Jamie's Random Musings
Various thoughts and adventures, including but not limited to Linux, Windows XP and Widows Vista, and assorted bits of hardware new and old.
Saturday 7 November 2009, 6:34 AM
Using Windows Is Like...
Fill in the blank: Using Windows is like kicking a ________ down the beach.
The correct answer is dead whale.
Here's the story. The son of a close friend called, because he had a problem with his computer. Without going into the gory details, I had to reload it from scratch. Of course, at the time that he bought the computer, it was ONLY available with Vista. So I started reloading from the DVD. About two hours into the load/update/reboot/update/reboot cycle, it puked all over itself and then couldn't install an update. I found something at Microsoft that purported to fix this problem, tried that, and it made the situation even worse, the computer then just looped through booting, saying "Installing updates 3 of 3 ..." and then rebooting, over and over again.
So I figured I had made a mistake. Started over from scratch. A couple of hours later, the exact same thing. Resisting the urge to throw the computer and the stinking DVDs out the window, I remembered that I still had a somewhat newer Vista DVD that another friend had left here.
I started again, with the newer disk, and this time it worked. Well, "worked" might not be the right word, especially for anything to do with Windows, but at least it installed without error. So after another 6 hours of update/reboot/download drivers/update/reboot/whatever, it was working again.
Total time wasted on kicking the dead whale down the beach: 20 hours. Likelihood that sooner or later that system will barf all over itself and go belly up again: very high.
What should I do to reduce that likelihood? Tell him (or his parents) that they should throw another couple of hundred francs down the toilet to get Windows 7? What do I say when they ask me if that will stop this from happening again? How do I justify it, anyway - with the standard description used even by Microsoft apologists, "Well, Vista was garbage, but this time Microsoft got it right - at least we think so, so far, maybe..."?
Anyone for a walk on the beach?
jw 7/11/2009
PreviousComments on this post
@Jamie, Actually I live very close to the beach and I do need a walk, the whole Tesco/Ingram Micro of trying to obtain Windows 7 is just a joke - rather than repeating myself, see the thread on moneysavingexpert.com
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2057841
Your description of Vista with no service pack to Vista with service pack 2, is a fairly good description from my recent experience. Thats why I describe Vista Service Pack 2 as the holy grail of Windows Vista - if you finally get there Vista is actually not that disimiiar to running Windows 7, and for anyone running Vista SP2 there really isn't any reason to upgrade (just more hassle), well for £45 maybe, but I'm starting to wonder myself.
Regarding the Tesco/Ingram Micro of asking me to re-order at twice the price because they decided to bring the shipping date forward without letting me know - I'm actually thinking of practicing what I preach - and not bothering to re-order, and forgetting the Windows 7 upgrade, I like Windows 7 but its just been so much hassle you get to a point where you just want to work, no be distracted.
As you know I like Windows XP, Service pack 3 is reliable and it is a swiss army knife of an operating system, whatever you throw at it, it does seem to hold up well. You need a good free antivirus (Comodo), but overall it still works.
I like you, had Vista when it was first released, and the inability to even do a simple operatiion such as copying a large file between two points, without the system thinking the process through for several minutes -meant I never went back, well until recently.
I have recently got a DV9000 17' as a desktop replacement and this runs Vista, I too spent all that time installing the service packs, and additional updates provided by HP.
To be fair I have also just upgraded to Ubuntu 9.10 on my Toshiba M100 (which dual boots XP/Ubuntu), from 8.04.
This is also a lengthy process but then again I used the update manager to go from 8.04->8.10, and 8.10->9.04, then 9.04->9.10, so this was in fact three upgrades.
This machine runs an Intel 82855 Graphics chip, so was expecting problems from 9.04->9.10, but I can report that each of the individual upgrades worked perfectly, so maybe 9.10 works better with older 'centrino' hardware.
It does boot quicker, but in terms of the point of actually using Ubuntu 9.10, it seem about same time, ie. they have moved the log-on process forward, in the scheme of things, to make it appear faster - thats how it seems, but it nice having everything upto date -browser etc.
Windows 7:
Its a shame because if people are thinking of upgrading Winodows XP, Vista - Tesco currently have a hot deal for Windows 7 on hotukdeals.com
http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/520969/windows-7-home-premium-full-version, seems very popular, in terms of feedback :)
@jamie, luckily I do live very close to the beach, and yes I could do with a walk there.
I'm really surprised you haven't commented on my posts regarding the problems regarding delivery of Windows 7 with regard to Tesco with the lines 'I told you so - Windows 7, its a pain in the neck avoid it'
But in a way you don't need to - I've done it for you - getting delivery of Windows 7 has been a right pain in the neck - and its still unresolved. It shouldn't be more difficult to obtain legitimate software than a pirated version of Windows 7. Doesn't help with Microsoft doubling the price of Windows full versions, if it goes undelivered these companies realise they can sell you a new copy at twice the price, and just say 'what you going to do about it? - tough'
Regarding upgrading Vista->Vista SP2, your description sound pretty much about right (from my experience and if you add-in the HP updates too - a good bit longer), and thats why in previous posts, I called it the holy grail of Vista, if you finally get there, Vista SP2 that is, you end up with a system very close to Windows 7, basically it works 'well': the best definition of 'well' here is a well needed cup of Tetley or Yorkshire tea, but instead you get this weak thirst quenching number like tea tastes abroad - it doesn't quite hit the spot but it works for you, but your not enthralled.
Actually if you are running Vista SP2 I can see very little point in upgrading to Windows 7, (I really need to listen to myself on this too) ok maybe for £44.97 but certainly not for £100-200 depending on version (I do try to live in the real world!)
As you know I like Windows XP SP3, I call it the swiss army knife of operating systems, whatever you throw at it, it seems to be the most versatile and robust operating system of modern times. You need a good free antivirus - Comodo being my choice, but overall I still recon its better than Windows 7 at the moment.
Regarding Ubuntu, I've just upgraded from 8.04 to 9.10, on my trusty Toshiba Portege M100. I used the update manager rather than the 9.10 DVD (but have that too), and in truth it probably took as long as Vista->Vista SP2, but I was upgrading 8.04->8.10, then 8.10->9.04, then 9.04->9.10. (so thats three upgrades, compared to two)
I was worried that the 9.04->9.10 upgrade wouldn't work, so I backed up the system as a precautiion at this point (which took another hour) due to the 82855 Intel graphics chipset and your comments regarding a slightly flakey upgrade.
On the Centrino based Toshiba Portege M100, I found that it all worked flawlessly for Ubuntu 9.10. So each of the 3 upgrades worked fine. It maybe that Ubuntu 9.10 is better at upgrading slightly older hardware, but also sticking with Filing system: Ext3
It does seem that the boot time for Ubuntu 9.10 is quicker to login, copying the methods used by Windows 7, to get the login prompt to you as quick as possible, but the point the system actually becomes useable about the same, i.e it seems Ubuntu has moved forward the login prompt in the scheme of things rather than any underlying improvement compared to 9.04, but thats just how it feels.
Overall I think I prefer 9.04, 9.10 seems to be a half-way house, once working everything works fine but it just doesn't seem as 'clean' at 9.04, colour schemes are not consistent, between the start screen and the desktop, but I like that fact that everything is upto date - and the bottom line - everything just works, and its snappier too, in terms of graphics.
(Apologies for duplicated posts below)
This comment has been deleted at the users request
This comment has been deleted at the users request
Been There - Done That.
Switched to Linux and solved those issues.
@adamjarvis - I haven't commented on your Win7 saga for exactly the reason you mention, you've said it all, and made it clear, so there really isn't anything worthwhile for me to add. I absolutely hate posting a "I told you so" comment, and "yeah, me too" doesn't add much to the conversation (there have recently been FAR too many of those on here anyway), so I have simply read your posts with interest, and sympathy.
I find it very interesting and encouraging that you were able to upgrade an older system with 82855 graphics all the way to 9.10 and it worked. The time required seems reasonable to me, considering that it was actually three upgrades, as you said.
I agree with your 9,04 vs. 9.10 preference, at least for the time being. I just have the feeling that 9.10 is a bit "rough around the edges". I haven't done any specific timing on this, but I've had the feeling for quite a while that boot/login had slowed down again in 9.10, and I kept thinking that it was because I was running Alpha, then Beta, then RC versions, but now the final is out and I still have the same feeling. Hmmm.
The next Ubuntu release is due to be an LTS version, so I'm pretty sure they will have smoothed off the edges by then.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
jw
This comment has been deleted at the users request
I should really clarify this as I wasn't trying to be unfair to Ubuntu, the Vista System was HP DV9000 2.53GHz Intel DV9000 with 4GB Ram, Nvidia 8400M Graphics with a fast 500GB WD SATA hard disk (so really no excuse for the upgrade process being this slow) and I'm comparing this to a Toshiba Portege M100 'Centrino' 1.4 Pentium-m with 2GB Ram, 160GB Samsung ide hard disk. The upgrade was done via the internet, as opposed to DVD, so this also was a factor, but with an 'above average' UK Broadband connection.
Haven't installed Ubuntu on the DV9000 for the sole reason it would need to dual boot Vista/Ubuntu, this is more an apprehension of Vista grabbing back the boot process rather than Ubuntu causing a problem.
Thanks for the reply.
I have several notebooks and netbooks which dual boot Vista and a variety of Linuxes. The one thing you have to watch out for is that when Vista is installed, it copies its own bootloader to the first MB or so of the disk. It seems like on some of my systems there is a very small partition there to hold it, but other times there is just some space left unallocated at the beginning of the disk. Either way, you should avoid deleting or overwriting that space, it can be important if you need to reload Vista for some reason. That sounds easy - "just leave it alone" - but I have run into one tricky situation. If you try to use gparted to reduce the size of the Vista (ntfs) partition, and you have "round to cylinder boundaries" enabled, and there is just unallocated space left at the beginning of the disk for the Vista loader, then gparted will think that the ntfs partition not only needs to be shrunk, as you asked for, but it also needs to be "shifted" to take up that apparently free space. Not nice. The solution is to just turn off "round to cylinders" in gparted.
jw
This comment has been deleted at the users request
To add a comment, fill out the form below
