PDA

View Full Version : fox News - Which Operating System Is for You?



OZFive
March 12th, 2008, 10:42 PM
Fox News just did a review titled...
Which Operating System Is for You?

Here it is quick and dirty...

Price:
Mac OS 10.5.1: Four out of five stars
Windows XP: Three stars
Windows Vista: Two stars
Ubuntu: Four and a half stars
Advantage: Ubuntu

Installation
Mac OS 10.5.1: Five out of five stars
Windows XP: Three stars
Windows Vista: Three and a half stars
Ubuntu: Three stars
Advantage: Mac OS 10.5.1

Interface
Mac OS 10.5.1: Five out of five stars
Windows XP: Three stars
Windows Vista: Four stars
Ubuntu: Two and a half stars
Advantage: Mac OS 10.5.1

Bundled Software
Mac OS 10.5.1: Four and a half out of five stars
Windows XP: Two and a half stars
Windows Vista: Three and a half stars
Ubuntu: Four stars
Advantage: Mac OS 10.5.1

3rd Party Software
Mac OS 10.5.1: Three and a half out of five stars
Windows XP: Five stars
Windows Vista: Four and a half stars
Ubuntu: Four stars
Advantage: Windows XP

Networking
Mac OS 10.5.1: Four out of five stars
Windows XP: Four and a half stars
Windows Vista: Four stars
Ubuntu: Two and a half stars
Advantage: Windows XP

Security
Mac OS 10.5.1: Four out of five stars
Windows XP: Three stars
Windows Vista: Three and a half stars
Ubuntu: Four stars
Advantage: Mac OS 10.5.1/Ubuntu

The Victor
Mac OS 10.5.1 (Leopard): Four out of five stars overall

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336534,00.html

By my own calculations I see that this is the total rankings....
Mac OS 10.5.1: Four out of five stars (4.18)
Windows XP: Three and a half stars (3.56)
Windows Vista: Three and a half stars (3.56)
Ubuntu: Three and a half stars (3.37)

LaRoza
March 12th, 2008, 10:48 PM
Ubuntu has a more complete bundled software package than either I think. It has an IM client, a full Office Suite, and a full image manipulation program. (Price for Ubuntu should be 5)

It seems unfair, and they didn't give Ubuntu its fair share. Perhaps they didn't want to be recommending free software...

Able to Run on any computer you have:
Mac OS X : 0 out of five stars
Windows XP: 2 stars
Windows Vista: 1 star
Ubuntu: 4 stars

Northsider
March 12th, 2008, 10:48 PM
Nice find. I'd ne pissed if windows came ahead

Xzallion
March 12th, 2008, 10:49 PM
I have to question their methods to arrive at some of these ratings. The installation and interface are my main problems.

Installation, did they do liveCD or Alternate installations?

And then the interface... did they go just by default because Vista should not get a better rating than Windows XP unless aero etc are working, and from what I hear (I don't know first hand) is that it takes some work to get it going, its not on by default. In that case wheres the stuff you can do to Ubuntu to make it look similar/better and how is that handled in the rating scale?

Meh they are probably just throwing stars onto it at random, following the bulletins on their mac adverts while apple pays them.

drdrewdown
March 12th, 2008, 10:50 PM
that appears to be the same article in the latest edition of pc world or pc mag, one of the two

i thought it was garbage

ubuntu by far has the coolest interface with compiz fusion, this editor must be a id10t

handband2
March 12th, 2008, 10:50 PM
This was an article in the last issue of PC Mag. I couldn't even finish the article, especially when they can't even give Ubuntu 5 stars for price. OMG! :mad:

It was also posted on digg: http://digg.com/tech_news/Which_Operating_System_Is_for_You

I would have to agree with some of the top comments on digg posting.

For those who want to share your opinions of the article to the writer. Send Eric Griffith an email explaining how you feel: http://www.squishedfrog.com/resume.shtml

OZFive
March 12th, 2008, 10:54 PM
It was also posted on digg: http://digg.com/tech_news/Which_Operating_System_Is_for_You


That was where I got it from :D

FuturePilot
March 12th, 2008, 11:08 PM
I'd have to wonder if they even tried Ubuntu.....:???:

LaRoza
March 12th, 2008, 11:11 PM
I'd have to wonder if they even tried Ubuntu.....:???:

Probably not.

What other operating system costs no money (and you even get a free disk), has a fully functional office suite and an IM client for many protocols, built in driver support for many hardware (include printers and web cams!), and a repository of thousands of free software packages.

If one has no special requirements (specific applications or hardware), Ubuntu wins in every area.

Ozor Mox
March 12th, 2008, 11:11 PM
God what an utter load of rubbish. Doing an article like this at least requires trying out all of the operating systems for a reasonable length of time.

gsmanners
March 12th, 2008, 11:14 PM
I find this article to be far more relevant and interesting:

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/01/os_quiz.php

FuturePilot
March 12th, 2008, 11:18 PM
The Ubuntu core, however, is a text-based OS — something Windows spent years getting away from. And unfortunately, you still have to use terminal input to install software or configure settings far too often, even more often than you had to use DOS command lines in Windows 3.1.
So just because it's a text based OS we discriminate?

....even more often than you had to use DOS command lines in Windows 3.1
Proof?


Some argue that Ubuntu gets too much credit for this distinction, since Ubuntu developers didn't create OpenOffice (or Firefox or GIMP or any other auto-installed, bundled application).

They didn't create the Linux kernel either :roll:


Though Ubuntu has made great strides compared with what users put up with in its early days, when you could virtually guarantee you'd have one or more pieces of hardware that wouldn't function, it's still nowhere near the levels of hardware compatibility that Mac and Windows enjoy.
There's a reason why certain stuff works with Mac. Because it was designed for a Mac. You don't see Mac users just going out and buying random hardware. If you want hardware to work as painlessly as possible in Linux, do your research just like Mac users do.
I bought a wireless card a couple weeks ago and I made sure it would work in Ubuntu. It was the easiest, fastest hardware installation I've ever done.

LaRoza
March 12th, 2008, 11:20 PM
Also, Mac is CLI under the hood as well.

Someone should give those people Darwin and tell them what OS X actually is. (A free Unix with an a not free GUI)

Lster
March 12th, 2008, 11:21 PM
To be honest, I think these reviews are pretty meaningless. For example: I'm sure Mac OS X is very intuitive for many but I find Windows (almost any version) and Ubuntu get things done quicker - for me. ;)

Mazza558
March 12th, 2008, 11:24 PM
I find this article to be far more relevant and interesting:

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/01/os_quiz.php

I got Palm OS...

init1
March 12th, 2008, 11:25 PM
I LOL at how Windows XP beats Ubuntu at Networking, even though about 95% of servers run Linux or BSD.
I also find it amusing that Ubuntu's price is only 4.5 out of 5. What would 5 be then? Paying you to use it?

LaRoza
March 12th, 2008, 11:27 PM
I LOL at how Windows XP beats Ubuntu at Networking, even though about 95% of servers run Linux or BSD.
I also find it amusing that Ubuntu is only 4.5 out of 5. What would 5 be then? Paying you to use it?

Yes, that is most perplexing. Ubuntu will be shipped free of charge at ones request, what more do they want?

p_quarles
March 12th, 2008, 11:31 PM
I LOL at how Windows XP beats Ubuntu at Networking, even though about 95% of servers run Linux or BSD.
I stumbled over that part at first too, but I doubt they mean "networking" in any kind of complicated sense. My feeling is that they mean connecting your laptop to a wireless router. Linux is at a disadvantage there, given that very few OEM machines are sold, and that most wireless card specs are proprietary and closed.

Now, if you're talking about setting up a Beowulf cluster, then of course Linux wins hands down.

LaRoza
March 12th, 2008, 11:33 PM
I stumbled over that part at first too, but I doubt they mean "networking" in any kind of complicated sense. My feeling is that they mean connecting your laptop to a wireless router. Linux is at a disadvantage there, given that very few OEM machines are sold, and that most wireless card specs are proprietary and closed.


If you have Intel wireless, it works fine out of the box.

Of course, Windows has a worse time with no/bad drivers. At least Linux has work arounds for things that are closed.

p_quarles
March 12th, 2008, 11:42 PM
If you have Intel wireless, it works fine out of the box.
Yeah, mine's an Intel wireless card (I do my research before buying), and haven't had a problem with it. Unfortunately, most of the best-selling (i.e., cheaper) laptop models do not ship with these. Other chipsets seem to present a lot of problems to people, and even if you can get them working, you might be stuck with sub-optimal performance: slow speeds, unstable connections, inability to use an encryption protocol supported by the hardware itself, etc.

The difficulties of getting wireless to work correctly on laptops that came with Windows is certainly one of the main obstacles to adoption for a lot of people.

And lest anyone point out that an Intel card isn't terribly expensive, I'll just remind you all of the evils of blacklisting.

init1
March 12th, 2008, 11:44 PM
Yeah, mine's an Intel wireless card (I do my research before buying), and haven't had a problem with it. Unfortunately, most of the best-selling (i.e., cheaper) laptop models do not ship with these. Other chipsets seem to present a lot of problems to people, and even if you can get them working, you might be stuck with sub-optimal performance: slow speeds, unstable connections, inability to use an encryption protocol supported by the hardware itself, etc.

The difficulties of getting wireless to work correctly on laptops that came with Windows is certainly one of the main obstacles to adoption for a lot of people.

And lest anyone point out that an Intel card isn't terribly expensive, I'll just remind you all of the evils of blacklisting.
Yep, I got a really cheap Compaq that came with an unsupported Broadcom. That's why I plan on getting a EEEPC to avoid such issues :D

corney91
March 12th, 2008, 11:47 PM
Interface
Mac OS 10.5.1: Five out of five stars
Windows XP: Three stars
Windows Vista: Four stars
Ubuntu: Two and a half stars
Advantage: Mac OS 10.5.1

:shock:

???

Mazza558
March 13th, 2008, 12:07 AM
:shock:

???

:shock::shock:

Ask them if they've used Compiz...

"Compiz? What's that? The new iPod?"

Chame_Wizard
March 13th, 2008, 12:13 AM
yeah,i also wonder why :confused:

LaRoza
March 13th, 2008, 12:19 AM
Yeah, mine's an Intel wireless card (I do my research before buying), and haven't had a problem with it. Unfortunately, most of the best-selling (i.e., cheaper) laptop models do not ship with these. Other chipsets seem to present a lot of problems to people, and even if you can get them working, you might be stuck with sub-optimal performance: slow speeds, unstable connections, inability to use an encryption protocol supported by the hardware itself, etc.

The difficulties of getting wireless to work correctly on laptops that came with Windows is certainly one of the main obstacles to adoption for a lot of people.

And lest anyone point out that an Intel card isn't terribly expensive, I'll just remind you all of the evils of blacklisting.

I don't think wireless is a big concern for desktop users.

My laptop, a ThinkPad R61i, works better with Ubuntu (or OpenSuSE which is what is on there now) than it every did with Vista (OEM)

p_quarles
March 13th, 2008, 12:29 AM
I don't think wireless is a big concern for desktop users.
I'm not sure I get what you're saying. For a fixed workstation, no, ethernet is more reliable, more secure and easier to set up. For a laptop, no wireless is a dealbreaker. The number of people buying and using laptops as their primary computer has been going up for years, so, yes, it's an issue for a lot of people.

LaRoza
March 13th, 2008, 12:34 AM
I'm not sure I get what you're saying. For a fixed workstation, no, ethernet is more reliable, more secure and easier to set up. For a laptop, no wireless is a dealbreaker. The number of people buying and using laptops as their primary computer has been going up for years, so, yes, it's an issue for a lot of people.

That is odd, I always thought wireless was for travel, or for moving around. Even with my laptop (and my wireless router) I use ethernet if I use it at home.

spupy
March 13th, 2008, 12:45 AM
Mmm ok. When i saw the notes in the interface my left brow raised 1 cm. Interface =/= Looks. Gtk (can't say anything about Qt), in my opinion, beats easily Vista's interface.

Also, IE? I started using IE as i started work (Vista, blah) 2 months ago, and i still have no idea how this browser can stand against Firefox or Opera. It's just ridiculous, even without mentioning plugins.


But Ed also describes Ubuntu as "fragile" push it with too much software or hardware and it cracks.
sed s/Ubuntu/Windows/g (God, now that was geeky!)

About hardware compatibility, i would give OSX 2 stars, Linux 3,5 min(Range of supported hw, not quality). Apple could go away with supporting only the hardware they use, since it's the company that picks the compatible hardware for the user. For Linux it's up to the user to choose hardware that works 100% ok with Linux.

Can't say anything else on the other points. Looks mostly correct afaik.


And, btw, what are these "smart icons" in Aero they are talking about?

billgoldberg
March 13th, 2008, 01:21 AM
My ratings would be

Price:
Mac OS 10.5.1: 1(you have to buy a new computer if you don't have a mac!!!!!)
Windows XP: 3
Windows Vista: 2
Ubuntu: 5
Advantage: Ubuntu

Installation
Mac OS 10.5.1: never did an installation
Windows XP: 2.5 (takes forever)
Windows Vista: 3.5
Ubuntu: 4 (easy and the fastest)
Advantage: Ubuntu

Interface
Mac OS 10.5.1: 4 (the dock is annoying!)
Windows XP: 2 (blue and green, don't think so!)
Windows Vista:4
Ubuntu: 5 (compiz fusion+ gtk themes + icons, ...)
Advantage:Ubuntu

Bundled Software
Mac OS 10.5.1: 3
Windows XP: 1 (ever installed a retail version? It's useless)
Windows Vista: 2.5
Ubuntu:4
Advantage: Ubuntu

3rd Party Software
Mac OS 10.5.1: 3
Windows XP: 5
Windows Vista:4
Ubuntu: 4
Advantage: Windows XP

Networking
Mac OS 10.5.1: 4
Windows XP: 4.5
Windows Vista: 4
Ubuntu: 3.5 (if it works out of the box it's a breeze, if not ...)
Advantage: Windows XP

Security
Mac OS 10.5.1: 4 (there is a quicktime virus in the wild!)
Windows XP: 1 (try surfing online without security software for a week, your pc will explode)
Windows Vista: 2
Ubuntu: 4.5
Advantage: Ubuntu

The Victor
Ubuntu

LaRoza
March 13th, 2008, 01:26 AM
My ratings would be

Price:
Mac OS 10.5.1: 1(you have to buy a new computer if you don't have a mac!!!!!)
Windows XP: 3
Windows Vista: 2
Ubuntu: 5
Advantage: Ubuntu

Installation
Mac OS 10.5.1: never did an installation
Windows XP: 2.5 (takes forever)
Windows Vista: 3.5
Ubuntu: 4 (easy and the fastest)
Advantage: Ubuntu

Interface
Mac OS 10.5.1: 4 (the dock is annoying!)
Windows XP: 2 (blue and green, don't think so!)
Windows Vista:4
Ubuntu: 5 (compiz fusion+ gtk themes + icons, ...)
Advantage:Ubuntu

Bundled Software
Mac OS 10.5.1: 3
Windows XP: 1 (ever installed a retail version? It's useless)
Windows Vista: 2.5
Ubuntu:4
Advantage: Ubuntu

3rd Party Software
Mac OS 10.5.1: 3
Windows XP: 5
Windows Vista:4
Ubuntu: 4
Advantage: Windows XP

Networking
Mac OS 10.5.1: 4
Windows XP: 4.5
Windows Vista: 4
Ubuntu: 3.5 (if it works out of the box it's a breeze, if not ...)
Advantage: Windows XP

Security
Mac OS 10.5.1: 4 (there is a quicktime virus in the wild!)
Windows XP: 1 (try surfing online without security software for a week, your pc will explode)
Windows Vista: 2
Ubuntu: 4.5
Advantage: Ubuntu

The Victor
Ubuntu

That is pretty fair, although OS X may be easy to install, it can only be done (legally) on Macs. A big minus.

Also, I would include "flexibility". Ubuntu can be a server, a desktop, or a bare bones install AND run live. I don't thing any Mac OS X or Windows releases can do all that.

FuturePilot
March 13th, 2008, 01:26 AM
If you have Intel wireless, it works fine out of the box.

Of course, Windows has a worse time with no/bad drivers. At least Linux has work arounds for things that are closed.

Very true. I have an HP laptop that has an Intel wireless card and it worked out of the box. Also any card that uses the Atheros chipset will work out of the box as well.

zmjjmz
March 13th, 2008, 04:10 AM
You pay nothing — but you do have to contend with the labor of burning the downloaded ISO disk image to a CD-ROM before you can run it.
Labor?
(In Ubuntu)
Download the image file.
Insert blank CD, click "ignore".
Right click the image file.
Select "Write to disk"
Click "Write"
Wait.
Is that suddenly considered labor?

The installation part talks about upgrades, not installations.

The cross between Mac and Windows thing I've seen seems to come with the existence of
a) A panel on the bottom
b) A panel on the top
And Ubuntu really hasn't stolen anything, GNOME's looked like that for a long time.

The text-based thing made me laugh. I don't think they realize having a text-based core is an advantage. Also, he says that he needed to use the terminal to install software, then goes on to say that you use a package manager instead of the terminal to install software:rolleyes:

The third-party software thing is kinda ridiculous, because Apple and Microsoft are their own entities with their own licenses, and then you could compare that to FOSS in general, not Ubuntu itself.

"But Ed also describes Ubuntu as "fragile" — push it with too much software or hardware and it cracks" That's vague...
What software? Unstable or stable?
What hardware? Supported or unsupported?

For the most part they at least implied that the lack of hardware support is due to a lack of marketshare...

On the other hand, they implied that Ubuntu and Mac's security was due to lack of marketshare, when it's really the UNIX base and the ability to run as limited user without a hitch.

Supposedly this came from Ziff Davis, not Fox... ( I also have no idea about who owns who in the media industry, so it's entirely possible that Ziff Davis owns Fox and I'm totally wrong.)

cprofitt
March 13th, 2008, 04:36 AM
Not sure how 'FREE' would ever get less than 5 stars... curious rating system.

As far as bundled software OSX is behind even Windows in that department. With OSX you get a text editor that is of lower quality than wordpad and iTunes from what I see... people forget that to get iLife, etc you need to BUY a Mac... those apps are not bundled with the OS itself so it is unfair to review the OS as if they are.

Polygon
March 13th, 2008, 05:26 AM
how did ubuntu get 4 and a half out of 5? what is 5, where they give you money to use it?

Twitch6000
March 13th, 2008, 05:31 AM
Windows better for 3rd party software are they smoking pot or ******* what......
Linux is basically 100% open source and free software(3rd party).Those people need to learn the meaning of what they rated :/.

Jim!
March 13th, 2008, 05:55 AM
Price for Ubuntu should be 5......

muximus
March 13th, 2008, 12:58 PM
what does he mean by relative degrees of freedom??.. as if having to burn the iso on a cd is very costly,.. in fact, now u dont even need to do that!!

what a hypocrite

forrestcupp
March 13th, 2008, 01:52 PM
how did ubuntu get 4 and a half out of 5? what is 5, where they give you money to use it?

+1

If free is 4.5 then I guess a 5 star OS pays you just to use it. I want to find that OS.

coolglobal
March 13th, 2008, 01:59 PM
It is a world of vested interests. There is advertising dollars tied up in most of these kind of things, either directly or indirectly. You've really just got to take it at face value. The question is what ads or promotions were associated with the "survey", on that edition of the magazine or episode of the program? The results of the survey will reflect this. The reality is that Linux/Ubuntu wins. What category was highlighted by its omission here? Stability.

Or how about: "How many times did you have to restart?"

Arkenzor
March 13th, 2008, 02:20 PM
Well, the "It's free => It costs less but isn't as good as commercial products" mentality is easier for journalists as well. They just don't have to ask themselves real questions that way.

bashveank
March 13th, 2008, 02:44 PM
They took 10% off the price score for the cost of a CD?

Riffer
March 13th, 2008, 03:18 PM
:lolflag: I wonder how much Apple paid for that?

days_of_ruin
March 13th, 2008, 03:35 PM
You can tell its biased when a free os doesn't get five stars for
price:mad:

ExpatPaul
March 13th, 2008, 03:38 PM
Price:
...
Ubuntu: Four and a half stars


How are you supposed to improve on free?

Ozor Mox
March 13th, 2008, 05:23 PM
They took 10% off the price score for the cost of a CD?

And not even that is correct, since ShipIt will send you CDs for free!

](*,)

aaaantoine
March 13th, 2008, 05:56 PM
I'm not gonna bother picking apart the article, but I do agree with them on this part:


Contemplating a change? First consider what kind of user you are. Here are our suggestions:

WEB SURFER
Any OS. You don't need anything fancy to browse the Web and send e-mail.

OFFICE DRONE
Windows. Get things done with minimal fuss.

GAMER
Windows. Millions of gamers can't all be wrong. (Or buy a Nintendo Wii.)

PHOTOGRAPHER
Windows. All cameras work with it, and the imaging tools are plentiful.

VIDEOGRAPHER
Mac OS. It's what the pros in Hollywood prefer.

ARTIST/MUSICIAN
Mac OS. The other artsy people will laugh at you if you use anything else.

TECH DO-IT-YOURSELFER
Ubuntu. You'll get the most satisfaction from taming this somewhat wild beast.

OPEN-SOURCE SUPPORTER
Ubuntu. Not lining the pockets at Apple and Microsoft just feels good.

Though I would also add...

PROGRAMMER/DEVELOPER
Ubuntu. All the development tools you need are either included by default or easily downloadable via synaptic, and all free.

Ripfox
March 13th, 2008, 06:09 PM
ውውው\ው.ው፣ውክው፤ክው[ፖው"፣ልዝች ምም፡ቾጅምቅ

sfink16
March 13th, 2008, 06:36 PM
How many times does anyone have to install an OS? Once I believe. Assuming that an OS is worth anything at all, once the OS is installed it should remain installed without incident. Therefore, installation should be weighted and take a back seat to the other rating areas.

Also, to the person suggesting that Windows has an advantage in photography software, I don't necessarily agree. I've tried them all from all the Adobe software (Lightroom, CS3, Elements 2,3, and 5) to the multi-platform GIMP, Bibble, Helicon Filter, etc.) and must say that most run just as well, if not better, on Ubuntu.

The reason? Ubuntu handles memory of the software much better. I can't run CS3 on a Vista device with only 1 GB of memory or even XP.

No such problems on Ubuntu. This saves me money on upgrading my memory!

Twitch6000
March 13th, 2008, 07:50 PM
I'm not gonna bother picking apart the article, but I do agree with them on this part:



Though I would also add...

PROGRAMMER/DEVELOPER
Ubuntu. All the development tools you need are either included by default or easily downloadable via synaptic, and all free.

I will argue on that I believe it should be more like this-
WEB SURFER
Linux or Mac. You don't need anything fancy to browse the Web and send e-mail.Windows is not as safe as the other 2 because of malware.

OFFICE DRONE
Windows or Linux. Get things done with minimal fuss.

GAMER
Windows. Millions of gamers can't all be wrong. (Or buy a Nintendo Wii.)Ok I can't argue here :(.Although I can say linux and wine=just as good for me :).

PHOTOGRAPHER
Mac. All cameras work with it, and the imaging tools are plentiful.
Photo and Video is mainly what mac is known for duh....

VIDEOGRAPHER
Mac OS. It's what the pros in Hollywood prefer.

ARTIST/MUSICIAN
Any Os. The other artsy people will laugh at you if you use anything else.All Oses have a great program for this wtf...

TECH DO-IT-YOURSELFER
Ubuntu. You'll get the most satisfaction from taming this somewhat wild beast.

OPEN-SOURCE SUPPORTER
Ubuntu. Not lining the pockets at Apple and Microsoft just feels good.

Ripfox
March 13th, 2008, 09:47 PM
As i was trying to say earlier (befor SCIM freaked out on me) :lolflag:

Was that I found this to be "not so bad" as well, at least the dreaded Fox News was TALKING about Ubuntu...and it wasn't what I would call a totally unfair or insulting review. I did disagree however on several points.

BTW if anyone here speaks Arabic, did I accidentally type anything that formed a word? :)

ElijahLynn
March 13th, 2008, 09:50 PM
I wouldn't trust FOX news for anything.

FOX news is the most corrupt news out there. There is money behind EVERYTHING they do.

No money with Ubuntu.

imT
March 13th, 2008, 10:13 PM
Yes, that is most perplexing. Ubuntu will be shipped free of charge at ones request, what more do they want?

yes they ship the cd but they don't ship a pc with it, free :lolflag:

zmjjmz
March 14th, 2008, 05:48 AM
They should review what the preinstalled systems of each are like...
take an Ubuntu system from ZaReason (they need the publicity), a Windows system from HP (with Vista, and then one with XP), and an Apple system.

It would much better reflect how this works in the real world, not the Fox news world.

Arkenzor
March 14th, 2008, 08:36 AM
BTW if anyone here speaks Arabic, did I accidentally type anything that formed a word? :)

No, actually I can't really figure out what kind of alphabet this is :D.

Jeff Rage
March 14th, 2008, 01:42 PM
This was an article in the last issue of PC Mag. I couldn't even finish the article, especially when they can't even give Ubuntu 5 stars for price. OMG! :mad:\
I suppose someone could pay you to use their OS? :)

Ripfox
March 14th, 2008, 04:06 PM
I suppose someone could pay you to use their OS? :)

Their logic in giving it 4.5 stars in price was the "price" one must pay to get a blank cdr and go through the process of burning it, so technically it isn't "free"

It's like 10 cents.

imT
March 14th, 2008, 05:08 PM
Their logic in giving it 4.5 stars in price was the "price" one must pay to get a blank cdr and go through the process of burning it, so technically it isn't "free"

It's like 10 cents.

actually it's not 10 cents cus they shipped for free but that way you have to wait a while so better not.