Don't buy windows 7 yet.

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-26-2009, 10:36 PM
chee16

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I started with Fedora 5 a couple of years ago. I have a friend who is a sys ad and very familiar with Unix based systems of the past 25 years and he has made it possible. I am not sure that I could swing it on my own although I am a lot more savvy than I was. I would really like to master the command line but it is like learning another language. Getting there slowly but surely.

this is very similar to the situation that i was in about 6 months ago before i went back to XP. i could do most things and really liked how it worked but the command line was just foreign to me as i didn't use it enough. XP has its downsides for sure but it is working for me, plus i go between my home laptop and my work computer and my work computer can't use linux as it is also my cash register. for now it is easier this way, but i am seriously thinking of going back

*note* the whole time i used Ubuntu i could not for the life of me get my S-video to work with my TV which sucked as i use it a lot. it was a big factor in my decision to switch back.
06-27-2009, 12:24 AM
VeeDubb65

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

Linux is only free if your time is worthless.

Alright, I'll take the bait. After all, this discussion on linux has turned out to be more interesting than my original point about the dangers of being an early adopter of a new OS anyway.

Linux is only free if your time is worthless. Valid argument.

But there's two sides to every argument. How much time, in the course of a year does the average windows user spend dealing with viruses, bad windows updates from MS, incompatible drivers, working to protect their home network; and here's the big one - how much time to they spend, in aggregate, a few seconds at a time, waiting on a system that takes longer to boot, takes longer to access files because of an inferior file system, takes longer to launch applications because of all the various things that must be run resident like anti-virus and anti-spyware software?

Also, while it can take longer to get certain applications running on linux (windows games and the like) it's MUCH faster to install the system and MUCH faster to install a linux app. I can got from a system with any other OS installed, or an unformatted harddrive, to a fully opperational Ubuntu system with all the hardware configured, and a full suit of basic applications in 30-45 minutes depending on the system. How long does it take to you to do a full windows install, download all updates, configure all hardware, and get all of your multi-media and office software installed?

Don't get me wrong, I stick by the mantra I've used this whole discussion. Linux is not for everyone. I know it, and I believe it. There ARE certain games that either will not work at all, or require a huge ammount of effort to set up, but those games are not typical these days. If playing one of them is important to you, it would not be reasonable to try to use linux.

On a side note, I had a thought on the way to work today, and I realized something about converting people to linux.

Over the years, I've helped a number of people convert to linux. Some have stayed with it, some have not.

What I've noticed, is that the people who seem to have the least trouble with converting to linux are the truly computer illiterate. The folks without a clue tend to have very little trouble, if any. The folks who seem to have endless problems are windows power-users.
06-27-2009, 06:23 AM
Quick Orange

That's because the people without a clue use their machine for the Internet and the occasional letter, things that even Windows 95 accomplishes well.

You're comparing apples to oranges though. From what I can tell, you're a power user and are well versed with Linux. The average computer user is about as computer literate as my grandmother and would have a hell of a time getting a Linux system completely running. I consider myself pretty computer literate, but if someone told me that I've got 30 minutes to get a user friendly computer setup, Linux would be number 3 behind mac and windows. The fact of the matter is, when the user inevitably screws something up, whether it's by always using root or just being dumb otherwise, they need their dummy disc and a forum of friendly people that can help them. Instead, they get to mess with command lines and geeks asking them what distro they've got (and they haven't a clue).

I think Linux is great, really. I just think it needs to get unified and more user friendly rather than programmer friendly.
06-27-2009, 07:04 AM
VeeDubb65

You're more or less dead on with all of your comments in that post. I am a power user (I built custom computers for pocket money in college, including automated check-in systems for two gyms) and I am extremely well versed in linux.

The one spot I disagree with you, is about which system is faster to set up. Mac is certainly easy, I've watched my girlfriend do it, but it's not the fastest.

Windows is actually quite difficult by comparison. For the record, I've yet to install W7 and I've only done two vista installs, but I've done FAR more windows installs that linux installs over the years.

Ubuntu linux however, has the friendliest and easiest system set up I've ever encountered. I have handed the disk to the most computer illiterate of people, and watched them set up their system.

You put the disk in and reboot (just like windows) and you ignore all of the prompts until it asks you what language you speak.

Then you continue to ignore all of the prompts until you are presented with a fully functional linux desktop running live from the CD.

There's a big friendly icon on the desktop that says "install"

You just double click that and stick to all of the defaults, and a very short time later you will be prompted to restart your computer. The only thing you have to select manually is a user name and password. While it's installing you can browse the internet, play little games, etc.

When it reboots, a full system with all of the basic software is ready and waiting for you. Friendly little bubbles will pop out of the system tray to let you know that you need better video drivers, and offer to go get them for you. Likewise, you're automatically notified of important updates.

Assuming a reasonably current computer, and a good internet connection, the total time to do all of this is usually right around half an hour, maybe 45 mintues.

There's no need to go to the command line for any of it. In fact, with most modern linux distributions, there's never any reason for anybody to use the terminal other than a power user who wants to.

The reason that most of the advice people give is using the terminal, is that using the terminal is simpler if you know what you're doing. For example, if you wanted to know how to install manslide on your system, and I was going to explain how, I would have two options.

A. Go through a lengthy explanation of how what menus to go through and what buttons to click and explain it in the "windows" way of doing thing where you are 100% dependent on your mouse. Although, it's still easier than windows because it's all available through software repositories that are right there. You don't have to go searching for things.

or

B. Copy and past this into a terminal and press enter, then enter your password if it asks for it.

Code:

sudo apt-get install manslide

It's just simpler to explain with B.

As far as this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

I think Linux is great, really. I just think it needs to get unified and more user friendly rather than programmer friendly.

That's why I'm such a big fan of Ubuntu. Until just a few years ago, there were so many distributions that it was tough to get help. However, ubuntu has come to dominate the home linux market so well, that it really IS becoming unified, and more user friendly. Like I said, there is never a need to use the command line under normal circumstances anymore.
06-27-2009, 08:51 AM
BeBerlin

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... Linux is only free if your time is worthless. Last month I spent 2 entire weekends trying to get UT3 to run under Wine on Ubuntu. couldn't get it to work, so I gave up.

Excellent point. Same here. Double clicked on a linux kernel in Windows, and it just wouldn't do anything. Can you believe the chutzpah of those people in Redmond, selling software that will not run software written for another operating system!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

After Windows was reinstalled (XPsp3) I double clicked the UT3 installer, ran it, and the game opened right up. That easy. Given what my time is worth (and it's not much) it's actually cheaper for me to buy Windows. (although I don't have to pay anything due to the MSDN subscription)

Equally excellent point. I did a quick calculus back when my time was still more or less worthless (i.e. in 1994), and decided that Windows was the worst deal available. On the up side, Linux (and the BSDs, and Mac OSX) have got even better since then. But to each their own.
06-27-2009, 11:34 AM
jockeys

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

Linux is only free if your time is worthless. Valid argument.

But there's two sides to every argument. How much time, in the course of a year does the average windows user spend dealing with viruses, bad windows updates from MS, incompatible drivers, working to protect their home network; and here's the big one - how much time to they spend, in aggregate, a few seconds at a time, waiting on a system that takes longer to boot, takes longer to access files because of an inferior file system, takes longer to launch applications because of all the various things that must be run resident like anti-virus and anti-spyware software?

Also, while it can take longer to get certain applications running on linux (windows games and the like) it's MUCH faster to install the system and MUCH faster to install a linux app. I can got from a system with any other OS installed, or an unformatted harddrive, to a fully opperational Ubuntu system with all the hardware configured, and a full suit of basic applications in 30-45 minutes depending on the system. How long does it take to you to do a full windows install, download all updates, configure all hardware, and get all of your multi-media and office software installed?

fair enough, and some valid points. since i DID try linux just a couple of months ago, I actually decided to do some apples-to-apples comparisons. I made a big spreadsheet, I'll post some relevant data here. notes: the same hardware was used in both cases.

Windows XP Pro SP3 vs. Ubuntu Hardy Heron

preparation
for both I downloaded the latest cd image from msdn and the ubuntu site, respectively. by having the latest builds from both canonical and microsoft, i didn't have to install a bunch of updates right away.
advantage - ubuntu. ubuntu was 7mb smaller, so it downloaded and burned to a cd 43 seconds faster.

instalation and main user configuration
ran the installers with the options set as similarly as i could. ubuntu did not recognize my motherboard's raid controller and so i had to find another hard drive to install it on. (this drive was same speed and manufacturer as the pair of raid'd drives windows got installed on. drives run in raid1, so no real speed advantage for windows)
advantage - windows. ubuntu took 43 minutes to install and configure the main user. windows took 28. add the 7 minutes it took to install avg on windows, and it's still faster.

dealing with drivers
windows was able to see my video card (standard nvidia 8800gt) and my soundcard (bog standard SoundBlaster) out of the box. both of them came with driver cds, so I installed both of them, which took 14 minutes including 1 reboot. updates to both of these drivers are handled by Microsoft Update, so i'll never have to manually install them. ubuntu saw my video card and told me i would have to install proprietary drivers to take full advantage of my card would i like to continue. i clicked yes, drivers installed in about 6 minutes including a reboot, and then my screen becomes all wonky and unusable. (resolution changes without me telling it to, drivers will only drive the monitor at 30hz) repeated attempts to fix this by looking at FAQs and the like lead to me uninstalling the proprietary driver because evidently it's buggy. total time lost so I could wind up where I started: 2 hours 14 minutes. ubuntu also didn't recognize my bog standard sound blaster and even after several hours of looking at forums and trying to figure out what was wrong with alsa I gave up and went without sound. I WAS PREPARED TO END THE TEST HERE, BUT CONTINUED ON OUT OF PURE STUBBORNESS.
advantage - windows, in every possible way. faster and less trouble.

booting
to measure boot time, I included not only power on to login screen time, but typing in password (same password for both installs) and time to desktop with no hard drive activity. windows loads a lot of assemblies AFTER login and I didn't want to give it a unfair advantage.
advantage - surprisingly, windows. I had heard linux booted fast but I wasn't so lucky for some reason. power on to desktop with no hdd activity for windows was 1 minute 15 seconds. ubuntu took 2 minute 53 seconds!

mail and internet
I use firefox in windows, so that stayed the same. i use outlook 2007 in windows, so in ubuntu i used thunderbird, which is a pretty decent piece of 'ware although it doesn't work right with an exchange server and won't do meeting requests. however, in both cases, the stuff was pre-installed in ubuntu.
advantage - tied. ubuntu had these apps preinstalled which is nice (who doesn't need an email client and a non-IE browser?) but their mail client doesn't measure up to outlook.

office and other apps
I use gimp in windows, so that stayed the same. I use office 2007 in windows, and whatever the latest stable version of OpenOffice.org came installed with ubuntu. while I am familiar with OOO and can use it, I would describe it as barely adequate... some of the stuff I can do with Office 2007 can't be done in OOO. otoh, Office 2007 has some truly horrific bloat... it's a 4gb install.
advantage - tied again. OOO is preinstalled on ubuntu but is nowhere as useful as Office 2007. Office 2007 takes almost an hour to install (54 minutes) and is hugely bloated. updates are handled automatically for both systems.

development
I am a software engineer/weapons engineer by trade and so a lot of my job is writing code. I mostly use C#.Net (flame away, I know it's coming) although some of the drivers for hardware I write are written in C, C++ or assembly. Mono is so incomplete, it's pretty much useless (maybe they'll finish someday?) although you can find some very decent tools for working with assembly on ubuntu... I was pleasantly surprised. however, there is no ubuntu equivalent to Visual Studio, so points off for that. MySQL on ubuntu runs very quickly and has reasonably good tools for working with it, but they are not as complete or powerful as MSSQL2005 (haven't migrated to 2008 yet) and SQL Management Studio. They also don't take up 5gb of my drive (including documentation) and cost thousands of dollars.
advantage - windows, but not by a huge margin. if there was any kind of halfway decent IDE for ubuntu, I would have judged it a tie, but I wasn't able to find one. (yes, I tried Eclipse, but it's terrible)

maintenance
system updates, app updates and the like. Microsoft Update (not windows update) updates all my microsoft apps; office, visual studio, mssql server, etc. it also updates my drivers. ubuntu's updater updates EVERYTHING that's installed. avg updates itself, but isn't even needed on ubuntu
advantage - ubuntu. although i don't spend any extra time keeping windows up to date (it does it all automatically) i found the ubuntu updated to be very well written and it genuinely impressed me, so the advantage goes to ubuntu if for style points alone.

file operations
during my comparison I did some extensive tests for moving files, burning cds, all that kind of thing. I won't post all the results here (it's like 10 pages of data) but I will say that there was less than a 1% difference in aggregate time between systems. I used ReiserFS for my ubuntu system and user partitions.
advantage - tied.

gaming
as previously mentioned I could not get UT3 to work AT ALL under Wine, although I was able to get Warcraft3 (a 7 year old game) to work just fine (albeit without sound and at a lower resolution due to lack of video drivers). those are basically the only two games I play.
advantage - windows by a mile.

conclusions -
there are good and bad things about linux. (well, ubuntu anyhow) I was very impressed by the completeness of the ubuntu install, although I wasn't crazy about the lack of sound drivers (let's be honest... that's a dealbreaker on it's own) and lack of a good IDE. you have to install a bunch of extra stuff with windows, and that takes a few hours (Visual Studio, in particular takes a VERY long time to install) although I spent those same few hours in ubuntu trying to make things work that should have worked on their own. (sound card, video card) daily operation is not at all faster in linux despite what i'd heard; it's very slow to boot up and in most cases applications do not load appreciably faster. it also takes WAY LONGER to shut down than windows, but I don't include this because some people leave their computers on all the time.

linux is good for some things... i built a computer for my 7 year old nephew and put ubuntu on it for him to surf the web and play a few games, and he loves it (luckily the soundblaster i put in that computer was automatically recognized. but it was also 9 years old). but for serious, professional work i cannot in any way recommend it. in the end, I'd say ubuntu was worth what I paid for it ;) although windows is still a bargain, time-wise, even at full price.

comments are welcome.
06-27-2009, 04:09 PM
BeBerlin
Oh God. I swore never to do this again many years ago. But this comparison so full of errors that I must.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

Windows XP Pro SP3 vs. Ubuntu Hardy Heron

Apple, meet orange. Orange, this is apple. To wit, "Windows" is the operating system and a few more or less useful tools. "Ubuntu" is the operating system plus hundreds of programs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

instalation and main user configuration
ran the installers with the options set as similarly as i could. ubuntu did not recognize my motherboard's raid controller and so i had to find another hard drive to install it on. (this drive was same speed and manufacturer as the pair of raid'd drives windows got installed on. drives run in raid1, so no real speed advantage for windows)
advantage - windows. ubuntu took 43 minutes to install and configure the main user. windows took 28. add the 7 minutes it took to install avg on windows, and it's still faster.

Well, would you buy a RAID controller that said "won't work with Windows"? No? Then the incompatibility is meaningless. What's more important is that the default Ubuntu install requires minimum user interaction, runs cleanly, and delivers a system with secure default settings. Case in point, your Windows system, if connected to the net, will be infested with viruses before you have had a chance to install an antivirus (that's what they're called, right? Haven't felt the need to use one on Unix for apparent reasons.).

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

dealing with drivers
[massive problems with Linux]I WAS PREPARED TO END THE TEST HERE, BUT CONTINUED ON OUT OF PURE STUBBORNESS.
advantage - windows, in every possible way. faster and less trouble.

Same argument: You bought a card that was optimised for Windows and whose specs are not documented, so free programmers cannot produce decent drivers. It happens. Just don't get me started about hardware that was advertised as running with Windows, and then not doing. Or hardware that ended as a doorstopper because a Windows upgrade made the original drivers unusable. I'm not saying your problems aren't real. But I've installed Linux on about 50 machines in the last twelve months (mostly Ubuntu out of sheer laziness), and only two gave me that level of problems (one being my home desktop, who wouldn't play nicely with some esoteric xinerama stuff, don't ask).

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

booting
to measure boot time, I included not only power on to login screen time, but typing in password (same password for both installs) and time to desktop with no hard drive activity. windows loads a lot of assemblies AFTER login and I didn't want to give it a unfair advantage.
advantage - surprisingly, windows. I had heard linux booted fast but I wasn't so lucky for some reason. power on to desktop with no hdd activity for windows was 1 minute 15 seconds. ubuntu took 2 minute 53 seconds!

You either chose to run a lot of services, or your network connection is flaky. My machine gives me a graphical login prompt after approx. 20 seconds (including several services, e.g. qmail, apache, and mysql (yes, I'm using daemontools)).

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

mail and internet
I use firefox in windows, so that stayed the same. i use outlook 2007 in windows, so in ubuntu i used thunderbird,

The equivalent to Outlook is Evolution, also installed and available via Applications, Office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

which is a pretty decent piece of 'ware although it doesn't work right with an exchange server and won't do meeting requests. however, in both cases, the stuff was pre-installed in ubuntu.
advantage - tied. ubuntu had these apps preinstalled which is nice (who doesn't need an email client and a non-IE browser?) but their mail client doesn't measure up to outlook.

Apples and oranges, again. By the way, Evolution will play nicely with Exchange.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

office and other apps
I use gimp in windows, so that stayed the same. I use office 2007 in windows, and whatever the latest stable version of OpenOffice.org came installed with ubuntu. while I am familiar with OOO and can use it, I would describe it as barely adequate... some of the stuff I can do with Office 2007 can't be done in OOO. otoh, Office 2007 has some truly horrific bloat... it's a 4gb install.
advantage - tied again. OOO is preinstalled on ubuntu but is nowhere as useful as Office 2007. Office 2007 takes almost an hour to install (54 minutes) and is hugely bloated. updates are handled automatically for both systems.

I'd be most interested to learn what things you cannot do with OOO that you can do with Office. Mind you, I can easily show you stuff I can do with OOO, but not Office. And yes, I miss Visio and Project under Linux, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

development
[valid poins]
advantage - windows, but not by a huge margin. if there was any kind of halfway decent IDE for ubuntu, I would have judged it a tie, but I wasn't able to find one. (yes, I tried Eclipse, but it's terrible)

Emacs, of course. *cough*

Linux.com :: Features »The old slam that "Linux has no good development tools" is no longer true. KDevelop is a rock-solid, feature-rich development system with only few non-trivial flaws. With its overall ease of use and integration with the system and other applications, KDevelop lands a series of tough blows against Visual Studio. Code completion and IDE-documentation are subjects in which Visual Studio is still a ways ahead. «
In any event, you may find sites like Alternatives to Windows, Mac, Linux and online applications | AlternativeTo.net useful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

maintenance
system updates, app updates and the like. Microsoft Update (not windows update) updates all my microsoft apps; office, visual studio, mssql server, etc. it also updates my drivers. ubuntu's updater updates EVERYTHING that's installed. avg updates itself, but isn't even needed on ubuntu
advantage - ubuntu. although i don't spend any extra time keeping windows up to date (it does it all automatically) i found the ubuntu updated to be very well written and it genuinely impressed me, so the advantage goes to ubuntu if for style points alone.

Add to that the fact that bugs are fixed more quickly, and sprinkle some magic auto-apt over your machine, and you'll never want to maintain Windows ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

file operations
during my comparison I did some extensive tests for moving files, burning cds, all that kind of thing. I won't post all the results here (it's like 10 pages of data) but I will say that there was less than a 1% difference in aggregate time between systems. I used ReiserFS for my ubuntu system and user partitions.
advantage - tied.

Ah. File systems. Highly dependent on what you are trying to achieve. Linux filesystems (of which there are many) can make a vast performance difference, especially on servers. I seriously doubt that this comparison is meaningful for user machines that are idle 99% of the time, anyhow.

On a tangent, ReiserFS is never my first choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

gaming
as previously mentioned I could not get UT3 to work AT ALL under Wine, although I was able to get Warcraft3 (a 7 year old game) to work just fine (albeit without sound and at a lower resolution due to lack of video drivers). those are basically the only two games I play.
advantage - windows by a mile.

Absolutely. Gaming is where Windows really shines. Gaming, and Excel. Unfortunately, that's about it, then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

conclusions -
there are good and bad things about linux. (well, ubuntu anyhow) I was very impressed by the completeness of the ubuntu install, although I wasn't crazy about the lack of sound drivers (let's be honest... that's a dealbreaker on it's own) and lack of a good IDE. you have to install a bunch of extra stuff with windows, and that takes a few hours (Visual Studio, in particular takes a VERY long time to install) although I spent those same few hours in ubuntu trying to make things work that should have worked on their own. (sound card, video card) daily operation is not at all faster in linux despite what i'd heard; it's very slow to boot up and in most cases applications do not load appreciably faster. it also takes WAY LONGER to shut down than windows, but I don't include this because some people leave their computers on all the time.
1. Your start up and shut down problems are most likely network related. My machines take less than a minute for both. And let's not go into hibernation issues with Windows.
2. Your sound card should work. If it doesn't, it's not standard, or broken. May be hard to believe, but. I'd like to see the detailled error messages, though. The last 10 laptops on which I installed, didn't give me any errors, and that's telling you something, as laptop hardware is notoriously flaky.
3. Applications can be made to load a lot faster, but that's an advanced exercise from the don't-try-this-at-home-dept.
4. My wife thinks Gnome is the most intuitive and logical UI ever. I tend to agree. At least you don't have to press start to stop the machine...
Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

linux is good for some things... i built a computer for my 7 year old nephew and put ubuntu on it for him to surf the web and play a few games, and he loves it (luckily the soundblaster i put in that computer was automatically recognized. but it was also 9 years old). but for serious, professional work i cannot in any way recommend it. in the end, I'd say ubuntu was worth what I paid for it ;) although windows is still a bargain, time-wise, even at full price.

Horses for courses. I would claim that my productivity under Linux is 20% higher than under Windows, but then again, I pretty much know what I'm doing, and am able to make Linux do what I want. Well, this one is unfortunately in German, but it's one of Germany's leading daily papers telling the opposite story of yours. It happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

comments are welcome.

Thanks a lot for taking the time to do the tests. Sorry that your hardware didn't work.
06-27-2009, 05:04 PM
chee16

reading all this stuff i seriously want to switch my laptop back to Linux now, but there are 2 things that would stop me:
1. can i run Simply Accounting in it? i read some forum post elsewhere where some dude said he used wine and wineTricks and changed one setting and it worked fine, if it doesn't work then i would have to make like a 10gig partition for windows XP pro and just run it in there when i need it.
2. will the s-video to my TV work? it didn't before and was a big reason i switched back to XP. now i didn't have my LCD then which does have a monitor in port, so that might work instead, but i don't really know.

my laptop is a Dell Inspiron 6400 that i bought about 4 years ago and enough computer for me, as i am not a gamer.

i know this isn't a computer forum but you guys really seem to know your stuff, so any suggestions would be great.

also i would really like to convert my work comp/cash register to linux but wouldn't it be hard to get my Point Of Sale program working? find the drivers for the reciept printer?

thanks
Wes
06-27-2009, 05:20 PM
commiecat

Wow, this is hilarious. Can we just live with the fact that Windows users are going to skew things to show their point, and that Linux users will do the same?

As soon as you put a Windows computer on the Internet it will be infected with viruses? Seriously? As soon as you install Linux you'll gain 80 pounds, have oily skin, and will go back to using disposable razors. Isn't it fun to wildly exaggerate?

OOO vs. MS Office is a joke. OOO is decent. GIMP is decent. They're both terribly inadequate when compared to MSO and Photoshop. Examples? I can't count how many times I've opened an MS document in Open Office and had the formatting all borked. Last I checked, Evolution did not work well with Exchange 2007. Even with previous versions of Exchange, Evolution was lagged. I'd love to see an administrator try to switch corporate users from Outlook to Evolution.

We can go on and on. I use BSD on occasion but Windows otherwise. I support a corporate environment. Linux is great for our web server and ERP server, but that's the only value I see. I don't like the GPL, I don't like the non-standard distribution, and I can't help but laugh at the Fisher Price naming scheme of Ubuntu. They should just call it "Baby's First Operating System".

I must admit that it is fun to debate this stuff on a shaving forum, though. :)
06-27-2009, 05:26 PM
jockeys
Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Apple, meet orange. Orange, this is apple. To wit, "Windows" is the operating system and a few more or less useful tools. "Ubuntu" is the operating system plus hundreds of programs.

perhaps. but i'm making a usage comparison here. using windows vs. using ubuntu. i'm not trying to benchmark the kernels or anything, i'm just trying to compare the experience. i prolly should have made that more clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Well, would you buy a RAID controller that said "won't work with Windows"? No? Then the incompatibility is meaningless.

I just bought a motherboard. it wasn't advertised as being specially compatible with any particular operating system. i just bought something off the shelf at fry's that had the specs i needed. the very fact that i would have to specifically shop for something that would work with linux is a mark against linux in my mind. shopping for hardware is enough of a chore as it is, i don't need an OS that makes it more difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Same argument: You bought a card that was optimised for Windows and whose specs are not documented, so free programmers cannot produce decent drivers. It happens.

no, i bought the cheapest card fry's had. it wasn't advertised as being optimised for anything. see above remarks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

You either chose to run a lot of services, or your network connection is flaky. My machine gives me a graphical login prompt after approx. 20 seconds (including several services, e.g. qmail, apache, and mysql (yes, I'm using daemontools)).

didn't choose to run anything, that was the default install. i didn't install any software on the ubuntu installation, i just tested it with the default apps. no optimizing, no extras installed, and that's how it ran for me. i've never had any network problems, i just have my home internet connection, which isn't going to change because there's only one isp where i live. if there WAS a network issue, i don't think it should affect booting. windows boots just as fast when there's limited/no network.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

The equivalent to Outlook is Evolution, also installed and available via Applications, Office.
Apples and oranges, again. By the way, Evolution will play nicely with Exchange.

thanks, i didn't know that, if i ever try linux again, i'll look into it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

I'd be most interested to learn what things you cannot do with OOO that you can do with Office. Mind you, I can easily show you stuff I can do with OOO, but not Office. And yes, I miss Visio and Project under Linux, too.

i was referring mostly to project, which i use every day. also, excel 2007 can do a lot more stuff (like dynamically integrating a sql table into a spreadsheet).

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Emacs, of course. *cough*
Linux.com :: Features »The old slam that "Linux has no good development tools" is no longer true. KDevelop is a rock-solid, feature-rich development system with only few non-trivial flaws. With its overall ease of use and integration with the system and other applications, KDevelop lands a series of tough blows against Visual Studio. Code completion and IDE-documentation are subjects in which Visual Studio is still a ways ahead. «
In any event, you may find sites like Alternatives to Windows, Mac, Linux and online applications | AlternativeTo.net useful.

cool, i'll look into kdevelop next time. until it can talk to a TFS machine it's still not as good in my book :) I doubt kdevelop has integration and collaboration tools that can compare to TFS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Add to that the fact that bugs are fixed more quickly, and sprinkle some magic auto-apt over your machine, and you'll never want to maintain Windows ever.

maybe, but I doubt it. I don't have to maintain Windows as it is. avg updates itself, firefox updates itself, and MSupdate takes care of every other app I use. so, zero manual maintenance. the only reason I gave ubuntu the edge there is that I thought synaptic was very slickly written.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

I seriously doubt that this comparison is meaningful for user machines that are idle 99% of the time, anyhow.

agreed, but the comparison didn't feel complete without it so I ran some benchmarks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Absolutely. Gaming is where Windows really shines. Gaming, and Excel. Unfortunately, that's about it, then.

collaborative development. large software project planning and management. (which is what I do for a living) admittedly, most home users couldn't care less about these things, but I did the review for some developer friends of mine, so that's the perspective it comes from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Your start up and shut down problems are most likely network related. My machines take less than a minute for both. And let's not go into hibernation issues with Windows.
Your sound card should work. If it doesn't, it's not standard, or broken. May be hard to believe, but. I'd like to see the detailled error messages, though. The last 10 laptops on which I installed, didn't give me any errors, and that's telling you something, as laptop hardware is notoriously flaky.
Applications can be made to load a lot faster, but that's an advanced exercise from the don't-try-this-at-home-dept.
My wife thinks Gnome is the most intuitive and logical UI ever. I tend to agree. At least you don't have to press start to stop the machine...
1. it's totally possible. but i'm not impressed by an os that can't gracefully handle things like that.
2. shoulda coulda woulda. it DIDN'T work, out of the box with no fiddling. it did with windows. my time has a non-zero value, and having to fight with trivial stuff like this is why I decided linux was a bad investment for my software team.
3. I believe you, and from my days running xwindows on top of darwin, I'm highly appreciative of how much optimizing you can do.
4. actually, the folks at apple take the prize here as far as I'm concerned. windows is butt ugly, no arguments here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Horses for courses. I would claim that my productivity under Linux is 20% higher than under Windows, but then again, I pretty much know what I'm doing, and am able to make Linux do what I want. Well, this one is unfortunately in German, but it's one of Germany's leading daily papers telling the opposite story of yours. It happens.

you're right of course, it depends entirely on what you are doing. as long as you're not playing high-horsepower games or doing collaborative programming and team management, I think linux is a fine os as long as it supports all your hardware, which has been a real crapshoot for me so far. (this wasn't the first such test i've done. i do it every three or four years to see if linux is a viable upgrade path. so far it's failed the test pretty miserably all three times. first time was using yellowdog linux on powermacs, the second time using redhat on commodity hardware, this third time using ubuntu on commodity hardware)

thanks for your replies, they're very well thought out.
06-27-2009, 05:35 PM
Slartibartfast

Mozilla Thunderbird w/ addons is very similiar to outlook.
06-27-2009, 05:43 PM
BeBerlin

Quote:

Originally Posted by commiecat

Wow, this is hilarious. Can we just live with the fact that Windows users are going to skew things to show their point, and that Linux users will do the same?

Absolutely fine by me. As long as comparisons are fair, and meaningful. Comparing installation times of a pretty bare bones Operating System to those of a full desktop environment is neither. Just as an example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by commiecat

As soon as you put a Windows computer on the Internet it will be infected with viruses? Seriously?

Profile, don't speculate. Survival Time | SANS Internet Storm Center; Cooperative Network Security Community - Internet Security

Quote:

Originally Posted by commiecat

As soon as you install Linux you'll gain 80 pounds, have oily skin, and will go back to using disposable razors. Isn't it fun to wildly exaggerate?

It seems to be to you. One wonders why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by commiecat

OOO vs. MS Office is a joke. OOO is decent. GIMP is decent. They're both terribly inadequate when compared to MSO and Photoshop. Examples? I can't count how many times I've opened an MS document in Open Office and had the formatting all borked.

I can't count how many times I've opened an MS document in MS Office and had the formatting all borked. Only, that's not supposed to happen. Were Microsoft to make its file format public, there would be no conversion problems. So the problem is not with OpenOffice, but with Microsoft. On a tangent, those broken MS Office documents usually opened ok in OOO. Well, duh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by commiecat

Last I checked, Evolution did not work well with Exchange 2007. Even with previous versions of Exchange, Evolution was lagged. I'd love to see an administrator try to switch corporate users from Outlook to Evolution.

I've successfully run heterogeneous corporate networks. In any event, open-xchange.com | now available in many languages would solve the problems you describe. And no, I am not recommending Exchange for production use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by commiecat

We can go on and on. I use BSD on occasion but Windows otherwise. I support a corporate environment. Linux is great for our web server and ERP server, but that's the only value I see. I don't like the GPL, I don't like the non-standard distribution, and I can't help but laugh at the Fisher Price naming scheme of Ubuntu. They should just call it "Baby's First Operating System".

Interesting. Your technical decisions are based on personal preferences, character judgement, and limited experience. Why does it not surprise me that Windows is your operating system of choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by commiecat

I must admit that it is fun to debate this stuff on a shaving forum, though. :)

Absolutely. Knowing that someone with a grudge to bear, and a razor or two in his hands might be living round the corner adds an extra moment of excitement. Now then, what is that unmarked black van doing in front of my apartment?
06-27-2009, 07:36 PM
commiecat

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Profile, don't speculate. Survival Time | SANS Internet Storm Center; Cooperative Network Security Community - Internet Security

Nice that you can't graph data after November 2008. But in November it seems that an unpatched Windows system would last a few hours, depending upon which day. That's far from "as soon as you put it on the Internet" and plenty of time to actually patch it, so thank you for validating my position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

I can't count how many times I've opened an MS document in MS Office and had the formatting all borked. Only, that's not supposed to happen. Were Microsoft to make its file format public, there would be no conversion problems. So the problem is not with OpenOffice, but with Microsoft. On a tangent, those broken MS Office documents usually opened ok in OOO. Well, duh.

I've had no such issues with Office '07. Must be you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

I've successfully run heterogeneous corporate networks. In any event, open-xchange.com | now available in many languages would solve the problems you describe.

You said Evolution would play nice with Exchange. I was just pointing out that, last I checked, it actually didn't. Might be different now but Evolution still doesn't list support for Exchange '07.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Interesting. Your technical decisions are based on personal preferences, character judgement, and limited experience. Why does it not surprise me that Windows is your operating system of choice.

Wow. This is the kind of vapid statement I'd expect from a Mac user. Let's get all snooty and personal over our operating systems and judge people we don't know. No surprise that you're a Linux user. Had an Atari computer, avid BBSer, went to PC and DOS/Win3, first BSD was FreeBSD 3, first Linux was RH 5.2. Yeah, my experience is limited oh great computer guru.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Absolutely. Knowing that someone with a grudge to bear, and a razor or two in his hands might be living round the corner adds an extra moment of excitement. Now then, what is that unmarked black van doing in front of my apartment?

I don't mind friendly debate and have no issues saying "touché", but if this is gonna be a "Wow, you use Windows? What's it like being new to computers?" flame war then I'm out.
06-27-2009, 08:43 PM
BeBerlin

Quote:

Originally Posted by commiecat

Nice that you can't graph data after November 2008. But in November it seems that an unpatched Windows system would last a few hours, depending upon which day. That's far from "as soon as you put it on the Internet" and plenty of time to actually patch it, so thank you for validating my position.

I think you are jumping to conclusions here. We were talking about home systems. How many of those will get patched before the attack happens?

Quote:

Originally Posted by commiecat

I've had no such issues with Office '07. Must be you.

As I said, profile, don't speculate. I had documents that would either not open, or were so broken that they had to be re-done in major parts. If you chose to ignore that these problems exist, that is fine. It is not, however, very convincing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by commiecat

You said Evolution would play nice with Exchange. I was just pointing out that, last I checked, it actually didn't. Might be different now but Evolution still doesn't list support for Exchange '07.

I just read Evolution: A New Outlook for Linux | Linux Magazine (registration required) and Novell Documentation, then connected to a company Exchange server. OWA is certainly not the fastest option available, but it works flawlessly.

But that is beside the point. The point was that because of Microsoft's licensing scheme, alternatives to MS products cannot be sensibly programmed. Case in point, interaction with a mail server. The problem is not with Evolution, it is with Exchange's undocumented API.

Quote:

Originally Posted by commiecat

Wow. This is the kind of vapid statement I'd expect from a Mac user. Let's get all snooty and personal over our operating systems and judge people we don't know. No surprise that you're a Linux user. Had an Atari computer, avid BBSer, went to PC and DOS/Win3, first BSD was FreeBSD 3, first Linux was RH 5.2. Yeah, my experience is limited oh great computer guru.

You seem to have omitted your original statement. Here it is again:

We can go on and on. I use BSD on occasion but Windows otherwise. I support a corporate environment. Linux is great for our web server and ERP server, but that's the only value I see. I don't like the GPL, I don't like the non-standard distribution, and I can't help but laugh at the Fisher Price naming scheme of Ubuntu. They should just call it "Baby's First Operating System".
Personally, I find the last remark particularly interesting with respect to your previous remark.

I will not go into my personal computer history, but it is similar to yours, just add a few years. The difference maybe being that I chose to choose whichever tool works best for the job. I am completely impartial to the software I use, as long as it does its job, and is properly maintained. In the same vein, I would not call myself a Linux user. I do use Linux, obviously, but it is not my OS of choice. It gets many jobs done efficiently, including home machine for many of my friends. But that's about it. Linux does have sides I deeply despise and several technical aspects of it are painful. But I retain the right to point out flaws in comparisons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by commiecat

I don't mind friendly debate and have no issues saying "touché", but if this is gonna be a "Wow, you use Windows? What's it like being new to computers?" flame war then I'm out.

A classical non sequitur.
06-27-2009, 10:09 PM
commiecat

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Personally, I find the last remark particularly interesting with respect to your previous remark.

...

I chose to choose whichever tool works best for the job. I am completely impartial to the software I use, as long as it does its job, and is properly maintained.

I see a difference between making fun of Ubuntu's naming scheme and questioning a person's experience with whatever. I choose software the same way as you -- the tool that is best for the job is generally my personal preference. Well, one of your three listed reasons for my technical decisions was right.

Windows is best for me and it also happens to be the source of my livelihood. If a company wants to close their source code then that's their option and I'm fine with it. I don't blame them for incompatibilities with the open source world.
06-28-2009, 12:43 AM
Rajagra

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

Ubuntu linux however, has the friendliest and easiest system set up I've ever encountered. I have handed the disk to the most computer illiterate of people, and watched them set up their system.
You put the disk in and reboot (just like windows) and you ignore all of the prompts until it asks you what language you speak.
Then you continue to ignore all of the prompts until you are presented with a fully functional linux desktop running live from the CD.

I have to say this is a nice touch. I burned a Ubuntu CD to try it out then forgot about it. Next time I booted I went off to do something, came back and there it was running Ubuntu. I chose not to install at the time, so I played with it for a while, using the Internet, looking through the Windows partitions and so on.

Microsoft could take lessons from this approach.

Of course the reason Linux can be this easy is because it has to be, to persuade users it is worth trying.

Microsoft on the other hand, can happily continue providing obscene bloatware that is so insanely complex that only a handful of its own people have a true understanding of it.

I will probably always have Windows running on most of my machines, but thank God there is competition to force Microsoft to show some consideration to its customers.
06-28-2009, 12:54 AM
BeBerlin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Of course the reason Linux can be this easy is because it has to be, to persuade users it is worth trying.

ITYM Apple. Linux does not have to do or be anything (except from the perspective of a commercial vendor, which Ubuntu is not). It simply is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Microsoft on the other hand, can happily continue providing obscene bloatware that is so insanely complex that only a handful of its own people have a true understanding of it.

I doubt that even that is true, i.e. no-one really sees the big picture anymore. But you have to give Microsoft credit, too. They have been doing a rather decent job at securing their OS, and increasing its overall quality. If you compare Windows with what it was 5 years ago, and then again 10 years ago, you will find that they're on a good road. Personally, I see no reason whatsoever to use Widnows, but I appreciate that they have been trying to make the IT world a less horrible place.
06-28-2009, 02:01 AM
VeeDubb65

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

Windows XP Pro SP3 vs. Ubuntu Hardy Heron

If Robin an others hadn't already pointed out all of your logical and technical fallacies, I'd have to spend half an hour responding to this.

as it is, there's only one or two things to point out.

Windows XP was released in 2002 or 2003.

Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) Was released in 2008 if memory serves. (I'm now using 9.04)

That means that any serious comparison between the two is utterly pointless. You may as well compare Windows7 to Apple IIe, or compare OSX to DOS. It makes no sense to even engage in such a comparison.

Had you compared 8.04 to Vista, which actually would have been logical, you would have had a very different experience.

Also, unless I'm mixing your post up with somebody else's, I believe you went on for a bit about developing software in C#. I won't flame you for that. C# is great for what it's for. The problem is that "what it's for" is developing windows only applications in a windows environment. If you are a C# developer, you DEFINITELY fall into the "linux is not for everybody category" and I'm a bit surprised that you would have even bothered.

It's a bit like buying a PS3 so you can access your email from home. It just doesn't make any sense.

However, that doesn't mean that Windows has any meaningful advantage over linux for software developement. For C, C+, C++, Java and every other major programming language, there are a wide array of excellent IDEs and many command line tools as well for people who prefer to write code the old fashioned way.
06-28-2009, 08:27 PM
jockeys

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

Windows XP was released in 2002 or 2003.

Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) Was released in 2008 if memory serves. (I'm now using 9.04)

Had you compared 8.04 to Vista, which actually would have been logical, you would have had a very different experience.

a valid question. let me ask you... if I had compared ubuntu 5 or 6 to xp, do you think my experience would have been different? i ask in all seriousness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

For C, C+, C++, Java and every other major programming language, there are a wide array of excellent IDEs and many command line tools as well for people who prefer to write code the old fashioned way.

as I mentioned, a lot of the drivers I write are written in C or C++. none of the development tools I tried on linux (although to be fair, I hadn't heard of kdevelop so I didn't try it) came close to using visual studio to write C++ (which I do, and then compile it for whatever device with the appropriate compiler).

also, you mention using command line tools for the old-fashioned experience. it's old fashioned for a reason. professional developers haven't written code that way since the 80s, and for good reason, it's very inefficient. also, I'd still like to see some collaborative tools for linux development, but if all the FOSS coders are as cheerful and Linus or Hans i can see why that's not the case :)

(note: that last part is a joke. i expect i'll still have an inbox of angry pm from linux zealots, but i thought i'd put up a disclaimer anyway :))
06-28-2009, 11:08 PM
pio

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

Windows XP was released in 2002 or 2003.

Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) Was released in 2008 if memory serves. (I'm now using 9.04)

However, that doesn't mean that Windows has any meaningful advantage over linux for software developement. For C, C+, C++, Java and every other major programming language, there are a wide array of excellent IDEs and many command line tools as well for people who prefer to write code the old fashioned way.

xp was released in 02...

Ubuntu versioning (year).(month) 8.04 April 2008...
if i'm not mistaken, there is a release in april and another in octuber (.10)

for development in Linux you can use Eclipse or NetBeans...
Both support java/c/c++ and many other languages...

:)
06-29-2009, 02:12 AM
VeeDubb65

Quote:

Originally Posted by jockeys

a valid question. let me ask you... if I had compared ubuntu 5 or 6 to xp, do you think my experience would have been different? i ask in all seriousness.

Different, yes. Better for Ubuntu, doubtful. Windows and Ubuntu have both come a VERY long was since then, but it's probably safe to say that in 2002/3 Ubuntu was really and truly not ready for the home market. While windows has quadrupled in size and bloat, it has only advanced slightly in terms of usefullness. Ubuntu on the other hand, still fits on a standard CDR, but has advanced by leaps and bounds.

The really interesting question, is what will the comparison be in another 6 or 7 years. Of course, neither one of us can answer that.

as I mentioned, a lot of the drivers I write are written in C or C++. none of the development tools I tried on linux (although to be fair, I hadn't heard of kdevelop so I didn't try it) came close to using visual studio to write C++ (which I do, and then compile it for whatever device with the appropriate compiler).

also, you mention using command line tools for the old-fashioned experience. it's old fashioned for a reason. professional developers haven't written code that way since the 80s, and for good reason, it's very inefficient. also, I'd still like to see some collaborative tools for linux development, but if all the FOSS coders are as cheerful and Linus or Hans i can see why that's not the case :)

(note: that last part is a joke. i expect i'll still have an inbox of angry pm from linux zealots, but i thought i'd put up a disclaimer anyway :))

lol. I got the joke. With any luck, so will everybody else. Do try kdevelope if you take another run at linux. It's very sound. And there are many other options besides. As far as colaberative programming tools, I honestly don't have a clue. A little java scripting and web design has beent he extent of my programming.

I will say this however, basically all linux apps are developed on linux, and virtually all linux apps are developed in a collaberative manner. Perhaps it's all done with CVS servers, but the tools are out there, even if they are very very different from what you're used to.
06-29-2009, 08:37 AM
sidneykidney

To your initial tips I would add:

5. Consider getting a Mac. Depending on the purpose of your computer, they can be ideal. If you are planning on loading your PC with games, then dont bother with the switch but if all you are doing is email, internet browsing and pics/movies then a Mac is ideal.

I used to be a MS disciple, a slave to Microsofts latest Windows upgrade. This threads author is exactly right. New editions of windows ALWAYS come with flaws. These are quickly expoited and Windows gets covered in viruses. Since moving to my Macbook I have not had one. Not one. All popups are blocked unless I want to see them. Its simply perfect.

Now sure alot of these things you can do on Windows, but the thing you want to avoid here is what Windows is doing on your computer without you knowing about it. Trojans abound in the world of Mr Jobs. Stick to linux based OS's. Thats the future folks.

:soapbox:
06-29-2009, 12:26 PM
JimR

Quote:

Originally Posted by sidneykidney

To your initial tips I would add:

5. Consider getting a Mac. Depending on the purpose of your computer, they can be ideal. If you are planning on loading your PC with games, then dont bother with the switch but if all you are doing is email, internet browsing and pics/movies then a Mac is ideal.

I used to be a MS disciple, a slave to Microsofts latest Windows upgrade. This threads author is exactly right. New editions of windows ALWAYS come with flaws. These are quickly expoited and Windows gets covered in viruses. Since moving to my Macbook I have not had one. Not one. All popups are blocked unless I want to see them. Its simply perfect.

Now sure alot of these things you can do on Windows, but the thing you want to avoid here is what Windows is doing on your computer without you knowing about it. Trojans abound in the world of Mr Jobs. Stick to linux based OS's. Thats the future folks.

:soapbox:

I have to be honest--I have been a windows user for more than 15 years, and I have never had a problem with viruses. I've always had good security software, of course, but still...what's with the virus paranoia? Be careful, and there's no problem. Also, I never ever see popups either. I use Firefox. Not that complicated...

Nothing is perfect, mate. People keep saying that about Macs...and like the man said, if it was perfect they wouldn't have a Customer Service department.

Also, Steve Jobs is the Apple guy, isn't he?
06-29-2009, 12:36 PM
pio

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimR

I have to be honest--I have been a windows user for more than 15 years, and I have never had a problem with viruses. I've always had good security software, of course, but still...what's with the virus paranoia? Be careful, and there's no problem. Also, I never ever see popups either. I use Firefox. Not that complicated...

Nothing is perfect, mate. People keep saying that about Macs...and like the man said, if it was perfect they wouldn't have a Customer Service department.

Also, Steve Jobs is the Apple guy, isn't he?

I had problems with viruses when i was at school and downloaded lots of stuff over the internet...this was over 7 years ago...
as long as you know what you download you should be ok...

people who get viruses and Trojans and other stuff are people who dont know what the hell are they doing...

Also...why there is more virus for windows than for mac or linux?
Over 88% of the market belongs to MS Windows... (used to be over 90 some time ago).
06-29-2009, 12:38 PM
Slartibartfast

Quote:

Originally Posted by pio

I had problems with viruses when i was at school and downloaded lots of stuff over the internet...this was over 7 years ago...
as long as you know what you download you should be ok...

people who get viruses and Trojans and other stuff are people who dont know what the hell are they doing...

Also...why there is more virus for windows than for mac or linux?
Over 88% of the market belongs to MS Windows... (used to be over 90 some time ago).

Running as an administrator by default doesnt help. But with the latest versions of windows, they basically have a "sudo" like system.

You have to enter administrator mode to run a program that needs to access certain areas of the system. This is a big improvement. Though i'm sure people will bitch and moan about have an extra click.
06-29-2009, 12:41 PM
LX_Emergency

More virusses for windows because there are more windows users. A person who programs a virus is going to target the biggest audience offcourse.
06-29-2009, 12:42 PM
pio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

Running as an administrator by default doesnt help. But with the latest versions of windows, they basically have a "sudo" like system.

You have to enter administrator mode to run a program that needs to access certain areas of the system. This is a big improvement. Though i'm sure people will bitch and moan about have an extra click.

Yup they will...
i do...and i removed it (on vista and plan to do so on 7)...
but then again...i'm not all over the internet downloading games or software...

if i need something I either buy or download open source...
06-29-2009, 12:45 PM
sidneykidney

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimR

Also, Steve Jobs is the Apple guy, isn't he?

:gaah:

I still maintain my stance on Macs tho.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

Though i'm sure people will bitch and moan about have an extra click.

This quote made me think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuqZ8AqmLPY

And it still makes me laugh. Its funny cos its true.
06-29-2009, 03:07 PM
undertakingyou

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimR

I have to be honest--I have been a windows user for more than 15 years, and I have never had a problem with viruses. I've always had good security software, of course, but still...what's with the virus paranoia? Be careful, and there's no problem. Also, I never ever see popups either. I use Firefox. Not that complicated...

I have only ever been infected with a virus once, and I was asking for it (story for another day). I agree with you that intelligent computing practices combined with quality 'security' software is the best defence. For me the real seller is that because of fundamental differences in user handling in a unix-like system, such as MacOS or Linux, make it so that addition software is not needed. All that additional software does is use system resources and slows down your machine. Oddly enough that is similar to a virus . . . . just you chose to install this one.

Back to the point of the thread. I have not used Windows 7 at all yet and I understand that it is CONSIDERABLY better than Vista, I won't upgrade for one specific reason. I administer some 40 windows workstations and 3 windows servers attached through active directory. The benefits that I would receive because of an upgrade do not justify the costs to do so. Period. NO BANG FOR BUCK AT ALL.
06-29-2009, 03:18 PM
commiecat

Quote:

Originally Posted by undertakingyou

I administer some 40 windows workstations and 3 windows servers attached through active directory. The benefits that I would receive because of an upgrade do not justify the costs to do so. Period. NO BANG FOR BUCK AT ALL.

Any remote users? I haven't had time to really drill down all the new features, but one thing that I do recall was called "DirectAccess".

Basically it allows remote users to connect via VPN without user interaction. Sounds pretty interesting. We have a VPN client which needs to be launched and then the user is prompted for credentials. If I can get the same security for my users with fewer steps, specifically the kind that require a password, then that's worth it in my book. :)
06-29-2009, 03:29 PM
Rajagra

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

You have to enter administrator mode to run a program that needs to access certain areas of the system. This is a big improvement. Though i'm sure people will bitch and moan about have an extra click.

Are you referring to UAC?
I've noticed a trend. Many experienced users disable UAC because they consider themselves too advanced to need it. They consider it something that inferior users need. Even though they don't personally endure the endless nagging from UAC, they are happy to criticise people who do leave it active and find it intrusive.

So may I ask, is your main machine running Vista with UAC enabled?

Microsoft: Vista feature designed to 'annoy users'

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Cross, group program manager in charge of designing UAC

The reason we put UAC into the (Vista) platform was to annoy users--I'm serious

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page