I figured I talk alot why not write a lot also.
This will be about a link on Thoma's article posted by another JU user about a guy, who claims to have 20 years of PC experience, who posted an article about the review that extremetech.com gave on Windows Vista. The review from extremetech.com gave props to Microsoft on the changes being made to the entire structure of Windows in order to create a more stable and secure OS. The review from desktoplinux.com gave a very bias opinion on what the guys from extremetech.com had to say about Windows Vista. All his ranting (cause there is no other way to describe it, nothing professional about it) was based on his bias love for Linux. A review should be about an unbiased look at something, to create opinions based on research and test and not simply because you like one more than the other no matter who’s better. A review should point the pros and cons of product without comments on how your fav product is so much more better. The whole purpose is to let the reader decide what is good and what is not without any influence from the writer. This guy completely failed that goal and so his article got many negative comments on how he conducted himself, even from people who would have most likely backed him up if it were done more professionally. Not to mention that his fellow Linux fanboy came to his rescue and took some shots at those negative commentators using the age old name calling technique to gain ground that was lost due to the lack of reviewing and expressing abilities of the writer.

After reading his article and the comment, I came to the conclusion that, well, you can’t expect anything less from a Linux fanboy with a website dedicated to Linux and how good it is. Man he hardly had anything good to say about Vista or Microsoft and even when he did he couldn’t resist taking a shot at them anyways. Well this is what I think about his article.

At first he thought that the title of the article from Vista was sarcasm, but when he realize it was for real, his response was “Oh please”. Talk about a guy who doesn’t even give the benefit of the doubt being in the technology and software field. That right there is not truly reviewing new software; that is just a plain bias response. Then he goes about explaining the kind of rigs that he has and how Vista, being so hungry for the best in hardware, does not run well on them, but his Linux system works just fine. As if he was selling his product to someone. Now that is a lame sales pitch and I should know, my father is an expert in sales (too bad I didn’t inherit his expertise). Even funnier is that he claims that even though he prefers Linux, that his specialty is all OS’s and so he knows what he’s talking about when he says that Vista sucks. Funny, OS’s is Gates specialty as well, so is making millions, who would you go with? No matter how many problems Windows has (well, to a certain extent), Gates must be doing something right if his OS rules supreme, at the moment, on the majority of PC’s today. I’m sold.

He goes about saying that very few people will switch over to Vista due to hardware requirements. I wouldn’t go that far, as ____ law goes, technology changes every 18 months or so, prices on new hardware drop pretty fast these days and people are not too afraid to drop a lot of money on new stuff even when they are worth full price. Sure it may not catch on over night and not ever PC will have Vista on it before 2007, but so what, there are still Windows 95, 98, ME and even DOS PCs still alive and kicking. XP took a while to catch on, but now many believe it’s the best Windows has, even the guy talking bad about Vista admits it on his own article. And what about the price for Vista? LOL, the guy goes on saying how expensive it will be no matter which version you buy. For crying out loud, any OS will be too expensive, even a $20 one, compared to Linux which can be found as freeware through out the internet. But then there is that saying that nothing in life is free and so I remind everyone of the one reason I don’t like Linux, the manual work.

Eventually he got around to Vistas Kernel and how Microsoft had to rewrite the whole thing, yet, according to him, it is still the same rickety kernel underneath. Yea a rickety kernel, one in about 90% of all home PC’s in the world and that runs most software out there. If the current kernel in XP is that bad, can’t wait to see how good this new one is. Not apples and oranges, more like apple and solid gold apples. Ah, but another chance for a sales pitch for Linux could not be ignored, so he says “Of course, Linux never had this kind of garbage to clean up in the first place”, how would he know, it’s not like there are millions of Linux-based viruses, Trojans and other types of malware, attacking the Linux kernel, so how exactly do you know how impenetrable something is if nothing is trying to penetrate it. BTW I recall seeing security updates for Linux a few times, so that is enough to say Linux is not as perfect as he claims. Just wait till a wave of attack hits Linux boxes and we will see just how powerful Linux really is.

It seems that this guy dreams of Linux and nothing else, the fact that Microsoft cleaned up Windows use of memory management and heaps is not good enough for him because Linux has been doing that for years. This seems to hurt him because now Vista does something Linux does so now people have one less reason to switch over to Linux. Superfetch is another idea that seems to put Microsoft behind because it’s already been done before. It still only makes Vista better by having something that good added to the rest of the good things that Linux does not have. I love how the guy talks about how bad of an idea it is to have a USB-based flash drive (memory stick) to extend the memory of the computer through Superfetch. This is how he puts it: “Let me spell it out for you. Vista will put part of your running application on a device that can be kicked off, knocked out, or that your dog can carry away as a chew toy. Do you see the problem here? Me too”. Yes I do see the problem here, it is him. It’s obvious, to those smart enough; that it can be kicked off or knocked out, the smart thing would be to put it somewhere where you won’t do these things, in the back of the PC. That way it won’t be knocked out of kicked off. After all, how often do you go to the back of the PC unless you actually have something to do back there which will most likely mean you will not need the memory stick there in the first place? Hello!!! It’s meant to be temporary, not permanent, duh. And about the dog problem, please, if your dog likes to chew on things he shouldn’t chew on and hangs out around you PC; only you are to blame for letting him take it. Last time I checked dogs and PCs have nothing in common except for a few games and the person using the PC. You want a real excuse? Stick to the idea of having info on a stick that can be removed and stolen or can mess up a system, which BTW, Microsoft is already ahead of that because it will not affect the system if it falls out and the info inside is encrypted. It seems that he’s not keeping up as much as he claims he is.

TCP/IP becomes his next target. While he praises Microsoft for finally fixing the open-source BSD code (or in other words stole source code), he can’t help but put it all down by showing that they plan on using IPSec. I failed to find anything that would make this a bad thing except for what his article about someone who says this is a bad thing. I could be wrong, but I would like to see some more hard evidence on this, maybe someone can point me to more info, I would gladly appreciate it.

The fact that Vista Premium will have a Media Center seems to bother him. Wonder why? Maybe because Linux doesn’t have it? Maybe. He feels he sees nothing different except the name change. Well last time I checked you couldn’t get Windows XP Media Center Edition without buying a new computer. Not with Vista. Here you can have your cake and eat it too. Besides if you don’t like the Media Center, you don’t have to use it. I also wonder why it bothers him that Vista will have CableCard support. Again, maybe because Linux does not have it yet? Or maybe because they are going to hit the stores with something that not even MythTV or other open-source PVR software might have yet. I personally don’t get how you make something that will be useful once CableCards are available a bad thing. But that is what is expected of Linux fanboys.

Now here is something strange, he admits that audio in Vista is better than anything out there but since it is not out there yet they have time to come up with something better. What a loser. To have to play catch up after all the babble that just came out of his mouth. Nothing worse than running out of ammo in the middle of a battle and then having to scramble to look for more.

DirectX10 is another improvement in Vista. But like many upgraded software version, not everything will work with it so new software will be needed to do that. Not as if most software in not constantly updated anyways. Besides they plan on keeping DirectX9 around till everyone catches up. That’s a nice thing to do considering they could have easily kept it out and made you get everything brand new. Once again he is faced with another of Vista’s features he can’t knock down, except with a lame attempt at comparing it to a dedicated game console. Everyone knows you can’t compare the 2 so that was a real lame attempt at putting down something he can’t make look bad. What a sad guy.

But wait it only gets better, now it bothers him that Microsoft will have extra software built-in to Vista. Then he points to the previous problems for doing that. Wouldn’t it make sense to that if they had this problem before that they knew what they were doing? But wait, Linux can get all the software he wants for free, a Linux advantage. But I thought most of the stuff for Linux can be found for Windows for free as well? Hmmm, advantage for Windows? Sure. For Linux? Not a good thing. If everything that Linux has Windows can have, But everything that Windows has Linux can not have all, then what would be the point of getting Linux? Security? Sure, I too would get a product that no one is interested in messing around with if it does some basic necessities. But that would be like getting a VW over a Benz simply because the Benz is more likely to be stolen. Nothing a little extra security can’t fix. Not that I wouldn’t do the same for the VW.

All in all the guy did a great job trying to put down Microsoft Vista, but his fanboy side did most of the talking and a one-sided, single-minded, bias argument just doesn’t convince a lot of open-minded people, only those who are good at letting others tell them what is good for them. Nice try my friend, but you lame attempt to sway me to the fabulous world of Linux failed. And chances are many people here will agree, it’s going to take more than your bias opinion to sway most people.

Why not do what some people who use Linux say should be done. Linux is OK the way it is, if it becomes mainstream, it will just become another Window kinda OS that will have hackers rushing to crack what many claim can’t be cracked. Leave it as a not-so-common OS, and leave us lazy people to our easy and simple Windows OS.

Once again I point out that I have never used Linux or even actually seen it myself. All I know is by what I have read online and I have read a lot. And there has not been enough info to convince me that Linux is worth the try, except maybe for a server which I am not working with at the moment. Like I said, maybe I will try Linux someday, but it will, probably, never replace Windows as my main OS. No games, no really good software, no ease of installation? No Linux.

Linux has its purpose in the computer world. At the moment it serves no purpose for me. Linux does not suck. It is just not meant for the average user. Not yet anyways.

DJBandit

Comments
on Mar 06, 2006
I'm not against pointing out the failiars and problems with Microsoft, I welcome them. It only makes the experience better for me. I just not too fond of people who bash out of simple hatred for something. Just because they don't like it, no matter how good it may be, they will find ways to bash it in order to convince people to follow their choice.
on Mar 06, 2006
Many Linux (and Mac) users don't know much about Windows.

Linux users in particular point to technical shortcomings they believe exist. But they don't seem to know much about Windows technology.

Windows' subsystem mechanism is excellent. Windows NT 3 and 4 came with an OS/2 subsystem and a POSIX subsystem apart from the Windows subsystem (the 16 bit emulator ran under the Windows subsystem). OS/2 was phased out between 2000 and XP, and POSIX was replaced with a down-loadable Interix subsystem which allows compilation and running of many UNIX programs. I am not talking about Cygwin.

In fact you can make Windows into a Linux look- and function-alike, except you have better and more drivers (drivers have their own sort-of subsystem) and the option of much better (hehe) Windows compatibility of you make use of the Win32 (Windows) subsystem.

Windows' terminal services are excellent. Outside of Sun's thin clients (for which there is no software client!) I have seen nothing better (inside it is too dark to see anything). Linux has RSH and X11, but neither are stateless and the one is text only and the other very slow. Apple have a remote desktop system but only for administration (mirror) and it is really expensive for what it does (I use VNC instead).

Microsoft's administration tools are fantastic. It's a joy to work with them. Linux and Mac OS are _better_ because everything can be done using the command line, which is faster and less prone to outside impacts (like a slow network connection etc.) but Windows has the best GUI tools for administration. Combined with remote desktop, Windows' admin tools are really excellent. Very well done indeed. And they are modular...


But the Windows GUI itself, it's features and functionality, the way it handles windows and programs, the way it handles menus, is a joke! It's embarrassing, really.
on Mar 06, 2006

Outside of Sun's thin clients (for which there is no software client!) I have seen nothing better (inside it is too dark to see anything).

Ah, How are thigns going Groucho?

Great analysis of all 3 Andrew.  I much prefer the command line, and I think you can do most of the stuff on a command line in windows as well, but it does entail a bunch of obtuse commands, and non-bundled or not installed tools to do it with (The Support Tools Folder and the Extras available from Microsoft or 3rd parties).

 

on Mar 06, 2006

Ah, How are things going Groucho?


Damn it; foiled again!



Great analysis of all 3 Andrew.  I much prefer the command line, and I think you can do most of the stuff on a command line in windows as well, but it does entail a bunch of obtuse commands, and non-bundled or not installed tools to do it with (The Support Tools Folder and the Extras available from Microsoft or 3rd parties).


Anything that isn't part of a default install is pretty much useless for a sys-admin. The machines you had enough contact with to install special tools on won't need much configuration later anyway. And all the problem machines won't have the tools. It's always like that.

Vista was planned to have a new shell (Monad), but if that is actually implemented or usable I cannot say. And even if everything is fine, it will only be useful once all Windows 2000 and XP machines are gone and or run Vista.


What I do like about Vista:

1. Some of Windows' GUI irritations have disappeared.

2. The folder structure is more similar to Mac OS now ("Documents and Settings" becomes "Users", "My Documents" becomes "Documents" etc.).

3. The system looks more like Mac OS.

4. .NET is now part of the default install and will be more prominent.


Windows is basically moving towards Mac OS in the usability area, towards UNIX in the server area, and towards what Sun might have wanted for Solaris in the application area (.NET instead of Win32). And that is a good thing.


What I want now:

1. Apple should support .NET. Microsoft, Novell, and GNU do. Why not Apple? They can support Java as well. You don't have to support either the one or the other.

2. A more usable and less annoying Windows interface. Vista is on the right track, but I fear Microsoft will make it VERY colourful, like XP was compared to 2000.

3. A USABLE command line interface and admin tools for the command line in Windows, also a built-in SSH server, like any cheap GNU system.

4. A usable remote desktop service in Mac OS.

5. A software client for Sun's thin client terminal service.

6. I should mention that I think it is OK for Sun not to support .NET.

7. Ditto Microsoft and Java.

8. Novell should be more precise (for lack of a better term) about SuSE Linux, Mono (their .NET implementation), and Wine.

(Novell have such a great products, it's a shame they don't tell anybody!)

9. Sun should stop changing their strategy every 6 months and tell me something that will be true in 4 years as well as now.

(Sun have great products too, hardware and software. It's a shame that they don't come up with a plan.)


Sun!!!!!

Stop pretending to donate lots of stuff to the Free software culture and simply sell Solaris computers. An open source Solaris is a fun idea, but we already have several Free operating systems. What we need is a good business system to run Free software on in businesses. We want hardware and software, not a patchwork like Linux offers us. We want nice-looking violet servers and desktops. So go ahead and sell them, quickly now.

Stop advertising the Java brand and instead advertise Solaris. Get a working implementation of Wine and make it part of the default install on x86 and x64 Solaris boxen. Solaris is what many people want: a Linux without the millions of distributions. You have a standardised system, you have your own hardware you control Java, you can choose from lots of Free (and free) software. Just do something about it!

Gee...
on Mar 06, 2006
You lost me Leauki, not sure if your saying Windows sux or not.
on Mar 06, 2006
2. A more usable and less annoying Windows interface. Vista is on the right track, but I fear Microsoft will make it VERY colourful, like XP was compared to 2000.

Fortunatly you are wrong in your assumption there. The Vista UI is set as you see it in the current betas. White translucent windows when using Aero, and a Silver theme when using Aero Basic.
on Mar 06, 2006
(Novell have such a great products, it's a shame they don't tell anybody!)


Amen to that! EDir Still beats the hell out of AD!