Modify Colors
Posts in windows
Operating System Reaction Times
When you’re driving a car, the road in front of you changes fast and, in order to avoid a collision, you have to turn, speed up, and slow down in response to these changes. Now imagine if you couldn’t change course or speed until the person sitting next to you told you. Before too long, you’d probably crash. That’s exactly where Windows is right now.
The tech world is changing faster than ever before. Did you know you can buy a flash drive with an eSATA connection
Just look at what happened with netbooks. Microsoft may have caught itself, but they were not prepared for the emergency of netbooks. Netbooks are currently forcing them to keep alive an operating system they wanted to kill years ago. New technology doesn’t wait for 5 year release cycles. It just comes.
This isn’t necessarily about open-source vs. proprietary software. In theory, you could develop an incredibly flexible piece of proprietary software that could be modified to react as soon as the new technology hit, but at this point, the only operating systems that can consistently be there for the people releasing new, cutting edge technology are those that are open source – specifically Linux.
Microsoft is being the backseat driver in an era when there is no time for a delay.
How Long Will Software Costs Be Able to Hide
As demonstrated by the current price for a Dell Inspiron Mini 9, netbook prices are falling very quickly and they started out cheap from the beginning. These price drops are largely driven by improvements in hardware that make the hardware components cheaper, rather than the software getting less expensive, though.
This trend poses a problem for Microsoft, since they rely on a small bit of profit from everyone who buys a computer. As it stands, this chuck of the price is almost invisible next to the overall price, but as hardware gets cheaper that will not always be the case. What happens when the cost of Windows becomes half the price of the computer? People will begin to notice that price and OEMs will look for a way to get rid of it. How do you get rid of that cost? Linux.
For most people right now, the cost of Windows has little effect on the price of their machine, since Microsoft heavily disounts it. Microsoft can’t just keep discounting more and more, though. Eventually the “Microsoft tax” will be a big part of everyone’s next computer purchase. This will likely force manufacturers into searching for a cheaper solution, leading them to Linux.
The Proper and Improper Use of Versions
Engadget recently found a supposed screenshot of the Windows 7 installer, offering the choice of Windows 7 Ultimate, Business, Home Premium, Home Basic, or Starter. (Presumably this is a screenshot from a build after the public beta, since I didn’t see this there.) I really hope this is a bad joke, not a real plan to have SIX versions of Windows 7, not including Server and Home Server. Regardless of this screenshot’s legitimacy, I think it is important that we think about when multiple versions make sense and when they don’t, so that open-source projects don’t fall down the same hole that Windows has.
As far as I am concerned, the only case where it is acceptable to have multiple versions of the same software is when the use of that software is significantly different and disconnected from other uses. For example, if you want to make a version with a custom interface for netbooks in addition to a desktop edition, that makes sense, because you use a netbook in a fundamentally different way than you use a normal computer. Likewise, a server version of your software is also very logical, since you use a server in a completely different way than you use a desktop or a netbook.
Where it doesn’t make sense to have multiple versions is when you are just checking the box for which features to include. Having multiple desktop versions for home users, for example, doesn’t make much sense, since all you are doing is confusing the user. I should be clear, however, that I consider Kubuntu, Ubuntu, and Xubuntu completely different pieces of software and not versions of each other, since they offer a completely different user experience.
This leaves one big question: what about a specific version for enterprise desktops? On one hand, the enterprise and home desktops have basically the same interface. On the other hand, enterprise users and home users often have different uses for their computers. If your enterprise version is different at a base level (i.e. a significantly different kernel), it makes sense to make it a separate version. If it is really just a few user-level features you changed, there is no reason to make it more than a checkbox at the time of installation.
In other words, use versions where you need them, but avoid them anywhere you can. It isn’t that hard.
What if you tried to put Windows on a USB key…
Today, I read about a new netbook (running Linux, of course) that stores its operating system on a USB key, presumably so that you can take it out and bring your file and settings to any computer. The first time I skimmed the article, I misread it and didn’t see that it ran Linux. Later, I realized that it must run Linux, since you just couldn’t do that with Windows. It does, in fact, run Linux, but that got me thinking: what would happen if you tried to keep your Windows installation on a USB key and use it on any computer you ran into, like many people do with Linux?
It would probably go something like this:
Windows has found new hardware. Please insert driver CDs.
Windows must be re-activated. Please enter the license code on the back of the original box.
Windows is running low on space on your 32GB flash drive. Please delete files to free up space.
Windows has been activated too many times. Please sit on hold for an hour and explain your situation.
And, finally… Windows got a virus and has been spreading it to every machine you’ve touched.
This is just in case you didn’t believe that anti-piracy measures hinder innovation.
Is Windows 7 Really A Linux Killer?
A recent ComputerWorld article titled “Windows 7: The Linux Killer” has been getting a lot of attention. The article basically argues that Microsoft’s vulnerability to Linux comes entirely from netbooks and that Windows 7 is designed to and will take over the netbook market. On one point I agree, on one point I disagree, and on one point I think we just have to wait and see.
I agree that Windows 7 was probably designed at least partly with the goal of developing a modern version of Windows that can realistically run on netbooks. Without a doubt, there has been some serious focus on performance in Windows 7, most likely as a result of both complaints about Vista and the growing netbook market. It also appears that these efforts have paid off and Windows 7 will probably be much better on netbooks than Vista was.
Where I disagree with the article is in this statement:
The threat to Windows comes entirely from “netbooks”
If that was revised to “the immediate threat to Windows comes entirely from netbooks,” then I would agree. The thing is that standard desktop Linux is making a lot of progress, too. I could point to Dell’s Linux offerings, but I think the more significant progress is in overall user friendliness. For example, look at Wubi. You can now install Ubuntu without leaving Windows and uninstall it the same way. I could name almost countless examples of small things that make various Linux distributions more user friendly. Support for Windows file systems, clearly named menus, Add/Remove programs, continually improving hardware support, and so on. Whatever you can say about market share and whatever comparisons you want to make, Linux is improving at a rapid pace. This could be Microsoft’s greatest long term threat. A free operating system already very, very usable and quickly improving.
Finally, the article makes the following claim:
The high point for Linux netbook sales will be from now until the launch of Windows 7. After that will come the inevitable decline.
I don’t think it’s so clear cut. First of all, we have to look at costs. Windows costs money, Linux doesn’t. Argue all you want about the details of the training, support, and so on, but the fact remains that Windows has a per-license price and Linux doesn’t. (Unless Microsoft plays some really weird price games, which can always happen.) Second, Linux can be customized like crazy. This really means two things: First, it is almost guaranteed that it will be possible to make Linux faster, since you can strip away, modify, or replace every piece. Second, the OEM can modify the software they ship, as both Dell and HP have done. In fact, they can even take pretty much complete credit for it 
. The point is that, despite Windows 7 making huge improvements, there will still be many reasons to use Linux, so it is not at all clear that Windows 7 will suppress Linux on netbooks.
I can’t say I agree with everything, but I think the general idea of the article is right. Windows 7 is, at least partially, targeted at killing Linux, but I don’t think it will work.
What If Windows Told You What It Was Really Doing
Reading about Canonicals’ plans for application notifications, I got to wondering if the operating system could tell you what it was doing, too. Then I started wondering what would happen if Windows told you what it was really doing… I think it might go like this:
Starting up… I’m still tired as heck here, so don’t even think about keeping me up too long.
Hmm… you want me to work? Don’t think so. Let’s have some fun.
Wrong password.
Wrong password.
Wrong password. He, he. Just kidding. You typed the right one three times.
Phoning home to Redmond…
Downloading “cirtical” update. Description: Fixes important vulnerability in Internet Explorer. Real Description: Disables inferior browsers.
Installing “critical” update. Closing all your programs in 10… 9… 8… oops. that was a little early.
Please continue working.
Shutting down to apply update in 3.. 2.. 1… Work… Gone…
That’ll teach him to be productive.
Stubborn user attempting to recreate work.
Must stop him….
Going to Blue Screen of Death in 10… 9.. 8… 7.. 6.. 5… 4… 3.. 2.. 1..
Dealing with standard response. Much yelling and shouting. Shutting down webcam. Too pathetic.
Applying critical patch… (Frying motherboard…)
Motherboard fried. Shutting down. For good.
AHHHH! Linux CD. PAINFUL. IT HURTS.
Alright! Alright! I get the point. I’ll work again! Just take that CD out of me!
Uh-oh. Too late. I hope repartitioning is painless…
And thus a new Linux convert is made.
Now I want to see this for OS X or Linux. (“Attempting to “teach” new user about xorg.conf file…”)
What Linux Needs to Stay Competitive
For some time, Windows Vista’s perceived failure has given Linux a free ride. It has been nice, but it will not remain. From the looks of things, Windows 7 will be a solid release for Microsoft, possibly even one of the best. With this competition, what does Linux need to stay competitive?
- More Pre-Install Deals For so long, Linux has spread through people installing it on random computers. Although this has gotten fairly easy, there are still so many problems. First, it is practically impossible to support all of the harware out there. Second, most people just don’t install their own OSs – they buy new computers with the OS pre-installed. For both these reasons and more, Linux needs more computers shipping with it pre-installed.
- Better Netbook Distros Some people are saying that Windows 7 will crush Linux on netbooks, which might be true, except that the difference in quality between the original Eee PC Linux distro and the kind of stuff you will be seeing by the time Windows 7 has been released will be huge. That said, it is important to improve Linux distributions for netbooks so that Linux continues to dominate netbooks.
- Better Out-of-the-Box Experience When I got my M1530 from Dell with Ubuntu, most stuff worked great, but a few things still needed some tweaking to get working. That tweaking should be done before I got the machine. The user should open the PC and have it work.
- Better Windows Compatibility No matter if it means improving OpenOffice, improving WINE, or promoting Windows virtual machines, compatibility with Windows and Mac OS X has to be perfect. Without this, many people will be unable to switch to Linux or have initial unfavorable impressions, which may shape their views on Linux.
- Make Companies Offering Linux Comfortable to Promote It Unfortunately, Dell has hidden Ubuntu away for the most part and almost pretended it does not exist, despite offering it on some of their PCs. I cannot claim to know the exact reasons why, but companies like Canonical need to find out and solve any problems that can be solved, so that Linux can get some good promotion through hardware companies.
Select Dell Notebooks Now Cheaper With Ubuntu + Retail Vista Than Vista Pre-Installed
In cases where computers are available pre-installed with either Linux or Windows, it is almost always the case that either (a) the Linux one is slightly less expensive or (b) the Windows one is actually less expensive, so you might as well just buy the Windows version and install Linux. Apparently, this is not always the case. While comparing the prices for some Dell computers, I discovered that on some Dell notebooks, it is cheaper to buy the Ubuntu version and a retail copy of Vista than to buy Vista pre-installed.
Since Dell has recently added several new models to the Ubuntu line, I decided to do price comparisons between the Linux and Windows models. I tried to get the systems as close as possible, but in a few cases there are very minor differences. All prices listed below are how much cheaper the Ubuntu model is:
- Inspiron 530 (Desktop) – Ubuntu is $80 cheaper.
- Inspiron 1525 (Notebook) – Ubuntu and Windows are equal price.
- Studio 15 (Notebook) – Ubuntu is $100 cheaper.
- XPS M1330 (Notebook) – Ubuntu is $350 cheaper.
- XPS M1530 (Notebook) – Ubuntu is $350 cheaper.
That means that on the two XPS models listed there, it is cheaper to buy the Ubuntu version and pick up a retail copy of Vista Home Premium (or, better yet, don’t) for $220 from Newegg. Wow.
Update 1 – It seems that Dell has pulled the XPS M1530 from the Ubuntu page.
Update 2 – For anyone who wants to confirm the numbers, here is what you need to know:
- You have to go to dell.com/ubuntu to find the Ubuntu machines. Then, you can search for the Windows counterparts.
- The default configuration of the Windows and Ubuntu machines is not the same, so you have to click on “customize” and go through each option, making sure that the machines have equal specs. If there are multiple choices that work, I choose the less expensive option. If you cannot match the specs exactly, get as close as you can.
Yes, there are a few cases where you cannot match the hardware exactly. The wireless cards seem to be the biggest issue. In one case I could not match the exact model of wireless card, in another one card was N and the other was G. There was also one case where both machines had the same amount of RAM, but one machine had it spread across two chips, while the other only had one chip. Finally, in one case, the clock speeds of the processors was off by about .1 GHz. So, yes there were a couple of issues, but all of them are really small and highly unlikely to cause any difference in performance.
Microsoft has just launched a new advertising campaign, the “Mojave Experiment.” The idea of the new campaign is that a bunch of computer users who have negative impressions of Vista, but who have never used Vista, are shown a future version of Windows, codenamed “Mojave.” They are given a tour of this “new” version of Windows, asked for their impressions, and then told that “Mojave” is really Vista.
I applaud Microsoft’s marketing department for finally getting started what has the potential to be a very successful advertising campaign, but at the same time I would like to point out that the “experiment” is heavily rigged. As others have pointed out, when you have someone whose job it is to make you like what you are being shown and that person gets to control every almost everything about the demonstration, it is really hard to not be impressed.
This gave me an idea. What if someone did the “Ubuntu Experiment.” All they would have to do is get a few people who have never used Linux and tell them they are being shown “a new incredible operating system.” Then just show them Compiz Fusion, tell them they don’t have to worry about viruses, tell them it comes with a replacement for Microsoft Office, show them how easy it is to install new applications, and so on. I almost guarantee everyone would be impressed.
This would certainly be amusing and it might even take some of the momentum out of the “Mojave Experiment” while bringing attention to Ubuntu. If anyone out there wants to do this, feel free to take the idea.
The evidence shows that Microsoft’s marketing department has not done particularly well with Windows Vista. Almost every story you see about Vista is a negative one. Even I, as a Linux user, think that Vista is better than its reputation. But Microsoft’s marketing is not always a failure, it appears.
Recently, the story broke that Citibank blocks Linux users out of its website, even though the website works just fine in Linux. If you want my opinion on this sort of thing, you can look at this post. To summarize, I don’t think that these sorts of cases where Linux is “blocked” are malicious in any way. Instead, they are simply an attempt to save money by not doing quality assurance on another platform or just plain laziness. What bothers me about this particular case is not the act of blocking Linux users, but the way the customer support responded.
While responses varied, one manager said that the website only supported “secure operating systems,” meaning Windows. Another support person said that only Windows offered “real security.” I don’t even need to know what to say except that Microsoft’s marketing team should be having a party. If they have people convinced that Windows offers superior security to Mac or Linux, that is one of the best marketing jobs I have ever seen.
Let me put it this way: the number one reason I do not run Windows is that I don’t want to think about security all the time. Perhaps I am just paranoid, but I don’t think any modern operating system offers “real security,” let alone Windows. I challenge anyone to tell me why Windows has “real security.” I recognize that it is perfectly possible and do-able to keep Windows virus-free and that any day a virus could appear for Mac or Linux, but Windows does not offer “real security.”
Sorry if this was a “duh” post, but I had to do it.