PDA

View Full Version : A nice read for those willing to spend money on getting to run Vista



TioDuke
30 Jan 2007, 6:50 PM
Here's a series of articles I found about a comparison between Vista and one of Linux's flavours:

A Vista vs. Linux Matchup - Part 1: Leveling the Playing Field (http://desktoplinux.com/articles/AT9727687530.html)
A Vista vs. Linux Matchup - Part 2: Dual-Booting Vista and Linux (http://desktoplinux.com/articles/AT2094892904.html)

To be continued...

Nice reading!

andrewabc
30 Jan 2007, 7:07 PM
I bought a computer halfway through this January, simply because I did not want to get stuck with windows Vista (I was looking for a computer for a month). Windows XP works just fine.
I don't want to upgrade to an OS that will slow the speed of programs and applications just to get some eye candy.
Maybe in 3 years, vista will be good enough as hardware will have increased, and vista bugs removed.

The amount of preinstalled crap on my computer I just bought was amazing. I still havn't gotten rid of some of it as I have no idea what it is. Long list of startup items in msconfig. Also it installed 60 day trial of norton, that was the first thing to go. I don't understand why people even pirate norton anymore.

Lastwebpage
30 Jan 2007, 7:28 PM
Ask yourself,
if Linux would be so great, why no-one use it?
Please not this stupid argument "Windows is preinstalled on all PCs..."

moredhel
30 Jan 2007, 7:38 PM
to be honest, it's stating the obvious.

1) Software support - corporate companies don't make software for it.

2) Hardware/Driver support - they don't make drivers for their hardware for linux, so the community has to do it themselves; which takes longer and may not be as good. Although saying this, hardware is very good on linux now (except wireless routers still take some work to set up), and knoppix linux actually has better hardware support than winXP.

3) Games - The mass majority of gaming companies don't make games for linux.

Reasons for this to happen:

1) MS got there first - Funny really, windows started off being so successful because they were the cheaper alternative to macs - ironic really ;)

2) Direct X, open gl was already around, and very nice, but MS had to bring their own out... open gl is much easier to work with in linux, for the obvious reasons.

4) The self perpetuating circle:

No software/games, no one uses. if no one uses, the software/games are made

5) Used to - Once using windows, they find changing difficult, or don't realise the advantages and disadvantages of moving to *nix or Mac (or any other OS)

6) Don't trust - They want to feel 'greeted', as I the companies _want_ you to use their products, 'cause they get cash for it; in the OSS community, they aren't wanting you to, but they will help you use it, and people feel they need the coporate support of the likes of MS. Although saying that, lately there have been more and more support companies for various linux distros.

I personally use Linux for everything, and windows only for the games I play that don't run through WINE. The mass customization of linux is great, but at the same time can be very simple, so less advanced users, and new users can easily still use.

Drugwash
30 Jan 2007, 7:57 PM
Yes, interesting, but not as much as this one (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt), maybe.
Problem is I could not check the integrity of the Ubuntu 6.10 CD on my system, as it gave me a HDD cache error while running disk integrity check. This happened on the P III machine, while on the 200MHz machine it did complete the check (the very same CD) but it froze while running from the CD (in live mode) and it didn't detect my serial mouse (that mobo for some reason does not have IRQ 12 available, so PS/2 mouse is dead).
I do not have Vista-compatible hardware, but current Linux distros seem to have already ditched old hardware or they have big issues detecting it. Worth mentioning is that K/Ubuntu 6.06 did work on the P III machine previously, in live mode, although Ubuntu was quickly freezing the system while Kubuntu has been running for hours without problems.

I feel Vista will drastically change lives of computer users especially because of DX10 applications (think of games first of all) that will force people to upgrade only because "this application only runs on Vista".

Average user has no idea of what a file/folder is, how it can be accessed/modified and other similar issues. MS will control their machines and they (machine owners) won't have a clue. But they'll have a nice GUI... :-) Aero... Wow!

Wasn't it Albert Einstein saying that universe and people's stupidy are infinite... or something? ;-)

TioDuke
30 Jan 2007, 8:56 PM
@moredhel:

I agree with you partially. Things have changed a lot lately. As an example, major companies have been releasing their software for linux platforms for quite a long time now: companies like IBM, Oracle, Sun among others. And not only those but some other (smaller) companies are doing the same (I can think of Real and Opera). However, you are right if you talk about top Adobe products like Photoshop.
On the other hand, we know that important OS projects as Apache (top in the server world), Mozilla and OpenOffice find in Linux their natural environment.

About drivers, take a look at those articles and you'll find out that Vista is expected to have more trouble than Linux (btw, Linux is improving a lot on this; the kernel community has recently offered to give all the support companies need to create their drivers for Linux; let's cross our fingers).

About gaming, you should give Cedega a try: I have heard really great things about the new version. People claim that they are able to run and take full advantage of their graphics' hardware better than in any windows version (and faster).


Ask yourself,
if Linux would be so great, why no-one use it?
Please not this stupid argument "Windows is preinstalled on all PCs..."

First of all, I do run Linux as my sole desktop OS. I am somebody, then that makes the "no-one" statement absolutely false.
Second. Sorry to say this, but it is still a valid argument. Most people I know are not able to install neither Linux nor Windows. They just use whatever they have installed in their PCs when they buy it.
And let me ask you a question: why do people continue to drink coke or to smoke if they already know it is not good for their health? As Drugwash already said, I can only think about stupidity fueled up by the Marketing machine.

Microslap is just a big marketing machine that sells software they stole or buy from others. They owe their position to the fact that at the beginning they tolerated piracy. That was their best distribution channel at that moment. It is clear that they do not need it anymore, and with the current version, they are trying to kill it out. Fine for me! I am happy they do: that will contribute to the eroding process that has already begun. The people I know that can afford a Mac are already buying one. The rest will either go for Linux or continue to use Windows and complain about it

andrewabc
30 Jan 2007, 9:01 PM
My computer barely meets Vista premium requirements, and I just bought it this month. The thing that holds it back is the Intel integrated graphics.
Not that I'd waste tonnes of CPU/GPU to make the computer look nice. The Aero might be worthwhile when hardware is sufficient in several years.

TioDuke
30 Jan 2007, 9:32 PM
The Aero might be worthwhile when hardware is sufficient in several years.

The funny thing is that you need not wait: Aero is ms' attempt to catch up with Mac Os' Acqua style, and even the same can be achieved (and without expending more money) on Linux if you use Xgl. This is yesterday's technology, nothing new. The fact that winblows is catching up, doesn't make it any newer.

andrewabc
30 Jan 2007, 9:56 PM
I hear Vista incorporates RSS into the OS. I thought RSS came out 6 years ago? :P
That's what happens when an OS is released every 6 years. I think Linux model of releasing new releases every year or 6 months is good, as it is kept up to date and only incremental modifications, so easier to find and solve bugs.

erik
31 Jan 2007, 12:25 AM
I waited two, three years to install XP, and I will do the same with Vista. *nix is not an alternative, as it's useless for me as a "consumer". To me XP Pro SP2 is the best OS there is.
I work with XP, OS X and different *nix flavours (I use at least two OS's every day), and XP is what I prefer.
But I don't mind if you prefer *nix. If you say OS X - well, then I'll have to come over and slap you. :P

Lastwebpage
31 Jan 2007, 12:30 AM
very curio but I hear the same reasons for linux versus Windows, since, hmmmh, ten years?

TioDuke
31 Jan 2007, 1:55 AM
The main reason why you've been hearing the same arguments for more than 10 years is that those explanations are still valid now.

BTW, here's a little video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFlgkTx9QYo&mode=related&search=) featuring some of Linux' capabilities. It is neither the newest video nor the latest Linux out there, but it serves to show some of the things you can get for free (as in beer and as in freedom).
It basically shows an Ubuntu installation with Gnome as window manager. The 3D desktop effect is achieved with Beryl (and/or Xgl). There are some gaming scenes (Quake III), CD/DVD authoring (btw, did you know that Vista Home is not DVD writing capable?), word processing, some design, etc.

andrewabc
31 Jan 2007, 5:22 AM
I was gonna take the test drive to see what excel 2007 offered over 2003, but it says it requires IE to run. I'm to lazy to open IE and get viruses. To bad they couldn't build websites compatible with standards.
link (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/suites/HA101687261033.aspx)

Apparently my new computer has MS windows XP professional. I thought other parts said MS media center edition, I know it comes with the media software, but not sure if it has any use over the other normal applications.

Lastwebpage
31 Jan 2007, 9:41 AM
@TioDuke, so please tell me, why you use a WINDOWS BASED Multimessenger Miranda IM?

@Andrewabc,
that's another myth in my opinon, I use the IE, sometimes with Maxthon, sine I use internet, I never get any virus, trojans, malware only from the browser.
(If I download something and execute it, thats not a browser problem...)

To make the things clearly, I am not a friend of all MS things, but this people who tell me since some years why Linux is so much better, everywhere, should ask why only a few people use it.

nowotny
31 Jan 2007, 1:05 PM
so please tell me, why you use a WINDOWS BASED Multimessenger Miranda IM?

Because there is no other multiprotocol IM that would even come close to Miranda... the system of origin is a side issue...


this people who tell me since some years why Linux is so much better, everywhere, should ask why only a few people use it.

Because this is an untrue generalisation... You should ask yourself another question: I so little people are using it, how come it's still developed...? Can you answer me that...?

TioDuke
31 Jan 2007, 2:12 PM
@TioDuke, so please tell me, why you use a WINDOWS BASED Multimessenger Miranda IM?

The main reason is that I am really fond of it and of the people in this community. It is true that it has many more features than other multiprotocol messenger out there (close or open).
Just to help you get the picture: when I definitevely switched to Linux the only thing I missed during the first week was Miranda. Really! Not any other single thing.
Fortunately for me Peter Lemenkov had already started his linux's port project, and one day of that first week, I can remember this as it was yesterday, one of the most distinguished members in this community (JDGordon) saw me online on ICQ using Kopete (which by the way is fine but doesn't get close to MIM to my personal likings) and told me to take a look at both a page where somebody explained how to get to run Miranda with WINE and to Peter's page. I gave both a try and prefered Peter's port. Now, my contribution to this community and to Linux' is trying to help making Miranda work on Linux.

The greatest thing about Miranda, besides its high level of customisation, is that's open source. That makes the port to Linux' possible (that and the fact that there is a WINE project that ports WIN32's API in its winelib). You may not like this but I found Miranda closer to Linux than it is to windows (even if it was developed with exclusively windows in mind): Linux as Miranda allows for the maximum level of customisation you can imagine, it is open source and developed and maintained by volunteers. Linux as Miranda can be extended as much as you want it. There are possibly no limits for both of them.

Now let me ask you somehing: why does a closed source advocate prefer an open source IM like Miranda to any closed source one? That has always been a mistery for me.


but this people who tell me since some years why Linux is so much better, everywhere, should ask why only a few people use it.
BTW, you use Linux more than you want to admit. Every time you access the web, the chances are very high you are hitting quite a number of Linux' servers. If you use Google, Wikipedia the chances get even higher. Jabber? even more. I would't be able to imagine the web nowadays without Linux. (But I can imagine a world without any of M$'s producst, as they are now becoming obsolete and unnecessary.)

TioDuke
1 Feb 2007, 2:45 PM
Here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6310000/newsid_6311800?redirect=6311899.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nbram=1)'s a little demo on installing Vista (really upgradng from XP to Vista): it took the guy 2 hours and 5 restarts.
From my own experience, installing SuSE Linux to dual-boot on a machine that previously only had windows installed takes about 45 minutes (this involves creating partitions too). Ah! and actually only one restart.

Now, what are easier and more user-friendly supposed to mean?

Drugwash
1 Feb 2007, 3:04 PM
Society has been brought up and educated to obey only these rules:
1. Bigger is better
2. Newer is better
3. Best looking wrapping means best product
4. Never read the fine print - that's only for lawyers
5. Never ask questions - trust us, we know what we're doing

What would you expect?

borkra
1 Feb 2007, 3:38 PM
Here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6310000/newsid_6311800?redirect=6311899.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nbram=1)'s a little demo on installing Vista (really upgradng from XP to Vista): it took the guy 2 hours and 5 restarts.
From my own experience, installing SuSE Linux to dual-boot on a machine that previously only had windows installed takes about 45 minutes (this involves creating partitions too). Ah! and actually only one restart.

Now, what are easier and more user-friendly supposed to mean?And how often do install OS? Never? It came preinstalled on computer you bought? For how many people this really matters, very few? Ones that do install OS how often do they do that, every 5 years? And is 5 restarts every 5 years really matter?

I understand you have an agenda, but objectivity helps.

DarkPhoenix
1 Feb 2007, 3:45 PM
I've never paid for windows... and will never do.
Right now i'm downloading 2 DVDs of debian distributive...
Probably will intall vista as 2nd system in far-far future. But i won't pay for it, sure :D
Btw - i'm not advocate of pirated SW, i have few bought programs that really worth this support...
borkra, it's just one more needle in MS' "the most user-friendly and easiest" ass imo.

andrewabc
1 Feb 2007, 3:48 PM
Actually Borkra I have to reinstall/format windows OS my friends computers at least once every 2 years because it gets bogged down. :P Viruses don't help either.

Drugwash
1 Feb 2007, 3:49 PM
Here's some user feedback on how often do you reinstall your OS (http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=77498).

borkra
1 Feb 2007, 3:53 PM
BTW, you use Linux more than you want to admit. Every time you access the web, the chances are very high you are hitting quite a number of Linux' servers. If you use Google, Wikipedia the chances get even higher. Jabber? even more. I would't be able to imagine the web nowadays without Linux.Yes Linux has it market share as webserver. It's because web servers are IO machines they read files from the hard drives and send it over network that's it. Pretty simple operation, and no GUI required.

(But I can imagine a world without any of M$'s producst, as they are now becoming obsolete and unnecessary.)Looks like nightmare to me. Linux, and all Open Source products usual are not professional quality, have very poor support unless you pay, and if you pay it's more expensive the Windows. Maintenance for distributions expires in 1.5 years, where on Windows in 10 years or more. Linux has long ways to go before it could be considered a mainstream OS. And I am not talking about that large percent of the operations could be only through command prompt or through modifying some configuration file in very obscure location.

borkra
1 Feb 2007, 4:08 PM
Here's some user feedback on how often do you reinstall your OS (http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=77498).These are geeks, they are computer professionals and you will not find anybody else on the computer forums. But try to ask the same question on forums devoted to cooking recipes (or something else non technical) and you will see a real picture. Majority people I know do not reinstall OS ever and do not know how to do it.

TioDuke
1 Feb 2007, 4:15 PM
Yes Linux has it market share as webserver. It's because web servers are IO machines they read files from the hard drives and send it over network that's it. Pretty simple operation, and no GUI required.
Three things:
1) Webservers need to be operational the biggest amount of time that's possible. That's the main reason most of them run on *nix.
2) Your affirmation about GUI is completely outdated: as a matter of fact Linux comes with a variety of GUI managers that even the most biased windows' user would like to have. Those days when you had to type everything in a console are long gone. Of course you have the choice of using the console if you want to. Choice windows denies to its users.
3) Not only webservers: take a look at recent news and you will see that some EU governments are beginning to migrate to Linux (the French gov being the one that comes to my head right now).

BTW, take a look at next server-oriented M$' OS: Longhorn. It will come with the ability of not using GUI at all: everything could be done by typing in a console. It looks like the guys a Redmond are taking some good examples.



some configuration file in very obscure location.

like windows' registry? Come on! I have never seen anything more obscure than that.
Besides, Linux comes with GUI-driven configuration tools. But it is true you can also do some configuration by editing a simple (and documented) text file.

And talking about reinstalling OSs: most windows' installations need to be reinstalled from time to time, simply because they degrade or become unusable. My Linux installation was installed only once and it did never need a reinstall, even if I do keep my software packages up-to-date most of the time (those updates consisting sometimes of the unstable version of that software package). Needless to say I never got a BSOD or my system became unusable. Besides, reverting to former versions has always been clean and easy (and GUI-driven).

Finally I don't have any agenda. I am just expressing my preferences. I do not work either for any Linux' vendor nor for MS.

borkra
1 Feb 2007, 4:25 PM
I've never paid for windows... and will never do.
Right now i'm downloading 2 DVDs of debian distributive...
Probably will intall vista as 2nd system in far-far future. But i won't pay for it, sure :D
Btw - i'm not advocate of pirated SW, i have few bought programs that really worth this support...
borkra, it's just one more needle in MS' "the most user-friendly and easiest" ass imo.
If you want like that. I can tell you that if you do not pay for software you do not pay people who created it. You are stealing from people and from me personally. Because people buying software is what brings my paycheck and pays my bills and allows me to work on Miranda. And I personally do not like thieves.

Lazlo Woodbine
1 Feb 2007, 4:32 PM
I've never paid for windows... and will never do.
ie You're using pirated software.

Probably will intall vista as 2nd system in far-far future. But i won't pay for it, sure :D
ie You will use more pirated software.

Btw - i'm not advocate of pirated SW, i have few bought programs that really worth this support...
No, you ARE an advocate of pirated software, as you have made very clear.

DarkPhoenix
1 Feb 2007, 4:44 PM
...hm, probably. Yes, i prefer pirated vista ultimate to use it from time to time to giving away 400 bucks (that may be rather cheap for you...) into MS' pocket.
As far as i can look into myself, that comes from feeling that i have will (it's 'freedom' in some way too) to choose sw for which i have to pay, if i'm forced to do that - i'll deny using it. From feeling that sw should be free... and that's the only thing that makes me learning how to/working for any open-source project.
It may be awful for you, i agree, but we have totally different mentalities, so you probably will never understand me.
---
Btw, in our country widespread pirated CDs with windows were one of the best promotion engines for MS. I even can't imagine how it'd be well-known w/o it...

If you want like that. I can tell you that if you do not pay for software you do not pay people who created it. You are stealing from people and from me personally. Because people buying software is what brings my paycheck and pays my bills and allows me to work on Miranda. And I personally do not like thieves.
I may agree with it only if you're working as MS employee. Otherwise - the only harm that i may cause you is a bit (millions like me - millions bit) less usable OS (but you can't prove that all earned money are spent for OS development anyway).

ie You're using pirated software.
Yes...

ie You will use more pirated software.
Nope. I'm replacing all my software products with free analogues one-by-one, so i can't have more pirated SW in future, even using windows.

Lazlo Woodbine
1 Feb 2007, 5:15 PM
Nope. I'm replacing all my software products with free analogues one-by-one, so i can't have more pirated SW in future, even using windows.
You stated that you would probably install Vista in the future, and that you wouldn't pay for it.

ie "You will use pirated software in the future"

DarkPhoenix
1 Feb 2007, 5:20 PM
I will, but i won't use 'more' (since 80-99% of currently used will be deleted).
Hope, someday that percentage will reach number of 100. And for me way of reaching it doesn't matter.

Lazlo Woodbine
1 Feb 2007, 5:31 PM
I will, but i won't use 'more' (since 80-99% of currently used will be deleted).
Yes, you will use more, because you will add another piece of illegal software which you haven't already stolen.

Drugwash
1 Feb 2007, 5:31 PM
I think the discussion is seriously deviating from the subject.
Please, anyone with serious knowledge, point out the advantages (if any) of choosing Vista over - let's say - OpenSuSE, as they both come on DVD.
And more than that, why would one choose a hardware-demanding OS like Vista over the existing, affordable XP-SP2.
Is Vista worth the money, for the average home user as well as for the average corporate user?

DarkPhoenix
1 Feb 2007, 5:37 PM
Some ppl from my LAN buy vista (legal ultimate copy) just because it's 'cool'. They consider pirated version as not 'cool' btw... so minds are changing. They don't worry about its effectiveness. But i'd say that all-in-all they're victims of agressive advertisement and don't tend to choose, they're consuming what ads offer them.

Yes, you will use more, because you will add another piece of illegal software which you haven't already stolen.
Then yes, using this approach you're right.
I agree that arguing about legal vs pirated sw should be stopped. As i've mentioned, i may try understand you (and i do), but i doubt that you're able to do the same for me.
Peace =)

y_b
1 Feb 2007, 8:28 PM
I have the feeling that Vista will mark the end of WinNT/2K/XP era (like WinME did for Win9x) and may be even Windows it self... what a dream!...
Looks like Vista is really bad choice (like WinME was before).

BTW Is somewhere some thing like anti-Vista logo?
like "Vista? No thanks!" or "Not designed for Vista"

nowotny
1 Feb 2007, 11:18 PM
Ok... we don't need another Windows vs. Linux thread here...
Closing...