OSNews

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.

Vista only needs 1GB of RAM. And even then Vista is allocating RAM that it doesn't need just so it can have it availablle, and then if something else needs it, Vista release that RAM.

Unused RAM is useless RAM.

Also, perhaps you forget, but OSX was in development for longer and the performance of 10.0 was FAR FAR worse than Vista is today, and the functionality wasn't even there.

Also, Compiz and Beryl are both CRAP. Not only are the effects not even close to as smooth as Vista, but the whole engine isn't nearly as powerful as Vista's.
The only reason that Vista "requires" a Dx9 video card is because it gives developers that much more room to play with as far as effects et al go, whilst know that it will run smoothly on any PC that can handle the full Aero experience.

Hear, hear. Once I got sound working (and desktop effects are off), I have no problems playing videos in Ubuntu 7.04 on my laptop, yet if I use Vista, video is very choppy, unless it's Flash or QuickTime, for some reason.

"Vista certainly needs more RAM but it provides better feature than default Linux install that you are talking about."

I guess that is true, if you consider DRM and bloat features.

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.

Nice post!

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.

1 The DVD Burning software like K3B or GnomeBaker? Add Nero $86.

CDBurnerXP pro. It's free. http://www.cdburnerxp.se/

2 The full Office Suite like OpenOffice? Add Microsoft Office $680.

What's stopping you from running OpenOffice on Windows? Please, at least you have the option of running MS Office natively with the least hassle on Windows, as opposed to jumping through hoops with Wine.

3 The graphics editing software like Gimp? Add Adobe Photoshop $650.

Again, GIMP doesn't exist on Windows? And at least you have the option of running Photoshop natively on Windows, something you lack on Linux.

4 Finance software like GnuCash? Add Quicken Home $350.

http://www.gnucash.org/ read up on the news. There is nothing stopping you from running GnuCash on Windows. Why compare GnuCash to the most expensive personal finance manager on Windows?

5 Vector graphics software like Inkscape? Add Adobe Illustrator $600.

Funny, http://www.inkscape.org/download/?lang=en lists a windows installer ...

6 Audio format converter like SoundConverter? Add Switch $20.

Do a google search for your own format converters, ok? Free ones exist too.


You and all Linux fanatics need to do a reality check. Windows is only more expensive than Linux if you factor in the initial investment of purchasing a Windows license. After that, there is a plethora of free (and Free) software that's available for use.

There is *no* point in comparing OSS alternatives with what are arguably high-end applications. Inkscape vs Illustrator is just laughable. You can always argue that the average user isn't going to need all the features of the commercial package. If that is the case, what is stopping them from using the Free/OSS alternative? Those exist on Windows too.

The only significant difference, is that Windows allows you to run all those commercial software packages with the least amount of hassle. Sure, it's not perfect but it beats messing about with Wine.

So, for those who can't be arsed to read a long post, the short version is this: Most free software packages are available on both Linux and Windows. Don't fudge the cost of running a Windows computer by adding ridiculously expensive high-end commercial software, while allowing Linux to use Free software that is just as available on Windows.

I'm sorry, no cookie for you. Most of that software is available free for windows also and a whole lot more that's not available for Linux. As an Ubuntu user, It frustrates the hell out of me to have to boot windows to use open source software that simply sucks in Linux, such as video and sound editing apps. So please don't use the argument that windows users have to buy all that software, because it's simply not true!

First of all, most of those Open Source packages you mention are available on windows as well. Secondly all of commercial those packages are far more capable than their open source equivalent. Thirdly if you don't need those advanced features and for some reason don't want open source software, there are much cheaper alternatives available on windows than the ones you mentioned. Finally if you need all those advanced features then at least under windows you have the option of getting them, something you don't necessarily have under Linux.

In fact, for basically any class of software you mention, the available choice under Windows far outstrips that of Linux. Don't get me wrong, I think Linux is great and use it every day, but available quality software is not Linux's strongest point.

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.

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.