Steamd

Cabel Sasser recently posted a video on his blog about a new Microsoft video in which a group of folks talk about hosting your own Windows 7 launch party. I watched the original video and, man, is it boring as hell. I mean, do people really do this? Granted, I’m sure some folks do…but they sure as hell don’t look like the folks in this video. Most of the people I know who would are major geeks and would host a different kind of party (if you know what I mean).

As Cabel mentioned in his post, someone figured out that if you bleep out any mention of Microsoft or Windows 7 you get a…umm…very different kind of party. Laughed my ass off on this one:

Last week, I did a few posts regarding Ron Barrett, a blogger on NetworkWorld, did on Windows 7 (both here and here). Now, I stumbed on Ron’s posts purely by accident. I didn’t intend to write thoroughly about his take on Windows 7 but after reading his argument, well, I got inspired. Nothing personal against Ron Barrett. He’s got his opinion and I’ve got mine. And that’s the beauty of the internet. Everyone is free to voice their opinion in an unfiltered manner.

In his most recent blog post, Ron talks about Nvidia Ion, Nvidia’s new technology which was unveiled at CES 2009:

Interestingly, the NVIDIA ION runs on … Windows … Windows Vista Premium to be exact. Armed with the Intel Atom 330 CPU, the NVIDIA 9400M GPU (capable of full 1080p HD) and 7.1 audio. This is a system to keep your (pardon the pun) I-ON.

This is only the beginning. The ION has USB ports, HDMI, dual DVI, 1Gbps Ethernet, 3Gbps SATA (and eSATA connectors) as well as 2GBs of DDR-3 RAM.

The technology does sound interesting. This will definitely help elevate the concept of netbooks and steer them into a different direction. But Windows Vista Premium? The Intel Atom 330 isn’t a speed demon but it does offer quite a bit of power for really small form factors, which is perfect for things like netbooks. But with only 2 gigs of RAM, I don’t see a netbook with Windows Vista Premium being anything but a dog when it comes to performance. Virtually every notebook I’ve seen coming out with Vista on it has at least 3 gigs of RAM, which seems to be a good baseline for performance. An Nvidia Ion board with a max of only 2 gigs of RAM would have me worried. Still haven’t found any details on that so I guess we’ll see.

I am hoping to get a hold of one to test a little further and be able to report back to you in more detail. Perhaps I’ll throw the Windows 7 beta on it and check out how it handles. Maybe for fun I’ll even install Ubuntu on it to try it out, although I am not sure why, it’s not like I can play any of the hottest games with Ubuntu installed.

Yeah, let us know what you find out when you do test it. Personally, I just don’t see how Vista, let along Windows 7, will work all that well with this technology. Honestly, I don’t think you’re gonna be able to play many games on it.  Well, definitely not anything like Far Cry 2 or Crysis. I just don’t think Nvidia designed this technology to used to play high-end games on. 

A typical netbook with Nvidia Ion technology will likely cost around $400. Once you add-on a Windows Vista Home Premium license, that cost will go up to around $500. That isn’t that bad…but if the performance suffers due to the operating system then that’s $500 too much. Better to stick with a $400 netbook with Ubuntu on it at that point.

I’ve worked with too many small form factor notebooks to know that performance generally suffers the smaller the computer gets. I’ve had users with high-end needs insisting that they use a small tablet notebook for advanced 3D CAD drafting only to complain that it’s too slow. These are notebooks that are intended to be used lightly. They’re not meant for extreme power users.

Consider what the use of netbooks are. Most people who use netbooks use them primarily for web browsing, email, and general purpose applications. They’re typically underpowered in an effort to be highly efficient, light, low cost solutions. Desktop operating systems like Windows Vista, Windows 7, and even Mac OS X aren’t really the best candidates for these devices. Linux operating system like Ubuntu can be good candidates simply because you can configure them to run really light with minimal features.

What would work much better is if an operating system were designed around the concept of a netbook. Something really lean and clean with an interface that is better suited for a much small form factor. Doing that would allow applications much more room to make use of the available resources and provide a much better multimedia experience. 

Running a full-fledged OS on a netbook just isn’t a reality right now. The technology just isn’t quite there yet. Unless Microsoft has plans for a netbook version of their OS, the vision of running Vista and/or Windows 7 on a netbook is just that…a vision!

Yesterdays blog post regarding the whole Windows 7 will crush Linux thing turned out to be something that got a bit of a response from Ron Barrett. I do appreciate the link…even if I’m an angry Mac person. I mean, after all, the site is called Steamd for a reason. Ron does make a couple of very valid points in his response though.

First, he admits that he does have a bit of a bias towards Microsoft products. After all, that’s what he makes his money on. However, he is quick to point out that that does not mean that he favors Microsoft as a company. 

I give Redmond’s software the thumbs-up when I think it deserves it.

Honestly, I’m the same way about Apple. Just because I use a Mac doesn’t mean that I’m automatically part of the Apple parthenon of holy Mac users. Sorry, no angry cult in my corner. I use products that I feel are well designed and meet my needs. Apple’s product just happen to fit my needs much better than others.

Secondly, Ron points out that he does have a good amount of experience with Linux desktops: Ubuntu 8.04, Fedora 8, and RHEL 5 specifically. That’s good to hear since it wouldn’t make much sense to argue about something one has no experience with.

To my way of thinking, this makes me operating-system agnostic, so when I say, “Wow” to Windows 7, it’s a response that comes from direct experience.

The problem is that your experience is from a much different perspective than your average user. My experience comes from using each of these operating systems in many different ways. I’ve used every version of Windows since Windows 95 came out. I’ve experience Linux early on and have kept an eye on it till about 4 years ago when I started actually using it for web production purposes. Since then I’ve used various versions of Ubuntu and SUSE for both work and home. I’ve administrated Windows server and desktop environments and spent the better part of five years doing that. I supported a total of about 80 employees in a virtually 100% Windows environment. The only computer that wasn’t Windows was one server running a desktop version of OpenSUSE for the company intranet.

In the end though, I switched to Macs. Why? Because I felt Microsoft has lost their way and found a combination of Linux and Macs to be a far better solution.

What I learned from my days of IT administration is that the point of view of your average user is much different than how folks like Ron and I view technology. Most users are not nearly as educated or as techie as us. As such, many users view a computer as an obstacle to getting what they want done. They don’t care about which OS is better than the other. They just want something that allows them to accomplish their tasks in the easiest way possible. 

What’s interesting is that Ron links over to a subsection of an article entitled 12 Reasons Why Windows is Better Than Linux For Non-Techies. Here’s the two items of that subsection:
 

“4) Configuring desktops and settings. Desktop,network,control panel and screen saver all the setting is little different as compare to windows so in the first look most of the non-techies get confused on how to configure their desktop.

“5) Installing Software. This is the most confusing and difficult thing for non-techie because software installation is totally different in linux as compare to windows.We have to install from sources rather than just running a setup files.”

I can argue both of these points quite easily. First though…

About a month ago, one of my wife’s best friends calls me and tells me that her parents computer is having problems. Her mom brings the computer by for me to look at. The moment I boot it up, I see the problem. It had Windows 98 on it and needed to be reinstalled. No way was I going to let her mom walk out with an OS that is no longer supported.

The only option she had was to buy another computer, which she honestly didn’t have a whole lot of money to do that with. I recommended that she get a Mac but she honestly couldn’t afford it and didn’t want to spend a whole lot of money on another computer. As it turns out though I did have a spare desktop computer I could sell her. Problem was that it was an older computer and didn’t have a Windows XP license associated with it. So it was either she pay an extra $150 for a Windows XP license or allow me to put Ubuntu on it. We chose the later option.

After setting the computer up, I spent the better part of an hour walking both her and her husband on getting around in Ubuntu. Keep in mind that these are folks that don’t know much about computers. They don’t know anything about keeping antivirus software up to date let alone what viruses actually are and how one can get them. All they do is surf the net, check their email, and do a little word processing now and then. Having a Windows computer would only cause problems for them because, unlike the techie that knows well enough not to do certain things, these are users who don’t know any better. As such, an OS like Ubuntu is a much safer bet. It’s clean, easy to operate, lets them do the stuff they want to do, and is safe and secure without them having to know a whole lot. 

The good news is that she hasn’t called me at all since I set the computer up for her. It’s a testament that Linux can indeed be a highly viable solution for those whose needs are simple and don’t require specific software. 

Now, with that in mind, let’s talk a bit about those two arguments…

When it comes to configuring desktops and settings, every operating system is indeed a little different. But that doesn’t matter much if the interface is well designed and obvious. I showed the folks above how to do things like change their background, screensaver, and such and they weren’t confused at all. In fact, they both said it looked very simple. And this is coming from two people who don’t know Jack about the difference between Windows and Linux.

As far as software installation goes, yes, it’s different between Windows and Linux. Two different approaches to the same problem. I could argue that the need to run setup files is more confusing. After all, it’s much simpler in Ubuntu to update software than it is in Windows. A novice user on Windows would have to understand the concepts of how to download a setup file, run it, install the software, and then delete the setup file. On Ubuntu, all they have to know is how to work one application that allows them to install and/or update the software on their computer. Again, I showed this very thing to the folks I talked about above. It’s all about how you approach it.

The argument that somehow Linux is harder to use, more confusing, and more difficult to use is moot at best. It just depends on what it is that you’re using the computer for. I’ve proven this several times, not just with the folks above. Not everyone is a good fit for Linux but for those who are it’s a great solution.

As Ron points out at the end of his post “diversity is what makes this industry awesome”. But to say that Windows 7 will put the Linux desktop to rest is a bold statement. I believe there’s room for both.

One thing I’ve learned though is that design matters. The true test is how the design of both operating systems will change in the future. I honestly believe that Microsoft is in a downward slope with the design of their OS. With Ubuntu and other Linux distros, I’m seeing steady improvements to both the Gnome and KDE interfaces. Linux likely won’t take over the world and definitely won’t put a serious dent in Microsoft’s desktop market share, it’ll still prove to be a viable alternative for some individuals and businesses. Guess we’ll see how it pans out.

I’ve talked about my IT background several times on my blog as well as the operating systems I’ve had the most experience with. I’ve used virtually every version of Windows since Windows 95 debuted and have administrated both desktops and servers for every version since Windows 2000. I’ve been using OpenSUSE Linux since SUSE 9.0 and have had experience using the last two releases of Ubuntu. I’m currently an avid Mac user and have used every Mac OS since 10.4 Tiger. Having used all of these operating systems as well as being an IT administrator for the better part of 5 years has given me a great insight into how well these operating systems hold up to various tasks and how easy they are to administrate and maintain. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I’m of the firm belief that an opinion does not count unless it is a well educated one. 

Today, I was going through my RSS feeds in Google Reader and stumbled on a post by Ron Barrett on NetworkWorld.com entitled Why Windows 7 will crush Linux. My first though was, “Really? Windows 7 will crush Linux?”. Let’s see if Mr. Barrett’s arguments hold water.

While it is true that Linux hasn’t been able to crack the desktop in homes and businesses, it has made quite an entrenchment in the server market. Linux can be a viable alternative desktop solution to some though. Linux desktops still have a market share just under 3%, which isn’t anything to frown at. That’s not bad for an open-source solution that’s up against the big dogs. 

Barrett mentions that Windows lost a little over 3% market share last year. What Barrett doesn’t tell you is that Windows lost market share, not to Linux, but to the Mac. It wasn’t long ago that Windows market share was still in the lower to mid 90’s. In just two years, Macs have went from just a 6 to 7 % market share to over 10%. That’s amazing growth, wouldn’t you say? Mr. Barrett may not be panicking…but I can bet you Microsoft is. 

Many people might be surprised to learn that I come from a background of Windows, Linux, UNIX and even MAC. In fact, my first IT experience was in a Novell/SCO UNIX environment. Now there are some fundamental issues to why Windows 7 will trump Linux distros like Ubuntu, Fedora and Debian.

And even MAC? Kind of makes me think you sort of played around with Macs but didn’t really use them all that much. And have you used the latest versions of Ubuntu, Fedora, and Debian for any good length of time? How do you know for sure that Windows 7 is so much better than the latest Linux distros?

It’s all about bang for the buck, Ron. My guess is that Windows 7 will cost about the same as Vista…which is too much. Last I checked, a copy of Windows Vista Ultimate goes for about $339. Compared to $129 for OS X and free for Linux, I just don’t see how the cost of Windows Vista and/or Windows 7 holds up so well. I mean, what the hell does Windows Vista Ultimate really offer that is so great compared to the alternatives?

THEREFORE, to get those out of the way let’s just spell them out. Windows 7 installs easier, has simpler configuration of user settings, greater availability of software, support (you could argue that all support is awful, which is probably true) Windows support is easier to get when you need help. Gaming, MP3’s,… I could go on and on.

Easier to install? Have you installed Ubuntu lately? Honestly, it doesn’t get any easier than that. Plus, compared to the latest Windows 7 beta, Ubuntu installs way faster. As for the other stuff, it’s all in the eye of the beholder. Ubuntu is pretty easy to configure and really isn’t all that much different than Windows as far as configuration is concerned.  It’s just a bit different is all. And the wealth of software and support for Linux has never been greater than now. There are tons of alternatives to the most popular Windows-based applications, most of which are free. I could go on and on too. Now, as for some of the other things you mention in your article…

To real Linux die hards… terminals rule. Microsoft has realized that the serious Administrator understands the usefulness of using command line input to accomplish tasks. Windows Powershell has introduced cmdlets to improve administration of Windows. Powershell also makes it easier to string together multiple administrative without the need to jump from management GUI to management GUI.

While this sounds like a cool new feature for Windows administration, you still haven’t explain how this will entice Linux users to drop Linux and move to the dark side.

So Powershell presents an interesting argument for Windows adoption by the Linux user. You can go command line crazy if you like and still play all your favorite PC games. Powershell remoting will allow Administrators to create one to one or one to many sessions for running scripts on other machines.

Ah, yes..PC games!  Because nothing can entice a Linux admin like putting a copy of World of Warcraft on a PC along with the ability to go powershelling. That’s like crack to a Linux admin.

As for open source on Windows, yes, there is no shortage of open source software for Windows. However, most of the project you mentioned (Firefox, Open Office, MYSQL, GIMP) have been available for multiple platforms for years. Besides, open source isn’t a feature of Windows 7 and not the sort of thing that will entice users to switch to Windows 7.

Also, features alone don’t make one operating system better than the other. It’s great that Windows 7 has new features that don’t impede performance, but how many of these features really matter to real-world users? Some of them are highly relevant so long as you’re in a Windows world. Other though are just Greek to the average Joe. DirectAcess, Bitlocker to Go, Applocker and the new easier to use UAC? Although I know what each of these features are, nobody else will know. Try explaining this stuff to your non-IT, non-geek boss.

It looks like all the arguments (except being mad at Bill for being Rich) have been answered. Linux users have no reason to hold back anymore. Windows 7 is well placed to crush and put an end to the penguin.

Umm…what arguments? Windows 7 is in no more of a position to crush Linux anymore than Vista is. As far as I’m concerned, unless Microsoft re-invents Windows, gets rid of all the legacy crap, rein-visions it, and rebuilds it from the ground up then the game will be over. In the meantime, Linux will always be around and will continue to be a viable alternative to Windows for those who seek it. 

While you may think Windows 7 will crush Linux, I think Mac OS X will end up sending a crushing blow to Microsoft’s market share. As the iPhone has proven, design matters Ron. Compared to OS X, Windows 7 is poised to continue on a path of poorly designed Windows operating systems. Microsoft has lost it’s way. The only way for them to continue dominating the market place is for them to build a better operating system. Till then, make mine Apple!  :)

Sounds like the name of a serialized movie series, doesn’t it? Sorry…no Indiana Jones for Microsoft! Buck stops with the Windows 7 beta in my opinion.

So I tried out the beta a bit and found it to be, umm, interesting. That’s really the only word I can describe it with. Compelling? No, not really. Just interesting.

Is it faster and perkier than Vista? Well, yeah, and you would hope that it would be after Microsoft spent the better part of five years developing Vista. Certainly they learned something out of that experience.

The real question is: Is there anything that really sticks out that makes it better than Vista? Well, yes and no. The speed is the part that really makes it better. Other than that, most of the changes are under the surface and thus there isn’t really anything that is really new about Windows 7 yet. Unless Microsoft plans on introducing new features in future builds, not a whole lot to talk about. 

Aside from a bundle of little things scattered here and there, one feature that does stick out is the updated taskbar. I played around with it and concur with Adrian Kingsley-Hughes on the changes with the taskbar: 

Oddly enough, the first thing that you’re likely to notice about Windows 7 is also the bit that I like the least. The new revamped taskbar is visually very interesting (and certainly a lot easier to use at higher screen resolutions that the Vista or XP taskbar), but it tries to do too much and as such comes across as kludgey and counter-intuitive. One failure is that it’s hard to tell the difference between apps that are running and shortcuts that have been pinned to the taskbar. It also incorporates the new Jump Lists feature which acts as a context-sensitive menu for applications. Problem is that there’s very little rhyme or reason to what to expect from Jump Lists, making them awkward to use in the real world.

Yep, that was pretty much what I though. The functionality kind of has a thrown-together feel about it, as if they did it only to compete with Apple. Take a look:

The taskbar gets even more confusing when you have more than one windows open for a given application. The icons used to indicate a stack of windows open for a single application is kind of obvious but still not clear. It took me a few seconds to realize what the hell was going on with it.

The context menus above feel like they’re taken directly out of the Mac desktop. It’s as if they looked at Leopard and said “Why don’t we have that?”.

In the end, I found absolutely nothing compelling that would make me want to switch back to Windows. Nothing. And that’s part of Microsoft’s problem. Unless they scrap what they got and completely start from scratch, they’re never going to have anything that is remotely capable of being highly competitive with the Mac. Microsoft has to re-invent themselves to compete.

Keep in mind this is coming from someone who used Windows for well over 10 years. I was also an IT administrator for a couple of architectural firms and have a lot of experience supporting Windows desktops and servers. Two years ago, like many other avid PC users, I was skeptical of how good a Mac really was. It wasn’t until I picked one up and use one for a good length of time till I realized just how good it was. Fast forward to today and I don’t want to use anything but a Mac. Granted, I also use Linux quite a bit but the Mac is my desktop of choice for everyday use.

Microsoft has a lot of work to do to Windows 7 if they plan to catchup with Apple. Personally, I don’t see Windows 7 being all that much better than Vista when it comes out. Doesn’t seem realistic that Microsoft will be able to pull a rabbit out of their hat in less than a year. After all, it’s not like Microsoft is all that good at magic tricks anyways.

In the end, what I learned was that Windows 7 feels more like a continuation on the development of Vista. Which makes Vista more or less an eight-year long beta. Goodie!

I’ll admit it…I’m downloading this one so I can evaluate it. Call it morbid curiosity. I’m very curious if my hypothesis is right and Windows Vista is nothing more than an eight year long beta with Windows 7 being the gold release. Definitely will post up my findings after evaluating it a bit.  ;)

Read more…