Vista who ? Try an alternative

aidan_walsh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the drivers are supported its a non-issue.

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

There are other issues at stake than just audience size.

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

aidan_walsh

So, Linux is easier to install than Windows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ubuntu: Linux for Human Beings. Mistakes and all.

monosharp

aidan_walsh wrote:

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

Whens the last time u installed Ubuntu ?

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

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

Again, whens the last time u installed ubuntu ?

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

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

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

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

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

What have i said thats untrue ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zapho

monosharp wrote:

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

Again, whens the last time u installed ubuntu ?

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


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

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

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

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

monosharp

aidan_walsh wrote:

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

Ubuntu: Linux for Human Beings. Mistakes and all.

Are you being serious ?

You couldn't follow this process ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Keyboard layout.

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

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

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

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

7. Asks u for a username and password.

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

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

aidan_walsh

Whens the last time u installed Ubuntu ?

Before last night? When did 6.06 come out?

What have i said thats untrue ?

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

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

*yawn*

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

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

monosharp

Zapho wrote:

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

I was talking about Windows

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

Completely, totally, absolutely agree.

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

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

monosharp

aidan_walsh wrote:

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

This IS the first screen your presented with.

aidan_walsh

*sigh*

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

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

monosharp

aidan_walsh wrote:

*sigh*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mickoneill30

monosharp wrote:

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

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

aidan_walsh

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

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

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

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

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

Blowfish

monosharp wrote:

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

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

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

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

aidan_walsh wrote:

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

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

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

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

monosharp

mickoneill30 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

monosharp

Blowfish wrote:

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

So where will the new users come from ?

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

I haven't said windows is crap once :P

Blowfish

monosharp wrote:

So where will the new users come from ?

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

monosharp wrote:

I haven't said windows is crap once :P

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

Peteee

monosharp wrote:

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

Try it again

Linux itself ? or the applications available on Linux ?

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

Linux itself, or software on linux.

Ah beyrl.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Powershell is quite a bit different then a bash shell.

wikipedia wrote:

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

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

Because what people need is a new Office UI ?

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

Because of the manufacturers, not because of Microsoft.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know all about DRM.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cabaal

monosharp wrote:

Blowfish wrote:

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

So where will the new users come from ?

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

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

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

Peteee

monosharp wrote:

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

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

I never get virus/Spyware.

Common sense goes along way.

mickoneill30

monosharp wrote:

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

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

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

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

monosharp

Blowfish wrote:

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

But i believe very strongly that Windows power users (or any other OS power users) are not the market Linux or others should be targetting. Think about it.

A windows (or other) power user has spent so much time etc learning Windows that the thought of learning something else is just not appealing. A power user of any OS probably has enough know-how to make any disadvantages etc of that OS a non-issue most of the time.

I was myself a windows power user, although i always toyed with Linux. what really turned me over was the power of the Command Line, the lack of a need for anti-virus/firewall/etc, the rock solid stability, the speed and the complete and total customisability of the System. I'm also a huge fan of GCC and make etc so that probably played a part as well. As a developer, any Open Source OS (or software) is an absolute must in my opinion. Even if its only something to play with as well as having another "main" OS.

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

I think i made a point that for the majority of users, using Linux (Ubuntu specifically) is a genuine alternative.

monosharp

Peteee wrote:

Try it again

I just might and don't get me wrong, i'm not disagreeing with people about Opera, but your talking to someone who is happy most of the time browsing with Lynx

Ah beyrl.

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

I said it was exciting, not that it was an innovation I think beryls development rate is .. well astonishing to be honest. 6 months work and look where its at now. Incredible in my opinion.

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

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

Actually i'll give you that one. But you may find it hard to believe but when Vista was first announced and later on i was actually looking forward to some of the features including Aero. I was especially looking forward to Monad (powershell) and WinFS. What has annoyed me since is the reviews etc making Monad out to be this super great sliced bread beating shell. I actually a read a review which sarted with saying that Monad is better then Bash (Linux shell) because instead of writing "ls -l" (Linux) u can just write "ls" (Monad) and away it goes. The author obviously unfamiliar with Bash or .. some other reason seems to ignore the fact u can alias any command and the command "ll" does the same thing.

Honestly i don't even know what the above (from the article) is supposed to mean, monad is better then bash because by default it uses a long listing format whereas by default bash uses a short one yet both can do either and all of what the other does ....

I'm actually looking into Monad, the one thing that DOES sound interesting is passing stuff as objects and not as text. I don't see the benefit yet but i'm researching it.

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

They didn't copy it well enough :P (p.s > tcp/ip sucks anyways but thats besides the point, not any OS/Companies fault)

Powershell is quite a bit different then a bash shell.

And C# is quite a bit different then Java. Javas quite a bit different then C++, Unix Sockets are quite a bit different to Net Sockets ....

As i said, i'm looking into it and i'm genuinely interested in it.

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

Thats a load of crap. Honestly, 90% of users want to write text, select font/size/style, insert headers, bullets, numbering, pictures/graphs etc, maybe textboxs and print it.

My mates a secretary, works with formal/legal documents all the time and thats all she does/needs. Your saying a home user wants more ?

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

No of course he doesn't, but average Joe also doesn't give a flying **** what OS hes using or what application hes using as long as it works and does what he wants it to do. For the majority of average Joes, Linux is more then enough for his/her needs, including hardware. The exceptions are webcams and some mp3 players and more non-standard hardware. Although i know a lot of people with a lot of different mp3 players and the only one i've had a problem with was an iPOD. But then again its more or less the same problem people have with the iPOD on any OS. (The erase my collection if its not on the current system thingy).

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

I don't know why u quoted that because i didn't say it, i was quoting someone else.

On windows if media bloated player (Yes can't stand it, not for MS/Windows reasons but because it sucks) can't play something u need to go find the codecs yourself. Ubuntu will ask u do u want to download them and then download and install them seemlessly.

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

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

I've heard it all, i've seen the videos, i've seen it in action.

Obviously a LOT of work was done, whether or not its a good thing is another question altogeather.

Interfaces suck, all interfaces. Gnome sucks, KDE sucks, Windows shell sucks, OSX gui sucks.

Whats good for you or me might be atrocious for someone else.

Its all personal preference. Office 2003 and before users are not going to thank MS for this new interface until they get used to it and then it'll be the best thing ever because its what they know, until they find out 1000+ things wrong with it and make a new one where the process will continue.

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

Somehow i doubt it will be a problem.

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

MS shouldn't have caved in so easily imo.

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

I do, but this is a windows forum :P

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

Touche.

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

We were talking about innovations, not ease of use.

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

Which isn't a problem. Its just as usable for Windows for average Joe.

monosharp

Peteee wrote:

Try it again

I just might and don't get me wrong, i'm not disagreeing with people about Opera, but your talking to someone who is happy most of the time browsing with Lynx

Ah beyrl.

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

I said it was exciting, not that it was an innovation I think beryls development rate is .. well astonishing to be honest. 6 months work and look where its at now. Incredible in my opinion.

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

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

Actually i'll give you that one. But you may find it hard to believe but when Vista was first announced and later on i was actually looking forward to some of the features including Aero. I was especially looking forward to Monad (powershell) and WinFS. What has annoyed me since is the reviews etc making Monad out to be this super great sliced bread beating shell. I actually a read a review which sarted with saying that Monad is better then Bash (Linux shell) because instead of writing "ls -l" (Linux) u can just write "ls" (Monad) and away it goes. The author obviously unfamiliar with Bash or .. some other reason seems to ignore the fact u can alias any command and the command "ll" does the same thing.

Honestly i don't even know what the above (from the article) is supposed to mean, monad is better then bash because by default it uses a long listing format whereas by default bash uses a short one yet both can do either and all of what the other does ....

I'm actually looking into Monad, the one thing that DOES sound interesting is passing stuff as objects and not as text. I don't see the benefit yet but i'm researching it.

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

They didn't copy it well enough :P (p.s > tcp/ip sucks anyways but thats besides the point, not any OS/Companies fault)

Powershell is quite a bit different then a bash shell.

And C# is quite a bit different then Java. Javas quite a bit different then C++, Unix Sockets are quite a bit different to Net Sockets ....

As i said, i'm looking into it and i'm genuinely interested in it.

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

Thats a load of crap. Honestly, 90% of users want to write text, select font/size/style, insert headers, bullets, numbering, pictures/graphs etc, maybe textboxs and print it.

My mates a secretary, works with formal/legal documents all the time and thats all she does/needs. Your saying a home user wants more ?

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

No of course he doesn't, but average Joe also doesn't give a flying **** what OS hes using or what application hes using as long as it works and does what he wants it to do. For the majority of average Joes, Linux is more then enough for his/her needs, including hardware. The exceptions are webcams and some mp3 players and more non-standard hardware. Although i know a lot of people with a lot of different mp3 players and the only one i've had a problem with was an iPOD. But then again its more or less the same problem people have with the iPOD on any OS. (The erase my collection if its not on the current system thingy).

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

I don't know why u quoted that because i didn't say it, i was quoting someone else.

On windows if media bloated player (Yes can't stand it, not for MS/Windows reasons but because it sucks) can't play something u need to go find the codecs yourself. Ubuntu will ask u do u want to download them and then download and install them seemlessly.

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

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

I've heard it all, i've seen the videos, i've seen it in action.

Obviously a LOT of work was done, whether or not its a good thing is another question altogeather.

Interfaces suck, all interfaces. Gnome sucks, KDE sucks, Windows shell sucks, OSX gui sucks.

Whats good for you or me might be atrocious for someone else.

Its all personal preference. Office 2003 and before users are not going to thank MS for this new interface until they get used to it and then it'll be the best thing ever because its what they know, until they find out 1000+ things wrong with it and make a new one where the process will continue.

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

Somehow i doubt it will be a problem.

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

MS shouldn't have caved in so easily imo.

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

I do, but this is a windows forum :P

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

Touche.

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

We were talking about innovations, not ease of use.

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

Which isn't a problem. Its just as usable for Windows for average Joe.

monosharp

Cabaal wrote:

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

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

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

So is this thread against the rules here ?

I just didn't think i'd get much discussion on switching to Linux/OSX/BSD in the Unix/OSX forums

If people want it deleted then sorry for taking up space.

monosharp

Peteee wrote:

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

I never get virus/Spyware.

Common sense goes along way.

It only goes so far.

monosharp

mickoneill30 wrote:

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

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

Fair enough, but i think you'll find installing software on Ubuntu (specifically Ubuntu) has come a long long way.

No matter what "kind" of software they want, something to do the job will be available in the Apt repositories and thats a simple click -> click -> click job.

Its easier then installing software on Windows.

The problem starts when u want third party stuff.

maceocc2

Peteee wrote:

Netscape destroyed themselves. IE4 was a far better browser then Netscape which was "The extra functionality only made the software program larger, slower, and more prone to crashes, and the decision to integrate all these features together was widely criticized."

Here here Dead right here, during the internet browser wars netscape took it a step to far and ruined themselves by firstly introducing frames the worst browser invention ever. and then they took it one step further and removed the functionality of the "backspace" key, i mean its the most used button during browsing the net.

Ghost Train

monosharp wrote:

And that situation will not change without users using Linux.

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

I don't care who fault it is, if i buy hardware i want it to work, with windows it works. If linux had some sort of common driver system that spanned across all the different distros & desktop managers maybe developers would offer proper support, for that it's linux's fault

monosharp wrote:

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

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

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

I'm not a developer but when I want a pc game, i just want to play it. I can play it with windows, I can't with linux. Windows and xbox360 offer high performance gaming, microsoft have done a decent job providing the platform

monosharp wrote:

For whom ? To do what ?

To me, an experienced pc user, who wants to do general to advanced tasks with the hardware. Windows I find easy, i've tried lots of linux versions and in a lot of cases am forced to used command line commands in order to get thing setup, adjust mouse speed, adjusting laptop brightness can be a pain

monosharp wrote:

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

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

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

i don't care too much what the os looks like. Windows does all the above too, with a wider range of free and comercial software available, the ui has been pretty standard in windows for a long time and that lends itself to being user friendly or at least familiar to a lot of people

monosharp wrote:

And this matters because ?

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

Your talking about a minority of home computer users.

There comes a time for a lot of pc users when they need some comercial software for a specific task, driving test, learning french, home design etc. I'm not talking about the minority, i'm talking about most people i know

drm on xp or vista allows users to look at certain content that they wouldn't be able to access otherwise. microsoft lets content providers protect their music and videos if they want, linux does not. getting a dvd to playback on a lot of linux distro can be difficult, when hd discs and drives take over windows will be there to do it. multimedia hardware, tuners cards, recorders, video cards are fully supported with windows, it's just the way it is. I'm not blaming linux, it's just not as good as a media platform

monosharp wrote:

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

my point is linux doesn't really offer me anything much extra over windows. Windows has some negitives, but i can live with them, i can't live with the linux drawbacks/limitations.

Like i think i said linux is fine and has it's uses, i just don't see it competing with windows

monosharp

eolhc wrote:

I don't care who fault it is, if i buy hardware i want it to work, with windows it works. If linux had some sort of common driver system that spanned across all the different distros & desktop managers maybe developers would offer proper support, for that it's linux's fault

...............

I suggest reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(computer_science)

Again let me say. Manufacturers do not support Linux. Distros etc is a non-issue for drivers.

I'm not a developer but when I want a pc game, i just want to play it. I can play it with windows, I can't with linux. Windows and xbox360 offer high performance gaming, microsoft have done a decent job providing the platform

You can't play it with Linux ?

Funny that. I play games, the list may be small but i can certainly play games. I'm currently playing Quake 4 actually.

DX is the majority choice for games developers for a number of reasons but there are a lot of games out there availible for Linux as well.

To me, an experienced pc user, who wants to do general to advanced tasks with the hardware. Windows I find easy, i've tried lots of linux versions and in a lot of cases am forced to used command line commands in order to get thing setup, adjust mouse speed, adjusting laptop brightness can be a pain

What is an advanced task with hardware ?

There comes a time for a lot of pc users when they need some comercial software for a specific task, driving test, learning french, home design etc. I'm not talking about the minority, i'm talking about most people i know

I don't agree. Most people i know wouldn't use a pc for much more then writing docs, browsing the web, listening to music and watching movies.

drm on xp or vista allows users to look at certain content that they wouldn't be able to access otherwise. microsoft lets content providers protect their music and videos if they want, linux does not. getting a dvd to playback on a lot of linux distro can be difficult, when hd discs and drives take over windows will be there to do it. multimedia hardware, tuners cards, recorders, video cards are fully supported with windows, it's just the way it is. I'm not blaming linux, it's just not as good as a media platform

I suggest googling for DRM, its much more then that and it sucks for several reasons. Regardless of what its purpose is.

Zapho

monosharp wrote:

I was talking about Windows



Completely, totally, absolutely agree.



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

Sorry about that, I must have picked you up wrong !

drm on xp or vista allows users to look at certain content that they wouldn't be able to access otherwise. microsoft lets content providers protect their music and videos if they want, linux does not. getting a dvd to playback on a lot of linux distro can be difficult, when hd discs and drives take over windows will be there to do it. multimedia hardware, tuners cards, recorders, video cards are fully supported with windows, it's just the way it is. I'm not blaming linux, it's just not as good as a media platform

DRM is there mainly to PREVENT people from viewing content they don't have copyright for (in otherwords, not legally purchased). So if you decide to download an wma file with drm included, then you can't just email it to your friend so he can have a listen too, so its more of a pain in the ass rather than a reason to stick to windows. Its basically Microsofts answer to the Mac aac format (even Steve Jobs admitted that restricting aac files is a bad approach and is now thinking about returning to the mp3 format). DRM is not going to last long, especially since windows systems can still and always will be able to play mp3 files or ogg or the like. About DVD playback. Have you tried to play a DVD in linux? Its as easy as typing "apt-get install vlc vlc-plugin-esd" once. As for HD disks and drives, whats stopping linux from accessing them just like they can access DVDs and CDs? And as for multimedia hardware, yes, they are supported by linux too. Might just take more time to sort them. Building a multimedia machine (HTPC) with linux (using mythTV) is a cost effective solution in my mind, with the added bonus of allowing the user to completely customise the software.