| Get ready for the Vista/SUSE smackdown! |
by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (May 30, 2006)
 In one corner, we have the champ -- Windows. Come January, it will come out swinging with what Microsoft tells us is the latest and greatest version ever -- Vista.
In the other corner, we have the challenger -- OpenSUSE 10.1, the latest shipping version of Novell/SUSE's community Linux. Sometime this summer, its commercial version, SUSE Linux Enterprise 10, will come out looking to KO the champ.
Before this epic battle begins, let's take a look at their training camps.
Deep in Redmond, Wash., Vista Beta 2 Build 5381 is training hard, one might even say frantically, as it tries to get ready for its January debut.
Those who have looked in on the champ have not been impressed. An experienced MS-NBC reviewer, for example, said "Installing Vista Beta 2 was one of the worst operating system experiences that I've ever encountered."
Your pugilistic reporter didn't find installing the champ in his ring that bad. In fact, it entered the Gateway 835GM ring with its Intel Pentium D 2.8GHz dual-core processor, an Intel 945G chipset, 1GB DDR2 (double data rate) DRAM, a 250GB SATA hard drive, and built-in Intel GMA (graphics media accelerator) 950 graphics without any trouble.
According to the Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor, this system is capable of running Vista Ultimate. This is Vista with all of its entourage, including the famed Aero Glass 3D interface.
Others however, have found that Vista doesn't work well with some device sparring partners. In that regard, I myself found, rather to my surprise, that Vista doesn't do well with Wi-Fi networking.
Linux has always had trouble with Wi-Fi devices because of a lack of support by the vendors. Microsoft, however, which works hand in glove with the hardware builders, usually doesn't have such problems. Until now.
Vista was unable to recognize my Intel PRO/Wireless 3945 802.11a/g mini-PCI card. SUSE 10.1, once I had installed the standard Linux Intel Centrino support files -- ipw3945d v.1.7.18-5; microcode_ctl updates; and the ipw-firmware for Centrino -- was up and networking in a snap.
I'm not the only one to have problems with Vista Wi-Fi. Other testers, such as the CRN Test Center and Windows expert Preston Gralla, had more than their fair share of trouble with Vista's Wi-Fi.
In our own eWEEK Labs, we finally got Vista Wi-Fi working, but it wasn't easy.
One of Vista's biggest strengths, in theory, is its new 3D Aero Glass display. Since Microsoft has dropped so many other features from Vista -- such as the often promised and never delivered WinFS file system -- Aero Glass is to be Vista's big knockout punch.
Instead of a haymaker, Aero Glass is looking more like a complete miss.
My test system was theoretically capable of running the interface, but in practice it was painfully slow. The last time I saw an interface this slow was in the early 80s on a DEC Rainbow, a hybrid CP/M and MS-DOS system.
Still, for me, at least, Aero Glass ran. My colleague, Jason Brooks at eWEEK Labs, found that it "tends to flake out at times."
To really do anything with Aero Glass, Microsoft says you'll need a DirectX 9-compliant 3D 128-MB video card that supports Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware and includes (WDDM (Windows Device Driver Model) driver. Practically speaking, that means you'll need a 2006-vintage 3D graphics card.
But, is that really enough? Microsoft is infamous for understating system requirements. So, I added a relatively inexpensive and well thought of 3D graphics card, the 256MB Nvidia GeForce 7600.
With this card, Aero Glass's performance became usable. Unfortunately, it also lost stability. It displayed artifacts when switching from one window to another, it got blurry. In short, it got troubles.
The funniest thing about all this is that SUSE Linux's answer to Aero Glass, Xgl, consistently delivered a better 3D and translucent visual experience on the system with, or without, the graphics card update. Indeed, Xgl shows well on my main Linux desktop. This system is an Insignia with a 2.8 GHz Pentium IV; 512 MB of RAM; an Ultra ATA/100, 7200 RPM, 60 GB hard drive; and embedded Intel graphics. This is not anyone's idea of a graphics powerhouse.
To take advantage of the Nvidia card's 3D acceleration, I did have to go to the trouble of manually downloading the latest Nvidia Linux drivers. Since these are proprietary drivers, Novell/SUSE no longer includes them in the distribution or on its download sites. The OpenSUSE site, however, has a comprehensive guide on how to install Xgl with embedded Intel graphics, Nvidia, and ATI graphics.
As unbelievable as it might seem, OpenSUSE actually seems to support more hardware than Vista does at this stage in its development. Linux having more hardware support than Windows -- who says we don't live in a time of miracles?!
Another clear difference between the two is what they require from systems. To run Windows Vista Premium Ready, the minimum version with Aero Glass, the official specifications call for a 1GHz processor, 1GB of RAM, and 128MB of dedicated graphics memory. I'd double all three of those before I'd feel comfortable running Vista.
OpenSUSE will run on pretty much anything with a 1 GHz CPU and 128MB of RAM. SUSE's RAM requirements, however, are on the skimpy side. I wouldn't run it on less than 256MB of RAM, and I'm happiest when I'm running with 512MB.
Moving away from hardware, Microsoft has tried to make Vista more secure. I'm sure they have, and I'm sure they've had some success.
As Ziff Davis Internet security guru Larry Seltzer recently wrote, "The RPC service has an unfortunate history, being at the center of the Blaster worm event," and Microsoft has changed the RPC (Remote Procedure Call) service in Windows Vista so that it's "restricted from replacing system files, modifying the registry, or tampering with another service configuration."
Microsoft has made other fundamental security improvements.
Still, the champ's horrible security record speaks for itself. When it comes to security, Microsoft operating systems have a glass jaw. I find it very telling that even with Vista's improvements, the company has already had to release Vista's first security patch.
Well, Linux certainly has had security holes that have needed patches; however, its security is an order of magnitude better than that of Windows. For example, there has never been any successful Linux virus. Even those, such as Central Command's CEO Keith Peer, who do see a possible Linux virus problem, only claim that are almost 100 Linux viruses.
In stark contrast, there were more than 60 new viruses for Windows in May 2006 alone.
A related problem is that one of the ways Vista addresses security is by using UAC (User Account Control). The idea is to make it so that ordinary users get more control over installing, updating, and changing their systems without needing to run as administrator.
In its original incarnation, this was one of those "good" ideas that flops to the canvas in the first round of a real fight.
Andy Jaquith, a Yankee Group analyst, hates it. In an interview with eWEEK's Matt Hines, Jaquith said, "The User Account Control feature is like Chatty Kathy, it's always in your face and the danger is that users are going to start treating it like the snooze button on their alarm clock and hitting 'yes' without looking to see why they've been prompted. A lot of people, especially home users, will probably turn the feature off so they'll essentially be no better off than before."
Since he looked at it, Microsoft has improved UAC so that it's no longer demanding that users interact with the security system for such trivialities as setting the time. It's still a nuisance, and some users will still not be able to live with it.
Linux, however, has been using user permissions effectively since the beginning. The quirks were worked out in Unix long before Linux showed up in the ring.
UACs, however, have another problem, which has largely been ignored. Many software applications do not work well with UACs. Microsoft released its SUA (Standard User Analyzer) tool in late May.
The SUA is a runtime tool for ISVs (independent software vendors) and developers to use to diagnose and identify application compatibility issues when migrating applications to Vista. On Vista, it should be noted, even the administrator usually runs applications with only standard user privileges.
Windows developers can already see where this is going: many existing XP and 2000 applications will break with UACs. For example, many common programs today will not run on Windows unless the user has full administrator privileges. At least one well-known software family, Quicken, has this problem.
Linux programs, on the other hand, have always been a bit difficult to install and update. SUSE makes it easier than most distributions with its YAST administration system, but in 10.1, that system went awry. Novell should have a permanent fix in shortly, but in the meantime it is a nuisance.
When it comes to features, the two operating systems are very close to each other. While Vista boasts a new disk drive caching system -- SuperCache -- I failed to see any great improvements from it. While I didn't do any serious benchmarking, the system seemed to show about the same performance whether I was running it with Vista and SuperCache or Linux using the high-performance ReiserFS file system.
Both operating systems have built-in desktop search programs. Vista's proved troublesome at times, but this may just be a matter of knocking the kinks out of the beta. SUSE's answer, Beagle, is better, but it's still a memory hog. For now, if I were going to run Vista, I'd look for the next version of Google Desktop Search. The current version won't run.
OpenSUSE, though, does have one major feature that Vista can't boast; it has its own built-in virtualization program, Xen. Once up and running, Xen makes it possible to run multiple operating systems from any vendor, and that's a trick that Vista doesn't have in its bag.
I can't recommend running multiple operating systems with any virtualization program on any system with less than a gigabyte of RAM. Xen is also still somewhat immature, and I've had trouble getting it up properly.
Vista Enterprise, the high-end offering, does include the Virtual PC Express for virtualization. However, it's a limited virtual machine ,since it will only support older versions of Windows.
There are also some smaller quirks. In the U.S. low-end edition of Vista, Vista Home Basic, for example, you can't burn DVDs. OpenSUSE includes that functionality. To get DVD-burning, you need to upgrade to Windows Vista Home Premium.
All-in-all, Microsoft is planning on releasing no fewer than six versions of Vista. Why? To get more money of course.
For instance, Vista Enterprise -- which has everything including the kitchen sink -- includes BitLocker drive encryption; Virtual PC Express virtual-machine support; some support for Unix-based applications; and access to all worldwide languages supported by Vista in a single deployment image.
The catch? Microsoft will make Windows Vista Enterprise available only to Enterprise Agreement and Software Assurance volume-licensing customers. Thus, you must sign up for a long-term contract with Microsoft if you want those features.
As Mary Jo Foley describes it at Microsoft Watch, the boys from Redmond are "using more of a stick than a carrot on the business side to convince customers to go with the premium Enterprise SKU."
On the consumer side, Microsoft wants users to either buy the higher-end versions from the get-go, or, if they start with a lower-end version and then find there's a feature, such as using their PC as a media-center, that they want, Microsoft hopes they'll use the built-in Windows Anytime Upgrade, rather than look to a program from a company like Nero Inc. for an answer.
Windows XP Home usually goes for $99 per copy for an upgrade, and $199 for a new version. For XP Professional, it's $199 and $299. The closest thing we have today to a premium system is XP Media Center Edition, which sells for over $300.
While pricing has not been released yet for the Vista family, I think we can safely assume it won't be cheap... especially for the premium versions. And you thought pay-per-view pricing for top WWE fights was steep!
Most home and SMB users will buy the operating system as part of a system, so they may not be aware of the price.
With SUSE, however, you can simply download OpenSUSE for free. If you want support, Novell will be happy to sell it you SUSE Linux Enterprise 10. Pricing hasn't been released for this new desktop yet, either. However, current pricing, is in the $50 per system per year range.
Ding, ding!
Which desktop OS will win the championship belt when they enter the ring in 2007?
I don't see how you can call it as anything except a technical knockout by SUSE. Performance, features, price -- you add it all up and the challenger looks great.
Windows will still be the operating system on the most desktops in 2007, of course. But, I think it's quite possible that more users will buy, download, and install SUSE than those who will buy and install Vista.
Microsoft will trumpet how many people now have Vista -- because the computer vendors will have little choice but to install Vista on their new systems -- but if you look closely at what users do about upgrading their existing systems, I see the Linux desktop, and SUSE, in particular, pulling ahead of Vista.
It's going to be a heck of a fight.
-- Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
Do you have comments on this story?
Talkback here
Related stories:
(Click here for further information)
|
|
|
news feed