"Billy Smith" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Billy Smith wrote:

How do you explain this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png

What it says to me is that your corporate and university level people
working with supercomputers are going to Linux versus Unix or in the case
of Microsoft they aren't going to use it. Thats doesn't mean that
Microsoft makes a bad product for the general consumer market. Linux does
have its use and one of its uses is that it tends to be rather fast for an
operating system. However, if you consider speed anything you should use
Linux. Yet when you use a wide variety of PC appplications, you will find
that they aren't usable in Linux format. You can partition your drive to
use both Microsoft based stuff and Linux or you can stick with what you
know.
For most people, they are not going to use Linux because A: There is no
need for using it and B: They don't have the capability to babysit Linux
based systems. The average computer science grad or expert in the computer
field very well might get some usage out of it. For most people, they are
content in using Microsoft Office or whatever works for plug and play
applications.

Theyr'e not going to waste their time formatting their hard drive to run a
program and system that while being faster doesn't have the applicable
uses that a Microsoft system has. The Microsoft systems have that
advantage because you can put in any XP or Vista or 98 based software of
which I have at least one in each operating system. You can put in any
program that is made for that system and use it. That cannot be said for
converting your system to Linux no matter how much faster it may be. Its
not really worth the time for most people

If you want to put Linux and make it customizable to your system that
works for those applications then go for it.. For the general computer
user that exists in the general public, then most people go for Microsoft.
They're not going to use Linux and I would venture than Microsoft is much
more recognizable than what Linux has been or probably will ever be.

Linux is still at the infancy state of the computer realm. Its not going
to catch on all that much for the hundreds of millions of computer users.

Thats why Mac will never be a viable competitor to Microsoft. They're
still stuck in the proprietary and infant stage. Just like the Iphone. I
would have actually been interested in getting an Iphone but when I have
to use ATT for service, they can forget it. I used to have Cingular and it
was a joke for phone service but also their customer service section was
incompetent at best. I can actually pay my bill through Verizon and know
what I actually owe. Nice concept isnt it.

Macs will never become more than fancy overpriced boxes for graphics
users, game players, etc. You never see that many Macs ever used for
servers, internet commerce, etc. Thats why you can go to the Apple store
here in Louisville and find out that a Mac will cost you 1500 to 2000
dollars when a basic Vista/XP computer will net you half those amounts.
When Apple learns to market their computers and systems correctly and
produce something worth really having, then they will take off. Until
then, they don't have a prayer competition wise.

If you mean is Linux finished growing up and fully mature? Heck no, it has
only begun. I suspect it will be evolving well past my lifetime.

Linux is vastly superior to Vista in most ways, you bet. I place it just on
the heals of XP right now but ahead of Vista. I will grant, XP is quite
mature, but stagnant. Where as Linux is still, and will always perpetually
evolve.

The Linux maturity is going to be evolutionary and not the dump everything
change now you see with Microsoft products. Where as Microsoft has a
grand-batch mentality. The later can't get continuous improvement, can't
evolve. Take Vista, is now in maintenance mode. Its active development has
ceased! Understand that. They all moved on to Win 7 for the next
disruption.

Mind you, Vista is a bad batch of soup, the best place is the garborator.