Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: S-99 on April 09, 2008, 11:20:36 pm
-
Microsoft just wants to be the king with a new document standard which really suck dick for most of us all. Anyone who doesn't use ms office will be screwed by it (i really hate how ms office doesn't incorporate odf compatibility...i actually use odf...no sense in saving documents in microsoft format if they're not going to leave my system, but still).
This link has some information about the evil tactics of ms to get ooxml standardized, but more importantly, shows off some of the major flaws it has. (http://commandline.org.uk/more/formats/the-end-of-the-beginning-2008-04-06-20-24.html)
This just is more about flaws in ooxml. It's even got information about how ooxml stores passwords in cleartext...wtf? (http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/how-many-defects-remain-in-ooxml.html)
Aside from the flaws. OOXML is not really open and is obviously an ms standard flying forward with the word open to retain it's monopoly.
This stuff sucks, a protest happened in norway opposing the ooxml iso votes. The alternative to ooxml is the odf standard, which is a really good one.
I normally don't care about what format i have to save my documents in because document formats have been relatively interoperable, but i do care now because ms made the ooxml format which will complicate interoperability of documents which will get in the way of many office suite's compatibility with each other. Another thing that would be nice is if ms incorporated odf compatibility which they aren't really doing in favor of getting ooxml out as a standard to keep their dominance in the market and stamp out opposition which is odf.
Anyone got thoughts on this? You're future digital document ease is at stake here. Especially for the many who don't use ms office.
-
its just a format which i will never want to use. microsoft is really good at selling crappy software. we dont need them spitting out standards and then hide the reasoning behind why they want them that way. another thing microsoft sucks at is maintaining standards. look at what they've done with directx, alot of people praise it but it has some serious issues with cross version compatibility. microsoft should stay out of the standards game.
-
Microsoft should stay out of the whole software and OS business. The only thing good they ever made was the sidewinder joystick series.
-
A standard is only a standard if everyone recognizes and follows it. :)
-
Yeah, they just want to make sure they aren't the ones on the block with the average old office suite that can handle all of the formats that every other suite can use. I hope ooxml doesn't go through and that they just integrate odf compatibility. If ms just did that, i doubt ms office would drop in popularity and use and become one of those "average old other office suites". The reason for this is that when people hear of office suite, they immediately think of ms office. The many fewer educated others actually think of OOo and the gtk office suite (although this is slowly on the rise of awareness of existence). What usually happens when people hear office suite is immediately think of ms office, and occasionaly word perfect (which is just a word processor).
But, if i have to use ms office because of their one ****ty document format which will probably only work best with ms office (i wonder why), then it's of course going to be like that for everybody. More people will start using odf on a regular basis (mostly in other countries) while millions will be using ms office because that's all they know about or because that's what they'll be forced to use. I'm just curious about how countries that don't use the latin alphabet (russia, china, japan, etc.) are going to be able to use ooxml?
Another good thing ms made was really good optical mice, and in my opinion the xbox, and xbox 360 consoles. Speaking of ms making joysticks and gamepads, the xbox360 is an awesome gamepad. But, you can only use it in xp and vista, you can use it in other lower versions of windows as well if you get the superior XBCD360 drivers which can also be used in xp and vista. But, for using an x360 controller in linux, there was a driver made, but no instructions for how to compile, install, and operate.
-
their hardware department has its head together, and the marketing department is really good, the rest of the company is just ****. problem with that is that any hardware they make will only lock you into using their other products, like windows.
-
Open office will undoubtedly be close behind
-
Linux is good enough for everyone :yes: Hell, even apple is becoming too much like ms these days, if not worse. At least with ms hardware you can use it on different platforms as well (except for the xb360 controller unless people know how to get that to work in linux). Although ipods are currently easier to use without itunes on linux, apple tries to make ipods only in use with itunes only constantly. Don't mention the iphone, it came out like last september and the iphone 2 is already on it's way (hint: don't buy $500 phones from apple).
Anyway, other office suites are already starting to implement ooxml. But, as i said earlier, how good is ooxml going to be with a different office suite?
-
i dont know, theres at least 2 replacement operating systems for most older ipods (and maybe some new ones). theres ipod linux, and rockbox. such software makes the devices more open (that is they can be developed for) and it completely circumvents drm and the necessity for itunes. i just plug mine in and copy the files directly.
-
Ipod linux and rockbox are very nice. The only problem with the two is when my friends have an ipod or an mp3 player brand that has rockbox support, it usually ends up not being out for that model that my friends have :no:
Rockbox development is sort of slow. One reason why i like meizu, the developers of the firmware stay very in touch with the user community and listen to requests and integrate new features into the firmware all the time. In essence i don't need rockbox for my meizu because the firmware is already very much like rockbox.
-
Linux is good enough for everyone :yes: Hell, even apple is becoming too much like ms these days, if not worse. At least with ms hardware you can use it on different platforms as well (except for the xb360 controller unless people know how to get that to work in linux). Although ipods are currently easier to use without itunes on linux, apple tries to make ipods only in use with itunes only constantly. Don't mention the iphone, it came out like last september and the iphone 2 is already on it's way (hint: don't buy $500 phones from apple).
Anyway, other office suites are already starting to implement ooxml. But, as i said earlier, how good is ooxml going to be with a different office suite?
No, Linux is not good enough for everyone. I'm sorry, but most people don't have the time to set Linux up, let alone learn how to use it - Linux is more for code jockeys and computer enthusiasts than the average user. I know the Linux-heads will spout their praises for their favorite distro, but it's just that that's the problem - there are so many different distros that each require different paths to properly set up and run, and most of the appeal behind Linux is having full control over the OS - something most users don't even want. That's why Macs are so popular - you turn them on, and they go. If they break, send the whole thing to Apple and it gets fixed - total integration of hardware and software.
Linux will never go mainstream unless it becomes easier to use for the average person, who doesn't know how to use a computer, doesn't know how to code, and doesn't want to learn. I'm sorry but damn I'm tired of Linux users spouting how awesome Linux is and wondering why no one else uses it, when they clearly don't understand the dynamics of non-techie people using a computer.
-
Windows is just trying to compensate for it loses in the OS war... It makes things difficult so you have to buy more microsoft crap - so again, I say, go Macs! :p
-
Windows is just trying to compensate for it loses in the OS war... It makes things difficult so you have to buy more microsoft crap - so again, I say, go Macs! :p
Losing the OS war? While I'll grant you that MacOS X and its upgrades are superior to Windows XP and Vista in nearly everything, they also have roughly 5% of the market. I wouldn't say Windows is losing the OS war.
-
Nah - your right they aren't losing just yet. But if Microsoft keeps ignoring compatibility issues, things could possibly shift for Apple. Like they have for Firefox
-
Macs are better than Windows, but if I were to choose I'd choose a Windows (unless it was a Vista, not so sure about that).
-
Guys, look. All this Mac-approval in the last few posts is freaking me out. Can someone come in here and make an obnoxious comment about how they can't right click or something? I feel like I've slipped into some kind of parallel universe.
-
Guys, look. All this Mac-approval in the last few posts is freaking me out. Can someone come in here and make an obnoxious comment about how they can't right click or something? I feel like I've slipped into some kind of parallel universe.
I wish someone would kick these mac lovers in the ass. Every time I try to think up something about Macs being sick but some prick always proves me wrong.
-
Man, those Mac users, they can't even right click, and they don't have an Alt button, they have some crazy swirly button instead.
Better?
-
Protip: Apple is slowly, in terms of attitude, turning into Microsoft.
-
While I'm not sure what this topic has to do with the
Almighty Apple Retarded Fruit Company....
Stupid user base aside, I will never own a Mac. It's not so much that I'm a PC loyalist. I'm not. It's that I'm not stylish enough to own one. Most iPod commercials feature guys with long hair, chicks roller skating, and guys wearing fedoras. I have dandruff, and I buy most of my jeans from a grocery store. I feel like in order to have a Mac, I need to be:
- An artist.
- In a band.
- Unemployed (see above).
The Best Page in the Universe (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant)
-
No, Linux is not good enough for everyone. I'm sorry, but most people don't have the time to set Linux up, let alone learn how to use it - Linux is more for code jockeys and computer enthusiasts than the average user. I know the Linux-heads will spout their praises for their favorite distro, but it's just that that's the problem - there are so many different distros that each require different paths to properly set up and run, and most of the appeal behind Linux is having full control over the OS - something most users don't even want. That's why Macs are so popular - you turn them on, and they go. If they break, send the whole thing to Apple and it gets fixed - total integration of hardware and software.
Linux will never go mainstream unless it becomes easier to use for the average person, who doesn't know how to use a computer, doesn't know how to code, and doesn't want to learn. I'm sorry but damn I'm tired of Linux users spouting how awesome Linux is and wondering why no one else uses it, when they clearly don't understand the dynamics of non-techie people using a computer.
Yes linux is just good enough for everyone. I'm sorry that you're afraid to use it. People who think they're good at computers who only use windows or macosx aren't as good as they think they are. A different platform is a different platform. Do you think windows users going to macosx, or macosx users going to windows are going to have fun? Everyone has to learn how to use a new os whenever they make a switch so what's your *****ing? Everything is different and has it's similarities with differen't os's. Linux has made great strides in user friendliness in the past 4 years. Before that i didn't even touch linux because it was too foreign. Now using linux is very comparable to using winxp and macosx. Setting up linux is not evil. The distro of linux that focuses extremely on user friendliness and ease is ubuntu and ubuntu based linux mint. Ubuntu and linux mint are not made for computer enthusiasts, it's the reason i don't use ubuntu anymore because i know a lot about the underlying linux system and i know how to mess around with it to get what i want. Linux is just good enough for everyone. You especially might not mind checking out linux. Go check out the linux mint live cd. Test drive the os straight from your cd drive with no installation required to see what your up against. And if you like it, install, or keep the livecd around for computer maintenance (very handy).
The other reason why linux is just good enough for everyone is the applications and games it offers. There are tons of high quality apps that came from linux development, and most of these high quality popular linux apps are cross platform (more so on macosx than windows). The other thing about linux apps is that they are free.
The other reason why linux is just good enough for everyone, is that it's a tried and true tested platform for stability, and a good enough platform for other people to use as well. Linux is a unix like os, and even macosx's core is a unix like os. Macosx can even run linux programs. Since you're an apple user, you're a unix/linux user whether you like it or not. Quit your complaining because your afraid of change and that you don't know how to use different computers. You're just like any other stupid windows user who's afraid of change. Many people use windows for the same exact reason that you use macosx. You turn them on and they go, if your dell, gateway, hp, breaks, send it back to the manufacturer to get it fixed, and even these pc manufacturers have total hardware and software integration also.
Same thing on both computers that come from manufacturers that have windows or osx. The only people who are really left out in the cold with os's is those who build their own rigs. You're too afraid to do that too also (there are success stories of installing osx on pc hardware successfully...especially since apple switched to intel processors, macs are just another pc on the market highly expensive ones). So there you go, try out linux mint before you ***** (but all you're going to say is how different it is from osx...well of course it's going to be, but it's also not going to be as bad as you say). Then again everyone knows that you're probably not going to because you're not one of those people who likes to find things out for themselves. Anyway, you have fun on your unix like os just like i'm having fun on my unix like os, and we can both run linux apps in a very similar fashion that linux apps get installed and run in linux.
There's one thing i always know about apple users. They don't know when to shut the **** up. (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant)
-
The Linux community seems to be catching on to the whole "some people just want it to work" idea; they just seem to be catching on rather slowly.
Oh, and S-99, how do you manage to drag your posts out so much? Almost every time I see a post by you it's just a wall of text.
-
It's not that linux is catching slowly. It's that linux development started in the early 90's as opposed to windows and macos which has been around since the 80's as usable os's. Linux was a couple of generations behind, but it's catching up rather fast.
No, not all my posts drag on like this. You should read more of my posts.
Anyway a linux fanboy started said the keyword phrase "linux is good enough for everyone", and then a mac fanboy came in.
Back to ooxml. Already other office suite programs are trying to integrate ooxml, abiword and openoffice in particular. The OOo has no word on it really yet, but abiword does. It's still perfecting it. Then again abiword with their new release is still working out the kinks it has before it gets to widespread use and release.
-
Man, those Mac users, they can't even right click, and they don't have an Alt button, they have some crazy swirly button instead.
Better?
Phew. Thanks.
-
While I'm not sure what this topic has to do with the Almighty Apple Retarded Fruit Company....
Stupid user base aside, I will never own a Mac. It's not so much that I'm a PC loyalist. I'm not. It's that I'm not stylish enough to own one. Most iPod commercials feature guys with long hair, chicks roller skating, and guys wearing fedoras. I have dandruff, and I buy most of my jeans from a grocery store. I feel like in order to have a Mac, I need to be:
- An artist.
- In a band.
- Unemployed (see above).
The Best Page in the Universe (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant)
So you see right through the marketing strategy, doesn't mean a thing... Thing with marketing is - it has to exist - but boils down to would you buy your own crap.
I like art - although I don't see what that has to do with a mac
not in a band
and employed - funnily enough graphics design (using macs) you would not believe the time I save using this machine over a "buffed up" windows any day. Being able to open my computer, programs, and work within a minute. Work and switch between programs with a click of a button without the worry of ram usage and usless processes slowing me down. Something else to mention is the search features and filing systems on macs very useful, and quite superior especially if you need to know where EVERYthing is - even if it was done a year ago.
Get over the marketing mess... everyone has it (period)
Try it... you'll be amazed - it's a quality machine.
-
I have tried it, my XP machine works better.
-
Actually, new Macs can right click.
I agree with UT on the whole Linux issue, every Linux distro is different, and they have problems with proprietary stuff. I can't even get my ATi card to work on Fedora, and my mom's HP doesn't work on Ubuntu, etc. There's always some kink that needs ironing out (while also true with Windows/Mac [although less with Mac] the Linux kinks tend to have a larger impact on use) And Linux does take someone fairly tech-savvy.
-
Linux's advantage is that it's really, really, hard to damage it beyond repair.
It requires some skill, however, and it's not the most compatible OS in the world.
I use Ubuntu, but I dual boot Windows for games
-
Actually, new Macs can right click.
That's the beauty of it, though. The stereotype persists despite having been incorrect for over seven years! I love it.
-
Nah - your right they aren't losing just yet. But if Microsoft keeps ignoring compatibility issues, things could possibly shift for Apple. Like they have for Firefox
IE 6 still has 40%+ of the marketshare; IE7 clocks in around 20%. Firefox clocks in around 20-30% (depending on the website recording the stats). Firefox is again far superior to IE but in terms of the marketshare, negligible. Opera kicks the crap out of pretty much every other browser in existence, but has less than 5% of the marketshare.
So... bad analogy.
Apple will never take a significant portion of the marketshare because they lock down their hardware and software into an integrated unit. Would I install MacOS X on PC hardware? Absolutely. But I will not pay 20% higher prices for hardware that Apple insists on. That's Apple's problem. It's also why their software is so successful - it's written for a very specific hardware platform, and thus drivers for multiple hardware configurations and potential conflicts between devices are not an issue.
If anything, you're likely to see Apple pushed into the basic home user market, Windows pushed to primarily server functions, and a greater expansion of Linux among the general public.
Apple's policies are what make their products so reliable, but they would have to trade off that reliability (and claims about viruses and security vulnerabilities) were they to take a significant portion of the overall market. They would also have to give up the idea of controlling precisely what hardware their OS will be used on. Mac hardware is nothing special - essentially it's overpriced medium-end hardware with high QC testing to ensure component compatibility. It's the operating system that is really an impressive feat. But again, that OS that runs so wonderfully in a controlled environment with a limited userbase has the potential to have serious problems if removed from that context.
-
Try it... you'll be amazed - it's a quality machine.
I did, and I didn't like it. Strangely, this strong feeling of undeserving superiority went coursing through my body when I touched the mouse, and went away as soon as I let go.
-
Nah - your right they aren't losing just yet. But if Microsoft keeps ignoring compatibility issues, things could possibly shift for Apple. Like they have for Firefox
IE 6 still has 40%+ of the marketshare; IE7 clocks in around 20%. Firefox clocks in around 20-30% (depending on the website recording the stats). Firefox is again far superior to IE but in terms of the marketshare, negligible. Opera kicks the crap out of pretty much every other browser in existence, but has less than 5% of the marketshare.
Opera's nice, but the thing that makes Firefox so win is moddability.
-
The real problem with running osx on an actual pc is that you may lose stability because it differs from the mac hardware base. But, since macs use pc hardware now. You can easily build your own computer buying and installing the same components that's inside a mac and install osx and have a similar experience to actually owning a real mac. That is the one thing you can do if you desire to run osx on what's essentially not a mac, or just build your own computer with your own components and install osx anyway (seems to work for many this way too, but you're best bet is to buy similar components that meet the mac hardware base when building your own pc to install osx onto). The fact that osx runs linux programs is awesome too. Osx has less hurdles in its way compared to windows running linux programs (basically if people want to run linux programs on osx they have that ability if they choose to use it which is a very powerful ability).
As far as linux goes. Every distro is different. And the only distro's that make it easier with proprietary stuff is ubuntu and pclinuxos (where the proprietary stuff is already in the repos as precompiled packages that await installation). For linux mint, it really picks up where ubuntu leaves off, ubuntu's great for a plain system that you build upon, but linux mint already has dvd css decryption (which also lets you rip dvd's), java, flash, wmv/wma playback, video codecs, mp3 playback and so on already integrated without the user having to go out and grab them. Linux mint also has a proprietary graphics driver installer for nvidia and ati cards (you guys have probably heard of the envy installer before). Linux mint has a pretty good set of programs too. I like how they also made installing applications easier. They made a software portal on the net that you can explore, download mint files (which is really just executable text files with apt-get commands) which you double click, put in your password, and download and install away. Also linux mint looks great, and has a good gui layout. This is reasons why i recommend linux mint, especially for noobs.
Opera is nice, while it seems to run a little bit slower than firefox, i was surprised how it supports torrenting and when you open a new tab you set up webpages to just click on and shows a preview of what you'll see before you go there.
-
The real problem with running osx on an actual pc is that you may lose stability because it differs from the mac hardware base. But, since macs use pc hardware now. You can easily build your own computer buying and installing the same components that's inside a mac and install osx and have a similar experience to actually owning a real mac. That is the one thing you can do if you desire to run osx on what's essentially not a mac, or just build your own computer with your own components and install osx anyway (seems to work for many this way too, but you're best bet is to buy similar components that meet the mac hardware base when building your own pc to install osx onto).
A direct install of OSX doesn't work on a PC platform. It has been locked down to particular hardware configurations. However, that bit of code was cracked shortly after Apple announced they were moving to the x86 architecture, so its possible, but not straight out of the box so to speak.
Apple would make a killing if they dropped out of the hardware market and went into peripheral devices and software. They could distribute MacOS to its full potential, fix security vulnerabilities and compatibility issues that would undoubtably crop up, and focus on devices like iPods, phones, and PDA devices that rival anything currently on the market. Frankly, hardware is a waste of their time and it baffles me that they continue to dabble in the hardware line. I suspect they may be aware of the problems of a widespread distribution of the Mac OS without its A-list hardware and perhaps that is holding them back.
MacOS may also been a Unix-like OS but the MacOS X variants are actually built upon Unix layers beneath it. In essence, the OS is acting as an expanded graphical front-end. It's inherently more secure than Windows, or at least non-NT and pre-XP versions of Windows, but its not infallible. The primary reason for the lack of security exploits in MacOS is not that they aren't possible (weasling into the backbone of the OS is more than possible), but because it simply isn't worth the time to distribute malware to such a small percentage of the overall market.
Linux, in its present form, is not viable for mainstream users - primarily because it requires background reading. MacOS suffers because of the lack of mainstream programs available for it (not everyone has discovered open-source yet, and the majority of computer users won't touch the stuff). That leaves Windows - good old broken, bug-ridden, security sieve Windows. Unfortunately, it's relatively easy to use, requires no configuration by the end user, and will run every piece of software your average computer illiterate user can buy up off the shelf for the electronic wonders it promises.
Until the majority of computer users are actually educated about computing, Windows is the only viable operating system, as lamentable as that might be,
-
That's true. You do have to hack x86 osx to install it on a pc. The people who do want it on pc for everyday use. I salute them for their admiribality in charting into unkown waters in a smooth experience or, "how come there's no 3d drivers for my nvidia card in osx!" :lol: Idk if that's true or not, just a joke. People putting osx on a pc before apple switched to x86 architecture required emulation. Now it can run natively on pc's on both athlon and intel processors. As far as that goes, people installing osx on their pc may find out what hardware of theirs does and doesn't work in osx. That's the good thing about macs being x86 now, it also means that mac are using pc hardware. Pc hardware that you can probably also by yourself and duplicate the same exact or similar hardware configuration of a mac on a pc for possibly awesome speculative smooth sailing osx on pc.
Linux is making good progress. That's why i won't shutup about linux mint. It's a distro which really tries it's hardest to be ahead of the other distros tp be a linux more viable to use than the others. It really succeeds at this well, but not quite there yet. Stuff's going good though. I'm waiting for kde 4 pretty badly (that's one major big step in viability for linux right there). Also the kernel is making great leaps and bounds as well.
EDIT: and yes it's difficult to install proprietary ati drivers in fedora and centos. It had a different procedure to get those loaded and working compared to pclos, mandriva, slackware, and debian. Not that that's much of a problem, i've hardly been able to touch centos and fedora though.
-
Linux, in its present form, is not viable for mainstream users - primarily because it requires background reading. MacOS suffers because of the lack of mainstream programs available for it (not everyone has discovered open-source yet, and the majority of computer users won't touch the stuff). That leaves Windows - good old broken, bug-ridden, security sieve Windows. Unfortunately, it's relatively easy to use, requires no configuration by the end user, and will run every piece of software your average computer illiterate user can buy up off the shelf for the electronic wonders it promises.
Until the majority of computer users are actually educated about computing, Windows is the only viable operating system, as lamentable as that might be,
There is another problem, in that certain key commercial programs are only available in windows. I'll give an example I always give my collegues about it.
Chess databases and other related media. There is a huge diference in the ammount and quality of it available between windows and any other OS. In particular chessbase products (http://chessbase.com/shop/newproducts.asp). I'm sure there are other niche markets like it which are only available to windows.
-
Windows only programs is a big problem yes. That's why there's plenty of linux equivalent programs. But, i know what you're getting at. There isn't always a linux equivalent of a windows program. That's when you must use wine and have tons of windows programs working awesome in linux. Before you use wine definitely take a stop by the wine application database and see if your program will even run in wine before you start making plans (if it happens to be a program that isn't in the database, try to run it with wine anyway and it just might run anyway). Most programs run just as good as they do in windows, other programs run with some quirks, some programs don't run at all in wine yet. Sometimes wine is a shot in the dark for a program you plan to run using it, but most of the time it's not. Wine is great for running windows games though. I'm having no problems with orange box, but when i was going to buy fear, that's a different story. Fear won't run in wine yet, mostly due to the fact that wine doesn't really have .NET framework support yet. You can get .NET framework 2.0 working on there with a lot of strain. Most people found out that .NET just imports unicows.dll and some other dll file and not much else. So i of course harvested those dll files, i definitely don't have .NET framework working, but i do have it's two important dlls which will help in the future with other programs i intend to run that may make use of those dlls.
I'm really having no problems with my games though. Fs2-scp the linux binary (i know that's not windows) can finally get configured with ease using the windows fs2-scp launcher (and the launcher is a windows program, you just can't use the launcher to increase or decrease the resolution of fs2 linux though, that happens in a different location for the linux version of fs2-scp...essentially yes i do have a launcher for fs2-scp in linux, fs2-scp binaries can run in wine too), orange box, quake 4 (quake 4 runs great with wine, but i prefer to use the linux installer to run it natively because i do have an opportunity to run that way), quake 2 (yes it has a linux binary, but this game is so old i didn't see the need to use it), quake 3 (q3 ran as great q2 did without the linux installers, but i lost q3 and have since moved onto openarena which really is a successor). As far as other programs i use in wine, occasionaly winrar, packet tracer, and sometimes dvdshrink.
EDIT:CheesBase Light 2007 (http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=8432) seems to run great in wine. Idk about their other stuff, sounds like it'd definitely be worth your time to find out though.
There is a huge diference in the ammount and quality of it available between windows and any other OS.
That comment seems sort of random. What do you mean?
-
EDIT:CheesBase Light 2007 (http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=8432) seems to run great in wine. Idk about their other stuff, sounds like it'd definitely be worth your time to find out though.
ChessBase Light is a crippled free version of the "main" ChessBase such as ChessBase 9 (http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=7999) which doesn't look like it works very well. I've tried Wine and not only is it hard to install anything in it, there is no garantee it will work. Hell, every software I've tried to install in it has failed spectacularly.
There is a huge diference in the ammount and quality of it available between windows and any other OS.
That comment seems sort of random. What do you mean?
Search for software of the likes of ChessBase or their other media like ChessBase Magazine which has OS support besides windows. You'll be hard-pressed to even find one, and if you by chance or miracle find one, you'll find it's quality when compared to the windows' alternatives lacking.
-
Wine is just like running windows. If you know how to plop necessary dll's into the system32 directory of the windows directory then you know how to use wine. Wine works fantastic, but you do have a point with the chessbase software, at least it's in the wine appdb which means it may have a wine maintainer for that program. You probably know about the /home/username/.wine/drive_c/windows/system32 folder? That's where you dump dll files when you need them because wine tries to provide all the necessary files to run everything, but when it can't you can import windows dlls which really help out. You probably know about that hidden folder, it's nothing more than a standard windows installation directory like you'd find on a normal windows machine. How difficult is that to mess around with if you've messed around with it before?
Hard to install programs in wine? The wine application database does give you a guarantee if something will work or not, it's what it's there for. If no guarantee that something will run that can be found in the wine application database also. After that what's so hard about googling said program name followed by wine in a search to know more? Another thing is that the wine application database contains instructions on how to install and run certain programs too, very handy. Wine's just like an installation of windows, except it doesn't have all the files. In which you'll have to find and import those necessary files to that windows installation when necessary to get something to work. Wine's like this because dll's are not free unless you own a copy of windows, wine has so far done a great job making their own dll's though. For the most part this is what makes installing programs in wine difficult usually it means your missing a core dll that you should get into wine. After that everything really installs the same in wine as it does in windows. But yes, wine does offer pretty good guarantees that windows programs will run. They have a lot of success in running windows programs great and do a pretty good job in telling you the few that wont.
I guess if you don't know how to drag and drop dll's into a windows/system32 folder then i guess you don't know how to do that in windows since you can't do it in wine.
-
Wine is just like running windows. If you know how to plop necessary dll's into the system32 directory of the windows directory then you know how to use wine. Wine works fantastic, but you do have a point with the chessbase software, at least it's in the wine appdb which means it may have a wine maintainer for that program. You probably know about the /home/username/.wine/drive_c/windows/system32 folder? That's where you dump dll files when you need them because wine tries to provide all the necessary files to run everything, but when it can't you can import windows dlls which really help out. You probably know about that hidden folder, it's nothing more than a standard windows installation directory like you'd find on a normal windows machine. How difficult is that to mess around with if you've messed around with it before?
Hard to install programs in wine? The wine application database does give you a guarantee if something will work or not, it's what it's there for. If no guarantee that something will run that can be found in the wine application database also. After that what's so hard about googling said program name followed by wine in a search to know more? Another thing is that the wine application database contains instructions on how to install and run certain programs too, very handy. Wine's just like an installation of windows, except it doesn't have all the files. In which you'll have to find and import those necessary files to that windows installation when necessary to get something to work. Wine's like this because dll's are not free unless you own a copy of windows, wine has so far done a great job making their own dll's though. For the most part this is what makes installing programs in wine difficult usually it means your missing a core dll that you should get into wine. After that everything really installs the same in wine as it does in windows. But yes, wine does offer pretty good guarantees that windows programs will run. They have a lot of success in running windows programs great and do a pretty good job in telling you the few that wont.
I guess if you don't know how to drag and drop dll's into a windows/system32 folder then i guess you don't know how to do that in windows since you can't do it in wine.
So if a program refuses to work with wine, even appears to have problems according to their website, somehow it relates to my inability to work with dlls? Your powers of logic astound me.
-
Mac has its purpose. Believe it or not, there are a great many stupid people who have no clue how to use a computer properly. Mac is great for them with its hold-your-hand design, one company to call to fix service, and limited confusion with just 1 button to worry about on the mouse. Installing software doesnt require any brains at all.. just drag the program where its supposed to be, just dont drag it into the trash unintentionally.
PC Manufacturers today throw too much of their own crap pre-packaged onto the computers, and since nobody who buys them and doesnt know how to use it even thinks of getting a manual for it, they are hopelessly lost. Then they start clicking all those shiny banners to install software, which runs on Windows, they open those emails about winning $1,000,000, and before they know it they themselves have completely screwed up their computer by their own doing.
Most computer problems today are not caused by crappy OSes... to each his own in that department, but most problems are caused by user error. Personally I am a Windows user. I built my own PC and it runs Vista. I am happy with it. I also own an OSX Tiger computer and hate it.
-
My dad moved out of his office job, and into installation again (change of scenery), and he says that in most of the houses he goes to, the PCs are so screwed up that he can't install DSL on them. He has to put in the router etc, and leave the people tot heir own devices.
-
Macs don't help this problem though. If someone never maintains they're machine it will fall apart.
Granted some filesystems (ext3, reiserfs, JFS) will continue to work quickly even if they're ignored. HFS+ lacks some features, but it seems to hold together better than NTFS, which fragments in a week if you use it enough.
Computers will collect dust weather they're a Mac or a PC
-
Computers will collect dust weather they're a Mac or a PC
Well, you could always use a liquid coolant instead of a fan system.
-
So if a program refuses to work with wine, even appears to have problems according to their website, somehow it relates to my inability to work with dlls? Your powers of logic astound me.
I guess i do confuse you. My statement was about the fact that you haven't been able to get any windows program running in wine at all and you didn't elaborate on that like which other programs besides chessbase you have tried to install and run in wine. Since you didn't elaborate, i have no idea which programs you're saying that are in the wine application database that say they wont run. If a program is in the wine application database and it says it won't run, then yeah it's not going to run until wine improves.
With the other stuff you wrote about wine, it seems to point out that you have a general disability with using wine since you didn't write anything further. My logic will still continue to astound you i guess.
The bigger picture with wine that i was painting was that if peoples plans for using linux with windows programs don't pan out, because the specific windows programs they want to use in linux happen to still not work with wine, then keep using windows.
There is an alternative to wine which is windows in a virtual machine. But, this is really unnecessary if that virtual machine is not for temporary use. If it becomes unnecessary you might as well just install windows and not have linux at all. Dual booting while it's possible why do it? If you have to switch from one os to another because the other one can't do what the other can, then you might as well just use only the one that does everything for you.
-
So if a program refuses to work with wine, even appears to have problems according to their website, somehow it relates to my inability to work with dlls? Your powers of logic astound me.
I guess i do confuse you. My statement was about the fact that you haven't been able to get any windows program running in wine at all and you didn't elaborate on that like which other programs besides chessbase you have tried to install and run in wine. Since you didn't elaborate, i have no idea which programs you're saying that are in the wine application database that say they wont run. If a program is in the wine application database and it says it won't run, then yeah it's not going to run until wine improves.
With the other stuff you wrote about wine, it seems to point out that you have a general disability with using wine since you didn't write anything further. My logic will still continue to astound you i guess.
The bigger picture with wine that i was painting was that if peoples plans for using linux with windows programs don't pan out, because the specific windows programs they want to use in linux happen to still not work with wine, then keep using windows.
There is an alternative to wine which is windows in a virtual machine. But, this is really unnecessary if that virtual machine is not for temporary use. If it becomes unnecessary you might as well just install windows and not have linux at all. Dual booting while it's possible why do it? If you have to switch from one os to another because the other one can't do what the other can, then you might as well just use only the one that does everything for you.
I apologise then, but the fact remains that wine still has a long way to go before being the alternative to windows most people make it up to be. And if I understood this time, you seem to agree with this.
-
wine was pretty cool. my real problem with linux is that many of the apps aren't even done yet, alot of stuff is in beta or less. i know how to do things like compile stuff and solve a few problems. so i might give it a go again in the future, i haven't totally written it off yet. i just think it still needs some work.
i think apple should look to making osx a retail operating system. assuming they tune it to work with a wider variety of hardware and don't do anything stupid to it in the name of marketability, they would have a good product, one that would thump windows in a heartbeat. it would also be a push fore more multiplatform development among the retail software market. people don't want to buy a $2000 computer thats on par with an $800 pc just so that they can have a more user friendly operating system.
-
people don't want to buy a $2000 computer thats on par with an $800 pc just so that they can have a more user friendly operating system.
That was really Apple's problem with the G3 and G4 (maybe even the G5 too, IIRC), they depended on relatively exotic processors from a company who not only didn't focus on their processor lines but seriously underinvested in them as well.
-
wine was pretty cool. my real problem with linux is that many of the apps aren't even done yet, alot of stuff is in beta or less. i know how to do things like compile stuff and solve a few problems. so i might give it a go again in the future, i haven't totally written it off yet. i just think it still needs some work.
Try a KDE distro like Kubuntu, I find their usually pretty stable and work pretty well
-
Kde's the shizzle. It's application suite is very good too. However a good example of software that's not finished is kde's koffice suite. It's making some good strides, but not complete enough for me to want to use on a forever basis. Many version of k3b before they got to 1.0 were actually very usable and dependable. Wine is still in beta and has been in beta for years, but it's nearing 1.0 which is when it should no longer be in beta. I'm really curious how awesome wine will be when it's no longer beta status, or if it'll be just like using wine normally like today except with a lot better compatibility. Some other programs in linux which are still works in progress are brasero, koffice, kopete 0.12.7 (not as mature as pidgin, but it's really come along way to replace pidgin in my setup especially the webcam support), the kde nic cc applet (it really sucks ass compared to the gnome nic applet, i just don't use the kde nic applet since it's an optional download, i wonder if this applet in kde4 has improved), wicd (this program while a work in progress is very good, where network-manager doesn't work, wicd can replace network-manager completely and work and also be a nic control applet). Some programs while still being in beta or still works in progress can be very great program to depend on everyday, and other works in progress just suck until they mature to a good point. Wine also hits the list of being a work in progress, but it's sort of a middle ground on being great to depend on everyday...depending on what programs you are able to run with it :lol:
-
wine was pretty cool. my real problem with linux is that many of the apps aren't even done yet, alot of stuff is in beta or less. i know how to do things like compile stuff and solve a few problems. so i might give it a go again in the future, i haven't totally written it off yet. i just think it still needs some work.
Try a KDE distro like Kubuntu, I find their usually pretty stable and work pretty well
i tried kubuntu and it seemed a little slower and more glitchy than fawn. ubuntu and fedora have been my favorite distros thus far. i just lack a computer powerful enough to run linux since my #3 computer's memory controllers gave out. i should get me one of those 500 gig drives so i can run a dual boot again.
-
I like kubuntu. Ubuntu really does put out a well balanced kde distro. Other kde based distro's seem to overdue the kde experience a little too much. I have 480gb capacity on my computer. I really don't know what to do with all of the space, but when your dad gives you a free 320gb drive to add with your 160gb what are you going to say? I'll probably take out the 160gb and toss it into a computer i'm going to sell in the summer. 320gb is already twice the capacity of my older drive. Idk, if you want to run linux on a slow computer go with a liter distro. Antix is a good one which is based off of mepis and the debian testing repository (debian testing seems to work great with ubuntu binaries too). All in all for speed increase get a different desktop environment. Some good recommendations are xfce and equinox. If you really want to go crazy with a fast running desktop environment, then you can go with fluxbox, openbox, or enlightenment. But, they can be hard to configure (enlightenment can be hard to configure especially). Xfce is a good one to go for. Check out equinox at least, it's really cool. It's very windows classic desktop oriented and has the smallest memory and processor footprint out of xfce, kde, and gnome. Maybe even possibly smaller than openbox and fluxbox. Equinox is like 10mb for the whole entire download. It looks like xp in classic mode, supports theming so you can make it look like xp if you want, and the general over all equinox utilities look like windows utilities. It's actually a much better desktop environment to fool people into not knowing they're using linux as opposed to getting people on kde. :yes: I know this isn't the case, just an easy foolery job you could pull on people who use your computer. You could pull some test data to see how much more comfortable people are using linux if the gui looks like windows.
-
Looks like ISO can't take the heat (http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/14/161243&from=rss).