RHF wrote:
On Jul 21, 5:14 pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
Brenda Ann wrote:
"Kurt" wrote in message
...
I want getting phone service like when I buy a Mac.
You only want them to work in a few dozen exchanges, and use a codec that
only other phones of that brand use, so you can't talk to anyone else but
other customers of that company (sort of like Sprint's "Friends and Family"
plan). ?
There was a time that was true. Not so much since about OS X.2.

Truth is that I had a Mac on line at work since '89, and from home
since '84, and with the exception of those who bothered to read the
headers in e-mail, no one ever knew it. I've had my Macs and my PC's
talking to each other the entire time.

As long as the output files are the same format, there's no more
compatibility issue between Mac and Windows than between HP and Dell
printers. And with Solaris and Linux making a showing in the
marketplace, compatibility in general has become largely a non issue.

That's why the ****ing match between the Microsoft and the keepers of
standards is such a concern. Because if MS has their way, their
proprietary formats, will continue to play havoc with compatibility
between platforms that currently play well together using standards
compliant output.

On my Macs, I use only open source software with the exception of one
or two Apple branded programs for document and presentation creation.
With the exception of nicer, more eye catching documents, and
presentations with full animation and stereo sound, none of my
colleagues can tell that I've used a Mac.

On my PC's the only MS software is the OS. Everything else...
browser, IM client, office suite...everything, is open source.

The ONLY time I've ever had a compatibility issue is using MS
software. And that's been true for more than a decade, now.

DPM - I would suspect that you are right most of my
PC related problems have come from MicroSoft (MS)
Software related issues. ~ RHF

Didn't Wal*Mart offer some PC that had a Linux OS
with some of there store brand Computer Systems
for a while ? = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...2125057,00.htm


Yeah, they did for awhile. And Lindows, IIRC. Even a basic machine to
which you could bring your own O/S.

They didn't sell well.

Truth is, that there are two things that play heavily against non-MS
systems, today. There is the FUD spread by MS itself. The shadow of
lawsuits against users of Linux, and other non-MS O/S's. The huge mass
of mis and disinformation about MS compatibility, and the refusal of
many network sysadmins to even consider non-MS product on their
networks. And the built in compatibility restraints that MS builds into
their code. Especially to drive upgrades to more recent product at end
user cost, despite the fact that the end user's product is, in fact,
perfectly serviceable. MS turns off functionality when they want to
force an upgrade. Something I've had first had dealings with. Something
I also forced MS to turn back on with some very loud and very public
complaints.

Then there is the fact that Linux other systems are not quite user
friendly. Not that Windows is any prize, but it's familiar. The Devil
you know, and all that. As Linux becomes more user friendly, market
share will increase. This is what's driving the shadow of lawsuits and
the tribute payments MS has extracted from Novell and other purveyors of
Linux.

They've made similar noise against Apple for years. And even as
recently as a year and a half ago, threatened to pull the Mac division
from their catalog.

So, alternative systems are not selling well. And as they make
inroads, you can watch Redmond play different and more aggressive games
to spread FUD about non MS product.

None of it's true.

But if you afraid to believe, you don't ever take the step.