Why is there a Mac and linux forum, but no Windows forum?

[jgombos]

Why is there a Mac and linux forum, but no Windows forum?

[BJ_M]

because most people would assume that everything that doesnt fit into mac and linux forums is windows related

[guns1inger]

And if it is Windows specific, rather than video related, it ends up in the computers forum.

[redwudz]

From our statistics page:

Operating Systems January 2006 January 2005

Windows_____________92.6%______95.7%
Macintosh____________2.3%_______2.3%
Other or not listed______5%_________5%

Less than 8 percent is reported as other than Windows OS.

[BJ_M]

interesting that it is over 100% in 2005

[jgombos]

interesting that it is over 100% in 2005

Some folks run multiple machines. I traffic this forum from linux, os x, and windows. Could it be that the stats are in percent of users, rather than percent of connections made? That's the only explaination I can think of - other than flawed math. In comparing the two years, it appears that some multi-platform users may have made a complete migration away from Windows. As consumer wisdom improves, I think we'll see more and more of that.

I'm not sure how useful those stats are, when it's based on what platform users are trafficing forums on, not what machine they are doing video work on. I personally don't trust Windows for anything where I care about reliability. I might visit web forums on the Windows box, but I wouldn't be tempted to do anything imporant on it, because it's a gamers toy, not a tool.

[BJ_M]

i dont think they migrated away from windows as much as starting using plugins that block such details -- there are quite a few for firefox for example ...

[rkr1958]

I personally don't trust Windows for anything where I care about reliability. I might visit web forums on the Windows box, but I wouldn't be tempted to do anything imporant on it, because it's a gamers toy, not a tool.

Huh? 95%+ of the computers in the US run windows. This includes big, medium and small business. Whether people like it or not the defaco O/S worldwide, by a very large margin, for business and personal use, for work and for play, is Windows.

[jgombos]

Whether people like it or not the defaco O/S worldwide, by a very large margin, for business and personal use, for work and for play, is Windows.

The fact that Windows is being used as a general purpose machine doesn't mean it should be, and it doesn't make it a tool. Someone could produce office tools for a Playstation, which can then be used in the office, in which case it would be a toy used as a tool. Suppose there were no machines, except the Playstation, and someone created an office tool. The Playstation would become the worldwide de facto standard office machine. Then when real office tools emerge, everyone and their friends would be trained on and familiar with Playstations, and they wouldn't switch. People don't like change; so much so that they will tolerate random crashes and malware strikes, favoring what they're familiar with. Fear of the unknown, and fear that they will be incompetent on any other machine.

The history of Windows mimicks the scenario above. It was the only viable option at one time. Every OS produced today puts Windows to shame, but that's not enough to break the cycle. Non-US governments have started imposing linux on government machines, because Windows is the least reliable OS available, and any government would be foolish to use it. If you live in the US, you're not getting an accurate picture.

As for video editing, movie studios do not use Windows. If they are low budget, they use Macs. If they have more budget, they use SGIs.

[lordsmurf]

I don't follow your logic about toys and tools. It's sort of backwards.

At any rate, the whole anti-Windows thing is just childish. Every OS has strong points and flaws. Linux and OS X are not perfect, not more stable, etc ... neither in desktop or server. They can all falter, crash, be hacked, get a virus or worm or whatever, in one way or another.

I'm actually not aware of an SGI being used in a pro environment in years. They mostly converted to Windows NT-based OS and then some Macs. Linux/Unix is not even a contender.

[edDV]

...

As for video editing, movie studios do not use Windows. If they are low budget, they use Macs. If they have more budget, they use SGIs.

Absoutely and totally false. SGI IRIS/IRIX was once popular for 3D modeling, and rendering but where have you been for the past 15 years? SGI has gone 90% Windows itself after acquiring Alias. Maya is the lead application and as SGI free falls, Autodesk has acquired most of the pieces including Maya (yes Autodesk is mostly on Windows too).

High end film and movie production is dominated by Windows. AVID still offers a few products on MAC but those are targeted to small business and not as much to heavy duty infrastructure which is Windows. Apple's Final Cut Pro mostly exists in small islands within a Windows networked system. Broadcast TV and cable infrastructure is mostly Windows. We can go on and on. Proprietary firmware on microprocessors, MAC OS and Unix started shifting to Windows NT in the mid to late 90's and there is little other than Windows OS today at the high end. Exception is legacy 3D modeling and render farms which are often Unix.

Mac Final Cut Pro has a place, mostly due to a strong freelance base of editors. But the serious movie and TV work gets done on Windows OS/Intel hardware using specialized software (mostly not Microsoft).

Linux is mostly absent from serious video except as a general purpose server OS. For example effects render farms often use Linux/Unix to save OS cost per node. Products that demand massive parallel rendering also use Linux specifically as an economic way to leverage Intel and AMD hardware. Discreet which was also acquired by Autodesk is still known for a Unix user interface.

[jgombos]

Absoutely and totally false.

You've got to do some homework before publishing such patently inaccurate garbage. Even if you neglect industry norms, it's not even realistic for Windows to be selected for high budget film production. I would be like NASA choosing to use a Nintendo to handle telemetry data from a space probe.

SGI IRIS/IRIX was once popular for 3D modeling, and rendering but where have you been for the past 15 years?

I've been watching films like Monsters Inc (produced using IRIX on an Octane), Finding Nemo (produced entirely on linux), Shrek (produced using linux platform on SGI hardware), Lord of the Rings (also produced using linux platform on SGI hardware)

Apple's Final Cut Pro mostly exists in small islands within a Windows networked system.

It's not even close to reasonable to use Windows for mission critical network tasks, given its record of reliability and track record for malware.

Mac Final Cut Pro has a place, mostly due to a strong freelance base of editors. But the serious movie and TV work gets done on Windows OS/Intel hardware using specialized software (mostly not Microsoft).

You don't do anything serious using Windows, period. As soon as large amounts of money rely on the correct execution of machine code, Windows is not an option. Nor is it an option for any applications where human life depends on the reliability of the machine.

[lordsmurf]

You've got to do some homework before publishing such patently inaccurate garbage.

What you fail to realize is that a number of people that participate on these boards work in the professional video industry or have close ties to them. There is a lot to be learned from these people. I'm glad they are here.

The only thing that is "inaccurate garbage" so far is your assertion that Windows is a home toy that goes unused by the business world.

I've been watching films like Monsters Inc

And you refer to graphics rendering farms, not video production.

[jgombos]

At any rate, the whole anti-Windows thing is just childish.

Really? So it's not meaningful or useful to point out the numerous major shortcomings of the most popular operating system?

Every OS has strong points and flaws. Linux and OS X are not perfect,

Of course.

not more stable,

Of course UNIX platforms are more stable. No platform is more saturated with defects than Windows, and the defects are often severe. It only takes a very minor bug in a device driver to cause a blue screen of death, bringing down the entire system spontaneously, and corrupting all the data. Unix users will not likely see a single critical bring-everything-down failure in their lifetime. Personally, I cannot possibly count the number of BSODs I've seen in every version of Windows through to XP Pro, but I've only seen a few linux apps fail, and maybe ~25 mac apps fail, none of which brought the entire system down with it, or corrupted data. There is a world of difference between a failure that brings down the entire system, and one that gracefully or aggressively terminates a single process.

They can all falter, crash, be hacked, get a virus or worm or whatever, in one way or another.

But which one is constantly under attack? If you're not sure, look at the list of malware on Mcaffee or Symantec. Running Windows is like choosing to live in a dangerous neighborhood; your security systems will be put to the test. However, run UNIX, and it doesn't matter if there are bugs, because it's like living in a gated community in a good neighborhood where you can leave your door unlocked every day and not get robbed. I believe there was one linux virus in all of 2004, and it came with its own uninstall routine.

[lordsmurf]

Linux servers are always getting attacked, way more than Windows servers. Crappy PHP scripts turn a Linux server into Swiss cheese.

Your knowledge of Mac and Windows is about 10-15 years old.
I would say the same about your Linux knowledge, but, of course, that OS was not really around at that time. It was not really being used until the late 1990s. Your assertions about Unix variations are just sort of all over the place in terms of what is true, what was true, and what is not true at all.

The world of computing have moved on. It's about time some of the users face that reality, rather than stay attached to decades-old myths and stigmas.

[jgombos]

Your knowledge of Mac and Windows is about 10-15 years old.

Mac 10-15 years ago was garbage. My comments about Mac are referring to Jaguar or later. My knowledge of Windows goes back 15 years, sure, but I'm still using Windows today; XP Home and Professional. I'm often forced to use Windows in my career (Aerospace), and in fact I experienced a BSOD just two days ago on an updated XP box. So your claim is unfounded.

I would say the same about your Linux knowledge, but, of course, that OS was not really around at that time. It was not really being used until the late 1990s. Your assertions about Unix variations are just sort of all over the place in terms of what is true, what was true, and what is not true at all.

Sounds pretty vague. You have not been able to counter a single arguement that I've made.

The world of computing have moved on. It's about time some of the users face that reality, rather than stay attached to decades-old myths and stigmas.

BSODs are still a problem today. Recently MS announced Tuesday patch day being a thing of the past (which is some of the same marketing that has apparently worked wonders on you). A couple days following the announcement, two critical bugs were discovered that needed patchwork

[jgombos]

And you refer to graphics rendering farms, not video production.

The kind of work where uptime and performance are paramount -- of course you don't use Windows.

[lordsmurf]

And you refer to graphics rendering farms, not video production.

The kind of work where uptime and performance are paramount -- of course you don't use Windows.

Since you missed it the first time, the reason for using Unix variations is because the OS is not as heavy on the CPU, and the cycles go more for rendering, and less towards system upkeep. It has nothing to do with stability and performance (which entails more than CPU).

Most Windows users see few BSODs these days. In fact, so few people see tham, that BSOD is slowly becoming a forgotten acronym. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Mac OS bombs.

Again, your assertions and stigmas are decades old. The world of computing has moved on, and it's time users come to grips with modern reality.

[edDV]

Absoutely and totally false.

You've got to do some homework before publishing such patently inaccurate garbage...

Where to start with you.

You need to give us some idea of your area of expertise so we can start someplace.

Movie special effects are modeled and rendered non-realtime and with little connection to video until they are done. That said, Maya rules market share for general 3D modeling and animation in film and video application but many other specialized programs exist. Rendering can be done on anything.

As for editing and project workflow using general purpose computers, AVID firmly holds the high end and AVID moved from MAC to Windows (mostly) in the late 90's although some products are still offered on the Mac. There is still alot of proprietary microprocessor based equipment in this space.

If you look at live television, proprietary microprocessor based real-time systems still dominate. You will rarely find a PC, Mac or UNIX computer doing live production except in specialized tasks (like virtual sets, graphics or weather).

Start your education here.
http://www.avid.com/products/dsnitris/nitris/index.asp
http://www.avid.com/profiles/060705_greys_adrenaline.asp?featureID=999&marketID=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(software)
http://www.avid.com/products/datasheets/LANSHARE_LP.pdf

[lumis]

/golf clap

[edDV]

Absoutely and totally false.

You've got to do some homework before publishing such patently inaccurate garbage. Even if you neglect industry norms, it's not even realistic for Windows to be selected for high budget film production. I would be like NASA choosing to use a Nintendo to handle telemetry data from a space probe.

It's fairly clear you don't understand the workflow of movie production. There are dozens of crafts and each has speicalized equipment. You will find most computer platforms represented. Depends what you are talking about. But most likely you will have the movie finished on an Avid multi Xeon system running on Windows.

If you haven't noticed, SGI is in bankruptcy. Their hardware is still used for heavy rendering on animated movies and for special effects work but so are PC render farms and SGI offers lots of Intel hardware in their catalog. Most high end animation software has been ported or is now written for Windows.

You are stating Windows is not in use. Giving SGI examples does nothing to advance your point.

Apple's Final Cut Pro mostly exists in small islands within a Windows networked system.

It's not even close to reasonable to use Windows for mission critical network tasks, given its record of reliability and track record for malware.

I challenge you to name one TV or cable network in the USA that isn't running primarily from a Windows controlled network. True you will find UNIX represented but not dominant.

Mac Final Cut Pro has a place, mostly due to a strong freelance base of editors. But the serious movie and TV work gets done on Windows OS/Intel hardware using specialized software (mostly not Microsoft).

You don't do anything serious using Windows, period. As soon as large amounts of money rely on the correct execution of machine code, Windows is not an option. Nor is it an option for any applications where human life depends on the reliability of the machine.

Your views are seriously out of date. Next time you visit a hospital, look around.

[Conquest10]

Yes, hospital machinery uses Windows.

[lordsmurf]

Yes, hospital machinery uses Windows.

Utility companies (electric, gas, water, etc) are also using Windows in some capacity. As well as government facilities, state and local law enforcement, banks, etc. As much as people would like to whine about an OS, most all computer-related sabotage comes from user error or inside operations (disgruntled employees, etc). Coincidentally, I saw a documentary on this very topic about a week ago.

None of this means Windows is the greatest OS in the world, nor does it mean it is the worst. It is simply the one that gets used the most, both for personal and business needs.

[jgombos]

Yes, hospital machinery uses Windows.

You will not find a single safety-critical machine running on Windows in a hospital. To prove me wrong, you only need to find one example. Windows is used in hospitals as a stupid user interface (SUI). The most responsibility you'll find given to Windows is patient records, which have no safety standards.

[jgombos]

Utility companies (electric, gas, water, etc) are also using Windows in some capacity. As well as government facilities, state and local law enforcement, banks, etc.

Again, as accounting / billing systems, and as an SUI. You will not find an instance where it's used to meet a safety standard for which lives depend on.

As much as people would like to whine about an OS, most all computer-related sabotage comes from user error or inside operations (disgruntled employees, etc). Coincidentally, I saw a documentary on this very topic about a week ago.

The inside threat is the most significant for a targetted attack. However, it would be foolish for security administrators to ignore perimeter security because of that. The outside threat is substantial, and must be guarded against.

[jgombos]

You are stating Windows is not in use. Giving SGI examples does nothing to advance your point.

I was countering the claim that SGI has been out of the picture for 15 years.

[jgombos]

Linux servers are always getting attacked, way more than Windows servers.

Rubbish, and easily verified. Look at the massive library of malware for Windows at Mcaffee or Symantec. Those attacks are automated, and hit on a large scale. Compare that to the library of linux malware. Scripted and manual attacks are focused, so they can be neglected in comparison. And even if you don't neglect them, Windows has 90+ percent of the market share, so of course they're getting attacked more.

[lordsmurf]

Again, as accounting / billing systems, and as an SUI. You will not find an instance where it's used to meet a safety standard for which lives depend on.

I suggest you get out of the house more, join the 21st century. I think you're in for a rude awakening. For like the 4th or 5th time now, ditch the decades-old stigmas and myths. Computing has evolved in the past decade.

About 7 years ago, we had this big boogeyman scare called "Y2K". When that happened, lots of mainframes were ditched and replaced with networks and workstations. And Microsoft Windows 2000 was there to fill the holes, then XP, then 2003... you get the idea. Even without that hysterical meltdown, computer systems are always being upgraded and updated, and whether you like it or not, Microsoft Windows is often what powers modern systems.

These silly notions of Windows only being used for accounting and video games is the single dumbest thing I've ever read on this site. And that took a lot of doing.

It would also help to pay attention to modern server environments. Linux servers get hosed almost daily the past year or so. It's the scripts that do it, and the fault of the users on both sides (owner and hacker), but the Linux servers get knocked on their ass all the same. Just like Windows is the biggest target for desktops, Linux is the biggest target for servers.

[jgombos]

I suggest you get out of the house more, join the 21st century. I think you're in for a rude awakening. For like the 4th or 5th time now, ditch the decades-old stigmas and myths. Computing has evolved in the past decade.

Again, you have no grounds for what you're saying. Your comment is an ad hominem at best. Why not bring me up to speed, and show me one case of Windows being used on a safety-critical application?

[lordsmurf]

Again, you have no grounds for what you're saying.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. ( more info at http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html )