Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 1st Mar 2009 17:26 UTC, submitted by kaiwai
Hardware, Embedded Systems Long-time OSNews reader Kaiwai has written down his experiences with his Acer Aspire One, Linux, and Windows. He concludes: "After a hectic few weeks trying to get Linux to work, I am back to square one again - a netbook running Windows XP SP3 as it was provided by Acer when I purchased it. I gave three different distributions a chance to prove themselves. I expected all three distributions to wipe the floor with Windows XP - after all, these are the latest and greatest distributions the Linux world have to offer. There has been at least 7 years since the release of Windows XP for Linux to catch up to Windows XP and from my experience with Linux on this said device - it has failed to step up to the plate when it was needed."
Permalink for comment 351253
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by bigbeck
by Doc Pain on Mon 2nd Mar 2009 02:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by bigbeck"
Doc Pain
Member since:
2006-10-08

I hated it until a graphical menu system came out called Geoworks. Now the computer was easy to use.


And when "Windows" was released, everything was harder to use again. :-)

No, honestly: GeoWorks was a very fine piece of software. In some regards, it had functions that even today's "Windows" doesn't have, such as the ability to detach menues or simple drag and drop between applications.

Next I downloaded Kstars and Stellarium,unzipped them and proceeded to locate a setup or install file - nothing.


I don't know the Linux distribution in particular (PuppyLinux), but I think it comes with a means intended to install software on it, maybe a kind of package manager (like apt-get, yum, pkg_*). THIS is the tool that is supposed to install software. If you need to download and unzip something, you're mostly doing something wrong on a mondern Linux distribution. Like with every toolset, you have to use the correct tool for the task. Downloading things (from the web) and manually installing them looks like "from the dark age" to me.

Couldn't figure out how to install a couple of simple applications. Went to a Linux forum and found out that I had to use a compiler or some other tool from the dark ages. WTF!


What do you think (binary) programs come from? Grown on trees? :-)

Honestly again: The advice you've been given seems to look strange. Modern Linux distributions usually don't require you to use a compiler or anything else to install software. Maybe you should have studied your toolset a bit more carefully? Of course, there are highly-customizable Linux distributions that do not come with installable precompiled software packages where compiling is needed. But if you use a modern Linux distribution that is "easy" to use (definition of "easy" depends on the standpoint and experience, as always), you can simply use the tools it provides to install software.

As bad as XP is, it's still way easier and faster than Linux.


Your standpoint and experience, not mine (which is exactly the opposite).

Like others have said,it's not 1985. Simple is always best;) Maybe in a few more years Linux will catch up to Windows speed.


Well, it already has. Of course there are distributions loaded with bloat and crap, just like the MICROS~1 products they want to imitate to make its new users "feel home" faster. You cannot take them to compare.

And you're mixing "simple" and "speed", both of them usually are individual feelings of the user. "Speed" is usually a term based on efficient algorithms and maximum control over hardware functionalities. "Simple" depends on, as I said, the standpoint and the experience of the user. What may look simple to me may look strange to you, and vice versa, such as manually downloading software... dark age of 1985... :-)

Just for the record,I'm not a Micrsoft fan.


Doesn't look this way to me, but I'll believe your statement. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 3