02-05-2012, 07:44 PM
I must admit that I'm disappointed at how much I like Windows 7!
Most of my home machines run XP, apart from an old workshop machine that has Win98 for doing DOS apps and for hardware applications that need direct control of ports. I like both these OSs for what they are, and have found them to be very reliable. For example, the Win98 machine hasn't had an OS reinstall since 1998, and that's despite having had many changes of hardware, including a motherboard upgrade. My XP machine was built in 2004 and also worked flawlessly. I reinstalled from scratch when I bought a bigger hard drive, but actually, I'm convinced there was no reason to do that. It's unfortunate that the IT professional answer to an OS problem is a clean re-install - I understand the economics, but it's not satisfying, and it also means the OS gets a bad reputation.
Without wanting to be too contentious, Windows operating systems simply do not "break". Rather, their users break them, either by visiting websites containing malicious code, or by downloading and installing software that is either badly coded or contains rogue code (or both!).
The problem with Windows is that by default, a user has admin rights over the machine. The attempts to fix this in Vista/7 with UAC have proved unpopular, and users often disable the warnings or ignore them - back to square 1!
I'm not wanting to bang the drum for Microsoft, but I do think that a lot of the criticism is OTT and unjustified. I've supported MS systems professionally and personally, and have been generally very impressed with the stability. And they are a lot easier to fix than the alternatives.
So why am I disappointed at liking W7? Simply, I didn't want to like it, because I didn't want to buy it!
About 2-3 years ago I decided to seriously try to get along with Linux, and all the evangelists said "Ubuntu". There's a lot to like about Ubuntu, but given the choice between XP or Ubuntu on a desktop system for everyday use (expert or non-expert user), it would be XP every time. Having extensively trialled it on several hardware platforms, XP always makes better use of the hardware (because the drivers are better - understandably), and runs much more responsively. In my experience, a PIII is a perfectly viable XP desktop machine, provided it's a quicker one, and provided you've got ¾GB RAM or more. A P4 is very very capable on XP - especially the later ones with HT - again, the more RAM the better. Meanwhile, using Gnome under Ubuntu, a PIII isn't fast enough to draw the desktop environment. Everything is really laggy. You click on a drop-down and wait 3 seconds while it's drawn on the screen. Even with well-supported graphics cards, the user experience is very poor indeed. My Ubuntu machine is a fast P4 - 3.06GHz with 2GB RAM - and it's only just usable. Although you can't use Firefox on it - you're forced to use Chrome (as discussed on anther thread).
There are people who can optimise their Linux installations with excellent results, but I'm not one of them! When I have more spare time, I'd like to have a go, but I'm afraid that the days of playing with OS installations for fun have long gone. To me, a computer is a tool, and the OS should perform optimally out of the box. Windows does - although yes, it can be made a lot better if you're so inclined. I'm building a PIII machine (optimised for minimum power usage), and hope to learn a lot more about Linux optimisation during that process - I'll no-doubt be seeking help and advice at that point.
I used to be quite good at Linux - I made it run on a 486 back in 1997, and it even ran X successfully. It was surprisingly usable too. But I just can't take to it now - the command line is appalling, and you daren't ask for help in Linux forums because of the "newbie vultures". I think that having to learn Open VMS a few years back has showed me how good a command-line environment can be
I'm dribbling all over Colin's thread. I apologise
Most of my home machines run XP, apart from an old workshop machine that has Win98 for doing DOS apps and for hardware applications that need direct control of ports. I like both these OSs for what they are, and have found them to be very reliable. For example, the Win98 machine hasn't had an OS reinstall since 1998, and that's despite having had many changes of hardware, including a motherboard upgrade. My XP machine was built in 2004 and also worked flawlessly. I reinstalled from scratch when I bought a bigger hard drive, but actually, I'm convinced there was no reason to do that. It's unfortunate that the IT professional answer to an OS problem is a clean re-install - I understand the economics, but it's not satisfying, and it also means the OS gets a bad reputation.
Without wanting to be too contentious, Windows operating systems simply do not "break". Rather, their users break them, either by visiting websites containing malicious code, or by downloading and installing software that is either badly coded or contains rogue code (or both!).
The problem with Windows is that by default, a user has admin rights over the machine. The attempts to fix this in Vista/7 with UAC have proved unpopular, and users often disable the warnings or ignore them - back to square 1!
I'm not wanting to bang the drum for Microsoft, but I do think that a lot of the criticism is OTT and unjustified. I've supported MS systems professionally and personally, and have been generally very impressed with the stability. And they are a lot easier to fix than the alternatives.
So why am I disappointed at liking W7? Simply, I didn't want to like it, because I didn't want to buy it!
About 2-3 years ago I decided to seriously try to get along with Linux, and all the evangelists said "Ubuntu". There's a lot to like about Ubuntu, but given the choice between XP or Ubuntu on a desktop system for everyday use (expert or non-expert user), it would be XP every time. Having extensively trialled it on several hardware platforms, XP always makes better use of the hardware (because the drivers are better - understandably), and runs much more responsively. In my experience, a PIII is a perfectly viable XP desktop machine, provided it's a quicker one, and provided you've got ¾GB RAM or more. A P4 is very very capable on XP - especially the later ones with HT - again, the more RAM the better. Meanwhile, using Gnome under Ubuntu, a PIII isn't fast enough to draw the desktop environment. Everything is really laggy. You click on a drop-down and wait 3 seconds while it's drawn on the screen. Even with well-supported graphics cards, the user experience is very poor indeed. My Ubuntu machine is a fast P4 - 3.06GHz with 2GB RAM - and it's only just usable. Although you can't use Firefox on it - you're forced to use Chrome (as discussed on anther thread).
There are people who can optimise their Linux installations with excellent results, but I'm not one of them! When I have more spare time, I'd like to have a go, but I'm afraid that the days of playing with OS installations for fun have long gone. To me, a computer is a tool, and the OS should perform optimally out of the box. Windows does - although yes, it can be made a lot better if you're so inclined. I'm building a PIII machine (optimised for minimum power usage), and hope to learn a lot more about Linux optimisation during that process - I'll no-doubt be seeking help and advice at that point.
I used to be quite good at Linux - I made it run on a 486 back in 1997, and it even ran X successfully. It was surprisingly usable too. But I just can't take to it now - the command line is appalling, and you daren't ask for help in Linux forums because of the "newbie vultures". I think that having to learn Open VMS a few years back has showed me how good a command-line environment can be
I'm dribbling all over Colin's thread. I apologise
