"I have been using Mac OS X as my primary OS for almost a year now, but last night I switched back. What spurred it is that my Mac OS X partition crashed and it wouldn't boot back into the OS - I used rescue tools and drive scanners but it appears that the partition just disappeared. I booted into a much smaller NTFS partition and put the Vista install disk in."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-10
Sorry the last time i tried, XP was more responsive than Ubuntu on similar hardware. GNome is very slow. If you add the slowness of OpenOffice on top of it, then it was almost unusable.
It was a thinkpad with 512 MB RAM.
Vista certainly needs more RAM but it provides better feature than default Linux install that you are talking about.
Even Gnome developers agree that there are slowness and memory consumption problems in GNOME. KDE is not much better either.
And don't ask me to try useless XFCE etc.
None of the options in Linux provide a smooth integrated experience of Vista or OSX.
I know i will be modded down now even though your equivalent contents are modded up just because you talk in favor of Linux and I against it.
Member since:2005-07-06
People will mod you down because you make an offtopic comment, or although against the 'policy' - a stupid poorly constructed argument. I can look through this forum and find atleast 1/2 dozen posts that are pro-Windows, infact, the latest one was marked 5 which outlined the lack of commercial applications on Linux. Sorry, to scream 'persecution' is alot easier to accept that maybe your post was crap.
Regarding your 'performance issues' - nice that you failed to provide your machine specifications, I'm sitting here with a HP dv6209TX laptop running Ubuntu, it is vastly faster than Windows Vista Business Edition on the same machine, and as for OpenSolaris B63, it is rocketting fast.
I'm sorry, but it is absolutely pathetic when an operating system that has been in development for 5-6 years to have such dog terrible performance - even if you take hardware compatibility and software compatibility out of the mix, the performance is still terrible.
I'm sorry, but when small company's and organisations (relative to Microsoft) like Conical, Sun, Red Hat, Novell, Debian and the likes can push out distributions which are superior speed, stability and security compared to an organisation the size of Microsoft, there needs to be some heads rolling at Microsoft, because obviously their resources are poorly managed and allocated.
Member since:2007-03-04
Member since:2005-07-08
Quit it folks! Let's be honest and admit that none of the current operating systems offer all of the features we want with the efficiency we expect. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, and it's really frustrating that not a single one of them offers the best of both worlds.
Desktop Linux isn't meeting expectations because the expectations are too high. Vista isn't meeting expectations because in some respects it's worse than XP. MacOS isn't meeting expectations because global climate change must be affecting the Reality Distortion Field. Anyone who actually cares about their OS of choice should be disappointed.
The only solace I take in the state of the desktop OS market is that for all of its weaknesses, Linux distributions like Ubuntu have more promise than Windows or MacOS. Things are clearly getting better in all respects. It's moving in the right direction, while Windows is two steps forward, one step back (generously speaking), and MacOS is barely moving at all.
I think that certain people are wired to perceive state and others look beyond to progress. Linux enthusiasts tend to ignore the state for the progress, and that's what leads to unrealistic expectations. Folks who look at the state of the Linux desktop here and now don't understand what in the world the Linux enthusiasts are seeing when they gush about how awesome it is. We talk of features in SVN as if they're already a part of the established stack, and if Dell is considering Ubuntu on their systems, then that might as well mean that its a radio button for every single PC they sell. If Linux will be ready for the desktop eventually, then it is ready for us today.
We think Linux is awesome because we know it will be truly awesome someday, and that's more that I can say for Windows.
Member since:2005-10-19
Vista certainly needs more RAM but it provides better feature than default Linux install that you are talking about.
You are seriously tripping if you actually believe this statement.
On a default Windows installation where is:
1 The DVD Burning software like K3B or GnomeBaker? Add Nero $86.
2 The full Office Suite like OpenOffice? Add Microsoft Office $680.
3 The graphics editing software like Gimp? Add Adobe Photoshop $650.
4 Finance software like GnuCash? Add Quicken Home $350.
5 Vector graphics software like Inkscape? Add Adobe Illustrator $600.
6 Audio format converter like SoundConverter? Add Switch $20.
That's an extra US$2386, probably more than the cost of the computer!
Incidentally, I didn't mod you down, because you are entitled to your opinion; you're just wrong.
Member since:2005-10-02
It is clearly possible that Ubuntu is slower than XP. But other persons claim Ubuntu is faster.
Calling Gnome slow is pretty much impossible since the performance of Gnome depends highly on the configuration. Gnome on my system is extremely snappy and beats the crap out of XP and even Windows 2003 Server (which is very snappy I might add). Of course I have more ram, and that may make a difference here considering the differences between NT 5.X and Linux utilisation of memory.
However it is perfectly possible that a bloated version of Gnome on Ubuntu on a machine with too little ram is slower than a streamlined version of XP. But then we would be comparing apples with oranges.
You are as usual really good at spreading undocumented claims and using big words to express little ideas.
Nobody is modding you down for liking Windows and disliking Linux. Or at least I hope it is not the case. I have modded you up on occasion and down on occasions. More down than up because you tend to be off-topic or being offensive (representing personal preferences as evidence is offensive by my standards). Claiming XFCE is useless is a good reason for modding you down - you don't even specify why you consider it useless. Despite the fact that your claims prove you haven't used Linux+Gnome/KDE in the last 5 years.
If we were talking about common Gnome 2.12 compared with Windows 2003 Server I'd grant you that Gnome was slow. But newer versions have seen spectacular speed improvements - and it was about time I might add.
Member since:2005-07-06
[...]
I know i will be modded down now even though your equivalent contents are modded up just because you talk in favor of Linux and I against it.
If I made a post that described something as "useless" and then failed to provide any substantiation of my opinion whatsoever, I probably expect to be modded down too.
But I do realize that affecting self-pity over easily-predictable reactions has become a rather popular rhetorical device around here, so hey - carry on.
Member since:2006-01-17
Member since:2005-07-06
But..but we believe them when they are talking about Macs, don't we?
Astroturfers for either company shouldn't make it onto OSNews. Especially when they're as transparant as this one is. It really pisses me off that some real news stories I submit get refused while this kind of crap makes it on.
Member since:2005-07-09
I dont think that is correct sir. Vista runs fine on 512 RAM just as OS X would. But that is definitely not recommended. Yes Vista comes with a lot of crap out of the box but I can tweak it with vLite and I can use websites like speedyvista and their knowledgebase to tweak it even more. Vista requires a lot of RAM for full performance simply because its memory management is quite aggressive in that in loads up frequently used apps and keeps it memory resident till time comes for it to be used or for it to be dumped. I was under the impression using up all the RAM was the whole point of a smart operating system. I am sure Linux does it the same way. How else would my 7.04 Ubuntu install be taking up 1.13 gig after being up for a duration for a couple of weeks?
Vista IMHO is not a terrible piece of engineering. It is quite polished and quite complete. Just all it needs is a bit of time at the beginning for it to settle down a bit what with all the indexing etc etc. I am no fanboy of any operating system. I am more of a hobbyist. I have tried the RC2 of vista and hated it. I tried Home Premium with my XPS laptop and its very nice to use. I quite like it. Just like I quite like Linux with Beryly/Compiz running. In fact I am gonna give Gentoo a twirl.
Vista does have shortcoming in terms of drivers though as their performances are subpar. That would explain the gaming issues and lack of gaming performance people are having but believe me in a year all that will be gone. I am guilty of just blaming a brand new OS release to be utterly crap etc etc but now I realize after seeing how bad OS X was when it first came out and what a refined gem it has turned out to be now...same thing with XP...uterrly crap until SP2 came out. Blame MS for screwing up the way people look at Vista but not the OS itself. It really isnt resource hungry if people take a step back and then take another look at Vista without carrying any sort of "I hate Vista" baggage or MS SUCKS sorta baggage.
Member since:
2006-01-03
this article reminded me of those commercials where they show happy clients; and they expect us to believe that those happy actors are actually use the products in real life.
very cheap and pathetic.
here's something to the author of that article. I takes vista 2GB of memory to get close to what OSX and Linux can do in 512MB. That by itself shows what a terrible piece of engineering Vista is.