| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| jema |
Windows7I am probably getting another PC soon, what I have is underpowered for what I do
So I have been trying to consider all the options including windows7. Reading reviews though I seem only to be reading that there is a lot of eye candy, media centre is much better, and that it fixes most of the awfulness in Vista like speed and incessant security popups. Even on the speed front people are saying that the full boot time is still minutes. Conversely Ubuntu Karmic Koala is also out in the week or so, a release that will actually boot faster that previous versions and which apparently adds a lot of polish. But of course Ubuntu still struggles with hardware support, which is why I have been trying to consider windows7 but I want to hear something more positive about it than the fact is is not as bad as Vista. The reviews remind me a little of Obama getting the peace prize largely for not being Bush 
|
||||||
| Brownbear |
Madame Bear's new laptop (very nice gift from her Mum) runs on XP, which is better than the rotten Vista I have on my home machine, and not as dodgy as Win7 is likely to be until the first Service Pack.
I'd say, get Win XP and then upgrade to Win7 if it turns out to be any good. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
I hope you have considered Windows 2008 Server as one of your possible options? It is rock solid, and the HyperV stuff will let you run VMs properly, including Open SUSE (with MS support!) and I believe various other Linux flavours. Boot times and eye candy are not quite up there with Windows 7 or Mac, it's a server O/S after all, but as a development system it is very good. I use it on both my main workstation and a laptop. There are various online guides showing you how to configure it for use as a workstation O/S. | ||||||
| jema |
A windows server edition does not really light my fire, I have been running a development system on Linux with VMs for year and so the only reason for shifting would be flashy UI features.
For example windows7 is meant to have better support for multiple desktops, something that I use extensively on Linux, but that I never could get configured to work so well under XP. Under Gnome I have two gadgets that allow switching desktops, one gives names to them, and one shows the applications. |
||||||
| jocorless |
I've heard nothing but good reviews about Windows 7 - its footprint is smaller, it appears to be robust in its server form and is really the natural progression from XP - It also runs much much faster than Vista on the same machine - without a massive memory hike as is normally required | ||||||
| vegplot |
I'd choose Windows Server 2008R2 or Windows 7. Get a 64-bit machine add in the free version of VMWare or use Hyper-V. Add lots of memory and storage and set up virtual machines to do whatever development tasks you need to. | ||||||
| oldish chris |
Re: Windows7
I am thinking of giving a new version of Ubuntu a try: "Lubuntu", by having a "lightweight" user interface, old, relatively slow PCs will be able to zip along. |
||||||
| Barefoot Andrew |
On a decent machine Vista runs perfectly(*) - for me at least. Thus Win7 should also run double plus good perfectly, one would hope.
A. Disclaimer: that's not saying its critics are incorrect, merely that it just runs well on a decent machine 
|
||||||
| vegplot |
I'm downloading Windows 7 Professional from the MS site (fortunately we have a 10MBps link and almost everyone else has gone home). I ran Windows 7 preview before and was quite pleased with it but read/write performance on the solid state drive I was using at the time wasn't overly impressive. Going to install it on a spare HD and see how it fares on a hard drive. | ||||||
| orangepippin |
Oh ... I was just thinking of getting a SSD for a new laptop for Windows 7 ... they don't seem to have fallen in price as much as I expected, maybe there's still life in the old hard drives! | ||||||
| jema |
I guess we are still a couple of years away on SSDs really being hard drive killers.
But when they are they really will be, I imagine my shiny new server will be looking like it was out of the Ark in 5 years time. I'd be surprised at that point if you can even buy a hard drive. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Windows 7 has a nifty feature that allows XP compatible apps to run. Much better than the bloated barrel of lard that is Vista. | ||||||
| toggle |
There's nothing about vista that has made me curse it so far. i think it's trying too hard to be flash, probably explains the bloat |
||||||
| Barefoot Andrew |
Its resource usage is atrocious - and all criticism in this arena is deserved. But beyond that I've found it a nice environment to work in - much better than XP IMHO.
A. |
||||||
| toggle |
i can see that 
too many 'nice features' I've seen it do some interesting things, I'm sure at some point, I'll work out how I made it do them in the first place, so i can repeat some of them. very nice, easy to use, but more frills than necessary. I'm supposedly entitled to a free win7 upgrade on this thing. i suspect i'll get it, then leave it on a shelf to let others beta test it before installing |
||||||
| oldish chris |
That's the point - Vista & Windows 7 are OK if you are one of those who thinks it is OK to buy a top-of-the-range computer every few years, consigning a perfectly good machine to land-fill. Microsoft's business model is to sell an operating system to someone who has a good enough operating system. If you are doing the usual basic tasks (Web browsing, Emailing, word processing and the like) I fail to see what importance the version of OS is - as long as it works and keeps your files safe. (I've done that on five versions of Windows, three "distros" of Linux, in all cases I point at an icon, click and Bob's your uncle). |
||||||
| jema |
I agree, the idea that the OS should be forcing you to buy a faster PC is plain wrong.
I'm conceding I need a faster PC currently, as other things have intensified over the years, the number of web pages running javascript for example and as a developer the fact that I now run a virtual machine or two concurrently. But I can accept that as an inevitable consequence of the way technology is moving. I don't accept it because an operating system suddenly wants to hog more resources. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
I believe one of the design objectives of Windows 7 is that you don't need a faster PC. Unlike Vista, it should be usable on a Netbook for example.
However I don't think that is because MS (or the Linux Distros for that matter) have suddenly woken up and decided less is more. It's more likely that they can see the growing size of the netbook market, and the sales opportunity for lighter-weight operating systems. I personally don't see why newer operating systems should not be more resource hungry - that's usually a consequence of them doing more, which is usually (not always) a good thing. It's not as if the cost of the extra computing power needed to run them is increasing, it's actually falling. I still have my first laptop in the loft (sorry Oldish chris, it's not in the landfill yet) and I recall it cost about £3K for a mid-range one. |
||||||
| jema |
A lot depends on what you view as an operating systems role in life.
These days the word OS is totally different in meaning to how I would have viewed the term 30 years ago. e.g. that the operating system is simply the layer that abstracts you from the hardware and handles task management. That simple view of things has had fungus grow all over it uncontrollably to the point where Microsoft tried to sell us the view that Internet Explorer was inseparable from the system 
I think this is still a key difference between Linux and Windows. Linux can still be pared back to something lean, mean and fit for the task you want it to do. I am seeing that a little at the moment as I configure Linux virtual servers on my new server. They have no windows interface at all, and the only services that I start are the ones I need. Now no doubt this is somewhat possible with windows server editions, but I doubt it is anywhere near as inherent. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
Yes that is the concept of the Windows 2008 server core installations. I don't know how "inherent" that is in Linux but it pervades all aspects of Windows 2008, even if you go for the full UI installation. |
||||||
| vegplot |
I tried the server core version and went back to the GUI edition. I'm not a fan of the command line. | ||||||
| Barefoot Andrew |
What a great phrase  Only a Downsizer could describe technology thus
A. |
||||||
| toggle |
it is also something far beyond the technical skill of the vast majority of users and vastly beyond what they need. i know i could do fun things with linux, and i would actually find them fun to do, but right now, i don't want to. if i had the time, bothering to play with linux is something i would do, but i don't ahve the hours in the day to do what I have to do, let alone optional stuff. I used XP through choice over any other version because it didn't fall over and die every 2 months. When i do have the time, I'm more interested in getting bioshock than linux. that's all i really want, something that even a fairly heavy handed home user takes at least a year to kill, that is close enough to an xp clone I can use it without pain. it also seems hard for the kids to swap over using different systems, son is all confuzeled at the linux on the netbook he uses at school. I've installed open office on this and the parent's machine to hopefully make that a bit easier for him. i don't want to learn office 07 right now, that isn't intuitive. |
||||||
| jema |
You won't find me arguing the Linux is not harder than windows.
Though the ease of use of Linux does get easier with each release and I do recall with windows that there are a lot of Elephants in the room that people just accept! I think of the malware issues, the weird registry tweaks needed to fix problems.... |
||||||
| vegplot |
Is this turning into a Windows vs Linux thread? | ||||||
| toggle |
|
||||||
| toggle |
there are people who will argue that though. |
||||||
| jema |
You can find people arguing just about anything, including that as they have not had problems with Vista, Vista is great
I think you can make a case that if a Linux box is set up well for someone in advance, then it can be less hassle than windows. But there are a number of "just so long as" caveats to that. However I do think back to malware and the loads of trashed windows installs I have seen! Malware is really a hell of a big Elephant. |
||||||
| Barefoot Andrew |
A. |
||||||
| vegplot |
I'm going to test drive both Windows 7 Pro on by 32-bit desktop and VMWare on a Dell R710 64-bit Brazilian core RAM Ghz server. | ||||||
| orangepippin |
Me neither. TBH these arguments are largely out of date. Linux was indeed once the preserve of techies, but it's increasingly become a usable platform for almost anyone (particularly on Netbooks). Windows did used to crash a lot and struggle with malware but that's also becoming less and less of an issue. There's much less between them (and Mac OS) than there used to be, it's probably quite hard to tell one from the other at a quick glance now. |
||||||
| toggle |
so basically, linux still requires an expert in there somewhere, great if you have one on tap. or windoze that is reasonably idiot proof. the malware is a big issue. i've killed off more installs than i can count through that and the inherant stability issues that plagued the likes of 98. there is a lot of those issues that are user related error though. there's only so much you can idiot proof a machine. |
||||||
| jema |
I think a core problem with both operating systems is that way too much of the internals are exposed to the user, and any rogue application whether it be deliberate malware or just buggy.
Many games consoles are beginning to merge in functionality with what a PC offers and I don't think you get a fraction of the issues with them, this is because they are wygiwyg systems
|
||||||
| oldish chris |
Don't agree about needing an expert, I've installed Linux on several systems over the past two years with no problems, it just worked. Two of the systems are owned by people who don't know much about computers and don't want to know either. They now don't need to know about malware, defragging or what to do when your system slows down. My third son, who is decidedly gay and a drag queen by profession can't see the problem with Ubuntu. Now he has a friend who is a technophobe. Richard (No3 son aka Duchess Dickie la Thong) got so fed up with solving his problems he installed Ubuntu and told him that it is Windows 7. So far only one plaintive cry for help. |
||||||
| Emyr |
I've just moved the 4th of my PCs to Ubuntu 9.10 Beta (Karmic). Work PC has run the 64-bit version for the last two weeks, and home PC has been on it for slightly less. I have had no issues doing anything, and even on the varied hardware I'm using there have been no issues.
GZ will be on 9.10 in just over a week. |
||||||
| jema |
I am looking forward to trying Karmic, I'm still on Intrepid and quite a lot has happened since then. | ||||||
| mark |
[url]
My third son, who is decidedly gay and a drag queen by profession can't see the problem with Ubuntu. Now he has a friend who is a technophobe. Richard (No3 son aka Duchess Dickie la Thong) got so fed up with solving his problems he installed Ubuntu and told him that it is Windows 7. So far only one plaintive cry for help.[/url] is it just me who hasn't figured out he link between sexual preferences and operating systems .. is Ubuntu "gayer" than Windows 7 ? Is partitioning the preserve of transexuals and are virtual machines beloved by cross dressers and where do the dirty Mac brigade fit in? Does this deserve a whole thread on its own? off to play with my android phone =- make what you will of that.. |
||||||
| JB |
Mac OS X rated? |
||||||
| oldish chris |
Hi Mark, about the link between sex and operating systems and the link between technical skill levels and operating systems. There isn't one. In my experience, boys, girls, technophiles, technophobes and everything in between should be able to switch between suppliers of OSes as easily as they switch between versions.
All threads about computers do tend to degenerate into Linux versus Windows squabbles, but going back to jema's original question:
Buy a Mac: the screen is nice, they are powerful, germ free and with the OS and the hardware from one design team there won't be any compatibility issues. Do a cost-benefit analysis, factor in the costs of: anti-virus software; time spent waiting for large files to be processed; it'll still be big enough several years in the future. The Mac has a high up-front cost, but over the system lifetime could well be less than buying a high spec Windows system. In a few years time MS will be forcing you to upgrade to Windows 8, if the cost is the same as 7, then the new OS will cost from £65 to £160. The new Mac OS will probably cost about £25. Mac users are usually smug. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
An interesting about turn-from someone who makes a point of eschewing the latest kit when an older system is perfectly good. Joking aside, I think your suggestion that Macs are more cost-effective over the longer-term is probably not correct. Most large companies that I have worked for regularly review computer purchasing using very dry accountancy-based rationales, and they buy PCs, not Macs. The larger manufacturers like Dell and Compaq have specific product lines designed to keep lifetime costs to a minimum. Whilst their needs are probably different to those of a private individual, I doubt that anyone buys a Mac because they think it is going to save them money over a PC. They buy it because they think a Mercedes will look better on the drive than a Ford (even though the Ford is faster, cheaper to run, easier to repair etc. etc.). I suspect your original strategy is actually a much better approach. Buy a modestly-specced PC, not the leading-edge one, and keep it for 5+ years. |
||||||
| toggle |
cost of anti virus software, you mean some people actually pay for it | ||||||
| Gervase |
I know I am! 
They do seem to last. My current machine is five years old, and the previous one ran for eight years, and would still be running, only I couldn't turn down the offer of a twin-processor box at twice the speed. If anyone wants an elderly G4 which still works a treat, let me know. |
||||||
| Treacodactyl |
And buy a PC and load Linux.
I think I'm confused, I run a twin disk system, one with Vista and the other with a couple of partitions with Ubuntu. So, I'm a gay cross dressing heterosexual.  Mind you, I spend several years working with OS/2.
|
||||||
| orangepippin |
PCs and Macs are built of largely the same components - memory, hard drives, even processors now that Apple have seen the light and started using Intel. They all last just as long as each other. 5+ years is readily achievable. |
||||||
| orangepippin |
If you factor in the opportunity cost of your time, that won't save you any money. Buying Linux pre-installed would be a better bet. |
||||||
| Treacodactyl |
That depends on what your time costs. But, having bought a PC preloaded with Vista, if I was intending to use it as my main OS I'd wipe it and re-install. There's so much rubbish pre-installed such as 30 day trials etc, etc. Ubuntu took me about half an hour to install. |
||||||
| Gervase |
I also meant in terms of keeping up with the current OS. The G4 was used with with every incarnation of the Mac OS from 9.0 to OSX 10.5 and performed flawlessly with just 500Mb of RAM. I don't think there's an off-the-shelf PC that could have gone from Windows 2000 to Vista with the same processor and the same amount of RAM. But let's not get into the OS willy-waving...  see more Epic Fails |
||||||
| BadgerFace |
Me too - I'm a devoted mac user of approx 20 years - the first the mac I brought was a sweet little mac plus. I still have a 17 year old Quadra in use with my imagesetter - still as good as the day I took it out the box !! I have six Mac's in daily use, ranging from the OAP Quadra, to the ibook i'm posting on. Love or hate them - they are built to last.
|
||||||
| mark |
I am surprised that Downsizers who would probably eshew branding if it was Tesco or Walmart show such fierce loyalty to Microsoft and Apple two of the worlds big corporates.
Both have produced big products and both have tried to tie users into their products. Microsoft by trying to become the corporate standard - Apple by selling a particular user experiemce (esp with i-phone and i tunes ) What we want are open standards. And no I'm not having a big pro linux sell here either. I actually avoid apple products more now because are to locked down ..I just uninstalled quicktime and i-tunes from my wndows machine because of the infernal updates and the way they assume cos i want one bit of software i must have another. I'l install quick time lite late but i-tunes is gettign replaced with double twist I want to be able to have an operating system that is a an operating system and doesn't try to do everything else for me - so i can install the applications of my choice. Andf i don't want OS or |PC manufacturers assuming I want ot use their software and applications on it or making it hard to run other stuff like apple and microsoft keep trying to do. Right now that means a mix of microsoft , google , and a number of open source apps its likely my next machine wil be windows seven but making strong use of google suites of apps with open office and firefox as main working brower (with my beloved extensions on ) and google chrome kept clean to run a few pages fast - I'll probably then put Linux on my old XP machine and use it as a web server. I bypassed vista and kept to XP (much better) - but windows seven looks a good OS. Macs are good ,no doubting that, and i woudl recommend them to any non computer literate person who did not already have windows experience. They certainly outshine the cheaper windows PC's but if you spend the same on a PC as on a mac including peripherals (again apple play the exclusivity card here and have expensive add ons) you can get a real beast. It won't look as pretty and may lack the apple design flare - but it will be more flexible, adapable and powerful In the end its up to you - we all look for different things in a computer. There's no right and wrong answer - and the evangelists for a particular system usually bore everyone else to death |
||||||
| orangepippin |
A good summary. Your point that you might expect Downsizers to eschew such large corporate OS suppliers is an interesting one. Building your own PC from scratch and then installing either a recycled copy of XP or a Linux distro that you have compiled yourself would seem more the DS way. However, DS'ers are often ardant fans of the NHS, one of the biggest organisations in the world, and the BBC, a large powerful media corporation.
I don't quite agree that we want open standards though. I think what we really want is competition. There was quite a long period where MS had little competition and it showed, but with a resurgent Apple and the steady popularity of Linux, things are much healthier now. MS and Apple may be proprietary, but that is a non-issue to me. |
||||||
| vegplot |
A Mac running Microsoft software.
|
||||||
| tahir |
Agree, I'd be happy if there were 3 competitive proprietary desktop OSs as long as file formats were standardised. |
||||||
| toggle |
I don't think everyone has to be skilled in everything or have the time to do everything from scratch. I will make the best choices i ahve within my time and budget, but I'm not wearing a handspun hair shirt so i can get ds cred. and i bought a new laptop with vista pre installed because it does the job i need it to do. Vista works fine on this machine, although given the option i prefer xp. I have the option of a free upgrade to win7 on this machine, i intend to let other people do the public beta test that all ms products seem to need. |
||||||
| vegplot |
The route to Windows 7 has already been we tested. For a large part it's based on Windows 2008 Server (both based on Windows NT 6.1) which has proved to be an extremely stable and robust platform. | ||||||
| 12Bore |
Installed Ubuntu 9.10 Kharmic Koala last night, all seems strangely familiar, yet "better" somehow 
|
||||||
| oldish chris |
This morning I upgraded from 9.04 to 9.10. No probs, system aint half fast now
I made the best choice, given my time and budget. I'm not wearing a hair shirt (can afford another £79's worth of silk shirts). I bought a laptop (at the beginning of the year - went for a refurbished HP dv9000, like virtually all computers it came with a virus magnet pre-installed, after I checked that I could hack into it with a live CD, I wiped it off.) I installed Ubuntu 9.04. No problems, no skill required, no searching for drivers. It came with the option of a free upgrade every 6 months, which brings me to this morning when I upgraded - no skill required, clicked a few buttons, no searching for drivers, took two hours. |
||||||
| jema |
I think to some degree it is the luck of the draw, if your hardware is well supported in terms of good drivers, then a Ubuntu install is great.
My hardware has problems with sound, is/was prone to updates trashing the graphics setup, has a very slightly buggy printer driver and a scanner driver that is so bad it is unusable. Admittedly that is the 8.10 Ubuntu release. Of course there were similar stories when Vista came out, some people had horrible driver issues, others could not see what the problem was as they were lucky enough to have hardware that was properly supported. I have just burnt 9.10 and am looking forward to installing it on a fresh PC. |