Why Vista is Second Rate

[renormalised]

Have a look at this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5uEe5OzNQ&feature=related

What's more, Linux has been able to do a lot of things for quite a while that Windoze is only now just starting to implement. In any case, if Vista tried to do what the person was doing with Ubuntu Linux, it'd have more than a BSOD...the CPU would cack it and die!!!!:D:D

[Omaroo]

How generalised do you want to go to push a position?

Do we really need this? If you don't like Vista - and that certainly isn't all of us (especially those on a 64-bit platform) - then move on! :rolleyes: It really isn't important is it? I run all OS's in my line of work and I choose the best OS for any particular job at hand. Believe me - they all have foibles. Don't get me going on Ubuntu either - it too is a long, long way from perfect in many, many respects. It also hangs unexpectedly from time to time - more often than I'd care to rely on for business-critical computing. Horses for courses gentlepeople....

I like this quote I found out there in cyberspace:



As much as I personally like Linux - I tend to agree. Running as a faceless, headless X-free server environment - it's a ripper. As a desktop it's still very much a junior.

MacOSX? I wouldn't put any other OS on my artists workstion desks. The OS suits the applications they use and more importantly it panders to their left-brain-centric personalities far better than the other two.

[netwolf]

To each his own, while there are pros and cons to all things. The biggest factor here is what is used more in the majority of work enviroments. Even if there is a trend in some work places to allow both or go linux its still not large enough to displace MS. Because of there larger footprint, the have a dominance. Most kids are exposed to MS at school and use MS at home and then why would a Buisness get Linux if most of its work force operates MS?

Its just like A tapes, or Betamax, or Firewire even. While all these things are arguably good technologies the domiance of others has over shadowed them.

[Kal]

It's just a bunch of useless eyecandy in that ubuntu demo, nothing impressive for my computing needs.

[dpastern]

ho hum...how much do you really need Beryl and those fancy SFX? Really? If they're that important, how has computing and the desktop done without them for so long? It's nice, but it's eye candy.

Don't get me started on Linux, I've probably been using it far longer than you have (circa 97). I've been there and done that, I now run Vista x64 and have no issues. It's rock solid, performs, and performs well. It looks good too.

I'm not saying that Linux is bad, or that Vista is perfect. As others have said, to each their own, and they all have their own usages/niches. It's horses for courses.

Dave

[Barrykgerdes]

Hi
I watched that demo but failed to see any point in it. Comuputers can do all sorts of "eye" boggling things these days no matter what the operating system is. It's just a matter of programming. The Operating system is a matter of choice and what you feel comfortable with.

I use Windows 2000, XP, Vista, Ubuntu and DOS for different tasks. There are versions of the programs I use available for all the systems.

Because I never learnt the modern computer languages I do all my real computing tasks under DOS with Qbasic. It does not have much in the way of graphics but I can write filter programs, look at the code and solve engineering problems in Qbasic. These tasks are what computers are good at.

Games, Movies, Graphics etc. are essentially for entertainment (or time wasters). I suppose adding to threads in forums is also a good way to waste time.

However I would not be without my computer, games, movies and forums so I guess I am just a time waster like most other computer users.

Bax:thumbsup::shrug:

[picklesrules]

I agree i'm only 16 but i have used nearly every diffrent type of OS there is including many different distros of Linux, i agree with netwolf in that kids at school all use MS and many people in the workforce use MS or those doing design love to use Mac OS. Every OS has its own area of expertise. ATM im using Windows 7 64x Beta its really quite good.

[netwolf]

If you had two kids, Linus and Bill lets say and they developed two OS's would you encourage one and discourage the other? You would rather that the not only excel but also work together. Life is infinite variety in infinite diversity, but its all for nothing if not united by some purpose. All things have vices and virtures, its up to us to make best use of them.

Lot of people say Linux is free, and that is its greatest virtue. And sorry i do laugh. Nothing is free. Someone must expend effort in order to make it work, the effort is there regardless of the payback. And more effort is required to keep it running. The online forums for Linux help are just as full as MS. Nothing is free. If no effort were required then we would end up like the humans in the movie Walle.

[Omaroo]

LOL! While that's a nice sentiment Fahim - you know as well as anyone that it doesn't work that way in the business environment. It's a constant battle over value for money. The market sorts it all out pretty effectively. If Linux were good overall value it would be in a more prevalent position than it is - it's been available for a long time now.

[renormalised]

I knew I'd get a raise out of someone:P:D:D

I use Vista (normal, plain vanilla 32bit) on my lappy, and have no problems with it at all:D

I also use MacOS and I like it a lot:D. I agree Chris, for doing graphics work I wouldn't use anything else.

However, I've had far less problems with either MacOS or Linux than what I've had with flavours of Windows (not so much my own but fixing other people's)

I like the "eye candy"...it takes the monotony out of looking at a dull lifeless screen. Nothing worse than staring at Vi or Emacs all day without having some distractions:D

[marki]

I am no IT expert but know enough to keep all my gear running without outside help (thus far). I use ultimate 64bit on my PC because I choose to run a lot of ram and 32 bit vista on my laptop because it is more old program friendly (ie starry night Ver 5.0). Both platforms have proven to be stable and reliable for the past 18 months and I am not sure what all of the fuss is about, I certainly think it is better then XP in any flavour and all of my astrogear works... I used a flavour of linux (red hat???) years ago and the experience ended any future association with this product (try manually installing a network card for example, better off slamming your head in a door I reckon, bit like trying to add ram to an old NEC 286 using their bios disk :)). I am a science person, the RHS of my brain is dominant so I guess thats why I don't like Macs . They are just all wrong. Most Applications Crash If Not The Operating System Has ;)

Mark

[renormalised]

Actually, guys, your logic/analytical side of your brain is the left hand side. The right hand side is associated with creativity and such:)

[marki]

Never placed much faith in psychologist psycho babble either :D. Personally as a result of my exuberent youth I only have 2 brain cells left, one goes breath in, breath out and the other goes boom boom. As such I dont believe I have either a left or right side to my brain.

Mark

[AlexN]

at home I use..
XP Home on my EEEPC
Gentoo linux on my gateway/firewall
Win Server 2k3 on my file server
Vista 32bit on my laptop
Vista 64bit on my desktop

As Chris said, every OS has its ups and downs.. when they are used for their primary purpose, they are all fantastic... *nix OSes make servers FLY! there is no doubt about it. Vista is very capable provided your system has the power to run it... XP still has its place on older machines, or machines that do not require something different.. Its something of a work horse...

Carl is correct, the right hemisphere of the brain controls arts, creativity, and spatial/geometry sort of thinking. the left hemisphere is logic etc...

One of the many parts of psychology classes I remember.. A memory retention tool I created for the very purpose of remembering it... RALS.. Right-Arts, Left-Smarts. :)

[Omaroo]

So which side of my brain stuffed that up? LOL!

[renormalised]

Whichever one absorbed the most alcohol:P:D:D

Or reality TV:eyepop::P:D

[AstroJunk]

You're such a troll Carl ;)

Us Windows users are always made to look small. It's a form of bullying I recon. If Mac OS wasn't tied to overly expensive hardware what would it be like? and I dumped Linux because it was slower than XP and had no driver suport.

I don't care because I use Windows 7 now and it beats the rest into a pulp. :P Naaah...

[Octane]

All Linuxes are broken. Debian is the least broken.

And, Chris, I agree with that quote you posted about Ubuntu.

A lot of people have this arrogant view that if they install Linux and use it for their day-to-day tasks then they're a guru. Wrong. It's just an alternate tool to what the majority uses. It also just happens to be free. Big deal. Most people who buy computers/notebooks get an OEM copy of Windows with their machine which is factored into the cost of the system. In a way, it is also free, as you wouldn't really give it a second thought. That, or they source it through alternate means such as peer-to-peer networks (BitTorrent).

I, too, have tried various flavours of Linux and *BSD (Red Hat 5.x, Debian, Ubuntu, and FreeBSD (4.x)) over time. I try and use OpenSolaris wherever I can, as it is somewhat aligned with what I do for a crust, but Windows XP has been great for me for Photoshop, IRIS and other graphics applications.

I look forward to joining the Mac bandwagon, soon. :~)

Regards,
Humayun

[renormalised]

I was bored:P:D

I've never had problems with a slow Linux box...they've always been pretty quick. MacOS is good....but as you said, the hardware (especially the upper end Macs like G series computers) can be a bit pricey. Although mine wasn't too dear (it's an iMac).

How is Windows 7??. I've heard it's pretty stable and quick, even in beta.

[telemarker]

LOL. I've got 2 neurons left too, but one is inhibitory.:P

[netwolf]

Lot of people give up on Linux based on past experience, but i do suggest you keep getting back to it and give it a fair go. Just like MS has imporoved so has Linux and other Unix variants.
For all its merit i must admit i never adopted as my main OS. I have used it for gateway/firewall systems. And i keep ubunut virtual image handy, for the odd times i need to run something in linux. Usually to help some student learning C/C++ in Unix/Linux environment. But i never went mainstreem with it. With all its problems Vista, XP, Win2k, Nt4, Nt3.51 have alwasy been my prefered choice. Except for the mad year i ran Win98 (while it was free for a year in beta).

Even now my Dragonfly Planet camera would work much better under Linux. As per Bird's advise, but i still cant bring myself to it. And the underlying reason is convineance. Everyone else i know uses it, and most of my life has been spent in the support of it (one way or another) and i just need to be on top of it. Using it day in day out keeps it real for me to understand user issues. If i had to support Linux (helped a few friends) i just run it up. Thankfully never had to support MACOs. Would not know where to start. But i do like its eycandy. By the way isnt MacOS now built on BSD (another Unix variant). I think that BSD base is part of the reason for it (From what i have heard) greater stability.

Linus and Bill and Steve (Wozniak) brothers, now what a story that would make. But as far as computer geeks go i would say those guys have more in common then not. An OS is an OS afterall, it has the same underlying purpose.

[avandonk]

Here are two images that show my system under a moderate load. I can't wait to upgrade to 24GB of memory when it is affordable. If your hardware and software do what you want is does not matter what flavour it is. Loaded up the system still has instant response as no memory swapping has occurred yet. I have prime95 running in the background 24/7 and it does not noticably slow the system down.The third shows core temperatures at idle (min ) and load.


Bert

[AstroJunk]

It is a joy to use, and for me at least, rock solid. It has clearly been designed with touch screens in mind, so I can see another expensive purchase coming soon.

[renormalised]

Nah, go the whole hog and buy yourself one of those integrated HP computers....with the touchscreen built into the computer:D:D

[renormalised]

Dual boot your system, Fahim. Then you can have the best of both worlds. That way too, you can get more practice with supporting a Linux OS. Also, when Windows starts acting up, you can use Linux to get into it and solve your problems:D

In a family like that, Bill would be getting picked on all the time, even though he'd be the eldest:P:D

Steve (Jobs) would be like the sadistic cousin who'd be cheering Linus and Steve (Wozniac) on and Alan (Turing) and John (von Neumann) would be the fathers who'd give the boys a good clip under the ear:P:D

Ada (Countess) Lovelace would be the rich auntie that spoiled them rotten:P:D

[Omaroo]

Dual boot? Old hat...

Virtualise......

[renormalised]

You could do that too....

Oh, nearly forgot...that dotty old gent sitting on the rocking chair in front of the fireplace...that's grandad Charles (Babbage):P:D:D

[AlexN]

Go Go VM Boxes!! :) haha!

[dpastern]

I'd agree with vm's...so much easier. Although, current system is a triple boot (debian amd 64 bit, xp 32 bit, vista ultimate 64 bit). vm allows me to use debian amd64 vm, open solaris vm, openbsd vm when I need them. I mostly use the debian vm. I'm a debian guy, can't stand Ubuntu. I also use Debian pretty much most of the day, every day @ work. I personally think OpenSolaris is a better choice these days, and the support agreements with Sun are cheaper than what Redhat or Suse (Novell) offer too.

Linux has had its chance and it's a dying operating system now imho. OS X is kicking its a$$ big time on the desktop (as well as hurting Microsoft), Windows server is taking back the server side of things too. BSD is a better choice for server setups in many instances imho. Linux has far too many problems for it to ever become mainstream, and these problems are so deeply rooted it isn't funny:

1) far too many package management systems

2) far too many desktop environments

3) libc is broken imho. Very poor compatibility, and it makes Linux a ***** to develop for. That's why the major players won't touch it.

4) far too much choice in applications. You *don't* need 20 different browsers to do the same job. Better to have one uber application with lots of people working on it, than 20 smaller versions. It's diluted application development, and that is bad for the users, and bad for the developers, and ultimately, bad for the software itself.

5) X. Sorry, but it's a p.o.s.

6) far too many distributions. See point 4).

7) just simply unfriendly (to the average user) to use. End of story. All these people who say "yeah but I installed ubuntu for my grandma and she loves it" are full of it. If it breaks, if you're not around, grandma is stuffed. Try and find a Linux expert who you can trust to fix it? Not likely. Far easier to find a windows expert who can do the job.

8) consistenty in UI. Sorry, but it's a mess. An absolute mess.

I've used Linux for a good number of years, and it's gone downhill imho. I'm critical of Linux because it's the only way it's going to get better. It seems that those with the power to make changes won't. And they're the ones that will see Linux, which was a great idea, go slowly down the tube. Linux usage levels (on desktop and server) have been dropping the past 3 years. And they will continue to drop.

Dave