Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Feb 2008 21:32 UTC, submitted by Flatland_Spider
Linux The Linux Foundation has posted the second half of its long and thorough interview with Linux founder Linus Torvalds, part of the Foundation's 'open voices' podcast. While the first part of the interview focused on the Linux development community, this time Torvalds sounds off on everything from patents and innovation to the future of Linux. According to Torvalds the reason Linux hasn't taken off is that most people are happy with the way things are. "If you act differently from Windows, even if you act in some ways better, it doesn't matter; better is worse if it's different." Torvalds also attributes much of the frustration with Windows Vista to this same idea. In other words, it's not that Vista is worse than XP, but it's different and that causes distress among users.
Thread beginning with comment 300815
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Oh great!
by bornagainenguin on Wed 13th Feb 2008 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Oh great!"
bornagainenguin
Member since:
2005-08-07

I don't agree, if that was the case, they would already be switching in droves.


Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't happening. (HINT: it is happening)

Windows XP works fairly well, for the vast majority of people, just because it doesn't do the job for you and me, who are NOT normal users, doesn't mean our needs and wants are everybodies needs and wants.


I agree. Which is why I was talking about Vista, which doesn't work as well as XP did. Please read my previous comment again to see where you misunderstood me.

When normal users talk to me, I tell them both the advantages and the disadvantages to switching. I do not gloss over the bad points. Invariably some people try it and like it, other people hate it, other people need to go back because their printer/camera/music player doesn't work.


Again I agree. Which is why for those people with hardware incompatibilities I usually recommend Windows XP when it can be installed. Unfortunately even XP isn't a magic bullet--some hardware OEMs are working very hard to ensure XP fades away, but for those whose hardware is compatible with Windows XP it's usually a better solution than Vista. Of course, as I said after they see the performance differences and realize how much its going to cost them to buy a new license for XP.... Sticker shock isn't pretty. I'll leave it at that.

SP2 for XP fixed a lot of the security problems that XP had. When XP came out EVERYBODY hated it. Now that Vista is out, everyone hates Vista and sings XPs praises. Either MS DID fix the problems with XP (which they have) or people got used to it (which they have)


I don't remember EVERYBODY hating Windows XP when it came out. Everyone loved XP to my recollection of things, except for the hassle of activation and the silly default theme--which many of us changed immediately. Were there issues with viruses and spyware--sure! But I don't remember hearing too many people going back to Win98SE like you do with people rolling back to XP. Those who went to Windows 2000 usually did so because they hated having Internet Explorer integrated beyond their ability to remove it.

These days those with that complaint have largely either moved on to Linux, MacOS X, or begun using tools like nLite to install their system without it, like they used to do with 98Lite and or Fred Vorck's methods.

Uh 64bit versions of Vista Ultimate and Business can see more than 4 Gigs.


Which helps all those people who purchased their new Vista machines with 32-bit processors how? Also I think it's pretty sad when an Operating System needs to use more than 4 gigabytes of RAM to provide the same experience XP does on less than half of that....

Also, Vista manages the ram differently than XP. Read these links (and google for more)

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/kernel/wmm.mspx


So I keep hearing. Again, I don't see how in this case different is good. You're still asking that we give over three or four times the amount of system RAM to only get half or less than half the performance we got on XP... Pitiful really.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Oh great!
by BluenoseJake on Wed 13th Feb 2008 18:52 in reply to "RE[5]: Oh great!"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I'll just reply to these 2 things:

[p]Which helps all those people who purchased their new Vista machines with 32-bit processors how? Also I think it's pretty sad when an Operating System needs to use more than 4 gigabytes of RAM to provide the same experience XP does on less than half of that....[/p]

Doesn't help them at all, but at the same time, I don't think that the preformance hit is anywhere close to what you are claiming, and also, most processors manufactured in the last 3 years are AMD64 or EMT64 capable processors, so they do have options. You'd be hard pressed to find a new computer in the last year that came with Vista, and isn't running a 64bit capable processor. If somebody did buy one, they were hoodwinked.

[p]I agree. Which is why I was talking about Vista, which doesn't work as well as XP did. Please read my previous comment again to see where you misunderstood me.[/p]

I did not misunderstand you, I was responding to our statement about how MS didn't fix the major problems with XP, and then got on my soapbox. My bad.

Reply Parent Score: 2