[snips]
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:51:13 -0500, DFS wrote:
>> Still, Vista must be good ;-)
>
> It sure beats Linux.
Not sure how.
Compare Vista to XP for a moment. What - from the user perspective - is
new and interesting?
There's the new menu structure. There's the new windows switcher.
There's window previews. The "breadcrumb" bar. File search/library. A
new WMP. Enhanced control center. Windows Defender built in. Windows
calendar. Aero glass. Sidebar. Windows Contacts. UAC.
All very good and whatnot and yes, fine, most of 'em are
better/prettier/whatever than in XP. Now compare them to Linux.
The new menus? kbfx does pretty much the same thing. File search? Any
of several tools for that. New WMP? Sorry, but IMO it just doesn't
compare to the combination of Amarok for audio and any of several apps for
video. Control center? Hmm. The one I use isn't nearly as
comprehensive, but then it actually doesn't need to be; a case where
simpler actually is better. Windows defender? Don't need it. Windows
calendar? My system came with scheduling/calndaring/etc included and it
works quite well. Aero interface? Can't begin to compare to
Beryl/Compiz, and requires considerably more resources. Sidebar? Isn't
this just a stripped down version of SuperKaramba and similar tools?
Contacts... well... I've already got a complete contact system included,
not sure what this one buys over mine. UAC? Don't need it, thanks.
So essentially, aside from possibly being prettier (an issue of taste, not
objective betterness) Vista doesn't really seem to add anything I don't
already have with Linux, but it does add a few things I neither need nor
want - the pointless security tools, notably.
In short, as far as I can see, I've already got all the Vista
enhancements, without the crud I don't want.
However... I've also got a lot of other goodies Vista lacks. Proper
multi-user support being the obvious example. Comparative immunity to
numerous security problems which plague Windows. A DRM-free system. A
system which doesn't report back to home base with who knows what
information.
I've also got the ability to significantly tailor the system. I can use
KDE or Gnome or Xfce or any of several other UIs... or I can remove the
GUI entirely.
I've also got fewer limits. I can use the system as a desktop or a
server, or as a hybrid. I can drop full enterprise-scale tools on my
machine without worrying about having the right "version" - and without
worrying about licensing issues.
I've also got less wasted overhead. No AV apps sucking up resources, for
example. No GUI on systems where I don't need it - or has Vista finally
figured that one out?
I have better eye candy thanks to Beryl et al, with considerably less
demand on the hardware.
I have my choice of many different file systems, tailored to different
needs.
I have my choice of different encryption options, for entire file systems
or for individual files or directories, independent of the files systems
themselves - I can run FAT32 partitions and still have secure data if I
want.
I can stick with the "generic" kernel, which works well enough for most
purposes, or I can select "server" kernels with options intended for
better performance and suchlike on servers, or low latency kernels for
high-response setups.
And let's talk hardware support, shall we? I don't know if Vista has
improved the basic faults of Windows in this arena, but as a simple
example, take network card support. Windows has traditionally been
horrible in this arena; a stock NIC _not_ supported out of the box meant
you had to either have a driver disk, or, if you're like many, you don't
have it so you need to download it - which you can't do because you have
high-speed which needs a working NIC, in order to download the driver. I
can't recall the last NIC I used where Linux didn't support it out of the
box.
Or take media devices. Perfect example, a WinTV PVR 500. This is a
dual-channel TV decoder and hardware compressor. Comes with a driver CD
for Windows. Popped it into a Ubuntu box... detected and supported at
boot. Install an app or two to do the actual watching of TV and voila.
It's been a *long* time since I've used a piece of hardware Linux didn't
support, though some - like some in Windows - have needed a little effort
to get working. My HP laser printer was such a case; took reading a howto
and a couple minutes' work and voila, done. Most, though, are detected at
boot, no extra work needed. How's driver support in Vista, particularly
in 64-bit versions? Last I heard, drivers were an issue even in 32-bit
versions, and Windows has traditionally had issues with 64 bit hardware
support; I assume Vista, "beating Linux" must do a better job of this than
Windows ever has, better than Linux does.
How about applications? My install media came with entire office suites,
personal finance management, development tools, servers, 3D rendering
apps, a few games, multimedia production and playback tools, a whole
selection of apps for mail, news,instant messaging, IRC and the like; I'm
sure Vista comes with all of these bundled, since as you note, it
"sure beats Linux".
'Course, there's also the simple ease factor. I don't mean installation,
as Linux beats Vista hands down in that department unless you buy a box
with Vista preinstalled, but in terms of doing things such as maintenance
and relocation. Maintenance - keeping apps up to date - is a process so
simple in Linux it can be entirely automated. Since Vista beats Linux,
I'm sure you'll explain how to keep all the apps updated as easily as
Linux does it, right?
As to relocation... I don't have to worry, if I drop my drives in a new
system, or replace system components, that I might end up violating some
silly license in the process. Since Vista "sure beats Linux" I'm sure
you'll explain how Vista no longer has such licensing issues, ones which
prevent me from replacing hardware without violating licenses, or
duplicating my setup to several machines without violating licenses - even
in OEM versions, something else I don't have to worry about when dealing
with Linux.
Speaking of ease, here's a simple little comparison. Pop in an audio CD.
In Linux, I can copy the entire CD or individual tracks, in a variety of
formats, simply by doing a copy and paste - and I select the format (and
select track versus album) by simply picking the appropriate directory to
copy. Vista does make it at least as easy to not just copy the tunes, but
copy them in any of several different formats, right?
Hmm. Here's one, something I do almost daily in Linux which, as far as I
can tell, I can't do at all with Vista - at least, not with the tools
Vista provides:
Start by opening a command prompt (yeah, I know, you don't like 'em, but
they're useful for many tasks). Now open several tabs... er... hmm...
does Vista's command prompt even support tabs? Okay, fine, now that you
have several open, ssh into several remote machines, one per tab. You
*do* have ssh support, right? We'll assume so. Now, all logged into
several servers? Perfect. Tie the input from one tab into all the
others, so that when I perform an operation in one tab, it is
automatically duplicated in the other tabs - meaning I can, for example,
add new accounts to all the mail servers by issuing a single command,
rather than doing it repeatedly across each machine.
I'll grant, this is something *you* might not do regularly, but it's
something *I* do need to do fairly regularly - and Linux, at least in KDE,
makes it trivial to do. Since Vista "sure beats Linux", I'm sure you'll
demonstrate how Vista manages this. Oh, I'm sure there's some add-on
product I can find, download, install, configure and use - probably with a
purchase step in there somewhere - but with my Linux box, I can do this by
default.
Here's another personal preference item. I fire up my preferred mail
client - KMail - and when I close the app, it doesn't actually close; it
goes to the system tray, polling mail and showing me if I have any new
emails, by an indicator on the system tray. This lets me keep the mail
open, but without sucking up space on the task bar. I happen to really
like this feature; I'm sure that Vista, being so much better than Linux,
does this with its bundled mail client, right?
Hmm... actually... since mail came up... kmail is but one component of a
larger tool, kontact. Kontact comes with mail, news, rss reader,
calendar, contact manager, to do list, journal, notes and more.
Presumably Vista, which "sure beats Linux", comes with such an integrated
system.
So, in summary, Linux makes it easier to maintain the system, migrate the
system, upgrade the system, stay within license terms, tailor the system
to specific needs, support multiple users, perform multiple operations
without actually repeating them, get up and running with office apps,
finance apps, information management apps and drivers, does a better job
of things such as eye candy on existing hardware, lets you use the system
as you choose to use it, doesn't do unwanted reporting, doesn't try to
tell you what to do with your media and, in general, makes your computing
experience easier, more efficient and more pleasant. Where, then, does
Vista beat Linux?
As far as I can tell, the only places Vista beats Linux are in familiarity
- if you know Windows, you'll probably have less of a learning curve
switching to Vista than to a Linux box, in support for bleeding-edge
hardware driver support (though this might be questionable in 64-bit
versions) and in support of Windows-only applications, though that's not
really a win for Vista, unless one wants to claim Linux wins by supporting
Linux-only apps.
Oh, yes. App load times, let's not forget that. Vista will load MS Office
faster than Linux loads OOo... but as noted elsewhere, such a comparison
fails to take into account the adoption of different usage patterns based
on the relative functionality of each OS - Linux users who need to use an
application often generally just toss the sucker on a different virtual
desktop and have it available instantly, whereas Windows users, for
whatever reason, generally do the whole open/use/close thing as a rule.
Applying the conventional Linux approach, when using Linux, actually puts
Linux ahead of the game; the time to switch desktops is considerably less
than the time to load the app, even with Windows' tuning of such things.
We get that you don't like Linux and that's fine, nobody ever said you had
to. Remember, Linux is about choice, about freedom. If you don't choose
to use Linux, don't - nobody is going to care.
What you persist in not getting - or do get, but for some reason choose to
ignore - is that Linux is *different* and as such, one uses it
differently. If you persist in trying to use Linux as if it were Windows,
you're bound to be disappointed. Approach it on its own terms and you'll
have a considerably different experience.
|
|
