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 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
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.
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 don't remember the last time a programme crashed on me, and OS X itself has never crashed on me." I have to wonder if this guy does anything but play reversi on his Mac. Lord knows I cant make full use of my Macs without at least one drop out or crash a week...
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 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. The Windows guys were, like, "Vista > XP", and the OSX guy was, like, "OSX > XP". Well, duh. Of course the new version is better than the one that's 5 years old--anything less than that would be a disaster. They do not see, though, how limited they are in their ability to customize their systems, both in terms of appearance and functionality, and this limitation is directly linked to the fact that the source is proprietary and the system can only be produced in "one size fits them all" format.
Only the Linux guy was actually capable of providing a reasonable assessment of strengths and weaknesses, thanks to his broader knowledge of OSes and what they are useful for.
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
There, now the opinion is more realistic. Not really, that is just your opinion. I've got no problem with you having a differing opinion. What I do have a problem with is you being a prick about it and not being willing to accept a differing viewpoint at face value.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
> good that the BBC has given equal time to the major alternatives
I use Amiga 4.0 you insensitive clod!
The problem is an issue of values. You assume that people value the ability to tinker over the value of what is essentially an appliance, which is not true--some people would prefer the Apple "just work" mentality. As computers grow more specialized (media servers, desktop workstations, mobile information devices, etc.), the desire for a self-contained, reliable, attractive solution will only grow.
Some people don't see open source as a virtue, and it's not simply because of Microsoft FUD. Most people I know honestly don't care because they don't want to have to dig around in the depths of the OS. They don't want to compile applications, and they don't care that the same source tree works on four different platforms thanks to elegantly designed tools. As long as there are Windows developers making applications that allow them to do what they want, it's an immaterial advantage. Some don't care that Linux costs nothing, because they never buy Windows either. It comes with their computer, so from their perspective, Windows doesn't cost anything either. If computer makers sold their machines at one price and offered to preinstall Windows for a separate fee, that act alone would be Linux's greatest boon in a decade.
Trying to "educate" users about how "wrong" they are is the fastest way to look like a pretentious computer geek and lose credibility. It's not about "seeing the light," it's about what values people have and which OS most closely matches. People here hate and mock attempts at religious conversions and many seem to resent government deciding what to do with tax dollars, but they have no such problem with pushing their Linux agenda on the masses.
Linux will always be relatively small because its virtues appeal only to a small portion of the population. It can't compete on ease of use with OS X, or the universality of Windows, or on cost with Windows (as long as Windows is bundled with PCs), or on the cohesiveness of OS X, or on many other fronts. Linux is great for tinkerers and those with an allergy to closed source; the rest of the population isn't broken because they don't care about those things.
...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"
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.
Actually the BBC micro and its cut-down counterpart the Acorn Electron preceded RISC processors and ran a 'basic' OS, (MOS/BASIC) that was little more than a tape filing system and a BASIC command line.
A pretty good one for its day, I have to admit.
It was followed by a disc filing system they simply called "DFS", and then later progressed to a directory-tree system called "ADFS"
It was Acorn, the manufacturer of these computers, who went on to develop what I believe is the first RISC processor, the ARM, and made a line of computers based on these with RISCOS for many years
j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
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.
I don't know why I am arguing with you, may because I am bored. Don't take it too seriously: it's ultimately a moot.
But anyway, I disagree with your pessimistic view. Gnome is just as easy to use as OSX. I've actually had to laugh when I saw a very analog-minded, Windows-nourished user bump into one of my Ubuntu desktops. He didn't even ask me any questions, just located a Firefox icon and started using the computer to the maximum of his ability. After about 10 minutes of being productive he turned around and said: "What is this, some kind of Mac?".
As for the cost issue, you are just wrong. Sure, Windows never see themselves paying for Windows, but manufacturers do! Do you think that Gateway gives a flying bird about what to install? Besides, that is, the price of the components. As long as there is a decent market--as much as 0.1, I suppose--they'll jump on it, because the marginal cost of delivering another OS is zero. The amount of hardware testing only increases by a small constant, and then a market of any size whatsoever can be saturated at no additional cost. The savings, on the other hand, increase linearly. 50 bucks is a hellova deal when entry-level systems are priced below 600.
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.
The Beeb was made by Acorn. It was based on the 6502 processor, and didn't really have an OS as such - really, just a ROM monitor much in the way that other 8 bit computers of the era had. Acorn went on to design the ARM CPU (now ubiquitous in handheld devices). When the ARM was new, it did appear in the last model of BBC Microcomputer (the Archimedes with the BBC branding). Again, it was Acorn's OS (Arthur, renamed to RiscOS).
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
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.
I wouldn't call it a pessimistic view. Linux works fine, and it's a valid desktop operating system. But there's nothing that makes in intrinsically superior for Windows customers. Your example points to the problem most OSes will face: people spend most of their time in web browsers these days. Being able to locate a familiar icon and use a familiar application isn't an indicator that someone can use Linux. Any idiot can use a mouse and understand the now-basic desktop metaphor.
./ before the (ridiculously long) filename just to get it to run. Both nVidia and ATi do a crappy job of modifying the X config files. It's easy to use if you don't do anything with it other than use the software it comes with. Where Linux fails is in the tasks that aren't as common, but are essential in order to keep customers (driver installation, software updates, installation, maintenance, plug-ins, basic troubleshooting, human-readable help files).
What happens when they need to install a driver? There is no step-by-step process to follow. Hell, even updating video drivers requires you to know to type
I'm not sure what your last paragraph means. If Dell or Gateway wanted to cut costs and install Linux, what's stopping them? Deals with Microsoft giving them licenses for $25 or less. The costs involved in supporting Linux are far greater than that, and Linux would generate many more support calls because of its inferior driver system and its utter lack of a device manager (IMO, Windows' device manager is better than either OS X or Linux, but in OS X's defense, Software Update works extremely well for new drivers/firmware).
Don't take this as a serious rebuttal, as the only serious point is that your example doesn't prove anything other than people recognize the Firefox icon (a victory in and of itself!).
I've had no problems at all with several large labs and cloning a single install to run all machines. You can use the free Carbon Copy Cloner or just use the tools that Apple provides, it's fairly simple and works nearly flawlessly in my experience.
Sapere aude!
> 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...
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?
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!
"Hi! You're now connected to the same wireless network you were connected to before you closed your laptop, the only wireless network available, in fact, and your signal strength is Excellent in case there was some doubt about your ability to get a clear signal from the wireless access point sitting in the closet six feet away from you. Please stop what you're doing and move the cursor down to me to acknowledge this critical information!"
I agree. Now lets just agree to respect each others opinions, no matter how wrong yours may be.
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