Another Review of Xandros Desktop OS Version 3.0
Steve Emms writes "We've published today a review of Xandros Desktop OS Version 3.0 Deluxe which might interest your readers. Xandros Desktop OS Version 3.0 is billed as 'an intuitive graphical environment that works right out of the box and offers unrivaled compatibility with Microsoft Windows'. So it's pretty clear what the market of the product is - all the millions of Windows users that are fed up with an unstable operating system, want something for email and web browsing, and be able to create, edit and send the boss their Word, Excel and Visio files."
That brings me to my point. I shy away from shrinkwrap software these days, because if the app doesn't work as intended, there is a long, hard road to travel to receive any financial compensation.
I fear the same would be true of Xandros, and the cost is low enough to give it a try.
If I were a corporate purchaser, why would I pay now when I could wait a while and download it for free?
"Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
Now, I'm not saying that everything we did was hard or time consuming, but we did stay up until 4am getting things up to basic functioning.
I'll be installing SuSE 9.2 on a home machine or two over the next couple of weeks. I'll try to make note of everything that needs to be done that does not seem "novice-friendly".
It's good to hear about a distro that can be recommended to Linux neophytes.
"This signature quote intentionally left blank"
Why desktop operating systems intending to migrate folks from Windows use KDE as the default desktop environment. I'm not trying to troll here, but KDE seems to be of the mentality for providing a configuration option for everything, and have tons and tons of menu options.
For the average user, this just isn't a very good idea. Having some experience with converting Windows users to desktop Linux, myself, I've found that the vast majority prefer the simple and clean feel to the GNOME interface. They try hard to use reasonable defaults and provide an option for the most important changes. Also, they try wherever possible to eliminate configuration options that require the user to type something (meaning the user has know about what to type in).
Yeah, it's not as customizable as KDE, but that's not what's important to Joe Average. Joe Average wants to turn on his computer, change the theme and fonts, then start actually doing stuff, not spend time fiddling with hundreds of options to get it "perfect". It's an appliance rather than living space.
No comment.
I had installed Xandros on my little sister's celeron 300 and it actually ran along side windows 98 quite well. This was about 2 months ago. I had never used Xandros before but had read it was very newbie friendly. I must admit I took quite a liking to the file manager, that they call xfm (xandros file manager). Imagine my disappointment after doing an "emerge xfm" on my machine. I wish it were available for other distros.
And a candy-coated Fisher-Price looking desktop isn't exaclty very slick and professional looking either. I can't stand all the bouncing cursors and bloat that is on by default. Clean and simple- that's what most other non-tech savy computer users in the world.
"all the millions of Windows users that are fed up with an unstable operating system"
Windows NT/2000/XP are not unstable, so you must be referring to the long obsolete Windows 9x series.
Those that are still using Windows 9x today are either not particularly concerned about system stability or don't have a system capable of supporting contemporary versions of Windows or Linux.
If you were a corporate purchaser, you'd probably lose your job for not knowing the answer.
The cost of softare is a fraction of IT costs for any organization beyond a certain size. Maintenance, support and upgrades account for much larger costs. If an organization waits for the free Xandros CD, then it can't buy maintenance, support and upgrades from Xandros. That means it will need to staff to do that internally. In all likelihood, that's going to be more expensive.
Remember, most organziations think their IT infrastructure is a necessary evil, about as exciting as the plumbing. From their perspective, after it is installed, anything that needs to be done to keep it working is money that could be better spent elsewhere.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"