Vista is Slower, But XP Is Still Dying

An anonymous reader writes "Though the Redmond software giant may be extending the lifetime of XP on low-end laptops, the end is nigh for the aging OS. That extension makes perfect sense, as recent studies have shown XP is far faster than Vista across a number of platforms. Still, Microsoft is 'sticking to its guns' when it comes to drop-dates for most other uses of the XP operating system. 'There are several dates that apply, but the one you're probably thinking of is the June 30 deadline that Dix referred to. That's the last day when large computer makers -- the Dells, HPs and Lenovos of the world -- will be allowed to preinstall Windows XP on new PCs. It also marks the official end of XP as a retail product.'"

Comments

Vista is dying you say?

[symbolset]

You have to follow a few links in the first link to get to this fine article where they explain that in 2007, XP's share went up in the enterprise. Since we know the end is nigh for Vista as well there seems little motivation to feel this pain.

That's telling, isn't it? And that's actually from Forrester, whose bias is legendary in favor of Redmond.

I should think some Vista evangelists aren't getting their bonuses this year.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Ethanol-fueled]

For now it's up to the users to decide if and when XP "dies". There are two ways I can think of for Microsoft to kill XP: (1) They could develop and release a useable next-generation OS(which remains to be seen) or (2) Putting on the tinfoil hat, I guess Microsoft could "accidentally" leak hitherto-unknown XP vulnerabilities so that XP will be so exploitable and unpatchable that it will eventually be unuseable...but that scenario is unlikely given Microsoft's support lifecycle policy. I doubt that they could handle lack of innovation and 1 or 2 more crappy OS releases before *NIX and Apple eat MS' marketshare. Also, MS' foray into the services market may go bust and after that, supporting their legacy software may be one of the few things that will earn them money.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

You can have my copy of XP when you pry it from my cold dead hands. As long as there are people out there using hardware that won't run Vista (ie anybody not working on the Human Genome Project or running a cluster) there will be people working on and patching XP.

I'm running the triple-crown right now (XP, OSX, and Ubuntu) in my graphics lab. For a laugh I put a Vista machine in. The students refused to use it and I ended up giving it to one of our faculty. The render stats for Maya and Studio Max are well in XP's favor.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Taelron]

And marks the end of Microsofts dominance on the desktop...

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm running the triple-crown right now (XP, OSX, and Ubuntu)"

Larry, Curly and Moe?

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[petermgreen]

"enterprise" customers buy volume licenses with generous downgrade rights anyway so they really aren't affected much by this end of availibility.

Still I bet there will be a BIG surge in PC sales come may/june as home/small buisness uses rush out to get XP while they cab.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[LineGrunt]

There is a significant difference between "dying" and "being killed."

As in "the death was ruled a suicide after the victim died from three self-inflicted gunshots to the head."

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're running Ubuntu on other machines, and you gave away a perfectly good machine with Vista on it that you could've wiped and put linux on instead? Why do I find that difficult to believe?

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[__aatgod8309]

I was going to make that point myself; nice to see someone else saw the obvious.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[somersault]

Well, there are always idiots about who want the latest stuff, and it sounds like he has plenty of other machines in his lab. Not very unbelievable to me..

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[westlake]

You have to follow a few links in the first link to get to this fine article where they explain that in 2007, XP's share went up in the enterprise.

There are stats that show a very different picture: Top Operating System Share Trend for May, 2007 to March, 2008

Win XP 74% Down From 83%
Vista 14% Up From 4%

It's interesting that the testers chose to compare a system running Ultimate with 1 GB RAM with an unknown version of XP.

If I were using Ultimate on the enterprise desktop, I would want it with full disk encryption enabled, TPM enabled. Performance on the lab bench would not be my prime concern.

The integrated Intel graphics chip is going to cut deeply into that 1 GB of RAM available to Vista.

Interesting as well that the testers didn't seem to grasp the differences in the way Vista manages applications and resources. Programs running under Vista should become more responsive the more you use them.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[somersault]

Yep.. we have volume licenses for Windows Server and Exchange, but I think we'll have to get some for all our workstations as well if MS manage to pull this off.. I told people that there's no way in hell anyone's getting a Vista machine until MS sort it out, and it's largely worked out so far (one of the MDs bought a Vista machine, and one of our salespeople wangled one from my assistant because he needed a decent machine for presentations and the XPSs only came with Vista - the latitudes were having weird issues when you hooked them up to projectors.. :/ )

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[symbolset]

Interesting as well that the testers didn't seem to grasp the differences in the way Vista manages applications and resources. Programs running under Vista should become more responsive the more you use them.

Not on the eee they don't. Nor under any of the 50 low cost MIDs and mini notebook pc's coming out in the next few months. For the two pound laptop with six hours of battery life Vista is dead on arrival.

Vista 14% Up From 4%

Lies, damn lies and statistics. All the way up at 14% after a year and a half with under a year to go before the next version is out? That means it's going to peak at something under 30%. Sure, they sold lots of licenses nobody is using. They made Billions doing that. I hope that's not the kind of trick you can get people to fall for over and over. I wish I knew it for sure.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Opportunist]

Now, that looks like Vista is catching on. But let's take a deeper look at those figures.

10% plus in one year. Now, how often does the average computer user change his hardware? Every 3-5 years. So, assuming that he also gets a new system when he gets a new machine (which is the norm for those buying computers preassembled rather than building them on their own), this should be reflected by at the very least 20% increase in Vista userbase, because 1/5 of the people should have replaced their machines (assuming a 5 year cycle).

Essentially, what this 10% increase means is, that about half of the people who got new hardware also got Vista to it, and nobody switched "mid-life" for their hardware.

Personally, I'm not impressed.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[sumdumass]

Microsoft could pull a third option and basically give free licenses to organization making the software people want or need to use with the intention of them stopping the development cycle for things that run in windows XP.

That in and of itself drove a few companies I administrate into using XP in the first place. Some accounting software they used refused a windows 98 or 2000 version and as far as I can tell, only wouldn't work with 2000 because it reported windows 2000 back during the install. You could actually change the windows 2000 information to mock a XP install in the registry and it would install and work all day long. Change it back and it stopped.

I suspect this also has something to do with Microsoft's push to get inside yahoo too. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't to manipulate the yahoo games in such a way to cause casual users who don't see a need to upgrade to all, to all the sudden have a reason to upgrade.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[menkhaura]

Not the end, but more realistically, the start of the end. With the Eee PC being the huge success it is, proving to the masses that Linux is more than adequate for day-to-day tasks, we are at a point where people begin to see Microsoft and their monopolistic (couldn't find a better word, albeit a cliché) practices more of a liability than an asset.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Rod Beauvex]

What's that make BSD? Shemp?

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Brian Gordon]

Because the specs on those laptops are terrible! What do you expect? Run Vista on a modern machine and you'll get good performance, run it on an XP machine and you'll get crappy performance. Slashdot seems to be having a hard time understanding this.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[westlake]

Essentially, what this 10% increase means is, that about half of the people who got new hardware also got Vista to it, and nobody switched "mid-life" for their hardware.

Take a look at that graph again and you will see Vista poised to take a 20% share in a month or two - and Vista sales have been strongest in the Premium and Ultimate markets.

The right question to ask is how the adoption rates for Vista compare to Windows MCE and XP Pro.

You should also have noticed that Vista is the only platform showing significant - and accelerating - growth. In the Net Applications stats, Linux is right where the Intel exec would place it: flat-lined at 0.61%.

The OS Statistics from w3Schools exposes trends over five years.

In the W3Schools stats Vista needed only six months to move from a 2% to 8% share. Linux five years to move from 2% to 4%.

The Mac fares no better on a site that targets the web developer.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Opportunist]

All I see from the statistics you offered that Vista climbed in the time from Jan 2007 to Feb 2008 by about 8%. Could you explain where you get the confidence from that it will multiply its market share by 2.5 within two month?

THAT it grows is a given. It's the new OS from MS. Anything but a growth in market share would be a complete and utter desaster for MS. Interesting is which OSs Vista takes market shares from. You'll notice that it gains about as much from 2k users as it does from XP (with "alternative" systems staying pretty much stable). It seems that at least half of the "early adopters" had to, since the support for 2k has died, and they went for Vista, skipping XP altogether.

Also, please take note what this statistic measures. It counts the machines that connect to that certain page via the internet. So I would probably be counted as a Windows XP machine, even though this is only a virtual machine running on linux. We're also not counting any servers here. Else I'd say that MS is really, really in big doodoo, considering that according to that statistic, more than twice as many Macs or Linux machines are running than 2003 servers.

Makes sense for the W3Schools, since they are mainly concerned with the question which machines access webpages on the net (and even more so, what browser they use). But taking this as a measurement for the amount of machines on certain OSs doesn't hold enough water to make me a cup of Java.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you be any more retarded than you are? Licenses 'nobody is using'? These are webstats, these are the licenses PEOPLE ARE USING.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Kjella]

There is a significant difference between "dying" and "being killed."

As in "the death was ruled a suicide after the victim died from three self-inflicted gunshots to the head." Three gunshots to the head? Yes, multiple gunshot suicides do happen and there's even a reported case of two shots to the head but I think in this case the difference between "dying" and "being killed." is none at all.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[b1gp0pp4]

Oooh, look at this shiny new interface!

Besides that, I have to put out there that XP will remain a stalwart for older PCs. If Microsoft were to give everyone a new set of hardware, maybe (the collective "we," which doesn't include any of you assholes on /.) all upgrade to Vista, but until then, cheap computers are plentiful, the American dollar is buying less gasoline, and that alone excites consumer buying habits enough to make us "Save a buck" and use a PC (not a Mac--Macs are for rich kids / yuppies / graphic designers -- no offense intended, my rich ex-girlfriend was wild in bed and took me all over the world!) until high-end hardware is cheap enough, our old computers break, and we have lost all access to p2p b/c comcast is metering the pirate bay and all the wonderful XP variants. I recommend one in particular, and I see no problem installing it at the small business where I work, because they paid for the OEM license, and all they want is a computer that works, not a bunch of junk software and offers to sign up for ad-supported free internet (they pay for business broadband already). It's called weismosis. I'll have to check on that. If i'm not modded down to flamebait or troll, i'll definitely reply with a link or re-seed the torrent myself. In the meantime, I've got some gin to drink, and mod points to waste. Peace out, /.!

they make you preview now!! How 193

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[ozmanjusri]

Not the end, but more realistically, the start of the end.

Yep, if you look at the W3Counter stats, in the last 6 months, total Microsoft operating systems hits have been falling at about half a percent per month, and that rate is accelerating.

Mac OSX has taken up most of the slack, but Linux is rising almost as fast, albeit from a smaller base.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[jamesh]

this should be reflected by at the very least 20% increase in Vista userbase, because 1/5 of the people should have replaced their machines (assuming a 5 year cycle).

The Y2K 'bug' aligned quite a few purchase cycles. A lot of companies brought their purchase cycles forward to 1998/99 to make sure that there weren't any lingering issues with Y2K (the hardware itself should have been fine - any name brand bought between 1995 and 2000 should have had no issues with Y2K or should have had an upgrade available, but if your accounting system needed an upgrade it may well have increased hardware requirements, and others just wanted to take advantage of the tax concessions available). In Australia we also introduced some pretty major tax changes at about the same time, which often involved upgrades to existing accounting software too, with a corresponding increase in hardware requirements.

I wonder how much the 5 year cycles have diverged since then, making your 20% estimate incorrect. Maybe the Y2K thing was too small in the grander scheme of things to make a difference...

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[KGIII]

I actually did RTFA and most of the comments but I had to chime in to agree. I know many people still using 9x and a few that are truly happy with WinME. (There aren't TOO many that liked or even still use ME but there are a few.) They email, browse, shop, chat, and play a few games. They are happy. They keep their security up as much as they can and call it good.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[jrminter]

The problem will be new hardware and drivers for XP. Not to mention security updates...

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[toby]

Three gunshots to the head?

Martin Amis wrote a decent novel, Night Train, revolving around this premise.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[peejay006]

Download Xp Service Pack 3 and Vista Service Pack 1 at ftp://cobalt.webhop.net/

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[fluffy99]

ASUS started offering the Eee PC with Windows XP because sales of the Linux version were pathetic. The Eee PC running Linux was being viewed as a fancy PDA more than a viable replacement for a full laptop. They were not taken as a seriously until they offered it with Windows XP. Google and you'll find tons of writeups of how to dump the Linux and install windows. I'll be danged if I could find one writeup, or even a person wanting to go the other way. At the very least, that hints at the market preference

As I already have a laptop with similar hardware specs that dual boots XP and Fedora, I think either XP or Linux will be usable if not speedy on this.

.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Kadin2048]

Interesting. This is the first time I'd heard any hard, realistic-sounding numbers.

I suspect if Microsoft really tries, they will probably be able to rally a little bit with Vista's successor ('Longerhorn'?), but the writing is sort o on the wall for them as a company. They can't possibly go anywhere but down.

There's just no place to go! They owned an emerging market and rode it all the way. MBAs will be studying them until the Earth turns into a cold, dead cinder. But only someone suffering from a great deal of delusions would have ever said that it could go on forever in its current form.

What they do have is a whole lot of cash, so perhaps they can turn themselves into a high-tech version of GE Capital (only, with less suckage). They'll need to learn to stop sucking the life out of everything they buy, but I think that's probably manageable. Hell, if IBM could reinvent itself as a software-and-services firm, Microsoft can definitely pull off becoming a big incubator, if they wanted to go that route.

But that's beside the point: their OS marketshare is headed south and I really can't see a scenario that would recreate the environment that made their 1990s takeover of the market possible again, for them or anyone else.

Somebody once said something to me about the technology sector that I thought was pretty smart. It was "the technology always moves surprisingly fast, and the business always moves surprisingly slowly." Most predictions of the future by technologists or IT people vastly underestimate the amount of time that the rest of the world will take to catch up.

Right now we're seeing the technology move into place, with the desktop OS fading into the background of what makes a particular "device" as a whole, and thus becoming commodified, but I think it'll probably be a long wait for the market to realize that the Age of Windows has had its peak.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[hedrick]

I'm not a great fan of Windows (I use primarily Macs), but I'm also not quite so negative on Vista. The performance tests showed fairly small differences, and the difference in use of swap space suggests that they didn't have enough memory on their test system. One thing that is clear is the VIsta requires more memory than XP to perform well. I don't think that unreasonable in a new OS that offers substantially more functionality. I'd recommend doing comparisons in a system with enough memory that Vista isn't constrained by memory to do extra swapping. I try use to use 2 GB for Vista, though I have one system with 1.5 GB.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[gbjbaanb]

For now it's up to the users to decide if and when XP "dies". yup. We have a customer who still uses NT4, so I guess that MS doesn't generally get what MS wants.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[petermgreen]

MS has said they will continue security updates for windows XP until 5 years after it leaves mainstream support or 2 years after windows 7 is released whichever comes later.

I would have thought that vendors catering to enterprises will continue to support XP as long as thier customers demand it.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Opportunist]

To make the changes reflect more than Vista being only bought with new machines, the update cycle would have to be longer than 10 years. And I kinda doubt there is a single user (or even company) that is still running the same hardware they used in 98.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[brucepattinson]

I think this is a ploy with all the computer manufacturers to force people to buy new hardware. My Pentium 3 933 will not run Vista but run XP perfectly.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kubuntu 7.1 runs just fine on my Celeron 2.6 with 512 MB memory. What kind of idiot would I be to throw that away and spend over $1,000.00 on a modern machine, just to run the crappiest OS ever built?

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[RockDoctor]

Putting on the tinfoil hat, I guess Microsoft could "accidentally" leak hitherto-unknown XP vulnerabilities so that XP will be so exploitable and unpatchable that it will eventually be unuseable.

Hmmm, one tiny question : what makes you think that MS know where the unpatched vulnerabilities are? They may know where some of them are, but imagine the corporate liability issues if there were any significant number of liabilities that they knew of (and knew of at least a proof-of-concept exploit for) and didn't make some sort of attempt at patching during the "run-down" phase. The courts would eat them alive. I hope.

Now here's some tinfoil hat fodder :

1. MS decide to kill XP by releasing the core source code, repeatedly spamming it to the LKML (using an anonymous or deniable stooge) ;
2. they achieve their twin aims of feeding the "hunter-killer" pack of exploit writers ;
3. and they have the beneficial (in their eyes) sideeffect of contaminating a lot of kernel developers with sight of MS code ;
4. the FUD-mongers get whole SCOs-worth of material for their next campaigns ;
5. XP ends up unusable due to unpatchable exploits (which have been addressed by Vista SP2);
6. a lot of people have to downgrade to Vista as being less painful than continuing to use XP.
7. ...
8. Profit (for MS!)

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

run Vista on decent hardware purchased since the OS was released (and spend the same you did to get decent current hardware as you did for WinXP) and it's not slower or harder to use.

try running WinXP on hardware that was fine for Win98 and guess what... it chokes.

compare apples to apples.... ooop, shouldn't mention them.... actually, since I did... have you tried running later versions of OSX on hardware that was released a few years ago... they choke as well.

sure, various versions of *nix work just fine on hardware that my grandfather had saved from the Crimeran war or something... but that's not a pleasant experience either

Sure, maybe Vista likes a few extra CPU cycles that we'd like. And maybe it needs at least 1GB of RAM (heck, I don't buy a machine with less than 2GB these days). But the OS isn't at fault because of it.

There are still idiots out there trying to struggle along with Windows 2000 or IE5 in a Corporate environment because they're not planned to "certify" and deploy an OS that's actually supported.... they said exactly the same about WinXP that the analysts are spouting on now.

I'm sure there's a point to my rambling, but I don't think it's required here is it?

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should also have noticed that Vista is the only platform showing significant - and accelerating - growth. In the Net Applications stats, Linux is right where the Intel exec would place it: flat-lined at 0.61%.

You keep posting those Hitslink numbers to "prove" that Vista is a success, even though they show no such thing. "Vista is the only platform showing significant... growth?" That must be why Hitslink issued a report on "Apple's AwesomeMarketshare Gains."

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops, hit submit when I meant to hit preview... Here's the rest of my comment.

You should also have noticed that Vista is the only platform showing significant - and accelerating - growth. In the Net Applications stats, Linux is right where the Intel exec would place it: flat-lined at 0.61%.

You keep posting those Hitslink numbers to "prove" that Vista is a success, even though they show no such thing. "Vista is the only platform showing significant... growth?" That must be why Hitslink issued a report in January on "Apple's Awesome Marketshare Gains."http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustom=Mac&sample=5

Also, although Hitslink's numbers only go back to October 2004, at that time XP already had 63.47% marketshare. XP had been out about three years, so the average gain over that period would be around 21% a year, compared to only 14% in over a year for Vista.http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=69

Also, when looked at over several months, Hitslink shows Linux growing, as well.

Re:Vista is dying you say?

[CommanderIsm]

XP - Vista - both are crap - limited user's - stillborn thought - microshaft should die. here endeth the lesson. command line process - goodness what is that? control over my own machine - is that possible?

Has NetCraft confirmed

[smittyoneeach]

...that XP thinks it is BSD?

Re:Has NetCraft confirmed

[Winckle]

No, XP is a zombie.

Lovecraft confirms it.

Re:Has NetCraft confirmed

[rvw]

...that XP thinks it is BSD? I think XP has all the right to think it's the Bull Shit Distro.

Re:Has NetCraft confirmed

[MillionthMonkey]

That's BSOD to you.

Re:Has NetCraft confirmed

[Opportunist]

Be honest, how long did you wait for the moment that this joke finally fits?

Re:Has NetCraft confirmed

[Winckle]

It really did just come to me now :)

I was playing a lot of Eternal Darkness on gamecube though ;)

two words

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows Classic... they'll hire some marketing guy from Coca Cola to run the campaign. "You told us this was the software you grew up on...."

Re:two words

[NJRoadfan]

...complete with Program Manager and File Manager. can't have Windows Classic without the complete interface experience. ;)

Re:two words

[TheRealMindChild]

Thanks for completely ripping me off, asshole. Probably why you posted as an Anonymous Coward.

Re:two words

[Anonymous Coward]

Its' funny, but I really like that name 'Windows Classic', and the idea it represents. It follows then that it will never be an MS product name.

Activation?

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy]

The real test will be what happens when XP is officially dead. No sales. No support. What will happen with activation?

Re:Activation?

[earnest murderer]

Ideally when MS really drops support a crack/patch will become readily available that MS won't bother to patch away.

Re:Activation?

[earnest murderer]

Scratch that, Ideally MS would just remove WGA in an End of Life patch for XP.

Fat chance. 10 years from now we'd still see "Windows XP Compatable" stickers.

Re:Activation?

[Stonent1]

I had to reload XP on a system the other day and had the issue of having to call in the activation because it wouldn't activate over the internet. I had to explain that yes this install was not being installed on more than one PC etc and finally they gave me the unlock code. So what happens in the future? Who knows!

Re:Activation?

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, better get your cracked copy on The Pirate Bay now.

Re:Activation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had to reactivate my legal copy of Windows XP so many times that I finally gave up and downloaded a pirate version...I expect many people will do the same...I purchased a copy of XP, I think it's reasonable that I should be able to replace my hard drive without having to contact Microsoft and convince them that I'm not stealing their product...If you treat your customers like thieves they just might meet your expectations...

Re:Activation?

[leenks]

Thats a long time off. Windows2000 is supported until 2010. XP is likely support for another couple of years beyond that. Plenty of time for everyone to move to Ubuntu or OSX! :-)

Re:Activation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, better get your cracked copy on The Pirate Bay now.

That's fine. I have some linux distributions/live cds already downloaded and ready to go. :P

If more distributions are released/updated between now and when my XP gets fucked over with the activation crap after june 30th, I'll grab them as well.

If Microsoft decides that I'm suddenly no longer allowed to use the software I paid for, I'll start using a real OS. I won't keep clinging to a company that will almost assuredly do the exact same thing a few years further down the road when they release whatever new thing they've half-baked.

Re:Activation?

[tomhudson]

Ideally when MS really drops support a crack/patch will become readily available that MS won't bother to patch away.

*cough* reset5.exe *cough*

Or just wipe it down and install a real operating system ... the one that Microsoft is so afraid of that it will continue to offer xp on the cheap at the bottom end.

Re:Activation?

[petermgreen]

XP vlk versions don't require activation anyway. In any case the last version of XP will be fully cracked by the pirates and with no more updates MS won't be able to break those cracks anymore.

My guess is though that MS will either issue a final patch to disable activation and WGA or keep the windows activation server up near indefinately.

Re:Activation?

[petermgreen]

according to microsofts current policy XP will be supported until 5 years after it moves from mainstream to extended support (which hasn't happened yet) or two years after the release of windows 7, whichever comes later.

and if pressured enough they may keep support beyond that.

Re:Activation?

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as SP3 hits pavement, I'll be releasing my XP Pro volume + my ex-employer's VLK + SP3 slipstream on Usenet. That ought to help a few folks out.

Let FCKGW live again!

Re:Activation?

[Raineer]

If you treat your customers like thieves they just might meet your expectations... Never heard it worded so perfectly, seriously... kudos.

Re:Activation?

[Computershack]

Thats a long time off. Windows2000 is supported until 2010. XP is likely support for another couple of years beyond that. Plenty of time for everyone to move to Ubuntu or OSX! :-) No thanks. Ubuntu was p0wnd faster than a very fast thing in the recent hackers conference.

Re:Activation?

[MrBandersnatch]

-1 TROLL || -5 LUSER.

Ubuntu was the only OS *UNHACKED* at the end of the conference http://news.sky.com/skynews/xml/article/tech/0,,91221-13702,00.html

BT

[JackSpratts]

users will continue installing xp until they feel something better has come along, regardless of redmond's plans. it will be as it has been, just a simple bt click away.

Re:BT

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a fool would get Windows from a public warez BT tracker.

Enjoy your complimentary rootkit.

Re:BT

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea how the scene works.

Someone buy microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you all, but I'm ready for someone to buy Microsoft and turn it around.

Re:Someone buy microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask Yahoo!, they might be interested.

In other news...

[Timmmm]

MSDOS is even faster! Seriously you can't just say "Vista is slower so it must be worse". There are other factors to consider - functionality, aesthetics, hardware support, security, and so on.

Re:In other news...

[tftp]

As it stands now, virtually none of ham radio applications run on Vista, and chances are slim that they will be updated. FlexRadio's PowerSDR, for example, works on Vista only if you have one of two supported $300 audio "cards" (external FireWire boxes, to be precise.) On XP it works with any audio card, even unsupported.

Re:In other news...

[Necroman]

But who's fault is that "hardware X" is not supported on Vista? OSes change over time and sometimes drivers need to be updated to support a new OS. I'd say the blame for incompatible hardware falls in the hands of both Microsoft and Hardware vendors. MS screwed up and didn't give people a backwards compatibility mode, as well, they didn't give hardware companies enough time/warning to fix the problems.

But at the same time, it's been over 1.5 years since software houses have known that the driver stack in Vista was changing. If they wanted to support their older hardware, they should have put out new drivers by now.

Re:In other news...

[somersault]

They have been considered, and basically nothing is better but security. Security is important, but as you say, other things are too. Speed is one of the most important because your efficiency is reduced and stress muchly increased if your system is performing like.. well like Vista. Vista is slower, so yes it must have some seriously poor coding in there. I read here recently that KDE 4 has more flashy interface options than Vista, but consumes comparatively little resources. Haven't tried it out yet as I'm happy with OS X for the moment..

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Other factors? Like not functionality and hardware support ain't better for XP? As for aesthetics; it's like ones buttoms. Me for one don't like neither XP nor Vista. Security? XP is as secure as you'd want to have it - atleast in the corporate world. So there you have it -- four factors which is more or less irrelevant.

Next.

Re:In other news...

[Opportunist]

That's a given. But if you don't show the user where his performance goes, he gets a tad bit upset.

When you switched from Dos to 95, you saw the difference. Quite literally. When you went from 98 to 2k, you noticed it (in a LOT fewer BSODs). Since then, though, it has become rather hard to explain the decreased performance.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are other factors to consider - functionality, aesthetics, hardware support, security, and so on.

I think you forgot we are talking about Vista.

Re:In other news...

[marcosdumay]

But who's fault is that "hardware X" is not supported...

Kernel developers, of course! So, lets complain loudly and keep using the nice OSs from Redmond... Ops, wrong thread.

Re:In other news...

[lysse]

MSDOS is even faster!

You can pry my 8088-based PC from my cold dead hands...

Re:In other news...

[CoolGuySteve]

What I don't understand is why did MS release one big new OS kernel to every market at once instead of having a slower introduction? With NT5, they released Win2000 and targeted it mainly to business and power users. This gave time for the drivers of more exotic sound and graphics hardware to mature.

When WinXP came out with the NT5.1 kernel 2 years later, there was a plethora of stable drivers already in the market from any company that mattered.

They could have done the same thing with Vista by hyping the new security and search features early on and then releasing a consumer version with Aero Glass enabled by default and all the other whiz bang features.

Re:In other news...

[UnknowingFool]

I think for most people the issue has been whether Vista is really worth the upgrade. To get most of the benefit of upgrading to Vista, people have to get the latest hardware. Most people have older machines and those who try to upgrade their 4 year old machines find them slower. Those who do have the latest and greatest only get marginal changes. Aero is nicer looking and Vista is a little more secure, but it isn't as fast as XP. But then half of their peripherals don't work any more and UAC annoys the heck out of them. So in the end, they don't perceive it to be an upgrade. They are much happier with older, but faster XP.

Re:In other news...

[blind biker]

You are right! Why can't we all just take it into the ass and just shut the hell up? Lenovo's gotta sell some new laptops - how will they do it if we all stayed with our snappier, faster OS?

Complaining about Vista's slowness is un-American!!!

(I'm not American.)

Re:In other news...

[toddestan]

Well, if the software works with pretty much anything in Windows XP, but only works with two $300 sound cards in Vista, I'm going to venture a guess that it's not a hardware problem at all and has everything do with Vista's DRM and the new secure audio path.

Re:In other news...

[Auckerman]

But who's fault is that "hardware X" is not supported on Vista?

The company who put the sticker on the box it came in that said explicitly that the said hardware would work with Vista.

Re:In other news...

[fwarren]

MSDOS is even faster! Seriously you can't just say "Vista is slower so it must be worse". There are other factors to consider - functionality, aesthetics, hardware support, security, and so on.

The difference between MSDOS and XP in this instance is that XP gets the job done.

1. Want to browse the web, XP does it.
2. Want to watch full screen video, XP does it.
3. Want to edit video, XP does it.
4. Want to sync your iPod. XP does it.

Functionaly, XP has it. What new functionaly does VISTA really bring? I know, it is suposed to have some things that make it easier to administer in a business environment. I have not seen anyone who has said that is enough of an upside to take on VISTA. So in functionality, VISTA is preceived to be no better than XP.

Aesthetics, is in the eye of the beholder. Not everyone is in love with Aero. There are plenty of "Vista Ready" laptops that can not run Aero in all of its glory. I think of Areo, and I think of how hard it is to find anything in the Vista control panel(s) hell. I don't know that Vista wins because it MAY be possible to have translucent window decorations, and a fancy alt-tab.

Hardware support, XP has it. With support through 2014 from Microsoft. With the number of people and businesses NOT moving over to Vista. Hardware support is cleary in the XP camp and staying there. Since so many end users and business downgrade to XP. The quickest way for a PC manufacturer to shoot themseves in the foot, is to not provide XP drivers for their systems. Try googling "vista only". The only thing I saw come up is DX10. How much aftermarket stuff is VISTA ONLY? Not enough to make a difference. XP wins for hadrware support.

Security, Vista might have it. In exchange for this "security" you lose compatibility with many apps that you would want to run. UAC on is a pain in the butt. UAC off lowers security a notch. I am not sure how much less spyware a vista machine may pick up. I don't know anyone who ran it more than 3 weeks before switching to windows. I think the security ends up being a wash. Once you have to install antivirus, spwyare removal and keep them updateded. Watch what you click on and where you browse. Deal with UAC. How much more work is XP than Vista for the same level of security? How much more insecure is XP for the average user?

The bottom line is XP does everything users want to do with decent performance. MSDOS, Winodws 3.x, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows NT 3.51, Windows NT 4.0, and Windows Vista do not. Windows 2000 almost does for most users.

So depening on your needs you have 1) Stick with XP 2) Take a perormance hit and go to VISTA for no apperant benefits.

Most folks are opting of for 1. Even if it means pulling out their old OEM CD of XP and installing it over Vista.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

functionality -- slow/high resource requirements. Slow on some things even with good hardware (gigabit copies at 10mbit speeds and such). Software compatibility is an issue. Also hardware support is an issue.

  aesthetics -- It looked alright I suppose, but was too slow for me to want to use it on anything I've seen it run on.

  hardware support -- low. Some stuff, it dropped support for just for no reason -- 3C905 (3com 100mbit card that's common as hell both on cards and on board) XP driver works once it's manually installed.. no Vista driver. Various printers. Video cards, including new ones, with buggy Vista drivers while the XP drivers are good.

        security -- it's had a reasonable track record I think.

        and so on -- I'll stick Microsoft's bad public perception here. Techies love to hate Microsoft due to it's antimonopolistic behaviors. Less geeky people I've spoken with seem to know not to get Vista, and responses I've gotten have been:
(~90%) plan to get a system with XP/put XP on it. They will HATE Microsoft once XP is pulled.
(~almost 10%) put Ubuntu on (I was surprised by this, some really are not computer literate)
(1-2%) BSD, other Linuxes, 98, 2000, DOS.

          Due to simple inertia of public opinion, Microsoft could find out some bug caused Vista's slowness and memory use, fix it, and still have people not want to buy it Vista because they already "know" it's bad.

Re:In other news...

[Walter Carver]

MSDOS doesn't run in modern hardware, XP does. In today's hardware XP is faster than Vista. Microsoft can extend the hardware support of XP if they want to.

Next generation OS.

[gnutoo]

You might have heard of this little thing called GNU/Linux that's been able to do everything XP and Vista can but with far fewer resources. No? Oh well, run your 7 year old OS and wait for Windows 7. The 7 to 7, or 7up should match the Coke classic upgrade very well, complete with a corn syrup obesity epidemic. Where did you want to go yesterday?

Re:Next generation OS.

[DAldredge]

Really? How do I run Office 2007 and VS 2008 under Linux? What about current and next gen games? How do I get those to work?

Re:Next generation OS.

[cloakable]

You contact the developers and ask them to stop coding like retarded crack monkeys. Then perhaps their code will be portable.

Re:Next generation OS.

[somersault]

You mean office 2007 doesn't run under WINE? Well, it will eventually, though why you'd freakin want to use it over 2003 is beyond me. As for Visual Studio, if you're developing for Linux (MS truly ending XP sales will be enough to push me and other IT managers to start using Linux on all machines that don't *need* Windows-only apps - for general office uses Linux is fine, though as Autodesk don't do any CAD apps on linux then I'd have a real job switching over our engineering dept..) then why would you need visual studio anyway..? Current games tend to work okay on WINE, and as for next gen games.. well, consoles are getting pretty darn similar to PCs these days, so for people like me, I'm happy to game on my PS3. I'm hoping that GTA IV and other new games involving shooting support mouselooking - then I really wouldn't miss PC gaming at all, since the latest generation of consoles can also download extra content and updates just as PCs can. I know that the graphics capabilities of current PCs probably already outstrip a PS3 (though the CPUs definitely don't yet), though they also cost about twice as much - and now it looks like gamers will have to put up with Vista on their shiny new machines. Do you actually like Vista? You are happy with your OS needing 10GB HD space and 2GBs of RAM just to run the display manager properly? Yuck..

Re:Next generation OS.

[wizardforce]

How do I run Office 2007 and VS 2008 under Linux?

I'd suggest Crossover or WINE. which reminds me, why can't Windows run Compiz or Konqueror or any of the other programs available for years on *nix systems?

What about current and next gen games? How do I get those to work?

talk to the gaming companies, only very recently did they bother issuing patches or creating ports for Mac let alone anything else. Right now most new games are coded specifically for Windows making use of APIs that are either not documented at all or documented very poorly making porting these games difficult or even impossible by third parties.

Re:Next generation OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so cool, you've just given me an insight into the difference between
Linux users and Windows users:

Linux users care about data formats. They want open standard data formats
so they can run their *choice* of software that understands the data formats.

That's why you find a bazillion text editors for example for editing code,
or why there are so many multimedia apps under Linux (vlc, mplayer, xine, kaffeine,
totem just to name a few) --- they all understand and speak the same open standards formats.

Windows users: They want what they think is "ease of use". So they spend $$$$$$$ on
proprietary software that does a "task" "easily", but uses a funky proprietary format
that only *that* particular proprietary software understands. Consequently,
the windows users are stuck on Windows because that's the only platform that
runs their proprietary software.

No wonder so few windows users migrate to Linux --- it's going to take a lot of pain
of using windows (windows activation, windows genuine advantage, windows spyware,
windows viruses, etc.) before a windows user ditches windows and moves over to
either Linux or OS X, or one of the BSDs. Now it makes sense to me whenever
I see such a story about some windows user moving over expressing "frustration"
as the reason for the move. The stories didn't say they moved because Linux
made them happier (although in most stories they were surprised to find out, that
they were indeed happier after the learning curve), they moved because windows
made their pain grow worse. It wasn't that Linux was "too hard" (after all they
did make the transition), or that Linux was so much "easier" (in *my* opinion it's
easier, but that is after all just *my* opinion), it was that giving up on windows
meant losing so much proprietary data that there had to be a compelling reason to
abandon windows (i.e. frustration with windows)

Linux users on the other hand can use (and lots do) use OS X, because that OS
also speaks to open stardards formats and can run whatever applications on OS X\
that understand the open standards formats. It's no wonder then why it's relatively
painless to go from Linux -> OS X, or the other way OS X -> Linux if all you're doing
is moving data encoded using open standads formats.

--Johnny is grateful for the epiphany.

Re:Next generation OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, here at microsoft HQ, we've replaced all the Windows developers with "retarded crack monkeys", as you put it. It really saves on development costs. The only drawback is getting the verious drugs (crack, LSD, meth, etc) that the monkeys are on. The reason for this is simple. Have you ever heard of a normal monky creating an operating system? It's ludicrous! Unless, of course, the monkeys are as high as a kite!

The drawbacks are, well, install Vista and you'll see for yourself. The upsides are more coffee and donuts, and Lord Balmer leaves the chairs alone.

As for other "crack monkey" developers out there, we license our drugged monkeys to other companies, so everyone can enjoy the benefits of using lower primates to do all their programming work for them!

Re:Next generation OS.

[Hemogoblin]

You could play Savage2, a "next gen" game released by an independent developer. It has a native linux binary. /end shameless plug

Re:Next generation OS.

[abigor]

Windows can run Konqueror. KDE on Windows is in its early stages now, but by 4.1, the apps will run just fine.

Re:Next generation OS.

[SleepyHappyDoc]

Linux had been out for years when XP came out. You fail.

Re:Next generation OS.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Depends on the game.

If you mean all current and next gen games, you'd better have a few consoles, too.

If you just mean enough, there are quite a few games with Linux ports (more than you'd think), and more run under Wine. I honestly don't have time to play all the games that I could play on Linux. I will confess I dual-boot, though -- to XP.

The answer to Office and VS is to run alternatives -- in particular, if you have to run VS at all, chances are you're not developing anything that would run on Linux anyway.

Personally, I'm much more willing to put up with the pain of getting games to work on Linux, then getting everything else to work on Vista -- or simply working with Vista at all. Right now, I'd sooner give up games than boot Vista.

Re:Next generation OS.

[petermgreen]

It is not just data in propietry formats you lose it is also experiance. A different application may have similar functionality but will often do things very differently. The same goes for configuring the os to be the way you like (BTW does anyone know how to make the taskbar on gnome have more than one row and stop it folding together windows from the same program when it gets moderately crowded)

Worse things vary a lot between linux distros, the configuration tools provided are often completely different.

The config files are a bit more consistant but even there sometimes things differ and then there is this whole network manager shit which seems to run roughshod over the conventional configuation options (including the ones in the menus on my debian systemt that had it installed by default) making it almost impossible to fix my network configuration.

Re:Next generation OS.

[fluffman86]

The key is that you can DO every THING in Linux that you can do in Windows. People say "But I can't play Halo 18, or run Office 2020, or Photoshop CS 12!" Yes, this is true, but you CAN play FPS (and other) games, and you CAN edit photos, and you can read and write office documents.

It may be different, but I still have yet to find something that photoshop or msoffice can do that can't be accomplished with GIMP or OOo. Especially with GIMP extensions...one of the big ones being CMYK support which is available with http://cue.yellowmagic.info/softwares/separate.html

Re:Next generation OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you actually like Vista? You are happy with your OS needing 10GB HD space and 2GBs of RAM just to run the display manager properly? ...Actually, yes. It's very swift on a new PC with updated hardware. HD space is cheap and plentiful, as is RAM. Looking forward to the version of Windows that takes up 50 GB of HD and 4 GB of RAM. I haven't tried OSX, but I've tried Ubuntu 7.1, and I can tell you I had way more issues during about a two week try out than I've had in the last year of using Vista Ultimate.

Upgrade your PC, people. Its like a car, it gets old and needs to be replaced. It's been this way for years, and as technology keeps improving, it's going to continue to be this way. Upgrading an OS is not like a new paint job, it's like a new fuel. If your old engine can't handle it, get a new one.

Re:Next generation OS.

[Foofoobar]

Easy. All Office apps open in Open Office and Eclipse has mono plugins. Games? I play Warcraft in Cedega on Ubuntu. Any other questions?

Re:Next generation OS.

[edwardpickman]

Personally I run Open Office and don't use VS 2008. I found it really annoying that Microsoft refused to port X10 to XP since it was the only feature in Vista I was interested in. It was an obvious attempt to force gamers to make the switch but it largely fell on it's face and most of the game companies have been hesitant to use X10 since there is no backwards compatibility with XP. X10 could have been a feather in Microsoft's cap but instead it's failed to become the new standard as it should have been. It isn't the users fault that Vista was a flop. If they put a new splash screen and added X10 to XP they probably could call it Windows 7 and people would be happy. I'd like to see both 64bit and 32 bit support like Leopard has but I'd be happy if they just added X10 and got rid of the annoying reminders and just released an XP upgrade for Windows 7.

Re:Next generation OS.

[schnikies79]

I have some proprietary windows programs (they run some high dollar chemistry equipment) and they need direct and full access to the PCI bus since they have their own interface card.

There isn't always an alternative, even if you want one.

Re:Next generation OS.

[somersault]

In Vista's case it's much more like having a bunch of fat friends in the back seat rather than using a 'new fuel'. You have a nice shiny new car with lots more torque than your last, but it isn't going any faster than your old one did because your fat friends are along for the ride. Hopefully this type of explanation won't be needed in a few years, as Microsoft will have died. Though there are always bound to be some companies that think just because computers are faster that they can get away with writing poor inefficient code. Your OS is not there to suck up resources, it's there to MANAGE them and assign them to applications. Unless you're just using your computer to move your files around in explorer, you're going to be wanting to run some apps.

Re:Next generation OS.

[CastrTroy]

Visual studio is actually a very good IDE. It far surpasses any IDE I've used on Linux. I think Visual Studio is the one thing MS has consistently done well. Granted the libraries they have (MFC) aren't always the easiest to use, but VS has always been a very high quality IDE.

Re:Next generation OS.

[menkhaura]

Welcome to Slashdot, land of the Nerds and Failed Car Analogies and closet Microsoft lovers. A car gets you to point A to point B since the 1920's with relative comfort. A 2008 BMW 328 isn't any more comfortable or safer than a 1995 BMW 325, and the mileage and power is about the same. If technology evolved to allow me to have a terabyte HD and 8+ GB of memory and a couple or two of quad-core chips on my desktop on a relatively affordable price, why on Earth should I waste that power and storage with a subsystem that, for all I (as a John L. User) know, shouldn't even be there? I mean, when you plug something on your wall socket, the energy is just there, no fuss, no nothing, it simply IS. The operating system should be the same; it is used as a broker between the SOFTWARE you want to use and that multi-gigabyte, multi-core, multi-gigahertz, multi-whatever hardware you have. So what if iron wires are cheaper and more available than copper ones? The power station can handle that kind of hardware, and you can afford to have fatter copper wire than iron ones, with the same specs (current and tension) as copper, efficiency be damned.

Your honor, I rest my case.

Re:Next generation OS.

[garett_spencley]

"well, consoles are getting pretty darn similar to PCs these days"

Yup. Similar in usability and price.

I'm a HUGE GTA fan and when San Andreas came out I bought a PS2 just for that game. I think I paid around $200 CAD for both the game and the system.

GTA 4 comes out later this month and with the PS3 and XBox 360 at $400 + there is simply no freakin' way I can justify shelling out the cash, and I'm heart broken because I've been looking forward to it since like 2004 after I finished San Andreas.

On the other hand, my PC is a great gaming machine and I have a lot of PC games that I love to play. If GTA 4 were available on the 29th for the PC then I would consider buying it. Although I found that San Andreas was much more enjoyable on the PS2 so I'm afraid that the same may be true for GTA 4.

Anyway my point is, while everyone keeps saying "consoles are just as powerful as PCs these days so why not game on your console ?" my answer is "because I already paid $400 + for a PC and I don't feel like I should have to shell out my hard earned cash for another one that can only play games (well besides surfing the net and playing DVDs but my PC and DVD player do those just fine too tyvm)".

The attractiveness of consoles (to me anyway) were their relatively low price (compared to a computer) and the better gaming experience offered by controllers as oppose to keyboards / joysticks / mice etc. But you can get gamepads for the PC (hell using an I-PAC you can even build an arcade control panel for your PC for about 1/5 the price the console will cost you) and now they're just as expensive as entry level PCs. Assuming you already have a PC for work / internet etc. you can add a decent video card and up your RAM and CPU (if necessary) for cheaper than the PS3 or Xbox 360.

Re:Next generation OS.

[menkhaura]

Thanks for the plug, always looking for native (proprietary or not) quality Linux games... until ads overwhelm me :)

Re:Next generation OS.

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

I'd suggest Crossover or WINE. which reminds me, why can't Windows run Compiz or Konqueror or any of the other programs available for years on *nix systems?

Really not the argument to make.

Konq has ran fine on windows as another poster poitned out.

Compiz is too low level to really be portable to other windowing systems.

Why not name some of the actual commmon open source apps, like say firefox, vim, pidgin, nmap, etc? Yeah, because if its really worth running it has been ported to windows.

Compare to: foobar2000, ventrilo, utorrent, digsby.. and thats just from my list of currently running apps.

Right now most new games are coded specifically for Windows making use of APIs that are either not documented at all or documented very poorly making porting these games difficult or even impossible by third parties.

It's documented well enough for game developers to make their games with.

Re:Next generation OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Really? How do I run Office 2007 and VS 2008 under Linux? What about current
> and next gen games? How do I get those to work?

This is so cool, you've just given me an insight into the difference between
Linux users and Windows users:

Linux users care about data formats. They want open standard data formats
so they can run their *choice* of software that understands the data formats.

That's why you find a bazillion text editors for example for editing code,
or why there are so many multimedia apps under Linux (vlc, mplayer, xine, kaffeine,
totem just to name a few) --- they all understand and speak the same open standards formats.

Windows users: They want what they think is "ease of use". So they spend $$$$$$$ on
proprietary software that does a "task" "easily", but uses a funky proprietary format
that only *that* particular proprietary software understands. Consequently,
the windows users are stuck on Windows because that's the only platform that
runs their proprietary software.

No wonder so few windows users migrate to Linux --- it's going to take a lot of pain
of using windows (windows activation, windows genuine advantage, windows spyware,
windows viruses, etc.) before a windows user ditches windows and moves over to
either Linux or OS X, or one of the BSDs. Now it makes sense to me whenever
I see such a story about some windows user moving over expressing "frustration"
as the reason for the move. The stories didn't say they moved because Linux
made them happier (although in most stories they were surprised to find out, that
they were indeed happier after the learning curve), they moved because windows
made their pain grow worse. It wasn't that Linux was "too hard" (after all they
did make the transition), or that Linux was so much "easier" (in *my* opinion it's
easier, but that is after all just *my* opinion), it was that giving up on windows
meant losing so much proprietary data that there had to be a compelling reason to
abandon windows (i.e. frustration with windows)

Linux users on the other hand can use (and lots do) use OS X, because that OS
also speaks to open stardards formats and can run whatever applications on OS X\
that understand the open standards formats. Now it's no wonder then why it's relatively
painless to go from Linux -> OS X, or the other way OS X -> Linux if all you're doing
is moving data encoded using open standads formats. It all boils down to a question
of aethestics: which look 'n feel does the user prefer, *not* which proprietary apps
must the user settel for.

--Johnny is grateful for the epiphany.

Re:Next generation OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Astroturf bingo 11 claimed for U23

Re:Next generation OS.

[Smauler]

I'm someone who's grown up with windows... I installed Vista recently and it is quick (though it does play with the hard drive far too much for my liking). I play games...

I bought a new PC recently and got vista oem with it because I wanted it. I've got windows 2000 installed on my system too, it's a decent operating system. It was a hell of a lot easier to get up and running than Vista... I just installed the drivers that weren't there and it worked full stop. Anyone who thinks Vista 64 is easy to set up, try it. Mine wouldn't even install - I got the BSOD with no real information of the problem. I did some research for the problem with my win2k installation and it turns out that Vista had a big old bug with 4gb of RAM or more and nvidia motherboard chipsets - it just doesn't work without a hotfix.

I've not got a point here really, save that Vista boots and runs quickly for me now (about 15 seconds from my boot manager), and works ok for me. I want to install some Linux distribution at some point, but I haven't gotten round to it (since a couple of terminal failed attemts on my old PC which had defective hardware). I have just bought a new PC which might explain why Vista runs well on it - I built my PC myself, so it's got decent parts all the way through, rather than some obvious weaknesses. I did go for the 8800GT though which I'm 1/2 regretting... though I had a ti4200 for years and years - I'm hoping that the 8800gt will be the equivalent... but I'm not too sure.

Linux did not install at all on my old system. It crashed and burned because of my dodgy IDE hardware (this was I assume a problem with the hardware, since the bios lost secondary IDE too). Windows 2000 was installed, and did work - though I never tried to install windows when the IDE was playing up (it was installed a lot earlier), it just worked throughout. That's why I used it. I'm one of these people who would use Linux exclusively except for the games.

I admit it - I'm a Windows junkie - their operating systems have worked well for me generally. I personally never liked XP, which to some is the pinnacle of windows to some degree. Windows 2000 did everything XP did as well with less resources with certain technical differences. 2000 is a very good operating system in my opinion - it's served me well, and I'll continue using it (with dodgy serial numbers because I lost mine ages ago... such is life). 2000 does just work - XP did build on it, but added nothing new.

I am an absolute fan of free software, but I am too much of a games junkie to abandon Windows. However, I will get around to putiing a Linux boot on this system soon hopefully. I've left 300Gb of space on my striped drives just for that - no, I don't value integrity over speed before anyone asks.

Ok, karma death : This is most definately why you should not post when high on coke.... you just talk crap which is not relevant. The point I was trying to make was that I, as a consumer, have no reason to leave Windows save those ideological, and the 70 quid I paid for Vista OEM. I'm too much of a gamer slut to actually make a stand and not get Vista. I know this, and I'm unhappy about it. I wish I could game as effectively with Linux, but I know I can't. That being said, I do have Vista 64, and some games just don't work with it - designed purely for XP - could work with 2000 I'm sure, but just deliberately crippled.

This is a long rant about how Windows is not as bad as people make it out to be, without any factual backup. I personally like 2000, and I like Vista - It is actually quicker than 2000 on my system (though 2000 is installed on my old drive, and cannot see my striped drives (nvidia raid). If anyone can tell me how to install drivers to let 2000 see my striped array, 650i motherboard, I'd be very appreciative, because I can't seem to get it working.

It is easy to say switch, but there are loads of reason I personally don't - well 1 reason, really, and that is games. I'm part of the problem if you

Re:Next generation OS.

[Hemogoblin]

You're welcome. Hopefully you enjoy it; it's an FPS/RTS, and it might not appeal to all gamers, but I find it pretty damn fun. Theres a 5-hour full version demo that you can try out too.

Re:Next generation OS.

[BrianRagle]

My issue with your statement is less to do with your question and more to do with the signature line. Comparing Vista antipahty to Young Earth Creationists? Really???? It's not even a valid statement. YECs can be shown to have a flawed premise through multiple streams of data, from radiometric data to fossil and DNA evidence. No one who knows anything about the subject will take a YEC seriously simply because of the disparity in evinced education on the matter. People who have issues with Windows Vista, however, have a genuine gripe, supported by numerous studies and metrics against even older Microsoft operating systems. In short, it's not a matter of people who dislike Vista ignoring the voluminous evidence supporting the claims of Vista. It's people USING the voluminous evidence of Vista problems to dislike it until a fix is rendered.

Re:Next generation OS.

[pallmall1]

Looks pretty interesting. Thanks for the link.

By the way, I'm not being polite. I just wanted to reply so I could find the link to the game again. :)

Re:Next generation OS.

[vuffi_raa]

You might have heard of this little thing called GNU/Linux that's been able to do everything XP and Vista can but with far fewer resources. No? kinda hard to type with your head so far up your ass, no? Sorry linux cannot do a single thing that I do on my XP box with any regularity, if it did I would switch.

Re:Next generation OS.

[Computershack]

You might have heard of this little thing called GNU/Linux that's been able to do everything XP and Vista can but with far fewer resources.

Really? So I can play Battlefield 2 and all my other games with full detail? And my wifi will work properly? And my hard drive on my laptop won't prematurely die from needless power cycles?
Have all of these suddenly been sorted overnight? Wow...

Re:Next generation OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter? Is that you? Explain to me how I can run the latest games on this 'GNU/Linux' that you speak of, or the latest office software? You can't? Huh??

Re:Next generation OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not just data in propietry formats you lose it is also experiance. A different application may have similar functionality but will often do things very differently.

Like for example, the move from one version of Microsoft Office to another?

Or like for example, the completely different GUIs in every version of Windows?

Using vista is going to be a *lot* harder in terms of user-training for people knowledgeable of XP than using Linux would..

Re:Next generation OS.

[Sethalos]

I bought a brand new Alienware gaming machine that came pre-installed with Vista, I lasted roughly 4 days before I took it off and replaced it with a dual boot of XP and Ubuntu. Now, I have every system in my house running Ubuntu, and only my gaming machine that still has a Windows OS on it. I can do more with my Ubuntu installs with less than I could with XP. I'm a convert. I also spread the gospel to all of my friends and so far I have converted many of them. The word is out...Microcrap isn't the only game in town anymore.

Re:Next generation OS.

[petermgreen]

Like for example, the move from one version of Microsoft Office to another?
95->97->XP->2003 didn't seem to change that much in the layout of office.

Agree with you that 2007 is a big change though and many places are very reluctant to upgrade because of that.

Or like for example, the completely different GUIs in every version of Windows?

Using vista is going to be a *lot* harder in terms of user-training for people knowledgeable of XP than using Linux would.
Having used vista it felt much windows like than the linux systems i've used (admittedly I did select the clasic theme).

The concept of drive letters was still there, taskbar resizing and toolbar positioning worked in the same way. The options for the classis start menu and classic theme were in the same place. Yes with the default theme selected things looked different (and horrible IMO) but they mostly worked the same.

Re:Next generation OS.

[Daniel Phillips]

How do I run Office 2007 and VS 2008 under Linux? What about current and next gen games? How do I get those to work? Why would I want to?

Re:Next generation OS.

[somersault]

I'd never really seen the attractiveness of GTA on consoles rather than PC, as I didn't like the lack of mouse, and the graphics also just weren't as good (lower res), and you couldn't download extra content (admittedly I only downloaded extra cars for the original GTA III, not any of the add-ons). Personally after getting a PS3 I'd definitely say it's worth it, blu-ray is awesome; though most films probably aren't worth the extra expense, only the flashier ones - Ratatouille looks amazing in HD :) I thought Independence Day would be worth it but the quality is pretty grainy, probably because of the original film it was shot on.. anyway, I'm going to have a bash at installing Linux this week, and I'm going to see how it works for 'productivity' type stuff like viewing powerpoint presentations and checking email. I'm seriously considering getting one for our conference room (management likes flashier/pretty equipment in there, and with VNC installed then you could pretty much do anything on the PS3 anyway, tho always having to VNC into another machine defeats the purpose somewhat), and maybe even just for regular office use. The price/performance of a PS3 really is spectacular, and most of the in house coding I've done recently has been for web apps so it would be able to do everything that is needed :P Plus we then have networked PS3s for playing games at lunchtime.. mwahahahah :)

Point is that you are probably spending more overall upgrading your PC every so often than you would getting the PS3 - but with a PS3 you know you won't need to upgrade until the newer system comes out, and then you can just use it as a server or something..

Re:Next generation OS.

[somersault]

I did enjoy Visual C++ 6 a lot, and still have it somewhere.. though I never learned how to do GUIs with it (I used it for developing a Counter-Strike bot DLL back in the day - very good times staying up til 5AM coding and 'testing' :) ). I use Delphi for any GUI work these days and it is also pretty nice to use, though the interface is a bit more cluttered than it needs to be

Let it die

[ShieldW0lf]

Good riddance. With a new LTS release of Ubuntu coming up in a scant few weeks and support for the entire Adobe creative suite in Wine, I don't see as there's much reason to bother with it.

Re:Let it die

[__aapspi39]

You've touched on an issue that must be quite important for a lot of people; as someone who uses CS3 day in day out, the only barrier to taking the plunge into Linux is whether or not wine can effectively do the job of running it - is there anyone who can vouch for this kind of setup and its workability?

The other thing is that while my experience of virtualisation (in xp) has been pretty good, if you have to install xp into a virtual machine, then doesn't that kind of defeat the object of moving over to Linux in the first place? I'd still have to pay for an xp license at the end of the day.

I'm probably going to give it a try anyhow, but it would be good to know if anyone has any thoughts (or particularly useful links.)

Re:Let it die

[chmod a x mojo]

Not sure about CS3 compatibility, sheck the WINE app database.

that said though some of the newer wine builds you have a choice of bugs wacom pressure sensitivity BUT your background / forground colors are switched ( background on pen tip, foreground on eraser) OR you can switch the X recognition of your pentip and erasor BUT lose pressure sensitivity...

Re:Let it die

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wasting your time. These are people who have never worked in an actual enterprise-level company, who seemingly don't play games, who think OpenOffice is "good enough" and that's what companies "should" use, and on and on. They don't understand that the OS is fucking irrevelevant most of the time - what counts is the software it runs, pure and simple. And for a great deal of functionality, from games to enterprise software, the only game in town is Windows.

Re:Let it die

[jalefkowit]

Google have hired Codeweavers to develop improvements for Wine specifically to enhance the performance of Photoshop.

They don't appear to be quite there yet with CS3 but all previous versions up to CS2 reportedly run well.

Re:Let it die

[Anonymous Coward]

Support for the entire Adobe Creative Suite in WINE? Support from Adobe? Or just support in WINE? Last time I checked, only Photoshop up to v 7.0 worked reliably in WINE. Otherwise the installer wouldn't work (but if you installed it in Windows and moved that install over to Linux/WINE it would work, apparently).

Re:Let it die

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked, only Photoshop up to v 7.0 worked reliably in WINE. Otherwise the installer wouldn't work (but if you installed it in Windows and moved that install over to Linux/WINE it would work, apparently).

http://jonramvi.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/62/
Posted on 11. March 2008.

"Wine is one of the fastest developed open source applications. A new Wine version is released every two weeks. Not only can you run World of Warcraft, but new and heavy games like Call of Duty 4 are also supported. One application that users have been wanting to run on Linux for several years is Adobe Photoshop. We've been doomed to use version 8 until recently. Google is helping out with the development to have Photoshop CS3 supported. As for now, Photoshop CS2 runs without any problems.

However, a couple of hours ago Louis Lenders managed to install and run Adobe Photoshop CS3. He used the latest available source of wine (from git) which will be released in under two weeks as wine version 0.9.58."

WinwHQ status says Wine is now version 0.9.59

http://www.winehq.org/

The current plan is to release Wine 1.0 on June 13th this year.

http://www.winehq.org/?issue=343#Approaching%20Wine%201.0

http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleasePlan

The release plan includes the requirement that Phootshop CS2 at least should run well.

Re:Let it die

[jilles]

Ironically, the previous and soon to be abandoned LTS was released just a few short months before Vista was released. I've been running XP through basically the entire lifespan of Ubuntu, most of which became abandonware shortly after release.

It strikes me as odd that MS is getting bad press over discontinuing support for something when all of its competitors (including Apple) maintain vastly shorter update cycles and basically force their customers into frequent update cycles. Ubuntu did the 6.04, 6.10 (LTS), 7.04, 7.10 and soon 8.04 releases in the 2.5 year lifespan of my IBM/lenovo thinkpad. It's not scheduled to be replaced until after 8.10. So this series includes two LTS releases, one of which will be obsoleted before my new laptop arrives. So theoretically (since there was no such thing when I got my laptop), the last LTS release it could have been prepackaged with was 5.04 (aka 1.0?) and I would have had to go through two major OS upgrades in the normal lifespan of my laptop just to get a decent level of security patches/important fixes and support from Ubuntu.

I'm not saying XP is great (it isn't) but I have used it on four different work desktops since 2000 without too much hassle and it is basically still getting the job done.

Re:Let it die

[sl33p3r]

I already made the switch to Ubuntu a while ago. Although it has it's issues, I'm happy with the power it offers me. I keep XP on a little partition for gaming only. Also another copy of XP in a virtualbox image under linux, for tasks that need xp only (also for testing web apps compliance with both systems).
On a dual monitor setup, is a breeze to run both systems at the same time, each on it's own monitor. Once you get used to linux, you don't want to switch back. It's so much powerful compared to Windows, I couldn't live without it.

Re:Let it die

[Computershack]

AMEN BROTHERS. I'm sick to death of the Loonix fags telling me how great linux is and telling me it's my fault that my wifi doesn't work on my laptop and it's suffering the click of death despite the fact it's in the bugtraqs and thousands of people have the same problem.
I'm sick of Loonix fags telling me how secure Linux is on the very same day that yet another exploit is released and Linux was first to fall in the recent hacker competition.
I'm sick of Loonix fags telling me how great OSS apps are when the interface looks like something I used to get in DOS applications in the early 90's.
I'm sick of Loonix fans telling me how great it runs on older hardware when I can run XP at decent speeds on 256MB and any of the current versions of Suse, Ubuntu, Fedora etc run like a fucking pig under 512MB RAM. And how they go on about how great it is that all graphics cards are supported like using FB and having to WAIT as the screen updates when you scroll through a document can be counted as supported somehow.

Yes Linux is good. It's progressed a lot but it's by nowhere near the capabilities of Windows either in the software base (that's decent stuff actually worth having) or hardware support. But I ask you this. If Linux is so good, how come so many Eee PC users are uninstalling it?

Re:Let it die

[MrBandersnatch]

sudo update-manager -D * password * click * click *

That was a damn *major* upgrade from 7.04 to 8.04 now wasn't it?

I know, I'm being facetious here (sorry) but I had a very good transition on my laptop, but a much worse experience on my HTPC due to wireless card issues (this is beta though) so at leasts ONE of those upgrade transitions has the *potential* to be simple. And if we're fair when comparing it so XP; SP1 and SP2 could be viewed as equivalent to the 6.04 to 7.04 upgrade and SP3 is on the horizon, so it is hardly as if XP remained static.

I know what you're saying but I DONT think your comparison is entirely fair.

Re:Let it die

[jilles]

I don't think Ubuntu upgrades get quite the amount of testing that windows service packs do. Generally, you might count yourself lucky if it just works. Most people I know that use Ubuntu prefer the good old format + clean install approach. I know I have certainly dist upgraded many Debian and ubuntu installs to the point where that indeed seemed the easy way out. Windows XP on the other hand seems reasonably well behaved with service pack installs. At least I don't recall ever running into major problems with service packs of either windows 2000 or XP. The reason is that these were designed and extensively tested to be installed on existing installs.

So my comparison is entirely fair. But to be completely fair, my 2.5 year old laptop was already running sp2 when I received it. You see, it was released in 2004. Of course the upcoming SP3 is long overdue but I'm not anticipating major problems there.

Re:Let it die

[Tony Hoyle]

Debian has insane amounts of testing - some of my servers have been dist-upgraded since 2001/2 with no ill effects.

Windows service packs do break stuff, like the 2000 service pack that broke login (SP2?) and the one that changed NTFS and hosed the disks (SP4? Possibly 3).

Anyway you can't compare dist-upgrade to a service pack. A closer comparison would be starting with Win2k and upgrading it to vista via XP without a single thing breaking.

Re:Let it die

[jilles]

I think we are well into apples and oranges territory here.

Lets say your mileage may vary. It all depends on what packages you install, which on a typical Debian server is conveniently not that many. Regardless, I wouldn't recommend dist upgrades on a production server. There's just too much that can go wrong that will cause you downtime. Of course, once broken, a Debian install is still pretty fixable. Come to think of it, I've never experienced a clean install with Debian for which I did not have to fix major things like e.g. x, networking, sound etc. Or indeed all of these like the last release of Ubuntu I tried on my PC. If your (reasonable) expectation is you have to do that again after a dist-upgrade then yes, Ubuntu is great.

Upgrading win2k all the way to Vista is indeed a challenge (and bloody unlikely given the hardware requirements). I don't think windows OS upgrades have ever worked properly though apparently some were happy with the results. I think even Microsoft recommends against it. Last time I had the choice I went the clean installation route. That was in 2000.

Re:Let it die

[domatic]

I won't burden you with how great Linux is but I can tell you that after having several people bring several Virtualmonde-r00t3d Windows boxes to me that I have absolutely no patience for a rude rant from a Windows fanboi.

Re:Let it die

[ShieldW0lf]

What is your point? The last LTS release is still going to be supported for years to come. As will the next LTS release.

Upgrading Ubuntu isn't like upgrading windows. It's like upgrading windows, and your office suite, and your productivity tools, and your games, and every other little thing on your system.

Which is one of the best parts of using Ubuntu. You don't have 20 little applets running all the time, phoning home with who knows what personal data, nagging you to register or upgrade or screwing with your default file associations.

Windows feels like a wrestling ring, with representatives from a dozen different companies duking it out, creating drama and looking for attention with anti-virus and anti-rootkit and anti-spyware programs acting like assistant referees and slowing everything to a crawl.

Sometimes using open source software can be frustrating. But after growing accustomed to using it, running windows is like trying to get work done in a daycare full of children with attention deficit disorder.

I'm sorry, but if my artist/designer girlfriend, my 7 year old daughter and my 7 year old niece find it easier to use than Windows, and you can't figure it out, well, either you didn't try, or you're fucking retarded.

Re:Let it die

[jilles]

http://www.ubuntu.com/news/ubuntu610end-of-life

So my point is that Ubuntu has officially announced end of life for 6.10 to be April 25th and that they will stop patching security only 18 months later. 18 + 18 is 36 (i.e. 3 years) which is exactly the period after which my work laptop is due to be replaced. 18 months is not long term and neither is 36.

So I'm not a fucking retard, thank you very much. Next time you call someone a retard, check your facts. Also you might want to reflect on what that actually makes you (you might want to use a mirror to check your behind).

Re:Let it die

[ShieldW0lf]

6.10 AKA Edgy wasn't a LTS release. 6.06 AKA Dapper Drake was the last LTS release.

http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(Linux_distribution)

The LTS releases get 3 years of support on the desktop, and 5 years of support on the server.

Which means you'll get full support for Dapper on the desktop until June, 2009 and on the server until June, 2011.

Oh, and I never said you were a moron. I said people who claim to not be able to use this distro either didn't actually try, or are morons.

However, you sure seem determined to prove that you are indeed a moron. Keep up the good work.

Re:Let it die

[Computershack]

Wow, several out of several hundred million users? BTW, even Linux.com says Wifi is basically busted and not likely to be sorted any time soon.

Re:Defective By Design.

[petermgreen]

most companies big enough to care about the differences between home and pro on such a machine are big enough to have volume license deals that come with generous downgrade rights.

as for bundling of works that is common across PCs of all sizes. Office is just too expensive for most manufacturers to bundle it by default.

Irrelevant

[tnmc]

Who cares when M$ stops selling XP, the only truly important date is when the last bugfix for XP is released.

Re:Defective By Design.

[neokushan]

Last I checked, it was competing with free software remarkably well. In fact, it owns something like 70-90% of the market, depending on which market you look at.
Surely someone as open-minded, intelligent and non-biased such as yourself must stand back and admit that it must be doing SOMETHING right in order to maintain that lead, as well as for so many people to kick up a fuss now that it looks like it's going to be killed off.
Surely, I mean surely in the near-25-years that Microsoft has been developing windows, they hit the nail on the head and released a genuinely good Operating System at least once! Surely!
Or maybe not. Maybe nearly 90% of the users out there are all idiots or forced to use it because Microsoft has a proverbial gun stuck to their head. Those same users are also being forced to cry out loud "please no, please don't kill off XP! Please!". Or maybe it's just you.

Just a thought.

Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[penginkun]

This is going to sound crazy, but bear me out. So here's what Microsoft does. They take the OS and develop a Windows GUI for it. They pour a billion dollars or so into WINE development and research (while providing WINE's coders with full access to existing Windows APIs) and they bring WINE's performance and compatibility to dizzying heights. And then they sell it. Call it Windows, sell it as Windows and do what Apple's done with Darwin. Keep the proprietary stuff proprietary and the OSS stuff OSS. You'd wind up with a rock-solid OS, and your users could run their old software until their apps received an update to the new system. Eventually WINE would no longer be needed.

This all sounds a lot like Apple, MacOS X and Classic, doesn't it?

Anyway, there we go. I'm sure there are a thousand valid reasons why this couldn't/wouldn't work and naturally it will never happen. I understand that. I can dream though, can't I?

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[eapache]

Honestly, I think that would work. There's a proverbial snowball's chance in hell that it could happen, and it would delay Windows 7 considerably, but in the long run it would work. Wine is already shipping with the default setting to use XP, and given the relative development rates, it's catching up at an alarming rate. My guess is that by the time Windows 7 rolls around, XP apps on wine will be near-perfect, and Vista apps will run with only a few problems. With theoretical access to the existing Windows code and support from Microsoft's deep pockets, Vista support could be done by 2009. But unfortunately, it will never happen.

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[Lennie]

That's a bit silly, Microsoft doesn't need to pour that much money in WINE, they can legally use there own dll's.

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[somersault]

Microsoft are just too proud. Plus, they have no clue when it comes to writing good solid efficient code.. the sooner they die the better. Sadly a lot of companies still think of Windows as the shizzle and are probably going to keep rolling with Vista and Windows 7 rather than doing the decent thing and developing for Linux. Seriously, if they're going to be developing for a new OS anyway, they should really take Linux into consideration too. My dream is that people at work would discover a Linux CAD application that they consider a worthy replacement for Autodesk Inventor..

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[thtrgremlin]

I remember an article some time ago about Microsoft incorporating Gnu tools into windows. Since Windows7 is being rewritten from scratch and without any backwards compatibility (I am sure for the few "but I LIKE Vista" morons will be excited about), I believe it may already be in the works.

Ignoring the Microsoft PR BS for a moment, internal documents leaked from Microsoft (See Halloween Documents on wikipedia) say that Microsoft has been trying to play catchup with Linux since 1997!!! DirectX10, Great! DirectX10 > OpenGL, maybe... Compromising the functionality, security, privacy, and dignity of your entire system to realize those benefits, really just to play a few new games that suck so much they don't even ge the attention of the Wine Devs? Hellz to the Naw!!

Want to know why your crappy airport/wintel card that sucks under Windows doesn't work under Linux? Because real techs buy Linksys/Cisco products.

Why would anyone waste their time developing a driver for a products that anyone with half a brain or experience would tell you not to buy in the first place? 'Linux compatible' hardware works better under Windows too. A good lesson I learned before I made the switch.

Oh yeah, and as far as Microsoft supporting Wine (directly), ask Novell about Microsofts great third party software development support for their API.

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[hkz]

They'd be making all of the Windows crown jewels available under the GPL that way. Love to see that, but don't think it's going to happen.

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[JonSimons]

Plus, they have no clue when it comes to writing good solid efficient code.. Statements like this just exemplify your complete ignorance and stupidity. You could not get hired as a developer at Microsoft.

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[dfghjk]

Exactly, but what's even more stupid is the assumption that Linux has something to offer Microsoft. Of all the problems MS faces, developing a desirable core OS isn't one of them and Linux wouldn't be at the top of their list even it it were. MS could develop an entirely new OS using a Windows emulation environment, but they wouldn't need either Linux OR WINE to make that happen.

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[Anonymous Coward]

>> I can dream though, can't I?

Dream.. but why ?

What you'd get if MS uses Linux or BSD kernels ?

Quality.. not much. The NT Kernel is quite good, if there are failures, they are in the other components (mainly the Win32/64 APIs). They should invent new APIs, they are approaching that slowly and we'll see where we'll get.

OS Portability.. not. It's not like you can run OS/X apps on FreeBSD.

Architecture Portability.. not. NT has been proved to run on several architectures. It was historically limited to little endians (using the hardware switch on Alphas, PPCs and MIPS) but really we are in x86 at its peak.. so hw portability is every day less important. Beside, if they really want to support a BE architecture, they can.

Drivers for OSS.. not! OS/X drivers don't work on FreeBSD.

The only thing you would get is contributions on the kernel sources. Which I really doubt would be really accepted in the biased community.

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[Tony Hoyle]

Who would want to? You'd be guilty of the abortion that is Vista.

I 100% agree - MS do not know how to make good solid efficient code. Their goal seems to make each new release consumer more and more resources, whether it needs to or not.. then bleat that people need to be running the 'latest hardware' to use it, rather than admit they wouldn't know efficiency if it walked up to them and introduced itself.

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[Tony Hoyle]

'real tech guys' might buy Cisco routers, but linksys? Give me a break. Being owned by the same company doesn't mean their stuff sucks any less (Cisco also suck, but they have good support which makes up for it).

As far as network cards go 'real tech guys' use what's builtin to the machine and don't fart around with trying to upgrade something that's functional already - because we want to keep our jobs.

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[hot soldering iron]

I thought the same thing for years. That would be the logical course of action to develop a good, solid product, that requires little actual investment on their part.
BUT, you left out the I & C factor (Idiocy & Corruption). How do you play the lock-in game when the system is open and your victims can migrate away? How do you force them to keep purchasing stuff from you? If you give them a choice, some will not choose what you want. The wretches. How do you extract multiple streams of revenue (backdoor deals with marketers and spy agencies) when everyone can see what's going on? This all makes the logical system the worst choice. FOR THEM.

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[BenoitRen]

This is going to sound crazy, but bear me out.

*ROAR*

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[Lennie]

Also, if they would switch, I suspect they would use a BSD, not GPL.

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[Anonymous Coward]

It does sound crazy because it would be completely retarded for them to do that. In Windows the kernel is NOT the problem. The kernel is a well designed microkernel based on Dec VMS written by a team who had written a series of very successful OSes prior to working at Microsoft. The Windows kernel is very well designed and is in many ways superior to Linux. It was written to be highly modular, highly portable and highly reliable. It has multiple application subsystems that run in user mode that can be launched independently and concurrently, and debugged across subsystem. If that sounds familiar it's what GNU has been trying do to with Hurd, spectacularly unsuccessfully, for over 20 years (and for those who dare to claim that Hurd is not unsuccessful, if after 20 years all you have is a 0.2 release on top of someone else's kernel, that ain't success.)

The problem with Windows is the Win16/32 API. That API set was designed for Windows 3.x which set out to achieve a completely different set of goals, and executed in a completely different environment where multithreading and hardware protection domains did not exist. The intended API for Windows NT was OS/2, which retained that application subsystem up until the Windows 2000 release, after which it was removed because nobody used it.

But you already don't have to use the Win32 user-mode subsystem in Windows. Microsoft has released a largely functional POSIX subsystem called Interix in the Services for Unix toolset, which was originally developed by SoftWay Systems and called OpenNT. Unlike cygwin, which is a POSIX API layer running within and on top of the Win32 subsystem, Interix is a complete implementation of an environment subsystem and runs independently of the Win32 subsystem.

Microsoft's core problems have to do with legacy. It's easy to forget that DOS and Windows 3.x ran on hardware on which UNIX and Linux simply could not run. Those architectures lacked many of the features we take for granted, especially hardware protection domains. Applications expected and often required total hardware access. There could be no concept of security because nothing could enforce it. Microsoft takes legacy very seriously, so much so that a large percentage of those DOS applications still execute on Vista, although within a virtual machine. You could argue that Microsoft should do what Apple did and simply cut their losses and break every application that does not adhere to the proper security guidelines that Microsoft published 15 years ago, and I wouldn't disagree with you. Microsoft is slowly trying to unbury themselves, first by cutting everyone over to a hardware protected kernel in Windows XP, and now by curring everyone over to a constrained execution environment with virtualized file system access in Windows Vista. Instead of everything not working all at once, a segment of the software stops working and most of it chugs on fine. I personally think it's admirable that Microsoft has managed to change so many things and retain so much legacy support. How many other platforms can you name where 25 year old software will run without a hitch? Certainly not Apple, and certainly not Linux.

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[m50d]

Wine is deliberately LGPL and not GPL, no? So there'd be no problem any more than there is with Apple using KHTML (for example).

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[Starla1979]

I think it would be in their best interests to rip off a BSD kernel (as they don't need to release the source). And they would probably port their APIs to BSD without Wine. I mean they have the source-code and a bazillion programmers, why release their most important aspect (the ability to run a gazillion programs) to their enemies.

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[drsmithy]

This all sounds a lot like Apple, MacOS X and Classic, doesn't it?

No, it does not. With MacOS "Classic" Apple had a single user OS with no memory protection, no pre-emptive multitasking, no multiprocessor support, nothing. Their OS was a technological relic.

With NT, Microsoft has an OS with everything Linux has to offer, plus more. Why on Earth would they throw that all away to create Yet Another Linux Dustribution ?

Re:Microsoft - Make Linux into Windows 7

[somersault]

I wouldn't want to. And I have plenty of experience of Microsoft applications. Obviously there are sections of MS that have better developement teams (as NT wasn't that bad, and someone was smart enough to start using that as a basis for newer OSes), but the general ethos of Microsoft is such that they always release poor first attempts at their software, and then pretty much FORCE you to get that version - if you want a new version Office, it has to be 2007. And guess what? Office 2007 screws up Exchange mailboxes and you have to mess about with the permissions to get it all working again. That's just poor coding and testing.

And I'll reiterate that I love my job, working for a fairly small company doing a mix of IT support, software developing (for departmental use as well as for some of the products that we make, I'm currently doing the controller and HMI code for an underwater powerpack we're making..) and working with some great people. Being a tiny part of a massive poorly organised team of developers doesn't interest me. Plus I'm getting paid more than I need already, and I have a company car, so I don't even want a pay rise (but will probably get another towards the end of the year).

XP won't die

[eebra82]

That's the last day when large computer makers -- the Dells, HPs and Lenovos of the world -- will be allowed to preinstall Windows XP on new PCs. It also marks the official end of XP as a retail product. I wouldn't bet against anyone who thinks torrents will be flooded with cracked XP copies when this happens. Windows XP is actually selling remarkably well now that people agree Vista isn't what it once promised. Now that Microsoft is cutting off the supply, people will see piracy as a more viable option and say that it's either that or OSX/Linux.

Re:XP won't die

[bob shade]

At what point does XP become abandonware and free to share your copy with others?
http://www.deepwoodsband.com/

Re:XP won't die

[pravuil]

Torrents were flooded after the first 3 days of XP's release as I recall. I'm pretty sure that there are torrents of vista ultimate out there but never really cared to check. I'm counting the days for the next release for fedora to be released. Everything pretty much goes to Linux after that point. I have game consoles but only really care to play eve-online on Linux in the spare time. So everything is already set for the complete switchover. I could careless once the support is ended for XP. The only problem that's left for linux is setting up my bluetooth headset. Limited support for it but everything else works including my wifi card so I'm a happy penguin.

That was easy

[symbolset]

How do I run Office 2007 and VS 2008 under Linux?

In a VM or better yet in a Citrix session, silly. That's not a good excuse to run Windows as your base OS.

What about current and next gen games? How do I get those to work?

This wikipedia link should help.

No charge. If you need anything else I'll be here all day.

Re:That was easy

[DAldredge]

Running them under a VM or under Citrix is still running them under windows. I was told I could do it all under Linux. And I don't do console games. You don't have an answer.

Re:That was easy

[tomhudson]

A lot of Windows-only programs run fine under wine - including such core products as Internet Explorer 7.

Other products have free equivalents that can do the job for most people - OpenOffice, etc.

Re:That was easy

[rtb61]

The answer is patience. Suck it up, there is always an awkward, uncomfortable, inconvenient, transition times between OS's. Applications that you would like to use are unavailable because the companies don't want to invest additional resources (although in an major OS swap there are lots of applications that need to get replaced).

So in the big swap from M$ to Linux there are going to be a lot of delays and a lot of hassles. People will just stretch out the old stale piss (and yo will it get stale) for as long as they can, as they stop investing (throwing away) money into windows.

So basically you stop buying or upgrading applications unless they are Linux variants and you get used to dual booting, windows the toy OS for play and Linux for work and the web. M$ with their consistent lies and customers abuse have forced the situation, Linux didn't create the alternate OS market M$ did.

For the PC games companies, Linux will be a huge bonus, as all the old windows boxen die, all those games will have to be replaced, all the way back to win98, literally a market of hundreds of millions of games.

Re:That was easy

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is, "I'm an inflexible monkey who has committed all my mental capacity to memorizing how to use a few specific products and is incapable of switching to similar products with comparable functionality, because they aren't the *exact* products I already know how to use."

You're welcome to spend the rest of your life paying Microsoft's ignorance tax.

Re:That was easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we know where the auctioned UID went to, Microsoft.

Re:That was easy

[jlarocco]

Your complaints don't make sense. Nobody uses Microsoft Office with the specific goal of using Office. They word process, or work with spreadsheets, or make a presentation. All of which can be done under Linux.

Same with games. Just because you can't play some specific Windows only game under Linux doesn't make Linux bad. It's like arguing Windows is bad because I can't play a PS3 specific game on it.

Linux isn't Windows. Some of the shit you're used to on Windows isn't going to work under Linux. If you can't deal with that, stop complaining and just use Windows.

Re:That was easy

[Vectronic]

Sure... it can be argued... however, you cant expect anyone (at least not in the regards to "business") to switch their OS, their Office, their dev IDE, media player, chat communications, etc. overnight like its a miracle cure "its exactly the same"...

you trailed off before you came up with a suitable alternative to VisualStudio too... MS Office = OpenOffice... i'll give you that, infact in many ways its almost a better alternative to switch from MS Office 2003 to OpenOffice than it is to switch to Office 2007...

But what about VisualStudio?... which has C\C++, VB, C#, J#, WebDev, all in the same IDE with a magnificent compiler, help system, and IDE?

What about Photoshop?... don't same the Gimp, and consider it in a full media production environment with graphics in the 10,000x10,000 pixel ranges, and 50 layers...

And although there are quite a few 3D software packages that run natively on Linux, more of them do not... and for someone in 3D, switching their package/software is worse than switching OS's...

Re:That was easy

[multisync]

you trailed off before you came up with a suitable alternative to VisualStudio

What about Photoshop?

If you're a developer and you need a full-blown IDE you may need to run VisualStudio and XP or Vista on the machine you use for development. Same if you're a graphics artist. You might have to spend $600.00 or whatever it is to get Photoshop, and get used to the idea that you'll have to run it in Vista whether you want it or not.

But that's not most people. Most people's needs are actually better met with FOSS projects if they are mature enough (just like proprietary software) and have a healthy community of users and developers supporting them.

If you are a pro, or a serious amateur, it may be worth your the investment to buy Photoshop, even if you have to purchase a machine dedicated to the task of using it. But if you have a cubicle farm full of people using email, a word processor and an accounting package and maybe sharing printers and doing some simple file sharing, you can do that all very efficiently with Linux. Spend the money on the departments that may need an expensive piece of proprietary software - and the hardware required to run it. But don't assume it is the only solution, or even the best solution, especially for departments (and users) with more modest needs.

Re:That was easy

[bigstrat2003]

Wow, what ignorance. While it's possible that someone doesn't want to use a competing app because they're too lazy/stupid to learn it, more often, it's the case that the other app just isn't good enough (see: Gimp vs Photoshop debates). And if you seriously believe that with GAMES it's so easy to just pick up a competing product and deal (most games are very clearly different from each other), you're just deluding yourself.

Re:That was easy

[Medgur]

Fine.

Use those products.

As others have pointed out, there's no reason you can't use those under Linux anymore.

See: Wine, Cedega and Citrix

Re:That was easy

[GigaplexNZ]

I'd argue that switching media player and chat communications would be easy. Forcing them to find sub par alternatives to proprietary engineering applications (or other productivity related applications) is the hard part, and is an unreasonable request.

Oh and please don't "give him" MS Office = OpenOffice. I don't know about you, but OpenOffice is one of the worst examples of decent free software.

Re:That was easy

[tomhudson]

If you're not developing for Windows, you can junk Visual Studio. None of the devs where I work use it (even the ones who use Windows).

Even if you ARE developing for Windows, you don't need Visual Studio. Many of the alternatives run fine under wine (better than they do natively in Windows).

Also, those who have switched to linux from xp have found the kde desktop to be superior to the windows desktop. Switching chat programs was just a matter of entering their icq and/or msn info. As for media playing, try playing 3gp files from your cell phone under windows. Or accessing your cell phone w/o special software. Under linux, just plug it in and start transfering the data.

If you really need hand-holding (*real* developers don't need no stinking IDE :-) eclipse supports java/c/c++, and there are IDEs for pretty much everything else if you really need them.

For the average user, linux is easily the better solution for one reason - updates for ALL the software for the thousands of optional apps is centralized - just hit your distro's update servers or let the auto-updater take care of everyting, unlike Windows, which only updates Windows.

There's no registry, no HK_KEY crap, backing up user data is as simple as making a tarball of the /home/joe or /home/mary, and those hundreds of thousands of Windows viruses just don't run ...

Also, photoshop runs on linux, and has for the last 5 years - go here for support for many more Windows apps

BTW, GIMP can handle hundreds of layers, no problem. When I first switched, I found it klunky, but part of that was that its different. For many people, it's overkill, same as photoshop, and size is, like always, dependent on ram and cpu.

Re:That was easy

[GigaplexNZ]

Here's a thought for you. Some people like to get paid for their work. The best way to make money on a software project is to target the Windows market because no-one on Linux would pay for anything. It is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to develop and test software for Windows when your development box is Windows.

Re:That was easy

[Mongoose Disciple]

Nobody uses Microsoft Office with the specific goal of using Office. They word process, or work with spreadsheets, or make a presentation. All of which can be done under Linux.

You clearly don't deal with many professionals who spend hours a day in Office.

Open replacements for Office are replacements in much the same sense that walking everywhere is a perfect replacement for cars. (Ditto the GIMP vs. Photoshop, etc.) It can get you all the same places! It's just as good!

I respect the tremendous effort people like the OpenOffice team have put forth, but for millions of people who get their work done or don't by the power and usability of their office suite, the alternatives aren't there yet.

Re:That was easy

[menkhaura]

Of course no one can switch their business overnight, that's what WINE, Xen and other such projects are for. But I'm here to pick you on your point about IDEs. Photoshop not running on Linux isn't Linux's fault; it's entirely Adobe's fault..

But, Visual Studio? Well, we're talking about a completely different philosophy, and a different development model here. First of all, the greatest functionality of all that Visual Studio provides to developers is easy access to documentation. A *nix developer will have his reference documentation in a browser, as many windows as he can have. In-code reference? We all know about Eclipse's C-H etc., or even Vim's cscope plugin, and Emacs users also have more than one solution. The possibilities are endless. *# languages, as well as VB, are belong to Microsoft. I don't believe in Mono. And, frankly, beginner developers, those that Microsoft cater to with their Studio products, should hone their skills on a college or university and learn how to program properly before entering the market.

Re:That was easy

[Grave]

You Office argument is legitimate. However, your gaming one is not. The great majority of PC games being released will not function out of the box under Linux. Nobody expects a PS3 or 360 or Wii game to work on their PC. However, PC gaming became the giant it is (was?) because of the dual-purpose nature of the platform. Take away the ability to play these games (which with Linux, you largely do), and suddenly for many, the PC becomes less attractive.

Furthermore, the OP was not complaining so much as he was pointing out why Linux is not a drop-in Windows replacement at this time. For just about everything else, it is great, but gaming still represents an important part of non-business PC usage for many people. I'd love to run Linux, but I'm not giving up my games to do so, and I am not interested in a virtual machine, as that completely defeats the entire purpose for me. I much prefer to spend my time using my computer, not tweaking or setting up things to work that should simply work out of the box.

Getting back on-topic, the statements that Vista is slower are by and large backed up with benchmarks showing less than a 5% variation. I abandoned Vista a few months ago due to aggravation with driver issues (DIAF NVIDIA) and poor performance (had an Athlon 64 X2 4000 w/ 2GB ram). I switched to XP x64 and upgraded to 4GB ram. It was painful to discover the lack of support that particular flavor of XP has. Getting it to recognize my Zune, or my Motorola Q (running Windows Mobile 5) was a pain. So, with great reluctance, I switched back to Vista now that I've upgraded (C2D E8400 @ 3.6GHz w/ 8GB ram). This time around, everything has worked flawlessly. I really think a majority of people who have complained about how bad Vista is haven't given it a try on a computer that can really handle it properly. XP is still a great OS, but with no DirectX 10 or larger memory support, I had immediate benefit of the Vista upgrade.

For a lot of users, XP is going to be fine for awhile. But the memory limitations will become an issue over the next couple of years, especially for games.

Re:That was easy

[bhtooefr]

Actually, quite a lot of people do use Office for the goal of using Office. Or, I should say, for the goal of 100% compatibility with other Office users.

Re:That was easy

[Original Replica]

I thought he was saying that Linux games suck. There is a Linux port of EVE, but other than that they pretty much do suck. Yes I know he could run them in WINE, but if his focus is PC games why wouldn't he just stick with the OS that gets the first release of all the new games?

Re:That was easy

[Ethanol-fueled]

"A lot of Windows-only programs run fine under wine - including such core products as Internet Explorer 7."

That's a paradox, for nobody smart enough to get IE7 to run on wine would be dumb enough to run IE7!

Re:That was easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could help me. PLZ HELPZ ME!! I want to switch over to Vista but I'm having a hard time finding the apps to replace the things I use most. Every one says to use Paint, but it just doesn't do everything I like as Gimp does. Also what should I use to replace vi? I've tried notepad but there is so much to learn, all these menus and button flash... I'm just a normal person. I want to turn it on and have it work, not fiddle with all this license and fee goop. Maybe you uber geeks like all this msconfig nonsense, but for a normal user it's just a hassle. I spent two hours on the phone trying to get my Vista box authorized... until Microsoft can get a simple interface for installation like apt-get or emerge I really don't think they will find much of a market in the desktop realm! Don't hate, just my two centz!

Re:That was easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea who needs a sandboxed browser, you can just patch your firefox every week and hope you don't get exploited before they get the patch out. good plan.

Re:That was easy

[Ethanol-fueled]

Even then, I'd be running Firefox on Windows in WINE, so Nyah nyah, hater.

Re:That was easy

[westlake]

Your complaints don't make sense. Nobody uses Microsoft Office with the specific goal of using Office. They word process, or work with spreadsheets, or make a presentation. All of which can be done under Linux.

Much too simplified - and complacent.

Microsoft offers solutions that work from the server room down to the point of sale.

You want small business accounting integrated with your core office software? Web-based collaboration and document management? [AKA SharePoint] No problemo.

Just because you can't play some specific Windows only game under Linux doesn't make Linux bad.

The thing is, there is - for all practical purposes - no such thing as a Linux-exclusive PC game.

While damn near every mainframe, arcade or PC game ever written can be run directly or under emulation in Windows. Colossal Cave to Bioshock.

You could spend years mining resources like the Underdogs, barely scratch the surface of what is out there. and never spend a dime.

Some of the shit you're used to on Windows isn't going to work under Linux. If you can't deal with that, stop complaining and just use Windows.

Which is what you'll find on 92% of the world's desktops.

Re:That was easy

[Maxo-Texas]

Photoshop - sure! 3D Software - sure!

VS- not sure I agree... why continue to be locked in to paying a lot of money to a company that forcibly retires your development environment (and forces upgrades on your software that works and does not require changes-- except to keep up with their artificial "end of life" decisions)

Why use software which they can use to compete with you if you make a decent product-- Why use software that locks you into one particular operating system (really one VERSION of one operating system).

Stay with free, stable, long term tools that work everywhere and are O/S independent.

Re:That was easy

[Maxo-Texas]

Oh yea... and a company that makes you pay $1k a license but gives it to your competitors for $98 or even free (by ignoring piracy) to get foreign markets to grow.

Re:That was easy

[antdude]

VM is too slow. Same for WINE. Also WINE is slow and can't do everything like EAX on Creative cards when I last tried it. We want native Linux ports.

Re:That was easy

[stars_are_number_1]

Not only is compatibility a big issue, but with the 2007 edition of Microsoft Office, I find myself wanting to use it for the user interface. The "ribbon" is one of best new features I've seen in a long time. It's been a long time since I've seen a Microsoft product I've actually been wanting to use.

Re:That was easy

[tomhudson]

Photoshop runs fine with crossover, and has since at least 2003.

Re:That was easy

[jrminter]

if you want docs in an ide, try eric. Not as polished as VS, but a good start for free. I do like the VC++ debugger better than gdb etc.

Re:That was easy

[jlarocco]

You clearly don't deal with many professionals who spend hours a day in Office.

No, I have, which is why I'm so convinced Office is a waste of money for most businesses.

From what I've seen at a variety of employers, any word processor capable of basic text formatting, inserting tables, and creating bulletted/numbered lists would be completely adequate 99.99% of the time.

Re:That was easy

[Nicolay77]

Sorry but I play racing simulators like rFactor and LFS and I plan to play Starcraft 2. I will buy it as soon as it launches.

There's NOTHING like that in a playstation 3.

Re:That was easy

[rdebath]

You need headers and footers too, else everyone would be using "wordpad". In fact that's probably why wordpad lost it's ability to do headers and footers.

You don't need tables either, they're for advanced users, normal users use tabs.

Re:That was easy

[DaedalusHKX]

I ran WoW at 10 fps faster than my windows install (which also was on the faster hard disk controller and hard disk inside my workstation) under cedega. Once cedega died, I had to tweak it for WineX... guess what? 12 fps faster :)

The only one I have trouble with is Half Life 2... the game runs under WineX, but Steam has problems rendering text, so you have to guess which button is which till you get ingame... not the most fun way to do things :(

I hate Steam, and wish there was a way, even under windows, to NOT use it.

I just wiped the Windows box tonight though... I'll have an orphaned copy of Windows XP Professional... *sniffles*

Oh well. Been gaming too much lately anyways.

** To the fellow who pointed to the Playstation 3 wiki... I have mine running apache and vsftpd :) **

** When I can get my Playstation 2 to run Kerberos 4, I'll post a howto on slashdot. I'm not feeling very motivated though.**

Re:That was easy

[Anonymous Coward]

"What about current and next gen games? How do I get those to work?"
If you are talking about DX10+ then you call nVidia and ATI and tell them that you want something like DX10 on XP and no, that does not depend on Vista or the new driver model as MS propaganda dept. try to tell everybody, it can be implemented right now on XP or Linux or OS X, DX10 is "just" an API for the graphics hardware.

Re:That was easy

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, there is - for all practical purposes - no such thing as a Linux-exclusive PC game.

While damn near every mainframe, arcade or PC game ever written can be run directly or under emulation in Windows. Colossal Cave to Bioshock.

You could spend years mining resources like the Underdogs, barely scratch the surface of what is out there. and never spend a dime.

Funny thing is lately I've been doing just that, downloading games from Underdogs and other places and playing them on linux with a combination of DosBox and wine. Right Now I'm trying to finish Tomb Raider Anniversary in wine. Most games I've tried work like a charm. Check Wine's appDB for more info. Also mame for linux exists and so do many other emulators for even non "PC games" :]

Re:That was easy

[Cecil]

Fuck that, you expect people to play FPS games on a console? RTS? Flight simulators? Create mods? Emphatically NO, my friend. No. PC gaming is far from dead, and for the time being that means Windows. I'd like to see it change to Linux, but it isn't there yet. I would not like to see it change to console, and it won't, not until consoles have changed into something that's closer to a PC anyway.

Re:That was easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Astroturf bingo 18 claimed for C7

Re:That was easy

[wonnage]

Sounds like there's not much reason to use Linux then, if the attitude is just "we don't feel like implementing this, despite the fact that many people feel it's useful".

Re:That was easy

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Some of us find on occasion that it is necessary to load WinXP in VMWare to run a Windows-only app. On a positive note, at least we have a stable, secure OS providing the foundation for our session. Additionally, it does my heart good to see WinXP relegated to a small x-window, where it belongs. Fitting, somehow. But seriously, if you absolutely have to some critical piece of software that can't be made available with Linux proper, then VMWare is a solution. At least you aren't stuck with Windows for everything. If you make the application fullscreen (which means it fills the x-window, not that it is fully full screen), then it just seems the app is just yet another Linux app (with slightly more convoluted action to jump to the other running apps). If this isn't an answer to your question, then face it: you don't have a question, you have a bias. No big deal. We all have preferences. But today the "critical app" fallacy is too transparently propaganda to be taken seriously. You can most certainly do it all on top of (as opposed to "under") Linux. You never have to leave Linux. At worse you have to view WinXP as a bizzare and uncommon dependency that certain applications require. At least :-) thats how I view it...

Re:That was easy

[rally2xs]

Its funny that any Linux discussion is always characterized by Linux gurus assuring me I don't "need" this or that. Clue: It ain't about "need", its about "want." I _want_ to be able to run 1 operating system without having to fiddle with something called VMware, and I _want_ to be able to run Photoshop and I _want_ to be able to run games on a PC and not (buy) a console for gaming and I _want_ to be able to run Eudora and no, there is NO substitute for Microsoft Office with its VBA capability, and I just _want_ to do what I can do now in XP. From everything I read about it, Vista sucks, so I'll try to keep myself satisfied with XP on my home computer here for another couple years 'til the Vista successor comes out - maybe it'll be better. If not, then maybe I have to replace this computer eventually with something I don't _want_, but it still won't be Linux.

Re:That was easy

[Jartan]

Nobody uses Microsoft Office with the specific goal of using Office. They word process, or ...

...Same with games. ... But it's NOT the same with games. People who want to play Starcraft 2 play with the specific goal of playing Starcraft 2. They aren't going to find some other game fills the gap when they want to play some sort of windows exclusive.

This is the whole reason exclusive games are so important to consoles.

Linux will always be a nobody in gaming till they get some exclusives of their own.

Re:That was easy

[Pax681]

How do I run Office 2007 and VS 2008 under Linux? In a VM or better yet in a Citrix session, silly. That's not a good excuse to run Windows as your base OS. What about current and next gen games? How do I get those to work? This wikipedia link should help. No charge. If you need anything else I'll be here all day.

a PS3!..LOL you gotta be joking!..lol there arwe those of us who don'ty play dumbed down console games and much prefer a mosue keyboard combo for gaming. nix has no answer to running pc games and neither does mac due to the lack of releases on mac.

i am not slagging off nix, it's pretty fabulous but when it comes to gaming, and we are talking clients and not game servers, then nix just don't cut the mustard at all. nix has many and various sriously fantastuic uses but gaming just plain ins't one of them and AGAIN why should i get a crappy ps3 just to play games when i can have it all in one with my pc's XP partition. vista is crap, again no doubts there, xp is better than vista by a large country mile but a PS3.. gimme a break!!! show me a nix installation or some form of virtualisation that will run all the bells and whistles for gaming purposes!!! there are many office/production solutions that are great from the FOSS world but none of them cut it with gaming

Re:That was easy

[cbart387]

Openoffice allows for headers and footers...

Re:That was easy

[cbart387]

Depends on your perspective. The coding I do is much easier to do on a *nix system then windows. After the initial pain of setup it (fedora) is more responsive then windows and its updates rarely require a reboot. So you'd have to be more specific because those generalities can be applied to windows as well, in my opinion.

Re:That was easy

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Visual Studio is one of MS's better apps, for sure. But its not that good at dealing with Python, Octave, Lisp, Ruby, or Java. Even when working on a Windows box, doing C++, its not my preferred IDE. I like Emacs using Viper for vi keybindings, and/or Eclipse. Oh, and no one I know considers VS to have a "magnificent" compiler, although the help system is decent enough. Really, as an IDE, it has Wizzards and intellesense going for it, and the rest of it is subpar.

In terms of the Gimp, I have to say that the interface is abysmal. To the point I avoid it whenever possible. My understanding is that photoshop can't really scale like the gimp, however. In terms of 3D, I think Computational Visualization. Things like medical imaging, molecular dynamics, that sort of thing. While its true limited work can be done on Windows, all the serious stuff is done using OpenGL based apps on Linux or Unix of one form or another. Again, windows won't scale to do heavy 3D lifting.

Re:That was easy

[dhavleak]

If this isn't an answer to your question, then face it: you don't have a question, you have a bias. Nice soundbite, but it suffers from a serious case of, er.. bias :)

If you need ms office, open office isn't a good solution. Neither is running ms office in a VM. Some people actually just need to get stuff done, and a $200-400 suite every 3 or 4 years is a reasonable fee for the productivity it provides them. They aren't on a crusade for or against any particular OS -- that's what lack of bias looks like -- just using whatever OS/app meets your criteria the best. For many people, that just happens to be windows/office/visual studio/firefox/itunes/acrobat/picasa/divx etc. See the multitude of companies and proprietary/open-source in that list? That's what real choice looks like. Obviously this is just one example, but suggesting that GP is biased because he doesn't accept a VM and Cygwin as answers is ridiculous.

today the "critical app" fallacy is too transparently propaganda to be taken seriously Consider OneNote or Photoshop -- if either of these applications are critical to you, some OS choices get eliminated. Just two random examples - how can you not take this point seriously?

The thing is, a lot of responses on this thread seem to view running linux as the final goal. That's not how the world functions. The world in general sees PC/OS/Apps as a means to an end. How can you expect them to use Cygwin/Wine/VMWare and then call them biased?

And finally, the mandatory disclaimer -- yes, I do use linux. Yes, I do use windows as well.

Re:That was easy

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"Forcing them to find sub par alternatives to proprietary engineering applications..."

Don't know about you, bubba, but it surely seems to me the really advanced stuff isn't made for or on Windows. Maybe engineering is more "off the shelf", but in Physics and Chemistry (and rumor has it, applied and pure mathematics), this isn't so at all!

Re:That was easy

[tendrousbeastie]

Hi, sorry but that just isn't true. Lots of companies, such as the one I work for, do use Office specifically to use Office. In an industry like ours where documents are a product the document become part of a supply chain - if every other part of the supply chain is using MS Office then it is useless to say that a Linux equivalent can do the same stuff,l because if it isn't compatible with the Office docs we can't use it. They only time your comment is true is when one is the only user of one's documents, otherwise it is very often more important to have a compatibilty between users than it is to have high level functionality.

Re:That was easy

[Anonymous Coward]

saying it runs office in a vm is bull.... its in a vm, and its running it under windows, so the answer is that windows runs it better, enough so that you have to run a vm with the os in it just to run the app. Also pointing to a PS3 article does nto answer the question about games. I own a pretty powerful computer, more than enough to handle games, I will not pay an addition $400 for a console. So the answer to that question is that it does not handle games, so, back to his original questions....

Q: how does it run visual studio or office?
A: It doesn't, you install VM ware, and then buy and install windows anyway

Q: How does it run Games?
A: It doesn't, you buy a games system

Q: what can windows do that linux cant'
A: the things I want to do with my computer, like run office and games without costing me more money... Linux isn't free.... To use it, I'd have to buy a console, still buy windows (unless you suggest pirating) and even then, my time is not free.

Re:That was easy

[legirons]

A lot of Windows-only programs run fine under wine - including such core products as Internet Explorer 7.

But if XP is dropped or is allowed to become unusably insecure (which is what people are trying to protect against in this discussion), then how is running the now-unavailable OS in a VM instead of a real machine going to help?

Re:That was easy

[legirons]

you trailed off before you came up with a suitable alternative to VisualStudio

What about Photoshop?

I'm sure that you can come up with all sorts of programs which justify keeping Windows. ("well I *must* run microsoft office")

I'm sure you can come up with all sorts of features which prevent you from using free alternatives. ("a fully-featured graphics editor? that's no use; it doesn't support CMYK natively")

I'm sure that no matter what the free software world provides for you, you'll be able to find some fault with it.

And that's fine. You can stick with your current supplier and hope that it all works out okay.

This article is about their next-generation OS being unusable though, and about the end-of-life for the OS which everyone uses. Still feel confident about keeping all your computing tasks tied to that supplier?

The answer isn't to respond to every offer of free software with "well it doesn't do x, therefore I'll pour scorn on its authors and remain with a homogenous Microsoft solution to everything". A more sensible approach would be to start moving what you can to free platforms while you still have a chance.

Re:That was easy

[gzipped_tar]

If you're a developer and you need a full-blown IDE you may need to run VisualStudio and XP or Vista on the machine you use for development. A full-blown IDE makes me slow. Use EMACS instead, a full-blown free Operating System.

Re:That was easy

[hot soldering iron]

I first learned AT&T SVR4 Unix in 1991. I also learned Dos 5.0. Guess which is still useful?

Would you purchase a car if you had to buy its' "special" tires from the dealer with a 800% markup, or run Pontiac gas at $8.12/gallon? If so, please contact me. Have I got some deals for you ! :)

Have you ever heard the expression, "They peaked early, but low"? That seems to be descriptive of many MS products. You whine about there not being alternatives to proprietary code that you like. Tough cookies. Either fix the situation (hire coders, or learn different methods to run your code) or voluntarily stay in your cage on the sinking ship. I really don't care what you do.

Actually, I do care. I'll be more than happy to sell you a life preserver after you get tired of paddling. But you think you're getting raped now, wait till you have no choice! Bwah Hah Hah Hah (insert more evil laughter)!!

Re:That was easy

[h4rm0ny]

Just because you can't play some specific Windows only game under Linux doesn't make Linux bad.

To be more accurate, it is a lot of games, not "some specific [...] game". I don't think the original poster said that GNU/Linux was bad. These are your words. The poster merely made the valid counter-point that he couldn't run Office 2007 on Linux which to the best of my knowledge, is correct. It's obviously a valid comment to say that Open Office might well meet his needs, but it's not right to have a go at him for things he hasn't said and tell him to "stop complaining." The bias is showing here.

Re:That was easy

[hot soldering iron]

So, most of your argument boils down to you being able to play "My Little Pony goes on a Picnic"? That's a magnificent argument for the superiority of proprietary code! I'm dumping my decades worth of *nix training and code right now as I type!

Re:That was easy

[Mathinker]

Its funny that any Linux discussion is always characterized by Linux gurus assuring me I don't "need" this or that.

Clue: It ain't about "need", its about "want." I _want_ to be able ... If not, then maybe I have to replace this computer eventually with something I don't _want_, but it still won't be Linux. So to summarize your position: Linux gurus are stupid to tell me that I don't want all kinds of things which don't run under Linux, but if anyway I can't have what I want (and am therefore limited to only things which could run under Linux), I still wouldn't run Linux.

If you irrationally would never run Linux, there's no point in discussing this with you. Or did I misunderstand something? I don't get the impression you wouldn't be running Linux because you prefer plan9 or GNU Hurd.

Re:That was easy

[canuck57]

Linux isn't Windows. Some of the shit you're used to on Windows isn't going to work under Linux. If you can't deal with that, stop complaining and just use Windows.

He does however show that many users are inflexible. And it is mostly perception based. If a XP user thinks they don't have to learn and gets Vista, they be in for a big surprise. I figure XP to Vista and XP to Linux is about the same, in fact, some Linux distros seem to be cleaner and easier to find menus.

And I know of no business related task that the likes of Vista can do that Linux cannot, absolutely none.

What I see driving the costs are corporate cutbacks. Oh yea, we haven't seen the articles in a big way but corporate north America is in a recession and chopping where they can. They are looking at the $1000+ software for the desktop and are just rubbing their hands for the savings.

Re:That was easy

[tomhudson]

I _want_ to be able to run Photoshop and I _want_ to be able to run games on a PC

Photoshop has run fine under linux since at least 2003 - go to codeweavers.com for more info.

Same with most games - many of which actually now run faster under wine than natively under Windows ...

BTW, Adobe is also now getting on track to put out apps that run natively under linux.

Re:That was easy

[tomhudson]

A lot of Windows-only programs run fine under wine - including such core products as Internet Explorer 7.

But if XP is dropped or is allowed to become unusably insecure (which is what people are trying to protect against in this discussion), then how is running the now-unavailable OS in a VM instead of a real machine going to help?

Who said anything about a VM? Wine isn't a VM. You don't need Windows to run Windows apps any more.

Re:That was easy

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't comment about Photoshop or 3D (animation/CAD?) because I do not work with digital imagery. I can comment about developing applications with Visual Studio 2005 and using Windows (XP) as my desktop OS. So this from my personal experience, results may vary.

  As far as Windows and Linux go, Linux didn't win me over at first, Windows lost me. I was tired of having to reload the OS approximately every six months and losing a day or so doing it. So I discussed the situation with my system administrator and he set me up with an Ubuntu distro on my desktop and created a VM for Windows on a Linux server. Now when Windows starts acting kooky I just revert to a snapshot and in 5-10 minutes I am good to go. As I got used to using Linux as my primary desktop at work it migrated to my home PC. I have never looked back.

  Now I find myself in the same situation with Visual Studio as with Windows. Our company primarily develops Web applications so my frustration follows from that perspective.

  We had started out using a homogeneous (as far as Microsoft tools go) development environment but as each of the tools failed us on many different points we have had to replace functionality in that environment with alternatives. For example, we had to remove refresh files in Web projects and use a NAnt build to manage the dependencies just to get them to load up before my next birthday and not hold static references. On the subject of NAnt, we've started using NAnt instead if MSBuild for more granular control over the build process. We've replaced Visual Source Safe with Subversion because of the number of problems we have had with corrupted projects. NUnit provides our testing framework. CruiseControl.Net (I should state this runs on Windows) became our automated build tool. And they all work together very well.

  Looking back at how we have implemented a lot of non-Microsoft tools to get their development environment working with us and not against us there is an important question we must ask ourselves. For the cost what value are we getting?

  Is it really advantageous to continue spending this money supporting Microsoft when we've had to use open source tools to fill in the gaps? These same open source tools that were originally developed to support non Microsoft environments and ported by like minded developers who saw the need. Does it really matter that we use Microsoft technologies for a Web application where the customer could care less about what is running it just as long as it works?

  Just as with Windows as an operation system, Visual Studio/.Net is losing traction as a development environment for us. The questions are being asked and we have started looking at the alternatives. Eclipse seems very workable and currently C# is our language so Java syntax isn't too big a deal. For us the days of "it's Microsoft so it must be good" are gone.

Converting to Vista or Windows whatever may just be a non-issue.

Re:That was easy

[rally2xs]

Naw, its more like being sick of Linux gurus telling me _I'm_ stupid for wanting everything my own way. Well... that's how commerce works. Gotta satisfy the customer. I'll never run Linux 'cuz it'll never be a matter of firing up the computer, placing my chosen software distribution in the CD reader, and installing it, 'cuz my chosen software is going to be written for Windows while the Linux-think is always gonna be, "Use this instead, its just as good," but it isn't. OpenOffice just as good as Microsoft Office? Well... then why does this statement always get followed by a disclaimer that all those functions the Microsoft has that OpenOffice doesn't, you wouldn't be using anyway. Oh yeah? How the heck do they know? I got into some pretty hinky stuff when writing the general and route instructions for a National rally 14 years ago, on the OLD Microsoft Office, and if some of those features are missing, then I couldn't do now what I was doing then. Well... that would suck. Lemme know when OpenOffice can match Microsoft Office, feature for feature, AND can accept my old documents from Microsoft Offics since I usually use them for a jumping off point for the next iteration - maybe a new rally. There's a website that I (finally) found that claims that getting Call of Duty 4 to run on Linux under WINE is no harder than any other game - not sure that's a testament because I don't know how hard the other games are to get running, but then it goes on to say that if someone could get Punkbuster to work there could be a lot more games that work under WINE. That's 2 hassles in one - no Punkbuster, and a phalanx of games that don't run in online multiplayer in Linux under WINE because of it. And _still_ nobody has gotten Eudora to work on Linux, at least not at any website I have found. The stated reason that Qualcomm didn't port it to Linux was that they perceived that Linux users expect their software for free, which is ANOTHER thing I dsagree with. If a person wants something of value to him, he should be willing to pay for it, while those that spend some significant chunk of their lives creating it, whether its a bridge or a simulation of one, deserves to be paid for their efforts. That includes artists, such as musicians, which is why I believe that downloading copyrited music for free is stealing. No, I don't care how many people agree about that... it is an absolute truth.

Re:That was easy

[vuffi_raa]

If you're a developer and you need a full-blown IDE you may need to run VisualStudio and XP or Vista on the machine you use for development. Same if you're a graphics artist. actually, you wouldn't want to run VS on vista- comipling and moving the forms around lags, and you can't really take advantage of testing dx9 compatible apps-
but to your other point with graphics- definatly- as well though you need to include the other things that I do where I can't even move to vista for- 3d modelling and live audio (and games)- that is what I do on my machine at home - linux has zero support for any live audio applications and the DAW apps are laughable- I can do more on the DAW/tracker apps on my CFW psp and my DS than I can on a box with linux- and to add... no wine doesn't handle any of it no asio support and no direct sound support and non ability to use vst and vsti's.

Re:That was easy

[m50d]

While damn near every mainframe, arcade or PC game ever written can be run directly or under emulation in Windows. Colossal Cave to Bioshock.

You could spend years mining resources like the Underdogs, barely scratch the surface of what is out there. and never spend a dime.Same is even more true under Linux. If that's your approach, pick your favourite rom site - and call me when console emulation on windows is anywhere near as good as linux.

Re:That was easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah - a linux evangelist AND a wikipidiot. I'll bet you get laid at all the parties...

Re:That was easy

[JAlexoi]

Yeah... I wish that games would start to use some virtualization tech to be the runtime for them.
I mean, isn't there a PS2 emulator for PC?

I mean split off something similar to DX and form a VM witch sole purpose is to run THE game.
Games don't need an OS beneath them that much(I have lil' knowledge on that, but a lot of games come out on multiple platforms). Most of them have UI designed specially and so on...

Re:That was easy

[Stephen Ma]

Open replacements for Office are replacements in much the same sense that walking everywhere is a perfect replacement for cars. (Ditto the GIMP vs. Photoshop, etc.) It can get you all the same places! It's just as good!

Misleading analogy. Here the true comparison: Replacing Microsoft Excel, for example, with an open source product such as Gnumeric is like replacing a Ford Taurus with a Honda Accord: the Accord/Gnumeric gets you there just as fast, just as comfortably, and with greater reliability. The big differences are that Gnumeric is free, and the open source world will support it forever.

Re:That was easy

[westlake]

So, most of your argument boils down to you being able to play "My Little Pony goes on a Picnic"? That's a magnificent argument for the superiority of proprietary code!

It is however the decisive argument when I am out shopping for a program that will entertain my seven year old niece.

Re:That was easy

[Handlarn]

Yes, Photoshop 7, according to their website: http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/cat/?cat_id=19

Ok, it's Photoshop, but it certainly isn't a new version.

Re:That was easy

[civilizedINTENSITY]

I've begun cataloging inappropriate use of terms like "religious" and "crusade" in hopes of building bias ranking filters. Your use of a highly laden term to define your sense of unbiased is most interesting. As is your case: if some needs app#1, and only app#1 will do, then what does os#2 have? If the wall has to be painted green, and only green will do, then what colors of blue are green? Framing a question that was is less than ingenuous.

"a lot of responses on this thread seem to view running linux as the final goal." No, that is the strawman arguement you've been trying to attack, and the fact that it fails doesn't seem to keep you from attacking. Case in point:

Consider OneNote or Photoshop -- if either of these applications are critical to you, some OS choices get eliminated. Just two random examples - how can you not take this point seriously?

There have been a number of responses that have pointed out methods of running Photoshop. The reason I don't take the point you fail to make seriously is because after being hit on the head with a clue stick, you continue to mutter the same incoherent statements. I don't take it seriously because it was once a problem, but its been *solved*, and to deny the solution is a solution based on criteria invented to support a conclusion rather than reflect a situation doesn't deserve serious attention. Please, get over it. Use what works. Use the best tool for the job. Stop eliminating choices for other than technical or pragmatic reasons. Get real.

Finally, a less than mandatory disclaimer: I've used MS Windows since version 1.0, doing upgrades all along the way. I do prefer to use Linux.

Re:That was easy

[tomhudson]

The same article points out that you can run Photoshop CS 2 under wine (no need for codeweaver's crossover). That's only one version behind.

Re:That was easy

[colinrichardday]

Hey, I like GNU emacs as much as the next guy, but is using Visual Studio really slower? :-)

Re:That was easy

[Mongoose Disciple]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Your analogy seems significantly worse, given that I don't consider any of the assumptions that it's based on to be true.

Very few (if any) people use all of the unique features Excel has, but a damn lot of them use at least one of them... and often, the price of doing without that one feature is much greater than the cost of buying a copy of Office.

Re:That was easy

[dhavleak]

What was the solution for photoshop? GIMP?? Oh no -- let me guess -- we're supposed to run photoshop in a VM or using Wine..

btw: I'm still waiting for your response on OneNote.

You ask me to stop ruling out choices for pragmatic reasons, when here people are suggesting VMWare/Citrix as a solution!! What's pragmatic about that?

Re:That was easy

[Stephen Ma]

Very few (if any) people use all of the unique features Excel has, but a damn lot of them use at least one of them... and often, the price of doing without that one feature is much greater than the cost of buying a copy of Office.

However, there is a significant risk of being stranded by Microsoft (remember the Visual Basic debacle), in which case the cost to the user can be huge. Whereas a popular open source program like Gnumeric will be supported forever. On balance, the risk versus benefit calculations favor open source.

Re:That was easy

[Mathinker]

Naw, its more like being sick of Linux gurus telling me _I'm_ stupid for wanting everything my own way. Well... that's how commerce works. Gotta satisfy the customer. I understand you fully. A lot of people who have strong opinions on this issue are not able to understand the other side. I have exactly the same experience as you, but worse. You see, "wanting everything my own way" includes:

1. 1) having websites which I want to look at be written according to accepted web standards, so they will display properly in all standards-compliant browsers
2. 2) to not have to pay money to buy specific programs in order to open documents which people send me in proprietary formats

OpenOffice just as good as Microsoft Office? Well... then why does this statement always get followed by a disclaimer that all those functions the Microsoft has that OpenOffice doesn't, ... "good" is subjective, OpenOffice could very well be perceived as better by many people for other reasons, right? Wasn't that the point you were making, in reverse? For example, OpenOffice can save its documents in a standard, open file format, and it is free (as in beer), which lets people try it out without paying up front, and free (as in speech), which lets people pay for it in other ways than spending cash (more on that later in my post).

There's a website that I (finally) found that claims that getting Call of Duty 4 to run on Linux under WINE is no harder than any other game For someone who says "I'll never run Linux 'cuz ...", you seem somehow conflicted. Why do you waste your time (and the "finally" indicates --- a lot of time) looking for websites about running a game under Linux?

... The stated reason that Qualcomm didn't port it to Linux was that they perceived that Linux users expect their software for free, which is ANOTHER thing I dsagree with. If a person wants something of value to him, he should be willing to pay for it, ... In some ways, I fully agree with you, here, and in others I disagree. I agree that people should be willing to pay for things of value to them. However, I think your definition of "pay for it" is rather narrow. Some of us pay for our free open-source software by, well, writing more free open-source software (or fixing bugs in existing software). The work we do is worth money. Others pay by providing support on forums, or to our immediate surroundings. Or by posting bug reports and enhancement requests. And then there are some of us who actually do click the "donate" button (if it is provided).

Where I disagree with you is that I believe that there are many people who are willing to pay, but do not have the means to do so (in a significant public fashion, at least), and I strongly believe these people should still be able to use free software.

while those that spend some significant chunk of their lives creating it, whether its a bridge or a simulation of one, deserves to be paid for their efforts. That includes artists, such as musicians, which is why I believe that downloading copyrited music for free is stealing. No, I don't care how many people agree about that... it is an absolute truth. I didn't understand this point. When I, out of curiosity, downloaded the free music from Nine Inch Nails, even though the artist wanted me to download it for free (I had never been exposed to his music), I was stealing? You are philosophically opposed to anyone giving anything away for free? Curious. Is your reason that they therefore compete with others who want to make money?

BTW, you should stop hiding the display of your paid subscription to Slashdot, it makes you look hypocritical.

Re:That was easy

[rally2xs]

Naw, its more like being sick of Linux gurus telling me _I'm_ stupid for wanting everything my own way. Well... that's how commerce works. Gotta satisfy the customer.

I understand you fully. A lot of people who have strong opinions on this issue are not able to understand the other side. I have exactly the same experience as you, but worse. You see, "wanting everything my own way" includes:

1. 1) having websites which I want to look at be written according to accepted web standards, so they will display properly in all standards-compliant browsers
2. 2) to not have to pay money to buy specific programs in order to open documents which people send me in proprietary formats

I guess you can ask 'em to send it in Acrobat...

OpenOffice just as good as Microsoft Office? Well... then why does this statement always get followed by a disclaimer that all those functions the Microsoft has that OpenOffice doesn't, ...

"good" is subjective, OpenOffice could very well be perceived as better by many people for other reasons, right? Wasn't that the point you were making, in reverse? For example, OpenOffice can save its documents in a standard, open file format, and it is free (as in beer), which lets people try it out without paying up front, and free (as in speech), which lets people pay for it in other ways than spending cash (more on that later in my post).

So we all have to be programmers? And of course do I want to program all day on project X, and then come home and program on something else to "pay" for it? No, I'd rather take the money I make during the day and pay for something that I walk off with from over the counter, or that arrives in the mail, and not have to fiddle around writing my own word processor features.

There's a website that I (finally) found that claims that getting Call of Duty 4 to run on Linux under WINE is no harder than any other game

For someone who says "I'll never run Linux 'cuz ...", you seem somehow conflicted. Why do you waste your time (and the "finally" indicates --- a lot of time) looking for websites about running a game under Linux?

Just looking to see if my next prospective game would work in Linux. Nope, no Punkbuster.

... The stated reason that Qualcomm didn't port it to Linux was that they perceived that Linux users expect their software for free, which is ANOTHER thing I dsagree with. If a person wants something of value to him, he should be willing to pay for it, ...

In some ways, I fully agree with you, here, and in others I disagree. I agree that people should be willing to pay for things of value to them. However, I think your definition of "pay for it" is rather narrow. Some of us pay for our free open-source software by, well, writing more free open-source software (or fixing bugs in existing software). The work we do is worth money. Others pay by providing support on forums, or to our immediate surroundings. Or by posting bug reports and enhancement requests. And then there are some of us who actually do click the "donate" button (if it is provided).

Sure, if that's the way you want to operate, be my guest. I don't want to _have_ to operate that wway because the operating system only offers rograms that are set up that way.

Where I disagree with you is that I believe that there are many people who are willing to pay, but do not have the means to do so (in a significant public fashion, at least), and I strongly believe these people should still be able to use free software.

OK, they don't want to get a job and just use free software, fine... I don't really care. I just don't want to _have_ to use it.

while those that spend some significant chu

Re:That was easy

[robinsc]

erm both gimp and vim are available for windows...
resistance is futile you will be assimilated....

Re:That was easy

[tepples]

i'll give you that, infact in many ways its almost a better alternative to switch from MS Office 2003 to OpenOffice than it is to switch to Office 2007... That may be true of Word and Excel, but I'd like more evidence before I try to run Access/VBA accounting applications in OO.o Base.

Re:That was easy

[Mathinker]

...

1. 1) having websites which I want to look at be written according to accepted web standards, so they will display properly in all standards-compliant browsers
2. 2) to not have to pay money to buy specific programs in order to open documents which people send me in proprietary formats

I guess you can ask 'em to send it in Acrobat... Yes, that works for docs, but IE-only websites in Acrobat?

... OpenOffice can save its documents in a standard, open file format, and it is free (as in beer), which lets people try it out without paying up front, and free (as in speech), which lets people pay for it in other ways than spending cash (more on that later in my post). So we all have to be programmers? Nope, didn't say that, you didn't bother to read the whole post even though I tried to make it clear to you that you should by saying "more on that later in my post". Where I list lots of ways to "pay" for OSS, only one of which being programming.

.... And then there are some of us who actually do click the "donate" button (if it is provided). Sure, if that's the way you want to operate, be my guest. I don't want to _have_ to operate that wway because the operating system only offers rograms that are set up that way. The reason you feel you _have_ to operate that way on Linux has very little to do with Linux itself, it is caused by closed-source software companies choosing not to support Linux, probably for the reason that relatively few people use Linux and of those who do, many would not buy software designed for it. If MS manages to screw up the version after Vista even worse, this might change...

Where I disagree with you is that I believe that there are many people who are willing to pay, but do not have the means to do so (in a significant public fashion, at least), and I strongly believe these people should still be able to use free software. OK, they don't want to get a job and just use free software, fine... I don't really care. I just don't want to _have_ to use it. What world do you live in? The people I'm talking about mainly do have jobs. Jobs which pay them monthly about what you would spend on your next game. There are millions of people like that in the world. And yes, a lot of them do have access to computers.

C'mon, you know I meant the downloading of music that is only meant to be for sale and such that to legally posses it, one should have purchased it with a portion of that money going to the artist who made the music and very much wants the compensation. I'm curious, what you feel is important here is that the artist (and record companies, etc.) get money? So you would agree it's OK for me to buy music with DRM and then download a non-DRM version for my personal use (as opposed to having to buy a second copy for my car, and an additional copy for every MP3 player, and not being able to listen to the same music under Linux)?

Re:That was easy

[Mongoose Disciple]

And I know of no business related task that the likes of Vista can do that Linux cannot, absolutely none.

Open source software can do anything, as long as someone's interested in implementing it. That's sort of the glory of it.

The only sticking point here being that a lot of business people are really attached to, let's say, one or two of the unique features of one of the Office suite... and that would be easy to mimic, except if you pick a hundred users of Office at random, probably there aren't any matches of the one or two niche features they just can't live without.

Potentially an OpenOffice or the like can have all those special features, but the reality today is that it's good for all the 'core' word processing, etc., features but not so much with those edge cases.


What I see driving the costs are corporate cutbacks. Oh yea, we haven't seen the articles in a big way but corporate north America is in a recession and chopping where they can. They are looking at the $1000+ software for the desktop and are just rubbing their hands for the savings.


My job has me dealing with people in a lot of different industries/businesses and I just don't see that happening any time soon. You'll see nearly every sizeable business cut the company holiday party or lay people off a long time before they try to get rid of Office, and therefore Windows. If you're losing money, it makes sense to cut the fat, but Office isn't fat to most business people.

Re:That was easy

[tessonec]

None of them is as easy to install as in Linux, which was his point...

Re:That was easy

[civilizedINTENSITY]

First, let me forgive your sarcasm. You might not be used to rational discourse. It doesn't facilitate communication, however, and I thought it worth pointing out.

In reply to your query: Its simple. Its pragmatic because it works. Functionality matters. Being able to boot into Linux and run photoshop inside an x-window lets you operate in a manner that dual-booting doesn't allow. Its really just that simple. I view WinXP as just another library dependency necessary for whatever app I need, and after going "full screen" (which is really full window) it is just that: yet another app with strange but doable dependencies.

I have to admit OneNote is fun. I like tabs, I like being able to organize using containers w/in containers w/in containers. XML output makes it seemingly hackable enough at the file level, too. I admit freely I play with OneNote every 6 months or so.

I didn't reply to OneNote because I perceive (mistakenly?) that OneNote is a cool toy, but not anything that could be considered mission critical in any enviornment I am able to easily imagine. (Sorry to keep you waiting ;-)

Re:That was easy

[dhavleak]

First, let me forgive your sarcasm. You might not be used to rational discourse. It doesn't facilitate communication, however, and I thought it worth pointing out. After talking about me being hit on the head with a clue stick, its a bit rich of you to whine like this. Having said that keeping it civil would be nice, so no more sarcasm from me.

Being able to boot into Linux and run photoshop inside an x-window lets you operate in a manner that dual-booting doesn't allow. Where did dual booting even get into the picture? We're not talking about keeping a windows partition around for the sake of photoshop. We're talking about photoshop (for example - we could use other applications) being someone's main scenario -- if that's the case, windows meets that requirement, and all the other things (email, browsing, multimedia functions) work just fine (as they do), then why would this person not just use windows?

Again, absolutely no reason to not use linux if you want to -- but there's no strong case for abandoning windows if it meets your needs.

Your paragraph about OneNote Please note the sarcasm in your response there.

In any case -- you clearly have no need for onenote. I shall not badger you to use it. I am a 'power user' for OneNote. I and other people who rely on it, find it one of the greatest productivity-boosting applications, second only to email. And we tend to not use paper any more. We also never have to replicate stuff from written notes into emails. We are also able to capture notes from the web, docs, screen captures, mockups and so much more it isn't even funny. If you have a tablet, add sketches/diagrams, handwritten notes, *excellent* handwriting recognition to the list. One man's toy is another man's critical app.

Apparently you have tried OneNote, and don't find it useful. I respect that. You prefer running Linux, and using VM for some windows app. I don't have any problem with you doing that, and if you read my responses you'll notice that at no time have I tried to convince you to stop doing that (I am merely sticking up for people who prefer windows for whatever reason). Why are you so determined to prove that the solution that works for you should be used by everybody else, when that's clearly not the case?

Re:That was easy

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"whine" - whatever.

Giving up now. You frame the discussion to be, "Windows is whats best for me, why should I not use whats best." Obviously in such context you will never be wrong, since pleasing you has become the sole (and arbitrary) criteria. Sorry to engage you. You waste my time.

Re:That was easy

[darkpixel2k]

I respect the tremendous effort people like the OpenOffice team have put forth, but for millions of people who get their work done or don't by the power and usability of their office suite, the alternatives aren't there yet.

...and seeing as how Microsoft brought work to a halt with the improved ribbon interface and it's required re-learning of how to 'get work done', maybe it would be easier to switch users to the *similar* interface of OpenOffice instead of the totally alien interface of Office 2007.

Every single client of mine that has purchased Office 2007 hated it. When I installed OpenOffice for them and said asked what they thought, they liked it. And then when I told them it was free, they asked if they could return Office 2007.

Re:That was easy

[dhavleak]

Windows is whats best for me, why should I not use whats best. Actually the point was, why not use whatever is best of you. If that happens to be windows (and often it does) then so be it.

Obviously in such context you will never be wrong, since pleasing you has become the sole (and arbitrary) criteria. Arbitrary??

Who is an individual user suppoed to please -- themselves, or you? Each user has to see what meets their requirements best. You would have everyone running office in a VM. I would have everyone doing whatever they please.

Re:That was easy

[civilizedINTENSITY]

You do it again.

Re:That was easy

[dhavleak]

Witty.

Re:Defective By Design.

[Anonymous Coward]

Love the sig. Nothing says "please ignore me" like that dollar sign.

Time for Linux?

[qmaqdk]

Anyone else think that June 30 is an excellent chance to push Linux to the desktop?

Not the problem

[Perseid]

The problem is not the increase in resource use. This is nothing new. Every release of Windows, most releases of OS X and even some new flavors of Linux have increased resource use because they do more. The big problem for Microsoft this go-'round is that Vista really doesn't give you enough reason to accept the increased resource use. XP is a perfectly fine OS and to get people to move away, especially if that move is to a resource hog, you really need to drop the hammer and give people a kick-ass must-have OS. MS clearly failed to do that in Vista and they're paying for it now.

Re:Not the problem

[kaizokuace]

I say the increased resource use would be more acceptable if explorer was replaced with whatever file browser they used in the movie Hackers. Flying around a virtual file system would be awesome. Useless, but awesome! HACK THE PLANET!

Re:Not the problem

[RAMMS EIN]

``Every release of Windows, most releases of OS X and even some new flavors of Linux have increased resource use because they do more.''

Is that actually true for OS X? I've heard that many releases actually ran faster than their predecessors.

Re:Not the problem

[Perseid]

Is that actually true for OS X? I've heard that many releases actually ran faster than their predecessors. I'm not a Mac expert. All I know is my old iBook won't run 10.4 or higher. I wouldn't expect it to, really - it's ancient. But system requirements are going up and that was my point.

Re:Not the problem

[toby]

Actually, it's fairly well known that every new release of OS X has been FASTER and leaner: specifically 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4. (This is backed up by my experience on personal machines and production studios of Macs.)

In particular, 10.3 is noticeably snappier on G3 (even beige) compared to 10.2.

Can't speak for 10.5 as I've had limited exposure, but few are complaining - maybe because the Intel Macs are so fast out of the gate anyway :)

Re:Not the problem

[Tony Hoyle]

10.5 is a little slower but it's not really noticable even on my old G4 - on my intel MBP it flies.

The thing I like about OSX is there's no perception of ever really having to wait for anything.. you click on an app, it appears, or at the very least you get instant feedback that it's loading. It *seems* a lot faster than Windows even though I reckon with a raw benchmark it'd probably only be slightly faster. Perception is everything..

Re:Not the problem

[hot soldering iron]

Yeah, there is increased resource usage in Ubuntu. But it uses about 3% on my core2 duo laptop as opposed to Vista with 20-80% avg usage. And the UI feels "snappier". Hell, running Ubuntu LiveCD was faster than Vista on the HD!

Re:Not the problem

[drsmithy]

Is that actually true for OS X? I've heard that many releases actually ran faster than their predecessors.

While this is true, you have to keep it in context - early versions of OS X were noticably slow, even on the top-end hardware of the day. The hardware caught up to OS X around 10.4.

Windows has never, ever been that bad.

History repeats itself...

[saleenS281]

Seriously, can we just stop doing this everytime there is a new release of windows? When XP was released it was "OH MY GOSH, NOBODY LIKES XP!!! WINDOWS2000 WILL BE AROUND FOREVER!!!!". Now we're doing it all over again with Vista. There isn't a pattern or ANYTHING. Like maybe large enterprises that move at a snail's pace tend to adopt one rev behind.

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/15/0035209

Re:History repeats itself...

[Butisol]

Vista is the new Windows ME. It can't be compared to XP in the way you are attempting. Windows Vista really is a piece of crap, so stop trotting out the same old argument. It's boring.

Re:History repeats itself...

[i_liek_turtles]

Seriously, can we just stop doing this everytime there is a new release of windows? I'd like to think I'm sticking it to the man by using ME.

Re:History repeats itself...

[Opportunist]

The difference is that this time it's not just the geeks. Sure, you always had geeks lamenting that they will not, under any circumstances, accept the horrible changes (be it activation in XP, DRM in Vista...), and that the whole system looks so Teletubby, and that they won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Not even with a 0x10 feet one.

But usually, the general audience and especially companies accepted the new system. It offered more ease of use, easier integration of peripherals, looked nicer and so on. Vista is different, though. Yes, it looks nicer. But people started to catch on. They noticed that the final version for an MS product is sporting an "SP2" sticker next to it. They got what they want in XP. They heard that this or that hardware doesn't work in Vista anymore. But the biggest problem is what we (geeks) have been lamenting for years now, and which backfired when MS started to take it serious: Security. UAC is one of the things that is very high on the annoyances list of the average user.

This is the difference this time. It's not only the geeks who turn their noses at the new MS-OS. It's a general sentiment. And even OEM manufacturers are pressing MS for prolongued support for XP, since they saw the demand for machines with an "old" OS. Tells you something. Because geeks are certainly no important market segment. Yes, we buy more soft- and hardware than the average guy (ok, at least hardware, since the real, pure geek won't touch anything but OSS... yeah, yeah), but we're few compared to the masses buying PCs these days. And we're picky, and we're not easily turned away when something doesn't work out, we're not really an interesting customer group. Certainly we're not the core customers for Dell or HP. And these companies exactly demanded and pressed for longer OEM sales of XP.

So the rejection of Vista isn't the geek phenomenon that it usually is. It's a much, much broader reaction this time.

Re:History repeats itself...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll stop making a big deal when Microsoft stops releasing Windows.

(man, I almost wish I had a login here, this comment is just going to be a karma MAGNET)

Re:History repeats itself...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just not true. XP offered more than Win 2000, people hated the cartoon colors but they were easily replaced and classic mode is used a lot.
Vista offers nothing and requires 2x as much memory for the same thing, it's very ugly and no one likes it. Worse yet, it has extremely bad driver support. MS mucked up in so many ways, it's not the same as when 2000 or XP were released at all.
Vista is just a poor product that offers nothing extra to home or business.

Re:History repeats itself...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, history is repeating itself, but you missed the proper analogy:

Win98:ME::XP:Vista

Re:History repeats itself...

[Kjella]

When XP was released it was "OH MY GOSH, NOBODY LIKES XP!!! WINDOWS2000 WILL BE AROUND FOREVER!!!!". Yeah well, I felt the value came sometime around SP2 with the firewall. Let me know when Vista starts adding value :)

Re:History repeats itself...

[danwat1234]

No, win 2000 isn't as stable as XP imo. Vista is as stable as XP and vice versa, but with a lot more bloat. I was in the 'boat', saying that XP is bloated compared to win2k, but it's worth it (System restore, Automatic Updates, fast user switching, good stuff). Back in the day, I was thrilled at windows 2000 because of the move to the Windows NT architecture (goodbye to 'illegal operations'!). Now that we have a nice stable Windows NT platform (XP), why move to something with more bloat with little return other than dx10, Superfetch, winFX API, and UAC (Everything else that matters can be added to XP)?

Re:History repeats itself...

[AncientPC]

Vista could always be ME v2, just a mistake that Microsoft learns from and improves on for their next OS. It was 2000 -> ME -> XP, remember?

Re:History repeats itself...

[weicco]

Well, with enough BS the Year of the Desktop Linux could actually come.

Re:History repeats itself...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, can we just stop doing this everytime there is a new release of windows?

I agree. There has only been one other time that validates.

Windows ME.

Re:History repeats itself...

[Kattare]

Bah... I loved win2k... only reason I upgraded? One day I noticed my friend was able to alt-tab out of a game way faster under XP than I could in win2k. Waayyyy handy when you're manning the phones at work. ;-)

What else did XP add to win2k exactly?

Re:History repeats itself...

[feepness]

UAC is one of the things that is very high on the annoyances list of the average user. Complaining about UAC is like complaining about not being able to change your desktop background. It is so fucking easy to turn off it's like being irritated that it's too dark when you're wearing sunglasses.

Re:History repeats itself...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you would actually read the link you posted, you would find that most comments centered around this point:

There isn't very much difference between XP and 2000. 2000 is a fairly stable platform that runs pretty much all the same software as XP. "If it ain't broke"

Now that's not the same as everyone is saying about XP vs Vista, is it? In no discussion so far have I heard either MS apologists or its opponents refer to Vista and XP as "roughly the same".

Vista is *different*. It's not XP vs 2k (same codebase), it's more like XP vs 98 (different architecture). But with XP, we moved to a underlying architecture that was tried and tested for ten years (NT technology). Now, both business and consumers are forced to a new architecture that has only had one year of testing and MS has no backup line of products to offer for when things backfire. They have no choice but to move forward, and they know it.

Both business and consumers alike have different goals than Microsoft has, and that's what starting to show.

Re:History repeats itself...

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

It's not only the geeks who turn their noses at the new MS-OS. It's a general sentiment.

This, my friend, is bullshit. The pundits want you to think that, but the fact is that the vast majority of people using Vista don't care one way or another. Vista is just another version of Windows that they got on their hardware.

Mossberg and Pogue don't represent the general public. Neither do enterprise customers who are slow to migrate, as usual (many of who have now done so or will do so soon).

The reality is that no matter how much people trash Vista, it's just not that bad of a product. Ask the 14% of computer users who boot up Vista every day.

Re:History repeats itself...

[Tony Hoyle]

I've had completely non technical people practically beg me to remove vista and put XP on their new machines. It's *not* coming from pundits it's coming from ordinary people.

There's also been a huge upsurge in people getting macs as well, because people just don't want to have to deal with it - they want something that works out of the box.

Re:History repeats itself...

[Opportunist]

You have never been exposed to computer newbies, right? I know people who have been clicking the same buttons again and again after opening a program for years, because the default setup isn't to their liking but they couldn't figure out how to set it up in the options. Same deal.

Re:History repeats itself...

[drsmithy]

Yeah well, I felt the value came sometime around SP2 with the firewall.

Windows XP had a firewall from it's first release.

(So did Windows 2000, for that matter, albeit less use friendly.)

Re:History repeats itself...

[dbIII]

Win2k is still ideal for workstations where you want to use all the CPU power you can get and all the memory you can have. Most new hardware comes with drivers for Win2k. Also little systems that are virtually thin clients can also run it quite well. I would not attempt to run XP on a system with 256MB of RAM some of which is shared with video.

Re:History repeats itself...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>There isn't a pattern or ANYTHING

No. There is really NOT any kind of a pattern. At least not that I can see.

Windows 95 was better than 3.11, 98 was better than 95, but ME sucked compared to 98, 2000 was better than NT, XP sp1 sucked but sp2 actually made it pretty decent, Vista sucks. I honestly don't see any real pattern.

You cannot look at the slow adoption of XP and say that that one thing is the basis for a pattern.

Re:History repeats itself...

[thepotoo]

No, no no no no!

Remember, XP was competing against Win 98! Windows 2000 wasn't very popular outside of servers.
Things start to look a bit different now, don't they?

Re:History repeats itself...

[feepness]

You have never been exposed to computer newbies, right? I know people who have been clicking the same buttons again and again after opening a program for years, because the default setup isn't to their liking but they couldn't figure out how to set it up in the options. Same deal. Exactly. So this leads me to two conclusions:

1. The Slashdot community isn't quite as clever as I have been led to believe.
2. If people have been doing this for years, then this problem is not a new one to Vista.

What you're saying is...

[symbolset]

"LALALALALA I can't hear you!"

Not real persuasive. Not going to work any more.

Re:What you're saying is...

[abigor]

How does he run them under Linux, as you suggested? Citrix or a VM STILL USE WINDOWS. The point is to NOT USE WINDOWS, remember?

Re:What you're saying is...

[Anonymous Coward]

He does have a point. If using your software on Linux means you need to run Windows in a VM, then that isn't dropping the Microsoft OS altogether, is it?

Until you can come up with a solution other than "Stop using proprietary software" or "VM Windows", it isn't going to work out.

Re:What you're saying is...

[petermgreen]

on the other hand vming windows gets arround the problem of hardware support for old versions of windows nicely. Afaict the likes of vmware support any version of windows down to 95 and probablly earlier.

Re:What you're saying is...

[multisync]

If using your software on Linux means you need to run Windows in a VM, then that isn't dropping the Microsoft OS altogether, is it?

Well he was answering the question "How do I run Office 2007 and VS 2008 under Linux?" Your issue is with the question, not the fact that he answered it. If the questioner had asked "what can I use for an Office app in Linux" and the responder said run Office 2007 in Citrix, you would have had a point. But he didn't.

Until you can come up with a solution other than "Stop using proprietary software" or "VM Windows", it isn't going to work out.

How about we're going to run an Exchange server on 2003 but our clients will run Evolution in KDE, or something like that? Does it have to be all or nothing? Oth, what's wrong with having "stop using proprietary software" as a "big picture" goal, that everyone works towards. Just like asking everyone to be frugal and reuse things as much as possible to cut down on overhead, you could also give people incentives to bring in free and open source alternatives to proprietary software you are using, especially if the vendor you are currently using charges fees at every opportunity and does its best to lock you in and prevent you from using it in concert with software from other vendors.

This is what I'm doing at my work. I may never get us completely rid of Windows and other "squeeze-every-last-penny-out-of-you-we-can" type software, but every time I manage slip in a FOSS solution (using Drupal in a LAMP box to create a resource center on the company intranet for example) it's a win for the company, and an overall step in the right direction.

Re:What you're saying is...

[CastrTroy]

I've had first hand experience running DOS 6.2 and Windows 3.1 Under VMWare. If i'm not mistaken, I remember finding an old copy of Windows 1.0 on the net and running that under VMWare.

Re:What you're saying is...

[GigaplexNZ]

The question was "How do I run Office 2007 and VS 2008 under Linux?". The answer was to run Windows in a VM. How are they going to do that when the reason they are looking for an alternative to Windows is that XP is (or will be) no longer available? You still need a copy of Windows on the VM and Vista isn't particularly pleasant in that type of environment. If they can get a copy of Windows to run in the VM, they could just use it natively and keep the status quo.

Re:What you're saying is...

[multisync]

You still need a copy of Windows on the VM and Vista isn't particularly pleasant in that type of environment.

Did my XP licenses all just disappear in a puff of smoke? That's one of the advantages to have at least a few beige boxes running off-the-shelf XP Pro. If the hardware dies, you can install the OS in a VM and still get use out of it.

As far as I know Office 2007 runs just fine in XP. If it doesn't, run Office 2003. Or OpenOffice.org. Or run Office 2007 on a Vista box if you just have to.

But don't tell me it's Office 2007 and VS 2008 or nothing. For most users that's not the case. If you need it, spend the money on it and be happy.

Re:What you're saying is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Linux for everything ... including Office products.

The question should NOT be how to run a particular OS product on a different OS,
but how to do the same function on that OS with the identical data.

The options in Linux are numerous for this, all well known and NOT an issue.
What is a problem is the expectations from users that every 'point' and 'click'
be the same. That is an education problem.

Microsoft won that war with marketing long ago. If you want real change to
Linux, then a well organized marketing program is needed to convince the end
users that the little extra effort needed to learn something new is worth it.

Microsoft seems to be generating the opportunity to do just that -- BUT only
if the Linux community organizes to take advantage of it -- unlikely.

Re:What you're saying is...

[Deagol]

For WfWG 3.11 and older (running on some DOS variant, of course), you'd do better to run under "dosbox". Not a complete hardware emulator, but certainly enough to do 99% of what most would want. Much leaner than VMWare and Qemu. For grins, a few months ago I installed Dark Forces from an old ISO image I had stuffed in a corner of my filesystem. Was pretty cool to see such an old game running under my X desktop -- ran with SB16 sound and everything. Now if I could just find my old copy of Lemmings...

Re:What you're saying is...

[ozmanjusri]

I have a copy of Microsoft Bob (Vista's predecessor) I'd be happy to sell you...

Re:What you're saying is...

[funfail]

Now if I could just find my old copy of Lemmings...

Here you go: http://games.funnygames.nl/lemmings/

Re:What you're saying is...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Currently there is no problem with running Windows-only software under WinXP. Its not as though people are saying, "I can't use WinXP because my software is Vista-only." There are people who can't run WinXP software yet on Vista (third party Mathmatica extensions, for instance). Its looking more and more like the adoption of Vista is failing to the point that the concern you voice will *never* be a problem. Perhaps Windows 7 (remember the article that this is really all about?) will be like Vista in some ways. Perhaps it will be like Mac OS X or even Linux. Hell, at this point, it could end up being Linux or BSD based for all we *really* know. Vaporware is like that. So currently, and for the near future, your concern really makes a moot point. In the future, when MS writes yet another OS, it may or might not be adopted (wasn't long ago I never thought I'd type that!), and it may or might not have features pertinent to your point, and thus may or may not be a concern.

Right now, running WinXP on Linux in VMWare is a better experience than running it natively on the same bare metal. The upgrade is well worth the effort and expense if you have to use windows-only apps.

Re:What you're saying is...

[CastrTroy]

I recently tried out Descent 1 with the DEVIL level editor. I couldn't get Devil working in Dosbox, but it would work in VMWare. So I used a shared iso emulating a drive between the two to share the files.

Re:What you're saying is...

[nametaken]

But don't tell me it's Office 2007 and VS 2008 or nothing. For most users that's not the case. If you need it, spend the money on it and be happy.

In my experience, it's exactly that.

Try prying Outlook from my users' cold dead hands. And really, anyone who thinks Evolution is a usable Exchange client is trying too hard to make the case. It isn't close. The suggestion to run Outlook in a VM must be a joke I don't get. Corporate America LIVES out of the Outlook Inbox, and anything getting in between their desktop and Outlook is like making them use a window to get in to their living room.

Unfortunately, ditching Exchange all together isn't an option either. No combination of client and server groupware apps that I've ever seen is anywhere near Exchange/Outlook, and my users already have it... making anything else a downgrade at this point.

Now, I'd be perfectly within my scope of authority (and would like to) replace anything in our buildings with FOSS options without much more than a couple days notice. But unfortunately I also have to deal with the fallout. So if ANYONE knows of an option that does everything they do, do it well, and look as pretty (not kidding) on the client side, then PLEASE let me know and I'd be all over it.

For bonus points, figure out how to replace the rest of Office without the discomfort of converting every single document that comes in to and goes out of the building.

I'd pay considerable company dollars for good options that I know my users would find to be acceptable replacements for what they already have. And that's the problem. Nobody needs to convince me to use all the options I've seen. I need options that would undoubtedly convince my users. Unfortunately it's much like the old saying, "Nobody gets fired for buying IBM". Well nowadays it's "Nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft". Their solutions are the standard, and nobody really gets chastised by management for having chosen them.

Re:What you're saying is...

[multisync]

"Nobody gets fired for buying IBM"

Yup, they used to say that.

"Nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft"

That one's starting to sound a little hackneyed, too.

Re:What you're saying is...

[multisync]

Sorry, that was a little curt.

If the majority of your users are taking advantage of all the groupware features offered by Exchange/Outlook, and you can not find a satisfactory substitute, go right ahead an continue using it. If the changes in interface and file format are not posing problems, go on down the upgrade path into Vista and Office 2007.

I suspect a lot of businesses are very much like mine, where the majority of users are using their email client as, well, an email client. If that's the case, at least some of the users may be just fine with Evolution, or Thunderbird or any number of other choices out there. Every day more FOSS projects come on line offering features and functionality that previously didn't exist outside of proprietary software. Eventually one may come along that addresses the needs of your users. As these projects continue to mature, we all accrue the wealth that FOSS represents. Some of us will be able to take advantage of it more than others, but we will all benefit (just as we all benefit from FOSS when we use the Internet. It doesn't matter that I'm using IE on an XP box, that web page I'm viewing might come from an Apache server running Free BSD).

Re:What you're saying is...

[dbIII]

How about we're going to run an Exchange server on 2003

Don't do it! Once you move away from email to that bizzare car accident between email and calendar programs you cannot go back and really can only use whatever the most recent version of full MS Outlook is at any given time. Then again - Exchange has matured to the point where you can actually back up the mail store without shutting it all down but it still has bizzare problems like sending stuff to random recipients occassionally (which should NEVER happen in my opinion). Check out archives of sysadmin mailing lists or the Microsoft knowledgebase for details.

If you do go that way you will just be playing catch up with your email clients.

Re:What you're saying is...

[tepples]

Did my XP licenses all just disappear in a puff of smoke? That's one of the advantages to have at least a few beige boxes running off-the-shelf XP Pro. If the hardware dies, you can install the OS in a VM and still get use out of it. So what do I do when my company grows and I need more licenses?

As far as I know Office 2007 runs just fine in XP. You're right.

If it doesn't, run Office 2003. Or OpenOffice.org. Until the maker of the Access-based accounting and inventory management software that your company relies on refuses to make a version for OO.o.

Re:What you're saying is...

[nametaken]

As much as I'd like to agree, there are very few places I can think of where Microsoft isn't the standard.

They're weak in places like CRM. Other options like Salesforce put a beating on them. Their gateway and security product is not particularly popular either, as far as I can tell (I've never heard of it being deployed anywhere). Appliances really seem to have that market nailed down hard.

But when it comes to the desktop OS, office productivity suite and collaboration services... it's still quite risky in most places I've been to even recommend alternatives.

Again, I wish it weren't that way... I don't want to buy Vista, and I REALLY don't want to support it... but I don't feel I have a working parallel option in FOSS software. Maybe some day.

great answer

[sentientbrendan]

>>What about current and next gen games?
>>How do I get those to work?
>This wikipedia link [link to playstation 3] should help.

So your answer on how to get PC games to work on Linux, is to not play PC games? I'm just *not allowed* to play starcraft II when it comes out?

Many people own PC's specifically for playing games, and don't do much else with them. Is your solution for them, that they don't need a computer at all? Or maybe they should put Linux on their computer, and then throw it in the closet and never look at it again?

Blind evangelism isn't helping Linux... it turns people off when they are given bad advice by people with an agenda.

Re:great answer

[menkhaura]

So your answer on how to get PC games to work on Linux, is to not play PC games? I'm just *not allowed* to play starcraft II when it comes out?

Bohooo! Bitch to Blizzard, they are the ones who didn't port their games to non-windows OSs. I know, I've bitched to death to Atari and Bioware for a Linux-based NWN 2 client. iD Software, on the other hand, know their stuff, and know their market; Quake 4 and Doom 3 absolutely and natively rock on Linux. Linux-based OSs have proved time and again that they are very worthy gaming platforms

Many people own PC's specifically for playing games, and don't do much else with them. Is your solution for them, that they don't need a computer at all? Or maybe they should put Linux on their computer, and then throw it in the closet and never look at it again?

"Many people own PS2s specifically for playing games, and don't do much else with them. is your solution for them, that they don't need a PS2 at all?"

If they want to play games and almost nothing else, yes, they may keep their XP PCs or switch to a platform explicitly dedicated to gaming, such as PS3 or Wii, or the latest XBox. Besides, they say that keeping a console is waay cheaper than a gaming PC, even more so if you keep in mind that a console is good for at the very least 3 years.

Re:great answer

[Alphab.fr]

>Bohooo! Bitch to Blizzard, they are the ones who didn't port their games to non-windows OSs. Well, not really they just don't port to linux. They've always been great with the mac, releasing mac version the same day (and often on the same cd!). And they've been wonderful for long term support: I'm currently installing Starcraft on my mac under OS X.5. This game was released TEN years ago, for Mac OS 7, but blizzard took the pain to provide the patches for continued compatibility.

Re:great answer

[10101001 10101001]

Blind evangelism isn't helping Linux... it turns people off when they are given bad advice by people with an agenda.

And people with blind evangelism asking a question with an agenda is rather pointless as well. In short, there is no *one* answer for what to do about playing old/current games (Windows is hardly the only platform for gaming) and new games (it's still not clear what platform will dominate, so any suggestion on what to purchase/obtain for "the next big game" is heavy speculation). Meanwhile, if you want to ask about specific games that are already on known platform(s) or for which development has been explicitly stated for known platform(s), then odds are pretty good you already know the answer: use Windows for Windows games, Linux for Linux games, the PS3 for PS3 games, and your platform of choice when a game is available on multiple platforms.

Sure, things like WINE and DOSBox (as examples) give some leeway for games, but if a game is only unofficially supported under such solutions and you really want to be sure on what to get, then go with what is officially supported. Meanwhile, if you're willing to prod and test and experiment because you don't have the money to buy or are unwilling to invest the time in maintaining the N systems necessary to run all the games you want, you have to decide what you have to give up and what you *are* willing to invest your time in.

Me? I'd prefer having a game system as an application. I got to that point when DOS games stopped working under the latest consumer version of Windows (although I did hold out for a bit). Does that mean I've given up completely on gaming on the PC? No. But, it does mean I won't install Windows (or Linux or DOS) as a primary OS just to be able to run certain games. I will, at times, test to see what works under WINE and DOSBox and try to be content with native games for my platform of choice.

Is this is the best choice for everyone? Fuck if I know. But all of the above (minus my rantings of my own personal experience) should be pretty blatantly obvious to most people, really casting the point that either the person originally asking the question was asking it as a loaded question, more as a rhetorical device to try to "denounce" people, or the person was really ignorant of what the gaming landscape is like in a multiplatform world. If DAldredge really is the latter person, then I'd recommend trying out WINE and DOSBox and CoLinux and whatever else there is (I'll admit, my own ignorance doesn't really give a good answer for the Mac platform..and I doubt CoLinux is very hot for Linux games). But bickering over a loaded question is pointless.

Re:great answer

[udippel]

Many people own PC's specifically for playing games, and don't do much else with them.

So true. But maybe this whole concept is wrong? I mean, it is their liberty to do what they feel like doing. But games are not exactly what the PC was invented for, and games is not exactly what the PC is best at. A dedicated gaming console will usually beat a general-purpose item like a PC hands down, with respect to performance as well as cost efficiency.

I am sure we are not alone at gradually converting our new boxes into PC-only; with 'green' low-TDP CPUs, integrated graphics, etc. and running close to 50W. While gaming is gradually shifted to dedicated, not always-on boxes. With 'Atom' and increasing prices for energy, we will see a huge shift to low-power computing. XP runs great on 800 MHz CPUs and 512 MB, including Office. So well, actually, that Microsoft should be investigated by DoE, and forced to keep XP alive, for the sake of the environment.

Re:great answer

[amirulbahr]

This whole thread is based in circular logic. "How do I run Windows only applications without running Windows?" You can't! But I think it is pretty obvious that as the market begins to turn, and there is wider adoption of standards based, commodity operating systems, niche software vendors will naturally write software for those platforms.

Re:great answer

[menkhaura]

Same as Bioware; I'm a HUGE Neverwinter Nights fan, and became acquainted with it because it ran natively on Linux. All the bitching from me and many, many other Linux enthusiasts, however, didn't move them to make a native Neverwinter Nights 2 for Linux. I voted with my wallet, even though I crave to see the new version of the game I love most. Is it hard? Yes, it is, but I've lived 26 years without NWN 2, and I can live a few more years without it; it means more time to go out, ride a bike, see the sun, have sex (masturbating is having sex,right? Right? C'mon, we're on Slashdot!), read books, whatever. The point is, it isn't a Linux flaw, it is a developer's fault that we don't have those games on the OS we've come to love and respect.

Re:great answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, well Starcraft II will be available for Mac just as soon as it will be available for Windows, so that is really not a very good example.

Re:great answer

[Anonymous Coward]

So your answer on how to get PC games to work on Linux, is to not play PC games? I'm just *not allowed* to play starcraft II when it comes out?

Many people own PC's specifically for playing games, and don't do much else with them. Is your solution for them, that they don't need a computer at all? Or maybe they should put Linux on their computer, and then throw it in the closet and never look at it again?

So if you want a PC specifically for playing games, then why NOT get a Playstation or Wii?

Re:great answer

[dave1791]

I'm not certain that the bitching helps and I'd guess that it hurts actually. I've seen the linux threads on the bioware boards and they amount to "you suck for not doing linux", which does not endear you to the devs.

I've seen threads on game developer boards with the theme "why are linux users such assholes?". (e.g. http://www.mmoworkshop.com/trac/mom/phpbb?page=viewtopic.php&t=1165&highlight=linux)

Re:great answer

[Zironic]

Consoles become more expensive then PC's once you've bought 20 games or so.

Also Blizzard games have all so far run well on MacOS and they do as far as I know support(As in don't mind if you do, I don't think they will answer tech support about it though) the use of WoW on linux

Re:great answer

[Zironic]

In performance a high end PC always win against a console and always will, the PS3 was beaten the day it was released.

The console hardware is cheaper because it's sold at a loss but they'll make that money back on the game prices which makes me believe pc vs console are fairly close in cost

Re:great answer

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what fantasy world you live in, but in the real one no console has ever had *anything* on a current gen gaming pc, altho you are right about cost efficiency. Thing is, the mouse/keyboard combo is far better than a console controller for anything that isn't a beat-em-up or a racer (and racers work best with a wheel anyhow, and those are available for both). Console gamers have an aversion to using controls that require a desk, so the mouse and keyboard combo isn't likely to ever take off on consoles. Which means that the PC will likely stay better for games with actual depth, while consoles will stay the casual gamer platforms of choice. That's not to say that console games can't be good of course, simply that many people still prefer the PC for real gaming. Granted, I might be completely wrong, and this might all change, but personally I doubt that.

Sorry if any of that was incoherent, haven't slept.

Re:great answer

[wertigon]

But politely asking (once) if there is any possibility of a Linux version is definitely helping. It means you show that there's interest for a Linux port.

In the case of NWN2 Atari were just plain dumb IMO. IIRC, according to a poll done on the original NWN webpage, 60% used the Linux version. 60%. Now, I'm not exactly an economics professor, but when more than half of your active userbase use the Linux port, doesn't it then stand to reason that you should put some resources on that? But, nooooo. Instead they make their customers pissed at them, for no good reason. Thus I've heard many take a stance of "I will not buy NWN2", which means bad PR for the game. Notice that I blame Atari for this; The Bioware developers were more than willing to develop a Linux port, if Atari OKed it.

I mean, it's not exactly rocket science, and most users seems to be content with an unsupported binary blob...

Microsoft dictates what people get and that's that

[Locutus]

not matter how bad it is or how many company's software won't work in it, Microsoft is the decider. They want you to use Vista and you will use Vista one way or another. SURPRISE!

BTW, because Microsoft has VERY lucrative contracts with PC OEMs, they have little to no choice in what PC operating system gets pre-loaded on the computers. If they were to stick Linux on any of those computers, some part of those deals would be rescinded and the OEM would lose money one way or another. It is what it is so if you play in the Windows game, you're stuck playing by their rules and Vista is what they want you to use.

this is the way it is and no dumb-ass petition to save XP is going to change that. The only way to change that is to do something which changes Microsofts control on the market and that means using someone elses operating system or at the very least, start moving off of all other Microsoft software on their operating system ASAP. IMO.

LoB

the real solution to this problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

if steve mcqueen was still alive he'd kick you in the balls for being such a dope.

That could get MS into legal hot water

[davidwr]

People who cannot activate a product in 2020 or 2030 may have grounds to sue Microsoft for violating their perpetual "license."

Microsoft will have several choices:
* offer a full refund/buyback
* maintain some way to activate the product
* issue a patch so activation is not required
* get Congress to exempt them and others who use this technology from fair-trade and contract laws

In the interests of avoiding negative publicity, MS will probably keep their activation lines open for as long as they can without spending a lot of money, then issue a patch.

Vista issues for gamers and laptops

[sentientbrendan]

What I'd like to see is a more concerted effort to address the problems with Vista. Microsoft could make Vista as fast and usable as XP today if they would just get through their thick heads that some of the policies they came up with for vista are bone headed.

Consider:

1. Drivers. There's no reason Vista can't be made compatible with XP's faster video drivers, except that Microsoft is being stubborn.

2. 64 bit support. Microsoft has willfully hamstrung Vista 64 by not providing compatibility with 32 bit drivers, and by making the Vista 64 driver model more restrictive than the Vista 32 bit. If you look at Apple's systems, they have a much better model where 32 bit drivers work *fine* on a 64 bit system. There's no reason your video card driver needs to be 64 bit anyway...

3. Background tasks. Here's a hint: Let us easily turn them the fuck off. There should be some kind of Windows performance control panel that provides a central place to switch off file indexing, and the endless other miscellaneous tasks that spin the drive on Vista *constantly*.

Until those issues are addressed, it's stupid to expect gamers who need good graphics drivers, and laptop users who can't have the spinning harddrive wearing down the battery constantly to take a second look at Vista.

I gave Vista a good 6 months, and really did appreciate things like not having to run as administrator constantly. I felt much more secure running with lower privileges user like I do on my Ubuntu and OSX installs. However, dispite the fact that I tweaked the hell out of my system (including turning off file indexing and switching off aero in favor of the win2k look), and the fact that my system *should* be ridiculously overpowered by looking at the hardware specs, the background services made my system run like a *dog*.

I've switched back to XP, and it is like night and day. Suddenly, my machine no longer locks up doing some stupid task in the background. Suddenly, the stutter is gone from my games. Suddenly, everything is snappier.

What's more, I now actually get to run with file indexing ON, by using the google desktop. This gives me all of the same search functionality as I got on vista, but with no noticeable performance overhead. Hell, I could probably start running as a non admin user on XP, now that applications have finally been forced to learn to live with reduced permissions for Vista compatibility...

Re:Vista issues for gamers and laptops

[thatskinnyguy]

I did the same thing as you. I gave it 6 months to grow on me. All it did was aggravate the hell out of me too!

My grievances are as follows:

1. Give me the ability to turn aero completely off damn it! I don't need all of that resource gluttonous crap running at all period. Even if I do run the Win2K look!

2. Give me the option to not use "Windows Explorer Proper" when I'm browsing through my files. I also want my little "up a directory" button back!

3. I want an OS that is compatible with my Server 2K3 file server right out of the box. I don't want to have to put up with the fact that I have to apply a hotfix to it just to get acceptable transfer rates.

4. Give me the option to truly uninstall shit that I don't use instead of simply disabling it. I'm not going to run IIS, telnet server, or anything named with Windows as the leading word in the list to enable/disable features. So why not let me liberate some of my hard drive space?

5. I want a real login screen. Not the cartoonish XP Home-style login screen. Logging into a domain was a lot easier when I could just select the domain name from a dropdown list.

6. Don't make me feel bad when I upgrade from 512MB of memory to 2GB and the Windows Experience Meter or whatever the hell it's called doesn't move because I can't run Vista Aero bling as well as the latest and greatest machine.

[/vent] I really had to get that off my chest. I feel better now.

Re:Vista issues for gamers and laptops

[scruffy]

One reason Vista is a dog on many laptops is because the GDI graphics interface has been redesigned in Vista to be slow http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/12/04/vista_vs_xp_tests/.

Re:Vista issues for gamers and laptops

[tknd]

There's no reason Vista can't be made compatible with XP's faster video drivers, except that Microsoft is being stubborn.

I believe the reasoning is that output drivers now run in a new model where if a driver fails, it will not crash the system. There have been many cases where my ATI driver crashed but Vista 64 was able to restart it without bluescreening. In XP a driver crash will take down your entire system whether it be some stupid usb device like a microphone or the video driver.

making the Vista 64 driver model more restrictive than the Vista 32 bit

I actually like the fact that the driver system is more restrictive. There were a lot of companies selling hardware that they claimed "compatible" with WinXP but would ultimately make your system unstable. To date, I have 2 vista computers and they have not crashed while in use.

Let us easily turn them the fuck off.

That's a good idea. They'd probably listen if you submitted that one to them.

the background services made my system run like a *dog*

I disabled indexing and it didn't do much. Next I disabled Windows defender (aka windows antivirus) and now my disk is much quieter. I still have the superfetch or whatever they call the aggressive caching feature on so my programs load almost instantaneously (including firefox).

I also still run aero, but I disabled all animations. The animations make the system feel slower even though it actually isn't. The same was true in Win95 to Win98 when they made the start menu scroll up when you opened it rather than instantly appear.

Re:Vista issues for gamers and laptops

[bds1986]

You can already run as a non-admin user on XP. Google the "Run As" command. Right click on the program you want to run (sometimes you have to hold shift), select Run As, choose the Administrator user, enter your password and away you go.

There's also a command line version, "runas". Works just like sudo, I've been doing it for years.

HTH.

Re:Vista issues for gamers and laptops

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Drivers. There's no reason Vista can't be made compatible with XP's faster video drivers, except that Microsoft is being stubborn.

You forgot DirectX. MS not only is aiming to try to get a foothold for DirectX in against OpenGL, but be the tollgate for all your graphics and video activities. Goal: insert another 25 and genuflect towards Redmond to see your digital photos for the next three minutes...

Re:Vista issues for gamers and laptops

[jez9999]

You sound like you're describing Windows XP.

Re:Vista issues for gamers and laptops

[domatic]

True but if that temporarily elevated account needs to access something on a network share then prepare for pain. It also does not solve the problem of essential applications that won't run correctly without admin rights. It makes securing Windows in a network environment a bad painful joke.

Re:Vista issues for gamers and laptops

[mishehu]

Regarding #2 about the 64 bit drivers being more restrictive, could you please elaborate? Since the majority of PC's that I see available in the corporate environment come with the 32 bit version of the OS (which I still dissuade my clients from purchasing - they still get the XP preloads), I don't get much opportunity to come in contact with the 64 bit versions of Vista, 2003, and XP. I'm curious to know in a bit more detail about what is different about the 32 bit vs. 64 bit driver APIs.

Even though Apple might be able to handle 32 bit and 64 bit drivers simultaneously, it would seem logical to me that for optimal performance and stability, you would only want to use all 64 bit or all 32 bit on your system, no?

Re:Vista issues for gamers and laptops

[sentientbrendan]

>1. Give me the ability to turn aero completely off damn it!
>I don't need all of that resource gluttonous crap running at all period.
>Even if I do run the Win2K look!

I agree with most of your complaints; however, I'd just like to point out that you *can* turn off aero completely through the control panel (you have to do a little hunting to find the switch) and go back to the win2k look in Vista. This is, in fact, what I did to try to help improve performance.

not Dead

[DoomfrogBW]

XP can still be obtained on OEM PCs until 2016 if they have the licensing to do so. We were going to move to XPe for our POS systems instead of XP Pro, but we have been guaranteed until 2016 to be able to get XP Pro.

Amen: NT beats 2000 beats XP

[davidwr]

Date of test: Right after release of Windows 2000
Test: Windows 2000 vs. NT with latest service packs
Hardware: Current medium-end hardware
Test: Running "normal" business software published 1-3 years ago
NT "feels" faster.

Do the same with XP vs. 2000 or Vista vs. XP on the dates of their release.

It's only expected, for the very reasons you sited: The newer systems are simply doing more behind the scenes so foreground applications will get less use of the machine.

By the way, someone did a "real world" test of computers dating back to the '80s. They loaded up a typical office machine with typical office software current when the machine was released. All the machines "felt" about the same. The differences were in function not speed:
The newest machines and their software have networking, security features, full color, real-time spell check, disk-wide indexing, real-time spreadsheet recalculation, and a host of other features missing from the oldest models and present in reduced form in the middle-aged models.

Remember 1983? If you were lucky you had a color other than green. Your spreadsheet probably didn't recalculate in real time. Spell-check was run on demand and was probably an external application. WYSIWYG printing? Not for another 5 years on Intel. Networking? Maybe, but probably only for the LAN, no Internet. Full-disk indexing? Not in that decade. Antivirus software? Thankfully that wasn't a major worry but it soon would be.

Re:Amen: NT beats 2000 beats XP

[MrBandersnatch]

"The newest machines and their software have networking, security features, full color, real-time spell check, disk-wide indexing, real-time spreadsheet recalculation, and a host of other features missing from the oldest models and present in reduced form in the middle-aged models."

There is a point though where features become cruft and then generally have a negative impact on performance, security or user experience. Different applications reach this point at various times in their lives and Windows seems to have hit this point with Vista.

To be honest, Id probably still be using Windows 95 and WordPerfect office for most of my general office needs if I hadn't been compelled to "upgrade" by MS and driver obsolescence. Both gave me a very "clean" user experience and there are few features that I actually use today that were not present then (of course there are many improvements to the OS/Software that are not visible within the "user experience" that would not have been feasible without an upgrade e.g. Multi core support, security etc).

The problem with the above is it shows just how short a distance we have traveled in the last 10 years. Wheres my AI assistant? Agent technology? RT Voice transcription? What did I get? RT Spell checking; hell I feel cheated.

Time for Damn Small Windows?

[davidwr]

Maybe it's time for Damn Small Windows.

Vista is slow? This is news?

[JWSmythe]

I just started a new job. Well, a job I was at before, but I'm returning as a "new" employee.

    Part of the fun was, I needed a new workstation. My old machine had been absorbed back into the pool, and adopted by someone else.

    We headed down to CompUSA (yes, closed, and some reopened under TigerDirect). I found an AMD64 3800+ with 512Mb RAM. Since I intended to install Linux on it, that sounded great. We're still ordering more memory, it just hasn't arrived yet.

    This machine came with Vista Home on it. For giggles, I let it start up Vista. Shall I say "oh my god" slow. It felt like running Win95 on a 486/66. This nice fast machine was way underpowered. I spent some time looking it over, since my Linux disks were at home (first day, I didn't bring everything with me). 128Mb was shared with the video card, which left 384Mb available. It didn't use more than 344Mb, and wasn't using any swap. I tweaked a few things out, which made it run better, but it was still unbearably slow.

    This isn't just some crappy machine. It's brand new, out of the store, and onto my desk. I should rightly expect that it should just work, as any regular consumer would. Not that it will be so unbearably slow that I'll want to throw it away. If I knew I was staying with Vista, I would have refused it.

    I shrank the partition that it was running on, and installed Slamd64 in the newly empty space. I didn't even set up swap space, and now it absolutely flies. I haven't even begun any tuning. It's the stock kernel, with just about stock everything. Windows pop open. Everything moves like it's a nice fast machine. The only thing I've run into, which was a known problem, is that there is no flash plugin for the 64 bit Firefox. I installed the 32bit version of Firefox, and still, it runs great.

    This would have been a great machine to run XP on. I've done it before with similar machines, with great results. Well, great for Windows.

    At this company, things move around a lot, which is why I left Vista on there. At some point, someone else will probably want my machine, and I'll get another one. No problem, then using Vista will be their problem. Until then, I'll be happily running in Linux. :)

What's more

[Sycraft-fu]

It isn't as though MS changes driver requirements all that often. There has been a real long time between XP and Vista. MS isn't requiring people to release new drivers every 6 months, more like every 5-6 years. That isn't unreasonable. Have a look at how often nVidia has to change their Linux drivers and tell me who requires more.

Also, as you noted, it isn't as though there hasn't been some time. Vista has been on the open market for over a year now, and MS told their developers at Beta 2 that all the driver interfaces were stable. That's a lot of time to have developed a new driver. If you still haven't, well I have trouble feeling that it is MS's fault. If you can't learn the new (very well documented) interfaces in a year's time, well then there is something wrong on your end.

Computers change, that is simply a fact of life. If you can't deal with that, then you are in teh wrong business. You can't expect to release something and not have to change it for 30 years. Interfaces (serial, USB, firewire, etc) will change, buses (PCI, PCIe) will change. OSes will change. You are going to have to update to support those.

When Vista first came out, I told people to lay off the hardware companies. It takes time to build a stable driver on new architecture, especially the video card companies who had some really massive changes. Now, I don't defend the hardware companies at all. You've had a year, and just about everyone does have a stable, tested driver out. If you still can't, well that is your problem, not MS's.

Re:What's more

[10101001 10101001]

It isn't as though MS changes driver requirements all that often. There has been a real long time between XP and Vista. MS isn't requiring people to release new drivers every 6 months, more like every 5-6 years. That isn't unreasonable. Have a look at how often nVidia has to change their Linux drivers and tell me who requires more.

Two major points. One, I get the impression that a lot of the hardware people complain about with Vista is old hardware. By old, I mean, stuff that was sold prior to Vista being released. Sure, there's been some headaches with some hardware on some systems. And Windows/Linux video drivers have always seemed to be unstable (or, at least, constantly instability with nVidia or Ati drivers in some hardware has been a staple for over ~8 years). People are still wanting hardware with drivers developed that work under XP and 98. I'm pretty sure the hardware thing will blow over as each new computer comes preinstalled with their own proprietary drivers for each specific model line; most people, after all, don't seem to have much hardware beyond what's integrated with their current computer (digital cameras, mp3 players, etc being the major exception).

Two, your comparison with Windows and Linux is pretty apples to oranges. MS went out of their way to standardize on a driver model so hardware makers could write a driver in '98 and the hardware could still work in Windows XP or Vista or whatever. It was a pretty strong selling point, really, to have forwards compatability because it meant hardware makers weren't required to maintain drivers once they got them working successfully.

Meanwhile, Linux (or more precisely, Linus) is focused on constant improvement. As a result, drivers and subsystems under Linux have been dropped (umsdos comes to mind) because not enough people are willing to work on it. In the long term, this is probably an achilles heal of Linux, as the driver section of the source code tree is already the majority of code in Linux (IIRC). But, any sort of stable driver model imparts a rigidness that may cripple further development of Linux (and apparently, MS decided it was crippling Windows development enough to warrant a break).

Beyond that, people (not necessarily Linus, though he seems to waver at times over the broader implications) in the Free Software crowd realize that a stable driver model translates into proprietary drivers (something nVidia is trying to do, even with the indirect resistance so far put out by Linux developers), and that irks Free Softwarers on a moral level (they don't want to help promote proprietary code) and the Open Sourcers on a pragmatic level (supporting closed, proprietary code is a logistical nightmare and a main reason for the whole taint flag in the kernel). Even if a pragmatic solution could be reached (something that doesn't seem likely, given the nature of drivers), enough people in the Free Software crowd might effectively prevent progress in stabling a driver interface. At the very least, it might lead to serious discussion of a fork along with how such would partition the kernel development community.

In short, I do blame some hardware makers. But, most hardware makers made their hardware long ago and stopped maintaining them. If you want to blame them for anything, blame them for choosing to cut corners at the start, creating a proprietary driver without specificiations. At least with specficiations, there'd stand a reasonable chance of a lot more hardware seeing unofficial drivers developed instead of the trickle one sees now under reverse engineering.

Re:What's more

[techno-vampire]

Have a look at how often nVidia has to change their Linux drivers and tell me who requires more.

And who's fault is that? If nVidia would release the specs on their cards (Yes, and ATI too.) so that open source drivers could be written, they wouldn't have to worry about it. Since they insist on keeping the details secret and doing all the development in house, they're going to have to rewrite them to fit the changes in each new kernel. I will say, however, that neither company is complaining about it.

Re:What's more

[feld]

That isn't unreasonable. Have a look at how often nVidia has to change their Linux drivers and tell me who requires more. Don't even TRY to use that argument. It's the job of the Linux FOO maintainers to make sure EVERY driver is compatible with FOO's new API. If Nvidia won't release their drivers open source, the maintainers can't promise and WON'T promise that the new API doesn't break the driver.

Call me back next time you download a new kernel and an API change broke drivers that came with that kernel. Until then, sit in the corner and drink your juice.

Re:What's more

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, you know that although the fact that things do change is true they are kinda trying to make things that require little to no manual labor because of an OS change. You know, how they named USB Universal Serial Bus then came out with 2.0 and.... OH LOOK, everything still worked. Hell, even look at 98 to XP. I don't remember having half as much of a pain in my arse to change OS, and it was DEFINATELY not slower compared to the old OS by much at all. Hell, I could even use my old hardware, AMAZING?!?! Vista is a terrible OS, I would rather learn Unix then have it ask me ten thousand times if I am sure I want to run a new program.

Re:What's more

[Computershack]

And who's fault is that? If nVidia would release the specs on their cards (Yes, and ATI too.) so that open source drivers could be written, they wouldn't have to worry about it. Really? That's why wifi works really well on the chipsets that have had their specs released isn't it? I wonder why my wifi doesn't work as well as it does in Windows then...

Re:What's more

[techno-vampire]

You're talking apples and oranges here. I'm not saying that OS drivers are better than proprietary ones, I'm only saying that once the specs are released and OS drivers written, the OEM no longer needs to worry about writing or maintaining them. Of course, they still can if that's what they want to, but that's their choice.

Re:What's more

[m50d]

They have every right to complain when linux won't even bother to be source-compatible with releases from 3 months ago. Seriously, there's no way a commercial system would get away with that (and if you look at the commercial linucies, they all have to maintain their own separate kernel trees). I love linux-the-os, but linux-the-kernel sucks in many ways.

Re:What's more

[adolf]

You're an odd one.

Vista installed cleanly on my (then) 2-year-old Dell laptop. All of the hardware worked. I've upgraded a plethora of drivers since then, but that's just the way I like to do things -- it worked fine without help.

Vista wants a pile of extra memory vs XP (though it is nothing an extra $20 won't just positively cure at current prices), but then XP wanted a pile of extra memory compared to 98.

You do yourself a disservice by viewing your memories through rose-colored glasses.

Re:What's more

[dbIII]

Have a look at how often nVidia has to change their Linux drivers and tell me who requires more.

Have a look at their README files and you'll see why instead of just making up something to try to make a point. They are adding new features, optimising features and supporting more cards with each release and not just changing the interface to the kernel as was implied. You may notice that they update their other drivers quite a lot as well.

MS have an interesting model - sell an OS but get others to do hard bits of the kernel for them for free or even pay MS for it! Signed drivers cost money. Sometimes it doesn't work out so we get unsupported hardware or drivers released late.

Re:What's more

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right. This shows one big advantage of open source drivers. Almost any card Linux has ever supported, it still does. Parallel port zip drive -- supported. Any video card Xorg has ever supported, which includes some real antiques -- supported. Scanners -- supported. Printers, supported.

          I work at a computer surplus, and I've thrown some real old machines together for the hell of it and fired up Ubuntu 7.10 on it -- if you have enough RAM (192 MB bare minimum, 384MB+ much preferred), you can just throw any cards you want in and it's good -- Cirrus Logic? Tseng? ohhh, a Mach 64? No problem. Parallel port zip, fine. Old sound/ethernet -- fine (some Dells had PCI slots, but on-board ISA sound & ethernet -- no problem.) I wouldn't do this seriously -- there's no reason to not have at least PCI ethernet and sound in this day and age... but, it's liberating. Once hardware has Linux support, it's supported. I've never had to throw out a scanner, printer, card, or peripheral because of driver problems in 15 years of Linux usage. I ran my first slackware install off a 40MB RLL hard disk, I still have a few RLL disks and cards in a box, I bet if I hooked 'em into something like a Dell GXa any modern Linux distro would still pick those disks right up.

Re:What's more

[Anonymous Coward]

What Linux is demanding from nVidia is not frequently updated binary blobs, it is specifications. nVidia could reduce their Linux driver spending to 0$ if they just released the specifications for their graphic chips. However, for some reason they don't want to do that.

Win2K still in use in small businesses

[davidwr]

Windows NT and 2000 and their server versions will still be around for many years to come. Unfortunately, it's not safe to put them on "the Internet" which is a shame, because they make darn good machines for certain applications.

I think the going rate for NT Server with 5 CALs is $30-$50 at computer fairs. It's been out of support for ages. If it were truly worthless it would be in the dollar pile.

Re:Win2K still in use in small businesses

[abigor]

Windows 2000 is still getting updates. I have a laptop which I've lent out to a friend and she has it hooked up directly to her cable modem. No problems at all.

The major vector for infection is IE, so obviously she doesn't use that. And she's not running as Administrator, but under a user account.

Who cares about what they say in the press?

[Mycroft_514]

What matters is what goes on in the trenches. When major corporations still prohibit the installation of Vista on any machine that connects to their network, Microsoft will continue to sell XP. My Corporation is Fortune 10 and we still prohibit Vista installs!

Re:Who cares about what they say in the press?

[wouter]

I don't understand this logic. We still use XP too and "prohibit" Vista installs too, just as "prohibiting" Linux or Windows 2000 and Windows NT installs. The standard is currently XP and as long as we have not started migrating people to Vista, the default image for any new computer in the organisation will be XP.

If your company is Fortune 10, chances are that they just recently (less than 3y) switched to XP.

Re:Who cares about what they say in the press?

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP!

I work for a Fortune 20 company and only in the last year have we had a heavy swing to XP. Prior to this it was on a needed-only basis or for certain upper management that belly ached about W2K.

Pizza delivery boys who've never spent a day in a real office environment take note: The latest and greatest doesn't cut it at the corporate office. Not embracing a new product isn't just a corporate standard it's also the best choice to make. So all you of who went around LOLing over Vista not being adopted quickly probably have never seen a real product cycle outside of Best Buy PCs.

That's one of the ways it was so easy to pick out the n00bs from those who actually work with the technology. Little fanbois and asshats kept on cawing about how Vista wasn't being adopted, the pros were shrugging their shoulders because it wasn't news. It was especially easy when there were certain fucktards who were proclaiming that their servers in the data center were still running XP Pro. Stupid n00bs, you'll never get it.

Office is free to bundle

[davidwr]

Oh wait, sorry, my misunderstanding.

We probably shouldn't complain

[rastoboy29]

After all, isn't the demise of any thing Windows a good thing?

Still, while I agree that the arguments about Vista being slower are a little silly, sine MS-DOS is way faster, at the same time I'm still trying to figure out what it is I'm getting in return for the slowness.  I mean...what is it _doing_?

I'm not being silly

[symbolset]

He's not asking "How do I use Linux to solve a problem?" He's asking "If I use Linux, how do I still give Microsoft money?" If the question were the former, the question would have been "How do I deal with these .docx documents?" In that case my answer would be to use OO.o to convert them to a standard format, except for the ones that stupidly require vendor specific software. For those you still have to use MSOffice apps to convert them until you can get your contacts to use an interoperable format, and that means probably Citrix.

We don't tolerate people sending us .WP documents or VisiCalc spreadsheets any more, do we? Unless we must, and then we convert them.

For gaming the problem is the same. Game developers are developing on the Windows platform not because DirectX is such a joy to work with or because it's a nice reliably consistent platform. Neither of those things are true. They're doing it because they sell a lot of copies and because they're evangelised to do it. The sooner they're weaned from that the better, and shifting to console games for a while can ease the transition. The point of playing games after all is not to play them on your PC. It's to play them. So play them on a platform that's designed for them. Duh.

If he wants to just give Microsoft money for no reason, he can continue to overlicense unused software like most enterprises are doing right now. That's a hearty way to flush some serious cash down the Redmond toilet for no reason if that's what you want to do. As abhorrent as the idea is, it's still better than actually using that stuff.

Re:I'm not being silly

[Snowmit]

The sooner they're weaned from that the better, and shifting to console games for a while can ease the transition. The point of playing games after all is not to play them on your PC. It's to play them. So play them on a platform that's designed for them. Duh.

WHAT

I thought that Linux fans were also the DIY folks. Saying to people making games "Oh I guess you should start working only on proprietary systems that require either fees or homebrew cracks to get them to work" is madness!

The reason there is a vibrant indie gaming scene is the relative ease of development, accessibility and ubiquity of the Windows platform. Sure if Linux can take over and become the default OS, the indie scene might move over there, but suggesting that in the meantime people should limit their gaming consumption exclusively to proprietary gaming systems is really stupid and counterproductive.

Re:I'm not being silly

[bigstrat2003]

The point of playing games after all is not to play them on your PC. It's to play them. So play them on a platform that's designed for them. Duh. Get back to me when a strategy game or FPS has been made on a console which is anywhere near as good as the best strategy/FPS games on the PC. It hasn't happened, and probably never will.

If he wants to just give Microsoft money for no reason Wanting to use the apps you like is not "no reason". Until Linux will run all the apps I want (or even just most, that's certainly not asking too much) transparently, with no hassle, it will continue to be a vastly inferior OS for my use. Sorry, but them's just the facts: application availability does matter. Your argument that it doesn't is like telling someone that they should get a Wii because of its innovative and easy controller, even though the 360 has most of the games they like.

Re:I'm not being silly

[Mongoose Disciple]

For gaming the problem is the same. Game developers are developing on the Windows platform not because DirectX is such a joy to work with or because it's a nice reliably consistent platform. Neither of those things are true.

For what it's worth, a number of professional game devs I know have told me they strongly prefer programming against the last version or two of DirectX to the last version or two of OpenGL.

(I don't know shit about the differences in API myself, and I have to assume OpenGL will catch up soon in any shortcomings, but I trust these folks' opinions as to the state of things today.)

Re:I'm not being silly

[EveLibertine]

Unsurprisingly, you display a tremendous lack of knowledge about video game design. Go talk to a proper game designer about the differences between PC and console games. You'll discover that most developers are forced to dumb down their console products so that they do not scare away console gamers who may be confused with things that have more than 10 buttons.

Current gen consoles are making progress, weening console gamers into more complex gaming that has been on the pc for years, but its still not anywhere close to the mark.

In short, PC games have a different design process from console games, and your suggestion to use a console for PC gaming is completely and laughably absurd. It contains the same short sighted illogic of your suggestion to use citrix in linux to run an office application. Your only concern seems to be to stop giving microsoft money, with absolutely no concern for the real requirements that were originally provided. In light of these facts, I wouldn't be surprised to find that you work for microsoft.

As a side note: You suggest giving money to Sony instead of Microsoft? Short sighted indeed.

Re:I'm not being silly

[SirSlud]

Actually, as a long time Unix programmer and current game console developer, DirectX really is a lot more pleasurable than most of the alternatives. I'm not a big MS fan, but DirectX is nice, and the documentation is very good.

Developing for Nintendo and Sony requires a bit of a taste for the black arts.

Re:I'm not being silly

[Poltras]

Go buy Renderware or another well done middleware engine, and you'll find that you can keep the same code between OpenGL and DirectX (and PlayStation, and Gameboy, ...). DirectX is becoming more and more of an Game Engine than ever, but it is less mandatory than ever if you go for some middleware (which can be free and OSS, btw).

Re:I'm not being silly

[ozmanjusri]

Wanting to use the apps you like is not "no reason".

Office 2007 and VS 2008 are Microsoft apps, written by Microsoft for Microsoft operating systems, dependent on Microsoft protocols and which write Microsoft formats that aren't open for other platforms.

DAldredge, as usual, is shilling for Microsoft. If he was anything other than an obvious troll, he would not have used intentionally platform-specific examples.

Re:I'm not being silly

[wall0159]

"Until Linux will run all the apps I want (or even just most, that's certainly not asking too much) transparently, with no hassle,"

Hell, Windows doesn't meet those criteria! In my experience, using Linux is MUCH less hassle than using Windows. It's true, not every Windows app runs under Linux, but there's this thing called a 'trade-off' - I believe that the relative ease of installation, use and maintenance of Linux much more than compensates for a couple of missing apps*.

*things like certain pro-audio apps, high-end graphics packages - y'know, those apps that everyone likes to have a hot copy, but 99.99% of people don't even know how to open (let alone use). People used to collect stamps - now they collect warez...

Re:I'm not being silly

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"relative ease of development, accessibility and ubiquity of the Windows platform"

Its ubiquitous, sure enough. Ease of development is pure bullshit, though. I'd suggest that accessibility in this context is a null term. (I don't think 1 out of 3 is really a passing grade.)

Re:I'm not being silly

[Jartan]

So play them on a platform that's designed for them. Duh. If it doesn't have a keyboard and mouse then it's not designed to play games at all. Duh.

Re:I'm not being silly

[dhavleak]

Office 2007 and VS 2008 are Microsoft apps, written by Microsoft for Microsoft operating systems, dependent on Microsoft protocols and which write Microsoft formats that aren't open for other platforms.

DAldredge, as usual, is shilling for Microsoft. If he was anything other than an obvious troll, he would not have used intentionally platform-specific examples. VS 2008 is the developer platform for windows -- why on earth would you want to run it on any other platform? Office 2008 was recently released for the Mac, replacing office 2003 for the Mac. The linux desktop numbers simply do not justify the cost of porting office to linux yet. What was your point?

Re:I'm not being silly

[ultranova]

The reason there is a vibrant indie gaming scene is the relative ease of development, accessibility and ubiquity of the Windows platform. Sure if Linux can take over and become the default OS, the indie scene might move over there, but suggesting that in the meantime people should limit their gaming consumption exclusively to proprietary gaming systems is really stupid and counterproductive.

Linux has independent games. The indie scene has already expanded into penguinland. Which is good, since - in my experience - getting older games to work on Linux is far easier than getting them to work on Windows; even some of Microsoft's own games (such as Crimson Skies) seem to have trouble on newer Windows machines. Whether this is because of OS incompatibilities or shitty coding in said games I couldn't say.

Re:I'm not being silly

[h4rm0ny]

I thought that Linux fans were also the DIY folks.

Linux developers are DIY folks. A lot of those doing testing and bug reports are DIY folks. People like myself who are UNIX based programmers and know the way around the Linux system are to some extent DIY folks. But Linux "fans"? There are a lot of Linux "fans" that are not very savvy at all in getting things to work where they're not supposed to. I'm afraid Linux has now reached the stage of a lot of followers who seem evangelistic in inverse proportion to their actual contributions to the code-base. After all, who will throw the most slurs at a Microsoft Operating System? The person who has actually contributed to writing a kernel themselves and knows what an epic undertaking it is? Or the person who has not and sees only a target to bash and none of the vast amount of work that's gone into it.

Re:I'm not being silly

[bigstrat2003]

Hell, Windows doesn't meet those criteria! In my experience, using Linux is MUCH less hassle than using Windows. It's true, not every Windows app runs under Linux, but there's this thing called a 'trade-off' - I believe that the relative ease of installation, use and maintenance of Linux much more than compensates for a couple of missing apps*. Well, Windows works almost flawlessly for me, and it runs all my apps. Until Linux runs truly flawlessly (and it obviously doesn't, nothing can), it can't possibly improve on Windows for me.

*things like certain pro-audio apps, high-end graphics packages - y'know, those apps that everyone likes to have a hot copy, but 99.99% of people don't even know how to open (let alone use). People used to collect stamps - now they collect warez... Heh. It's funny cause it's true. I knew a guy in college who pirated stuff he didn't ever use, just had it sitting around archived on discs cause he could.

Re:I'm not being silly

[h4rm0ny]

If he was anything other than an obvious troll, he would not have used intentionally platform-specific examples.

Sorry? He shouldn't have used platform specific examples to make the point that some of the applications he wants are platform specific? That makes no sense. If someone is "shilling for Microsoft" then presumably they are making incorrect statements or conclusions that can be addressed. And if they are not incorrect, then what is wrong with posting them? The only point I see to challenge what he said was to query whether he needs to use Office 2007 when Open Office might meet his requirements. For 98% of the Word users out there, this is going to be the case, but maybe he has some specific need for features in Office 2007 that most people use. (Maybe he's the person out there that uses Access). But he wasn't asked that - he was just accused of being paid by Microsoft to make supportive statements ("shilling").

Re:I'm not being silly

[ozmanjusri]

But he wasn't asked that - he was just accused of being paid by Microsoft to make supportive statements ("shilling").

'Shill' can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit 'shill' for the industry at large, as their income is tied to its prosperity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Re:I'm not being silly

[h4rm0ny]

Well whether you meant shill as in directly paid by Microsoft or merely shill as in "their income is tied to its prosperity" it's still an ad hominem in place of actually addressing what he said.

Re:I'm not being silly

[ozmanjusri]

it's still an ad hominem in place of actually addressing what he said.

It's not.

This has been explained in this thread many times over, but I'll try again using very small words.

He deliberately chose programs that the company he is shilling for will never port to the platform he is deriding.

He did that to make Microsoft look good and Linux to look bad, despite the failure to port being Microsoft's failure, not Linux.

Re:I'm not being silly

[poached]

The trend of dumbing down video games for the console still affects PC gamers. It may just be anecdotal but I find that FPS games are switching to context-based menu in the UI, instead of having each possible action being a hard key, presumably because consoles don't have as many buttons. The result is that FPS games that are released for PC and console, the PC version *feels* like I'm using a controller, even though I'm on a keyboard and a mouse. In Rainbow Six Vegas, why is it that I have to hold down R (reload) to bring up the context menu for adding a silencer and change the rate of fire? In Call of Duty 4 I have to press 1 repeatedly to get the weapon I want. Why do I need to pull out the machine gun once just to put it back so I can whip out the pistol? It's not efficient and slows the game down. I think the last "old school" FPS is half-life 2, but it is getting dated...

Re:I'm not being silly

[h4rm0ny]

This has been explained in this thread many times over, but I'll try again using very small words.
He deliberately chose programs that the company he is shilling for will never port to the platform he is deriding.

And I will explain to you in very small words: When your point is that not everything you want to run is available for a target platform, it is correct to talk about the things that are not available. Re-read my original post - that is exactly what I said. Nor did he, in the post that I read, "deride" GNU/Linux. He just made the point that he wants to use certain applications and that therefore Linux is not an option to him / his users. This is a factual point that you have not addressed. You have however accused him personally of bias in place of that, which is an ad hominem.

Re:I'm not being silly

[Meski]

Wanting to use the apps you like is not "no reason".

Office 2007 and VS 2008 are Microsoft apps, written by Microsoft for Microsoft operating systems, dependent on Microsoft protocols and which write Microsoft formats that aren't open for other platforms.

Why so they are. Although Office runs on OSX, and Office writes formats that other manufacturers office applications can read. (doc, xls) VS 2008 is designed for Windows, in much the same way as Xcode is designed for OSX, and other dev products are designed for their respective platforms. What's your point here? You can get cross-platform tools that perform to the lowest-common-denominator of all platforms. Good luck with that.

Re:I'm not being silly

[SirSlud]

I work on engines (ie, the middleware) not games. So using a competitor's product that we've already deemed unsuitable for our needs doesn't really deal with the key issue of whether its more annoying to abstract directx/sony/nintendo

Really?

[Derek Loev]

Wow, the older operating system is faster than the newer one? That's obviously just bad design and not the fact that if you took the majority of older operating systems and put them on today's hardware they would be faster. Imagine, if I had Windows 98 on my computer I'm pretty sure it would be pretty snappy. Does that make it better than Windows XP (what I'm using now)?
I'm not saying that Vista is a good OS, but I am saying that XP being "far faster than Vista" is not a real reason to condemn it.

One big reason companies aren't buying

[zerofoo]

Mandatory activation.

Vista in all of its flavors requires activation either at the mothership, or via an activation server on your network.

This one requirement, has ZERO benefit for the end user. Microsoft made this mandatory to close the "Volume License Key loophole" that allowed corporate copies of XP to be widely and easily pirated.

Now the anti-piracy cost falls to the end user. Corporations that deploy standard images must now manage the activation process in addition to all the other things that make a Microsoft network tick. There are a million ways that activation causes problems - remote users, computer rental companies that re-image after every use, schools that re-image labs frequently...etc.

I don't see Microsoft "fixing" this problem ever.

-ted

Re:One big reason companies aren't buying

[thatskinnyguy]

There are a million ways that activation causes problems - remote users, computer rental companies that re-image after every use, schools that re-image labs frequently...etc. As a lab tech at a public university who has done this... never again... NEVER!

Re:One big reason companies aren't buying

[DigitAl56K]

I don't see Microsoft "fixing" this problem ever. Of course not. Next thing you know we'll have subscriptions just to keep our system running with anything more than bare bones functionality, "activation" will become a "subscription update", and we'll have to do it every month.

I thought anti-piracy technologies were pitched as adding value for paying customers and reducing the cost of goods? Well guess what, as paying customer, Microsoft's anti-piracy technologies have been nothing but a thorn in my side, I've never realized any added value (heck the pirates get their hands on all the Windows Updates anyway, and I'm glad they do as it keeps malware down), and Microsoft hasn't lowered the cost of goods. Look at Vista, half a dozen versions, the lower end of the line arguably being crippled versions, the high end IMO over priced.

Re:One big reason companies aren't buying

[Anonymous Coward]

The pirates already solved the activation problem.

Re:One big reason companies aren't buying

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot about the OEM versions of Vista which are activated automatically whenever they detect that they're running on a machine made by the respective OEM. Which makes pirating those versions even easier -- you don't even have to find a VLK, you just use GRUB to emulate some OEM-specific ACPI tables, and voila -- Vista is activated and the, um, `mothership' is effectively unable to disprove the legality of your copy. VLKs could be revoked, but I don't see any way to revoke a OEM auto-activation without infuriating a lot of people with their Vista laptops suddenly stopping working.

Re:One big reason companies aren't buying

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it's a hassle but admittedly microsoft has a much bigger piracy problem than any other OS (and probably any other software out there). Most people don't pirate linux distros that are pay-for (like redhat) since there are free alternatives (cent in redhat's case). Apple artificially ties their software to their hardware so the number of pirates is very limited. So you get MS with a very high percentage of the market share who have their software pirated very often (I think everyone who's visited /. has probably pirated xp at least once or twice). So is it the right solution to do what they did? Don't know...

Re:One big reason companies aren't buying

[jimicus]

Yes it's a hassle but admittedly microsoft has a much bigger piracy problem than any other OS (and probably any other software out there). That's their problem. Not mine.

Does the corporate Vista activation server require Active Directory? Because if it does, Microsoft are essentially saying "Fine, run Vista on your desktops but if you do you're buying the whole AD kit and caboodle".

Depends on perspective..

[Junta]

I use linux very extensively and find a number of niceties (compiz has far more practical features than Vista and OSX, and a number of general benefits of running a platform that is comprised entirely of things I can examine transparently myself but also is a healthy competitive landscape from the commercial vendor perspective). Making the hardware consist of interchangeable commodity parts has done wonders for the pricing of components, and the similar phenomenon is even more pronounced in software. Every user including gamers should appreciate what that means. Especially as MS increasingly treats the customers as the enemy (embracing DRM, increasingly bold 'anti-piracy' measures).

That said there are certain approaches:
-Ignore Linux and gaming. The highly immediately pragmatic stand, probably what you would justify. The question here becomes are you forced up the upgrade trail by Vista? A weaker, yet not currently aggravating stance is to at least boycott Vista and tell microsoft you won't pay, and by extension boycotting games if they make DirectX 10 a requirement, hardware if they fail to provide XP drivers, etc.

-Use Linux and cave if Wine will run the game. Wine runs a surprisingly large number of games (Orange Box a popular example). This, of course, doesn't necessarily send the desired message, but it goes a ways. I have seen software patches and graphics drivers note Wine-specific issues, so some developers are seeing Wine as a valid demographic to target given the effort. This requires being vocal about your mode of usage, or else face game patches screwing up your experience by making Wine-incompatible design choices.

-Use Linux and refuse to buy any non-native games. There are some publishers that released native games. NeverWinter Nights (but not 2), id games, Savage 2. Reward them for publishing quality games for your platform, while being vocal about refusal to buy other titles. There are some decent Free games too, I was surprised how decent Nexuiz was (though I confess the artwork isn't as nice as other games, but the engine seems pretty good at its core).

I'm a hybrid of sorts. I'll check out a demo under wine if the game is overwhelmingly interesting (i.e. orange box) to see if I want it and would risk it, but will be much much more likely to buy a random game with a native linux binary. A lot of my gaming is reserved for console games, but FPS and RTS and the like I feel no console has an adequate interface (though metroid prime on wii was not too shabby). BTW, server-only binaries on linux aren't enough for me. I know it seems like being partly evangelical, but the reality is I want more out of my core platform experience and don't want to be beholden to a single corporate entity. The PC architecture is great for that, with multiple compatible vendors for practically every part except the OS platform, so long as MS is the dominant vendor. Making moves to change that is a good thing for consumers.

Re:Depends on perspective..

[mastermemorex]

Ignore Linux and gaming. The highly immediately pragmatic stand, probably what you would justify. The question here becomes are you forced up the upgrade trail by Vista? A weaker, yet not currently aggravating stance is to at least boycott Vista and tell microsoft you won't pay, and by extension boycotting games if they make DirectX 10 a requirement, hardware if they fail to provide XP drivers, etc. Yeah! I want to develop a game using OpenGl 3.0 instead DirectX 10. But.. Oh wait! Where is OpenGl 3.0?

Reality check

[Ancil]

This summary is bad even by "Slashdot echo chamber" standards. XP is "far faster" than Vista? Here's what you'll find if you actually follow the link:

CPU benchmarks:

XP with SP3: 2053
Vista with SP1 Aero disabled: 2018 (change: -1.7%)
Vista with SP1: 1994 (change: -2.8%)

So, basically, your machine will be imperceptibly slower if you want all the whiz-bang 3D and transparency of Vista's UI. Go figure.

Other results from the linked article:

• XP boots about 30 seconds faster.
• Vista copies a large file about 30 seconds faster.
• XP might run faster on machines with 256 MB of RAM. Obviously a huge concern with memory costing about $20 per GB.

I don't mean to challenge anyone's world-view, but the people I know who run Vista are quite happy with it. That includes my wife, who runs Vista Home and Office 2007 on her 6 year old laptop with half a gig of RAM.

Re:Reality check

[wouter]

I wish my work XP would boot faster than my personal Vista :D

Re:Reality check

[symbolset]

the people I know who run Vista are quite happy with it.

That's because the myriad folks who hate it have rolled back, or never deployed it.

So, basically, your machine will be imperceptibly slower if you want all the whiz-bang 3D and transparency of Vista's UI. Go figure.

Unless you're driving one of those new $200 notebooks that weigh two pounds and run for six hours on a battery. If you're with them, Vista isn't going to install at all. Fortunately for those users the basic linux install has more whiz-bang transparency UI features and not surprisingly, comes with a real office suite. And it boots fast. And it runs fast. And it does more stuff at no extra cost.

So for some people Vista works. And it burns 500 watts. And it costs extra. And it works no faster than XP. And this is a good thing? This is not a good reason for everyone else to take it up.

Re:Reality check

[stars_are_number_1]

And I have also had experiences with two laptops designed for Windows Vista. Both of these machines were brand-new and I wanted to get some first hand experience installing software, setting up wireless networks, etc. under Vista. On laptop number one, Vista crashed no less than three times in 30 minutes. One laptop number two, Vista ran so slow I was tempted to sling it out the window (no pun intended). Laptop two, by the way, has a 1.73 Ghz Celeron processor and 2 GB of RAM.

I reformatted both computers and installed Windows XP Pro. Both run much quicker and are much more enjoyable to use. I will not be upgrading to Vista if there are any other options, and I will not be recommending that my company upgrade, either.

Re:Reality check

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a reality check for you. Vista wouldn't even finish installing on my machine which had half a gig of RAM.

Re:Reality check

[Argon]

Anecdotal Story: I bought a new laptop last September (Cheap HP celeron with half a gig of RAM running Vista Home, cost me ~$400) to gift my dad. And that ran like a dog. Really pathetic performance. I immediately added another gig of RAM and performance was much better. Not as snappy as WinXP but not bad. I still don't like it but my Dad is happy with it.

Your wife is happy with Vista Home on a 6 year old laptop with half a gig a RAM? Now I know you're BSing us. You're seriously nuts if you upgraded a 6 year old laptop to Vista. I am a debian developer. I run Linux on all my laptops and desktops. But I don't try to force it on my family and friends if they don't like it. I support Windows 2000 and Windows XP for home usage at my parents and in-laws houses. Both Win2K and WinXP are pretty decent microsoft OSs compared to Win98 or WinME.

Comparing Vista to Windows XP may not sound fair, but the fact is Vista does not bring too much to the table for the such a massive increase in resource usage. On that benchmark, Windows XP to Windows 2000 was a fair comparison too. XP was not compellingly better than Windows 2000, at least it didn't suck badly on existing hardware that ran Windows 2000.

Re:Reality check

[Anonymous Coward]

So SP3 is slowing XP down to Vista level... what a surprise they did the same thing to W2K and previously to NT4.

Re:Reality check

[Bigjeff5]

Hello, my name is Jeff, I'm a Vista user and I think it sucks.

There, now you know someone who uses Vista but hates it. :)

I'm an IT tech for a very, very large company (the site I service has 4,000 employees and it's small potatoes). Our company HAD a plan to upgrade to Vista, but they canned it, because they have so much proprietary software that does not work in Vista, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to fix them all. They are going to use Windows 7, which promises to be more backwards compatible.

Now for my personal experience, I have a laptop that came with Vista, and I've been giving it a good hard fair shake, and honestly it sucks.

It's not so much that it's particularly worse than XP, it's that it is so completely unnecessary. There is nothing revolutionary about the operating system. Some things are kinda cool, like the self-repair features. But other things about those same features make it, in many cases, worse. The stupid OS is nearly impossible to fix. It tried to block IE7 because it was unsafe to let it connect to the net (which I agree with, but that's a different issue). I cannot use MSN Live messenger because that is tied into the Windows Update service, which is broken on my machine due to a bad XML update, which MS has no fix for!! What the hell is that? I do this stuff for a living, and I can't fix it, joe blow is going to have to shell out $200 to probably not get it fixed too.

Error messages like "There was an Error" with no error codes or no way of digging up debugging info, how the hell do you figure out what went wrong?

The pluses are not that big for Vista, and the minuses are dealbreakers.

That's why Vista sucks.

It works great if you just need to browse the web, but if that's all you're doing why not use Linux for free?

Re:Reality check

[colinrichardday]

XP might run faster on machines with 256 MB of RAM. Obviously a huge concern with memory costing about $20 per GB.

Except that I don't have any free RAM slots.

Re:Reality check

[dbIII]

Vista with SP1: 1994 (change: -2.8%)

Sounds pretty clear to me. If I want the computer to be as slow to use as a desktop in 1994 I can install Vista :)

Microsoft will extend XP's life.

[Animats]

Nah. Microsoft will extend XP's life again.

It's different this time. Performance increases in PCs have slowed down. Until now, hardware was keeping ahead of bloatware. Not this time. Vista is a price/performance lose for corporate buyers. If Microsoft pushes too hard here, big customers will stop buying new machines until the recession is over. Or move to the new "low end PCs", which still run XP and are enough for 80-90% of corporate users. Watch for a boom in low-cost XP Flash-based desktops aimed at the corporate market.

Re:Microsoft will extend XP's life.

[Dunbal]

until the recession is over.

      News media hype aside - WHAT recession?

      Economic slowdown is not equal to recession. Recession is ZERO or NEGATIVE economic growth for TWO CONSECUTIVE quarters. Unemployment is still low, consumer spending is still happening, the economy is still growing marginally positively, only at a lower rate. Yeah, the stock market fell at most 20% (and I made money on the way down), BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN RECESSION. Stop believing all the crap the alarmist media is shoving down your throat. Otherwise people like you will CAUSE a REAL recession. Just like rumor-mongers caused Bear Stearns to almost belly up overnight.

      Either way, I'll still make money.

Re:Microsoft will extend XP's life.

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Performance increases in PCs have slowed down.

8GB of DDR2 now costs about $120.

Better driver support is reason enough for me to use Vista 64 vs. XP64. And 64-bit support is becoming increasingly relevant as memory continues to get more and more affordable.

Re:Microsoft will extend XP's life.

[domatic]

I could give a flying fuck what the official definition of recession is. My food and fuel bills going way the hell up isn't media alarmism. My rent being jacked to cover defaulted mortgages in other parts of the real estate business that owns my apartment isn't an illusion either. The cutting back on non-essentials I'm doing as a direct result of all of this doesn't have doodly squat to do with the media either. Recession or not, one hell of a lot of us have are feeling poorer and spending less as a result and THAT WILL cause a recession. This is all a very real effect of rising oil prices that aren't EVER coming back down. If there isn't real leadership on that then I'll have to agree with you that "recession" won't be the right word. "Depression" on the other hand.....

And no, those naughty media pundits didn't talk all the cheap oil away either.

Re:Microsoft will extend XP's life.

[Ambidisastrous]

From today's WSJ:

"A recession is possible," Mr. Bernanke told a congressional committee Wednesday, citing turmoil in the housing and credit markets. He added, "We're slightly growing at the moment, but we think that there's a chance that for the first half as a whole there might be a slight contraction."
[...]
Many private-sector economists, who often define a recession as two straight quarters of economic contraction, have been saying for weeks that the U.S. is either on the verge of a recession or already in one. Generally, we're never sure whether a period of time was a recession until it's already happened. But the Fed and White House have been rightfully phobic of discussing it, and the mainstream media were actually slower to catch onto recession fears than serious economists. Recession is a serious possibility, and speculating about it online does not warrant a reaction involving the caps-lock key. The more open the discussion, the better, in my opinion.

Vista is fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

I believed the hype. I just dipped my toe into vista with a spare hard drive. Never booted back into XP, once! Now I'm using ultimate with all the bells and whisles turned on with a 4 year old computer that I put another half gig of ram to bring me up to 1.5 gig.

What would people one internet do without an OS to bitch about!

Vista is slower than XP. So what?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

I don't use Vista, but I don't make much of an issue of its being slower than XP. I mainly use Macs, and I know that OS X 10.0 was significantly slower than Mac OS 9/8/7 at the time it was released. I also remember that Win95 was slower than Win 3.1 and NT 3.1 was slower than Win 3.1 on similar hardware. I also know that today's Linux distros are slower than the ones from the 90's. One could run Linux acceptably on low-end 386 and even 286 hardware in the mid-90's. No way in hell could you do that with today's Linux distros. I also know that DOS is faster than any modern OS.

My point is, generally speaking, new OSes are slower than their predecessors. The question is whether the extra functionality is worth it. It definitely was in the case of OSX 10.0 vs Mac OS 9 and Win 95 vs Win3.1, and the other cases I mentioned above. Having not used Vista, I have no opinion on whether it's better enough than XP to overcome the slower speed.

Note: Yes, I know that OSX upgrades have generally gotten faster than their predecessors, particularly with OS X 10.2 and 10.3. But that's an exception to the general rule (and OS X 10.0 and 10.1 were so slow that it wasn't such a feat to make 10.2 and 10.3 faster).

Don't Fuckin' Care - I Switched to a MAC

[Anonymous Coward]

Faster, easier, stable... just works. Better still it works as advertised.

Been a Windows users since 3.0... NEVER AGAIN - NEVER.

Bring back 3.1 !!!!!!

[paradochs]

Hah. Yeah, XP may be faster than Vista. Then again, I'm sure that Windows 3.1 would run faster than XP. Why don't we bring that back? Vista is a platform. A platform on which an amazing new set of features can be implemented. Just wait for Windows 7. It'll show the true power of the Vista platform.

Re:Bring back 3.1 !!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

People are taking your advice. They are waiting for Windows 7 and not touching Vista. Do you think it might have been a mistake for Gates to announce Windows 7. The diminishing number of institutions that may have considered switching to Vista now have a reason to not go to Vista.

Re:Bring back 3.1 !!!!!!

[Dunbal]

A platform on which an amazing new set of features can be implemented.

      I challenge you to back this up. Please provide a detailed list of new features that can ONLY be implemented in Vista.

Re:Bring back 3.1 !!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ, by that standard you could say the same of DOS, why have linux when you can just mod DOS to to everything linux does (and mac os x). I mean it's just software, you can hack it into anything. Vista has a lot of good new features and changes, better 64-bit support, much improved standard user environment (making it possible to run as lower than admin), sandboxed web browsing, integrated search, aero, and I'm not even trying here. You can say "yea but linux/macs do that" but so does Windows, and judge jackson is not a god, some people actually, picture this, DISAGREE with what he wrote.

Re:Bring back 3.1 !!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm sure that Windows 3.1 would run faster than XP"

Probably not. Windows 3.1 can only access a limited amount of memory, it can only run 16 bit programs, thus cannot run any 32 bit programs that could be used for direct comparison.

Plus, you can't run Windows 3.1 on any modern platform unless you want to be limited to 640x480 VGA drivers, and even then, they just may not work.

This is in stark contrast to Win XP versus Vista, which are compatible at the application layer, vista has no new capabilities, and simply runs slower primarily because of bad programming and a strong, failed, desire from Redmond to put DRM in the core of the operating system.

There is no rationale for defending Windows Vista.

All over again...

[NEOtaku17]

"Anyone else think that June 30 is an excellent chance to push Linux to the desktop?" Didn't you guys say that when Windows XP was coming out? Yeah... that's what I though.

Eclipse

[symbolset]

Until they sell out the rest of the way Eclipse makes a nice development platform to replace Visual Studio. If they do sell out there will be a fork. You'll find that if Eclipse isn't included in your distribution you'll find it in the Applications installer. All linux users can develop applications on day one if they want to. They don't have to, but since it's built by developers they served their own needs first. It turns out programming is not some occult science after all.

As for J#, C#, VB and WebDev, we're back to the same "How do I keep giving Microsoft money" question again. Those are not standards. They're proprietary solutions and stuff you build on them will obsolete every time Microsoft decides it needs more of your money. It's a trap. Don't fall into it. If you must program in those soon-to-be dead languages then you've created your own predicament and nobody can help you.

Photoshop? Enough with the photoshop. I don't care about photoshop. If you need a dedicated photoshop box it's no excuse to chain everyone in your enterprise to Windows when it's only you that is determined to suffer.

3d? You have to be frimping kidding. You don't really think Windows is a cutting edge 3d platform do you? On what planet?

Re:Eclipse

[toby]

As for J#, C#, VB and WebDev, we're back to the same "How do I keep giving Microsoft money" question again. Those are not standards. They're proprietary solutions and stuff you build on them will obsolete every time Microsoft decides it needs more of your money. It's a trap. ...

And don't forget F# too.

Photoshop? Enough with the photoshop. I don't care about photoshop. If you need a dedicated photoshop box it's no excuse to chain everyone in your enterprise to Windows ...

There's a rumour Photoshop runs on Macs!

Re:Eclipse

[DogDude]

As for J#, C#, VB and WebDev, we're back to the same "How do I keep giving Microsoft money" question again. Those are not standards. They're proprietary solutions and stuff you build on them will obsolete every time Microsoft decides it needs more of your money. It's a trap. Don't fall into it. If you must program in those soon-to-be dead languages then you've created your own predicament and nobody can help you.

I'm working in VB6 right now. Still works fine as far as I can tell. What's the problem, exactly?

Re:Eclipse

[Anonymous Coward]

As for J#, C#, VB and WebDev, we're back to the same "How do I keep giving Microsoft money" question again. Those are not standards. They're proprietary solutions and stuff you build on them will obsolete every time Microsoft decides it needs more of your money. It's a trap. Don't fall into it. If you must program in those soon-to-be dead languages then you've created your own predicament and nobody can help you.

You honestly think C# and VB.NET are "soon to be dead?" I think your FOSS zealotry is taking its toll on you.

Re:Eclipse

[Negatyfus]

Haha, thanks for the entertainment. You are one sick puppy!

Re:Eclipse

[jimmyfrank]

C# is soon to be dead? That's a good one. Indeed.com is probably broke or something, returning 33,389 matches for C#.

Re:Eclipse

[rodgerdb]

Proprietary? ISO/IEC 23270:2003 Information technology -- C# Language Specification
Does not seem to meet the defenition.
Especially with other alternatives out there.

Re:Eclipse

[symbolset]

After you learn your second programming language, you should try a mixed language project. This teaches you how things fit together and which language structure best fits which parts of a project.

After three or four you start to see the consistency. At that point you should probably write your own programming languages to better serve your needs.

After about three or four of your own languages you begin to understand the beauty of lex and yacc and hopefully the epiphany will hit you:

Programming languages are ultimately all the same. Use what works. But avoid COBOL if at all possible.

Re:Eclipse

[AndyCR]

Eclipse is excellent for C++ development; just make sure you get 3.3 or higher since 3.2 is considerably slower and a large number of distros still only have 3.2 in their repositories. Make sure you have the Sun JRE (some distros come with other JVM's which run Eclipse at a crawl). On Ubuntu, I just install the "sun-java5-jre" package and download the Eclipse C++ development package from the www.eclipse.org site.

I'm not a huge fan of the fact that it is written in Java (due to speed, but it's honestly not slow at all on a halfway decent system), but at least it compiles quickly if you want to modify it for your needs (I compiled all of the C++ plugin from CVS in about 30 seconds).

I use it for daily development work and can't bring myself to go back to Visual Studio, even on Windows. It has, with a couple simple free plugin installs, built-in CVS and SVN support right in the project browser, a web browser (useful for looking up API documentation without switching windows), a task-oriented work plugin (Mylyn) which you really have to use to understand the power of (or view the presentation on Google Video from back when it was called Mylar), and more. Paired with GCC, I get multi-CPU compiles (even over a network with a bit of tinkering and distcc) for free, rather than the $2,500 Microsoft charges you for the luxury. I've simply never used a better tool.

Re:Eclipse

[rodgerdb]

Ok shocking as it is, we disagree on the previous topic. However, I do agree with you on this one.

I personally like Lisp/Scheme quite a bit. Some of the assembly dialects of the past were a challenge to work with and fun at the same time. Did 68000 and x86 assembler myself, but still fun either way.

For casual business application development, I am sure assembly is not where anyone should be at this point anymore. Still helpful to know it. I tend to favor .NET for client side applications here, and a variety of backend technologies unless some need exists for it NOT to be so.

I would have a similar view on VB as you do on COBOL. At least older VB, alot of extremely messy apps out there built on that!

64-bit Windows NT cannot have 32-bit drivers.

[Myria]

2. 64 bit support. Microsoft has willfully hamstrung Vista 64 by not providing compatibility with 32 bit drivers, and by making the Vista 64 driver model more restrictive than the Vista 32 bit. If you look at Apple's systems, they have a much better model where 32 bit drivers work *fine* on a 64 bit system. There's no reason your video card driver needs to be 64 bit anyway...

Windows NT makes the fundamental assumption that kernel mode programs have direct access to user-mode memory. The kernel is in the same address space as user-mode programs. Kernel drivers can directly read user-mode parameters from the same address that was passed in from user mode. This offloads parameter checking from software to the CPU's page table, a nice performance increase.

This prevents 32-bit drivers from ever being possible in NT. A 64-bit user program would pass in a 64-bit pointer in an ioctl and a 32-bit driver would have no way of accessing that address. The kernel can't translate because it does not know what ioctls mean, and they can contain pointers.

In contrast, Darwin's kernel has a separate address space for user mode and kernel mode. Switching between user mode and kernel mode is a full page table reload, and access to user memory from the kernel is done through special accessor functions. This is a additional cost to kernel calls in Darwin compared to NT.

As for video card drivers not needing to be 64-bit... The extra 8 general and 8 SSE registers do help in the inner loops written in assembly language for some operations that the cards don't support directly.

By the way, have you heard of Windows XP x64 Edition?

Is calling an OS 'aging'...

[RevWaldo]

Is calling an OS 'aging' the same as calling it 'stable'?

Re:New Hardware

[Technician]

Essentially, what this 10% increase means is, that about half of the people who got new hardware also got Vista to it, and nobody switched "mid-life" for their hardware.

Many people getting new hardware, got an OS other than Vista. My dad got a Mac. My new Core 2 Duo machine runs Ubuntu Studio. To get it without an unwanted OS meant assembling it myself. Boot to login and login to homepage on screen on the Mac or Ubuntu machine is much faster than any of the Windows machines in the house.

For Windows games, Wine may be your only route

[Zombie Ryushu]

I think Wine may be what turns the tide here. Really. Make Wine so compatible with Windows applications that its easier to make it run on Wine than it is to run on real Windows. This has already happened on a few select games. Wine is going to have to make Starcraft II run. Games determine where the computer industry goes. Not business. He who controls the games controls the industry.

Re:For Windows games, Wine may be your only route

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a dumb twat. Games can run on consoles - business and scientific apps only run on computers.

Don't give me that dumb bullshit about smart phones. When there's a Window Mobile or Symbian version of MySQL, Matlab, SASS, and Oracle, we can talk.

There are a lot of advantages...

[symbolset]

There are a lot of advantages to Windows in a VM.

Windows XP is still available. You can stock up on enough copies to meet your VM needs.

You can keep an activated VM to roll back to when your Windows VM becomes corrupted, as all of them do, with less trouble than imaging a real machine.

It doesn't have access to your real hardware unless you let it.

That Vista isn't pleasant in a VM is a good reason to avoid it. In case you haven't heard, avoiding it looks more and more likely these days. If you're doing development and have to test on Vista then you're already using it in a VM or you're stupid.

In many cases, XP runs better in a VM than it does natively. Imagine that.

When it's time to retire it, you can drag the XP VM to the trashcan where it belongs.

Keeping the status quo is not an option. Microsoft is forcing the migration whether you want it or not. The question is, since you're being forced to migrate would you prefer to not be forced next time? If so, then where you should migrate to should be obvious.

The idea of XP in a VM or in Citrix is to smooth the migration to an open system where control of your IT is up to you, not to a corporation with a profit motive to keep shuffling you along the upgrade path and tying down your options and artificially limiting your choices.

Keep saying "we can't" and eventually you will believe it.

Re:There are a lot of advantages...

[GigaplexNZ]

Yes, there are a lot of advantages to a VM. But switching from Windows on native hardware to Windows in a VM is not a solution if you are eliminating Windows from the picture.

Using distrowatch as a source to show where to migrate to? No thanks. That will only tell me what distro all the fanboy-types prefer as they are the type to go to that site to get their hits counted. Most of the Linux servers or professional workstations don't visit that site for their hit quota.

I never said that you literally can't migrate, I said that the solution given to that particular problem doesn't actually solve the issue. The ironic thing is that this post is coming from a Linux box, so don't try to tell me that I'm all for sticking with Windows.

As for the poster below:

Did my XP licenses all just disappear in a puff of smoke? That's one of the advantages to have at least a few beige boxes running off-the-shelf XP Pro. If the hardware dies, you can install the OS in a VM and still get use out of it. No, you can't. The license does not permit you to move OEM copies to a different host. So if the machine dies, the license did just go up in a puff of smoke. I don't think I have ever seen a retail license on business owned machines, but if you did then that might leave that option open.

Since when did I say that it has to be Office 2007 over 2003? It was the original poster that asked about those specific versions. However, the point still stands. It may not be Office specifically tying someone to Windows, it could be something else. Let's say I want to perform a task, and my financial security depends on my performance. I choose the best piece of software for that specific task. I then use the OS that is required for that piece of software. Choosing the OS first and then using sub-par software as the "free choice alternative" is not the smartest way to go. Not all free alternatives are sub par and in fact are often better for mainstream tasks. But don't try to convince everyone that they must be using free software when their situation may be different.

Re:There are a lot of advantages...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

switching from Windows on native hardware to Windows in a VM is not a solution if you are eliminating Windows from the picture

However, it is a solution if your intention is to reduce Windows and its not an all-or-nothing situation of eliminating Windows. You still have to have a license, sure, but your interaction (in terms of time (and frustration!)) is reduced to only the apps that require said interaction.

I'd suggest that pointing you to distrowatch was a way to make the various distros known to you, not so much a suggestion that you download from there.

The license does not permit you to move OEM copies to a different host.

And the sky is blue, and so what? Having "a few beige boxes running off-the-shelf XP Pro" in a shop is probably not done with OEM versions. You at least have to make an assumption that isn't warranted from the parent post.

If "my financial security depends on my performance", then choose a system that performs. This is why Mathematica benchmarks on Linux. This is why Computational Physics is done on Linux. Its a *performance* issue. To suggest that you choose software first, then whatever OS will run it, is ridiculous. You have to compare the app+OS to an app+OS. Failing to measure the result of the system as a whole is to measure nothing meaningful. Not eveyone gets a degree in Physics, sure, but isn't this *obvious*?

If you are doing anything remotely analytical (numerically or symbolicly processing intensive) which includes statistical analysis, by the way, and not just systems of ODEs and PDEs, then performance certainly goes to Linux.

Re:There are a lot of advantages...

[ciggieposeur]

If you are doing anything remotely analytical (numerically or symbolicly processing intensive) which includes statistical analysis, by the way, and not just systems of ODEs and PDEs, then performance certainly goes to Linux.

Yup, but OTOH I cynically believe that is simply because Windows doesn't run on non-x86 hardware or on real clusters.

I finish my masters in chemical engineering in about 6 weeks, and my thesis was essentially applied quantum chemistry (ab initio and molecular dynamics simulations). The really decent grad students and PhD's in this work are those of us unafraid of the command line, but I feel like we are a vanishing breed.

If Microsoft ever ported to PowerPC or MIPS and made a real cluster solution where the head node behaved a lot like Terminal Server and the users could just drag-and-drop their input and output files through an Explorer-like interface and didn't need to provide scripts for the batch queueing system, the profs and students would probably demand it be used in place of the current reasonably mature stuff everyone is using. I shudder at how ignorant of computers the following generations of supercomputer users would be in that world.

Re:There are a lot of advantages...

[Lonewolf666]

No, you can't. The license does not permit you to move OEM copies to a different host. So if the machine dies, the license did just go up in a puff of smoke. I don't think I have ever seen a retail license on business owned machines, but if you did then that might leave that option open.

Depending on jurisdiction, the license may be unenforceable.
Some years ago, Microsoft lost a lawsuit in Germany over unbundling of OEM versions. If I understand the reasoning of the court correctly (IANAL), the Exhaustion of rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_of_rights was the deciding factor.
In the US, the First Sale Doctrine could apply (ask a lawyer if it trumps the EULA, this seems to vary between states).

Re:There are a lot of advantages...

[nametaken]

Cough, cough... Exchange/Outlook and virtually all Adobe products? I can't switch one of our graphic artists to Linux and I could never get our users off Outlook. They'd firebomb my car... with me in it.

Re:There are a lot of advantages...

[colinrichardday]

If Microsoft ever ported to PowerPC or MIPS and made a real cluster solution where the head node behaved a lot like Terminal Server and the users could just drag-and-drop their input and output files through an Explorer-like interface and didn't need to provide scripts for the batch queueing system, the profs and students would probably demand it be used in place of the current reasonably mature stuff everyone is using. I shudder at how ignorant of computers the following generations of supercomputer users would be in that world.

And the probability of Microsoft's doing this? Seriously, what was the last version of NT that ran on non-x86 hardware? And wasn't that Alpha? What was the last release of Windows that ran on PowerPC or MIPS?

Re:There are a lot of advantages...

[ciggieposeur]

And the probability of Microsoft's doing this?

I would rate it low considering their general lack of skill and experience on the server side. But OTOH if they ever DID manage it I don't see the academic world shunning it.

Re:There are a lot of advantages...

[GigaplexNZ]

I'd suggest that pointing you to distrowatch was a way to make the various distros known to you, not so much a suggestion that you download from there. I use Gentoo and Debian at home, I do not require suggestions of what distro to use (granted, the suggestion was given by someone who did not know my situation).

If "my financial security depends on my performance", then choose a system that performs. This is why Mathematica benchmarks on Linux. This is why Computational Physics is done on Linux. Its a *performance* issue. To suggest that you choose software first, then whatever OS will run it, is ridiculous. By "depends on my performance" I was referring to the product that I produce. The criterion for "peforming better" is not always "whatever finishes first". Some software produces better, more accurate results and happens to run slower. Sometimes this is preferred, and picking an OS that allows me to compute the value of Pi to 1 million decimal places faster is not the best solution when it requires choosing an alternative software package that produces a less desirable output (assuming an alternative actually exists). It is ridiculous to limit your choice of applications because you picked an OS that does a lot of stuff better but doesn't have support for your objective.

If you are doing anything remotely analytical (numerically or symbolicly processing intensive) which includes statistical analysis, by the way, and not just systems of ODEs and PDEs, then performance certainly goes to Linux. And if that is what I was doing, I would naturally choose Linux.

Don't know about you, bubba, but it surely seems to me the really advanced stuff isn't made for or on Windows. Maybe engineering is more "off the shelf", but in Physics and Chemistry (and rumor has it, applied and pure mathematics), this isn't so at all! I would like to point out that Engineering software is generally more "off the shelf". Using the policy of "choose the app, then the OS" would result in using Linux in those fields. Don't assume Linux has the best support for everything.

Re:There are a lot of advantages...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

When you said "depends on performance" I assumed you meant both your (precious) time as a developer, as well as the run-time characteristics of your code.

I would suggest further, as well, that in more mundane fields, Gnumeric is both a faster and also more accurate spreadsheet. In a graduate Operations Research class there where some problems that where picked to give Excel problems while determining global maxima. Gnumeric dealt with them w/o tweaking, out of the box. The prof was amazed :-)

In terms of your experience with Linux, I only meant that the parent posting to which we refer was probably meant in good faith.

CPU usage

[Myria]

CPU benchmarks:
[...]
So, basically, your machine will be imperceptibly slower if you want all the whiz-bang 3D and transparency of Vista's UI. Go figure.

Sure, if your entire computing experience is high-CPU usage calculations like prime number searching or transcoding movies.

Much more important in real computer use will be disk I/O and hard page faults. When your computer feels sluggish it's probably because it's swapping in from disk. Vista definitely loses a lot of performance simply by taking much more RAM for itself. This causes more page faults and more disk I/O due to the disk cache being smaller (unused RAM = disk cache).

Graphics performance suffers in Vista because graphics is virtualized. Drawing doesn't go directly to the framebuffer so that effects like Windows-Tab are possible. (Mac OS does the same thing for similar reasons.)

Note that I'm not criticizing the reasons Microsoft did these things.

Vista is faster

[Billly Gates]

I have written many anti vista postings since I bought a notebook with Vista loaded on it last decemember.

Most of the anti vista comments here are untrue after you get used to it, use the new start menu features and install SP1, updated drivers, and bios upgrades.

Both hogs such as Netbeans and OpenOffice ran slower on my notebook than XP assuming Vista is set up properly. Disk fetching and better caching is how I attribute the performance increase.

The majority of Vista bashes are from those who have semi supported hardware.

My notebook was running off of disk PIO mode during startup and no sata was loaded with the default Vista install. As you can imagine my system took forever to boot and when Vista indexed it slowed things down. I bashed Vista constantly here.

I downgraded to XP but upgraded back to Vista. I missed the windows index search when you hit the start button. Here is a hint for XP users.... your not supposed to find your programs by your mouse. Just type it in! Also I can search my javadocs and my ms word papers for school quickly by seaching by content. I go to a christian school with bible versus required in my papers. Vista makes my job easier as I type a subject and it searches the index for my conent.

Vista is not fast after Toshibe provided an SD sata driver and a bios update to start vista quickly. SP1 fixed the constant disk usage. It rarely ever gets in the way once things are up. Wow is just as fast in vista as in XP. Maybe only a few fps slower.

But Vista is nice for computer neophytes and the hardware markers need to take the heat for the negative public opinion.

Re:Vista is faster

[fostware]

Sorry, but my experiences are the other way around.

My Dell XPS 1710 has a properly supported set of Vista drivers. I bundled Vista Ultimate 64 , tried Vista 32, tried Vista 32 SP1 and a two weeks ago I downgraded purely because Vista doesn't like changing networks, doesn't like notebook battery life, doesn't like mapped drives and VPNs... and makes changing admin settings painful even for someone used to Vista.

I miss the autosearch (both in Office and the Start Menu) and the prefetch cache, but it doesn't outweigh the fact it slows not just the machine, but slows down my workflow - and that's something the benchmarks fail to slow.

Good strategy

[HangingChad]

Just like asking everyone to be frugal and reuse things as much as possible to cut down on overhead, you could also give people incentives to bring in free and open source alternatives to proprietary software you are using

That's a good way to bring it in. I'd suggest documenting the savings, comes in handy during bonus season. I was surprised the other day to run across a company running a survey application on PHP and Smarty. Apparently there was someone like you there. :)

Microsoft == Stupid

[Nom du Keyboard]

Microsoft is stupid again, and clearly doesn't care about what its customers really want. Vista has failed to sell itself as superior to XP, so let's kill off XP and remove that choice entirely. It's unfortunate that Microsoft won't pay the price that most businesses pay for such bonehead decisions of giving a general "Up Yours" to their customers, who are clearly too stupid (in Microsoft's mind) to know what's really good for them!

License

[Frankie70]

One of the reasons why Apple chose BSD & not Linux is because of the BSD License over the GPL.

Raytracing

[symbolset]

The proprietary edge that Microsoft has in gaming is coming to an end. Raytracing is a better solution to this problem if you have the horsepower to drive it, and that's on the way. And it will be open.

Re:Raytracing

[BOFHelsinki]

Intel became a vocal proponent of raytracing virtually overnight when they saw it as a way to create buzz for Larrabee... but most recent papers on the future of realtime rendering don't quite see raytracing as the holy grail walking all over rasterizing. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. (Yes, raytracing too.) The currently dominant method of OpenGL style textured polygons + Renderman style shaders has lots of potential in how it can develop further. And some interesting hybrids have been proposed, combining the excellent global lighting of raytracing to the inherent simplicity/speed of rasterization. The Carmack has some funky new ideas on voxels as base geometry primitives, I'm not even sure where that falls regarding the rasterization/raytracing divide... But anyway, look beyond Intel for the full picture of the future of PC gaming :-)

Re:Raytracing

[insertwackynamehere]

That link makes me happy

Re:Raytracing

[IdeaMan]

Why do you say it will be open?
Are there any OpenGL extensions or planned support for Raytracing?

Oh and to whoever modded parent off-topic: The whole reason I'm not currently switched to Linux is because of games. All it would take is one Killer App (game) to switch to running Linux full time and Windows in a VM. As the population grows that runs Linux natively, the demand for Linux games will start rising. A new game using Raytracing has awesome potential to become the next Linux or Microsoft killer app. At this point it's up for grabs. If it happens on Linux first the whole XP vs Windows 7 debate will be rendered moot. I say vs Windows 7 because Vista is already seen by the geeks as being another Windows ME.

Yeah, but...

[hackshack]

Win2000 was out for only a couple years before XP was released. In the 6-7 years since XP was released, you'd expect Vista to have more compelling features. Look how far OS X has moved since 2001 and you begin to wonder, "where's the innovation, guys?" This is the computer industry, after all.

Re:Yeah, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nigga please.

Since release in 2001, OSX has added the following major features.

Instant search (just like in Vista)
Dashboard (Sidebar widgets)
Expose (not necessary with windows task bar)
Safari (wow, apple added a webbrowser)

BUY VISTA NOW!

[Anonymous Coward]

So that you can buy windows 7(xp 2.0) in a year or two...
You clearly want to add a 9 billion ton ball to your brand new PC!

Why is slashdot having trouble with this?

[symbolset]

I think it's because these machines have 512 MB of RAM, a 1.5GHz clock, and 10-20GB of high speed SSD storage. If you compare that with XP requirements you will see it is well over by 8 times every particular. XP doesn't run as well as Linux on these machines but they're much better than the best machine available when XP was released in 2001.

Vista, though? Not gonna happen.

If you must, they make a good thin client for Citrix though, and the internet-everywhere nature of the devices makes that a reliable answer if not an ideal one. I wonder if the cellular based wireless works on a plane. That would be cool.

10-20GB is more than enough for a fat Linux Distro with all the fancy effects that make it look better than Vista and OO.o, which opens most of the Office documents you'll ever need anyway. With documents on mini-SD or pendrive you're good to go no matter where you're going. So what you need Vista on these things for is beyond me.

Oh, and did I mention that they do HD video and run for six hours on one battery charge? What's that about?

Seriously, if a user needs more than this then he needs a server slice in the server room and he can still use one of these to remote into it.

Disingenuous

[symbolset]

By the way, this little bit of text...

Run Vista on a modern machine and you'll get good performance, run it on an XP machine and you'll get crappy performance.

When talking about systems that are just released or not released yet doesn't make sense. What part of "still in beta" is pre-modern?

Re:Disingenuous

[Brian Gordon]

modern hardware, not new machines with 5 year old specs

Re:Disingenuous

[symbolset]

If it's made today, you cannot define it as "not modern". If it's not even released yet you're revealing your bias completely. Tomorrow's technology is by definition "post modern".

Re:Disingenuous

[domatic]

5 years ago a machine with those specs wouldn't fit in a coat pocket and cost less than $400. In another year or two, they will fit in a shirt pocket. If I want an inexpensive compact machine that will do internet and document access with decent battery life, Vista is a non-starter.

Deadline will be extended again in the future.

[suck_burners_rice]

I have a feeling that Microsoft will extend the deadline again in the future. (Perhaps this post is a sort of record so I can later say, "See? I told you so!") If this happens, it will probably happen because a large enough group of customers still won't want to "upgrade" to Vista, and will continue to demand XP for new systems. Many other customers would probably, when considering their next computer (or numerous computers in the case of businesses) choose to purchase Apple Macs, if only to avoid Vista. Let's face it. Vista is a flop, even with Microsoft's sales figures for it, which include sales of the OS pre-installed on consumer systems, which are promptly "downgraded" to XP by themselves, by a more computer savvy friend, or by one of the many technical support companies that offer a service to downgrade computers from Vista to XP.

We're in a technology gap

[symbolset]

Eventually gaming on Linux will catch up. In the interim, console gaming is a good substitute. When you're striking the chains some pain is to be expected.

As a side note: You suggest giving money to Sony instead of Microsoft? Short sighted indeed.

When Microsoft's goal was to save us from the evil monolith that was IBM, I was their biggest fan. Now I'm a big fan of IBM and not Microsoft. This isn't difficult to understand. I haven't changed sides. They have.

Re:We're in a technology gap

[Anonymous Coward]

When Microsoft's goal was to save us from the evil monolith that was IBM, I was their biggest fan. Now I'm a big fan of IBM and not Microsoft. This isn't difficult to understand. I haven't changed sides. They have. What is up with this "our side/there side/saving us from evil" nonsense? Microsoft, like IBM, like Sony, like every other company out there, is in it to make money. They're not evil, they're not good, and you dont need to fight them or be saved from them.

If you like their products, buy them. If not, don't. It's really much more simple than this religious war you make it out to be.

Re:We're in a technology gap

[EveLibertine]

When you're striking the chains some pain is to be expected. I'll take this for what it is: an admission that your "solution" doesn't actually meet the requirements presented by the problem.

You say gaming will catch up; so your solution doesn't work now, but somewhere in some possible future? You say that eventually people will move to standardized file formats, sometime in this glorious future.

How can you expect people to use a product that you readily admit doesn't suit their needs instead of one that actually does fulfill all the requirements with a few very notable drawbacks? The point is that with this "wrong" solution requirements are being resolved with a trade-off. Your solution doesn't meet their needs now and also has notable trade-offs. Guess which one people will consistently choose?

I still don't understand why you bothered bringing IBM into this to explain why you suggested that instead of giving money to one evil corporation, that getting a PS3 and thus giving money to another evil corporation is better? You're acting like you've got scruples, but it seems they're just blinders. Do you so intensely hate Microsoft that you're willing to allow wrongs done by another corporation corporation slide unnoticed? Once again, a compromise I'm not willing to make for another non-solution.

Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, and I know from first hand experience that a decent sized company can be run almost exclusively on open source software. I've got 3 linux boxes, a gaming pc, and a 360 all sitting on the very same desk. It didn't burst into flames or anything. The point is, I love and support FLOSS, but I hate when people propose it for solutions for which it isn't intended (yet) because when it inevitable goes wrong it hurts the chances of any other FLOSS projects seeing the light of day within these restricted environments. So cut it out, will you?

Re:We're in a technology gap

[ozmanjusri]

If you like their products, buy them. If not, don't. It's really much more simple than this religious war you make it out to be.

Then give me unencumbered formats, protocols and architectures.

Re:We're in a technology gap

[Anonymous Coward]

Then give me unencumbered formats, protocols and architectures. Don't buy the products and their proprietary formats will die all by themselves. MS has a shitload of money, but they cannot fight the will of the free market forever. They will either adapt and make products people want, or they will go out of business.

The evangelist position that capitalism isnt working fast enough, and that it is somehow necessary to force people to understand how bad MS is doesn't help. In fact it's counterproductive. People don't like to be told what's best for them - just be patient and let them figure things out for themselves.

Re:We're in a technology gap

[civilizedINTENSITY]

It is just as stupid to suggest that "all corporations are equally good/evil" as it is to suggest all political parties are just the same, or all systems of government are the same, or all people are equally good/evil. Some are good, some are evil. Get over it. Learn which is which. Anything else is just being lazy.

Re:We're in a technology gap

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Sony isn't well loved, but they certainly don't have the history that Microsoft has. Trying to suggest they are the same is ignorant.

Re:We're in a technology gap

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Its really not a religious war. Its true enough, though, that business is war, and there is certainly a cultural and philosophical war going on, too. Trying to spin this with ill considered references to religion is a clear indicator of bias, and you should try to avoid that.

Re:We're in a technology gap

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Your confusion between capitalism (which tends to lead to monopolies, and really is about wealth creation) and free-markets (which by definition has the inherent requirement of a balance of power and isn't about wealth creation so much as allocation of resources) doesn't help. In fact its counterproductive. People don't like to be told that there preferences are bad for them, be said preferences for drugs, or fatty foods, or encumbered formats, protocols and architectures. Be aware: patience does little good in a system where the advantages of increasing returns has already emerged. We are stuck with keyboards designed to slow down touch typists so that the keys don't jam. Still waiting? Ah yep.

Re:We're in a technology gap

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to spin this with ill considered references to religion is a clear indicator of bias Spin? The GP made reference to MS saving him from the "evil monolith that was IBM". I don't think it's spin to suggest that he thinks about software in a religious way.

Also the post you replied to didn't come across as pro-MS or anti-MS to me in anyway, so I don't know where you claim there is an indicator of bias. On the other hand a quick glance through your posting history reveals that you often engage in straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks against anyone posting anything that could be construed as something positive to MS (you seem very quick to claim others are ignorant, or confused, or biased, etc).

Re:We're in a technology gap

[EveLibertine]

I didn't intend to suggest that they were the same, I only meant to question why giving money to one supposedly evil corporation instead of another supposedly evil corporation was a better situation, based solely on the grounds of trying to avoid giving money to an evil corporation.

If the answer is "because x isn't as evil as y" then my response is that it all seems to be an arbitrary way of deciding what products you are purchasing instead of figuring out which ones meet your needs at the best value. Apologies if that wasn't clear in my post.

Re:We're in a technology gap

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Some suggest that government is a necessary evil. I disagree because I have lots of faith in Rule of Law. However, stipulating that all governments do both good and bad, one could replace Microsoft with a Totalitarian regime, and Sony with a less than perfect Democracy, and suggest it makes no difference who one does business with because neither are perfect. This resembles what I've (tongue-in-cheek) nicknamed a nihilist argument in the past. Specifically, its only arbitrary if you flip a coin, or otherwise randomly determine your choice. Because one *is* better than the other ("because x isn't as evil as y" ), said choice should be determined on merits rather than arbitrarily.

Its certainly about determining which products meet your needs, but consider the bigger picture, too. Its not just one product you are purchasing, but a process of which you are a part. I would suggest that what might seem irrational choice to you today is perhaps merely the result of our two lists of which aspects we consider for the assignment of merit contains two very different lists of features. In other words: what you value and rank isn't what I value and rank, and perhaps some things I see as essential aren't even on your list.

This is news?

[argent]

Vista has failed to sell itself as superior to XP, so let's kill off XP and remove that choice entirely.

XP has failed to sell itself in business against Windows 2000, so let's kill off 2000 and remove that choice entirely.

VS.NET has failed to sell itself as superior to VS6, so let's kill off VS6 and remove that choice entirely.

They've done the same thing with forced upgrades to Office apps via incompatible file formats.

I'm not familiar with Visual Basic, but there have been rants now and then from VB developers about new versions of VB being gratuitously new and different.

Let me lead with...

[symbolset]

You guys aren't getting any traction in this thread and your best bet is to ignore it. You won't, but at least I told you so.

No, you can't. The license does not permit you to move OEM copies to a different host. So if the machine dies, the license did just go up in a puff of smoke. I don't think I have ever seen a retail license on business owned machines, but if you did then that might leave that option open.

The vagaries of licensing are some of the things that make open solutions so much more inviting. If you discontinue your support contracts, you don't get any more support from your open source provider. The don't sue you for continuing to experience the benefits of the support you've already paid for.

Let's say I want to perform a task, and my financial security depends on my performance.

And your solution for this is to make yourself a hostage to the good intentions of a commercial software vendor? That sounds like a bad plan.

Re:Let me lead with...

[GigaplexNZ]

The vagaries of licensing are some of the things that make open solutions so much more inviting. If you discontinue your support contracts, you don't get any more support from your open source provider. The don't sue you for continuing to experience the benefits of the support you've already paid for. Very true. But the incentive to use an open OS does not negate the fact that there are still many excellent business applications that don't yet support the open platforms. Hopefully this will change, but that does not mean we should all switch to Linux now, even if our jobs still rely on Windows.

And your solution for this is to make yourself a hostage to the good intentions of a commercial software vendor? That sounds like a bad plan. Some of us already are hostages. The question is how to get ourselves out of this situation. Blindly switching now when some of our applications don't work (even though one of the original posters claimed Linux does EVERYTHING) is not the best way to do it. Sadly, I can't offer any decent solutions.

Re:Let me lead with...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Vagaries of licensing! A friend from Oak Ridge National Labs vacationed here, and I watched him jumping through hoops with a MatLab installation on his Vista Laptop. He spent about 10 hours on the phone over a three day period and was sent installation CDs via next day rush twice (!) in an attempt to install past their DRM that just plain wouldn't work properly. They were very polite and apologetic, but the bottom line is that he spent his time dealing with a broken system instead of modeling nuclear reactors. I've had similar experiences with MS tech support trying to install their software, although admittedly not as bad as he had to put up with. License bullshit is a *major* reason for going open source!

Re:Let me lead with...

[beaviz]

License bullshit is a *major* reason for going open source!

So true. Administrating Windows boxes ain't so bad as many say, but the license-bullshit is really hell!

Copyright protects sales of things, not non-sales

[Russ Nelson]

The intent of copyright is to allow an author of a creative work to profit from sales of the work. It is NOT intended to stop non-profit copying of a work which is not being sold. If you're engaging in non-commercial copying of a copyrighted work, a judge will take seriously a defense of "But I cannot buy the work!"

Re:New Hardware

[Mex]

Hell, I got a new PC with Vista included (couldn't buy it without) and I got rid of it as soon as I could (well, I tried it for a weekend and decided it was crap).

So I guess my sale still counts, but I ain't buying any software for Vista.

Most Vista haters - like young earth creationists?

[gadlaw]

That statement is profoundly ignorant. My most empirical measures XP is still far superior to Vista. I believe 'creationists' and 'young earth' advocates do not have empirical information to back up their viewpoints. Therefore your statement is profoundly wrong and without basis.

"It ... marks the ... end of XP ..."

[Jane Q. Public]

And the accelerated decline of Microsoft. Unless they can pull a rabbit out of a hat pretty damned soon.

Re:"It ... marks the ... end of XP ..."

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, i've been listening to this bullshit line out of the oss crowd for over a decade now and actually bought into it at one point. everything that happens bad to ms is the next nail in their coffin to you guys and yet it never happens. please stop making these grand predictions of the death of microsoft. it sounds like a skipping record of a bad song.

Re:"It ... marks the ... end of XP ..."

[Jane Q. Public]

I did not write "death", I wrote "decline". There is a VERY big difference.

Microsoft's revenue stream is fine for now. 5 years from now I doubt very much it will be as much... but I would be about the last one to say that they are headed for actual destruction.

Please understand the difference... and get off my ass.

Re:"It ... marks the ... end of XP ..."

[Computershack]

Microsoft's revenue stream is fine for now. 5 years from now I doubt very much it will be as much... I find that quite a funny comment considering they're eating into *nix server market share, many corporations who have gone to linux are now back on Windows and it's the corporations where the real money is.
And then there's Xbox 360 who, on a per customer overall spend basis, is doing FAR better than PS3 or Wii as many people buy PS3 more for video playback and Wii owners buy typically a couple of games compared to the 10 that 360 owners typically buy.

Re:"It ... marks the ... end of XP ..."

[Jane Q. Public]

I think you should read the news a little more. Even Microsoft is trying to embrace Open Source as a matter of survival, and unfortunately they have not figured out how to do it right yet.

I work in the industry, and I have friends both in Microsoft and in the Open Source world. And I am hardly the only one who has seen the signs. I am not one of those magazine-article-writing "doom sayers", I am simply echoing what I -- and many others in the industry -- actually see with our own eyes.

Is this a John Titor reference?

[symbolset]

Didn't you guys say that when Windows XP was coming out? Yeah... that's what I though.

Seven years ago when XP was coming out, this page looked considerably different.

That was then. This is now.

Re:Microsoft dictates what people get and that's t

[symbolset]

BTW, because Microsoft has VERY lucrative contracts with PC OEMs, they have little to no choice in what PC operating system gets pre-loaded on the computers. If they were to stick Linux on any of those computers, some part of those deals would be rescinded and the OEM would lose money one way or another. It is what it is so if you play in the Windows game, you're stuck playing by their rules and Vista is what they want you to use.

Until Microsoft doesn't offer an OS on the low power lightweight platform you're selling. And then it's Game On!

Microsoft really shouldn't have become an OEM for PC hardware in India with AMD chips. Now they're hosed.

The problem in a nutshell

[symbolset]

The problem with Vista is that it's Vista. I don't think they can fix that.

And you always will

[symbolset]

They're working on the Windows 7 now. No chance your issues are getting fixed.

an asanine move?

[DragonTHC]

This is utterly ridiculous. XP is not dead for me. I won't use Vista until MS fixes it.

Vista == Windows ME

[Anonymous Coward]

What I'd like to see is a more concerted effort to address the problems with Vista. Microsoft could make Vista as fast and usable as XP today if they would just get through their thick heads that some of the policies they came up with for vista are bone headed.

Well, it seems Bill agrees with you, as I can't see announcing the imminent arrival of Windows 7 as anything other than the death knell for Vista. In other words, Vista is the Windows ME-Two or something.

"Vista is slow, but XP is still dying"? Pardon me, but that title is crap. It should be "Vista is slow, and will be dead long before XP".

Oh, Really?

[His Shadow]

Because I thought Bill said that Windows 7 would be out next year? What's the rush to saddle everyone with Vista if they are just going to make Vista look sick with all the spanking new features that I am sure Windows 7 will have? Kind of like how Vista was supposed to be a quantum leap past XP? Huh? Anyone? Huh?

Tho only problem

[eclectro]

I didn't grow up on Windows. I grew up on adware, trojans, and malware.

Microsoft could've avoided ALL of this.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft Vista had the potential to be brilliant, particularly after all the time they took to develop it. The unfortunate thing is that there's too many chiefs trying to run the show, and nobody up top is demanding the nice, lightweight, SECURE operating system that we deserve to get from them.

Microsoft could've solved SO many problems with Vista merely by implementing sandboxing with legacy software. There's no reason they couldn't have forced all legacy apps to run in their own little sandbox, instead of forcing people to deal with 20 pop-ups just to install an old program.

Vista - the BIG f***up:
- the lack of compatible drivers
- the DRM
- the incredibly bizarre pricing scheme
- the inability to effectively dial back the amount of running processes on slower systems
- the inexplicable network and program slowdowns on machines that absolutely fly on XP

All of these problems in the design of Vista reflect an organization that is far too bloated for its own good. Organizations like Canonical and Mozilla design and distribute software that does the same job as Internet Explorer, but are more efficient in computer and human resources.

Same deal with Microsoft Office and OpenOffice. OpenOffice might not quite be the equal of MS Office, but it is very solid, and runs about as well as MS Office XP or 2003 on the same hardware. AND, OpenOffice supports more file formats! AND: it's free!

Linux in general, and Ubuntu in particular, do a LOT of things right in this regard. If you want a nice, lightweight, secure OS, Xubuntu is awesome, and runs on any computer made in the last decade very well. It also has stability and robust security that puts Windows 98 to shame. Want more bells and whistles? Step on up to Ubuntu or Kubuntu. Both have all the eye-candy you'll ever need. The amount of software that's available on each is mind-blowing, much of it readily available in their package managers. Even the Windows-emulation is maturing quite nicely. If the software my company uses for writing mortgages could run on it, we'd have an office that is 75% Linux.

One thing stopping Linux from REALLY taking off - the refusal of manufacturers to sell Linux-based machines without the "Microsoft tax" attached to them. Even Dell, which does an awesome job of offering alternatives to Vista, could do so much better in that regard.

Microsoft is rapidly going to run itself into the ground with its current business model. There are some people out there who have been able to use XP for the last 7 years, and can continue to use that OS for ANOTHER 7 years, and Microsoft's not getting one red cent for it!

You can figure about 80-90% of the current XP user base is running hardware that won't run Vista. Like it or not, some of those people are going to switch to another OS unless Microsoft gives people an OS that will run on their hardware.

There's no reason whatsoever for Microsoft to not support XP indefinitely - I'd gladly pay $10 a year to maintain full support of XP and fund limited improvements for security's sake.

One example - reconfiguring the Limited User model in XP so that you can temporarily escalate permissions to do the dangerous stuff, just like Vista. And how about making it so that it's a one-time only entry? I can't understand why this couldn't be done. Many Linux distros do this FAR better!

The Linux providers manage to fund maintenance and improvements without any charge whatsoever. So what the hell is stopping Microsoft from doing it for a nominal fee?

Doing a subscription model for use of Microsoft software would net Microsoft far more than they're making now - who would bother to pirate XP, for example, if they could just pay $5 or $10 to download and run it for a year? Hell - many anti-virus providers charge more than that!

slower...

[smash]

... no shit? However, DOS was way quicker at running DOS apps than windows, and look where that went.

Features don't come for free. The different in speed for most things is negligible.

Processor time is cheap, programmer time is expensive. *If* the new features mean we get better quality apps due to shared libraries/services built into the OS, then I don't see the problem.

A great alternative OS that's NOT Linux

[Artuir]

And no, I'm not talking about Linux or variants. Has anyone heard of this great little gem? http://www.menuetos.net/ - coded in 32/64 bit assembly, fits on a floppy disk, looks sleek as hell. I personally love the fact it's written in assembly and is not based on any particular OS. It's pretty much a clean slate which drew me to BeOS back in the day.

I wonder if anyone will wind up developing for this. It looks to be a gem in the rough, for sure. After seeing Vista's train wreck, it makes me very happy to see a team who understands exactly the kind of thing I'm (and possibly many others) are looking for.

Re:A great alternative OS that's NOT Linux

[nurb432]

Ya, thats really useful in business, which is the major computing market. ( an oddball browser and doom doesn't count as business apps, or much use to the *average* home user either )

Not to slam on the project, its just doomed to a niche market, until the single developer loses interest and it fades into oblivion with the tons of other 'nice ideas'. Which i think is his intent anyway, a hobby that might make him a couple of bucks from people who like that sort of thing.

Re:A great alternative OS that's NOT Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

> I wonder if anyone will wind up developing for this.

No, since all work done on it would be not usable by others, as it's not free software. The developer pussy is not sharing, so nobody is helping. Easy.

Re:A great alternative OS that's NOT Linux

[Artuir]

How is it not free? I can download the source and run the thing right now. What exactly are you talking about? How has he not shared? There's been forks of the source, namely http://www.kolibrios.org/?&lang=en just to prove the point.

Re:A great alternative OS that's NOT Linux

[Artuir]

I never said it was useful for business or even the average user. But yes, it is merely a "nice idea". Linux was a "nice idea" to begin with too, once upon a time.

Re:A great alternative OS that's NOT Linux

[nurb432]

Until its useful for business or average user, id not consider it 'an alternative'. ( i guess that's just semantics )

And i agree, Linux had its 'nice idea' days, but it did have the unix heritage behind it which helped a lot. That heritage of decades before let it leapfrog ahead of a 'from scratch' sort of operation. Something like minuet ( or a thousand others like it ) is at a disadvantage for the same reason.

For the record tho, i like the little 'totally different' systems out there like this, but i also don't pretend to think they will ever grow out of their niche of hard core hobbyists.

Not just that

[Anonymous Coward]

It also marks the end of Microsoft as we know it.

Yea!

I'm starting to like you...

[symbolset]

At least you're thinking. That beats hell out of the other astroturfers here. You must be a girl. You're still too late. This thread is lost to you.

You say gaming will catch up; so your solution doesn't work now, but somewhere in some possible future? You say that eventually people will move to standardized file formats, sometime in this glorious future.

What is the current level of technology is a very fungible thing. Does Linux run the UT2k4 native client well? Why yes, it does. Does it run FEAR well? Well, no, but there isn't a platform that does. Is there a middle ground? Yes, but it's moving so fast that my post may be obsolete before your reply.

Do I know what everything that runs under Wine? No.

I still don't understand why you bothered bringing IBM into this to explain why you suggested that instead of giving money to one evil corporation, that getting a PS3 and thus giving money to another evil corporation is better? You're acting like you've got scruples, but it seems they're just blinders. Do you so intensely hate Microsoft that you're willing to allow wrongs done by another corporation corporation slide unnoticed? Once again, a compromise I'm not willing to make for another non-solution.

Your "partner" Sony is not going to be happy to hear you bashing them in this way. The IBM thing is obvious to people who have a longer view than you -- they once owned the market and shared your hubris. They needed to be stripped of control to become helpful to Progress. They were and I was really happy about that although it seems we've traded one tyrant for another. Breaking that cycle would really be nice.

Progress is to the benefit of us all. Proprietary solutions do not promote progress. They promote profits. Profits and progress are not exclusive goals unless you make them so by making your inventions proprietary. In that case your inventions are not progress. They are only distractions from it.

So cut it out, will you?

Not gonna happen.

Re:I'm starting to like you...

[h4rm0ny]

This thread is lost to you.

Well that depends if they're trying to convince you (who is plainly not inclined to be convinced) or the vast numbers of people who read the threads without posting. Reading through it as I have been, I find your description of the thread as a argument to be "won" is very much a sign to me that I should regard what you say carefully. The moment people see things in terms of sides, there's a strong pressure to start arguing to win, rather than to arrive at truth.

That was easy

[symbolset]

I really doubt this issue is going to impact the world of IT. But thanks for contributing to the economy.

It will stop working

[symbolset]

As soon as it is not profitable.

Didn't you know that? I would think before you learned something that complex you would apply your mind to the broader question.

Thanks for posting in my thread

[symbolset]

I want to thank you guys for posting in my thread. It took a lot of persistent reloading of the slashdot page to get my post in first.

You've done a lot toward making people aware of how hopeless Vista is, and how useless are the arguments against Linux, and how Linux is a reasonable answer to all of the issues that might arise with migrating from XP.

By now you have all figured out you've been used. The point of this exercise was to get a lot of +5 informative and +5 insightful posts that will show up in Google.

I'd like to thank you all for playing.

Those of you with your opposing viewpoints? Well, what can I say? The premise of your plan is that your opposition is neither organized nor intelligent. You might want to rethink that.

Koolaid

[symbolset]

You honestly think C# and VB.NET are "soon to be dead?" I think your FOSS zealotry is taking its toll on you.

I hear the koolaid has a bitter aftertaste. Does it?

Re:Tell them what you want!

[Anonymous Coward]

How cute, twitter posting with his original, negative-karma account on a thread started by one of his four sockpuppets. As opposed to his sockpuppets replying to him to try and game the moderation system.

Wow. Just wow.

[symbolset]

15 replies and moderated troll. How does it feel? For an under 3k UID that must suck. Not the first time though?

I love Vista (srsly)

[Kwirl]

In my house I run Windows XP Media Edition, 2x Windows XP Pro, and Vista Ultimate 64. Hands down Vista is my favorite OS to use. Granted, early versions were harder to swallow, as I have been using Vista since early Beta.

However, the major problems I had initially have been addressed. Driver compatibility, Stability and Memory usage - since SP1 at least, all of these problems have gone away for me, most of them long before SP1.

While Vista may not be the best choice for everyone, I use it for Office 2007, Photoshop, Video Encoding, and Gaming (Crysis/2142) and have nothing but praises to sing for those uses.

Of course, I realize gamers that use basic photo editing software and office applications are in the minority....

Sadly

[symbolset]

Some of the time the escape from a difficult trap involves chewing your leg off.

I wish you luck.

You guys lost already

[symbolset]

Don't be bitter.

for flight sim I recommend Xplane. It's cross platform and you can try it for free.

You can create UT2k4 mods just fine in Linux. Did you want to be more specific? Do you know of one that won't run in a vm?

We can forgive you for not knowing that any PC that can play games is a general purpose PC. You are a victim of marketing. The thing you don't know is that "anything a program can do, another program can do." It's part of the basic premise of computing.

There will be a gap where Windows owns gaming. The gap is closing. We're changing paradigm from texture mapping to ray tracing, and the ray tracing architecture must be open, seeing as how it was invented 50 years ago. Texture mapping was a stopgap to get us through the period where processors weren't fast enough to do ray tracing. That time is over.

Re:Experience is helpful here.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really think Microsoft had the goal of "saving you from the evil IBM" in the 80's and has now turned to the darkside or somesuch, then you need professional help. Business isnt about wars or ideals or taking sides. It's about money; plain and simple.

Re:Experience is helpful here.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's cute. What are you, twelve? There's a war on. Pick a side. Jesus get a grip, man! You're talking about software!

Only GUI configs are different

[Anonymous Coward]

And you get that in every iteration of windows, for fucks sake.

The command line text file version IS the same. If you used slackware, anything you used there (apart from the packaging system, but that doesn't add a lot to the system, so is no great loss from using a tarball or rpm and alien) is usable everywhere because it is the same kernel and the same apps. The text config IS THE SAME.

The GUI's aren't all that different now either. A bit of prodding around and you find the service configurations. Using a different icon (ooh! scary!!!) and slightly different terminology (confusing!!!) but they are a front-end to the sme text file, so what's your issue?

Re:Only GUI configs are different

[petermgreen]

network config files are different between debian based and redhat based systems and the new "network manager" seems to have rewriten the rulebook yet again.

the layout of the runlevel scripts differs between distros too iirc.

No it isn't

[cheros]

I've had a Sony VAIO with Vista Business. I've patched everything I could find, but it was like computing with the handbreak firmly pulled up, even when I put it in fast graphics mode.

This is a dual core laptop, with 2GB of RAM. Like most modern computers, it would execute the kind of computing we used to send a man to the moon in idle time, yet I have to wait for *everything*, especially if it's graphics intensive (not to mention the "security" questions "you have moved the mouse, allow/deny?"). And I had to hunt for drivers.

In contrast, XP has it all sorted, it works and after the usual huge battle to undo MS' idea of usability it is also reasonably safe. I also installed Ubuntu on it, with all the eye candy enabled that I could find (i.e. Compiz Fusion et al). GNOME flies on this machine, KDE is a little bit slower but still faster than XP except with OpenOffice (because it doesn't cheat and pre-load :-).

In other words, it means anything-but-Vista is still a good approach for IT shops as far as I can see, not to mention that the rumoured 53+ services that read your data for no discernible reason (and 20+ that send such) may put you in violation of ata protection laws, privacy laws and cute things like HIPAA if you use it commercially.

Last but not least we have DRM. Let me say it again: this creates a sequential chain of single points of failure for any date so "protected", i.e. when the weakest link fails you've had it, and backups are fun too. It is no coincidence that Vista is MUCH better at protecting the rights of music & content vendors than it is at protecting your credit card details.

However, even control freak Apple has started to grasp that the whole copy protection gig will have the same end as it did at the beginning of PC computing in the 80s: too much hassle and not the right solution to keep your customers.

Then we have the usual rubbish on the usability front. It's again months of lost productivity when workers locate where the hell the MS UI designers have stuck facilities this time, ditto for support (MS Office 2007: ditto problem). That's another argument for both Apple and Linux (and OpenOffice): you learn once, and changes are small and incremental. There is NO productivity gain possible that will offset repeated loss of time where end users have to play "find the feature". With Apple and Linux this pain is only suffered once.

We've now started a Linux and Apple desktop project, so thanks MS for screwing up so royally. It's the first time even the office staff came off its Windows addiction and was willing to try something else.

Vista sucked. It sucks now, and I fully expect it to follow the trend it set itself and suck in the future too. Begone.

Let's not be silly!

[sixpacker]

People, I mean normal people, don't give a shit about what OS they are using as long as

1. they can still do their businesses
2. they can play startcraft 2

Oh yeah, Linux and Open Source are great but does it really matter to them? Apple looks attractive, but so what?

We should not forget that we use computers for business and entertainment, I mean mainly! Most people don't even know what OSes they are using. PERIOD!

windows 3.1 is faster than XP

[thisispurefud]

Windows 3.1 is faster than XP

Everything's going as planned

[gelfling]

Now run out and buy a new dual-Quad core 4GB machine, Intel will thank you.

Even more of a reason to switch to LINUX!

[bradbury]

This policy by Microsoft of "forcing" one to upgrade to newer products which are becoming ever more "controlled" by Microsoft (I'm waiting for the release where one cannot turn off automatic upgrades) is yet another reason to switch to Linux NOW.

Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the last set of benchmarks coming out of CNET or ZDNET showed VISTA was as fast or faster after the system had time to settle (index and stuff). DirectX aside that would seem to be consistant with what I'm seeing.

End is nigh for Vista as well

[nurb432]

With its low adoption rate due to practical issues, and now that its been announced that Win7 is 'coming soon', Vista will have the same fate as WinME: A distant reminder of a really big screw up by an over confident monopoly that thinks it knows better then its cusotmers.

One man's cruft is another man's feature

[davidwr]

Name all the "features" of Vista not in XP.

For almost every one of them, someone out there loves it and someone out there hates it.

I'm with you on Win95, although I'd probably go with WinNT because it has a better security model.

What about compatibility problems?

[edxwelch]

Don't really care about the speed of Vista versus XP (as long as the difference isn't too big). What is important is the tools that we need to do the job work and on Vista they don't.
Even getting everything to work fine on XP is a challange, and when you're under pressure to finish a project on time, migrating to a quirky problemic OS like Vista is the last thing you need.

So, what does Dell do when the company says give us 100 PCs with XP, or else we get them somewhere else? Does MS really have so much power that they can make Dell and HP loose sales like this?

Re:What about compatibility problems?

[shentino]

Yes.

Why?

Well, if MS won't give Dell the licenses it needs to pre-install XP, then Dell can't sell them...and neither can anyone else. Dell won't lose sales here except to customers who just plain drop out of the market completely.

Mac

[microbox]

You might have to spend $600.00 or whatever it is to get Photoshop, and get used to the idea that you'll have to run it in Vista whether you want it or not.

Or you could run photoshop OS X, the one true platform.

My invention

[symbolset]

Let me show you it.

Vista is here. Get used it.

[Oshkoshjohn]

If the person who sold you the new box sold you an underpowered XP machine running Vista Home, you are guaranteed to be unhappy with the performance. With basic system overhead of over one gig of RAM, you gotta have two gigs to run Vista. There is NO Vista-capable box costing $500 at Wal-Mart. A 4-gig box running Vista Ultimate 64-bit can cost well over 1,000 dollars. Add dual HD's, DL DVD burner, and a nice video card, and you'll be dancing toward 2,000 dollars. Add a nice LED monitor, and you will be at 2,500 dollars or more. Your BushCo (TM) tax rebate will not be much help here.

If you think that's bad...

[symbolset]

You should try ArcGIS or my personal least favorite ICVerify. They're sick. Somebody should talk to them.

Citrix, not Cygwin

[symbolset]

Cygwin is a Windows port of some GNU utilities.

Citrix is a helper for Remote Desktop. You use it from a client box to, for example, run Windows applications on the server _as if_ they were in your computer. It's cross platform. With it you can use Office from your Linux desktop until your migration is complete. It has a lot of other neat useful features too.

Re:Citrix, not Cygwin

[dhavleak]

Yeah, I know what they are, how they work, and I've used them many many times. There are valid reasons you would want to use a Citrix type thin-client approach, but avoiding windows isn't one of them. The question remains -- what problem did you have in the first place, that the citrix client is solving?

I only mentioned cygwin because someone else on the thread had mentioned it. I have no idea what that was gonna achieve, but the Citrix and VMWare sessions suggested on this thread aren't solving any problem either.

Just another case

[hairyfeet]

Of Microsoft not getting it. I'm sure someone in marketing thinks this is a grand idea, "Hey-we'll just kill off XP and then folks will HAVE to take Vista and like it!". No they won't. Microsoft needs to learn the simple truth that as far as John Q. Public is concerned Vista=WinME II. The bad press, the bad reviews, and word of mouth have come together to make this OS a giant expensive turkey. And with all of the changes they made for changes sake, the bloat, and the DRM, the entire OS just has a "designed by a committee in marketing" fell to it. That, and they built it thinking the no matter how much of a bloaty the pig they made it that Moore's law would save them. Turns out to be not the case.

If MSFT had anyone with common sense left there they would keep XP afloat by repackaging XP SP3 like they did for XP SP2 back in '04 and ride it and Vista until they can get Windows 7 out the door. But it is clear that between killing XP and the talk about making Windows 7 more of a subscription model that anyone at MSFT that knew what their customers wanted has left the building. But in all my years repairing Windows machines I have not seen more hatred directed towards an MSFT OS than I have towards Vista. The gamers hate the way it sucks resources, casual users hate the way things were changed around, and even on new hardware I've seen Vista drag a machine down to a crawl.

Well, as someone who tried Vista and ran away from that abortion of an OS as fast as I could, I say good luck MSFT. I will not be touching Vista, and the customers that come in saying how much they hate it and "Couldn't you just make it act like XP?" I'll be recommending they allow me to replace it with XP, where possible. But someone at MSFT better wake up and see the writing on the wall. Hell, Steve Jobs couldn't have wrote a better advert for Apple if they tried, and Linux is getting easier by the day. Another bloated DRM laden abortion of an OS from them and the customers that are hanging onto XP hoping that Windows 7 doesn't suck will have no choice but to move on. But that is my 02c on the subject,YMMV.

This is slashdot

[symbolset]

We've been having this same flamewar twice a week for years, and all the posters in this thread know it. All the same people are throwing up all the same strawmen on both sides of the issue.

Do you really think that DAldredge doesn't know about Citrix and Xen and VMware? He's been posting on Slashdot since 1999. He's interested in the macroeconomics of the software business which means he's probably in the trade. I know it and he knows it and you know it too. He's making fun of twitter and pushing his agenda. I'm making fun of him and pushing mine.

It's all a show for the lurkers and the newbies, for karma and ego and the joy of struggle. We know we aren't going to win over each other. The best we can do is get the issues in front of everybody else.

It's a discussion blog. That's what it's for. If we gave it up we'd have to go outside or something [shudder]. You wouldn't want this many pasty faced geeks wandering the streets would you? It'd look like a scene from Sean of the Dead.

Re:This is slashdot

[h4rm0ny]

Well, I'll admit - I didn't expect such an entertaining reply! :) Especially like the "Bias? This is SLASHDOT!!!!" banner change. But regards your comment - no I wasn't aware of the history of either of you and lack the context that you so obviously work in. Thus for myself (and I guess a lot of other people), flamewars in which two factions twist arguments to win, aren't necessarily productive. Don't wish to detract from your fun, but when I see a comment that shows the pushing of an agenda, that side immediately loses points from the audience. I guess it depends on what you seek to gain from the battle whether that matters or not.

Cheers,
-H.

just as many others have said:

[Anonymous Coward]

If the user base of XP remains large and stubborn, and if Microsoft themselves stop trying to support their own product (not that they provide much for support anyways), there will be plenty of third parties to step in. And also, video game developers will start thinking that developing Vista-only games will become more and more of a niche-market.

It's just a matter of whether or not the large and stubborn user base gives in to Microsoft's veiled threats, or if 2008 really does become The Year.

I am starting to hate SlashDot... OpenOffice?

[TheNetAvenger]

OpenOffice.org's productivity suite.

A test that ignores ALL of Vista's performance tools, options, smartfetch break in, and they runs benchmarks based on 'legacy' components of an Open Source project.

Is everything really this stupid now?

It is bad enough that some of the features Open Office taps into are considered legacy, and only availble in Vista for compatibilty, and have horrible performance in Vista when using these tools in this benchmark senerio, but to use a fresh install, with no optimization, and even turning off features in Vista that are designed to speed it up?

WTF are these people trying to prove or smoking.... Go to any freaking gaming site and look up games like Oblivion that run 20% faster on Vista, or other games that run equal to XP or 5% faster in recent benchmarks.

If a freaking game on the Vista WDDM model can outperform freaking XP, then a fucking wordprocessor is NOT GOING TO BE SLOWER ON VISTA, unless you are retarded and use retarded testing.

I wish our freaking tech labs wasn't private, so I could show our benchmarks that discredit crap like this to the point of being ridiculous. But hey, our company only advises EDS, NASA, and other little 'companies'...

Slashdot, how much shit will you support being made up to support a point that isn't even 'furthering' FOSS. You and your readers spend more time tearing down MS than building up any OSS project. WTF is wrong with you, don't you realize this makes MS automatically win, as you are obsessed with them?

I have virtually no faith left in this site or crap that gets to the front page.

This action will force me to pirate XP...

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been a good number of years since I've bothered to pirate anything (the need has not been there, and I don't listen to much music or watch many movies), but my business needs programs that only run on XP (there is no Vista support yet, and the manufacturers have been rather slow in saying when Vista support will exist, if it will at all).

When the manufacturer /does/ eventually get Vista support, we'll have to buy the software all over again (~US$40,000, if the cost is similar to the cost i was on XP) to do what it already does but on a different machine (when our XP machines have to be replaced in the years to come).

Unfortunately, if we are updating our computers, especially with Vista, we won't have enough money to throw at the software. This will force us to continue using computers that are no longer fit for such heavy use.

The only option I see in a case like that, is to either pirate XP, or look into how much it will cost to have the software developed for Linux.

Using the cost for the software under XP (again, roughly US$40,000, or about US$1,400 per license with 26 licenses plus tax), the cost of the computers with the specs we need (~US$30,000 with 26 computers at ~US$1,100 each plus tax), and then Vista on top of that (we'd have to look into which version we'd need [the lowest] but for this example, I'll use the upgrade for Business edition, at US$200 a pop, so $6,000 for that when counting tax), we're looking at US$76,000 right there (it may seem unfair counting the US$30,000 from the computers themselves, since we'd have to buy them anyway, but this is looking at the issue for us as a whole, since we can't budget US$46,000 when we need US$76,000).

That is assuming we don't grow between now and then.

For a small company, that is a sizable chunk of money, and unfortunately, something tells me it will cost more than US$46,000 to develop what we need for an entirely new OS. Granted, we might be able to then sell it out to other companies who would like to try switching, but there is the very real risk of running into patent conflicts, which we can't afford.

So really, unless the prices on everything we need drop drastically between now and 2010 (when we plan to start upgrading a few of our computers), the only option we're going to be left with is running a pirated version of XP.

And no, Macs are not an option. For one, the software we need does not exist for Macs. Secondly, the computers we need cost upwards of US$1,800 for a Mac, as opposed to the ~US$1,100 for PC.

We do still have the discs from our current XP installs, but the issue comes up with putting them on new computers. One would think MS would still permit users with the discs to use them, but... This is MS we're talking about, and this is still two years away before we even START updating the computers (we don't expect to finish until 2012, doing 8, 8 and 10).

I realize it may not seem like a lot of money for a company, but the owner tries to pay us a good, fair wage. When your year-to-year net profits are only a couple hundred thousand dollars, dropping almost US$100,000 on computers and software is not something that can be done at the drop of a hat.

oblig..

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying to people making games "Oh I guess you should start working only on proprietary systems that require either fees or homebrew cracks to get them to work" is madness!

Madness? - THIS IS SLASHDOT! (*kicks and runs away*)

Re:Experience is helpful here.

[colinrichardday]

Perhaps the OP did not mean that Microsoft was on a crusade against evil 9in the 80's (or that IBM is on such a crusade today). He might have agreed with Adam Smith in saying that Microsoft, by pursuing its own interests against IBM, promoted the public welfare better than if it had deliberately sought to promote the public welfare (unintended consequences).

i MYSELF have extended Xp's lifetime indefinitely.

[unity100]

last night ... i said to myself, 'hey this sh@t is working, so why should i change it ?'. and with that Xp had its lifetime extended indefinitely in my home.

Vista? Some Companies still have Win 2000

[bdhobbs]

I just finished a project at a large US HMO (70,000+ employees). We installed XP replacing Win 2000. That's right, in 2007 we installed XP, and only in one region, meaning most of the company is still on 2000. I doubt this is the only company out there like this. B

Why Bother with Win 7 comming?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last Article i read was looking at Windows 7, teh subscription version, where MS would be sacrificing the bulk of backards compatibility to move forward.

If that's the case, why bother killing XP and risking defectors to other OSs now? If it's 2 years away, let people use what they want for now and go for the
big conversion later. Trying to get folks to upgrade now and then hitting them again in 2 years is just gonan piss off even the mom and pops who don't watch the industry.

Zen answer

[symbolset]

The answer lies within the question. The reason you're not getting an answer from anyone here is because it's answered by the question.

It's obvious to everybody else here. Examine the question again and you might see it now. If not there's nothing anybody here can do to help you see it.

Re:Zen answer

[dhavleak]

The answer lies within the question. The reason you're not getting an answer from anyone here is because it's answered by the question.

It's obvious to everybody else here. Examine the question again and you might see it now. If not there's nothing anybody here can do to help you see it. Oh good grief -- stop taking yourself so seriously!

The question was, "what was the problem you are trying to solve by using VMs, Citrix clients, etc." -- your answer is that you see Windows as the problem. And that's exactly my point -- you are on a crusade to get rid of windows, hence the impractical solutions to problems that don't exist. OP's point was simply that there are some fairly important apps on windows for which there aren't good alternatives on other OSes. He's got a valid point, but people keep replying with completely impractical 'solutions'. If your objective is to 'get stuff done' -- you'll just choose whatever platform and do it -- be it windows/linux/os-x whatever. If you're on a mission to run one OS at any cost, don't expect other people to run VMs and hosted apps etc.

And please spare me the answer-lies-within-the-question no-one-here-can-help-you psychobabble!

Not all titles are ported to PLAYSTATION 3

[tepples]

What about current and next gen games? How do I get those to work? This wikipedia link should help. Unfortunately, the developer of the specific current and next gen titles that I'm looking at is too small for Sony to consider offering a devkit. What is my next step?

What kind of additional resources?

[tepples]

Applications that you would like to use are unavailable because the companies don't want to invest additional resources (although in an major OS swap there are lots of applications that need to get replaced). But symbolset recommended switching from Windows to PLAYSTATION 3. In the case of consoles, the majority of "additional resources" involved in porting a game are not at all technical. There's a lot more business overhead involved in getting a console devkit than in just installing GCC on a commodity PC running Windows or GNU/Linux, especially completely non-technical overhead such as leasing office space.

Interoperability?

[tepples]

Your complaints don't make sense. Nobody uses Microsoft Office with the specific goal of using Office. They word process, or work with spreadsheets, or make a presentation. All of which can be done under Linux. Sure, if you work in a vacuum, OOo can suffice. But can the following be done under Linux?

1. word processing by editing documents created by other people, the majority of whom use Microsoft Office Word
2. working with spreadsheets by editing workbooks containing formulas, charts, and macros created by other people, the majority of whom use Microsoft Office Excel
3. making a presentation with other people, the majority of whom use Microsoft Office PowerPoint
4. especially: running an accounting and inventory management application developed by other people, which happens to run on top of Microsoft Office Access and Visual Basic for Applications

What first step should a business do to reduce its dependency on Microsoft Office, especially item 4?

Re:Interoperability?

[jlarocco]

Do you people even try the sfotware you're shitting on? OOo can read and write most Office documents without any problem. From what I've seen, the worst case scenario is there *may* be some formatting issues. I've heard rumors that the paid version of StarOffice is even more compatible than OOo, but I haven't used it myself.

Besides that, telling people "Sorry the formatting is a little off, we just saved $250k by not buying Office" is only going to make your company look good.

Also, your last complaint is irrelevant. If you weren't going to buy Office, you certainly wouldn't buy super expensive accounting software built on top of it. Even if you were that stupid, most employees don't use accounting and inventory management software, so you can save money by only buying Office for the accountants.

VBA in OO.o?

[tepples]

In that case my answer would be to use OO.o to convert them to a standard format, except for the ones that stupidly require vendor specific software. How well does OO.o Base run off-the-shelf accounting and inventory management software written in Access and Visual Basic for Applications? Or which free accounting and inventory management software that imports databases from such software should I try? Google didn't exactly help.

Kernel-mode code signing

[tepples]

But who's fault is that "hardware X" is not supported on Vista? In addition to what you mentioned, the blame falls on VeriSign for charging so much for Authenticode certificates. Especially on 64-bit platforms, Windows Vista has much stricter code signing requirements than Windows XP for any code that accesses hardware, such as sound card drivers. A lot of hardware makers, especially hobbyist hardware hackers, don't sell their products in enough volume to be able to afford the new process.

I don't use this

[symbolset]

But you might try GnuCash

OK fine

[symbolset]

A computer is a good general purpose tool. He wants to use this tool to do generic things -- office work, accounting, games. He didn't ask "how do I do these things?" He asked "How do I run these specific programs that require Windows in Linux?" The thing is, he did know the answer. He's a pro and he's had this argument on Slashdot a thousand times. He just wants me to trot out the same tired answers again for the sake of the readers who haven't heard. And you know these answers too. You're just badgering me because you think you'll prove my answer is wrong. You won't, because the question wasn't "how do I run these programs without Windows?" He could have asked that but he didn't.

Since we're here, let's look at why they don't run in Linux. Is it because Linux is not a good general purpose OS? No. Is it because Linux is not flexible, fast, resourceful enough? No. Why then? Because the people who write the programs specifically wrote them to not run in Linux. Why did they do that? To trap him into using another OS and its complete cradle to grave end to end integrated system with all its negatives.

Now the whole point of this thread is that XP is dying, Vista is a horror soon to end and we have no clue whether the next version of Windows is better or worse. Escaping the trap seems a reasonable thing to do to at least many of the people in this thread.

If you run Linux and create a base VM with Windows XP, activate it and keep it going, nothing bad is going to happen to it. It won't expire. It won't deactivate. It will continue to run your important programs that you've already bought from now until the end of time. As you get new equipment you can move the VM to it without going through the reinstall process. You can conveniently make waypoint images of your VM and roll them back if it gets corrupted. It's safe because you don't have to browse the web in it and you can limit its access to the network. If it turns out the next version of Windows is the best thing since sliced bread, you can upgrade to that.

With this answer you're not Windows free, but you are off the upgrade train from hell. Specifically to the question you are "running these programs in Linux." When your needs grow you can implement new programs in your Linux environment, where the pressure to keep moving you along is not present. As solutions to these problems are available in Linux you can migrate your workflows there. Eventually in your Windows VM there will be nothing left to migrate and you can delete it. The Citrix answer is similar except that the VM is in the server room and your desktop machine can be something less powerful or more mobile, or you can take the savings of not running Windows on it and apply them to doing more and better work.

And so the answer to the question, "how to run these programs that require Windows in Linux?" (this is the actual question he asked) is, with a VM and XP as a compatibility layer. You don't have quit Windows cold turkey. You can switch it out gradually in stages, painlessly, with the option to go back if you feel you must. But if you want to do this you have to act now because soon XP won't be available as a retail package you can install in a VM.

The alternative is to keep shuffling along the Windows upgrade train on Microsoft's schedule accepting whatever comes whether you like it or not. Escaping the trap will never be easier than it is now. But if that's not your thing and you want a ride on the Windows 7 Express, fine. Happy trails.

Re:OK fine

[dhavleak]

You're just badgering me because you think you'll prove my answer is wrong. You won't, because the question wasn't "how do I run these programs without Windows?" He could have asked that but he didn't. His whole point was that there isn't a good alternative to running that stuff on Windows -- that's why he didn't ask the question you want him to ask. I'm not badgering you into running windows -- I'm telling you to stop badgering people about running linux at any cost.

You don't have quit Windows cold turkey You don't have to quit windows at all if it meets your needs.

Now the whole point of this thread is that XP is dying, Vista is a horror soon to end and we have no clue whether the next version of Windows is better or worse. The whole point of the article was a chance for you (and many more) to trot out the usual "Vista is a nightmare" lines. I run Vista (64-bit) on 2 desktops and a laptop and it's brilliant. I use linux too, but Vista is by far my OS of choice. To each their own though -- you won't catch me badgering anyone into running Vista -- you will however see me defend anybody being badgered about not running it, especially when they're being offered crazy solutions to problems that don't exist.

Re:Vista is slower than XP. So what?

[ratboy666]

MS DOS -- policy is that the running application gets ALL resources. Of course that is "fast". But, if there are more resources than the program uses, these resources are wasted (while that program runs).

Windows (up to 3) -- Event driven graphics library and some utilities on top of MS-DOS. Generally, the underlying policy is that of MS DOS, but co-operative sharing is supported. Resource control is not imposed. Since co-operation is not enforced, performance can be at the "MS DOS" level. Windows 3.1 also supports v86 (crossover with Windows 9x).

Windows 95, 98 -- some forced resource control (underlying v86 "virtual" mode). Above that level, co-operation needed. Programs may not execute quite as fast as MS DOS, but (1) 32 bit is available, and (2) resource sharing and control is possible.

Windows 2000/XP -- Complete resource control, could even extend to multi-user. Again, MS DOS could be faster, but only if interrupt driven i/o, and resource management was written into the DOS application (generally not the case). A "real" filesystem with performance support. Finally, matches Unix in terms of "raw" features.

Windows VISTA -- Evolution of 2000/XP. Doesn't offer additional resource control for the user (UAC is arguable). Does offer controls for "content vendors".

The first version of Windows that could possibly be compared to Unix (Linux) is 2000/XP. Resource control is similar. On this basis, Linux offers a POSIX standard API, multiple filesystems, and good driver support. 2000/XP offers a non-standard API, a single "reasonable" filesystem, and poor driver support. The user interface in 2000/XP is very polished; Linux supports command line interface for most features, which end-users view as a negative. Linux performance is carefully nurtured, with a great deal of research and testing (continual refinement of memory management, processor management, i/o management). Windows offers MAJOR code drops (VISTA) claimed to increase performance, or add features. There is no (or very little) stepwise refinement, or open research. This has made Linux directly competitive with Solaris while Windows offers a more polished end-user experience.

There is NO ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONALITY in an OS. Resource control. If the GUI is included, it is the effective and speedy support of the GUI API (Graphics Programming Model). The standard here, of course, is OpenGL. Is Linux OpenGL support worse than Windows? Possibly, because Windows is the first-tier support for ATI and nVidia. However, MESA is still the standard software renderer for OpenGL. This means that Windows has an advantage in utilizing GPU capability; I can't comment on the management of those features. The (in my opinion) largest driver for VISTA release was sharing GPU capability to allow a "3D desktop" with 3D applications. Linux incorporates compositing, and actually premiered these features before VISTA. However, I find the ATI drivers to not be usable (on an IBM T43 laptop). The nVidia driver is usable, but its resource control cannot be examined. Of course, Microsoft follows a different drummer (little/no standards support), so XP and VISTA use "DirectX" natively.

To be more specific, on the T43, if compositing is used to allow a "3D desktop", xv (hardware video acceleration/scaling) results in a "black window", and OpenGL applications "flicker" rendering them unusable. The desktop compositing has to be disabled before running these applications. Using MESA as the OpenGL engine is possible, but the applications then do not exploit the hardware. This is a big LOSE for ATI, the T43 and Linux.

Which means VISTA wins, based on graphics resource control. The other features do not need more processing (memory, cpu resource control), and VISTA is claimed to have superior caching (as compared to XP). So VISTA should be faster than XP on the T43. I have not personally tried it (POSIX is far to important to me), but here is a comment from the web (google "T43 VISTA"):

"All of the MS specific apps are faster. IE7 is almost

Re:It's called monopoly, anti-competitive practice

[Anonymous Coward]

"M$"? "Windoze"? The 90s called, they want their passe advocacy style back.

Offtopic?

[Anonymous Coward]

As of this posting parent was +1 insightful, +1 offtopic.
I take this as modding from one of the micosoft crowd.
Unfortunately neither offtopic nor overrated show up in metamoderation, so I encourage you to add a +1 modifier to them in your user settings like I have.

To continue the thread I see pirating Microsoft products as being the lesser of two evils. I consider it more evil to support a monopoly than to copy their software.

If the parent is wrong, please cite court cases to disprove.

Fun times

[symbolset]

Did 68000 and x86 assembler myself, but still fun either way.

I wrote an interpreter for 6502 assembler once on a lark. That was fun. I wonder what happened to it.

I personally like Lisp/Scheme quite a bit.

After looking at the picture of 6000 pages of OOXML specification the 50 pages used to define Scheme seems positively terse. Certainly high art there.

While I did find snobol interesting you couldn't say I'm pining for it. The spitbol package for GNAT did make it easier to use from Ada. I knew one of the guys that worked on the IronMan implementation of Ada. I stole his girlfriend for a while. Oh Lottie! I haven't forgotten you.

Of course for terse nobody has yet beaten APL. Now that's when programmers were real men worthy of respect.

'Tis the dream of each programmer

Before his life is done,

To write three lines of APL

And make the damn thing run.

Ok, that's enough memory lane time for me. All languages aren't really the same. Except that they are. Kids these days, they should stay off my lawn.

Office upgrade treadmill

[tepples]

Do you people even try the sfotware you're shitting on? OOo can read and write most Office documents without any problem. I know OOo has worked for my documents (.doc, .xls, and .ppt), but I haven't read any success stories about it working for Access+VBA applications (.mdb/.accdb).

If you weren't going to buy Office, you certainly wouldn't buy super expensive accounting software built on top of it. We've already bought Microsoft Office 2007, but we don't want to buy into the upgrade treadmill. I'm trying to develop a plan to switch from it by 2010. Yes, I know it may involve switching from our accounting package, which is why I'm also looking for accounting packages.

Re:New Hardware

[Technician]

Hell, I got a new PC with Vista included (couldn't buy it without) and I got rid of it as soon as I could (well, I tried it for a weekend and decided it was crap).

Bare hard drives are cheap. Simply swap out the drive for a big drive. If you have hardware problems in warranty, swap it back for the vendor. Let them figure out why it hasn't been booted since you bought it and let them deal with all the factory installed crap nag screens. A recent HP laptop took over 20 minutes from initial power on to get to the point of creating a user account. I gave up. It's quicker to plug in another drive and install Ubuntu. When done, it works and is free of the cruft.