digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why I've moved from Vista to Ubuntu 7.10

community.zdnet.co.uk — "Have we reached the beginning of the tipping point? I think we may just have."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • underdog5004, on 10/25/2007, -92/+51
    * Why is Vista so slow (part 3)? I know, I know, I should by an extra 1MB. I would but for two reasons: First, I would have to buy a 2MB to upgrade to 2MB, and while I may contemplate doing so...

    Why is Vista slow, you ask? Maybe it's because you've only got 1 Mb of RAM and you're hesitant about doubling it. That's a compelling reason!
    • chase001, on 10/25/2007, -8/+78And by MB I assume he means GB
      • 89vision, on 10/23/2007, -4/+54And by RAM i'll assume he means pornography
        • Cyber_Akuma, on 10/23/2007, -0/+15Only 1GB? Nah, it HAS to be ram...
      • Cyber_Akuma, on 10/23/2007, -2/+6Bah, digg this one down.
    • lordmetroid, on 10/23/2007, -19/+6I loled
    • oblivinated, on 10/23/2007, -6/+30Wow. The "Department Head / Director" can't proofread his articles. Very, very credible.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/23/2007, -4/+16Well the government doesn't read laws it passes.
        • mad0maxx, on 10/22/2007, -2/+7The government was elected to lead... not to read! LoL ;-)
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4LoL yeah The Simpsons Movie.

          "Mr. President I have 5 plans..."
          "Number 3, I pick number 3."
          "But Sir, aren't you going to read the rest?"
    • chrismgtis, on 10/23/2007, -26/+11Well, that is just typical! Someone writing about moving from Windows to Linux who doesn't even know the difference between a MB and a GB. Will Linux fanboys still praise the article? Probably.
      • ORBAT, on 10/23/2007, -4/+26If he really doesn't know the difference (and didn't just make a simple typo) that would actually mean that Linux is gaining popularity even among the non-geeks. Even installing Linux let alone making doing anything nontrivial with it used to be such a hairy task that no "ordinary" end user would touch it with a stick. If even the people who confuse megabytes with gigabytes and have no clue what "recompile the kernel" even means are installing Linux, THEN it's starting to head in the right direction. I'd consider that worthy of praise, if it indeed was the case. (I'm betting on a typo / brain fart myself.)
        • Dumbledorito, on 10/23/2007, -17/+5Nice rationalization, there.
        • Dumbledorito, on 10/22/2007, -18/+3And the bury brigade comes to Linux's rescue. Yes, if someone who doesn't know which end of a mouse to use does something stuipd, it must be because they're a Windoze Loozer! But someone screws up something so basic when talking about Linux, it MUST be due to Linux's code embracing the poor fool and leading him to safety, because Linux is what Jesus would use...
          • roguetrick, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1I don't understand what goes on in folk's brain when they figure differing individuals in a discussion thread giving differing opinions are hypocrites. In that vein: I just saw someone talking about how good Linux is, and now you're talking about how bad it is. You internet people make no sense.
        • bruenig, on 10/22/2007, -10/+1I don't know if I would say it is heading in the right direction. It creates a base of dependent ignorant users. They would like to think linux gives them freedom but at the point where you don't know how to compile an application, you are dependent on the ubuntu overlords packaging. You simply replace the microsoft overlord with an ubuntu overlord and call it freedom. You gum up help channels with inane questions like this beauty http://pastebin.ca/743667 and make it hard for those with real problems to get help. But I guess as long as ubuntu acts as the vacuum for such people, the other distros can remain relatively good, just hope that they don't try to migrate.
        • andycr512, on 10/23/2007, -4/+3"You simply replace the microsoft overlord with an ubuntu overlord and call it freedom."

          The Ubuntu overlord is you and I. If the users and developers leave, as would be the case if they did something dramatically wrong, Ubuntu is -dead- - just like the concept of democracy which the US was (designed) to follow, however successfully that may have turned out being your choice to elaborate on.
          • sacherjj, on 10/23/2007, -1/+8Yeah, it is a shame that Ubuntu requires online activation that could be turned off whenever some overlord decides. Wait. No it doesn't. That would be Windows. I have a legal license to one of my computers, but have to run a cracked version of XP on it, just to get it to run without driving me insane.
          • buddyfarr, on 10/23/2007, -4/+0and how does the legal one drive you insane and the cracked one not? hmmm...my last install took all of about 12 seconds to activate. wow, that would drive me insane too.
          • andycr512, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1"The legal one" and "the cracked one"? Excuse me, but how is Ubuntu cracked?

            "hmmm...my last install took all of about 12 seconds to activate. wow, that would drive me insane too."

            "It only took them 12 seconds to take complete control over my PC! Woot Microsoft!"
          • andycr512, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I hadn't read all of sacherjj's comment, and the Digg reply system made it look like you replied to me.
      • omababy, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3funny, I pegged him a windows user.
      • Syphon8, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1There's a difference between MB and GB? It's a different base on the same unit of measurement.
    • underdog5004, on 10/22/2007, -10/+2Sorry everyone! I'm not a troll, I just forgot to include /sarcasm. Idiots.
      • buddyfarr, on 10/22/2007, -0/+0that was a comment that as a person who can actually chew food AND rationalize at the same time I laughed at and didn't need the /sarcasm. sorry about the rest.
    • cduquette, on 10/23/2007, -1/+15Actually if he doesn't know the difference between MBs and GBs it may actually back up the claim desktop Linux is reaching a tipping point. Casual users who have no idea about their hardware specs are trying out Linux and switching from traditional OSes.
      • sacherjj, on 10/23/2007, -2/+9Linux is so efficient that MBs FEEL like GBs. :)
    • Cyber_Akuma, on 10/25/2007, -2/+18"Why is Vista so slow"

      Considering he just purchased a new system with everything pre-installed, I am pretty sure I can answer that.

      Because it's probaly pre-loaded with dozens of useless 3rd party junk the manufacturer added.

      I normally don't buy prebuilts, but I am well aware that you basically don't have a choice unfortunately when it comes to laptops. I would see if there is any way the manufacturer could give him the OEM install disk for Vista (not those recovery disks that basically reformat and re-image the drive, that just will re-install the junk that came with it) and just format and reinstall Vista alone.

      Vista will probably never be faster than most distros of Linux but it should run much faster on a clean install without a bunch of services and apps the manufacturer decided to add.

      I recall once when Dell first purchased Alienware and were making gaming rigs, their XPS models used to run games terribly not because of the hardware, but because of the tons of preloaded junk then came with, a clean os re-install made them run perfectly.
    • Seph7, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1This comment has just proved that time travel is possible, this guy is definitely from the past!
  • lavs23, on 10/25/2007, -29/+131While Ubuntu does use less resources when compared to Vista. 1GB on Vista should be enough for the basic things, the articles complaint that it's sluggish just typing something makes me believe that something is running in the background that the author is not aware of. Most likely Windows indexing or anti-virus. I use both Vista and Ubuntu on a laptop with 1GB of RAM and haven't had a problem with either OS as far as speed is concerned.

    Also it could be that that graphics card is using shared memory instead of stand alone RAM, not sure about that though.
    • dado1945, on 10/23/2007, -6/+30But isn't "author is not aware of" part what people usually complain about linux? I mean usually people say that in order to use linux you must be geek or at least technically savvy person now you say that Linux is better in that sense than Windows.

      I like such small unnoticed things.
      • B1663r, on 10/23/2007, -37/+6One of the best things about windows is you never have to ask if a particular application works on windows. Either it does work on windows or there is an alternative (which is better) that does. Since I don't give a rats ass about the operating system, and really the only thing that matters to me is my applications that means my default operating system is windows.

        Apple achieves the same thing using a cognitive dissonance technique... If it doesn't run on OSX it is not something you would want to do.

        Linux as a desktop application platform just fails.
        • Drahkar, on 10/23/2007, -3/+21Actually that is not 100% true with Vista anymore. There are applications that will not work on Vista. That alone is becoming a larger reason for a lot of people to consider other operating systems. If you are gonna have the same problems with applications and you can get better performance for less money by switching to Ubuntu and then why not try it. That's been the reason given to be by a large group of people who normally wouldn't use Linux.
          • AirRaven, on 10/22/2007, -10/+3Welcome to the Windows XP upgrade cycle all over again.

            Look around you! Has that stopped it handing Apple's ass to Steve Jobs on a platter?
          • B1663r, on 10/22/2007, -12/+4Care to list any of these applications? I know several, but I bet you can't.
          • saleem, on 10/22/2007, -7/+1So you're switching away from Windows for GREATER application compatibility??? uhh...
          • whiskeymb, on 10/22/2007, -4/+1Yeah, and when Windows 95 came out there were a bunch of apps that didn't run on it. When XP came out there were a bunch of apps that didn't run on it either. It doesn't mean that the OS is bad (as both of these did very well in the marketplace), it means that if you want to run the most up to date software you have to realize that some of your poorly written applications may not run on it.
          • sacherjj, on 10/22/2007, -3/+4It isn't just the most up to date apps that don't run:
            SQL Server 2000
            Citrix
            Cisco VPN Client
            Visual Studio and a few of the .NET Frameworks

            We stopped after that, because why bother to try to use it in business, when some core apps aren't supported.
          • B1663r, on 10/23/2007, -3/+3Ok, lets see... Citrix server didn't work on XP either...

            Citrix client has been upgraded to 10.1 and is now fully supported.

            SQL Server on workstations is now free if you upgrade to 2005...

            As I use Visual studio every darn day and have no problems...

            I am forced to assume you are an insane Microsoft hater and I have to ignore everything you say.
          • mrsteve007, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1Cisco VPN client has had a version that works with 32 & 64 bit Vista since June, along with all the rest that have vista compatible versions. Quit spreading complete BS.
          • Drahkar, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2You guys make me laugh. I didn't say that they wouldn't eventually be upgraded to work with Vista. I stated that there are a lot of applications that don't work with Vista. And when I say applications I don't mean specifically mainstream applications either. (By Mainstream applications I mean applications that people would know even if they were not in the business.) For example RFMS a retail floor management system for custom carpentry and such has issues with Vista.

            My point was that people are looking at other platforms because they are already having issues. And if the issues are already there then it doesn't cost that much more to test out the fix on alternate operating systems. Which is shown to be true by the grown market for pre-made Linux systems. I'm not saying we have seen the end of Windows and anyone who took my statement like that really needs to get their glasses checked. I'm just saying that Microsoft screwed up with Vista and Office 2007 and while it will likely stay eventually, they opened a lot of doors they would have been better off not opening.
        • dado1945, on 10/22/2007, -11/+4You must have not used Vista yet. Am I wrong?
          • B1663r, on 10/23/2007, -8/+9Yes.
          • MWeather, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2You have asked a question. Allow or Deny?

            /didn't run it as administrator
        • antitab, on 10/22/2007, -2/+8"If it doesn't run on OSX it is not something you would want to do. "
          After experiencing the absurdly high standard that Cocoa apps are held up to, this is pretty much the truth for me *without* jumping through any mental hoops.
          • B1663r, on 10/23/2007, -8/+5Right so you must not want to do any... you know... cutting edge things like run CAM software.
          • ORBAT, on 10/23/2007, -2/+8Yeah, there's no CAM/CAD software like Lightworks and no way can you virtualize Windows if you absolutely have to use some other program? It's impossible to run CAM/CAD software on a Mac, and since it's BSD-based there's absolutely no open source software to do the trick either. Gee, what a lousy OS.
          • B1663r, on 10/23/2007, -3/+5ORBAT,

            There is not a single functional CAM driver for either OSX or BSD. Just deal with it.

            The only CAM package dropped their LINUX version because of the heavy latency issues in the Linux kernel. They waited until the low latency updates, then development on the package just stopped after that.

            Also, CAM software has VERY POOR prospects for virtulization, again because of the latency issues.

            No sarcasm needed. Linux and BSD variants are lousy OS's for CAM.
          • DoubtingThomas, on 10/22/2007, -1/+6Funny, I work for one of the top CAD/CAM software companies in the world and our software runs on all UNIX platforms, windows and mac. Maybe you mean Autocad? Sorry bro, but that is the shallow end of the pool when it comes CAD software. In fact, our software has been around since before Windows was just a messy spot in Bill Gates' underroos.
          • B1663r, on 10/23/2007, -4/+2DoubtingThomes,

            Wow, you work for Fanuc robotics??? Funny all of their software is Windows only. LOL, and taken down.

            Link or it didn't happen.
          • mrsteve007, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Sorry to break it to you, but a large majority of architects, contractors & builders in the US use AutoCAD. Period. I manage IT for one of the top architectural firms in the states. We've tried several times to go to a non-autocad solution (archicad mainly). Each time it's failed because there is a slight difference when our contractors/engineers open a file, and found a line to be plotted slightly off. Hell we even have this problem when going from one version of AutoCAD to another. Sure that may not be an issue for most small-time designers, but when you're designing high-rise condos/hotels, it is a serious problem with huge implications legally and safety wise. Since Mac can't run AutoCAD natively, then Apple products are out of the question.
          • Goobernutz, on 10/23/2007, -1/+5Wow! It's disturbing to see so many employees of the best companies in the world tossing about on Digg. ;)
        • opnickc, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6Actually, B1663r, I've come across several linux programs with no windows version which I prefer. It's all a matter of opinion.
          • B1663r, on 10/23/2007, -6/+1Some times it is just a matter of opinion. However in cases when it is not just a matter of opinion, Linux is rarely the option.
    • Spuy767, on 10/24/2007, -12/+35I don't know. I installed Vista Ultimate on my machine which is no slouch, and I was very disappointed in the performance compared to XP, Linux, and OS X.
      • Ramble, on 10/22/2007, -16/+11I've been using Vista for over a year on many different hardware configurations and have been intimately involved with some of the performance community, what is your spec may I ask? If it's too low I'll tell you.
        • Spuy767, on 10/23/2007, -18/+30Sorry, I laughed. I'm running a 4 Core XEON workstation wth 4 Gigabytes of RAM. Under windows, the GPU is an 8800 Ultra. I'll give you a hint. It isn't the Machine. Even a fresh install just didn't feel particularly snappy.
          • armbar, on 10/28/2007, -9/+13I think you're just feeling particularly whiny on a Monday morning. There's no way that a Vista install's running that slow unless you F'ed it up, or if you bought it with a bunch of pre-installs.
          • MWeather, on 10/28/2007, -1/+4Or if he's used to the speed of XP, OSX and Linux.
        • Ramble, on 10/23/2007, -17/+8Two reasons I can think of:
          1. Something is dragging down the performance, a rogue process, some malware, even bad drivers. COuld be anything, relatively easy to check out though.
          2. Aero appears to make things slower. The animations do make it seem like it's less responsive. If that's the case then go to c. panel > system > advanced system settings > Perforance > uncheck animate windows when min/maximising.
          • andycr512, on 10/22/2007, -5/+14"1. Something is dragging down the performance, (...) some malware"

            Yeah. Vista. :)
          • andycr512, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2Also, something is seriously wrong with an OS that can't handle minimize/restore animations without bogging down.
        • GawtMilk, on 10/23/2007, -4/+11I'm running an E6600 @ 3.0GHz, 2GB of 1066MHz RAM, a 7950GT 256MB, all on a P35-DS4. My setup is still really responsive.
        • weirdlookinguy, on 10/23/2007, -11/+26@Spuy767: You're full of *****, there's no way Vista would feel slow on that. Go back to your Ubuntu machine you linux fanboy.

          Half the people bitching about Vista only say it sucks because everyone else does. I, for one, like Vista, much better than XP imo.
          • eviltandem, on 10/23/2007, -2/+8I have an msdn license for work, so I get to play with all this stuff to my hearts content. On all the machines I put Vista on, they did the same tasks slower than they did in XP. Every single one.

            Did Vista run fine? Sure. Was it "snappy"? Sure, on beefy machines. But everything is slower. My games lose a healthy 10-20fps. Code I write for work compiled slower.

            Just everything was slower. I ended up going back to XP for work stuff. I just couldn't figure out what I was getting from Vista that warranted everything else being slower.
        • TheCosmicFool, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4People shouldn't be digging down GawtMilk for that comment. Just because it doesn't flow with the crowd is no reason to discriminate.
          I haven't touched vista for several reasons and run XP/Ubuntu myself, so I'm not just some Vista fanboy.. check my digg history for proof!
          I just prefer to hear real facts, not scare tactics, from both sides of the fence.. I think we (linux fans) have a responsibility to be better than M$'s FUD team.
      • Gohan5052, on 10/23/2007, -2/+3I have an amd x2 4600 2 gigsof ram and an ati x1650 and my system runs great
      • killerofkiller, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Im on a thinkpad T60 w/ an ati x1300, 2.5gb ram and a core duo 1.83 runs like a charm
        • driya2000, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1On a ThinkPad T61 with 2GB ram, and vista runs slower than my old dell (pentium m 1gb ram, circa 2004), which is running XP with Windowblinds and Vista-like skin :)
    • 0o0Moylan0o0, on 10/24/2007, -30/+11Buried for the load of ***** that came out of this guys mouth. He obviously bought some freakin routed piece of ***** computer if Vista doesnt run fast on it. My x2 4600 , 2GB runs it at lightning speed (except for games). As for "Why does the screen blank out every time I try to run a program?" It takes 5 seconds to disable it.

      Freakin Windows Bashers. Im sick of it. Just because you use Ubuntu -Doesnt Make You Cool- If you use it for specific and legitimite reasons then thats alright, but if you use it and then spew dioreah on to your blog and put it on Digg, then you have failed. /Rant
      • TeacherOfHeroes, on 10/23/2007, -0/+8I doubt most people are using windows for "specific and legitimite reasons" other than it came with the computer. Maybe some people just like other choices more?
      • inksmithy, on 10/22/2007, -3/+4Hey there is no need to get defensive about it! Windows is crap, thats really all there is to it. Bloated, over-hyped, insecure, unfinished, half-baked and not free. 15GB for an operating system install? Come on...
        • aaronm67, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1...it's not a 15gb OS install, they recommend at least 15gb if you're going to be using it, which is pretty low end. The OS installs in 5-6gb (which is on par with a large Linux installation).
          • MWeather, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2A large Linux installation includes scores of programs in the install.
          • init100, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1In the case of Linux, the actual operating system takes far less than 5-6 GiB. That takes maybe about 500 MiB (or even far less if you skip the GUI). The rest is taken by applications, servers, development tools, etc, etc.
      • eviltandem, on 10/23/2007, -2/+3So let's follow the logic. He bought a PC that came preconfigured with Vista. How does that translate into "freakin routed piece of *****"? I'm not sure I know what that's exactly supposed to mean, but I assume from your tone you think he bought a lower end pc. It came with Vista. Microsoft is actively discouraging XP. What were his choices exactly? I don't know about you but when I buy a PC I assume it can run the OS it comes with.

        "It takes 5 seconds to dsable it."

        Disable what? You might have hit home with his problem. The screen is blanking out and since he's not technical he isn't quite sure why. Either way how does the ability to disable it not make it annoying? Why is it the default? Why is it OK that his computer screen blanks out when he launches programs? Because he can disable whatever "feature" that does it, assuming he can figure that out?

        "Freakin Windows Bashers."

        Freakin Windows Lovers. You did not provide one positive response to any of his complaints, yet somehow you've been vindicated? He clearly said the OS didn't do what he wanted how he wanted it. He tried another OS that did. How does it make him a "windows basher"?

        That actually makes him "in touch with reality".
    • cyclo, on 10/22/2007, -12/+9I am not sure if the author gave his laptop a few days to a week so Vista could finish indexing files or to allow SuperFetch to do its own thing optimizing the caching for faster launching of applications. I find Vista's performance on my Dell Inspiron 6400 and Lenovo T60p far from sluggish... granted both have 2 GB of RAM.

      The author if he indeed is techy enough could have also done a performance evaluation in Vista which would have pinpointed the services or applications which were causing the problem... Control Panel > Performance Info and Tools > Advanced Tools (on menu to the left) > Then select any of the various options therein including "View Performance Details in Event log".

      OTH, I am glad people are switching to different OSes as competition is a healthy thing. There's a more than 50% chance he'll be back to Windows though... after all he writes for ZDNet, the home of PC Magazine.
      • ORBAT, on 10/23/2007, -1/+11Holy crap, does Vista really take days/weeks to index files? That's... hideous.
        • natenovs, on 10/22/2007, -1/+6it indexes when the machine is idle, so, if your using it all the time then yes, it will take a while
        • Canadian0207, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4Indexing is generally pointless, if you rarely search for files, on XP and Vista both. I've shut that service off and my computer runs really fast. On avg, my Vista machine uses only 700MB of RAM for the OS (shared video card with Aero on).

          Plus superfetch is great. After that's loaded, all my programs load quick. i bet linux doesn't have that kind of excellent memory management. What good is 2GB of RAM if it's not used correctly?
          • Bonzodog, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4Actually, it does. Superfetch..yawn. Linux has been doing that since 1991. It's part of the bog standard memory management system, to cache frequently used programs in RAM to prevent Hard disk accesses.Thats why, if you leave a linux box booted up, you will see that the amount of RAM in use, seemingly, is nearly everything you have. Except it isn't. Memory usage is complicated in linux, but very clever.
            As for fast location, we have a terminal command called slocate. You get the machine to run a cron job that updates the database every once in a while (say every 24 hours), then you can use the locate to find what you are looking for. Easy, and *very* quick, as it runs from a preset database.

          • daverave999, on 10/23/2007, -2/+5700 meg of RAM for just the OS!
            Is anyone else absolutely gobsmacked?
          • daverave999, on 10/23/2007, -5/+1700 meg of RAM for just the OS!
            Is anyone else absolutely gobsmacked?
      • TeacherOfHeroes, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2He's still got a PC, so can't he still write for *PC* Mag? If there is going to be migration to different OSes like you imply, why would PC Mag. want to stick to just windows? Gotta think market share. With community magazines springing up for ubuntu and pclinux os, they've got to realize that theres a small but growing untapped market here.
        • init100, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Because when you remove Windows, your computer is no longer a PC. /sarcasm.
    • geoken, on 10/28/2007, -16/+27The guy knows nothing about his computer and spent $2600 on a piece of crap. If you spend that much on a laptop and only end up with a gig of ram then you have no clue what you're doing and I can only speculate you have an equally aenemic processor.
      • TeacherOfHeroes, on 10/23/2007, -3/+171. 1 GiB of ram should be enough for running the OS and a few small apps.
        2. from the FA: "GeForce 8600 GT graphics card with 512MB of video RAM, Core 2 duo processor and 1GB RAM" Any Core 2 Duo should be enough to run the OS
        3. Why should the users be made to jump through hoops just to get the OS working on recent, decent hardware?
    • foofightrs777, on 10/24/2007, -5/+17I tried running Vista on a Core 2 Duo system and it ran like crap with only 1GB ram. I think I spent half my time waiting for hard disk churn. That said, that same machine is rather snappy with 2GB of RAM
      • Thumper13, on 10/23/2007, -8/+4I don't know what your problem is. I run a X2 4400+ with 1gig right now and Vista Ult. is nice and snappy. Perhaps you, like the douche who wrote this article, don't know what you are doing.
        • andycr512, on 10/23/2007, -3/+6No, he's right. I've been using computers for over 10 years, compiled everything on my Linux box from source code on several occasions, and know both Linux and Windows inside-out. Vista on 1GB of ram is simply slow; I've used it for months that way with all crapware disabled. I hate to make the suggestion, but perhaps you're just slow and don't notice Vista being so? I'm known to be very picky about speed.
          • CorpT, on 10/22/2007, -4/+310 whole years? Jeez, you are an expert.
          • andycr512, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2I didn't say I was the most knowledgeable computer user in existence - I merely proved that someone who isn't at all new to Windows doesn't think that Vista is slow only because "he doesn't know what he's doing".
        • init100, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1So in order to have a well performing Windows installation on lower-end hardware, you need to "know what you are doing"? Wasn't the ease of use for computer illiterates one of the primary advantages of Windows? Or is sluggishness something computer illiterates just have to live with?
      • mustang460, on 10/28/2007, -0/+4when i first built my core 2 duo system last spring i was using 1gb or ram, and had no performance issues what so ever, however i had to upgrade to 2gb for the newest games (stalker-bioshock).in fact i know many people with 1gb of ram in vista who have no performance problems, i think you either made up that rig to spread anti-vista fud or had other issues with the system
    • hackmyballs, on 10/23/2007, -5/+13"something is running in the background"

      BINGO!

      Winblows in any flavor allows any crap to hijack your computer.

      Or you expect granny to use the task manager to see what's running in the background???
      • NJPENSO, on 10/23/2007, -10/+2I guess my granny would rather do that than learn code to install new software.
        • Acglaphotis, on 10/23/2007, -1/+6I think my granny can handle "Applications > Add-remove"
        • hackmyballs, on 10/28/2007, -1/+1Good luck finding bonzy buddy there pal
    • MateyO, on 10/23/2007, -1/+11How is it that in this day and age ANY background process can make your machine run sluggishly? A 'niced' process in linux won't affect foreground processing in the slightest, why can't windows do that?
      • arjie, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1On my P4, beagle could slow stuff down really badly. Not unresponsive, mind you, it was just slow. That was on Dapper though, which is a year and a half back (3 releases).
      • plasticxme, on 10/22/2007, -2/+0Vista is very capable of running background processes without impacting the performance of the computer. The problem is that 3rd party programmers are either very lazy and/or have no idea how to set the priority level for their services. Microsoft isn't always to blame and all it takes is to pick up a book or two before making such comments.
      • init100, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1It can, but with some caveats. I tried to lower the priority of a background process in the Windows task manager once, and was faced with a dialog box with a warning that this could "cause system instability". I was baffled to say the least.
    • SirZRX, on 10/23/2007, -18/+10ubuntu fanboys are more anoying than mac fanboys
    • mrmacky, on 10/23/2007, -2/+4Vista isn't as horrible as it's made out to be, but it is worse.

      When we look at XP, being able to "run" on a machine with a Pentium 2 and 64MB of RAM. 512MB-2GB of RAM is a big increase, and will definitely not go unnoticed.

      It's also not so much the resources it uses, but why it uses so many resources to do tasks other OS's can do very efficiently.
      (I cannot run AERO at even a constant 30 FPS, but I can run Compiz with totally worthless effects (transparency, wobbly windows, fire on minimize, live previews) and not notice any latency, at all.
    • pyrates, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Yes, using a builtin video card that uses shared memory is definately a bit slower in vista for aero compared to a dedicated graphics card with its own memory. But it's not totally unusable. Just a bit slower.
    • DSizzle, on 10/23/2007, -1/+42GB of Ram is absolutely necessary. My computer is running vista at around 1GB without any programs open. Microsoft made vista this way to utilize the technology that is available. Memory is getting cheaper, and why not make your new operating system to use all available resources.
      • init100, on 10/28/2007, -2/+1Because the more the operating system takes, the less is available to applications. And besides, the more the operating system takes, the less is available for the disk cache.
    • joebrender, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1The video card has independent memory, 512mb, as the article mentions.
    • da5id, on 10/23/2007, -4/+3Maybe he is a lying sack Ubuntu pimp. I ran RC2 on a 3.2 MHz Athlon 64, 1 GB PC 3200 RAM, nVidia 5200 128Mb vid card dual booting Ubuntu on a 37 Gb Raptor with Aero and NO PROBLEMS. Why can't these MS hating Ubuntu whores STFU. Respectfully.
      • init100, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Does that mean that I could run Vista on my old PC/XT with 4.77 MHz CPU (faster than your CPU)? ;)
    • lukas88, on 10/28/2007, -0/+4No kidding, I hate how it being "slower" is even an issue. As operating systems become more sophisticated, they will also require better hardware to use them. You didn't try to run windows 3.11 on a 286, you didn't try to run windows 95 on a 386, and you didn't try to run windows xp on a 486. What a big surprise that, once again, you will have to upgrade your hardware (or at least spend 50 bucks on an extra gig of ram). Don't try to run vista on a pentium III with 512mb of ram.

      Vista does some amazing things given you have the hardware. Ubuntu does some amazing things with much less hardware. I can see why you would go with ubuntu, but given you have the hardware, I am not sure it is preferable for most people.
      • init100, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1The problem is that much hardware is sold as "Vista Capable", but just plain suck with it. It is fine if Vista requires a lot of power, but they should advertise it as such too. But since they want everyone to move to Vista, they force even lower-end computers to be shipped with Vista, even if the experience will suck.
      • Dyre, on 06/25/2008, -0/+0It's not a surprise, but it's also not alright that software (including OS) programmers aren't optimizing their stuff just because they "don't have to; new computers can run it".

        I'm also interested to know what you think are amazing things Vista does. I haven't found anything particularly amazing about it and I want to know if I'm missing out.
  • schestowitz, on 10/23/2007, -31/+20> Have we reached the beginning of the tipping point?

    It was a while ago.
    • estvir, on 10/23/2007, -21/+16In the fabled "Year of desktop Linux" which was in.. ?
      • GawtMilk, on 10/23/2007, -19/+12Haven't you heard? The Linux install base is growing by 35% a year! Estimates rank that at four downloads every month.
      • TritonX, on 10/23/2007, -3/+12August 2006 for myself, and I'm certainly not going back to windowsland ever.
    • Kyderdog, on 10/23/2007, -17/+11No it wasn't.... Its STILL a Geek OS
    • MxM111, on 11/08/2007, -2/+3Windows will dominate desktops for 3 reasons: MS office, Games, other software. Which can be united into a single reason: software for windows. I think Apple has better chance to "beat" Windows - the have MS office and some software. Linux has just "some software", no MS office, and complicated buggy gaming.
      • Syphon8, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1MS Office is on the way out, all Windows really has right now is familiarity, games, and ease of use, but that's not long. (Well, except games.)
  • Sifter, on 10/30/2007, -55/+182FFS, I like the fact that he can't be arsed to figure out turning off UAC in Vista (about 2 secs), but he's fine spending time working out Compiz Fusion? If you love Linux, that's fine, but don't dress it up as if you're doing a reasonable comparison with Vista...
    • WRXHokie, on 10/22/2007, -40/+28Amen... there's no way Ubuntu can even come close to usability as compared to Vista. When a normal user, not a linux poweruser, can setup and install Ubuntu and all their applications without going to the command line once, then you can start writing articles like this. In the meantime, its a joke from someone looking at it with an unbiased view.
      • edzilla, on 10/23/2007, -5/+33I guess you haven't tried a user friendly linux distribution in the last two years, have you?

        On the other hand, the day you can install windows while watching a movie or surfing the internet on the computer you are installing it on, you can come back write BS on digg.
        Or the day you can resize a partition from the installation process. That might be a good start, too.
        It might be web 12.5 by then, though
        • Spuy767, on 10/23/2007, -2/+19I'll drink to that. That's one of the features I like most about Ubuntu and other Live install distros is being able to actually use the computer while installing the OS.
        • tortfeasor, on 10/22/2007, -18/+9I don't think anyone will argue that Ubuntu doesn't count as "a user friendly linux distribution". I love Ubuntu and would choose it over Vista. However, recent experience forces me to agree with WRXHokie. When I installed Feisty on three different computers, I had to resort to the command line after each install to fix video or networking problems.
          • tortfeasor, on 10/22/2007, -17/+6Oh noes, it's the Digg Linux Brigade - here to digg down anyone who would dare suggest linux isn't the perfect OS.
          • TritonX, on 10/23/2007, -4/+9It's not perfect, just vastly superior to commercial offering from MS.
          • TritonX, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7At least there was something you could do. I remember in my dark days, when a windows install would failed, the only thing you could do was reinstall and pray.
          • MWeather, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Yeah. I remember when you used to have to mess around with X settings to get video working. Thank god for bulletproof x. Haven't managed to break it yet.
        • credence, on 10/22/2007, -1/+12tortfeasor: I'd suggest checking out Gutsy, then. I'll admit I'm biased pro-Linux so I'm not particularly scared of the command line, but a basic install was kosher with me.
          I had to restart once (The hardware was an Nvidia card, and it needed to get the module for that) and then it was up and running.

          Even neater, if I open an divx AVI, it automatically digs up the non-free codec packs in the repositories and installs them, then restarts the movie w/ working video. I remember the fun I had going out and googling for codec packs in windows, so I'd say Ubuntu has made some good progress here.
          • tortfeasor, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6Thanks - I hope to do so this weekend. This is actually the first version of Ubuntu that I haven't installed prior to its actual release. I agree 100% that Ubuntu is making *great* strides, and, to me, it's worth any extra configuration that's required.
          • ScornedPatriot, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4Gutsy is fantastic. This is my third install of Ubuntu, first was Edgy then Feisty. Gutsy however is really fantastic. The entire OS is up and running fully customized including Compiz Fusion, Wine (steam, CS:S, HL2), Adobe reader, Java, flash. I had to run exactly 3 commands in terminal in the entire process. Everything else was auto discovered the first time you needed it and installed for you. Gutsy is about as user friendly as an operating system can get, after this successful install I will be systematically removing Vista from my other 2 machines.
        • missingnoh4x, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5I'm completely new to Linux, and I migrated from Vista to Gutsy. I only had to touch the command line a few times, and that was from following step by step instructions on the Ubuntu forums that told me what to cut and paste. I managed to get accelerated drivers for my ATI card so I could run Compiz Fusion, and I managed to get drivers working for my wireless card after being tethered to an ethernet cable for a bit.
          Even if you don't know much about Linux, it seems you can easily get everything working great if you're willing to put in some time and effort and learn how things work.
        • mlwarrior, on 10/30/2007, -3/+1I just don't get this whole operating system "clique" mentality. Ubuntu is awesome.... for some things. Want to do a security audit on your wireless network, or install a quick, free server, then Ubuntu rocks! Need a nice laptop OS, and have common hardware? Go ubuntu!

          Have you ever tried to get your 5.1 audio drivers working in ubuntu? Like hassle free video watching? Don't like researching which hardware will not be a total pain in the ass to install? Let's just say this stuff is *possible*, but these are reasons that people say "I don't use linux because I prefer to use my computer more than working on it." Ubuntu has a great support community for these things, but for my media/desktop/gaming PC I would much rather avoid the headache.

          Also, another thing I don't get is why people even have this debate? Do you people know how to duel boot? I mean, one OS works better for some things, and another for others. Maybe it's just that computers aren't my whole life, but I see them as a tool. I switch around like some OS slut, but who cares? I have a Macbook, that I switch between Ubuntu and os X with, with XP on a virtual machine, but linux will never touch my media computer.
        • whiskeymb, on 10/22/2007, -7/+1Wow... installing the OS while still using the computer. That saves you what, a total of 3-4 hours in the lifetime of the OS Install. Great, awesome feature there that is going to get all the hundres of thousands of windows users to switch.

          In the meantime I'm still trying to get the Windows key to work correctly with Compiz (and yes, I know what I'm doing and Xorg is correctly registering the key). Sorry ,but your resizing of a partition from the install and surfing while installing aren't OS switching feature, they're just kinda "nice to haves".

          Don't get me wrong. I like Linux, and I use it from time to time when I need it, but thinking that Ubuntu is going to get Windows users to switch is just retarded. I rank you right up there with the "What about WTC 7!?!?!" people....
      • Spuy767, on 10/22/2007, -7/+10I found Vista to be a step backward in usability. It failed to keep the look and feel that everyone was used to with Windows. Linux doesn't really count here, because there are many different looks and feels, but Apple have kept the same general look and feel since System 7. I'm an extreme power user and I found that, even after getting used to doing things in Vista, it was taking longer than it ever would have in XP simpy because, in so many cases, there are more steps involved.
        • B1663r, on 10/22/2007, -11/+10In other words, you have never actually used Vista. In my day to day usage there are HUGE improvments on things that were not even broken in XP. For example, I love the bread crumbs in explorer. That alone is a reason to use Vista. A lot of people hated on flip 3d, I like that as well, when switching through applications the visual look of a website is a lot easier to remember than a thumbnail or a titlebar. Also the transparent windows borders both look great and are functional (more screen real estate). The new MRU list on the start menu... Why I even like the new backup agent better than what came before.
          • viruz, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3I hate the bread crumbs .. I would much rather see C: dirname subdir
          • Canadian0207, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2I agree, ppl think different is a "step backward" in functionality. I love vista.
          • JonForTheWin, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1"I love vista." and that you type "ppl" instead of "people" are not coincidences.
          • MWeather, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1you know, there are a multitude of file managers for XP. Many with breadcrumbs. You don't have to use explorer.
        • happycat, on 10/22/2007, -2/+7Aye. Even though I kind of enjoyed Vista in some ways, so many things that are bass-ackwards or out of place just irritated me to the point of finally going back to XP. For example, adding search to the start menu is nifty, but for me that ended up being the only way to open programs. It takes too long to find your app in the "improved" program list because you have to click and scroll through it to find what you want now. With the "old" flyout menu's I remembered where a program was based on it's location within the menu and I could just find it immediately just by moving my mouse without any clicking or scrolling. I know some people hated the flyout menu's, but I like them, so an option to enable or disable them should have been included. And dont mention the 'classic' start menu option-that is a dumbed down version of XP's start menu.

          Second example, windows explorer has finally improved, but the ability to customize it's toolbar has been taken away. And no matter how I configured my folders, explorer would invaribly rearrange how the organization level of the folders. I can have a folder containing thirty exe's and just one vid, and explorer would default to some crappy multi-media format with tags and rateings for each file in that folder. Stop it! And those "breadcrubs" just get in the way too. Just show the whole path and be done with ti.

          Thirdly, all those little tooltips that popup every two minutes all over the desktop that tell me this is not installed, or this is not enabled, or that IS enabled are too distracting and just get in the way of doing things.

          Fourthly, that UAC is a hack job at security. In theory it's a good idea, and it's about time Windows copied...err..implemented this, but it's motherly behavior is just too much. Why do I need to confirm that a shortcut needs confirmation to be deleted from my desktop? I'm not deleting the app, it's just a frickin shortcut.

          Fiftly, Aero. You cannot turn off even one little tiny option of Aero without it reverting back to the terriblly ugly basic Aero look. A little customization is good..
      • lonnieh, on 10/23/2007, -2/+28"When a normal user, not a linux poweruser, can setup and install Ubuntu and all their applications without going to the command line once"
        you honestly believe that you cannot install programs in linux without using the command line? it's very possible:
        http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=fly96q&s=2
        • sl9sl9, on 10/22/2007, -13/+4"Very possible" doesn't exactly inspire much confidence, now does it?
          • edzilla, on 10/23/2007, -3/+7Does "your are a complete moron" inspire more confidence?
            For your information, in case you weren't just a troll, and actually don't believe him, installing any software in debian based distributions(but other distributions have an equivalent system) is just a matter a selecting said software in a list, and clicking "install"(as demonstrated in the screenshot he posted).
      • tapo, on 10/23/2007, -1/+24You are aware that on Ubuntu 7.10, there is no 'working out' Compiz Fusion. It's installed and enabled by default, with nothing to install or configure.
        • missingnoh4x, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1You've got to configure the effects you want. And it wasn't enabled for me at first, since I was using a simple driver and had to get the accelerated one up and running before I could use Compiz Fusion.
          • MWeather, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Does Aero come configured just the way each user prefers?
        • chowmeined, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4Which is one click and a restart in the restricted drivers manager.
          • MWeather, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Actually, you just need to restart X.
      • bowens44, on 10/22/2007, -3/+13Actually, it's easily done. You don't need use the command line even onceto install software on most modern distros. The CLI however , gives those who are not afraid to use it a level of control that windows users can't even begin to imagine.

        Vista's a dog. People waited years and they got at best, mediocrity.
      • black27696, on 10/23/2007, -0/+5Usability is a relative term, not to be confused with functionality. As long as the operating system can have new things installed to it, and has a working interface, it's usable. Depending on the user, it's more or less usable. Functionality is the difference, and linux distros, ANY, linux distros, are more functional, based on the simple fact that there is such a huge userbase that is allowed to change / update / test / program linux software or full distributions without licensing getting in the way. The only major difference between Linux and the rest of the world is driver support, which is the responsibility of the third-party company, NOT the operating system. If a new computer game doesn't work on linux, it's because the company didn't write it for linux, not because linux is inadequate. Vista can fly if you disable the effects, and ubuntu slows down if you enable tons of effects with compiz, but that has nothing to do with usability. If you can't use linux, it's because of your shortcomings, not Linux's. Windows is easier to use for most people because they've used it all their life, or most of it (depending on age). If you grew up using linux, you'd think linux was easier and windows was foreign, and you wouldn't stand for the unstableness of windows.
      • ruz322, on 10/23/2007, -1/+5Why would I want to get rid of the command line? That's the best part about using linux: it's customization options. If I was stuck with a standard "you have to use the computer this way" method such as that in Vista with all its DRM restrictions, then I would be pissed off.
        • tech42er, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1You can't get rid of the command line. It's the shell; X runs on top of it. I guess you could hide it, but why do that?
    • geoken, on 10/23/2007, -2/+39What's to 'work out'? You go to the desktop effects menu in your system preferences (similar to Windows' control panel). Once in that menu you have 4 checkboxes which let you select what level of desktop effects you want.
      • theaceoffire, on 10/22/2007, -7/+1Well, to be honest, you need to add one part if you want to do customized effects.
        • andycr512, on 10/23/2007, -1/+11Well, fine, but Applications->Add/Remove->Advanced Desktop Effects Settings isn't hard.
    • CreepingDeath, on 10/23/2007, -11/+13Apparently you haven't bothered installing a recent linux disto either. Grab a new Dell; a Ubuntu 7.04/7.10 CD; a Vista DVD and your mom. Have her install one; wipe then drive then do the other. I've got 50$ that she CAN do the linux install; and ends up giving up on the Vista install when she gets to the part where she has to go dig the SATA drivers off someone's website and put them on a floppy so Vista can find the hard drive to install to.
      • tymme, on 10/23/2007, -7/+10Vista includes native SATA support. It might not include RAID support natively, but working with SATA drives on a new install (or upgrade) is no problem.
      • chowmeined, on 10/23/2007, -1/+10It didn't work for my nForce 2 SATA, I had to do exactly what CreepingDeath said, find some random drivers off the Internet, put them on a floppy, find a floppy drive and install it, then get Vista to accept the drivers (had to edit the .inf file because Vista didn't like it for some reason). Then, finally.. I could install Vista.
        • bmobile, on 10/23/2007, -1/+3Actually, what drivers did you use and how did you edit the INF file to make Vista see it? I'm having trouble getting Vista on my dad's machine for the same reason.
      • Dyre, on 06/25/2008, -0/+0Only thing I could say in defense of Vista, here, is at least it says "Do you have drivers to install for hardware?" and lets you click a button and put in a disk.... however, putting in Dell's driver CD/DVD is bunk (at least it didn't work for me, but I don't remember if I went through the right folders). Just as a note, though, you can install drivers from CD/DVD, flash drive/usb external hd and floppy. I'd make the same bet and win for certain if it were XP rather than Vista--but that's not the point here.

        I'd say someone's mom could install Ubuntu 7.xx just fine.... but their spangly wireless adapter card would work, their sound wouldn't work (probably).
    • loconet, on 10/23/2007, -3/+10But isn't the "great" and improved security on this Windows release in the shape of UAC one of the main selling points? I hear the same argument from other people when it comes to performance, turn off Aero! If you do, you end up with Windows XP with a DRM'ed OS. "time to work out" Compiz Fusion? It is installed by default on the latest Ubuntu and works after a couple of clicks. It was also included in the previous version although it had a smaller presence.
      • whiskeymb, on 10/25/2007, -2/+3No it's not.. it was to appease the people who are too stupid to not install malware and spyware. Improved security IS a main selling point of Vista but UAC is not the only thing that enhances the security.
    • Xegyn, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6Yeah, UAC is ridiculously easy to turn off. I've seen a lot of tutorials online that tell you how to disable it in regedit, msconfig, command line.....but why? It's just an option in the Control Panel. Was the option in the Control Panel not in the beta version of Vista or something?
      • da5id, on 10/23/2007, -3/+2Because Ubuntu users disingenuously claim Ubuntu never needs a password, but is safe as houses.
      • da5id, on 10/23/2007, -3/+1Because Ubuntu users disingenuously claim Ubuntu never needs a password, but is safe as houses.
    • TnTBass, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3Why suggest turning off the biggest addon to security that M$ built into Vista by turning off the UAC? Yes, its frustrating as hell, and yes, its very easy to turn off. Yes, in turning it off you end up less secure than you were before. No question about it, you WILL be less secure. Turn it off and you add usability, at the risk of security. You do that with your M$ products if you like, I'll take any added security they can provide, Jebus knows it needs it.

      Why not just blank out the root password on Linux? I guarantee it will add usability to that OS as well...
  • rectifier, on 10/23/2007, -9/+26now is a good time for Google to reveal why they have been so quiet recently and we see their new OS which will be smaller, better and smelling of fish and chips.
    • Verven, on 10/22/2007, -1/+24Now I really want fish & chips. Thanks a lot!
      • Waterrat, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2 I just ate,so I'm good.
        Fish and chips tomorrow would be nice.
        I switched to Linux two years ago come this January.
        I'm using a Kbuntu derivative called Klikit linux...I'm really happy with Linux and would never switch back to Windows.
    • myotive, on 10/22/2007, -9/+4In regards to the smell, allow me to be the first to say...

      "EW"
    • Tippis, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6As much as I like to eat them, I'm not entirely sure I'd want my OS to smell F&C, and I'm quite certain my neighbours would complain if they had to live with that fast-food eatery aroma 24/7...
    • GeForce8800GTX, on 10/22/2007, -3/+6LOL BRIT
      • iguanapunk, on 10/23/2007, -0/+12I don't think you made the correct choice when choosing your Digg username.
    • ukblacknight, on 10/22/2007, -2/+10sudo apt-get install mushy-peas
      • ORBAT, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3$ MUNG FISHNCHIPS
        %DCL-W-YUCK, someone has added peas
        • Waterrat, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Peas are good!!!!
          sudo apt-get install beans on toast.
          sudo apt-get e install egg custard.
    • Canadian0207, on 10/22/2007, -2/+0Interesting observation. I'm curious to see what Google is cooking up. Now THAT is an OS i'd like to see.
    • Megatog615, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4I'd rather Google work on Ubuntu with Canonical.
      • MWeather, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1They do. Their version is called Goobuntu. They use it on a lot of their desktops.
  • Ryan121, on 10/23/2007, -28/+35So he spends £500 more than me and my vista laptop is faster and works like it should. Could someone explain to me what he is doing so wrong or is it just me that thinks he's talking rubbish.
    • zybch, on 10/23/2007, -25/+6Hes probably just one of the jerks who will bash vista to death without actually using it (I bet he never actually used it) so he can join the OSS circlejerk and get felated by the linux zealots a bit!
      • Waiting2awake, on 10/23/2007, -3/+13With that much anger, I'd assume you were mugged by a bunch of guys with pocket protectors and tape on their glasses?
      • Angostura, on 10/22/2007, -1/+11Is that actually the impression you get from the article? I don't.
    • B1663r, on 10/23/2007, -12/+6Notice how this article is digg frontpage? That means it is gonna get on the order of 10k unique visitors. Some of those visitors will stay insde zdnet, others might follow advertising links. One of the most effective click whore techniques right now is to bash windows, becuase there is a subculture dedicated to hating on Microsoft. Non haters can continue to ignore they hyperbole.
      • Fartag, on 10/22/2007, -3/+2In this case subculture == people that know better, so it's fortunate for us all that that pool is increasing!
      • ProfBagelwood, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1The more tech savvy the site, the more Linux comes up. If you take a bunch of people and conduct a study, here's what you'll notice: the more a given person knows about computers, the more likely they are to like Linux and disapprove of Windows. It's a pretty easy thing to observe, really, and that's all there is to it. Articles like this get on the front page of sites like Digg because the Digg userbase is more tech savvy than average, and so a greater percentage of the site's users appreciate Linux than average. The dots pretty much connect themselves, my friend.
    • duhblah, on 10/23/2007, -3/+2@B1663r
      And the real irony is that there are more MS fanboys following the links, digging down the linux fanboys and making it happen than Linux fanboys. That is, if you really believe the conspiracy.
    • orph3us, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1not enough ram? Has some weird preinstalled software? Something like an antivirus? 1 Gig of ram on vista can be taken up pretty quickly if you have something else running on startup
    • Paranoidmarvin, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I don't get it - why have I had a flawless experience on my home built £400 computer??
  • leftcoastfunk, on 11/06/2007, -44/+95Why I haven't moved from Vista to Ubuntu 7.10: ummm...I [cough, cough] like Vista. Yes, that's right. I enjoy it. It's nice. It works. It's fast. Don't know what all the fuss is about...
    • Ryan121, on 10/23/2007, -9/+23The main argument by this guy is that it's slow but I don't have that problem and I have a feeling as usual with this kind of thing they are seriously over exaggerating.
      • theaceoffire, on 10/23/2007, -7/+10No we are not.
        And your computer can probably do more at once with less lag if you swapped to windows XP sp2/linux/osx.
        But if you don't notice a problem, then stay with Windows. There is nothing wrong with that.
        • Ryan121, on 10/22/2007, -2/+1My laptop is faster than any XP computer I've used. Nothing I do is going to be any faster if I use another operating system. I use Linux any way on my laptop and it's not any faster or slower.
      • theaceoffire, on 10/23/2007, -10/+2No we are not.
        And your computer can probably do more at once with less lag if you swapped to windows XP sp2/linux/osx.
        But if you don't notice a problem, then stay with Windows. There is nothing wrong with that.
    • myotive, on 10/23/2007, -7/+1"The fuss is aboot taking our citizens.
      It's aboot not censoring our art.
      This is not aboot diplomacy, this is aboot dignity...
      This is aboot respect... What's so god damn funny?"
      (South Park)
      I'm pretty sure I got that whole quote wrong, but it's the first thing that came to mind :)
    • Kamujin, on 10/23/2007, -16/+35Vista is fine. Its just "cool" to bash Microsoft.

      And spare me the evil Microsoft replies, Apple's policies are far more anti-competative, yet they get their epeen stroked 24/7.
      • black27696, on 10/23/2007, -4/+13I don't like vista that much (personal preference) but I will say this. Microsoft is Evil. So is apple, I'm not crazy about texaco either
        • lowryba, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2I am sorry.. but how much did Bill Gates give away last year? Giving away money, yep, must be evil.
      • Boomkin, on 10/23/2007, -8/+2You've gotta be kidding me. Not only does Apple participate in and contribute to the open source community, they also are fond of open, standard, non-proprietary formats.

        When Microsoft gets around to rebuilding Windows from the ground up on a UNIX base, your claim might have some validity.
        • brownr21, on 10/23/2007, -0/+5LOL

          Apple HATES open formats. Their DRM for starters. Have they implemented the .NET framework for their platform yet? Have they opened up their OS to hardware other than their own?
        • cquinnd, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4Aside from BSD, UNIX is a proprietary OS. Don't confuse the development under GNU with the core OS, because the same philosophy can be applied to Windows.
      • tehjarvis, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4I agree with everything you said...about Apple.
      • Crisender111, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Microsoft is no great but Apple is worst.

        Thank God Microsoft won the PC war. The world would have been so much worse if Apple ruled it.
        Its good they now sell more pods n phones (to ignorant souls)! ;-)
      • appleswitch, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1"Apple's policies are far more anti-competative"

        AAC vs WMA
        H.264 vs WMV
        Gecko vs ActiveX
        AIM vs MSN
        • Paranoidmarvin, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Well, Apple doesn't actually make any of those things, and they don't use Gecko either, that's Mozilla
          • appleswitch, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1"Apple doesn't actually make any of those things"

            That's the point.
    • CMfly, on 10/22/2007, -3/+6I haven't moved because this weekend when I tried my SLI and dual monitors didn't work at all.. Thankfully I only installed on another partition and not over Vista.. Maybe once things start working out of the box I'll switch but until then it's too much effort...
      • scyon, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2SLI support on Linux sucks (I am not a Microsoft fanboy, II use Linux at work and at home). If you are a hardcore PC gamer (I assume such because you have an SLI rig) stick with Windows.
    • HBNDonut, on 10/22/2007, -9/+4And on that note, I'm about to filter Linux/Ubuntu from my digg front page preferences.
    • cvrefugee, on 10/23/2007, -0/+10Believe it or not, ever since I upgraded to 7.10, Ubuntu has given me some problems. The major one occurs whenever I play a video and fast forward/rewind - the computer will restart. Running programs via Wine causes graphical slowdown while using Compiz Fusion and AWN. Vista? No random restarts or BSODs.
      • div2n, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I believe there are some known issues with wine and compiz. Check out winefix. It says it helps make things run better.
    • dracostimpy, on 10/23/2007, -1/+10I agree. I just migrated to Vista recently and so far I haven't had any probl
    • rinks, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6Yeah, Vista came on my new PC and I haven't had any problems with it. I tried to dual boot Ubuntu but the resolution wouldn't go high enough, even after hours of frustrated tweakings and forum readings.
    • iChainsaw, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1I don't know what the ***** the problem is...my friend always tells me vista is working great over IM or email...but then when i go over to his house, it runs like ***** and even on one occasion he got a BSOD.
  • keyo, on 10/23/2007, -7/+89It's Gigabyte fool.
    • Kempachi, on 10/22/2007, -13/+7It's "It's Gigabyte, fool" , fool.
      • devinx, on 10/22/2007, -1/+7It's "It's "It's Gigabyte, fool," fool," fool.
    • HonestAbe, on 10/23/2007, -1/+6It's "gibibyte", technically...

      *ducks*
    • matthewf01, on 10/23/2007, -1/+10And he's a writer for ZDNet? Give me a ***** break.

      He also incorrectly used "a la" in "Ubuntu 7.10 (ala Gutsy Gibbon)".
      He meant 'aka'. 'A la' would mean 'by way of'.
      So he could have said "Ubuntu, a la version 7.10 (Gutsy Gibbon).

      Jackass. Way to write.
      • jakswa, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3it's actually more likely that he incorrectly used 'aka'? as 'L' and 'K' are right next to each other on the keyboard (at least MY keyboard)...
    • keyo, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Anyone noticed it's been corrected?
  • over90000, on 10/22/2007, -24/+13Ubuntu 7.10 is nice. I was just trying out in VMWare. The major problem is th wireless. I don't care if it's Ubuntu's fault or the card vendor's. If something so important doesn't work, I will never switch.
    • Tippis, on 10/22/2007, -2/+12I assume you're not talking about a desktop VMWare here, since that would render the type of the card irrelevant?
      • over90000, on 10/22/2007, -5/+3Yes it does, but the problem is that when I boot it up natively it doesn't. I think I have to use ndiswrapper or something but it's too much of a hassle for me.
        • B1663r, on 10/22/2007, -1/+8In other words you haven't ever actually used VMWare, becuase networking doesnt work like that at all in VMWare.
        • mucnix, on 10/22/2007, -2/+1Plug in and download ndiswrapper-gtk (in Synaptic)
        • B1663r, on 10/22/2007, -1/+8mucnix,

          No need... He should just use the virtual devce driver that ~should~ already be built into his Linux distro. But he is a liar, and has not used VMWare before... So he wouldn't know that...
        • over90000, on 10/22/2007, -3/+2I must have said it wrong. I use VMware workstation on my laptop which needs a PCMCIA wireless card because it doesn't have one built in. I don't know much about VMware but as far as I know doesn't the guest OS just strap on to the existing windows connection which was my point. Obviously if I don't use vmware and just boot Ubuntu up on my pc normally the wireless is not going to work.
    • oobuntu, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6which card do you have?
    • CoolGoose, on 10/22/2007, -1/+8Wireless works like a charm for me. auto detect + wpa without any other adjustments .
      • natenovs, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1my wired internet doesnt work with gutsy. im a little confused.
      • andycr512, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Wifi on every card we own works with no configuration - plug it in and you're done (5+ adapters), though one disconnects frequently (but it also does that in Windows, just less frequently - darn Intel...)
  • jono10, on 10/22/2007, -19/+6Been using Ubuntu for a month now and still can't write to my 150 and 500GB hard drives.
    • Spuy767, on 10/22/2007, -2/+8Strange, I have no problem accessing and writing to files on my TB Hard drive.
    • yetAnotherCroc, on 10/22/2007, -2/+5thats strange. Are they NTFS? In that case you will need NTFS-3g (look for it in synaptic)
      • mrtrick, on 10/22/2007, -1/+7Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is installed by default on 7.10 (Gutsy).
      • autoatsakiklis, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1Yes, ntfs-3g is installed and enabled by default in gutsy. All ntfs partitions are mounted read and write automatically without need of ntfs-config, other tools or fstab editing.
    • edzilla, on 10/22/2007, -1/+15I'm thinking it's a problem of the keyboard/seat interface.
      You might want to consider changing it.
      • jono10, on 10/22/2007, -13/+3Perhaps I'll change back to Windows, *****.
        • edzilla, on 10/22/2007, -1/+10I'd appreciate that, thank you.
        • lonnieh, on 10/22/2007, -1/+10OH NOEZ! linux is doomed now!
        • thecurebr, on 10/22/2007, -1/+9If you think you are capable of at least changing it back to Windows that will be perfect! Good luck Champ!
        • andycr512, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4Hate to break it to you, but that won't fix the PEBCAK error.
      • Canadian0207, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Now that is funny.
    • bowens44, on 10/22/2007, -2/+7Well, that's not Ubuntu's fault.
    • muyuu, on 10/22/2007, -14/+1NTFS?　just install Automatix2
    • brasso, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5In that case you must be running 7.04, but 7.10 is out now and it got support for that, check for new updates.
  • Ksilebo, on 10/22/2007, -25/+10No linux distribution is ever going to "replace" Windows XP/Vista until you never have to go into the command line for anything, or have to edit 10 files by hand in order to fix something. Once that happens, the tipping point will start. Mac OS has accomplished this years ago.

    Until then, I'll keep playing Portal on my WinXP machine until I run out of cake.
    • yetAnotherCroc, on 10/22/2007, -1/+10so right about now then? (I recently went from ubuntu 7.04 to 7.10 and in my opinion they just eliminated the last few tasks that previously could only be done by terminal. Well you still have to compile in terminal. But only geeks feel the need to compile their apps nowadays.)
      • motang, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I feel the same way, setting up my wireless card (which uses Broadcom chipset) I didn't have the use the terminal, it was just few mouse clicks and reboot and the wireless was working flawlessly.
    • over90000, on 10/22/2007, -1/+67.10 is actually quite good. If you use VMware have a go at it. I used to be put off by the command line as well but they have made things a lot simpler in 7.10. However Ubuntu doesn't provide me with any incentives to move away from windows.
    • zybch, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4But didn't you hear, the cake is a lie!
    • edzilla, on 10/22/2007, -4/+20Another moron that has not bothered to try a user-friendly distribution in the last two years.
      • Kelmon, on 10/22/2007, -6/+5Assuming that you are right and Ksilebo is making a position based on out-of-date information, who's fault is that? Ksilebo's for not re-checking their information or Linux for not advertising what it can do or how it has progressed? I'm sorry but I honestly believe the latter. Linux needs to do a much better job of advertising what it can do in order that people will hear about it (ask the man on the street what Linux or Ubuntu is and they'll look at you like you have a speech impediment) and dispell the myths.
        • theaceoffire, on 10/22/2007, -0/+7Assuming that you are right and _______ is making a position based on out-of-date information, who's fault is that?
          His. If you don't have the info, don't try and judge.
          "This 'car' thing is pretty fast, but it only comes in black and goes 10 mph! Stick with horse and buggy!"
        • theaceoffire, on 10/22/2007, -3/+2Assuming that you are right and _______ is making a position based on out-of-date information, who's fault is that?
          His. If you don't have the info, don't try and judge.
          "This 'car' thing is pretty fast, but it only comes in black and goes 10 mph! Stick with horse and buggy!"
        • andycr512, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2It -is- advertised - CONSTANTLY. Liferea informs me of new articles praising Ubuntu every 4 hours or so.
    • bowens44, on 10/22/2007, -1/+10Comments like yours tell us that you're not familiar with Linux or Windows.
    • srg13, on 10/22/2007, -2/+14I was just playing Portal on Wine... pretty cool game
      • credence, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5dugg, I was surprised how neatly it runs on mine. It loads a tad slower than on my XP partition, but eyecandy seems to run fine.

        Episode 2 has some kinks, though. Of course, I'm just using straight Wine, not cedega...
        • srg13, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Straight Wine is the way to go - I haven't used Cedega in a while, but it was based on an old version of Wine, with a lot of hacks for DirectX support.
      • credence, on 10/24/2007, -5/+1dugg, I was surprised how neatly it runs on mine. It loads a tad slower than on my XP partition, but eyecandy seems to run fine.

        Episode 2 has some kinks, though. Of course, I'm just using straight Wine, not cedega...
    • invinciblechunk, on 10/22/2007, -2/+5I am told that rumors of cake are unsubstantiated.
    • lifewithryan, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I understand why someone wouldn't want to switch for that reason, however I agree with all the other comments here in that, you really don't have to use the command line for stuff anymore. HOWEVER, you should learn to embrace the command line. Even when I'm in OS X or Windows, I stil l find myself doing alot of work from the command line. You'd be surprised how much you'd learn if you just open up a little bit. On top of that, all the scripting and automation you can do from the command line can be very time saving instead of having to point and grunt your way through tasks...
      Having said all that, i've tried to wean myself away from the command line but still find myself coming back to it constantly. Don't be afraid of it, embrace and learn something.
    • buckrogers1965, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1The funny thing is that an improved command line is one of Vistas selling points.

      "Monad, also known more formally as the MSH Command Shell, is a next generation Windows command shell. Built on top of the .NET Framework, MSH provides a powerful infrastructure for the automation of a wide range of administrative tasks. At last, the command line is a first-class citizen in the world of Windows system management." - computerworld
    • Leviathan88, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Yeah, At least you can fix stuff manually without losing everything. The only way to fix stuff on Windows is format.
  • coolboy0286, on 11/06/2007, -16/+35Why'd you start using Vista in the first place?
    • adude, on 10/22/2007, -8/+10Because it's good to be open-minded to software from companies that although might be perceived as "evil" can still make good products sometimes (e.g., Media Center, XBox, Office 2007).
      • TheZorch, on 10/23/2007, -7/+2You are assuming it is a good product, which Vista isn't. Digging you down as inaccurate. I have a five year old system which can't run Windows Vista BASIC, yet Compiz Fusion runs ultra-smooth with several features turned on and plugins added. If the Compiz Fusion porject and Ubuntu developers get it right then what the hell is Microsoft's problem?
        People may dig me down for being a Linux fan boy, but doing so only proves they are hypocrites because while they say I'm being a fanatic for Linux they fail to acknowledge that question because they are afraid to admit that perhaps we Linux users "are right". It is also NOT good to be open minded about software from a company like Microsoft who is a known monopoly and has yet to show any real interest in playing fair in the IT marketplace because doing so fuels their illegal activities thus making you an accomplice to their anti-competitive activities.
        • Dumbledorito, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3"I have a five-year-old system."

          Found your problem!
      • Fartag, on 10/24/2007, -5/+2MS has no interest for the customer / consumer except as an ensured cash source. So it pursues every possibility to ensure profit including those _against the users_ like controlling what they're allowed to do and artificially locking them into a platform, etc. An "open mind" meaning to continually give them the benefit of the doubt is increasingly naive under consistent and contrary news.
      • arjie, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1I can understand the open-minded part, nothing against that. But 300 USD, that sounds like being open-walleted.
    • wicketr, on 10/22/2007, -2/+3Well, I tried to install Ubuntu on my box, but the graphics drivers wouldn't work and I got a blue screen of death (or the Ubuntu equivalent). With this version of Ubuntu it won't even begin the install process. Some error I didn't understand. So, I had to go back to my Vista. Ubuntu just doesn't seem to work. I'd really like to use it, because I hate paying for software. Especially bloatware, but I apparently need to go to class to understand how to install it. Why isn't Ubuntu easier?
    • da5id, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Why did you get a PC in the first place?
  • B1663r, on 10/22/2007, -30/+7Wow the windows haters are all fired up this morning. Ever notice how they come out in droves right before a big Apple release? Apple must have a whole department of people paid to FUD on microsoft.
    • antitab, on 10/22/2007, -3/+13Surely it couldn't be that their rational and well-made arguments are correct on their own! Steve and Mark MUST be funding this travesty!
    • bowens44, on 10/22/2007, -3/+13Actually, it's the windows fan boys who stir things up. If you don't like Linux or Ubuntu, why come here and shoot off your mouth. Just ignore it and move on. It's not that difficult.
    • Kelmon, on 10/22/2007, -2/+15Need I point out the patently frickin' obvious - Apple doesn't make Ubuntu? So what on earth are you talking about?
      • thescimitar, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2New OS revision release 10.5 "Tiger", on friday.
    • TheZorch, on 10/22/2007, -2/+5More nonsense from Windows loving hypocrites, and we Linux users are called fan boy fanatics. You Windows lovers are much worse than we are because we actually tell the truth and and aren't in denial.
  • zate, on 11/06/2007, -5/+40I agree with over90000, I am a HUGE ubuntu fan, i use it at work and home. This weekend I was about to switch my wifes Dell 1505 laptop over to 7.10. I boot the LiveCD and the wireless does not work. I was very surprised as this model is a laptop that Dell sells with Ubuntu on it.

    Until the wireless just "works" we wont see the tipping point. I know all about ndiswrapper and I know how to get the wireless working, but we aren't quite there yet if it WPA-PSK doesn't work flawlessly from the LiveCD. The LiveCD is the first date, things should work. People should be able to boot the LiveCD and get online just like they do on windows so they can test it out.
    • CoolGoose, on 10/22/2007, -4/+10Right.. it's hard to install ndsiwrapper and use the gui to select a driver from the drivers disk.
      • cquinnd, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1No harder than having an automated step that tries to help the user do just that.
        His point is fairly well made, the LiveCD should give as good a first impression of the OS as possible.
      • gudnbluts, on 10/22/2007, -0/+0Installing it doesn't always do the job. I had to recompile it to get my card working under 7.04.

        7.10 actually sorted all that, as it happens. My card's driver appeared in the restricted drivers thingy, and actually worked fine. It put a smile on my face to finally drop ndiswrapper, presumably forever.
    • paulsmith288, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4my wireless (intel) and bluetooth worked fine in ubuntu.
      • leodavinci, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Same here, everything just WORKED. If it had been a Vista or XP install from scratch I would have needed to go to the manufacturers site for the drivers. Ubuntu downloaded all the necessary drivers after it prompted me if I wanted to download them or not.
        • cquinnd, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Actually the Vista install can do that too, and has shown some improvement in downloading extra drivers (if needed), since launch. But it is nice to see any OS that tries to take that into account.
    • andycr512, on 10/23/2007, -1/+6I mentioned this before in another thread, but we own 5 or more wifi cards and all of them work without any configuration in Ubuntu. I can't find a card that -doesn't- work - a lady came into our LUG a few months ago asking us to get her wifi card working. It involved clicking the Network Manager tray icon and choosing a network...
      • mizike, on 10/23/2007, -5/+3wow, it worked on 5 or more different cards? that either means ubuntu's now flawless, or it's not and you've given meaningless anecdotal evidence....i'm not sure which.....

        ubuntu's wireless issues are a real problem, and ignoring or downplaying them is not a solution....to cite some anecdotal evidence of my own: As of feisty my wireless card is still isn't anywhere close to working and after much dicking around on the command line and reading through the byzantine maze of support files, i simply gave up and went back back to XP..... and the thing is, I have a CS degree, if I couldn't get it working with a reasonable amount of time and effort, how do you think the average computer user would do?

        Until simple and ESSENTIAL things like wireless networking work easily out of the box, ubuntu's never going to really take off and no amount of stroking each other off about how awesome it is on digg and slashdot forums is going to change that....
        • andycr512, on 10/23/2007, -0/+5My anecdotal evidence, since the cards weren't even selected by me and are random cards, indicates that most cards on average work without any configuration and that your case is the exception, not the rule. Sure, it has wireless issues. All I was saying was that it has very few wireless issues left.
        • arjie, on 10/23/2007, -0/+5Hmm, what card were you using that was so much trouble? I've had one card work out-of-the-box (on the laptop, card's an Intel PRO 3945), and one work with ndiswrapper (on the desktop, card's a Netgear WG311 or something). I have no CS degree and don't count myself as an expert with computers so I can't do what I'm asking you to. You're a CS major, if you have some free time perhaps you could write us a driver? :) Alternatively, what's the name of the card, I have a remarkable talent with Google, I may be able to help.
        • lifewithryan, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3Oh you have a CS Degree! Well that explains it! Now go out and get some real experience and see how much money you wasted on that piece of paper.
    • elam82, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1My wireless doesn't work either, and I've tried everything...
    • msiner, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Does your wife's Dell have the Dell 1390, or similar Dell branded, wireless card in it? Most of those are Broadcom chips and can be configured, but require a little bit of work. If you try to configure an Ubuntu Dell, they do not allow you to choose these as an option. Check the forums.
    • slugicide, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2I have an e1505 and was also pissed that wireless didn't work with the live cd. Then I spent a minute on ubuntu forums and read why that is the case and how it doesn't affect the upgrade. I upgraded and it went flawlessly. After one restart I had the exact same desktop as before, except is was the latest OS (and my mouse cursor went from red to white(?)).
    • slugicide, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I have an e1505 and was also pissed that wireless didn't work with the live cd. Then I spent a minute on ubuntu forums and read why that is the case and how it doesn't affect the upgrade. I upgraded and it went flawlessly. After one restart I had the exact same desktop as before, except is was the latest OS (and my mouse cursor went from red to white(?)).
    • dsb1, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Agreed, wireless out the box is still no go. I too know the ndiswrapper gettyup, but if all of us that don't have working wifi out the box, why is the ndiswrapper not integrated into the install somehow? In fact the help docs from livecd say to install ndisgtk, but that package is not available.

      The two usb dongle's that didn't work (out the box) for me are the USR805422 and LinksysWUSB54GSC.
    • R3j3ct, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I've got a Belkin USB dongle and intel integrated wireless, both work without any drivers or anything.

      Which is more then I can say for vista, which for some reason won't save my wireless info (I have WEP and an unbroadcasted ID) instead, constantly defaulting over to a distant unsecured wireless network every time.
    • maruchan, on 10/22/2007, -0/+0I'm pretty sure it depends on which wireless card is inside your 1505. I bought the Ubuntu E1505 and it has Intel Wireless - I've never had a problem with it, although one time I forgot that I accidentally hit the wireless toggle key combo. The E1505 is just a frame...what you get inside of it can differ, so it's best to buy with preinstalled Ubuntu if you want a good experience.
    • josephblanx, on 10/22/2007, -0/+17.10 is the FIRST Ubuntu that I got wireless working almost immediately. I had to get the box to a wired connection to update after install, then everything showed up under the Restricted Drivers Manager.
    • OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Wireless just works for me in Ubuntu. There's a little widget up by the clock that you select your wireless access point with. Piece of cake.
  • GeForce8800GTX, on 10/22/2007, -13/+5I'm not your problem.
  • twodayslate, on 10/22/2007, -21/+8Vista sucks, of course someone would change.

    I run XP!
  • natedouglas, on 11/01/2007, -6/+28"A quick tour of the stickers next to the keyboard reveals such delights as a SATA hard drive, GeForce 8600 GT graphics card with 512MB of video RAM, Core 2 duo processor and 1GB RAM."

    Apple is really falling behind the tech curve, apparently. Their hardware is still inside the laptop and cannot be added/removed by way of convenient adhesive badges :(
    • ORBAT, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7Wait, what if I attach a WiFi badge to my head? Will I be able to cheat in exams by looking everything up in Wikipedia?
      • natedouglas, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4Just like that chick in Heroes. Pwn.
  • jellygraph, on 10/22/2007, -19/+13Vista... oh vista, how i despise vista... it really is slow. it's not that applications stutter, for lack of memory, or too much paging going on. its the network... anything, copying over network, downloading off the internet, etc... seems to be 3x or more slower than it is in xp or linux. its the way the interface is so convoluted, i spend more time trying to find the simplest things. nothing seems simpler about vista, although it tries to give you that perception. all they did is just make it look nice. but its polished turn.

    i cant stand vista... i really cant... i'm thinking of removing it off my dual boot with Linux Mint altogether, because i never boot into more than once every 1 1/2 - 2 months

    what were they thinking?
    • Kamujin, on 10/22/2007, -7/+2They were thinking people with modern computers would run it. It runs great on a modern PC.
    • itschop, on 10/22/2007, -2/+4You can't find the simplest things? You ever see the built in search box on the start menu? Yea.. they made it even easier to navigate and use the search feature, they just can't please you retards can they? I bet you can't find the calculator right?

      Honestly I am not a fan of Vista, as of yet at least. My main reason being are the premature drivers, once SP1 is released next year and manufacturers start to pump out more stable Vista drivers I will most likely make the switch.
  • zdiggler, on 10/22/2007, -14/+6Because this guy switch its the tipping point?
  • Ramble, on 10/25/2007, -9/+38If this guy can't do the simpliest of tasks (can't even figure out UAC) then he really ought not to work as a computer journalist.
    • B1663r, on 10/23/2007, -7/+9I run my computer day to day with UAC turned on. I almost never see it, unless I am installing a bit of software. The complaints about UAC are just more hater hyp