Right off the bat, this is not a bash on the magazine known as Maximum PC at all. I think they put out a great publication, more power to them for sharing what they find to be the biggest issues with Vista when it was released. This being said, it does seem like the press gives other operating systems a pass when they are demonstrating some level of incompatibility – Ubuntu for instance.
Speaking as a full time Ubuntu user, I have come to grips with a real love/hate relationship with this paticular distro. And perhaps that is why my house looks like something out of Star Trek, with three different Linux distros running in the background, an XP box and a Mac in my wife’s office. We use everything – just not Vista. It’s a personal choice, but I just have not seen a reason for using it myself. Others will obviously come to their own conclusions based on what their needs are of course.
But I digress. I asked earlier in this post why in the world Ubuntu seems to get away with incompatibility complaints whereas Vista always seems to get nailed. After noodling it for awhile, I came to the following conclusions:
- Ubuntu and other distros are hammers pretty hard by the media as well. The differences is that more people are reading the positive articles instead. Don’t believe me, just Google Ubuntu in the blog search sometime – it’s out there.
- Hefty dollars spent vs free of charge. Clearly, you feel like a heel becoming distraught over an OS that you paid NOTHING for whatsoever. With Vista, issues generally arise when people are trying to install it on hardware initially designed for XP.
What is really interesting to think about is that Ubuntu and Vista have one thing in common that has plagued both operating systems – users trying to install an OS on hardware or with software that simply will not play ball. See, I have friends who run Vista boxes that were built with the OS pre-installed. Yes, it’s pretty slow to use, but it is generally stable as well. The same goes for PCs pre-installed with Ubuntu – your stuff just works.
Another area that I see both Ubuntu and Vista sharing commonality is that the corporations behind each are living on another planet. Canonical needs to be much clearer about what you get when installing their distribution onto hardware built with Window in mind. Sure, most of the stuff works – but you should really look into wireless vendors that support your OS choice, not Microsoft’s if using Linux is your end goal.
The same goes for Vista. I have an old notebook that by specs alone, ought to be able to run Vista fairly well. But I can promise you that if it is installed and does not run right, I will not be holding out my finger in shame as the OS did not run as planned. See, unless you were one of those who purchased a Vista ready machine that for one reason or another was not running as promised, becoming frustrated over Vista not running on hardware built for something else is pretty stupid.
There are times when becoming frustrated or even angry about Leopard, Vista, Ubuntu and so on is expected. But only after looking at the bigger picture I think.