Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Sep 2007 21:01 UTC
In the News It does not happen every day that news related to computer technology - news we report on every day - makes its way to the headline news programs and newspapers here in my home country, The Netherlands. So when it does, I am usually on the edge of my seat, simply because it offers an interesting glimpse into how 'normal' people perceive our little world. The last few days, however, that casual interest has made way for something else - tooth gnashing irritation.
Order by: Score:
Compatibility you say?
by Eugenia on Mon 10th Sep 2007 21:26 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

Funny you write this article about Vista's compatibility. When I whine about how Linux and Linux distros break compatibilities at various levels every other day, I get the runaround from zealots. Or when Apple is dropping about 20% of compatibility with each major release (especially in the driver area) -- and sometimes they break things with minor updates too --, I also get the runaround.

I will say it for the last time: compatibility is important -- more important than developers and geeks think it is. And that's not only true for Vista, but for all OSes. Windows 9x became so popular because it kept compatibility with 1981 DOS programs, not for other reasons.

Compatibility, compatibility, compatibility...

And to the point: No, switching to alternatives won't do any good, because the alternatives break compatibility MORE OFTEN than Microsoft does, and besides, apps will eventually be made Vista-compatible. More to the point: Stay with XP. That's why I stay with XP too: compatibility with my video editing PRO apps.

Edited 2007-09-10 21:32

Reply Score: 2

RE: Compatibility you say?
by Michael on Mon 10th Sep 2007 22:36 UTC in reply to "Compatibility you say?"
Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

The article specifically mentions applications compatability and hardware compatability.

With regards to the latter, I'd be surprised to hear of a Linux _distro release_ breaking hardware that previously worked, as it seems anathema the whole "enormous kernel does everything" ethos. That said, I expect there are examples and they just haven't affected me, which is why I don't remember them. But remeber, just because the kernel devs break it, it doesn't count if it got patched back together by the distros.

I'd be very interested to hear of a third-party Linux app which has had it's compatability broken. Mainly because there are so few (relatively) third-party Linux apps.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Compatibility you say?
by antwarrior on Mon 10th Sep 2007 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Compatibility you say?"
antwarrior Member since:
2006-02-11

i dunno why the compatibility/ back-compatibility thing keeps popping up... applications in linux and windows are handled differently, most applications people use in linux are not binary only and are "free", the sources are available and they get the latest build with a distro upgrade anyway. The commercial apps usually work for a few distro release cycles anyway ( Nero, Realplay,flash ...etc )i dont see what the issue is... if you talk about binary only drivers then thats a different thing... can't we find anything else to whine about ? :->

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Compatibility you say?
by Flatland_Spider on Tue 11th Sep 2007 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Compatibility you say?"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

I'd be surprised to hear of a Linux _distro release_ breaking hardware that previously worked,


I have a Dell laptop with P2 233 and 64 MB of RAM that won't run the 2.6 kernel. Granted it's probably a decade old now, but still.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Compatibility you say?
by shapeshifter on Mon 10th Sep 2007 23:55 UTC in reply to "Compatibility you say?"
shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

Compatibility, compatibility, compatibility...


Compatibility is only important to cheap ass companies that are too cheap to upgrade their 20 year old software (often some accounting crap they've been using forever and their accountant is too stupid to adapt to a newer and more modern software).
Yeah, people will complain because their 10 year old copy of Grolier Encyclopedia they picked up for $5.99 at their local corner store doesn't run on Vista.

The problem is not as much compatibility as how buggy and unpredictable Vista is. It's like driving a car with its wheel's nuts only finger-tight.
The stupid thing (Vista) will often just start doing something on its own with no indication to the user about what it's doing. System is not responding and the user just sits there and stares on the screen like a zombie.
After updates it will sometime restart not once but twice in a row.
And don't get me started on UAC and it's constant idiotic popups.
Vista is a pinacle of bad software design.

With Linux, one gets incredible functionality, reliability, and overall value, for basically no cost.
Plus a true freedom.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Compatibility you say?
by Eugenia on Tue 11th Sep 2007 00:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Compatibility you say?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Shapeshifter, you talk out of your a$$.

Vegas PRO costs $700, and not $6. I expect it to work because I paid for it and because I am not rich to upgrade all my software and hardware every month.

I NEED compatibility, and I am a consumer, not a "cheap ass company". Same goes for my husband's $1500 printer -- which doesn't work anymore on the new OSX version!!!

As for Linux, it does not bring me compatibility, so it's not what I want. So, stop trying.

Edited 2007-09-11 00:14

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Compatibility you say?
by leech on Tue 11th Sep 2007 01:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Compatibility you say?"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

Shapeshifter was correct about the last half of the comment. Vista is unstable and just decides out of the blue to reboot the computer to install updates.

The problem with $700 pieces of software that I always hated severely is that when indeed a new operating system or even some new features come out in a newer version, far too many companies don't offer just a free upgrade. Instead if you're lucky, they'll release an upgrade that costs $100 or more. This is plainly ridiculous!

Besides, people who also say that there aren't that many problems with compatibility, what about all those programs that when you load them up, Vista automatically says that Aero is not compatible with this software, switching to classic mode. It does that to most programs that I tried on it.

Granted Compiz-fusion isn't always compatible with everything, but they are improving it quickly. I even play Doom3 with it turned on and didn't notice any performance loss.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Compatibility you say?
by Ultimatebadass on Tue 11th Sep 2007 07:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Compatibility you say?"
Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

"(...)Vista automatically says that Aero is not compatible with this software, switching to classic mode. It does that to most programs that I tried on it."

Which ones would those be?

From my experience, it only switches off Aero when a program wants to display something using the overlay surface, which is not supported by the hardware accelerated desktop. Personally, I only get that when using DScaler to play my PS2 games. All other software, be it OpenGL based (like Softimage XSI) or video players that support video mixing rendered run absolutely fine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Compatibility you say?
by leech on Tue 11th Sep 2007 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Compatibility you say?"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

I'm talking about just regular software like Rosetta Stone or there was a scrapbook software my mother had that did the same thing. Nothing fancy, something an average user would use.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Compatibility you say?
by Ultimatebadass on Tue 11th Sep 2007 12:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Compatibility you say?"
Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

Hmm is the full version of Rosetta Stone different from the demo (the demo is based on Adobe Shockwave)? I just tried it here on my laptop and it works fine under Aero.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Compatibility you say?
by leech on Tue 11th Sep 2007 18:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Compatibility you say?"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

Might be the older version, since it's using quicktime instead of shockwave (in fact it could be an incompatibility just with the older quicktime that it installs. I haven't installed a new version of quicktime for a long time.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Compatibility you say?
by MiliTux on Tue 11th Sep 2007 13:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Compatibility you say?"
MiliTux Member since:
2007-05-16

Shapeshifter, you talk out of your a$$.


The joys of being OSN staff? Can't get your comments moderated down, even when:
this comment includes personal attacks/offensive language


At least Linux users are all polite to a fault :p

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Compatibility you say?
by snozzberry on Tue 11th Sep 2007 16:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Compatibility you say?"
snozzberry Member since:
2005-11-14

Vegas PRO costs $700, and not $6.

Short answer: Sony.
Long answer: Pro software is for people who have a financial infrastructure that includes upgrading hardware and OSes when compatibility requires it. Prosumers should not enter this arena with a prosumer's checkbook, regardless of platform.

I NEED compatibility, and I am a consumer, not a "cheap ass company". Same goes for my husband's $1500 printer -- which doesn't work anymore on the new OSX version!!!

The only compatibility I lost in Tiger was the PCMCIA slot in my Epson which was a driver unrelated to printing. CUPS should take care of the rest, and Apple now owns CUPS.

Edited 2007-09-11 16:29 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Compatibility you say?
by segedunum on Tue 11th Sep 2007 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Compatibility you say?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I NEED compatibility, and I am a consumer, not a "cheap ass company". Same goes for my husband's $1500 printer -- which doesn't work anymore on the new OSX version!!!

As for Linux, it does not bring me compatibility, so it's not what I want. So, stop trying.


The biggest problem with Vista (and OS X) has been driver compatibility, which has been made even worse with the move to 64-bit machines. How are consumers supposed to know what they're running and that drivers are not written, and the ones that they have are useless?

Shockingly, Linux has no such problems simply because the multitude of drivers in the kernel, and in CUPS and Xorg, just get recompiled. Problem solved.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Compatibility you say?
by abdavidson on Wed 12th Sep 2007 00:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Compatibility you say?"
abdavidson Member since:
2005-07-06

Just as well we can't vote down administrator comments when you personally abuse someone like that.

Lucky break eh.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Compatibility you say?
by shapeshifter on Wed 12th Sep 2007 07:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Compatibility you say?"
shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

Shapeshifter, you talk out of your a$$.

Vegas PRO costs $700, and not $6. I expect it to work because I paid for it and because I am not rich to upgrade all my software and hardware every month.

I NEED compatibility, and I am a consumer, not a "cheap ass company". Same goes for my husband's $1500 printer -- which doesn't work anymore on the new OSX version!!!

As for Linux, it does not bring me compatibility, so it's not what I want. So, stop trying.


Yes, I understand what you mean.
Like the next reply says, I'm generalizing.
When it comes to speciall purpouse system, like video editing system, you don't usually upgrade the OS untill you upgrade to a new version of the application that is than designed to run on a newer OS.
It's usually a good idea to dedicate a system to a speciall task like video editing.
And in your case it should be a no brainer since you most likely have more than one computer as any pro should have.
So why do you even argue this issue when it does not affect you.
OT, why did you pick Vegas anyway? What's so great about it?
Ever since Sony took over Vega and Soundforge they've been running them into the ground.
Some day you'll be able to do your video editing on a nice Linux box. At least you have something to look forward to ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Compatibility you say?
by polaris20 on Tue 11th Sep 2007 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Compatibility you say?"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

Compatibility is only important to cheap ass companies that are too cheap to upgrade their 20 year old software (often some accounting crap they've been using forever and their accountant is too stupid to adapt to a newer and more modern software).

What about the consumers, such as myself and Eugenia, that have spent hundreds of dollars on applications? Are we cheap asses too? And this software is not 20 years old. Sorry, but your over generalizations just don't hold water.

The problem is not as much compatibility as how buggy and unpredictable Vista is. It's like driving a car with its wheel's nuts only finger-tight.
The stupid thing (Vista) will often just start doing something on its own with no indication to the user about what it's doing. System is not responding and the user just sits there and stares on the screen like a zombie.
After updates it will sometime restart not once but twice in a row.
And don't get me started on UAC and it's constant idiotic popups.
Vista is a pinacle of bad software design.


Look, I'm no MS fanboy, but this sort of crap is getting ridiculous. I have actively used Vista on a number of hardware platforms (Intel, AMD/Via, AMD/nVidia, AMD/ATI) and not had any of the stability troubles you speak of. Ever.

I'm starting to think that a good percentage of Vista woes are posted by Linux zealots just trying to make Vista look bad.

With Linux, one gets incredible functionality, reliability, and overall value, for basically no cost.
Plus a true freedom.


Awesome, sounds good! Let me know where I can get Vegas, Tracktion, Reason, Office 2003 or 2007 and Creative Suite 3 for Linux.

I love Linux, especially SuSe and Ubuntu. But it's just not the best tool for all jobs.

I also get tired of it always being a case of the "you can like Windows, or you can like Linux, but not both" vibe I often get here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Compatibility you say?
by snozzberry on Tue 11th Sep 2007 16:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Compatibility you say?"
snozzberry Member since:
2005-11-14

What about the consumers, such as myself and Eugenia, that have spent hundreds of dollars on applications? Are we cheap asses too? And this software is not 20 years old. Sorry, but your over generalizations just don't hold water.


They aren't generalizations, they're brackets. Pro apps are for people who consider PCs replaceable hardware, not investments. Mac owners are oftentimes the slowest to figure this out, and as someone who upgraded a Mac to keep it current for NINE YEARS, I speak with some authority here. TCO is an important issue for personal owners. For businessmen, commodity hardware is the paradigm.

Look, I'm no MS fanboy, but this sort of crap is getting ridiculous. I have actively used Vista on a number of hardware platforms (Intel, AMD/Via, AMD/nVidia, AMD/ATI) and not had any of the stability troubles you speak of. Ever.

Awesome, sounds good! Let me know where I can get Vegas, Tracktion, Reason, Office 2003 or 2007 and Creative Suite 3 for Linux.


The differences between OpenOffice and Office are in many cases hairsplitting. The rest of these apps I'm in complete agreement with -- except that WINE is achieving its goal of closing the API gaps. QuickTime 7 runs more efficiently under WINE on my laptop than it does under XP.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Compatibility you say?
by Jack Burton on Wed 12th Sep 2007 11:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Compatibility you say?"
Jack Burton Member since:
2005-07-06

"Look, I'm no MS fanboy, but this sort of crap is getting ridiculous. I have actively used Vista on a number of hardware platforms (Intel, AMD/Via, AMD/nVidia, AMD/ATI) and not had any of the stability troubles you speak of. Ever. "

"I", that's the key of your sentence. The fact that you never encountered any of these problems doesn't mean other people did.
I've seen only 2 installations of Vista, and both had issues: i.e. my boss bought a HP laptop with Vista Home preinstalled, and every time he runs or copy something from the local lan, he gets a blue screen of death.
Not really nice ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Compatibility you say?
by polaris20 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Compatibility you say?"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

"I", that's the key of your sentence. The fact that you never encountered any of these problems doesn't mean other people did.
I've seen only 2 installations of Vista, and both had issues: i.e. my boss bought a HP laptop with Vista Home preinstalled, and every time he runs or copy something from the local lan, he gets a blue screen of death.
Not really nice ;)


My experience with Vista still far exceeds what you've seen then. But I see where your going with this. I guess I am just lucky. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Compatibility you say?
by Flatland_Spider on Tue 11th Sep 2007 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Compatibility you say?"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Compatibility is only important to cheap ass companies that are too cheap to upgrade their 20 year old software


Dude, all companies are cheap ass companies. ;)

Compatibility is more important then you think. There is a concept called "clear upgrade path." Sometimes there is, and sometimes there isn't. Sometimes companies go out of business, product lines get dropped, or maintainers quit maintaining leaving users in the lurch. People could migrate to a different program, but why when it would mean losing all that data. Why migrate when a new system isn't going to do what the users need it to?

The best example I have is the old VAX systems where I work. The client isn't going to upgrade because 1) they run fine, and 2) there isn't a system that can replace them. Believe it or not VMS will run circles around Unix in this instance. They could replace them with modern Ithium based servers, but they don't want to spend the money to replace something that is working.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Compatibility you say?
by MysterMask on Tue 11th Sep 2007 00:36 UTC in reply to "Compatibility you say?"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

Compatibility, compatibility, compatibility...

... comes at a cost (e. g. a crufty OS). Compatibility (or rather the promises of it) is good for marketing but rarely for the user. I prefer new OSes to be better (and not just bug fix release of the old one).

Either you bought your PRO software for your needs and hence don't need to update or you bought the wrong software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Compatibility you say?
by Eugenia on Tue 11th Sep 2007 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Compatibility you say?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

>... comes at a cost (e. g. a crufty OS).

That's an engineering headache, not a user one. As time goes, more engineering time will need to be used to make sure everything is still compatible. In that case, increase the price of the OS. But the user's usability should be completely transparent.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Compatibility you say?
by MysterMask on Tue 11th Sep 2007 01:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Compatibility you say?"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

That's an engineering headache
*LOL*

But the user's usability should be completely transparent.
And why the hell should the user upgrade if everything stays the same? If the user's usability is unchanged, where's the progress? Just to run the "latest and greatest"? The "hip" factor?

I agree that compatibility is important when it comes to data format / interchange and standards. However when it comes to an OS, compatibility is only important for marketing so they can make their (normally false) promises : "Buy our shiny new OS and keep running your entire old software and hardware. The transition comes at no cost. ... blablabla ...".

And engineers are engineers, not magicians. They operate under time and money constraints, you know..

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: Compatibility you say?
by Lokken on Tue 11th Sep 2007 11:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Compatibility you say?"
Lokken Member since:
2006-06-27

That's an engineering headache, not a user one. As time goes, more engineering time will need to be used to make sure everything is still compatible. In that case, increase the price of the OS. But the user's usability should be completely transparent.

Increase the price of the OS. That's a splendid idea! Let's keep making the operating system more expensive, so that it can support every program that's ever been made. Let's spend so much time ensuring perfect backwards compatibility, that we have to drop features that could prove very useful to others.

Backwards compatability does not need to be maintained for everything, or even for most things.

I think the best thing for MS to do would be to offer downgrade options to people who buy computers pre-loaded with any OEM version of Vista. It would prevent problems for many users, and to kill off more backwards compatability.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Compatibility you say?
by snozzberry on Tue 11th Sep 2007 18:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Compatibility you say?"
RE: Compatibility you say?
by RGCook on Tue 11th Sep 2007 01:37 UTC in reply to "Compatibility you say?"
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

At what point does "compatibility importance" yield to true WinOS advancement? Let's face it, Vista is a disappointment and I'd argue that a big part of the reason why it's little more than a slower XP reskin is due to MS's almost crazed adherence to compatibility.

As much as I have come to hate the overused term paradigm, MS's approach to OS development is caught in a paradigm black hole. Layer on the code to maintain compatibility while building an innovative deck of cards.

Let's face it, newer systems have the processing power and memory to containerize compatibility in the stunningly powerful VM's while freeing the OS developers of the shackles. Legacy applications can be run in so-called compatibility mode on XP with great results. Why bother, give us Singularity or Windows 7 with entire VM's back to freaking DOS (if need be damn it) to keep the older stuff going while we get real advancement.

Let me take a breath and say - Yes, I agree compatibiity is important. Critical. Absolutely necessary. But the way MS is attempting to deliver it while providing truly innovative features in a novel OS upgrade just isn't working.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Compatibility you say?
by Soulbender on Tue 11th Sep 2007 03:24 UTC in reply to "Compatibility you say?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"when I whine about how Linux and Linux distros break compatibilities at various levels every other day,I get the runaround from zealots"

Probably because they don't actually do it every other day.

"Windows 9x became so popular because it kept compatibility with 1981 DOS programs, not for other reasons."

It did? Not in my universe it didnt. You had to be really lucky to get a DOS program run well in Windows.
Oh sure, you had the lovely "Boot into DOS" feature but that unfortunately didnt really work that great and wasn't all that compatible, especially not with games.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Compatibility you say?
by backdoc on Tue 11th Sep 2007 03:47 UTC in reply to "Compatibility you say?"
backdoc Member since:
2006-01-14

This topic came up the other day about Python and also KDE4. KDE4 is hopefully developing a framework that make compatibility easier to maintain.

Compatibility may be important, more important than I give credit to. But, I think Linux and OSS are evolving too fast to make compatibility the most important thing. At some point, this may change. But, not yet. My comment is directed primarily to the desktop.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Compatibility you say?
by mh__ on Tue 11th Sep 2007 05:29 UTC in reply to "Compatibility you say?"
mh__ Member since:
2007-09-11


I will say it for the last time: compatibility is important -- more important than developers and geeks think it is. And that's not only true for Vista, but for all OSes. Windows 9x became so popular because it kept compatibility with 1981 DOS programs, not for other reasons.


I agree with you on this one. As many other pointed out, binary compatibility is not strictly necessary for free software and it doesn't need to be taken into the absurd, but when it is there, it does give you a great deal of extra flexibility. Being able to copy a binary made for another distro and run it can be very convenient at times (for example when doing system repair with only an old Linux CD and no Internet connection). On the other extreme, imagine if you had to recompile or redownload all your applications with every kernel upgrade.

I think that for free software, improvement can be done in this area without that much extra effort. It's largely a question of attitude. For example, app developers should think twice before they add a new dependency, runtime detection of features should be preferred for compile-time detection and so on.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Compatibility you say?
by llanitedave on Tue 11th Sep 2007 05:45 UTC in reply to "Compatibility you say?"
llanitedave Member since:
2005-07-24

"Compatibility, compatibility, compatibility..."

Maybe if Microsoft respected ...open standards, open standards, open standards... compatibility would not be so hard to achieve.

While I respect the worry that shifting to an open, standards-compliant system might break compatibility with existing applications and documents, it will only do so once.

If you stick with Microsoft, you'll be doing the compatibility shuffle every time the whimsical Ballmer boys call the tune for you.

But you're well trained. You'll roll over on command.

Have a biscuit.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Compatibility you say?
by dylansmrjones on Tue 11th Sep 2007 06:15 UTC in reply to "Compatibility you say?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Windows 9x became so popular because it kept compatibility with 1981 DOS programs, not for other reasons.


Eugenia. That's not true, and you know it. Windows 9x only became a success because it came bundled with all PC's. Backwards compatibility was reasonable, but only because Windows 9x was MSDOS 7.x+Windows 4.x. It was somewhat compatible with older DOS-versions because Windows 9x was DOS. And that came at a high price in terms of lacking stability. And backwards compatibility was nowhere as good as what OS/2 gave at that time.

You mention problems with compatibility on (GNU/)Linux. Care to mention which kind of problems and sources for such problems?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Compatibility you say?
by binarycrusader on Tue 11th Sep 2007 15:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Compatibility you say?"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Eugenia. That's not true, and you know it.


What Eugenia says is actually echoed by market experts who studied the sales of Windows.

DOS compatibility in Windows 9x was actually a very important thing.

As someone that worked at Gateway during latter part of the Windows95 rollout, I can tell you right now that DOS application compatibility was very important to a lot of customers.

If you want to disprove her, then do so, but simply saying she isn't right isn't enough to prove her wrong.

Ian Murdock of Debian fame points out just how important backwards compatibility is here:
http://ianmurdock.com/2007/01/14/on-the-importance-of-backward-comp...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Compatibility you say?
by casuto on Tue 11th Sep 2007 14:10 UTC in reply to "Compatibility you say?"
casuto Member since:
2007-02-27

Sony Vegas Pro 8 is fully compatible with Windows Vista:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/products/product.asp?PID=457

Reply Score: 1

RE: Compatibility you say?
by abraxas on Tue 11th Sep 2007 17:27 UTC in reply to "Compatibility you say?"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

will say it for the last time: compatibility is important -- more important than developers and geeks think it is. And that's not only true for Vista, but for all OSes. Windows 9x became so popular because it kept compatibility with 1981 DOS programs, not for other reasons.

It is true that compatibility is what got us where we are today but I'm not so sure that is a good thing. Compatiblity also means bloated, buggy, software.

And to the point: No, switching to alternatives won't do any good, because the alternatives break compatibility MORE OFTEN than Microsoft does, and besides, apps will eventually be made Vista-compatible. More to the point: Stay with XP. That's why I stay with XP too: compatibility with my video editing PRO apps.

I wouldn't agree with that assumption at all. It doesn't really apply to open source software and open formats. Program updates are free, you don't have to buy a new version of Norton, Quickbooks, Office, and other programs like you had to when Vista was released. That's what really pisses people off. I've angered many people when I had to tell them that they needed to buy all new versions of their software after they bought a new computer, or how they had to download drivers off the manufacturer's website for their older hardware and in some cases even new hardware.

Reply Score: 2

v My own experience...
by Almafeta on Mon 10th Sep 2007 21:29 UTC
RE: My own experience...
by RandomGuy on Mon 10th Sep 2007 22:20 UTC in reply to "My own experience..."
RandomGuy Member since:
2006-07-30

Open-source evangelists are preaching the use of open-source software where it is a completely inappropriate and wholly insufficient solution? Quelle suprise.

Oh, come on!
Of course, the Consumers' Union are a bunch of free software evangelists and that's why they recommend Linux and OSX (which, as you should know, isn't free software), right?

Wrong!

What's happening here is actually quite simple:
Some people recommended (mainly to businesses) that _IF_ they wanted to leave Windows for a more flexible and cheaper alternative (like Linux) they should do it _NOW_ because Vista will break some compatibility anyway.

What the Consumers' Union obviously did was parrot those recommendations in the wrong context.
I can only hope that the oversimplified advice they gave won't come back and haunt Linux or free software in general.

It is good though, that people finally realize there are alternatives to Windows.
I just wish Linux was not presented as the silver bullet.
All operating systems have their specific strengths and weaknesses which should be subject to calm and fact based discussion - no more and no less.

Reply Score: 21

RE: My own experience...
by modmans2ndcoming on Mon 10th Sep 2007 23:51 UTC in reply to "My own experience..."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

THe only programs that I have had trouble with is podcasting clients (Dopler 3 Beta works FYI), AUtoGK, and WinDV. OTher than that it has worked out great... thoguh I have not been able to get windows DVD to write a darn disk yet. I think there is a bug that needs a fixin.

Reply Score: 1

RE: My own experience...
by jabbotts on Tue 11th Sep 2007 15:01 UTC in reply to "My own experience..."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

"(yet, aggravatingly, they now advertise it as Vista-compatible)"

You may want to specify what the program it is that gives you issue on Vista.

"Open-source evangelists are preaching the use of open-source software where it is a completely inappropriate and wholly insufficient solution? Quelle suprise."

Overlooking the fact that the comment simply smacks of your own bitterness or prejudgement against FOSS, where is open source an insufficent solution?

Do you mean in business servers where it's still numbering higher than Windows, Unix and mainframe servers?

Do you mean in business workstations where it can be cusomized to a specific job role more than other OS? (unless the data input clerk *needs* an internet browser of course)

Do you mean in home desktops where it is more robust and provides the user with a far greater selection of software available through easy management GUI and console programs after being vetted by the respective distrobution maintainer?

I'm not sure I follow your logic there. I'd be curious to know what "inappropriate and wholly insufficient" issues you imagine with open source. I'm not a blind Zealot and am always interested to other's experiences provided they can be given with technical or specific examples and without a purely emotional motivation.

The only "inappropriate and wholly insufficient" uses I can think of are pushing DirectX only games and using specific Windows Only hardware. The first being caused by MS backroom deals and business choices by game developers and the second being caused by hardware manufacturers that sell too a specific OS rather than sell hardware seporate of a specific OS brand name.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: My own experience...
by polaris20 on Tue 11th Sep 2007 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE: My own experience..."
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm trying to figure out why people keep ignoring business critical Windows-only software, as if it doesn't exist, or the multitude of media applications that do not run on Linux.

In those instances, of which there are many, Linux is "inappropriate and insufficient".

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: My own experience...
by cyclops on Tue 11th Sep 2007 18:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My own experience..."
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"I'm trying to figure out why people keep ignoring business critical Windows-only software, as if it doesn't exist, or the multitude of media applications that do not run on Linux. "

For Media playing GNU is simply a better platform with better players; with better players. These are optional and not a potential security problem built into the OS or with crippling DRM.

I actually liked this "critical Windows-only software". Sack them immediately. In todays world of internet applications; open formats; future-proofed open source. This is simply an unacceptable decision regardless of OS platform. There are *lots* of problems with with changing platform this should not be one of them. In reality removing software like this should be top priority.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: My own experience...
by polaris20 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 04:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My own experience..."
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

I actually liked this "critical Windows-only software". Sack them immediately. In todays world of internet applications; open formats; future-proofed open source. This is simply an unacceptable decision regardless of OS platform. There are *lots* of problems with with changing platform this should not be one of them. In reality removing software like this should be top priority.

I really don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you obviously don't work in the IT field at all if you believe you can just "sack" Windows-only apps.

Having worked in IT for several years in banking, legal, and now engineering/energy fields, there are just too many examples why you can't just "sack" Windows-only software.

And when I was referring to media apps, I wasn't referring to something as elementary as an mp3 player.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: My own experience...
by cyclops on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My own experience..."
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"really don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you obviously don't work in the IT field at all if you believe you can just "sack" Windows-only apps."

You see things come around all the time. The most common thing I saw was lock-in regarding flat-file databases with no *export* function. That needed replacing for XP. I argue that someone who buy's into such a lock-in needs to be removed, as the its "someone else's problem" thinking does not work in todays world.

"And when I was referring to media apps, I wasn't referring to something as elementary as an mp3 player."

What are you referring to? PVR applications to record TV-programs or Playing a verity of Video formats as GNU has those in droves. All superior on the GNU platform.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: My own experience...
by polaris20 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: My own experience..."
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

Professional/prosumer video editing and audio recording apps, none of which have equivalents on Linux. And no, Kino, Ardour, and Audacity, despite their efforts, are not replacements for the likes of Pro Tools, Cubase, Sonar, Vegas, and Avid.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: My own experience...
by chemical_scum on Wed 12th Sep 2007 14:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My own experience..."
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

I really don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you obviously don't work in the IT field at all if you believe you can just "sack" Windows-only apps.

Having worked in IT for several years in banking, legal, and now engineering/energy fields, there are just too many examples why you can't just "sack" Windows-only software.


In these instances you may not be able to "sack" them but for the limited number of people who really require them they can be moved server side with Citrix or Windows Terminal services and Rdesktop. You can than run Linux on every desktop in large corporate environment.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: My own experience...
by polaris20 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: My own experience..."
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

That'd be nice, if it were just a handful of people. But that's unfortunately not the case.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: My own experience...
by itisak on Wed 12th Sep 2007 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: My own experience..."
itisak Member since:
2006-07-24

polaris20...

This may be a pointless endeavor on my part, as I doubt anything I say will sway your opinion, and of course you are entitled to your opinion.

But from your initial post
"I'm trying to figure out why people keep ignoring business critical Windows-only software, as if it doesn't exist, or the multitude of media applications that do not run on Linux."

My response would be: they are becoming far less important & less necessary. (and several have already pointed that out)
Of course YMMV, if you or your business are heavily invested and unaware of the alternatives.

In a later post you wrote;
"Specific tasks that are not possible in an open source counterpart, or not anywhere near as usable. There are a lot of examples of this in the legal, accounting, and engineering, and graphic arts fields."

To that I respond, Why?
After all it is still the same 1's & 0's,.and all computers do the same things.
Granted there maybe areas (vertical markets), which may not be addressed in a prepackaged integrated fashion. But the tools are there, and I think it is more a case of being unaware of the tools, applications & projects, products that are available.

A still later post;
"I really don't mean to sound disrespectful, but you obviously don't work in the IT field at all if you believe you can just "sack" Windows-only apps.

Having worked in IT for several years in banking, legal, and now engineering/energy fields, there are just too many examples why you can't just "sack" Windows-only software.

And when I was referring to media apps, I wasn't referring to something as elementary as an mp3 player."

I too do not intend to be disrespectful, but to me it seems you have a myopic perspective on IT. Your experience maybe limited by only knowing MS, as IT is far more than just MS,
Maybe you are too attached to the marketing dogma & myth?

the mp3 comment is just silly, as licensed & unlicensed rippers/recorders/players are available, if not on the distro then via pkg mgt. Then of course there are better unencumbered formats, Ogg, FLAC, Theora & Xvid.


Still later you post;
"Professional/prosumer video editing and audio recording apps, none of which have equivalents on Linux. And no, Kino, Ardour, and Audacity, despite their efforts, are not replacements for the likes of Pro Tools, Cubase, Sonar, Vegas, and Avid."

Again I ask Why?
There is no technical reason, for not having proprietary tools on Linux or others, and some of the better development houses do.
Mathmatica, Maya/Alias, Cycas & ProEngineer, etc etc.
And what is wrong with things like Audacity, RoseGarden & Ardour?
Not to forget things like MainActor, Shake, Renderman, Gimp/CinePaint, Cinerella, Avidemux etc.
So while there may be gaps, there are still many useful free(GPL), OpenSource & Proprietary tools, apps & products available for those aware & interested.

a possible handy resource;
http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html

Outside of the possible advantages, technical, philosophical & financial. If one is a creative individual, professional or enthusiast you maybe doing yourself a disservice if you do not take advantage of the technology (understanding, resources, knowledge) at you disposal. And the majority of it is free (both gratis & Libre)

I am not saying Windows & Windows Only stuff may not have its benefit & value, but why be so limited?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: My own experience...
by jabbotts on Tue 11th Sep 2007 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My own experience..."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

You sudgest examples which makes your comment valid.

No one outside of the Zealot minority says to not use Windows or a closed source program when that is the only solution to your problem. I was simply asking for the examples the initial post felt made Linux inappropriate. Heck, Mr. Stallman recommends using closed source when no other solution is available though only until one becomes available.

Too you, I'd ask; are you looking for specific functions or specific brand names of software? Some functions are only offered by specialized software such as Adobe and for the minority of users who can truly use Photoshop's advanced features the decision is either Windows or osX. My education used VB and VC++ and ColdFusion as programming training aids so until recently picking up PHP my decision was limited to Studio.NET if I wanted to code anything.

(oh damn is PHP slick, it's like discovering ColdFusion all over again but with more power)

In reality, there are far fewer instances where a function on one OS platform is not at all available on another software platform. Heck, I could do what I do with my prefered Linux distro on Windows or osX but in both the later cases, it wouldn't be nearly as easy to setup or constomize to my needs.

Business software is no different from any other software applications. Of course, if you choose Exchange Server then MS broken standards make a series of decisions for you resulting from that one groupware product (requires winServer, requires AD, requires Outlook which forces winWorkstation.. and such is the lock-in business strategy built.)

Mind you, something like eGroupware does 95% of what Exchange Server does plus a bunch of stuff it doesn't do and you can pick from five or more client programs that work seamlessly with it or just use a browser like most big busines apps are doing these days. Oh, and it runs on a *nix back end so you get the added efficiency and security. It's PHP based though so you could possibly install it over a winServer/IIS combo but that's like putting an Tuxedo on a steaming turd.

Cheers for the response though, I asked in my original post too get examples so you've added to the conversation.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: My own experience...
by cyclops on Tue 11th Sep 2007 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My own experience..."
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"No one outside of the Zealot minority says to not use Windows or a closed source program when that is the only solution to your problem. I was simply asking for the examples the initial post felt made Linux inappropriate. Heck, Mr. Stallman recommends using closed source when no other solution is available though only until one becomes available."

@jabbotts Zealot is both offensive and inappropriate.

Unfortunately for you. It is you that is in the minority, nobody here will agree with you that access to source is not the best way to ensure that your products stay compatible. I don't even have to talk open-source. Even before open-source hit mainstream it was common to discuss the advantages of bespoke applications vs those from proprietary vendors. Linux the kernel is just an extreme example. Source code is like gold to companies wanting to prevent lock-in; tailored to use software etc etc.

"My education used VB and VC++ and ColdFusion" I'm glad that you point out VB as that many developers regret choosing for their applications after VB6 was dropped. I'm actually surprised that ColdFusion is about at all.

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

That was the poing; "Zealot" is an offensive term and if you read my comment you'll notice that I'm saying that only the Zealot minority within the FOSS greater community go around telling people that Linux is the only solution in *every* situation. Unfortunately, these are usually also the loudest spoken and oh how the anti-FOSS people like to point to the smaller minority like it represents us all.

(see what I did there? I used "us" being that I've run Linux based OS since before Redhat removed .mp3 support and forked off Fedora that that was when I moved to Mandrake, now Mandriva.)

My intent was to point out that the minority are the only people saying that one kernel fits all; this to head off anyone that was going to think they spoke for all of us. Hense why I mentioned that *even* Mr. Stallman recommends using closed source and/or proprietary software when no other solution fitting the problem is available and then *only* until a more open solution becomes available. In short; use the ATI binary blob if it works for you but change to the open source kernel mod when it becomes available and mature enough to replace the blob.

"Unfortunately for you. It is you that is in the minority, nobody here will agree with you that access to source is not the best way to ensure that your products stay compatible"

Unfortunately nothing big guy. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was bashing FOSS but that seems to be what you indicate in your response. I'd sudgest reading the initial post *then* my response too it and subsiquent responses too and from myself along down the thread.

And by "even before OSS hit mainstream" do you mean;
a. before the MIT model railroad club came out from under the table and discovered these crazy digital adding machine contraptions

b. before the hacker community moved to Unix from VMS

c. before a young computer enclined business genious wrote a very offensive public letter to the homebrew computer club

d. before Mr. Stallman publicly outlined the hacker communities reasons for freedom of source with GPLv1

e. before Mr. Raymond wrote the Cathedral and the Bizzar

f. before Netscape joined with Mr. Raymond to create opensource.org and release there browser source under the Mozilla name

g. (or) before Microsoft realized this "internet" thing may be relavent and that that obscure "linux" kernel thingy was a serious potential threat to there status quo

I'm not sure which greater increase in FOSS becoming main stream your refering too. My god man; I may show a new registration date but I've been reading osnews forums for a while and mucking with the inner workings of the machine for a heck of a lot longer. There's pleanty of topics I lack knowledge on but computers and computer history isn't one of them.

Are you sure that I'm really in the minority here that would argue that closed and proprietary development models result in the better programming or did you maybe jump to a conclusion too quickly? I'm just not understand where I slammed open source development to give you any such idea. I may have kept my comment balanced rather than going to the Zealot or Fanboy extremes of the spectrum but that just makes for a reasonable discussion.

Here's a quarter kid, go buy yourself some reading comprehension lessons. I'd give you the whole 50 cents but I need the other quarter for my own spelling and grammar lessons. ;)

Anyway, I'd take offense but really I'm just boggled and falling off my chair laughing at how badly my comment was read. Stick around kid, you may realize the shots your taking are all friendly fire.

hehe.. as a complete tangent, I'm laughing loud at the here "cyclops" responds to "jabbotts". Unless your also a monocular (that's a big word meaning "only has vision in one eye") person then that's just all kinds of irony. Cheers, it was an unexpected bit of humour that'll keep me giggling all day.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: My own experience...
by polaris20 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 04:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My own experience..."
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

Specific tasks that are not possible in an open source counterpart, or not anywhere near as usable. There are a lot of examples of this in the legal, accounting, and engineering, and graphic arts fields.

Reply Score: 1

it could have been said better....
by xeoron on Mon 10th Sep 2007 21:37 UTC
xeoron
Member since:
2007-03-25

But your windows programs might work under a different OS... using Wine on Unix related systems, such as Mac OS X and Ubuntu Linux. So, the author was not wrong, just needed to say more.

Reply Score: 7

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

WINE is not a solution for most professionals who need an 100% stable/fast solution. I can't use Sony Vegas on WINE for example, and I would not do so either, even if it was deemed "somewhat compatible". I need every little bit of CPU power and RAM I can squeeze out of it because HD video editing is very intensive. And I need it to be MIGHTY stable.

Edited 2007-09-10 21:40

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"because HD video editing is very intensive. "

Most people don't do HD video editing though.

Reply Score: 9

jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"Most people don't do HD video editing though."

If you total up the number of people who "don't do <insert activity here>" it eventually equals 100%. i.e. there are enough edge cases that they all need to be accounted for when it comes to making new software releases maintain backwards compatibility. You can't just say "Sorry HD guys, we're screwing you" or "hey, musicians...we gotta break compatibility with this release."

Reply Score: 3

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"If you total up the number of people who "don't do <insert activity here>" it eventually equals 100%."

That would be true...apart from the fact that the majority of users want to write the odd document; use the internet; read their email and nothing else.

Now if your talking about about large companies; or rare users specialist applications thats a different matter.

Look at me with my pro-vista comment, and I didn't even have to lie.

Reply Score: 2

polyex Member since:
2007-07-11

If you want a 100% stable/fast solution, then what are you doing with Windows in the first place?

Reply Score: 6

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Then don't switch platform.

Don't switch to Linux, don't switch to OS X, and most of all - don't switch to Vista.

If your system works don't fix it. If it doesn't work there is nothing lost in trying alternatives.

The Consumers' Union is not recommending switching platforms. It is only recommending to look at them. Thom is misquoting the article. The Consumers' Union only recommend to take a look at OS X or Ubuntu Linux.

Reply Score: 5

pashar Member since:
2006-07-12

If you really need every little bit of CPU power, you better check your program with Wine. In some cases, it works faster then on genuine windows. And in many cases it runs without any noticeable performance degradation.

Reply Score: 2

timothy.crosley Member since:
2006-06-15

This is a very moot argument going forward...

Already you can "squeeze" more CPU and RAM for your Windows applications (Then Windows itself gives you) using wine, as long as you use a minimal window manager like black box. Wine already has faster performance for some things, and this trend is sure to grow as it matures. When were talking about the following 3 options:

1) Keep on switching to the latest Windows O.S.; and watch the compatibility for your older apps, slowly plummet.
2) Use older windows O.S., and be unable to use newer apps. (in 10 some years, your not going to be in a good position if your still using XP)
3) Use wine on Linux or Mac. And be delighted to see your older apps, slowly getting better performance and stability. While still being able to use newer applications.

I don't think it's insane to think someone might pick 3, because they care more about the direction something is going, then were its stuck at right now.

Reply Score: 2

Bugs the crap out of me too
by google_ninja on Mon 10th Sep 2007 21:40 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

I remember a comment here a few months ago, where a guy was complaining about bad 3d performance on games on vista. A linux advocate helpfully jumped in, recommending the person try out ubuntu.

If the problem is that you cant play the latest and greatest games properly, the solution is NOT to jump to a platform that has zero industry support.

Reply Score: 10

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

besides that, the OGL fix has been taken care of with new drivers from ATI and Nvidia

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bugs the crap out of me too
by cyclops on Tue 11th Sep 2007 04:05 UTC in reply to "Bugs the crap out of me too"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"I remember a comment here a few months ago, where a guy was complaining about bad 3d performance on games on vista. A linux advocate helpfully jumped in, recommending the person try out ubuntu.

If the problem is that you cant play the latest and greatest games properly, the solution is NOT to jump to a platform that has zero industry support."

I'm a little confused, did you mean to say that commercial gaming on Linux is supported by only a few companies like ID and epic. Because the kernel is pretty much supported *only* by companies. The common quote you see is IBM investing 2 Billion in Linux.

Of course *casual* gaming is heavily supported and you can by a PS3 cheaper than investing in the Microsoft platform.

Reply Score: 3

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I was talking about the gaming industry, I'm sorry if i wasn't clear.

Reply Score: 1

Linux vs Windows
by CrazyDude0 on Mon 10th Sep 2007 21:50 UTC
CrazyDude0
Member since:
2005-07-10

When Linux breaks compatibility then it is a good thing. When Vista does it it is a bad thing. That is the world in the eys of OSS fanatics:)

IMO Microsoft should just plainly drop all backward compatibility bullcrap from Windows and make it a lightweight OS not ridden with all old crap. Then provide a solution like coherence using their virtual PC to run XP in the guest OS.

Slowly promote application vendors to write applications for the new OS and say RIP to XP.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Linux vs Windows
by danieldk on Mon 10th Sep 2007 22:09 UTC in reply to "Linux vs Windows"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Gee, the anti-Linux crowd has walked in already ;) .

When Linux breaks compatibility then it is a good thing. When Vista does it it is a bad thing. That is the world in the eys of OSS fanatics:)

The difference being that virtually all GNU/Linux applications are opensource or free software (what you prefer), and can and will be recompiled. Larger distro's like Debian have a comprehensive package set, and important packages are never dropped between releases. While Sarge's GIMP may not run on Lenny, the point is kinda moot, because Lenny includes The GIMP as well.

Yeah, sure, this doesn't apply to closed-source applications, but for the rest.

Reply Score: 27

RE[2]: Linux vs Windows
by jbauer on Mon 10th Sep 2007 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux vs Windows"
jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06

The difference being that virtually all GNU/Linux applications are opensource or free software (what you prefer), and can and will be recompiled. Larger distro's like Debian have a comprehensive package set, and important packages are never dropped between releases. While Sarge's GIMP may not run on Lenny, the point is kinda moot, because Lenny includes The GIMP as well.


So? Applications that don't work in Vista right now may and more than probably will be updated too. Don't tell me that not having closed applications available on the Linux platform is a good thing. Since closed and propietary software are not going to cease to exist anytime soon, if Linux-based operating systems become a serious alternative to the Windows desktop, they'll have to face the same or worse problems that MS is suffering now with Vista.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Linux vs Windows
by lemur2 on Tue 11th Sep 2007 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux vs Windows"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

So? Applications that don't work in Vista right now may and more than probably will be updated too. Don't tell me that not having closed applications available on the Linux platform is a good thing. Since closed and propietary software are not going to cease to exist anytime soon, if Linux-based operating systems become a serious alternative to the Windows desktop, they'll have to face the same or worse problems that MS is suffering now with Vista.


The problem with binary-only applications is susceptibility to compatibility issues across OS upgrades.

This is true on Linux or on Vista ... it does not matter which OS is involved becuase the underlying problem is having a binary-only closed-source application.

Similarly, having an open-source application means it has a good chance of still being viable after an OS upgrade. This also applies on Linux or on Vista. It is a feature of "open source", not of "Linux application" or "Vista application".

I would point out however that the majority of Linux applications are open-source, and the majority of Windows applications are closed-source and binary only.

Finally, having an open-source application means it has a good chance of being available on different architectures. This feature is applicable to Linux only ... Vista runs only on x86.

Edited 2007-09-11 01:09

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Linux vs Windows
by sappyvcv on Tue 11th Sep 2007 02:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux vs Windows"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah because your everyday user knows how to compile their software.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Linux vs Windows
by lemur2 on Tue 11th Sep 2007 03:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux vs Windows"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Yeah because your everyday user knows how to compile their software.


It only requires one person (somewhere in the world) to know how to do it and to be prepared to offer/publish the resulting package (say via Bittorrent).

Edited 2007-09-11 03:15

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Linux vs Windows
by sappyvcv on Tue 11th Sep 2007 03:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux vs Windows"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Sure, if you can find someone who will do it free or really cheap or are willing to pay for it.

Or you could keep your old versions of your OS around via VMWare too.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Linux vs Windows
by lemur2 on Tue 11th Sep 2007 03:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux vs Windows"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Sure, if you can find someone who will do it free or really cheap or are willing to pay for it.


If it is important to you to be able to run an old program (for which you have source) on a new OS that you have, then it shouldn't be hard at all to find someone both willing and able to compile it for you. If it is that important to you, you should be quite happy to pay that person a reasonable rate for their time. It doesn't take all that long to compile a program.

Or you could keep your old versions of your OS around via VMWare too.


Cheaper & easier by far to get someone to compile your source code for you.

Edited 2007-09-11 04:03

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Linux vs Windows
by sappyvcv on Tue 11th Sep 2007 04:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Linux vs Windows"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Cheaper & easier by far to get someone to compile your source code for you.

Uh not necessarily. You already own the OS, you just need Virtual Machine software which you can get for free if you use MS Virtual PC 2007.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Linux vs Windows
by dylansmrjones on Tue 11th Sep 2007 06:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux vs Windows"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Sure, if you can find someone who will do it free or really cheap or are willing to pay for it.


It's actually pretty common. Take a look at X-Chat for windows. See how many unofficial versions there are, all with a nice installer - and guides to building it on Windows - with MS Studio (2003/2005) btw.

If there is a market (read: need) for it, somebody will be doing it. And not necessarily for money. Just like there is a "gazillion" of good freeware applications, there is also a "gazillion" of binaries ready to be installed.

But again. The whole claim about lacking binary compatiblity across Linux distributions is a hoax (and Eugenia knows this). I have several binary proprietary products installed on my gentoo box. The packages are not compiled specifically to my system, but works none-the-less as they should. Skype, Opera, Adobe Flash Player, Americas Army, the nVidia driver. I also have some applications installed from Fedora. Binary packages. Work fine.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Linux vs Windows
by jabbotts on Tue 11th Sep 2007 15:11 UTC in reply to "Linux vs Windows"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Linux users including the minority Zealot extremists tend to be of a higher technical understanding so they look at *why* compatability was broken. There is usually a good reason for a Linux distro to break compatibility. Granted, there are also some stupid reasons for broken compatibility or hardware support present in an earlier kernel to be missing from a later kernel; they tend to be the minority of breakages though.

On the other hand, the same geeks also look for technical reasons when Windows breaks compatiblity and the majority of the time, there tends to be little technical reason for it; there may be grand business reasons for the breakage but we're looking at it from the end user's best interest not the company profit margin's best interest. Where Vista breaks compatability because it's finaly implemented security as more than an after thought; bravo, about freaking time security was a remote consideration.

My personal issue is that I distain Microsoft's business culture, decisions and inability to compete base on product quality. I'd like to explore Vista as I have with every other OS I own a license for but I'm not willing to contribute more money to there marketing and FUD (ney, outright BS) departments. For that reason, I'm glad and thankfull to the developer community for alternatives that blow away Windows in many aspects.

Reply Score: 2

Re: Oh well!
by mind!dagger on Mon 10th Sep 2007 21:52 UTC
mind!dagger
Member since:
2007-06-26

Aside from the fact I use a `gaming console` for my games and not a computer the gaming argument for using Windows as a gaming platform is mute.

The decision could have been worded better to say stick with XP until hell chills a little or you may like to turn up the flames a little and try OS X or Linux.

I'm glad Microsoft is taking a beating in the market for a really crappy release. The company could have taken on itself and re-invented its Windows operating system. Oh well!

I am starting to believe certain people have OS disorders whenever anyone else actual has the `gall` to officially endorse OS X or Linux as an alternative.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Re: Oh well!
by Tuishimi on Mon 10th Sep 2007 23:23 UTC in reply to "Re: Oh well!"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think it is that... it's just that of all the operating systems to complain about regarding backward compatibility, picking on Windows is funny because the one thing that Windows has been doing for years is striving to provide backward compatibility. In fact, as someone mentioned above, it has created a monstrous system because of that, when they could trim a lot of fat and say "hey, either use XP for another 5 years (we'll provide service packs) or start fresh with Vista."

Reply Score: 4

RE: Re: Oh well!
by Snapper on Tue 11th Sep 2007 12:53 UTC in reply to "Re: Oh well!"
Snapper Member since:
2005-11-16

" Re: Oh well!
By mind!dagger on 2007-09-10 21:52:56 UTC
Aside from the fact I use a `gaming console` for my games and not a computer the gaming argument for using Windows as a gaming platform is mute. "

MOOT. It's MOOT. Not MUTE or MOTE... ;)

(DONALD: OK, HISTORY. THIS IS FOR THE GAME. HOW YA DOIN' OVER THERE? NOT TOO GOOD!

GEORGE: All right BB. Let's just play... Who invaded Spain in the 8th century?

DONALD: THAT'S A JOKE. THE MOORS.

GEORGE: Oh, Noooo, I'm so sorry. It's the MOOPS. The correct answer is, The MOOPS.

DONALD: MOOPS? LET ME SEE THAT. THAT'S NOT MOOPS YOU JERK, IT'S MOORS. IT'S A MISPRINT.

GEORGE: I'm sorry the card says MOOPS.

DONALD: IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S THE MOORS. THERE'S NO MOOPS.

GEORGE: It's MOOPS.

DONALD: MOORS.

GEORGE: MOOPS,

DONALD: MOORS!)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Re: Oh well!
by Soulbender on Tue 11th Sep 2007 13:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Re: Oh well!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

MOOT. It's MOOT. Not MUTE or MOTE... ;)


Maybe he doesn't have a soundcard.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Re: Oh well!
by mind!dagger on Tue 11th Sep 2007 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re: Oh well!"
mind!dagger Member since:
2007-06-26

I was mute until yesterday.

My brand new Gateway E-4610D at work didn't have sound or a USB hub. That was until I was able to obtain its Windows XP driver CD.

Strange. The Ubuntu live CD recognized them both immediately and played a funky African startup sound for my IT cubical mates. It also recognized my 2G SanDisk USB key without a failure.

Maybe it was a delusion. Maybe it was that reality and me were not getting along. Who knows.

Speaking of Gateway, it's going to be harder to get Gateway/Windows drivers now that Acer has purchased Gateway for its consumer base. Acer will sell off its technical @$$ets.

Mirror-mirror effect of Be Inc. and other companies that `focus` shifted or were purchased by other companies.

Speaking of the shrinking computer and server manufacturing market. Dell is promoting Ubuntu Linux and Lenovo considering it. Some European and North American agencies suggesting its use. I wonder how long it will take before Microsoft's reserves start being used to prop up its colossal company?

Edited 2007-09-11 14:21

Reply Score: 1

Replies..
by Extreme Coder on Mon 10th Sep 2007 22:07 UTC
Extreme Coder
Member since:
2007-07-26

Open-source evangelists are preaching the use of open-source software where it is a completely inappropriate and wholly insufficient solution? Quelle suprise.

What open source evangelist are you talking about in this case?

I am starting to believe certain people have OS disorders whenever anyone else actual has the `gall` to officially endorse OS X or Linux as an alternative.


So Linux/OS X cannot be used as an alternative for Windows? Hmm, I must be some sort of freak then.

Edited 2007-09-10 22:12 UTC

Reply Score: 8

Vista compatibility problems
by GENIUS on Mon 10th Sep 2007 22:08 UTC
GENIUS
Member since:
2007-09-10

The entire code base for this operating system has been rehashed from Windows NT Workstation well mostly the kernel. The API layers are thrown together most likely by different groups of people not collaborating or on the same sheet of paper. The first mistake was then entire concept of regular users running the machine as administrator allowing viruses, malware, spyware to install without any problems.

Now on the other software not working if MS does not allow them to see the code base where it inter opts with the OS then no one can write programs that will work correctly. I have to say Windows XP Pro with SP2 is the closest MS has come to making an OS work decent. Vista is the last in this line, like Windows Me just a rehash and a bunch of patches thrown into it like a blended drink.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Vista compatibility problems
by sappyvcv on Tue 11th Sep 2007 02:53 UTC in reply to "Vista compatibility problems"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

1) It's called code maturity, it can be a good thing or a bad thing. You have to prove one way or another.
2) "Thrown together" "not collaborating"? Do you have any factual basis for this statement? No, didn't think so.
3) You don't need to and SHOULDN'T see the source to develop for a platform. You only needs the API. It's called encapsulation.

Reply Score: 2

Binary compatibility
by shiva on Mon 10th Sep 2007 22:15 UTC
shiva
Member since:
2007-01-24

Sorry Eugenia, but binary compatibility is vital only for CLOSED operating systems, which are made as bases mainly for proprietary application development.

This is the reason why break of binary compatibility is not seen as a major problem by linux developers and users and the same reason why these Vista incompatibilities are a big problem to MS and why linux is developed at a incredible fast rate.

Reply Score: 15

RE: Binary compatibility
by JonathanBThompson on Mon 10th Sep 2007 22:29 UTC in reply to "Binary compatibility"
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

Even if a more recent Linux system has an identical API (for what an pre-existing application uses) but there's some operational difference in how it works (semantics) to the end-user (those that aren't developers with an overabundance of spare time on their hands) the result is still that the application doesn't work on the new version of the operating system, and a simple recompile doesn't fix it, either.

This has always been true, and always will be true: if any portion of a system is expected to behave in one way, and that behavior changes, invariably there will be applications that depend on it functioning in the old way, and thus something is broken, even if the old way that the OS functioned was most aptly described as a "bug" and this is the bane of developers, regardless of the OS and the programming language and the linker.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Binary compatibility
by lemur2 on Tue 11th Sep 2007 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Binary compatibility"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

This has always been true, and always will be true: if any portion of a system is expected to behave in one way, and that behavior changes, invariably there will be applications that depend on it functioning in the old way, and thus something is broken, even if the old way that the OS functioned was most aptly described as a "bug" and this is the bane of developers, regardless of the OS and the programming language and the linker.


Yes, correct.

The point, however, is that this is a insurmountable problem ONLY for systems that rely on binary compatibility.

In contrast, for Ubuntu LTS systems, for example, there are backports:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports
http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=47

Werever a backport is made to work, you can get a new version of a program working on your older OS.

To get an older open-source program working on your newer OS normally just requires a simple recompile.

Show me anything sismilar for binary-only expensive closed-source Windows programs ... it simply doesn't exist.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Binary compatibility
by Obscurus on Tue 11th Sep 2007 02:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Binary compatibility"
Obscurus Member since:
2006-04-20

I wouldn't say the Ubuntu Backport repositories are exactly overflowing with an abundance of backported software though. If you are not a programmer, you will always be at the mercy of a programmer deciding whether or not to port an application for a new/old/different OS, and this is true regardless of whether source is open or closed. Obviously, if the source is open there is a higher probability of someone picking the project up, however. And as you say, often a simple recompile will do the trick, although this does not mean the resulting binary will behave reliably or as it would on the OS it was intended for.

Reply Score: 4

I hear this kind of thing
by SReilly on Mon 10th Sep 2007 22:19 UTC
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

...all the time from both advanced users that won't need to deal with the aftermath of a switch, i.e. those not providing technical support, and technical fashion victims.

The only time I recommend switching to another platform is when either the person(s) concerned run very few apps, like web browser, email and office suit or, in the case of MacOSX, run well supported apps.

I have customers that only use they're PC for internet access and word processing. I installed PCLinuxOS for them at the hight of the Windows malware attacks as they where getting infected every second week. Problem solved.

I have customers that use the Adobe Creative Suite on Windows for almost all of they're work. It would be crazy to get them to switch to Linux. Yet this little idiot, who happened to be my customers nephew, told them that productivity would shoot up if he installed Linux and started using the GIMP. I'm all for opensource but the best tool for the job is my moto. Anyway, I installed the GIMP on Windows to give him a taste and that was the end of the matter.

Or so I though.

Not three weeks latter, the above mentioned windows customer gets a malware infection and I get called in. During the time it took me to clean out the system, I got asked countless questions on Wine and, more specifically, if it where possible to run Adobe Creative Suite on it. After trying to explain how much of a bad idea it is to run your most important production applications with a compatibility layer, I gave up and mentioned MacOSX. I told him about the similarities between *nixs and explained that there was a native port of Adobe Creative Suite on the Mac. The guy goes out and spends a fortune on a Mac Pro, MS Office and Adobe Creative Suite 2. Now he thinks his system is bullet proof and we all know the fallacy in that assumption.

The point I'm trying to make is he spend a fortune on a system he didn't even need because some idiot told him it was a good idea. I can understand the nephew not knowing what he is talking about but anybody who hires a geek should listen to the expert. As for the Consumers Advice Bureau, they should know better than to spout out the latest fad some wannabe tels them about.

Reply Score: 4

RE: I hear this kind of thing
by stestagg on Mon 10th Sep 2007 23:13 UTC in reply to "I hear this kind of thing"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

So this guy does creative design work, and has a problem with malware. He obviously wants a solid, wellmade system that will run smoothly for his 'production applications' so what is wrong with buying into Apple?

Adobe (and most designers/design firms/applications) has a strong background with Apple software, OSX is a rock-solid OS. There isn't a malware problem with OSX, and the UI is decent. Mac Pros are awesome machines (Yes, I have used one) and I would queue to get one if I could afford it. So what's the problem? the guy went for the best solution.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: I hear this kind of thing
by SReilly on Mon 10th Sep 2007 23:35 UTC in reply to "RE: I hear this kind of thing"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Don't get me wrong, I agree with everything you say about the Mac being a solid platform and a great choice for his profession.

It's just that he had recently bought a really good and well functioning system, which happened to contract one malware issue. The issue was quickly resolved and I'm sure if he actually updated his free antivirus software, which I was asked to installed for him, on a regular basis, he would not run into the same issues again.

Yet he chose to spend a small fortune on a new Mac Pro, with all the software price tags added, plus the cost of tuition fees to learn how to use the new system. Admitedly, I got the tuition contract and made a few bob out of it. But I still find the expenditure for the system if not wasteful, then at least untimely and definitely badly researched.

The point I'm trying to make is, he could have stuck to the system he already knew, started to update the antivirus software properly and worked with it until his system either became to slow for his comfort and ease of use, or had some form of major hardware failure. At that time I could understand either upgrading to a new system or making the switch to another platform.

By taking the advice of a clueless newbie, he not only cost himself a small fortune but also lost quite a bit of productivity, to begin with anyway. What a waste of time, energy and money.

Reply Score: 4

MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

It's just that he had recently bought a really good and well functioning system

On who's advice? Yours?

The point I'm trying to make is, he could have stuck to the system he already knew, started to update the antivirus software properly and worked with it until his system either became to slow for his comfort and ease of use, or had some form of major hardware failure. At that time I could understand either upgrading to a new system or making the switch to another platform.

Some users want peace of mind. The don't want to wait until an uncomfortable situation gets unbearable.

There are other people too. I saw people sticking to Windows although they had nothing but problems.
They needed help every other day. None of their "expert" supporters tried to solve their problems as they should: switching them to a hassle free OS that was a better fit for their need..

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I hear this kind of thing
by SReilly on Tue 11th Sep 2007 01:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I hear this kind of thing"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

On who's advice? Yours?

Some users want peace of mind. The don't want to wait until an uncomfortable situation gets unbearable.

There are other people too. I saw people sticking to Windows although they had nothing but problems.
They needed help every other day. None of their "expert" supporters tried to solve their problems as they should: switching them to a hassle free OS that was a better fit for their need..

Actually, The couple I mentioned in my first post had a similar situation happen to them. They had nothing but issues with they're windows system, i.e malware every other day or so. As they only used they're PC for web surfing, email and office apps I installed PCLinuxOS, that problem was solved.

From the tone of your reply I get the feeling you think I don't know what I'm talking about. If you supported even one percent of the systems that I have, or even built as many as a tenth, then you would actually know what I am talking about. On the other hand, all I'm getting is a load of lip from somebody who obviously doesn't understand the situation from the users perspective.

Have you ever had to hold the hand of a non techy when they're Linux system no longer works the way they expect and you're the only guy around who can help? Recent versions of KDE use the shift key as a gesture for turning on 'sticky key's'. Sticky key's are an assistive technology that enables people with bad motor functions, amputees or people with arthritis to type without a million letters appearing on the screen instead of one. The problem is, depress the shift key for too long a time and your keyboard starts behaving like it no longer works. You can enter your user name and password to log in, but you can't reasonably type after log in.

If you don't know what's going on, it seems like your keyboard is broken. Google the problem and you get hundreds of similar complaints. The fact that this key gesture is switched on by default is a major show stopper for many people. Luckily, you can switch it off in the control center using just the mouse.

Sure, now that I know the problem it won't reoccur but the fact remains that until I found out what was causing the issue, they're system was unusable. If that isn't a major source of irritation, what is? Couple that with the fact that a standard user will, no matter how many times you tell them, still try to install software meant for the Windows platform, for whatever reason they come out with this time, plus the fact that up until recently they couldn't watch youtube and a hundred other flash sites properly and then tell me about peace of mind.

Dude, if you wanna piss with the big boys you gotta do the time. ;-p

Reply Score: 1

MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

From the tone of your reply I get the feeling you think I don't know what I'm talking about.

And i got the feeling that you're upset because the little nephew's advice might have been right all along. Maybe the initially bought Windows PC was the expensive error ..

"Experts" tend to suggest the OS they know and can support - not the OS which best suits the need of the user. That's why far to many people still are in dire need of their "expert" cousin/ son/ neighbour/ whatever for even simple tasks. The probability is high that said "experts" don't know anything but Windows..

Reply Score: 3

tweakedenigma Member since:
2006-12-27

I get the point your trying to make to but you don't really need to be rude.

I do agree with your point by the way I see far too many Techs suggesting what they can support and not what would be a better option. I see people often offer their favorite OS instead of listening to the Needs of the user.

Linux people Push Linux
OSX People Push OSX
Windows People Push windows

If we really wanted to help people we would tell them what we think would work best and give them the card of someone that can help them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: I hear this kind of thing
by sappyvcv on Tue 11th Sep 2007 03:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I hear this kind of thing"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

If you actually read what the guy said, he knows, supports and even suggests Linux when appropriate.

He felt, and was right, that it was not appropriate in that one case to suggest Linux when the least expensive, in terms of time, money and headache, solution was to stick with what he had. The guy went ahead and paid probably close to $2000 or more and time to learn a new OS just because of one malware issue that resulted in him not following the advice of SReilly.

That's an expensive patch to a simple to solve problem.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: I hear this kind of thing
by SReilly on Tue 11th Sep 2007 10:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I hear this kind of thing"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

You just don't get it, do you?

If you read my article properly, you would know that I suggested MacOSX to my customer as he was working with adobe creative suite, not the nephew.

The nephew, like a fool, suggested Linux. There is no way in hell I'm going to install Linux for a customer just to run Adobe Creative Suite in wine.

Dude, use your brain before you start posting about other people. Read the posts your replying to helps to avoid looking like an ass.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I hear this kind of thing
by sappyvcv on Tue 11th Sep 2007 03:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I hear this kind of thing"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Oddly enough, the sticky keys issue is a problem/annoyance in Windows too.

I guess KDE does copy Windows.. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Jack Burton Member since:
2005-07-06

"The problem is, depress the shift key for too long a time and your keyboard starts behaving like it no longer works. You can enter your user name and password to log in, but you can't reasonably type after log in."

Just like windows 2000 or XP.

Reply Score: 1

psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

It's really not a waste of time,energy an money at all. Now he has peace of mind that he can do all he wants without worrying about malware or other issues. It might look expensive now in the short term but I suppose he is to keep his new system for at least five years so it is probably a good investment for him.

I'm not saying this couldn't have been solved in a cheaper way. You could do what I did with my music teacher's computer. I made it a dual-boot between Windows XP and OpenSUSE 10.2.

The Windows side doesn't have any access to the internet at all and only the minimum amount of applications installed to do his work composing and recording and the Linux side has all his normal day-to-day work stuff with a virtual Windows machine for those things that don't work on Linux.

Most of his problems were solved this way for the cost of a mere hard drive and some consultancy fees without going out and buying a new Mac.

Anti-virus is merely a band-aid and not a solution so it's redundant and useless to install it. You should ask Microsoft to fix their Windows operating system so normal users don't have to bother with all the kinds of malware that infest the platform anymore.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I hear this kind of thing
by steverez1 on Tue 11th Sep 2007 02:46 UTC in reply to "I hear this kind of thing"
steverez1 Member since:
2006-12-06

I have just had a situation like this a a business I do IT for some new employee's (right out of highschool) started complaining about Windows being propriortary and that we should switch the company over to Open Source.

I was even told from another employee that one was very smart with computers just like me (I was thinking oh great)

well, I had to set up his client pc so I met with him, he stated he hated Windows and would only use Open Source software. I told him I would make him a exeption (just to stop the anti Windows talk in the office) so, I asked him if Linux was ok? he said sure! (Kinda like he used it all the time)

I returned his client pc to him start showing him how to operate in the Windows network dealing with SharePoint and he kinda looked blankly at me. I asked him if he was understanding everything ok?

(What he said next it was very hard for me to keep a strait face) He said he used a Macbook and thought that OSX was Open Source

Edited 2007-09-11 02:49

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

anyone know what my comment was modded down for? I'm not questioning the comment mod process; I'm just curious to understand why as it seemed to be a very balanced opinion.

Reply Score: 1

Dutch pickles
by moleskine on Mon 10th Sep 2007 22:21 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Most folks don't buy an OS separately. It comes with their machine. Those with new machines that came with Vista can't go back to XP without spending a lot of money. And if their problems are that severe, then switching to Ubuntu could make sense. It will cost them nothing, and if/when Vista improves, they can go back to it.

The difficulty is that people expect computers to "do everything". They don't. You can't run Windows apps on Linux, other than a few through Wine and the results of that are absolutely crap, imho. If you want games, don't go with Linux or while your friends are busy with BF2 you'll be helping a penguin catch nasty-looking fish. Yeah. If you pay a lot for a professional app, your choice of platform (if you're sensible) is dependent on the platform the app works best on. That may be a Mac, maybe even especially a Mac if you think that showing movies of your sofa on Youtube is hot hot hot and where it's at, mon.

From the sound of things, this report perpetuates the myth that you don't have to think before investing in computer stuff. It's a myth that not only Windows and Mac but also some desktop-friendly Linux distros help to promote. Isn't that far more irritating than the report's present conclusions?

Edited 2007-09-10 22:22

Reply Score: 11

I kind of agree
by phox on Mon 10th Sep 2007 22:38 UTC
phox
Member since:
2007-06-22

Users should stick with XP when that's what they have and that's what they have applications for and it's what they've paid for.

But starting from blank, buying a new computer, and it's only gonna be used for emails, browsing, office work, graphics, video editing, developing and playing solitaire I would would say Linux makes a perfect alternative.

Of course I noticed Eugenia reasoning to stay on WinXP with video editing, of course when you've bought an expensive program for the purpose, you don't want to throw it away, so it's perfectly reasonable to stay with that platform.

However if I were a professional within that business, I would have chosen Mac in the first place. As a Linux user, I can only state that the word is "alternatives", by my experience it's easy to find applications that are more stable than WinXP itself, if you're just aware not to go for the very newest alpha and beta releases.

Debian have a very conservative upgrade policy for those that wants 99.9% stability, I'm just not one of those, to me "Latest stable release" is alright, I don't need matured software for my personal use it's already more stable than most windows software.

But as I said, "Stay with Windows XP" should definitely also have been on the list. No one should be pushed onto another platform against their will, it's simply better by choice, which is probably the reason why Linux have so many zealots, they chose it.

I would very much like to see people actually giving a thought about what to put onto their computers though, weighing needs with possibilities and price.

Reply Score: 7

Fashionable
by Michael on Mon 10th Sep 2007 22:41 UTC
Michael
Member since:
2005-07-01

These days, every journalistic report which criticizes Windows has to end with "...or you could always try Mac or Unix." It's just the In Thing. If you even know what the hell they're talking about, you're already knowledgable enough to look after yourself.

Reply Score: 1

So called compatibility be damned...
by DevL on Mon 10th Sep 2007 22:48 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

...any reason or urge to get rid of Windows in favour of an alternative OS is a Good Thing (TM).

Reply Score: 2

When else?
by zztaz on Mon 10th Sep 2007 22:48 UTC
zztaz
Member since:
2006-09-16

If compatibility is weak or fails, isn't that exactly the right time to give alternatives greater consideration?

Alternatives should always be considered before any change. Compatibility may well dictate the choice, but the choice must be examined, not assumed.

Change is inevitable. You can have frequent small changes or infrequent large changes. Microsoft and other commercial vendors tend towards the rare but large change model. It's not a Windows versus Linux issue; RHEL offers infrequent but larger changes, too.

The problem with that model is that the changes, when they do occur, may be large enough to make switching to an alternative worthwhile. More frequent releases may result in more work testing and managing the changes, but any single release is unlikely to motive a switch.

Open source facilitates, but does not require, the incremental release model. I believe that incremental development results in faster improvement, and that the improvement is worth the higher testing and management cost.

Reply Score: 4

Sorted commentaries
by shiva on Mon 10th Sep 2007 23:09 UTC
shiva
Member since:
2007-01-24

Users should stick with XP when that's what they have and that's what they have applications for and it's what they've paid for.


The problem is this. Many people don't pay anything (they use pirated software) and use expensive softwares like MS Office, Photoshop and Corel Draw to make simple things that they could make with OpenOffice, Gimp and Inkscape. An these people are the most resistive to migrate to linux and free softwares in general.

You paid for Photoshop ? Then you can pay a comparatively low MS tax of windows license. You can even run them inside a virtual machine inside linux or mac.

Most folks don't buy an OS separately. It comes with their machine.


Not in my country and other development countries. People here use pirated copies of Windows and even that who buy OEM licenses included in hardware end using pirated software when they install MS Office, Photoshop and all sort of "popular" applications. They treat these applications as indispensable but they never would pay the very expensive price of them for non-professional use.

Edited 2007-09-10 23:10

Reply Score: 6

what about hardware requirements?
by wannabe geek on Mon 10th Sep 2007 23:24 UTC
wannabe geek
Member since:
2006-09-27

There's a situation where Linux might be the right choice: Let's say you have a quite recent computer but it's not really compatible with vista because its hardware requirements are two high. Then it would be a sensible tip to either stay with XP OR try a GNU/Linux distribution. In many cases hardware compatibility is better in Linux than in Vista.

Reply Score: 4

Vista, Linux, OSX
by tweakedenigma on Mon 10th Sep 2007 23:58 UTC
tweakedenigma
Member since:
2006-12-27

This comes across to me as simply a time where the Windows people are forced to look at some of the problems that the Linux and OSX people have had to deal with for a long time, Hardware and software not being compatible.

Now I gotta agree they didn't do far enough into their explanation really, it should have been more along the lines want a modern OS then their is no reason not to look at Linux and OSX as well as Vista as you are likely to have some of the same issues anyway but the system might suit your need better.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Vista, Linux, OSX
by Almafeta on Tue 11th Sep 2007 00:22 UTC in reply to "Vista, Linux, OSX"
RE[2]: Vista, Linux, OSX
by tweakedenigma on Tue 11th Sep 2007 00:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Vista, Linux, OSX"
tweakedenigma Member since:
2006-12-27

Not to discount what your putting out their but I was working as a tech in a major retailer when vista came out and for quite some time after that and I can say that I had a lot of people that had issues. I am now back in school doing upgrading and doing some freelance tech work on the sides and I still get calls with people wanting me to put XP back on their machines as Vista doesn't work with something they have.

Also I can say that I own 7 computers and their are 9 in my home all less than 3 years old and only 2 of them can run vista properly.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Vista, Linux, OSX
by lemur2 on Tue 11th Sep 2007 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Vista, Linux, OSX"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The only place I've heard of their being issues is on the 'net. Of all the people who have installed Vista here, whether they have top-of-the-line PCs or an old "Goodwill special" (my PC being definately in the latter camp), there have been no significant hardware issues.


Just one example ... Vista doesn't work properly with a lot of existing NAS devices (Network Attached Storage). This is because Microsoft tried to obscure their networking even more in Vista than was the case in XP. All it means in the end is problems for people who have a lot of data stored on (and therefore investment in) perfectly functional NAS devices, only to have new Vista machines not work on their small networks.

http://www.jimmah.com/vista/Networking/ntlm.aspx
http://forums.techguy.org/windows-vista/570054-nas-issues-home-prem...
http://www.tweakvista.com/article39001.aspx
http://desktopsupport.info/blog/2007/05/12/windows-vista-nas-vmware...

Unacceptable. This issue is wholly brought about by Microsoft deliberate attempts to NOT interoperate.

Any claim of "No significant hardware issues with Vista" is utter rubbish.

Edited 2007-09-11 01:26

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: Vista, Linux, OSX
by tweakedenigma on Tue 11th Sep 2007 01:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Vista, Linux, OSX"
tweakedenigma Member since:
2006-12-27

I also had a lot of people that had trouble getting network printers set up with their existing Windows machines after adding a vista Box to their network as another example.

Reply Score: 3

Prehaps it is time to brake compatability.
by dusanyu on Tue 11th Sep 2007 00:45 UTC
dusanyu
Member since:
2006-01-21

Vista is showing clearly what happens when you overbuild upon a foundation that was never designed to support the load. Perhaps it is time for Microsoft to bid adue to NT and base Vista +1 on Singularity http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity/ either way Microsoft needs to do something or they will end up with a huge S*it Sandwich and trying to pretend that it tastes good.

Reply Score: 4

Glimpse
by pepa on Tue 11th Sep 2007 00:58 UTC
pepa
Member since:
2005-07-08

Looking at getting an

interesting glimpse into how 'normal' people perceive our little world
I am quite amazed that such an authoritative institution is recommending a Linux distribution! It also shows how much mindshare Ubuntu is gaining, that it is increasingly making it into the mainstream media.

Reply Score: 2

ml2mst
Member since:
2005-08-27

It's somehow amusing, this topic generated 286 comments on the website Webwereld (Webworld), which is a record.

http://tinyurl.com/23s79t

The discussion on OSN is going in exactly the same direction. Meaning my innocent little country has caused a global OS-War, or what?

Anyway, I'm afraid average users are not going to change their OS-es anytime soon. How many average Joe's are there out there, that don't have clue, what an OS is? I guess they don't even bother.

And nope, I'm not a Microsoft Shill, as a matter of fact I'm a 100% non-Windows user.

Reply Score: 1

porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

The need for binary compatibility in open source is greatly overstated because anyone can recompile an application for their architecture or kernel.

That's why you have KDE/Gnome running on Solaris, Linux, BSD, AIX, etc.

Apropos of my post's title, most people are looking for functionally equivalent applications to do web browsing, paper writing, pdf-viewing and printing, music listening, movie and dvd viewing, chess playing, etc, not for the same application, so most people will indeed find that Ubuntu/Mac OS X are a huge upgrade on Windows XP and on the slow, bug-prone, hardware-lacking 5 years late Vista.

And best of all, in the case of Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution, they can try it at no risk for free and make a determination for themselves without having to take anyone's word as to whether it meets their needs or not.

People are so defensive about their own choices that it bothers them that a Consumer Agency might suggest that people look at alternatives to see whether it meets their needs. Not your needs.

It's funny that there is always the Photoshop or whatever high-end pirated app I use argument. This is a valid argument for a small minority of professionals and even then,some of the high-end video editing software does run on Linux and on OS-X.

Keep making excuses, it gets sillier by the day. In the meantime, people every day discover the joy of virus-free computing and will see your "emperor-has-no-clothes" arguments for what they are, a vain attempt to maintain the status quo in your self-interest.

Later

Reply Score: 12

Question for Eugenia
by TechGeek on Tue 11th Sep 2007 01:21 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Here in the US the average joe has probably no idea what Linux is. Yet Linux use is more widespread and accepted in Europe. Does the average person in your country know about Linux? Is it common to see it in cafes or schools? If so, then that comment makes more sense then if that report was made here in the US.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Question for Eugenia
by lord_rob on Wed 12th Sep 2007 21:11 UTC in reply to "Question for Eugenia"
lord_rob Member since:
2005-08-06

I'm living in Europe (Belgium actually) and I was somewhat surprised 6 months ago when my barber told me that I wasn't the first person to talk to him about Linux.

I don't know if my barber is completely clueless in computers, but he is far from being the specialist in computers for granted.

I think the word "Linux" is getting spread to the average Joe using the good old mouth-to-mouth technique and so will follow Linux adoption.

Reply Score: 2

Dutch isn't my second language
by RGCook on Tue 11th Sep 2007 01:47 UTC
RGCook
Member since:
2005-07-12

but from Thom's account, it sounds like the conclusions drawn are reasonably based in the research. As to the recommendations, each of them have merit if you consider the frustration experienced by some with a broken Vista "upgrade". Therefore, to evaluate alternate solutions does not sound like bad advice. One need not throw out the baby with the bathwater to evaluate Linux or OS X (if you have the money). No need to get too excited about biased reporting! ;-) It sounds to me like the frustration implied in the fourth recommendation is in keeping with the market reception of Vista.

Edited 2007-09-11 01:51

Reply Score: 2

Reculer Pour Mieux Sauter (Koestler)
by pg--az on Tue 11th Sep 2007 01:54 UTC
pg--az
Member since:
2006-03-15

>> So, some of your applications may not work, and as a result, you should check out alternative operating systems? Where none of your applications will work? <<

If the alternative over the very long run seems to promise "a way forward", maybe. Googling (( Reculer Pour Mieux Sauter (Koestler) )), the top two hits are French and German for this European "design pattern".
Back in my ancient University days I was fascinated by Koestler, while today Michael Behe sits on the shelf. The idea that you can't always get there with incremental-improvements-always-forward is Deeply Strategic.

In this case, Vista seems to be a "Reculer", but they shipped it before it was refined to "Sauter" grade. The moral being that if you are going to take a step backwards, there had better be a Huge Leap Forward to compensate. So for a customer to "bite the bullet" and take an even bigger step backwards( as in "none of your applications will work" ) there needs merely to be a sufficient promise of a way forward, in other words same principle. Which with Linux, the promise of being free of forced-upgrade-tax, "A dead/frozen operating system ia a good operating system", hmm...

Edited 2007-09-11 02:10

Reply Score: 2

llanitedave Member since:
2005-07-24

"Back in my ancient University days I was fascinated by Koestler, while today Michael Behe sits on the shelf. The idea that you can't always get there with incremental-improvements-always-forward is Deeply Strategic."

And anybody who gets their evolution wisdom from Michael Behe is getting misled. I wouldn't trust yours -- or his -- ideas about OS development any more than his (utterly bogus) ideas on biological development.

Reply Score: 1

pg--az Member since:
2006-03-15

>> anybody who gets their evolution wisdom from... I wouldn't trust yours -- or his -- ideas <<

I read 3 of Dawkins' books too, and for example there's nothing mysterious about the genetic markers traced by Spencer Wells' "Journey of Man" - mutations clearly do happen. But the Eigen's Error-Catastrophe which Paul Davies muses on in "Fifth Miracle" invites philosophizing - without that mysterious DNA-self-repair-or-checksumming the genome would degenerate hurriedly, in other words the human genome is already too complex to be stable against random mutations without the self-repair - how does DNA-self-repair know the beneficial mutations it should tolerate ?

Reply Score: 1

llanitedave Member since:
2005-07-24

But the Eigen's Error-Catastrophe which Paul Davies muses on in "Fifth Miracle" invites philosophizing - without that mysterious DNA-self-repair-or-checksumming the genome would degenerate hurriedly, in other words the human genome is already too complex to be stable against random mutations without the self-repair - how does DNA-self-repair know the beneficial mutations it should tolerate ?

Although it would be a major derail to delve into that topic here, I'm sure that other forums, such as

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=66

could give you all the answer you need on that one.

But back to OS development, parallels with biological evolution are probably greater than you suspect with the incremental change model -- and that doesn't even preclude adopting major, revolutionary ideas: that's no different in principle than the bacterial sharing of genomic information. The incremental vs major redesign issues aren't mutually incompatible either.

What's important, with respect to the posted article -- compatibility -- has less to do with the development method, and more to do with development goals.

Reply Score: 1

Sticking with XP not the solution ...
by WorknMan on Tue 11th Sep 2007 03:06 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

e only sane and good advice that can be given to people fearing or already experiencing problems with Vista related to compatibility is to wait and stick with Windows XP for now.

Probably good advice. After all, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. However, if you're sticking with XP because a piece of software you depend on hasn't been updated to work with Vista, it's probably never going to be updated if it hasn't been by now. So whether you do it now or later, you're eventually going to have to bite the bulllet and find a new piece of software, even if it means jumping platforms. Either that, or 15 years from now, you're going to be like one of those people still using Windows 3.1 in 2007 ;)

Reply Score: 2

Interesting
by kaiwai on Tue 11th Sep 2007 03:29 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

You Thom said:

Where in this list is the one thing that aggravates me as a slightly more technically inclined user? Exactly - the last recommendation. So, some of your applications may not work, and as a result, you should check out alternative operating systems? Where none of your applications will work?


Nice to put it completely out of context; the issue that was raised was compatibility; the vantage point was this; the delay between Windows Vista launch and compatible applications - both in terms of updates issued by vendors and new versions are going to be months if not years.

Also, the other point to make is that software vendors will milk this Windows Vista launch for all its worth - to release 'updated' versions of their applications that have had minimal improvements and the claim to fame is that they're compatible with Windows Vista.

The question is therefore posed; if you are going to upgrade your operating system, only to find that all your software will need to be replaced because the vendor has refused to provide updates - and instead forced upgrades down customers throats, what are the alternatives?

So when you're faced with all that; are you better off moving to another platform that might provide better compatibility and better applications? With that being said, however, I don't think there is a silver bullet. If you move to Ubuntu you'll end up with a short upgrade cycle and steep learning curve. If you move to MacOS X its a learning curve and a high entry cost.

Regarding Eugenia and her statement regarding MacOS X backwards compatibility - don't use the defence of comparing bad with bad; it doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that commercial vendors need to be forced to support the operating system. Rather than venting frustration on this board, ring and annoy the software vendor.

If thousands of people rang up and voiced their anger at those lazy software vendors who demand payment for updates being passed off as upgrades - then the software companies would think twice before screwing over their customers.

Unfortunately society is filled with people who act like emo's - sitting in the corner whining at the world and how unfair things are and doing nothing about it. Get off your chuff and go to the phone. Hammer the software vendors, boycott companies who refuse to 'play ball' and you'll find that companies will move to provide updates when new operating systems are released rather than demanding payments via upgrades.

Reply Score: 8

Linux breaks compatibility?
by pixel8r on Tue 11th Sep 2007 03:51 UTC
pixel8r
Member since:
2007-08-11

I'm not 100% sure about this but I reckon I could dig up a mid '90's version of KDE and run it on my opensuse 10.2 desktop no worries. the kernel hasn't broken compatibility with old binaries has it? i mean, its still 2.6, which we've had for quite a while now.

And X has kept its compatibility pretty much the same. So I figure I could (if I wanted) run older gnome and kde programs from 10+ years ago, so long as I have the appropriate libraries installed.

Anyone know if this would fail? If not, then where are all the linux incompatibilities. If you mean source incompatibility, then windows isn't immune to that either. Its just progress...

Reply Score: 1

I Love Vista so Much XXoooxx
by cyclops on Tue 11th Sep 2007 03:58 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

@Eugenia Lets start by saying people with blind devotion should not call anyone zealots. Zealots is an offensive term, and an inappropriate one.

Distributions do not *break* compatibility ever, by their very nature. A distribution is meant to be a collection of programs that are packaged together. That is not to say in rare instances that an *upgrade* will not work. Although if you pay for support or show threads in forums, bug reports. I will believe this rather outlandish statement.

It is not good enough to point at *Apple* as an benchmark!? for Vista's own shortcomings. Unless you are going to talk about a the *big* change that happened both within its own OS and its hardware. Vista should stand by its *own* merits.

I agree compatibility is as important for *Binary* programs although these should be used as little as possible. It is one of only a handful of advantages to using the Microsoft Platform. Although in todays world a *surprising* small one. The world has changed where Visualization, and interoperability, Open file formats are what people are talking about as *real* solutions. Which all trump backward compatibility.

I agree that Vista is not ready for the Desktop, although I'm sure many of these problems will be fixed in the next few years.

"WINE is not a solution for most professionals who need an 100% stable/fast solution"

I have pulled this quote of yours to highlight your lack of knowledge of how Wine works. Wine is not an emulator and is often faster at running applications than that of the whole OS. I couldn't comment on its stability. Although from your comment I can tell you can't. Although Visualization. takes about a 10% hit and is reportedly 100% as compatible with the native platform. Which is less than the hit you would take moving to Vista.

Reply Score: 4

RE: I Love Vista so Much XXoooxx
by lemur2 on Tue 11th Sep 2007 04:13 UTC in reply to "I Love Vista so Much XXoooxx"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Although Virtualization(?) takes about a 10% hit and is reportedly 100% as compatible with the native platform. Which is less than the hit you would take moving to Vista.


The problem with Virtualization is that you need to give each OS its desired amount of memory resources. Even if you can run XP virtualized under Linux, you need a machine with twice the memory you would normally need.

For some, that would be an acceptable price to pay I would imagine.

For me, I find it easier to switch to a native Linux application.

There is one (1) Windows closed-source binary application from my wife's workplace which she needs to be able to run at home. Happily, because it is a non-Microsoft application, and therefore it uses only published and non-secret Windows API calls, it runs absolutely fine (and at full speed) on Linux under Wine.

For most other files, OpenOffice and other native Linux applications handle the file formats just fine.

Reply Score: 2

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Thank you for your reply. The bottom line is that I would rather invest my money in hardware that will improve my overall computer experience than using memory for my OS.

Eugenia is not even talking about a Multi-taking environment she is talking about well a dedicated application.

I do believe that switching to an open-source is preferable in all but rare instances, and its the rare instances that are always quoted.

As a native GNU user I have little to no experience of wine. The only time I have used it was an obscure application to transfer files to my Xbox, and was shocked that it worked.

The only other time I have used it was with virtualdub as a friend needed support on editing a wedding video, and again it worked.

The only thing I did try is to get some *old* games that i've had on my hard drive for like forever. Literally from my program directory. I didn't even have the boxes anymore, and my experience was less than satisfying. Although I don't know whether it was the games that were bad; wine or how it was set-up; or using the experimental.

...but then I'm the wrong person to talk about commercial gaming on GNU, because I really like open-source gaming, with its little communities; regular *updates* to graphics;playability; sound etc that offer long term appeal, and relevant to this discussion compatibility.

If I was a hardcore(sic) gamer. I would have bought a PS3. I probably will if they include PVR support and Linux support has matured.

Reply Score: 1

One consolation
by license_2_blather on Tue 11th Sep 2007 05:03 UTC
license_2_blather
Member since:
2006-02-05

At least Microsoft apparently wasn't able to influence the conclusions in this article. ;)

I don't agree with the assertion that switching to a non-Windows OS solves the compatibility problem. But it does (at least in the case of Linux) give me an option that does not require 1 GB of RAM, is quite solid (more stable than XP in my experience, though XP is also quite good), and, probably most importantly, allows me to try out a ton of new applications that I otherwise could not justify doing if I had to pay for all of them. Yes, some of them run also on Windows, but often they run better on Linux.

All that said, I also still use XP, primarily because Vista is the first Windows version that for me does not offset its cost with desirable new features. Maybe Microsoft will change that -- I hope so, because lack of support is a painful reason to migrate.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

Thom is (perhaps deliberately?) misquoting the article and the Consumers' Union.

The Consumers' Union (akin to Forbrugerrådet in Denmark) does not recommend Mac OS X or Ubuntu Linux (in the mean ing switching OS). The Union only recommends to take a look at OS X or Ubuntu Linux.

So the entire rant from Thom is void. He's complaining about an advise that wasn't given. Waste of column space...

EDIT: The only OS explicitly recommended by the Consumers' Union is Windows XP.

Edited 2007-09-11 06:26 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The Union only recommends to take a look at OS X or Ubuntu Linux.

So the entire rant from Thom is void. He's complaining about an advise that wasn't given. Waste of column space...


Don't talk nonsense. In Dutch "kijken naar" means "to take into serious consideration". Please, don't try to discredit this column on your supposed knowledge of my own mother's tongue.

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The translation

"to take into serious consideration"
does not invalidate my post. Actually it confirms my post. "To take into serious consideration" is to take a look at it. It doesn't mean switching OS.

By your own admissions you misquoted the article. It recommende to take a (serious) look, but not to switch.

There's quite a difference between that and your mispresentation.

And don't give me that crap about mothertongue (modersmål). Danish is >75% identical to Dutch (both languages are heavily influenced by Low German), and "kijken naar" also exists in Danish - with the exact same meaning (and almost same spelling).

Dutch isn't a secret language that nobody can understand. It is almost 100% mutually understandable with Danish - as long as it is on paper. Spoken Dutch is a different issue ;)

Dutch is 1/3 misspelled Low German, 1/3 misspelled Danish and 1/3 misspelled English ;)

You are trying to hide your error behind a non-existing language barrier. Too bad it won't work with me.

Reply Score: 6

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

By your own admissions you misquoted the article. It recommends to take a (serious) look, but not to switch.

And, Mr. Wise Guy, what do I write in the article?

"...it also advices consumers to look out for alternatives such as Mac OS X and Ubuntu Linux..."

"...they recommend alternatives like Mac OS X and Ubuntu..."

"...you should check out alternative operating systems?"


So, your point was, again?

Edited 2007-09-11 08:21

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

My point is that you're misquoting the Consumers' Union and misrepresenting its position.

You _do_ write they tell people to check out alternatives, but you also twist the wording into being a blanket recommendation. And then you whine about how unfair it is to suggest people to take a look at alternatives.

Why are you so much against a suggestion about testing possible alternatives? The union clearly comes to the same conclusion as you do. Stay with XP.

So basically you just wrote a rant in order to post something?

Reply Score: 7

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

My point is that you're misquoting the Consumers' Union and misrepresenting its position.

Where do I twist what? Seriously, I have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about. I haven't twisted ANY words ANYwhere. They recommend to look at alternatives - as in what, look at the boxes? Of course they mean to take them into consideration - in other words, to see if the alternatives are a *solution* to the problems customers are reporting (compatibility issues).

Seeing that this specific advice will certainly not solve any of the reported problems, yes, this advice is utterly useless and pointless - so my point remains.

Lastly, Danish may share some similarities with Dutch, but please, don't make the mistake that simply because it looks the same, it also means the same. "Du darfst dass nicht" looks a whole lot like "Je durft dat niet", but the meaning is completely different. I really need not be lectured in my own language.

Reply Score: 1

netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Where in this list is the one thing that aggravates me as a slightly more technically inclined user?

Are the readers of osnews just slightly more technically inclined or only you?

The consumers union understands that the average users demands and ecpectations can be met by a whole lot more OS's than windows.

Not everybody fills in tax forms, plays games or needs visual studio .net

A great deal of users have a PC as a means of communication. Wether by email, webform or IM, irc etc.
Most of the average users dont need a lot of the functions included in word 95 much less office 2007.

In this context im against your assumption of "Where none of your applications will work?" when we are talking about *alternatives*. And there are plenty of alternatives that *might* be appropiate.

Seeing that this specific advice will certainly not solve any of the reported problems, yes, this advice is utterly useless and pointless - so my point remains.

I disagree, the advice is more or less to wake up and at least report problems. A lot of windows users are just sitting ducks. Waiting for the storm to pass by. Instead of wait and see perhaps users should actively participate.

Reply Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

In this context i'm against your assumption of "Where none of your applications will work?" when we are talking about *alternatives*. And there are plenty of alternatives that *might* be appropiate.


You are completely misunderstanding the complaints from users. The complaints are about SPECIFIC Windows applications NOT working [properly or at all] in Windows Vista. How is switching to Linux or OSX going to solve THAT problem?

Sure, there might be capable alternatives to those specific apps when using Linux or OSX - but the same probably applies for Vista!

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"A great deal of users have a PC as a means of communication. Wether by email, webform or IM, irc etc.
Most of the average users dont need a lot of the functions included in word 95 much less office 2007. "

On the other hand, if none (or a large amount) of the applications you use does not work in Vista it's pretty likely that those applications aren't email clients, browsers or IM clients and not that likely to have Linux counterparts.

Still, advising someone to take an alternative into consideration is not the same as saying they should switch OS right now.


"Instead of wait and see perhaps users should actively participate."

That'll be the day, I'm afraid.

Reply Score: 2

psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

Dutch isn't a secret language that nobody can understand. It is almost 100% mutually understandable with Danish - as long as it is on paper. Spoken Dutch is a different issue ;)


I have exactly the same feeling about Danish (Dansk), Swedish (Svensk) and Norwegian (Norsk, either Bokmal or Nynorsk). I can understand most of it when written in word but hardly anything when spoken :-).

And since I am Dutch I can say that anyone having Dutch as his/her mother tongue should be able to read, write and speak at least German as well, since the languages are so much alike.

Reply Score: 1

netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Im Dutch Thom and i think you are petronising osnews readers by saying you are an authority in your mother language. Which doesn't say anything about the content of the article which is imho an obsolete rant.

"kijken naar" is "having a look at" no more no less.

How thorough is being looked at the given subject isnt clear from the sentence.

"Onderzoeken of bestuderen" doing some research or study the given subject gives the sentence a more serious payload.

Reply Score: 4

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Another sentence in Dutch which doesn't need translation to be understood by a Dane.

The first word (Onderzoeken) is "Undersøge" and the third word is (bestuderen) "Studere" which is basically a synonym for "Undersøge"

Easy to read, but I doubt I could understand it if it was spoken. You do something with your throat that even Danes cannot do (and vice versa of course ;) ).

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"You do something with your throat that even Danes cannot do"

Oh come on, how can that even be possible? ;)

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Haha.. yeah well... Dutch has these deep khrrrsszffrgtxzgthhrrzstt-sounds (like in German Nacht, Nach, Doch) which sounds a bit like Danish "kr" but deeper in the throat. And all sounds in Dutch sounds like that. Even the vowels ;)

EDIT: Of course, for a swedish person it may be impossible to hear the difference between Dutch and Danish, but then Swedish people can't stop singing when talking ;) (we can only understand swedish people when they're drunk - which means we usually understand them quite well - that is, when they visit Copenhagen ;) )

Edited 2007-09-11 18:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Of course, for a swedish person it may be impossible to hear the difference between Dutch and Danish"

Hearing the difference isn't that hard, it's understanding Danish that is hard.
Norwegian is fine, Danish is hard. Of course, it's not impossible like, say, Finnish or Icelandic.

"Swedish people can't stop singing when talking"

That's probably the nicest thing I've ever heard anyone say about Swedish ;)

"we can only understand swedish people when they're drunk"

Funny, it's exactly the same for us, we can only understand Danish when we're drunk. It certainly help that the Danish isn't exactly famous for abstaining from alcohol either.

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

abstaining from alcohol


What does "abstaining from alcohol" mean?

I'll take the rest of your post later, but I don't grasp the concept of that particular statement. I need some clarification here ;)

Reply Score: 2

v Switch to tinyxp
by WyldStylist on Tue 11th Sep 2007 06:26 UTC
alternatives
by netpython on Tue 11th Sep 2007 06:27 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

Not many users use windows only niche apps that can't be substituted. I think thats whats misinterpreted from the report.

A lot of applications are multiplatform these days.And quite frankly many of them run better on OSX,linux than on windows XP. Some are linux only (kradio,tvtime,kdetv,mythtv)

Reply Score: 3

RE: alternatives
by dylansmrjones on Tue 11th Sep 2007 06:37 UTC in reply to "alternatives"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Aah.. Firefox is -usually- much better on XP than on Linux. Especially with many tabs open and for a longer period. On Linux I recommend Konqueror - and I'm a Gnome User (since Gnome 1.0).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: alternatives
by netpython on Tue 11th Sep 2007 06:41 UTC in reply to "RE: alternatives"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't like the font rendering on windows XP.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: alternatives
by dylansmrjones on Tue 11th Sep 2007 06:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: alternatives"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Ah well. I can relate to that. Use Safari on Windows then. It has correct font rendering (with antialiasing).

You can also turn off the (Un)ClearType and use standard antialiazing (use the ClearTypeTuner for that). It's not good, but has better hinting than ClearType (which only works well with a minority of fonts, basically MS fonts).

Reply Score: 2

They do have a point
by foez on Tue 11th Sep 2007 06:37 UTC
foez
Member since:
2005-08-29

Well I think that the "the consumers' Union" do have a point. If you have to pay a big sum of money just to run all of your payed software and applications because of the support shouldn't it run then? And with the upgrade path ahead (xp will not be supported after feb 2009) isn't it time to be smart and broaden your horizon? Maybe to evaluate something different? Are you paying for all your software?

Reply Score: 3

RE: They do have a point
by netpython on Tue 11th Sep 2007 06:44 UTC in reply to "They do have a point"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes especially now a lot of companies seem to broaden their horizon too. The news that IBM has joined OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/press/ibm_press_release.html apparantly missed (only?) osnews.com

Reply Score: 2

agreed
by makc on Tue 11th Sep 2007 08:34 UTC
makc
Member since:
2006-01-11

thumb up thom

Reply Score: 1

Compatibility?
by tuzor on Tue 11th Sep 2007 09:01 UTC
tuzor
Member since:
2007-08-07

You mentioned compatibility when it comes to professionals, businesses and corporate environments?

Well a much more suitable phrase would be: Productivity, productivity, productivity. Productivity is the only thing that matters when you're talking about professionals and businesses.
Compatibility of your hardware/software is a subheading of productivity, since any problems you have with it means you lose time.

To the point: Windows XP may be compatible with lots of software/hardware however in the long run, the measures you need to take in order to not have problems makes your work less productive. Vista certainly fails harder.
More to the point: If you're working in a Mac environment your work will certainly be more productive. The only problem would be the initial cost and time of migrating to the Mac if you're not already using it. In my opinion though its worth for any company or individual to look at, since in the long run you will more than benefit.

Oh and Eugenia when you mention driver issues with Mac OS X it would be nice to give some facts; i.e. printer name and which OS X version you're referring to.

Reply Score: 2

Trolling... waste of time
by ciplogic on Tue 11th Sep 2007 11:50 UTC
ciplogic
Member since:
2006-12-22

Yes, is a typical way that Thom put the problems.

Thom attacks the platform, but does not put the same value that you have inherited on Linux. I've don't see major innovation on Vista, but is an update.
First thing that comes in my mind in Vista is Right click on the free desktop and choose to change the background... is a heavy-flooded with option dialog, that you will have anything to do only to change the Background.
Is still has lower usability than XP, to not compare with OS X, or GNOME.

As platform, it has driver problems, and application lack.
Why not to choose Linux as platform? Which has growing demand of applications, no vendor lockin, no office suite of more than 500 USD, and with money that you gain you can extend your infrastructure, improve in your migration costs, and a lot of trainings.

I think is a proper recomendation, which does not say: use Linux because you have nothing to use, use Linux as an alternative, in compare with Vista.

Reply Score: 0

Windows compatability facts
by gedmurphy on Tue 11th Sep 2007 12:30 UTC
gedmurphy
Member since:
2005-12-23

Here's a link detailing how much effort Microsoft put into backwards compatibility

http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=39

The other 3 parts to this article can be found here:
http://www.alex-ionescu.com

Reply Score: 1

RE: Windows compatability facts
by psychicist on Tue 11th Sep 2007 13:34 UTC in reply to "Windows compatability facts"
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

Even though this whole compatibility layering part is a huge task there is still room for error or at least incompleteness. This only shows how sophisticated the Windows environment is, but also a major source of errors caused by the resulting complexity.

On open source operating systems and particularly the free Unices there is simply no need for all this. There is a reasonable source code compatibility but nothing more than that. As said before your binary is only a recompile away.

And if you really want to run an older binary on a newer release of your operating system you only have to supply the necessary libraries for the application to run. Still the recommended thing to do is to recompile your application for the new operating system.

Reply Score: 2

trinitrotolueen Member since:
2006-10-03

This only shows how sophisticated the Windows environment is, but also a major source of errors caused by the resulting complexity.

I think you confuse vendor locking with refinement.
Windows Vista is complex. But not necessarily inherently sophisticated.

Reply Score: 2

psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

I didn't want to discredit the original poster, since he is a ReactOS developer and I posted a thread there about exactly what I wanted to see in it to make me consider it:

http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4156

I don't do Windows (haven't for the last 5 years) but if ReactOS can overcome the deficiencies of Windows and crank up the security to the level of UNIX, VMS and MVS I would consider using it at least in a virtual machine. Unfortuately they want to create a complete clone of Windows with all of its stability and security deficiencies.

As for the topic of Windows, either XP or Vista, I think it is totally hopeless. Yesterday I got mailed a documented created in Office 2007 on behalf of a friend that the creator couldn't even print on his own computer running Vista.

There is nothing that can open these new lock-in formats so I kindly replied that he'd better save it either in 97/2000/XP doc format or switch to OpenOffice.org. So much for MS OOXML and its supporters.

Edited 2007-09-11 14:08 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Windows compatability facts
by Soulbender on Tue 11th Sep 2007 13:41 UTC in reply to "Windows compatability facts"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Here's a link detailing how much effort Microsoft put into backwards compatibility


The fact that it's complex and required a lot of work does not necessarily mean it works well.

Reply Score: 3

Year of Vista on the desktop?
by Ringheims Auto on Tue 11th Sep 2007 12:49 UTC
Ringheims Auto
Member since:
2005-07-23

"Vista is not yet a sufficient replacement for Windows XP"

So, which year will be the year of Vista on the desktop? Guess here we go again...

Reply Score: 4

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Give it a couple of years. It took time for XP to replace 98/Me/Win2K and it'll take time for Vista to replace XP.

Reply Score: 2

ummm.
by MNKyDeth on Tue 11th Sep 2007 13:24 UTC
MNKyDeth
Member since:
2006-07-24

Just so everyone knows I didn't read all the posts here. I just wanted to leave my comment.

The only thing linux cannot do as well as any windows OS is run games. Only for the fact they are not made like they are for windows. From a non-business perspective linux has been able to do everything for me that any windows ever did and more.

Reply Score: 1

MiliTux
Member since:
2007-05-16

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up yet. This is from the article with the title of this comment (Google it).

Linux, [said Kroah-Hartman], supports more devices out of the box than any other operating system ever has. Linux is often even ahead of the pack, being the first operating system to implement both USB2 and bluetooth.


So, Linux could solve hardware compatibility problems, and is therefore a viable alternative to Vista if you have hardware problems (and are using FOSS for day to day activities).

Before I get blasted about application compatibility, the Consumer's union mentioned checking applications and hardware.

Oh, and by the way, the only windows program I use doesn't run in Vista, but runs perfectly in WINE... it's StarCraft ;)

*EDIT*
From the same article on compatibility:

Here's an example that shows how this all works. The Linux USB code has been rewritten at least three times. We've done this over time in order to handle things that we didn't originally need to handle, like high speed devices, and just because we learned the problems of our first design, and to fix bugs and security issues. Each time we made changes in our api, we updated all of the kernel drivers that used the apis, so nothing would break. And we deleted the old functions as they were no longer needed, and did things wrong. Because of this, Linux now has the fastest USB bus speeds when you test out all of the different operating systems. We max out the hardware as fast as it can go, and you can do this from simple userspace programs, no fancy kernel driver work is needed.

Now Windows has also rewritten their USB stack at least 3 times, with Vista, it might be 4 times, I haven't taken a look at it yet. But each time they did a rework, and added new functions and fixed up older ones, they had to keep the old api functions around, as they have taken the stance that they can not break backward compatibility due to their stable API viewpoint. They also don't have access to the code in all of the different drivers, so they can't fix them up. So now the Windows core has all 3 sets of API functions in it, as they can't delete things. That means they maintain the old functions, and have to keep them in memory all the time, and it takes up engineering time to handle all of this extra complexity. That's their business decision to do this, and that's fine, but with Linux, we didn't make that decision, and it helps us remain a lot smaller, more stable, and more secure.


This is why Linux doesn't have to worry about compatibility, but Windows does...

Edited 2007-09-11 14:46

Reply Score: 3

Thom is overreacting
by snowbender on Tue 11th Sep 2007 15:16 UTC
snowbender
Member since:
2006-05-04

The article cites that the organisation says the following: "consumers who have XP on their computer and who are happy with it, should wait before buying Vista". And then the article mentions that the organisation also recommends that consumers take a look at alternatives such as Mac OS X and Ubuntu Linux. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. It looks to me more like making people aware of alternatives instead of really proposing it as a solution for people who have compatibility problems on Vista.

Found the original article on the site of the Consumentenbond (Consumer's Union) itself:
http://www.consumentenbond.nl/actueel/nieuws/nieuws2007/153461

That article does not mention OSX or Ubuntu at all. So I start to wonder whether newspapers inserted those things to make the article more exciting (even though the Consumentenbond may want to make people aware about alternative operating systems... simply not as a solution for Vista upgrade problems)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Thom is overreacting
by psychicist on Tue 11th Sep 2007 15:35 UTC in reply to "Thom is overreacting"
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

I agree that Thom is heavily overreacting. I've been searching the site of the Consumentenbond for any mention of Ubuntu or Mac OS X and I haven't found any.

I did find this article on the site Nu.nl:

http://www.nu.nl/news/1226269/50/Klachtenregen_over_Windows_Vista.h...

and I think it's reasonably fair.

What is wrong with evaluating alternatives, really? I think in this day and age people have an actual choice for their hardware and operating systems based on technical merit, application availability and ease of use.

I have personally created dual-boot systems or migrated operating systems for several relatives for the last few years and they are all reasonably happy about it, not to mention the total drop in support calls from them because Linux just keeps running indefinitely.

Edited 2007-09-11 15:40 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Compatibility you say?
by Trikke76 on Tue 11th Sep 2007 17:24 UTC
Trikke76
Member since:
2007-05-07

like being said previously

every break in linux isnt a problem all distro's will update there packages so your soft will work if not u can recompile it yourself.

and every new windows version u have to throw away your hardware b/c microsoft says its not there job to writer new drivers hardware vendors only think about selling new hardware so they dont write new drivers in linux i can run most of my old hardware b/c it stays in the kernel

so is linux more compatible then windows
for me yes ...

Reply Score: 2

Why not switch?
by zabrab on Wed 12th Sep 2007 00:06 UTC
zabrab
Member since:
2007-09-11

As I reading the article and the authors comments on Consumentenbond's recommendations, it struck me that he was missing their point. They said (only from his description) to CONSIDER alternatives like Mac OS X and Ubuntu Linux because of HW and SW issues with MS Vista IF they are going to get something new or ugrading.

I don't think he stressed those two words enough
... CONSIDER
... IF

IMHO a Mac is best for most people ...
but if they want to exercise the muscle between the ears a bit more and stretch their mind ...
Ubuntu Linux is also a very good choice
(as well as other flavors like LinuxMint ... Debian ... Fedora ... Suse ... and also BSD).

Reply Score: 0

Vegas Pro Vista compatability
by blitze on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:20 UTC
blitze
Member since:
2006-09-15

Eugina, you could try an alternative that works like a charm on Vista and is as capable as Vegas Pro without Sony being involved or bleeding from your wallet.

www.reaper.fm

Check it out, I don't think you will be dissapointed.

As for compatability and Vista, well if developers are so fn lazy as to not upgrade their software to Vista or consumers who solely rely on Windows specific programs are to cheap to upgrade their software to Vista compatible apps, then stuff them.

Bloody whiners wanting to run 10 year plus old apps on the latest and gratest version of their OS is what has led to a lot of MS's problems in the first place. Time to cut the umbelical cord and let them either stick to their old apps and OS or move with the times. Cry me a river if this is too hard for them.

Reply Score: 1

you can't switch
by Mellin on Wed 12th Sep 2007 18:43 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

if you delete windows vista and install linux on you new pc you will void your warranty

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/09/12/0011209.shtml

Reply Score: 1

Linux this and linux that
by WyldStylist on Thu 13th Sep 2007 23:05 UTC
WyldStylist
Member since:
2006-12-30

Linux is not win32 , does not have services.msc and is not a win32 binary compatible alternative , the only 1 non-microsoft one is called Reactos and there is no Official release of it yet

Reply Score: 0