Slashdot Mirror
If Windows 7 Fails, Citrix (Not Linux) Wins
Julie188 writes "Microsoft blogger Mitchell Ashley, who has been using Windows 7 full-time, predicts that Windows 7 will fail to lure XP users away from their beloved, aging operating system — after all, Windows 7 is little more than what Vista should have been, when it shipped two years ago. But eventually old PCs must be replaced and then we'll see corporations, desperate to get out of the expense of managing Windows machines, get wise. Instead of buying new Windows 7 PCs, they could deliver virtualized XP desktops to a worker's own PC and/or mobile device. Ashley believes that Citrix's Project Independence has the right idea."
... the Citrix desktop!
If all I need is a netbook running linux (cheaper), or a newer computer, again, with linux, in order to hit the citrix backend, isn't this a net win for linux?
People will leave XP for whatever the next MS milestone is.
They are not going Mac or Linux. The apps are not there.
This slashdot editorial stance is making you guys look like the fox news of the open source movement.
for when hell freezes over.
Although if Microsoft had an option in 7 to "make it look like XP" it would be a good thing.
Really, Citrix? If anyone ever asks me about it again I will go postal. Are you seriously saying you need 4 beefy servers to run 50 users' Outlook and Internet Explorer and then still have it go dog slow.
Citrix has some good ideas and technology. The implementation however is usually very bad. It's the Peoplesoft of virtualization.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
In my experience Citrix has some serious out-of-band issues with modifier keys on Linux and Mac OS X. Shift key events don't send correctly.
I type so fast that I mean "Citrix" and I get "cItrix"
I've tested this on Ubuntu 7.10, 8.04, and 8.10, and my friends report issues on Mac OS X.
Is he any relation to Sugar by any chance? :)
Anyway I was going to say I like XP. It works and does what I want and need it to do on my non-networked system at home. If I later get myself another PC and want to network them, I'll update to XP Pro. I personally wouldn't use Vista if someone paid me to use it - some of the horror stories I've heard - although they may have since been fixed since it was released perhaps. And using the old computer adage if it ain't broke don't fix it, I think Win7 can wait ... and wait and ...
He makes a great point. However, i wouldnt diss linux in that play. Its not stoping either, citrix is not exactly cheap and XP will still be for pay/per head.
This are good times for linux anyhow.
NO SIG
to sell the 'ultimate' version only, and for 50 bucks to people who need to upgrade a current system.
It needs to be ab;eto run on those machines.
It also needs be 64 bit with a nice emulator to run legacy apps.
Ironically, MS brought this problem on themselves with Access.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
How is this a 'win' for Citrix? Every time I've used it it's been buggy (From OS X Client) and slow (over normal Cable). A local virtual machine beats this hands down. In 5 years I will be able to run XP just fine on my 64bit, 5Ghz octo-core, 16GB of ram and have VMWare make a nice 32bit, 3GB of ram, dual processor for XP.
That's just propoganda nonsense. If the scenario actually holds true, then Virtual Engineering wins. This means VMWare's enterprise desktop virtualization, and possibly Citrix might get a piece. This is just a little Citrix plug. Wouldn't quite call it news.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
When XP has totally rotten away we will finally see Office for OSX and Linux. Yes I know Office for OSX exists but it isn't even very compatible with Office for Windows so it doesn't count yet.
-- Cheers!
Hell I'm still using Mandriva 7 on my laptop and I'm still perfectly happy with it. I am not upgrading it to the last one or tu Ubuntu (insert the latest stupid name here). My Mac is running Tiger. Don't need Leopard or some stupid shining Time machine, thank you very much.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
I wonder if VMware View will fare better than Citrix. http://www.vmware.com/products/view/ A lot more companies have VMware and VMware experience than Citrix. Ultimately I think in higher ed we will see Linux and Mac numbers increase. Especially in general purpose labs.
I'm currently working with vdm and Sun's SunRay Server software...
It's very nice, and since the virtual desktop machines sit on the ESX cluster, hardware upgrades are too damned easy...
Install the new hardware, load esx, add to the cluster and migrate running VMs as needed (or watch them migrate automatically if any of the old cluster members are overloaded)...
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
...is that this summer when I plan on purchasing a new PC, I better have the option of having XP as the only OS on the computer. No dual boot XP/Vista, no Windows 7, just XP.
Wasn't the general concensus yesterday that "cloud" computing and web apps were too slow and too server intensive?
I don't see how offloading all the processing to giant centralized servers is cheaper and more efficient than giving everybody an inexpensive computer that can actaully run the applications needed.
"Never complain about slowness again." Yeah I'm sure running XP over the internet or intranet is going to be lightning fast, there'll be no backwards compatibility issues and everything will be glorious. More likely it'll be worse than runing Vista.
I remember back in college our dreamy eyed IT director wanted to switch all of our labs to thin clients. "Really you want to switch 60 top of the line workstations which need to stream HD video, render raytraced scenes and provide high frame rate viewports all on one server for 100+ people? What are you going to do stack 100 Quadro cards inside of a server along with 50 dual core processors? And you don't expect any software incompatibility problems?"
This is the IT person's dream. "No more computers to manage woohoo!" Unfortunately makes not sense in an environment where people actually need to use a computer.
Recent processors have very nice virtual machine support. KVM and qemu are great. From there on out it's clonezilla to the rescue.
You've got XP licenses, why not use them until the organization can migrate off windows and onto Linux? KVM will certainly get you there or even let you run your old app inside a vm. I did this for a guy that still uses a dos-based Real Estate application. He was stunned and supremely thankful.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Microsoft have screwed their customers over and over again. The customers don't learn, or don't care. For any other field, they'd notice that their supplier had replaced junk with more junk and they'd go somewhere else. Or they'd notice that they were dangerously exposed by buying a single-sourced product and would look for a safer source.
But for some reason they're blind to these basic business rules. They'll whinge and moan and negotiate temporary discounts but in the end they'll just keep buying what Microsoft tell them too, because they're sheep.
Suppose this does come true. You're still paying MS for licensing at some point whether it's a VM or a real one. (I was actually wondering about this sort of idea the other day...our company is leary of VPN access to personal machines, so why not package up a VM and they can use that...their potentially infected machine doesn't actually touch the network itself right?)
Everyone really is terrified by the idea of the Linux desktop aren't they.
;-)
Linux is use is growing here for people home use, even among non-programmers. It's free and fast. That's winning people. I think Linux is going main stream, and the more it does the more it will. It's coming up from the notebooks and down from the servers. It really does seam like the whole of the GNU/Linux world is going critical mass. Sorry Windows guys, you worse fears are coming.
Can Microsoft or any other person in the know tell us what exactly is wrong with Windows XP? I cannot see the problem with it.
I use XP all the time and I can say that I am quite satisfied so far. Sometimes I just do not get it, therefore I wonder why Microsoft would want to replace it.
I'm just pontificating here but I think we might not see the vast sweeping in of some new wholly dominant OS but a fragmentation of various solutions that work. A company might run a uniform platform just for IT's sake but that doesn't mean the company next door is running the same flavor.
I really like OSX but I don't think Apple is trying to position it for the corporate desktop. The friendly Linuxes like Ubuntu remain incredibly strong.
People have been predicting the era of the thinclient for years. Their arguments were compelling but nothing happened. There's advantages to having thick clients and you're simply not going to be able to deliver graphically-intensive content over the pipe, not for at least another generation or three.
My prediction for what might make sense (not that it will 100% happen but at least is plausible) is for businesses to go with thick client closed box PC's. The phone system is the model here. There's nothing to tweak inside a PC anymore. There's not really any such thing as computer repair. At most you have a hard drive go bad, rarely a stick of ram dies. For the most part any problem is going to be software.
What we're going to see is all-in-one PC's on the typical desktop, built like the new iMac with the computer sitting in the back of the monitor. (Though there will also be the option of connecting a pure thinclient to the same network.) Easy to install, easy to replace. It will have a custom linux install on it and can run apps either locally or via citrix windows. These all-in-one PC's will also have multiple video ports so that additional monitors can be driven from the same machine. Legacy Windows apps will run in Wine, complicated legacy apps will be served via the citrix or whatever server, and new apps will probably be developed for Linux but served out for the legacy Windows boxes. That's the situation we're in now with web appps acting as the platform-agnostic way of serving data to PC, Mac, Linux, phones, etc.
I think for the typical 20 person office there will be one server in the back room running everything, maybe a failover box duplicating all of the resources. The major apps are housed locally so that they can keep working in case of a network problem but it will all phone back to the main office for synchronizaiton. Database-driven apps will work along the Google Gears model where offline copies of recent data are stored on the client or at the location's server so that failover from network problems is seamless. And because telephony is all going to IP, your phone guys and your computer guys will eventually become the same guy, it'll all fall under the aegis of "office electronic stuff."
I think we're going to see much longer product upgrade cycles since there isn't a compelling reason to upgrade every 2-3 years. We might see terminals lasting happily for 8-10 years, maybe longer. There will still be big-box PC's in the office for those who need something special but that will be the exception.
Now just because this all seems reasonable that's not to say it'll happen this way. But I just see a migration away from Windows, it seems like Microsoft simply cannot innovate fast enough these days. (maybe wishful thinking, maybe not.)
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
If he is talking about existing PC's then I agree. My gut tells me that most regular people never upgrade their operating system anyway.
If he is talking about businesses making the move when they replace equipment then I suspect he is quite wrong. Most businesses have avoided Vista not because they love XP, but because Vista has issues and requires beefy hardware. Windows 7 has two things going for it in this regard.
The first is that it does seem to be quite an improvement over Vista. I've used it continuously for the past three weeks and I quite like it. I do not like Vista. The Vista shell pisses me off for many different reasons that I won't go into here. Windows 7 fixes all of my little pet peeves and I really like the new window manager.
The second is that what was beefy expensive hardware when Vista shipped is now standard kit and quite inexpensive. Businesses in the U.S. can depreciate computers over five years. Any businesses PC purchased before 2005 will have fully depreciated by the time Windows 7 is an option and companies will be upgrading to new machines. A high-end computer purchased in 2005 or earlier probably did a terrible job running Vista. Most entry-level computers purchased in 2007-2008 to replace PCs purchased in 2002-2003 will run Windows 7 just fine.
Windows 7 will see significant uptake in businesses compared to Vista.
Citrix doing well at the moment comparatively speaking, shame they decided to lay off 10% of their workforce last year...
Citrix is freaking expensive too!
And when you look at the difficulties and TCO on a Citrix farm, you're really no better off than if you just had a 5 year technology replacement plan anyways.
And when you look at what Citrix is trying to do, centralizing application execution, compared to the rise of Web Apps and instant deployments (click-once and the like), there is really no big gain by going to Citrix unless you are locked in to proprietary software that only runs on Windows.
Honestly though, you are significantly better off sticking to a 5 year replacement plan and pushing for web and low impact distributable applications.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Microsoft blogger Mitchell Ashley...
Mitchell Ashley is not a Microsoft blogger. He's a blogger who often writes about Microsoft products. Not the same thing.
He's not related to Microsoft, never has been. http://www.linkedin.com/in/mitchellashley
Lets face it ME showed that already and what exactly ever happened to windows 1 2 and 3 (remember, the windows 3 we know and ***** is actually 3.11 (or something like that)).
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Nope, only 10.6.
No Machine so far has been a great alternative for VNC and the like to work with remote Linux desktops and even virtually. I've tried both their free NX server edition and the FreeNX server. FreeNX still needs some love/work in making it easier to get up and going, especially on Debian. The free NX server edition works better than FreeNX because I've been experiencing refresh/display corruption over time using FreeNX and not with the retail/free NX server using the same NX client (of which is always free, currently anyway) on Windows and Linux desktops.
:)
I especially liked how extremely well NX works with slow connections, not necessarily slow on the client side, but with extremely pitiful 128kbps upload speeds from the server such as my home DSL connection when I'm away. I use to prefer VNC until I found out about NX of which is just more enhancements to the X11 protocol over SSH as far as I can tell (I'm definitely no expert as to what all goes in behind the scene). It Just Works(TM).
This space is not for rent.
"from their beloved, aging operating system "
Software does not age. People's requirements change. And that is just the problem (for MS), XP still meets the majority of needs for people.
The issue always come back around to compatibility and what software people are running. If a business refuses to upgrade their software in a ten year period, then it should be expected they will run into trouble.
There is a point where moving to a fairly recent platform is a good thing as well. Now, except for certain code, most programs designed around Windows XP run well under Vista. The real issue is compatibility in the business world, and places that run old DOS code that just doesn't run under Vista.
If Windows 7 has compatibility issues, VMware and other companies that make virtualization products will be the real winners. Run Windows 98 in a virtual machine if it is really needed. We have dual and quad core processors in every new machine, so all that is needed now is a good VM. Maybe Microsoft should provide a micro-WinXP that comes with Windows 7 Ultimate, just for this purpose.
It's all a move to push applications and data storage back to the glass house.
For some companies this is a very good idea.
For others it's not such a good idea.
Company, know thyself.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
No, seriously, stop. The only people that want or envision a Citrix or a "web" based primary OS are those in the field or an IT department that wants to get paid the same for doing less. If you want to know what is going to happen if Windows continues to lose market share due to a higher cost, increased unnecessary complexity and lack of understanding about their consumer base you don't need to guess, simply look at what is happening today. Yes, some of the consumers have gone to Linux but quite a few have gone to an Apple based device with Mac OS X. I believe virtualization technologies are great, use them every day, but they have a place and purpose and replacing the desktop is not one of those. Same as with Google and Chrome, no, Chrome is not an operating system nor does it even come close. It is, an application, a browser, and a very good one at that. People, corporate or personal, are tired of messing with their computers just to do simple tasks that are now a part of every day life. So few corporations and developers seem to understand that today.
I recommend against changing OSes mainly due to user-training costs.
The same logic applies to upgrading office-productivity software suites.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
...they could deliver virtualized XP desktops to a worker's own PC and/or mobile device...
Anybody else just throw up a little bit in their mouth?
/* No Comment */
IMHO, if you make it capable of looking like XP -- *identical*, don't force any of the our-designers-and-experts-say-this-is-better-for-you new GUI on people -- then it will succeed. Most people don't know or care a whole lot about new internals, they just don't want to go through hell for a week/month/whatever re-learning how to do stuff they already know how to do. Or, more appropriately, how to work around idiocies forced on them by "experts" who know better.
I was pretty stunned when Win 7 beta looked and smelled just like Vista, despite whatever under the hood changes were made, and it couldn't be made to work like XP from a GUI perspective.
Instead, MS will not supply an XP GUI for Win 7, will cut everyone off in the harshest manner from XP, and wonder why people remain pissed and them and suspect the motivation is just to sell more shit.
So it's been a while (like a decade) since I've used Citrix for work, but I'm pretty sure I hated it. Same thing with Exceed (performance and reliability really sucked compared to running cygwin+Xorg or even VNC).
I haven't been able to figure out from their website exactly what Project Independence is... though a link on the sidebar looks like it involves the Xen hypervisor. I think Xen is a good idea, I just haven't had any awesome experiences with it.
I do have lots of experience doing more or less exactly the same thing using the free VMware, VirtualBox, and qemu software. Those work great.
I run my "Work image" inside VMware, since I don't have or want all that much control over it. It's also a 32-bit WinXP image, and I'd rather run a 64-bit OS on the bare hardware. I use VirtuaWin to switch back and forth between the full-screen VMware guest session and the native Win2003 x64 Server running on my work laptop. That works pretty nice, though it took some experimentation to keep it from thrashing the pagefile with the VMware guest too much.
I still find VMware relatively cumbersome to install on Linux, so on those machines I much prefer running VirtualBox, which has simple Debian packages. I have WinXP and CentOS images there to run a few proprietary software packages that don't run under Debian for some silly reason.
Qemu is great for running and remastering KNOPPIX CDs / DVDs. It's a bit slower than the others, but much more straightforward.
FWIW, I just started playing with the Win7 Beta last week, and didn't think it was all that bad (I have actually never touched Vista). I think the transition from WinXP to Win7 will be easier than from Win3.11 to Win95 and also even from Win95 to WinXP; but maybe that's just because MS has trained me to expect it to be so much more painful :P But I didn't have too much of an issue with where they rearranged important control panel items and munged up the start menu this time.
My greatest complaint is that I can't make the "Start" icon smaller than 64x64 to shrink the size of the taskbar.
It took me a day or two to overcome the differences from XP->Vista. Sure, there are some reasons to stick with XP (specifically on older hardware), but the idea that it's so radically different from XP that users will require significant orientation is ridiculous.
Similes are like metaphors
It's pretty evident from things like Google Apps and Microsoft's Live that the antiquated idea of a thin client is not going to be making its way back into the business.
Enter the era of frugality. The decade of waste is over and now, whether by regulation or by pragmatic need to survive, business will be thinking about how to maximize the money that is available. Buying a newer version of the same thing isn't going to be happening anymore. Using the hardware and software that's already available will be more important than it ever was before.
Microsoft should just get smart and start charging for service pack updates to XP. Extend the life of the product and start monetizing it in different ways.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
Aside from the annoying repetitions, I really liked this part:
Hah! This ain't happening any time soon, at least not that I can see. Companies are extremely paranoid (with good reason) and in my experience will very rarely allow a connection to their networks (be it physical or through VPN) on hardware they don't own. Maybe small companies do, trading risk for lowered costs ("Hey, you got a laptop? Great!") but most don't. Not a chance.
If that's one of his premises, along with the we've-heard-it-all-before-thanks babble about how the next version of Windows is DOA, then the whole thing can be safely ignored.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
For all the way people are clinging to XP like Linus to his blanket, it really isn't a very good modern OS. It's very, very insecure.
I've been using Vista for almost two years now, and for all the hype about how bad it is, it's pretty damn solid. After getting used to the new UI, it's pretty usable (and this is without the new very nice usability enhancements in Windows 7). I have plenty of CPU and Memory so performance isn't an issue for me with Vista. And the biggest thing? I've been running it, attached to the internet, for two years without having an anti-virus program installed, and NO ISSUES. I don't think I could do that with XP for even a single day.
The fact is, Vista, and Windows 7 to come, are simply easier to use, and far FAR more secure. Hardly perfect, of course, but then neither is any other OS out there (and much of their "security" tends to be "security through obscurity", given they don't have critical mass to make writing viruses and worms "worth-while"). But XP to me now feels a lot like IE6... a flawed, insecure, somewhat crappy solution that everyone should just get over and move on from.
Having used Vista for a while, I can say I find going back to XP really annoying. Lack of the start-menu search is huge, for one thing. The "Luna" UI is ugly and distracting (just as I thought it was when trying to move to it from Windows 2000).
Basically, I think the resistence to Vista is over-hyped, and not based on any current reality (it's more based on the huge "Vista-Ready" snafu of Microsoft and Intel, where upgrading existing hardware resulted in really crappy performance, along with the GA release of Vista not having nearly the driver and application compatibility necessary... Vista SP1 pretty much resolves those issues). And since Windows 7 is receiving rave reviews, and doesn't have the major problems that affected the initial perception of Vista, I don't think there will be a serious issue of people NOT upgrading to it.... or getting it on a new PC and wanting to "down-grade" to XP.
Vista was a necessary and painful step for Microsoft to go through. The fundamental underlying changes they made were painful to users, but necessary for security. Windows 7 refines a lot of them to be less painful (UAC), while "time" has smoothed out the other pain points (updated drivers and applications).
I really don't think there will be any huge resistence to adopting Windows 7 when it's released.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Vista was universally shunned by people, and yet, Microsoft made ridicolous profits in the past few quarters. I can just imagine the sort of stupid money they'll make if Windows 7 is actually desired (instead of detested, as Vista rightfully is).
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I've been using computers since 1982, and working in various roles (mostly programmer, also sysadmin, NOC monkey & webdev) sincw 1996. In all that time, the only time I've ever seen Citrix in use was at one job where the only thing it did was give remote access to the payroll timeclock system. I think AmigaOS has a better chance of beating Windows 7 and Linux than does Citrix.
XP is a dead end and nothing will change that. The sunset may have hit rewind a time or two, but the march of time goes on and it was XP's deficiencies that gave legs to desktop Linux and OS X in the first place. Ironically, the sun is rising on Microsoft competitors just as XP is thrust into kamikaze mode.
Nobody is noticing that Google is shipping an easy-to-use, free, fast, pretty operating system?
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
If you think Linux just has a PR problem, you've never tried to see things from the perspective of someone who has no geeky interest in how their computer works. These are most of the people who want to stick to Windows XP because it is safe, stable and fairly easy to use.
Most of the people who say "oh, my wife or kid has no problem using Ubuntu" are also missing the point: your wife or kid has someone at home who actually knows how to use Linux. If they need to ask you how to do something, you're right there like their own permanent, free Geek Squad agent who is always happy to not only help, but take new steps to make things better.
desperate to get out of the expense of managing Windows machines
Not everyone is desperate. The summary, without reading the article, is obviously biased. It sounds like a disgruntled Windows users writing an article about disgruntled Windows users.
I love Linux and would personally rather use it, but I know plenty of people that are perfectly happy with Windows. And I know a lot of people that aren't. Typically, the ones that aren't are interested in Linux and Mac, and the ones that are happy don't switch. I guess that's "odd" behavior according to this guy, who does not appear to acknowledge that Windows EVER works. Considering the fact that most people use Windows, it's amazing anybody makes ANY money, if I take this viewpoint.
I have to use citrix (and in the past have used several different installations) and hate it. There is something wrong when you have to login to see your apps. Also, random weird connectivity issues or it just randomly being slow just makes it a bad option.
Citrix runs on top of windows. And your computer, regardless of who owns it, is going to come with some OS that can run the Citrix client. Citrix doesn't make such an operating system.
So, by this analysis, Citrix is poised to increase the number of OS licenses Microsoft sells. How is this Citrix "winning" over Microsoft?
-Peter
I know Apple has had their own hardware from the start, but making a generic PC port wouldn't be such a bad idea.
Yeah, it would just kill 50% of their revenue scheme while getting them pretty much nothing. It doesn't matter if OS X is better than Windows. MS has a monopoly and that means they can introduce artificial problems of compatibility in OS X at will. Theoretically it is illegal, but we all know how well the courts have worked so far. A decade later something might be done after OS X is dead.
I'm of course guessing there's a clause from when MS bailed them out that prevents that from happening.
Where do you get this FUD?
Speaking for myself,
(i) I am XP user (since 2003) and I don't suffer. Well, not *that* much.
(ii) The first reason I don't switch to Linux is specific applications I use under Windows (which are not free, by the way) which I can't find the equivalent on Linux.
(iii) The second reason I don't switch to Linux is potential incompatibilities with laptop (hardware). Not that I didn't try.
Clearly, I have no incentives moving to Windows 7. Even if (and when) I need new laptop, I'll try to make sure XP is supported. The only reason I would move to Windows 7 (or 8 or 9) if the current version of application XYZ I'm using is no longer supported under XP, and for whatever reason I *must* upgrade.
So, fundamentally, I care very little which OS I'm using. OS is just a platform to run some applications (I guess this statement qualifies me as non-geek, so sue me).
as I said, GUESSING
I didn't read the details to know one way or the other, did you?
Since I mentioned OS X on normal PC's, what does it matter what Microsoft did after that? Microsoft doesn't make PC's and their involvement on OS X is limited to Office and a few other things we can easily do without.
There's no reason they couldn't profit off of selling the OS, other than possibly the increased need for tech support/hardware support.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
And the biggest thing? I've been running it, attached to the internet, for two years without having an anti-virus program installed, and NO ISSUES. I don't think I could do that with XP for even a single day.
I fully confirm that. I'm also getting into HIS computer attached to the internet, and yes, it's without an anti-virus.
And yes, until today I had NO ISSUES :-)
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
This article really assumes that the expense of managing Citrix server farms will be significantly less than the expense of managing the XP machines.
Not that I am saying it wont be but as someone with a decent amount of experience managing servers and even with Citrix servers I'm not sure you can just say that.
Even if it's true, old habits are hard to break.
What about the billions of users who don't have a connection to a virtual instance of the OS via citrix? Sure.. an idea like this may work in the office (where you still provide an instance of a windows, mac or linux desktop to a thin client)...but what about the home users?
-Cnik
Just a shameless plug for Citrix. The real winner will be Google Desktop. And Microsoft Windows 7/ XP/ Vista etc. will be irrelevant either way.
I think Mitch here forgot to add that Linux has its own Terminal Server Project (LTSP) and it is very well supported and as with _most_ versions of Linux it is free! As of version 5 of LTSP it is insanely easy to install and manage, if you want to check for yourself download the Alternate image of any Ubuntu flavor and hit F4 on the install screen select LTSP and go for gold! The docs are great and the help on IRC is fantastic. Here is a great intro: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuLTSP/LTSPQuickInstall This guy is a tool... '/obvious'
Well, really, the reason you'd switch is when it's obsoleted by Microsoft. Once that happens, you won't find much in the way of new drivers, application fixes, or windows updates. That day is coming.
I'm fine with XP and I use it as my main OS. I have Ubuntu on another HD but compatibility issues keep me from using it most the time. Silly stuff that's not under the control of anyone working on Linux, like not being able to watch Lost on ABC's site and Google Talk not having a Linux version. I'm well-aware that Pidgen can login to it too, but I like Gtalk.
Linux has come a long long way, especially in the past few years. It detects almost all of my hardware now and in this way it's easier to setup than Windows, but Linux's momentum is slowed just by the fact that it's not Windows and doesn't enjoy near-universal support.
:wq
NX and FreeNX are cross-platform and very efficient remote desktops... Citrix has always been a slug. FreeNX also is not tied to a specific operating system and can be used as the frontend of virtualized Linux and Windows now!
Combine a light Linux base, OpenVZ, Ubuntu, Windows, Virtualbox and NX and you have a complete virtual platform that runs in the cloud with all of Ubuntu and Windows. And the only thing you need to pay for is hardware and Windows.
This works on any modern processor with virtualization extensions.
Facebook is billions of individual "Skinner Boxes." And if you use it you are the pigeon!
The Gui wireless in Linux is still Hit or Miss. If your lucky and get the right card everything works fine. Other cards work somewhat and others not at all, and others not at all until you do a text base config as the GUI doesn't allow you to enter these options.
The Not signed by Microsoft error is different then the Non-Free Error. Not signed by Microsoft says this may break things, we can't be responsible for it. the Non-Free error says this will probably work however it doesn't fit our politics so we will warn you about it. But it says it in a way that makes you think it will cost you money.
Because Linux doesn't support Active X isn't really a feature, it is a lack of a feature as people who want to go on an Active X site. Also if there were a spreading Linux Virus Not having a virus warning mechanism can cause a lot of damage.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
That oddly enough the author made a whole LOT of claims FOR Windows 7 that AFAIK are not at all justified.
Windows 7 for netbooks? There are 2 major issues with that. First of all it is an unproven assertion that Windows 7 can be 'slimmed down' to run well on a netbook. Frankly I would imagine it CAN, but would the result still be an appealing OS? Finally how is this now stripped version of Windows 7 going to compete on a licensing cost basis with free?
A similar argument is made that Windows 7 will be the upgrade path to heaven for Vista users. Why exactly? No business is going to pay for the new licenses and additional training and deployment costs. There is NO evidence that 7 is any faster or more efficient or even more stable than Vista is now. Home users might not care about training costs, but they have similar concerns and again there will be no compelling reason for them to upgrade and no reason to anticipate they will do so in any great numbers.
So the conclusion I come to is that Windows 7 has no real market except new desktop PCs and maybe laptops. Given that netbooks are cannibalizing both of these markets in the retail sector and this is also where Apple competes best with OS X one begins to wonder if Windows 7 will simply be relegated to a shrinking niche market segment.
Certainly MS is going to continue to try to tie its new web services to its new OS, but web services are a LOT easier market to break into than the desktop OS market of yore was. Not only that, but even if everyone uses these MS web services like crazy it will still always be possible to access them from non-MS OSes, even if 3rd parties have to build the tools to do so.
I seriously doubt MS is going to be knocked out of the desktop OS market any time soon, or even loose its majority market share, but it just isn't going to matter much.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Complete desktop virtualization using lightweight clients has been possible for a looooong time. Business hasn't been jumping on to do it yet; how does the success or failure of Windows 7 suddenly have anything to do with it?
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Citrix simply does not make sense for most organizations; except for application deployment. It's great to update the application on a handful of servers; as opposed to numerous desktops that are possibly in multiple locations across a country or even the world. But--to deliver a desktop; and spend $$ for the Windows license and $$$$ for the Citrix license; by that time you've purchased an entire PC for the average business user. My system at home came with a 20" widescreen and is capable of running Vista with the AeroGlass desktop (or Windows 7--I have beta running now). The total cost was under $600--which is roughly $100 more than the cost of the Windows license+Citrix. Sorry, but the cost doesn't add up. Unless you get the inexpensive Not For Profit costing. Windows 7 will be adopted--faster than Vista, but slower in this economy than XP was.
In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the c
I've been running it (Vista), attached to the internet, for two years without having an anti-virus program installed, and NO ISSUES. I don't think I could do that with XP for even a single day.
I ran Windows 2000 for years without AV, and I've done the same with XP without any problems. Please don't make up things just to make Vista look better.
Have you at least complained to ABC or Google (I have)?
I hear people complain on Slashdot all the time about how much they would love to use Linux, but X or Y doesn't work. And when questioned, they admit they have never complained to the people that matter- the ones designing X and Y to only work under MS-Windows.
They do make a difference.
Why not VMWare Server or Microsoft Virtual Server or even Xen running on a Linux server?
Citrix is not the only virtual machine client server app on the market.
If Windows 7.0 runs legacy Windows programs unlike Windows Vista, then we switch to Windows 7.0, if not then we run XP in virtual machines.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
It's the "worker's own pc" that's puzzling. Wouldn't the worker's PC also run an operating system that must be supported? If the worker's PC is not running Winders, I could see some license savings but (a) I just can't imagine lots of companies doing that, and (b) the company still has to support it, unless (c) the user works from home on his/her own privately supported PC. I was going to say (d) the worker brings his/her own pc to work but that seems the least likely of some very unlikely possibilities. I don't see where this is a really big win for anyone. Thin Client was so last decade. I think it's more likely that companies will generally cling to XP on the desktop until hell freezes over.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
(ii) The first reason I don't switch to Linux is specific applications I use under Windows (which are not free, by the way) which I can't find the equivalent on Linux.
Why not run wine or one of the many great VM tools? The only things I have trouble running in Linux are a few of the newer games (all my university junk works fine).
(iii) The second reason I don't switch to Linux is potential incompatibilities with laptop (hardware). Not that I didn't try.
Try installing XP on a laptop that was built for Vista. I think you'll find that Linux is a HECK of a lot easier to find drivers for various things. Sure, you might not get that horrible little webcam running, but is that really an issue?
There is no place for a commercial OS on generic hardware...
Windows survives due to inertia, all the others have pretty much failed while some never really got started.
OSX only really exists because it comes as part of a complete package bundled with hardware, for the same reason that AIX/HPUX are still around while SCO and BSDi are dead.
Releasing OSX will not get them many sales, and most of those sales will be from people who would otherwise have bought apple hardware, but it will increase their workload significantly due to having to support masses of new hardware...
Windows benefits from it's installed base, hardware makers pretty much have no choice but to write drivers, OSX doesn't have that advantage so Apple would have to do all the work.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
It's called the Xbox firmware...
Try playing the windows versions of some games on comparable hardware to an xbox (easier with the first xbox), the xbox will runs rings around windows on similar hardware - which just goes to show how inefficient it is, and therefore an absolutely terrible gaming platform.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
LTSP is a great product. You can run Linux on the thin client and run Windows or Linux server applications. Why pay for Windows on the thin client? (Why pay for Windows on the Server? - but that's another discussion).
In order to keep that from happening, they need new Windows-exclusive apps, not just legacy ones. Which means they need to make Windows actually an attractive platform to develop new stuff on. [But] I really wouldn't look forward to fighting the Win32 API.
Microsoft has already realized this, and that's why it started over with .NET. The various APIs exposed to the CLR, such as Windows Forms, XNA, and the like, won't immediately get ported to Mono. Mono will lag behind .NET just as Wine has lagged behind Windows.
I believe it will require an OS with strong client OS and application virtualization, or some of the promise of a tightly integrated Live Mesh and Windows Azure services to significantly differentiate Windows 7 from the same old desktop OS it presents itself as today.
I assure you the majority of computer users have NO idea what any of that means. People who do understand what he wrote are likely to be set in their computing ways and not likely to switch.
Vista was not a milestone, it was a disaster. It was a gargantuan pile of poo that was only inflicted on users because M$ threatened to kneecap PC vendors who didn't offer it with their hardware.
Say what you will about M$, they are smart enough to not screw this up a second time.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
your wife or kid has someone at home who actually knows how to use Linux
This is not the case nearly as much as it used to be. I visited my parents over Christmas, 1100km away. I've been telling my mom for years to switch to linux. Not because I think that everybody should use linux, but because she has some long-standing issues with her computer that don't affect linux. She has so far refused, simply out of fear of having to learn computers all over again.
My dad, on the other had, needed a computer for his business (an automotive shop). I told him I could put one together for x dollars, and add $110 if he wants it to run Windows. "Why would I want it to run Windows?" he asked. Honest question, but I didn't have an answer, since I'd already verified that the applications he would be using were web-based. He's been running xubuntu since Christmas and I never hear about it.
Compare that with my sister and her five young kids, 1800km away. My brother Tyler wanted to put together a budget computer for them four years ago and asked my help. We partitioned the hard disk in half, put windows on one and ubuntu on the other (because I thought that everybody should use linux). He also gave them a cheap lexmark printer that didn't work in ubuntu, so they chose to run windows. Two years later I found out that the printer is long dead and they've all taken to booting into ubuntu because their internet music and videos work better that way.
Compare that with my two brothers Ray and Rick, 500 km away. I helped them both upgrade computers in the last six months. Ray reused his windows xp from the old computer. Rick didn't have an xp disk, so I put an unactivated copy of xp on one partition and ubuntu on the other. I showed him how to dual-boot and told him he could probably find an xp crack if he wanted. He never booted into Windows.
Ray and Rick both have XBOX 360s and both have spent the last month or two trying to get media to stream. Both have had limited success. To Rick, running ubuntu I sent some links to ubuntuforums.org discussing media server options. For Ray, running windows I had to instruct him to install vnc and open ports on his router so I could get in and eventually figure out that some necessary system services weren't running. I dug up a batch file off the internet requiring an ecclectic mix of programs. I spent hours installing these and duct-taping them all together on his system and things still don't work as they should.
Rick's brother-in-law had a laptop that pooped out its hard disk. It didn't come with a windows install disk, and he was too cheap to buy one, so Rick, on my advice, bought a replacement hard disk and installed ubuntu for him. He called once to ask about printer compatibility, but that is the sum total of support given to him for this computer in the past year.
And finally, compare these with my brother Tyler again, 1800 km away, who two years ago bought a mac because he is technologically challenged and wanted something point and click. This morning he emailed me to ask if I would recommend putting Ubuntu on his client's computer, currently running Windows Malware Edition(R). He is burning the xubuntu iso as I write this.
Yeah, none of these linux installs would have happened without my initial intervention, but that's a PR thing. None of these people are computer geeks, not even close. Technically speaking, I've done less support for my linux-using family than I have for my windows-using family. Your opinion is at best 2 years out of date.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
A couple times every decade, some group or company makes a big push for thin clients. Those movements have failed every time against the relentless pressure of cheap fat clients. The main reasons for thin clients' failures, as I see it:
Network bandwidth is relatively slow and unreliable. That is, the gap between network performance and CPU & HD performance is too large.
Because of the above, users do not trust thin clients that can fail at any time, at the mercy of network connectivity.
This situation is unlikely to change in the near future, maybe for decades.
Whether or not the apps are there depends on your needs, and unless your needs are for games or for niche applications (e.g. custom in-house corporate apps), Linux has got everything now.
Every PC that I own has at least one game on it, and all but one PC that my employer owns has a warehouse management application written in Access+VBA.
I'm on my computer nearly every hour I'm awake. I use it as my entertainment center
With no games, and nothing like Netflix, I assume.
my workspace
With no niche apps, I assume.
And for the vast majority of people who really only use e-mail and chat, browse the web, download photos from their camera, put music on their iPod, etc., Linux has them covered and has for years.
Until the camera maker or Apple leaves Linux users without compatibility by implementing a custom connection protocol that works only with proprietary clients for Windows and Mac OS X. Apple has already been doing this by DMCAing the reverse engineers trying to talk to the new iPod.
My wireless card doesn't work under Linux, so I run Windows.
And my wireless card doesn't work under Windows Vista, so I run Linux. If you want to switch to another operating system, it might go more smoothly if you switch when you buy or build a new PC. I chose Linux the last time I bought a laptop, so I ended up with an Eee PC that I knew would work. And switching with a new hardware purchase has always been Apple's business model.
I can't play this one game under Linux, so I run Windows.
I can't play these three games under Windows, so I run Wii. I can't play these other six games under Windows, so I run PlayStation 2.
Sounds to me like opposite. You care very much that you are running Windows XP :D. If I were you I would be evaluating alternative OSes now. I was in the same situation a year ago, and I decided to make a costly switch to OS X. Apart from hardware (those Mac Pros are not cheap), I had to re-purchase some of my software as well. But in the end it was worth it, and now I look at my Windows days as dark ages of computing.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
You know what this forum needs?
More newbies asking for help!
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Microsoft _must_ keep moving the goal posts.
If they don't force people to move from XP, that would give others enough time to make "Windows XP Compatible" operating systems that are good enough.
Then Windows XP will become a defacto standard that even Microsoft cannot escape from.
And "Microsoft Windows XP" in the "Windows XP Compatible" world would be just like IBM PC BIOS in the PC BIOS world.
That is unlikely to be good for Microsoft in $$$ terms.
So every Windows release must be slightly incompatible with the previous release, and old releases must eventually be phased out.
The problem is Vista was too crappy and not just incompatible, and the _actual_ benefits aren't good enough.
Several (non-technical and one anti-technical :D) people in my family have switched to OS X and they all like it and don't miss a thing.
You may not find exact same apps on OS X, but you can find often better apps to do the same things.
For most people, office is a major stumbling block. MS Office 2008 for Mac is enough for most people, but there are others.
Photoshop is there, Final Cut (pro or non-pro) are there for video. RAW image processing apps are available for most cameras (from manufacturers apart from Photoshop).
Mathematica and Maple are there for technical and engineering students, and everything else for software developers is included with every mac.
I don't miss anything from my windows world. As a matter of fact I have more apps available to me.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Yes. How do you not get that? People want all of their hardware to work.
Has this guy really tried Windows 7? This guy sounds just like he refused to upgrade from Windows 98 SE to XP. The operating system IS better.
I didn't read the details to know one way or the other, did you?
Yes, long ago. It wasn't even a bailout, it was a lawsuit settlement where MS invested in Apple shares for a while as a PR move for Apple. Apple had plenty of cash at the time and did not need a "bailout". They also gained such things as a license to the Windows API for many years, in case Apple wanted to implement is themselves. It wasn't the result of Apple needing money, but MS basically losing the lawsuit over ripping off Apple.
Since I mentioned OS X on normal PC's, what does it matter what Microsoft did after that? Microsoft doesn't make PC's and their involvement on OS X is limited to Office and a few other things we can easily do without.
Currently Apple sells computer systems and competes with the likes of Dell. MS can hurt them, but since the computer system market is not monopolized they have to do it indirectly. If Apple were to try selling their OS for normal computers it would be a flop unless they went to OEMs and licensed it (they already tried it once and nearly died). It would put them in direct competition with MS who currently has monopolized the market for desktop OS's. Any businessman will tell you that is a death sentence until MS is cut down to 50-70% of the market. OEMs would have to bet the whole company on Apple, because MS could kill all their Windows sales with differential pricing in a heartbeat. Expecting an OEM to bet the whole company is asking a lot and a CEO could go to jail over such a move, or at very least be sued by the shareholders. Then all MS has to do is introduce incompatibilities between OS X and Windows and suddenly Macs are "breaking" when trying to work with other computers... with the other 90% of computers. The whole reason antitrust abuse is illegal is because it allows a company to leverage their monopoly to win market share even when their offering is more expensive or technically inferior or both. It would be a super-bonehead move on the part of Apple.
I am tired of hearing these nonsensical arguments about geeks being some kind of rudimentary humans with no social skills.
Geeks are some of the most commited people I know, help anybody that asks and go way out of their way to help people.
And so tell me people I know that are less technically inclined.
This myth of the inadequate nerd should be put to rest frankly.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
MS is haemorrhaging cash like there is no tomorrow, their share has tanked relative to 5 or 6 years ago, regulators are scrutinizing them with microscope and most importantly the only way they know to make business is to alienate their clients and business partners.
It may take some time for them to fade away given their sheer size, but I think people are starting to get that is not a good idea to deal with a company that is so easy with legal compliance.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I have seen environments in which you can't support more than 20 users given the kind of application being used.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
citation needed, ive used ahteros, intel & broadcom chipsets with no need for the cli (i may have had to copy and past 1 command in 2006 but joykey has come a long way since then) but its defiantly not hit and miss. If your wireless chipset is supported its hit, if its some weird chipset then you need to use jokey, the only miss AFAIK is usb.
Also if there were a spreading Linux Virus Not having a virus warning mechanism can cause a lot of damage.
i cant believe im feeding you but meh. The separation of privileges (ala UAC but actually works and is less annoying) means a linux virus would at best cause you to create a new user profile.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
and snipey AC posts. Can't forget those ;)
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
The Gui wireless in Linux is still Hit or Miss. If your lucky and get the right card everything works fine. Other cards work somewhat and others not at all, others not at all until you do a text base config as the GUI doesn't allow you to enter these options.
Since Ubuntu 8.04, almost all wireless cards work fine, the only thing you may need is the binary drivers, which it asks you to install on first boot (I consider this part of an OEM install).
The Not signed by Microsoft error is different then the Non-Free Error. Not signed by Microsoft says this may break things, we can't be responsible for it. the Non-Free error says this will probably work however it doesn't fit our politics so we will warn you about it. But it says it in a way that makes you think it will cost you money.
Almost all messages I have seen like this, specifically mention that this has NOTHING to do with money (in Ubuntu anyways).
Because Linux doesn't support Active X isn't really a feature, it is a lack of a feature as people who want to go on an Active X site.
Active X sites (legitimate need) are becoming VERY rare now-a-days (except china where I believe banks us it). When I set up a windows machine for somebody, I give the Firefox anyways, which also has no Active X and I have NEVER had anyone complain about not having it, EVER!
Also if there were a spreading Linux Virus Not having a virus warning mechanism can cause a lot of damage.
First of all, this just happened to Apple, and nothing serious has happened yet. Second, Linux HAS AV! ClamAV is a well-respected anti-virus that has been used on Linux Server and Desktops to protect their windows friends.
Windows 2000 is in extended support mode. Want to use the latest iPods with it -- tough luck, the latest iTunes won't install on W2k. Want the latest software to interface to your Nokia phone -- tough luck, because the latest Nokia s/w wont install on W2k.
It's quite likely (depending on W7 uptake) that XP will become unusable for many because of 3rd party applications incompatibilty before MS obsoletes it.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The fact is simply that everything I need and want to do, I can do in XP. The same is not true for Linux. It has huge gaps in its software availability. The cost of Windows in order to get access to all that software is negligible.
While true, it glosses over an important point: I can setup a Linux box *once*. I'm still running slackware 10 on some of my boxes. The annual reinstall is a rite of passage for most Windows users. In truth, most Windows users either buy another machine when theirs gets slow, or finds a geek who will reinstall the OS and their apps for them. That's why they tolerate it.
The cost of keeping Windows updated is not negligible.
The cost of the inevitable Windows reinstall is not negligible. While you may be able to increase the time it takes for a box to get owned by running antivirus software, you slow down the machine in the process. Virus cleanup is an inevitable part of using Windows.
And while the software availability is a problem for some - like gamers - for those of us who know how to use UNIX, there is simply no replacement. Sure, you can get cygwin for Windows, but it's just not the same. I've found that I'm perhaps a hundred times more productive when using a Linux system, simply because the UNIX paradigm allows me to be more productive. Furthermore, because most of the software on Linux is free of charge, I'm able to do things on Linux which I would never be able to do on a Windows system.
There is no silver bullet; you just pick which problems you want to deal with. Myself, I like a secure system which doesn't require constant updating and runs very fast. But I can understand why someone would use a slow, unreliable machine if it was required to be compatible with the rest of the business world.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
If you go to VMWare's site you can download the free VMWare player product.
Once this is installed, you can go to the VMWare market place and location Windows 7 beta 1 build 7000.
Download it. It's a large .zip file. When it's done downloading, unzip it. The VMDK is over 5GB so this will fail on a FAT32 drive.
Once you have the files extracted, launch the Windows.7.Beta.1.7000.vmx file by opening it (double click.) The password is the same as the default user account.
I have it running under Fusion on a Mac and Workstation 6.5 on XP. Like other posters state, this is what Vista should have been. I like it. For my personal use, I'm a Mac guy. But at work my impression is that I will skip Vista and go right to Windows 7 for the bulk of our many stations. I have Vista on a few PC's, but it is slow much slower than XP & has no features my business users must have. Staffware doesn't work in Vista yet, so that's another holdup.
Anyway, if you really want to know what Win 7 is like, this is the easiest way to do it.
I've been running Linux on the desktop since 2002. I used Fedora until this past summer when I bought a Dell Ubuntu system. My wife, who is not computer literate, and my 8 year old daughter have neither one had any problems. Occasionally a relative will buy some kids game at Best Buy as a gift for my daughter; but we've made it through with Wine for the most part, though not always. Occasionally we hit a website that doesn't work in Firefox, but they're getting fewer and farther between. Now that Flash is giving respect to Linux, our experience is very pleasant. Even those glitches provide a better experience than we had previously running Windows.
I don't worry about viruses, and I have all my geek-tools at hand, while my wife and daughter do just fine creating docs, sending email, surfing webkinz, etc. I've not found anything that I really want to do that I can't because I'm not running Windows.
But perhaps the best part about it is that I don't feel like I'm having to pay Microsoft to use my own computer. It's my data; I shouldn't need to pay them to access it.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Charlotte Abigail Lux ?
Squirrel!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Geeks are some of the most commited people I know..."
I would have to agree, as I have been committed several times.
I went cooperatively this time, and it went much better for me...I should be released after only 6 months this time!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Using VDI technology.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
While the concept is ok, good luck getting drivers for running XP as the host at that point.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Holy Crap, you're a stupid putz. All you gotta do is open your slash.conf file under /etc/http/sys/slashhacks with Vi and scroll down to line 239 -- it's clearly documented with the REM statement! -- and change the value "invitefriends=0" to "invitefriends=1".
Gawd, yer dense!
(tag: humor, for the humor impaired, or in the case that this is close enough to reality to be taken seriously...)
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
ClamAV runs on Linux. Mostly used on mailservers to scan incoming e-mails, but can work like a normal AV.
Not a sentence!
How does it save you any money to run a expensive Citrix client?
People 1100 km away won't use Linux.
paintball
The Citrix/Terminal Server type solution is fine for employees who are chained to their desks; however, this does not bode well for mobile workers. Sales people, accountants, business people, etc. who are on the road need to be able to work while offsite and sometimes disconnected. There are places in the world, where the availability of low cost high bandwidth wireless exists rendering this a non-issue; however, North America is not one of those places.
What is the solution for those who are on the road, in a plane, or on a train? For large enterprise, probably Windows 7 if they are still on XP.
"Windows 7 is little more than what Vista should have been"
Helloooo?? Users WANT what Vista should have been. A little more is even better.
...after all, Windows 7 is little more than what Vista should have been, when it shipped two years ago.
Are you kidding me?! Vista has a LONG list of advanced features that were cut from the OS so that it could be delivered. Beyond the Aero interface, nearly everything added to Vista was a detractor. The DRM saps performance and resources. The UAC has been demonstrated to be useless against many actual threats in the wild. The compatibility with older software that is still important to many users out there, both private and business, makes switching to Vista impossible. There is a LOT of things that Vista should have been and was announced that it would have been that are not present in Windows 7 and Windows 7 still has all of Vista's detractors as far as I can tell.
Your story is total fiction. 1100 km? 1800 km? 500 km? A km is a unit only used in far away story book places. Places with FIOS, advanced cell phones, no DMCA and other fantasy stuff.
No offence intended, but what rock have you been living under?
Photoshop
Dreamweaver
AutoCAD
Visio
Project Management software
Excel (macros macros macros VB apps)
Outlook (no Zimbra is not there yet + integration with rest of MS stack)
Pro audio apps (pro tools, cubase etc.)
Any number of proprietary 'niche' software - call centre accounting, retail POS interfaces etc.
That took all of 30 seconds to think of and type
The blogger doesn't really back up his prediction with any reasoning or facts. He needs to because, the same things were said of Windows XP, that it wouldn't lure people away from 98/ME, that the requirements were too high etc. I would have thought a Microsoft insider would be well aware of history.
He also parrots other blogs by claiming the new taskbar is mac-like. It isn't, he's clearly not spent any time with Dock.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
I agree. I recently switched to Mac from Windows. It seemed painful for the first 2 weeks looking for specific apps I loved on Windows like MeGUI and NewsBin, but I quickly adapted and eventually found comparable or replacement apps on the Mac side. I've also been playing with Ubuntu/Kubuntu. I installed it on my parents laptop. They browse the web and check e-mail which makes Ubuntu ideal for them. Oddly enough, every time I upgrade them with a Windows OS I get a weeks worth of calls full of how-to type questions. I have had zero calls since I put Ubuntu on there. I'm honestly a bit shocked and pleased. I couldn't be more pleased with OS X either. It's rock solid, fast, and efficient. I also love the fact that I can bareback my Mac/Linux boxes ;)
I doubt seriously if Windows fails that Citrix will be king. Citrix is kind of like the 7th son of a 7th son. It has a long line of succession before it will ever be King...
From the Citrix site:
"the increasing computing savvy of enterprise users are forcing IT organizations to consider a new service model for the desktop. The BYOC model goes a long way to solving these issues for the enterprise. "
Increasingly savvy enterprise users ... where ? who? ... Not where I work (very large school district). And Citrix marketing plays that old siren song to IT depts --- visualization - thin client - everything works - no support costs -- happy users. All sounds great until corporate ship hits the "Rocks of Reality" ... all hands we are taking on water ... is there a Tech in on board ...
Its not the years, its the mileage
(((sorry for the spacing, slashdot would not paragraph space even tried adding HTML code?!?))) ---- Windows 7 feeals solid. I have a video tour, write up, etc on my site (atomicsub.net).
I'm quite confident that XP and Vista users will transition to 7 as it's simply a better OS, faster, responsive, stable for now. Citrix and VMWare will have a go but Windows, OS X and Linux should remain with higher market share. Particularly, because users can run multiple VM environments on current day systems. I run full versions of CentOS, Solaris 10, Win XP, Win 7, and Win Server 2008 R2 on a Macbook Pro! (10 at the same time on our Sun x64 Server) Virtualization will change the game. Windows 7 takes certain features from OS X and certain Linux distros (RHEL, CentOS). BUT, these latter operating systems have been doing what 7 has finally achieved (fast, responsive, stable, etc.)for a while - and there's nothing really 'revolutionary' about that. If you agree, disagree or just want to read about technology, check out atomicsub.net, I have submitted a few posts to slashdot. currently pending. Lot's of cool stuff on the site. -K
AtomicSub.net the #1 Place for everything technology!
Put XP in Virtualbox. I did it, works great. It might be hard to move your existing XP - I did it with a fresh install version (Actually a free beer VM pre-setup version) If you want files that are not in the .vdi but normal filesystem create a fat32 partition and put them there then register that in XP as a new hard drive.
It some fiddling to set up but mostly just the getting use to it part. But it's really nice that if windows crashes i don't have to reboot, i have dead easy snapshots, I can use the OS best suited to the task rather than just the one I am booted into.
Stupidity is its own reward.
So... Windows and Citrix are finally taking us to where IBM was in 1972. Nice.
I want to connect my machines to the internet.
Even with automatic updates and AV software, the average user who connects a Windows machine to the internet becomes part of a botnet within 6 months. Sure, a network admin can setup firewalls, etc... to avoid this, but the average user isn't a computer expert. If they were, they would have switched to Linux years ago.
The fundamental problem remains: how do you keep the ordinary user's computer from getting owned? I can setup Linux once and have it run until the hardware fails. But Windows is just a minefield for the average user. Even Windows is so complicated the average user just buys another machine when theirs slows down. They don't have the time to figure out what is wrong. With Linux, they don't have to.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Haha, no. It does get slower. But I suppose you could argue that it's not magic.
It's due to the fact that the lazy idiots in Redmond tend to update entire components of the OS every time there is a security patch or service pack. Memory usage goes up. Optimizations are lost. Unnecessary new code and features are foisted upon machines that simply don't need them.
Over the lifetime of a machine, the difference is significant and noticeable. You could argue that people should simply keep buying new machines every two years, but the fact is that my five-year-old laptop can no longer boot XP SP2 in less than ten minutes, but runs Linux like a champ. And in a down economy, there is simply no reason for anyone to continue buying new hardware to run the latest version of Microsoft bloatware.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Asking Microsoft if people should (or would) use linux, is like asking Hitler if you should marry a jew.
The answer will not usually depend on the merits of the issue.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.