The Vista Board of Shame: Linux, You Can Do It!

[cipher_nemo]

Hello fellow Ubuntu users! I recently created a "Vista Board of Shame" that is pretty much just a collection of articles that point out glaring issues with Vista.

Below this board I placed at my workplace is an un-folded document labeled "Solutions". It includes a brief introduction to Ubuntu, and I've placed Ubuntu 7.10 CDs there, available to anyone who wants one.

My little post about it is here (http://2geek.org/pt/blog/default.aspx?id=145&t=Vista-Board-of-Shame), and I've included a couple of the pics below. :)

http://2geek.org/images/vista/vista_board_of_shame1_thumb.jpg (http://2geek.org/images/vista/vista_board_of_shame1.jpg) http://2geek.org/images/vista/vista_board_of_shame4_thumb.jpg (http://2geek.org/images/vista/vista_board_of_shame4.jpg) http://2geek.org/images/vista/vista_board_of_shame5_thumb.jpg (http://2geek.org/images/vista/vista_board_of_shame5.jpg)

[Murrquan]

That is unbelievably awesome.

I wish the whole thing were open-source. Then we could all make our own. Of course, there are enough articles about Vista's flaws that anyone who wanted could probably do so without recycling a single article ^.^

[cipher_nemo]

Thanks. :)

I constantly deal with co-workers who are so ignorant about Vista that they are fooled into thinking the latest Microsoft O/S is always better than older ones. I often explain the issues with Vista, yet I think some of them fail to take me seriously.

So, to help 'beat them over the head' with the facts (and some opinions based upon those facts), I put this board together and then added insult to injury by suggesting they switch entirely from Windows. ;)

It has actually been received better than I expected, as some co-workers reluctant to even try the LiveCD of Ubuntu are now seriously contemplating it. The old adage about 'hearing it from others' must be true if they'll listen to editors and other analysts, but won't listen much to me, lol.

[Murrquan]

I'm reminded of what people in my church (http://www.mormon.org) told me about sharing my beliefs with others: Don't be afraid to speak up! There are millions of people for whom Linux could solve their computing woes. Most of them don't even know it's an option, just like I didn't less than a year ago. Not all of them will want to move to Linux; it's important to respect their decisions and not make friendship conditional on what operating system they use. But if they're really your friends, then they won't disown you, either.

Maybe stereotypical Linux evangelists could benefit more from the last half of the above paragraph than the first ^.^; But I'm glad you had the courage to speak out, Nemo -- and maybe your friends will be, too.

*wishes he had an opportunity to display a board like that*

[jflaker]

Hello fellow Ubuntu users! I recently created a "Vista Board of Shame" that is pretty much just a collection of articles that point out glaring issues with Vista.

Below this board I placed at my workplace is an un-folded document labeled "Solutions". It includes a brief introduction to Ubuntu, and I've placed Ubuntu 7.10 CDs there, available to anyone who wants one........>SNIPPED

It would be cool to post the document so others can recreate it and post it around with the CD's. I already converted one person, but I know others are itching when they are hitting the brick walls in WIndows.......not to mention some people with little money to afford a decent system.

They can get another year or so from old hardware!

[DoctorMO]

is it something we can use for LoCo installfests? we sometimes get people who come off the street who are curious.

[cipher_nemo]

DoctorMO, I certainly don't see why not. :)

I'll have to contact my LoCo group for Pennsylvania and see if they'd like to keep it.

[Tundro Walker]

Let me guess...

The IT Manager at your company, whom you think is an idiot, announced that everything's migrating over to Vista, and you wanted to publicly show why it's a bad idea, and humiliate him in the process?

:)

[cipher_nemo]

Well, as much as I would do that, lol, our IT director here is my friend (outside of work). He does listen to what I say, and he'd rather go with what's simple and works than what's overly complicated like Vista.

Fortunately, the College of Engineering here at Penn State mentioned to us (an entity of the university) that they won't be officially supporting Vista until late 2008. Even then, they'll continue supporting XP for a long, long time. I'm not too worried about that.

More or less, I'm worried about global adoption of Vista, and I'm doing what I can locally to ward off all of those glorifying Vista based upon false assumptions. :)

[phrostbyte]

Do you have access to a scanner? That would be nice to scan in and have other people make similar stuff. You can justify this under fair use.

Very good work.

[aaargh486]

Awesome thing. I'm going to see if I can find Dutch articles to portray in my school. It's a great idea.

[cipher_nemo]

I hope you can find some in Dutch. If not published magazines and such, at least online ones you can print out to put on a board. :)


Do you have access to a scanner? That would be nice to scan in and have other people make similar stuff. You can justify this under fair use.

Very good work.

Thanks! Sure, I could scan in the board, section by section if it would be of use to you. Let me know.

[FuturePilot]

Wow, that looks very nice!

[PrimoTurbo]

Essentially the only problem I see with such efforts is misinformation. I think a better way would be to show the positive and negative aspects of Vista, not just articles on how bad Vista is.

Also the requirements for Vista listed and Ubuntu are not very accurate. Good luck running Ubuntu (default install with gnome) on a 100Mhz machine.

[cipher_nemo]

Primo, I did think about doing a comparison, but it would simply take up too much space on foam-board. My target audience (those I know and work with), heard plenty of the good aspects of Vista already, and not nearly enough of the bad aspects.

Since the good aspects of Vista are marketed like mad, and the bad aspects are usually too-technical or geekish for some, I felt it was necessary to emphasize the bad aspects. This was especially effective since my target audience was either neutral or slightly positive regarding Vista.


Also the requirements for Vista listed and Ubuntu are not very accurate. Good luck running Ubuntu (default install with gnome) on a 100Mhz machine.

Those are the spec-based requirements. They're taken from a magazine article (I didn't write anything on the board other than the title and sub-title).

As for 64MB and 100MHz, Ubuntu will install and run, but with the Alternate installer, not the LiveCD. It may not be pretty or smooth, but it works, hence the term "minimum requirements". This is also true for Vista, in that 512MB of RAM for Vista isn't pretty of smooth, but it will run.

[igknighted]

Eeekk...

While the effort is nice, I have to take a few issues with this.

1) Vista, from a technical standpoint, is so much better than XP it's laughable to compare the two, let alone suggest otherwise. Yes XP runs on older and more (simply because older hardware has proliferated more) hardware, but if I was to buy a new system the thought of buying one with XP is just silly. I'm not going to list out reasons again, but search though my posts in the windows forum if you care for details.

2) Linux doesn't need to badmouth any other OS. I think the very best advertising you can do for linux is set up a machine in public that people can sit down and use. Let them open documents, browse the web and listen to music. Perhaps give them some basic instructions, but not much is really needed. Just let them explore it. But we should be above merely bashing an OS to promote out own, we should simply promote our own.

3) Who do you know that likes vista? I spend hours trying to explain to my friends and co-workers (not to mention fellow linux users here) that everything bad you read about Vista is usually not the whole story. In fact, I would say that while maybe 5% of my friends/collegues have used vista, about 80% have a negative opinion without any basis in fact. If anything, a "Why the anti-Vista campaign is pure FUD" poster would seem to be in more order from my experiences.

[frup]

Eeekk...

While the effort is nice, I have to take a few issues with this.

1) Vista, from a technical standpoint, is so much better than XP it's laughable to compare the two, let alone suggest otherwise. Yes XP runs on older and more (simply because older hardware has proliferated more) hardware, but if I was to buy a new system the thought of buying one with XP is just silly. I'm not going to list out reasons again, but search though my posts in the windows forum if you care for details.

2) Linux doesn't need to badmouth any other OS. I think the very best advertising you can do for linux is set up a machine in public that people can sit down and use. Let them open documents, browse the web and listen to music. Perhaps give them some basic instructions, but not much is really needed. Just let them explore it. But we should be above merely bashing an OS to promote out own, we should simply promote our own.

3) Who do you know that likes vista? I spend hours trying to explain to my friends and co-workers (not to mention fellow linux users here) that everything bad you read about Vista is usually not the whole story. In fact, I would say that while maybe 5% of my friends/collegues have used vista, about 80% have a negative opinion without any basis in fact. If anything, a "Why the anti-Vista campaign is pure FUD" poster would seem to be in more order from my experiences.


The issue for most people Vista in my experience is that stores a pushing low spec machines with Vista creating an incredibly horrible experience. The last machine with Vista I tried (and subsequently was begged to install Ubuntu on) had only 512mb ram and home basic, It literally took around 5 minutes to boot over 30 seconds to respond to single mouse clicks and was generally unusable. The operating system alone was using ALL the ram.

I've come across some 1gb ram machines too and they are pretty foul but no where near as bad as the 512mb systems. So yeah... "get more ram" Barely any laptop offerings round my way come with more than 1gb which are affordable. Also from using Ubuntu, why should anyone NEED more than 1gb, especially for basic computing. It's wasteful.

[knaveman]

I agree, linux doesn't need to bad mouth anyother OS, leave that to Apple. Linux will either do well or it won't, don't take the dirty route. Look at me, I'm a Microsoft fan and I still like to use Linux.

[t0p]

1) Vista, from a technical standpoint, is so much better than XP it's laughable to compare the two, let alone suggest otherwise. Yes XP runs on older and more (simply because older hardware has proliferated more) hardware, but if I was to buy a new system the thought of buying one with XP is just silly.

There are a lot of people out there who would disagree with you. Take a look at the Windows-oriented newsgroups on Usenet - plenty of folk are asking how they can downgrade back to XP. Those users don't think that Vista is superior!



2) Linux doesn't need to badmouth any other OS. I think the very best advertising you can do for linux is set up a machine in public that people can sit down and use. Let them open documents, browse the web and listen to music. Perhaps give them some basic instructions, but not much is really needed. Just let them explore it. But we should be above merely bashing an OS to promote out own, we should simply promote our own.


Part of promoting Linux involves demonstrating how it is better than the alternatives. Reproducing Vista's bad reviews is a justifiable tactic.



3) Who do you know that likes vista? .

Uhh... no one? :)

[cipher_nemo]

1) Vista, from a technical standpoint, is so much better than XP...

Hmmm, what have you been smoking? As others have mentioned in response, we agree Vista is worse than XP, and the majority of editors and analysts out there agree with us.

I will relent to the fact that the UI is nice and 'spiffy' (even though Compiz completely owns it), but it's *different* than XP, so even the Windows users out there who are not very computer literate are having a tough time. Windows is supposed to be easier to use than the 90's versions of Linux, and now Microsoft has hosed that aspect. So Vista, which is far more bloated, cumbersome, and not compatible almost ruins the Windows line because XP was very stable, very compatible, and not much different than the previous Windows UI; it was still intuitive for Win 2k and 9x/Me users.


2) Linux doesn't need to badmouth any other OS.

You're right, it doesn't. But with this board and my local efforts, I'm an individual promoting both "downgrading to XP" and Ubuntu. I am not "Linux". I'm a Linux "user". :-P


3) Who do you know that likes vista?

As I mentioned earlier, most of the people at my work place are either neutral to Vista or in favor of it. This is mostly because none of them have it installed, but probably all of them have seen it and used it on other systems we have here for testing. Why they're mildly positive about it is due to their exposure to VARs pushing systems with Vista pre-installed, and merely for the fact that it's the latest Windows version. To them that equates to "it must be better".

[igknighted]

Hmmm, what have you been smoking? As others have mentioned in response, we agree Vista is worse than XP, and the majority of editors and analysts out there agree with us.

I will relent to the fact that the UI is nice and 'spiffy' (even though Compiz completely owns it), but it's *different* than XP, so even the Windows users out there who are not very computer literate are having a tough time. Windows is supposed to be easier to use than the 90's versions of Linux, and now Microsoft has hosed that aspect. So Vista, which is far more bloated, cumbersome, and not compatible almost ruins the Windows line because XP was very stable, very compatible, and not much different than the previous Windows UI; it was still intuitive for Win 2k and 9x/Me users. all of them have seen it and used it on other systems we have here for testing. Why they're mildly positive about it is due to their exposure to VARs pushing systems with Vista pre-installed, and merely for the fact that it's the latest Windows version. To them that equates to "it must be better".

Smoking? Nothing. I use vista and XP regularly and find Vista to be a breathe of fresh air. However, you did hit one very crucial point here... it is very different from XP. There is separation of rights of admins and users. Yes, XP had something similar, but you had to decide at login to either be admin or user. Of course running as admin is unsafe, but running as user is worthless. Then there is the new driver interface. Vista interacts with drivers very differently. It's better for the system, as it can withstand driver crashes without the OS crashing (I've experienced this several times with nvidia's POS drivers), but the difference makes it non-trivial to make a vista driver from and XP driver (for the manufacturers). Then the UI is very different. Now there are breadcrumbs to navigate the file manager, stuff was renamed and moved around in the file system and in config GUIs, and myriad other changes. This creates an unfamiliar user experience. But if you don't expect it to be the same, it's a much better experience.

XP is hardly a standard that windows should aim to mimic in newer releases. The XP file manager was clunky, and Vista's breacrumbs are much better. Perhaps confusing to those unfamiliar, but it is an improvement. The filesystem in vista is so much cleaner than XP (I only have 2 directories (users and windows) in c:\ in 2 month old Vista install, while I have 6 already in a 2 day old XP install. And the renaming and moving stuff in control panel may be a bit annoying to those who knew XP, but the simple fact is XP was laid out terribly. I don't know for sure that Vista is really an improvement... but they tried. If it was just like XP then I'd be really dissappointed.

This just scratches the surface (I didn't even mention how malware-prone XP is). While I agree that there are bugs, the bugs are because MS actually tried to fix some fundamental flaws in XP/2kpro/earlier with Vista. I can live with that. Perhaps it will be a "transitional" release, but it is hardly a flop. It represents a willingness to give up old, bad habits. By ripping Vista to no end, the message being sent is that XP is better. Perhaps right now it can provide users a more familiar experience, and while bugs are being worked out with Vista perhaps a more stable one as well, but this is spitting in the face of progress to tell users that XP is better, because that simply isn't true.

[aj_]

I ran ubuntu for a few days and switched back to vista, because it's the snappiest OS I've ever had :). Maybe it's because I'm on a laptop, with hardware hand-picked to work well in windows, but I had a few annoying issues in ubuntu, especially with firefox (it would take between 2 and 4 seconds just to switch between tabs). Also, fonts made me squint, even with AA and hinting enabled. In vista, and in large part thanks to the superfetch service (preloads your most used programs, the culprit for many of the 'vista consumes too much ram' rants), everything is super snappy. I really, really miss exposé though.

Still, I became so enamored with linux and the awesome community that I installed ubuntu on an old desktop and connect to it via Xming to play around with bash and gtk apps. I've learned more about operating systems in a few days with ubuntu than I did in all the years I've been using mswindows :).

I will give it another try with kubuntu to see what kde4 can do with my HW.

[cipher_nemo]

Sorry for the jab, I just had to say it. :) But you need not defend against it, as it was just jesting.


Vista interacts with drivers very differently. It's better for the system, as it can withstand driver crashes without the OS crashing (I've experienced this several times with nvidia's POS drivers), but the difference makes it non-trivial to make a vista driver from and XP driver (for the manufacturers).

Very true, as the driver and api model for Vista is has changed drastically for the sake of a more logistically correct and secure design. This is where much of the software comparabilities reign due to incorrect api calls, permission lock-outs, and 64-bit vs. 32-bit inconsistencies.


...but the simple fact is XP was laid out terribly. I don't know for sure that Vista is really an improvement... but they tried. If it was just like XP then I'd be really dissappointed.

The entire line of Windows operating systems were a trainwreck, except for may be Windows 1.0 and 2.0. The first Windows was nothing more than a file manager shell for DOS, which started as a good idea. When Windows ditched DOS for their own, proprietary kernel and memory system, they were already on shaky grounds.

Now, DOS is obviously dated, but if development of it continued (instead of development on 16/32-bit Windows), we'd see it very much *nix-like today, with a stream-lined command interface and Xwindows and a desktop manager layered on top. Wouldn't it be interesting to see Windows as its own DOS distro, running on top of a 64-bit DOS kernel? That would be interesting.

What's nice about XP now is that it is a mature platform, and even though its security might be horrid, it is relatively open and easy to control (instead of the O/S making decisions for you). I run Nod32 on my two copies of XP, which offer the best and fastest anti-malware and anti-virus protection for win32 systems (best = opinion, fastest = fact with file scanning speeds). I also use Firefox with NoScript and other security plugins, so I'm well protected because I practice safe-browsing and avoid attachments or files from friends without first checking them out a little. But true, not everyone will be that diligent. It also supports all of the hardware current sold and sold in the last 7 years (10+ years for most components).

Vista might have a better kernel and logistical design, but it fails as the next Windows release that is supposedly supposed to replace XP. Why? My biggest reasons:
Vista was made to be an O/S for "everyone". Big mistake. No one O/S will suit the needs of everyone. Geeks like me don't want the same O/S as a 'soccer mom' and her preteen daughter.
Vista is supposed to replace XP. Huge mistake. With both its software and hardware compatibility issues, it is incapable of such a feat. May be a couple of years from now Microsoft could eventually bully the market into natively supporting it for hardware and apps. For now, there is history-making level of new Windows O/S rejection among native Windows users. These things don't happen unless an O/S truly has issues. XP adoption was a blazingly fast process compared to Vista adoption, and even XP adoption was considered slow.
DirectX 10 is not backwards compatible. Microsoft did this on purpose, even though it was shown that without its new memory virtualization requirements for video cards, DirectX 10 was XP compatible. Microsoft bailed NVIDIA out by changing requirements of DirectX 10. Originally DirectX 10 would only work with Vista, but now ti will work with XP. All previous DirectX releases were backwards compatible when a new O/S would release its first version. Shame on Microsoft for trying to push users into Vista, isolating their previous XP customers.

[igknighted]

Sorry for the jab, I just had to say it. :) But you need not defend against it, as it was just jesting.

No worries, no offense taken



Vista was made to be an O/S for "everyone". Big mistake. No one O/S will suit the needs of everyone. Geeks like me don't want the same O/S as a 'soccer mom' and her preteen daughter.

Agreed. No OS is perfect, be it linux, XP, Vista or OSX.



Vista is supposed to replace XP. Huge mistake. With both its software and hardware compatibility issues, it is incapable of such a feat. May be a couple of years from now Microsoft could eventually bully the market into natively supporting it for hardware and apps. For now, there is history-making level of new Windows O/S rejection among native Windows users. These things don't happen unless an O/S truly has issues. XP adoption was a blazingly fast process compared to Vista adoption, and even XP adoption was considered slow.

I'm not sure I buy all this. Vista isn't designed to replace XP, it is designed to succeed it. Once a user has lived out the life of their XP computers, their next computer should logically have Vista. I don't see anything unreasonable about that, but I'm not sure its enough to go buy new hardware. It depends what light you view it in. I see the OS as a good improvement, but not a reason to go out and buy a new computer to have it. If you are judging it as "the reason" to upgrade, yes it could be called a flop. But I don't think that any OS could be "the reason" for an upgrade (unless you want to talk about leopard, but I have a difficult time putting much faith in the purchasing decisions of apple users... the reasoning usually goes like "steve jobs said it would wash my laundry"). If you simply look at it as the operating system that will come on your next PC (that is capable of running it and hardware compatible of course... some OEMs need to shape up here), then I think it is a very good upgrade from XP.



DirectX 10 is not backwards compatible. Microsoft did this on purpose, even though it was shown that without its new memory virtualization requirements for video cards, DirectX 10 was XP compatible. Microsoft bailed NVIDIA out by changing requirements of DirectX 10. Originally DirectX 10 would only work with Vista, but now ti will work with XP. All previous DirectX releases were backwards compatible when a new O/S would release its first version. Shame on Microsoft for trying to push users into Vista, isolating their previous XP customers.

Yeah, DX10 has been a nightmare at times... but Crysis runs fine for me and that is the extent of my knowledge on the issue, so I'll leave it at that :).

Overall, I agree with your post, I think the difference is in expectations. Vista isn't going to be the reason I purchase a new computer. I don't think any operating system should be. However, if I was to purchase one I would make sure it had Vista, because a computer has to have an OS, and when just compared against XP, I find Vista to be better. However, I do agree that users need to be aware of the changes before they buy. I may disagree with your tactics, due to the bias it creates against some features that, while different and annoying to some users (like UAC), are needed improvements. I don't think we need to scare people away from Vista, I think thye should simply be presented the facts in as un-biased a way as possible. What it does well, what it doesn't, and then they can make up their minds.

[wiscoteiger]

The only problem that I think you need to keep in mind is that since your doing the "pushing", you're going to have to help out whoever totally messes up their computer doing an install. like repartitioning their drives, not setting up their display right, transferring bookmarks and make sure they have at least much function as they had before. Because if you don't do this, anyone that goes back to m$ will tell people and undoing any "good" that you created. I wouldn't have had even close to as much patience if I had started using linux just because someone said it was better.

But otherwise good show on the display :KS

[cipher_nemo]

wiscoteiger, very good point!

I kind of take that for granted, because everyone that knows me locally always comes to me anyways with their computer woes, be it Windows, MacOS, or Linux.

Thanks for taking a look at it! :)

[quinnten83]

Awesome thing. I'm going to see if I can find Dutch articles to portray in my school. It's a great idea.

LOL@your avatar!!

[newbie2]

Awesome thing. I'm going to see if I can find Dutch articles to portray in my school. It's a great idea.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2405/2122719176_4a3f2310df.jpg

http://nieuwemedia.blog.nl/dsr-linux-macos/2007/12/20/met-de-voeten-op-tafel-bij-microsoft-de-stammenstrijd
:)