How Linux beats Vista! - LXF article.

[mahlerfan]

But that's not the same thing, it hasn't been released to the public yet. Articles denouncing something before it's release is obviously just a spin job and not an informative, fair assessment.

Why just look at this article--

(1) finding files-- this is misleading the speed of searches in xp depends on if you use the indexing service or not. A friend of mine knows how to locate files on his computer in xp nearly instantly by building an index. Even if he uses some add on software to do that, that's the same as adding and using beagle or slocate (what I use).

(2) 3d graphics-- mac went there way before linux, and it's actually not just eye candy with the mac, it's part of the functionality. At least the article acknowledges the first point. Buggy, slow, poorly implemented releases of Xgl don't really count. They didn't really become something to talk about and to be generally adopted until... well... now. I wouldn't say that windows lost that race just because they are a few months behind Linux.

(3) yes nobody on this forum, linuxquestions etc ever complains about difficulties with networking, clearly windows is harder to use there... lol! whatever!

C'mon that article was just hype. So what do I mean by wait for the release? Because the consumers opinions are more important than windows or linux advocates spinning it one way or the other. You can't have a verdict on an OS without seeing how it actually performs, it needs to be released, we need to see what people think after months of use.

[bigtomrodney]

But that's not the same thing, it hasn't been released to the public yet.

It is released to business and technet subscribers. I have used it at work. Anyone can subscribe to technet.

(1) finding files-- this is misleading the speed of searches in xp depends on if you use the indexing service or not.

The difference is that the indexing service in XP absolutely hogs CPU, and is pretty unusable. The I/O on your disk is insane. Yes you can use third party software, but it doesn't ship with your distro.

Buggy, slow, poorly implemented releases of Xgl don't really count.

One thing I have never found slow is XGL, AIGLX or any of the related technologies. Even buggy is not a word I would use. Sure, it was in widespread use while still in alpha but that's because people wanted to try it. Try using it now, it is pretty stable. I have been running an accelerated desktop since it first showed up, through all of the flavours and I can tell you it's pretty damn usable.

(3) yes nobody on this forum, linuxquestions etc ever complains about difficulties with networking, clearly windows is harder to use there... lol! whatever!

I laughed out loud at this one. Have you ever visited the network section? To be fair, if you want easy networking use NetworkManager. It is an absolute no brainer. You can crossover two PCs and it'll set itself up.

[burntfuse]

I don't think anyone was saying that Vista's a piece of crap, just that many of its "new" features really weren't so new.

[macondo]

Here's an article on why none of the above matters, Vista will be a success, it's very interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...8_001308.html#

Excerpt:
"Microsoft -- a company that eventually learns from its mistakes -- will not make that particular mistake again, certainly not with Windows Vista, in which they have a $5 billion investment.

What we'll see for ourselves and read about over the next six months, then, are users complaining about Vista instability, an inevitably emerging vulnerability to hackers, and applications that don't work as well as they do under XP. Enterprise customers will hold back in droves. But does any of that make Vista a failure? Nope.

Those who are trying to figure out if Vista will be successful haven't yet grasped the concept that Vista will be forced on the market, and in time it will be the only operating system you can buy from Microsoft. Of course it will be successful. Will people upgrade their existing systems? Of course not. Microsoft operating systems are always designed for future PC's, not for the installed base. Part of the plan is to make Vista work poorly on current computers so we'll all have to buy new ones. This strategy has been around for years and there is no reason to believe we won't fall for it again. Sure, some percentage of people and firms will upgrade, but most of the upgrades will come with whole new computers.

Think back to the Windows 95 introduction, where one of the selling points was that the new OS would work fine on a 66 MHz 486 computer. The truth was that it would RUN on a 486, but not well, so after a try of Win95 on our old hardware, rather than go to some other operating system we all bought new machines. And we'll do that again with Vista."

[burntfuse]

No question about that, of course it's going to be successful, at least if you measure success by the number of people using it or the sales. I predict slightly larger-than-usual sales of Macs, though.

[felipe1982]

No question about that, of course it's going to be successful, at least if you measure success by the number of people using it or the sales. I predict slightly larger-than-usual sales of Macs, though.

How much money is it to buy OS X new, anyways? I'm curious . . . but not interested in getting it.

[burntfuse]

~$120-200, I think.

[netstrider]

My friend in Germany said it costs him 155 pounds there..