Originally Posted by irnchriz
Linux as a desktop OS is terrible and purely the realm of the sadomasochistic user. Its fine as a base for Xen in servers or for firewalls but thats where its universal usability ends.
If you were to roll linux out as a desktop OS in an office environment your customer would shoot you.
Lion, even in beta form is smaller and faster than Leopard and Snow leopard ever were on the same hardware. Its also waaay more user friendly than linux.
The Redhat people would disagree. Business applications is what they do. Cannonical does the same.
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
So the gist of your commentary has very little to do with the recent update and everything (it seems) to do with running Linux? Your technorati bias is showing through clearly. The heavy majority of Mac users is skewed towards the average consumer (TAC) - who ARE the "ordinary people" who sure as heck AREN'T going to be installing Linux desktop anytime soon. Just because your distros in Linux are spartan and long-tailed to the extreme doesn't mean that it is anymore attractive to TAC. Your Linux lib and services of course are going to run faster on the HP desktop because it is built to do that, less stuff installed, less overhead to manage - one would think that for someone who is messing around with Linux you would be savvy enough to recognize the inherent differences between the platforms and understand the whys and wherefores of your performance differences without coming here to plant your rant in this thread.
Most of us here get it - Linux runs very nicely. Yep. No doubt there. But here's the deal. You like (by way of analogy) to run around with a basic build no frills truck to do your hauling - that's fantastic and I'm happy for you. But the average person WANTS amenities like nice seats, air conditioning, satellite radio, sun roof, power steering, etc. What suits you, suits you, but your needs wants and desires in this case are categorically NOT the needs wants and desires of an average consumer. And that's OK. But to complain about it here is rather silly I think...
I only commented about how quickly my photos showed up using Ubuntu on a clearly inferior machine compared to a Mac Book that cost four times as much. I didn't specifically comment on any other operation.
In a 2009 demonstration of the newest Mac Books with a new dedicated graphics chip and a faster buss speed, it showed how fast it processed images. The demonstrator scrolled down a page full of thumbnail images and almost all of them were photos, not icons. That impressed me. I couldn't do that with my 2008 Mac Book.
That is the type of usage the ordinary person does. I'm ordinary. I do that often.
I've never been to Technorati.
I don't know much about the inner workings of Linux or the different distributions. I'm an ordinary user that got fed up with Vista and installed a Linux dual boot. I did it with plenty of help from forums. I don't know any html or any type of coding. What I can do is follow good instructions.
As far as the no frills truck; trucks are good but I like fancy things sometimes. Though I don't use all that is available for Linux or the Mac, the frilly stuff is available in Linux in abundance. Social networking is even more advanced than features in Snow Leopard.
About complaining here being silly; maybe it is in some respects. Since Lion is new and it is an OS that does things for users, it seemed the right place to ask opinions of others if they thought the newer OSs are getting too bloated (especially since the update for some people was bigger than 1 GB).
Like I said, it just seems wrong that graphics, file transfers, logon/logoff times, and the like are faster on an inferior machine using Ubuntu. I love Leopard. I rejoice in how much better it works compared to anything from Microsoft. Leopard really makes me smile when I think of that comparison.
Ten years from now I don't think I'll want to buy a super computer from Apple just so I can watch holographic movies and use voice commands while having conversations with my home system.