You don't get it. It's not us, it's you. Most of the people you're arguing with don't even use OS X. They're just tech-savvy enough to realize the difference between a multimedia GUI and a full-scale computer operating system.

You're saying that a scooter is better than a delivery truck for navigating two blocks of traffic. Congratulations, Captain Obvious. No one is questioning that.

Yes at least your finally admiting what I stated about 17 posts ago which is that I'm only stating the obvious - for a mod you sure love personal attacks though.

Oh but what isn't obvious is that you in particular are attacking the issue in such an introverted manner that in plain english would translate to:

"It's not possible because Mac OS is an OS and not a GUI so could you please say that Mac OS isn't comparable to any GUI."

Clearly theres something wrong with you if your willing the pick at your own wording in such a manner.

Like I said, YOU put words in my mouth or actually redefined what I said and now your attacking what you defined, I made an aparantly according to you obvious remark and instead of being taken as what it is it's taken as what you wanted it to be, for what intent I haven't the foggiest. Congrats though on whatever you strived to achieve.

Of course now this is going to go into where your personal attack is, to moot that nasty little direction I'll say if I cared enough I'd report it and not state that your doing it.

In all honesty I'm not even close to perplexed as to how this got so far as to require cherry picking and personal attacks for sake of emphasizing a point; my co-worker goes there all the time, it's called fanaticism, I'm not into tech any more, I'm just a consumer and as far as I'm concerned I spend my money on what I see, that is how the two are comparable.

If XMB should be used as a GUI for Home should Home be the first virtual OS then I'm saying XMB would be much easier to work with over as you named it and the only useful piece of info I got from this thread: "Carbon" in the state I was using it in.

I'm not retracting anything, if anything I was honestly expecting an apology for the interruption by those two others and definetly you for attacking me as a person and not my point, which doesn't even get addressed unless it's around the words: "You don't get it."

Also just because the world decides that gasoline is the easiest way to go doesn't mean it's the right way to go. Also chill with the analogies they really don't get your point across just be direct and understand not just relate.

I mean for Pete's sake I agree'd with you many many many times, yet your still argueing the same old tired point and saying I'm wrong, I've been saying were argueing different points and your just not understanding my point. I realized later it's not misconception it's redefinition, maybe even fanaticism, whether it be Tech or the Mac OSX itself I don't care.

Have a good night/

Okay, you sure like to write a lot and say nothing. Here's your original comment:

"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."

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. You could replace "OS X" with "Vista" in every single statement you've posted and all of us would still be arguing with you. You're comparing a massive operating system with an extremely limited multimedia GUI. You even admitted that you don't even know what Front Row is. You could also put in "Media Center" as a comparison, that's another pretty damned good multimedia GUI. You're comparing two vastly different things and attempting to convince us that it somehow means something.

But go ahead and keep calling me a fanatic. I'm comfortable with acknowledging you don't know WTF you're talking about. I don't care if you are talking about OS X, Vista, XP, or some form of Linux. Your comparison is still pointless and completely off-base.

And a huge LOL at the "personal attacks" comments. Since when is calling someone Captain Obvious a personal attack?

Agree to disagree and move on then.  ^_^

... I see more than enough forums cluttered with this nonsense to want it here.  >_>

@WoW

Funny thing is I don't disagree with him on his definition of what an OS is.

>.>

Edit - It's hard to image that this all started from me saying I believe XMB would be easier than Mac OSX for me if Home were to be the first virtual OS and it used XMB in a similar fashion to Windows desktop.

ad hominem

oh and used in that context rocketpig -

WTF is still 'What the fuck' being used in a very offensive way, a guy as aggressive as you should know why your being so aggressive.

I'm happy we agree that I don't know what the hell we are talking about, because I've been saying your arguing a different point for a while now.

Edit- I can tell your emotionally involved in this, I mean your to the point of "BLARG!" responses.

Your definitely some kind of fanatic ;). This wasn't a debate from the onset and it's just a one way "I know more than you!" contest and I think your winning.

I've said this many times, I don't care, in fact I just want to end this on a good note and not with you huffing and puffing all over the place cursing my persona and in your heart of hearts yearning for knowledge of my ill-going on's.

Ok, I'll try to advance this discussion/debate a bit. Though I'm still not sure what you mean by virtual OS, but it sounds it's not what it is usually thought to mean:

Definition of virtual operating system: An operating system that can host other operating systems. See virtual machine. source

Anyway, if we assume that Home would indeed become something resembling an operating system, that would mean that it would have to have the ability to run applications that have some sort of a user interface. It might be possible to adapt XMB to most kinds of applications, but probably not all. Anyway, as the number of applications increases (as devs make more apps for the Home OS), the XMB has to be able to support all of those new apps. Now, I know a few things about designing user interfaces, and I'm pretty sure that the user experience you get from XMB would detoriarate quite fast as the number of options increases. That is the problem with all menu-driven interfaces. So, the XMB you have now would be quite different from the XMB that you would use to control the Home OS. And that is the point I have been trying to get across, albeit not in a very direct manner. User interfaces are always designed to a specific purpose (or at least they should be designed, but we all know a plethora of apps just slap the controls in and are done with it), and the wider the purpose, the harder it is to design an easy user interface. There are ways to alleviate the problems caused by a wide range of possibilities/options, but the XMB approach does not, IMO, scale particularily well upwards. Anyway, I don't know if the above was even in the ballpark of what you mean by a virtual OS, so if you could clarify I'd appreciate it. Who knows, with a bit of thinking and discussion we can arrive at some sort of mutual understanding.

There is no such thing as a virtual OS. You can virtualize hardware, and run a real OS in it, but that's about it.

Home, is not an OS, not virtual, not real, not anything. It's an application. Home will not help write to a filesystem, collect information from any impute devises, or directly control your display. The same OS you have now on your PS3 will do all those things.

This didn't all start because you said those things, it all started because you were corrected, and would not just say "oh, ok, I got it wrong".

This is the first time ever I've decided to give up on my own thread.

I normally understand pretty much everything on this site, but I can't understand anything now.

A handful people seem to agree, and write 10 word pages describing that they agree, in a way that makes it seem they disagree.

Or am I missing something?

Fixed for my view!