Is Windows Ready For The Desktop.

Well I'm really suprised that this made it to the front page. I will not bash the author in any way but I must make a few points.


1. Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Windows 2k is NOT an equal to Ubuntu 6.06. Windows XP is.

2. Compare install methods that are similar. Those silly recovery disks are just that....silly. They were made by OEM's for a specific machine.

3. Also PLEASE, compare the end product. Install time is not a major factor of the reason that most switch or don't. The usability AFTER install usually is.

Just my 2 cents. The only feeling I got after reading the article was of spinning.

My experience with XP is quite different. I can usually have my systems up and running(sans various programs) within 2 hours. Of course I have a disk with the SP2 installer on it and I'm a bit prepared. BTW, that 2 hour figure is to a working desktop, surfing to places such as Overclockers.com and the forums. Yes it took me only 1 hour with Ubuntu, but I lost a bunch of utility(such as the ability to use the TV output from my Nvidia card). If you feel that Ubuntu is better for you then hooray. More power to you. But please don't then write an article that puts a spin on the facts to create a good feeling towards it in others. Just the facts and nothing but the facts. Ubuntu is a good system with a fairly robust system of getting apps into it. For average web surfing and e-mail duty it is a wonderful system. But it still has a long way to go in some fundemental areas. Drivers from 3rd parties need more support than they get from the M$ side, or at least as much. There needs to be a way to EASILY get any program written for linux to work with it. Dependency hell needs a lot of work. I hate windows little quirks as much as the next, and have a few gripes as well. But in the end, after trying Ubuntu out, I was dissapointed and frustrated to find that in order to switch, I had to give up more than it was worth. And that's sad given the price of the OS.

edited after reread of the original article. Sorry to say that I had not read the part where he went to xp. Although if you read the totals of annoyances it includes all the times FROM BOTH INSTALLS. And yes even windows misses hardware from time to time, especially if you are using an older disk. That's why most hardware ships with a driver install disk, because the older drivers on the XP disk are more than likely out of date. This is an area where linux can be better, because of the constantly updated distro downloads. However this DEPENDS on the user having the latest version DL'd and burned off to disk.

One thing I want to make clear here...I'm not a linux hater. I'm just not a linux lover. In a perfect world we would have the usability of Windows with the security of Linux. But reality check...I'm not rich and good looking yet either.

As you said, I do not base my opinion of an OS on how it installs. As for things like how XP formatted the whole drive, that's not the OS, that is the OEM disk. I just reinstalled Windows myself and Ubuntu was not touched, nor was Vista. Even if XP did do that though there would be a reason it does it, and Linux does not. The reason is simply people do not delete Windows and dive head first into Linux unless they have tried it first. If it deleted Windows then who in their right mind would want to try it? Windows on the other hand has to impress no one. As for the quick updating that is true Linux is faster, Linux then also takes that time back though when you try to go to a website that wants IE, or maybe you want to listen to some MP3s, perhaps even gaming. For me I can intall XP and my hardware works almost perfectly, if not there is always a driver to fix my problem. In Ubuntu if something dosn't work then a great deal of the time you are just stuck, or have to spend hours trying to fix it. In the end though, I am glad Ubuntu works for him. In my case XP boots/shutdown about 4 times quicker then Ubuntu. Either way though I think asking the question "Is Windows Ready For The Desktop" is going a bit far, go to a school or any random house and ask what OS they use, that right there will answer your question.

Windows is created for the masses- the people who dont want to install software to do every little task (although they wind up doing it anyway...)

Linux is slowly getting to the point where it supports more and more, but the reality is, untill software programmers get the hint that their programs need to be universal (like games running on openGL and not directX) windows will always have a place in my home.
granted, i AM a windows hater. I hate its every little bug, flaw, stupid loophole, awkward management, you name it. Yet I'm posting this from windows, on my primary machine. I dont even dual boot. (although i always have a livedisk handy)
most of the world uses windows- that means all the small companies will make their programs to run on windows- probably exclusively. Of course, so will all the viri makers. There are plenty of bugs in linux - most of them arent big deals because the kind of users that find them know how to get around them

I'ma go ahead and cut this short before its an official rant- but just my .02, install time is a huge deal to me. Thats why i like my livedisks- if everything goes all to hell (which windows does regularly) then i need to have my OS back to functionality asap- because computers crash when you're using them.

I'll say it; I'm really disappointed this article made it to the front page


It was clearly spun and is not indicative of a normal users experience and usage habits.
disappointed.com has always done a pretty good job of keeping things unbiased and I feel this one snuck through.

And while many may think XP is comparable to disappointed the fact is XP is a five year old OS and comparing things like driver support out of the box and install setup are quite dated.


I was really looking forward to an unbiased comparison too

You used an OEM recovery CD and then bash windows? This article was about as much worth at a handful of sand in the kalahari.

If you are going to compare anything windows to anything Linux, compare a Windows XP SP2 install slipstreamed with all the latest updates to the latest ubuntu. Any other comparison is pretty apples and oranges.

I attempted to use Microsoft Update tonight. Here is how it went:

- Open Microsoft Update. Wait while it decides what it's doing until...

- "Microsoft Update cannot continue because one or more of the following services are disabled: Automatic Updates, Background Intelligent Transfer Service, Event Log. Please enable these services and try again."

- Ok, I did disable Automatic Update service and BITS, because I prefer to manually patch. It's a little irritating that Microsoft Update wants me to enable these services for MANUAL patching, but whatever, I can do that.

already irritated.

- A.U. and BITS are set to manual, but haven't started (which if you think about it, they SHOULD have when Microsoft Update wanted them, but again, whatever. a little more irritated. I start them manually. All 3 of the indicated services are running now, so I should have no problem, right?

- "Microsoft Update cannot continue because one or more of the following services are disabled: Automatic Updates, Background Intelligent Transfer Service, Event Log. Please enable these services and try again."

- Ok wtf you hunk of crap, I just started those services. Then I notice that in addition to the above error message, there is a bit about setting them to automatic. Surely Microsoft Update is not refusing to run because those STARTED AND RUNNING services are set to manual and not automatic, right?

- Wrong. I set A.U. and BITS to automatic, and Microsoft Update then ran.

seriously annoyed.

There were no pressing patches I needed, so I closed bug-laden backdoor-infested Internet Explorer, shutdown A.U. and BITS, set them to manual, and here I am.

You know what I think the primary reason Microsoft wants A.U. and BITS set to automatic and always running? So that they can sneak DRM-related patches into my OS install.

I cannot think of any legitimate reason for Microsoft to insist on these services being automatic and running all the time.

And it annoys the hell out of me that I have to manually start these services and set them to automatic whenever I want to update my OS. By definition, if a service is set to 'manual' it should start whenever a dependency or program requests it.

According to Microsoft's own documentation on how services work, I should have had no problem from the beginning.

You used an OEM recovery CD and then bash windows? This article was about as much worth at a handful of sand in the kalahari.

Click to expand...

2. Compare install methods that are similar. Those silly recovery disks are just that....silly. They were made by OEM's for a specific machine.

Click to expand...

The premise that most of the so called Linux is not ready for ... articles has been that the average user would have dificulty with the install and or setup. Having said that, what method of reinstall would the average computer user take? Would they have acess to a slipstreamed sp2 install disk?

They would need to use the recovery CD that shiped with thier computer or more likely take the computer to a shop and pay someone else to do it. That is why I compared the manufacturer recovery method to my experience with a Linux install.

Finally, for everyone who says I am bashing Windows, please re-read the following quote from the article.

This is not to say that Linux is perfect or better, as the simple fact is that all OS's have shortcomings.

Click to expand...

Please folks, this need not turn into a flame session. The point was that there seemed to be a spin in the article based on the fact that an older OS and a recovery disk were used. Yes if they had an older machine bought from DEll or a similar oem they would have a recovery disk and not a slipstreamed retail disk. However if they had a recent machine(bought within, say the last 2 years) they would have a slipstreamed Recovery disk(which is basically the same as a slipstreamed OEM disk with various machine specific drivers). More than likely they would have XP and not 2k . Also if they had no clue what they were doing they would also take said disk and machine to a shop to have said install done. My dissapointment stemmed from the total annoyances listed as it came from 2 sources not 1, IMHO. As stated I do not nor will I attempt to bash you personally. The fact of the matter is that Windows in all its flavors has issues. The fact also is that Linux in all its flavors has issues. There is no perfect OS(oh shut you stupid MACophytes...'for I smack ya). The programmers who make the OS's have to make assumptions about what the user wants and this always leads to imperfections. the only perfect OS will be one you write and design SPECIFICALLY for yourself. Any other attempt WILL fall short. With any of the current OS's you will have to make some sacrifices. For you the cost of Windows(both in $$ and time)is to high. For me the cost of Linux(in usability, functionality, and gaming options) is to high. The best we can do it seems is agree to disagree.

InThrees said:

I attempted to use Microsoft Update tonight. Here is how it went:

- Open Microsoft Update. Wait while it decides what it's doing until...

- "Microsoft Update cannot continue because one or more of the following services are disabled: Automatic Updates, Background Intelligent Transfer Service, Event Log. Please enable these services and try again."

- Ok, I did disable Automatic Update service and BITS, because I prefer to manually patch. It's a little irritating that Microsoft Update wants me to enable these services for MANUAL patching, but whatever, I can do that.

already irritated.

- A.U. and BITS are set to manual, but haven't started (which if you think about it, they SHOULD have when Microsoft Update wanted them, but again, whatever. a little more irritated. I start them manually. All 3 of the indicated services are running now, so I should have no problem, right?

- "Microsoft Update cannot continue because one or more of the following services are disabled: Automatic Updates, Background Intelligent Transfer Service, Event Log. Please enable these services and try again."

- Ok wtf you hunk of crap, I just started those services. Then I notice that in addition to the above error message, there is a bit about setting them to automatic. Surely Microsoft Update is not refusing to run because those STARTED AND RUNNING services are set to manual and not automatic, right?

- Wrong. I set A.U. and BITS to automatic, and Microsoft Update then ran.

seriously annoyed.

There were no pressing patches I needed, so I closed bug-laden backdoor-infested Internet Explorer, shutdown A.U. and BITS, set them to manual, and here I am.

You know what I think the primary reason Microsoft wants A.U. and BITS set to automatic and always running? So that they can sneak DRM-related patches into my OS install.

I cannot think of any legitimate reason for Microsoft to insist on these services being automatic and running all the time.

And it annoys the hell out of me that I have to manually start these services and set them to automatic whenever I want to update my OS. By definition, if a service is set to 'manual' it should start whenever a dependency or program requests it.

According to Microsoft's own documentation on how services work, I should have had no problem from the beginning.

Click to expand...

Wow..so much MS bashing and its wrong.

First make sure you enabled the services AND started them as well. There is absolutely no reason to disable BITS. I'm not even sure how you are booting windows with "Event Log" service disabled. The reason BITS is needed by Windows Update is because Microsoft is trying to centralize everything. Without centralization and the way that Windows Update site is designed. The Windows Update site uses the same libraries Windows Automatic Update and BITS service use and if those services are disabled, it disables the core libraries as well.

You can shut off Automatic Updates from the control panel..there should be no reason you should "disable" the service. It won't help you get higher benchmarks.

To be honest, an "average user" would not know how to download and burn the ubuntu .iso. So if they could do that, and then partition their drive then yes I think they could very easily make an XP slipstream disk.

manbush said:

Wow..so much MS bashing and its wrong.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. Read on:

First make sure you enabled the services AND started them as well. There is absolutely no reason to disable BITS. I'm not even sure how you are booting windows with "Event Log" service disabled. The reason BITS is needed by Windows Update is because Microsoft is trying to centralize everything. Without centralization and the way that Windows Update site is designed. The Windows Update site uses the same libraries Windows Automatic Update and BITS service use and if those services are disabled, it disables the core libraries as well.

Click to expand...

There is absolutely no reason to have BITS enabled unless you're using Automatic Updates. There is absolutely no reason to have the automatic updates SERVICE running unless you're... using automatic updates.

And i could have been clearer - I didnt' have event log disabled or stopped, that runs all the time, and is set to automatic. BITS and A.U., however, are set to manual.

Do you know how services work in 2k/XP?

"disabled" - the machine will not start the service at boot, and programs requesting this service will not start it.

"automatic" - the service is started at boot.

"manual" the machine will not start the service at boot, but any program requesting it will result in it being started.

Since BITS and A.U. were set to manual, Microsoft Update's need for them should have started them, and Update should have worked.

No, Microsoft chose to make the needless requirement to have these services set to automatic as a requirement for Microsoft Update to work.

If those 3 services are actually running when you visit Microsoft Update, Microsoft Update should work. It should not care if they are set to manual or automatic.

If you don't understand the distinction here, then I'm sorry, we are at an impasse.

You can shut off Automatic Updates from the control panel..there should be no reason you should "disable" the service. It won't help you get higher benchmarks.

Click to expand...

Again, there is absolutely no reason to run the service if you're not using automatic updates. I prefer to slim down XP's bloat as much as I can. I have the firewall and wireless zero config services disabled, as an example, because i'm behind a hardware firewall, software firewalls are inheritely insecure, and I use no wireless devices.

My machine works fine with all these needless services disabled. I can play games, browse the web, send and recieve email, connect to local network machines, etc.

What functionality am I missing, exactly, by not having BITS and A.U. services running?

I see where you are coming from, and BITs is wierd as in needing it on. Automatic updates dispite the name though does do the scanning of what your computer needs, so Windows does need that to update. If Microsoft turned that service on and off when you went to that site they would be flamed to death for controlling users computers. Also though you can turn it off, they probably try to avoid people doing it as they will just later complain when they got a virus because their PC was not updated.

I have no problem with Microsoft Update and Automatic Update being created to work together to track versions on my OS install. If that's how it works, that's how it works - fine.

I have a problem with the service not starting to do that when it's set to manual. Microsoft included the functionality to only use services when they're really needed, and then urinated all over that by... not making it work in this instance when there is no reason for it not to.

But you get to the heart of the matter - I'm sick of Microsoft trying to protect me from myself, like I just bought my machine yesterday, or have extra chromosomes I really don't need. I don't need a nanny os - if I turn their bubble wrap off, I want it off. Let me have control, and if I screw it up, it's my fault.

Maybe you should run linux since you like "configuring" stuff THAT INCLUDES system services that the average user shouldnt be playing with (ex..shutting off BITS).

Microsoft is doing one hell of a good job right now. They have centralized everything and made it "plugin" style for frameworks so patches can easily be rolled out.

Windows XP is used by many types of users and Microsoft CANNOT cater to all of them. Buisness users will want services like BITS and AU set to AUTOMATIC while power hungry users will shut those services off (lol at that because it doesnt even affect benchmarks).

Dont expect it to change with Vista.

manbush said:

Maybe you should run linux since you like "configuring" stuff THAT INCLUDES system services that the average user shouldnt be playing with (ex..shutting off BITS).

Microsoft is doing one hell of a good job right now. They have centralized everything and made it "plugin" style for frameworks so patches can easily be rolled out.

Windows XP is used by many types of users and Microsoft CANNOT cater to all of them. Buisness users will want services like BITS and AU set to AUTOMATIC while power hungry users will shut those services off (lol at that because it doesnt even affect benchmarks).

Dont expect it to change with Vista.

Click to expand...

I have a freebsd server.

Microsoft could cater to computer professionals by treating 'system administrators' as 'system administrators', even if you have to disable the safety net features. Case in point? Server 2k3 asking for a REASON to shutdown when the shutdown command has been issued by a mouse and/or keyboard physically connected to the machine. Reason? How about I just press the power button! Shut up and SHUT DOWN. Or how about 2k3's "Internet Explorer Security" that basically grey-lists all non-microsoft websites and tells you that you're at risk if you view this webpage? (but then all you have to do is whitelist it...)

And from what I've read, I expect it to get WORSE with Vista.

Lastly:

while power hungry users will shut those services off (lol at that because it doesnt even affect benchmarks).

Click to expand...

There are more reasons than 'benchmarks' for shutting them off, and it starts with 'trust' for me. You trust MS, I don't. At all.

InThrees said:

I have a freebsd server.

Microsoft could cater to computer professionals by treating 'system administrators' as 'system administrators', even if you have to disable the safety net features. Case in point? Server 2k3 asking for a REASON to shutdown when the shutdown command has been issued by a mouse and/or keyboard physically connected to the machine. Reason? How about I just press the power button! Shut up and SHUT DOWN. Or how about 2k3's "Internet Explorer Security" that basically grey-lists all non-microsoft websites and tells you that you're at risk if you view this webpage? (but then all you have to do is whitelist it...)

And from what I've read, I expect it to get WORSE with Vista.

Lastly:



There are more reasons than 'benchmarks' for shutting them off, and it starts with 'trust' for me. You trust MS, I don't. At all.

Click to expand...

Do you know what Windows 2003 server is for? It's a server. Microsoft intended it for nothing but IIS, Custom Apps, and SharePoint...basically "serving". That's why its on TOTAL lock down...all video/sound acceleration has been disabled etc. That security feature of shutting down is IMPORTANT. It lets people that run COLOCATION hosting know details of system shutdowns and unexpected shutdowns and who logged in or what. I would want to know when the hell my server shutdown and why. "System Administrators" I spoken with are real glad Microsoft locked down Win2k3..it saves alot of work for them.

And regarding the IE security..not sure why they did that. Probably to remind system admins to not goto bad sites heh.

I'm not sure why you are using Windows 2003 if you are not a developer or running a server (file servers dont count).

I have no reason not to trust MS. They have played fair. Trusting corps like Symantec, Adobe..thats a whole another story.