Windows Vista - Brilliant!

[darmstadt]

Was Linux about in the 90's?

Yes.

I've been testing Vista for a company and I first installed it on a non-supported platform and it ran perfectly. I installed it here at home and everything, software and hardware, all worked perfectly. I've been running it in VMWare (under Linux and MS) and MS Vitrtual PC and even Parallels under MAC and still no problems. Currently running Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 and also no problems as such. Maybe us mainframe people know how to run OS'es properly....

[BoredBloke]

"Problem: That didn't actually make Vista any better"

No Linux was offered up as being a viable alternative. It just isn't. Joe Bloggs wants something easy to install, run and maintain. Linux and Vista are not there yet. That was the point I was making. I never once in this thread said that Vista was any good. I installed it shortly after it came out but then rolled back to XP as Vista didn't give me anything which XP didn't already provide - unless you count more bugs in that and a nicer looking interface. The problem is you always get this anti MS bolloxs. Even back in the day when people used DR Dos instead of the MS one. Eveybody hated Windows 3.1. Windows 95 was too heavy to use. All the way through MS SW has been slated, but I have not seen any real viable alternatives on the home front. If their stuff was that bad, why is there not a microsoft v2 out there competing with them?

[angusglover]

This is a typical MS fooked up way of thinking:

Ok, so I wanna put Vista on my laptop so I use MS Backup to back up allof my data to an external drive. Save the .BKF file with todays date so I know which one I want to restore from.

I rebuild my laptop and stick Vista Ultimate on...

Right, where was that data? Ok, lets restore from the backup back to my data partition.....NOPE.

You cannot open .BKF files in Vista, if they have been created in an earlier version of Windows!!!!!!!

How fooked up is that??? You have to download NTBACKUP from MS and use that!!!!!

SO, Vista went back in the bin and XP SP2 went back on the laptop. I only use Windows for games anyway so that was fine but just seemed a bit sh*te to me.....

[Euro-commuter]

"Problem: That didn't actually make Vista any better"

No Linux was offered up as being a viable alternative. It just isn't. Joe Bloggs wants something easy to install, run and maintain. Linux and Vista are not there yet. That was the point I was making. I never once in this thread said that Vista was any good. I installed it shortly after it came out but then rolled back to XP as Vista didn't give me anything which XP didn't already provide - unless you count more bugs in that and a nicer looking interface. The problem is you always get this anti MS bolloxs. Even back in the day when people used DR Dos instead of the MS one. Eveybody hated Windows 3.1. Windows 95 was too heavy to use. All the way through MS SW has been slated, but I have not seen any real viable alternatives on the home front. If their stuff was that bad, why is there not a microsoft v2 out there competing with them?

I was referring to DP's response (no 3 in thread). He was doing his old Windows vs Linux argument, which wasn't really the OP's problem.

"I have not seen any real viable alternatives on the home front. If their stuff was that bad, why is there not a microsoft v2 out there competing with them?" That is a very good question. I believe that the answer is monopoly power: high bar to entry, and inertia of the market. No company would survive attempting to enter the PC OS market now.

Linux attracts continual interest because a lot of people would like an alternative (indeed, Mac users are so smug because they've found it), but a company trying it on its own would face barriers to entry:
- PCs all being sold with Windows anyway
- PC buyers all paying for Windows anyway
- ISPs providing connection info and tailored browsers for Windows only
- Important web sites (like online banking) refusing to work if they detect a browser other than IE and blithely informing you where you can get it
- Programs only running on Windows or Mac (e.g. Photoshop)
- Hardware with drivers only for Windows.
... and all the monopoly effects (people send you a MS Word .doc and expect you to read it, but wouldn't know what to do if you sent them an Open Office .odt)

So I suppose the only option is an established company offering Linux on their PCs instead.

Even being indisputably better than Windows would not suffice.

[wobbegong]

When everyone was running Windows NT/2000, everyone said XP was a total pile of tulip and to not touch it with a barge pole.

Now everyones running XP, generally happy and saying not to touch Vista with a barge pole.

Nothing changes.

I don't think the problem is so much with the O/S, rather the release of the O/S. Early XP was horrible, security problems, incompatabilities etc, now it seems as solid as a rock. The trouble is that MS rush these products to market before they are really ready.

[portseven]

Regards Linux getting out of the nerd-pit I refer to a previous post of mine.

You only have too look around the world at the various Linux deployments too see that Microsoft's dominance of the desktop is being eroded.

And if you have dependency problems for installing packages, I suggest you try a Debian based distro and experience the wonder that is apt-get. Remember Windows is not immune to that sort of thing, DLL conflicts do happen!

[Toffnana]

"Problem: That didn't actually make Vista any better"

No Linux was offered up as being a viable alternative. It just isn't. Joe Bloggs wants something easy to install, run and maintain. Linux and Vista are not there yet.

You say Linux isn't a viable alternative, but now we're using Ubuntu on my wife's laptop and my two desktop pcs. It took all of 20mins to set up each and was easier than installing windows. After using it for a year now she hates using windows (note: my laptop - thanks iTunes and Dreamweaver!) and loves Ubuntu...because it just works. One desktop pc is about 5 years old and the other is less than 6 months old and both work 'out of the box' without touching the terminal to setup.

I've since installed it on my folks pcs and they are prefer it to windows and can do everything they want, even like the add/remove to find new software to play about with that they would of had to pay for before.

Seriously you should actually give it a try before dismissing it it be because of what people experienced of Linux 10 years ago.

Regards,
Toff

[angusglover]

You say Linux isn't a viable alternative, but now we're using Ubuntu on my wife's laptop and my two desktop pcs. It took all of 20mins to set up each and was easier than installing windows. After using it for a year now she hates using windows (note: my laptop - thanks iTunes and Dreamweaver!) and loves Ubuntu...because it just works. One desktop pc is about 5 years old and the other is less than 6 months old and both work 'out of the box' without touching the terminal to setup.

I've since installed it on my folks pcs and they are prefer it to windows and can do everything they want, even like the add/remove to find new software to play about with that they would of had to pay for before.

Seriously you should actually give it a try before dismissing it it be because of what people experienced of Linux 10 years ago.

Regards,
Toff

But have you tried installing new hardware onto it? I did a wireless card a while back and it was a PITA.....

[portseven]

But have you tried installing new hardware onto it? I did a wireless card a while back and it was a PITA.....

Linux can't take the blame for that, if the hardware makers released the specs for their kit then the Linux kernel team would be more than happy to code a driver.

[ASB]

I don't think so - there is a reason for that you know. Care to take a guess at what it could be?

IME experience - cost.

Free linux costs more than XP for commercial explotation.

Looked at deploying linux across 3000 odd slabs for a customer and by the time we had factored in all the crap that is required to keep a commercial deployment active based on the license it was rather more than Bills offer.