Slashdot Mirror
PC Magazine Editor Throws in the Towel on Vista
MacNN caught this incredible defection and loss of faith by a former Vista booster, PC Magazine editor-in-chief Jim Louderback, as he steps down from his position. "I've been a big proponent of the new OS over the past few months, even going so far as loading it onto most of my computers and spending hours tweaking and optimizing it. So why, nine months after launch, am I so frustrated? The litany of what doesn't work and what still frustrates me stretches on endlessly. The upshot is that even after nine months, Vista just ain't cutting it. I definitely gave Microsoft too much of a free pass on this operating system: I expected it to get the kinks worked out more quickly. Boy, was I fooled! If Microsoft can't get Vista working, I might just do the unthinkable: I might move to Linux."
He did say Upgrade Option - likely refering to people already using XP. Get a life, reactionary troll
"The first wisdom acquired when digging a hole is knowing when to stop digging; the first task you're faced with is deciding when it's deep enough."
Which is the exact wisdom I used to determine that Linux is unthinkable as a normal day to day desktop environment.
And will probably remain so for some years to go.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
I know what you mean. I've been looking for a Windows alternative for some time now, but I detest the whole Mac way of doing things, so that's not an option. When I've tried linux, my primary complaint boils down to "What do you mean I can't do [long list of stuff] in linux, or can't do it without jumping through various hoops, even tho these things are so easy to do in Windows??!"
So, yes, after a long history with Windows (and DOS), linux does feel "cramped" -- that's a very good description (kinda like going from driving an SUV to driving a Yugo). I wish this were not the case, I wish that linux would make me feel =more= free to do what I want with my computer, but sad to say this has not been the case.
I think a lot of it is that even to a very savvy DOS/Windows user, linux puts you back at square one, where you don't know anything at all, even tho it LOOKS familiar enough. This may be a lot of why linux is MORE frustrating to experienced DOS/Win users than to newbies, who don't yet have any firm expectations about their desktop OS.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Thanks for making my point.
Ha! Read my journal, you'll see I'm no Linux zealot, I'm just somebody who's come to the end of the road with Windows.
Sometimes I think that a lot of the hostility here is just posturing against the "norm". You know, like college students that go around telling everyone how hip they are because they don't watch TV or listen to "commercial" music.
Jesus, but you get some woolly ideas in your head.
I am not saying Linux is bad, it's just not ready for primetime. Any time a user needs to compile or mess with a text file you've moved out of the mainstream and the average Joe isn't going to want to do anything like that.
The fuck you were. You were tarring the Linux community based on goddamn hearsay because it's a well-worn argument, you made no technical points. Why are all MS defenders such paranoiacs? Wait, they're not, it's just another gross generalization like you made. Weak sauce, buddy.
Other people in this topic have said as much as well.
What, you want a medal for being a lemming? Piss off, troll.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I'm sure it works great. Until a few years ago, I actually had it running on a frickin' 90 MHz Pentium with a mere 96 MB of memory. If you disable a few services, it cooks right along as well as any old OS did for the day, and all that box did was serve up a few hundred GB of MP3s on the household network, so why touch it?
:)
But in this day and age, with what is presently available, saying it's a viable desktop OS is pushing the boundaries of credibility. It's like going to forum for car guys and saying a '62 VW is a reasonable choice as a daily commuter. Sure it WORKS, but realistically there are better options. It's a generalization that just doesn't make much sense.
I called him an OSX troll because of his opening statements, not just because he uses OSX, and not even because he stated an opinion which differs from mine. I've run several flavors of Linux, at times for as long as a year or two, but when I need to get shit done, I just come back to Windows.
Since I've spent most of my life as a programmer and I prefer to build my own machines, I haven't had any interest in the expense, lock-in of the Apple world. I've used 'em, even recently, and I just wasn't that impressed. I suppose that's not especially relevant, but since we're signing off with resumes...
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Why is linux unthinkable? I have a smartphone, sound card, and multi-card memory reader that I wouldn't be able to use at all if I switched back to linux. I suspect that there are many people who face the same predicament that I do. When I am at home I don't want to go searching for and applying patches to get my hardware to work properly. My karma is going to go down the toilet for saying this on Slashdot but Linux won't be ready for the masses until hardware vendors feel an obligation to write, maintain, and support linux drivers. And please spare me the "buy supported hardware" nonsense. The average person has already made an initial investment in hardware why should they be forced to purchase new hardware just to run an OS when they should be purchasing an OS to run their hardware.
My home media server runs on gentoo (Yes it finally finished compiling), all of my work and personal files are on an ubuntu file server along with images of my base windows install for when windows craps out on me. Despite all of this I run windows xp for my day to day tasks at home because all of my existing hardware already works on windows. When I can just plugin my smartphone and have it sync with kmail/evolution/thunderbird/pine/whatever and not have to decipher some poorly written manual that MAY OR MAY NOT work after an hour of editing config files that MIGHT be in the correct directories depending on how Distro X has their packages configured (wth happened to LSB??).
I agree wholeheartedly VISTA is a total disaster but linux isn't the great savior for desktop users, not yet.
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
The problem is that Microsoft Windows doesn't work like a real O/S. Real O/S's never crash. Not several times a week like Microsoft Windows XP, never. I haven't seen instability like Microsoft Windows XP ever.
My AT&T Unix PC never crashed. Apple OS X doesn't crash. Linux doesn't crash (since the 1.3 days). Solaris doesn't crash. My DEC Alpha running Turbolinux 7 never crashed (but that's bragging, I did the Turbolinux 7 port to DEC Alpha).
If you take that as hostility, fine, whatever. My computers don't crash (now that my work notebook has been upgraded to RHEL from Microsoft Windows XP).
why do companies (who have a profit-driven bottom-line) choose MS products over free ones?
Legacy and that little thing called a Federal Court Proved Coercive Monopoly.
Despite these things, more businesses are choosing free software. IBM, Google, Chrysler, Lowes, and others have all begun a radical shift away from M$ and have saved themselves all sorts of money and heartache.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I understand the frustration with Vista, but come on, switch to Linux?! I've used all three versions of Linux, and I'll never use it again for two primary reasons: 1) Doesn't run Internet Explorer, and ) Not enough wizards to get stuff set up.
Don't even get me started on the lack of a Linux version of Weather Bug.
Evil is the money of root.