Vista who ? Try an alternative

monosharp

Right lads, had a similiar thread in computers and tech but twas deleted cause of too many vista related threads.

Anyways ....

I'm not trying to shove anything down anyones throat or anything like that, i'm just trying to get a bit of a discussion going.

I firmly believe that monopolies (whomever they are) are a REALLY bad thing for consumers. Look at IE, when they destroyed netscape and before firefox came out there wasn't a single innovative feature created. It was stagnant. Microsoft only got their act togeather when Firefox started taking away their marketshare.

Windows has now more or less had a monopoly on the desktop for how long ? How many innovative features have we seen ? How many innovative features does Vista bring to the party ? Linux for example is only catching up with Apple and MS but the speed of its development is quite staggering to say the least and it only gets better. The problem is that as of right now the largest problem is hardware support, for everything else, from word processing to music playing Linux is more then capable of replacing windows for the average PC user. (exceptions of course are games and specialised applications only availible on windows for business etc).

So i'd ask, why not at least try Linux or OSX ? At least with Linux it won't cost you a single cent, just some time.

If anyone has looked at Linux already, if it was more then 6 months ago you looked at it you'll be amazed at the progress it has made.

Give Ubuntu a go and if you give it the time it deserves you won't regret it.

Something people always say is that Linux is hard. Well thats extremely untrue, imagine someone whose first OS was Linux and then them going to Windows. They'd find it equally as hard to go to Windows as windows users find going to Linux.

So try it, and give it a chance. There are incredible things happening with Linux at the moment, beryl for example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD7QraljRfM).

For your average pc user, theres nothing stopping them from switching to Linux. email, web browsing, music, video (Yes codec problem is more or less a non-issue these days). Writing documents (OpenOffice).

So go on, give it a chance. With Vista's DRM, high hardware requirements and price, including its lack of hardware support (at the moment). Isn't it worth a few hours of your time to see what your missing ?

The more users, the more hardware companies will write device drivers.

aidan_walsh

I liked this discussion more when it was less obvious that it was a blatent advert.

The more users, the more hardware companies will write device drivers.

Strangely, this also works for Vista.

Something people always say is that Linux is hard. Well thats extremely untrue, imagine someone whose first OS was Linux and then them going to Windows. They'd find it equally as hard to go to Windows as windows users find going to Linux

You make no real point apart from the fact that they are different systems.

If anyone has looked at Linux already, if it was more then 6 months ago you looked at it you'll be amazed at the progress it has made.

I've been following Linux for the last year and don't see any real differences in this time.

Peteee

monosharp wrote:

Look at IE, when they destroyed netscape and before firefox came out there wasn't a single innovative feature created. It was stagnant. Microsoft only got their act togeather when Firefox started taking away their marketshare.

Netscape destroyed themselves. IE4 was a far better browser then Netscape which was "The extra functionality only made the software program larger, slower, and more prone to crashes, and the decision to integrate all these features together was widely criticized." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_navigator#Fall_of_Netscape]

Firefox took all its best features from Opera (A *shock* closed source browser, which, in my opinion, is by far the best browser around)

True, it did kick Microsoft up the backside and made them update IE.

Windows has now more or less had a monopoly on the desktop for how long ?

I'm glad. Imagine the tech support nightmare gotten by 5 OS's with 20% market share. Imagine the software split caused by such a divide. The hardware nightmares (They have enough trouble going between different versions of windows)

How many innovative features have we seen ?

Can you tell me what innovative features Linux have?

How many innovative features does Vista bring to the party ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_windows_vista

Take a look.

Voice recognition, Good hand writing recognition, Completely new TCP/IP stack, Completely new Audio stack (Independent application volume).

How about a completely redesigned Office UI which blows everything out of the water.

Linux for example is only catching up with Apple and MS

Linux is 16 years old. Windows NT is 13 Years old. OS X is about 5 years old. What took ye so long

but the speed of its development is quite staggering to say the least and it only gets better.

Indeed it is. It's great to see it progress at such a speed

The problem is that as of right now the largest problem is hardware support, for everything else, from word processing to music playing Linux is more then capable of replacing windows for the average PC user. (exceptions of course are games and specialised applications only availible on windows for business etc).

Hardware is linux's big problem, Along with copying Apple/Microsoft.

So i'd ask, why not at least try Linux or OSX ? At least with Linux it won't cost you a single cent, just some time.

I have Ubuntu along with Win XP as a dual boot. I have Beyrl on it, it's really nice. I'd use it more if I could get my wireless card working.

Something people always say is that Linux is hard. Well thats extremely untrue, imagine someone whose first OS was Linux and then them going to Windows. They'd find it equally as hard to go to Windows as windows users find going to Linux.

Installing windows drivers for wireless - Automatically install on Windows Update (Much improved in Vista, Even video card drivers install without a reboot), Comes with your laptop or go to site, download and double click.

Installing linux drivers for wireless -

This is a how to on how to get the stubborn infamous Broadcom 43xx wireless cards working:

First download the drivers from my website:
freewebs.com/ronserver/bcm43xx.tar.gz


1) Blacklist bcm43xx driver
Open a Terminal window
Type "sudo gedit /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist"
At the bottom add the lines
# get rid of the default kernel drivers
blacklist bcm43xx

2) Make sure network interfaces file is correct
Type "sudo gedit /etc/network/interfaces"
Remove all comments ('#') that you see so that all devices arehandled by the default network manager.
I would reboot here and make sure the wireless light goes out

3) Install ndiswrapper
Put in Ubuntu CD. Open Synaptic Package Manager (ClickSystem -> Administration -> Synaptic Package Manager),search for ndiswrapper-utils, and install it.You could also type "sudo apt-get install ndiswrapper-utils (IF you are not using ubuntu then make sure you have ndiswrapper-utils somhow installed)

4) Conigure ndiswrapper
Open terminal and navigate the folder where your drivers are."cd Desktop/bcm43xx"
Type "sudo ndiswrapper -i oem3.inf"Then type "sudo ndiswrapper -m"
Type "sudo gedit /etc/modprobe.d/ndiswrapper"Change the one line in that file to read "alias eth1 ndiswrapper"

Now you should reboot so all the drivers load.

Once you reboot the wireless light on your laptop should be lit. If it worked, you should be able to click the Network Manager icon in the top right. It will probably show a disconnected ennection becuase the computer is not plugged in.
Left click it and select eth1 from the drop down menu.
Click Configure
Click Wireless Connection, then Properties. Here just enter your network information. If you're using an unprotected network you should only have to type yout SSID.

Click OK and you should now be connected! If a green signal meter and connected network icon appear in the upper right you'll know it worked.

It should work, but it dosent. I gave up after trawling through another 5 pages of commands, changing config files (That a lot of the time I had only a vague idea of why I was changing it)

I've been using computers for 12 years, Almost have a Computer Systems degree, CCNA.

Linux has improved greatly over the past few years (Installation is now as easy as Windows, The UI is much improved, but still not nowhere near as polished as Apple/Microsoft, and you can tell a Usability testing is low on the list)

For your average pc user, theres nothing stopping them from switching to Linux. email, web browsing, music, video (Yes codec problem is more or less a non-issue these days). Writing documents (OpenOffice).

email and web - Only if you can get the web working in the first place

Music - Gotta install mp3 codecs. Granted that's copyright or patents or something.

Video - Likewise as mp3

OpenOffice - Office 2007 is far better.

So go on, give it a chance. With Vista's DRM, high hardware requirements and price, including its lack of hardware support (at the moment). Isn't it worth a few hours of your time to see what your missing ?

What DRM? Vista dosen't stop me playing any of my files.

It's definetly worth a few hours of my time.

Given the choice as a desktop OS, I'm going to pick Windows every time over Linux.

Capt'n Midnight

monosharp wrote:

I firmly believe that monopolies (whomever they are) are a REALLY bad thing for consumers. Look at IE, when they destroyed netscape and before firefox came out there wasn't a single innovative feature created. It was stagnant. Microsoft only got their act togeather when Firefox started taking away their marketshare.

This forum is about software you own a license for

And you forgot to mention that the "two birds with one stone" way they undermined Netscapes price was to shaft spyglass and their Mosaic browser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass

The deal stipulated that Spyglass would receive a base quarterly fee for the Mosaic license plus a royalty from Microsoft's Internet Explorer revenue.

Microsoft subsequently bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, and thus (making no direct revenues on IE) paid only the minimum quarterly fee

Monopolies aren't illegal in the US, only the abuse of them.

Capt'n Midnight

Peteee wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_windows_vista

Take a look.

Voice recognition, Good hand writing recognition, Completely new TCP/IP stack, Completely new Audio stack (Independent application volume).

Not innovations, even microsoft have done these before, they had some truly dreadful implimentiations of TCP/IP in the past. And I'll hold off praising the new TCP/IP implementation until it's field proven to be robust and secure.

How about a completely redesigned Office UI which blows everything out of the water.

So why do users need 3-4 hours of training on it ??

Hardware is linux's big problem, Along with copying Apple/Microsoft.
...
I have Ubuntu along with Win XP as a dual boot. I have Beyrl on it, it's really nice. I'd use it more if I could get my wireless card working.

The problem is hardware manufacturers not releasing drivers or information about the devices.

This is expecially true of devices like WiFi / tuners / bluetooth where technologies like software defined radios are used. Many of the chipsets are generic in that they can be programmed to be used at other frequencies which need licenses or power levels above the legal limit. Some of the chipsets might possibly also be used in police/security/military comms equipment.

mathias

I have 5 computers in the house at the moment , 6 if you count the work laptop belonging to my Wife ,
I have worked in the IT /Electronics sector for nearly 15 years , in that time Ive worked with all kinds of operating systems , Solaris , AIX , Redhat , OS2 , Ms Dos back in the early days and every version of Windows since Windows for workgroups.

I have recently bought a PC for linux only as its becoming a must at work and I thought it would be a good idea to learn it more.

Ive been at looking at the latest versions of linux lately to pick one that is good for me , after trying some live discs and versions of Suse , Debian , Mandriva ,Fedora and Kubuntu I settled on Ubuntu ,

This installed relatively quickly , about 30 mins , but man have I had to put some work into it to get it up to scratch since.

First off , no flash is installed so youtube was out along with any other site that uses it.
There are countless ways to get it working supposedly , after bombarding the terminal with a lot of stuff that didnt work I found out that x86_64 ubuntu , which automatically installs if you have a 64bit processor by the way , does not have a working version of flash , this is only available in 32bit , anyway I got that done by installing 32 bit firefox.

Then no DVD.s or mp3,s will play , so I downloaded players that would play MP3's , now the mp3's work but no DVD's , so I had to get a CSS lib file and link that to the player , this took an extraordinary amount of time because there are so many ways to do it posted on the web and a lot of them dont work.

Now I find quicktime cannot work in Linux , and the list goes on ,

So in a nutshell , Linux is not for beginners , you need to be able to download binaries and compile them and install them while making sure you have all the dependancies and you must do this manually if your going to learn anything , ( as pointed out to me in not too polite a manner by some of the gentlemen on here ).

Im going to soldier on and get this as good as it can be , I like doing this sort of thing anyway , but the OS still remains firmly in the land of the propellar heads like me.

As long as this is the case , it will never threaten Windows on the desktop in the home. Regardless of whos fault it is.

Microsofts 90% market share are the 90% of ordinary Joes who will slap you for saying something like " Compiling binaries " , and until linux actually works out of the box , or can be corrected by pressing a couple of buttons in a GUI much like Windows , it will stay that way.

Capt'n Midnight

mathias wrote:

I settled on Ubuntu ,
First off , no flash is installed ... Then no DVD.s or mp3,s will play ... so I had to get a CSS lib file and link that to the player
Now I find quicktime cannot work in Linux , and the list goes on ,

http://getautomatix.com/wiki/index.php?title=Installation#Easy_Direct_Installation will do much of the common windows stuff

xanim might do quicktime, but if apple haven't released info or apps for a particular OS then not much you can do since it's their IP

If a piece of Hardware doesn't have a driver for a particular OS, it's usually because the Manufacturer hasn't released one or provided information to the OS writers about it. It could also be that either the OS or hardware is obsolete or has such a small market share that's it's not worth doing.
The same goes for software.

mathias

Thanks Captn , managed to get automatix a while back and it helps with some stuff , Still havnt found a player for quicktime mov files yet but have found a converter , that will convert and then play.

The fight continues , Im enjoying this so far , and wont be giving up on it , hopefully I'll have an all singing all dancing linux machine soon.

monosharp

aidan_walsh wrote:

I liked this discussion more when it was less obvious that it was a blatent advert.

An advert for what ? I'm not selling anything.

Strangely, this also works for Vista.

.... and ? Hence my point.

You make no real point apart from the fact that they are different systems.

And what other point is there to make ? People think Linux is hard because they are used to Windows.

I've been following Linux for the last year and don't see any real differences in this time.

You haven't being following it that closely then.

What about beryl ? You don't think thats anything to get excited about ?

Try looking at the new features thats going to be in the next gnome/Ubuntu release. Automatic (or close to it) codec downloading for example.

Ghost Train

the linux driver/software support still isn't there for a lot of hardware, i've a number of device that don't work with linux

linux not a gaming platform, directx 10 in vista is a big plus for future games

most distros not as user friendly as windows

alot of the top commercial software is not availble for linux

windows makes a better media platform, wider range of options with it

vista is a new os, seems to be the best consumer os out there for the moment

most decent linux software has a windows version anyway eg firefox(which i hate as much as iexplorer), gimp(not as good as pshop)

tried linux in a number of forms over the past ten years and it has never been any where near versitile enough for me to switch from windows

don't like everything about windows, and linux has its uses, but don't see linux offering any real compotition for windows in for a llong time yet

monosharp

Peteee wrote:

Firefox took all its best features from Opera (A *shock* closed source browser, which, in my opinion, is by far the best browser around)

I only ever tried opera for a few weeks and to be honest although i really liked the features, i thought it was ugly as sin. But thats personal preference. I would agree its probably better then Firefox for some needs but for my own, firefox is perfect.

True, it did kick Microsoft up the backside and made them update IE.

Monopolies = bad.

I'm glad. Imagine the tech support nightmare gotten by 5 OS's with 20% market share. Imagine the software split caused by such a divide. The hardware nightmares (They have enough trouble going between different versions of windows)

I honestly don't know what to say to that. Writing device drivers isn't exactly "that" hard.

And speaking as someone who regularly ports windows code to Linux, porting software is really not that hard either.

Can you tell me what innovative features Linux have?

Linux itself ? or the applications available on Linux ?

I would have thought beryl would have impressed anyone even if it is just eye candy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_windows_vista

Take a look.

Voice recognition, Good hand writing recognition, Completely new TCP/IP stack, Completely new Audio stack (Independent application volume).

Innovative ? No. The old TCP-IP stack should have being placed in the dictionary alongside the word "Sucks".

Theres nothing in Vista thats innovative. New stuff, some pretty impressive added features to old stuff, but nothing innovative.

The Powershell for example, a revamped bash shell. Nothing more.

How about a completely redesigned Office UI which blows everything out of the water.

Because what people need is a new Office UI ?

Hardware is linux's big problem, Along with copying Apple/Microsoft.

Installing windows drivers for wireless - Automatically install on Windows Update (Much improved in Vista, Even video card drivers install without a reboot), Comes with your laptop or go to site, download and double click.

Because of the manufacturers, not because of Microsoft.

Cabaal

While Linux is nice I don't think its ready for the average Joe, however Windows and MaxOSX are

astrofool

With regards drivers, its taken MS a long time to get something as simple as driver signing to go mainstream, but is now yielding tangible benefits from a stability point of view, that is something that Linux as an OS cannot do as it's not a business and does not have the leverage needed. Now in 64bit, driver's have to be signed, or they don't get in, again cutting down on potential crashes and data loss.

Ultimately, monopolies are not good for the market prices of goods, but if there's ever going to be a threat to Windows, it won't be open source and it won't be linux.

And seeing as writing device driver's isn't that hard, i'm sure Monosharp will have solved Linux's wireless driver problem by the morning...

monosharp

email and web - Only if you can get the web working in the first place

Again, this isn't the fault of the Linux developers. Its hardware manufacturers fault.

Music - Gotta install mp3 codecs. Granted that's copyright or patents or something.

Ubuntu makes this as easy as clicking "next".

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28313023@N00/350208230/in/set-72157594466867001/

Video - Likewise as mp3

As above

OpenOffice - Office 2007 is far better.

For whom ?

I think i can safely say that 90% of Office users never use 90%+ of the features available.

OpenOffice is more then enough (as far as i'm concerned it shouldn't follow MS's path) for 90% of office users.

Plus, Writer (specifically) has both advantages and disadvantages against Word 2003. (Word for example does not do Master lists properly (I don't know what they are but from comparisons i've read))

If your talking about the UI then thats personal preference. For example, i did use XP for a while after it came out but couldn't stand the new "theme" and the new start menu layout thing. I couldn't stand the little arrow things that hide menu items, (what r they called ?)

I do agree that the UI design for 2007 does seem to have a lot of work done to it and at first impression it does look impressive, but in all fairness, what was "wrong" with the earlier versions ? UI design is a very very personal preference thing and i'm sure there will be plenty of complaints about '07's new interface before long.

What DRM? Vista dosen't stop me playing any of my files.

Google for DRM and why its bad. I'm not even talking about this from a Linux/Apple whatever perspective. I mean its also bad for MS, they didn't want it in the first place.

monosharp

astrofool wrote:

With regards drivers, its taken MS a long time to get something as simple as driver signing to go mainstream, but is now yielding tangible benefits from a stability point of view, that is something that Linux as an OS cannot do as it's not a business and does not have the leverage needed. Now in 64bit, driver's have to be signed, or they don't get in, again cutting down on potential crashes and data loss.

Sorry but have u ever used Linux ?

You could and can criticise linux for a lot of things but lack of stability is certainly not one of them.

Look at BSD for example if you want to really see stability in action.

Driver signings ? An excuse to make money for MS. Nothing more.

And seeing as writing device driver's isn't that hard, i'm sure Monosharp will have solved Linux's wireless driver problem by the morning...

I need the specs first :P

monosharp

eolhc wrote:

the linux driver/software support still isn't there for a lot of hardware, i've a number of device that don't work with linux

And that situation will not change without users using Linux.

Again this is not Linux's fault. Its a catch 22 situation. Devices won't work in Linux because manufacturers only write drivers for windows because thats what the majority of users use because thats what their hardware will work in etc etc.

linux not a gaming platform, directx 10 in vista is a big plus for future games

Are you a developer ? DirectX vs OpenGL is a completely separate issue but as a developer who has used both, i prefer OpenGL.

But again, its completely a personnel preference. Its like comparing apples and oranges, OpenGL vs DX, they couldn't be more equal if you tried.

D3D vs OpenGL is again another issue. D3D is used more because it allows for faster game development because it incoporates audio and input as well as graphics.

most distros not as user friendly as windows

For whom ? To do what ?

I've set up lots of people with Ubuntu Linux and as far they're concerned they're using a new theme for windows.

It all depends on what the user does and wants to do.

Browsing the web, email, music, video, voIP calls, writing docs etc is what most people i know who i have installed linux for, want. And they have absolutely no user friendliness problems whatsoever.

alot of the top commercial software is not availble for linux

And this matters because ?

None of the people i've installed Ubuntu for want Photoshop or Dreamweaver.

Your talking about a minority of home computer users.

windows makes a better media platform, wider range of options with it

Like ?

vista is a new os, seems to be the best consumer os out there for the moment

Again, why ?

most decent linux software has a windows version anyway eg firefox(which i hate as much as iexplorer), gimp(not as good as pshop)

Again, whats your point ? And gimp is designed for a different purpose to Photoshop. (use google).

I know its not a viable replacement for professional photoshop users who use it day in day out for work. Thats not the people we're talking about.

monosharp

Someone asked about Linux innovations.

Linux had Plug and Play before Bill and windows 95. Yes it can actually be attributed to Amiga as its birthplace but Linux was the first to really get it going.

Loadable Kernel modules, the first or one of the first to have it.

What about the innovation to run on practically any hardware out there ?

The server in the kernel idea first appeared in Linux, ms "borrowed" it. (Might have appeared somewhere before linux/ms but i don't know)

Try giving me a list of MS innovations.

_Kaiser_

Some quick reasons why Linux isn't ready for the mainstream:

- You need to have a fair amount of tech knowledge to even install it, and subsequently configure it for even the most basic/common of uses. Windows does it all right out of the box and they have it fairly idiot proof at this stage.

- The mainstream 3rd party support isn't there from software/hardware manufacturers.

- There's no straightforward, standard version. Instead you have a list of different distros with their own way of doing things. With Windows you pretty much can't go wrong with some version of XP. They all work the same, they all look the same, and the same software will run on them regardless. Vista looks set to continue this.

- People give out about the cost of Windows, but let's be honest. How many people go out and BUY a copy of Windows? Most of the time it comes with whatever PC you buy anyway. Let's be realistic too.. even if you build your own PC, how many of you have bought the version of XP on it? I'd say there's a lot of corporate editions that people "get" from work floating around. More than that, depending on the license agreement, you may have home use rights anyway.

Related to this.. for those who complain about the cost of Windows. Check out some of the Exchange prices, or SQL server, or any business-aimed software product (not just from Microsoft) and you'll see that's where the real money is anyway.

- Microsoft, like most software/IT companies, are far more concerned about their business/education/government etc customers than the average home user. These (large) businesses rely on these products and won't be in any hurry to change (how many places have only upgraded to Windows 2000 relatively recently, never mind XP or Vista).

- Training of (non-technical) staff is a lot easier and most people have used Windows/Office at some point in their (working) lives anyway. How many have used Linux?

I could go on, but to be honest, at this stage in the game, I don't ever see Linux being much more than a "niche" OS. Microsoft aren't that stupid that they'll price themselves out of the market or alienate their huge userbase anytime soon.

Cake Fiend

Peteee wrote:

Along with copying Apple/Microsoft.

I'm not sure how this even makes sense, and that's before we deal with the abundance of irony.

Blowfish

mathias wrote:

Thanks Captn , managed to get automatix a while back and it helps with some stuff , Still havnt found a player for quicktime mov files yet but have found a converter , that will convert and then play.

You should try Freespire, they have licensed pretty much all of the codecs and device drivers (including quicktime). The install took me about 10 mins, and every single peice of hardware I had worked out of the box.

The only disadvantage it has is that it doesn't support dual-core, although the alpha of Freespire 2.0 has been released, which does.

monosharp wrote:

Look at BSD for example if you want to really see stability in action.

The pedant in me wants to point out that BSD isn't Linux. :P

_Kaiser_

Some quick reasons why Linux isn't ready for the mainstream:

- You need to have a fair amount of tech knowledge to even install it, and subsequently configure it for even the most basic/common of uses. Windows does it all right out of the box and they have it fairly idiot proof at this stage. Remember it's an OPERATING SYSTEM. It's supposed to allow you to quickly and easily do OTHER things. You're not SUPPOSED to have to spend days getting your browsers, codecs, drivers etc installed.

- The mainstream 3rd party support isn't there from software/hardware manufacturers.

- There's no straightforward, standard version. Instead you have a list of different distros with their own way of doing things. With Windows you pretty much can't go wrong with some version of XP. They all work the same, they all look the same, and the same software will run on them regardless. Vista looks set to continue this.

- People give out about the cost of Windows, but let's be honest. How many people go out and BUY a copy of Windows? Most of the time it comes with whatever PC you buy anyway. Let's be realistic too.. even if you build your own PC, how many of you have bought the version of XP on it? I'd say there's a lot of corporate editions that people "get" from work floating around. More than that, depending on the license agreement, you may have home use rights anyway.

Related to this.. for those who complain about the cost of Windows. Check out some of the Exchange prices, or SQL server, or any business-aimed software product (not just from Microsoft) and you'll see that's where the real money is anyway.

- Microsoft, like most software/IT companies, are far more concerned about their business/education/government etc customers than the average home user. These (large) businesses rely on these products and won't be in any hurry to change (how many places have only upgraded to Windows 2000 relatively recently, never mind XP or Vista).

- Training of (non-technical) staff is a lot easier and most people have used Windows/Office at some point in their (working) lives anyway. How many have used Linux?

I could go on, but to be honest, at this stage in the game, I don't ever see Linux being much more than a "niche" OS. Microsoft aren't that stupid that they'll price themselves out of the market or alienate their huge userbase anytime soon.

monosharp

Kaiser2000 wrote:

Some quick reasons why Linux isn't ready for the mainstream:

- You need to have a fair amount of tech knowledge to even install it, and subsequently configure it for even the most basic/common of uses. Windows does it all right out of the box and they have it fairly idiot proof at this stage.

More tech knowledge to install Windows ? I think you'll find installing Ubuntu is far far far easier then installing windows XP. (I don't know about vista cause i never tried it.).

Installing Ubuntu is pathetically easy.

Configuring each ? I'm not sure what you mean.

email, web browsing, writing documents, instant messaging etc etc. All by default on Ubuntu.

Playing proprietary audio/video formats = Easy as pie before. (search for them on synaptic). Installing them in the next version of Ubuntu (out soon) is even easier. If you try to play an mp3 or (whatever) something it doesn't support it will pop up a dialog box asking u "Do u want to install codec x". You click a button and then it will play.

Tell me, how would u explain to someone how to get his XP box to play xvid or divx or some other formats ? Does windows media player install codecs automatically for you ? is there an easy to use gui to search for them ? Or do you have to go googling for them ?

- The mainstream 3rd party support isn't there from software/hardware manufacturers.

Software = Non-issue for the vast majority of users. My granny/auntie/cousins/brothers/sisters/friends don't want/need photoshop/dreamweaver/etc/etc/etc

Hardware = Yes its a problem but only for certain types of hardware. (webcams, etc).

Almost any motherboard/hard drive/sound card/graphics card will work fine out of the box.

- There's no straightforward, standard version. Instead you have a list of different distros with their own way of doing things.

1. How many versions of vista are there ?

2. This is again, a non-issue for the vast majority of users. Why would it be an issue ?

With Windows you pretty much can't go wrong with some version of XP. They all work the same, they all look the same, and the same software will run on them regardless. Vista looks set to continue this.

As above

- People give out about the cost of Windows, but let's be honest. How many people go out and BUY a copy of Windows? Most of the time it comes with whatever PC you buy anyway. Let's be realistic too.. even if you build your own PC, how many of you have bought the version of XP on it? I'd say there's a lot of corporate editions that people "get" from work floating around. More than that, depending on the license agreement, you may have home use rights anyway.

Agreed.

- Microsoft, like most software/IT companies, are far more concerned about their business/education/government etc customers than the average home user. These (large) businesses rely on these products and won't be in any hurry to change (how many places have only upgraded to Windows 2000 relatively recently, never mind XP or Vista).

You mean they r far more concerned with locking them in. This is why they will never truely support an open document format.

But again, true enough, in a way.

- Training of (non-technical) staff is a lot easier and most people have used Windows/Office at some point in their (working) lives anyway. How many have used Linux?

For the vast majority of people its not an issue. I've sat people down in front of my computer and they have happily browsered the web, read email, played music and wrote documents without a problem. They didn't even realise they wasn't using windows.

(In the above the only thing they might have found a problem with was finding the media player, but i use a winamp-like one and the icon is clearly a very musicy one in the menu.)

Granted i had to resave their documents as .doc's and not as .odp's but again, its a non-issue.

Blazer

#Elites wrote:

lets not joke ourselves...windows>all.

exactly..Linux can come on an awful lot from Red Hat 4 etc when compared it to Fedore..Ubuntu is every easy to install.
But installing a driver? oh god above..makes u want to take a sledgehammer to the pc..
More and more businesses are switching to Linux for stability but for homeusers?
Windows is the only way to go.

monosharp

Blowfish wrote:

The pedant in me wants to point out that BSD isn't Linux. :P

Yes but this is a "Anything but MS" thread.

I was just trying to point out that "driver signing" is just a money maker for MS.

monosharp

Mathew Reilly wrote:

exactly..Linux can come on an awful lot from Red Hat 4 etc when compared it to Fedore..Ubuntu is every easy to install.
But installing a driver? oh god above..makes u want to take a sledgehammer to the pc..
More and more businesses are switching to Linux for stability but for homeusers?
Windows is the only way to go.

What do you mean installing drivers ?



If the drivers are supported its a non-issue.

The only way this situation will improve is with Linux gaining more of a marketshare.

Blowfish

monosharp wrote:

Yes but this is a "Anything but MS" thread.

The thing is thats the problem with the thread right there. Advertising works, and MS have done a lot of it, up to the point that the average punter who knows absolutely nothing about PC's will automatically go for Microsoft because they are used to it, even if they are shown the alternatives.

monosharp

Blowfish wrote:

The thing is thats the problem with the thread right there. Advertising works, and MS have done a lot of it, up to the point that the average punter who knows absolutely nothing about PC's will automatically go for Microsoft because they are used to it, even if they are shown the alternatives.

I think you'd find that for the vast majority of people u could install ubuntu for them, tell them its vista and they'd never know the difference.

I suppose what i'm trying to do here is to convince more power user types to give it a go and then maybe install it for less techy relatives/friends when they see the merits it has. If of course it can do everything the person needs it to do.

Capt'n Midnight

monosharp wrote:

What about beryl ? You don't think thats anything to get excited about ?

This is the sort of stuff you could see in cinemas 14 years ago http://www.sgi.com/fun/freeware/3d_navigator.html

3D File System Navigator for IRIX 4.0.1+

As seen in "Jurassic Park"!

Capt'n Midnight

astrofool wrote:

With regards drivers, its taken MS a long time to get something as simple as driver signing to go mainstream, but is now yielding tangible benefits from a stability point of view, that is something that Linux as an OS cannot do as it's not a business and does not have the leverage needed. Now in 64bit, driver's have to be signed, or they don't get in, again cutting down on potential crashes and data loss.

Novell 3.x didn't have any effective mechanism for preventing rouge drivers trashing the OS. They just certified the NLM's properly. Uptimes were commonly so long that people were afraid to reboot.

How many stability problems are there with Debian Sarge or BSD drivers ?
(not ones you only found after a mammoth internet search)

Windows is far more stable than it used to be, but that's starting from a base where few if any end users of the worlds then most common OS had it running long enough to notice it had a maximum uptime of 49.7 days.
Oddly enough Dave Cutler was already working for them then, and his previous OS project had at least one uptime of 15 years.

Capt'n Midnight

monosharp wrote:

I've set up lots of people with Ubuntu Linux and as far they're concerned they're using a new theme for windows.

LOL

And if they ever miss IE
http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Installation = Internet Explorer 6, 5.5, 5 on Linux

monosharp

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

LOL

And if they ever miss IE
http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Installation = Internet Explorer 6, 5.5, 5 on Linux

i kid u not!

aidan_walsh

I think you'll find installing Ubuntu is far far far easier then installing windows XP.

*Windows XP doesn't ask me if I want to use a graphical installer or a command line one
*Windows XP doesn't bother me with details about bootloaders, regardless of if its the only OS on the machine

Vista is easier again, doing most of the work in the background and letting me get on with what I want to do rather than having to babysit it.

Finding and launching applications on the majority of Gnome based distros wasn't easy either - the most of the installers I used, be it apt or yum or whatever, never put shortcuts anywhere. I had to go to the command line to find where the application was installed to put it in the menu.

I think you'd find that for the vast majority of people u could install ubuntu for them, tell them its vista and they'd never know the difference.

Which, of course, is crap. I'm sorry, but if you're trying to get people to advocate the use of another system, don't pretend thats its something its not. It doesn't help your cause at all.

I suppose what i'm trying to do here is to convince more power user types to give it a go and then maybe install it for less techy relatives/friends when they see the merits it has. If of course it can do everything the person needs it to do.

But thats the crunch. If it does, that great. But if not, nothing is going to change their minds.
Anyway, most people who are going out to buy Vista aren't doing it so they can just read mail and browse the web with it.

Yes its a problem but only for certain types of hardware. (webcams, etc).

And the massively growing number of every-day use peripherals that plug in doesn't make that an issue?

Why are there websites just to show you how to install Linux on the laptop, which is just as important a part of home and work use as the desktop is? Is Linux ready for the laptop?

This is again, a non-issue for the vast majority of users. Why would it be an issue ?

No, its not. You've been singing the praises of not Linux, but Ubuntu - one distro. Can you tell me that its so easy to do all these things in Mandriva? Fedora? Linspire? Freespire? SuSE? Puppy? Do they all support all these things that Ubuntu does? And so easily?

If the drivers are supported its a non-issue.

The only way this situation will improve is with Linux gaining more of a marketshare.

There are other issues at stake than just audience size.

For the most part, I want to be able to agree with you. I want to be able to say that Linux will one day be ready for the desktop, that it will be able to compete with Windows on an equal footing. But, for a variety of reasons - not just technical, but also cultural - its not going to happen for some time.

aidan_walsh

So, Linux is easier to install than Windows.

So I went to the Ubuntu download site (I already have Ubuntu installed on a VM for test purposes, but thats not really suitable to test everyday use), and took a look. Ubuntu 6.10, the latest version. Right then - actually wait, hang on, wasn't there a DVD before? Thats a bit worrying that there are only CDs now, even of Dapper Drake, the last time I downloaded.

Anyway, jump on the torrent, burn to a disk and two hours later we're ready to install. Pop the disc in, reboot and away we go.

Right then. Text-based install, no ta. OEM install, whats that? Must be the graphical installer. Actually, better verify the disc first, its quite an old CD-RW I'm using for this. Spin, verify, Ok. Excellent - wait, why does it want to restart the computer now? Thats a bit of a bad design, ain't it?

Anyway, reboot back where we were and run the OEM. Hmm, not quite Anaconda, but its more graphical than looking at [blah]> /. Righty so. Paritioning time. Hmm, nuke my harddrive, nuke my harddrive and use an LVM, or manually configure. Third one sounds the most useful.

Well, its not great to be honest. After a bit of menu browsing, I got it to ignore my Windows parition, and set itself up a little LVM to take care of its own filesystems. Hit Continue. And it doesn't want to. No partition in the LVM has been set up as /. Thats a little silly, isn't it. Better sort that out.

More menu browsing, no sign of an option to activate a partition as /. Right, I've been at this a half hour now, Windows would be half done. Sod this, I'm off to do a write up. Reboot.

Ah. No filesystem detected. It would appear that even though no parition was set to /, even though there was nothing about bootloaders or anything akin, even though the partitioner by all sense, reason and logic should not have so much as touched the file system yet, let alone the start of the first partition when I wanted to work on space AFTER it, its managed to kill my Windows paritition. Fun.

Insert Windows XP CD, recovery console, fixmbr. It detects that there is a strange, non-native MBR in place, and offers to fix it. And...

Nothing. As of right now the Tower is switched off, awaiting some major overhaul work tomorrow to get it back working again. And why? Because it would appear that I may have downloaded the wrong CD.

Ok, that much is my own fault, and I accept responsibility. But that doesn't excuse the fact that the partition program nuked my box, making it look likely that I'll be spending a large portion of tomorrow setting it all back up again. Would Windows have done that to me? Would it heck as like.

Ubuntu: Linux for Human Beings. Mistakes and all.

monosharp

aidan_walsh wrote:

*Windows XP doesn't ask me if I want to use a graphical installer or a command line one

Whens the last time u installed Ubuntu ?

*Windows XP doesn't bother me with details about bootloaders, regardless of if its the only OS on the machine

And it will happily overwrite any other bootloader and NOT allow you to boot any other OS.

Again, whens the last time u installed ubuntu ?

Finding and launching applications on the majority of Gnome based distros wasn't easy either - the most of the installers I used, be it apt or yum or whatever, never put shortcuts anywhere. I had to go to the command line to find where the application was installed to put it in the menu.

apt and yum are package management tools not installers. RPM and DEB are the installers.

And unless you were using apt4rpm and not real apt, and unless this was over 2 years ago then your wrong.

yum, yes, i will agree. But not apt. Apt has worked perfectly, seemlessly for me on both Debian and Ubuntu for the past 2 years. Anything installed through apt has ALWAYS added itself to the menu. Unless its a command line only tool in which case why would i want to add it to the menu ?

Which, of course, is crap. I'm sorry, but if you're trying to get people to advocate the use of another system, don't pretend thats its something its not. It doesn't help your cause at all.

What have i said thats untrue ?

Why are there websites just to show you how to install Linux on the laptop, which is just as important a part of home and work use as the desktop is? Is Linux ready for the laptop?

Because of hardware manufacturers and the lack of driver support as i have previously stated.

No, its not. You've been singing the praises of not Linux, but Ubuntu - one distro. Can you tell me that its so easy to do all these things in Mandriva? Fedora? Linspire? Freespire? SuSE? Puppy? Do they all support all these things that Ubuntu does? And so easily?

I've never used Mandriva/Mandrake, Suse or Puppy. I don't know if they support these things. Linspire/Freespire, i also don't know.

My distros were Gentoo (still), Slackware, Debian, Ubuntu (still) and a brief interlude with redhat/Fedora.

Ubuntu is the best for new users in my opinion and powerful enough to keep power users happy.

Zapho

monosharp wrote:

And it will happily overwrite any other bootloader and NOT allow you to boot any other OS.

Again, whens the last time u installed ubuntu ?

Whens the last time YOU installed ubuntu? Because every time I've done it, its installed grub which lets you select
any operating system you have installed for boot, allowing you to use any and all of them.


Because I'm using Ubuntu at the moment, and I've managed to get every piece of hardware working without major difficulty and to be fair, I actually enjoyed doing it. You learn sh!te loads by doing things yourself and not being spoon fed. You don't need to be an expert to install any distro of linux but you do need to know a bit about the ins and outs of computing, but then again, you also need this to install XP. You ask someone whos only ever used a PC to type up word docs to install XP and they're going to find it difficult and probably end up messing something up. Those dudes just buy a PC, windows comes installed, and they're happy. If Ubuntu was installed in its place, they probably wouldn't notice the difference.

And look at the difference between ubuntu's driver support and windows XP. Windows DOES support more drivers straight off, but what happens if it doesn't? Every try searching for a driver for something obsecure like a specific IDE controller or something like it. Windows, being the most helpful it can be, usually lists the device as "unknown device", which is a great start! My point is that install drivers in Windows can be as much a pain in the ass as linux. And there are very few devices out there that linux don't work on linux. I haven't found any as of yet.

I've installed ubuntu on two of my friends laptops (one laptop had a major pci bus problem that windows could fix, but ubuntu ran happily on it, the other was just very old and XP ran too slowly). Both users wouldn't know very much about computing at all, your basic word docs, mp3s, movies, net and email etc. They both agree that Ubuntu is far easier to use that windows XP (once installed that is, but I did all the work there.)

Don't get me wrong though, I do like Windows XP. Its a huge improvement on old versions, very stable, but I dont think I'll be rushing out to buy Vista unless I can see some major improvements. There's absolutley no reason why any os needs 2gb of ram to run. Thats just ridiculous.

monosharp

aidan_walsh wrote:

Ok, that much is my own fault, and I accept responsibility. But that doesn't excuse the fact that the partition program nuked my box, making it look likely that I'll be spending a large portion of tomorrow setting it all back up again. Would Windows have done that to me? Would it heck as like.

Ubuntu: Linux for Human Beings. Mistakes and all.

Are you being serious ?

You couldn't follow this process ?

http://www.linuxlibrarian.org/node/319

1. Insert cd, cd boots, you are presented with the following options:
- Start or Install Ubuntu
- Start Ubuntu in safe graphics mode
- Check cd for defects
- Memory disk
- Boot from first hard disk

Maybe i'm just REALLLLLLYYY smart but i would have gone with "Start or Install Ubuntu". :rolleyes:

2. Your now logged into a fully functional livecd version of Ubuntu. Theres a little icon on your desktop that says "Install".

So i thought to myself, "Hey maybe that "install" icon has something to do with installing this OS on my machine, just maybe!"

3. Your asked what your native language is. This might be a hard one but worry not because english is the default.

4. Keyboard layout.

5. Where in the world i live. This involves clicking Ireland on a world map, can everyone do that ?

6. Disk partitioning. 2 Options.
- Use entire Disk.
- manually edit partitions.

At this point i think i should point out that if you were installing windows on a linux machine you wouldn't even get a choice here.

Although i'll agree that most people trying Ubuntu will want to keep windows we are talking about installing Ubuntu, not setting up a multiboot machine so in this scenerio the person would choose "Use entire Disk" in which case they never hear another word about it.

7. Asks u for a username and password.

8. Installs, takes approx 25-30 minutes on my machine.

Oh and while your waiting you can browse the net, write documents, etc etc since you are booted into the livecd environment. :cool:

aidan_walsh

Whens the last time u installed Ubuntu ?

Before last night? When did 6.06 come out?

What have i said thats untrue ?

Sweet mother of... I said that installing something and telling people its something else isn't going to win any Linux fans if they are all off singing the praises of the new version of "Windows" to their friends?

Maybe i'm just REALLLLLLYYY smart but i would have gone with "Start or Install Ubuntu".

*yawn*

Sorry, how do you select a non-present menu option again? Or do you have to be REALLLLLLLLLY smart to be able to?

I know it was a long post and all, but please try to at least read it before commenting.

monosharp

Zapho wrote:

Whens the last time YOU installed ubuntu? Because every time I've done it, its installed grub which lets you select
any operating system you have installed for boot, allowing you to use any and all of them.

I was talking about Windows

If Ubuntu was installed in its place, they probably wouldn't notice the difference.

Completely, totally, absolutely agree.

I've installed ubuntu on two of my friends laptops (one laptop had a major pci bus problem that windows could fix, but ubuntu ran happily on it, the other was just very old and XP ran too slowly). Both users wouldn't know very much about computing at all, your basic word docs, mp3s, movies, net and email etc. They both agree that Ubuntu is far easier to use that windows XP (once installed that is, but I did all the work there.)

Same as that, i've installed it for loads of friends and relatives and they have never being happier (no spyware/viruses) and no calling me every second week to fix something.

monosharp

aidan_walsh wrote:

Sorry, how do you select a non-present menu option again? Or do you have to be REALLLLLLLLLY smart to be able to?

This IS the first screen your presented with.

aidan_walsh

*sigh*

Thats not the menu screen I got.
I was after downloading a different CD, by clicking on the wrong torrent file. I admitted to this error as soon as it became apparent to myself.
The badly designed setup program damaged my system.

Are we on the same track now? But hey, feel free to continue to talk down to me even though you're not properly reading anything that I'm writing. You're demostrating nicely one of those cultural changes that I mention earlier before Linux will ever find a mainstream audience.

monosharp

aidan_walsh wrote:

*sigh*

Thats not the menu screen I got.
I was after downloading a different CD, by clicking on the wrong torrent file. I admitted to this error as soon as it became apparent to myself.
The badly designed setup program damaged my system.

Yes but from your post, readers will get the impression that it was Ubuntus fault and not yours.

The majority of your post is "ubuntu gave me strange options and fecked up my machine".

I'm curious, you have an ubuntu link in your sig, u say u have it installed already, but yet u downloaded the wrong version ?

Are we on the same track now? But hey, feel free to continue to talk down to me even though you're not properly reading anything that I'm writing. You're demostrating nicely one of those cultural changes that I mention earlier before Linux will ever find a mainstream audience.

I wasn't talking down to you, i was just adding in a bit of sarcasm to show how idiot proof easy the installation is. (with the right cd).

It IS easier then installing XP. Most reviews of Ubuntu don't even bother having a section on the installation anymore, they simply say "The install process is streamlined" and leave it at that.

mickoneill30

monosharp wrote:

Same as that, i've installed it for loads of friends and relatives and they have never being happier (no spyware/viruses) and no calling me every second week to fix something.

Good for you. I can do that with my Windows systems for my family too. Does that mean the OS is flawed or the admin?

aidan_walsh

readers will get the impression that it was Ubuntus fault and not yours.

Its my fault a badly designed partitioning program screwed up my disk by commiting changes to a partition I didn't ask it to, or before it had checked to see if all options were correctly set?

you have an ubuntu link in your sig, u say u have it installed already, but yet u downloaded the wrong version ?

I downloaded the 6.06 DVD, which is no longer available from the main site it seems, and have it installed on a VM. The 6.06 DVD used an Anaconda based installer if I recall correctly, which offered a variety of installation options, including a proper desktop installation.

I went to download the latest 6.10 build this time around to see the differences in it. And my, what differences there were...

Blowfish

monosharp wrote:

I've never used Mandriva/Mandrake, Suse or Puppy. I don't know if they support these things. Linspire/Freespire, i also don't know.

SuSe does support them, installation is incredibly easy with Yast.

Linspire/Freespire both have all of the drivers you need already on the cd because they licensed all of them. They are debian based too, so apt and synaptic are both there.

They also have CNR which is another installer, which has potential to be the easiest one to use for newbies, as its done in a style which is a cross between a web browser and file browser.

aidan_walsh wrote:

You're demostrating nicely one of those cultural changes that I mention earlier before Linux will ever find a mainstream audience.

I agree with you 100%, and I am a *nix user.

In fairness monosharp, the principle of bringing Linux to a wider audience is a good one. I feel however that posting a thread about it on a Windows forum is not the way to do it.

You mentioned that you had installed it for friends/family, and showed them that it is actually easy to use. That to me is the best way of spreading Linux, because people are far more likely to be happier with it if they are sat down and shown what its like, rather than having someone say "Windoes is crap, use Linux!!!1"

monosharp

mickoneill30 wrote:

Good for you. I can do that with my Windows systems for my family too. Does that mean the OS is flawed or the admin?

I may not use Windows but don't talk to me like i'm stupid.

I know u can almost completely secure Windows with enough work and time. Linux itself is of course vulnerable as well, even the BSD's are.

The point is no matter how good you setup windows for someone, they will get spyware/viruses unless their very techy people themselves. This isn't necessarily all MS's fault but they do take a lot of the blame for ignoring good OS design practices. (read anything on OS design, specifically relating to integrating user space applications with kernel space (e.g > IE) and you'll see what i mean.

XP security is not so much designed into the OS as its glued on as an after thought. Look at user permissions for just one small example. They tried to emulate Unix behaviour here and messed it up, either to try and get a balance between ease of use and security or reason x i don't know.

To secure XP u NEED an Anti-Virus, u NEED a firewall, u NEED anti-spyware and you NEED to keep these updated and your still wide open because of the windows RPC, ActiveX etc etc.

I'm not saying Linux is fullproof, it only takes some n00b using linspire 2 clicks of the mouse to delete his whole system.

But what i am saying is that by default, Linux is MUCH MUCH more secure.

monosharp

Blowfish wrote:

In fairness monosharp, the principle of bringing Linux to a wider audience is a good one. I feel however that posting a thread about it on a Windows forum is not the way to do it.

So where will the new users come from ?

You mentioned that you had installed it for friends/family, and showed them that it is actually easy to use. That to me is the best way of spreading Linux, because people are far more likely to be happier with it if they are sat down and shown what its like, rather than having someone say "Windoes is crap, use Linux!!!1"

I haven't said windows is crap once :P

Blowfish

monosharp wrote:

So where will the new users come from ?

Power users try out Linux on their own all of the time, and if they keep helping others to install/use it, the userbase will grow.

monosharp wrote:

I haven't said windows is crap once :P

Indeed you didn't, but in your first post, you start out by attacking Windows for being a monopoly, rather than telling people exactly why they should give Linux a go.

Peteee

monosharp wrote:

I only ever tried opera for a few weeks and to be honest although i really liked the features, i thought it was ugly as sin. But thats personal preference. I would agree its probably better then Firefox for some needs but for my own, firefox is perfect.

Try it again

Linux itself ? or the applications available on Linux ?

I would have thought beryl would have impressed anyone even if it is just eye candy.

Linux itself, or software on linux.

Ah beyrl.

Yes very nice, but Apple had 3D rendering of the desktop in 2002, and Microsoft announced that Longhorn/Vista would have a 3D compositing desktop back in 2003 (Nevermind the fact that Vista is only just out now)

Funny how linux people say 'Ah but the only new thing in Vista is the *needless* and *studpid* eyecandy in Vista' While 2 seconds alter they go 'OMG! Look at teh XGL desktop on my linux. Teh eyecandy is teh leet'

All the bouncy windows etc are perfectly capable on Windows/OS X.

Innovative ? No. The old TCP-IP stack should have being placed in the dictionary alongside the word "Sucks".

Ah yeah, the windows 9x/NT TCP/IP stack, which is a direct copy of the one in BSD UNIX.

The Powershell for example, a revamped bash shell. Nothing more.

Powershell is quite a bit different then a bash shell.

wikipedia wrote:

"The key difference between the usual UNIX approach and the PowerShell one is that rather than creating a "pipeline" based on textual input and output, PowerShell passes data between the various cmdlets as objects (structured data).

If accessed individually from the command line, a cmdlet's output will automatically be converted into text, but if its output is to be used by another cmdlet, it will be converted into whatever form of object is most appropriate for that cmdlet's input. This has the advantage of eliminating the need for the many text-processing utilities which are common in UNIX pipelines, such as grep and awk, as well as allowing things to be combined interactively, or in a scripting environment, which would otherwise require a more complex programming language. For instance, a listing of processes will consist not of text describing them, but objects representing them, so that methods can be called on those objects without explicit reference to any outside structure or library."

Because what people need is a new Office UI ?

Yes, they do. The office UI was an abonimation. The reason people only use 10% is becasue they dont know how to find anything else. One of the main 'new' features in 2007, has actually been there since 2000, but nobody knew it was there!

Because of the manufacturers, not because of Microsoft.

You think Average Joe gives a flying **** if the problem is the hardware vendors or Linux?

All he knows is that it isn't working, and he blames Linux/Microsft for the problem.

I'm well aware of the difficulties of trying to write device drivers with no docs from the hardware manufacturer.

Music - Gotta install mp3 codecs. Granted that's copyright or patents or something.

On windows you dont need to do anything! Likewise, All you need to do to get Firefox is download it in *one* click, but only 15% of people have done so.

I do agree that the UI design for 2007 does seem to have a lot of work done to it and at first impression it does look impressive, but in all fairness, what was "wrong" with the earlier versions ? UI design is a very very personal preference thing and i'm sure there will be plenty of complaints about '07's new interface before long.

Read this http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/11/10/the-office-2007-ui-bible.aspx

You'll see the reasons why they needed to change the interface and what they have done. It's utterly facinating reading.

What DRM? Vista dosen't stop me playing any of my files.[/quote

I know all about DRM.

All well and good for now. What happens when you finally migrate everyone to Linux, and someone wants to watch a Blu-Ray movie....whoopsie!

DRM is dancing with the devil, but at least your invited to the party.

And to reiterate, I can play all my mp3's etc etc perfectly fine in Vista. It dosent magically stop anyone.

If you want to give out about DRM, give out to Apple for iTunes, not Microsoft/Windows

Linux had Plug and Play before Bill and windows 95. Yes it can actually be attributed to Amiga as its birthplace but Linux was the first to really get it going.

Nice. If it was attributed to the amiga, then its not linux's innovation, is it?

Loadable Kernel modules, the first or one of the first to have it.

What about the innovation to run on practically any hardware out there ?

The server in the kernel idea first appeared in Linux, ms "borrowed" it. (Might have appeared somewhere before linux/ms but i don't know)

These are all well and good. Dosent exactly contribute to the usability of Linux.

Nobody's disputing Linux technological superiority to Windows (In most cases)
It's the usability.

Cabaal

monosharp wrote:

Blowfish wrote:

In fairness monosharp, the principle of bringing Linux to a wider audience is a good one. I feel however that posting a thread about it on a Windows forum is not the way to do it.

So where will the new users come from ?

You'll have to work that out for yourself, but cross-posting in other forums is not the way to advertise a program or a operating system and as such isn't generally acceptable.

For example its not acceptable for Mac users to reply in the Windows forum in relation to a users problems by saying they wouldn't have it if they installed OSX or Got a MacTM.
or
Its not acceptable for a user to reply to a thread regarding problems with IE by saying install Firefox and you'll be ok.

By all means put a Linux, or Unix link in your sig but this forum is for generally discussion of the Windows operating systems the same way that the Unix forum covers Unix/Linux.

Peteee

monosharp wrote:

To secure XP u NEED an Anti-Virus, u NEED a firewall, u NEED anti-spyware and you NEED to keep these updated and your still wide open because of the windows RPC, ActiveX etc etc.

I dont have a anti-virus, I have a hadware firewall, No anti-spyware.

I never get virus/Spyware.

Common sense goes along way.

mickoneill30

monosharp wrote:

I may not use Windows but don't talk to me like i'm stupid.

I know u can almost completely secure Windows with enough work and time. Linux itself is of course vulnerable as well, even the BSD's are.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you were stupid.

My point was that I can install a secured Windows box as easily as I can install a linux box. A hell of a lot of admins don't know what they're doing and blame Windows when stuff goes wrong. I've worked with many over the years. I know you NEED all those apps you pointed out. Thats a five minute install script for me after I install Windows or even easier if you use something like nliteos but that's going way outside the realm of normal users. For me linux isn't an option for me for my folks computers. They like to install stuff themselves. A properly updated viruschecker and spyware scanner (it's not hard) stop dodgy programs while allow proper apps. If they wanted to install stuff in linux I just don't have the time or inclination to talk them through the various packaging types or different ways to install apps. They've managed to survive without getting viruses or spyware on their PCs (I check them every so often and they need little to no help from me) and some of them really are novice users.