Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 23:59 UTC
Windows Windows 7 has been out and about for little over a week now, and as it turns out, Microsoft's new baby is doing relatively well. That is, according to the figures by NetApplications: Windows 7 already reached the 3% mark this weekend, and is already closing in on the 4% mark.
Order by: Score:
There is no debate...
by mrhasbean on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 00:39 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

...that Microsoft's marketing strategies have been fantastic. Market share wise they are undoubtedly without equal, the perfect choice for those who like to run life in a "safety in numbers" mode.

In fact they have been so successful at securing the adoption of their technologies over the years that most companies are in the unenviable position of not being able to switch even if they wanted to, and this is the perfect model for making sure your market share continues to dominate.

Well done Microsoft

Reply Score: 7

RE: There is no debate...
by tobyv on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 01:00 UTC in reply to "There is no debate..."
tobyv Member since:
2008-08-25

In fact they have been so successful at securing the adoption of their technologies over the years


Looking at you, Miguel de Caza.

Reply Score: 0

RE: There is no debate...
by wakeupneo on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 01:48 UTC in reply to "There is no debate..."
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

In fact they have been so successful at securing the adoption of their technologies over the years that most companies are in the unenviable position of not being able to switch even if they wanted to


Yup....it's spelt M.O.N.O.P.O.L.Y.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: There is no debate...
by looncraz on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 05:35 UTC in reply to "RE: There is no debate..."
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

I wanna play, too!! I'll be the top hat!

Reply Score: 4

RE: There is no debate...
by dvhh on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 05:15 UTC in reply to "There is no debate..."
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

shorter:
watching youtube is faster on windows alike ( even in wine ) than "natively" on linux

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: There is no debate...
by rhavenn on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 08:57 UTC in reply to "RE: There is no debate..."
rhavenn Member since:
2006-05-12

Yeah, and that has very little to do with Windows and is mostly due to Adobe being idiots when coding for Linux or anything else outside of Windows. Of course, Adobe really only wants to support Windows anyway, but just throw a token Flash player out there so they can sell Flash as a "universal" player. The <video> tag can't come fast enough.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: There is no debate...
by jgagnon on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: There is no debate..."
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

Companies that develop software for profit will ALWAYS prefer to target a reduced number of platforms. Fewer supported platforms means lower cost, lower cost means higher profit (usually).

And, regrettably, the majority of the relatively small Linux market also suffers from an "I don't want to pay for anything on Linux" attitude. It's hardly a welcoming market for any business trying to make money, especially compared to the Windows and OSX markets.

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I've found FOSS users to be more respectful of licenses and very willing to pay for good quality software.

I hope your basing your assumption on something more valid than Adobe's attempt at a Linux native Photoshop many years ago; the one where they still charged 700$'ish without providing 700$ worth of benefit over competing graphic editors. We probably shouldn't look at things like Mandriva selling PowerPack for a very reasonable cost in addition to giving the lower Free and One disk images away. Paying for and charging for software is a very big part of Linux. Many programs run a free development version and value added version for retail.

Free of cost is a nice benefit but Freedom to use and modify as one sees fit on there own hardware is a much bigger part of it.

Reply Score: 2

jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

I'm basing it in small part on Borland's attempt at Kylix (in which many people loved but very few wanted to pay for) - just to give a concrete example. But I'm mostly basing it on the sheer volume of posts I've read on various message boards that pretty much equate to "why should I pay money for ProductX when I can get ProductY for free?". It doesn't seem to matter how much work or money went into making ProductX or how much better it is than ProductY. The fact that ProductY exists for free is apparently enough to reason that ProductX isn't worth the money they're asking for it. Another example along these lines is Gimp versus Photoshop.

Edited 2009-11-03 20:04 UTC

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

that have enough differences to the point that they might as well be different versions of Unix.

Ending the GNOME/KDE war would be a big step towards providing a somewhat standardized platform for commercial developers but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: There is no debate...
by google_ninja on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 13:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: There is no debate..."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

firefox is also faster in wine in linux then native

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: There is no debate...
by google_ninja on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: There is no debate..."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

For whoever voted me down, this isnt a troll, it was a benchmark done by tuxrader and was all over the news a few months ago http://www.tuxradar.com/content/browser-benchmarks-2-even-wine-beat...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: There is no debate...
by dvhh on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: There is no debate..."
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

true, that adobe suck (although I don't know with apple OSX ). But it is too late anyway flash got too much momentum from designer that wish a pixel perfect rendition of their website, and re-encoding video for the new tag would take a lot of time/storage for the transition ( or should youtube be killed like geocities).

Again I'm against a video tag, it goes against the simplicity of web client (though it is already complicated enough to cope with all the broken html in the world), hardly help with providing an alternative ( which would lock us with browser with enough manpower to code this feature ), and prevent us to use a "better" container/codec which would emerge eventually.

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

They are already converting video on the fly then wrapping it in flash. I can see content conversion being a problem for some organizations but Youtube is already setup for it; they just have to flip the output settings to whatever they choose for the tag.

Reply Score: 2

Good for Microsoft, BAD for consumers
by apexwm on Wed 4th Nov 2009 19:21 UTC in reply to "There is no debate..."
apexwm Member since:
2009-08-28

Microsoft locks in its customers to keep them, and forces them to continue down the upgrade path that they pave. Sure, it's very clever marketing and planning on their part. However, it's NOT good for customers that are trying to run a business and are forced to get their wallet out time and time again and pay their dues to Microsoft.

I abandoned that ship years ago and use Linux. I can run my personal small business and focus on our business. We don't have to upgrade anything unless we want to, and we don't pay ANY fees.

http://members.apex-internet.com/sa/windowslinux" http://member...

Reply Score: 1

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Microsoft locks in its customers to keep them, and forces them to continue down the upgrade path that they pave. Sure, it's very clever marketing and planning on their part. However, it's NOT good for customers that are trying to run a business and are forced to get their wallet out time and time again and pay their dues to Microsoft. I abandoned that ship years ago and use Linux. I can run my personal small business and focus on our business. We don't have to upgrade anything unless we want to, and we don't pay ANY fees. http://members.apex-internet.com/sa/windowslinux


You might want to reconsider your argument. You say that Microsoft "locks-in" customers; then, you proceed to say that you moved to Linux. The fact that you were able to move to Linux completely obliterates your argument.

Nobody forces you to upgrade. Ever. Software doesn't rot. If you have a legacy need, lock it down and run one of many fine virtualization environments (some free) that are available. Done.

Edited 2009-11-04 23:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You might want to reconsider your argument. You say that Microsoft "locks-in" customers; then, you proceed to say that you moved to Linux. The fact that you were able to move to Linux completely obliterates your argument.


That is not true for several reasons, but the point that really hurts you is that I can put together my own machines. I buy cases, motherboards, graphics cards, RAM and blank hard disks. I download Linux liveCD .iso files, and burn bootable CDROMS. From there I can put together excellent-performance Linux machines at very low costs, and I can use them.

The problem is that most people have no chance to do the same. They must buy their computers from a retail outlet. Where a move to Linux is entirely feasible for me, it is not for the majority of people simply because it is not offered to them (presented to them) as an option.

Nobody forces you to upgrade. Ever. Software doesn't rot. If you have a legacy need, lock it down and run one of many fine virtualization environments (some free) that are available. Done.


Windows software does rot. The registry gets unmanageable after a while as it fills with cruft.

However, your point is basically OK. What you say is not wrong. It is however far more sensible, as a society, for us simply to store our data in an open, well documented, platform-independant, future-proof format that can be deconstructed and used by any future systems. That way we can just archive the data, and we don't have to keep the platforms in order to manipulate the data.

Reply Score: 1

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

The problem is that most people have no chance to do the same. They must buy their computers from a retail outlet. Where a move to Linux is entirely feasible for me, it is not for the majority of people simply because it is not offered to them (presented to them) as an option.


WRONG. Consumers CAN buy a Ubuntu Linux-based PC from Dell, if they really want one:

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/linux_3x?c=us&cs=1...

The basic problem is that very few people would ever want one, not that they aren't available.

Windows software does rot. The registry gets unmanageable after a while as it fills with cruft.


It can't possibly be worse than having to reinstall Ubuntu every 6 months. Which you know you do.

However, your point is basically OK. What you say is not wrong. It is however far more sensible, as a society, for us simply to store our data in an open, well documented, platform-independant, future-proof format that can be deconstructed and used by any future systems. That way we can just archive the data, and we don't have to keep the platforms in order to manipulate the data.


Who cares what your PREFERRED solution is. I demonstrated that you aren't locked-in to Windows by virtualizing legacy applications. That enables you to run older Windows applications and brand-new Linux applications side-by-side without any kind of lock-in. Upgrade your Linux box as many times as you like. Whatever. The "lock-in" argument is BOGUS.

Reply Score: 3

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

"Windows software does rot. The registry gets unmanageable after a while as it fills with cruft.

It can't possibly be worse than having to reinstall Ubuntu every 6 months. Which you know you do.
"

Not to sound like a broken record here, but I'm gooing to say what I've said before: that problem effects Linux and Windows both. Pretty much any self-modifying software installation (i.e. any one that includes and update agent) will rot over time. Windows does -- at least, all the Windows installs I've performed have -- and Ubuntu does too -- again, in my experience, anyway. One difference is that it's a lot easier to re-install an Ubuntu (or Slackware or Red Hat or whatever other Linux) installation than Windows, because you don't have to worry about re-registering the damned thing, and because you can put the OS installation on a separate partition from the user data (home directories) pretty conveniently. And because you can have all your software back and updated in maybe an hour and a half, over three synaptic sessions. But those points are kinda minor: suffice it to be said, pretty much every OS I've used rots over time, it's sortof a fact of computing life.
And you don't have to re-install Ubuntu (or other Linuxes) every six months. I'm still using 8.10, and it's working fine for me. It's not like Ubuntu implodes every six months, and you have to re-install it or you won't have an OS. If you install an LTS, you can leave it for however many years it's supported.

"However, your point is basically OK. What you say is not wrong. It is however far more sensible, as a society, for us simply to store our data in an open, well documented, platform-independant, future-proof format that can be deconstructed and used by any future systems. That way we can just archive the data, and we don't have to keep the platforms in order to manipulate the data.

Who cares what your PREFERRED solution is. I demonstrated that you aren't locked-in to Windows by virtualizing legacy applications. That enables you to run older Windows applications and brand-new Linux applications side-by-side without any kind of lock-in. Upgrade your Linux box as many times as you like. Whatever. The "lock-in" argument is BOGUS.
"

It really isn't. My office uses Microsoft Exchange for mail and calendering; that puts Windows on a lot of desktops in my division, that would otherwise be either Linux or OS X (we maintain a Linux cluster, and most of us are pretty comfortable with Linux). That's pretty much exactly what Lemur2's talking about, and it really does happen: Microsoft uses and has used deliberately non-interoperable platforms to attempt to lock in users, and it works out in the real world.
This happens on the desktop, too, obviously. Windows stays the dominant platform in part because it's already the dominant platform. It has a massive user base, and a prohibitive migration cost.

Reply Score: 2

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

It really isn't. My office uses Microsoft Exchange for mail and calendering; that puts Windows on a lot of desktops in my division, that would otherwise be either Linux or OS X (we maintain a Linux cluster, and most of us are pretty comfortable with Linux).


There are ways to route around this problem:

- Exchange mails can be accessed with IMAP

- Calendar: use some kind of mobile device.

Reply Score: 2

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Funny you mention that, actually. I do access my exchange e-mails from Thunderbird on Linux, and I do basically all of the calendering from my iPhone. It works, but it's not optimal: for instance, a lot of extra hassle was required to get access to our LDAP address books in Thunderbird on Linux, when they where auto-discovered in Outlook (note: this is not Thunderbird's fault, it's Microsoft's). It's also annoying to get an even invitation in Thunderbird, and have to get my iPhone out, log into it, and do the calendering from there.

It's pretty much required to have a Windows install around here, basically because we make heavy use of exchange and Sharepoint, and people don't want to worry about some of their co-workers not having good access to those platforms. Sure, you can work around it, but people don't want you to have unreliable or partial access to a platform that performs mission-critical functions. To make full (or most convenient) use of Exchange and Sharepoint, you pretty much need to be using Windows (and even IE specifically for Sharepoint, it's my impression).

Reply Score: 2

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

"The basic problem is that very few people would ever want one, not that they aren't available."

A third of Dell's netbooks ships with Ubuntu.

More people want it than you'd care to admit, I'm afraid.

Reply Score: 2

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

"The basic problem is that very few people would ever want one, not that they aren't available."

A third of Dell's netbooks ships with Ubuntu.

More people want it than you'd care to admit, I'm afraid.


Look, I know this is going to be difficult for Linux fanboys to grasp, but Dell accounts for a small number of netbooks sold. Optimistic estimates place Linux usage on netbooks at about 5% of the overall US netbook market. That's a pitifully small number.

Reply Score: 2

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

You know, tomcat, parrotting false figures released by Microsoft is bound to get you in trouble (actually, MS's number was 7%, but you get the idea).

Linux has about 1/3 of all Netbooks sales (i.e. 32%), according to *real* independent research.

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5114054156.html

Try not to cry.

Reply Score: 2

Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 01:01 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Windows has a fantastic market share for two main reasons.

1. When they purchase desktop computing hardware, the vast majority of people are never offered a Linux option on the same hardware, and they are not even aware that there is another OS option that would run on the same hardware, so they do not ask.

2. Most Linux installations are not "sold". Mass installations of Linux can be done without registering a single OS sale anywhere. Because there is no sale, there is no impact on market share figures.

Meh.

I'm happy that the proportion of "installed base" of Linux on the desktop is growing nicely and that it is several times higher than the figure often quoted for Linux market share.

Linux installed base on servers is a lot higher again. On the largest group of CPUs on the planet, which are low-power embedded CPUs, Linux rules.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Windows market share
by flanque on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 02:04 UTC in reply to "Windows market share"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

If all that makes you feel good and sleep well at night then fair enough. Who am I to deny you that..

The bottom line at least for me is that Linux based operating systems don't even come close to competiting with something like Windows 7. It is by far a superior desktop operating system to anything that the Linux desktop alternatives have to offer.

Microsoft have done very well with this release.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 02:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If all that makes you feel good and sleep well at night then fair enough. Who am I to deny you that.. The bottom line at least for me is that Linux based operating systems don't even come close to competiting with something like Windows 7. It is by far a superior desktop operating system to anything that the Linux desktop alternatives have to offer. Microsoft have done very well with this release.


Ubuntu (and Kubuntu) is a faster desktop OS than Windows 7:

http://www.tuxradar.com/content/vista-windows-7-ubuntu-904-and-910-...

http://www.tuxradar.com/content/linux-vs-windows-7

Ubuntu/Kubuntu comes with vastly more and significantly better quality desktop software, it is cheaper and faster to run, running it on as many machines as you want carries no risks with respect to license compliance, it runs on a vastly wider array of existing desktop hardware, it supports a significantly wider array of data formats, it even has more desktop "bling", and if you are prepared to stick to installing software only from open source repositories, it is guaranteed to get no malware.

So while it is perfectly reasonable for you to say that Windows 7 is better for you, such a view can hardly be called universally objective. It just doesn't stand up under any objective criteria whatsoever.

Edited 2009-11-03 02:50 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Windows market share
by flanque on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 02:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows market share"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

That's precisely why I said for me.

The majority of the review is also very positive so it's not as isolated a point of view than just mine.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 02:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows market share"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Linux is free if your time is worth nothing.

I have heard some wise sayings as well.

Reply Score: 0

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

And as with all those wise sayings, it's only partially true.

Reply Score: 1

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Linux is free if your time is worth nothing.


However, I find that it takes significantly longer to use and maintain Windows than it does Linux.

So Linux is free in comparison to Windows even from that POV as Windows eats more of my time - I constantly have to wait for the dumb thing to catch up, load, login, etc. Linux, on the other hand, typically comes up far faster and gives me far more time to be productive with.

All in all - your point is moot.

Reply Score: 5

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

My time is worth too much for me to bother with the hassles of Windows

Edited 2009-11-03 13:38 UTC

Reply Score: 4

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Well, there's a cost and a benefit. Linux is gratis, most apps that run on Linux are gratis, Linux is powerful, Linux is flexible, and Linux is power-user-friendly. Sure, there's a learning curve, but after you've cut your teeth a bit, you start to reap a lot of benefits. At least, that's been my experience.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Everything costs time. I'd rather pay time than pay time and money.

Also, once I've paid time for my system, I need to pay very little time to adjust to future versions. I can even change distributions with very little if any more time payments. My time and gained knowledge isn't made obsolete by a new version more focused on generating new sales through change for marketing sake.

Reply Score: 3

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

That's better than Windows, which is *never* free.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Windows market share
by sukru on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 02:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows market share"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

But those individual "me's" add up to a lot of "us".

Edited 2009-11-03 02:47 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Windows market share
by tobyv on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 03:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows market share"
tobyv Member since:
2008-08-25

Ubuntu (and Kubuntu) is a faster desktop OS than Windows 7


Saidth the Tux Radar.

It just doesn't stand up under any objective criteria whatsoever.


Tux Radar is objective? Well I've got some objective reports from our objective friends at Microsoft Research that you just gotta see! ;-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 03:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Ubuntu (and Kubuntu) is a faster desktop OS than Windows 7
Saidth the Tux Radar.
It just doesn't stand up under any objective criteria whatsoever.
Tux Radar is objective? Well I've got some objective reports from our objective friends at Microsoft Research that you just gotta see! ;-)
"

There is a video of four machines side-by-side. Ubuntu 9.10 wins easily.

I know you have only Tux radar's claim that the four machines are hardware identical, but then again look at the millions of dollars Tux radar would be being paid to make a false claim of higher performance for Canonical's Ubuntu Linux over Windows, compared to the objective and finacially independant word of Microsoft Research.

Oh wait.

Edited 2009-11-03 03:18 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Windows market share
by tobyv on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 03:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
tobyv Member since:
2008-08-25

millions of dollars Tux radar would be being paid to make a false claim of higher performance


Tux radar has a constituency, like most websites. They play to the base by comparing boot times.

MS + friends will compare based on multitouch or something Linux does poorly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Windows market share
by sbenitezb on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 04:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

MS + friends will compare based on multitouch or something Linux does poorly.


Multitouch that no one uses and is completely ridiculous for a desktop. Try to raise your arm too much to touch the screen and you will feel the pain in almost no time. It's just wow factor like the desktop cube.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Windows market share
by tomcat on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 08:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Multitouch that no one uses and is completely ridiculous for a desktop. Try to raise your arm too much to touch the screen and you will feel the pain in almost no time. It's just wow factor like the desktop cube.


Not if that desktop is running on a tablet PC.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Windows market share
by OSGuy on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 08:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

I couldn't resist but post this ;) Soon everyone getting a touch monitor or a touch overlay for Windows 7 will start to look like the guy of an orchestra, the guy with the sticks -- once they start lifting their hands hahaha this is so funny, especially when they start doing multi touch and start touching the screen with both of their hands! Imagine them standing in front of their screen lifting their hand up and down marching in front of the screen telling Windows what to do....

But wait that's not all! They can also run to the local shop and buy a Pocket PC stylus so the rest of the orchestra can follow properly. Imagine them standing in front of their screen lifting their hand up and down with the stylus in their hands...

Edited 2009-11-03 08:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Windows market share
by tomcat on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 08:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

There is a video of four machines side-by-side. Ubuntu 9.10 wins easily.


The basic problem, lemur, is that no one cares.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Windows market share
by archiesteel on Thu 5th Nov 2009 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

You should never speak for others, especially when what you say is clearly false.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Windows market share
by tomcat on Fri 6th Nov 2009 03:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

You should never speak for others, especially when what you say is clearly false.


LOL. Oh, if you say so.

Edited 2009-11-06 03:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Thu 5th Nov 2009 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"There is a video of four machines side-by-side. Ubuntu 9.10 wins easily.
The basic problem, lemur, is that no one cares. "

This will be interesting. Someone cares enough to have ported their entire benchmarking test suite to Windows 7.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzY3OA

This has a lot more meat to it. This will be a far better indication of relative performance than mere videos of Ubuntu 9.10 beating all Windows comers in boot-up speed.

I wonder if Microsoft will try to get an injunction against Phoronix publishing the comparison results when they get them? (possibly on the basis of some legal fluffery in the Windows 7 EULA against testing the software).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Windows market share
by smashIt on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 10:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

There is a video of four machines side-by-side. Ubuntu 9.10 wins easily.


just tried it on my laptop with a total of 40s (excluding bios like in the video)

i would show you a video but my cam can only record for 40s, so the last second where ff is rendering the page is missing :/

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 10:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"There is a video of four machines side-by-side. Ubuntu 9.10 wins easily.


just tried it on my laptop with a total of 40s (excluding bios like in the video)

i would show you a video but my cam can only record for 40s, so the last second where ff is rendering the page is missing :/
"

It is not a performance comparison unless you try different OSes on the exact same hardware.

When you do that ... when you run Ubuntu/Kubuntu on the exact same hardware as Windows 7, and you compare performance, Ubuntu/Kubuntu wins easily.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Windows market share
by smashIt on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 11:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

It is not a performance comparison unless you try different OSes on the exact same hardware.

When you do that ... when you run Ubuntu/Kubuntu on the exact same hardware as Windows 7, and you compare performance, Ubuntu/Kubuntu wins easily.


thats definitely true, but i'd guess that they used something newer and more powerfull than my 1-year old laptop

but as i have to free up some space for haiku on it, i may try ubuntu for a short time...

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Windows market share
by siride on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Lucky for you. On my T43, Windows XP wins. Gentoo is in a close second and Ubuntu trails far behind.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Windows market share
by google_ninja on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Boot speed only matters when you can't trust hibernation.


See? I can troll too!

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Windows market share
by boldingd on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

And I can feed trolls.

I don't trust hibernation on any system. My Vista machine doesn't wake up correctly from hibernation -- something goes bad-wrong, the display is garbaged, and it doesn't respond to the keybaord or mouse. I also managed to kernel-panic OS X 10.2 by hibernating while playing music in iTunes (and I haven't used OS X much since then).
And it doesn't really matter -- at least, not for me. Almost all my system usage sessions are long enough that an extra, say 30 seconds to do a cold-boot versus resume from hibernation are pretty quickly swamped by the total usage time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Windows market share
by archiesteel on Thu 5th Nov 2009 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Suspend and Hibernate both work without a hitch on my Dell Mini 10v.

They also work flawlessly on my older Compaq Presario, although I had to enable KMS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Windows market share
by tomcat on Fri 6th Nov 2009 04:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Suspend and Hibernate both work without a hitch on my Dell Mini 10v.

They also work flawlessly on my older Compaq Presario, although I had to enable KMS.


Good for you because, in general, Suspend/Hibernate are a crap shoot under Ubuntu:

http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-1051664.html

http://www.mydellmini.com/forum/archive/index.php/f-18.html

Edited 2009-11-06 04:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Windows market share
by izomiac on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 03:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows market share"
izomiac Member since:
2006-07-26

Graphs without error bars, boot times 3-7 times longer than what I see, and reporting Vista to be faster than 7 makes me suspicious of those tests. OTOH, as for speed, beating stock Windows and desktop Linux would be like winning the Special Olympics; both tend to be behemoths.

Cost, licensing, and legacy hardware support are better with Linux. Modern hardware support is better in Windows, as is application selection. If Linux was uniformly better then it'd be more mainstream. If Windows was uniformly better then desktop Linux wouldn't exist. Any criteria that finds Windows deficient in all regards is simply not in touch with reality.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 04:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Cost, licensing, and legacy hardware support are better with Linux.


Yep.

Modern hardware support is better in Windows,


Debatable. I doubt it very much.

as is application selection.


There is indeed a lot more crapware, lockin-ware and malware written for Windows, and also you can get any amount of designer-brand-rip-off software for Windows.

If Linux was uniformly better then it'd be more mainstream.


Doesn't follow when Microsoft has the OEMs/retail outlets under its thumb, and hence prevents the sale of Linux to ordinary people.

If Windows was uniformly better then desktop Linux wouldn't exist. Any criteria that finds Windows deficient in all regards is simply not in touch with reality.


Meh.

The more usual (and irrational) opinion that you will find brashly stated will hold that Linux is deficient in all regards in comparison to Windows. Either that or the opinion will utterly fail to even consider any comparison.

Edited 2009-11-03 04:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Windows market share
by Cody Evans on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 05:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
Cody Evans Member since:
2009-08-14

If GNU/Linux and open source in general advocate choice, whats wrong with people choosing windows? The generation that is in school now is (on average) less reliant on specific desktop programs and more open to change. Let people make the choice to install GNU/Linux on their own.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 05:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If GNU/Linux and open source in general advocate choice, whats wrong with people choosing windows? The generation that is in school now is (on average) less reliant on specific desktop programs and more open to change. Let people make the choice to install GNU/Linux on their own.


If proprietary software vendors advocate choice, why not let OEMs and retail stores install Linux, and offer it for sale without penalty in stores side-by-side on the same machines as Windows?

That way typical customers could truly choose.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Windows market share
by Cody Evans on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 05:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
Cody Evans Member since:
2009-08-14

A cheaper alternative may be to have web ads for google searches like "virus protection". So people can get the performance boost of upgrading to GNU/Linux, without buying a new computer.

Reply Score: 1

Customers don't want Linux
by nt_jerkface on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 06:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

People would rather pay $50 more for Windows to make sure that the software and hardware they buy will work with it. When you buy a Windows pc you buy compatibility.

Best Buy sells both Windows and Apple computers. There is no conspiracy that keeps Linux from being sold. The problem is that it doesn't have enough selling points as a desktop OS. It doesn't have a commercial software library and Windows isn't expensive enough to justify that loss.

As a cell phone OS though Linux works great. Linux seems to do well in areas where it is locked down and doesn't have to connect with new devices. It isn't marketed as a cell phone OS and yet it has no problem competing in that area.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Windows market share
by jgagnon on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

That choice won't matter when they go to install that piece of Windows software they bought at a retail chain on Linux. Many (most?) people don't care about their OS they just care about the programs and compatibility with those programs.

If an average user has 20 (or 10 or whatever) programs installed on their computer and switch operating systems only to find that none of them work, they will not be a happy user. There are a LOT of folks out there that just simply don't (or maybe even can't) understand why they cannot install their Mac software on a PC and vice versa. They just don't get it.

The "choice" of operating systems goes way beyond which OS is installed. Windows is the top dog on the desktop and has the largest installed base. The burden of Linux and other operating systems competing for the desktop space is to educate potential converts in how to access and use their software of choice or educate them on alternatives.

For instance, when you're looking for a piece of software for Windows you either hit a retail channel or look to an online store (usually). For Linux, your first stop is usually your package manager of choice. For the vast majority of casual computer owners I know, the Linux way of doing it is completely foreign. Once they "get it" then they fall in love (most of the time, in my experience). But getting them to think that way in the first place is a problem.

My point is that Linux (or anything non-Windows) isn't just fighting for a place to be installed, it is fighting an entire ecosystem and the modus operandi surrounding it.

Edited 2009-11-03 14:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Windows market share
by izomiac on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 06:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
izomiac Member since:
2006-07-26

Debatable. I doubt it very much.

My Intel GMA 4500 MHD and Intel HD Audio beg to differ. Windows support was first and remains more feature complete. Basically, any hardware (or hardware feature) that doesn't work in Windows wouldn't find its way into consumer laptops and desktops. There has to be a significant benefit for computer makers to break Windows compatibility, and it's always a risky move. OTOH, I'd love to see more ARM [sub]laptops with insane battery life.

There is indeed a lot more crapware, lockin-ware and malware written for Windows, and also you can get any amount of designer-brand-rip-off software for Windows.

Better selection includes the crappy choices, although I think you do have a point if you're referring to guiding inexperienced users. Top shelf computer games not working well in Linux and the fact that most Linux software can be recompiled for Windows also factors into Windows having an advantage overall in software selection.

Microsoft having OEMs under their thumb certainly contributes to Linux never taking off on the desktop. But, that alone cannot sufficiently explain it. For some users, Windows is genuinely better, and for most it isn't that bad (ME & Vista notwithstanding, although I'm sure user perception became the major factor for the latter). I will agree about biased reviews though, obviously Linux makes a worse Windows than Windows does, which seems to be what many reviews are measuring.

I triple boot so I try to use the best OS for each job and avoid them for their faults. It'd be nice if one was a superior choice in all regards, but for my usage that just isn't the case. Video playback, for instance, is better in Windows (MPC + ffdshow + h264 acceleration). Battery life seems to be better in Linux if I don't have Firefox open and WiFi on, Windows if I do. Linux is better for my general use though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Windows market share
by Vanders on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

My Intel GMA 4500 MHD and Intel HD Audio beg to differ.


According to Intel themselves, the 4500MHD has been supported by the Linux drivers for quite some time. I've just checked and Ubuntu 9.10 ships with (almost) the very latest drivers (2.9.0 currently).

You don't give any specific details about the problems with audio but my Intel HDA is working just fine here. Ubuntu 9.10 has even fixed PulseAudio.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Windows market share
by AirIntake on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 16:40 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
AirIntake Member since:
2009-10-29

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pulseaudio/+bug/411574

Mine's not fixed. My sound card will disappear every few days, even though it worked fine in 8.04, 8.10, and 9.04. While I might put up with it because I like to play, the average consumer sure won't.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Windows market share
by izomiac on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 19:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
izomiac Member since:
2006-07-26

According to Intel themselves, the 4500MHD has been supported by the Linux drivers for quite some time.

Not as long as Windows has supported it though. I got my laptop back in December and there were lots of issues back then. Even now, h264 acceleration also seems to be more advance in Windows, although I think that's more an API issue. As for audio, the number of speakers reported varies with each driver release, and has yet to reflect reality, and sound recording has never worked. Nowadays the issues are minor, but Windows support is still better.

I did specifically choose those pieces of hardware because Intel provides open source drivers and specifications so I kinda expect the open source drivers to eventually surpass the ones available on Windows. OTOH, Intel has also been working with the author of MPC and improving the Windows driver, so it's a moving target.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Windows market share
by boldingd on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows market share"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Remarkably insightful; that's certainly my assessment. Windows is better at some thing, and Linux is better at some things. You have to list out strengths and weaknesses, assign values based on your needs and preferences, and go where the highest value is. For me, that's Linux everywhere except my one gaming machine; for others, it could be different.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Windows market share
by jgagnon on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

Windows is better at some thing, and Linux is better at some things.


An interesting and funny lack of plural for the Windows side of things... ;)

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

and no one cares about them not being in a repository. I personally hate the repository system since it creates a delay after the developer has released a critical update. I prefer going to the developer's website to get the latest version directly. I don't want a middle-man.

As for boot time who the hell cares when you can't boot into an OS that doesn't run mainstream software like MS Office and Itunes.

My ipod boots up immediately but that isn't a good reason to use it as a desktop replacement.

Why do you push Linux advocacy so much on this website anyways? You really think the people that read OSNEWS aren't aware of Linux?

Reply Score: 2

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

and no one cares about them not being in a repository. I personally hate the repository system since it creates a delay after the developer has released a critical update. I prefer going to the developer's website to get the latest version directly. I don't want a middle-man.


That's certainly not always true. Many large FOSS software projects maintain distributions and repositories for many popular OS's. WINE, for instance, has their own repositories for Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, RHEL, Solaris, and others. On my Ubuntu machine, I get the latest-and-greatest WINE extremely quickly thru apt, like any other package or update; that's a high-value tangible benefit that I derive from the whole "package repository" model.

As for boot time who the hell cares when you can't boot into an OS that doesn't run mainstream software like MS Office and Itunes.

My ipod boots up immediately but that isn't a good reason to use it as a desktop replacement.


Agreed: for most desktop usage patterns, I suspect boot time is irrelevant.

A note, tho: I have a Windows guest on my RHEL workstation, with MS Office 2007 on it. I only use it to read MS Office documents people mail to me. Whenever I create documents, I almost always use LaTeX. And the only reason I have iTunes on my Vista box is to use my iPhone. When I actually want to play anything, I use vlc. High name recognition and simple UI do not mean "best tool for the job." At all.


Edit: spelling.

Edited 2009-11-03 19:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


Why do you push Linux advocacy so much on this website anyways? You really think the people that read OSNEWS aren't aware of Linux?


A good question.

Maybe he thinks that a lot of us are "uninformed". Maybe he thinks that posting links from various Linux advocacy sites somehow will affect the opinions of readers. Maybe he thinks someone will care.

Sometimes I miss Moulinneuf. At least he was funny in his idiocy, while the advocacy in this thread is just plain annoying.

Reply Score: 2

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

"As for boot time who the hell cares when you can't boot into an OS that doesn't run mainstream software like MS Office and Itunes."

Both MS Office and ITunes run on Linux using WINE/Crossover Office. These days, installing these programs in a default Ubuntu distro is very easy.

This reminds me of an anecdote: I got a CD-ROM with my MRI results for my knee. I was expecting JPGs or something but saw they were in a format I didn't know (DICOM); there was also Windows viewer on the CD-ROM. I right-clicked on the viewer program and saw one of the menu entries was "Open with Crossover Office."

I tried the option, not expecting anything, but a few seconds later I was looking at the MRI pictures of my knee inside the standalone Windows viewer (can't remember the name, I don't have it with me).

Just to say that an increasing number of Windows app do run in Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Windows market share
by pandronic on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 08:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows market share"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Ubuntu/Kubuntu comes with vastly more and significantly better quality desktop software


In what reality?

Software available for desktop Linux comes nowhere near to what is available for Windows and OS X. I've been using all three for a few years and there is no way I or anyone I know could fully switch to Linux. 99% of the people agree ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 09:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

My text:

Ubuntu/Kubuntu comes with vastly more and significantly better quality desktop software


Your counterclaim:
Software available for desktop Linux comes nowhere near to what is available for Windows and OS X.


Mismatch.

Windows 7 comes with no desktop Office suite to speak of. It has no spreadsheet, and a poxy word-processing applet called Wordpad.

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/window-on-windows/?p=930

Whoop de doo. Oh, and BTW the anaemic text editor applet is broken on Windows 7. How does one break a text editor applet (especially one as basic as Notepad)?

I've been using all three for a few years and there is no way I or anyone I know could fully switch to Linux.


Your opinion. Millions of people would claim otherwise. For example, if you were to purchase the expensive but ubiquitous proprietary Office suite additional aftermarket software for Windows 7, you would still find that you were lacking workable support for Opendocument format, which is the only viable cross-platform-capable Office suite format. OpenOffice.org 3.1.1, which comes with Kubuntu/Ubuntu at no cost, and which has about 25% of the installed base of Office suites, is arguably a better Office suite than the expensive aftermarket MS Office add-on for Windows 7.

There is no set of applications, for any platform, that will fully suit all use cases.

99% of the people agree


Nope. 90% of the people have never heard of Linux, or at least have never tried it. 0.0001% of the people are very determined to try to keep it that way, and they show up reliably on threads such as this.

Edited 2009-11-03 10:01 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 10:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

OpenOffice.org 3.1.1, which comes with Kubuntu/Ubuntu at no cost, and which has about 25% of the installed base of Office suites, is arguably a better Office suite than the expensive aftermarket MS Office add-on for Windows 7.


Here is a quick summary of why this is so, for people who would desperately try to that claim this is not so:

http://why.openoffice.org/index.html
http://why.openoffice.org/why_great.html
http://why.openoffice.org/why_easy.html
http://why.openoffice.org/why_free.html

Remember, we are comparing this to Wordpad, Paint and Calc.

As I said, Kubuntu/Ubuntu comes with vastly more and better quality desktop software than Windows 7.

QED.

http://why.openoffice.org/why_sme.html
http://why.openoffice.org/why_gov.html
http://why.openoffice.org/why_edu.html
http://why.openoffice.org/why_nfp.html
http://why.openoffice.org/why_oem.html

Aw, heck, why not:

http://why.openoffice.org/why_foss.html

Edited 2009-11-03 10:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Windows market share
by tomcat on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Remember, we are comparing this to Wordpad, Paint and Calc. As I said, Kubuntu/Ubuntu comes with vastly more and better quality desktop software than Windows 7.


Has it ever occurred to you that Microsoft might be restricted in what it can include in the operating system by ... oh, I dunno ... ANTITRUST considerations? Consequently, it can only provide functionality offered by Apple, Canonical, and other vendors as a downloadable add-on? Otherwise, 20 state AGs, the US Department of Justice, and the all EC take Microsoft back to court and sue them for violating the consent decree related to illegal tying.

So, really, what are you trying to say? That Canonical can include a better Wordpad, Paint, and Calc on the Ubuntu install disk? Whoopie freakin' doo. What an amazing feat: Tie Microsoft's hands behind its back and declare victory. LMAO!

Edited 2009-11-03 20:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Remember, we are comparing this to Wordpad, Paint and Calc. As I said, Kubuntu/Ubuntu comes with vastly more and better quality desktop software than Windows 7.
Has it ever occurred to you that Microsoft might be restricted in what it can include in the operating system by ... oh, I dunno ... ANTITRUST considerations? Consequently, it can only provide functionality offered by Apple, Canonical, and other vendors as a downloadable add-on? Otherwise, 20 state AGs, the US Department of Justice, and the all EC take Microsoft back to court and sue them for violating the consent decree related to illegal tying. So, really, what are you trying to say? That Canonical can include a better Wordpad, Paint, and Calc on the Ubuntu install disk? Whoopie freakin' doo. What an amazing feat: Tie Microsoft's hands behind its back and declare victory. LMAO! "

Doesn't matter one whit to a person buying a machine.

The relevant questions to ask are these:

(1) What software does it come with?

(2) What can that software do, and what can't it do?

(3) How much does it ALL cost?

Question number 3 is relevant because you certainly CAN buy systems where MS Office is pre-installed for you at additional cost.

A new system with Kubuntu/Ubuntu is miles and miles in front compared with one with Windows 7 against these simple criteria. Light years ahead.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Windows market share
by archiesteel on Thu 5th Nov 2009 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

"Has it ever occurred to you that Microsoft might be restricted in what it can include in the operating system by ... oh, I dunno ... ANTITRUST considerations?"

Nothing's preventing them from including software not developed by them, such as OpenOffice.org.

Reply Score: 2

Yep. It goes like this:
by MollyC on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Windows basher: "Windows sucks, man. It doesn't bundle hardly any free apps!"

His friend: "You're right, that does suck! haha! How come they don't bundle lots of stuff like everyone else? Too stupid?"

Windows basher: "I helped lobby the government to make sure they couldn't bundle anything! haha!"

His friend: "Huh... Um, ok..."

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Windows market share
by pandronic on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

First of all ... it is irrelevant what software is installed along with the OS and second OpenOffice runs under Windows too, and indeed it is a worthy alternative of MS Office (I, personally, use it exclusively for the past 3-4 years).

In fact almost all the good open source application run under Windows. Can you say the same about all the good proprietary applications running under Linux?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

First of all ... it is irrelevant what software is installed along with the OS


It is not at all irrelevant to a person buying a machine. "What software does it have?" is a perfectly relevant question.

and second OpenOffice runs under Windows too,


So? It is typically not on a Windows machine when you buy one.

and indeed it is a worthy alternative of MS Office (I, personally, use it exclusively for the past 3-4 years). In fact almost all the good open source application run under Windows. Can you say the same about all the good proprietary applications running under Linux?


Cost. Do a cost/benefit comparison. Compare costs of the machines when you buy them (and what they come with), and then compare that aftermarket costs for additional software that you may also need.

Kubuntu/Ubuntu wins over Windows 7 in a canter. Miles in front.

Then there is the fact that Kubuntu/Ubuntu performs better for the same hardware.

Finally, consider security. There are myriad security threats for Windows (viruses, worms and other malware) that do not exist for Kubuntu/Ubuntu. If you are going to run the same open source applications anyway, why run them on a Windows 7 machine if you can get a Kubuntu/Ubuntu machine?

Edited 2009-11-03 22:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Windows market share
by pandronic on Wed 4th Nov 2009 06:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

You really are in a world of your own, aren't you?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Windows market share
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 08:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows market share"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Ubuntu/Kubuntu comes with vastly more and significantly better quality desktop software


Now, if only the Ubuntu team had done any form of q/a, I could've actually enjoyed that desktop software you're talking about.

As it stands now, I'm using an Intel video chipset. Meaning, no Ubuntu/Kubuntu, because the Ubuntu team failed to test their release on the most common brand of video chips.

Fail.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Ubuntu/Kubuntu comes with vastly more and significantly better quality desktop software


Now, if only the Ubuntu team had done any form of q/a, I could've actually enjoyed that desktop software you're talking about.

As it stands now, I'm using an Intel video chipset. Meaning, no Ubuntu/Kubuntu, because the Ubuntu team failed to test their release on the most common brand of video chips.

Fail.
"

Ubuntu don't write the Intel graphics drivers, Intel does.

Intel graphics chips work fine on each machine I have tried which has an Intel GPU. Admittedly, that is a very small sample set.

Is this the bug?

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video-intel/+...

It is confirmed, and set to high importance.

Bryce Harrington on 2009-09-02
tags: added: karmic
Bryce Harrington on 2009-09-04
Changed in xserver-xorg-video-intel (Ubuntu):
status: Incomplete → Confirmed
Bryce Harrington on 2009-09-04
Changed in xserver-xorg-video-intel (Ubuntu):
importance: Undecided → High


So you cannot say that Ubuntu didn't test it, only that Intel apparently haven't fixed it yet.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Windows market share
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 09:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

That's just one of the countless ways the problem acts out. Some people have it crashing during install, others during live CD, and again others during the first few minutes of use. Others, even, during the use of specific applications. It happens on fresh installs as well as dist-upgraded ones.

The common denominator? Intel video chips.

Finger-pointing is the usual response from the Linux community, and you fall in line like a perfect little monkey. If the current Intel video driver is to blame (which I doubt, since this problem is Ubuntu-specific) then Ubuntu should ship with a driver that DOES work. That is their responsibility.

Imagine going to restaurant, and then ordering a nice dinner. However, the meat is completely rotten, and tastes like vomit. Would you accept it when the chef says: "hey, my meat guy shipped me this rotten meat. Go complain to him, it's his fault."?

Of course you wouldn't. You would ask the chef why he didn't use some other meat.

Edited 2009-11-03 09:33 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

That's just one of the countless ways the problem acts out. Some people have it crashing during install, others during live CD, and again others during the first few minutes of use. Others, even, during the use of specific applications. It happens on fresh installs as well as dist-upgraded ones.

The common denominator? Intel video chips.


I might remind you here that I have installed and run Kubuntu 9.10 on several different systems with Intel video chips without any problems at all.

Having said that, there are reports of problems for a significant number, which is a surprise I must say:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/03/karmic_koala_frustration/

Finger-pointing is the usual response from the Linux community, and you fall in line like a perfect little monkey. If the current Intel video driver is to blame (which I doubt, since this problem is Ubuntu-specific) then Ubuntu should ship with a driver that DOES work. That is their responsibility.

Imagine going to restaurant, and then ordering a nice dinner. However, the meat is completely rotten, and tastes like vomit. Would you accept it when the chef says: "hey, my meat guy shipped me this rotten meat. Go complain to him, it's his fault."?

Of course you wouldn't. You would ask the chef why he didn't use some other meat.


"Its the OEMs fault" is the exact same response you get whenever you point out that poor quality drivers (or lack thereof) crash and burn Windows 7.

What is good for the goose is surely good for the gander.

Edited 2009-11-03 11:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Windows market share
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 11:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"Its the OEMs fault" is the exact same response you get whenever you point out that poor quality drivers (or lack thereof) crash and burn Windows 7.


Apples and oranges.

We're comparing default installations, without added software. You will NOT find crappy drivers included in the default install of Windows 7 in the same way this crappy Intel driver is included in Ubuntu. And, we still haven't pinpointed this problem to the Intel driver - other distributions do not seem to have issues, only Ubuntu, so it might be something else.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Windows market share
by boldingd on Wed 4th Nov 2009 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Finger-pointing is the usual response from the Linux community, and you fall in line like a perfect little monkey. If the current Intel video driver is to blame (which I doubt, since this problem is Ubuntu-specific) then Ubuntu should ship with a driver that DOES work. That is their responsibility.


God, Thom, you're one of the site staff. In your position, you're supposed to be trying to keep things civil, not insulting posters and fanning the flames.

And look, the Intel driver is commonly known to be broken. Phoronix has been whining about this for a while. I return too this basic question: the Ubuntu team's two choices where, A) not support Intel graphics chips at all, or B) ship the broken driver they get from the equipment manufacturer. There is no option C, so pick A or B. Maybe they should've been some kind of warning dialog, something like, "oh, hey, we've detected you have an intel chip, which doesn't work. We've disabled it; you can click here to enable it, but be aware that your system may melt. Please call Intell and ask them to supply us with a driver that works." Even if they had done that, you'd still be back to that fundamental question of, "enable the broken driver or have no 3D acceleration" for the immediate future.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Windows market share
by archiesteel on Thu 5th Nov 2009 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

"Finger-pointing is the usual response from the Linux community, and you fall in line like a perfect little monkey."

That doesn't sound very professional, Thom.

I thought this web site had grown out of its blog mentality, but it seems not.

Also, why do you blame the Linux community for a bug that only affects Ubuntu (and only with the gm45 chipset)?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Windows market share
by boldingd on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows market share"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

That's not really the Ubuntu team's fault. Phoronix has been on for a while about how ungodly awful the Intel drivers are -- and, IIRC, those drivers are actually supported and developed by Intel. The Ubuntu team's pretty much had a choice between living with wretched drivers as best they could, or just having you use the vesa driver. Which would you prefer?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Windows market share
by cycoj on Wed 4th Nov 2009 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows market share"
cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

"Ubuntu/Kubuntu comes with vastly more and significantly better quality desktop software


Now, if only the Ubuntu team had done any form of q/a, I could've actually enjoyed that desktop software you're talking about.

As it stands now, I'm using an Intel video chipset. Meaning, no Ubuntu/Kubuntu, because the Ubuntu team failed to test their release on the most common brand of video chips.
"

I'm running on Intel video chipset here and don't have any problems so saying the problem is on the most common brand of video chips is misleading at best. If all intel video cards had huge amount of problems this would be all over the forums, but it's not. So maybe you should relativate to "the Ubuntu tem failed to test their release on the most common brand of video chips in combination with my specific configuration of hardware". That would be honest.


Fail.


Come on this is ridiculous every new release has some problems, look at the auto-reboot problems for windows 7.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Wed 4th Nov 2009 08:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Come on this is ridiculous every new release has some problems, look at the auto-reboot problems for windows 7.


Also, look at the sate of nVidia drivers when Vista was first released.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Thu 5th Nov 2009 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Ubuntu/Kubuntu comes with vastly more and significantly better quality desktop software
Now, if only the Ubuntu team had done any form of q/a, I could've actually enjoyed that desktop software you're talking about. As it stands now, I'm using an Intel video chipset. Meaning, no Ubuntu/Kubuntu, because the Ubuntu team failed to test their release on the most common brand of video chips. Fail. "

Here you go, Thom, this may be a work-around for you:

http://www.insidesocal.com/click/2009/11/are-your-graphics-dead-in-...

The problem is apparently with kernel mode setting, which is causing X to die.

To disable kms, pass the parameters "i915.modeset=0" to the kernel on boot. The linked article has instructions for doing this for the liveCD and also for the Ubuntu subsequently installed to hard disk.

I could've actually enjoyed that desktop software you're talking about


Now perhaps you can.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Thu 5th Nov 2009 23:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" Now, if only the Ubuntu team had done any form of q/a, I could've actually enjoyed that desktop software you're talking about. As it stands now, I'm using an Intel video chipset. Meaning, no Ubuntu/Kubuntu, because the Ubuntu team failed to test their release on the most common brand of video chips. Fail.
Here you go, Thom, this may be a work-around for you: http://www.insidesocal.com/click/2009/11/are-your-graphics-dead-in-...
"

Or, if that work-around doesn't float your boat, then Mandriva 2010 is out:

http://blog.mandriva.com/2009/11/04/mandriva-linux-2010-is-out/

Enjoy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Thu 5th Nov 2009 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Ubuntu/Kubuntu comes with vastly more and significantly better quality desktop software
Now, if only the Ubuntu team had done any form of q/a, I could've actually enjoyed that desktop software you're talking about. As it stands now, I'm using an Intel video chipset. Meaning, no Ubuntu/Kubuntu, because the Ubuntu team failed to test their release on the most common brand of video chips. Fail. "

Just to be fair, here are work-arounds for some entirely similar problems one finds with Windows 7:

http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/12-common-...

This might help some people get around a similar lack of q/a for the Windows 7 Fail.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Windows market share
by boldingd on Fri 6th Nov 2009 00:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Exactly. A lot of the people who complain about Linux are kinda conveniently ignoring the severe flaws that plague almost every OS. Like I've said time and again, having a wretched-coded driver drop the kernel is in no way a unique failing of Linux; I know for certain that it affects Vista too, at least, because it's happened to me. On more than one occasion.

Software is never perfect; there're always bugs. Linux has flaws; Windows has flaws; Os X has flaws. Can we all please stop yelling about how "Oh my God, that OS you use is so much worse than mine, it does this this and this and OH MAH GAWD IT ARE AWEFULL!"?

Reply Score: 2

videokilledradiostar Member since:
2009-11-03

You can throw all the URL links you want at me about Win7 vs Ubuntu, but even Windows XP is better than anything Linux can do now, in terms of just working without any hassles.

I have used all the OS flavors, and Windows is on top for a reason: everything supports windows. With Linux, when you buy a new laptop, you have to make sure if everything is supported, otherwise you will have to spend hours setting up everything to work right, by reading random internet forums where people have had the same problems.

Ubuntu is getting better and better all the time, but I have probably spent hundreds of hours tinkering with things that don't work over the years, when I could have just used windows and not had any problems.

And now, with Microsoft releasing a decent operating system (unlike Vista), Linux is going to have an even harder time being adopted.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 12:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You can throw all the URL links you want at me about Win7 vs Ubuntu, but even Windows XP is better than anything Linux can do now, in terms of just working without any hassles.


Not true.

If you are in any doubt at all, just buy a Linux system in the same way that you would buy a Windows system. Buy a system with Linux pre-installed.

http://www.zareason.com/shop/home.php
http://www.system76.com/
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/ubuntu?c=us&l=en&c...

When you are comparing things, you should after all try to compare apples with apples.

I have used all the OS flavors, and Windows is on top for a reason: everything supports windows.


Nope.

http://www.hellosmartbook.com/index.php

With Linux, when you buy a new laptop, you have to make sure if everything is supported, otherwise you will have to spend hours setting up everything to work right, by reading random internet forums where people have had the same problems.


Nope. Not if you buy a laptop with Linux pre-installed, as you would a Windows laptop.

http://www.zareason.com/shop/home.php?cat=250

Ubuntu is getting better and better all the time, but I have probably spent hundreds of hours tinkering with things that don't work over the years, when I could have just used windows and not had any problems.


Or you could have bought an Ubuntu system pre-installed and not had any problems.

And now, with Microsoft releasing a decent operating system (unlike Vista), Linux is going to have an even harder time being adopted.


I doubt it. Very much.

Netbooks are trying to go up-spec trying to support higher Windows 7 requirements, and turning themselves into small notebooks instead, with no price advantage.

http://www.liliputing.com/2009/11/nvidia-is-giving-away-a-dozen-ion...


Meanwhile, ARM has released the Cortex A9 dual core 2 GHz CPU design, and shortly that will be appearing in inexpensive netbook-class machines that cannot run Windows at all (let alone Windows 7) but which will run Ubuntu (with very good performance) for a couple of days on a single charge.

http://www.arm.com/news/25922.html
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/09/16/arm-breaks-2ghz-barrier-with-d...

ARM has just announced the development of a dual core mobile processor capable of breaking the 2GHz barrier. The 40nm Cortex-A9 CPU will use conventional silicon chips and each CPU core will consume less than 0.25 watts of power.

While ARM’s aiming the chip at “applications such as set-top boxes, DTVs, printers, and other feature-rich consumer and high-density enterprise applications,” the SmartBook and MID movements could probably make some waves by using dual-core 2GHz setups as well.


Meanwhile, whole countries are adopting Linux.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8309583.stm

Edited 2009-11-03 12:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Windows market share
by koki on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows market share"
koki Member since:
2005-10-17

So while it is perfectly reasonable for you to say that Windows 7 is better for you, such a view can hardly be called universally objective. It just doesn't stand up under any objective criteria whatsoever.


And what kind of (universal?) objectivity can you expect from a review at a linux-biased site like tuxradar.com?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Windows market share
by grat on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows market share"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

Two things stood out reading the tux article(s)...

1) They're heavily slanted towards the penguin (duh).

2) They're not that familiar with the UI changes in Windows 7, or they're just being misleading.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Windows market share
by StaubSaugerNZ on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows market share"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

Yes, I've personally found that Ubuntu 9.10's boot-time speed improvements have leap-frogged it ahead of Windows 7 (the previous record holder) - which makes Windows 7 a "legacy: platform for me now, lol.

My personal experience is Windows 7 is nice for desktop stuff and gaming, and probably quite good for other non-power users, but not as good for development, high-performance and portable computing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Windows market share
by twitterfire on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows market share"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11



Faster only if you think boot speed equals desktop speed. And if you are a fanboy. But I can assure you that even if it boots faster (I can't say that, but let's assume), it's by no means faster than 7. I double booted Ubuntu 9.10 an Windows 7 for about 2 weeks and nothing in Ubuntu seems faster.

Ironically Microsoft Word 2007 starts much, much faster with wine then Open Office Org starts native.


Ubuntu/Kubuntu comes with vastly more and significantly better quality desktop software, it is cheaper and faster to run,


Are you planning to be a comedian? Or are you acting just like a simple fanboy?

What's better? The fact that Network Manager is broken? The fact that pppoeconf stalls? The fact that various programs are crashing?

Or the fact that Open Office can't open a .doc or .docx document whitout breaking it? The fact that gimp sucks when you compare it with Photoshop? The fact that you can't find professionally written software? The fact that 99.99% of largely used software does not run native on Ubuntu?


running it on as many machines as you want carries no risks with respect to license compliance,

I only need my OS to run on one machine.


it runs on a vastly wider array of existing desktop hardware


Can we laugh? Are you refering to mips and arm as "desktop hardware"? Because if you talk about x86 and adon cards, windows suports much more hardware than any other os.

it even has more desktop "bling"

I want an OS, not a whore. If you are in for "bling", you can use Mac OS X.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Windows market share
by boldingd on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows market share"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Faster only if you think boot speed equals desktop speed. And if you are a fanboy. But I can assure you that even if it boots faster (I can't say that, but let's assume), it's by no means faster than 7. I double booted Ubuntu 9.10 an Windows 7 for about 2 weeks and nothing in Ubuntu seems faster.

Ironically Microsoft Word 2007 starts much, much faster with wine then Open Office Org starts native.


How we measure "faster" is a good question, but I don't think that claim is ridiculous. I expect that there are reasonable metrics for "desktop speed" where Linux comes out ahead.

Are you planning to be a comedian? Or are you acting just like a simple fanboy?

What's better? The fact that Network Manager is broken? The fact that pppoeconf stalls? The fact that various programs are crashing?


Network Manager is broken? Like, "so borken it's unusable"? That's news to me. It performs adequately on my Ubuntu machine.
How about this: Linuxes typically include Firefox by default, which I think I can say is a better browser than IE8 by most reasonable metrics. Distros may include AbiWord, which is certainly a better word processor than WordPad (remember, Office doesn't come with Windows; that's a whole nother expensive purchase). I would far prefer any of Amarok, Rhythmbox, VLC or Banshee to Windows Media Player. Pidgin is better than Windows Live Messenger -- claim it's not, and I'll mock you. And even simple gEdit is a much better text file viewer-editor than Notepad, to say nothing of gVim or Kate. Windows doesn't even come with a shell as expressive as Bash -- Windows GUI hunt-and-clickers deride it all you want, it's beautiful for high-efficiency power-use. Let's not even touch linux distro's inclusion of power tools like Perl or Python, and never mind that Gnome's (or, one assumes, KDE's) built-in file-browser-integrated CD burning program can actually burn ISO images too, which is something that Windows has only just now learned to do. And I'd much prefer... pretty much any PDF viewer on Linux to Adobe's offering. Let's not even contemplate all the software that resides in most distribution's package management systems -- getting a compiler on Windows is so much more of a PITA than it has to be or should be.

Or the fact that Open Office can't open a .doc or .docx document whitout breaking it? The fact that gimp sucks when you compare it with Photoshop? The fact that you can't find professionally written software? The fact that 99.99% of largely used software does not run native on Ubuntu?


You can keep pointing at OpenOffice and laughing all you want. I mean, it's ugly and slow, so all open-source software is junk, right?

Your criticism of GIMP is subjective; I'd love to hear the opinions of graphics professionals. Even having said that, does Windows ship with anything with even half the features GIMP has?

Define "professionally written software." Lots of software professionals contribute lots of code to FOSS projects, and certainly, some projects have very high quality standards. Some don't, true, but many do: you have to learn to tell good software from trash on the windows side too, so what's your point?

And, 99 percent of Windows software doesn't run on Linux? What a surprise! Boy, that statement sure did convey new and intriguing information, didn't it?

I only need my OS to run on one machine.

I need my OS to run on several machines.

Can we laugh? Are you refering to mips and arm as "desktop hardware"? Because if you talk about x86 and adon cards, windows suports much more hardware than any other os.


No, he's refering to low-end or last-generation x86 machines. You know, the ones that Vista didn't actually run on? The common wisdom seems to be that Win7 runs better on lower-end machines than Vista did; great, good for you guys. Meanwhile, you can still get decent performance out of a 750 MHz PIII with a low-resource distro -- hell, or XUbuntu. Not to mention that some distros -- like Fedora or Ubuntu, I believe -- still have PPC ports.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Windows market share
by twitterfire on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Almost all the software you have mentioned runs on windows too. You can use VLC on Windows, you can use python, apche, mysql, whatever. Besides gcc, there are much more c/c++ compilers for Windows. And guess what? There are some useful IDEs too, not just Vi and Emacs.

As for Abiword, even that you can use it on windows? Why bother?

And I am sure that professionals will find Gimp more useful than Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro, like you seem to believe.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Windows market share
by boldingd on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Almost all the software you have mentioned runs on windows too. You can use VLC on Windows, you can use python, apche, mysql, whatever. Besides gcc, there are much more c/c++ compilers for Windows.


I know. The statement that lemur2 made, that was subsequently contested, was that Linux distros ship with more useful and higher-quality software than Windows 7 ships with. I feel his statement was accurate, and that the post refuting it was not informative or reasonable. Hence, my post.

Clearly, large amounts of high-quality software are available on either platform, and most of the software I mentioned is available in some form or other for Windows. But it's not on the Windows install DVD. A plain-vanilla install of Win7 (or OS X, to poke a hornet's nest) will include less useful software than a plain-vanilla installation of Ubuntu or Slackware.

And guess what? There are some useful IDEs too, not just Vi and Emacs.


I agree, there are lots of useful IDEs out there, on Windows and Linux. And... this is relevant how?

As for Abiword, even that you can use it on windows? Why bother?


Because it's a good, simple, light-weight WYSIWYG word processor? Because it's better than WordPad? What's your point?

And I am sure that professionals will find Gimp more useful than Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro, like you seem to believe.


I don't believe or claim anything. What I said was:
1) I'd like to know what graphics pros think of Gimp, and
2) Gimp is more functional than anything in a plain-vanilla installation of Windows 7.

Edited 2009-11-03 21:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Windows market share
by nt_jerkface on Wed 4th Nov 2009 01:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Gimp is more functional than anything in a plain-vanilla installation of Windows 7.


This is like saying that you should by a Toyota because the GM dealership is farther up the street.

Oh heavens you have to download an exe and click an install prompt. The vast majority don't care and would rather have the better software selection. It's not like you have to install the software every time you run it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Almost all the software you have mentioned runs on windows too. You can use VLC on Windows, you can use python, apche, mysql, whatever. Besides gcc, there are much more c/c++ compilers for Windows. And guess what? There are some useful IDEs too, not just Vi and Emacs. As for Abiword, even that you can use it on windows? Why bother? And I am sure that professionals will find Gimp more useful than Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro, like you seem to believe.


Unlike a Kubuntu/Ubuntu machine, none of this software is pre-installed on a Windows 7 machine when you buy one.

If you can run this software on a Windows 7 machine or alternatively on a Kubuntu/Ubuntu machine, why would anyone choose to run it on the Windows 7 machine which was: more costly; slower; carries severe licensing restrictions and was more prone to existing, known security risks?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If you can run this software on a Windows 7 machine or alternatively on a Kubuntu/Ubuntu machine, why would anyone choose to run it on the Windows 7 machine which was: more costly; slower; carries severe licensing restrictions and was more prone to existing, known security risks?


Backup link:

Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses

http://www.sophos.com/blogs/chetw/g/2009/11/03/windows-7-vulnerable

User Account Control did block one sample; however, its failure to block anything else just reinforces my warning prior to the Windows 7 launch that UAC's default configuration is not effective at protecting a PC from modern malware.

Lesson learned? You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7.


And if you still need to run anti-virus software, then your machine will be slower.

Edited 2009-11-03 23:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Windows market share
by tomcat on Wed 4th Nov 2009 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Windows market share"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Your criticism of GIMP is subjective; I'd love to hear the opinions of graphics professionals. Even having said that, does Windows ship with anything with even half the features GIMP has?


Windows isn't allowed to bundle software that would potentially threaten ISVs. If they did it, ISVs would complain, the DOJ/EC would jump all over MS, and MS would be forced to remove it. So, any criticism about MS not shipping something which is shipped by other OS is BS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows market share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Faster only if you think boot speed equals desktop speed. And if you are a fanboy. But I can assure you that even if it boots faster (I can't say that, but let's assume), it's by no means faster than 7. I double booted Ubuntu 9.10 an Windows 7 for about 2 weeks and nothing in Ubuntu seems faster. "

Try Kubuntu then. I can assure you that on the same hardware, everyting is much faster than Windows 7.

Ironically Microsoft Word 2007 starts much, much faster with wine then Open Office Org starts native.


BTW, if you want your most commonly used applications to load faster in Kubuntu/Ubuntu (at the expense of boot time), then install a daemon called preload. This is very similar to what Windows 7 uses to reduce application load times (at the expense of boot time).

" Ubuntu/Kubuntu comes with vastly more and significantly better quality desktop software, it is cheaper and faster to run,
Are you planning to be a comedian? Or are you acting just like a simple fanboy? What's better? The fact that Network Manager is broken? The fact that pppoeconf stalls? The fact that various programs are crashing? Or the fact that Open Office can't open a .doc or .docx document whitout breaking it? The fact that gimp sucks when you compare it with Photoshop? The fact that you can't find professionally written software? The fact that 99.99% of largely used software does not run native on Ubuntu? "

Network manager isn't broken, it works fine (I have no comment on pppoeconf as I haven't used it, I use network manager which works fine). I have had no crashes at all with Kubuntu 9.10. You can't open a .doc or a .docx at all on the software that Windows 7 comes with. You can't do ANYTHING that GIMP can do with the software that Windows 7 comes with (and the GIMP BTW has improved considerably of late, you really need to keep your rants up to date). You certainly CAN find proprietary software for Linux (if that is what you really mean with your jibe "professionally written).

http://personal-finance-software-review.toptenreviews.com/moneydanc...

" running it on as many machines as you want carries no risks with respect to license compliance,
I only need my OS to run on one machine. "

So? For a great number of people, that isn't the case, and the comparitive licensing restrictions (or lack thereof) are an important consideration.

" it runs on a vastly wider array of existing desktop hardware
Can we laugh? Are you refering to mips and arm as "desktop hardware"? Because if you talk about x86 and adon cards, windows suports much more hardware than any other os. "

No. If we are talking just x86 desktop machines under the category of "existing hardware", then vastly more of those machines will run Ubuntu/Kubuntu than will run Windows 7. Almost any existing, still-working x86 desktop machine will run Ubuntu/Kubuntu. Windows 7 wouldn't work acceptably on any more than (being generous) a maximum of 10% of existing machines.

I don't even have to mention ARM here (which BTW is the most prolific CPU architecture I believe).

"it even has more desktop "bling"
I want an OS, not a whore. If you are in for "bling", you can use Mac OS X. "

Fair enough, you don't have to use bling. I mention it only because it is not a lack at all with Ubuntu/Kubuntu.

BTW - some "bling" is actually useful in some contexts. You should check out multiple desktops, the desktop cube, and KDE 4 Plasma's desktop widgets and Folderview and newspaper containments sometime.

Edited 2009-11-03 22:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Windows market share
by andydread on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows market share"
RE[3]: Windows market share
by grat on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows market share"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

Since when are citations needed for a personal opinion?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Windows market share
by Stephen! on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 15:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows market share"
Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

is that Linux based operating systems don't even come close to competiting with something like Windows 7.


But then again, it's not like Linux was ever intended to compete with Windows in the first place.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Windows market share
by jgagnon on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows market share"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

But then again, it's not like Linux was ever intended to compete with Windows in the first place.


Maybe not originally, but there are certainly many distributions currently targeting the desktop as an alternative to Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Windows market share
by Soulbender on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 03:04 UTC in reply to "Windows market share"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You forgot one reason: massive piracy, possibly (and ironically) the biggest contributor to MS domainance.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Windows market share
by siride on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 15:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows market share"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

BS. Their revenue says otherwise. Most people still buy machines from OEMs, so there is no chance for pirating.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Windows market share
by Soulbender on Wed 4th Nov 2009 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows market share"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Their revenue says otherwise.

We're not talking about revenue.

Most people still buy machines from OEMs, so there is no chance for pirating.

What fantasy world do you live in? Windows piracy is rampant and has been since DOS days. It is one of the main reasons Microsoft has such a big mindshare and market dominance.

Reply Score: 2

The Linux desktop had more share in 1998
by nt_jerkface on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 06:27 UTC in reply to "Windows market share"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

People turn on a computer to run applications, not screw with the OS.

Linux needs more proprietary applications to gain adoption which means Linux needs to be turned into an appealing platform for commercial developers.

I doubt this will happen though and since I am fine with Vista I could care less if desktop Linux continues to spin in circles for another decade.

Haiku is getting more interesting anyways, the whole Linux desktop push has been stale since XP came out and wasn't as bad as all the Linux advocates predicted.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Windows market share
by OSGuy on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 07:13 UTC in reply to "Windows market share"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

1. When they purchase desktop computing hardware, the vast majority of people are never offered a Linux option on the same hardware, and they are not even aware that there is another OS option that would run on the same hardware, so they do not ask.

2. Most Linux installations are not "sold". Mass installations of Linux can be done without registering a single OS sale anywhere. Because there is no sale, there is no impact on market share figures.


1. Well, even if I am offered Linux when I purchase a computer, I'd go for Windows anytime anywhere because things just work, look good, are consistent in behavior, installation of apps is flexible rather than relying on a server all the time, app-name using DLL 1.0 will also work with DLL 2.0, you can grab a packaged archive, put it on a USB stick and run it else where on any PC running Windows --- something that Linux can only dream off. Oh and did I also mention the fact that MS isn't actually advertising a new boot splash image or a new login screen as a feature? Linux users (Ubuntu) seem to get excited with new splash screens and login screens -- oh wow...

2. And yet, people still choose to go for Windows. Does not anyone of the Linux community think and say "wait a second, why isn't Linux succeeding?? *What are **we** doing wrong, our software is free, why isn't anyone falling for it! What are we doing wrong! This doesn't make any sense" <-- No, it doesn't because what you do is not good enough.

You want to win? The only way to reach your enemy is become your enemy. Become MS and then we are talking, be like them, rather waiting for the "GNU" community to do something, how about you get of your lazy ass, sit down and write your own stuff. Get the Linux kernel, look at it and eliminate that X.ORG bloated beast that comes with every desktop linux. Take it out, write your own libs and create order once and for all....you know it is possible, Apple did it. Oh yes, MS did it too when they put that nice windowing environment on top of DOS, remember? What was it called? Win_something all the way to Win-Me. Ahh...good old OS/2....IBM had a golden chance....too bad they blew it...

Edited 2009-11-03 07:32 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Windows market share
by morglum666 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 13:35 UTC in reply to "Windows market share"
morglum666 Member since:
2005-07-06

As much as I appreciate the well manner commentary, this argument is tired.

>> 1. When they purchase desktop computing hardware, the vast majority of people are never offered a Linux option on the same hardware, and they are not even aware that there is another OS option that would run on the same hardware, so they do not ask.

If we ignore all of the home businesses, it is no longer true that IT people don't know about linux. What linux fans don't want to admit is that we do know about it and we're still not using it, particularly on the desktop.

That means that the argument is false for business purposes and since its false it means that there's no ignorance involved.. we just don't want it.

Sorry.

Linux as a server option is fine but there's no way in hell I would deploy it for our users. My expertise is in high end accounting systems so your mileage probably varies on your users needs (and your own perspective no doubt)..

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Windows market share
by Soulbender on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 13:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows market share"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

What linux fans don't want to admit is that we do know about it and we're still not using it, particularly on the desktop.


What makes you think you're speaking for me and other "IT people"?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Windows market share
by google_ninja on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 14:03 UTC in reply to "Windows market share"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I love how 20% of the comments on a story that has nothing to do with linux is you, talking about linux.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Windows market share
by boldingd on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows market share"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Pfffft. And you arguing with him.

Reply Score: 2

Linux share
by KenP on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 02:10 UTC
KenP
Member since:
2009-07-28

How is the linux share counted? Computers sold with Linux? Browsers? Both are erroneous, to say the least. These statistics are more to boost Windows marketshare -- and probably sponsored -- as people see a popular choice as a safer choice, which does not mean that it is so.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 02:44 UTC in reply to "Linux share"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

How is the linux share counted? Computers sold with Linux? Browsers? Both are erroneous, to say the least. These statistics are more to boost Windows marketshare -- and probably sponsored -- as people see a popular choice as a safer choice, which does not mean that it is so.


In some countries, firefox has overtaken IE in browser share.

http://www.atinternet-institute.com/fr-fr/barometre-des-navigateurs...

Please excuse the French, look at the graphs.

Reply Score: 2

It would be ...
by Gone fishing on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 03:25 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

Windows 7 has to do well if it isn't bad.

If you need Windows, XP is old, fundamentally insecure, on not really fit for purpose. Vista is vile beyond belief so obviously you will be needing Windows 7.

Reply Score: 1

RE: It would be ...
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 03:30 UTC in reply to "It would be ..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If you need Windows, XP is old, fundamentally insecure, on not really fit for purpose.


Depends on your hardware. XP is far more fit for purpose on some existing hardware than Windows 7 is.

Vista is vile beyond belief


True.

so obviously you will be needing Windows 7.


Non sequitur. Doesn't follow.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: It would be ...
by tobyv on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 03:45 UTC in reply to "RE: It would be ..."
tobyv Member since:
2008-08-25

so obviously you will be needing Windows 7.


Non sequitur. Doesn't follow.


If you need to run XP apps on a modern operating system, what else is there?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: It would be ...
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 04:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It would be ..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" so obviously you will be needing Windows 7.
Non sequitur. Doesn't follow.
If you need to run XP apps on a modern operating system, what else is there?
"

You could try running both XP and your XP app under VirtualboxOSE on Linux with contemporary hardware. Any hardware that is supposed to be able to acceptably run Windows 7 or Vista will of course be blazingly fast running Linux.

If your virtual XP installation catches any malware, just wipe the Virtualbox image file and re-instate it from a backup copy.

Probably your XP app would run a lot faster than under Windows 7. After all, Windows 7 is just Vista re-badged and tweaked a little so that suckers^w people will pay for it over again.

Check out the VirtualboxOSE integrated desktop mode of operation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: It would be ...
by tobyv on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 05:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It would be ..."
tobyv Member since:
2008-08-25

You could try running both XP and your XP app under VirtualboxOSE on Linux with contemporary hardware.


But how to run apps without XP, on a modern operating system?

With a virtual machine there is still basically an XP blob sitting between the app and the real OS, with all the problems of XP (insecurities, licensing issues etc).

The only two solutions I can see are:
1) Vista/7/2008
2) WINE (flaky)

When OS/2 takes over the desktop there will be no need for this discussion. Never broke compatibility from 1.xx onward.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: It would be ...
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: It would be ..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

But how to run apps without XP, on a modern operating system?


Get a work-alike open source application.

OpenOffice can work with legacy MS Offcie files, and it spanks MS Office working with ODF files.

GIMP does just as good a job as Photoshop in editing raster graphics files.

And so on.

Edited 2009-11-03 05:45 UTC

Reply Score: 0

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

equivalent.

That's why the FOSS cult you follow is batshit crazy.

There aren't enough volunteer GPL programmers to provide equivalents for all the proprietary applications that exist. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

FOSS productivity != proprietary productivity

If you eliminated all proprietary software the economy would come to a grinding halt.

People have been bleating about open source for over a decade and yet there is still a massive lack of industry specific open source applications.
Perhaps you would like to volunteer your free time working on diesel engine calibration software? Well guess what most programmers don't either. That's why you have to pay them full time and then sell licensed copies of the software.

It's also unrealistic to expect all software companies to adopt open source business models when for most software the value is in its ability to solve a problem, not external services or support.

Pack up your soapbox and go home. Stallman didn't think out his ideology very well. He created it as a way of sticking it to proprietary companies and didn't care about thinking through its economic viability. The whole thing was created out of spite. He's probably surprised that it got this far.

Don't waste your youth following his open source cult. There are better movements out there that help real people and don't demonize the hard work of others.

Reply Score: 1

strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


Don't waste your youth following his open source cult. There are better movements out there that help real people and don't demonize the hard work of others.


While I agree with you, in all odds he follows the free software cult, not the open source variant which seldom demonizes the work of others.

Reply Score: 1

AnyoneEB Member since:
2008-10-26

Proprietary software certainly has its place and is not going anywhere anytime soon (and as you point out is quite necessary for a great deal of applications at the moment), but you present a false dichotomy based on the apparent assumption that software development needs to be funded by software companies. As I understand it, the free software movement would prefer that niche software like diesel engine calibration software be free and developed collaboratively by the companies that need it. They are not suggesting that the software be given freely out of the goodness of their hearts, but instead that by sharing the cost of developing software, everyone saves money -- and society benefits in that anyone can use or (attempt to) improve that software, reducing the costs of business (custom software is expensive).

Of course, it is far from obvious that it would ever be in a company's best interest to develop software for internal use and then just give it away, but the possibility is certainly there and ignoring the argument seems unreasonable. I am not sure whether the free software movement is being overly idealist or if they are right and companies are over-protective of their secrets/software and hurting themselves by not opening their source, but I do like the idea of the source being available for modification and do generally support the ideals of the free software movement. Nokia, Apple, Google, and even Microsoft all open their source to some extent. Nokia is probably the best example as they sell phones, but have open sourced a lot of the software that runs on those phones.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: It would be ...
by Gone fishing on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 14:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: It would be ..."
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

"But how to run apps without XP, on a modern operating system?


Get a work-alike open source application.

OpenOffice can work with legacy MS Offcie files, and it spanks MS Office working with ODF files.

GIMP does just as good a job as Photoshop in editing raster graphics files.

And so on.
"


The answer question is not - use an opensource alternative application. Some people need Windows because they need to run Windows applications, custom Excel spreadsheets, Access databases, etc or even because they are familiar with Photoshop etc and don't have time to learn how to use the Gimp etc, when Photoshop works well.

Win 7 will sell because these people need to run Windows apps and XP will soon no longer be supported, it's 9 years old computing has moved on, XPs weaknesses are laid bare. I'm not using still using Wart Warthog are you? I'm pleased for you that Linux is all you need, it is for me at home, but at work although we are moving opensource we need Windows as well and I don't see this changing very soon.

The best advocacy for opensource, Linux etc is to show that it can do things better than Windows etc, and this involves some critical judgment as to when to deploy and where. A simple knee jerk reaction use openoffice etc is not good enough.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: It would be ...
by vivainio on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: It would be ..."
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Some people need Windows because they need to run Windows applications, custom Excel spreadsheets, Access databases, etc or even because they are familiar with Photoshop etc and don't have time to learn how to use the Gimp etc, when Photoshop works well.


I guess such people are rare. Certainly much rarer than people who just need a web browser.

And who's going to afford Photoshop anyway? The "don't ask, don't tell" warez crowd?

The best advocacy for opensource, Linux etc is to show that it can do things better than Windows etc, and this involves some critical judgment as to when to deploy and where.


The best advocacy is showing that it can do what needs to be done, cheap. There is no real need to be "better" - Linux can be better for technically sophisticated users (or in specialized devices like phones), but for the vast majority it is (or will be) only "good enough" . And that's the scary part for Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: It would be ...
by Gone fishing on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 05:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It would be ..."
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22



You could try running both XP and your XP app under VirtualboxOSE on Linux with contemporary hardware. Any hardware that is supposed to be able to acceptably run Windows 7 or Vista will of course be blazingly fast running Linux.

If your virtual XP installation catches any malware, just wipe the Virtualbox image file and re-instate it from a backup copy.


Tried it for the reasons you suggested - lets say running XP in Virtualbox on multiple PC on a domain server was not a success, turned out to be very unstable and crashed the network switches.

Now I'm dual booting with Linux and have used ntfsclone to clone XP to a image file on Linux, so I can replace XP with a clean copy when needed. However, this is hardly an ideal solution, XP is not great, old insecure etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: It would be ...
by Tuishimi on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 06:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It would be ..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't see how that is a better option than running 7.

Reply Score: 3

The bar is set to low
by mckill on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 03:39 UTC
mckill
Member since:
2007-06-12

The bar has been set so low from Vista that it's almost impossible for 7 to not suck, combined with the fact that XP is so old you have the recipe for a great OS.

Vista wasn't _that_ bad, it was just too different from XP, and 7 is so close to Vista with a few annoying things 'fixed' and few more service packs that people are going to finally give in to it. honestly it's pretty close to what the latest Vista with service packs is.

and like the sheep that they are, most reviewers and people are claiming Windows 7 is an entire new beast that they will go to it just like the same people claimed Vista was pure trash.

Reply Score: 3

RE: The bar is set to low
by werpu on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 11:24 UTC in reply to "The bar is set to low"
werpu Member since:
2006-01-18

I personally think Vistas main problem simply was performance. The driver issues were not really what drove people away, it was the slow as molasses feeling it overall had. That things like the bootup improving task went straight on your hd for 20 minutes after bootup did not help either on notebook computers.
Vista was about 80% good 20% sucked tremendously Win7 is in the 90% ranges with the biggest problems (performance on the UI side of things) having been cleaned up.
Win7 is Vista SP3 mostly, and it took XP as well 3 SPs not to suck.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: The bar is set to low
by grat on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE: The bar is set to low"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

I never had a problem with Vista's performance. Windows 7 boots a little faster, is a little snappier, but not significantly so.

Reply Score: 2

Windows 7 > Linux
by larwilliams on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 03:56 UTC
larwilliams
Member since:
2007-04-03

How ironic is it that Windows 7 gets more marketshare in a single week than Linux has in nearly 17 years.

And to the person who claimed Kubuntu was "faster" than Windows... are you blind? Both nVidia and ATI drivers are significantly slower than their Windows variants.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Windows 7 > Linux
by mckill on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 04:01 UTC in reply to "Windows 7 > Linux"
mckill Member since:
2007-06-12

How ironic is it that Windows 7 gets more marketshare in a single week than Linux has in nearly 17 years.

And to the person who claimed Kubuntu was "faster" than Windows... are you blind? Both nVidia and ATI drivers are significantly slower than their Windows variants.


there's a lot more to the speed of an OS than a single vendor's drivers, i'm pretty sure Linux is faster at decoding most video formats with any Nvidia video card thanks to VDPAU.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Windows 7 > Linux
by grat on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows 7 > Linux"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

You know that VDPAU is equivalent to DirectX Video Acceleration, right?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Windows 7 > Linux
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 04:35 UTC in reply to "Windows 7 > Linux"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

How ironic is it that Windows 7 gets more marketshare in a single week than Linux has in nearly 17 years. And to the person who claimed Kubuntu was "faster" than Windows... are you blind? Both nVidia and ATI drivers are significantly slower than their Windows variants.


If we accept that proprietary binary drivers for Linux from both ATI and Nvidia are mostly the same code as Windows drivers with different wrappers:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=nvidia_qa_linux&...

... as is stated in the linked interview with a Nvidia developer, then some idea of relative performance can be gleaned from these test results:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_r600_r700_2d...

If you are running desktop software, then running with the open source ATI drivers is going to be a lot better performance than the closed binary drivers.

AFAIK, there are no open source graphics drivers for Windows.

PS: Market share is not installed base. Market share is a percentage of sales. Linux is (typically) not sold.

Edited 2009-11-03 04:40 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Windows 7 << Linux
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 05:25 UTC in reply to "Windows 7 > Linux"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

And to the person who claimed Kubuntu was "faster" than Windows... are you blind? Both nVidia and ATI drivers are significantly slower than their Windows variants.


Apart from the issue of graphics drivers, where 2D (i.e. desktop) performance is measured via benchmarks to be significantly better with the open source drivers available only for Linux, there is also the issue of the OS itself.

Vista and Windows 7 are many times the size of Linux. Vista and Windows 7 both have many processes running in the background, for which there is no equivalent, and no need, in Linux. Examples are DRM checking, WGA (and other licence) checking and on-demand and background virus and malware scanning.

The closed-source video drivers used in Windows (and also the near-same closed-source video drivers for Linux) are huge. They eat up RAM, and they take ages to load.

In order to avoid patent and cross-licensing issues, closed source applications are nearly always mostly self-contained. This gives you many copies of essentially the same functionality since it is installed with virtually every proprietary program, and hence each program takes a lot longer to load. With on-demand malware scanning, this problem is exacerbated. Windows uses a single configuration file called the registry, which grows and grows as the system is used, and which doesn't take long to grow to many megabytes in size. All applications have to read and parse that file. I'm sure there are many other issues as well.

Vista is so slow and bloated that Microsoft couldn't push it onto netbooks. They had to revive XP Home.

Kubuntu 9.10 runs very happily indeed on netbooks.

Windows 7 is an improvement over Vista, but not a huge one. Not enough to make up the performance gap to something like Kubuntu.

Finally, Linux gets better and better performance with each six-month release. Kubuntu 9.10 is a considerable improvement over 9.04. Next up, Kubuntu 10.4 (which will be a LTS release) will enjoy performance gains through improvements via kernel 2.6.32, Xorg 7.5, Qt 4.6 AND KDE 4.4. All will get faster. The cumulative improvement will be significant.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Windows 7 << Linux
by siride on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 15:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows 7 << Linux"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

It's clear that you don't know what you are talking about. The video drivers take ages to load? Did you measure? For ATi and nVidia, the codebase is substantially the same between the Windows and Linux versions. It doesn't take long to load a kernel module on either system. And also, have you measured the amount of RAM used by the video drivers? Is it actually significant? Probably not. It certainly isn't on Linux.

The registry has its problems, but it is not stored or accessed like you think it is. The registry on Windows NT-based system no longer has the performance issues of the registry on 9x. It is a database and has the performance benefits associated with such. It's also not located in a single file, but rather several files (hives). Furthermore, applications don't have to use the registry and .NET applications don't use the registry at all for application settings.

I also think you misunderstand how software components are often reused. In fact, Windows has a much better system for sharing components (COM, for example), which is lacking or spotty on Linux.

I'm glad that you are seeing performance gains, because I keep seeing performance decreases on Linux. Every new release of Ubuntu is slower than the last for me. KDE4 is still not as fast as KDE3.5 was and progress is slow and spotty. Moving windows, resizing them and showing/hiding them results in trails and artifacts as the programs and X struggle to redraw in time. This rarely happens on XP (except for poorly written 3rd party apps) and certainly not on Vista or 7, which have a functional compositor.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Windows 7 << Linux
by archiesteel on Thu 5th Nov 2009 22:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows 7 << Linux"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

"Every new release of Ubuntu is slower than the last for me."

You mustn't have tried Karmic, then. It is significantly snappier than Jaunty.

Reply Score: 2

Typical
by deathshadow on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 06:01 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Leave it to the free****ots to come pouring out of the woodwork in defense of their tinker-toy desktop environments. No offense, but I still maintain that *nix is for servers, windows is for desktops, and varying from that formula invariably is made of complete and miserable /FAIL/

About a week ago on a forums I posted my experience with Ubuntu 9.1 and compared it to a windows 7 installation on the same machines (one desktop, one laptop) - lemme share that here:

System 1 - my primary workstation
Q6600 CPU overclocked to 2.7ghz (1200FSB, 3:2 timings), undervolted to 1.1825
4 gigs RAM
1TB WD Caviar Black (OS)
1.5tb Seagate (media)
Pair of Samsung F1 750 gig mirrored (work)
Linksys (atheros chipset) wireless adapter
Ge260 GTX driving left 2 displays (24" 1920x1200)
Ge8800 GTS driving right 2 displays (17" 1024x1280 portrait)
Audigy 2 ZS Platinum

System 2 - My laptop HP NC8000
1.8ghz Celeron M
2 gigs RAM
120 gig WD Scorpio Blue
Radeon 9600 mobility (15.4" at 1400x1050)

Ubuntu 9.10 on workstation
LiveCD boots, but installer 'locks up'. CD image is FINE, so burn out an 'alternate' text based installer CD and some three hours later we actually get to the OS. Wireless not recognized without restricted drivers, doesn't let you install restricted drivers without connecting to run the update. So drag it in from my garage/office and physical wire it, and ETH0 doesn't configure right so I have to manually dick with it from the command line - FINALLY get online, spend two hours on updates before I can get wireless working...

It only sees one display and won't set anything but 800x600 even WITH the nVidia restricted drivers and all displays connected via DVI. After four hours of dicking with xorg.conf I FINALLY get all four displays on, in order and native resolution. There's zero support for rotated displays the same time as non-rotated with the font aliasing so you are stuck with ugly fonts - NOT that freetype is a prize in that department to begin with..

Twinview is useless for more than two displays so have to run Xinerama, which means I can kiss off the composite extension and welcome to the world of the slowest OS video on the planet. Scrolling any long page in FF or Opera has horrible tearing, often mis-renders, and at times it appears you can see the page being updated one pixel at a time. Of course as with every linux install I've ever used the visual cues for if a program is launching are nonexistant, so I click to open FF, nothing happens... wait 30 seconds, click to open FF, nothing happens... two minutes later five copies pop open at once. QUALITY.

Sound card support only allows for 2 channel output no matter wild claims by others of it working. Other devices like the webcam are also 'recognized' and 'supported' - but not FULLY supported (320x240 max on a 4 megapixel camera for example). Mouse (logitech trackman marble+) cuts in and out and doesn't support the scroll wheel via PS/2 (since I'm on a KVM...) and only really works right via USB.

Fullscreen OpenGL applications only open on the left-most display since x.org has no concept of a 'primary display' - have fun dicking with config files to get them to open 'pushed over'. Running in a window the only openGL I can run is the piss poor slow MESA library, so pretty much anything graphics related (like blender) is not even really an option.

Video playback even with VLC is a joke since VLC does all CPU decoding - welcome to horrible tearing, sync problems and other issues that take HD playback and turn it into choppy crap worse than watching Hulu fullscreen under XP.

Ubuntu 9.10 on Laptop
Live CD comes up with the classic corrupted video that you have to force to 16 bit rendering during boot... at least in this case though the installer on the live CD functions as expected. Open source drivers also seem to need to be forced to 16 bit to even work right, so closed drivers are the only solution though again, I have to drag it over to a landline to run at least one series of updates before it will let me put restricted drivers in.

Audio recognized but neither the microphone or headphone jack work. It's fun when you plug in the headphones and they neither come on nor kill the internal speaker. This can be fixed by dicking with the alsa-base file and forcing the realtek driver manually - so long as you don't mind ALL playback being at half the volume it is in windows, making the internal speakers about as useless as they are on a netbook.

Plugging in USB devices causes a kernel panic, if you boot with them installed it's fine, but don't plan on plugging any in once it's up and running. No sign of bluetooth or IR support or any means of configuring them, and attempts to add software to control them have so far been for nought.

Wireless appears to work unless you happen to have the laptop go to sleep, in which case the instructions to reset it from the command line do jack ****, so you pretty much have to reboot.

... and video playback? VLC can barely manage fullscreen DVD and completely chokes on HD content in VLC at any size render target.

Again, typical linux 'supported but not fully' nonsense.

Windows 7 x64 on Desktop
Install the OS, boots up 27 minutes later with all four displays enabled and in their native resolutions!?! (all I had to do was adjust their order and tell it two of them are rotated) Audigy recognized, playing sounds, fully configurable for speaker layout. Wireless also recognized and logs right on to my WPA setup. Windows Update will grab the latest driver versions, though it's nice to install the nvidia stuff manually so you get the support applications. (as well as the 'audigy support pack' by danielK).

Windows 7 x32 on Laptop
Install the OS, boots up 40 minutes later in the native resolution. Audio working, headphone jack working, IR working, Bluetooth working after windows update, no wierd problems with USB...

... and in Windows I actually have font rendering meant for SCREEN with kerning that doesn't look like it was done by a sweetly retarded crack addict. (and yes, I know how to enable better hinting with the XML file, helps the glyphs but NOT the spacing between them!) I have hardware overlay and some hardware decode support so the lappy can even manage HD playback OVER THE WIRELESS... I have direct access to USEFUL applications instead of half-assed tinkertoys like OpenOffice and the GiMP that are akin to a trip in the wayback machine to Windows 3.1 level functionality.

"Free" software - all I can say is "Rah rah, fight the power and the evil corporations" - when, as Carlos Mencia described most of your 'corporations are evil' whackjobs "every weekend you get together and rent movies from BLOCKBUSTER and order Pizza from Dominoes"

I do seriously wonder what the **** is in the Linux Kool Aid so far as using it (or freebsd, or opensolaris) as a desktop is concerned. Servers where everything is either command line or via HTTP panels, freaking brilliant OS. Hang an X11 implementation around it's neck like a dead albatross and call it a desktop OS, and the result is not quite so brilliant.

Windows 7 on the other hand - freaking brilliant - mostly because I don't have a laundry list of complaints... and I have access to COMMERCIAL applications who's quality blows most of that free nonsense out of the water. Cakewalk Sonar (try running that under Wine!), 3ds Max, Hell, I can even run the decade old Paint Shop Pro 7 with it's image optimizer I have yet to see the equal of - without jumping through any goofy hoops.

If I wanted to spend time dicking around on the command line for the simplest of tasks, I'd still be running Xenix on my Trash-80 model 16.

Reply Score: 11

RE: Typical
by Tuishimi on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 06:08 UTC in reply to "Typical"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

You do realize that 50 linux/freeware advocates will now down-rate you into oblivion.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Typical
by deathshadow on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Typical"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Fully expected - truth hurts, especially when you pull their head out of the sand, smack the silly rose colored glasses off their face with a wet trout, giving them a harsh dose of reality.

Besides, when for every successful open source developer like Linus you have a hundred thousand college and high school virgins still having life paid for by mommy and daddy so they can worship at the Church of Stallman...

Edited 2009-11-03 06:16 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Typical
by l3v1 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 08:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Typical"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

truth hurts, especially when you pull their head out of the sand


Well, I wouldn't have said anything, since there are a lot of people who have trouble with their Linux installs, but when some people's first reactions are "hey, zealots will smack you" then I have to respond.

Yet, all I have to say, installing and configuring Linux on some hardware is still not on the average users' level even these days, not even with Ubuntu. But that doesn't mean that one user's struggles can provide a general opinion about Linux [installing or otherwise].

And no, I'm not going to smack anyone. If I can't drive, I won't, but others still try and hit some walls, which is not my problem, yet driving won't be any harder or easier.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Typical
by Soulbender on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Typical"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Besides, when for every successful open source developer like Linus you have a hundred thousand college and high school virgins still having life paid for by mommy and daddy so they can worship at the Church of Stallman...


Is that like when for every Anders Hejlsberg you have hundred thousands of code monkeys hammering out substandard closed source code so that they can make a quick buck?

Edited 2009-11-03 11:40 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Typical
by cycoj on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 07:31 UTC in reply to "Typical"
cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

What's with the namecalling, doesn't help your argument. Look at lemur2, yes some of his arguments are farfetched but he's not calling any names.

I also don't believe your whole story. First you already have such a strong opinion on that free software sucks, I don't even believe you would want to install Ubuntu.

Then there's some of the weird things which just don't add up.

I might believe you to the livecd locking up part. I don't believe that your installation from the textinstaller took 3 hours! That number is simply made up. I've yet to see any Ubuntu installation take longer than 20 min.

Then the bit about eth0 not configuring right, doesn't make sense to me either, what wasn't working and how did you have to fix it from the cli. Now I've seen quite a few problems with wireless, but wired connections on linux being a problem?? Couldn't you come up with a better story?

The bit about updates for 2 hours? Yeah right, I've just installed 9.1 with lots of extra packages and there were hardly any updates, what internet connection are you on 9600Baud modem?

The bit about dicking with xorg.conf does not sound believable either, first why would you invest that much time into configuring a system which you clearly hate (You made that clear at the beginning). Also AFAIK everything is configured with xrandr now so no xorg.conf.

I could go on. But really make up a convincing story if you really feel you need to post an anti FOSS rant to boost your ego. For this one I can just say FAIL!

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Typical
by deathshadow on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 22:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Typical"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

That number is simply made up. I've yet to see any Ubuntu installation take longer than 20 min.

Well lucky for you then. I suspect the root cause is that I've got the BIOS in SATA mode and the linux kernel used on the install CD's hates the nForce 680i chipset... it's the only reason I can figure disk access CRAWLS on this machine during install/liveCD.

Then the bit about eth0 not configuring right, doesn't make sense to me either, what wasn't working and how did you have to fix it from the cli.

So you've never had to manually add "dmfe" to /etc/modules? Eth0 present but refuses to see the lan until you do that? Common affliction on nForce, Davicom and 3Com networking cards. USUALLY old-school it wasn't a problem until after upgrading the kernel - disturbing to have it crop up on a fresh install of the baseline.

The bit about updates for 2 hours?

Actually, I'm on 22mbps downstream, but thanks to the servers refusing connection, and when they do connect being throttled down to dialup speeds for my area - yes, it can take that long. Good for you being right on top of their servers, I have no such luck - rarely ever have.

The bit about dicking with xorg.conf does not sound believable either, first why would you invest that much time into configuring a system which you clearly hate (You made that clear at the beginning).


1) dicking with xorg.conf unbelievable? BWAHAHAHA!!! FUNNY GUY.

2) I'm a software and web developer working cross platform - so I actually install OS I dislike for testing because while I dislike it, I'm not going to be that asshat who tests in Windows/IE and **** everyone else.

Also AFAIK everything is configured with xrandr now so no xorg.conf.

Which doesn't see more than one display on my setup with the open source drivers, and which isn't compatible with the nVidia restricted drivers... Which means you have to go into xorg.conf and manually add the metamodes for each screens resolution. In THEORY you could run their configuration utility, but that does more harm than help ESPECIALLY on a multi-display setup.

I could go on, but clearly you don't know enough about Linux to be attempting to berate my experiences.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Typical
by draethus on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 07:56 UTC in reply to "Typical"
draethus Member since:
2006-08-02

I click to open FF, nothing happens... wait 30 seconds, click to open FF, nothing happens... two minutes later five copies pop open at once. QUALITY.


Startup notifications (mouse busy, "Starting ..." on task switcher) still don't work in too many apps, at least on Ubuntu 9.10 (eg. Open Office). I've been working on changing that. You'll notice they work in Wine: I sent in the patch for that early this year. Another one I made for Java apps is in the openjdk bug tracker. I guess there's more, do you know any other apps that need it?

Mouse (logitech trackman marble+) cuts in and out and doesn't support the scroll wheel via PS/2 (since I'm on a KVM...) and only really works right via USB.


What do you mean by "cuts in and out"?

Fullscreen OpenGL applications only open on the left-most display since x.org has no concept of a 'primary display' - have fun dicking with config files to get them to open 'pushed over'. Running in a window the only openGL I can run is the piss poor slow MESA library, so pretty much anything graphics related (like blender) is not even really an option.


Yes, multiple displays are still pretty shocking in my experience (and I only run 2).

Video playback even with VLC is a joke since VLC does all CPU decoding - welcome to horrible tearing, sync problems and other issues that take HD playback and turn it into choppy crap worse than watching Hulu fullscreen under XP.


I've noticed HD video is ridiculously slow in VLC. How does Windows decode it faster?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Typical
by PlatformAgnostic on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 13:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Typical"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Probably either better-optimized codecs or DXVA video acceleration. There are a lot of potential causes for choppiness, so it could even be that the Linux scheduler or graphics stack does not interact with VLC as well.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Typical
by deathshadow on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Typical"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

I've noticed HD video is ridiculously slow in VLC. How does Windows decode it faster?

Old school windows has an 'overlay buffer' to which writes can be handled directly on the video card - you map a section of video memory to your desired render dimensions and then output directly to it to show the content. Removes the need for an extra blt operation.

New, most codecs can render to directX. Windows codecs are also written to take advantage of MPEG2 hardware and even MPEG4 hardware acceleration if present.

Linux does not. Hell, netbooks running XP could handle HD video if they had something marginally better than a GMA950 and some hardware MPEG assist.

Hell, imagine a netbook with a ATI HD video - it's CALLED a HD for a reason, the inclusion of HD video decompression assistance... Something linux video software doesn't even recognize/use.

Which is also why VLC SUCKS on windows because even there it's doing everything 'the hard way' on the CPU - while even piddly little 'Media Player Classic' uses the OS specific codecs and even allows you to select your render targets. "old renderer" (aka WinG), Overlay Mixer, VMR7, VMR9, Haali, EVR... Pick whichever works best and provides the features you need.

While VLC can't even manage vsync.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Typical
by boldingd on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Typical"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Which is also why VLC SUCKS on windows because even there it's doing everything 'the hard way' on the CPU - while even piddly little 'Media Player Classic' uses the OS specific codecs and even allows you to select your render targets. "old renderer" (aka WinG), Overlay Mixer, VMR7, VMR9, Haali, EVR... Pick whichever works best and provides the features you need.


VLC doesn't suck on Windows. It works perfectly for me, on Vista; it's played every video I've throw at it. Granted, most of the videos I've watched with it have been captured TV signals, so they haven't exactly been high-resolution, but I have trouble believing it wallows as much as you're trying to make it sound like it does.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Typical
by deathshadow on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Typical"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

VLC doesn't suck on Windows. It works perfectly for me, on Vista; it's played every video I've throw at it. Granted, most of the videos I've watched with it have been captured TV signals, so they haven't exactly been high-resolution, but I have trouble believing it wallows as much as you're trying to make it sound like it does.


Low def signals means less likely to have issues. Are you running it fullscreen? What do you have for a processor? What target resolution? What's the bitrate of the in file? How much CPU is it consuming compared to playback with say... MPC and the Klite Mega codec pack?

You have a 2.4ghz or faster quad core, VLC probably runs fine, though the lack of vsync would drive me nutters (most people probably wouldn't notice) - so long as it's the only application running and you don't have anything else major going on for CPU use. (or have multi-core so that's a non-issue)

You go down to a sub 2ghz Celeron M with integrated video like say... many of the laptops sold over the past six years - that lack of overlay support can be the difference between smooth playback and dropping 3 out of every 5 frames and having the audio end up out of sync.

Like my HP NC8000, 1.8ghz Celeron M - VLC under windows or Linux cannot even manage DVD playback without dropping frames. Media Player Classic + proper codecs? I can playback H.264 Blu-ray rips!

Or my MSI Wind where VLC on either OS cannot even manage to play back standard def MP4 without choppy frame-skipping - While I can play DVD's off an external USB from WMP or MPC.

VLC does everything the hard way in CPU. That's not necessarily a bad thing when you've got CPU to burn since it means it's code is portable and you rarely have to go hunting for 'just the right' codec. That's a really good feature...

But it doesn't make it the best way to do something either.

Edited 2009-11-03 22:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Typical
by boldingd on Wed 4th Nov 2009 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Typical"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

It's captured TV, so the resolution is... whatever NTSC is (they're MST3K's ;) ). I do usually run it on full-screen: it manages output at 1680x1050 pretty well. I have an AMD Phenom 9850 Black (a quad-core, I forget the clock speed).
I brought my much-more-humble lap-top to work: it's an Acer Z96J, with a Core Duo processor at around 2 GHz, with one or two GB RAM, I forget which. I've played back the same videos full-screen on that without problems, but I haven't checked with top about what the CPU and memory usages are. I'll do that and see.

Edited 2009-11-04 16:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Typical
by draethus on Wed 4th Nov 2009 07:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Typical"
draethus Member since:
2006-08-02

On Linux we have XvMC and VA APIs that should do the same. Pity many cards don't support them though.

However I just tested a HD video, and found it plays perfectly on Ubuntu 9.04 with VLC and an Intel graphics card with 25% CPU usage, but on 9.10 with VLC and an NVidia FX5200 it burns 100% CPU and skips unbelievably. I'm investigating.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Typical, you seem to lie
by kragil on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 07:59 UTC in reply to "Typical"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

I also installed the final Ubuntu and Kubuntu on a few machines and there are no 2 hours of updates. Just a new version of firefox has been released as of now. So unless your net is about 0.4kb/s you are lying.

I only read upto that point ... it is called 9.10, not 9.1. (2009 October, not January)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Typical
by saucerful on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 08:01 UTC in reply to "Typical"
saucerful Member since:
2008-06-12

Excuse me, but what the f--k is your point? If you're calling people out on their claims that the Linux desktop is as user friendly as the Microsoft one, uh-- DUH. Windows is designed for everyone and their grandmother. Linux is not.

Yes, companies like Canonical are making claims to the contrary, AND in fact they ARE making progress in backing up those claims.

BUT that's not why WE (me, and I suspect most of the Linux users on this website) are using Linux.

See, we believe in this thing called Freedom. We want to be able to control our machines, since after all-- they're ours, right?

Indeed, because of a long story involving a few large companies, this freedom neither ubiquitous nor absolute. As your post illustrates, the first obstruction to freedom is hardware. In your case, it seems like its bad drivers. Another obstruction is interoperability with non-free software. Unfortunately this is the case today. Many people are working hard to change this and there has certainly been SUBSTANTIAL progress. Others are doing their part by simply not giving money to the people that are standing in our way.

But to someone thats really interested in being free, that won't be too much of an issue. See, if you actually care about your freedom, you'd spend FIVE minutes before you buy your next computer and make sure it's not going to be an obstruction to your freedom. Yes, sometimes being free requires a little bit of research. Cry about it. On the other hand, most people can get away without doing any research (especially if they don't need cutting edge hardware).

So far I haven't said what freedom actually gets you. Many people, including Linux users, including myself for the first couple years that I used the platform, will barely ever really take direct advantage of the freedom available to them. Instead, they will see the indirect benefits of freedom. For example, they will find that bugs in their software are fixed more quickly. They will find that older hardware is much more capable. They will find that pieces of software written by entirely different groups of people can talk to each other, something we call the UNIX philosophy.

Still haven't told you what you can do DIRECTLY with your newfound freedom, huh? Warning: using your freedom might actually require a little work, maybe even some *gasp* imagination. Here's a trivial example. A week or so ago I realized it would be nice if the status (paused/stopped/playing, song info) of my music player (quodlibet) to be displayed in the statusbar of my window manager (awesome). I added 3 lines to my window manager's configuration file to get a text widget on the status bar, and wrote a 10 line python plugin for the music player to update that with the relevant info on the relevant events.

People might react to this in different ways. Some will undoubtedly think "see this is why Linux isn't ready for the desktop. nobody should have to use a text editor to do anything." Others will scoff at the fact that this functionality wasn't built in. (Those people will probably prefer Ubuntu, Gnome, Rhythmbox, etc. instead of Debian, Awesome, Quodlibet) Suit yourself. I am very satisfied that my solution uses (wild guess) about 1K additional memory and that I can change it in a million different ways (text colors, formatting, album art, etc.) with just a couple lines of code.

And this is just an example of some trivial modification. There are no limits (okay, there are some. see above.) to what you can accomplish with free software, even for desktop-oriented stuff. And in the server arena... well let's not even talk about that.

In conclusion, in MY opinion, Linux isn't for everyone. The people who will benefit from it most TODAY are those who use their computers and feel like their operating system is getting in the way and preventing them from getting what they want done. However, this is changing. Linux IS becoming friendlier, and more and more people are starting to see much more subtle advantages or even much simpler ones (price). Unfortunately, there are some significant barriers that we need to overcome that will require momentum from the community (I think we have this) and also the assistance of various corporations (this is also getting there, albeit more slowly).

Edited 2009-11-03 08:07 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Typical
by tomcat on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 08:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Typical"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

See, we believe in this thing called Freedom. We want to be able to control our machines, since after all-- they're ours, right?


That's about where I stopped reading. No, what you really want is the illusion of control. You don't know what your kernel does. You don't know what your drivers do. You take the word of other people that you're free. And so do I, because I paid them to provide me with what I want, and it works damned well. Freedom, to me, is not having to be chained to my desk dealing with problems all the time -- as I have done many times in the past dicking around with Linux. If that's your idea of freedom, enjoy it.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Typical
by saucerful on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 08:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Typical"
saucerful Member since:
2008-06-12

You should have kept reading because I was very careful to point out 1) the benefits of freedom with regard to high level apps and the desktop and 2) this kind of freedom does not (directly) benefit everyone.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Typical
by siride on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Typical"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Bugs fixed more quickly? Really? That would explain why bugs languish for years (like the infamous GTK+ button highlighting bug) and why Bugzillas for big projects are filled with thousands upon thousands of bug requests, many of which haven't even been responded to, much less fixed. And that also explains the infamous WONTFIX closures when the devs just don't care about the bug and nobody is paying them to make it work. In the real software world, if customers complain about bugs, they get fixed or addressed. You can still have relationships with the developers, and since they are paid to get things done, things get done.

As for your examples of the benefits of "freedom", they aren't examples of the benefits of FOSS at all! All you did is edit config files or make scripts. Newsflash: you can do that on Windows and OS X too. Except on those systems, you can do considerably fancier things because the system API is much more capable.

And as another poster pointed out, do you actually look at the source code for the kernel? Have you verified that Firefox isn't stealing your data? Did you look through its source code? Are you actually modifying the source code in any significant way to benefit yourself (changing config files doesn't count)? If not, then the "freedom" is of no benefit to you. It certainly isn't of any benefit to most desktop users out there. My sister uses Ubuntu and I can tell you that she isn't hacking on the kernel or fixing bugs in KDE. It might as well be closed-source for how she uses it, which is to say, using it and not spending hours trying to get it to work, which is often the case.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Typical
by saucerful on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Typical"
saucerful Member since:
2008-06-12

Edit: double post.

Ha. Apparently there is a bug in this comment system, as my "double post" is actually one post, so when I edited it to indicate that the original post disappeared...

Edited 2009-11-03 21:15 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Typical
by deathshadow on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Typical"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Oh man, shame I already posted as I SO want to mod that comment up.

Bugzilla 915 - Enough said. They've got people working on HTML5/CSS3, specifications NOT EVEN OUT OF DRAFT when they don't even have the ELEVEN YEAR OLD HTML4/CSS2 specifications properly supported!

"freedom" - I laugh at the ignorant fools who think the anti-corporation zealotry poured forth from the mouths of the FSF whackjobs has anything to do with actual freedom. When people use the term freedom and then try to force it on people circumventing commerce laws through loopholes in contract law - does the term snake oil ring a bell?

But maybe there's still hope for the young if they ignore the dung being slung from the tongues of the ignorant fools who call themselves preachers and listen instead to their science teachers.

Edited 2009-11-03 22:31 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Typical
by ari-free on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 23:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Typical"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

I believe in software freedom. That's why I say look at Haiku and forget the nightmare of zillions of linux distros and package managers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Typical
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Typical"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I believe in software freedom. That's why I say look at Haiku and forget the nightmare of zillions of linux distros and package managers.


Just curious ... why is it a nightmare? Just use the package manager and repositories that are for your distribution. They all contain the same software anyway, so just stick to the one that is for your distro.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Typical
by WereCatf on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 08:42 UTC in reply to "Typical"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I just can't bring myself to believe everything you've written. You've said so many times before how Free Software etc suck and again in your rant you're throwing insults here and there like someone had pissed in your cereals.

Anyways, it's unfortunate it didn't work for you. But then again, you wouldn't have used it anyway so.. I use Linux myself and I haven't had to drop down to command-line even once, during installation or after it. And all my hardware works fine, too, including wireless, compositing, multi-channel audio etc. Though, I don't have all the latest and greatest hardware, that could explain it.

But again, Linux just doesn't work for everyone, just the same as Windows doesn't or OSX doesn't. I could get all my stuff done with Windows too if I wanted, I just personally prefer Linux because it's much more customizable, it's easier to install software and keep it all updated, and I just feel more at home there.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Typical
by rhavenn on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 09:06 UTC in reply to "Typical"
rhavenn Member since:
2006-05-12

It's a chicken and egg problem. Linux needs vendor driver support, but vendors won't write drivers or provide docs for an OS with minimal market share.

Yes, if you need graphics or audio editing tools from large brand vendors then you're kinda stuck on Windows. However, as a sys admin / sometimes programmer I find that Windows is very inflexible. It's the MS way or the highway.

By the way, it's pretty "easy" to do multi-monitors with nVidia. I've got 3 setup without issue. The "secret" is that you don't use Twinview or Xinerama and set them up all as individual desktops.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Typical
by Soulbender on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 10:10 UTC in reply to "Typical"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Hey, whatever works for you. I can't stand using Windows (admitedly I havent used 7 yet) for 5 minutes before the inherent suckiness and generally stupid design decisions threatens to increase my bloodpressure to dangerous levels.
Then again, I dont need to use Cakewalk Sonar, 3ds max or psp for my work
Also, I havent had a single one of the problems you list. Bluetooth fine, audio fine, video fine etc etc. I guess I"m either really lucky or just know what I'm doing.

Edited 2009-11-03 10:14 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Typical
by Kroc on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 10:24 UTC in reply to "Typical"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Paint Shop Pro 7 with it's image optimizer I have yet to see the equal of - without jumping through any goofy hoops.


YES! Outstanding image optimiser. The web would literally half in size if people were using this instead of Photoshop’s save-to-web. Photoshop outputs some of the most bloated PNGs and JPEGs I have _ever_ seen.

I once run a gallery of 25 *thumbnails* for a friends site, though an optimiser and saved over *1 Meg*.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Typical
by REM2000 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 10:50 UTC in reply to "Typical"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

The only thing i would say is that perhaps some of the problems you had encountered was because your machine was overclocked.

I have the same processor and memory in a Dell and ive not had a problem with either linux 9.04/9.10 and windows 7.

Im also suprised you've had problems with your laptop, as i have installed on a dell X1, Compaq Celeron 733MHZ and RM P3 800MHZ.

Im not saying you should move to a different platform as i don't believe in doing that, it's the same with religion, i don't care what others believe in aslong as they don't preach to me.

Personally im more of a Mac fan, with Windows used for work and older games and linux on my laptops and some servers.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Typical
by hollovoid on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 11:02 UTC in reply to "Typical"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

I used Linux mainly for many years, and that sums up my experience with it, I still use gentoo for certain things, but the level of messing around even with the "easy" distros are still far beyond most any computer user I know. And this is with using pretty standard hardware. Almost every graphical boot dvd/cd install of linux locks on every machine ive owned, with nvidia and ATI gfx, its inexcusable, if I didnt like tinkering so much it would be a total loss in my mind... but OS experimentation is my thing so to speak ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Typical
by archiesteel on Thu 5th Nov 2009 22:37 UTC in reply to "Typical"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Here's my experience:

- Take Netbook out of box
- Plug it in
- Turn it on
- Everything works

I did what a customer would usually do, I bought a computer with the OS pre-installed. In this case, it was Ubuntu.

Later on I upgraded it to 9.04, then 9.10, and everything. Just. Worked.

I must agree with others, here. I don't think you are objective enough for us to trust the results of your experiment. Even then, the only thing it would prove is that those particular hardware combos work better with Win7 than Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Typical
by tomcat on Fri 6th Nov 2009 04:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Typical"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Here's my experience:

- Take Netbook out of box
- Plug it in
- Turn it on
- Everything works


- Connect to corporate MS Exchange server for mail & calendar. FAIL.
- Run a decent post-1995 game. FAIL.
- Sync iPod/iPhone with iTunes. FAIL.
- Run Quicken. FAIL.

Oh, yeah ... everything "works"... unless you try to do something that's easily accomplished on a Mac or Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Typical
by WereCatf on Fri 6th Nov 2009 04:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Typical"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I know I shouldn't reply to an obvious troll, but I just so much dislike baseless FUD being spread around...

Connect to corporate MS Exchange server for mail & calendar. FAIL.

Atleast Evolution does sync with MS Exchange servers. I don't know about the other mail clients as I haven't tried any of them.

Run a decent post-1995 game. FAIL

Gee, there's quite a few post-1995 games listed on WineHQ which all seem to work just peachy.

Sync iPod/iPhone with iTunes. FAIL.

iTunes doesn't seem to work too well, but atleast Rhythmbox does sync with those.

Run Quicken. FAIL.

Quicken does actually work. http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?appId=107

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Typical
by boldingd on Fri 6th Nov 2009 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Typical"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Wait, you mean Microsoft's software doesn't run unmodified on a different operating system? OH MY GOD! THAT'S INSANE! Clearly, every operating system should run every binary for every program compiled for every other operating system! I mean, obviously!
And it's totally the same for Mac OS X and Windows, right? I mean, people can just take the Amarok binaries from any random Linux distro and run them on Windows Vista's thorough, installed-by-default and foolproof POSIX compatability layer, right? Happens all the time! Surely, Linux distros are the only OS's on the planet that can't run any arbitrary damned binary image you hand them, regardless of its OS target.

Seriously, not that Linux is perfect, it obviously isn't, but it's just in no way a reasonable expectation to be able to take software written for Windows and run it (unmodified!) on Linux. That's crazy. Before WINE, nobody would've complained the Windows software didn't run on Linux, because nobody would've considered that a reasonable expectation in the first place. Moving to a different OS logically means being prepared to use different software. If you're locked in to a particular software package that isn't available on another OS, then don't you clearly can't change your OS platform -- but the absence of that software package on other OS's is not a flaw in those other OS's!

It makes about as much sense as if I tried to claim that OS X was garbage because I couldn't run Steam on it. Or, like I say, Amarok. It's just not a reasonable expectation in the first place: nobody expects every OS to have loaders and call-translation-layers for everybody else's binaries.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Typical
by tomcat on Fri 6th Nov 2009 18:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Typical"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Wait, you mean Microsoft's software doesn't run unmodified on a different operating system?


You're missing the point. People WANT to do all of these things, and they either can't do it at all under Linux -- or they have to jump through so many technical hoops with WINE that it just isn't feasible for the average person. So, where does that leave them? It forces them to use alternatives which require unnecessary compromise, when they could simply be using OS X or Windows, in the first place. That's the fundamental truth which is restraining Linux growth.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Typical
by boldingd on Fri 6th Nov 2009 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Typical"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Sure, but my point was, this is neither something that Linux distributors are doing wrong, nor something that Linux distributors can do anything to fix. Again, it makes about as much sense as me claiming that OS X is a technically inferior or flawed operating system because it won't load Amarok or XMMS or so. If you're saying that "people will never move to Linux, because they must have Windows apps..." well then fine, sure, but that's not a technical weakness in Linux.
It's also a self-fulfilling prophecy: software isn't ported to Linux, because it has a 1% market share... and it has a 1% market share because software isn't ported to it. OK then. This goes waaaaay on back to one of the original points in the earlier comments: Windows isn't ubiquitous because it's technically superior -- which it may or may not be -- but because it's already ubiquitous.

Edit: actually, it's interesting that you bring up OS X. Now, so far as I know, OS X still has application availability problems even today. I know my Mom's been affected by this even recently -- people have sent her documents in formats that do not have Mac editors. OS X is almost not even a stand-alone operating system any more: Windows Apps are so prevalent, and ports or equivalents for other operating systems are so rare, that many OS X installs either have a Windows dual-boot or a virtualized Windows guest for those (frequent!) times when you just have to be able to run Windows. So, this problem isn't Linux-specific: OS X suffers from it too, and it even uses the same two solutions, dual-booting or a Windows guest. People just object to dual-booting an OS X machine a lot less, for some reason (maybe because boot camp automates the process?).

Edited 2009-11-06 19:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Typical
by tomcat on Sat 7th Nov 2009 03:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Typical"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Sure, but my point was, this is neither something that Linux distributors are doing wrong, nor something that Linux distributors can do anything to fix. Again, it makes about as much sense as me claiming that OS X is a technically inferior or flawed operating system because it won't load Amarok or XMMS or so. If you're saying that "people will never move to Linux, because they must have Windows apps..." well then fine, sure, but that's not a technical weakness in Linux.
It's also a self-fulfilling prophecy: software isn't ported to Linux, because it has a 1% market share... and it has a 1% market share because software isn't ported to it. OK then. This goes waaaaay on back to one of the original points in the earlier comments: Windows isn't ubiquitous because it's technically superior -- which it may or may not be -- but because it's already ubiquitous.


I'm not blaming Linux for not having some software that many people find useful. It's no one's fault. But it does call into question the idea that "Linux is ready for the desktop." Until and unless these issues are addressed in some meaningful way, many people will conclude that Linux isn't ready. Sad, but true.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Typical
by archiesteel on Sat 7th Nov 2009 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Typical"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

"I'm not blaming Linux for not having some software that many people find useful."

...especially when Linux *can* run that software.

Please, carry on with your emotionally-driven anti-Linux agenda. Facts need not apply.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Typical
by archiesteel on Sat 7th Nov 2009 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Typical"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

"or they have to jump through so many technical hoops with WINE that it just isn't feasible for the average person"

You haven't used WINE in a while, and it shows. But hey, why let facts get in the way of fanboyism, right?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Typical
by archiesteel on Sat 7th Nov 2009 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Typical"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Actually, I have no problem connecting to Exchange. Tomcat FAIL.

No one in their right mind would play games on a Netbook anyway. As a video games designer, I play on consoles, that's where it's at anyway. Tomcat FAIL.

Who cares about iTunes? I sync my iPod with Banshee (or Amarok, it's still a toss-up between the two). Tomcat FAIL.

I don't use Quicken anymore, but if I needed to it runs seamlessly in Crossover Office. Tomcat FAIL.

I see your irrational hatred of Linux is still going strong. I'd try to explain to you how pathetically juvenile that is, but I'm afraid you're too far gone to listen to reason. That's really sad.

Reply Score: 2

Did Vista drop 4 % at the same time?
by bousozoku on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 06:56 UTC
bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

You have to wonder if WinVista dropped the same or more that Win7 gained.

I could see a good 70 % of unhappy WinVista users buying Win7 to get their system to work more like WinXP.

I'm even contemplating buying the family pack just because my mum's Vista is so broken and I could upgrade my WinXP machine and dual boot it on my MacBook. (Gah, did I just say that?)

Reply Score: 3

Linux will win, when:
by Kishe on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 07:38 UTC
Kishe
Member since:
2006-02-16

Reason why people pick Windows over linux is because it's foolproof.

When a average joe can install a linux and not have to hit forums/paid support channels for help within first 6 months, you'll see Linux's marketshare skyrocket.

I just moved from Linux to windows 7 because the integration of ati opensource drivers to kernel level made it hard for me to install the closed source ones and I like to use my graphic card as more than just 200$ 2d card.

When linux developers understand that shunning a proper closed source alternative for alpha-stage feeble opensource construct, is shooting yourself in foot. You'll see marketshare rise as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux will win, when:
by l3v1 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 08:10 UTC in reply to "Linux will win, when:"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

When a average joe can install a linux and not have to hit forums


It's a really bad argument, since an average joe can't install Windows, even if it's "foolproof". And even if he can click his way through the install, propery setting up a clean Windows install can take some time even for those who already know what they're looking for, plus installing third party apps. No install is an average joe task, let's stick with that.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Linux will win, when:
by Soulbender on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 10:22 UTC in reply to "Linux will win, when:"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Reason why people pick Windows over linux is because it's foolproof


Foolproof? Seriously? No doubt it has improved but it's hardly foolproof.

When a average joe can install a linux and not have to hit forums/paid support channels for help within first 6 months, you'll see Linux's marketshare skyrocket.


Average Joe can't install Windows by himself either so it appears this is more down to Linux coming pre-installed with "support" than being able to install it.

When linux developers understand that shunning a proper closed source alternative for alpha-stage feeble opensource construct, is shooting yourself in foot


It's called not compromising your ideals. Not everyone is chasing that elusive market increase.

Reply Score: 2

Bluh
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 08:30 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

With all you guys bickering about Linux and Windows, none of you noticed my carefully crafted ridiculously redundant headline ;) .

Reply Score: 1

Just my 2 cents
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 12:11 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

I find Windows 7 really enjoyable. It is the first MS OS I find "enjoyable", and that is remarkable when said by a penguin ;)
XP was OK, but nothing out of this world.
7 has its fair share of issues, but some nice feature too.
For instance a repair that actually works, most of times.

Reply Score: 2

Linux has reached the 90% market share
by ggeldenhuys on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 12:27 UTC
ggeldenhuys
Member since:
2006-11-13

It's true! ;) But can't be verified by OEM's or any other companies because the general public can download it for free and make thousands of copies for their friends. All legal of course! So counting the Linux percentage market share is impossible. But I am very "confident" that Linux is at 90% market share! I can at least confirm that Linux has 100% market share at my house. ;)

Windows 7 hitting almost 4% and Linux stuck at 1%. Whoopee!!!! Counting the sales to OEM's doesn't count. And how exactly does NetApplications know how much Linux is really used out there??? There is not f**ken way of knowing, because there are no sales figures for Linux because it's FREE!

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Windows 7 hitting almost 4% and Linux stuck at 1%. Whoopee!!!! Counting the sales to OEM's doesn't count. And how exactly does NetApplications know how much Linux is really used out there??? There is not f**ken way of knowing, because there are no sales figures for Linux because it's FREE!


And punctuation died a little inside.

But anyway. NA does not use sales figures. They track a gazillion sites - from all walks of life - and have like millions and millions of hits from all over the world to deal with. It is about as accurate as these things can get.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

They track a gazillion sites - from all walks of life - and have like millions and millions of hits from all over the world to deal with.


Don't beleive the hype. Gazillion eh?
Also, for these figures to be of any meaning whatsoever we need to know how the data was sampled, what the sample is and how the results was calculated.
Statistics for which you don't know, or can't find out, these values are meaningless.
I'm not saying they're wrong but if they won't tell you how they arrived at their conclusions it's pretty much worthless.

Reply Score: 4

siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Based on download stats from Ubuntu and Fedora and the like, desktop Linux users are likely in the millions, maybe 10s of millions. Not bad, but hardly a significant portion of the desktop market. Walk around anywhere with computers and you'll be hard-pressed to find Linux machines, or at least a significant number of them, unless you are in some specialized location like a Linux lab at a university.

Reply Score: 2

ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

It is about as accurate as these things can get.


Really?? So if my web browser identification string does not show the OS, my count is invalid (or do they then simply assume Windows). If my browser identification string is "faked" so that some idiotic website can work and not block me, that count is incorrect as well.

Very accurate - NOT!

Reply Score: 1

strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


Really?? So if my web browser identification string does not show the OS, my count is invalid (or do they then simply assume Windows). If my browser identification string is "faked" so that some idiotic website can work and not block me, that count is incorrect as well.

Very accurate - NOT!


You should recap the elementary statistics a little.

With big enough sample, browsers that do not show identification are just white nose.

Reply Score: 2

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

To say nothing about the question at hand, size alone is not a sufficient guarantor of the representativeness of a sample. Even very large samples can fail to be representative of the population from which they are drawn; equally, smaller samples can be more representative if carefully constructed. Larger is probably better, but it is not a sufficient condition to guarantee representativeness on its own. So, "it was big!" is not a valid answer to someone who questions whether the sample population was representative; big can still be wrong.

Reply Score: 2

strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

To say nothing about the question at hand, size alone is not a sufficient guarantor of the representativeness of a sample. Even very large samples can fail to be representative of the population from which they are drawn; equally, smaller samples can be more representative if carefully constructed. Larger is probably better, but it is not a sufficient condition to guarantee representativeness on its own. So, "it was big!" is not a valid answer to someone who questions whether the sample population was representative; big can still be wrong.


Fair enough. But in this case I believe the sample may be representative enough. Nothing to support this but IMO.

(But as you probably know, "being big enough" guarantees certain statistical properties via the central limit theorems.)

The point here was that things like "faked identification strings in browsers" hardly matter in the overall picture.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The point here was that things like "faked identification strings in browsers" hardly matter in the overall picture.


The point is that the "overall picture" is being deliberately misreported to you.

Linux dominates many computing markets, and even in some segments of the desktop market it is shipping at about a third of the market with Windows the remaining two thirds.

It is simply the case that some vested interests do not want you to know about this. They do not want it generally known that Linux is a perfectly viable option (even on the desktop) that is far better value for people.

Edited 2009-11-05 05:28 UTC

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

"It is about as accurate as these things can get."

...which is to say, not very much. :-)

Reply Score: 2

weird
by bsdfreak on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 15:31 UTC
bsdfreak
Member since:
2009-10-22

really weird that it is adopted so fast,
i tried windows 7 but it felt slow after 2 weeks of using it. And even worse my usb audio stopped working every hour and i had to reboot everytime to get it working again.

Reply Score: 2

Another reason why windows is so high up:
by Kishe on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 15:58 UTC
Kishe
Member since:
2006-02-16

Gaming.

Anyone who plays games with PC is destined to have atleast partition with windows in it...and huge portion of pc users these days are young people who plays.

Reply Score: 3

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Ditto: TF2 is pretty much the main reason I'm running Vista on my desktop at home.

Reply Score: 2

who reads this far down... my 2 cents
by Yamin on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 17:44 UTC
Yamin
Member since:
2006-01-10

I installed windows 7 last night... upgraded from vista.

Haven't had too much time to play with it, but the upgrade went flawless for me. Yes, your mileage will probably vary.

My only beef is they make you type in product key before your system is setup (I think you can change it after... but I didn't try that). I got the download version, so they sent me the key via email. It would have been more convenient if they prompted you for the product key once your system is setup or at the start when you launch the installer from within Vista, so you can just check the email right there. Rather than having to use a second laptop to access email, and write down the key...

Big change from vista? Not really. But I wasn't expecting much of a change. It is definitely more polished and the little things (new taskbar, HOME network...) are great.

The did a pretty good job on the UI for the control panel. It actually gets you where you need to go very quickly instead of hunting through dialogs. On every version of windows, I always have to turn on 'show file extensions, hidden files...". They have an explicit option in the Control panel for that.

I read in other reviews that the default wallpaper was bad... and yeah... what were they smoking. Who made this choice? There's a lot of great wallpapers that come installed by default. They chose the worst possible one.

I like it overall. The little things count.
Were it not for the more reasonably priced academic version, I probably would not have gotten it.

Reply Score: 2

No reason to upgrade
by boldingd on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 17:58 UTC
boldingd
Member since:
2009-02-19

I'm running Vista now on my main desktop at home (well, dual-boot with Slackware), and I won't be getting 7 any time soon. I'm a gamer, I play a lot of TF2, and I see pretty much no reason to upgrade. "More Shinier" isn't a compelling feature -- at least, not one worth paying for -- and Vista doesn't really have any deficits that Win7 fixes -- again, at least none that I feel, none that interfere with my TF2, and none that are worth paying money to fix. So I'll probably be sitting on Vista until a game comes out that I care about that doesn't run on Vista.

Reply Score: 2

RE: No reason to upgrade
by WereCatf on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 18:14 UTC in reply to "No reason to upgrade"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I personally will use XP until (if ever) ReactOS reaches a state where the drivers for all of my hardware function properly and WoW works without issues ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: No reason to upgrade
by jgagnon on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 20:25 UTC in reply to "RE: No reason to upgrade"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

ReactOS won't make it out of alpha/beta before the world ends in 2012... ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: No reason to upgrade
by WereCatf on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No reason to upgrade"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15
RE[4]: No reason to upgrade
by jgagnon on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No reason to upgrade"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

There was a wink you must have missed in my post... :p <-- me sticking my tongue out at you

Reply Score: 1

Oh man!
by SaschaW on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 22:25 UTC
SaschaW
Member since:
2007-07-19

Why does everything here turn into a Windows - Linux kind of Jihad. Really annoying. I thought the article was about a good market penetration of Win 7 before and 1 week after its release. What does this have to do with Linux or how superior it is to whatever?

I think MS did rather well with this release. I am happily using it since their official beta. What surprised me the most was how well their beta and later RC actually worked. I always considered every MS release to be beta until it reached at least SP1. But 7 did well from the start. And I think that's the reason it has been adopted by so many people even before the official release.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oh man!
by ggeldenhuys on Wed 4th Nov 2009 07:28 UTC in reply to "Oh man!"
ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

What does this have to do with Linux or how superior it is to whatever?


The author of the OSNews article said that Linux is still stuck in the 1% mark whereas Win7 already surpassed it. Nobody can actually say what the linux market share is, simple because web browser identification can easily be faked to can access to crappy websites without being blocked. Also sales figures are not actuate because of the deployment nature of open-source software. Download counts are not accurate either, because I often download Linux from work, then distribute multiple copies of that ISO to friends and family so they don't have to download it.

Windows doesn't work that this, and is much easier to track that Linux. So doing marketshare analysis to impossible or simply very inaccurate.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Oh man!
by strcpy on Wed 4th Nov 2009 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh man!"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

Download counts are not accurate either, because I often download Linux from work, then distribute multiple copies of that ISO to friends and family so they don't have to download it.


Quite the contrary: download counts probably severely overestimate the amount of Linux users. People typically download multiple ISOs even if using just one. And they do that every six months or so.

Edited 2009-11-04 20:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Oh man!
by archiesteel on Thu 5th Nov 2009 22:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oh man!"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

...on the other hand, many people just use the direct upgrade, which does *not* appear as a download *at all*.

I personally have upgraded three PCs to 9.10 (two from 8.10, one from 9.04) and none of these have been counted anywhere.

Also, I don't know of anyone who downloads multiple ISOs of the same distribution. Why would you need to?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by moleskine
by moleskine on Wed 4th Nov 2009 11:08 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Windows 7 hasn't really just been out for a week or two.

It's been out for many months now in the form of a public beta and then a pre-release release, it's been the subject of gigantic publicity for a long time in all forms of media, and it's now also the subject of a gigantic marketing campaign by Microsoft itself.

Darn right Windows 7 ought to be doing well after that little lot. The question is, is it doing well enough? The figures look impressive but given the amount of pushing Windows 7 has had, they may not be nearly so impressive as they appear.

I'd suggest coming back in a year and looking at the figures for Windows 7 from more than one angle. The key, in any case, is corporate sales. This is where Microsoft makes the real money and it is too early to say.

In the meantime, we surely don't need to do Redmond's boosting for them. They are rich enough to afford their own, after all.

Reply Score: 2

Win7 beats Linux in netbooks
by twitterfire on Wed 4th Nov 2009 15:10 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11
here in Quebec
by po134 on Wed 4th Nov 2009 17:43 UTC
po134
Member since:
2009-05-15

I remember the Vista Launch, I was still in college and we had just received msdn-aa (the thing that give all microsoft's product free of charge to students) so I didn't get the chance to get vista very early (legally speaking).

Now I'm @ the university, msdn-aa is well implented pretty much everywhere here in Quebec. Most of the people I'm talking to are running W7 because it's free: why wouldn't we try a thing that cost 130$ that we can get for free?

It would be nice to know how many of these licences are from msdn-aa or from RC builds.

as for mac OS X no doubt it could rise a lot more if it wasn't tied to 1000$ hardware and had a decent student discount (sorry but the 5% discount is a not a very good incentive). microsoft know how to please people with free products to acquint them with things so they will continue using them afterward... apple wins the store/ads battle, but on the long term, apple should copy microsoft's strategy to get their products out ;) .

Want an example? WWDC: you want the tech webcasts? it was "only" a few hundreds of dollars to get these videos presenting apple's technology on iTunes... when in the meantime you get all technet/PDC/other conferences online for free on the microsoft side. It's those little things that matters after you got your message that "we're different, better ,whatever" out there

Watching the last microsoft security report that stated that the % of infected machines running vista SP1 were more than 60% lower than the ones still on xp SP3 I can only say this is a good thing. Now they just need to offer MSE on windows update when the "security center" detects no antivirus with a bullet-window of some sort (like they were suppose to do with web-browser)

Reply Score: 2

HILARIOUS!!!!
by Anon on Wed 4th Nov 2009 23:32 UTC
Anon
Member since:
2006-01-02

Made more market share than Linux has over 20 years.... IN ONE WEEK!!

Reply Score: 3

WindowSwineFlu 7 share rising
by recession on Fri 6th Nov 2009 22:24 UTC
recession
Member since:
2009-03-18

Read the article on this website:
Apache at 10: You Can't Buy Your Way in

What strikes me that 10 years passed but Windows Web Server market still has not been able to catch up with free Apache (Linux/Unix) Web Server in spite of market share. Luckily there are one of many other technologies from open source that survived MONOPOLY.
Long live freedom fighters from Apache project!

LAMP rank change over the year +123
http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/lamp.do

IIS -8
http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/iis.do

Reply Score: 1