After a closer inspection of Ubtunu 9.04…..

I noticed a few things that still linger in Linux, Ubuntu included. This was supposed to be an updated review to an earlier post of Ubuntu, but I thought it’d be more helpful to explain what Ubuntu lacks, rather needs to actually compete for Windows or Mac users. Because as an O.S., it is fully capable. It has done everything I’ve asked of it, and have configured everything I’ve needed. Now that is said, I’ll explain what it needs to bring a 2009 experience to users.

First, is a need to automatically unmount USB thumbdrives. I mean, come on this went out with Windows 98/2000. I’ve, by accident yanked a thumbdrive out without unmounting just to find my data either not there or corrupted. This is quite simply unacceptable today.

Next, fancy mice and trackball configuration with several buttons. There needs to be a clear GUI based app for this. One that works with all programs. Again messing with config files is not what the average user needs to be doing.

Better hardware support, especially USB devices. I was unable to easily get a Canon USB scanner to work and a USB headset for Skype. This has got to work. Plug and Pray was so 1996.

Video drivers. I have a very decent Nvidia PCI Express video card with the Nvidia drivers installed. Guess what? Full screen Flash videos absolutely suck. Poor lip sync, dropped frames and more. Quicktimes, AVI, WMV fared a little better, though still not as good as my slower, Pentium 4 Windows XP machine (with built-in video) on the same network. Sad. I was able to get a little better performance by tweaking the Nvidia driver settings, but should a user really need to do that to watch videos today?

Several “annoyances” should also be included. The “Properties” option on a disk drive should give more info. I shouldn’t need to run a separate program (like gparted) to get basic info on a drive. Getting permissions to access files is also a headache, often requiring leaving the GUI and (gasp) going to the command line. Can’t a “Ran As User” be included in the right click menu? (like included with PcLinuxOS) Also the Standby &Hibernate functions are not quite up to snuff. If I forget to log off before a hibernate, then my wife will sometimes get a blank screen upon waking up the PC. If it does work “correctly” she is presented with my user and a password prompt. She needs to click on “switch user” to get back to the main GDM. Really? Can’t it just always return from hibernate into the GDM regardless weather I logged off before hibernate or just went right into hibernate? For a novice PC user, this is a little confusing.

These things combined somewhat ruin an otherwise great computer experience. Notice I say computer experience, and not a great Linux one. Because it shouldn’t matter. But the experience is what it is. And to compete, and attract users, you have to have the  features and simplicity everyday people now simply take for granted. Maybe on a future post I’ll talk about what Ubuntu does better than Windows. (even Windows 7)

This all said, I don’t want to sound 100% negative, because I personally like Ubuntu 9.04. I’m just trying to point out what it’s missing to be a real competitor. It’s just a little sad that’s so close to being an excellent O.S. Many things have been improved with the last few releases, especially with versions 7, 8 and 9. Multi-button mice can now be made to work with some prying in config files. The “Open With” option on the right-click menu now offers a list of installed programs, instead of a prompt of typing the the path and file location. Compiz-Fusion is a nice eye candy addition, though still needs better explanation of the features and better integration. You still have to get the Compiz configuration application manually.

I want to use Ubuntu 100% of the time. More importantly, I want to recommend it to friends and family without the fear of getting tech support calls frequently when they are at a command prompt or have choppy video on YouTube. I want Ubuntu to be competitive in 2009 and the future.

My take on the whole Microsoft/Apple ad campaign

Ok, by now everyone has seen the new Microsoft ads, basically nailing Apple on price. I’ve heard and read many things from both sides. The Microsoft supporters (of course) agreeing with the ads, and Apple supporters arguing that the computers are not apples to apples comparisons (no pun intended) and that the PC cost is not the real cost. The buyer must then add for spyware/virus protection, and MS Office.

The way I see it, both sides are right. But what amazes me is how much this has stirred up the Mac world. Ok, the ad’s are not 100% accurate. But the Mac vs PC ads that Apple has run for so long are? Windows PCs still crash regularly? Vista really sucks that bad? If Windows PCs are as “unfun” as Apple claims, then why are more (a whole lot more) games available for a PC then a MAC? Basically, the ads (for the most part) aren’t true, except for the virus attacks part. (although that has been blown way out of proportion) But for years that is ok? Why? Because picking on MS Windows is so popular that it could possibly become an Olympic event if so desired. But picking on Apple? Taboo. A major no no. I Mean come on. Macs ARE OVERPRICED! Just like Viruses are a problem for Windows machines. That’s the way it is for both sides. So Apple, take your criticism in these ads, because (like some of your ads about Windows’ problems with Viruses) it is at least partially true. It’s maybe just not as “fun” as picking on Windows machines, but still true. The fact that it is right on target could be why it has stirred up the Mac fan base so much. The argument that “you are paying for the quality of a Mac” only holds so much water.

And on the comparison of the machines, you can argue that they aren’t fair comparisons. But guess what? The average consumer does NOT care. It doesn’t matter if it has a 250GB hard drive vs a 320GB one. It doesn’t matter for the average consumer that one has an Intel T7500 CPU or a T9400. What people want is a PC (or especially a laptop) that does what they need to do. For most people, that’s access the Internet, watch online videos, and run an office suite. They will all do those tasks just fine. Besides unlike the old days of CPU ratings (ex: a 66mhz Pentium vs a 266 mhz Pentium) most people don’t know why the higher number CPU is faster, it just is. But by how much? Most consumers don’t know, and (big surprise) don’t really care. (This is partially Intel’s own fault, with the new labeling scheme) For me, the $1800 Mac should be a whole lot better than the $529 Dell. Over 3.5X better. You know what? It’s not. It may be a better experience, but not 3.5X better.

As as the “total cost” argument goes, it also mostly false. Macs require MS Office also. It’s not free. But OpenOffice is free. And that allows accessing MS Word/Excel documents. And you don’t need to spend any extra money for an anti-virus program. Several very good ones are available for free for Windows. So that’s another point that is “not true”.

So what “is true”:

Macs ARE WAY too expensive. I’d love to see a $750 Mac laptop. Or the Mac Mini go for $399. But that’s not going to happen. Why? Because Apple has always marketed Macs to be to “higher end” computer. But now that Macs are Intel based with identical CPUs and idential video cards, it’s easier than ever to see how badly Apple is gouging the public. The magic show is all about over for Apple I’m afraid.

PCs ARE prone to getting viruses. Plain & simply. So use a FREE anti-virus/spyware program.
Macs are fun to use. But PCs have the ability to be way more fun.

Vista does stink. Not totally unusable as some have indicated, but not really a great experience. Guess what? You can still get a PC with XP.
No, the Mac software library it no where near as deep as Windows. In some cases Linux software availability is better than Macs.

Both these companies have to realize that PCs are becoming an appliance, more so every day. Consumers want what works for as little cost as possible.

Is anyone in the market for a $200 toaster? Didn’t think so.

Ubuntu 9.04 Intro

Have just upgraded my AMD system to Ubuntu 9.04. (from 8.10)

This is a PC that has gone from an experiment with Linux (when I installed 7.04 on it a while back), to the main computer both the wife and I use for daily tasks.

So far, everything seems to work fine. Boot times are faster, and overall system feels smoother. I will get back with a review shortly, after I play with it a bit.

Vista vs XP. Which To Choose?

(This is a reprint from an older blog, April 2008)
For my first post, I’ll talk about Microsoft Vista. To get it or not get it? There has been a real defiance by the Windows community over this, outright refusing to purchase new PCs with Vista installed, forcing PC manufacturers to continue to sell and promote Windows XP. And as a matter of fact the yare outselling Vista PCs right now by a wide margin. Why is that?

Opinions due vary, however I believe Operating Systems just aren’t as unreliable as they used to be. For example, Win 3.1 crashed and froze up daily, needed frequent reboots and just simply had it’s share of problems. Enter Windows 95. A great new O.S. (operating system) that promised a more stable environment and better support for your hardware. The public ate it up. Granted it wasn’t all it was supposed to be, that came later, as Windows 98. But as good as it was, it still relied too heavily on the old DOS operation system. Gamers (and techs, like me working on gamers systems) had a field day. So enters Windows XP, built on the Windows 2000 (NT) kernel, opposed to DOS. XP offered excellent stability, good backups, great video support for gamers and excellent support for all kinds of hardware. Not to mention true plug & play with USB devices. XP worked for everyone, with the exception of security holes, that allowed virus programmers access into the OS. This was no different then past Windows versions, just more apparent due to the popularity of broadband internet access – making it easier for viruses to be download to your system, quickly. Then enters Vista.

First, was the confusion factor of so many versions. Four in total. Home Basic, Home Premium, Vista Business and Vista Ultimate. If you were buying a new PC, then it probably either came with Home Basic or Premium. If you wanted to upgrade your current PC, then you had decisions to make, based on what you used your PC for. Which brings me to Vista’s problem #2. Price. $100 for basic, $150 for Premium, $200 for Business and $260 for Ultimate. $260 for an Operating System? Sure it had many features, but as OS’s have progressed over the years, we, as users have come to expect this. Stability has improved, but proportionately not as much as in previous versions of Windows. And then there’s the “Aero” graphics. Basically, Aero allows all the fancy Window effects like, transparency, wiggle windows when moving, fancy minimizing and maximizing windows and more. The problem is that it takes so much computer power to run Aero smoothly, most people will be disappointed with the performance. A decent CPU is not only required, but so’s lots of memory (1Gig min, with a preference of 2Gig) also. And what’s wrong with the idea that you need almost as much memory as Vista is fully capable of addressing to run it at it’s best performance level, topping off at a whopping 4GB. (even though Vista can only actually address 3GB at a time, with a max of 4GB) And a decent video card is also preferred, ok, maybe a step up from a “decent” video card would be a good idea. All this is assuming that the “Aero” interface is enabled, with comes with all versions except the Basic version. Basic runs on the $399 PCs you see in the newspaper, but not that well.

As you can tell, I’m not too excited about Windows Vista, Though I’m not alone. AS I pointed out at the beginning of the article, so far, new PCs with XP pre-installed are outselling new Vista based PCs on a daily basis. Because of this, Microsoft has been forced to support XP longer than it had planned. As of late, XP will be supported until 2014, and be available for direct purchase until June 2009. (and could be longer) Microsoft has already stated that they will extend XP Home Basic for low-end PCs/Laptops. So I guess I have another year to try to like Vista a little better. Which by then, hopefully the average PC will be able to run it efficiently, so at least the hardware requirements hurdle will be overcome.

So in conclusion, I’d have to say that, if you plan on buying a decent PC in the near future, $1200 and up, then go for Vista. Just be sure to get the Premium or Ultimate version. In my opinion Vista Basic is not worth the time of day. If you plan on buying a lower end PC, say below $1000, then stick with XP. You’ll be much happier with a much snappier system, well supported for another 3-6 years. If you want to upgrade your current system to get the the new OS, I’d say save your pennies for a new PC, otherwise you will most certainly have a slower computer. You will need to buy more memory, and you will need a new video card. Not one for $39 either.

[Update April 2009]

I found this article I typed a year ago. Thought I’d repost it because I think some of the points I made a year ago are still valid. Though now it’s weather or not to wait for Windows 7, or get Vista, or try to get a new PC with XP, which can still be done at this time. It was because of this, that I decided to repost this article. I’ll be sure to update this topic shortly.

Greatings to all

This is the first post here. Hopefully a place for me to talk some about some of the technological wonders that make my world go around.