Skip to main content

OS Wars, Flame!

Will the prattle over whose operating system is superior ever cease? Well, no, of course not. I, of course, opt to sit above the fray and will pompously claim to speak for the common man. What do I mean by that? I mean that insane and inane debates over which operating system is "best" completely miss the point. The point? That most people don't care about the operating system, they care whether or not their computer does what they want it to do.

I bow before the inherent superiority of Linux and its Unix origins. I acknowledge that a core of Unix invests Mac OS X with a certain sophistication and advantage that Windows XP -- and probably the forthcoming Windows Vista -- can't, and won't, match. Fine. Mac fanbois, are you happy?

Good. Excuse me, though, I'm sticking with my XP boxes, thankyouverymuch.

Why? Because XP works. I know someone can crank up some stats that show that once an XP box touches the Internet it takes approximately three shakes for an XP box to be overrun with spyware and virii. I've had one virus in the last three years, and while Norton rolled on its back and said, "Alas, I am defeated," AVG racked a round into its virtual AK-47 and blasted the intruder straight to Mars. I do not practice safe computing; I surf wherever the hell I want and boldly stare at...well, all sorts of stuff. But a simple combination of an effective router (came with my DSL setup), an upgraded firewall (Grisoft again), and use of Firefox (though IE 7 is just fine) appears to mean I'm immune.

And I dare, dare I say, to use Outlook (v2003)!

Macs are very pretty to look at, but they are the most autocratic computers on the planet. In return for allegiance to their insular rule, they are relatively seamless in operation; the trains run on time, and everyone has a modicum of health care.

XP boxes are, to continue the analogy, pure democracy, which means mob rule. Microsoft attempts to impose a republic on this democracy, a moderator between mob demands and what the system can actually do. For those efforts they are cursed as demons straight from the lower Circles of Hell. Because of mob rule, and an imperfect republic, XP boxes are slightly less stable but vastly more versatile.

Oh, and just for the sake of completeness, Linux represents an oligarchy. There are an elite few who know all the inner workings; everyone else just does as they're told. It's an open oligarchy, though, because anyone willing to devote the time and energy can rise to become a member of the elite.

Again, though, most people don't give three figs what operating system their computer foists upon them. They look at the tools provided and see if they fit their individual needs.

Right now, XP has -- for me -- the killer app. I was shocked to discover that it's Microsoft Word 2007. I've despised Word for -- in computer years -- ever. Now it rules. What changed? The document map feature suddenly just works. I quickly and easily built a project outline and the assorted levels appeared in the document map, all neatly organized. Now I write, within the outline itself, and those words are invisible in the map, but a click at where they belong in my outline takes me there. For project development, as well as somewhere to keep track of plot points, characters, locales, etc., I use MS OneNote, which cooperates with Word.

I love it.

I have abandoned WordPerfect, for over 15 years my preferred writing tool. I've tried OpenOffice Writer and found it has all the flaws and things I hated in Word, with none of the things I liked about Word. It has nothing like the improved implementation of the document map.

I'm addicted.

I had briefly toyed with the idea of getting a Mac Mini and a copy of CopyWrite, but I've tossed that idea away. Word 2007, backed by OneNote, has given me a way to organize my writing and keep me working on books and the like. Now I don't have to worry about converting my software library, and I can still play Day of Defeat.

So feh to OS X, Linux, and even Vista. XP and Word 2007 have become the toolkit I've been seeking for almost 30 years with personal computers. About time!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.