iTWire is a great tech commentary site out of Australia.  One section in particular - The Linux Distillery, by David M Williams - provides an informative, amusing commentary on general Linux (and often Ubuntu) topics.  Below are quotes from (and links to) some of my favorite articles.

From “100 reasons Linux beats Windows”

…2. If you change your hardware and re-install Linux you don’t have to call someone to justify it.

…5. And they didn’t give $10m of your hard-earned cash to Jerry Seinfeld.

…17. You don’t need to defragment Linux. At all. Ever.

…22. …Over 80% of the top 500 supercomputers in the world run Linux. Windows just doesn’t have the capability for high performance computing.

…86. You won’t have your father calling you to ask why RUNDLL32.EXE is crashing and expecting a quick answer as to precisely what the problem is.

From “Top 5 Linux references in pop-culture”

#3 – The Matrix Reloaded
The Matrix is my all-time favourite movie. It was brilliant. Then the little matter of two crap sequels ruined it. Nevertheless, the writers certainly did know a thing or two.

You’ve all seen movies where computer hackers somehow break into a computer with ridiculous animated eye-candy scenes. Why, in Independence Day you can even upload a virus to an alien spaceship with an unplugged Macintosh laptop. Luckily they had no security on the ship’s Wi-Fi network, hey?

…Yet in The Matrix Reloaded when Trinity sits down to hack, she really does hack. Faced with the problem of breaking in to the city power grid Trinity whipped out Nmap version 2.54beta25 and probed for a vulnerable SSH server. She exploited this with the SSH1 CRC32 exploit which was publicised in 2001 (although the script used, sshnuke, is fictional.) Curse the city network for being unpatched!

From “I didn’t know you could do that in Linux!”

Here are 12 tips, tricks, tweaks and techniques to make you say “I didn’t know you could do that in Linux.” Sure, not every one may be your cup of tea but here are 12 items to help you have the most positive Linux experience you can and to show why Linux is a superior operating system to other alternatives…

From “Linux incognito part three: Windows Vista”

Here’s how to skin Linux to give a Windows Vista appearance. You can help provide a familiar look and feel to your Windows-trained friends and family as you coax them towards Linux. Or you can enjoy the satisfaction of having something looking like Vista actually run with stability.

From “5 reasons to upgrade from Windows Vista to Linux”

Most readers will no doubt have upgraded the operating system on their own computer at some point, whether from Windows ’95 to Windows ’98 or Windows XP to Windows Vista or some other step.

Yet, an operating systems upgrade doesn’t necessarily have to wend its way through the range offered by one vendor. After all, just as you can replace the software that drives your computer in the first place so too you can replace it with anything that targets the same hardware.

This gives rise to many a possibility. You might love the look of the Apple MacBook but prefer Microsoft Windows over MacOS. No problem; Apple even make available a CD of Windows drivers for their MacBook hardware. Of course, I happen to think there’s another operating system you might want to consider, and here are 5 reasons why you would benefit from upgrading your Windows Vista computer to a modern Linux distribution like Ubuntu…

From “Face off part two: Windows vs Linux real world RAM and disk tests”

Last week I put Windows Vista Ultimate and Fedora Linux 9 to a test. The article hit the front page of Digg but received a lot of criticism by those disappointed with the performance of Internet Explorer. So, let’s dig deeper and use Firefox to see if Internet Explorer’s memory footprint is actually a Windows Vista “feature” or not. It’s time for the ultimate smackdown: Internet Explorer vs Firefox on Vista.

As you can probably infer from this spattering of quotes, Distillery is a great blog for recent Ubuntu/Linux converts.  Enjoy!

“Using the same custom-built PC test bed loaded with, alternatively, Ubuntu 8.10 and Windows Vista Business, Ubuntu proved to be a quicker installation, scored higher in benchmark testing, managed wireless connectivity easier and booted slightly faster than Vista. Keep in mind that less than two years ago, wireless integration with Ubuntu was pretty weak and non-intuitive - - especially for Linux newbies - - while Windows XP enjoyed nearly universal market support. Early results show Ubuntu has closed the gap dramatically.”

The review goes on to describe the details of benchmark testing on the aforementioned clean installs of both Ubuntu 8.10 and Vista Business.  The results?  (Higher scores are better)

Ubuntu: 3367

Vista: 2838

In other words, Ubuntu scored almost 20% higher (18.6% to be precise) than Vista on identical hardware.  The Geekbench test is especially noteworthy because it is designed for cross-platform comparisons, it tests both hardware and software performance, and every test can be run in both single and multi-threaded modes.  A glance at the official tests involved reveals other interesting metrics, depending on your application usage: convolution filters (common in Photoshop/GIMP), data compression, fractals (recursive algorithms), STREAM, and more.

And since the test was run on a dual-core processor, multithreading-based results are particularly significant.

After discussing the Geekbench data, the authors make the following comment:

“Even apart from the Geekbench score, the PC with Ubuntu 8.10 was noticeably faster when opening or switching between applications. Boot time with the PC running Vista was 56 seconds; with Ubuntu 8.10 it took 50 seconds.”

Remember: these tests were run on clean installs.  Also, the hardware used was pretty middle of the road (2.53 GHz Core 2 Duo, 2 GB SDRAM, integrated Intel graphics), meaning the performance results are likely indicative for an average user.

ChannelWeb’s conclusion?

“The bottom line: Ubuntu 8.10 Desktop Edition easily ranks higher than any other Linux desktop OS we’ve looked at in the Test Center. Based on performance numbers, its Ethernet and wireless management and zero licensing cost, this is an operating system we can recommend to VARs - - not just as an alternative to Windows but as a strong OS in its own right.”

So now, fellow Ubuntu users, let us spread the word on this clear demonstration of Ubuntu’s performance as compared to Vista.  Remember: identical hardware, clean installs, and well-recognized benchmarking software.

Suck that, Vista fanboys.  (Yes, there are some out there.  I know because they send me hate mail.)

(If you’re in the mood for something entertaining, check out an older ChannelWeb article detailing these same Geekbench tests on clean installs of XP SP3 and Vista SP1.  The conclusion?  “XP still rules, performance wise, over Vista.”  Ha ha!)

Big news for me: my first novel is not only published, but also available on AMAZON.  Yikes.  Now it feels so…so… official. 

The Amazon page for Teal, a science fiction novel, is available here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1434886956

If you don’t use Amazon, you may find it simpler to purchase Teal directly from the publisher:

https://www.createspace.com/3341273

Whichever option you use - thank you.  I think you’ll really enjoy the book, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on it!

Why another redesign, you ask?  With the release of my new book Teal, the time was ripe to finally unify the visual appearance of this site, including new backgrounds, header, layout, etc.  This time things will be a bit more on the bold red side (as opposed to pastel blues and greens), so if you see some clashing colors over the next week, fear not - things will eventually be back to normal.

“Eventually.” 

Actually, this is a somewhat serious request.  After almost a year-and-a-half of writing and rewriting, I have finally completed my first novel - and it’s available for sale!  The book, titled Teal, is available at

https://www.createspace.com/3341273

…for the very reasonable price of $9.95 (USD).  It will also be available on Amazon in the next few weeks, and you can bet I’ll post a link here as soon as I have it.

I don’t plan on making much (if any) money from selling Teal this way.  In fact, I’m just about ready to start sending out the book - along with the requisite query letters and such - to publishers and agents with the hopes of an actual publishing company picking it up.

So why go to all the work to self-publish this edition?  Actually, Amazon was kind enough to make the entire self-publication process free due to my participation in the Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award competition, and I plan on using this edition as a way to get the attention of agents and publishers.  My hope is that an actual, published copy of the book will look significantly more serious than a plain paper manuscript.  And, even if agents and publishers don’t read it, they can give the book to their kid….and maybe the kid will like it!

It’s certainly worth a try.

In the event that I’m able to acquire any money from self-published sales (which will be tricky, since Amazon takes an overwhelming percentage of that $9.95 price), it will all go directly into the “postage to find a real publisher” pot, and once that’s filled into the “pay for tannerhelland.com server” pot.  So c’mon, spare $10 for a good read and support an up-and-coming writer!

And who knows - if I’m ever famous, a first edition copy of my first book could be worth a lot of money.  Take John Grisham, for example: after much rejection, he eventually managed to get a small publishing house to print 5,000 copies of his first novel (A Time to Kill) of which Grisham himself bought 2,500 copies.  He used the books as Christmas presents and tried selling some to friends and family, but he was ultimately unable to sign up a big publisher.  It wasn’t until an agent picked up Grisham’s 2nd novel - The Firm - and got it made into a movie that people even knew he existed.

The irony?  Those first edition copies, which Grisham couldn’t sell even at $10 a piece, are now worth as much as $5,000.

So consider it an investment and buy a couple copies.  Give them to families and friends.  It makes for a great, inexpensive birthday present for anyone into Harry Potter, Eragon, Artemis Fowl, Alex Ryder, Percy Jackson or similar YA Sci-Fi/Fantasy.

Honestly, I think the book’s pretty good.  I’d love any feedback, and thanks in advance for your purchase! 

(The John Grisham story appears courtesy of “How to Write & Sell Your First Novel” by Oscar Collier and Frances Spatz Leighton.  A link to this book - an excellent one - appears below.)

How to Write & Sell Your First Novel

1) My intended target audience: intermediate computer users who aren’t afraid to do some troubleshooting. I’m going to assume you fall into the same category as me: someone with a bit of experiencing “tinkering” with computers.  My hope is that you’ve installed at least SOME hardware before, that you’re familiar with basic computer terminology, and that you aren’t afraid to use a command-line program if you absolutely have to. If you don’t meet any of these criteria, feel free to tag along - but remember that this article is not intended to address YOUR specific needs.

2) I am not a Linux or Microsoft “fanboy.” I am a home PC owner who wants my home PC to work as well as humanly possible.  I don’t mind a bit of tinkering - but IMO, the best OS is a low-maintenance one.

3) This is not an exhaustive comparison. For a more complete, in-depth look at specific features, you might try these links:

http://www.itcomparison.com/OS/vistavsubuntu/vistavsubuntu.htm

http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=199201179

Both have their biases, but they are a bit more in-depth than I am looking to provide here.

–End Disclaimers–

If you’ve made it all the way here, I am going to assume that you are seriously considering an XP upgrade to either Ubuntu or Vista.  I was in this same location a month ago, and after doing loads of online homework I made the decision to try Ubuntu 8.04. I installed it to a separate hard drive (and kept my Windows XP install on its original hard drive, just in case)…

…and since that initial install, I’ve only booted to Windows XP once.  Overall I have been extremely happy with Ubuntu, and hope that this summary of my own Ubuntu vs. Vista research is useful in helping you make a similar decision.

The goal of this article is to help you make an informed decision regarding your post-XP operating system. I mean that.  My goal with this article is not necessarily to convince you to switch to Ubuntu (although I would be happy if that happened).  Rather, my goal is to encourage you to give Ubuntu a fair look.  After you’ve seriously considered the pros and cons of both Ubuntu and Vista, I’ll leave it up to you to make whatever decision is best for you and your specific situation.

All ready?  Here goes!

Step 1: Consider recommended hardware requirements

Each OS’s recommended hardware specs are as follows, along with my “just-to-be-safe” recommendations (in parentheses).

Vista:

• 1 GHz processor (2.0+ GHz is better)
• 1 GB of memory (2+ GB is better)
• 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space (20 GB+ free space is better)
• DirectX 9.0 compatible memory card with 128 MB vRAM (256+ MB is better)

Ubuntu:

• 700 MHz processor (1.0+ GHz is better)
• 384 MB of memory (512+ MB is better)
• 8 GB available hard drive space (20+ GB available is better)
• Graphics card capable of 1024×768 resolution (but any 3D acceleration features will be useful)

I’d welcome anyone to correct me, but the hardware specs in parentheses are probably what you’ll need to get the best experience out of either of these two operating systems.  Basically, a mid-level PC is capable of running either OS, but as you move towards the low end of the spectrum, Ubuntu may be your only real choice.  (The minimum specs for an Ubuntu install include a 300 MHz processor and 64 MB RAM - wow!)  If you have a high-end PC, consider hardware specs a moot point as both OSes will be plenty fast enough for you.

My PC specs are the following:

• 2.2ghz AMD processor (Athlon 64 3800+)
• 1 GB memory
• 200 GB empty hard drive (SATA, bought new at geeks.com for under $50 USD)
• 128 MB ATI video card (ATI Radeon 9200)

This placed me within the recommended hardware specs for both OSes, but my video card and RAM seemed safer under Ubuntu.

Step 2: Hardware compatibility

Both Ubuntu and Vista include tools for estimating hardware compatibility BEFORE you install.

Microsoft’s “Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor” tool is available here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/upgrade-advisor.aspx

To test Ubuntu, you will need to either download the ISO for a Ubuntu CD, or place an order for free Ubuntu CDs.  (Yes, they will send you CDs free-of-charge.)  Ubuntu’s official download page is available here: http://www.ubuntu.com/GetUbuntu/download

Once you have a Ubuntu CD at your disposal, insert the CD and reboot your computer.  This CD is a Live CD, meaning that you can run Ubuntu from the CD.  You do not need to install anything - simply reboot with the Live CD in the drive, and your computer will boot to Ubuntu.  Very cool.

Once Ubuntu is up and running, feel free to play around a bit.  This should give you a good indication of what a default Ubuntu install looks like.  Feel free to try some of the included apps, browse the web, maybe even play some mp3s from your existing XP hard drive.

Eventually you’ll want to head to “System” -> “Administration” -> “Hardware Testing”.  This little wizard will run through some basic tests to ensure that your keyboard, mouse, video, and sound all work.

IMPORTANT NOTE: this wizard does not test ALL hardware.  You may want to manually test your printer and/or any other peripherals currently attached to your system.

After you’ve had your fill, shut down your computer (and remove the CD when reminded), then reboot it to return to XP.

Step 3: Reevaluate your upgrade choices based on your hardware

If you’ve run both the upgrade tools from Step 2, chances are that you have a pretty good idea of how your hardware will handle an OS upgrade.

So now it’s time to make a choice: does hardware compatibility/incompatibility force your hand?  Does one upgrade seem easier than the other?  If you do have incompatible hardware, is it a device you can live without?  Are there fixes available for whatever hardware problems you may have encountered?

After I ran both upgrade tools, I found the following:

• My video card worked and was supported in Ubuntu, but enabling hardware-accelerated 3D would require some command line instructions.  The same video card - despite having the recommended amount of VRAM - was marked as not capable of running Vista’s Aero interface.
• My printer/scanner/copier didn’t work by default under Ubuntu, but this was easily remedied by selecting a similar model number (7200 instead of 8400).  Vista marked the device as “unknown compatibility,” but some Googling led me to find that it would be supported - I’d just have to download some new drivers from Epson’s website.

Other than these two issues, it looked like all my core hardware was compatible with both OSes, and any peripheral hardware (webcam, digital camera, a MIDI keyboard) was a crapshoot.  (Both OSes were unspecific as to whether or not these devices would work.)

So for me, hardware compatibility didn’t tip the scale in favor of either OS - but I was unhappy at not being able to run Vista’s Aero interface.

Step 4: Software compatibility

Software compatibility is a tricky step because the level of software compatibility you may require could be anywhere from “don’t need any of my XP-specific programs” to “I can’t live without some XP-specific programs.”  Honestly, my recommendation - for either OS - would be setup a dual-boot environment, which would allow you to keep XP entirely intact.

This is what I did.  I bought a cheap 2nd hard drive online and installed my new OS to that drive, leaving the XP drive untouched.  If this is an option for you, I would HIGHLY recommend it.

And really - unless you are locked into a tiny laptop hard drive you don’t want to upgrade, there is no reason to NOT setup a dual-boot system.  Even if you decide to use Vista, I can almost guarantee that a spare XP installation will come in handy at some point in your life.

In my case, the Vista upgrade advisor warned me that several of my favorite programs (including Visual Studio 6.0, ActiveSync, and potentially some of my ATI video card drivers) were known to have compatibility issues with Vista.  Obviously, the vast majority of my XP programs wouldn’t work in Ubuntu.

(Yes, I know about Wine, and yes, most of those programs still wouldn’t work.)

Then there was always the option of setting up a virtual XP environment in either OS, but I wasn’t interested in this.

For me, dual-boot was definitely the way to go, regardless of my OS choice.  This meant that as of this step, I was still debating between Vista and Ubuntu.

Step 5: Cost

I could stick this step anywhere, but this seemed as good a place as any to address the elephant in the room.

Ubuntu is free.  Vista is not.  The price of Vista varies, but since I was looking to do a dual-boot setup, I would need a complete (non-upgrade) version.

(Yes, I know - there are ways to install a Vista upgrade onto a blank hard drive.  If you want to try that, do it at your own risk.)

Vista Ultimate with SP1 retails at $319 USD while Home Premium with SP1 goes for $239 USD.  I don’t know about you, but that’s more money than I tend to part with easily.

And thus, the scale starts to tip in favor of Ubuntu.

Step 6: New software

This step is undeniably unfair, but IMO it is an important one.  Vista is just an OS: nothing more, nothing less.  It comes with some screensavers, a couple simple games, a basic text editor, IE and WMP, and a whole bunch of system utilities.

Ubuntu, however, is really an entire software suite.  Yes, you get the OS - but you also get a catalog of thousands of pieces of free software.  Among these?

OpenOffice.org, a complete replacement for Microsoft Office

GIMP, a Photoshop replacement

A game from pretty much every genre imaginable, including RTS, FPS, arcade, retro, simulators…

Multiple music players and video players

Firefox

…And way more than I can possibly list here.  For a more complete list (sorted by category), please visit https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SoftwareRepoDefault.  I think you’ll be amazed by the software offering.

And the best part?  To install and/or remove software in Ubuntu, all you do is hit “Applications” -> “Add/Remove…”, then check or uncheck the boxes next to software you want installed or uninstalled.  When done, hit “Apply Changes” and let the system take care of the rest.

It really is that simple.

Step 7: Security

Different people can present valid opinions on whether or not Ubuntu (or any other Linux distro) or Vista is more secure.  Both OSes will be more secure than XP, but ultimately OS security is primarily a matter of vigilance.  The vast majority of PC security breaches are caused by the USER - not by a hacker.  If you download unsecure software in any OS, you run the risk of harming your PC.  There’s just no two ways about that.

But in terms of out-of-the-box security, there are several things to consider.

One is that Vista will setup a software firewall by default.  Ubuntu will not.  There is some debate over whether or not you should even worry about setting up a firewall in Ubuntu (see here and here, for example), but unless you are running a server or installing questionable software (i.e. NOT from the add/remove dialog), Ubuntu should not require a firewall.

Next, Vista needs a dedicated virus scanner.  Ubuntu, generally speaking, does not.  Again, there is some debate on this issue (see here and here), but by and large your chances of (a) acquiring a linux virus and (b) receiving any damage from said virus is minute.  You probably have a higher chance of being struck by lightning than you do downloading a virus-infected program from an official Ubuntu repository.

This is a significant Linux advantage.  Because you automatically download programs from a central repository, you only download programs that are vigilantly checked for malware, spyware, and viruses of any sort.  This is a far cry from any version of Windows, which allows you to download an infected program from any website you encounter.

To sum up security: both OSes are an improvement over XP.  Because I tend to err on the safe side of caution, I found Ubuntu to have the edge here - if for no other reason than the number of Linux-based viruses is a tiny fraction of the number of Windows viruses.

Step 8: UI and overall prettiness

Because my video card wasn’t capable of running Vista’s Aero interface, Ubuntu was a hands-down winner in the appearance category.  If, however, you are capable of using Aero, this may be more of a competition.

Most of Ubuntu’s coolness comes from a program called Compiz-Fusion.  The Wikipedia entry for Compiz Fusion described many of the core features in detail, and clicking on the specific plugin links will give you an idea of what CF can do.  The Animation plugin is one of my favorite features - particularly “Burn.” 

In terms of customizability, Ubuntu is a strong winner in the UI category.  However, Vista w/ Aero will look a lot prettier “out of the box.”  Ubuntu’s default font and color scheme is a bit on the crappy side, and it will take some work to setup your desktop just how you want it.

So if you’re not afraid of tweaking some things, Ubuntu is the clear winner.  If, however, you simply want to install your OS and have it be beautiful, Vista is a better choice.

Step 9: Miscellaneous considerations

If you haven’t made up your mind already, here are some additional things you may consider:

• Ubuntu requires a solid internet connection to make use of its huge software collection.  If you are on dialup or if your internet connection is spotty, you may find this frustrating.
• If you don’t want a dual-boot setup (can’t imagine why…), Vista can be installed on top of XP.  Ubuntu cannot.  If you insist on going the non-dual-boot route, you would need to wipe out XP before installing Ubuntu.
• Wine is a Linux program that theoretically allows you to run Windows programs without ever leaving Linux.  I have found it perfectly successful for some of my favorite applications (Photoshop, DVD Catalyst), while useless for others (Finale, my old VB6 exe’s).  If you have some XP programs you would like to use in Ubuntu, try Wine.  This may/may not be encouraging. 
• Vista includes official tech support from Microsoft.  Ubuntu is much more of a DIY experience, unless you want to pay for professional support.
• Ubuntu is not the only Linux distribution available.  It is my personal favorite - and often recommended for first-time Linux users - but if you’re interested, feel free to explore some other Linux distributions.
• From an idealistic standpoint, Ubuntu is undoubtedly the favored choice.  You can copy your Ubuntu install CD for your friends and coworkers, install Ubuntu on every computer you own, and never pay a penny for using it.  Vista can only be installed on one computer, and if you install it over XP you will invalidate your XP license.

Can you think of anything else to add to this list?  Let me know!

Step 10: Take the plunge

By now I hope you’ve had a chance to see what you’re up against when it comes to upgrading XP.  As I mentioned at the outset of this article, I made the choice to try Ubuntu…and now I doubt I will ever again buy a Microsoft OS.  And, since I use a dual-boot setup, I can still return to XP if I ever need it.

If this guide was useful or not useful, feel free to leave a comment!  Also, I’d love to hear from people who have tried upgrading from XP to either Linux or Vista - please leave your input, and I’ll try to integrate applicable comments into the main body of the article.

This is part TWO of a two-part article.  Part 1: “So you want to upgrade from Windows XP…” is a casual introduction to the question of which OS is the best upgrade from XP.

REDMOND, Wash., Aug. 24, 2001 — Microsoft Corp. today announced the release of Microsoft^® Windows^® XP, the highly anticipated next major version of the Windows operating system, to computer manufacturers around the world. With development of the software now complete, Windows XP is on schedule for widespread availability on Oct. 25. Industry partners, computer manufacturers and customers greeted the news with excitement about the opportunities Windows XP will offer for creating, connecting and communicating in new ways.

“Simply put, Windows XP is the best operating system Microsoft has ever built,” said Bill Gates, chairman and chief software architect at Microsoft. “The performance improvements and advanced features of Windows XP are the culmination of more than 15 years of research, development and customer feedback. For customers, computer manufacturers and industry partners, Windows XP truly underscores the excitement and potential of the digital decade ahead.”

(Entire press release available at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2001/aug01/08-24WinXPRTMPR.mspx)

Tomorrow marks 7 years since the official release of Windows XP.

For some - including myself - these past 7 years have been pretty good.  Windows XP was a vast improvement over the old Win95/98/ME days.  Yeah, it had some trouble at first - particularly with hardware - but 3 service packs later, XP may just be the best OS to ever come out of Redmond.  XP taught us that automatic updates can actually be useful, a green start button is okay, and “Plug-and-Play” may actually be an accurate description (if only rarely).  It also taught us to hate software activation, IE6, and virtual DOS machines.  [The author involuntarily shudders at that last one.]

7 years is a long life for a modern OS.  By comparison, Windows ME got only 3 years of official support.  But according to Microsoft, official support for XP will terminate on 14 April 2009, with extended support available until 2014.

Most data indicates that XP currently represents 2/3 - 3/4 of worldwide computer usage (reference), which means within the next few years the vast majority of worldwide computer users will be looking for a post-XP OS.  Some have already switched to Vista - but according to the data referenced above, it looks as though less than a quarter of overall XP users have made that decision.  This means that more than 75% of XP users are still in the process of determining what their next OS will be.

If you are such an individual, I’d like to offer some help.  I recently installed a new operating system alongside XP - meaning I kept XP AND installed a new operating system (more on this in a moment) - and I have found this to be an ideal setup for me.

If you are considering upgrading from XP, you might be surprised to discover that there are more options available than just Vista.

[Gasp!]

Yes, it’s true.  Despite what you may have heard from a Best Buy salesman, there are other OSes than just Vista and XP.  MANY others.

And I’m not talking about Macs.  (Sorry, Mac fanboys - but this may be where you want to stop reading.  I cannot in good faith advocate switching from a PC to a Mac.)

I’m talking about Linux.  Specifically, Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron).

The official Ubuntu Desktop Edition website is here: http://www.ubuntu.com/products/WhatIsUbuntu/desktopedition.  If you’ve never heard of Ubuntu, why don’t you take a moment to read through that link (it’ll open in a new tab/window), then - if you’d like - return here for a brief commentary on how Ubuntu has worked for me since I installed it at the start of this month.

This is part ONE of a two-part article.  Part 2: “Ubuntu vs. Vista: a comparison for the XP upgrader” compares Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) and Windows Vista side-by-side, including a discussion of hardware, software, security, UI, and other issues.

I hate Digg - not the site itself so much, but the Digg premise.  This notion of “popularity = noteworthiness” is the reason I have to tolerate endless news stories about Paris Hilton and the reason Janet Jackson canceled her latest tour, as opposed to things *I* actually care about (like a tanking economy).  If popularity = awesomeness, I guess Titanic is destined to forever be the greatest movie of all time.

Ugh.

Even worse is the fact that my blog is primarily for MY enjoyment (imagine that), and I generally stick to writing articles that my acquaintences will care about.  I couldn’t care less about the greater population of the internet.

And yet somehow my last article ended up on Digg’s front page.  I’m flattered and pissed all at the same time, and had I known this would happen you can bet I would’ve written a different article.

In lieu of that, here is some additional explanation on my previous post.  I hope this clarifies things for readers who are interested in an XP -> Ubuntu conversion.

For me, my computer and my OS are tools.  I use them to accomplish tasks.  I don’t consider them status symbols - I couldn’t care less if yours is faster or prettier or newer than mine.  Good for you.

Because my computer and OS are tools, I want them to allow me to do what I enjoy - programming, music composition, photo editing, a little gaming.  I don’t want my hardware or my OS to interfere with these tasks.

For me, Windows XP reached a point where it interfered with my enjoyment of these tasks.  XP became slow, bloated, fragmented, outdated.  I don’t consider this to be so much a fault of XP itself - lest we forget, it is now 7 years old - so much as a fault of what XP inherently requires: things like virus scanners, regular defragmentation, a lot of TLC to keep it running at peak performance.

I’ve spent years tweaking XP to run properly.  I may not be an expert on the subject, but I’ve read and practiced and programmed enough optimization tools to know the basics of maintaining an XP machine.  Many thanks to all the enlightened Digg readers who commented things like “WTF? U HAVE VIRUS AND SPYWARE BICH” - I appreciate the help, but it certainly wasn’t needed.  I know what a virus scanner is, and my dissatisfaction with XP’s performance wasn’t virus or spyware-related.  It was a function of XP requiring a high level of maintenance to keep it running optimally.

Some Digg readers claim “well my Vista install boots in 30 seconds.”  Good for you.  I don’t care.  Vista is incompatible with my hardware, and I’m not forking hundreds of dollars for hardware upgrades just so I can improve my computing experience.  If Vista worked for you, then by all means keep using it - and why the hell are you reading a pro-Ubuntu article anyway?

Other Digg readers claimed “your numbers are wrong, my XP boots fine.”  Again, good for you.  I don’t care.  If you’re happy with XP, then keep using it.  I’m not trying to stop you.  But if you are dissatisfied with XP’s performance, IN MY EXPERIENCE Ubuntu fixed the problem.  I can’t guarantee it’ll solve all your problems - but it worked for me.  Take that for what it’s worth.

It is true that my speed numbers were an exaggeration.  Obviously.  If you couldn’t figure this out, then you’re an idiot, and maybe the internet isn’t for you.  If you want specific “load” times, here’s hard numbers for my XP Pro install:

3:34

3:14

3:15

Here’s what I consider “time to load”: the time elapsed from when I push the power button until the CPU drops down to idle.  XP’s desktop shows up in about 45 seconds, but because CPU and hard drive activity has my machine at a crawl, I don’t consider that loaded.

Argue with these numbers if you want, and maybe yours are different.  Good for you.  My numbers aren’t solely the result of XP - these include time for a virus scanner to initialize, time for select background processes to launch.  I have trimmed down this load time greatly (it used to be approaching 6 minutes), but without hardware upgrades, or an MFT defragment (which I haven’t tried), or disabling startup programs I actually use, I am out of ways to get XP’s load time consistently below 3 minutes.

The point: I wasn’t trying to bash XP or claim Ubuntu will give you a 5-6x performance increase.  I was fortunate enough to have that happen to me (same numbers for Ubuntu 8.04: 31, 33, 31), and if you’re looking for a cold-boot performance increase, maybe it’ll work for you.  I hope it does.

The Firefox load time is, again, an exaggeration.  Obviously.  My cold-boot time for Firefox 3.0.3 on XP tends toward 60 seconds, not 5 minutes.  Sorry if I led you astray.

Again, I don’t consider this to be Firefox’s fault.  I run a number of Firefox plugins and a custom theme, and I’m sure that doesn’t help the FF load time.  But the EXACT SAME CONFIGURATION of FF on Ubuntu 8.04 cold-loads in 3 seconds.  Every time.  That is not an exaggeration.

Again, I don’t care whose fault this is.  I’m not trying to place blame.  I’m simply pointing out that my browsing experience has greatly improved since switching to Ubuntu.  If you’re interested, give it a try and post what you find. Maybe your experience will be different, and maybe you’ll save someone from switching to Ubuntu and having a crappy experience.

Ubuntu isn’t a perfect OS.  Far from it.  But in my experience, it performs MUCH better than XP, and because of that I will stick with it for now.  If, in the future, Microsoft releases an OS that works better on my hardware (HA HA HA HA!), I’ll switch to that.  I’m no ignorant fanboy - but I know what worked for me, and based on that, I’ll encourage anyone willing to expore a switch from XP to Ubuntu.

And to the ignorant “VISTA ROOLS LINUX SUX” crowd: ha ha.  Thanks for making me laugh.

– My official article ends here.  The rest of this text is specific responses to Digg/article comments, which you may or may not find interesting. –

Zmobchomper writes:

In my personal experience, XP only slows down in response to how you treat it. Almost all the problems I’ve come across with XP are caused by other applications and not the operating system itself. I’ll spare you the details because, if you’ve been using Ubuntu for a while now, chances are you have a basic idea of what you’re doing.

I totally agree, and thanks for pointing this out.  XP’s performance is greatly dependent on the software you have installed, and it wasn’t fair for me to imply that XP alone was the problem.

Charlie writes:

You should give GIMP a try, you may even be able to say goodbye to Photoshop as well!  GIMP 2.6 is impressive software.

Totally agree.  GIMP 2.6 in particular is a fine replacement for PS6.  Thanks for the comment!

Q writes:

5 minutes to load Windows and 5 minutes to load Firefox??? WTF!

Dude… you gotta get that spyware cr*p off your computer. My Windows XP Pro loads in under a minute and Firefox pulls up in seconds.

I guess the word “exaggeration” is lost on some people.  And dude - I dare you to take 10 XP installs and time how long it takes for them to go from power off to idle CPU.  I think you’d be surprised by the results.

And seriously: what does your XP install have to do with my XP install?  Think there’s a chance we could have, say, different hardware?

John writes:

Your opinion is biased and outdated, just like your version of Photoshop. -__-

This comment is just completely nonsensical.  My version of Photoshop is biased?  And is there such thing as a non-biased opinion?  THAT’S WHAT MAKES IT AN OPINION.

And anyone who pays for a new version of software just because it’s newer is an idiot.  PS6 works fine for me, so why should I fork for CS4?  $100 says John doesn’t do anything in CS4 that I can’t do in PS6.

Jack writes:

Surely you’re exaggerating. FUD is FUD, and it’s no better when it comes from “our” side.

Sorry that you considered a 5-minute load time for XP FUD.  I agree that Linux fanboys make a bad habit of using FUD to argue their points, but for my computer, the data wasn’t FUD.  Exaggeration perhaps - but not FUD.

mrmudgeon writes:

I use Ubuntu and Windows XP. This article is pretty retarded and is not the kind of thing that will get folks to switch. I have been running XP on a dual-core Intel based server for some time. My system boots up in less than 2 minutes despite a large number of services that I have installed on the system. My linux environments take a similar length of time bo boot. Internet Explorer on my windows system is actually a bit faster than Firefox on Ubuntu or Windows. Maybe the author of this article needs to consider a different browser environment on Windows.

Surprising - did you ever consider that perhaps my intention wasn’t to get others to switch?  But I appreciate the inference of motivation.  Some of us bloggers do actually just post what we find interesting and exciting.  Not every expression of opinion is an attack on what other people do.

And the line “Internet Explorer on my windows system is actually a bit faster than Firefox on Ubuntu or Windows.”  This comment is so shocking I don’t even know how to respond.  Obviously, when the OS pre-loads an internet browser, it gains a speed advantage.  And yes, there are other considerations in choice of browser besides just load time.

DangerCollie writes:

I haven’t found Ubuntu to be that much faster, even on compatible hardware. Sometimes, on start up and shut down, it’s noticeably slower. And I’m not sure how he’s getting OpenOffice to open that fast. We’re still on 2.4 and it’s a little slow the first time you start it. Faster after the first load.

Based on my experience, this isn’t uncommon.  Different hardware configs will respond differently to certain programs and OS’s, and there is definitely a chance Ubuntu might be slower for you.  That just wasn’t the case for me.

And I didn’t do anything special to OOo - wish I had some kind of special tweak, but that’s simply how it runs on my box.

Shinobi326 writes:

Photoshop 6?! Who in the hell is still using that unsupported POC? Isn’t that at least 10 years old? Time up invest in an upgrade if you are not on least a CS version.

No, it isn’t time to invest in an upgrade.  Again, I hate these supposed Adobe experts who believe anyone not on CS4 is an idiot.  That’s like assuming every car mechanic who doesn’t drive an ‘09 model is an idiot.  Why should I upgrade if PS6 does exactly what I need?

People like this are the reason that companies like Adobe don’t innovate any more than they absolutely have to. I’ll upgrade to CS4 when CS4 does something I can’t do equally efficiently in PS6.

iridescence writes:

Any new install of an OS always feels faster than one you’ve been running for a while. It’s true of every OS I’ve used, inc OSX.

Ah, an intelligent comment!  This is absolutely true, and if I were doing a legitimate scientific comparison of Ubuntu and XP, I’d have to use clean installs to be fair.

Ramzy writes:

If it takes 5 minutes for you to boot your PC, and another 5 minutes to boot Firefox, then your computer is *****, not XP. Maybe defragging every 5 years isn’t a good idea.

Oh wow, defragmenting speeds up XP?  Cool!  Thanks for your priceless help!

Here’s an idea - how about use a filesystem that DOESN’T require constant defragging to work properly?  It’s called ext3.  Look it up.

Ufia writes:

Who is the backward retard ’switching’ OS in this day and age? Haven’t they heard of dual booting? Or a single monitor/keyboard KVM’ed to multiple computers? Or virtual machines?

I mean, there’s no reason not to use both Linux and Windows. And Mac OS X, and Solaris, and BSDs, etc… The fanboyism is only limiting your own knowledge of other operating systems.

Except mine is a dual-boot….oops.

Jeffler writes:

Buried for sensationalist title. Also, the article is short, and it seems to be if this guy was having problems with speed he probably installed XP when it came out and hasn’t done a cleanout at all. Hell, this guy is so behind he’s still using Photoshop 6!

You’re right, everyone who has speed problems with XP is becaused they’ve never cleaned it out.  Good call, Sherlock.

Also, I’ll make sure my next article is something long and non-sensationalist, just for you.

CoffeeandTV writes:

That was a retarded article. This guy has been using XP that long and still doesn’t understand basic computing.

That was a retarded comment.  Thanks for your insight into basic computing.  It really helped me.

mariecordona writes:

Then clean up your OS and fix whatever is causing problems. Run msconfig and see how items are in your startup that you don’t need. Uncheck the boxes and reboot. Then clean up all of your temp files, unneccesary programs and defrag your hard drive. Try disabling the taskbar icons for programs you don’t use very often. Go into your services and disable things you don’t need. Same goes with unneccesary Windows components in Add/Remove Programs. Check your hardware. Does it meet the recommended requirements for running XP? Remember that if a computer barely meets the minimum requirements for running XP (or any OS for that matter) then you will not have enough resources to run anything else.

Bottom line is, if your computer is running XP and it is slow, it’s your own damn fault. Clean up after yourself every day and you never have to do spring cleaning.

Done everything there, plus way more.  XP still doesn’t run how I want it to.

Bottom line is, with enough work and hardware changes, you can get a Honda Civic to perform like a Porsche.  But wouldn’t it be easier to just buy a Porsche?  Yeah, you CAN do ungodly things to get XP to work properly - but for some of us, it’s a hell of a lot easier to just install Ubuntu and be done with the matter.

—-

I wish I had the time to respond to all the idiot Digg comments, but this is plenty for now.

And congrats to everyone else who has had a positive experience switching to Ubuntu.  To any XP user looking for improved performance - I can’t guarantee Ubuntu will work for you, but it worked for me.  If nothing else, it might be worth a try.

I have now spent two weeks using Ubuntu 8.04 exclusively on my home PC.  I have booted to XP only once, and that was to check a Photoshop 6 quirk I was getting in WINE.  (As it turned out, it was a Photoshop quirk, not a WINE one.)

But I tell you what - that one boot to XP reminded me why I switched to Ubuntu in the first place.  XP takes 5 minutes to load, 5 minutes to launch Firefox, and EVERY FRIGGING ACTION seems slow-motion compared to Ubuntu.

After 2 weeks of Ubuntu user - including rabid installation/uninstallation of every program imaginable - I can still go from a turned off PC to browsing the web in 30 seconds.  Firefox cold-loads in 2-3 seconds.  OpenOffice.org is up in less than 5.  A full-blown, compiz-enriched desktop (with transparent window borders, animated window buttons (on mouseover), burning window open/closing, organic windows) runs without so much as a stutter.  DVDs look great, my mp3 collection sounds pristine, Photoshop 6 on WINE is just as good as PS6 on XP, and I’ve played more PC games in the last 2 weeks than I have in the last 2 years.

It’s true that Ubuntu has some quirks for the user switching from XP, but I’ve found these quirks to be a byproduct of 15 years of Windows use - not any inherent problem with Ubuntu itself.  In fact, once I get used to the Ubuntu way of doing things, they’re almost universally better.

I have debated for 3 years making the switch to a linux distro, and after 2 weeks of making the switch, this is all I have to say:

Goodbye Windows XP.  May you rest in peace.

(Read more about Ubuntu at http://www.ubuntu.com/products/WhatIsUbuntu/desktopedition)

(One of the awards for being a semifinalist is being able to receive a free proof copy of your novel from Amazon’s CreateSpace self-publishing service.)

For this complex formatting task, I used OpenOffice 2.4.  I know, I know - v3 came out this week, but I generally have a policy against downloading new software for the first 30 days after its release.  I like to make sure that any grievous bugs and security errors are given time to show themselves before I jump on a new version bandwagon.

All-in-all, OO’s Writer performed remarkably well.  Adjusting page margins, layout, complex font issues, kerning, and spacing was all a breeze, and OO’s repagination was surprisingly fast and accurate (for a book looking to end up somewhere between 300 and 400 pages).

However, I have one major complaint.  There is no easy way to suppress footers and headers for any page except the first.  In fact, the only legitimate way to do it is to use a complex array of page styles, and even then I had major issues.

This is compounded by the fact that I consider myself a grade-A problem solver when it comes to software use.  As a programmer, I have no problem spending hours debugging problems like this - but I simply could not generate a simple, useful solution to this problem after an entire evening of research.  I debated saving my novel as a .DOC and trying to remedy the problem in Microsoft Word - but lo and behold, they also can’t suppress headers and footers on select pages without major hacking.

How is this possible?!  Has no one ever noticed this problem?  In my mind, this problem is fairly trivial to fix - especially in OO.  On the page properties dialog, simply add an option to SUPPRESS A HEADER OR FOOTER FOR THIS PAGE ONLY.

How hard is that?  Not hard at all.

Anyway, I am now in the process of discovering a good way to submit my request to the OO development team.  With this change, I can honestly say that I could write an entire novel - happily - in OO.  No small feat for an open source competitor to the all-but-ubiquitous MS Word.

OpenOffice.org can be downloaded for free at http://www.openoffice.org/.  They have been a bit overwhelmed by download requests for version 3, so don’t be alarmed if you get a plain-text page instead of their full site!