|
Page 1 of 2   I was delighted this morning to read an article entitled, “Vista SP1: Still Lagging behind the Linux desktop.” I'll explain why I was delighted. Despite what others might think, it isn't that satisfying to know how terrible Windows Vista is. I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I think in an ideal world, Microsoft would still exist; they just wouldn't control the market. Why I was delighted was because this article cut to the chase and remarked how Vista is way behind Linux. So many other articles I've read dwell on the fact that a lot of computer users want to extend the Windows XP licensing, are waiting for Windows 7 to make the change, that Vista doesn't compare to its predecessor. Well, I can tell you that personally I never liked Windows XP, never liked Windows 98 or Windows 95, and that when Linux came into its own and became a mature operating system, I wasn't about to stick with Windows any longer. What people should be saying is “what else is out there that's new and better than Vista” instead of “how much longer can I continue to use this dinosaur operating system called Windows XP.”
 The writer of the aforementioned article, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, states, “SP1 was supposed to make [Vista] better. Or, to be more precise, it was supposed to improve Vista's performance, fix problems and improve its interoperability. In my fortnight of living with Vista, I've found it's done none of the above.” Big surprise. A big, bloated software vendor says one thing about their product while delivering something else entirely. Recently, I read that installing SP1 on a Windows Vista PC actually caused the system to slow down, and that only after several days would it return to its original state. Eh? I thought it was supposed to improve, not waste my time just to go back to the way it was: clunky, slow, and aggravating.
 Mr. Vaughan-Nichols goes on to describe the hardware he's using for testing SP1. He openly admits that the hardware he's using wasn't designed with Vista in mind; he probably mentions this because a lot of Vista fans defend Vista by telling others that the hardware they're using is inferior. No one seems to mention that even brand new hardware can struggle to run the operating system. No one seems to realize either that you don't buy a computer for the operating system; the operating system isn't supposed to be the focus of the machine; you're supposed to buy a computer so you can run whatever software you have, be it Internet programs, word processors, or games. “If you really want to run Vista, I think you need 3GB of RAM, a dedicated graphics processor with a minimum of 256MB RAM of its own, and a modern dual-core processor like the 2.33GHz Intel Core2 Duo E6550.” That seems like a lot just to kick off the operating system that's going to run my programs; now what do I do if I also have programs that require a lot of memory and video? I guess I just keep buying more RAM and newer video cards to keep up with the demands of my PC. I'm made of money, right?
Oh, and big surprise number two. The same hardware that struggled to run Windows Vista, ran like “lightning” when Linux was installed. The writer continues to describe his problems with Vista; his audio wasn't working (something that wasn't fixed a year after Vista's release). The Vista experience control told him that his systems were capable of “running the fancy-dancy Aero graphics interface.” However, that didn't seem to be the case, only a limited subset of features ever actually worked. “Vista SP1's network performance was beyond awful....File copying over the network, as you would guess, was also a painful experience.” I won't go on. It gets uglier and uglier for Windows Vista. Read the article yourself if you're interested. I think the point was clearly made though. Windows Vista is a joke, and rather than think about Windows XP, people need to consider Linux, which runs faster, on more lightweight hardware, has better driver support, has better goodies (like Compiz), and doesn't sell you lies. It's time for change. We can't be surprised that Windows Vista SP1 isn't everything Microsoft said it would be; did people really believe it would be up to 40% faster like Microsoft said? Unfortunately for Microsoft, they've never had Apple's talent for marketing, and it's really hurting them this time. People just aren't falling for it.  On a personal note, I've switched over a dozen people to Linux. And several of my colleagues have switched a number of people. How? Well, a lot of people don't really need Windows software. Maybe they think they do, but they really don't. You ask a lot of people what they need, and they tell you something like, “I need to check my e-mail, visit my favorite web pages, and chat with my friends.” Anything else really? “I use Word and Excel.” And that's a lot of people. It's hard for people so trapped into using a specific Windows-only application that cannot conceive of an open source alternative to hear these things, but it's the truth. Most people don't need Windows or its software. So, you show these people Linux on a Live CD; show them Open Office; show them Thunderbird or Evolution Mail; show them Pidgin; show them the hundreds of other applications that are just as good as if not better than their Windows counterparts. Then, you look at them, and you say these magic words, “And it's free.”
You wouldn't believe how many people switch. Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.
 Add as favourites (44) |  Quote this article on your site | Views: 3259
|
