Why don't you use a proper operating system?

Originally posted by bracke
Vista?

It recommends 2GB of memory and it takes about 10GB on the hard drive.

That is the recommendation, I use it on an Athlon 1900+ with 256MB and it works smoothly enough for my needs.

Still it will use heavy DRM techniques and decide what you are gonna run on it, it takes too much of your computer (harddrive, cpu, ram), many promised features have been removed, it still uses NTFS, the EULA (license) forbids benchmarking (forget about 3dmark, pcmark, aquamark etc),

The use of DRM is a consequence of the pressure of RIAA and such like, and it is normal that the EULA for a beta version forbids benchmarking, after all its not the final code, and bad benchmarks may be an unfair bad publicity, but I can tell you that Vista runs Unreal Tournament 2004 faster than XP on my computer.

What really baffles me is that people who are very afraid of broken privacy use closed source systems especially from a company who is known to be sneaking around inside your computer.

Do those people have the knowledge to analyze the source code of a Linux distro? If they do not have that knowledge the result is the same, they have to trust the people who made the software.

And of course the CEO of the company doesn't seem to be that healthy neither...

And that is a good reason for not using Windows?

That is a funny thing many people say, Windows is bad because of the people who are running the company, regardless of the real quality of the product.

Originally posted by bracke
Mac OSX is a very nice system but It's proprietary although for most people It's no big problem as Apple is a decent company.

That is another funny thing, Apple is seen as a decent company but it was responsible for the fall of some companies that made hardware compatible with Apple's own hardware but that was better, after those companies had paid for the licences to make the hardware.

Apple has enjoyed total control over software and hardware but nobody complains of lack of competition.

Originally posted by brackeLinus Torvalds managed to make his 2.6 kernel much more resource friendly than 2.4. A step forward in other words.

The keyword in this case is "kernel". When comparing Linux to Windows I think that a comparision between a complete Windows system and only the kernel of Linux is not a good comparison.

To install Windows on your Pocket PC you would have to get a Windows Mobile disk from the manufacturer.

My Pocket PC already had Windows when I bought it, no need to change anything there.

*NIX runs on everything; toasters, cars, routers, switches, pocket pc's, Palm handhelds, mobile phones, surfboards etc.

Great, and all that is useless to me...

I do not see me posting answers like these using a toaster or playing a little of Unreal Tournament 2004 on a car.

Would Windows be a better system for PCs if *NIX didn't ran on so much different hardware?

The beneficial thing about Windows is that due to years of piracy they now have a massive work force of people who are familiar with their operating system....making, certainly server side, a cheaper option than linux. Windows engineers are ten a penny....I should know I am one of them, meaning the total cost of ownership of a windows based network is cheaper than linux one.

Besides that, XP with SP2 is by far the most stable resource friendly OS out there.