Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Humor
Windows rapidly approaching desktop usability
By Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
on
May 27, 2005 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
Every year or so I like to see how Microsoft is doing in its attempt to make a desktop operating system as usable as Linux. Microsoft Windows XP, Home Edition, with Service Pack 2, is a tremendous improvement over previous Windows versions when it comes to stability and appearance, but it still has many glitches that keep it from being competitive with GNU/Linux for everyday users, including a tedious installation procedure, lack of productivity software included with the operating system, hardware compatibility problems, and a price so much higher than any of the Linux distributions I've tested lately that I don't feel this product is a good value for most home or small office users
My test machine was a two-year-old HP Compaq d220 microtower that originally shipped with Mandrake Linux version 9.2. I have tested and used this desktop with at least half a dozen different Linux distributions. All have loaded and run without any problems. In fact, for at least 12 out of the last 24 months, this little black box has been my primary desktop workhorse, and it has always functioned without a hiccup -- until I tried to install the "Windows XP Home Edition" operating system on it.
Since I have heard that discount copies of Windows XP available from online vendors may be "pirated" or tainted in some way, I purchased my copy over the counter from well-known retailer Office Depot to make sure I was getting the genuine article instead of a cheap knock-off. Despite this precaution, no matter how hard I looked in the package I found no manual, just a 14 page "Let's Get Started" guide and a single CD (plus some assorted marketing material) enclosed in a folder with a sticker containing some sort of strange code on it, plus these words:
Video blanking hassles
My primary desktop monitor is a 15" LiquidVideo LCD monitor purchased from mainstream electronics retailer Circuit City. It has always had the slightly annoying habit of going through a short "AutoAdjust" routine on every startup, but it happily accepted the generic framebuffer video input used by most versions of GNU/Linux during their bootup and installation processes. During my attempts at Windows XP installation, the combination of the LiquidVideo monitor and the HP Compaq d220 microtower's onboard video produced constant, totally annoying screen blinking that made it almost impossible to do things like type in the long, so-precious "Product Key." Note that this "Key" is not a simple, English-language password, but a 20-character string of apparently random letters and numbers. It took me several tries to type the "Product Key" correctly without being able to see it on screen because of the constant blinking. I doubt that most users would put up with this problem. I suspect that most would simply return their copy of Windows XP to the store where they bought it and go back to familiar, user-friendly Linux.
The video blanking problem also made it nearly impossible to read the screen where you're supposed to create an "Admin" password ("Admin" is Windows-ese for "root"), then create regular users.
In the end, I had so much trouble with the Windows XP installation and setup with this common discount monitor that I used an old 17" CRT monitor I had in my garage for the installation and setup, then plugged in the LCD monitor for everyday use.
Windows XP can't be considered consumer-ready until it has driver support for common LCD monitors during its installation and bootup procedure, especially if those monitors are easily and routinely recognized by popular Linux distributions. It's possible that the monitor manufacturers aren't willing to give Microsoft and other proprietary operating system companies the information they need to create appropriate drivers and that the manufacturers, not Microsoft, deserve the blame for this problem. But from a user's standpoint it doesn't matter who is at fault in this game. It simply means that hardware must be carefully chosen when contemplating a switch from Linux to Windows XP -- and that you can't expect "it just works" hardware compatibility from this operating system.
Windows XP networking: Not for amateurs
I could not get Windows XP to detect the HP Compaq d220 microtower's onboard Broadcom NIC. I used another computer to download XP drivers from HP's site, and burned them to CD for installation on the d220, but still no luck.
This same NIC was detected and automatically set up by MEPIS, Knoppix, and Mandriva Linux during their installations. I was surprised that Windows XP was not able to do the same.
In the end, I bought a $15 "generic" PCI NIC from a local retailer and installed it. This solved the Windows XP network interface problem. But I doubt that most home or small business users would want to add hardware to a working computer just to convert from Linux to Windows, especially after paying $199 for their new operating system.
Shocked by additional software costs
The SimplyMEPIS version of GNU/Linux I run on my "workhorse" laptop computer includes a full-featured office suite, ftp, chat, and graphics software, and dozens of other useful programs on its installation CD. Windows XP included none of these, and most of the equivalent packages available for Windows are costly. Some, like Microsoft's Office software (which is similar to OpenOffice.org but doesn't read as many file formats and won't directly save your work as PDFs), cost more than the operating system itself.
I found that the tools needed to give the Microsoft Explorer Web browser included with Windows XP some of the same modern features that are standard in the Firefox Web browser that comes with SimplyMEPIS are pay-for add-ons, which seemed somewhat silly. Even the "better" version -- Outlook -- of Microsoft's email software costs extra, as do most of the ftp clients available for Windows XP.
Yes, Firefox, the Thunderbird email suite, GAIM, GIMP, and many other well-regarded open source programs are now available for Windows XP, but each must be downloaded and installed individually. They are not included in the base Windows XP install. This makes no sense. If you pay more for Windows XP than for a typical Linux distribution, shouldn't it come with the same -- or better -- software on its installation CD?
Where Windows XP shines
There are thousands of third-party applications available for Windows XP that have no direct Linux equivalents. For people with specialized software needs -- and deep pockets -- this wealth of Windows third-party software makes it an excellent operating system choice.
For those with simpler software needs, the problems and costs associated with Windows XP argue against a switch from GNU/Linux unless Microsoft radically changes its pricing and licensing structure, and manages to make its premier operating system install easily on common, everyday hardware.
Hope for the future
The improvement in Windows XP Home Edition over previous "ordinary user" versions of Windows -- notably Windows ME and Windows 98 SE -- is nothing short of magnificent. Once you get past the installation problems, you see a desktop that's close enough to KDE (or Gnome) in general appearance and functionality that an experienced GNU/Linux user should only need a few hours worth of practice to make the switch.
I have not yet gotten any viruses or worms on my Windows XP computer, nor have I experienced nearly as many system crashes as I did with pre-XP Windows versions.
Given Microsoft's current development rate, it's entirely possible that within a few years Windows may be almost as good a choice for most users as Linux, although it's likely that during these same few years Linux will also advance rapidly, and that a growing number of third-party developers will write software for it to replace the programs that now "lock in" many Windows users.
For the moment, though, I advise sticking with Linux unless you have software requirements that can only be met by using the Windows XP operating system, and if you must use Windows XP you should try to get a computer that has it preinstalled rather installing it yourself -- unless you are a hard-core techie/nerd instead of an ordinary user.
But all this could change when the "Longhorn" version of Windows is released in 2006 (or possibly 2007, 2008 or 2009). At that point, I'll re-evaluate the Windows operating system and see if it's finally ready for the mass market instead of requiring specialized skills -- and carefully-selected hardware -- to install and set up on the average home or small business desktop.
OSTG Editor-in-chief Robin 'Roblimo' Miller is the author of Point & Click Linux! and loves to read analysts' and Windows users' reasons Linux isn't ready for the desktop so much that once in a while he likes to turn the tables and write about Windows from a Linux user's perspective.
Since I have heard that discount copies of Windows XP available from online vendors may be "pirated" or tainted in some way, I purchased my copy over the counter from well-known retailer Office Depot to make sure I was getting the genuine article instead of a cheap knock-off. Despite this precaution, no matter how hard I looked in the package I found no manual, just a 14 page "Let's Get Started" guide and a single CD (plus some assorted marketing material) enclosed in a folder with a sticker containing some sort of strange code on it, plus these words:
My collection of Mandriva, Debian, SUSE, Knoppix, and MEPIS installation CDs don't require "product keys" I'm not allowed to lose. But this is only a small irritation. On to the installation itself.Don't Lose This Product Key!
You must use it every time you install this software.
So be sure to store this folder in a safe place.
Video blanking hassles
My primary desktop monitor is a 15" LiquidVideo LCD monitor purchased from mainstream electronics retailer Circuit City. It has always had the slightly annoying habit of going through a short "AutoAdjust" routine on every startup, but it happily accepted the generic framebuffer video input used by most versions of GNU/Linux during their bootup and installation processes. During my attempts at Windows XP installation, the combination of the LiquidVideo monitor and the HP Compaq d220 microtower's onboard video produced constant, totally annoying screen blinking that made it almost impossible to do things like type in the long, so-precious "Product Key." Note that this "Key" is not a simple, English-language password, but a 20-character string of apparently random letters and numbers. It took me several tries to type the "Product Key" correctly without being able to see it on screen because of the constant blinking. I doubt that most users would put up with this problem. I suspect that most would simply return their copy of Windows XP to the store where they bought it and go back to familiar, user-friendly Linux.
The video blanking problem also made it nearly impossible to read the screen where you're supposed to create an "Admin" password ("Admin" is Windows-ese for "root"), then create regular users.
In the end, I had so much trouble with the Windows XP installation and setup with this common discount monitor that I used an old 17" CRT monitor I had in my garage for the installation and setup, then plugged in the LCD monitor for everyday use.
Windows XP can't be considered consumer-ready until it has driver support for common LCD monitors during its installation and bootup procedure, especially if those monitors are easily and routinely recognized by popular Linux distributions. It's possible that the monitor manufacturers aren't willing to give Microsoft and other proprietary operating system companies the information they need to create appropriate drivers and that the manufacturers, not Microsoft, deserve the blame for this problem. But from a user's standpoint it doesn't matter who is at fault in this game. It simply means that hardware must be carefully chosen when contemplating a switch from Linux to Windows XP -- and that you can't expect "it just works" hardware compatibility from this operating system.
Windows XP networking: Not for amateurs
I could not get Windows XP to detect the HP Compaq d220 microtower's onboard Broadcom NIC. I used another computer to download XP drivers from HP's site, and burned them to CD for installation on the d220, but still no luck.
This same NIC was detected and automatically set up by MEPIS, Knoppix, and Mandriva Linux during their installations. I was surprised that Windows XP was not able to do the same.
In the end, I bought a $15 "generic" PCI NIC from a local retailer and installed it. This solved the Windows XP network interface problem. But I doubt that most home or small business users would want to add hardware to a working computer just to convert from Linux to Windows, especially after paying $199 for their new operating system.
Shocked by additional software costs
The SimplyMEPIS version of GNU/Linux I run on my "workhorse" laptop computer includes a full-featured office suite, ftp, chat, and graphics software, and dozens of other useful programs on its installation CD. Windows XP included none of these, and most of the equivalent packages available for Windows are costly. Some, like Microsoft's Office software (which is similar to OpenOffice.org but doesn't read as many file formats and won't directly save your work as PDFs), cost more than the operating system itself.
I found that the tools needed to give the Microsoft Explorer Web browser included with Windows XP some of the same modern features that are standard in the Firefox Web browser that comes with SimplyMEPIS are pay-for add-ons, which seemed somewhat silly. Even the "better" version -- Outlook -- of Microsoft's email software costs extra, as do most of the ftp clients available for Windows XP.
Yes, Firefox, the Thunderbird email suite, GAIM, GIMP, and many other well-regarded open source programs are now available for Windows XP, but each must be downloaded and installed individually. They are not included in the base Windows XP install. This makes no sense. If you pay more for Windows XP than for a typical Linux distribution, shouldn't it come with the same -- or better -- software on its installation CD?
Where Windows XP shines
There are thousands of third-party applications available for Windows XP that have no direct Linux equivalents. For people with specialized software needs -- and deep pockets -- this wealth of Windows third-party software makes it an excellent operating system choice.
For those with simpler software needs, the problems and costs associated with Windows XP argue against a switch from GNU/Linux unless Microsoft radically changes its pricing and licensing structure, and manages to make its premier operating system install easily on common, everyday hardware.
Hope for the future
The improvement in Windows XP Home Edition over previous "ordinary user" versions of Windows -- notably Windows ME and Windows 98 SE -- is nothing short of magnificent. Once you get past the installation problems, you see a desktop that's close enough to KDE (or Gnome) in general appearance and functionality that an experienced GNU/Linux user should only need a few hours worth of practice to make the switch.
I have not yet gotten any viruses or worms on my Windows XP computer, nor have I experienced nearly as many system crashes as I did with pre-XP Windows versions.
Given Microsoft's current development rate, it's entirely possible that within a few years Windows may be almost as good a choice for most users as Linux, although it's likely that during these same few years Linux will also advance rapidly, and that a growing number of third-party developers will write software for it to replace the programs that now "lock in" many Windows users.
For the moment, though, I advise sticking with Linux unless you have software requirements that can only be met by using the Windows XP operating system, and if you must use Windows XP you should try to get a computer that has it preinstalled rather installing it yourself -- unless you are a hard-core techie/nerd instead of an ordinary user.
But all this could change when the "Longhorn" version of Windows is released in 2006 (or possibly 2007, 2008 or 2009). At that point, I'll re-evaluate the Windows operating system and see if it's finally ready for the mass market instead of requiring specialized skills -- and carefully-selected hardware -- to install and set up on the average home or small business desktop.
OSTG Editor-in-chief Robin 'Roblimo' Miller is the author of Point & Click Linux! and loves to read analysts' and Windows users' reasons Linux isn't ready for the desktop so much that once in a while he likes to turn the tables and write about Windows from a Linux user's perspective.
Comments
on Windows rapidly approaching desktop usabilityNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
<a href="http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2662" title="osnews.com">http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2662</a osnews.com>
Yeah, this is been done before, by ME, over 2 years ago.
Yeah, this is been done before, by ME, over 2 years ago.
True, it was first; false, it was not better.
Better? I think not.
Every issue raised here is a legitimate complaint for a Linux user trying to use Windows. I've expressed almost all of them myself.
This article may have been intended as satire, but, as a wise man once said, "It's funny because it's true."
Your article goes off the deep end, creating problems where none exist, and suggesting completely unworkable "solutions", like getting more disk space with a low level format, while your entire HDD is stored on a ramdrive. You had a few valid arguements, but on the whole just made yourself look like an ass by reaching to ridiculous extremes.
Also, this one was actually well written, and free of the glaring spelling and grammar mistakes which make yours so painful to read.
Every issue raised here is a legitimate complaint for a Linux user trying to use Windows. I've expressed almost all of them myself.
This article may have been intended as satire, but, as a wise man once said, "It's funny because it's true."
Your article goes off the deep end, creating problems where none exist, and suggesting completely unworkable "solutions", like getting more disk space with a low level format, while your entire HDD is stored on a ramdrive. You had a few valid arguements, but on the whole just made yourself look like an ass by reaching to ridiculous extremes.
Also, this one was actually well written, and free of the glaring spelling and grammar mistakes which make yours so painful to read.
It actually doesn't require you to keep your mouse on the scrollbar. There's an extra boundary of around 100 pixels on a 1024x768 resolution.
I liked this article, but this is stupid. Try explaining to someone why left-clicking ABOVE the scroll thumb in an xterm pages the display down, and watch their head explode.
Format -> Character
Format -> Paragraph
Format -> Section
File -> Format Page?
Courtesy of Microsoft Office. OpenOffice has Page in the Format menu, where a novice would expect it to be. Page format doesn't necessarily impact the whole file.
One mouse action that I really, really miss when using MS-Windows is left-swipe middle-click cut-and-paste without touching the keyboard. I see that MSIE7 will begin to bring us one small part of middle-click functionality as a special case for that application only.
And... it's not clicking above/below that scrolls traditional applications, but which button you click with. While I've become unused to this, I do remember it being much, much faster for scrolling because you didn't have to find the elevator first and aim accordingly.
Format -> Paragraph
Format -> Section
File -> Format Page?
Courtesy of Microsoft Office. OpenOffice has Page in the Format menu, where a novice would expect it to be. Page format doesn't necessarily impact the whole file.
One mouse action that I really, really miss when using MS-Windows is left-swipe middle-click cut-and-paste without touching the keyboard. I see that MSIE7 will begin to bring us one small part of middle-click functionality as a special case for that application only.
And... it's not clicking above/below that scrolls traditional applications, but which button you click with. While I've become unused to this, I do remember it being much, much faster for scrolling because you didn't have to find the elevator first and aim accordingly.
Well, actually it's not - the number of lines from the top where you click next to is the number of lines the text will scroll, - down with the left mouse button and up with the right mouse button. Whereas with windows clicking above or below the scroll thumb scrolls the whole page.
Once you get that, it's more powerful - how often do you want to scroll only a few lines? And keep some part of what you see in the screen?
With MSWin, you really really need that scrollwheel, and the silly hard to click up and down arrows. With X you don't.
On a side note, I enjoyed this article, thanks Roblimo.
aRTee
www.mandrake.tips.4.free.fr
Once you get that, it's more powerful - how often do you want to scroll only a few lines? And keep some part of what you see in the screen?
With MSWin, you really really need that scrollwheel, and the silly hard to click up and down arrows. With X you don't.
On a side note, I enjoyed this article, thanks Roblimo.
aRTee
www.mandrake.tips.4.free.fr
No, Thank YOU.
I "always" knew about that left/right/middle button scroll action. I never knew before that you could effect the number of lines by positioning the pointer. It just never 'clicked'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Thanks for the tip.
I "always" knew about that left/right/middle button scroll action. I never knew before that you could effect the number of lines by positioning the pointer. It just never 'clicked'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Thanks for the tip.
".. watch their head explode. "
Hmm, how about something easy like..
It doesn't matter where you point, just click left to page up, and right to page down.
If you want to grab hold of the scrollthumbthingy, use the middle button.
If someone can't get that, they don't need their head anyway.
Hmm, how about something easy like..
It doesn't matter where you point, just click left to page up, and right to page down.
If you want to grab hold of the scrollthumbthingy, use the middle button.
If someone can't get that, they don't need their head anyway.
The difficulty of installing additional applicatio
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 02:57 AM
I think more could be said of the difficulty of aquiring and installing additional applications, whether one talks about things like gaim, firefox, or third party windows proprietary software. Consider, with any modern GNU/Linux distro, like say Mepis, you can pull up a nice friendly synaptic menu, find what you want, request it, and it is installed, automatically, and nearly immediately, over the internet. This is how software installation should work in the 21st century.
To install even common software like firefox and gaim, one has to download and seperately install it. However, even worse, are those applications you have to pay for. You cant simply request them to download and install on demand when you want them. While you may spend considerably more, you receive far less convenience for the price. After all you have to wait or aquire some clunky cd-rom media from some store or for it's delivery through the mail, like reliving an early 1980's version of sneaker-net, or like having hand-cranks on cars all over again.
Until Windows XP can get past the model-T era software distribution model for licensing and installing additional applications, I do not consider it suitable for non-technical users either.
To install even common software like firefox and gaim, one has to download and seperately install it. However, even worse, are those applications you have to pay for. You cant simply request them to download and install on demand when you want them. While you may spend considerably more, you receive far less convenience for the price. After all you have to wait or aquire some clunky cd-rom media from some store or for it's delivery through the mail, like reliving an early 1980's version of sneaker-net, or like having hand-cranks on cars all over again.
Until Windows XP can get past the model-T era software distribution model for licensing and installing additional applications, I do not consider it suitable for non-technical users either.
Re:The difficulty of installing additional applica
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 05:50 AM
Yes it must be difficult for a newbie to go down to a store and talk to a real live person who is able to tell them what software they need.. I must admit for some people it is hard to put a CD into the drive and then follow the on screen instructions.. oh wait,, did you forget that people buy software from stores?? Stores that have people that (sometimes) know what they are talking about and can point people in the right direction.. Or do you expect people who have never used a computer to know what a spreadsheet is, or burning software, or better yet a browser??
now I do wish that XP had a central store for freeware that would allow for the same ease when downloading software.. but if you did this for pay software you would have a monopoly.. you know what that means.. that means that they could charge you what ever they liked and you would have to either pay for it or do without.. Oh also most small developers would probably get cut as well because they wouldn't be able to pay to play..
Perhaps you should think things through before you make such a one sided statement..
now I do wish that XP had a central store for freeware that would allow for the same ease when downloading software.. but if you did this for pay software you would have a monopoly.. you know what that means.. that means that they could charge you what ever they liked and you would have to either pay for it or do without.. Oh also most small developers would probably get cut as well because they wouldn't be able to pay to play..
Perhaps you should think things through before you make such a one sided statement..
My experience is that non-techie Windows users ask their techie friends and family for help buying and installing their software. I almost never see these usual Joes installing office suites or much of anything else without help or a lot of suffering. How many times have I gone to a friends house to fix their computer to find a stack of programs they've purchased but never gotten to install? Then you get the program that is installed but has evidently been installed 10 times in an effort to get the program working. It's certainly not an easy process for most users.
Then we won't even get into uninstallation in Windows. Even experienced techies sometimes fear to try that.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Then we won't even get into uninstallation in Windows. Even experienced techies sometimes fear to try that.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Thats a good point.. but there are a lot of people who don't have techie friends.. I whole heartedly agree with you about uninstallation.. IMHO every os should act like OSX, you just drag the folder to the trash.. quick and easy.. I would love to see that in Linux..
Re:The difficulty of installing additional applica
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 08:10 AM
That would be pretty easy, but fire up Synaptic, find the program you want to uninstall, rt click and select "Mark for complete removal", hit apply.
I do think that installing in folders is a good idea and I often do that with my Linux systems. I don't like how Linux (as does Unix) installs programs split up among many directories. Instead I leave them in one place and just create links where needed in the filesystem.
Re:The difficulty of installing additional applica
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 01, 2005 09:57 PM
There have been a few attempts to do something similar to this in Linux. The ROX desktop can use such packages. I'm not sure if the binaries are generally statically linked or not (as I thing they must tend to be with Mac OSX). As to entire distributions, there is GoboLinux and early development on a RoxOS distribution that is based on the ROX Desktop. Look here for links and more information: <a href="http://rox.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">http://rox.sourceforge.net/</a sourceforge.net>
Re:The difficulty of installing additional applica
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 18, 2005 09:00 AM
although I switchded over to linux last year, I have to admit that installing software in windows is much easier. What about dependencies in linux?? If you don't have the xyz library you can't install a specific application. This means tha you have to install the required libraries etc and then install the app.
just my 2cents
just my 2cents
...ALWAYS make three left turns to make a right.
Re:The difficulty of installing additional applica
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 12:28 AM
Of my personal experience with all sorts of Windows and Linux variants, I find it much easer to install software on windows. With Windows, you double-click on the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe installer. With Linux, you have to worry about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.tar's and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gz's and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.rpm's and make file’s and port collections and compiling source, and may other's, and it's just too complex for any average user. However, your post seemed to be more directed toward finding software, which I will admit, is not always easy on Windows.
Re:The difficulty of installing additional applica
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 07:50 AM
I really can't think of any way of installing software that's easier than Synaptic. Fire up Synaptic, search for the type of program that suits your need, mark it and apply. The way you call out every single (well, almost.. no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.debs there) type of archive you'd think you have to deal with them all in all distros, which is far from the truth. Sounds like you have neglected to experience Debian in your journeys.
...finding and/or paying for enough bits and pieces to compile it and all of its dependencies can be a tedious and/or bankrupting experience.
Even when you do have enough tools to hand, you'll find that MS-Windows is a subtly (and sometimes not-so-subtly) different to everything else, which can make converting software to work with it a serious PITA compared with converting something from, say, <a href="http://hpux.connect.org.uk/" title="connect.org.uk">HP-UX</a connect.org.uk> to <a href="http://fink.sf.net/" title="sf.net">OS X</a sf.net>.
Even when you do have enough tools to hand, you'll find that MS-Windows is a subtly (and sometimes not-so-subtly) different to everything else, which can make converting software to work with it a serious PITA compared with converting something from, say, <a href="http://hpux.connect.org.uk/" title="connect.org.uk">HP-UX</a connect.org.uk> to <a href="http://fink.sf.net/" title="sf.net">OS X</a sf.net>.
Very nice article and well written. A different, but valid perspective. My only issue with the article is that I'm not entirely sure it's "humor" - since I often feel exactly as the author.
Very nice article and well written. A different, but valid perspective. My only issue with the article is that I'm not entirely sure it's "humor" - since I often feel exactly as the author.
Spot on.
I'm an average user of Windows for personal and business use moving in the other direction (a more apt description would be atteepting a breakout) I would would have completed the task by now if I didn't have a compelling need to fiddle with Linux and the installed app's, but hey, I'm an ignorant Windows user, I'm used to having to fiddle with things that inexplcitly decide not to work after the monthly umm "security" patch or weekly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.dll conflict.
For a relative noob, and if I can keep from looking in places I shouldn't, Linux will work out of the box, for eg, Mepis has everything I need to be productive, and will stay that way reliably without any more input from me.
Now all I need to do is take a big deep breath, edit grub then run QtParted over my Windows partitions. Free.
Spot on.
I'm an average user of Windows for personal and business use moving in the other direction (a more apt description would be atteepting a breakout) I would would have completed the task by now if I didn't have a compelling need to fiddle with Linux and the installed app's, but hey, I'm an ignorant Windows user, I'm used to having to fiddle with things that inexplcitly decide not to work after the monthly umm "security" patch or weekly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.dll conflict.
For a relative noob, and if I can keep from looking in places I shouldn't, Linux will work out of the box, for eg, Mepis has everything I need to be productive, and will stay that way reliably without any more input from me.
Now all I need to do is take a big deep breath, edit grub then run QtParted over my Windows partitions. Free.
A different, but valid perspective. My only issue with the article is that I'm not entirely sure it's "humor" - since I often feel exactly as the author.
Likewise! And it's not such a different perspective, really, given that a number of us seem to share it. It just depends on your breadth of knowledge.
For example, I have experience with a couple of dozen different operating systems, and so in terms of familiar system design principles, I find Linux right at the center of my comfort zone. Ever since there were desktop systems I've always had Unix on the desktop, except for a couple of interesting years with a Lisp Machine.
Then Linux comes along and gives me an even better desktop environment for free. That's pretty hard to beat. Once in awhile I look over to see what Microsoft is doing, and it always looks like several steps down for nothing much in return, especially the lack of freedom compared to Linux. The Windows user interface is not what I want, and offers very little real configurability so that I could get to be it the way I want. And whatever I do seems likely to be wiped out by the next mandatory Windows install.
Software is plentiful for Windows, but there are so many compatibility issues, security risks, license restrictions, and other traps, that on balance I feel a lot happier staying with Linux on that basis as well.
And I figure that if a software developer isn't able to port its application to multiple platforms, it can't have much of a future in the long run, and I'm already in this business for the long run. Portability gives me options, so I see an intrinsic advantage to software written for Linux. It's hard to settle for less.
Likewise! And it's not such a different perspective, really, given that a number of us seem to share it. It just depends on your breadth of knowledge.
For example, I have experience with a couple of dozen different operating systems, and so in terms of familiar system design principles, I find Linux right at the center of my comfort zone. Ever since there were desktop systems I've always had Unix on the desktop, except for a couple of interesting years with a Lisp Machine.
Then Linux comes along and gives me an even better desktop environment for free. That's pretty hard to beat. Once in awhile I look over to see what Microsoft is doing, and it always looks like several steps down for nothing much in return, especially the lack of freedom compared to Linux. The Windows user interface is not what I want, and offers very little real configurability so that I could get to be it the way I want. And whatever I do seems likely to be wiped out by the next mandatory Windows install.
Software is plentiful for Windows, but there are so many compatibility issues, security risks, license restrictions, and other traps, that on balance I feel a lot happier staying with Linux on that basis as well.
And I figure that if a software developer isn't able to port its application to multiple platforms, it can't have much of a future in the long run, and I'm already in this business for the long run. Portability gives me options, so I see an intrinsic advantage to software written for Linux. It's hard to settle for less.
"Once in a while I look over to see what Microsoft is doing, and it always looks like several steps down for nothing much in return...."
It's funny that a lot of Windows users would be completely puzzled by that statement, but I know just what you mean. In Linux you get used to being able to do whatever you want, and in Windows you just can't.
I'm not talking about "software freedom" here as in relation to the GPL and other open source licenses (although that mentality is probably related to what I am talking about). I'm talking about plain flexibility. You can make your Linux desktop work pretty much any way you want it to. It's hard to give that up once you get used to it.
On the other hand, I suppose that many Windows users would find this flexibility frightening. They would rather there was one prescribed way for everthing to work because they don't want to have to understand what they're doing. Personally, I hate doing things by rote with no understanding, but it appears to be what many want. I suppose that's what makes me a "geek."
Until XP can created virtual desktops, I don't think it is worth looking at. With the many applications we concurrently use all the time, this capability is a must. XP does not have it and I am not waiting for Longhorn to see if it might have it.
Litestep has Virtual Desktops working on Windows XP, and makes XP look, feel and act enough like Linux that is close to bearable.
There is also the powertoy for virtual desktops that microsoft provides on their windows xp website.
PowerTOY? What kind of name is this? If MS is seriuos about it, they should include it with XP.
No thanks, try again.
No thanks, try again.
Oh god, I installed that once when I was doing compliation, building, lots of file copies, AND hand-editing dozens of sprites in The Gimp. (I write cellphone games; sadly, I must use Windows at work to do this, at the moment.)
The virtual desktop Powertoy is horrible. It doesn't integrate well with the task list in the taskbar, wastes a ton of horiz. space on my taskbar to write the word "MSVDM" for apparent reason.
Any time I switch desktops, MS Visual Studio resizes itself. My desktop backgrounds disappear. Compared to ANYthing I've used on X-Window (FVWM, Sawfish, KDE/KWin), MS's solution is utterly unusable. It definitely deserves the name "toy," because it certainly didn't IMPROVE my productivity.
--
Bill Kendrick
The virtual desktop Powertoy is horrible. It doesn't integrate well with the task list in the taskbar, wastes a ton of horiz. space on my taskbar to write the word "MSVDM" for apparent reason.
Any time I switch desktops, MS Visual Studio resizes itself. My desktop backgrounds disappear. Compared to ANYthing I've used on X-Window (FVWM, Sawfish, KDE/KWin), MS's solution is utterly unusable. It definitely deserves the name "toy," because it certainly didn't IMPROVE my productivity.
--
Bill Kendrick
litestep says "Coming Soon, It's coming soon, really! Progress is being made!".
So much for that.
I am sure they will be charging for it. Tell me why should I pay for something that comes natively with Linux? are we at the point where MS is trying to catch up? It sure looks like it. I was right, XP is not ready. Hah
So much for that.
I am sure they will be charging for it. Tell me why should I pay for something that comes natively with Linux? are we at the point where MS is trying to catch up? It sure looks like it. I was right, XP is not ready. Hah
Not sure if this is a joke.
Anyway, LiteStep is GPL, and has been for the many years it has been around. It just has fairly consistent hosting problems.
So, no, you will never have to pay.
Anyway, LiteStep is GPL, and has been for the many years it has been around. It just has fairly consistent hosting problems.
So, no, you will never have to pay.
It was no joke. I really did try to look at it, and that was all what I got on their site.
Not that I care about XP or Virtual Desktop on it. I have been using Linux (Suse) at home for few years and never touched Windows, but I still have to use Windows XP at work though.
Not that I care about XP or Virtual Desktop on it. I have been using Linux (Suse) at home for few years and never touched Windows, but I still have to use Windows XP at work though.
Try:
<a href="http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php" title="ls-universe.info">http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php</a ls-universe.info>
The litestep.net site has been down for awhile. That may have been what "Coming Soon, Honest" was referring to.
<a href="http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php" title="ls-universe.info">http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php</a ls-universe.info>
The litestep.net site has been down for awhile. That may have been what "Coming Soon, Honest" was referring to.
Try:
<a href="http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php" title="ls-universe.info">http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php</a ls-universe.info>
litestep.net has been down for awhile now. Something to do with the server it was run on. THat may have been what the "Coming Soon" was for.
<a href="http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php" title="ls-universe.info">http://www.ls-universe.info/news.php</a ls-universe.info>
litestep.net has been down for awhile now. Something to do with the server it was run on. THat may have been what the "Coming Soon" was for.
bb4win gives you an even more useable interface when you're forced to use windows. I keep it on my thumb drive at all times, so I can actually find things in windows.
You have no idea how frustrating it is to press ctrl-alt-f1 on a Windows system and have nothing happen. Until Windows allows virtual consoles, it will not be ready for sysadmin use...
I am using a virtual desktops with XP all the time. There are several 3rd party solutions (most if not all commercial), but there is also one made by MS PowerToys guys and gals. Not as good as what you'd find on Linux, and background images broke at some Windows update and haven't worked since, but usable.
Re:Virtual Desktops? Look at Power Toys from MS
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 03:02 PM
It's not true virtual desktops. For instance, if you open a program that has a lot of child windows, you can't send the child windows to other desktops. I use the GIMP, and I leave the canvas on one desktop full screened, and send the child windows to another desktop in Linux and use the taskbar pager to switch back and forth. I can't do this in WindowsXP and it's frustrating having to deal with all the child windows and the canvas area on one desktop.
Windows virtual desktops are ok for some things, but it's not suitable for powerusers.
Windows virtual desktops are ok for some things, but it's not suitable for powerusers.
Re:Virtual Desktops? Look at Power Toys from MS
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 30, 2005 04:03 PM
I use The Gimp in Windows XP, and have Virtual Desktops. You can set the picture on one desktop and the other windows in another desktop. No problem.
exactly. and the lack of windowing control like "always on top" constantly buggers me when i need to see 2 or more window at the same time.
I use Linux daily (I don't touch Windows but if absolutely necesary) and I find Windows extremely useless for an average user, except the dumbs. I could not be so productive with it because you don't have so much power and applications ready to use available without downloading+installing+configuring+etc.
I often fall to understand people that still use it and fight with it to work the way it does. Probably Windows will never catch on Linux. But, who cares...
I often fall to understand people that still use it and fight with it to work the way it does. Probably Windows will never catch on Linux. But, who cares...
Uh - what have you been smoking? YES! He is kidding! Except that he's not lying about anything either... that's the best sort of parody. Articles like this one should feature in publications like Linux Format.
I disagree with that.
I use Windows commonly and I never had problems with it, I'm an infographist and I'm not sure it would be as easy under Linux to create films, make easy ads, photomanipulation and others things.
Ok Linux will fit you perfectly if you want to develop long 1 billion lines programs or anything about development.
So stop arguing on Windows like that and see first what you're looking to do with a computer instead of notoriety and a cd key of 20 letters and numbers (I thought you entered more than trillions of this for a program no ? Why are you affraid of 20 ?)
I use Windows commonly and I never had problems with it, I'm an infographist and I'm not sure it would be as easy under Linux to create films, make easy ads, photomanipulation and others things.
Ok Linux will fit you perfectly if you want to develop long 1 billion lines programs or anything about development.
So stop arguing on Windows like that and see first what you're looking to do with a computer instead of notoriety and a cd key of 20 letters and numbers (I thought you entered more than trillions of this for a program no ? Why are you affraid of 20 ?)
Linux easier to use than Windows XP? What are you smoking?
I've installed Windows XP and several variants of Linux on my laptop and desktop, and Windows is the only OS that works will all of my hardware. It's the only OS that reliably works with my ATI Radeon 9600 unless I want to stick to 2d accelaration only (though Ubuntu and Mepis worked with my laptop's 9200).
And I'm not even going to detail the absolute crap I had to go through to get my wireless card working in Linux. To date, Ubuntu is the only Linux setup that I was able to get working with my WPC54GS Cardbus card, and only when I start it with the card plugged in and the software meticulously configured. On Windows, I just plug it in whenever.
Networking, while certainly less secure in vanilla Windows, is easily remedied by using ZoneAlarm, and it's much easier to set up and use then Linux networking. It also works with Macs and Unix out of the box, something most variants of Linux don't accomplish.
Sure, the interface sucks, but thats what skins and themes are for. And they're all free. Like in Linux...
And all those product keys? It's cause most Windows software is COMMERCIAL. So they've got a vested interest in making copying difficult. But it's only a problem if you intend on using it illegally, anyway.
I'm not going to go into games, since Windows has got Linux beat in pretty much everything except price.
It all comes down to this:
While Linux is more stable and secure, it is by no means ready for the mainstream or average user, especially not compared to Windows.
I've installed Windows XP and several variants of Linux on my laptop and desktop, and Windows is the only OS that works will all of my hardware. It's the only OS that reliably works with my ATI Radeon 9600 unless I want to stick to 2d accelaration only (though Ubuntu and Mepis worked with my laptop's 9200).
And I'm not even going to detail the absolute crap I had to go through to get my wireless card working in Linux. To date, Ubuntu is the only Linux setup that I was able to get working with my WPC54GS Cardbus card, and only when I start it with the card plugged in and the software meticulously configured. On Windows, I just plug it in whenever.
Networking, while certainly less secure in vanilla Windows, is easily remedied by using ZoneAlarm, and it's much easier to set up and use then Linux networking. It also works with Macs and Unix out of the box, something most variants of Linux don't accomplish.
Sure, the interface sucks, but thats what skins and themes are for. And they're all free. Like in Linux...
And all those product keys? It's cause most Windows software is COMMERCIAL. So they've got a vested interest in making copying difficult. But it's only a problem if you intend on using it illegally, anyway.
I'm not going to go into games, since Windows has got Linux beat in pretty much everything except price.
It all comes down to this:
While Linux is more stable and secure, it is by no means ready for the mainstream or average user, especially not compared to Windows.
I've tried to install Windows XP and several variants of Linux on my SPARC box and G5.
Hell XP won't even boot.
I'm going to try an amiga next.
or maybe the Cell procesor?
Ya know, ya might just have to get compatible hardware. Linux is compatible with about 12 different processors. XP isn't.
So let's all whine about what XP won't run on!!
Hell XP won't even boot.
I'm going to try an amiga next.
or maybe the Cell procesor?
Ya know, ya might just have to get compatible hardware. Linux is compatible with about 12 different processors. XP isn't.
So let's all whine about what XP won't run on!!
Get a clue.
Maybe, but for me this article is reality.
I've never installed one driver for linux, and almost everything I use is base distro. Ati driver in xorg is good enough and yes, I installed mplayer, flash, java, liferea and inkscape. All with one yum command.
Windows? Without install driver, reboot, install driver, reboot... And so on... I would at least expect that at least something works out of base installation. Nope.
Applications? Nope.
Updates? After installing localised language pack they stoped working. My computer stops on "installing updates 1 of XXXX" and it stays there forever.
Most of the video and audio formats are unknown by default.
Decent browser? Nope.
Decent Mailer? Nope.
Calendar? Nope
Office by default? Nope.
You could also say that I can install same free applications: Firefox, Thunderbird, OO.o, Gimp, Inkscape, Codecs.... on windows to. But why bothering with downloading and installing when linux does that out of the base?
Personaly, I don't find windows usable, or better, not worth the pain of installing (I only need one windows machine for my bank and that's all). But then again my needs are directed by me and me only. So you could say I'm biased towards my self
I've never installed one driver for linux, and almost everything I use is base distro. Ati driver in xorg is good enough and yes, I installed mplayer, flash, java, liferea and inkscape. All with one yum command.
Windows? Without install driver, reboot, install driver, reboot... And so on... I would at least expect that at least something works out of base installation. Nope.
Applications? Nope.
Updates? After installing localised language pack they stoped working. My computer stops on "installing updates 1 of XXXX" and it stays there forever.
Most of the video and audio formats are unknown by default.
Decent browser? Nope.
Decent Mailer? Nope.
Calendar? Nope
Office by default? Nope.
You could also say that I can install same free applications: Firefox, Thunderbird, OO.o, Gimp, Inkscape, Codecs.... on windows to. But why bothering with downloading and installing when linux does that out of the base?
Personaly, I don't find windows usable, or better, not worth the pain of installing (I only need one windows machine for my bank and that's all). But then again my needs are directed by me and me only. So you could say I'm biased towards my self
Typical Linux fanatic propaganda. I don't have your problems. But then I know more about installing XP or any version of Windows than you've bothered to learn.
ANY version of Windows is way simpler to install and work with than Linux. Windows is a complete system, and Linux is like Windows 3.11 and DOS.
If Linux has gotten any easier to use its only been in the last year or so. Every time I've screwed with it I have WAY more problems than I ever have with Windows any version.
As far as Apps, Linux DOES NOT come with any applications. The distro maker bundles a crapload of software with the distribution. Want to figure out which applications you REALLY need, or do you want to install every blessed thing in the Distro and try and figure it out later?
You want to find software for Windows, you go pretty much anywhere on the NET and you can find something that will meet your needs that costs little to nothing. They're call Shareware and Freeware. All you have to do is look.
Want to customize a Windows install? You can, with all the drivers you need for your system.
If you spent more time learning the system, instead of finding fault your oppinion might make more sense.
ANY version of Windows is way simpler to install and work with than Linux. Windows is a complete system, and Linux is like Windows 3.11 and DOS.
If Linux has gotten any easier to use its only been in the last year or so. Every time I've screwed with it I have WAY more problems than I ever have with Windows any version.
As far as Apps, Linux DOES NOT come with any applications. The distro maker bundles a crapload of software with the distribution. Want to figure out which applications you REALLY need, or do you want to install every blessed thing in the Distro and try and figure it out later?
You want to find software for Windows, you go pretty much anywhere on the NET and you can find something that will meet your needs that costs little to nothing. They're call Shareware and Freeware. All you have to do is look.
Want to customize a Windows install? You can, with all the drivers you need for your system.
If you spent more time learning the system, instead of finding fault your oppinion might make more sense.
Geeze, such excitement. I have used almost every system known to man in one form or another. In general, they have something that they suck at. Linux has been hard to install in the past but with the newer versions availiable they are nearly self installing (Knoppix)(Thin Linux). Windows XP is generally easy to install if you have hardware that is compatible, I get bugs on even very basic stuff on occassion. The main trick is stability and networking. I have had major windows lockups with the computer idle, I have had registry decay to the point of uselessnes without any new apps being installed or viralinfection. I have applications that seize, lock up, spit up, etc with out any errors in the logs beyond the crash. I have networking systems that are online, no errors one day, and totally useless the next with all systems checking as just fine per XP. And these are XP to XP networks. I do not have these rpoblems with any of the flavors on Unix or Linux systems that I maintain. They were longer/harder to install and took a bit more reading but I never have had to do it again...once configured, it was done. I rarely have to check the web for hints to correct Linux bugs, but I do a lot of searching for XP hints. Now the apps and games...people write better stuff for XP, though in truth the best are writing fot the base kernel in the OS that we call directX that allows the app to remove XP from the equation and speak to the hardware directly. And of course with that being the case we move to the last buaboo...security. If you like your data secure, your work does not involve games, and you don't like having to buy Zone Alarm Pro to secure your seive...go with a Unix/Linux based system. There is a serious reason why peripherals for networking are running Linux internally...it is secure, it is rock solid stable, it is small, and it is easy to interface with via netready scripting.
"It's cause most Windows software is COMMERCIAL. So they've got a vested interest in making copying difficult"
You don't need a product key for MySQL and it is "commercial"
You don't need a product key for MySQL and it is "commercial"
Actually MySQL is as FREE(free beer and Free speech) as linux, it even comes licensed under the GPL
Dude, he said use not installation
Windows is a royal pain in the ass to use -- unless you're very used to it. Menus are illogically laid out and the help is usually wrong and the right answer is found only on some expensive database.
Installation is another area where Windows loses. Sure some hardware has only Windows drivers, but on the many hardwares that support linux (or is supported by linux) the installation is much, much more streamlined and problem free.
"Dude, he said use not installation"
I beg to differ.
Given the number of times people have to re-install XP (Windows in general) due to problems that can only be solved by re-installing, I would say Use includes installation.
With liveCDs from mepis, 15 minutes and you are done upgrading/installing.
Any one can do that with XP? I think not.
I beg to differ.
Given the number of times people have to re-install XP (Windows in general) due to problems that can only be solved by re-installing, I would say Use includes installation.
With liveCDs from mepis, 15 minutes and you are done upgrading/installing.
Any one can do that with XP? I think not.
Given the number of times people have to re-install XP
I hope they don't improve that situation any time soon, quite a bit of my business is wiping and re-installing XP for my client's. If I lock down the WS they whine that I charge to come out and install stuff for them. They just accept that re-installing XP every six months or so is normal.
Look up unattended on sourceforge and set yourself up an unattended install server. Reinstalls are a breeze and will include all updates and any extra packages you want. It takes linux to make windows installs almost as easy as linux.
Didn't know Linux makes ghost. Symantec ghost is a breeze to reinstall desktops.
You don't need a Linux server, just a floppy disk.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 01, 2005 06:55 AM
Tools for setting up automatic installations are included with windows.
<a href="http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314459" title="microsoft.com">http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314459</a microsoft.com>
<a href="http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314459" title="microsoft.com">http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314459</a microsoft.com>
I've installed Windows XP and several variants of Linux on my laptop and desktop, and Windows is the only OS that works will all of my hardware.
I wouldn't know about my hardware since I only run Linux on it. However... there are certain areas (wireless lan cards and winmodems which are known problem areas). In most of these cases, if it is not a laptop, most end users won't bother to install the hardware themselves anyway so this is not really an issue.
And all those product keys? It's cause most Windows software is COMMERCIAL. So they've got a vested interest in making copying difficult. But it's only a problem if you intend on using it illegally, anyway.
One of my customers recently migrated to Linux because of the product key issue. Basically their Windows XP installationb became corrupted and they lost their product key and certificate of authenticity. When faced with the choice of buying *another* copy or migrating to Linux, they chose Linux. They are happy with it despite the fact that they are typical end users. They are running Fedora Core 3.
I have watched many people who are computer novices work with Linux and Windows. Complete novices find Linux at least as easy to use. It is the intermediate users such as yourself who run into difficulty because they are used to windows.
Moral of the story is whatever is unfamiliar is hard to use.
I wouldn't know about my hardware since I only run Linux on it. However... there are certain areas (wireless lan cards and winmodems which are known problem areas). In most of these cases, if it is not a laptop, most end users won't bother to install the hardware themselves anyway so this is not really an issue.
And all those product keys? It's cause most Windows software is COMMERCIAL. So they've got a vested interest in making copying difficult. But it's only a problem if you intend on using it illegally, anyway.
One of my customers recently migrated to Linux because of the product key issue. Basically their Windows XP installationb became corrupted and they lost their product key and certificate of authenticity. When faced with the choice of buying *another* copy or migrating to Linux, they chose Linux. They are happy with it despite the fact that they are typical end users. They are running Fedora Core 3.
I have watched many people who are computer novices work with Linux and Windows. Complete novices find Linux at least as easy to use. It is the intermediate users such as yourself who run into difficulty because they are used to windows.
Moral of the story is whatever is unfamiliar is hard to use.
"moral of the story is whatever is unfamiliar is hard to use."
I think you just said the smartest thing yet. And you're absolutely right.
I'm not a novice. i'm not an ubertechie either. i'm the happy middle ground i'd like to call "computer inclined"
I use windows. always have. right now i'm on xp professional SP2. i have had NO problems with it. sure, sometimes i have to grap drivers for some of the random hardware i pick up, but that's fine with me.
I've also started playing with linux (mandrake 10.1). i can barely do anything with it. i can do enough to go online and use gaim and check my email. but not much past that. but i KNOW that's just because i'm unfamiliar with it.
if i had the time and motivation to learn it, i could be just as proficient and productive with linux as xp. and someday, i'll get there.
i personally think the whole linux vs windows debate is kinda like driving an automatic vs a stick shift. THEY BOTH DO THE JOB. they both have strengths and weaknesses. there's always going to be things you can do on linux that you can't on windows. and vice versa.
I think you just said the smartest thing yet. And you're absolutely right.
I'm not a novice. i'm not an ubertechie either. i'm the happy middle ground i'd like to call "computer inclined"
I use windows. always have. right now i'm on xp professional SP2. i have had NO problems with it. sure, sometimes i have to grap drivers for some of the random hardware i pick up, but that's fine with me.
I've also started playing with linux (mandrake 10.1). i can barely do anything with it. i can do enough to go online and use gaim and check my email. but not much past that. but i KNOW that's just because i'm unfamiliar with it.
if i had the time and motivation to learn it, i could be just as proficient and productive with linux as xp. and someday, i'll get there.
i personally think the whole linux vs windows debate is kinda like driving an automatic vs a stick shift. THEY BOTH DO THE JOB. they both have strengths and weaknesses. there's always going to be things you can do on linux that you can't on windows. and vice versa.
>but i KNOW that's just because i'm unfamiliar with it
You will like Windows because you are unfamiliar with Linux.
>>i personally think the whole linux vs windows debate is kinda like driving an automatic vs a stick shift. THEY BOTH DO THE JOB. they both have strengths and weaknesses. there's always going to be things you can do on linux that you can't on windows. and vice versa.
Unfortunatly what you can do with Linux is for greater than that you can do with Windows XP.
Sorry dude, Linux wins the heart and minds of so many people and government.
One day you will ask if this product from Microsoft is compatible with Linux (OSS) thingi. Better be prepared now than loose out.
You will like Windows because you are unfamiliar with Linux.
>>i personally think the whole linux vs windows debate is kinda like driving an automatic vs a stick shift. THEY BOTH DO THE JOB. they both have strengths and weaknesses. there's always going to be things you can do on linux that you can't on windows. and vice versa.
Unfortunatly what you can do with Linux is for greater than that you can do with Windows XP.
Sorry dude, Linux wins the heart and minds of so many people and government.
One day you will ask if this product from Microsoft is compatible with Linux (OSS) thingi. Better be prepared now than loose out.
It's the only OS that reliably works with my ATI Radeon 9600 unless I want to stick to 2d accelaration only (though Ubuntu and Mepis worked with my laptop's 9200).
I have a laptop with a Mobility 9000 (M9) and a 64-bit desktop with a 9800XT (and yes, it's running in 64-bit mode) and both work more than well enough for me. There are occasional problems, but they are few and far between given that my usage patterns aren't non-typical - hey, I can play Doom 3 under Linux on my desktop, a 32-bit app, at the same speed as under Windows 2000 Pro on the same machine, and without jumping through hoops to do it (I use gentoo; just "emerge" it and insert the CDs as requested).
ATI's proprietary drivers aren't perfect, but they've come a long way; their imperfection isn't a "Linux issue" as they're closed source, and there's nothing stopping you from installing them on any distro you like! You sound as if you've been sticking to using open-source drivers, which do indeed have poor/non-working 3D acceleration on some cards (again ATI are at least partly to blame for not providing specs to the community).
And I'm not even going to detail the absolute crap I had to go through to get my wireless card working in Linux.
I have a laptop with a Netgear WG511 PCMCIA card. I had to wait a little while for the necessary drivers to mature, admittedly, but these days, they're included in the kernel, and I have no problem whatsoever just plugging the thing in and out as I please.
Networking capabilities in Linux in general are a great boon to me - I'm a computer science student and make frequent use of Ethereal to debug network-enabled coursework. In fact, with the wealth and easy obtainability of programming languages and tools available FREE OF CHARGE (this is important to students!) for Linux (including interpreted ones such as Python, which one can just pop open at the command line, harkening back to the days of BASIC on my Acorn<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) ), Linux as a whole has proved invaluable.
Networking, while certainly less secure in vanilla Windows,
This is - or maybe I should say "was", in the pre-SP2 days, but the reality is not everyone's running XP SP2, and it's still only a maybe - probably a bigger issue than you realise. But of course it depends on where the machine is, and how it's being used.
and it's much easier to set up and use then Linux networking. It also works with Macs and Unix out of the box, something most variants of Linux don't accomplish.
I don't know what you're getting at here. I just popped over to <a href="http://packages.gentoo.org/" title="gentoo.org">http://packages.gentoo.org/</a gentoo.org> (the package database site for my distro of choice), typed in "firewall", and a few seconds later i'm at the site of firestarter (<a href="http://www.fs-security.com/" title="fs-security.com">http://www.fs-security.com/</a fs-security.com>), a graphical firewall configurator with what appears to be a GTK2 interface - so it'll integrate quite nicely with my Gnome desktop, thanks. Oh, and Gnome already comes with a configurator for network cards and services, just not the firewall itself AFAIK.
Also, Linux can be installed on many more processor types than Windows, INCLUDING Macs, and almost anything for which there exists a UNIX variant. The latter part of your comment really does make no sense to me.
I have a laptop with a Mobility 9000 (M9) and a 64-bit desktop with a 9800XT (and yes, it's running in 64-bit mode) and both work more than well enough for me. There are occasional problems, but they are few and far between given that my usage patterns aren't non-typical - hey, I can play Doom 3 under Linux on my desktop, a 32-bit app, at the same speed as under Windows 2000 Pro on the same machine, and without jumping through hoops to do it (I use gentoo; just "emerge" it and insert the CDs as requested).
ATI's proprietary drivers aren't perfect, but they've come a long way; their imperfection isn't a "Linux issue" as they're closed source, and there's nothing stopping you from installing them on any distro you like! You sound as if you've been sticking to using open-source drivers, which do indeed have poor/non-working 3D acceleration on some cards (again ATI are at least partly to blame for not providing specs to the community).
And I'm not even going to detail the absolute crap I had to go through to get my wireless card working in Linux.
I have a laptop with a Netgear WG511 PCMCIA card. I had to wait a little while for the necessary drivers to mature, admittedly, but these days, they're included in the kernel, and I have no problem whatsoever just plugging the thing in and out as I please.
Networking capabilities in Linux in general are a great boon to me - I'm a computer science student and make frequent use of Ethereal to debug network-enabled coursework. In fact, with the wealth and easy obtainability of programming languages and tools available FREE OF CHARGE (this is important to students!) for Linux (including interpreted ones such as Python, which one can just pop open at the command line, harkening back to the days of BASIC on my Acorn<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) ), Linux as a whole has proved invaluable.
Networking, while certainly less secure in vanilla Windows,
This is - or maybe I should say "was", in the pre-SP2 days, but the reality is not everyone's running XP SP2, and it's still only a maybe - probably a bigger issue than you realise. But of course it depends on where the machine is, and how it's being used.
and it's much easier to set up and use then Linux networking. It also works with Macs and Unix out of the box, something most variants of Linux don't accomplish.
I don't know what you're getting at here. I just popped over to <a href="http://packages.gentoo.org/" title="gentoo.org">http://packages.gentoo.org/</a gentoo.org> (the package database site for my distro of choice), typed in "firewall", and a few seconds later i'm at the site of firestarter (<a href="http://www.fs-security.com/" title="fs-security.com">http://www.fs-security.com/</a fs-security.com>), a graphical firewall configurator with what appears to be a GTK2 interface - so it'll integrate quite nicely with my Gnome desktop, thanks. Oh, and Gnome already comes with a configurator for network cards and services, just not the firewall itself AFAIK.
Also, Linux can be installed on many more processor types than Windows, INCLUDING Macs, and almost anything for which there exists a UNIX variant. The latter part of your comment really does make no sense to me.
To the contrary, it's only a problem if you intend to use it legally. That is, if you store all the manuals and CD cases with numbers on/in them in a place where you'll still find them in three years, and whenever a number is requested you dig it out and meticulously copy it to the form. If any arbitrary valid key will do, you just apply a crack or paste in the number from a keygen or serials database.And all those product keys? It's cause most Windows software is COMMERCIAL. So they've got a vested interest in making copying difficult. But it's only a problem if you intend on using it illegally, anyway.
I've used both Mandrake and Ubuntu. Both distros picked up my GeForce 4 (not cutting edge, but I like openGL screensavers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) ) and picked up both my network cards. They were ready to use as soon as I specified their IP/netmask/gateway. Linux also picks up my onboard C-Media sound.
Windows XP uses nasty generic drivers for my graphics card, so that even dragging windows about makes a nasty mess. It won't use either of my NIC's unless I manually specify a MAC address for them.
And as for sound? Not a sausage. Absolutely nothing unless I downloaded a 21Mb driver for it.
Windows is also very slow and unstable. Browsing the local network or even opening my My Documents folder causes Explorer to hang for minutes, leaving it entirely unusable. I have NEVER had such problems with linux.
In short, I'd be pretty pissed off if I'd paid £250 or however much they want for windows these days.
Windows XP uses nasty generic drivers for my graphics card, so that even dragging windows about makes a nasty mess. It won't use either of my NIC's unless I manually specify a MAC address for them.
And as for sound? Not a sausage. Absolutely nothing unless I downloaded a 21Mb driver for it.
Windows is also very slow and unstable. Browsing the local network or even opening my My Documents folder causes Explorer to hang for minutes, leaving it entirely unusable. I have NEVER had such problems with linux.
In short, I'd be pretty pissed off if I'd paid £250 or however much they want for windows these days.
Windows is about £80 at my local store and a driver for a sound card is NOT 21MB! The driver will come with bundled software for use with your soundcard. You should be given the choice if you want to install that software though. The driver itself will be very small and should be downloadable on its own.
BTW I HATE LINUX! Linux is not as easy to use for the novice or even average user as windows, not by a long shot and twice on sundays!
And yes, lets not even go into the software for each, i goto my PC World and what software do i see, Windows software, how many linux software apps do i see NOT 1!! Get the message will ya and just stop flogging your dead horse!
BTW I HATE LINUX! Linux is not as easy to use for the novice or even average user as windows, not by a long shot and twice on sundays!
And yes, lets not even go into the software for each, i goto my PC World and what software do i see, Windows software, how many linux software apps do i see NOT 1!! Get the message will ya and just stop flogging your dead horse!
You know why there's no Linux software in the stores?
Because you can download it for FREE off of the internet!
If I want an IM client, i just fire up Synaptic, and search on the protocols name, selects, and synaptics downloads, configures and installs the software.
Of course, this is in most cases not nescesary, 'cause it's bundled with the OS, when it's installed!
If I want an office suite, thats installed too. For FREE!
What more do you want to use? Office, browser, email client, IM clients, news readers, ftp client, media player?
EVERYTHING is with the OS!
Because you can download it for FREE off of the internet!
If I want an IM client, i just fire up Synaptic, and search on the protocols name, selects, and synaptics downloads, configures and installs the software.
Of course, this is in most cases not nescesary, 'cause it's bundled with the OS, when it's installed!
If I want an office suite, thats installed too. For FREE!
What more do you want to use? Office, browser, email client, IM clients, news readers, ftp client, media player?
EVERYTHING is with the OS!
Matlab, Maple, Mathematica, MCS adams, MS remote desktop, FEMLAB, FLUENT, LabView, CPLEX, ANSYS, Mentor Graphics suite, Synopsis suite, and Maya. I use one or more of these in a given day all on RH linux. Hmmm, as an engineer I don't see myself starved for software. The software available to me on Linux is pretty much the same software available on MS. I wonder why that is. I wonder why businesses are moving to linux. I wonder why there is enough corporate support for linux to justify porting some of the most advanced engineering software to linux. Hmmmm I wonder.
Keep reading PC world if you like. Heck, keep the wool over your eyes about Linux software based on adds you see in a consumer level monthly rag. I will read my linux magazines and continue being productive at work. Many of the abve programs run faster under Linux BTW.
Keep your little shill of a magazine and your video games while I and the other big boys design your cars and boats and planes on Linux/Unix systems.
Keep reading PC world if you like. Heck, keep the wool over your eyes about Linux software based on adds you see in a consumer level monthly rag. I will read my linux magazines and continue being productive at work. Many of the abve programs run faster under Linux BTW.
Keep your little shill of a magazine and your video games while I and the other big boys design your cars and boats and planes on Linux/Unix systems.
"Windows is about £80 at my local store and a driver for a sound card is NOT 21MB!"
XP Pro is certainly more than 80, oh wait, are you using XP Home? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! What a piece of garbage. As far as the sound drivers, how about this...
<a href="http://www.download.com/Turtle-Beach-Santa-Cruz-Driver/3000-2120_4-10199395.html" title="download.com">http://www.download.com/Turtle-Beach-Santa-Cruz-D<nobr>r<wbr></nobr> iver/3000-2120_4-10199395.html</a download.com>
THAT is what I have to download if I need my soundcard to work in Windows.
BTW I HATE WINDOWS (AND MICROSOFT).. see, anyone can do that, you're not special. Windows is not easy to use for the novice or even average user, as can be seen by the number of *owned* windows pc's out there. Linux is just as easy to use as windows, unless you're of the brainwashed masses that can't get their 2 brain cells wrapped around the idea that there are different.. not neccessarily harder, but different ways things can be done.
"And yes, lets not even go into the software for each, i goto my PC World and what software do i see, Windows software, how many linux software apps do i see NOT 1!!"
I don't have to go *anywhere* to get all the software I want or need for Linux. Linux software doesn't HAVE to be advertised or promoted, as a simple search for name or keywords pertaining to the application within a simple to use app such as synaptic will give you many choices which can be automatically installed with one click of the "Apply" button.
Get the message will ya, Windows sucks. Even with their almost unlimited funds, and huge warchest they can't touch what the community brings to you for free.
XP Pro is certainly more than 80, oh wait, are you using XP Home? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! What a piece of garbage. As far as the sound drivers, how about this...
<a href="http://www.download.com/Turtle-Beach-Santa-Cruz-Driver/3000-2120_4-10199395.html" title="download.com">http://www.download.com/Turtle-Beach-Santa-Cruz-D<nobr>r<wbr></nobr> iver/3000-2120_4-10199395.html</a download.com>
THAT is what I have to download if I need my soundcard to work in Windows.
BTW I HATE WINDOWS (AND MICROSOFT).. see, anyone can do that, you're not special. Windows is not easy to use for the novice or even average user, as can be seen by the number of *owned* windows pc's out there. Linux is just as easy to use as windows, unless you're of the brainwashed masses that can't get their 2 brain cells wrapped around the idea that there are different.. not neccessarily harder, but different ways things can be done.
"And yes, lets not even go into the software for each, i goto my PC World and what software do i see, Windows software, how many linux software apps do i see NOT 1!!"
I don't have to go *anywhere* to get all the software I want or need for Linux. Linux software doesn't HAVE to be advertised or promoted, as a simple search for name or keywords pertaining to the application within a simple to use app such as synaptic will give you many choices which can be automatically installed with one click of the "Apply" button.
Get the message will ya, Windows sucks. Even with their almost unlimited funds, and huge warchest they can't touch what the community brings to you for free.
That page says 20.8 megabytes, not 21! D'oh! You Linux zealots are all the same, always painting MS Windows in the worst possible light!
Deem <grin/duck/run> included
Deem <grin/duck/run> included
XP Pro is £80 or LESS - there aren't that many differences between XP Home and Pro anyway - Remote Desktop and Domain Joining and server capabilities.
PC World is a shop, not a magasine for adverts.
PC World is a shop, not a magasine for adverts.
Get some more experience before foot-in-mouthing
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 29, 2005 09:27 AM
I have pulled down a sound-card driver for XP which was 28 (not 21!) megabytes and that was just the driver, no bundled apps. I have also pulled down an XP printer driver (maybe for a Lanier?) and that was just mind-boggling, something like 47 megabytes for just the driver - that is, bigger than an entire Linux kernel! I accuse BMP images in the DLLs with the absence of useful compression.
KDE is easier to use for computer illiterates than MS-Windows. What makes it seem hard for you is having to un-learn all of the bad habits you picked up from ages of doing things the dumb way (or ways, given how much MS's UIs have changed over the years).
What you're actually hating is the sensation of looking and feeling like a dumbass, and your comment here didn't help that little problem at all. Swallow your pride, take an objective, un-panicked look at the two systems and you might come to a different conclusion.
KDE is easier to use for computer illiterates than MS-Windows. What makes it seem hard for you is having to un-learn all of the bad habits you picked up from ages of doing things the dumb way (or ways, given how much MS's UIs have changed over the years).
What you're actually hating is the sensation of looking and feeling like a dumbass, and your comment here didn't help that little problem at all. Swallow your pride, take an objective, un-panicked look at the two systems and you might come to a different conclusion.
It might be easier to use for you, but I know that I dumped Windows back in 3.11 days for general used and have stuck to Linux and some BSD since then, and frankly, to me, Windows certainly ins't easier to use. I've always had more hardware problems with Windows than with Linux. It's true that configuring hardware was often less user friendly in Linux than in Windows (read less clicking involved), however problems were much clearer (i.e. errors were usually spelled out instead of labeled as "0x94368D" which probably isn't documented anywhere apart from the source code anyway) and easier to fix (documentation was provided, no calling "pay by the minute" call centres was involved).
I still usually keep a small Windows partition on my main machine for gaming and it usually works well enough for that (after I've gotten the system to work which can be a problem given the obscurity of it). But working in Windows is really too painful given the lack of decent tools in that environment.
Of course as a long time sysadmin, I also have to deal with Windows problems on a regular basis and between the fact that each version changes the way things are done and that there is no documentation with the system (even in the so-called "professional" versions) makes it very difficult to use indeed. Luckily nowadays most of my activity is tearing those down so it's not too bad.
I agree that I'm definitely not representative of a random user, but then a random user never gets to use the system. All he'll ever see are a couple applications. Whether they run in Windows or Linux, or AmigaOS, most of them probably would never notice if the widgets looked the same...
I install a lot of office workstations for "random users" and they manage just fine (or let's say the same as they used to in Windows, except that there's less breakage involved). Of course they don't do any administration of their machines. But then they didn't do any administration of Windows machines either.
In the end only very experienced users actually care what the system is. Others don't care and probably won't notice.
Run Windows if you want t
I still usually keep a small Windows partition on my main machine for gaming and it usually works well enough for that (after I've gotten the system to work which can be a problem given the obscurity of it). But working in Windows is really too painful given the lack of decent tools in that environment.
Of course as a long time sysadmin, I also have to deal with Windows problems on a regular basis and between the fact that each version changes the way things are done and that there is no documentation with the system (even in the so-called "professional" versions) makes it very difficult to use indeed. Luckily nowadays most of my activity is tearing those down so it's not too bad.
I agree that I'm definitely not representative of a random user, but then a random user never gets to use the system. All he'll ever see are a couple applications. Whether they run in Windows or Linux, or AmigaOS, most of them probably would never notice if the widgets looked the same...
I install a lot of office workstations for "random users" and they manage just fine (or let's say the same as they used to in Windows, except that there's less breakage involved). Of course they don't do any administration of their machines. But then they didn't do any administration of Windows machines either.
In the end only very experienced users actually care what the system is. Others don't care and probably won't notice.
Run Windows if you want t
Still has unfriendly UI widgets
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2005 02:38 AMstill requires much manual snoopervision (and the
associated dexterity) to keep the mouse-pointer
inside that itty-bitty narrow track.
A scrollbar-handle should understand its function
and know that "down is down", like friendlier
X-windows based widgets have for the last fifteen
years.
Until Microsoft can get user-friendly widget
behavior, it should not be considered for home
or non-specialist use.
#