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.
I'm using XP at work to test our software on. Let me state that XP offers VERY FEW stability or power enhancements over Win2K. The added "features" are purely user interface enhancements, which translates into sluggish performance. It's included firewall is weak (allows microsoft programs full access, so anyone can easily write a trojan that works as an explorer plugin)
As a developer, I've turned off all the user interface enhancements (fading menus, animations, anti-aliasing, etc) for optimal performance, and the result is, a slightly slower Win2000.
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.
Win2000 is a rock-solid OS; It's stable, easy-to-use, looks good, and most importantly it's fast. XP looks a little nicer, runs a lot slower, and calls home; don't use it if you prefer speed or anonymity.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
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
You can't assume that hardware is going to be supported. Every attempt I've made to install any version of Mandrake (or other Linux distros, such as Red Hat) on my apparently non-supported hardware (plug-in PCI Maxtor ATA/100 IDE controller card) has resulted in a system that locks up inexplicably while trying to boot the kernal. On the other hand, every attempt I've made to install any version of Windows on any non-supported hardware has always resulted in a successful boot and an entirely usable system -- minus sound support, minus UltraDMA support, or minus high-resolution video modes, mind you, but still entirely working and usable. When a given GNU/Linux distro can't exactly identify your monitor to feed XFree86 the correct refresh rates, it usually ends up using some defaults that are so non-standard it causes your monitor to display a rolling, flickering, totally unviewable picture -- whereas I've never seen this happen on any Windows system because Windows just defaults to the VGA 60 Hz 16 color 640x480 standard refresh rates, which work on any (S)VGA monitor. Imagine that--handling failure gracefully!
In general, GNU/Linux distributions, drivers, and applications don't handle error or failure cases well at all. Why? Because those developers only care about making the success cases work well. Screw the poor user who can't happen to get everything perfectly right on the first try--it's their own fault for being ignorant, after all, and they should just have to keep doing the entire process all over again until they get it right. God forbid any developer should spend any time, effort, or skill making things easy to use for non-experts.
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
Dude, this place is turning into ZDNet. "Insightful" comments from people too stupid to run Linux (i.e., dumber than my 11-year-old sister and 45-year-old mother)? Give me a break. If you don't like it, fine. Nobody said you have to use it. But to say it's unusable is just a baldfaced lie. Someone with moderator points put this troll and his AC replies to himself back where they belong.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Reading this article (pretty good by the way) I couldn't help but chuckle on how the writer compares some of the new features of windows to those of the Linux Mandrake package. It reminds me of a few years back when I purchased a bumper sticker reading Windows 95 = Macintosh 89. I guess it's just the same thing happening again, the only innovations coming from Microsoft are those pertaining to new ways of pushing the limits of the law and leveraging their Monopoly. All of you Linux people out there, do something so that you aren't always stuck in the same boat I'm in, promoting the superior system, yet outnumbered 10 to 1 by the evil empire.
~ now you know
#1. Why Mandrake vs. XP?
.02
#2. Who cares if they are similar/different?
#3. It doesn't really say much.
In my experience you either (1) want Windows to look as far from Linux as possible (or you end up trying to type commands everywhere that are for the other OS) (2) Linux is not comparable to Windows in any way/shape/form (3) this article was pointless. Great, XP has logins, who cares?
Just my worthless