If Microsoft Gave Away Windows Vista Ultimate Edition For Free.... Would You Use It? [Archive]

Kernel Sanders

February 21st, 2006, 01:19 PM

Sincere apologies if this has been posted before, but I was just trying to gague the general "mood" of the community.

Let me explain.....there are 2 reasons why Windows XP Pro and Office 2003 Professional will be my last experience with Microsoft software:

1) Ridiculous Pricing - Who the hell can afford to pay those sort of prices for an OS and an Office Suite? Also, why would you want to? (P.S My current Microsoft software was heavily subsidised as I bought it through my University)

2) Principal - Unethical corporate behaviour, and the fact that my personal freedoms and privacy are being invaded through use of Microsoft software. (Activation, Genuine Windows, Intrusive Windows Updates, DRM etc...)

So.... even if Microsoft payed me say...... £100/$173 to use Windows Vista Ultimate Edition..... I would still say NO THANKS! As, even as the software would be better than free (i'd be paid to use it) my second reason for not using Microsoft software would still stand.

What about the rest of you guys and gals? LOL! :mrgreen:

Are you boycotting Microsoft on price or principal?

I would be interested to see what you all have to say....... :-k

Anyway, all the best!

John

briancurtin

February 21st, 2006, 01:20 PM

no.

Kernel Sanders

February 21st, 2006, 01:27 PM

Would that be because of your principals, or do you just not like Microsoft software?

All the Best!

John

Master Shake

February 21st, 2006, 01:29 PM

No. Once M$ started with that "activation" and "Genuine Windows" crap for downloading patches, they lost me.

Bragador

February 21st, 2006, 01:29 PM

Stormy Eyes

February 21st, 2006, 01:31 PM

No. I use Windows at work. I don't want to use it at home.

Kernel Sanders

February 21st, 2006, 01:31 PM

Wow a very though question.

I would say no because of the encryption crap, verisign stuff, "we own your desktop" attitude and the like.

I want people to communicate what they want and do what they want online and Microsoft tends to want a commercial internet.

So I say join the Linux rebellion and give the Internet to the people !

I agree with EVERYTHING you just said, and find it very re-assuring that there is someone else that thinks like me!

Thankyou!

All the best!

John

Brunellus

February 21st, 2006, 01:32 PM

I can't afford the minimum h/w requirements.

bjweeks

February 21st, 2006, 01:33 PM

Yep I got to have one box with windows. Why not let it be the best windows out?

angkor

February 21st, 2006, 01:35 PM

3rd option.

I always feel locked in when using Windows, I can't imagine it's going to be different with Vista. I'll happily wander along with Ubuntu and maybe a Powerbook if I find some loose change under my bed.

Kernel Sanders

February 21st, 2006, 01:36 PM

I can't afford the minimum h/w requirements.

So does that mean that you would use microsoft software if you met the minimum hardware requirements?

(P.s I was going to include this as "Option 4" but then I realised that if people voted that way, then it wouldnt tell me anything about whether they liked Windows/Microsoft software in general or not, or whether they were boycotting it for any reason?)

All the best!

John

Brunellus

February 21st, 2006, 01:37 PM

So does that mean that you would use microsoft software if you met the minimum hardware requirements?

(P.s I was going to include this as "Option 4" but then I realised that if people voted that way, then it wouldnt tell me anything about whether they liked Windows/Microsoft software in general or not, or whether they were boycotting it for any reason?)

All the best!

John
not necessarily, no.

I don't like the DRM restrictions, either. I am also just more comfortable in Linux now.

Kernel Sanders

February 21st, 2006, 01:43 PM

not necessarily, no.

I don't like the DRM restrictions, either. I am also just more comfortable in Linux now.

More of an "Option 3" in the poll then?

Hope everyone voted, it would be really interesting to see the results in a few days! :-D

All the best!

John

TechSonic

February 21st, 2006, 01:48 PM

Microsoft is just wrong. The whole deal with the Windows operating system turns me away. Just about everything. Examples would include, lag caused by background services constantly checking the internet for god knows what(updates, clock settings) Yes these are nice features, but it checks way too often. Not only that, there are some other features that it logs and sends to your ISP proxy. I don't know what info it's sending, but ummm NO.
More useless background services that just hog Memory (mem in general).
Lack of options, You can't really do much with it, best bet for a Desktop manager would be Aston Shell www.astonshell.com if you don't want the old clunker explorer.exe runnin the desktop and task bar. ughh.

ah, I'm not going to rant more, but I got lots more negitive reasons. I just want to finish eating my BLT from Subway.

briancurtin

February 21st, 2006, 01:53 PM

Would that be because of your principals, or do you just not like Microsoft software?

All the Best!

John
i was unhappy with the way windows performed when i moved to linux about 8 months ago. i dont always agree with their principles, and sometimes i dont like their software, but im not 100% against either of those. i just have a much better experience using linux based operating systems. the freedom and the power are what is keeping me with linux. i jump distros for free when i find something that suits my computing needs better, and i like that.

Gijith

February 21st, 2006, 01:57 PM

Yes. I can't wait to try out Vista. Maybe it'll suck, maybe it'll be great. If it makes a strong enough impression on me, I'll buy it. Have they said how much Ultimate will cost?

Bandit

February 21st, 2006, 02:08 PM

Can I have a HELLZ NO!!
Bandit does not support M$ or DRM apps...

grimdaze

February 21st, 2006, 02:14 PM

i'm enjoying my learning experience with linux so i wouldn't abandon linux for it but i'd use it.

K.Mandla

February 21st, 2006, 02:22 PM

I can't afford the minimum h/w requirements.
I'm of similar mind. Personally, I can afford it, but I don't like the fact that each new version seems to abandon an earlier grade of hardware. Minimum memory and hard drive requirements are perfect examples.

It's a bit like programmed obsolesence. Like the cars American automakers made up until the 1970s, which were designed to fall apart after 70,000 miles. I don't appreciate a product that forces you to buy new components.

ADDED: I guess you could say, even if it were free, you might have to buy new hardware to run it. So what's the point in free?

Minyaliel

February 21st, 2006, 02:24 PM

3rd option. But also because I love Linux (especially Ubuntu) too much to swap to another OS. Oh, and for a student like me, the software prices are a little stiff... I'd rather buy myself some food and new clothes and continue using Ubuntu lolz

Kernel Sanders

February 21st, 2006, 02:24 PM

Yes. I can't wait to try out Vista. Maybe it'll suck, maybe it'll be great. If it makes a strong enough impression on me, I'll buy it. Have they said how much Ultimate will cost?

Here's what I know about Windows Vista Ultimate Edition:

It will be the most expensive and feature packed version of Windows Vista, and the most feature packed version of Windows that has EVER been released.

Although the pricing has not been officially confirmed, prices of $300-$500 are being banded around, but if you live in the UK, expect it to be a LOT more expensive that the US (As it always is :cry: )

It will have *NO PRODUCT ACTIVATION*

bored2k

February 21st, 2006, 02:27 PM

Bragador

February 21st, 2006, 02:41 PM

The yes option is there anyway.

And anybody educated about what vista is trying to do can't possibly want to use it unless they are pro 1984

super

February 21st, 2006, 02:43 PM

meh!
i'd use it.
i would at least experiment with it to see what all the fuss is about.

Iandefor

February 21st, 2006, 03:02 PM

No. I like my Ubuntu :-D. I also dislike the Microsoft business model and won't support it if there's a free alternative, like Ubuntu. I would, however, like to play around with it a little to see what it's like. But I wouldn't want to own it.

Sirin

February 21st, 2006, 03:21 PM

The only commercial software worthy of my time and money is Mac OS X. http://67.18.37.14/html/emoticons/wink.gif

jbennett

February 21st, 2006, 03:36 PM

I would use it. Of course I would never give up Linux (Ubuntu especially) but I do look forward to seeing what Vista is like, though I don't anticipate owning a copy myself (at least not anytime soon), the prices are outrageous.

hellothere55

February 21st, 2006, 03:37 PM

I would probably give it a try once. Just to see what it was like, then head right back over to Linux. I would never buy that unless absolutly necessary. I don't think my hardware requirements would meet Vista anyways.

xequence

February 21st, 2006, 03:59 PM

Where is the option "Yes, I use windows and like it, and I will probably upgrade to vista".

Kernel Sanders

February 21st, 2006, 04:00 PM

Zealous poll. It lacks the Microsoft-friendly answers which would kind of make it an impartial poll.

I would vote for options in the vein "I don't mind if it's free or not, if I had the chance", not just negative Microsoft-hating options. There's not even an "other" option.

I'm afraid I dont agree......

The purpose of this poll was to find people's reasons for NOT using Microsoft software, and Windows Vista Ultimate Edition was used as an example to test everyones response.

I was interested to know whether their lack of desire to use microsoft software was due to:

1) Price - They couldnt afford it
2) Principal - They wont afford it, for whatever ethical reason, and would not accept it even if it was free (I fall into this catagory)
3)Dislike - They just dont like using it/have found a better alternative/their hardware wouldnt fully support it or it would run so poorly that they would dislike using it.

To include some microsoft-friendly options would just needlessly dilute the voting without giving any extra feedback on the general forum mood to its members?

The poll is working as intended.

The results so far have been interesting, (at this stage) the majority seem have issues with Microsoft's ethics, and refuse to use their software.

(If only more people did this, then mainstream software development would be forced to be bound by at least *some* form of ethical code :cry: )

I have really enjoyed getting your feedback! Thanks again everyone! And keep voting if you havent already! \\:D/

All the best to you all!

John

Kernel Sanders

February 21st, 2006, 04:01 PM

Where is the option "Yes, I use windows and like it, and I will probably upgrade to vista".

I was trying to find out people's reasons for NOT using microsoft software, so such an option wouldnt have helped with the result...... Sorry!! :cry:

prox2far

February 21st, 2006, 04:22 PM

sadly I would use it if it was free :( typing from a windows machine right now :(

M$ has 2 big a market share 2 ignore them I can't run most of the software I use in every day without a brand new shinning version of Windows, simply because i use rather OS specific software and the big companies only write 4 Windows.

xequence

February 21st, 2006, 04:27 PM

I'm afraid I dont agree......

All the options are for people who dont use microsoft software currently.

I can vote "yes", but if someone votes that the person reading the resaults assumes that all the people who voted yes "Are put off of microsoft software by the price" when many might not be put off by microsoft software at all.

I was trying to find out people's reasons for NOT using microsoft software, so such an option wouldnt have helped with the result...... Sorry!!

Then you should name the poll "If you dont use microsoft software, why not?" :)

aysiu

February 21st, 2006, 04:32 PM

I was trying to find out people's reasons for NOT using microsoft software, so such an option wouldnt have helped with the result...... Sorry!! :cry: Sure it would have.

Let's say you have 10 people on the forums.

1 Uses Windows, likes it, and plans to upgrade to Vista as soon as possible.

1 Doesn't use Windows but wouldn't use Vista for a reason other than what's in your poll

The other 8 fall into one of your predefined categories.

So by not having options for those first two, you're essentially saying "Only you 8 people can answer this poll," or "If you don't fall into these categories, lie." So you either have people who feel unrepresented or who have to lie in order to answer the poll.

You get better results by including more options. Even if you included the other two options, those 8 people would still answer as they would have without the other options.

Klaidas

February 21st, 2006, 04:35 PM

Hmmm. I think I'll be forced to use it anyway - shcool works, computer school, some windoze-only programs, etc :-|
But I guess I'd dual boot :)

xequence

February 21st, 2006, 04:35 PM

Sure it would have.

Let's say you have 10 people on the forums.

1 Uses Windows, likes it, and plans to upgrade to Vista as soon as possible.

1 Doesn't use Windows but wouldn't use Vista for a reason other than what's in your poll

The other 8 fall into one of your predefined categories.

So by not having options for those first two, you're essentially saying "Only you 8 people can answer this poll," or "If you don't fall into these categories, lie." So you either have people who feel unrepresented or who have to lie in order to answer the poll.

You get better results by including more options. Even if you included the other two options, those 8 people would still answer as they would have without the other options.

Yea!

Reminds me of a very odd poll on another site.

It was:

What OS do you use?

XP Pro
Linux
Win 95/98

it was really funny :p

detyabozhye

February 21st, 2006, 04:45 PM

I probably would, because I absolutely have to use Windows sometimes. I only use it like once a month, but I still have to even though I really don't like it. Here's what's keeping me on Windows:

FL Studio - I make music cuz I like to.
Visual Studio 2005 - I need this for work.

carlosqueso

February 21st, 2006, 05:01 PM

I don't really see an option along what I'd do....I love trying things out (ran about 10 different WM's on my testing box at one time or another) so I'd probably dual boot, but Ubuntu'd probably remain my primary OS cause I've gotten used to how it works.

mstlyevil

February 21st, 2006, 06:39 PM

I would have liked a fourth option that says yes-other. I would take a free copy and put it on a small partition to play with and to play some Windows games on. I am middle of the road when it comes to MSFT and their practices so I have no moral qualms with using their products. If I thought it was superior to Linux and Open Source then that is what I would buy and use. I believe Linux is superior overall because of it's flexibility and easy customation.

ardchoille

February 21st, 2006, 06:57 PM

Not a snowballs' chance in hell. Microsoft was caught faking evidence in a court of law. Microsoft lies about nearly everything, especially the "The TCO of Windows is cheaper than Linux" garbage. Microsoft likes to throw around the word "innovation" when the fact of the matter is that Microsoft has never innovated anything, they simply copy or steal what they want to use. Microsoft is expert at spreading FUD. The windows operating system is poorly written, insecure, full of bugs, bloated and unstable, just to mention a few problems with it. But, don't take my word for it, read it for yourself (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/).

Windows is the biggest pile of dung I have ever seen and I'd go back to using pencil and paper rather than use that worthless OS wannabe. I refuse to do business with untrustworthy people.

xequence

February 21st, 2006, 07:09 PM

The windows operating system is poorly written, insecure, full of bugs, bloated and unstable, just to mention a few problems with it.

Its always been secure for me... (Secure enough to use without any viruses, but not secure enough for me to consider using it as a server). VERY stable, except windows ME, and not bloated at all, except for some of the things that come with XP, such as the tour and windows messenger.

Youre just spreading "FUD" now ;)

GreyFox503

February 21st, 2006, 11:25 PM

It will have *NO PRODUCT ACTIVATION*

Can you link to source(s)? Thanks.

Not a snowballs' chance in hell. Microsoft was caught faking evidence in a court of law. Microsoft lies about nearly everything, especially the "The TCO of Windows is cheaper than Linux" garbage. Microsoft likes to throw around the word "innovation" when the fact of the matter is that Microsoft has never innovated anything, they simply copy or steal what they want to use. Microsoft is expert at spreading FUD. The windows operating system is poorly written, insecure, full of bugs, bloated and unstable, just to mention a few problems with it. But, don't take my word for it, read it for yourself (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/).

Windows is the biggest pile of dung I have ever seen and I'd go back to using pencil and paper rather than use that worthless OS wannabe. I refuse to do business with untrustworthy people.
Now, tell us how you really feel. :)

franklee

February 22nd, 2006, 01:59 AM

HELL NO.

Lamedoze is too limited for my personal use. I have a set routine on PC's and Lamedoze doesnt meet my needs at all. What security? What bleeding edge tech? What technical support should my expensive pile of turd fail me?

Nope...

I love command line. I love Linux and I love BSD.

-rwx

BoyOfDestiny

February 22nd, 2006, 02:34 AM

It's not that I'm boycotting MS only, it's just I like to avoid proprietary closed source apps (I want to seperate games from apps in this case). With many games I'm used to consoles being closed platforms... although in time that doesn't matter with those brilliant hackers).

Anyway, I would not use windows in my home, even if they payed me to. Also, for the record there are quirks with windows that irritate me (yeah just my experience, not everyone's I hope):

Lame activation phone home, etc etc etc
Almost useless commandline interfance, I ended up making little .bat files to use wget
Mysterious "file is in use cannot delete" when I'm not using the file at all
Mysterious things get "funny" after a month without a reboot (either slow or things stop working, certain plug n' play things)
The fact I cannot make internet explorer go away, and that the start menu is tied to explorer.exe...

Qrk

February 22nd, 2006, 02:37 AM

Its too early to say for me. I selected "No," but only because as it is looking now, I'm staying away from it.

But its early to tell, it might be like XP with better themes and no viruses. If that is the case, I'll buy it for $15 and consider the money well spent compared to the time it takes to get half the stuff working in wine.

BoyOfDestiny

February 22nd, 2006, 02:49 AM

Can you link to source(s)? Thanks.

Now, tell us how you really feel. :)

It seems some of the versions no one will want won't phone home.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050910-5298.html

"One final note worth mentioning is that this strategy does remove the "corporate Windows XP" option from the hands of pirates. Volume licensing for Pro, SBE, and EE may still mean that there will be copies of Windows Vista out there that don't "call home" for Windows Product Activation, but as you can see, Microsoft has removed most of the features that most pirates would want from those OSes. You won't see corporate licensing versions of Ultimate Edition."

Why would MS eliminate product activation for all the versions, they are basically the ones that gave copy protection a shot in the arm and put many on the road to DRM (with intel and others I suppose.) I don't want to ignite a flame war, just want to say this is my opinion, looking at recent "history" since I lived through it. I judge them to be a big player from "palludium" to "TCPA" to the crazy protections with the xbox360 and the horrible HDCP compliance.

Zain

February 22nd, 2006, 02:54 AM

mstlyevil

February 22nd, 2006, 02:56 AM

id dual boot it with ubuntu 5.10, just like i am with xp....not that it matters, because they aint gonna give it away for free....big opportunity for them to make a few more billion dollars. not only that, you could get it for free anyways....google, just like anything else.

You will be able to try a evaluation version for free. It has a 120 day time limit on it before you have to buy a license. This is how I tried Windows XP Pro x64 edition. (No I did not decide to buy a license. It was merely out of curiosity that I tried it.)

mstlyevil

February 22nd, 2006, 02:59 AM

I might try the public beta out of curiosity also. I am sure other eye candy nuts will try it also just for a chance to play with it.

TechSonic

February 22nd, 2006, 03:25 AM

weasel fierce

February 22nd, 2006, 03:28 AM

It wont offer anything I actually wont. So nope.

Derek Djons

February 22nd, 2006, 03:51 AM

Despite The Gimp and Bluefish I still dev some websites on my Windows Box with Adobe Photoshop CS2 and MacroMedia Studio 8. It's that I'm so used to these products and know the routine. At the moment, with deadlines and pressure I can't afford going Robinson Crusoe on The Gimp and Bluefish.

So yes, if Microsoft would bring out an (normal) Vista / XP edition for free I would be thankful. :)

nocturn

February 22nd, 2006, 03:59 AM

I wanted to check both.

I'm not using MS out of principal, but even if it where GPL'd, I'd still steer arround it for it's low quality.

GreyFox503

February 22nd, 2006, 04:01 AM

It seems some of the versions no one will want won't phone home.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050910-5298.html

"One final note worth mentioning is that this strategy does remove the "corporate Windows XP" option from the hands of pirates. Volume licensing for Pro, SBE, and EE may still mean that there will be copies of Windows Vista out there that don't "call home" for Windows Product Activation, but as you can see, Microsoft has removed most of the features that most pirates would want from those OSes. You won't see corporate licensing versions of Ultimate Edition."

Why would MS eliminate product activation for all the versions, they are basically the ones that gave copy protection a shot in the arm and put many on the road to DRM (with intel and others I suppose.) I don't want to ignite a flame war, just want to say this is my opinion, looking at recent "history" since I lived through it. I judge them to be a big player from "palludium" to "TCPA" to the crazy protections with the xbox360 and the horrible HDCP compliance.

Good reference, thanks for the link.

In a nutshell, the corporate versions of Vista won't need activation, like today's corporate XP's. The home versions and the "Ultimate" version that is the subject of the thread will need activation.

Quote:

"You won't see corporate licensing versions of Ultimate Edition."

They (Microsoft) are the ones leading the charge with Genuine Advantage, Product Activation, new license/mobo, etc. I fully expect them to continue this thinking with Vista.

benplaut

February 22nd, 2006, 04:22 AM

Microsoft makes decent software. It's full featured, looks pretty nice (aero your heart out), and of course has lots of drivers and software (marketshare, of course).

I simply prefer other software over theirs. I like being able to compile my own Enlightenment, mess with kernel optimizations, and all that jazz.

With the market how it is currently, i would dual boot. There's no sense in giving up great games because of principle.

darrenrxm

February 22nd, 2006, 04:42 AM

Yes, I can tell vista will be awesome. Forcing people to buy windows vista if they want to play the upcoming halo 2 for pc. Their is no way they could have made it for windowsxp. It was impossible to accomplish (especially since they were able to port so many xbox games to windowsxp).

And guess what happens next. ALL games will require windows vista to run. And because of vista's high hardware requirements they will be sure to run way faster than on windowsxp. Way to go microsoft! I can't wait to see people playing it at 3fps.

The sad thing in this is the people who will think that it will be that much of a better game just because it only runs on vista.

ignorance is bliss.

dcer

February 22nd, 2006, 04:48 AM

At this time I dual boot with XP, but I have no intention to ever get a newer version of Windows. The reason? DRM. When XP fails on me or becomes useless, I'll just ditch it and MS with it.

jason.b.c

February 22nd, 2006, 05:09 AM

:confused: i have a question!, have any of you heared or read this somewhere that ms might be giving away vista or any other one of there os's? :o

it just dosen't make any sence to me , dosen't seem like the ms way of doing things ( ya know the hole stickin' it to ya thing? ):confused:

frodon

February 22nd, 2006, 05:48 AM

Microsoft softwares are simply not good enought and its eye candy is too poor to make me give it a try again.

ardchoille

February 22nd, 2006, 06:04 AM

Its always been secure for me... (Secure enough to use without any viruses, but not secure enough for me to consider using it as a server). VERY stable, except windows ME, and not bloated at all, except for some of the things that come with XP, such as the tour and windows messenger.

Youre just spreading "FUD" now ;)
Well, I know an ex-script kiddie and he told me that one of the first things he did when he broke into a Windows computer is try to fix any problems that machine had because he needed that machine to be able to send the thousand or so spam emails per day or use that machine to break into government servers.

So, if your closed source Windows machine is running perfectly and is stable then you have no idea if it is the machine running well or some script kiddie that actually owns your machine and is keeping it running so he can use it to break into the FBI servers or spam the planet.

Windows is closed source and you have no idea what that machine is doing with your private info (SSN, mother's maiden name, your birthday, etc) or who it is sending it to.

Your Windows machine has no viruses? How do you know? You could have a bunch of viruses that your virus scanner just doesn't have the definitions for. If a virus scanner had every possible definition for every possible, and future, virus, then there wouldn't be a long history of viruses wreaking havoc on the world because the scanner would detect and eliminate all viruses before they could do any damage.

I have another friend who almost went to jail because her machine was being used to attack other machines and she had no idea what was going on.

The point is, you never know exactly what is happening "under the hood" of a Windows OS.

I'm not spreading FUD, I am simply speaking from experience.

egon spengler

February 22nd, 2006, 06:30 AM

bjweeks

February 22nd, 2006, 07:03 AM

ardchoille

February 22nd, 2006, 07:37 AM

I use windows all day with no problems. So to me this is fud. I haven't reformated in like a year, I don't use a virus scaner and I don't use anti-spyware. I have never got a virus nor spyware or anything. The most crashing I have got was because of soundblasters **** drivers. So somebody tell me if windows sucks so bad why is it more stable that ubuntu?

******** ever heard of a rootkit? Linux or unix or any os can be hacked and you will never know. I call FUD.
You obviously didn't understand my post. Windows is closed source so there is no telling what that OS is doing with your personal information. For all we know a Windows users' private info (SSN, birthdate, credit history, bank records, online passwords, etc) is sent somewhere and collected. This was what I meant when I said "insecure".

I remember my last Windows install years ago. I turned it on and set everything up, including the firewall. Then I went online and was hacked before I could finish downloading all the updates. So, I guess the firewall didn't protect the machine even though it said it was working properly.

Linux, on the other hand, is open source, so there are many eyes looking at the code. If there were code in Linux that sent your keystrokes or personal information back to Linus Torvalds, the Linux community would be immediately notified of it and no one would use Linux. We don't have any such protections with Windows. All we have with Windows is the word of a corporation run by people who willingly lie and break the law on a daily basis.

My machine is behind a router that does NAT, I have my firewall dropping all connection attempts, I run no outward-facing servers, I check the system with rkhunter/chkrootkit/tripwire twice daily and I never install anything which isn't in the official repos for my distro.. it's extremely difficult to install a rootkit on a Linux machine when you can't connect to that machine in the first place. Ubuntu stability? I've never had any big problems on any of my 11 machines. Hmm.. I must be doing something right.

nocturn

February 22nd, 2006, 08:15 AM

******** ever heard of a rootkit? Linux or unix or any os can be hacked and you will never know. I call FUD.

Any OS can be hacked off course. But on a clean Windows box, you cannot determine what it is doing (you have to rely on the accuracy of the information MS provides).

You Windows box my dial home to MS or even to other companies. It may collect information that can identify you, it may report usage of a cracked DVD.
These don't have to be the consequences of a rootkit, it can be a feature.

xequence

February 22nd, 2006, 08:21 AM

our Windows machine has no viruses? How do you know?

My computer is older, so it is already put to the max doing anything.

Any degradence in performance whatsoever, with any extra program running (such as a virus) I could tell something is going on. I know exactly how well my computer does things, and if it does a little worse on them I know it might be a virus, or something else.

You could have a bunch of viruses that your virus scanner just doesn't have the definitions for.

If I forgot to mention I dont have a virus scanner, then im sorry I forgot it. But I dont have one. Just makes the computer slow.

Zotova

February 22nd, 2006, 08:50 AM

So, if your closed source Windows machine is running perfectly and is stable then you have no idea if it is the machine running well or some script kiddie that actually owns your machine and is keeping it running so he can use it to break into the FBI servers or spam the planet.

Rubbish, if you have programs like that sending data then imo it is your own fault for not knowing how to run Windows. The idea that Windows sits their sending info without your knowledge is rubbish as well. You can see within your firewall all the outgoing traffic. For example I am sitting here now in XP and my firewall lights are all off and my router ones are not flashing as there is no internet activity.

The same goes for a comment someone made earlier about Windows Update connecting to often... well turn it off then and quit whining. People are so fond of telling people new to Linux that they have to learn how to use Linux/Ubuntu, have to tweak things, why is this idea so hard to understand that you also have to do this in Windows? But for some reason when you have to do this in Windows it automatically makes Windows bad?

Windows is closed source and you have no idea what that machine is doing with your private info (SSN, mother's maiden name, your birthday, etc) or who it is sending it to.

Set your firewall up to block specific words, it then notifies you each time that word is sent. If you have spyware etc sending out that kind of stuff, then again it is your own fault for not knowing how to run Windows.

Your Windows machine has no viruses? How do you know? You could have a bunch of viruses that your virus scanner just doesn't have the definitions for.

Check your processes, see what is running. If they are trying to call home your firewall would report it. Again learn how to use Windows instead of just criticising it.

I have another friend who almost went to jail because her machine was being used to attack other machines and she had no idea what was going on.

This isn't Windows fault, it is the user for not knowing how to use a computer. Its just like saying my friend knocked over a pedestrian last night, its not her fault because she didn't have a driving license, its the cars for being too hard to drive. People need to learn how to use a computer or this crap will happen.

I am simply speaking from experience.

You are just inexperienced in using Windows imo. Viruses, spyware and all that other crap can easily be avoided. My XP computer has been running fine for months as has my Ubuntu one.

bonzodog

February 22nd, 2006, 09:13 AM

Call me a linux zealot, but I will not even have MS hardware in my house. I seriously believe they need a damned good kick up the ****.

You WILL NOT be able to dual boot a vista system. It seems to be the one devel thing everyone forgot. It appears that vista will use the MBR to boot, and the way it boots has been altered substansially. This means grub on linux will not see it, as it will have an encrypted boot sequence. There is however a chance that the Vista bootloader will be able to boot linux, but thats not confirmed.
Vista will follow the same sales model that XP 64 bit has - not available off the shelf, only as an OEM OS. So you will have to buy hardware in order to buy vista off an MS approved reseller.
Also, remember that Vista will be an encypted version of NTFS initially before switching to WinFS (a journalled FS!!), and linux will not be able to see either system.
The only way to have Vista on a machine in your house really will be to get a second High performance machine.

bjweeks

February 22nd, 2006, 09:34 AM

You obviously didn't understand my post. Windows is closed source so there is no telling what that OS is doing with your personal information. For all we know a Windows users' private info (SSN, birthdate, credit history, bank records, online passwords, etc) is sent somewhere and collected. This was what I meant when I said "insecure".

I remember my last Windows install years ago. I turned it on and set everything up, including the firewall. Then I went online and was hacked before I could finish downloading all the updates. So, I guess the firewall didn't protect the machine even though it said it was working properly.

Linux, on the other hand, is open source, so there are many eyes looking at the code. If there were code in Linux that sent your keystrokes or personal information back to Linus Torvalds, the Linux community would be immediately notified of it and no one would use Linux. We don't have any such protections with Windows. All we have with Windows is the word of a corporation run by people who willingly lie and break the law on a daily basis.

My machine is behind a router that does NAT, I have my firewall dropping all connection attempts, I run no outward-facing servers, I check the system with rkhunter/chkrootkit/tripwire twice daily and I never install anything which isn't in the official repos for my distro.. it's extremely difficult to install a rootkit on a Linux machine when you can't connect to that machine in the first place. Ubuntu stability? I've never had any big problems on any of my 11 machines. Hmm.. I must be doing something right.

Ethereal and a hub.

Edit: A ubuntu dev could put code in a binary and you would never know, so your point is null.

nocturn

February 22nd, 2006, 09:36 AM

Ethereal and a hub.

Yes, for the advanced user this is an option. And it has been shown that MS sends out info on installed programs that way.

But what if they take it a step further and encrypt that data? What if the process of checking for windows updates is just one encrypted stream?

direwolf

February 22nd, 2006, 09:42 AM

No. I do not like their shady business practices.

bjweeks

February 22nd, 2006, 09:44 AM

Yes, for the advanced user this is an option. And it has been shown that MS sends out info on installed programs that way.

But what if they take it a step further and encrypt that data? What if the process of checking for windows updates is just one encrypted stream?

Good point but ubuntu is just at likely if not more so to somehow have code inbeded.

nocturn

February 22nd, 2006, 09:52 AM

Good point but ubuntu is just at likely if not more so to somehow have code inbeded.

Why?

bjweeks

February 22nd, 2006, 09:55 AM

Why?

ubuntu is made up of 1000s of packages with so many devs there that much more of a chance that somebody can do something bad.

Even tho its opensource nobody can read the entire ubuntu code base.

nocturn

February 22nd, 2006, 10:08 AM

ubuntu is made up of 1000s of packages with so many devs there that much more of a chance that somebody can do something bad.

Even tho its opensource nobody can read the entire ubuntu code base.

The same goes for windows, where you not only have to trust the management and every MS employee that works on it but also the contracters. Not to add that you will need additional software for your windows system to make it do anything, which requires even more trust in other companies (like Symantec).

At least with Free software, the source is there, the sources of packages are there and many eyes with different motives are looking at them.

I'm not saying it would be impossible, but the chance of something like this being in a Free software project is much lower than in a commercial one.

Robgould

February 22nd, 2006, 10:13 AM

Yes. I would dual boot because I like to play, but I would use it.

Enter

February 22nd, 2006, 10:20 AM

id just test it... see how it looks

purdy hate machine

February 22nd, 2006, 10:38 AM

Nope. I finally have a usable and stable operating system; if it’s not broke don’t fix it.
I have no problem in paying for a product if I believe I’m getting value for money.
If Linux wasn’t free and I had to purchase either Linux or Windows I would still chose Linux every time.

Kernel Sanders

February 22nd, 2006, 11:04 AM

EDIT: Probably best to start a new thread on this issue!

Sorry!

John

Pekkalainen

February 22nd, 2006, 11:06 AM

Yes, but only on my crappier machines as a way of learning the new stuff, can always be good to know how to do things in it since we live in a windows dominated world.

mstlyevil

February 22nd, 2006, 11:27 AM

Is it wrong to *feel* using Windows XP Professional SP2 is more secure than using Ubuntu?

I am running this system:

Pentium 4 3.2 GHz
2 GB Ram
400 GB Hard Drive
256 MB Graphics Card
Windows Xp Professional SP2

And I am protected with this:

Avast Antivirus Professional Edition
Webroot Antispyware
Webroot Desktop Firewall

I have run lots if online security tests from various sources and my computer is rated as "Superb" and "Stealth Mode - Your computer is invisable online" in all catagories.

If I eventually switch to Ubuntu (as i'm planning) will it really be safer/equally as safe as my current set up is?

Yes it will be even more secure if you apply the same security policy as you do Windows. The permissions system on Linux makes it very hard for anything to be installed on your computer without your permission. I still recommend running a firewall, booting from the hard drive first, setting a password for the Bios, and using random secure passwords mixed with upper and lowercase letters plus throwing in a number or two and a charecter like the %. A antivirus is still a good Idea if you share files with a Windows computer to keep them from getting infected. Just because you use a more secure OS by design does not mean you are secure if you ignore good security practices.

nocturn

February 22nd, 2006, 11:27 AM

jbennett

February 22nd, 2006, 11:31 AM

Rubbish, if you have programs like that sending data then imo it is your own fault for not knowing how to run Windows. ...

This isn't Windows fault, it is the user for not knowing how to use a computer. Its just like saying my friend knocked over a pedestrian last night, its not her fault because she didn't have a driving license, its the cars for being too hard to drive. People need to learn how to use a computer or this crap will happen.

You are just inexperienced in using Windows imo. Viruses, spyware and all that other crap can easily be avoided. My XP computer has been running fine for months as has my Ubuntu one.

I agree entirely. If you actually take the time to learn how to operate Windows, you can be assured that you have a completely secure working environment.

xequence

February 22nd, 2006, 03:58 PM

why is this idea so hard to understand that you also have to do this in Windows?
I agree entirely. If you actually take the time to learn how to operate Windows, you can be assured that you have a completely secure working environment.

Well said :)

You WILL NOT be able to dual boot a vista system.
not available off the shelf, only as an OEM OS.

Now that is just guessing. Unless you get someone from microsoft accually saying it, I dont believe it.

Zelut

February 22nd, 2006, 04:03 PM

before even reading the other posts...

nope. i have everything i need, more efficiently handled, in linux.

chimera

February 22nd, 2006, 04:04 PM

I'd kindly tell them to shove it up their ****. Second poll option FTW.

patrickfromspain

February 22nd, 2006, 04:32 PM

Well, I'll probably do the same with Vista as I've done with 3.11, 95, 98, 98 SE, XP, office 97, office 2000, halo, age of empires 2, age of empires 3, encarta 2004: pirate it!

I just like to have a "working" windows there, even when since I've installed ubuntu, I haven't used it that much, nearly never so to say. But.. just in case, I have it.

xequence

February 22nd, 2006, 04:36 PM

Well, I'll probably do the same with Vista as I've done with 3.11, 95, 98, 98 SE, XP, office 97, office 2000, halo, age of empires 2, age of empires 3, encarta 2004: pirate it!

Yes, but you arnt allowed to mention you are going to pirate anything on this site.

Trust me on this one :P

But if we were allowed to say anything about it, you all know what id say O_o

anthro398

February 22nd, 2006, 05:07 PM

It's been my experience that Windows has always been free. I've either been given a copy (with license) or gotten one a complimentary copy from school. I've put up with it off and on. No more. I won't use DRM. I won't use "trusted computing". I run Windows XP inside VMWare at work for ArcGIS and that's it.

Even when you aren't being charged, Windows isn't free. It's the opposite of free. So is Macintosh, but even more so.

For the commenter who said that once you know how to use Windows, it is secure, I can only say that is a foolish mistake. Secure or not, though, it isn't free.

SMeeD

February 22nd, 2006, 05:09 PM

Even though I really like Linux I would use it. I dont know enough about linux, plus its a whole lot easier to get games to run on a windows machine. If I werent into gaming then I would turn it down.

GreyFox503

February 22nd, 2006, 05:59 PM

With the market how it is currently, i would dual boot. There's no sense in giving up great games because of principle.

Yeah, I follow my principles until they stop me from doing something fun. :)

Sorry, couldn't resist. No harm intended.

GreyFox503

February 22nd, 2006, 06:02 PM

pirate it!

Remember, it's not pirating, it's illegally copying. :)

egon spengler

February 22nd, 2006, 06:58 PM

Rubbish, if you have programs like that sending data then imo it is your own fault for not knowing how to run Windows. The idea that Windows sits their sending info without your knowledge is rubbish as well. You can see within your firewall all the outgoing traffic. For example I am sitting here now in XP and my firewall lights are all off and my router ones are not flashing as there is no internet activity.

Talk about blaming the victim, I don't think it is an uneasonable assumption for many to make that their pc won't be surreptiously collating their personal (and impersonal) data for transmission to a third party. I don't think your driving comparison holds up, we ALL know that driving a car is a potentially dangerous undertaking and to drive carelessly puts lifes at risk so of course people should learn to drive. Of course all of that is ignoring the fact that in your example your friend was the perpetrator and not the victim.

I think a more accurate comparison would be getting burgled, is it really the victims fault if they get burgled? Of course it's possible in many instances that they could have taken greater steps to protect themselves but ultimately it's the fault of transgressors

As far as Microsoft and privacy invasion, didn't a former version of WMP phone home? I must admit to be knowing very little about security and so I'll leave this to someone else to clarify but assuming that I'm right and they did, I think it's not that unreasonable for people to be wary of MS.

GoalieCa

February 22nd, 2006, 08:55 PM

Honestly i don't see what it offers over XP. All that jazzy .net stuff is being backported. I'd probably still use all that other software i manually download anyways (anyone actually use a stock windows computer!?). It'll probably break a few things etc.

The first thing i do in any windows machine, after installing kerio, is to install cygwin to make it barely usable. Then firefox, thunderbird, gimp, gaim, gvim, and other OSS.

As far as gaming goes, XP will play games just fine. (although resource allocation and scheduling is horrendous in windows).

I bought the latest version of Mac OS about a few weeks after it came out. Spotlight and the rest made it a worthwhile investment.

Ubuntu for amd64 and mac os on my ibook keep me productive and happy. Very productive actually. IMO there's just a lot more good free software for linux and mac than windows. Want to mount an iso on linux, easy :D Want to mount an iso on windows? download and crack alcohol. On mac just double click. Similar procedure for many other things.

Plus vista looks like its getting uglier and less usable in the explorer.exe department. There's just so much "use case" crud it kills me. Way too much crud and wasted space and missing features. Very unproductive just browsing for files.

Hell even nautilus in dapper puts explorer.exe to shame.

poiuytr

February 22nd, 2006, 09:32 PM

Windows lost me with Product Activation. Vista just promises even more DRM. DRM is immoral; I will never embrace it.

Microsoft could give Windows XP away for free, and I wouldn't use it.

Microsoft could give me Windows XP for free and offer me $10,000, and I wouldn't use it.

Everything I have heard about Vista says that it continues Windows' long downward slide.

And hey, if it is not free (as in libre) software, it has less value than free software.

kelsey23

February 22nd, 2006, 09:44 PM

No. Never. Of course, I wouldn't be using this mediocre distrobution of GNU/Linux if Debain wasn't so outdated either....

Stormy Eyes

February 22nd, 2006, 09:58 PM

No. Never. Of course, I wouldn't be using this mediocre distrobution of GNU/Linux if Debain wasn't so outdated either....

You could always grow a backbone and install Gentoo.

kelsey23

February 22nd, 2006, 10:00 PM

Unfortunatly my current PC is too slow for Gentoo...I would be using that if it was a bit faster that's what most people I know recommend.

steveneddy

February 22nd, 2006, 10:31 PM

No - I have Windows 2000 Pro w/ Office 2000 Premium Edition, and I never boot it up. It's like my old Mac that I never boot up but keep around for archive purposes. (The Mac still gets on the internet sometimes and it still runs great!)

I have been a Linux user for two years and I _HAVE_ to use Windows at work due to not having a choice. I don't hate Windows, I don't like the price of Windows, the insecurity and the fact that I felt like I was lied to all along about the security of Windows.

BTW, I never had to pay for any version of Windows or Windows products. I always had the version of Windows that my IT buddy gave me from his office.

Would I use Vista even if it were free? No. I never liked or installed XP. I have grown comfortable with Linux and love Ubuntu. Linux is freedom. Linux is stable and flexable. Linux is the future. I set my computer free, why don't you?

xequence

February 22nd, 2006, 10:35 PM

Want to mount an iso on windows? download and crack alcohol.

You dont need to crack it. All you need to do is install it, the only thing you could crack it for is the fact it waits 10 seconds on startup telling you to buy it.

And I cant comment on mounting an ISO in linux as ive never done it.

GreyFox503

February 22nd, 2006, 11:27 PM

Unfortunatly my current PC is too slow for Gentoo...I would be using that if it was a bit faster that's what most people I know recommend.
If you want, you can make a very minimalistic Linux installation with Gentoo. Sure, you will have longer than normal compile times. But when you get what they call a "finalized" Gentoo system, it's just the core system files and a couple daemons. You log in and receive a bash shell prompt. Of course, after that you are free to install X windows, a window manager, desktop environment, etc.

But I'd be surprised if your computer was too slow to run a working Gentoo installation. After all, it runs Ubuntu, right? Just the huge hurdle of installation to get past. (It's not hard, it just takes a long time for your computer to crunch everything. Little user interaction.)

And I cant comment on mounting an ISO in linux as ive never done it.
So easy; I love it.

mount -o loop mycd.iso /mount/point/
And to make an iso:

cp /dev/cdrom mycd.iso
Taken from: http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html

akniss

February 22nd, 2006, 11:43 PM

Yes. I'd replace XP on my dual-boot laptop. Why not? Windows isn't a bad operating system... ubuntu is just better. I'm more productive in Ubuntu than I ever was in any version of windows.

I'm actually kind of excited to play around with vista (although i'll have to do it at work, since my home computer won't meet the min reqs). I would never pay for it, but if i could get it for free (legally) i would try it for the same reason i tried ubuntu... because I like to play with computers.

davidgypsy

February 23rd, 2006, 01:02 AM

I do Christian missionary work, and at times we approach various large companies to help with projects. Some time ago we approached MS here in South Africa and asked them for some software to put into a very poor and deserving school to assist them in their education. MS's answer was a very resounding no.

Since this negative experience with them, I realized that they have no compassion for the poor in this country despite having MASSIVE amounts of $

Mark Shuttleworth on the other hand has pumped huge amounts of his own $ into all kinds of projects and is activly helping the community in South Africa. I met him at the Linux World expo here in Johannesburg, and he was very friendly and helpful! What a difference to MS and Dollar Bill Gates.

The entire Linux philosophy is one of sharing, freedom and respect for others, so I have determined from the evidence that Linux is in fact a Christian OS and worthy of being used on my desktop. ;)

detyabozhye

February 23rd, 2006, 01:07 AM

I wouldn't say it's a Christian OS yet, first they'd need to get rid of the word "daemon" everywhere. ;)

aysiu

February 23rd, 2006, 01:23 AM

I wouldn't say it's a Christian OS yet, first they'd need to get rid of the word "daemon" everywhere. ;) Don't worry. Any Christian worth her salt can open up a terminal and sudo killall the running daemon...

Azriphale

February 23rd, 2006, 11:48 AM

But what if you need to run, say, Apache? Then you have no choice but to run the Apache daemon.

But then, daemons work better with FreeBSD and their mascot. I still want a cast copper Beastie. It looks so nice.

But anyway..

I guess I would try to stick Vista into a VM to play with a bit. And for some cross-platform development, if I carry on with that (and don't move to Linux only dev).
Also, I read somewhere that MS said it was only releasing DX10 for Vista (can't remember where). Although this would actually put me off getting it.
Finally, if Vista didn't work in a VM, I would break the disc into lots of little bits and swallow them.

I really don't like MS, and I really love OSS, and I'm an OSS advocate (although I do use some closed source software), but I would like to play with Vista anyway. I would certainly not use it as my primary OS. I find XP clucky and difficult to use now, after using GNU/Linux for a number of years. And when I do use XP (I own a licence, I'm sorry!) every now and then, I find myself firing up cmd.exe and typing linux console commands, getting very confudes as to why nothing is working :)

Oh, I'd probably eat the disc after a few days anyway, I don't like the idea of this DRM junk. I really don't like the way MS is taking Windows. But my answer is Yes, but only to it poke with a stick.

Sp@z

February 23rd, 2006, 12:49 PM

I don't plan on buying it but I generally don't have any issues getting legal copies of anything from MS. So yeah I will upgrade my XP machine. When I can get all my hardware to work correctly in Ubuntu, I will ditch Windows all together, but for now ubuntu is on my laptop only. At least it is not dual booted, it is str8 ubuntu!

Mr.X

February 23rd, 2006, 01:02 PM

No way.
Im sticking with ubuntu for good. :D

Zotova

February 23rd, 2006, 01:47 PM

Talk about blaming the victim, I don't think it is an uneasonable assumption for many to make that their pc won't be surreptiously collating their personal (and impersonal) data for transmission to a third party.

This could stand for any OS, it isn't just Windows.

If someone doesn't like MS then fair enough, but saying Windows is evil, it works against you is just utter rubbish imo. In-fact the user often works against Windows by installing utter rubbish. You say talk about blaming the victim - if people go clicking every pretty popup they get then imo it is their fault. People should learn how to use a computer properly.

I don't think your driving comparison holds up, we ALL know that driving a car is a potentially dangerous undertaking and to drive carelessly puts lifes at risk so of course people should learn to drive.

Using a computer carelessly has dangerous risks of contracting viruses, spyware etc. Why should using a pc be any different, people should learn how to use their computer. I’m not suggesting a full blown course, just the basics when it comes to security.

Of course all of that is ignoring the fact that in your example your friend was the perpetrator and not the victim.

My point was everyone is so happy to blame Windows when something goes wrong. When it is their fault for getting a virus or spyware. You can avoid them, don't open emails with stupid subjects and dodgy looking attachments. Don't download random stuff and install it - use well known sites who are anti-spyware, download.com, softpedia just too name a few. Yes Windows is not perfect, but these things can easily be avoided and if a computer is calling home it is not Windows fault, it is their fault for not maintaining and looking after their computer properly.

The exact same goes for Ubuntu, for a moment imagine MS was out of the picture. Soon enough we'd start to see deb files which offer "Amazing new smilies for Gaim" - what the site wouldn't tell you is that this deb would also contain some shady program which we generally don't want on our computers. Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but as long as the user installed the program, e.g. sudo dpkg -i dodgygaimsmilies.deb the program could be installed and could run at the ubuntu startup because the user gave the ok with their password. Of course an experienced linux user would know only to trust apt-get or well known linux sites. But the average user would want their smilies and would give the ok when the password box popped up.

Is this Ubuntu's fault? No! It is the users fault for installing a shady deb - just as it would be if a user installed a dodgy exe in Windows.

I think a more accurate comparison would be getting burgled, is it really the victims fault if they get burgled?

That example is irrelevant. The home owner didn't invite the burglar to burgle them. The computer user did install the spyware. (If we are talking about programs calling home as in the original post).

As far as Microsoft and privacy invasion, didn't a former version of WMP phone home?

I couldn't argue the point to be honest as I don't know about that, I personally never use WMP so I've never made a point to read up on it. Although, the original poster who I commented on made out that you could leave Windows alone it would send information out to all sorts - that is simply not true.

detyabozhye

February 23rd, 2006, 02:38 PM

Don't worry. Any Christian worth her salt can open up a terminal and sudo killall the running daemon...
LOL, we have no choice but to let the daemons run.

KingBahamut

February 23rd, 2006, 02:40 PM

Resounding NO.

Zodiac

February 23rd, 2006, 05:12 PM

Sure I would, it comes down to whatever gets the job done the cheaperst in the end...

aysiu

February 23rd, 2006, 05:18 PM

I think a more accurate comparison would be getting burgled, is it really the victims fault if they get burgled? That example is irrelevant. The home owner didn't invite the burglar to burgle them. The computer user did install the spyware. (If we are talking about programs calling home as in the original post). That example might be relevant for people who don't use the locks on their home or apartment doors!

JERRY: Great, I had fun, where's the TV, where's the VCR.

[Elaine looks guilty] What?

ELAINE: They were stolen.

JERRY: Stolen? When?

ELAINE: A couple a hours ago, the police are coming right

over.

JERRY: Stolen?

ELAINE: [Kramer enters the apartment] Someone left the door

open. [it's clear that she means Kramer; she walks to the

bathroom]

JERRY: [to Kramer] You left the door open?!

KRAMER: Uh, Jer, well ya know, I was cookin' and I, I uh, I

came in to get this spatula...and I left the door open, 'cause

I was gonna bring the spatula right back!

JERRY: Wait, you left the lock open or the door open?

KRAMER: [bobs his head guiltily] The door.

JERRY: The door? You left the door open?

KRAMER: Yeah, well, I was gonna bring the spatula right back.

JERRY: Yeah, and?

KRAMER: Well, I got caught up... watching a soap opera...[with

a broken voice] The Bold and the Beautiful

JERRY: So the door was wide open?

KRAMER: Wide open!

JERRY: [Elaine enters the living-room] And where were you?

ELAINE: I was at Bloomingdale's...waiting for the shower to

heat up.

KRAMER: Look, Jerry, I'm sorry, I'm uh, you have insurance,

right buddy?

JERRY: No.

KRAMER: [looks shocked] How can you not have insurance?

JERRY: Because...I spent my money on the Clapgo D. 29, it's

the most impenetrable lock on the market today...it has only

one design flaw: the door...[shuts the door] must be CLOSED.

orlox

February 23rd, 2006, 11:18 PM

If Microsoft Gave Away Windows Vista Ultimate Edition For Free....

JA, like if I've ever paid for windows licences. Truly don't care, since where i come from, getting your free pirate copy of windows is a piece of cake, and nobody cares...

But even though, I'd only try Vista when i need to use software that only runs in that plataform, or when it get's truly hard to get drivers...and that won't be happening soon. Even though, the only thing stopping me from killing my XP partition, is my family...

So i guess my choice, is none of those...

sas13

February 24th, 2006, 11:11 PM

you know, I think a lot of people here aren't quite coming from the right place; I mean, my opinion of MS is about as low as anyones - I hate that they are controlling, big brotherish, use intimidation tactics etc...

but that's not why I use linux.

I use linux 'cause it's great, you set up your own machine exactly the way you want, the community support is terrific, using open source software promotes philosophies of sharing and helping other people out... and because penguins are cool.

just my 2 cents.

JoshHendo

February 25th, 2006, 04:53 AM

Where is the option "Yes, I use windows and like it, and I will probably upgrade to vista".
yep. A very Ubuntu favoured poll. Polls really have to be fair to both sides.

DrFunkenstein

February 25th, 2006, 04:56 AM

egon spengler

February 25th, 2006, 07:00 AM

This could stand for any OS, it isn't just Windows.

You seem to be defending MS from an accusation I never made. Of course that applies to any OS.

If someone doesn't like MS then fair enough, but saying Windows is evil, it works against you is just utter rubbish imo. In-fact the user often works against Windows by installing utter rubbish.

Ok, here you must be just making general points because I have certainly never said anything of the sort.

You say talk about blaming the victim - if people go clicking every pretty popup they get then imo it is their fault. People should learn how to use a computer properly.

That example is irrelevant. The home owner didn't invite the burglar to burgle them. The computer user did install the spyware. (If we are talking about programs calling home as in the original post).

How about this then. When you hear these cases of the elderly being scammed by bogus callers and shoddy workmen who overcharge for needless work is that their fault? After all they did answer the door didn't they? They did let the guy into their house without properly checking that he really does work for the gasboard didn't they? They did agree to let the cowboys renovate their patio didn't they?

When someone takes advantage of the naive or less informed members of soceity it's not the victims fault, it's the perpetrators fault

Really, it amazes me that many seem to assume that people use Linux to somehow spite MS, not simply because the like using Linux.

It's very true. I use Linux because I much prefer how it works in comparison to XP. It has absolutely nothing to do with any shortcomings in Windows, because I never had problems with spyware, viruses or stability in XP. True, Ms does seem to be an unethical company. Same is true for Nestle, Coca Cola and countless others but for Linux users don't seem to spend endless hours discussing them

aysiu

February 25th, 2006, 10:22 AM

True, Ms does seem to be an unethical company. Same is true for Nestle, Coca Cola and countless others but for Linux users don't seem to spend endless hours discussing them Because these are the Ubuntu Forums, not the "ethical food and drinks" forum.

I think it makes perfect sense, since most Ubuntu users used to be Windows users. I don't think you can say most Ubuntu users necessarily don't drink Coca-Cola or necessarily do drink Coca-Cola.

Windows is an operating system
Ubuntu is an operating system
Nestle is a company that makes chocolate and related products
Coca-Cola is a company that make carbonated beverages

Think about it.

Likewise, in an AA meeting, people may be more likely to talk about alcohol than porn. Just a guess.

jbennett

February 25th, 2006, 01:52 PM

Zotova

February 25th, 2006, 02:42 PM

You seem to be defending MS from an accusation I never made. Of course that applies to any OS.

The poster I was referring to was making out that Windows had these imperfections and Linux didn't, which isn't true. My comments weren't aimed at you in specific. I'm not really defending MS either, I'm just tired of Linux fanboys going on about how things are so perfect in Linux, when in-fact they aren't. (Again not aimed at you.)

How about this then. When you hear these cases of the elderly being scammed by bogus callers and shoddy workmen who overcharge for needless work is that their fault? After all they did answer the door didn't they? They did let the guy into their house without properly checking that he really does work for the gasboard didn't they? They did agree to let the cowboys renovate their patio didn't they?

Lets look at the example though, the majority of people I know are 18-25 and they have spyware because they want the latest crap for msn. They happily click every exe they can find. This generation knows better, they are aware of viruses, spyware etc It is their own fault.

At the end of the day, if Linux becomes more popular, spyware will come to Linux. My point being in the scenario of Linux being the no.1 home OS there will just be as much junk on inexperienced users computers calling home as there is now on Windows. This doesn't make Linux inferior, nor does it Windows - however fanboys love dis Windows where as in reality Linux or any other OS has (or will have) these problems (if they become popular).

When someone takes advantage of the naive or less informed members of soceity it's not the victims fault, it's the perpetrators fault

Don't open dodgy email attachments and don't open any random file off the internet isn't exactly rocket science. People have been warned about viruses again and again, yet they choose not to take the proper protection. That is their fault, not Windows.

arckeda

February 25th, 2006, 04:11 PM

mstlyevil

February 25th, 2006, 04:13 PM

bored2k

February 25th, 2006, 04:14 PM

Youd think that windows would start making PCs, I mean they already have there software in each one and pretty much own the planet, probably could get ibm to do it, I bet they WOULD get a lot more user if they made their OS free, or atleast open source!
I disagree. The percentage of users who care or even KNOW about open source software is a minimal. They really wouldn't gain anything from turning OS. In fact, it wouldn't even make sense to crumble their own empire. On top of that, most of the hardware releases focus on MS products, so it's not like they have to care about compatibility.

blastus

February 25th, 2006, 07:29 PM

I'd install it but would still use Ubuntu as before.

you arnt allowed to mention you are going to pirate anything

EDIT No pro piracy stuff please

Iandefor

February 25th, 2006, 07:32 PM

I'd install it but would still use Ubuntu as before.

There's no harm in getting a free copy of Windows. Nobody's getting harmed by it; as long as it didn't cost Microsoft anything to manufacture that copy and those people would not have bought it anyway. NOOO! DON'T START THIS TOPIC AGAIN!!!

mstlyevil

February 25th, 2006, 07:36 PM

NOOO! DON'T START THIS TOPIC AGAIN!!!

DITTO!!!!!!!!!!!!

egon spengler

February 25th, 2006, 07:58 PM

Because these are the Ubuntu Forums, not the "ethical food and drinks" forum.

I think it makes perfect sense, since most Ubuntu users used to be Windows users. I don't think you can say most Ubuntu users necessarily don't drink Coca-Cola or necessarily do drink Coca-Cola.

Windows is an operating system
Ubuntu is an operating system
Nestle is a company that makes chocolate and related products
Coca-Cola is a company that make carbonated beverages

Think about it.

Likewise, in an AA meeting, people may be more likely to talk about alcohol than porn. Just a guess.

Actually this is the community chat section of the ubuntu forums, where people are invited to partake in "General Discussion about whatever fits..". Surely alongside the abundant "M$ is evil" threads there is room for a thread or two on any of the many other companies who are also "evil". On the other hand AA meetings are a support group for people who are trying to recover from a life altering illness/addiction, it seems fairly obvous to me that they might have a more focused subject matter in their discussions. We're all here because of a common interest which is Linux, I don't see how it follows that we should discuss Windows no end.

I also fail to see the relevance of people here being former Windows users. We don't live in a vacuum, do you really mean to suggest that only a user of a given product might be able to notice any wrong doings by the company involved? I've yet to place anyone into leg restraints yet I feel that I can safely say that it's at best morally dubious of the British companies who sell leg restraints to countries known to commit human rights abuse. Equally I don't think it takes a Coca Cola drinker to recognise that Coca Cola were at least slightly out of order for trying to force Raquel Chavez (http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Raquel%20Chavez) to stop selling a rival brand. You'd think with the abundance of ethical shoppers we have here companies other than Microsoft might get commented on

aysiu

February 25th, 2006, 08:14 PM

Actually this is the community chat section of the ubuntu forums, where people are invited to partake in "General Discussion about whatever fits..". Surely alongside the abundant "M$ is evil" threads there is room for a thread or two on any of the many other companies who are also "evil". On the other hand AA meetings are a support group for people who are trying to recover from a life altering illness/addiction, it seems fairly obvous to me that they might have a more focused subject matter in their discussions. We're all here because of a common interest which is Linux, I don't see how it follows that we should discuss Windows no end. I didn't say we should discuss Windows to no end. I'm simply saying it makes sense that ex-Windows users who currently use Ubuntu would talk about Windows more than a random subject like... Coca-Cola. Sure, the Community Chat section is theoretically about anything, but what the people who are gathered here have in common is an operating system.

It's sort of like this one part in the movie The Player where a producer and a few actors are sitting at lunch talking about... movies. At one point, Tim Robbins' character says something like (I'm paraphrasing), "Can't we talk about something else besides movies? I mean, we're intelligent people, right?" There's a long moment of silence, and then they all burst out laughing.

That's the Ubuntu Forums for you. Is that the way it should be? Who knows? I'm simply saying that's the way it is. Can't we talk about something besides Windows? We're intelligent people, right? Well...

I also fail to see the relevance of people here being former Windows users. We don't live in a vacuum, do you really mean to suggest that only a user of a given product might be able to notice any wrong doings by the company involved? I've yet to place anyone into leg restraints yet I feel that I can safely say that it's at best morally dubious of the British companies who sell leg restraints to countries known to commit human rights abuse. Equally I don't think it takes a Coca Cola drinker to recognise that Coca Cola were at least slightly out of order for trying to force Raquel Chavez (http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Raquel%20Chavez) to stop selling a rival brand. You'd think with the abundance of ethical shoppers we have here companies other than Microsoft might get commented on Actually, some people here may, in fact, live in a vacuum. And I didn't mean to imply that only users or former users of a product are in a position to discuss that product or the company that produces the product.

As I said above, operating systems are what we all have in common. We all use, did use, or considered using Ubuntu at one point or another. Most of us did use or continue in some way to use Windows. That's what we have in common. Do I mean to imply that we must discuss only what we have in common? No. Do I mean to imply that was probably will discuss what we have in common and discuss it quite often? Certainly.

bored2k

February 26th, 2006, 12:01 AM

I use Microsoft Windows. It has its share of usefulness to me. Would I use it if it was free? It's non-free and I use it, so of course I would. Although no, the price isn't keeping me away from it.

xhie

February 26th, 2006, 12:12 AM

NO.

Wow... like really NO.

The feeling I got when windows was finally gone from all 3 systems that I own and I knew I would never have to look back was so just perfect. The list of reasons is far to big but at the end of the day I like knowing that I have total control over what happens to my system.

That and I used to have a somewhat bad everquest attiction and staying away from windows makes it so that I'm not even tempted. Um.. yeah...

mstlyevil

February 26th, 2006, 12:14 AM

mouseclone

July 11th, 2006, 09:58 AM

At work i have to use MS. I don't have a choice. Although i'm working on trying to make that different it will take some time.

I have Vista Beta installed right now. I do not have a 2.0 shader v-card installed on my workstation at work so i can't see a the bells and whistels that you are paying for when you buy it. Microsoft has started producing crap sence windows 95 .. 3.11 is stable enough be3cause it was still DOS with a gui overlay. much the way Linux is today. If i want a true BASH shell i have it at my finger tips (ctrl+alt+F1) or just change the init for start up.

It really doesn't matter though... my trouble at home now is trying to get Windows Games to work... I don't even have MS install any more. So long Microsoft.

slimdog360

July 11th, 2006, 10:04 AM

First I would need about a million dollars to upgrade my computer so I could run it, then another millions dollars on software.

tsb

July 11th, 2006, 10:13 AM

I'd pay up to $500 for it, but I'll probably get it for free anyway. I need it for my HD DVD/BD HTPC.

FISHERMAN

July 11th, 2006, 10:49 AM

I don't like most MS products, but I like some software that is Windows-only.
So if MS offered me a free copy of vista I would use it.
But since that's not going to happen, I'll stick with WinXP for as long as I can. Meanwhile I can only hope that a lot more software will be ported to Linux.(But I'm realistic enough to know that's unlikely).

Shay Stephens

July 11th, 2006, 11:38 AM

No. Once M$ started with that "activation" and "Genuine Windows" crap for downloading patches, they lost me.

Same here.

bruce89

July 11th, 2006, 11:44 AM

If Microsoft Gave Away Windows Vista Ultimate Edition For Free.... Would You Use It?
Saying as they won't, no.

Adamant1988

July 11th, 2006, 12:07 PM

I'm not using them out of
a) price
b) security.

My mother wonders why I refuse to login to my email, AIM clients, or other online accounts while I'm on her computer. My account numbers and such are vulnerable on her computer... not so much on mine.

kigina

July 11th, 2006, 12:13 PM

Microsoft can come to my pool parties any day. As long as they don't know how to swim.

mech7

July 11th, 2006, 06:43 PM

I like XP more then vista.. though the effects are cool it is just to heavy. I don't really care about the price as I have much more applications and it just works and is easy to use. The price really does not matter if you work on it as usually the user costs more then the software. And if it saves time it saves money.

THough perhaps i guess the price would be an issue with some people who only use it for some office tools and internet..
But for these people the cost of OS usually does not matter as they buy pc's from the store and do not build themself... and they come shipped standard with the latest windows version :)

mech7

July 11th, 2006, 06:46 PM

sagarhshah

July 13th, 2006, 12:42 AM

Yeah i would use it.
Although not as my main desktop.

I'm a programmer and make apps for linux windows so yeah why not!!

detyabozhye

July 13th, 2006, 12:43 AM

The thing that bugs me is that Vista uses way too many resources. So I don't think I'd want it.

daniel of sarnia

July 13th, 2006, 12:51 AM

no, it's simply a slow, unstable and insecure OS. You could not pay me to put my important data on one of those ticking time bombs. Maybe for playing games, however I'm not much of a gamer anyways. But I would definitely not use it for my day to day work.

ericesque

July 13th, 2006, 01:21 AM

It's slow? How do you know? You've (possibly) tried a beta version of the software. It's insecure? How do you know? You've (possibly) tried a beta version of the software. It's unstable? ...you get the picture?

I'm not trying to hype vista, but nobody can give me a valid reason --performance, stability, or security wise-- why they wouldn't use it. It's not a finished product, don't knock it like it is. If it sucks when it hits shelves, THEN by all means, let it have its uppance.

That being said...

I would definitley use a free version. Are you kidding? I wouldn't scrap my Ubuntu install-- or even go back to Win full time, but if I'm going to have a win partition for gaming, it's going to be the version that will support DX10! If the videos floating around are even close to the real capabilities, I can't wait to get my hands on it :)

detyabozhye

July 13th, 2006, 01:39 AM

OK, how about lisencing? M$'s new lisences aren't the prettiest ones around. Just read the EULA.

ericesque

July 13th, 2006, 01:48 AM

PhilipsHead

July 13th, 2006, 02:02 AM

Stupid poll, yes and the price has never put me off either.

I'll be able to play DRM material protected by TPM JUST LIKE ON LINUX!

HOW AWESOME!

detyabozhye

July 13th, 2006, 02:12 AM

I can't. I'd have to buy it, open it, and start the install... by then, I already can't return it or sell it according to the EULA :(

I said nothing about reasoning related to licensing, corporate practices, drm, or any other issues of that nature.

I'm just tired of people trying to judge the final product by it's beta performance. I explained to a couple of not-so-computer-literate folk the other day that some people are basing their opinion of Vista based on the beta--even going as far as to compare dapper stable to beta Vista. EVEN the cashier girl at Office Max laughed at how stupid it was. HEAR THAT!?! IT'S STUPID TO JUDGE SOFTWARE BASED ON BETA RELEASES! EVEN DUMB CASHIER GIRLS AT OFFICE MAX KNOW THAT!

I've said my peace and counted to 3.

People compared Dapper Flights (Alphas) to Vista beta and the Dapper Flights performed better than the Vista betas, so there you go, we're even now. The Dapper Flights pretty much acted the same way Dapper final does. And who said a girl at OfficeMax is a computer genious anyways? No offense, but I believe Vista won't magically eat half the RAM and be cut down to 2GB HD space on final release, it'll be more or less like the betas, but with less bugs.

Beta: The last software testing phase before a production rollout. Also see UAT.
www.orafaq.com/glossary/faqglosb.htm

tsb

July 13th, 2006, 03:09 AM

People compared Dapper Flights (Alphas) to Vista beta and the Dapper Flights performed better than the Vista betas, so there you go, we're even now. The Dapper Flights pretty much acted the same way Dapper final does. And who said a girl at OfficeMax is a computer genious anyways? No offense, but I believe Vista won't magically eat half the RAM and be cut down to 2GB HD space on final release, it'll be more or less like the betas, but with less bugs.

I disagree with that. The Dapper betas were much slower on my PCs. As for resources, I could care less. All my PCs are/will be more than capable.

detyabozhye

July 13th, 2006, 06:07 PM

The Flights and betas were more or less the same as final on my comp. Vista takes 800MB RAM when it's idle though, I doubt it'll cut down further than to 600MB when the final is released. Unfortunately, all I have at the moment is 512MB.

Mr Wrath

July 13th, 2006, 06:15 PM

I have to use it at work...other than that...NO

Here is a good read as well.

http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html

Mr Wrath

July 13th, 2006, 06:23 PM

In the link above...

For those of you who have used Mico$oft Windows in the past, and are somewhat savvy with computers, from Win 98 and on to XP, {I have no experience with the earlier models of Windows} this article brings out everything that you might have noticed...but didn't grasp on to. It is quite upsetting to know that the general public (not computer savvy) will never see/understand what Micro$oft is doing...Shame, shame, shame.
*nodding head and sighing

hatman

July 17th, 2006, 12:15 PM

I voted the last option, I downloaded the public RC2 beta edition of Vista nad put it on my PC at work... talk about slooooow (just slightly below spec) so I went home, downed ubuntu and installed it over the top of vista...surprise, surprise, no problems... that was about a month and half to two months ago... now I've put ubuntu on my home PC and will be doing the same with my upstairs PC... Vista? They can keep it...:twisted:

linuxgeekery

July 17th, 2006, 02:15 PM

I'd use it, but not that much. The two main reasons for me would be:

Using it for the heck of it
DirectX 10 games that wine/cedega don't fully support

detyabozhye

July 17th, 2006, 04:00 PM

The only thing I use Windows for is making music in FL Studio and making .NET apps (mono is great, but all apps compiled in mono bring up a terminal when launched in Windows, anybody know a way around this?).

Helix.

July 17th, 2006, 04:35 PM

I would take it, but not use it...

1. My laptop couldn't handle it

2. I like the style, but I have a feeling it's gonna be like XP - register or die in 30 days! ;-)

3. I could sell it and get a better computer!

4. I have a decent setup now, why change it?

Stormy Eyes

July 17th, 2006, 04:52 PM

I'd use the disc as a poor man's shaving mirror.

Greyhair

July 17th, 2006, 05:31 PM

:-k Why would I want to use an inferior product?

Arnaud_B

July 17th, 2006, 06:16 PM

well for free or not my professional laptop will have vista to some point in the future (and this is anyway my main computer) so I guess I'll use it... and if they were giving it for free at least I could buy a personal pc without paying a windows licence :-) rare enough to notice ;-)
A.

Bezmotivnik

July 17th, 2006, 08:10 PM

Yeah, I'll eventually use Vista when it gets properly cracked. It's a hardware hog, but new computers and components are dirt cheap where I live so I can do the MB/CPU/RAM upgrade with no serious inconvenience.

There is serious inconvenience attendant to using non-dominant operating systems and applications, or at least to not having access to a box running them.

I'll use Vista, I'll use Linux. Big deal. :rolleyes:

Frankly, a lot of the MS gripes I've read in the thread aren't really valid, and I would have to say that I get at least as exasperated with Linux's obstructively chaotic, quixotic non/development as I do with Microsoft's corporate behavior, never mind the huge amount of money reputedly spent by big corporations "on Linux" which mysteriously never translates to anything for a desktop Linux end-user.

So it's a wash there...and face it, nobody really cares what you or I think about their business practices anyway (don't ever fool yourself that they do, despite the empty rhetoric of their "mission statements"), so spare yourself the aggrivation. Do what you need to do and move on.

These are merely operating systems. Use what works for you and keep your religious feelings for church.

Compucore

July 17th, 2006, 08:42 PM

What kills me the most with windows is all the patch work that is needed for each version of windows. I mean when I look at Hoary hedgehog, Breezy badger, and Dapper drake. Eachh of those three I had about close to 200 megs at any given time to patch each version including software that was on each version. Here with microsoft it's more out of control in the patch work for the operating systmm, Then the individual applications. If they could combine all that is neded in one shot install without all the rebooting for every little update. It wouldn't be so bad but it isn't that way. They patch little by little. And reboot each time. With ubuntu on the other hand the only time when you have to do a major reboot on a system is when you install a new kernel and thats it. The other applications you don't have to worry about. Since you don't need to reboot. I haven't come across a good OS and applications like Ubuntu in a long time. Very refreshing. The specs for Vista is still going to kill me though. My other computers here are still way out of specs for what vista nneds. My slowest is a AMD K6-2 400 and my fastest is the PIII 1GHZ and even that doesn't have a high end video card that vsta requires.

Compucore

detyabozhye

July 17th, 2006, 09:04 PM

The only thing my comp doesn't meet is the RAM requirement.

macogw

July 17th, 2006, 09:44 PM

I put yes. I like the eye-candy, and I'd be interested to try it out and see how it works. I just think it's stupid how much they charge for it. I was considering downloading the beta to see how it goes, but if the file system changed I'd be screwed. I still have to have access to Internet Explorer either way though (but the library can help there). I have to be able to make sure websites look okay in crappy browsers like IE when I know they look fine in good ones.

jonathan21

July 24th, 2006, 07:29 AM

even if they did give it away free you still have the cost of geting a high spec computer to run the OS.I don't hate microsoft bu activation and other crap has made windows experience a pain speeking from a technician point of u .repacing hardware is made harder by activation.it won't be long till linux takes over so be patient everyone.

AndyCooll

July 24th, 2006, 07:57 AM

I haven't voted because there isn't a category that meets my viewpoint.

If they gave away a free version I would probably obtain a copy. However I'd probably continue to use Linux as my OS of choice because I prefer it.
With XP & other M$ it isn't that "I just don't like it", it is simply that I prefer Linux, the philosophy, and the community.

:cool:

bruce89

July 24th, 2006, 10:34 AM

With Ubuntu (at to a certain extent, other distros), you get free upgrades of everything every 6 months. Try that with Windows.

arsenic23

July 24th, 2006, 10:45 AM

There needs to be a "No, I don't believe Vista will function well."

Enigmus

July 24th, 2006, 11:09 AM

If it was out of Beta, maybe. But Microsoft aren't the best company around. XP still does it's job well enough for me.

NESFreak

July 24th, 2006, 11:24 AM

i guess before ms would do that you would get all kind off freaky questions like what's your income and stuff. I don't like the once a day homecalling new WGA luckily i have a firewall.

apollo1900

July 24th, 2006, 11:59 AM

Probably mentioned here before, but I'll say it again: It's a copy of OSX.

As simple as that. OSX has definitely been in development longer, as it was a descendant of NeXtstep. Microsoft always feels the need to copy what Apple does because they realize that Apple products ARE the future of computing. And they seem to convince all of the Microsoft loyalists that what they are doing is original n stuff, when right now they're actually 6, yes, SIX years behind.

joplass

July 27th, 2006, 10:32 AM

Prices, viruses, and multiple re-installations of Windows put me off. I will probably have it for free on a dual-boot box.

joplass

July 27th, 2006, 10:33 AM

Zelut

July 27th, 2006, 10:37 AM

Windows Geniune Disadvantage rootkits installed by default? DRM dripping out of every pore? 100,000+ Viruses, Spyware, Trojans, ad naseum, etc? I'll pass. You couldn't pay me to give up my privacy and my rights like that.

william_nbg

July 27th, 2006, 10:45 AM

No, I used Window since, like version 2.0, or whatever was before 3.1. I've been using Ubuntu for about a year and a half. And I never really felt at home on Windows as I do on Ubuntu - it just feels right:

The desktop
The repos
The security
The flexibility
etc ..

Nope, as far as an OS, I'm at home with Ubuntu

Mr_J_

July 27th, 2006, 12:59 PM

Honestly current support for my work related aplications is just not how I want it in linux.
I use Flash and Photoshop to work.
Plus I even game a little...

So, although I know how to use Ubuntu and have had little to no huge problems with it. I still end up in windows a lot.

I know Ubuntu is the greatest Linux distro I have ever seen.
The one thing I love about Ubuntu is that it recognizes all my hardware with little to no effort. Other distros don't.
My wireless card works out of the box, after configuration...

This and the fact it installs everything I need is THE REASON i still choose Ubuntu.

Appearance comes and goes, but that is the one thing I haven't got in Windows. Most of the other stuff is all stuff I can live without.

Just add free support for Flash and Photoshop and I'll even quit gaming just to get rid of Windows.

Kratos

July 27th, 2006, 01:21 PM

Maybe... If only for gaming. Not enough of today's games run on Linux. If Mr. Gates and the "M-Team" took their hands out of the game developers' pie, there would be more good, commercial games for Linux. But, alas, the money is where it's at.

Also, doing simple thinks like listening to MP3s or watching a DVD, in Linux, is illegal in the US of A. What a shame. So, using Linux to it's fullest potential in some countries can be a crime. Some things keep me tethered to my Linux partition (usability, speed, freedom, that warm-and-fuzzy feeling that you know something more than the average Joe Citizen), but other things (NFS: Underground, Star Wars: KotOR, Morrowind, and, yes, Halo) keep me from ditching Windows entirely.

Someday, the developers, hardware engineers, and other intelligent people, will get a clue and be more penguin-friendly, in the meantime, I'll stick with XP. I don't see the point of spending more money on Vista, when I only barely got my legit copy of Windows XP a year ago.

Zelut

July 27th, 2006, 01:29 PM

the flashplugin-nonfree package supports flash for me up to v8 (which has only limited me from two sites, and those were non-regular, accidental sites).

..and start using GIMP. Yes, its different than Photoshop. It has a learning curve compared to Photoshop but its free and once you learn it you can do everything you need.

Not sure how else to say it but if you *want* you switch you can, you just need to stop relying on the familiarity crutch.

Dragonbite

July 27th, 2006, 01:50 PM

I'd probably use it but that doesn't mean I'd be happy to use it (not to mention, that I have anything that can run it!)

That is, unless I can get a laptop or something for me, myself and I and I don't have to give a flying flip anybody else's preference.

bensexson

July 27th, 2006, 01:56 PM

If you mean use as in really use as a main OS. No, I would not, but I am a geek and would love to play with it just to see what it is like.

Xzallion

July 27th, 2006, 05:25 PM

I wouldn't anytime in the near future, only because I would need a new computer to run it. I do want to get it eventually, but to me eventually can mean 6 or more years down the road. I plan on picking up a mac before then. I got a XP home computer, a ubuntu computer, a sparc computer running solaris 9, just need a mac and I guess I have all the main OS's. gonna collect them all :P

PingunZ

July 27th, 2006, 05:30 PM

Microsoft is / has been free just google.com.
so .. NO I wouldn't,
I did, I don't, I won't

FyreBrand

September 30th, 2006, 07:04 PM

I would have liked a simmple No, not interested choice, but I chose the middle NO.

I'm just not interested. I have a WinXP license and the only reason it's around is for Guild Wars. There is nothing about XP or Vista that interests me anymore. I don't even like to logon to play Guild Wars.

Windows == boring.

gnomeuser

September 30th, 2006, 08:51 PM

I've tried the betas and release candidates, it's not a bad system on face value. It's pretty to look at, the new Internet Explorer is a vast improvement it's really pleasant to use now. However it suffers from the same problem any new version of Windows does, it has no driver support what so ever. You pop in hardware that worked with Windows XP (or Linux) and it just fails miserably.

I'm a long time Linux user, I find Linux works better out of the box than Windows and the drivers that comes default with the Linux kernel are absolutely awesome, always stable and in most cases optimized rather well. With Linux I get every application I need installed in 30 mins, with Windows I get basically enough software to boot and surf the web.

I think on pure sexy bling value a GNOME desktop with Compiz would compete really well with Vista, sadly we haven't got the in with people like Dell to get Linux preinstalled on the new sweet machines, sure they'll grant us servers but I rather think Linux these days does really well on the desktop and I would like to see how a machine with a well configured version of Linux would do with mom and pop consumers.

All in all I think Microsoft did a good job and they need credit for the good stuff in Vista but it's still not as good as Linux is and I'm not about to trade my freedom in for what they have to offer.

spockrock

September 30th, 2006, 09:32 PM

yeah I am sure I would use it, because well, I wanna be able to still use windows, even though linux will probably still be my primary operating system.

kerry_s

September 30th, 2006, 10:26 PM

Actually, You can download windows vista for free and try it till it expires when vista is released.
-> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/preview.mspx

jperez

September 30th, 2006, 11:01 PM

No thanks. I like Windows XP just fine. Vista asks for too much (price and hardware) and with my limited funds, I don't think I could afford it. Also, I have almost NO problems with XP Pro, and even less problems with Ubuntu. I'll stick with XP on my more powerful machine for the music/art/programming side. Server and networking/office work will have the Ubuntu brand with OpenOffice. I have Office 2000, but I still like OpenOffice.org on XP.

I have Xubuntu on my Gateway 433Mhz PC. Sure, it runs slow, but when I have no issues with the OS, I'd still take it over Win9x/2000.

Jesse~

Ubunted

October 1st, 2006, 02:35 AM

No desire to slow down my PC with Vista Ultimate Bloat Edition.

If I want a full-featured super-capable OS I'll use Debian.

Lystrodom

December 7th, 2006, 02:04 PM

I picked the last one. I tried the Vista Beta 2 when it first came out, and I just didn't like it. It didn't recognize my wireless card, (Of course, neither did XP, but Ubuntu came close), it was bloated, and, worst of all, it made me feel not in control. It's my damn computer, not Microsoft's. It should do what I tell it to.

I've got XP Pro for playing games, and I'll use that until there's a game that requires Vista, which probably wont be for a while. I've got my XP Pro install as simple as possible, and if I happen to be using XP, I use Firefox and OpenOffice anyway.

I might take the disc but not use it, save it for when I need it.

iPower

December 7th, 2006, 04:03 PM

i say no becorse i've never had any use of windows at home

ephemeros

December 7th, 2006, 04:03 PM

what if i don't like windoze also i have an ethical principle against MS? i am on the 2nd and 3rd options, though, the 3rd is stronger, as i'd probably use windows on these conditions:
-more "open standard";
-more flexible and powerful;
-only released on a GNU compatible license, not just free :D

Klaidas

December 7th, 2006, 04:28 PM

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=210100&cid=17119290

Lster

December 7th, 2006, 04:38 PM

If I thought Windows was better than Ubuntu I would use it... but I think Ubuntu is miles ahead!

Hendrixski

December 7th, 2006, 04:42 PM

it seems like kind of a leading question. I would use it, but it's not the price that puts me off about it. It's the viruses.

And because most likely my customers would be using file formats not supported outside of Vista. :(

I would install it as a virtual machine inside of linux maybe.

Hex_Mandos

December 7th, 2006, 04:58 PM

I don't think so. Hardware requirements, built in spyware and vulnerability to all kinds malware make me think I wouldn't do it. At least as long as I can play my games on XP, I won't install Vista. And I'd probably be just as likely to remove Windows from my computer altogether.

mrgnash

December 7th, 2006, 05:45 PM

I need it to play DX10 games, so sure, I'd take it :P

drphilngood

December 7th, 2006, 05:50 PM

I tested it and hated it so it is not for me.

PriceChild

December 7th, 2006, 06:01 PM

I've got a legal version of Ultimate which expires in July...

I hate it.

Shay Stephens

December 7th, 2006, 06:04 PM

I need it to play DX10 games, so sure, I'd take it :P

Not if you don't buy dx10 only games ;)

Just say no!

aysiu

December 7th, 2006, 06:13 PM

Moved to a more appropriate forum.

xopher

December 7th, 2006, 06:16 PM

I tested it and hated it so it is not for me.

Exactly my opinion. It's ugly, slow, power hungry and the price tag is way too high. For a poor student like me anyway (no, my uni doesn't hand us this kind of software for free, we mostly get software written by some old professor in the 80's :rolleyes:) The fact that all new games will be supported only on Vista just makes me dislike the OS more. That's saying to the customers that you have to buy it, not that you have the option to upgrade. I know I wouldn't want to hear that when going for the 10 000 mile service with my car. 'Hey, you are not allowed to drive on the new highway with this car, the only option you have is to buy a new, slower one.'

Ish.

Love Microsoft though! Yeah! Sincerely.

PrinceArithon

December 7th, 2006, 06:21 PM

Wow this topic got huge... I wouldn't use it just because everything I read about it (and I read about it from places that are supporting it and calling it the best Microsoft release ever...), it seems as if it's just a pile of crap.

So if I was given this OS for free, I Would seel it on Ebay for anyone who wanted to buy it. Of course for less than what Microsausage(my friend's nephew calls it microsausage for who knows what reason) is selling for.

jbtito03

December 7th, 2006, 06:34 PM

No way hose... been there, done that!

Its time to move on and that is GNU/LINUX!

And for microsoft - START INOVATING USEFUL AND STABLE THINGS!!!!

.. or at least start inovating :D

Cheers

JB

detyabozhye

December 7th, 2006, 09:31 PM

Tried it, hate it, unfortunately still need some release of Windoze for music, ASP.NET, and various other things.

That_Geek

December 7th, 2006, 10:13 PM

if they gave it too me i would take it, why not?

i wouldnt probably use it, but if i needed it (lol)

detyabozhye

December 8th, 2006, 02:11 AM

ditto, but their built-in spyware was brought up a notch in Vista, so I'd rather use WinXP, 2K Pro, or 2K3 Server when I'd need Windoze.

kvonb

December 8th, 2006, 02:56 AM

I'll try it and if I don't like it I'll go back to Linux

To try it on your computer you will either HAVE to buy it or STEAL it!

From what I've read so far about the illegal software check routine, times are about to get very interesting.

Read on......

Firstly Vista (and I also read somewhere that there will be a "security patch" for XP et al to bring it up to the same standard) completely locks your computer AND filesystem if it "thinks" that you have an illegal copy of Windows.

Read that again folks, not just stop you using your "illegally obtained" copy of Vista, but also lock the filesystem so that you will lose ALL of your files as well! Yep, heard of the NTFS encrypted filesystem?

That's all good and well but imagine this scenario:

You are just putting the added touches to a 5 year thesis for a PHD at 2am, it is due to be handed in the next morning. MS's anti-piracy system decides to kick in and see if you have a legal copy of their product on your system (maybe because you can't connect to the net to verify, or whatever reason). You have a license so you try to ring them and sort it out as it has locked your system and your Internet is down. They don't believe you and you have to send (post) a copy of your license. Oh dear but if I don't turn this thesis in by the morning I will lose my PHD and have to start again wasting another 5 years of my life! That's OK, you can apply to MS to have them send you a NEW copy of Windows. You can also sue them for the original cost of Windows if you choose not to accept the new copy and decide to give the original back to them. But don't think that you can just copy the thesis.doc from the hard drive before you trash it, it is locked in and encrypted and anyway it doesn't belong to you anymore, don't you remember you agreed to this when you clicked the "I agree" button, so there is NOTHING you can do but weep!

OK, now follow the logic trail people: do you REALLY believe that they will stop at verifying Vista? No way, that will soon include MS office, then all other MS software because they want to protect themselves, which is only right (so we've been told). OK, let's follow that logic trail a little further: MS start a new scheme along the lines of "Microsoft Approved applications", or "Designed for Vista", ie they will charge software producers a tidy sum for their apps to be included in the worldwide "Anti-Piracy" database and MS Vista's anti-piracy check will ALSO include ANY OTHER SOFTWARE YOU HAVE ON YOUR COMPUTER!!!!!

It is only a matter of time, think about it.

Tux Aubrey

December 8th, 2006, 04:19 AM

Great post kvonb !
times are about to get very interesting

If you add a love interest and a car chase, it would make a great novel. Perhaps you could get Dan Brown to co-write it.

I do think the "Phd" lacks a bit of common appeal (and is very un-Australian, I might add). Perhaps it could be the hero's extensive pr0n collection at stake? Or how about a design for a great panel van spray job he's been working on in MSPaint for several years? All that hard work locked away by the evil American company! Maybe he could meet an Irish backpacker who is also a Linux hacker ("The Backpacker O'Hacker Code?") who helps him retrieve his design while working a massive attack on the evil company and freeing everyone's software from their malicious clutches. Lot's of potential here.

But keep up the good work. I love these stories!;)

Oh, there should be a penguin in the story too.

LookTJ

December 8th, 2006, 05:32 AM

I made an oath that I will never use Windows again

Also, I think one of these OS for Linux will soon be on everyone's computer.

Shay Stephens

December 8th, 2006, 07:07 AM

The whole verification process is too unreliable. When you rely on your computer for work, it has to run. You don't have the luxury of risking the computer not validating. I just can't believe MS plays this way. Just this week I had the stupid thing ding me for putting in a lousy sound card. They gave me three days until it shut down. So I spent that time pulling stuff off it, deactivating Photoshop CS2, etc in the off chance it would not let me validate it.

I just ran the stupid validation today and it went through. But that was the last straw for me. I am actively setting up my ubuntu to carry on from here on out. If I have to run any kind of windows it will be windows 2000 in a virtual machine. But XP, Photoshop CS2, and anything else that dares to require "validation" is off my list. I consider it poison. And I am letting everyone know it. They don't have the right, and I don't give them the right to shut my computer or tools down.

daniel.h

December 8th, 2006, 01:27 PM

I would not use it. On almost every linux distribution (especially ubuntu) I'm able to install and delete software by using a great package managment system!
Another point is having so much free software. There are millions of reasons not switching to windows, why the hell should I :twisted:

scc4fun

December 8th, 2006, 05:12 PM

I can't afford the minimum h/w requirements.
That's my main gripe about it. If I bought a new PC after it came out I would likely use it only when I need Visio or something like that.

earobinson

December 8th, 2006, 05:14 PM

na i like linux cuz its better not cuz its free

knight17

December 8th, 2006, 05:58 PM

As I am just learning Linux, I will try to dual boot both Windows Vista and Ubuntu.

kvonb

December 8th, 2006, 08:34 PM

The sad thing is that we went through this same thing when Windows 95 came out! Everyone was bleating about how they couldn't afford a 486 computer, and the massive 500meg hard drive they would have to buy!

The sad thing is that Microsoft (in a perverse sort of way) actually drive forward hardware specs.

They make fatter OSs which need more and more resources so people go out and buy the faster hardware which in turn makes it cheaper!

The sad thing though is the effect this has on "underdeveloped" countries. I read an article on the pollution caused by discarded computer hardware. Companies are selling tons and tons of old computer equipment to African countries (taking money away from more pressing things like food and water!) and most of it is so useless that it ends up in rubbish piles and the dangerous chemicals leech into the eco system.

So there you are, Microsoft are killing people and deforming unborn children!

Man I'm good at this sort of stuff, I really should go into politics! I can successfully argue that black is white, lie through my teeth, get unnecessarily fat, and not give a damn about who gets hurt. All I need now is to learn how to kill millions with a fake war and they will lap me up :rolleyes:.

BWAHAHA

PS I really like this little rolly eyes fellow, he's very cute: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:. Vote for rolling eyes chap in the next election, you might as well because he will do WAY less damage than any of the other useless fat slugs and he's cheaper and prettier :rolleyes:.

PPS. Oh and you do realise that when your mainboard dies, or your hard disk karks it that you will HAVE to buy a new license for Vista don't you? They consider that a NEW computer :)

ashleycrue

December 8th, 2006, 08:40 PM

No,I won't use it.For lots of reasons but the main one being that I can do things quicker with ubuntu.

hobieone

December 8th, 2006, 08:43 PM

it would depend i supose i'd use just to mess around with and it would be free.

other than that i honestly wasn't impressed with either vista rc1 or rc2 when i tried them. and in my opinion there really is nothing wrong with win xp.

and linux is much more streamlined and effienct that windows but if it had the major software company developing apps for it i forgo windows entirly

detyabozhye

December 8th, 2006, 10:02 PM

Honestly, I'm actually happy M$ is doing such a bad job. The sooner they make everyone mad, the sooner they all switch to Linux, and the sooner we get all the vendor support. ^_____^

szf

December 8th, 2006, 10:16 PM

The sad thing is that Microsoft (in a perverse sort of way) actually drive forward hardware specs.

I forgot who said - (phrasing loosely) "If it wasn't for Microsoft, there would be no Linux..."

I think that that has two parts:
1. Linux arrived as an antipode to MS OSes.
2. Linux arrived because the runaway success of MS OSes made the cost of x86 hardware available to many (if not all).

Oh and you do realise that when your mainboard dies, or your hard disk karks it that you will HAVE to buy a new license for Vista don't you? They consider that a NEW computer :)

It's my understanding that the licensing restrictions have been relaxed from the initial position. I don't know the exact wording (don't care), but it may leave more "wiggle room" for hardware enthusiasts [folks that upgrade every 12-18 mos.] on the OS licensing.

yabbadabbadont

December 8th, 2006, 10:27 PM

There isn't an option for my vote. I would give it a try, but only inside of vmware.

Frak

December 8th, 2006, 11:33 PM

I can't afford the minimum h/w requirements.
Preach, man, preach!

FineE

December 9th, 2006, 02:02 PM

To try it on your computer you will either HAVE to buy it or STEAL it!

From what I've read so far about the illegal software check routine, times are about to get very interesting.

Read on......

Firstly Vista (and I also read somewhere that there will be a "security patch" for XP et al to bring it up to the same standard) completely locks your computer AND filesystem if it "thinks" that you have an illegal copy of Windows.

Read that again folks, not just stop you using your "illegally obtained" copy of Vista, but also lock the filesystem so that you will lose ALL of your files as well! Yep, heard of the NTFS encrypted filesystem?

That's all good and well but imagine this scenario:

You are just putting the added touches to a 5 year thesis for a PHD at 2am, it is due to be handed in the next morning. MS's anti-piracy system decides to kick in and see if you have a legal copy of their product on your system (maybe because you can't connect to the net to verify, or whatever reason). You have a license so you try to ring them and sort it out as it has locked your system and your Internet is down. They don't believe you and you have to send (post) a copy of your license. Oh dear but if I don't turn this thesis in by the morning I will lose my PHD and have to start again wasting another 5 years of my life! That's OK, you can apply to MS to have them send you a NEW copy of Windows. You can also sue them for the original cost of Windows if you choose not to accept the new copy and decide to give the original back to them. But don't think that you can just copy the thesis.doc from the hard drive before you trash it, it is locked in and encrypted and anyway it doesn't belong to you anymore, don't you remember you agreed to this when you clicked the "I agree" button, so there is NOTHING you can do but weep!

OK, now follow the logic trail people: do you REALLY believe that they will stop at verifying Vista? No way, that will soon include MS office, then all other MS software because they want to protect themselves, which is only right (so we've been told). OK, let's follow that logic trail a little further: MS start a new scheme along the lines of "Microsoft Approved applications", or "Designed for Vista", ie they will charge software producers a tidy sum for their apps to be included in the worldwide "Anti-Piracy" database and MS Vista's anti-piracy check will ALSO include ANY OTHER SOFTWARE YOU HAVE ON YOUR COMPUTER!!!!!

It is only a matter of time, think about it.

A very good post. This is one the main reasons why I would not use Vista in a production environment. I find the risk from DRM failure just to great. Microsoft has been steadily tightening their anti piracy measures and this has really picked up since 2000. Starting with

a) Product activation first launched with certain academic versions of Office, (in 2000) then widespread for consumers and small business owners in 2001
b) Key revocation by service pack Windows XP SP1
c) Key revocation for major OEM products (These version of XP cannot activate they are locked to the bios)
d) WGA Validation 2003?
e) WGA Notifications 2006
f) Further validation at installation time IE7
g) Mandatory activation for corporate and enterprise users to be featured in Vista.
h) Deactivation on validation failure. This is also new to Vista. If the software fails validation it has to be reactivated and will go into “ugly” mode. The famous “Vista kill switch”
i) Protected video and audio path DRM also in Vista. This technology can protect from the user a lot more than movies and music. It may just as well be used to protect spyware, malware, viruses etc from the users. If the black hats ever get their hands on this Trojan horse watch out!

These DRM technologies create a single point of failure for millions of computers worldwide. Consider the scenario of a worm or virus that deactivates Windows XP and Vista turning millions of Windows computers worldwide into reduced functionality / ugly mode. Combine this with a terrorist attack on key Microsoft installations to cripple the ability of Microsoft to respond. It is a scary worldwide apocalyptic scenario that goes a lot further than kvonb's PhD thesis.

By the way I voted No - I'm not boycotting Microsoft software on price or principal, I just dont like it!

rumour88

December 11th, 2006, 06:40 AM

Windows is a necessity for a few programs that I use so a new version with a few holes plugged might be nice. Although the cost of a new machine to run this resource hog on would put me off (although it would give me a faster machine to run ubuntu on :) )

betamax

December 11th, 2006, 08:46 AM

Fatec

December 11th, 2006, 10:48 AM

Microsoft already gave away windows vista ultimate for free to alot of beta testers (msdn i think?) along with a nice key to install (obviously)

However...i have tested vista thoroughly and it is f***ing slow as hell...never experienced anything like it in my life.

Aero is now ugly (it wasnt in rc2, why they changed it i dont know)

i hate black boders and transparency dissapearing when apps are in full screen(enlarged).

the start menu is stupidly slow..and i prefer the old one (yes, i d o know i can use the class menu, but i want the new start menu look)

My Current Rig:
AMD64 3200+
Asus A8N-E Deluxe
Geforce 7600GT (Pci-Express)
Sata ii (120 gig, main drive)

And it takes..yes, wait for it exactly 1minute and 52 seconds to get to the desktop and fully loaded, yes it manages to be slower than a default linux bootup (which lets face it ,can be rather slow)

opening windows media player 11 causes the system to lag (badly) and it looks extremely ugly.

the new audio stack is a complete joke, as is the new network stack.

explorer crashed within the first 5 minutes of installing (oh joy)

UAC (ultimate account control) is the most annoying thing ever known to man and nags you at every possible second....taking up your whole screen and nagging the crap out of you (also, it seems random now, it dont take to the centre of the screen but rather likes to place itself just anywhere it wants)

so that was turned off within the first few minutes.

the sidebar, while it looks nice is still slow as hell.

Playing HD puts cpu usage into the 80+%...while its 20-30 in XP.

Memory..is an issue, it uses just over 700mb+ on a default install, which i find rather bad...and the little speed improvements they have put in for vista...is completely useless because they've added more bloat to the OS

no new bootscreen...which apparently , according to m$ is because the system boots that fast u dont have time to see the bootscreen (this really made me laugh, how stupid do they think people are?)

the setup, is rather terrible....giving you no options what so ever for the install, par from 'format' and 'install'...i prefer the win98 days when i could select what i wanted, now m$ have tried to make it to simple.

Ever try accessing a folder in vista that is not default access? you'll have loads of fun with that one, hope you enjoy sitting around for 2 hours trying to work out why it wont let u in...

no up button in explorer no more, which i and many others find extremely annoying as it now takes twice as long to go through folders...

overall..id give vista a 3 out of 10...what rtm has become is what beta2 should have been...oh well, another failure from microsoft...joy.

Its kind of amusing that i can pretty much play all the latest games on my rig...yet i cant do simple transparency in vista let alone run the os.

yet i can have transparency, 3d cube, vwm, wobbly windows, cool effects etc in linux with more than half the hardware i have now (beryl runs great even on a crap onboard gfx on an old pc i have, vista wont even install on it)

anyways...i have vista ultimate (for free with key) and i dont use it..nor will i ever install that pos OS onto my system...and the fact vista has broken (yes, broken) 2 of my hard drives (one of which was brand new, brought 3 days before)...i wouldnt let it go near anyones system with a 10 foot barge pole.

/end rant.

ragadanga63

December 12th, 2006, 11:20 PM

I wouldn't use it for the sole reason that i do not want to be a part of Bill's minions and victims. Funny, but all the measures they implemented to protect M$'s property rights has backfired on them. In my country (3rd world), linux used to be unheard of, but when micro$oft together with our govt started closing down institutions using pirated window$ (why would they confiscate the entire system, when it's only the OS which is pirated), people flocked to Linux. Now Linux has its own niche in my country's computing environment and it is growing everyday. Even PC's supplied by the government to our public schools has Linux pre-installed. I just hope that the Linux community will grow to so such huge proportions that major software manufacturers like Adobe and Corel will start making Linux-native software. Damnn, if that happens, i can almost hear MS's death knell.

Ubunted

December 14th, 2006, 02:27 AM

No. Never.

Activations, DRM, half the OS phoning home every month, lazy excuses for user accounts, patchwork "security" model, a completely new TCP/IP stack that can ONLY mean problems among other things will keep me away from it permanently.

Windows Vista does not rate my trust.

viper

December 14th, 2006, 07:34 AM

Umm would love to ditch the whole Microsoft thing, but since I work in IT support I'm always going to be stuck with Bill and his evil Imps. ](*,)

On a better note though, the number of friends and family now willing to at least try out Ubuntu has increased.....

Same here, but on my personal laptop Linux is King. I work on too many M$ zombie boxes and know enough not to use it as my main operating system.

kimusabi

December 14th, 2006, 10:45 AM

I think my brain would eat itself if I used it.

jclmusic

December 14th, 2006, 11:11 AM

windows is insecure and unsuitable for anything except my music. plus upgrading from my current windows xp to vista would probably require me to wipe that hard drive and have to undo all the annoying microsoft 'helpers' etc that come with windows.

goatflyer

December 16th, 2006, 02:35 AM

I voted to take the bait...

If they gave Vista to me for free I would keep it unopened until I had a computer powerful enough to run it, in the mean time keep running win2k/ubuntu. And even then I'd install it as a dual-boot Vista/Ubuntu.

Why? Most retail games are still only out for Windows. And once in awhile you come across some app you need to or are forced to use that only runs in windows.

superspak

December 19th, 2006, 03:03 AM

i feel this is the windows that puts microsoft out of business, ill stay with ubuntu and xp

Cyvros

December 19th, 2006, 05:27 AM

Maybe, maybe not. I'll probably stick to XP and Ubuntu either way. At the moment, I see Vista as more a sort of overpriced toy. I think that, if I had a choice, free or not, a nice BMW would be my choice. I mean, I'm sure they're marginally cheaper than Vista Ultimate these days.

How about a free Office, though? ;)

Come to think about it, maybe if Vista had an Xbox 360 emulator...

steven8

December 19th, 2006, 05:33 AM

I don't want Vista. Not in the least. I actually like XP, myself, but Vista crosses the line in so many ways.

Westies

December 19th, 2006, 06:47 AM

I'd be crazy not to.

LookTJ

December 19th, 2006, 07:38 AM

I don't want Vista. Not in the least. I actually like XP, myself, but Vista crosses the line in so many ways.
I have to agree, Vista takes up so much resources than XP does. XP is good for my family. Because we would have to get/find the new drivers. I myself don't use Windows, just Ubuntu. But I just maintain my family's pc(defragment, Tuneup, scan for viruses and spyware, disk cleanup).

Windows is a pain to maintain.:rolleyes:

Circus-Killer

December 19th, 2006, 07:56 AM

if vista could match up to my ubuntu box (complete with beryl and gdesklets) then maybe. but the only thing vista has over my box is gaming, and i would never switch back for gaming.

indigoshift

December 21st, 2006, 03:02 AM

I voted for the bottom-most "No", for a simple reason: I just don't want to put the extra money into my XP box to get it to run Vista.

With that said, I suppose I'll be missing Half-Life 2 (or 3 or 4 or whatever) that will eventually be released and running solely under Vista, but I'll get over it.

I think XP will be my last Windows OS. When that's finally phased out, it'll be nothing but Ubuntu at my house.

Tux Aubrey

December 21st, 2006, 03:47 AM

I have decided that I could probably get everything that Vista would have over Ubuntu by:

sending all my personal and computer details to Microsoft;
forcing myself every few days to verify who I am and that my copy of Ubuntu is legal; and
slowing down my machine by running a virus checker in the background;

I've probably forgotten something, but I might give this "upgrade" a miss, thanks all the same.

Circus-Killer

December 21st, 2006, 03:52 AM

kvonb

December 21st, 2006, 07:11 AM

I have decided that I could probably get everything that Vista would have over Ubuntu by:

sending all my personal and computer details to Microsoft;
forcing myself every few days to verify who I am and that my copy of Ubuntu is legal; and
slowing down my machine by running a virus checker in the background;
I've probably forgotten something, but I might give this "upgrade" a miss, thanks all the same.

rofl :mrgreen:

Arkaerial

December 21st, 2006, 04:27 PM

I would use it only for one reason. I have to bring work home sometimes, since I have tons of actions as such programmed into Photoshop and Illustrator it's easier to just use a Windows machine. Now that said, I have 5 computers and only one runs Windows :)

wdo_will

December 23rd, 2006, 02:44 PM

Free being free (but then there's free software), I'd take it, but rarely use it. Maybe it would be nice inside of VMWare... 8)

The Joe

December 23rd, 2006, 03:05 PM

I would yes, Vista for me looks quite decent, and on this computer it's the closest I could ever get to Linux. It's quite like XGL actually.

NeoGreen

December 25th, 2006, 05:13 PM

I would use it, just to see how it looks.

steven8

December 26th, 2006, 01:13 AM

kvonb

December 26th, 2006, 01:41 AM

I think we are forgetting the fact that if your video card or sound card do not provide the proper 'electronic protection measures', if they try to access protected 'premium' content, they could either be blocked by Vista or have the quality greatly degraded.

Isn't that nice Kiddies!?! :-)

http://news.com.com/FAQ+Vistas+strong%2C+new+antipiracy+protections/2100-1025_3-5844071.html

I was shocked a few years back when I tried to scan a US banknote with my Canon scanner, it popped up a message about it being illegal to copy money and I believe it also put a big "copy" sign over the entire image!

I don't live in the US and don't use US currency, it was just for a simple pic of a US banknote for posterity. It doesn't do that for Australian notes!

So it's very plausible that Microsoft will be bully...er advising hardware manufacturers to include such protection software in their drivers.

The fun has only just started!

Oh and yes I would accept a free copy of Vista, I could sell it and update my computer :mrgreen:.