Linux vs. Vista

[dptxp]

I looked for Linux, studied a lot on net, and finally went for UBUNTU just because of the VISTA threat. Microsoft changes its OS every few years, their software use a lot of resources (hardware), and are virus prone. Every time they ask you to upgrade to their latest "more secure" OS.

I have been using Windows since 1992 starting from 3.1, and to their credit Windows has paid a major role in making PC popular with simple user interfaces. But Windows is getting more and more complicated, Linux is getting simpler and simpler, and you can use you same PC without increasing pollution by throwing it. LINUX is open source, and I am personally thinking of promoting OS like UBUNTU in educational institutions.

VISTA is no threat to UBUNTU, it is going to help UBUNTU a lot. I hope that UBUNTU is kept FREE of cost, or the price is kept low (say USD 20 or less) with a bit of support for DESKTOP users. So that it grows in performance, but retains simplicity and soft on hardware resources.

I have installed UBUNTU 6.10 (64-Bit) on my new laptop, I have to have dual-boot with Windows-XP for sometime till I can find and run my essential software for profession. For Home Users and standard business use , LINUX/ UBUNTU perhaps has everything.

[floke]

Eh? Pretty poor attempt at Microsoft bashing.

First - viruses, spyware - ??? WTF are you talking about? I am running XP for 2 years without using any antivirus or anti-spyware (I install it only once in a while - usually when writing posts like this to be sure there isn't any bug present .-) - and I definitely don't have any viruses or spyware. Yeah, they exist, but if you are at least a bit competent user you don't have to fear them.

I mean - do you need to try bashing Windows to make linux more appealing or something?

Of course, that's why there are absolutely no viruses on the net. WTF are we talking about? It's all a myth. Symantec and Norton don't really exist. it's all a figment of our collectively fevered imagination. The virus that set me on the course to OSS and Linux, that i caught simply by looking for childrens online games that I could play with my son was, naturally, a complete phantom, real only in my dreams. As someone who is 'at least a bit competent' with a PC I am relieved to discover that the infestations on the web (highlighted as an area of growing concern at the recent Davos forum) are all an illusion.

Phew!

It's back to XP for me then....

(BTW: If you're 'at least a bit competent' with a PC, why do you feel the need to boot into Windows to check for bugs?)

[Sir Frederic]

Running VLC or mplayer in a higher priority may help the skips.

I Use totem with Ubuntu 6.06 and 6.10 and never had skipping or jerkiness of any description.

[unbargained]

i've heard rumors of ubuntu taking over the linux scene. this would be cool and it's not a bad alternative to windows, ie it could take its place. i would be happy about this :)

[PrinceArithon]

Still just rumors. I know of a good amount of SuSe and Gentoo heads out there, and they refuse to switch. Yet, in time I think it's possible.

[aysiu]

I've merged this into the Linux v. Vista thread.

[mastercare]

Well i got interested in linux as a whole abt 5 months ago..mainly by the setting up of game servers etc..which always seemed to crash in windows at some point or other..the question linux v vista is a debate that will go on for along time...as a windows user i tried the latest stand alone release and i admit i was impressed...at first...lot of gimmicks which joe soap will like yes..but not for games...we play graw and vegas alot..and i found vista to be very lumpy in those games...counter strike source however performed well..it seems that microsoft does not like opengl games and i found that. my machine is a 3ghz amd with 2 ghz ram...yes ubuntu or any linux disto wont i feel.suffer over vista..but i will be honest my main hobby which is satellite is turning into a nightmare with linux...plugins compile or wont make...ive tried vdr myth tv kaffeine they all have stupid problems...none i can fix..half the time deb packages are not available or the other way round...the latest tonight trying to get myth tv working cannot identiy kernel..so to go back to conversation im now getting sorry to say disalluioned with linux...so i will prob go back to XP pro which programs u install run and work...and i will keep linux for what it is good at...game servers...
cheers

[Raval]

An Open Letter to Microsoft: Re-Release Windows XP (http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/18428/an-open-letter-to-microsoft-re-release-windows-xp)

Dear Mr. Gates, Mr. Ballmer, and the many good folks at Microsoft Corp.,

It's time to sober up on Windows Vista. This just isn't working out, and your users are getting frustrated to the point where they're souring on Windows altogether. In case you haven't seen some of the more noteworthy blog posts on this topic, I refer you to Chris Pirillo, Scot's Newsletter, or Spend Matters. Or check out the recent bug reports regarding product activation and security flaws. This is all stuff I managed to dredge up that was written yesterday.

People are unhappy with Vista. Really unhappy. And though I know Microsoft has its own form of Steve Jobs' reality distortion field, it certainly can't keep you from seeing at least some of the sobering sales figures and the crush of disappointing reviews of Vista. I don't want to dredge up all the reasons people are unhappy with Vista in this letter. I want to talk about what you ought to do stop a mass migration to Linux and the Mac.

An Open Letter to Microsoft: Re-Release Windows XP (http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/18428/an-open-letter-to-microsoft-re-release-windows-xp)

[FLPCGuy]

I haven't seen any technical comparison lately of the complexity or sophistication of Windows vs. Linux.

For example, Windows has a complex registry which allows automatic or easy rollback of drivers, hardware and app configuration, and software removal. Because it stores current configuration changes only on shutdown, changes that crash the system are not saved. You can 'fix' corrupted system components by re-installing Windows in the same directory. It reads and applies all previous registry values so you don't have to re-install or configure applications and personal settings.

Slipstreaming technology even re-applies most installed updates. A registry also assists in applying both local and network Group/HW Policies upon startup and shutdown. It helps store and update Directory Service settings and features. There are Pros and Cons to all this depending upon your point of view. End users who want total control of a PC may not appreciate all these features, but network Admins really need them.

Linux is closest to Windows 3.11 (WFW) in it's lack of complexity but with current protocol support. Separate readable configuration files, no standard software installation locations, no driver history or even self-maintaining service loading dependencies makes Linux a far simpler design but faster. I have come full circle and now find this lack of complexity a welcome change that gives me more control as an end user of my single PC.


Eventually, Linux may add a simple registry or find better ways to implement rollbacks, system backup and other enhancements. But Windows is already too bloated, too restrictive and too complex. It can only get even harder to control, support, and understand.


These are two VERY different operating systems designed with far different objectives.

[Trebuchet]

I agree totally. It may in fact be impossible to make as "perfect OS" simply because different people have different ideas of what constitutes "perfection." If everyone assigned the same priorities to all the different aspects of computer operating systems, we wouldn't have umpteen flavors of open source operating systems now, would we?

As a recent spoof* of Linux noted, "It is free as in free beer, and is the only operating system which allows one to engage in OS wars with people who use the same operating system, a feature which has revolutionized Slashdot."

:lolflag:



*http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Linux

[rennen01]

Some say you have to be more computer literate to use Linux. I almost tend to agree, BUT:

-One can not compare an OS that most of the manufacturers are developing drivers for vs. an open source OS (Luckily we have great community support for Ubuntu).
-The average Linux user seems to be more computer literate than the average Windows user.

That being said:

-When someone gets used to functioning in Linux, I have found out that it is just as easy as Windows.
-Of course their are going to more products for Windows out there, it is on 90% + of the PCs in the world (but Google does wonders in finding Linux alternatives).

Do I still use Windows? Yes
Am I using Ubuntu more and more? Yes and happily might I add.

IMO, each OS has or does something better than others. It is about finding the OS that works best for you. And for me, right now, it is Ubuntu.

my .02 :)

[Trebuchet]

-One can not compare an OS that most of the manufacturers are developing drivers for vs. an open source OS (Luckily we have great community support for Ubuntu).Why not? Those are after all the things in competition for the desktop. Is Linux ready for the mass market yet? Not quite. It's very close, but not there yet.

-The average Linux user seems to be more computer literate than the average Windows user.Agreed, but that just reinforces my first point. The computer illiterate/semi-literate are probably not quite ready for Linux, if nothing else because many of them will take the path of least resistance and aren't particularly interested in learning something new. They'll do it only when they have to. Windows is what they learned first, so it offers the easiest upgrade path for these people.

I look forward to the day when Linux does everything I could possibly want and I can happily abandon Windows. I don't see that day being real soon, especially if I have any interest in gaming. I'll probably end up with a multi-boot system running Linux, Mac OS, and Windows in the end (Since Apple won't allow its OS to run legally on other hardware, I'll have to use a Mac system by default.).

[Craftycorner]

i beg to differ. i've heard horror story after horror story about vista installs!:lolflag:

[Frak]

i beg to differ. i've heard horror story after horror story about vista installs!:lolflag:
Mine bluescreened during install, that enough?

[rennen01]

Why not? Those are after all the things in competition for the desktop. Is Linux ready for the mass market yet? Not quite. It's very close, but not there yet.

In general there is more support for Windows issues/drivers/hardware/new program development. That is what it seems like to me.

On the other hand, if one knows where to look and who to ask for help, Linux works just fine. It all depends on how much work you are trying to do vs. just paying someone else to do it.

From an Enterprise view, the place I work won't even purchase software if there isn't 24/7 support available.

[Frak]

In general there is more support for Windows issues/drivers/hardware/new program development. That is what it seems like to me.

On the other hand, if one knows where to look and who to ask for help, Linux works just fine. It all depends on how much work you are trying to do vs. just paying someone else to do it.

From an Enterprise view, the place I work won't even purchase software if there isn't 24/7 support available.
Your aware Canonical provides that 24/7 support? You pay them, they fix your problem. If the answer doesn't exist, they'll create it.

[rennen01]

Your aware Canonical provides that 24/7 support? You pay them, they fix your problem. If the answer doesn't exist, they'll create it.

Now I know. And that's what's important. :)

What I previously said is what I hear from my Windows Administrators a lot. I really don't feel like getting into OS wars with them.

Since I've installed Ubuntu, I'd really rather stay with Linux. I try spreading the word, but I hear "I have do things myself?" a lot. IMO a lot of people choose Windows due to laziness.

We have over 3000 users where I work, and I've spoken with several of them about switching to Linux :( Most of them just aren't willing to make the switch. Too bad for them, good for me. :)

Bottom line is, I am happy with my choice and if the masses choose to run blindly, at least we won't be a part of it.

[aysiu]

Why not? Those are after all the things in competition for the desktop. Is Linux ready for the mass market yet? Not quite. It's very close, but not there yet. No, this doesn't make sense. Windows doesn't have third-party support because of it being superior software. It gets third-party support because any manufacturer would be economically suicidal to not include a Windows driver for the printer/scanner/wireless card/etc.

If an OS has 90% market share (or more), it will (regardless of quality) get the most support.

[rennen01]

No, this doesn't make sense. Windows doesn't have third-party support because of it being superior software. It gets third-party support because any manufacturer would be economically suicidal to not include a Windows driver for the printer/scanner/wireless card/etc.

If an OS has 90% market share (or more), it will (regardless of quality) get the most support.

This is exactly what I am saying.

You'd think with the number of exploits against Windows Systems, that you'd see more migrations to Linux.

These days I push the resource usage and I am getting more willingness to implement Linux Servers at least for File Servers. If not that, how about cost? I just got done pricing a Windows 2003 Dell Server with 50 Client Access Licenses. Good God!

[Trebuchet]

No, this doesn't make sense. Windows doesn't have third-party support because of it being superior software. It gets third-party support because any manufacturer would be economically suicidal to not include a Windows driver for the printer/scanner/wireless card/etc.The issue here is out-of-the-box usability for the average computer user, not the technical superiority of one OS over another. If more applications and hardware work on one than on the other and support and training is more readily available, that OS is "superior" for the purposes of the average computer user even if technically the other OS blows it out of the water vis-a-vis reliability and security (I think we all know what OS we're discussing here.). This issue has nothing to do with technical excellence; it has to do with readiness aspects that are in no way the fault or responsibility of the specific OS.

We all know Betamax video recorders and Dvorak keyboards are technically superior to VHS VCR's and QWERTY keyboards. That didn't make them victors in the marketplace. It doesn't matter what the motives and methods behind those advocating these technologies were; the fact is they still didn't succeed.

[aysiu]

The issue here is out-of-the-box usability for the average computer user, not the technical superiority of one OS over another. But then what's the point of saying Linux isn't ready yet? Why not just say the only OS that can be "ready" is the one with the most market share? You said Is Linux ready for the mass market yet? Not quite. It's very close, but not there yet. Well, if you agree that "readiness" has to do with market share and not the superiority of the software, then aren't you essentially saying Linux isn't ready for the mass market yet because it isn't used by the mass market?

[Soarer]

Further, you're not comparing apples with apples. Windows is easier, largely because most people don't install it. That's done by the manufacturers, who mostly make sure it works out of the box.

You may not choose to accept it, but I have had many problems installing XP. I know others have had problems installing Vista. I had some problems installing Ubuntu on the first PC I tried too - a Compaq. Worked out of the box on the second, which was a no-brand machine.

It's been said before, many times. You can get problems installing any OS on any hardware, and I am not sure it is possible to say, without statistical evidence, which OS will be more troublesome in a particular installation before hand. But I find Ubuntu to be more stable than XP, or any earlier Windows I have used (way back to 3.1). And now it's installed, I rarely use the command line unless I want to do something out of the ordinary. On XP it would be exactly the same. All XP administration tutorials I have seen start: click 'start', then 'run', then type 'something'. It's just a command line, after all.

One big bonus is that I can find everything I need in the repos - for free.

However, in OS's, as in everything else, YMMV :)

[rennen01]

Most "users" I have talked find that Windows is easier to install for them because they are used to it. Not because it is easier to use/install.

GUI or CLI which is easier? IMO neither, it's what you are used to. Almost like muscle memory.

[Trebuchet]

But then what's the point of saying Linux isn't ready yet? Why not just say the only OS that can be "ready" is the one with the most market share?Mac OS is also ready even though it has a tiny user base compared to Windows. That's because it's self-contained on its own proprietary hardware. Linux, OTOH, is basically trying to wedge itself into systems primarily designed for Windows. It's not about market share; it's about who will use it.

You said Well, if you agree that "readiness" has to do with market share and not the superiority of the software, then aren't you essentially saying Linux isn't ready for the mass market yet because it isn't used by the mass market?Sorta. The main problem for Linux is that while it has many superior features to Windows, it cannot yet do everything that typical computer users want to do. For most casual users the fact that Linux is more stable and secure than Windows is secondary (or even irrelevant) compared to the fact they can't play their favorite computer games, sync their PDA/smartphone, or easily exchange programs and tips with their friends who are still using Windows. Put another way, Linux simply hasn't yet achieved "critical mass." I don't honestly know if it ever will, although I suspect the recent movement by governmental agencies and several large corporations to migrate to Linux may help drag Linux to the home desktop on its coattails. Once people start using Linux on theur systems at work, they'll probably be less fearful of it at home.

Many Linux users seem to forget that for most computer users, computing is a synergetic process. They don't care what's under the hood; they care that their computer does what they want it to when they boot up. The "failings" of Linux are manifestly not the fault of the OS but that doesn't eliminate the fact that the overall package (OS, software, hardware, support) still lacks things people require before they'll try something new. The major weaknesses are in the last three items, but any chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

[aysiu]

Well, I can partially agree with you there, but Mac doesn't play people's favorite computer games or sync PDA/smartphones any more than Linux does. It does get some more commercial software, mainly because it is commercial and in the public eye. I don't know that it's achieved critical mass any more than Linux has.

There are no hard statistics, but Mac desktop users are in the single digits for market share, and so are Linux desktop users.

I don't care what's under the hood, either. But I also don't play games or have a PDA/smartphone. I check email, use a web browser, do some light word processing, and listen to music. I don't think I'm alone in those needs, and Linux goes even beyond that.

The "failings" of Linux are manifestly not the fault of the OS but that doesn't eliminate the fact that the overall package (OS, software, hardware, support) still lacks things people require before they'll try something new. You do bring up a good point, though--Apple is smart enough to know software and hardware go together. Preinstallation is the key, so it hardware compatibility.

Right now, unless you're aware of (which most people aren't) and willing to put your faith in (which, again, most people aren't) a small vendor like System76 (http://www.system76.com), you have to install Linux yourself, which is a huge leap for someone who just wants to click on the blue e to browse the web. Suddenly, you go from clicking the blue e to downloading an ISO, learning how to burn an ISO, learning what partitions and boot loaders are, understanding filesystems, and troubleshooting video and sound configuration issues.

Critical mass isn't going to get us to where Apple is. Commercialism, ease of obtainability, validation in the media, and popularity of what is hardware compatible are. We need more compatibility--we just need to know there is something Linux-certified and designed for Linux; just as Apple computers are guaranteed to work with Mac OS X. Right now, Linux operating systems try to hard to work on every computer configuration, and users expect it to work with every computer configuration. We should just have one product called the Linux computer that works automatically with Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSuSE, PCLinuxOS, and Mepis. Could Linux still work with other configurations? Sure. But there should be a small set (just as Apple has) of hardware that's guaranteed to work with Linux, and it should be designed to work with Linux.

It's sort of like the Apple philosophy... but not locked down.

[Trebuchet]

Like it or not, one reason both Macs and Windows systems dominate is simply that they got in on the ground floor of personal computing 25 years ago. Perhaps that's unfair to newer operating systems, but there it is. Everyone who uses a personal computer started with either Windows or Mac, and familiarity provides a certain comfort level. Had Ubuntu or other GUI versions of Linux been at their current level when Windows 95 or 98 were the dominant OS, I suspect Linux would be much bigger because those were quite frankly crummy OSs. But XP is an entirely different animal. It's orders of magnitude more stable than 98 ever dreamed of being, and that makes it correspondingly harder for Linux to crack into the desktop. The fragmentation of Linux into the various distros has been noted many times, and doesn't help either.

For me, 98% of what I do on a PC is just web browsing, e-mail, and word processing. It's that last 2%, games, that keeps me from just switching to Linux. I already use Linux-compatible apps such as OpenOffice, GIMPShop, and Evolution, so I know those will do the job just fine. When Civilization 4 comes out for Linux, I'm there. Odds are when I get my next system this one will be wiped clean and converted into an Ubuntu box. For now, it's staying XP Pro until I can figure out how to partition it to install Ubuntu alongside XP.

[rennen01]

Let's also not forget that Microsoft and Apple conduct heavy marketing. Another reason for their large market shares.

[Trebuchet]

Let's also not forget that Microsoft and Apple conduct heavy marketing. Another reason for their large market shares.I'd say that's part and parcel of being early into the game. They had the chance to grow without meaningful competition.

I do think eventually Linux will make it into the mainstream. But I think it'll be sharing the market with Windows and Mac, not supplanting them. Both Windows and Mac will continue to adapt and improve to counter the threat of Linux, and I'd love to see a real price war erupt. Windows may be overpriced at $200+, but would it be at $50? I've paid that much for applications.

[Soarer]

I'd say that's part and parcel of being early into the game. They had the chance to grow without meaningful competition.

I do think eventually Linux will make it into the mainstream. But I think it'll be sharing the market with Windows and Mac, not supplanting them. Both Windows and Mac will continue to adapt and improve to counter the threat of Linux, and I'd love to see a real price war erupt. Windows may be overpriced at $200+, but would it be at $50? I've paid that much for applications.

Although I hope I'm wrong it may turn out that Linux' biggest contribution is to force other OS's to become more stable, more open and more affordable. If they don't do those things, in time Linux will win.

[Trebuchet]

Although I hope I'm wrong it may turn out that Linux' biggest contribution is to force other OS's to become more stable, more open and more affordable. If they don't do those things, in time Linux will win.I agree. And if computing in general becomes more stable, more secure, and cheaper then we all all win.

Long term, I think the idea of fiercely competing operating systems is going to seem quaint. Everyone will just use an OS the same way they do a browser or media player or any other application, and switch depending on what they're doing. The age of virtual computing is fast approaching, and multiple operating systems on one computer will be the norm.

My ideal system (and I'm not alone) would be one running Max OS X, Linux, and Windows (or their successors) in which I could switch OS as easily as opening another tab in Firefox. If I could afford an iMac, I'd already have pretty close to that.

[electrogeek]

I have been following this thread silently until now. It seems that some of you feel that windows is a necessary o.s. and some of you feel that Linux is a direct replacement for it. Well you're all correct, sort of.

The windows o.s. is an easy to install operating system period. I haven't used anything easier or more straight forward. I have done some Ubuntu installs and yes they are straight forward also however if you need to change video drivers, settings, etc. it can be shear hell for the novice. Windows on the other hand walks you through every step of the way. It is easy to change or install hardware and drivers. All major hardware vendors write drivers for Windows, that can't be said for Linux.

Do I wish that Ubuntu would run all the major business, accounting, games and graphics apps that Windows does? You bet! Would I switch in a heartbeat? You bet.

Ubuntu is a great option if you simply need a PC to surf the web or other basic computing functionality. If you need to be able to run any application right off the shelf quickly and easily, you need to run Windows. I'm not happy with that, but that's the way it is. Who has the time to figure out how to run Quickbooks on Ubuntu? Can it be done? Of course it can! Can you run Windows on Ubuntu? Of course you can, but the every day small business owner or basic PC user doesn't know how to and doesn't want to know how to.

I will welcome the day when I can run any mainstream app and plug any piece of hardware into my Ubuntu box and have it work right the first time with little or no effort. Until that time arrives I will have to continue to use Windows. By the way, stay the hell away from Vista please as long as you can. I can't see any valid reason to upgrade to it at this point in time. Give it about 2 service packs and a $200 price drop before you upgrade!

[darrenm]

I have been following this thread silently until now. It seems that some of you feel that windows is a necessary o.s. and some of you feel that Linux is a direct replacement for it. Well you're all correct, sort of. Well, thanks for clearing that up then ;)

The windows o.s. is an easy to install operating system period.
I disagree. If you have a native SATA controller or almost anything but IDE you will need a floppy drive with a floppy disk containing the drivers in the correct format. If you have hardware newer than Windows XP (6 years old) which is almost necessary to run it in the first place then its unlikely it will detect your network card and/or wireless adaptor therefore you need another PC to download the drivers, you need this other PC to have a CD-R drive as most of the drivers will be too big to fit on floppies or use a pendrive. If you have a serial modem or an RTL8139, 8029, 3com 3c905 or early Intel Pro/100 you should be ok.

I haven't used anything easier or more straight forward. Ubuntu?

I have done some Ubuntu installs and yes they are straight forward also however if you need to change video drivers, settings, etc. it can be shear hell for the novice.

I agree. It can be a pain to get some poorly supported hardware working.

Windows on the other hand walks you through every step of the way.

Where? Microsoft certainly don't help you and as I said above, things that came out after Windows XP are unsupported and drivers need to be sourced, sometimes without a working internet connection.

It is easy to change or install hardware and drivers. All major hardware vendors write drivers for Windows, that can't be said for Linux. Its certainly better than it used to be. Hardware changes in Windows were always dangerous but it is better since Windows 2000/XP

None of this matters anyway because soon there won't be such things as PC's as we know them today. Phones are doing more of everything, PDA's are doing more of everything, TV satellite/cable boxes are doing more of everything, even games consoles are doing more of everything. Devices are all converging on the same territory and the PC is going to lose. If my Wii allowed me to edit videos I really wouldn't need my laptop at all. I already surf the web and email on it.

As for Microsoft, their whole world is falling down around them. They have 3 main killer products, Windows, Office and Exchange. Windows is going to be a victim of the PC dieing. Office is slowly dieing as no-one needs any more functionality than what was in Office 2000 or OpenOffice.org and now Google Apps is here with online collaboration, thin client access etc. thats really sealed its fate. Finally, Exchange is just about to be killed by Google Apps too. Online shared calendars, contacts, webmail. No nasty Outlook Web Access or VPNs and the associated headaches that go with them to be configured, just go to www.google.com/a and login from anywhere to be part of your company's network. Microsoft really have nothing to come back with. They are trying to beat Google at their own game by going to SAaS but Google are already there and have the one killer blow that is... Google is the Internet to almost everyone. Anyone on Firefox starts with Google, anyone on IE starts with Microsoft search but as soon as they go to their nice familiar Google they will download Google desktop and then start from Google search.

I'm just rambling now and saying 'Google' a lot.

[steveneddy]

Right now, unless you're aware of (which most people aren't) and willing to put your faith in (which, again, most people aren't) a small vendor like System76 (http://www.system76.com), you have to install Linux yourself, which is a huge leap for someone who just wants to click on the blue e to browse the web. Suddenly, you go from clicking the blue e to downloading an ISO, learning how to burn an ISO, learning what partitions and boot loaders are, understanding filesystems, and troubleshooting video and sound configuration issues.



I finally bought a system76 laptop for two reasons.

1. I wanted to support the Linux community. We already buy the t-shirts of every distro we can and we even sent $$$ to the guys over at the DSL project.

2. I didn't want to spend endless weeks trying to configure a laptop for Linux. Laptops are notorious for being hard to set up even under Windows, and I didn't want to fight a cranky wireless connection software suite until I got it right.

** ** ** ** ** *

I think that most people that have come to Linux recently have a few common traits.

1. They are curious.
2. They are intelligent.
3. They are adventurous.
4. They are tired of Windows virus problems, trojans, spyware....etc.
5. They are not a typical windows user.

Typical Windows users want to turn it on and go. They could care less about installing, partitioning, dual booting, command line??what is that? oh, that black screen thingy....

Linux CAN be easy, if you let it, but I think that the person has to be very open minded and be able to learn. Those of us that know a little about Linux need to be the ones that tell others around us how good Linux is. Most of the time, after the OS is installed, much like a Windows preinstall, you show them how to open up a browser, set up their e-mail client and show them how to install off of Synaptic. I did that with my daughter and she hasn't asked me for any help with the computer since I installed PXLinuxOS for her. She does it all. She was scared at first, but once she saw how pretty it was, she started clicking around and before you know it, she had changed the desktop background, installed a chat.IM client and was surfing the web.

Linux can look as good or better the Vista. See the pic attached.

[Frak]

Well, thanks for clearing that up then ;)
(...)
I'm just rambling now and saying 'Google' a lot.

One day I believe we will all be using Googix or Goobuntu (possibly). :lolflag:

[rennen01]

yes Goobuntu FTW!

[Trebuchet]

I think that most people that have come to Linux recently have a few common traits.

1. They are curious.
2. They are intelligent.
3. They are adventurous.
4. They are tired of Windows virus problems, trojans, spyware....etc.
5. They are not a typical windows user.These are the exact reason Linux is having difficulty breaking into the mainstream desktop. Most people aren't #1, #3, or #5. And those non-typical Windows users who possess those same qualities are just as capable of working past Windows' little foibles as Linux users are of learning a new OS. That's not a winning formula for attracting new users.

Linux needs to find a way to appeal to the incurious, average, plodding, lackadaisical, typical Windows user. Until they do, Linux will remain an also-ran.

[jimbob]

Originally posted by FLPCGuy:

I fight back by avoiding them. I have found the cheapest dial-up access anywhere and have used it for years. They are nationwide (US), even Oklahoma (I used to live in West Texas so I know what 'middle of nowhere' looks like). Anyway, check out 550access.com and get a list of your local access numbers before you sign up. You might also fill in the referred by block with STRAPANE for the first signup. After that, put in your own or another student's userid and they might get a free month (if they still have that offer). The backbone is provided by Level3, so it is as good as anyone's. I hope this helps some who would otherwise not be able to afford to get connected.

I'd like to hear about any other cheap Internet access deals, dial-up or DSL. BTW, I tried to put this info on your forum but never got the confirmation email, then in a private email (blocked). Feel free to ask forum admins to dump this post after you've seen it.


FYI I have been using a company called All2Easy.net for several years now and find them to provide excellent dial-up service and support with nationwide access numbers for $4.95 a month.

I use a Zoom USB external modem Model 2985L with my Ubuntu laptop in motels up and down the Eastern seaboard with no problems at all. If I find myself in an area for which I need an access number I just borrow the motel's computer for a minute and grab it off the All2Easy website.

Thought you'd like to know.
________________________________
If I can't be Mr. Root I won't play ...

Registered Linux User #400396

[steveneddy]

These are the exact reason Linux is having difficulty breaking into the mainstream desktop. Most people aren't #1, #3, or #5. And those non-typical Windows users who possess those same qualities are just as capable of working past Windows' little foibles as Linux users are of learning a new OS. That's not a winning formula for attracting new users.

Linux needs to find a way to appeal to the incurious, average, plodding, lackadaisical, typical Windows user. Until they do, Linux will remain an also-ran.

Great point. I couldn't agree with you more. But I believe that because of the #1's, #3's and #5's that the usability of Linux has come a LONG way over the past two to four years.

If it weren't for us (the 1, 3 & 5 types) there wouldn't be an Ubuntu, a Beryl or this great forum for us to discuss, debate and analyze this particular operating system until it, or a similar OS is able to take the place of Windows. Maybe something besides Linspire.

Linux is a great operating system that will still have to come a little further to become accepted by "the masses". One of the great hurdles will be for Linux of some sort to become a pre-installed OS from a manufacturer besides System76.

Dell and HP are the big dogs in this market at the moment and if one of them brings out a production unit pre-installed with a major Linux OS, the chance of acceptance by the general computing public will be greater than it ever has been.

We have to do our part by continuing to post bug reports if you are a user, to hack and program if you are a developer and to be great forum moderator if that is your calling.

We all have a part in this story, so lets make a positive impact so the next noobie that visits these forums looking for an answer, maybe even before installation, will find the knowlegde and friendliness and will feel welcome from the first post he or she reads.

[steveneddy]

How come no one is commenting on my rockin' desktop pic?

[Trebuchet]

How come no one is commenting on my rockin' desktop pic?If I can't get all excited about transparencies in Vista, I'm not gonna flip over them in Beryl either. Besides, I've got transparent Yahoo! widgets on my desktop running in XP.

It is a nice looking desktop, although it's a bit green for my taste. I prefer a nice blue. :)

[darrenm]

How come no one is commenting on my rockin' desktop pic?

Cos' it looks the same as everyone elses?

[FLPCGuy]

FYI I have been using a company called All2Easy.net for several years now and find them to provide excellent dial-up service and support with nationwide access numbers for $4.95 a month.

I use a Zoom USB external modem Model 2985L with my Ubuntu laptop in motels up and down the Eastern seaboard with no problems at all. If I find myself in an area for which I need an access number I just borrow the motel's computer for a minute and grab it off the All2Easy website.

Thought you'd like to know.
________________________________
If I can't be Mr. Root I won't play ...

Registered Linux User #400396
That's good to know. I've been with 550Access.com dialup for over three years. They only bill me each six months and I haven't paid more than $4.75 (for 6 months) in all that time. I assume it is from signup referrals who enter my id: STRAPANE.

I've used my acct. from PA to FL and as far west as TX with no problems. They even have four local numbers here in this rural corner of extreme northeast FL (two are the same as for 1dial.com and your provider...this phone net used to be called Tymenet or Telnet back in the early Prodigy days.)

For new users, I must admit, your provider costs even less. I wonder if they are also using the massive Level3 backbone. Try a traceroute sometime to see whose routers you go through.

[tchoklat]

for those who may be interested, it makes good reading!

http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT9727687530.html

[steveneddy]

Cos' it looks the same as everyone elses?

No way!! Who?

[steveneddy]

It is a nice looking desktop, although it's a bit green for my taste. I prefer a nice blue. :)

I tired of blue with MS products. Green is soothing to me. ahhhh.......

[darrenm]

No way!! Who?

Not exactly the same of course. But from my own point of view I've been using Compiz then Beryl for a while and there isn't really anything on there I have seen :) Not that it isn't nice of course. I now have compositing by default in Feisty anyway. :D

[nightwolf2k5]

very very informative.. thank u.. man,.. i'm more glad to be on linux :)
linux rulez!! ;)
vista looks cool though...

[Kateikyoushi]

There is already one linux VS vista thread. LINK (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=253885)

The author really put effort to compare the two, kudos to him.

[Kateikyoushi]

Subnotebooks can match the min specs for vista with 1Ghz PM what is still enough for at least 95% of the users.

[bapoumba]

@ tchoklat: merged your thread in here.

[.Morpheus]

Something has been bugging me since I have switched to Ubuntu several months ago. Don't get me wrong I LOVE Linux, and Ubuntu is the best distribution I have used (3), but the upcoming Windows Vista release seems to be Microsoft's big reteliation on the opposing free software threat, attempting to make every possible improvement that Linux does on Windows and more. How will the open-source community react, and will this be the end of the time when Linux is simply been better?

Internet Explorer and Firefox has been one of my concerns. IE7 provides tabbed browsing, an RSS reader and claimed %50 better security over IE6, in addition to a overall much more pleasing interface. Will Firefox maintain it's position as a viable competitor?

Vista's new widget API, Aero, which draws glossy trasparencies, blurs and shadows that I am yet to see in a fully stable and supported OpenGL window manager. Will XGL, and hence GNOME and hence Ubuntu feature such good looking graphics-accellerated features by default before Vista officially takes the cake?

What about all the other software improvements, like Office 2007 and Windows Media Player? Will OpenOffice.org and Totem/Rythmbox and the rest of Ubuntu's software be able to keep up?

These are just some things that have been on my mind while reading about Microsoft's new software. I would really like to hear what other people have heard and their opinions!

And remember this is not your average Linux vs Windows thread, this is about Ubuntu, Vista and where you see Ubuntu and it's software being at the time of Vista's release.

What is 50% of 0?

Exactly.

[bigdude808]

Linux has better eye-candy than vista. Beryl, for example, uses less system resources, and produces much cooler results. It's also slapped on a much more stable system.

I think the two of the important issues that many new users of Vista will encounter are:

Hardware
Software


The hardware required to run vista at it's optimum is ridiculous compared the hardware that is required to run ubuntu. Many people, myself included, cannot afford this kind of hardware.

Microsoft is also heavily stressing digital rights management, essentially dictating what new users can and can't do with their new OS. I find that downright . . . stupid.

[kinemagician]

I use Linux Ubuntu at home for many tasks:
- Typesetting (LaTeX & OpenOffice)
- Drawings: (Gimp + XFig)
- Email: Thunderbird
- Browser: Mozilla
- etc. etc.
These are the tasks 95% of people requires from a computer.:)

Windows is (and will be) unsurpassed on CAD systems like Solidworks, Solidedge, MSC VisualNastran, etc. etc. Do not expect such software on Linux since Micxxsoft has a share on the companies that market/produce such software.:(

[jorgerosa]

"Windows is (and will be) unsurpassed on CAD systems"
That is not 100% correct...
If Linux comunity wouldnt mind to pay a LOT for software like that, im sure developers would change their minds.
There are good software similar (not so good?) well... for free... (but always in development!)
And you can sleep, without being arrested... [-o< [-o< [-o<

[tobyfountain]

trust me - ubuntu will only get more popular with vista out now. I have vista and, frankly, i hate it. the graphics are nice, but thats about it lol. its hard to use and loads of stuff doesnt work on it.
toby:KS

[Trebuchet]

the graphics are nice, but thats about it lol. its hard to use and loads of stuff doesnt work on it.Are you describing Vista or Linux?

Linux - Loads of stuff lacks compatability = Not Linux's fault

Vista - Loads of stuff lacks compatability = Vista's fault

No bias here, is there? :lolflag:

[Cannaregio]

For now, it's staying XP Pro until I can figure out how to partition it to install Ubuntu alongside XP.

Uh? I don't understand you.
Where's the problem?
The 'alongisde' installation is VERY WELL automated since dapper (even less hassles now with fawn, see & try the good beta that went public yesterday)

You just stick the cd iso in your box, turn the bazaar on, and whoop!
You automagically get a dual XP/ubuntu install.
Don't have to do nutting, not even playing with a terminal (you'll enjoy terminals after a short while, though).

And believe me, after a short while you have played with ubuntu you'll use XP kinda like maybe twice every month, if ever.

[Trebuchet]

Uh? I don't understand you.
Where's the problem?
The 'alongisde' installation is VERY WELL automated since dapper (even less hassles now with fawn, see & try the good beta that went public yesterday)

You just stick the cd iso in your box, turn the bazaar on, and whoop!
You automagically get a dual XP/ubuntu install.
Don't have to do nutting, not even playing with a terminal (you'll enjoy terminals after a short while, though).

And believe me, after a short while you have played with ubuntu you'll use XP kinda like maybe twice every month, if ever.I've already tried to install Ubuntu 3 times on my system alongside XP. Once with 6.06, twice with 6.10. It failed all three times (twice simply locking up in mid-install). No idea why; and I haven't given up on the idea but I'm thinking I may need to prepartition the drive using a partitioning utility such as Partition Magic (which is what I used for my previous Linux experimentation several years ago). Unfortunately my old version of PM doesn't work with XP.

[Frak]

I've already tried to install Ubuntu 3 times on my system alongside XP. Once with 6.06, twice with 6.10. It failed all three times (twice simply locking up in mid-install). No idea why; and I haven't given up on the idea but I'm thinking I may need to prepartition the drive using a partitioning utility such as Partition Magic (which is what I used for my previous Linux experimentation several years ago). Unfortunately my old version of PM doesn't work with XP.
Instead of Partition Magic, how about GParted (http://gparted.sourceforge.net/)?

[Trebuchet]

Instead of Partition Magic, how about GParted (http://gparted.sourceforge.net/)?Cannaregio's post inspired me to try to install of 6.10 again, and this time it worked! I set up a 30GB partition with the Ubuntu installer, and just let it go to work. I'm writing this while running Ubuntu 6.10 and performing the 148 updates (and listening to some Alan Parson's Project with Sound Juicer. No idea what I did wrong previously, but it's working now just fine.

I'm using Linux! Yeah! \\:D/

[Cannaregio]

Cannaregio's post inspired me to try to install of 6.10 again, and this time it worked! I set up a 30GB partition with the Ubuntu installer, and just let it go to work. I'm writing this while running Ubuntu 6.10 and performing the 148 updates (and listening to some Alan Parson's Project with Sound Juicer. No idea what I did wrong previously, but it's working now just fine.


See?
VERY happy to have you on board.

Now take it easy. Don't expect überwonders, just expect simple useful wonders... and you'll have a lot of them :-)

In fact you'll also encounter some minor hiccups... as we all did.

A wifi here, a graphic card there, a wine that doesn't work over there.

But like newborn babyes, hiccups are very important in order to learn.

A big hug.

[Trebuchet]

The good thing is that my system is old enough Ubuntu recognizes pretty much everything. As near as I can tell so far not a single component isn't working properly. Biggest gripe so far: My trackball buttons are no longer programmed for easy browsing.

Second biggest gripe: I can't seem to figure out how to have only one toolbar. I don't want one on the top and another one on the bottom; I want just one. I don't even care which - I've used both Mac OS and Windows, so I can adapt to either. But I hate wasting screen real estate.

It is kinda cool to be running a new OS, and I'm thrilled with how fast Firefox seems to be. :)

[Raval]

I'm using Linux! Yeah! \\:D/

Welcome to the family. :guitar:

[Trebuchet]

Welcome to the family. :guitar:Thanks. I've tried Ubuntu through the LiveCD, but somehow that's just not quite the same as having it actually installed on the hard drive.

[aysiu]

Second biggest gripe: I can't seem to figure out how to have only one toolbar. I don't want one on the top and another one on the bottom; I want just one. I don't even care which - I've used both Mac OS and Windows, so I can adapt to either. But I hate wasting screen real estate. Right-click the toolbar you don't want and then select the option to delete it.

[steveneddy]

Right-click the toolbar you don't want and then select the option to delete it.

Or simply install KDE-desktop

sudo apt-get install kde-desktop

That's correct? isn't it?

Anyway, when you log in, you can choose which desktop environment you want to be in.

I used to think I was loosing screen real estate. one day I turned up the resolution to 1600x1200 and got used to the two bars.

Even on my new laptop at 1200x800 I don't feel the need to get rid of one of the bars

You could also auto hide one or both of them. I did that for a while myself.

Cheers -SE

[brennydoogles]

I recently Purchased a laptop for my brother that came pre-installed with Vista, and I have to say that I'm not a fan. It seemed like in order to do anything on Vista you had to go through 15 menus, and even with the most basic edition (home basic) it put an andue amount of strain on the resources. I just didn't feel like it was worth all that much. It also seemed to me that installing any unsupported piece of software (basically anything that wasn't pre-installed) caused the computer to completely freak out and need a system restore. I think I will just stick with my dual boot of Ubuntu and XP.

[lilagaurangadas]

Well friends,
I just recently eagerly bought Windows Vista Home Premium,
But I am very unhappy to have paid £150 for it,
Yes its very nice but I am still wondering why I am not over the moon about it,
I also have ubuntu,
Which is best do I think?
I have to admit that Ubuntu is far better.

[Flying George]

[QUOTE=steveneddy;2352974]

sudo apt-get install kde-desktop

That's correct? isn't it?

No.

sudo aptitude install kde is a working command, but it wants to install 800+ mb of files, I'll be back to tell you if I broke my computer or not after trying this.

[aysiu]

From small to large:

kdebase
kde-core
kubuntu-desktop
kde

[Enverex]

[QUOTE=steveneddy;2352974]

sudo apt-get install kde-desktop

That's correct? isn't it?

No.

sudo aptitude install kde is a working command, but it wants to install 800+ mb of files, I'll be back to tell you if I broke my computer or not after trying this.

apt-get install kubuntu-desktop

That's probably a better command to use, then you can remove "ubuntu-desktop" to get rid of all the Gnome stuff.

[Brunellus]

[QUOTE=Flying George;2371475]

apt-get install kubuntu-desktop

That's probably a better command to use, then you can remove "ubuntu-desktop" to get rid of all the Gnome stuff.
use 'aptitude' instead of 'apt-get,' especially for large metapackages like this. That way, you can uninstall the metapackage much MUCH more cleanly.

[aysiu]

[QUOTE=Enverex;2371483]
use 'aptitude' instead of 'apt-get,' especially for large metapackages like this. That way, you can uninstall the metapackage much MUCH more cleanly.
More details here:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/kde

[Flying George]

Okay, I ran the
"sudo aptitude install kde"
command, and After a while of downloading and installing, my terminal background turned blue and asked me which Desktop Manager should be default, I chose GDM (assuming it stood for Gnome Desktop Manager) And now its asking me about postfix configuration. What is that?

[Flying George]

I went with "no configuration." Now its downloading more stuff, I'll find out what it all is and recap for anyone who could use this information.

[Flying George]

Okay, that command has succesfully installed the K Desktop interface on my computer. I don't want it set as a default, but its nice. I had to set a few things up, since this is the first run. I'm assuming this is because I went with 'no configuration' but, no worries. It makes a lot more noise (there are more sounds when you perform an action) than gnome does, which is nice. But I don't like the font in konqueror. So I'll download the latest Firefox (or change the font). But for anyone who cares, it works quite nicely.

[d3br074]

With the recent release of Vista, despite it still being overwhelmingly inferior to linux, it does have significantly superior effects. Yes, Linux has Beryl and Compiz with Xgl and Aiglx and such but truth be told, these are at core, inferior to the stable composite engine of Vista. the Linux community needs a stable 3D core. Are people working for this to happen? Who makes these kind of decisions? The video card makers or the Xorg developers? Are they working in this direction? I would hate to see people fall in favor of Windows simply because of this minor detail! (PS don't be afraid to tell me I'm completely stupid and don't understand this stuff at all, because i don't)

[qamelian]

That's a matter of opinion. I haven't seen any effects on Vista that even come close to Compiz/Beryl and Vista requires much more computing power to achieve those (in my opinion) inferior effects.

[migla]

As Dave Yates of the lottalinuxlinks.com podcast said in response to the "The wow starts now"-campaign of MS:

"The wow started a while back, you bunch of posers" (or something like that)

[d3br074]

yes, I know that compiz and such have better effects, but they aren't stable enough to be mainstream like Windows. With Compiz, it still crashes occasionally and slows down games to a crawl, something I assume Windows computers don't do. I like the compiz effects, but I would like to see a 3d Core of the video card so that we can play 3d games without slowdown as well and not have to deal with crashes.

[qamelian]

yes, I know that compiz and such have better effects, but they aren't stable enough to be mainstream like Windows. With Compiz, it still crashes occasionally and slows down games to a crawl, something I assume Windows computers don't do. I like the compiz effects, but I would like to see a 3d Core of the video card so that we can play 3d games without slowdown as well and not have to deal with crashes.

Considering that one of the first things you do to get better performance out of games, both in XP and Vista, is to turn off the fancy GUI, I think you're wrong there. As far as stability goes, I have no problems at all with the newest versions of Compiz or Beryl. I used to find Beryl more stable on all my hardware but since the last few releases I find Compiz quite stable as well.

[hanzomon4]

That doesn't happen with my beryl/nvidia fx 5500 setup. Regardless I think what you're looking for is a more mature 3d xserver. XGL doesn't cut it AIGLX is better but still some have a hard time getting it setup. Since we only need a 3d xserver for beryl/compiz all problems get attributed to beryl/compiz.

I haven't used vista but I would bet that it suffers from slowdown and such when playing games, depending on the hardware of course. Having started using linux right around the time xgl/compiz was coming out I would say wait a year if you don't like the situation now, cause it will only get better.

By the way why is it that when something in linux crashes everyone says how X program is not ready for "mainstream" while crashes in windows apps don't get them kicked off the "mainstream" list? If windows is the measuring stick for the "mainstream" shouldn't crashes be on every computer users "must-have" list?

[FoolsGold]

Considering that one of the first things you do to get better performance out of games, both in XP and Vista, is to turn off the fancy GUI, I think you're wrong there.
Aero (Vista's fancy 3D desktop) disables itself automatically and turns on the 2D desktop when certain programs run, in particular 3D games running in fullscreen. This ensures the best possible performance, since the desktop won't really be needed while the game is running. Once you've finished and quit the game, Aero automatically re-enables itself. If Beryl was capable of detecting such apps and disabling itself automatically (without requiring the user to write a script to do it themselves), then this would be beneficial.

As far as stability goes, I have no problems at all with the newest versions of Compiz or Beryl. I used to find Beryl more stable on all my hardware but since the last few releases I find Compiz quite stable as well.

I have no experience with Compiz, but with Beryl I found the screen would sometimes lock-up when switching resolutions, where keyboard/mouse responses wouldn't work (couldn't even switch to a virtual console). A hard reboot is necessary in such cases. Vista never had this problem when I was running it.

A problem with my system, maybe. Still annoying though, but I can't really blame software with a version number of 0.20.

[deepwave]

After using Beryl... I am not sure that eye-candy makes a person more productive. And since all that Aero is... well... eye candy, its really not a useful feature (Prediction: A sudden rise in post on how to get a Vista desktop that looks like 95 or XP).

Also the DRM inside Vista is going to **** off a lot of people. Its useless, pointless and wastes valuable CPU cycles that could be put to better use (like Folding@Home).

I don't think Ubuntu needs to respond to Vista. We already did. We want a OS that works, and thats free. Free source, free to download and free of cruft.

[FoolsGold]

(Prediction: A sudden rise in post on how to get a Vista desktop that looks like 95 or XP).

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/winvista_rtm_5_02.jpg

Damn that's ugly. But it can be enabled.

[ynnhoj]

i've only played with vista on a display computer at best buy. but from having done that and from having read various reviews and opinion pieces online i'll say this: i'm not sure that there's much in vista that linux needs to "respond to." but i also don't use beryl/compiz/whatever and don't care much about eye candy in general, so maybe i'm the wrong person to ask :-?

[d3br074]

Aero (Vista's fancy 3D desktop) disables itself automatically and turns on the 2D desktop when certain programs run, in particular 3D games running in fullscreen.

I didn't know what Windows did in regard to this, but seeing as It works, I think that Compiz and Beryl should work this idea into their development.

[FuturePilot]

That's a matter of opinion. I haven't seen any effects on Vista that even come close to Compiz/Beryl and Vista requires much more computing power to achieve those (in my opinion) inferior effects.
That is so true. You can get so many more effects with Beryl without the need for high end hardware.

[macogw]

If Beryl's not very stable, why does it run fine for me, yet Vista goes psycho if I don't set it to "no screensaver, just blank screen" mode?

[macogw]

After using Beryl... I am not sure that eye-candy makes a person more productive. And since all that Aero is... well... eye candy, its really not a useful feature (Prediction: A sudden rise in post on how to get a Vista desktop that looks like 95 or XP).
Being able to flip the cube both directions instead of going 1234 to get from 1 to 4 with the workspace switcher makes me faster at switching. The Expose-style window scaling does too.

The Start Menu on that modified Vista still looks stupid. Bring back the REAL Win95 Start Menu.

[FoolsGold]

Bring back the REAL Win95 Start Menu.

It can be re-enabled in Vista.

[macogw]

FoolsGold, the one in that screenshot somebody showed still had the stupid two-column Start Menu.

[SunnyRabbiera]

really give compiz and beryl time, they will certainly run circles around aero at not even half of the memory that aero needs.

[FoolsGold]

FoolsGold, the one in that screenshot somebody showed still had the stupid two-column Start Menu.
I haven't tried it, but apparently it's possible:

Q. Can I make Vista look like an older version of Windows?

A. Yes indeed. Right-click the Start button, select Properties, and choose Classic Start Menu to get a Start menu that's composed primarily of cascading menus that lead to programs. Right-click the desktop, select Personalize, and double-click Theme to choose the Windows Classic theme, which does away with much of Vista's slickness (and gives you a Start button labeled "Start"). Take both of these steps, and Vista will have a decidedly old-school, Windows 2000-like flavor.

(from http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128009-page,4/article.html )

[eentonig]

Why do we have to respond to Vista?

I'm sorry, but I don't feel like I'm in competition between Apple and or MS, just because I use Linux. I think Ms is crapp, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate what it does for all those masses out there.

One thing you can't deny. Ms made Pc's popular for the masses. They took care of standardisation and ease of use. If this is good or bad, that's another thing. But if they didn't make their Os, didn't advertise so much, didn't penetrate the schools, .... Pc wouldn't be so available to the masses.

And a lot of people are happy using it. So let them be. I'm happy using Linux, doesn't mean they have to be.

[macogw]

Did 2000 have the 95 Start Menu or the XP one?

[FoolsGold]

Did 2000 have the 95 Start Menu or the XP one?

2000 had the 95 Start Menu with a couple of "extras" such as personalized menus (total waste of development effort there, good thing it can be disabled). XP brought out a new menu system, then Vista brought out their extended version.

[karellen]

"vista magic?":lolflag: the only magic thing is the price ;)

[nick.inspiron6400]

Well a nice shiny glossy interface is a huge advantage. But why Windows will always win is quite simple.

Microsoft have made a operating system that is USER FRIENDLY, to be fair you dont need to use the MS-DOS Command Prompt anymore, and using a terminal is a horrible way of computing.

To download a program, compile it, extract it, and FINALLY INSTALL are a difficult process. With Windows Download-Run-Install.

To get a driver for a piece of hardware, just download.

Linux has 2% for a reason, and that reason is it not user freindly. Not because Microsoft have a monopoly of Homer's. Many IT professionals use Windows.

Windows has it's disadvantages, like the security. But i have had 4 viruses in 10 years. And i have never had to reinstall Windows because of spyware,or virus.

To be frank, unless more children use Linux. It will die out.

[koshatnik]

the Linux community needs a stable 3D core.

No OS needs a stable 3d core. It's a gimmick, nothing more. The masses like shiny things to drool over. A 3D desktop is a massive hindrance to everyday work.

[karellen]

Well a nice shiny glossy interface is a huge advantage. But why Windows will always win is quite simple.

Microsoft have made a operating system that is USER FRIENDLY, to be fair you dont need to use the MS-DOS Command Prompt anymore, and using a terminal is a horrible way of computing.

To download a program, compile it, extract it, and FINALLY INSTALL are a difficult process. With Windows Download-Run-Install.

To get a driver for a piece of hardware, just download.

Linux has 2% for a reason, and that reason is it not user freindly. Not because Microsoft have a monopoly of Homer's. Many IT professionals use Windows.

Windows has it's disadvantages, like the security. But i have had 4 viruses in 10 years. And i have never had to reinstall Windows because of spyware,or virus.

To be frank, unless more children use Linux. It will die out.

have you ever heard of synaptic? gnome? kde? you know....now linux has a graphical desktop environment. your reasons are childish: windows wins because it's about the SOFTWARE ECOSYSTEM. not because the os it's better, but because the market share it has. feel free to use whatever you like, but at least give some real arguments, not crap like "user friendly". user friendly for whom? people get used to something and that becomes user friendly for them. it's simple and plain obviou, a matter of habbits and familiarity. if you can't learn and adapt to new things, don't use linux. your choice

[Lucifiel]

Though I agree that Linux could do more in terms of being more user-friendly for computer newbies, I doubt it's going to die out anytime soon.

After all, isn't Win2K going to be phased out soon? And given the pricing of Vista, I'm not entirely sure if all those system admins are willing to shell out that much cash to install a Windows o/s. Besides, Linux is used a lot by plenty of companies, schools, etc. for its' low-cost features and great stability.

[FoolsGold]

your reasons are childish
Indeed they are, and you know why? Cos he's a CHILD.

Check his post history. Assuming he's telling the truth, he's 13. I was about to refute his post until I checked his history, since I couldn't believe someone could be so heartless to assume people wouldn't do something for nothing. He thinks so, but he's still young and open to reason (I hope).

[karellen]

Indeed they are, and you know why? Cos he's a CHILD.

Check his post history. Assuming he's telling the truth, he's 13. I was about to refute his post until I checked his history, since I couldn't believe someone could be so heartless to assume people wouldn't do something for nothing. He thinks so, but he's still young and open to reason (I hope).

:) all makes sense now

[PryGuy]

With the recent release of Vista, despite it still being overwhelmingly inferior to linux, it does have significantly superior effects.Vista has superior effects? You must be kidding... :)

[cunawarit]

Linux is sufficiently different to Vista that it doesn’t need to answer to it. Desktop Windows and desktop Linux are just not the same…

[prizrak]

I don't see people gagging for Vista despite the effects. Compiz/Beryl are quite stable in my experience of course I use Feisty so I get newer toys ;). In all actuality though, eyecandy is not something people care about. I have a good number of friends who are not into computers and their reaction to my Compiz desktop is generally "well that's cool" but none of them wanted something like that. They just plain don't care.

[aysiu]

I've merged this with the other Linux v. Vista thread.

[celsofaf]

Well a nice shiny glossy interface is a huge advantage. But why Windows will always win is quite simple.

Microsoft have made a operating system that is USER FRIENDLY, to be fair you dont need to use the MS-DOS Command Prompt anymore,

To use Ubuntu you don't realy need to use the command prompt.

and using a terminal is a horrible way of computing.

WHY? I find the terminal a very efficient tool to keep my system up, manage my files and do everything, even faster than if I was only using graphical software for stuff.

To download a program, compile it, extract it, and FINALLY INSTALL are a difficult process. With Windows Download-Run-Install.

Ever heard of Synaptic? It's just select-install. You don't even need to hunt for a website to download some program, and you keep everything up-to-date very easily and at once.

To get a driver for a piece of hardware, just download.

Same, except that in many distros you don't even need to download.

Linux has 2% for a reason, and that reason is it not user freindly.

Ever tried Ubuntu? :D All right, I will wait for your answers.

[aysiu]

But why Windows will always win is quite simple. Yes, basically forcing people to use it.

I know very few people (less than 10) I've met in person who have even tried any form of desktop Linux.

So it's not as if most Windows users chose Windows because it was "easier." Most Windows users didn't choose Windows at all.

In fact, most Windows users have never even heard of Linux (especially not in reference to being a home desktop--as opposed to a server or embedded device).

Read more here:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktopmyth

[d3br074]

koshatnik, I know no OS needs a "stable 3d core" but i think Ubuntu and Linux needs it if it DOESN't want to die out. kids these days (myself included) are quick to judge: if it looks better we are more willing to try it. Nevertheless, i don't think linux will die out soon as nick.inspiron6400 seems to believe. As long as it keeps itself as a free alternative to windows it will be fine. (and as long as kids like me continue to recruit the masses!!!!!!)

In fact, most Windows users have never even heard of Linux (especially not in reference to being a home desktop--as opposed to a server or embedded device).


This is exactly my experience as well. I think I have met exactly 4 people who have even tried a form of linux and less than about 20 who have even heard of it. (I've never met anyone aside from myself that uses it daily). The truth is that people simply don't even know what linux is. It gets so bad that I've talked to people that couldn't get their mind around the idea of a totally different operating system from Windows. They seemed to think it was an application or something. I don't know how to do it, but Linux needs to be known and understood. I've heard a few too many people say such things as "linux sucks" without having any experience with it whatsoever.

[deepwave]

Wow... I turn my back on the thread for two days... ...and some thread merges later... and the damn thing grows to 137 pages?!?!

koshatnik, I know no OS needs a "stable 3d core" but i think Ubuntu and Linux needs it if it DOESN't want to die out. kids these days (myself included) are quick to judge: if it looks better we are more willing to try it. Nevertheless, i don't think linux will die out soon as nick.inspiron6400 seems to believe. As long as it keeps itself as a free alternative to windows it will be fine. (and as long as kids like me continue to recruit the masses!!!!!!)



This is exactly my experience as well. I think I have met exactly 4 people who have even tried a form of linux and less than about 20 who have even heard of it. (I've never met anyone aside from myself that uses it daily). The truth is that people simply don't even know what linux is. It gets so bad that I've talked to people that couldn't get their mind around the idea of a totally different operating system from Windows. They seemed to think it was an application or something. I don't know how to do it, but Linux needs to be known and understood. I've heard a few too many people say such things as "linux sucks" without having any experience with it whatsoever.

Actually all kids want is something to let them chat with their friends, pump their ipods with tunes and play games. Everything else is less important. All we need is more commercial 'AAA' games that work in natively in Linux. And the kids will be happy.

Most people simply never heard of Linux. Or they see geeks/nerds/power users use Linux. And they then equate Linux to something that only a more advanced user can use. And most folks rather not install an OS. To remedy that, all these people need is someone to install Linux for them. Then they will come over to the Linux side.

Since I am on a roll, Linux apps are not the only ones suffering from user non-friendliness. Most UIs simply are made as an afterthought. To fix this in the open source/Linux community, we need to explain to developers that they are NOT UI experts. Instead we need volunteer UI experts.

The best challenge Linux can give Vista, is continuing to promote and create quality open source software.

[Sunnz]

Most people simply never heard of Linux. Or they see geeks/nerds/power users use Linux. And they then equate Linux to something that only a more advanced user can use. And most folks rather not install an OS. To remedy that, all these people need is someone to install Linux for them. Then they will come over to the Linux side.

Heh, the worst I've seen goes something like:

"We've got a new computer!!!"

"Oh, cool, what kind of computer did you get?"

"Windows XP!!!"

To some people, Windows is "The computer", XP is the version number of the computer, and Internet Explorer is "the net".

[Sunnz]

To use Ubuntu you don't realy need to use the command prompt.Not if you need to install a driver that did not came with Ubuntu.
WHY? I find the terminal a very efficient tool to keep my system up, manage my files and do everything, even faster than if I was only using graphical software for stuff.But it is learning curve is very high compare to the normal Windows navigation/configuration. Maybe it is good once you get to know it but at least provide an alternative way to do everything in GUI should one choose to do so.Ever heard of Synaptic? It's just select-install. You don't even need to hunt for a website to download some program, and you keep everything up-to-date very easily and at once.Yes you do. Not every software is available in the default installation of Ubuntu. The universe repo thing is a mess.Same, except that in many distros you don't even need to download.What? You are not serious are you?

[Brayden]

Hello,

I know I'm only a new member to this forum, but I'd like to express my opinion.

I run both Vista Home Premium and Ubuntu Edgy. Whilst I like both operating systems, both have positive and negative points. Firstly, Vista does indeed run fine on 1GB RAM, although to use some of the new features such as the DVD Maker, you need to have a graphics card that supports Aero Glass, which I do not have.

Windows will always be the most well-known and popular of the two systems, because the majority of software available today is manufactured for Windows, and if the program does have a Linux version, the focus is always on the Windows side of things. Please take Nero as an example, just today I was installing NeroLinux, only to discover features such as NeroVision (DVD Encoder/Burner) are not available in the Linux version of Nero. I did however try some Linux GUI DVD encoders, but they did not function correctly.

I am also an internet radio broadcaster, and I use the SAM Broadcaster software by SpacialAudio - there is no Linux port or equivilant of this software available today. Thus I have no choice but to either boot into Vista or use a virtual Windows PC inside Ubuntu when I need to broadcast.

There are a few other pieces of hardware that I cannot currently use inside Ubuntu, these include my bluetooth dongle and my mobile phone, as there are currently no drivers available for either of these for Linux - I have searched extensively.

Also, I am unable to get my USB headset volume control or my Logitech Multimedia Keyboard working under Ubuntu - the drivers installed by Ubuntu for the headset do not want to control the in-line volume control. There is also no Linux software provided for my keyboard by Logitech.

Windows is the main focus on the market today, but Linux also has very strong points as well.

[Chrisj303]

In it's current form, Linux dosen't stand a chance in rivalling windows as the dominant OS.
There are to many people that have no interest whatsoever in dropping to a command line to ensure this never happens.
A lot of windows users couldn't care less about the OS - they just see it as a 'middle man' between them and their games/internet.

And it dosen't need to be a choice of this or that - thanks to the Dual/Tripleboot method.

Also, i feel that the lack of commercial software will SERIOUSLY hold back linux - Video editing/ VJ'ing / Music production etc - Are much better off being done via OSX/windows. You couldn't seriously expect someone to disregard Ableton live,pro-tools,Apple logic,maya,arkaos,photoshop etc in return for The Gimp and Audacity?

Don't get me wrong - i love ubuntu, i use it everyday but for anything other than word processing/internet, i HAVE to re-boot into OSX/Windows.

chrisj303

[Sunnz]

In it's current form, Linux dosen't stand a chance in rivalling windows as the dominant OS.
There are to many people that have no interest whatsoever in dropping to a command line to ensure this never happens.


I am not too sure about this... if in the beginning, Linux were bundled with new computers as well, then I bet there would be a large amount of people find Window's cmd to be inferior.

[Chrisj303]

I don't know a single person that knows/or wants to know anything about terminal/command line - regardless of OS. And to be honest you can hardly blame them, can you? It's not what i would call progression.
If Linux (in it's current state) were to be bundled with computers, i don't think it would change a thing- it would probably just result in a lot of refunds/exchanges at PC world.
Don't get me wrong - i love ubuntu, but i'm also realistic about these things.

chrisj303

[aysiu]

I don't know a single person that knows/or wants to know anything about terminal/command line - regardless of OS. There aren't really that many tasks that require the terminal (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1840857&highlight=too+dependent#post1840857), especially on a Linux-preinstalled computer.

[Chrisj303]

^but for your average user thats still to much.

chrisj303

[aysiu]

^but for your average user thats still to much.

chrisj303
How many of those tasks does the average user perform if Dell has already installed and configured the distro? (Click the link--read the list)

Maybe mounting a new drive, but that's not a terminal-dependent task for Linux, just for Ubuntu. Knoppix and Mepis have been doing this for years point-and-click style.

Fixing a broken X server shouldn't be an issue any more after Feisty Fawn's "bullet-proof X"

[Punker]

I guess this is a bit off topic but I would choose Ubuntu Linux and it's a No Brainer

system 76 come to me[-o<

[Chrisj303]

How many of those tasks does the average user perform if Dell has already installed and configured the distro? (Click the link--read the list)

Maybe mounting a new drive, but that's not a terminal-dependent task for Linux, just for Ubuntu. Knoppix and Mepis have been doing this for years point-and-click style.

Fixing a broken X server shouldn't be an issue any more after Feisty Fawn's "bullet-proof X"

But when something does go wrong - which is bound to happen at some point - it will take all of 2 minutes before said user arrives here. Upon clicking on a thread that seems relevant, i can pretty much guarantee there responce - something along the lines of "WTF" i should imagine.

A very large percentage of the market is taken up by people that HAVE to use a computer becuase they have no other choice, not because they actually enjoy it. And it would only take a couple of frustrations before joe-bloggs throws his live CD in the bin.

Apple Mac has it's plate full converting windows users to OSX!, and that really is idiot-proof.

[aysiu]

If someone comes on here, her problem is going to be solved a lot more quickly if she copies and pastes commands into the terminal.

Troubleshooting problems with the GUI will drive you insane, which is why Windows drives a lot of people insane.

[Chrisj303]

No, sorry - i just don't agree...... Like i said earlier, i don't think think joe bloggs has any interest whatsoever in command line. And would be intimidated and confused by the advice offered here.

When ubuntu can be controlled to the same degree through it's GUI, as it can be through the terminal. And strong commercial software support is there, then it will be a proper contender. Unfortunatly for now i think it will probably remain not much more than a geeky niche (and yes,i am a geek!).

chrisj303

[aysiu]

No, sorry - i just don't agree...... And I'm sorry but I just don't agree.

Like i said earlier, i don't think think joe bloggs has any interest whatsoever in command line. You don't have to have interest in the command-line to want to solve your problems.

When ubuntu can be controlled to the same degree through it's GUI, as it can be through the terminal. And strong commercial software support is there, then it will be a proper contender. As I said before, there are very few tasks that require the command-line. Most of those few tasks are of no interest to the average user or are Ubuntu-specific (other Linux distros have GUIs for those things).

So, in other words, for anything the average user is interested in doing on a Linux-preinstalled computer, she will be able to do by pointing and clicking. If she chooses to get help online, the help will involve her pointing and clicking, too... to copy and paste terminal commands (ones she, by the way, does not have to learn).

Unfortunatly for now i think it will probably remain not much more than a geeky niche (and yes,i am a geek!). Because it isn't preinstalled on most people's computers. If you have to search the internet to know the operating system exists, find an ISO to download, download it, figure out how to burn it, figure out partitioning and boot loaders, set your BIOS to boot from CD, learn a whole new operating system, and troubleshoot hardware recognition problems... then, yes, of course, it'll be "a geeky niche."

Dell preinstalling computers with Linux takes care of all of those things. The operating system's there. No need to find it. Nothing to download. No ISO to burn. Don't have to set your BIOS to boot from CD. No hardware recognition problems. Just enter your username and password, then start clicking.

I would encourage you to read my detailed treatise on the subject:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktopmyth

[entangled]

Although many people will not care it's worth noting that administration and management tasks on any computer are essentially done via terminal commands or batch scripts of commands. Using a GUI is error prone, hard to repeat and hopelessly slow.
Windows is now getting better equipped for this with WSH, WMI and powershell. You may well find that most future windows utilities are driven by a scripting language.
The discussion here is more about the appearance of windows, rather than function.

Windows, Macosx and Linux all present an acceptable GUI front end to the ordinary user, though I think GUI design in Linux is a bit less consistent.

I think the thing that really differentiates is marketing and business practices. Windows is aggressively marketed and has built a business lead in various ways. Macosx is in an artistic niche that business doesn't find serious enough. Linux is free so it doesn't make sense to business (or to the ordinary consumer with money burning a hole in his pocket!). I think many will *want* to pay for Vista to make a commitment.

[Chrisj303]

This is going to go around in circles! Agree- to- disagree is the best course of action i thiink!

chrisj303

[Chrisj303]

I think the thing that really differentiates is marketing and business practices. Windows is aggressively marketed and has built a business lead in various ways. .

And with Apple snarling at their backside, it will only get more aggressive...

anyway i *need* sleep! - night all..

[aysiu]

This is going to go around in circles! Agree- to- disagree is the best course of action i thiink!

chrisj303
Let's do that. Cool.

[blastus]

When ubuntu can be controlled to the same degree through it's GUI, as it can be through the terminal. And strong commercial software support is there, then it will be a proper contender.

When it comes to following instructions, a set of commands (which are easily scriptable) is FAR EASIER to follow than trying to follow a set of steps that say click this, click that, click here (out-of-date screenshot included here), click that, click this (another out-of-date screenshot included), ambiguous reference to *click here* (what button is that...my screen looks different than that stupid screenshot??), click this button if and only if x = y, scroll down to this item, click apply now blah blah blah...ad nauseum.

I'm not sure why Ubuntu is pointed out when Windows can't even be controlled through a command line. Sure there is PowerShell but it's not included in Vista and not all OS functions can be controlled via PowerShell. IMO, PowerShell is a LONG OVERDUE update to Windows. GUIs definitely have their place, but NOT at the expense of a functional command line.

[Chrisj303]

When it comes to following instructions, a set of commands (which are easily scriptable) is FAR EASIER to follow than trying to follow a set of steps that say click this, click that, click here (out-of-date screenshot included here), click that, click this (another out-of-date screenshot included), ambiguous reference to *click here* (what button is that...my screen looks different than that stupid screenshot??), click this button if and only if x = y, scroll down to this item, click apply now blah blah blah...ad nauseum.

.

erhm, don't be a drama queen - the vast majority of the public would much rather use a gui then command line any day.

[Chrisj303]

I'm not sure why Ubuntu is pointed out when Windows can't even be controlled through a command line. Sure there is PowerShell but it's not included in Vista and not all OS functions can be controlled via PowerShell. IMO, PowerShell is a LONG OVERDUE update to Windows. GUIs definitely have their place, but NOT at the expense of a functional command line.

Windows can't fully controlled through command line because the majority of people that buy it don't want to.

[darrenm]

erhm, don't be a drama queen - the vast majority of the public would much rather use a gui then command line any day.

Yes, thats right. But as for following instructions on a website or a forum then even with Windows problems you find the instructions given are on the command line.

[Sunnz]

I don't know a single person that knows/or wants to know anything about terminal/command line - regardless of OS. And to be honest you can hardly blame them, can you? It's not what i would call progression.How can you just make such blunt assumption?!!

When I first used computers it was command line only and I find it very exciting to learn how to operate a computer. I then find it very strange when I see Windows computer.

Just because you are used to while GUI doesn't mean the rest of world relies on it!!!If Linux (in it's current state) were to be bundled with computers, i don't think it would change a thing- it would probably just result in a lot of refunds/exchanges at PC world.
Don't get me wrong - i love ubuntu, but i'm also realistic about these things.Just another blunt assumption. How do you know if company won't just tweak Linux enough to make it just work? That's exactly what Apple has done to FreeBSD and I don't see if Linux has any technical limitation that it can't be tweaked like FreeBSD to be a "idiot-proof" system.

[Sunnz]

i don't think think joe bloggs has any interest whatsoever in command line. And would be intimidated and confused by the advice offered here.Then wouldn't 'Joe Bloggs' just find someone to help him?

I can't see how this is different from Windows. I have relatives who are still on Windows computer, when there are something they don't know about they just grab me to help, and usually they watch behind me, just say they have no clue what I am doing.

This exactly the same regardless of OS. Your 'Joe Bloggs' will always have things they don't know, it wouldn't matter if 'resident expert' uses the CLI or GUI to fix up the problem.

The bottom line is that 'Joe Bloggs' shouldn't tinker with things to start with if they are not willing to learn in the first place!!!Windows can't fully controlled through command line because the majority of people that buy it don't want to.The majority of Mac users don't use CLI neither, but it doesn't mean they don't want it, and it surely doesn't hurt to provide everything in CLI as well as GUI.

[M$LOL]

Well a nice shiny glossy interface is a huge advantage. But why Windows will always win is quite simple.

Microsoft have made a operating system that is USER FRIENDLY, to be fair you dont need to use the MS-DOS Command Prompt anymore, and using a terminal is a horrible way of computing.

To download a program, compile it, extract it, and FINALLY INSTALL are a difficult process. With Windows Download-Run-Install.

To get a driver for a piece of hardware, just download.

Linux has 2% for a reason, and that reason is it not user freindly. Not because Microsoft have a monopoly of Homer's. Many IT professionals use Windows.

Windows has it's disadvantages, like the security. But i have had 4 viruses in 10 years. And i have never had to reinstall Windows because of spyware,or virus.

To be frank, unless more children use Linux. It will die out.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO and NO!

Vista, far from being "User-Friendly" is designed to HIDE information from the user. Ubuntu (and other linux versions) are WAY more user-friendly, because they use intuitive desktops (KDE, Gnome etc) instead of the command line. And you can still use the Terminal if you want to.

To install a program on linux:

OPTION A:
1) Download tarball
2) Extract
3) Use make command to install

OPTION B:
1) Download .deb file
2) Double click or run dpkg to install

OPTION C:
1) Applications -> Add/Remove -> Click to install
OR
2) System -> Administration -> Synaptic Package Manager -> Click to install

Those methods are hardly "harder" than Windows, they're just different. Windows users are so afraid of Linux, they seem to think it's impossible to do anything straightforwardly. It's just as easy, and far superior than the Windows method, just open your mind to it.

To install a driver on Linux:

1) Plug in the device. Linux has support for loads of devices out of the box.
OR
2) Find the drivers in Synaptic. Drivers such as ATI/Nvidia are easy to find there.
OR
3) Worst case scenario: Use a wrapper. There are so many tutorials for this kind of stuff it's unreal.

You're wrong about M$ not having a monopoly of Homers. Windows is far inferior and M$ know it. They are just so good at marketing and pushing their products onto PC vendors because they are a HUGE CORPORATION. IT pros use it because IT'S THEIR JOB. Not because it's any good.

And when I say "Homers", I mean people that don't know a lot about computers, but many of them are excellent in their own areas.

Windows security is a joke, and M$' UAC as a "solution" is just pathetic. You have to give up valuable memory and processor cycles to security software, and even then you're not totally safe.

Linux isn't just going away, because although Windows may be fine for Joe Bloggs who just wants to do photos and music, it's not for those of us who need a decent OS.

[daller]

Microsoft have made a operating system that is USER FRIENDLY, to be fair you dont need to use the MS-DOS Command Prompt anymore, and using a terminal is a horrible way of computing.

Yes sure, using the terminal is SOOOO slow? - huh?
- The terminal is the way to do things easily, and do it fast...!
- A command on 20-30 characters will substitute 10-15 mouseclicks!

"USER FRIENDLY" is a horrible state of computing!
- USER FRIENDLINESS is made to enable stupid people to use a computer.
- EFFICIENT USE is the easiest way to do a task! - Not clicking around alot of tabs, hoping for "the magic checkbox" to appear!

Just my 50 cents...

[LaRoza]

MS Vista and Office 2007 are what made me use Linux. Office 2007 is actually very good, when it works. It is like a mirage. Running OpenOffice.org off of a Ubuntu DVD on a computer with an AMD Sempron processor and less than 512 MB of RAM is faster than MS Office 2007 installed on a dual core processor with 2 GB of RAM. MS Office Word 2007 still gives a very large amount of program not responding messages.

[Malac]

CRITICAL ZERO-DAY EXPLOIT FOUND IN THE WILD!
http://www.grc.com/image/transpixel.gif
An interim patch (http://research.eeye.com/html/alerts/zeroday/20070328.html) is available from eEye for use until Microsoft provides an official update.
(But see below first, since Microsoft is patching out-of-cycle.)

At the end of March, exploitation of a previously (publicly) unknown vulnerability in Windows' animated cursor (ANI) processing was detected in the wild. This new vulnerability is now being widely exploited to install Trojan malware into fully patched Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003 and Vista systems.

http://www.grc.com/image/transpixel.gif
All fully patched Windows systems are currently vulnerable.

http://www.grc.com/image/transpixel.gif
Microsoft learned of this vulnerability in all versions of Windows more than three months ago (http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2007/03/30/update-on-microsoft-security-advisory-935423.aspx#Vulnerability), on December 20th, 2006, but did nothing to protect their customers.

http://www.grc.com/image/transpixel.gif
Proof-of-Concept code (http://milw0rm.com/exploits/3634) has now been publicly released, guaranteeing rapid and widespread adoption of this exploit.

http://www.grc.com/image/transpixel.gif
Microsoft was forced to publish this acknowledgement of the vulnerability (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/935423.mspx) and since they have known of it for many months they have now stated (http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2007/04/01/latest-on-security-update-for-microsoft-security-advisory-935423.aspx) that they will be pushing out an early, out-of-cycle official update to eliminate this vulnerability on Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007 (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/advance.mspx).

http://www.grc.com/image/transpixel.gif
Depending upon your level of concern and/or exposure you could install the eEye patch now, or wait (one day) for Microsoft's official update. But be sure to look for this update on or after Tuesday, April 3rd.
Quote taken from www.grc.com (http://www.grc.com)


Well that's enough for me. :)

[LaRoza]

A new Windows release has a security flaw? I just can't believe it.

[PryGuy]

A new Windows release has a security flaw? I just can't believe it.Just because Microsoft told you that the new release is flawless? ;)

[Chrisj303]

How can you just make such blunt assumption?!!

When I first used computers it was command line only and I find it very exciting to learn how to operate a computer. I then find it very strange when I see Windows computer.

Just because you are used to while GUI doesn't mean the rest of world relies on it!!!Just another blunt assumption. How do you know if company won't just tweak Linux enough to make it just work? That's exactly what Apple has done to FreeBSD and I don't see if Linux has any technical limitation that it can't be tweaked like FreeBSD to be a "idiot-proof" system.

How can i make such a blunt assumption? - well it's the truth, i don't know anybody that has any interest in using command line. They just want there computers to work (mainly for music production) with as little fuss as possible.

You have been using computers since it was command line only? - Then your obviously very experianced and enthusiastic regarding computers, your not representing the majority.

I would very much like to see linux tweeked to the extent that Apple has to FreeBSD.

chrisj303

[cantormath]

these threads are so stupid and yet so funny.......

[Sunnz]

How can i make such a blunt assumption? - well it's the truth, i don't know anybody that has any interest in using command line. They just want there computers to work (mainly for music production) with as little fuss as possible.

You have been using computers since it was command line only? - Then your obviously very experianced and enthusiastic regarding computers, your not representing the majority.NOW you know such person who learn computer in CLI.

In case you didn't know, people had to 'learn' GUI anyway.

I mean, GUI has its advantages, but people mistakenly think GUI is easier because that's what they learnt to start with, it doesn't mean it is the truth.

[M$LOL]

How can i make such a blunt assumption? - well it's the truth, i don't know anybody that has any interest in using command line. They just want there computers to work (mainly for music production) with as little fuss as possible.

You have been using computers since it was command line only? - Then your obviously very experianced and enthusiastic regarding computers, your not representing the majority.

I would very much like to see linux tweeked to the extent that Apple has to FreeBSD.

chrisj303

People who need more functionality use the command line. Even for something like compiling C++ apps, the command line is best. Just because somebody who wants their PC for surfing the net and playing music thinks that the command line is stupid and too complicated doesn't mean that experienced users who need something that a GUI can't provide won't use it.

Also, what are you going to do the day your xserver fails and you are dumped at an $ prompt? If you have been so reliant on the GUI, you won't have a clue of how to use the command line, and you'll be in a bit of trouble then.

All the GUI does is hide the command line and make the OS look pretty. The true OS is what's behind it. If all you know about is the GUI, you don't necessarily know anything about the OS.

Open your mind. Some of us have more advanced needs than point-and-click, so please don't be so ignorant as to think that the only people that matter are those who "just want it to work", even if they are in the majority. Linux is an advanced OS that can also cater for those who aren't as experienced, but that's not to say that it wasn't designed as an effective tool for operating a PC.

If Linux became like MacOS, it would remove its functionality as an OS for experienced users who need something powerful and advanced. MacOS is essentially designed with simplicity in mind so that anyone can use it. In star contrast, FreeBSD is a proper Unix system and is extremely powerful and stable. Apple just chose it because of its stability, and changed the whole interface to abstract users from the "harshness" of the command line. That's why I like Linux, it retains the power of Unix but also gives a GUI alongside the Terminal, making it easy to learn and use while still being powerful and stable.

@ cantormath: I think you're right. :lolflag:

[Sunnz]

Here's an example, one of my Aunt still have no ideas how to turn off a computer other than plugging the power cord, and it is a Windows machine.

Her son has taught here many times that in order to shutdown the computer, she must first find the Start button and...

I bet she only had to learn it once if it were a CLI Linux server.

[Sunnz]

If Linux became like MacOS, it would remove its functionality as an OS for experienced users who need something powerful and advanced. MacOS is essentially designed with simplicity in mind so that anyone can use it. In star contrast, FreeBSD is a proper Unix system and is extremely powerful and stable. Apple just chose it because of its stability, and changed the whole interface to abstract users from the "harshness" of the command line. That's why I like Linux, it retains the power of Unix but also gives a GUI alongside the Terminal, making it easy to learn and use while still being powerful and stable.

I would disagree here.

Mac has NOT "remove its functionality as an OS for experienced users who need something powerful and advanced". I use the CLI under Mac on a daily basis working on a software project, it uses bash by default, it has gcc, java, apache ant, and works just like gnome-terminal on Ubuntu.

I can't think of a technical limitation that requires removal of CLI functions in order to implement a better GUI.

And we are talking about Linux here... well, installing GNOME does not remove the CLI, right? So unless you can point out a limitation that requires some of the CLI feature to be removed, I don't see why would the CLI functionality would get degraded.

I mean, the CLI and GUI can co-exist, like Thunderbird and Firefox... improving Firefox is not going to de-improve thunderbird, right?

[M$LOL]

I was unaware that the Mac had a CLI. Still though, its GUI is designed for simplicity as opposed to power usage. My point is that if Ubuntu's GUI became too simplistic without the advanced features it would reduce its functionality to those who need them.

I can't think of a technical limitation that requires removal of CLI functions in order to implement a better GUI.

And we are talking about Linux here... well, installing GNOME does not remove the CLI, right? So unless you can point out a limitation that requires some of the CLI feature to be removed, I don't see why would the CLI functionality would get degraded.

I mean, the CLI and GUI can co-exist, like Thunderbird and Firefox... improving Firefox is not going to de-improve thunderbird, right?

I never said the CLI functions would be degraded, I said that making the GUI too simple would remove some of the functionality of the OS overall, not the CLI, because many advanced tasks can currently be performed from the GUI. Also, a better GUI is not necessarily a simpler one.

As for your point of the GUI coexisting with the CLI, that's essentially what I said:
That's why I like Linux, it retains the power of Unix but also gives a GUI alongside the Terminal, making it easy to learn and use while still being powerful and stable.

[LaRoza]

I used the command line in Vista because the GUI was so slow.

[Sunnz]

If you didn't know Macs had CLI then you probably simply don't know enough about it to say if it is too simple or what not. I mean, it is debatable that Gnome is too simplistic compared to Aqua...

Anyway, I brought up the CLI GUI coexistence in my previous because that was a response to your post, where you implied that Macs only has a very simple GUI where I find it I uses it almost the same way you used Ubuntu... let's not not argue here though, since we both seem to agree at a very efficient way of harvest the power of CLI and GUI - getting the best of both worlds!!!

[eentonig]

I'm a GUI users. Fullblown GUI user. And I couldn't live without one.

That said. One of the first things I do when opening/starting my machines (XP Pro at work, Solaris at work, Ubuntu at home, .....) is opening a terminal. Most of the time, it's just faster for me to type the command to start an application then looking it up int the menus. And I'll definitely use the CLI if I want to pass certain parameters to my commands.

But still, I look to have the GUI around for file browsin and as a comfortably fallback solution when I don't know the exact commands to enter.

I must say. The longer I use Linux/Unix, the more I notice I have a cmd window open in windows as well.

[M$LOL]

OK, yeah, I'm judging the Mac based on the few times I've used one and it seemed like it was designed to be very idiot-proof, plus the fact that Apple uses simplicity in other products, specifically the iPod and iTunes.

Anyway, the point we're both trying to make is that CLI + GUI = efficiency.

Hear that, GUI-only users?

[blastus]

erhm, don't be a drama queen - the vast majority of the public would much rather use a gui then command line any day.

GUI interfaces are powerful and more convenient for a lot of simple day to day operations. A benefit of GUIs is WYSIWYG, what you see is what you get. The disadvantage is WYSIAYG, what you see is ALL you get.

GUIs break down when you need to go beyond the capabilities they were designed for. For system administration and diagnosing problems, you often need to go beyond the capabilities of a GUI and the command line is often far easier to use.

Even just basic tasks can be complicated with a GUI that wasn't designed for it. For example, let's say you want to delete all .txt files in the c:\myfiles directory...

The GUI Way:
- Open up Windows Explorer.
- Navigate to c:\myfiles.
- Search through the entire directory and CTRL-click on every single file that ends with .txt being careful not to select any files that don't end with .txt (oh and make sure that you haven't hidden file extensions in Windows Explorer--if you have you need to follow instructions to change that option as there may be other file types that may be described the same way as .txt files.)
- Press the Delete key if you are sure you have selected the right files.

Alternatively you could sort the files by file type or do a search for all .txt files in c:\myfiles and delete from there but the process still involves a ridiculously large number of steps.

The Command Line way:
- Open up a terminal
- Enter "del c:\myfiles\*.txt"

Here's a simple administrative task. You need to restart a service called "x."

The GUI Way:
- Open up Control Panel
- Double click on Administrative Tools
- Double click on Services
- Find and select the service called "x" in the list
- Click Restart
- Close all three windows when you are done

The Command Line Way:
- Open up a terminal
- Enter "net stop x & net start x"
- Close the terminal window (or leave it open if you want to enter other commands)

In both these cases, not only is the command line way easier to describe, it's easier to follow.

Windows can't fully controlled through command line because the majority of people that buy it don't want to.

What people wanted has absolutely nothing to do with it. Microsoft started with a broken shell called DOS and then built a GUI on top of it. Then they re-factored their OS so that it was no longer dependent on a broken shell and called it NT.

Their OSs eventually converged into an OS (Windows 2000/XP) where the GUI become supreme and the shell was left broken. System administrators have been begging Microsoft for years to upgrade the shell and finally Microsoft responded with PowerShell.

Microsoft has always believed in building the GUI first then the command line. But they are realizing that this approach has not worked. So they are in the process of re-factoring the OS again so that the GUI will be a wrap around a shell and therefore fully programmable via a shell.

Obviously your generalization that Windows is not fully programmable through the command line *because* people don't want it is false because Microsoft is now heading in that direction.

[Sunnz]

Alternatively you could sort the files by file type or do a search for all .txt files in c:\myfiles and delete from there but the process still involves a ridiculously large number of steps.

The Command Line way:
- Open up a terminal
- Enter "del c:\myfiles\*.txt"


Actually there should be a list/detailed view in Windows Explorer (sorry I don't have M$ boxes around anymore...) where you can sort by file type in a timely manner and it doesn't involve "a ridiculously large number of steps."

[Sunnz]

OK, yeah, I'm judging the Mac based on the few times I've used one and it seemed like it was designed to be very idiot-proof, plus the fact that Apple uses simplicity in other products, specifically the iPod and iTunes.Lol I know, I have been there too when I first tried Macs... then in my Maths class the teacher open up a Terminal and start ssh into her office's machine because she forgotten to bring her lecture slides for that day...
Anyway, the point we're both trying to make is that CLI + GUI = efficiency.

Hear that, GUI-only users?Yea... also, when you are remotely accessing a computer, e.g. ssh into a friend's box over the net to fix things up, the GUI most likely just gets into the way and the CLI is just really really appreciated!!:popcorn:

[Chrisj303]

If you didn't know Macs had CLI then you probably simply don't know enough about it to say if it is too simple or what not. I mean, it is debatable that Gnome is too simplistic compared to Aqua...



Are you responding to me? Of course i knew macs had command line..???

[vivin_west]

I think all this argument about which is better leads nowhere.There is no doubt that Linux is superior to Windows. I do not understand why people debate over it. Windows beats Linux when it comes to what others have contributed to windows.Every software I have known runs on windows.Every hardware I see supports windows. There are far too many people who help Windows.That is where the competition lies. Who contributes more.Their strength lies in what others do for them rather than what Microsoft does for itself. The presence of windows everywhere and that is their strength. The ratio of Win 98 users: Ubuntu Dapper may be around 10:1 or more. Does anyone dare to say 98 is better?

[aysiu]

I think all this argument about which is better leads nowhere.There is no doubt that Linux is superior to Windows. I do not understand why people debate over it. Actually, there's quite a bit of doubt as to Linux's superiority, which is why people debate over it... for hundreds or even thousands of posts.

I'm a big advocate for desktop Linux, but I don't think Linux is undebatably "superior" to Windows. I think each operating system (a Linux-based one or a Windows one) has its own advantages. So there you go--some doubt.

[eentonig]

Before you can even start debating which one is superior. You would need to define the standards to which you'll be comparing.

- Purely technical?
- Performance wise?
- User acceptance?
- Interoperability?
- Market acceptance?
- ....

Without that, saying x is better than y is the same as saying. A bycicle is better than a car. Or even more absurd, a bal is better than a fishing stick.

Both statements will have people agreeing, and will have people against it. It just depends why you need or want one of them.

[vivin_west]

OK.. let me put it this way.

Assume all popular (softwares,games etc) that run on windows, run on Linux also.
Assume all the hardware printers,scanners etc have support Linux.

Now assuming the above to be true please list the advantages of Windows over Linux. I am interested to know.

[Sunnz]

The ratio of Win 98 users: Ubuntu Dapper may be around 10:1 or more. Does anyone dare to say 98 is better?

I won't be so sure about that..

[aysiu]

OK.. let me put it this way.

Assume all popular (softwares,games etc) that run on windows, run on Linux also.
Assume all the hardware printers,scanners etc have support Linux. Well, then, you're talking only about technical superiority. It wasn't clear before.

Now assuming the above to be true please list the advantages of Windows over Linux. I am interested to know. Sure. I'll list them.

1. System restore
2. Bullet-proof-x (Ubuntu is getting this only in Feisty Fawn--Windows has had it for years)
3. Easy dual-display setup (This isn't a hardware support issue--it's an implementation issue)
4. Control-F search within the currently viewed folder
5. Automatic detection and mounting of new internal drives or partitions
6. GUI frontends for these tasks (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1840857&highlight=dependent#post1840857)
7. Documents and settings import/export wizard

That's all I can think of right now, but I'm sure there's more. If you want me to put out a list of what Linux has that Windows doesn't, I could probably come up with more than 7 points, but to say Linux is definitely technically superior to Windows in every way is a bit extreme and, ironically, just invites more debate.

[Robynsveil]

Well, then, you're talking only about technical superiority. It wasn't clear before.

Sure. I'll list them.

1. System restore
2. Bullet-proof-x (Ubuntu is getting this only in Feisty Fawn--Windows has had it for years)
3. Easy dual-display setup (This isn't a hardware support issue--it's an implementation issue)
4. Control-F search within the currently viewed folder
5. Automatic detection and mounting of new internal drives or partitions
6. GUI frontends for these tasks (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1840857&highlight=dependent#post1840857)
7. Documents and settings import/export wizard

That's all I can think of right now, but I'm sure there's more. If you want me to put out a list of what Linux has that Windows doesn't, I could probably come up with more than 7 points, but to say Linux is definitely technically superior to Windows in every way is a bit extreme and, ironically, just invites more debate.

Linux *is* superior, but it's not for the ordinary user. Not any more than a Maserati is for your sixteen year-old son.

Windows will remain the popular favourite not because it is superior, but because most computer users... aren't. Real computer users, that is.

The computer is for so many still this mysterious, terrible, unfathomable entity that has invaded Western Civilization Existence and which, although hated and feared, must be dealt with. It's a matter of what is interesting and what the person feels they can get the head around. I can cook, not just because I can follow a recipe but because I have a sense for what works together. I like shopping for shoes because I want to find a pair that will suit that new outfit and bag I just bought. Whether it's helping a patient wake up from anaesthesia, helping my 16-year old deal with her issues at school, doing the bills or deciding on a new brand of makeup, nothing in my experience can prepare me for the challenges that Linux (of any flavour) faces me with. I look at the arcane commands to type into the terminal and think:

"Gee, some propeller-head must have had a great time coming up with this one."

I see my daughter shake her head at me struggling with setting up a proxy server and goes back to her Windows XP PC, on which she spends *heaps* of time doing her MySpace site, chatting on MSN and googling for stuff for her assignments.

No one in this household shares my enthusiasm for the Linux environment since, if their WinXP systems develop problems, they just let me fix them .and. they are *familiar* with them... they don't *want* to change [-X , even if that meant that changing would make infinitely easier for me.

It's all about the familiar. Win98 wasn't all that different from Win95, and Win95 wasn't all that different from Win 3.1... so Microsoft created an environment for the *non*-computer user where they could take advantage of the power of the computer with a minimum of learning. That appeals to a TV-spectator-Macdonalds-consumer kinda person. The regular person. Self-admittedly lazy, they want it done for them. Made easy for them. Gimme shortcuts. Easy-peasy.

Linux is not easy. Powerful, stable, but it requires skills and determination. It's a different breed of person that uses Linux. I'm quite proud to be a member of that group.

[shuttleworthwannabe]

I will second you on those 7 points; additionally, one sure thing I have noticed on windows is the "psychology of the right-mouse click"; whoever thought about that must be a real genius. Right clicking anywhere on screen (desktop, application, menu bar, etc) will pop up exactly what you want to achieve-- almost reading your mind. I find this lacking in the linux system and its applications.

[Robynsveil]

I will second you on those 7 points; additionally, one sure thing I have noticed on windows is the "psychology of the right-mouse click"; whoever thought about that must be a real genius. Right clicking anywhere on screen (desktop, application, menu bar, etc) will pop up exactly what you want to achieve-- almost reading your mind. I find this lacking in the linux system and its applications.

How do you get the "Registered Linux User" number?

...and Right-Click gives me context-sensitive menus in Ubuntu 6.10...

[shuttleworthwannabe]

linuxcounter.org

u kiddin' right?

[Robynsveil]

u kiddin' right?

About right-click context sensitive menus? Not really...

http://www.tightbytes.com/images/ubuntu/r-click1.jpg
http://www.tightbytes.com/images/ubuntu/r-click2.jpg
http://www.tightbytes.com/images/ubuntu/r-click3.jpg

See nothing wrong or un-intuitive about these menus.

Oh, and thanks for that link! - I'm now Linux user 445955!!

[M$LOL]

Well, then, you're talking only about technical superiority. It wasn't clear before.

Sure. I'll list them.

1. System restore
2. Bullet-proof-x (Ubuntu is getting this only in Feisty Fawn--Windows has had it for years)
3. Easy dual-display setup (This isn't a hardware support issue--it's an implementation issue)
4. Control-F search within the currently viewed folder
5. Automatic detection and mounting of new internal drives or partitions
6. GUI frontends for these tasks (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1840857&highlight=dependent#post1840857)
7. Documents and settings import/export wizard

That's all I can think of right now, but I'm sure there's more. If you want me to put out a list of what Linux has that Windows doesn't, I could probably come up with more than 7 points, but to say Linux is definitely technically superior to Windows in every way is a bit extreme and, ironically, just invites more debate.
Aren't you an admin on a Linux forum?

I would be more likely to say that Linux is technically superior to Windows in every way. Just because Windows has some cool features that Ubuntu doesn't, doesn't mean that Ubuntu is not still technically superior. I would prefer to say that Ubuntu has some things that can be made better, with Windows the whole OS needs to be revamped and possibly thrown on a fire.

[Sunnz]

About 4 & 7, couldn't you just do:
find . -name filename
tar -czvf backup_dir/backup.tgz ~

No? (If we are talking about Ubuntu doesn't have these features within GNome then I can see what you mean... but not if we are talking about Linux in general.)

HMmm... always wondered, what is System Restore supposed to do? :p

[eentonig]

Comparing windows and Linux is just as usefull as comparing a Porsche with a bike.

They are both means of transportation, but their use is (still) completely different.

Ms has benefits. Be it technical or be it emotional. Linux has others. Be it technical or be it emotional.

And vice versa.
What's the use of having the most technical advanced OS there is, when you don't know how to work it. Or you only need 1% of the possibilities?

[sarbaraj101]

I dun think that Ubuntu will ever go down.

Remember, Windows lacks a lot. Its only flashy anmd it uses the modified DOS kernel, kernel32.dll

[Brunellus]

I dun think that Ubuntu will ever go down.

Remember, Windows lacks a lot. Its only flashy anmd it uses the modified DOS kernel, kernel32.dll
Wrong.

The kernel is an NT kernel, which shares little, if anything, with the old MS-DOS kernel. Microsoft are the kings of backwards-compatibility through compatibility layers--imagine what their compatibility-layer engineers could do if they were on the WINE project!

indeed, the current windows shell, CMD.EXE isn't even the same as teh COMMAND.COM we used to remember from MS-DOS. The shell commands and utilities behave the same, but it's a new shell. Soon, Windows will dispense with CMD.EXE and move to their new Monad shell (windowless monads, get it? The devs must be Liebniz fans).

[aysiu]

Aren't you an admin on a Linux forum? Yes, and I'm also trying to be fairly objective. Being a staff member on a Linux forum doesn't mean you can't admit the faults of Linux or see how Windows can be better at some things. I was asked to list the ways in which Windows is superior, and I did. If I'm asked to list the ways Linux is superior, I'll do that also.

[Chrisj303]

^ Good job! If this forum was modded by apologist fan-boys, for me it'd be pretty much unreadable!

Like the other night when we just agreed to disagree, that just wouldn't have happened on so many other forums i've been part of - they'd always have to have the last say, and get all screwy and personal.

chrisj303

[Brunellus]

^ Good job! If this forum was modded by apologist fan-boys, for me it'd be pretty much unreadable!

Like the other night when we just agreed to disagree, that just wouldn't have happened on so many other forums i've been part of - they'd always have to have the last say, and get all screwy and personal.

chrisj303
Fanboyism is annoying.

I'm a mild Linux fanboy--my less-enlightened younger brother often comments on this--but I'm not above calling it like I see it.

The worst part about fanboyism is that it creates unrealistic expectations which only hurt us later. Many "ZOMGZ, LINUX IS NOT READY FOR TEH DESKTOP! UBUNTU SUX()RZ!@" threads are occasioned by people whose expectations have been inflated by fanboys.

The worst kind of fanboy-inflicted damage on this community comes from fanboys who are also suffering from acute beta fever. They roll bleeding-edge applications and features--Beryl being the most notorious at the moment--and expect to use this as a means to 'sell' the stable OS to users. This is as deceptive and disingenuous as anything Microsoft does.

At the end of the day, it's software--a set of instructions to a machine intended to solve a set of problems in a certain way.

[M$LOL]

Yes, and I'm also trying to be fairly objective. Being a staff member on a Linux forum doesn't mean you can't admit the faults of Linux or see how Windows can be better at some things. I was asked to list the ways in which Windows is superior, and I did. If I'm asked to list the ways Linux is superior, I'll do that also.
I'm not asking you to, and I admit that there are some areas that Linux could improve slightly on. However, IMO the reasons you listed do not constitute technical superiority, they just represent some features that M$ have implemented whereas Linux has not.

@Chris: I completely disagree with the idea of people getting personal about it, and I think that a constructive debate about which is better etc. is a good thing. I completely accept your opinions (and anyone else who is pro-Windows or anything else) as your opinions and that that is the way you feel about it. I'm just trying to communicate mine and make a case for Linux/Ubuntu as a superior OS because of my experience of it.

[aysiu]

However, IMO the reasons you listed do not constitute technical superiority, they just represent some features that M$ have implemented whereas Linux has not. And I didn't say Windows is technically superior to Linux. I was responding to this prompt: Now assuming the above to be true please list the advantages of Windows over Linux. I am interested to know. So what I've listed are some of the advantages of Windows over Linux. That's all. Don't make more of it than what I said.

[blastus]

Well, then, you're talking only about technical superiority. It wasn't clear before.

Sure. I'll list them.

1. System restore
2. Bullet-proof-x (Ubuntu is getting this only in Feisty Fawn--Windows has had it for years)
3. Easy dual-display setup (This isn't a hardware support issue--it's an implementation issue)
4. Control-F search within the currently viewed folder
5. Automatic detection and mounting of new internal drives or partitions
6. GUI frontends for these tasks (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1840857&highlight=dependent#post1840857)
7. Documents and settings import/export wizard

1. System Restore as an advantage is debatable. It can also be used to restore viruses on your computer as anti-virus software cannot scan the restore point area.

2. Bullet-proof-x. Not sure what is meant here?

3. If it's about X configuration in general then I agree as long as your video driver supports what you need to do.

For example, the NVIDIA driver for Windows does not support advanced timing modes for certain video cards whereas the Linux driver does. What this means for me is that I cannot run my LCD at its native resolution in Windows but I can in Linux with an X.org configuration. I've tried PowerStrip on Windows but there are some serious issues with it (like if a screen saver kicks in.)

4. Control-F. This would be handy on Linux for sure. This was one of the first things I tried to do in Nautilus after moving to Linux.

5. Automatic detection and mounting of new internal drives or partitions. I agree, and I especially agree with the new UUID stuff in /etc/fstab that has, for me, made /etc/fstab more fragile. Prior to the new UUID stuff, Ubuntu made improvements in the auto-detection of mounting of drives when they started using /media for mount points.

6. GUI frontends for these tasks (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1840857&highlight=dependent#post1840857)

For the most part I agree except for the following...
-- configuring/setting up postfix and DNS
-- Apache configuration

If you are running a DNS and/or Apache server you are NOT are regular user anymore. You are an administrator, a developer, or someone else involved in the configuration of a server. That is a whole different ball game because now we are talking about remote access of which no-one is going to running GUI tools directly on the server to configure or monitor it (unless of course it's Windows in which case you don't have much choice but to use a confusing, clumsy and very slow remote desktop.)

We are not talking about Linux anymore. Apache is not a part of Linux anymore than Sim City is a part of Windows.

7. Documents and settings import/export wizard. This is a matter of opinion. Myself, I don't have a need for this functionality (and even if Linux did have this functionality would never use it) as I will always do a fresh install and take the extra time to configure my applications afterwards.

[aysiu]

Once again, I was asked to "please list the advantages of Windows over Linux." That's what I did with whatever I came up with. I didn't say that makes Windows a better operating system. I didn't say those advantages apply to all people's situations or get used frequently.

Please don't make more of it than what I said. Those are some advantages Windows has over Linux.

As for System Restore, no one says you have to use System Restore, but it is nice to have as an option. It isn't a magical cure-all (as you said, sometimes you could have only the options to restore to worse situations), but not having it at all has no advantages over having it when it can be useful.

In the past five months, there have been this many threads asking for a System Restore-like function in Ubuntu:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=399692&highlight=system+restore
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=399684&highlight=system+restore
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=384916&highlight=system+restore
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=369767&highlight=system+restore
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=364730&highlight=system+restore
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=349699&highlight=system+restore
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=342010&highlight=system+restore
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=337117&highlight=system+restore
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=325808&highlight=system+restore
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=203226&highlight=system+restore
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=317860&highlight=system+restore
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=313430&highlight=system+restore

[picpak]

2. Bullet-proof-x (Ubuntu is getting this only in Feisty Fawn--Windows has had it for years)

This is way too advanced for the regular Windows user but, have you ever tried replacing the EXPLORER.EXE shell? I have. One wrong move, and you're left with a completely fried GUI. Your only hope is to boot into DOS, find the config file to change (it's hidden from view by default in the GUI), and hope you'll be able to revert it all back by hand.

A broken GUI in Windows is much worse than a broken GUI in Linux.

[aysiu]

A broken GUI in Windows is much worse than a broken GUI in Linux. Agreed. But until recently, a broken GUI in Windows was rarer, and you usually had to do something to break Windows, not just install regular updates.

[blastus]

Please don't make more of it than what I said. Those are some advantages Windows has over Linux.

But you have Apache and DNS configuration via a GUI in your list of *technical advantages* that Windows has over Linux yet they have absolutely nothing to do with Windows or Linux. If you're going to include things like that then I would also include the following in the list...

- DirectX and the overwhelming majority of games
- Microsoft Windows Live OneCare
- Microsoft Office
- Microsoft SharePoint
- Microsoft Dynamics
- Microsoft SQL Server
- Microsoft Windows Media Center
- Adobe Photoshop
- Adobe Dreamweaver
- XBox Integration
- Better support for hardware exclusively designed for Windows to the exclusion of all else including winmodems, winprinters, etc...
- Better local support from ISPs and hardware vendors...

[M$LOL]

- DirectX and games majority is because of M$' corporate greed, not because Windows is a better OS

- OneCare only exists because of Windows' pathetic security

- OpenOffice beats M$ Office IMO, and if not it's no worse.

- Linux has equivalents for the next three, and MySQL beats M$SQL any day.

- There are loads of media players for Linux

- Wine for the next two

- XBox -> made by M$ -> designed to be Windows ONLY

- The next two are also results of corporate greed, not because Windows is any good.

[darrenm]

I do find it astounding that Microsoft have the front to charge for their OneCare service that is basically saying that Windows in the first place is insecure so you have to pay for something else that will make it more secure. How can they get away with it?

Like how can they get away with this mass attack on all forms of piracy on Windows but then say "We would prefer you to use a pirated version of Windows than to use Linux" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/13/ms_piracy_benefits/ I've now got it in writing that a Microsoft executive has said I can use a pirated version of Windows.

[aysiu]

A senior exec at Microsoft?

Bill Gates himself has said as much (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-212942.html): Gates shed some light on his own hard-nosed business philosophy. "Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software," he said. "Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." My emphasis (bold type) added.

[blastus]

I do find it astounding that Microsoft have the front to charge for their OneCare service that is basically saying that Windows in the first place is insecure so you have to pay for something else that will make it more secure. How can they get away with it?

They *get away with it* because people buy their products. But Microsoft is different than most companies in that they can afford to sustain substantial loses (countless millions) over a very long period of time (many years) while foisting new products/services on the market. In essence they can *buy* their way into any market until they have driven out most of the competition.

Microsoft is kind of a technologically backwards company in the vast majority of the products they have on the market now were not the first to market or even anywhere near the first to market. They see a new product on the market and see how successful it is and then build or often times acquire through acquisition a product than can compete. Their product is usually pathetically inferior to the competition's product but they learn from their mistakes and improve their product all the while sustaining enormous financial losses until they grab enough market share to make money.

I don't care what Microsoft says or does anymore. The thing with Microsoft is that they want to be everything to everyone and they have not been successful in that quest. Some people buy their products because they are too lazy to find an alternative or because they just want a new *toy* in a nice fancy box. This isn't just about software and it isn't just about Microsoft, it's about technology in general. A lot of people buy more than they need simply because they *can*.

[Malac]

...Microsoft is different than most companies in that they can afford to sustain substantial loses (countless millions) over a very long period of time (many years) while foisting new products/services on the market.
That's because they charge a bleeding fortune for a knackered OS to the people that do pay. :)

[r3m0t]

On OneCare: They aren't admitting as such that Windows is insecure. It's more of an admittance that people will haplessly open attachments, let stuff run as administrator, bypass security warnings in Internet Explorer, etc. I don't think it's Microsoft's job (as part of the development of Windows) to stop people from opening viruses. Instead, they are doing it as a seperate service, and I'm fine with that. If you want to be controlled (so to speak) then install OneCare and heed its warnings. It will slow down your computer a lot, but that's a price you have to pay.

The only problem with OneCare is (as reported by OSNews numerous times) it failed most independent tests of anti-virus software, while almost every other software passed.

As for the pirating - he said that it was preferred that people would pirate Windows; that doesn't mean they'll make it easy for you. He also didn't mention Linux. They say things like, "As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours." - In other words, "if they're going to break the law, I hope they take our stuff instead of anybody elses". Of course, using Linux isn't breaking the law (unless you really did steal a CD or box off somebody) so they didn't address that.

[eentonig]

...
As for the pirating - he said that it was preferred that people would pirate Windows; that doesn't mean they'll make it easy for you. He also didn't mention Linux. They say things like, "As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours." - In other words, "if they're going to break the law, I hope they take our stuff instead of anybody elses". Of course, using Linux isn't breaking the law (unless you really did steal a CD or box off somebody) so they didn't address that.

No they didn't say that. But an idiot can figure out what they mean. There aren't that many OS's available.
And it's indeed a very good business point of view from their position. Yes, let them steal our OS. That way, they at least remain under our influence. If they use Linux, we might loose them (and their children) completely.

[M$LOL]

Of course they said that, it's not rocket science that they want people to use their OS no matter what, it's the only way they'll keep customers. They already have so much money it doesn't matter if people pay or not, what matters is that people are using their software.

[Sunnz]

That's just like Linux, it doesn't matter if people don't pay for it!!! In a way...

[Robynsveil]

On OneCare: They aren't admitting as such that Windows is insecure. It's more of an admittance that people will haplessly open attachments, let stuff run as administrator, bypass security warnings in Internet Explorer, etc. I don't think it's Microsoft's job (as part of the development of Windows) to stop people from opening viruses. Instead, they are doing it as a seperate service, and I'm fine with that. If you want to be controlled (so to speak) then install OneCare and heed its warnings. It will slow down your computer a lot, but that's a price you have to pay.

The only problem with OneCare is (as reported by OSNews numerous times) it failed most independent tests of anti-virus software, while almost every other software passed.

Oops. :lol:

Other than those minor issues, a *fine* program ... wish there was something like that for Linux.:)

[icechen1]

vista = get more linux user ( see http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustom=Linux ) :popcorn: see that the market share has increased since Jan 2007,the vista release month!

[motin]

vista = get more linux user ( see http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustom=Linux ) :popcorn: see that the market share has increased since Jan 2007,the vista release month!

Hooray! 0.57% Now! :(

[icechen1]

Hooray! 0.57% Now! :(

Did you see that :
September, 2006 0.40%
October, 2006 0.39%
November, 2006 0.37%
December, 2006 0.37%
January, 2007 0.35%
February, 2007 0.42%
March, 2007 0.57%

from January 2007 to march 2007,there is an increase of 0,10 every month?
and vista just released 3 month ago,so in 5 month Linux will have 1.00% in market share!
And 95% of market share are Windows :(

[holz]

During the day I manage a 535 workstations Windows network, with 11 file servers (3 of them are headless ubuntu). At night I am a happy sole on my XFCE.
Vista is nothing but a cheap imitation to the MAC. It requires enormous hardware / memory support, and people will buy it since the do not know better
In order to be competitive in the home market, Linux must have some of the basic apps Windows and
1. Descent financial software that connected to the Bank. GNU is great but lack some major features.
2. Broad hardware compatibility: It is up to the vendors, and the will not do it as long as there are not enough consumers that run Linux. Kind of catch 22
3. Easier installation methods, Ubuntu is great on the road of doing that.
When I do some side work, I install 50/50 Linux / Windows. Oddly enough, when I tell people on tight budget that do do not have to upgrade hardware if they are willing to learn, Ubuntu is a great choice. Most of them stick with it, it s great for people tight budge that want to do e-mail and net surfing with no worries + occasional letters. Upgrading to Vista is a $1000.00 minimum adventure, $2000.00 if you are not familiar with the market. In many occasions Vista will not even upgrade your XP, it will push it aside, so some of my clients siply by new computer s loaded with Vista. Go figure...

[darrenm]

Microsoft dont want to sell retail Vista, they only want it pre-installed on new computers. Hence the ludicrous retail price.

[Circus-Killer]

Microsoft Windows Vista and Microsoft Office 2007 are on the horizon, including new fancy graphic user interfaces... is Ubuntu Linux likely to survive against such strong competition?

John

originally, i thought vista was going to be the biggest flop (compared to previous windows). and although this might still ring true, i still feel linux in general has a LONG way to go.

right now, linux developers arent focusing on what really matters. having taken a look at feisty, i can definately say that it was a let down. in fact, i find all ubuntu releases to be quite the let down, with many promises being broken. i dont blame the developers, i just think they need longer development time. 6 months is clearly not long enough.

besides that, more effort needs to go into other things other than compiz/beryl. first of all, there will always be a problem with hardware vendors. to this day, most vendors still dont support linux. and just like most people dont like being tied down to a single operating system, i dont like being tied down to a specific hardware vendor. and essentially, when you choose linux, you choose to be locked into hardware vendors.

a perfect example of this is printing hardware. if you for the windows approach, you are locked-in to using windows, but have the freedom to choose from over 50 different printer manufacturers. conversly, if you choose to go the linux approach, you are automatically locked-in to having a choice between one or two manufacturers. basically, in order to have a choice in operating system, i have to give up on having a choice on hardware.

i dont know, maybe you guys disagree, but to me, its the only reason why i havent completely switched. i need to be able to have the choice on what hardware i want to run, and until linux can run that hardware, i dont see linux ever dominating the desktop world. now obviously, we all know that the hardware manufacturers are to blame, however can you blame them for taking their approach. we are in a catch-22 situation, one that has been around for a long time, and will probably be around for a lot longer.

[kelvin spratt]

i use ati problem graphics card it take 3 mins after xp to boot a epsons r300 printer and and nvidia motherboart
on visa it takes 3-5 hrs to set up and run the graphics have a habit of giving me a white screen my plextor
dvd writer needs special drivers and to cap it all i had to get a new network card a short while ago and now
when on the Internet the computer crashes every 15mins all this since latest updates to save my self from myself micro soft tells my try asking ms for help they don't want to know so after some so so linux no 3d support hours to set up ethernet crap performance constant crashes i loaded up ubuntu ultimate 1.3 well
strait from the box 3D sound card both internal and external printer including print cd internet and that thing called beryl all working 10 mins to set up with my 3200 athalon and computers back to 24hrs a day on the net
and so little cpu as i have 2g of ram linux loads faster 1 min xp used to boot on my machine in 45 secs when ms finnished cocking it up with wga etc it went to 3 mins as with vista i run my own business and ms is not secure
constantly crashes ms say its not designed to be run continuous due to memory leakage all i say is ubuntu wants to take( the mann) and what he does and learn because edgy and fiesty do not as well as his mods
as i said straight from the box just a little more care and you can make vista a joke http://ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/guitar.gif

[nenyalorien]

actually, what i noticed around the Internet is that instead of upgrading to vista, people are actually migrating to ubuntu! i have read a couple of people say that they would much rather go for other OS's instead of resource-vampire vista...

[arsadogi]

linux is far more stable from what ever windows you choose.
in addition linux kernel exploits yours hardware resources ultimatelly better.(ok maybe it doesn't support some subsystems because of hardware vendor stubbornness).

Here in greece where i settled as student(computer engineering) it very obvious that people here are windows maniacs.But the fact that vista is resource-vampire i notice disappointment in the backround

[Raval]

Before you can even start debating which one is superior. You would need to define the standards to which you'll be comparing.

- Purely technical?
- Performance wise?
- User acceptance?
- Interoperability?
- Market acceptance?
- ....

Without that, saying x is better than y is the same as saying. A bycicle is better than a car. Or even more absurd, a bal is better than a fishing stick.

Both statements will have people agreeing, and will have people against it. It just depends why you need or want one of them.

Exactly, the outcome will always vary. In terms of users Windows is superior and in terms of security Linux is better. We could do this all day.

Being from the third world I feel Linux/Ubuntu neglects us because of poor winmodem support. I think this is an important market for Linux because we will make up a huge portion of future PC users.

We are the ones who have to make majority of our PCs or rely on relatives in the developed world to send their old PIII. Locally there is huge demand for old computers. People are buying P2s for $250USD each. People just want a computer.

Over the years I have shared out copies of Ubuntu to people who's pc crashed with windows or had to reload because Windows was buggy. But when they notice modem doesn't work they go back to Windows. I don't share Ubuntu anymore because it is a waste of time.

I bought a hardware modem because I was committed to using Linux. If I wasn't committed to Linux the only place I would keep a copy would be in a bin.

Rant and rave all you want about stability ans security. People don't care that much. THEY JUST WANT TO USE THERE COMPUTER WITH LITTLE OR NO HEADACHE.

[Brunellus]

Easy on the caps, please. On my Ubuntu boxes, I have remapped the capslock key to behave like another escape key, the better to use vim.

Leave the all-caps ranting for the "ZOMGZ LINUX IS NOT READY FOR TEH DESKTOP" megathread, or some other forum.

[arsadogi]

Rant and rave all you want about stability ans security. People don't care that much. THEY JUST WANT TO USE THERE COMPUTER WITH LITTLE OR NO HEADACHE.

In order to use their computer with little or no headache the must run a secure and stable OS on it, because the instability by definition causes headaches and many other ..aches to computer users.
So if you people want to run a stable OS, open and read some manuals or/and wikis invest some time to linux with the aim to spend less money to headache pils.

friendly suggestion:)

[Raval]

In order to use their computer with little or no headache the must run a secure and stable OS on it, because the instability by definition causes headaches and many other ..aches to computer users.
So if you people want to run a stable OS, open and read some manuals or/and wikis invest some time to linux with the aim to spend less money to headache pils.

friendly suggestion:)

XP 2years trouble free and NIS loaded. I know Linux is better but no complaints regarding security and stability for XP from me.

I want to see Linux become as common as Windows. I think XP is easier to use for everyday users. Kick and scream stability and scureity all you want. It is always the first thing to be pointed out by Linux users.

[Brunellus]

XP 2years trouble free and NIS loaded. I know Linux is better but no complaints regarding security and stability for XP from me.

I want to see Linux become as common as Windows. I think XP is easier to use for everyday users. Kick and scream stability and scureity all you want. It is always the first thing to be pointed out by Linux users.
everyday users don't install their OSes, and generally don't maintain them either.

I hate to be the one to crack the whip here, but if we're going to wander into "why is Linux teh suxx0rz on t3h desktop" territory, I will start merging the relevant posts to that megathread.

[arsadogi]

My sister 17 years old (who think that the CPU is in the monitor) is using ubuntu since i installed it and congfigured it for her and installed the apps that she need for evryday use.Ok maybe it is t harder to configure properly a linux system than a windows one(mainly because there isn't too much things that can configured in a windows OS) but since settled two system(window-lubuntu)
I think in the absraction level of usability of the evreday users (users like my sister) ubuntu dominates.

[subixonfire]

winblows is not onli a resorce vampire (cpu & etc)
it is a money vampire
not to talk about restart & reinstall

so please use linux thanx in advance

[greymongrey]

XP 2years trouble free and NIS loaded. I know Linux is better but no complaints regarding security and stability for XP from me.

I want to see Linux become as common as Windows. I think XP is easier to use for everyday users. Kick and scream stability and scureity all you want. It is always the first thing to be pointed out by Linux users.
I ran XP 5 years on two different computers trouble free. I really can't fault Windows on their stability part any more, though that hasn't always been the case. Of course, we are talking about desktops. Things are completely different when talking about servers and their months of continuous uptime. Linux wins hands down.

But Windows totally falls apart in the security area. Yes, Windows can be made fairly secure with many third party add-ons but Linux is secure right out of the box.

As for Linux being as common as Windows....it would be a support nightmare, just like it is in Windows because of all the idiot users out there. I can see them getting their emails asking them to type in their root password to verify they are running Linux and them doing it without a second thought.

[Raval]

I ran XP 5 years on two different computers trouble free. I really can't fault Windows on their stability part any more, though that hasn't always been the case. Of course, we are talking about desktops. Things are completely different when talking about servers and their months of continuous uptime. Linux wins hands down.

But Windows totally falls apart in the security area. Yes, Windows can be made fairly secure with many third party add-ons but Linux is secure right out of the box.

As for Linux being as common as Windows....it would be a support nightmare, just like it is in Windows because of all the idiot users out there. I can see them getting their emails asking them to type in their root password to verify they are running Linux and them doing it without a second thought.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah!!!

Sorry about going off topic. I just think we (Linux/Ubuntu community) need to be the biggest critiques of Linux/Ubuntu. I don't believe in sugar coating anything. Yes Ubuntu is more stable and yes is more secure but there is more to the formula.

As for loading the OS and maintaning it. In this part of the world, many do. They buy old Win 95/98 PCs or build new ones. Because of poor winmodem support many erase Ubuntu and go to XP. Come to think of it every one does. If I wasn't dedicated to using Ubunut I would do the same so I would have to say Windows XP is better than Ubuntu.

Back to Topic.
I haven't tried Feisty or Vista. But there seems to be a general agreement all over the Internet that XP is better than Vista.

Besides winmodem, Ubuntu is a great OS for basics like mail and surfing. Beyond that I don't find it a total replacement for XP. So again my bote goes to XP.

I think in a few years Ubuntu will be a true rival to Windows. after all Ubuntu is still very young but it has already come a far way.

[Robynsveil]

I think in a few years Ubuntu will be a true rival to Windows. after all Ubuntu is still very young but it has already come a far way.

I agree... but only from the perspective of the traditional Windows user. In other words, Ubuntu *might* eventually be a rival to Windows *for* the current Windows user, but only if there is a shift in how people think about software products in general. For a Unix user or another Linux distro user, the expectations of an operating system is different to the expectations of the Windows user.

There are different kinds of Windows computer user out there, from the
1. people who do specific tasks in the line of work, same task every day, the same way, who use proprietary software written only for Windows, to the
2. "I don't wanna know, just make it work" casual user - I would put the majority of non-professional Windows users in this group: gamers are in this group, sort of - to
3. geeks (like me)

Oh, probably other types too... let's just focus on these, shall we?

Who will see Linux as a viable alternative? People running proprietary applications in an office setting don't really care whether the OS is Windows or Linux, as long as the program they run does so without hiccuping and quickly and reliably.

The gamers? I doubt it, unless those games not only *ran* in Linux, but actually ran better. They are actually almost a splinter group, since they require a lot more horsepower to run their games... so they aren't really part of the common user group.

The home user. The AOL / Macdonalds / Home Depot / "Attention, KMart shoppers" computer user. The consumer: "I have a contract: I pay so much and get this product, and it will just work, since I paid for it." How can the philosophy that Linux is based on ever make any in-roads into this kind of mentality? It's not a question of marketability, it's an issue with conflicting philosophies...

[Cervantez]

IMO, Vista is the best thing that ever happened to Linux :)

MY friend gave me a (legal) copy of vista ultimate, so I put it on my HD to see if it was any good. And is wasn't.

My system should be powerful enough to handle it (see below), but it was insanely slow.

Vista x64 is supposed to "handle lots of ram" ... in otherwords, "EAT YOUR RAM!". It used 800mb of ram IDLE! (well... i guess my system isn't quite powerful enough... but it's not bad).

It also crashed like sumthing sick and wasn't compatible with most software. Every time I tried to install a 32-bit app, the system crashed.

I also HATE the use-interface. It's SO annoying, and it doesn't look good at all.

So I took Vista off my HD, and now I'm dual-booting Feisty and XP again. The only reason I still have Windows is because I like to play PC games and use my webcam (linux can't really do that...yet). I also like to use all the features of my Logitech MediaPlay mouse.

[dan171717]

i aggre with tommcd on the first page!!! that the one thing i enjoy from m$ is their mice they fit nicly in my hand and (for me)track well in ubuntu and windoze

[rsambuca]

IMO, Vista is the best thing that ever happened to Linux :)

MY friend gave me a (legal) copy of vista ultimate, so I put it on my HD to see if it was any good. And is wasn't.

My system should be powerful enough to handle it (see below), but it was insanely slow.

Vista x64 is supposed to "handle lots of ram" ... in otherwords, "EAT YOUR RAM!". It used 800mb of ram IDLE! (well... i guess my system isn't quite powerful enough... but it's not bad).

It also crashed like sumthing sick and wasn't compatible with most software. Every time I tried to install a 32-bit app, the system crashed.

I also HATE the use-interface. It's SO annoying, and it doesn't look good at all.

So I took Vista off my HD, and now I'm dual-booting Feisty and XP again. The only reason I still have Windows is because I like to play PC games and use my webcam (linux can't really do that...yet). I also like to use all the features of my Logitech MediaPlay mouse.

I think you must have something wrong with your setup - Vista does not use anywhere close to 800MB of Ram when idle. Vista has enough real faults without you making stuff up!

[B. Gates]

I think you must have something wrong with your setup - Vista does not use anywhere close to 800MB of Ram when idle. Vista has enough real faults without you making stuff up!
It's quite possible, but only if you take into account that RAM is acting as a program cache. If someone needs all that memory, it will be released very quickly. Otherwise, it will be holding commonly-used software and data in preparation for use later, which (supposedly) speeds things up.

It's a little confusing if all you do is read the RAM usage without knowing WHY it's using so much.

[qamelian]

I think you must have something wrong with your setup - Vista does not use anywhere close to 800MB of Ram when idle. Vista has enough real faults without you making stuff up!

That's funny. It used that much on average I tested it as well. And I was testing it in a lab of 50 PCs to see how it would work in our office environment. I'd be willing to believe one or too faulty PCs. but all 50? I don't think so. The test included 10 PCs that shipped with Vista pre-installed, so even if I made some error on the systems I installed myself, 20% of the systems were pre-installed at the manufacturer and still showed the same results.

[edgecoug71]

I have my Ubuntu box looking a lot better than my Vista box and I show the two to the people I know, and every time I get the same response about Ubuntu....."That's awesome, how much did you pay for that? It looks so much better than Microsoft...." Need I go on, lol, but Windows does have its advantages, but Linux is starting to pick up speed and its a very good thing....

[Frak]

I think you must have something wrong with your setup - Vista does not use anywhere close to 800MB of Ram when idle. Vista has enough real faults without you making stuff up!
I've had Vista use 1 1/2GB in idle before, so its very possible.

[Cervantez]

Thanks... and i was making stuff up! The x64 version used 800mb of ram idle, the 32-bit probably doesn't since x64 uses a lot more ram.

[hessiess]

vista is actually the resin i looked at Linux, i will never buy it

[rsambuca]

Wow, you guys must be doing something way different than me! I don't use Vista that much, but because of things I had heard I really kept an eye on system resource usage. On my rig it usually idled around 350MB. I never use it very much though.

One thing to keep in mind as well is that Vista will cache things in ram similar to linux, so just because it shows up in ram, it doesn't mean that it needs to be there. Ram is meant to be used, and the OS is just trying to make things quicker for you based on your own usage patterns.

[misfitpierce]

Wow, you guys must be doing something way different than me! I don't use Vista that much, but because of things I had heard I really kept an eye on system resource usage. On my rig it usually idled around 350MB. I never use it very much though.

One thing to keep in mind as well is that Vista will cache things in ram similar to linux, so just because it shows up in ram, it doesn't mean that it needs to be there. Ram is meant to be used, and the OS is just trying to make things quicker for you based on your own usage patterns.

Very true but mine idled on average around 430 or so. I still think it uses way to much resource for what it does. It's honestly nice if you got a super computer but at the end as apple says... It's still DLL hell and still has a registry :popcorn:

[ukripper]

Really have no plans to even try Vista after hearing a lot of praises(being Sarcastic here sorry). However, I still have to stick with XP as a part of my job supporting users and developing database driven apps using MSSQL db at backend( I have no choice where I work * MySQL is not even choice due to Suppliers provided frontend interface which forces us to use MS SQL server only which is a bit of **** up)

Apart from all that in real comparision of scalability, reliability and performance including the overall price tag developing ultimate web app - I reckon LAMP rules hands down

'V' for ubuntu in comparision:KS :KS :KS :KS :KS

[nightfire117]

Vista's hardware compatibility is a reason I'm going to switch to Ubuntu on my desktop (and probably notebook as well, if Feisty's wifi support is good enough). Unfortunately I think I'll keep dual-boot - Windows' compatibility and support is just so much greater. They have more support with the companies who have been with them for ages. As for Vista, I actually like Vista: Given one has a good PC, aside from the software and hardware incompatibility, as well as all that media protection stuff which makes it seem like Microsoft will try to control your media, it's actually quite a nice operating system. Ubuntu is an alternative only in the sense that if you can do what you want to do in either operating system then it makes sense to switch to Ubuntu. But, if you're one who will follow up with the latest Microsoft, game and largest community support then you may as well keep Windows (at least on another partition!!!). But Linux (Ubuntu in particular) may be quite a competitor after a couple years or so, especially once Dell rolls out those Ubuntu PCs. Looking forward to it.

~Nightfire

[lamadredelsapo]

Vista = Computer crawls like a charm!

Ubuntu = Computer RUNS like a charm!

;-)

[Depressed Man]

My laptop came with Vista, used it. Thought it was allright (couple things I hated about it so I had to tweak with it a while to get it working the way I wanted it to). Though after installing Ubuntu thru Wubi, I prefer Linux over Vista. If only hibernate/suspend worked...

[wataboutbob]

Vista isn't bad.

It booted quick, launched applications fast and was generally a lot more responsive than XP. That said, I removed it for my standard dual boot of XP Pro and Feisty because Vista ran most of my games slower than XP did.

For me, Fiesty and Vista was about the same in terms of responsiveness of the OS. And seeing how Ubuntu is my main OS, there really was no need to keep Vista. Maybe if I hadn't come across Feisty Fawn, I'd be using Vista instead.

[Extreme Coder]

Wow, you guys must be doing something way different than me! I don't use Vista that much, but because of things I had heard I really kept an eye on system resource usage. On my rig it usually idled around 350MB. I never use it very much though.

One thing to keep in mind as well is that Vista will cache things in ram similar to linux, so just because it shows up in ram, it doesn't mean that it needs to be there. Ram is meant to be used, and the OS is just trying to make things quicker for you based on your own usage patterns.
And you consider that normal? Sorry, any OS that can't run well on 512 MB of RAM is a no-no in my book. Let's see, on any Linux installation so far on my box with 256 MB of RAM and a P4 1.7 GHz:
idles at about 60-80 MB(that's running Beagle, and KTorrent)
Even if I run Firefox which acts like I have 2 GB of ram, it rises to about 140 or so(though it decreases to 100 if I use Opera, which is what I'm using currently ;) )
I convert a video from one format to another using VLC and keep Opera, Beagle KTorrent running, while playing a game of X-Moto while waiting for the video process to finish, and it barely reaches 75 %. Have a go at doing that with Vista on my machine. Oh wait, it can't even install :/

[ukripper]

And you consider that normal? Sorry, any OS that can't run well on 512 MB of RAM is a no-no in my book. Let's see, on any Linux installation so far on my box with 256 MB of RAM and a P4 1.7 GHz:
idles at about 60-80 MB(that's running Beagle, and KTorrent)
Even if I run Firefox which acts like I have 2 GB of ram, it rises to about 140 or so(though it decreases to 100 if I use Opera, which is what I'm using currently ;) )
I convert a video from one format to another using VLC and keep Opera, Beagle KTorrent running, while playing a game of X-Moto while waiting for the video process to finish, and it barely reaches 75 %. Have a go at doing that with Vista on my machine. Oh wait, it can't even install :/

Try swiftfox which is much faster and takes less resources.

[DoneRightI.T.]

Here's a scenario for you...

I recently upgraded my hardware, completely revamped my machine,
Asus Mobo, Nidia 8800, 2 Gigs of ddr2

so I installed windows xp pro, no raid as I didn't want to waste time finding a flopy disk and drive, let alone buying a new one. it ran for a whole week before crapping out...

so I figured I would quit wasting time, and like a lot of other machines in the office, stuck Ubuntu on it, went with feisty fawn 7.04, and it cruises, dual monitor, beryl, all that jazz. little tweaking here and there, but nothing serious.

So just for a test the other day I attempted to install vista on my new machine, unplugged and gave it its own drive(I don't trust microsoft with my information). Vista wouldn't even install... I'm thrilled.... and still trying to figure out what windows xp's problem is.

I agree, Ubuntu just works.

[Zannax]

Isn't there some benchmark comparison between Vista and Ubuntu?

I understand that comparing different OSs performance can be not so clear (i.e. you must compare the same applications which not always exist, similar setups). Something relating to basic file copying, running multiple "heavy" tasks and so on...

I googled for it but didn't find anything relevant.

[joe.turion64x2]

I don't have a detailed benchmark but a friend of mine has just bought a 'Vista' laptop (she had no choice), it has a good processor (AMD Turion 64 @2.0 GHz) but only 512MB of RAM and although it has Vista Home Basic it runs really slow (even mp3 where played with pauses).

I installed Ubuntu 7.04 then (my first Vista dualboot) and despite the fact she did not have any previous experience with Linux she absolutely loved Ubuntu after seeing its awesome performance as compared with Vista (and I was really happy to teach her how to use it :) )

Joe.

[Zannax]

I guess that it's for the 512Mb only, it basically needs more memory compared to Linux, and btw something that many people don't consider at all is that Windows *needs* 15% empty hard disk, if you want to defragment it (which is just like saying you have 15% less hard-disk, that's really a bad surprise when you have the harddisk almost full).

That said, I was just curious about the performance of the OSs "in se", giving it every ram and resource it needs to compare on an even ground...

[joe.turion64x2]

I guess that it's for the 512Mb only, it basically needs more memory compared to Linux, and btw something that many people don't consider at all is that Windows *needs* 15% empty hard disk, if you want to defragment it (which is just like saying you have 15% less hard-disk, that's really a bad surprise when you have the harddisk almost full).

That said, I was just curious about the performance of the OSs "in se", giving it every ram and resource it needs to compare on an even ground...
Considering that memory requirement for Windows I would have thought no OEM would be daft enough to provide less than a GB of RAM in their machines (so the consumers don't complain of poor performance). I was astonished to see how many 512MB Vista laptops were being offered here in Mexico.

Can you imagine a Celeron M @1.6GHz, 512MB, with Vista Basic? I did not want to figure out it.

Joe.

[weblordpepe]

Ouch

[kamaboko]

Considering that memory requirement for Windows I would have thought no OEM would be daft enough to provide less than a GB of RAM in their machines (so the consumers don't complain of poor performance). I was astonished to see how many 512MB Vista laptops were being offered here in Mexico.

Can you imagine a Celeron M @1.6GHz, 512MB, with Vista Basic? I did not want to figure out it.

Joe.

regardless of the OS, I wouldn't run anything w/less than a gig of ram.

[smoker]

Considering that memory requirement for Windows I would have thought no OEM would be daft enough to provide less than a GB of RAM in their machines (so the consumers don't complain of poor performance). I was astonished to see how many 512MB Vista laptops were being offered here in Mexico.

this is probably part of the reason vista has been such a disaster for a lot of people. the first thing they are likely to blame for the slowness is the operating system, and so when they replace their new vista with xp and it is a lot racier, then that is more word of mouth bad press for the microsoft latest, 'vista slow, no aero, me mark ll, whatever.'

[Zannax]

regardless of the OS, I wouldn't run anything w/less than a gig of ram.

Well, my system has 512M of ram and runs absolutely fine with Feisty (and with XPpro for that)...
Sure, I don't use it to play bleeding-edge games but for everyday work, even with multiple "heavy" applications, I think 512M is just enough.

I remember my first PC with only 4 Mb of RAM and Windows 3.1... It worked fine, I could even play SImcity2000. Nowadays 4 Mb of RAM is just ridiculous... :-)

[kamaboko]

Well, my system has 512M of ram and runs absolutely fine with Feisty (and with XPpro for that)...
Sure, I don't use it to play bleeding-edge games but for everyday work, even with multiple "heavy" applications, I think 512M is just enough.

I remember my first PC with only 4 Mb of RAM and Windows 3.1... It worked fine, I could even play SImcity2000. Nowadays 4 Mb of RAM is just ridiculous... :-)

My first PC had 4KB of RAM. Moreover, ridiculous is relative. Given that one can get 2GB of RAM at Fry's for $70ish, I grow tired of the RAM arguments. I think it's ridiculous not to pick up extra RAM. I need it for what I do on the computer. It is not uncommon for me to burn a DVD, have a movie playing in the background, and work on a project at the same time. I don't care what the OS is, that requires RAM.

[corney91]

Can you imagine a Celeron M @1.6GHz, 512MB, with Vista Basic? I did not want to figure out it.

I had a similar setup with Vista Ultimate: Celeron M, 1.4GHz, and started out with 512Mb and doubled it after a month. But this seemed to run fine and Vista wasn't half bad but I couldn't leave it on for more than a day or it would slow down. This was done with Aero off if that had anything to do with it.

[Zannax]

My first PC had 4KB of RAM. Moreover, ridiculous is relative...

Sure... Just remembering the "good old days". :-)

[FLPCGuy]

I had a similar setup with Vista Ultimate: Celeron M, 1.4GHz, and started out with 512Mb and doubled it after a month. But this seemed to run fine and Vista wasn't half bad but I couldn't leave it on for more than a day or it would slow down. This was done with Aero off if that had anything to do with it.

Most people don't realize that all versions of Windoze since Win95 fragment the hard drive and fill up the registry with thousands of entries that have to be processed upon startup, even after the associated hardware and/or software have been removed. Combined with the disk effect, Windows gets visibly slower with each use no matter how much RAM you throw at it.

I've been running Ubuntu Edgy on an old Dell 4200 1 GHz with 512MB of PC133 RAM for seven months and it performs as well as my XP/2000 machine which is an AMD AthlonXP 2500 with 512MB or RAM. No matter how much software I add or how many updates it just runs great. I can just imagine how well Ubuntu will perform on my AMD PC when I get a working nic.

No Linux OS I've tried finds my NetGear (Realtek chip) wireless card. There are no drivers at all for my Canon i320 inkjet printer, or PaperPort 7200 USB scanner (Win2k only). I could do without Office and most other PC software, but I'm locked in by the hardware.

It is ironic to see the exploitation of Vista users by companies selling drivers with some enhanced services [Creative].

M$ now has in place a way to squeeze cash from every Windows user long after their initial purchase in the form of encrypted Vista hardware driver licensing fees passed on by hardware vendors. Those who don' pay will find their customers' hardware no longer works with Vista. Since specs must remain a secret to comply with the M$ license, Linux incompatibility is a secondary bonus. This is M$'s next assault to stamp out Linux. At the same time, a new FUD campaign is in full swing claiming Linux contains M$ code but conveniently avoiding any specific examples while selling immunity to weak companies that couldn't survive a protracted legal battle with M$ (yes, that apparently includes Novell).

Eventually, monthly online Windows licensing will be required to enable these signed drivers to use your own PC and Windows Live services. Stop paying and your Vista or later game machine becomes a door stop. Fiendishly clever. But to prevent a user revolt, M$ must finally eliminate what is left of the competition...that last 1 percent of independent, non-conformist, die hards by taking away key hardware starting with Blue Ray and HD-DVD.

[joe.turion64x2]

Most people don't realize that all versions of Windoze since Win95 fragment the hard drive and fill up the registry with thousands of entries that have to be processed upon startup, even after the associated hardware and/or software have been removed. Combined with the disk effect, Windows gets visibly slower with each use no matter how much RAM you throw at it.

I've been running Ubuntu Edgy on an old Dell 4200 1 GHz with 512MB of PC133 RAM for seven months and it performs as well as my XP/2000 machine which is an AMD AthlonXP 2500 with 512MB or RAM. No matter how much software I add or how many updates it just runs great. I can just imagine how well Ubuntu will perform on my AMD PC when I get a working nic.

No Linux OS I've tried finds my NetGear (Realtek chip) wireless card. There are no drivers at all for my Canon i320 inkjet printer, or PaperPort 7200 USB scanner (Win2k only). I could do without Office and most other PC software, but I'm locked in by the hardware.

It is ironic to see the exploitation of Vista users by companies selling drivers with some enhanced services [Creative].

M$ now has in place a way to squeeze cash from every Windows user long after their initial purchase in the form of encrypted Vista hardware driver licensing fees passed on by hardware vendors. Those who don' pay will find their customers' hardware no longer works with Vista. Since specs must remain a secret to comply with the M$ license, Linux incompatibility is a secondary bonus. This is M$'s next assault to stamp out Linux. At the same time, a new FUD campaign is in full swing claiming Linux contains M$ code but conveniently avoiding any specific examples while selling immunity to weak companies that couldn't survive a protracted legal battle with M$ (yes, that apparently includes Novell).

Eventually, monthly online Windows licensing will be required to enable these signed drivers to use your own PC and Windows Live services. Stop paying and your Vista or later game machine becomes a door stop. Fiendishly clever. But to prevent a user revolt, M$ must finally eliminate what is left of the competition...that last 1 percent of independent, non-conformist, die hards by taking away key hardware starting with Blue Ray and HD-DVD.
I hope I will be death by then.

[kamaboko]

Eventually, monthly online Windows licensing will be required to enable these signed drivers to use your own PC and Windows Live services. Stop paying and your Vista or later game machine becomes a door stop. Fiendishly clever. But to prevent a user revolt, M$ must finally eliminate what is left of the competition...that last 1 percent of independent, non-conformist, die hards by taking away key hardware starting with Blue Ray and HD-DVD.

The sky is falling. The sky is falling. Run and hide!

[jbaerbock]

I find it funny how Vista actually got all its new GUI concepts from Linux and Mac OS X. Many of the "new" visual effects were available on compiz and beryl way before windows Vista "invented" them. Also many of the effects and some options such as a search bar right where you need it were taken from the Mac OS X. So really MS saw what people liked in these other OSs and decided to make one to win those people over. Thankfully most of the Mac and Linux users are anti MS not because of lack of visual effects.

I currently have dual boot Linux Mint/WinXP SP2 on my computer. WinXP is only there for games like WoW (which I will always be addicted to) and nothing else. Mint does everything else for me, and actually I do play plenty of native Linux games, almost getting to the point where I play more Linux games than MS. I don't plan to dish out 400 bucks for a new OS or add 200 or more to a new computer purchase for a commercial OS. I would rather buy those nice 300 dollar Linux laptops :D.

Well that is my 2 cents worth...enjoy :P.

[smoker]

Originally Posted by FLPCGuy http://ubuntuforums.org/images/uf/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=2982055#post2982055)
Eventually, monthly online Windows licensing will be required to enable these signed drivers to use your own PC and Windows Live services. Stop paying and your Vista or later game machine becomes a door stop. Fiendishly clever. But to prevent a user revolt, M$ must finally eliminate what is left of the competition...that last 1 percent of independent, non-conformist, die hards by taking away key hardware starting with Blue Ray and HD-DVD.

i can't see many people in their 'right mind' agreeing to this, at least not outside the business community. pretty soon the os you use will be irrelevant, there will be such a choice of online applications, both free and pay-for, that paying for an os will be a thing of the past, all you will need is an internet connection, so if ms make their os pay-per-month, then i think it will be the final nail in the coffin.

for people who prefer their os on their computer, they will either use a free os like linux, or maybe a propriatory os they can pay a one-off fee for. any hardware manufacturer that tries to tie their product into only one os, eg, vista, will find their hardware sales fall, and will either change tack, or go out of business, or maybe the EU will kick them into touch.

just my humble opinion:-)

[Sunnz]

Isn't there some benchmark comparison between Vista and Ubuntu?

I understand that comparing different OSs performance can be not so clear (i.e. you must compare the same applications which not always exist, similar setups). Something relating to basic file copying, running multiple "heavy" tasks and so on...

I googled for it but didn't find anything relevant.

Anyone tried Geekbench?

It runs on Linux x86, Mac PPC/Intel, Windows x86.

They have a list of "leaderboard" as well, it seems like the 8 core Mac Pros are the fastest at this stage...

[rocknrolf77]

Anyone tried Geekbench?

It runs on Linux x86, Mac PPC/Intel, Windows x86.

They have a list of "leaderboard" as well, it seems like the 8 core Mac Pros are the fastest at this stage...

Are the people making this software sponsored by apple? Why is osx on all the top listings? Or is it just about only osx users who use the software....

[Sunnz]

What do you mean why? The highest score goes on top on the scoreboard thing, if you want you can sort it differently like bottom up or something.

Read the web-site would help.