Made my choice

[Cerpin Taxt]

So, up until just this week, I hadn't been so lucky to experience Windows Vista. I really like XP, and I was in no hurry to upgrade it since I have my main machine and my work laptop both with XP and configured just how I like with no complaints.

In the last year or so, I began to tinker with Ubuntu. I used Xubuntu to set up a fileserver on my network -- rescuing an old PIII HP Pavilion from non-use in the process. As I slowly upgraded components in my main Windows rig, I built a 2nd machine out of the old parts, and when finally I had a complete system, I installed Ubuntu and setup MythTV on it.

Well, just this week I took advantage of some crazy rebates available at Staples, and scored a free Compaq Presario laptop for my trouble. Lo and behold, my first Vista computer.

After playing with it a little bit, I could see the appeal, I suppose. It seemed very much like XP with some sexy new clothes and some new "security" features that only seemed to make ordinary tasks a bigger hassle. Quite frankly, I would've rather just had XP on it.

So, fed up with having to add an extra "Confirmation" or "Permit" step to all of my tasks, I backed-up the factory installation onto some restore disks, and installed Ubuntu 7.04.

I couldn't be happier.

There were a few hitches that made the installation a little tricky. I had to add the string "vga=792" to the kernal boot command in GRUB, else my display wouldn't work. Once the OS was installed, I had to use ndiswrapper to install the proper drivers for my WiFi card. Aside from that, everything just worked.

I notice that the laptop seems to perform markedly better than when it had Vista on it. I don't have any hard metrics to compare, but it just has a faster feel to everything I do. I'll hang on to those restore disks in case I ever want to sell this thing, but I have no intention of going back. Ubuntu uber alles!

 

[BD2003]

I considered doing the same thing, and ended up going back to XP within a week (older laptop, otherwise it'd probably be vista).

Even after spending hours searching for and configuring (more like hacking for linux) every single power management option, battery life in XP was still far superior. At the end of the day, I couldnt live without MS Office, not to mention the few little apps here or there I've come to rely on. There was no problem finding an app that could do the same thing as the apps on windows, but for the most part, the windows apps did it better.

And even though Ubuntu used less ram, XP was just overall snappier.

I really like the idea of ubuntu, but it still needs quite a bit more polish before it can really replace windows for me.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Y'know, I woulda been satisfied had the laptop come with XP instead of Vista, but it didn't.

I simply wasn't gonna cough up $100 for XP to replace Vista -- not when I can get an OS that will do everything I need it to for free.

I would be particularly curious to know how snappy XP would be on this machine. Ubuntu hasn't disappointed me, though.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Garth
Y'know, I woulda been satisfied had the laptop come with XP instead of Vista, but it didn't.

I simply wasn't gonna cough up $100 for XP to replace Vista -- not when I can get an OS that will do everything I need it to for free.

I would be particularly curious to know how snappy XP would be on this machine. Ubuntu hasn't disappointed me, though.

Microsoft has a free downgrade program if you want to downgrade Vista to XP. You should check into that to see if that lappy qualifies.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Garth
Y'know, I woulda been satisfied had the laptop come with XP instead of Vista, but it didn't.

I simply wasn't gonna cough up $100 for XP to replace Vista -- not when I can get an OS that will do everything I need it to for free.

I would be particularly curious to know how snappy XP would be on this machine. Ubuntu hasn't disappointed me, though.

If Vista was too slow, the system is probably just lacking in ram.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Garth
Y'know, I woulda been satisfied had the laptop come with XP instead of Vista, but it didn't.

I simply wasn't gonna cough up $100 for XP to replace Vista -- not when I can get an OS that will do everything I need it to for free.

I would be particularly curious to know how snappy XP would be on this machine. Ubuntu hasn't disappointed me, though.

Microsoft has a free downgrade program if you want to downgrade Vista to XP. You should check into that to see if that lappy qualifies.

That is interesting. According to this article, however, the downgrade program doesn't apply to my version of Vista.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Garth
Y'know, I woulda been satisfied had the laptop come with XP instead of Vista, but it didn't.

I simply wasn't gonna cough up $100 for XP to replace Vista -- not when I can get an OS that will do everything I need it to for free.

I would be particularly curious to know how snappy XP would be on this machine. Ubuntu hasn't disappointed me, though.

If Vista was too slow, the system is probably just lacking in ram.

I dunno. I mean, it's got 1GB, and it was fresh outta the box, so it's not like I was running a bunch of apps already. Even as I cleaned off all the bundled software, the performance didn't improve.

It's not really that important, though. My post is simply meant to be a testimony to capability of Ubuntu. It works really well for me, now that I've put in the time to know how to make it do what I want. I've got more computers running Ubuntu than Windows now.

 

[iroc409]

I find it interesting that people complain about the security prompts from UAC, yet find UNIX's more intrusive password-required security prompts to be somehow much more acceptable.

Huh?? Isn't it easier to click a single button than to enter a password, particularly if you practice good passwords?

This isn't necessarily directed at the OP, just a general observation in anti-Vista trends.

 

[blackangst1]

Grats on your succesfull switch If Linux did what I need it to do I may switch. But for 70% of my stuff it wont.

And I will never go back to XP again. It is a royal POS. YMMV of course.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: iroc409
I find it interesting that people complain about the security prompts from UAC, yet find UNIX's more intrusive password-required security prompts to be somehow much more acceptable.

Huh?? Isn't it easier to click a single button than to enter a password, particularly if you practice good passwords?

This isn't necessarily directed at the OP, just a general observation in anti-Vista trends.

Interesting first post. No hard feelings, though.

You're right that I don't seem to mind entering passwords in Ubuntu whereas I disliked the extra clicking in Vista. I guess from an objective standpoint I could see how that would seem inconsistent. There's something about way Vista implements it that rubs me the wrong way, though. I guess it seemed really redundant and asinine when it would seek approval for menial tasks like re-arranging shortcuts in the Start menu. At least in Ubuntu it seems like it asks for passwords when I would expect it to, and in the terminal it only asks for it once and then afterwards it accepts your sudo commands.

Obviously, this is just my opinion. It's the way it seemed to me.

 

[Schadenfroh]

It is not hard to disable UAC (the "confirm" / "permit" button that pops up when you try to perform certain tasks), go to Control Panel > User Accounts > Turn User Access Control On / Off > uncheck "Use User Access Control" and then hit ok. You will never have a "Confirmation" or "Permit" button step for your admin tasks again while logged into your administrative account.

If you wish to use a limited account (which is suggested), you can then just create a standard (limited) account and use it for most tasks (have the admin account passworded and login to it as needed or just do the old fashioned right click > run as *admin account* > *type password*).

If you leave UAC enabled (and use a limited + passworded admin account), the standard account will behave similar to linux, in that when you are not logged in as root (admin account), a popup will appear when you try to perform administrative tasks and then you enter your admin password, it then completes the administrative task (you remain in the limited account).

 

[bsobel]

I guess it seemed really redundant and asinine when it would seek approval for menial tasks like re-arranging shortcuts in the Start menu.

FYI It doesnt prompt for approval if you move YOUR shortcuts around, however if you move shortcuts belonging to 'All Users' it does.

 

[Nothinman]

Once the OS was installed, I had to use ndiswrapper to install the proper drivers for my WiFi card. Aside from that, everything just worked.

If I were you'd I'd spend a little time looking for a native Linux driver, ndiswrapper is an ugly hack that needs to die. If you have a Broadcom chipset then you might be able to get the card working with the bcm43xx driver.

I find it interesting that people complain about the security prompts from UAC, yet find UNIX's more intrusive password-required security prompts to be somehow much more acceptable.

If you run as a non-admin account then Vista will prompt you for a password too. sudo is more acceptable most likely because it prompts you once and then caches that for a little bit so if you run a handful of admin tasks in a row you'll only get prompted once.

 

[iroc409]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: iroc409
I find it interesting that people complain about the security prompts from UAC, yet find UNIX's more intrusive password-required security prompts to be somehow much more acceptable.

Huh?? Isn't it easier to click a single button than to enter a password, particularly if you practice good passwords?

This isn't necessarily directed at the OP, just a general observation in anti-Vista trends.

Interesting first post. No hard feelings, though.

You're right that I don't seem to mind entering passwords in Ubuntu whereas I disliked the extra clicking in Vista. I guess from an objective standpoint I could see how that would seem inconsistent. There's something about way Vista implements it that rubs me the wrong way, though. I guess it seemed really redundant and asinine when it would seek approval for menial tasks like re-arranging shortcuts in the Start menu. At least in Ubuntu it seems like it asks for passwords when I would expect it to, and in the terminal it only asks for it once and then afterwards it accepts your sudo commands.

Obviously, this is just my opinion. It's the way it seemed to me.

I'm not trying to be an ass or anything, just an observation. I do think sometimes the UAC seems excessive, but it's better than nothing (and it should improve).

It's a bit of a paradox. People scream "make Windows more secure like UNIX!" When they do, everyone screams "Microsoft sucks I hate UAC!"

Really, I think the issue is two-fold. Primarily, I just think that most people aren't used to Windows asking for permission for anything and it doesn't seem right. UNIX has done it since inception basically, and has conditioned users. Second (and I don't think this is the case here), people just like to find easy ways to poke at Microsoft and every single new operating system they ever release.

I was biased against Ubuntu initially because of its use of sudo in place of more traditional root logins. It was just a conditioning that seemed "not right", but I am warming up to it and will probably switch my laptop soon.

 

[covert24]

Originally posted by: BD2003
I considered doing the same thing, and ended up going back to XP within a week (older laptop, otherwise it'd probably be vista).

Even after spending hours searching for and configuring (more like hacking for linux) every single power management option, battery life in XP was still far superior. At the end of the day, I couldnt live without MS Office, not to mention the few little apps here or there I've come to rely on. There was no problem finding an app that could do the same thing as the apps on windows, but for the most part, the windows apps did it better.

And even though Ubuntu used less ram, XP was just overall snappier.

I really like the idea of ubuntu, but it still needs quite a bit more polish before it can really replace windows for me.

hey is there a linux equivelant to office that saves in the same format? thats the only thing im worried about with switching to linux. i have vista ultimate rtight now and it takes about 3 minutes to fully boot up and it boots up with about 45 processes. too much for my taste. already tried to 'tweak' it according to various credited guides on the internet to no avail. so if theres a office equivelant for linux than pleas elet me know as im going to siwtching to suse if there is.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: covert24
hey is there a linux equivelant to office that saves in the same format?

How about running Microsoft office on linux?

(Disclaimer: I have not tried / fully read these articles, only skimmed over them):
Office 2003 under Linux
Office 2000 under Linux
Office 97 under linux

 

[stash]

It is not hard to disable UAC (the "confirm" / "permit" button that pops up when you try to perform certain tasks), go to Control Panel > User Accounts > Turn User Access Control On / Off > uncheck "Use User Access Control" and then hit ok. You will never have a "Confirmation" or "Permit" button step for your admin tasks again while logged into your administrative account.

This will also cause you to lose Protected Mode in IE and file and registry virtualization.

 

[covert24]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: covert24
hey is there a linux equivelant to office that saves in the same format?

How about running Microsoft office on linux?

(Disclaimer: I have not tried / fully read these articles, only skimmed over them):
Office 2003 under Linux
Office 2000 under Linux
Office 97 under linux

yea saw that but im new to Linux and don't what half that stuff is lol. just looking for a equivalent since id like to get away from Microsoft all together...i want to try something new for a change. anyone have any ideas? does openoffice.org support .doc files?

 

[covert24]

nvm just loked on the website and it does!!!. peace Microsoft.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: iroc409
I find it interesting that people complain about the security prompts from UAC, yet find UNIX's more intrusive password-required security prompts to be somehow much more acceptable.

Huh?? Isn't it easier to click a single button than to enter a password, particularly if you practice good passwords?

This isn't necessarily directed at the OP, just a general observation in anti-Vista trends.

Interesting first post. No hard feelings, though.

You're right that I don't seem to mind entering passwords in Ubuntu whereas I disliked the extra clicking in Vista. I guess from an objective standpoint I could see how that would seem inconsistent. There's something about way Vista implements it that rubs me the wrong way, though. I guess it seemed really redundant and asinine when it would seek approval for menial tasks like re-arranging shortcuts in the Start menu. At least in Ubuntu it seems like it asks for passwords when I would expect it to, and in the terminal it only asks for it once and then afterwards it accepts your sudo commands.

Obviously, this is just my opinion. It's the way it seemed to me.

If you ever decide to move to Debian or another distro, you will not have sudo and will have to do everything as the superuser or log in as root. Anything in the GUI that ask for the password will ask you every time you choose it.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: covert24
hey is there a linux equivelant to office that saves in the same format? thats the only thing im worried about with switching to linux. i have vista ultimate rtight now and it takes about 3 minutes to fully boot up and it boots up with about 45 processes. too much for my taste. already tried to 'tweak' it according to various credited guides on the internet to no avail. so if theres a office equivelant for linux than pleas elet me know as im going to siwtching to suse if there is.

Open Office will also save documents in Word format. If all you need is the word processing function of Office, then Open Office may be a good alternative.

 

[Nothinman]

If you ever decide to move to Debian or another distro, you will not have sudo and will have to do everything as the superuser or log in as root. Anything in the GUI that ask for the password will ask you every time you choose it.

Uh no, every distro I know of packages sudo and gksu even though they might not have the same default configuration as Ubuntu.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: covert24

Originally posted by: BD2003
I considered doing the same thing, and ended up going back to XP within a week (older laptop, otherwise it'd probably be vista).

Even after spending hours searching for and configuring (more like hacking for linux) every single power management option, battery life in XP was still far superior. At the end of the day, I couldnt live without MS Office, not to mention the few little apps here or there I've come to rely on. There was no problem finding an app that could do the same thing as the apps on windows, but for the most part, the windows apps did it better.

And even though Ubuntu used less ram, XP was just overall snappier.

I really like the idea of ubuntu, but it still needs quite a bit more polish before it can really replace windows for me.

hey is there a linux equivelant to office that saves in the same format? thats the only thing im worried about with switching to linux. i have vista ultimate rtight now and it takes about 3 minutes to fully boot up and it boots up with about 45 processes. too much for my taste. already tried to 'tweak' it according to various credited guides on the internet to no avail. so if theres a office equivelant for linux than pleas elet me know as im going to siwtching to suse if there is.

Theres openoffice, but I generally find it to be far inferior and bloated compared to MS office. You can try running older versions of office through wine if you're up for a few headaches, but forget about office 2007.

And I wouldnt call ubuntu a "light OS". Surely a bit lighter than Vista, but I've found XP to be much snappier. Of course, its all going to come down more to the programs you use than the OS itself.

In any case, XP + any MS Office is going to be WAY leaner than Ubuntu + Openoffice - OO is a HOG.

 

[Nothinman]

In any case, XP + any MS Office is going to be WAY leaner than Ubuntu + Openoffice - OO is a HOG.

He could always do the majority of the work in something lighter like Abiword, KOffice, etc and then either just print to PDF before sending it or using O to convert the file to MSOffice format if the destination absolutely requires that.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

If you ever decide to move to Debian or another distro, you will not have sudo and will have to do everything as the superuser or log in as root. Anything in the GUI that ask for the password will ask you every time you choose it.

Uh no, every distro I know of packages sudo and gksu even though they might not have the same default configuration as Ubuntu.

Yes they do, but it is not turned on for the main user account by default and must be configured properly. Unless you know how to do this you will have the scenario I described before.