Slashdot Mirror
OS Comparisons From the BBC
igb writes "As part of their coverage of the launch of Vista, the BBC last week asked people to submit descriptions of the benefits and drawbacks of their chosen system, and today they've posted responses from two Vista users, a Linux user, and an OS X user. There's nothing earth-shattering here, but it's interesting to see the operating systems compared on a level playing field, and good that the BBC has given equal time to the major alternatives."
I'm sorry but this is not a level playing field. What this is is acknowledging the competition so as to appear fair and silence advocates, but then show off the latest features of Vista's interface, but not show the same in Linux and OSX. They have been playing this game for long enough that they know that eye candy sells. For goodness sake a Linux user that I work with said he was going to buy Vista just because he thought the box looks cool.
The Mac user writes: "I find it hard to find things to criticise, except perhaps to say that new versions of iWork and iLife are produced each year and it is hard to resist buying each new version, modestly priced as they are." Does anybody else smell a shill?
"The most unique new feature is called Readyboost. When you're having performance issues due to insufficient memory, you can use a USB flash drive as an additional cache of memory to boost performance."
Wh... WHAT?!
Sounds like a good way to wear out a flash drive..
FTA: "The most unique new feature is called Readyboost. When you're having performance issues due to insufficient memory, you can use a USB flash drive as an additional cache of memory to boost performance."
Unique? That's Virtual Memory. Sure, the fact that it's easy (may be) a good thing (though how many people are going to keep an empty flash drive around for this? Easier to get the kid down the street to install more ram for you and be done with it if you cant do it yourself. However, unique? I can put a swap file on flash drive and itd do the same thing...
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Nice report, though the Linux guy should have pointed out the DRM on Vista. They did a good job with the security portion too.
cymonroot AT gmail DOT com
The linux advocate pointed out the free software license, contrasting it with "piracy". Hopefully this is the start of free software making a real impact in the mainstream media.
Care about privacy? Read this!
and good that the BBC has given equal time to the major alternatives."
What, and no mention of OS/2? Feh... what a bloody useless study...
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
This is just filler for BBC's tech page. There is no real detail given on any of the operating systems other than, "it's cool, I like it". Before anyone says they should've said this and should've said that, this is aimed at people who know squat about computers, less about OS's and will likely read this article on page 5 of their newspaper. It was probably tossed on the desk of some rookie rerporter at five minutes to quitting time.
Windows: Eye candy, eye candy, and you're gonna have to upgrade.
Linux: Secure stable, and I swear it's got software you can run! I mean, people give it away for free.
Mac OS: I use my machine for things and I really like it. And it's pretty
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
"It is clean, uncluttered and lets me get on with my tasks. When I see Windows' reminders, popups, and other interruptions, I appreciate its absence in OS X." Isn't it funny that the only person to sledge their non-choice of OS was a Mac user?
"requires more resources", "is less widespread than the competition", "it is hard to resist buying each new version" are these the real drawbacks? And where's the comparisons the headline talks about? It looks like they picked 4 fanboys comments and posted them. And why are there 2 comments about Vista, and just one of each other oses? Because windows has a bigger market share?
Also, unlike Vista and OS X, Linux provides comprehensive support for languages such as Gaelic and Welsh.
I believe this to be false, and I am assuming it is coming from someone who has never used OS X. I just looked in System Preferences, and they are indeed there under International (you need to look under its native name, e.g. "Cymraeg" for Welsh -- it's hidden under the "Edit" button). OS X was built with Unicode in mind. OS X even comes with built-in support for the Inuktitut (Eskimo) language for chrissakes!! (Try visiting http://www.gov.nu.ca/inuktitut/ in Safari --- that is rendered in the default font!!)
I use both Linux and OS X heavily, but stuff like this doesn't lend the Linux camp any credibilty IMHO.
I was surprised that none of the Vista users had complaints (well, maybe it is no surprise due to the fact they weren't entirely critical). I subscribe to Maximum PC magazine, and they shred the crap out of Vista-- sure, they love the eye-candy and other handy things that Vista has to offer over Windows XP, but the editors of Maximum PC wrote another article detailing about 10 things they hate about Vista, including ridiculous DRM software, redundant program install prompts, AND the fact that it will have compatibility issues with a lot of software on the market today (well, the latter is to be expected as newly released OS's run into this). In the end, they recommend putting off the whole upgrade for at least a year (when PC games will catch up to DirectX10, and when hardware will be more compatible with the new OS).
Oh, and they absolutely hate the high-dollar price tag, and the scaled software packages (Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Ultimate).
I'll stick with my XP for now and upgrade when I need to, for gaming's sake.
I've heard lots of hooplah about beryl being unstable... and it drove me away for a long time. Stability is a major issue for me... but in my time spent with it... its perfectly acceptable.
Another significant advantage with Linux is that, unlike in Windows, there is no need to worry about security since viruses are very rare, no virus has yet spread successfully on the platform.
And that statement makes me cry.
1. Security is not limited to viruses, and saying there is no need for security just... ya makes me cry.
2. Depending on your exact defination of virus... say if you include worms, saying that no virus has never spread on Linux is simply not true.
I see purpose for all 3 OSs - well maybe not Vista directly, but Windows in general yes. But I really think they should have chosen people that clearly have alot of experience in all 3 OSs - which these people clearly do not.
The first thing I noticed after switching from Windows to Mac OS X almost six years ago is its complete lack of distractions. It is clean, uncluttered and lets me get on with my tasks.
If you look at the adjacent screenshot, you'll see a completely cluttered desktop filled with distractions. I find it amusing that out of all the images, this one has the most clutter.
I know there's at least three other people besides me who are shocked at the complete lack of AmigaOS 4.0 coverage from the BBC.
-- Religion is not an exact science
...but didn't the BBC have it's own Operating System at one time?
Something like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Micro
Too bad they never continued that project...
Thanks,
Mike
> good that the BBC has given equal time to the major alternatives
I use Amiga 4.0 you insensitive clod!
...and the Vista user sits down and says to the waitress "I'll order an Opteron...I want to take a Leap Ahead"
Not to be out-done, the Linux user looks up and says "My name is gentoo, and it's gonna be a long day for me...I'm gonna want some Intel Inside!".
The waitress scribbles this down and looks to the mac user who blandly says "Just an abacus for me, thanks".
As the waitress walks off to get their order The Vista and Linux users look puzzled at the mac guy who then calmly explains "if you guys aren't going to use a real computer, neither will I"
Advantages for the Mac: There is a robust shareware/freeware market, and much of Windows' small apps are capabilities built directly into what a shipping Mac can handle. It also runs X11, so with Fink or your package manager of choice, you have access to thousands of X applications. Managing your home network is a breeze (you configure your router via a webpage anyway, right?), and unless you're trying to play AVI files from Windows Media 10+, you should be able to find plugins. I can watch most WMVs and all DivX files from my Macs, no problem. No idea about your Sony cam. Linux: There really is no replacement for Excel. There are good spreadsheet programs, but I've always wound up frustrated with alternatives to Excel--it seems to be one thing Microsoft got right. Your mileage may vary, of course. There's also no Linux support for lots of not-uncommon activities, and getting the fonts set up so that text looks acceptable is far more trouble than it should be. I have always been bothered by the way all Linux desktops look--it always just seems flat and rough around the edges. There are tens of thousands of applications available, which can be a good thing, but it also means you might have to try 3 or 4 different apps before finding one you actually like and which can do what you want it to do without being frustrating. I know I'll probably get knocked for this, but while there is a wide selection of quality software for Linux, only a small portion of it has the refinement and efficacy of solid titles available for Windows or OS X. Even finding a good media player was a bit of a challenge (I liked Amarok, but it had some serious limitations). I'm saying this as someone who has administered Linux machines in the past and who had, until about two years ago, a Linux server. I'm now Mac-only and have seen nothing compelling me to pick up Linux again, but I have no bad feelings toward it. Linux is something you can benefit from if you put effort and energy into it, but it's not really something you can just fall into comfortably.
Except that it's true. If you were a spammer, would you rather own a botnet of Win98 machines on dialup, or a cluster of Unix boxes sitting on a fiber ring? And why has Apache had so very few in-the-wild exploits compared to IIS?
There are far fewer Unix machines than Windows, true, but I'd say that the typical Unix host would be a far more attractive prize than the typical Windows desktop.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The simple reality is that things are the way they are, and that means Windows has an advantage in available software and hardware compatability, but Linux has the lead in security. Were the relative popularity reversed the advantages would likely be reversed.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Sorry SirSlud, but market share does not mean automatically being targeted by malware writers. If it did, the Apache server would be quite the delicious target. Targeting Windows machines is commercially viable because it is a widespread *and* a soft target. If it wasn't soft, it wouldn't be exploited as widely as it is.
Here's the only comparison of operating systems that matters to the vast majority of people:
Software Selection:
Windows: The most and best selection
OS/X: Far less than Windows, but still serviceable
Linux: The least selection and most crude.
People use applications, not operating systems.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
This is the first I've heard of this feature. What are they smoking at MS that they though allowing users to dump virtual memory to a USB thumb drive would be a good idea?
Exactly the same stuff those guys who think sticking flash RAM onto a hard disk is a good idea are.
It's not going to be any faster than storing virtual memory on a SATA connected HDD [...]
Yes, it is.
[...] and it is going to eat the flash memory.
No, it's not.
Don't people know those things wear out? They're going to learn the hard way.
Indeed. Particularly persistent ones might find their flash drives lasts only 5 - 7 years instead of 8 - 10.
> And why are there 2 comments about Vista, and just one of each other oses? Because windows has a bigger market share?
No. It's because you have to say twice as much to make Vista sound good.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Slightly off topic, but I found Microsoft's current advertisement on http://news.com.au/ (a major Aussie news site, go figure) quite interesting. They've integrated what looks like the Vista desktop into the actual template of the site. Quite novel, it must have taken quite a bit of work to make that happen.
ISO certified == THX certified
I felt that the criticism for Vista and OSX was kinda weak. May be it's not even about a shill, but rather about not knowing any better. The main issue with the non-free systems is that you cannot tinker with them, but most users do not even realize what they are missing.
Yet another person lost in the stereotyped view of OS X users as clueless Noobs, who know not what an OS is.
Sorry, but the number of people who use OS X and are equally at home configuring any other UNIX system are legion. We are just people who got tired of having to configure things, and wanted to tinker with applications or other development instead of the OS that run them or even the window manager we interact with daily. I know a fair amount of about the kernel, about launchd, even about the filesystem and lots of other internal aspects of OS X I can use to configure the system just as well as any Linux system - but I am also happy with good defaults out of the gate that mean my tinkering is for fun, and not a matter of Getting the Damn System Functional.
I really don't understand how people so seemingly apt in their ability to configure all aspects of Linux systems can rain such heavy critisims down on OSX users, where really the only constraint I face in tinkering with the system is the equivilent of a somewhat locked down window manager in Linux. After having used TWM, CTWM, GWM, KDE, and Gnome (among others) I don't mind a window manager that is pleasing an performs well without much tweaking.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I disagree.
At face value, you are right. You buy a computer, it comes with Windows pre-installed, IE, Outlook, maybe even Office. You and I know that you paid for the software in the purchase price, you just didn't see that cost since you were going to pay it even if you wanted Linux or x86 Solaris or FreeBSD or... So, it looks like Linux can't compete on cost with Windows.
Then you get infected with a worm or trojan because the anti-virus software installed on your computer didn't come with free updates for then next N months. Now you have to buy a subscription to McAfee, or Norton, or Kaspersky (or if you're really smart Nod32, but I digress), and that is a re-occurring cost every year. Because you've done some homework, you also buy firewall software from McAfee or Symantec or (shudder) Black Ice. Yes, XP comes with a firewall, but you want the reporting features and ability to block by program that a commercial product offers. Oh, but you're getting a lot of crap in your e-mail, so you also buy mail filtering software. Then your thirteen year old, who knows way more about computers than you ever will (okay, this is
Now how much cheaper is that Windows computer than Linux? There are free (as in speech and as in beer) alternatives for each of these problems available for Linux.
So, yeah, the initial purchase price may be equivalent, but after that, you are just throwing good money after bad. But that's just my opinion. YMMV
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
I switched to Linux on the desktop about two or three years ago. I got an iBook maybe 8 months ago. For me the UI was not particularly intuitive, and after about six months I went back to using primarily Linux and windows.
I think I am similar in a few ways: I am a power Excel user, and I found that Mac Excel was no easier to use than Open Office, primarily because all the keystrokes are different, and I use Excel by muscle memory. So I don't think Mac Excel is really a solution; I expect you'll have plugin problems too. One other thing to watch out for: there are sometimes big performance hits on OSX for number crunching versus either windows or linux. E.g: for a computation in R (statistics program) I run, some timings were: 4yr old P4 with 256 ram running Fedora: 145s, iBook G4 with 1gig ram: 455s, core 2 duo 7200 windows laptop: 63s, xeon 5130 workstation: 75sec (FB-DIMM cost I'd guess). So watch out on that (there are some references about why this happens with Macs with R, too lazy to google).
My solution (a bit expensive): I have a windows laptop (dual boot to ubuntu) primarily to run excel with plugins (vnc or synergy to use the keyboard/mouse from big rig). The big rig is a dual xeon 5130 running Ubuntu for serious research computations and programming (even the big banks run a lot of quant stuff on linux), and general desktop work not requiring excel. The mac has the advantage of waking instantly from sleep: it is the internet terminal and plays iTunes (too slow for crunching, too weird, for me, for office apps).
Good luck!
Oh no!
Quick, someone call Microsoft, they've got to recall Vista!
An anonymous coward on Slashdot says ReadyBoost won't work!
He must be right, he was so certain that he used wild speculation to prove his point!
That'll teach Microsoft for spending all that money and time on research before implementing a feature, all they needed to do was post an Ask Slashdot.
Advanced users are users too!
I agree. Now lets just agree to respect each others opinions, no matter how wrong yours may be.
I was surprised by the trailing remarks from the Windows supporters:
"I really think that this one's going to give Apple Macs a run for their money." i.e. Mac have been clearly in the lead and Vista is just catching up.
"I see windows Vista as a big improvement over Windows XP and would strongly suggest other PC users who have not explored beyond the Windows camp to upgrade." i.e. if you've already tried Mac or Linux there's no reason to look at Vista.
Doesn't seem completely balanced reporting to me to have that level of ambivalence from the Windows supporters.
Andrew Yeomans
"not exactly sure where the line is drawn between troll and flamebait"
It's more like a bridge than a line.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Seems like that's usually the way it works, after all.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
He didn't say MS shouldn't steal others ideas (everyone does it), he's saying that the guy is making a flawed statement, highlighting his lack of experience with anything non-windows. If he knew anything about the _ancient_ *nix security model, he wouldn't act like this is some amazing ms invention.
Also saying that if you wouldn't use anyone else's ideas, you'd use linux is incredibly funny, as linux is, at it's most basic level, a reverse-engineered unix.
I'm going over here and I don't know why!
... and I guess I still qualify as a noob. I really should have known better than to try it. But I'm curious by nature. I'm just glad I didn't have any work open at the time. So, enjoy the chuckles. Out of curiosity, what exactly DID happen? The best I can figure out is I was logged out immediately and sent to a terminal console. I did it again and it let me log back in with the graphical interface but I'm not exactly sure what this "feature" is supposed to be for. Can anyone clear that up for me?
cracked me the fsck up:
"The most unique new feature is called Readyboost. When you're having performance issues due to insufficient memory, you can use a USB flash drive as an additional cache of memory to boost performance."
I picture a time when there's a big, gaping hole in the top of your computer, and when Windows cruft slows it to a crawl you have a bucketfull of microchips and you just throw 'em in the hole.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I'd find the whole thing more credible if they had gotten someone very inexperienced with computers to test each OS for a week or two. Any experienced user will tout their preferred OS over the others. Someone without much experience in any of them would be better able to discuss the pros and cons of the three.
I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
If all Windows users have to boot their PC daily, can you please explain my Windows box being up for well over a month so far without needing a reboot?
The only consistent explanations for your claims are denial or dishonesty. Given the way you insult people in your defense of a company and it's products, dishonesty is the most probable way to explain why your experience is different from the other 9999 of 10,000 user experiences I've seen or read about. Next you will tell me Vista is better and finally solves the stability problems every other version of Windoze was promissed to solve before the daily reboot recommendations inevitably roll out.
of course, Windows has absolutely no way of hiding all those tasks, or the taskbar, or anything else. Of course, there are also no programs or add-ons straight from MS or anyone else that give you more than one virtual desktop for WinXP, and have been since 2002. I could go on but you get the picture - you, as usual, have no idea what you're talking about. Desktops are only as cluttered as the people who use them.
I'm well aware of those silly "power tools" and addons and their performance relative to free software offerings all the way back to 1998. The most useful multitasking comes from others in the form of virtual machines that restrict and tame Windoze itself. Magic Twin is one successful means of sharing a single instance of Windoze that I saw demonstrated back in 2002. I consider these methods beyond the ability of casual users. I've also seen nVidia virtual desktops, which simply sucked on hardware free software ran well. The bottom line is that M$ has been slow to offer what free software has had for a decade and what they finally came out with is inferior to the point of being useless. There is still no easy and reliable way to lay your work out on a Windoze desktop.
My the 45 virtual desktops on my laptop are laughing at your pathetic taskbar and the supercomputer needed to run your five or six dinky programs, botnet and adware load.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.