Why Vista WILL suck

afraser2k · 7 Mar 2006 at 09:24

Haven't they already stated that if you can't run the new gui Vista will default to the older style? Kind of makes the fuss over "forced graphics card upgrades" a mute point. :confused:

dirtydog · 7 Mar 2006 at 09:25

PinkPig said:
And I think that that's something of an odd comment!

because...? I can back up my comment if needed, but I'll let you tell me why you presumably think Linux is in a good state (as a home or workstation OS) first.

FirebarUK · 7 Mar 2006 at 09:28

Its an excellent workstation OS. If your a programmer in say C, Java etc - a Linux OS is the natural way to go imo.

Una · 7 Mar 2006 at 09:54

dirtydog said:
Certainly I think any Linux zealot is on very shaky ground saying other operating systems suck, when Linux is in such a poor state.

How in linux in a poor state? What an odd comment.

basmic · 7 Mar 2006 at 10:09

Just happens to be a coincidence that the website slamming Vista is name desktoplinux. :rolleyes:

dirtydog · 7 Mar 2006 at 10:10

Una said:
How in linux in a poor state? What an odd comment.

Why is it odd? If it was in a good state, why does it have such a miniscule proportion of the market, even though it is free?

Otacon · 7 Mar 2006 at 10:11

To be fair DD, you didnt mention desktop OS in your original post. It was somewhat a sweeping statement, and I'd have picked up on it.

Not saying I totally agree, mind, but then I'm not Joe user so it's difficult for me to comment on user friendliness.

Una · 7 Mar 2006 at 10:12

dirtydog said:
Why is it odd? If it was in a good state, why does it have such a miniscule proportion of the market, even though it is free?

Because windows is bundled on most new PC's. People are happy to keep with what they are familiar with and dont know there are better options out there?

dirtydog · 7 Mar 2006 at 10:19

Otacon said:
To be fair DD, you didnt mention desktop OS in your original post. It was somewhat a sweeping statement, and I'd have picked up on it.

Not saying I totally agree, mind, but then I'm not Joe user so it's difficult for me to comment on user friendliness.

Fair point

I do have a fair bit of experience of using various Linux distros and I do find Windows to be so much easier to use, and really superior in just about every way. I paid for my own copy of Windows XP, even though I could have used any number of Linux distros for free. I do think that Linux's market share on the desktop (I recongise its strengths as a server OS) speaks for itself really.

FirebarUK · 7 Mar 2006 at 10:28

Ok so now Workstation and Server are off your list, Desktop remains. Now I can agree with that.

Otacon · 7 Mar 2006 at 10:32

dirtydog said:
I do think that Linux's market share on the desktop (I recongise its strengths as a server OS) speaks for itself really.

Well, not necessarily. Certainly in this country yes, the Windows desktop is what you will find in peoples homes - but in many of the eastern markets, the Linux desktop dominates (very much so in China and Asia). It's not because one product is better than the other (people can, and do argue that one till the cows come home) - it's just because one got a foothold in the market before the other (reason being - in the Asian market - Linux is open source, and the software culture over there is firmly against paying for software).

User familiarity has *almost* entirely dictated desktop dominance. I cant get drawn into which product is better - because for me it's a fruitless discussion. Windows and Linux both have their strengths and weaknesses like any competitive products - But I rely on, and use them both (in server and desktop guises).

NathanE · 7 Mar 2006 at 12:01

Linux is a crappy workstation OS too. It's highly restrictive "X Windows" system makes sure of that.

There are tensions in the Linux development community about forking the project. One for server and one for desktop/workstation. Microsoft learnt this years ago. It's just not possible to create an operating system "for all purposes". Well okay it is "possible" but, as dirtydog said, the current state of Linux on the desktop certainly proves its not a desirable path to take.

2 out of 3. So dirtydog was more right than wrong.

Otacon · 7 Mar 2006 at 12:07

Depends what you use it for. Every rig that I call a workstation dual boots into Windows and Gentoo, because I can do some of my admin work easier in one than I can the other.

And on a couple of them each install has a virtual machine running the other OS

NathanE · 7 Mar 2006 at 12:13

Oh for sure. Personally I consider an OS to be of "workstation quality" when it has uncompromising multi-monitor support and display resolutions only limited by the hardware. So by "my definition", Windows isn't really in this category yet. Mac OSX fits the bill perfectly, as does Vista.

I remember during the early years of development on Longhorn, Microsoft were describing it as a "workstation OS" because it met these requirements.