Biased BBC review.

rich_c · 10-25-2009, 10:26 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...th_ubuntu.html

The bit about installing Wine to use Spotify being too much bother sums up the whole article for me. He couldn't be bothered to do a fair, thorough review.

What's even better is on the Technology page, the link is called '24 hours with Ubuntu' but it's just above 'A week with Windows 7'...

XavierP · 10-25-2009, 12:41 PM

Unfortunately, his experience and opinion is likely to be the average user's opinion too. And he's right, installing Wine to run Spotify (or anything really) is a lot of hassle. Compare the experiences:
Windows: download Spotify installer and install it
Ubuntu: download Wine and install it, download Spotify and install it - and hope it works. This is not the fault of Linux or Ubuntu, but users will deem it to be. What Canonical now need to do is to start hitting up some software houses and pushing for Linux versions.

sycamorex · 10-25-2009, 01:15 PM

Such not necessarily true opinions that (unlike with linux) in windows everything works out of the box, etc. stem from the fact that people buying a computer have windows pre-installed/pre-configured and ready to go. They don't have to install drivers, etc.

However, from the point of view of average computer users (ie. most computer users), installing wine and then spotify can be slightly too much. Recently I was asked to help my colleague install itunes on XP.

When I read such reviews, initially I always think they are very unfair. But the truth is that, as XavierP pointed out, it would probably be the average user's opinion too. From the point of view of IT-minded people the author of the review misses the point, but then again, when it comes to an average lazy computer user, he's dead right.

There's also Windows 7 review on the Guardian website, if someone is interested.

I like the bit about Windows 7 taking 'personalisation to extremes', LOL

H_TeXMeX_H · 10-25-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sycamorex

There's also Windows 7 review on the Guardian website, if someone is interested.

I like the bit about Windows 7 taking 'personalisation to extremes', LOL

Wow, why did you pick that one, just because it's the most ridiculous of them all ?

Quote:

Windows 7 is vastly more secure than XP

http://darkreading.com/vulnerability...leID=220900244

Quote:

most of Vista's annoyances have either been removed, or (mostly) can be changed so the system works the way you like. It takes personalisation to extremes.

that sums up the extreme personalization ... you can mostly turn off most of the annoyances ... EXTREME dude !!!

Quote:

Microsoft has analysed the data from millions of user computing sessions to find out exactly what people do with their computers, then attacked the "pain points" to make Windows 7 quicker and smoother

hmmm ... I imagine they did, they snooped on them as much as possible, and even even with all this data, I bet they will fail miserably at making anything that doesn't suck.

Quote:

Today, the more important security changes are in the Internet Explorer 8 browser which, uniquely, defends against cross-site scripting.

Unique ? But what about NoScript, which I believe has supported XSS blocking for quite some time. No, not really, M$ should patent it.

Quote:

Where Vista really needed 2GB of memory, Windows 7 will run quite happily in 1GB on a slow dual-core Intel processor, though I'd still recommend 2GB or, for preference, 4GB with the speedy 64-bit version of Windows 7.

mmmmhhhhhmmmmmm .... I think I understand what he's trying to say ... memory hog.

Quote:

The reduced footprint and some optimisation means Windows 7 sleeps and wakes up faster (though it's still not in the same class as Mac OS X).

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10370369-56.html

Quote:

The catch is that upgrading a PC running Windows XP requires a clean installation of Windows 7: you can't do an in-place upgrade. This has been a source of complaints, because it means reinstalling all your applications as well.

However, we've known for a dozen years that a clean installation of Windows usually works better, and geeks have generally recommended it.

Indeed, people used to reinstall Windows 95, 98 or Me just to clean up their systems, so it's silly to get hysterical about it now.

Yeah, it's just silly, getting hysterical for having to reinstall Window$ just to keep it alive and working at a minimal level. Silly little people, stop acting hysterical.

Quote:

Windows 7 is a long way from being perfect, and it's not an essential upgrade if you're happy with XP. But nor is there a real reason to avoid it. Windows 7 is simply the best version of Windows you can get.

This is the best of the best, the best you can get. So, go get it.

Anyway, it's quite clear that Window$ 7 is s**t, IMO.

sycamorex · 10-25-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Wow, why did you pick that one, just because it's the most ridiculous of them all ?

I just liked the expression 'personalisation to extremes' (particularly 'extremes') being used referring to this product. I had a dubious pleasure to test Win7 on my VirtualBox as I couldn't get Mathcad running through wine.

Another thing worth pointing out is the title: like Vista, but good.
He admits that Vista was bad. However, If Vista was really bad, how is it possible for W7 to be good if it's 'like Vista'?

Nevermind.

rich_c · 10-31-2009, 04:51 AM

LinuxQuestions has had a couple of mentions in the comments now, one by me...

XavierP · 10-31-2009, 09:33 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8326264.stm - story on the release of Karmic. Much better