Comments on: Ubuntu 9.04 as slick as Windows 7, Mac OS X

Designers of the "Jaunty Jackalope" distribution, which has formally hit the streets, have polished the hell out of its user interface since the last release in October.

[ThatGuy2-1]

I installed Ubuntu 8.10 on my laptop and LOVE IT! Simple and pretty fast. Can't wait to try out this itteration

[Seaspray0]

The faster it runs, the faster I lose money playing blackjack. But that's my problem. Congrats to the ubuntu programmers on the improvements.

[obvio-capitao]

Windows 7 on October 23 -- what that means for Open Source
According to El Reg,

"Acer, the world's joint second largest manufacturer of PCs, has reportedly given October 23 as the date when Microsoft's successor to Windows Vista will become available."

If that date is confirmed, it would be very nice if Canonical could announce a new Ubuntu release on the exact same day.

The reason is simple:

All the news and articles that would talk about Windows 7 will start to mention the free, open source alternative. David vs. Goliath, what a story! Ubuntu 9.10 will surf on Windows 7 waves.

What does that mean to Open Source?

http://capitao-obvio.blogspot.com/2009/05/windows-7-on-october-23-what-that-means.html

[AndreyEliseev]

I have a lot of senior friends who ask me for technical support, and it was always a big trouble for me because of viruses, so I started to install Ubuntu to them couple of years ago, just because it creates less hassle for me, most of my friends are not aware about operating system at all, so they just say to me that your program has VERY FAST INTERNET!!! My congratulations to Ubuntu team!!!!!!!

It makes me feel so good, when I work with it! It is so nice to have so good UI and UNIX core inside!

[kcotham]

I downloaded and installed 9.04 early this morning. It's definitely faster than it used to be, but to say it's just as slick and beautiful as Mac OS X is a bit of an overstatement

[Renegade Knight]

Since I used Ubuntu Linux before OS X, the first thing I notied about OS X was how much it reminded me of Linux

[perontopsp]

Ubuntu is as beautiful as you want to make it. And their "slick-ness" is identical. So not one thing was an overstatement.

Ubuntu > OS X 10.5 = Windows 7 > Windows Xp > Windows Vista > Windows ME

[dynesh]

windows xp greater than Vista? You must have tried Vista the first week and formed your opinion. I could never go back to XP.

[CornerStone__]

I agree with you apple is "slicker", but they use pretty much the same x.org ui. apple has been using x11 and other openplatforms for a while. The Linux ui does have the ability to do amazing things, like my fav burst windows into flames :) I think apple wins b/c their systems themselves are pretty, ubuntu is usually run on old spare lap/desktops, which are ugly, giving the overall look ugly, + the brown could use an update & so could their artwork. But linux is Free in every sense and mac is not in every sense, so go ubuntu.

[zyxxy]

CornerStone, Apple does not use X11. You can get MacOS to run X11 as a service, but the native video frame is not X11 based.

Dynesh, I agree. Recently bought Vista (home premium 64) and still running XP Pro. I'll take Vista over XP. So far, it is more stable. No weird 'explorer' lockup. Better use of multi-core. yes, XP is better on weak hardware. Oh well, Vista makes better use of strong hardware. I am looking forward to '7'.

I have run Ubuntu in the past, but recently moved to OpenSuse 11.1. I may give 9.04 a shot. Previously it gave me to much trouble loading proprietary parts, like Flash. On OpenSuse, that just worked.

[elenothar]

Everything about this is an overstatement. GNOME is still ugly compared to MacOS. And Windows7 is just a really bad rip of KDE.

[amigosito]

"Overstatement" is an understatement. What kind of crack are you smoking, Renai? I like Ubuntu--a lot--but it is definitely two generations behind Mac OS X in most areas. Windows 7 looks purdy but until it's actually released, I think it's a bit ridiculous to make comparisons. I personally like Stacks and nothing touches Cover Flow. But I'll give you this--Linux has had a Spaces-like feature for years. In fact the Mac implementation is probably a BSD port.

[DrtyDogg]

@amigo: Don't forget that Windows XP had a virtual desktop manager for years too.

[maverick_nick]

I don't think that it's fair to compare Windows 7 and Mac OS X to the Ubuntu's default UI. The cool thing about Linux operating systems in general is the ability to easily transform them into something unique and beautiful. I admit that I do like OS X and I've made my Ubuntu look exactly like Mac OS X, and a novice user wouldn't be able to tell the difference. However, things like Compiz-fusion blows every other OS out of the water.

[ithomas94]

Agreed with Nick; unless you realize Linux's potential to change into anything you want it to be, it's simply ridiculous to compare the default GNOME theme to Windows 7 or Leopard.
Take a look at websites like GNOMElook; thousands upon thousands of different themes for GNOME and others.
For all those who say GNOME is ugly, I doubt you've actually taken the time to consider the amount of changes you can make to the desktop.
With Linux, it's ENCOURAGED that everything and anything should be changed the way you want it.

[s_cozart]

Started my upgrade from 8.10 yesterday as soon as I could. The small changes in speed and all-around smoothness of the look and feel are definitely noticeable everywhere, even though I thought things were pretty good already in the last release.

[jimothyGator]

Concerning Stacks in Leopard: 10.5.2, released in February 2008, restored the pre-Leopard way of displaying folder contents in the Dock.

[thedrunkard]

I've been playing with the Netbook Remix version on a Lenovo S10, and despite the lack of visual enhancements now possible with Compiz, it looks great and works with all of the hardware. Installing it was easy, alongside Windows XP SP3 that came pre-installed. So far, I've only come across one window in Ubuntu that was not able to fit on the screen, putting the OK/CANCEL buttons out of reach, but on the whole, the interface is very intuitive and makes Windows and OSX look obtuse.

[perontopsp]

Hey, how did you get the ubuntu netbook remix on a S10? I thought it was exclusive to dell. I would love to try it on my Samsung NC 10! So could you please tell me how you got it? Please?

[vandalet]

They hooked us up and put it on the official download page. http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download-netbook

[thedrunkard]

Just be sure to check the file integrity on any CD/DVD or USB drive you put the Ubuntu image on. I went through three USB sticks, and tried the win32-image-writer recommended by Ubuntu.org (which failed to write the files properly) and ended using UNetbootin to write the image file to a USB drive. Other than that, I found the installer would allow itself to put Ubuntu in a partition that was too small, so be sure to resize or make a partition that can really fit the install properly, I chose something like 17 GB of free contiguous space I made available after resizing the partitions using GParted. I was a little wary of mucking with Windows partition from Linux, but no data loss, and everything still works as expected. I was very happy to resize the EISA partition Lenovo put at ~18 GB, but only using about 4GB for the data it held, what a waste of space that was!!!

[TheMagicGuy]

Great posts!
My understanding is that Dell does ship ubuntu as an option on European purchased machines. However it is FREE GNU Open Source and you are free to install it on any machine you wish. The netbook remix is as implied, to adjust display composition for the various small displays on the mini/netbook laptops that are all the rage.
Great comments and well stated opinions on this thread. Kudos to all!

[NikEst]

Personally, I like stacks. Spaces, too. It seems to work fine for me. That being said, I want to see a Linux distribution that can be used by the average person. I have played with Linux before and I am no Linux hack, it's been difficult. I need to set up a server, so I'll have to try this out.

Think of the things MS and Apple would have to do if a free OS runs well on any system was out there and was easy for the average person to use.

[zyxxy]

If you are really setting up a server, try the Ubuntu server edition. You might also want to look into FreeBSD or NetBSD. I use BSD for my file server at home. I find it easier to manage than a Ubuntu install. Some Linux fans would probably send you to debian for a server install, and that would be okay also. I just prefer BSD as a server.

[Someone-else]

If you want a Linux Distro everyone can use, try Linux Mint, which is based on Ubuntu, but is focused in a good out-of-the-box experience.

[listed_accessory]

> Think of the things MS and Apple would have to do if a free OS runs well on any system was out there and was easy for the average person to use.

Arguably they have been doing some of them. Apple is trying to make use of as much free code as possible. OS X would not be nearly where it is without free software. Microsoft has been repeatedly forced to extend the availability of XP in order to compete with Linux. The pricing of Windows is poor countries is another example.

[d3vildog69]

I Run pretty much sole Windows at home, and mac at work... Spaces at work is a lifesaver. Until i get too many open and it crashes. But i think its just my Computer cause nobody else here has that problem

[myles taylor]

Downloading and installing on VMware today.

I disagree about the value of the Leopard upgrade. The better indexing for Spotlight alone, QuickLook, Spaces, a better designed network preference pane, just to name a few of the features that I miss when I go back to Tiger for some reason. I have it running on several older machines, including a 1 GHz Titanium with 768 MB of ram Powerbook and it runs just fine. Try fixing your directory or other things on your machine because I doubt it's Leopard that is slowing it down.

[kelmon]

That's true. Leopard on my old PowerBook G4 1GHz is definitely slower than the old Tiger install, according to the benchmarks, but it does feel faster because things like Spotlight have finally been sorted out. Searching in Tiger really was dog-slow in comparison to Panther (which, in many ways, I still think was the best OS X release) but Leopard sorted stuff like that out.

[rapier1]

The best way to resolve your problems with spotlight is to disable spotlight. I know... some people absolutely love spotlight I personally can't stand it. Disabling it has been a boon to my system performance.

[bugma302]

I was converted to LinuxMint last year as, for me, it is Ubuntu but that little bit better.

Therefore, I am excitedly awaiting Mint 7 which should be a better Ubuntu a little bit better again.

[AnOldGrouch]

I tried installing Ubuntu 8 on 3 different eMachines and never got past the userid/password prompt (even after applying the workarounds that I found searching). I just tried Ubuntu 9 today and it boots to a shell prompt!

I'd really like to use this wonder of Unixdom, but it doesn't work out of the box.

[pentest]

Try a real Linux distro.

[Sausagebiscuit]

I dunno, but eMachines isn't exactly quality. Depending on the age, it should all be standard computer components. Not sure what would keep it from logging in. Booting to a shell prompt is most likely a fail on the video card and not able to start up the windowing system.

[tchalvakspam]

Always always always try the liveCD (or live usb) first, it is the litmus test of hardware support.

[wfrobozz]

Not trying to sound offensive, but your choice of computers could stand a little bit of change. eMachines have never been decent computers. I've worked on them for people who needed repairs and they barely worked with Windows typically having numerous issues with hardware. They're basically a modern Packard Bell.

Ubuntu itself works great. I've installed it on two systems so far. One is a fairly easy going collection of hardware making up my "gaming" rig and the other has a fairly annoying collection of hardware consisting of a motherboard that never really worked right. Ubuntu 8.10 and 9.04 installed flawlessly with no issues on both systems.

Really there's no reason to even buy eMachines anymore. You can build your own system with virtually no hassle for as little as $250 (Intel Atom 330 on a Mini-ITX motherboard, 2GB DDR2-667, 320GB drive, DVD-burner, and a Mini-ITX case with PSU).

[pentest]

It is not nearly as good as Fedora 10 or openSUSE 11.x

[perontopsp]

EEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!! openSUSE???
The WORST OS i have ever used. But Fedora is atleast decent.

[Sausagebiscuit]

I hope these are the 'real' linux distros you are talking about in the troll comment reply to "AnOldGrouch" just above....

[Xerolooper]

Why would you say that. They are all pretty slick but I want to do several things with my computer watch DVD, write an occasional paper, and browse the web. They all browse the web but Kubuntu was the easiest to get playing DVD.

[Random_Walk]

Depends.

I like Fedora for work use - it gives me a straightforward interface without all the toys.

I prefer Ubuntu for home use and as a newbie recommendation, since it is far and away the most user-friendly.

For servers, I prefer Fedora for the light stuff, CentOS for the heavy stuff (except Oracle, but only because Larry Ellison is a punk for not certifying Oracle to run on it, so I use RHEL in that case), and FreeBSD for the networking and edge-facing/DMZ stuff.

[wfrobozz]

Regardless of how good Fedora and OpenSUSE are, I would consider Ubuntu to be superior for one good reason. It doesn't use the annoying RPM (RedHat Package Manager) system. Debian packages are much easier to work with for the average user than RPMs.

[pentest]

Unless you are talking about using RPM instead of just installing, you would be wrong. Unless 1 button click confuses you. Ubuntu is a dumbed down toy, much like Windows.

That brown turd has hype and not much else going for it. Ubuntu is at least 2 years behind openSUSE and doesn't have nearly as good hardware support. opensuse is the only distro I have seen that installs flawlessly on high end laptops with absolutely no configuration steps. Just install and go. The build service(which supports lots of distros) puts opensuse ahead of everyone. Especially in my line of work where many security tools are a royal pain to get working, they install easily with the build service.

My only complaint is how Novell supports the mono project, which is pointless.

Too bad trolls like you sausage can't offer anything of substance.

[davrosthedalek]

OpenSuse looked pretty sweet and ran fine, until I wanted to watch videos or movies. The sound would not work. In fact if you go to the opensuse forums you will find that sound problems are very common. Why would the sound not work on my desktop(that has just standard sound)? I tried for a week to get the sound to work on my X61 and my T43 with no luck. I just popped in the latest Ubuntu and the sound works on every single one of my computers right off the bat.

[rcrowe--2008]

Photoshop? Gimp is more than capable to replace Photoshop, and for those who need to ease into things there is Gimpshop. Essentially Gimp with a Photoshop interface. And very well written article. I thoroughly enjoyed the side by side comparisons. :)

[Random_Walk]

okay, while I'm not a fanboy of P-Shop by any means, and am a very avid GIMP user, I can tell you right now that GIMP is not a total Photoshop replacement.

For most users, it will do just fine instead of Photoshop, but at the prosumer and pro level? No frickin' way GIMP would hold up entirely. I can use it to aaaaaaaaalmost replace P-Shop, but I have a metric ton of Script-Fu files that allow me to get away with it.

Don't get me wrong - I love the GIMP. OTOH, it is not a complete replacement for Photoshop.

[davidlari]

I have to agree with Random_Walk. I love GIMP, and root for it, but PS has full handling of color profiles and full support of 16-bit per channel color. Until GIMP gets those features at a minimum, it can't replace PS for high end users. What I want to know is what political games are being played that keep Adobe from porting to Linux. It can't be that hard of a technical challenge.

[nebby74]

Would adding a screenshot with the article be too much to ask? (this ain't print media ya know!)

[davrosthedalek]

just go to google and type 9.10 screen shot.

[ilovecannolis]

Never got started on Ubunt-oh no! because I could not get my wireless adapter connected after install. Why can't that be automatic? If that's "fixed" i'll try it. I'm not into wrapping anything and command line crapola just to surf the net. Make it easier or I'm staying with Windows.

How is the desktop app and server integration? Anyone using it? I want to load a server and WHS is $99 this is free. I'm sure Windows is easier to use and set up but the cost of this is nice.

Is it easy to set up and stream media to other devices?
Is it easy to let others see and share files from it?

[zyxxy]

I had the same problem with 8.04 on a thinkpad T40. The wireless would not come up automatically. I had to force it up every time I booted. I did not have that problem at all with OpenSuse 11. I see comments above where people complained bitterly about the OpenSuse 11 release. They have no clue, it is a political rant, nothing else. OpenSuse is much easier for a beginner to install, though you still have to know about Yast.

I hope they got the wireless to be more stable on the latest Ubuntu.

[tm_anon]

The first thing I'd recommend if wireless doesn't come up automatically is to update the software via a wired connection. My wireless card uses a proprietary driver meaning I have to update the software to get that driver. Others are more open and that means no proprietary driver needed.

Most likely that's the case with yours, just plug it in and let it update and you'll be find.

I'm using 9.04 now, haven't tried it with a network though. Check out the Ubuntu forums and you might have better luck finding someone to answer your questions.

[jake3373]

My Dell wireless adapter worked fine when I got my computer (XP SP2 preinstalled) but then I reinstalled XP and it wouldn't even recognize the adapter until I installed the driver from the old Dell CD. (Also, I had the same problem for the Ethernet connection) Since I have to install the drivers on Windows, I don't really think my wireless adapter will work with Ubuntu

[tm_anon]

@jake3373

Try a LiveCD. You'll be surprised just how much easier it can be to set up Linux than Windows from a fresh install when drivers come into play.

Basically, if an open source driver can be created for it, it will work right away. If it can't and you're using a distro that allows for non-free drivers (proprietary drivers) then just run an update and you should be fine. That's how it is with Ubuntu at the very least, speaking from experience.

[pentest]

If you have a crappy card that uses broadcom, you are pretty much screwed. This is a hardware vendor problem, not a linux problem, although Ubuntu hardware support is still lagging behind.

I second the opensuse suggestion, few wireless card fail to work with no configuration. YAST is simple, and makes administration a breeze, even for the technically illiterate Windows crowd.

[Luc_Ippersiel]

Ditto. I want to see what's so slick that this article raves about. All the Google image searches I've seen of 9.04 is the same ol' Gnome interface.

[tm_anon]

Just upgraded from 8.10 to 9.04, it runs better, feels better, feels more complete. Text on my screen was actually easier to read on 9.04 due to better graphics, my system seems to be working much more smoothly from the sounds it's making (fans barely working ever, CPU quiet and HDD making almost no noise except during new software installation).

The interface does have the basic idea of the old Gnome interface, it's just, for lack of a better word, slicker than with 8.10.

[ithomas94]

Check out GNOME look, and search 'slickness.'
Or, you could actually take the time to look on the site and look at the incredibly diverse theme collection GNOME look has.

[techman93]

The default theme it uses looks like pure diarrhea. You can easily change how it looks though. The wireless was also a problem for me but what I had to do was install a specific driver (I plugged it straight into my router to do this). Run a terminal and type "sudo apt-cache search broadcom" and get the specific driver for broadcom by typing "sudo apt-get install namehere". I also had to play with the wireless button my laptop a bit too. It works just be patient with it. I am not entirely shocked by the fact that some of this wireless does not work after install because of the fact that a lot of them are windows related types of wireless. Anyone can easily get it to work you can look on the sites web forums for help also. They give tons of free support.

[tm_anon]

Strange, I just plugged mine in and let it update itself, no terminal required. Same wireless driver though.

[ilovecannolis]

You lost me after.....The wireless was also was a problem for me........

I'm just not looking for a potential project. How about the developers MAKE IT WORK for the masses.

[techman93]

http://www.ubuntu.com/ <- you can find help for everything on their site. If you still don't understand what I was saying at least. Also google is your friend.

[evilrobotdrew]

It is free software, while the devs have done a phenomenal job integrating drivers and improving the OS, you cannot reasonably expect EVERY bit of hardware, from EVERY manufacturer to be supported naively. If manufacturers released all their drivers in open source, then you complaint would be valid, but until that happens consider this; you download Ubuntu for free, and spend 3 hours setting up everything, or you buy windows Vista for $100-$200 still spend a couple hours setting it up and downloading drivers. If Vista came with your computer you don't have to DL drivers, but you still need to take time to remove all the cruft that modern PCs come with (who uses free AOL trials, really?).

the way I see it, nothing is really free, Ubuntu is free to install, but is (usually) going to take time to setup. you have to do research, and type stuff into command line, but vista costs about $200, unless your free time is worth over $66/hr then you are still coming out ahead. this is ignoring all the advantages to a linux install, like seperate /home partitions and remastersys, less viruses (linux isn't virus or exploit free), and geek points.

[kelmon]

@evilrobotdrew

That's really not the best advert for Linux that I've heard.

[Dalkorian]

@Kelmon - no, it wasn't the best ad for Linux, it was realistic. Saying idiotic junk like "unless I can install it and have everything work on every possible computer combination on the planet without any effort, I'm sticking to winblows, which can't do that either despite paying vendors to lock down their peripherals so they only work correctly with the winblows malware" isn't very realistic.

The choice is simple - own your own computer with an OS that isn't the M$ plantation or be a slave to Ballmer's whims. Slavery isn't offensive to everyone, some people can't handle the real world on their own and need someone to control them with a cruel whip. Some people like pain and suffering. Some people like winblows.

The rest of us support Linux in any flavor. We have our favorites (I like Ubuntu myself), but we're united in our freedom against slavery and the cruel whip of winblows genuine disadvantage.

[monkeyfun14]

@Dalkorian

Call people who use Windows slaves and sheep and we wonder why no ones switching.

[tm_anon]

@monkeyfun14

I've seen you do the same to those not using Windows. Check your own comments before attempting to moderate those of others.

[El_Segfaulto]

@evilrobotdrew

You're a brave person comparing using Windows to slavery. To be fair Jobs keeps a much more Gestapo like control over Apple and OSX than Ballmer does with Windows. I am a Linux user myself (Fedora at work, Ubuntu on my home media server), but I still have to have a Windows workstation because although people like you will always prattle on extolling the virtues of Linux, there are simply things that it cannot do. A case in point would be my render workflow. Basically: create a scene in Maya -> use the Photoshop node to allow a .psd file to contain layers for texturing, bump mapping, luminescence, etc. -> render using Mental Ray. Using Linux would take away a lot of the flexibility I have. So yes, Linux is better, but cruelly insulting those of us lesser beings who still use Windows from time to time is juvenile.

[pentest]

Go complain to the manufacturer of your crappy laptops wireless card for not writing drivers.

Always go with a brand that uses Atheros cards(Toshiba is one), they work out of the box, even the new n cards.

[evilrobotdrew]

If you read my original comment, i never equated widows to slavery, in fact i am writing this in Vista right now. to call windows or OSX users slaves is, i believe, ignorant. I will probably be flamed for this, but if any linux users want to call windows and OSX users slaves then they are ignoring the fact that they still use their distro's repos for updates and software installation. if windows is slavery, then linux is a turn of the century company town, the users are free, but still rely on the company (distro) for most of their needs like software, updates, and tech support. unless you compiled your own kernel, and every app you use, after throughly reading through the source code then you have no right to call someone else a slave.

I prefer Linux, I feel it is superior, but i agree that there are times winblows is useful. For example I LOVE onenote, and have never found an acceptable FOSS alternative so i have to keep an XP virtual machine on my laptop for class

BTW, doesn't this glib use of the word "slave" just diminish and trivialize a dark period in world history?

[alegr]

Some people are even offended by "master"/"slave" designation of ATA interface.

[reallyjoel]

As usual, linux geek never fail to realize that the reason Windows and MacOS have the market shares they have, and Linux has what it has, is never about quality of the OS, its ease of use, or even the software library.

It's marketing, marketing, marketing. That's why no year will ever be the year of Linux, no new release of a Linux distro will ever substantially change the market share of Linux. Unless ofcourse someone pays alot of money for a marketing campaign.

[kelmon]

That is very true. I would also argue that it needs to be sold, publicly, on something that is desirable. Either not being displayed or only being installed on a Netbook that looks like it was made out of chipboard is hardly likely to generate a desire to buy into Linux.

[ChrisLang]

Think Google and browser OS. That is what will make the change. When Google is ready they will move. MS knows it, Google knows it, we wait till then.

[LuvThatCO2]

Disagree. Why MS and Apple have their market share, and linux doesnt, is better summed up in the one line in the article bragging about not having to use 'apt-get' anymore. Where MS and Apple long ago added the necessary polish on their OS's so that nearly everything could be installed and configured visually, Linux is just now starting to work in that direction.

What 'techies' tend to forget is that OS choice isnt a religion for most people. They just want to do whatever it is they want to do on their PC. And if one OS can be configured easier than another, they're going to gravitate towards it. That little extra finishing polish that a commercial entity like MS or Apple can (and is willing to) add to their product makes a world of difference to the end user.

[tm_anon]

@kelmon

Main reason Linux isn't sold on anything "desirable" is because of OEMs.

Either they don't sell machines with Linux on them at all or, like some did with early netbooks, they sell a misconfigured version which gives the public a bad opinion.

@LuvThatCO2

I've been using Ubuntu for almost 4 months, the only time I type in apt-get is when I'm too lazy to do a search in the package manager. Before you start in on the package manager, which is easier, going to one place to search for pretty much everything or having to do a google search each and every time you want a new app then doing another google search to make sure it's not malware and then installing it and hoping it works?

MS and Apple have been working on looks almost exclusively. Apple uses a pretty decent amount of open source tech under the hood so they've gotten by quite nicely. Windows works ok mainly because of third parties.

Linux, on the other hand, has been worked on under the hood first. Just about everything works the way it should each and every time and is much easier to install and use than Windows and it has almost all the benefits of OS X (no benefit from a locked down marriage of hardware and software). Now that the engine is right at completion, it's time to work on the rest.

I'm not sure about you but I'd rather have something that runs well but needs a paint-job than something that looks pretty and won't start up or breaks down constantly.

[Hexagrapher666]

reallyjoel said "the reason Windows and MacOS have the market shares they have... It's marketing, marketing, marketing."

It is not marketing, but preinstallation. The dominance of Windows on "IBM compatible" computers exists primarily because such computers are sold with Windows preinstalled; Microsoft has bullied computer sellers to ensure this, threatening to not allow Windows on any of the seller's computers if any other OS is preinstalled on any of their machines available for purchase. The dominance of Mac OS on Apple computers is again because such computers are sold with Mac OS preinstalled. Linux's best shot at a similar strategy would be if IBM ever follows through with their idea of selling computers with Ubuntu, SUSE, and RedHat.

[monkeyfun14]

@Hexagrapher

The 90's called they want their FUD back.

[Mad_Scientist_001]

"It's marketing, marketing, marketing. That's why no year will ever be the year of Linux"

I believe this is completely wrong.
Proof: Mozilla Firefox.
Every time someone asks me for help with Internet Explorer, I ask "Why are you still using that [expletive deleted]?" And I immediately upgrade them to a real browser.
I keep hoping and praying for the day when Linux FINALLY has its act together as well as Firefox does, where I can UNEQUIVOCALLY recommend it.
If you cannot win ME over (and I do want it), the hundred or so people who depend on my recommendation will never use it.
Proof: Vista.

[thedrunkard]

Strange that every device in this Lenovo S10 works without any additional software or drivers, despite the obvious and clear fact that Ubuntu has absolutely no support for wireless cards, or at least that's what I'm told.

[Cheech_Wizard]

That's funny, I installed Ubuntu on a friend's "dead" laptop a few months ago and it found and connected to her wireless network with no problems. I stopped hearing complaints about people having to jump through hoops to make Ubuntu talk to a wireless network via laptop chipsets about 18 months ago...

[Steve_a]

It worked fine on my Thinkpad too. It works fine on my Medion Akoya s5610 too. Installed it and it just found my Centrino2 Chipset, found my wireless and asked for my pass phrase.

I had a Toshiba which would connect to my wireless under Linux but not under Vista which it came installed with. Apparently according to the supplier I bought it from the Vista wireless problem was a known issue with no known fix.

So In my case Ubuntu worked were Vista just didn't

[El_Segfaulto]

After 8.04 it installed perfectly on my Everex (don't be worried if you've never heard of it) with some extremely obscure wireless hardware. Compared to the rigmarole I had to go through to find Vista drivers it was as easy as wasting time posting to CNet boards.

[AJLC]

Well- that isn't quite true. The Acer Aspire One has had numerous problems (which seem to be solved in the final remix release for 9.04) getting the wireless to work. It took me half a day to get wireless working on the development version two or three weeks ago. now it works fine. This is of course a driver issue from RealTek.

The REMIX works great on Netbooks and is available for download from the ubuntu site.

[slackinfux]

I find both Spaces and Stacks very useful on OS X. What, in particular, do you find so "erratic" in the Spaces implementation. I use it daily using the command and arrow keys to move around between spaces and it works great for me. Took some getting used to, but now I can't live without it!

As far as Stacks, once Apple added the ability to change the icon back to a folder instead of a pile of crap and allowed you to set a preference for whether you wanted a list, stack or grid, it worked great. Personally, I hated the single stack view, but found the other choices extremely useful; Grid view for smaller folders, list view for packed folders (like my Applications). A "mess"? Only if you choose to be messy.

Granted, I am looking to see some serious performance and stability improvements next time around. It certainly doesn't need any new features. In fact, no modern OS needs any new features, unless that feature is going to be a revolutionary paradigm in human-computer interaction, much the same as the GUI was over CLI based OSes.

I'll probably throw Jaunty on one of my older computers to see if Ubuntu has come along far enough that I'd consider using it on one of my secondary machines, or perhaps a netbook, since I'm eyeballing an HP Mini just for the purpose of surfing the net on the couch. I really want to put it on one of my PPC's.

[kelmon]

Spaces is much improved now (I think 10.5.4 is when they really started sorting out some of the bugs) but my main complaints about Spaces was that it couldn't remember which application I had been using in a previous Space and therefore would default me back to the Finder. It doesn't seem to do that so often now but it still does sometimes and it's damned annoying when it does.

I'm ambivalent towards Stacks. Yes, it certainly looks pretty but I don't think it adds very much and the Stacks tend to be pretty slow if you have a lot of items in the folder. For folders with small collections it works pretty well and the Quick Look previews certainly help.

[sammy-n]

Screenshots here http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/904features/ look exactly identical to 8 after the login screen. So, are you saying that "as slick as" means "as fast as" or is it actually more attractive, sleek, sexy?

[Dango517]

Yep, your right! Slick new appearance, my eye.

Faster it should be it can only run a tenth the applications Windows can. Of course dyed in the wool Penguins refer to that as blot. Geez, it must scream with the 2GBs Vista has pushed the net to upgrade to. :)

[pithenumber]

@Dango517
1. Dango tastes good, I like the Teriyaki variation :)
2. WINE remind you of anything? You can even use WINE to run Windows applications, even some games.

[tm_anon]

@sammy-n

Screenshots don't really give it justice. I upgraded prior to release thinking it was just going to have a few updated pieces of software in the background, it really is much more attractive. Though it also tends to be a bit faster than 8.10 on my old hardware and Ubuntu 8.10 was quite a bit faster than Windows XP on this same hardware.

@Dango517

Seeing as you're so dead-set against Linux, judging from your comment, why should anyone listen to what you have to say? Especially when you're making that comment underneath an article with Linux as the topic.

By the way, the 2GB forced upgrade for RAM wasn't for the net, it was for PCs which have to be bought by consumers. If they can get away with 1GB and still have just as good if not better performance with a free OS that does everything 99% of people need a computer for, it doesn't say anything good about Vista.

Of course, with 2GB RAM, my much more streamlined choice of OS will do everything Vista does, except of course, it will do it that much faster.

[ithomas94]

@Dango17 and sammy-n: Obviously, you miss the point of Linux if you judge it based on the default theme.
www.gnome-look.org has a great selection of tons of themes.
Can Mac OS X or Windows change almost every aspect of their GUI's?
In fact, do some ACTUAL research and refrain from clicking on the first link Google provides.