digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Cheap Laptops Bad for Vista, Good for Linux

eweek.com — Do the math. Vista doesn't work for today's laptop market. XP and Linux do. It's really that simple.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ZeRux, on 11/28/2007, -96/+10This is crap. Wireless cards in most newer laptops won't work on Linux (I know from my experience), also with certain graphics like ATI Xpress 1250 you won't be even able to boot from live CD.
    I suggest to everyone to get Vista (or even better, a Macbook) no matter what immature fanboys, or this article says - it's cheaper because all hardware will work for sure so in worst possible scenario, you'll have to spend half an hour downloading and installing drivers (even though that's highly unlikely, unless your lappy came without OS drivers will be already installed anyway), compared to hours, if not days of browsing through Ubuntu forums looking for solution to your problems!
    Of course, you are free to ignore my friendly suggestion if you're uninterested in getting out of your mom's basement - in that case, every problem you've encountered on your Linux machine is actually fun, and as you're speending more time on it, the better you'll feel!
    • Phocion55, on 11/28/2007, -5/+18And my faith in humanity plummets to an all-time low....
    • mightydavefish, on 11/28/2007, -4/+48I see your complaints, and the problem is you just don't know what the ***** you are babbling about.
      I guess you didn't bother to read the article before you showed off your lack of understanding, but this is about laptops that CAN'T run Vista.
      Don't blame the linux software just because you don't know how to configure it.

      • reed311, on 11/28/2007, -25/+2I have tried several times to get Ubuntu working on two of my recently built machines. Both times after installing, it will just boot and completely lock up. I have used computers for 20 years and know my way around. I blame Linux for this. At least Windows will boot fully.
        • Zimmyzum, on 11/28/2007, -1/+6Since when has "Windows" become synonymous with "computers"?
        • andycr512, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Funny, our 6+ computers in the house will boot and all hardware will work just fine. Just because you have a freak case where 2 systems don't work doesn't mean it's crap.
      • cynicist, on 11/28/2007, -2/+32Everyone who has used Windows for 20 years thinks they are an expert on computers, but once they try Linux they realize how little they know...
      • stmiller, on 11/28/2007, -0/+14Yes, obviously you know your way around computers. Therefore, it is the fault of Linux.
    • shabumike, on 11/28/2007, -3/+24I see your complaints, and the problem is you just don't know what the ***** you are babbling about. - just wanted to repeat that!
    • HaloZero, on 11/28/2007, -1/+23There's no such thing as a "cheap" macBook
    • sn0wmis3r, on 11/28/2007, -0/+11i have your exact same video chipset and had no problem setting up ubuntu 7.10 with compiz fusion, also had no problem getting my wireless to work as well
    • cherwilco, on 11/28/2007, -2/+4the only thing I can agree with on your comment is the difficulty getting wireless cards working under ubuntu. and even so I can only half heartedly agree with you on that one because my broadcom wireless chip DOES work under gutsy but only at 24 mbps (pain in the ass) every other point you made is pretty much baseless.
    • VinceNoir, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4Oh Teddy Ruxpin you've changed...
    • ZeRux, on 11/28/2007, -8/+2Extreme fanboys need to be taken out of the gene pool...
  • insllvn, on 11/28/2007, -8/+41So is 2007 the year of the Linux........ Laptop?
    • daxsymbiont, on 11/28/2007, -2/+13.. old laptop.
    • redxii, on 11/28/2007, -6/+1That depends if the "easy" distros don't require a Slackware approach to getting a laptop running, the "easy" ones like Ubuntu or FedoraI tried on my laptop require: to KNOW to use noapic, my parents wouldn't know that 'noapic' would keep setup from freezing; build a new kernel because the included one is buggy, and compiling vanilla sources fixes problems such as the one with noapic instead of using a crippling approach like noapic that causes flaky USB and power management; install video driver manually since the custom kernel won't be supported from a repository, else watch paint dry.
      • williamdyer, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1You are sooo 2005.
      • Darkhacker, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1I'll admit that it is a problem with Ubuntu kernel's. I believe 7.10 fixes these problems though. Any recent kernel will automatically fix APIC problems if it detects them on boot. Ubuntu had applied a patch that used the old method of managing APIC (apparently the new one was buggy on some machines, though for me it was the other way around) and only recently started using the one in the vanilla kernel.
    • Theli, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2For the subnotebook at least, yes I would say so (examples being the OLPC and the EEE PC).
      Arguably a small category right now, but I think it may catch on.
      • williamdyer, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1One of my kids has been using Ubuntu on her laptop for over a year (ever since I spent two days UNF$%^KING her computer becuase it got trojaned). Ubuntu is an excellent choice for people who don't want to spend time on Windows "security" and malware.
    • kalleanka, on 11/28/2007, -1/+4Yes, that is correct.
      Other years that have also been called "the year of Linux" includes: 2002, 2005, 2001, 2006, 2004 and 2003.
      • onefix, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3Well, I think there is no doubt that Linux has a good showing in the x86 server market, so I think at least as far as servers are concerned, the "year of Linux" has come and gone.

        There's also little doubt that Linux is/has caught on big time in the embedded devices market (routers, cell phones, set top boxes, etc). So, as far as embedded systems, the "year of Linux" has also come and gone.

        Linux is currently having a go at the desktop market and I can say without a doubt that for the average user, from a technical standpoint, Linux is there and has been there for at least the past year, maybe longer. It's just that technical ability does not always equal sales and the developers have yet to flock to the Linux desktop. So, while I would say "Linux is there", any prediction that Linux adoption will take off like never before is probably premature since it hinges greatly on what developers and manufactures do.
    • rdvade, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1There will never be a "year of linux", its going to be a slow gradual transition if it is too happen. The Linux user base has been slowly increasing, and the system keeps improving by leaps and bounds.
  • sjvn, on 11/28/2007, -10/+90Please. Newer Wi-Fi cards do work with Linux. Period. It's the older ones that are still troublesome. Also, RTFA, I'm writing about low-end laptops, no ATI Xpress 1250 here. But, in any case, ATI has a Linux driver for the ATI X1250. If you have trouble, see:

    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=3612673

    for details on to get it work.

    Vista hardware support, by the way, remains spotty to say the least, when it hasn't deliberately been broken. For example, I still can't Vista to work with the common-as-dirt RealTek ALC 882 audio chipset. It does support, on the same system, the Intel High Definition audio chip, Azalia. Except, by design, you can't push DRM protected audio through the Azalia's high-end audio output: the S/PDIF (Sony/Philips Digital Interface Format), And, I never will. Why? Because Microsoft deliberately prevents DRM-encoded audio to be played through that interface. So, for example, I can't play my Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot CD on my Vista system.

    This, this is the operating system you think is better? Please. Wake up, look at what even Windows lovers are saying about Vista. This isn't just a matter of Linux being better, it's a matter of Vista being poorer.

    Steven.

    • ZeRux, on 11/28/2007, -27/+2OMG someone actually replied in an almost helpful manner! I can't believe!
      But guess what, I followed the steps at:
      https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WifiDocs/Driver/ ...
      yet I couldn't find or connect to any wireless networks.
      It doesn't matter though, as I returned my lappy (HP 6720s) as it had (non-linux related) faulty hardware.
      Btw X1250 *is* included in low-end laptops - check HP 6715s!
      • VinceNoir, on 11/28/2007, -2/+7The fact that you cal it a lappy says something about you. What is says isn't nice...
    • williamdyer, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3High end graphics cards are fine, too. Gutsy knows about nVidia cards. You just turn on the propritary driver support. Easy as pie.
  • Philluminati, on 11/28/2007, -7/+56"put Vista Home Basic on the system—which even Vista lovers admit is trash"

    --They're not *really* vista lovers are they? That made me chuckle.
    • ZeRux, on 11/28/2007, -1/+5Easy enough comparing Linux with Vista...try comparing it with XP for a change.
      • Eeky, on 11/28/2007, -3/+0Dude I was running XP. I'm sure you've herd of this if you currently do too REBOOT!!
  • DiggLive, on 11/28/2007, -41/+10Modern Laptops Bad for Linux, Good for Vista
    • daverave999, on 11/28/2007, -3/+9Did you read the article?
    • zapperdude60, on 11/28/2007, -3/+23i somehow can't take you seriously when you have a windows icon as your picture
  • shabumike, on 11/28/2007, -19/+48Vista is a failure, that is a non issue and unarguable. Microsoft's stranglehold is slowly crumbling and opening the door to some serious OS advancements.
    • carpespasm, on 11/28/2007, -3/+9the only thing it's failing to do is keep people interested or pacified with windows. this is a pretty serious failure for microsoft since those two things are what's kept so many people using it, but with them losing ground with improved linux, ever-growing compatible hardware for macs, web based software, and less and less importance placed on one's OS in general, MS really needed something no one else had, and needed it to be very integrated and very useful. Instead we got a warmed over XP with a new interface layer and and Clippy's spirit reincarnated into UAC.
      • MWeather, on 11/28/2007, -1/+11"the only thing it's failing to do is keep people interested or pacified with windows"

        Isn't that Vista's entire purpose? It sure as hell wasn't to compete with Leopard and Linux, because it doesn't.
        • Syphon8, on 11/28/2007, -9/+3It makes Leopard look like a joke.

          Linux depends on distro. Some are better, some aren't.
        • williamdyer, on 11/28/2007, -1/+4Slower! And more DRM! What's not to like?
  • chingy1788, on 11/28/2007, -7/+56XP and Linux on your old or cheap laptops
    Vista on the Laptops that can actually handle them
    I hate it when Manufacturers put Vista on Systems with 512MB of RAM
    Vista runs like a mouse trying to power a city on those systems
    But when you give Vista some real hardware (2GB of RAM) Vista shines like the sun

    Linux runs on practically everything, like some overly aroused guy who will fornicate with everything
    • whataboutdave, on 11/28/2007, -1/+34"Linux runs on practically everything, like some overly aroused guy who will fornicate with everything"

      Comment of the day. I'm signing off now because I just can't hope to compete.
    • Syphon8, on 11/28/2007, -15/+2I'm running Aero on a system with 512mb of RAM.
      • salmonmoose, on 11/28/2007, -0/+13You poor bastard.

        I'm running Aero on a system with 512mb of video ram :P
        • Syphon8, on 11/28/2007, -7/+1Oh I have 256 of video ram, but dram is only 512.

          I installed it because I knew it would work, and everything is... As fast or faster than it was in XP?
    • mrjit, on 11/28/2007, -1/+11I don't want Vista on my 4GB'd desktop, much less any piece of computer equipment I own, cheap, expensive, or amazing/*****.
    • bmartin, on 11/28/2007, -11/+1Linux had sex with my mother... and raped my father.

      Also, WTF is up w/ Chingy and Dave's comments... Dave's is 1 hr older? How can that be?
  • Jawshie, on 11/28/2007, -3/+35Just like in Windows Vista, it is wise to consider buying hardware that actually works with the OS instead of randomly buying and bitching. No OS is exception to this.
    • digitallysick, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4tru dat
    • sw1val, on 11/28/2007, -9/+4Well MAC OSX doesn't have a problem with this......granted the OS is only designed for their hardware :)
      • schoate09, on 11/28/2007, -1/+7Really, try running OS X 10.5 on a 1.25 GHz G4, and see how Apple ignored their older users. Or try the new silver iMacs, grab the firmware update that lowers the benchmarks, so it doesn't freeze up!
        • MWeather, on 11/28/2007, -3/+3"Or try the new silver iMacs, grab the firmware update that lowers the benchmarks, so it doesn't freeze up!"

          So you're saying they patched it, and you're still bitching? you must absolutely LOATHE Microsoft, then.
        • Nossie, on 11/28/2007, -3/+1you know its funny.... I run osx 10.5 server on a 2000 era 450mhz 1.5gb cube.... It runs just as well if not better than it did with Tiger Server... sure, I only use it as a server anyway... but there aint no way in hell I'm installing Vista on my mothers Athlon XP w/ 1gb of ram.
      • MattBD, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Under those circumstances, any OS is going to work without problems. Also Macs apparently have a very standardised set of components in them - I've heard that they make good Linux machines because of this. Linux probably supports more hardware than any other OS, due to the huge variety of things it's used on, ranging from servers and supercomputers through to household electronics and wristwatches.
    • tehjarvis, on 11/28/2007, -1/+17The problem is companies throwing Vista on systems where the minimal system requirements are barely met, and it runs horribly.
    • treyd, on 11/28/2007, -1/+5For people on a budget, these cheap laptops are wonderful. Unfortunately, most laptop manufacturers seem bound and determined to ship Windows Vista on all their machines, including the low-end models, blatantly ignoring the fact that the notebook will effectively be too slow to be do much anything on.

      In these situations, a good Linux distro can be a lifesaver. The user can still purchase a low-end machine, but have a full-featured OS that runs leaps and bounds faster than Vista on the same hardware.
      • MattBD, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2I agree. The fact that the gPC has been doing so well illustrates this point perfectly. I tried gOS this weekend and I was amazed. I'm not going to ditch Kubuntu for it, but gOS is an excellent operating system for if you're only going to read e-mail, browse the web, use IM and maybe write the odd letter. And it looks good and is fast. A new computer user will have no problem whatsoever using it, it's simple and intuitive. If I had an elderly relative or child who wanted a computer, that's what I'd put on it.
  • EXreaction, on 11/28/2007, -31/+14Buried as inaccurate.

    Vista will run fine on pretty much any new laptop, and, with ram being so cheap, 2GB of ram is common on laptops that cost as little as $600, so Vista will run perfectly fine.
    • MWeather, on 11/28/2007, -2/+16Show me where I can get a new laptop with 2gb of memory for $600. I'll buy one today.
      • diversionmary, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2I just prepped 3 new Dell Latitude d630s today. The first step was installing 2gb of ram in each from newegg that I picked up for $50 per 2x1gb kit. Ram is super cheap.
    • cliffzdude, on 11/28/2007, -1/+3Tell me how how you like your new Dell. By the way, you can spec XP or Vista (irony)/

      Dell Vostro 1000 Notebook:
      2GB Memory
      Starting Price $889
      Instant Savings -$290
      Subtotal $599
      FREE Shipping & Handling. Limited Time Offer.
      AMD AthlonTM 64 X2 Dual-Core processor TK-53 (1.7GHz/512KB)
      Genuine Windows® XP Home Edition
      15.4 inch Wide Screen XGA LCD Anti-Glare Display
      2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHZ, 2 Dimm
      120GB 5400RPM Hard Drive
      8X DVD+/-RW with double-layer DVD+R write capability, Cyberlink Power DVD
      ATI Radeon® Xpress 1150 256MB HyperMemory™ (integrated)
      Dell Wireless 1390 802.11g Wi-Fi Mini Card
      • MWeather, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2I like it without the $50 tax.
      • arbulus, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1The Vostro line is aimed at the corporate market, not the home user.
      • cliffzdude, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Dell's Vostro line is targeted at small biz, as such their machines come with a very basic, lean and mean install. You can delete MSFT works and the other limited schmeg during ordering. No, you don't have to have a "corporate account", or even a business name to buy from Dell small biz. Any joe schmoe with a credit card can buy there.
  • richardiscool, on 11/28/2007, -25/+20This is bollocks, my sister bought a C2D laptop with 2GB RAM and a 160GB HD last week for £399 (about $800). It runs Vista flawlessly.
    • MWeather, on 11/28/2007, -14/+13I bought an optiplex gx150 for $25. It runs Ubuntu flawlessly.
    • dustin32, on 11/28/2007, -1/+4Ya, I think the article was a bit strong in bashing sub-$1000 laptops, I'd say anything with 2GB of RAM and a Core 2 Duo is good enough for Vista, and I'm sure on occasion such laptops can be found for around $600-$800.
    • ZeRux, on 11/28/2007, -9/+7You don't get it. Vista is just an OS. But Ubuntu makes you a better person! If you don't agree then you're a pathetic Microsoft fanboy and Steve Ballmer's boyfriend!!!111111111111
      • scyon, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2I actually kind of like this comment. It's funny, at least this early in the morning.
  • sniperboy67, on 11/28/2007, -5/+9i know my compaq laptop slow with windows but i get linux its beautiful btw it was 500$
  • deadbaby, on 11/28/2007, -6/+21This is entirely true. My friend bought the cheapest Toshiba you can get with Vista and it was actually noticeably slower than her old laptop which was at least 5 years old. Microsoft should have made the minimum specs for Vista 1GB of RAM so these OEMs weren't tempted to ship 512MB machines to save $10. The out of box experience is very important. I'm starting to think Microsoft should just get into the PC hardware business themselves so they can have more control over this stuff.
    • darrin, on 11/28/2007, -0/+11You mean...be like Apple?
      • jhshukla, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3no. make & and sell quality PCs tailored to suit the OS. let rest of Windows business go on. They will probably charge more than what costs to build your own but no one is forcing you to buy it.
      • deadbaby, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Sure... license the designs out to OEMs to actually build the systems but they all have to use a tight reference design. Include a nice 360 controller, MCE remote, MS keyboard/mouse. Make a nice spiffy case design. Market the hell out of it. I think it'd be a hit.
        • ChuqAU, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1They could package them in a while, curved case design with blue lights on it and make it specialise in games. I think it might take off.
    • iofthestorm, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Umm, it is 1GB for Home Premium. Basic sucks too much to be worth buying. And most low end laptops I've seen have 1GB now because manufacturers don't want to be seen as providing the "Basic" product.
      • deadbaby, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2This was Home Premium I do believe. It definitely had Areo.
    • marx2k, on 11/28/2007, -0/+0XBox in the PC hardware business... Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death... no thanks
  • Zonks, on 11/28/2007, -12/+14I have a laptop running Vista with an 8600m GT in it and it runs great. EVE online, Supreme Commander, and whatever other games I play. While older laptops may not run Vista, newer ones don't have a problem...

    Oh and I use Adobe editing software religiously. Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere, and every other one in the CS3 full package. Those run fine too.
    • TotalHalibut, on 11/28/2007, -4/+10Quick guys, let's Digg him down because he's had a positive experience with Vista. This is ruining our delusional macroverse.
      • klisejo, on 11/28/2007, -1/+8No, what he saying is besides the point. Laptops with high quality gfx cards aren't cheap. We already know Vistat a runs fine on those. Its the $300~500 laptops that cant run it, and those are the ones being sold by the truck load.
        • MeatBiProduct, on 11/28/2007, -11/+1And we care about idiots with cheap laptops why?
          • arbulus, on 11/28/2007, -0/+7and we care about ANYbody's laptop why?
  • gudnbluts, on 11/28/2007, -4/+8Very true. Earlier this year my workhorse laptop died, and I didn't need the power anymore, so just I bought the cheapest lappy I could find that had a bigger than 15 inch screen. It had all the "Vista ready" stickers on it, but just had half a gig of RAM.

    When I looked into the requirements, the lack of real benefits and the cost of upgrading to Vista, it was in no way worth it. If I'd wanted to spent hundreds of dollars to do exactly the same stuff I'd have bought a Mac. If I wanted an up to date OS, I needed to look elsewhere.

    So here I am with a nice nippy lappy that does everything I want, and more, and now has a mentally-challenged looking penguin in the middle of the wallpaper. Works for me.
  • FDL1, on 11/28/2007, -2/+7OS X works well on cheap laptops, too. Granted, it's mostly because MacBooks have used Intel's integrated GMA 950 chipset for a year and a half. I'm glad they moved on to the _next_ lowest end integrated graphics (Intel X3100)...
    • arbulus, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3I really don't understand why apple insists on putting ***** video cards in their machines.
      • theblacknight, on 11/28/2007, -1/+4Simple; they want you to buy the MacBook Pro if you care about the video card. The MacBook is fine for OpenOffice, Firefox, Adium, VLC, iTunes, Mathematica, and more; it's when you want to play graphics-intensive games that you need the better video card. Now, I don't understand why Apple won't sell me a smaller MacBook Pro for a premium.
        • tgoose, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Did you purposefully mention only software that runs on Linux there (OK, with the exception of iTunes)?
        • scyon, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1iTunes runs on Linux with Wine. I have no idea why someone would do that, but it works.
  • over90000, on 11/28/2007, -11/+5Erm, Vista runs pretty well on the underpowered EEE PC
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xghZXI2PWqU
    • klisejo, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3you cant even see whats going on in that video...
    • Theli, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2You can get Vista to run on an EEE PC, but not well.
      http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=1875

      Even if you manage to reduce the installation to make it fit on the 4 GB SSD, it will expand rather quickly and become unusable.
    • andycr512, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1That's almost certainly a themed XP. The boot screen doesn't look like Vista's.
  • wing05, on 11/28/2007, -7/+12Hey, what are you talking about?

    Vista is the most vastly improved piece of OS to come from Microsoft since..... since....


    Windows ME!

  • aelias, on 11/28/2007, -4/+7As soon as Pro-Tools runs in Linux, I'm checking out entirely. T7500 C2D, 2GB RAM and an 8600GT would SHRED Ubuntu.
    • TotalHalibut, on 11/28/2007, -14/+2***** GUYS LET'S DIGG HIM DOWN BECAUSE HE USES HIS COMPUTER TO DO SOMETHING SERIOUS.

      Welcome to Windows, we do serious apps.
      • tgoose, on 11/28/2007, -1/+2I'm not aware of *any* professional studios that run Pro Tools on Windows. They all run it on OS X, because the Windows port is nowhere near as good. WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD.
    • 8KROM, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2have you looked in to ardour??
    • rockmanac, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2I'm in the same boat... Show me a program that can download radar and works like GRLevel3 for Linux and I'll switch the laptop to Linux. I've already got the desktop running it. By the way, no, it does not run under WINE or Crossover. I've tried both.
      • arbulus, on 11/28/2007, -1/+3How about a virtual install of Windows?
        I use Vista under VMWare Server in Ubuntu and it runs quite well. VMWare Server is an awesome app and it's free of cost. There's also VirtualBox which is quite comparable.
        • rockmanac, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Tried doing that. Software depends on Direct X which VMWare and Virtual Box don't support.
    • stmiller, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1FFADO supports many firewire devices to do audio work with Ardour and other apps. There is life apart from Digidesign.
    • tgoose, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Pro Tools running in Linux? Digidesign can barely provide proper drivers for XP, let alone Linux. Horrendous, horrendous "cross-platform" programming.
  • bubut, on 11/28/2007, -4/+24What I don't understand is, when did all the Mac and Linux fanboys start to love XP? Now that Vista is out, they act like XP is the best thing since sliced bread.
    • TotalHalibut, on 11/28/2007, -11/+8They needed to justify it to themselves to actually use it. Now that Vista 'the big enemy' is out, they can act like XP is the beaten-down underdog, just like their precious Linux.

      I can't imagine what kind of complex you'd have to have to treat an Operating System like a mortal enemy.
    • Nossie, on 11/28/2007, -2/+10Compared to Vista.... ANYTHING is better...

      even mac fanboys have heart enough to give alternatives :)
    • cynicist, on 11/28/2007, -1/+11As a Linux fanboy, neither are interesting to me.
    • arbulus, on 11/28/2007, -0/+5Discussions on XP when talking about Vista center around the fact that people are buying Vista and then downgrading BACK to XP because Vista is a POS. It's not about XP being good, it's about a 5 year old OS being better than "new" and supposedly "revolutionary" Vista.

      It's just funny. I personally don't use Windows as a desktop. I have it safely contained in a VM and only use it for apps that have no Linux port or comparable FOSS equivalent. I would never go back to Windows as a desktop and I couldn't really care if anyone else does either. The whole thing is just comical in an ironic way after all of Microsoft's marketing and blabbering.
    • Macskeeball, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1I use Macs for desktops/laptops and Linux on my server (Debian) and router (Tomato). I absolutely do not like XP, even though I know enough to make it more stable and secure. I haven't used Vista for more than about five minutes, so I can't really judge it fairly yet.
  • rigwit, on 11/28/2007, -5/+7I did exactly that 6 months ago. Bought a $600 laptop with Vista Home Basic pre-installed. Never even booted it up until I had the openSuSE DVD in place. Very usable indeed.
  • LANjackal, on 11/28/2007, -11/+5Pure fanboy nonsense in this article. First of all, I'm writing this post on a $700 Toshiba laptop that shipped with Vista Home Premium installed. Barring serious multitasking, there are few if any speed issues with it.

    Second, the average user doesn't install their OS, they just use what came with their machine. As such, unless Linux starts shipping with more OEMs besides Dell, the status quo won't change regardless of how many "I hate Vista" articles are written.

    Oh, and currently very powerful dual core machines are also in the cheap bracket, thus negating most of the "speed" advantage.
    • winmywii, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1"Second, the average user doesn't install their OS, they just use what came with their machine. As such, unless Linux starts shipping with more OEMs besides Dell, the status quo won't change regardless of how many "I hate Vista" articles are written."

      That is true, but I still don't believe the article is non-sense. Vista sucks. Your average consumer doesn't know the difference in OSs.
  • Thegnofbreland, on 11/28/2007, -2/+2Its about time that computer makers are giving other options for OS' other than the latest windows product. Hopefully a new OS can fill the growing void as Vista is not well received on laptops or desktops.
  • jotajota3, on 11/28/2007, -12/+5This article is totally total ***** and isn't based on any fact other than that the author is yet ANOTHER vista basher. As I type this on my dual-core hp laptop that I paid 600 bucks for, I can assure that not only does vista run just fine on it, I'm current also editing a photo in Photoshop CS3, running iTunes and typing a response to yet another ignorant article written about vista. I get that this site is full of Apple fanboys, but seriously, Vista is the best thing Microsoft has put out yet! Realize that you guys are the 3% of america that actually gives a ***** what os is on their computers. The reality is that the vast majority of people who will buy a new computer in the next few years will be perfectly happy with Vista on their machine. Microsoft will continue to own the os market and Apple will still feel the need to huff and puff about how great their precious os is because they still will be stuck at 5% market share. And to the author of this article, please, lets leave bs articles like this to John Dvorak...lord knows he ***** articles like this on a daily basis.
    • klisejo, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4What about us XP fanboys who wont upgrade because of the hit to our performance? I wont install vista until I stop seeing games under vista 20% slower than xp.
      • petard, on 11/28/2007, -3/+1Then your computer isn't very good so don't upgrade.
        Wait until your next one and get Vista for that.
        • kanabiis, on 11/28/2007, -1/+3You don't know what your talking about, the 20% hit is on ANY hardware its tested on. Brand new workstations benchmark 20% slower running Vista then running XP, PERIOD... don't take my word for it, anandtech.com, tomshardwareguide.com arstechnica, you name the site, the benchmarks are all the same..... so, explain that you elitist know it all.....

        • init100, on 11/28/2007, -1/+1Excuse me, but wouldn't XP be quicker than Vista on a powerful computer too? Why run an operating system that chews up your resources for nothing?
  • passedoutghost, on 11/28/2007, -3/+1This article is true to an extent. Vista would work fine with any core 2 duo machine with 2 gigs of ram. I've got a laptop (c2d t5500, 1 gig ram, x1700) Vista runs more or less ok once I stick in a 4 gig usb stick and turn on ready boost.
    • andycr512, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Why the heck would anyone tolerate that? Why does my OS need over 1GB of ram to function quickly for simple web surfing?! Why do I have to walk around with a USB stick hanging off of it to get decent performance?
  • mrjit, on 11/28/2007, -5/+4I love Linux, I use it on my laptops and on servers, but I always have this impending doom feeling while using it that I'm teetertotting on reliable use and having to spend 30 minutes in vi fixing up some random god-knows-why *****, whereas with OSX and XP I feel completely safe and secure that I can do most things without it coming to a screeching halt. And this, I suppose, is the fun adrenaline pumping feeling of an open source OS.
    • HerbSolo, on 11/28/2007, -1/+2XP is pretty stable, alright! I really didn't have too many system crashes lately, maybe 2 in the last year, one of which sent my laptop into an infinite boot cycle, but could be fixed with a windows live-cd. Still, i do have to spent time keeping XP alive, too and keeping it safe from viruses, malware and whatnot. And then there's this time in the future, when i'm gonna have to re-install windows, because for some reason it's getting slower and slower...
    • andycr512, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Actually, that's how I feel about Windows. I must have bad luck with it. ME had to be reinstalled every 30 days or it would bluescreen every boot, and it crashed about 4 times daily. XP got slower and slower over time, and randomly one day decided to hose some files eat my partition table to the point that the partition wasn't even recognized by Windows XP setup. I never knew when something would die.

      With Linux, I've almost never had an issue that wasn't my fault in some way. It doesn't surprise me, it doesn't mess up, it just sits quietly and lets me do my work. That's partly why I use it. Windows is alright - I don't hate it, but I like Linux a lot better, and can do my work (cross-platform game engine development) faster, better, and more safely.
  • tetro, on 11/28/2007, -8/+2I got a 1.6Ghz Core Duo with 1GB of 533MHz mem and I run Vista perfectly fine. I run Photoshop CS3 without any hiccups.
  • johnsenkly, on 11/28/2007, -4/+1I actually think cheap laptops might work better with Vista...more expensive laptops with better gfx cards consume more power running vista by default. I recently switched to Vista then back to XP because of the battery life issue 2gig dual core, ATI X1400 (Vista w/o Aero is ugly)
  • kainnation, on 11/28/2007, -2/+3This post is dead on... this is the exact reason I took off Vista after a week of ***** with it and put on XP and Linux...
  • rockmanac, on 11/28/2007, -2/+2I'm not a fan of Vista by any means, but keeping it on my new laptop is easier than trying to do and find drivers for everything that work in XP just so I can downgrade the system to XP Pro. Believe me, I have a license for XP Pro that is not in use and I'd love to put it on the laptop, but it's just not worth the headache.
  • aliguana, on 11/28/2007, -1/+1whats this, bash Vista/big-up XP day?? jeez, don't you people work or anything?
  • known, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3Can we install Gutsy Gibbon on 128 MB RAM laptop?
    • whiteguysamurai, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4Ubuntu...not really.
      Xubuntu however, yes.
    • andycr512, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Yes, if you use the alternative install CD (text-based GUI, in a way), you can install and run Ubuntu with Gnome reasonably well (about as well as you can run XP SP2 with 256MB of ram). Make sure to create a decent-sized swap partition of about 1GB (if you let it default it'll choose a good amount).
  • rallen71366, on 11/28/2007, -5/+7I'm going to insult everybody.

    It looks like the Vista lovers aren't getting the point that the linux fanboys and OSX sycophants are pushing: Software bloat has been pushing hardware developement for 20-30 years now. Why should I drop a system that still runs beautifully fast just because Vista is too heavy a load? Besides, I can't afford a new system.

    I'm running an AMD Sempron 3500+ on an MSI K9VGM-V with the integrated audio and graphics. The equipment can handle a hell of a load, but I have to decide if that load is an app, or the fat-ass OS overhead. One or the other. Cramming a ramjet up its ass by installing a multi-core CPU and GPU is merely a stop-gap I can't afford. That's covering up a symptom, not fixing the problem.

    I've actually seen a multi-tasking OS with multimedia, networking, GUI, and browser, placed on a single 1.4 Meg floppy disk. The security needs were covered by good OS design, no seperate apps required. Ran like a raped ape on 200 MHz Pentium. Didn't look much (any) different than a "modern" OS on the latest hardware. Seems some folks are working as hard as they can just to tread water.
    • init100, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2"Software bloat has been pushing hardware developement for 20-30 years now."

      I have another contender for what has been pushing hardware development for a long time: Games.
  • Pegritz, on 11/28/2007, -3/+2Vista is a perfectly...*okay* OS. I've had a number of strange problems with it, but, then again, I tinker with any OS I install so much that it's rather likely that at least *some* of the problems I've encountered are my own fault.
    That said...Vista is a *terrible* laptop OS. It is 150% meant for desktops and ONLY desktops. Because only desktops can host the amount of hardware resources that the gigantic thing demands. Unless you feel like paying $800-$2000+ for a very powerful, top-of-the-line laptop, you're not going to be able to run Vista worth a damn.
    But, really, why is this such a big deal? Is there ANY productivity software Out There yet that specifically *requires* Windows Vista to work? I really doubt it. Anything and everything the average user needs to surf the web and use a laptop for basic daily tasks runs on Windows XP or some variant of Linux. The only reason I wouldn't go with Linux is...well, good luck getting it to work with your built-in wifi cards.
    I went laptop shopping with a friend last week, and he picked up a $699 HP at Staples; it came with only 1gb of RAM and Vista ran like a dog on it. We simply wiped it, downloaded XP drivers for it from HP's website, and installed XP. No crapware, no bloatware, and the OS runs like greased lightning on it.
    Vista will be a decent laptop OS *only* when the hardware needed to run it speedily drops in price. Give it another a year and cheap laptops will be able to run it just fine. Fortunately, for now, there are plenty of alternatives.
  • jman583, on 11/28/2007, -2/+5this submission is to incarcerate. I mean I got my Toshiba laptop for $600 with a dual core 1.73Ghz, 2 gigs of ram and vista home premium just at the end of the summer of this year and it runs vista fine.
  • niallabrown, on 11/28/2007, -2/+3It's when laptops break the $200 mark that people will really have to think. Do I want a $200 laptop with vista basic or a $100 laptop with Linux? When half the price of the computer is just the OS it will really make people think. Then what about a cool $200 for MS office after that? Linux will fill the need for inexpensive laptops perfectly. I'll gladly be the first customer.
  • theopye, on 11/28/2007, -2/+2I couldn't be happier with my $350 Gateway ML3109 from Best Buy! I'm Running Linux Mint (http://linuxmint.com/)
    Out of the box everything works, except sound- that was a 5 minute fix with a pre-assembled script and adding 1 line to the alsa-base config. From inserting the live CD, to fully functioning laptop with sound, I spent less then 30 minutes in setup! All codecs, audio/video, browser, and office apps were ready to go. I'm very impressed with the install, very stable and very reliable. Linux Mint is a variant of Ubuntu; personally, I think it makes Ubuntu seem almost clunky.
    I truly enjoy Vista, I find it to be a great OS- but it's not nearly as awesome as my Linux on this POS laptop.
  • MeatBiProduct, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2in 2 years a quadcore CPU will cost $60 like the processor I paid $900 for costs $60 today.
  • amirman, on 11/28/2007, -2/+1i've had the hardest time in the universe trying to get drivers that work well with my dell e1505 graphics card and wireless card on openSUSE and ubuntu
  • brokn1, on 11/28/2007, -5/+1Newsflash kids. High end OS-es need high end hardware. 400 laptops just don't quite do it.
    • andycr512, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Really? Odd, I can do anything I can do in Vista in Linux much more quickly with all the eye candy Vista has and more on a cheap laptop.
    • computerfreedom, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3High end OSs? Linux runs the well beyond high-end Goldman Sacs' enterprise solutions to 19mhz glorified heaters. The performance of Vista has nothing to do with your notion of hardware economy. With Vista, you just get stuck with the ass-end.
      You are getting ripped off to do pretty much the same thing you did with XP (except reencode your movies realtime to degrade them because the DRM scheme doesn't believe you have the right to a certain video..woohoo, glad you had that extra processor oomph? i mean, high-end multi core **media campaign buzzword here**)
      We aren't reinventing the wheel, its not like there is some amazing new technology only incorporated into Vista, kiddo.
      As Mac is to "it just works," Vista is to "it just sucks."
  • whiteguysamurai, on 11/28/2007, -1/+3Microsoft did kind of drop the ball on the low end, if they were smart, they would re-release XP with a few tweaks.
  • mymate, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Amen to that, so many of my friends have tried vista recently and hated the experience, i always tell people to get xp on their system if they still can. I can also tell you that at least 5 i know have bought macbooks in the last 2 months... microsoft domination is ending, i personally use ubuntu 90% of the time, it just works!
  • beret9987, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3What Vista really needs in my opinion is better power management. Maybe its just me, but I get worse battery life on my Macbook Pro in Vista than I did in XP. 4 hours turned to 2.5 hours! I'm switching back to XP ASAP. I'll jump ship in a couple of years maybe.
  • Saffa, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2I wonder if Linux will find a niche in ultra-cheap laptops where OEM price matters more. When you buy a $1000 laptop, the OEM price for vista will be say $50 (I have not idea what it is, I'm guessing, but you get my point), which isn't a huge whack out the bottom-line. But if you're selling a laptop for say $200-$300, the profit margins are going to be very slim for the manufacters, so getting rid of the $50 OEM price could look pretty attractive to their bottom line.
    • MeatBiProduct, on 11/28/2007, -2/+1the $50 dollars they saved on the O/S will cost them $500 to support new linux users.
    • MattBD, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Very likely, after all look how well the gPC is doing.
  • ZenMojo, on 11/28/2007, -2/+1Fixed: "Cheap Laptops Bad for Vista, Good for XP and Linux"
    • thushan, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Service Pack 1: "Cheap laptops bad for Vista, good for XP and Linux."
    • MeatBiProduct, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Fixed again: "Cheap laptops bad'
      • computerfreedom, on 11/28/2007, -0/+11.7ghz 32bit and flying, cheap laptops are the way to go, its all about the desktop.
  • nizzy1115, on 11/28/2007, -1/+2i have a vostro 1500 i paid $699 for it. it has:

    c2d 1.6ghz
    2 gb ram
    160gb hd
    128mb nvidia 8400gs
    wxga+ (1440x900)

    and it does vista just fine ;)

    oh, and i get 7 hours of battery life with the 9 cell battery, again, yes, on vista
  • RonniePudding, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1I bought my wife a no-name (GQ) $350 laptop with:
    celeron 420
    upgraded 2gb ram
    Intel 950 integrated graphics
    Vista basic.

    It seriously runs perfectly, very responsive and boots up in under a minute. No complaints here.
  • AaronCSU, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1I got an Acer with a gig of ram and a dual core amd for $675. It runs Vista Business fine. I recently upgraded to 2 gigs of ram for 60 bucks or so and everything is a little quicker. No complaints here.
  • EtherGnat, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1You can get a cheap laptop that runs Vista well--anybody who says otherwise is a bad shopper. In two minutes of searching I found the following deal currently available:

    Dell Vostro 1400
    Intel Core 2 Duo T5270
    Windows Vista Home Premium
    14.1 inch Wide Screen XGA LCD Display with TrueLife
    2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz, 2 DIMM
    160GB 5400RPM Hard Drive
    8X CD/DVD Burner w/ double-layer DVD+R write capability
    128MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 8400M GS

    Price: $677 (before $50 Paypal rebate which may or may not work)

    It's a modified configuration of this for anybody interested: http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/messageview.php?ca ...

    If you're patient you should be able to find even better deals.
  • krahzee, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2Pointless article of the week?

    Thats like saying a budget PC with onboard video sucks for Call of Duty 4 but is good news for Yahoo games. No ***** sherlock, did he think that up all on his own?
  • DigitalPioneer, on 11/30/2007, -1/+1vista sucks. It's a simple fact. Even if I buy a high-end computer with 4 gigs of RAM and 512 on the video card, how much of that is going to vista? Seriously, the problem isn't that you need so much to run it, it's that it takes too much in the first place!

    Not to mention, why would I sacrifice alllllll those resources to vista, when all it's doing with them is running its trojans and telling me what I can't do? Especially considering I can put Linux on my computer, do whatever I like with it, hardly care about security, AND it looks better to boot! No contest!

    P.S. I hated XP before vista, and I hate it now. That hasn't changed. Linux has it's segfaults too, I know, but as they say: It's a WHOLE lot easier to make *nix user-friendly than to debug windoze.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.