Google is Indecisive, Says Microsoft CEO

[kartu]

Oh, please... I earn my living developing software (J2EE, again no M$, have experience with win32 and a bit of *nix), and I don't buy the "usability" crap (being terrified by Vista), but:

1) There is plenty of software, that runs only on Windows. (yes, I know about ?? year old "Wine" project). Most "Linux only" software is easily or with some effort ported to Win. Try to port stuff using activeX/directX to vista
2) Please provide one bloody reasonable example of what Linux can do that Windows can not.

 

[jcknouse]

[citation][nom]_cubase_[/nom]Does anyone remember when Ballmer said the iPhone would not sell any units?[/citation]

Yes, and I remember when they said:

- Zune would be a success
- Vista was better than XP

The thing that troubles me about Ballmer more than his kookyness is that he is the CEO of the biggest computer software firm in the world, and he is poking fun that Google has/will have Android/Chrome OS.

Last I saw, Windows has 4+ flavors of Vista?

If one OS is enough, then why does Ballmer's corp need 6?

The guy is plain stupid. He is not intelligent enough technically to speak on his own product. At least Gates knew what the hell he was talking about and kept informed.

Ballmer needs to go back to business development and sales, and giving pep speeches at sales conferences.

 

[stradric]

[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]Please provide one bloody reasonable example of what Linux can do that Windows can not.[/citation]

First of all, who cares? If you like windows, use windows. If someone else likes Linux, let them use linux. It's all a matter of preference anyway.

Linux is very stable, very customizable and very free. It has a rough learning curve -- hard to start, hard to get good at. Decent driver support if you know where to look.

Windows is moderately stable, difficult to really customize and very expensive. It has a nice learning curve -- easy to start, easy to get good at. Tons of software and driver support. Huge gaming community.

OS X is linux with a better learning curve. Except it's less stable, provides almost no error reporting and expensive as hell once you include the price of hardware. It has little driver support for 3rd party hardware.

So, if you are a software developer, then you know the principle that any Turing-complete machine can do anything any other Turing-complete machine can do. Therefore, your question makes no sense. Every major operating system can do everything every other major operating system can do. It just comes down to how you prefer it, and where the software is for doing it and how much it costs.

 

[zak_mckraken]

[citation][nom]norbs[/nom]Should be could be... yesBut saying you can do more with one OS then another simply because you don't know how to use an OS is incorrect. If you want intuitive then you should be using OSx anyways, if you want intuitive with some more customizations the use windows.[/citation]

Again, it's the opposite. Let's take for example some Average Joe who has never used a computer. Which is neither you nor me. With which system will he be able to do some basic tasks (e-mail, instant messenging, photo editing, etc.) more easily? I know some recent Linux distros are way more user-friendly than they used to be, but you'll have to admit that these things are way easier to do with Windows. Don't get me wrong, I love every OS for what they have to offer, but nothing beats the compatibility and easiness of Windows, even if it's the same compatibility and easiness that causes it's weaknesses (vulnerability to viruses, instability).

Anyway, to get back on track, I think Ballmer is aiming for the Foot In Mouth Award.

 

[Parrdacc]

I would just like to formally apologize for apperantly starting a windows vs. linux and just what is OS-X debate. I merely wanted to show that Balmer is a little off when saying "you don't need two client operating systems." Most geeks I know of are always running at least two no matter the flavor.

 

[Guest]

freak77power: If you think there are "100s" of things you can do under Windows but not Linux, you've just demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about Linux. All of the basic user needs(audio/video/office/email/web/files) are covered easily and very well, many Windows apps run just fine under WINE(especially if you install the Windows version of the Mono framework and maybe Winedoors), only people with very specific niche needs that involve apps that WINE can't run(hardcore gamers kind of fall in this category, although winedoors can install directx, so maybe that's changing), and that does not amount to 100s of different things....