Windows Vista looks beautiful

[alecjw]

Firstly, before you flame me I AM NEVER GOING TO USE WINDOWS AS MY MAIN OS, I'm just making a point.

Look at this pic: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Windows_Vista_RC1_desktop.png

You've goota hand it to them, the Graphics are great. The taskbar looks less square, with the circular start button on it.
I like the transparency too. Look at the plack part of the start menu and the edge of the control panel window. They are both slightly transparent, and what's underneath them also looks blurred, like if you were looking through a window covered looseley in sticky-back plastic.
The start menu also looks less square with its curved corners and the picrure sticking out of the top.

Is such beauty ever planned for Ubuntu?

[dolny]

Not bad, but too 'plastic' for me. Still, it looks nice. Anyway, I really prefer Linux (the ability to change everything to suit your needs).

[danielph]

That must have spent a lot of time getting those icons right. Wonder how much time they spent making it work?

[alecjw]

I really prefer Linux

I'm not saying that I prefer *******. I'm just saying that its graphics are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better. And I'm not downgrading just for the graphics!

[Anonii]

The true-transparency looks great. About the circular buttons, they look "too" fake for me.
But yes, the graphics are really neat.

in b4 windows stereotyping, non-sense criticism etc.

[dolny]

I'm not saying that I prefer *******. I'm just saying that its graphics are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better. And I'm not downgrading just for the graphics!

Yes I understand :) And yes, it really looks cool. I think it is a matter of time on Linux.

[happy-and-lost]

Yeah, but how much do you have to fork out for a Graphics card that can support them? They've pimped the graphics so much, they crashed my laptop whilst playing Solitaire! It just adds to the massive bloating of Windows.

Oh yeah, major fault with the pretty new explorer... no "up a directory button" (D'oh!)

[Somenoob]

reminds me of Mac OSX

[mostwanted]

Firstly, before you flame me I AM NEVER GOING TO USE WINDOWS AS MY MAIN OS, I'm just making a point.

Look at this pic: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Windows_Vista_RC1_desktop.png

You've goota hand it to them, the Graphics are great. The taskbar looks less square, with the circular start button on it.
I like the transparency too. Look at the plack part of the start menu and the edge of the control panel window. They are both slightly transparent, and what's underneath them also looks blurred, like if you were looking through a window covered looseley in sticky-back plastic.
The start menu also looks less square with its curved corners and the picrure sticking out of the top.

Is such beauty ever planned for Ubuntu?

Transparency and blur is already possible with Compiz-quinn (or what is now going to be called Beryl). My Gnome terminal looks precisely like the background of the opened start menu:

http://htmldesign.dk/blog3/img/screens/aptitude_search.png

Vista replicas are the most popular theme type for CGWD (Compiz-quinn themes), they have transparency, blur and light-emitting close-minimise-maximise buttons too.

It's possible to configure your panel to look like the Windows one too (just use a different background image).

So it's basically already here, except the bubbly start menu and Vista icons, that's still MS-only.

[MetalMusicAddict]

Looks nice. I dont see anything Compiz isnt doing though.

[Bloodfen Razormaw]

I'd call Vista's visuals good, but not great. It was ruined by excess visual complexity, firstly from the needless glossy lines on the Aero glass look, and worse because of all the graphics that show through because of the extremely excessive transparency. I think I actually prefer my KDE desktop with compositing enabled; it has a smoother, more modern look, and with more color. Vista is beautiful in more of a baroque way.

[rfruth]

Vista looks like OS X, Micro$oft is doing what it does best ...

[Anonii]

Vista looks like OS X, Micro$oft is doing what it does best ...

You mean creating extremely mainstream and easy operating systems, that are always guaranteed to work, and getting tons of money?

[insane_alien]

pfft i can get that and more on AIGLX/Compiz. and it has the added factor that can only be described by the word: jiggily

[alecjw]

Ok, I'm gonna try and make ubuntu look like vista now (and proably fail)

[jcrnan]

alecjw: its really easy with compiz (beryl).

[ComplexNumber]

Micro$oft is doing what it does best ...
yup, dressing mutton up as lamb.


i personally think its all much ado about nothing. considering it took me all of an hour or 2 to get sick of XGL, graphics like that don't impress me. they don't improve userbility. rather, they inhibit it because they get in the way. in my opinion, plain old gnome have got it right more than any other.

[alecjw]

alecjw: its really easy with compiz (beryl).

Can't find it in the repositories. Anyway, that just does the blurred transparency thing, doesn't it?

[jcrnan]

heh,

http://youtube.com/watch?v=X8mhwwYWuUc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ih1TYQ_Ut-A

thats compiz. Search for it on the forums, there are good howtoos. You just have to add the compiz repositories, download and install it and make some configurations in your xorg.conf file.

btw: New version is coming soon :) Oh and you can ofcourse turn off and on and customize any of its features :)

[jamesford]

personally i find it fugly, but then again im a minimalist

[qamelian]

I'm not saying that I prefer *******. I'm just saying that its graphics are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better. And I'm not downgrading just for the graphics!

Whether or not the graphics are better is a matter of taste. Vista does look good but I find all the shiny bits a little had on the eyes. I prefer somthing a little softer. And frankly, I've seen themes for both Gnome and KDE that are every bit as graphically impressive as Vista. Some even better, in my opinion. Still, Vista is dramatically better looking than previous versions of Windows.

[reacocard]

Closest i've been able to come to vista is:

Compiz-quinn/cgwd
Vista-Compiz cgwd theme
Linista 2 GTK theme
NuevoXT icon theme

Screenshot attached.

[K.Mandla]

Looks nice. I dont see anything Compiz isnt doing though.
My thoughts EXACTLY.

Windows, if anything, is so far behind the curve I wouldn't even consider it for an operating system. I leave it to the businesses and other contractually obligated technophobic organizations that won't go cutting edge.

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/1967/screenshot1gr9.th.jpg (http://img352.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot1gr9.jpg)

Like my 1Ghz P3 with a 64Mb video card. :D :D

[jcrnan]

mandala: What? No 360 degrees awsome animated skydome? XD

[K.Mandla]

mandala: What? No 360 degrees awsome animated skydome? XD
You know, I've done the skydome and personally I prefer the black background. I don't know why, but then again I've never really found a nice seamless landscape shot that I liked. ;)

[jcrnan]

lol, yeah, damn hard to find those 360 seamless 1:2 backgrounds :P I have a couple on my pc tough :) looks very neat.

[hanzomon4]

Vista does look nice, I wouldn't mind trying it out. I just wish the requirements to run it were a bit less expensive


Firstly, before you flame me I AM NEVER GOING TO USE WINDOWS AS MY MAIN OS, I'm just making a point.


I have a question, why did you feel the need to point out the fact that you would never use vista a your main OS? Also why would some flame you for saying that vista looks nice. You weren't calling vista superior or anything, nor were you speaking of the merits of vista and I how it rules linux.

I'm just curious, I really hope that no one would flame you for giving an opinion about the aesthetics of vista.

[maniacmusician]

lol, i've seen users get flamed for less. it all depends on how you word your post of course. usually when you post anything windows related you need to be cautious to make sure you're not flamed

[lonce]

I like vista. Let me rephrase, I liked vista when they released what it was going to do. Now that its close to release and it doesnt have alot of the functions it was supposed to have. I dont want to waste my time with it. As far as pretty. It cant touch linux on functionality or eye candy. On vista you have to have a top of the line machine to run most of the eye candy. Hell on Xp you have to have a pretty nice machine to run with all the eye candy. Yet on ubuntu, my machine, which couldnt run XP with all candy, flys through ubuntu eye candy. Its amazing to me that computer specs only need to go up to accomodate windows. My sons 1.4 pentium with 256 ram and a 16 meg video card runs ubuntu flawlessly, and fast. Yet XP is sluggish after only a week. You can keep windows. I am not flaming, I will just never use it again.

[fuscia]

windows vista looks like tabitha stevens in the twilight of her career.

[robinl]

I think it's too man-made... Too desperate to create "wow" factor that people will be tired of it in no time. The same thing had happened with Windows XP and I will not be surprised if it also happens to Vista.

[GameManK]

I think it's too man-made... Too desperate to create "wow" factor that people will be tired of it in no time. The same thing had happened with Windows XP and I will not be surprised if it also happens to Vista.
I agree. While I think the graphics really cool, they make me kind of nauseous almost. A large part of that is the lack of seperation between the title bar and the window, and having the menu below the toolbar sometimes. I know some people hate that seperation and much prefer the title bar to blend in, but I can't stand it.

[croak77]

Vista art is not final. It's still gonna be a little while before the release. That being said, I think it looks nice. Much better then XP IMHO.

[Reshin]

well, gotta say it's slighty better than most default themes

[mrgnash]

The visuals of Vista will come as a nice surprise to Windows users, but Compiz already matches, and will soon exceed, it :)

[GoA]

Transparency and blur is already possible with Compiz-quinn (or what is now going to be called Beryl). My Gnome terminal looks precisely like the background of the opened start menu:

http://htmldesign.dk/blog3/img/screens/aptitude_search.png

Vista replicas are the most popular theme type for CGWD (Compiz-quinn themes), they have transparency, blur and light-emitting close-minimise-maximise buttons too.

It's possible to configure your panel to look like the Windows one too (just use a different background image).

So it's basically already here, except the bubbly start menu and Vista icons, that's still MS-only.


There's a lot more in Vista than just the transprarenties. I'm currently running Vista RC1 build 5728 as my system and there a lot of this small fade-in fade-out animations. Like the icon in start menu changed nicely by the folder your are pointing in the menu and ie's transparencie on the address field get's more visible when you hover the mouse over etc. And there's isn't any of those in compiz/gnome. also the text in the opaque windowwtitles has a nice white baccground which makes the text more readable etc.

[DoctorMO]

*shrug* enjoy your lovly shaped and decorated chains.

[Sushi]

Firstly, before you flame me I AM NEVER GOING TO USE WINDOWS AS MY MAIN OS, I'm just making a point.

Look at this pic: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Windows_Vista_RC1_desktop.png

You've goota hand it to them, the Graphics are great.

What's so great in that screenshot?


I like the transparency too.

It does not make the system easier to use, and it makes the UI look busier and fuzzier. Is this a case of "shiny things == Good"?


Look at the plack part of the start menu and the edge of the control panel window.

It's semi-transparent. So? It actually makes my eyes hurt, when I try to read the text in the start-menu. It's harder to focus on the text, when there is fuzzy things in the background. It feels like I should be focusing on the things in the background instead.


Is such beauty ever planned for Ubuntu?

Hey, if we made everything transparent, then it would look REALLY GOOD, right?

Vista is obviously desaigned around the idea that "now that we can make things transparent, we should make as many things as possible as transparent as possible".

[Kateikyoushi]

It is not the transparency what makes it good but the whole composition of the theme, well they had a lot of time to work on it.
Even the basic theme is a big step forward , saves space removes never used buttons, IE's autohided menu bar.
Have to say even vista looks old compared to the live branded programs which are beta tested now.

I personally prefer minimalistic design so would prefer ubuntu as it is but for most people I guess vista's better look would be decisive.

[Reshin]

Transparencies are mandatory?

[Sushi]

Even the basic theme is a big step forward

Considerong that the baseline we are comparing Vista to, is "Fisher-Price" XP, ANYTHING would be a "big step forward".

[drucer]

It looks crappy. I don't like it at all.

[hanzomon4]

Transparency and blur is already possible with Compiz-quinn (or what is now going to be called Beryl). My Gnome terminal looks precisely like the background of the opened start menu:

http://htmldesign.dk/blog3/img/screens/aptitude_search.png

Vista replicas are the most popular theme type for CGWD (Compiz-quinn themes), they have transparency, blur and light-emitting close-minimise-maximise buttons too.

It's possible to configure your panel to look like the Windows one too (just use a different background image).

So it's basically already here, except the bubbly start menu and Vista icons, that's still MS-only.



Are you using a reflection map, if so which one :mrgreen:

[Kateikyoushi]

Transparencies are mandatory?

In Vista's the basic theme the transparency is disabled, it is the default on machines which do not meet the minimum Aero requirements but you can switch to it or even classic if you prefer so.

[ginyip]

Microsoft product's design are not bad at all. Windows, office, all the other are look great. They really give ppls a feel of "they got what they pay for".
On the outside? ..... :mrgreen:

[Alpha_toxic]

Well, it is better than XP, but it is just about that...
I don't see how it is any better than this http://alpha-toxic.hit.bg/Kubuntu.png (which is almost default... it can be customised much further)

[GoA]

I still have to continue. Vista indeed looks beatiful but looks can be deceiving. For example, the new user rights management system is just horrible. It keeps popping on almost in everything you are doing and for example, when I was installing iTunes7 I had to authorize the installer for three times if I remember correctly. So ubuntus sudo does work a lot better.

Then for speed, Vista is fast. Vey fast indeed, for example the new media player/ie start instantly and the whole system dopes wheel very fast. Edgy is a lot faster that Dapper but vista can beat them both on everything, for at least what I saw not that I tested anything. Then the new UI doesn't feel any heavy with a relatively new computer.

Then also vista isn't completely stable on my computer, I have got three blue screens of death but then again, it's only RC I also have had bugs on all beta software so that cannot be used as a bad side of vista. And vista didn't detect my better soundcard and there wasn't no drivers to it which was one bad thing.

So, when vista will be released, I will definetly use it but I am not going to pay about 600 euros for the ultimate version. And I will also use continue using Ubuntu.

I think that these to operating systems shouldn't be compared too much. Microsoft is a huge company which and it is big market leader. They have developed Windows a lot longer than Ubuntu has been excisting. They can also but more money for just marketing than Ubuntu can use totally per year.

Both systems however, have their good and bad sides. Nothing isnt' perfect and there will be always people who prefer thing in different ways. So let's be excited about Ubuntu and Vista and let's use the system which you the best. :)

[MikeDK]

LOOOVE LINUX dont wanna go back to windows ever and Ubuntu's staying in my house untill theres no more ubuntu forums, updates etc.

[alcamus]

When a corporation has billions of dollars at its disposal and can afford to pay top designers to make its icons, they'd better look top-notch. The superb eye candy didn't surprise me at all when I installed the Vista release candidate -- but then neither did the pop-up that reminded me I needed to install a virus scanner to be secure.

I've said this in another forum, but it bears repeating: You can put makeup on a pig, but it's still going to oink when you wake up with it in the morning.

[Colonel Kilkenny]

Yeah, Vista looks quite nice. It looks as it would have been designed to look like that.
I really don't like black bars in OS and those window decorations are too big for me in Vista and XGL+Compiz, but still that looks quite stylish. Apologies for everyone doing themes for gnome and cgwd etc. but Vista style looks like it has been designed by a pro. Of course I know that it is designed by professional and that is the way it obviously should be as well.

One thing I don't like in gnome is that it seems like they are trying to force every app to use that plain and boring "gnome/gtk-style". A little bit of innovation would not harm instead of crushing everything into their HIG (maybe a good thing, maybe not).

But I would not change my ubuntu for vista.

[FISHERMAN]

As someone who likes black themes, I have to admit that it does look very good.
On the other hand, it's not that hard to get a similar theme for GNU/Linux and you don't a super computer to run it.

[reacocard]

... the new media player/ie start instantly ...


sudo apt-get install preload

More speed tweaks:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=89491&highlight=speed+ubuntu
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=206022&highlight=speed+ubuntu
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=254263

[mostwanted]

Are you using a reflection map, if so which one :mrgreen:

I think it just uses the default one. The CGWD theme is called Scaled Black Mod and has a kind of built-in reflection as you can see :)

[hanzomon4]

Found it thanks.

[KhaaL]

I think it looks nice, but I've also tried out e17 and that, my friend, is what I call eyecandywindowmanager :biggrin: I'm just waiting for it get more stable... and like everyone else mentioned, XGL/AIGLX + compiz does what vista does, with less resources

[plb]

I wonder how KDE 4 will hold up against Vista....the feature plan sounds incredible and I'm not even a KDE user but that may all change if 4.0 is all it's made up to be.

[GoA]

sudo apt-get install preload

More speed tweaks:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=89491&highlight=speed+ubuntu
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=206022&highlight=speed+ubuntu
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=254263

Allready done that all. ;)
EDIT: Linux just hasn't never felt as snap as Windows on my computer - and yes, I have tested quite a lot of tweaks and kernels. However, under heavy load linux is faster because the better way to distribute the load.

[omns]

.

[alecjw]

Vista does look nice, I wouldn't mind trying it out. I just wish the requirements to run it were a bit less expensive



I have a question, why did you feel the need to point out the fact that you would never use vista a your main OS? Also why would some flame you for saying that vista looks nice. You weren't calling vista superior or anything, nor were you speaking of the merits of vista and I how it rules linux.

I'm just curious, I really hope that no one would flame you for giving an opinion about the aesthetics of vista.

I was just expecting some people to misinterpret it/just read the subject and thing that I'm saying that vista is beeer in another way. Was flame the right term to use? Or is flame only supposed to be used in the context of showing immense hatred to software, not people?

[alecjw]

I think it's too man-made... Too desperate to create "wow" factor that people will be tired of it in no time. The same thing had happened with Windows XP and I will not be surprised if it also happens to Vista.

That's a good point. When I first saw XP, I just thought "wow". Now it's the most digusing, annoying and infuriating sight imaginable to me.

[Old Pink]

Functionality comes before visuals, in my book. :)

[Reshin]

Just ran vista upgrade advisor on my laptop (asus a6j). No support for network-adapter or audio-device at all. Doesn't even support homepna-cards on my desktop-comp ](*,)

[Lord Illidan]

I can't say it looks ugly. On the other hand, one must say that if this is the only feature MS has been working on for the last 5 years...then....MS is way behind open source...and that is with their massive budget.

Think a bit...when XP came out, Linux distros looked ugly...Now Vista is coming out, and Linux is looking better than it already with some customisation. What will happen in Vista + 1?

Features have been dropped left, right and centre.. Also, it looks different, which means that users are going to get confused. And it costs a lot of money..

[croak77]

Think a bit...when XP came out, Linux distros looked ugly...Now Vista is coming out, and Linux is looking better than it already with some customisation. What will happen in Vista + 1?

Features have been dropped left, right and centre.. Also, it looks different, which means that users are going to get confused. And it costs a lot of money..

I thought about it...and I think the default Vista looks better then the default GNOME, KDE, or XFCE4. Or the default Ubuntu or Kubuntu.

Features have been dropped cause it's still in development. And I really don't think users are going to be confused. It still has a very similar start menu. And still behaves much like XP.

Cost is an issue, but it hasn't really stopped people before. Upgrading from 98 to XP didn't cause a mass migrating to GNU/Linux, OSX, or BSD. Besides, much has changed in the PC world since XP and people will most likely buy a new PC that has Vista preloaded.

[hanzomon4]

Does this mean that most new computers will be Vista-Aero certified or whatever its called...

[.t.]

I think the current Vista look is incredibly... (hmm, I just forgot the word I was going to use... must be late...). Anyway, I think it's great. However, it's not enough to entice me back; rather, to make my laptop look just as sleek. (Ah!.. that was the word I wanted!.. sleek).

[lapsey]

Does this mean that most new computers will be Vista-Aero certified or whatever its called...

I dont think I will ever go back to PC gaming in a world where 1GB of RAM will be the bare minimum.

[Spacecaptain]

I am not impressed at all...
I have toyed around with Enlightenment since Hoary and at the end of the day, so much bling just hurts your eyes.
Linux, in many ways has months advantage in the bling scene. There have been thousands of users toying around with the many window/compositing managers that are allready available.
From all this experience, there will be (allready are?) sensible themes and settings available for Linux, that will use the amazing capacities that have been developed towards an effective end, with good looks. Isn't that what it's all about? Elegance, is the real killer!

On the other hand, Vista is compelled to offer a fatload of bling from the start, so that at first look it will create a WOW-factor. But how many computers other than the exposition machines in the shop will really boast all that candy? Remember what your mummy said: To much candy will hurt your teeth!

[Rhapsody]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[BOBSONATOR]

Vista Does look nice, but will it grab the attention of my class when i bust out the 3d Cube?!> heck nO!

[croak77]

Vista Does look nice, but will it grab the attention of my class when i bust out the 3d Cube?!> heck nO!

Then they will bust out Flip 3D. So what's your point.

[Skia_42]

Beauty is personal, I love my setup and wouldn't give it up for apple, let alone MS. Work with what you like and more importantly what works...

[croak77]

Beauty is personal, I love my setup and wouldn't give it up for apple, let alone MS. Work with what you like and more importantly what works...

That's great...but how do you like the default Vista versus the default XP, GNOME, KDE, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Mandrake, Suse, etc. Not your personal setup. Obviuously you can personalize Vista too.

[ago]

I thought about it...and I think the default Vista looks better then the default GNOME, KDE, or XFCE4. Or the default Ubuntu or Kubuntu.
Well you cannot really say that since by the time Vista is on the shelves you will have Edgy+1. Plus the "default" means little if I can make Ubuntu look better with little effort. Not mentioning that from what I have seen so far XGL & co are quite superior.

And if Linux can look better now, what will happen in a few years? Do not forget that Windows has a life cycle of 5 years, Ubuntu of 6 months. When Vista is retired you will have Edgy+9, and if the move from Ubuntu Warty to Dapper (=warty+3) is any indication of the progress in coming years, I think there is little chance... For Vista...

(dapper - warty) > (vista - XP) =>
(edgy+9 - dapper) = (dapper - warty)*3 >> (vista+1 - vista) = (vista - XP)*1

It's math... :D


Features have been dropped cause it's still in development.
Vista is in feature-freeze. Lots and lots of features from original plans have been dropped for good... You will need to wait for Vista+1 in 5 years time for those...


And I really don't think users are going to be confused. It still has a very similar start menu. And still behaves much like XP.
I see another problem here...


Cost is an issue, but it hasn't really stopped people before.
Of course not, particularly because if you buy ANY PC, it is quite difficult to avoid the microsoft tax.... Most people will simply get along with it...


Upgrading from 98 to XP didn't cause a mass migrating to GNU/Linux, OSX, or BSD. Besides,
Despite several announcements, Linux up until a couple of years ago has never been a serious contender on Desktops. Now it is. But the main obstacle remains the preinstallation. Linux is not preinstalled, and you will not see it in PC shops. Quality makes little difference.


much has changed in the PC world since XP and people will most likely buy a new PC that has Vista preloaded.
The ones that bought a PC 5 years ago maybe. The ones that bought a PC this year or last year, less likely so. Add that for "normal" use there is little advantage in having a new machine, the bottleneck remains the internet connection in most cases. 10 years ago internet was far less important and the bottleneck was the machine when working on office/media files. Machines up to 4-5 years old are adequate both for office/media and obviously for internet use.

In a nutshell I think that Edgy+2/3/4... will be a serious competitor of installations of boxed retail Vista on old machines. While XP will be a serious competitor of OEM Vista on new machines, (in the sense that there will be little incentive to upgrade PC).

[croak77]

Well you cannot really say that since by the time Vista is on the shelves you will have Edgy+1. Plus the "default" means little if I can make Ubuntu look better with little effort. Not mentioning that from what I have seen so far XGL & co are quite superior.

I don't know what Edgy+1 is gonna be like. It could be great it could be really bad. Yes, it's easy to change the default Ubuntu look, but you can change the default Vista look too. So, let's just compare the default looks for now. I haven't been impressed with Xgl/Compiz. Vista at least as some features that appeal to me more then Compiz.


And if Linux can look better now, what will happen in a few years? Do not forget that Windows has a life cycle of 5 years, Ubuntu of 6 months. When Vista is retired you will have Edgy+9, and if the move from Ubuntu Warty to Dapper (=warty+3) is any indication of the progress in coming years, I think there is little chance... For Vista...

I'm not ready to say that Edgy+9 is gonna be anything special. Maybe Microsoft release's a Vista or Aero upgrade. Let's not talk theoretically. Let's keep the talk to what's available now or what we have seen/used.


(dapper - warty) > (vista - XP) =>
(edgy+9 - dapper) = (dapper - warty)*3 >> (vista+1 - vista) = (vista - XP)*1


I have no idea what this means.



Vista is in feature-freeze. Lots and lots of features from original plans have been dropped for good... You will need to wait for Vista+1 in 5 years time for those...

AFAIK, it's not in feature freeze. The last build added at least one feature requested by testers.



Despite several announcements, Linux up until a couple of years ago has never been a serious contender on Desktops. Now it is. But the main obstacle remains the preinstallation. Linux is not preinstalled, and you will not see it in PC shops. Quality makes little difference.

Sorry. I use GNU/Linux but I wouldn't say it's a serious contender on Desktops. It has improved greatly but, I don't think it can compete with Microsoft just yet.



The ones that bought a PC 5 years ago maybe. The ones that bought a PC this year or last year, less likely so. Add that for "normal" use there is little advantage in having a new machine, the bottleneck remains the internet connection in most cases. 10 years ago internet was far less important and the bottleneck was the machine when working on office/media files. Machines up to 4-5 years old are adequate both for office/media and obviously for internet use.

The people who bought a machine a year ago, IMHO are more likely either to stick to XP or buy a Vista upgrade. I think it's hard for people to give up on software that they use or have bought. And I think GNU/Linux is asking way too much of the 'average' user to download, burn, partition and install.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I'm not very fond of that round start menu button... it looks pretentious and takes up more screen space than it needs to.
I'm fine with Windows XP running a Clearlooks theme when I need it, though Vista does look pretty neat.

Croak77:
How easy is it really to change the Vista theme file?
With my above managing to get a beautiful Clearlooks theme in XP, I had to hack a Windows DLL.
I don't understand why they restricted it in the first place, but it seems like a thing they would do and I'd be surprised if they opened it up.


I have a quick question for anyone running the Vista release candidate:

I have been using the little desktop toolbars in XP of late because they seem to be useful ways to improve productivity. (Okay, I admit, I use XP a lot but I still love Ubuntu and I try to use it when I can; I would use it a lot more if it was running on the good computer).
In fact, they are. They give me one click access to lots of folders without taking up much room on my desktop.
Now, the problem is that they are clearly on of the most neglected and poorly designed potentially good components of Windows. They look bad, they have no Lock in Place function, and if I click on them wrong (I have 6 stacked on top of eachother) the entire stack disappears into thin air or falls into complete disarray. There's also a handy feature where I can Ctrl+click to open a drop-down menu of files in the folder listed, but there is no onscreen alternative so I rarely use it and only recently discovered it.

Have they improved those things for Vista?

[Skia_42]

That's great...but how do you like the default Vista versus the default XP, GNOME, KDE, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Mandrake, Suse, etc. Not your personal setup. Obviuously you can personalize Vista too.

You have a good point, but how many people are going to be using the default theme? Using the art manager is pretty easy so I do not think that the default theme is that critical. If you are going to customize anyway, you should worry about customizability not the default theme.

[jcrnan]

skia: Thing is that most windows users dont customize anything. they just use whatever is there. (then again customizing windows is a bitch)

croak: What does vista do that compiz/beryl doesnt?

[argie]

Nah, it's nice, but it'll kill my computer with those requirements. It's nice to look at now and then though. I really liked that transparency first, but now, I think maybe staring at it for long won't be nice at all.

Besides that start button is round, and there's space to its left. I don't feel like I can just throw my mouse to the bottom left and click it, there's this "have to aim" feeling. Maybe I'm just being weird.

[Bezmotivnik]

Why the transparent menus? :confused:

I completely don't get this as it's poor visual ergonomics.

As a guy with vision problems, I can assure you that this would certainly be turned off in any OS in use around here.

[hanzomon4]

I dont think I will ever go back to PC gaming in a world where 1GB of RAM will be the bare minimum.

My thinking was more along the lines of a drop in price for a pc that would cost alot more if bought today, because OMES would want most of their pcs to be vista certified.

Then buy one install Ubuntu, Get a beefed up pc for less.

[Sushi]

Think a bit...when XP came out, Linux distros looked ugly...Now Vista is coming out, and Linux is looking better than it already with some customisation. What will happen in Vista + 1?

Features have been dropped left, right and centre.. Also, it looks different, which means that users are going to get confused. And it costs a lot of money..

I said the same thing few years ago. Every time a new version of Windows has been released, Linux-distros and desktops scrambled to keep up. They updated functionality, they improved the looks... But now... Vista hasn't even been released, and Linux already looks better and has better features. And this time Linux is as easy to use as Windows, if not easier. True, in many hard-core ways Linux has been superior to Windows for a long time. But I'm talking about normal users here.

Folks, for the first time Microsoft is about to release their latest and greatest OS, and it offers NOTHING that Linux doesn't already offer! Previously after such a release, we started to think "Damn, I wish Linux had that". This time, all they get from us is a big fat yawn.

[alcamus]

I'm not ready to say that Edgy+9 is gonna be anything special. Maybe Microsoft release's a Vista or Aero upgrade. Let's not talk theoretically. Let's keep the talk to what's available now or what we have seen/used.

Good point, and I have to agree with you totally -- in spite of the fact that an upgrade from XP to Vista took nearly two hours, once it was up it looked gorgeous. It also further restricted my access to the heart and soul of the OS, but that's beside the point. If we limit our discussion to eye candy, Vista is far sweeter than GNU/Linux in any variety. And as far as I could tell, the eye candy was quite stable.

But I sure wish someone would honestly address the issue of why one of the first reminders I was given at Vista startup was to install a virus scanner. When all the hype about Longhorn/Vista first began, Microsoft boasted that it would provide users with a bulletproof OS, one equal to or superior to *nix/BSD. So far that hasn't proven true.

Personally I think the reason is economic. Microsoft will not close doors that let it peer into your installation (however anonymous it is supposed to be); it will not close doors that allow its vendors to do the same (piracy has to be reduced after all); and it will not cut the economic support of dozens of vendors providing security software. Those things leave the system vulnerable to hackers, in my opinion, and they will continue to do so in the future. That's fine for folks who are willing to pay an additional premium to secure their systems, but it's still off the mark of the promises made when the OS was first introduced.

Again, if you take the economic resources available to Microsoft and channel them into Ubuntu (or any other flavor of Linux for that matter), you'll get impressive results or people will lose jobs. The classic example is Apple, whose FreeBSD eye candy set the standard Vista had to meet or exceed -- sure, my opinion is debatable, but go to any Linux windows management customizing service and search for Mac clones. There are a host of them. Now the bar is Vista, and sure enough, clones in Compiz are a dime a dozen.


Sorry. I use GNU/Linux but I wouldn't say it's a serious contender on Desktops. It has improved greatly but, I don't think it can compete with Microsoft just yet.

When you say "serious contender on desktops" I'm not sure what you mean. It was serious enough for me to take a stab at it after years of sticking with Microsoft. As long as Microsoft has the sort of economic, political, advertising and development clout it does (and I foresee it lasting into the indefinite future), the open source community will always be an also-ran. But I have to say I've seen light years of improvement in Linux/BSD in the past five years. I think this is due in large part to the economic boost given the OSes by companies like Red Hat, Novell, Apple, and the adventurous Mr. Shuttleworth. When the day finally arrives that commercial developers see a reason to support the OS (and I see it on the horizon, with nVidia and ATI leading the way) and others begin to look at open source as a means to profit, Linux will become a "serious" contender.

But I have to say I've never been more impressed with anything created on what is basically a "volunteer" model. For the most part, Linux is a labor of love, and it's damned impressive from that standpoint. Would Vista be the product it is today if all its developers had to hold down day jobs to support their hobby? I hardly think so.


The people who bought a machine a year ago, IMHO are more likely either to stick to XP or buy a Vista upgrade. I think it's hard for people to give up on software that they use or have bought. And I think GNU/Linux is asking way too much of the 'average' user to download, burn, partition and install.

Ubuntu doesn't ask people to download, burn, partition and install their OS. They sent me ten attractively packaged copies through the mail for the asking (I didn't even pay postage). I put the live CD in my machine and played around with it for days before taking the plunge. Then it was simply a matter of double-clicking an icon, answering a few questions, and waiting for the process to finish. I didn't have to partition anything -- Ubuntu did it for me. Perhaps I was one of the lucky few, but everything but my Webcam worked right away -- there was nothing I had to change. It was only after I learned I could tweak the system that I started changing things to the point where I became obsessed with learning it inside-out.

I've subsequently turned friends onto Ubuntu, and one converted his 67-year-old mom. She's delighted with her new system and doesn't see how it differs significantly from Windows -- except it won't eat into her fixed income.

I've strayed way off track in this long-winded diatribe. For me the bottom line is still security and price point, neither of which is addressed by Vista's eye candy. Yes, she's beautiful, maybe the prettiest girl on the block. But like a Vegas hooker, when it comes to security, she'll let anyone penetrate her for a price. I'll stick with a less attractive but far more chaste Ubuntu.

[rgsproductions]

I agree with the person above me, great hooker reference!
For me, I have a nice smooth runing XP Pro partition and I have tried almost every free and trial desk top programs to change the look of XP to something that I like. All either cost alot or slowed the machine down. Came back to linux and was able to customize it my way for free. For me, my choices are to spend big dollars on a vista machine, or continue to use Ubuntu, suse, and xp on my current machine and just give up a little eye candy for way more performence. I do believe that linux is a strong contender. my Ubuntu install and set up went much faster and just as easy as my xp. I have no real complaint with XP, except, every time microsoft spits something out it cost alot of money to be the kid with the best toys on the block. With all the high paid programers that they employ, Vista should be ten times beter that what was shown on the screen shot.

[ago]

Yes, it's easy to change the default Ubuntu look, but you can change the default Vista look too.
Changing Windows themes is not easy at all and you have far less flexibility. In fact in Linux, changing the theme is only the tip of the iceberg, I can even change the window manager or the full desktop environment, all with a single command. Something which is utterly impossible in Windows. Windows is as flexible as a piece of marble, at most you can paint on it if you do not like the color. You have to take that into account...


So, let's just compare the default looks for now. I haven't been impressed with Xgl/Compiz.
Compiz & co are superior in ANY dimension. They do anything that Vista can do, but in a smoother way, in fact there are already more effects than on windows, and thanks to the plugin structure you will see LOTS AND LOTS MORE in the near future. Add to it that they do not need a behemoth to give you plenty of eye candy, unlike vista, they will run happily on average hardware.


I'm not ready to say that Edgy+9 is gonna be anything special. Maybe Microsoft release's a Vista or Aero upgrade.
They will not, they really struggled to released Vista within 5Y and missed one deadline after the other. Next revision will probably require a much overdue code rewrite, and if anything it will require a longer development cycle. Next Windows upgrade will be in 5Y at best, Ubuntu upgrades will come every 6M. By the time Vista is retired you will have 9 or 10 Ubuntu releases, each with many, many improvements over its predecessor. That is the reality.

You may say that Ubuntu may fade in 5Y. Maybe, but if that happens, it is because a far better distribution has emerged...


I have no idea what this means.
It means that Linux/Ubuntu is developing far faster than Windows. Until it had to play catch-up, people would not pay attention, since it was "behind". But now it is starting in front of windows, and it runs faster...


AFAIK, it's not in feature freeze. The last build added at least one feature requested by testers.
Beta is feature freeze. They may do small bug-fixes and EXCEPTIONALLY add MINOR features (same thing with Ubuntu, where you can request features after feature freeze with a special procedure). There is no chance in hell they will catch up with the original planned features. They are out of the picture.


Sorry. I use GNU/Linux but I wouldn't say it's a serious contender on Desktops. It has improved greatly but, I don't think it can compete with Microsoft just yet.
I disagree. I like my Ubuntu machine far better than my Windows ones. I have 3 windows licenses, I do not use them, ever. A shame I cannot sell them since they are OEM... Talk to me about MS tax... Last time I am paying it...


The people who bought a machine a year ago, IMHO are more likely either to stick to XP or buy a Vista upgrade.
Many people that are prepared to shed $200+ for a boxed version and spend a few hours to reformat and install from scratch will probably also try Linux.


I think it's hard for people to give up on software that they use or have bought.
Not if you have good replacements. Unless you are a hardcore gamer, or require profesional level apps (which cost you no less than $300+ each) you are completely covered by Ubuntu.


And I think GNU/Linux is asking way too much of the 'average' user to download, burn, partition and install.
The average user will not install Linux, but he will not install Vista either... He will simply buy a preinstalled machine.

As for the other users, you can get CDs shipped to you for free. Partition is required only because Linux, differently from windows, is respectful of other operating systems. But you could easily "simplify" things the windows way, by taking over the hard-disk and forget about partitioning. As for installation, if you have compatible hardware (and most people do), Ubuntu set-up is far easier than windows'.

[colonelk]

When a corporation has billions of dollars at its disposal and can afford to pay top designers to make its icons, they'd better look top-notch. The superb eye candy didn't surprise me at all when I installed the Vista release candidate -- but then neither did the pop-up that reminded me I needed to install a virus scanner to be secure.

I've said this in another forum, but it bears repeating: You can put makeup on a pig, but it's still going to oink when you wake up with it in the morning.

In other words, "you can't polish a turd" :D

Actually I've finally got my machine (Evo NC8000 laptop) to dual boot Vista RC1 with Ubuntu and am happy at last. Vista is very good in my opinion. Most things just work and the interface is quite intuitive (except for where they've moved things without thinking, like the back button !!) Its just "different" to linux and as such requries a different mindset. I like both OS'es and as such will probably use both to accomplish the tasks I desire.

When Linux gets proper game support then I'll drop Windows. When OpenOffice exceeds the capabilities of MS Office I'll drop MS Office etc etc I'll go best of breed wherever possibly...

[bruce89]

I think they are taking the "window" paradym a bit too far.

[croak77]

Compiz & co are superior in ANY dimension. They do anything that Vista can do, but in a smoother way, in fact there are already more effects than on windows, and thanks to the plugin structure you will see LOTS AND LOTS MORE in the near future. Add to it that they do not need a behemoth to give you plenty of eye candy, unlike vista, they will run happily on average hardware.

I have pretty average hardware and Vista runs fine for me. Quanitity does not equal quality. I happen to like Flip 3D better then Cube. I like the live taskbar thumbnails (which can be gotten with taskbar V2 in KDE).



They will not, they really struggled to released Vista within 5Y and missed one deadline after the other. Next revision will probably require a much overdue code rewrite, and if anything it will require a longer development cycle. Next Windows upgrade will be in 5Y at best, Ubuntu upgrades will come every 6M. By the time Vista is retired you will have 9 or 10 Ubuntu releases, each with many, many improvements over its predecessor. That is the reality.

Can't we keep the talk to what we have seen/used. Yes, Ubuntu releases on a 6 month schedule. But Dapper was delayed. Maybe Edgy+ will be delayed. You have know idea. Maybe there will huge libpng bug that no one can solve. Maybe SCO wins there lawsuit. Maybe Eastern Airlines OS becomes the dominant market force.



Beta is feature freeze. They may do small bug-fixes and EXCEPTIONALLY add MINOR features (same thing with Ubuntu, where you can request features after feature freeze with a special procedure). There is no chance in hell they will catch up with the original planned features. They are out of the picture.

So it not completely frozen. In fact many hardware companies are holding off releasing drivers untill the code is frozen. Who care what they had planned versus what is available. They can always release it as an upgrade later if they want.



I disagree. I like my Ubuntu machine far better than my Windows ones. I have 3 windows licenses, I do not use them, ever. A shame I cannot sell them since they are OEM... Talk to me about MS tax... Last time I am paying it...

I'm glad you like Ubuntu better but that doesn't mean Ubuntu is a 'serious contender on Desktops'.


Many people that are prepared to shed $200+ for a boxed version and spend a few hours to reformat and install from scratch will probably also try Linux.

I doubt they even know GNU/Linux exists.



Not if you have good replacements. Unless you are a hardcore gamer, or require profesional level apps (which cost you no less than $300+ each) you are completely covered by Ubuntu.

Or use Itunes, want to watch a DVD legally, etc.



The average user will not install Linux, but he will not install Vista either... He will simply buy a preinstalled machine.

We agree here.


As for the other users, you can get CDs shipped to you for free. Partition is required only because Linux, differently from windows, is respectful of other operating systems. But you could easily "simplify" things the windows way, by taking over the hard-disk and forget about partitioning. As for installation, if you have compatible hardware (and most people do), Ubuntu set-up is far easier than windows'.

Yes...I keep forgetting that Ubuntu offers free cd's. Too bad other distro's don't. If you don't partition, the user will lose all there personal files, music, videos, banking info, etc which might be too big or too time comsuming to backup to cd/dvd's. That's a big if, if you have compatible hardware, how many people do? I don't think Ubuntu is far easier to setup than Windows. If it was so much easier then why are there so many help requests here? How many time have you seen posts asking for help with screen resolutions, wireless, printers, webcams, multimedia support, tablets, etc.

[alcamus]

If it was so much easier then why are there so many help requests here? How many time have you seen posts asking for help with screen resolutions, wireless, printers, webcams, multimedia support, tablets, etc.

I've watched this discussion with quite a bit of interest since its inception and I've been impressed with most of your arguments in favor of Vista's eye candy, but this seems a little off the mark. Care to speculate how many calls taken by Microsoft's bank of full-time telephone support technicians concern screen resolutions, wireless, printers, webcams, multimedia, tablets, etc.? I'd be willing to bet it's quite a few.

Also, how many of these questions would be resolved if manufacturers provided Linux drivers for their hardware? It would have made my life easier if Logitech's CD had contained drivers for their webcam.

Which ultimately brings me to the conclusion that it is hard as nails to compare an operating system built by-and-large by an underfunded community of volunteers and computer enthusiasts with one supported by a corporate juggernaut bent on controlling the way you and I interact with our hardware.

Yes, Vista is beautiful, but at the end of the day beauty fades. It's the reason I went back to Windows XP after using a Mac for couple of months -- the latter just didn't work the way I needed it to. It's also the reason Vista's eye candy won't sway me away from Ubuntu. In Ubuntu I feel I have the best of all possible worlds -- a great working environment, a highly (and easily) customizable gui (and one in which I can create my own eye candy if I am so inclined) and the freedom to alter my operating system from the ground up. These things may not be important to others, and probably aren't to the average user. But it makes me happy knowing there are those die-hard individuals who refuse to accept Microsoft's tyranny and are doing something to remedy it. Even at the expense of brilliant eye candy, I'll stick with them.

And who knows? Maybe the NEXT iteration of Ubuntu will focus solely on the way the GUI looks, and we'll do things that make Microsoft sit up and take notice. I've seen a load of talented designers at work in the Linux community, and even though you might prefer Vista, you have to admit Compiz is no slouch in the eye candy department.

[croak77]

I've watched this discussion with quite a bit of interest since its inception and I've been impressed with most of your arguments in favor of Vista's eye candy, but this seems a little off the mark. Care to speculate how many calls taken by Microsoft's bank of full-time telephone support technicians concern screen resolutions, wireless, printers, webcams, multimedia, tablets, etc.? I'd be willing to bet it's quite a few.

True but generally Windows either comes preinstalled with needed drivers setup or hardware includes drivers on a cd. And companies at least offer telephone or web support for Windows systems. You can't get Lexmark to offer you GNU/Linux support but they will offer Windows.


Also, how many of these questions would be resolved if manufacturers provided Linux drivers for their hardware? It would have made my life easier if Logitech's CD had contained drivers for their webcam.

That would be great if they did but they don't. Maybe it will change in the future.


Which ultimately brings me to the conclusion that it is hard as nails to compare an operating system built by-and-large by an underfunded community of volunteers and computer enthusiasts with one supported by a corporate juggernaut bent on controlling the way you and I interact with our hardware.

True, but can't we compare the default look. And I don't know how many
enthusiasts are contributing to the kernel anymore. I know a lot of work is being done by corparations like Red Hat, Novell, IBM, etc.


Yes, Vista is beautiful, but at the end of the day beauty fades.

Same goes for Ubuntu, Mac's, Solaris, BSD, etc.


I've seen a load of talented designers at work in the Linux community, and even though you might prefer Vista, you have to admit Compiz is no slouch in the eye candy department.

I don't prefer Vista over GNU/Linux. I prefer Vista's eyecandy and default look over U(K)buntu, KDE, GNOME, Xgl, Compiz. Compiz might have more plugins but for how I use my PC, I feel Vista comes out ahead of Compiz. But I don't use Vista or Compiz. I'm happy with my non-eyecandy customized KDE desktop.

[alcamus]

I don't prefer Vista over GNU/Linux. I prefer Vista's eyecandy and default look over U(K)buntu, KDE, GNOME, Xgl, Compiz. Compiz might have more plugins but for how I use my PC, I feel Vista comes out ahead of Compiz. But I don't use Vista or Compiz. I'm happy with my non-eyecandy customized KDE desktop.

Sorry. I guess I misinterpreted your original post -- I thought sure you were a Windows user. My bad. : )

I guess we're in full agreement, then. Vista is stunning. There's just no way I'm going to leave Linux for it.

Maybe you can help me decide whether to invest a month in KDE. So far I've been happy with Gnome, but lately I've been reading a lot about the scripting capabilities of KDE and I must say I'm impressed. Is there a reason you chose KDE over Gnome? Or is it just what you started with and you kept it?

[Uncle Spellbinder]

Vista Ultimate will cost several hundred dollars. And (in my case) at least several hundred more to get the proper drivers for the effects I get now for free using Ubuntu Edgy and Beryl with cheap Intel embedded graphics.

You sure as hell won't be getting transparency, blur and 3D like this in Vista with an Intel i915.

[cunawarit]

On my Windows PCs I use the classic view with a very minimalist colour scheme.

It is OK looking, but I wouldn’t use it like that, I’d switch to classic, I think it is a bit overly flashy.

On Debian at home I use fluxbox with a very plain and simple theme.

FWIW, I think the Ubuntu’s standard theme is a bit over the top as well, and the Mac OS X one is WAY too much.

I like clean cut windows without any transparencies, shading, animated icons, or any other needless eye candy fluff.

[ago]

I have pretty average hardware and Vista runs fine for me.
"Average" must be a relative concept for you: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/vistarpc.mspx

Most machines in use today simply cannot play the Aero theme, they must use the classic one...


But Dapper was delayed.
..by a mere 2 months, which is peanuts compared to average Windows delays, and all the time lost in Dapper has been made up for in edgy... So we are on perfect schedule again, 5 releases out of 5 in 2.5 years.

I understand the excitement of windows users, they only have Christmas once every five years and their time is coming now... They had better enjoy it, because for the next five years they will watch us celebrating every 6 months...


So it not completely frozen.
It is called feature-freeze for a reason. Even in feature-freeze exceptions are allowed, that does not mean it is not feature-freeze.


In fact many hardware companies are holding off releasing drivers untill the code is frozen.
I seriously doubt it... They have already developed the drivers and the drivers are available to OEMs... And some even released to retail... See for instance http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_88.61.html


They can always release it as an upgrade later if they want.
No they can't, the features that were dropped were core ones, like a new file system to replace their current crappy ones, they are not simple "add-ons". Moreover it goes against their interest, they need to "convince" people to buy their latest and greatest.


I'm glad you like Ubuntu better but that doesn't mean Ubuntu is a 'serious contender on Desktops'.
Yes it is, with little customization it is on par or better for eye candy. It provides all the software needed for regular tasks as well as for really advanced users. And for the first time ever I have seen absolute novices installing and using Linux all by themeselves, and delete windows partitions after that. The only slice of market which is not covered regards gamers and some niche professional markets (CAD, professional video/music/image editing, professional accounting). If you then consider the far better security, performance, stability, flexibility and little maintenance of Ubuntu, that makes it a 'serious contender on Desktops'.

The main obstacle is not the quality and capability of the distribution, but the preinstallation and availability in high-street chains and major retailers.


Or use Itunes, want to watch a DVD legally, etc.
Amarok is on par or even better than itunes (it even provides lyrics), as for watching DVD, many people can do so legally (not everybody lives in US...), and for the others you can use wine, use a commercial Linux distro like linspire or turbolinux or wait a few weeks for fluendo. On top of it Intervideo LinDVD and CyberLink PowerDVD are already available for OEMs and likely will be released to reatil soon. And for what matters, many people use pirated copies of DVD players (and other software) on Windows anyaway...


Too bad other distro's don't.
They do: http://www.osdisc.com
And soon for free: http://www.freelinuxdisk.org/
Not to mention that any Linux magazine comes with a CD/DVD of the distro of the month. These days even generic PC/Windows magazines often come with a bundled Linux CD...


If you don't partition, the user will lose all there personal files, music, videos, banking info, etc which might be too big or too time comsuming to backup to cd/dvd's.
That is only a problem if you have another OS and plan to install Windows as second OS in dual boot. Windows flimsy installer does not allow you to make a dual boot installation. Linux does, it will shrink your existing partition and create a dual boot menu automatically. Or, if you want, it can do things the "windows way", stupidly taking over the hard disk.

I have linux as my main and only OS using all the hard disk, if I wanted to install Vista, would it be able to install itself in dual boot without external tools? No it will not... Windows is just... ...inferior.


I don't think Ubuntu is far easier to setup than Windows.
Provided you have compatible hardware (and many people do), Ubuntu's installer completely blows away windows' one. It is more intuitive (http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=659&slide=4), 5 questions in all at the beginning (windows will ask more questions and at regular intervals of 10 minutes so that you cannot leave the machine), and in less than 1/2 of the time it installs the OS + all the drivers (that you need to install separately with windows) + all the main software (that you need to install separately with windows). All in 30 minutes flat and 1 reboot. There is little question about it...


If it was so much easier then why are there so many help requests here?

1) Because windows is preinstalled, Linux is not. Let average joe install windows and see if he needs support or not...
2) Because you have no idea about the support calls received by MS

[Shin_Gouki2501]

@Uncle Spellbinder
Plz dont forget if u would pay the bery/ Linux desktop developers, u would certainly came to a similar amount of money!
Coding is hard work! Don't forget that!
wbr Shin Gouki

[jcrnan]

Shin: Yes, but it is free, thats one of the wonderfull sides of linux. Free OS and lots of free software. People really do like things that are free ;)

Oh and I would rather pay for ubuntu with beryl then for vista ;)

[Uncle Spellbinder]

@Uncle Spellbinder
Plz dont forget if u would pay the bery/ Linux desktop developers, u would certainly came to a similar amount of money!
Coding is hard work! Don't forget that!

I am fully aware of that.

That was partly my point. The open source community is (for the most part) a cashless society. The work spent developing programs, apps and such goes largely unrewarded for the developer (except for the for the satisfaction of happy users and the occasional donation). I donate when I can.

[d3v1ant_0n3]

When i first saw Vista (just before the beta 2 release) I thought it looked wonderful. I was an XP user, and always tweaked it visually as much as possible. Xp looks a lot better than the previous releases, but is still somewhat garish on initial install.

So I signed up for the beta. Waited. Got my download. Installed (gosh that was a long process) on this machine, which is probably a good average at the moment (laptop with desktop P4 3.06, 768Mb, Intel 845 graphics)- It's on a par with a lot of bog-standard machines that many people have from dell etc.

I booted into vista and was greeted with the vista classic theme. This can't be right, I thought. I KNEW the chipset, whilst basic, could do transparency, I'd been running windowblinds 5 in XP, quite happily. And surely if the transparency could be handled by a 3rd party app, it could be handled BETTER by being integrated into the shell? Apparently not.

At this screen's default resolution (1024*768) Vista also seemed very cluttered, kind of like running XP at 800*600.

I liked the consistency of the new graphics shell. But I got quite tired of it very quickly, and there really weren't many options for changing it.

When I first installed Ubuntu (a couple months ago) I thought it looked very clean and well laid out. But I didn't like the default theme at all. So I changed it. Took a bit of poking around in menus, but I figured it quite quickly. I tried KDE, and LOVED the customization options available to me. I've since gone back to GNOME and Ubuntu, and installed AIXGL/Compiz, and WOW. Yes, most of it is eye candy without a true purpose, but that is what eye candy is all about, right? Window wobble is now second nature to me, and the static borders in windows bug me. The movement between cube faces is as easy as hiting the desktop pager for changing workspaces (how did I cope with ONE workspace in windows???).

I won't be switching to vista on this machine. Yes, it looks nice. On the right hardware. But for many people (laptop owners, people with many propriatary motherboards from Dell etc), upgrading the hardware isn't possible without upgrading the entire machine. Plus the added cost of the OS ($159 for the vista BASIC upgrade, which has no aero theme, or media center, etc) and that's a whole bundle of money for some new eye candy.

I don't hate windows. I just like Ubuntu a whole bunch more.

[/rant]

[croak77]

Amarok is on par or even better than itunes (it even provides lyrics)

True. I use Amarok but I meant the buying of music, tv, and movies. But I think we should get back on topic. Which is about the default look of Vista.

[ago]

True. I use Amarok but I meant the buying of music, tv, and movies. But I think we should get back on topic. Which is about the default look of Vista.

http://magnatune.com/info/press/releases/amarok
As for other DRM crippled files, yes they will work on Windows. One very good reason not to buy it...

[ClarkePeters]

Yes it is, with little customization it is on par or better for eye candy. It provides all the software needed for regular tasks as well as for really advanced users. And for the first time ever I have seen absolute novices installing and using Linux all by themeselves, and delete windows partitions after that. The only slice of market which is not covered regards gamers and some niche professional markets (CAD, professional video/music/image editing, professional accounting). If you then consider the far better security, performance, stability, flexibility and little maintenance of Ubuntu, that makes it a 'serious contender on Desktops'.

Amen Bro. And I get a little giddy thinking about how things'll be in just the next 4 years (think that's a long time? I was around when TRS-80s were "the thing") I love Ubuntu, but Linux in many forms will become a major contender with all operating systems. Mark my words (since you can't literally read my lips) ;)

[Psquared]

Firstly, before you flame me I AM NEVER GOING TO USE WINDOWS AS MY MAIN OS, I'm just making a point.

Look at this pic: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Windows_Vista_RC1_desktop.png

You've goota hand it to them, the Graphics are great. The taskbar looks less square, with the circular start button on it.
I like the transparency too. Look at the plack part of the start menu and the edge of the control panel window. They are both slightly transparent, and what's underneath them also looks blurred, like if you were looking through a window covered looseley in sticky-back plastic.
The start menu also looks less square with its curved corners and the picrure sticking out of the top.

Is such beauty ever planned for Ubuntu?

Would you mind walking me through how you setup Vista on your PC alongside Ubuntu? I have downloaded the ISO RC1 and tried to install it on my 1 year old laptop, but it said I needed a BIOS upgrade. I went to the Toshiba website and they are not planning a bios upgrade for my model.

Anyway, I have a desktop that it ought to run fine on but the entire disk is currently occupied by Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Xubuntu on different partitions. I'll keep Ubuntu Hda1, but wouldn't mind getting rid of K and X. Only problem is the partition that X is on is the boot partition. So I've got to figure out how to make Hda1 the boot partition.

[nrayever]

Firstly, before you flame me I AM NEVER GOING TO USE WINDOWS AS MY MAIN OS, I'm just making a point.

Look at this pic: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Windows_Vista_RC1_desktop.png

You've goota hand it to them, the Graphics are great. The taskbar looks less square, with the circular start button on it.
I like the transparency too. Look at the plack part of the start menu and the edge of the control panel window. They are both slightly transparent, and what's underneath them also looks blurred, like if you were looking through a window covered looseley in sticky-back plastic.
The start menu also looks less square with its curved corners and the picrure sticking out of the top.

Is such beauty ever planned for Ubuntu?

alejcw:

man i suggest you to get some glasses!!! that picture is a bad copy of any linux distro running xgl/compiz-beryl (not only ubuntu has xgl/compiz-beryl, don't you agree?? ;)

i think you need to play a lot more with your computer and customized it at your own will. in ubuntu you can have a "nice desktop as vista" and even better than that!!

check the howto's in the forum and play with xgl/compiz-beryl and then tell me if you couldn't customize your desktop even better than vista...

i'm not saying that vista s$%&s or something like that. my point is that at least for me, that kind of customization is not the last discover on earth!! because linux is most of the time a step forward in "technology". and it's because there's a lot people working on it.

i hope with this i have cleared my feeling about linux and vista.

nrayever

[Josh1]

I prefer XGL :D.

[.t.]

No. You prefer Compiz (or perhaps what is to soon become Beryl). Xglx and AIGLX are just architectures for allowing this to be possible.

[blaine00]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a RC suppost to be the transition between a beta and a final release? I installed Windows Vista on my MacBook [1.83GHz Core Duo, 512MB RAM, 64MB shared video] via bootcamp, and it does not feel at all like a RC... seems more like a late alpha or early beta.

I didn't get the Aero Glass theme to work because [from what I have gathered from forums] I need at least 1GB of RAM... being as I have no dedicated video. Without Aero Glass, Windows Vista looks far worse than anything Ubuntu I have seen.

I remember someone mentioning a speed improvement with Vista... but I am clearly not seeing that. Vista runs FAR slower than XP does on my computer... and once again, this is without Aero Glass.

As far as looks go with Vista, I don't believe eye-candy is worth the resources they take up unless they are functional in some way. Flip3D? What is the point? It is just a slow version of Alt-Tab. From what I understand, Microsoft still does not have anything similar to Mac OS X's Expose, which looks very cool and is quite functional. [Instead of worrying so much about Windows, maybe the Linux community should start taking a few notes from Mac OS X]

As far as Vista vs XGL... I was running Suse with XGL enabled on my old Dell which had a 2.6GHz Intel Celeron, no dedicated graphics, and 512MB of system RAM... and it worked very well with little slow down. To sum it up, I've found that XGL can run on half the hardware and perform at double the speed than Vista. Personally, I am happy with MacOS X + Ubuntu and I don't see myself ever using Vista. :-D

[hellmet]

beautiful my ***..i just had a look at some more screenshots at google
images to see if it was any better..
they are really a pain to the eyes..
looks too fake for me..

[Bloodfen Razormaw]

I didn't get the Aero Glass theme to work because [from what I have gathered from forums] I need at least 1GB of RAM... being as I have no dedicated video. Without Aero Glass, Windows Vista looks far worse than anything Ubuntu I have seen.
That's having low quality hardware, not bugs in Vista. Vista's hardware requirements are public knowledge.


I remember someone mentioning a speed improvement with Vista... but I am clearly not seeing that. Vista runs FAR slower than XP does on my computer... and once again, this is without Aero Glass.
Pre-release software is always significantly slower. The final version has debugging turned off for a performance increase.

[ago]

That's having low quality hardware, not bugs in Vista. Vista's hardware requirements are public knowledge.

That's having low quality OS, not bugs in hardware.

[croak77]

That's having low quality OS, not bugs in hardware.

No, it's like trying to play Doom 3 on a RIVA 128.

[ago]

No, it's like trying to play Doom 3 on a RIVA 128.
No my friend, I can do everything vista can do and more on hardware that does not even meet half of its requirements. Including better 3D desktop effects. Therefore it is clearly a problem with the low quality OS. Hardware has little to do with it...

[croak77]

No my friend, I can do everything vista can do and more on hardware that does not even meet half of its requirements. Including better 3D desktop effects. Therefore it is clearly a problem with the low quality OS. Hardware has little to do with it...

That's my point. Read the requirements first. Microsoft is open about what a system requires to get the full aero effect. Trying to run Vista on a system that doesn't meet the requirements is futile. Like running Doom 3 with a RIVA 128. It's not 'lower quality' it just requires more then Xgl/Compiz. Is Doom 3 lower quality because it has more requirements then Doom?

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Well, if Doom 3 looked like Doom, then it would be considered poorly optimized and thus lower quality.

As it is, Doom 3 does not look like Doom.

However, Doom 3 is poorly optimized. Half-Life 2 looks as good (if not better in some cases) and it runs twice as well on my computer.

[easyease]

i think he meant ripping off other peoples ideas........

[thomasca]

Eh, I wasn't impressed really. Fundementally, it seemed like nothing changed much. Only the GUI. And the GUI itself looked like the old GUI, just with different borders.

Actually, Vista pissed me off more than it did anything to impress me, really.

[Psquared]

Not bad, but too 'plastic' for me. Still, it looks nice. Anyway, I really prefer Linux (the ability to change everything to suit your needs).

I put RC1 Vista on a separate partition and there are some things about it I like, but finding software, configuration are way ... and i mean way behind Ubuntu. The font rendering is not good (compared to XP) and you cannot resize icons on the desktop. You can change the font size, but its systemwide.

Security is just a copy of what linux has been doing for years. If you open windows certain programs will open behind those windows instead of coming to the front. I see no way to change that.

In short, while Ubuntu has problems, Vista is going to be a nightmare. Hell, I couldn't even get the nVidia driver made for RC1 to load. I got an error saying i was not running Vista????

[Kateikyoushi]

Therefore it is clearly a problem with the low quality OS. Hardware has little to do with it...

Hardware has pretty much to do with it, especially the companies who made that hardware and benefit from people upgrading to meet the unnecessary requirements of vista. The OS does what it is meant to, gives a reason for people to upgrade.

[Sushi]

That's my point. Read the requirements first. Microsoft is open about what a system requires to get the full aero effect. Trying to run Vista on a system that doesn't meet the requirements is futile. Like running Doom 3 with a RIVA 128. It's not 'lower quality' it just requires more then Xgl/Compiz. Is Doom 3 lower quality because it has more requirements then Doom?

It requires more than Xgl/Compiz, yet it doesn't offer anything that XGL/Compiz does not offer. In my book, that means that there is something wrong with their system.

In simpler terms: XGL/Compiz can create similar effects as Aero Glass can. But Aero Glass needs better hardware to do it's thing, whereas XGL/Compiz is happy with slower hardware. Why does Vista need that uber-hardware?

[ILIJA]

it looks awesome i have to say, however i still dont udnerstand how ppl with slower machines are gonna run that. I do know its supposto be made for the new ones, but not many ppl have money to buy a brand new pc just for that.

[Reshin]

Why does Vista need that uber-hardware?

So people would buy better hardware? Besides gaming and video editing and such, why would anyone buy newer, expensive hardware if windows ran with same requirements as linux? MS kinda helps hardware producers this way

[ago]

So people would buy better hardware?
I do not think that windows slows down their OS on purpose, nor even that they skip on optimization. They invest quite heavily in that. The truth is that windows is an accumulation of patches and layers on layers of code on top of an old kernel, it is really tough to optimize that mess... Just look at the size of the "bare" OS, how can you expect that to be fast...

[Psquared]

So people would buy better hardware? Besides gaming and video editing and such, why would anyone buy newer, expensive hardware if windows ran with same requirements as linux? MS kinda helps hardware producers this way

Dual core 3.0 mhz with 2 gigs of ram and a 512 mb video card with a new mobo ought to make Vista run like a scalded dog. ](*,)

Actually it runs OK on my machine, but Ubuntu is snappy and responsive and way more configurable. About the only thing I like is the new media player.

[Psquared]

Oh - and IE 7 is terrible. I have FF RC1 installed on Vista RC1, and even though it lacks a lot of extensions (sidebar in particular) it still runs circles around IE 7. MS will never come up with a browser as good because I don't think they know how.

[Kateikyoushi]

Dual core 3.0 mhz with 2 gigs of ram and a 512 mb video card with a new mobo ought to make Vista run like a scalded dog. ](*,)

Actually it runs OK on my machine, but Ubuntu is snappy and responsive and way more configurable. About the only thing I like is the new media player.

Well even in the 100 core era 3Mhz won't be enough. ;)

I also like how the new WMP looks like still prefer Mplayer with it's keyboard shortcuts and lack of gui.

[blaine00]

I understand that my system doesn't met the requirements that Microsoft have documented, but my point is, WHY SHOULD IT HAVE THOSE REQUIREMENTS? From what I understand, Direct X is suppose to be faster and more feature rich than OpenGL. If this is true, why is it that Linux [and Mac OS X for that matter] can do MORE than Windows Vista and use half the hardware? I think it is because they are still using that same Windows NT kernel [plus hundreds of patches] when they should have been at least attempting to write something new... and good. I don't see any reason why Microsoft can't pull off a decent operating system... they are the richest computer company in the world...

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with anyone that says the issues with Vista are hardware related and not software related... I guess Windows Explorer crashing as I am attempting to find a file has something to do with hardware. Or maybe it has something to do with the 3rd Party programs I have yet to have installed.

If Microsoft is calling their current product a RC, they have nothing but trouble ahead.

[the.dark.lord]

It should have long ago...

[Psquared]

I understand that my system doesn't met the requirements that Microsoft have documented, but my point is, WHY SHOULD IT HAVE THOSE REQUIREMENTS? From what I understand, Direct X is suppose to be faster and more feature rich than OpenGL. If this is true, why is it that Linux [and Mac OS X for that matter] can do MORE than Windows Vista and use half the hardware? I think it is because they are still using that same Windows NT kernel [plus hundreds of patches] when they should have been at least attempting to write something new... and good. I don't see any reason why Microsoft can't pull off a decent operating system... they are the richest computer company in the world...

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with anyone that says the issues with Vista are hardware related and not software related... I guess Windows Explorer crashing as I am attempting to find a file has something to do with hardware. Or maybe it has something to do with the 3rd Party programs I have yet to have installed.

If Microsoft is calling their current product a RC, they have nothing but trouble ahead.


After further experimentation I couldn't agree more. Just think, it took them 3 years to come up with this piece of crap and as you said its just NT repackaged. Instead of recoding the kernel they just rework parts of it and add more bloat. Sure it looks pretty, but beauty is only skin deep. Now the Office Suite has been completely reworked, but their browser is just simply a joke. Its slow, clunky, full of bugs (although it has not crashed on me yet - its just that much of it doesn't work)

One thing I don't like about WMP is how it defaults to showing the album cover. Why do I want to see the album cover?? I want to be able to organize my music how I see fit not have it forced on me. Beep and XMMS beat the heck out of WMP in this regard. Not quite as versatile, but better in the sense I can organize my music.

I have not tried Rhapsody - yet.

Another bug with IE7 is that it tends to open multiple windows for no apparent reason. Also, "Tabs" cannot be configured like FF.

Once extensions for FF 2.0 are updated I can't see anybody using IE7. Heck, even the customized IE for AOL is better than the one MS puts out.

All in all MS would have been better off calling this XP2007 and putting more time into IE. I wonder who the vision guy at MS is these days? Or do they have a vision at all?

[croak77]

Actually it runs OK on my machine, but Ubuntu is snappy and responsive and way more configurable. About the only thing I like is the new media player.

Remeber that it is a RC and debug is turned on.

[croak77]

One thing I don't like about WMP is how it defaults to showing the album cover. Why do I want to see the album cover?? I want to be able to organize my music how I see fit not have it forced on me. Beep and XMMS beat the heck out of WMP in this regard. Not quite as versatile, but better in the sense I can organize my music.


Then use a different music player. No one forces you to use WMP.

[ago]

No one forces you to use WMP.
Sure, they only make you pay for it with the rest of the OS...

[croak77]

Sure, they only make you pay for it with the rest of the OS...

Then don't buy it.

[ago]

Then don't buy it.
Not so easy I am afraid...

[croak77]

Not so easy I am afraid...

Sure it is. Don't buy a PC with Vista preinstalled and don't buy the upgrade or full version.

[Psquared]

Then use a different music player. No one forces you to use WMP.

You got any suggestions that will run on Vista RC1? I guess I could try iTunes, but I've tried several versions of software that just won't run. (nVidia drivers for one) I guess I could try WinAmp too.

Crap, most of these companies give you some trimmed down version and make you buy the full version, but I'll give it a shot.

[ago]

Sure it is. Don't buy a PC with Vista preinstalled and don't buy the upgrade or full version.
Not so easy I am afraid... Most people will look for a PC in the shop next door or on famous online retailers and all they will see is PCs with MS tax, maybe some Mac if they are lucky.

[tanmays]

Just to add.. why update to an OS for some eyecandy?

Another Question: Is people ready for vista yet? I mean to say are we ready to pay $$$ for some eyecandy?

I love Ubuntu. I am a linux lover (not a specialist) since the ages of slackware linux without GUI. Development in linux world is much speedier than M$ development. XGL/Compiz is also in beta... you may, and for sure, will get more usability with eyecandy in near future.

I am not ready for vista requirement now... will love to watch closely for a year or so and then will think of transiting from XP to Vista.

Long live UBUNTU.

[Anonii]

Just to add.. why update to an OS for some eyecandy?

Another Question: Is people ready for vista yet? I mean to say are we ready to pay $$$ for some eyecandy?

I love Ubuntu. I am a linux lover (not a specialist) since the ages of slackware linux without GUI. Development in linux world is much speedier than M$ development. XGL/Compiz is also in beta... you may, and for sure, will get more usability with eyecandy in near future.

I am not ready for vista requirement now... will love to watch closely for a year or so and then will think of transiting from XP to Vista.

Long live UBUNTU.
If you opened your eyes, you would see that only die-hard Linux fanboys think that its only eyecandy. Windows Vista (I dont really support it or anything, just pointing out the obvious and the objective.) got security upgrades (people say it advanced a long way, someone in another thread said that it passed it too, anyway...), eye-candy , new-apps and new programs etc...
And well, I bet that too many people will move to Vista while saying "OMFG this **** has neat graphics, daddy buy me one!".

[Psquared]

It may have come a long way, but it was way behind in terms of security (compared to Linux) and the hacker boyz will find and exploit its weaknesses. Its basically the same kernel since 95 with stuff (read: bload) added to it.

[croak77]

Not so easy I am afraid... Most people will look for a PC in the shop next door or on famous online retailers and all they will see is PCs with MS tax, maybe some Mac if they are lucky.

Are we talking about 'most people' or you? I'm guessing you will have no problem not buying Vista. And 'most people' will most likely want Vista or at the very least dual-boot. Another thing, how does a PC have a 'MS tax' but not a Mac? Isn't a Mac more expensive the a PC?

[croak77]

It may have come a long way, but it was way behind in terms of security (compared to Linux) and the hacker boyz will find and exploit its weaknesses. Its basically the same kernel since 95 with stuff (read: bload) added to it.

You got any actual evidence that Vista is just W95 with 'stuff' added?

[ago]

Are we talking about 'most people' or you?
Most people. I am done with MS tax... But I am not representative of "most people"... They cannot do that.


And 'most people' will most likely want Vista
"Want" is a strong word when you are not offered any option. If the only car on sale is blue, can you say that most people _want_ blue cars?

In fact to make a full parallelism, think of the OS like the color of the car, normally you are asked what color you want your car when you buy a new one. This is called choice. But in the PC market nobody asks you what OS you want with your PC. The PC market is like a car market where you can either buy a Blue Ford (PC) or a black BMW (Mac). If you want any other color you need to buy one of the 2 and repaint it yourself. Not many are going to do that... In these conditions, saying that blue is the color people "choose" would not be a correct statement, wouldn't it?

[Psquared]

Most people. I am done with MS tax... But I am not representative of "most people"... They cannot do that.


"Want" is a strong word when you are not offered any option. If the only car on sale is blue, can you say that most people _want_ blue cars?

In fact to make a full parallelism, think of the OS like the color of the car, normally you are asked what color you want your car when you buy a new one. This is called choice. But in the PC market nobody asks you what OS you want with your PC. The PC market is like a car market where you can either buy a Blue Ford (PC) or a black BMW (Mac). If you want any other color you need to buy one of the 2 and repaint it yourself. Not many are going to do that... In these conditions, saying that blue is the color people "choose" would not be a correct statement, wouldn't it?


Don't you think that is beginning to change a little. Dell offers PCs with Linux preloaded and most mom & pop stores will pre-load and optimize Linux for you. Still, I agree that 98% of the cars on the market are blue. ](*,)

[Psquared]

You got any actual evidence that Vista is just W95 with 'stuff' added?


What would you accept by way of evidence? All I know is what I can see and have read. All you have to do is look at it and you can see it's Windows 95 revisited. Sure, they've added some things, but open it up and its still a GUI built on top of DOS. Just look under the hood. Does it not still respond to DOS commands? Sure, the GUI has been enhanced by adding stuff and making it different, but does that make it better?

The biggest change I see are some security enhancements like requiring administrative access and user passwords. (Like NT did 5 years ago) IE7 is a piece of crap. I will be very surprised if companies adopt it on any widespread basis. Nobody can look at that and tell me any fundamental changes have been made. Tabbed browsing - whoopideedoo. How long has FF had that? You can't customize it except in a very limited way.

Now I realize some of this is beta and some is RC1. I just don't see the final falling far from the tree though. I disabled debugging mode to see if it would run faster and it doesn't.

Someone said that Vista was modular like Linux. I call BS on that. If that were the case then you could compile any software to run on it. To do that it would have to be open source and its not. So its not modular in the same way Linux is modular.

Bottom line is that MS has had what ... 3 years to work on this. Now I realize they have some limitations in that it has to have the ability to run legacy software.

[Alfa989]

It's nice, but I prefer Mac OS X... It had transparencies in 2002, and it provides a better user experience that windows, and -if you allow me to say this- and Linux...;)

[Reshin]

e. forget it

[croak77]

What would you accept by way of evidence? All I know is what I can see and have read. All you have to do is look at it and you can see it's Windows 95 revisited.

You said it was the same kernel as W95. Not the GUI looks the same. Has there been any articles suggesting that Vista is just a patched W95. If there is, hook me up with a link. I was under the impression that Vista was based on XP which was based on NT which is a totally different kernel the 95.

As far as IE7 is concered. Yes, there is some GUI changes but there are also some security changes. I'm not saying it's more secure then Firefox/Opera/Konqueror but it is more secure then IE6. But, if you don't like IE7 then you are free to install Firefox/Opera or any other browser that runs on Vista.

[croak77]

Most people. I am done with MS tax... But I am not representative of "most people"... They cannot do that.

So is there a Mac tax too or just MS?



"Want" is a strong word when you are not offered any option. If the only car on sale is blue, can you say that most people _want_ blue cars?

But there are other choices. All a person has to do is search Google.


In fact to make a full parallelism, think of the OS like the color of the car, normally you are asked what color you want your car when you buy a new one. This is called choice. But in the PC market nobody asks you what OS you want with your PC. The PC market is like a car market where you can either buy a Blue Ford (PC) or a black BMW (Mac). If you want any other color you need to buy one of the 2 and repaint it yourself. Not many are going to do that... In these conditions, saying that blue is the color people "choose" would not be a correct statement, wouldn't it?

But you don't get to pick another company's engine or addons. It's not just Windows that comes bundled with a PC. There is other software and hardware too. Maybe the hardware is not compatable with Linux. Maybe there is Windows specific software supplied by the vendor. Does system76 offer a choice of Ubuntu and/or XP? If you don't want to use Vista, then don't. Noboby is forcing you to. You can use whatever you want.

[ago]

So is there a Mac tax too or just MS?
Nope, because Mac sells its own hardware, and they can do whatever they want with it, Microsoft does not sell any hardware (PC), but it still manages to impose to manufacturers what OS to sell and "recommend". It is a Windows only feature I am afraid. Back to the car example, it is like if Mac produced both the black paint and the Bmw. Windows produces only the paint, but "somehow" it manages to impose the blue paint on any other car which is not a BMW. It is not the same thing at all. And do not even try to tell us the the story about PC retailers/manufacturers being "free" to choose...


But there are other choices. All a person has to do is search Google.
Nope. For the vast majority of people, wherever they look they will see windows. And even the few ones that manage to stumble into an online Linux PC retailer will find a name they never heard of and will not trust it. Back to the car example it is like a city where all retailers are selling blue cars, a few are selling black cars. Then there are some retailers you can access only by catalog which sell cars in other colors, but unfortunately those cars are all brands unheard of, the few that find the catalog will be little inclined to buy an unknown car they have not even seen and touched. In fact, most people in town do not even know they can buy a car which is not blue or black... Is there choice in this city when it comes to choose the car color? I really do not think so.

There would be choice if when you buy a PC someone would ask you what OS you want with it, like they ask you what color you want your car. Or, at the very least, if there were a reasonable number of branded models coming in other colors. But we are FAR, FAR away from that situation... Today, when people buy a car, they will need to pay the blue paint manufacturer, whether they like blue or not. I.E. it is a tax.


It's not just Windows that comes bundled with a PC.
It's only Windows that comes bundled on virtually ANY PC...

[croak77]

Nope, because Mac sells its own hardware, and they can do whatever they want with it, Microsoft does not sell any hardware (PC), but it still manages to impose to manufacturers what OS to sell and "recommend".

But Windows PC's are cheaper than Mac's. You can get really cheap PC's from Dell. So how much is this 'MS tax' cost? PC manufacturers, just like users, are free to use whatever OS they want.



Nope. For the vast majority of people, wherever they look they will see windows. And even the few ones that manage to stumble into an online Linux PC retailer will find a name they never heard of and will not trust it. Back to the car example it is like a city where all retailers are selling blue cars, a few are selling black cars. There are some retailers you can access only by catalog which sell red cars, but unfortunately the red cards are all brands unheard of and most people do not even know they can buy a car which is not blue or black... Is there choice in this city about car color? I really do not think so.


The color analogy is really bad. Color means nothing to a car dealearship. It's what's inside. You don't go to a Ford dealer expecting to buy a Toyota.


There would be choice if when you buy a PC someone would ask you what OS you want with it, like they ask you what color you want your car. Or at the very least, if there were a reasonable number of branded models coming in other colors. But we are FAR, FAR away from that situation... Today, when people buy a car, they will need to pay the blue paint manufacturer, whether they like blue or not. I.E. it is a tax.

But what's the difference between system76, who only offer Ubuntu, an Apple, who only offers OSX, and a PC which only offers Windows? It would be great if you went to a PC shop and picked your OS, but that's not how it works. You can't buy a Ford and expect to use Toyota parts. You don't go to a dealership and buy a Mustang body, Toyota engine, Honda exhaust etc. You buy the parts that come preinstalled by the factory. And you are presented with optional upgrades (Radio, AC/Heat, etc.).



It's only Windows that comes bundled on virtually ANY PC...

Yes, it's Windows that comes bundled with most PC's but there are other things like software (Nero, Online Providers, Games, AntiVirus, Vendor Software, Etc.) and hardware (Wireless, Printer, Memory Readers, TV Tuners, Etc.) not just the OS that are bundled too. You can't expect all of the software and hardware that is included to run in Linux.

[ago]

But Windows PC's
You see?

"Windows' PC"...

In fact the PCs are not Windows' ones... AT ALL... Windows produce the paint not the car... They extract a tax on the PC other people manufacture and sell... But so pervasive is the situation that even you refer to them as "Window's PC"... Nothing else to add...

[ago]

So how much is this 'MS tax' cost?
Quite a lot, particularly 1) because most people cannot avoid it. 2) because once you start paying that initial tax, then you have to pay for many other things later on


PC manufacturers, just like users, are free to use whatever OS they want.
BS. PC manufacturers/retailers have very little choice, just like users.


The color analogy is really bad.
Unfortunately that explains EXACTLY what is the situation, and what is the real "choice" people have... I can understand why you do not like the example...


But what's the difference between system76, who only offer Ubuntu, an Apple, who only offers OSX, and a PC which only offers Windows?
The difference is that Windows, and ONLY windows imposes their OS to virtually ANY PC sold on earth. And, as shown above, the exceptions are not relevant enough to give you the right to talk about "choice". People do not have any choice when it comes to their OS, they have to pay MS whenever they buy a PC.


Yes, it's Windows that comes bundled with most PC's but there are other things
NONE of those is bundled on ALL PCs... Only windows. It is not a subtle difference. It means that with windows you cannot CHOOSE. And by the way, when I bought a Dell all the other bundled software come in the form "use for a month then pay if you want". Strangely enough I did not get that CHOICE for the OS...

[ago]

In fact it would be acceptable if computers would come with Windows pre-installed, but Windows would run only for 1 month, then you could choose whether to pay for it and keep it or trash it. Provided you did not have to pay for it upfront.

That was the case for the AV that came with the PC, and the image editing software that came with the PC, all other software, except the OS...

I do not see why you MUST pay for Windows. Isn't that a tax?

[croak77]

...

[ago]

PC manufacturers are free to install any OS (except OSX) they want.
We all know it is BS

[croak77]

Quite a lot, particularly 1) because most people cannot avoid it. 2) because once you start paying that initial tax, then you have to pay for many other things later on

You do realize it's cheaper to buy a Dell preloaded with Windows then build your own PC to simliar specs and then buy Windows. Microsoft give manufacturers a price break. The true cost of Windows is hidden unless you buy everything seperate.



BS. PC manufacturers/retailers have very little choice, just like users.

No. You are wrong and if you feel that way, you are more then entitled to bring a lawsuit against Microsoft or contact an attorney. As do
PC manufacturers/retailers.


Unfortunately that explains EXACTLY what is the situation, and what is the real "choice" people have... I can understand why you do not like the example...

Again, I disagree. Why don't I like the example? Maybe because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. It might make perfect sense to you but that's only cause it fits your personal viewpoint.



The difference is that Windows, and ONLY windows imposes their OS to virtually ANY PC sold on earth. And, as shown above, the exceptions are not relevant enough to give you the right to talk about "choice". People do not have any choice when it comes to their OS, they have to pay MS whenever they buy a PC.

But users get Windows cheaper when they buy a preinstalled PC. And they have choice. I certainly used it. I didn't buy I preinstalled Windows machine.




NONE of those is bundled on ALL PCs... Only windows. It is not a subtle difference. It means that with windows you cannot CHOOSE. And by the way, when I bought a Dell all the other bundled software come in the form "use for a month then pay if you want". Strangely enough I did not get that CHOICE for the OS...

I never said ALL. But there is more then Windows that is bundled with PC's. Some Dell software is trial based others are not. You didn't get alot of choice when you bought a Dell. You didn't choose the hard drive manufacturer, them memory manufacturer, etc. When you buy a Dell you get all that comes with it. If you didn't want what Dell is selling, you can go somewhere else with your money. It's Dell's choice to sell Windows.

[croak77]

We all know it is BS

Really. Then how do you explain companies that are selling Linux preinstalled.

[Pyr3]

pfft i can get that and more on AIGLX/Compiz. and it has the added factor that can only be described by the word: jiggily

jiggly: ah! the wonderful effect of compiz that after about 20 minutes of using it forced me to uninstall it since it gave me massive headaches and motion sickness from watching the letters de-blur and shake on the screen.

Like being on a boat, without the benefit of the sun/fishing rod/girls in bikinis.

[ago]

You do realize it's cheaper to buy a Dell preloaded with Windows then build your own PC to simliar specs and then buy Windows.
So what??? It would be cheaper to buy a Dell preloaded with Linux or with no OS at all or with Windows in "try and pay" mode. The difference is the Microsoft tax.


Again, I disagree. Why don't I like the example? Maybe because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
How so? Can you actually enter a shop and get a PC without windows? Can you go on Dell and get a PC without windows? No you can't. It is a tax.


You didn't choose the hard drive manufacturer
You don't get it do you? The hard drive manufacturer might have a deal with Dell, but it will NEVER have a deal with ALL other manufacturers... If I really do not want that HD I can EASILY buy a PC from another manufacturer that will have a different HD... IF AND ONLY IF that HD manufacturer managed to be installed on each and every machine then I would be deprived of choice. That does not happens with HD, but it happens with Windows. You are comparing apples and pears, as usual...

[ago]

Really. Then how do you explain companies that are selling Linux preinstalled.
The problem is that if you sell Linux for some "strange" reason you do not also sell windows... It looks to me like windows does not like retailers that sell linux... There are very few exceptions. If you are a niche retailer (like the ones selling Linux preinstalled) it does not matter if you cannot sell an OS which is not relevant to your niche, but if you are a large retailer, this arm-twisting does matter. A LOT. Claiming that retailers are "free" is BS.

[croak77]

So what??? It would be cheaper to buy a Dell preloaded with Linux or with no OS at all or with Windows in "try and pay" mode. The difference is the Microsoft tax.

There is no MS tax. Go build a PC without XP that is comparable to a cheap Dell and you'll see that the Dell is cheaper.



How so? Can you actually enter a shop and get a PC without windows? Can you go on Dell and get a PC without windows? No you can't. It is a tax.

It's not a tax. It's Dell's business model to sell preloaded Windows machines. If they could make money selling preloaded Linux machines they would. I have bought a PC without Windows preloaded. It's up to the PC shop what they want to offer.



You don't get it do you? The hard drive manufacturer might have a deal with Dell, but it will NEVER have a deal with ALL other manufacturers... If I really do not want that HD I can EASILY buy a PC from another manufacturer that will have a different HD... IF AND ONLY IF that HD manufacturer managed to be installed on each and every machine then I would be deprived of choice. That does not happens with HD, but it happens with Windows. You are comparing apples and pears, as usual...

Microsoft does not have a deal with all PC manufacturers. It will NEVER have a deal with all PC manufacturers. It would be agianst the law in the USA. They only have deals with those who want to sell Windows preloaded. You don't have to buy a preloaded Windows machine. I didn't. Others didn't too.

[qamelian]

You do realize it's cheaper to buy a Dell preloaded with Windows then build your own PC to simliar specs and then buy Windows. Microsoft give manufacturers a price break. The true cost of Windows is hidden unless you buy everything seperate.

Not so. When I was comparing prices for my last PC, I ended up building my own. Even with the discount on Dells that we get at work, I was able to save almost $250 (CDN) and build a PC with a larger hard drive and faster CPU than what Dell was offering. Customizing the Dell up to the components I chose for building my own would have upped the price by another $125.

[croak77]

Not so. When I was comparing prices for my last PC, I ended up building my own. Even with the discount on Dells that we get at work, I was able to save almost $250 (CDN) and build a PC with a larger hard drive and faster CPU than what Dell was offering. Customizing the Dell up to the components I chose for building my own would have upped the price by another $125.

Well when I built my PC it did turn out more expensive counting hardware, monitor, keyboard, mice, and Windows full version.

[Psquared]

You said it was the same kernel as W95. Not the GUI looks the same. Has there been any articles suggesting that Vista is just a patched W95. If there is, hook me up with a link. I was under the impression that Vista was based on XP which was based on NT which is a totally different kernel the 95.

As far as IE7 is concered. Yes, there is some GUI changes but there are also some security changes. I'm not saying it's more secure then Firefox/Opera/Konqueror but it is more secure then IE6. But, if you don't like IE7 then you are free to install Firefox/Opera or any other browser that runs on Vista.

Nope --- what i said was it was "basically" the same kernel.

OK - I stand corrected. Vista is built on XP which is built on NT. the 95, 98 and ME line died out with ME. Still, how much new is in the Vista kernel. Not much according to this:

http://www.pcanswers.co.uk/tutorials/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=7961&subsectionid=607

[croak77]

Nope --- what i said was it was "basically" the same kernel.

OK - I stand corrected. Vista is built on XP which is built on NT. the 95, 98 and ME line died out with ME. Still, how much new is in the Vista kernel. Not much according to this:

http://www.pcanswers.co.uk/tutorials/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=7961&subsectionid=607

That article does not even mention Vista. It about the differnece between 98 and XP. If you want to call Vista XP Service Pack 3, I'm fine with that. But it is not based on W95. Go look at the Wiki entry for a overview of what has changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

[ago]

There is no MS tax. Go build a PC without XP that is comparable to a cheap Dell and you'll see that the Dell is cheaper.
Nope you MUST compare a Dell PC with windows to THE SAME DELL PC without windows. Or an HP PC with windows with THE SAME HP PC without windows. Whatever Dell or Hp overcharge in order to FORCE you to get windows is the MS tax.


It's not a tax. It's Dell's business model to sell preloaded Windows machines.
Well it "happens" to be the business model of any major PC retailer on earth. Maybe someone else is deciding the business models here.


If they could make money selling preloaded Linux machines they would.
Maybe they can't...


Microsoft does not have a deal with all PC manufacturers.
Yes they do.

[croak77]

Nope you MUST compare a Dell PC with windows to THE SAME DELL PC without windows. Or an HP PC with windows with THE SAME HP PC without windows. Whatever Dell or Hp overcharge in order to FORCE you to get windows is the MS tax.

But Windows is cheaper when you buy it with a PC. It's more expensive when you purchase it sepaerate. I seem to remember seeing Dell's Linux PC being more expensive then the same PC with Windows installed.


Well it "happens" to be the business model of any major PC retailer on earth. Maybe someone else is deciding the business models here.

Yes...it's called consumers. Most people use Windows. There software runs on Windows. There hardware runs on Windows. This maybe shocking to you, but not everyone thinks Linux is better then Windows.



Maybe they can't...

Yes. Bill Gates implanted a special chip in the head of everyone when they are born. If a person tries to start a PC business he uses the chip to control them so he can force them to preinstall Windows.



Yes they do.

Then why are there companies like system76, cheeplinux.com, ibexpc.com, even Amazon has Linux PC's for sale. Here's a list of Linux preinstalled or no OS preinstalled vendors.

http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/23168/

[ago]

But Windows is cheaper when you buy it with a PC. It's more expensive when you purchase it sepaerate.
So what? The PC would be even cheaper without windows.


I seem to remember seeing Dell's Linux PC being more expensive then the same PC with Windows installed.
A Ubuntu machine will always cost less to PRODUCE because there are no royalties to pay. Nevertheless it is possible for Dell to ask the same amount of money they charge (or even more money) for a windows machine.... They will simply put the difference in their pocket, instead of MS pocket, and can get along with it as long as ALL the main retailers adopt the same "policy"... I am sure that MS would be glad about such "wise" decision...


Yes...it's called consumers. Most people use Windows. There software runs on Windows. There hardware runs on Windows. This maybe shocking to you, but not everyone thinks Linux is better then Windows.
What shocks me is that NONE of the major retailers is selling even a SINGLE linux machine. There are millions of people that do believe that Linux is better than Windows and that would buy a PC made for linux. If system76 can make money out of this segment why NONE of the big guns tries to tap it? Don't they like money? Sure it is not difficult for them to dedicate a couple of offerings to Linux. Or is somebody twisting their arm?


Yes. Bill Gates implanted a special chip in the head of everyone when they are born.
It is far easier than that. Each and every machine or piece of hardware that can be sold with that beautiful windows sticker needs to be APPROVED by Bill. Bill can easily REFUSE approval, and if they do, the manufacturer is doomed. Moreover Bill has quite some flexibility in negotiating their tax rate, and in a low margin business, like the PC market, that is a big deal. When you add these 2 facts together you have quite some arm twisting going on without any need for brain chips. And I if you are an OEM who also happens to sell Linux machines, Bill is not going to be too happy about that...


Then why are there companies like system76
Because System76 targets EXCLUSIVELY a niche market, they can afford not to sell windows at all. A major retailer cannot afford that choice, therefore MS is free to twist as much as they like with all big names...

[Reshin]

What shocks me is that NONE of the major retailers is selling even a SINGLE linux machine. There are millions of people that do believe that Linux is better than Windows and that would buy a PC made for linux. If system76 can make money out of this segment why NONE of the big guns tries to tap it? Don't they like money? Sure it is not difficult for them to dedicate a couple of offerings to Linux. Or is somebody twisting their arm?

Maybe they'd start offering if there'd be demand? Has anyone actually contacted or anything these retailers?

And could we PLEASE have at least a SINGLE thread that doesn't end up like this. ago and few others, could you please stay out of windows discussions? You are unable to talk here without turning these threads into flamewars.

[Shin_Gouki2501]

Psquared
IMO Vista offers a lot of new things
everyone who thinks i'm wrong ... prove it!
Vista will get a new IP, Stack and uses extensivly .NET 3.0 if that is not "new" enough for u ...
BTW: what is the aim of the thread?Is this just a opinion exchanging thread.. or is someone looking for an answer?
wbr Shin Gouki

[ago]

You are unable to talk here without turning these threads into flamewars.
That what happens when trolls try to state that windows is secure, or stable, or easy to update, or scalable, or that people have choice when it comes to OSes...

Do not blame it on me, I am simply allergic to BS... And it is always the same names, croak77, silver and a few others...

[ago]

Maybe they'd start offering if there'd be demand?
There is demand. And yes people have contacted them, several times. Mr Dell even responded with some very dubious excuses...

[ago]

To be a bit more explicit:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/19/microsoft_killed_dell_linux_states/



The States' remedy hearing opened in DC yesterday, and States attorney Steven Kuney produced a devastating memo from Kempin, then in charge of Microsoft's OEM business, written after Judge Jackson had ordered his break-up of the company. Kempin raises the possibility of threatening Dell and other PC builders which promote Linux.

"I'm thinking of hitting the OEMs harder than in the past with anti-Linux. ... they should do a delicate dance," Kempin wrote to Ballmer, in what is sure to be a memorable addition to the phrases ("knife the baby", "cut off the air supply") with which Microsoft enriched the English language in the first trial. Unlike those two, this is not contested.

Are we facing imaginary brain chips or something a bit more real? So who is making things up my dear trolls?

[cunawarit]

That what happens when trolls try to state that windows is secure, or stable, or easy to update, or scalable, or that people have choice when it comes to OSes...

Do not blame it on me, I am simply allergic to BS... And it is always the same names, croak77, silver and a few others...

The thing is that they are different, and they both have strong points and weak points. As far as you particular points go:

Security: Granted, the Windows security model is very poor compared to what's available in the Linux world.

Stability: I really puzzle over this one, XP is stable enough as a desktop OS, as stable as many Linux distributions. As for servers, 2003 is very stable. For the last 2 years I have been working with 11 2003 machines, we have never had one crash. We have had problems caused by security updates on a few occasions, but crashing? never.

Scalability: Well, we have a few machined running as a load balanced web server farm. And a couple of machines as database clusters. Is IIS load balancing perfect? No, it frankly isn't. But it does work and it is a worthy solution for plenty of organizations out there.

Choice: I'm in agreement with you in this part; Microsoft has been caught playing dirty far too many times. However, I don't view it as a war, or avoid Microsoft products because of it. They aren't the first company to play dirty, and I view both sides of Microsoft, they have done a great deal of bad things, but also a great deal of good things.

In fact, I actually love a few Microsoft products. I think Windows 2003 Server is great, and I do love Visual Studio 2005 too. I think that's why some people retort at what they see as Windows flames, I personally recognize plenty of the faults that Windows has. But I also like it for what it does right.

PS: Also keep in mind that you are preaching to the converted, people here ARE using Linux and other OSS. But some of us also happen to like Windows and other commercial software. Or at least I do.

[doobit]

The thing that gets me is the part about disabling your computer.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20061004/D8KHRAD81.html

[croak77]

So what? The PC would be even cheaper without windows.

But it's not.



A Ubuntu machine will always cost less to PRODUCE because there are no royalties to pay. Nevertheless it is possible for Dell to ask the same amount of money they charge (or even more money) for a windows machine.... They will simply put the difference in their pocket, instead of MS pocket, and can get along with it as long as ALL the main retailers adopt the same "policy"... I am sure that MS would be glad about such "wise" decision...

Then why is system76 so expensive?



What shocks me is that NONE of the major retailers is selling even a SINGLE linux machine. There are millions of people that do believe that Linux is better than Windows and that would buy a PC made for linux. If system76 can make money out of this segment why NONE of the big guns tries to tap it? Don't they like money? Sure it is not difficult for them to dedicate a couple of offerings to Linux. Or is somebody twisting their arm?

Because most people have never heard of Linux. If system76 want to sell through major retailers they can, but the market is not there. Walmart offered Linux PC's. Major retailers offer boxed Linux sets.



It is far easier than that. Each and every machine or piece of hardware that can be sold with that beautiful windows sticker needs to be APPROVED by Bill. Bill can easily REFUSE approval, and if they do, the manufacturer is doomed. Moreover Bill has quite some flexibility in negotiating their tax rate, and in a low margin business, like the PC market, that is a big deal. When you add these 2 facts together you have quite some arm twisting going on without any need for brain chips. And I if you are an OEM who also happens to sell Linux machines, Bill is not going to be too happy about that...

That would be totally illegal if it were true.



Because System76 targets EXCLUSIVELY a niche market, they can afford not to sell windows at all. A major retailer cannot afford that choice, therefore MS is free to twist as much as they like with all big names...

Dell isn't a major retailer.

[croak77]

That what happens when trolls try to state that windows is secure, or stable, or easy to update, or scalable, or that people have choice when it comes to OSes...

Do not blame it on me, I am simply allergic to BS... And it is always the same names, croak77, silver and a few others...

Did I ever say Windows was more secure, stable, or scalable? No. Do people of choice what OS they want to use? Yes. I certainly did when I choose to install Linux. So did you.

Yes, blame it on me. I'm a total troll. A troll that tries to help people woth their problems. A troll who has stated repeatedly, that he likes Linux more then XP/Vista. But I guess a troll is anyone who disagrees with you.

[Reshin]

e. oh forget it

[ago]

But it's not.
Confusing production cost with retail costs? Apples and pears...


Then why is system76 so expensive?
Economies of scale, obviously.


Major retailers offer boxed Linux sets.
Not really. Just look around you and see how many Linux PC are on offer... You say there is no demand? Then why does system76 exists at all...


That would be totally illegal if it were true.
As MS memos show, court documenst, as well as reports from people working in OEMs, it happens to be true...


Dell isn't a major retailer.
Well dell produces AND sells its products to end users. So yes it is a retailer and arguably one the biggest ones.

[Reshin]

Yes, fine! MS uses illegal methods, has unfair advantage on the margets and monitoring sucks. We get it. Can we PLEASE drop the subject already?

[ago]

Did I ever say Windows was more secure, stable, or scalable? No.
I was not referring to you on that one, but previous discussions with other users.


Do people of choice what OS they want to use? Yes.
Nope. And I explained already the reasons.


Do people of choice what OS they want to use? Yes. I certainly did when I choose to install Linux. So did you.
No I did not, I had to buy a Dell because my company had a deal with them, and Dell did NOT allow me to get a machine without Windows. I have 3 licenses I do not want and I cannot even sell them because MS will not allow to transfer them... Talk to me about MS tax...

In fact I have a friend with a legitimate retail boxed version of Windows (i.e. transferable), he also bought from Dell, and he was not allowed to use his existing license. He had to buy a new one... So much for choice...

[croak77]

No I did not, I had to buy a Dell because my company had a deal with them, and Dell did NOT allow me to get a machine without Windows. I have 3 licenses I do not want and I cannot even sell them because MS will not allow to transfer them... Talk to me about MS tax...


So blame your company for only buying Dell PC's.

[croak77]

Confusing production cost with retail costs? Apples and pears...


No retail cost.


Economies of scale, obviously.

Or that Windows cost around $10 wholesale.



Not really. Just look around you and see how many Linux PC are on offer... You say there is no demand? Then why does system76 exists at all...

Systems are overpriced. I have bought box sets of Linux in giant American retailers for years, from CompUSA, Staples to BestBuy. Even the major bookchains have CD's with books or magazines.



As MS memos show, court documenst, as well as reports from people working in OEMs, it happens to be true...

That memo showed that someone had the idea to put pressure on OEM's. If they did then the OEM's certainly would sue.



Well dell produces AND sells its products to end users. So yes it is a retailer and arguably one the biggest ones.

Ok then. So Linux is available at maybe the number one seller of PC's.

[ago]

So blame your company for only buying Dell PC's.

It could have been HP, Compaq, IBM, any other big name. Same thing: NO CHOICE. And a company cannot take the risk to go with a brandless supplier.

[ago]

No retail cost.
And you are wrong. You need to use production cost...


Or that Windows cost around $10 wholesale.
And ubuntu costs $0....


That memo showed that someone
That someone was the MS person IN CHARGE of dealing with OEMs, not the doorman...

[croak77]

And ubuntu costs $0....

There is more then just the OS cost. How much does support cost? You think any major retailer is gonna say,"For Support, Go To Ubuntuforums.org". Nope. Dell or whomever would either have to offer support which costs money or offer a distro that include support which would cost more then $0.



That someone was the MS person IN CHARGE of dealing with OEMs, not the doorman...

Again, the OEM could sue the pants of Windows if they stongarmed them. It's totally illegal.

[croak77]

It could have been HP, Compaq, IBM, any other big name. Same thing: NO CHOICE. And a company cannot take the risk to go with a brandless supplier.

But your company can buy Linux PC's from Dell right now if they wanted to. And those other companies all support Linux. HP/Compaq did offer Linux PC's at one point.

[ago]

How much does support cost?
Dell does not support windows specific questions. They do tell you to ask Windows. So yes, the same thing can be done for Ubuntu. They only need to support your drivers. Once your OS boots, their job is over. And for that, all you have to do is pick hardware that is known to work with Ubuntu, it is that simple. You do not even need to create a driver CD and support for Ubuntu COMPATIBLE hardware is FAR EASIER than for windows because the hardware is autodetected, you do not need to install the drivers manually like in Windows, you do not need extra CDs, even if you reinstall the OS. Therefore there are far fewer chances of support calls (mostly people that forgot to plug the power cable).

So, if anything, Ubuntu would cost them substantially less than windows both in terms of fees AND support. And by the way, most of their machines work well as they are with Ubuntu, so there is really little to be done...


Again, the OEM could sue the pants of Windows if they stongarmed them. It's totally illegal.
Sure... and go out of business... Great idea...

[croak77]

Dell does not support windows specific questions. They do tell you to ask Windows.

Who are you going to ask for help?


You do not even need to create a driver CD and support for Ubuntu COMPATIBLE hardware is FAR EASIER than for windows because the hardware is autodetected, you do not need to install the drivers manually like in Windows, you do not need extra CDs, even if you reinstall the OS. Therefore there are far fewer chances of support calls (mostly people that forgot to plug the power cable).

Not every hardware is supported by Ubuntu. Look at this forum, there is plenty on support needed by people and it's not "I forgot to plug the cable in".


So, if anything, Ubuntu would cost them substantially less than windows both in terms of fees AND support. And by the way, most of their machines work well as they are with Ubuntu, so there is really little to be done... I really do not think that cost is the issue here, we need to look elsewhere...

No. People would still need support. Not free forums. But people who they can call 24/7.



Sure... and go out of business... Great idea...

Like Real.

[ago]

Who are you going to ask for help?

For the drivers you call Dell, but the drivers are going to be autodetected by Ubuntu, unlike windows, you do not have to install them separately. So no calls there. For normal software you cannot call Dell anyway. So no calls there either.


Not every hardware is supported by Ubuntu.
Dell is an OEM and an OEM can DECIDE what hardware to use. If some hardware is not compatible they can simply pick another one that works well. Not so difficult, isn't it? And as mentioned, most of their current offerings already work with Ubuntu as they are...


Look at this forum, there is plenty on support needed by people and it's not "I forgot to plug the cable in".
Yes those will be basically the types of calls they receive, but that type of support will not cost any more than for windows... In fact, if anything since driver support is simpler, they could save quite a lot...


No. People would still need support. Not free forums.
Mr Dell disagrees with you: "Dell does not officially support running Linux on Dell laptops. However, there are many great 'community-supported' resources available to help you get Linux running. These links include:..."

http://linux.dell.com/desktops.shtml


Like Real.
That is a completely different business. Apples and pears, again...

[Monsuco]

Not every hardware is supported by Ubuntu. Look at this forum, there is plenty on support needed by people and it's not "I forgot to plug the cable in".
Most of that is "my hardware isn't working". An OEM such as Dell could test their own hardware to ensure compatibility. Dell would know if your WiFi card works out of the box or not. Dell would know if your modem works or not. Dell would be able to have your graphics card be accelerated out of the box. Dell could make sure your CPU speed is adjusted out of the box. Dell can make sure your removable laptop CD drive is hotswapable. An OEM would also probably license MP3, DVD, MPEG, Real, Flash, Java, and other multimedia support for you.

Why won't the OEMs support linux? Because MS tells them if they sell PCs without Windows in stores, or these PCs are on the main page of their website, or they offer a multiboot, then they will charge more for Windows. Sure it is illegal, but the OEMs do not fight it because they know that if they do, the risk loosing. They know MS can easily hire thousands of lawyers and crush their little lawsuit. Most OEMs don't care, they figure that if someone wants linux, they will just buy a Windows PC and format it.

Heck, Microsoft probably would rather you buy a Window PC and format it. Once you pay for a copy of windows, they don't really care. Plus if you format it, they dont have to support your PC so they are happy.

The best thing to do is refuse the MS EULA. It says that if you refuse the EULA you can return windows at the place of purchase and get a refund.

There are a few Linux OEMs. IBM/Levono sell a Thinkpad with SUSE (http://www.lenovo.com/news/us/en/2006/08/t60p.html). IBM also makes sure drivers are compatible with Linux and writes special FOSS drivers for Linux. This makes sense because before Linux, IBM dealt with Unix in the past and they are mad at MS after MS backstabed them with OS/2. A few HP PCs (http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/cache/321116-0-0-0-121.html) let you opt for Red Hat Enterprise or Suse or something like that. Dell will sell nSeries desktops (http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/e510_nseries?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~ck=mn) with a copy of FreeDOS (MS made sure Linux wouldn't be what they were offering, as MS has special deals with Dell). It seems Dell kinda hides their linux PCs in the dark corners of their website though.

A few small OEMs sell PCs with Linux often Linspire is the distro of choice here, as Linspire has DVD, MP3, Real, Flash, Java, and Windows Media support (apparently, in their settlement with MS over the name "Lindows" they agreed to change their name to Linspire if in exchange, MS would pay them money and allow for them to support WMA/WMV, though Real appears to have purchased the rights to offer WM support through their media player). Koobox (http://www.koobox.com/index.php) is one such OEM. Another Linux PC provider is MadTux (http://store.madtux.org/index.php?cPath=57). They don't usually sell with an OS, rather, they have Linux compatible hardware. WalMart (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=3762908) sells a XandrOS desktop. There are a few other Laptop (http://tuxmobil.org/reseller.html) and desktop (I couldnt find a link) vendors who sell linux computers.

Back on topic :P. Vista does look better than XP, but keep in mind MS had a lot of time (XP is five years old) to develop a new OS GUI, so it should look better. Of course, Vista expects hardware that is rather high end for todays computers. (XP too demanded high end hardware for it's time, but not that high end). Linux on the other hand will work on nearly any hardware out there (While KDE and Gnome should have at least 128, If you don't use X, you can get a command line only linux working on 4 MB of ram. At about 16 MB Fluxbox will work I think. With 64 MB, I believe XFce and Enlightenment are fine.

Although KDE and Gnome look much beter any other GUI, have you seen Sun's new Project Looking Glass? It's 3-D environment blows everything out of the water. It worked fine on my computer, with only 512 MB of ram and an intel express graphics card and it looked outstanding.

[ago]

The best thing to do is refuse the MS EULA. It says that if you refuse the EULA you can return windows at the place of purchase and get a refund.
The best thing would be for government to pass a law by which, if software is preinstalled, you need to be able to try the software and be given the options to purchase it AFTER a certain period. No software should be paid for in advance when preinstalled. Refusing the EULA is not a sufficient guarantee for the customer. It is extremely difficult to get a refund (not least because there are several versions of the EULA each with different rules)... There are whole websites dedicated to the refund.

A try-and-pay mode would create little inconveniences since the OS would still be preinstalled and the OEM would still get paid his share. Moreover most software today supports try-and-pay mode, including windows which can be locked if not activated, so little modification is required.

Obviously MS is not going to like that, nor is Mac. But that would bring some healthy competition into a strangled sector. The alternative is to wait for the Chinese to ship $100 machines with Linux.

[croak77]

I done. Nothing is going to change your viewpoint and I have no idea why I'm still posting. :)

[kopilo]

At fist glance it does look really good.

However in my honest opinion, I think it is getting a little bit too over worked with the transparentcy and shadowing.

It is meant to be an interface, remember that people are possibly going to be inadvertently looking at it for hours on end, you don't want something too complex.

[NeoLithium]

Very true. I had Vista RC1 for a bit, one thing I noticed, is that Windows drains your system for resources with a lot of the eye candy compared with what you can have on Linux, but use far less of everything.

I mean; my laptop that I have is not Aero capable, but it can run the bare-bones boring vista. Meanwhile, I have ubuntu, and I like the look just as good; if not better. I don't have to pray that things work when I customise, I know it'll work. It's linux :)

[MedivhX]

I have to say that new Windows really is beautiful, but still they've stolen many things from MacOS and Linux, and again still KDE and GNOME are much more beautiful (to me). And rhe only thing tat is changed in Vista is the GUI, everything else is pretty much the same and it sucks... [-(

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I would be careful with how often you say Windows steals from Linux...
After all, our Terminal Server Client looks strangely similar to Windows's Remote Desktop software :b

I'd refer to it in a less pointy way, such as "inspiring each-other".

It's nice that they've finally figured out user permissions, though. Too bad the path to the My Documents folder still contains spaces.

[Psquared]

I realize its RC1, but very little software that ran perfectly on XP runs on Vista. I can't even install the nVidia driver and i have a fairly recent nVidia card. GeForce2 MX400 with 128 mb of memory.

I think this is an nVidia problem not a Vista problem, but just trying to install simple things seems to gimp up Vista. I installed the HP Driver/Software for my HP OfficeJet 4215 and it caused my Recycle Bin to disappear. (not to mention it wouldn't install the driver.)

Compatibility is going to be a problem for Vista. Of course, that means more $$ for all the software people.

[Old Pink]

Vista is very much looks over functionality, and even then it doesn't look all that great, I've seen better looking Dapper setups. :)

[Psquared]

Vista is very much looks over functionality, and even then it doesn't look all that great, I've seen better looking Dapper setups. :)

Agree with that. Its not even that customizable which is one of the things that attracts me to Ubuntu. I can make it look any way I want to. You can buy stuff to customize it, but why the heck do that.

I'll never really understand why people write software for Linux and distribute if for free and everything for Windows costs a bundle. You could spend a thousand dollars on software for Windows if you add Office, Adobe software, themes, games etc.

[Old Pink]

You could spend a thousand dollars on software for Windows if you add Office, Adobe software, themes, games etc.

It's truly shocking... And now Microsoft is going to charge $*** just for that Vista "Aero" look alone! :o

[Psquared]

It's truly shocking... And now Microsoft is going to charge $*** just for that Vista "Aero" look alone! :o

I think eventually that will be MS's downfall. More and more the individual is going to move to Linux (esp. as it becomes more user friendly) and ultimately companies are going to migrate to Linux Desktops.

[cunawarit]

It's truly shocking... And now Microsoft is going to charge $*** just for that Vista "Aero" look alone! :o

Why is it shocking? If anything Microsoft software (particularly OS) has historically tended to be on the cheap side, that's part of the issue with anti-competitive practices, they have such a large market share that they can afford to undercut the competition.

[croak77]

Vista is very much looks over functionality, and even then it doesn't look all that great, I've seen better looking Dapper setups. :)

Compare the default looks of each not some geek's customized desktop.

[cunawarit]

I think eventually that will be MS's downfall. More and more the individual is going to move to Linux (esp. as it becomes more user friendly) and ultimately companies are going to migrate to Linux Desktops.

You guys really think MS software is THAT expensive? They have some great license deals for companies, and people doing MS support tend to be less knowledgeable/experienced thusly less expensive than people doing Linux support. Also, I know of one company where just swapping a mouse over costs over a $1000 in terms of paperwork, and support. Some companies spend SO much silly money on IT that MS software is comparably peanuts.

I REALLY want to see a more balanced desktop market, I don't care if it is Linux or some other open source solution that gives MS some competition. But I don't see MS going away, not now, not in 10 years time... They have a REALLY strong grip on the market, and for the corporate world their software really does a very good job.

[cunawarit]

Compare the default looks of each not some geek's customized desktop.

True, but there is no denying that Windows Vista will never be quite as versatile and customizable interface wise. Windows is all about standardization, the Linux world loves giving people choices.

[croak77]

I'll never really understand why people write software for Linux and distribute if for free and everything for Windows costs a bundle. You could spend a thousand dollars on software for Windows if you add Office, Adobe software, themes, games etc.

That's not really true. Quite a few of programs found on Dapper work on Windows, gimp, gaim, openoffice, mplayer, vlc, inkscape, firefox, thunderbird, not to mention there are some good freeware programs like foobar. Believe it or not, there are even programs that cost money on Linux.

[MedivhX]

So what. Those are not opensoure apps... There are distroes that cost too (Red Hat, SuSE Enerprise,...)

[croak77]

So what. Those are not opensoure apps... There are distroes that cost too (Red Hat, SuSE Enerprise,...)

So there are free and/or OSS apps for Windows. Everything for Windows does not cost money. Just like everything in Linux is not free and/or OSS.

[trash]

meh, I was much more impressed when i saw that E17 moving desktop vid

[Old Pink]

Compare the default looks of each not some geek's customized desktop.

Unless you pay an additional $2xx/$3xx, Vista won't look like that.

[croak77]

Unless you pay an additional $2xx/$3xx, Vista won't look like that.

What does that mean $2xx = $200?

[Old Pink]

What does that mean $2xx = $200?

The x means any number. So anything between $200-$299, I use it because I am unaware of the exact price.

[croak77]

The x means any number. So anything between $200-$299, I use it because I am unaware of the exact price.

Exact price for what? Vista or are you talking about theming apps like Windowsblinds or Style XP?

[dolphinsonar]

Its funny but many people choose their OS by purely subjective things such as how pretty it looks. I think Ubuntu can be made to look really snappy when you mess with the themes. Its obvious to me that Windows Vista is just pumping money into an idea that started with Linux. This will only fuel the designaddicts to churn out more stuff that will surpass windows.


Looks nice. I dont see anything Compiz isnt doing though.

[Old Pink]

Exact price for what? Vista or are you talking about theming apps like Windowsblinds or Style XP?

You don't understand. Unless you pay an additional $200+ then Vista will not look like that. You need to pay extra for the Aero look, which is provided by Microsoft at a additional cost.

[croak77]

I Its obvious to me that Windows Vista is just pumping money into an idea that started with Linux.

I don't know about that. The Aero effects have been in development for a few years now.

[croak77]

You don't understand. Unless you pay an additional $200+ then Vista will not look like that. You need to pay extra for the Aero look, which is provided by Microsoft at a additional cost.

Aero is not in Home Basic. Home Premium full is $239, which includes all of the eye candy stuff. Home Premium upgrade is $159. But I'd bet Vista is going to be driven by new PC sales. So the cost to the consumer will be less then $159 if bought bundled with a PC. Overall it's $40 more then Home Basic full and $60 more then Home Basic upgrade.

[mysticrider92]

Vista looks nice, with things like the Flip 3D, but will have the same problems as XP, and you won't have any control over it. I'm not trying to start a fight but I am pretty sure it will be that way.

[Mazen]

is the Compiz-quinn theme available to install on ubuntu or something?
where can i get it...n how

[igknighted]

I am writing this from Windows Vista RC2... just gotta keep up with what the enemy's doin :mrgreen: . I am, however, extremely impressed by it. I tested RC1 and it was a disaster, but RC2 is leaps and bounds better. It runs fast and all the eye candy works perfectly... and best of all it is stable. I have not had the system hang or crash once since I installed it, and the backwards compatability to XP is improved (I am in 64 bit, so many 32 bit programs struggled before). I cant justify purchasing a copy due to the price tag, but I will leave this on my system until June when the Beta runs out, it's proven itself worthy of the hard drive space.

[jcrnan]

mazen: Compiz is now called Beryl. Just search the forums for beryl+dapper and you will find a guide on how to install it :)

[.t.]

Compiz is not now called Beryl. Compiz is the original project, beryl a fork. If you want nice, clean, stable code you should choose Compiz. If you have the power, use Beryl. Note that Beryl is indeed more amateur, and "hackish".

Compiz on Dapper: http://gandalfn.wordpress.com/howto-compiz-aiglx-on-dapper/
Beryl on Dapper: http://wiki.beryl-project.org/index.php/Install/Ubuntu

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Some funny bugs from RC2 and some screenshots that I don't usually see are here:
http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/0,1206,l=&s=1489&a=190803,00.asp

If that person is right about it consuming 500 MB of memory when idling... that's not good.

A few images I found particularly interesting:

Windows's welcome screen. Beautiful, hm?
http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l=&s=1489&a=190803&po=9,00.asp
Nah, it's confusing.
Who in their right mind puts Windows Basics in the same screen as (and Below) things like View Computer Details, Register Windows, Personalize Windows and the Backup/Restore Center?!
It's absurd!

(Though this has reminded me: Ubuntu needs a better new user welcome screen).

This here looks 10 times worse than the little redraw glitches I (and most others) occasionally get in XP, so I hope it's a rare or completely limited occurrence...
Probably is, though, but it's still a fun little screenshot.
http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l=&s=1489&a=190803&po=2,00.asp


Is anyone else already getting bored of the transparent windows thing?
They can look a bit ugly in some places (depending on what they are placed against) and since Microsoft showed it off long before Vista's original release date (back in the stone ages) the look has been completely milked.
(Heck, I have a transparent Aero clone running in Kubuntu on a 6 year old 500 mHz Celery box with one of those awful integrated Intel graphics chips).

Sometimes that blur effect looks more like something has been jpged too many times than actually blurred, but in some other places it looks good (and undeniably shows that the Aero look is Microsoft's look; stop trying to mimic it and figure out something better instead).
In motion they tend to look a lot better though, so I'll stay open-minded.


Hopefully they'll fix all that stuff by the release...
Maybe they should make IE 7's toolbars a bit smaller as well, while they're at it.

[jcrnan]

.t.: Yes it is indeed a fork. Sorry for giving out wrong info. But in my experience beryl is more stable and more proffesional. It also has more fps then Compiz had. Also, most of the people actually working on compiz is now working on Beryl. I would definitily say that Beryl will be the way to go, altough it still has bugs (just like compiz had). Compiz never had any stable versions but beryl plan on having both stable and bleeding edge versions.

[.t.]

This is way off-topic: Compiz has had a stable release (0.2). I can name two devs who work on Compiz but not Beryl. For two weeks, I have run only Compiz. I can say it is much more responsive than current Beryl. I run Edgy. Now, let's end that there.

On-topic: I'm not bored of the transparent windows thing. I wish my i915 would be quick enough to run Blurfx full-time!

[Ptero-4]

You've goota hand it to them, the Graphics are great.
Hey man, what are you smoking there, may I have some? It sure is a quite strong drug you're on, isn't it?


I really prefer Linux
I second you on that, the linux GUI is way better than Waste's one.


Is such beauty ever planned for Ubuntu?
I hope not, b/c if it's planned to make ubuntu look like ******* Waste, I'm going to stick with whatever version is the last one that doesn't look like Waste by default.

[cunawarit]

Is there really any need to describe Windows as Waste? Ptero-4, you have said absolutelly nothing constructive.

[mysticrider92]

Wow, even the pictures of Vista load slowly. :-D

Or maybe it is just our computer...

[someusernoob]

Dont they have a guideline for icons?

[GMUDuckman]

I really don't understand why people have to hate on OSes. Personally I like all 3 for different reasons. Theres no rule that says just because you use 1 OS mean you have to hate others. I can point out bad things in ALL OSes. XP is nice because 1 its widely used so more programs are programmed for it, 2 Basically all hardware works with almost no work at all (it took me 3 weeks to get my video card and wireless card to work in Ubuntu). Ubuntu is nice because its highly customizable to your needs, faster than XP and has little to no spyware. OSX is great for video editing and mac makes quite compact computers. All 3 have good points and bad points! But personally I like all 3! Just had to get that out there...

[denad]

I installed vista today, must say I was surprised about how much polish they have put into the interface, really pretty. Aero does look kinda nice. Will install Edgy+Beryl when the RC comes out, and see what vista is up againtst.

[jcrnan]

if you have a good gfx card you should also try out the unofficial svn packages on the beryl packages forums. They include some new animations you can choose for your windows and such. among others you can make windows and menus "burn up" when you close them :) Its a harsh effect on low end gfx cards but looks awsome :)

[kdub432]

Sure, windows vista looks alright....

But my Ubuntu dapper installation, with beryl installed, runs circles around it in terms of beauty and functionality. I would even say Ubuntu with beryl installed looks a lot nicer than macs............

[alecjw]

Hi. Sorry I haven't replied to this thread for a while, despite starting it myself. I've installed beryl, which I've relised is waaaaaaaay better than vista. But I still felt a yearning for vistas graphics, and Mac OSX's. The result: Baeroyl OSX. It actually looks quite cool.

[jcrnan]

alecjw: there is also an experimental program called kiba dock wich makes a osx like dock (just better). you might like it :)

[alecjw]

alecjw: there is also an experimental program called kiba dock wich makes a osx like dock (just better). you might like it :)

I've heard that it's still very experimental and can only handle SVG icons and I'd need to compile it myself. When they get to version 1, I might try it.

[chaosgeisterchen]

Vista looks great, especially the taskbar. But Beryl can do the same, that's the point.

I've already seen taskbars doing the same..

[Will5639]

Yes, Beryl is so lovely. Little troubleshooting but it's worth it.

Even if Vista (when it's ready, and on the "proper" machine) has a leg up... we all know it won't last.

Besides, Vista + New computer...or... Beryl and antique-computer? :mrgreen:

[Joe_Bishop]

I hate black design and transparent titles, so vista looks ugly, IMHO.

[hoagie]

Yeah I have to admit that the new look of windows is really nice. Microsoft has done a good job, however after five years it will become boring, as with xp. But I have to admit that it looks great, but screw it I have beryl working!

[the.dark.lord]

Firstly, before you flame me I AM NEVER GOING TO USE WINDOWS AS MY MAIN OS, I'm just making a point.

Look at this pic: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Windows_Vista_RC1_desktop.png

You've goota hand it to them, the Graphics are great. The taskbar looks less square, with the circular start button on it.
I like the transparency too. Look at the plack part of the start menu and the edge of the control panel window. They are both slightly transparent, and what's underneath them also looks blurred, like if you were looking through a window covered looseley in sticky-back plastic.
The start menu also looks less square with its curved corners and the picrure sticking out of the top.

Is such beauty ever planned for Ubuntu?

Ever used a Mac? MS just plain copied it from OS X.

[scapalexis888]

For me, performance beats graphics any day. What's the point in making everything look good but works so horribly? I mean, I agree that Vista looks nice and all, but is it REALLY necessary that we see what is behind a window? Put more effort into making that thing more stable instead. I am sick of stuff crashing and not working.

[kamaboko]

For me, performance beats graphics any day. What's the point in making everything look good but works so horribly? I mean, I agree that Vista looks nice and all, but is it REALLY necessary that we see what is behind a window? Put more effort into making that thing more stable instead. I am sick of stuff crashing and not working.

I beat the hell out of Vista Premium and it hasn't even hiccuped. I also don't have the latest hardware.

[hudanet2005]

just visit sindos.web.id
and click the Sindos Pesta link on the content
you can see the video clip there.

i dont think i have to buy windows vista any more

linux is enough !!! :guitar: :guitar: :guitar:

peace!!!

[hudanet2005]

forgot to tell you all

GNU/Linux Sindos Pesta works on pentium 2.4 ghz ram 256 mb ati mobile raden 7500 with the latest compiz-fusion for 3D desktop

it s so WOW!!! :guitar: :guitar: :guitar:

windows vista won't work on that machine trust me

[SunnyRabbiera]

it is easy to make Gnome and KDE look a bit like Vista, take my toying around for example:
Vistalike1 (http://www.linfx.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=1)
Vistalike2 (http://www.linfx.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=2)
Vistalike3 (http://www.linfx.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=0)

[floke]

And how, may I ask, did you do this? (especially the menu?)