1. Really slow boot time

Cold booting under Windows XP was a lengthy affair.  I could easily get dressed, eat an entire breakfast, and have my teeth brushed in the time it took Windows to load and become usable.  With Ubuntu, not only can I leave my desktop running (since it’s still stable – even after weeks of up-time), but on the rare occasions that I do have to cold boot, it takes me 20-30 seconds instead of 5+ minutes.

2. Green start button

I don’t care what anyone else says – the green XP start button is ugly.  Atrociously ugly.  I much prefer the word “Applications,” which actually describes what that menu holds.  (Although “Start” is an accurate way to describe the Windows menu, as clicking that button is only the start of launching a program.  12 menus and submenus later you may actually find what you need…)

3. Constantly having to consult Task Manager

It’s been strange to get used to the lack of ctrl+alt+del in Ubuntu – and at first I hated not having that key combo available.  But after 6 months of living without it, I release that a good OS doesn’t require you to constantly consult the Task Manager / System Monitor.  A good OS just works.  A good OS doesn’t require you to constantly hunt down rogue processes and kill them manually.  And, if you do have to kill a rogue program, using “Force Quit” and clicking the frozen window is a much better way to do it.

4. Slow, annoying, bloated, resource-hogging virus scanners

I’ve tried a lot of virus scanners over the years, and while some are tolerable, all are annoying.  In recent years, AVG and Avast have lessened the burden of keeping personal copies of Windows virus-free, but they inevitably require more resources than they should.  Under Ubuntu, I’ve tried running with no virus scanner and with Clam AV – and since Clam doesn’t require a noticeable amount of resources, I’ve left it on.  Figures that the safest OS also has the most agreeable virus scanner.

5. Defragmenting

Unlike some PC users, my computer needs to be left on since I also use it as a DVR.  This up-time requirement makes defragmenting a conundrum, as I don’t like rendering the computer unusable for hours at a time so it can defrag, but because I deal with a lot of large files defragmenting is a must.  Well…it used to be a must, until I switched to Ubuntu.  Now I never have to defragment, and my system chugs along happily regardless of how many multi-gigabyte files I save and/or delete in a day.

6. Tool-tip notifications that won’t die

I can’t for the life of me figure out why XP gets SO excited about connecting to a wireless network.  Why does it want me to click on the corner notification every time the laptop connects to my home wi-fi?  I know it’s connected, and I’m glad it’s connected, but I don’t need that indicator popping up EVERY @#&%$ TIME.  And as for offering to clean up my desktop…grr…

7. Custom programs for every peripheral

Why do my printer, my webcam, my speakers, my video card, my sound card, and my mouse all need their own program running in the background?  Why can’t they simply integrate any useful settings into the control panel, and then run their respective programs on demand as I need them?  I love that Linux doesn’t require/allow every peripheral to have its own little spyware running in the background.

8. Forced reboots after critical updates

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve left my XP computer for a moment, only to return and find it restarting because of security updates.  I CAN HIT THE POWER BUTTON MYSELF, MICROSOFT.  I don’t mind being notified of important updates, but I do mind when XP takes over and reboots just because I didn’t click their 60-second countdown message in time.

9. Manual updates and/or program-specific update programs

I hate Adobe Acrobat (I and many others).  I find it to be one of the worst programs ever written.  I also hate the Acrobat updater, from the unreliable downloader to the intrusiveness of it to the way it constantly “requires my attention.”  I love that Ubuntu provides me with full updates for all of my programs via one update manager.   I love not having to worry that crap will get installed alongside legitimate updates (*cough* iTunes + Safari *cough*).  I love knowing that all my programs are up-to-date, not just the ones I check manually.

10. The angry feeling I get when I see MS logos.

Now the only place I typically see the Windows logo is alongside my “Powered by Ubuntu” sticker, where I’ve left it for amusement’s sake.  I love not seeing the Windows logo at the boot screen, or as I shut down, or on the hideous green start button.  I love not seeing a lowercase blue e everywhere I turn.  I love not having a spattering of MS logos all over my Programs menu (like “Windows Catalog” – does anyone actually click on that?).

And most of all, I love having the freedom to choose what does and doesn’t appear on my PC.  I love that I can look at the source code of every program I run.  I love that I can install and uninstall programs in 3 clicks instead of 25, and I love that each of those programs is prescreened, tested, and placed in a safe repository.

After 6 months of Ubuntu, and I can honestly say that I haven’t considered returning to XP even once.

(As a fun side note, in the last 6 months I have also seen my parents and three close friends switch to Ubuntu, and as of today every one of those individuals remains a happy convert.)

I recently purchased a Playstation 3 (GTA4 is superb, btw) and it didn’t take me long to realize that upgrading the 80gb hard drive would be worth a bit of time and spare change.  As such, I picked up a new hard drive and swapped it into the PS3.

But what to do with the 80gb that came with the system?  Rather than toss a perfectly functional drive into storage, I picked up this inexpensive little external SATA enclosure and plugged my original PS3 drive into it.

That’s when the trouble started.

First I discovered that my desktop PC didn’t pull enough power through the USB ports to power my new external drive.  (I realized this after several minutes of googling variations on “external drive red light beeping incessantly”.)  Unfortunately, this left me with only my XP laptop to get the new drive up and running.

To my surprise, my little laptop had no trouble powering the drive, and XP even recognized it as a mass storage device.

So what was the problem?

The new drive didn’t appear anywhere.  No drive letter.  No useful information in device manager.  No pop-up asking me to format the drive or open it in a new explorer window or anything of the sort.

So I did what any normal person would do in this situation – I turned to Google.  Various solutions came up, but the two main solutions – to disable any IEEE 1394 (firewire) ports and/or install updated drivers – didn’t help.  My laptop doesn’t have any firewire ports, and the generic mass storage drivers were already what I needed.

More googling revealed variations on these two ideas, but nothing more.

Out of options, I turned to the next best thing – screwing with various control panel settings.  As fate would have it, this eventually solved my problem.

Here’s my solution, for any others experiencing trouble with an external drive.

1. Open control panel.
2. Double-click “Administrative Tools”
3. Double-click “Computer Management”
4. From the LH menu, select “Storage” -> “Disk Management”
5. The RH pane should show all hard drives attached to the system.  One of these should be labeled “Disk 0″.  This is most likely your default hard drive.  Double-check the partitions and drive sizes to confirm this.
6. Assuming that you only have your default hard drive and your external hard drive installed, directly beneath “Disk 0″ should be “Disk 1.”  (If you have other drives installed, you may need to go down to “Disk 2″ or “Disk 3″.)  Double-check that the functional size of your external drive matches the size listed for this drive.
7. If this is the proper drive, right-click the button to the left of the partition bar for “Disk 1″.  The ensuing context menu should have an “Initialize” option at the top.  Click it.
8. Step through the dialogs to confirm partition, name, formatting, etc.  Once you’ve finished, let the computer format your new drive.  This may take awhile.
9. Once done, enjoy your new drive!

While this may not work for everyone, it certainly worked for me.  Feel free to comment on your success/failure using this method – and good luck!

(And yes – this was one yet one more reminder why I use Ubuntu instead of XP whenever possible.)

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)