Weekly Readings ... Take 3

Windows

This would be the OS that I personally have the most experience with. It has always just been the operating system that my family decided to use starting with Windows 3.1. Any version of Windows has always basically just been something that got me to what I wanted. I've never tinkered with it to a certain extent other that to make sure my favorite game worked. My only questions involve Windows Vista and the article on Windows brought some of them to light. With all of the security measures Vista has taken against various attackers, at what point does the levels of security just become an annoyance? I know you'd rather be safe than sorry, but does it really have to ask me if I am sure if I want to run a non-Microsoft approved program?
Another question is why did Vista have all of the compatibility issues with software and hardware? Did they just rush the release? Why not just take the extra time you needed and put the sound version out, it's not like Microsoft needed the money or the market share. The email/article also state that Windows 7 is based off of the Vista architecture so there will be no more compatibility issues with Windows 7. So why not base Vista off of the XP architecture and rush the release but not have any compatibility issues?

Mac OSX

I loved the fact that the Wikipedia article had to explain that it is not called OS (ecks) but OS (ten). Just another reason why I love Wikipedia. Anyway, OSX was my first Mac experience, I bought a iBook my junior year at PITT and I loved it when I first got it, but after a while became disappointed. Out of the box, the iBook was very easy to use and very open. Everything was up front and all of the programs you wanted were simply on the dock at the bottom of the screen. There are some neat features of OSX like the Dashboard and what not, but all of that did not keep me entertained. I'm not saying I am a PC Fanboy, I just found out that I am not an Apple kind of person.

Unix/Linux

I have never used a Linux based system knowingly. I read through the article and it said that some phones and PDAs are based on the Linux build, but I never really looked into it. The article explained the beginnings of Linux as Unix and made it seem like Linux was the universal pick for an original OS. The article gave me the opinion that Linux is very easy to use but it just takes a little bit of computer know how and a little elbow grease. I am a big open source supporter and any Linux build is open source. I really enjoy that Dell and other companies are trying to embrace the open souce and selling computers loaded with the Ubuntu OS.

Muddiest Point.

In the Linux/Unix article it gives the impression that Unix was basically the first OS available to the computer world. I understand that this is a competition based economy and naturally difrerent operating systems would come about, but why not continue with the Linux/Unix architecture? Why did we have to come out with 3 major systems that run on completely different programming? Everything is gravitating back to universal compatibility, but there are still a lot of things that work for Windows, or OSX, or a Linux based OS that are not cross-compatible with the other operating systems.