[Carolyn]

Is it possible to buy a new laptop with XP instead of Vista?  If so, I haven't found a way to do it.  Or should I just suck it up, quit bi***** about it and deal with Vista?

[paul.fr]

I never wanted vista, but my new laptop came with it. I think its great, but i do like shiney, sleek sexy things. Thanks by the way to all who have contributed here, i was not aware that 3rd party av and spyware software had become vista ready.

[another_someone]

Is it possible to buy a new laptop with XP instead of Vista?  If so, I haven't found a way to do it.  Or should I just suck it up, quit bi***** about it and deal with Vista?

At present, Microsoft have said several times they will stop allowing XP to be shipped with new computers, and several times have been forced to relent - so at least some manufacturers are still shipping their machines with XP.

[Carolyn]

I never wanted vista, but my new laptop came with it. I think its great, but i do like shiney, sleek sexy things. Thanks by the way to all who have contributed here, i was not aware that 3rd party av and spyware software had become vista ready.

I looked at a few laptops last week with Vista.  The one I'm leaning towards is very shiny, sleek and sexy and the graphics were incredible!  That's what I'll probably go with, but I do tend to be afraid of things I'm not familiar with.

[lyner]

Is not the current Macos just a variant of Linux?

Rather based on a form / subset of Unix.
No one ever tried to sell Linux on the basis that it looked nice and was a joy to use.
It is popular with cogniscenti rather than 'users'. It's none the worse for that but that is how it is different from Macos.
I ran red hat linux for a while, after installing it in an elderly Power Mac but it was too much like hard work to make it a lifestyle.
I hope Vista is an advance on XP. The Windows thing is heading in the right direction, I think.

[another_someone]

Is not the current Macos just a variant of Linux?

Rather based on a form / subset of Unix.
No one ever tried to sell Linux on the basis that it looked nice and was a joy to use.
It is popular with cogniscenti rather than 'users'. It's none the worse for that but that is how it is different from Macos.
I ran red hat linux for a while, after installing it in an elderly Power Mac but it was too much like hard work to make it a lifestyle.
I hope Vista is an advance on XP. The Windows thing is heading in the right direction, I think.

Linux is a variant of unix.  Linux is not defined by its user interface, but by its kernel (otherwise it is merely a set of GNU utilities); and I thought the Mac OS kernel was Linux (or are you saying that Mac are using a kernel based on AT&T code?).

[lyner]

The Apple literature refers to Unix, is all I can say.
When I use Unix commands (in my sad, limited way) they seem to work.
And, yes, Linux isn't an interface and it is the interface that affects the user most  as long as the operating system works ok.
As usual, this thread is pointing in a number of different directions at once!
What I have always liked about the Mac interface is that, as you move from version to version - even since the early nineties - the basic way of working is the same and it doesn't bug you with details.
Let's face it; how many users are even aware of what they're doing when they open a file or edit it in some way?
Actually, there could be a very fruitful thread, discussing what people actually think they are doing when they use a computer and where the 'brain, actually resides. I feel one coming on.

[another_someone]

Having looked up various Wiki pages, it seems that the MacOS is based on NeXTStep (which itself is based on the mach kernel) and FreeBSD, but not Linix.

[p007pramod]

well,
Vista has more security features built into it along with some frameworks for developers ( like microsoft IIS, .net framework, etc) and it has a complete new user interface called 'aero' which makes it slower and slower....

The best solution is to stick with XP if you already have one.

Or else if someone is really looking forward to get hands on LINUX or UNIX flavours, then get yourself a free copy of UBUNTU ( a free Linux distributable OS). This OS has seriously good or I should say great GUI features as compared to windows flavours. and in a small future ahead this is going to give a serious competition to Microsoft guys...

[JimBob]

I agree. I have used the UBUNTU version and it is rather impressive. The GUI is a variant of Gnome.

[lyner]

UBUNTU ( a free Linux distributable OS). This OS has seriously good or I should say great GUI features as compared to windows flavours. and in a small future ahead this is going to give a serious competition to Microsoft guys...

This has got to be a good thing. BUT how will it be distributed? (I assume that, by competition, you mean commercial competition - nothing else would affect them at all).
Joe public wants / needs  to have his hand held all the way from out of the box. You will have to wait an awful long time before a computer manufacturer will be prepared to supply a machine - to sell in Curry's - that has anything as radical as open source software running it.  Where would be the guarantee and the on-going support and upgrades?
Who would advertise it better than Microsoft advertises Windows?
It's a humbling thought that, but for the large volume sales of what you might call 'rubbish', computers would be too expensive for you (or at least most of us) to afford.
We are forced, grudgingly, to acknowledge that Microsoft has achieved quite a lot.

[DoctorBeaver]

In a nutshell, Microsoft is for people who don't know any better. That accounts for 90% of PC users worldwide. That's what's on their PC when they get it & they stick with it.

When I say "who don't know better", I don't wish to sound as if I'm denegrating anyone. It's just that they probably have never even heard of Linux, or they think it's just for geeks. In any case, for that 90%, Windows & other MS software does everything they want it to. They are unaware that non-MS software can do everything that MS software does and, in a lot of cases, does it better, faster & more securely. If they were aware of that, maybe they'd expect & want more.

I take on board the question of support; but nearly all of the GNU software I use is supported better than MS. MS support is, without wishing to put too fine a point on it, CRAP. I've had to resort to support with a few packages, but I normally get a very detailed response with a few hours, if not immediately in the case of online support forums. And, I have to say, I've needed support a lot less with GNU software than with MS.

[another_someone]

This has got to be a good thing. BUT how will it be distributed? (I assume that, by competition, you mean commercial competition - nothing else would affect them at all).
Joe public wants / needs  to have his hand held all the way from out of the box. You will have to wait an awful long time before a computer manufacturer will be prepared to supply a machine - to sell in Curry's - that has anything as radical as open source software running it.  Where would be the guarantee and the on-going support and upgrades?

What guarantee?  Does MS offer any guarantee?

The biggest problem is not even the end user, but the third party software suppliers - how much software can you get for the machine (although this is a moving target, and Linux software keeps expanding, but still has a long road to travel).

But in the end, the issue may well not be amenable to change in the USA or Europe, but in expanding markets like Africa and Asia, there is much room for new players, and MS only really has a presence in that market because people ignore the intellectual property rights that MS claim.  Greater enforcement of intellectual property rights will ensure that MS will have no place in many of these markets.

It is no co-incidence that Ubuntu is is an African word, and geared as much towards the third world as the first world.

[lyner]

What guarantee?  Does MS offer any guarantee?

You may notice that you get frequent updates of MS software. That 'quarantees' it will work.
Despite  the whinges from all of us 'who know better', there is a lot more good about Windows than people acknowledge. It actually works for  most people  most of the time and half the so-called faults are down to RTFM and not faulty software. How many times have I been asked to help with "this stupid software" which "just won't work" and been able to show the user that the answer is actually written on the screen in front of them?
If it weren't for the huge commercial interest of microsoft, I still say, computers would not be within the reach of the likes of you and me.
Linux is constantly brought into the argument as a viable alternative for Joe public to buy. Well, it just isn't. It's for enthusiasts who are able and prepared to build their own system and to get to know a serious amount of computer stuff.
The only real place for Linux 'for users' is in  organisations which are large enough to employ an IT department to install and support software - like Universities.
No one can be surprised that you never find it in the average home - it's just not commercial. Can anyone quote an example of Linus being used in the mass market?

MS only really has a presence in that market because people ignore the intellectual property rights that MS claim.  Greater enforcement of intellectual property rights will ensure that MS will have no place in many of these markets.

Does this imply that MS should, or should not enforce their intellectual property rights?
AS far as the Third World market is concerned, can you imagine a successful advertising campaign in the West, based on the idea of "Africa's most popular computer? Maybe in 20 years, but not before.  And, once a country reaches the level of prosperity to afford computers and suchlike, it wants the same things that we have in the West.
BTW, this testimonial for MS comes from a Macintosh user of many years' standing. I just think Windows is Plain Ugly but thirty million flies can't be wrong.

[DoctorBeaver]

Linux is constantly brought into the argument as a viable alternative for Joe public to buy. Well, it just isn't. It's for enthusiasts who are able and prepared to build their own system and to get to know a serious amount of computer stuff.
The only real place for Linux 'for users' is in  organisations which are large enough to employ an IT department to install and support software - like Universities.

That may have been true a few years ago, but not anymore. There are several Linux variants that are "plug & play" and, in fact, a lot easier to instal than Windows. But there's the rub - Joe Public doesn't have to instal Windows, does he.

You ask about a Linux mass market - well, there's the reason why it's lacking. If there was a choice of ready-installed OSs then maybe Linux would have a bigger market share. But that choice just isn't available. MS has made sure of that by tying PC manufacturers into long-term exclusive contracts that forbid them from pre-loading anything except Windows (or now Vista).

It wasn't that long ago that Intel only gave the full specs of its processors to MS. Fortunately, Athlon started making an impact so Intel had to release full details to all software companies to avoid Athlon taking a bigger market share.
 

I just think Windows is Plain Ugly but thirty million flies can't be wrong.

That's a fair argument only if you want to live off sh*t. And, in any case, those flies could well be wrong. At 1 time those flies believed in a flat Earth.

As I mentioned previously, the average PC buyer has probably never even heard of Linux. If they've never heard of it, they won't realise that it's available, easy to instal & has thousands of free software packages that will run under it. That's why the flies use MS, not because it's better.

[lyner]

It's not better, if you mean 'really better'.
In this case, however, 'available at your local store and works mostly'  means 'better'.
I don't know what can be done about it.
If only someone packaged Linux, or a version of Unix, perhaps, with a nice to use GUI which had  lots of software readily available and  virtually never fell over . . .  Oh, yes, now I remember; I use MACOS 10.4.
But that's pricey too.

[another_someone]

What guarantee?  Does MS offer any guarantee?

You may notice that you get frequent updates of MS software. That 'quarantees' it will work.

To me, a guarantee implies that you get your money back if it does not work - just try and do that.

Software updates happen at least as fast in the Linux world as the Windows world.

Despite  the whinges from all of us 'who know better', there is a lot more good about Windows than people acknowledge. It actually works for  most people  most of the time and half the so-called faults are down to RTFM and not faulty software.

I think it is generally recognised that there is a lot of convergence, on both sides, between Linux and Windows - both have been working hard to integrate the advantages of the other into their own domain.

There are still differences, but they get ever fewer each year, and so the decision becomes ever more a matter of whose licence you prefer rather than whose software you prefer.

There still remains the problem, and it has been from the beginning, that the minimum hardware requirement for Windows has always exceeded that for Linux.  While historically this has been to the hardware manufacturers and distributors advantage, with ever more concern about the energy usage of computers, this may start to alter (although, to be fair, on graphics intensive games, the OS won't make much difference on hardware demands, but outside of the gaming market, it will be an issue).

If it weren't for the huge commercial interest of microsoft, I still say, computers would not be within the reach of the likes of you and me.

One could argue the same about IBM - but they are no longer significant players in the market at all - past performance is no guarantee of future success.

MS only really has a presence in that market because people ignore the intellectual property rights that MS claim.  Greater enforcement of intellectual property rights will ensure that MS will have no place in many of these markets.

Does this imply that MS should, or should not enforce their intellectual property rights?

I was making an observation, not being prescriptive.

From the point of view of Microsoft's self interest, I would guess that they would be better off being lax about enforcement, and only come down heavy once they are certain they have seen off all the opposition (which is pretty much what they have done in the other markets - Microsoft was never heavy in enforcing strict compliance with its IP rights when it was selling DOS).

AS far as the Third World market is concerned, can you imagine a successful advertising campaign in the West, based on the idea of "Africa's most popular computer? Maybe in 20 years, but not before.  And, once a country reaches the level of prosperity to afford computers and suchlike, it wants the same things that we have in the West.

I was not talking about marketing, but about critical mass.

The biggest problem with any new OS is achieving critical mass in the market place, no matter how good or bad the product.  If Africa provides that critical mass, then it will attract greater investment and development effort from third parties, and that will make Linux more competitive in all markets.  It may well be that the third party software we will be buying will be Made in Africa, rather than Made in the USA - but that will give African software suppliers all the more motive to develop and distribute a distinctly different product to that which is dominated by the USA, and so we may see an expanding African software industry going head to head with the US software industry, and with it, a Linux software base going head to head with a Windows software base.

[DoctorBeaver]

By the time we see an African software industry, the world will have moved way beyond Windows & Linux.

[lyner]

I was not talking about marketing, but about critical mass.

Nothing at all happens these days without a market for it, though.
In any case, why are we comparing Linux with Windows? They are different animals.
One works out of the box and the other is half of what you need - even though it is a good piece of kit.

[DoctorBeaver]

I was not talking about marketing, but about critical mass.

Nothing at all happens these days without a market for it, though.
In any case, why are we comparing Linux with Windows? They are different animals.
One works out of the box and the other is half of what you need - even though it is a good piece of kit.

Which 1 are you saying works straight out of the box?