Vista OS

but I do need to run Palm (plus a couple of TPAs my wife uses at work), Ipod, and MS Word/Excel. Can I do this?

There are Palm programs available for Linux, probably IPOD programs as well.

You won't be able to run Word/Excel natively on Linux, but I believe MS Office apps usually work through the WINE emulator. Or you can use OpenOffice, a free and open source office suite that's "mostly compatible" with MS Office. There are even Windows, Mac, and other versions of OpenOffice, so you can use the exact same programs no matter what computer you're using.
 
If you change to linux and give yourself 2 month's you will never go back. I have used linux for years here are the some advantages, can't get spy ware or a virus , all the free software you can imagine. Very stable and very secure , it is actually the backbone of the Internet . Most servers are UNIX based. Linux is not a ram hog . You just let it run. I knew of a guy once that ran his linux box for over 6 years without a reboot . Now the only disadvantage I can think of linux is not good for gaming. People often ask me why I use linux and I simply reply it just makes sense. Just think about no more hard drive defragmentation no more updating your anti virus or spy ware cleaner (there is no registry to clean! ) all the free software for whatever you can imagine legal and free. Things like the firefox browser are linux apps that have been ported to M$ .

Most of what you say is applicable to OS X as well. It is UNIX based and no anti virus or spy ware to worry about. No defrag easy to install and remove programs.

It is a lot more expensive than Linux and there aren't nearly as many cheap or free programs as there are for Windows or Linux. You can get Microsoft Office Suite plus Opensource office as well.

They do have good support and are very stable. I have two Mac machines now and would never think of going back to Windows.

I do have an old Windows laptop that I keep for a few little programs that don't have OS X substitutes, maybe I'll convert it to a Linux box. It is good to hear that it is becoming more user friendly. Of course every time I use it it gets better and better.

Chad
 
I believe that Linux is worth a try, it's free and can be tested on a Live CD, if you like it you can install without removing Windows and choose OS at boot time. Or you can get a small Linux distribution (such as puppy Linux), boot from a CD and run it all in ram.

I've been using ubuntu since february 2007 and I think it's great, I do log occasionally in Windows (mostly to update and run antivirus and antispyware software), but I can do most of what I need in Linux.

Some things that I have not yet been able to do in Linux are:

- Getting my old parallel port scanner to work (It wasn't easy to get it to run in Windows XP but I did it). however I've found that my 8 MegaPixel camera does a good job taking pictures of documents (even has a setting for it).

- Getting my old Infrared usb dongle to work (but I'm doing fine with my bluetooth usb dongle).

- Splitting, joining and compressing vob, avi, etc. video files (I can rip and convert fine in ubuntu but I log in Windows and use nandub and AutoGordianKnot for other stuff, I've heard that nandub can be used in Linux with Wine but have not gotten down to configure it.
(Edited: I just had to update this... I found Avidemux for Linux and it does a fine job working with video files).

I don't use a pda and I load my digital player like a standard flash pendrive, but I know that there is Linux software for them. For Ipod and digital players ubuntu inlcudes amarok and for Palm and other pda devices it includes gnome-pilot.

Luis
 
People can bitch about Vista and bash Microsoft all they want but, in the end people like myself really have no other choice but to run a current Microsoft OS. The software I use from work is only available to me in a MS compatible form. For home use, how hard is it to use email and a web browser? Heck, I can even do that on a cheap cell phone.

With every OS release, the minimum hardware required has increased. When XP came out, it was buggy and running on a single core CPU of ~1.4Ghz in my case. Now, most people have a dual core CPU running ~2Ghz+. If they don't have at least 2Gb of memory, they are probably only doing the simplest things possible on their PC.

For $300 I got a new Celeron and Vista based laptop. I immediately dumped the 512mB of memory for 2 Gigs. It does everything I need it to do. It is effectively a large PDA that I use to surf the 'net, send email, and do MS Office things.

I would like a Mac but, I don't want to pay the outrageous prices for their hardware. Current Mac, Linux, and Vista OS's have much better security then past operating systems and that is more important to me because identity theft is rampant and the hardware costs to upgrade the speed of the OS is rather small. 4Gb of PC 7200 DDR2 memory was only $150. One data leak will cost me much more then that in time alone. As far as software piracy features, sure it irks me when I have a problem ripping my store bought CD to my MP3 player but, on the flip side there are so many people stealing music and software I don't see this as an over zealous response.

Even Apple iTunes has issues with sharing music you own but, I don't see that many people complaining about having to buy their music again because iTunes won't share it with their new "player" of choice.
 
Basically MS has educated all of us to wait for the first Service Pack (SP). SP-1 will be out first quarter of 08 - if it did nothing else - it gets rid of the DRM kill switch feature - this "feature" was part of the OS that would basically decide that you had made too many changes to the hardware - it would nag you for a month to get updated and then essentially kill your computer.
While this is the reason I have essentially switched to Linux for anything really critical -and have stayed with Win 2K for the stuff that only runs on Windows - I can not help but feel a certain sympathy for the folks in Redmond - gotta be tough when your day starts wondering how many new Virus atacks are going to be launched against your products and users and once you're done with that / are the jokes that the large nation to the West has purchased 10,000 copies of your software and only 70,000,000 non- licensed users are actually using it really that funny?
 
This article is not only funny , it is so true.... :eek::D

Review: Windows XP
I have finally decided to take the plunge. Last night I upgraded my Vista desktop machine to Windows XP, and this afternoon I will be doing the same to my laptop.


Look & Feel

Windows XP has quite a cartoony look and feel compared to the slick look of Aero Glass; this is mostly offset by the lack of strange screen artifacts caused by malfunctioning graphics code. You know, almost like static on the screen. This was a once or twice monthly occurrence on my laptop, and happened on my desktop whenever I logged in, and also whenever I played a 3D game after leaving Vista running for a couple of hours. I also miss the "orphaned windows" I got on Vista, dialog boxes that would not go away, in a sense they became part of the desktop, since you could drag a selection from within them, despite the fact that the Glass would render the selection below them. Such crazy graphics bugs appear to be a thing of the past.

Performance

Well, here there appears to be no contest. Windows XP is both faster and far more responsive. I no longer have the obligatory 1-minute system lock that happens whenever I log onto Vista, instead I can run applications as soon as I can click their icons. Not only that, but the applications start snappily too, rather than all waiting in some "I'm still starting up the OS" queue for 30 seconds or so before all starting at once. In addition, I have noticed that when performing complex tasks such as viewing large images, or updating large spreadsheets, instead of the whole operating system locking down for several seconds, it now just locks down the application I am working on, allowing me to <gasp> Alt-Tab to another application and work on that. I am thrilled that Microsoft decided to add preemptive multitasking to their operating system, and for this reason alone I would strongly urge you to upgrade to XP. With the amount of multi-core processors around today using a multitasking operating system like XP makes a world of difference.


In addition, numerous tasks that take a long time on Vista have been greatly speeded up. File copies are snappy and responsive, and pressing the Cancel button halfway through actually cancels the copy almost immediately, as opposed to having it lock up, and sometimes lock up the PC. In addition, a lot of work has gone into making deletes far more efficient, it appears that no more does the operating system scan every file to be deleted prior to wiping it, and instead just wipes out the NTFS trees involved, a far quicker operation. On my Vista machine I would often see a dialog box from some of my video codec's pop up when deleting, moving or copying videos. No more, now all that is involved is a byte transfer or NTFS operation.

Automatic Updates has also gone through a performance facelift in that it no longer hogs your bandwidth when you're surfing, a nice touch.


Device Support

XP comes with some impressive device support. In fact, every peripheral I've collected over the years works perfectly with it. Many have the device drivers preinstalled on XP, making their installation a snap, but for the rest it was easy to find device drivers on the Web. In addition I found the drivers quick and reliable, a far cry from the buggy, slow and sparse driver support in Vista. I'm glad to see that with their new flagship OS, Windows XP, Microsoft have finally learnt from the mistakes they made with the Vista launch. In addition, support for mobile devices seems to be significantly improved.

I've also found that XP seems much lighter on the hardware than Vista, when it's inactive the hard drive very rarely spins up, a major advantage for me, since I often sleep near my laptop. No longer do I have to try and ignore the continual hard drive drone, but can now sleep soundly just like my computer. I never did figure out exactly what Vista was doing with my hard drive the whole time, but I'm sure it degraded its lifespan with all that spinning.

Reliability

All I can say is "wow!" You can see that a lot of work has gone into making XP more reliable than its predecessor. The random program crashes, and hangs appear to be a thing of the past.


Internet Explorer 7 is much more reliable on XP as well, and has so far not crashed once whilst viewing GMail, when it used to do this several times a day. In addition, I can now actually close the thing down normally every time, instead of sometimes having to kill the process. Error collection seems to be far better as well. Instead of a dialog taking a minute or two to collect the information it needs, the dialog comes up and is ready to send error data almost immediately. I am sad to see the back of the Solutions tool though, it may have hardly ever delivered any valid solutions, especially for the standard random crashes, but at least you knew that something under your control was tracking that information. Please, Microsoft bring it back.

Speaking of which, I notice that the Reliability Report is also gone, again a sore loss, I really enjoyed charting the downward spiral of my Vista reliability, there were those occasional humps that got you all excited, and then the graph would continue its steady sojourn downwards. Of course, the fact that it only appeared to pay attention to a tiny fraction of the actual problems was a bit of an issue, but I'm sure they could have resolved that for the XP release. Ah well.

I also am pleased to note that Ctrl-Alt-Del does actually have an effect nowadays. Many times in Vista, I wished that they would make this more reliable so I could kill off the inevitable hanging Windows Explorer process (as a matter of fact, this is the situation I find myself in right now), in XP it actually does something as opposed to being part of the usual Vista eternal hang. Speaking of which, please excuse me for a few minutes, Windows Explorer has now been 100% hung for 5 minutes, despite my asking Vista to restart it, and despite me pushing Ctrl-Alt-Del several times over those 5 minutes. So I'm going to have to hard-reset my laptop. This process, by the way, is also something that amazingly seems to almost never be required in the clean and sparkling new XP.

Right, I'm back, thanks for being patient. I mentioned how much quicker you could start using programs from a boot in XP; I must admit that, appealing though that feature is, you won't actually find it that useful. XP almost never appears to require a reboot, so you hardly ever take advantage of a wonderful improvement like that, which otherwise would save you at least 15-20 minutes a day.


Gaming

This is another area where Microsoft has really excelled in Windows XP. Games are significantly more responsive, get much higher frame rates, and are far more reliable than in Vista. If you're a gamer, the upgrade to XP is mandatory. Whilst there are a few games that won't work as well in XP than in Vista, you'll find that on the whole XP supports almost all the games you'd want to play. In addition, it's vastly increased reliability means you'll spend much more time killing things than restarting, a welcome change I can assure you. You'll also find that non-X-Fi soundcards with EAX are much improved by their support in XP, which can really add a bit of excitement to your gaming experience.

Multimedia

Multimedia support on XP is vastly better than on Vista. Whilst content-creators had insisted on all sorts of intrusive features in Vista that made the multimedia experience a living hell for Microsoft users, thankfully with XP Microsoft were able to insist that their customers' needs came ahead of the content creators outdated business model. It's nice to see a corporation like Microsoft stand up to the cyber bullies at the MPAA and refuse to assume that its loyal customers are criminals. In any case, the DRM built into Vista was broken shortly after its release anyway.

Conclusion

To be honest there is only one conclusion to be made; Microsoft has really outdone themselves in delivering a brand new operating system that really excels in all the areas where Vista was sub-optimal. From my testing, discussions with friends and colleagues, and a review of the material out there on the web there seems to be no doubt whatsoever that that upgrade to XP is well worth the money. Microsoft can really pat themselves on the back for a job well done, delivering an operating system which is much faster and far more reliable than its predecessor. Anyone who thinks there are problems in the Microsoft Windows team need only point to this fantastic release and scoff loudly.

Well done Microsoft!


http://dotnet.org.za/codingsanity/archive/2007/12/14/review-windows-xp.aspx
 
I've been using Vista for going on 6 months now and its been nothing short of perfect. I have never had a single lockup, slowdown, or unexplainable error. Its a better operating system than XP and I have no doubt that people will eventually, grudgingly admit it. This is Windows 2000 upgrading to XP all over again. People will always bitch about change.
 
Well, I took the plunge last night and finally upgraded back to XP. It was weird clicking on icons and not thinking it just crashed as it black screened and asked you to give administrative permission to do simple things. It was also weird that all of my installed programs worked without messing with them. Something Vista wasn't capable of. (I rebuilt my Vista machine a couple of times and inevitably 1 or 2 programs would act up. But never the same programs, besides Mailwasher, Cisco VPN Client, and IE.)

The only downside... I'll have to look for a hack so I can play Bioshock on XP. It was released as a Game For Windows so I'm not sure if it will install on anything other than Vista. But... everything else has been cracked on it so far so I imagine there's already a bunch of work arounds for it.
 
This is Windows 2000 upgrading to XP all over again.

Windows 2000 was an operating system designed for business users; not many people used it at home. So people using XP for the first time were usually upgrading from Windows 98SE or Windows ME, and I never heard them complaining.

The only downside... I'll have to look for a hack so I can play Bioshock on XP.
If Bioshock is Vista-only, you could always dual-boot XP and Vista on the same computer. Since you already own both OSes...
 
Well, I took the plunge last night and finally upgraded back to XP. It was weird clicking on icons and not thinking it just crashed as it black screened and asked you to give administrative permission to do simple things. It was also weird that all of my installed programs worked without messing with them. Something Vista wasn't capable of. (I rebuilt my Vista machine a couple of times and inevitably 1 or 2 programs would act up. But never the same programs, besides Mailwasher, Cisco VPN Client, and IE.)

The only downside... I'll have to look for a hack so I can play Bioshock on XP. It was released as a Game For Windows so I'm not sure if it will install on anything other than Vista. But... everything else has been cracked on it so far so I imagine there's already a bunch of work arounds for it.


Bioshock will work fine on XP. As will any other game.

Nobody is going to be releasing Vista only games for years , if ever.
 
Bioshock will work fine on XP. As will any other game.

Nobody is going to be releasing Vista only games for years , if ever.

Do you know someone who has it working? I thought the whole jist of "Games for Windows" was that they wouldn't work on anything except Vista?
 
Windows 2000 was an operating system designed for business users; not many people used it at home. So people using XP for the first time were usually upgrading from Windows 98SE or Windows ME, and I never heard them complaining.
You may not remember but I certainly do. The savvy owners were using win2k and the less than savvy were using 98 or ME. Everyone bitched about activation and how nothing would work. They also complained about how XP was a memory hog in comparison. People didn't like the cartoony look to XP and the inability to find anything. For the longest time, gamers would continue to use 98 because they said it was quicker.

Same story, different year.

edit for an example review:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.html
 
Do you know someone who has it working? I thought the whole jist of "Games for Windows" was that they wouldn't work on anything except Vista?

Straight from Steam

Minimum: Operating System: Windows XP (with Service Pack 2) or Windows Vista, CPU: Intel single-core Pentium 4 processor at 2.4GHz, System RAM: 1 GB, Video Card: Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 128MB RAM and Pixel Shader 3.0 (NVIDIA 6600 or better/ATI X1300 or better, excluding ATI X1550), Sound Card: 100% direct X 9.0c compatible sound card, 8GB of free hard drive space.

Recommended: CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo processor; System RAM: 2GB; Video Card: DX 9 - Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512 MB RAM and Pixel Shader 3.0 (NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT or better), DX 10 - NVIDIA GeForce 8600 or better; Sound Card: SoundBlaster(r) X-Fi(tm) series (optimized foruse with Creative Labs EAX ADVANCED HD 4.0 or EAX ADVANCED HD 5.0 compatible sound cards);

Game requires Internet connection for activation

Note: Contains SecuROM copy control software. Installations limited to five PCs per license

It will work with XP , the thing that sucks big hot dogs about this new Securom crap is that you can only install it five times , per liscense !!??
WTH is that all about.
I'm sure there will be , if there already isn't a crack for that , but seriously , if you buy a game you should be able to install it for life. :grumpy:
I wont be buying that one.


edit - says it will work with Vista , I would check some good gaming forums before I bought any game for a Vista box.
 
Well, as it turns out, my main problems with Vista turned out to be a conflict between Kaspersky AV and MailWasher. Problems that also occured with my XP install I did 2 nights ago.:o So.... I made an image of my XP install and then blew it away and went back to the Vista image I had made just before blowing it away and fixed those conflicts and all is ok again with Vista. The other bugs don't bother me as much so I should be good to go now. Again. For a while....
 
I am running Vista and it runs like a champ, no problems whatsoever. I am running it on a Quad core PC with 4gb of RAM and a 10,000 RPM Raptor hard drive....... but it runs great!

The biggest thing of all is how bad the computers come from the factory as far as startup programs which slow them down to no end. The HP computers come with a program that even if the PC is a screamer takes 1-3 minutes to load! All the Vista machine could also benefit from disabling User Account Control, the screen that makes the PC ask for your permission all the time. Turn it off!

If you know how to tune up a PC and your Vista PC has at least 1gb you should be fine, but get 2gb to be safe. My games actually run better in Vista than they did in XP, though I did not expect that at all! I have two hard drives and left XP on one and put Vista on the other so I could dual boot, and then I discovered that I never went into XP at all so I killed it and used the other drive for storage now. Vista works fine, but as it is new it will be hated until the next version comes out and then we can hear about how Vista is better than the new POS than just came out! :) Every time since Win 95..... And really they said the same thing about Windows 3.1, who would ever need more than Dos 6.22..... I am used to it now.

Most if not all trouble I have ran into is software caused, but vista gets the blame as the above poster found out. I actually LOVE Vista and have had no issues with it, but I am sure there will be improvement in SP1. I want network file transfers to be faster, that alone will make me happy.
 
Back
Top