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!


Popular posts from this blog

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home.Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes. In Batman Begins, I blamed Katie Holmes. Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film, at almost two and a half hours, might be a shade long. Having said t…

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

With its release on home video, we come to the unsurprising and yet still bitter disappointment that is Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. Unsurprising, because of a lousy director. Disappointing, because it should have been great. To explain further will involve light spoilers; I will avoid larger giveaways. In a galaxy far, far away, the Empire continues to consolidate its power after the fall of the Republic (see Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith). Toward that end, they are assembling a giant battle station, the Death Star. The Rebel Alliance plots a way of finding out what’s going on and perhaps, in the process, save their collective butts. Rebellious galivanting ensues. All of the elements necessary to craft a good story are here, yet none of them work. The blame lies almost exclusively at the feet of director Gareth Edwards. This is his third film (after Monsters and Godzilla) and his failings as a director stand out in each. The major problems with each film involve the peopl…

Conspiracy (2001)

The Holocaust remains an unfathomable atrocity, the unholy benchmark by which all such are measured. Stalin and Mao both make Hitler look like an amateur when it came to sheer body count, yet the Holocaust remains unique. It seems to boil down to two reasons. First, the Nazis were terrifying in their systematic approach to the slaughter of Jews, driven by their ideological belief that they were acting for the greater good of all mankind. And second, they hunted Jews in any land they conquered; the goal wasn't merely to "purify" Germany, but the world. Few films have captured these points as well as HBO's 2001 film, Conspiracy. On January 20, 1942, a group of senior officials of Nazi Germany met at a lovely house in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee. The purpose of their meeting was to determine the "final solution" for the Jews. The Wannsee Conference developed what is referred to as the Wannsee Protocol. A single copy of the document remains. Conspiracy, drawi…