I WANT to get to know Windows 7. I want to make the break from XP to "the latest and greatest". I want to be "up to date" with the latest version. I've got the hardware, and the experience. But something seems to nag the crud outta me.....
Where is everything? Why does it all look SO different? And why is it so darned PRETTY, with translucent window borders and retooled taskbar, but still suffers the slings and arrows of an insecure architectural foundation?
Maybe my foray into this brave new Windows 7 world is gonna be WAY more trouble than I ever imagined....
Okay, so I used the wonderful vLite program to create a customized install of Windows 7. Yes, I understand vLite was made for Vista, but I've seen lots of write-ups and blogs that told me it was compatible with 7. Truth is, 7 shares a very close and common heritage with Vista. It would have been more honest for the marketeers at Microsoft to call it Vista Second Edition, but that's beside the point.
My first steps into the Windows 7 UI, as they were with Vista, continually remind me that everything has changed, the old ways of doing things no longer apply, and the notion of "discoverability" is non-existent. Since I started using Windows in the version 2 days, including Windows/286 and Windows/386, the user interface has remained similar enough between versions that it was no big deal to figure out where to go and what to do when I wanted to do something. Anything. Even the change from Program Manager to Start button was easily assimilated and I moved on and got my work done.
And I was happy. I was able to help others figure it all out, too. I was the technical Go-To Guy at work, at home and among my friends and clients. And I still am, except for Vista and Windows 7. And before you tell me that I haven't spent enough time learning the new ways, let me remind you that a century after the automobile was invented, the steering wheel, gas pedal and brake remain in the same place, doing the same things in the same manner they always did. And drivers can move between vehicles seamlessly and without issue. The same could be said about other utilitarian items in our lives. It makes upgrading easy, a no-brainer. No (re)training and (re)orientation necessary.
The same could easily have been the case for Windows, but because they COULD change it, they did, and the path of experience and utility was torn asunder with a new twenty lane superhighway built in its wake.
So. What's an old dog, longtime user to do in this brave new world? How does the expert take what he or she already knows and make that work in the new paradigm? I thought it would be to simply dive in, get wet all over and start doing stuff the "new" way, but that's the major rub to all this. I can't do things the way I used to do them, the way I learned to do them over twenty-plus years, the way all those books in the office, that cost me so much money, tell me to do them. Heck, just buy some new ones and start from scratch. Right?
No freakin' way. Homie don't play dat.
You know, "back in the old days," WordPerfect was the King of the word processing hill, and when Word came along it offered an optional user interface that mimicked WordPerfect, as well as a help system for WP users. Each time I look at Vista/W7, I ask myself Why didn't Microsoft provide a similar facility to make the transition easier for users of prior versions? These days, a simple collection of Flash videos would do the trick, no need for an extended help system or emulated UI. But let there be no mistake - ANYTHING would have been better than what we got, which was left to figure it out for ourselves.
I am happy that I tried this test install of Windows 7 Ultimate on a secondary system, because if I had gone and set it up on the main production system, I'd be pulling my (remaining) hair out, yelling and screaming, and reaching for that nLited XP Pro X64 install disc and going back to the future.
SOME BACKGROUND
vLite was created by Dino Nuhagic ("Nuhi") as a way to customize Vista install media similar to his very popular nLite for XP. Since I have used nLite (or WinLite) for a few years, I got the knack of what I could change, getting help along the way from tech giants like Charles M. Sparks, AKA Black Viper (www.blkviper.com) and forums like RyanVM.net, DriverPacks and Digital Life, among others. vLite creates a customized install DVD with MY settings and MY configuration, based on the research of the aforementioned Sparks and Company, so I can get Windows MY WAY from the moment Setup is complete.
The great thing about WinLite is its ability to integrate updates, patches and fixes, as well as an entire universe of updated drivers (thank you Wim Leers and distinguished crew at DriverPacks.net) and configuration tweaks to make a version of Windows that is current, faster, safer, and more reliable than anything you can buy at retail or online.
OEMs have NO CLUE how to setup Windows to be resistant to malware (Firefox and extensions are your friends) or viruses (Internet Explorer is an invitation to disaster). They seem to want to flood the new computers with trialware and demoware and what I call SHOVELware that consumes hard drive space and CPU cycles, not to mention adding prodigious amounts of "attack surface" to the system. For what? A few dollars more?
Way to go, guys. NOT.
Nuhagic, Sparks, Leers and the rest have freely given us the tools we need to generate the better way to install Windows, and by freely I mean that these technologies are provided AT NO COST and are free to download, install and use. Sure, like any sufficiently developed technology they will command some degree of technical prowess and understanding. In the Information Age, the search engines are your ticket to finding and leveraging the knowledge trails blazed by others, and then recounted and digested for those enterprising souls who take the initiative to learn new stuff. While I prefer to use Google, I see that Bing from Microsoft is an admirable and dependable second opinion when trying to find relevant information quickly.
By using these customization tools, in concert with applications that are safer (Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, Pidgin, ImgBurn, Skype, Foxit Reader, NotePad++, VNC, Hamachi and more), I can create a workspace universe that conforms to MY WAY (no highway option), and lets me get my work done and be creative and branch out to new stuff without limitation, confusion, or restriction. There's a lot to be said about doing things "the old fashioned way" but that's just my opinion and I could be wrong.
But I doubt it.
THE ROAD AHEAD
If I'm going to learn an entirely new user interface (UI), and a new organization for the computer, it would behoove me to investigate further the challenger and "underdog" that is Ubuntu Linux. Yes, I know that it will be WAY different than XP and 2000 and Millennium and 98 and 95 and NT and 3.1.... But Ubuntu is free from licensing restrictions and hassles, open for the world to see and modify, and lighter weight to run faster and more securely than any modern version of Windows.
You've read my other entries about dabbling with Ubuntu, and how I was impressed that things just seemed to work "out of the box". But the challenge to get things done in a similar fashion will remain, as will compatibility issues, and the learning curve of a different universe of applications. But it seems to me that the best way to do this is what I have already been doing for years - start using programs that run on multiple platforms, and migrate to the browser as the center of the productivity mechanism. There are a LOT of great web apps out there and many more coming down the road.
Using open source, web-centered applications will make the operating system less relevant and easier to migrate, whether to newer versions of Windows or to Linux or the Mac, etc. It's a certainty that Windows will continue to "grow the bloat" and take on many new and varied functionalities traditionally reserved for application programs. If we go down that road, and drink the Kool-Aid, as it were, the harder it will be to make the eventual break (if that's what we want) or migrate to safer, more reliable platforms, including mobile computing and ARM-based netbooks, or whatever else the future might hold for us.
Here's the Plan, as it stands now: STAY WITH XP and all its field-tested, battle-hardened features, and use programs that are available on the other major platforms (Linux and Mac) as much as humanly possible. This alone may be the major challenge for some users and enterprises, getting weaned from the Redmond teat. But mark my words: the future will be brightest for the pioneers and trailblazers, not the me-too followers and the technological fashionistas.
NEXT UP - trailblazing and pioneering at the Strelecki Labs outside Atlanta. On the shopping list are Chrome OS, Ultimate Edition Ubuntu, Jolicloud, Moblin, and anything else that comes this way that looks like it could be reliable, safe and productive, and maybe even a little fun. That's the plan, Pilgrims. Wish me luck.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Seven to Get a Second Shot?
Yes, I know I've been railing against Windows Seven and declaring it unfit for my own use, but in the meantime I've been doing lots of reading. LOTS. It seems that this new Windows OS may have some architectural enhancements I was unaware of when I made my high-minded pronouncements, stuff like better utilization of multicore CPUs, actually useful security for antivirus and malware, supercharged network file transfer speeds, and probably more I can't think to gush about right now.
This is not to say I was wrong in my previous analyses regarding Seven's lack of killer features over the venerable and not-so-long-in-the-tooth XP, but it is an admission that I was ignorant of some of the less obvious improvements that have been engineered. That, and I got a FREE COPY at a Microsoft event a while back and have decided that it's just too difficult to leave the darned thing sitting on the shelf and keeping dust off the floor.
My plan revolves around using W7 as the main OS and then virtualize XP if (and when) I encounter a must-have application that has problems working correctly in the new environment. Whereas XP64 would allow me to install an unsigned device driver, W7 "don't play that game" in an effort to preserve system integrity and stability. And that's OK, but for the record, I've not had any problems in XP64 using unsigned drivers. In fact, XP64 has been working sterlingly for six months now, with no bluescreens AT ALL, and that's running 24-7 (no pun intended) as my main workstation.
I am intrigued by web discussions of W7's better affinity management on systems using multicore CPUs, the Intel Core I-series, in particular. My current workstation uses the Core I7-920 on an MSI X58 motherboard with 6GB tri-channel DDR3 RAM, and I'm very interested in testing the ability to get ALL the horsepower I paid for when I do things like transcode video, compress and uncompress files, and do serious multitasking with office productivity apps as well as multimedia processing and web-based browsing, downloading and whatever else I want to do.
As I prepare for this next bare metal clean install, I am assembling the latest drivers and application versions, as well as planning the best way to set it all up. The idea will be to setup W7 (likely Home Premium x64) and tweak it and tune it, then install VirtualBox and XP Pro (x86 this time) to do those (hopefully few) things W7 will refuse to accommodate. I am wary of the reach that DRM has made into MS operating systems, as well as the sheer volume of services that run by default at every boot. My intention is to minimize those services (the Black Viper is your friend) in an effort to maximize performance and eliminate third party controls on my computer.
So for now, the Strelecki Labs are in planning phase, assembling all the good stuff needed to make a clean install successful, as well as taking stock of these last 180 days (give or take) of using XP64. I'll keep you posted as I move ahead.
As always, thanks for reading!
This is not to say I was wrong in my previous analyses regarding Seven's lack of killer features over the venerable and not-so-long-in-the-tooth XP, but it is an admission that I was ignorant of some of the less obvious improvements that have been engineered. That, and I got a FREE COPY at a Microsoft event a while back and have decided that it's just too difficult to leave the darned thing sitting on the shelf and keeping dust off the floor.
My plan revolves around using W7 as the main OS and then virtualize XP if (and when) I encounter a must-have application that has problems working correctly in the new environment. Whereas XP64 would allow me to install an unsigned device driver, W7 "don't play that game" in an effort to preserve system integrity and stability. And that's OK, but for the record, I've not had any problems in XP64 using unsigned drivers. In fact, XP64 has been working sterlingly for six months now, with no bluescreens AT ALL, and that's running 24-7 (no pun intended) as my main workstation.
I am intrigued by web discussions of W7's better affinity management on systems using multicore CPUs, the Intel Core I-series, in particular. My current workstation uses the Core I7-920 on an MSI X58 motherboard with 6GB tri-channel DDR3 RAM, and I'm very interested in testing the ability to get ALL the horsepower I paid for when I do things like transcode video, compress and uncompress files, and do serious multitasking with office productivity apps as well as multimedia processing and web-based browsing, downloading and whatever else I want to do.
As I prepare for this next bare metal clean install, I am assembling the latest drivers and application versions, as well as planning the best way to set it all up. The idea will be to setup W7 (likely Home Premium x64) and tweak it and tune it, then install VirtualBox and XP Pro (x86 this time) to do those (hopefully few) things W7 will refuse to accommodate. I am wary of the reach that DRM has made into MS operating systems, as well as the sheer volume of services that run by default at every boot. My intention is to minimize those services (the Black Viper is your friend) in an effort to maximize performance and eliminate third party controls on my computer.
So for now, the Strelecki Labs are in planning phase, assembling all the good stuff needed to make a clean install successful, as well as taking stock of these last 180 days (give or take) of using XP64. I'll keep you posted as I move ahead.
As always, thanks for reading!
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Seven Is Not The One (For Me)
I dunno if I should be shocked, surprised or disappointed.
One of the last things I did while experimenting with various OSes on the Acer laptop was to take stock of the size of the install - the amount of space it took up on the hard drive. I figured it might be a good way to compare the relative "weight" or volume of each OS and then evaluate that in terms of the usefulness and productivity of the environment.
My assumption was, as history has shown, that the newer OSes would be bigger than older ones, and that turned out to be true. But in a Really Big Way.
In a nutshell, both Vista and Windows 7 were ten times the size of XP. Or bigger. That was a something I had not anticipated, and based on another important factor - performance - I came to an easy conclusion as to which OS - XP, Vista, or Windows 7 - was the best one for me. It's XP by an order of magnitude. Based on a pure bang for the buck value analysis, it would seem apparent that any OS thats ten times bigger and only fractionally better, if that, isn't worth the time, money and hassle of upgrading.
As I've written here and elsewhere already, the fact that the interface (look and feel) changed more than the underlying architecture (file system, security controls, API, etc.) tells me that the newer versions are more concerned with how they look than how they work. And that might not be a bad thing, but for me and the thirty-five years I've been using computing technologies, and the time delay between the release dates of XP and Vista, I would have bet money on the fact that the Very Smart Folks at Microsoft would have done the best they could to make their flagship product the very best it could be. You know - more secure, faster, more reliable. That kinda thing.
But that's not the case.
An operating system is traditionally defined as the "software heart of the computer, ...a set of programs that manage the hardware resources of a computer, provide the environment for application programs to run and provide the user interface." I think it's fair to say that Windows has grown quite significantly since its initial release in November of 1985, in size as well as functionality. Originally, Windows was not an operating system, but instead a graphical application environment that ran on top of PC- or MS-DOS. It was another ten years before Microsoft combined MS-DOS and the Windows GUI to create Windows 95. Windows NT shipped in July 1993 and was a true OS, but it was mainly used in professional/business circles and not marketed to the mainstream user. It was developed by Dave Cutler from DEC and his crew of minicomputer engineers, not by 'Softies.
Shortly after Windows 95 was released, Microsoft decided to ship their own web browser which was later integrated into the operating system. This decision introduced a wave of vulnerabilities that are still being exploited fifteen years later. In fact, Windows continues to be extended with applications that are of elementary utility, designed for the simplest of users, many of which contain weaknesses that can compromise the entire system. The media player, paint program, email client and web browser (Internet Explorer with ActiveX and Browser Helper Object architecture) permit execution of rogue code ("drive-by install") that can compromise system security and in many cases allow remote control of the system by unauthorized users.
In Vista and Windows 7, a feature called User Access Control (UAC) was added to provide feedback to the user whenever an application or process needed to make an important modification to the system. More code was added to attempt to manage the old insecure/buggy code that was probably so ingrained in the system that changes or security fixes to it would probably break tons of exisiting programs. My takeaway is that backward compatibility is a liability that constrains the OS from taking the more/most secure route. Microsoft shipped XP SP2 and KNEW they would affect application operation but made that decision because of the tidal wave of infections that were plaguing the platform. It was the right thing to do, without a doubt, and the world became a tiny bit safer that day.
Vista shipped with an entirely new driver model, and for the X64 platform, finally enforced driver signing where XP64 had not. Both changes were made knowing that users would likely need new hardware devices, as many old ones failed to install or operate properly under Vista's "enhanced" UAC feature or other "improvements" made to the OS. This is a painful reality of the evolution of modern operating systems - progress at the expense of compatibility - but sometimes it's necessary to leave behind the old ways in order to achieve more powerful results in the newer versions.
Most operating systems that compete with Windows in the twenty-first century marketplace are based on Unix, which has a long history of being secure and reliable. The mechanisms of user authentication and process control are baked-in to Unix and its cousins Linux and MacOS X, not layered on after the fact, like the UAC. By default, Unix/Linux users MUST login to the system and provide credentials each time some important change is requested, like an application install, driver update or security patch. This is done for the most obvious reason, to protect the computer and ensure the reliable operation of the system.
Until we get a mainstream Windows version that has security architected from its core, and while we are forced to use addons, third party utilities, and access programs like UAC to protect ourselves, we will not have a safe harbor for our computing and data storage. Microsoft needs to take a deep breath, and make the leap that will truly benefit the world, and break with the dangerous ways of the past. We need a Windows that is built Ford tough, a version that's really professional grade, a Windows that takes a licking and keeps on ticking. Unfortunately for all of us, Windows 7 is not the one.
One of the last things I did while experimenting with various OSes on the Acer laptop was to take stock of the size of the install - the amount of space it took up on the hard drive. I figured it might be a good way to compare the relative "weight" or volume of each OS and then evaluate that in terms of the usefulness and productivity of the environment.
My assumption was, as history has shown, that the newer OSes would be bigger than older ones, and that turned out to be true. But in a Really Big Way.
In a nutshell, both Vista and Windows 7 were ten times the size of XP. Or bigger. That was a something I had not anticipated, and based on another important factor - performance - I came to an easy conclusion as to which OS - XP, Vista, or Windows 7 - was the best one for me. It's XP by an order of magnitude. Based on a pure bang for the buck value analysis, it would seem apparent that any OS thats ten times bigger and only fractionally better, if that, isn't worth the time, money and hassle of upgrading.
As I've written here and elsewhere already, the fact that the interface (look and feel) changed more than the underlying architecture (file system, security controls, API, etc.) tells me that the newer versions are more concerned with how they look than how they work. And that might not be a bad thing, but for me and the thirty-five years I've been using computing technologies, and the time delay between the release dates of XP and Vista, I would have bet money on the fact that the Very Smart Folks at Microsoft would have done the best they could to make their flagship product the very best it could be. You know - more secure, faster, more reliable. That kinda thing.
But that's not the case.
An operating system is traditionally defined as the "software heart of the computer, ...a set of programs that manage the hardware resources of a computer, provide the environment for application programs to run and provide the user interface." I think it's fair to say that Windows has grown quite significantly since its initial release in November of 1985, in size as well as functionality. Originally, Windows was not an operating system, but instead a graphical application environment that ran on top of PC- or MS-DOS. It was another ten years before Microsoft combined MS-DOS and the Windows GUI to create Windows 95. Windows NT shipped in July 1993 and was a true OS, but it was mainly used in professional/business circles and not marketed to the mainstream user. It was developed by Dave Cutler from DEC and his crew of minicomputer engineers, not by 'Softies.
Shortly after Windows 95 was released, Microsoft decided to ship their own web browser which was later integrated into the operating system. This decision introduced a wave of vulnerabilities that are still being exploited fifteen years later. In fact, Windows continues to be extended with applications that are of elementary utility, designed for the simplest of users, many of which contain weaknesses that can compromise the entire system. The media player, paint program, email client and web browser (Internet Explorer with ActiveX and Browser Helper Object architecture) permit execution of rogue code ("drive-by install") that can compromise system security and in many cases allow remote control of the system by unauthorized users.
In Vista and Windows 7, a feature called User Access Control (UAC) was added to provide feedback to the user whenever an application or process needed to make an important modification to the system. More code was added to attempt to manage the old insecure/buggy code that was probably so ingrained in the system that changes or security fixes to it would probably break tons of exisiting programs. My takeaway is that backward compatibility is a liability that constrains the OS from taking the more/most secure route. Microsoft shipped XP SP2 and KNEW they would affect application operation but made that decision because of the tidal wave of infections that were plaguing the platform. It was the right thing to do, without a doubt, and the world became a tiny bit safer that day.
Vista shipped with an entirely new driver model, and for the X64 platform, finally enforced driver signing where XP64 had not. Both changes were made knowing that users would likely need new hardware devices, as many old ones failed to install or operate properly under Vista's "enhanced" UAC feature or other "improvements" made to the OS. This is a painful reality of the evolution of modern operating systems - progress at the expense of compatibility - but sometimes it's necessary to leave behind the old ways in order to achieve more powerful results in the newer versions.
Most operating systems that compete with Windows in the twenty-first century marketplace are based on Unix, which has a long history of being secure and reliable. The mechanisms of user authentication and process control are baked-in to Unix and its cousins Linux and MacOS X, not layered on after the fact, like the UAC. By default, Unix/Linux users MUST login to the system and provide credentials each time some important change is requested, like an application install, driver update or security patch. This is done for the most obvious reason, to protect the computer and ensure the reliable operation of the system.
Until we get a mainstream Windows version that has security architected from its core, and while we are forced to use addons, third party utilities, and access programs like UAC to protect ourselves, we will not have a safe harbor for our computing and data storage. Microsoft needs to take a deep breath, and make the leap that will truly benefit the world, and break with the dangerous ways of the past. We need a Windows that is built Ford tough, a version that's really professional grade, a Windows that takes a licking and keeps on ticking. Unfortunately for all of us, Windows 7 is not the one.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Ubuntu Trek
My journey with Ubuntu 9.04 continues with more tales from the laptop.
The Acer 6930-6455 laptop is a marvelous portable computer. It features a Core2 Duo with 4GB RAM, a 250GB AHCI SATA hard drive, bright sixteen inch widescreen monitor, stereo microphones and speakers, SDHC memory card reader, ExpressCard54 slot, HDMI and standard DB-15 VGA port, wireless and Gigabit Ethernet, dialup modem connection, Dolby sound, and lots more that I'm forgetting right now. Suffice it to say that getting all this in a relatively mobile form factor for under six hundred dollars represents some of the best bang-for-the-buck action you can get. All this hardware goodness shipped with a slathering of 64-bit Vista (home Premium) SP1 and a plethora of helper apps courtesy of the fine folks at Acer.
Of course, the first thing I did was save the factory setup and make the recovery disk set of (2? 3?) DVDs so I could put Humpty Dumpty back together again if my experiments were unsuccessful. This backup operation was no small feat in itself, taking the better part of several hours. (Did you know the first time you turn on a new Vista PC it takes almost three quarters of an HOUR before you can actually USE it?) But eventually I got there and was able to start the process of installing SOMETHING NEW.
First up was 32-bit XP Professional. Acer ships this unit with Vista, and supports drivers for Vista. ONLY. They offered NO help whatsoever in getting the "backrev" operation to work. Fortunately there is Google, the all-knowing, all-seeing oracle (wait - that's another company) whose vast database of accounts by prior trekkers was to help me get to the promised land of XP goodness. I wrote about it here and won't repeat myself, but the bottom line is that XP worked better and was WAY more familiar than Vista. (Who made the incredibly outrageous decision to change EVERYTHING around in the Vista UI? Very Bad Decision, Redmond.)
Next up was 64-bit XP which presented a whole new universe of challenge finding the proper drivers for this baby. Yeah, I found them all eventually, no thanks again to the manufacturer, but who knew the sheer number of applications that are NOT ready for 64-bit primetime? Antivirus, firewall, and network security were my first challenges, and thankfully the same Google also came to my rescue and helped steer me to some brand new proggies I had never heard of before, all of which worked as well or better than the ones I'd been using for YEARS. Hey, this is turning out to be a wonderful learning experience, huh?
Then late in April, I downloaded the X64 version of the Ubuntu 9.04 release candidate, burned the ISO image to CD, and live-booted the laptop to see what it would do. As I have chronicled here already, this was an eye opener of the first degree, wherein everything just seemed to work from the get-go. Video drivers, sound, wireless networking, keyboard controls (brightness, volume, etc.) - all working just the way they were supposed to. Holy moley, Batman. This is TOO EASY. So I decided to make a leap of faith and install the release version directly to the hard drive.
Ubuntu 9.04 on the hard drive booted very quickly, shut down equally fast, and in general worked very snappily in everything I threw at it.
While I started off using the 64-bit version, compatibility issues (with Skype in particular) forced me to revert to the 32-bit release, but I hardly feel slighted or inconvenienced.
Ubuntu, and Linux distributions in general, are obviously different animals than the Windows your Dad used. Yeah, we've still got a graphic user interface (GUI), a point and click desktop, icons and folders, web browsers and media players, and drop down menus and more, just like Windows, but beyond the surface lies a different architecture, and very different foundation and organization, that takes some real getting used to. For the more senior users out there, you know that learning new stuff is not as easy as it once was, and so it is with Ubuntu. The thing that should make it easier for all of us is the aforementioned Google, and it's wonderful cacophony of users, both young and old, who've already been down this path and are seeing many of the same challenges and having almost the exact same questions.
HOW THE HECK do I do (whatever-it-is)?
Because I am a senior user, I have a set of things I want/need my computer to do for me. Because I do bare metal clean installs relatively frequently, I find that coming back to a known base configuration provides me a high degree of readiness, an ability to hit the ground running, as it were. I take advantage of this process to try out new programs and configurations, and have progressed to a point where I am very comfortable with a particular set of base apps that I use to get me started. The list isn't all that big: create and edit office documents like Word and Excel files, print to a shared network printer, surf the web, download stuff and be safe and secure doing it, play videos and MP3s, create, print, and open PDF files, record podcast segments, edit and view plain text files, video- and audio conference using Skype, remotely access other computers using VPN and VNC technologies, upload files to a web server, create and open compressed files, edit and create image files like JPEGs and GIFs, and work with the other kind of image files - ISO - to burn them to optical media.
I know I'm leaving stuff out, but for the sake of this discussion, let's go from here.
In the Windows Universe, we install applications from downloaded files or installation media like CDs and DVDs. In the Linux Universe, that holds true as well, but there we have a glorious construct known as Repositories which are online collections of drivers, updates, applications, system libraries, OS updates and upgrades, and much more. The nice thing about these repositories is that they are open, freely available, compatible to an industry standard for the most part and as varied and immense as you can imagine. By contrast the Windows Universe has nothing like it. Well, there's Windows Update, and Microsoft Update, but not much else.
These repositories are accessed via a network/Internet connection by a small utility called a Package Manager (PM). In Ubuntu I am using a PM called Synaptic, and here's how simple this thing really is. You can define the URLs of the online sources (repositories, or REPOS for short) from which you'd like to select, then Synaptic shows you a very large list of everything available, with a small search textbox plainly visible for you to type something in. My initial experience with Synaptic went like this: check a few additional boxes in the list of predefined repos, reload the listings and then type VLC for the VideoLan Client I wanted to install. VLC is a great app that runs on Windows, Mac and Linux and plays about any media file you can throw at it, DVDs included.
When I searched for VLC I was presented with a list of choices from which I clicked on the one I wanted (it wasn't THAT hard figuring out which one), told it to mark it for installation, then answered affirmatively when I was asked "Synaptic needs to install these other (support) files. Is that OK?" Inside of two minutes, I was downloading the files Ubuntu needed to get me up and running with VLC, and a couple minutes after that I was pulling down the Applications menu, selecting VLC and opening a DivX video file I'd downloaded earlier from the web. BINGO, playing like a charm, great picture quality, smooth video, and clear sound, just the way I would expect if I were doing the same thing on Windows.
Before I forget to mention, Ubuntu ships with several of the apps I used in that base list of stuff I wanted to do, like open and edit office documents with Open Office, surf the web with Firefox, burn DVDs with Brasero, remotely connect to computers using VNC (virtual network computing), record audio files and play MP3s, and much more. Synaptic was used to install stuff not already present on the system, like VirtualBox that lets me install XP and run it in a window on the Ubuntu desktop. Yeah, you read that right - Ubuntu can run XP, the whole thing, in a window or full screen, depending on how you need to use it. Hey, what does this tell you about "backward" compatibility?
This blog chapter is still being written, in that there are some programs, like Hamachi (VPN) that I use in Windows and would really like to use in Linux, but haven't had the time to follow what looks to be a more complex set of instructions to make it go. My philosophy about this Ubuntu Trek is this: do what is easiest first, and work on the harder stuff after that. In this way I can feel some small amount of accomplishment as I get to new plateaus of achievement and functionality, doing more things in Ubuntu the same or similar ways I did them in the Windows world.
So this time I told you about the package manager Synaptic and how it offers a monstrous online assortment of all kinds of stuff you can use, and how easily I was able to use it. As I get to new levels in Linux, I will update you here, but please feel free to provide me feedback in whatever form works best for you, including tips and techniques I might use to better utilize this wonderful free operating system we know as Ubuntu Linux.
As always, thanks very much for reading, and I'll see you next time.
P.S. - The new Star Trek movie is GREAT, so go see it and have two hours of fun in the dark.
The Acer 6930-6455 laptop is a marvelous portable computer. It features a Core2 Duo with 4GB RAM, a 250GB AHCI SATA hard drive, bright sixteen inch widescreen monitor, stereo microphones and speakers, SDHC memory card reader, ExpressCard54 slot, HDMI and standard DB-15 VGA port, wireless and Gigabit Ethernet, dialup modem connection, Dolby sound, and lots more that I'm forgetting right now. Suffice it to say that getting all this in a relatively mobile form factor for under six hundred dollars represents some of the best bang-for-the-buck action you can get. All this hardware goodness shipped with a slathering of 64-bit Vista (home Premium) SP1 and a plethora of helper apps courtesy of the fine folks at Acer.
Of course, the first thing I did was save the factory setup and make the recovery disk set of (2? 3?) DVDs so I could put Humpty Dumpty back together again if my experiments were unsuccessful. This backup operation was no small feat in itself, taking the better part of several hours. (Did you know the first time you turn on a new Vista PC it takes almost three quarters of an HOUR before you can actually USE it?) But eventually I got there and was able to start the process of installing SOMETHING NEW.
First up was 32-bit XP Professional. Acer ships this unit with Vista, and supports drivers for Vista. ONLY. They offered NO help whatsoever in getting the "backrev" operation to work. Fortunately there is Google, the all-knowing, all-seeing oracle (wait - that's another company) whose vast database of accounts by prior trekkers was to help me get to the promised land of XP goodness. I wrote about it here and won't repeat myself, but the bottom line is that XP worked better and was WAY more familiar than Vista. (Who made the incredibly outrageous decision to change EVERYTHING around in the Vista UI? Very Bad Decision, Redmond.)
Next up was 64-bit XP which presented a whole new universe of challenge finding the proper drivers for this baby. Yeah, I found them all eventually, no thanks again to the manufacturer, but who knew the sheer number of applications that are NOT ready for 64-bit primetime? Antivirus, firewall, and network security were my first challenges, and thankfully the same Google also came to my rescue and helped steer me to some brand new proggies I had never heard of before, all of which worked as well or better than the ones I'd been using for YEARS. Hey, this is turning out to be a wonderful learning experience, huh?
Then late in April, I downloaded the X64 version of the Ubuntu 9.04 release candidate, burned the ISO image to CD, and live-booted the laptop to see what it would do. As I have chronicled here already, this was an eye opener of the first degree, wherein everything just seemed to work from the get-go. Video drivers, sound, wireless networking, keyboard controls (brightness, volume, etc.) - all working just the way they were supposed to. Holy moley, Batman. This is TOO EASY. So I decided to make a leap of faith and install the release version directly to the hard drive.
Ubuntu 9.04 on the hard drive booted very quickly, shut down equally fast, and in general worked very snappily in everything I threw at it.
While I started off using the 64-bit version, compatibility issues (with Skype in particular) forced me to revert to the 32-bit release, but I hardly feel slighted or inconvenienced.
Ubuntu, and Linux distributions in general, are obviously different animals than the Windows your Dad used. Yeah, we've still got a graphic user interface (GUI), a point and click desktop, icons and folders, web browsers and media players, and drop down menus and more, just like Windows, but beyond the surface lies a different architecture, and very different foundation and organization, that takes some real getting used to. For the more senior users out there, you know that learning new stuff is not as easy as it once was, and so it is with Ubuntu. The thing that should make it easier for all of us is the aforementioned Google, and it's wonderful cacophony of users, both young and old, who've already been down this path and are seeing many of the same challenges and having almost the exact same questions.
HOW THE HECK do I do (whatever-it-is)?
Because I am a senior user, I have a set of things I want/need my computer to do for me. Because I do bare metal clean installs relatively frequently, I find that coming back to a known base configuration provides me a high degree of readiness, an ability to hit the ground running, as it were. I take advantage of this process to try out new programs and configurations, and have progressed to a point where I am very comfortable with a particular set of base apps that I use to get me started. The list isn't all that big: create and edit office documents like Word and Excel files, print to a shared network printer, surf the web, download stuff and be safe and secure doing it, play videos and MP3s, create, print, and open PDF files, record podcast segments, edit and view plain text files, video- and audio conference using Skype, remotely access other computers using VPN and VNC technologies, upload files to a web server, create and open compressed files, edit and create image files like JPEGs and GIFs, and work with the other kind of image files - ISO - to burn them to optical media.
I know I'm leaving stuff out, but for the sake of this discussion, let's go from here.
In the Windows Universe, we install applications from downloaded files or installation media like CDs and DVDs. In the Linux Universe, that holds true as well, but there we have a glorious construct known as Repositories which are online collections of drivers, updates, applications, system libraries, OS updates and upgrades, and much more. The nice thing about these repositories is that they are open, freely available, compatible to an industry standard for the most part and as varied and immense as you can imagine. By contrast the Windows Universe has nothing like it. Well, there's Windows Update, and Microsoft Update, but not much else.
These repositories are accessed via a network/Internet connection by a small utility called a Package Manager (PM). In Ubuntu I am using a PM called Synaptic, and here's how simple this thing really is. You can define the URLs of the online sources (repositories, or REPOS for short) from which you'd like to select, then Synaptic shows you a very large list of everything available, with a small search textbox plainly visible for you to type something in. My initial experience with Synaptic went like this: check a few additional boxes in the list of predefined repos, reload the listings and then type VLC for the VideoLan Client I wanted to install. VLC is a great app that runs on Windows, Mac and Linux and plays about any media file you can throw at it, DVDs included.
When I searched for VLC I was presented with a list of choices from which I clicked on the one I wanted (it wasn't THAT hard figuring out which one), told it to mark it for installation, then answered affirmatively when I was asked "Synaptic needs to install these other (support) files. Is that OK?" Inside of two minutes, I was downloading the files Ubuntu needed to get me up and running with VLC, and a couple minutes after that I was pulling down the Applications menu, selecting VLC and opening a DivX video file I'd downloaded earlier from the web. BINGO, playing like a charm, great picture quality, smooth video, and clear sound, just the way I would expect if I were doing the same thing on Windows.
Before I forget to mention, Ubuntu ships with several of the apps I used in that base list of stuff I wanted to do, like open and edit office documents with Open Office, surf the web with Firefox, burn DVDs with Brasero, remotely connect to computers using VNC (virtual network computing), record audio files and play MP3s, and much more. Synaptic was used to install stuff not already present on the system, like VirtualBox that lets me install XP and run it in a window on the Ubuntu desktop. Yeah, you read that right - Ubuntu can run XP, the whole thing, in a window or full screen, depending on how you need to use it. Hey, what does this tell you about "backward" compatibility?
This blog chapter is still being written, in that there are some programs, like Hamachi (VPN) that I use in Windows and would really like to use in Linux, but haven't had the time to follow what looks to be a more complex set of instructions to make it go. My philosophy about this Ubuntu Trek is this: do what is easiest first, and work on the harder stuff after that. In this way I can feel some small amount of accomplishment as I get to new plateaus of achievement and functionality, doing more things in Ubuntu the same or similar ways I did them in the Windows world.
So this time I told you about the package manager Synaptic and how it offers a monstrous online assortment of all kinds of stuff you can use, and how easily I was able to use it. As I get to new levels in Linux, I will update you here, but please feel free to provide me feedback in whatever form works best for you, including tips and techniques I might use to better utilize this wonderful free operating system we know as Ubuntu Linux.
As always, thanks very much for reading, and I'll see you next time.
P.S. - The new Star Trek movie is GREAT, so go see it and have two hours of fun in the dark.
Friday, April 24, 2009
WUBI Makes Ubuntu Easy to Install
I was so favorably impressed by my initial LiveCD testing of Ubuntu 9.04 that I decided to see what a REAL install on a P4 desktop system would be like. Because I am testing lotsa stuff, I didn't want to repartition and reformat my XP hard drive to make this happen, and wouldn't you know there's a really simple way. I don't have to lose my existing Windows XP install to do a real hard drive installation. Check this out.....
The Windows Ubuntu Installer, or WUBI, is a small stub of a program that asks for user name and password, and the amount of space you want to dedicate to the Linux system, and then proceeds to download the appropriate version directly to your computer. My fast web connection still took about two hours to get the CD-sized file, likely because I picked the day the new version 9.04 was released and the servers were being hammered.
After verifying the download and doing some housekeeping, WUBI reboots the system and displays the Windows boot menu which showed my the choices of either Windows XP or Ubuntu (the default selection remains Windows). I selected Ubuntu and the system booted up and proceeded to install Ubuntu onto my hard drive. But wait! Don't I need to reformat my drive and setup swap and root partitions for the new Linux resident? Nope. WUBI makes this so simple by treating the Ubuntu install like any other application. If I don't like what I see, I can UNinstall Ubuntu and my system will be back to "normal".
So the Ubuntu setup took about fifteen to twenty minutes on this P4 2.4GHz system with 2GB RAM installed and presented me with the familiar brown desktop. As I always do when installing Windows, I immediately shut down and restarted the system, chose Ubuntu from the boot menu and was rocketed back into Ubuntu Land where I began another journey of discovery and enlightenment.
This computer is also connected to the Strelecki LAN via wireless, but is done with a D-Link USB adapter which remained connected during setup, so I anticipated difficulties in getting it to work. Imagine my surprise when I asked to see a list of available networks, selected my access point and entered the passphrase and was presented with a working network connection. Again, this happened in something like a minute, without any error messages or other issues. I clicked the Firefox icon and was off surfing the web.
I make it a point to backup and save my Firefox profile so that when I move to another system, or go portable, I have all my logins, passwords, cookies and bookmarks that makes navigating the web so productive. I did a quick lookup of the location where Firefox stores the profile on a Linux system (thank you again, Google) and copied my Windows profile onto a USB flashdrive and moved it into the Ubuntu location. In a heartbeat I was crusing with the very latest Firefox (3.0.9 as of this writing) along with ALL of my bookmarks, cookies, login credentials and everything. I stopped by my Earthlink webmail account and sent a message to a co-worker just to say I was on Linux and making it go. Hey, this feels GOOD, let me tell you!
While I was surfing, I found a few downloads I needed, and Firefox worked exactly the way it always does and stashed the files in a folder of my choice. It feels like the downloads go faster in Ubuntu, even though the transfer rate displayed in the download dialog shows it to be about the same as Windows. The browsing experience definitely FEELS faster, as pages seem to really pop onscreen, subjectively faster than they do under XP where I see the page being composited, section by section, until it's all loaded. In Ubuntu, the page just seems to appear fully formed and ready to go.
OK, so I had a couple downloaded ISO image files I needed to burn, and when I right-clicked on them I saw a choice for "write to disk" which brought up a burning app (Brasero) that worked flawlessly without any tweaking or configuring from me. The burn process was followed by a verification and disc ejection, making the whole idea of burning media a no-brainer. Once again, the new Ubuntu 9.04 made it very easy to just make it go.
As I perused the desktop menus, I came across an item called Remote Desktop Viewer (RDV). I thought it might be a Microsoft-compatible program (remote desktop) so I was very pleasantly surprised to see, from the help system, that it is a VNC-based viewer program. It so happens that I've been working with TightVNC recently to remotely access servers being setup in a new data center in Woodstock, Georgia, as well as some of the systems here on the Strelecki LAN. It was very cool to type in the IP address for one of the local systems, enter the password and be looking at the desktop of one of my Windows boxes.
By default, the Vinagre RDV came up in read-only mode, so I was unable to interact with the remote system, but a quick selection from a menu enabled me to point and click that desktop just as though I was sitting in front of it. It worked just like it does under XP, and the software was already installed in Ubuntu, no additional downloads or installation was required. OK, there's ANOTHER reason I could get to like using Ubuntu - it makes accessing Windows desktops a simple matter of knowing their IP address and VNC password. Very nice, indeed.
Some of the systems I administer are remotely located, and in XP I use the free Hamachi client from LogMeIn. It's a zero-config VPN client that works without any changes to the router/firewall, though I did need to add an entry into the Ghostwall software firewall I use on my XP64 system. Hamachi provides a public IP address for systems that share an Internet connection, sitting behind a NAT router and/or firewall, and it can be used to create and map shared folders and devices. I use it only for the public IP it provides, then use VNC to attach to that address. Works like a champ every time. Did I say that TightVNC was free? Yeah, it is. So is Hamachi.
My initial research tells me that Hamachi, or similar software, is available for Ubuntu, and you KNOW that I'm gonna try and make that go as soon as I get the chance. I figure the more I can do with Linux, and live to tell you about it, the better I'm gonna be. Windows is getting bigger, prettier, and more restrictive when it comes to user rights, but I have a massive history and experience there that I am unwilling to let go. Perhaps the path to take is one of using BOTH operating systems in parallel, which I am doing now with a small KVM that permits me to switch between two computers with a couple keystrokes.
Ubuntu 9.04 is looking to this longtime Windows user to be what we've been waiting for as an alternative to the Windows monolith - a workable, working desktop that networks very easily, leverages the web for all it's worth, and makes discovery of new abilities simple and fun. Oh my gosh! Does this mean I'm heading for the Computing Fun Times again?
I'll keep y'all posted. Thanks for reading.
The Windows Ubuntu Installer, or WUBI, is a small stub of a program that asks for user name and password, and the amount of space you want to dedicate to the Linux system, and then proceeds to download the appropriate version directly to your computer. My fast web connection still took about two hours to get the CD-sized file, likely because I picked the day the new version 9.04 was released and the servers were being hammered.
After verifying the download and doing some housekeeping, WUBI reboots the system and displays the Windows boot menu which showed my the choices of either Windows XP or Ubuntu (the default selection remains Windows). I selected Ubuntu and the system booted up and proceeded to install Ubuntu onto my hard drive. But wait! Don't I need to reformat my drive and setup swap and root partitions for the new Linux resident? Nope. WUBI makes this so simple by treating the Ubuntu install like any other application. If I don't like what I see, I can UNinstall Ubuntu and my system will be back to "normal".
So the Ubuntu setup took about fifteen to twenty minutes on this P4 2.4GHz system with 2GB RAM installed and presented me with the familiar brown desktop. As I always do when installing Windows, I immediately shut down and restarted the system, chose Ubuntu from the boot menu and was rocketed back into Ubuntu Land where I began another journey of discovery and enlightenment.
This computer is also connected to the Strelecki LAN via wireless, but is done with a D-Link USB adapter which remained connected during setup, so I anticipated difficulties in getting it to work. Imagine my surprise when I asked to see a list of available networks, selected my access point and entered the passphrase and was presented with a working network connection. Again, this happened in something like a minute, without any error messages or other issues. I clicked the Firefox icon and was off surfing the web.
I make it a point to backup and save my Firefox profile so that when I move to another system, or go portable, I have all my logins, passwords, cookies and bookmarks that makes navigating the web so productive. I did a quick lookup of the location where Firefox stores the profile on a Linux system (thank you again, Google) and copied my Windows profile onto a USB flashdrive and moved it into the Ubuntu location. In a heartbeat I was crusing with the very latest Firefox (3.0.9 as of this writing) along with ALL of my bookmarks, cookies, login credentials and everything. I stopped by my Earthlink webmail account and sent a message to a co-worker just to say I was on Linux and making it go. Hey, this feels GOOD, let me tell you!
While I was surfing, I found a few downloads I needed, and Firefox worked exactly the way it always does and stashed the files in a folder of my choice. It feels like the downloads go faster in Ubuntu, even though the transfer rate displayed in the download dialog shows it to be about the same as Windows. The browsing experience definitely FEELS faster, as pages seem to really pop onscreen, subjectively faster than they do under XP where I see the page being composited, section by section, until it's all loaded. In Ubuntu, the page just seems to appear fully formed and ready to go.
OK, so I had a couple downloaded ISO image files I needed to burn, and when I right-clicked on them I saw a choice for "write to disk" which brought up a burning app (Brasero) that worked flawlessly without any tweaking or configuring from me. The burn process was followed by a verification and disc ejection, making the whole idea of burning media a no-brainer. Once again, the new Ubuntu 9.04 made it very easy to just make it go.
As I perused the desktop menus, I came across an item called Remote Desktop Viewer (RDV). I thought it might be a Microsoft-compatible program (remote desktop) so I was very pleasantly surprised to see, from the help system, that it is a VNC-based viewer program. It so happens that I've been working with TightVNC recently to remotely access servers being setup in a new data center in Woodstock, Georgia, as well as some of the systems here on the Strelecki LAN. It was very cool to type in the IP address for one of the local systems, enter the password and be looking at the desktop of one of my Windows boxes.
By default, the Vinagre RDV came up in read-only mode, so I was unable to interact with the remote system, but a quick selection from a menu enabled me to point and click that desktop just as though I was sitting in front of it. It worked just like it does under XP, and the software was already installed in Ubuntu, no additional downloads or installation was required. OK, there's ANOTHER reason I could get to like using Ubuntu - it makes accessing Windows desktops a simple matter of knowing their IP address and VNC password. Very nice, indeed.
Some of the systems I administer are remotely located, and in XP I use the free Hamachi client from LogMeIn. It's a zero-config VPN client that works without any changes to the router/firewall, though I did need to add an entry into the Ghostwall software firewall I use on my XP64 system. Hamachi provides a public IP address for systems that share an Internet connection, sitting behind a NAT router and/or firewall, and it can be used to create and map shared folders and devices. I use it only for the public IP it provides, then use VNC to attach to that address. Works like a champ every time. Did I say that TightVNC was free? Yeah, it is. So is Hamachi.
My initial research tells me that Hamachi, or similar software, is available for Ubuntu, and you KNOW that I'm gonna try and make that go as soon as I get the chance. I figure the more I can do with Linux, and live to tell you about it, the better I'm gonna be. Windows is getting bigger, prettier, and more restrictive when it comes to user rights, but I have a massive history and experience there that I am unwilling to let go. Perhaps the path to take is one of using BOTH operating systems in parallel, which I am doing now with a small KVM that permits me to switch between two computers with a couple keystrokes.
Ubuntu 9.04 is looking to this longtime Windows user to be what we've been waiting for as an alternative to the Windows monolith - a workable, working desktop that networks very easily, leverages the web for all it's worth, and makes discovery of new abilities simple and fun. Oh my gosh! Does this mean I'm heading for the Computing Fun Times again?
I'll keep y'all posted. Thanks for reading.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Ubuntu 9.04 - Critical Mass for Linux?
It's been an eventful 2009 on the operating systems front here in the Strelecki technology labs.
My experiences with Windows 7 initially seemed less than stellar when compared to the venerable XP Pro, but I've spent the past month and a half using the 64-bit version of XP and while it does work well, XP X64 seems to lack the visual "punch" that you get with Windows 7. I like X64 because it supports all the RAM (6GB) installed in this Core i7 system, something the X86/32-bit version can't match, but there remains nagging incompatibility issues and the occasional app or driver that complains about the 64-bit platform. I dunno if that's "growing pains" or not, but it IS a pain to be kept from doing what it is I want to do, in the manner I see fit to do it.
I will spend additional time with Windows 7, because it looks to be what Vista SHOULD have been, and offers many UI tweaks and mods that grow on you over time, like those window animations and translucent window title bars. But as I've said, that's sizzle, not steak, and I must resist the urge to go down that road only because it's prettier than what I'm used to. I'm trying to find the legitimate good in the new platform, like better performance or greater stability, but that will be a very high bar to meet, and I don't relish the prospect of spending more hours learning the ins and outs of another user interface revision cycle.
This week, the RC for Ubuntu 9.04 was released, and I knew that the final version was right around the corner, but I decided that I'd take it for a spin on my Core2Duo Acer laptop to see what I could see. I downloaded the CD image and burned it to disk, then booted from it, and was soon greeted by a familiar Ubuntu desktop. That's when I began experimenting, to see how far I could go with this new build in as little time as possible.
The laptop is connected here via wireless network using an encrypted link which requires a password. Ubuntu showed me the several WLANs within range and I selected my access point and was prompted for my password. Within a few seconds I was connected and browsing the web using Firefox. I installed a few stalwart extensions (NoScript and AdBlock Plus, among others) and cruised the web for a few minutes. Pages loaded snappily, downloads were VERY fast, almost faster than with Windows XP, and I encountered no impediments, no unexpected problems, just a working Internet connection within a couple of minutes of booting the Ubuntu live CD.
It's times like this I wish Microsoft had released a live CD for XP - just boot up and go. Yes I know about Ben Burrows' fine Ultimate BootCD for Windows, and I use it regularly to create my own rescue and recovery disks, but I'm talking about the Windows equivalent of the Ubuntu live CD experience, something you can download, burn and boot with to get working fast without a learning curve and a lotta software to install.
Since I had the Internet working, the next step was to see what LAN connectivity was like. I was able to browse my local network, attach to a shared folder and access the files inside it. I copied several files from the Ubuntu laptop to the Strelecki server just as though I was using Windows. Transparent, working flawlessly, and again, very fast data transfers.
It was a piece of cake to attach to a shared HP printer and print a test page, and my previous experience working with Ubuntu helped me get setup quickly. The share method is Windows SMB, selected from a list of more than a half dozen choices, and perhaps the less experienced might have an issue but I was able to get connected and printing in less than five minutes. I think that is wonderful, to say the least, especially knowing my past difficulties getting ANY Linux distro to print over a network, let alone a wireless network.
Next up I tried to play a video file I downloaded from the web, and the default player was complaining that it needed a codec, asked me if I wanted to search for it and download it (which I did want to do), but then popped up an error that it was not found. OK, detective time. I cruised over to Google and searched for my problem and found directions for adding additional repositories (online sources) to my Ubuntu desktop, then used the default package manager (software installation program) to look for VLC, a freeware, open source media player that has all those pesky codecs built-in.
The install of VLC went quickly and without a problem, and in a very few minutes I was viewing that same video file that had stymied me earlier. It feels really good when you can discover a way to work around the problems you encounter, and in many years of troubleshooting Windows problems for myself and others, I've discovered that not only is Google your friend, it's also your all-knowing, all-powerful friend when it comes time to answering your questions about an error message, system condition, or other anomaly you will likely encounter on your technological travels.
So, I'm booted from a live CD, no install on my hard drive required, browsing the web with a secure browser, using LAN shared folders and printer, and watching videos. I had to stop for a minute and revel at the speed and ease of getting this new Ubuntu 9.04 (9 for 2009, 04 for April) up and running on my wireless laptop. It could NOT have been any easier. And did I say that the high performance video drivers were installed by default, giving me desktop UI effects every bit as snazzy as those offered by XP? And that the sound worked great, right from the get-go? Yup. That, too.
My next phase of testing Ubuntu will revolve around running Windows in a VM using VirtualBox from Sun, as well as running Windows apps natively on the Ubuntu desktop using Wine. I need to see Flash video working so YouTube is an available option. I'll look for a firewall, though I'm convinced that its necessity is orders of magnitude reduced, compared to Windows, as is the need and availability of antivirus, anti-spyware and anti-Trojan protection. I need to be able to open and edit my office documents, as well as create new ones that my Microsoft-using contacts can use. I will need a Linux that supports X64 hardware and uses all that RAM, not just the first 3GB or so that 32-bit Windows can see. And at some point, I would like to be able to create my own customized Ubuntu installation media, geared for supporting computers the way I use them, with all the apps and support already built-in, the same way I use Nuhi's great nLite program to develop customized, updated, driver-packed Windows installation CDs and DVDs.
The main reason I have yet to embrace Linux for full time use is that I can still do more with Windows. I know HOW to do new things, and I can find a universe of support when I have issues, so whatever the challenge I can continue moving ahead using XP. Ubuntu is a new OS, a new environment, a new model for how we can use our computers and greatly reduce or eliminate the vast bulk of the cost we pay for our software. Yes, there is a learning curve, and yes, it IS worth it on many levels. I like the fact that it's another New Frontier to explore, one free of the control and legal hassles I've endured for all these past years. Nobody at Ubuntu forces customers to validate and authenticate their ownership, or marks their machines as "non-genuine" if they don't meet some Orwellian specification. Nobody at Ubuntu treats their valued users as criminals. What a refreshing approach!
If you're a techie I strongly recommend you take a good look at Ubuntu 9.04, and see all the goodness it has waiting for you. If you're not so much a techie, the good news is that this one looks like it's simpler to setup and Make Go than anything that's come before. The live CD means you won't disturb anything on your Windows hard drive, and the point and click UI will be familiar and open to your exploration. Don't be afraid. This Ubuntu is unlike anything you may have looked at before. I believe it may be the critical mass for more general Linux adoption. It is for this Windows user!
Excelsior, webheads!
My experiences with Windows 7 initially seemed less than stellar when compared to the venerable XP Pro, but I've spent the past month and a half using the 64-bit version of XP and while it does work well, XP X64 seems to lack the visual "punch" that you get with Windows 7. I like X64 because it supports all the RAM (6GB) installed in this Core i7 system, something the X86/32-bit version can't match, but there remains nagging incompatibility issues and the occasional app or driver that complains about the 64-bit platform. I dunno if that's "growing pains" or not, but it IS a pain to be kept from doing what it is I want to do, in the manner I see fit to do it.
I will spend additional time with Windows 7, because it looks to be what Vista SHOULD have been, and offers many UI tweaks and mods that grow on you over time, like those window animations and translucent window title bars. But as I've said, that's sizzle, not steak, and I must resist the urge to go down that road only because it's prettier than what I'm used to. I'm trying to find the legitimate good in the new platform, like better performance or greater stability, but that will be a very high bar to meet, and I don't relish the prospect of spending more hours learning the ins and outs of another user interface revision cycle.
This week, the RC for Ubuntu 9.04 was released, and I knew that the final version was right around the corner, but I decided that I'd take it for a spin on my Core2Duo Acer laptop to see what I could see. I downloaded the CD image and burned it to disk, then booted from it, and was soon greeted by a familiar Ubuntu desktop. That's when I began experimenting, to see how far I could go with this new build in as little time as possible.
The laptop is connected here via wireless network using an encrypted link which requires a password. Ubuntu showed me the several WLANs within range and I selected my access point and was prompted for my password. Within a few seconds I was connected and browsing the web using Firefox. I installed a few stalwart extensions (NoScript and AdBlock Plus, among others) and cruised the web for a few minutes. Pages loaded snappily, downloads were VERY fast, almost faster than with Windows XP, and I encountered no impediments, no unexpected problems, just a working Internet connection within a couple of minutes of booting the Ubuntu live CD.
It's times like this I wish Microsoft had released a live CD for XP - just boot up and go. Yes I know about Ben Burrows' fine Ultimate BootCD for Windows, and I use it regularly to create my own rescue and recovery disks, but I'm talking about the Windows equivalent of the Ubuntu live CD experience, something you can download, burn and boot with to get working fast without a learning curve and a lotta software to install.
Since I had the Internet working, the next step was to see what LAN connectivity was like. I was able to browse my local network, attach to a shared folder and access the files inside it. I copied several files from the Ubuntu laptop to the Strelecki server just as though I was using Windows. Transparent, working flawlessly, and again, very fast data transfers.
It was a piece of cake to attach to a shared HP printer and print a test page, and my previous experience working with Ubuntu helped me get setup quickly. The share method is Windows SMB, selected from a list of more than a half dozen choices, and perhaps the less experienced might have an issue but I was able to get connected and printing in less than five minutes. I think that is wonderful, to say the least, especially knowing my past difficulties getting ANY Linux distro to print over a network, let alone a wireless network.
Next up I tried to play a video file I downloaded from the web, and the default player was complaining that it needed a codec, asked me if I wanted to search for it and download it (which I did want to do), but then popped up an error that it was not found. OK, detective time. I cruised over to Google and searched for my problem and found directions for adding additional repositories (online sources) to my Ubuntu desktop, then used the default package manager (software installation program) to look for VLC, a freeware, open source media player that has all those pesky codecs built-in.
The install of VLC went quickly and without a problem, and in a very few minutes I was viewing that same video file that had stymied me earlier. It feels really good when you can discover a way to work around the problems you encounter, and in many years of troubleshooting Windows problems for myself and others, I've discovered that not only is Google your friend, it's also your all-knowing, all-powerful friend when it comes time to answering your questions about an error message, system condition, or other anomaly you will likely encounter on your technological travels.
So, I'm booted from a live CD, no install on my hard drive required, browsing the web with a secure browser, using LAN shared folders and printer, and watching videos. I had to stop for a minute and revel at the speed and ease of getting this new Ubuntu 9.04 (9 for 2009, 04 for April) up and running on my wireless laptop. It could NOT have been any easier. And did I say that the high performance video drivers were installed by default, giving me desktop UI effects every bit as snazzy as those offered by XP? And that the sound worked great, right from the get-go? Yup. That, too.
My next phase of testing Ubuntu will revolve around running Windows in a VM using VirtualBox from Sun, as well as running Windows apps natively on the Ubuntu desktop using Wine. I need to see Flash video working so YouTube is an available option. I'll look for a firewall, though I'm convinced that its necessity is orders of magnitude reduced, compared to Windows, as is the need and availability of antivirus, anti-spyware and anti-Trojan protection. I need to be able to open and edit my office documents, as well as create new ones that my Microsoft-using contacts can use. I will need a Linux that supports X64 hardware and uses all that RAM, not just the first 3GB or so that 32-bit Windows can see. And at some point, I would like to be able to create my own customized Ubuntu installation media, geared for supporting computers the way I use them, with all the apps and support already built-in, the same way I use Nuhi's great nLite program to develop customized, updated, driver-packed Windows installation CDs and DVDs.
The main reason I have yet to embrace Linux for full time use is that I can still do more with Windows. I know HOW to do new things, and I can find a universe of support when I have issues, so whatever the challenge I can continue moving ahead using XP. Ubuntu is a new OS, a new environment, a new model for how we can use our computers and greatly reduce or eliminate the vast bulk of the cost we pay for our software. Yes, there is a learning curve, and yes, it IS worth it on many levels. I like the fact that it's another New Frontier to explore, one free of the control and legal hassles I've endured for all these past years. Nobody at Ubuntu forces customers to validate and authenticate their ownership, or marks their machines as "non-genuine" if they don't meet some Orwellian specification. Nobody at Ubuntu treats their valued users as criminals. What a refreshing approach!
If you're a techie I strongly recommend you take a good look at Ubuntu 9.04, and see all the goodness it has waiting for you. If you're not so much a techie, the good news is that this one looks like it's simpler to setup and Make Go than anything that's come before. The live CD means you won't disturb anything on your Windows hard drive, and the point and click UI will be familiar and open to your exploration. Don't be afraid. This Ubuntu is unlike anything you may have looked at before. I believe it may be the critical mass for more general Linux adoption. It is for this Windows user!
Excelsior, webheads!
Friday, February 27, 2009
XP 8, Windows 7 (XP "Ate" Windows 7)
I've spent the entire past month (February 2009) using Windows 7 on a new system, and I'm ready to share my thoughts and feelings about the latest member of the venerable Windows family.
It's not all bad, and this trial was a first for me in more than one respect.
1. The new box is 64-bit, so I installed the appropriate Win7 version, only to discover the world is still almost exclusively 32-bit, at least when it comes to hardware drivers and special use applications.
2. On top of Win7 x64 I installed Sun's 64-bit VirtualBox virtual machine manager to experiment with running other OSes like XP (64 and 32 bit), Ubuntu and Ultimate Edition (64 bit, naturally), and a few server variants (mostly 64-bit) for good measure. What an eye opener that was!
3. The new system has 6GB RAM installed, and can handle up to 24GB, so it takes a 64-bit system to recognize and utilize all that memory. 32-bit systems can see only about 3GB, give or take, due to limitations inherent in that architecture. Back in the mid-nineties (the 640KB world), when the 32-bit era of personal computing arrived, who could have guessed that we'd be bumping up against the "limits" of four gigabytes of main memory.
Wow, how times have changed!
The bottom line for me on Windows 7 is that it really is Vista, Second Edition, with more of the same UI tweaks for geeks and less of the securing of the OS foundation that has been so sadly lacking in almost every Windows release since NT. It seems to me this is yet another missed opportunity for the Redmond giant to do the right thing and provide a safe, stable, familiar, compatible, secure and speedy environment for users, and instead they chose to concentrate on the sizzle at the expense of the steak.
Let me be clear: Windows 7 is a very attractive product and is a welcomed improvement to Vista, but it is still much slower than XP, less compatible than XP, and with that same confusing "why did they move everything" interface that makes Vista so darned difficult to navigate. I'm sure that if I had the training and guidance the Microsoft folks got while developing and using Vista/Windows 7, I might feel differently. And if a condensed version of that training had been made available on the installation DVD, so my decades of experience with previous versions could be leveraged instead of wasted, I might feel better and more confident about migrating everything to this latest version.
But, no.
As has been the case for the last several versions of Windows, Microsoft's approach has been to make it look pretty and make it work differently, as opposed to fixing the underlying architecture of the operating system. They included more and more applications with less and less focus on booting the machine with the leanest, meanest, most secure OS they could make.
I would not be lying to say that there are some VERY smart folks working for Gates and Ballmer, and I'm certain that the right thing to do was at least entertained and acknowledged internally, prior to release. But what we got - what was delivered to paying customers - was not what we so desperately needed (and asked for). No, what we got was more lipstick on the same old pig, no rethinking of the underlying security mechanisms, no effort to address compatibility by using the tremendous hardware potential that exists today (virtualization, anyone?), and instead taking the easy and cheap way out. It's really pretty shameful, knowing how many really smart folks are there, and all.
It's called Windows 7 because it's maker deems it to be a newer version of the venerable NT OS created by Dave Cutler, ex-Vax Supremo. When NT came to market it was christened version 3.1 (no prior versions ever existed) because that was the version of the then-current MS-DOS GUI, Windows 3.1. NT 3.1 looked just like it's less capable but ubiquitous cousin, and was designed for business and professional users. It got a "shell update" in version 4 to match the wonderful new UI introduced in Windows 95 (I can't believe it's going on fifteen years).
NT 5.0 was brought to market as Windows 2000, and what would have been 5.1 was instead christened Windows XP. Vista took the place of the 6.0 generation, so Windows 7 ties it all back together with a number (again). I just don't think what we'll see in the finished product is anything close to a "real" version seven, like I called it, Vista Second Edition, would be more accurate.
I see the engineering blogs describing the dozens of changes made in Windows 7, ostensibly at the behest of testers, but I read more punditry that suggests this product was almost fully baked before the beta testers ever got their hands on it. It can be assumed that 7 is an evolution of the Vista codebase, because that's how Microsoft has always done it. With the exception of NT, designed and developed by an outsider working inside, Windows continues to "improve" upon itself by taking what was, and making it into what will be. Again. So maybe Windows 7 is this year's Vista, in fancier clothing, at inflated prices, in more flavors and SKUs than ever.
The bottom line for me is that Windows XP will continue to have a prominent place in my system implementations, and I will continue to work with what I know works better for myself and others, especially in light of the greater strides made in hardware, like CPUs, GPUs, and motherboard chipsets and memory. It seems that today's version of the OS costs more (as a percentage of the computer's cost), runs more slowly (given the abilities of today's hardware), is less compatible and reliable (because newer driver models force developers to change what they already know that works), as well as making users wonder where all the familiarity went because everything - everything that they used and knew about is different.
That's not change I can believe in. It's change for the sake of it, by folks who should know better and take more care in their decisions.
For me, it'll be Windows XP for a while longer.
Now, as far as the virtualization lesson, an interesting fact is that all this great hardware I'm running gets "translated" into relatively vanilla stuff when it comes to virtualized OSes. My 9800GTX+ wondervideo card looks to a guest OS to be a plain jane VGA adapter, and my super duper Realtek HD audio comes out looking like a Soundblaster 16 or an "AC'97" interface. Gigabit network adapters are interpreted as merely fast Ethernet ports, and then there's the challenge of making USB2 and card reader resources available to the guest OS. Maybe it's the VirtualBox way of doing things, but that's what I've got at my disposal right now and I need to find a way to make it go.
And my takeaway from the 64-bit universe is simple: while some applications may work properly, all device drivers MUST be 64-bit or they won't work, and so far, there are far fewer of them available than we leading edgers would like. It's true that 64-bit systems can address more RAM, and process more data in a unit of time than their 32-bit predecessors, but the challenges of making new devices (and especially older ones) work in the new universe are very real, and must be considered when contemplating migrations in any environment.
Personally, I see virtualization as a great thing for servers (because so few users operate them), making it easier to deploy, recover, and distribute processing as needed by changing business needs. The desktop is a trickier place, because virtualization has many technical hurdles and foibles, making the road far more difficult for the average technology worker. If the challenges can be met simply and reliably, it seems to me that change for the sake of it will become unnecessary, and what we already know will be better used to move us ahead, personally and professionally.
I am waiting.
It's not all bad, and this trial was a first for me in more than one respect.
1. The new box is 64-bit, so I installed the appropriate Win7 version, only to discover the world is still almost exclusively 32-bit, at least when it comes to hardware drivers and special use applications.
2. On top of Win7 x64 I installed Sun's 64-bit VirtualBox virtual machine manager to experiment with running other OSes like XP (64 and 32 bit), Ubuntu and Ultimate Edition (64 bit, naturally), and a few server variants (mostly 64-bit) for good measure. What an eye opener that was!
3. The new system has 6GB RAM installed, and can handle up to 24GB, so it takes a 64-bit system to recognize and utilize all that memory. 32-bit systems can see only about 3GB, give or take, due to limitations inherent in that architecture. Back in the mid-nineties (the 640KB world), when the 32-bit era of personal computing arrived, who could have guessed that we'd be bumping up against the "limits" of four gigabytes of main memory.
Wow, how times have changed!
The bottom line for me on Windows 7 is that it really is Vista, Second Edition, with more of the same UI tweaks for geeks and less of the securing of the OS foundation that has been so sadly lacking in almost every Windows release since NT. It seems to me this is yet another missed opportunity for the Redmond giant to do the right thing and provide a safe, stable, familiar, compatible, secure and speedy environment for users, and instead they chose to concentrate on the sizzle at the expense of the steak.
Let me be clear: Windows 7 is a very attractive product and is a welcomed improvement to Vista, but it is still much slower than XP, less compatible than XP, and with that same confusing "why did they move everything" interface that makes Vista so darned difficult to navigate. I'm sure that if I had the training and guidance the Microsoft folks got while developing and using Vista/Windows 7, I might feel differently. And if a condensed version of that training had been made available on the installation DVD, so my decades of experience with previous versions could be leveraged instead of wasted, I might feel better and more confident about migrating everything to this latest version.
But, no.
As has been the case for the last several versions of Windows, Microsoft's approach has been to make it look pretty and make it work differently, as opposed to fixing the underlying architecture of the operating system. They included more and more applications with less and less focus on booting the machine with the leanest, meanest, most secure OS they could make.
I would not be lying to say that there are some VERY smart folks working for Gates and Ballmer, and I'm certain that the right thing to do was at least entertained and acknowledged internally, prior to release. But what we got - what was delivered to paying customers - was not what we so desperately needed (and asked for). No, what we got was more lipstick on the same old pig, no rethinking of the underlying security mechanisms, no effort to address compatibility by using the tremendous hardware potential that exists today (virtualization, anyone?), and instead taking the easy and cheap way out. It's really pretty shameful, knowing how many really smart folks are there, and all.
It's called Windows 7 because it's maker deems it to be a newer version of the venerable NT OS created by Dave Cutler, ex-Vax Supremo. When NT came to market it was christened version 3.1 (no prior versions ever existed) because that was the version of the then-current MS-DOS GUI, Windows 3.1. NT 3.1 looked just like it's less capable but ubiquitous cousin, and was designed for business and professional users. It got a "shell update" in version 4 to match the wonderful new UI introduced in Windows 95 (I can't believe it's going on fifteen years).
NT 5.0 was brought to market as Windows 2000, and what would have been 5.1 was instead christened Windows XP. Vista took the place of the 6.0 generation, so Windows 7 ties it all back together with a number (again). I just don't think what we'll see in the finished product is anything close to a "real" version seven, like I called it, Vista Second Edition, would be more accurate.
I see the engineering blogs describing the dozens of changes made in Windows 7, ostensibly at the behest of testers, but I read more punditry that suggests this product was almost fully baked before the beta testers ever got their hands on it. It can be assumed that 7 is an evolution of the Vista codebase, because that's how Microsoft has always done it. With the exception of NT, designed and developed by an outsider working inside, Windows continues to "improve" upon itself by taking what was, and making it into what will be. Again. So maybe Windows 7 is this year's Vista, in fancier clothing, at inflated prices, in more flavors and SKUs than ever.
The bottom line for me is that Windows XP will continue to have a prominent place in my system implementations, and I will continue to work with what I know works better for myself and others, especially in light of the greater strides made in hardware, like CPUs, GPUs, and motherboard chipsets and memory. It seems that today's version of the OS costs more (as a percentage of the computer's cost), runs more slowly (given the abilities of today's hardware), is less compatible and reliable (because newer driver models force developers to change what they already know that works), as well as making users wonder where all the familiarity went because everything - everything that they used and knew about is different.
That's not change I can believe in. It's change for the sake of it, by folks who should know better and take more care in their decisions.
For me, it'll be Windows XP for a while longer.
Now, as far as the virtualization lesson, an interesting fact is that all this great hardware I'm running gets "translated" into relatively vanilla stuff when it comes to virtualized OSes. My 9800GTX+ wondervideo card looks to a guest OS to be a plain jane VGA adapter, and my super duper Realtek HD audio comes out looking like a Soundblaster 16 or an "AC'97" interface. Gigabit network adapters are interpreted as merely fast Ethernet ports, and then there's the challenge of making USB2 and card reader resources available to the guest OS. Maybe it's the VirtualBox way of doing things, but that's what I've got at my disposal right now and I need to find a way to make it go.
And my takeaway from the 64-bit universe is simple: while some applications may work properly, all device drivers MUST be 64-bit or they won't work, and so far, there are far fewer of them available than we leading edgers would like. It's true that 64-bit systems can address more RAM, and process more data in a unit of time than their 32-bit predecessors, but the challenges of making new devices (and especially older ones) work in the new universe are very real, and must be considered when contemplating migrations in any environment.
Personally, I see virtualization as a great thing for servers (because so few users operate them), making it easier to deploy, recover, and distribute processing as needed by changing business needs. The desktop is a trickier place, because virtualization has many technical hurdles and foibles, making the road far more difficult for the average technology worker. If the challenges can be met simply and reliably, it seems to me that change for the sake of it will become unnecessary, and what we already know will be better used to move us ahead, personally and professionally.
I am waiting.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Is "Back-Revving" the same as "Downgrading"?
Who knew that the idea of a Clean Install would become such an important ability?
A Clean Install is where you reformat (erase) your hard drive and reinstall the operating system with all current patches and updates, latest drivers, newest applications and then defragment everything and tweak the system so it runs lean and mean. A Clean Install is the way to completely rejuvenate a computer, and eliminate issues like poor performance, malware infestation, instabilities/crashes, or any other symptom of a less-than-optimum operation.
Clean Installs are usually done to rejuvenate/restore to top working order a system that has been in operation for some time. It just so happens that new systems that come with Windows Vista installed by default also benefit greatly from this method as it allows removal of Vista and installing XP Pro in its place, all with the end result of faster, more stable and compatible operation.
You've probably already figured this out, that if you buy a new PC at retail, your only choice is to have MS Vista installed. XP is no longer available unless you go through an online source (like Dell.com) and check out options for businesses. Don't be surprised, but "downgrading" Vista to XP will actually cost you a hundred dollars or more, and that's if your particular model can be downgraded.
Vista uses an entirely different device driver model, one almost entirely incompatible with XP, even though Vista and XP share a common programming heritage (along with Windows 2000 and NT). The fact is, drivers have to be rewritten (or newly developed) for Vista, and many hardware manufacturers don't want to create and maintain two versions of drivers for their hardware. Invariably this means your new computer has Vista drivers but not XP drivers.
So, what's "downgrading" all about, then?
Certain versions of Vista (Business and Ultimate) have included in their license the right to install XP Pro instead of Vista, if the user so desires. I guess the idea is that many business users are still using XP and want any new systems they deploy to be similar for purposes of compatibility and administration, knowing that Vista does so many things differently than XP. Purchasers of the most expensive edition of Vista are likely given similar rights simply because they've paid for the most expensive edition, or are sophisticated enough to be able to use one or both systems interchangeably.
Whatever the reasoning behind the allowable "downgrading" option, it would appear that many users are resistant to Vista on many other grounds: the user interface is so different as to be an entirely new world which must be relearned no matter how much experience and comfort they may have with Windows; the device driver model is so different as to be incompatible, so more often than not, older hardware just wont work properly or completely in Vista; security features like the User Access Control (UAC) are constantly asking the user if what they are doing is really what they want to be doing ("You are trying to install a new program. Cancel or Allow?"); whereas 1GB RAM would work well for XP and prior versions, Vista is sluggish and hesitant, and even with 2GB RAM still underperforms it's predecessor; and lastly, the sheer cost increase of virtually all versions of Vista make users ask "What makes Vista worth the money?"
So here we have a situation where users are provided Vista on their newly purchased hardware and not understanding how to use it, how to tweak it like XP, how to organize it like XP, or how to get things done in a timely (or better) fashion, like XP.
I'm not speaking out of hand here, as I've spent my own time and effort installing Vista and using it on hardware that was more than adequate. I was continually frustrated by the fact that, in all the years I've been using Windows (twenty, by now), I was unable to quickly pick up on the new layout/interface (like the lack of menu bars), repeated questioning of my decisions, and less than optimal performance, to be kind about it. My computer, whose icon is so prominent in XP and was nowhere to be found in Vista, felt alien and unworkable, and I was unable to surmount the idea that everything I'd learned about using Windows as a power user had just gone "out the window" (pun intended).
This chapter in my technological trek began some months ago when I took delivery from Dell of a new Inspiron laptop that I was to "downgrade" and configure for a good client. Fortunately, Dell's online support is wonderful, and their website quickly revealed to my searches most everything I needed to make the new laptop an XP convert. But I didn't find everything I wanted, and there were a couple small sticking points that prevented me from seeing a perfectly happy Device Manager, complete with everything working properly.
My Plan B was to use a great free product designed by Wim Leers called DriverPacks, which is a holy grail of drivers for several Windows OS versions (2000, XP, Server 2003) that had already saved my bacon on more than one occasion. DriverPacks are divided into several categories, like Chipset, Graphics, Sound, LAN, wireless, disk controllers, and more, and you can use them by integrating them into your install media (the preferred way, and the one which I've had most success), or by creating a standalone driver CD that can be used on an existing installation to install and upgrade drivers. There are even more ways that you can use this great free tool, so by all means pay a visit to their website and discover them for yourself.
You can find these wonderful tech marvels at http://www.driverpacks.net and be sure to register in their online forums, as there are many very talented and insightful folks there (nods to Overflow, Helmi, mr. smartepants and muiz, not to mention 'Bashrat the Sneaky') who genuinely want you to be able to use their creations to be able to make your computers go in the manner in which you desire. They offer feedback as to the way to do things, and how DriverPacks can be used by other programs (like nLite, RyanVM's Integrator, BartPE, etc.) to make whatever you might need to deploy, maintain or repair Windows computers.
Bottom line on the Dell laptop, I created an updated install DVD of Windows XP Pro with SP3 and RyanVM's Update pack (many patches and fixes since SP3 was released) along with the DriverPacks and installed everything at one time and everything just worked. Even on a system _with_ vendor support for XP, the transition from Vista was still a sophisticated process and entailed a lot of patience to make it all come out right. My client is using this "downgraded" laptop every day, all day, without issues of performance or reliability, everything we've come to expect from a mature, dependable OS like XP.
I was less fortunate in my acquisition of an Acer Aspire laptop in getting vendor support for a downgrade or locating drivers I might need to get the job done. Thankfully it was the DriverPacks that came to the rescue and just made everything work. I don't know how these folks have done it, but the sheer volume of devices they can make work is absolutely staggering! Between the free downloads and the awesome forums they maintain, I'd have to say that they deserve the gold star when it comes to making it go.
The Acer is a Core 2 Duo, 64-bit system, so the choices are to install XP in 32-bits or 64, the latter being able to fully utilize the 4GB RAM installed but having driver availability issues. As much as I love the DriverPacks, they are 32-bit only, and while they have begun to embrace the 64-bit universe, there's still a long way to go to have parity with their 32-bit product. Initially I selected 32-bit because of the support I had and the availability of device drivers, and other than only seeing about 3.2GB RAM of the 4GB, everything worked perfectly, including the built-in webcam, microphone and speakers, wireless networking, AHCI support for the SATA hard drive controller, integrated card reader and fancy 1366x768 LCD monitor. Obviously, XP in 64-bit was another challenge, so I decided to look at the new beta of 64-bit Windows 7, just to see what kind of hardware support there might be out of the box.
I was not disappointed. Other than the idea that Windows 7 could be called Vista Second Edition. The user interface is virtually the same, as is the different layout of almost every feature on the desktop. What surprised me was the almost complete support of the hardware in this laptop, and of course, there is the matter of being able to access all the installed RAM, as well as the peppier operation of 64-bit environments, in general. Windows 7 is leaner and faster than Vista, but it is still an alien user interface (pretty, but alien), and it does offer fairly good driver support, at least for newer hardware.
The Acer laptop has since been reverted to 32-bit XP Pro and is working very well crunching old VHS home movie videotapes into DVDs the whole family can enjoy.
But there is a new system that was to arrive, challenging all my Clean Install abilities, of which I shall write next time.
A Clean Install is where you reformat (erase) your hard drive and reinstall the operating system with all current patches and updates, latest drivers, newest applications and then defragment everything and tweak the system so it runs lean and mean. A Clean Install is the way to completely rejuvenate a computer, and eliminate issues like poor performance, malware infestation, instabilities/crashes, or any other symptom of a less-than-optimum operation.
Clean Installs are usually done to rejuvenate/restore to top working order a system that has been in operation for some time. It just so happens that new systems that come with Windows Vista installed by default also benefit greatly from this method as it allows removal of Vista and installing XP Pro in its place, all with the end result of faster, more stable and compatible operation.
You've probably already figured this out, that if you buy a new PC at retail, your only choice is to have MS Vista installed. XP is no longer available unless you go through an online source (like Dell.com) and check out options for businesses. Don't be surprised, but "downgrading" Vista to XP will actually cost you a hundred dollars or more, and that's if your particular model can be downgraded.
Vista uses an entirely different device driver model, one almost entirely incompatible with XP, even though Vista and XP share a common programming heritage (along with Windows 2000 and NT). The fact is, drivers have to be rewritten (or newly developed) for Vista, and many hardware manufacturers don't want to create and maintain two versions of drivers for their hardware. Invariably this means your new computer has Vista drivers but not XP drivers.
So, what's "downgrading" all about, then?
Certain versions of Vista (Business and Ultimate) have included in their license the right to install XP Pro instead of Vista, if the user so desires. I guess the idea is that many business users are still using XP and want any new systems they deploy to be similar for purposes of compatibility and administration, knowing that Vista does so many things differently than XP. Purchasers of the most expensive edition of Vista are likely given similar rights simply because they've paid for the most expensive edition, or are sophisticated enough to be able to use one or both systems interchangeably.
Whatever the reasoning behind the allowable "downgrading" option, it would appear that many users are resistant to Vista on many other grounds: the user interface is so different as to be an entirely new world which must be relearned no matter how much experience and comfort they may have with Windows; the device driver model is so different as to be incompatible, so more often than not, older hardware just wont work properly or completely in Vista; security features like the User Access Control (UAC) are constantly asking the user if what they are doing is really what they want to be doing ("You are trying to install a new program. Cancel or Allow?"); whereas 1GB RAM would work well for XP and prior versions, Vista is sluggish and hesitant, and even with 2GB RAM still underperforms it's predecessor; and lastly, the sheer cost increase of virtually all versions of Vista make users ask "What makes Vista worth the money?"
So here we have a situation where users are provided Vista on their newly purchased hardware and not understanding how to use it, how to tweak it like XP, how to organize it like XP, or how to get things done in a timely (or better) fashion, like XP.
I'm not speaking out of hand here, as I've spent my own time and effort installing Vista and using it on hardware that was more than adequate. I was continually frustrated by the fact that, in all the years I've been using Windows (twenty, by now), I was unable to quickly pick up on the new layout/interface (like the lack of menu bars), repeated questioning of my decisions, and less than optimal performance, to be kind about it. My computer, whose icon is so prominent in XP and was nowhere to be found in Vista, felt alien and unworkable, and I was unable to surmount the idea that everything I'd learned about using Windows as a power user had just gone "out the window" (pun intended).
This chapter in my technological trek began some months ago when I took delivery from Dell of a new Inspiron laptop that I was to "downgrade" and configure for a good client. Fortunately, Dell's online support is wonderful, and their website quickly revealed to my searches most everything I needed to make the new laptop an XP convert. But I didn't find everything I wanted, and there were a couple small sticking points that prevented me from seeing a perfectly happy Device Manager, complete with everything working properly.
My Plan B was to use a great free product designed by Wim Leers called DriverPacks, which is a holy grail of drivers for several Windows OS versions (2000, XP, Server 2003) that had already saved my bacon on more than one occasion. DriverPacks are divided into several categories, like Chipset, Graphics, Sound, LAN, wireless, disk controllers, and more, and you can use them by integrating them into your install media (the preferred way, and the one which I've had most success), or by creating a standalone driver CD that can be used on an existing installation to install and upgrade drivers. There are even more ways that you can use this great free tool, so by all means pay a visit to their website and discover them for yourself.
You can find these wonderful tech marvels at http://www.driverpacks.net and be sure to register in their online forums, as there are many very talented and insightful folks there (nods to Overflow, Helmi, mr. smartepants and muiz, not to mention 'Bashrat the Sneaky') who genuinely want you to be able to use their creations to be able to make your computers go in the manner in which you desire. They offer feedback as to the way to do things, and how DriverPacks can be used by other programs (like nLite, RyanVM's Integrator, BartPE, etc.) to make whatever you might need to deploy, maintain or repair Windows computers.
Bottom line on the Dell laptop, I created an updated install DVD of Windows XP Pro with SP3 and RyanVM's Update pack (many patches and fixes since SP3 was released) along with the DriverPacks and installed everything at one time and everything just worked. Even on a system _with_ vendor support for XP, the transition from Vista was still a sophisticated process and entailed a lot of patience to make it all come out right. My client is using this "downgraded" laptop every day, all day, without issues of performance or reliability, everything we've come to expect from a mature, dependable OS like XP.
I was less fortunate in my acquisition of an Acer Aspire laptop in getting vendor support for a downgrade or locating drivers I might need to get the job done. Thankfully it was the DriverPacks that came to the rescue and just made everything work. I don't know how these folks have done it, but the sheer volume of devices they can make work is absolutely staggering! Between the free downloads and the awesome forums they maintain, I'd have to say that they deserve the gold star when it comes to making it go.
The Acer is a Core 2 Duo, 64-bit system, so the choices are to install XP in 32-bits or 64, the latter being able to fully utilize the 4GB RAM installed but having driver availability issues. As much as I love the DriverPacks, they are 32-bit only, and while they have begun to embrace the 64-bit universe, there's still a long way to go to have parity with their 32-bit product. Initially I selected 32-bit because of the support I had and the availability of device drivers, and other than only seeing about 3.2GB RAM of the 4GB, everything worked perfectly, including the built-in webcam, microphone and speakers, wireless networking, AHCI support for the SATA hard drive controller, integrated card reader and fancy 1366x768 LCD monitor. Obviously, XP in 64-bit was another challenge, so I decided to look at the new beta of 64-bit Windows 7, just to see what kind of hardware support there might be out of the box.
I was not disappointed. Other than the idea that Windows 7 could be called Vista Second Edition. The user interface is virtually the same, as is the different layout of almost every feature on the desktop. What surprised me was the almost complete support of the hardware in this laptop, and of course, there is the matter of being able to access all the installed RAM, as well as the peppier operation of 64-bit environments, in general. Windows 7 is leaner and faster than Vista, but it is still an alien user interface (pretty, but alien), and it does offer fairly good driver support, at least for newer hardware.
The Acer laptop has since been reverted to 32-bit XP Pro and is working very well crunching old VHS home movie videotapes into DVDs the whole family can enjoy.
But there is a new system that was to arrive, challenging all my Clean Install abilities, of which I shall write next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
