Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st May 2010 12:45 UTC, submitted by martini
OS/2 and eComStation After god knows how many years, it's finally here: the final release of eComStation 2.0. We first reported on eComStation 2.0 back in December 2005, when the first beta was released, and between then and now, we've seen countless betas and release candidates come and go, but the wait is finally over.
Permalink for comment 425988
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Please, be fair and open.
by vodoomoth on Fri 21st May 2010 18:37 UTC
Member since:

I don't have a need for this OS so I won't buy it. I'm complaining about my Vista being so painfully slow but I won't upgrade it to Windows 7. Why? Because I know, without having ever tried it that 7 is not fast enough to make me content for the price I'd pay the upgrade, would it be 50 euros. I have absolutely no problem paying (less than half that amount per year) for Yahoo Mail Plus or Antivir Premium: they do what I want them to do extremely well. Has anyone ever tried the secondary addresses system from Yahoo? Nothing short of brilliant! I would gladly pay twice the price for that single feature.

However, I can easily understand that OSes like eCS do exist and I understand the price. Correct me if i'm wrong but weren't box versions of previous Windows's in the same prices? MS Office looked that expensive, if not more, in my student eyes years ago. So... what's the problem with the price? There are plenty of software products dedicated to one task that cost more (ever heard of AutoCAD or Photoshop?).

I also understand the "ugliness" of it. Is the target market for eCS composed of people who care about the looks? If we're not certain to answer "yes", then any debate about the looks is futile. Even for some of us techies, it isn't: the first I did was to disable Aero. Who needs that when Dexpot is there? Vista: good looks but so dog slow it's a pain to live with.

Mac OS X is by far the most polished member of the Macwinilux (as coined by Thom) gang in all aspects I can think of but I'm not sure Mac users with high resolution screens wouldn't trade some of that hot-sexy-busty-blue-eyed-blonde-chick (sorry girls) looks for the dumb simple possibility to change the size of the system font. I would; and I tried three days ago to change that size only to find out it's not possible! By the way, I would also trade some of it for the possibility to lock icons in the dock and I don't enumerate all the things I've tried to change and couldn't. Mac OS X: wild sexy chick but so stubborn.

Anyone wonders why mainstream OSes need so many gigs of disk space? Remember August 2009: reclaim 7 GB when upgrading from 10.5 to Snow Leopard? As a matter of fact, my system disk is 50 GB and it contains only the original Vista and 263MB in C:/ProgramData. All programs I installed myself and users folders and data are on a separate logical unit. Yet the available disk space is only 13.1 GB. What on earth does Windows need all that space for? The drivers? I would eagerly trade the "polished" aspect of Vista for less bloatware; Microsoft should have done the world a favor and bought/included useful apps like Dexpot, FreeCommander, RocketDock and ClipDiary. How much space do Snow Leopard and Linux distributions use? Wouldn't be surprised if the answer is 20+ GB. Macwinilux: uselessly big.

Linux? warpcafe put it better than I can:

Linux will (forever) do exactly what you want it to do only if you quit its GUI and type a 300+ chars commandline by heart in a shell.

My point with this long comment is that: 1- there is space for all actors in the OS world (including and especially the niches ones because they are the living proofs we haven't abandoned hopes for a better experience) even if some obviously don't fit our personal requirements, and 2- we can't have all features, speed, stability, looks, interoperability, security, user experience, intuitiveness, graded "configurability", you pick your favorites, at once. Or the "perfect OS" would have already existed and we wouldn't be commenting this article.

Reply Score: 1