Why is it always Linux vs Vista now?

[Zorak]

I was just wondering what you guys might think about this situation. Currently, any time I see an article pop up about Linux with comparisons to Windows they always seem to compare it to Vista. Why is this? On first glance I might be tempted to say that it is because Vista is a technologically superior version of windows to XP, but the vast majority of computer users wouldn't notice this even if that were the case. It seems to me that Linux's big Windows competitor is in fact XP and not Vista. I should think that any comparisons made between the two platforms for the purpose attracting new (and somewhat less computer savvy) users to Linux should be made against the real competitor here, and not a version of Windows that the public has already utterly rejected.

What do you guys think about this? Why all the Vista comparisons?

-Zorak

 

[surrealdeal]

"should think that any comparisons made between the two platforms for the purpose attracting new (and somewhat less computer savvy) users to Linux"

Yes. I've felt that it was presented this way too. The word on the street is that 'Vista sucks' 'XP rocks' so it would seem to cause a switching, or at least a change in attitude.

What's more is that PC Magazine and the like speculate on technologies not mature or adopted enough so that people read about it (too see if they would want to adopt it, (because they don't know about it.))

They prey on people's fear of the unknown. It's the $

(And commie liberals control the media)

 

[Pyroflea]

Agreed. Generally, people think Vista is terrible (I don't mind it personally, but that's me), so if they are comparing Linux vs. something generally hated, it will make it look better than it would if it was being compared to XP.

 

[Zorak]

While it may be true that Linux may look a lot better by comparison with Vista, I think that would not really answer a Linux-curious person's REAL question (i.e. how does this "Linux" compare to XP?). Comparing fillet mignon favorably to say, ground squirrel intestines, may be true, but it wouldn't really say very much about the quality of fillet mignon, am I right?

-Zorak

edit: I should have stated this earlier, but the places where I see Linux vs Vista comparisons made most often are sites like www.linux.com and www.desktoplinux.com (and other Linux related sites)

 

[amdfangirl]

I think most people are looking to upgrade from the world's most common OS (Windows XP) into something else except Windows Vista is kinda bad so they want another choice. Believe me, this is what they do with MAC OS X vs WIN VISTA...

 

[surrealdeal]

Did "How to write a thorough linux review" http://www.linux.com/feature/139593 prompt this?
lol. Relatively-useless. Really, how do you 'review' a desktop environment, login shell, "mount points"? you can review mount points?


1)How about an existential review of comparable UI's, and what allegorical symbols they represent, and deconstruct them, how they 'empower' users based on cultural remnants...

2) What ever happened to the days when OSes were OSes? You can't serioulsly say that the lack of program x in dist. z counts as a demerit, because it's way too easily downloaded. (But i suppose that's not the point of distros... )

3)

(it's this <---)

While it may be true that Linux may look a lot better by comparison with Vista, I think that would not really answer a Linux-curious person's REAL question /quotemsg]

You can manipulate people by attitude alone, once their minds are set (say they chose windows first or vice versa, they would be reluctant to 'switch' just for the hell of it (cognitive dissonance?) and i.e. -> IE
In this case it's reverse cog. diss. since they must have 'teething' pain, if you will, on a linux distro.

I think most people are looking to upgrade from the world's most common OS (Windows XP) into something else..

(I've seen ubuntu, not used it, so you can discredit / disregard this, but it seems like it offers less insight / (better user experience?) in it's UI, so that you would be developing, say , a delusion toward it, a positive one, so yay for ubuntu users)


... What would you define as a legitimate "user issue" / concern. Ad agencies, and stores would tell you that users / costomers really don't know what they want.

 

[Zorak]

I have to agree with you that the article you linked to was a bit strange, but that wasn't the article that prompted my question. I must say that I don't entirely understand your quotation as it seems to encompass some of what I said and have some other stuff that I didn't say?

However, I do agree that most people don't know what the hell they want and that they can't be bothered to learn a new system. I saw it myself when I was trying to teach my dad to use ubuntu and he would get so upset and threaten to get a mac. I told him, "If you get a mac, you will run into the same set of "frustrations" at having a different interface AND I flat out refuse to support a mac". A legitimate "user issue" to me would be when something breaks that worked previously. Complaints about an interface clearly don't satisfy this definition as what a person considers to be 'intuitive' is really quite arbitrary (with some exceptions). All of this is beside the point, however, as it doesn't address the question.

Arguably, Vista is not Linux's windows-side competitor: XP is. So why is it that all the new Linux vs Windows articles use Vista for comparison when the de facto windows platform is XP? I can understand that using Vista for comparison would benefit people buying prefab systems w/ preinstalled OSes, but can you guys think of any other reason for this? After all, the number of people who build their own machines is by no means small, and most of them are smart enough to stick with XP over Vista. So to educate them, they would need a Linux vs XP article, would they not?

Thanks

-Zorak

 

[surrealdeal]

Old media. Print media, and increasingly, news networks are using stale data that is passed through a lot of hands in an office. And they take long to write. Wasn't there a time in the recent (like a few months) that XP was supposed to have it's support discontinued, but then Microsoft re-extended that with XP SP (N) ? I'm betting the editors thought that once 'support' was discontinued, it was obsolete, wouldn't be on the shelves due to security holes due to lack of service packs, and OEMs would not ship it. That's when(?) / why they continue to write about vista, because it should have died already. And they probably think it will soon. (MS support till 2011, I think.) Still, it has the stigma of being 'out dated' / 'soon to be replaced' It makes one feel like their home is going to disappear soon, to stick with / get XP. And John Dvorack is an elitist / 'cutting edge' techno-fetishist, So XP is not hot enough, not cutting edge enough. In short, not adhering to the 'glossy' trend enough.

 

[amdfangirl]

Sure enough, people have ported many of the looks and features of Vista into XP...

BTW: Support is until 2014 I think...

 

[Zorak]

Heh, well I guess what it comes down to is that people are just irrational and don't seem to understand that newer doesn't necessarily imply better; the two happen to be together frequently.

-Zorak

 

[surrealdeal]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080106-despite-problems-consumers-choosing-vista-over-xp.html

"In time, Microsoft will release another OS (Windows 7), and the entire cycle will repeat. Vista will go from the heartily-disliked upstart to the "real" OS that end users vow to clutch unto death."

reminds me of crystal coke

1.)
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/?sort=PN&alpha=windows+xp
2014. w00t. yay!

2.)

Heh, well I guess what it comes down to is that people are just irrational and don't seem to understand that newer doesn't necessarily imply better; the two happen to be together frequently.

-Zorak

2a.) copout.
2b.) I concur. (wait, what idoicy or software generations?)

A legitimate "user issue" to me would be when something breaks that worked previously

what like x11r6? gxxine? flash?

 

[MU_Engineer]

What do you guys think about this? Why all the Vista comparisons?
-Zorak

Most people that even know what an OS is only know of two, Microsoft Windows and Apple MacOS. There are huge ad campaigns (mostly by the latter) to say that theirs is better than the other as these are commercial, proprietary OSes and their vendors are trying to get more sales and revenue. So when Average Pat hears about another OS (e.g. Linux), the first question out of their mouth is "how does it compare to $THEIR_CURRENT_OS," which over 90% of the time is Windows. Vista is the most recent release of Windows and supposedly the newest versions of any OS are the most advanced and would be the most "apples to apples" comparison. You wouldn't exactly bench a Celeron 1000 versus a Phenom X4 9950BE in an AMD vs. Intel comparison, so why compare a 2001-era MS OS vs. a 2008-era Linux OS?

Did "How to write a thorough linux review" http://www.linux.com/feature/139593 prompt this?
lol. Relatively-useless. Really, how do you 'review' a desktop environment, login shell, "mount points"? you can review mount points?

You can put information as to how the mount points are set up. A distro that uses partition UUIDs rather than device nodes scores points in my book as I have one HDD on a mobo controller and my array on a discrete controller and the nodes tend to get swapped at times, depending on when their respective controllers' drivers load.

1)How about an existential review of comparable UI's, and what allegorical symbols they represent, and deconstruct them, how they 'empower' users based on cultural remnants...

That's a great *nix UI comparison, but KDE on Fedora is almost exactly like KDE on Gentoo or Debian, so it really doesn't compare the merits of a distribution. Also, you can select from a boatload of different GUIs or even no GUI at all, which further complicates things.

2) What ever happened to the days when OSes were OSes? You can't serioulsly say that the lack of program x in dist. z counts as a demerit, because it's way too easily downloaded. (But i suppose that's not the point of distros... )

I tend to agree with you to a point. That point happens to be that I only care if a program is not on the install disk if I need it to get the OS configured enough to get it online to download packages. If you can't get online to download the needed package to get your NIC up and going...it's a chicken and egg problem and a real PITA sometimes. So not having fwcutter is a MAJOR malfunction on machines with a BCM43xx WLAN chip and only connect to the Internet through that WLAN card. Ditto for ndiswrapper, iwlfirmware, and a whole raft of other NIC drivers and firmware.

3)

(I've seen ubuntu, not used it, so you can discredit / disregard this, but it seems like it offers less insight / (better user experience?) in it's UI, so that you would be developing, say , a delusion toward it, a positive one, so yay for ubuntu users)

I've used Ubuntu quite a bit and its UI looks pretty much like every other GNOME install. It's perhaps more brown or (more recently) orange and glossier than others, but it's very little different.

... What would you define as a legitimate "user issue" / concern. Ad agencies, and stores would tell you that users / costomers really don't know what they want.

Here's my list of what I expect from a distro:

0. The install disk needs to function with my hardware. This is Number 0 as you can't do anything with an OS if you can't even get it to install. I've run into this several times.

1. I need my NIC to work out of the box. If the NIC doesn't work, then I'm pretty much screwed as it's hard to get the update or in-repo driver or firmware that will let it work if you can't get online to install anything. I've run into this one a few times, most recently with Debian Etch and a brand-new laptop with an IWL3945 card.
2. The system needs to be stable and have a minimum of show-stopper bugs. I can tolerate configuring my hardware as that's a predictable process, but random instability or bugs make it really hard to use an OS.
3. Reasonably fast servers or mirrors need to be available for the packages. It's horrible to try to download a 300 MB package from a bogged-down server at 10 KB/sec.
4. The updates should be tested well enough to not introduce new bugs and instability.
5. The package manager must work and be snappy about it. OpenSUSE 10.1-10.2, I am looking at you.

Now the things that are nice to have but not critical:
1. Minimal and alternate install media. I do not like to download a 3 GB+ DVD ISO and burn it just to use 500 MB of data from it. I'd rather get a 50 MB USB boot image and get the rest through the Internet as needed.
2. Good hardware detection and setup. Saves me some time.