Why Do People Hate Vista?

[Strider]

My thoughts on it:

Vista for games? Not really. I bought Cedega a couple weeks ago and have yet to have a problem. Unless you insist on getting a game the day it comes out.. or like to play games that no one has ever heard about.. chances are Cedega will run it. Even better... you only have to subscribe for 3 months (around $15). After that you can wait another 6 months and just pay another $15 to get the new updates. Sure.. it adds up over time, but will it ever come to the $200-$300 you will spend on Vista?

Oh.. yeah. It also actually runs the older games.

One of the things Microsoft bragged about in Vista was Aero. Yet, the functions were already out dated by time the OS was released. Even worst, you can do the same and a hell of a lot more using considerably less power.

I played around with the features forever trying to find a way to add a new toolbar. I don't think it can be done. It's 2007 and MS still won't give you the ability to customize the OS to your liking. It would be nice if they gave you some customizing options WITHOUT using 3rd party applications. Why do they make you pay again for features like Windows Blinds that should have been included by default?

 

[Zelig]

It's not very compatible with old games. Also, it doesn't seem to do anything new, other than show flashy graphics.

Sort of like how XP wasn't very compatible with DOS games. Except not nearly that bad.

Some of my favorite new stuff compared to XP:

• Support for more memory.
• Better performance with large amounts of memory.
• Better multithreaded performance.
• Faster search.
• Search box on the start menu.
• Better help system.
• Improved recovery from crashes.
• Improved microsoft update delivery system.
• Backup and restore center.
• Improved firewall.
• Improved defragmenter.
• Improved disk management.
• Improved task scheduler.
• Improved selection of scaling options for wallpapers.
• Improved audio stack and APIs, giving better performance and options.
• Full integrated speech recognition.

My thoughts on it:...

I don't have any problem with people who prefer non-Windows OSes to Vista, it's people who prefer XP to Vista, on new computers, whom I don't understand.

 

[Quintillus]

It's compatibility problems with old programs, Civilization III in particular, that cause me to prefer XP to Vista. But I'm fine with you not understanding me - it's actually a good thing people can't entirely understand me !

Civilization III just crashed again on Vista for me. I've done two clean installs and it still crashes. I can't recall it ever crashing on XP, or 98 once I eventually got it working there. That's why I'm anti-Vista, at least for Civ Fanatics.

 

[Mise]

It would be nice if they gave you some customizing options WITHOUT using 3rd party applications. Why do they make you pay again for features like Windows Blinds that should have been included by default?

As opposed to Linux, where you never have to install 3rd party applications to do something you'd expect as standard...


I got nothing against Linux, but people seem to hold it to different standards than Windows.

 

[Strider]

As opposed to Linux, where you never have to install 3rd party applications to do something you'd expect as standard...


I got nothing against Linux, but people seem to hold it to different standards than Windows.

Explain to me what software I'll need to do any type of customization? Other than the graphics/themes you want to use that is. Even adding custom actions to files is done through the terminal without any additional downloads.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Explain to me what software I'll need to do any type of customization? Other than the graphics/themes you want to use that is. Even adding custom actions to files is done through the terminal without any additional downloads.

I think he meant the ability to play Windows games natively. The problem with playing them is that you need to have the ability to run those type of programs natively. Which would make it not Linux, but a windows knock-off. Its like comparing apples and oranges ( Ive been using that metaphor way too much lately). If the two could both have native support for DirectX and windows games in general, then yes you could compare them. But they dont. Thats why you have to emulate the environment on Linux.

 

[Mise]

Explain to me what software I'll need to do any type of customization? Other than the graphics/themes you want to use that is. Even adding custom actions to files is done through the terminal without any additional downloads.

You don't NEED software to customise Linux... just far more time and effort than most people would bother with. In Windows, anything that can't be done in Control Panel can be done by a 3rd party app. The same is true in Linux (actually, Linux has a 3rd party app that does the job of Control Panel...). The only difference is that in Linux you don't NEED a 3rd party app, you can do it yourself. But most people just download whatever programs they need, as it's far easier to let someone else do the leg work.

The point is, a typical Linux install is just a core with a whole bunch of 3rd party apps sat on top of it. That's the beauty of Linux, isn't it? At least I always thought it was.

I think he meant the ability to play Windows games natively. The problem with playing them is that you need to have the ability to run those type of programs natively. Which would make it not Linux, but a windows knock-off. Its like comparing apples and oranges ( Ive been using that metaphor way too much lately). If the two could both have native support for DirectX and windows games in general, then yes you could compare them. But they dont. Thats why you have to emulate the environment on Linux.

That's certainly a large part of the problem, at least from my perspective...

People keep on harping on about how Vista can't play this and that games, and that they need to install a service patch to do something as simple as play Quake. But Linux is 10x worse. That's what I mean when I say that Linux is held to lower standards than Windows. We seem to expect more from Windows than Linux, which isn't fair.

 

[Till]

Any comparison between Windows and "Linux" is problematic to begin with.

When people say Linux, they usually mean more than just the kernel. And while there are just a handful of Windows distributions, there are dozens of more or less specialized Linux ones, coming with different sets of pre-installed software.
So unless you specify which distribution you are talking about, any discussion beyond the kernel is difficult at best.

 

[Strider]

Any comparison between Windows and "Linux" is problematic to begin with.

When people say Linux, they usually mean more than just the kernel. And while there are just a handful of Windows distributions, there are dozens of more or less specialized Linux ones, coming with different sets of pre-installed software.
So unless you specify which distribution you are talking about, any discussion beyond the kernel is difficult at best.

Well you can place them into several different categories however. Off the top of my head:

Debian based
Gentoo based
Fedora based
Mandrake based
Gentoo based
SuSe based
Slackware based

Of course.... that is quite a few by itself. Then you have to remember that each on has several dozen "spin-off's" such as Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, and Sabayon.

 

[kryszcztov]

Windows Vista isn't free software, that's why I don't like it.

I'll do fine with my illegal Windows XP until I switch to Linux completely. I'm glad I only use XP at work, though I rant about Outlook, Word and the rest everyday... So much time lost because of those programs or because of the way they're integrated in our customized XP.

That's what I mean when I say that Linux is held to lower standards than Windows.

It certainly shouldn't be. Linux has the necessity to have higher standards than Windows, and in many areas it already is better.

We seem to expect more from Windows than Linux, which isn't fair.

It is completely fair. We have to pay for Windows and it isn't free software. Linux we can get for free, and it is free software. Either Windows should be better than Linux with no contest, either Microsoft acknowledges their economic model is obsolete.

 

[warpus]

People keep on harping on about how Vista can't play this and that games, and that they need to install a service patch to do something as simple as play Quake. But Linux is 10x worse. That's what I mean when I say that Linux is held to lower standards than Windows. We seem to expect more from Windows than Linux, which isn't fair.

Wait... Would Linux applications run on Windows?

Now that's a fair comparison!

 

[Murky]

Microsoft won't change the licensing model because that would be like killing the goose that laid golden eggs. It's making them a lot of money because many people will go with the mainstream OS, even if it is a bad deal.

 

[Mise]

It is completely fair. We have to pay for Windows and it isn't free software. Linux we can get for free, and it is free software. Either Windows should be better than Linux with no contest, either Microsoft acknowledges their economic model is obsolete.

The price shouldn't factor in to how good a piece of software is. A BMW 5-series will be a better car than a VW Fox, even if it isn't a better purchase. In the same way, I think that Windows is a better OS, but Linux is better value for money. I would never pay for a copy of Windows, it's a rip off, I would still rather be using it than Linux.

Wait... Would Linux applications run on Windows?

Now that's a fair comparison!

There should be no such thing as "Linux software", "Windows software", or "Mac software". It's just software. Can I run a web-browser in Linux? Yes. Can I run image editing software in Linux? Yes. Can I run the latest games in Linux? Probably not. Of course, Linux is better than Windows in many ways, but for some reason, people seem to dismiss Linux's flaws and exaggerate Windows'. And most Linux users focus on what's good about Linux and ignore what's good about Windows. It's classic bias, and frankly, not to be overly disparaging, but I wouldn't expect something as dull as an OS to cause such polarisation in a demographic that considers itself "intelligent".

Bottom line, Windows, Mac and Linux appeal to different demographics, and just because it doesn't appeal to yours doesn't mean that the one that does is "better" in any more general a sense than that which extends to one's own demographic.

That was one hell of a bottom line.

 

[warpus]

There should be no such thing as "Linux software", "Windows software", or "Mac software".

Well.. There is.

I'm not sure if you just don't understand how computers work, or if you're being obtuse for the purpose of your argument, but that's how computers work

 

[kryszcztov]

The price shouldn't factor in to how good a piece of software is. A BMW 5-series will be a better car than a VW Fox, even if it isn't a better purchase. In the same way, I think that Windows is a better OS, but Linux is better value for money. I would never pay for a copy of Windows, it's a rip off, I would still rather be using it than Linux.

I'm sorry, I won't pay for something that is worse than another something cheaper or free, if both allow the same functionalities. And I'm clearly done with using the "video games excuse" to use Windows, let alone paying for it. I've never bought a Windows or Office CD myself, and I'll never do.

Can I run the latest games in Linux? Probably not.

The only area you cited for Windows being superior is video games. Typically THE best example of software that just can't always be shipped with an OS (because they're not useful programs). Windows as a technical object isn't superior to Linux in this area, it's just the consequence of Microsoft's aggressive commercial policy. As the source is always the consumer in our capitalistic world, if people start to react against Microsoft, Linux may have a shot at becoming a great gaming platform. That's one of the reasons I've stopped buying Civ4 CDs (not even cracking them, let alone playing them). I'm just erasing my demand value. (nice sentence too, uh ?)

 

[Ghost Ranger]

Another area windows is "better" is in GUI. People recognize and know how to use it. Although you can make a Linux computer look exactly like Windows, people wouldn't know how to do that either. Most people don't know how their computer functions and expect it to just work.

 

[Mise]

Well.. There is.

I'm not sure if you just don't understand how computers work, or if you're being obtuse for the purpose of your argument, but that's how computers work

...

Clearly there is software that will only run on Linux/Windows/Mac. But when you're comparing OSes you don't compare individual software, you compare a category of software, to eliminate the OS dependency. Otherwise you end up comparing the software itself, and not the OS (e.g. MS Office is better than OpenOffice, IMO, but that doesn't make Windows better than Linux, necessarily, any more than a better CD player makes a VW Fox better than a BMW 5-series.)

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Another area windows is "better" is in GUI. People recognize and know how to use it. Although you can make a Linux computer look exactly like Windows, people wouldn't know how to do that either. Most people don't know how their computer functions and expect it to just work.

Id say the default GUI that comes with a lot of modern linux distro's is pretty damned intuitive. It might not be familiar, but its easy to get around in and therefore fairly easy to become familiar with.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I've used Fedora Core, Ubuntu, Gentoo and Red Hat. Ubuntu and Fedora most recently. They had their benefits but many Linux users either refuse to admit to any flaws in the OS or they are oblivious to them. I still think the usability and interface on every Linux distro is worse than Vista and Leopard. There have been improvements in Linux when it comes to the interfaces and usability but even back in its dark ages much of the community was in denial. The whole attitude of the Linux community has made them less competitive than they could be. Increas your observation skills and figure out what the product is lacking beside your complaints about MS business practices.

As far as the video game argument goes. If this were consoles and you had one console with tons of games and another that could be good if consumers and game publisher just gave it a chance they would get laughed and called a crap gaming console. A consumer buys a game and the overall experience is their concern. Industry politics is not. Does everyone get that involved in the industry politics of every product they buy? No. The Gap can bomb Levis for all I care. Gaming on Linux sucks. As a product Linux is severly lacking in that area so they put a bandage on the problem by trying to run Windows games. That is not a solution that is going to fly with most consumers.

As far as the technical argument goes. Windows sucess in gaming predates their agressive tactics in the gaming business. Just read up on the creation of Direct X you will find out that MS took that industry before Bill, marketing and any of the execs at MS had a clue it was happening. Originallly MS was supporting Open GL. The original group that created Direct X won the PC gaming industry for MS not the usual excuse.

 

[Padma]

I've used Fedora Core, Ubuntu, Gentoo and Red Hat. Ubuntu and Fedora most recently. They had their benefits but many Linux users either refuse to admit to any flaws in the OS or they are oblivious to them. I still think the usability and interface on every Linux distro is worse than Vista and Leopard. There have been improvements in Linux when it comes to the interfaces and usability but even back in its dark ages much of the community was in denial. The whole attitude of the Linux community has made them less competitive than they could be. Increas your observation skills and figure out what the product is lacking beside your complaints about MS business practices.

For the last several years, I used Win2K at work, and Linux at home. A few months ago my wife bought a new system. It came with Vista, of course. What a nightmare! Neither one of us could find anything. Nothing was "intuitive". Nothing was where it "belonged". Give me KDE, or even Win2K, before you try to unload Vista on me as a "useable interface".

As far as the video game argument goes. If this were consoles and you had one console with tons of games and another that could be good if consumers and game publisher just gave it a chance they would get laughed and called a crap gaming console. A consumer buys a game and the overall experience is their concern. Industry politics is not. Does everyone get that involved in the industry politics of every product they buy? No. The Gap can bomb Levis for all I care. Gaming on Linux sucks. As a product Linux is severly lacking in that area so they put a bandage on the problem by trying to run Windows games. That is not a solution that is going to fly with most consumers.

Games made for Linux are as good as games made for Windows. The experience is excellent. But MS has the big advertising bucks. Companies that produce games for Windows also have big advertising bucks. Free Linux games have *no* advertising budget. Commercial Linux games are usually made to run on Windows, to rake in the money, and then have a patch, or a port, to run on Linux. But not all commercial producers are so "nice", and refuse to port, or even license, their works for Linux. (I intend to discuss this with Firaxis when I visit them next week.)

As far as the technical argument goes. Windows sucess in gaming predates their agressive tactics in the gaming business. Just read up on the creation of Direct X you will find out that MS took that industry before Bill, marketing and any of the execs at MS had a clue it was happening. Originallly MS was supporting Open GL. The original group that created Direct X won the PC gaming industry for MS not the usual excuse.

Technically, you are correct. OpenGL didn't have any good interface for programmers to use. DirectX was originally a tool to provide that interface. Of course, with MS' "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish" philosophy, they have made it very difficult to port from DirectX to OpenGL. Yet, DirectX still cannot do anything useful that OpenGL can't.