Linux vs. Vista

[ElemonGW]

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

Of course it will. They are nothing in comparison with Linux. In fact really lots of people have changed to Linux after using this products.....

[sauronsmatrix]

Vista is a laggy, sucky piece of ****.

Ubuntu's Desktop Effects has an expose-like effect, live alt+tab, and doesnt lag one bit, even on my 6 year old laptop.

[weblordpepe]

:) Runs like a pig on mine. Probably because im forced to use a high native resolution on my laptop with ugly ATi drivers :)

On nVidia & intel graphics though its genious :)

[kamaboko]

Vista needs about 3 times the hardware resources than Ubuntu and that means a new box just to run Vista for a lot of folks. I think Vista will be very good for Ubuntu, an opportunity rather than a threat.


Then I would expect you to be running a box with about 600MHz processor, 256MB RAM, 64MB video card, and about a 10GB hard drive.

[cmat]

If it isn't broken why fix it? That's the mentality a lot of users have. Why buy new hardware if your existing system works fine? I have a pentium II 333mhz with 128mbs of RAM that's has new life thanks to xubuntu. The high school I went to will eventually do the same saving a school thousands of dollars by allowing them to run older computers and spend the budget on more productive things.

[joe.turion64x2]

Then I would expect you to be running a box with about 600MHz processor, 256MB RAM, 64MB video card, and about a 10GB hard drive.
You'd be surprised to learn how many people use machines with such specs, not everywhere is first world.

Joe.

[kamaboko]

You'd be surprised to learn how many people use machines with such specs, not everywhere is first world.

Joe.

And I don't doubt that. What I find mystifying are the people that claim Vista's system requirements are too high, yet they're running dual core processors, 2GB RAM, 256MB video cards, 500GB of hard drive space, ect. I'm thinking, "what the hell are they talking about???" For those that complain the system specs are too high, then I just fully expect them to be using machines that are seven to ten years old. They have no reason, Ubuntu or otherwise, to have hardware post year 2000.

[cmat]

System requirements are a lame excuse for people with crazy fast gaming PCs. I complain about system requirements because I'm not ever planning on getting a new PC in the next 5 years. And then I looked for an alternative, found ubuntu and never going back to windows even if I got a new PC, unless it's a dual boot but Windows will be getting >1% of my online time.

Also caching on the primary partition on the hard drive is really not a good solution. You basically dump a massive block of data onto the middle of the hard-drive that needs constant attention and updating. Was it called a page file or something, can't remember. It should be off the main drive onto another partition away from the data. I think MS did that on purpose so that users don't have to worry about the complicated matter of partitioning the hard disk but fragmentation on the disk is inevitable.

Linux has it's place and Windows has it's place, they haven't really faced off yet when it comes to the desktop. So we will have to wait and see what will happen.

[Frak]

But for some, like me, I don't want Vista to idle at half of my resources, its wasteful. Ubuntu is very resource efficient and thats enough for me to use it. Plus I've used Linux since '96, so its nothing new to me.

[joe.turion64x2]

And I don't doubt that. What I find mystifying are the people that claim Vista's system requirements are too high, yet they're running dual core processors, 2GB RAM, 256MB video cards, 500GB of hard drive space, ect. I'm thinking, "what the hell are they talking about???" For those that complain the system specs are too high, then I just fully expect them to be using machines that are seven to ten years old. They have no reason, Ubuntu or otherwise, to have hardware post year 2000.
What does Vista do that justifies all the resources it demands? Surely system requirements can be fulfilled but, for what purpose? It is the same crap! I would gladly give more resources to a program that demands it to perform extra functions, sustain more advanced features. Vista is not that big improvement(?) over XP to justify the BIG hardware requirements.

Joe.

[weblordpepe]

All of the improvements for Vista are under the hood. But of course when Microsoft introduces improvements it always comes at a cost. It happens every time MS brings out a new OS. Its a bloated pile of rubbish which uses an unrealistic ammount of memory.

You say that to Windows trolls and theyre like 'yeah but computers will be faster in the future'. Whos computers? Mine wont be. Its just driving an upgrade cycle & making computers useful for a shorter amount of time.

[Motoxrdude]

LMAO, its funny. My uncle just bought a brand spankin new computer, it has almost the exact same hardware except he has a 7600GT and i have a x800GTO. He brought it over to my house and was amazed how much faster my computer was when running ubuntu then his running vista. Then when i told him that we had the same exact hardware he was shocked. That and the cool compiz plugins where a lot better then the vista 3d desktop but used one third the resources to run it.

[kvonb]

Look at it this way, we are helping the environment by reducing the pollution caused by the ever increasing amount of outdated computer hardware that ends up in landfills or dumped in underdeveloped countries :).

There are only 2 things that really create the necessity to update hardware, games and bloated operating systems.

I blew the dust off my old Amiga 1200 last week, and thought I'd boot it up for a laugh.

The damned thing booted to the desktop in 6 seconds!!!!!

Compare that to my fastest system's boot time of over 1 minute, it makes me ask if we have really progressed at all?

Yes sure the Amiga is completely useless in the software it can run, but can you imagine booting to the desktop (from the second you turn the power on) in 6 seconds?

It seems that each time a faster CPU comes out, O/S developers make a "new" version just to slow it down!


Anyway, it really doesn't matter what O/S you choose to use, why make a competition/bitch fight out of it? It's getting too much like religion!

......and anyway, my dad's a policeman and he will kick your ****, so there :P hahahaha

[Motoxrdude]

......and anyway, my dad's a policeman and he will kick your ****, so there :P hahahaha

Yeah well my dad is a member of SWAT so he'll kick your dad's *** first ;)

[misfitpierce]

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

Hopin thats a joke :o

[Frak]

It seems that each time a faster CPU comes out, O/S developers make a "new" version just to slow it down!

And think, in Linux, every time a new CPU comes out, our apps become suprisingly faster :o

[darrenm]

I used it properly for the first time the other day. I was shocked by how bad it was. The default theme looks like something a 12 year old put on a theme website and its very slow and unresponsive. This was on a laptop but it was a brand new laptop with Vista preinstalled. It was just displaying a spinning circle all the time waiting for things to happen.

Oh and I had to find a spare PC at work to run Ubuntu on, it is a Pentium3 800mhz (old type slot 1) on an Intel 440BX chipset using an Nvidia GeForce2 MX graphics card. Compiz Fusion works great and its a great source of amazement for everyone in the office how well it works when Vista wouldnt even run on that spec let alone do the (poor) visual effects.

[weblordpepe]

Fancy pants.

[hessiess]

what i want to see is pc's in the pc shop with linux pre installed, people would probably be amazed how fast it runs:razz:

[nvteighen]

I have acquired some "Vista" experience (my father has bought a new PC). The first problem was a conflict between preinstalled Norton, a newly installed Norton and Vista that led us to reformat everything and reinstall Vista only some hours after having opened the computer's box. OK, to be fair, that's Symantec's fault not Microsoft's.

But there are incredible issues, really surrealistic, that involve Microsoft. For example, Word 2000 in Spanish didn't work: Vista (also in Spanish) stopped it deliberatedly and "recommended to buy an upgrade" and everytime you opened a file a beep sounded. But... Word 2000 in German works perfectly! But Word 97 doesn't work... And all these Word disks are legal!

Other issues: A nice "Keyboard Switcher" (this is a very common kind of app for people like my father that have to write in strange languages) didn't want to switch and we had to fool Vista making it believe US English is Greek! (something the software's vendor recommends). A password utility only could run once and then nevermore (and it's absolutely legal).

And, finally, the new interfaces. It is clear that Microsoft doesn't want anyone to use the Windows Classic theme: if you choose it, it's absolutely useless (and very different to what is considered to be the "classic" Windows interface). My father and I definitely think Aero is horrible, but of course those are very subjective opinions... (Well, I'm a bit strange.. I also think Beryl is horrible). Besides of that and trying to be as objective as possible, the new interface is confusing, too cluttered. Examples: the new Start menu (yes, at least, you can change that), the new Search utility (at least there are mascots no longer...), but the greatest interface failure are in the network settings: Vista asked for "a password" to enter the net... (which one? the seed ASCII passphrase or the WPA hexadecimal? XP tells you it is the hexadecimal and Ubuntu asks you) and you can no longer connect to a network directly from the detected networks list (as you can in XP).

The UAC is really annoying, useless... It popups if you copy a file, if you create a new folder in the Start menu...

[Frak]

I at first slipstreamed a Vista disc using vLite, even then it was still idling at half my RAM, and it acted weird with UAC deactivated. Windows update would always try to reinstall, even when I gave in for it to install, it failed. Weird crap man, Weird crap.

[mightyzug]

i had vista installed for a while and man was it crappy... i can run xp in a VM on my linux desktop and still get way better performance, and that is just what i do now. no more windows partitions for me :)

i am by no stretch of the imagination linux-literate, but the frustration i dealt with to find / read all the associated howtos to get all my stuff working properly pales in comparison to the frustration that vista gave me on the daily... now that my system is set up it actually works properly, whenever i want it to, not slowly and whenever it feels like it.

[TeatroAbsurdoAshes]

Maybe you are right about some way...but here is some other point in computing. The seven or even the older machines are far a way more clean examples to do good and relatively safe computing. I hhave three different IBM engine and boot has- one on the Ultra bay- two HD. Still my best and fastest computer is the-made in 2000 and in Mexico- A22m...I am using this computer with only512 MB memory 16MD video card and never has any problem...I think the compputers are full with junk and "built in " small spy-engines are circulating around in the name of security! The Vista is good for nothing and I still use the XP with Ubuntu on the VMWare 5 without any trouble...

[weblordpepe]

I need to find some good old machines to put Vista on and also Ubuntu. So I can show people them side by side. What do you guys reckon? Like a 1ghz machine or something? Less?

[kamaboko]

I need to find some good old machines to put Vista on and also Ubuntu. So I can show people them side by side. What do you guys reckon? Like a 1ghz machine or something? Less?

And what would that prove? Might as well get a 64 Comet and a 2000 Mustang and see how both run on leaded gas. One will, one will die trying.

[weblordpepe]

That Vista does some of the things Ubuntu does, but takes more time to do it?

I know that there are some things Windows is much suited for at the moment. Like end-user video editing and dvd encoding and stuff but I think thats it. And thats more software anyway.

[Sunnz]

That Vista does some of the things Ubuntu does, but takes more time to do it?

I know that there are some things Windows is much suited for at the moment. Like end-user video editing and dvd encoding and stuff but I think thats it. And thats more software anyway.
I use Macs for video editing instead, it is much better than Windows yet it still has all the UNIX tools that I liked.

[jswakefield]

The amount of system rescources Vista requires does not make it practical to the majority of PC users who just want to do the basics on their computers, most of the people I work with have never even realised that there were alternatives to windows and therefore felt that they had no alternative that to pay up for the next version of windows and the new hardware required to support it.

The more I tell people about Ubuntu/Linux the more they are interested in changing over, so I don't think Vista will pose any kind of threat to Ubuntu.

[anarky]

If you want to make things look pretty, just use Beryl ;)

[cmat]

The more I tell people about Ubuntu/Linux the more they are interested in changing over, so I don't think Vista will pose any kind of threat to Ubuntu.

I recently talked to somebody with a really good PC. He was wary of Vista because some friends of him had some huge issues with it on nearly the same hardware. He still uses XP but showed great interest in Ubuntu and Linux. I doubt he will use Linux until he is forced to use Vista, but he's willing to change if that's the case to Ubuntu.

[weblordpepe]

Yeah many people think the upgrade from XP to Vista is 'inevetable'. Last time Microsoft brought out a major OS release it was from 2k to XP and the Linux distro scene wasn't all that it is today.

Now people are going from XP (something which many people regard as doing everything they need) to Vista. And I think the 'new MS operating system sucks'ness is much much bigger this time around.

And the Linux scene is on fire at the moment. So ya know..its a good time to jump ship and swim to the island of Ubuntu.

[joe.turion64x2]

Recently I helped a friend buy & configure her new laptop (AMD Turion 64 2.0GHz, 512MB DDR2, 80GB HD), it is really nice but had Vista Home Basic on it (OEM) which ran painfully slow (it seemed as if we bought an old & infected laptop). I set a dual boot configuration with Ubuntu 7.04 and after she saw the amazing performance Linux achieved in that machine she asked me to "remove that crap of Vista to free up space", a thing I was happy to do :guitar:

She was a Windows only user before, and now is happy with Ubuntu.

Thanks.
Joe.

[tamara_meske]

I am a newbie who just switched from Vista to Ubuntu. I have been a Windows user from the very beginning, but now that I have made the switch I will never go back. Sometimes it's a bit overwhelming, but, being a newbie, I can see that the open source community currently "suits" some people more than others. I am one of those people. I'll try to spread the good word of open source and whatnot, but overall, one can only do so much.

I am positively silly with happiness over my switch from Windows, and specifically Vista. Stability, appearance, functionality, usability, etc. is far superior. The fact that it's free and all I have to do is learn to use the tools available to me continually stuns me.

[darrenm]

I am a newbie who just switched from Vista to Ubuntu. I have been a Windows user from the very beginning, but now that I have made the switch I will never go back. Sometimes it's a bit overwhelming, but, being a newbie, I can see that the open source community currently "suits" some people more than others. I am one of those people. I'll try to spread the good word of open source and whatnot, but overall, one can only do so much.

I am positively silly with happiness over my switch from Windows, and specifically Vista. Stability, appearance, functionality, usability, etc. is far superior. The fact that it's free and all I have to do is learn to use the tools available to me continually stuns me.

Congratulations on having a well-balanced point of view. With that attitude it won't take you very long at all to learn what you need to know.

[drhiii]

During the spring, heavily immersed in projects, my Windows environment degrading to a crawl daily, I reached a point of diminished returns where I just couldn't work as I was spending so much time trying to get systems to talk to each other, to maintain some reasonable speed though things had slowed to a crawl, something crashing. I could have reinstalled the several Windows machines in my environment, but I decided after years of working with Linux servers (running server farms of up to 50 machines simultaneously and everything associated with that), to look at Ubuntu.

Even tho I am competent in server-side Linux, I braced for a learning curve. Reminder: this is how bad it was in trying to just plain get work done in a Windows environment... for me to attempt an exploration leading to a potential migration to *nix on the client or workstation meant I was beyond aggravated.

I threw Ubuntu onto a machine.

In less than 24 hours, I'd installed (so easy a caveman blah blah blah), tweaked the environment (far less time consuming than I had allocated for), migrated over data and further tweaked to suit me needs. And I was running. The usual gotchas, but hardly anything to get bummed and easily managed.

Have not looked back since. Moved the whole environment, many machines, into Ubuntu.

Not surprisingly, and I am not dramatizing, in conversations with people, Ubuntu trickled into the chatter. Sometimes via remarks from people about how I looked, appeared, etc. I knew this was because I was being productive, hence relaxed and energetic. Not tired and fussy because I was being unproductive and fighting the 'other OS'. Word spread. I have had a slew of people come to me asking for help in not just learning about but migrating their environments away from the 'other OS'. People who were tired of the fist fights to get things to work, the degrading of machine performance, the usual slew of issues. I had a local print lab, all running the 'other OS', who for three years have had nothing but problems in getting a smoothed out environment. Walked in, threw Ubuntu onto a machine, in less than an hour was installed, upgraded, it was seeing everything via SMB (their own machines could not talk to each other or at best, were intermittent), had installed network printers, scanners, Remote Desktops, erected a shared file server, established Opera as an integrated Browser and email client... IOW solved in less time it took to go get a haircut what they had spent a lot of time, pain and money (one outfit was going to charge them $7000 to get their machines talking to each other... sheesh), this single machine was doing everything and the kitchen sink.

I didn't break a sweat. Another short session and got dual head monitor working, the pro printers working. This all went onto a brand new machine that in less than two months had slowed to a crawl (brand new XP, dual core, 64bit), and no, they were not running anything exotic on it. They'd already had a service tech out to try and see if there was something wrong with the hardware. His solution, turn off Windows security. Still didn't solve anything. It was already not talking to the multi card reader. The owner was stunned to see Ubuntu install to dual boot, see his NTFS partition, read and write, we threw Photoshop CS3 onto it and he first remarks were how much faster it ran, and the card reader was working fine. Overall, this new machines that should have been screaming, was crawling under XP, not talking Samba, not seeing hardware, and this was a big name outfit, but under Ubuntu, even with all this thrown into it, was doing what it should... flying.

This story is being repeated as word spreads and people are calling, asking for help to get away from their varied problems with the "other OS" and into something that as my wife says, when I come out of my office, I am smiling.

As a caveat, one day my missus, who was still running in the "other OS", after grousing about this and that not working, called me in and said in very blunt terms, "I want what you have because I am sick and tired of this "insert explitives" "insert other OS" not working. And you keep smiling."

How could I ignore the plea for help from my sweetie. I also knew it was only a matter of time before she wanted some.... I migrated her stuff over. She's been smiling ever since. And I am getting more and more calls for help.

Thank you Ubuntu team and community. Very smart. Driven and dedicated. So much so I am thinking of recreating some of the huge training projects I developed and ran for years when the internet was commercialized and I ran very large outreach training for schools, communities, etc, in the very early years when it was all exciting a new, and extremely valuable to people to get onboard. This is what Ubuntu has stimulated at least for me... a renewed intellectual involvement in what it was like in the late 80s and early 90s when I created this big training venue that provided huge value to people.

Ubuntu has been, an understatement, widely stimulating....

Long response I know....

[weblordpepe]

I think I am going to cry.

Thats a great post. It should go in the hall of fame.

[stinger30au]

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

Of course. have you tired the new "RIBBON" on office 2007, farout, how Un-User friendly can you get.
Give me open office any day

[vwbeamer]

Evert time you use Vista, Mike Vick kills a puppy....FACT!

[Frak]

Of course. have you tired the new "RIBBON" on office 2007, farout, how Un-User friendly can you get.
Give me open office any day
I disagree, I find it easer to use if everything is big, and has easy identification images on them. Its more intuitive.

[vwbeamer]

You are either Bill "G" or Mike Vick!!! Puppy killer!!!!

And what would that prove? Might as well get a 64 Comet and a 2000 Mustang and see how both run on leaded gas. One will, one will die trying.

[kamaboko]

degrading to a crawl daily, I reached a point of diminished returns where I just couldn't work as I was spending so much time trying to get systems to talk to each other, to maintain some reasonable speed though things had slowed to a crawl, something crashing.

You just described my Ubuntu install to a "T". Firefox crashed it twice today. Also, a DVD I was watching froze. I had to reboot into XP Home to surf and finish the video. (Dual boot system).

[borris.morris]

Well, hell. Linux is WAY faster. my linux install is allowing me to do some transparancy on a 500 mhz p3 laptop neogeo 6 megs of video ram that vista wouldnt even run on!

[joe.turion64x2]

You just described my Ubuntu install to a "T". Firefox crashed it twice today. Also, a DVD I was watching froze. I had to reboot into XP Home to surf and finish the video. (Dual boot system).
There is something wrong with your hardware then, or perhaps you got a crappy ATI card.

[Frak]

There is something wrong with your hardware then, or perhaps you got a crappy ATI card.
I think the same. ATI's are very bad cards, I am cursed with having an ATI Rage/Fury Pro in one of mine.

[cmat]

My desktop with a nVidia GeForce 5500 is rock solid. My laptop with an ATI 200M crashes like crazy when anything video related runs too long. Like youtube and other stuff. ATI really needs to pick up the pace in developing dependable drivers.

[vikrant82]

Hmm, After being a Windows enthusiast for 6 years, I finally moved on with Ubuntu.
And MAN!!! I LOVE IT... I am no way going with Windows ever.

The best thing that can happen now for me is Game Manufacturer start embracing OpenGL. That would let go of that dual boot thingy, and I would have 5gb more space on my drive.

And ya, I am also a quake 3 enthusiast and it definetely runs better in Ubuntu.

Thanks

[Bounch]

Ubuntu studio has a VERY fancy Log in screen.
And Windows has more programs to do more and fast.
Linux have a specific one.
Not to fast CPU, not too slow.

[MS_Past_Away]

After servicing 3.5 trillion winhose laptops and boxes, (ok, I exaggerated by about a half a trillion) i am now moving everyone to either 6.06 LTS or Feisty 7.04. It is time to try to get them all away from tune-ups, viruses, spyware and all the great key-lodgers out there. Not to mention when they think they are closing a pop-up and get a hidden install instead. Or just enter a bad web site.

I am simply tired of the winhose effect that people get, eyes glazed over when you ask them, well if it runs so slow, when was your last tune-up? Checked for viruses? Spyware? Zero wipe? Re-formated and installed a new copy of winhose? Oh, you lost your CD's for recovery...

Yea, it's time for users to try Lunix. Ubuntu laptops from Dell are very nice and come with Ubuntu pre-installed. Did I mention how nice they are. Have setup a few of those already.

I recommend Linux for dummies too... Mac... If they have the cash and want to be told how and when to do it... (Mac is a copy righted O/S)

My three favorite reasons for Linux are;

1) How can you beat Linux, like free beer... (open source)
2) You can treat Linux like a $20.00 dollar hooker and it respects you in the morning. (robust)
3) Security. (any questions?)

What's the worse that could happen? That someone learns something?

The two winhose pc's here never see a connection. Now thats as safe as you can make winhose...

Vista? Not for me thanks, I want a life after surfing the www...

I hope I did not offend anyone. Honesty works.

:-({|=

[vwbeamer]

My question is if windows is so great, why are you here?

You just described my Ubuntu install to a "T". Firefox crashed it twice today. Also, a DVD I was watching froze. I had to reboot into XP Home to surf and finish the video. (Dual boot system).

[kamaboko]

My question is if windows is so great, why are you here?

Because I can.

[aysiu]

Because I can.
Great answer.

[Delirious]

Because I can.

translation = because I'm a troll.

[zgornel]

I think the same. ATI's are very bad cards, I am cursed with having an ATI Rage/Fury Pro in one of mine.
Actually, AMD/ATI 's cards (newer ones, since Radeon ... let's say 9500) are quite competitive from the hardware point of view, just that their driver support is lagging compared to nvidia's (especially for linux). Still, it is better than intel :(

[kamaboko]

translation = because I'm a troll.

A hint for you: What room is this? (whisper)....it's called Windows Discussions...that's why "I can".

[joe.turion64x2]

Actually, AMD/ATI 's cards (newer ones, since Radeon ... let's say 9500) are quite competitive from the hardware point of view, just that their driver support is lagging compared to nvidia's (especially for linux). Still, it is better than intel :(
From a drivers point of view Intel cards are better still. They don't need any extra drivers to get 3D acceleration out of them (when available).

If you want to use Beryl:

With ATI you NEED to install the drivers and HOPE they work (with XGL for the most part).

With NVIDIA you still NEED to install the drivers and almost for sure they will work (with either AIXGL or XGL).

With Intel, provided it is a comparable chipset (I mean with similar VRAM than the NVIDIA or ATI card), relatively recent, Beryl works out of the box (at least I have experienced that with several machines).

I wish AMD machines could use Intel video cards.

Thanks.
Joe.

[metallicamaster3]

"which is better? linux or vista?"

put it simple.

Linux runs on my computer. Vista doesnt.

period.

[nvteighen]

"which is better? linux or vista?"

put it simple.

Linux runs on my computer. Vista doesnt.

period.
Nothing else to say

[nick.inspiron6400]

Now is time guys for Linux to take off! Time to wake up!!!

Windows Vista is going to be full of problems, so escaping to Linux will be the only way forward. I have Vista (sitting in a draw) And I thought it was rubbish, but I got it on a OEM so I did not loose much money.

Ubuntu needs to have more drivers, a fresh interface. And more for the begineer. Ubuntu needs a Home,Professional,and Ultimate version. To really compete.

Linux is the future, and the future is open.

[Depressed Man]

From a drivers point of view Intel cards are better still. They don't need any extra drivers to get 3D acceleration out of them (when available).

If you want to use Beryl:

With ATI you NEED to install the drivers and HOPE they work (with XGL for the most part).

With NVIDIA you still NEED to install the drivers and almost for sure they will work (with either AIXGL or XGL).

With Intel, provided it is a comparable chipset (I mean with similar VRAM than the NVIDIA or ATI card), relatively recent, Beryl works out of the box (at least I have experienced that with several machines).

I wish AMD machines could use Intel video cards.

Thanks.
Joe.

o.O While I do agree with you on the Intel (my laptop has an integrated graphics card since it was meant for work use and not gaming) and my desktop has a gaming ATI card (gaming as in..I play games for the price I pay). Well mid-grade games now >.> I didn't need to install the ATI drivers. I used the opensource one and Beryl/Compiz Fusion works fine. I never could get the official ATI ones working.

[DoctorMO]

I don't know, I sometimes wonder if people see problems in windows vista because they think they ort to. Half the people I've talked to have no problems with it as far as basic functionality goes, the other half have niggles rather than huge problems. Although I still wouldn't be able to use it to try it out, that would be vindication and that's bad ;-).

I'd like for the community instead of focusing on windows and the differences between windows and linux to instead look at how we can make ubuntu better for the normal people who currently use computer. I know plenty of people who have some really good ideas but aren't programmers, they should be writing these ideas up. Anything other kind of talking point is maybe a waste of time since we only have to glance to know what features we think are interesting in vista.

[darksong]

Windows Vista in my experience was really good and it was certainlty much better than windows XP in terms of functionality and stability. (may i repeate, in my experience) After a month of using on my old and new computer it has never crashed nor has any application crashed in it. When installed on both different machines it has sucsessfully reconised and worked on both computers hardware.

Linux in many of its forms is good and very usable, but after using windows Vista over the past month i can see why it is not as popular and still has a bad reputation with non techy people. Firstly i feel that all linuxes are not as well documentated as windows. In vista i have expansive and accurate help and guides avalible to me offline. The help i can get from ubuntu on these forum and the wiki is very good and fast, but sometimes it is outdated or the suggested steps in some of guides do not work and leave the users with that "what" felling, especailly people who are not comfortable with the command line to do certain things.

Secondly i also feel that pratically every linux disto that i have tried, maybe except linspire/freespire, Opensuse - sabayon and ubuntu are getting there - lacks polish through the whole distro. With windows you get sets of application, tools and features which all have the same friendly look and feel through the Operation system - this makes users such as myself feel more at ease with what i am using. Making a good look and feel and making the distro polished makes the user comfortable and give the sence of effort and usablity through the operating system. Some examples i can bring up on this is in Pclinuxos - quick launch, menu bars don't properly highligh and splash screens are not properly alligned - giving the sence that the developer do not care for the distro (infact its really good once you get to use it). Ubuntu in this instance just looks terrible as default.

Linux/Ubuntu and other have made large steps over the past 7 or so years in closing the gap of usablity between linux and window, but i feel that there is still quite a bit of room for improvment in terms of the final product.

[nvteighen]

Linux in many of its forms is good and very usable, but after using windows Vista over the past month i can see why it is not as popular and still has a bad reputation with non techy people. Firstly i feel that all linuxes are not as well documentated as windows. In vista i have expansive and accurate help and guides avalible to me offline. The help i can get from ubuntu on these forum and the wiki is very good and fast, but sometimes it is outdated or the suggested steps in some of guides do not work and leave the users with that "what" felling, especailly people who are not comfortable with the command line to do certain things.

Let me differ with you. Windows documentation is either very techy (Knowledge Base, which is really very good and helpful, but not for beginners) or useless (standard Help files that finally tell you to go to the KB)... And most and best Microsoft support is online, not offline. (Knowledge Base, for example).

And about the command line. There are two kind of Windows users: the ones who have used Win 3.x and those who not. The first are very likely to have more computer knowledge because they have been "educated" in command lines. The second ones are more likely to not fully understand how a computer works and what does it do. To work without knowing how to use the command line is like having a car without knowing how it works; yes, you can still drive it, but when it breaks you won't know how to repair it.

I'd really like to see MS-DOS returning.

[Sayers]

speaking of fancy graphics... check this link out!

http://www.linuxsoft.cz/screenshot_img/53-a.jpg

Eh, that's old-school fancy :)

[yersi]

I had Vista pre-installed on my laptop, and I think it is a good operative system, but only if you have a very good computer. It ran slow as a dog on my brand new computer and genuinely compromised my work efficiency by hanging, taking several minutes to open a folder or change applications (that were already running). I'm working as an intern now and my boss wanted to see what I was doing for a presentation. I had to keep him waiting for around ten minutes until I could show him because Vista was taking eons to load. It was embarassing.

Now with Ubuntu it takes seconds to do the same. Whoever says Windows is for doing real work is just plain wrong.

The UAC was very annoying, but only because Vista ran so darn slow. The same kind of messages pop up on Ubuntu every so often but since it runs fast I don't mind. I liked other features with Vista but they were all overshadowed by the speed problems, doing away with the Aero theme did nothing for its performance.

Microsoft's biggest problem is its organization structure. It's just too big and by trying to do everything in-house they are crippling themselves. If they wanted to make life easier for end users like me, they should focus on making a good operative system for running third-party applications and level the playing field for other developers by releasing code. This will lead to less financial return which means it will never happen.

After three days with Ubuntu I'm fully satisfied and I will never switch back. It is exactly what I was looking for, and after Vista it feels like a relief to use an operative system that is designed by coders instead of marketing people and CEOs.

[raynard79]

All I have to say is this:

Vista:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6hQw3KEom0

Linux:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Fbk52Mk1w

[raynard79]

Vista:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRCVC00b5r0

[Dennis123]

Vista:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRCVC00b5r0

That is propaganda!
They used a very old PC and there was no transition when switching the windows...
I also find compiz (fusion)/beryl etc. more feature rich but when you try to suggest one of them please be fair....

[weblordpepe]

Eventually you're bound to get this sorta thing on Windows. But ya know...its just another thing that Windows gets which Linux had ages ago.

Who knows, in the next version of Windows you could have multiple workspaces, and it will be a 'new' productivity 'innovation' from Microsoft.

[AliL]

Actually they had multiple workspaces in XP, it's a free powertoy called Virtual Desktop Manager on the M$ website...and they had a crappy Alt-Tab program switcher enhancement as well, but it never worked for me.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

[darksong]

Vista:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRCVC00b5r0

yup, like a pervious poster said its an unfair comparison. I bet if you tried the cube or some of the other compiz fusion effects on the same computer it would run the same, if not worse.

[darrenm]

yup, like a pervious poster said its an unfair comparison. I bet if you tried the cube or some of the other compiz fusion effects on the same computer it would run the same, if not worse.

Yeah because Compiz needs just the same specs as Aero does.

I have Compiz Fusion with the cube running perfectly on a P3 800 with an Nvidia GF2 MX. Considering Vista would refuse to even install on that machine I can't see Compiz Fusion could possibly run worse on a computer than Vista 2 visual effects.

[darksong]

Yeah because Compiz needs just the same specs as Aero does.

I have Compiz Fusion with the cube running perfectly on a P3 800 with an Nvidia GF2 MX. Considering Vista would refuse to even install on that machine I can't see Compiz Fusion could possibly run worse on a computer than Vista 2 visual effects.

Compiz fusion must be built for your PC, considering anything under 30 frames per second will give a choppy experience, please can you explain why my old PC (AMD XP2400 running @ 2.0ghz, 512mb ram, nvidia fx5200) would run compiz fusion at around 18-25 frames per second, it ran aero not fine, but better @ 20+ fps when flip effecting, when browsing through documents (shrinking down, opening and enlarging) 40+fps. I don't see how your system will run compiz fusion at any quality.

Looking around different forums, the minimum requirements for Compiz fusion to run any sence would be 1.2ghz or equivelent processor, 256min of ram, nvidia 3 serices or higher. Compared windows vista adviced specs, only the ram bieng the higher thing @ 1gig - but from personal experience it run well on 512. Processor specs required lower.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa905075.aspx

[kamaboko]

Yeah because Compiz needs just the same specs as Aero does.


Truly scandalous. Simply too much to demand from a computer. Compiz must go.

[Frak]

Truly scandalous. Simply too much to demand from a computer. Compiz must go.
Yet Beryl runs just fine on my machine (specs are almost equal to darksong's computer)
Compiz is choppy.

[weblordpepe]

Actually they had multiple workspaces in XP, it's a free powertoy called Virtual Desktop Manager on the M$ website...and they had a crappy Alt-Tab program switcher enhancement as well, but it never worked for me.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Wow! That is excellent! Thanks :D

[darrenm]

Compiz fusion must be built for your PC, considering anything under 30 frames per second will give a choppy experience, please can you explain why my old PC (AMD XP2400 running @ 2.0ghz, 512mb ram, nvidia fx5200) would run compiz fusion at around 18-25 frames per second, it ran aero not fine, but better @ 20+ fps when flip effecting, when browsing through documents (shrinking down, opening and enlarging) 40+fps. I don't see how your system will run compiz fusion at any quality.

Looking around different forums, the minimum requirements for Compiz fusion to run any sence would be 1.2ghz or equivelent processor, 256min of ram, nvidia 3 serices or higher. Compared windows vista adviced specs, only the ram bieng the higher thing @ 1gig - but from personal experience it run well on 512. Processor specs required lower.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa905075.aspx

It runs perfectly well on that system. I even turned the Atlantis plugin on. The only thing that slowed it down was enabling cube transparency. It also runs perfectly on a machine with onboard Intel i865 graphics too.

[darksong]

It runs perfectly well on that system. I even turned the Atlantis plugin on. The only thing that slowed it down was enabling cube transparency. It also runs perfectly on a machine with onboard Intel i865 graphics too.

can you enable the frames per second option and tell me what you get. I have an old system which is similar, and it only can run windows Me, DVD's and 3D graphics just aint an option on it. That system would not run ubuntu - which is quite reasouce hungry by linux standards + Compiz fusion - i don't think it will happen.

[finalcut]

i think ubuntu can compete with vista, if only people would take the time to learn how to use ubuntu

[darrenm]

can you enable the frames per second option and tell me what you get. I have an old system which is similar, and it only can run windows Me, DVD's and 3D graphics just aint an option on it. That system would not run ubuntu - which is quite reasouce hungry by linux standards + Compiz fusion - i don't think it will happen.

Yep, I'll do it tomorrow at work. The system specs OTOH are:

Pentium3 800Mhz slot 1 (0.25 micron katmai i think)
384MB RAM PC100 SD
Intel 440BX chipset
GeForce2 MX440 (cant remember the RAM)

I can do the FPS on my Celeron 1.5 laptop with an Intel i915 onboard graphics with dynamically shared memory if you like?

[TKR101010]

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

Ubuntu will become stronger because of it. I recently purchased a new laptop that came with Vista on it. Most of the stuff I do on my computer is art stuff (with Blender, GIMP, Inkscape, etc) and some of these programs wouldn't work very well (and some of my programs wouldn't work at all) on Vista.

It's because of Vista that I'm making the switch to Ubuntu.

[Sayers]

I agree, vista is a joke, they released it for money and because they didn't do a good job they aren't getting as much. I don't think Linux is and will be for everyone, because some people are just to stubern :)

[kamaboko]

i think ubuntu can compete with vista, if only people would take the time to learn how to use ubuntu

People say the same thing about Vista: "If only people would take the time to learn how to use Vista".

[Frak]

People say the same thing about Vista: "If only people would take the time to learn how to use Vista".
Unfortunately, I have to agree. Nobody knows how to use an OS for the first time. If you put two people who have never used a computer before, but basic training with keyboard and mouse, in front of two computers, one with Vista, one with Ubuntu. More than likely, neither of them would know what to do, or how to do.
(instructor)Open Calculator
(Person using Ubuntu)???
(instructor)Open the first menu you see
(Person using Vista)???

[darksong]

I agree, vista is a joke, they released it for money and because they didn't do a good job they aren't getting as much. I don't think Linux is and will be for everyone, because some people are just to stubern :)

Why do you think Vista is a joke? When you used it what problems did you have? I might be able to help.

MS done a good job on the OS - they worked hard.

[vexorian]

Vista's only good thing is the looks.

And you can get the look with compiz (or make it better, MUCH better)

So, vista has failed.

I appreciate MS to add more anti user features like DRM and WGA, more users in other OSes is always good.

[Nekiruhs]

Why do you think Vista is a joke? When you used it what problems did you have? I might be able to help.

MS done a good job on the OS - they worked hard.
Good Job? Worker hard? OK, a little history on MS, they never invented/created anything. Everything they sell is either stolen, copied, or bought. Vista is just XP with a facelift and more DRM. I was offered Vista for free, I installed it. Then I was told a bout a month later, that my copy of Vista (Given to me by Gateway) was pirated. AS IF! I uninstalled it and replaced it with Ubuntu + XP Dual boot. Vista isn't an upgrade to XP, XP is an upgrade to Vista.

[darksong]

Again i hear the same thing - all it is XP+drm+aero. There is alot of changes from XP to Vista. I hear all these problems - but i have not experienced any problem with Vista, 1 month - 2 systems no problems.

They stole stuff, but everyone has when making stuff. Look @ linux - MS and apple had GUI before

Windows 3 gave way to Windows 95 - making a huge level of changes to the UI that Microsoft has never equalled since. It had many new & innovative features: Drag & drop functionality; taskbars, and so on. All of which have since been copied by Linux, of course.

Okay, okay, so Microsoft didn't think up the individual features that we think of as the Windows Look-and-Feel. But it still created a Look-and-Feel, and Linux has been trying to imitate that ever since.

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

[darksong]

Vista's only good thing is the looks.

And you can get the look with compiz (or make it better, MUCH better)

So, vista has failed.

I appreciate MS to add more anti user features like DRM and WGA, more users in other OSes is always good.

Vista failed because Compiz fusion is better eye candy?

So ubuntu has failed beacause it doens't look as good as Os/x? No it hasn't - its a good OS.

[goumples]

Vista is a dud.. it makes linux alternatives look even better by comparison..

[joe.turion64x2]

People say the same thing about Vista: "If only people would take the time to learn how to use Vista".

The 'advantage' of Windows from a common user's point of view is the familiarity with previous versions, if they drop that 'advantage' then it's natural their users (mostly used to familiarity as mentioned above) complain.

However, if familiarity is dropped, users still have to learn how to use the new system, right? But why learn to use a crappy alpha system that will most likely refuse to work with existent hardware, when it can be learned to use a real/stable one (like Linux)?

From a user's stand point, without familiarity Vista and Linux and in a level battlefield, Linux still having the advantage.

Joe.

[vexorian]

Vista failed because Compiz fusion is better eye candy?

So ubuntu has failed beacause it doens't look as good as Os/x? No it hasn't - its a good OS.
__________________

Ubuntu can be as cliche-good looking as OS/X or even look better.

And vista has failed since eye candy was its only feature, the rest are anti features (Well perhaps the lame sudo copycat could count as feature, ok)


Again i hear the same thing - all it is XP+drm+aero. There is alot of changes from XP to Vista. I hear all these problems - but i have not experienced any problem with Vista, 1 month - 2 systems no problems.
It is not a matter of you feeling the issues, it is a matter of a company implementing anti customer garbage, well it is all about a company spending development time and resources not on improving the user experience but on things that are not good for the user. That's enough for me to forget about MS, I was a great fan back in the 3.11/win 95 days but with time to time, it was a dissappointing upgrade after another, MS should change back to the company it used to be, the problem is that Ballmer doesn't seem to be a match for Gates...

[kamaboko]

MS should change back to the company it used to be, the problem is that Ballmer doesn't seem to be a match for Gates...

Ballmer is not a recent addition to MS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk

[Frak]

We're aware of that, he's a moron too. I doubt he knows how to use a computer.

[DoctorMO]

We're aware of that, he's a moron too. I doubt he knows how to use a computer.

All the evidence so far just point him out to be loud, demanding, unempathetic and egocentric. bit like a child in many respect except with his own credit card. Nothing yet has pointed out that he's a moron or what his skills are on computers.

[Frak]

It may just be a movie, but Pirates of Silicon Valley is enough for me.

[weblordpepe]

Steve Balmer reminds me of that huge retard from Microsoft that jumps around screaming 'developers developers developers'. Oh wait, its the same guy.

[Frak]

Steve Balmer reminds me of that huge retard from Microsoft that jumps around screaming 'developers developers developers'. Oh wait, its the same guy.
And he sweats... BAD
:lolflag:

[smoker]

All the evidence so far just point him out to be loud, demanding, unempathetic and egocentric. bit like a child in many respect except with his own credit card. Nothing yet has pointed out that he's a moron or what his skills are on computers.

i believe he's also the chief-tester on the sturdiness of ms office furniture, lol :)

[darksong]

Ubuntu can be as cliche-good looking as OS/X or even look better.

And vista has failed since eye candy was its only feature, the rest are anti features (Well perhaps the lame sudo copycat could count as feature, ok)


It is not a matter of you feeling the issues, it is a matter of a company implementing anti customer garbage, well it is all about a company spending development time and resources not on improving the user experience but on things that are not good for the user. That's enough for me to forget about MS, I was a great fan back in the 3.11/win 95 days but with time to time, it was a dissappointing upgrade after another, MS should change back to the company it used to be, the problem is that Ballmer doesn't seem to be a match for Gates...

Anit features? Like DRM - DRM will never effect you if you are 1. Legally obating your media, 2. You strip out digital rights out of DVD's when you rip them to your hard disk. I have also played DVD's which are copies a friend brought around, worked perfectly on windows vista.

Vista is a large improvement over XP - for me its quicker, looks better and works out of the box with no problem. How is it anti-user? i works well, it has great help, it advises secutiry measures and application, it gives you way on keeping you data safe it also looks goods and it comes with great multimedia and system applications - thi s is not anti-user.

Too see what extra features in Vista, please read:
http://www.tweakguides.com/TGTC.html

Please, this is not an area to distrobash. - No windows user on this forum spreads negitivity on this forum about ubuntu, please if you have a problem with vista we will help - if you hate it that much find an anti vista forum and discuss it with them.

Thanks DS

[howdy1]

Vista is a large improvement over XP... works out of the box with no problem.


I find that hard to believe. Last week I tried to install an HP Vista laptop, an upmarket dual-core model, and after 30min from switch-on it still hadn't produced a desktop.

XP preinstalls typically take 2-3mins and a few simple questions to get going, Knoppix only slightly longer to boot entirely from CD.

But, half an hour and still not running? That has to be a joke of an OS.

Linux and pre-Vista Windows both have their strong points and their annoyances, but both are capable of getting the job done.

By contrast Nothing I've seen has so far convinced me that Vista is even comparable in performance or useability, let alone in some way 'better'

[darksong]

Maybe it wasn't installed properly, did you trying runnig the disks which allow you to revert your hard-drive to factory setting, i don't belive HP would load an non working OS onto their systems.

I fell people don't get a working OS beacause they dont work a little bit for it. If i installed ubuntu and tried playing a 3d game out of the box and complained it didn't work - would that make it a bad OS. Or if the install didn't work fully, and it didn't boot - does that make a Joke of an OS?

I have sometimes needed to re-install ubuntu upto 5 times beacuase the restricted drivers manager never worked, it kept messing up my X server- surley, beacause it done that it makes it an Joke of an OS?

[vexorian]

Anit features? Like DRM - DRM will never effect you if you are 1. Legally obating your media,


Then why spend resources making it? Ah I see, because we users are either pirates or too retarded to make sure we follow the law ourselves, that's right, MS is simply patronizing us.


2. You strip out digital rights out of DVD's when you rip them to your hard disk. I have also played DVD's which are copies a friend brought around, worked perfectly on windows vista.


So, you didn't experience any issues with it yet. It is still an anti feature, it is still something that should not have ever been added, if MS cared about us they wouldn't make things that slowdown the OS or could stop things to work and are of no benefit for the user, why should the operating system be my nanny ? Why should it control me? In what way does DRM actually benefit ME?


Vista is a large improvement over XP - for me its quicker, looks better and works out of the box with no problem. How is it anti-user? i works well, it has great help, it advises secutiry measures and application, it gives you way on keeping you data safe it also looks goods and it comes with great multimedia and system applications - thi s is not anti-user.

Yeah right, it is not anti user just because it comes with more drivers...


Too see what extra features in Vista, please read:
http://www.tweakguides.com/TGTC.html

I guess you thought you could get a totally unrelated URL and post it as if it contained relevant new features on vista...


--
Maybe it wasn't installed properly, did you trying runnig the disks which allow you to revert your hard-drive to factory setting, i don't belive HP would load an non working OS onto their systems.

I fell people don't get a working OS beacause they dont work a little bit for it. If i installed ubuntu and tried playing a 3d game out of the box and complained it didn't work - would that make it a bad OS. Or if the install didn't work fully, and it didn't boot - does that make a Joke of an OS?

I have sometimes needed to re-install ubuntu upto 5 times beacuase the restricted drivers manager never worked, it kept messing up my X server- surley, beacause it done that it makes it an Joke of an OS?
Yeah sure, and you also find vista faster, yeah right...

[darksong]

Download the guide and read it maybe? or are you ignorant enough to make comment without exploring the reasource i gave you? It you read all 200+ pages you it will underline what features are new, yea its a tweak guide but it give a good insight into the operation system? Maybe you can judge it better after? Maybe you will like or hate it more after reading that.

Yea its quicker, from bios to working desktop in 35 seconds, a full 15 seconds faster than ubuntu on this system. Firefox opens instantly, games boot at my click, One i click on Msn i am talking to my friends within 5 seconds. Its quicker than ubuntu or win Xp on this system, and i did try both before loading Vista on this system, mostly due to what is said on the internet, i have found most of that to be untrue in my experience. Not that you will ever belive me.

I am not going to be hostile towards you, if you are again hostile to me i will report you for it. I i wished to be flamed or writen in a way witch is insulting to me, beacause of my experiences and opinions i would of posted on newgrounds.

[Depressed Man]

Most of that guide was just explaining the programs and what's in the OS...like.. a command prompt. Which I've already been using for a while lol. My Vista on my laptop use to be fast (before I installed the programs I normally use in XP). Did have some tweaks though I knew most of that stuff (I started in Windows and use to really really tweak it. Though my XP was getting to cluttered so I reinstalled it wiping all my edits to it lol

Now it's no longer fast. Ubuntu easily beats it by seconds. I stopped Google Desktop Search (Windows Desktop Search doesn't index Thunderbird emails or Open Office without plugins which are in an extreme beta state) from starting up and it sped up my Windows Vista startup time (still not enough to rival Ubuntu though). I later uninstalled it since I use Copernic to replace GDS since I really hated having to go through a browser to see my search results.

Oddly enough though XP loads quickly even with GSD in the startup menu. My start up requirement for programs (things like Objectdock, Rainlendar, etc..) are similar for both computers but XP loads quicker then Vista. And about the same speed as Ubuntu.

Though Vista does launch programs faster then Ubuntu. But it's DWM (or DWN?) I can't remember what it's called does take up alot of memory. Even more then Compiz Fusion oddly and Compiz Fusion does more then what it does.

[Frak]

Download the guide and read it maybe? or are you ignorant enough to make comment without exploring the reasource i gave you? It you read all 200+ pages you it will underline what features are new, yea its a tweak guide but it give a good insight into the operation system? Maybe you can judge it better after? Maybe you will like or hate it more after reading that.

Yea its quicker, from bios to working desktop in 35 seconds, a full 15 seconds faster than ubuntu on this system. Firefox opens instantly, games boot at my click, One i click on Msn i am talking to my friends within 5 seconds. Its quicker than ubuntu or win Xp on this system, and i did try both before loading Vista on this system, mostly due to what is said on the internet, i have found most of that to be untrue in my experience. Not that you will ever belive me.

I am not going to be hostile towards you, if you are again hostile to me i will report you for it. I i wished to be flamed or writen in a way witch is insulting to me, beacause of my experiences and opinions i would of posted on newgrounds.

Seriously, I want to know what programs you have installed on there now compared to when you had XP. XP would be even faster than Vista on a fresh install, but a 5 year old XP may be slower than a fresh install of Vista.
But, if I'm correct, Vista will slow down on you in the long run. Ubuntu will start to seem quicker, because XP and Vista still have registries and DLL hell. Ubuntu has XML scripts, but no DLL's. If you say Dependencies are like DLLs, your wrong. Linux's dependencies are like Window's dependencies. Linux program may depend on OpenGL, while a Window's program may depend on DirectX 10.
Because it would take a such long time to actually clog up any of Ubuntu's resources, Ubuntu will stay fast when Vista is barely crawling.
My $0.02

[weblordpepe]

My Ubuntu has been running like a dog recently. I found out that its Google Desktop.
But it still doesn't boot as fast as XP. Which sucks cos I'd like to improve it somehow.

[Dennis123]

because XP and Vista still have registries and DLL hell.

I don't see any problem with an indexed database compared to XML files and the problem of dll hell is resolved since the advent of XP(Side-by-Side assemblies).

And I haven't seen any slowdown yet, but I'm running Vista for 6 months

[Taum]

My Ubuntu has been running like a dog recently. I found out that its Google Desktop.
But it still doesn't boot as fast as XP. Which sucks cos I'd like to improve it somehow.

I'd gladly trade boot time for security.

[zugu]

Even I am a Windows XP user, I think Vista is better than Ubuntu (or Debian, or Fedora or openSUSE for that matter) simply because it allows the user to install anything. And I mean ANYTHING.

On Ubuntu one has to upgrade the whole distribution just to get newer versions of vital software such as Firefox, OO.org, Thunderbird or Gaim/Pidgin. This is where MS got it right: backwards compatibility and self contained apps.

I have friends who rejected Ubuntu when they found out the the repositories are frozen after each release. IMHO, this is a fundamental flaw of Ubuntu. It negates every other achievement, like increased hardware support, ease of use, apt-get etc.

As a power user, I want flexibility. I want to install whatever software I want, whenever I want and not be limited by the repositories. Even Mac OS X got it right, with their self contained .dmg format.

The ubuntu-backports repositories are almost empty, even Debian 4.0 repositories have more software than dapper-backports. The typical excuse is that backporting new features might b0rk the OS. This is proof that the apt-get ecosystem is a very fragile one.

Ubuntu is not an OS, it's not a real platform, it's a collection of software. There's no distinct base, there's just a huge repository that might be considered a platform. And no developer can keep up with a platform that changes every 6 months.

Give me a Ubuntu release every 2 years or more, and give me the ability to install whatever I software is released in the meantime. THEN I'll use Ubuntu.

One last question: why is Compiz compared to Aero? Aero is stable software, while Compiz is in alpha or beta. It's not fair.

[hessiess]

One last question: why is Compiz compared to Aero? Aero is stable software, while Compiz is in alpha or beta. It's not fair.

but it still manages to do mutch more advansed efects, with 1/3 of the resorses!

as a power user you shold have no problems compialing the softwere yourself!

[zugu]

Nevertheless, it's beta. But I forgot Ubuntu people use to ship beta software in "stable" releases (see Gaim 2.0 beta).

[darksong]

Thats one thing that confused me about linux, why does it get its dependinses (spelling) from other application. This is where MS, Mac and PCBSD and a couple of others go it right. Self contained application with its own dependinsies, so if that app crashes or breaks alot of other apps which depend on it can break aswell.

I can see the argument that it takes more space up on the hard-drive, but hard-drives now are cheap - you can get 120gb hd for £25, about $50, or a 250gb one for £35, about $70. So i don't see the point of not making self contained application, pratically everyone has more than enough space on their hard-drives to cope with it.

This would make a more stable operating system.

[Soarer]

Thats one thing that confused me about linux, why does it get its dependinses (spelling) from other application. This is where MS, Mac and PCBSD and a couple of others go it right. Self contained application with its own dependinsies, so if that app crashes or breaks alot of other apps which depend on it can break aswell.

I can see the argument that it takes more space up on the hard-drive, but hard-drives now are cheap - you can get 120gb hd for £25, about $50, or a 250gb one for £35, about $70. So i don't see the point of not making self contained application, pratically everyone has more than enough space on their hard-drives to cope with it.

This would make a more stable operating system.

I can understand why you might think that way - the Microsoft development process does seem to be structured like that. Perhaps that is why they are often accused of producing bloatware.

There are many reasons why this is not a good idea. The two obvious ones are efficiency and security.

Having lots of different copies of the same libraries (DLLs) for different applications is not just a waste of disk space, which may not be a consideration to you or me, but will be for many living in less prosperous circumstances. In order to use these libraries, they must be loaded into memory. If you have many applications running, each with their own libraries, much memory and processor time is used unnecessarily. You may as well ask why do we not make cars out of cast iron, as they now have powerful engines which could move the extra weight around at reasonable speeds. Why buy a faster processor and disk only to have the performance gains cancelled by the software?

Not exactly the same thing, but I processed a document yesterday for uploading with a limit of 100kb. The Word document I couldn't get below 115kb, despite deleting 2 of the 4 pages. The same (4 page) document saved in OO format (odt) was 22kb.

The second is security. If any loophole is found in the library, ALL copies must be updated rather than just one. Since XP (at least) has no centralised repository system, this can be time-consuming to carry out as it would involve visiting ALL of the sites for each application to download the updates, and most users won't bother. Thus security holes are left open. In Ubuntu, a simple, automatic update closes ALL of the holes.

[zugu]

Having lots of different copies of the same libraries (DLLs) for different applications is not just a waste of disk space, which may not be a consideration to you or me, but will be for many living in less prosperous circumstances. In order to use these libraries, they must be loaded into memory. If you have many applications running, each with their own libraries, much memory and processor time is used unnecessarily.

Agreed, but Windows and OS X managed to do it somehow, why can't FOSS hackers do it too? Could it be because they can't even decide on a standard sound system for GNU/Linux operating systems?
Nobody is asking for immediate availability of such a Linux-based operating system. Rome wasn't build in a day.

You may as well ask why do we not make cars out of cast iron, as they now have powerful engines which could move the extra weight around at reasonable speeds. Why buy a faster processor and disk only to have the performance gains cancelled by the software?

The car analogy is already a cliche. In terms of rough processing power, why should I limit my 3 GHz beast? I don't worry about people with 300 MHz processors and low amounts of RAM, I can bet there's countless lightweight operating systems and applications, from browsers to window managers.

Not exactly the same thing, but I processed a document yesterday for uploading with a limit of 100kb. The Word document I couldn't get below 115kb, despite deleting 2 of the 4 pages. The same (4 page) document saved in OO format (odt) was 22kb.

This has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Word is using a proprietary bloated format indeed, but it's like that because it was Microsoft's choice, they could as well have chosen an open XML-based format. We're talking about software packaging here, not document formats.

The second is security. If any loophole is found in the library, ALL copies must be updated rather than just one. Since XP (at least) has no centralized repository system, this can be time-consuming to carry out as it would involve visiting ALL of the sites for each application to download the updates, and most users won't bother. Thus security holes are left open. In Ubuntu, a simple, automatic update closes ALL of the holes.

This is where I have to disagree. The responsibility for security updates should always lie with the developer of the program. I cannot state that enough.
Also, what's wrong with application-level update managers? If something goes wrong, one knows whom to blame.

Building not only an operating system, but also the software that operating system will use is a tremendous task. It's as if every distibution reinvents the wheel.

What I'm talking about is a "free market" for software. Design, build, maintain the operating system, let the "market" evolve by itself.

[Soarer]

Agreed, but Windows and OS X managed to do it somehow, why can't FOSS hackers do it too? Could it be because they can't even decide on a standard sound system for GNU/Linux operating systems?
Nobody is asking for immediate availability of such a Linux-based operating system. Rome wasn't build in a day.

I'm not asking for it at all. I think what you are suggesting is a bad option. I prefer it the way it is, for the reasons given.

The car analogy is already a cliche. In terms of rough processing power, why should I limit my 3 GHz beast? I don't worry about people with 300 MHz processors and low amounts of RAM, I can bet there's countless lightweight operating systems and applications, from browsers to window managers.
Even clichés can be true. You didn't answer the point. Why invest in a faster processor & disk if you cancel out the improvements by having bloated software?

This has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Word is using a proprietary bloated format indeed, but it's like that because it was Microsoft's choice, they could as well have chosen an open XML-based format. We're talking about software packaging here, not document formats.

I did say it was 'not exactly the same thing'. Just a pointer.

This is where I have to disagree. The responsibility for security updates should always lie with the developer of the program. I cannot state that enough.
Also, what's wrong with application-level update managers? If something goes wrong, one knows whom to blame.

In Windows world, the responsibility for security updates lies with the user. Evidence is that most don't bother. Ubuntu makes it easier for the average user to keep their OS up-to-date.

Building not only an operating system, but also the software that operating system will use is a tremendous task. It's as if every distibution reinvents the wheel.

What I'm talking about is a "free market" for software. Design, build, maintain the operating system, let the "market" evolve by itself.

I just flat out disagree, I'm afraid. And I don't believe that the Microsoft ecosystem is a 'free market for software' with it's proprietary formats, DRM and device driver signing. Quite the reverse.

[zugu]

I'm not asking for it at all. I think what you are suggesting is a bad option. I prefer it the way it is, for the reasons given.If you like it that way, good for you.

Even clichés can be true. You didn't answer the point. Why invest in a faster processor & disk if you cancel out the improvements by having bloated software?
I prefer "bloated" software to dependency hell. Or the risk of breaking the apt ecosystem. This "bloated" software is much more easier to develop, maintain and deploy.

In Windows world, the responsibility for security updates lies with the user. Evidence is that most don't bother. Ubuntu makes it easier for the average user to keep their OS up-to-date.

You're assume Linux users are not able to make smart choices for themselves. Quite an assumption.

I just flat out disagree, I'm afraid. And I don't believe that the Microsoft ecosystem is a 'free market for software' with it's proprietary formats, DRM and device driver signing. Quite the reverse.

Oh, but it is free. Free as in "flexible". Free as in "allowing users to install anything they want, whenever they want". I despise the idea of Microsoft deciding what's "best" for me, but how are repository maintainers any different, deciding what's best and what's not? How about dropping the whole idea of repositories and letting users decide, having them install software directly from the developer's website? Isn't that desirable?

DRM and proprietary formats are not relevant to the issue we're debating. They could as well exist in Linux.

[Soarer]

If you like it that way, good for you.

Thanks. I think both methods have +ves & -ves to them. I just prefer the repository system

I prefer "bloated" software to dependency hell. Or the risk of breaking the apt ecosystem. This "bloated" software is much more easier to develop, maintain and deploy.

Fair enough. I well remember the DLL hell when XP was first out, and installing an application could often cause another one to stop working. Sometimes 2 apps were completely incompatible. I know it's better now.

You're assume Linux users are not able to make smart choices for themselves. Quite an assumption.

Not at all :). The evidence is that users, generally, do not patch their machines with security updates. I think Linux makes it easier to do so, as there is one update mechanism, not one for each application.

Oh, but it is free. Free as in "flexible". Free as in "allowing users to install anything they want, whenever they want". I despise the idea of Microsoft deciding what's "best" for me, but how are repository maintainers any different, deciding what's best and what's not? How about dropping the whole idea of repositories and letting users decide, having them install software directly from the developer's website? Isn't that desirable?
It may be free as in flexible, but it's not free as in 'free'. Users CAN decide, on Linux, to use software from developer's websites. People do it all the time. I have done it. But I prefer not to, as then I can't use a centralised update facility :)

DRM and proprietary formats are not relevant to the issue we're debating. They could as well exist in Linux.

They could... but they don't :)

[darksong]

I fell both ways of developing software has its pros and con's. Firstly the ubuntu way, which is common in most linux distros i feel is comparable to a Series circuits, if one application goes down the potential of alot of applications bieng damaged is high - and they won't work. It is a domino effect, one thing dies the rest falls with it, which could possibly lead to more re-installs of software, dependices and maybe OS installs. This does loose a bit of bloat and can be easiyer to fix problems in files. But as you May know, in circuits, this was made obselete and replaced with parallel circuits :D

The PCBSD, windows, Mac way is comaparable to a parrallel circuit. If one thing stops working everything else in the circuit can still function. Same in software, if one application crashes, nothing else depends on it, so you can fix the problem without risking damage to anything else. This may take up abit more space, but when done correctly- i feel it is far superior to the ubuntu way. Look @ what PC-BSD has done, all self containing applications and its hardly bloated compared to OpenSuSe and alot of other KDE based OSes. Its makes a safer OS and gives you more freedom as you don't need to worry about what you are installing/uninstalling. Rember in circuits the parallel circuit made the Series obsolete and i feel that its the same in the way applications are installed.

[Soarer]

Rember in circuits the parallel circuit made the Series obsolete and i feel that its the same in the way applications are installed.

DS, my friend, you accuse me of using clichés, and now this :)

I think your interesting theory can be easily disproved. There, I switched on a light. It is on a series circuit. It didn't know it was obsolete - so it just worked.

I agree that there are advantages and drawbacks to both approaches. If the devs treat core library updates with the care they deserve, as a crucial part of the OS, which it is essential to test thoroughly before deployment, then mostly it should be OK. Occasionally, it won't be, but then that was also true of XP SP2 for some people.

[darksong]

DS, my friend, you accuse me of using clichés, and now this :)

I think your interesting theory can be easily disproved. There, I switched on a light. It is on a series circuit. It didn't know it was obsolete - so it just worked.

I agree that there are advantages and drawbacks to both approaches. If the devs treat core library updates with the care they deserve, as a crucial part of the OS, which it is essential to test thoroughly before deployment, then mostly it should be OK. Occasionally, it won't be, but then that was also true of XP SP2 for some people.

Its when things go wrong when you see their true worth :D - Anyway, it will work, series will work, but if you have 2 lightbulbs in a circuit and one of them cuts out/breaks so will the other.

I do agree both ways have their advantages+disadvantage (did i accuse you? sorry), but considering the MS, PCBSD approach my not be such a bad idea.

[Depressed Man]

Nevertheless, it's beta. But I forgot Ubuntu people use to ship beta software in "stable" releases (see Gaim 2.0 beta).

Beta is a funny word. I don't think it's used nowadays like it should be when it comes to testing software. Since we've obviously seen software that has been released as stable when they're not. And software that has been in beta forever yet been more stable then most of its alternatives.

Oh and I found this on the donationcoder forums (well a link to it).

http://windows-get.sourceforge.net/index.php

It looks pretty interesting. If it could tell you when your software needs updates that'd be a huge plus too! I'm trying it myself on my XP install.

[Jeremywilms]

Windows 95 and 98 required a "second edition" to fix all their problems. Windows 2000/ME only lasted 1 year before they were replaced with XP. WinXP had a lot of problems that had to be fixed with SP1. Why should Vista be any different? I would not even think about buying vista for 6-12 months after it is released. Hopefully, by then most of the inevitable problems will be fixed! (This is 'competiton' for Ubuntu??).
Vista will require high end hadware to run smoothly. At least a 3GHz Pentium or equivalet AMD CPU, plus at least 1GB RAM (probably more loke 2 GB for gaming or multitasking, with all the eye candy).
In contrast, you will probably be able to run Dapper on the same PC you have now!

Well the point is...Though people who can afford to, Or need to buy constant upgrades will.. The thing is that Windows Vista saw that computers keep advancing. They just made one mistake. Computers are not ready for the type of software they are making. I think it is good how microsoft wants to keep thriving. Its basicly a decision. If you want up-to-date software and a delux computer get vista. If you don't stay with XP. Please note that vista is still in beta and no one has a right to down it until it has been fully developed.

And yes as softwere gets more advance its going to be harder to fix and add to.

[Frak]

I've tried Win-Get, and I personally like it. Reminds me alot of Apt, but you do have to look at the repo's to know whats there.

[joe.turion64x2]

Even I am a Windows XP user, I think Vista is better than Ubuntu (or Debian, or Fedora or openSUSE for that matter) simply because it allows the user to install anything. And I mean ANYTHING.

On Ubuntu one has to upgrade the whole distribution just to get newer versions of vital software such as Firefox, OO.org, Thunderbird or Gaim/Pidgin. This is where MS got it right: backwards compatibility and self contained apps.

I have friends who rejected Ubuntu when they found out the the repositories are frozen after each release. IMHO, this is a fundamental flaw of Ubuntu. It negates every other achievement, like increased hardware support, ease of use, apt-get etc.

As a power user, I want flexibility. I want to install whatever software I want, whenever I want and not be limited by the repositories. Even Mac OS X got it right, with their self contained .dmg format.

The ubuntu-backports repositories are almost empty, even Debian 4.0 repositories have more software than dapper-backports. The typical excuse is that backporting new features might b0rk the OS. This is proof that the apt-get ecosystem is a very fragile one.

Ubuntu is not an OS, it's not a real platform, it's a collection of software. There's no distinct base, there's just a huge repository that might be considered a platform. And no developer can keep up with a platform that changes every 6 months.

Give me a Ubuntu release every 2 years or more, and give me the ability to install whatever I software is released in the meantime. THEN I'll use Ubuntu.

One last question: why is Compiz compared to Aero? Aero is stable software, while Compiz is in alpha or beta. It's not fair.
And how much do you pay for each Ubuntu upgrade?

Why don't you add air bags to an early Volkswagen? It's new technology, and new technology fits best with new technology.

I remember months ago when I manually installed Firefox 2.0 in Fedora Core 4 (it bundles with Firefox 1.0.x). I could do it, however it was not entirely stable (3+ tabs would crash it). That's why it was not available in the repos (it was not supported and users are not supposed/encouraged to install it).

Joe.

[zugu]

I payed nothing for the Ubuntu upgrade. Just as I payed nothing for SP1, SP2 for Windows XP. Anyway, money has nothing to do with the particular argument of static vs dynamic linking.
I guess you're out of arguments, so you bring up the eternal "price" troll.

Just to clear this up, my time is money. To illustrate, here's an example: I pay for Photoshop, I get things done. I get GIMP for free, I find it completely unintuitive, unusable and defective by design, I spend days just to learn how to do basic things, days I could spend working in Photoshop, making money. Now what is the obvious choice?

If Ubuntu is free, it doesn't mean it can't be criticized. Your argument, that Windows costs money and Ubuntu doesn't is irrelevant. It's as if I can't criticize football players in front of my TV because I am not a professional footballer myself, therefore I shouldn't criticize. BS!

Windows is a product, Ubuntu is a product, too. Price has nothing to do with a technical discussion.

[Soarer]

I payed nothing for the Ubuntu upgrade. Just as I payed nothing for SP1, SP2 for Windows XP. Anyway, money has nothing to do with the particular argument of static vs dynamic linking.
I guess you're out of arguments, so you bring up the eternal "price" troll.

Just to clear this up, my time is money. To illustrate, here's an example: I pay for Photoshop, I get things done. I get GIMP for free, I find it completely unintuitive, unusable and defective by design, I spend days just to learn how to do basic things, days I could spend working in Photoshop, making money. Now what is the obvious choice?

If Ubuntu is free, it doesn't mean it can't be criticized. Your argument, that Windows costs money and Ubuntu doesn't is irrelevant. It's as if I can't criticize football players in front of my TV because I am not a professional footballer myself, therefore I shouldn't criticize. BS!

Windows is a product, Ubuntu is a product, too. Price has nothing to do with a technical discussion.

I had Photoshop, and found it 'completely unintuitive, unusable' but I couldn't say if it was defective because I never took the hours needed to learn it properly.

By your own admission, you haven't spent nearly as much time on GIMP as you did learning Photoshop. I don't know which is better, or more intuitive or easier to learn, or whatever, but then, neither do you.

If you know how to use something OF COURSE it's intuitive.

To you, if to no-one else. Sheesh.

No-one cares if you prefer Photoshop to GIMP. If you do, fine, use it.

[zugu]

I had Photoshop, and found it 'completely unintuitive, unusable' but I couldn't say if it was defective because I never took the hours needed to learn it properly.

By your own admission, you haven't spent nearly as much time on GIMP as you did learning Photoshop. I don't know which is better, or more intuitive or easier to learn, or whatever, but then, neither do you.

If you know how to use something OF COURSE it's intuitive.

To you, if to no-one else. Sheesh.

No-one cares if you prefer Photoshop to GIMP. If you do, fine, use it.

You got it wrong, but you proved my point. I was merely trying to prove joe.turion64x2 that he was wrong when he brought up the price argument in the "Windows vs Ubuntu" discussion, while the debate was about package management. It's totally irrelevant. Just as you noticed.

However, just as you don't care about me using Photoshop, I also don't care about GIMP users. i see GIMP as something that has long passed the point of salvation. However, I am in this thread because I support Linux as an alternative to Windows, and I want to find some answers about what I think it's wrong with it.

So please, let's get back to the discussion and debate the pros and cons of each software deployment philosophy.

In short, self contained apps are good because:

- are easier to develop, the developer is not concerned with what's installed on the target system and whatnot.
- are easier to deploy, the user is not concerned about dependencies.
- are easier to manage and remove - the base system is not affected, not even the other applications, not even other versions of the same application, everything is "bottled"

In short, self contained apps are bad because:

- they represent a security risk - if a security flaw is discovered in a library, it can't be upgraded in a timely manner through centralized software management.

I think the burden of patching and fixing software lies with the developer and the responsibility of applying those patches and fixes lies with the user. I am sure everyone agrees. So it's not an issue of security, it's an issue of developer and user responsibility. If both parties do their job, everything is OK.

- they eat huge quantities of HDD, RAM and CPU - this is nothing that can't be fixed through optimization and a more intelligent and responsible use of development libraries. PC-BSD did a fine job and their operating system does not seem bloated at all. If you don't believe me, just try it.

In short, a centralized software management system is good because:

- no need for explanations here, you already know the pros.

In short, a centralized management system is bad because:

- it forces the user to use certain version of application (yes, "forcing" is the right word, since adding testing repos, compiling from source and using third-party debs are NOT methods recommended by the developers)
- if something goes wrong, the whole package ecosystem can crumble; it's the "house of cards", or the "domino" effect;
- testing such an environment can take TOO long (see Debian release cycle), therefore users are encouraged to use old/obsolete versions of software, just because "they're tested thoroughly".
- managing such an environment is a sisyphic task

These are the arguments, I would prefer you to attack them and prove me wrong, especially in the "centralized management system is bad" area.

Please refrain from posting personal preferences, let's discuss this from a technical point of view. What is more desirable and, most importantly, why?

[weblordpepe]

The way I see it, having all the applications use shared libraries reminds me of installing all programs in the root directory (C:\) of a windows machine.

Thats how it seems some times.

Its always /etc/program/config.conf
or /bin/program/conf.conf

Its like all programs have their root in the root directory. I know its just the reverse of windows, but it stops applications from being self-contained, like in windows.

Windows has the motto of OS has all the libraries, and each application uses what it needs from the OS.

In UNIX/Linux there is no distinction between applications and the OS. Apps provide half the components. Who knows if thats a good thing or a bad thing. What defines the OS comes down to your distro & what is considered official & what isn't.

[ukripper]

B0RING

:guitar:

[zugu]

B0RING

:guitar:

If this thread bores you, you could as well refrain from posting, or even from reading it.

[weblordpepe]

Actually ukripper has a point. This thread is 163 pages long. I bet there are many more threads like it on various sites on the information super-highway.
Let this be the last post:
WINDOWS SUX, LINUX RUELZ!!!!!!!!!!

[darksong]

Actually ukripper has a point. This thread is 163 pages long. I bet there are many more threads like it on various sites on the information super-highway.
Let this be the last post:
WINDOWS SUX, LINUX RUELZ!!!!!!!!!!

Please, spam somewhere else, i can come up with a long list of reasons why your statment is incorrect but when you post like that i feel the need not to.

[joe.turion64x2]

I payed nothing for the Ubuntu upgrade. Just as I payed nothing for SP1, SP2 for Windows XP. Anyway, money has nothing to do with the particular argument of static vs dynamic linking.
I guess you're out of arguments, so you bring up the eternal "price" troll.

Just to clear this up, my time is money. To illustrate, here's an example: I pay for Photoshop, I get things done. I get GIMP for free, I find it completely unintuitive, unusable and defective by design, I spend days just to learn how to do basic things, days I could spend working in Photoshop, making money. Now what is the obvious choice?

If Ubuntu is free, it doesn't mean it can't be criticized. Your argument, that Windows costs money and Ubuntu doesn't is irrelevant. It's as if I can't criticize football players in front of my TV because I am not a professional footballer myself, therefore I shouldn't criticize. BS!

Windows is a product, Ubuntu is a product, too. Price has nothing to do with a technical discussion.

The 'price troll' was just a bonus, you did not even see my main argument:
Why don't you add air bags to an early Volkswagen? It's new technology, and new technology fits best with new technology.
If Ubuntu allowed software to be 'infinitely' upgraded within its repositories then many incompatibility problems would arise for sure, and people would be blaming Linux for being an unstable system. Or course you can upgrade at your own risk (contrary to what happens in Windows XP where, if you have SP1 only it would refuse to install stuff (mainly updated) UNLESS you update to SP2. There is no work around to that, you can not simply download from the developers web page because, hey! they are the developers!).

Have you tried to install Zone Alarm in a Windows 98 machine?

In a way this forums and Canonical (if you get paid support) would only support 'reliable' configurations of software, i.e. software designed for a given distribution (bundled). Of course you theoretically could get help for other 'unsupported' software but that is not the main point. In other words, any given Ubuntu system is 'guaranteed'/designed to run well with a set of software (versions), if you run different versions then you are under your own risk. (and that occurs with MS as well).

Joe.

[zugu]

I believe I speak the truth when I say that 80% or more of the software released for XP works on Vista, without any modification, and the time interval between the releases is 6 years. This percent will probably increase when SP1 is released. On Ubuntu, most software released for the previous version won't work on the current one or it will bring instability with itself, even if the release cycle is only 6 months.

In the Windows world, newer versions of the applications cannot affect the core of the operating system because they are not using predominantly shared libraries. Ubuntu's fragility comes from the flawed design decision of using a repository, a centralized package management system.

Have fun with your vendor lock in, I prefer not to use such a poor excuse for an operating system.

[weblordpepe]

Please, spam somewhere else, i can come up with a long list of reasons why your statment is incorrect but when you post like that i feel the need not to.Dont be such an egg. I was being silly. Look this thread is huge and its going nowhere.

[Frak]

IMHO, Vista is a poor excuse for an operating system, it was built for vanity. Thats it. Ubuntu was built for being used. You can have your vanity if you want, and we have people here to help you get that vanity, without sacrificing usability in the process, and without taking up too much resources.
Ubuntu's great because it has shared libraries, which are space efficient and resource efficient. If you have multiple shared libraries running at once, it can cause conflicts and slow all processes. Shared libraries have no conflicts thanks to
1) Being the only Library of its kind.
2) Conflicts are calculated on install, so nothing fights with it.
Vista was kinda fast when I installed it, but two weeks later it really bogged down. I had to run CCleaner to fix registry problems (230 issues on install, 2489 issues two weeks later). Ubuntu uses XML scripts, which can get very clogged up, but since they aren't in a central database. It only affects that one app. not the entire OS.
@zugu
Think things through a little more. Also realize, Ubuntu is not commercial, Windows is. They have more developers than Ubuntu does. It could take an Ubuntu developer 3 weeks to solve a problem, when Microsoft could just pay 100 devs to get it done in 3 minutes. Though we do have innovation, Microsoft has Apple and Linux to copy off of. (doesn't the UAC remind you alot of sudo in Linux? Does the Window profiling remind you of Expose` in MacOSX?)

[Dennis123]

And now we think about our vanity Vista Libraries. There's no single DLL, that isn't shared except form some small application dependent dlls, that noone else needs. I only think of kernel32, user32, advapi32, ole... all shared
If you create a windows program It's likely that you don't need any external lib, that you don't get with the OS.

[darksong]

IMHO, Vista is a poor excuse for an operating system, it was built for vanity. Thats it. Ubuntu was built for being used. You can have your vanity if you want, and we have people here to help you get that vanity, without sacrificing usability in the process, and without taking up too much resources.
Ubuntu's great because it has shared libraries, which are space efficient and resource efficient. If you have multiple shared libraries running at once, it can cause conflicts and slow all processes. Shared libraries have no conflicts thanks to
1) Being the only Library of its kind.
2) Conflicts are calculated on install, so nothing fights with it.
Vista was kinda fast when I installed it, but two weeks later it really bogged down. I had to run CCleaner to fix registry problems (230 issues on install, 2489 issues two weeks later). Ubuntu uses XML scripts, which can get very clogged up, but since they aren't in a central database. It only affects that one app. not the entire OS.
@zugu
Think things through a little more. Also realize, Ubuntu is not commercial, Windows is. They have more developers than Ubuntu does. It could take an Ubuntu developer 3 weeks to solve a problem, when Microsoft could just pay 100 devs to get it done in 3 minutes. Though we do have innovation, Microsoft has Apple and Linux to copy off of. (doesn't the UAC remind you alot of sudo in Linux? Does the Window profiling remind you of Expose` in MacOSX?)

I disagree with some of the points that were made. I belive that both Os were made to be used, but by different people. Windows is designed to be used by anyone, any person without technical skills can pick up windows and use it out of the box without much hassel. Configuration, setting up look and feel and installing application are much easiyer in windows than ubuntu.

ubuntu's target must be more for the technicaily skilled person. Often , in guides on the wiki and advice given of the forums require typing many commands into the unfriendly command interface, unlike some distros which give GUI tools which willmean you will probably never need to touch the command line (Opensuse, mandriva, PClinuxOS) Ubuntu lacks many tools, you get a basic set of GUI tools which allows you to do many basic adminastrive tasks on the OS, but beyond that you will need to use command line. Look at editing X.org - PClinuxOS gives an automated way which allows configuration of 3d effects, enabling of 3D driver, selecting monitor and drivers, on ubuntu most of this would have to be done through command line.

Another way on which show that ubuntu shows it was made for a more advanced audience is by keeping the standard and ugly brown gnome interface, unlike linux mint who made great efforts by creating a controll pannel and their own menu to make their gnome interface user friendly, ubuntu has decided to use the 3 menu-layout which tends to scatter things all over the place. Whereas all types of windows has a clear and easy to use interface, which on vista, looks good. (Sure you can get better eye candy on ubuntu through compiz fusion, but eye candy doesn't make for a easiyer to use interface)

So to say ubuntu was built to be used and windows was for vanity is no entirely true. Many ways can we see both were made to be used but both has differnt audiences and different targets.

Thanks for reading.

[joe.turion64x2]

I disagree with some of the points that were made. I belive that both Os were made to be used, but by different people. Windows is designed to be used by anyone, any person without technical skills can pick up windows and use it out of the box without much hassel. Configuration, setting up look and feel and installing application are much easiyer in windows than ubuntu.

ubuntu's target must be more for the technicaily skilled person. Often , in guides on the wiki and advice given of the forums require typing many commands into the unfriendly command interface, unlike some distros which give GUI tools which willmean you will probably never need to touch the command line (Opensuse, mandriva, PClinuxOS) Ubuntu lacks many tools, you get a basic set of GUI tools which allows you to do many basic adminastrive tasks on the OS, but beyond that you will need to use command line. Look at editing X.org - PClinuxOS gives an automated way which allows configuration of 3d effects, enabling of 3D driver, selecting monitor and drivers, on ubuntu most of this would have to be done through command line.

Another way on which show that ubuntu shows it was made for a more advanced audience is by keeping the standard and ugly brown gnome interface, unlike linux mint who made great efforts by creating a controll pannel and their own menu to make their gnome interface user friendly, ubuntu has decided to use the 3 menu-layout which tends to scatter things all over the place. Whereas all types of windows has a clear and easy to use interface, which on vista, looks good. (Sure you can get better eye candy on ubuntu through compiz fusion, but eye candy doesn't make for a easiyer to use interface)

So to say ubuntu was built to be used and windows was for vanity is no entirely true. Many ways can we see both were made to be used but both has differnt audiences and different targets.

Thanks for reading.
The fact that you find it ugly does not mean that it IS. You could ask in Africa for example, and I am sure many Americans will find it nice too. Furthermore the color/look a program/DE has does not imply it is hard to use. From your stand point a system with a wallpaper featuring a nude model would be for dumb people.

Joe.

[darksong]

no i am stating that ubuntu's interface is not user friendly and windows is. I am also stating that ubuntu's menus, especially the system menu is orginised in a way that is confusing and not user friendly. I also state that other linux distros and other OS have done thing much better than ubuntu, pclinuxos controll center, pcbsd pbi's and the way the os is built, windows user friendly interface.

I think the way ubuntu is built is for more advanced and for people with more computer experience.

Its a matter of opinion, you may think my opinion is wrong, i respect you views. I did not state "a wallpaper featuring a nude model would be for dumb people" i said the way ubuntu is set out and the theme is not attractive or user friendly, instead confusing (for a first time user, untill you can get used to it) and clutterd.

Many thanks
DS

[Frak]

no i am stating that ubuntu's interface is not user friendly and windows is. I am also stating that ubuntu's menus, especially the system menu is orginised in a way that is confusing and not user friendly. I also state that other linux distros and other OS have done thing much better than ubuntu, pclinuxos controll center, pcbsd pbi's and the way the os is built, windows user friendly interface.

I think the way ubuntu is built is for more advanced and for people with more computer experience.

Its a matter of opinion, you may think my opinion is wrong, i respect you views. I did not state "a wallpaper featuring a nude model would be for dumb people" i said the way ubuntu is set out and the theme is not attractive or user friendly, instead confusing (for a first time user, untill you can get used to it) and clutterd.

Many thanks
DS
Do you mean that having a menu saying Applications is too hard to understand? Or having menu's that list by genre, such as Sound & Video, System tools, Games, and Graphics are too hard to understand?
Or do you mean since there is not one central menu that shows a menu with apps makes it un-user friendly, because in that case you are also wrong. We call it Kubuntu.

[darksong]

How can an opinion be wrong? Please expalin - firstly the way the system menu it set out is terrible, linux mint felt the same way and adressed it, when i started using ubuntu i could spend 1-2 minuets searching through settings menus looking for the tool i wanted. It, in my opinion is un-orginised and thus not user friendly, even sometimes i get another settings menu in the application menu, this a number of time has lead me to belive the tools that i install would come under the system menu which would lead me to search through menus like a melon untill i found what i wanted.

Again, its an opinion. Yours may differer and i expect that, just as my opinion differes to your that Vista sucks - i feel that its the best os i have used.

[Frak]

I never stated "Teh Vista Suxors"
Its just that your "menu's are laid out horribly" doesn't hold much ground. Explain yourself how it should be better, becuase all I hear you say is that it should look more like the Windows, which is not intuitivism, its familiarism.
My opinion is that Linux Mints menu is horribly laid out, too cluttered, not organized, and doesn't blend in with the rest of the OS.

[joe.turion64x2]

no i am stating that ubuntu's interface is not user friendly and windows is. I am also stating that ubuntu's menus, especially the system menu is orginised in a way that is confusing and not user friendly. I also state that other linux distros and other OS have done thing much better than ubuntu, pclinuxos controll center, pcbsd pbi's and the way the os is built, windows user friendly interface.

I think the way ubuntu is built is for more advanced and for people with more computer experience.

Its a matter of opinion, you may think my opinion is wrong, i respect you views. I did not state "a wallpaper featuring a nude model would be for dumb people" i said the way ubuntu is set out and the theme is not attractive or user friendly, instead confusing (for a first time user, untill you can get used to it) and clutterd.

Many thanks
DS
I see your point. However you have to admit that user friendliness is somewhat subjective and varies among people. You can not claim to speak for all users out there.

In my opinion Ubuntu is the most user friendly Linux out there (strictly limiting my statement to the distros I have tested: Sabayon, Mandriva, PCLOS, Fedora, Debian, SUSE, Ubuntu). In fact this is the Linux I install to my friend in order to avoid later calls asking for support because an update screwed things up (hello Fedora!). However I use Fedora because I like to tinker & fix.

Ubuntu's (and Linux's in general) menus are more intuitive than Windows, or at least less problematic to deal with. Why? Because Linux menus usually are logically organized: you no longer need to know (remember) the name of the program you want to use (provided it is installed); it suffices to know which task you want to accomplish (of course if you need to type a letter you know your's is an office task and, surprise! there is a submenu called Office where you will find the required program). With Windows you have to rely in the program name and if the program you know is not in the machine you will have to ask which program to use.

Vista only prevented the usually large "All programs" submenu to pop up (cluttering the whole screen), but you still need to know the name of your program. Some people find this easier and I won't blame them when I find it harder. But most of the people I know find Linux menus easier. I will specify that I am talking about GNOME.

Thanks.
Joe.

[joe.turion64x2]

The only thing that bothers me sometimes (when I get a new version of Linux) is that several items are moved from menu (mainly system tools). However that is not a big issue because there are few possible places where they can be, they are still in logical places, and they don't move once I find them :)

By the way Windows does it too from time to time.

Joe.

[darksong]

i contradicted my self a little - i didn't mean not user friendly in the second bit - i meant not user friendly to new users

@ frak - i don't claim to say windows way is the best - personally i like the suse way the most, i find that the most easy to use and innotive way of a menu system. I feel that ubuntu's menu system is too fractionised, the way most other distros such as sabayon, opensuse, Pclinuxos and others do it is much better.

@ joe.turion64x2 - i dont speak for all users, i express my opinion and my own felling about ubuntu, i feel that is all that work is going into the most popular/fastest growing linux distrobution why not put the effort in on making the user interface look good and user friendly. If ubuntu is starting to ship with dell and made aware to the public, why not make your own menus style of menu, like linuxmint and opensuse which is friendly to the average windows user who wants to come into linux, it would also help set the distro apart from others. What make ubuntu more speacial from debian apart from its thrithing community, in the coding its different but to the average user who cares? Better yet, why not give the option of the normal gnome style menu's(which i stated before what i feel about it) and a more (in my opinion) friendly all in 1 place one. Doesn't that also provide more freedom of choise over YOUR linux operating system, linux is all about you bieng able to do what you want with the system, to the average user they don't have a choise. And if they are like me, don't like the menu layout - why not provide an alternative - Vista gives you choise, sabayon gives you choise, opensuse give you a choise - why doens't the most popular on give you that choise?

[joe.turion64x2]

i contradicted my self a little - i didn't mean not user friendly in the second bit - i meant not user friendly to new users :D
You need to define "new users".

If by "new users" you mean former Windows users then it will be unfamiliar and perhaps a little user-unfriendly.

If you mean by "new users" former MAC users then they will find it similar and not as user-unfriendly as in the previous sentence.

Finally if you mean by "new users" entirely new users of a computer then it remains to be seen. From my experience with several cousins (new to computing) they have found Linux (GNOME) easier than Windows. I have read about several forum members whose children were raised using Linux and they find it extremely easy (new users too).

In general, if the user likes to read s/he will be alright.

Thanks.
Joe.

[darksong]

You need to define "new users".

If by "new users" you mean former Windows users then it will be unfamiliar and perhaps a little user-unfriendly.

If you mean by "new users" former MAC users then they will find it similar and not as user-unfriendly as in the previous sentence.

Finally if you mean by "new users" entirely new users of a computer then it remains to be seen. From my experience with several cousins (new to computing) they have found Linux (GNOME) easier than Windows. I have read about several forum members whose children were raised using Linux and they find it extremely easy (new users too).

In general, if the user likes to read s/he will be alright.

Thanks.
Joe.

True, just speaking from personal experience :D

[joe.turion64x2]

True, just speaking from personal experience :D
Very well then :)

[Frak]

i contradicted my self a little - i didn't mean not user friendly in the second bit - i meant not user friendly to new users

@ frak - i don't claim to say windows way is the best - personally i like the suse way the most, i find that the most easy to use and innotive way of a menu system. I feel that ubuntu's menu system is too fractionised, the way most other distros such as sabayon, opensuse, Pclinuxos and others do it is much better.

@ joe.turion64x2 - i dont speak for all users, i express my opinion and my own felling about ubuntu, i feel that is all that work is going into the most popular/fastest growing linux distrobution why not put the effort in on making the user interface look good and user friendly. If ubuntu is starting to ship with dell and made aware to the public, why not make your own menus style of menu, like linuxmint and opensuse which is friendly to the average windows user who wants to come into linux, it would also help set the distro apart from others. What make ubuntu more speacial from debian apart from its thrithing community, in the coding its different but to the average user who cares? Better yet, why not give the option of the normal gnome style menu's(which i stated before what i feel about it) and a more (in my opinion) friendly all in 1 place one. Doesn't that also provide more freedom of choise over YOUR linux operating system, linux is all about you bieng able to do what you want with the system, to the average user they don't have a choise. And if they are like me, don't like the menu layout - why not provide an alternative - Vista gives you choise, sabayon gives you choise, opensuse give you a choise - why doens't the most popular on give you that choise?
Ah, ok, now I know who your talking about. You need to state new users more often.
Without something like the start menu, I can see a little confusion to the new user. I know I was the first time I used Gnome in '97. One, it was ugly. Two, I didn't know what to do.
But I totally agree with you on that now.

[ukripper]

If this thread bores you, you could as well refrain from posting, or even from reading it.

Well it does bore me because conversation actually here is going nowhere and stretching this thread for no reason(waste of several Mbytes on ubuntu server)... there is no comparison between these two -- Linux and Vista???? Shouldn't be Ubuntu vs Vista at first place? Linux has several distros and don't make no sense comparing Linux( as a one OS). And sorry I can't refrain myself posting as this thread should end as it is getting lame, hence, BORING! Just trying to point it out. If you feel offended I apologise.

Meanwhile enjoy ubuntu :popcorn:

[Frak]

Well, since Ubuntu-Geek isn't complaining, I see nothing wrong.8-)

[xpnetgod]

Of course! Vista has been rejected by the federal government, schools, even businesses. Very few people will use it.

[steven_vo]

MS said that Vista will be the best ever. But the first Sp is going to appear??! MS and OpenSource have their fans. MS is good for whom, need Every thing is ordered, sorted and go to eat ( and it costs), while Open Source is for whom, need nature, user-defined and discovery ( its free)!!! http://ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/guitar.gif

[darksong]

Of course! Vista has been rejected by the federal government, schools, even businesses. Very few people will use it.

Microsoft has moved to counter criticism about the uptake of Vista by announcing that it now has shipped 60 million copies of the OS.

http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=9631&pagtype=all

[Frak]

That's 59,000,000 wasted copies :lolflag:
Just kidding (58 Million)

[macogw]

I payed nothing for the Ubuntu upgrade. Just as I payed nothing for SP1, SP2 for Windows XP. Anyway, money has nothing to do with the particular argument of static vs dynamic linking.
I guess you're out of arguments, so you bring up the eternal "price" troll.

Just to clear this up, my time is money. To illustrate, here's an example: I pay for Photoshop, I get things done. I get GIMP for free, I find it completely unintuitive, unusable and defective by design, I spend days just to learn how to do basic things, days I could spend working in Photoshop, making money. Now what is the obvious choice?


Photoshop has too many buttons hidden all over the place and impossible to find when needed. I'll take Jasc...er...Corel, now...Paint Shop Pro over Photoshop any day.

Ubuntu upgrades aren't really comparable to SP2. That's just a regular update. It's more like XP -> Vista.

Anyway though, there are some distros that have "current" and it's a rolling stable, so the repos are continuously updated. Most distros do it like Ubuntu because it creates a stable API and devs know that whatever they make on day 1 of release, it'll fit perfectly a year later.

[macogw]

Microsoft has moved to counter criticism about the uptake of Vista by announcing that it now has shipped 60 million copies of the OS.

http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=9631&pagtype=all

"Shipped" doesn't mean sh**. They could all be sitting on the shelves of Best Buy / CompUSA / Circuit City or in the trash....but they were still "shipped" out of Microsoft's warehouse.

[darksong]

That's 59,000,000 wasted copies :lolflag:
Just kidding (58 Million)

evidence plx.

@ macogw - the fact remains that probably in the first week of vista being released - the number of people using vista far exeedes the amount using ubuntu.

[dobica]

John I see that you never have tried ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn or another version with Beryl installed. First Linux works a lot better than windows vista, does not have so many errors like Vista has, you dont have to be worried for viruses and spywares and finally i leave this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5uEe5OzNQ

See it for yourself!!!!

BYE

UBUNTU RULES!!!!!
http://muadib.mt.googlepages.com/Bill_recomienda_ubuntu5.jpg

[darksong]

John I see that you never have tried ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn or another version with Beryl installed. First Linux works a lot better than windows vista, does not have so many errors like Vista has, you dont have to be worried for viruses and spywares and finally i leave this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5uEe5OzNQ

See it for yourself!!!!

BYE

UBUNTU RULES!!!!!
http://muadib.mt.googlepages.com/Bill_recomienda_ubuntu5.jpg

I wouldn't have a clue how to set up ubuntu to look like that, firstly i would have to install compiz fusion, then i would have to spend a couple of days learning compiz fusion as its total rehall of beryl. After i enabled the effects and mess around with hot-keys so that they work witout messing about with system bound hot-keys. After that i would have to hunt down the wall paper - which in many occasions people make for themselfves and do not share so i am left with the ugly ubuntu defult - so i would have to spend a couple of hours searching through the forums, gnome and kde look to get the wall paper i wanted. After that i would have to spend a couple of days searching for a theme i liked or wanted and proabably post on these forums to see how to get it working if it ubuntu couldn't install it. Then i would have to search for a working dock bar which gave the effects and options of that bar, often it would require hacking ubuntu or compling it from source. After all of this i would have to search for the icon set i wanted and looked good.

This all in totaly would proably take 2-5 days to get it looking like that. Anyone without the techniqual expierence of myself would not be able to face using command line, searching websites and spend hours reading just to set up their desktop.

With vista i can get it to do all of this in a few minuets.

For the average person, the OS will never look as good as that ubuntu install unless that person was committed to learning compiz fusion, on how to install it and how to use its features and endlessly searching websites in order to get it looking like that. Its not viable. I know everyone is going to post - i done that in 1 hour or anyone could do that. The fact is the new person to linux would not know where to start.

That picture made me lol :D

[joe.turion64x2]

I wouldn't have a clue how to set up ubuntu to look like that, firstly i would have to install compiz fusion, then i would have to spend a couple of days learning compiz fusion as its total rehall of beryl. After i enabled the effects and mess around with hot-keys so that they work witout messing about with system bound hot-keys. After that i would have to hunt down the wall paper - which in many occasions people make for themselfves and do not share so i am left with the ugly ubuntu defult - so i would have to spend a couple of hours searching through the forums, gnome and kde look to get the wall paper i wanted. After that i would have to spend a couple of days searching for a theme i liked or wanted and proabably post on these forums to see how to get it working if it ubuntu couldn't install it. Then i would have to search for a working dock bar which gave the effects and options of that bar, often it would require hacking ubuntu or compling it from source. After all of this i would have to search for the icon set i wanted and looked good.

This all in totaly would proably take 2-5 days to get it looking like that. Anyone without the techniqual expierence of myself would not be able to face using command line, searching websites and spend hours reading just to set up their desktop.

With vista i can get it to do all of this in a few minuets.

For the average person, the OS will never look as good as that ubuntu install unless that person was committed to learning compiz fusion, on how to install it and how to use its features and endlessly searching websites in order to get it looking like that. Its not viable. I know everyone is going to post - i done that in 1 hour or anyone could do that. The fact is the new person to linux would not know where to start.
Well, I would need to work three or four weeks to get the cash to buy Vista. I think it is fair enough to spend some time customizing Ubuntu.

Joe.

[darksong]

Please tell me where i could start to get my ubuntu laptop install to look like that. Please could i have links to Theme, background, compiz fusion install and compiz fusion feature guide, also please could you post links to the icons and mac sytle bar and a guide to which i could customize it to that way the animations show, also could i have a link 2 the working cube backdrop. After all of that please could you post a guide so i can my hardware which has a old intel gma with 16mb of graphics ram so it has 3d acelleration.

Many thanks

Ds

[kamaboko]

Well, I would need to work three or four weeks to get the cash to buy Vista. I think it is fair enough to spend some time customizing Ubuntu.

Joe.

It would take you 3 to 4 weeks to save $120?

[Carbon Tiger]

Please tell me where i could start to get my ubuntu laptop install to look like that. Please could i have links to Theme, background, compiz fusion install and compiz fusion guide, also please could you post links to the icons and mac sytle bar and a guide to which i could customize it that way so animation show, also could i have a link 2 the working cube backdrop. After all of that please could you post a guide so i can optimise my hardware to work for compiz fusion.

Many thanks

Ds


Ok themes background and icons go to:

http://www.gnome-look.org/ or for wallpapers go to http://www.deviantart.com/ and search wallpapers. You do have to dig around to find something you like sometimes but thats ANY OS.

As for icons I like the mac icons: http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php/OsX_MoD?content=54851

To install go under theme click on customize go to icons click install and click the file you downloaded and it'll install. For straight themes just go under themes and click install.

Ok for the doc bar when I did use it I used avant window bar. To install it do this:

Go under admin on your system menu and then click software sources click add and add these two:

deb http://download.tuxfamily.org/syzygy42 feisty avant-window-navigator
deb-src http://download.tuxfamily.org/syzygy42 feisty avant-window-navigator

Open terminal and cut and past the following:

wget http://download.tuxfamily.org/syzygy42/8434D43A.gpg
sudo apt-key add 8434D43A.gpg
rm 8434D43A.gpg
sudo apt-get update

And finally

avant-window-navigator-bzr

in the terminal do this. It should be under programs now I think under accessories. Be sure you have beryl or CF running or it won't look right. Fiddle with it to your hearts content its a fun program.

Also remember you can right click pannels to change their color or make them transparent ect.

Can't help with CF I still use beryl I'm sure someone here can however.

Good luck.

[kamaboko]

"Shipped" doesn't mean sh**. They could all be sitting on the shelves of Best Buy / CompUSA / Circuit City or in the trash....but they were still "shipped" out of Microsoft's warehouse.

Uh...yes. Shipped does mean ****. They were sold to Best Buy/CompUSA/Circuit City and they in turn sell them to consumers. The fact is, those units are sold.

[Carbon Tiger]

Uh...yes. Shipped does mean ****. They were sold to Best Buy/CompUSA/Circuit City and they in turn sell them to consumers. The fact is, those units are sold.

True MS does get a small amount of money due to contracts with these businesses however it is a small amount. Also these are NOT units sold these are units shipped. A unit is not sold until its sold to a customer. The two terms mean different things. These units are not units sold.

[darksong]

Ok themes background and icons go to:

http://www.gnome-look.org/ or for wallpapers go to http://www.deviantart.com/ and search wallpapers. You do have to dig around to find something you like sometimes but thats ANY OS.

As for icons I like the mac icons: http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php/OsX_MoD?content=54851

To install go under theme click on customize go to icons click install and click the file you downloaded and it'll install. For straight themes just go under themes and click install.

Ok for the doc bar when I did use it I used avant window bar. To install it do this:

Go under admin on your system menu and then click software sources click add and add these two:

deb http://download.tuxfamily.org/syzygy42 feisty avant-window-navigator
deb-src http://download.tuxfamily.org/syzygy42 feisty avant-window-navigator

Open terminal and cut and past the following:

wget http://download.tuxfamily.org/syzygy42/8434D43A.gpg
sudo apt-key add 8434D43A.gpg
rm 8434D43A.gpg
sudo apt-get update

And finally

avant-window-navigator-bzr

in the terminal do this. It should be under programs now I think under accessories. Be sure you have beryl or CF running or it won't look right. Fiddle with it to your hearts content its a fun program.

Also remember you can right click pannels to change their color or make them transparent ect.

Can't help with CF I still use beryl I'm sure someone here can however.

Good luck.

A thank you is due here - Thank you very much :D

[darksong]

True MS does get a small amount of money due to contracts with these businesses however it is a small amount. Also these are NOT units sold these are units shipped. A unit is not sold until its sold to a customer. The two terms mean different things. These units are not units sold.

Most probably the majority of these units are sold.

[Frak]

I know alot of people that won't buy Vista just because they get the upgrade free from their computer manufacturer. Still though, that isn't units sold, or at least it isn't IMHO. The only ones I count are when the customer actually has to pull out money to buy it.

[kamaboko]

True MS does get a small amount of money due to contracts with these businesses however it is a small amount. Also these are NOT units sold these are units shipped. A unit is not sold until its sold to a customer. The two terms mean different things. These units are not units sold.

So what you're saying then is that Best Buy, etc., warehouse these units until customers buy them and absolutely no money exchanges b/t MS and Best Buy, etc., until that happens?

[Frak]

Actually stores don't pay their fees until that one unit is sold. It is expensive and dangerous to pay for merchandise ahead of time. Exept for Wal-Mart, thats how they keep their prices low, is because upfront payments are cheaper. But I know for a fact, only 3 or 4 warehouse type stores like Wal-Mart actually pay for their units upfront.
Staples, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. Pay only when it is sold.

[Carbon Tiger]

So what you're saying then is that Best Buy, etc., warehouse these units until customers buy them and absolutely no money exchanges b/t MS and Best Buy, etc., until that happens?

Pretty much yeah.

Frak explains it very well in the post right above mine.

Now business to business sales make up the majority of all sales. However upfront payment is used for either materials (something you use in the production of something you sell) or a finished item used in the business, like say cost for a new mainframe system.

When buying a finished consumer good to sell to a customer the only stores that pay up front (again as Frak said) are Wal Mart and 3 or so huge rich chain stores. Now smaller business may buy upfront but they aren't buying a ton of goods. That and they only buy things they know are going to move.
So the kind of electronic stores that are selling MS stuff, MS is only getting a profit if the product is sold.

I'd also like to add that its impossible to gage how well Vista is selling on its own and on its own merit. The reason for this is that MS's numbers are inflated by the fact they've shoehorned their OS on every computer they can find. Often this leads to people who aren't buying Vista but just need a CPU and Vista is installed on it. I think counting the number of real Vista upgrades (and full installs) purchased presents a truer number of what really has sold.

Also add to the fact that Dell started selling XP again due to consumer feedback. I think MS may have done themselves more harm then good by doing this (flooding the market) because they're putting Vista on CPUs it really shouldn't be on. (512 MB ram) If they anger a lot of their user base this makes them unlikely to buy from them again in the future.

Not smart business.

[Frak]

I agree, Vista was a mistake of Microsoft. If they would have gone after the market they were going after in the first place (Business) they would be ok now. What they're trying to do is make technology just magically improve ten fold. Which is starting to blow up in their face. They only way to stay afloat is to join with companies who are marketing for business (Novell, RedHat, etc) and share profits.
They tried too hard to compete with Apple, which was stupid because they own half of it anyway. Their pride got in the way of their brains.

[cmat]

As much as Microsoft screwed me over. I really don't want to see them go the way of IBM (they had a huge building downtown and now it's gone). A company with that many resources could really benefit the market but they had to ruin it all by forcing people to do things their way or there is no way. DRM, WGA, and other corporate bells and whistles really killed it for them.

[joe.turion64x2]

It would take you 3 to 4 weeks to save $120?
Mostly. There are other things I have to pay.

[darksong]

I agree, Vista was a mistake of Microsoft. If they would have gone after the market they were going after in the first place (Business) they would be ok now. What they're trying to do is make technology just magically improve ten fold. Which is starting to blow up in their face. They only way to stay afloat is to join with companies who are marketing for business (Novell, RedHat, etc) and share profits.
They tried too hard to compete with Apple, which was stupid because they own half of it anyway. Their pride got in the way of their brains.

The competition that Apple provide microsoft is laughable, the fact remain that Microsoft the major OS and the os of choise for most people - around 90% of people use a Ms os.

Technology doesn't have to improved x10 for vista to work. A duron 1800, 512mb ram, geforce 4 mx440 can quite happily run Vista with aero.

[Frak]

The competition that Apple provide microsoft is laughable, the fact remain that Microsoft the major OS and the os of choise for most people - around 90% of people use a Ms os.

Technology doesn't have to improved x10 for vista to work. A duron 1800, 512mb ram, geforce 4 mx440 can quite happily run Vista with aero.
Are you sure?
I never said Apple was winning, I was just saying Apple has always boasted being the most user friendly computer manufacturer.
Microsoft has a big ego. Nobody can debate that. They just want to show the world that they too can be ultra user friendly, and look good at the same time. What they didn't take into account was the time it would take, the amount of work, and most of all the cost of it. Out of desperation, they release this OS to the world. It's blowing up in their face so far by my standards. Because my standards are based on units sold to the customer, and the user satisfaction with it after comparing it to another of its kind, even if its comparision is to OSX.
If you see, Microsoft would rather boast about common and make it look grand, instead of implying its mistake and correcting it when it was caught.

[darksong]

Are you sure?
I never said Apple was winning, I was just saying Apple has always boasted being the most user friendly computer manufacturer.
Microsoft has a big ego. Nobody can debate that. They just want to show the world that they too can be ultra user friendly, and look good at the same time. What they didn't take into account was the time it would take, the amount of work, and most of all the cost of it. Out of desperation, they release this OS to the world. It's blowing up in their face so far by my standards. Because my standards are based on units sold to the customer, and the user satisfaction with it after comparing it to another of its kind, even if its comparision is to OSX.
If you see, Microsoft would rather boast about common and make it look grand, instead of implying its mistake and correcting it when it was caught.

Whats wrong with looking good and ultra user friendly - i don't see this as a negative? Many linux distros try to be ultra user friendly and look good at the same time - PClinuxOs, freespire and ubuntu is starting to realise that they need to be user-friendly - look @ restircted driver manager and the account transfer.

Depseration, how are microsoft in anyway desperate? They have massies of capitial, even if vista isn't a big sucess in a year down the line - which it will be beacause every new PC is being shipped with it - only a few will install Xp or linux over it - it won't be a big loss to microsoft, they make more capitial in a week than alot of companies will make in 5 years.

What is windows update? Unlike Mac who make their users pay for secuirty updates they openly provide patches to fix their mistakes - look @ service packs which are promoted - Microsft ammiting they made mistakes in the OS and openly fixing it. I don't see anything grand, it seems like they care for their users.

They may have a big ego, but that gives them big ambitions to strive for. They set big targets and they strive to meet them - they have the capitial to do the things they strive for.

Some good points Frak - i like debating with you :D

[Frak]

By desperation I am talking about Microsoft losing that big ego of theirs. They boast about 60 Million units being sold so they can hide the fact that even in their eye's Vista is a dissapointment. They so far haven't released customer sales or customer satisfaction reports, which is pretty interesting coming from a company claiming this will be the best release of Windows ever released, while many others still yearn for 2000 to come back and impress the rest of us.
I will not disagree with the fact that looking good, performing good, and being ultra user friendly are bad things either, its just the fact that it seems to me that Microsoft put too much effort into making it look like an Apple, smell like an Apple, and making it feel like an Apple, but frankly it tastes like a very bad copy of that Apple.
Also, about DRM and WGA. I'm fine with that, only if it restricts us from using certain programs, not the whole OS itself.
Some might disagree with me, but DRM should not exist on a system until we run a DVD or something that requires DRM. From there it should notify the user of the DRM and ask the user whether or not the user agrees with what actions the DRM will do. If the user doesn't want it, they can happily use a DVD player which is not bound by DRM.
As for WGA, I don't disagree with Microsoft for implementing it, it is a great way to protect from piracy, but don't force it upon the users OS to stop reacting. All Microsoft should be charging for is the updates, SP's, support, Improvements, etc. I'd happily pay $100-$200 for that.
If the user decides not to buy a license for his/her system. Sobeit. Technically that user didn't pay for the benefits listed above.
WGA is great, but don't let "WGA phone home" so often.
And I agree, ego's are good, but don't let them be so large that eventual regreat comes before reason.

And you have some great points too, darksong - I also enjoy debating with you too :)

[darksong]

thanks for the explianation frak, i see and agree with the point you have made. Apple yummy :D

[LuisAugusto]

but it still manages to do mutch more advansed efects, with 1/3 of the resorses!


Nope, it doesn't (unless I missed something, they're both 3D Windows manager and they can do exactly the same amount of stuff).
Compiz Fusion consume less resources than Aero, true, but Aero works smooth and integrates better than Compiz overall. Why? Basely Compiz Fusion is a 3rd party add-on, while Aero is an integrate part of Vista. That's why both, KDE and GNOME will have their own 3D windows manager (kwin/kwin_composite in KDE 4 series case), and leave Compiz Fusion as the 3rd party option.

Both, Compiz Fusion and XGL are tech previews (from my point of view as always).

[Frak]

I totally, 100% disagree with you. Compiz is integrates very easy into Gnome, Xfce, and e-17 based environments.
KDE4 will have its own Window Manager with its own set of features away from Beryl and Compiz.
Also, Beryl integrates, IMHO, very much into KDE.
Aero was badly made, so therefore, it uses alot of resources. This could be due to their code being way to complicated and hastly made. If they were smart enough to release it open source, developers would be able to fix it and dumb it down (which is a good thing).

If that were to happen, I can safely say, Aero would be one of the best WM ever.

[cobrn1]

I totally, 100% disagree with you. Compiz is integrates very easy into Gnome, Xfce, and e-17 based environments.
KDE4 will have its own Window Manager with its own set of features away from Beryl and Compiz.
Also, Beryl integrates, IMHO, very much into KDE.

Can KDE3/4 be used with compiz-fusion?

Anyway, I'd agree with Frak, fusion is better equiped (much more functions, I meant what has aero got - a little translucency and flip 3d - we have translucency and our own flip 3d pluging - both are much more customisable than aero's) and has a plugin system for more improvements. Furthermore, it is being designed to integrate, and it achieves this very well indeed.


Aero was badly made, so therefore, it uses alot of resources. This could be due to their code being way to complicated and hastly made. If they were smart enough to release it open source, developers would be able to fix it and dumb it down (which is a good thing).

If that were to happen, I can safely say, Aero would be one of the best WM ever.

I disagree on this tho - while OSSing aero would allow the bugs to be worked out and make it run better, if you added any more feature's it wouldn't be aero, and you'd need lots to compete with compiz-fusion...

It'd require a complete overhaul and re-design of aero to make it better (namely be making it more like compiz-fusion, more customisable, plugins, etc).

[billw11]

before i go, my hardware wasnt completely detected in ubuntu install as it was in sp1 xp...3 month old computer with 3 year old edition of win xp.and newest version of ubuntu...
no doubt about the winner in my mind , XP !!!

everyone here fails to see the obvious. were talking MICROSOFT !!!
8 core motherboards may not be out yet , but they exist !!!
what system do you think microsoft used to design vista with?
they designed vista with the most modern computer at THEIR disposal.
then they started installing it into lesser computers until they found their minimum requirements.

id rather spend the money on better faster equipment than . my computer is my entertainment. i dont drink and i drive for a living.
i turn on my computer, i want it on NOW ! by next feburary , the new 8 core computers will be out, and ill buy it if i can afford it. if not, quad with4 gig memory will be good enough. more than enough for vista (but ill stay with xp)
with that said , thats the problem. people with a machine that was good enough for the version of windows it came with assume its good enough for the new version , then wonder why its slow.
so compare apples to apples.in a years time , buy a brand new computer, install windows xp and see how fast it is.

i dont like defending microsoft , but face facts.
NONE of us here would likely even have a computer doing 90% of the stuff were doing now if microsoft never existed.
remember macintosh ??? windows is basically apple GUI which is xerox printer software - basically.

simple software???
then what happened to clarisworks ?
that had to be one of the best design/office programs around.
simply asked what you wanted to do , had almost everything , free updates and plenty of user designed templates.
where is it now ? apple did a great job of getting rid of it.

[Frak]

before i go, my hardware wasnt completely detected in ubuntu install as it was in sp1 xp...3 month old computer with 3 year old edition of win xp.and newest version of ubuntu...
no doubt about the winner in my mind , XP !!!

everyone here fails to see the obvious. were talking MICROSOFT !!!
8 core motherboards may not be out yet , but they exist !!!
what system do you think microsoft used to design vista with?
they designed vista with the most modern computer at THEIR disposal.
then they started installing it into lesser computers until they found their minimum requirements.

id rather spend the money on better faster equipment than . my computer is my entertainment. i dont drink and i drive for a living.
i turn on my computer, i want it on NOW ! by next feburary , the new 8 core computers will be out, and ill buy it if i can afford it. if not, quad with4 gig memory will be good enough. more than enough for vista (but ill stay with xp)
with that said , thats the problem. people with a machine that was good enough for the version of windows it came with assume its good enough for the new version , then wonder why its slow.
so compare apples to apples.in a years time , buy a brand new computer, install windows xp and see how fast it is.

i dont like defending microsoft , but face facts.
NONE of us here would likely even have a computer doing 90% of the stuff were doing now if microsoft never existed.
remember macintosh ??? windows is basically apple GUI which is xerox printer software - basically.

simple software???
then what happened to clarisworks ?
that had to be one of the best design/office programs around.
simply asked what you wanted to do , had almost everything , free updates and plenty of user designed templates.
where is it now ? apple did a great job of getting rid of it.
Thats great, and there is a very large chance that 8 core boards will be supported under linux.
You fail to understand that Intel and AMD are very active in the Linux community.
Why?
Because Linux+Servers=$$$
And again, BLAME ATi, ITS NOT OUR PROBLEM, IT'S THEIRS!!! In fact we have already developed BETTER drivers than ATi has. But, since they won't release any information, we can't fix everything.
Do not hate Linux in vain.

Oh and if Microsoft hadn't have existed, I can safely say, almost nothing would have changed. They got their ideas from Apple, yet GNU was already established. We would have just gotten our ideas from Apple, or thought them up overselves.

[LuisAugusto]

I totally, 100% disagree with you. Compiz is integrates very easy into Gnome, Xfce, and e-17 based environments.
OH! Since when you can use e17 with Compiz! TEACH ME! TEACH ME! (I'm soooo fool, I thought they were both Windows Manager and that they can't be use at the same time!) ;)
I think we may see integrations as different stuff, integration for me is not having a nice border that goes with your theme.

KDE4 will have its own Window Manager with its own set of features away from Beryl and Compiz.
Did you follow KDE 4 development? I guess no, kwin_composite it's aimed to be a Windows Manager providing all the stability and advanced function of kwin mixed with the bling of a 3D desktop.

Also, Beryl integrates, IMHO, very much into KDE.

Same as the first

Aero was badly made, so therefore, it uses alot of resources. This could be due to their code being way to complicated and hastly made. If they were smart enough to release it open source, developers would be able to fix it and dumb it down (which is a good thing).

If that were to happen, I can safely say, Aero would be one of the best WM ever.

Non transcendent comment, I won't bother answering it.

Can KDE3/4 be used with compiz-fusion?

Yes it can.

Anyway, I'd agree with Frak, fusion is better equiped (much more functions, I meant what has aero got - a little translucency and flip 3d

Compiz Fusion doesn't have more functions than AERO, it may have more effects that can be easily add with 3rd party add-ons (and please, don't tell me that doesn't count, if you tell me that, I'll tell you that in that case, Compiz can't be count either)
we have translucency and our own flip 3d pluging - both are much more customisable than aero's) and has a plugin system for more improvements. Furthermore, it is being designed to integrate, and it achieves this very well indeed.

The Compiz Plugin system is a damn mess.
Compiz Fusion isn't designed to integrate well, it was designed to show some of the XGL capabilities (tech preview ;) ) It doesn't integrate in any way, or if it does, Can you point me how?

Don't get me wrong, I like Compiz Fusion, I use it every day, however isn't nearly closed integrate and developed as Aero or Aqua. Did you really thing that develop a plugin is the hard part? Stuff like Expo plugin and shift switcher were made in 1 day or 2, that's the easy part ;)

[billw11]

im not bashing linux here (or trying not to i hope)
wheres the better drivers than ati ? under windows my 32" lcd tv is my monitor (bought smaller computer monitor for linux) with no problems.
install ubuntu , distorted unreadable screen which called for small screen.
im comparing win xp sp1 to most current ubuntu install. win xp comes with ati drivers on cd, so they are distributed.

be working from apple with no microsoft?
yup , and we would still be playing card games waiting for weeks for apple to replace batteries on a ipod too?

35mm film anyone ? hmm , texting on a cell phone, whats that? other than iphone , propietary technology , what software created most of the cell phone technology?

linux servers? maybe some companies. im a truck driver. every place ive gone into , i guess that windows 2000 logo is a mistake on their computers. ive seen 2 companies running imacs in 10 years. on tv, they show apple products..could it be product placement?

only way youll prove linux is better to me , is SHOW ME.
give me a guaranteed link to download ANY linux based iso that on first boot will give me my 32" lcd tv as monitor without any adjustment, as well as my usb wireless card with a working connection (which win xp does) - then ill never run windows again !

[billw11]

wheres clarisworks if simplicity is ruler?

[cobrn1]

Compiz Fusion doesn't have more functions than AERO, it may have more effects that can be easily add with 3rd party add-ons (and please, don't tell me that doesn't count, if you tell me that, I'll tell you that in that case, Compiz can't be count either)

I don't quite understand what you're saying by making a difference between functions and effects - they're the same thing when the function is desktop effects...

The point is that compiz-fusion does more than aero. Which is good for us:)

[LuisAugusto]

I don't quite understand what you're saying by making a difference between functions and effects - they're the same thing when the function is desktop effects...

The point is that compiz-fusion does more than aero. Which is good for us:)

Function, for example, is that AERO turn itself off when need it, Effects are just fast add-ons (Expo was wrote in less than a day).

Basely what I want to say is that Aero can make all things Compiz do, but Compiz, can't do all that Aero does (well, you can implement it, but it isn't by this time).

[Frak]

Function, for example, is that AERO turn itself off when need it, Effects are just fast add-ons (Expo was wrote in less than a day).

Basely what I want to say is that Aero can make all things Compiz do, but Compiz, can't do all that Aero does (well, you can implement it, but it isn't by this time).
ok, describe everything that Aero can do that compiz can't do.

[cmat]

You can change the themes in Vista. However, I'm not sure if it's just skinning Aero.

[Depressed Man]

That's just skinning (it's the equivilant of changing themes in Linux to me at least). I think the only thing Aero does that Compiz Fusion can't do is turn itself off when applications such as full screen 3D games go up.

On the other hand it also turns itself off when you try software that doesn't work with it. Which may be a good or bad thing (I found it irritating since it takes forever to go from Aero Basic to Aero when you switch it).

[n.aggel]

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
actually i think you are right.... it's not the fancy graphics of office 2007 but it's "simplicity" that makes it rock...

And i dont mean word2007 {i think openoffice covers the needs off the average word user...}

But take outook or OneNotes..... they simply don't have a competitor when it comes to usability.... thunderbird is almost excellent but it lacks PIM's features....

Anyway i think in the near future things will change in favor of Linux....already the progress made is way more than the progress of windows....

[Steveway]

If it comes to text-processing I love Abiword.
And yes I'm using XFCE.
And yes I used word97 back in my windows days.

[cobrn1]

Function, for example, is that AERO turn itself off when need it, Effects are just fast add-ons (Expo was wrote in less than a day).

Basely what I want to say is that Aero can make all things Compiz do, but Compiz, can't do all that Aero does (well, you can implement it, but it isn't by this time).

Um, where to start...?

for one - aero can turn itself on and off! WOW!! <sarcasm> That's almost as goos as windows crashing, and then telling me after I've restarted it that it managed to recovere from a major error. WTF!!! Any Fing OS can 'recover' if you turn off the power then turn it back on again. I mean - I crashed, but I managed to boot up again!!! Give me a cookie!!!

<sorry folks, but I've been getting this message alot recently, and it's *really* starting to annoy me>

Anyway, compiz can be turned off and on too
, so what extra functionality are you talking about?

And that fact that the effects are addons is irrelavent. Desktop effects *are* the features of a compositing app like aero or compiz-fusion (is aero techinally compositing? btw...) Therefore, it has more features, ie, effects. Every effect is afeature. Aero has about 3 that come to mind (glass, flip 3D and preview of a taskbar tab) all of which compiz has + a dozen more. THerefore fusion is more fully featured.

Compiz allows for more to be easily added through a simple, but powerful add-on system. Therefore, fusion is more fully featured.

What else does aero do that compiz-fusion cant, because I don't mean to be rude, upset you, start a fight, or otherwise cause unpleasentness in this otherwise friendly forum, but I don't understand what you're getting at here...

[darrenm]

actually i think you are right.... it's not the fancy graphics of office 2007 but it's "simplicity" that makes it rock...

And i dont mean word2007 {i think openoffice covers the needs off the average word user...}

But take outook or OneNotes..... they simply don't have a competitor when it comes to usability.... thunderbird is almost excellent but it lacks PIM's features....

Anyway i think in the near future things will change in favor of Linux....already the progress made is way more than the progress of windows....

Actually as far as my experience goes, Evolution on Ubuntu is far more usable than Outlook.

I started work at a new company about 3 months ago. They are very Microsoft oriented and the network is a large active directory domain with Office 2003+ installed on every machine. Almost all machines are Windows XP. They tried to make me use Windows XP as every shared document is an XLS or DOC and they make heavy use of the Exchange server by organising meetings continuously and emailing everything. I think a lot of medium enterprises are this way at the moment.

Anyway I've stood my ground and demonstrated that I can't do my job without running Ubuntu so they gave me another PC, something they found out the back, a P3 800 to run it. I got them to put the best graphics card in they could find which was a Nvidia GeForce 2 MX400 so I could run Beryl as again I demonstrated to them that I can be much more productive with Beryl (Im now using Compiz Fusion)

I use Evolution instead of Outlook 2003 because it gives me some features Outlook can't. Such as when replying to an email I simply select some text that is the part I am actually replying and it only quotes that bit (you dont realise how useful that is until you use it a bit). Also when I accept a meeting request it actually gets dropped into my Ubuntu calendar too so I can click my calendar and it shows me all my scheduled meetings. When typing someones name in the address bar it fills it in live as I type and gives a list if there are more than one match. In Outlook I have to wait for a few seconds for it to match and fill it in maybe. Apart from that it does EVERYTHING Outlook does but it looks nicer and generally works better.

Also with Office. I have to use OpenOffice because MS Office 2003 doesnt do what I need it to. I have a MySQL database on a server with Python scripts populating it and I make monthly reports with pretty pie charts and graphs etc from these figures. I couldnt get the MySQL odbc driver to work in MS Office but in oo.org base I can save custom queries, save forms and set up general DB access from oo.org calc. I then drag a MySQL table straight into the page, choose create chart and the charts are far better than the Office ones.

So my Ubuntu box is the envy of the dept. I've shown the company I have to run it to get my work done because there are some pretty basic things that I cant do with MS stuff and now they are questioning why anyone has to run XP / Office in our company.

Keep meaning to do a FPS on it for the people who dont think its possible to run Beryl/compiz on a machine that old/slow.

[LuisAugusto]

Um, where to start...?

for one - aero can turn itself on and off! WOW!! <sarcasm> That's almost as goos as windows crashing, and then telling me after I've restarted it that it managed to recovere from a major error. WTF!!! Any Fing OS can 'recover' if you turn off the power then turn it back on again. I mean - I crashed, but I managed to boot up again!!! Give me a cookie!!!

<sorry folks, but I've been getting this message alot recently, and it's *really* starting to annoy me>

Anyway, compiz can be turned off and on too
, so what extra functionality are you talking about?

And that fact that the effects are addons is irrelavent. Desktop effects *are* the features of a compositing app like aero or compiz-fusion (is aero techinally compositing? btw...) Therefore, it has more features, ie, effects. Every effect is afeature. Aero has about 3 that come to mind (glass, flip 3D and preview of a taskbar tab) all of which compiz has + a dozen more. THerefore fusion is more fully featured.

Compiz allows for more to be easily added through a simple, but powerful add-on system. Therefore, fusion is more fully featured.

What else does aero do that compiz-fusion cant, because I don't mean to be rude, upset you, start a fight, or otherwise cause unpleasentness in this otherwise friendly forum, but I don't understand what you're getting at here...

-Aero, for example, handle a lot better the miniatures of the windows, Windows Preview (and alt + tab) of Compiz Fusion looks terrible, because (even with Pixmap enable) it doesn't handle the resize well.

-Aero integrate with Windows, and not just the borders, look at Explorer or Windows Media Player.

-Aero actually handle another animations, as the hide in and hide out of the taskbar for example.

-Aero handle layers infinitely better than Compiz Fusion.

-Once aero has been loaded, it goes flawlessly, not Windows lag on draw and all things Compiz Fusion suffer xD.

[Frak]

actually i think you are right.... it's not the fancy graphics of office 2007 but it's "simplicity" that makes it rock...

And i dont mean word2007 {i think openoffice covers the needs off the average word user...}

But take outook or OneNotes..... they simply don't have a competitor when it comes to usability.... thunderbird is almost excellent but it lacks PIM's features....

Anyway i think in the near future things will change in favor of Linux....already the progress made is way more than the progress of windows....
+1, this is the only why I emulate Windows.

[cobrn1]

-Aero, for example, handle a lot better the miniatures of the windows, Windows Preview (and alt + tab) of Compiz Fusion looks terrible, because (even with Pixmap enable) it doesn't handle the resize well.

Not totally sure about this, what does everybody else think about the resize quality?

-Aero integrate with Windows, and not just the borders, look at Explorer or Windows Media Player.

I'm sorry but I don't quite unsderstand what you mean by this. could you give specific examples please?

-Aero actually handle another animations, as the hide in and hide out of the taskbar for example.

True, although any other window manager has to handle min and max animations, and if you think that the vista one is particularly nice it's easy to configure compiz-fusion to make animations like it, or customised to your preferences, something aero can't do :p. There's a guide on making compiz-fusion look like aero on youtube...




Again, not really sure about this one, what does everybody else think?

-Once aero has been loaded, it goes flawlessly, not Windows lag on draw and all things Compiz Fusion suffer xD.

Actually, aero causes a (rather large) drain on resources, in just the same way as compiz-fusion does. The only difference is that vista loads it up at start, so you don't get a before/after comparison, like you may do with compiz.


Anyway, I'd say that fusion is better because it does more, is more versatile (customisable) and hs the plugin ability, so it's easy to add new features.


On a side note, I should point out that while many people use compiz-fusion now, it hasn't even reached a proper release yet - it's still in semi-beta phase to the best of my knowledge, but a first proper release should be coming soon. so you are comparing half done software to fully complete aero. In that vien of thought, aero cannot be improved, and still fusion is better in so many ways. Fusion is still being developed, so the issues you point out can (and I'm sure will) be fixed.

With all that in mind I don't think you can really compare aero to compiz, compiz does more, is more customisable, can be added to easily, integrates really well - and it hasn't even reached version 1.0!!!

If you have any issues you using compiz then you may want to consider filing a bug report on compiz-fusion's website...:) Help the dev out.

[LuisAugusto]

Not totally sure about this, what does everybody else think about the resize quality?

It's a fact. It isn't about what someone may thing ;)

I'm sorry but I don't quite unsderstand what you mean by this. could you give specific examples please?

As you can see, it integrate with the Window.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/6133/vistacontrolpexploreril3.th.png (http://img247.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vistacontrolpexploreril3.png)

(You can see the difference of Windows Previews too)

True, although any other window manager has to handle min and max animations, and if you think that the vista one is particularly nice it's easy to configure compiz-fusion to make animations like it, or customised to your preferences, something aero can't do :p. There's a guide on making compiz-fusion look like aero on youtube...

I didn't mean min and max windows, I was talking about animations like the hide in and hide out of the kicker/gnome-panel/Windows-Vista-Taskbar, those, are handle by GNOME or KDE on Compiz case, but in vista they're handle by aero.

Actually, aero causes a (rather large) drain on resources, in just the same way as compiz-fusion does. The only difference is that vista loads it up at start, so you don't get a before/after comparison, like you may do with compiz.


Anyway, I'd say that fusion is better because it does more, is more versatile (customisable) and hs the plugin ability, so it's easy to add new features.

Again, you didn't get the point, ONCE Aero is on, it doesn't have lag on windows drawing as Compiz Fusion has.

It's true that Compiz Fusion is more customizable, yes, that's indeed true, but make Aero do the same stuff as Compiz is quite easy, and you can't say the same about Compiz.

(You can have Cube on Aero, you can have Expose, wobbly windows installing 3rd party addons)


On a side note, I should point out that while many people use compiz-fusion now, it hasn't even reached a proper release yet - it's still in semi-beta phase to the best of my knowledge, but a first proper release should be coming soon. so you are comparing half done software to fully complete aero.

May I know what's your point? I didn't say compiz fusion won't ever be as good as (or better than) aero, I just point that technically talking, it isn't.

In that vien of thought, aero cannot be improved, and still fusion is better in so many ways. Fusion is still being developed, so the issues you point out can (and I'm sure will) be fixed.

The part on bold letters is dumb, of course it will continue improving, Windows Vista has updates too you know? However, Compiz Fusion as an OpenSource project of course that will advance faster, and I hope they will fix that stuff.

With all that in mind I don't think you can really compare aero to compiz, compiz does more, is more customisable, can be added to easily, integrates really well - and it hasn't even reached version 1.0!!!

I'm not, in any way, trying to say that Compiz is bad, or that developers aren't doing a good job, again, I use it everyday, and it's just fine, but even being more customizable, Aero is still superior.

About the bold part, again, that "integration" is just Windows Borders that looks nice with your Environment, that's all.

If you have any issues you using compiz then you may want to consider filing a bug report on compiz-fusion's website...:) Help the dev out.

Technically, they aren't bugs, they're just things that Aero do a lot better than Compiz, however, I'm quite sure the developers are aware of them.

[cobrn1]

It's a fact. It isn't about what someone may thing

What I'm saying is I'm not sure about this myself, ie, i don't have extensive use of compiz-fusion at the moment, so I'm unable to comment, but I'd like a second/third opinion...


As you can see, it integrate with the Window.I still don't see what you mean. Do you mean that aero is doing everything, ie, is the window manager? Compiz-fusion can do that too I think (given that it will be used as a 'drop-in replacement for metacity' which is the current GNOME WM.


I didn't mean min and max windows, I was talking about animations like the hide in and hide out of the kicker/gnome-panel/Windows-Vista-Taskbar, those, are handle by GNOME or KDE on Compiz case, but in vista they're handle by aero.Fair enough, aero can do a few more things then, but being hoenst, if it couldn't do those it wouldn't be a windows manager... (sorry, but I see that to be a litle like credit where credit isn't due - it wouldn't be fit for purpose without those things). And as you say, compiz can do these things too.

EDIT: sorry, mis understood you, but compiz can do these things too (there are options so you can customise the fade effect, time taken to minimise, the delay, the animation you get, etc...)


Again, you didn't get the point, ONCE Aero is on, it doesn't have lag on windows drawing as Compiz Fusion has.I think I see what you're saying... so do you have a dual boot vista/ubuntu machine where you are comparing both on the same hardware?

Anyway, the hardware requirements for compiz are quite low, so this'd really surprise me if compiz lags whereas aero doesn't... Are you comparing on the same system?

Also, aero won't even turn on if it doesn't detect good enough hardware, whereas compiz will let you try if you insist (I've gotten many things wo work at below min requirements).

It's true that Compiz Fusion is more customizable, yes, that's indeed true, but make Aero do the same stuff as Compiz is quite easy, and you can't say the same about Compiz.

(You can have Cube on Aero, you can have Expose, wobbly windows installing 3rd party addons) Non of these compare to the customisability of compiz fusion. It's just an array of apps that just about do the job (but less well) and will consume more resources (ie, memory) than just running aeor of compiz. They don't integrate as well as either aero or compiz-fusion (I know this for a fact because I've tried a few of the things you've suggested).

Make aero do the same things as compiz - i don't think so... It would require a huge re-write of aero. however, from what you've said it sounds like compiz can easily do everything aero does, as far as I see it integrates just as well, and any issues you have will i'm sure be ironed out very soon.


May I know what's your point? I didn't say compiz fusion won't ever be as good as (or better than) aero, I just point that technically talking, it isn't.The point is that compiz-fusion isn't finished, but it's miles ahead of aero in almost every respect. Aero is finished and is miles behine in almost every respect (and would need major re-writing to rival compiz, ie, ability for addons, less resource hungry, etc).

And technically talking, compiz better (overall). Aero being (questionably) better at one or two select things doesn't mean it's better overall, and if you look overall I think it's rather difficult to say aero is better... it just doesn't make any sense to me.

The part on bold letters is dumb, of course it will continue improving, Windows Vista has updates too you know? However, Compiz Fusion as an OpenSource project of course that will advance faster, and I hope they will fix that stuff.Ouch, that hurt - i thought these were friendly forums :( Anyway, I think you slightly misinterpreted what I meant. Of course aero will get patches, updates, etc. However, to make it rival compiz-fusion you would need to add lots of new features and it would require a major re-write. historically (and I have no reason to see why microsoft would change at this point) service packs and updates don't include big new features (they're reserved for new OSs). Therefore, I concluded that aero would not be getting updates of the type that would add the sort of features that compiz-fusion has. That's what I meant by finished...

On the other hand, compiz is continuing to get large changes to the code, and can continually be updated with new plugings, whereas adding the functionality in aero would take a large re-write each time (again, something that just is not going to happen - there's no way that MS would have 2 WM's on one OS, too complicated for them to handle and it's a wasted feature they could have used for vista+1)


I'm not, in any way, trying to say that Compiz is bad, or that developers aren't doing a good job, again, I use it everyday, and it's just fine, but even being more customizable, Aero is still superior.I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion - I can't see for the life of me where aero is better, siginficantly or otherwise... However, each to his own, and at the end of the day if you believe that aero is better/it annoys you less, then I won't be able to change that. I just respectfully disagree for the reasons posted above.

About the bold part, again, that "integration" is just Windows Borders that looks nice with your Environment, that's all. That's exactly what compiz-offers too. Well, sortof... compiz gives you cool effects, and you get a good theme for your desktop. What you refer to as aero integration in this point is actually more the 'aero' desktop theme (by intergrate's well I assume you mean that it's used across all of vista - so is a theme in GNOME, KDE, etc... The aero theme works well with aero effects. Compiz works well too. I see no difference between the two.

Technically, they aren't bugs, they're just things that Aero do a lot better than Compiz, however, I'm quite sure the developers are aware of them.

fair enough, then they're alread working on it...

Anyway, this has been a fun and enlightening conversation (? ;) :D), however, I doubt we're going to get much further than this, especially when this is a thread about linux vs vista which has been hijacked into compiz vs aero;)

So lets move on. What else does linux do better :D ;) :lolflag:

[Depressed Man]

-Aero, for example, handle a lot better the miniatures of the windows, Windows Preview (and alt + tab) of Compiz Fusion looks terrible, because (even with Pixmap enable) it doesn't handle the resize well.

-Aero integrate with Windows, and not just the borders, look at Explorer or Windows Media Player.

-Aero actually handle another animations, as the hide in and hide out of the taskbar for example.

-Aero handle layers infinitely better than Compiz Fusion.

-Once aero has been loaded, it goes flawlessly, not Windows lag on draw and all things Compiz Fusion suffer xD.

If you mean Aero integrated with Windows (as in the OS and not program windows) then yeah I agree. Though then again your talking about a company (Microsoft) that makes the OS, made Aero, and almost created Explorer and Windows Media Player. It'd be kinda stupid if it didn't integrate with it. (Though I gotta figure out how to turn off that ugly blue line that's on the active window that surrounds the border..)

I've had programs that don't integrate with Aero. Most of the time they aren't built by Microsoft. That's more like Compiz Fusion when it comes to Linux. Since Compiz Fusion is a 3rd party development. So your chances of coming upon applications that don't integrate so well is higher.

Though in this regard, Compiz Fusion is alot more flexible when it comes to running with them. Most of the things I've tried work (except 3D programs like Google Earth, games and stuff). While Aero just turns itself off.

As for the whole resize issue. I'm clueless about it myself lol. If you mean grab a corner and resize it. Well I don't see that big a difference between the two. Do you mean the end result (the window screen when your done?). Or the speed. I think there may be a speed difference when it comes to resizing. Not sure though (I'll have to check it out).

[Steveway]

About Aero "integrating" into the apps.
This is totally possible with Composited Enviroments in Linux, too.
Macslow has demonstrated this: http://macslow.thepimp.net/?p=110
There is also libsexier, wich will use compositing.
Aero is so bloated and the effects are nothing compared to what can be done with Compiz on much lower Hardware.
Is there a Plugin in Aero that makes it use less ressources and give it more Features at the same time?

[kamaboko]

About Aero "integrating" into the apps.
This is totally possible with Composited Enviroments in Linux, too.
Macslow has demonstrated this: http://macslow.thepimp.net/?p=110
There is also libsexier, wich will use compositing.
Aero is so bloated and the effects are nothing compared to what can be done with Compiz on much lower Hardware.
Is there a Plugin in Aero that makes it use less ressources and give it more Features at the same time?

What is the standard for non-bloat? For instance, if this is where we start http://www.minimalinux.org/ttylinux/showpage.php?pid=1 where does bloat begin? ttylinux makes Ubuntu look like a fat Cadillac using the entire road. Shouldn't we all be using ttylinux (or some other smalller distro)?

[Steveway]

Bloated compared to Compiz-Fusion, in terms of ressource-usage.
But you should have understand that.
You know my Pc if it would run Vista, it wouldn't for sure run Aero, but I can use all the blings and whistles in CF, even Blur with no visible slowdown.
It has a Geforce FX GO 5200.

[kamaboko]

Bloated compared to Compiz-Fusion, in terms of ressource-usage.
But you should have understand that.

In that respect we could say Compiz-Fusion is bloatware compared to ttylinux. Why do you need an OS install that requires more than 10MB of hard drive space? It's just a bloated mess. Why do you need more than a 486 processor?

[LuisAugusto]

What I'm saying is I'm not sure about this myself, ie, i don't have extensive use of compiz-fusion at the moment, so I'm unable to comment, but I'd like a second/third opinion...

Well, I have use Aero and Compiz on the same machine, so I have had the opportunity to compare them (however, not in my laptop).

I still don't see what you mean. Do you mean that aero is doing everything, ie, is the window manager? Compiz-fusion can do that too I think (given that it will be used as a 'drop-in replacement for metacity' which is the current GNOME WM.

Look at the Windows of Vista, Aero does things on the Windows Internals, the controls on the upper part of the Windows, aren't borders.

Fair enough, aero can do a few more things then, but being hoenst, if it couldn't do those it wouldn't be a windows manager... (sorry, but I see that to be a litle like credit where credit isn't due - it wouldn't be fit for purpose without those things). And as you say, compiz can do these things too.

I'm talking not about Max, min, move, expand, I'm talking of stuff like panels, and other internal animations

EDIT: sorry, mis understood you, but compiz can do these things too (there are options so you can customise the fade effect, time taken to minimise, the delay, the animation you get, etc...)

I'm not talking about those effects, I'm talking about other effects, that Compiz can't handle, why? Because it's no integrate with GNOME, XFCE or KDE, and Aero is integrate with Windows, that's the reason why KDE and GNOME will have their own 3D windows manager.



I think I see what you're saying... so do you have a dual boot vista/ubuntu machine where you are comparing both on the same hardware?

Yes, I do, not on my laptop btw, and compare them on my sister Desktop.


Anyway, the hardware requirements for compiz are quite low, so this'd really surprise me if compiz lags whereas aero doesn't... Are you comparing on the same system?

Compiz Fusion requirements are indeed low, but for having it run nice they aren't that low. However, Windows Vista Aero need a powerful computer, but if your computer support it, it's goes flawlessly.

Also, aero won't even turn on if it doesn't detect good enough hardware, whereas compiz will let you try if you insist (I've gotten many things wo work at below min requirements).

You can turn on Aero by force too, however, it's true that it need a little more hardware requirements to run nice.

Non of these compare to the customisability of compiz fusion. It's just an array of apps that just about do the job (but less well) and will consume more resources (ie, memory) than just running aeor of compiz. They don't integrate as well as either aero or compiz-fusion (I know this for a fact because I've tried a few of the things you've suggested).

I know they aren't, but they could easily be as customizable, but Windows user average don't care too much about customize them (while on Linux/BSD they do care), and of course they'll consume more resources, so they do on Compiz Fusion (why don't you try to use Blur, it would be very hard on the system, and maybe your graphic card don't support it)

Make aero do the same things as compiz - i don't think so... It would require a huge re-write of aero. however, from what you've said it sounds like compiz can easily do everything aero does, as far as I see it integrates just as well, and any issues you have will i'm sure be ironed out very soon.

Nope, Compiz advantages are just effects, which are easy to implement. Implementing a nice resize, or handling other kind of effects, handling layers nice, integration, etc. Are harder to implement.


The point is that compiz-fusion isn't finished, but it's miles ahead of aero in almost every respect.

No, it just have more plugins, that's all. But the Compiz Core is not at the level of Aero yet.

Aero is finished and is miles behine in almost every respect (and would need major re-writing to rival compiz, ie, ability for addons, less resource hungry, etc).

No, Compiz is only better at having more plugins, that's all. Aero doesn't have a plugin system because they didn't want to show much specs of it, they'll have to show a lot of the code to allow a plugin system, it isn't there because it's hard to implement. About the resources, they did that way because they weren't looking for users that still run Windows 98 or Damn Small Linux, they are looking for users that buy a new computer, or that they can pay the 300 dollars that Vista cost, those people which Vista is aim to, doesn't have a 64 RAM computer, and as the time advance, people that can run Vista without trouble will be more.

Ouch, that hurt - i thought these were friendly forums :( Anyway, I think you slightly misinterpreted what I meant. Of course aero will get patches, updates, etc. However, to make it rival compiz-fusion you would need to add lots of new features and it would require a major re-write. historically (and I have no reason to see why microsoft would change at this point) service packs and updates don't include big new features (they're reserved for new OSs). Therefore, I concluded that aero would not be getting updates of the type that would add the sort of features that compiz-fusion has. That's what I meant by finished...

I didn't want to be rude, sorry about that.
Well, that somehow true, but I think that Aero will have some add-ons on the patches updates, like new skins, or some new effects.

On the other hand, compiz is continuing to get large changes to the code, and can continually be updated with new plugings, whereas adding the functionality in aero would take a large re-write each time (again, something that just is not going to happen - there's no way that MS would have 2 WM's on one OS, too complicated for them to handle and it's a wasted feature they could have used for vista+1)

Again, the plugins doesn't change the fact that Aero is technically better than Compiz.

I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion - I can't see for the life of me where aero is better, siginficantly or otherwise... However, each to his own, and at the end of the day if you believe that aero is better/it annoys you less, then I won't be able to change that. I just respectfully disagree for the reasons posted above.

My reason are basely tech reason, while yours are superficial reason, that's why we have different opinions

That's exactly what compiz-offers too. Well, sortof... compiz gives you cool effects, and you get a good theme for your desktop. What you refer to as aero integration in this point is actually more the 'aero' desktop theme (by intergrate's well I assume you mean that it's used across all of vista - so is a theme in GNOME, KDE, etc... The aero theme works well with aero effects. Compiz works well too. I see no difference between the two.


I was talking about Compiz. Windows Vista has better integration.




fair enough, then they're alread working on it...

I believe it, yes. But they have a limit on integration sadly.

So lets move on. What else does linux do better :D ;) :lolflag:

We'll never finish xD

------------------

If you mean Aero integrated with Windows (as in the OS and not program windows) then yeah I agree. Though then again your talking about a company (Microsoft) that makes the OS, made Aero, and almost created Explorer and Windows Media Player. It'd be kinda stupid if it didn't integrate with it. (Though I gotta figure out how to turn off that ugly blue line that's on the active window that surrounds the border..)

I know that.

I've had programs that don't integrate with Aero. Most of the time they aren't built by Microsoft. That's more like Compiz Fusion when it comes to Linux. Since Compiz Fusion is a 3rd party development. So your chances of coming upon applications that don't integrate so well is higher.

That's exactly my point, Compiz Fusion is just 3rd party add-on itself, and a tech preview, that's why both GNOME and KDE will have their 3D windows managers!

Though in this regard, Compiz Fusion is alot more flexible when it comes to running with them. Most of the things I've tried work (except 3D programs like Google Earth, games and stuff). While Aero just turns itself off.

As far as plugin system, yes, it's more flexible, but the exactly exception you point out, are quite important, aren't they?

As for the whole resize issue. I'm clueless about it myself lol. If you mean grab a corner and resize it. Well I don't see that big a difference between the two. Do you mean the end result (the window screen when your done?). Or the speed. I think there may be a speed difference when it comes to resizing. Not sure though (I'll have to check it out).

I was talking about Windows miniatures (Windows Preview, alt + tab, flip, etc), however, I forgot about the resize Windows issue on Compiz, which I didn't feel on Aero xD

BTW: In any way I meant to say that OpenSource Environments using composite couldn't do the same thing in a near future, but they don't do it know, does they? I certainly believe that KDE 4.0 (or maybe until 4.1) will implement all that and a little more.

[happysmileman]

I can run Compiz (not sure about fusion or beryl) on my 4 year old PC without it going slow...

That PC can barely run Windows XP without freezing every few minutes and requiring a re-boot every couple of hours (I'm spyware/adware/malware-free and use Ubuntu more so don't blame it on viruses or anything, though evenm if it was it'd still be MS's fault for insecure OS)

therefore Linux wins for me, and all we need is a few thousand people with similar experience for Linux to continue

[Frak]

IMHO, Aero is great looking, I won't doubt that, but I don't respect it for what it leaves me with in the end.
Aero required me to upgrade my PC to 1GB of RAM, though 2GB if I wanted good performance. Not to mention a more powerful card than my GeForce FX 5500.
In return I got transparent borders, and a window switching feature. Kinda cool I guess, haven't seen that in Windows before.

Compiz-Fusion required me to have at least 512MB of RAM and a GeForce 4 card.
In return I got a cube, wobbly windows, any window transitioner I wanted, water effects, transparent borders, 3D windows, shadowed Gnome bar, transparent cube, gears or atlantis within my cube, Fire effects, menu effects, etc. And even blend in with my Human theme Metacity boarders.
Plus its free and open source, and it works great even though its not finished yet :D

The winner is clear.\\:D/

[clove]

Vista is actually what drove me to start testing Ubuntu as a viable alternative. In eight months now, my Vista experience includes five reinstalls, 12 Ipod corruptions, 5 hours on the phone with India to convince them I really do need a new activation code because my original one would not work after the first big crash, countless sync problems with my WM5 phone, and endless problems with S3 mode sleep, video codecs causing all types of strange file system behavior, UAC incompatibilities...I could go on all day.

I woke up one day and realized I was spending the majority of my computing time fixing problems rather than getting work done. I had started planning to roll back all of my systems to XP and shred my Vista install discs, but then I remembered that thing called Ubuntu (which I had toyed with awhile back). I've only been testing on a test box for 4 days now, but I'm committed now to the point where I just ordered a Dell Ubuntu notebook to get started.

[cobrn1]

Well, I have use Aero and Compiz on the same machine, so I have had the opportunity to compare them (however, not in my laptop).

atleast you've got a fair testing bed then...

Look at the Windows of Vista, Aero does things on the Windows Internals, the controls on the upper part of the Windows, aren't borders.Okay then, aero is the windows manager for vista, therefore it does more windows managing things than compiz-fusion does. This is only because compiz-fusion is a compositing app only, and given that we already have great WM's we don't need compiz to, whereas windows does.

so lets compare the properly by comparing the compositing that the do...


I'm talking not about Max, min, move, expand, I'm talking of stuff like panels, and other internal animationssee point above



I'm not talking about those effects, I'm talking about other effects, that Compiz can't handle, why? Because it's no integrate with GNOME, XFCE or KDE, and Aero is integrate with Windows, that's the reason why KDE and GNOME will have their own 3D windows manager.I know where you're coming from, but a little bit of work and they intergrate just as well... I've never noticed a difference...

By having a separate, home-grown, individual compositor for each WM (gnome, kde, etc) they can make it intergate without you doing any work, but if you put in the time you can get compiz to work. this is good given that you have complete control over the look and feel.


Compiz Fusion requirements are indeed low, but for having it run nice they aren't that low. However, Windows Vista Aero need a powerful computer, but if your computer support it, it's goes flawlessly. Whereas compix-fusion will run on most machines, and will run on most of those without a hitch.

Has anyone else experienced these kind of slowdowns, lags, etc? It sounds like your experience is the exception to me, all I've heard is good things to say on how well it runs, even on older hardware...


You can turn on Aero by force too, however, it's true that it need a little more hardware requirements to run nice. yep - needing more powerful hardware to do less stuff = inferior


I know they aren't, but they could easily be as customizable, but Windows user average don't care too much about customize them (while on Linux/BSD they do care), and of course they'll consume more resources, so they do on Compiz Fusion (why don't you try to use Blur, it would be very hard on the system, and maybe your graphic card don't support it)Ah ha - but its not (just like you said that compiz could be better but isn't; which I still diagree with, but that's by-the-by; just because aero *could* be easily customisable doesn't mean it is, and therefore you can't say its better or just as good as compiz (which is customisable) because it *could* be just as customisable (especially when we both know that's never going to happen...)).


Nope, Compiz advantages are just effects, which are easy to implement. Implementing a nice resize, or handling other kind of effects, handling layers nice, integration, etc. Are harder to implement.I wouldn't say that the effects are easy to make (have you tried making one?) however, I see where you're going - crack getting the basic compositing and the effects can come later... true. But compiz seems to do a very good job at this, is getting better, and doesn't take anywhere as much hardware to do it.

also, I don't think aero is better in this respect (at least not appreciably so) but it could just be the hardware you use...


No, it just have more plugins, that's all. But the Compiz Core is not at the level of Aero yet.I'm not convinced of this, however, even if you are right at the moment, compiz improves everyday so it won't stay like that for long. However, as we've both pointed out, the current situation is the current situation, so if aero is better at the basics at the moment then fair play, it has one over on compiz (for the moment). However, 'compiz-core' as you call it is not all there is to weigh up...

No, Compiz is only better at having more plugins, that's all. Aero doesn't have a plugin system because they didn't want to show much specs of it, they'll have to show a lot of the code to allow a plugin system, it isn't there because it's hard to implement. About the resources, they did that way because they weren't looking for users that still run Windows 98 or Damn Small Linux, they are looking for users that buy a new computer, or that they can pay the 300 dollars that Vista cost, those people which Vista is aim to, doesn't have a 64 RAM computer, and as the time advance, people that can run Vista without trouble will be more.Really, both points here are irrelevant, it doesn't matter why aero is inferior to compiz with the number of effects, the fact is that it is inferior, and aero loses on this point.

The fact that MS wants you buy a new computer is also irrelevant - compiz is much more efficient than aero and wins on this point too.


I didn't want to be rude, sorry about that.
Well, that somehow true, but I think that Aero will have some add-ons on the patches updates, like new skins, or some new effects.Don't worry, I understand how that might have sounded stupid if it was misunderstood, but I'm glad you understand what I'm saying now. Aero *may* get a new skin if it's lucky (like XP got the mediacentre/royale and noir themes. But don't go expecting any 'plugins', cos it just ain't gonna happen...)

They might speed it up slightly with a few code optimisations, but I doubt it'll be anywhere as efficient as compiz is, so compiz keeps the point in chalked up here...

Oh and by the way, you may want to say, 'I believe you are mistaken' rather than 'that's dumb'... it... reads better ;)

Again, the plugins doesn't change the fact that Aero is technically better than Compiz. No, you are trying to write off plugings as unimportant when really the amount of things it can do is very important...

If we look at the scoreboard so far, aero score a half point for maybe being slightly better at layers, etc at its core (still not 100% convinced, but would love some feedback from other people reading the thread). Compiz has a point for running better/needing less powerful (and expensive) hardware and gets (atleast) a point for it's superior customisability. thats 2 to 1/2 (or 2 to 1 if you *really* believe aero is better at core).

you may ask why integration wasn't included. Namely because you can get compiz to integrate just as well, it just doesn't do it out of the box like aero - but that's the whole point of OSS, choice and the ability to fiddle, so no-one gets any points there.

2 to 1, compiz wins. (no to mention that compiz will probably be more thouroghly optimised nearer it's first official release, then it'll be 3 to 0).

My reason are basely tech reason, while yours are superficial reason, that's why we have different opinionsHarsh, and completely untrue (mistaken, you might say ;)) I look objectivly and see that compiz performs better, offers a better selection of features and does it with less hardware - you don't get more technical (or objective) than that. Saying the it integrates more in superficial, especially when it plainly isn't true...

Truely I think you may just be unlucky with your hardware - do you have an ATI card by any chance? I think that is where your problems lie, because I find it hard to believe that anyone would take a good long look at aero and compiz, and then say that aero is technically better for technical reasons...


I was talking about Compiz. Windows Vista has better integration.discussed above

I believe it, yes. But they have a limit on integration sadly.don't think so - discussed above


We'll never finish xDAt this rate, no, I doubt we ever will :lolflag:

<most of the rest of your post has already been covered, the remainder of you post seems to suggest that compiz is more versatile, works in more situations and should get another few points on the score board, but I can't be bothered - long posts take too long! :( ;)>


EDIT: you may be getting the (wrong) idea that I dislike aero. Far from it, when I first saw it i was like - cooooool!!! However, after seeing that compiz did more, better, I stopped thinking it was so great afterall.

you see, I have no problem admitting when MS do something right. I mean, yes I don't like them and wish they'd but-out of computing, but credit where credit's due - their design dept is *really* good - just not their software dept...

aero is a perfect eample - looks nice, but the codings just not there - feature-lacking (it seems feature full to you because you look at it as a windows manager and a compositor, whereas I'm just looking at the compositing) and to resource hungry, but you cant fault the look - damned nice! But you can make compiz do everything aero does, you can get a aero like theme, icon themes, etc. Basically, with compiz fusion and your WM, you can make ubuntu look like vista. but you can't make vista look like ubuntu. I think that summs up 90% of what has to be said here (wish I'd thought of it sooner tho :D ;))


But seriously, I find it hard to believe you honesly find aero works better. Do you have ATI graphics, because I've never heard anybody else complain about the same things you're saying...

[Gremlinzzz]

10 Years from now they will both sux. Hopefully
:guitar:

[tdrusk]

I believe a chidrens book was written about this topic. It was very metaphoric.

http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/9200/519pz8s4ytlaa240kr8.jpg

[spockrock]

gonna throw my two cents in, I use compiz-fusion and aero, (vista ultimate), and I think compiz-fusion is way way way better then aero.

[cobrn1]

gonna throw my two cents in, I use compiz-fusion and aero, (vista ultimate), and I think compiz-fusion is way way way better then aero.

I love you (in a completely appropriate and non-gay way)! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU !!! :):):)

<i almost feel vindicated now>

[Steveway]

In that respect we could say Compiz-Fusion is bloatware compared to ttylinux. Why do you need an OS install that requires more than 10MB of hard drive space? It's just a bloated mess. Why do you need more than a 486 processor?
You can't compare apples with oranges.
Ttylinux is a distribution of Linux and Compiz-Fusion is a Compositing-window-manager.
You can compare Compiz-Fusion to XFWM4s integrated Compositing-manager and say that Compiz-Fusion is bloated compared to that ressource-wise but you can't compare CF to a distribution.

[butcher99]

Ubuntu and linux will continue to limp along with marginal support from the population in general as most people just can not be bothered to learn to do stuff from the command line. Until Linux gets rid of the command line (sudo etc) and makes it more user friendly on setup it cannot grow.

Yes, it is fast. WAY faster than Vista. Yes it is just as pretty for all that means. However it is a real bear to learn. Yes, not near as bad as the last time I dove in but still not mainstream.

It will not die but it cannot support much growth either.

[Frak]

And as long as people like you don't allow us to give you the appropriate commands to enter into the terminal, you won't grow because your too naive to listen.

Again, there is nothing in Ubuntu that the average Windows to Ubuntu user would have to use the command line for.

[kamaboko]

Ubuntu and linux will continue to limp along with marginal support from the population in general as most people just can not be bothered to learn to do stuff from the command line. Until Linux gets rid of the command line (sudo etc) and makes it more user friendly on setup it cannot grow.

Yes, it is fast. WAY faster than Vista.


My Vista laptop is as fast as any Ubuntu that I've ever seen.

[Frak]

Whats your specs.

[csshuckster]

I abhor Vista. I rolled back to XP, and now dual-boot with Ubuntu 7.04 and XP, and now use Ubuntu more than I do XP now... and I love it.

[darksong]

Whats your specs.

Look at my sig - its a fairly descent PC but its becoming pretty standard. People pick up systems like mine for about £600-£800 at a rip of place like currys or dixions.

Anyone in the know can build a similar system (with vista) for £450 with a screen.

[howdy1]

Even I am a Windows XP user, I think Vista is better than Ubuntu (or Debian, or Fedora or openSUSE for that matter) simply because it allows the user to install anything. And I mean ANYTHING.

On Ubuntu one has to upgrade the whole distribution just to get newer versions of vital software such as Firefox, OO.org, Thunderbird or Gaim/Pidgin. This is where MS got it right: backwards compatibility and self contained apps.

I have friends who rejected Ubuntu when they found out the the repositories are frozen after each release. IMHO, this is a fundamental flaw of Ubuntu. It negates every other achievement, like increased hardware support, ease of use, apt-get etc.

As a power user, I want flexibility. I want to install whatever software I want, whenever I want and not be limited by the repositories. Even Mac OS X got it right, with their self contained .dmg format.

The ubuntu-backports repositories are almost empty, even Debian 4.0 repositories have more software than dapper-backports. The typical excuse is that backporting new features might b0rk the OS. This is proof that the apt-get ecosystem is a very fragile one.

Ubuntu is not an OS, it's not a real platform, it's a collection of software. There's no distinct base, there's just a huge repository that might be considered a platform. And no developer can keep up with a platform that changes every 6 months.

Give me a Ubuntu release every 2 years or more, and give me the ability to install whatever I software is released in the meantime. THEN I'll use Ubuntu.

One last question: why is Compiz compared to Aero? Aero is stable software, while Compiz is in alpha or beta. It's not fair.

Compiz is not beta. The newest version MIGHT be beta, but that just means that the new features haven't been fully tested. Compiz is more functional, for sure. All that aero does is display windows in 3d. Compiz displays the whole desktop environment in 3d.

Nobody said Ubuntu was its own OS. Linux is the OS, Ubuntu is the collection of utilities around the OS. GNU is the basis for many of those programs.

[antharr]

My Vista laptop is as fast as any Ubuntu that I've ever seen.

And probably just as secure.

[Frak]

And probably just as secure.
I was a hater until yesterday, I installed Vista Ultimate on 512MB of RAM, and it runs AWSOME. (Products may have been modified and or "slipstreamed" to remove all the crap)

Fits on one CD now.

[karellen]

vista on one cd? :confused:

[Frak]

vista on one cd? :confused:
Yep
Took out everything I didn't need, and automated the installation. Therefore I could take out the partitioner and some input boxes.
DRM is nonexistant.
I have all the eyecandy still though, and it idles at around 230MB of RAM usage on this system.

[weblordpepe]

Are you sure you're not halucinating? How did you do that? Anyway the DRM is in the kernel.

[Dark Star]

Just 1 word to the topic Vista sucks in every part :| Linux ftw :D

[Frak]

Are you sure you're not halucinating? How did you do that? Anyway the DRM is in the kernel.
I took out a BUNCH of crap. Such as the Media center, games, etc. Also, the image would still be very large, so I took a bunch of files, 7zip'ed 'em, and created a tiny installer that expands and installs the files.
I kept Aero and the sidebar. IHMO, I like them.

[joe.turion64x2]

Yep
Took out everything I didn't need, and automated the installation. Therefore I could take out the partitioner and some input boxes.
DRM is nonexistant.
I have all the eyecandy still though, and it idles at around 230MB of RAM usage on this system.
Are you referring to a version of Windows Unattended Edition? The last I saw (6) had also an automated installation procedure (just partition), and besides it installs 'anything' a Windows system would need (Office, NOD32, IE7, WMP10, etc). It runs really fast too (for being a WinXP SP2).

Joe.

[Frak]

Are you referring to a version of Windows Unattended Edition? The last I saw (6) had also an automated installation procedure (just partition), and besides it installs 'anything' a Windows system would need (Office, NOD32, IE7, WMP10, etc). It runs really fast too (for being a WinXP SP2).

Joe.
You can make any version of Windows XP and up unattended, whether it be XP Home to Vista Ultimate. All you have to do is make an XML script that holds all of your information. I let vLite do this for me. And then added a command to be run upon successful installation, which uncompressed the .7z archives and installed them in the correct places.

EDIT
I installed NOD32 and other items separately.

[charlieg]

I think you can guess what I think of Vista from the title of this article I just wrote:
Ubuntu frustrates but Vista angers (http://thefreedesktop.blogspot.com/2007/08/ubuntu-frustrates-but-vista-angers.html)

[smoker]

I took out a BUNCH of crap. Such as the Media center, games, etc. Also, the image would still be very large, so I took a bunch of files, 7zip'ed 'em, and created a tiny installer that expands and installs the files.
I kept Aero and the sidebar. IHMO, I like them.

saw a torrent of something similar, vista on one cd, i would've downloaded it, but it being illegal, decided not to:lolflag:

but if i ever delve in the dark side again, i may:lolflag:

[Frak]

saw a torrent of something similar, vista on one cd, i would've downloaded it, but it being illegal, decided not to:lolflag:

but if i ever delve in the dark side again, i may:lolflag:
But I am glad to say that I did actually buy this. I've pirated things, I won't lie, but fortunately, this wasn't.
EDIT
But I won't say this didn't give me the idea ;)

[macogw]

Compiz is not beta. The newest version MIGHT be beta, but that just means that the new features haven't been fully tested. Compiz is more functional, for sure. All that aero does is display windows in 3d. Compiz displays the whole desktop environment in 3d.

Nobody said Ubuntu was its own OS. Linux is the OS, Ubuntu is the collection of utilities around the OS. GNU is the basis for many of those programs.

Er, no. Linux is the kernel, GNU/Linux is the OS. That's like saying NT is the OS in Windows. It's not. NT is the kernel, and XP is the OS.

[joe.turion64x2]

But I am glad to say that I did actually buy this. I've pirated things, I won't lie, but fortunately, this wasn't.
EDIT
But I won't say this didn't give me the idea ;)
The EULA does not entitle you to modify the software, does it?

That is why it is illegal.

Joe.

[Frak]

The EULA does not entitle you to modify the software, does it?

That is why it is illegal.

Joe.
The EULA states you cannot change the core (source code) of the software, but they have absolutely no care if you slipstream it, which is in a legal sense, what I done.

[joe.turion64x2]

The EULA states you cannot change the core (source code) of the software, but they have absolutely no care if you slipstream it, which is in a legal sense, what I done.
All right, I am bit lazy to read the EULA, you win.

Joe.

[perspectoff]

I don't think you have used both Ubuntu and Vista in a workplace environment if you are making such an idiotic statement.

We had one Vista machine and it was crippled in our multiply OS environment.

Ubuntu worked like a charm and OpenOffice was well up to any task.

The two Vista machine could not play nicely with anyone on the network, including XP machines.

We have started converting our entire business to Ubuntu this week.

But don't take my word for it. Try to synchronize data on your mixed OS environment. Or are you indepednetly wealthy and able to order all new machines with expesnive M$ OSs every 3 years for your large PC based business?

No? Thought not....





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

[Tabenx]

Please delete this post, thanks!

[steven8]

My dad has Vista on his new HP. Good specs, and the boot is slow. But it runs fine after that. No complaints.

[Junixx]

A friend has Vista on his computer... He's ok it but I hate it... I'd much rather use Ubuntu...

[Dark Star]

I used to operate my Sis lappy. I disable Aero and slowly slowly I disabled everything .. I then think that I disabled everything that comes with Vista :lolflag:

[joe.turion64x2]

Today I started the most boring course I've taken in my life "Basic MS Office training". Unfortunately I have to take it in order to receive a paper the Principal of the Highschool I work for strongly recommend I get. It will be kind of a torture until Friday but I have to go to the school anyway.

Everything is brand new there (including the PCs), and I was amused to find that they had already removed Vista from them (it was preinstalled: Compaq PCs) and installed Windows XP Pro.

Today I tested some Linux LiveCDs and I think I won't take my laptop over there again since they boot quite nicely in the machines.

Thanks.
Joe.

[weblordpepe]

Ahhh yess....
Needing qualifications on how to use 'Microsoft' products. My 'Office 2000' qualifications are already useless.

Useless as qualifications, but my skills on how to use office stuff are generic. And I hope to keep them generic. That way I can use any office program with the help of the F1 key.

[joe.turion64x2]

Ahhh yess....
Needing qualifications on how to use 'Microsoft' products. My 'Office 2000' qualifications are already useless.

Useless as qualifications, but my skills on how to use office stuff are generic. And I hope to keep them generic. That way I can use any office program with the help of the F1 key.
Not exactly qualifications in fact, at least I don't need the as such. Those are items I need to start collecting to engross my resume and qualify for better laboral conditions.

Joe.

[OttifantSir]

I have said this to others on other forums as well: Vista sucks big time.

I read somewhere in the beginning of this thread that the specs would have to be a 3GHz processor, 1GB RAM, 15GB free space, 128MB graphic and a few other things. This was before it was released. It was refuted with someone saying MS had said it could run on 800MHz (At least 1GHz), 256MB RAM and some other much lower requirements.

My experience is: The first estimate was right. My granddad bought a new computer with Vista Home Premium on it, with the first specs or above. I have done some work on that computer, and I would say those specs are the BARE MINIMUM of what is needed to run Vista. It goes past the splash screen fast enough, but after that, it feels like working on my eight year old laptop (366MHz, 192MB RAM, no graphics, 6.2GB HDD) running XP Home SP2. It may shave a few seconds off the startup time, the menus may show up a tad faster, and it looks a little bit better, but for the price difference between the hardware and software, Vista sucks (abbreviate yourselves) ********.

I installed Edgy Eft on that laptop, and where it took XP three minutes to start, it took Ubuntu thirty seconds. I posted a thread on it elsewhere in the forums: Amazed at OLD laptop.

I am still using XP on a new machine, and trying to find my Ubuntu-feet with dual booting, but I feel like I am getting there slowly but surely. I am dedicated to leave the world of M$ behind, it just takes a little while finding apps that perform as good as some of the (few) programs I have BOUGHT for XP, of which one of them is a lifetime license (or until they dissolve the company, whichever comes first).

If people ask me for advice on what to get when buying a new computer, I usually search the Web for them to see if I can find white boxes, and offer to learn with them how to setup Ubuntu, before I point to those few left that comes with XP.