Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 21:39 UTC
Windows The Windows 8 blog has a post about the improvements in Windows 8's installation process. "For Windows 8, our goal was to continue to improve reliability while also improving the installation experience and raw performance. Not only did we want it to be rock solid, but also faster and easier to use." Thankfully, the features us geeks like are still there.
Thread beginning with comment 497981
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: "us geeks?"
by leech on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 06:25 UTC in reply to "RE: "us geeks?""
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

I use Windows, and Debian, and Ubuntu. Lots of geeks use Windows, and lots don't.

Please don't tell me what I should be using. I use what is best for the job at hand.


I Agree with both of you. Since Windows currently is the best tool for the job at hand when playing games (which is the only reason I use it currently).

I got into an debate today with the Windows Administrator and my manager about the Linux vs. Windows bit, and my manager whipped out driver support. I had to tell him right off that Windows 7 supports less hardware than Linux does. He didn't believe me and also somehow blames Linux for dropping signal on a USB 3G adapter. I think I've determined the only reason it 'seems' that it's dropping the connection and it doesn't in Windows is because Linux has much more responsive network management. You unplug a cable in Linux for a second, and it says "Hey, no connection, plug me back in!!" Windows sits there for about a minute then decides "hey, wait a moment, I think you've unplugged the network... yup pretty sure... Hey, did you? Well.. I think you did. Don't lie to me, I haven't crashed yet... uhm. Yup you DID!!!"

I know this is the case, and it's especially bad in Windows 7. I sit there and watch for a good 2 minutes most times when I first log into Windows 7 and it acts like it's trying to connect to something that should be more or less instant.

Now are they improving the setup experience because they figure like Windows 98, you'll have to reinstall ever 6 months? I always say who cares about the setup, hopefully you'll only ever see it once per computer (if even that for pre-installed systems). What they need to improve is Explorer crashing if you are copying from one internal hard drive to another a large amount of files!

Yes, I've had Explorer hit the 'not responding' and crash when copying from two internal hard drives. I ended up booting into my Arch Linux install and using the ntfs-3g driver to copy the files over. Sad that the Linux coders can make a better ntfs driver than Microsoft who created it.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: "us geeks?"
by blitze on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 07:03 in reply to "RE[2]: "us geeks?""
blitze Member since:
2006-09-15

Yeah - funny about that with ntfs and Linux. Also sad that even this day and age, Windows 7 installs can become fubar'd over time if you do a lot of work on them and software updating/install-removal.

I just went back to putting a varient of linux on my laptop and found it interesting that of the distros I looked at, Ubuntu (to straight jacketed), kubuntu (nice but fail with partition tools), OpenSuse (similar as kubuntu and also didn't like Yast), and finally Xubuntu (which everone raves about here and now I know why). Xubuntu gave me a very easy install process not wating to destroy my existing Windows install and being friendly to user changes and snappy as hell. A nice alternative to Windows when I grow tired of using it during the day.

Now if Windows people could look at emulating the ease of setup and install of Xubuntu - I would be happier. As it is, I am now keeping an ISO backup of Windows in a fresh install state with important work related software, just incase.

With Ubuntu, I sort of like what they are trying but they need to make is a little easier to customise it. I like having the layout on the side of my screens though instead of at the bottom, works well with 16:9 aspect displays.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: "us geeks?"
by MOS6510 on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 07:31 in reply to "RE[2]: "us geeks?""
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I have no doubt Linux has more drivers for more hardware than Windows does.

Then again a lot of hardware is obsolete or exotic. For common hardware there are most likely drivers and this is what Windows users need and thus have.

Also to what extend does a driver support the hardware? Here at work Windows users can ask the printer to print on both sides, but my Linux PC doesn't offer this option.

So that's a bit misleading. When you use Windows and have printer A you could replace Windows with Linux that supports printer A, only to find out your full-featured multi functional can suddenly only be used as a simple desktjet.

For me what's more important than a raw number of drivers available/hardware supported is to have drivers for common hardware and have these drivers fully support all features of this hardware.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: "us geeks?"
by Dave_K on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 16:06 in reply to "RE[2]: "us geeks?""
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

I had to tell him right off that Windows 7 supports less hardware than Linux does.


Overall Linux supports more hardware, but that's mainly because it retains support for older devices that are no longer supported in Windows 7. Linux can't match the compatibility of Windows when it's paired up with hardware that's designed for it. That may be an unfair comparison, but it's also a practical one when looking for an OS.

My main PC needs XP or later, and I'd be out of luck if I had a desperate need to install NT4, but I can install Windows 7 with confidence that it’ll run perfectly on my modern hardware. If I dug out my 10 year old laptop the lack of driver updates would rule out Windows 7, but of course XP would still install without an issue. In contrast Linux, despite its support for a significantly greater range of hardware, doesn't work properly on either system (or any other PC/laptop I own).

My point is that just having support for a large selection of components doesn't equate to problem free installation on a wide range of computers.

There's also the question of what constitutes "hardware support" in Linux. It often seems to me that people declare something "Linux compatible" as soon as the most basic features more-or-less work. My soundcard is meant to be supported, but even basic stereo sound is glitchy, and I can forget about inputs and special features working.

If 100% of features working as well as they do in Windows was the requirement then Linux's hardware compatibility list would be a lot shorter.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: "us geeks?"
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 25th Nov 2011 20:37 in reply to "RE[3]: "us geeks?""
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Overall Linux supports more hardware, but that's mainly because it retains support for older devices that are no longer supported in Windows 7. Linux can't match the compatibility of Windows when it's paired up with hardware that's designed for it. That may be an unfair comparison, but it's also a practical one when looking for an OS.


Exactly. In other words, the only time Linux hardware support is better than Windows is if you have some perverse need to use an ISA SoundBlaster card that hasn't been manufactured in 15 years, or a SCSI scanner from a company that went out of business a decade ago, or an ancient serial mouse.

Reply Parent Score: 2