Slashdot Mirror
Windows Nearly Ready For Desktop Use
wallykeyster writes "NewsForge (ed: a Slashdot sister site) has an interesting review of Windows XP Home, written from the perspective of a longtime Linux user (ed: Editor roblimo). The article clearly is intended to be somewhat humorous while making a point to the 'Linux isn't ready for the desktop' crowd. The reviewer does a fair job of pointing out the strengths of Windows along with the weaknesses that would be apparent to someone trying to make the switch from Linux." From the article: "Windows XP can't be considered consumer-ready until it has driver support for common LCD monitors during its installation and bootup procedure, especially if those monitors are easily and routinely recognized by popular Linux distributions. It's possible that the monitor manufacturers aren't willing to give Microsoft and other proprietary operating system companies the information they need to create appropriate drivers and that the manufacturers, not Microsoft, deserve the blame for this problem."
Sources whom I consider accurate have told me that despite Microsoft's claims that Longtooth will be released by 2006 or 2007, the planned release date is actually late in 2019. Microsoft's secret goals for this version are:
Microsoft will accomplish these goals through a variety of changes. First, Longtooth will no longer be based on the Windows NT design philosophy, as were Windows 2000 and XP. Instead, Microsoft will release MS-DOS 9.0 2003, a 64-bit multithreaded DOS written in VisualBASIC.Net, and Windows Longtooth will run on top of that. Also, Longtooth will contain more code changes than any previous version of Windows, both in the number of changed source lines of code (SLOCs) and in the percentage of the total Windows codebase changed. Tremendous numbers of new features are being implemented in completely new code.
More importantly, Microsoft employees are combing through the codebase, in a relentless search for code that is mature, stabilized, and proven. This search has proved difficult, but when found, such code will be marked for reimplementation. I'm told that most of this code will be reimplemented in VisualBASIC.NET, even if the prior version was written in another language, such as C or C++. Programmers making the new VisualBasic.NET code are not allowed to look at the code that already exists, so that fixes to known issues will not be known until well after the software is deployed to millions of users.
The reason for these changes is simple: Study after study conducted by Microsoft has proven that security through obscurity is the only way to go, especially in an operating system deployed to millions of users, with many instances running mission critical applications in finance, industry, government, and other sectors. Microsoft has identified that viruses, worms, spam, spyware, adware, malware, hackers, and phreakers are able to compromise Windows security because vulnerabilities in the code are known. By changing much of the codebase, especially the stablest and most proven parts, Microsoft will thwart the efforts of malicious programmers, as it will take time for them to find the new vulnerabilities in the unknown code.
To meet Microsoft's first goal of reducing the user's perception of the complexity of Windows, Microsoft will integrate a new technology, dubbed Microsoft Windows User Simplicity And Security Manager 2003, into Longtooth. This technology will hide all configuration settings from the user. All settings will be completely automatic, and the user will have no need to know or care what is under the hood. In reality, Longtooth will be the most complex version of Windows yet, with thousands of configuration settings controlling nearly every function of the operating system. The settings will be produced by discovery algorithms designed to automatically set a "sane" configuration. Since there will be no interface to modify any setting, the user will have no choice in his configuration, thus simplifying the user's perception of the system's complexity.
To meet the second goal of increased security, these settings will be scattered throughout the OS, its components, and in other areas of the file system. For example, Microsoft knows that viruses, worms, spam, spyware, adware, malware, hackers, and phreakers are interested in moving the icons on user desktops without the user's permission, so settings controlling the number and size of icons appearing on the desktop will be scattered throughout parts of the registry, batch files, .ini files, web bookmarks, in the Windows kernel, in the file allocation table, in th
large parts of it read as a critique not of windows per se but rather of the whole money-for-software framework.
examples:
Base Cost (as compared to Linux)
CD-Key
Expense of Additional Applications
lysergically yours
Great article! On more than one level:
On the other hand, I'd like to make my own contribution as to one of the most ongoing and glaring "needs fixing" of XP....
I think one thing that will eventually make Windows XP for HOME (or PRO) ready for the desktop is fixing the START button. I'm still trying to explain to some of the people I have to support "LOGOFF" and "TURN OFF COMPUTER" are accessed by clicking the START button. It's hard to explain to them why when even I don't get it.
Yes, for those people who are cheap-asses who buy graphics cards and 3rd-rate Korean TFTs with absolutely dire or broken DDC support.
It should be noted that X.org balks particularly well on these too, and the
framebuffer drivers don't even check to see if a mode is available before
blindly switching to it.
Parody is one thing, but.. this isn't parody, it's just sniping.
Microsoft:
Linux nearly ready for server use.
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
I wonder if that was the point? By the standards that the ``Linux isn't ready for the desktop'' crowd apply to Linux, Windows isn't ready for the desktop, either.
I haven't tried to install OSX, so I can say that no OS that I am familiar with is ``ready for the desktop'' by those standards.
Roblimo just took the standard ``Linux isn't ready for the desktop'' article, replaced Linux with Windows and visa versa, and threw in a couple of very accurate slams at Windows weak points.
Good parody, based on truth. That's why it was funny.
See what I've been reading.
I doubt that most users would put up with this problem. I suspect that most would simply return their copy of Windows XP to the store where they bought it and go back to familiar, user-friendly Linux.
You can't return commercial software. You would have to call Microsoft and pay $35/call (or is it $35/minute?)
As far as just about every PC user is concerned.
This is just a sad and fayled attemt at speling.
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
Windows XP has always (for me, at least) been exemplary when it comes to detecting hardware. The fact that the setup (after copying files for less than a minute) leapt into high colour mode was impressive to say the least.
On my IBM Thinkpad and home brewed PC, everything worked straight out the box, apart from the TV card (which didn't work in Linux at all!).
I have had nothing but trouble configuring X for graphics - this is a bit of a cheap shot and the author should know better.
PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
And I don't want to start another flamewar about what the best desktop for Linux is...
Why the ferk does a monitor even need a driver?
It bugs me when mundane devices need drivers.
Like keyboards and monitors.
What's next, my power supply will need a driver?
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Personal computers are the only machines that don't turn off and on when you press the on/off switch.
Sometimes I press the off switch and some asshat program pops up a window and says that it won't terminate until I move the mouse to some little point on the window and click it. I can't do that because I've already turned the monitor off. I come back hours later and the fucking machine is still ON!
When I press the OFF switch, I want the stupid machine to turn off. Turn Off Now. No windows, no prompts, no "Are you sure?", no nothing...just turn the fuck off.
Linux is the worst PC operating system in this regard. Press the off key and the system reacts like you're trying to shut down the Defense Department. Page after page of scrolling lines indicating that this and that mickey-mouse section of the OS is exiting. Who gives a fuck? Just turn off! Now!
Turning the PC on is just as bad. It has to load 100 million bytes of code that haven't changed during the last 1000 times that I turned the stupid thing on. Here I have a 128 Megabyte Flash Disk about the size of my little toe and costing $17. So why the fuck can't I have all the OS on the Flash drive? So that it will go on at the moment that I flip the ON switch! C'mon guys, we're not booting from floppies anymore! It's time to leave the 1980's PC mentality!
Turn off and on when the user changes the state of the off/on switch. Such a truly revolutionary and mind-boggling concept!
Of course someone will point out that after months of study, research, experimentation, and trial compiling, (and hours of waiting and staring at the monitor), I could configure the system to do something resembling instant off/on when the switch gets pressed.
So why the fuck is this not the fucking default state of the machine! C'mon, guys, the ENIAC days are gone. This thing on your desk is an appliance. And like all appliances, it should go off and on when you hit the off/on switch!
> A much better experiment would be to find people who have NEVER used computers in ANY form or OS. Give them
;)
> a configured Windows machine, and a configured Linux machine. THEN see which one gets used more.
> Now that would actually be a USEFUL study.
And it's been done. And GNU/Linux won. And it was something like RedHat 7.3 with Gnome 1.4.
Hopefully somebody still has that story, as I've long since lost the link
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
So I've been playing with Linux on my desktop receantly, Fedora Core 3 specifily. I've used Linux in server settings for a long time but never on the desktop, figure it'd be good to get some experience. Now, as you point out, when Windows is installed, it lacks hardware OpenGL acceleration. It does have a basic software layer, but it's slow. Direct3d acceleration also doesn't work. It only does 2d, and not all that fast. Easily solved, however. I go to ATi's site, download the driver, and click install, the rest is taken care of. DirectX, OpenGL, and the GDI are all fully accelerated.
So I get Fedora installed. It comes up, and recognises my card correctly and we go. However the interface is a little sluggish when it comes to refreshes. I run a GL app and discover it's using software rendering which is very slow, and low quality. So I again go to ATi's site and download the drivers, ATi does have Linux drivers as well as Windows. Then begins my quest:
The drivers are RPM, so I tell them to install, no dice, conflicts with Mesa. Removing that proves to completely hose X. Ok so leave Mesa there, force the ATi installation. X comes up and it looks like it's using the ATi driver, but still no acceleration. Dig around on the net, turns out you have to run a script to make them work. Ok, run script, no dice, can't find something. Consult with Linux guy, says the error means they need kernel headers, maybe source too. K, thought those were there, I told it to install all the dev stuff. Whatever, get kernel source, recompile kernel, and now headers are there. Try script again, no dice. More digging turns up reference to drivers being for 2.6.10 not 2.6.11 but try these patches. Patch files, run script, success. Then run next script, no dice, won't install the module. Linux guy looks at it, not sure why. Decide to just try 2.6.10 since I have something else that likes that anyhow, there's actually an apt package (no not yum, apt, apparantly you can get that for Fedora) that is supposed to make it work all nice and easy with that. Try that, it goes and installs successfully. Reboot and.... reports the kernel module is incompatible on bootup.
And that's where it stands until I go back to work next week.
I'm failing to see the big advantage here. While it looks like Mesa is a more complete implementation of GL than comes with Windows, it's still software so the quality is horrible and it;s so slow that it's totally unusable for professional work, or even gaming.
Now in Windows the problem was a simple fix. Download a driver, click install. Everything else was handled and it works superbly. In Linux, I've gone through quite a lengthy process and it STILL doesn't work. I'm sure I'll solve the problem on Tuesday, however I can gaurentee a non-techie would have given up long ago.
I can't believe it. Has Slashdot gone so far downhill that they now write their own massive flamebaits, post them on another one of the corporate websites, and then point to it, calling it an article? Is Slashdot getting so desperate for traffic that they've resorted to this kind of ridiculous garbage? At the very least, they should have put the silly foot icon next to it so it's obvious that it's a joke. But then again, the picture of the Bill Gates Borg is about as juvenile as you can get. I now consider Slashdot's "jounalism" to be on par with the Onion as far as accuracy. Unfortunately, the Onion is actually funny, whereas Slashdot, more and more, makes me just surf elsewhere.
By the time you know that, you don't need to know that. Just like shutdown being in start, once you know it, it's not a problem.
They are both examples of things that are confusing, but only trivially so. When people harp on things like that, usually means they got nothin'.
It's a valid point of discussion if you are talking about things that could be improved in a UI, nothing wrong with that. All UIs have room for improvement. However it's stupid when you try a "My platform is better than your platform" pissing match with something like that because it's easy to find a similarity on your platform.
Ya, perhaps start isn't the best name for the button, or perhaps shutdown should be elsewhere, but it's not a big deal, and certianly not something Linux can't complatin it does. Try explaining to someone how something sounding as vicious as kill can be used to restart things, with a cryptic flag like -HUP, but also can kill things without mercy with the -9 option. You can almost see the question mark over their heads.
Uhh no. Debian is an OS. Linux is a kernel. Comparing Debian to OSX is apples to apples. Comparing Linux to OSX is not. Compare Linux to XNU.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
the desktop needs to support the hardware the user chooses to use
I would also say that the hardware manufacturer should support the desktop OS that their users choose as well. It is NOT the responsibility of the OS developers to make 3d drivers when it is in fact IMPOSSIBLE to make them. They have made a pretty decent 2D driver, but that's because they have the specs for that part of the video card. ATI is the only company that can make 3d drivers for any OS for their cards, until they release more specs. (Tinfoil hat theory:) I wonder how much money MS pays ATI to not make good drivers for Linux? It IS possible to make high quality and easy to install (relatively speaking) binary 3d drivers for linux. The Nvidia drivers kick ass, and they install by running a script (the drivers are IN the script, neat). Although, you need to close X, and then change one line in your xorg.conf file.
In SUSE Linux, you just need to run the online update, it gives you the option to fetch the nvidia driver (no ati driver), now when you choose your video card in the SUSE configuration program (YaST) it will choose the 3d driver. It can't get easier, it's easier than Windows!
I wish more distros would give you the option to download binary drivers for both ATI and Nvidia. I believe Ubuntu and Gentoo also make it REALLY easy to install the nvidia and ati drivers.