Fun Computing with Windows 7

[miribus]

Windows needs to have a real command line interface compatible with terminal redirection.
It's an invaluable tool in administering Linux remotely, especially on headless (granted, an unlikely scenario with Windows) or crippled machines.

 

[mitch074]

Well, I'm not using wiggly windows, I'm not even using the cube; but I enjoy having different workspaces, modal dialogs that appear on the proper screen when they pop (proper being the one where the app is running, not "monitor 1"), windows that don't redraw their content when they move if the graphics card has less than 2 GFLOP of processing power, a task switcher that shows the content of the window I'm switching to, even if it's doing software 3D rendering through a custom-made Directdraw blitter (last time I tried that with Vista SP2, it had to disable Aero, flash the screen a couple times, pop up a dialog to tell me so - that redefined 'jerky user experience' for me).

@spoofedpacket: I ran Compiz on an Nvidia RivaTNT in 2007 (I've been using 3D desktop since 2006). It ran rock stable, if very slowly (after all, the RivaTNT was limited to 16 Mb of SDRAM, and came out in 1997). A 'proper' 3D desktop at the time required a Geforce 2 MX 220 with 64 Mb of RAM - meaning I could use it all day long with 20 open windows on 4 virtual workspaces. Or, you could use a Radeon 9500 with the FOSS drivers (since Ati drivers really sucked at the time); sometimes gitchy (video overlays didn't mix well with 3D interfaces - they were fundamentally not supposed to), but fast and working.

@quikemon: "by my statement" my RadeonHD 4850, that I bought in June 2008 (not long after it came out), was installed, configured, running and fragging with advanced shader effects in June 2008 (Nexuiz did bring a Geforce 8600 to its knees with shaders 2.0 and extrusion mapping enabled - the 4850, not so much). If, right now, I wanted to replace it with an OpenGL 3.2 compliant RadeonHD 5870, I could. I don't want to - I don't game quite THAT much (and my processor wouldn't be able to make use of it effectively anyway, no matter what OS I use).

I'm not running a 486: while I'm indeed still using an Athlon64 X2 3800+ (low-end these days, and the mobo can't handle overclocks any more), I'm waiting until I have a bit more cash on hand to replace it with either a Core i5 750, or a Phenom II X4 965 BE, or (pending benchmark comparisons) an Athlon II X4 620. Am I worried about Linux supporting 4 physical CPU cores? Heck no! Do I have to wonder if the kernel's scheduler will be able to make use of all 4 cores optimally, or will merely load a couple and let the others idle? No. Will it handle my SATA 2 disks? LOL. Will I be able to burn a DVD, copy files from disk to disk, and browse the Web without the experience becoming jerky or one of them slowing to a crowl due to disk access? I already am, with my puny CPU and lowly 2 Gb of RAM (that's another nice thing with Linux: it's not a RAM hog), without swap.

Do I have to hunt virii, malware, worms etc. and look for antivirus updates, whether something broke through my firewalls, if a Trojan installed and hid itself on my machine? No - most can't run on *NIX systems, and those that do are rapidly neutralized through system updates (I hear that Windows users still have to be wary about Conficker - I must admit that one occurred to me only last week). Do I have to ensure that my disk drives aren't fragmented? No - Linux can store data on a disk without turning it into Swiss cheese.

So, when you're saying that you don't understand people not embracing new technology, you really mean people not embracing latest Microsoft-endorsed technology.

Which means, for people that DON'T use MS technology, that you're between 6 months and 40 years late (and I stand by the '40 years': UNIX is 40 yo, and from the beginning enforced strict "don't run normal user as admin" policies; because of MS not enforcing that in Windows, you now have to deal with UAC dialogs and malware).

 

[dmaynard]

@mitch074:

"As early as 2005 I had a 3D desktop.."

That's awesome! How many config files did you have to manually edit to get 3d desktop to function the way you wanted? Oh, and don't even get me started on what a clusterf*ck RPM packing is. "You must get "x" package to download "y" package for "z" to run, but you can't get "x" because you don't have "b" installed to get "x" to make "y" work for "z" to work". I've been part of the RPM package nightmare, don't tell me it doesn't exist. Then editing /etc/config_file_numeber723 to "maybe" get things working as I want. That, and the demonstrations of the 3d linux desktop I've seen are kludgy counter-productive 3d messes from the look and feel of it. Microsoft may have not had a "3d" desktop earlier than linux, but MS's is actually something you can USE and doesn't get in the way of actual computing.

"...administrator prompts that popped only when administrative tasks really had to be performed (and it popped only once for a given task, without disrupting what I was doing at the time)"

Windows UAC in Vista was a PITA, I'll grant you that. However, in a business environment, as well as home, there is a lovely thing called "Group Policy" and it's editor. A wonderful GUI for manipulating pretty much every aspect of the user and computing experience. In a Windows environment it's a must have, and I've yet to see it's equal on any *nix computing platform. Back to those config files!



"a web browser that could open several pages in a single window, a system that didn't fall prey to the worm-of-the-month and had a WORKING firewall."

Not sure why this is a big deal, tabbed browsers have been available on the Windows platform for ages. You make the silly assumption that ALL Windows users ONLY use IE, granted most Joe-Users do, but that isn't always the case. Also, been using Windows systems regularly since 3.11. You keep patched, and run a good FREE AV software, you don't get owned (which I have contracted a virus ONCE), which ANY computing platform is vulnerable to some form of malicious attack. There's also been plenty of free/payware 3rd party firewalls for Windows for decades. If MS bundled one earlier than XP the Linux trolls would be crying about a monopoly or bloat. MS to these guys just can't catch a break no matter what.

"...a real command line, a system that didn't require a pair of reboots on each and every update and that didn't need a complete reinstall every time a piece of hardware was changed, and that didn't require 1 Gb of RAM only to boot in less than 10 minutes."

Yes, the *nix CLI is very robust, but the Windows CLI is also very robust especially in Windows Server versions. Anyone who has done ANY Windows Server administration would know this, apparently you don't. Rebooting for updates also happens on the Linux platform (I know, I've run Ubuntu, Debian, and Mandrake) so what's the big deal exactly? Complete re-install everytime a piece of h/w is changed? What kind of fantasyland do you live in again? 10 min boots? LOL

"And, even better, it didn't require a complete backup, format and reinstall every time it pooped in its registry."

More fantasyland talk. Even if Windows crapped it's registry big time there are a MULTITUDE of recovery options (booting to the Windows DVD, Recovery Console, Ultimate boot CD, and MORE) that get your system back up and working without a "backup, format, and reinstall". Get a clue please.

"So, how long did it take you to embrace these new technologies? I've been using them daily for more than 4 years now. Are you saying you've started using them only last april?"

Nice troll, get back under your bridge now.

"I really can't understand why people are so reluctant to embrace new technology."

I will repeat a great statement I heard made about linux "Linux is only great if your time is worthless."

 

[theuerkorn]

Seriously, Vista had problems but wasn't as bad as it seems now. Nor was it as good as it was hyped when released. (Then again Vista x64 is usable, while XP x64 had lots of backwards compatibility issues.) So now there is Windows 7 (which by the way is really difficult to put meaningful in sentences), and we're in the hype phase where EVERYTHING is SOO MUCH BETTER.

Step back for a moment and aside from some truly useful small improvements and visual touch-ups, it's still very similar to Vista. In fact, after a week of using it, I couldn't tell what I can do in "7" that's impossible in Vista (Task bar is somewhat better, but not essential). In fact, at work I still got XP and while it's "ugly" there is nothing I can't do (as I am not playing games at work).

 

[mitch074]

@mitch074:

"As early as 2005 I had a 3D desktop.."

That's awesome! How many config files did you have to manually edit to get 3d desktop to function the way you wanted?
Short answer: none. Suse had it set up with a GUI option, Mandriva's drak3D application (with an icon in its GUI) did it for me, installing all dependencies: a logoff then back on (no reboot) enabled it. Moving on.

"...administrator prompts that popped only when administrative tasks really had to be performed (and it popped only once for a given task, without disrupting what I was doing at the time)"

Windows UAC in Vista was a PITA, I'll grant you that. However, in a business environment, as well as home, there is a lovely thing called "Group Policy" and it's editor. A wonderful GUI for manipulating pretty much every aspect of the user and computing experience. In a Windows environment it's a must have, and I've yet to see it's equal on any *nix computing platform. Back to those config files!
Nice thing with config files: I can back them up, copy them to a machine through ssh, and be done with it. But we weren't discussing business environments (where Conficker is costing quite a lot these days), we were discussing a single machine's management policies: not everybody has a LAN with Windows Server at home.

Not sure why this is a big deal, tabbed browsers have been available on the Windows platform for ages
In 2005, IE's market share was above 80% (80-20 rule), on every major IE update there was a chance the default browser would be overwritten (both protocols and MIME types registrations), many applications hot-linked iexplore.exe - so even those knowledgeable enough couldn't do without IE 6.
No one would have complained about a monopoly thingie: there was already the capability for Windows to use its network stack (ported from BSD) as firewall (cf. Windows 2000 connection sharing), but there was no GUI, it was hardly documented, and there was also no config file. Go and dabble with the Registry to configure it! Yay.

Yes, the *nix CLI is very robust, but the Windows CLI is also very robust especially in Windows Server versions. Anyone who has done ANY Windows Server administration would know this, apparently you don't. Rebooting for updates also happens on the Linux platform (I know, I've run Ubuntu, Debian, and Mandrake) so what's the big deal exactly? Complete re-install everytime a piece of h/w is changed? What kind of fantasyland do you live in again? 10 min boots? LOL
You use Windows Server for your home computer? Wow! Moreover, I can drive the whole system from the console. Windows' CLI can't, yet (they sure are trying, I'll grant you that).
You haven't used a Linux OS for a while, I see - currently, reboots are required for kernel and glibc updates, and _that's_it_ (most others would need a logoff, not a reboot). New hardware is supported without a reboot - Linux can even handle a CPU and RAM hotswap! Can Windows do that? No. Last time I installed a webcam in Vista, I had to reboot it thrice: once to load the driver, another to actually plug the cam in, and a last time to manually force the driver's install because the WHQL cert had thrown a fit. The same webcam, on Linux, worked ten seconds after it was plugged in. Same thing for wifi keys, scans, sound devices... And yes, 10 minutes boot in Vista: a friend's machine, with 512 Mb of RAM, nothing installed but a free antivirus, took (we both timed it) 14 minutes to boot. It was fresh from the factory, and I had removed most of the trashware. After I disabled most network services, disabled background indexing and defragging, most "system helpers" and a few autostarting knick-knacks, I managed to make it boot in 2min32s (end of activity cursor). On that very same machine, Ubuntu boots in 35 seconds, login included.

Even if Windows crapped it's registry big time there are a MULTITUDE of recovery options (booting to the Windows DVD, Recovery Console, Ultimate boot CD, and MORE) that get your system back up and working without a "backup, format, and reinstall". Get a clue please.
Don't you think I tried all these? And how about a user registry's corruption, which still happens? The WinDVD won't catch that (it resets SYSTEM hives), the Recovery console ditto (and scrapping a user's registry, yay settings!), UBCD will require editing the registry by hand (it's no automatic solution), and dabbling with the Registry's HEX values ain't my idea for graceful recovery. Backing up a user's config files, UID and GID and restoring those, however, is mighty easy: if one config file gets dirty, I don't have to scrap the lot.

Nice troll, get back under your bridge now.
There, you start with insults because I used irony to turn your own sentence on you. Who's the troll?

"I really can't understand why people are so reluctant to embrace new technology."

I will repeat a great statement I heard made about linux "Linux is only great if your time is worthless."
I guess you get paid a lot to rescue all those Windows boxes - time is money, that's for sure. Me, my responsibility is towards my coworkers to allow them to work. Eventhough restoring a backup image wasn't too long, simply logging on through ssh, sending a couple commands on their machines and fix their troubles while they work on something else on their own machine is valuable. And for me, I enjoy not having to keep an eye on my machine to ensure it hasn't been compromised, that the drives aren't getting fragmented, that the AV is up to date, that the spyware o' the month isn't making my installed but unused browser, or installed but unused media player, or installed but unused IM software into Swiss cheese.

I also enjoy a network where all legitimate IP packets, even those coming from NetBIOS and CIFS, are well-formed - something that no Windows version yet has managed to produce. That makes preventing attacks quite a lot easier: just drop badly formed packets.

 

[nelson_nel]

[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom]Well, I'm not using wiggly windows, I'm not even using the cube; but I enjoy having different workspaces, modal dialogs that appear on the proper screen when they pop (proper being the one where the app is running, not "monitor 1"), windows that don't redraw their content when they move if the graphics card has less than 2 GFLOP of processing power, a task switcher that shows the content of the window I'm switching to, even if it's doing software 3D rendering through a custom-made Directdraw blitter (last time I tried that with Vista SP2, it had to disable Aero, flash the screen a couple times, pop up a dialog to tell me so - that redefined 'jerky user experience' for me).@spoofedpacket: I ran Compiz on an Nvidia RivaTNT in 2007 (I've been using 3D desktop since 2006). It ran rock stable, if very slowly (after all, the RivaTNT was limited to 16 Mb of SDRAM, and came out in 1997). A 'proper' 3D desktop at the time required a Geforce 2 MX 220 with 64 Mb of RAM - meaning I could use it all day long with 20 open windows on 4 virtual workspaces. Or, you could use a Radeon 9500 with the FOSS drivers (since Ati drivers really sucked at the time); sometimes gitchy (video overlays didn't mix well with 3D interfaces - they were fundamentally not supposed to), but fast and working.@quikemon: "by my statement" my RadeonHD 4850, that I bought in June 2008 (not long after it came out), was installed, configured, running and fragging with advanced shader effects in June 2008 (Nexuiz did bring a Geforce 8600 to its knees with shaders 2.0 and extrusion mapping enabled - the 4850, not so much). If, right now, I wanted to replace it with an OpenGL 3.2 compliant RadeonHD 5870, I could. I don't want to - I don't game quite THAT much (and my processor wouldn't be able to make use of it effectively anyway, no matter what OS I use).I'm not running a 486: while I'm indeed still using an Athlon64 X2 3800+ (low-end these days, and the mobo can't handle overclocks any more), I'm waiting until I have a bit more cash on hand to replace it with either a Core i5 750, or a Phenom II X4 965 BE, or (pending benchmark comparisons) an Athlon II X4 620. Am I worried about Linux supporting 4 physical CPU cores? Heck no! Do I have to wonder if the kernel's scheduler will be able to make use of all 4 cores optimally, or will merely load a couple and let the others idle? No. Will it handle my SATA 2 disks? LOL. Will I be able to burn a DVD, copy files from disk to disk, and browse the Web without the experience becoming jerky or one of them slowing to a crowl due to disk access? I already am, with my puny CPU and lowly 2 Gb of RAM (that's another nice thing with Linux: it's not a RAM hog), without swap.Do I have to hunt virii, malware, worms etc. and look for antivirus updates, whether something broke through my firewalls, if a Trojan installed and hid itself on my machine? No - most can't run on *NIX systems, and those that do are rapidly neutralized through system updates (I hear that Windows users still have to be wary about Conficker - I must admit that one occurred to me only last week). Do I have to ensure that my disk drives aren't fragmented? No - Linux can store data on a disk without turning it into Swiss cheese.So, when you're saying that you don't understand people not embracing new technology, you really mean people not embracing latest Microsoft-endorsed technology.Which means, for people that DON'T use MS technology, that you're between 6 months and 40 years late (and I stand by the '40 years': UNIX is 40 yo, and from the beginning enforced strict "don't run normal user as admin" policies; because of MS not enforcing that in Windows, you now have to deal with UAC dialogs and malware).[/citation]

You're highly biased... How can you try to use the old and tired 'malware' angle (can't even remember the last time I trashed my PC with a virus or the like) when its practical analogy for *NIX is its relative lack of stability when compared to Windows. Windows is way more stable in a comparable environment.

What I mean by comparible is when someone typically mentions the above, the counter-point is "no way; my Linux server has been up forever". But that doesn't count because we are not compared dedicated server to dedicated server.

I mean in an unfamiliar end-user desktop environment Linux stability first is HIGHLY variable on the distro and even still. From my knowledge, Ubuntu is praised as being highly stable.

Well, it is if you don't attempt to do any 'configuring' in any way at all. Keep in mind, I mean the typical end user.

Yes, if you are a UNIX mastermind and have been babysitting Linux distros for awhile then you can handle it and perhaps be better off with its (slightly) more configurable nature (I don't need 400 different version of a GUI engine; STANDARDIZE PLEASE?!).

I think if you appreciate that sort of thing, that's great. Certainly in the business side of things, there is money to be saved on software. Money spent on support however is a whole other topic.

It's really hard to say any Linux at all is 'better' than Windows because the FIRST and most important aspect of any software, any developer or business can vouche for, is stability.

Windows is unmatched in this department and simply counting sheer numbers isn't a good enoguh comparison. You at least have to result to ratios of users who esperience no issues to those who experience issues based on something other than misunderstanding.

Even then, you might still have to factor in the user-base; More Linux users are tech-savvy than their Windows counter parts. But before you make a remark about that, please cross reference that ratio with that actual total installed user-base.

None of that means Windows is definitively better as beauty still ends up in the eyes of the beholder, but it is hard to argue against the fact that Windows is tried and tested way more than any Linux distro.

Also, it is way more compatible with a larger wealth of software creating a better user experience than any Linux has done out-of-box (or somewhere even close to that) thusfar.

Obviously, I have a preference, but it is based off of my experiences with experimenting with Linux at home as well as being a Sys Admin / Net Admin / Software Dev / Web Dev involving clients and servers of OS X, Windows, and Linux (Red Hat and Ubuntu primarily).

That is my opinion based on my experience.

 

[nelson_nel]

[citation][nom]theuerkorn[/nom]Seriously, Vista had problems but wasn't as bad as it seems now. Nor was it as good as it was hyped when released. (Then again Vista x64 is usable, while XP x64 had lots of backwards compatibility issues.) So now there is Windows 7 (which by the way is really difficult to put meaningful in sentences), and we're in the hype phase where EVERYTHING is SOO MUCH BETTER. Step back for a moment and aside from some truly useful small improvements and visual touch-ups, it's still very similar to Vista. In fact, after a week of using it, I couldn't tell what I can do in "7" that's impossible in Vista (Task bar is somewhat better, but not essential). In fact, at work I still got XP and while it's "ugly" there is nothing I can't do (as I am not playing games at work).[/citation]

Performance is way better (I'm running a nice PC, don't feel like listing specs but imagine one) for me on 7 than Vista. Stability seems improved. The cleaning up of the User folder was a must. Permissions hell is better.

Is is revolutionary? No. Evolutionary, yes. What's wrong with that...? The Vista kernel JUST came out... They should have thrown it away and made a brand new one again? Why?

 

[theuerkorn]

[citation][nom]nelson_nel[/nom]Performance is way better (I'm running a nice PC, don't feel like listing specs but imagine one) for me on 7 than Vista. Stability seems improved. The cleaning up of the User folder was a must. Permissions hell is better. Is is revolutionary? No. Evolutionary, yes. What's wrong with that...? The Vista kernel JUST came out... They should have thrown it away and made a brand new one again? Why?[/citation]
So how does that contradict what I am saying? Other than ...
- check out benchmarks, the speed advantage is real but minimal
- fresh install / cleaning always helps (re-install Vista and it's faster too)
- more stable ... requires that I had stability problems before

Besides my Phenom II X4 940, 8 GByte RAM and Radeon 5870 aren't exactly underpowered either.

 

[mitch074]

I decided that I should be more informed on Vista; since I dismissed it the day it came out (first contact left a bad taste), I installed it on a spare machine (2 GHz, 1 Gb of RAM, SATA HD) I had around. I burnt a DVD, set it up to install the Home Premium N edition...

The installer crashed.

Oh well. So I chose the 'normal' Home Basic edition, and completed the install (which took close to an hour), up till the first-boot-wizard which asked me to create an account.

The wizard caused a BSOD, and I ended up with two accounts on the following boot. Spending some time freeing RAM and improving performance by disabling system snapshots and setting up the UI for 'performance'. Getting bored with UAC, I disabled it, and created a limited user account.

And now the system nags at me, saying that UAC is disabled even when I use the limited user account (which would not have the right to perform administrative tasks anyway). Great.

Then, I installed the two complete service packs I had downloaded - I was a bit miffed that Windows SP are no longer cumulative, but I thought, well, Vista was supposed to allow transparent updates, because it's now more modular - so it should be transparent and fast, right?

I tried running them from the read only network shares I had put them on. It failed. So I copied them to disk, and ran them as administrator. However, Vista RTM + copy huge file = very slow transfers. Count a dozen minutes for that step alone.

The machine became unusable for close to an hour on SP1 install, and had to reboot twice.

Thinking, well, SP1 was a huge beast, almost a rewrite of the core OS, SP2 should install faster.

The machine, again, became unusable for close to an hour on SP2 install.

All right. I might be able to start using the computer! Almost 4 hours after starting the process, I now have a mostly up to date Vista install - wait, there are still 33 critical updates pending.

Count half an hour to download and install those. Then, reboot (keep in mind that I disabled both system restore and indexing, so disk accesses are now much faster).

I now have a complete, up-to-date Vista system. Wait, it's nagging at me that there's no running antivirus. Oh boy. So I install a free, light one that got praised for how light and fast it is.

The AV engine takes two full minutes to start after logon. Until then, it is not possible to even open an explorer window.

I start installing software. And I witness the system's relative speed going down, down, down... Until it's so slow I get '(Not responding)' on ALL opened windows.

How can people deal with Vista? At ALL?! You need a dual core and 2 Gb of RAM just to make the system NOT feel sluggish, and that's with NOT using advanced UI effects, disabling all add-ons compared with XP, disabling most I/O heavy tasks, and freeing up as much RAM as possible!

On that same machine, 7 runs like a charm; of course, I didn't have to spend more than 2 hours installing SPs on Seven, but in less than a couple hours I had a responsive system. No wonder Vista users are picking it up so fast - Seven is WONDERFUL, a GREAT, a MUST HAVE, a GIFT from the GODS compared with the frustrations Vista heaps on its users!

Having done my tests, usability evaluation, and having looked at the nooks and crannies of Vista, I decided to end the day by reinstalling an older Linux system I had screwed up by experimenting with beta software (experimental packages all over the place, installing libraries from source without caring about system file overwrites... Everything one would need to hard crash a system).

So, I took the CD ISO file, burnt it, and booted from it; choosing the 64-bit version (that CD allowed 32-bit and 64-bit install) and sync'ing it up with an online repository, I was booting a basic, up-to-date GNOME system 15 minutes later, which allowed me to set up more repositories and install extra software while I worked. I rebooted once (I had chosen a different kernel than the one by default, more from curiosity than real need however), and there - composite desktop with virtual workspaces, booting in less than a minute, completely up to date, all my apps ready and installed...

It took less than an hour to overhaul the machine. User settings were kept as-is, all documents kept. I was productive with it 20 minutes after putting the CD in the drive tray. It doesn't nag me about a missing malware scanner nor does it complain that I don't have an antivirus installed, it doesn't ask me if I'm really the one initiating this or that administrator's job (it asks for the root password once in a while if I try to do and admin task, but that's it), and different activity monitors I have installed tell me there is no suspicious activity (no background task, no disk activity, no packets getting out outside of normal browsing) taking place.

I had one hard crash with that install: the most recent proprietary Ati drivers don't like my graphics card; workaround was first to use the open source ones to make the system usable again (note that these support 2D very well, but 3D is still experimental), then install a slightly older revision of the proprietary ones (nice thing: I can change drivers with a log off/on, no reboot required).

And it's FAST - launching an app, opening a window is a matter of seconds, when it's not instantaneous.

So, I may be biased, I may use Linux at work too so I don't have the problems most people have using Linux at home and Windows at work, but I'll say it: on the same machine, Vista is a piece of garbage and Seven is moderately nice but clunky when compared with a recent Linux distro.

The first one to ask me:'but can it run Crysis?' Don't know, don't care - I play WoW. On Linux.