Vista haters

[NathanE]

Its called security patching, and its literally no different from what MS does each Patch Tuesday.

Actually it's not really the same at all. Microsoft rarely needs to patch anything in the kernel because very little of the "meat" of Windows exists in the kernel. Linux on the other hand has a monolithic kernel where the idea is to place almost everything in there. That has mahoosive security ramifications...

Vista continues the gradual process of moving as much as possible out of the kernel. This time round they've moved out sound card, USB and even network card drivers (as well as countless other types of drivers) because Vista supports the User Mode Windows Driver Framework.

 

[BillytheImpaler]

whats wrong with cedega then? I mean there must be something massviely worng with it. Is performance poor compared to XP.

It's trying to run Windows binaries by setting up compatability for the API jazz that the game is looking to talk to. There is overhead associated with this.

I ask becuse if it is infact good, why doesnt one of the distros grab it by the balls and start shouting from the rooftops that linux is a REAL AND USABLE alternative to windows.

They've been doing this for years but gaming on Linux remains part of a vicious cycle. Few games are written for or ported to Linux. As a result Linux users do not expect to be able to play major games. As a result few games are written for or ported to Linux...

I always find the fact that linux does no advertising/promotiional work and relys purely on word of mouth funny, Then MS gets blamed for having a monopoly. What do you expect?

The VAST majority of distros are entirely not-for-profit. As such rely mostly on donations of time and money for their production. Most distro producers choose to use their available funds to pay developers to write better code as they see that as more important than buying magazine ads.

Where is the real alternative operating system for the average joe to access when they buy a spanking new pc?

http://en.opensuse.org/, http://www.ubuntu.com/, http://www.redhat.com/. I can go buy a Dell or HP right now that comes with RH installed. However, this is aimed at enterprise users and as such it is only available on models intended for institutional work.

I suppose in a way its almost like they dont want anyone to know what the different distros/linux can do

Huh?

A big thing holding alternative OSes like Linux back is that they're not just software; they've philosophy as well. Ubuntu is very nice and it's usable. However, users unaccustomed with licencing, etc. wonder why Flash, MPlayer, mp3s, etc. don't work out of the box. Ubuntu ships only with libre/gratis software. Many users do not neccessarily care if their software is libre. Many do.

 

[Amp34]

I really get flumoxed by these comments. When was the last time you actually tried to install Linux?
Unless you're trying to install Gentoo or Linux From Scratch there should be no way for any of the major distributions to be even remotely challenging to install, and they haven't been for a number of years now. Redhat has "Anaconda" install GUI, Mandriva has a nice GUI, SuSE / Novell Desktop has YaST2 graphical install; Ubuntu has its own flavour of a dead simple GUI for install.

All these make it as easy to install Linux on a PC as it is to do Windows, if not easier. Hardware compatibility is incredibly high with nigh on all mainstream hardware devices being supported, and generally only exotic devices struggling to be understood, and new drivers are released every day.
Nvidia and ATI both got rid of a number of quirks in their install processes for their binary drivers for both cards that make them as easy to install under Linux as Windows.
Chuck in cedega and you can run a large majority of games on the platform too.

So your point about Linux is...?

Please bear in mind that what you're talking about is a whole new OS, approached in a completely different way to Windows. There will always be a learning curve with it, just like going from Windows to OS X, or even DOS to Windows; you've got to be prepared to actually learn to use it just like you had to when you first started using Windows.

Last time I tried using linux was Ubuntu about 9 months ago. It took me about half an hour to work out which format to use before even installing the OS. The comes the myriad of options that I had to use a book to work out (vista on the other hand asks you what version you have and where you are, XP not much more). Then comes the installing of programs, instead of double clicking the program and clicking next etc you have to open a command window and type in a load of commands to actually install the program. I spent about 3 days trying to install one program and do various other bits, then gave up and installed XP professional on the machine. Done and dusted in about 2 hours. .

Admittedly your' right that maybe it should take a little longer to learn how to use a new OS, and that each new version of windows isnt really a new OS as there are a lot of similarities, but 3 days is beyond that. Using something that reminds you of windows 95 looks wise and dos usability wise (using command prompt for almost everything) isnt right for a modern OS. I class myself as pretty computer literate and am quite good at things over and above word etc. but I was flummoxed. Now how can an OS like that ever get into the mainstream where an average person could use it?

 

[Burnsy2023]

This thread makes Burnsy giggle

Firstly, I really do laugh when gizmoy2k says that XP is dead. Christ, even 2000 is still alive and kicking.

Secondly, like has been said, Vista is very different under the bonnet to XP. Supposedly it is coded to be more secure, and on paper it should be. I severely doubt it will be impervious to security holes, but it is making progess.

As for Linux, well I use many OS's on a day to day basis. NT4, WIN 2000, XP plus all the server editions. I also use Ubuntu, Redhat enterprise, and SuSE regularly as well as OSX and even OS/400. I have plenty of experience with all of these and I have to say that I like both Linux and OSX.

Linux has quite well designed GUIs for the standard end user but to be a main desktop OS, these easy menus don't run deep enough. At the end of the day it is only a GUI bolted on to the traditional command line only OS. Although I don't mind this, it's just not mature enough in the home market to be a main stream competitor. I hope this changes and I'm sure it will, but patience is required for a little while.

OSX is a strong leader in interface design, a Mac is easy to use, but I'm just not willing to pay the price for a Mac. They are overpriced and that cuts out a large section of the pubilc on a low budget.

Vista will be the defacto OS in a few years, and just like XP we will get used to it and get to like it. People don't like change, thats understandable especially when the advantages don't seem apparant. Change is inevitable, but we don't have to like it.

Burnsy

 

[BillytheImpaler]

Admittedly your' right that maybe it should take a little longer to learn how to use a new OS, and that each new version of windows isnt really a new OS as there are a lot of similarities, but 3 days is beyond that. Using something that reminds you of windows 95 looks wise and dos usability wise (using command prompt for almost everything) isnt right for a modern OS. I class myself as pretty computer literate and am quite good at things over and above word etc. but I was flummoxed. Now how can an OS like that ever get into the mainstream where an average person could use it?

This is another barrier for Linux adoption. Many Windows users are very thoroughly entrenched and they know a great deal about working with Windows. When they go to an alternative OS they are forced to re-learn habits. A power-user becomes a novice. This leads to discomfort and most users head back for familiar territory.


Linux is great for beginners. And its perfect for experts. But it doesn't work very well for those people in between... the "Power Users". They get on a linux box and the first thing they say is "where's the C drive?" Then next its "where's Program Files?" Then they bitch about when stuff is installed it gets spread all over in places like /usr/bin, /usr/share, /usr/lib, /etc, etc. (see what I did there?).

For beginners its great. "Where's My Documents?" "How do I get on the Internet?" "How do I log out?" After a few minutes they figure these things out and are on the way.

The experts get to the console and type ssh, rsync, grep, sed, find and the like and they're in heaven.

But the "power users" have so much knowledge of registry hacks and all the little things that you have to do just to make windows work. They know that the hard drive is C: and if you have more than one hard drive, the second on is D:, if not then D: is the cdrom. Apps are installed in their own folders under C:\program files\ (unless you specified something else in the installer) but you can't remove them by just deleting the folder, you have to go to add/remove programs in the control panel. If that doesn't work then you nuke the app from the registry and then delete the folder in program files. To all the "power users" out there, that is how computers are supposed to work. Show them anything else, then they are just as helpless as the beginners. They don't want to give up all that Windows specific knowledge without a fight.

Going from power user (I'll code anything) to being a "how the **** do I play mp3s" type of n00b instantly is pretty discouraging.

 

[Burnsy2023]

SNIP

Agreed, Linux is a lot different and habits will need to be re-learnt.

However, we do have the situation where a lot of users will be familiar with Windows and Linux needs to recognise this and make the transition easy.

Burnsy

 

[Garp]

Last time I tried using linux was Ubuntu about 9 months ago. It took me about half an hour to work out which format to use before even installing the OS. The comes the myriad of options that I had to use a book to work out (vista on the other hand asks you what version you have and where you are, XP not much more). Then comes the installing of programs, instead of double clicking the program and clicking next etc you have to open a command window and type in a load of commands to actually install the program. I spent about 3 days trying to install one program and do various other bits, then gave up and installed XP professional on the machine. Done and dusted in about 2 hours. .

Maybe I'm just used to linux, but I thought the choices were clear?
Desktop, server or alternative, and alternative is clearly stated on the Ubuntu page as to what conditions you might use it.
Having seen that you get three clear options:

PC (Intel x86) desktop CD
For almost all PCs. This includes most machines with Intel/AMD/etc type processors and almost all computers that run Microsoft Windows. Choose this if you are at all unsure.
Mac (PowerPC) desktop CD
For Apple Macintosh G3, G4, and G5 computers, including iBooks and PowerBooks.
64-bit PC (AMD64) desktop CD
For computers based on the AMD64 or EM64T architecture (e.g., Athlon64, Opteron, EM64T Xeon). It is not necessary for all (even most) processors made by AMD -- only their 64 bit chips.

It even tells you if you're not sure to use the intelx86 version.

Having got Ubuntu installed there is a very nice graphical utility for installation, clearly stated in the documentation, called Synaptec, which Ubuntu has used from day 1 I believe, but has definately been in the last few releases.

Bear in mind this offers what Windows doesn't even offer yet, a standard repository covering a huge number of programs that you can install on your OS without even having to install each manually. Want apache installed and running? Fine, do a search for apache, tick the box beside it. Want MySQL? Do a search for mysql, tick the box. When you're all done, click apply, approve the list of packages, and it goes away and fetches them all, installs them and starts them up for you. You don't even have to install each program individually.

I guess a comparison might be to describe an application on windows that connects to something like the download.com or sourceforge website and keeps details of all the freeware programs available for download, and does all the installation for you without you having to download each file manually and run it.
I'd love to see a repository style application for free software in Windows. Would be absolutely superb. If Microsoft produced it too they could argue that its further proof they're a) not trying to monopolise the market by only having their products easily installed by default; and b) that they're really as interested in working with the open source community as they claim to be.

For 99% of the users there should be very little need, if ever, to get to the command line in Linux. I'm a command line monkey so you'll more often than not see me choosing to use a terminal session in Ubuntu, but thats just me being me, and me being used to working in an ISP supporting linux boxes remotely via SSH

I've installed Ubuntu on a few peoples machines where they just need to do browsing and download e-mail, and the like and I've never had so much as a complaint from them, and they love the fact that they've not had to fork out £70 for the privilege.

Agreed, Linux is a lot different and habits will need to be re-learnt.

However, we do have the situation where a lot of users will be familiar with Windows and Linux needs to recognise this and make the transition easy.

Burnsy

Definately. The guys heading up the Ubuntu project have been calling for this to be considered the biggest priority in Linux for now. The kernel 2.6 is perfectly stable, performs well and there isn't even a plan for a 2.8; they want people to be focussing their efforts on the UI for both applications and for Gnome / KDE as a whole, beautifying and simplifying to make it as userfriendly as OS X.
Xorg has had the "glass" UI features that Vista boasts for a couple of years now, but they're a complete PITA to get to work, because now they've done it the developers haven't bothered with the whole user friendliness part (a big failing in OpenSource generally)

 

[gizmoy2k]

Last 3 post followed by this

it's just not mature enough in the home market to be a main stream competitor

Is pretty much what im getting at,

And your right, It takes power users too much time to re-learn how to use a OS. This could also be part of linux failures though...why doesnt it simplfy more so people find it easier to convert and even use from scratch, I mean/usr/lib /bin or anything might as well be in aribic cause either way it means nothing to anyone who is a XP Egghead

Dont become Windows but at least acknowledge that it is what most are familiar with.

My saying XP is dead i dont mean in january, I will still have to dual boot to play certin games or get some hardware to work for the first 6 months, but in time XP will be gone, Its just getting too slow even on my sig spec,

I stand by my point on availbility of an alternative, I could buy a pre build OCUK system and even it comes with preinstalled XP with no mention of an alternative. Ubuntu can easily deliver word processing and internet, but i bet not a lot of people ( who dont know any better) know that ! And even then how do you get it unless you know what your looking for or have net access already.

The magazines etc are just as guilty of not informing though cause almost every thing in your average pcformat etc is XP related.

BillytheImpaler on games, are you saying that not all games can be played on cedega then, do they still have to be coded in a certain way?
I have played UT2004 but as i know it is actually made for linux.

Nothing like a good Microosft linux debate...........

 

[BillytheImpaler]

BillytheImpaler on games, are you saying that not all games can be played on cedega then, do they still have to be coded in a certain way?
I have played UT2004 but as i know it is actually made for linux.

Nothing like a good Microosft linux debate...........

Cedega, as non-gratis software, is a proprietary fork of WINE that includes a more mature implementation of MS's DirectX API. Most games are programmed for DX so it is useful. However, since WINE/Cedega needs to "translate" the system calls from Windows-style into inux-stylethere is a performance penalty. WINE/Cedega are reverse-engineered becasue MS has not released public documentation of how the system they use works. If they did you bet your bippy that OS X would be running Windows games.

Games that do not use the DirectX API are much easier to port into Linux/Mac OS. OpenGL games like Doom*, Sid Meyer's games, Quake*, and UT* are available for multiple platforms.

ID software goes even a step further by releasing the source code of its old games under the terms of the GPL.

 

[Burnsy2023]

My saying XP is dead i dont mean in january, I will still have to dual boot to play certin games or get some hardware to work for the first 6 months, but in time XP will be gone, Its just getting too slow even on my sig spec

If XP is slow, then it's most probably not hte spec nor the OS. I'm only running a P4 2.4 and it's not slow at all. It's also not been reinstalled for about 18 months. If it is slow, then it's most probably an error inbetween the seat and keyboard

XP will be around for a long time yet. I've only recently finished phasing out NT4. I can still expect XP to around in businesses well into the next decade.

Burnsy