anything. But I certainly don’t think it was ever intended as an advocate statement endorsing redistribution of wealth.
You want money? Earn it!
Two men, one a conservative, the other a liberal, were walking down the street together when they came upon a hungry beggar. The conservative man reached into his pocket and gave the beggar a five dollar bill. The liberal scoffed at the conservative with righteous indignation saying: “How stingy and greedy you are. Five dollars? How long is that supposed to last this poor beggar. I can be far more generous than that.” Then he reached into the conservative man’s pocket, pulled out a twenty, and with a self-satisfied grin gave it to the beggar.
Welcome to the welfare state.
Scott, I really dont want to take the time to debunk everything you just wrote as I don’t have the time as I am too busy creating tax dollars to pay for all my wasteful social services, plus this is a mac forum and not a politcal debate forum. But, i have enough time to give you a quick history lesson. You are right, seperation of church and state is not found in the constitution, but notice how i said cliff notes. I am sure you know what those are, they break down the topic into bite-size concepts, something that we know the current president likes as he is not an avid reader. Nevertheless, It was a concept that the founding fathers believed in. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 that the Constitution created a “wall of separation between church and state.” Seeing he was one of the founding fathers and a president, I just might take his word about what the constitution meant over yours. Sorry.
Lastly, “sexual degenerates”? Sad… really sad. I remeber a time that people had similar disturbing beliefs about african americans (animals, less than human, etc.) but look at us now, we have african americans holding prominate positions in the white house. Luckily, people can grow. I hope in your lifetime, you do too.
This will be my last post about this topic… on with the apple based discussions!
JO wrote:
“Scott, I really dont want to take the time to debunk everything you just wrote…”
———-
That’s because you CAN’T debunk anything I wrote.
JO wrote:
“But, i have enough time to give you a quick history lesson. You are right, seperation of church and state is not found in the constitution, but notice how i said cliff notes. I am sure you know what those are, they break down the topic into bite-size concepts, something that we know the current president likes as he is not an avid reader. Nevertheless, It was a concept that the founding fathers believed in. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 that the Constitution created a “wall of separation between church and state.” Seeing he was one of the founding fathers and a president, I just might take his word about what the constitution meant over yours. Sorry.”
———-
1) Yes, I noticed how you said “Cliff Notes” (and I know you think it was quite cute and clever), but I rightfully ignored it, in that it is an arrogant slam at the President of the United States that is based on the very very tired and time-worn contrary to the facts “Bush is stupid” mantra that is a favorite of the gutless and clueless wonders of the world such as yourself.
2) What are your qualifications for giving me a history lesson?
3) You actually DIDN’T give me a history lesson. All that you did was provide ONE out of context quote from Thomas Jefferson. If this is what you think makes for a history lesson, then I think we have some insight into your insufferable ignorance. And since Thomas Jefferson was a slave holder, he had to at least be getting SOMETHING wrong.
4) Additionally, we don’t run this country according to quotes, but according to the actual constitution (well, at least we ideally anyway).
JO then wrote:
Lastly, “sexual degenerates”? Sad… really sad. I remeber a time that people had similar disturbing beliefs about african americans (animals, less than human, etc.) but look at us now, we have african americans holding prominate positions in the white house. Luckily, people can grow. I hope in your lifetime, you do too.
This will be my last post about this topic… on with the apple based discussions!
———-
1) Would you care to provide any quotations from Thomas Jefferson or any of the other framers that specifically support gay marriage as a constitutional right?
2) I suppose I’m supposed to think that comparing the act of sodomy to the natural races of man is somehow novel. I’m afraid I can’t do that, in that I have heard this same fallacious and insulting analogy about 68,529 times by now.
3) I wonder if you’ve ever been confronted by the many many black Americans that are thoroughly offended and disgusted at people like you that liken their struggle to the whiny malcontents of the gay agenda crowd. Your attention please: The fallacious analogy does not work because one group is a natural RACE OF MANKIND, and the other group of their own free will and volition according to the perversions of their hearts engages in unnatural acts…SODOMY!
4) You should probably cool it with the unsolicited lectures against bigotry, in that you yourself have displayed here some very apparent anti-Christian bigotry. (Yes, yes, I know, anti-Christian bigotry is the acceptable fashion of the day.) Neverthess, to your list of outstanding qualitites such as arrogance and ignorance, we can now add hypocrisy.
5) I agree with your last sentence. Now that you’ve lost every single argument you’ve put before me, it’s probably best for you to move on.
Finally realizing he’s in over his head, JO has been rendered speechless. One more liberal bites the dust. My work is done here.
Scott
P.S. Come November, Kerry’s going to have his ass handed to him in a big way by the electorate. And good riddance. He and his kind are the slimiest creatures.
Kerry thinks that you can appease satan/islam/terrorists, Bush knows you can’t. The world will come to know.