Instead of freebsd.com, why not...

[Anthony Atkielski]

Michael C. Shultz writes:

> What about the other 12000 ports?  How do they do in windows?

I don't know, since I don't need or use them.

> Likely there is a *FREE* port for most of what you listed above.

No, there isn't.  These software products run only on Windows, generally
speaking.  A few exist in Mac versions as well.  Virtually none exist
for any flavor of UNIX or UNIX-like operating systems.

I have to run these applications for work and play.  I therefore cannot
use any operating system that doesn't support them on the desktop.

> And if you wish to donate half of what you paid for each of those
> listed programs there would likely be a port author willing to 
> customize/improve their  port version just for you.....

Why would I do that?  They already run on Windows.

> At best windows can run two or three major applications at once
> before it pukes.

I routinely have two dozen applications running under Windows, and
depending on memory available and required, it can easily run several
times that, or more.

> On my lowly 256meg 1Gz machine I have 18 desktops, in those 18 desktops
> I normally have 3 to 4 major apps running,  in two desk tops I have 2 
> terms with 4 tabs each running programs, and a handful of documents 
> opened in the other desk tops.

On my 1.8 GHz 1.5 GB machine, I have one desktop that can run
everything.

> With all that going on in the foreground, in the background all of my
> apps are being automatically and continuously updated.

I never allow anything on my machines to be automatically updated.  I
perform all updates myself, explicitly, and I never update anything
unless I have to.

> When I want a break from work I open a move with mplayer and watch it
> with out worrying about shutting anything else down, and if I need a
> music fix, xmms solves it.

I can watch DVDs and listen to music even with dozens of applications
running.

> Sometimes I'll go two weeks before rebooting.

I can go months without rebooting.  My NT machine has gone for nearly a
year without a reboot.  I don't remember ever seeing a system crash on
my XP system, and I've only seen a handful of crashes on the NT system
(all because of bad drivers).

> It was like going through withdrawl, not
> being able to defrag my drives, took a few years before I finally 
> believed not all file systems frag themselves to death.

Fragmentation is difficult to avoid entirely, but some file systems are
better at dealing with it than others.  NTFS is no worse than UNIX in
this respect, as far as I can tell, although my guess is that UNIX is
probably superior, if there really is a difference (because UNIX has
been around for quite a while and seems to work pretty well without
defragmentation).

> Windows is crap, I feel sorry for you that you have to use it.

Emotional assertions don't persuade me, and you need not feel sorry for
me, as everything runs perfectly here.

-- 
Anthony