The "Rip Off" Saga Continues...

[Al3xanR0]

Microsoft has Finally released Vista Hardware Requirements (http://www.playfuls.com/news_02602_Hardware_Requirements_Windows_Vistas_We ak_Point.html), this brings new light to the famed cliche --"it will cost you an arm and a leg." :D

[bob]

Yes, Aero is going to be a budget buster for many people but then again, there are many who are paying $500+ for graphics cards for gaming or $4000+ for ultimate rigs. As to the business side, I think there will be a fair amount of businesses upgrading to whichever version of Vista is compatible with their existing hardware to get the security advances and restrict the users. Naturally, linux or Macs would be better alternatives, but the learning curve and software compatibility will mean that most will still opt for the Vista update.

[pparks1]

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is.

For the aero interface, a CPU of 1ghz, 1gb of system ram and a 128MB video card which supports DirectX9?????. Seriously, none of these things are budget busters. The OS alone is going to cost more than the hardware that is required. I bought a Dell Dimension 4550 over 3 years ago for about $1500 that exceeds the required specs (p4 at 2.4, Radeon 9700 Pro with 128MB of RAM, 1GB of RAM and a flat panel display). That was 3 years ago and we all know prices have dropped substially in the last 3 years.

1GB of RAM from newegg $65
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820141225

DirectX9 video card with 128MB of RAM. $30
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814133135


With that said, you can get 2GB of RAM for about $100-125 and a much higher end video card (Nvidia 7600GT with 256MB) for about $160. With any CPU from the last 4 years you have a machine that is approved as "vista premium ready". Really, do people consider these prices to be outrageous??


With all of this said, I don't see a need to get Vista. I'm not planning on buying a new machine for Vista. I'm a huge-linux fan, but to claim that the hardware for Vista is going to be the stumbling point just doesn't make much sense to me.

Most of us here on the forums run more hardware than this on our Linux machines (and we say "you can run linux on just about anything". :)

[bob]

Ummm...yeah - price of gas $3.00/gal.; fuel oil $2000/yr; beer $49,750/yr (cheap stuff); plus the wife gets po'd if I don't feed her occasionally - doesn't leave a lot on a fixed income for that ram & graphics card.

[ccrvic]

Most of us here on the forums run more hardware than this on our Linux machines

I have one machine that meets the spec (a lucky acquisition). Most of my kit wouldn't run Vista.

I'm heartbroken, as I'm sure you realise...

Vic.

[steve1961]

I have one machine that meets the spec (a lucky acquisition). Most of my kit wouldn't run Vista.

I'm heartbroken, as I'm sure you realise...

Vic.


Hey, my kit will run vista!! I must run out and buy it as soon as it hits the shops. NOT!!

[Antifreeze]

I think I'll wait for the open source version of vista ;-)

(Note: Not holding by breath)

[JN4OldSchool]

yeah, I built my latest supercomputer around the idea of running Vista on it. But I dont see buying it at this point. XP just gathers dust as it is, the occasional game, PVR duties and my wife uses it...As a matter of fact due to a hard drive crash I just got through reinstalling XP and all the crap that goes with it this morning. I swear on Tux's head right now that will be the LAST Windows install I ever perform!

[MAnix]

I have one machine that meets the spec (a lucky acquisition). Most of my kit wouldn't run Vista.

I'm heartbroken, as I'm sure you realise...

Vic.

now come on, im sure deep down we all *want* this new OS with all its blatently useless feature and fancy graphics. with all our badmouthing we do *need* bill gates hourse manure being fed to us via his marketting department. and yes, this is definatly sarcasm.

besides FC6 will be hitting the mirrors sept / oct, way before most vista crap can even be shipped. apart from the newest servers and some machines, vista is not shipping the other 3 (they have 6) packages until 2007. all the home users will have to wait and be sad....except we who dont care and are looking at FC6 as a real treat. yum yum yum.

and the last windows install i did was for my father. he has never used a pc, and now i built him one....still put supertux on....he has got to have something decent on a pc full of MS crap!!

[dishawjp]

I can't believe all the horrible things you people are posting about the wonderful new offering, Vista, that Microsoft will make available to us in just a few more months (or years). I for one can hardly wait to drop a few hundred dollars to have a broken, bloated virus and spyware honeypot of an OS that can't do anything until I go out and buy Microsoft Office and a lot of other expensive proprietary software.

Yessirree Bob! I'm almost as excited as I was when I hear that Microsoft Bob was going to be released! That sure was a sweet OS! But then they fixed all its problems with Win95. Or was it Win98 which would be so stable and secure. No, wait, that must have been Win2k. That was the answer to all of Microsoft's OS problems, except it wasn't, WinXP was the secure and stable OS that Microsoft had been promising us ever since Win3x. Oops, I was wrong again, the answer to life the universe and everything is Windows Vista! Either that or 42. Or more likely just Linux. Actually the last version of MSWindows I ever used was Win98. That will also be the last version of MSWindows I ever will use.

So, I guess I'll just keep on using Linux, probably Fedora, and save myself a lot of money, grief and aggravation and not get at all excited about what hardware or other requirements Microsoft's newest and latest and greatest virus attractant has.

Jim

[JN4OldSchool]

God, I hate to defend MS, but I think it only fair to point out that XP is worlds better than 98 was. Other than the security issues it really isnt a bad (cough) OS, just butt ugly...

edit: (sitting here waiting for the lightning bolt to strike me down...)

[sentry]

My only concern is that I work in an office as the IT coordinator and I really don't want to upgrade my entire machine base.

Most of my machines are 1.7 Ghz with a 32 meg vid card.

Guess what?

That's all my users need to do their jobs.

But I know that eventually I'll get the usual office malcontents and loud mouths questioning why we don't use Aero/Vista/Longhorn. I want to get another 1-2 years out of our current equipment and I think we may be able to actually do it. If, and only if my coworkers can resist the marketing machine of Windows.

My observations of small businesses is that often times mob mentality rules. Even if they can perform their jobs fine with the current technology they'll want it because it's new and shiney. The part that disapoints me is that I really like the access control features on Vista but I already have managed to get my cooworkers onto restricted (non-administrative) accounts. Believe me when I say it was one of the hardest but best moves I've done for desktop maintenance since my time here.

[tomcat]

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is.

For the aero interface, a CPU of 1ghz, 1gb of system ram and a 128MB video card which supports DirectX9?????. Seriously, none of these things are budget busters. The OS alone is going to cost more than the hardware that is required. Now add the costs of the OS to the hardware and you have a pretty sum. ;) Not everyone can afford to spend hundreds of dollars everytime Microsoft announces a new Windows version.

Most machines in my office are definitely not old (1-2 years), but NONE of them can run Vista, due to graphics requirements (my systems have 64 MB cards max., which is MORE than enough for my everyday work). And I, just like many other people, have no intention to buy a graphics card only because of a new OS and some useless eye-candy.

Have you thought about the possibility that the hardware is not cheap everywhere in the world? That computers are still luxury in 80% of the world? That the hardware you need ain't available everywhere? That you perhaps don't get any compatible gfx-card for your old motherboard?

And yes, as bob pointed out, people have to pay for other things that are way more important than some damn hardware. Kids want to eat and go to school, new clothes are necessary, gas, electricity, phone, etc etc.

[dishawjp]

Other than the security issues it really isnt a bad (cough) OS, just butt ugly...

That may be true. I guess. But I just have a hard time understanding why anybody would spend money to buy an insecure OS that doesn't let them do anything until they spend a lot more money. Windows, as I understand it, has no compilers or interpreters included out of the box. What good is an OS that won't let you code or script anything (does Windows still support batch files?) out of the box. It's an OS that is designed to keep even the administrator in the dark with things like the registry and all the binary configuration files that can't be manually adjusted. It's loaded with "back doors" and likes to "phone home" without your consent. The new DRM is just another invasive load of crap that does things behind the user's back and without his consent.

I can understand why Joe Clueless who just goes to CompUSA to buy a computer will end up with Windows, but really can't fathom why any sane person would actually go out and just buy the OS.

And Vista will NOT be secure. WinXP was to be totally secure. Then SP2 was supposed to armor plate it after they found that it had more holes than swiss cheese and we all have seen how well SP2 worked.. MS has never been able to make a remotely secuse OS and anyone who actually believes that Vista might be different in that respect must also believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

Linux may not be perfect; it may not be the answer to every computing question or issue. Linux isn't the only good OS, the BSD's, MacOSX are two other excellent OS's that come to mind. In its day, OS/2 was better than MSWindows and showed a lot of promise. Certainly the proprietary Unixes were rock solid and capable and I spent a lot of time working with DEC's VMS and had a lot of respect for that OS. I'm not so much pro-Linux, though for the moment that seems to fulfill my needs better than anything else out there, but I am no supporter of MSWindows. Until and unless I actually see a version of MSWindows that's worth more than the box it comes in, that opinion won't be changing.

Jim

[JN4OldSchool]

Cant argue with anything you said their! Windows is for Joe clueless. That is why they have become as big as they are. Computing for the masses, the common folk. Which brings me to my conclusion why Linux isnt catching on like logic says it should be. People arwe just dumb, like being dumb and prefer to remain that way. "Oh, it's just too much work to learn a few simple Bash commands and have to manually configure something now and then," or, "But I can just call Geek Squad and pay $200 for the man to come remove my spyware because I'm too stupid or lazy to do it myself." This is why I gave up trying to save the world from MS. The world doesnt want saved. Actually, we are better off for not having these people in our ranks. Let MS keep them and the lions share of the market. Most people in the open source community, down to the last man woman or child, usually want to contribute in their own small way, even if it is just helping a fellow Linux user with a problem or chatting about "their" OS to a workmate. This is the spirit that will keep Linux alive, not 95% of all desktops. Hey, we know something most others dont. We are free of all the DRM, trusted computing, maleware and viruses. We are out from under Gate's shadow. He cant sucker us! That is reward enough!

[pparks1]

And I, just like many other people, have no intention to buy a graphics card only because of a new OS and some useless eye-candy.
You don't have to. If your machines can currently run XP, they will be able to run Vista as well. The higher-end video requirements are only for the Aero interface and you are NOT required to use the Aero interface.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=130&part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdblog



people have to pay for other things that are way more important than some damn hardware
As far as I know, Vista isn't a required upgrade. People still use Windows 98, some have Windows ME, others are using XP. That trend isn't going to go away with the release of Vista, people will stick with XP for quite some time...i'm sure of it.

People are just making mountains out of molehills with regards to this OS. If you don't want/need it...don't buy it. But to think that 80% of existing computer won't run it and these people better switch to Linux to continue to use their PC's is just spreading BS to the masses.

Spread linux because of it's real benefits
1. freedom
2. control
3. security and stability

[ccrvic]

As far as I know, Vista isn't a required upgrade. People still use Windows 98, some have Windows ME, others are using XP. That trend isn't going to go away with the release of Vista, people will stick with XP for quite some time...i'm sure of it.

Microsoft were talking about selling 400 million copies in 24 months; either they're trying to mislead the stock market, or they've got some plans to "encourage" people to "upgrade"...

Vic.

[dishawjp]

"But I can just call Geek Squad and pay $200 for the man to come remove my spyware because I'm too stupid or lazy to do it myself

You reminded me of this:

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2006/05/geek-squad-upgrades-cars.html

Enjoy :-)

Jim

[JN4OldSchool]

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2006/05/...rades-cars.html

lol, good one!

[Dubious Dave]

Man that's funny.

[tomcat]

But to think that 80% of existing computer won't run it and these people better switch to Linux to continue to use their PC's is just spreading BS to the masses.
I never said that they should switch to linux. Don't lay words into my mouth: :)

[pparks1]

I never said that they should switch to linux. Don't lay words into my mouth:

I didn't. I never said you said this.

It was a seperate paragraph in my thread directed at the comments in the thread that the system specs were going to be so huge for Vista that people and businesses wouldn't have the resources to run it. I disagreed with that.

The particular interesting quotes I found are


"it will cost you an arm and a leg."

Aero is going to be a budget buster for many people

don't want to upgrade my entire machine base.

Not everyone can afford to spend hundreds of dollars

Most machines in my office are definitely not old (1-2 years), but NONE of them can run Vista, due to graphics requirements

My posts were intended to show that most computers won't require an upgrade, it won't cost hundreds of dollars, and you don't need a high-end video card to simply run Vista (you need it for the Aero interface ONLY). People are EXAGGERATING the requirements of Vista, plain and simple.

[Flounder]

Well in about 5 years after vistas release they may want to upgrade for application support but that's the only reason I can think of for a needed upgrade. That and maybe hardware support. But if Vista is a complete failure from the get go that time period may be longer.

[Invader02]

People are EXAGGERATING the requirements of Vista, plain and simple.

Now that i think about it... Microsoft does need to exaggerate their requirements. Although a system like that will run Vista with no internet just fine, once it's open up to the internet, the machine needs to be able to handle all that windows spyware and crap...

[bob]

Of course, there's the fact that many, if not most people are in love with Windows and really don't want to consider any alternatives. It's not always just lack of knowledge or ability either. I know at least three people who are true geeks and can build 'em, repair 'em and make 'em sing. Not one of them would even consider looking at a linux live cd - I've certainly offered. I talked to one last night and he's ready to pay $168 to buy a valid copy of XP since he can't get his bogus copy to get past the 'validation tool'. I pointed out to him that with all the spyware and AV tools, that update isn't all that critical and also that I have ZERO problems and can do everything he can with a machine. No use....

Crap, I just hate to see one of my friends actually paying money for XP . I think it's the end of an era.....

[ccrvic]

Of course, there's the fact that many, if not most people are in love with Windows and really don't want to consider any alternatives.

There are certainly some like that, but the majority I meet simply don't understand that Windows and the PC are separable items. The most common response I get when evangelising about Linux is "Does it run on XP?"

None of this is an accident, of course - Microsoft has an *enormous* marketing budget, and this sort of misunderstanding keeps that dosh rolling in...

Vic.

[Coolerthanyou]

I think it's as simple as people not needing to care, or believing they don't. I am kind of in between, I'm not a super geek yet I'm not some random PC user who is not even curious about the technology behind it. I understand why geeks take it so seriously, and I also realize the question about why should someone care about it and have to learn anything instead of just using it when their work doesn't require it. I mean sometimes it seems like PC geek types just live in front of a screen totally detached from the outside and develop this impression that everyone should know their work or even acknowledge it daily, when it wouldn't be possible to even maintain a world like that. On the other hand morons who are comfortable in their Windows driven PC ignorance yet have the nerve to complain are quite lousy.

[bob]

Well, it's also true that Windows XP, despite it's flaws, is a very user-friendly environment and really a decent OS for the most part. It recognizes virtually anything you plug in and has the drivers for it, tons of programs for any need or want, and all of us have grown very used to the security updates and reboots. Even the nasty viruses and spyware are kept to a minimum with free or low-cost additions. My wife punches the power button on her machine every morning and it flawlessly boots and allows her to do her shockwave gaming, e-mailing and chatting. That's all she wants from the machine and it delivers. Problems? Well, if there's a question, there's 'Bob' in the other room... We've even discussed what would happen if after I died she had problems. My beloved bride of 40 years would simply use my insurance money to pop a new Dell into her desk and get her live-in lover to maintain it.. :eek:

[Skinney]

jeese... the system requirements are IF you run Aero... you CAN run the classical win 2000 theme just like you can on XP instead of running th ugly, bloated XP theme... Needless to say, the win 2000 theme uses a hell lot less system resources :)
And if your computer doesn't hit the system requirements for running aero, it will automatically be configured to run the win 2000 theme... at least, this is what i heard at a Windows press conferance so correct me if im wrong...

With this said, screw windows and i can't wait for Fedora 6 and AIGLX :D

EDIT: i haven't read all the posts, now that i have i see that you've stepped away from the system requirements topic, but nevertheless ;) also, i apologize if this post may seem a little hostile, i got a soar throat this morning ;)

[giulix]

Ummm...yeah - price of gas $3.00/gal.; fuel oil $2000/yr; beer $49,750/yr (cheap stuff); plus the wife gets po'd if I don't feed her occasionally - doesn't leave a lot on a fixed income for that ram & graphics card.

Now, that's really hard to believe, Bob... Do you really expect us to believe that you spend 136 bucks for beer every single day of the year ?

[bob]

Nah, sometimes it's more if I go out and/or leave a tip.

[giulix]

Well, I don't want to contradict you, Bob, but... well, if you stay home on a diet for just one day, you'll be able to afford that fancy graphics card you always longed for.... :)

[bob]

A Day Without Beer?!!!!! :eek: Nah, my ol' card is still fine - got to remember that when you're nearly 61, it ain't the card that's the problem with your gaming....

[Al3xanR0]

That may be true. I guess. But I just have a hard time understanding why anybody would spend money to buy an insecure OS that doesn't let them do anything until they spend a lot more money.

That is the question at hand; judging from previous posts and some of my own experiences the concensus seems to be same. Why devote hard earned resources on a product that is offered all most free of cost with the exception of the time it will cost you to configure it?



(you need it for the Aero interface ONLY). People are EXAGGERATING the requirements of Vista, plain and simple.

Ah yes in that regard you would be correct, with the execption of one miniscule detail. Those who are naive enough to purchase the box set will be purchasing it to take complete advantage of all of it's new features e.g. aero. That being said box set= $2Arm.75, hmmmm, it seems that your pc does not meet Vista's minimun requirement for aero. How unfortunate, unless you want your shiny new Windows OS to have the look and Feel of your antiquated monotonous (classical view) Windows OS, you may want to consider some upgrades at a minimal cost $1Leg.99.

[MAnix]

The fact for me is that, with the technology upgrades required, it is not we, the linux or gaming communities, that would be hard pushed to use it. It shall be those joe and jane bloggs from boringville. They are not likely to have the specs and if they are it is still a rip off. on principle i object to the need to constantly upgrade for an OS. For games and technology and to be one step ahead are reasons, but just so you can get the latest in MS crap to work is NOT.

i know many will have the finance to jump on and pay $400 for OS, then, what, around $200 for computer parts. even online you are loking at a pretty penny. factor in how joe bloggs thinks he can install a graphics card and more RAM, but clearly CANT, and you can see how PC World (UK pc superstore) make money charging up to £75 for memory AND graphics card upgrades (and only if you buy stuff from them). My point?? we are fine. the pro windows users are fine, gamers are fine, but the average public, like my dad, sister, brother, mother in law, sister in law, etc etc done even know what a pc is made from let alone to install stuff, so they would look at even more cost.

i object, as mentioned, for upgrades to the latest OS. this OS isnt even bringing anything new technologically to the table except a new (cough, splutter, didnt it look like something from MacOS??) way of viewing files (also yet another pointless way to make it harder to do your job, ever heard of plain and simple!!).

The other feature is DX10, this will actually make Open source gaming even harder due to the way DX10 impliments the vista API. What i am saying here is that you can only run DX10 on vista, and the games that are written for DX10 are so diff from the DX9x games that they are unusable on linux, even with Cedega, etc. Yet another way to charge users. Gamers beware of this stupid trap. I heard they were trying to secure new titles from the manufactureers and force them into making just DX10 vers not both...not sure if that last bit is true, but blogs i have read say yeah.

For me, i will stick with Linux and (dont hate me yet) windows xp pro. I find it annoying, in fact it crashed no less than 5 times on the net in one day, and had it restarted on me for no good reason, all cos it didnt like a powerpoint slideshow...(i posted on that before). But never-the-less XP games and even those prior to XP run nicely enough and at present Linux cant handle many of my games, for some reasons. I am using Linux all the time and keep Win XP on my lappy for the games...

In short they (MS) wont stop ripping us, and everyone else off until they:
a) crash every pc in the world
b) let so many exploits in that the security of linux looks good
c) the suck up every pc and force us all onto their software
d) try all the above at some point, and probably succeed on most, though i aint giving up linux, no fricking way!!

I dislike MIcrosoft for what they do and all that they stand for.

[pparks1]

Those who are naive enough to purchase the box set will be purchasing it to take complete advantage of all of it's new features e.g. aero.
I'm sure that it will have a systems requirement section which will explain the Minimum specs (which provides minimum performance) and it will have suggested specs (much higher requirements and far better performance). I think most users of Windows based software are used to checking these types of things....and I think most accept the fact that if their current PC was slow already with XP then it won't get any faster with Vista.

[pparks1]

Ok, since I have been commenting a ton on the hardware requirements for Vista I thought that I would so some testing and post my findings.

I got my Vista Ultimate Beta 2 release this week from MSDN. I grabbed the box under my desk that I was using for FC5 testing and put a second HD in to try out Vista.

The box I used was a dell optiplex GX150. specs are P3 1.0ghz, 512MB of RAM and Nvidia GeForce FX5200 video card. So, a pretty low-end machine. I'm running a video resolution of 1280x1024 on a 19" CRT.

Installation of Vista took about 1 hour to complete. I then downloaded and installed the latest Nvidia driver from www.nvidia.com The system boots to the logon screen in 1:02. And it shuts down in 21 seconds.

By default, installation configured the Aero Glass interface on this machine.

All-in-all, it runs ok. The GUI can be a bit sluggish at times, but really not any worse than Gnome or KDE on this particular hardware under FC5 or SuSE 10. Shutting off the Aero Glass interface does help a bit, but it's not a night and day difference.

I also removed the Nvidia FX5200 card and tried to install and run Windows Vista using the "onboard" Intel 810/815 chipset video system. Guess what.....it WORKED!. The install chose to NOT use Aero and the colors were stuck at 16-bit...so it wasn't pretty. But it worked. So, as long as a driver is released for the 810/815, it appears that even the onboard video would work with Vista.

I'm in no means promoting Vista and I don't feel strongly that there is anything in the OS that I would want or need to use. But I am refuting the belief that you need a "state of the art" PC to even run the OS. The machine that I used for testing is > 5 years old, it's running with 512MB of RAM (which is lower than Vista would like) with a FX5200 card that goes for $15 right now at Newegg (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814271001). And honestly it's working decently.

[ccrvic]

The box I used was a dell optiplex GX150. specs are P3 1.0ghz, 512MB of RAM and Nvidia GeForce FX5200 video card. So, a pretty low-end machine.

It's gruntier than most of mine...

Vic.

[pparks1]

It's gruntier than most of mine...
I guess I'm lucky that I work for a company that stays pretty modern on hardware. We have about 800+ desktops and we've just about weeded out everything below 2.0ghz.

I've got 7 home computers right now and my slowest is an Athlon 900 with 384 RAM. From there it's a P3 at 1,0ghz, an AMD Athon 1800+, a P4 2.4, a p4 3.2, an AMD 2800+ and a pentium M 2.0



I guess if the majority of people are using machines 5-10 years old and expect it to run the latest software or MS OS....I have lost touch with reality.

I'm usually unhappy with performance of FC on a p3 with 512MB ram trying to use Gnome or KDE as my everyday machine. That's why I upgraded to the machine in my sig block in February to finally have a moden speedy Linux box for a very reasonable price. I guess I just have a hard time believing that the hardcore Linux users here in this forum aren't running hardware that is much better than a 1.0ghz CPU with 512MB of RAM

[ccrvic]

my slowest is an Athlon 900 with 384 RAM.

My slowest x86 machine[1] is a P233 with 32MB and an ISA architecture. It's not quick (takes 10 minutes to start oowriter - and that's before you've loaded a document!), but it is one of my most useful machines.

Vic.

[1] We'll not talk about my Sparc IPC, which *will* run Debian, if it kills me...

[tomcat]

Use onboard video and you still get a whopping 16 colours. Great. Must buy that immediately and brag around with it. :P

IMHO, it would have been better for users, if MS would have really built a 100% new system that looks good and does not eat up your hardware than releasing some kind of "Vista-XP" update that is nothing to make you cheer about.

[pparks1]

Earlier this year I threw away the following
486-sx25
pentium 66
pentium pro 200
amd k62 400
2 pentium II-450's

so, I've had older hardware as well, but I guess I just buy new computers more frequently than most. :)



Use onboard video and you still get a whopping 16 colours. Great. Must buy that immediately and brag around with it.

As I said, it's not pretty, but technically it worked and a driver download would have resolved it. That's not bragging. My simple point was that even the onboard video in a 5 year old machine sufficed for basic performance. So, the person who said earlier that his machines were all 1-2 years old but NONE of them would even run Vista because of video requirements is simply MISTAKEN.

[ccrvic]

Earlier this year I threw away the following
486-sx25
pentium 66
pentium pro 200

I think I bought them :-)


amd k62 400

I've just retired a K6/2-450 from a webserver position where it was responsible for hundreds of thousands in revenue. We only binned it because it was running a variant of RH6, and the initrd is in flash, so upgrading was proving difficult...


2 pentium II-450's

That's a good speed for a number of applications, as long as it's got enough RAM...


so, I've had older hardware as well, but I guess I just buy new computers more frequently than most. :)

More frequently than me - apart from my "lucky acquisition"[1], my fastest machine is a 1.3GHz Athlon. That particular machine started life as a 466MHz Celeron, and has had the occasional upgrade...

Vic.

[1] There was a post on the LUG mailing list one night, asking if anyone wanted this particular computer. I got it. It's a twin 2GHz Xeon with 80GB of hot-swap SCSI drives in the front... :-)

[pparks1]

Yeah, the environment that I work in is pretty large scale. We have about 300 servers hosting and running a variety of things and most of the boxes are tech refreshed every 4 years or so. (it's cheaper to just replace them than maintain maintenance contracts with vendors to support SLA's)

Any new Linux box that I bring up these days runs on a dual Xeon 3.2Ghz HP Proliant with 2GB of RAM and 15K SCSI drives.... Of course, we use the same boxes for Windows servers as well.

[tomcat]

As I said, it's not pretty, but technically it worked and a driver download would have resolved it. That's not bragging. My simple point was that even the onboard video in a 5 year old machine sufficed for basic performance. So, the person who said earlier that his machines were all 1-2 years old but NONE of them would even run Vista because of video requirements is simply MISTAKEN.That was me. And my point is still valid. I work as a journalist and need to do photo-editing, layout stuff and such and - sorry, pparks1 - Vista will perhaps run on them (slow as molasses) but it is 100% unusable on my machines. Yeah, I probably could run it with 16 colours on the older machines with 16 MB Ram gfx-cards (the 64 MB Machines will probably fare better), but how shall I edit photos with 16 colours only? See my point? ;)

I have no use for an OS that tells me: run in 16 colour mode or upgrade your machine. Even my Macs (G3 and G4) are not that ****ty, although I do hate them. :rolleyes:

[Invader02]

After Vista comes out, XP will probably be pirated a lot, even more than Vista mabye because of Vista's high requirements.

Not to favor MS or anything, but i'm going to point out mistakes that the Linux crowd is ignorant about.


Cant argue with anything you said their! Windows is for Joe clueless. That is why they have become as big as they are. Computing for the masses, the common folk. Which brings me to my conclusion why Linux isnt catching on like logic says it should be.

I've asked all my friends if they've heard of any other kind of computer than Windows or Mac. 1 out of 10 would say "what the hell is mac," and 10 out of 10 say they've never heard of anything other than Windows or Mac. The Linux community keeps to itself too much. We don't do anything that really sticks out, except mabye for providing excellent servers.


People arwe just dumb, like being dumb and prefer to remain that way. "Oh, it's just too much work to learn a few simple Bash commands and have to manually configure something now and then," or, "But I can just call Geek Squad and pay $200 for the man to come remove my spyware because I'm too stupid or lazy to do it myself." This is why I gave up trying to save the world from MS. The world doesnt want saved. Actually, we are better off for not having these people in our ranks. Let MS keep them and the lions share of the market.

I have to agree. People are dumb (and lazy as well). They also say that computers should make our lives easier. That's a reason why they refuse to learn bash, and instead toy around with their windows machines.


Most people in the open source community, down to the last man woman or child, usually want to contribute in their own small way, even if it is just helping a fellow Linux user with a problem or chatting about "their" OS to a workmate. This is the spirit that will keep Linux alive, not 95% of all desktops. Hey, we know something most others dont. We are free of all the DRM, trusted computing, maleware and viruses. We are out from under Gate's shadow. He cant sucker us! That is reward enough!

Agreed.


That was me. And my point is still valid. I work as a journalist and need to do photo-editing, layout stuff and such and - sorry, pparks1 - Vista will perhaps run on them (slow as molasses) but it is 100% unusable on my machines. Yeah, I probably could run it with 16 colours on the older machines with 16 MB Ram gfx-cards (the 64 MB Machines will probably fare better), but how shall I edit photos with 16 colours only? See my point?

Computers are getting cheaper, and one that can run Vista will be $800+. You could even get a dual-core PC for that much... but then reconsider that everybody who has a computer older than mabye even 3 years (2 years if it was a crappy computer) will have to buy a new computer just to run Vista.

[bob]

Linux will probably be in third spot for the foreseeable future. The community has no real advertising budget or game plan to increase market share and next to no point-of-sale installations. Linspire comes the closest, but it's generally put on the lowest end-machines, not on hardware with 'WOW' factors. Then too, there are several hundred variations of linux, plus FreeBSD and while that's fun, it's also not an effective way to target the marketplace.

I don't agree that Vista will bring a torrent of XP thefts; the validation tool has made that more difficult for the average guy to use safely, but used machines with valid XP installs may actually have a bump in market value once the trade-ins start.

We'll continue to attract new users on a one-to-one basis, as people get discouraged or want to branch out or just learn new things, just the same as they have been gravitating to linux in the past. We have extraordinary distros, but until they are in our classrooms or can be put in public somehow so people can play with the actual machines, we won't see a significant bump in percentages. Macs may see a decent bump, now that they can also run Windows. With that boot camp idea, people can have sharp looking machines that can 'do it all' and many new users will find that they like the Mac OS much more that the Windows OS and stick with it.

And folks, what will it really matter in the long run? We aren't out to take over the world. We want a stable, customizeable OS that can do the work we need and we certainly have been getting close to having all of that. If others want to experience it, great! If not, well they have other choices and we can understand and support them in their decisions.

[pparks1]

but how shall I edit photos with 16 colours only? See my point?

I have no use for an OS that tells me: run in 16 colour mode or upgrade your machine.

Tomcat, the 16 color mode was due to the fact that I didn't download and install a driver for the Intel 810/815 onboard video card. It doesn't mean that I had to upgrade my hardware, it meant that I had to find a driver. (it was the same thing with WinXP and Win2k on this same machine)With a driver, it would have had more than 16 colors.

I was simply pointing out that technically it worked. With a driver install, it would have worked correctly. But I wanted to make the point that it worked for those in this thread that maintain that it won't run on their computers due to it's "graphical requirements".


I work as a journalist and need to do photo-editing
Thus, you and I both know that you wouldn't be doing photo editing on an onboard Intel 810/815 mobo. You would have a real video card.



but it is 100% unusable on my machines
So, you have the latest beta release as well? You've been running and testing Vista in order to make that statement?

[pparks1]

Computers are getting cheaper, and one that can run Vista will be $800+. You could even get a dual-core PC for that much... but then reconsider that everybody who has a computer older than mabye even 3 years (2 years if it was a crappy computer) will have to buy a new computer just to run Vista.

Did you read any of the above stuff? A vista capable computer will NOT cost $800+. I was able to run it on a computer that was already 5 years old (and I got the Aero interface with the addition of a $20 video card). Everybody keeps proving my point!!!!Somebody claims that Vista is going to require an outrageous beast of a machine and people in the Linux community spread the rumor just to bash the OS. Vista has many problems, I know that, and I'm not encouraging anybody to go out and buy it and run it when it comes out (Linux is great for us), but we look ignorant when we complain that it will require everybody to buy a new computer to use it. The hardware requirements are just not that steep...even for the Aero interface. If you don't have the hardware for Aero you can always choose to use the WIndows classic interface. Chances are if you bought a computer in the last 4 years, and you are happy with the performance of XP, you can probably handle Vista.

Here you go (prices from www.newegg.com)
$40 for an ATX case (many to choose from)
$68 AMD Sempron 2800+
$50 Gigabyte K8VM800M mobo
$77 1GB DDR400 RAM
$45 80GB Western Digital Hard Drive
$35 16X NEC DVD Burner
$25 eVGA Nvidia GeForce 6200 with 128MB RAM

Total price $340. So with shipping, you are looking at less than 1/2 of $800+ and this machine will give you all the bells and whistles of Vista

[Omega Blue]

Well, it's also true that Windows XP, despite it's flaws, is a very user-friendly environment and really a decent OS for the most part. It recognizes virtually anything you plug in and has the drivers for it, tons of programs for any need or want, and all of us have grown very used to the security updates and reboots.

XP works decently if you have set it up correctly, tightened the security, and use an administrator account (this of course goes against security). Somethings don't work properly (or simply don't work) in limited accounts.



Even the nasty viruses and spyware are kept to a minimum with free or low-cost additions.

I am not sure about that, given the number of zombies and botnets out there, and the shockingly small amount of time it is required for a bare Windows machine to get taken over on the Internet...

[bob]

Omega, I agree with you on the horror of letting a 'fresh install' XP version that's six years old hit the net without updates or security patches - it's a dead duck almost immediately. When I set up a new box for someone, I always carry a few cd's to make immediate corrections before ever allowing net access, which is a sad testimony to the level of evil that's out there.

[tomcat]

Tomcat, the 16 color mode was due to the fact that I didn't download and install a driver for the Intel 810/815 onboard video card. It doesn't mean that I had to upgrade my hardware, it meant that I had to find a driver. (it was the same thing with WinXP and Win2k on this same machine)With a driver, it would have had more than 16 colors.

I was simply pointing out that technically it worked. With a driver install, it would have worked correctly. But I wanted to make the point that it worked for those in this thread that maintain that it won't run on their computers due to it's "graphical requirements". Okay, that cleared things up a bit. (But still ... I won't purchase Vista, although for other reasons. The graphics-part was only one of many reasons why I don't like Vista. :) )

So, you have the latest beta release as well? You've been running and testing Vista in order to make that statement?I admit: No. My opinion was made up by the many reviews and comments I read on several different board and in several magazines and the comments I got from close friends of mine who worked as sys-admins. :rolleyes: I am no geek, no nerd. Just Joe Average who sometimes claims something he can't proof directly. :D

Hey... just a thought: Am I the first one on this board to admit he was wrong on Windows? :p

[JN4OldSchool]

Here you go (prices from www.newegg.com)
$40 for an ATX case (many to choose from)
$68 AMD Sempron 2800+
$50 Gigabyte K8VM800M mobo
$77 1GB DDR400 RAM
$45 80GB Western Digital Hard Drive
$35 16X NEC DVD Burner
$25 eVGA Nvidia GeForce 6200 with 128MB RAM

Hey, those are the exact specs of the cheap low end computers I build! You can get an ATX case even cheaper than that, but one word of warning: The PSU will eventually need replaced as the power suplies they ship with these cases are junk. I have also used other MOBOs in the same price range. PC Chips puts out a good one with onboard graphics in the sub $50 range and I have also used an Epox, again with onboard graphics. Of course with the Areo package (my pcs were built to run FC!) you will need the $20 graphics card.

edit: We should also note that the CPU is 64 bit and is a hot little bugger! I dont notice MUCH difference between my low end machines and my recently built "supercomputer" running an X2 4800. Maybe Windows would show more of a speed difference, but FC5 is pretty equivalent on both computers.

[MAnix]

Hey... just a thought: Am I the first one on this board to admit he was wrong on Windows? :p

Nope i was wrong too. Wrong to have ever installed it!! :cool:

[pparks1]

We should also note that the CPU is 64 bit and is a hot little bugger!
Actually, the sempron runs quite cool. That was one of the reasons that I bought it for my Linux machine....it didn't require many fans to run nice and happy.

Yes, I agree with cheap power supplies in cheap cases. When I build a computer, I know use Antec cases. Yes, they cost a bit more, but worth it to be for quality power and quiet fans. And a power supply that lasts a long time.


I dont notice MUCH difference between my low end machines and my recently built "supercomputer" running an X2 4800
Yeah, unless you are gaming or doing some video encoding tasks you don't notice much of a speed difference. That's what is so great about these sub $100 semprons. Also, if you have apps which are multi-threaded (DVD Shrink), you will notice a significant advantage to the dual core system



But still ... I won't purchase Vista, although for other reasons
Hey Tomcat.....I hear you there. Glad we got things squared away on the graphics front.

I just hope people continue to realize that I am a Fedora fan out here with my occassional rants pro/con MS :)

[JN4OldSchool]

Actually, the sempron runs quite cool. That was one of the reasons that I bought it for my Linux machine....it didn't require many fans to run nice and happy.

Lol, I ment "hot" as in fast, nice little cpu, very good buy...Not temp wise. I havent had any cooling problems on anything I have ever built. I strictly use AMD and I believe in at least one intake and one exhaust fan in a case, if not more. My big boy runs 3 intake and 3 exhaust fans, all 80MM. Living in Fl, US. I really pay attention to temps.

[nico76]

Cant argue with anything you said their! Windows is for Joe clueless. That is why they have become as big as they are. Computing for the masses, the common folk. Which brings me to my conclusion why Linux isnt catching on like logic says it should be. People arwe just dumb, like being dumb and prefer to remain that way. "Oh, it's just too much work to learn a few simple Bash commands and have to manually configure something now and then," or, "But I can just call Geek Squad and pay $200 for the man to come remove my spyware because I'm too stupid or lazy to do it myself." This is why I gave up trying to save the world from MS. The world doesnt want saved. Actually, we are better off for not having these people in our ranks. Let MS keep them and the lions share of the market. Most people in the open source community, down to the last man woman or child, usually want to contribute in their own small way, even if it is just helping a fellow Linux user with a problem or chatting about "their" OS to a workmate. This is the spirit that will keep Linux alive, not 95% of all desktops. Hey, we know something most others dont. We are free of all the DRM, trusted computing, maleware and viruses. We are out from under Gate's shadow. He cant sucker us! That is reward enough!

i couldnt agree with you more.

[Omega Blue]

Cant argue with anything you said their! Windows is for Joe clueless. That is why they have become as big as they are.

The sad thing about that is now Joe Clueless thinks that computers are supposed to like that, in much the same way that a large group of people think that bicycles with stablizer wheels is the way it should be.

As it has been said a GUI makes doing simple things simpler and difficult things impossible.

[Omega Blue]

Another Microsoft (almost) employee shares his Windows Vista tale of woe (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12932382/). :D

[JN4OldSchool]

The sad thing about that is now Joe Clueless thinks that computers are supposed to like that, in much the same way that a large group of people think that bicycles with stablizer wheels is the way it should be.

This is why I go back and forth between defending Windows (the OS, not MS the company) and criticizing it. Computers should be how YOU want them to be. If you are happy running Windows then great. If you use Linux but only run off a GUI then more power to you. If you are CLI only and enjoy it and are able to accomplish what you need then why change? I think that is why I was jumped on in a newbie thread where I stated that Linux isnt as hard as others in the thread were making it out to be. I simply use my computers for easier tasks, just home desktop stuff and light business productivity tasks. The apps I use on almost a daily basis are OO.o, The Gimp, Scribus, sometimes Inkscape, Gramps, K3B, Audacious (my music player), Totem Xine or sometimes Kplayer, Definitly Firefox, Digicam, Yumex and a handful of games, mainly Torcs, Freedroid RPG, Frozen Bubble and a few others. It doesnt take a Unix genius to run these apps, it wasnt a radicle departure from Windows. Sure, I had to learn some new things to configure all my perhiperals, get FC to run smoothly, get my Nvidia 7800GT going, install the codecs for the players...But it wasnt anything Joe Clueless couldnt do in a few afternoons of googleing and playing around. I have managed to compile a couple apps from source just to say I did it, but there really isnt any need to do this in FC unless you use an app that is so diverse it isnt in a repo. I try to use CLI as much as I can just because I want to learn, but I havent come across too many situations where you absolutly had to. I dont know...I guess it just depends on what side of the bed i wake up on any given morning. I love Linux, hate Windows and wouldnt have it any other way. But for those who wish to run Windows and are in their happy place with it...Great! Rock on!

[Shadow Skill]

Honestly does KDE or Gnome really run all that well on lower spec machines? Do any of you honestly think KDE 4 will "fly" on a box with a 1gh cpu and [hopefully] 512mb ram? I fail to see what the big problem is apart from the price tag when juxtaposed to the two main DE's for Linux and their general trend of getting bigger and needing more to support all of the features.

[Invader02]

Honestly does KDE or Gnome really run all that well on lower spec machines? Do any of you honestly think KDE 4 will "fly" on a box with a 1gh cpu and [hopefully] 512mb ram? I fail to see what the big problem is apart from the price tag when juxtaposed to the two main DE's for Linux and their general trend of getting bigger and needing more to support all of the features.

At least Windows doesn't have something like Damn Small Linux

[bob]

Ummm... Windows 3.1 ? (Security's possibly a bit out of date, but one heck of a small distro!)

[Omega Blue]

Honestly does KDE or Gnome really run all that well on lower spec machines? Do any of you honestly think KDE 4 will "fly" on a box with a 1gh cpu and [hopefully] 512mb ram?

Happily, the windows manager is separate from Linux. So you can choose to use a light weight one, such as Xfce or Fluebox, or even stick with a shell. No such option exists for Windows. All you get is "big" and "bigger."



I fail to see what the big problem is apart from the price tag when juxtaposed to the two main DE's for Linux and their general trend of getting bigger and needing more to support all of the features.

Again, you have a choice with GNU/Linux.

[ccrvic]

Honestly does KDE or Gnome really run all that well on lower spec machines?

I'm running Gnome on a P2/300 with 96MB of RAM. It's no speed demon, but it's tolerable.

I'm also running fluxbox on a 233 MHz machine (P1 or P2 - can't remember...) with 32MB of RAM. Gnome wasn't at all happy on that one...

Vic.

[wintermute000]

What you can do is run xfce as pointed out above... THEN
-kill the xfce panel in terminal. Now you have XFCE4 but no panel WTF??? THEN
-run gnome-panel. Viola, looks like gnome. But FASTER. but still no desktop WTF??? THEN
-run nautilus.
- Save your session.

this gives you 99% of gnome, the missing 1% being

- keyboard shortcut for gnome menu (haven't figured this one out yet in XFCE)
- an annoying error msg when u start your session (haven't figured out where to stop it from trying to load xfce panel again, it will be one line in some file somewhere)

I've done this on my laptop (P3-M 1.2Ghz, 256 RAM) and its MUCH faster. But it looks like and acts like gnome, I'm all happy :)

[MAnix]

Ummm... Windows 3.1 ? (Security's possibly a bit out of date, but one heck of a small distro!)

geez bob, take me back to the day. This was my first playground. i loved this thing. i had BASIC and i was away writing some gorilla game!! oh and i did some star trek space invaders game that was well good.

security, what security?? on the network back in the day (school anyway) they had none. at best you had Novell to do it for them. Windows doesnt have security. it has flaws!!

it was small, but i hated the whole must have DOS 5/6.22 for Win 3.11 Workstation. Thats 3 floppys, then another 5 floppys for the full install opf Win3.11, though i reformatted it down to just 3. Thats still 6x1.44MB.

Damn Small Linuxes can be as low as 700k i have seen, but 1.44MB is very easy to use!!

So i must disagree on it being really small. Plus it wasnt by design, they lumped so many tools into that rip-off OS.

[sentry]

. Windows doesnt have security. it has flaws!!

I think you mean; Windows™ doesnt have security. it has features!! Go Microsoft!!!1!

[MAnix]

Forgive me for misappropriating the copyrighted trademarks of Microsoft (R). Still:

Microsoft(R) Windows (TM) 3.11 for Workstations sucks for security.

Oh and Microsoft(R) can suck my ass hairs if they think that i will ever recognise any copyright or trademark. They embarress themselves by supporting closed forms of identification.

Under the GPL all icons, names and trademarks can be re-distributed without breaking the origional license. With Microsoft they force users to require to conform to a restrictive EULA agreement that forces the recognition of proprietry formats and functions.

I am not against capatalism, copyright, or Microsoft, but i am against all forms of closed source and proprietry identification and recognition, and also am against the terms of any agreement with Microsoft, be that the EULA or any other tiered legal agreements, implied or not.

[Shadow Skill]

You all miss the point that I was trying to make, with respect to the two main DE's available for *nix which was that as they progress [especially KDE] they really will not be able to "fly" on anything less than a gig of ram and probably a 2ghz processor. One should also note that you do have a choice with Windows if you know where to look for them so that argument is nonexistant. Another poster tried to make the point that Windows would attempt to scale itself back if the requirements for Aero were not met and would in fact function even if it wasn't "pretty." but apparently his point was also lost.

The funny thing is that some video formats won't even work on ten year old machines and the system requirements for most games are higher than what is needed to get Aero to work, yet I don't hear that much noise about those system requirements from anyone. The requirements stated in the article for getting Aero to work are not at all that extravagant nor are they ridiculously expensive [Probably would have cost you more to upgrade just to play Doom 3 than it would to upgrade to run Aero.] I was able to pull off my current hardware (excluding hard and dvd drives since I had those) for about 600usd [I always do OEM as it is.] if I were to add in say 400usd for the price of vista it comes to around 1000usd all I would do in that case was wait a year maybe a year and a half gather the parts slowly and then get vista and upgrade. It probably will be better to wait a year anyway since more bugs will probably get ironed out of the OS during that time.

Lets all calm down about the specs of Vista and focus on making gnome and KDE "fly" on weaker hardware as they progress that will be something to get excited about and to show other people.

[JN4OldSchool]

Lets all calm down about the specs of Vista and focus on making gnome and KDE "fly" on weaker hardware as they progress that will be something to get excited about and to show other people.


What you can do is run xfce as pointed out above... THEN
-kill the xfce panel in terminal. Now you have XFCE4 but no panel WTF??? THEN
-run gnome-panel. Viola, looks like gnome. But FASTER. but still no desktop WTF??? THEN
-run nautilus.
- Save your session.

this gives you 99% of gnome, the missing 1% being

- keyboard shortcut for gnome menu (haven't figured this one out yet in XFCE)
- an annoying error msg when u start your session (haven't figured out where to stop it from trying to load xfce panel again, it will be one line in some file somewhere)

I've done this on my laptop (P3-M 1.2Ghz, 256 RAM) and its MUCH faster. But it looks like and acts like gnome, I'm all happy

This is actually one of my "dream, if only I had the knowledge to do it, projects." It started with trying to run a mainstream distro on my old laptop, DSL with Fluxbox is all it will run. I would also love to create my own rescue/diagnostic/formatting CD from a live distro that runs in RAM, uses KDE (or Gnome) and is stripped down with only a few apps (QTParted, K3B, icons for all mounted and unmounted devices and a handful of others and lose EVERYTHING else) for quick boot times. I have fooled with most live distros and really like Slax and Puppy but have yet to succeed in stripping them down, creating the new iso and burning it to disk. At the heart of the matter is getting KDE (or Gnome) stripped down to it's bare essentials. I have tried KDE Lite and it's better, but still not quite there. This is a great project for someone with the knowledge to do it and I see a definite need. It would be so cool to get KDE (or Gnome) to run on a 64MB laptop.

[ccrvic]

You all miss the point that I was trying to make, with respect to the two main DE's available for *nix which was that as they progress [especially KDE] they really will not be able to "fly" on anything less than a gig of ram and probably a 2ghz processor.

No, I didn't miss your point. I just don't agree with it.

Vic.

[pparks1]

The requirements stated in the article for getting Aero to work are not at all that extravagant nor are they ridiculously expensive

Shadow, I understand your point perfectly and I also agree completely with you. Most probably got that from my other posts.

I too agree that I provide a system with Vista level specs for Linux to get good performance using Gnome or KDE. Sure, I can use stripped down windows managers and such, but why do I want to do that? I'd rather get some bells and whistles and just invest in a little bit of hardware. But that's just me and my opinion.


focus on making gnome and KDE "fly" on weaker hardware as they progress that will be something to get excited about and to show other people.
I agree. I preach the benefits of Linux at work and often I find other admins that get ahold of a P3 1.0ghz box with 256-512mb ram and they try out Fedora/CentOS and usually are a bit disappointed with the Gnome and KDE performance. Their usual reponse is, "sure, it's cool cuz it's free, but it's kinda slow". And like you said, a 2ghz CPU with 1GB of RAM would certainly provide better performance for them and would impress them a bit more. Of course, they realize that Windows would run poorly on the box as well, but they expect that. With Linux they have heard it will run on just about "anything", so they are a little dismayed when then 1ghz cpu just doens't impress them.

[Scytale]

geez bob, take me back to the day. This was my first playground. i loved this thing. i had BASIC and i was away writing some gorilla game!! oh and i did some star trek space invaders game that was well good.


Are you talking about gorillas.bas in Q-Basic, that game rocked, nibbles.bas was good as well. People didn't believe me when I told them i was playing "snake" on my computer about 10 years before Nokia put it on they're mobile phones.

I'm one of those guys that grew up with DOS 5, I remember the first computer we got a 386 DX with a 40mb hard-drive (I was 7 years old), it cost my Dad a fortune. I taught myself how to use the computer by reading the massive Dos manual that came with it. I was obssessed with learning as much about it as I could, I even had the character tables from the back memorised. That book was probably the best computer manual I've ever read. (Imagine if someone was to print all the man pages for all the common unix tools and include them in a massive textbook with heaps of examples as well).

Most of my friends wanted to play Prince of Persia and I just wanted to run Turbo Pascal. those were the days...

I used to loath windows as I was so used to the commandline it just seemed unproductive to use file manager. My Dad was much the same, we didn't end up installing Windows 95, it wasn't until 98 second edition we finally ditched our beloved dos and I think that was only cause the new PC shipped with it.

Now after using Linux for a few years I realise just how powerful unix is and that, Microsoft didn't even do Dos right :(

[MAnix]

Are you talking about gorillas.bas in Q-Basic, that game rocked, nibbles.bas was good as well. People didn't believe me when I told them i was playing "snake" on my computer about 10 years before Nokia put it on they're mobile phones.

I'm one of those guys that grew up with DOS 5, I remember the first computer we got a 386 DX with a 40mb hard-drive (I was 7 years old), it cost my Dad a fortune. I taught myself how to use the computer by reading the massive Dos manual that came with it. I was obssessed with learning as much about it as I could, I even had the character tables from the back memorised. That book was probably the best computer manual I've ever read. (Imagine if someone was to print all the man pages for all the common unix tools and include them in a massive textbook with heaps of examples as well).

Most of my friends wanted to play Prince of Persia and I just wanted to run Turbo Pascal. those were the days...

I used to loath windows as I was so used to the commandline it just seemed unproductive to use file manager. My Dad was much the same, we didn't end up installing Windows 95, it wasn't until 98 second edition we finally ditched our beloved dos and I think that was only cause the new PC shipped with it.

Now after using Linux for a few years I realise just how powerful unix is and that, Microsoft didn't even do Dos right :(

gorillas.bas and the star trek game i wrote was my own coding. it was basically space invaders style with the enterprise...

and yeah QBasic. I grew up on DOS. my firtst PC (age 6, now 21 in sept) had win95 installed. I had been given DOS 5 by a friend. I deleted Win95 and ran DOS and i too had a massive set of manuals. I worked back from DOS5 to DOS 6.22 played with Win3.11, went to win98SE then up to 2000 then to XP then ditched them all and found such a wonderful world.

funny thing: last night at a LUG meeting i am trying to show someone a post on this forum. I had my laptop in Win XP as i have yet to get a new laptop (wife wont let me put fedora on it!!). in the space of 10 mins IE7 crashed 3 times and i had it reboot on me for no apparent reason after trying to load my screenshot. This is a brand new Dell laptop. Windows sucks. IE7 is terrible, IE6 was worse and you can go bck to the netscape days and i was using netscape over IE cos it was still crap. They wont ever fix that. do i really want to send my error report?? hmmm no!!

i fear Vista will be yet the same. First year will be bugs and all. Lets face it XP is in its 5th year and they have not fixed all the bugs in it yet. MOst, but not all. So what do you think is going to happen when it is installed?? Hmm?? Break and fail....all that for £300??sod that i think id rather just delete windows again. best command ever:

format c: /q (you want it done quick theres no better way)

even better way use QTParted, format it linux, install Linux, run linux and have linux....no troubles!!

Thank god for Linux in this world of awful software curtousy of Microsoft...

[ibbo]

I was reading the paper this morning about some chap who has invented the wind up laptop to punt out to the developing world. He held meeting with Apple and MS whom wanted some $$$.

Needless to say these little wind up laptops will be running Linux. So you dont need to be Joe Clueless you can also be Joe pennyless to get a viable solution (and lets be honest who does not want a wind up laptop with linux on it)? I want two!!!!

Ive not even looked at vista, I have win2k on one of my boxes (somewhere) which i beleive still works when it gets booted.

But its also like the saying goes. More money than sense.

Good job I'm skint then :)

Ibbo

[MAnix]

well all i know is that we have a community worth being a member of. It is something that money cant buy and doesnt buy. We have forums and open sourece. everyone pitches in of all levels and experiences. and hey you dont see Microsoft Windows users sitting round other's houses in User Groups like the LUG's around the world. You know why, cos then they'd be:
MUGS
:p
And anyone who buys Vista is a MUG too :)

[pparks1]

in the space of 10 mins IE7 crashed 3 times
As far as I know, IE7 hasn't been released yet. It certainly didn't come pre-installed on the Dell. You have to remember that it's still a beta release. And of course, taking an XP machine to a LUG meeting is just begging for trouble.


run linux and have linux....no troubles!!
I believe in running Linux too, but "no troubles"???? I think plenty of peeple have their fair share of problems with Linux. And we are the computer savvy tinkerers, imagine what would happen in "Joe Average" was downloading the distro and trying to get it installed and running all of his software on his particular hardware.

[ibbo]

"Joe Average" was downloading the distro and trying to get it installed and running all of his software on his particular hardware.


Its a nightmare for new users thats a given.

But i suppose its like been broken in. If you truely want to migrate away from Windows you will need to start using that grey matter somewhat more. I could be harder, you could be trying to install solaris :)

Ibbo

[JN4OldSchool]

Everything in life requires skills. Even using a fork and knife to cut your steak. Just because you have been doing it since childhood doesnt make it any easier for an adult who has ate with his fingers his whole life. This is why I make a distinction between "dumbing down" Linux and making Linux easier to use. Linux is no harder to use than Windows. This has been argued to death in here but let me give a couple examples. My wife has a BSN (nursing degree), she is highly inteligent, is an ADON (assistant director of nursing) at a large nursing home. She has USED Windows most of her adult life. But she has always had an IT guy at work and me at home. Could she install Windows by herself? Sure, if she set her mind to it. But she would have just as much trouble installing Windows as she would FC5. My oldest son started on computers at an even keel. He learned Windows in school but at the same time learned Linux from me at home on his PC. He swears Linux is easier to use and gives some good reasons. First, in Windows you need to go to seperate websites to find programs you want to install. You download them one at a time and hopefully click an icon to get the installer. Otherwise you need to find the .exe file. In FC you simply click Yumex and go to a safe repository where you get anything you need, along with dependencies automatically installed! OK, every once in a while you will need to compile something from source, but how often does this happen these days? In Windows you need to constantly worry about updating anti-spyware apps, anti-virus apps, defraging the drive...Linux you dont worry about a thing. CLI "yum update" once a week and your set. Hard drive crash? Linux you just load it again, Windows you have to jump through their validation hoops. New computer? Linux you just load it again, Windows? Hope you got another $100 for yet another copy of the same OS. OK, by now y'all are thinking "sure, but what about all the configuration/driver headaches in Linux? What about actually ADMINISTERING your system?" Windows has driver problems too, maybe not as many, but they are there and just as frustrating. I would venture to say it takes no more intelligence to properaly administer a Linux system than a Windows system. Just different skills, different vocabulary, different way of doing things. I would also venture to say that it is actually EASIER to keep a Linux system up to speed and running smoothly than a Windows system. Day after day my Linux computers welcome me every morning. They are up and running and ready to go. My Windows box? Pfft, If I'm lucky everything is good, but more often than not I got tool tray icons telling me its time to update something or other, it crashed during the night and needs rebooted, it's in the middle of a half hour long virus scan or it just died for no reason. No, I dont think Linux is any harder than Windows...Just different.

[bob]

A knife ! Thanks for the tip; that 'spoon and steak' combo just wasn't getting it done! Oh yes, I also agree with everything else you've said 100%. If linux came installed on the machines we buy, we'd never think twice about the issues and wonder how and why anyone would consider using that fragile, unsecure, geeky 'Windows'.

[pparks1]

Linux is no harder to use than Windows
Except when you are trying to get a variety of peripherals installed and working correctly. Usually with Windows you get a driver disk and a set of instructions, you click on setup and then next, next, next, finish.

We've all been with Linux quite a long time and things often are just not that straightforward (notice, I'm avoiding the word 'easy'). The devices don't come with the drivers, the instructions don't mention getting the device working in Linux, the tech support on the phone typically won't support you, and you have to be "aware" of the various repositories (dag, livna) that might actually contain the necessary components to get your device working. In my opinion, there is no doubt, more effort involved with Linux.

Sure, if you buy a computer with Linux pre-installed and you simply surf the net and read e-mail, Linux is probably going to work just fine. But if you buy a printer, a scanner, a digital camera, an Ipod and a webcam and try to get them all working.....it's gonna take some significant errort on your part as well as a lot of reading. Sure, if you have NEVER done this in Windows, it won't be a walk in the park either.....but then again you get instruction manuals and a tech support number to call. I'd be willing to bet that "average joe" would rather turn to those resources than find www.fedoraforum.org and start reading through hundreds of posts trying to get some idea of what he is supposed to do.

[JN4OldSchool]

I cant argue your points PPARKS, they are all valid. Linux does have a driver problem, but this is not due to the OS itself but rather the manufactrers of those perhiperals. And yes, that still doesnt justify my argument and as far as I'm concerned this topic is the hardest part about using Linux in the real world. I cant deny that 99% of all perhiperals will work with Windows just by plugging them in, in fact most times you dont even need to install the supplied driver. But Linux is coming a long way here too. I have used a variety of digital cameras with FC4 and 5 with no problem, most printers will work, scanners...well, I had bad luck there, it seems my scanner has a winsocket, whatever the hell that is, and it is just not supported by Linux and never will be. Kinda like the winmodems I guess. Tough luck on my part, the scanner was given to me and works great with XP. If the time comes I need to buy a new scanner I will just choose one carefully. I have successfully used various joysticks, gamepads and even a force feedback steering wheel and pedals with FC4 and 5, some even being MS products. My multicard reader was recognized right off the bat on initial install and works great. I guess I have just been lucky.

But this is just one area of home computer usage. Once you got everything set up you really shouldnt have any more problems in this area. Windows has it's problem areas too with the security issue being it's big one. I'm not here to bash Windows, hell I use XP myself on almost a daily basis. I am just saying that the braindead people out there will have just as much trouble using Windows as Linux. Go to any computer shop and ask to hear THEIR spyware stories and you will see what I mean. Any monkey can sit down at a computer running either Linux or Windows and type a document, go online, play a CD or a game...But to sucessfully keep a Windows system running right doesnt require any less knowledge than a Linux system. You just have to know different things.

[Skinney]

Except when you are trying to get a variety of peripherals installed and working correctly. Usually with Windows you get a driver disk and a set of instructions, you click on setup and then next, next, next, finish.

We've all been with Linux quite a long time and things often are just not that straightforward (notice, I'm avoiding the word 'easy'). The devices don't come with the drivers, the instructions don't mention getting the device working in Linux, the tech support on the phone typically won't support you, and you have to be "aware" of the various repositories (dag, livna) that might actually contain the necessary components to get your device working. In my opinion, there is no doubt, more effort involved with Linux.

Sure, if you buy a computer with Linux pre-installed and you simply surf the net and read e-mail, Linux is probably going to work just fine. But if you buy a printer, a scanner, a digital camera, an Ipod and a webcam and try to get them all working.....it's gonna take some significant errort on your part as well as a lot of reading. Sure, if you have NEVER done this in Windows, it won't be a walk in the park either.....but then again you get instruction manuals and a tech support number to call. I'd be willing to bet that "average joe" would rather turn to those resources than find www.fedoraforum.org and start reading through hundreds of posts trying to get some idea of what he is supposed to do.

well, this is not Linux's fault. It's the manufactorers... If the manufactorers can't make a easy to install driver for Linux, don't bash Linux for it, if the manufactorers make drivers for linux at all... Usually it's regular people like you and me who makes the drivers, and if they don't make easy to install drivers either, you can't really bash them as they've spent their freetime doing this. Besides, installing drivers doesnt happen that often(at least with me). Only driver i've installed is the ATI driver which i only had to install cause i use my linux to play games(Fedora already comes with an opensource driver that supports the 2d ability of my card) and that was easy with Livna.

I can agree that Fedora(not linux) can be difficult to learn for someone new to linux, i know from experience. But then again, Fedora is not the distro for newbs either.

Now i'm not bashing you, and i apologize if that's the impression you're left with. But i can't help but get a little anoyed when someone complains about drivers not coming with their newly purchased camera, ipod or whatever when it's not Linux fault at all. I think Linux is doing an excelent job with the drivers considering Linux developers have to make the drivers themselves because the manufactorers can't be bothered to make drivers for their own hardware on every platform.

on a last note. I have 2 printers, one scanner, two digital cameras, one webcam and one midi keyboard. Everything works out of the box with Fedora except the webcam and i can get an rpm for that webcam driver from qca's website. BUT if i test Windows XP 64-bit edition, the only thing that actually works is ONE of the printers. Isn't that odd? (Fedora 64-bit edition also have support for all my hardware btw)

EDIT: ahh you beat me oldschool... Also forgot to mention that linux also supports the hotkeys on my Microsoft keyboard ;)

[pparks1]

Now i'm not bashing you, and i apologize if that's the impression you're left with.
Not at all, I'm a big supporter of Linux and have been on these forums a long time. I understand that this is not "truly" the fault of the Linux OS, but the fact remains that people use their computers for a whole lot more than just surfing the web and writing letters. To most average users, Linux is going to just appear to be too hard. (aka, not worth the effort).

My comments were strictly as a counter point to the opinion that Linux is no harder to use than Windows. I truly think that for a majority of computers users, they will feel that Linux is harder to use. If people try the OS, but can't get 1/2 of their stuff to work (which worked fine in XP), who do you think they are going to blame first (the mfg for not making a driver, or the OS which doesn't work out of the box with their hardware like Windows did)?

[Skinney]

well i got to agree with you that most users will think of Linux as too hard becouse of such possible problems, which is a shame really.

[JN4OldSchool]

Ahh, but that is exactly my point. They will feel it is harder because they are used to Windows. It is what they know. It would be like if I spent my entire life driving compact cars and decided to jump into a big, jacked up 4x4 SUV one day. Sure it would SEEM harder for me to drive. But the SUV driver would be equaly uncomfortable in my small car. In reality one is not harder than the other, just different.

edit: To even further my example: The SUV is naturally harder to park. But you have better visability in the SUV as it sits higher above the road. The compact gets better gas milage, but the SUV has a bigger engine and is more powerful. You would soon get used to either one if you drove it every day though.

[SHtRO]

And as for the Windows driver issue...installing CD's that include 10-20MB (100MB even!) of apps that I don't want but have to run on the PC anyway. 15 different programs checking the Internet for updates. So called "certified" drivers that break the system in odd, indiscernable, and very difficult to fix ways. A computer that sits and boots...and boots...and then boots again as it starts up the gazillion independent programs, all with their own idea of how the system works. It is just a nightmare to administer if you use a lot of different programs. My only problem with Linux right now is getting custom RPM's built for Rosegarden and Mergeant, otherwise I'm as happy as a clam...er...penguin.

[MAnix]

Ahh, but that is exactly my point. They will feel it is harder because they are used to Windows. It is what they know. It would be like if I spent my entire life driving compact cars and decided to jump into a big, jacked up 4x4 SUV one day. Sure it would SEEM harder for me to drive. But the SUV driver would be equaly uncomfortable in my small car. In reality one is not harder than the other, just different.

edit: To even further my example: The SUV is naturally harder to park. But you have better visability in the SUV as it sits higher above the road. The compact gets better gas milage, but the SUV has a bigger engine and is more powerful. You would soon get used to either one if you drove it every day though.

Yes but there is another thing we are not considering. We need to factor in how many people have not heard of linux. There are also some who dont know what an OS is to start off with. so these may be people that would be open to ditching MS but just have never heard of Linux. I am used to using Fedora now. it was a steep learning curve and i had to bug many of you for help (and still do). But now i know enough to at least try and help others.

Maybe drivers are an issue in some coming over. Perhaps gamers and ohters dont want to also on compatability issues, as they cant run EVERY game they could in Windows. And also i am sure that blind ignorance is a problem. I know that before me my family had never heard of linux. None know what anm OS is either. This makes them unaware. However my dad, a computer user for just 2 weeks, has already become disenchanted by windows and would try fedora when he builds his skills up. It can be done and people will come over. many have not heard of "linux" or "fedora" or "red hat" unless they use computer a hell of a lot or overheard some techhie talk about it....

I heard that in Brazil, they recently ditched MS Windows, due partly to security but also the licenses are expensive, and now use Linux due to it being free and much easier to translate into native languages. those children go to school and play on Linux machines and grow up never hearing Microsoft as a name. They may not even know it exists....food for thought there.

[JN4OldSchool]

But realisticaly, how steep was your learning curve MAnix? It seems like just a couple weeks ago you joined us? I dont know this, for all I know you may have been learning Linux for years, but my preception is you havent been here that long, at least in this forum. Honestly, it took me about 6 months to become comfortable with Linux. I am in no position to say I KNOW Linux inside and out, there are many here who know tons more than I do. Every day I learn something new. There are still huge gaps in my Linux knowledge. I still consider myself a Linux newbie. But I am activly involved in my computers, it is just a hobby for me, but one which I spend a lot of time on. I have always been the guy friends and relatives would call with their computer problems. So my perception may be skewed a bit when I say it wasnt really that hard to get to the point in Linux where I can set up someones computer, figure out most of their bugs and get things up and running. The key is I wanted to learn, it is something I wanted to do, I was not forced into it. I welcome problems, I am challenged by trying to figure out why something doesnt work. So the question is, is Linux ready for the real world full of braindead average Joes who really dont want to be bothered with anything but using the app they currently need to preform a task? Again, my preception may be skewed, but I think the answer is yes. What everyone keeps failing to recognize is these braindead people have just as much trouble keeping Windows running as they would Linux. Without someone to call to have come over and fix it for them they are lost. Unfortunatly Linux has no Geek Squad at this time. You ARE on your own. Your local computer shop will more than likley just give you a blank stare when you walk in carrying your box and you tell the guy you are running Linux and it locked up on you. So in the end I still stand by my statement that Linux is just as easy to use as Windows. But I will conceed the fact that the braindead average joes out there, if they wont take the time to learn anything about their OS, should probably stick with Windows for the simple reason that they at least have someone to call to fix it for them.

[Skinney]

@JN4OldSchool: Now that's a post i agree with completely!
It seems we got a lot in comon when it comes to experience and problem welcoming and it's nice to see im not the only one... even if you got 300 posts more than me :P

Btw, reading some older posts i see that someone complains about Gnome and KDE are beeing resource hogs. How can they say this? Using an idle windows desktop with the Win2000 Theme it uses 230+ MB's while a simular setup in Linux spends 160Mbs at MOST...

[MAnix]

But realisticaly, how steep was your learning curve MAnix? It seems like just a couple weeks ago you joined us? I dont know this, for all I know you may have been learning Linux for years, but my preception is you havent been here that long, at least in this forum. Honestly, it took me about 6 months to become comfortable with Linux. I am in no position to say I KNOW Linux inside and out, there are many here who know tons more than I do.

i cant say i know everytihing but what i do know is enough to help others.

Oh and i started for the first time in my life on linux around 2 1/2 months ago. i was a very competant windows user, but i had to throw out the rule book for linux. it was a whole new world. i am an exception to the rule though. i have autism (Asperger's). time was people thought that made you slow...hasnt stopped me studying degree or getting married or installing linux!! it It is why i absorb things so fast, but i see your original point.

When i joined this forum was day 2 for me and linux. it has been brilliant and i love contributing back to the community. racking up the posts. i dont know nearly as much as your JN4OldSchool, but i see the original point...

and hey none of that was meant personally or anything...im just manic MAniX!!

[Thetargos]

Everything in life requires skills. Even using a fork and knife to cut your steak. Just because you have been doing it since childhood doesnt make it any easier for an adult who has ate with his fingers his whole life. This is why I make a distinction between "dumbing down" Linux and making Linux easier to use. Linux is no harder to use than Windows. This has been argued to death in here but let me give a couple examples. My wife has a BSN (nursing degree), she is highly inteligent, is an ADON (assistant director of nursing) at a large nursing home. She has USED Windows most of her adult life. But she has always had an IT guy at work and me at home. Could she install Windows by herself? Sure, if she set her mind to it. But she would have just as much trouble installing Windows as she would FC5. My oldest son started on computers at an even keel. He learned Windows in school but at the same time learned Linux from me at home on his PC. He swears Linux is easier to use and gives some good reasons. First, in Windows you need to go to seperate websites to find programs you want to install. You download them one at a time and hopefully click an icon to get the installer. Otherwise you need to find the .exe file. In FC you simply click Yumex and go to a safe repository where you get anything you need, along with dependencies automatically installed! OK, every once in a while you will need to compile something from source, but how often does this happen these days? In Windows you need to constantly worry about updating anti-spyware apps, anti-virus apps, defraging the drive...Linux you dont worry about a thing. CLI "yum update" once a week and your set. Hard drive crash? Linux you just load it again, Windows you have to jump through their validation hoops. New computer? Linux you just load it again, Windows? Hope you got another $100 for yet another copy of the same OS. OK, by now y'all are thinking "sure, but what about all the configuration/driver headaches in Linux? What about actually ADMINISTERING your system?" Windows has driver problems too, maybe not as many, but they are there and just as frustrating. I would venture to say it takes no more intelligence to properaly administer a Linux system than a Windows system. Just different skills, different vocabulary, different way of doing things. I would also venture to say that it is actually EASIER to keep a Linux system up to speed and running smoothly than a Windows system. Day after day my Linux computers welcome me every morning. They are up and running and ready to go. My Windows box? Pfft, If I'm lucky everything is good, but more often than not I got tool tray icons telling me its time to update something or other, it crashed during the night and needs rebooted, it's in the middle of a half hour long virus scan or it just died for no reason. No, I dont think Linux is any harder than Windows...Just different.
This is pretty much what I've been telling people about the differences of Linux and Windows when someone asks me. The underlying logics are different even if some paradigms are similar or the (graphics Vs CLI). More than a man who has always ate with his hands and a man who has always ate with fork and knife, i see it like a man used to eat with chinese stiks and a guy used to eat with spoon, knife, fork, etc. Both use tools to eat, just different tools. Which woiuld mean that a guy in Windows and a guy on Linux use different tools solve (pretty much) the same problems, the thing is that each tool requires different skills. And the logic to apply those skills is also different.

For instance, though both OSes now have a more grphical paradigm and a set of tools to only point-and-click, still the job done by the tool in the background is pretty much the same as if you did that from the command line, and even some times you have to do it from the CLI and use the graphic tool just to set the "outline" of what you want, but the CLI to fine-tune. In Windows this is not necessarily the same, as some tools modify the registry in such a way that hexadecimal values for some obscure keys are neede, which leaves you to only being able to use the graphical tool and no further tweaking.

[JN4OldSchool]

i cant say i know everytihing but what i do know is enough to help others.

Oh and i started for the first time in my life on linux around 2 1/2 months ago. i was a very competant windows user, but i had to throw out the rule book for linux. it was a whole new world. i am an exception to the rule though. i have autism (Asperger's). time was people thought that made you slow...hasnt stopped me studying degree or getting married or installing linux!! it It is why i absorb things so fast, but i see your original point.

When i joined this forum was day 2 for me and linux. it has been brilliant and i love contributing back to the community. racking up the posts. i dont know nearly as much as your JN4OldSchool, but i see the original point...

and hey none of that was meant personally or anything...im just manic MAniX!!

Oh no, you missed my point! When I reread what I had posted I saw where you can misunderstand what I said. You had previously posted that "your learning curve was steep." I was simply pointing out that in the short time you have been using Linux you seem to know quite a lot. Probably as much if not more than I do. My point to you was, was it really that hard to become fluent, at least fluent enough to adaquatly use it, in Linux? Very few of us will ever aquire FIREWING's knowledge of computers. There are just not that many Stanton Finlys out there. Not all of us can write a complete app like MIT and his Yumex and keep up with it, constantly improving it. We usually just learn what we need to get by. And this is all I am trying to say in this thread. It is no harder to learn bash commands and Linux skills as it is to learn about the Windows OS. It just takes time and patience.

edit: The more I think about this the more I felt the need to edit this post and take the time to recognize the REAL Linux gurus in this Forum. The people who are the work force behind the scenes in here, taking the time to patiently answer all our stupid newbie questions. People like the ones I mentioned above and many others like Tomcat, Bob, PParks, Finalzone and many others. These are the people that have the answers, the ones who know what they are doing. I can only hope to someday be held in the same regard as I hold them. I just wanted to make it clear that I am not presently in the same catagory. I still have a lot to learn yet.

[MAnix]

Looks like i misinterpretted, so my apologies. I hold many of the people you said in the highest of regard. I have been helped out by many of you, and you also, JN4OldSchool.

I see your point and yes i guess that with the will to want to change it was not too much of a change. it is a challenge, and thats what gives it the flavour. The wonderful expertise on this forum, at Red Hat, and all those tirelessy on the forums daily, are those i shall thank.

I have lofty expectations and i always try and push hard to achieve many things. I am just learning at the moment, but i hope one day to make it into the "Big Leagues", with pparks, bob, Tomcat, and yourself JN4OldSchool. I am by no means experienced, but i am getting there, slowly.

I love to contribute back, which is why i have taken so much time in being active on fourms, and writing websites and coding apps. I hope to produce things that people like, and use. I am learning, but it is achievable. I hope to have sometihng as useful as Stanton's guide, or Firewings ultimate level of linux knowledge...

I think it is worthy at this time to also take note of where we ALL are today. We have all got differing levels of experience, but we all managed the change. Few of us may have the top level skills, but by the same token we all can give back and learn more. Many, if not all, on this forum already do lots for the community, even if it is answering posts from annoying newbs, myself included. I shall be around for a long while and every bit of information i learn i hope impart back to the community to help...

And noted that bash commands are actually very similar to DOS commands (and thus cmd.exe commands, due to it being a DOS shell). It was very easy to install and use, and to configure things in Fedora, one needs only 3 things, a desire to get it to work, good google skills, and a fantastic forum for debate and queries.

This is a fine example of our community. Whilst other forums represent Linux, this particular forum is bound by a love of FEdora, and skills that i have yet to see matched in the same numbers, and sheer skill...

I have always been 100% certain of Linux as a great software rival to Microsoft. I am also 100% certain that everyone could change if they wanted...one day schools will use Linux because it is cheaper, and more secure...Then a new legion of young and skilled linux users will be born, never having known the world of Windows...it may be far off, but it is achievable, and not rediculous to assume...

[JN4OldSchool]

Couldnt have said it better. The one part I really like is what you say about todays kids. They are the future of Linux. Old farts like me that have used Windows for over a decade and a half now tend to resist change. We are comfortable with what we know. We have preconcieved notions of what computers should be. Kids have none of this. They are starting fresh and the whole world is open for them. I see it in my kids, how easily they pick things up in Linux. How easy it is for them to overcome the Windows stereotypes. It reminds me of my youth, my early twenties when home computers were something new, Windows didnt exist and I showed the same raw enthusiasm for programing in Basic. I just wish I had presued programing instead of treating it as a geeky hobby and eventually totally breaking away from computers until the late 1990's. The computer age is still very young, we havent even scratched the surface of where we are going with this stuff. MS and Windows will fade one day, another giant will rise up to take their place. I dont think Linux will be that giant, but I do feel secure that Linux will be still be around and still have a passionate following.

[fpoole]

What you can do is run xfce as pointed out above... THEN
-kill the xfce panel in terminal. Now you have XFCE4 but no panel WTF??? THEN
-run gnome-panel. Viola, looks like gnome. But FASTER. but still no desktop WTF??? THEN
-run nautilus.
- Save your session.

this gives you 99% of gnome, the missing 1% being

- keyboard shortcut for gnome menu (haven't figured this one out yet in XFCE)
- an annoying error msg when u start your session (haven't figured out where to stop it from trying to load xfce panel again, it will be one line in some file somewhere)

I've done this on my laptop (P3-M 1.2Ghz, 256 RAM) and its MUCH faster. But it looks like and acts like gnome, I'm all happy :)

That's dope. Tried the same with kicker? (Probably won't work for GTK+/QT differences, but hey...)

[JN4OldSchool]

@JN4OldSchool: Now that's a post i agree with completely!
It seems we got a lot in comon when it comes to experience and problem welcoming and it's nice to see im not the only one... even if you got 300 posts more than me :P

Btw, reading some older posts i see that someone complains about Gnome and KDE are beeing resource hogs. How can they say this? Using an idle windows desktop with the Win2000 Theme it uses 230+ MB's while a simular setup in Linux spends 160Mbs at MOST...

As far as Gnome and KDE, I dont think they were complaining that they were resource hogs as much as wishing they would run on older hardware. I go both ways here too. One of the big complaints about Vista is that it is going to require a fairly modern computer. I think this is good. We need to look ahead. There eventually comes a time to ditch the old junk you have had for 5 years now. And worst case, if you have to keep the hardware just dont run Vista. Linux is also going this direction. There was a time a few years ago when one of the biggest selling points of Linux was that it would run on anything. But those days are gone, at least if you want a gui and dont want to go for a coffee break every time you open an app. Hell, the default FC5 install is over 3GB now, that rules out any stock production home computer made before say 1996-97 right there unless you want to strip the OS down some. I mean come on, is there really any excues to still be running a 3.4GB hard drive with 128MB RAM? I just dont see this as a big factor. If you cant run Vista then dont, or just spend the $400 and get a new PC.

On the other side, I myself own an old laptop with 64MB RAM and no possability to add more. It will run DSL with Fluxbox, but I would love to be able to run a mainstream distro (FC would be to much to hope for) with KDE or even Gnome. I cant run XP on this let alone Vista, but I'm not crying in my beer. If it were that important I would just bite the bullet and build/buy a new laptop.

[Paul_Vandenberg]

At my company, we are just upgrading to XP this year! The insurance industry is not known for trying to have the latest and greatest.

Paul

[Invader02]

At my company, we are just upgrading to XP this year! The insurance industry is not known for trying to have the latest and greatest.


don't you mean downgrading?

Why not try to have them get linux instead... it'll save money rather than buying XP Pro licenses for your company...

[ccrvic]

On the other side, I myself own an old laptop with 64MB RAM and no possability to add more. It will run DSL with Fluxbox, but I would love to be able to run a mainstream distro

This very evening, I've installed WBEL4 onto an HP Omnibook - a 433MHz P2 with 64MB of RAM. It's currently running Gnome - but not very well. I'm going to try the XFCE-with-Gnome-panel idea detailed elsewhere later on...

I also have a Compaq Armada 1700 (P2/300 with 96MB of RAM) running Ubuntu, and that does run Gnome rather well...

Vic.

[Neubie2]

Microsoft/Windows just keeps trying to improve their software/OS as does Linus/Fedora. Is it any wonder why we keep the richest man in the world---the richest???--- Come on, I have been dabling in Fedora since release 2, and get better aquainted with it as each new release becomes available. It's the best thing since sliced bread!! If you're willing to put in a little effort and aquire some new knowledge about computers, I think it's the way to go. And the best part of all, if you need assistance of any kind, there are thousands of enthusiasts like myself out there that are eager to offer any kind of assistance for your benefit, and moreso not for the sake of their pocket books!!

[Neubie2]

I agree with Invader, instead of XP, try using Linux/Fedora instead. It's simpler easy to install, and very user freindly. It's also freely available on the web.

[pparks1]

Why not try to have them get linux instead
Well, if it's a large insurance company I am sure they have a corporate standard and a help desk support staff that is trained on their systems. Companies often use homegrown apps to conduct their business and it's sometimes not possible to run these apps in alternate OS's.

It's quite possible that the upgrade is coming because of new computers being purchased, which of course will likely come from an HP,Dell,IBM,Gateway and of course will have Windows pre-installed.

[JN4OldSchool]

This very evening, I've installed WBEL4 onto an HP Omnibook - a 433MHz P2 with 64MB of RAM. It's currently running Gnome - but not very well. I'm going to try the XFCE-with-Gnome-panel idea detailed elsewhere later on...

I also have a Compaq Armada 1700 (P2/300 with 96MB of RAM) running Ubuntu, and that does run Gnome rather well...

Vic.

Hey, if that works out let me know. I may try it on my laptop sometime too, but I'm in the middle of a few other things at the moment.

[MAnix]

Well, if it's a large insurance company I am sure they have a corporate standard and a help desk support staff that is trained on their systems. Companies often use homegrown apps to conduct their business and it's sometimes not possible to run these apps in alternate OS's.

It's quite possible that the upgrade is coming because of new computers being purchased, which of course will likely come from an HP,Dell,IBM,Gateway and of course will have Windows pre-installed.

I have to admit that if an insurance company is only just upgrading, then it is unlikely they will choose Linux. Partly for the applications, which likely run only in windows, but i know that i can re-write most (i have managed on everything i have tried) to work on linux. i dont mean using wine, i mean re-program it. easy if it is in C, C++, or any web based languages, and if it is a BASIC language then it can be translated, slower but do-able.

Really for corperate needs they choose windows for the following, IMO:
because it is recognised and has huge driver support, helpdesk support, and all manner of trinkets. Insurance companies, and corps in general, are not going to want to have to re-write code, and wont re-install an already installed machine (since virtually all are pre-loaded), and lastly, you are not likely yot see thier chief I.T. technician on forums daily asking for help with drivers, databases and other such problems. Corps need uptime. It looks bad when they have crashes. That is why they choose Linux for the servers. They keep them running and never crash. They use Windows on their machines as a result of the above mentioned.

For them, discounted licenses, even a few hundred pc's, still is like £50,000?? and when they are spending countless man hours setting up a huge network fully installed, they dont need to be using an OS where their only help comes from a community. They want another corperation to blame if it screws up!! They spend millions on new pc's, so whats £50,000, or £100,000?? It is peanuts to them for 24/7 customer support, and on-stie technical assistance...

Linux will always be a part of the huge corperation, in the form of servers, but i cant see that trust being passed onto the local machine. way to many variables, and way too much at stake for them if it goes down. It is fear, not knowledge. They fear the fact that they may have to change, even when it is to a bug-free and strong OS such as Red Hat or CentOS (Fedora is way to bleeding edge to be on a corperate network IMHO).

[SHtRO]

There is commercial Linux available just for the market you mention. See: IBM.com, or "www.redhat.com". It is apps, legacy and marketing that drive their decisions not the lack of support.

[Invader02]

I've never bothered to try a commercial linux... I'd bittorrent it, but it's an open-source product so i'm not going to.

What about Novell though? Novell's cheaper than red hat and mabye it's just as easy...

Then again the problem could always be incompatible drivers and hardware...

[SHtRO]

SUSE desktop is pretty nice for that purpose. Certainly not secure enough for a server without a bunch of tweaking, but a nice desktop nevertheless.

And it is true about the drivers, but once again, more and more manufacturers recognize how much cheaper (and faster) it is to develop an open source driver than to jump through the Micro$oft hoops and red tape to get certified and registered, and they don't have to pay royalties on the software generally speaking, either. This makes the hardware a much easier sell to a growing market, and decent companies recognize this. Why do business with an ignorant company? It is only asking for trouble.

[MAnix]

They may be ignorant, but they are the market leader, and with Microsoft telling there customers not to install anbything that isnt security signed and digitally tested with them then you find that many companies have to jump though these hoops and thus dont want to then divert more time onto open source drivers at the same time as this is even more money...this is the problems for many smaller companies...they cant do two at once and afford all the wages etc...a lot of overhead, and thus not enough driver support to make the transition smooth enough for many large buisnesses...

[wintermute000]

Most of the benefits of 'nix are 'under the hood'. Add this to the 'inertia' factor, even with techies (well u ain't really a techie unless ur free of the M$ jackboot but hey thats another story ;) ), and what you have is a higher bar to aim for when it comes to converting ppl. Not just the masses.

To use your example ppparks1,
- Giving them the FC5 install CD and the 1ghz box and they'll have the reaction you just described. The hope is they're curious enough (like me! that's exactly how I felt starting out, cool, but slow, er, how do I mount a CD, FFS where are the drive letters! har har)
- if you gave Windows admins that same 1ghz box, running in CLI only but with Apache/SQL/PHP set up, Iptables w/ transparent proxy thru to Squid, Samba, OpenSSH, MTRG, heck, throw in Webmin for a laugh, and I'm sure as hell they'll be impressed. Esp with the pricetag

So basically, horses for courses (isn't that the Nix way?) hehe
- To rule the desktop, we need Gnome/KDE to get up to WinXP speeds on comparable systems WITHOUT mass tweaking. Then again I'm biased as I know how to tweak Windows far better than linux thanks to a 7 year head start!!!
- Nail those 'niche' areas where Win holds an insurmountable advantage. Games, Photoshop, Excel, Hardware without drivers etc. etc.

Unfortunately you can't dis-entangle the server space from the desktop space entirely. Esp. with entire generations brought up on the unholy trinity: Server 2003, Exchange and Active Directory. (for the record Server 2003 is damned fine, god I hate M$ but u have to give credit where credits due). I have friends who are gurus on that platform who have no inclination of learning Nix even though they've read enough geek literature to know its "better". And most importantly: no need.

A small - medium company could easily do fine w/ samba or NFS, sendmail, LDAP, handling their shared drives, email server, and "active directory" needs. Bolt on apache/PHP/MySQL for web based interfaces and database work. Esp. if starting from the ground up or without a substantial existing IT infrastructure and you're laughing.

But: try this on a corporate scale, with thousands of desktops and their servers already in the standard corporate M$ environment, where even the most retarded person is comfortable with word and outlook and knows to click on the G drive for the departmental shared docs? I shudder just thinking about what such a migration would involve.

Of course we have to hold the line where we have the clear lead (i.e. servers) and fight for where we can get more market share (i.e. desktops). But lets not get in over ourselves: For the record I just quit a job doing network management in the Voice Networks area for a bank and I cannot envisage them shifting anything aside from specialised server spaces over to linux. e.g. for Voice, a lot of our attached applications e.g. call accounting systems, call centre applications etc. are proprietary, and guess what, none of them run in linux. Fat chance of getting Ericsson or Lucent to re-write their flagship call centre accounting package into nix. This will only get better with VOIP and the corresponding integrated applications and proprietary protocols ;) Wanna get your voicemail server to talk to a linux mail server instead of exchange? (dies laughing - though I guess if they're around I haven't been in the industry long enough to hear about them. And No I'm not counting asterisk :) )

FFS there are even token ring networks still lying around supporting legacy systems that nobody in their right mind wants to touch with a 20 ft bargepole, lest you want ATMs malfunctioning and heads rolling as a consequence. No surprise theres 0 chance of that lovely Active Directory / Exchange infrastructure (no place to run, its everywhere ;) ) and associated desktops being migrated onto RH or SUSE.....

In summary: human inertia + migration costs (which increase with every year due to this lovely industry trick known as vendor locking) is one heck of a hurdle that the dedicated geek can do for themselves, or their friends, or the small organisation they work for. Scale these problems up to corporate sizes and you have Mt Everest. Unfortunately it gets chicken and egg: the masses only want to waste their time learning ONE thing (ie windows) and they mostly already know it + its what they use at work (where 90% of their computing time is!), so the dominance of Windows in the workplace re-inforces the dominance of Windows @ the non geek home

*phew* (apologies for rant - I'm generalising of course, I know theres lots of production systems running nix, prob the one holding up this very forum :)

[Thetargos]

In summary: human inertia + migration costs (which increase with every year due to this lovely industry trick known as vendor locking) is one heck of a hurdle that the dedicated geek can do for themselves, or their friends, or the small organisation they work for. Scale these problems up to corporate sizes and you have Mt Everest. Unfortunately it gets chicken and egg: the masses only want to waste their time learning ONE thing (ie windows) and they mostly already know it + its what they use at work (where 90% of their computing time is!), so the dominance of Windows in the workplace re-inforces the dominance of Windows @ the non geek home


*clap* *clap* *clap*

Very well worded. Indeed, Microsoft dominance is due to the corporate desktop more than the home desktop. Which is why they're protecting their numeric superiority on this segment. Not that such a feat of converting a corporate network into a *nix bases network couldn't be done, at a reasonable price. The problem will be others, you could even do it and the users will never know (on the backend), but to migrate the desktops... Man! Is it difficult or what?! Plus you have to take into account the already made investments in other systems (like what you said about call centers). However one of the biggest problems is that usually these types of environments are not modularized, so that would be a good start: modularize your IT infrastructure and from there there will be more flexibility as to run either solution. Even monolithic "netwrok architectures" have been causing trouble for seasoned M$ IT personnel, the first step should, in any case, be to clean that mess.

[MAnix]

Well i have always been in favour of focusing on niche markets. It has worked well for linux. In the server market, linux is very strong, and id like to see this occur in Gaming and Education, etc...

I am active in trying to promote this idea, and believe this to be a way forward.

[Firewing1]

I agree. Gaming is going up - Doom 3, Quake and a few others have Linux verisons. Blizzard games are playable in Wine (see my gaming howto for more info). It's begun.

As for the Excel - OpenOffice's calc module is IMHO much better than Excel - At school my friends are impressed by my fancy, in-depth graphs, charts and more for Biology labs when they ask I say "use OpenOffice" :p

Education isn't quite there yet, but it'll come...

Firewing1

[Thetargos]

Well i have always been in favour of focusing on niche markets. It has worked well for linux. In the server market, linux is very strong, and id like to see this occur in Gaming and Education, etc...

I am active in trying to promote this idea, and believe this to be a way forward.
I think that the Educational market is an awesome opportunity for Linux desktop adoption. Not only does it offer a plethora of programs and features, but it also is going to be widely used in this segment (hopefully) with the OLPC project (if it ever comes to fuition... this decade).

Linux also makes for one fine gaming system, provided the games are properly coded, and you have the necessary drivers. I too would like to see broader adoption of Linux as a gaming platrform.

[wintermute000]

Yes well we had all better pray that the current stampede towards DirectX is halted... hehe.

Don't forget though that the gaming market is kinda... childish? and for every techie who loves games as well there are 100 'l33t' gamers who think they're computer experts coz they can tweak their settings to get that extra 5% FPS in oblivion or whatever. These people are NOT linux friendly (heck they usually aren't even friendly LOL).

Heck I might even need to resort to getting Vista with my next desktop just to run DX10 games (b@stards)

Games is all well and good but nobody is going to migrate to Linux to play games, let's face it. If you can run Blizzard games in wine you already know Nix, and thus gaming is a non-issue to you (or you dual boot). Now the fact that there maybe one day Linux may get as many games as say... Mac (vomit) then maybe it won't be such a barrier to adoption, if u get my logic.

Not saying its not worth pursuing linux gaming, but I think the desktop is a more worthwhile target.

Firewing, maybe Calc is a better program, but unfortunately on this count, thousands of hours on corporate desktops with Excel has made me pretty comfortable with it and I just can't find a compelling reason to switch (and lets face it, in a home environment with not even a SOHO or personal investment requirement, gnumeric will suffice quite nicely thank you very much)

[Thetargos]

Yes well we had all better pray that the current stampede towards DirectX is halted... hehe.

Don't forget though that the gaming market is kinda... childish? and for every techie who loves games as well there are 100 'l33t' gamers who think they're computer experts coz they can tweak their settings to get that extra 5% FPS in oblivion or whatever. These people are NOT linux friendly (heck they usually aren't even friendly LOL).

Heck I might even need to resort to getting Vista with my next desktop just to run DX10 games (b@stards)

Games is all well and good but nobody is going to migrate to Linux to play games, let's face it. If you can run Blizzard games in wine you already know Nix, and thus gaming is a non-issue to you (or you dual boot). Now the fact that there maybe one day Linux may get as many games as say... Mac (vomit) then maybe it won't be such a barrier to adoption, if u get my logic.

Not saying its not worth pursuing linux gaming, but I think the desktop is a more worthwhile target.

Firewing, maybe Calc is a better program, but unfortunately on this count, thousands of hours on corporate desktops with Excel has made me pretty comfortable with it and I just can't find a compelling reason to switch (and lets face it, in a home environment with not even a SOHO or personal investment requirement, gnumeric will suffice quite nicely thank you very much)
Actually I've got a thing or two to say about Linux and gaming... True, gaming is only minor aspect, and childish (thouh I love it!), however it is often said to be one of the main reasons who a lot of [young] people won't ever even try Linux... Market is shrinking on the PC end of gaming, sadly (with the recent console's explossion), but it won't disappear completely. Now I am of the opinion that Transgaming could do much more than (I think) they even figure, for both: Their pockets and the Linux gaming community. How? Simple, do what they currently do for MacOS: help studios port games to Linux, instead of just ensuring they will run on Cedega. Sure! They can keep on supplying Cedega (on whatever basis they want), but at least help or license games from studios to port over to Linux. They've said it once in their site... They know DirectX better than anyone else, except maybe for the DirectX developers themselves! Which means if they had access to the code of the games, they could better translate all the required code to have a native OpenGL renederer for (otherwise) DirectX-only titles. I think is a far better route to take for their own customers than just ensuring compatibility. Leave Cedega to deal only with those titles they won't be porting and to provide compatibility with "legacy" stuff. I know there's a lot involving that [crazy] idea of mine, but if Loki before them could at least do it, and they failed due to lack of market, however now there's an ever increasing market for they to crop from, and having support for games, most likely will increase that market even further... However will be there anyone willing to tak the risk? They've alrady proven that they've got a market with Cedega... They just can't depend on Cedega for ever... Or what? Are they going or aiming to become the "Linux DirectX" providers... And charge us for it? No thanks! I'd rather pay THEM for fully PORTED games!

I'd say skip Microsoft altogether! In fact a lot of people are currently stating that they won't be adopting Vista right away (not that they won't ever adopt Vista, though),and there's a lot of gossip about if this is either Mac and Linux opportunity to pick up on those users who might as well not jump into the Vista bandwagon, though personally I'd buy a Vista machine than a Mac (nothing against the syste, but Steve Jobs is more dangerous than Gates IMO).

Regarding the Calc Vs Excel arguments, let me at least tell you that (up to the last version of Office I used) Excel did not support the amount of elments per forumla that Calc did (back in StarOffice 6). I needed to have a quite large table with crossexamining cells with a lot of ifs and conditionals that involved usually more than 32 elements per forumla. Excel 2000 could not handle that many, can't say if newer versions do, though.

[Finalzone]

It is too bad company like Loki disappear as they were the one who ported some Windows optimized games to Linux world. I think it is not hard to convert some DirectX games to OpenGL, the problem is the latency from game publisher as they could include the mechanism to install a game in a Linux distro.

[MAnix]

well one thing is for certian, i see it as the furture forward. i think transgaming could do more to license games, but so should we as a community. Transgaing wont lobby and spend out of licenses for Linux when many will say, wait i get that game to work using cedega, why pay for the portage...?? Also the developers worry about a lack of support and wish for computer games. Some in own our community are againt gaming in one sense or another, so without a consensus how are they meant to know we want ganmes?? Mac users had one man at the Head, Steve JObs, and he pushed for greater portage to Mac...Now i can get Sims2 Mac version and run that....it would be great for Linux, but many will feel that using wine or cedega is a cheaper way of using the cheaper windows games....bear in mind mac games are around 10GBP more expensive, what do you think will happen?? Answer Linux games will be around the same price as Mac games...they will have the latest titiles, bvut the market is really small as people will just use Cedega or Wine to run the cheep windows games on their systems....

I say more in house coding of OPEN SOURCE games are needed. We need to belt out great games that rival studio games. Get one or two that do and you have the industry looking your way. Then they will be more inclined to offer the full portage and due to the Linux community having great games absolutly free, studios would have to lower prices to compete, maybe even drop them lower than a windows title. We have the power to make a monopoly in the field...get togther and code together and watch as the games flow. hell, evenm if the studios ignored linux games, they'd be popular enough to win over many users from windows and many gamers already in linux and thus the gaming revolution...

And educationally, Linux is vital. To teach and show there is something out theer called Linux would be great, to use it better, and lets face it, they will all go home and format thier mums and dads PC and chuck on Linux cos of the need to use the same apps!! all joy and positive there i say...

[Omega Blue]

Well, if it's a large insurance company I am sure they have a corporate standard and a help desk support staff that is trained on their systems. Companies often use homegrown apps to conduct their business and it's sometimes not possible to run these apps in alternate OS's.

Depends. A lot of these apps are being ported to Java/J2EE and run in a Web-esque, decentralised fashion.



It's quite possible that the upgrade is coming because of new computers being purchased, which of course will likely come from an HP,Dell,IBM,Gateway and of course will have Windows pre-installed.

Don't matter though. Some vendors offer "naked" PCs. Even if they don't, GNU/Linux is free.

[ccrvic]

Depends. A lot of these apps are being ported to Java/J2EE and run in a Web-esque, decentralised fashion.

Whilst this is certainly true, it doesn't actually help us.

I've recently been involved with an MRP system. The old system ran on NetWare (3.12, to be precise). The new system *requires* WinXP clients - the vendor told me so. Apparently, only IE supports the DOM properly.

I had another one of my hallucinations shortly afterwards, when I completely imagined firing up a WBEL box running IceWeasel, and having that work seamlessly with this app. But that can't have been true, because the vendor told me it can't possibly work...

Vic.

[wintermute000]

Not to bash Writely or any of the newer ajax stuff....

But I think anybody who has worked onsite where there's lots of web based / java apps will agree that its slow, cr@ppy and forces us to keep IE on our desktops :)

Of course the situation will improve (hopefully) but we are a long way away from where thin clients running web browsers is the standard across the board.

Also don't forget that the Sun java stuff is proprietary... if it doesn't work with open source version of java your argument falls down

[Omega Blue]

I've recently been involved with an MRP system. The old system ran on NetWare (3.12, to be precise). The new system *requires* WinXP clients - the vendor told me so. Apparently, only IE supports the DOM properly.

*sigh*

If I were the company I would insist that the client must be able to be run under any browser. I don't see why that should not be the case.

[Omega Blue]

Not to bash Writely or any of the newer ajax stuff....

Ajax is Javascript, not Java :p



But I think anybody who has worked onsite where there's lots of web based / java apps will agree that its slow, cr@ppy and forces us to keep IE on our desktops :)

Only if you are using applets. Applications could run independently.



Also don't forget that the Sun java stuff is proprietary... if it doesn't work with open source version of java your argument falls down

True enough, though only in extremely rare cases that you have to use classes from the Sun implementation.

[Thetargos]

When did the illegal DOM for JScript became the "officially endoresed" DOM for Java Script? I mean, IE's implementation is the most incompatible one, and yet (paradoxically) it is the most widely used (is it me or does that sound ridicule?) I was thinking that it was due to the "ActiveX" controls (aka, shell access) it provided, but they've proven to be such a security burden, that any sane sysadmin will have those disabled for any clients on his netowrk, so what is the advantage again?

[Melio]

My wife eats on peanuts a day, I think I can afford to build a vista box and run it .. oh wait, fuel costs and mortgage rates are going up.. I Might beable to run vista if I buy a trailer and rent my land.

[JN4OldSchool]

My wife eats on peanuts a day, I think I can afford to build a vista box and run it .. oh wait, fuel costs and mortgage rates are going up.. I Might beable to run vista if I buy a trailer and rent my land.

Ironic because judging by the PC in your sig you should be more than able to run Vista ;) Unless of course you didnt want to contaminate your computer with it :D

[Lopov]

What's a Vista? ;)

[Omega Blue]

When did the illegal DOM for JScript became the "officially endoresed" DOM for Java Script? I mean, IE's implementation is the most incompatible one, and yet (paradoxically) it is the most widely used (is it me or does that sound ridicule?)

Of course it is ridiculous. The same thing happened with HTML/CSS. A lot of people/companies made their websites to work with only IE and that's done. Fortunately the popularity of Firefox, in additional to the relentless pressure from a small band of web designers/developers, has started changing that.


I was thinking that it was due to the "ActiveX" controls (aka, shell access) it provided, but they've proven to be such a security burden, that any sane sysadmin will have those disabled for any clients on his netowrk, so what is the advantage again?

Only idiots will leave ActiveX and Active Script Hosting enabled...

[Thetargos]

Of course it is ridiculous. The same thing happened with HTML/CSS. A lot of people/companies made their websites to work with only IE and that's done. Fortunately the popularity of Firefox, in additional to the relentless pressure from a small band of web designers/developers, has started changing that.

The thing with HTML/CSS and JScript, I believe is due to the extenssive use of Frontpage®. Just like Visual Studio®, most of the generated styles, HTML and JScript syntax is that of IE (obviously), and being so that Frontpage® is so widely used, it is not even funny. Even DreamWeaver® had to adopt the same illegal DOM for CSS and HTML to stay "competitve" with Frontpage®, bah!

[Crux]

ppffsstt.. My Linux test box has that much hardware, minus the 1 GB of RAM. However, everything else is above par...

Still though, the 'premium' specs are not; IMHO, going to cut it. And it'd run like XP on a Celeron 800MHZ... I think a premium bos will have to be..

Intel/AMD 3-4 GHZ
1-2 GB RAM
300 GB SATA HDD
256MB nVidia/ATI card.. Brand 'built', NOT OEM!!! or aka eVGA or others... To keep prices down they use slower RAM chips, that is a bottle neck.

With all the eye candy and services running, the above should be consitered a 'basic Vista' box. Of course as with games or anything, 'basic' means just to get it to 'run'.

[schwim]

Guys,

I made it through part of page two, and decided it was getting too excited for me (;)), but I did see a couple comments about computers not being Vista capable, and the cost of upgrading.

Today, I bought a very simple computer from Dell(no-options model sells for around $400), that is Vista compatible. I can promise you that it doesn't have a zoomy vid card in it, but Dell says it will handle Vista just fine.

I just thought I would put that out there for anyone thinking that they're locked into XP until they buy a new computer. There's nothing special about this one, and chances are you're using one that has more bells & whistles.

thanks,
json

[pparks1]

I think a premium bos will have to be..

Intel/AMD 3-4 GHZ
1-2 GB RAM
300 GB SATA HDD
256MB nVidia/ATI card.. Brand 'built', NOT OEM!!! or aka eVGA or others... To keep prices down they use slower RAM chips, that is a bottle neck.

You will NOT have to have a box with those specs to get good performance from Vista. Mark my words on that. Also, you don't need to worry about memory bottlenecks with regards to running the UI from an OS (even 1 built by MS).

I've personally been running the Vista Beta 2 on a P3 at 1.0ghz with 512mb ram and an Nvidia FX5200 with 128MB of ram and it runs pretty decently. Honestly, very little performance difference on that machine between XP and Vista, even with the AERO interface.

[bob]

The Thread That Never Dies... 9 pages and over 3000 views on .... what was that topic again???? I thought that with over 2 weeks and no posts, we were finally done, but here we are again today. Got to ask, does ANYONE have anything more to say on any of the many, many, topics that are intertwined herein? If so, speak now or start a new thread, 'cause I'm about to give this one the Coup de Grace.

[Finalzone]

Currently running MS Windows Vista Ultimate on a test machine with these following spec:
- AMD Athlon64 3000+ at 2.0 GHz
- 384 MB or RAM
- ATI Radeon XPRESS 200 with 256 MB VRAM

The performance is adequate with enabled visual effects minus fading menu. The HD capacity is way bigger for a basic beta system (10.2 GB) though.

I was curious to move windows border in 3d perspective but I cannot find the right command to do so.

One missing feature from on most desktop environment on distros as multiple desktop i.e the ability to work on different desktop like desktop 1,2,3,4. The XGL demo that I run on FC5 provides so I found the overall MS Windows Vista quite lacking.

The menu system is intriguing as the default setting integrate it the single window. What I liked with MS Windows Menu system is the ability to let the user know which application has been recently installed highlighted with different color.

Note that the product is not final yet. Since MS Windows Vista kept delayed for years, one wonders if upgrade to this product is really worth fo it. Overall, it feels like a deja-vu although it might give attraction for some Windows users.

[Crux]

Ok.. I played Prince of Persia 'The Two Thrones' on my wifes 'basic Dell POS box'.. Ran like a turd.. Ran it on the beast, and it was smooth as glass.

Same thing with Vista I am sure.. Her box is 'Persia basic', but it still held no candle to a grand machine..

Say what you will, I'd still not trust anything below a p4, 2GB RAM, and 256MB PCI-Express video card to run Vista.. Anything less, is NOT the 'Vista Expericance'..

That is why Linux rules!!! WinDOS is trying to be a Mac OS, but RISC can never be CISC, unless it's a Nix Kernel running..

Wanna up Vista? Pay Gates. Wanna up Nix? Run it everyday, for every appication.

[bob]

As promised, Thread Closed - let's get a new one started that's more to the current discussions