Will you use Vista or Switch to Linux?

[Whaleboy]

I'll run Vista. Let's face it, sod the OSS evangelism crap, ultimately you use an operating system because of function, the ability for it to do what you want etc. IMO, OSX pwns Linux and pwns Windows XP, though it'd be interesting to see how Vista vs. Leapod shapes up.

The ONLY way you're ever going to get a respectable and usable Linux desktop (and I dual boot with Slackware+KDE3.4 so I know what I'm on about) is if you completely rip out X windows, you eliminate KDE which is bloated to hell, and you ignore gnome. You replace it with something consistent and simple, not merely a metaphor for the UNIX file system and commands. Great on a terminal, sucks on a GUI.

There are lots of good technologies on the Linux desktop, Konqueror is beautiful, its rendering engine is superior to Gecko imo. The implimentation of the more promising technology thus far has been inconsistent, amateurish and unprofessional.

I would like to see them start again and develop an innovative interface from scratch, rather like the Athene concept of using interpreted XML to form the entire interface. It's quick, pretty, and utterly useless without good software.

On the topic of software, MS Office pwns OOo 2.0. You're frankly deluded if you think otherwise. The only thing that makes OOo a reasonable alternative is the fact that it's a free download. In terms of a product, its slow, again inconsistent, the interface is hopeless and I find it unstable on both Windows and Linux but then I am running a beta.

STOP copying Microsoft and create something innovative!

I do believe that an Office suite is crucial to any desktop platform. The only way all of this is going to happen is some company taking the code and investing a hell of a lot in developing it, and they'd be idiotic to use Linux where there's BSD just sitting there... superior code and a more pragmatic licence. Some may disagree about what I'd said re. OSX, but what Apple did is take BSD and do precisely what I described.

I wouldn't mind seeing Microsoft do the same with Blackcombe, but for now, methinks Vista is superior enough to Linux that I'd be more than willing to pay for it.

Note that I haven't even touched on the question of gaming!

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I'll run Vista. Let's face it, sod the OSS evangelism crap, ultimately you use an operating system because of function, the ability for it to do what you want etc. IMO, OSX pwns Linux and pwns Windows XP, though it'd be interesting to see how Vista vs. Leapod shapes up.

That is, however, your opinion.

I tend to enjoy my Linux box more than either my Windows or OS X box; still, it doesn't matter, since I use all three--I just tend to think the Linux box pwns the other two through its snappy response, elegant simplicity, and tab control (fluxbox).

The ONLY way you're ever going to get a respectable and usable Linux desktop (and I dual boot with Slackware+KDE3.4 so I know what I'm on about) is if you completely rip out X windows, you eliminate KDE which is bloated to hell, and you ignore gnome. You replace it with something consistent and simple, not merely a metaphor for the UNIX file system and commands. Great on a terminal, sucks on a GUI.

XWindows is a dated architecture, which is part of its problem. It's also the fact that its core includes remote connectivity, which appears in both OS X and Windows as layers on top, rather than underneath, the display. That's why things like alpha blending, opengl support, cairo, and the like, are just now being added--they started off as modifications and kludges, unfortuantely, and only now are they being coded in a more integrated fashion. It's also why you can have so many different choices for window management and desktop management on top of XWindows--all of them connect as clients to the XWindow server, something which doesn't happen in OS X or Windows.
KDE is bloated as all hell, and Gnome... sucks.

Apple did is take BSD and do precisely what I described.

Sorta. They took BSD, mixed it in with a healthy dose of Mach, and then did the rest of their thing.

[Gatekeeper]

Verto:

Hmm. I searched Apple's Web site and there's nothing on either "Leopard" or "10.5," which is a good thing in my book, since 10.4.x came out not that long ago.

Gatekeeper

[Whaleboy]

That is, however, your opinion.

Oh please, spare the relativism! I used it for years too, until I realised that it was little more than an intellectual cop-out, a means of staying non-commital. The reason I run Slack is that I like messing around with the internals and tweaking it... I'd run Free or NetBSD but I haven't got round to getting the disks yet. Linux or BSD is more fun in that respect, granted, but we're talking about using it as a primary desktop OS which is a different proposition entirely. I'm not saying it's unusable, I'm saying that Windows XP + MS Office or Mac OSX + MS Office is far better.

I just tend to think the Linux box pwns the other two through its snappy response, elegant simplicity, and tab control (fluxbox)

Linux does have better RAM allocation than Windows, that is true, but I suspect that'll be different with Vista... nevertheless Linux beats Windows in that respect for the moment, just like BSD and OSX feel snappier still than Linux.

Ok it's not strictly true, Ubuntu or FC would be far less snappy than my Slack box with custom Kernel, X.org + KDE both compiled from source, but that's not a reasonable proposition for the home user.

KDE is bloated as all hell, and Gnome... sucks.

KDE looks cute and Konquerer is pretty good, but the user model sucks, and yes I agree it's bloated. I do agree that Fluxbox is cool, but I'm a sucker for eye candy. If, in the process of creating a better BSD-based desktop, someone starts off by using Fluxbox, then .

Sorta. They took BSD, mixed it in with a healthy dose of Mach, and then did the rest of their thing.

And it rules

Hmm. I searched Apple's Web site and there's nothing on either "Leopard" or "10.5," which is a good thing in my book, since 10.4.x came out not that long ago.

They're going to release Leapod (10.5) at about the same time as Vista, and you're not going to get many more mentions on the Apple site about it than you'll get on the Microsoft site about Blackcombe.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Oh please, spare the relativism! I used it for years too, until I realised that it was little more than an intellectual cop-out, a means of staying non-commital.

All I'm saying is that for all its warts, I still find Linux to give me far better performance than OS X or Windows--and that's all I really want, a snappy response when minimizing, maximizing, browsing, while also playing multimedia in the background.

I'd run Free or NetBSD but I haven't got round to getting the disks yet.

I'd go with Free over Net; Solaris isn't worth it.

Linux or BSD is more fun in that respect, granted, but we're talking about using it as a primary desktop OS which is a different proposition entirely.

I'll agree here. Linux isn't there yet.

I'm not saying it's unusable, I'm saying that Windows XP + MS Office

Agreed.

or Mac OSX + MS Office is far better.

Disagreed. OS X feels sluggish, doesn't have the response times, and then there are just some basics in OS X that I despise--like the incorrect behaviors of the Home and End keys.

just like ... OSX feel snappier still than Linux.

I honestly couldn't tell a difference between DragonFly BSD, FreeBSD, or Gentoo Linux when I had them running. However, OS X definitely feels laggy compared to Gentoo Linux:
OS X 10.4:
G4 500MHz Cube
512MB RAM
64MB ATi Radeon

Gentoo 2.6.11:
PIII 933MHz Gateway Profile S3
256MB RAM
Intel i910 Graphics, 8MB VRAM

It's all the graphical bloat that OS X puts it that I can't turn off--and even then, the OS itself takes longer to boot, and it feels like I'm still wading hip-deep in water.

Ok it's not strictly true, Ubuntu or FC would be far less snappy than my Slack box with custom Kernel, X.org + KDE both compiled from source, but that's not a reasonable proposition for the home user.

/me sits happily with Gentoo boxes.

And it rules

I have to again, disagree. Not so much the Darwin OS core--that part's fine. It's the GUI, which hides a lot from me, and feels extraordinarily sluggish with few options to disable the eye candy.

[Whaleboy]

All I'm saying is that for all its warts, I still find Linux to give me far better performance than OS X or Windows--and that's all I really want, a snappy response when minimizing, maximizing, browsing, while also playing multimedia in the background.

Fair enough, but the average user isn't too fussed about 0.05 seconds less to minimise a window.

I'd go with Free over Net; Solaris isn't worth it.

Really? I've used both and I prefer the barebones Net, tbh it *feels* faster and I prefer the development model of having one source tree for ~50 architectures which encourages clean, correct code, whereas less architectures means more room to get sloppy imo. That's not a slight against FreeBSD, it's a fantastic system, but it's bigger so more problems are inevitable.

Disagreed. OS X feels sluggish, doesn't have the response times, and then there are just some basics in OS X that I despise--like the incorrect behaviors of the Home and End keys.

Really? My collegue has a Mac Mini clocked at 1.42Mhz and OSX is noticably faster than WinXP when loading Office on my P4 2.8Ghz and feels more responsive than KDE@Slackware on the same box. Of course there's no way to verify this, and undoubtably Fluxbox will pwn all on *any* system.

It's all the graphical bloat that OS X puts it that I can't turn off--and even then, the OS itself takes longer to boot, and it feels like I'm still wading hip-deep in water.

But the G4 cube is a POS

Q Cubed sits happily with Gentoo boxes.

I'm just not as hardcore as you

Your mac would be faster if you run it on a better-specified system... unfortunately Apple are *****es when it comes to respectable performance on legacy systems .

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Fair enough, but the average user isn't too fussed about 0.05 seconds less to minimise a window.

But, like me, they are fussed about waiting ten-twenty seconds for the 'puter to catch up after you open a browser window simply because you have a video playing in the background.

Really? I've used both and I prefer the barebones Net, tbh it *feels* faster and I prefer the development model of having one source tree for ~50 architectures which encourages clean, correct code, whereas less architectures means more room to get sloppy imo. That's not a slight against FreeBSD, it's a fantastic system, but it's bigger so more problems are inevitable.

Admittedly, I like Free a bit more than Net, if only because it is a bigger system. :shrugs:

Really? My collegue has a Mac Mini clocked at 1.42Mhz and OSX is noticably faster than WinXP when loading Office on my P4 2.8Ghz and feels more responsive than KDE@Slackware on the same box.

Well, since we're pseudo-benchmarking with personal observations on so many differing systems...

Of course there's no way to verify this, and undoubtably Fluxbox will pwn all on *any* system.

Naturally.

But the G4 cube is a POS

It was free.

Your mac would be faster if you run it on a better-specified system... unfortunately Apple are *****es when it comes to respectable performance on legacy systems .

Yeah, 'cept I don't have 1.5G+ to spend on a new Mac--and if I did, I'd still favor the openness of an x86 commodity system, rather than buying a Mac.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Asher

When has Microsoft used brushed metal?

I was making a half-humored poke at Office 12 - a lot of Mac fanboys are saying this is another example of Microsoft stealing/ripping off Mac ideas, etc.



I do think that the theme is extremely similar looking to OS X, but at the same time I am ready to admit that it is just as likely to simply be adapting the Silver theme in Windows XP to the Vista look.

Verto:

Hmm. I searched Apple's Web site and there's nothing on either "Leopard" or "10.5," which is a good thing in my book, since 10.4.x came out not that long ago.

Gatekeeper

Yeah, nothing is really known about it, which is why I said I'm looking to see what it offers. I'm sure it will be more impressive than Windows Vista, especially because I won't have to worry about deciding on 7 different variations of it

It's all the graphical bloat that OS X puts it that I can't turn off--and even then, the OS itself takes longer to boot, and it feels like I'm still wading hip-deep in water.

The majority of consumers want an OS that looks nice. I know, I know, ridiculous that people want more than a command line to interface with, but a slight drop in speed is well worth it if I'm getting graphics that look like they belong to an OS released in 2006/whenever.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Asher

They'll change all the theming back to brushed metal, and that alone will account for 500 new features because of all of the dialogs with the new theme.

Only $129.99/year.

Whereas Vista doesn't even bother to change from the XP theme, and offers exciting new features like Spotlight SidebarDashboard with Widgets Gadgets*...they even go so far as to adhere more closely to Apple names (by removing My... from Documents, Pictures, and changing to Users (these are all of course extremely little things, but they caught my attention when I was reading the Wiki Vista article.

The point is, there may or may not be all kinds of revolutionary under-the-hood changes being made, that Vista will debut, like WinFS...or not....but the fact is, nothing in Vista so far is going to persuade the average consumer to upgrade. Like always, few people will upgrade on their own- that is to say, few will actually go out and buy a boxed Windows Vista product from the store, rather they will get it bundled with their new PC when they buy it.

*Microsoft can't even come up with their own name for it, instead taking the name Apple formerly applied to what they now call widgets, just as Apple took the name Widget from Konfabulator, using it to replace Gadget.

[Wraith]

--"A lot of the work is under-the-hood, and I'm impressed by it, but... nothing I need right away."

The real question is how much of a difference is this going to make? Okay, so they've done their best to lock-out OpenGL. Not impressive. Native IPv6, okay, but my ISP won't support that on residential lines, and there's not much point to tunneling because there's so little IPv6-only content, so it hardly helps me. Security enhancements? Heard that from them too many times already, have to wait and see how it actually pans out.

--"That's only 4 Windows Clients,"

Media Center and Tablet probably count as well. Sounds like they've merged at least the former into the Vista7.

--"ultimately you use an operating system because of function, the ability for it to do what you want etc."

Exactly why I'm so leery of Vista. I want my computer to do the things I want it to do, not the things the BSA, MPAA and RIAA want it to do. I wouldn't want to come near Vista without giving the licensing agreement a good going over, aside from any technical merit arguments.

I'm not too fond of X Window either, and it's certainly what I push as the thing to replace for a desktop distro, but Linux does do what I want it to. About the only place it's really lacking for me is gaming, but since I barely ever game, it doesn't matter much.

For the rest of the stuff I do at home it's more than adequate. So is Windows 2000 and OS X. Guess which one costs less?

--"In terms of a product, its slow, again inconsistent, the interface is hopeless"

Haven't tried 2.0, but I have pretty much the same complaints against MS Office. Seen the interface demos for the new Office 12? Talk about inconsistent...

Anyway, if you don't like it, why use it? There are a number of other word processors available. Even better, switch to a text processor like LaTeX. If you do any serious amount of document creation you'll want to do that anyway.
The rest of the Office suite isn't really impressive or a big deal, except for the idiot corporate users who persist in trying to make a spreadsheet function as a database. Can't say how the open source alternatives stack up here, because I've never tried it.

--"Solaris isn't worth it."

It's hardly meant for the desktop... ^_^

--"rather they will get it bundled with their new PC when they buy it."

This is really the heart of the matter, and one of the biggest advantages it has. Familiarity.

Wraith
Nothing screams "poor workmanship" like wrinkles in the duct tape.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Verto
Whereas Vista doesn't even bother to change from the XP theme

Err...what?

Vista doesn't use the XP theme...

and offers exciting new features like Spotlight SidebarDashboard with Widgets Gadgets*...they even go so far as to adhere more closely to Apple names (by removing My... from Documents, Pictures, and changing to Users (these are all of course extremely little things, but they caught my attention when I was reading the Wiki Vista article.

While it's fun to deal with Macheads who assume everyone copied them, Apple was not the first to offer desktop search a la Spotlight. Apple was not the first to offer Dashboard (it's a Konfabulator ripoff, and even then the "Sidebar" has been rumoured as part of Longhorn/Vista for about 2-3 years now). "My Documents" et al. were renamed because in Vista they are containers/virtual folders and not a simple folder you're to put your documents in -- the documents that show up are not always just yours.

The point is, there may or may not be all kinds of revolutionary under-the-hood changes being made, that Vista will debut, like WinFS...or not....but the fact is, nothing in Vista so far is going to persuade the average consumer to upgrade.

This is funny because you're saying this, while laurentius is throwing a fit because he can't upgrade to Vista on his old ****box PCs.

*Microsoft can't even come up with their own name for it, instead taking the name Apple formerly applied to what they now call widgets, just as Apple took the name Widget from Konfabulator, using it to replace Gadget.

Umm. "Widget", as a term, existed in computer science since well before Konfabulator. I remember using widgets in my Linux desktops in the late 90s.

[Asher]

And you're right, Windows users are not as likely to impulsively upgrade their OS when a new one comes out -- Mac users are.

Why is that? Well, Microsoft supports its OSes for extremely long periods of time, and Apple abandons its users after a couple years -- forcing them to upgrade if they want security fixes.

Most people who use Windows are not obsessed with their computer, they use what works. And if their old OS works, they'll stick with that until it doesn't work.

Mac users, on the other hand, tend to be obnoxious obsessive cult members who will upgrade when Steve tells them to. After all, for only $129 you can get all these features already available for free on Windows.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Verto
The majority of consumers want an OS that looks nice. I know, I know, ridiculous that people want more than a command line to interface with, but a slight drop in speed is well worth it if I'm getting graphics that look like they belong to an OS released in 2006/whenever.

I understand this--but one of the greatest things about the Windows line is that you can disable all the eye candy--something you cannot do to the same extent in OS X.

Thus, in this particular case, Windows > OS X.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"Solaris isn't worth it."

It's hardly meant for the desktop... ^_^

What, you didn't give it a whirl when it was released for free? They're aiming for workstations too, what with the Gnome-based (mistake) JDS...

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Asher
Umm. "Widget", as a term, existed in computer science since well before Konfabulator. I remember using widgets in my Linux desktops in the late 90s.

QFT.