Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Wed 4th Mar 2009 23:34 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems To add to the amounting anecdotes of late, another Acer Aspire One review appears. Not to be confused with Thom's or Eugenia's, which were different models, this review concentrates on the ZG5 version of the Acer Aspire One and how well Windows XP, Windows 7, Ubuntu 8.10, and Moblin 2 run on it, particularly in the everyday-netbooker's sense of functionality with word processing and Internet applications. Read on to get the full scoop on the One and these selected systems.
Thread beginning with comment 351776
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ringheims Auto
Member since:
2005-07-23

99% of the times, Vista works as expected when it comes pre-installed in a major brand. So I don't NEED to tweak anything. But with Linux, more often than not (also evidently from the linked by the article Ubuntu-AspireOne help page), you HAVE to tweak it to make it work as expected.

So yes, Vista for my next netbook (or just XP). Sorry.


If you wanted to run Ubuntu, why did you not buy hardware which is fully compatible with it? Running on a flash drive is also suboptimal in any situation. This is like bying a standard laptop to run OS X and expecting the works.

Good luck with XP or Vista. 6 months thereafter it will be full of malware and bloat, unless you tweak and configure it to keep those things out, in addition to evaluate anything you'll install closely for malicious features. And even then you cannot be sure.

Reply Parent Score: 1

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

You know what? I'm sick of seeing that old malware line run rampant. Yes, there's malware for windows. Yes, you can get it if you lack common sense, but that applies to any platform. Common sense, and knowing enough to not open something like FamousMovieStarNudePics.exe is a better defense than any virus protector. In the end, it doesn't matter what os they're running, malware spreads more by social engineering than any other method these days. It'll be the same in OS X if it ever becomes more dominant than Windows, no amount of operating system security is going to save idiot users from themselves if they insist on running something unsafe. It'd be the same for Linux too, malware writers don't target Windows because of its security flaws--though it does make it easier--but rather because it is the os used by the most people, the prime target if you will.
I don't like Windows either, I prefer OS X and *NIX. But FUD doesn't help, and the malware line is getting very old at this point. What next, you going to point out the blue screen of death as if it still happens every day like it did in 9x? There's plenty wrong with Windows without having to dredge up the old stereotypical issues that are less of a problem.

Edited 2009-03-05 20:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Ringheims Auto Member since:
2005-07-23

Well, where I work at user support we still get plenty of Vista, XP machines full of malware and crap, and that's on machines owned by people who probably do not surf pr0n.

Yes, in a constructed situation you could do the same on linux, but then again you could tell people to only use some apt-frontend or similar to install programs, which should keep them safe. In addition any malware run by the user will generally not be able to damage anything outside their home directory, which will make matters better in some situations.

AFAIK it is possible, at least with XP, for a website to install and run a program as administrator without notifying the user when using IE. This is because MS uses IE for windows update. I don't know if this hole has been secured by now, but it certainly used to be a problem.

Windows is a kind of worst case scenario; The OS is full of holes, it is typically set up with an password-less admin accout, and it is by far the most used.

I partly agree with you, but at the same time I see my windows-using friends put lots of effort to make the system more secure, in addition to reinstalling about once a year. The problems are evidently still at hand.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You know what? I'm sick of seeing that old malware line run rampant. Yes, there's malware for windows. Yes, you can get it if you lack common sense, but that applies to any platform. Common sense, and knowing enough to not open something like FamousMovieStarNudePics.exe is a better defense than any virus protector. In the end, it doesn't matter what os they're running, malware spreads more by social engineering than any other method these days. It'll be the same in OS X if it ever becomes more dominant than Windows, no amount of operating system security is going to save idiot users from themselves if they insist on running something unsafe. It'd be the same for Linux too, malware writers don't target Windows because of its security flaws--though it does make it easier--but rather because it is the os used by the most people, the prime target if you will. I don't like Windows either, I prefer OS X and *NIX. But FUD doesn't help, and the malware line is getting very old at this point. What next, you going to point out the blue screen of death as if it still happens every day like it did in 9x? There's plenty wrong with Windows without having to dredge up the old stereotypical issues that are less of a problem.


With a decent well-supported Linux distribution, with a large application repository available to it, one can easily adopt a viable (self-imposed) policy along the lines of "I will only ever install software from the repositories using the package manager". Adopting such a policy, and sticking to it, will guarantee that one's system will remain uncompromised and malware-free. This is hard to explain exactly why this is so, but it is much more than an idle boast ... AFAIK there has NEVER been a case of someone's system being compromised or getting malware through using a Linux repository. The repository system has an immaculate track record.

Now note that not all software that one can run on Linux is available through repositories. Having said that, nevertheless it is possible these days to for one to adopt an "install from repositories only" policy, stick to it, and not really miss out on anything.

There is no equivalent approach one can take in the Windows world. AFAIK there is no equivalent approach one can take using Mac OSX.

PS: On a Linux system, one cannot "open FamousMovieStarNudePics.exe". It won't open.

Edited 2009-03-06 00:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2