I have to admit it... Vista makes a nice desktop

[Wally Balljacker]

The other day, simply out of curiosity, I did what no Linux user is supposed to do... *Gasp* I installed Windows Vista. Yes, I committed the ultimate heresy and act of defiance. The most serious of offenses, defecting BACK to Windows.

I can't help but wonder what the critics are talking about. Because all the terrible things that I have heard about Vista from the Linux community have turned out to be sheer lies, half-truths, and blatant exaggerations. Vista is not slow. It isn't unstable. It isn't bloated, and it doesn't require super high-end hardware. In fact, my laptop is a mere Pentium M 1.7GHz with 1GB of RAM, and it runs Vista just fine with all of the fancy Aero effects.

I actually think Vista is a more pleasant desktop experience than the slightly buggy, and somewhat-still-in-progress KDE4. Vista is smoother, the effects are faster, and frankly, I think it looks a hell of a lot better. And this is just cosmetics. Feature-wise, Vista blows KDE out of the water. It is stupidly easy to accomplish just about any task that would otherwise be a chore on a Linux desktop.

So lets just put all of that aside for a moment, because all that really matters for a good desktop experience is software, right? And Windows supports every piece of software known to man. Linux, well, doesn't. So, Vista looks good, it performs well, it's stable, it's relatively secure, it runs any application a user could possibly want, it is ridiculously easy to use, and it is guaranteed to support your hardware. What exactly is the criticism, again?

[greggh]

What exactly is the criticism, again?

Three words. It's not free!

[Wally Balljacker]

What exactly is the criticism, again?

Three words. It's not free!

Three more words. The Pirate Bay!

[greggh]

What exactly is the criticism, again?

Three words. It's not free!

Three more words. The Pirate Bay!

I'm sure you know this. But, of course, I mean free as in freedom.

[Wally Balljacker]

I mean free as in freedom.

I think that is a bunch of crap to be honest. I enjoy the freedom to use whatever I want, open or proprietary.

[greggh]

I mean free as in freedom.

I think that is a bunch of crap to be honest. I enjoy the freedom to use whatever I want, open or proprietary.

I feel that the free as in freedom feature of free software is by far it's single best and really only important feature. I use non-free software too. But I value the freedom of free software as it's greatest benefit.

[Wally Balljacker]

I mean free as in freedom.

I think that is a bunch of crap to be honest. I enjoy the freedom to use whatever I want, open or proprietary.

I feel that the free as in freedom feature of free software is by far it's single best and really only important feature. I use non-free software too. But I value the freedom of free software as it's greatest benefit.

Would you use free software if you were limited to running a bash prompt on HURD? How far are you willing to go in order to be "free"? At what point do you draw the line between usefulness and freedom? Because for some, a Linux desktop is about as useful as a log. It may be "free", but if it doesn't do what you want it to do, what is the point?

[greggh]

Would you use free software if you were limited to running a bash prompt on HURD? How far are you willing to go in order to be "free"? At what point do you draw the line between usefulness and freedom? Because for some, a Linux desktop is about as useful as a log. It may be "free", but if it doesn't do what you want it to do, what is the point?

That's a good question. I don't know exactly where the point is that I would choose to use a non-free OS over a free one. But, I think all free alternatives would have to be damn near unusable for me to choose the non-free one. It's not enough that a non-free alternative is simply better, faster, more features, easier to use, etc.. for me to choose it over the free one. Free is the most important aspect for me.

[KStorm]

I was going to build my own Windows-free PC during the spring, but circumstances being what they are, about the time my Compaq's motherboard fried, the only credit card I could use on a replacement system was a department store credit card, so I ended up with an HP M8400F, 3GB DDR2 SDRAM, AMD Phenom 9500, etc, etc... I wasn't too thrilled about the prospect of having Vista on Recovery CD's once again, but on this machine, Vista SP1 runs well enough. It isn't blazingly fast, but it multitasks without breaking a sweat (my four Linux installs on the other HD perform just as well, too). I think Redmond did what they had to do with Service Pack 1; so far, just a couple of hiccups with folder view settings not retained, the occasional un-building of the 'icon cache', to name a couple. Its' system requirements are, compared to Ubuntu with similar desktop effects, still somewhat steep for the desktop experience you actually get with it.

[jturning]

I have Vista on this laptop, but I don't find it all that compelling. Compared to Fedora it crawls, and you have to run all that software to keep it secure slowing it down further. This is a AMD 1.8GHz X2 with 1 GB of memory and Nvidia Geforce 7150 graphics. Keep in mind that I make the comparison with a few programs running and Linux is stronger at multitasking. I personally don't find the look all that appealing. It's a lot of polish without substance. I know at my job they were looking to buy PCs with Vista going forward (2GB memory required), but it would take a lot of work. They had to jump through a bunch of hoops to get some of our software to work from Windows 2000 to XP. And being a large corporation they like to spend little on software development, or on software updates.

Bugz

[eddie]

I picked up another unwanted p3 this last weekend and no credit card was required. I plan to use mepis antix and 512 meg ram, it will scream! Now that is what I call free!

[LinuxMint-4]

I have a Vista laptop dual boot with Ubuntu 8.04 with Atheros wireless 5007 on a Compaq 762NR laptop. It was a great deal for $399 on sale at Staples a few months back. It came with 1 GB of Ram, Vista Premium SP1, CD/DVD and 160 Gig hard drive.

Ubuntu performs better with less RAM usage than Vista. I did a number of "tweaks" to Vista to make it run faster. I disabled Aero, System Restore, Indexing, Windows Defender, UAC, kept the side bar. Minimized startup, and the performance seems to approach that of XP. I didn't appreciate the fact that it needed hacking to make it perform faster, start up faster, shut off faster, sure I could have added more RAM...but WTF?

Why does one have to buy more ram or hack a "out of the box" newly bought Windows laptop to make it perform better? This is where Vista's critics are right on the money. I already had both Firefox and IE7 crash on me several times in Vista. Not once on the Ubuntu side did Firefox ever crash.

Maybe its my laptop, or it might be Vista. But I noticed that after several hours using Vista, it starts taking up more ram (memory leakage?), I didn't notice this in Ubuntu.

Approximate Ram usage on Vista after the hacks is 550 MB at desktop with nothing running, before the hacks it was about 675 MB ram. Approximate Ram usage on Ubuntu with no hacks is about 190 MB st desktop with nothing running. Why does Vista need over 500 MB of ram just for the desktop? So the question is what is "running in the back ground" that it needs that ram?

As many critics suggested, Vista has built in DRM and supposedly is checking itself 30 or 60 times a second to make sure you aren't doing something that MSFT or supposedly Hollywood doesn't want you to do. Its supposedly called trusted computing or some crap like that. The high ram usage and requirements would seem to suggest that this could be the case.

While you can hack Vista to perform better, supposedly its impossible to hack the DRM out of the OS.


Bottom line, one can hack Vista and make it perform close to the performance to XP with 1 GB of Ram. IF anyone wanted to try Vista, buy a new computer with it already installed and do the hacks if you don't want to add more Ram ( if you feel that you need to increase performance). You can get some great deals on new Vista laptops for well under $600, and either wipe Vista off the HD or keep it as a dual boot.


After the hacks on Vista, the start up and shut down times for both Vista and Ubuntu 8.04 are about the same. Look at Vista as a much bloated and slower version of XP, with the added "benefit" of MSFT's "trusted computing" with DRM to "keep you safe" . Feel warm and fuzzy now?

[mowestusa]

I picked up another unwanted p3 this last weekend and no credit card was required. I plan to use mepis antix and 512 meg ram, it will scream! Now that is what I call free!

First, wanted to say, Eddie, you hit the nail on the head for me with your comment.

Second, it has been four years since I started using Linux. I didn't leave Windows because I couldn't use it as a desktop. In fact, until about 6 weeks ago I had a Windows XP laptop (work provided) that I used mostly to run Powerpoint (convenient to plug laptop into the projector instead of hooking up a desktop), and to run one program that only runs on Windows. Having lost said laptop, I'm currently only using Linux at home and at work and have to replace my one program that only ran in Windows with looking up things in my hardcover books on my shelf. I like books, but I wouldn't mind having a Windows box again for that one piece of software.

Windows 98 and XP were decent desktops for me, I haven't tried Vista. I don't believe any of my Windows computers were ever infected with a virus or spyware. I'm not sure what dumb things people do with their computers to get viruses and spyware, but I never had an issue with that. When on DSL I did always have my computers behind a firewall in a Linksys router. I left Windows as my main desktop because A) I did not want to deal with checking for virus threats and spyware, but like I said I never had trouble with this, so not a big deal. B) I did not want to do a reinstall of the OS to fix its other issues, it always seemed as if Windows would gradually get slower the longer I ran it, and the only way to fix that was a reinstall. Now I will admit that I have reinstalled Linux distros more often than I have reinstalled Windows but this has always been a faster process and it has also been more for fun to try something new or learn something new, not out of necessity. C) I never found a friendly Windows community that offered excellent technical help for free. D) I wanted an OS that would remain supported and could keep old machines useful.

Now that I'm using Linux this is why it will remain my main desktop of choice:
A) The community: Perhaps it is because of the fact that it is free as in freedom, but the Linux community rocks. I have enjoyed the communities that surround individual distros, some Free Software projects, and Linux podcasts. TLLTS has been a great community. One thing I miss is the direction this board has taken. Certainly, the discussions here are fine, but four years ago the TLLTS forum used to be filled with posts asking for help with Linux, and Free Software and there were just tons of good threads that helped me with a number of issues I had early on, and offered great reviews of distros and software too. Most posts recently have been more: "Look at this article, what do you think?" or "I think... Tell me why I'm wrong?" These are more opinion focused than tutorial or howto focused. I miss some of that howto nature of this community, but there are tons of other places to fill in that itch like the Fedora Forums and Linuxquestions.org that I make use of. The whole community from TLLTS to Lxer is a wonderful experience, that has encouraged me to stick with Linux.

B) I like the fact that it is FREE as in no cost: I keep tons of old machines doing useful things because I can install an OS without cost, that is still supported with security updates. I'm not willing to download Proprietary Software from Pirate Bay to avoid paying for something that I'm legally supposed to pay for. Distros allow me to use them legally without cost.

THE FUTURE: I do miss my one windows program. As soon as I can get a machine with 1gig or more of ram (right now I'm stuck with 512megs) I will probably set up Linux with VMware or Virtual Box and install my legal copy of Win2000 to run my one program. Or I will buy a new Vista Laptop and dual boot with a Linux distro. If an Open Source or Free Software program ever become available to replace my one windows program, than I will probably never come back to Windows, not because Windows is bad or unusable, but because I love having a talented and positive community that is there to support me as I use my computer as a tool to get work done.

[eddie]

Thanx for the comment! I might recommend trying qemu as an alternative virtual machine. I guess I have to be honest, I have spent a penny or two on microsoft software when I was a tech. The only program I have bought in the last couple of years is an income tax program. Now if I could only find more pc133 sdram.

[MattKingUSA]

The other day, simply out of curiosity, I did what no Linux user is supposed to do... *Gasp* I installed Windows Vista. Yes, I committed the ultimate heresy and act of defiance. The most serious of offenses, defecting BACK to Windows.

I can't help but wonder what the critics are talking about. Because all the terrible things that I have heard about Vista from the Linux community have turned out to be sheer lies, half-truths, and blatant exaggerations. Vista is not slow. It isn't unstable. It isn't bloated, and it doesn't require super high-end hardware. In fact, my laptop is a mere Pentium M 1.7GHz with 1GB of RAM, and it runs Vista just fine with all of the fancy Aero effects.

I actually think Vista is a more pleasant desktop experience than the slightly buggy, and somewhat-still-in-progress KDE4. Vista is smoother, the effects are faster, and frankly, I think it looks a hell of a lot better. And this is just cosmetics. Feature-wise, Vista blows KDE out of the water. It is stupidly easy to accomplish just about any task that would otherwise be a chore on a Linux desktop.

So lets just put all of that aside for a moment, because all that really matters for a good desktop experience is software, right? And Windows supports every piece of software known to man. Linux, well, doesn't. So, Vista looks good, it performs well, it's stable, it's relatively secure, it runs any application a user could possibly want, it is ridiculously easy to use, and it is guaranteed to support your hardware. What exactly is the criticism, again?

Is this a joke? Is Vista really a good OS? With all the freadom stuff aside, is it really better than Linux? Do you use KDE? I think Gnome is junk. But you are serious that Vista is better than Linux??

EDIT: Oh, are you sure that the effects are better than compiz? I think you're just joking...