Re: Experience the New Windows

[Raju Mathur <raju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

While I agree with most of what you say, I'd beg to bring up my own
situation about an year ago (i.e. before I switched to my hot
550MHz/128MB/512KB cache box).

What I had at home was a 486/66 with 24MB of RAM (it came with 8MB, i
splurged Rs. 3200, bought another 16MB and was broke for a month).
That box was running both Winduhs95 and Linux.

Winduhs used to load up with Office97 et al and give fairly decent
performance.  I could actually use it and not have to wait for windows
to redraw, etc.

Linux with KDE was a PITA to use.  KDE was terribly slow, but I used
it anyway (being a Linux bigot).  The crunch, however, used to come
when I had to read MS Office documents -- StarOffice would take about
17 years to load up and another 25 or so to open any document and
display it (making a total of... go figure).

So Linux isn't necessarily faster or more efficient than Winduhs,
especially in the desktop space.  On the new box, Winduhs and Office97
still load up much faster than Enlightenment and SO.  Of course, I
could use a lower-end window manager, but I don't particularly like
twm :-) and we should be comparing apples to apples.

Regards,

-- Raju

>>>>> "Atul" == Atul Chitnis <achitnis@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    Atul> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
    >> The old "more bang for my buck" thing.  Given the same system
    >> spec, linux beats windows any day.  That's something a linux
    >> user can proudly proclaim, without being accused of
    >> exxageration.

    Atul> Linux does not necessarily have to run faster to to run
    Atul> better. But then "better" is a relative thing - to many
    Atul> people, "better" is interpreted as "more familiar", "more
    Atul> apps", "better games", "good telephony" and the usual
    Atul> arguments.

    Atul> Unfortunately, given the current state of people's view of
    Atul> things, "more bang for my buck" is another argument that
    Atul> won't hold water with the majority of home-PC owners. They
    Atul> are usually *not* techies, and continue to see Linux as a
    Atul> sort of "elitist or rebel" kind of thing that they are not
    Atul> necessarily interested in.

    Atul> In many ways, I think that much of the marketing for
    Atul> products like Windows XP is done by the Linux community
    Atul> itself - because when someone says "no, you can't do xyz
    Atul> under Linux *yet*, but if you could, you could do it
    Atul> better". This does not hold water with people who can do it
    Atul> *now* under Windows.

    Atul> It will take a lot more than blind Linux advocacy to get
    Atul> Linux to be a major player in the home PC market where
    Atul> people are running machines that are *fast*, even under
    Atul> Windows.

    Atul> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Mithun Bhattacharya wrote:

    >> I did say GnoRPM and dselect ??? I believe there are more
    >> graphical package managers but these two are widely used and
    >> they "are" actually pretty user friendly..

    Atul> They are closer to the Windows experience, yes. But again,
    Atul> this is not something that will decide things for people who
    Atul> are used to shoving in a CD, answering a few questions,
    Atul> watching the install, and being able to play the game a
    Atul> minute later.

    Atul> Don't misunderstand me - I am not trying to beat down on
    Atul> Linux. On the server front, Linux has Windows licked good
    Atul> and proper, and that battle is more or less over.

    Atul> Even on the office desktop, Linux now makes a lot of sense,
    Atul> and can be used as a straight replacement for Windows
    Atul> 98/NTWS/2000, with most app-requirements covered.

    Atul> But Linux does not currently have anything that would entice
    Atul> a non-techie Windows XP user at home. This is something that
    Atul> badly needs addressing, and *not* through _advocacy_.

    Atul> Atul
-- 
Raju Mathur          raju@xxxxxxxxxxxxx           http://kandalaya.org/