Vista vs Linux - Beryl

[Bjwebb]

The end of January is approaching, and along with it, advances our deadliest foe WINDOWS VISTA!!

I was just wondering as far as Linux is concerned, what weapons do we have in our arsenal for a counter strike.

The main thing that makes Vista even remotely worth buying (other than maybe the fact its more secure, but hey, it can't possibly beat Linux at that) would be the wonderful new Aero interface - 3D window interactions. Not the type of thing you'd be able to get free of charge from the internet as a Linux download.

However, I was wrong. A few google searches and a wikipedia article - i find out that there is now something called beryl, which forked off a novell project, and can now be seen running on some very impressive videos on Ubuntu on sites such as U-tube.

However, the set up seems complicated, and if we want to make Linux a viable and attractive alternative to Windows, then we could do with Beryl built into one of the distribution packages - so I want to know: Is there a distribution (other than Suse Enterprise, becuase that is a non-open source binary) with Beryl incorporated. Are there any plans to add it to future releases of Ubuntu, possibly Feisty Fawn?

With Beryl by our side, we can try to bring down the Goliath that is MICROSOFT.

[Choad]

deadliest foe? hardly! xp is much more of a direct competition to ubuntu.

we dont want a counter strike to vista, imo, because vista is terrible. DRMed up to the eyeballs, bloaty beyond belief and expensive to boot.

ubuntu doesnt need radical changes, it needs steady improvements. more streamlining. more integration.

</my 2 cents>

feisty has beryl, by the way.

[23meg]

Is there a distribution (other than Suse Enterprise, becuase that is a non-open source binary) with Beryl incorporated. http://www.sabayonlinux.org/
Are there any plans to add it to future releases of Ubuntu, possibly Feisty Fawn?http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=289764
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/composite-by-default

[Bjwebb]

Great, thanks for the links - they'll be useful as I'm relatively new to Linux - which is why I was wrong in the first place.

You're probably right about XP as well though. However, we do need to make an alternative to Vista, and Feisty sounds as if it might fit that bill.

[joflow]

Beryl isn't all that complicated to set up...I dont think. Correct me if I'm wrong but since AIGLX is included in Xorg7 now...its only a matter of getting and correctly installing the drivers for your video card. Then its an apt-get away (in feisty? but you have to add the 3rd party repos in edgy.)

The ATI drivers don't support AIGLX and so it requires XGL which is complicated.

With intel hardware, I'm guessing it could be setup to run automagically with no fuss.

[Iarwain ben-adar]

It's starting to get to me..

Why is everyone so prone to DEFEAT MICROSOFT?
I mean, why do you care if Microsoft still brings out new OS'es? You can help your friends and family to get rid of Windows, if they want.

But why would you try to take something away when a person wants just that? I know, most people don't know about other OS'es. You could still just tell them, and show them that you can do as much with Linux as with Windows.

I just don't see the point of "defeating" Microsoft. In some way or another, they're great.
Without Microsoft, there probabely would be much less competetition of inventing new things..

Anyways, just my ranting :rolleyes:


Iarwain

[banjobacon]

U-tube

The name of the video site is Youtube. Utube.com is the website of a tubing company. I doubt you saw videos of Beryl in action there.

[Bjwebb]

The name of the video site is Youtube. Utube.com is the website of a tubing company. I doubt you saw videos of Beryl in action there.

Whoops - did I do that. I seriously can't believe it, I'm normally correcting other people who make that mistake. Looks like the tables have been turned.

Sorry about the DEFEAT MICROSOFT stuff by the way - just me trying to be melodromatic. One the other hand, we do need to try and make our software just as good as theirs.

My display adapter says its a 128MB ATI RADEON X600 SE, how would I set that up?

[23meg]

Sorry about the DEFEAT MICROSOFT stuff by the way - just me trying to be melodromatic. One the other hand, we do need to try and make our software just as good as theirs.Bug #1 (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1) may clarify Ubuntu's goal for you.

[Brunellus]

Beryl is buggy, questionably stable alpha-quality software. Many of its effect are less use than ornament. Burning windows might look cool, but they're nothing but useless geek chrome.

At the moment, the 3D desktop scene is dominated by the computing equivalent of Ricers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricer). That big chrome exhaust tip doesn't make your car any more fuel-efficient or reliable.

[manmower]

Beryl is buggy, questionably stable alpha-quality software. Many of its effect are less use than ornament. Burning windows might look cool, but they're nothing but useless geek chrome.

At the moment, the 3D desktop scene is dominated by the computing equivalent of Ricers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricer). That big chrome exhaust tip doesn't make your car any more fuel-efficient or reliable.

Testify! :D

[WinterWeaver]

I belive that the biggest mistake we are making, and even I am guilty of this. Is that we are giving too much focus and emphasis on Microsoft.

There is this saying that goes: "What you focus on will become your Reality"

It also goes along with, "the more you push against something, the more power you give to it".

I believe it was Mother Theresa that said: "I will never go to a Anti War rally, but if you invite me to a Peace Rally I will be there."

I believe that we should put a lot more power and energy into making Linux a great OS. It would be good to keep on observing. but a simple shift in focus, might just be the big push that we need.

^_^

WW

[WinterWeaver]

On the topic of the thread...

Beryl is getting better and better all the time. I've used it since Dapper, and have it installed on my Edgy box atm.

Yesterday I installed Beryl on one of our Work PC's. and WOW was I impressed. It's the new beta Version of Beryl, installation was super easy, worked straight out of the box. And here I must say, that it works super smooth and fast, on a very low end system.

Everyone here is impressed :)

GOGO Ubuntu!! Go Go XGL & beryl !!

WW

[Choad]

3 points:

1 - not all of beryl is devoid of functionality.

2 - the pure eye candy effects can be truned off

3 - having a desktop that looks good IS important. not to servers, not for specific application use, but for a general desktop experience it is important. the wobbly windows dont make firefox run anny better, but it does give my desktop an organic feel that i am getting quite fond of.

[Brunellus]

3 points:

1 - not all of beryl is devoid of functionality.

2 - the pure eye candy effects can be truned off

3 - having a desktop that looks good IS important. not to servers, not for specific application use, but for a general desktop experience it is important. the wobbly windows dont make firefox run anny better, but it does give my desktop an organic feel that i am getting quite fond of.
If using computers over the years has taught me anything it's this:

Ugly is beautiful.

The prize of mass adoption does not go to the prettiest desktop. The Amiga had a beautiful GUI when the rest of us were still bathed in the green phosphor glow of our 80-column monochrome screens. Come to think of it, even the Commodore 64 could have used the GEOS GUI.

But what won? The pale, sickly green, glowing C:\_ Because it was cheap and rapidly deployable by large organizations.

That's not to say that beauty isn't something to strive for--but it's not nearly as important to mass desktop adoption as geeks seem to think it is.

[Motoxrdude]

I belive that the biggest mistake we are making, and even I am guilty of this. Is that we are giving too much focus and emphasis on Microsoft.

There is this saying that goes: "What you focus on will become your Reality"

It also goes along with, "the more you push against something, the more power you give to it".

I believe it was Mother Theresa that said: "I will never go to a Anti War rally, but if you invite me to a Peace Rally I will be there."

I believe that we should put a lot more power and energy into making Linux a great OS. It would be good to keep on observing. but a simple shift in focus, might just be the big push that we need.

^_^

WW
Pure wisdom there.

[rev_b]

I don't think Aero is such a menage to Beryl :)
Beryl is much more versatile, costumizable and feature rich. You can enable "eye-candy" or you can enable the really useful features - scale is way better than aero 3d view...

I'm running Beryl since 0.1.2 and after 0.1.4 (using 0.2 svn now) it hasn't crashed once on me.

I have beryl running well (most of effects turned off though) in my laptop that has a integrated 855 intel graphics with 32Mb of shared RAM! Why do I need a directX9 capable card in order to run vista with all the bells and whistles?

[awakatanka]

But what won? The pale, sickly green, glowing C:\_ Because it was cheap and rapidly deployable by large organizations.

Amiga and C64 and other things where home computer that where used at home. They where cheap, a PC was expensive but slowly it was getting cheaper and more and more people wanted to run the same appz that they used at work. They won because the hardware was getting cheaper and was easly to change, something that couldn't be done on a amiga our any other home computer. And the clones made it cheaper and cheaper. Man i mis those days.

OS2 was a better and better looking OS then dos/win3 but this ugly thing won because the marketing was better. Looks are good but you can only win if you marketing is good our if MS makes a major mistake.

[WinterWeaver]

If using computers over the years has taught me anything it's this:

Ugly is beautiful.

The prize of mass adoption does not go to the prettiest desktop. The Amiga had a beautiful GUI when the rest of us were still bathed in the green phosphor glow of our 80-column monochrome screens. Come to think of it, even the Commodore 64 could have used the GEOS GUI.

But what won? The pale, sickly green, glowing C:\_ Because it was cheap and rapidly deployable by large organizations.

That's not to say that beauty isn't something to strive for--but it's not nearly as important to mass desktop adoption as geeks seem to think it is.

My personal experience is this:
When Win3.1 was released, I immediatly started working on it, and tried to forget about my little prompt. When win95 was released.... I dropped win3.1 asap, just because it looked prettier. My choices had nothing to do with multimedia and/or games at the time, because I never really played any games.
WinXP same story.... and then I started playing with many different themes etc.

now we look at the whole Winamp and media Player thing. I know sooo many people that change the look and feel of their players with newly downloaded skins etc.

The computer world has slowly evolved into a very visual world.

Currently I use beryl on my home and work pc's, and personally it makes me more productive. Yes, I know it sounds silly... lol, but it's because I don't really want to leave my desktop. It's such a huge pleasure to work on something that looks nice, feels nice, has different ways of switching between apps, it is just so refreshing I don't want to leave it alone.

Now, all my friends always had their objections to linux, and said I was silly to use it. BUT, the moment they saw me flip my desktop cube to another app. They were super impressed. I now have 2 friends that wants to make the switch, and 1 that's made the switch already.
And their choices are not based on the security linux offers, it is purely based on how it looks. Of course I had to show them what new apps they would be using, but they are very keen on switching.

My experience in a nutshell :)

WW

[Snoochi]

i am probably going to be hated for this but here goes, i am no windows fanboy and decry their DRM but i find that to run the applications that i need the most as a media engineer (well hopefully im actually just a media student at the mo) then i am forced onto macs which i just really dont like because it is totally proprietry and expensive or i can build an awesome powerhouse which can run windows or linux. on my desktop machine im running xp at the mo and am installing vista on it very soon this is because i cannot with linux (ubuntu) run essential programs like cubase sx and adobe auditions. if someone knows of some professional media editing programs for linux id really like to hear about it. Also ubuntu cannot run new games (bf2,doom3,crysis etc..). if ubuntu could i would solely switch to it. do not get me wrong i am writing this from my 1 year old laptop running ubuntu which i think is amazing for it , for a free os thats open source has a great user base of helpful ppl and has great forums like this it suits perfectly, i can do all the things i need to with the minimum of fuss eg wireless networking web browsing dvd watching music playing office work etc.. so thanks ubuntu i do love you. but to make the complete switch linux (ubuntu) needs to consider these other requirements for computer uses to really put one in microsofts back. as a side note i do know of wine and cider but in engineering you need 100% reliability and this is getting better for them but its no where near perfect. so if you have read all this thank you and id love to know what you think sorry to rant on so much :)

[WinterWeaver]

O.o

I've run DoomIII on my Ubuntu desktop. and it ran faster than on my Windows box.....
it was even the windows version of DoomIII (ran it with Cedega).

As far as I'm aware of, all ID games have Linux-native versions.

As for the Media side of things. I have to agree. Ubuntu does have a few very very good tools, but unfortunately I have to use a Mac for video editing with Final Cut Pro etc. (for work).

Lol... hope we aren't derailing the thread now :P

WW

[Choad]

If using computers over the years has taught me anything it's this:

Ugly is beautiful.

The prize of mass adoption does not go to the prettiest desktop. The Amiga had a beautiful GUI when the rest of us were still bathed in the green phosphor glow of our 80-column monochrome screens. Come to think of it, even the Commodore 64 could have used the GEOS GUI.

But what won? The pale, sickly green, glowing C:\_ Because it was cheap and rapidly deployable by large organizations.

That's not to say that beauty isn't something to strive for--but it's not nearly as important to mass desktop adoption as geeks seem to think it is.
i nver said style should come over substance, or indeed price (not that thats an issue here) all im sayin is that its not fair to dismiss it totally.

all you hear mac owners talk about is how pretty it is, and how useful expose is. and these are people who payed a premium for the privilage of osX

[rev_b]

Also ubuntu cannot run new games (bf2,doom3,crysis etc..).

Just a correction: Doom 3 runs very well in linux... al ID games have native linux ports.

[Snoochi]

Just a correction: Doom 3 runs very well in linux... al ID games have native linux ports.

sorry my bad i was just listing a few games to illustrate that linux doesnt generally cater for high end gaming. or at least that not many games released are specified linux compliant. i am loving all the free games that are installed on my laptop,s ubuntu but i think i would die without bf2
:twisted:

[qamelian]

The ATI drivers don't support AIGLX and so it requires XGL which is complicated.
This depends on which card you have. I'm running Beryl with AIGLX and the open-source Xorg ATI drivers and it works great. My laptop is running an ATI Mobility Radeon 9000 IGP, which despite the docs on the ATI site, has never worked with the FGLRX drivers.

[rev_b]

sorry my bad i was just listing a few games to illustrate that linux doesnt generally cater for high end gaming. or at least that not many games released are specified linux compliant. i am loving all the free games that are installed on my laptop,s ubuntu but i think i would die without bf2
:twisted:

But definitely Linux isn't for those who need to play all the latest games... I really don't have time to do much gaming anymore, but I do have installed america's army, doom 3, quake 4, Serious Sam TSE and UT 2004. Already overkill for my gaming needs...

[darkhatter]

am I the only one that feels that OS X's look is getting really old.....

[kevCast]

Two servers constantly watching you and a ram appetite that makes Kobayashi blush. I'm going to pass on Vista.

[macogw]

Sabayon is the official distro of Beryl. It is there by default. Fedora has it in the repos. Setting it up on Ubuntu newer than Dapper (so Edgy and soon Feisty) is cake (well, without an ATi card).

[RCC2k7]

Why does it always have to be a Windows vs Linux thing?!? Everytime i try a Linux distro and check their community i find people who thinks that just because we installed Linux, we have to dump Windows. People are free to stay Windows-only. People are free to stay Linux-only. But we are also free from keeping both if that's what we want. What's the point?

Will I stop speaking Spanish (my native language) just because I learned English? Hell no! Will I stop using Windows because I installed Linux? No.

As I read in other articles and posts to this forum, Linux is not Windows. They are both operating systems catered to different user groups. Could it be possible for some people to fit into both groups, to have a little of a Windows user and a Linux user inside them? Yes. I like to explore things, and I'm happy to work with Linux, but there is also a part of me that sometimes needs to "get the job done" and when that needs arises, I don't care what's going on in the background as long as I get results. So I might want to fish around for packages and dependencies, and editing config files, but I do appreciate just clicking Next, Next, Next, Finish when I just need something that works.

Think about it: Not everybody who likes Hip Hop music hates Rock. Not everybody who uses Linux has to hate Windows. I'm happy so far with Ubuntu and I'll keep it for as long as it is useful for my needs but the only way I'm ditching my Windows XP Pro system is when I get the Vista Ultimate upgrade.

End of rant, now back to regularly scheduled programming. :)

[Iarwain ben-adar]

RCC2k7:
glad you said that :D
My kind of view..


Iarwain

[rev_b]

Why does it always have to be a Windows vs Linux thing?!? Everytime i try a Linux distro and check their community i find people who thinks that just because we installed Linux, we have to dump Windows. People are free to stay Windows-only. People are free to stay Linux-only. But we are also free from keeping both if that's what we want. What's the point?

Will I stop speaking Spanish (my native language) just because I learned English? Hell no! Will I stop using Windows because I installed Linux? No.

As I read in other articles and posts to this forum, Linux is not Windows. They are both operating systems catered to different user groups. Could it be possible for some people to fit into both groups, to have a little of a Windows user and a Linux user inside them? Yes. I like to explore things, and I'm happy to work with Linux, but there is also a part of me that sometimes needs to "get the job done" and when that needs arises, I don't care what's going on in the background as long as I get results. So I might want to fish around for packages and dependencies, and editing config files, but I do appreciate just clicking Next, Next, Next, Finish when I just need something that works.

Think about it: Not everybody who likes Hip Hop music hates Rock. Not everybody who uses Linux has to hate Windows. I'm happy so far with Ubuntu and I'll keep it for as long as it is useful for my needs but the only way I'm ditching my Windows XP Pro system is when I get the Vista Ultimate upgrade.

End of rant, now back to regularly scheduled programming. :)

I don't hate windows; point is I won't be using Vista because pricing is just outrageous, so I won't buy it. System requirements are also close to insane (despite my system being able to run it just fine). With all the security stuff, it seems also harder and harder to keep a pirated copy working, so it isn't really worth doing it.

So I just will keep using Ubuntu, at this point I consider it to be a superior OS compared to Vista.

You have to admit much things is Ubuntu are also "next, next, finish", specially with synaptic. Installing .deb packages isn't harder (it's actually easier) that installing some windows program. And you have too many things that require some refined tweaking in windows to get it working too. You'll see that happen with Vista and older hardware/software. I did saw it when Win2000 came out, it even had to buy a new scanner...

[seijuro]

we dont want a counter strike to vista, imo, because vista is terrible. DRMed up to the eyeballs, bloaty beyond belief and expensive to boot.

ubuntu doesnt need radical changes, it needs steady improvements. more streamlining. more integration.


I fully concur.

[hanzomon4]

Think about it: Not everybody who likes Hip Hop music hates Rock. Not everybody who uses Linux has to hate Windows. I'm happy so far with Ubuntu and I'll keep it for as long as it is useful for my needs but the only way I'm ditching my Windows XP Pro system is when I get the Vista Ultimate upgrade.

End of rant, now back to regularly scheduled programming. :)

I agree, Vista looks nice and xp was cool, just to cryptic and I had no real way of reinstalling it. That's the reason why I don't have an xp install anymore, my usb hard drive(ubuntu) was full and I bought an internal one to move my ubuntu to. I could only fit one hard drive in my Dell so that meant bye to windows.

If I was to buy a new computer with a vista install I would keep it, I would use ubuntu most of the time but thats not a knock to windows.

[darkhatter]

how many of you actually have windows vista installed :confused: , my guess is next to none. I really don't find vista bloated, right now I'm using 260mb ram in vista right now I only have firefox opened, thats kind of big but gnome runs at about that level for me anyway....

I actually like the new look, I've only been using vista for a day, so I haven't run into any drm, I don't have many legal videos to begin with so the whole drm thing isn't going to effect me much.

what people have been saying about vista is true. The drm is there but so is all the other improvements that people have been talking about.

I'm running the RTM with the time patch

[RAV TUX]

due to the shear nature of the title and the subject matter within I am moving this thread to the windows forum

[rev_b]

how many of you actually have windows vista installed :confused: , my guess is next to none.

I had Vista RC2 installed (legally downloaded from MS site) and I did try that BILLGATES "trialware" ;) that's floating around the Internet since one month ago. So, yes, I'm talking after trying Vista for quite some time. I already formated that partition in ext3, mind you. :)

It takes forever to install on a Athlon64@2500Mhz with 2Gb RAM, with 3 reboots in the process. The interface is much more impenetrable and confuse than XP. That bloated control panel is crap. I don't like antialiased fonts, and I was unable to turn them off completely. It didn't recognized all my hardware properly, it didn't even have a built-in driver for that unheard soundcard - the sound blaster audigy. Very basic printing and scanning support. Aero utility is questionable and it's not costumizable. Beryl/Compiz are MUCH better and usefull, and they have far far lower video requirements. It's security features are completely crap, after installing I haven't internet working, because it blocked acess to my router, as allowing connection was a "security threat". But it didn't tell, so I lost about 20 minutes on those pretty control panel menus figuring it out why the internet wasn't working. You can still install all malware you want, it just asks you "are you sure" before it. Setting up an admin password wouldn't be more usefull? Legacy software was very poor compatibility. But of course MS will trust its monopoly to force all custumers to upgrade to "vista compatible" software - namely anti-virus. Dual-monitor video cards are the norm nowadays, but you still got only one taskbar and you can't strech it across 2 monitors. You have to install third-party software to get a second taskbar. And so on, and so on.

Well, it's not a complete disaster, and it works, but I can hardly be convinced to pay 570€ for that. No thanks. :rolleyes:

So as you can see, some of us have a formed opinion about Vista, and I don't use it or pay for it because I find Ubuntu much better designed than Vista in too many ways. Not because "it's not linux, it's from evil M$ empire" and that sort of crap.

Unfortunately, the marketing "WOW" factor and MS dominanting OEM market will force most computer users to adapt vista, because they just don't know better.

[darkhatter]

I wouldn't pay $400 for it, but it isn't that bad...

I had the RC 2 legal from the Microsoft site

[dbbolton]

why does everything have to be a competition.

[FuturePilot]

I tried out Vista RC1 for a few months (legally downloaded form MS) After a while I couldn't stand it any more. Ended up installing Ubuntu over it. Hehe.
Beryl is way better than Aero glass.

[dbbolton]

I tried out Vista RC1 for a few months (legally downloaded form MS) After a while I couldn't stand it any more. Ended up installing Ubuntu over it. Hehe.
Beryl is way better than Aero glass.
legally ? where's the fun in that ?

[Trebuchet]

The fact Vista doesn't have drivers for everything is simply a reminder that it might be a good idea to wait if you're going to buy it (as opposed to getting it pre-installed); not that there's something inherently wrong with the OS. Why blame MS because not all hardware manufacturers have their drivers up to speed, especially for legacy hardware?

Jeez, there's no satisfying some people. If Vista has lacks drivers for obscure and/or legacy hardware, it's obviously incomplete. If it included drivers for every piece of junk ever crammed into a PC case since 1982, then it would be called "bloated." When they ask for signed drivers, why is that taken as tyranny and not as an earnest attempt to get more stable drivers? (It's long been known that bad drivers caused far more crashes in XP than the OS itself; I suspect Vista will be no different in that regard.)

I've heard lots of people on these boards praising Ubuntu for recognizing all their hardware. Cool; I had the same experience (I was web-browsing within 4 minutes of installling Ubuntu). But I had exactly the same experience when I installed XP Pro in this system 3 weeks ago. It recognized my ancient Sound Blaster Live! soundcard, my Wacom tablet, my CF card reader, pretty much everything. The sole driver I had to install was for my printer/scanner; a newer model.

[FuturePilot]

legally ? where's the fun in that ?
Why run the risk of getting busted for illegally downloading something like Windows?:razz:

[BatteryCell]

Ok well, I haven't actually used vista yet but I'll give this one a shot:

-Install
(Linux) Ubuntu live cd makes this process pretty much painless, the only hard part is getting people to burn an iso, switch the boot order, and format correctly (no lost data).
(Vista) From what I've heard there have been many issues with compatibility checks and such and people are having allot of trouble with upgrades from XP, many opting to just wipe and reinstall, then being told that their key is upgrade only and Vista can't install because of this...

-Functionality
(Linux) Can surf the web, with OpenOffice complete pretty much any office work(except some weird formating errors), instant message, play media, practically everything a desktop needs to be able to do. However, support for windows software is limited with wine and cedega and the such cost money. Very few games. However, Linux is allot easier to run servers on.
(Vista) Can do everything Linux can do, you just have to buy the right software, plus games. The only real compatibility it has with Linux is being able to read the Linux filesystems.

-Ease of Use
(Linux) Help Docs on pretty much everything, intuitive menu system, overall very easy to use. Plus the great forums such as this one means that if there is a problem you are a short post away from an answer usually. Also, newly installed programs very rarely if ever require a reboot, thank god. Thanks to the command line, if you want it to do something linux does it. However this can be a bad thing if you are unexperienced (rm -rf anybody?).
(Vista) Can't really talk too much with this seeing as I haven't used it, but with all the drm and parental controls which Microsoft is trying to pass off as a plus will make everyday use difficult. I'm sure in continuance with Microsoft style, if you try doing something that Windows doesn't like it won't let you.

-Ease on the eyes
(Linux) With Beryl pretty much takes everything that Mac and I think its expose has (fade to desktop, negate window colors, etc..) and Vista's features (thumbnails, 3d switchers, transparency, etc...) and add a few other nice ones (desktop cube, wobbly windows, annotate, etc...) and rolls it all into one easy to install package. Especially easy if you have the new nvidia drivers.
(Vista) Has nothing really new to compete with Linux or mac ... pretty much everything in aero has either been done in Mac OS X or in Beryl/Compiz.

-Cost
(Linux) Free
(Vista) Definitely not free

So in my opinion:
Install -> Linux
Functionality -> Vista
Ease of Use -> Linux (Linux could only be argued unintuitive because most people grow up with windows. Also, no rebooting makes this one a winner)
Ease on the Eyes -> Linux
Cost -> Linux

[uNmentaLogic]

Ok well, I haven't actually used vista yet but I'll give this one a shot:

-Install
(Linux) Ubuntu live cd makes this process pretty much painless, the only hard part is getting people to burn an iso, switch the boot order, and format correctly (no lost data).
(Vista) From what I've heard there have been many issues with compatibility checks and such and people are having allot of trouble with upgrades from XP, many opting to just wipe and reinstall, then being told that their key is upgrade only and Vista can't install because of this...

This happens alot with Linux too, in the past I have had trouble installing Mandrake, Suse Gentoo(Some due to noobness some to hardware incompatibilites) and Ubuntu. Windows XP I have never had trouble with during and install. Same with Vista install went without a hitch and I could set it and leave it to install by itself.



-Functionality
(Linux) Can surf the web, with OpenOffice complete pretty much any office work(except some weird formating errors), instant message, play media, practically everything a desktop needs to be able to do. However, support for windows software is limited with wine and cedega and the such cost money. Very few games. However, Linux is allot easier to run servers on.

(Vista) Can do everything Linux can do, you just have to buy the right software, plus games. The only real compatibility it has with Linux is being able to read the Linux filesystems.

I agree fully, moving on.



-Ease of Use
(Linux) Help Docs on pretty much everything, intuitive menu system, overall very easy to use. Plus the great forums such as this one means that if there is a problem you are a short post away from an answer usually. Also, newly installed programs very rarely if ever require a reboot, thank god. Thanks to the command line, if you want it to do something linux does it. However this can be a bad thing if you are unexperienced (rm -rf anybody?).

(Vista) Can't really talk too much with this seeing as I haven't used it, but with all the drm and parental controls which Microsoft is trying to pass off as a plus will make everyday use difficult. I'm sure in continuance with Microsoft style, if you try doing something that Windows doesn't like it won't let you.

Vista has excellent documentation and help docs included. It even has demos highlighting functions and features to get an idea on how it works.
DRM is a mixed bag I personally don't like it and rip all my CDs with out copy protection. DVDs work out of the box and I have not noticed any detrimental performance while watching DVDs because of the DRM involved. Those examples are all I can comment on. I don't really like buying cds through itunes or online shops prefer my music on a physical medium.

Parental controls I like, I can't understand your reluctance to see the positive side of it, Linux has had this function for years. Now that Windows allows people to restrict sites and what programs can be used by people with lesser accounts you consider it bad or dogmatic and impedes on everyday use, quite frankly take of your linux fanboy coloured glasses off, for one parental controls are not activated by default, two Parental Controls allows parents to restrict their childrens access to games too old for them or sites they dont want their kids to see. How is that not a positive?



-Ease on the eyes
(Linux) With Beryl pretty much takes everything that Mac and I think its expose has (fade to desktop, negate window colors, etc..) and Vista's features (thumbnails, 3d switchers, transparency, etc...) and add a few other nice ones (desktop cube, wobbly windows, annotate, etc...) and rolls it all into one easy to install package. Especially easy if you have the new nvidia drivers.

(Vista) Has nothing really new to compete with Linux or mac ... pretty much everything in aero has either been done in Mac OS X or in Beryl/Compiz.


Admitedly the AERO desktop is lacking in advanced features like those provided by Beryl/Compiz but if you have actually used the desktop and seen how good it looks and how well integrated everything is the wobbly windows , desktop cube etc aren't really a big concern. When I was using linux and had enabled beryl after 5 minutes I turned them off, once the novelty wore off I saw no need for them. Beryl is really only good for bragging rights nothing more, just a waste of resources IMO.



-Cost
(Linux) Free
(Vista) Definitely not free


Agreed

Install -> Linux/Vista (both easy and do what they need)

Functionality -> Vista/Linux (after time spent getting all required packages)

Ease of Use -> Vista (dont need to run scripts or add repostories to get equal functionality)

Ease on the Eyes -> Both are good I myself prefer Vista

Cost -> Linux FTW


Most of this is subjective and I personally think this Vista is a step in the right direction for novice/Intermediate users. But with most Advanced computer users Linux is easily infront.

Both Vista and Linux are excellent, Just don't let your hatred/distrust or fanboyitis blind your judgement of a product especially if you have never used it :D

uNmentaLogic

[BatteryCell]

Parental controls I like, I can't understand your reluctance to see the positive side of it, Linux has had this function for years. Now that Windows allows people to restrict sites and what programs can be used by people with lesser accounts you consider it bad or dogmatic and impedes on everyday use, quite frankly take of your linux fanboy coloured glasses off, for one parental controls are not activated by default, two Parental Controls allows parents to restrict their childrens access to games too old for them or sites they dont want their kids to see. How is that not a positive?


Linux has this function but not built in to the operating system. And honestly, back when we had AOL and my parents used to limit the amount of time I could be on the internet to one hour stunk. Take for instance, I had a paper due and I needed the internet, "I'm sorry you only have five minutes left" ... crap crap crap. Also, if parents don't want their kids playing games that are too old for them don't buy them for your kids. Honestly most games today cost about 50 dollars, kids in most places can't drive themselves to the store and whip out 50 dollars for a game. Usually the parents buy the games, either as a present or with the kid paying them back. Also the wonder about the web is that it isn't restricted, and how really does that system work. Does it use a blacklist, a whitelist, or dump the html and count keywords. If its a blacklist your kids can get to bad sites anyways, if its a whitelist that its a pain in the but to go anywhere, and if its counting occurrences of words than you often will have sites blocked that don't need to be blocked. So the whole "keep them away from bad sites" sounds good but really they have to learn to do that themselves. Lastly, children hate to be told that they "can't" do something. If you tell a kid that they can't go to a party they are going to want to go that much more. The key as a parent (IMHO) is being able to make them decide not to go, make them know not to go to bad websites, make them know not to do what the character in their games do, make them learn to make decisions. If all you ever do is say "You can't do this ... because ... its bad" then one your kids most likely won't appreciate it, won't like it, and once they are adults they are more likely to do it just because.

Also, drm is not a good thing, the only people that it helps are the fortune 500 companies. In fact drm hurts consumers more than it would ever help them, so Microsoft saying that this is a positive is just a plain old lie, just like Apple saying that it's okay to have to spend a dollar on a song and then only be able to listen to it on iPods.

And the running scripts to add functionality, well what do you have to do to install a windows program, you have to get an .exe and then run it. This is the same difficulty level as getting a package file and then installing it. And we only have to add repositories to run some software because Linux is free and doesn't have the licensing required, but you can still enable much of the software manually very eaisily, especially with things such as Automatix and easyubuntu.

And true I have never used Vista and its not that I dislike Microsoft, I just think that Vista is not what we were expecting from the leader (market share wise) of the computing world. I guess in a way Microsoft put the bar a little to high, and in doing so shot themselves in the foot.

[Nikron]

-Functionality
(Linux) Can surf the web, with OpenOffice complete pretty much any office work(except some weird formating errors), instant message, play media, practically everything a desktop needs to be able to do. However, support for windows software is limited with wine and cedega and the such cost money. Very few games. However, Linux is allot easier to run servers on.
(Vista) Can do everything Linux can do, you just have to buy the right software, plus games. The only real compatibility it has with Linux is being able to read the Linux filesystems.



I have to say Microsoft Office 2007 is lightyears ahead of Openoffice. That being said, you have to buy after buying vista. Or get it for free like me =P

[BatteryCell]

I wonder if office 2007 will be ported to linux ... they ported office to Mac before, so making the linux can't be that much more difficult.

[uNmentaLogic]

And the running scripts to add functionality, well what do you have to do to install a windows program, you have to get an .exe and then run it. This is the same difficulty level as getting a package file and then installing it. And we only have to add repositories to run some software because Linux is free and doesn't have the licensing required, but you can still enable much of the software manually very eaisily, especially with things such as Automatix and easyubuntu.

And true I have never used Vista and its not that I dislike Microsoft, I just think that Vista is not what we were expecting from the leader (market share wise) of the computing world. I guess in a way Microsoft put the bar a little to high, and in doing so shot themselves in the foot.

The need to download programs to get functionality is true for both OSes eg flash java etc. I was mainly refering to the mp3/DVD playback, I appologise for not being more explicit.

I agree with you there, they should've aimed small and over delivered, than boast like they did and under deliver.

uNmentaLogic

[Dr. C]

I have to say Microsoft Office 2007 is lightyears ahead of Openoffice. That being said, you have to buy after buying vista. Or get it for free like me =P

For me the deal killer is the DRM (product activation, OGA etc.) not the price. It also runs on Windows XP no need to get Vista in order to run Office 2007. Personally I am staying with Office 97 (this version has no DRM) on my Windows XP VM

[Trebuchet]

I have to say Microsoft Office 2007 is lightyears ahead of Openoffice. That being said, you have to buy after buying vista. Or get it for free like me =PI'm running Office 2007 on my XP Pro system right now, and I plan to buy a licensed copy before this trial version expires. It really is way better than OpenOffice 2 (which I equate to Word 2000 or thereabouts). Office 2000 also has no DRM or registration numbering.

Of course, I can get the full blown Professional version of 2007 for only $70 from a friend who works at MS. :)

[Brunellus]

I'm running Office 2007 on my XP Pro system right now, and I plan to buy a licensed copy before this trial version expires. It really is way better than OpenOffice 2 (which I equate to Word 2000 or thereabouts). Office 2000 also has no DRM or registration numbering.

Of course, I can get the full blown Professional version of 2007 for only $70 from a friend who works at MS. :)
Funny, I was satisfied with MS Office at around Office 97. Everything since then feels like bloat.

[marx2k]

Funny, I was satisfied with MS Office at around Office 97. Everything since then feels like bloat.

Would you say the main reason for that is because Office 97 pretty much maxxed out on useful features and everything since then has been added to it just so they CAN release a new version?

I sort of feel that's how OS'es have become also (all 3 major OSes)

The main reason why you don't have such a crazed crowd drooling for Vista (read: XP SP3) is because there's nothing inherently new in it. It's not really MS's fault... it's just that .. what else CAN you put into an OS?

It's like technology... there really hasn't been anything new under the sun (maybe 1 or 2 things) for decades since the integrated circuit. We've just been working on making a faster, smaller integrated circuit!

We're building on technology we already have and use..we're just finding new ways in which to use them. So with each overhaul of an OS, it's not surprising to see people not going nuts over it (same with game consoles).

I briefly glanced at Apple's comments on it's next version of its' OS.. pretty much 'new search features' and 'cooler animations'

Because really, what else is going to 'wow' the end user at this point but more eye candy?

(we're talking the normal end-user... my mom... your grandmother... not me, not you... not others who crave to know and use the INNER workings of an OS)