Windows XP Service Pack 3 -FAQ- (April 29th)

RyanT said:

DaOne said:
Ubuntu is probably the worst desktop OS I've ever used...

How comes?

What version did you try?

Tried the latest today.

It has so many basic flaws. It's a great server OS but as a desktop OS it just doesn't cut it.

My main gripes are:

ATI graphics support - shit.

Sound card support - pretty poor.

Can't WINE Adobe suite well.

I just don't see any advantage of using Linux at all, if you can give me some then that would be great - but I don't want to hear:

You can update everything in one click - I don't care.

It's free - again, I don't care.

You don't get virus's - neither do you on Windows if you're clever.

It uses less resources.

It makes you look 1337

Yeah but then that's like saying you can't mention Windows main advantages during a debate, isn't it? The nVidia support is top-notch. Can't vouch for ATi. I believe you on that front, though. Sound card support- can't vouch. Not had an issue with my sound. The WINE thing is your most valid point. And I know loads of well-versed computer users who are constantly bogged down with viruses on Windows.

But yeah, like I said, your position is like me saying "You can't use 'Windows is better for games' as an advantage- because I don't care". It's a rather silly stance to take.

And I know loads of well-versed porn addicts who are constantly bogged down with viruses on Windows.

Ed is right, you won't get a virus is you are clever... if you're that paraniod then just use NOD32...

For someone like me, who is trying to get into the ICT industry the only place for linux is on a server...

... You can't use industry standard programs on Linux so it's pretty much pointless if you are looking from a professional side of things.

Pretty cool penguin though, huh?

If you weren't so shackled to the Adobe suite, and you didn't care about playing PC games much, then would you see it from my perspective? I don't have to be careful on Linux. I also don't sign myself up to a whole bunch of contractual agreements (like you do by using Windows). I can just use my computer and not have to worry about anything. There's nothing I ever did on Windows (other than gaming- Linux is really pants for gaming) that I haven't been able to do as good or better on Linux.

MSN is a bit dodge, though.

It depends... You're going to uni right? And I guess you'll be doing music stuff. Do Cubase and Reason run on Linux?

You'd be suprised what you may need MS Office for too, a lot of lecturers give notes out in PPT or .doc - openoffice claims to be compatible with them but there are always issues with it not working properly.

Try mercury messenger. http://www.mercury.im/

( Edited 28.04.2008 00:15 by Blade2t3 )

DaOne said:
It depends... You're going to uni right? And I guess you'll be doing music stuff. Do Cubase and Reason run on Linux?

Nah I'm gonna have to dual-boot either Windows or OS X for them. I could try and Wine them, but I can't be arsed with all the potential bugs and glitches that may arise from doing it like that. Worth noting though- Linux has alternatives to these programs. Rosegarden in particular is basically just as good as Cubase. I have a whole suite of audio software on my PC already. All totally legal. Didn't pay a dime for any of it. I even have guitar amp modeling software.

So while you have an extremely valid point- so do I.

DaOne said:
You'd be suprised what you may need MS Office for too, a lot of lecturers give notes out in PPT or .doc - openoffice claims to be compatible with them but there are always issues with it not working properly.

Well I've done three essays in OpenOffice and one PowerPoint presentation, all saved in the MS formatws, and they all opened up and worked properly on the college Windows computers. OpenOffice is amazing, I think. Haven't had a single issue with it. It's just MS Office, but for free.

You usually get more issues the other way around - opening office 2007 files.

Really? I've not had an issue in that regard, either.

OpenOffice seems alright to me, used it a while back before getting hold of a copy of MS office. It's a really awesome alternative, best in the biz, but I still stick to MS purely because of compatibility and getting used to it.

Can't wait for SP3, though won't be able to get it on my dodgy copy of Windows

Still though, running pretty smoothly on this machine atm - though have some problems with codecs clashing that needs sorting.

1) All the advantages you said we couldn\'t mention

2) From a more professional side, say you find a piece of software that does most of what you want, and does it well, but say there\'s a feature, or something else missing that you feel perhaps should be there, or would be more convenient if it was there, but wasn\'t. So you\'d probably either make do or buy some more software - costing money or time, or both, from that one thing. With OSS software you (or get someone else to) can simply change the software thanks to the nature of it, potentially saving lots of money and again, time (as you could build off the base of the other software, or change the software itself). Instead of having to bend to the software\'s will, you can get the software to bend to your will (as it should be).

3) Extra stability compared to Windows, which ties in to extra security which apparently we can\'t mention.

I really don\'t see where these basic flaws are, at all. Right now I dual boot XP and Ubuntu, and Ubuntu just comes across a lot better. The standard GNOME desktop is nice, and if you don\'t like it, customisable. You can get a Windows Vista desktop without as much drain on the system if you really want, and if you still don\'t like it, switch desktop interface completely to KDE, XFCE or any number of others.

I\'m quite happy to admit hardware support flaws, but those are the failings of 3rd parties, not Linux, not to mention most problems there are ways around, and aren\'t always hugely difficult. Not to mention support within the Linux kernel itself and from 3rd parties is coming along moderately quickly too.

Then there\'s support. Thanks to the way it\'s handled, chances are you\'re gonna get better support due to actual competition for said support, rather than just having to stay on the phone for 5 hours trying to talk to someone half way around the world who knows less about it than you, with them being the only people you can call.

There\'s plenty of advantages to Linux, and plenty of alternatives to use in Linux. Individual programs don\'t really debunk Linux as a good desktop OS when there\'s generally just as good alternatives, not to mention when you\'re just talking desktop in general rather than business then there\'s not really much there to argue against Linux.

Industry standards..........well, they\'re industry standards. There\'s not much else you can do (except like Openoffice, make yourself interoperable to the point where industry standard become irrelevant and demand more open and general standards so people like MS can\'t be arseholes and try and close everything off for the sake of monopolising). That doesn\'t completely throw off Linux as a general desktop OS or as a more specialised business platform considering some of the pretty major things you can get back in return and who knows, entirely new industry standards.

E: Then the general fact we\'re only talking about Ubuntu here. There\'s plenty other distributions of Linux to try out if that particular one doesn\'t take your fancy, quite a few which use the LiveCD method. Linux, especially the general desktop, is not completely fixed, which is also one of the good things about it. Ubuntu, while it may seem like it sometimes, is certainly not de facto standard Linux, but it is generally considered best for taking on Windows and Mac and breaking through into the mainstream (not that it\'s been the first, not will it be the last probably).

( Edited 28.04.2008 04:01 by RyanT )

RyanT said:
2) From a more professional side, say you find a piece of software that does most of what you want, and does it well, but say there's a feature, or something else missing that you feel perhaps should be there, or would be more convenient if it was there, but wasn't. So you'd probably either make do or buy some more software - costing money or time, or both, from that one thing. With OSS software you (or get someone else to) can simply change the software thanks to the nature of it, potentially saving lots of money and again, time (as you could build off the base of the other software, or change the software itself). Instead of having to bend to the software's will, you can get the software to bend to your will (as it should be).

Good point, but I think it's quite ambitious to expect every user to have the programming knowledge to be able to do that. In fact, even though the average Linux user is probably more tech-savvy than the average Windows user, I'd still say less than 1 in 10 Linux users have the expertise to program computer software, even if it's not from the ground up, even if it's just adding to something.

Still it is a huge plus for Linux. The sheer amount of free and legal software available is astonishing. There's some awesome stuff, too. Blender = as good as Maya and 3DS Max.

RyanT said:
3) Extra stability compared to Windows, which ties in to extra security which apparently we can't mention.

Yep!

I wholly agree with the rest of what you say. Also, I believe Windows days as being the 90%+ market share OS are really seriously numbered. The amount of ex-Windows users going over to (particularly) Mac OS X and Linux is growing. 5 years ago, I knew what Linux was. I knew what OS X was. I would never have dreamed of running anything else but Windows. But times change. Windows is slow, bloated, insecure, and even worse- the future of Windows is heavy DRMs which will limit what you can and can't do with software you paid for.

Linux has room for improvement, but it's already better in my opinion. Not in every way, but in all the ways that truly count. My experience as a Windows user (and of all other Windows users I know) has been one of continually updating anti-virus software, configuring firewalls, running virus checks, defragging your HDD, etc. And Windows is extremely prone to viruses, whether you want to hear it or not. That's why my college won't allow you to connect a Windows laptop to the wireless network- too much chance of viruses. They let you do it with a Mac, though.

With Linux I can just enjoy using my computer, and not have to worry about all that stuff. If I end up dual-booting Vista and Ubuntu, it's only out of having to. Not by choice. And there's no way Vista is getting anywhere near the internet. Vista will be for Cubase, Reason, and maytbe a couple of games (got this tomb Raider one with my GPU lol!). That's it. Linux for everything else. It's faster, more secure, and better, in my experience.

Being open source can also make it less secure...

Realistically, hardly anyone is going to add features to software. It would be extremely time consuming... and if you are talking about industry time = money. Companies would rather purchase software as employee turnaround at ICT companies is quite high.

Defragging is to do with hardware mainly - not the operating system (I believe Vista actually defrags a lot better than most Linux distros too).

Blender is available on both Windows and OSX too...

Virus checkers and firewalls if you want to use them both run in the background and can auto update, so after initial set up there is no fuss...

... Windows is only prone to virus's if you're stupid - they dont just download themselves .

If Linux was really a viable alternative for a desktop OS then more people would use it - if more people use it then there will be more people willing to write a virus for it... and with access to the source code finding bugs and security flaws isn't too hard...

Open source and proprietary can work both ways, but I\'m of the general view that open source has the advantage.

A good point someone made on the Ubuntu forums is when is someone most likely going to commit a crime - when no one is watching, or when many are?

With open source you get the advantage of every user being able to see the flaws, and people very quickly being able to point out and fix those holes. Even if you can\'t get the fix into the main kernel/distribution for whatever reasons (or it\'ll just take a little longer to put it in), if you have the grunt, be able to fix it yourself without having to wait around for the official update. Despite what you\'re base assumption might be, not everyone out there is out for themselves, and the development environment around Linux and other open source projects is great.

Then there\'s the advantage of essentially a peer review like service - when a feature, bugfix, or something else comes along, people on the outside, the actual users, the at home testers and hobby programmers can all take a look, criticise, pick apart, suggest and improve. There really is entire communities built around this stuff, all of which very beneficial. It\'s precisely the reason Firefox has so quickly shot up both in quality and popularity. Firefox is essentially open source done right, and shows all the strengths of it. Hell, Firefox is open source and yet isn\'t it considered a lot more secure than IE, and pretty much on par with Opera?

Not to mention many hackers often do what they do simply to improve and point out flaws. There are many who have deliberately exploited bugs and holes without using it to their personal gain simply to try and point out major flaws in proprietary stuff that might not have been brought up or fixed other wise. With open source they can actually go to the developers and say \"hey, I noticed this isn\'t quite right, or isn\'t as it should be\" then instead of hearing someone go \"shutup kid\" then arrest them for trying to help, they might actually get listened to and things will get fixed.

The point about viruses and the like is that you don\'t have to in Linux in the first place. Yes, you generally do have to be moderately idiotic to get a virus in Windows, but it\'s still generally more convenient and a definite +1.

And the popular argument just doesn\'t work. Being the most popular OS does not make it the best, especially when you take into account the major amount of bullying and anti competitive stuff MS has done over the years, and have been repeatedly fined and told off like a 4 year old who won\'t listen.

The reason why Linux has not become popular is because of a lack of a decent distribution platform and the general fact that Windows was the only thing to go for. Now though, with the advent of the internet word is finally getting out and coupled with massive strides both in the kernel and desktop distributions themselves, the reputation (that is still holding it back remember) is slowly beginning to change. The explosion of Mac in recent years is a good example - good marketing, word of mouth and general vibe for something other than Windows has meant huge amounts of interest and massive leaps in sales.

Linux basically has the OS, is getting the word of mouth, and now needs extra marketing, or just to win more vendors like Dell around (Dell selling Ubuntu PC\'s is itself a major sign, is it not?), and slowly but surely Linux is bound to gain ground.

( Edited 28.04.2008 21:09 by RyanT )

I read Michael Dell himself uses Ubuntu at his home. And the Windows = viruses thing is just a fact. Again I cite my college, not allowing Windows PCs to connect to the college networks- though they will allow Macs. They don't just do that 'for a laugh'. They do it because there is a significant risk of a foreign Windows computer being infected with viruses, thus infecting the network, thus infecting the college computers.

It won't be long before all big software vendors start supporting Linux. Windows' days at the top are numbered, in my opinion. Plus- DRMs for the lose.

DRM is a general industry pressure...

Your college obviously doesn\'t have a very good IT department...

( Edited 28.04.2008 22:06 by DaOne )

It is industry pressure, but ultimately it's MS bowing to that pressure, when they shouldn't. Doesn't matter why it's happening really, just that it is. It won't be long before Windows is more about controlling what you can and can't do rather than just being a tool for you to use freely. The change has already started to happen, and it's an extremely negative thing for everyone.

Mac OS X and Linux still give you your freedoms. OS X may or may not go the DRM route, but Linux never will. My college has an awesome IT department. Mac G5s, anyone?

I just stumbled across your little blog because I have been wanting to get a 17" laptop for some time but they all came with Vista/Virus/Vot-a-vaste. XP worked great. I have at least 10 grand in software that works on XP but not Vista. Call me stingy but after I picked up a nice dual processor Toshiba on Thanksgiving weeked (pre-loaded with Vista) I couldn't install any software. I spent all day talking to techs, the Phillipines, and somebody in India. Word was I couldn't reformat the HD to clean Vista off and install XP. So back went the great machine infected with Vista for a refund. Months later I hear rumors of a successful setup to dual boot to Vista or XP. Where is THAT info? I heard a zillion stories from guys that should know (they make a living at it) that Vista and XP can't exist side by side on the same machine--but you guys say it can! I have to make a living but know things change (no horse tied up outside--and maybe I'll have to get a hybrid beat with an ugly stick) but give me some way to work during the change over. Step 1 do A, step 2 do B, etc. Is that so tough? And does Gates sell so much software that XP can't stick around? Where does one find shareware or freeware or any ware that will work with Vista for a few years? Thor

http://apcmag.com/how_to_dual_boot_vista_and_xp_with_vista_installed_first__the_stepbystep_guide.htm

Just upgraded to Ubuntu 8.04. It rox! Here's something from an unbiased source, which corroborates what Ryan and I have been saying-

Wikipedia said:

Ubuntu has been described by business analysts as a viable alternative to proprietary operating systems, particularly Windows Vista and Windows XP; specifically, ease of use, stability, security, familiarity of user interface, and low cost are seen to be appealing to corporate IT managers. Enterprise IT managers are comfortable with Ubuntu's role in the data center, are underwhelmed by Windows Vista and uncomfortable with the hardware lock-in requirements and cost premium of Apple.[19]

Wikipedia unbiased? Anyone can edit it...