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.
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
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.
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'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.
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.
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 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
1. No.
2. People keep using that word, "cloud". I do not think it means what you think it means.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
Because the longer that XP is around, the closer Wine is to replicating the environment, and Linux is to overtaking it in usability.
That is one reason that MS wants to move forward.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
...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 */
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
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.
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.
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).
And in some cases, Wine has already become more usable. Take WineASIO, for instance. I get incredibly low latency using Wine/WineASIO and Windows VSTs under Linux that I never got under XP.
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.
VMware is already doing better than Citrix. They both posted 4th quarter earnings reports. VMware did better than expected. Citrix did worse. In bad economic times, generally, the weak get weaker and the strong get stronger. The post is just a plug for Citrix.
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'
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!
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.
(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?
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.
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
Hosted apps ARE bad, unless you can resolve the following:
* Availability. Your favorite app site is getting DDoS'd? Another undersea cable got cut by an anchor? Sucks to be you.
* Portability. UnprofitableSite.com just went black without notice. Do you have a local copy of your work, and if so, what can you do with it?
* Security. It's highly unlikely that anyone is working 24/7 to hack YOUR particular workstation/network. Even if you don't know anything about configuring a firewall, at least you can unplug a desktop from the network and it will be essentially immune from remote attacks. A publicly accessible repository of private data, however, is a much juicier target, and if history is any lesson, security will not be a primary concern from the start.
* Privacy. I'm the proud owner of a site with over 500,000 term papers on it that my users graciously "donated." What's to keep me from selling them, letting people data mine them, or anything else? My privacy policy? The one that's subject to change without notice?
What problems do hosted apps solve, or what advantages do they provide?
* People wouldn't have to install or maintain their own software. That's a possible advantage, but doesn't really outweigh all of the above liabilities. And what if I don't want to "upgrade" and learn a new UI right this second. What if I just need to finish my work?
* My data is accessible anywhere. Again, that's a two-edged sword, and 99% of the time I don't really need/want my data to be accessible from anywhere other than the location I'm in. I suspect most other people don't either, and when they do they just e-mail a file to themselves.
Software as a service is great for companies. They can implement subscription models so the customer doesn't realize how much he's paying over the long term. They don't have to worry about piracy. Distribution is basically free, allowing for a higher profit margin. I just don't see very many advantages for *customers*, especially long-term.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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.
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.
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.
"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
No no,
Costs A Lot
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
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."