quote:
Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:
Dude, you know what really burns me about that article. It's the line that says something like: the BIOS is simple enugh so that alternative OS's like Linux can be installed...
Alternative OS??!! Makes it sound like midget sex or something!
PC's by definition are generic. They aren't windowz boxes, they are PC's. You put what you want on them. The assumption that Windows is the only thing to run on the things is offensive.
It's like saying 'alternative ice cream, like chocolate' asumming everyone uses vanilla. Plz..
Sorry, had to rant.
It is no different for PC's than it is with Macs. When you buy a Mac what normally comes pre-installed on it? MacOS. When you talk about a Mac what usually comes to mind? MacOS. So is it absurd to call other OSes for the Mac alternatives? Is it absurd that alot of people think that the only thing a Mac will run is MacOS?
Of course not. There is a big, mainstream OS that everybody is familiar with and knows how to use for the Mac and for the PC. Linux, BeOS, etc. really are alternatives. They are alternatives to what everybody knows.
Any non-mainstream OS can be considered an alternative to mainstream OSes.
Realistically, how many people do you know in real life that own a PC and don't use Windows(I said real life...not people on the MES forums)? Does that number of people you know who do not use Windows outweigh the number of people you know who does use Windows on their PC? Do more people you know who own a Mac use Linux than MacOS?
I think I can already answer the question for you. Most of the people you know more than likely uses the mainstream OS for the platform in question. Why is it mainstream? Because it is what everybody uses.
The only thing that alternative OS really means is it is an alternative to what *EVERYBODY* uses. What is so bad it being called an alternative?
[ October 06, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
