Vista's not so bad
When Vista was announced I had a letter published on your Letters page whinging about how Vista would not let anyone mess with it, how they had stitched it up for people who like to play with the operating system and how I would have to get the old Amstrad 664 out of the cupboard again. Well I would like to redress the balance.
I have been using Vista from Beta 2 and at the moment have Vista Ultimate on my desktop and laptop. It's an excellent operating system and, as long as you take the time to find out about it, you can do anything you want.
You can poke and prod it as well as alter registry entries just like you can on all previous operating systems. And yes, the User Access Control feature does frequently ask you if you want to proceed, but I have got used to that and actually think it’s a good idea - if anyone does sneak rogue software onto your machine then you know if it tries to do anything.
I like the Aero interface and Sidebar while the management options are very good - I particularly like the performance and reliability tools.
It runs everything that I require, including programs I wrote in Visual Basic 3, as long as I supply the Runtime. It also copes with my Delphi programs and I have even managed to load the Installshield program that came with the old Delphi4 system.
Everyone is saying the take up is slow but this is always the case with large organisations. I used to work for a blue chip company and they were always two-years behind the current operating system.
In your March edition someone complained about the start time being one and a half minutes and then went on to compare it with his laptop running XP SP2, which started in 90 seconds. What's the difference? I timed my desktop from pressing the power on button to sign on screen at 45 seconds - this is no time at all. To load the 16k Ram pack on my ZX81 took something like 20 minutes. What is this obsession with start times? One and half minutes is luxury.
I believe in knocking something if it's wrong and praising it if it's right, and at the moment in my opinion there is nothing wrong with Vista. I know they are bringing out a Service Pack, but this happened with all the other operating systems and it's simply natural progression.
And no, I don’t work for Microsoft.
Malc Parr
February 12, 2008 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Vista's performance
It’s not surprising that Vista take-up has been poor (PCW February 2008, Editorial) – its cost-performance benefit is truly awful. I was interested in Vista, and built a PC for its evaluation knowing that it would be hungry - Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz CPU, 1GB (later 2GB) 1,333GHz FSB memory and an Asus P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe motherboard.
The performance is comparatively poor with Vista Business Edition, even after tweaking. It takes around one and a half minutes to start, even with Superfetch turned of. I seem to spend a lot of time downloading so-called important updates (at least 4GB so far).
How can a product be so buggy and avoid the interest of Trading Standards? Comparison of performance between identical applications on an AMD 3000+ with 512MB memory shows little or no improvement, especially on processor-intensive applications such as AGI Satellite Toolkit (STK), or Mathcad with fairly complex recursive algorithms for evaluation. It may be great for games – I would not know or care.
I recently bought a laptop for a relative (2GHz dual core CPU, 1GB memory, Vista Home Premium) and this takes around a minute to start (again with Superfetch turned off), but this is before a significant number of applications have been installed. It runs the flashy Aero interface adequately, but for what?
I also have a Sony T2XP laptop, 1.2GHz processor, 1GB memory, running XP SP2. This takes around 25 seconds to start from hibernation (90 seconds from cold), does all I want in word processing, Mathcad and STK, and goes to sleep quickly without spending minutes updating its dodgy operating system; ideal for working 'on the road'.
The configuration (in terms of installed applications) is almost identical to the Vista evaluation machine. People (and companies) are right to be cautious about paying out good money for 'more is actually less' in terms of performance where simple functionality is concerned.
Vista may be more secure, and fine if permanently powered up to allow it to update in the silent hours, but aren’t we supposed to be saving the planet by switching off our computers when not in use? Vista seems to have been devised for a different era, for a leisured society with time to waste (or possibly to wait), and with deep pockets to buy what is apparently unnecessary hardware.
Peter Swallow
January 2, 2008 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Vista's foibles
As the motherboard on my old self-built PC was failing at regular intervals decided that it was time was ripe to replace it with a completely new system.
Having eagerly awaited November’s PCW, I immediately ordered a shiny new Mesh that was your Best Buy. When it arrived, all I had to do was switch my old files and programmes across from my old XP machine and reap the benefits of the Vista based system - or so I thought.
OK, so I knew that I would have to learn the new Vista way of doing things. I could live with that; it just takes a little bit longer to get familiar with it. I was also pleased to see it recognise my peripherals immediately, especially my old Epson printer. I was becoming impressed. However, then the shine started to wear off.
I first tried to synchronise the clock with internet time, which didn't work. Next I put the computer into sleep mode. It would reactivate on a touch of the wireless mouse, but then lock up. Only a hard reboot would get me running again. A search on the internet provided no solutions, so my PC now stays on all the time.
Then I decided to play some music on my fancy new 5.1 surround sound system. Great, except that the rear speakers wouldn't function. They work fine in the Control Panel test, but not with any application (e.g. Windows Media Player, iTunes or Real Player). Another search on the internet showed that this seemed to be a common problem with no apparent solution until Microsoft sorts out the drivers.
I am sure I will find other issues as I progress, but while I quite like some of the Vista features, it would have been nice to be forewarned of the key problems. PCW has done some great articles on getting the best out of Vista, but nowhere can I find a list the main bugs that await resolution by Microsoft.
Can you help?
Mike Dunne
October 18, 2007 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Offline updates
I sympathise with Mr. P Smith's letter "Dial-up Dilemmas" (PCW October 2007, Letters) about the problem of updating PCs through a slow modem line or with no regular internet connection.
I was confronted with a similar situation updating laptops without using the office internet connection, where it is forbidden to connect a laptop in order to prevent infected computers offering backdoor access to the enterprise network.
My research directed me towards two very useful, and free, tools. The first is Bart's Preinstalled Environment bootable live windows CD (http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder), which allows a system to be booted from a virus free CD system and then, optionally, to be scanned with, for example, Mcafee antivirus.
And secondly, Autopatcher (http://www.autopatcher.com), which creates a single CD with all of Microsoft’s critical and recommended updates and many other updates (Java run time and Flash player, among others).
Both these tools can be burnt on to CDs and used on any PC and, most importantly, no network connection is required.
Tim Wilson
August 17, 2007 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Don't knock Vista
It was with disappointment that I read the Letter of the Month, entitled "Vista - no thanks" (PCW October 2007, Letters). Ralph Bacon has encountered a series of problems using Windows Vista as his operating system and concludes that he likes the design of Vista but prefers the stability of XP.
Of course with a new and complex operating system it is inevitable that some people will experience teething problems, but there is no point looking longingly over the shoulder at XP.
The future is Vista and XP, if not yet dead, is dying. The number of people still using XP, in 12 months time, will have dropped dramatically. I recall that when XP was launched there were those who insisted that Windows 98 was definitely superior and that XP was a backward step.
My own experience with Vista is very different from that of Ralph Bacon. Every piece of software I have thrown at it has worked perfectly and every piece of hardware I have installed has worked immediately and without problem. However, of more importance is the fact that I find Vista totally stable, totally reliable, and both very easy and a pleasure to use.
Windows XP - RIP, your time has passed.
Alex Bruce
August 17, 2007 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Linux reality check
Your Linux 'Hands On' column has recently written about the tedium involved with the Windows XP installation process (June 2007) 'requiring many driver installations to get the most basic hardware operating and frequent reboots in between'. The same column (August 2007) also sings the praises of the Ubuntu 7.04 installation process saying that the post installatio steps required to get a useful desktop up and running have been made 'about as simple as it can get'.
I have to disagree with these points of view as my experience is radically different:- I can install Windows XP Professional quite easily on my machine (have had to several times as a result of trying to install Linux). I admit it takes some time to load up from the CD and I have to load my SATA driver from floppy during this load but then I install 2 drivers (printer, wireless network) from CD and reboot and I have a working system with internet access.
With Linux I tried Fedora Core 6, answered the questions (including the technical ones about partitioning) correctly and was rewarded with a system that would not boot, giving some message about GRUB stage 2. Luckily I was able to find help (FIXBOOT & FIXMBR) on the Microsoft website so that I did
not have to reinstall Windows. (My data was backed up anyway but I avoided several hours of 'fun').
I next unplugged my SATA drive and plugged in an IDE drive to experiment more safely, firstly installing Windows as I want to get a dual boot system. Firstly I tried Fedora 6 again, with the same error. Mandriva 2007 seemed to work better but my wireless network would not enable from the GUI and gave
no error message as to why not. A number of people on linuxforums.org gave me advice which suggested Kubuntu 7.04 was the best route to try.
This, coupled with your praise of its close realtive Ubuntu 7.04, led to me installing that from your cover DVD. As the installation went well but was obvioulsy a minimal package (fitting on one CD) I decided to 'go for it' and downloaded the full DVD image and installed on my SATA drive. BIG mistake, a GRUB stage 1.5 error and a 'cock-up' somewhere in my use of the Windows Recovery Console meant I had a Windows system partition of an unknown type. I can now recommend MBRTOOL from diydatarecovery.nl which saved me from a Windows reinstall.
No more messing about, using Paragon Drive Manager 8SE (brilliant tool) from a recent cover disk I cloned my Windows installation onto my IDE drive and unplugged my SATA drive. I now have a dual boot system with XP & Kubuntu but that's about as far as it goes.
The Kubuntu installation is useles as it does not have a driver for my printer (Epson C900 colour laser), my scanner (HP Scanjet 5100C) or my wireless network (although the wireless network is recognised I am told the driver has a bug). I can find a printer driver on the web but the associated documentation lists about 5 modules I must have, one I must not have and multiple steps I must take - also I must have a CUPS environment, not an lpr one, whatever that means ('lpr' I recognise from using Unix for 15 years).
The scanner may have a driver on the web but it's very vague as to whether it will work or how to install it. For the wireless network I have two routes to follow from the helpful people on linuxforums but both require downloading stuff which means shifting the PC upstairs to hard wire to my router (and I'm not sure if that will work because the only network interface showing in Kubuntu is my wireless one so maybe the wired one is not installed ?).
Also Linux (Fedora or Kubuntu) and SATA appear to be incompatible, although they will load to the SATA drive they will not boot, Kubuntu will not even boot from the IDE drive with the SATA drive plugged in (although IDE is before SATA in the BIOS boot device list).
As for documentation under the 'Help' button, that is written around the commands available so unless you are already familiar with Linux it's no help whatsoever. This is a downside of having software engineers writing the documentation as well as the software - they know what they are talking
about and cannot present it in terms useful to the novice.
The final part of the rant (for such it seems to have become) comes from reading the fine print in your Ubuntu article - the software I want is not part of the default installation (Perl, Gimp, Apache...) so must be downloaded (over my dead wireless network ?).
Much as I would like Linux to be a success I have concluded there is a reason why Windows (XP) is so popular - it just works! Linux presumably is fine if you have the time, knowledge and desire to spend hours learning how to get it going on your hardware (or if you a a corporate user with an IT department paid to set it up for you) but it appears that it doesn't work 'out of the box' for people who are not familiar with it.
Ross Marven
June 29, 2007 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Marks out of 10
It was good to see technology in education being covered in the Expanding Education/VLE article in the July issue of PCW. The article missed the whole point of the use of this technology in schools however. 1) It is not a new technology, it is an old one. VLEs in one shape or form have been used in higher education since the early 1990s. 2) It’s a learning solution that has been designed for post-18 distance learning. 3) Schools have no choice - DfES policy says we all must have a Learning Platform by 2008 and that the strength of this technology lies in the potential for a more personal experience of learning for pupils.
The challenge for schools is to develop a suitable model for classroom use of VLEs. How do you use a software solution that is built upon an anywhere-anytime-flexible model of teaching and learning and use it in a system that is 9-4, classroom based and anything but flexible. If VLEs are only going to be used as a storage facility for lesson resources (the way in which they are most commonly used in higher ed) then there are better solutions for this.
10 out of 10 for featuring education (let’s see more of it) but 6 out of 10 for an article that could have done more justice to the current debate about the use of VLEs in schools.
Jim Fanning
May 31, 2007 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
VLE Shortcomings
As a student (15) in full time education I read with interest your article Expanding Education. In my experience, initiatives including computers and learning are prone to failure for several reasons.
Firstly, a computer is no longer a word processor; it is a means of chatting to friends, a way of browsing videos and emailing. I guarantee that any student who sits down at a computer will get sidetracked in to seeing who’s online or checking their inbox.
Secondly, there are the technical barriers. You state in your article that a web-based interface provides cross platform compatibility. This is only the case when the application on the web page is cross platform, not as in my school’s case dependant on an ActiveX plug-in that only works on XP in Internet Explorer.
Thirdly, some students don’t have access to the internet or a computer at home. “No Problem,” says the school, “they can work on the computers at lunchtime”. This is unfair as they lose their break time to work around a problem not of their making. More often than not, the work won’t be done.
Finally, content is another area in which my school (a Specialist Maths and Computing College) has failed.
The courses available on our VLE system are merely scanned photocopies in non-editable PDF format. Previously we would have done these sheets in class. Now we download and print them out at home for homework. This shifts the cost from school to student, something you did not factor into your Maths Lesson insert - I’m sure a server costs less than a reprographics team!
Put simply, with pen and paper there are only so many plausible excuses such as “I lost my book” or “I forgot”. Whereas as soon as you involve the computer there are millions of excuses ranging from “a virus ate my homework, miss” to “my hard drive got corrupted” and the favourite “the printer ran out of ink/paper”.
I hope no more schools and universities will be suckered on to the VLE bandwagon.
Matthew Malcher
May 31, 2007 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
3G broadband solutions
I read with interest your ‘Next generation broadband’ article in the May 2007 issue. There are a few points that you have missed, however, regarding the use of 3G as an alternative. Quoting from T-Mobile’s website:
“Already a customer and don’t want to commit to a price plan? Not a problem, simply add the Web’n’Walk monthly option to your current Flext or U-Fix £25 plan and pay just £7.50 a month extra”.
So if you already have a 3G T-Mobile phone on a monthly plan you can get the 3G service for £7.50 extra. I have a USB Bluetooth dongle (£8 from Ebay) for my desktop PC, so as long as my phone is near my computer I have internet access. So there’s no need to get a laptop just to be able to use a 3G PC Card. With Windows XP SP2, the combination of dongle and 3G phone works perfectly. This works out quite cheap for 3GB per month, so it’s another option for readers to look at.
Eduardo Batalha
April 5, 2007 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Stop moaning about Vista
I have read with great interest the many letters over the past few months relating to Windows Vista and Office 2007. It is frustrating, as a keen user, to see such strong views against Microsoft’s new wave of products. JE Jones writes in the May issue of annoyance with driver support in Vista. Microsoft has shipped an unprecedented number of drivers on with Vista and many, many more via Windows Update.
The responsibility of producing such drivers is on the manufacturer and many have risen to the challenge, of course in some cases lack of support is seen as a way of forcing people to buy new equipment.
Microsoft has consistently provided huge levels of backwards compatibility from one version of Windows to another, something which is unseen in many parts of the industry. If people want progress then it will always come at the expense of compatibility to some extent or another. Another example of this issue is Robert Shooter’s letter in May’s issue. He notes that the default format in Office 2007 is not supported by any other software package on the market.
Wrong! Microsoft has made read/write converters available for previous versions of Office, and there is no reason why others cannot create their own for Open Source software. In addition, Office 2007 can be configured to automatically save all files in the previous format.
The OpenXML file format in Office 2007 provides a huge improvement in stability and usability for both businesses and consumers and should be welcomed. Microsoft has made a huge step forward in its latest releases, bringing usability and ergonomics to a new high. Improvement can sometimes be painful, but let’s embrace it, not complain about it and enjoy the new experiences on offer.
Daniel Murfin
April 5, 2007 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Microsoft is destroying my company
It seems that the Microsoft’s Phishing Filter in Internet Explorer 7 is marking perfectly legitimate business websites as suspicious. Without any justification, a message appears warning potential customers that the site might be a phishing website and that they should not provide any information.
This has happened to me and the result is that orders have stopped dead. (Try http://www.ijovent.org.uk/IJV%20Shop.htm in IE7 with the phishing filter turned on to see what I mean). My company takes great effort in ensuring the security of its customers and processes all orders through PayPal to ensure that no financial information is obtained by us.
I consider that Microsoft's approach has put an enormous slur on my company and it is surely a gross abuse of its power.
If any of your other readers run small businesses, I urge them to check that their shopping pages do not display this message in IE7.
I hope that, through PCW, you can stimulate some discussion on this topic.
Martin Liddament
February 12, 2007 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
To hell with Vista
So what the Vista Upgrade Advisor fails to mention is that the software for my BT Total Broadband will not load under Vista. The same went for my Epson printer. So no Internet and no printing.
You might suppose that this problem could be got around by using XP on another drive to look for compatible updates. Not so. Microsoft small print says that two different Windows systems cannot be run on the same PC. This policy seems to be enforced by setting the XP version to hang at an XP screen on boot up. Removal of the Vista drive makes no difference.
The only way ahead is a clean reinstall of XP. (I had to do this twice before the penny dropped.) The good news is that all my data is intact in the backup on the external hard drive and my XP drive is now rubbish free. Vista is being returned.
Stephen Younger
February 6, 2007 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Vista is not green
Moving to Vista is not eco-friendly. Mass uptake of each new Microsoft operating system has a significant carbon toll: new PC purchase, the changing of hardware, upgrading of hardware and software, aftermarket products: books, training material etc, etc. PCs are not easily recyclable either.
Microsoft has repeatedly proven that new hardware is needed to run each new OS release optimally – this inefficient use of PC resource impacts personally and globally.
Microsoft intends to rollout new OS releases regularly, this is hardly carbon sustainable computing!!!!!
Notwithstanding the environmental cost, the UK retail cost of Vista OS products is a major wallet hazard; with a markup over the US price, for essentially the same software. In a global marketplace this can not be justified; how much localisation, support, does another English version of Vista need?
Microsoft makes mega profits, which could easily absorb UK overheads without penalising the UK customer exorbitantly!
After the reality check of personal and environmental costs, customers biting the Vista bullet should consider its pitfalls more closely.
Digital Rights Management: How badly will this limit the personal use of your computer? How long before DRM extends to restricted use of music and video downloads? (Or ripping CDs to mp3 format!) Before long all content will be chained to your PC!
User Account Control: A prime source of irritation and software incompatibility with existing software – a headache from day one of Vista.
Speed: Vista could well be slower than XP on existing PCs. Hardly faster when Vista is a glutton for SuperComputer type hardware.
Reliability and Security: Unproven until widely rolled out amongst a large user base.
Hardware and Software compatibility: Many existing systems won’t be fully Vista compatible, which will require new hardware, PCs and software. Hardware issues will be exacerbated by lack of Vista drivers.
Current XP Antivirus and Firewall software will need replacing for Vista compliant ones. User Account Control will cause many headaches for current software!
There will be many gremlins yet to surface, until Vista has a large user base.
What a surprise that Microsoft releases Office 2007 to go with Vista! Will older versions have difficulties?
PC users need an alternative to the Microsoft juggernaut (or should that be gas guzzler?). Streamlined, efficient use of existing PCs would benefit users and the planet.
It’s time for green personal computing!
Darren Stanley
January 31, 2007 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Vista upgrade woe
I was quite eager to upgrade to Vista. Fortunately I downloaded the Microsoft programme which tested my computer for suitability.
Yes, it said OK but I would have to uninstall my Norton security software & a backup programme first. After loading Vista I would not be allowed to reload these! Such a friendly operating system?
Needless to say, I shall stay with Windows XP
Anne Downes
January 31, 2007 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
”I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that... "
Dragon recently released a new version of its Naturally Speaking speech recognition product and the usual questions are being asked about whether speech recognition will really take off. Certainly speech recognition would give that new dual core processor something worthwhile to do, but someone commented that “talking to your computer is best done in private”. A good point - very few people would feel comfortable talking to their PC in the office and their colleagues might not be happy about it either.
I think a change of focus is required for the technology in order to seed its adoption: home users are the ones who would benefit most from a more natural interface to their computers. Your average teenager might even find it ‘cool’ to talk to their computers and control them like HAL 2000 from ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ - it’s certainly been a dream of mine since I was a kid. Dictation however, has never appealed to me and unless I had no choice, I would always use a keyboard for writing.
Guess what? Dragon Dictate allows you to control your computer with your voice, but I bet it has once again only included it in the top end edition of the product which is unaffordable for home users. Why doesn’t it split it out into a separate product? It might find there is a much larger market.
So what about Windows Vista? I read on the Microsoft web site that Vista has new speech APIs built in and you can “seamlessly manage Windows Vista and applications by saying what you see”. So perhaps there will be a reason to buy Vista after all, although I think people would need to see someone else using it successfully before they would consider it a major selling point. But it sounds like the Microsoft focus is more on dictation with the Windows control features being more of an afterthought.
Maybe we need Google to show the way once more with a free download - a voice controlled search engine anyone? Now that would really be something!
Robin Penny
August 31, 2006 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (2)
Vista could push users to Linux
I find it curious that you feature an article on being environmentally responsible with IT equipment, prolonging the life of systems already in use and reducing waste, yet the next article is a feature on Microsoft’s new operating system, Windows Vista, which will encourage many people to ditch their old PCs or components in order to be able to use it.
How many PCs are going to end up in landfill sites once Vista is released? It’s fine to say that people can upgrade their PCs to get it working with Vista, but something that seems to have been missed is laptops. It’s near impossible to upgrade laptops, beyond a bigger hard disk or some more Ram. Considering that laptops are now outselling desktops, there are going to be many users stuck with obsolete equipment. This wouldn’t be so bad, but Microsoft will withdraw support for Windows XP within a few years of Vista going live.
It looks like Microsoft is going to push many of its former customers towards Linux, simply because they cannot afford to replace, or just don’t want to dump, perfectly good working equipment. I’m certainly considering moving in that direction when the support for XP ends.
Steven Smith
August 31, 2006 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (0)
Windows-free PCs
Having read the reviews of the many and varied computers in PCW over the years I have often caught myself thinking “that's a nice machine, but it comes with Windows”. I wonder how many other of your readers think along the same lines?
As you yourselves have reported, on more than one occasion, Linux is becoming more and more widespread, yet if I want to buy a new PC I am forced to buy one with some version of Windows already installed whether I want it or not. I remember a few years ago, and PCW reported on it at the time, there was quite a ruckus over people demanding a refund from Microsoft for unwanted Windows software. This even spawned a number of websites detailing exactly how to go about it. However, I have heard nothing about this matter for quite some time.
It would be interesting, to me and hopefully to other of your readers, to carry out the following experiment. Take one each of a desktop and notebook, from any of the PC vendors, and attempt to get a refund on the unwanted Windows software as well as see how the machines fare when installing one of the current Linux distributions. How about it? Up for the challenge?
This also raises the question of warranties. Since most warranties are designed, I assume, to cover hardware failures, could any PC vendor renege on the warranty say, because a machine had been returned for repair without the software that it left the factory with? It would be interesting to find out.
Tony Moran
August 3, 2006 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (1)
Open Source for business
The September Personal Computer World carried an excellent article on using Linux. However it also contained a response to a letter from Tom Calloway of the Open Source Consortium that prompted me to respond to the confused views expressed. [You can also read this letter on Steve's blog ]
PCW regular contributor Alan Stevens gave a number of reasons for small business not to use Open Source software. Taking each point in turn:
1) Lack of familiarity affects productivity.
Every company has its own requirements and you cannot expect all to use the same processes and software. Companies will use programs that others don't anyway and even considering only an Office suite (say), companies have their own templates and ways of using them. To be honest Linux and
OpenOffice are now so close in features to Windows and MS Office that familiarity is not really an issue. Vista will mean Windows will be largely unfamiliar again and the gap probably larger. Each release of products such as Office is very different. This is a direct result of the marketing needs of proprietary software to show something new for the money you are forced spent, just look at Office 12. In contrast Open Source programs often release with no obvious changes as the effort has
gone into behind the scenes quality.
It can be a very good short term investment to get over unfamiliarity otherwise you may miss out on using the most productive and safest solution. The trick is to manage the learning process and reduce risk. Schoolforge have some ideas for trying Open Source programs.
2) Difficult and expensive to get support
That completely missed the point made by Tom that companies do provide excellent support and Linux is generally more reliable and secure. An article in the same magazine showed how insecure XP is and how complex it is to secure. In addition the large Open Source projects have excellent on line community support that usually gets a rapid and effective response (but you may miss out on listening to hours musac whilst waiting on the phone). In fact the Open Source business model is
often to focus on providing support as the software is low cost. Thus it is the focus of the vendors efforts, not just a must-supply add on.
3)Don't use Open Source unless you are confident you can master it
Well that could apply equally to Windows or any proprietary software when you don't want to rely on external support, perhaps more so. Again an article in the same magazine showed how insecure and complex Windows is 'out of the box'. Good Linux distrobutions are secure 'out of the box' and much less time is often needed for administration. You can now and Ubuntu 6.0.6 LTS to the list of formally supported Linuxs.
4)Linux is OK when using appliances with OS code hidden behind web User Interfaces
This is ambiguous. Is the argument that Linux is OK when running a web browser used to access web programs. It is true that web UIs can be accessed from any system and look much the same but then Open source is a non issue. Except I want a safe browser that confirms to standards not one that has not been updated for ages due to commercial reasons and FireFox delivers that very well.
Is the assertion that Open Source is best when hidden behind a web UI? Well the UI is usually an integral part of the Open Source program - not a bolt on. The quality of the UI is independant of the development and licencing model used. However Open Source UIs are likely to follow Open Standards closely and thus be usable in any browser. Finally if the inference is that Open Source is not user friendly and needs to be hidden then projects such as Firefox have utterly disproved that out of
date notion. FireFox arguably leads the browser features at this point in time.
A very important issue for small business is that using proprietary solutions can mean that your data is stored in 'secret' formats and is thus effectively owned by the vendor. This so called 'lock in' can be avoided by using programs that support Open Standards and they are usually Open Source. In addition though upgrades and patches are often rapidly released with Open Source, you are not forced to fork out on upgrades at the whim of the vendor (and then have to learn to use all
those changed features).
Members of the OSC and other companies are supporting Open Source solutions that make every sense for small businesses and especially charities and religious organisations. These organisations often have better uses for cash than spending it on expensive software licences, support and administration costs.
Steve Lee
August 3, 2006 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (2)
Web 2.0 is not a panacea
As a retired IT Operations Manager I find PCW a very useful way of keeping in touch with technological developments. So congratulations on an excellent magazine.
However, I do not share your enthusiasm for Web 2.0 and thin clients, with all software, personal data and correspondence stored on some remote server(s). As a keen amateur photographer there is no way I would trust any organisation with my photographs and neither would I want my financial and personal information open to employees of commercial organisation and all and sundry hackers.
I can see the benefits to corporate organisations of remote access to data and corporately configured software, but for private individuals there would potentially be huge disadvantages to being forced to subscribe to the latest (and remote) software. I still use Win95 and an old version of Office on one of my PCs, while having the latest Photoshop on another machine.
I am sure there are many PC users who continue to use older versions of software because they still have all the required functionality. Mr Gates would I am sure be very pleased to force us all to subscribe to the very latest (and probably flaky) version of his software.
Finally, my PC is always available. Remote servers are not. I also know exactly where my backups are stored. Could I be confident of software and data being available if stored remotely - I think not!
Mike Curry
May 19, 2006 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Apple is forgetting graphics designers
Apple seems to be forgetting its main customers- the graphic designer. Why has Apple gone now for a full blown consumer range with the iMac, MacBook and Mac Mini? The high end workstation which video editors love is nowhere in sight and it could harm Apple badly if it doesn't release something quickly. Something the Woz said only recently.
The current 'Yonah' chip by Intel doesn't execute 64bit applications. This is a big shot in the foot for the media sector who choose to use Apple products over Windows XP. Why should a 3D animation designer have to settle for a Yonah which doesn't have the umph for video editing or 64bit execution? Apple could always put in a Pentium D or Pentium EE, but that goes against why Apple killed off the G5. The Pentium D(isgusting) is hot, slower than an AMD equivalent and draws more energy. The EE is all that and severely overpriced as well.
But what's happening in Q4 '06? Well quite a lot and this is where the jigsaw comes together. Intel is to release its Athlon FX-killer 'Conroe'. If Intel has released a working sample of Conroe to system reviewers already, could Apple twist Intel's arm again like it did for the Core Duo chips? Adobe wants to release Photoshop CS3 by the end of the year. Rumour has it that it has been optimised for OS 10.5 codenamed 'Leopard'.
Oh yes that's it - Vista is coming out in Q4. Could Apple release Leopard before its scheduled release of Q2 '07? I think so; it couldn't wait for the Intel range of Macs to come out. BD-ROM should also be finalised by Q4, so a HD compatible Power Mac with Blu Ray and HDCP machine all built up for you by Apple. No headaches there, there will be always confusion over DRM, Apple has the advantage of building the computer and software and giving it to the consumer. Vista will have HDCP and DRM blues at the start due to it's awful system requirements over having to get a new HDCP monitor etc. Actually it wouldn't surprise me if Apple achieves this by the end of Q2/Q3.
I wonder when Dell will be saying 'PC's can do OS X too' in reference to Boot Camp? I think it is unfair and it raises a few European anti-trust eyebrows. What with them slamming Microsoft for having Windows Media Player on, when Apple has iTunes preloaded and Apple clearly bundles iTunes but is harder to trace an unbundled version.
I wonder when HP, Dell, AMD, IBM and even Microsoft at some point, come knocking and start bringing up a few subpoenas over Intel's monopoly, and the fact that Apple can run both OS X and Windows bundled with iTunes.
Liam Billington
April 21, 2006 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Greedy Windows
It is really exciting to read about Microsoft and the development of Windows Vista. As an IT geek, it really thrills me. But it has its costs. Vista will not run on the majority of the PCs of today. Typical
Microsoft. A small "Hello world" application compiled on Visual C++ to a Windows application resulted in an executable four times bigger than any of my DOS applications - without doing anything.
For the desktop, the applications eat up all the resources made available through new technology. A new 64bit system will not give you much benefit after MS has eaten its part. MS is capable of making intelligent and compact programmes like Windows Mobile. This isn't fancy, and it is
really demanding on the developer.
While Microsoft is thinking 'bigger is better' in the American way, I would prefer compact, efficient and smart like the European or Asian way. My Toyota is compact and takes me where I want with plenty of power. I will not trade it with a bulky American car with accessories I don't need and where the power is needed only to move the surplus metal. I like Vista because I hope it will give the alternatives a boost.
Svein Olav Hagen
January 6, 2006 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Network not work
Alan Stevens rightly cautions that with network printing 'there are one or two things to bear in mind' (Personal Computer World, January 2006, p. 156). For example, anyone hoping to use a multi-function printer on a typical home network for anything other than printing is in for a rude
shock. It probably won't work.
A plausible work around might be to think "I'll put the printer on the network for printing, but plug it straight into the computer for scanning," but another rude shock awaits. If you set up your system for printing over a network, direct connection of the printer to the computer doesn't work, and vice versa. That, at any rate, has been my experience of using a couple of HP printers with both an HP Jetdirect print server and a Belkin wireless print server.
I keep reading articles (not in Personal Computer World) that naively describe a wirelessly networked world in which everything works seamlessly. I keep finding that the reality falls a long way short.
Allan Jones
December 2, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Warning to those with Windows restore CDs
I have just had to reinstall Windows XP Home edition on a E-machines PC and could NOT use backups. The E-machine like a number of other systems, Acer, Advent, Compaq, Dell, Fujitsu, HP, IBM, IT Works, NEC, Time, Tiny and Toshiba only provide Restore CD(s).
When used these restore Windows XP, but wipe the hard disk of any data or software that was installed or added after the initial factory installation, or any previous restore. This means a backup is not recorded on whatever backup software was used prior to the Restore. In addition you have no settings to use after the Restore for Outlook Express etc.
What you really need is COPY of everything that has been added after the system was started, My Documents in particular, plus a list of your settings, passwords and software key numbers kept as disk copy in a small database or the like.
I had to have data and downloaded software on my hard disk, prior to my Windows failure, professionally extracted onto CD and then added after the Restore and of course reinstall the other software for which I had the CD's. In the case of a failure of this nature the CD & DVD drives read but do not write and the hard disk has to be removed and copied elsewhere, at some considerable cost.
In the case of computer users with only Restore CD's, there must be quite a number out there, I would like to advocate NOT to backup but COPY regularly to a CD or DVD, it is easy enough with Windows XP. I also suggest that the system suppliers, listed above, take this into account and add something to their original instructions.
Tony Johnstone
November 11, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Vista on laptops
Since reading your article on Windows Vista (PCW, Nov 2005) there has been one thing troubling me. If the minimum system specs are a 3GHz processor and 512MB of Ram, what is going to happen to ultraportables..Most ultra portable laptops don’t have processors above the speed 2GHz. So is the new Windows going to be inaccessible to laptop users or is a different version being released for laptops.
Peter Budd
November 11, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Print screen smoke screen
Why haven't computer keyboard manufacturers renamed the "Print Screen" key "Copy Screen"? That is what it does. Calling it "Print Screen" is still baffling and upsetting many computer users, even those who have been using computers a long time.
A recent incident at a meeting I attended has led me to write this letter. The two people opposite me were chatting before the meeting began and one of them put a photograph of a screen on the table to show his friend the problem he had with his computer, apologising because, as he said, it's difficult to take a good photograph of a screen. When I said that all he needed to do was press the "Print Screen" key, he immediately said, quite logically, that he had, but that nothing had happened. When I told him that it copies the screen and all one has to do is paste the picture into a document or graphics program he remarked "I've been using computers for fifteen years, but no-one's ever told me that".
Jean Elliott
November 4, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Next step for Vista?
I've just been reading about the Vista version of Windows in this month's edition. Is it just my imagination, or the do the screen shots confirm the suspicion that each succeeding version of Windows begins to look ever more like the Steve Jobs OS of 10 or 15 years ago, Nexstep (or whatever it was called)?
Ah well, I guess that's progress for you.
Andrew Campbell.
October 20, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Who will pay for Vista DRM?
I read with alarm the efforts Microsoft are going to in Vista to provide DRM.
As a programmer I wonder who is going to pay for the extra effort I will have to put in to implement this security scheme.
As a home user it sounds like I am going to have to purchase a whole new set of hardware to play CDs, DVDs and games.
As a network administrator I will be holding off upgrading the companies network for as long as possible.
Eamon Kelly
September 30, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
I don't want to be protected!
I have just read your article on Windows Vista (PCW November issue). I started computing in the 80’s with a zx81. On this I became accomplished in z80 machine code and eventually designed and built and programmed my own serial interface for this which connected to a 300 baud rack modem modified and put into a case by me.
This let me access the world by accessing widely published passwords to the then university network (later the internet). I then learnt 6502 assembly on the beeb and z80 assembly on the Amstrad 664. The Amstrad was a fantastic machine to program as its routine addresses were in ram and could be easily redirected. I designed and built an eprom programmer for this. I have used CPM and Dos. I have gone through Windows 3.1, 95, 98 and now XP.
I have written programs using Visual basic and Delphi. So along comes Vista and Microsoft believes they need to protect me from breaking my operating system. Who do they think they are? I do not need to be a protected administrator. I want to be able to access and change any file on the system that belongs to me. I want to be able to delete any file that I think fit and alter any registry setting that suits me.
If I break the operating system all well and good, its only a computer and it can be reloaded and you learn from your mistakes. It annoys me when Microsoft play god and think we need protecting. An example of this on XP is cookies/ index.dat. I can replace this file with the default on any of my family users settings but it will not let me do my own.
I have to restart in safe control mode and delete the file with a dos command. It’s the same for other index files that grow and grow. Listen Microsoft I don’t want protecting. Provide the facility by all means for those who do but don’t force it on those that don’t. I won’t even start commenting on DRM yet!! Time to get the Amstrad back out of the cupboard.
Malc Parr
September 30, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
All OSes need antivirus protection
Derek Smith (Letters, PCW October 2005) asks what a virus is. OK, the question's rhetorical but, given the context, it's one that's worth answering. A virus is a piece of malicious software (malware) that causes your computer to do something you didn't intend. People write viruses for two purposes:
- To look clever and gain notoriety
- To make money by dubious or dishonest means
In both cases, it's essential to gain widespread and quick distribution so that the maximum number of computers becomes infected before a fix is found and the attack thwarted or at least reduced.
In order to do this, viruses need to target a widely used and also widely connected operating system. Contrary to popular belief, any operating system that isn't Windows is not necessarily more secure.
When I was using Psion handhelds, there were regular queries from new users on the forums I was active on about viruses for these devices. The answer was always that, even with a ROM based OS, a virus was still possible, but the fact the EPOC was not widely used (in global terms) and, above all, not widely connected, tended to make virus writing not worthwhile. In this scenario, a handful of machine might be compromised, but the spread would be slow and easily contained. It's worth noting that, now the Symbian OS has ported to mobile phones, highly destructive viruses have begin to appear.
Windows is the most popular OS and used by a wide variety of people, including many who have no idea how a computer works and don't realise the need for security in the same way that they need to be reminded on a regular basis to lock their car when they leave it in a carpark. These computers, connecting widely to the internet, are highly vulnerable and it's not entirely Microsoft's fault. A secure operating system might be possible, but it would come at the cost of ease of use and simple web access and email.
It's theoretically possible to write a virus for any operating system, but if it's not going to spread widely (and it has to rely on users to achieve this on the writer's behalf), then it's pointless.
Additionally, Microsoft's sheer size makes it a target - write a Windows virus and you can tell yourself you're cleverer than Bill Gates with all his money even if you've never heard of Steve Jobs. Personally, I find the idea of an OS whose main plank is that you can rewrite the core yourself just plain scary; the main reason for the security to date of Linux is that it's used by the technically aware and policed by a wide community but, if it broke out of the specialist arena, would even that
be enough to stop a determined attack?
The truth is that all computer users need to consider the depth of any threat and act accordingly. Mac and Linux AV software is available and any responsible user should install and maintain it for everyone's benefit.
Henry Malt
September 2, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
What's a virus?
Derek Smith asks what a virus is. OK, the question's rhetorical but, given the context, it's one that's worth answering. A virus is a piece of malicious software (malware) that causes your computer to do something you didn't intend. People write viruses for two purposes:
- To look clever and gain notoriety
- To make money by dubious or dishonest means.
In both cases, it's essential to gain widespread and quick distribution so that the maximum number of computers becomes infected before a fix is found and the attack thwarted or at least reduced.
In order to do this, viruses need to target a widely used and also widely connected operating system. Contrary to popular belief, any operating system that isn't Windows is not necessarily more secure. When I was using Psion handhelds, there were regular queries from new users on the forums I was active on about viruses for these devices.
The answer was always that, even with a ROM based OS, a virus was still possible, but the fact the EPOC was not widely used (in global terms) and, above all, not widely connected, tended to make virus writing not worthwhile. In this scenario, a handful of machine might be compromised, but the spread would be slow and easily contained. It's worth noting that, now the Symbian OS has ported to mobile phones, highly destructive viruses have begin to appear.
Windows is the most popular OS and used by a wide variety of people, including many who have no idea how a computer works and don't realise the need for security in the same way that they need to be reminded on a regular basis to lock their car when they leave it in a carpark. These computers, connecting widely to the internet, are highly vulnerable and it's not entirely Microsoft's fault. A secure operating system might be possible, but it would come at the cost of ease of use and simple web access and email.
It's theoretically possible to write a virus for any operating system, but if it's not going to spread widely (and it has to rely on users to achieve this on the writer's behalf), then it's pointless.
Additionally, Microsoft's sheer size makes it a target - write a Windows virus and you can tell yourself you're cleverer than Bill Gates with all his money even if you've never heard of Steve Jobs. Personally, I find the idea of an OS whose main plank is that you can rewrite the core yourself just plain scary; the main reason for the security to date of Linux is that it's used by the technically aware and policed by a wide community but, if it broke out of the specialist arena, would even that
be enough to stop a determined attack?
The truth is that all computer users need to consider the depth of any threat and act accordingly. Mac and Linux AV software is available and any responsible user should install and maintain it for everyone's benefit.
Henry Malt
August 19, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Windows? No thanks.
I am sure that the letter titled 'No thanks, Mac' in your September issue, should have read 'No thanks PC' with all references to Apple Mac OSX and XP reversed, as the sentiments expressed by the correspondent are exactly those I have towards Microsoft.
I have used PCs for my consultancy work for as long as Microsoft has produced commercial operating systems, but chose not to move from Microsoft 2000 professional to XP for a variety of reasons - the chief ones being the time it has takes Microsoft to produce an acceptably stable, bug-free OS following its release, the security gaps they have to keep filling, the way it is a target for viruses etc , and last but not least usability and functionality.
I came to Apple Macs late after their move to OSX. I started with an iMac flat screen 2 years ago and once convinced, progressed to a Mac G5 with Tiger (v10.4.2) and Microsoft Office products. I use Apple's own mail program and browser (Safari), and really have few complaints. I still have PCs (fully networked to the Mac for printing and back-up) and use a Dell portable to run some Windows software not available for the Mac. I chose not to load Virtual PC for Mac just to keep life simple.
While any move to different software always involves a learning curve (and I respect your correspondent's views) I personally cannot agree with some of the comments made. I find navigation far easier on the Mac, fewer clicks needed, more intuitive, and there is always 'Spotlight' - Mac's search tool to find virtually anything on the system. If something does go wrong (and software crashes I find are rarer than on the PC), there is online help (here broadband is needed), and in the great majority of cases there is a prompt to report faults back to Apple. As to downloads and updates one is notified as soon as they are available and downloading and updating has been speedy and easy (I've not had a problem for the 3 years I've had Macs).
I'm not a 'techy' but I have more confidence in Apple's OS strategy with its basis on UNIX than on Microsoft's development route which seems to involve huge step changes from one release to another and increasing gaps between releases. No wonder many organisations have still to move to XP.
Bob Wiggins
August 3, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
64bits to die for?
At last! 64bit computing has arrived. AMD and Intel have given us the processors, and now we have the operating systems, most notably Windows XP 64bit. Yes, Auntie, tell Gran, 64bit computing is now with us.
What does it mean? Mean? Well, most notably, it means that that 4GB memory limit you've been struggling to get by with is no more. With 64bit computing, you can pretty much have as much RAM as you want. 20GB anyone? You'll need at least 6GB for Microsoft's new Office Suite that does all manner of weird and wonderful things you never thought you'd need to do - and have no idea how to do. And don't settle for a hard disk any smaller than 500GB. Anything less just won't be enough these days. And if you're planning on any serious gaming, I wouldn't settle for anything less than a 1000GB hard disk with 64GB RAM and the latest Spitfire Turbo III Lightning 5 graphics card, which is the only choice at the moment for the serious gamer, particularly if you want to play top titles like Bleak Dawn or Massacre at Midnight.
Isn't it all just to die for? Or, put another way, who cares?
Yes, I know 64-bit computing will increase the speed of servers, but it's almost meaningless on a desktop PC. Computers way out-spec the requirements of the vast majority of users. People happily own and use PCs that magazines like yours suggest are pretty much ready for the scrapheap (or, to be fair, the recycling process or second-user market).
And perhaps that's the problem. When 100MHz doubled to 200MHz, it mattered. We, the consumer, noticed it. When we went from 200MHz to 400MHz, we swooned. The same is true of memory, 128mb being a noticable improvement on 64MB. But now the numbers are so big that it hardly matters. But computer companies will continue to want to sell computers, and software companies software. And, I suppose, computer magazines must go on trying to persuade us that we need all this bleeding edge stuff.
We have two computers in this household, mine and my partner's, both connected to the internet (512 Kbps broadband, unlimited) via a router. We browse the net with the Firefox browser, and have appropriate anti-virus, firewall, and anti-spyware software on both computers.
We play games online, stream the BBC, play DVDs, listen to music, email, do office tasks, edit images and music, etc. My partner's computer is an IBM Aptiva, to which she's very attached, with a 500MHz processor, 64MB RAM, and a 6GB hard disk (running Windows 98SE). My computer (running Windows ME) has a massive 256MB of RAM, a 1.6GHz processor, and a 4GB hard disk (the 80 gig one died, so I dug out an old disk to get the system up and running again), and a 16x CD burner. We do not consider ourselves deprived on the IT front.
I like computers. I'm not one of those people who plonkingly declare that they're just a tool (i.e., whatever your software of choice happens to be). I can and do partition my hard disk. I once set up a quad boot system on a Pentium 200 with a 1GB hard disk - just for the sake of it. I've dabbled with Linux and Dos and OS/2, and even tried to get BEoS up and running. I have no computer qualifications and do not work in IT. I'm just an interested consumer. But your "Battle of the Titans" feature (PCW 08/05) made me wonder who these beasts were aimed at. Surely not the ordinary consumer. Computers don't have one graphics card; now they have two. They don't have storage; they have RAID systems.
And the best buy goes to a computer that comes in at £2000, and the Chillblast was less than £250 short of £4000. Who's going to want these systems? Certainly no-one I know. I'd be pushed to recommend spending £500 on a full system. You can be on the internet with a broadband connection for £150. I'm not saying these big beast computers shouldn't exist, or that these features shouldn't be written, but they surely belong in publications with Extreme or Power User in the title, or perhaps Rolling in IT.
I'm put in mind of the person looking to buy a mobile phone being compelled to listen to the sales-person reeling off all the magnificent things it does, at the end of which he/she inquires, "Does it make phone calls?"
John Gilles
June 30, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Windows ME problems?
Some months ago, I upgraded my PC in order to run some of the newer games. I had a new motherboard (Gigabyte K7 Triton), graphics card (Leadtek FX5700 256MB), HDD (160GB 7200rpm) and Mitsubishi 19in Diamond Plus Monitor.
I kept my previous Athlon XP2100 processor, case and Windows ME system. I straight away hit trouble when trying to run Grand Prix 4 which was very hesitant and jerky - virtually unplayable. I had similar problems with Colin McRae Rally 2 which is hardly a demanding game. This would run OK for about 20 minutes and then start the hesitation, which I can best describe as a missing motorcycle engine.
The computer has been back to the manufacturer - a local company - several times and they have exchanged power supplies, memory cards, motherboards, graphics cards and processors without success. I fact, they have changed just about every component in the PC. I don't know how many times I've defragged and reinstalled the games.
Recently, they spoke yet again to Gigabyte, who suggested that it could be the OS at fault and to try XP. I did so and, lo and behold, the problems vanished completely. Everything now ran smoothly as it should.
As it was now apparently a software problem, I thought I'd try a few things myself, such as reformatting the hard drive and re-installing ME clean with just GP4 - no joy, it was even worse. I even tried another borrowed copy of ME but no difference. I've tried setting the virtually memory, making a vcache and other Windows tuning dodges, all to no avail.
My computer supplier says that ME is really rubbish and XP is the only answer but I am loth to accept that an operating system that has been used by millions for years is incapable of running simple games. In any case, for all other applications, I like ME.
I've never seen similar problems listed in PCW, so is this really a case of a bad operating system or are there other possible hardware/software faults that could cause this problem?
David Daniels
June 3, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
PCW and Linux
I purchased a copy of your magazine to read while on holiday. I was disappointed to see that you had published a flame from an anti-Windows user. I am not sure what your point is, but surely you are not trying to say that more idiots run Linux than run Windows? I suggest everyone ignores them and hopes they go away.
Anyway I thought I would write in to let you know what I would like from the magazine, which would make me buy it more.
Hardware reviews should give the state of the drivers in Linux - none, Binary only, or open source. Also an indication of whether the hardware is crippled by running an open source driver, and how open the specifications are if the open source driver does not exist or is incomplete.
I suspect with some thought some visual icons could be developed so this does not take up much space in the mag. This is very important for anyone who uses Linux at all on their PC, or even for someone who thinks they may want to use it in the future.
Your Hands on pages, while there is some Linux stuff, mainly focus on proprietary software. I suspect there may be demand for some on free software, particularly for people like me who want to dabble but do not want to pay for full versions. I realise you sometimes have beta versions on your cover disc, but they still have limited appeal for people who run another operating system to the Microsoft ones.
I am trying to think why I like Linux. I suppose I am the sort of person who likes trying out new (free) programs, and there are more for Linux than Windows, and they are of a better quality. When I was first exposed to computers they were Unix workstations. Linux is an updated version of those.
Windows seems very limited in comparison. I cant believe that XP comes without a programming language.
The reason my wife switched to Linux is far simpler. Her XP box kept telling her that she was not connected to the internet while she was trying to read webmail. She would have believed it if she was not listening to BBC radio over the computer at the same time. Clearly the problem was with the OS, but neither of us had any idea of how to start troubleshooting it.
Installing Linux (Ubuntu if you are interested) was a far easier option, and it does everything she wants. (Email, web browsing, BBC Radio, and games)
Paul Houghton
May 10, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Windows XP OEM and the hidden recovery partition
Many thanks for the Windows articles in the April, May and June issues; namely Top 100 Freeware Programmes, 110 Windows Utilites and Windows Secrets respectively.
Could you sometimes nod in the direction of those, like me, who have been misguided enough to buy a WinXP computer from a 'big name builder' who installs an OEM version of the OS and sends it out with only a hidden 'recovery partition' and a recovery disc?
My recovery disc is shrink wrapped and bears the message that it must only be used after obtaining clearance from the system builder - presumably ignoring this instruction invalidates the warranty? They have also passworded the hidden Administrator account!
The difficulty this makes can be illustrated with trying to load ntbackup into XP Home; one does not have a WinXP disc from which to pull it. Why should we pay twice for the OS by having to buying a retail version?
Making an up to date backup of the OS for recovery purposes is clearly better than having to use a seriously compromised version which then requires you to spend ages downloading all the patches issued in the meantime and so on.
Please can you add to the pressure on system builders (and Microsoft) to only preload full versions of the OS intended for private use as against business customers and in all cases to include the disc.
Chis Cox
May 6, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Linux wins over 64-bit Windows
I share Mr Stewart's disappointment over the time it is taking for Microsoft to roll out its 64bit OS (PCW, June).
When I went 64bit I just had to install something that would take advantage of my new hardware. First I tried Microsoft time limited edition of XP64, the whole thing was a shambles the biggest problem being the lack of drivers both inbuilt and supplied by manufacturer.
I have always had my eye on the Linux scene and thought it was a prime opportunity to give it a go. I downloaded a 64bit distribution, burnt it too my DVD and booted my machine. Throughout the whole installation it didn't ask me for a single driver, furthermore it recognised my USB phone and TV card and installed the drivers for both of them. It even had Skype as a preinstalled program!
Windows still says it cant recognise my SATA drive! Need I say more
Charles Gargen
April 25, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Penguinspeak
Having read the letter in last month's PCW (May 2005) which was an angry rant against Windows, I'd like to thank you for printing it, because it raises awareness of the kind of attitude which many Linux users have. It's an attitude I see a lot in my work as a Unix/Linux systems administrator. In my opinion, to simply put down and bad mouth the competition is not at all constructive.
If Linux is to become more popular, which I feel it deserves, then proponents such as the beligerant writer you published need to be more positive in their communications if they are to encourage its use. Hating Microsoft is not a good reason and will not increase the user base of Linux because people like to be encouraged rather than discouraged. It is not really fair to claim Linux is better without pointing out where it's better and why people might find it superior to Windows.
As I see it, Windows has much to recommend it, such as its mature user interface which, as a result of its ease of use and good, intuitive design, has allowed many millions of people to make use of computers where they would otherwise find them too daunting. Linux has come a long way in the past few years in terms of ease of use for less technical persons, and though it may not be as slick as the Windows interface, the underlying stability and security of the Unix-like operating system is a major point in its favour.
There is much more to recommend both Linux and Windows, plenty of material for healthy debate! I would recommend those Linux advocates who take an aggressive and resentful stance against Microsoft take a step back and look at how they can positively raise people's consciousness about alternative choices in computing.
Mark Ellerby
March 24, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
XP Services and security
I was very interested to read the article in the Hands On section about XP Services (in the April 2005 issue).
The security aspects of keeping certain services running cannot be overstressed. Few people realise that even with a firewall, Netbios and the SMB are an open path into their computer.
I have found the web site run by Black Viper at www.blkviper.com/ to be extremely useful in unravelling the mysteries of XP Services. Particularly helpful is the Windows XP Service configuations.
Here's to the next 27 years, keep up the good work.
John M Wilde
March 10, 2005 in Operating Systems | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
