Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 06:08 UTC
Windows ITWire: "Linux users can, at times, be the worst kind of ingrates, whining and complaining about what they perceive as missing features in a free operating system. My advice to all such whingers: spend 10 days using the latest version of Windows and you'll realise that you are living in a world of relative bliss."
Order by: Score:
But
by bsharitt on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 06:27 UTC
bsharitt
Member since:
2005-07-07

But...but...transparent! The only reason I even have Vista already(after using the RCs) is because I watched those videos in that powertogether thing and got a free comy of business edition. Otherwise, the only thing that would have made me upgrade was getting it "free" with a new computer or once applications I needed started requiring Vista. I didn't move to XP from 2000 until around late 2003/2004.

Reply Score: 2

With all due respect...
by WarpKat on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 06:31 UTC
WarpKat
Member since:
2006-02-06

=:P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I spent 10 minutes with Windows Vista.

Hated it.

But I have to quote the article:

"Any sensible person who reads the end user licence agreement accompanying Vista would, I'm sure, prefer to opt for a cell in Guantanamo; you basically have to spread your legs wide and bend over if you want to use the operating system."

Classic. Simply classic.

Reply Score: 5

RE: With all due respect...
by flanque on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 08:39 UTC in reply to "With all due respect..."
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

For crying out loud... How many times do we have to keep going over and over these useless deliberate articles who's only motive seems to be causing fights and attempts at getting the spotlight on sites like this?

If you don't like Vista don't use it, if you prefer Linux then go for it. I think we've all got the idea now that people think Microsoft have goofed up.

"Articles" like this are for the domain of blogs, not news or post worthy on a site such as OSNews.

If only you could vote articles down.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: With all due respect...
by markob on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 08:46 UTC in reply to "RE: With all due respect..."
markob Member since:
2005-07-06

You can't ignore Windows even if you're a hardcore linux/mac user. Windows has a huge market share, so it is an important OS, no matter how bad we think (know) it is. Software development depends on this, web development depends on this (remember, most of those users still use IE), security of many many machines/servers, other operating systems are in some way forced to make some features similar to Vista available if they want non-geeky users to addopt their product, ... Again, you can't ignore it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: With all due respect...
by flanque on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 09:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: With all due respect..."
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

It's not about ignoring Windows. It's about people writing the useless articles with the sole purpose in my view to start arguments, and how sites such as this constantly post them.

This is not OSBlogs.com, it's OSNews.com.

Edited 2007-06-22 09:14

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: With all due respect...
by twenex on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 11:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: With all due respect..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

It's not about ignoring Windows. It's about people writing the useless articles with the sole purpose in my view to start arguments, and how sites such as this constantly post them.

This is not OSBlogs.com, it's OSNews.com.


OSNews has its faults, but let's face it, the criticism people like you sling at it would make any reasonably independent observer suspect that if you were to take over editorship, a more reasonable name for it would be "OSBendOverBackwardsAndLetMickeySoft-
TakeMeUpTheAssPropaganda.com".

Like it or not, whilst non-Microsoft products/OSes have their faults, so do Microsoft products.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: With all due respect...
by flanque on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 12:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: With all due respect..."
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I am unclear how preferring quality well balanced articles rather than cheap low quality rants by people who are clearly intent on making controversy fits with your comment. It doesn't make sense.

If you bothered to read what I've said in the past, you'd realise that I've actually criticised Microsoft and praised Linux and Unix. Perhaps you'll have your doubts, but I make my living off Solaris and Linux.

Also, making it personal demonstrates you don't have a valid argument and must resort to cheap tactics such as offensive insults.

Edited 2007-06-22 12:13

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: With all due respect...
by twenex on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: With all due respect..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I am unclear how preferring quality well balanced articles rather than cheap low quality rants by people who are clearly intent on making controversy fits with your comment. It doesn't make sense.

If you want to court controversy, slagging off Vista seems to be a very bad place to start. The (lack of) quality of Vista is probably the one thing both sides of the Atlantic agree on.

If you bothered to read what I've said in the past, you'd realise that I've actually criticised Microsoft and praised Linux and Unix. Perhaps you'll have your doubts, but I make my living off Solaris and Linux.

I don't recall ever seeing these mythical criticisms of Microsoft by you. Which makes me doubt the veracity of the second sentence.

Also, making it personal demonstrates you don't have a valid argument and must resort to cheap tactics such as offensive insults.

My mistake, if I made one, was in keeping it personal, not making it so. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think the article is a "poor-quality rant"; that might put you in a better position to stave off accusations of "making it personal" and "being blindly pro-MS".

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: With all due respect...
by flanque on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: With all due respect..."
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I don't recall ever seeing these mythical criticisms of Microsoft by you. Which makes me doubt the veracity of the second sentence.


Your recollection and the facts are very different things.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: With all due respect...
by flanque on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: With all due respect..."
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I don't recall ever seeing these mythical criticisms of Microsoft by you. Which makes me doubt the veracity of the second sentence.


Your recollection and the facts are very different things.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: With all due respect...
by psychicist on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: With all due respect..."
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

An operating system is only important as far as necessary applications run on it. If there are applications running on Linux or Mac OS X that do all that's needed, that's nice. If not you can run Windows in a virtual machine and run those applications there, particularly with 3D graphics virtualisation coming of age.

What's really happening now is that functionality gaps are being closed very quickly so that in fact Windows is indeed becoming redundant and it can and will be ignored because of a lack of usefulness, maybe not as fast as Linux fans would like but still it's happening.

No Windows is running here at all and probably never will be anymore, at least on physical hardware. Not because I hate Microsoft or something but weighed against the alternatives it comes out last.

I still have a Windows XP SP2 virtual machine though to test if the cross-platform software I wrote on Linux/BSD/Solaris also works on Windows. It's just that it's almost never powered up.

So my development process is not exclusive of Windows at all, rather inclusive. Windows is just not a preferred platform for deployment and that's what makes it unneeded. Can you tell me how many Windows developers are able and willing to make their software run on Linux and Mac OS X?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: With all due respect...
by WarpKat on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE: With all due respect..."
WarpKat Member since:
2006-02-06

If you don't like the article, don't read it.

Let's add this to the mix - how much better is it to see "studies" which have almost always been funded by Microsoft or its allies to the point that it puts Windows in a better light when, for the task, Linux, *BSD, and even Mac OSX would be far superior?

I stated that I would love to see a very objective study that is either funded equally by both parties or is funded by an unrelated 3rd party with an oversight group to ensure fairness.

Microsoft's funded studies are hardly fair and are almost always done by the same people it pays to do the study.

Even you have to admit that Vista was a seemingly rushed product and hardly backwards compatible with most applications that still work for the people using them.

/*
As for the inconsistency in the interface, to which are you referring to? Gnome? KDE? FVWM? The command line?

Customization is a common trait amongst most desktops, and yes, even in Windows. Not everyone has their icons in the same place as you do and not everyone enjoys the same color themes as you, let alone the same window decor.
*/ <- this was to another poster I got confused with.

No, I beg to differ. The guy the wrote the article even stated he didn't like Ubuntu in not so many words.

Edited 2007-06-22 16:33

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: With all due respect...
by PJBonoVox on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 23:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: With all due respect..."
PJBonoVox Member since:
2006-08-14

"If you don't like the article, don't read it."

I'd like to think you're not an idiot, but if you read your statement back you'll realise why you might be perceived as one.

How, sir, might one gauge whether they like an article or not without reading it?

Edited 2007-06-22 23:24

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: With all due respect...
by ThawkTH on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: With all due respect..."
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

Simple.

Many people are incapable of objectivity (all people are incapable of perfect objectivity).

Therefore, they will dislike an article simply because of it's opinion/topic/subject matter.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: With all due respect...
by kaiwai on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE: With all due respect..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

For crying out loud... How many times do we have to keep going over and over these useless deliberate articles who's only motive seems to be causing fights and attempts at getting the spotlight on sites like this?

If you don't like Vista don't use it, if you prefer Linux then go for it. I think we've all got the idea now that people think Microsoft have goofed up.


Mate, I understand where you are coming from, but the issue is this. Yes, there are those who foam at the mouth who just hate Microsoft and hate Windows (as stupid as it sounds to hate an organisation and a product), there are those of us who don't run Windows, not because of hatred of Microsoft but because it doesn't do what we want it to do.

Anyway, back to the conversation at hand; the issue is this; not only are the rabid Microsoft and Windows haters having a field day with Windows Vista, but Microsoft/Windows devotee's as well. Those who once used to loyally upgrade with each release, defend on Arstechnica's battlefront to the death (figuratively) Windows and Microsoft, are now questioning.

I'm seeing more and more articles by people who once used to rant and rave about Microsoft now really starting to question how Microsoft can justify such a high price for Windows Vista - yes there are different levels, but have a look at the software, it now has 'minimum Windows Vista [release]' so although you can 'go the cheap path' with a cheaper version, you're inevitably going to have to upgrade to run those application.

Alternatives are looking better; apart from the niche markets, for most people, Windows XP does what it needs to do; I'd be confident to say that most people in their family (either immediate or extended) have a *NIX user who could get them in contact with an easy to use *NIX distribution.

The price tag and what has been delivered just don't add up - when hardware vendors stop supporting their hardware, software vendors can't be bothered releasing updates for their existing software, what incentive is there to upgrade? very little indeed.

Reply Score: 2

RE: With all due respect...
by Deviate_X on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 12:13 UTC in reply to "With all due respect..."
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

For most people linux simply doesn't work, even if you manage to get it to run, on the desktop the UI is spectaularly inconsistant (which is obviously due to the freewheeling development method) and even just plain ugly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: With all due respect...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE: With all due respect..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That's a lot of bullshit.

I've heard quite a few Microserfs like you complaining about inconsistency and so on. But none of you have ever been the slightest bit capable of delivering examples of these claimed flaws.

Fact is that font rendering is superior to anything on Windows (in regard to anti-aliasing, kerning and hinting - not necessarily font brightness where ClearType is the better solution).

The UI in Linux is the most consistent you can possibly find. No other Desktop OS is as consistent as Linux/*BSD on the Desktop. And the look is light years ahead of Windows - even considering the flower-power Vista.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: With all due respect...
by sappyvcv on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 13:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: With all due respect..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Fact is that font rendering is superior to anything on Windows

That is not a fact. Don't try to play it off like one.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: With all due respect...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: With all due respect..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually it is a fact.

Font Rendering on Linux is equal in quality to Mac OS X font rendering and is arguably much better in terms of kerning, hinting and antialiasing than ClearType and Windows Standard Font Rendering (with and without antialiasing).

The only level where Windows excels is in terms of brightness. The contrast between Black and White is fantastic with ClearType. Unfortunately hinting and kerning is crappy for smaller font sizes with fonts not specifically designed for ClearType (which most fonts are not).

For the average user this is probably a moot point, but if you need true WYSIWYG, ClearType ceases to be an option. It is just not a good renderer.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: With all due respect...
by sappyvcv on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: With all due respect..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

No, it is not a fact. If you want to argue "It is superior in the realm if staying true to the font", I'll give you that. If you want to argue "It is super in the realm of screen readibility", I won't give you that.

However, you simply claimed "superior".

Not. A. Fact.

It is VERY good for screen readbility. If you do publishing or any print work, ClearType is not for you. Most people don't do that though.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: With all due respect...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 15:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: With all due respect..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Aahh.. that would be the brightness thing, right?

Of course, good font rendering == staying true to the font.

If it doesn't stay true to the font it is BAD font rendering.

But yes. With a font optimized for ClearType than it gives grreaaat contrast and readability. Nothing beats the contrast of ClearType. Fantastic bright text. Unfortunately readability is zero with fonts not optimized for ClearType.

But I already wrote that.

I claimed ClearType was superior in terms of contrast, while Mac OS X and FreeType were superior in all other aspects.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: With all due respect...
by google_ninja on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: With all due respect..."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

What you are talking about is pretty debatable.

First of all, fonts do not need to be optimized for cleartype to look great.

Secondly, cleartype employs the philosophy that if you are rendoring a font on a computer, chances are it is meant to be read on the computer. As such, it makes that process as enjoyable as possible, what they do is modify the origional typeface design.

The apple philosphy makes sense for a company with deep roots in desktop publishing. They say that a font should look the same on a computer as it does in print, and as such adhear very closely to the origional typeface. What they sacrifice is sharpness.

It is nowhere near as cut and dry as you make it out to be. As I don't even own a printer, I couldnt care less about how my fonts look on paper. However, this is flame war material, so I will also point out that I understand the apple way, and agree that it also makes alot of sense for people who DO care what their fonts look like on paper. The other thing to point out is that neither approach really sucks, and it takes about a week to get used to a new rendoring style. But saying one is superior to another is a matter of taste.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: With all due respect...
by sappyvcv on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: With all due respect..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Contrast and readibility are not the same thing? Also, you originally said "brightness". Brightness != Contrast, nor readibility.

As well, I use plenty of fonts not optimized for clear type (Bitstream Vera Sans Mono is one I use a lot) and they look fine.

You can't make up your own definition of what makes good and bad font rendering. Even with ClearType rendering, fonts still look like themselves, they just have very very subtle changes to improve readibility. Some of which can't even be seen by your eyes because of the tricks employed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: With all due respect...
by archiesteel on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: With all due respect..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

It is VERY good for screen readbility. If you do publishing or any print work, ClearType is not for you.


This is true at low to medium screen resolutions. From 1600x1200 on up, the Apple/Freetype method is superior both for readability and render shape. Unfortunately, these resolutions are still not the norm.

Basically, it boils down to what you're used to. People used to ClearType will prefer it to the alternative, and vice versa.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: With all due respect...
by sappyvcv on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: With all due respect..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

I use 1600x1200 at work and at home and I find it to be better for the higher resolutions.

It is indeed preference.

edit: And for the record, I have a macbook pro that I use too, so I am "used to" both.

Edited 2007-06-22 21:37

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: With all due respect...
by Liquidator on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: With all due respect..."
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

Your're saying bullshit. Please install Ubuntu and install the Windows fonts. Then compare fonts rendering with Windows. On Ubuntu they look washed out.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: With all due respect...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 15:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: With all due respect..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Probably related to configuration. Difficult for me to say without a screenshot. I'm not an Ubuntu-user. I know font rendering sucks on Fedora when using official packages. Perhaps the same is true for Ubuntu. But I already wrote that some distributions made me cry in regard to font rendering.

How does "washed out" relate to kerning and hinting? It probably relates to anti-aliasing, but that can easily be amended.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: With all due respect...
by grat on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 13:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: With all due respect..."
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

The UI in Linux is the most consistent you can possibly find.

You're right. Between KDE 1.1 and KDE 3.4, the improvements seem to be widgets and fonts. ;)

I exaggerate somewhat, but KDE 2 and KDE 3.5 are obviously related, more obviously than say, Win95 and Vista.

And the look is light years ahead of Windows - even considering the flower-power Vista.

"The Look" is highly subjective, and I note that in the last year, there's been a sudden push of usability and aesthetics improvements to both Gnome and KDE-- Perhaps you use Windowmaker? Enlightenment?

I just named 4 UI environments that "look" completely different.

Personally, I use a fairly custom KDE desktop. I look forward to KDE 4, but everything I've seen of KDE 4 looks like a substantial departure from previous versions.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: With all due respect...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: With all due respect..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Yes of course the DE's and WM's are different, but it doesn't matter which one you use. You'll get a consistent interface none the less. Blend Gnome2/GTK2-apps with KDE3/QT3 (and especially QT4)-apps and you'll see how close they resemble each other in behaviour. And the look can be configured to be identical. When that is done it's difficult to see and feel the difference between a Gnomish and a KDE-ish application. Much more consistent than IE7 and WMP10 (or IE6 and WinAMP).

Font Rendering has become much better, though it depends on the configuration. I still cry on occasion when running into one of the patent-limited distributions. Hurts my eyes ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: With all due respect...
by TownDrunk on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: With all due respect..."
TownDrunk Member since:
2005-11-28

The UI in Linux is the most consistent you can possibly find.

Except for OS X of course.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: With all due respect...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: With all due respect..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That's very debatable. I don't consider OS X to be particular consistent. Especially not in the looks department. OTOH, it can be argued to be just as consistent as blending Gnome with KDE apps and vice versa (which actually results in a very consistent system - Gnome/GTK and KDE/QT-apps are almost identical in behaviour - and the look can be configured to be identical).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: With all due respect...
by stare on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: With all due respect..."
stare Member since:
2005-07-06

The UI in Linux is the most consistent you can possibly find. No other Desktop OS is as consistent as Linux/*BSD on the Desktop.

You mean it's finally posible to remove entries from gnome menu by right-clicking it and choosing "remove" in this super-consistent UI? Or it's finally possible to change the window titlebar size without messing with gtkrc files? </sarcasm>

And the look is light years ahead of Windows - even considering the flower-power Vista.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/windowsvista/images/Vi...
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=790&slide=2...

Yeah, really light years ahead </sarcasm>

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: With all due respect...
by jaylaa on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: With all due respect..."
jaylaa Member since:
2006-01-17

You mean it's finally posible to remove entries from gnome menu by right-clicking it and choosing "remove" in this super-consistent UI?

How would being able to remove menu entries by right-clicking on them make Gnome more consistent? Sure, I'd like that feature, but not having it doesn't make it inconsistent. There is a GUI for doing this BTW.

Or it's finally possible to change the window titlebar size without messing with gtkrc files?

Yes, yes there is. How does one do this in Windows?

And as for those screen shots (neither of them attractive); at least the Gnome desktop look can be changed easily. What do you have to buy (or hack) to theme Vista?

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: With all due respect...
by Coxy on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: With all due respect..."
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

'Yes, yes there is. How does one do this in Windows?'

The fact that there is no readily available way of doing this shows that all the usability studies conducted by ms probably indicated that people couldn't care about how many pixels high their title bars are.

This is the problem with linux (and oss in general). Look at the preference windows for example in seamonkey, miranda, or gaim and compare them to pidgin. pigdin is more concernced with giving the options users actually need and not what developers think would impress other developers. There so blinded by details that they forget to look at the software as a whole.

I know someone who uses a computer everyday and one day said she's seen everything there is to see on the internet. I asked her what she meant... it turned out the internet to her was the aol news channel that opens when the aol software is started. She had no comprehension of what the internet is. She had two avs running, about 50 things running in the system tray, four office suits (all installed by well meaning friends trying to convince her that ms is evil), and several browsers.

She still uses word to this day and had no idea that there were other word processors, nor why the computer slowed down (the two avs). Its people like this that ms have to also cater for, which is why you won't and shouldn't find options in windows to adjust the pixel spacing between the close window button an the minimise button.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: With all due respect...
by sappyvcv on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: With all due respect..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Control Panel -> Display Properties -> Appearance -> Advanced

Not that hard.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: With all due respect...
by raver31 on Sun 24th Jun 2007 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: With all due respect..."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

This is the problem with linux (and oss in general). Look at the preference windows for example in seamonkey, miranda, or gaim and compare them to pidgin. pigdin is more concernced with giving the options users actually need and not what developers think would impress other developers

Of course, you do understand that Pidgin is Open Source, and that it is the latest incarnation of GAIM ???????

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: With all due respect...
by Coxy on Mon 25th Jun 2007 17:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: With all due respect..."
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Yes, i use pidgin. I said 'and oss in general', this doesn't mean all oss. You see now????????????

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: With all due respect...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: With all due respect..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Right-clicking on a menu item to remove has nothing to do with consistency. It would be nice to be able to do that, but of some obscure reason we can't. Just like we cannot easily change the visual appearance in Windows besides a few pre-defined (by Microsoft) options.

Your screenshots prove nothing. You took standard look of Ubuntu and compared with Vista. You can easily find themes for Gnome or KDE utilizing Compiz that beats the Vista look.

Just like Clearlooks beats the kIdZ-hAd-FuN look of XP.

Tell me how to use my own visual styles with XP without violating the MS EULA. Oops.. one can't. Boohoo.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: With all due respect...
by sappyvcv on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: With all due respect..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

WindowBlinds.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: With all due respect...
by makc on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: With all due respect..."
makc Member since:
2006-01-11

Visual Styles - anyway ;P

Edited 2007-06-22 17:00

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: With all due respect...
by karl on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: With all due respect..."
karl Member since:
2005-07-06

dylanmrjones,

Why, oh why, do you need to so overstate things ?

Fonts under Linux are *not* unequivocally better than under Windows-even though I far prefer Linux font rendering in terms of legibility. The font situation under Linux has improved radically since freetype/fontconfig became standard. Yet I know of know Linux distribution which renders fonts as *consistently* as under Windows. This is not simply an issue with regards to how freetype is compiled(with or without bytecode).

I have used almost of all of the major Linux distros, and Gentoo is what I regularly use-yet I invariably find inconsistencies in regard to font rendering- whether it be spacing, or characters being vertically squished/stretched etc. As I said I personally prefer Linux font rendering-my eyes tire very quickly when I use Windows, far quicker than is the case when I use Linux.

Yet it is erroneous to imply that Linux font rendering is perfect. I have 13 tabs in firefox open right now and on two of the tabs, text from mailing lists is on certain lines distorted-something I have *never* experienced with windows. Now whether this is caused by pango, cairo, or some other part of Firefox is not clear.I venture to say that most people who use Linux have encountered such. But my pointing out of slight occasional rendering bugs does not justify others saying "Linux font suxxorz"- bugs are bugs-and in Linux land things just keep getting better.

As far as consistency goes- I too disagree with people who keep going on about how horribly inconsistent Linux is. I use GNOME as my desktop, and I use some KDE applications. GNOME has made tremendous progress in the last years in terms of consistency. I find GNOME to be exceedingly intuitive- far more so than windows.

For some perverse reason software developers of apps for windows have gone off the deep end over the last years -each having to reinvent the windows UI. Windows with 3rd party apps has become as inconsistent as Linux used to be. I am really looking forward to KDE4-although KDE is self-consistent UI-wise, I find it to be often quite counter-intuitive, requiring a far greater amount of attention and configuration than should be necessary-KDE4 promises to remedy this situation.

Windows usability is simply baffling too me nowadays. Microsoft works so damned hard to hold the users hands that it creates more problems in so doing than it actually solves. If I had a dollar for everytime someone saved a file (whether they created it, downloaded, or copied it) and was then unable to find it- I would be a rich man. Microsoft usability cripples their users-it works to actively prevent users from truly understanding what they are doing. On the one side Microsoft always seems to have 5 different ways for doing the same thing-yet users frequently cannot grasp why doing things one way works and another way fails.

My criticism of windows usability is the same as for KDE- as a system administer I watched clueless users constantly baffled and needing help because the clicked somewhere and something changed- they don't know where they clicked, what it did, but they were faced with something which wasn't *right*-so they would ask me to *fix* it. When I moved the systems to GNOME requests for help dropped dramatically-lots of options and widgets are great for power users, but a source of endless frustration for those who struggling to grasp the relationship between pointing and clicking, as cause, and the results thereof, as effect.

Please when praising Linux don`t overstate things. Linux is great, I love it-but it does have it's quirks and bugs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: With all due respect...
by dlevi on Mon 25th Jun 2007 03:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: With all due respect..."
dlevi Member since:
2006-11-14

--"The UI in Linux is the most consistent you can possibly find. No other Desktop OS is as consistent as Linux/*BSD on the Desktop. And the look is light years ahead of Windows - even considering the flower-power Vista."

Flower power belongs to OSX. Window management in MS products has long been consistent. In terms of Vista, no matter what program I am using (assuming it works at all), and no matter what emulation I am running it under, it appears in the same window style (minus java). I have never had a Linux disto on any of my machines for which I can say the same. As far as Linux UI being light years ahead of Vista, I am afraid you *really* need to qualify that by stating which window manager/desktop package you are using before that holds any weight (lightstep, gnome, kde, etc).

This is just a very strange statement to me, and I actually don't care for vista all that much.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: With all due respect...
by xxmf on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE: With all due respect..."
xxmf Member since:
2006-06-15

linux doesn't have a native UI. please compare

windows and gnome
windows and kde
not windows and linux.

I just ran an xterm on windows and was shocked at how inconsistent it was with word.

In windows I find an increasing trend to break consistency (msn messenger live, various media player versions, various revisions of outlook are horribly different). The qt application I just wrote looks aweful ;)

Cheers

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: With all due respect...
by KenJackson on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE: With all due respect..."
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

For most people linux simply doesn't work,

Most never try it. If someone can't get GNU/Linux to "work", he or she is likely to have similar problems with Windows, or has a predisposition toward not getting it to work.

even if you manage to get it to run, on the desktop the UI is spectaularly inconsistant

It's not clear what you mean by inconsistent. On GNU/Linux, the OS and the window manager are separate, so the user has the freedom to choose from a variety. Yes, Gnome and KDE are very different, but I find myself using IceWM and XFCE a lot more than either of those. To each his own.

I know Windows has a few tweaks you can make to alter the window manager look and feel, and I've even heard that a third-party window manager ("shell" in Windows parlance) is available. But there is nothing like the freedom of choice you experience on GNU/Linux.

(which is obviously due to the freewheeling development method)

This sounds like a compliment. The development model is excellent--the envy of software world that is growing in popularity.

and even just plain ugly.

Personally, I think the default Ubuntu orange wallpaper is ugly. Maybe that's what you saw and refer to. But there are so many choices available! If you don't like something just change it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: With all due respect...
by twenex on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 15:45 UTC in reply to "RE: With all due respect..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

For most people linux simply doesn't work, even if you manage to get it to run, on the desktop the UI is spectaularly inconsistant (which is obviously due to the freewheeling development method) and even just plain ugly.

Assuming you're right, then we must assume that "for most people, neither Linux nor Windows works". Ever tried to install Windows? The beginning stages more confusing than a decent graphical Linux install, and I don't know anyone who isn't up to speed on Linux who could do it. Ever run Windows Media Player 10 or 11, or RealPlayer, or Office 2007, or IE7, or Photoshop Elements? Because the only way you could accuse Windows programs of being consistent is if you've never run any of those.

Edited 2007-06-22 15:49

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: With all due respect...
by WarpKat on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE: With all due respect..."
WarpKat Member since:
2006-02-06

For most people linux simply doesn't work, even if you manage to get it to run, on the desktop the UI is spectaularly inconsistant (which is obviously due to the freewheeling development method) and even just plain ugly.


Ummmmmmmmm...I beg to differ. It's been working very nicely for me since I started my job a couple years ago and I haven't changed to Windows since. Come to think of it, I hardly use Windows except in a VMWare session, where the VM server is also on Linux.

And what you call 'freewheeling development,' - we call efficient collaboration for a common goal.

Vista is, as they say about the Bush Administration, a 'joke.'

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: With all due respect...
by KenJackson on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 20:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: With all due respect..."
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

Technical comment: +1; Political attack: -1; Net change: 0.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: With all due respect...
by justin.68 on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE: With all due respect..."
justin.68 Member since:
2006-09-16

[...] linux simply doesn't work [...] on the desktop the UI is spectaularly inconsistant [...] and even just plain ugly.

For Linux there's such a wealth of desktop environments, window managers and combinations of them that it's difficult to see the point you're trying to make. Windows can't offer that variety of choice and that's bad enough. Moreover, consistence is not what Windowses are famous for, I'm afraid. And that goes further below the GUI sugar glaze. It takes more than an attractive theme to make my day and I'm still one of those who believe a desktop is what it's called and not a graphic designer's nightmare.

I've not tried Vista yet, but what I read about it still doesn't make me want it. Perhaps it'll be more usable a couple of years from now. In the meantime what I expect to read as soon as possible is an extensive anatomy of Vista, so that all of us will be able appraise how really new the OS is.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: With all due respect...
by Doc Pain on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE: With all due respect..."
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"For most people linux simply doesn't work, even if you manage to get it to run, on the desktop the UI is spectaularly inconsistant (which is obviously due to the freewheeling development method) and even just plain ugly."

Uglyness is always a matter of view of the viewer. On the other hand, "Windows" follows the trend of inconsistency, we had an interesting article here at OSNews including several inconsistent screenshots of applications coming with "Vista" by default.

Personally, I do not consider the "Vista" look to be appealing to me. Any individual may have another opinion. While you can change nearly every GUI appearance parameter in Linux and UNIX GUIs, "Vista" does not offer these choices.

Users don't care about inconsistency. They use applications to solve tasks, not in order to compare how they look like. As long as the application downloads movies from the Internet and records them onto DVD, it does not matter how it looks like. Allthough I agree that the impression at first sight is the most important impression, it's not everything at all, as long as you make educated decisions. And, yes, I know... who does... who cares...

Reply Score: 2

RE: With all due respect...
by Core Duo on Sun 24th Jun 2007 02:30 UTC in reply to "With all due respect..."
Core Duo Member since:
2007-06-24

I think people should give more respect to years of hard work of the Vista developers, no matter if you like the system itself or not.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: With all due respect...
by Supreme Dragon on Sun 24th Jun 2007 05:14 UTC in reply to "RE: With all due respect..."
Supreme Dragon Member since:
2007-03-04

"I think people should give more respect to years of hard work of the Vista developers, no matter if you like the system itself or not."

You are right! Congratulations to the Vista developers for creating a slow, bloated, expensive, DRM/activation/WGA infected, nightmare OS that will provide many people with countless hours of misery and lost productivity. Their monstrous creation will be the source of an extraordinarily great amount of suffering.

Reply Score: 5

Very one-sided
by JonathanBThompson on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 06:44 UTC
JonathanBThompson
Member since:
2006-05-26

This rant labeled an article didn't actually attempt to be remotely fair in comparing what Vista is/can do, warts and all, with the sorts of problems that exist for users of many Linux distributions, and seems rather slanted for blaming everything on the OS itself, while it seems largely a case of bad drivers, which is NOT the OS's fault itself.

I use both Windows and Linux, and from observation, Linux distributions have at least as many nasty things to deal with or to workaround, but it appears this rant conveniently forgets all the things that cause problems for users, new or not, of Linux distros, which are far from being created equal: otherwise, why would there be so many variations of RPMs for the same basic thing, but different distros?

This "article" only set out to bash, and not even mention a single thing positive that does exist about Vista (admittedly, I've not used Vista yet myself, and that's mostly due to not having modern enough hardware, something I wish to soon remedy, as it pays to keep up with the 800 pound Gorilla OS when you write code for a living, if only to broaden options) and doesn't compare/contrast in any meaningful manner.

Another important thing that was completely neglected is the reality that someone that keeps updated in Linux and software for the system that's most recent, is in a perpetual but less visible upgrade treadmill, if they don't want to find themselves running an OS installation that suddenly won't run a newer piece of software due to DLL Hell (or .so or an entire RPM, as the case may be: the result is the same) and all that entails.

And yet, if someone tried to write such an article like this that went into all the issues you run into over time with something else, they're considered all sorts of nasty things, liars, etc. because "It simply can't be true that things are the least bit imperfect!" because zealots get in the way.

So, Linux is continually getting newer in small, gradual, almost-imperceivable steps that can be maddening when you need one new system-used library, but people forget those nasty details, while Microsoft (and most other commercial OS's, for that matter) take much larger discrete steps where things are bumpy for users.

Yet another flamebait posting ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Very one-sided
by SlackerJack on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 06:53 UTC in reply to "Very one-sided"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

So if a car manufacture has a reputation of bad tires it's not their fault?. Sorry it's part of the package and Vista puts more restraints on drivers making harder than ever to make them.

Surely god knows how many driver models in Windows make you realize that.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Very one-sided
by makc on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 10:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Very one-sided"
makc Member since:
2006-01-11

Bureaucracy works like this... If what exists doesen't work or is misused, enforce the 'good way' with more restrictive rules.
Especially when people will complain about MS and their OS because of one part they can't control.

And btw, the new driver model is way better in my eyes.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Very one-sided
by imstillatwork on Tue 26th Jun 2007 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Very one-sided"
imstillatwork Member since:
2007-03-22

I dunno about that analogy.

I bought a 2007 Subaru Legacy GT
It the tires are known to be the weak link between the engine and the road. Good enough for most people, but I can get all 4 wheels to spin coming out of turns.

Subaru neither MADE the tires nor PREVENTS me from changing them. They choose a tire that they tested and found to be suitable for most legacy owners needs. When the car starts pumping 300+ HP a the wheels, the tires get upgraded also. I have no issue with the car, and the TIRES are not the CARS fault. Subaru could have made a better choice, the CAR IS NOT AT FAULT.

Drivers are not the OS's fault. The OS MANUFACTURE may have not chosen well,but it is NOT THE OS's FAULT.
Crappy driver != Vista Sucks
Crappy Driver = MS Chose Poorly

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Very one-sided
by theTSF on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Very one-sided"
theTSF Member since:
2005-09-27

The difference is the goal of the author. It is not that that the author felt negative about Vista but that he did his research to prove to himself that vista was bad. Every positive had a negative spin. (The install was faster then XP but slower then Linux...) type of stuff. Then Safari has too much advertising material thrown in to warrant a second look from me, just thrown in for no reason which I find quite odd because I downloaded Safari for windows installed it and ran it with no advertising from the software (unlike old versions of opera). He wants Linux to look good and XP looks bad. This isn't journalism, this is a witch hunt.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Very one-sided
by archer75 on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Very one-sided"
archer75 Member since:
2005-10-17

A better analogy is that your car is great, it's reliable and never breaks down. You need new tires but all of the stores are either out of tires or the ones they have are bald.

That is not the fault of the car manufacturer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Very one-sided
by computrius on Sun 24th Jun 2007 05:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Very one-sided"
computrius Member since:
2006-03-26

bad analogy. A car company chooses a set of default tires. If they are known to be bad tires, then it is their fault.

Microsoft however, has no say in which drivers THE USER installs on their system.

If you install buggy drivers, its your fault, not Microsoft's..

Reply Score: 1

RE: Very one-sided
by Larz on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 07:11 UTC in reply to "Very one-sided"
Larz Member since:
2006-01-04

For most people the choice to select Vista is not a choice about Windows vs. Linux. For most people the choice is down to XP vs. Vista.

As for the differences between XP and Vista I can only say: "Did it really take them five years?"

Vista is in many ways a nice OS, and in some ways a very annoying OS. But personally, it is not at all clear that Vista is the superior OS compared to XP.

XP is the frame of reference - not Linux.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Very one-sided
by makc on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Very one-sided"
makc Member since:
2006-01-11

"Did it really take them five years?"
Yet another statement based on the UI.
And as usual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

XP is the frame of reference - not Linux.
Agree. XP is Vista's main competitor.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Very one-sided
by codergeek42 on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Very one-sided"
codergeek42 Member since:
2006-01-07

"Yet another statement based on the UI."

How is this so wrong? Significant changes in the UI are generally all that the end-user notices versus Win XP. If nothing dramatic enough has changed or n "killer feature" is new _and_ easily usable, then people aren't going to switch. Simple as that.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Very one-sided
by alcibiades on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 08:10 UTC in reply to "Very one-sided"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Had a case recently where the guy had bought a new admittedly rather Rare Breed laptop which came with Vista.

He discovered a couple of vital programs that he could not get to run, so he asked me to take it to XP. The first thing you noticed was how much faster it was. Vista was just usable, but very slow to boot and not at all snappy. Alas, this Rare Breed laptop did not seem to have XP drivers for all its bits and pieces, so although it worked quite snappily, stuff like sound and networking was problematic.

For curiosity I tried a light Linux live distro based on Slackware. Off the CD it did networking perfectly and ran significantly faster than XP. Not all the sound, camera, pen, screen rotation etc worked though.

So, back to Vista and wait for new versions of the packages. Not a heart warming experience. And thank Heaven for Acronis.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Very one-sided
by Meanwhile on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 09:20 UTC in reply to "Very one-sided"
Meanwhile Member since:
2005-09-03

I think there's more credibility in having tried both Linux and Windows Vista resulting in a one-sided view, than in having tried Linux but not Windows Vista and nevertheless spotting one-sidedness.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Very one-sided
by twenex on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 11:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Very one-sided"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I think there's more credibility in having tried both Linux and Windows Vista resulting in a one-sided view, than in having tried Linux but not Windows Vista and nevertheless spotting one-sidedness.

Not necessarily. If 6 billion people say the word is round, and you persist in believing that it is flat, then you're probably neither brave, nor politically-incorrect, nor bloody-minded, but either insane or stupid.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Very one-sided
by FreeGamer on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 09:38 UTC in reply to "Very one-sided"
FreeGamer Member since:
2007-04-13

People who modded this up probably did not read the article first.

On the opening page he derides Ubuntu Linux. He may use Debian but he is not a Linux fanboy.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Very one-sided
by jbuchman on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 17:09 UTC in reply to "Very one-sided"
jbuchman Member since:
2005-07-06

For the most part i agree that people here are pretty hard on MS in compairison to other platforms, but there is one substancial difference between Windows and Linux (but not between Windows and Mac), Linux is developed, for the most part, for free. As in; developers spending their time working on an operating system that they want, instead of spending time with their families or gaming or making money to pay the morgage. So, since Windows is entirely developed as a commerical product by a comercial company that you pay to use it's software, i do beleive that there is a good reason to be a bit harsher when Microsoft takes five years to update it's OS and people are wondering if that update is really worth the 500 pricetag.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Very one-sided
by AdityaNag on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 17:56 UTC in reply to "Very one-sided"
AdityaNag Member since:
2007-06-16

Yes, I agree. I don't like Vista either, and I run Ubuntu myself, but when I read this article, I had the distinct impression that the writer had made up his mind to hate Vista before he knew anything about it.

This kind of reporting is not worth the name. I'd rather read a balanced article that points out the good things about Vista, as well as the bad stuff, rather than this.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Very one-sided
by tomcat on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 19:07 UTC in reply to "Very one-sided"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

What do you expect from an opinion piece filed under "Open Sauce - A GNU perspective"? The deck was stacked against Vista from the beginning.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Very one-sided
by trenchsol on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 13:49 UTC in reply to "Very one-sided"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

I agree JonathanBThompson, it is an article from person who is using Linux, and go used to it. A Windows person could (and did) probably write similar artice on Linux. The reason is that Linux and Windows users have different expectations. They consider different things the most important ones.

For example, recently I have deployed an application written in PHP on Apache running on Windows server. There were a lot of problems, like SSL, default php.ini settings, etc. There were some angry emails between customers admin and me, too.

Typical Windows developer would say that there would be no problems if I used IIS and ASP. I don't know if it is true, but that's what they would say. There would probably be some problems with ASP and IIS, but they got used to them, and know the workarounds.

The article should have had title "Vista from the viewpoint of Linux user", because that's what it is.

Reply Score: 1

Only reason
by SlackerJack on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 06:45 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

I have Vista is because my wife likes the card games(I didn't buy it :p) Because of this the games I pay dont run to well so it's not "bliss".

By the way, Quake4/Doom3/UT2004 runs better in Linux so I'm fine thanks. Vista offers nothing that I dont have in Linux and it's pretty much a safe bet, that Linux users won't be in bliss after using Vista for 10 days.

Reply Score: 5

Stunning review.
by google_ninja on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 07:11 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

I can't believe the idiocy of some people. I don't have a problem with average having uninformed opinions about operating systems, but when you are a tech writer, you should at least have some basic knowledge about what you are writing.

The author starts by trashing Vista security for not having Administrator. Anyone that knows even the slightest bit about MAC based security, will tell you that user/super-user is an outdated concept, and is not used in modern security paradigms. Concluding this insightful bit on security, he talks about even with administrative privs, you still cant modify files you don't own without a prompt. And this guys says he uses ubuntu.

After showing an incredible amount of ignorance about security in general, and vista security in particular, he moves on in total ignorance to start bashing IE7.

Starting with how it sucks because, well, it sucks, he then goes on to say how while the tabs are long overdue, since they dont work like firefox, they too suck. Its nice how he completely ignores the fact that due to the aforementioned MAC based security, IE7 on vista is one of the most secure browsers on the planet, or how now with plugins it is customizable, albeit with far less selection then FF. Or how standards compliance accross the board is drastically improved. But hey, that would actually be an honest review, right?

We move on to bashing vista for changing the oh so holy windows UI, that every usability expert has been using as their wipping boy in pretty much all the literature in the field. Just because it is different doesnt mean its bad, and just because you don't understand the change doesnt mean there isnt a reason for it.

We move on to some remarks about performance, which is pretty much the only valid points he makes in the whole review. I have not experienced performance or stability issues, however many users do. This is where vista needs serious work, it doesnt yet provide a consistant experience no matter what hardware you throw at it, which has historically been the greatest strength of windows.

However, the author moves on to trashing windows media center. I actually agree that WMC kinda sucks compared to frontrow, but that is because WMC was made for appliance computers. I don't understand how it was unintuitive, buttons like "Music", or "TV + Movies" are kinda straightforward to me. The author procedes to tell us he couldnt figure out how to burn a cd. I guess he missed the massive Burn button in WMP, or the Burn to disc button in every folder in explorer. Maybe what he needs is a big button that says CLICK HERE TO BURN next to start or something. I guess I just dont get it...

We then move on to how Windows, like every other commercial operating system ever made, doesnt offer every program imaginable free of charge. Kind of shocking, isnt it? I guess he has never used anything but linux, since he seemed to expect it. It disappointed him enough to devote a paragraph to it.

We move on to OOTB, WMP behaves like virtually every other media player on the planet, doesnt handle everything. Its funny how his mp4 stream wouldnt play, that is such a pain. Much less then the lack of MP3 or DVD playback. Oh wait, WMP does do that OOTB...

There is alot to bash Vista about. The lack of features that were promised. The suckyness of the much touted search. The massive variations in performance and stability from computer to computer. Some of the bizarre bugs that crop up which should have been caught by beta testers, as they happen to a huge percentage of users (such as bitkeeper screwing with the update process). The insanely long boot time. The redicules amount of time it takes to connect to networks.

Instead, we get these wildly uninformed and downright moronic commentaries. I mean honestly, how many "Burn" buttons do you need?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Stunning review.
by Soulbender on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 07:24 UTC in reply to "Stunning review."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Anyone that knows even the slightest bit about MAC based security, will tell you that user/super-user is an outdated concept, and is not used in modern security paradigms."

Stop flaunting your ignorance. user/superuser is by no means outdated or not used in modern "paradigms". Anyone who knows anything about security knows this.
I'm not saying user/superuser is better than other schemes, it's just incredibly ignorant to state that it's outdated.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Stunning review.
by smitty_one_each on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 13:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Stunning review."
smitty_one_each Member since:
2005-07-07

>it's just incredibly ignorant to state that it's outdated.
You must be a technical type. Claiming that an old paradigm is outdated is perfectly natural marketing speak. But I agree with you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Stunning review.
by google_ninja on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stunning review."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

You don't think its dated? All user/superuser really has going for it is that it is simple. By using a MAC based system, you immediately elimenate stuff like buffer overflows, and seriously mitigate the damage that a compromised process can do.

Personally, I think the best approach is what Fedora does with its "targetted" policy. It locks down system processes, while using the more simple user/superuser approach for the user space. keeps things simple for users, while still leveraging many of the benefits of a more modern solution.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Stunning review.
by Soulbender on Mon 25th Jun 2007 03:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Stunning review."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"By using a MAC based system, you immediately elimenate stuff like buffer overflows,"

No you don't. That's what Stackguard and ProPolice does.

Look, i'm not saying MAC is bad but your thrashing of user/superuser is just as inaccurate as the reviews thrashing of MAC.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Stunning review.
by google_ninja on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Stunning review."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

SELinux is the NSAs effort to undate the linux security paradigm to something more modern, they have a great FAQ about it here http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/info/faq.cfm

a well implemented user/superuser paradigm is a hell of alot better then nothing, but it is not comparable to MAC based ACLs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Stunning review.
by Robert Escue on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stunning review."
Robert Escue Member since:
2005-07-08

Unfortunatley using Mandatory Access Control is overkill in the extreme for the vast majority of computer uses. How is it we have managed to have secure servers for years without MAC?

Unless you are doing work for DoD or some other organization that requires a level of security above Discretionary Access Control and Common Criteria EAL4 (I work as a Contractor for DoD), then the effort involved in setting up and using SELinux, AppArmor (SuSE), Trusted Solars, Solaris 10 with Trusted Extensions or Trusted AIX is simply not worth the effort.

And while RedHat and Novell have made things easier, their policies are also based on using applications compiled by them, as we found out in a presentation given by RedHat when we asked about custom compiled kernel modules and programs. If you want to do your own thing, then you will have to create your own security policy to fit, which is not a trivial task.

SELinux and MAC is not a "silver bullet" to better security. A poorly managed or configured SELinux or other trusted machine is no safer than any other machine, and the learning curve is fairly steep.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Stunning review.
by google_ninja on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Stunning review."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I never said it was a silver bullet, I said it was more modern.

It would not be so difficult to set up MAC based stuff on linux if the community caught up to the technology. The problem is that there isnt much incentive to because, as you said, DAC is Good Enough, and the learning curve for MAC is much steeper.

But anyways, better is not a word I used in my origional comment. What I was talking about is that the author TRASHES vista security because it is MAC based, which shows a profound lack of understanding on the subject. If you want to trash it because of complexity reasons, that is another story. But to say that no administrator = bad shows that you are quite uninformed on the subject. That is really the only point I was trying to make.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Stunning review.
by Robert Escue on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Stunning review."
Robert Escue Member since:
2005-07-08

Most people don't understand DAC, bad enough MAC. The Trusted Computer Security Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC) talked of least privilege in 1985, it's about time that Microsoft is finally getting it. It took them long enough.

Animosity was not my intent in posting my response, there are some people who do think that SELinux is the "silver bullet" to better security. I just haven't read anything that shows definitely that the security of a given system significantly improves by using SELinux over conventional methods.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Stunning review.
by Ford Prefect on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 12:55 UTC in reply to "Stunning review."
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

I like your posting, but:

Internet Explorer 7 is still far behind competition. That's a fact, and you just need to pick Firefox, install some extensions and have a look at IE 7 again. Or pick up Opera, same deal.

MS did a great progress with IE 7, compared to the "evolution" of Internet Explorer the years before. Still, they are lagging behind and yes, if a new product comes out, doesn't have to offer anything new, lacks in various ways (not only on the feature side, also CSS support, correct rendering, ...), and isn't more affordable than the competition it ... sucks. I don't know why people start to love MS just for IE 7, because something being better doesn't imply it being good.

I would say: Good move MS, keep it going, release IE 8 and we'll talk again.


"Its nice how he completely ignores the fact that due to the aforementioned MAC based security, IE7 on vista is one of the most secure browsers on the planet"

That has to be proven yet. BTW: If you wanted secure browsing under Linux, you could just create another user called "secure" and run "su secure -c firefox" every time you want the browser, for years. And it doesn't need special tricks/hacks etc (the most flawless security model will always be a simple one).

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Stunning review.
by google_ninja on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 15:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Stunning review."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Internet Explorer 7 is still far behind competition. That's a fact, and you just need to pick Firefox, install some extensions and have a look at IE 7 again. Or pick up Opera, same deal.


My last intention was to start a browser flame war (only an os one ;-)), what I was saying was that to just write off IE7 because IE6 seriously blew is kind of dumb, especially for a technical writer. If you are the type that heavily customizes your browser, you are bang on, IE7 still has quite a ways to go. If you are like me, then slapping on the iepro plugin collection is more then enough to make it a viable alternative. As for opera, I spent a week trying it, and ended up with too many odd things happening on websites I frequent. I would say its really a choice between IE or FF.

MS did a great progress with IE 7, compared to the "evolution" of Internet Explorer the years before. Still, they are lagging behind and yes, if a new product comes out, doesn't have to offer anything new, lacks in various ways (not only on the feature side, also CSS support, correct rendering, ...), and isn't more affordable than the competition it ... sucks. I don't know why people start to love MS just for IE 7, because something being better doesn't imply it being good.


It doesnt offer anything new in terms of innovation, you are correct. However, like the rest of Vista, it more is a huge upgrade to where the rest of the world is at. That doesnt make it inherently suck, it makes it inherantly average. Where IE7 shines is speed, and security. Where FF shines is features, and available plugins. Where Opera shines is innovation.

That has to be proven yet. BTW: If you wanted secure browsing under Linux, you could just create another user called "secure" and run "su secure -c firefox" every time you want the browser, for years. And it doesn't need special tricks/hacks etc (the most flawless security model will always be a simple one).


That is a fantastic way to run firefox, what happens with IE7 in "protected mode" is remarkably similar. The process is locked down, with access to only very specific things. Even if you manage to get it to arbitrarily run code for you, it still is not able to do much damage, because of the policies applied to it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Stunning review.
by Beta on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 20:27 UTC in reply to "Stunning review."
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Or how standards compliance accross the board is drastically improved.

They fixed a drastic amount of bugs in their CSS/DOM handling, and improved standards compliance by one iota.

Reply Score: 3

wait a few years
by pingu on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 08:22 UTC
pingu
Member since:
2006-10-04

we're developers....we installed one copy of Vista Ultimate for a non-programmer and even he spat the dummy and demanded we buy him XP instead.
Vista's like a politician......fat, annoying, expensive and you can't trust it. It's way too early to say whether or not it's secure or not, we'll know in a few years.

Reply Score: 5

RE: wait a few years
by tuxedo on Sun 24th Jun 2007 03:01 UTC in reply to "wait a few years"
tuxedo Member since:
2007-06-24

We can imagine how bloated Vista will be in a few years when there's a new version...

Reply Score: 4

My question exactly
by markob on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 08:27 UTC
markob
Member since:
2005-07-06

I've been asking myself and arguing about this question since it came out. A huge company like Microsoft should have enough resources and better plan to develop faster and better, yet Vista still has that beta feeling: things don't work, it's slow, why it restarts twice for new nvidia driver install is beyond me, why it takes about a minute to connect to my router is also weird (no problems with any XP/linux/osx machine in the house), ... I also don't understand why it'll take another year for first pack of fixes, sometimes I wonder if there are only 3 people or so working on this OS? I wouldn't even find all this weird, but seeing the extremely fast development on linux and osx front, what's up with Microsoft? Maybe they should spend less resources and time on useless "inventions" and software we all know either won't succeed or will be abandoned again when they reach a certain market share? Microsoft still has a chance to fix their image and quality, but more and more I doubt in that. But that's just my 2 cents.

Reply Score: 4

RE: My question exactly
by twenex on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 08:52 UTC in reply to "My question exactly"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

What's surprising is how surprised people are by this.

Microsoft really isn't a company that should be in the operating systems business. People like that guy who left MS saying "If I didn't work for Microsoft, I'd buy a Mac" and "we lost our focus on the customer" may feel that way now, but I've always felt that way. If the majority of its products are up to the standard of Office, then it makes some decent products (although having problems when your document goes over 30 pages makes it look a bit silly, but maybe that has now been solved). Microsoft's problems have always been:

(a) It spends far too much time working out how to screw competitors and lock in customers (new file formats, alleged hidden API's, FUD) instead of working on (among other things) its favourite word - "innovation". To give it its due, this is historically how all computer companies have worked (otherwise we wouldn't have PDP-10s and -8s and -11s and goodness knows what else, alongside Novas and Eclipses and AS/400s and Suns and HP9000s and...), but customers hate it - witness the success of the open, Intel architecture despite its utter crapness in the early days, or of UNIX, despite the incompatibilities, and now Linux against proprietary systems. Imagine having to learn to drive "a Ford" or "a Honda" instead of "a car"!

(b) It crows far too much about Windows, which really (even if the rest of its products were not particularly good) isn't the best of its products. This makes people who come to it from other systems think of them as a pack of liars (and that's without counting any of the FUD) - especially when you factor in the fact, that a lot of highly technical people have personality quirks that put honesty perhaps higher on their list of desirable virtues than it is for people outside that commmunity (I mean, who points out BUGS in the manual, for crying out loud?).

And who wants to deal with a pack of liars?

(and despite claims to the effect that "Microsoft has changed", these problems still exist - it's the marketplace and legal environment that have changed, not Microsoft.)

I started this rant by saying that "MS shouldn't be in the operating systems business". MS only got into the OS business because IBM thought they were in it already. So Bill Gates said "I don't have one, but I know where I can get one", and the rest of history. But think about it - it's like the US going to Lithuania to make a deal on defence, and saying "oh, and we want to extend this deal to Latvia, too." And the Lithuanians say, "Well, we don't own Latvia, but we will soon". So Lithuania invades Latvia. Only, the Latvians don't much like being invaded by Lithuania, so they put up a fight. (Analogous to the problems a company that writes programming languages is going to have doing OSes.)

Reply Score: 5

RE: My question exactly
by elsewhere on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 03:21 UTC in reply to "My question exactly"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

...why it takes about a minute to connect to my router is also weird (no problems with any XP/linux/osx machine in the house)


Good, so I'm not the only one ;)

Networking is just weird. I also don't like the fact that Vista calls an MS server everytime the connection goes up in order to verify connectivity, but that's a different story. I don't want to rag over Vista in general, I'm more or less ambivalent to it since I only use it when I need Windows, but I never understood why it takes so long to establish network connections, or why my connection cuts in an out. I can say with a straight face that I actually have stabler support for my broadcom wireless in linux than I do in Vista. The irony there is staggering.

Reply Score: 4

Moan?
by twenex on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 08:28 UTC
twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

Most Linux people I know spend their time moaning about Windows (especially Vista) or bad driver support (the fault of manufacturers). We of all people know what a "disappointment"* Vista is.

*Assuming, of course, you have high expectations of Mickeysoft; which, being Linux users, we don't.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Moan?
by hyper on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 10:55 UTC in reply to "Moan?"
v RE[2]: Moan?
by twenex on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 11:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Moan?"
v RE[2]: Moan?
by twenex on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 11:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Moan?"
RE: Moan?
by trenchsol on Sun 24th Jun 2007 14:12 UTC in reply to "Moan?"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

We of all people know what a "disappointment"* Vista is.

Can you explain this statement a bit ? I don't think that you ever used Vista more than 5 minutes (I haven't even see Vista, except screenshot). Who is "we" ?

Reply Score: 1

Crap
by TBPrince on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 08:55 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

I rarely read such crap like this so-called "article". Better to stay silent and look stupid rather than writing such crap and make people sure you are...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Crap
by twenex on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 11:09 UTC in reply to "Crap"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

That article, actually, is a good example of an OS review - which might be better termed "OS installation reviews". Think it's a joke? Why not go write one that isn't?

And if that's a defence of Vista, anyone can make a mistake (=defending a lemon like Vista), but only a fool repeats them.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Crap
by TBPrince on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Crap"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

OS review? You must be kidding!

I don't know that kind of "journalism" or "reviews" you use to read but among the worst ones, this is by far the worse I read.

It's just a waste of time to read and unfortunately it's a good degree of which quality that website is spreading. That is: zero.

Hell, this is probably boring and unmeaningful even to a Slashdot user... go figure!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Crap
by twenex on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crap"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I don't know that kind of "journalism" or "reviews" you use to read but among the worst ones, this is by far the worse I read.

It's just a waste of time to read and unfortunately it's a good degree of which quality that website is spreading. That is: zero.


I'm not arguing whether it's bad or not, I'm saying it's up to the quality they usually are. If you're not happy about that standard, then shoot the people who write them, not me.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Crap
by TBPrince on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crap"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't mean to shoot you, really. I thought you were telling me it was a good review. I have to say that if it's like you said (that's the quality they spread), I can confirm their quality is 0.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Vista: They Took Five Years for This?
by TusharG on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 10:18 UTC
TusharG
Member since:
2005-07-06

Aha... today for the 4th customer I uninstalled Windows Vista from their pre installed Notebook and installed a Windows XP for them... All of them had a same complain!
"Tushar can you get rid of that Vista? we didnot like it at all...!, We are happier in Windows XP!"
"Alright! Here I go..."

Reply Score: 5

i dont get it !!
by fredouil on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 10:30 UTC
fredouil
Member since:
2006-01-08

i use a slightly modified (directX and other desktop improvements) version of Windows Server2003 Dataserver on my old laptop :

It is by far the best OS i have ever used (i like OSX as well), extremely fast (much more than XP), fantastic memory management, simple, efficient.

I really dont get how microsoft can sell those very frustrating Vista/XP stuff and having such wonderful OS available on their stacks.

Reply Score: 4

RE: i dont get it !!
by twenex on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 11:16 UTC in reply to "i dont get it !!"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

It's called "monopoly". Dictators (who have a monopoly on power) have the same problem: Noone is around to show/tell them when they are full of it. (Yes, there's Linux, MacOS X and ReactOS, but none of those is a drop-in replacement for Windows, nor are they for each other.)

Reply Score: 3

RE: i dont get it !!
by ts__ on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 11:22 UTC in reply to "i dont get it !!"
ts__ Member since:
2006-01-22

i use a slightly modified (directX and other desktop improvements) version of Windows Server2003 Dataserver on my old laptop :

It is by far the best OS i have ever used (i like OSX as well), extremely fast (much more than XP), fantastic memory management, simple, efficient.


There is a client version of Win 2003 already: XP x64. However the 64-bit 2003 kernel has a bug that makes the file cache grow larger and larger over time so that it will eventually cause actual running processes to have parts of their memory swapped out! It has been known almost since the release of XP x64 but still no fix from Microsoft. Is this bug also present in the 32-bit version? I hope this isn't the fantastic memory management you are talking about...

Reply Score: 3

RE: i dont get it !!
by trenchsol on Sun 24th Jun 2007 14:15 UTC in reply to "i dont get it !!"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

Win2003 server costs about 3 times as WinXP Professional, and about 6 times as WinXP home.

Reply Score: 1

Windows?
by Macintosh Sauce on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 11:17 UTC
Macintosh Sauce
Member since:
2007-05-03

I had Windows XP Pro on my Mac Pro and it was quite unstable. So, I completely removed it and reformatted my HD for Mac OS X data backup.

Vista? I wouldn't even dare try it...

Edited 2007-06-22 11:17

Reply Score: 1

Timeout guys!
by WyldStylist on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 12:13 UTC
WyldStylist
Member since:
2006-12-30

Both Microsoft and GNU Linux operating systems are not actually using the speed of modern computers , with todays speed we could boot into the OS in 1 second or faster like most electronical gadgets but no Both MS and GNU Linux have to slow it down putting useless fat inside the system.
The result of this are these neverending Linux sucks windows roolz and vice versa and people behaving like small kids comparing the new cool actionfigure to the new cute doll cept this time Os'es are the playground:)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Timeout guys!
by britbrian on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:20 UTC in reply to "Timeout guys!"
britbrian Member since:
2005-07-06

with todays speed we could boot into the OS in 1 second or faster like most electronical gadgets

The humble electro-mechanical disk drive has been the principal speed bottle neck for many years and has only getting worse as OS's have gotten bigger.
When MRAM or PRAM non volatile memory become available they can relegate disk drives to archiving data. Then we'll see a dramatic overall speed improvement and boot up speed will reduce to a few seconds.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Timeout guys!
by WyldStylist on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 16:40 UTC in reply to "Timeout guys!"
WyldStylist Member since:
2006-12-30

We can do that today too just install windows 3.11 on a modern pc and we'll get that speed, im not talking about howtos to make bloat run faster , if win 3.11 can do it why cant vista? its prolly the best feature we would never get , there is an OS that can do it today already called MenuetOS it fits on a single floppy ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Timeout guys!
by Silent_Seer on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 00:37 UTC in reply to "Timeout guys!"
Silent_Seer Member since:
2007-04-06

Sorry, but today's computers are not well designed. If they had a standard for storing OSes in ROMs (and the ROM would be big enough to hold updates as well as couple of OSes and would itself be replaceable with a bigger ROM) then computers would have been bootable in a second. And this ROM would be separate from whatever other storage medium being used for secondary storage (hard drives, flash based drives or whatever else).

Ever seen complex devices such as say a digital satellite receiver or a DVR? They also boot, but in a second, because they use the same technique.

Desktop OSes tend to have a lot of bloat but even without the extra stuff, a win 3.11 sized OS would not be able to do everything that you would want. It is a shame that in the history of PC development such an option was left out to rot.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Timeout guys!
by elsewhere on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 03:37 UTC in reply to "Timeout guys!"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Both Microsoft and GNU Linux operating systems are not actually using the speed of modern computers , with todays speed we could boot into the OS in 1 second or faster like most electronical gadgets


What electronic gadgets? My flat panel tv's at home take around 5 seconds to "boot", my cell phone takes about 15 seconds, my PVR takes a good 30, my wireless router takes about 10, my universal remote takes 7 seconds, my Sony DVD player takes a ridiculous 20 seconds, my PS2 takes about 10, my gf's DS takes about as long, even my digital camera takes about 5 seconds. The only "electronical" gadgets I have that are useable in 1s or less are my desktop calculator and my overhead lights.

Your point is taken, but let's keep it in perspective, there are several blockers to fast booting computers that have nothing to do with "fat" in the OS. Even firmware based "electronical" gadgets need time.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Timeout guys!
by WyldStylist on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 08:26 UTC in reply to "Timeout guys!"
WyldStylist Member since:
2006-12-30

Nintendo ds bah how long time did 8bit nes games take to boot a game? nintendo used to be better in timing

Reply Score: 1

revmb
Member since:
2006-09-24

I have used all sorts of Linux Distro's over the last 5 years. PCLinuxOS, Linspire, Suse, Ubuntu, Fedora, and others. Linux has gotten better, but not fast enough for me. If people say that Vista took 5 years to "get this" then what has Linux given in the same 5 years?

I have tried about 6 different Distro's on my laptop and none, I repeat none, configured it properly. My resolution was messed up and my wireless was a joke, it actually needed my WINDOWS driver to get it to work. Oh and don't sing Ubuntu's praises, I tried it as well. If I didn't have my recovery Windows disk then wireless was not available for me.

I have been using Vista for about 4 days and have almost forgotten Linux exists. The install was fine and everything worked afterwards. All the little annoyances can be turned off, like UAC and indexing. It took me one google search to do it and my laptop is performing great now.

The reviewer was just being an idiot in his review to my opinion. I may try Linux again later, but for now Vista has it beat hands down for me.

Reply Score: 5

morglum666 Member since:
2005-07-06

I have had a very similar experience. My desktop machine is for media conversions, torrents, a little gaming, and vpn/remote desktop for when I work from home. I use a stripped down version of Vista (Vlite - look it up).

Because of the intense interest generated by Ubuntu, I also have it (7.04) installed (which was absolutely painless, including a ntfs resize using QTparted before install).

My intention was that on the day that I work from home, I would use Ubuntu because it powers up quickly and was simple. VPN turned out to be a painful thing to set up. I got it working, and although I still have to type out a command to start the connection, it does work. Used Ubuntu for the first few weeks.

As time went on, I found myself powering up and switching to my Vista install. Everything is just as easy to use, and vista has more capabilities. I like aero, I like the gaming, I like the interface. VPN - two second setup. Media conversion? Vista all the way.

I have honestly only experienced two issues with Vista, and one of them is related to my hardware. Hibernate just doesn't work - however start up and shut down is faster than on xp. I also found that copying files to USB drives is extremely slow. Other than that, it is demonstrably a better operating system than xp..

I think its awesome that people have a working alternative(s) to using windows as a client operating system. But that does not give the license to bash essentially a good product for the fun of it.

Reply Score: 2

intangible Member since:
2005-07-06

Just FYI: 7.10 comes with NetworkManager and you can install modules for VPN to is, very spiffy all GUI way to setup your VPN now... You can even tell it to only use the VPN for certain IP blocks from within the GUI so only your work-related traffic goes through your work network.
It works so well, I've never seen a VPN client for windows that works as nicely.

Reply Score: 1

intangible Member since:
2005-07-06

Ich, I meant 7.04.

Reply Score: 1

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Before you get attacked for posting something positive about Vista, let me say that there ARE some people out there with a positive Vista experience. Hell, there might even be *more* with a positive experience than those with a negative experience, but of course the people with the problems are the most vocal.

Don't get me wrong though. There are plenty of issues with Vista, and most of the people with negative experiences have valid gripes.

It's just a shame that people assume that because of all the negativity they read, they will assume that people with a positive experience are: blind, paid by microsoft, stupid, trolling, etc.

Reply Score: 5

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"I have tried about 6 different Distro's on my laptop and none, I repeat none, configured it properly."

Anecdotal evidence is awesome in that it actually proves nothing. Linux works better on my laptop than Windows but what does that mean in the grand scheme of things? Pretty much nothing, just like how Linux not working for you proves nothing.

"I have been using Vista for about 4 days and have almost forgotten Linux exists. "

Only reason i remember Windows exists is because it's in my boot menu. Interesting to know? I doubt it.

Reply Score: 5

intangible Member since:
2005-07-06

The only reason I know Windows still exists is because I get phone calls from friends and family with problems all the time.

Reply Score: 1

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"The only reason I know Windows still exists is because I get phone calls from friends and family with problems all the time."

Same here, too - in the past. :-) Just get a T-Shirt saying "NO, I WON'T FIX YOUR PC FOR FREE" or something similar.

Reply Score: 2

Comical Review
by ChewyChmp on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:28 UTC
ChewyChmp
Member since:
2007-06-22

Is this guy for real? If he is, I want a job with ITWire, because I guess you don't have to be a techie or know how to write. I'm not a Linux or Windows fanboy, just a tech person interested in all kinds of technologies. I've installed Vista on a number of different desktops and laptops with no problems at all. I can't say the same for Linux [Ubuntu] on those same systems. Vista found all the hardware, and worked out of the box without any manufacturer specific drivers [i.e. HP, DELL, Toshiba]. Ubuntu would work sometimes, and not others [sound would work in one session, fail in two or three, and then work again; same with Wireless].

Is it better than XP? Not really, but it didn't perform poorly, or cause problems either. Maybe it wasn't Vista causing problems for this guy, but a half a$$ed attempt at trying to build his own PC. Just seeing his picture, and reading his article gives me the impression that he's a self anointed "expert", and really nothing more than a garage techie, and probably works at Radio Shack.

Reply Score: 1

Trash talk from OSS "writer"
by abdavidson on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:36 UTC
abdavidson
Member since:
2005-07-06

This was a feeble excuse for an article.

It really annoys me the amount of people who while maybe expert (or more often 'a fan') in one area write about another area and lo and behold find it savagely wanting.

This guy or that Vaughn Nicholls chap writing about Windows or Thurrott writing about linux. You're going to get the same biased poorly thought out, poorly researched result.

Amongst other things I'm a developer (a windows developer so no doubt half of you are snickering into your hands about me not being a real dev... get over yourselves) and I see a lot of other developers and pretend-expert Windows users throw their hands up in horror in a similar fashion to the way this guy did.

Oh, it works differently, well; yes it does. It actually works - largely - in better ways. Once you get past the culture shock (using new hardware... its not friendly to old hardware and this is something that has never been hidden) and grok the ways it is now doing things; you will if you actually go at it with an open mind find it is a far better GUI, ergonomically and from a user-interaction perspective (user experience of course being the main event).

An illustration of this is my nearly 80 year old father. He's no computer whizz, but uses them and has for years. He enjoys the emailing, writing, and he's had a few XP boxes over the years.

He recently got a new PC and it came with Vista. Wow, initially he was really struggling. It was different but he stuck with it. He had an XP CD ready... my brother was telling him to just scrap Vista and go to XP and in his other ear (other shoulder?) I was telling him to give it some time to see how he felt with the new ways of getting around the system for a starter.

Once I showed him the cookie crumb navigation, suggested that he forget the folder/tree view and start using favourite links, the search from any window and the benefits of having that on the start menu he started to twig to it.

From then on he did the looking himself, and discovered the filters in the columns for himself and saved searches he could definitely see the benefits.

This nearly 80 year old man is discovering a new operating system in a way that all these marvellous geeks and article writers can't.

I think that says more about the geeks and writers than about my Dad to be honest, no matter how cool he may be.

Oh and before anyone says he's no poweruser so isn't stretching it; I assure you I am. I just don't feel the need to in a completely transparent manner badmouth the system I don't happen to use.

Reply Score: 3

Liquidator
Member since:
2007-03-04

Linux users *NEED* to bash something. All that's not Linux is bad. That's the way they are. I'd like to know what people don't like about Vista, besides the fact that it uses a lot of RAM. It's a great OS, it took years to develop, and much effort. It has a nice interface , it's more secure than earlier versions of XP, it works out of the box (not the case for Linux).

Obviously the worst enemy of Linux enthusiasts is Microsoft and its popular OS, Windows, because this is the most wide-spread OS. If Macintosh were installed on 90%+ of computers, Linux users would throw their poison at Apple.

Back to topic, I absolutely loved Vista. It's now my default desktop, although I can't use WS_FTP anymore, but they will fix it shortly I'm sure.

Reply Score: 1

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

What doesn't work tends to be more subtle things and sometimes software altogether.

Over time though, things will improve with: better software compatibility with ISVs writing for Vista, better drivers, service packs.

Reply Score: 2

KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

I'd like to know what people don't like about Vista,

For some specific answers, read the article.

Reply Score: 3

Flatline Member since:
2006-03-06

Wow. Talk about unfair generalizations. Not all linux users "*NEED* to bash something". I try not to as a matter of course. If you love Vista, that's great...you obviously had a better experience with it than I did. Of course, most of the negative impression I got from it was speed-related, which makes me think that my hardware, while well within the system requirements, simply wasn't robust enough for it.

I personally found some things I liked about Vista and some that I didn't and personally prefer to work with my linux installs. On my hardware (ymmv of course) *nix boots a little faster, "feels" faster while running (obviously subjective, although I did experience enormous lag with file management and deletion in Vista) and is, due to the way I tend to work and the habits I have learned over the years, more conducive to facilitating my productivity.

What part of that statement makes me a Microsoft basher? None. I don't like their business practices and I prefer a different environment, so I don't purchase their software (the Vista install came from our Action Pack subscription and I gave the machine to a user - I did work exclusively in Vista for a couple of weeks to give it a shot, but I just didn't fall in love with it).

Reply Score: 3

fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

it works out of the box (not the case for Linux)


I can't stand that statement. Windows _DOES NOT_ work out of the box. What works out of the box is a pre-loaded, pre-tweaked, pre-setup Operating System loaded at the OEM. This is true of _ANY_ OS.

Instead, try taking a mixture of machines (new/old/desktop/laptop) and do fresh installs of any version of XP or Vista, and then do fresh installs of any of your favorite Linux distros - Fedora, Suse, Ubuntu, Linspire, Mandriva.

Windows _WILL NOT_ work out of the box. You will be on a hunt around the internet trying to get all the drivers - especially for integrated chipsets on the motherboard. On the otherhand, most everything will work out of the box woth Linux. You will have a far higher success rate with Linux.

Let's end that myth once and for all. Yes, a machine _pre-loaded_ at the factory by the OEM will work out of the box. Woo hoo! I hope so. In all other cases, Linux is much easier to install and had a much higher success rate _OUT OF THE BOX_.

Whew!

[EDIT: Fixed quoting]

Edited 2007-06-22 19:36

Reply Score: 5

ChewyChmp Member since:
2007-06-22

Sorry, but I disagree. I had two laptops, different manufacturer's Pre-Loaded with Windows XP. I formatted both, loaded a NON-OEM version of Vista, as well as Ubuntu and Mandriva. Vista loaded, and worked OUT OF THE BOX. Ubuntu and Mandriva did not. I was able to tweak them, with some moderate effort, but they didn't work OUT OF THE BOX.

Again, different results for different people on different systems. In the end it's an OS! You email, surf the web, write some code. They don't cure cancer for Christ sake!

Reply Score: 1

fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, but I disagree. I had two laptops


Well, I've done hundreds and hundreds of install of all operating systems. I've been installing Microsoft OS's since Dos 3.3. I've installed most every distro of Linux, as well as all of the BSD's many, many times. It used to be that the Linux install was trickier. At this point in time, that has reversed - ON THE AVERAGE. Most Linux installs are just a matter of popping in the CD, answering a few questions, and then you have a fully functioning desktop, web server, database server, etc. Getting just the basic desktop (sound card, video, network, etc) working in vanilla installs of Windows is often (but, as you pointed out, not _ALWAYS_) quite a challenge.

The reason Windows has the "works out of the box" reputation is because they have such a hold on the OEM distribution channel.

Again, different results for different people on different systems. In the end it's an OS! You email, surf the web, write some code. They don't cure cancer for Christ sake!


Not really on point. I use all of the OS's. I am a Windows developer. I also have a Mac in my house. I was just clarifying the "easy install" myth.

Reply Score: 4

embleau Member since:
2005-12-05

"Windows _WILL NOT_ work out of the box. You will be on a hunt around the internet trying to get all the drivers - especially for integrated chipsets on the motherboard. On the otherhand, most everything will work out of the box woth Linux. You will have a far higher success rate with Linux. "

While this is true with installing ANY OS older than the hardware it is being installed on. MS and Linux distros can NOT see into the future and see any and all possible drivers. Most all computers and hardware come with all the drivers you'd need to install windows, so unless you have bought a new computer or parts and they didn't come with the drivers, or was given a computer without the drivers, This statement is invalid.

as one of the other comments before this stated, even older distros of Linux still require you to find drivers and I think only like one or two distros come with full blown ATI or Nvidia drivers even. So all others you'd have to go download the drivers, install them, and edit the x.org config file to use the new driver.. blah blah blah... Even Fedora Core 7 doesn't have drivers for most wireless NICs in laptops.

Bottom line is still.....

NO OS IS PERFECT.

Reply Score: 2

Stupid vista issues.
by Windows Sucks on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:59 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

Please someone tell me why it can take forever to delete, copy paste or cut and past something in Vista?

Also I still can't get my Microsoft Keyboard and mouse to work with my Vista machine! LOL!

Reply Score: 3

Don T. Bothers
Member since:
2006-03-15

Give Microsoft credit it is due. Windows 95 - Windows 2000 were ugly looking. Microsoft outdid itself with Windows XP and made the ugliest fisher-price OS on the planet. It looked so ugly it made the previous releases shine. Upon installing XP, I would do three things, change the style to look like Windows Classic, Change the task bar to look like Windows Classic, and Change the Control Panel to look like Windows Classic. I got to say that Windows Vista looks beautiful, really beautiful. It is perhaps the most beautiful looking OS on the planet. It is also extremely well organized to a point were I don't try to go to Classic mode. The new way of doing things in Vista are better than they were in classic mode. Finally, I can finally use the darn computer as a regular user and if I need to install anything, no problem. Sure you had tons of features on the Mac and Linux that Windows was lacking, but I would say Microsoft pretty much caught up on those fronts. On the other hand, Linux and Mac have a long way to go to catch up to where Windows is.

Reply Score: 1

intangible Member since:
2005-07-06

A prettier new taskbar, default background, and window borders does not justify the exorbitant price... No thanks, I'll just apply a different theme on a working and consistent OS. Who needs a different theme-set for their office apps, email, web browser, music player, etc? Even the people who make / use themes on all their apps are after one thing: consistency.

Reply Score: 2

Insight
by embleau on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 17:35 UTC
embleau
Member since:
2005-12-05

<soapbox>

As a Tech professional working the IT field and as a hobbyist as well, I see this bickering as petty and counterproductive. So this writer reviewed Vista with a preexisting "chip" on his shoulder. So people either praise him or condemn him for this. But this is the beauty of some of the countries we live in... Freedom of the press. this article is his OPINION. He points out some good points about Vista, but at same time some of the points is because of his "laziness" the same thing that some Linux cheerleaders accuse windows users of. I have used Vista on my home system since I upgraded it about 3 months ago. I like it and I have had no problems with it. Does that make it perfect? for me.. yes. for others, might be a different story and I RESPECT that. I also have a linux server in my house and have had one for 3+ years. It runs our family photo album and acts as our file server. It does the job great! I also run a small webhosting company and my servers run on linux. so I'm not "newb" to linux either. I see and respect the strengths and weaknesses of both platforms.

My Opinions and Insight - *WARNING* my opinions and insight.

Windows Vista is getting the same rap as XP did in 2001. Vista is a NEW OS.. Most issues with hardware people are having is not because of Vista, but because hardware manufacturers are slow on making good drivers. Vista, as with any OS, can not have drivers for every known hardware built in. the writer complained about his printer. go to the website for the manufacturer. there is the driver. Another comment in this thread said that you don't have the freedom to change the way the UI looks, again that is wrong, for a small fee you can install and use Stardock's Windowblinds and it does a GREAT job at skinning and modifying the UI in XP and now Vista as well. There are Solutions out there.

Patches and Updates

Some of you have critized MS for the amount of patches and security updates that have coame out for Vista since launch. On my linux box I was running CentOS 4.3 and have recently upgraded to CentOS 5. I run a Yum update every two weeks and every two weeks there is a goos amount of patches that get downloaded and applied. So because everyone says that MS has to patch their OS makes them terrible, that would mean that any linux distro release that has patches and hotfixes are terrible too. But we all know that's not the case. So why does MS get laughed at about this? I say it's great that there is regular patches and updates to XP and Vista.

Software Installation

In the recent years, FOSS has made GREAT strides in this area, but still isn't perfect. I can download a windows installer for an app and it will most of the time install with no problems.I can now use APT or YUM to download and install linux/FOSS apps, but we still have the dependacy hell at times. Sometimes I do a yum install command for a package and it will download the app and any deps needed for it and sometimes it won't and I'm left going on a dep hunt. True it doesn't take long for us knowledgable users to find them and we are off again, but Aunt Beas out there it isn't that easy.

My point here is just this....

NO OS IS PERFECT and until people stop bickering and doing this immature schoolyard "My toy is better than your toy" BS and start finding ways for ALL to work better together and accept differences than REAL innovation will NOT happen.... and yes I mean Microsoft too....sorry for the wall of text

</soapbox>

Reply Score: 4

RE: Insight
by netpython on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 05:23 UTC in reply to "Insight"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

So why does MS get laughed at about this? I say it's great that there is regular patches and updates to XP and Vista.

The linux pathes are most of the times patches for applications whereas XP and Vista don't have nearly as much included.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Insight
by embleau on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 07:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Insight"
embleau Member since:
2005-12-05

"So why does MS get laughed at about this? I say it's great that there is regular patches and updates to XP and Vista.

The linux patches are most of the times patches for applications whereas XP and Vista don't have nearly as much included."

This tells me and others.... nothing....So it's a better patch when i see a patch for sendmail come through that patches an exploitable hole, than a XP patch that patches an exploitable hole? So it's bad for Microsoft to patch their OS, but it's not bad for a project to patch their work?

I guess my point is .. not ALL Linux patches I see in yum are just for apps, I see libraries, kernels, x.org updates.. etc etc. I know that distros are just distros and the term "LINUX" describes the kernel only, but you can't have it both ways. If you install a distro, most will see that as the OS, all parts of it. Microsoft Mail (New Outlook Express) is NOT part of the OS, but it gets patched. (NOTE: I don't use MS Mail)

So are you saying that you feel if MS stuffed Windows Vista with a bunch of built in apps (Which by the way NO ONE would like) that they wouldn't patch it all?

I'm just trying to understand that statement you made.

I like discussions like this.... so much more productive than just saying someone is an idiot or uneducated because he uses OS*.*. ;)

Here is a cut and paste from a yum update I just did while typing this for CentOS 5.0

====================================================================== =======
Package Arch Version Repository Size
====================================================================== =======
Installing:
kernel i686 2.6.18-8.1.6.el5 updates 12 M
kernel-devel i686 2.6.18-8.1.6.el5 updates 4.5 M
Updating:
kernel-headers i386 2.6.18-8.1.6.el5 updates 726 k
mod_perl i386 2.0.2-6.3.el5 updates 4.0 M
spamassassin i386 3.1.9-1.el5 updates 922 k
Removing:
kernel i686 2.6.18-8.1.3.el5 installed 34 M
kernel-devel i686 2.6.18-8.1.3.el5 installed 14 M

Transaction Summary
====================================================================== =======

Edited 2007-06-23 07:31

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Insight
by netpython on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 12:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Insight"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

So are you saying that you feel if MS stuffed Windows Vista with a bunch of built in apps (Which by the way NO ONE would like) that they wouldn't patch it all?

On the contrary. Windows would need in that case even more patches. And i fear that it will leave those "holes" much longer unpatched then they are now.

This tells me and others.... nothing....So it's a better patch when i see a patch for sendmail come through that patches an exploitable hole, than a XP patch that patches an exploitable hole? So it's bad for Microsoft to patch their OS, but it's not bad for a project to patch their work?

Not every patch cloces a vulnerabillity. Some might as well be ductape for some feature or the whole app to better function.

It all depends on how many apps you need to be installed and dito libraries as dependancies. At least in case of any linux distro,*BSD you can pretty much control what is going to be installed. Modularity.

To be short i experienced a lot of patches for XP that weren´t meant for any third party app i installed (XP doesn't include apps like photoshop,nero,komodo and the like.

Not every linux user has all the avaible packages Installed.And as you clearly stated linux is technically a kernel.Than there are very few patches/updates that have to be downloaded.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Insight
by embleau on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Insight"
embleau Member since:
2005-12-05

Again... the base question is...

Why is it bad the Microsoft patches? Why does it need to be mocked? Everyone patches their work, so why is MS bad for doing it?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Insight
by netpython on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Insight"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Again... the base question is...

Why is it bad the Microsoft patches? Why does it need to be mocked? Everyone patches their work, so why is MS bad for doing it?


I never said MS is bad because they patch their software. However i can imagine people de facto being fet up with *MS* due to their yet to be proven accusations about so called patent infringements.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Insight
by embleau on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Insight"
embleau Member since:
2005-12-05

"I never said MS is bad because they patch their software. However i can imagine people de facto being fet up with *MS* due to their yet to be proven accusations about so called patent infringements."

how does this have to do with the question at hand? Can you not answer the question? so instead you pull a new issue out of the hat. and just for the record I DO frown upon the SCO move that MS have done here too.. it's THAT'S not the issue here right now.

Reply Score: 1

All of them suck @ss
by Bit_Rapist on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 18:17 UTC
Bit_Rapist
Member since:
2005-11-13

I run XP, Ubuntu and Vista and all three of them basically suck at everything but are good at a few things over the others.

I can't pick a winner because I have to use all three of them at different times to get sh*t done honestly.

Reply Score: 2

Windows apologists ammusing
by JeffS on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 20:35 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

My, my - how the Windows apologists are out in full force to today!

Sure, the guy's article is a rant.

But everything he said rings true - from the easy to crash by his son, to the activation or administrative nags, to constant disc I/O (indexing search sucks, on Linux with Beagle, too - all the indexing disc I/O slows down the system to a crawl), to restricted media playing (lot's of DRM), to the huge resource consumption, to lack of compatibility with lot's of software and hardware, and so on.

The author has as much right as anyone to complain about these rather blaring shortcomings.

And the best counter argument the Windows apologists can come up with is "well, Linux has the same problems, only worse!" - in other words - "same to you, but more of it!".

Just face facts, Windows fanboys, many, many, many people, including hard core Microsofties, are not happy with Vista. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Of course, Linux and Mac have their shortcomings as well. But at least they are not "defective by design", as Vista is. Any problems encountered with either Linux or Mac are very easily overcome. With Vista, it almost seems like MS designed to to screw over it's customers as much as possible.

Unfortunately, due to market realities, I'll probably have Vista forced down my throat at some point. But that will only be as little as possible, while most of my computing time is on Linux or Mac (or even XP, for that matter).

But I'm sure all the Windows fanboys will go on in their "Windows is perfect, everything else sucks" ignorant bliss, regardless of the facts.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Windows apologists ammusing
by embleau on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 20:40 UTC in reply to "Windows apologists ammusing"
embleau Member since:
2005-12-05

"But I'm sure all the Windows fanboys will go on in their "Windows is perfect, everything else sucks" ignorant bliss, regardless of the facts."

I don't about anyone else.... but I never said this... or implied this.... I'm sure there is some who say this just as there is people who say the opposite.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Windows apologists ammusing
by codehead78 on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 20:47 UTC in reply to "Windows apologists ammusing"
codehead78 Member since:
2006-08-04

My, my - how the Windows apologists are out in full force to today!

I think you mean, Windows Defenders ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Windows apologists ammusing
by Ultimatebadass on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 09:55 UTC in reply to "Windows apologists ammusing"
Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

"But I'm sure all the Windows fanboys will go on in their "Windows is perfect, everything else sucks" ignorant bliss, regardless of the facts."

Well, it's just what fanboys do, regardless of subject. You can substitute Windows with Linux, FreeBSD, PS3, Xbox360, CocaCola, Pepsi, etc. in that sentence ;)

I'm using Vista. I wouldn't dare saying it's perfect, but it works for me better than the alternatives.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Windows apologists ammusing
by trenchsol on Sun 24th Jun 2007 14:49 UTC in reply to "Windows apologists ammusing"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

Just face facts, Windows fanboys, many, many, many people, including hard core Microsofties, are not happy with Vista. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

And there are many times more of them who just use whatever Microsoft OS they have, not because is perfect, but because is good enough for them. You Linux people have to realize that people don't want superior OS, they just want to use their computers. Computer is something they spent their money for, and they want it to work.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Windows apologists ammusing
by embleau on Sun 24th Jun 2007 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows apologists ammusing"
embleau Member since:
2005-12-05

Not to mention people want to be able to install software Easily without having to know how to make and bake (compile) or figure out if they can yum it or apt or rpm....

What? It has a dependacy?! Back to square one.. ;)

Reply Score: 1

netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Not to mention people want to be able to install software Easily without having to know how to make and bake (compile) or figure out if they can yum it or apt or rpm....

Ubuntu for example enables you to easily add and remove applications via applications --> add/remove.
You only have to know which tool you need but that's true for windows os's also.

Reply Score: 4

netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

You Linux people have to realize that people don't want superior OS, they just want to use their computers.

Yes and because of their ignorance is 1 out of 5 pc's a botnet member.

Reply Score: 2

v SHUT THE F*** UP
by bsdnewbieee on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:58 UTC
Vista: They Took Five Years for This?
by _mikk on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:58 UTC
_mikk
Member since:
2005-10-19

I guess...

Reply Score: 2

This is not an unbiased review
by siimo on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 23:49 UTC
siimo
Member since:
2006-06-22

From reading this I get the feeling this guy reviewed Vista with the intention of bashing it from the beginning.

Vista has improved a *lot* with respect to security and this guy has not written a single sentence without bashing it.

Seriously no idea how a technology magazine lets a "trollish" review like this appear on their site.

Reply Score: 1

OK.. my take
by Xaero_Vincent on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 03:43 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

Even if Vista were superior in everyway, there are still some instances where someone will see the benefits of the alternative and none of it has to do with apps. Apps are portable everywhere with our current technologies--you can run Windows apps on Linux and vice versa.

1) Switching to *nix has several cost savings over choosing Windiows. Some *nixs do more out-of-the-box for free than Vista Ultimate does for $400 (full) or $300 (upgrade).

2) Those who have a clue in IT understand who Microsoft represents. Microsoft is indeed the biggest software company and the most decietful with a two decade monopoly and counting. They are money hungry and choose to restrict user rights with their cancer EULAs. Additonally, Microsoft has a long history of destroying companies with their three step plan: embrace, extend, and extinguish. Exp: Netscape.

3) *Nix is different. Nix makes you think if you want a challenge. For those who want something different from Windows and think more of their computer than just an instrument, *nix feels in the gap as does other unique OSes, such as Haiku and SkyOS.

Edited 2007-06-23 03:45

Reply Score: 5

so right
by SK8T on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 12:07 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

I just can agree with the author.

For the end user, it's not interessting that 60% of the code has been rewritten maybe, it's just what the see when they compare windows xp and windows vista under a non-technical perspectiv.

And everthing I see is windows xp with another theme and higher hardware requierments plus this new and annoying "cancel" or "accept" window.

And maybe you compare microsoft advertisments for vista with apples adverts for leopard:
Microsoft just says: "now you can do your work easier and faster than ever befor" - but they don't say why!
Apple says: "with QuickLook you can view your documents without open a application" - So the user know this is a real improvment.

I cannot understadt why they took 5 years for creating another aqua theme…

Reply Score: 2

thats right
by heksys on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 18:14 UTC
heksys
Member since:
2007-06-23

I feel the same way, specially when they talk bull about other linux distributions.

Reply Score: 2

read up
by archer75 on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 19:01 UTC
archer75
Member since:
2005-10-17

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/vista-under-the-hood.ars

There are a TON of changes in Vista over XP. Linux fanboys just want to see it is a new GUI and that's it but that couldn't be furthur from the truth. Read for yourself.

I have personally been running vista 64 for a long time now. I love it. It's faster and more stable than XP. All of my hardware and software work. It's been great for me.

My time spent with Ubuntu has been far less pleasant.

Reply Score: 2

RE: read up
by Supreme Dragon on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 21:52 UTC in reply to "read up"
Supreme Dragon Member since:
2007-03-04

"There are a TON of changes in Vista over XP. Linux fanboys just want to see it is a new GUI and that's it but that couldn't be furthur from the truth."

If Vista was just XP with a new GUI, it would not be as horrible. Vista is a disgraceful anti-consumer abomination, sold at absurd prices. Vista is laughably foolish, it's system requirements are insane, and the DRM "feature" is outrageous. People should not buy computers infected with that crap, there are much better OS choices than Vista.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070422083715451
http://www.mypcpros.com/computer-blog/2007/5/1/microsofts-new-valid...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=142

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: read up
by archer75 on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE: read up"
archer75 Member since:
2005-10-17

The system requirements aren't insane. They are quite low.

It's not infested with DRM. It has support for DRM. That's it. Don't play protected HD movies or music and you'll never know it's there.

That's not a microsoft thing, it's a MPAA thing. The same requirements apply to your set top boxes as well. You'll see the same thing in OSX.

If the support for that DRM wasen't there people wouldn't be able to play that content and you'd have a bunch of people pissed off for a different reason.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I like Vista. It works well with everything I have thrown at it and has not restricted me at all.

You linux fanboys are always so dramtic. All the doom and gloom you talk about vista has never materialized. It's not preventing me from doing anything and works very well for many.

There are no better OS choices, with OSX i'm stuck on Mac hardware, Linux is a clusterf--k of incompatibilites and poor software. Ubuntu won't even run on my main system. Even on my old system I can't get all of my hardware working. Linux apps are sub par compared to Windows and even OSX. Linux is one giant headache.

Edited 2007-06-23 22:43

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: read up
by Supreme Dragon on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: read up"
Supreme Dragon Member since:
2007-03-04

"The system requirements aren't insane. They are quite low."

That is funny, do you know any other jokes?

"That's not a microsoft thing, it's a MPAA thing. The same requirements apply to your set top boxes as well."

People should not be forced to buy a DRM infected OS, it should only be optional for people that want to use DRM infected media.

"I like Vista. It works well with everything I have thrown at it and has not restricted me at all."

You are lucky, so far......

"OSX i'm stuck on Mac hardware"

Apple should allow OSX to run on any computer.

"Linux is a clusterf--k of incompatibilites and poor software. Ubuntu won't even run on my main system. Even on my old system I can't get all of my hardware working."

PCLinuxOS works fine on my computer:
http://www.pclinuxos.com/

"Linux apps are sub par compared to Windows and even OSX."

Most Linux programs are good enough, they get the job done and free you from an abusive monopolist.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: read up
by archer75 on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: read up"
archer75 Member since:
2005-10-17

"People should not be forced to buy a DRM infected OS, it should only be optional for people that want to use DRM infected media."

Like I said, if you don't play protected content it will never affect you and you will never know it is there.

All it is support for that media so you can play it. Nothing more.
Stop being so dramatic.




The requirements, as you can see they are very low, If you don't have a 1ghz CPU and 1gb of ram I don't know what to tell you. You're living in the stone age.


* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
* 1 GB of system memory
* 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
o WDDM Driver
o 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
o Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
o 32 bits per pixel
* DVD-ROM drive
* Audio Output
* Internet access (fees may apply)


"Most Linux programs are good enough, they get the job done and free you from an abusive monopolist."

They get the job done for most cases in a long drawn out round about sort of way that would just have been far easier in windows. I don't feel as if I have been locked away by an abusive monopolist. I can do whatever I want with no hassles so i'm happy.
I wanted to be a linux fanboy, i've been running it off and on for years. But it all came down to what my time is worth and i've wasted alot time fighting with it just to get some semblance of functionality that I have in windows. It's just not worth it.

Ultimately you just have to run whatever makes you happy, but don't buy into all the FUD being spread out there about Vista. The vast majority of it is BS. Articles written by people who either don't know or those who do and just want to bash Microsoft.

Edited 2007-06-23 23:16

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: read up
by Supreme Dragon on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: read up"
Supreme Dragon Member since:
2007-03-04

"Like I said, if you don't play protected content it will never affect you and you will never know it is there."

Read the entire article, you will learn how stealthily treacherous Vista is:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

"The requirements, as you can see they are very low, If you don't have a 1ghz CPU and 1gb of ram I don't know what to tell you. You're living in the stone age."

Linux and even XP system requirements are significantly lower. Vista is using much system resources and does not have much to show for it.

"I don't feel as if I have been locked away by an abusive monopolist. I can do whatever I want with no hassles so i'm happy."

Did you read the Vista EULA? The computer belongs to MS, not you.

"I wanted to be a linux fanboy, i've been running it off and on for years. But it all came down to what my time is worth and i've wasted alot time fighting with it just to get some semblance of functionality that I have in windows. It's just not worth it."

Linux gives you freedom, quality, choice, fair EULA and pricing. Windows gives you abuse and it is going to get worse:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000176

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: read up
by archer75 on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 23:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: read up"
archer75 Member since:
2005-10-17

"Read the entire article, you will learn how stealthily treacherous Vista is:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html"

BS article, already debunked.


"Linux and even XP system requirements are significantly lower. Vista is using much system resources and does not have much to show for it."

Lower yes, not significantly. Not by todays standards. People have had 1ghz CPU's for many many years now.


"Did you read the Vista EULA? The computer belongs to MS, not you."

I don't care about the EULA. It belongs to me and I do as I please with it, as I have been and as I will continue to do. The EULA doesn't magically stop me from doing anything.


"Linux gives you freedom, quality, choice, fair EULA and pricing. Windows gives you abuse and it is going to get worse:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000176"

Linux gives me freedom? Freedom to bang my head against the wall? It doesn't allow me to do anything I can't do in windows. If anything it prevents me from doing what I want due to poor hardware support.
Quality? It's never been more stable than XP for me. I have always found it and the apps somewhat buggy.
There isn't even much choice. If anything I have far less choice in linux than in windows. Far fewer apps to choose from.
I get no abuse from windows. All of my hardware works. All of my software works. I put a CD in and install a game without having to do umpteen million tweaks just to get it to sort of run.

And the last article you posted, again BS, this line here:
"Vista already shifts into throttled cripple mode if it detects what it believes is pirated video."

It does no such thing. I have been playing a great deal of pirated video. Vista doesn't give a rats ass what you play.

What the MPAA DRM protected HD content could do is lower the resolution if there is not an HDMI Video Card and HDMI monitor. That's it. Same requirement for a set top box and your TV. And that's ONLY if the MPAA enables it. Not Microsoft, not Vista, the MPAA.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: read up
by Supreme Dragon on Sun 24th Jun 2007 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: read up"
Supreme Dragon Member since:
2007-03-04

"Lower yes, not significantly. Not by todays standards. People have had 1ghz CPU's for many many years now."

Vista system requirements are inexcusable:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/09/07/vista_hardware_reqs/

"I don't care about the EULA. It belongs to me and I do as I please with it, as I have been and as I will continue to do. The EULA doesn't magically stop me from doing anything."

You should care about the Vista EULA, the EULA gives MS outrageous access to peoples computers. They are obviously abusing their monopoly.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/29/microsoft_vista_eula_analys...

"Linux gives me freedom? Freedom to bang my head against the wall? It doesn't allow me to do anything I can't do in windows. If anything it prevents me from doing what I want due to poor hardware support."

Linux has better hardware support than Vista and MS will be requiring "signed" drivers.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060201-6098.html

"Quality? It's never been more stable than XP for me. I have always found it and the apps somewhat buggy.
There isn't even much choice. If anything I have far less choice in linux than in windows. Far fewer apps to choose from."

Linux has many good and DRM free programs available to use. 81 reasons to use Linux:
http://productreview.at/shopping.php?buy=Linux

"What the MPAA DRM protected HD content could do is lower the resolution if there is not an HDMI Video Card and HDMI monitor. That's it. Same requirement for a set top box and your TV. And that's ONLY if the MPAA enables it. Not Microsoft, not Vista, the MPAA."

Nobody forced MS to infect their OS with that garbage. MS could have chosen to oppose such drastic and unnecessary DRM infection, but instead they chose to conspire against their customers. MS is a truly untrustworthy and highly offensive monopolist, people should avoid their products when possible.

Edited 2007-06-24 00:13

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: read up
by Adam S on Sun 24th Jun 2007 01:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: read up"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

The requirements, as you can see they are very low, If you don't have a 1ghz CPU and 1gb of ram I don't know what to tell you. You're living in the stone age.


* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
* 1 GB of system memory
* 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
o WDDM Driver
o 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
o Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
o 32 bits per pixel
* DVD-ROM drive
* Audio Output
* Internet access (fees may apply)


I'm sorry, but comments like this one about "the stone age" just show how many OSNews readers are so totally isolated and completely naive. Maybe your home computer has these specs, but in the REAL world - commercial entities who pay real serious big bucks for Microsoft licenses and CALs, these kinds of machines are VERY common. Sometimes you still find machines running Windows 98, and much more common is P3 800s running Win2k. Large companies don't just do rollouts without testing and MAJOR dollars. People JUST moved to XP in many cases.

In our case, we use terminal services, and nearly every CAL was for Office XP. We've added about 50 for 2003 recently, but there's simply no drive to spend *tens of thousands of dollars* to upgrade to Office 2003 or 2007. The same goes for computers. There is no drive to replace perfectly functional P3s running Win2k or XP.

I don't care what you think about the Vista specs being commonplace; your experience with your gamer friends may give you that illusion, but the fact is, they aren't.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: read up
by abdavidson on Sun 24th Jun 2007 11:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: read up"
abdavidson Member since:
2005-07-06

Except that Vista is largely going to be bought on new PCs. OEM and Retail makes up a very small part of sales.

And so, by far and away the majority of sales (and installations of Vista) will be for and on PCs that are very well equipped to handle it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: read up
by Oliver on Sun 24th Jun 2007 08:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: read up"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Try it first for yourself before spreading nonsense or FUD.

>Most Linux programs are good enough,

Or bad as hell and nothing to care about for a professional. You will get nonsense in Windows, Linux and MacOS. Apart from Windows all of them have a better base, but that's all. Without able users every OS is crap. The first mistake is to think you'll get security because of using Linux. Forget about it, you have to get knowledge first!

>You are lucky, so far......

He is just intelligent and doesn't believe Linux-FUD.

Mmmh first time for me to defend Windows :o) - but if I read such ill crap ... Windows has got a lot of problems, but FUD isn't the proper path. It's the Linux way of doing things, hating Windows and spreading FUD about other operating systems. And it doesn't matter whether they are free or commercial.

Reply Score: 3

Stop reading after mention of Linux
by aliquis on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 22:14 UTC
aliquis
Member since:
2005-07-23

Was quite obivous that this "review" would suck right at the first mentions of Linux.

Reply Score: 3

re
by Oliver on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 22:26 UTC
Oliver
Member since:
2006-07-15

It's not really bad and in my opinion better than XP. But in the end it's nothing to care about it, I'm happy with my FreeBSD and a good friend of mine is happy with his XP - so what? This article is somewhat nonsense.

Reply Score: 3

What do you mean?
by AkiFoblesia on Sun 24th Jun 2007 11:30 UTC
AkiFoblesia
Member since:
2006-07-25

microsoft took 5 years for vista.

hmm.. linux has taken a decade to take less than 10% of computing world.

enough said.

Reply Score: 0

Totally agree with the author...
by kurtlinux on Mon 25th Jun 2007 03:00 UTC
kurtlinux
Member since:
2006-06-20

I'm a linux fan who work in a Microsoft-centric company. The first time I installed Vista, I did run into some problems. This darn "advanced" operating system from Microsoft won't even run Microsoft ISA Firewall Client and Microsoft SQL Enterprise manager. WHAT THE ...??? Yes, it's true. I had to wait ONE MONTH before Microsoft issued BETA versions of the ISA FIREWALL CLIENT our company uses and of course SQL Server Enterprise Manager. Isn't this IRONIC? Micosoft software doesnt run on Microsoft OS. Microsoft has since fixed the problems BUT the nagging feeling I get is "if Microsoft software having problems with a Microsoft operating system, this THING MUST SUCK BIG TIME!".

Mediaplayer also sucks as reported in the article. I do get sound but NO VIDEO on some media files. No matter what codec pack I install (Combined Community Codec Pack, XP media pack, etc). THIS IS IN FACT VERY TRUE. I have been using Windows computers since Windows 3.1 but I have NEVER had problems with Mediaplayer that can't be solved with codec installation. But for some *strange* reason, this happens on my Vista mediaplayer. (Vista runs on Pentium Core 2 Duo, Nvidia GeForce fx5500 256MB, 2GB ram, 160GB SATA, Asus P5VD2-VM board).

Can't blame me for loving Linux. They don't claim support for the software. Linux is given FREE so I should expect some kind of problem somewhere. But for me to pay $$BIG BUCKS$$ for something that is claimed to be "the most advanced OS ever", i don't think so. I'll still use Windows XP at home. I'll never switch to Vista unless they turn out SP1 or SP2.

Reply Score: 2