"I do not consider Windows ready for the desktop. I found it difficult to use, buggy and lacking in security. I also found technical support lacking. While Windows captured a significant portion of the desktop market, the product is clearly not a good fit for consumers who do not understand the risks associated with logging on to the Internet. The costs of providing aftermarket products can run higher than the price paid for the hardware."
Post a Comment
Member since:---
Member since:---
Agreed. It's moronic "articles" like this that make the Linux community out to be nothing more than name-calling school children who've managed to successfully tinker with rocks and sticks they've found on the playgruond.
Hmmm...it sounds like you're name-calling. Possibly?
Anyway...I find it hard to believe when people make statements like yours above referring to Linux. I recent;y installed XP and a base of Office and other apps for a friend. After using Linux for the last 1.5 years, XP seems like going back to the stoneage.
Long install times for both OS and software. I'm talking probably 10 times longer to get everything set up than it takes for me in Arch Linux. I recognize the utility of Windows for users who want that type of thing or are accustomed to it, but I believe that Linux is more powerful and versatile overall.
Member since:2005-09-08
RE: What a load of tripe.
Member since:2005-08-12
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-06
RE: What a load of tripe.
Member since:---
RE[2]: What a load of tripe.
RE[2]: What a load of tripe.
Member since:---
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
What's the point of this little gambit? There've been a spate of these alleged Windows reviews recently. Each is little more than an adolescent attempt at irony, using the labored and mechanical device of mimicing a Linux-bashing review from the Microsoft universe.
The first review was cute but pointless. This one is just pointless, and annoying.
Member since:
2005-07-20
Member since:
---
The article is a bit tongue in cheek but none the less it is still true.
It is generally easier to run older kit with Linux than it is with Windows, because Linux has built in support for almost everything and Windows does not.
So it is true that older windows drivers are getting harder to find.
Really a modern version of Windows on modern equipment is just as ready for the desktop as Linux is.
Member since:---
I totally agree with the article. The last 2 days on my girlfriends WinXP machine was a nightmare. A lot of things seemed nonfunctional. Tell me exactly what does it mean when things strat crashing at startup and cancelled installs result in "Successfully installed". By the way installing a network printer took ONE WHOLE F***ING DAY. I'll stick to linux and use Win$$$ only when I am obliged to do. Hopefully with openDocument I will format my Win$$$ partition for Solaris or ZetaOS.
Member since:2005-06-29
So it is true that older windows drivers are getting harder to find.
I'll second that. I recently picked up a first-gen SoundBlaster Extigy (external USB sound device) from a thrift store for $5, with the intention of selling it for $15 or so to someone who needed such a thing, once I determined that it worked. It was bare, no power supply or software. Well, after rigging up a power supply from my parts bin, I plugged it into my Mac and OS X immediately recognized it and allowed me to play sounds and do other functions with it. Ditto for Ubuntu on the same machine. I had confirmed that the device worked, and therefore was salable (or so I thought).
When I plugged it into a WinXP system, however, Windows insisted on installing drivers that I obviously didn't have. "No problem", I said to myself; I went to Creative's website searching for drivers. Unfortunately, they stopped offering the drivers for download about two years ago. I tried searching Google with no luck. Driverguide.com was no help either. My only options were to either find someone else with the same device and copy their driver disc, or look on eBay for an auction of the device with its software. The device is now sitting in my closet collecting dust.
This is only one example of the opposing views towards drivers that Linux and Windows maintain. In Linux, the older the hardware, generally the better supported it is. In Windows, good luck running the latest version of the OS on anything more than four years old. Granted, this is more the fault of hardware manufacturers and less a Microsoft thing, but it makes it difficult to choose Windows over Linux on older hardware.
Member since:
2005-08-12
Win XP is difficult to use??? in which world you are living. I think you are newbie or deserve to run Win98 and ubuntu only. Because they are comparable.
Look at any modern linux distro. It can just reach win2000 performance and sophistication in hardware detection. It will take another 4-5 years to get anything near to winXP.
About spyware and viruses, isn't it owner of the house should take care of safeguards? and at least there are some easy steps to prevent viruses from entering into systems.
Are there any AV programs in linux. try one and see how difficult it is to compile and even put a simple firewall. you almost have to edit iptables.
Is Linux READY to prevent virus and spywares attacks ? Certainly NOT. Wait till some hackers start turning attention to linux and then see what happens.
Member since:2005-07-15
Member since:---
It doesn't matter when/if scum turn their attention to Linux/BSD and start writing virus/spyware for these operating systems. The OS architecture does not allow things like this to wreck havoc as they can on a Windows box. Beside, any exploits that might be found that allow such scummy software would be patched and distributed within days. Hence, having an antivirus program on Linux is really unneeded; only if you're running a mail server that filters out Windows viruses do you need one.
As for taking precautions to prevent viruses and spyware from infecting a computer: tell that to all the users who don't. They don't care and feel they shouldn't have to. Making the claim that you should is like saying you should have to hold the key in the ignition of your car because it's not the car company's fault the ignition is faulty. I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to have a secure computing experience.
And while Windows does have more hardware support than Linux/BSD it is not 4-5 years ahead as you claim. Honestly give Ubuntu or any Linux distribution a try on a modern system and you'll see that most things are supported.
Member since:---
It doesn't matter when/if scum turn their attention to Linux/BSD and start writing virus/spyware for these operating systems. The OS architecture does not allow things like this to wreck havoc as they can on a Windows box. Beside, any exploits that might be found that allow such scummy software would be patched and distributed within days. Hence, having an antivirus program on Linux is really unneeded; only if you're running a mail server that filters out Windows viruses do you need one.
Right, and since all Windows users keep their computers patched and up-to-date, we can be asured they would do the same on Linux as well.
And some of you who have the mindset "My OS is invunerable", you're gonna ifnd yourself like the people on the Titanic who swore it would never sink.
Member since:2005-07-06
silly, silly boy
did you really want to show your ignorance off so easily ?
For a start, win2k performance is far greater than XP's, but, your whole post proves to everyone here that you have not got a clue about linux.
I suggest you go away and do a google search for linux virus and linux spyware.
It does not matter how many hackers turn their attention to linux, the security of the system is too advanced.
ALSO
If you stick to using totally open source, then, you see exactly what is running on your PC.
If you are going to attempt a troll, at least take a good stab at it.
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-07-15
To the smarter, more computer literate folks, XP is an okay desktop platform. Unfortately most users are dumb and do not know how to protect themselves. When they get their XP machine setup at home they're infested in no time.
So its a yes/no answer. XP is primtetime ready... for experienced users. For newbies, absolutely not.
Member since:2005-07-22
... and Linux is?
These articles are really starting to get old. I mean, logic dictates to not upgrade from a 16-32bit crossover "OS" to a full fledged 32bit OS. XP has its quirks but it is a stable OS and it's obviously ready for the desktop. I, myself, use Windows 2000 Pro and have done so for the past 4 years. I've never had software or hardware issues, other than the obvious MS-DOS games. As for Linux, well, 6 years into trying it out I still get hardware issues for hardware that really should be supported by the OS. Things as common as a Radeon video card, a Sound Blaster Audigy and, not a piece of hardware but, the FAT32 filesystem. Other than that, when and if I get the OS running, it's an alright system. These articles are really just to get to people, I'm sure the guy's sitting there giggling at the 100+ comments spewed out for this non-sensicle article alone. I mean, for God's sake, the database went down. It went from 7 comments to 80 within a matter of 2-5 minutes, not to mention the people just checking. That's just my two cents.
Member since:
---
All Linux needs is a way to install applications as easy as a couple of clicks, what generally does NOT happen. The dependency hell fork and the way people try to make certain idiot ideas ring true (like RPM for example) are just gonna make Linux stuck.
Give us applications easy as hell to install, and linux is going to be on the desktop in NO TIME...
Think about it
Member since:2005-08-17
Since using gentoo and debian I've found windows extremely frsutrating to use.
Mostly this is due to application installation and the lack of a lot of really good software.
(But I suppose I'm not your average joe user. I prefer ratpoison to gnome)
GNU has a lot of little tools that do really good jobs.
eg. wget,ssh,screen,irssi and lots of nice little scripts
Some of these can be installed on windows but it's usually a huge hassle, search for ports or free applications that serve the same purpose.
I reckon this is one reason so many windows PC's are spyware infested. People want to do something fairly small, like rename a bunch of files. They don't want to pay for a tool to do this because it's such a simple task. So they try to find free tools(read spyware infested freeware) which they install because they need to get the job done.
and Window still doesn't have anything as easy as apt-get or emerge for software installation.
- Jesse McNelis
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:---
Doubleclicking on a setup.exe or setup.msi is not comparable to apt-get. Apt-get lets you update your whole distribution, with very few clicks. There is no such thing on windows, though there are Microsoft Updates (but that is for updates to MS apps and drivers solely).
The parallel to setup.exe does exist on GNU/linux systems. It's just not widely used yet.
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:---
Network installations works a lot better on Gnu/Linux and *BSD than it has ever done on any Windows.
Network is still poorly supported in windows compared with the standard in real networkbased OS'es like GNU/Linux.
Whether or not apt-get can install a piece of software on many machines at once depends on how you exactly want it done, but it is doable. Don't forget that GNU/Linux was born with networksupport in the stomach, at the feet and in the head 
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-02
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:---
>Doubleclicking on a setup.exe or setup.msi is not
>comparable to apt-get. Apt-get lets you update your
>whole distribution, with very few clicks.
Why would any normal user ever need to do or want to do such a thing in either windows or Linux? That's not a significant feature.
>The parallel to setup.exe does exist on GNU/linux systems.
>It's just not widely used yet.
I honestly hope it becomes common soon.
I'm also hoping for a "Granny Linux" type distribution, something that's been stripped down to the bare essentials needed for normal surfing and light duty home use. Everything else must be hidden of course.
Member since:2005-07-06
Why would any normal user ever need to do or want to do such a thing in either windows or Linux? That's not a significant feature.
What? Automatic security and software updates are not a significant feature? Obviously, AOL, Microsoft, Adobe, and others do thing it is an important feature, since their software all contains ad-hoc mechanisms for bugging the user to get the latest updates.
I honestly hope it becomes common soon.
Never going to happen. Why? Linux users don't need it, and newbie users can't figure it out anyway. Teaching a new user Synaptic versus install.exe is a wash --- it'll be painful either way, and most likely you'll still have to walk them through it each time anyway. The only people whom the install.exe model helps are Windows "power users" who don't want to feel stupid when moving to Linux.
Member since:---
>>Teaching a new user Synaptic versus install.exe is a wash --- it'll be painful either way, and most likely you'll still have to walk them through it each time anyway.<<
Have you ever used synaptic?
It is dead easy. You start it up - it gives you a long list of available applications. It divides the list for you into sections related to use - desktop, office apps, internet apps, text editors, games etc. The list is searchable by name of description. All apps are fully described.
You find the app you want using the search (keywords) or by going to the applicable section.
You select that app for installation. (You may select more than one).
You click "Apply" - wait for the downloads to finish - you are done.
What the hell is so hard about that? It works exactly the way you would expect it to work. Point and click installation from a large (but fully searchable) list of packages.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:---
Package managers are a giant kludge to get around the fact that Linux distros can't easily use the "install.exe" model because of byzantine dependencies and cross distro incompatibilities.
Package managers are an impediment to independent software producers because they are controlled by a central authority, normally with some insistence that submitted software be open source.
The Windows Market Place model provides all the benefits of package managers without the negative effects.
Linux won't get quality independent software, and normal users will see that as a negative until that changes.
Member since:2005-07-06
"Package managers are an impediment to independent software producers because they are controlled by a central authority, normally with some insistence that submitted software be open source."
That's just plain wrong. I can only assume you've never used one. Your inexperience is showing...
Member since:---
>>Package managers are a giant kludge to get around the fact that Linux distros can't easily use the "install.exe" model because of byzantine dependencies and cross distro incompatibilities. <<
This is just so wrong on so many levels, it just isn't funny.
Firstly, packagae managers are not a kludge. They work just fine, and are exceptionally easy to use - and most importantly they provide a one-stop shop for thousands upon thousands of packages - there is simply nothing to compare on windows.
Secondly - cross disto incompatibilites are not at all a problem when any given program - such as say firefox 1.07 - is available in the correct form in all of the repositories.
Finally - it is the "install.exe" model that is a horribly flawed kludge. The reasons: (1) there is no one place from which to obtain all possible "install.exe" files, (2) there is no consistent verification signature of "install.exe" files, (3) there is no guarantee that any given "install.exe" file contains no malware, (4) Windows cannot tell if a given executable "*.exe" file is actually an install program or not - so Windows cannot know when to ask for verification of permissions to install, and (5) since it is possible to schedule either at a given time or on next boot for a given "*.exe" file to be run, it is possible to get a Windows machine to run a "install.exe" (possibly one containing malware or a virus) without the machine owners knowledge or consent.
Package managers suffer from none of those five fatal flaws of the "install.exe" model.
Member since:---
>>Package managers are an impediment to independent software producers because they are controlled by a central authority, normally with some insistence that submitted software be open source. ... Linux won't get quality independent software, and normal users will see that as a negative until that changes.<<
This is just a straight out lie.
Package managers use a list of repositories, not just a single one.
If one wants to use sofwtare from an "independant source" in one's package manager - one just had to add the URL of that source to the sources.lst file.
Member since:---
Linux distros can't easily use the "install.exe" model because of byzantine dependencies and cross distro incompatibilities.
While running Mandriva on my desktop, I downloaded Opera last week. Then I double clicked on the RPM file. It installed.
Then I downloaded Acrobat Reader, double clicked on the RPM file. It installed.
Yesterday I downloaded Firefox 1.0.7, uncompressed the downloaded file, double clicked on Firefox-Installer. It installed.
The Windows Market Place model provides all the benefits of package managers without the negative effects.
Really? Try installing Firefox, Gimp, OpenOffice, Apache, Perl or hundreds of other open source software without downloading them manually first on Windows.
Member since:---
>>Package managers are an impediment to independent software producers because they are controlled by a central authority, normally with some insistence that submitted software be open source. <<
This contention is absolutely, 100% incorrect.
Would anyone like proof? Here is a link to a site that provides searches for repositories sources that are INDEPENDANT of the original distribution (Debian in this case).
http://www.apt-get.org/
"Unofficial APT repositories". The very antithesis of a central authority.
Member since:---
Package managers are a giant kludge to get around the fact that Linux distros can't easily use the "install.exe" model because of byzantine dependencies and cross distro incompatibilities.
Of cource the "install.exe" model can easily be used. Go and read a bit about autopackage
Besides, dependencies are not an issue with the "install.exe" model because such models are usually centered around static binaries and libraries. This is the case for most Windows applications, and it is a very bad approach.
Autopackage is the "install.exe" model in a grown-up state. Just give it some time.
Besides that, the install.exe model suffers from several flaws in regard to updating, as has been proved earlier in this thread.
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
Member since:2005-07-06
>Doubleclicking on a setup.exe or setup.msi is not
>comparable to apt-get. Apt-get lets you update your
>whole distribution, with very few clicks.
Why would any normal user ever need to do or want to do such a thing in either windows or Linux? That's not a significant feature.
[/i]
It is very significant indeed. It is the equivilent of updating from Windows 98 to Windows XP, with one command.
All dependencies are met and the system is now fresh up to date.
If you want to update from Win98 to WinXP you need to go through all the install CD bit, then install drivers etc etc etc
apt-get upgrade
does it much more elegantly.
Member since:---
>It is very significant indeed. It is the equivilent >of updating from Windows 98 to Windows XP, with one >command.
Indeed...
Fedora: 'yum -y update'
(of course whether it is apt-get, yum, up2date, whatever it's equally easy for any Linux/BSD variant)
Solaris 10: 'smpatch analyze' then 'smpatch update'
Mac OS X 10.4: sudo softwareupdate -i -a
Windows: anyone know?
Member since:2005-07-14
There's a set of applications I use at work - Firefox, Thunderbird, Gaim, VNC, ssh client, office suite, vim. I use both Windows (company provided) and Debian OSes.
To install them in Debian I would do:
* open a root shell
* type "aptitude install mozilla-thunderbird mozilla-firefox gaim xvncviewer ssh openoffice-org gvim"
* say yes to all the dependencies, maybe enter a few dialog boxes.
To enter the same set of applications in Windows, I'd have to:
* go to mozilla site.
* download and run firefox installer
* click through N screens of an installer
* download and run thunderbird installer
* click through N screens of an installer
* go to gaim homepage
* download and run gaim installer
....
I can't comprehend, how the later can be considered easier and more comfortable than the former.
Member since:---
Double Clicking on an .exe file is not too hard.
Yeah... but you only need to obtain the .exe and the correct dll's before.
But that is just the tip of the Iceberg. The big, big feature of apt-get is that you do not need to format an old machine. You only need to upgrade single packages.
Can you migrate from windows 2000 to windosXP in a production server?
In fact, in Linux GNU Debian there are just a few reasons to reboot being a kernel upgrade 90% the main one. And there is no need of the "not recenty formated" syndrome. Works bad? it needs to be formated. Asked for help to microsoft? formtat and reinstall. Thanks, what a great service!!.
And when I work in my XP laptop I miss other features that wasn't mencionted in the article:
- Utilities for finding files: find, locate, grep rgrep. Even vista will lack the search file system that was going to be superior.
- A decent console for debuging software. You know, one in where the mouse can select several lines of text and you can use Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V. I am not asking for a weird unix command.
- SSH, he ability to connect to other PCs and take files or execute programs. file sharing and permissions whith windows had given me some really bad days. But I am not a windows admin.
- Default software. In Linux you start with a decent pile of programs. Notepad?? Paint?? Is Microsoft the multi billion fortune company that makes software. Freshmeat has tons of free programs better that thouse relics. May be they want to promote Office.
- When WMP looks for new drivers in the internet I never finds anything usefull. At least for me. It is strange that mplayer can handle 99% of thouse formats and does not cost money at all.
- DVD / CD burning is antiintuitive and does not work good for me. I have found it is almost as hard as the command line commands in the console commands of the not so good, old linux time. It seems that Linux is ahead in this área.
So XP has nice things. I am writing in it. But once you get familiar with Linux you will find XP a poor OS. You know, monopoly == lack of incentives to improve.
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-06
you also tried an attempted troll... it failed.
you don't always need an internet connection... if you have a running system, you can use the install disks of a newer version, add them to sources.list, then apt-get update
after this you type
apt-get upgrade
and you system will get the updated packages from the disk.
No internet connection needed.
Member since:2005-08-23
Member since:---
@ captain_knobjockey
He's actually right. You don't need internet connection to update from install disks. But you can actually use apt-get to install from the disks.
You obviously don't know anything about GNUlinux, nor Windows or computers in general, so please leave the discusion for those of us who know, rather than coming with you ignorant remarks.
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
Member since:2005-08-17
Since using gentoo and debian I've found windows extremely frsutrating to use.
Mostly this is due to application installation and the lack of a lot of really good software.
(But I suppose I'm not your average joe user. I prefer ratpoison to gnome)
GNU has a lot of little tools that do really good jobs.
eg. wget,ssh,screen,irssi and lots of nice little scripts
Some of these can be installed on windows but it's usually a huge hassle, search for ports or free applications that serve the same purpose.
I reckon this is one reason so many windows PC's are spyware infested. People want to do something fairly small, like rename a bunch of files. They don't want to pay for a tool to do this because it's such a simple task. So they try to find free tools(read spyware infested freeware) which they install because they need to get the job done.
and Window still doesn't have anything as easy as apt-get or emerge for software installation.
- Jesse McNelis
Member since:---
It's already there... ever heard of Synaptic (GUI front-end to apt-get) or smartPM (Smart Package Manager), or AutoPackage? And of course there are selfextracting archives available where you can run the application directly from the folder (like SFX-archives on windows, whether it be .rar or .zip or .arj or whatever).
People complaining about the difficulties about installing software on linux, have either not used it for a very long time, or they're using the wrong tools (or distributions).
Installation of software on linux is a one-click event (unless you install from source, but that's not for Joe Average to do).
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
RE: Just give Linux redemption...
Member since:---
>>in reply to "Just give Linux redemption..."
You're missing the point. <<
No, you are missing the point.
Synaptic and equivalents (eg YAST) are exactly what was asked for:
>>All Linux needs is a way to install applications as easy as a couple of clicks, what generally does NOT happen. The dependency hell<<
Synaptic and YAST are exactly that. A way to install applications as easy as a couple of clicks, and which completely overcome "dependency hell". Dependency hell is no more - it is history.
That problem is already solved. Please try to come up with an actual valid point.
Member since:2005-07-06
1) So you're saying that the best stuff is always used everywhere? Marketing, politics, history, inertia, and god old personal preference have no bearing on the matter?
2) Perhaps, but I think you don't have the slightest idea of what RatPoison is. It's primarily a keyboardable interface. For people who use their keyboard all the time (programming, writing, working), switching hands to the mouse can add up to a lot of wasted time. RatPoison alleviates that.
Member since:2005-06-29
Um. Synaptic for Debian/RPM dists. There was Red Carpet before. There's also CnR. And then there's a CnR knockoff called like klick or something.
Then there's autopackage which works on all distros, even if autopackage isn't installed; it is Linux only though. You can either
chmod +x package
./package
Or you can do the equivalent in your favourite file manager.
Oh, then there's Yast. Mandrake also has a utility for it; I forget the name.
There are two GUI's for installing source packages. One is quite old: Paco. And a newer one from GNU (there was a story on it a while ago).
I wouldn't give up dep hell for anything. It's because of dep hell that my laptop with 184MB (of system usable RAM) is plenty for me to write and even test (to some extent) code on. It's powerful enough for the latest word processor while I browse the web.
Even Microsoft is finally trying to get people off static builds. They've tried to do it for years by providing their own libs for stuff; they're just getting *much* more complete with .net. And guess what, TMK, there's no static building in .net.... (before you attempt to flame me, yes, static builds in this sort of language are fully plausible).
I know you've probably experienced the end user side of this problem (limited memory) before; but please get a clue about the developers side before you insult their work. Both solutions have costs. Making static builds and having repetitive code in RAM wastes RAM, and having shared libraries wastes *a few* CPU cycles at loadup and causes some headaches.
At least, in 2005, we can resolve a dep tree. Windows Update still can't do it.
Member since:---
>>Oh, then there's Yast. Mandrake also has a utility for it; I forget the name. <<
One has to use a package manager for one's particular distribution.
For Debian-based systems, individual packages are installed with dpkg - but to avoid dependecies use a package manager - for Debian this is apt-get (command line) or aptitude (console application with menus). For a GUI use synaptic, kynaptic or kpackage (adapted for use with apt).
For SuSE system, use YAST (command line or GUI). There is also an alternative - use apt4rpm & synaptic.
For Mandrake, the command line package manager is called urpmi. For a GUI - use "Software Installer".
For Fedora - use yum (command line). I believe (but have not verified) that there is also a version of apt4rpm and synaptic that will work for Fedora.
Member since:---
For Fedora - use yum (command line). I believe (but have not verified) that there is also a version of apt4rpm and synaptic that will work for Fedora.
Yes, there is apt4rpm for Fedora and other RH OSes. Actually, it predates yum by a wide margin of time. When the FreshRPMS repository came up, originally it was only for apt4rpm.
Member since:
---
I agree with some of the points made in the article. However, even if Windows is "not ready" by this particular set of standards, it is still much better than Linux. Yes, I've tried Linux (many times, including earlier this month) and BSD. I like BSD a bit more.
IMHO, all OSes are crap in some areas, and it just boils down to what bits are you willing to put up with and which ones you must avoid. For me, Windows is ready for my desktop, and it's staying put for a while more, but I'm keeping an eye on the alternatives.
As for the actual writing style, I didn't like it one bit. It's very condescending, but I didn't expect better.
My 2c.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
---
I read it up until he updated to XP from 98... what person who uses Linux can't backup their data and do a fresh install of a new OS? "Hey, I was using Redhat 7.3 and I just changed my yum/apt sources to say I was on Fedora4, I did an update and now some stuff doesn't work..." Welcome to 7 years later, good god man.
Member since:2005-07-14
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
---
If you install
1.Microsoft Anti-Spyware(free)
2.AVG Free(free)
3.OpenOffice(free)
4.Mozilla Firefox(free)
5.Windows Service Pack 2 installed(free) jajaja
Well just the basic you should be able to run your pc just fine. At least these four to start, that is my standard setup to start with. I mean this guy just doesn't know. Microsoft doesn't have to be expensive. I am a linux myself but I would not take Linux over Windows, I run Mac OS X (Panther)and still ask questions. It's all about how you use your pc and for what. All OSes have their goods and bads. We need them all, some of us just need Windows. Some just don't!
So Mr. Linux expert, b4 you say something so stupid like that. Well just look around
Member since:2005-07-06
LOL. Most of this stuff postdates my usage of Windows. What's AVG free? Microsoft has an anti-spyware program? Doesn't SP2 mess up your computer? I know one of our Matlab labs stopped working because of SP2. How come you get to call this guy stupid for not knowing this, but balk when Linux users call people stupid for trying to install RPMs without using a package repository?
Member since:
2005-07-22
Man, these articles are really ridiculous. How and why isn't Windows ready for the desktop? I mean, really, give out actually good reasons for this "fact". Also, I think logic dictates that upgrading a 16-32bit crossover "OS" of sorts to a full fledged 32bit OS is stupid. Do a clean install and XP will work just fine. I don't like it myself but it works just fine, has great software and hardware support. There's a lot of exploits for it but Microsoft is relatively fast on responding to the threats. I've been running Windows 2000 for 4 years now and haven't had any problems, I format about once a year to start fresh and my system has never become so unstable that I couldn't even rectify it. As for Linux, well, I've been trying it for 6 years and I still can't get a distro to just work. There's always something, it won't detect my FAT32 partition, won't detect my sound card, video card, etc etc. It is obviously ready for the desktop but by no means is it a viable replacement to Windows, unless you know what you're doing and can resolve problems you might run into while running Linux, and of course if you don't mind the lack of commercial games and software.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
also
stop trying to spread FUD unless you know what you are talking about....
There's always something, it won't detect my FAT32 partition, won't detect my sound card, video card,
sound and video card not detected ???? well, there is a remote possibility of this.
but not detecting a FAT32 partition, that is just plain lies. Linux has been compatible with FAT32 since the specs came out in 1994. Before that it was compatible under UMSDOS filesytem..
stop lying man, then maybe we will take your posts seriously
Member since:
---
He hiself knows what a crap he has written.
I use arch Linux, well mostly, For sone things I have to go to Windows XP. Yes those mostly include my office work and we are in the process of porting them to Linux.
Please note "porting". There are very less office utilities that are made spesifically for Linux. This is still true, even when my company has a policy to completely switch the desktop to linux in near future.
Member since:
---
The costs of providing aftermarket products can run higher than the price paid for the hardware.
This one is good. Very important and hit home directly.
I agree that WinXP isn't ready for the desktop. I've seen it so often with ordinary users. They just don't know how to play it safe. And configuring windows (all version) is a pain in the ass (I know, I've been using windows since 3.1).
The Windows desktop is incredibly crippled (which can also be said about KDE and Gnome, though in different areas of the desktop). Try OS/2 Workplace (in OS/2 2.1 or Warp 3 if you prefer), and see how much windows is actually lacking in regard to usability on the desktop.
And security is a joke on windows, unfortunately. It is getting better though, but I'm not sure MS will have succes with it, since most people, as the first step, turn off most of the security protections from MS.
If something goes wrong on Gnu/Linux and *BSD it's easy to fix, because you have access. On windows, it's just sux. If it doesn't work, you're screwed, because you've no access to the system at lower levels.
Windows is not ready for the desktop, but then. Most DE's aren't ready for the desktop at the moment.
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
Member since:
---
RE: Are you kidding me??? ( ADDED)
Member since:2005-07-07
Sorry, had to:)
Years and years are 3 years???
It would mean "more than one" and "more than one" to me. Which would be 4 at least:)
So, here I am. I dare you to explain your "years and years" theory.
But to stay on topic. No OS is ready for desktop. It is enough to put a user used to another OS to test and find out that OS is not ready for desktop. As long as article writer used any OS, review and result is gonna be biased. For example, me being *X for last 7 years, I find it quite hard to use Windows. It is messed up, but no so by design but more by my logic I'm used to. There's a lot of things that I don't even need to consider on *X that are constantly present on Windows. And I find OSX even dumber and harder than Windows. But that would just describe just my personal opinion, my preference and my biased viewpoint on OS being ready for desktop not the general being ready for desktop.
So, unless the poster who linked this aricle isn't somehow masturb..ing (or relieving some other personal satisfaction) on the expected trolling and flaming, I don't see the reason to categorize this and any other article "..... is not ready for desktop" as news. It is just a call to sensless beating with the comments.
And same goes for all the news that spawn "My di.k is bigger that yours."
p.s. That comes from avid Linux user.
Member since:2005-07-06
You don't have to use Linux particularly carefully for it to be safe. I haven't taken any particular precautions in my Ubuntu setup (I wouldn't know how!), its just a straight install. Yet, stuff like firewalling, virus protection, root user permissions, etc, are taken care of me, out of the box. With Windows, you have to set things up properly first, which guarantees that most users will never do it.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
2005-06-30
Member since:
2005-07-06
This type of article has already been done by that clueless no-talent Rob Limo on newsforge.
http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/2033216&tid=149&tid...
It wasn't funny when he did it and its not funny when you do it. I know it will be hard being linux users, but at least try to do something original.
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-08-16
Member since:2005-06-29
I wouldn't, what you run as administrator is your own problem. I blame Microsoft for not warning people to not use Netscape's software.
Oh that's right, they can't. Cause they did all those evil things ten years ago and now they're being constantly sued...
Wouldn't it be great if Microsoft had a listing of crappy hardware and horrible software? Seriously... A lot of people get suckered into this stuff, and they don't realize there's better. That hurts the quality products.
Member since:---
Yes, heaven forbid somone protect themselves by ditching the "virus gateways" Outlook express and internet explorer and switch to the safer and more advanced Firefox and Thunderbird.
They will never make a list like the one you suggest due to the fact that Windows would be the first entry on the list.
Member since:
2005-07-06
The author said :"My advice to PC enthusiasts would be to try Linux." This is not really a good advice.
I would advice anyone with such weak Knowledge of how to fix computers to go and buy a MAC (probably iMac for most), If you don't have much money to spend on the computer then buy mac mini; Buy iBook if you need portability. That's the best advice if you want to be productive and start to use your computer as a tool.
Linux dirvers are so primitive that most hardware power will never be leashed no matter what distro you use. Power Management on linux sucks (hard disk turn off, CPU throttling, hibernation, standbuy, monitor lid turn off,...etc) which is vital for laptops unless of course you want to be logged on power source all the time.
Besides linux kernel (not KDE, GNOME, other GUIs) is not so stable when talking to hardware in your system, I mean any hardware malfuntion (not faliure) will freeze the kernel and trash your background applications.
If you do not have the money to buy any of osx hardware then you have to pay form your time to learn how to correct windows problems better than this author or to accept the linux compromizes.
Member since:
---
Two things: I) this guy managed to get things working even though he did everything to shoot himself in the foot. I'd say that makes it pretty conclusive that windows is in fact idiot proof. II) how on earth did this guy ever end up with a usable linux machine?
So for you linux people here's how you install windows:
1) backup anything important (I shouldn't need to tell you this)
2) forget about upgrades, you want a clean install and you don't want your previous mistakes to reappear in your freshly installed xp system.
3) figure out beforehand how you are going to get online (avoid the chicken egg problem of needing a connection to get the driver required to get a connection). Of course this is good advice for any OS (debian *cough*).
4) install, click next a few times. Make sure not to go online before you either switch on the firewall or are behind a NAT router. XP out of the box is vulnerable to every worm and virus you read about during the past few years. You will be under attack from the second you go online.
5) go to windows update and update (this is a tedious process requiring several reboots). Afterwards you should be relatively safe (all vulnerabilities patched, firewall is now turned on if you didn't enable it yourself)
6) start internet explorer, go to mozilla.org and install firefox, close internet explorer.
7) update drivers for your hardware. Inform yourself using google about the best drivers for your hardware. Install them one by one, read the release notes, etc. There's a lot of crappy drivers out there and you are likely to encounter problems if you don't inform yourself. Likely the stuff that came with windows is outdated by now and has known issues.
You should now have a working windows pc without spyware because you never went online unprotected and didn't install anything that comes with spyware. From now on only use IE for windows updates. Do not use outlook express either. If you install office 2003, outlook 2003 is pretty ok otherwise use something like thunderbird. I use both and never have any problems.
I strongly advice you to spend some time locking the pc down (set the admin password, configure the firewall or install a better one). A virusscanner is also recommended though you should be adviced that on access scanning is a bad idea if you care about performance. I don't use one and rely on avoiding internet explorer and clicking on stuff I don't trust.
That's it really. Install your favourite linux tools if you miss them. The Gimp, gaim, openoffice, most commandline stuff (through cygwin) all run fine. There's an enormous amount of good quality OSS desktop software for windows too. There's no need to use crappy software just because you are using windows.
Member since:---
That was indeed pretty stupid.
Why go to all that pain? Just to get a bug-ridden and insecure Windows OS?
Here is a far, far simpler way to get a secure and MORE functional system:
(1) Get a Knoppix or KANOTIX live CD. (Better yet - Knoppix DVD).
(2) Boot from the CD. Run the install to HD utility.
(3) Provide a root apssword and first user password when asked to.
(4) Now wait about 15 minutes, and when the system reboots - take out the CD and boot from the HD.
(5) Create your other user accounts.
Done. Spyware free, secure, and replete with a huge selection of applications - KANOTIX even includes OpenOffice.org 2 beta.
Absolutely no malware, guaranteed.
If there is something else you need, run synaptic (you will need to re-enter the root passwrod) - and select from the 17,000 additional packages on offer. Install easily with a few clicks.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:---
I'd personally agree about the fresh install, just as I'd out of preference do a fresh install of Linux (things do go wrong and I like to see what the thing looks like before customisation). But to most people an upgrade is getting moved from economy to club class, not being moved off the aircraft, unloading all your luggage and then being made to rebuild the aircraft before finally getting back onto the aircraft, so it does also seem a bit rich that MS market the thing as being able to do upgrades.
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
But this guy is either a complete idiot, or thinks we are complete idiots! Any OS can be difficult if your lost in space! Now if he really never used Windows I could understand....but no AntiVirus Protection! No Spyware Protection! No Firewall unless you consider the MS crap a firewall! Com'on...Give me a Break!
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:---
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
2005-07-19
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
reminds me of http://ubergeek.tv/article.php?pid=54
Member since:
2005-07-17
Member since:
---
Obviously Windows is "ready for the desktop" in the sense that it currently runs on most people's desktops.
What it isn't ready for is long-term use by ignorant users. People who don't know to defragment, not use IE and Outlook Express, hide behind a router, and run antivirus software end up replacing their computers when Windows finally can't take any more abuse.
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
this site has turned into the slashdot for windows maniacal, weirdos. of the comments about this article, i doubt any of your read the article. you're all hoped up and smoking rocks. puh lease, do a google on the guy.
i thought he wrote a very funny parody of an article out a month ago called: ten days as a linux user: a gnu perspective on things.
and turn around is definitely fair play.
i even got a big laugh out of his remark about windows not being ready for the desktop. that was sooo funny.
maniacs take everything so seriously. what's wrong haven't laughed in a while?
Member since:2005-07-06
maniacs take everything so seriously. what's wrong haven't laughed in a while?
Probably not. I've never understood the fanaticism in any direction.
About the article; it's clear that the writer doesn't understand the dynamics of running a windows system. Most of his issues seemed to stem from inexperience and ignorance to how a windows system should be configured and run.
I sort of agree with someone above who said that nothing is ready for the desktop. Windows, Linux, Mac and BSD boxes all need their own kinds of upkeep. Whether it's getting a virus scanner updated, or a broken port updated, or having to edit a kernel to get a wireless card to work, every OS has its issues. Microsoft's issues are exasperated due to the swiss cheese security coupled with user configuration errors(administrator privs with default login) and other issues.
Member since:---
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:---
About the article; it's clear that the writer doesn't understand the dynamics of running a windows system. Most of his issues seemed to stem from inexperience and ignorance to how a windows system should be configured and run.
This is maybe true for the author, but it is definitely true for most windows users. I've seen quite a few scary things when I've had to clean up my friends computers. Sometimes it makes you wonder, what the h*ll they're thinking, if they're thinking. For the newbie windows isn't ready for the desktop, but then that can be said about many distros and DE's on GNU/Linux.
I personally believe that the OS/2 WPS and the Windows desktop, combined with Mac Classic and Gnome and KDE would give the best desktop experience. Unfortunately I don't think it's feasible to combine all the concepts from these desktop environments in one DE.
But it could be fun though...
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
Member since:2005-07-09
> For the newbie windows isn't ready for the desktop, but
> then that can be said about many distros and DE's on
> GNU/Linux.
Definitely. Windows is easy for Windows users because they're used to it all it's quirks. They don't see it because they've trained themselves to either avoid them or transparently work around them.
The same can be said for OSX. A year or so back, I had to use an OSX laptop to test my webapp against Safari. The OSX UI was a bit disorienting (I hated the OSX global menu), but I was able to work my way around. My webapp worked, except the page that output PDF. OSX printed a cryptic error message and I had no clue what was wrong, much less how to fix it. I had to go to the help desk to figure out what went wrong. It turns out that OSX downloads PDFs to the desktop by default (instead of opening up a PDF viewer), and the desktop was readonly. The fix was simple, they went into some preference tab (I don't remember where) and changed it so that downloads happen in your USERS directory.
The above situation may seem like the mistake a "stupid newbie" would make, but I'm not. My first computer was a Commodore 64, and I went through several OSes (Amiga, Win 3.1, Win NT3.5, OS/2 2.0, Win95/98, Win2000, Solaris OpenWindows, Solaris CDE, Solaris XFce, SLS Linux, Slackware 1.0, RedHat Linux, Fedora, Ubuntu).
Quite simply, MacOSX isn't ready for the unassisted untrained newbie. I've seen similar reactions from first time Windows users. And Ubuntu, as much as I love it, also requires that the user be given an orientation session.
The only thing ready for such a newbie is a foolproof "pick a number" interface that has ample instructions on what each option does. Such interfaces are impractical for most things we do these days.
That being said, IMO, MacOSX, Windows, and Ubuntu *are* ready for the desktop -- you just need to make sure you have an "on call expert friend" or "an admin" nearby, "just in case", until you know your way around.
Member since:2005-07-06
... and the desktop was readonly.
I'm curious: Why was that?
Give than the Desktop folder is in your home directory, it seems odd that it would become read-only without some user intervention.
While a bizarre error message is both unhelpful, it's also typically Mac, what with the "an error of type -2 has occurred" messages of yore.
Member since:
---
this site has turned into the slashdot for windows maniacal, weirdos. of the comments about this article, i doubt any of your read the article. you're all hoped up and smoking rocks. puh lease, do a google on the guy.
i thought he wrote a very funny parody of an article out a month ago called: ten days as a linux user: a gnu perspective on things.
and turn around is definitely fair play.
i even got a big laugh out of his remark about windows not being ready for the desktop. that was sooo funny.
maniacs take everything so seriously. what's wrong haven't laughed in a while?
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
And it very accurately represents what a new Windows user will experience when installing Windows on just about any machine, old or new.
Right now, even with a brand new computer that has Windows XP with Service Pack 2 you will need about 30 security updates installed.
If you fail to install these updates right away and just go browsing the web with Internet Explorer, you'll most likely end up with spyware and trojan infested computer that's VERY hard to clean and the OS often damaged to such extent that it may be easier and more practical to do a reinstall.
If you're unlucky enought and get one of the nastier Cool Websearch variants or Aurora then you're in for some serious troubleshooting and better have another computer handy to do some googling.
The author had further difficulties by being limited by a crappy ISP and dial up speeds.
The experience the author described is a typical experience a new Windows user would go through when doing an upgrade or a new install of Windows.
Unfortunatelly, most computers come preinstalled with Windows so people don't have to go through this kind of horror otherwise their would a revolution, bloodshed and Bill G would be publicly lynched and hanged in the town square. He ows his life to his monopoly.
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
When I first read the first two lines, I asked myself, are we on the same planet or dimension? I have played around with several Linux distros and of course Windows XP. Windows is not perfect but great improvements have been made or at least attempted. Linux has to make strides in the GUI and support.With Vista coming things should get better.
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
" About the article; it's clear that the writer doesn't understand the dynamics of running a windows system. Most of his issues seemed to stem from inexperience and ignorance to how a windows system should be configured and run."
And it goes the other way. A lot of the negative reviews of linux stem from the author's inexperience with how a nix system should be run. Those articles are addressed to Windows users, this one is addressed to nix users.
There are some things about Linux that I find a lot easier. In a college course where we had to use DrScheme, there was a short discussion about where to get it, the URL, what to install etc. For me, the entire process was "apt-get install drscheme"
Drivers can be a lot easier too. No need to get drivers off the CD when I install a printer. No need to hunt for drivers on the web when I lose a CD. As long as the Linux driver exists at all (big if sometimes ), it is easier to get going than on Windows.
Other things are a bit harder of course..
Member since:
---
Altough the article looks like it is meant to bash windows all over, I could write a couple more like it. I switched to linux when I got some similiar expirence with win95 back then ... and am still on linux, because every time I need to use windows, it convinces me in about 10 minutes that it's mostly useless still, 10 years later. Not to mention it's very unfriendly for a power user and almost impossible to configure in a way I need and want. Oh well, that's what alternatives are for. I pitty all those folks that knows just windows and nothing else.
Member since:
2005-07-08
I spent a couple of years reconfiguring IBM Think Pads for a previous employer and I learned real fast to be prepared to download a lot of drivers from IBM if you choose not to use their installation CD's. This guy quite simply set himself up to fail, and is blaming Microsoft for his lack of forethought.
Member since:2005-06-29
You didn't read the whole article. He also talks about:
Netscapes software breaking ICS.
McCafee selling to their own customers with their software.
Spybot, and how much he used it.
CleanMyRegistry, and the problems it found daily.
Lacks of good mouse configurability (even with extra utilities from Microsoft, you need third party utils).
Lack of things that are common now (at least for geeks) like an ssh client.
He really did talk about a lot more than drivers. In fact, I think drivers were what he spent the least time with. And he seemed to be complaining more about Netscape than the drivers...
I don't think the article was exactly proof of anything. But it's a good example of just what troubles people do find in basic Windows use. These boards (news boards) get filled with them for Linux (afterall, a CAVEATS section is good Unix tradition), but you'll only find them for Windows in forums.
His article didn't support his conclusions. But the article was interesting, nonetheless.
Member since:2005-07-08
Oh I read it, this guy is a tool. He has the IBM OEM CD and chooses not to use it (first mistake). Installs Windows 98 and expects Microsoft to support an OS that has been superseded (think again). Then upgrades to XP and expects everything to work just great with no backup (dumb move). He starts bitching about all he has to do in order to get the laptop working. He had to go to IBM twice to get all of the software he needed (Think Pads are picky and very proprietary).
And what cracks me up the most is the "Linux fans" who actually think this is a "good" article, it is pure and simple trash! I am no fan of Microsoft, but this guy through his arrogance and stupidity screwed himself and decided to "share" his experience and blame everything and everybody but himself. If I wrote a Linux rant like this, people would ask for my head on a plate.
I also don't see the "humor" in this for the people trying to say this is a joke or "sarcasm". The piece is nothing more than a troll and should have been ignored.
Member since:2005-06-29
I've read hundreds of Linux rants like this. My typical advise goes like this: Give it a bit more time and people will help you.
The guy has 98SE installed for reasons he never explained. There is software that only runs in 9x.. He may have also preferred the extra speed he got from it 5 years ago... Then he installed XP. He didn't seem to go very hard on Microsoft for not supporting 98SE, but he did have some frustration. I don't expect support on my RH 7.2 box, but I can fix most problems on it.
I believe he did a reinstall, but that wasn't very clear or I misread. He is crazy if he did an upgrade, those only work on Debian...
He did have to do quite a bit. I'll reiterate:
Install drivers
Run Windows update
Install anti-spyware
Install anti-virus (then he got mad at it still advertising to him)
futz with his awful ISP (his fault, entirely)
install the programs he likes (cygwin and all that)
You have to understand, linux users are accustomed to having most of their programs at install time. Then installing a couple of extra programs through the install mechanism with little trouble. And then doing a build on one or two apps they really like that aren't in the repos.
This is probably a pretty typical set of complaints one has when being introduced to the quirks of running a Windows system; especially in this commercial world of under-grade AOL software rebranded as netscape..
It's a parody. It follows the typical Linux complaints fairly well. I'm not sure how one can miss that quality.
Member since:
---
I don't see what all the flames are about. Everyone here knows how well the average user maintains their installation. Many people here have had to clean out a friends computer of spyware and viruses. If XP were ready for these average users they wouldn't have these problems.
To all the people saying the author just doesn't know how to take care of an XP installation. Well that's just what Linux users say about a Windows user who spends 10 days on a Linux distro and complains about it. But they get cut no slack. "It's supposed to just work and be easy" the Windows users will say. "Joe Luser shouldn't have to care about what video cards have open specs, they just want fast graphics". Well it's fair then to point the finger at XP. Joe Luser shouldn't have to care how recently their machine has been patched, or what software is spyware, they just want to browse the net and download music.
When using XP I have to learn a whole buch of stuff about administering an XP machine and how to keep it secure. That's not easy or 'just working'. And it's just as fair for me to complain about it as it is for a Windows user to complain about having to learn anything new to run Linux.
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
My first thought when reading this was, "How long before OSNews gets this, and everyone gets pissed?" Not long, it seems. Here are a few comments to keep things in perspective.
1) Don't use Netscape's dial up service.
2) If you are going to nuke a drive to install Windows, use the rescue disk that came with it. Chasing drivers is an exercise in futility.
3) Don't bother going on-line and updating unless behind a router and on a fast connection.
4) There are a few Linux installation nightmares out there, too. So I tend to read this story as a generic computer nightmare story.
On the Linux side, a friend of mine is trying to put Linux on an old Duron machine with an early Promise ATA100 controller. It's not working. There are some spectacular crashes.
Is Windows ready for the desktop? Sure, it's just not ready for the network, unless you really know what you are doing. Any kind of network environment will be a bit tricky, but the Internet is truly a stinking cesspool. Linux is better than Windows at coping with the dangers, but even there it helps to know what you are doing.
In short, the general public should probably not use the Internet.
Peter Besenbruch
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
---
Member since:---
"Clearly, Linux is not ready for the desktop. If it were, it would represent a marketshare more significant than a rounding error.
...
It's this sort of ignoring reality that will forever keep Linux off the desktop. Doing more of the same will get you more of the same: Linux not on the desktop."
Clearly, by your logic, Mac OSX is also not ready for the desktop.
It's this sort of ignoring basic logic that will forever get labled stupid.
Member since:2005-07-06
The thing is that 2-3% isn't a rounding error. Its a real, verifiable number. Depending on the dynamics of the system, that could be enormously significant. For example, if 2-3% is the percentage metal in a solution that has percipitated, well, it could very well be 20-30% in just a few milliseconds. The dynamics of the computer market, and the double-digit growth of Linux suggests that 2-3% is a whole lot more meaningful than it would seem to be.
Member since:2005-06-29
With more of the same, by growth rate, Linux will be on all desktops within a matter of a decade or so. Seriously, every year has been called the "year of the linux desktop" and every year people have said it didn't happen; and every year the growth rate has increased..
Every year someone else gets behind Linux for server and also desktop use. I don't see how everyone can ignore this so easily. Have you noticed that Mandriva is in the black after years in the red? Do you think they did that by cutting their tiny staff?
And seriously, if you think 2-3% is a rounding error... Well, I pray you never become a scientist of any form..
Member since:
2005-08-11
Member since:---
Member since:2005-06-29
It's entirely fair to include 3rd party apps in a ranking of Windows. If you don't, then Windows sucks because it doesn't have anything but an office suite and web browser! Oh, and a development studio.
It's a standard US Robotics, he already said that. Did you read the article? US Robotics are not custom modems, they're common and they require very simple drivers (because they're actually modems).
"Microsoft Internet Connection Wizard? I'm smacking my head right now."
Why? Every other modern OS works as a nat'ed router?
"Here's a tip: anything called a "Web accelerator" is bound to contain spyware or slow down your system."
You should be talking to the authorities then. It's illegal to install Spyware (unless of course you say so clearly). He got this with his netscape internet; not off a random website. They're usually just image compression and text compression anyway.
"So no, Java is not required for Windows."
Actually, I believe Windows includes an outdated Java runtime.
"Just so you know, antivirus and related software really does work best when you install it AFTER you've noticed problems. Good job. Way to go. I highly recommend doing that again. In fact I'm going to do it from now on."
He didn't mention virus problems before installing anti-virus. Besides, he'd had the install for days; give him a break.
"You're right, the operating system should have started off hardened in the first place. Because nobody ever, I mean ever, finds new vulnerabilities in software."
I don't think you meant what you just said.
"You kids with your fancy-schmancy Web-site-accessing software. What do they call those things again? Well, all I know is Windows doesn't have one."
Yes, Windows does lack an ssh client. It has a telnet client though!
Member since:2005-07-11
hahaha... i think you just bought this article hook line and sinker.
well at least you might understand how frustrated i feel when some windows guy tries to migrate from windows to linux and writes a whiny review of why linux isn't ready for the desktop when it doesn't go perfect for them.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
---
Then neither BeOS was ready in it's time, neither is MacOS(Classic or OSX).
My point is, that you cannot relate the readiness of the operating system for desktop use by merely comparing market share, I mean I'm sure that on the technicall side BeOS and MacOS was/is much better than Windows. And tell am experienced Mac user to use windows and he/she will probably not be able to use it the way a windows user would...
Member since:
---
I also tried Windows XP (again) a couple of months ago. My installation went much smoother than his, but I remember experiencing a lot of things he's talking about.
What bothers me most about Windows is, that you are never really in control of your OS. I can install tons of GNU software to make Windows at least useful for my daily live needs, but it's just exhausting doing that.
And started to wondered why people are going through so much trouble having Windows as an OS. Personally I think it's an enifficient use of a computer.
Flame me all I want, but that's how I feel about it.
Member since:
---
Removing Windows 2000 from a working laptop proves that this guy has serious problems. To make things worse, he changed that stable OS to a older version (Windows 98). And the third crazy thing he did was buying Windows XP instead of using his W2K OEM license.
Dumb enought to use Windows, go back to your Linux!
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-07-06
People are reacting badly to the article, but honestly, its perspective isn't that far off. I'm a long-time Linux user, someone who uses Windows only when they need to print something in the lab or library (and then, only when the Macs are all tied up). The niggling sorts of problems the author had, the stuff that would rarely be a problem for Windows users, who are used to dealing with its idiosyncracies, that's precisely the sort of problems I have when I use Windows. This article is precisely what all the "Windows user trying Linux" articles sound like.
Member since:
---
came to the conclusion that linux (at least fc4) isn't ready for the desktop either... if it offers an gui selectable option for geforce 6800 gt cards, i would expect it would ensure the use of my 6800 gt gfx card... instead it prevents fc4 from booting anymore.
guys, if you want to add a button for selfdestruction (which i have to admit is kinda cool for an os) don't name it something like "push me, i'm usefull".
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-14
I just so happened that I got a new laptop at work and proceed to install the company provided XP on it. Though I prefer to use Linux, for a few things I need XP as well.
We use a pre-configured image, installed trough Norton Ghost.
There was a number of issues, which, in my opinion, make Windows XP worse than Debian/Sid (my prefered Linux distribution)
* Number of reboots until it was really installed:
- boot install DVD - OK
- reboot to new system - OK
- reboot again after it identified all hardware - not OK
- reboot again after installing a sec patch - not OK, unless it was a kernel patch (which it probably was not)
- reboot after installing VPN client - not OK
- reboot after all updates were installed through the Automatic Updates subsystem - not OK
- reboot after driver for Intel WiFi chipset - not OK (though I don't blame XP for not having the driver directly)
Altogether 7 reboots. Debian would have been installed with 2, max 3. (if I wanted to change the kernel). Actually, there were a few more, but I don't remember the reason that triggered them, so I did not include them. Now, I understand that this is only during the installation, something that does not happen daily. Still, Debian shows it _can_ be done with less reboots. Why does not XP manage it? I maybe could have clustered a few reboots into one, but every installer "highly recommended" to reboot immediately. I do not know the internals of XP, so I had no guarantee that e.g. installing drivers to a patched-but-not-rebooted system would not mess up anything.
* During boot, sometimes the sceen with the moving blue bar at the bottom (the first graphical screen) was on for over 30 seconds, with no disk activity. Probably XP was doing something, and I don't blame it, during an installation, but it could have told me what it is doing. That way, I would know it is really doing something, that it did not lock up. When Linux boots, I know what it is doing. I know things are all right, which comforts me 
* The default desktop environment
- no virtual desktops
- no way to change keyboard shortcuts for window manager functions (I want Alt+Fx to switch virtual desktops and ctrl-shift-reasonable-letter to manipulate windows)
- no way to change mouse focus behaviour
- no way to have the main menu anywhere on desktop instead of just one corner
- no way (that I know of) to easily run a program using just the keyboard (on Debian I have alt-shift-r bound to start 'gmrun' - in there I just type the program's name and press Enter. How do I get that on XP?)
- alt+mouse button window manipulation does not work (i.e. move and resize with any part of window, not just the border)
* the way to install software (go to web site, download setup.exe, run setup.exe, click numerous [next] buttons, repeat for next software).
I accept that these a number of people will not care for these features. And I don't care about these people's opinion whether Linux makes a good desktop OS or not. For me, it does a better desktop OS than Windows XP. I'm willing to use XP for work, because I do require it and the employer paid for it (though they are working on a pre-configured Linux image based on RHEL too), but I'd definitely not buy it myself, out of my budget.
I hope that bb4win and Cygwin will make XP a more usable desktop OS than it is in its default shape.
Member since:2005-07-06
You reminded me of something. I recently installed Visual Studio.NET onto my old laptop (to test a Windows port of a software project). It rebooted not several times, and took nearly 2 hours. It was the most painful computing experience I've endured since I tried installing Windows on a SATA machine...
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
It looks like Windows fans can't stand hearing the recounts of a typical experience from a typical person trying to use their favorite OS.
If you want a fair comparison you can't complain about linux: not having drivers, having text configuration files, performance, features, bugs, security, or anything related to installing, building, configuring, supporting or developing the system.
What you can compare is the applications and their performance and features.
Any attempt to argue that Linux is not ready for the desktop can not attack the kernel because its ready for production. The GUI, however, is still under construction.
But be careful. Think before you comment. If you say Linux is lacking in one area make sure your favorite OS is not or be prepared to find equal but opposite arguements from the other side.
The best way to compares these OSs is from the end user experience after the OS has been properly installed and configured for supported and equivelent hardware. Or else it just starts a flame war.
These OSs for most uses are equivelent. Linux is more open and has more customization, but Windows is almost as stable and has a lot of code. I would argue that most of the GUI code in Windows is faster and possibly less buggy than Linux. But the core Windows OS is closed and apparently less stable and secure as the Linux kernel. This begs the question, how do you use your Desktop? If you just use it to play games stability and security is not a problem. If you use it as an Office workstation, then you get down to brass tax, TCO, etc.
The thing is Linux offers 95% of the features one needs for an office workstation and has the added advantage of being a stable environment that does not have a virus problem at this time. It is unlikely that it will have a virus problem in the future. And even if somehow a worm is developed the chances of it impacting corporate desktops like Windows has in the last 3 years is 0%. So unless there is some compelling reason to stick with Windows, unless it offers greater productivity, ease of use, etc. Its stupid not to examine the alternatives and compare the costs and benefits of each without bias.
-Costs-
Windows:
worms, viruses, adware, spyware
$$ price of commercial software (Office, PhotoShop, etc.)
$$ price of support for closed source software (impossible to self support)
stability and lost work
licensing and tracking commercial licenses
compatibility (with *nix/Mac, etc.)
Linux:
technical staff
GUI performance (OpenOffice, GNOME, etc. but it is improving)
compatibility (Windows is the "standard" PC OS)
I'm sure there are others, but I'm biased
-Benefits-
Windows:
compatibility (With the Windows "standard")
knowledge base (most people won't need training)
ease of use, graphical administration
excellent GUI performance
Games (my personal favorite)
Linux:
Cost $0 (with self support)
can run 70% of Windows apps in Wine
security, stability, system efficiency and performance
customizability (access to source)
license to modify, redistribute and sell the OS
no need for license tracking or the BSA, license tracking can be automated if necessary (part of being F/OSS)
rate of improvement is exceptionally fast and increasing
And my favorite, GNU is simply fair: Compete with your mind and your technology, not with copyright and capitalism. There's no need for DRM if everyone has the right to use the media, etc.
So, for me, the comparison is obvious. But this is not true for everyone. If you disagree, did I leave anything out or am I biased?
Member since:
---
I have worked with Windows of every flavor - and about 6 or 7 linux distros - any good distro of Linux is just about 10 times easier to set up than Windows. Even more so on older equipment (anything not brand new out of the box). He## even brand new out of the box Windows is a real pain - gobbs of already installed scumware - on many computers add to that there is no usable software on board so you must find and buy or down load each item then install it separately - and don't get me started on the screwed UI.
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
-Linux users tend to look down on people who use Windows as either being sheep or being too stupid to run Windows.
+Linux users tend to look down on people who use Windows as either being sheep or being too stupid to run Linux.
That's because to some level it is political. Did you guys miss the whole GNU and GPL thing? People who try to believe they're practical while ignoring politics bother me. You cannot be practical and ignore politics, because, like it or not, politics tend to have an impact on you in the long term.
You can, however, be selfish in the moment while ignoring politics and only weighing in on how this will affect you, today. But you'd still be ignoring the future and your community.
I'll give you an example. Let's say a company, we'll call them Opera, releases a program and gives it away. It's awesome. It's secure, it's fast. We'll pretend it's totally superior to firefox in every way. Even if the real product isn't.
So, you switch to it. You say "it doesn't cost me anything today." And so does the whole community (in this case, everyone in the world). Suddenly, no one works on firefox; websites are written just for opera. Then one day, Opera Inc wants $5,000 for Opera; now that the web is crucial to all businesses operations. Oh, they have a special license fore business though, a 500 for 50 thousand dollars rate.
See, you were practical in the moment. And, so was everyone else. And they ended up with this program that they couldn't afford anymore but needed because the person they bought it from became the only distributor.
Having the GPL, or MIT license or BSD license, on your side could have really saved your butt here huh?
Member since:2005-07-06
Thanks for the correction.
And yeah, it is political. It's TOO political, which I think is a big problem. End users don't care about the politics and what goes on behind the scenes. They care about if the product works or not.
I do see your point. And why's why open-source helps the industry. When there is a free competing product, it prevents (hopefully) a company from selling their product for a ridiculous amount (like in your situation). It's not even just open-source though of course, it's competition.
Yeah, "Opera" being under an open-source license could help, but again, end users don't care about the politics behind it. It's about the now.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
This is not a review of window as much as a long rant on why Windows is not Linux.
The author has issues with downloading Java over a dial-up connection using Netscape and blames Windows for his misfortunes!
Give me a break. I have repeatedly wanted to try and love Linux. I could not get any useful done with it, although I really really wanted to love using it.
The author is needlessly ideological. Linux has years to go before it is as usable and productive as the commerical operating systems like Mac OS and Windows XP. False characterization of the strengths of Linux on the Desktop is precisely the reason so many people (like me) try it with false expectations and feel dissappointed.
RE: Blaming Windows for not being Linux
Member since:---
Your comments doesn't count. Your nick secures that.
You're usually lying right out everytime you open your mouth in here.
Leave this site fro the benefit of mankind, and leave the site to those of us, who are capable of handling an issue from more than one view.
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
RE[3]: Blaming Windows for not being Linux
Member since:---
I could not get any useful done with it
Well.. was it hardware issues or just lack of knowledge on your side, and how long ago was the last attempt, and what distro?
I've never had issues with standard distro'es (though I've had some issues with the Grub bootloader with LFS - that damn bootloader is annoying).
You have absolutely no idea about the state of the GNU/Linux desktop.
As a user of many different OS'es and GUI's (incl. Windows since 3.1), I can assure you that GNU/Linux is everybit a productive and usable as Windows and other proprietary desktops.
What expectations did you have, and exactly how did it fail you?
BTW: Do not confuse commercial with proprietary. GPL programs can also be commercial, and there are many commercial GNU/Linux systems. Read the cathedral and the bazaar before you answer this post, or any other post for that matter.
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
RE[2]: Blaming Windows for not being Linux
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-07-11
Member since:
2005-07-12
Ok, let's see... First off he didn't bother listing his system specs...
Thinkpad T21, that's a P3 800 with 128 megs stock. Oh yeah, GREAT XP platform.
Starts out complaining he can't connect with Ubuntu, then can't connect with 98, then can't connect with XP. Hmm. XP must be the problem... RIGHT.
Installing XP over Win98 via Upgrade. Yeah, that ALWAYS works well.
To connect to Netscape... Ok, right off, anyone who uses Netscape or AOHELL's internet service deserves what they get. I realize it's the only connect that's available whereever you go... That does NOT mean it's any good or even relyable. The moment I hear the words "I had to download their dialer" I think wow, isn't that special, in the same way some olympics are special.
Couldn't get the modem to work, out of curiousity is that a PCMCIA modem? Did he install the special PCMCIA drivers from IBM to get it working... Doesn't that laptop come with a Intel chipset V.90 built in, not the USR he was trying to use...
Then he talks about downloading drivers "and had Netscape's web accelerator running." which of course has such an impact on binary downloads, oh wait, it DOESN'T...
Of course he tries to do ICS, and of course "Netscape's proprietary dialer would not allow for Microsoft ICS." No shit sherlock, that's why it's called a proprietary dailerr... Of course, this must be XP's fault. RIGHT.
He goes on and on about crappy third party software we all KNOW is crappy third party software... The article might mean something if it wasn't built on a house of cards.
Member since:
---
Linux, nor Windows, are ready for the Desktop as far as Joe user sees it.
A real Desktop OS would have the qualities as follows missing from both Linux Distros and Windows Distros:
1. Predictability (Uniform Interface, Grammar, Etc...)
2. Simple Effective Security (than by obscurity)
3. Common Sense Interface (5 min learning curve for 6yr old)
4. Simple, Free/Cheap, Extendability (i.e. Apps, but not viewed as files containing data that executes to peform a function)
5. Driverless operation (A common hardware interface per device type, so Network devices ALL work alike, wireless or not, video, sound, etc...)
6. Blind Automatic Fail-Safe functions for EVERYTHING.
7. Auto-Live-Repair/Patch. Problems fix themselves.
8. Human-Readable Error Messages would help.
9. The absense of a User-Visible file system.
--organized like the internet instead, with a portal
10. no advertisments.
11. no spyware
12. no virus software
13. No Software Companies (ANY OF THEM)
14. Common API (for apps, duh, that is what is means)
How can we do this? Simple, actually, VERY simple:
Hardware.
Yup, get rid of the software and the whole world is better. Each peice of hardware has a common interface for data transferral from the OnBoard Programming. The system only runs in one fixed mode (64/128-bit). The BIOS provides all kernel level functions, the onlfy software would be for an interface.
The programming should be abstracted and clean enough that a Freshmen High School Computer Science course should enough to turn out a new IS at will, as a starter homework project for the first week in school.
The only thing that is stored on unreliable storage (i.e. hard drives) is data that changes too frequently. Unmodded data can be automatically, by the BIOS, copied to a faster more-stable device.
The InterfaceSoftware resides on its own reliable storage. RAM is already split by the BIOS for 'kernel' space, app space, interface space, and flex-space, which is taken care of by the BIOS. Boundaries are also in charge of by the BIOS.
So does this sound impossible??
Ever see a PalmOS Device? It comes kinda close.
Ever see an Apple PC? Getting kinda closer, but not quite, that is much more thanks to control freaks than anything.
How long would it take to make this a reality, if the entire computing world stood behind such an objective, and someone with some damned brains for once ran it??
I'd say about six months, tops, twenty developers for the BIOS/kernel, twenty for the Interface API, twnty for the Sound API, Network API, Video API, Storage API, and a few other groups to take care of the additional generic groups of classes of device.
Then the hardware companies to make their hardware compatible with the scheme.
Who would be best to run something like this? Well, me of course, heh. But, no, seriously, a five year old red headed freckled little girl. Yuppers.
--The loon
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
If you ask me, this guy's not too bright. I googled on "download vdhcp.386 version 4.10.2223", and eventually got to http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13094020?hilite=834 (the 4th ranked results link) which had a link to an entire unofficial 98 SE service pack ready to go, which contained the driver patch he was in need of.
4 minutes worth of work to get a complete update of an outdated version of an OS. You're telling me you can do this with an 8 year old copy of a *nix distro that has had several major updates to it since it was originally forked?
Member since:2005-09-08
Member since:
---
Member since:---
Member since:
---
This article is pure rubbish. Let's review: I got Ubuntu to work with all my hardware, then installed Windows 98 in case I wanted to watch a DVD... huh? obviously not working perfectly with all your hardware afterall...
You couldn't ask the hotel what their DNS servers address was so you could manually enter it. How can you equate a problem you had both with Windows and Linux as something that only makes Linux suck.
Of course it took FOREVER to get Windows installed on a T22; I used to work on T21's, T22's, T23's and T30's extensively. The T2x's are all fairly outdated. To add to that the power management, the way it came default on these systems, had the CPU ramped WAY down even when AC power was plugged in. The BIOS defaults were idiotic. I'm willing to bet you never even checked.
And you can easily go to the IBM website and get the drivers and download them. It's your fault you don't know how to use google to search for the shit. I never favoritized the website, remembered it, or in any other waty saved the information. I need to download the drivers, just hit google up and download.
But it's Windows' fault that your numbnut ass cannot do a google search and download the drivers, manually enter DNS servers, or properly configure your hardware, so that you can watch a DVD in Linux.
ASS!
Member since:---
>>This article is pure rubbish. Let's review: I got Ubuntu to work with all my hardware, then installed Windows 98 in case I wanted to watch a DVD... huh? obviously not working perfectly with all your hardware afterall... <<
Ubuntu. "Watch a DVD". Let me see ... inane US restriction applies here, doesn't it, whereby some dolts in the US think they have a right to say if I can watch a DVD I own?
OK, so how to tell these dolt's where to stick it?
Ubuntu. "Watch a DVD".
I don't use Ubuntu, but here is some advice from a quick Google search (http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-21975.html):
"Add in your /etc/apt/sources.list hoary-extras-staging/restricted"
Then:
apt-get update
apt-get install libdvdcss w32codecs xine totem
Done.
Member since:
2005-08-04
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
If anyone is interested in how a package manager actually works:
http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/
http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/action.html
"Features
(as of version 0.56)
* Install, remove, upgrade and downgrade single and multiple packages.
* Upgrade your whole system.
* Manage package repositories (sources.list).
* Find packages by name, description and several other attributes.
* Select packages by status, section, name or a custom filter.
* Sort packages by name, status, size or version.
* Browse all available online documentation related to a package.
* Download the latest changelog of a package.
* Lock packages to the current version.
* Force the installation of a specifc package version.
* Undo/Redo of selections.
* Built-in terminal emulator for the package manager.
* Debian only: Configure packages through the debconf system."
Member since:
---
Don't laugh people, this stuff really does happen. There are people that use Linux/Unix properly and have a hard time with Linux. In fact I spent 5 hours today trying to fix 1 NT4 machine (onto a network) that I actually had running fine after booting Knoppix live CD. I can relate, there are many that do as well. Luckily the world isn't made up of clones like me. I hope that smart a%&e out there is reading this. You know who you are.
Member since:
---
I've read better articles, but I've certainly read a lot worse.
It is easy to relate to Windows users. I see them all the time. Sometimes you wonder why the hell they thought it was a good idea to get a great big drum of technology into their house of which they understand not one thing at all. I know people who don't know how to open, I said: open, not surfing, just opening, Internet Exploder. Learning Word takes them a year! And that's when things are going well.
They have no idea about applications,
they have no sense of security,
they don't know how to find anything,
they don't want to know how they have to protect their system,
all the basic issues are WAY over their head let alone having to actually installing and configuring software or fine tuning vital settings.
But they simply HAVE to run Windows.
I'm very happy that I don't have to go down their route of misery and pain everyday. Scoff what you will about OS X, I don't lose a day trying to get my soundcard to work.
Member since:
---
Guys you probably Microsoft certified that's why you defend windows even though
it sucks big time.
To tell you the truth Microsoft certification is easy to pass.
I did on my first attempt with no special preparation.
For all of you Microsoft certified, try to pass RHCE on your first attempt.
I bet you can't.
That's why you will worship windows until its final day comes and it will.
Member since:2005-07-06
I will not employ anyone with an MCSE again. One guy I gave the chance to, did not know how to get a windows 2000 professional server to show on a network of ultrasparcs.
I told him to reconfigure solaris, he said he could not find the icon for Control Panel. I sacked him there and then.
One thing Microsoft has done, and they should be applauded for, is that they removed the "White Coat Brigade" from computing..... this is excellent for home users, but disasterous for business users.
I have a request for Windows supporters here.. Have a look in TV programmes, films, adverts etc at all the computer screens. How many of them still use Windows ?
Not very many.
Member since:2005-08-11
Member since:2005-09-21
Member since:2005-07-06
I advertised for someone who had "extensive computer experience".
If you actually had a job, then you would have realised that you are not hired purely by your qualifications, you actually have to sell yourself.
I liked the guy, and decided to give him a chance. He just did not have a clue about anything other than what a casual home windows users would.
This was not good for my business.
However, the point is this, the guy was unwilling to learn anything else and kept arguing with me that the Microsoft way was the only way to go. Even though the same guy was in awe at some of the things these SPARCs and Linux machines were doing. In fact he even almost wet himself when he saw Amarok in action on a collegues laptop, but said the Microsoft version will be better !
I have no time to retrain people like that.
Now, like I was saying, if you had read the previous post, and if you had a job, then you would understand these things. Instead, stop trolling.
Member since:
---
I got my MCSE first go, and my RHCE in 7.2 and then later enterprise 4 first go. RHCE is more satisfying because its a lab, it breaks and you got to fix it. MCSE is just questions but a lot harder now with server 2003.
Both Windows and Linux have there uses, advantages and disadvanges. Just use what you want to use and be happy with it
Member since:
---
even microsoft strongly recommends against "upgrading" windows in such a manner
besides, many applications do not need to be reinstalled after a fresh windows reinstallation (opera web browser, virtualdub,irfanview)
on a 1GHz p3 it takes me no more then 1.5 hours to install all the applications i need (office,acrobat,drivers) including the instalation of the operating installation
Member since:---
>>on a 1GHz p3 it takes me no more then 1.5 hours to install all the applications i need (office,acrobat,drivers) including the instalation of the operating installation<<
1.5 hours?
eek!
Using a KANOTIX live CD I can install a Debian system to hard disk with about 1340 packages (not a typo - 1340 packages) in about 15 minutes.
Member since:
---
Funny how Windows users don't like theses article's because they are true, they get around the discussion by saying the user MUST be stupid. Same goes for security in Windows, it's, 'well you didn't setup your firewall right' or 'you didnot use a proper anti-virus'.
Windows is not that easy to configure is it hey, especially if you keep telling people who got hacked they didn't configure there, automatically setup zonealarm firewall they installed. One click setup is good but if it's not configured correctly in the first place, it's useless. This is why linux not that way, that's why Vista is having to change all that.
Member since:
---
Member since:---
It is funny though. Watch all the windows newbies trying to use GNU/Linux for 10 days and make a review on it. It's nothing but a complete rant made by an idiot who doesn't want to spend some time googling for the answer.
Windows is a poor choice for a true power user. But for the normal experienced user, windows can be an okay choice.
I thinks it's reasonable that the clueless nobrainers get a taste of their own medicin. These young windows users who has never used a pc before windows98 was released, can't claim to be anything but without basic knowledge or being trolls.
dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk
Member since:
2005-07-23
I just got back from shooting lots of pictures for my employer with a Nikon D70 camera. When I got back I had to transfer the pics. I have two machines in my office, one standard WinXP PC and an old iMac running Ubuntu. Here's the results:
WinXP PC: Plugged the cam in the USB, before booting, and nothing happened. Well, except for XP telling me I needed admin privilegies to install new hardware, but this happens each and every boot (for no reason), so I dunno if it meant the camera.
Ubuntu iMac: A browser opened immidiatly after plugging the camera in, and I could easily locate it in Nautilus as a device. This was as user, it didn't sudo afaik.
Not sure wich one's worse or better (it's a complex question), but in many cases GNU/Linux and the likes can be handled quite easily. For me, in this case, Linux worked better.
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-07-14
Member since:
---
Windoze, Winblows and so on is not any better than Linsux.
But really, how many have you seen here who call themselves "Windows Is Poo" or "MacOSX Is Poo", and would you take them seriously if they were?
It doesn't matter which OS it is, such things are signs of extreme zealotry (is that a word?), and I wont take them serious.
Member since:2005-07-14
Often is the case when frequenting linux forums for assistance, is the use of derogatory terms and variations in reference to Windows the norm and sometimes, I feel, to be expected. Almost all the time, I find myself being the only one who refers to Microsoft as MS, instead of MS, in any of the many linux forums.
I have read many of Linux is Poo's posts, and it is my honest opinion that his use is for the expressed purpose of mocking those many linux fans and zealots, that have used and still use on a daily basis the above referenced language for Windows and Microsoft, instead of actual hatred for linux.
I do agree with you. I don't think that extreme zealotry (yes, it is indeed a word, lol) is to be taken seriously.
Ken
Member since:2005-07-14
Member since:
---
The oldest installation in the house is my daughter's over three year old Libranet system. Libranet is basically Debian with some easy install and management utilities. The story of that machine is the story of package management.
It has undergone multiple, regular updates over the years. It has gone from an early OpenOffice to 2.0. KDE has gone from 3.0 to 3.4. Many of the key support libraries have gone through a couple of major upgrades. The kernel has been updated several times.
Over that three year period, the computer has gotten more responsive. It feels faster than when we first installed Linux. That's because the newer versions of the various packages are faster than the old. This applies to KDE, OpenOffice, Mozilla, and a host of others.
I have only defragmented the hard drive, and cleaned the registry of the Windows 2000 side of the machine. I kept all anti-spyware and anti-virus software up to date until the day I deliberately disabled Windows 2000's networking support. The Linux side received no such care.
Changing to Linux isn't easy. I requires some planning. After a number of experiments where I tried Linux and returned to Windows, I realized the changeover was permanent when a dual booting Windows 2000 file server (not my daughter's machine) could switch to Linux, and the only difference the connected machines noticed was that speed of access to the server improved by over 50%. Linux did Windows networking better than Windows.
The desktops in my house switched during the barrage of worms that kept striking Windows. Our Windows systems stayed worm free, but it was a lot of work. Eventually, it was too much work, and I disabled network access on the Windows side for all dual booting machines. My children still played the occasional game on Windows, but since homework often required the Internet, and since printing was over a LAN, they switched to Linux, found new games, and stopped using Windows.
With Linux, maintenance is easier because of package management. Systems now run faster, and everything just makes more sense.
Peter Besenbruch
http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky/
Member since:
2005-07-06
i actually read the whole review, this guy is a total moron.
how on earth can he claim to find fault in XP based on his obvious l33t skills with Ubuntu and Windows 98 ?
the best part of his review is the comments on the LX site directly under it, they sum up exactly what it is.
crap.
Member since:
---
A recent experience gave me a revelation about the "Windows desktop experience" for the common user: it can really suck with a store-bought system. This isn't so much an indictment of XP per se, but more of Compaq and various software vendors. It did show what average users can and do put up with, though.
Personally, I run XP Pro on my own computer which I built myself; I do a clean install and tweak it a lot, and I've also built systems for friends/family. I've pretty much got it down to a science, including security. It runs smooth and stable, setting a fairly high bar for the Linux distros I also use (Ubuntu is my preferred choice).
So anyway, my friend's mother just bought a new Compaq with pretty respectable specs: Sempron 3100+ (socket 754, so K8), 512MB RAM, DVD burner, 100gb drive, Sis mobo with onboard video, but with an open AGP slot. So it's pretty fast and also nearly silent. For the ~$350 or so she paid, it's quite nice.
The problem? Windows starts with 46(!) processes going (my own computer starts with 22, including firewall and AV)! Including some crappy Compaq control center and time limited trials of Norton AV and some commercial anti-spyware program. It takes several *minutes* for the computer to be usable after you first reach the desktop. The desktop is littered with shortcuts to various other trialware pre-installed.
Norton constantly pops up with "Outbreak Alert" dialogs from the systray, with the options "OK" or "Protect Me" given. Live Update isn't activated till you launch Norton's control center (which she hadn't known to do). The AV definitions were from March. Updating Norton completely requires over 40MBs(!) of downloading and two(!) reboots. Plus it expires in 60 days. Can it be uninstalled cleanly should she choose not to buy it? I don't know, but previous experience with Norton makes me skeptical.
Window's automatic updates was on but its download stalled at 70% for some reason, so I went to the Windows Update site manually. It updated the automatic update system and Windows installer, then required a reboot. I then had to revisit the update site to get about 30 updates with another 40 or 50MB worth of downloading. Then another reboot.
I honestly don't know how Compaq's (and presumably HP's, since they merged?) setup compares to say, eMachines/Gateway's or Dell's current one (last time I used a clean factory installed image of a Dell was several years ago--I don't remember it being so bad), but it succeeds at making a very modern machine run like molasses.
It's not fair to say Windows as a whole sucks because of it, but if you look at it as Compaq's "distribution" of Windows, it would be fair to compare its "desktop experience" to that of a default install of a random Linux distro like Ubuntu or Fedora or whatever--and Compaq's does not win by any reasonable measure.
Member since:
---
Interesting comments. I especially like calling the version of Windows that comes bundled with a computer a "distro."
The last two laptops I purchased were Toshibas. Toshiba doesn't bundle much. That's a good thing. HP/Compaq, Sony, and Dell throw in a bunch of extras. All of it time limited. Some of the items are spyware, pure and simple. They all should be uninstalled after purchase. An even better alternative involves throwing in a Kanotix disk, blowing away what's on the drive, and installing Linux.
When working with other people's Windows machines, I notice a war going on for the desktop, the quick launch bar, and top posting in the Start menu. I point at the various icons and ask the users if they ever use them. Invariably the answer is "no." I get the same answer when I ask if they want the item removed. The end user fears that if I remove a launch icon, something will break. Thus, Windows desktops have a deserved reputation for being an atrocious, cluttered mess.
You just don't get that kind of competition with open source, and for that I am grateful.
Peter Besenbruch
http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky/
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
---
I think everything that needs to be said about the quality of this "review" has been said, and we're all pretty much agreed that it's crap.
No, we didn't all agree that it was crap. I was one that liked the article.
The simplest things are a pain in the ar$e with Linux - Getting MP3 playback to work,
I use the Nerim Debian repository, which gives you all the codecs you need. You add this line to the /etc/apt/sources.list file:
deb ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/ etch main
In place of "etch," you can use "sarge," or "sid," depending on your system. Then you issue these two lines:
apt-get update
apt-get install libdvdcss w32codecs
Every distribution has links like this for their package managers. Google helps a lot.
Trying to sync your PDA,
We have a couple of Clies in the house. We used to have a serial Palm. We use Jpilot. You may need to issue a "modprobe visor" as root, or make sure the module you need is listed in your /etc/modules file.
Installing the latest JRE.
Here, I just went to Sun and got their version of Java for Linux. I ran their installer and followed directions, like in Windows. I installed to /usr/local. You can also "Google" for Blackdown repositories.
Plus, try getting anything made by Canon to work!
My Lide 30 scanner works with Sane. Though a KDE kind of guy, I like Xsane's interface better. I also use Ed Hamrick's Vuescan. It drives both the Lide 30 and a Polaroid SS4000 film scanner (http://www.hamrick.com/).
For printing, I use a Canon S9000 and a Pixma iP4000. I use the Turboprint drivers: http://www.turboprint.de/english.html
They are excellent.
My Canon Digital Rebel (300D) works with GPhoto, but I tend to slap the CF card in a reader, and copy the images to disk. I use Bibble to handle the raw files it produces: http://www.bibblelabs.com/
Peter Besenbruch
http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky/
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
No, the article is crap because the enlightened person who wrote it complained that an upgrade path from Win98SE didn't migrate smoothly to WinXP. Wow, never saw that coming. This is because MS assumes people are smart enough to stop using an OS when it gets to be about 7 YEARS OLD.
But, we didn't all agree. Scary, but true.
Member since:
---
No, the article is crap because the enlightened person who wrote it complained that an upgrade path from Win98SE didn't migrate smoothly to WinXP. Wow, never saw that coming. This is because MS assumes people are smart enough to stop using an OS when it gets to be about 7 YEARS OLD.
When Windows 98SE came out is was 1999. Windows XP came out in 2001. Upgrades from 98SE to XP didn't work well then, either. In the intervening four years, it hasn't gotten any better. Hence, the advice to format, and start over, rather than upgrade.
Other points I liked: The endless problems with proprietary dialers. Why is it a good point? Because it illustrates the problems with proprietary solutions.
The author mentioned an inability to find a needed update to do DHCP. In linux, even an old version, a proper update could have been found. Points made earlier that Linux supports older hardware better than Windows apply as well.
The endless update routine with IBM and Windows update is something that lots of people have experienced, especially the interrupted download, because one update was a "separate" download. This just shouldn't happen.
As for the spyware and viruses, that is so obvious it needs no defense.
No, there were a bunch of valid points in the article. It was anything but crap.
Member since:
---
No, the article is crap because the enlightened person who wrote it complained that an upgrade path from Win98SE didn't migrate smoothly to WinXP. Wow, never saw that coming. This is because MS assumes people are smart enough to stop using an OS when it gets to be about 7 YEARS OLD.
When Windows 98SE came out is was 1999. Windows XP came out in 2001. Upgrades from 98SE to XP didn't work well then, either. In the intervening four years, it hasn't gotten any better. Hence, the advice to format, and start over, rather than upgrade.
Other points I liked: The endless problems with proprietary dialers. Why is it a good point? Because it illustrates the problems with proprietary solutions.
The author mentioned an inability to find a needed update to do DHCP. In linux, even an old version, a proper update could have been found. Points made earlier that Linux supports older hardware better than Windows apply as well.
The endless update routine with IBM and Windows update is something that lots of people have experienced, especially the interrupted download, because one update was a "separate" download. This just shouldn't happen.
As for the spyware and viruses, that is so obvious it needs no defense.
No, there were a bunch of valid points in the article. It was anything but crap.
