| dib8rman said: @plaupis I know that, but I've been saying that's besides the point, the OS runs a GUI in a windows enviornment for the same purposes a PS3 runs XMB, I'm saying out of the two be it desktop or XMB that XMB was much easier and friendlier to work with right off the bat. I would be wrong if I was saying XMB is an OS I never said that, and so I was never wrong. Like I said in my above post you guys shoved that term on me and gave me some narrative that I didn't even understand; then told me that I was wrong... which you just litterally did which is what rockets been doing this entire time. I've just been trying to clarify that were not even talking about the same thing and that he was combating his own misconception and not me. Which was then followed up by you guys. Of course I probably could of clarified myself I guess, but I don't believe I should have to when I stated that this was my experience in the original post. |
I know I probably shouldn't go into this anymore, but here's your original post:
"I acutally preffer XMB over Mac OS many because of how easy XMB is to access, and I'm a windows guy, when home comes out that will be the ultimate virtual OS with XMB it's a win win formula."
I'm not quite sure what you mean by claiming that home will be the ultimate virtual OS with XMB, as you seem to know that neither of those is anything even resembling an OS.
And to finish of with a bit of nitpicking, the bolded statement is not correct. XMB is basically a menu-GUI, which has an entirely different purpose than the "GUI in a windows environment" that OS X uses. As rocketpig said, the other has been designed to support maybe, say, 100 functions, whereas the other one is designed to enable programs. You could make an XMB clone in OS X, but you coulnd't make an OS X clone in XMB no matter how hard you tried.
