InfoWorld's "Save XP" petition asking Microsoft to keep Windows XP available indefinitely, not end most sales on June 30 as currently planned, has prompted many readers to suggest that maybe the best answer for those who don't like Vista is to switch to another operating system completely.
"Don't be afraid. Just switch to Linux and become a member of a really free society," wrote Carlos Raul Gutierrez. "Windows Vista was the reason I bought a Mac mini. I didn't want my only choices to be an operating system that would soon be obsolete (XP) or one that was buggy and would break much existing hardware (Vista), and I'm not enough of a geek to use Linux (do things from the command line? Puhleeze...)," wrote "Jack."
"Don't be afraid. Just switch to Linux and become a member of a really free society," wrote Carlos Raul Gutierrez. "Windows Vista was the reason I bought a Mac mini. I didn't want my only choices to be an operating system that would soon be obsolete (XP) or one that was buggy and would break much existing hardware (Vista), and I'm not enough of a geek to use Linux (do things from the command line? Puhleeze...)," wrote "Jack."
You know, I used to agree with this point. After having used Macs for a few months, I don't think it's true. Let me explain why.
Apple does control what their systems contain, but this doesn't mean that they're programming for one computer. The chipset in my Macbook Pro is different from the Macbook Pros that were released a few months later (they upgraded them to the Santa Rosa chipset) and those are slightly different from the various iterations that were released down the line. There's less overall variability among desktops, but the desktops are still being updated, too. It's not the exact same system.
Additionally, Apple is currently supporting Intel processors and their old RISC-based processors (G4- and G5-based systems). I'm not a programmer; I don't know how difficult it is to support two system architectures at once with a single program and operating system, but Apple is doing it. I don't know whether this rivals the variability of the PC market, but it's rather impressive nontheless.
Lastly, Apple is still supporting their older operating systems. I've boosted all of the systems I use at work to OS X 10.4 at the least, but just a month or two ago I still had some systems running 10.3 and they were receiving updates. I've found many Mac users to be incredibly afraid of change, and a surprisingly large number of other users were also still using 10.3. The changes between the operating systems may not be as drastic with Mac OS X as they are with Windows, but they're still notable. From what I've been told, The 10.x.y updates equate to Windows in that a Y update is a service pack and an X update is a new OS.
I don't say this as a Mac fanboy at all, but let's give credit where it's due, yeah?
Yeah, that's the problem with VISTA...dodgy computers with poor quality hardware and packed with rubbish software...I've recently seen OEM machines that are so full of "custom" software it makes VISTA run completely awful...install it fresh and VISTA is great...
You know, I used to agree with this point. After having used Macs for a few months, I don't think it's true. [...] I don't say this as a Mac fanboy at all, but let's give credit where it's due, yeah?
Ledgem, you actually provided more insight to support daniel_rh's claim. When you think of hardware support for the Macs, you think of Apple as the retail manufacturer. Mac hardware upgrading is oftenly conducted through the Apple stores. For PC's, every other hardware company releases its own stuff. Graphics components, sound cards, motherboards, chipsets, joysticks, hard drives, memory, etc. In the PC world, Windows must support and standardize hardware drivers so engineers (both newbies and experienced veterans) in America, Europe, and Asia can plug into Windows and "just work"... with a driver install, of course.
Apple controls the hardware scope; if it is not offered as part of their computer bundle, then it will not be supported (with extremely rare exception). Microsoft does not control hardware scope; but they are expected to support them anyways! Talk about global industry pressure!!!
I'm not trying to excuse Windows for have driver incompatibility issues or occasional OS errors which inhibit unadulterated fun. But credit must be given to Microsoft for having an OS capable of supporting hardware which does not even exist!!! (Just think of next-gen hardware which will be Vista-compatible, but Microsoft could not have developed the drivers for them yet.)
Ledgem, you actually provided more insight to support daniel_rh's claim. When you think of hardware support for the Macs, you think of Apple as the retail manufacturer. Mac hardware upgrading is oftenly conducted through the Apple stores. For PC's, every other hardware company releases its own stuff. Graphics components, sound cards, motherboards, chipsets, joysticks, hard drives, memory, etc. In the PC world, Windows must support and standardize hardware drivers so engineers (both newbies and experienced veterans) in America, Europe, and Asia can plug into Windows and "just work"... with a driver install, of course.
Apple controls the hardware scope; if it is not offered as part of their computer bundle, then it will not be supported (with extremely rare exception). Microsoft does not control hardware scope; but they are expected to support them anyways! Talk about global industry pressure!!!
I'm not trying to excuse Windows for have driver incompatibility issues or occasional OS errors which inhibit unadulterated fun. But credit must be given to Microsoft for having an OS capable of supporting hardware which does not even exist!!! (Just think of next-gen hardware which will be Vista-compatible, but Microsoft could not have developed the drivers for them yet.)[/quote]
great point.
Lastly, Apple is still supporting their older operating systems. I've boosted all of the systems I use at work to OS X 10.4 at the least, but just a month or two ago I still had some systems running 10.3 and they were receiving updates. I've found many Mac users to be incredibly afraid of change, and a surprisingly large number of other users were also still using 10.3. The changes between the operating systems may not be as drastic with Mac OS X as they are with Windows, but they're still notable. From what I've been told, The 10.x.y updates equate to Windows in that a Y update is a service pack and an X update is a new OS.
I don't say this as a Mac fanboy at all, but let's give credit where it's due, yeah?
You need to realize that Apple release OS X every year, Microsoft released XP in 2001, this means that they have supported Windows XP since the first Mac OS X!
Apple still supports OS X 10.3 but by Microsoft standards, they should support 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2 as well.
You know, I used to agree with this point. After having used Macs for a few months, I don't think it's true. [...] I don't say this as a Mac fanboy at all, but let's give credit where it's due, yeah?
Ledgem, you actually provided more insight to support daniel_rh's claim. When you think of hardware support for the Macs, you think of Apple as the retail manufacturer. Mac hardware upgrading is oftenly conducted through the Apple stores. ... But credit must be given to Microsoft for having an OS capable of supporting hardware which does not even exist!!! (Just think of next-gen hardware which will be Vista-compatible, but Microsoft could not have developed the drivers for them yet.)
But surely it's more the other way round. Microsoft has such a monopoly that the manufacturers make sure that their products work well with Windows to ensure the maximum market?
You know, I used to agree with this point. After having used Macs for a few months, I don't think it's true. Let me explain why.
Apple does control what their systems contain, but this doesn't mean that they're programming for one computer. The chipset in my Macbook Pro is different from the Macbook Pros that were released a few months later (they upgraded them to the Santa Rosa chipset) and those are slightly different from the various iterations that were released down the line. There's less overall variability among desktops, but the desktops are still being updated, too. It's not the exact same system.
Additionally, Apple is currently supporting Intel processors and their old RISC-based processors (G4- and G5-based systems). I'm not a programmer; I don't know how difficult it is to support two system architectures at once with a single program and operating system, but Apple is doing it. I don't know whether this rivals the variability of the PC market, but it's rather impressive nontheless.
Lastly, Apple is still supporting their older operating systems. I've boosted all of the systems I use at work to OS X 10.4 at the least, but just a month or two ago I still had some systems running 10.3 and they were receiving updates. I've found many Mac users to be incredibly afraid of change, and a surprisingly large number of other users were also still using 10.3. The changes between the operating systems may not be as drastic with Mac OS X as they are with Windows, but they're still notable. From what I've been told, The 10.x.y updates equate to Windows in that a Y update is a service pack and an X update is a new OS.
I don't say this as a Mac fanboy at all, but let's give credit where it's due, yeah?
they are still supporting a KNOWN set of hardware thats the whole point, yeah they have different models but they know exactly what hardware those models contain, this does not come close to comparing to the PC market..and wow they are updating 10.3, as MS are updating XP. are they still updating macos 8 or even 9 is the question
Is that really the problem? That's not what the benchmarks have revealed. The resource consumption woes of Vista are even more obvious. It's a giant dump truck and you need a dump truck of a PC to get the same performance out of Vista as you would with a hatchback running XP.
Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Benchmarked - Vista Loses Again
Is that really the problem? That's not what the benchmarks have revealed. The resource consumption woes of Vista are even more obvious. It's a giant dump truck and you need a dump truck of a PC to get the same performance out of Vista as you would with a hatchback running XP.
Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Benchmarked - Vista Loses Again[/quote]
Thanks for the blog spam, but I'm not interested in someone's opinion over my first-hand observations.
Is that really the problem? That's not what the benchmarks have revealed. The resource consumption woes of Vista are even more obvious. It's a giant dump truck and you need a dump truck of a PC to get the same performance out of Vista as you would with a hatchback running XP.
Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Benchmarked - Vista Loses Again[/quote]
Built-in archiver sucks. Next?
On that note why change the oil in your car?
Then why we have to move to Windows XP from DOS?
Then why we have to move to Windows XP from DOS?
Terrible comparison. (Same with the oil change one above you).
On that note why change the oil in your car?
Because impurities in the oil over time can damage your car, and changing the oil helps to prevent this
On that note why change the oil in your car?
Because impurities in the oil over time can damage your car, and changing the oil helps to prevent this
Well then changing the oil in your car would be like reinstalling Vista, fresh.
Buying (or in another case stealing, downloading
On that note why change the oil in your car?
Because impurities in the oil over time can damage your car, and changing the oil helps to prevent this
Well then changing the oil in your car would be like reinstalling Vista, fresh.
Buying (or in another case stealing, downloading
Um no? Changing your oil is not like installing vista... that is more like putting a new engine in your car... windows makes your comp run, your engine makes your car run... oil keeps your engine running fine... changing your oil is like changing your Anti virus definitions... it keeps the bad things out...
On that note why change the oil in your car?
Are you dense or just trolling? Operating systems don't wear out as oil does.
my thoughts exactly. you don't want to upgrade to Vista, stay with XP. just because support runs out for XP in June doesn't mean XP will stop working. updates might get a lil scarce but what are the chances of that happening?
i think this date will change again depending on adoption rates for Vista and the number of corporations still running on XP when the date finally reaches.
my thoughts exactly. you don't want to upgrade to Vista, stay with XP. just because support runs out for XP in June doesn't mean XP will stop working. updates might get a lil scarce but what are the chances of that happening?
i think this date will change again depending on adoption rates for Vista and the number of corporations still running on XP when the date finally reaches.
XP support isn't scheduled to end until April 2009 with XP Pro extended support til 2014. They only intend to stop mainstream production in June 2008. Microsoft Support Lifecycle
hardware that has been around within 3 years of vista's release should be able to handle vista... heck even my dell from 2002 (it was only 1100$ at the time) seems to run vista without problems (tho more memory would be cool.. and thats a cheap upgrade)
linux is not ready for primetime... tho it is relatively easy to do basic tasks like connect to the internet, surf, w/e... its usability is still far from windows or osx.
SP1 fixes at least 551 bugs: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=366
Some of them more talked about than others, like the file transfer bugs.
SP1 fixes at least 551 bugs: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=366
Some of them more talked about than others, like the file transfer bugs.
551 bugs in the first year is actually very good for an OS
Last edited by XerXis on 18 Feb 2008 - 17:10
SP1 fixes at least 551 bugs: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=366
Some of them more talked about than others, like the file transfer bugs.
551 bugs in the first year is very good actually for an OS
Windows XP SP2 had over 800 hotfixes in it ....and theres been loads since ...551 is a good figure
I agree totally. Vista definitely is NOT buggy, and if anything is far more stable than XP is. I guess its all just their own loss if they choose to be so ignorant of the truth.
I've even installed Vista on a 6 year old computer and it works just fine. But you wouldn't know if it a person listens to the Anti-Vista people.
Good luck to these same people also when it comes time to utilize their multi-core cpu's which Vista supports and XP doesn't.
just the other day i had a woman ask me for advice on a Vostro. never bought a computer before... then she asks me if she should downgrade to XP. i ask why and she says Vista is crap. i ask if she ever used Vista and she says no, that everyone she talks to says it's crap and she doesn't want it.
what do you do in a situation like that? i tell her i've been using Vista for maybe 16 months or something without any hitches and she just shrugs.
just more proof that people buy into what the masses are selling without even being properly informed.
Last edited by ikyouCrow on 19 Feb 2008 - 16:45
Also anyone suggesting switching to a Mac of Linux because they can no longer buy Windows XP are stupid... if you already own a copy of Windows and you change your PC, then why not just install your copy on your new machine????
Sure a very small percentage will buy additional computers but the vast majority will be replacements.
However the idea that users should simply give up Windows and move always misses an important point. In the buisness world there are too many custom applications that run only on Windows. A wholesale move to any other OS is simply not physically possible. The company I was last working with spent $2 million on the source code (VB/Oracle) to run their business. This is not unusual. To convert Windows apps to Java or Web applications would take billions (or more) in the US alone. And even if the process was to happen, it would take many many years. My guess is that it would take 20 years.
However, if we are talking about changing the user's OS for home.... well, then I have nothing bad to say there. There are alot of fine options that will allow most users to run applications that can share data with their work based Windows apps.
My base point: A switch CAN happen, but will it? *I* doubt it. I BELIEVE Windows is here to say based in the numbers and costs involved.
Peace,
James Rose
New York City
The only thing keeping most people stuck with Windows is software compatibility. Google is investing in WINE to help Linux run more and more Windows applications. Photoshop CS2 already works, most of MS Office 2003 works (although you could probably just use Open Office?), and even some games work. It's not really that long before Linux has maybe 70% or more compatibility with Windows XP. Then you'll see a lot more people switch.
Besides that, Linux has become very easy to maintain. If it breaks (much less likely than with Windows), you back up your personal files/settings and reinstall without worrying about losing anything. It is Windows that purposely obfuscates system settings from users to make it difficult to pirate software and to make it easier for MS to spy on and control user behavior. With Linux, there's nothing hidden from you, no corporate spooks poking around inside your PC and your LAN.
I'd go as far as saying if Microsoft went down people would still use Windows if Linux hadn't sparked a renaissance in a way of sweeping the marketshare
I use fedora 8, and just about everything a user would need is available as GUI application (from networking, firewall config, wireless config, program installation, to directory/file management). I personally, use the command line often because it allows me to perform operations faster with more control, but you by no means are forced to use it.
I started using Linux because I wasn't happy with the path Windows Vista was going in general. I am a software developer, and Windows Vista made programming hell (Between registry virtualization, and a ton of other features). I decided it was time for a switch, and Linux was VERY easy for me to use.
Linux seems a lot more customizable, from services and runlevels, to the desktop interface. And nearly everything is free, and open-source. It really is sad that people generally seem to believe everything in ALL Linux distributions must be done through a CLI--that simply isn't the case anymore.
Haven't regretted it one bit!
Haven't regretted it one bit!
The only thing is, Mark... I'd hardly call you an "average" user.
HAHAHA. No. Not at all.
And its our fault the OS sucks??? Who else would you blame???
They don't like how a program or hardware they use doesn't work with Vista, so they switch to a completely different platform and OS where NONE of their old programs or hardware work?
GREAT solution there!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Vista. I'm tired of this crap BS, and most of it is complete lies.
All I can do is browse the web. Your insightful brilliance has shown me the light. I will wipe my drive and install Windows now!
All I can do is browse the web. Your insightful brilliance has shown me the light. I will wipe my drive and install Windows now!
Linux - It's good for almost anything. Almost. The driver hell is not worth 100$ for Windows (I'm talking about an average user). But still, I switched 70 of my users to Linux with no problem. Yeah it took some time, but we're completle legal now.
#2) i dual boot vista and ubuntu and go back and forth between which one i use more at stretches. The idea that vista breaks every piece of hardware that you own is completely overblown. I have a couple of different vista units between myself my friends and my family that i work on and none of them have hardware trouble. I'd expect that anyone with a computer slightly younger than dirt probably has the same experience.
#3) ""I'm not enough of a geek to use Linux (do things from the command line? Puhleeze..."" -- This quote is why more people don't use linux: because ignorant writers around the internet (who likely have little to no experience using it,) tell them that it's just too complicated for the average person. The truth is that it has come leaps and bounds the past few years and that the average user almost never has to touch the command line if they don't want to, but finds out that the command line isn't "scary" to begin with.
#4) how come "enlightened" vista users can chastise people who say that lots of hardware doesn't work on vista and not point any fingers when a vista user claims no hardware works on linux? Why don't you try actually using the OS and seeing what it's about before making up stuff that you heard someone else say who likely didnt know what they were talking about either?
IT doesnt help that you get blasted on most linux boards when you ask what they consider newbie questions.
LInux is still really for geeks. If you give a non comp person a linux disk and tell them to install it fully it still wont be easy and the command line is still needed.
IT doesnt help that you get blasted on most linux boards when you ask what they consider newbie questions.
LInux is still really for geeks. If you give a non comp person a linux disk and tell them to install it fully it still wont be easy and the command line is still needed.
If you want to say that linux needs to straighten out the whole issue with "restricted drivers" then i'd agree with you, but other than that it's very easy to get those cards working.
And i would also say that every linux community i've ever been to has been nothing but helpful in trying to help someone solve a problem, even if the question has been asked 100 times before and is easily researchable on your own.
I had some apprehensions reading this thread and that's two good points and I'm only a third of the way down the page!
+1
even though it's equally bogus, i'd say Vista 64 breaks some apps. there aren't a lot of drivers out there for lots of stuff. and that's still not MS's fault.
like, i have to use a 64-bit Kyocera CDMA 2000 USB modem driver to connect to the Internet, and it's not terrible. except the part where now i can only connect at 28.8K....
if anyone can point me towards a more compatible 64-bit driver for a CCU-550.....
I moved to Vista 64-bit in November and it has worked well. A few minor bugs but even those were crushed in SP1. The only hardware that didn't work were a 7+ year old scanner and a serial port Wacom Graphire tablet (they dropped Vista support). The Wacom thing was a great excuse to buy an A4 sized Intuos3, which works without problems in Vista, just like the rest of my hardware. By comparison on Linux often even newer hardware doesn't work due to no drivers but this is really not the OSs problem.
I think it's silly to expect that your 5 year old computer will run Vista perfectly. XP is an old OS so it's no surprise that it is less resource intensive. If anyone has tried running OSX on older Macs you'd notice it doesn't run that smoothly.