Windows Vista WTF
-
@asuffield said:
Not to mention that 7zip is for working with 7z files, not zip files, and the GUI is exactly the same on Windows as it is on every other platform.
Actually, 7-zip fully supports normal ZIP files (including the recent WinZIP and PKZip extensions), and can also create tar, gzip and bzip2 files in addition to having extract-only support for a number of other formats.
It's GUI on Windows is so-so, but I still prefer it over the WinZIP GUI (it doesn't come close to the WinRAR GUI though).
-
@asuffield said:
@Kemp said:
@KenW said:
Simple example? Data compression. Sure, 7Zip is great; I use it myself. But compare the GUI version against WinZip, and tell me which one you'd rather explain to my mother via a long-distance telephone call?
As for your compression question, I'd rather not install 7zip in the first place (gui version or not) when the archive manager that ships with Ubuntu does quite nicely...
Not to mention that 7zip is for working with 7z files, not zip files, and the GUI is exactly the same on Windows as it is on every other platform.
And one last point before I drop the compression app issue: The aforementioned archive manager has an interface that will be very familiar to anyone who has used winzip or winrar in the past. Your explanation would be basically identical to however you tell her to use winzip, with a couple of important differences: the archive manager is completely freeware, and is available by default without any installation required on the user's part.
-
@asuffield said:
@KenW said:
And with regards to MS being evil, how can an inanimate corporate entity be evil?
Same way as anybody else: by thinking that they can't be.
Right. This from the guy who thinks MS is part of a big monopoly, and who thinks banking is a global conspiracy.
Seriously... Do you think your desk is possessed too? Do you immediately patch any tears in your tinfoil hat so the aliens don't read your thoughts?
And I thought intelligent people posted here. Oh wait. I already knew that didn't include you from your previous posts.
-
@asuffield said:
@Kemp said:
@KenW said:
Simple example? Data compression. Sure, 7Zip is great; I use it myself. But compare the GUI version against WinZip, and tell me which one you'd rather explain to my mother via a long-distance telephone call?
As for your compression question, I'd rather not install 7zip in the first place (gui version or not) when the archive manager that ships with Ubuntu does quite nicely...
Not to mention that 7zip is for working with 7z files, not zip files, and the GUI is exactly the same on Windows as it is on every other platform.
Right. It's a bad GUI on Windows, exactly the same as on every other platform.
-
@KenW said:
@asuffield said:
@Kemp said:
@KenW said:
Simple example? Data compression. Sure, 7Zip is great; I use it myself. But compare the GUI version against WinZip, and tell me which one you'd rather explain to my mother via a long-distance telephone call?
As for your compression question, I'd rather not install 7zip in the first place (gui version or not) when the archive manager that ships with Ubuntu does quite nicely...
Not to mention that 7zip is for working with 7z files, not zip files, and the GUI is exactly the same on Windows as it is on every other platform.
Right. It's a bad GUI on Windows, exactly the same as on every other platform.
So why bring it up in the first place? Both platforms have better archive management tools. Deliberately choosing the worst one doesn't really make a valid point.
-
@KenW said:
And with regards to MS being evil, how can an inanimate corporate entity be evil? MS is a business, and it's run like a business. There's no good or evil involved.
There are of course though who consider the capitalist system to be evil. I don't, but there are requirements of society that cannot be satisfactorily met by companies and 'market forces' - that is why we have state schools, emergency services, prisons, hospitals etc. Should there be a state operating system? Probably not.
However, Bill Gates made it public many years ago that his goal was "a computer in every home and every office, running Microsoft software". That sounds a lot like world-domination to me, a classic 'evil' ambition. If Microsoft had an absolute global monopoly (extending even into military systems), they would be more than capable of bringing down governments, suppressing the media, and creating whatever New World Order they desired.
-
@KenW said:
@asuffield said:
@KenW said:
And with regards to MS being evil, how can an inanimate corporate entity be evil?
Same way as anybody else: by thinking that they can't be.
Right. This from the guy who thinks MS is part of a big monopoly, and who thinks banking is a global conspiracy.
Seriously... Do you think your desk is possessed too? Do you immediately patch any tears in your tinfoil hat so the aliens don't read your thoughts?
And I thought intelligent people posted here. Oh wait. I already knew that didn't include you from your previous posts.
It just so happens that Marry (my desk) is very nice and i pet her from time to time. She has a fluffy tail and purrs often. Sometimes i think theres a cat under there but then i remember that I don't feed it. Maybe the ghost of my dead cat who was trapped in my desk for days without food or water who I dug up and buried in the pet cemetery after selling the corpse off to an Indian casino to pay my 50 dollar debt for gambling during christmas break in college?
-
The issue with Vista is that they need to fix the power management issues and driver authors need to stop sucking massive ass at authoring drivers for new operating systems. They (by they I mean nearly all video and sound card authors) failed when Win2k came out, failed again when Xp came out, and failed a 3rd time with Vista.
If you're complaining now, I'm going to bet a substantial sum of money that you said the _exact_ same thing when Windows 2000 was released. Drivers get better, performance gets better. I just up'd my World of Warcraft performance from 21 fps average in a gaming session to about 35 fps in a gaming session. 3 year old PC playing WoW at about medium detail on Vista. It's just about finding the right hardware, like anything. As much as Linux can be great for some things, their driver support tends to be very nitche and it's not optimized for playing games. Right now, Vista has some of the similar issues. Give it 6 months and Vista's performance will start eeking out XP's on higher end systems.
Vista is a higher quality, faster, and more streamlined kernel. It's just a matter of getting everything up to snuff and that ain't just Microsoft's job.
-
It would be curious to see how Linux would have got on had it been a microkernel like its godmother, MINIX.
-
@ShadowWolf said:
As much as Linux can be great for some things, their driver support tends to be very nitche and it's not optimized for playing games.
For the linux drivers themselves, that's not actually true - they're usually far faster than the windows versions, and much less buggy. The utter crap that nvidia and ATI put out in binary bundles, on the other hand...
Vista is a higher quality, faster, and more streamlined kernel.
Why exactly do you think that? Is it because some MS sales droid told you that it was? I'm pretty sure it's not because you've examined the kernel.
It's just a matter of getting everything up to snuff and that ain't just Microsoft's job.
That attitude is precisely why windows continues to suck at this stuff.
-
@asuffield said:
It's just a matter of getting everything up to snuff and that ain't just Microsoft's job.
That attitude is precisely why windows continues to suck at this stuff.
How can you say that and then blame Linux's problems on ATI and Nvidia in the same post? They both include a fair amount of drivers, but are far from perfect. XP and Linux both have problems with networking, for example.
-
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
It would be curious to see how Linux would have got on had it been a microkernel like its godmother, MINIX.
Like GNU Hurd got on. Linus made the right decision, creating a monolithic, but modular, kernel.
-
@asuffield said:
@ShadowWolf said:
As much as Linux can be great for some things, their driver support tends to be very nitche and it's not optimized for playing games.
For the linux drivers themselves, that's not actually true - they're usually far faster than the windows versions, and much less buggy. The utter crap that nvidia and ATI put out in binary bundles, on the other hand...
Vista is a higher quality, faster, and more streamlined kernel.
Why exactly do you think that? Is it because some MS sales droid told you that it was? I'm pretty sure it's not because you've examined the kernel.
It's just a matter of getting everything up to snuff and that ain't just Microsoft's job.
That attitude is precisely why windows continues to suck at this stuff.
As for the drivers, I think you're being incredibly optimistic if you think Linux drivers are truely leaps & bounds above what Windows provides. There are a ton of really buggy drivers out there for Linux and a lot of hardware whose support is a wasteland. Even the Reference Drivers for ATi/Intel/nVidia/3dfx put out by the open source community have been beyond abysmal. The driver authoring process is very, very difficult and time consuming in just design and testing alone. Probably less than half of the upper echelon of coders can truely handle it, which is the issue. Too much work for not enough people.
For the Windows kernel being faster and more streamlined, no I haven't looked at the code directly (snippets that make their way on the academic research kernel project though :-D); however, that doesn't make it any less true. Spend some time on channel9.msdn.com, read a few posts by the few Windows NT Kernel folk that do blog. Plus - how much do you really know about the Windows Kernel? There's actually a substantial amount of information, such that you could write an OS or API Emulation layer very, very similar to Windows without ever actually seeing the kernel. Just spending about 10 minutes on Wikipedia alone gives you a bulleted list of performance improvements. Even Windows XP 64-bit edition was substantially improved performance wise over Windows XP SP2. Normally, I would happily provide links; however, you're just being antagonistic about this, so I'm not going to bother. You can believe whatever it is that you feel like believing.
As far as the attitude thing...who is supposed to write the drivers? Microsoft writes reference drivers like everyone else, but they likely don't have the docs to write a full driver. Most hardware companies won't let them have it, so really: what are they supposed to do? It isn't a Windows or Linux issue. It's a Hardware device manufacturers being incompetent issue - and niether Windows or Linux gets a reprieve for that eg. the 2.6 Kernel release.
-
@Cap'n Steve said:
@asuffield said:
It's just a matter of getting everything up to snuff and that ain't just Microsoft's job.
That attitude is precisely why windows continues to suck at this stuff.
How can you say that and then blame Linux's problems on ATI and Nvidia in the same post?The drivers in Linux for ati and nvidia cards are much better, they just don't support the latest models yet (development is in progress). Only people who want to play tuxracer, use blender, or use ridiculously overpowered video cards to render a 2d desktop have problems with ATI and nvidia, the rest can simply not use them.
XP and Linux both have problems with networking, for example.
What problems would those be?
-
@ShadowWolf said:
As for the drivers, I think you're being incredibly optimistic if you think Linux drivers are truely leaps & bounds above what Windows provides. There are a ton of really buggy drivers out there for Linux and a lot of hardware whose support is a wasteland.
You're stuck in the 1990s. I can't remember the last time I saw a piece of hardware that lacked linux drivers, with the notable exception of latest-generation ati and nvidia cards.
Spend some time on channel9.msdn.com, read a few posts by the few Windows NT Kernel folk that do blog.
So the guy who wrote the code thinks that the code he wrote is just great.
Colour me unsurprised and unimpressed.
Even Windows XP 64-bit edition was substantially improved performance wise over Windows XP SP2.
That's because, as anybody in the industry knows, "XP 64-bit edition" is actually the marketing name for "Windows 2003 desktop edition" (the 32-bit version was never released), and not the same thing as XP at all. Gamers have been running win2k3 server for years, it's certainly a far better release than XP. That doesn't stop vista being a pile of crap.
-
Point taken. Don't get involved with OS disputes with ***moderated*** because he refuses to actually argue the points and instead, would rather just throw darts without concern as to what he's actually saying.
-
@asuffield said:
@ShadowWolf said:
As for the drivers, I think you're being incredibly optimistic if you think Linux drivers are truely leaps & bounds above what Windows provides. There are a ton of really buggy drivers out there for Linux and a lot of hardware whose support is a wasteland.
You're stuck in the 1990s. I can't remember the last time I saw a piece of hardware that lacked linux drivers, with the notable exception of latest-generation ati and nvidia cards.
Seconded. It's getting rather hard to find devices without Linux drivers, you almost have to be deliberate about it. Of course there are still some terrible buggy drivers out there and some devices without any, but the same can be said for Windows.
Before this all gets out of hand (more so than it already is) can I just point out that, ignoring the usual fanboyism that is always going to exist, everyone is essentially making the same points in different ways:
- Both OSs actually have similar problems these days
- People will defend their favourite OS to the death (even if it means using out of date, circumstantial, or unproven evidence)
-
@asuffield said:
XP and Linux both have problems with networking, for example.
What problems would those be?
Neither one (Ubuntu and XP) work very well with my wireless card out of the box. XP actually can't use my ethernet card at all without drivers. Linux is also pretty notorious for wireless difficulties, I find it hard to believe you've never heard of that.
-
Problems with wireless drivers are not problems with networking, thus the puzzlement. The fact that you expect drivers to work out of box means you are starting to think the Linux way. With windows 5 year release cycle, that will never happen.
I have seen a failing Linux driver for an Ethernet card once. It was for a stone age 10Mbit 3Com. The replacement card cost about 5$ and was 100Mbit, long due replacement IMHO. Seen wireless problems too. Usually they start with crappy and/or uncommon(ie very new or specialized) hardware. Unlike Windows, there are no computers built for Linux, unless you do the building yourself. That tho, is slowly changing.
Nothing of that changes the fact that Vista sucks almost as much or more if you take into account DRM and weird bugs and comparing the price tags, I'd say somebody screwed up pretty bad... And no Vista/MS$ fanboy is going to fix that. XP was an OK Windows. Vista however smells like ME all over again.
-
@asuffield said:
@ShadowWolf said:
Even Windows XP 64-bit edition was substantially improved performance wise over Windows XP SP2.
That's because, as anybody in the industry knows, "XP 64-bit edition" is actually the marketing name for "Windows 2003 desktop edition" (the 32-bit version was never released), and not the same thing as XP at all. Gamers have been running win2k3 server for years, it's certainly a far better release than XP. That doesn't stop vista being a pile of crap.
XP x64 is the desktop version of Server 2003, that is correct. Most tools misidentify it as Server 2003 itself as a result.
Gamers have been running Server 2003 for years, but always pirated. There is no advantage to running Server 2003 for gaming over XP, as Server 2003 puts priority on background tasks, actually decreasing game performance compared to XP. Any performance advantage a gamer claims from it is entirely in their head, or the result of bad testing methodology. XP x64 obviously has the same task priorities as ordinary XP, but is also worse for gaming because of 32-bit/64-bit code context switches (most games are still 32-bit).
I have legal copies of all three operating systems mentioned.
-
@Thief^ said:
The juxtaposition of your user name and this comment leave me somewhat {a|be}mused.[Server2003, XP, XP64]
I have legal copies of all three operating systems mentioned.
-
@Thief^ said:
There is no advantage to running Server 2003 for gaming over XP, as Server 2003 puts priority on background tasks, actually decreasing game performance compared to XP.
You can no longer select whether foreground or background tasks have priority in the System control panel?
-
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
@Thief^ said:
There is no advantage to running Server 2003 for gaming over XP, as Server 2003 puts priority on background tasks, actually decreasing game performance compared to XP.
You can no longer select whether foreground or background tasks have priority in the System control panel?
You can, but there are other things that make Server 2003 more disposed towards server-type tasks than games. With the amount of work you have to do to Server 2003 to turn it into a platform that will even run games (eg Graphics Acceleration and Direct-X are disabled by default, as is audio), you could just optimize your XP install (disable unnecessary services etc) instead.
-
@ShadowWolf said:
Point taken. Don't get involved with OS disputes with ******because he refuses to actually argue the points and instead, would rather just throw darts without concern as to what he's actually saying.
will you mother fuckers stop using his real name. God damn it, have some fucking respect.
-
@Kemp said:
@dlikhten said:
And my response to that is... Linux (with compiz or beryl) has niftier features than vista visually, much more effects, much cooler stuff, AND it performs better WITHOUT the need for such high ram. So by example, we know that it is doable to make a system look good, and perform well. I am not saying Linux > Windows (yes i am) but I am saying that you can't claim that vista does something so phenomenal that it REQUIRES such high hardware.
Exactly. I'm running Compiz on my work machine (they're basically the oldest and slowest machines that still actually run), and it works near flawlessly, smooth effects around 99% of the time. This is a machine with 512MB of RAM (a quarter what Vista asks for), a 2GHz P4 (your average fan heater), an AGP graphics card, and a serious number of applications running at the same time (glancing right now I see Pidgin, two instances of gedit, Thunderbird, two terminals, Firefox, several filesystem browser windows, xfig, and a few instances of evince). I happen to like these effects much better too, and there's definitely more customisation open to me.
See...? It exists. I bet M$ tries to commercialize that it is INFINITELY IMPROBABLE that such a thing could exist, however in infinite improbability something infinitely improbable is very likely to happen. Who knows, maybe windows vista will suffer from MEF (Massive Existence Failure) and disappear!
-
@asuffield said:
@ShadowWolf said:
As for the drivers, I think you're being incredibly optimistic if you think Linux drivers are truely leaps & bounds above what Windows provides. There are a ton of really buggy drivers out there for Linux and a lot of hardware whose support is a wasteland.
You're stuck in the 1990s. I can't remember the last time I saw a piece of hardware that lacked linux drivers, with the notable exception of latest-generation ati and nvidia cards.
Spend some time on channel9.msdn.com, read a few posts by the few Windows NT Kernel folk that do blog.
So the guy who wrote the code thinks that the code he wrote is just great.
Colour me unsurprised and unimpressed.
Even Windows XP 64-bit edition was substantially improved performance wise over Windows XP SP2.
That's because, as anybody in the industry knows, "XP 64-bit edition" is actually the marketing name for "Windows 2003 desktop edition" (the 32-bit version was never released), and not the same thing as XP at all. Gamers have been running win2k3 server for years, it's certainly a far better release than XP. That doesn't stop vista being a pile of crap.
Actually other than Creative drivers (they suck w/ linux drivers, X-Fi has only 64 bit drivers, no 32 bit...) me and my co-workers have so much easier time setting up linux than windows. My co-worker spend 2 months setting up a network printer in Vista WITH HP support. Turned out Vista deleted or modified some config which made it impossible to configure the printer (it never cleaned the drivers completely so he could not re-install the drivers), he had to re-install Vista and it kinda works now. Out-of-the-box for linux,
worked within 2 minutes of installation.I have no had 1 positive vista remark yet. Everything is another problem. We are all happy we are not migrating to vista, at best we will migrate to linux.
I can install 10 linuxes and configure them by the time i install 1 windows xp or xp x64.
And yes xp x64 is based on 2003 server. Even microsoft says that on their site if you dig up ANY xp 64 information.
-
@dlikhten said:
Actually other than Creative drivers (they suck w/ linux drivers, X-Fi has only 64 bit drivers, no 32 bit...)
Creative's drivers suck pretty much everywhere. Have they fixed their Windows drivers yet so that they work if you have 4GB RAM (I had to boot my XP64 with /MAXMEM=4096 if I wanted sound - but this made Windows only see 3GB of RAM, because 1GB was mapped above 4GB)?
-
@dlikhten said:
Actually other than Creative drivers (they suck w/ linux drivers, X-Fi has only 64 bit drivers, no 32 bit...) me and my co-workers have so much easier time setting up linux than windows. My co-worker spend 2 months setting up a network printer in Vista WITH HP support. Turned out Vista deleted or modified some config which made it impossible to configure the printer (it never cleaned the drivers completely so he could not re-install the drivers), he had to re-install Vista and it kinda works now. Out-of-the-box for linux,
worked within 2 minutes of installation.I have no had 1 positive vista remark yet. Everything is another problem. We are all happy we are not migrating to vista, at best we will migrate to linux.
I can install 10 linuxes and configure them by the time i install 1 windows xp or xp x64.
And yes xp x64 is based on 2003 server. Even microsoft says that on their site if you dig up ANY xp 64 information.
If you really have that much trouble installing XP or Vista, maybe you should just put your head on your desk and quit.
...WTF
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@dlikhten said:
Compared to modern Linux distros, it is troublesome.Actually other than Creative drivers (they suck w/ linux drivers, X-Fi has only 64 bit drivers, no 32 bit...) me and my co-workers have so much easier time setting up linux than windows. My co-worker spend 2 months setting up a network printer in Vista WITH HP support. Turned out Vista deleted or modified some config which made it impossible to configure the printer (it never cleaned the drivers completely so he could not re-install the drivers), he had to re-install Vista and it kinda works now. Out-of-the-box for linux,
worked within 2 minutes of installation.I have no had 1 positive vista remark yet. Everything is another problem. We are all happy we are not migrating to vista, at best we will migrate to linux.
I can install 10 linuxes and configure them by the time i install 1 windows xp or xp x64.
And yes xp x64 is based on 2003 server. Even microsoft says that on their site if you dig up ANY xp 64 information.
If you really have that much trouble installing XP or Vista, maybe you should just put your head on your desk and quit.
...WTF
Nuking the MBR alone is one big WTF (there is no way to tell it "please have MERCY!" AFAIK). The partitioner is crap. And if IIRC it did some config in the middle of installation (network and regional stuff I think). And did I mention that on most PCs installing Windows is an all-nighter? (Ubuntu: about half an hour, more on my slow laptop).
Comparing that to any user-oriented Linux installer (except Debian, Gentoo, and a few) is like comparing dirt to stars.
-
@CapitalT said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@dlikhten said:
Compared to modern Linux distros, it is troublesome.Actually other than Creative drivers (they suck w/ linux drivers, X-Fi has only 64 bit drivers, no 32 bit...) me and my co-workers have so much easier time setting up linux than windows. My co-worker spend 2 months setting up a network printer in Vista WITH HP support. Turned out Vista deleted or modified some config which made it impossible to configure the printer (it never cleaned the drivers completely so he could not re-install the drivers), he had to re-install Vista and it kinda works now. Out-of-the-box for linux,
worked within 2 minutes of installation.I have no had 1 positive vista remark yet. Everything is another problem. We are all happy we are not migrating to vista, at best we will migrate to linux.
I can install 10 linuxes and configure them by the time i install 1 windows xp or xp x64.
And yes xp x64 is based on 2003 server. Even microsoft says that on their site if you dig up ANY xp 64 information.
If you really have that much trouble installing XP or Vista, maybe you should just put your head on your desk and quit.
...WTF
Nuking the MBR alone is one big WTF (there is no way to tell it "please have MERCY!" AFAIK). The partitioner is crap. And if IIRC it did some config in the middle of installation (network and regional stuff I think). And did I mention that on most PCs installing Windows is an all-nighter? (Ubuntu: about half an hour, more on my slow laptop).
Comparing that to any user-oriented Linux installer (except Debian, Gentoo, and a few) is like comparing dirt to stars.If by "all-nighter" you mean, sit down at 6:30. Have the installer going by 6:45-7:00. Eat dinner. choose some settings. Do the dishes. Done by 8:30-9:00. In that case yes, Installing Windows is an all-nighter.
Of course, when it is done installing and I install all the drivers for my video card and sound card, then both my printers, my wireless card, an and digital sound all works. Better than on Linux where one of my printers refuses to work, I have to NDISwrapper my wireless, and I can't get digital sound to work for the life of me.
Not to mention, after it's all set up my computer runs really loud for a a week because something is messed up in the beagle daemon and it is constantly at 100% CPU usage.
DOn't get me wrong, I like linux and all. But you need to keep in mind that "installing" entails more than just clicking through the installer and finally getting to your new OS. And ever after all this improvement they have done to the different linux distros, I wouldn't say that setting it up is on average easier than setting up a Windows computer.
-
@tster said:
DOn't get me wrong, I like linux and all. But you need to keep in mind that "installing" entails more than just clicking through the installer and finally getting to your new OS. And ever after all this improvement they have done to the different linux distros, I wouldn't say that setting it up is on average easier than setting up a Windows computer.
Clearly you have not ran into the same trouble with installing Windows. I have. With new/latest hardware its always a pain. No matter the OS. With older hardware however, its safe to say, installing Linux is both easier and takes less time.
-
@tster said:
@CapitalT said:
O_O That's one messed up distro you are using! Of course (as per most FOSS projects) bug reports are always welcome, you don't need me to tell you that :)@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@dlikhten said:
Compared to modern Linux distros, it is troublesome.Actually other than Creative drivers (they suck w/ linux drivers, X-Fi has only 64 bit drivers, no 32 bit...) me and my co-workers have so much easier time setting up linux than windows. My co-worker spend 2 months setting up a network printer in Vista WITH HP support. Turned out Vista deleted or modified some config which made it impossible to configure the printer (it never cleaned the drivers completely so he could not re-install the drivers), he had to re-install Vista and it kinda works now. Out-of-the-box for linux,
worked within 2 minutes of installation.I have no had 1 positive vista remark yet. Everything is another problem. We are all happy we are not migrating to vista, at best we will migrate to linux.
I can install 10 linuxes and configure them by the time i install 1 windows xp or xp x64.
And yes xp x64 is based on 2003 server. Even microsoft says that on their site if you dig up ANY xp 64 information.
If you really have that much trouble installing XP or Vista, maybe you should just put your head on your desk and quit.
...WTF
Nuking the MBR alone is one big WTF (there is no way to tell it "please have MERCY!" AFAIK). The partitioner is crap. And if IIRC it did some config in the middle of installation (network and regional stuff I think). And did I mention that on most PCs installing Windows is an all-nighter? (Ubuntu: about half an hour, more on my slow laptop).
Comparing that to any user-oriented Linux installer (except Debian, Gentoo, and a few) is like comparing dirt to stars.If by "all-nighter" you mean, sit down at 6:30. Have the installer going by 6:45-7:00. Eat dinner. choose some settings. Do the dishes. Done by 8:30-9:00. In that case yes, Installing Windows is an all-nighter.
Of course, when it is done installing and I install all the drivers for my video card and sound card, then both my printers, my wireless card, an and digital sound all works. Better than on Linux where one of my printers refuses to work, I have to NDISwrapper my wireless, and I can't get digital sound to work for the life of me.
Not to mention, after it's all set up my computer runs really loud for a a week because something is messed up in the beagle daemon and it is constantly at 100% CPU usage.
DOn't get me wrong, I like linux and all. But you need to keep in mind that "installing" entails more than just clicking through the installer and finally getting to your new OS. And ever after all this improvement they have done to the different linux distros, I wouldn't say that setting it up is on average easier than setting up a Windows computer.
And about installers, most Linux installers end up with a fully prepared (eg. server distro would have apache set up) AND up to date system . And since the users documents and settings ($HOME) are (on non-WTF cases) on another partition you wouldn't need to backup your 800GBs worth of files,saving you the hassle of migration from one version to the other.
-
@Nelle said:
@SpoonMeiser said:
Isn't Vista great?
My girlfriend bought a new laptop recently that came pre-installed with Vista. It apparently has a 4 hour battery life. However, it turns out that the benchmark tools they use to determine such a number, which represent the battery life of a system running at normal load, had not yet been adapted to take account of Vista.
We spent ages turning off any feature we could think of, but could not get the battery life to go beyond 3 hours.
benchmark tools ... yeah right ...
how the manufacturers determine the battery life
1. disconnect the display,
2. remove the harddisk
3. turn on the laptop and start the measurement
4. note the time when it powers down due to empty battery
5. add 0,5 h to the result in order to compensate for statistics
6. print it on the case
7. put a weaker battery in the laptop in order to cut costs, sell the bigger one for more money
I just want to add that "compensating for statistics" is possibly the most hilarious euphemism for "faking your data" I've ever seen.
-
@Arancaytar said:
@Nelle said:
@SpoonMeiser said:
Isn't Vista great?
My girlfriend bought a new laptop recently that came pre-installed with Vista. It apparently has a 4 hour battery life. However, it turns out that the benchmark tools they use to determine such a number, which represent the battery life of a system running at normal load, had not yet been adapted to take account of Vista.
We spent ages turning off any feature we could think of, but could not get the battery life to go beyond 3 hours.
benchmark tools ... yeah right ...
how the manufacturers determine the battery life
1. disconnect the display,
2. remove the harddisk
3. turn on the laptop and start the measurement
4. note the time when it powers down due to empty battery
5. add 0,5 h to the result in order to compensate for statistics
6. print it on the case
7. put a weaker battery in the laptop in order to cut costs, sell the bigger one for more money
I just want to add that "compensating for statistics" is possibly the most hilarious euphemism for "faking your data" I've ever seen.
The adding .5 hrs sounds illegal. Other than that I see no reason why not.
But usually I get pretty accurate readings. What you DON'T know is that after 1 yr the battery life is expected to cut in half. Usually the readings are w/ turning the monitor to dimmest (or no LED) settings. Generally brightest LED lights consume alot of batter life so by reducing them you can get extra 5-20 minutes depending on the battery.
Edit: Actually, connecting a CRT or LDC and closing the lid consumes much less power because those components are plugged in to an outlet, which is how they can extend the tests.
-
@CapitalT said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Compared to modern Linux distros, it is troublesome.If you really have that much trouble installing XP or Vista, maybe you should just put your head on your desk and quit.
Nuking the MBR alone is one big WTF (there is no way to tell it "please have MERCY!" AFAIK). The partitioner is crap. And if IIRC it did some config in the middle of installation (network and regional stuff I think). And did I mention that on most PCs installing Windows is an all-nighter? (Ubuntu: about half an hour, more on my slow laptop).
Comparing that to any user-oriented Linux installer (except Debian, Gentoo, and a few) is like comparing dirt to stars.Frankly, I have always found the Debian installer to be easier and quicker than the Windows one from the same era, and that's including the pre-d-i years when I used to have to fix bugs in boot-floppies to get it working. People only think that Windows is easy to install because it comes pre-installed - it has always been a horrible beast, right back to the win3.1 days. All the other Linux-based distributions always had installers that put Windows to shame.
And - FLOPPIES ARE NOT A SUITABLE MEDIUM FOR SUPPLYING DRIVERS TO THE INSTALLER. Really hate that part. Floppies were obsolete by the time of win2k, why is XP still incapable of accepting drivers on any other medium? That's the sole reason why I still have a USB floppy drive.
-
@asuffield said:
@CapitalT said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Compared to modern Linux distros, it is troublesome.If you really have that much trouble installing XP or Vista, maybe you should just put your head on your desk and quit.
Nuking the MBR alone is one big WTF (there is no way to tell it "please have MERCY!" AFAIK). The partitioner is crap. And if IIRC it did some config in the middle of installation (network and regional stuff I think). And did I mention that on most PCs installing Windows is an all-nighter? (Ubuntu: about half an hour, more on my slow laptop).
Comparing that to any user-oriented Linux installer (except Debian, Gentoo, and a few) is like comparing dirt to stars.Frankly, I have always found the Debian installer to be easier and quicker than the Windows one from the same era, and that's including the pre-d-i years when I used to have to fix bugs in boot-floppies to get it working. People only think that Windows is easy to install because it comes pre-installed - it has always been a horrible beast, right back to the win3.1 days. All the other Linux-based distributions always had installers that put Windows to shame.
And - FLOPPIES ARE NOT A SUITABLE MEDIUM FOR SUPPLYING DRIVERS TO THE INSTALLER. Really hate that part. Floppies were obsolete by the time of win2k, why is XP still incapable of accepting drivers on any other medium? That's the sole reason why I still have a USB floppy drive.
OMFG!!!!!!! I had to buy a floppy drive because winxp could not recognize my SATA controller... WTF?@#!@#! I was so pissed.
Also, windows just installed on E: (thats right i had an external HDD plugged in which took C: for some reason)
Their partitioner sucks
After installing i usually spend 2-3 hrs installing updates.
Let me drill it down:
Install: 30 minutes
Update to SP1: 30 minutes
Update to SP2: 45 minutes
Deal with .net framework errors: 45 minutes
Deal with other errors which ALWAYs appear (like windows installer not being registered) 30 minutes
Any Linux, i tried a few
Free download: 1-4 hrs depending on the distro (overnight)
Installation: 30 minutes
Update: 10 minutes
NOT TO MENTION the partitioner is 100000x better. NO need for Floppy Drives. At worst i can supply a disk. Even worse if my vcard wont work with x with non-legacy drivers, i can command line and find drivers using non-graphical web browser (it saved my butt a few times)
YAY!
-
I always liked the Mac OS 9 install process. On a 200 MHz Mac, and from a CD, takes about 6 minutes for me, after I've tailored it. It takes more time to go through and select which packages you want than it does to install it.
I don't have a big problem with the Windows install process (3.11/2000/XP/Vista) except that it's just slow, but that comes from Windows being so extremely complex. I'm still unsure on the validity of that one. After all, I use Sysinternals products far more than the built-in ones, and even the built-in screen magnifier sucks.
-
@dlikhten said:
Also, windows just installed on E: (thats right i had an external HDD plugged in which took C: for some reason)
Count yourself lucky that you can boot without the USB disk plugged in. I tried to work around the floppy driver requirement with an USB pendrive that emulates a floppy and disk, and ended up with NTLDR on the disk part of the pendrive.
-
@dlikhten said:
@asuffield said:
@CapitalT said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Compared to modern Linux distros, it is troublesome.If you really have that much trouble installing XP or Vista, maybe you should just put your head on your desk and quit.
Nuking the MBR alone is one big WTF (there is no way to tell it "please have MERCY!" AFAIK). The partitioner is crap. And if IIRC it did some config in the middle of installation (network and regional stuff I think). And did I mention that on most PCs installing Windows is an all-nighter? (Ubuntu: about half an hour, more on my slow laptop).
Comparing that to any user-oriented Linux installer (except Debian, Gentoo, and a few) is like comparing dirt to stars.Frankly, I have always found the Debian installer to be easier and quicker than the Windows one from the same era, and that's including the pre-d-i years when I used to have to fix bugs in boot-floppies to get it working. People only think that Windows is easy to install because it comes pre-installed - it has always been a horrible beast, right back to the win3.1 days. All the other Linux-based distributions always had installers that put Windows to shame.
And - FLOPPIES ARE NOT A SUITABLE MEDIUM FOR SUPPLYING DRIVERS TO THE INSTALLER. Really hate that part. Floppies were obsolete by the time of win2k, why is XP still incapable of accepting drivers on any other medium? That's the sole reason why I still have a USB floppy drive.
OMFG!!!!!!! I had to buy a floppy drive because winxp could not recognize my SATA controller... WTF?@#!@#! I was so pissed.
Also, windows just installed on E: (thats right i had an external HDD plugged in which took C: for some reason)
PEBKAC
Their partitioner sucks
Certainly not the most feature-full I have ever seen, but if I am doing something more complex than just a primary partition, and maybe a data partition, then I would expect the one size fits all installer to suit my needs. That is why there are third party packages. I have noticed no major flaws in all of my installs.
After installing i usually spend 2-3 hrs installing updates.
Let me drill it down:
Install: 30 minutes
Update to SP1: 30 minutes
Update to SP2: 45 minutes
You could eliminate both of these steps by using an SP2 installer. This is your error, it not Microsoft's fault. Get current discs.
Deal with .net framework errors: 45 minutes
I have installed a lot of windows machines in my time, and have been programming in .NET 1,2,3 and 3.5. And with the exception of the betas I have tried out, I have never had errors just from installing. If you are just making a base windows install, and getting .NET errors, you are doing something horribly wrong.
Deal with other errors which ALWAYs appear (like windows installer not being registered) 30 minutes
Any Linux, i tried a few
Free download: 1-4 hrs depending on the distro (overnight)
Installation: 30 minutes
Update: 10 minutes
NOT TO MENTION the partitioner is 100000x better. NO need for Floppy Drives. At worst i can supply a disk. Even worse if my vcard wont work with x with non-legacy drivers, i can command line and find drivers using non-graphical web browser (it saved my butt a few times)
YAY!
I know plenty of complete morons who can install Windows. I am sure they could install Linux too if they knew what it was. But saying that Windows is difficult to install is pretty ridiculous.
I have even personally witnessed special education classes (not the aforementioned morons) that taught the students how to install, configure and use Windows.They had minimal problems and questions.
How can you not manage?
-
What do you guys mean when you say install Windows? The actual installer takes about 45 minutes, similar to Linux, on my 7 year old PC. If you're talking about installing updates and downloading drivers, they'll both take longer than that, obviously. Most of the user interaction with the XP installer is also the same as Linux, althought the first part of the Windows installer is ugly enough to scare away some novices probably. Anyone who wants to do something crazy like resizing partitions will using Parition Magic or something similar (not gparted).
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I know plenty of complete morons who can install Windows. I am sure they could install Linux too if they knew what it was. But saying that Windows is difficult to install is pretty ridiculous.
Wrong sense of the word. I would describe the Windows installer as "not easy" in the sense of "pain in the arse". It's not difficult (until it goes wrong, which I get about one time in ten), just highly unpleasant. Which is particularly annoying because I spend far more time installing Windows than I do installing anything else.
-
@asuffield said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I know plenty of complete morons who can install Windows. I am sure they could install Linux too if they knew what it was. But saying that Windows is difficult to install is pretty ridiculous.
Wrong sense of the word. I would describe the Windows installer as "not easy" in the sense of "pain in the arse". It's not difficult (until it goes wrong, which I get about one time in ten), just highly unpleasant. Which is particularly annoying because I spend far more time installing Windows than I do installing anything else.
Seconded. It may be easy if all goes well but with new PC-s today, thats not going to happen. Do try to explain to a moron that to install XP on a modern PC he needs to find a) a Floppy(Likely reaction: "What is that!?") b) a floppy drive (Likely reaction: "Eh?"). And your'e lucky if you can borrow an USB one. Worst case, you only get to scavenge an internal one, then you must find a suitable cable and then a screwdriver. And there may even be blood, if one carelessly collides with a sharp metal edge... :P And if the hardware is faulty, you will find out about it once things start to go wrong inexplicably... If things go wrong moron is stuck on both, so the same holds true for Linux, but power user in installing Linux has a lot more options and a lot more info... And memtest comes with most of the install CD-s out there...
-
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
Other friends have reported that OpenBSD installs and recognises hardware much better than Linux does, but *BSD isn't the OS that gets all the attention.
(xkcd.com/349)
-
@death said:
to install XP on a modern PC [one] needs to find a Floppy and a floppy drive
I do not have a floppy drive. I do not have any floppies. I have successfully installed XP.
What is the thruth-quotient of your statement?
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@dlikhten said:
@asuffield said:
@CapitalT said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Compared to modern Linux distros, it is troublesome.If you really have that much trouble installing XP or Vista, maybe you should just put your head on your desk and quit.
Nuking the MBR alone is one big WTF (there is no way to tell it "please have MERCY!" AFAIK). The partitioner is crap. And if IIRC it did some config in the middle of installation (network and regional stuff I think). And did I mention that on most PCs installing Windows is an all-nighter? (Ubuntu: about half an hour, more on my slow laptop).
Comparing that to any user-oriented Linux installer (except Debian, Gentoo, and a few) is like comparing dirt to stars.Frankly, I have always found the Debian installer to be easier and quicker than the Windows one from the same era, and that's including the pre-d-i years when I used to have to fix bugs in boot-floppies to get it working. People only think that Windows is easy to install because it comes pre-installed - it has always been a horrible beast, right back to the win3.1 days. All the other Linux-based distributions always had installers that put Windows to shame.
And - FLOPPIES ARE NOT A SUITABLE MEDIUM FOR SUPPLYING DRIVERS TO THE INSTALLER. Really hate that part. Floppies were obsolete by the time of win2k, why is XP still incapable of accepting drivers on any other medium? That's the sole reason why I still have a USB floppy drive.
OMFG!!!!!!! I had to buy a floppy drive because winxp could not recognize my SATA controller... WTF?@#!@#! I was so pissed.
Also, windows just installed on E: (thats right i had an external HDD plugged in which took C: for some reason)
PEBKAC
Their partitioner sucks
Certainly not the most feature-full I have ever seen, but if I am doing something more complex than just a primary partition, and maybe a data partition, then I would expect the one size fits all installer to suit my needs. That is why there are third party packages. I have noticed no major flaws in all of my installs.
After installing i usually spend 2-3 hrs installing updates.
Let me drill it down:
Install: 30 minutes
Update to SP1: 30 minutes
Update to SP2: 45 minutes
You could eliminate both of these steps by using an SP2 installer. This is your error, it not Microsoft's fault. Get current discs.
Deal with .net framework errors: 45 minutes
I have installed a lot of windows machines in my time, and have been programming in .NET 1,2,3 and 3.5. And with the exception of the betas I have tried out, I have never had errors just from installing. If you are just making a base windows install, and getting .NET errors, you are doing something horribly wrong.
Deal with other errors which ALWAYs appear (like windows installer not being registered) 30 minutes
Any Linux, i tried a few
Free download: 1-4 hrs depending on the distro (overnight)
Installation: 30 minutes
Update: 10 minutes
NOT TO MENTION the partitioner is 100000x better. NO need for Floppy Drives. At worst i can supply a disk. Even worse if my vcard wont work with x with non-legacy drivers, i can command line and find drivers using non-graphical web browser (it saved my butt a few times)
YAY!
I know plenty of complete morons who can install Windows. I am sure they could install Linux too if they knew what it was. But saying that Windows is difficult to install is pretty ridiculous.
I have even personally witnessed special education classes (not the aforementioned morons) that taught the students how to install, configure and use Windows.They had minimal problems and questions.
How can you not manage?
Ok here is how i install .net...
1) install windows
2) install motherboard drivers so i can connect to internet
3) MS update (include .net)
OH OH ERRORS! Only 1.1 installs if i'm lucky.
Also the only way to have xp recognize my hdd is w/ a FLOPPY DISK with SATA drivers.
ALSO any linux distro comes with a 100x better partitioner AND it has the basic mode where you just say DO IT ON THIS DRIVE and vuala.
Also windows take much longer to install. I've clocked it, at least 1.5 hrs longer to install/setup provided that all your hardware have drivers on the manufacturer's website. (with linux most are in the distro)
ALSO i spend at least 10 minutes removing all the trial crap from windows. like TRY EARTHLINK DIALUP! You got dsl, well DIALUP IS
SLOWERfaster!To get current disks: I must pay money for windows. FREE ON LINUX... Sure of course I want to buy windows every time a new service pack comes out. Yes that is my goal.
Did i mention i also save 150 bucks by using linux? O well i guess i can buy 150 bucks worth of cool softwares instead (like cedega to play windows games :P )
-
@Cap'n Steve said:
What do you guys mean when you say install Windows? The actual installer takes about 45 minutes, similar to Linux, on my 7 year old PC. If you're talking about installing updates and downloading drivers, they'll both take longer than that, obviously. Most of the user interaction with the XP installer is also the same as Linux, althought the first part of the Windows installer is ugly enough to scare away some novices probably. Anyone who wants to do something crazy like resizing partitions will using Parition Magic or something similar (not gparted).
Never mind updates and drivers. How about installing a few PROGRAMS. For example: Some office software, an alternative web browser, an alternative media player, a powerful image editor, and a client for Yahoo! Messenger. Somehow I think Linux is going to win that race.
Also, why not gparted?
-
Mal1024
I had a similar experience installing BSD... Not for the average Joe i tell ya. To get BSD working right you need to know anything and everything and then learn a few things.
BTW don't try installing BSD the first time with video card that is only supported by legacy drivers... It is a nightmare.
-
@m0ffx said:
@Cap'n Steve said:
What do you guys mean when you say install Windows? The actual installer takes about 45 minutes, similar to Linux, on my 7 year old PC. If you're talking about installing updates and downloading drivers, they'll both take longer than that, obviously. Most of the user interaction with the XP installer is also the same as Linux, althought the first part of the Windows installer is ugly enough to scare away some novices probably. Anyone who wants to do something crazy like resizing partitions will using Parition Magic or something similar (not gparted).
Never mind updates and drivers. How about installing a few PROGRAMS. For example: Some office software, an alternative web browser, an alternative media player, a powerful image editor, and a client for Yahoo! Messenger. Somehow I think Linux is going to win that race.
Also, why not gparted?
Microsoft gets sued for including one media player and you want them to add another?
As for gparted, it failed at pretty much everything when I tried installing Ubuntu about a year ago. Then I created all the partitions myself, but the installer still wanted me to run gparted. Problems with something that low-level just make me nervous.
-
@Cap'n Steve said:
@m0ffx said:
Well if Windows had a package management and repository system like most Linux distros, that included third-party media players, then they might not have got sued, even with their own included in the default install.@Cap'n Steve said:
What do you guys mean when you say install Windows? The actual installer takes about 45 minutes, similar to Linux, on my 7 year old PC. If you're talking about installing updates and downloading drivers, they'll both take longer than that, obviously. Most of the user interaction with the XP installer is also the same as Linux, althought the first part of the Windows installer is ugly enough to scare away some novices probably. Anyone who wants to do something crazy like resizing partitions will using Parition Magic or something similar (not gparted).
Never mind updates and drivers. How about installing a few PROGRAMS. For example: Some office software, an alternative web browser, an alternative media player, a powerful image editor, and a client for Yahoo! Messenger. Somehow I think Linux is going to win that race.
Also, why not gparted?
Microsoft gets sued for including one media player and you want them to add another?
-
@dlikhten said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@dlikhten said:
OMFG!!!!!!! I had to buy a floppy drive because winxp could not recognize my SATA controller... WTF?@#!@#! I was so pissed.
Also, windows just installed on E: (thats right i had an external HDD plugged in which took C: for some reason)
PEBKAC
Their partitioner sucks
Certainly not the most feature-full I have ever seen, but if I am doing something more complex than just a primary partition, and maybe a data partition, then I would expect the one size fits all installer to suit my needs. That is why there are third party packages. I have noticed no major flaws in all of my installs.
After installing i usually spend 2-3 hrs installing updates.
Let me drill it down:
Install: 30 minutes
Update to SP1: 30 minutes
Update to SP2: 45 minutes
You could eliminate both of these steps by using an SP2 installer. This is your error, it not Microsoft's fault. Get current discs.
Deal with .net framework errors: 45 minutes
I have installed a lot of windows machines in my time, and have been programming in .NET 1,2,3 and 3.5. And with the exception of the betas I have tried out, I have never had errors just from installing. If you are just making a base windows install, and getting .NET errors, you are doing something horribly wrong.
Deal with other errors which ALWAYs appear (like windows installer not being registered) 30 minutes
Any Linux, i tried a few
Free download: 1-4 hrs depending on the distro (overnight)
Installation: 30 minutes
Update: 10 minutes
NOT TO MENTION the partitioner is 100000x better. NO need for Floppy Drives. At worst i can supply a disk. Even worse if my vcard wont work with x with non-legacy drivers, i can command line and find drivers using non-graphical web browser (it saved my butt a few times)
YAY!
I know plenty of complete morons who can install Windows. I am sure they could install Linux too if they knew what it was. But saying that Windows is difficult to install is pretty ridiculous.
I have even personally witnessed special education classes (not the aforementioned morons) that taught the students how to install, configure and use Windows.They had minimal problems and questions.
How can you not manage?
Ok here is how i install .net...
1) install windows
2) install motherboard drivers so i can connect to internet
Take this up with your motherboard company. Any halfway decent on board NIC is recognized right away. Your argument would apply to *nix just as much as windows if you are using unusual hardware. Saying Windows doesn't come with drivers for card A, but *nix does, is not a fair comparison either. In just about any case I have seen of decent (from $50 mobos to $400 mobos) hardware, upon installation networking works. Displays drivers? They always 'work' and need updates... that is just standard procedure. Missing a driver is not exactly the end of the world like you seem to indicate.
3) MS update (include .net)
OH OH ERRORS! Only 1.1 installs if i'm lucky.
WTF? Never seen this. Again, sounds like PEBKAC. Of course, you are just throwing vague references to errors that may or may not happen... I can see you would say anything to bash MS... Even if you sound like a fool.
Also the only way to have xp recognize my hdd is w/ a FLOPPY DISK with SATA drivers.
If this bothers you this much, slipstream the drivers onto the install CD. You can find a ton of references and instructions on how to do this. Try google. Obviously you are willing to put in plenty of effort into posting ridiculous crap on forums about how much Windows sucks, but 5 minutes on google might kill you.
ALSO any linux distro comes with a 100x better partitioner AND it has the basic mode where you just say DO IT ON THIS DRIVE and vuala.
What? Windows install is as simple as selecting install on this drive as well. If you want to go more advanced, then by all means use some other type of software. This is the classic Windows vs *nix argument where a bunch of morons crawl out of every nook and cranny to post on a forum about how *nix has all sorts of better tools in it. Windows is made for the lowest common denominator. If you really dont like Windows, then please, by all means stop using it. No one is going to cry that another *nix fanboy doesn't use Windows. MS doesnt care about you, and no one else does either.
Also windows take much longer to install. I've clocked it, at least 1.5 hrs longer to install/setup provided that all your hardware have drivers on the manufacturer's website. (with linux most are in the distro)
I have never seen it take this long. Maybe you should look into GeekSquad or Firedog to help you in the future. These services were made for people who just cannot handle the simple tasks involved here.
ALSO i spend at least 10 minutes removing all the trial crap from windows. like TRY EARTHLINK DIALUP! You got dsl, well DIALUP IS
SLOWERfaster!Sounds to me like you are installing an OEM package from Dell, HP, Compaq, etc. None of my installation media has this problem. Maybe it is time to get your own copy of Windows?
To get current disks: I must pay money for windows. FREE ON LINUX... Sure of course I want to buy windows every time a new service pack comes out. Yes that is my goal.
Right, I am sure your windows install is completely legit. If you want free software, then by all means please use *nix. But don't keep posting about Windows. Obviously you are a just another cheap, ignorant fool who bad mouths anything to 'stick it to the man'. *nix is not a revolution. It is just another OS. Get over yourself.
Also, you do not need to pay more money for current disks. Simply slipstream this into your install media. If you already have a legit copy, there is nothing wrong with making a slipstreamed cd. If you haven't paid for Windows yet anyway, then where do you get the nerve to bitch about it?
Did i mention i also save 150 bucks by using linux? O well i guess i can buy 150 bucks worth of cool softwares instead (like cedega to play windows games :P )
...WTF
