96% Of Netbooks Run Windows

Well, I have noticed significantly better battery life in WinXP compared to Linux. So technically it's more than just a webcam ;).

I don't feel tied to Windows. It's just easier to get things working for those who don't have the know how or the time to look into it.
 
panfist said:
I don't understand why the readership at [H] defends windows so adamantly. It's just a piece of software. I use windows, mac and linux all together and I recognize the strengths and faults of each operating system.

When I say something like "people are too lazy to learn something because it's different," you can't turn around and tell me you haven't had the exact same experience. Have you ever gone over to clean a friend or relative's computer of spyware, and in the process try to recommend that they use firefox? And then 50% of the time they continue using IE just because? Isn't it frustrating when you can actually see their ears close up while you're trying to explain how firefox is better in nearly every way? Isn't it frustrating when you explain they wouldn't get random popups and worry about malicious activex?

Instead you guys pounce on me because YOU guys wasted a lot of time trying to get your webcam working in Linux.

Step back, look at the facts, objectively assess the pros and cons of each operating system.

---

Want to hear a story about Microsoft locking you into their platform? At work we use an application to manage almost all of the data related to our business. It's stored in SQL Server with a .NET client to access and enter data. Our vendor just released a new version. It relies on .NET 2.0 code that absolutely will not work if we have .NET 3.5 installed on XP...but it will work in Vista! This is a new "bug" that just appeared in January. Our vendor assures us that if we have to run .NET 2.0 and 3.5 code simultaneously, we have to upgrade our entire business from XP to Vista. The reason we "must" upgrade to Vista is because our vendor can no longer get support for their codebase on XP from Microsoft.

There's a real life story that you can stick in your pipe and smoke, all of you who ridiculed my example of how the closed nature of MS' platform can screw you over. Yes, I oversimplified the example before, but you can't deny that the closer an enterprise platform is married to Microsoft, the more you at at their whim.
Click to expand...

Oh and by the way if you were so awesome and all-knowing you make yourself out to be, you would know you can revert an OS to recognize .Net 2.0 as primary instead of 3.5 by going into c:\windows\microsoft.net\framework\v2.*\ and run the command aspnet_regiis.exe -r
 
criccio said:
My Acer Aspire One ran Vista wonderfully... I wonder how many people who say comments like that have any real experience at all...

Regardless, Windows 7 runs even better.
Click to expand...

Same here, the only issue is you can't expect it to run anywhere near as well as XP doing a default install... But with some minimal tweaking Vista will run beautifully on a netbook, everyone saying that it won't run at all simply hasn't tried it or done much research for that matter. Plenty of people have Vista running fine on their netbooks.

panfist said:
It's not Linux that has to shit or get of the pot...it's people. People are used to Windows and they will use it til the day they day, because people are generally ignorant and DEFINITELY lazy.
Click to expand...

Until they can get a suspend/resume routine equivalent to XP/Vista's it's all irrelevant imo, on laptops and netbooks anyway.
 
greenfrogman said:
how much ram have you got in that thing most netbooks only have 512mb ram ( http://usa.asus.com/products.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=2610&l1=24&l2=164&l3=0&l4=0 default spec is 1gb) your sig has 2gb of ram in it, the laptop you got there is higher spec then what i see most netbooks are at

HT atom + 1gb of ram and an norm hard disk, vista should run ok for the most part (yours has 2gb so it should run quite smooth as long as you use the sleep option insted of turning it off)

Vista will not work well on most netbooks unless the ram has been uped and is running on an norm laptop hard disk. if its running on Flash hard disk (as most are only 4/8gb when useing flash ram) you not have the space to install vista
Click to expand...

Actually, the vast majority of netbook models right now ship with 1GB RAM standard and a regular 5,400 RPM HD. There's few (if any) netbooks that have come out in the last 6-8 months which only ship with SSDs, and those shipping with SSDs are the majority. SSDs were very common at first but once people realized they were paying a premium for a slower/smaller HD, they lost their appeal.

'Till cheap SSDs get substantially faster there's no reason to opt for one unless you need the netbook to be very rugged for some reason. Most people are better off w/the 160GB HDs that most netbooks are shipping with.
 
Not to beat a dead horse, but there are just an absurd amount of reasons as to why Linux will never be "popular" (in its current state)
 
chinesepiratefood said:
Not to beat a dead horse, but there are just an absurd amount of reasons as to why Linux will never be "popular" (in its current state)
Click to expand...

It's getting a lot closer than it was a couple years ago. I installed Ubuntu 8.10 and virtually everything worked on my Dell D420 except my printer. If a Linux distro can get something working so most things work out of the box (like the Windows 7 beta), Linux will be a more viable option.

Also, for the things that don't work out of the box, a simple "executable" style driver fix would help a great deal.
 
pxc said:
The MSI Wind U120 lacks a DIMM slot. The 1GB memory is soldered on-board. It's not a limitation of the chipset and the U123 is bringing back the DIMM slot. MSI is partitioning the segment for some dumb reason.

The Dell Mini 10/12 (stupidly) also have the memory soldered onto the CPU daughter board. Again, this is not a chipset limitation. MSI and Dell must be getting some great discounts to stay in line with how Intel wants to segment the Atom.
Click to expand...

Heh, it's kinda weird that they're doing that now, with newer models... Acer did it with the first Aspire One (the 8.9") but didn't with their newer model (the 10.2"), and AFAIK they're moving as many netbooks as anyone out there short of ASUS, so if someone had a large-volume incentive from Intel to gimp their layout like that it'd be them. The first AAO only had 512MB soldered on too, you could go from 1GB to 1.5GB by swapping the other 512MB on the DIMM slot.
 
Monkey God said:
+1
I use windows and have been known do some some assembly now and then. How much more under the hood can you get?
Click to expand...

Overclocking is hardware. OS tweaking (i.e. Linux vs. Windows) is software. At this point, the car analogy breaks down, though you could use the analogy for both parts: OCers vs. regular users, and Linux/Alternate OSers vs. regular users. Neither part is mutually exclusive. Fuck, I've overclocked with Linux, and for the longest time I knew jack shit about computer hardware and was a Windowser for life.

But I agree with panfist, and I did say it earlier: many Windows users are just out of their comfort zone with Linux. And I can't blame them. Linux is a COMPLETELY different OS. In every way. They're based of two very different ideologies (POSIX/UNIX-like OSes were one of the last OSes to get a GUI), with many years and different markets separating them. Only recently has Linux been trying to actively compete with Windows. But again, I agree with panfist: this whole "year of the Linux desktop" is just fanboy idiocy. It's not a realistic goal, nor should it be. Linux should continue to be Linux, not try to be a Windows clone just to gain "marketshare" (which, if you think about it, means nothing if there's no money involved).

Finally, to techrat, we're using a very specific example here. One netbook from one manufacturer. However, for the VAST majority of hardware combinations out there (laptops or desktops) the latest Ubuntu releases have been phenomenal in terms of hardware compatibility. To use an anecdode, I have a Dell Vostro laptop. It came with Windows Vista, 32-bit. After using Linux (Ubuntu, from 7.10 right through to 9.04 Beta which I'm using now) for more than a year, I decided to try to install Windows Vista again, to get a little gaming in. Only thing is, I now have 4 GB of RAM. So why would I limit myself with the 32-bit OS. Let's stick 64-bit on it.

I had no drivers. Not for video, ethernet, wireless, even half my USB ports wouldn't work. Nothing was available from the manufacturer. Alright, I'll try the Windows 7 beta, 32-bit. Same shit. Tried XP Professional. I had wireless and ethernet, but no video.

As opposed to every version of Ubuntu since 8.04 (7.10 had wireless issues), where all my hardware was detected with the Live CD and worked from the get go. No fumbling with driver installers and endless reboots. Perhaps this is just one specific case, but for me, this is why I think Linux is greater than Windows.

But, I go back to the analogy at the beginning. From a software perspective, the majority of people are content with Windows. That's perfectly fine. Like religion, I don't believe in endlessly trying to convert someone. I just present facts and let people think for themselves. For me, the facts I've seen support Linux. Others (and I'm gaining in this area) support it from a philosophical point of view. Again, to each his own. But, enough bashing and mindless fanboyism from both sides. It's getting really think as of late. Windows has Games and easy from Grandma. Linux has a better OS design (IMO, it crashes less, no restarts most of the time) and more flexibility. Plus some wicked apps in its own right. I will stand and say I feel Linux is better than Windows, but that is just my opinion.
 
On how many netbooks/laptops running Linux have you gotten resume/suspend to work flawlessly? How many of 'em could achieve equal battery life vs Windows? Not bashing Linux, but that kinda stuff represent huge roadblocks to it ever capturing more users...

I'm still intrigued by the fact the battery life results Anand keeps showing w/regards to the MacBooks (where they soundly beat many Vista-equipped equivalents, and where they themselves lose several hours of battery life when running Vista or XP). You'd think after so many years, tweaking an OS for better battery life on a laptop would be such a huge priority...
 
Hp's MIE sucks.


I tried it for 30 minutes on my HP then got a non-sucky distro.
 
kirbyrj said:
It's getting a lot closer than it was a couple years ago. I installed Ubuntu 8.10 and virtually everything worked on my Dell D420 except my printer. If a Linux distro can get something working so most things work out of the box (like the Windows 7 beta), Linux will be a more viable option.

Also, for the things that don't work out of the box, a simple "executable" style driver fix would help a great deal.
Click to expand...

It's been getting a lot closer for the last DECADE. It's not like Windows was standing still during that time.
 
heatlesssun said:
It's been getting a lot closer for the last DECADE. It's not like Windows was standing still during that time.
Click to expand...

It "almost" has with WinXP :p. I used an old version of Redhat for a while, and then I moved to Ubuntu 7 and then 8, but always ended up going back to Windows XP for older machines :).
 
Depends on how you look at it... Windows has kinda stood still. I don't think Vista was a colossal failure, but it wasn't a compelling upgrade for a lot of people either, if you look at it on balance. Yeah it's got DX10 exclusively (unnecessarily) and it does handle memory better than XP, there's other improvements, but nothing that made you want to upgrade instantly even if you ignored the initial driver issues. 64-bit driver support improved, etc... But this is all chinese to the average joe.

As far as the user experience goes, 7 probably has a lot more nice tweaks and small changes that go a long way than Vista did... Lots of stuff that should've been improved long ago (window management, etc). Less technical stuff but more stuff the average user is likely to notice if you will.
 
And Linux (some distros) has been doing a lot of the same things in essense. Dumbing down everything to the level of the average joe. Nothing wrong with that.
 
If MS sells a copy of XP, MS wins. If MS sells a copy of Vista, MS wins again. Spin it any way you want, but neither case can help desktop Linux's stagnant market share even compared to Vista's adoption rate gains. In the period Vista has been out, it has multiple times the gains that either OS X or Linux saw.

If "nobody" wants Vista, I don't know what that implies for OS X or Linux. :p
 
Impulse said:
Depends on how you look at it... Windows has kinda stood still. I don't think Vista was a colossal failure, but it wasn't a compelling upgrade for a lot of people either, if you look at it on balance. Yeah it's got DX10 exclusively (unnecessarily) and it does handle memory better than XP, there's other improvements, but nothing that made you want to upgrade instantly even if you ignored the initial driver issues. 64-bit driver support improved, etc... But this is all chinese to the average joe.

As far as the user experience goes, 7 probably has a lot more nice tweaks and small changes that go a long way than Vista did... Lots of stuff that should've been improved long ago (window management, etc). Less technical stuff but more stuff the average user is likely to notice if you will.
Click to expand...

Windows has done ANYTHING but stood still. Vista was a big architectural change in Windows that greatly increased Windows security which is without question the biggest weakness of Windows. There have been improvements in Media Center and Tablet functionally. And DX 10 wasn't something that would have been easy to bring to XP since the Vista driver model was a big change.

What has Linux done that's been earth shattering?
 
I just wonder how much the netbook craze helped extend Windows XP and "hurried" the development of Windows 7. It doesn't seem like initially (EEE 701's) netbooks were designed with Windows XP in mind. There were guides to hack it onto the 4GB SSD in the initial 701's (although they did come with Windows drivers on CD).
 
kirbyrj said:
I just wonder how much the netbook craze helped extend Windows XP and "hurried" the development of Windows 7. It doesn't seem like initially (EEE 701's) netbooks were designed with Windows XP in mind. There were guides to hack it onto the 4GB SSD in the initial 701's (although they did come with Windows drivers on CD).
Click to expand...

I believe you have a good point. Microsoft really needs something besides an OS they are trying to retire to put on the hot new PC platform.
 
I'll just say one thing and leave it at that:

Microsoft has some big surprises - aka announcements - coming in the next few weeks, specifically related to Windows 7, Windows Mobile, and... Netbooks...

Big ones... fucking HUGE ones... ;)

'Nuff typed.
 
Short of: "It's Available Now!" I'm not sure what is going to be earth changing ;).
 
heatlesssun said:
Windows has done ANYTHING but stood still. Vista was a big architectural change in Windows that greatly increased Windows security which is without question the biggest weakness of Windows. There have been improvements in Media Center and Tablet functionally. And DX 10 wasn't something that would have been easy to bring to XP since the Vista driver model was a big change.

What has Linux done that's been earth shattering?
Click to expand...

Linux hasn't HAD to do anything earth-shattering: it's perfect for what it does. The fact that Windows NEEDED a huge overhaul to fix it's security nightmare isn't really a leap forward of Linux, it's trying to catch up to something Linux has had for ages. And that's just one example.
 
djBon2112 said:
Linux hasn't HAD to do anything earth-shattering: it's perfect for what it does. The fact that Windows NEEDED a huge overhaul to fix it's security nightmare isn't really a leap forward of Linux, it's trying to catch up to something Linux has had for ages. And that's just one example.
Click to expand...

Of course, the other side of that is that if Linux were more mainstream, people would be more interested in finding security holes to exploit.
 
Azhar said:
Oh and by the way if you were so awesome and all-knowing you make yourself out to be, you would know you can revert an OS to recognize .Net 2.0 as primary instead of 3.5 by going into c:\windows\microsoft.net\framework\v2.*\ and run the command aspnet_regiis.exe -r
Click to expand...

How do I make myself out to be more all-knowing than anyone else here who's opinionated?

And...I'm definitely not all-knowing when it comes to .NET...that's why we have vendors that do that stuff for us.

Lastly, we tried the fix you suggested, not only was the original program still broken, but other apps that relied on .NET 3.5 broke, too.
 
kirbyrj said:
Of course, the other side of that is that if Linux were more mainstream, people would be more interested in finding security holes to exploit.
Click to expand...

Not really... most of the people who find Windows exploits are the kind of people using Linux :p While I fully admit there are exploits in Linux, they're much fewer and far between than Windows, and are often fixed much faster once found.
 
panfist said:
How do I make myself out to be more all-knowing than anyone else here who's opinionated?

And...I'm definitely not all-knowing when it comes to .NET...that's why we have vendors that do that stuff for us.

Lastly, we tried the fix you suggested, not only was the original program still broken, but other apps that relied on .NET 3.5 broke, too.
Click to expand...

So it's Microsoft's fault you don't test your software in, say, a virtual environment, before you deploy them on your production machine?

Most software document their ASP requirements.

But yes I do know what you mean. Our old Sharepoint (WSS 2.0) server was set up long ago with ASP.Net 1.0 and converting it to 2.0 risk breaking them, so when we decided to host our public website using a DotNetNuke portal, it broke Sharepoint on our test machine. I had to force an ASP.Net 2.0 upgrade on Sharepoint and we lost some of our attachments in some of the Documents folder. It's an oddity we didn't want to risk, so we ended up leaving that Sharepoint Server on ASP.Net 1.0 and put DotNetNuke on a seperate ASP.Net 2.0+ server.

It can happen to any machine, any operating system, any code base, any runtime. Don't tell me that Java and PHP are better because I sure as hell know thats not true. Microsoft's ASP.Net is no different.

Test before you deploy. That's the rules in the IT industry and if you can't follow it, you're going to get bit in the ass. It's YOUR fault, not Microsoft's.
 
Azhar said:
So it's Microsoft's fault you don't test your software in, say, a virtual environment, before you deploy them on your production machine?
Click to expand...

We buy the software from a vendor. The vendor is supposed to test it. That's why we pay for the software and we pay extra for support.

The vendor has stated they won't support us on XP because MS won't support them on XP.

There is one thing that is our fault: it's picking a shitty vendor. If you use all FOSS, if your vendor is shitty, you pick up the source code and take it to another vendor.
 
panfist said:
We buy the software from a vendor. The vendor is supposed to test it. That's why we pay for the software and we pay extra for support.

The vendor has stated they won't support us on XP because MS won't support them on XP.

There is one thing that is our fault: it's picking a shitty vendor. If you use all FOSS, if your vendor is shitty, you pick up the source code and take it to another vendor.
Click to expand...

You seem like a trusting fellow. I wouldn't let anyone install anything on my servers unless I personally test them first.But that's just me.
 
panfist said:
It's not Linux that has to shit or get of the pot...it's people. People are used to Windows and they will use it til the day they day, because people are generally ignorant and DEFINITELY lazy.
Click to expand...

Well no, why change to something if what you has works fine? Not everyone hates windows beleive it or not.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Well no, why change to something if what you has works fine? Not everyone hates windows beleive it or not.
Click to expand...

And that is the main stumbling block for linux and Vista/Win7

A mate a work is happy with his Xp64. He has tried linux and all installed fine on his customPC and he basically said it doesn't do anything extra for him (negating the game side of things)

Likewise Vista doesn't and hence why he has stuck with 64.
 
Wow, this thread became a OS flame war didn't it? Netbooks are simply scaled down PCs that are designed to perform simple tasks. Although I don't find Linux distros extremely useful for anything other than "Operating a System", many are free and have less system requirements than Vista. I'm running Vista64 and XP on the same C2D laptop, and I can say that Vista64 is a more well polished OS if you've got the hardware to run it well. But that's not the topic here guys, it's netbooks. Honestly ask yourself what you're going to do with it, and it makes sense to run lighter OSes like Linux, XP or Win7 for that matter.

The scary part thing about the statistic is how Windows XP is becoming more and more of a target for hacking, because Microsoft (although they recently extended XP's life to 2010) is slowly backing away from supporting and focusing less on it. I'm weary of new computers being loaded with such an old OS. Don't get me wrong I still use XP on some machines, but XP is showing its age very well.
 
Azhar said:
You seem like a trusting fellow. I wouldn't let anyone install anything on my servers unless I personally test them first.But that's just me.
Click to expand...

Where did I ever say that the new version of this software was installed in our live environment? You all assumed some stupid shit.

Just because I am aware of bugs in some random piece of software, does not imply I'm aware of them because they cropped up in our live environment. We did test the software, it doesn't work, and we're not using it yet.

You guys blame me for things that are my fault, when you don't know half the story. I come in here and say basically to consider the pros and cons of each OS. Then I say one thing that is a con about Microsoft's OS, and you tell me it's my fault.
 
panfist said:
Where did I ever say that the new version of this software was installed in our live environment? You all assumed some stupid shit.

Just because I am aware of bugs in some random piece of software, does not imply I'm aware of them because they cropped up in our live environment. We did test the software, it doesn't work, and we're not using it yet.

You guys blame me for things that are my fault, when you don't know half the story. I come in here and say basically to consider the pros and cons of each OS. Then I say one thing that is a con about Microsoft's OS, and you tell me it's my fault.
Click to expand...

Oh put a cork in it. You say nothing BUT cons about Microsoft products.
 
Azhar said:
Oh put a cork in it. You say nothing BUT cons about Microsoft products.
Click to expand...

The pros have been iterated and re-iterated over and over in this thread: in windows, basic things usually just work with a minimum of fuss. Do you feel better now that I've said what's been said about ten times earlier in the thread?

...does that give me license to bash windows some more now?
 
panfist said:
You can have DOS and Windows 3.11 and Windows 95 and Windows 98 and Windows ME and Windows XP and Vista installed on the same system.

Our IT staff is so elite, because when we upgrade, we keep the old version, too.
Click to expand...

djBon2112 said:
Linux hasn't HAD to do anything earth-shattering: it's perfect for what it does. The fact that Windows NEEDED a huge overhaul to fix it's security nightmare isn't really a leap forward of Linux, it's trying to catch up to something Linux has had for ages. And that's just one example.
Click to expand...

and the other way around is linux has security but now is has to play catch up to what windows has had for years - ease of use / compatibility..... = larger user base.
 
MrGuvernment said:
and the other way around is linux has security but now is has to play catch up to what windows has had for years - ease of use / compatibility..... = larger user base.
Click to expand...

Exactly! both have come from initial starting points.
Linux (clone of NIX) came from multi-user,multi-lib,security background
Windows came from the single-user end and getting user-interface

Over time Linux is getting better and better for the end-user (and from what I see it is more corner-cases now ie specific drivers or better idiots doing things dev's didn't think someone would do)

Windows is getting better multi-user and security

BOTH are not to the level of their compliments yet but are getting there
 
is this thread for serious?

it's 2009 at the [H] so you'd think we'd have gotten past this by now :rolleyes:

old flames die hard ;)
 
MrGuvernment said:
and the other way around is linux has security but now is has to play catch up to what windows has had for years - ease of use / compatibility..... = larger user base.
Click to expand...

eeyrjmr said:
Exactly! both have come from initial starting points.
Linux (clone of NIX) came from multi-user,multi-lib,security background
Windows came from the single-user end and getting user-interface

Over time Linux is getting better and better for the end-user (and from what I see it is more corner-cases now ie specific drivers or better idiots doing things dev's didn't think someone would do)

Windows is getting better multi-user and security

BOTH are not to the level of their compliments yet but are getting there
Click to expand...

It is definitely getting there. Look at Ubuntu: More progress in terms of user-friendliness in 2 years (7.04 to 9.04) than (IMHO) Microsoft made in the 6 it took to release Windows Vista. I think Ubuntu is the perfect target for support, since it is trying hard, and it isn't just trying to be a Windows clone (it is doing its own thing, it just happens that Windows is the best model for usability). I still think the "year of the Linux desktop" is BS, but Canonical and the Ubuntu devs definitely know how to get shit going!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top