Slashdot Mirror
A Visual Comparison Between XP And Mandrake
Mifflesticks points to this interesting "visual comparison" between Mandrake 8.0 and Windows XP. Even though it's specifically a visual / aesthetic comparison, this piece actually sums up the good things about XP -- good device detection, multiple users set up from the install, improved network configuration -- better than anything else I've seen. The conclusion seems to be that anyone who's set up a modern Linux distro (Mandrake in particular) on supported hardware would find nothing too new in XP.
And, yes, I've run linux on the desktop for months at a time in the past, so I'm not a newbie and I do have a good sense of how usable the system is going to be for me in the long run based upon playing with it for a few hours
I'm sorry, but thats just crap. "A few hours" isn't long enough. You've used it "in the past"? How long ago was that? If it was a year ago or more, then "a few hours" isn't enough, because the system has changed a lot in the past year. You need "a few hours" just to orient yourself. I know - I've been using Linux for seven years, and I needed more than "a few hours" just to figure out where things were etc what shortcut keys were etc when I installed Mandrake 8 the other day. It takes "a few hours" just to start to learn all the shortcut keys for the various apps and WM, and to start to configure the file managers to open the applications that I like for various file types. It sounds more to me like you spent a few hours on it, got frustrated because not all the shortcut keys were the same as in Windows, and gave up. Use it for a week - anything less is simply NOT ENOUGH to make any FAIR judgments on. "A few hours" is not a fair chance by any means.
Something I've learned lately - "not being a newbie" on Linux doesn't mean all that much, specifically if the limit of your patience is only a few hours - Linux systems are changing rapidly, and it takes a bit of time (a few days) to adjust to a new version. This can perhaps ironically be regarded as a shortcoming, because things are not where people expect them to be when they install a new version - with new versions of Windows, normally not that much has changed, so its easy to reorient yourself. If your own personal patience limit for learning things is only "a few hours", don't blame it on Linux, just stick to systems you already know, i.e. Windows.
The geeks will always design for geeks, which is all well and good, but don't go saying that Microsoft products are playing catch up to Linux in ease of use. That's just ridiculous :)
Quite honestly, I've used Mandrake now for more than just "a few hours", and I've seen a number of clever, user-friendly features that have had me thinking to myself "Microsoft would do good to copy this". Its not so far-fetched at all. Compare how much Linux has changed over the last six years, then compare how much Windows has changed over the last six years - its abundantly clear which one is evolving much more rapidly than the other.
Windows XP is a HUGE improvement compared to Win9x. The UI is a lot better - and no, I don't mean in terms of looking cool - I mean it in terms of being usable - the way things are organized, etc.
Fully agree with you there; though I think Win2000 does everything that's needed; IMO XP provides the "coolness" factor that I don't want.
I'm using XP Professional on all my Win2K boxes right now and the major things I notice are reliability, not having to reboot every time I install anything and ease of use.
Actually I didn't think about that; That's true, XP can install drivers w/o rebooting. I haven't had to install drivers in a -long- time, so missed that.
The thing I notice most on my laptop is how fast the damn thing boots or resumes from standby. It makes it a whole heck of a deal more convenient to take my laptop to meetings, etc. The other big difference between Win2K Pro and WinXP Pro is remote access. It's awfully convenient for me to work on my desktop at work from home.
Never used either of those, (don't have a laptop, and used Radmin for remote access)...
but you've given some truly good points...thanks
and moderators, mod this up (the parent) please
windows is easy and there is nothing you can do about it :)
Nah - it's not "easy". It's "familiar".
People have been so conditioned to the way that Windows works, and told over and over again that Windows is "easy" - that it has become "easy" for them, in their minds. They know how things work in Windows - not because it's intuitive, but because they've been taught that that's how it works.
I'm fully convinced that in an hour, I could make a complete (non-MS-conditioned) computer newbie pretty proficient with Linux. An MS-conditioned newbie would be harder to teach, because they've been coddled and told that using a computer is "hard" and that the MS way is "easy" -- and they believe it so much that they resist learning anything.
That's why "Dummies" books are so popular. People like thinking they're stupid, as it gives them an excuse not to learn. "I can't use linux - I'm stupid with computers" -- yet this same person will spend HOURS learning the MS way of doing things -- because it's "easy". Reality check: If it takes hours to learn, it ain't "easy", no matter what MS tells you.
I run linux for my server for half-empty. I'm far from "too stupid" to run Linux. Regardless, the topic at hand here is ease of use, and ease of use, weither you like it or not, is the concept of making a system that "stupid" people can use.
I said that it would be possible for my Mandrake install to become usable if I tweaked it to hell and back (like I have done in the past with Debian, Slack, Redhat, etc.) but I didn't feel like it this time; I didn't feel it was worth my effort.
The "you don't have to use it if you don't want to" comments here are pretty lame, and in this case, totally inapplicable. Since we're talking about ease of use stuff like network detection (which, despite the authors assertion, as been there since win95) we're not talking about me here, a geek, we're talking about the proverbial Joe Sixpack. It might be hard for you to fathom, but I *would* like to see Linux succeed, and I do feel that is a success in the server world. However, its dillusional to think that XP is copying Linux. It needed to be said, so I said it.
--
It not the UI stupid, its applications.
We keep comparing Linux and Windows and how Linux is better et. al. But until when the set of available applications that are available for Windows make it to Linux, AND the marketing machine that MS has is used for Linux, I don't see Linux taking over anytime soon.
Think of a "killer app" for Linux and than you will see MS running for its money.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
#1. Why Mandrake vs. XP?
Because Windows XP is the Next Greatest Thing from Microsoft, and it has received a lot of press about it's asthetics and usability. Mandrake is widely considered *the* desktop Linux environment to use to switch people from Windows. Makes sense to me.
#2. Who cares if they are similar/different?
The manager who you are trying to convince to move the department to Linux, that's who. Not to mention the users themselves. Helps reduce the fear factor.
#3. It doesn't really say much.
If it doesn't say much to you, then you aren't a network administrator looking to rid your system from as many BSA...er...Microsoft problems as possible.
Furthermore, the biggest turnoff from XP is that it "calls home". Turn on Zone Alarm or Tiny Personal Firewall, and watch while screensavers try to connect to microsoft.com. Why? I don't know, presumably to send information about the system.
Check your time settings. I bet you have time synchronization on. The default server is time.microsoft.com. Without this on, I get no outgoing traffic. So its not "calling home" just synchronizing the time. It would be patently illegal to send system information without your express consent. Ask Battle.net what happens when you do!
The problem I am having is with all these people who say they have tried Windows 2000 and hated it for some odd reason, yet they try Windows XP and think its the thing that will save Microsoft OSs. The thing is, as far as I can tell Windows XP is Windows 2000 with:
1. Windowblinds integrated into the OS.
2. Product activation
3. More MS apps integrated right into the OS
4. The latest compatibility updates for windows 2000.
I don't understand how anyone could say XP is better than Win2k when when you get right down to it, are the same OS. Personally, I know that there is no way in hell I am going to upgrade to Windows XP. People will always whine about compatibility with Windows 2000. I never saw it as that bad, and especially now, now that they have released two service packs with all kinds of compatibility upgrades inside, it is the best Microsoft OS.
I really don't want to buy another OS, and have it turn out to be the same one I'm using. I am not paying any money so I can have a green and blue start menu. I am fine the way I am. I actually bought Windows 2000, and to tell you the truth, it was worth the $250 (Canadian) I payed for it.
What this article says to me is that if they can use XP they can use Linux. With the help of a skilled admin I'd say small business stands to save a good deal of money in several areas.
Could be interesting
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Linux is still too hard for the typical Joe while XP will do everything for them
Maybe a year ago this was true, but I really don't think it is any more. I just installed Yellow Dog Linux on my iMac a few weeks ago - I've never seen such an idiot-proofed install. Everything works flawlessly, KDE is up and running fine, the network settings from install are carried over; in short, I couldn't find anything wrong.
Certainly things have come a long way since I watched friends struggling with Yggdrasil and Slackware back in the day. Mandrake is actually to the point that I'm recommending it to my, er, less computationally inclined relatives.
--saintMicrosoft is coming up on a decade of interaction with users and usability testing. I think they're nearing the point that Apple did with OS 9, before they broke all the interfaces for the 'Aqua' look that pervades 0S 10.
In other words, despite all the FUD, marketing, and anti-competitive crap BillCo is engaged in, they're getting their User Interface pretty-damn near perfect in terms of usability. Remember that because a person is employed by MS, he or she is not necessarily a borg. It looks like those who actually get WinXP will be getting a hell of an operating system.
We're seeing a lot of the same application elements expressed in slightly different ways in different OS's now. You can say that someone is copying someone else, but what it really means is that someone has found the 'best' way to do something in terms of usability or security. Take the graphical logins. I think Apple was the first to get the whole 'Icon-Username' setup, but this is apparently the best setup for a multi-user workstation, like most family PC's.
By the same token, I think that we'll probably see MS making their UI/Windowing System skinnable in the not-too-distant future ala Windowblinds to compete with Apple's 'themes', Kaleidoscope and all the different theme-window manager combinations for X.
Now if only their development teams put as much effort into application security as they do into UI. I would really have loved not cleansing my Mom's PC of Code Red II....
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Why can't Microsoft survive in this model?
That's weird. Surely there are far more drivers, and far more support, available for Windows for all ages of device than there are for Linux?
All manufacturer x needs to do is dust off some old driver diskettes and stick them online and Windows is covered. For Linux, they've got to go out, find if someone has made them a driver, check it (cos no one wants to risk their brand on an untested driver or employ someone to write their own.
Why would they bother?
Because an odd handful of 5% of the desktop computer population might find some old hardware in a second hand store? And this helps them how?
I'm not even sure this guy understands what he's talking about. The network setup in XP is the same as in Win2k so obviously Microsoft didn't steal anything from Mandrake.
Where Mandrake can truly succeed is in the support of older hardware. The manufacturers and Microsoft are partners, in that they both want to sell new product to consumers. However, the open source philosophy is to use what you've got to it's fullest - new or old. Microsoft can't survive in this model, and many manufacturers of hardware don't understand the impact to their business models.
Microsoft controls the hardware market. No independent firm can develop new hardware without supporting and licensing Microsoft product. It's simply not financially possible, given the control by Microsoft of the marketplace.
Alas, trade secret laws sometimes makes Linux support counter-productive, as reverse engineering become tricky (if not impossible) business. As Ted McFarson said, "Trade Secret encourages Microsoft's Monolopy". How true.
I use Office 2000 at work, and it makes me miserable. It's just feature landfill.
There are serious bugs in Word that have been there for nearly a decade! Like the section break bug! And there are new bugs with every release! It's gotten to the point where I have to print out my docs and CHECK EVERY PAGE to make sure something hasn't spontaneously broken. It defeates the purpose of using a computer to do the work.
So, if switching to Linux means I have to use something else as my office app, I say bring it on!
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.