Is Canonical copying Microsoft?

[3Miro]

Unnecessary according to who? I find "bloat" to be an ambiguous term that usually means "I don't like it" or "I'm obsessed with how much RAM my computer is using".

That is a good definition of "bloat" and one of the main reasons why I switched to Gentoo (although it is quite the learning curve).

The power of Linux is choice and many many options. I don't see it as a problem if the main Ubuntu branch keeps adding more and more features that require an up-to-date hardware, so long as one gets the choice of Xubuntu and Lubuntu.

[Merk42]

Unnecessary to me and my world and work...

Here's a secret.
Ubuntu's userbase is more than just you.

[JDShu]

I think most end-users want reliable, useful applications. A slick GUI appearance is no substitute. This is the trap MS fell in to because it was so complacent.

What makes you think that a slick UI is not part of being a reliable, useful application?

[Evil-Ernie]

Here's a secret.
Ubuntu's userbase is more than just you.

So whats that got to do with anything?

[djchandler]

What I'm trying to understand is the OP's willingness to invest in a 4G internet access portal, while insisting that a modern OS must run on what must be at least 10 year old hardware. I give away (for free) newer stuff with better specs to the desperate and/or destitute. Since the OP seems to be neither, that leaves me scratching my head.

AFAIK, Debian is the only distribution that makes the claim of being a universal OS. The OP may want to try Debian with Fluxbox as the GUI with such limited resources.

BTW, consider the inefficient power usage in that configuration. A new net-top or net book (Intel Atom CPU, Nvidia Tegra 2, ARM, etc.) could probably produce sufficient savings in electricity to pay for itself in a couple of years.

[clanky]

meh, either buy a new computer or use an older version of whichever operating system you choose to use which was designed for the type of computer you are using.

You cannot expect operating systems to not progress just so that you can use the latest version on old hardware.

Also mobile broadband sucks.

[YesWeCan]

What do you mean the trap MS fell into? Windows 7 is one of the best Windows to date, and it looks SLICK.

For something to progress, there is only so long that ridiculously old technology can be supported.

If you want to use your really old hardware, then you're going to have to use old versions of the software. You can't have it both ways.

The trap that MS are now gradually digging themselves out of. I use Win7 and I agree it feels a lot more solid than earlier ones. I think MS have been very complacent with quality and hit rock bottom with Vista. MS had been riding its monopoly for too long. Now I think MS has had a bit of a change of priorities. Maybe the rise of linux helped. Probably Apple is more of a threat.

[JDShu]

The trap that MS are now gradually digging themselves out of. I use Win7 and I agree it feels a lot more solid than earlier ones. I think MS have been very complacent with quality and hit rock bottom with Vista. MS had been riding its monopoly for too long. Now I think MS has had a bit of a change of priorities. Maybe the rise of linux helped. Probably Apple is more of a threat.

Ironically, the biggest problem with Vista was their UI.

[YesWeCan]

What makes you think that a slick UI is not part of being a reliable, useful application?

It can be, but I think it is far more important that an application is useful and reliable than pretty. So if resources have to be prioritised...

[JDShu]

It can be, but I think it is far more important that an application is useful and reliable than pretty. So if resources have to be prioritised...

My point is that in fact a lot of the "issues" people had with Vista was actually due to UI design problems. It was more secure than XP, because it kept asking for passwords/confirmation. People hated that. It was also a big change from XP, so people were confused. I also read somewhere that its sluggishness was also due more to a UI that made bad decisions rather that something purely technical. Point is, on the technical side, it wasn't quite as bad as the media made it seem.