OS WARS MEGA THREAD (Now debating proprietary vs. open-source!)

[cjp]

Long-lasting monopolies generally occur in one of two circumstances:

1. Markets where costs reduce with increased size.
2. When they're granted by the government.

Microsoft is in the latter position, as they have a government-granted monopoly on Windows through copyright law.

Not only a monopoly on windows (that's the one which is enforced by copyright law), but also a monopoly on 'an OS that runs windows applications'. Wine is the only worthy competitor: all other alternatives are either based on Wine, or run windows inside a virtual machine. Wine is very nice, but it's still unfinished.

When it comes to standards and interoperability, this is the important point. Many software vendors still consider it acceptable to ship only a windows binary version of their software. This locks their users to windows. For many office and creative software there are already good multi-platform alternatives, but this isn't the case for games. Which is strange BTW, as most games have to be designed in a multi-platform fashion anyway, to be able to run on all those game consoles. I think it's just commercial laziness, caused by a lack of demand for, say, Linux x86 binaries.

I'm not sure why you say 'the road is open'; Linux is already one of the most popular embedded operating systems in the world, if not the most popular. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are already more embedded Linux systems than Windows systems in total.

You're probably right. The desktop is the 'holy grail' in Linux adoption, but for the rest it's already quite settled. Cell phones and the new ultra-cheap laptops are more important, as they could be a low-end entrance into the desktop, making people familiar with the system.

 

[RisingFury]

Not too bad?!
How scalable will it be? I know you can do cool things with the high-end machines (even microsoft can), but what are the system requirements with

• High-end settings (sure(*) you can go as high as you want, but I mean the resources used by the OS; anything more is available for the apps)
• Default settings
• Minimum settings where it can run all applications
• Minimum GUI settings
• Minimum text-mode settings

And how will it compare to windows XP? And to windows NT? And, OK, to Linux (say, the latest Debian or Ubuntu)?

When I bought it, my laptop had 256MB RAM and Windows XP installed. It was a bit slow, but it worked (now I have 1280MB). And Windows XP only needs 2GB disk space. And doesn't need a high-end video card (SVGA will do).

(*) OTOH you never know. 640k limit & so on...

I agree that a high end graphics card and 1 GB of RAM just to run an OS is over the top, but compared to Vista... well, it's an improvement. And being the Devil's advocate in this case, I don't think it'd make sense for Microsoft to scale back more... at least not after Vista has been forcing people to buy high end computers for the past 2 years, because a lot of people now have a computer with a dual core CPU, 2GB+ RAM and a powerful graphics card.

It's like creating a low end game with poor graphics even though you know you can build better.

 

[movieman]

I don't think it'd make sense for Microsoft to scale back more... at least not after Vista has been forcing people to buy high end computers for the past 2 years, because a lot of people now have a computer with a dual core CPU, 2GB+ RAM and a powerful graphics card.

Except that when people realise that they only need an Atom and integrated graphics for web-browsing and email, Vista isn't going to run too well on it. I don't think it's a good idea to be pushing a $300 OS that needs high-end hardware in a recession where someone can build an Atom-based Linux box for $250.

Computers are rapidly becoming commodity products, and Microsoft aren't going to be able to charge premium prices (or demand fast hardware just to run the operating system) for much longer.

 

[T.Neo]

I don't regard myself as a real "computer nerd", and I haven't much experiance with anything other then XP. I have heard Vista isn't too good for gaming, but I don't have a problem with it for web browsing, document making, etc. It also looks pretty. I know, some people don't care about "looks", but some do (not
necessarily me, I would guess casual users.)
I know virtually nothing about Linux, and little about Mac, so I can't really, say anything, except that they cant run Orbiter, so they're out of the picture for me.

I guess it comes down to you're personal preferance, what you want to do with the computer (for example, my choice for dropping a computer off a cliff would be Windows ME ), and what programs you wnat to run.

 

[Usquanigo]

You guys are a trip. You hate M$ so much that you actively preach going backward on the hardware front. If everybody thought like you, nobody would ever upgrade (anything), we'd be extremely limited in what our hardware and software could do, and the whole industry would dry up and blow away, and in time, even replacement parts would become unobtainable.

I guess that's just the American in me (I want bigger, better, faster, MORE )
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYhwB9-GHjI&feature=related"]YouTube - Tim Allen - Rewires America, Part 1[/ame]

:hotcool:

 

[Scarecrow]

You guys are a trip. You hate M$ so much that you actively preach going backward on the hardware front. If everybody thought like you, nobody would ever upgrade (anything), we'd be extremely limited in what our hardware and software could do, and the whole industry would dry up and blow away, and in time, even replacement parts would become unobtainable.

I guess that's just the American in me (I want bigger, better, faster, MORE )
:hotcool:

It's not going backward, it's going in a new direction. For any system you usually can trade off between power, size, and cost. Increasing power is only one aspect of technological progress. Decreasing size and cost are others. Also, I honestly don't see a reason to buy more computer than necessary. Just like it would be wasteful to buy a Ferrari or an Abrams when all you need is a Honda, it would be wasteful to buy an Alienware ALX X58 when all you need is an Eee PC, both of which represent technological progress on different fronts.

 

[Hielor]

I'm still surprised by the high minimum specs needed for windows 7. I don't really care anymore (I just hope I won't need apps that require 7 or vista), but I'm just surprised. It's just like microsoft says to Linux: "okay, you can have all the computers with lower specs".

They're probably doing this because they expect the high-end market to be the most profitable, and for a commercial organization it doesn't make sense to invest in making their product suitable for non-profitable market segments.

I agree that a high end graphics card and 1 GB of RAM just to run an OS is over the top, but compared to Vista... well, it's an improvement.

Both of you, welcome to the year 2009. Those specs as given haven't specified computers that anyone (except for you two, apparently) would consider high-end for more than four years. Right now, those specs are below pretty much any new computer currently being sold, with the exception of those toy webtops (which should run Linux anyway imo since it's basically an embedded system).

A DX9 graphics card with 128mb memory? Please, that's not high-end. The GeForce FX5200, released six years ago, fits that specification. There's a dozen of them in the graphics card bin at the goodwill computer store in austin, for like $15 each. New, it won't set you back more than $50 (unless you got a really, really bad deal).

Those specs aren't any higher than Vista's, with the exception (I think) of the RAM requirement--which is fine since Vista's RAM requirement should've been listed as 1Gb anyway. I picked up a gig stick of PC3200 just a couple weeks ago for $35, like $20 after rebate.

I don't understand why you guys are expecting brand-new OSes to be able to run on old machines and still bring you all the good features that they bring to new machines. Welcome to the real world?

 

[Usquanigo]

It's not going backward, it's going in a new direction. For any system you usually can trade off between power, size, and cost. Increasing power is only one aspect of technological progress. Decreasing size and cost are others. Also, I honestly don't see a reason to buy more computer than necessary. Just like it would be wasteful to buy a Ferrari or an Abrams when all you need is a Honda, it would be wasteful to buy an Alienware ALX X58 when all you need is an Eee PC, both of which represent technological progress on different fronts.

When I speak in the plural, I'm not singling anybody out, nor implying that ALL of you think/feel/fit all of those things 100%. It's a reference to an amalgamation of all the ideals, ideas, wants, comments, etc. Just wanted to mention that in reference to the last post you quoted me in.

Anyway.... what is "need"? Do I need a widescreen TV? Do I need central airconditioning? Do I need more than 1 vehicle? YES I DO. lol :lol:

Think of it this way.... I recently picked up a truck. It was my grandfathers, so I wanted to keep it for that reason (it's also a nice vehicle, and a good performer). Well, prior to that, I've NEVER needed a truck and have never been a truck guy. Well, in the past year and a half since I've gotten it, I've used it quite extensively (for things that a car could not have done).

We only technically need smart cars, and many could even get by with seques. But when you have a 300rwhp/332rwtq sensuous sports coupe with t-tops, leather, and a killer sound system, you can enjoy driving, have fun, relax, and overall have a better life.

But unless you have the capability, you'll never know what's possible. And if you've bought something else instead, you've wasted your money.

Clarkson put it rather well I think, especially with the parting description/comment -

Computers aren't much different there. You can only push this "less with more" idea so far before you need more hardware anyway. Economies of scale apply here, if you wait longer to buy upgrades, and buy fewer of them, demand overall decreases, and production follows suit, and prices don't drop as fast as they might. It's kinda like Mac vs PC there on the hardware front, PCs are FAR more numerous, and far cheaper (yes, there are other elements involved in that, but that's not the point here).

Each one has to push the other. If you break that chain, you break the cycle, and the rate of advance slows. That really means it's the very "bloat" you decry so much that made it possible to get the kinds of hardware we have today, for the prices it sells for.

And, Helior nailed it pretty well too. (again)

 

[Linguofreak]

When I speak in the plural, I'm not singling anybody out, nor implying that ALL of you think/feel/fit all of those things 100%. It's a reference to an amalgamation of all the ideals, ideas, wants, comments, etc. Just wanted to mention that in reference to the last post you quoted me in.

Anyway.... what is "need"? Do I need a widescreen TV? Do I need central airconditioning? Do I need more than 1 vehicle? YES I DO. lol :lol:

Think of it this way.... I recently picked up a truck. It was my grandfathers, so I wanted to keep it for that reason (it's also a nice vehicle, and a good performer). Well, prior to that, I've NEVER needed a truck and have never been a truck guy. Well, in the past year and a half since I've gotten it, I've used it quite extensively (for things that a car could not have done).

We only technically need smart cars, and many could even get by with seques. But when you have a 300rwhp/332rwtq sensuous sports coupe with t-tops, leather, and a killer sound system, you can enjoy driving, have fun, relax, and overall have a better life.

But unless you have the capability, you'll never know what's possible. And if you've bought something else instead, you've wasted your money.

Computers aren't much different there. You can only push this "less with more" idea so far before you need more hardware anyway. Economies of scale apply here, if you wait longer to buy upgrades, and buy fewer of them, demand overall decreases, and production follows suit, and prices don't drop as fast as they might. It's kinda like Mac vs PC there on the hardware front, PCs are FAR more numerous, and far cheaper (yes, there are other elements involved in that, but that's not the point here).

Each one has to push the other. If you break that chain, you break the cycle, and the rate of advance slows. That really means it's the very "bloat" you decry so much that made it possible to get the kinds of hardware we have today, for the prices it sells for.

And, Helior nailed it pretty well too. (again)

But what if people are starting to feel that what they want or need is not a single souped-up Vista desktop, but a mid-performance ultra-portable for everyone in their family? Low cost is an upgrade because it allows you to buy more total units. This is what I think you're missing. Any up-to-date desktop can handle Vista easily, but people aren't looking for desktops as much anymore. Portability and "low-cost-have-one-per-person" are what consumers want, and so that's where the advancement in computer technology is going. People don't like Vista because it chokes up the ultraportable, which is the computer that they want nowadays. A typical ultraportable has a processor operating between one and two GHz (some at even less than one GHz), often single core, has half a gig to a gig of RAM (with some models having 2 gig), and often has a small HDD by modern desktop standards.

 

[Scarecrow]

IRT Bloodspray

But you've missing the essential point:

I don't WANT one, and therefore, I won't BUY one. Telling me to suck it up and accept a nicer computer for more money isn't going to change anything. If enough people think like me and opt for less computer for less money, the market will respond, and more computers will be offered in that price range instead, increasing competition, and driving prices down there instead of at the top of the line. Not everyone shares your perception of what the best computer is.

Also, there are tasks for which an Eee PC is a better choice than your favorite high powered computer at any price. Suppose you needed to travel on foot for long distances over rough terrain for whatever reason, but needed a computer. I wouldn't want to carry around a full laptop. I'd want something I could hold in one hand. Something like an Eee. The fact that it's also cheaper is just bonus points.

If everyone wanted the same thing, then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

 

[Usquanigo]

But what if people are starting to feel that what they want or need is not a single souped-up Vista desktop, but a mid-performance ultra-portable for everyone in their family? Low cost is an upgrade because it allows you to buy more total units. This is what I think you're missing. Any up-to-date desktop can handle Vista easily, but people aren't looking for desktops as much anymore. Portability and "low-cost-have-one-per-person" are what consumers want, and so that's where the advancement in computer technology is going. People don't like Vista because it chokes up the ultraportable, which is the computer that they want nowadays. A typical ultraportable has a processor operating between one and two GHz (some at even less than one GHz), often single core, has half a gig to a gig of RAM (with some models having 2 gig), and often has a small HDD by modern desktop standards.

But we are talking about desktops and desktop OS's. For the smaller stuff, you have CE (which includes Mobile).

If XP, Vista and "7" are brought up, that by default makes the conversation about desktops. (nevermind all the discussion about the workplace network that has also gone on, which further cements that, and incorporates servers as well, essentially the other end of the spectrum)

 

[Hielor]

But what if people are starting to feel that what they want or need is not a single souped-up Vista desktop, but a mid-performance ultra-portable for everyone in their family? Low cost is an upgrade because it allows you to buy more total units. This is what I think you're missing. Any up-to-date desktop can handle Vista easily, but people aren't looking for desktops as much anymore. Portability and "low-cost-have-one-per-person" are what consumers want, and so that's where the advancement in computer technology is going. People don't like Vista because it chokes up the ultraportable, which is the computer that they want nowadays. A typical ultraportable has a processor operating between one and two GHz (some at even less than one GHz), often single core, has half a gig to a gig of RAM (with some models having 2 gig), and often has a small HDD by modern desktop standards.

I think you overestimate the popularity of the ultraportable, and underestimate the continuing popularity of the desktop.

 

[Scarecrow]

But we are talking about desktops and desktop OS's. For the smaller stuff, you have CE (which includes Mobile).

If XP, Vista and "7" are brought up, that by default makes the conversation about desktops. (nevermind all the discussion about the workplace network that has also gone on, which further cements that, and incorporates servers as well, essentially the other end of the spectrum)

No, we're discussing anything and everything that anybody is willing to buy.

Edit: That includes HPC, servers, desktops, laptops, ultraportable, and embedded stuff.

Edit2: Or simply use, if it's free.

Edit3: Also, my only experience with Windows Mobile is in my phone. And that has been a buggy experience. I wish my simpler, cheaper phone still worked, and hadn't succumbed to water.

 

[Usquanigo]

IRT Bloodspray

But you've missing the essential point:

I don't WANT one, and therefore, I won't BUY one. Telling me to suck it up and accept a nicer computer for more money isn't going to change anything. If enough people think like me and opt for less computer for less money, the market will respond, and more computers will be offered in that price range instead, increasing competition, and driving prices down there instead of at the top of the line. Not everyone shares your perception of what the best computer is.

Also, there are tasks for which an Eee PC is a better choice than your favorite high powered computer at any price. Suppose you needed to travel on foot for long distances over rough terrain for whatever reason, but needed a computer. I wouldn't want to carry around a full laptop. I'd want something I could hold in one hand. Something like an Eee. The fact that it's also cheaper is just bonus points.

If everyone wanted the same thing, then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

I've not missed any point. You (and the others) are claiming this to be a superior path to take, essentially implying that the other way (more power) is bad and wasteful. If not, then there is nothing to go back and forth about, that's what this is all about.

I (and Helior it seems, though I don't want to speak for him) are pointing out the benefits to us all, INCLUDING you, from the way things have gone. You don't stop dead, go backwards, and still go forwards, ya know?

I know, you'll say it's just a different direction, fine, that's not disputed. Here's the point - if the focus becomes on low to mid end (which btw, is FAR higher at the moment than the req's for Win 7, as Helior and I have both been trying to point out), the high end stuff is the first casualty. Advancement and development slow down for 3 reasons - the money's not there for it, it's no longer about ultimate power/speed, and since the current bleeding edge is so much higher than where you're talking about focusing in the first place, that stuff can just be trickled down (further cutting costs on the R&D side). So we basically freeze our development for a time (this also affects super computing as well). Eventually more R&D is necessary because in time, the competition will require more power than would currently be possible, even on that focus point. So we end up pausing, then eventually moving forward again, just more slowly.

And this is mirrored in software as well, since less hardware capability means less potential, no matter how efficient you make it.

In short, the claims of Linux's ability to run on paperweights is the same thing as the ricer argument of horsepower per litre. It's a non-issue, and if we REALLY focused everything on that, we all suffer for it in the long run.

Celebrate Microsoft's and Apple's pushing of the hardware envelope through feature creep and shorted development time. Know that you will always be able to buy a paperweight for next to nothing and do whatever you want with it, BECAUSE of this. Coming here and griping about it and making M$ out to be evil incarnate is nothing more than shooting yourself in the foot. (and yes, that's how it started, someone made a comment about Win 7 and Vista, I responded about that, and said NOTHING about linux - you came in and crapped on Windows and held linux up as the be all end all, and then we got moved into a solo thread)

And anyway, look at what Helior said again. He's saying much the same thing differently, with some real bottom line stuff in there. Is *that* REALLY too "high end" and expensive? You can't really get much cheaper than that except in a dumpster. (which means, like I just said, you DO benefit from this power push, it could be 486s going for those prices, y'know?)

 

[Linguofreak]

But we are talking about desktops and desktop OS's. For the smaller stuff, you have CE (which includes Mobile).

If XP, Vista and "7" are brought up, that by default makes the conversation about desktops. (nevermind all the discussion about the workplace network that has also gone on, which further cements that, and incorporates servers as well, essentially the other end of the spectrum)

But ultraportables are a bit big for CE. They outperform our aging 7-and-a-half year old Win2K desktop, which I wouldn't trust to run XP. They'll run XP just fine. They won't, however, run Vista well.

 

[Usquanigo]

No, we're discussing anything and everything that anybody is willing to buy.

He said it's not about desktops anymore, and yes, that has been the bulk of, and point of, the conversation (by definition as it has been about XP, Vista, and Win 7)

Edit3: Also, my only experience with Windows Mobile is in my phone. And that has been a buggy experience. I wish my simpler, cheaper phone still worked, and hadn't succumbed to water.

Bad example for me there. I don't care about gadget phones. I wish I still have my Nextel i1000 Plus from 1999. I don't need texting, hate this "e911" BS, don't need a camera, and don't play games or surf the web on it, I want solid, reliability, ergonomics, and pure phone functionality. The Nextel had that. This V3 Razr is being largely wasted because it has a lot of that other crap, and it's dainty and delicate, the Nextel was a brick, and I didn't have to worry about marring the finish on it.


-----Post Added-----

But ultraportables are a bit big for CE. They outperform our aging 7-and-a-half year old Win2K desktop, which I wouldn't trust to run XP. They'll run XP just fine. They won't, however, run Vista well.

To do what, exactly? Aero is NOT any heavier than Explorer. The rest of it is just a slightly different way of doing things, some new sounds, and new images.

Now, when it comes to games, well, Helior said he gets FAR fewer frames on Vista. Ok, I can't contest that. I know I get a low frame rate, but I chalk that up to a crap video card. But otherwise the machines are identical and in terms of using the OS itself (and the web, and productivity suites like Office), they are the same speed. It is possible that a P4 3.2 with 2GB of RAM might be well above the bottleneck so I just can't see the difference, but given that a $700 latop will smoke both of these desktops, it's rather a moot point. (and if whatever you're calling an "ultra portable" is somehow smaller than a laptop but bigger than a handheld, then give it a year, it'll be plenty fast enough - and CE is quite extensible in both directions)

 

[Linguofreak]

I think you overestimate the popularity of the ultraportable, and underestimate the continuing popularity of the desktop.

I may be overestimating the popularity of the ultraportable, but I do know that laptop sales overtook desktop sales in the third quarter of 2008.

 

[Scarecrow]

I think this thread is approaching an argumentative singularity, where we're bandying about the same points with different wording, nobody is getting anywhere, and many things are simply a matter of opinion. For example, you think creeping bloat is a good thing. I think that's thoroughly ridiculous. You think that a trend toward low prices is bad and will harm everybody in the long term. I don't think so. There are other points of irreducible disagreement too, but I'm too lazy to list them.

That said, Bloodspray, I am in 100% agreement with you on the matter of cell phones. Give me something I can put in my pocket that will make phone calls, and I will be pleased.

 

[Usquanigo]

For example, you think creeping bloat is a good thing. I think that's thoroughly ridiculous.

Did you misunderstand me, or twist that? I have said repeatedly that the effect of this is a continued push back on both sides - software reaches a point where people need more powerful hardware, and that then enables software to do more, and on and on it goes. The result is that we have immensely powerful and ridiculously cheap computers. THAT is a good thing, and THAT is what I talked about. You think that is thoroughly ridiculous?

You think that a trend toward low prices is bad and will harm everybody in the long term. I don't think so.

As above, you will see that I have been illustrating how improved hardware power means reduced prices, not just for the top of the line stuff (though there too), but also for the bottom end stuff - all sectors of the computer market have gotten more powerful and cheaper, because of what I outlined above. So yet again, I'm in favor of low prices, and showing how you are benefiting from them, yet you claim the opposite?

If we get nowhere, then it's either because of misunderstanding, or intentional twisting (not making accusations, just presenting possibilities).

 

[cjp]

I have said repeatedly that the effect of this is a continued push back on both sides - software reaches a point where people need more powerful hardware, and that then enables software to do more, and on and on it goes. The result is that we have immensely powerful and ridiculously cheap computers.

There is a difference between more feature-rich software and bloatware, although sometimes the distinction is a bit blurry.

I think it would be interesting to have an overview of the requirements of windows NT, 2000, XP, vista and 7, together with an overview of the added features in each version. I would like to see which features justify the increased specs (as in: they could not reasonably(*) be implemented in a significantly more efficient way). Then follows the subjective discussion on which features are actually needed / wanted by the user(**).

I think the only applications that actually require more than a modern low-end system(***) are games, simulations like Orbiter, and very job-specific software like 3D renderers and video editing software. The OS should not count as an application: it should only assist the user in running applications, provide a user interface for that, and, okay, give a nice experience to the user(****). For the rest, the OS should not eat resources, but give them to the apps instead. I don't mind when the OS takes 10% of the resources, but when it takes 50% for no reason, I will start looking for a more efficient OS. When it has a good reason, I will start looking for better hardware.

(*) We don't count, for instance, writing everything in assembly.

(**) "the user" does not exist of course, hence that part of the discussion is very subjective.

(***) Let's say:
AMD Athlon 2.6GHz
512MiB RAM @ 333MHz
120GiB harddisk
ATI Radeon 9200 (AGP 8x, 256MiB video RAM)

(****) I admit, I do have all these fancy Compiz effects enabled on my desktop computer. But it still runs smoothly (my desktop computer has exactly the specs above), even when I'm simultaneously browsing web pages, playing GTA VC through Wine, and having Open Office open in the background.