More productive? How do you quantify that as a general rule
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Mar 25, 2010 6:33 PM EDT |
I was gone for a while and I see Ken Hess is still writing drivel. Windows is more productive than Linux and a Mac is more productive still? Really, Ken? For everyone? For people who aren't used to Windows and are used to something else, like Linux, they would find Windows more productive? Really? The comments already say otherwise. I certainly do. I'm far less productive when forced to use Windows and it isn't due to any lack of knowledge of Windows on my part. Sorry, Ken, no sale. |
| techiem2 Mar 25, 2010 7:12 PM EDT |
Ditto here.
I go nuts when I sit down at a Windows box, start to work, and then try to switch desktops like I'm used to.
"Oh right...I'm on Windows..it doesn't have multiple desktops.." *grumble* "now where's that app hiding..." |
| caitlyn Mar 25, 2010 7:56 PM EDT |
What do you mean I can't just highlight some text, point to where I want it to go, and center-mouse click? I can do that in Linux with no keystrokes needed at all. Multiple desktops are another great example. Windows just plain isn't more productive. |
| techiem2 Mar 25, 2010 9:09 PM EDT |
LOL I do that too. You don't realize how much depend on those little Linux features til you sit down on Windows and realize they aren't there. |
| tracyanne Mar 25, 2010 9:22 PM EDT |
I use both Linux and Windows, at the same time - Windows running on a VM displayed in a second monitor - so I'm pretty familiar with both. But seriously having Linux makes my day that much more productive, there are just too many things that Windows does/requires that make it more difficult. Having Multiple Desktops on Linux means I can have lots of applications open and find them easily, for example. I c an have remote desktop sessions on separate desktops, so you can find them easily and never confuse them. |
| hkwint Mar 25, 2010 11:42 PM EDT |
Yeah, in good 'ol Windows I was productive! First take 5 hours to defragment FAT, than 2 hours to run the AV, than another 2 hours to run SpyBotSD and LavaAdaware and such, then spent one hour to find out how to mount an ISO and download a tool to do this, then found out Daemon tools isn't free anymore so needed to crack it, go to cracksite which installs spyware which left Windows messed up so restart this procedure again. After that, find some TweakTool because nobody sane in his mind will directly edit the register. After that, spent two hours getting 'nfsd' run - because Windows doesn't support it by default. And after that, spent yet another hour to install WGA & validate my license. Then, next time when running IE, find a way to remove those ten new toolbars and such. And honorable mention for having to install Python (or something alike) because Windows doesn't come with utilities for text plumbering - like sed, awk, cut, join, nl, sort and such and because Windows batch files are worthless. You see, vast amounts of work done in Windows that one normally doesn't do in Linux, so Windows has to be more productive. |
| tracyanne Mar 26, 2010 12:20 AM EDT |
Quoting:because nobody sane in his mind will directly edit the register I used to do that. |
| ComputerBob Mar 26, 2010 8:50 AM EDT |
Quoting:I used to do that.Me, too. It's only scary the first hundred times or so. Even scarier if you haven't learned to backup the Registry before you edit it, since even one wrong keystroke in the Registry can brick an entire Windows installation. |
| jdixon Mar 26, 2010 9:15 AM EDT |
> because nobody sane in his mind will directly edit the register Well, unless they need to fix a virus infestation that's altered their registry (so they can't run exe's or something of that nature, which happened to me recently). Which would be, well, most Windows users at one time or another. |
| hkwint Mar 26, 2010 10:06 AM EDT |
Compared to all the Tweak-utilities available, regedit is slow and cumbersome and a PITA to work with, that's what I meant. |
| ComputerBob Mar 26, 2010 10:36 AM EDT |
Quoting:Compared to all the Tweak-utilities available, regedit is slow and cumbersome and a PITA to work with, that's what I meant.But Regedit is more productive. |
| techiem2 Mar 26, 2010 10:38 AM EDT |
dban is even more productive. ;) |
| phsolide Mar 26, 2010 4:56 PM EDT |
I have to confess that I, too, read this Ken Hess article, as I clicked on the lxer reference to it from the linuxhomepage.com page (an aggregator of aggregators!). I think Hess is wrong in saying that you learn more with linux, but you have to keep windows or a mac around for "productivity". But my personal reading of "productivity" is to get a lot of stuff done in a reasonable, or short amount of time. All the excoriation of Hess above fails to take into a account the Microsoft Playbook, page 115, sect 5, paragraph 6, line 52: Quoting: Repetitive use of a common word (i.e. "productivity") to mean something specific or peculiar to a Microsoft product is encouraged. In due time, all of the friendly press members will use the common word only in the Microsoft-specific sense, causing confusing and consternation when read by Our Opponents. Once you take into account that "productivity" means Something Different, just like "rich experience", "client side" and so many other words that Used To Have A Non-Microsoft Meaning, Ken's article makes complete sense. Let me translate: You can learn things, and do tasks rapidly and well under linux. But in order to handle files in Microsoft-specific formats, you are nearly legally bound to maintain an Apple machine, or preferably, a dedicated, very modern and completely licensed Windows machine. So there, mystery solved. Oh, and Ken? It would be easier for us if you acknowledged using the Microsoft Playbook. |
| khess Mar 30, 2010 8:28 PM EDT |
LOL, you guys kill me. Mac is more productive for computer illiterates but would you really want me to say that? And it's almost the same for Windows. C'mon guys, we're on the same side here. Each OS has some positive points and negative points. Linux is better for those who really want to learn what a computer and an OS is all about. Macs are better for those who don't care about all that and just want to write an email or create a doc. Not playing by any playbook but my own. |
| jdixon Mar 30, 2010 8:49 PM EDT |
> Linux is better for those who really want to learn what a computer and an OS is all about. Macs are better for those who don't care about all that and just want to write an email or create a doc. Preinstalled versions of all three primary OS'es are pretty much the same if all you want is to write an email or create a document. You click on the icon (about the only difference is whether it's a desktop link, a taskbar link, or a start menu link) for your email or word processor and go to work. There's not a lot of difference to be found. |
| gus3 Mar 30, 2010 8:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:Not playing by any playbook but my own.We noticed. Quoting:Mac is more productive for computer illiterates but would you really want me to say that? And it's almost the same for Windows.Until you factor in the slowdown from AV software and pervasive DRM, and the lost time to updates that hose things due to poor privilege separation. BTW, you might want to explain to my dad (who is a self-admitted computer illiterate) that his Solitaire game, the only thing he does on it, would work better on Windows. And my brother, another computer illiterate, sees that Ubuntu does far better for him than Windows ever could. And my mother, not a total computer illiterate, but will never be a kernel dev, who, of her own initiative, asked me to build a Linux system for her nine years ago, and has never regretted that decision. Don't forget tracyanne's similar stories about her little old ladies. And helios's families in the slums. And and and... I could say more, but I think it would constitute a TOS violation. |
| tracyanne Mar 30, 2010 9:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:Linux is better for those who really want to learn what a computer and an OS is all about. That's strange. The people I upgraded to Linux, chose to do so after being infected by viruses, and they didn't want to learn all that OS stuff, they just wanted a computer that works, and keeps on working. |
| jezuch Mar 31, 2010 2:22 AM EDT |
Quoting:LOL, you guys kill me. Mac is more productive for computer illiterates but would you really want me to say that? I would. |
| tracyanne Mar 31, 2010 2:35 AM EDT |
@khessQuoting:C'mon guys, we're on the same side here. I seriously doubt that. I'm on the side of the battlers, the non geeks who constantly fall foul of Windows, and malware,, who already have a viable computer, that just needs a decent operating system. I give them that operating system, it's called Linux. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 31, 2010 3:17 AM EDT |
Quoting:That's strange. The people I upgraded to Linux, chose to do so after being infected by viruses, and they didn't want to learn all that OS stuff, they just wanted a computer that works, and keeps on working. Hear, hear. I have the same experience. People who just want to use a computer as if it were a device (like a VCR, TV, telephone) are much better off with Linux. Once installed and configured, they have nothing to worry about. |
| jacog Mar 31, 2010 5:28 AM EDT |
And how the heck can one make such a blanket statement anyway? Someone using Linux to browse the web or use an instant messenger or write letters is going to be no more or less productive than someone doing the same thing on another platform using the same software. One could make a case that doing task X is more productive on platform Y because the apps are better. But one can use that argument in favour or against any platform. More productive for who, doing what? Hess - stop trying to defend such an idiotic statement. And if you ARE going to defend it, please add some credible meat to the argument. |
| ComputerBob Mar 31, 2010 8:01 AM EDT |
In a previous thread http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/30419, I wrote
Quoting:...IMHO, Ken Hess has repeatedly demonstrated that he's a click whore who willingly trades his credibility for publicity, by writing controversial garbage to bait readers into visiting DaniWeb to disagree with him...Now I would like to modify that statement. Ken, you're either the click whore that I described earlier, or -- if you really believe the unsupported drivel that you write -- you're the William Hung of tech journalism. |
| gus3 Mar 31, 2010 9:04 AM EDT |
@ComputerBob: I just woke up, and where my own family couldn't make me laugh, you did. |
| TxtEdMacs Mar 31, 2010 10:17 AM EDT |
Unlike nearly all the denigrating comments posted here regarding Ken Hess, I now hold him in high regard, because:Quoting:Not playing by any playbook but my own.Which means his checkbook. How can I not be in awe when his checks don't bounce? YBT |
| gus3 Mar 31, 2010 10:31 AM EDT |
Quoting:How can I not be in awe when his checks don't bounce?How do you know that? He didn't say anything to indicate he's any better off than you. Never mind facts, I think you're confused by your own wishful thinking. You hope his paychecks aren't bouncing, because that would mean yours might not bounce, eventually. |
| jacog Apr 01, 2010 6:31 AM EDT |
What's the frequency, Ken Hess? |
| ComputerBob Apr 01, 2010 8:33 AM EDT |
Quoting:Unlike nearly all the denigrating comments posted here regarding Ken Hess, I now hold him in high regard, because:Don't you know ANY other jokes? |
| TxtEdMacs Apr 01, 2010 10:17 AM EDT |
Hey CB, Some people think I am Ken Hess. So I speak from knowledge. Will that do? YBT |
| ComputerBob Apr 01, 2010 3:29 PM EDT |
Quoting:Some people think I am Ken Hess.So you're wasting electrons under two different names? |
| tracyanne Apr 01, 2010 6:51 PM EDT |
What's interesting here is that people supply examples of where Ken Hess is wrong, but in his blogs he continues to repeat the same falsehoods. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!