Is Windows Vista Worth It?

[Nathanial K'cansce]

Or should I upgrade from 2000 to XP?

I've been doing some searching the past week (not a lot), and the thought of a new machine has popped into my head. The past couple computers I've had have been home built by my brother, and the one I'm using now is about 4 years old and has had RAM, harddrive, sound and video boosts just to keep it living.

But anywho, I kinda don't feel like building my own computer this time around (I'll probably kick myself for that) yet it seems everyplace (Dell) that offers this 'build your own option' wants me to go Windows Vista. And their XP otions, in my opinion, suck.

So any advice?

[Cat X]

Anyone saying yes to Vista is proof positive they have no idea what the hell they are talking about. NO. NO. NO. It's far too much of a performance pig, you need to seriously get into the guts of it to get any decent performance out of it, the simple steps have all these additional layers, DRM, Windows Search and Indexing is terrible....

What me to go on?

XP on my home PC has never crashed. Ever. Vista on the laptop has and I only stabilised after shutting down the power options. Oh and lets also add that XP on the laptop was quite happy to video edit and did it well. Vista? "Your system doesnt have enough performance so bugger off".

WHAT????

Look, after you tune the buggery out of it, set it up really well and wasted a boat load of time, it'll be okay. But screw that I think, why not use XP when it works straigth out of the box?

And dont get me started on Micosoft's botched attempt of sudo aka UAC. I foudn a way to force disable that nonsense... which was a good thing because I was gettign dangerously close to hurlign the laptop out the window.

And if you really want to hear a rant, PM me about how a printer that takes 1 minute to set up in XP took me 23 DAYS to work out how to do it in Vista and what I had to turn off and reconfigure to get it to work at all.

Hey and what verison of Vista too? Starter edition is next to useless. Home Basic is likewise. Home Premium sucks. Business Edition is better but you really do need Ultimate to access the stuff that makes Vista even close to worthwhile. Check out Ultimate's price! I have a Microsoft Partner program DVD of Ultimate so believe me, if I had to actually pay for Vista outside of the Partner pack, the answer would be No thanks.

If your not playing games I would on the other hand seriously urge you to look at a Mac or spend the time you would working out Vista properly to use Ubuntu and forget spyware and viruses ever existed.

[Travis North]

No to Vista, not anytime soon.

Nothing more need be said.

[Nathanial K'cansce]

So... I'm taking this as a no to Vista.

I do believe I want to have gaming on here, but not in the sense of uber rock out gaming to the extreme. Just a machine that will run video and games nice crisp and smooth, have decent audio, and enough processing capability and memory to keep me relatively stress free.

[Mu Satach]

Nope. No, and nada.

Get what you want hardware wise, then just wipe the drive and put XP on it.

[Dasquian Belargic]

One of my housemates uses Vista, unfortunately, and it gives her nothing but trouble. I wouldn't recommend it.

[Seerriss]

I've heard nothing but hate for it from the one person I know that has it so I go with no....

[Shawn]

It's not all that bad, but the driver support is still pretty crappy, which will likely give you headaches. I'm sure Vista will mature with time (and a few service packs), but XP is where it's at, for the time being.

[Figrin D'an]

The only reason to seriously consider Vista would be for DirectX10. However, as there has been considerable resistance by quite a few game developers to adopt DX10, and along with wonderful little gems like <A HREF="http://devicing.blogspot.com/2007/08/dx-101-wont-work-with-current-dx-10.html">this</A> to anger high end gamers, Microsoft is likely going to find themselves being forced to eventually release DX10 with XP compatability.

In which case, any reason to use Vista pretty much evaporates.

[Yog]

There is no software on the planet receiving more exaggerated criticism than Vista. My experiences with Vista have been positive. There is however no particular reason to go for Vista *now*, unless you are building a new computer (it is still going to take a while before there is a decent collection of DX10 games). It's like the old saying "why fix something which aint broken", and yes, with Vista you got a very substantial chance to break something, which may suck unless you know what you are doing. Mainly, there are quite a bit of drivers and software still not compatible with Vista. Stick with what you have and wait for a service pack or two. And when you eventually do go for Vista, you should under no circumstance consider anything else than the Ultimate version, which you could order from an amazon.com third party store or e-bay not to bust your bank.

[Cat X]

There is no software on the planet receiving more exaggerated criticism than Vista[

I'm sorry mate, but I am going to stop you right there. I'm afraid it is NOT exaggerated at all. Your personal experience may be positive, bout your not supporting clients and trying to make it work on different networks with different hardware, with different users. With XP, that's actualyl quite straightforward

I can very easily show you the example that really makes me want to scream by far the loudest - it is the way Vista talks on a network. How I have to turn off, disable or patch and hack bits and pieces to get anything like decent performance. And even Linux you just plug in and you have full performance and throughput. XP, you get full speed throughput. Oh but plug Vista into a new network without the hacks and patches..... you are dead in the bandwidth water. You are now workign at 2.5-3 Mb/sec instead of 7-8MB/sec. And when your workign with network performance and stabilty as I do every day..... I have had standup arguments with Microsoft engineers and managers over issues like this, where the simple fact is network protocols are well understood and in XP or Linux or OSX or BSD just plain bloody work. You do not have to do anythign to get 75% saturation of a 100mb link. And if the quality of equipent is really good, you can go 95-99%.

Now frankly (and this is what Microsoft cant answer me on) is that IF I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that they have screwed up somethign that is so basic and important, then I cant have faith in any other part of the OS, can I? And I know from my experiences with printing and power options they have ballsed up other areas that needed no change because they were already working well.

The reply from the MS manager was.... "But you got it going eventually so whats the issue?" Well bugalugs, think about it. I am NOT even the average IT geek - I am the guy who other IT companies come running to. I earn lawyer type rates per hour and my take home is becoming a telephone number and a person with a lot of experience, knowledge, a proven record and 20 years can command it. I can make your mainframe sing, I can make your server rack hum, I can secure your network from just about any attack - yet *I'M* having problems just getting Vista to talk properly on the network? I cant make it print to the HP 3500 printer that every other machine I can get nice and happy in three minutes? So tell me Mr Microsoft Manager, if *I* have trouble, how the blazes is Mr and Mrs Joe Sixpack supposed to do it????

I'm sorry, but 23 days before I could work out a printing solution is a sign Vista is a complete load of crap. No other OS or printer has defeated me for longer than half hour before and I've come across some doozys - Like a Toshiba eStudio 35 printing with Windows XP 64. That was a sweet bit of a hack there to make that work, creatign a signed driver when none existed ^_^

After all these years however I want things to just work and I dont want to go through the lengths I have in the past..... I have better things to do than to hack solutions for something a company spending 5 billion dollars on should have gotten right in the first place. I want my laptop to just work like it did with XP. If I didnt need to know Vista, I woudlnt have it loaded at all.

[Morgan Evanar]

After using Vista for two weeks and having it bluescreen twice through no fault of my own, Vista blows. This is on a Prime95 tested stable machine that I built myself. and I've only put together over a hundred computers.

From a purely professional standpoint of someone who gets much more information than the average consumer, there are a lot of problems with Vista and they're mostly Microsoft's fault. MS really botched this one.

[Nathanial K'cansce]

Well, I guess that's an astounding no to Vista. People I've talked to face to face (who have used it) have also said "no".

So, I guess the next step is to take someone's advice and buy a Vista machine, wipe it and put in XP, or just make one myself. Oh, the choices.

Thanks for the help!

[Jaime Tomahawk]

After using Vista for two weeks and having it bluescreen twice through no fault of my own, Vista blows. This is on a Prime95 tested stable machine that I built myself. and I've only put together over a hundred computers.

From a purely professional standpoint of someone who gets much more information than the average consumer, there are a lot of problems with Vista and they're mostly Microsoft's fault. MS really botched this one.

I think in all fairness we should be looking at Vista 64 as an alternative after what I've just seen. The thing is that while the 32 bit version does indeed suck, I put in a 64 bit PC in and it just worked with quite a considerable performance edge over 32 bit. I didnt even tune and hack and the networking (my pet hate in Vista) was actually fast out of the box.

I wouldnt recommend 64 for a home user but.... I dunno seeing this 64bit version of Vista fly and actually not have the 32bit issues was very interesting. And the testing showed that Vista 64 is considerably different, different enough that it's not the same OS.

Hmmm. This might be worth looking further into.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Nah screw Vista 64. I've been using a new iBook! AWESOME bit of hardware and software.

And given I am seeing a lot more Apple computers around the place.... I think I will be joining them soon!

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Macs are so pretty! :eee I'm tempted by them.

[Zeke]

I want a Mac for Graphic Design work. My PC is apparently hugely inadequate for such tasks and if I want to "get serious" about it, I must have a Mac or all hope of ever obtaining a job in the Graphic Design field is forever lost to me. :| Naturally I'm poor as dirt and can't afford one.

[Pagan]

Oh man I was gonna post in here to get a Mac, just to be a jerk XD, but I come in and it's full of love for the Macs.

Yeah actually, either go XP or get a mac - I just picked up an old G3 iBook (cheap) for home use, and I love the crap out of it.

The newer ones are even better.

[Morgan Evanar]

I want a Mac for Graphic Design work. My PC is apparently hugely inadequate for such tasks and if I want to "get serious" about it, I must have a Mac or all hope of ever obtaining a job in the Graphic Design field is forever lost to me. :| Naturally I'm poor as dirt and can't afford one.I'm more used to using Adobe's apps on a PC and there isn't much difference at this point. If you're getting a desktop, PCs are much cheaper.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

I want a Mac for Graphic Design work. My PC is apparently hugely inadequate for such tasks and if I want to "get serious" about it, I must have a Mac or all hope of ever obtaining a job in the Graphic Design field is forever lost to me. :| Naturally I'm poor as dirt and can't afford one.I'm more used to using Adobe's apps on a PC and there isn't much difference at this point. If you're getting a desktop, PCs are much cheaper.


The issue now is that you get what you pay for with the OS. It's no use getting cheap hardware if the OS is steaming pile of crap and frankly the only version of Vista that is worth spit is Ultimate - at 400 AUD.

Which when you add on the other software, the price goes up in a huge hurry and your paying (legally) the same price for the same functionality. If your doing a bit of copyright infringement of course that skews the numbers - but lets talk legal here. Thence the Windows PC is not really a true cheap option. And with Vista being completely and utterly behind OSX, your choice isn't so obvious on a cost / time basis. How many hours have I spend rooting around with this laptop since I got Vista on it? Too long. The iBook? Pffft, turned it on and was away. The 500 dollar "premium" of a basic PC vs basic Mac which is now not actually so big is looking much better all the time again.

People used to accept the crap Microsoft shoved at us with Windows 95 / 98, the problem is that XP got good and I dont think people are going to take Vista's crap lying down.

Get a Mac or if your cost aware, use Linux - Ubuntu is pretty decent itself these days. And if you really have such a burning need to have something in Windows that the alternatives don't have (altho that's really not the case except games and frankly I don't give a damn there), VM's are getting good too.

[Morgan Evanar]

Linux is getting much better with drivers and the like but if you want to play a game the performance/compatibility isn't there. Same story with the Mac, but the Mac seems to get the right mix of professionally produced windows apps and Linux apps.

You can still get XP on a PC legally. It just takes a little more legwork.

[Cat X]

Screw games. That's not a good enough reason to overlook Linux anymore - Kubuntu is that good. It's faster than Vista could hope to be, it installed perfectly AND unlike Vista (or XP) I dont have to hunt drivers down, I got every one of the programs that I use day to day and a load more via Adept, it even is easy to get printers to work.

You gamers should be demanding games get ported, not putting up with misreble bloat like Vista.

[Morgan Evanar]

Screw games. That's not a good enough reason to overlook Linux anymore - Kubuntu is that good. It's faster than Vista could hope to be, it installed perfectly AND unlike Vista (or XP) I dont have to hunt drivers down, I got every one of the programs that I use day to day and a load more via Adept, it even is easy to get printers to work.

You gamers should be demanding games get ported, not putting up with misreble bloat like Vista.That's great but right now it's not a realistic proposal. WINE and the like are pretty good but a lot of stuff just isn't there, especially the latest Adobe CS3 suite. The performance on the ATi side isn't there either. If you have slightly atypical hardware, your experience isn't especially smooth, either. I am not in any way defending Vista, but until some issues are ironed out, I'm not switching to Linux.

No matter what any Linux user says, the GIMP is an awful thing.

[Khendon Sevon]

Screw games. That's not a good enough reason to overlook Linux anymore - Kubuntu is that good. It's faster than Vista could hope to be, it installed perfectly AND unlike Vista (or XP) I dont have to hunt drivers down, I got every one of the programs that I use day to day and a load more via Adept, it even is easy to get printers to work.

You gamers should be demanding games get ported, not putting up with misreble bloat like Vista.

That's not really reasonable. It's annoying and difficult to go back and rewrite then test code for games.

The only way Linux will see a large upward move in gaming is if games are written with it in mind. Most graphics engines support both Linux and Windows. The problem comes when you have to deal with middleware libraries that are only written for Windows.

Why does that happen? Because, it's a common standard in the industry to aim your games for Windows or console gaming. They have the largest markets.

Guess what? No one is actually really trying to remedy that. Why? Because your average person doesn't care what operating system is loaded on their computer. They're not informed of the differences. They see "Windows" and that's what they know.

The only way a real solution will come about is if Microsoft leads the crusade to make a generic set of libraries that are open source, has a simple interface, and are common to multiple operating systems (i.e., packaged with Windows and utilized by the Linux community).

That's not going to happen. Microsoft would have to give up control. They don't want to do that. They're a business.

To say games should just be ported, though? That's really a lot more complex than it sounds, at the moment. The "support" (in terms of middleware, demand, etc.) isn't there. It's just not needed.

We should demand a unified multimedia architecture with a common interface. OpenGL sort of takes steps in that direction. Of course, if you've ever used OpenGL, you know that it could be a lot better (it's non-object oriented in an object oriented development environment, doesn't have interfaces for IO, etc.). That's why DirectX is as popular, if not more so, with game developers. It's O-O.

Now I babble.

I'd like to note: I think Ubuntu and various other Linux operating systems blow Vista out of the water in terms of performance, dynamic look, and usability.

Now, I have to stop typing before I start describing the actual differences in Linux and Windows architecture that make them so opposed in philosophies.

Edit:

And that's not even touching on a unified method of interacting with the operating systems' architectures for hardware communication (drivers). Man, there's way too much to take on.

And


I want a Mac for Graphic Design work. My PC is apparently hugely inadequate for such tasks and if I want to "get serious" about it, I must have a Mac or all hope of ever obtaining a job in the Graphic Design field is forever lost to me. :| Naturally I'm poor as dirt and can't afford one.

... It's a myth! As with all myths, there was a point in time when it was true. However, you won't find it true anymore. You will find as many graphics companies utilizing macs as PC (windows) companies.

It's all about the software. Don't worry about the operating system. Learn the software and you'll be able to work with it on a mac or windows or linux (if Linux is supported).

I really, really hate the myth of Mac supremacy in graphics. As a graphics programmer, I really, really, really hate it. Out of all the white papers I've read (technical articles), none ever directly mentioned using a mac while several discussed Windows and Linux. Myth, I tell you!

[Morgan Evanar]

Besides, if you have the right hardware, OSX runs just fine on a PC.

[Zeke]

I want a Mac for Graphic Design work. My PC is apparently hugely inadequate for such tasks and if I want to "get serious" about it, I must have a Mac or all hope of ever obtaining a job in the Graphic Design field is forever lost to me. :| Naturally I'm poor as dirt and can't afford one.

... It's a myth! As with all myths, there was a point in time when it was true. However, you won't find it true anymore. You will find as many graphics companies utilizing macs as PC (windows) companies.

It's all about the software. Don't worry about the operating system. Learn the software and you'll be able to work with it on a mac or windows or linux (if Linux is supported).

I really, really hate the myth of Mac supremacy in graphics. As a graphics programmer, I really, really, really hate it. Out of all the white papers I've read (technical articles), none ever directly mentioned using a mac while several discussed Windows and Linux. Myth, I tell you!Whoo! :D

[Mu Satach]

It's all about the software. Don't worry about the operating system. Learn the software and you'll be able to work with it on a mac or windows or Linux (if Linux is supported).

If you grew up on PC's it just take a bit of sitting down and tinkering with the mac to learn where the controls are and then it's a breeze jumping back and forth.

That's not to say you won't run into goofy glitches, (some of my smaller older drives tend to get a bit flaky going back and forth between systems and the files get a bit kurfurbled.) but all of the Adobe programs are the same on PC and Mac.

Just dump your files to an external HD and work on whatever. You have to pay more attention to software versions compatibility more than anything else. Seen that happen a few times, somebody start a project at home, bring it to the lab, try and take it back home and then discover the lab had a newer version than at home, now they can only work on it at the lab or redo what they did at the lab at home provided they had a back up copy.

Off the top of my head, the only *graphic* type programs I know of that run only on Mac's are in the Final Cut Studio video editing suite, and maybe Apature.

[Cat X]

That's great but right now it's not a realistic proposal. WINE and the like are pretty good but a lot of stuff just isn't there, especially the latest Adobe CS3 suite. The performance on the ATi side isn't there either. If you have slightly atypical hardware, your experience isn't especially smooth, either. I am not in any way defending Vista, but until some issues are ironed out, I'm not switching to Linux.

No matter what any Linux user says, the GIMP is an awful thing.

Use VM if your really in need of CS3, which on this laptop runs evey bit as fast as it does natively... actualy Vista is faster. I dun dont get that...... Yes you need a touch more memory and a bit of nous to load but so does CS3 actually. If your clued on to use CS3, your clued on enough to set up a VM and then when your done using that stuff, get back to it in Linux.

You are an atypical user and thence you might see one or two things that may hold you back - however most users even here just want to surf porn, print pictures and type stuff in email - Most people use Outlook Express for that and webmail. Where's the real issues? They dont understand or care about driver speeds (nor do they need to) and their hardware will probably be fine.

But in the end mate, we're all making or finding excuses and staying with the devil we know. What's happened to me is mine ran out. I'll VM Vista and just get back to work.


hat's not really reasonable. It's annoying and difficult to go back and rewrite then test code for games.

The only way Linux will see a large upward move in gaming is if games are written with it in mind. Most graphics engines support both Linux and Windows. The problem comes when you have to deal with middleware libraries that are only written for Windows.

Why does that happen? Because, it's a common standard in the industry to aim your games for Windows or console gaming. They have the largest markets.

Guess what? No one is actually really trying to remedy that. Why? Because your average person doesn't care what operating system is loaded on their computer. They're not informed of the differences. They see "Windows" and that's what they know.

The only way a real solution will come about is if Microsoft leads the crusade to make a generic set of libraries that are open source, has a simple interface, and are common to multiple operating systems (i.e., packaged with Windows and utilized by the Linux community).
The only point that is correct is that the underlying structures are different. The rest is excuses again. The real reason is not Microsoft's control its the game companies control - if you build for Linux and then port to Windows (which is the correct way to do it and using the right base language to begin with) the real issue is that once something gets onto Linux the gaming company will lose control of the product, because the REAL difference between Windows and Linux.

The real difference is user philosophy. Linux has a attitude of openness and that's how it was build. It is then quite easy for someone to take said game then begin to tinker or beat any copy protection trivially. Games companies want to lock users in and control them, within Linux you just cant do it.

And thank the Lord for that. No DRM, no lockins, just do what you want ^_^

[Khendon Sevon]

It's not the game companies.

It's the end user. It's the end user. It's the end user.

What does the end user want? Windows! Why? Because it's marketed to them.

So, Microsoft doesn't have to cooperate.

As for games being cracked on Linux: Just because the Linux environment is open source doesn't mean that software developed for it has to be. Additionally, it doesn't mean it's going to be cracked and distributed. Of course, that happens regardless of the operating system; but, to say that the ideology of Linux users will propagate that is foolish.

Security can be had on Linux. It's not a hacker's wet dream.

There's something called intellectual property. It's how artists (and others) generate money. It's called capitalism. Guess what? It's in software, too.

That being said, I am for open source projects. I think they're great. In fact, I use open source all the time. I'm actually contributing to an open source game engine right now, too. That doesn't mean that everything should be open source.

None of the reasons I listed were excuses. They're some of the varied reasons that Linux isn't found in everyone's home... yet.

Of course, this discussion is only touching on the periphery of a large debate that rages on message boards and in cubicles daily.

Ah, operating system entrenchment.

[Cat X]

It's not the game companies.

It's the end user. It's the end user. It's the end user.

What does the end user want? Windows! Why? Because it's marketed to them.

So, Microsoft doesn't have to cooperate.[/quote]

Microsoft have NOTHING to do with this. At. ALL. They have no say in what you code and what libaries you use or invent and in fact you probably have the tools and skills to work out how to get from Linux to Windows. You are correct it's about the end user to a degree and I already stated as such however.

If there was a very large market of Linux users, the answers you would be giving me wouldnt wash because you would find a way and screw Microsoft. That's how it works and always has.

I saw it when the much more complex enviroments of mainframes were cut over to Linux and NT and the same excuses were made then. However dollars talk and the excuses evaporated.



As for games being cracked on Linux: Just because the Linux environment is open source doesn't mean that software developed for it has to be. Additionally, it doesn't mean it's going to be cracked and distributed. Of course, that happens regardless of the operating system; but, to say that the ideology of Linux users will propagate that is foolish.

Security can be had on Linux. It's not a hacker's wet dream.

I think I am much more aware of the hacker and cracker community than I let on and I am telling you straight out that you put your software on Linux, it will get cracked in a blink. Said cracking is a damn sight easier when the utilities for said cracking were written for Linux and use the underlying openness. For example the cracking tools for networks - They are just so much better and faster. Because that underlyign openness allows them to be.

When you talk about security in Linux, stopping unlicneced programs, copyright infringement is not part of it because us network guys know damn well how to beat it in a blink and we know no one can stop us. Securing Linux against us network guys who like to stroll about on other networks... well... different story.

Cracking protections in Windows is quite a few levels harder but when you understand how most companies do it it's not too bad.



There's something called intellectual property. It's how artists generate money. It's called capitalism. Guess what? It's in software, too.


I think somehow I am rather well aware of that point.

But I dont care about your need to eat. If you want to produce somethign compelling that we think is worth buying and not cracking, that's your issue to deal with. Lord of the Rings EE's showed the best way - such compelling content, who the hell wanted to copyright infringe THAT? The extras have a value so far above the infringed version that I'll happily buy them.

Pity more in Hollywood havent worked that out yet.

[Morgan Evanar]

Khendon, all the engines worth a damn run well on Linux, or at least have that sort of code portability in mind. Unreal and any ID engine being a prime example. Several titles work well in WINE, and some are coded for Mac and therefore are easy to sling into Linux, like WoW. Anything with an OpenGL renderer is going to not be a problem. Yes, Microsoft wrote a great dev environment with DX10, and yes it makes it easy to swipe code between the X-Box kit and Windows, but that just leads to my next point:
Being platform specific these days is suicide, the assets for a game cost far too much to develop these days to lean on one platform.

Honestly, I'm probably going to start just VMing into XP for CS3 (as it's lighter than Vista) and ATi's Linux drivers should have matured a great deal by year's end. I'll just wait till then, and reboot for games, I guess. I've been considering that for a while now.

Right now XP works perfectly, though. I can't see myself switching to Vista. Every time I try it bites me in the butt, and this is already 6+ months after release.

[Yog]

If it were up to me, we would not be on Windows, Linux or Mac's in the first place, but on Amiga OS. There was a time I really hated M$, but I learned to go along with the industry standard. The software situation is not going to change just because a few geeks are rioting. You need the whole userbase to change (millions of people), and that is not going to happen unless there are laws in place which breaks up the monopoly. You need to enforce open standards; code that can be easily ported to other systems. Then and only then, will the software selection for Linux, Macs etc be so good, no one is going to bother using Windows.

Personally, I am enjoying Vista. It is running faster and more stable than XP for me. And there are some features that I like. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

[Khendon Sevon]

The software situation is not going to change just because a few geeks are rioting. You need the whole userbase to change (millions of people), and that is not going to happen unless there are laws in place which breaks up the monopoly. You need to enforce open standards; code that can be easily ported to other systems. Then and only then, will the software selection for Linux, Macs etc be so good, no one is going to bother using Windows.

Said it better than I.

[Firebird1]

Well I know that from personal experience that Vista is not the golden goose it could of been. But with SP1 around the corner will things change for Vista. Not unless suddenly it becomes the OS that you need. Face it, most people I've talked to who have Vista would rater not have Vista. The security is confusing and it is a performance hog. Thats not going to change unless suddenly millions of people start using Macs or Linux computers.

[Cat X]

Then and only then, will the software selection for Linux, Macs etc be so good, no one is going to bother using Windows.


It IS good, it's that people are not looking. The majority of people want to watch stuff, browse stuff and write stuff. And Linux does that. All those apps your used to having they CAME from Linux half the the time and they work better on Linux. The only programs that port over ugly are Microsoft ones. The fact that applications are on Linux Mac OR Windows says your other points have been well and truly addressed by coders who are worth a damn, ebcause they have worked out ways not to be beholden to anyone.

And I will add that .Net apps work thanks to the Mono project perfectly on Linux too. You should have seen the face of this Financial app writer when I showed his written for Windows app working on my laptop with just a copy / paste!


Thats not going to change unless suddenly millions of people start using Macs or Linux computers.

We are, unless I have the scent of the air wrong, at the point where we were a few years ago with Mozilla beginning to re-appear. Mozilla was a small bump until Firefox got going and the word spread from geeks and Firefox got into the general population. Now, Firefox is completely mainstream and in many countries the browser of choice, forcing a change from IE only sites to ones a hell of a lot more open to other browsers.

Right now, people ARE looking at alternatives. They realise how crap the Microsoft lockin is and they are looking for a way out. I am right now reading how Apple cant build enough laptops and they have taken quite abruptly a very large chunk out of the market, literally 1 in 6 through some retailers. I am reading how Ubuntu is is getting a big upswing in uploads and more interest and now it's preloaded on Dells and Leveno's, it's gained a foothold. I am seeing Ubuntu just plain work for myself. I am seeing some bigger changes to Linux for usabilty in the next 6 months that will only work good for Linux

Your millions of users switching has begun and especially through Apple and Ubuntu to come, will gain pace. And with a more technically intelligent generation beginning to be consumers, expect it to keep going.

All I need is a Outlook clone (which I admit I have not looked to hard for) and I will be putting Linux in at client sites as there is no need for Windows any more. And I can save them a lot of money in licence fees, no need for AV etc. If your in IT in any capacity, do not lock yourself to Microsoft. It could well bite you in the backside hard because OSX IS gaining a foothold and Linux IS ready for the desktop.

[Morgan Evanar]

I'll be damned, it's happening a lot sooner than I thought. (ATi Drivers)

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=821&num=1
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=824&num=3

[Yog]

I don't believe in Macintosh. They have some smart designs, but that is about it. They had only had about 5% of the market for how many years? Open source though, absolutely. Open platforms and open source is the road ahead to break up Microsoft's hegemony. Linux will one day take over windows.

But it's not going to be the massive migration of users changing OS until we can load up games like Bioshock and all the industry leading windows applications on Linux with minimum of fuss, and connect whatever hardware you like without problems. An OS needs to be compatible and user friendly. The news of ATI going open source with their cards is a giant leap forward. Hopefully, this means dramatic performance leap and better compatibility for Linux users.

[Cat X]

I don't believe in Macintosh. They have some smart designs, but that is about it. They had only had about 5% of the market for how many years? Open source though, absolutely. Open platforms and open source is the road ahead to break up Microsoft's hegemony. Linux will one day take over windows.

Well the fact that sales of Macs have run at 5% doesnt mean that the installed base is 5% - it is somewhat higher because Mac users just do not churn machines liek Windows users do. And, there is a noted upspike in Mac sales as I've pointed out.

And if the present sales trend continues, 1 in 6 laptops being Mac's will be big numbers in a year or two.

Linux on the other hand will get most of it's momentum from Europe, as did Firefox. However a Linux flavor that supports Chinese speakers well could be the ultimate wedge out of the Microsoft monopoly.



But it's not going to be the massive migration of users changing OS until we can load up games like Bioshock and all the industry leading windows applications on Linux with minimum of fuss, and connect whatever hardware you like without problems. An OS needs to be compatible and user friendly. The news of ATI going open source with their cards is a giant leap forward. Hopefully, this means dramatic performance leap and better compatibility for Linux users.


The thing is, ATI are late to the party - the simple fact I can now take a resonably modern machine, get Ubuntu on it and it has less probelms with drivers than Windows (And I add Vista didnt support my laptop's sound card out fo the box... but Ubuntu did) says the driver issue is almost gone apart from the noted laggards. And as I've pointed out, most the apps a day to day user uses either have rgeat replacements that read MS formats or originally came from Linux.

You look at the average PC - and the average PC is NOT used for games - and you tell me what apps I cant replace or use. Hey, I even found out Evolution speaks to Exchange and replaces Outlook really well!

I can right now replace every single client PC in every network I manage with Linux and get them running exactly as you were in Windows. And I can get a dumb user to actually not be confused and feel at home

I could not say that a year ago. I can now. Home users and business users are now able to use Linux without a qualm. Gamers I dont care about because they are a much smaller subset of PC users than they like to think they are. Business are the major users and if I can run Linux on the desktop then Microsoft has got big problems.

I also add Ubuntu actually hibernates properly. ^_^

[Khendon Sevon]

I'm just going to give an example of why Linux angers me:

We have a Linux served by the name of Heineken. It's running a blend of a few different flavors of Linux in its own evil melting pot.

We also have a Unix server named Guinness. It's running NetBSD.

And... I have to run to my databases class.

Can you find out what the problem is for trying to write concurrently operating code in this situation?

[Morgan Evanar]

I'm not following at all, as no one runs BSD unless they're running some sort of server.

[Khendon Sevon]

It is a server (I believe I did say that). In fact, both are servers. The school runs several Unix and Linux servers for the students to develop on. We also have a Cray, a cluster for distributed systems, and a whole buncha' other junk that I don't really use.

Anyway, the point of it is:

If you're developing something for Linux, you have to account for variances in flavors. With multithreading, it's actually really annoying. Yes, there are some core elements that are the same; but, different flavors handle multithreading/processes differently.

In our case, we were warned not to develop on any of our own Linux boxes. Why? Because we're not guaranteed at all that the code we write on one Linux box will work on the next.

It's the same issue for a company. Do you think companies like having to test their software across multiple Linux platforms?

It's not really a big deal if you're working in Java. It's just annoying in C. There is a solution to the problem in terms of code; but, it requires a great deal more code and time and would require vast updates as elements in the operating systems change.

Basically, my main point is that both Linux and Unix are made great and powerful because you can pretty much develop them for your specific needs. They're customizable, they're adaptable.

That's also their biggest disadvantage. There are too many versions, too many architectural differences, and too many cross-Linux/Unix issues. It's what prevented Unix from beating out DOS in the early days.

DOS was simpler, there was one standard for it, and it (at that time) used less resources.

Sure, Unix/Linux might now be evolving for greater appeal; but, it's still the case that there are so many flavors it's difficult to "market" to the masses. It's tough to convince people to make that investment.

So, the point of my point ;)

Linux is making headway; but, don't expect it to be with the masses for a very long time. It has miles to go.

[Morgan Evanar]

Sorry, but you're pretty much wrong regarding threading on Linux. It's true that various BSDs have different threading (and actually have been working on SMP issues for the past year, but we're talking about Linux, not any of the BSDs. Further, why are the same programs available across 30 or 40 different distros? Most packages for Ubuntu can be run in Debian and vice-versa. You're not talking about end-user experience at all, though. That's the entire goddamned point and you've missed it, yet again. You click a few times and bang, you have whatever kind of app you need, usually, unless it's already neatly pre-installed for you, which it usually is. Unless you are doing something exotic, it's EASIER to install things in Linux than it is in Windows.

DOS had huge problems, 640k barrier anyone?

[Cat X]

Clever Bastards Anonymous, the System Admins from Hell for all your Networking and server needs (Windows and Linux .... and Sun and AS400 if your mad or really big) would agree, but we're not paid to disagree with you Mr CEO. Not yet anyway. Sign our agreement and... oh hang on, Ifeel my knowledge memory coming back from temporay amnesia.

At this present time however we dont know much because we're not being paid to know. But however pay us and the more you pay, the more we know. And If you paid us enough to know this, we say that actually no problem porting your code between flavors! We do it all the time and usually it'll just work. Some thickhead developers (who fear us SAFH types) maybe try to do somethign cute, but a cricket bat to reprogram them works wonders.

There is a bit more money required for us to know the difference between how Gnonme and KDE work, but again,, the more cash, the more we will know.

And if your really got some cash, you can increase our knowledge and we'll even get your .Net apps working on Linux without too much sweat. Usually no sweat if the developer did their job, which we can help with too, Kneecapper and Fingers over there are well versed in developer training. They aint paid to think so their rates are somewhat less per hour.

The lime pit in paragraph 4? Oh..... just rubbish disposal. Got any MBA's or CS grads or MSCE people? Ahhh yes, we'll set them straight quickly enough. By the way, we have a consulting arm, Developers from Hell because we suspect you will have a few vacancies latety. Hmmm? Oh no, but unfortunalty we seem to find that where we work a few injuries and accidents occu. Nothing suspicious of course, just the odd walked into an open elevator shaft.

Yes, yes. That's fine. Sign there and there. Ooooh, nice cheque. You have our full knowledge Mr CEO and good doing buisness with you.

[Khendon Sevon]

No, you're right. Threading has been standardized with pThreads in Linux.

The ultimate test:

Let's see what happens.

I hear there's going to be a mobile Ubuntu?