I want to share with you how I decide who to vote for. I vote based on what the candidates stand for (as evidenced by their voting record, their principles, and their past), and NOT on how well they perform in televised debates. I look at their answers to questions, and not just how articulate their answers are. (Unless, of course, they don’t answer the questions.)

I believe in what John McCain stands for, and his past is filled with service to his country (and reform, as a senator). On the flip side, Obama may be a good speaker, but frankly his past scares me. A person’s past is normally a pretty good indicator of their future, and Obama has done nothing to dispel the stories of his unpatriotic past.

It might be a bit over-confident of me to say this, especially given the fact that I’ve never attempted anything even close this magnitude, but … I think I could build the perfect operating system. Well, what I mean to say is that I could if I had two things that I don’t right now: time and programming knowledge. I have the usability know-how, I think. At least a little.

I think the perfect OS would be a mixture, really, of Windows, MacOS, Linux, … well all of them, I suppose. I mean, they all have good aspects, but none of them are perfect. I would make one that’s perfect for noobs and power users alike.

Vista is very nice; I like it a lot more than I originally thought I would, but of course you know how many other people are now saying that same thing. For one, I have noticed its stability over XP. XP installations seem to be hit-or-miss: some people never have any trouble, and others have all the trouble. For instance, I recently installed a copy of XP Pro on my machine. It started out rock-solid, with a much, much better MTBRDTOSC (mean time before restart due to OS corruption - hehe) than my previous installation of XP Home. And after I got most of my programs installed, it still seemed ok. But here recently I’ve had more trouble than I should expect (which would be none). I’ve had programs start acting up (Adobe Audition, Firefox, Skype) or even crashing (Firefox, Google Chrome, Winamp) after less than 100 hours of uptime. And one or two times, a restart didn’t fix it - but most of the time it does, which confirms to me where the issue lies.

So, Vista is stable. And it looks nice. However, the Basic theme (which I use, to avoid the unnecessary RAM carnage that comes with using Aero) needs a bit of help; I’ve seen mock Vista themes for XP that put it to shame. Additionally, getting rid of the cascading menus under “All Programs” was a good step, but just cramming it all into one small box, to me, is actually worse: at least with the menus, I could see all the folders at once (at any given depth). The search box in the start menu is a great idea. I wish the people that complain about the “Run” option being missing would at least bother to look at the start menu’s options. Anyone who even used “Run” should be able to figure out how to enable it in Vista - which, by the way, is possible but not necessary since the search box is basically “Run” on steroids.

Next gripe: the disparity of the look-and-feel of core dialog boxes. They should have paid enough attention to detail to go through everything and make sure it doesn’t reek of pre-XP flat colors and square corners and bad layout. (Of course, they should have done this in XP too, so it may have been unreasonable for me to expect that they would behave any different this time around. Maybe Windows 7?)

Lastly (only because I can’t think of anything else at the moment), I think renaming the desktop right-click option “Properties” to “Personalize” just oozes with feel-good self-centered individuality and the like. Granted, the name “Properties” needed to change. And maybe they wanted to keep it starting with “P” so people wouldn’t get lost like they undoubtedly would if that first letterhad been changed. I just think that I would have preferred “Customize”.

I’ll add more about Vista if anything comes to mind. But I can’t leave without saying something about the smug and pompous Apple and their OS. One thing that I like about Windows is that I get to choose how I go about doing what I need to do - and that’s what I don’t like about MacOS: you do things the one way that is allowed, or else you don’t do it at all. Case in point: window resizing. Not that I use this very often, but Windows gives you 4 borders to drag around to your liking; MacOS forces you to use only one corner, and if you can’t drag it far enough, then you’ll have to grab the title bar, pull it back far enough to give you the room you need, and THEN go all the way back down to the corner from whence you came, to FINALLY get the window to be the size you want.

Task switching in MacOS is … well, a lot different, for starters. First, in Mac land, people aren’t used to using maximized windows… thus, you could often switch tasks just by clicking in another window that peeps out from behind the one you’re in. If that’s not an option, then you have no way of knowing, at a single glance, what all programs you have open. You have to open a menu to see them (and then pick one to switch to). Ugh.

Would someone please explain to me Apple’s choice to make the OS’s menu bar also represent the menu bar for all other applications, instead of letting each program have its own?

For an OS that’s supposed to be sooo easy to use, why is it so easy for people to inadvertently leave programs running after closing the last window the program opened? Any normal program (like the ones that would do this in MacOS) in Windows would show itself on the taskbar if it was running - and if it’s not there, then under normal circumstances that also means it’s not running. In MacOS, there is no visual indication of this that can be had by simply looking at the screen.

<More to come, probably>

I read a comment on a CNN.com story that really made clear to me why I think the way I do. Let me point out the three significant statements:

You have to be more than brain dead to vote for Mccain.
that bimbo that mccain selected has no experience
Mccains tactics are dirty and racial…

1. Although liberal candidates aren’t rife with personal attacks, their supporters consistently are. I don’t go around saying things like “you must be brain-dead if you support Obama,” whether I believe it or not - and I don’t hear other conservative voters doing it either.
2. Calling names? I will admit that many conservatives do similar things, but nothing so crude as “bimbo”. And for the record, I think all these nicknames that BOTH SIDES make up for the other party’s candidates are quite childish. Just call people who they are and what they go by. Please no more of this “McSame” and “B. Hussein Obama” etc. etc.
   Also, the experience issue is moot. Palin has about the same amount of experience as governor that Obama has as a senator. Incidentally, “governor” is the office Bush came from, and nobody cried “inexperience” when he ran, that I can recall.
3. McCain’s tactics might have gotten a bit dirty, but racial? Honestly? Again, a talking point of liberals. I haven’t heard John McCain mention race with the exception of (accurately) accusing Obama supporters of calling his supporters racist just because they don’t support Obama. I mean, I’m not racist at all, I’d vote for Alan Keyes in a heartbeat if he had a chance of winning.