PC Mag's Louderback "I may switch to Linux"

[porcorosso]

Well, I get frustrated by both operating systems, Ubuntu and Vista.

I've been using Vista RTM since November of last year, and the RCs and betas before that. Fact is, if your hardware is supported, it's a heck of an OS. On a Dell Precision M70 (a three year old top-of-the-line Dell notebook with an nVidia video subsystem) it has worked absolutely flawlessly. I haven't seen a single blue screen or had a single lockup -- or even an application crash. But it is a pain in the you-know-what to keep the OS and all applications updated.

Contrast that to Ubuntu, which I've only used for a few weeks now. Ubuntu worked beautifully -- except for a woeful lack of decent OpenGL support -- right out of the gate, just as Vista did on the same system. Getting the video subsystem to work properly with a multi-head configuration when docked has been something that no person, who wasn't truly adept at doing research and performing trial and error experiments and using the command line interface, would have gone through. Now that I've got the system configured to suit me, and even before, I've absolutely loved Ubuntu. It's like the best box of toys I ever had! But it's also a fair amount of work.

Here's the point. Vista is awful if your hardware isn't supported. That's true of any operating system with bad hardware support. Vista is beautiful if your hardware IS supported. The response of the GUI is lightning fast, and it absolutely never crashes or wavers in the performance of its work.

Ubuntu is a blast because, like other Linux variants, you can customize it to within an inch of your life. It is fast and responsive on the same system that runs Vista so well. BUT -- even when you DO have hardware support in Ubuntu -- like with my nVidia Quadro FX Go1400 card on this notebook -- it is STILL somewhat of an undertaking to get things like multi-head support working. And those things simply worked in Vista.

I'm not putting Ubuntu or Linux down, mind you. I wouldn't even be using Vista (or any other Windows) if I weren't the sysadmin on a bunch of Active Directory production domains. Ubuntu and Linux are a blast. They are fun. They are supremely cool in allowing me to configure the system so much more precisely than I could configure a Windows system.

But, if you're going to get the best out of your hardware, Ubuntu (and other distros) still require a considerably greater amount of effort and learning to make them "just work" than does Windows, with equivalent hardware support.

The guy who wrote the article seemed to mostly be carping about something that really is NOT Microsoft's fault -- although it is their problem -- and that is poor (REALLY POOR) driver support from a great many hardware vendors. They had plenty of time for this. The hardware vendors who did their homework have hardware that works better than it ever did in any previous version of Windows and which never causes system crashes. Vista was a huge step forward. It could fail because people won't use it if they can't get good hardware support.

But Ubuntu and the Linuxes have some ground to cover, too. None of the end users I know would even think of attempting to go through the research and testing that I did over the last couple of weeks.

I'm rooting for Ubuntu and friend, because -- as I said before -- it'sjust about the best box of toys I've ever had! I haven't had this much fun since my Apple //e!

[p_quarles]

And, likewise, hardware support for Linux is the result of the hardware vendors themselves being reluctant to invest in supporting it (or, even better, opening up their specs).

I don't hate Vista (I have an XP disk that I could use to retrograde my current dual-boot system, but haven't bothered), but I guess I just don't see how it's that much of an improvement.

And I think that's what Louderback is reacting to: all this new performance demand, all this need for new and as-of-yet-unwritten drivers, but really not much in the way of fundamental OS improvements. It still has a registry, it still bluescreens (I think you're lucky, in that regard), and it still requires a complete reboot every time you make an update or major configuration change.

[K.Mandla]

I dropped this into the 'Cafe, since it has a general Linux news quality to it.

[porcorosso]

Well, it's my experience that, unless one deliberately installs non-compliant drivers, there's no way that Vista will blue-screen. I've got Vista workstations running on a 80 system producttion domain on a variety of hardware. It does NOT blue screen. Period. I even have it running on a pissant Panasonic CF-R3 subnotebook with 768 megs of RAM and a 60 gig hard drive. Hardly a system designed for Vista. It works perfectly. It's not even possible to blue screen it or lock it.

If the hardware vendors step up to the plate, Vista is a forgone conclusion -- as far as simple functionality is concerned.

What it lacks that Ubuntu has is the supreme level of configurability, and the absolutely superb and simple update process for EVERYTHING -- again, as long as you stay within the bounds of using applications within supported repositories.

If I had my choice of what to work with, and what to play with, it would be Ubuntu. I have to use Vista (or some Windows version) because of consulting work that I do. But to say that Vista isn't a huge step forward from Windows XP is really reaching. It's a hugely better operating system -- for anyone who takes the time and effort to learn about it.

But, yeah, rebooting every time you turn around is a hassle. On the other hand, it's a freaking desktop operating system, not a production server. I'll wait to see how they do with Longhorn before I start getting really annoyed about the future of MS operating systems. I can tell you that running production domains with Windows servers truly sucks.

Note that when I say "production", I mean exactly that. If the job requires 100% server availability, then Windows is NOT the platform. I don't know enough about Linux to know, yet, if even it is where I'd want it to be. But it's a heck of a lot closer than Windows is. So far there has been very little besides a kernel update in Linux that has actually required a reboot. It ain't where big iron is, and has been for a long time. But it's a danged sight better than these cotton-picking Windows servers that have to be rebooted AT LEAST once per month.

More to the point, Linux in the proper context is HUGELY easier to keep updated than any Windows system. If the Open Source drivers for everything can get to the point where they are at least good enough, Linux is a slam dunk for people like me.

As it is, I prefer it -- but I have to live with Windows. And Vista ain't half bad on any well-supported platform.

[TeaSwigger]

What primarily motivated me to finally learn how to use and install a linux OS was the ethics of Microsoft; I believe your computer and your content is yours. How dare they demand your money for a product with no warranty, then make you pay for (poorly provided) support and demand you enter legal agreements allowing them control of what aspects of what you've already bought that you're actually allowed to use and how and when you can use it to run your own computer. Why people are shoveling money at them instead of laughing them out of business is beyond me, but despite them people are free to make that choice on their own. So be it...

Besides, Microsoft becoming one of the richest entities ever on the planet by doing the effective equivalent of organizing a monopoly as sole provider of factory installed car dashboards is absurd.

[starcraft.man]

Hehe, Jim was pretty fun on dltv... too bad him and Norton left. Oh well though.

As for him moving to Linux, that's awesome the more the merrier.

[p_quarles]

But to say that Vista isn't a huge step forward from Windows XP is really reaching. It's a hugely better operating system -- for anyone who takes the time and effort to learn about it.

How? This is, by the way, an honest question and not an attempt to start a flamewar, or to put you in the position of defending MS on a Linux forum. I'm just curious. I've only used it at home, so haven't had a chance to see any of the enterprise level improvements it might have made.

I know that some improvements were made in security, and they added the sometimes-useful "look online to fix this bug" feature. But I didn't really see anything beyond that.

[Kingsley]

How does he know the stuff he's complaining about will work in Linux? I think the most he'll do is switch back to Windows XP.

[porcorosso]

How? This is, by the way, an honest question and not an attempt to start a flamewar, or to put you in the position of defending MS on a Linux forum. I'm just curious. I've only used it at home, so haven't had a chance to see any of the enterprise level improvements it might have made.

I know that some improvements were made in security, and they added the sometimes-useful "look online to fix this bug" feature. But I didn't really see anything beyond that.

Sorry. Didn't mean to ignore you. Have been out and about for a day. May not make a lot of sense at the moment since I'm really tired and have a headach (call the waahbulance), but to list just a few tremendous improvements in Vista over XP:

1. device drivers (most of them) running in user land instead of the kernel (no more blue screens; the people who see those are mostly people who have forced using WinXP drivers or who have done an upgrade installation of Vista over WinXP -- bad news)

2. possible to really use the operating system as a non-admin user (I tried it in WinXP; what a farce, but totally doable in Vista)

3. a much improved user interface -- practically eliminating artifacts on the screen, and vastly improving responsiveness (I'm not kidding when I say that every machine I've switched from WinXP to Vista performs better under Vista. (NOTE: I have NOT put Vista on anything less than a Centrino notebook. But that teensly little Panasonic CF-R3 with a not-so-fast Centrino processor and 768 MB of RAM and a 60 gig hard drive really does perform MUCH better under Vista than it did under WinXP.) I can burn a DVD on the fly while fiddling around in Excel and Visio with a dozen browser windows open on a notebook with no problems, and no delay in response to user input. Not happening on WinXP.

4. Networking is vastly improved. Heh. Brother-in-law just got a Toshiba notebook with Vista Ultimate on it. Toshiba put this incredible crapware wireless network management software on the thing. (WHY do they do that?) Once I scrubbed that and the McAfee security (?) software off of the thing it would actually connect!



5. volume shadow copy based previous versions / restore points -- much more reliable than the old system

6. and, as you said, much improved security -- which, of course, all of the Window-winders are whining about. But the prompts for credentials from the UAC when you go to do something that's going to affect important parts of the system configuration would look pretty familiar to an Ubuntu user.

7. for sysadmin types the xml-based installation script functionality is a monster improvement, with features that absolutely rock -- if you're lucky enough to work somewhere where you can employ it

Those are some of the more obvious improvements in the OS ---

I think Vista has it all over any previous version of Windows when used on a modern, reasonably powerful system with decent hardware support. Virtually a 100% of the carping about this OS concerns hardware support and changes in the user interface that people balk at learning -- including that article that was linked at the start of this thread. It's the same old tune every time ANYONE brings out a new version of an operating system.

Well, Microsoft bent over backwards to get hardware people on board with the changes necessary to write drivers for the new OS a LONG time ago. Many hardware vendors have done a decent job of getting viable drivers out. Many others haven't bothered, or, worse yet, have posted workarounds to help people use incompatible drivers in Vista, thereby turning the OS into a steaming pile. (Frankly, I wish MS had made that impossible. I have to deal with twit vendors who are still trying to palm off NT4-level driver technology in "new, improved" systems. Morons. And, of course, they want to put the blame on Microsoft because their crapware crashes and burns.)

As far as the UI is concerned, some changes seem arbitrary, but most are based in the new security paradigm. Like it or not, it's more secure, and its more responsive. People who work with information technology have to learn new stuff all the time. Those folks ought to just learn to deal with it. Any attempt at improvement is going to bring changes that take getting used to.

As for me, I LIKE getting used to new stuff. That's one of the reasons I've enjoyed my new experience with Ubuntu so much. But there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

In a way, being a new user with Ubuntu is like playing an adventure game. But getting my Quadro FX Go1400 to work properly with a port replicator and dual monitors without blowing away multimedia capabilities has been a little like some of the harder puzzles in Riven. Know what I mean?

[porcorosso]

How does he know the stuff he's complaining about will work in Linux? I think the most he'll do is switch back to Windows XP.

That's what I'm thinking, too. About the time he goes through the shuffle of trying 8 different ways of installing binary drivers and fiddling around with xorg.conf to try to get decent OpenGL support, he'll go running back to Mama!

And then there's ndiswrapper -- yahoo! I really don't know why anyone even bothers with that. It was a marvelous idea as a stop-gap measure in the beginning, but, for pity's sake, I don't understand anyone who doesn't just get a blooming card with a supported chipset! Our time HAS to be worth SOMETHING!