Well, there is that thing about them wanting to make money.
I don't think I ever suggested that the OS be released for free did I?
Let me re-read my post. No, no I dind't.
$300 for Vista Ultimate, or $150 for OSX... I would probably shell out the cash for the latter.
Wouldn't they make more money selling the OS to the 97% of the people who don't own Macs, instead of just selling it to the 3% who do?
I'm not an economist, but it just seems like they would make a pretty good amount of money with it.
Most of their iPod sales are to non-Mac users. Let a few of their gadgets work on a variety of hardware is what took their stock price from $14 to $140.
You think they would have made more money if they only sold iPods to Mac users?
Is there a reason that Apple won't release OSX for generic X86 Platforms?
I know it's just a really nice Window Manager on top of BSD (for the most part), but I think they would really have a market among the people who want to get away from Windows, but just aren't ready to make the leap to Linux.
Is it really just a device driver issue where they don't want to support 1,000,000 combinations of hardware?
I checked a little box on the Nvidia settings and it prompted me to reboot.
When the system came back, the monitors on the secondary card stayed off, but the primary (middle) monitor came on.
I booted up FSX. With the same settings, I got about a 30% improvement in frame rate taking off from McCarran airport and flying over the Las Vegas Strip.
Sweet!
I guess the CPU wasn't as bottlenecked as I had thought.
Although since both configurations exceed 30fps (which is all I need in FSX for smooth flying), I am going to go back to the triple headed setup.
Which I am back in now to type this. I had to uncheck the "SLI" box and restart, so it takes about 60 seconds to change between SLI and multi-
monitor setup in Vista. No opening of the case or anything (thank goodness).
Thanks for inspiring me to try it. I can confirm that for single-monitor games, it's pretty fucking awesome in 32 bit Vista.
It's probably even better for games that are more graphic card constrained than CPU constrained.
I's not, I don't run SLI. Nor did I eve intend to. I run multiple monitors 21" LCD screens. Running FSX with 3 monitors is pretty sweet and is a much more realistic experience, and since FSX is CPU bottlenecked and not graphics card bottlenecked (save for DX10), frame rates are about the same. Especially with the release of FSX SP1 which finally takes advantage of multiple cores. The "gaming" (or simming) aspect of the cards is very nice.
Because it wasn't working only a month ago. I'd mutter something about glass houses, stones, etc., but hey, who am I to judge?
Why would you mutter something about glass houses, and how would that be applicable to my situation? And I don't know how you are to judge. It's your post. Apparently you felt qualified enough to make it.
Your system isn't even doing what it's supposed to with your shiny Vista and shiny new hardware
Awesome sound... really, the sound is just incredible. Great framerates on my multi-headed simulator at 3x1600x1200x32. Great graphics for all around work. Runs all of my usual Open Apps (Gimp, Open Office, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc, etc). Heck, I can run them all at the same time with hardly a 2fps drop.
So besides not recognizing all of my memory (which is a function of a 32bit OS), occasional BSOD's, and what seems like diabolical non-stop disk access, exactly what is it not doing on my shiny new hardware? Not saying that I wouldn't prefer the workstation partition to be Linux, because I would, but in your opinion, in what manner is my hardware not being used by the OS?
and you expect Linux to be somehow better with cutting-edge hardware support
"Cutting Edge" is somewhat relative. The 8800's have been around since last year. As has the X-Fi card. The processor may be cutting edge (QX6800), but that shouldn't be an issue for either OS.
So after 10 months or so do I expect Linux to support it. In 2007, yeah... kind of. I didn't expect this back in 1997, but these days it usually happens within a year. Nvidia is pretty good about releasing drivers, and Ubuntu is usually decent about incorporating drivers, so yes, I was a little disappointed given my previous great experiences with Ubuntu.
when traditionally Linux gets the scraps and pieces of company support, if at all?
You just summed a problem with the Linux desktop yourself.
What are you smoking?
I don't smoke.
Driver support under Linux IS fast and easy.
That all depends on what hardware you are using, doesn't it?
Easier than under Windows.
Not on this machine. I don't even think there is a driver for the sound card (which is arguably the best sound card I have ever heard)
It's that manufacturers don't support Linux.
I believe that I stated this in the original post. And I believe that I said that it was a problem with the Linux desktop that was not Linux's fault.
I suppose not even the best Linux distribution can improve one's reading comprehension.
Are modern graphics cards no longer compatible with the VGA standard or something? An OS installer should be able to bootstrap using a bare minimum standard hardware configuration (even if those hardware standards are 20 years old), needing no hardware-specific drivers except maybe for the network interface. Once bootstrapped, all the HW-specific drivers can be retrieved and installed over the network.
No video mode would work, although the text installer would work. And even after graphic driver installation, the $400+ 8800 cards in Linux have pretty much been panned across the board, reportedly being no better than $70-ish 6600 cards.
And there currently exists no Linux driver for the X-Fi sound card.
Call me old-fashioned, but I like both video AND sound.
I know you'll say you shouldn't have to do this, but I very rarely have Linux hardware issues anymore.
Why?
Because when I get a new machine, I research it thoroughly. If I can't be sure that everything will work at least as well as it does on my old one, I don't buy the new machine, or I buy different hardware. Generally, by the time the hardware I want is supported, it's half the price anyway.
Granted. But this goes back to the ago-old argument that one should never buy a new computer, because 6 months later it will be half-priced anyway. Then in 6 months when you go to buy the computer, you realize that in 6 more months it will be half-priced in another 6 months. And on and on.
And this machine does work much better than my old one (a single-core Athlon FX-55). It's blazingly fast and multi-tasks much better. I just don't have the OS I want, but the same apps still run.
If I am forbidden to buy the best computer I can afford, when I need said computer in order to run Linux, then that could be considered by some to be a failure of Linux on the desktop. It is not necessarily the fault of Linux, but it is indeed a problem.
Dumbing down the hardware or waiting 6 months when you need a machine right away is not something that is likely to gain much enthusiasm for people looking at new machines, and fair or not, could be seen by some as a negative.
It is encouraging to know that when this machine ages, it will probably be saved and have it's life extended by Linux, but I can't load it right away. And for better or worse, most folks don't change OS's a year into a computers life.
One of the companies I do work for was buying several new workstations across the board for graphics developers. It is not a huge company... but about 15 new workstations were being purchased for a very lucrative post-pay contract. This company has a good business credit rating. It was a windows/linux shop, but they were attracted to the 8 core Mac Pro's.
They applied for credit at Dell Finance, and they applied for credit at Apple Finance.
Dell gave them a 60 second decision approving some huge amount. Apple replied back a week later stating that the application could not be approved at the time, and that they would have to do some kind of further evaluation.
So time being of the essense, this company bought several new Precision workstations and never deployed Apple's machines.
My point?
Sometimes the "exclusivity" thing is taken a bit too far by Apple. Possibly to the detriment of it's shareholders and overall bottom line. When this contract is finished, I know this company will grow significant;y... and already being entrenched in Windows when Apple had a chance to take them, guess what they are going to go with?
They are going to go with the video editing stuff they already bought for Windows, and will likely buy scores of new workstations from Dell in the future.
The "exclusive" mentality may actually be a barrier to further adoption, as businesses need machines when they need them, not some kind of odd attitude.
I'm wondering why they keep on calling 'em "Windows". Why not Microsoft "Doors"? Or more seriously perhaps "Microsoft Unix", now that would be interesting. And yes, I'm also looking so forward to a completely new kinf of GUI.
No need to get fancy. I just call them "application holes".
I don't think Linux on the Desktop has failed. I have been running it in one form of the other since the mid-90's, and have a Ubuntu machine now. As a matter of fact, every other machine but this one is running Linux on the desktop.
But... I am currently using Windows Vista as I am typing this.
Why?
Because I got a new machine. Quad Core with 2x8800GTX cards powering 3 monitors and an X-Fi Sound Card. It looks and sounds great.
But when I tried to install Ubuntu 7.04 on it over the pre-installed Vista, I got a blank screen. Apparently the 10 month old 8800GTX drivers are not included on the Ubuntu install disk. Yes, there are some workarounds, using a text install, installing envy from a shell, and some other tips that may or may not work (results have been mixed), but it's a leap of faith. People that are running the 8800 cards in Ubuntu have been generally disappointed at their performance from the reading I have done on the Ubuntu forms, finding them slower than 7xxx series cards, and even slower then 6800's. What a waste of expensive graphics cards. And there does not even exist a driver to power my X-Fi soundcard. So I would not get sound. Sweet, a computer with no sound. All that music I downl... I mean BOUGHT... would never get heard.
And that may be a bit of a problem for the Linux Desktop. It is hard to start out with a Linux desktop if you have psuedo-cutting-edge hardware. Many people buying new machines have to wait some time for stable and easily installable drivers to appear for their hardware, and by the time they appear, they are already fully entrenched in Windows, have their file structure laid out, etc.
I am sure I will eventually have Linux installed on this machine, but it will be long after it is a high-end machine. I am not going to waste good hardware on drivers that don't work, or work sub-optimally.
But this is not the fault of Linux. The folks who release the drivers just don't care too much about Linux. That is the problem.
In two years, this will be a killer Linux workstation. Today, it would make a shitty Linux workstation.
So, Vista it is for the time being. I have already gotten a BSOD. The OS is nuttier than a squirrels turd and is a general pain in the ass. But my applications run, everything installs the moment I plug it on (joystick, pocket PC, Bluetooth adapter, SD cards, etc)... I can see what I am doing, the audio sounds great and I can get things done.
Would I rather run Linux? Yes. Vista thrashes the disk around like crazy the whole time the machine is on, and it can only see 2.5 gigs of the 4gigs of RAM I have installed. I suppose I could shell out a few hundred for 64but Vista, but who knows what drivers will and won't work in that.
But at least I have audio and video on the OS I have now. It's an imperfect work.
The Achilles heel for Linux desktops has been and always will be fast and easy driver support, IMHO.
Linux works great on slightly older hardware, but by the time the hardware is slightly older, it is more difficult to get converts. People tend to dance with who brought them, and on most machines, that is Windows.
I'm curious, do you dual-boot into XP? Because I've never really seen the need to have anything more than my Nvidia 6600 GT, which can run Beryl etc, so why would you need a 8800 GTX, primarily a gamers card?
Direct X 10 support.
I am an amateur pilot. I have used MS Flight Simulator for the past 17 years to stay sharp while on the ground. So I dual-boot.
FSX runs like crap on all current hardware. It will not be able to run with full settings without DirectX 10. I have to run it currently with the settings turned way down.
The *only* reason I keep a windows partition now is for MS Flight Simulator. I have a 30gb partition for Windows (out of 1 terabyte total storage). As soon as I am done "flying", I boot back into Linux to do everything else. I don't do any work in Windows... but I will always have to maintain a base copy of the OS for Flight Simulator. The open source Flight Sims are not quite ready for prime time.
Basically I am paying a few hundred dollars for a Flight Simulator... but for me it's worth it. Were it not for FSX, I would not have a Windows partition.
So I will probably always dual-boot a small windows partition with high-end graphic hardware, with the bonus that I will have a pretty bitchin' linux workstation as a side effect.
I don't need those cards for Linux, but since I need them anyway, it's going to be nice to have them for Linux.
Dude, I have to nitpick on one thing, you're not going to get any form of speed boost out of that 64-bit processor. Any work that could possibly be sped up by 64-bit instructions is most likely already being done by your video card. If you don't have more than 4GB of ram in your box, you generally wont gain anything at all from a 64-bit desktop system.
Maybe you are right. I have 4GB of RAM. 32-bit XP will only see about 3 gigs of it. The 32 bit Windows OS will not see the whole 4GB as it is allocated to PCI devices, etc. And it will supposedly not even allocate more than 4 gigs with a swap because 32bit cannot address more than 4 gigs of memory. So even if I only had 4 gigs of memory, I would prefer 64bit so that I could run a swapfile that could be fully utilized.
About a year ago... I had an aging Athlon 64 3400+ that I was thinking about turning into an Fedora server. It was not going to be a desktop, but I was just screwing around with it, installed X, and goofed around with some GUI server configurators. I then noticed that I had downloaded the x86 version, and that I could be running the x64 version since even the old Athlon is technically a 64 bit processor.
I installed the 64 bit version, and it felt faster and more responsive to me. Did I benchmark it? No. Was it psychological? Maybe. I can't really prove anything. But it felt faster to me.
Nonetheless, if I have a 64bit chip and 4gigs of RAM, I want a 64 bit OS. If it's all in my head than it's all in my head.
I think there is probably some benefit to running a 64bit OS, and I think I am probably getting better performance, but let's say I'm not.
I just found this video online that will pretty much walk you through the setup of multiple monitors. Except that I did not need to download the "Envy" package.
How'd you get Ubuntu to see three monitors, let alone two? That's one of the things I've yet to figure out and it's keeping me from switching.
It was pretty easy. Just load the xinerama package in Synaptic. Then load the nvidia restricted driver from Synaptic. Type 'nivida-settings' from a command line, and it brings up an X applet... looks just like the XP "display options" screen. It will show all three monitors, allow you to drag them around in the configuration that you want (right, left, center, etc). Then, when you have everything the way you want it, you hit the button "write to xorg.conf" file. Restart X, and there you have it. One huge desktop with the taskbar only on the center monitor. Just like XP.
If you would like I can PM you my xorg.conf file.
A 3 headed Linux workstation is a beautiful thing.
It even handles the windows slightly better than XP did as it will snap the borders of my applications to the side of a particular monitor like a magnet without crossing another monitor unless I expressly drag it across.
Only a month? I'd like to hear about your trial much later, because honestly I tried running Linux on the desktop from 2002 to 2006. After many small frustrations trying to get it setup just the way I wanted to in my network, I moved back to Windows. I also moved my server to Windows, which had been Linux since 1999.
I will certainly keep you up to date.
FWIW, I got it working "the way I wanted" in a little over 24 hours. I've been using it for a month. And except for SD card reading and wireless scanning, I feel much better with my operating environment.
Being that everything is already set up to spec, it is unlikely to change, because they way I have used it for the last month is the way I expect to use it for the next few years. 3 head multi-tasking, pretty heavy work. Stable, does what I ask, does it quickly, few pop-up dialogs... just does what I want.
So I am not sure what would change, but anything is possible.
I have been running a web server in Linux since 1996. I have never run a web server on anything other than Linux since 1996. That is one place that I never abandoned Linux. Only reboot for kernel updates. It's on Fedora Core + Apache + Mysql + PHP now.
Is it better than a Windows Server? I honestly have no clue. I have never in my life run a Windows server. Maybe it would blow Linux out of the water. But I have never changed because I have never had an OS problem. I have had hard-drive crashes and the like, but never a problem with the Linux OS. So I never shelled out the bucks for a Windows Server, because I was never lacking anything.
If you say it is better, then I take your word for it. I guess I just don't need any better then Linux + Apache.
Free + More then Good Enough = probably something I will always stick with.
I confess to be someone who uses "RTFM" frequently in conversations with new Linux users. However, I am very careful to specify which FM, how to find TFM, and which parts of TFM they need to R. Usually the biggest problem is that the new user didn't realise there was a FM available for the thing they were having difficulty with.
Granted.
But sometimes it is overused.
Example:
New User: "Which file do I edit to specify my monitor resolutions"
Many Experienced Linux Users: "RTFM, do you want me to wipe your ass for you too?"
Me:/etc/X11/xorg.conf (at lease in Ubuntu)
While RTFM'ing would indeed yield the same result, many people just want Linux to be easy. Like it or not, they just do. They generally don't read manuals for Windows. They just click boxes.
How many of us really read the manual when we get a shiny new toy?
Fine, Linux users expect their users to be more cerebral. But catering only to the cerebral and detail-oriented will invariably equal less users. This is where Microsoft makes a lot of money. By telling people that Linux is "too technical", when in fact that answer is often simple... but we expect people to do more grunt work.
At all comes down to what you prefer. Self-sufficiency or market share.
Personally, I am in the market-share camp. More users = more third party software support = more hardware support = more of everything for me, the Linux user.
There is no free lunch. If you have to hold some hands, or even wipe some asses, IMHO it is worth it in the long run.
If you don't hold their hand and keep them from having to read two lines of a manual, then Mr. Gates is more than happy to do so.
The majority of computer users are non-RTFM'ers. That is just a fact. I don't like it, you don't like it... but that won't change it.
So whenever I could (from a personal standpoint I am talking about the late 1990's)... I always gave people the cheat-sheet answer. Why? Because we need the non-RTFM'er arguably more than they need us if we ever want serious desktop market share. We need the lazy guys as much as the next OS.
They can call MS tech support and ask the guy "How do I open Notepad?", or then can ask me "How do I open Gedit?".
If they get as good or better "dummy answers" from the Linux Community as the get from the "supported OS" community, then they will feel better about the OS.
I don't have much planned this weekend. I think I'll give it a try. I assume it wouldn't be too hard to set up a dual-boot with XP on my current rig, if I do decide to go with it? Or is that opening a whole other can of worms?
If you install XP first, GRUB finds and lets you choose between the two. It is very simple. Upon boot, you are given a selection. Choose Linux or XP. If you don't want to babysit the boot, it will boot your default choose in 10 seconds.
A dual-boot is exceptionally easy. The best of both worlds really. I can still keep my Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Nvidia has much better driver support for Linux than does ATI, so that may be one consideration.
BTW, before I forget, thanks for the back and forth. It's refreshing to have a conversation about Linux and Windows with someone who is not a zealot. It lends a lot more credibility to what you are saying, and I don't have to just tune out the noise.
I agree. It is one of the main reasons that I avoided trying a Linux Desktop. Some of the people are terrible. Some of the condescension from the Fedora Core community really, really turns people off. There is no doubt about it, there are alot of holier-than-thou assholes in the Linux camp. But I guess that goes for Mac and Windows too.
The Ubuntu folks seem to be much more forgiving that you didn't pop out of your mothers nether regions without a C programming manual in hand. In my experience, they don't shout RTFM!!! ad-nauseum.
Every camp has it's zealots. And the truth is always somewhere in the middle.
I can tell you that I am stunned that I have been running Linux exlusively for a month now, and when I need a tool, more often than not I can click a box on the Package Manager and have it installed immediately.
If nothing else, it is certainly worth a look. I remain slightly shocked at how much better my computing experience is from a free.iso file that I downloaded from Bittorent.
If you had told me a year ago that I would have converted to Linux on the desktop, I likely would have laughed pretty hard.
If it's not ready for prime time, all I can tell you is that it is damn close.
You've peaked my interest. I have dual LCDs at home now (mainly for work-purposes). Can I ask what kind of video cards you use and if you've ever had any driver troubles? Also, what version of Ubuntu are you currently running?
2 x Nvideo 6800 Ultras with 3 Viewsonic 21" LCD's is my current setup (soon to be 8800 GTX's on order)
One monitor on top card, two monitors on bottom card.
Ubuntu 7.04 downloaded via bittorrent and burned to DVD.
From end of DVD burn to full 3 head desktop, it took me about 1 hour. Mainly because I didn't know I could use the nvidia-settings program to quickly configure the heads.
If I did it again, I imagine it would take about 20 minutes from DVD burn.
I'm just saying that Vista has made CONSIDERING linux that much easier, especially if Microsoft continues down that same road that took us to Vista.
The great thing about "considering" Linux is that it costs you nothing.
I was going to purchase Vista Ultimate 64bit... but just for shits and grins I downloaded Ubuntu 7.04 to see what all the fuss was about.
I will be honest... I though Ubuntu was a bunch of Linux Fanboy hype about how Linux was ready for the desktop (we have all been hearing this for years - yet it has never completely been so), and I was certain that I would be off to Fry's to grab a copy of Vista.
I have 3 monitors running, and heard nothing but horror stories about multiple heads in Linux.
My "hacking" days are over (I contributed a small part to the Linux kernel in the 90's). But I am old and busy now. It's not my thing anymore. I don't care to dick around with driver code recompilations anymore. I just want to install the things and go on. Almost like my friggin mother.
I burned Ubuntu onto a DVD-RW... so I didn't even have to waste a perfectly good DVD, and could even erase it from that.
I had no intention on keeping the thing on my system, but with a fresh machine... it was the time to just screw around with stuff until I moved all of my data over from my own machine.
It's a month later. I never did buy Vista. Barring a Vista-only program that can make my schlong bigger. I likely never will. I did make a small partition for XP to dual boot, but 90% of the drive is Ubuntu and it is the default OS. It took me 5 minutes with "nvidia-settings" to set up my 3 heads with xinerama enabled.
Nobody is more surprised than I am about this. I had already put the money aside for it... so that wasn't really the issue.
I simply got the exact OS I was looking for when I was eyeing Vista (namely something 64 bit and stable that could see all of my RAM), without ever having to leave the house.
Will everyone come to this conclusion?
Not only no, but hell no.
The point is, you lose NOTHING by trying. Fire up bittorrent, grab Ubuntu (or whatever flavor you like), and try it.
If you aren't pleased... purchase Vista.
At least then you know you made the right choice.
Vista is a fine OS, and you won't shoot yourself for getting it.
But if you set aside one day to install Linux completely for free, what have you lost?
You don't need to CONSIDER Linux. Just try it hands on. The thing even comes with a Live CD so you don't have to touch your hard drive... although the functionality is very limited on the Live CD.
In a perfect world I would like to see everyone just give it a whirl, and move on if it doesn't meet their needs. And there is no reason not to, since it costs zero to do so... and zero if you want to keep it.
And if it isn't for you, it isn't for you.
The fact is that there is no "bad" OS, IMHO. I could take any OS and get done what I need to get done. They are all fine products.
But if you can taste a major OS for free... then why not? At least you will know for a fact that it wasn't for you, and possibly if you are like me, you will find out that it was.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Vista has made me start looking at the different flavors of Linux.
Same here. After running Linux (RH + Windowmaker) exlusively from 1997-2001, I switched over to Windows 2000, and then XP.
I had no real complaints. Good hardware support and lots of applications.
Then slowly over the last 6 years I ditched expensive Photoshop and began using GIMP. I stopped upgrading MS Office and installed Open Office. I started using Firefox exclusively. Thunderbird has been my email client for 2 years. I used Azureus for P2P. My stock trading platform is 100% Java.
It occurred to me last year that I was basically using XP to run 90% open source or platform-neutral applications. And while it was somewhat stable, it was still 32 bit, and was susceptible to all kinds of hacks, and still did crash when I had 20+ apps open, screen saver wouldn't engage, crashes when transferring across MS networks, and some other little things.
So last month it was time for a new computer.
I looked at Vista 64 Ultimate bit.
I looked at Ubuntu 64 bit.
Why pay $300-ish? I dunno. I used almost all free software.
Installed Ubuntu, and now have a triple 1600x1200 head setup with 3 monitors attached to 2 video cards.
It looks beautiful.
Have only rebooted for a new kernel updated.
Have some niggling problems (still trying to get the SD card reader and wireless scanner to recognize), but for the most part everything just works, and has yet to crash (knocks wood). And I don't have to do the virus thing constantly. Ad-aware, Norton, Registry cleaner, etc. Was getting tedious. XP had slowed down considerably after the same intall for 2 years.
And I use the same apps as before. OpenOffice, Gimp, Firefox, Azureus, Bittorrent, Thunderbird, Trading Platform... I can't really tell the difference as the desktop more or less looks the same as before. Three monitors, everything back in it's original place.
I'm not a "fanboy" of anything. I still have a XP partition which I purchased 2 years ago for Flight Simulator X. I think Mac OSX is marvelous... but as far as BUYING a new OS... I don't really see the point.
The strides the Linux Desktop have made in the past few years frankly astounded me, and I am running a new box like nothing has happened.
The OS can see al of my 4GB of memory, it's fast. It's stable. I update and install software with the checkbox. And at native 64 bit, it is much faster on the same hardware... and I am using the exact same programs I was before with no real compromises (and several actual additions to my software arsenal).
I don't hate Microsoft. I don't bash Microsoft. Nor do I hate or bash Novell.
I just don't think they are terribly necessary anymore.
For the average home user, I've just no idea why Vista would be a need. And that goes for business users too, other than the fact that converting a larger operation from one platform to another may be more trouble than it is worth.
The last email came after I spoke to a very polite, seemingly-American WASP woman.
She emailed me some information directly, from Outlook. The IP address was from someplace in Michigan.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that what she did is a bad thing. The new Mac Pro's dual boot and I am sure they use a mixture of equipment, I was just surprised.
We are looking at some new equipment options, and out of curiosity I wanted to see what Mac email program she was using.
I sure did not expect to see Outlook in the mailer headers.
I use Windows XP, and I never use Outlook myself (opting for Thunderbird for the last two years, and before that, Eudora).
This made it all the more surprising.
This is probably off-topic, but the thread is coincidental to some recent email correspondence I have been having with Apple, and it's not worthy of a whole new topic.
I have been corresponding with Apple about a few things.
I just opened the latest email from them and viewed the headers. I observed the following:
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think I ever suggested that the OS be released for free did I?
Let me re-read my post. No, no I dind't.
$300 for Vista Ultimate, or $150 for OSX ... I would probably shell out the cash for the latter.
Wouldn't they make more money selling the OS to the 97% of the people who don't own Macs, instead of just selling it to the 3% who do?
I'm not an economist, but it just seems like they would make a pretty good amount of money with it.
Most of their iPod sales are to non-Mac users. Let a few of their gadgets work on a variety of hardware is what took their stock price from $14 to $140.
You think they would have made more money if they only sold iPods to Mac users?
I know it's just a really nice Window Manager on top of BSD (for the most part), but I think they would really have a market among the people who want to get away from Windows, but just aren't ready to make the leap to Linux.
Is it really just a device driver issue where they don't want to support 1,000,000 combinations of hardware?
BTW, your post inspired me to try it.
I checked a little box on the Nvidia settings and it prompted me to reboot.
When the system came back, the monitors on the secondary card stayed off, but the primary (middle) monitor came on.
I booted up FSX. With the same settings, I got about a 30% improvement in frame rate taking off from McCarran airport and flying over the Las Vegas Strip.
Sweet!
I guess the CPU wasn't as bottlenecked as I had thought.
Although since both configurations exceed 30fps (which is all I need in FSX for smooth flying), I am going to go back to the triple headed setup.
Which I am back in now to type this. I had to uncheck the "SLI" box and restart, so it takes about 60 seconds to change between SLI and multi- monitor setup in Vista. No opening of the case or anything (thank goodness).
Thanks for inspiring me to try it. I can confirm that for single-monitor games, it's pretty fucking awesome in 32 bit Vista.
It's probably even better for games that are more graphic card constrained than CPU constrained.
So to answer your question, it certainly works.
And it works very well.
Thanks for the heads up!
And to think, I thought you were being sarcastic.
I's not, I don't run SLI. Nor did I eve intend to. I run multiple monitors 21" LCD screens. Running FSX with 3 monitors is pretty sweet and is a much more realistic experience, and since FSX is CPU bottlenecked and not graphics card bottlenecked (save for DX10), frame rates are about the same. Especially with the release of FSX SP1 which finally takes advantage of multiple cores. The "gaming" (or simming) aspect of the cards is very nice.
Because it wasn't working only a month ago. I'd mutter something about glass houses, stones, etc., but hey, who am I to judge?
Why would you mutter something about glass houses, and how would that be applicable to my situation? And I don't know how you are to judge. It's your post. Apparently you felt qualified enough to make it.
Your system isn't even doing what it's supposed to with your shiny Vista and shiny new hardware
Awesome sound ... really, the sound is just incredible. Great framerates on my multi-headed simulator at 3x1600x1200x32. Great graphics for all around work. Runs all of my usual Open Apps (Gimp, Open Office, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc, etc). Heck, I can run them all at the same time with hardly a 2fps drop.
So besides not recognizing all of my memory (which is a function of a 32bit OS), occasional BSOD's, and what seems like diabolical non-stop disk access, exactly what is it not doing on my shiny new hardware? Not saying that I wouldn't prefer the workstation partition to be Linux, because I would, but in your opinion, in what manner is my hardware not being used by the OS?
and you expect Linux to be somehow better with cutting-edge hardware support
"Cutting Edge" is somewhat relative. The 8800's have been around since last year. As has the X-Fi card. The processor may be cutting edge (QX6800), but that shouldn't be an issue for either OS.
So after 10 months or so do I expect Linux to support it. In 2007, yeah ... kind of. I didn't expect this back in 1997, but these days it usually happens within a year. Nvidia is pretty good about releasing drivers, and Ubuntu is usually decent about incorporating drivers, so yes, I was a little disappointed given my previous great experiences with Ubuntu.
when traditionally Linux gets the scraps and pieces of company support, if at all?
You just summed a problem with the Linux desktop yourself.
What are you smoking?
I don't smoke.
Driver support under Linux IS fast and easy.
That all depends on what hardware you are using, doesn't it?
Easier than under Windows.
Not on this machine. I don't even think there is a driver for the sound card (which is arguably the best sound card I have ever heard)
It's that manufacturers don't support Linux.
I believe that I stated this in the original post. And I believe that I said that it was a problem with the Linux desktop that was not Linux's fault.
I suppose not even the best Linux distribution can improve one's reading comprehension.
That might very well be a viable solution. Thank you.
No video mode would work, although the text installer would work. And even after graphic driver installation, the $400+ 8800 cards in Linux have pretty much been panned across the board, reportedly being no better than $70-ish 6600 cards.
And there currently exists no Linux driver for the X-Fi sound card.
Call me old-fashioned, but I like both video AND sound.
I know, I know ... I'm a greedy bastard.
Why?
Because when I get a new machine, I research it thoroughly. If I can't be sure that everything will work at least as well as it does on my old one, I don't buy the new machine, or I buy different hardware. Generally, by the time the hardware I want is supported, it's half the price anyway.
Granted. But this goes back to the ago-old argument that one should never buy a new computer, because 6 months later it will be half-priced anyway. Then in 6 months when you go to buy the computer, you realize that in 6 more months it will be half-priced in another 6 months. And on and on.
And this machine does work much better than my old one (a single-core Athlon FX-55). It's blazingly fast and multi-tasks much better. I just don't have the OS I want, but the same apps still run.
If I am forbidden to buy the best computer I can afford, when I need said computer in order to run Linux, then that could be considered by some to be a failure of Linux on the desktop. It is not necessarily the fault of Linux, but it is indeed a problem.
Dumbing down the hardware or waiting 6 months when you need a machine right away is not something that is likely to gain much enthusiasm for people looking at new machines, and fair or not, could be seen by some as a negative.
It is encouraging to know that when this machine ages, it will probably be saved and have it's life extended by Linux, but I can't load it right away. And for better or worse, most folks don't change OS's a year into a computers life.
They applied for credit at Dell Finance, and they applied for credit at Apple Finance.
Dell gave them a 60 second decision approving some huge amount. Apple replied back a week later stating that the application could not be approved at the time, and that they would have to do some kind of further evaluation.
So time being of the essense, this company bought several new Precision workstations and never deployed Apple's machines.
My point?
Sometimes the "exclusivity" thing is taken a bit too far by Apple. Possibly to the detriment of it's shareholders and overall bottom line. When this contract is finished, I know this company will grow significant;y ... and already being entrenched in Windows when Apple had a chance to take them, guess what they are going to go with?
They are going to go with the video editing stuff they already bought for Windows, and will likely buy scores of new workstations from Dell in the future.
The "exclusive" mentality may actually be a barrier to further adoption, as businesses need machines when they need them, not some kind of odd attitude.
No need to get fancy. I just call them "application holes".
But ... I am currently using Windows Vista as I am typing this.
Why?
Because I got a new machine. Quad Core with 2x8800GTX cards powering 3 monitors and an X-Fi Sound Card. It looks and sounds great.
But when I tried to install Ubuntu 7.04 on it over the pre-installed Vista, I got a blank screen. Apparently the 10 month old 8800GTX drivers are not included on the Ubuntu install disk. Yes, there are some workarounds, using a text install, installing envy from a shell, and some other tips that may or may not work (results have been mixed), but it's a leap of faith. People that are running the 8800 cards in Ubuntu have been generally disappointed at their performance from the reading I have done on the Ubuntu forms, finding them slower than 7xxx series cards, and even slower then 6800's. What a waste of expensive graphics cards. And there does not even exist a driver to power my X-Fi soundcard. So I would not get sound. Sweet, a computer with no sound. All that music I downl ... I mean BOUGHT ... would never get heard.
And that may be a bit of a problem for the Linux Desktop. It is hard to start out with a Linux desktop if you have psuedo-cutting-edge hardware. Many people buying new machines have to wait some time for stable and easily installable drivers to appear for their hardware, and by the time they appear, they are already fully entrenched in Windows, have their file structure laid out, etc.
I am sure I will eventually have Linux installed on this machine, but it will be long after it is a high-end machine. I am not going to waste good hardware on drivers that don't work, or work sub-optimally.
But this is not the fault of Linux. The folks who release the drivers just don't care too much about Linux. That is the problem.
In two years, this will be a killer Linux workstation. Today, it would make a shitty Linux workstation.
So, Vista it is for the time being. I have already gotten a BSOD. The OS is nuttier than a squirrels turd and is a general pain in the ass. But my applications run, everything installs the moment I plug it on (joystick, pocket PC, Bluetooth adapter, SD cards, etc) ... I can see what I am doing, the audio sounds great and I can get things done.
Would I rather run Linux? Yes. Vista thrashes the disk around like crazy the whole time the machine is on, and it can only see 2.5 gigs of the 4gigs of RAM I have installed. I suppose I could shell out a few hundred for 64but Vista, but who knows what drivers will and won't work in that.
But at least I have audio and video on the OS I have now. It's an imperfect work.
The Achilles heel for Linux desktops has been and always will be fast and easy driver support, IMHO.
Linux works great on slightly older hardware, but by the time the hardware is slightly older, it is more difficult to get converts. People tend to dance with who brought them, and on most machines, that is Windows.
I have never looked at the "Rank" before. This site is about 9 months old.
Alexa shows that the 3 month change is -67% ... a decrease in traffic of about 2/3rds over the past 3 months.
This is ironic, since we had to upgrade servers and disks due to the rapidly increasing traffic load.
Webalizer (with common IP's like development machines ignored) shows a roughly 105% increase in traffic since April of 2007.
The Google Adsense traffic analysis shows a similar uptrend in page views.
But Alexa says the site traffic is down 67%.
And the site is certainly no more technical or cerebral than the average website and receives about 74% of hits from an IE flavor.
For what it's worth ...
Direct X 10 support.
I am an amateur pilot. I have used MS Flight Simulator for the past 17 years to stay sharp while on the ground. So I dual-boot.
FSX runs like crap on all current hardware. It will not be able to run with full settings without DirectX 10. I have to run it currently with the settings turned way down.
The *only* reason I keep a windows partition now is for MS Flight Simulator. I have a 30gb partition for Windows (out of 1 terabyte total storage). As soon as I am done "flying", I boot back into Linux to do everything else. I don't do any work in Windows ... but I will always have to maintain a base copy of the OS for Flight Simulator. The open source Flight Sims are not quite ready for prime time.
Basically I am paying a few hundred dollars for a Flight Simulator ... but for me it's worth it. Were it not for FSX, I would not have a Windows partition.
So I will probably always dual-boot a small windows partition with high-end graphic hardware, with the bonus that I will have a pretty bitchin' linux workstation as a side effect.
I don't need those cards for Linux, but since I need them anyway, it's going to be nice to have them for Linux.
Maybe you are right. I have 4GB of RAM. 32-bit XP will only see about 3 gigs of it. The 32 bit Windows OS will not see the whole 4GB as it is allocated to PCI devices, etc. And it will supposedly not even allocate more than 4 gigs with a swap because 32bit cannot address more than 4 gigs of memory. So even if I only had 4 gigs of memory, I would prefer 64bit so that I could run a swapfile that could be fully utilized.
About a year ago ... I had an aging Athlon 64 3400+ that I was thinking about turning into an Fedora server. It was not going to be a desktop, but I was just screwing around with it, installed X, and goofed around with some GUI server configurators. I then noticed that I had downloaded the x86 version, and that I could be running the x64 version since even the old Athlon is technically a 64 bit processor.
I installed the 64 bit version, and it felt faster and more responsive to me. Did I benchmark it? No. Was it psychological? Maybe. I can't really prove anything. But it felt faster to me.
Nonetheless, if I have a 64bit chip and 4gigs of RAM, I want a 64 bit OS. If it's all in my head than it's all in my head.
I think there is probably some benefit to running a 64bit OS, and I think I am probably getting better performance, but let's say I'm not.
What have I lost?
The OS is free.
http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/linux/2007/06/18/ dual-monitors-with-ubuntu
Cool, thanks. I am downloading it now.
It was pretty easy. Just load the xinerama package in Synaptic. Then load the nvidia restricted driver from Synaptic. Type 'nivida-settings' from a command line, and it brings up an X applet ... looks just like the XP "display options" screen. It will show all three monitors, allow you to drag them around in the configuration that you want (right, left, center, etc). Then, when you have everything the way you want it, you hit the button "write to xorg.conf" file. Restart X, and there you have it. One huge desktop with the taskbar only on the center monitor. Just like XP.
If you would like I can PM you my xorg.conf file.
A 3 headed Linux workstation is a beautiful thing.
It even handles the windows slightly better than XP did as it will snap the borders of my applications to the side of a particular monitor like a magnet without crossing another monitor unless I expressly drag it across.
I will certainly keep you up to date.
FWIW, I got it working "the way I wanted" in a little over 24 hours. I've been using it for a month. And except for SD card reading and wireless scanning, I feel much better with my operating environment.
Being that everything is already set up to spec, it is unlikely to change, because they way I have used it for the last month is the way I expect to use it for the next few years. 3 head multi-tasking, pretty heavy work. Stable, does what I ask, does it quickly, few pop-up dialogs ... just does what I want.
So I am not sure what would change, but anything is possible.
I have been running a web server in Linux since 1996. I have never run a web server on anything other than Linux since 1996. That is one place that I never abandoned Linux. Only reboot for kernel updates. It's on Fedora Core + Apache + Mysql + PHP now.
Is it better than a Windows Server? I honestly have no clue. I have never in my life run a Windows server. Maybe it would blow Linux out of the water. But I have never changed because I have never had an OS problem. I have had hard-drive crashes and the like, but never a problem with the Linux OS. So I never shelled out the bucks for a Windows Server, because I was never lacking anything.
If you say it is better, then I take your word for it. I guess I just don't need any better then Linux + Apache.
Free + More then Good Enough = probably something I will always stick with.
Granted.
But sometimes it is overused.
Example:
New User: "Which file do I edit to specify my monitor resolutions"
Many Experienced Linux Users: "RTFM, do you want me to wipe your ass for you too?"
Me: /etc/X11/xorg.conf (at lease in Ubuntu)
While RTFM'ing would indeed yield the same result, many people just want Linux to be easy. Like it or not, they just do. They generally don't read manuals for Windows. They just click boxes.
How many of us really read the manual when we get a shiny new toy?
Fine, Linux users expect their users to be more cerebral. But catering only to the cerebral and detail-oriented will invariably equal less users. This is where Microsoft makes a lot of money. By telling people that Linux is "too technical", when in fact that answer is often simple ... but we expect people to do more grunt work.
At all comes down to what you prefer. Self-sufficiency or market share.
Personally, I am in the market-share camp. More users = more third party software support = more hardware support = more of everything for me, the Linux user.
There is no free lunch. If you have to hold some hands, or even wipe some asses, IMHO it is worth it in the long run.
If you don't hold their hand and keep them from having to read two lines of a manual, then Mr. Gates is more than happy to do so.
The majority of computer users are non-RTFM'ers. That is just a fact. I don't like it, you don't like it ... but that won't change it.
So whenever I could (from a personal standpoint I am talking about the late 1990's) ... I always gave people the cheat-sheet answer. Why? Because we need the non-RTFM'er arguably more than they need us if we ever want serious desktop market share. We need the lazy guys as much as the next OS.
They can call MS tech support and ask the guy "How do I open Notepad?", or then can ask me "How do I open Gedit?".
If they get as good or better "dummy answers" from the Linux Community as the get from the "supported OS" community, then they will feel better about the OS.
It's an imprefect world, but it is what it is.
If you install XP first, GRUB finds and lets you choose between the two. It is very simple. Upon boot, you are given a selection. Choose Linux or XP. If you don't want to babysit the boot, it will boot your default choose in 10 seconds.
A dual-boot is exceptionally easy. The best of both worlds really. I can still keep my Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Nvidia has much better driver support for Linux than does ATI, so that may be one consideration.
BTW, before I forget, thanks for the back and forth. It's refreshing to have a conversation about Linux and Windows with someone who is not a zealot. It lends a lot more credibility to what you are saying, and I don't have to just tune out the noise.
I agree. It is one of the main reasons that I avoided trying a Linux Desktop. Some of the people are terrible. Some of the condescension from the Fedora Core community really, really turns people off. There is no doubt about it, there are alot of holier-than-thou assholes in the Linux camp. But I guess that goes for Mac and Windows too.
The Ubuntu folks seem to be much more forgiving that you didn't pop out of your mothers nether regions without a C programming manual in hand. In my experience, they don't shout RTFM!!! ad-nauseum.
Every camp has it's zealots. And the truth is always somewhere in the middle.
I can tell you that I am stunned that I have been running Linux exlusively for a month now, and when I need a tool, more often than not I can click a box on the Package Manager and have it installed immediately.
If nothing else, it is certainly worth a look. I remain slightly shocked at how much better my computing experience is from a free .iso file that I downloaded from Bittorent.
If you had told me a year ago that I would have converted to Linux on the desktop, I likely would have laughed pretty hard.
If it's not ready for prime time, all I can tell you is that it is damn close.
2 x Nvideo 6800 Ultras with 3 Viewsonic 21" LCD's is my current setup (soon to be 8800 GTX's on order)
One monitor on top card, two monitors on bottom card.
Ubuntu 7.04 downloaded via bittorrent and burned to DVD.
From end of DVD burn to full 3 head desktop, it took me about 1 hour. Mainly because I didn't know I could use the nvidia-settings program to quickly configure the heads.
If I did it again, I imagine it would take about 20 minutes from DVD burn.
The great thing about "considering" Linux is that it costs you nothing.
I was going to purchase Vista Ultimate 64bit ... but just for shits and grins I downloaded Ubuntu 7.04 to see what all the fuss was about.
I will be honest ... I though Ubuntu was a bunch of Linux Fanboy hype about how Linux was ready for the desktop (we have all been hearing this for years - yet it has never completely been so), and I was certain that I would be off to Fry's to grab a copy of Vista.
I have 3 monitors running, and heard nothing but horror stories about multiple heads in Linux.
My "hacking" days are over (I contributed a small part to the Linux kernel in the 90's). But I am old and busy now. It's not my thing anymore. I don't care to dick around with driver code recompilations anymore. I just want to install the things and go on. Almost like my friggin mother.
I burned Ubuntu onto a DVD-RW ... so I didn't even have to waste a perfectly good DVD, and could even erase it from that.
I had no intention on keeping the thing on my system, but with a fresh machine ... it was the time to just screw around with stuff until I moved all of my data over from my own machine.
It's a month later. I never did buy Vista. Barring a Vista-only program that can make my schlong bigger. I likely never will. I did make a small partition for XP to dual boot, but 90% of the drive is Ubuntu and it is the default OS. It took me 5 minutes with "nvidia-settings" to set up my 3 heads with xinerama enabled.
Nobody is more surprised than I am about this. I had already put the money aside for it ... so that wasn't really the issue.
I simply got the exact OS I was looking for when I was eyeing Vista (namely something 64 bit and stable that could see all of my RAM), without ever having to leave the house.
Will everyone come to this conclusion?
Not only no, but hell no.
The point is, you lose NOTHING by trying. Fire up bittorrent, grab Ubuntu (or whatever flavor you like), and try it.
If you aren't pleased ... purchase Vista.
At least then you know you made the right choice.
Vista is a fine OS, and you won't shoot yourself for getting it.
But if you set aside one day to install Linux completely for free, what have you lost?
You don't need to CONSIDER Linux. Just try it hands on. The thing even comes with a Live CD so you don't have to touch your hard drive ... although the functionality is very limited on the Live CD.
In a perfect world I would like to see everyone just give it a whirl, and move on if it doesn't meet their needs. And there is no reason not to, since it costs zero to do so ... and zero if you want to keep it.
And if it isn't for you, it isn't for you.
The fact is that there is no "bad" OS, IMHO. I could take any OS and get done what I need to get done. They are all fine products.
But if you can taste a major OS for free ... then why not? At least you will know for a fact that it wasn't for you, and possibly if you are like me, you will find out that it was.
Same here. After running Linux (RH + Windowmaker) exlusively from 1997-2001, I switched over to Windows 2000, and then XP.
I had no real complaints. Good hardware support and lots of applications.
Then slowly over the last 6 years I ditched expensive Photoshop and began using GIMP. I stopped upgrading MS Office and installed Open Office. I started using Firefox exclusively. Thunderbird has been my email client for 2 years. I used Azureus for P2P. My stock trading platform is 100% Java.
It occurred to me last year that I was basically using XP to run 90% open source or platform-neutral applications. And while it was somewhat stable, it was still 32 bit, and was susceptible to all kinds of hacks, and still did crash when I had 20+ apps open, screen saver wouldn't engage, crashes when transferring across MS networks, and some other little things.
So last month it was time for a new computer.
I looked at Vista 64 Ultimate bit.
I looked at Ubuntu 64 bit.
Why pay $300-ish? I dunno. I used almost all free software.
Installed Ubuntu, and now have a triple 1600x1200 head setup with 3 monitors attached to 2 video cards.
It looks beautiful.
Have only rebooted for a new kernel updated.
Have some niggling problems (still trying to get the SD card reader and wireless scanner to recognize), but for the most part everything just works, and has yet to crash (knocks wood). And I don't have to do the virus thing constantly. Ad-aware, Norton, Registry cleaner, etc. Was getting tedious. XP had slowed down considerably after the same intall for 2 years.
And I use the same apps as before. OpenOffice, Gimp, Firefox, Azureus, Bittorrent, Thunderbird, Trading Platform ... I can't really tell the difference as the desktop more or less looks the same as before. Three monitors, everything back in it's original place.
I'm not a "fanboy" of anything. I still have a XP partition which I purchased 2 years ago for Flight Simulator X. I think Mac OSX is marvelous ... but as far as BUYING a new OS ... I don't really see the point.
The strides the Linux Desktop have made in the past few years frankly astounded me, and I am running a new box like nothing has happened.
The OS can see al of my 4GB of memory, it's fast. It's stable. I update and install software with the checkbox. And at native 64 bit, it is much faster on the same hardware ... and I am using the exact same programs I was before with no real compromises (and several actual additions to my software arsenal).
I don't hate Microsoft. I don't bash Microsoft. Nor do I hate or bash Novell.
I just don't think they are terribly necessary anymore.
For the average home user, I've just no idea why Vista would be a need. And that goes for business users too, other than the fact that converting a larger operation from one platform to another may be more trouble than it is worth.
The last email came after I spoke to a very polite, seemingly-American WASP woman. She emailed me some information directly, from Outlook. The IP address was from someplace in Michigan. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that what she did is a bad thing. The new Mac Pro's dual boot and I am sure they use a mixture of equipment, I was just surprised. We are looking at some new equipment options, and out of curiosity I wanted to see what Mac email program she was using. I sure did not expect to see Outlook in the mailer headers. I use Windows XP, and I never use Outlook myself (opting for Thunderbird for the last two years, and before that, Eudora). This made it all the more surprising.
I have been corresponding with Apple about a few things.
I just opened the latest email from them and viewed the headers. I observed the following:
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
Make of that what you will ... if anything.
With the included slide-out keyboard, isn't this a mico-notebook? http://www.sprint.com/business/products/phones/ppc 6700_allPcsPhones.html?origref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dppc%2B6700%26ie%3Dutf-8%26 oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3A official%26client%3Dfirefox-a